Some Thoughts on Foxborough's New Policy

Last week there were reports throughout the press that a new policy was being implemented at Foxborough High School, one where breathalyzers would now be used during the school day if a student was suspected to be under the influence. The new policy was publicized by FHS Principal Jeff Theodoss and Foxborough Police Chief Edward O'Leary as part of a larger school improvement safety plan. Furthermore, the plan is slated to be endorsed by the Foxborough School Committee on October 19. The controversy here for some is that school administrators will potentially be using the breathalyzers in the school setting, not just before school social functions such as the prom or the Homecoming Dance. An ACLU lawyer has termed this new policy as a "terrible idea" and some parents may agree.

I see this news item as much ado about nothing. Foxborough High School, like several neighboring communities (including us at Mansfield HS), has recently been using breathalyzers at social functions as a deterrent to underage drinking. What is the difference if they are now using it as an additional tool to determine if a student is breaking the law? Yes, it is true that 95% of the time a trained administator can tell if a student has been using alcohol by physical signs (i.e., smell of breath, dilated pupils, behavior, increased blood pressure, etc.) and usually will work with the school nurse to ascertain this information. But why not use good technology if you have it at your disposal?

When I first became a principal nine years ago I was working in Rhode Island for a superintendent who was the first to bring breathalyzers to his former school district, Swansea. This occurred in the late 1990's, and I believe that Swansea was one of the first districts in eastern Massachusetts to implement their use. When the superintendent pitched the idea to me, and then the school committee, there was mostly a negative reaction. I was uncomfortable with the idea as I believed that their use would send a bad message: that we did not trust the majority of kids and thus we would have to breathalyze them all. Many on the school committee felt the same, and thus the idea did not gain support and went nowhere.

I chalk up my old feelings as mere inexperience as my viewpoint today is now the antithesis of what it was in 2000. Why? For the simple reason that in that time span, I have been to the wakes and funerals of four children that were students in my schools. All four died due to poor decisions they made regarding drugs or alcohol. I have seen first hand the pain and devastation such a death brings to a family, friends, and an entire community. It is always unnatural for a parent to bury a child, but this type of death is the cruelest because it is always preventable. We must never forget that, as it seems far too often that our collective memory is short after going through a tragic death. Why then, do so many teens revert back to destructive behaviors even after a loss of a friend or classmate?

So now I don't mind if any student feels that I don't trust him/her by using a breathalyzer. If my "lack of trust" makes the difference in just one life, just by making that decision not to drink... it's worth it. Nonetheless, the breathalyzer is only one very small weapon in the arsenal. The biggest- and best- is open and honest communication between kids and their parents. That is the heart of the matter, and will be the emphasis of the Tri-Town Drug & Alcohol Awareness Partnership group as it commences its work. As State Representative Betty Poirier said last Thursday night at "Intervention Town Hall Meeting" as she opened the program, "Our long term goal is to ensure that all of our parents here tonight become grandparents.... It's the most beautiful and wonderful thing!" Amen.