BOISE — Over the strenuous objections of Idaho school officials, a divided House Education Committee voted 8-7 Thursday to pass a bill requiring mandatory pre-employment drug testing of all substitute teachers, at a time when school districts are scrambling for subs.
School officials from around the state called the proposed law unworkable, noting that they already have their own drug-testing policies. They can drug-test employees now; many do so on suspicion, with some requiring testing pre-employment.
“It is unnecessary, and further, we have a policy at the local level,” Karen Pyron, a school board trustee in the Butte County School District, told the committee.
She testified remotely, after attending the meeting in person a day earlier to speak against the bill, only to have the panel not get to it.
“It adds cost and inconvenience and an additional burden to our rural schools,” she said.
“We’ve got this,” Pyron told the lawmakers. “We don’t need another law. … What we have in place works.”
Others speaking against the bill included a representative of the West Ada School District and the Idaho School Boards Association, who pleaded for local control.
Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale, who proposed HB 651, said she had “tremendous concerns.” She said substitute teaching “is a very easy way to access children and sell drugs to them,” and argued a testing mandate could help cut off drug trafficking into schools.
Currently, substitutes already have to undergo pre-employment background checks and fingerprinting, which would catch any drug-related convictions on their records.
When asked, three experts told committee members they weren’t aware of any substitute teachers who have been arrested for dealing drugs to students: Idaho State Police Lt. Colonel Sheldon Kelley, Clearwater County Sheriff Chris Goetz and ISBA Executive Director Misty Swanson.
Boyle said she believed districts could easily issue on-the-spot saliva tests, at a cost of $5 per test.
West Ada human resources head David Roberts said otherwise, pointing to a piece of Idaho law linked to the bill, which lays out a long list of requirements for state-mandated drug testing. He said such testing could only be performed by a third-party drug testing lab, raising costs and making testing more burdensome.
The price tag to districts also remained a question mark. Boyle said districts could choose whether to pay for tests, or force substitutes to do so.
Rep. Ryan Kerby, R-New Plymouth, a retired school superintendent, said, “I’m really, really bothered by the testimony that this is going to make it harder to get substitutes. That’s a really troubling statement. What in the world are we allowing into our schools? … That just boggles my mind.”
Kerby moved to send the bill to the full House with a recommendation that it “do pass.”
But substitute Rep. Darrell Hancock of Boise, who was filling in for Rep. Codi Galloway, R-Boise, said, “Testing on suspicion is much more reasonable. … I think this is more of an overstated cure for a problem that really doesn’t exist.”
A retired Air Force officer, Hancock said he started the process to become a substitute teacher in the West Ada School District, but gave up because of “the forms, background checks and so forth. … I quickly discovered this was not worth my time, the barriers were so strong.”
Hancock said even though he’s a former Military Educator of the Year and professor at the Air Force Academy, “None of that really counts, as I’m trying to go through this process just to be available to help out.” The bill, he said, will “cause it to be even harder, and deter other people like myself from lending their help to the school district.”
Rep. Sally Toone, D-Gooding, noted that state law requires that when a drug test comes back positive, a second test is done, adding additional time and cost.
Rep. Gary Marshall, R-Idaho Falls, said, “I think, given all of the testimony that we’ve had today, that this is simply unnecessary. The timing is not wise given the situations that we have.”
He added, “If anybody in this room or anybody hearing me accuses me of being light on drugs, get over it. I have 39 grandchildren, all of them in Idaho schools, and I’m as deeply concerned about drugs as anybody.”
School districts “have policies in place,” he said. “They already do what they need to do. If there’s any suspicion, they can test immediately, and they have protocols in place.”
Among those arguing in favor of the bill were Reps. Barbara Ehardt, R-Idaho Falls, Tony Wisniewski, R-Post Falls, and Dorothy Moon, R-Stanley. Moon said passing the bill is worth it if it saves one child from a drug overdose.
Rep. Julie Yamamoto, R-Caldwell, shared her experiences of being involved with close oversight of substitute teachers during her education career, and immediately pulling them from the classroom when needed.
“I think that while well-intended, it is not necessary,” she said of the bill.
The committee deadlocked 7-7 on Marshall’s substitute motion, and Chairman Lance Clow, Twin Falls, voted no, breaking the tie. The panel then voted 8-7 in favor of Kerby’s motion to advance the bill, with Clow supporting the motion.
To become law, HB 651 still would need to pass the full House, clear a Senate committee, pass the full Senate and receive the governor’s signature.
Idaho Education News reporter Blake Jones contributed to this report.