Like many American citizens, I too had not thought much about the drug war until it burst into our front door. Independent school districts across our nation are trying to implement drug policy in the name of help[ing] our children. Instead, they are grabbing control of both children and parents. In the community where I live, "help the children" means three days in-school suspension, three sessions of drug counseling, and twenty-one days' suspension from extra-curricular activities. Under this policy, you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. If parents refuse to have their children tested, the child is automatically considered guilty, with the same punishment. They call this "help the children?" All the drug counseling must be conducted by a school-approved center. Parents have no right to their own counseling options. This is what I call a power play, not "help our children." They are taking away from the kids the very thing parents need to help them.
Larry Tannahill
Drug prevention and help need to come from the home, not from self-proclaimed high-and-mighty school districts. A friend I had relayed a story to me about a teacher who took upon herself the initiative to call the parents of two children who came to her class under the influence of alcohol. The parents were most thankful for the teacher's call and were able to confront their children on their own terms. The children in question had not returned to school in that condition again, as far as he knew. I would like to praise this teacher for her courage and strength to do what was right. This is a fine example of the teachers we need today, not the guards our school districts seem to think we need.
I understand there are times when we need to use a firm hand, but we do not need to rule with an iron fist. Our children deserve the respect that we believe ourselves should have. Earning respect does not mean peeing in a cup. Helping children means giving them positive guidance, not negative punishment. I myself believe in my children, and also in the children who have not given a reason not to believe in them. Those who have stumbled should not be kicked while they are down, rather they should be given a helping hand up. Instead of being condemned, they need support to bring them back to the road of positive self-worth that our school districts are so ready to take away from them and their parents.
An Update from Larry
Hi, this is the Tannahills, Larry, Traci, Brady & Coby.
Everything is going well for us. Traci just graduated from nursing school. Brady is now a sophomore, and is looking forward to it. He finished his algebra in the 8th grade and geometry as a freshman in high school.
Coby will become a small fish in a larger pond since he graduated 8th grade this year. I myself have been doing well and trying to sell a natural fertilizer product that is not too easy to sell. But we are making it, with God's help.
The school as you may know has resumed drug testing, under the Supreme Court ruling from Oklahoma. The school's lawyer has made it easy for Brady, but for Coby and the other students, the drug testing leaves them hanging.
When the original decision was made to implement drug testing in 2000, it seemed to me to be almost anti-climactic. The discussion about drugs in our community had been going on for some time and the process of deciding on a drug testing policy was difficult for the Lockney Independent School District (LISD) School Board. The community had made their views known to the trustees in a huge "town hall" meeting in September 1997. A crackdown on drug dealers in Lockney in October 1998 had netted the arrest of 11 and the community was upset and worried about their children. There was the typical blame-throwing going on about whose fault it was that there were drug dealers in town — and there was a mood of "what is the school going to do about protecting our children?" The trustees were sensitive to this.
Alice Gilroy
There did not appear to me to be excessive worry among the trustees over whether LISD needed drug testing — or whether it would be helpful to students and staff — but rather whether the trustees wanted to take on the role of "big brother government" and take on more "parenting" responsibility. The trustees were certain they had the support of the majority in the community. During the school board meetings I covered, the thing that stood out in the drug testing discussion was the concern for helping students who were having drug problems and protecting students who were doing their best to stay "drug free." Although there were questions, I was not aware of any big concerns about lawsuits. Sundown Independent School District (nearby) had already been doing the drug testing for at least two years and there had been no legal controversy over their testing. The lawyers advising the LISD School Board told them they were on solid ground. So, when the vote was taken it was almost a relief that the "hard part" was done. No one, including myself, was ready for the media feeding frenzy and the scrutiny that followed. The LISD faculty and trustees were surprised, I believe, at the controversy. Especially since they viewed drug testing as a tool to "help" the children.
I went to school in a very large high school, in Virginia, close to Washington D.C. It is hard to explain to people who do not live in a small town just how close teachers and students are here. The coaches and administrators know all of the kids and their families. They visit them in the hospital, they visit in their homes, they attend church together and follow their accomplishments through high school, college, etc. Many teachers and coaches take the place of parents and believe strongly in going the "extra mile" to make sure no one is "left behind." It came as a shock for their motives to be questioned.
I have to admit that I sympathized with the people here. It was obvious they felt "attacked." By the time Mark Birnbaum and Jim Schermbeck arrived to "do the story," the community, I believe, was feeling "raped." None of the media who stormed into the community bothered to "dig" for the story. Some of it was sensationalized and some of it wasn't. When the Fifth Circuit Court ruled in favor of Larry Tannahill, I believe the majority of the community expected LISD to appeal and would have continued to support them in the fight. The trustees continued to believe in the original reasons for testing and thought they could win appeals. However, they lacked the backing of the insurance company, so they dropped the battle.
Two years later, when the Supreme Court eventually ruled in favor of drug testing*, I did not sense an attitude of "I told you so" in Lockney. It seemed to be more of an attitude of, "Good — let's move on to more important things." The district doesn't seem to be looking back. I'm sure the trustees and the community felt vindicated, but the attitudes that I witnessed did not reflect this. Larry Tannahill probably felt different about the attitude — I don't know.
What I thought was surprising about the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision was the LACK OF media coverage. I know this may sound bitter, but I wondered, after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of drug testing, where were the "real reporters" that tried to make LISD look like backwards hicks who know nothing about the Constitution. As far as I can tell, things are quiet at the school. The discussion is over. They have moved on. Drug testing was implemented with the same guidelines as the Tecumseh School that won the Supreme Court fight. There were no fights — no controversy.
My 16 year-old son never talks about drug testing one way or the other. He is involved in athletics, band, UIL, One Act Play. He is also in Boy Scouts with Brady Tannahill (Larry's son). He loves extra-curricular activities and he never questioned the mandatory drug testing rule in order to be a part of those activities. In fact, I never hear any of the kids coming and going through my house talk about it one way or the other. It is not an issue with them — girls, sports, movies, music, and "how hard was the test," are the subjects I hear discussed. As to the fear that "everyone will know if my kid flunks the test" — it has proved groundless. I never hear my son and his friends discuss who failed the drug test. Only one time was this ever brought up in my home, when my son told me a story of a young man that was bragging at school about flunking the test. It appears to me that the school administration is being very discreet.
Last year, when we ceased the drug testing of all 6th-12th graders, a different attitude developed among our students. Knowing that our hands were tied (other than to use the drug dogs), the students adopted the attitude that they were in charge. In doing so, failures skyrocketed, respect for authority plummeted and a sense of complacency settled in.
Lisa Mosley
As a faculty and administration, we had to develop some type of program to help combat the lackadaisical attitude of the students. We decided that perhaps the best way was to give some type of reward to those students who were doing what they were supposed to be doing. Thus we began a Friday morning tutorial that allowed students who were caught up in class assignments and passing to sleep in and not come to school until 9:30 a.m. Those who were behind or failing in at least one subject had to come at 8:00 a.m. for tutorials.
This, for a time, seemed to raise the students' level of performance a bit. However, we still found that only a small number of students wanted to excel. The vast majority were perfectly content to be mediocre, even though they had the ability to perform far beyond what they were doing. I attribute much of this to the rise in drug use and students not being held accountable for it. They were no longer afraid to talk about what they had done out of school and even seemed to take some pride in making sure that we as faculty members knew that they were drinking heavily and using drugs ... as they wanted to. Performance in the classroom plummeted and morale among the faculty was low also.
Personally, at the end of the spring semester of 2002, I never wanted to step into a classroom as a teacher again. It took all the strength within me to walk back through the doors in the fall. However, I do feel that because we were able to begin drug testing those in extra-curricular activities, the performance and attitudes of these students are much higher this year. On the whole, the attitude and performance of the students I teach has been much better, and at least renewed my spirit to consider continuing to teach.
However, the use of illegal substances is still extremely high in our small community, particularly in those students who do not participate in extracurricular activities.
What is the ultimate outcome of this controversy? That question may never be answered because we as a community and school district still do not have the ability to do what we think would help all students perform better — mandatory drug-testing for all 6th-12th graders. However, from my vantage point, the ability to test those involved in extra-curricular activities has at least helped raise the level of performance of a portion of our student body.
Introduction
Larry sends an update on what's happened to the Tannahill clan since filming stopped and shares the full text of his letter to Lockney explaining why he decided to file suit against the school board. Local journalist Alice Gilroy writes about Lockney as the object of national media attention during the lawsuit. And Lockney High school art teacher Lisa Mosley shares her feelings about teaching and student behavior in the aftermath of Larry v. Lockney.
"Like many American citizens, I too had not thought much about the drug war until it burst into our front door..." | Read »
"No one, including myself, was ready for the media feeding frenzy and the scrutiny that followed..." | Read »
"We as a community and school district still do not have the ability to do what we think would help all students perform better ..." | Read »
Larry Tannahill
Larry's Open Letter to the Town of Lockney
Drug prevention and help need to come from the home, not from self-proclaimed high-and-mighty school districts. A friend I had relayed a story to me about a teacher who took upon herself the initiative to call the parents of two children who came to her class under the influence of alcohol. The parents were most thankful for the teacher's call and were able to confront their children on their own terms. The children in question had not returned to school in that condition again, as far as he knew. I would like to praise this teacher for her courage and strength to do what was right. This is a fine example of the teachers we need today, not the guards our school districts seem to think we need.
I understand there are times when we need to use a firm hand, but we do not need to rule with an iron fist. Our children deserve the respect that we believe ourselves should have. Earning respect does not mean peeing in a cup. Helping children means giving them positive guidance, not negative punishment. I myself believe in my children, and also in the children who have not given a reason not to believe in them. Those who have stumbled should not be kicked while they are down, rather they should be given a helping hand up. Instead of being condemned, they need support to bring them back to the road of positive self-worth that our school districts are so ready to take away from them and their parents.
An Update from Larry
Everything is going well for us. Traci just graduated from nursing school. Brady is now a sophomore, and is looking forward to it. He finished his algebra in the 8th grade and geometry as a freshman in high school.
Coby will become a small fish in a larger pond since he graduated 8th grade this year. I myself have been doing well and trying to sell a natural fertilizer product that is not too easy to sell. But we are making it, with God's help.
The school as you may know has resumed drug testing, under the Supreme Court ruling from Oklahoma. The school's lawyer has made it easy for Brady, but for Coby and the other students, the drug testing leaves them hanging.
Larry Tannahill is the father of two boys attending high school in Lockney. He filed suit against the Lockney ISD to stop mandatory drug testing for students.
Alice Gilroy
There did not appear to me to be excessive worry among the trustees over whether LISD needed drug testing -- or whether it would be helpful to students and staff -- but rather whether the trustees wanted to take on the role of "big brother government" and take on more "parenting" responsibility. The trustees were certain they had the support of the majority in the community. During the school board meetings I covered, the thing that stood out in the drug testing discussion was the concern for helping students who were having drug problems and protecting students who were doing their best to stay "drug free." Although there were questions, I was not aware of any big concerns about lawsuits. Sundown Independent School District (nearby) had already been doing the drug testing for at least two years and there had been no legal controversy over their testing. The lawyers advising the LISD School Board told them they were on solid ground. So, when the vote was taken it was almost a relief that the "hard part" was done. No one, including myself, was ready for the media feeding frenzy and the scrutiny that followed. The LISD faculty and trustees were surprised, I believe, at the controversy. Especially since they viewed drug testing as a tool to "help" the children.
I went to school in a very large high school, in Virginia, close to Washington D.C. It is hard to explain to people who do not live in a small town just how close teachers and students are here. The coaches and administrators know all of the kids and their families. They visit them in the hospital, they visit in their homes, they attend church together and follow their accomplishments through high school, college, etc. Many teachers and coaches take the place of parents and believe strongly in going the "extra mile" to make sure no one is "left behind." It came as a shock for their motives to be questioned.
I have to admit that I sympathized with the people here. It was obvious they felt "attacked." By the time Mark Birnbaum and Jim Schermbeck arrived to "do the story," the community, I believe, was feeling "raped." None of the media who stormed into the community bothered to "dig" for the story. Some of it was sensationalized and some of it wasn't. When the Fifth Circuit Court ruled in favor of Larry Tannahill, I believe the majority of the community expected LISD to appeal and would have continued to support them in the fight. The trustees continued to believe in the original reasons for testing and thought they could win appeals. However, they lacked the backing of the insurance company, so they dropped the battle.
Two years later, when the Supreme Court eventually ruled in favor of drug testing*, I did not sense an attitude of "I told you so" in Lockney. It seemed to be more of an attitude of, "Good -- let's move on to more important things." The district doesn't seem to be looking back. I'm sure the trustees and the community felt vindicated, but the attitudes that I witnessed did not reflect this. Larry Tannahill probably felt different about the attitude -- I don't know.
What I thought was surprising about the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision was the LACK OF media coverage. I know this may sound bitter, but I wondered, after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of drug testing, where were the "real reporters" that tried to make LISD look like backwards hicks who know nothing about the Constitution. As far as I can tell, things are quiet at the school. The discussion is over. They have moved on. Drug testing was implemented with the same guidelines as the Tecumseh School that won the Supreme Court fight. There were no fights -- no controversy.
My 16 year-old son never talks about drug testing one way or the other. He is involved in athletics, band, UIL, One Act Play. He is also in Boy Scouts with Brady Tannahill (Larry's son). He loves extra-curricular activities and he never questioned the mandatory drug testing rule in order to be a part of those activities. In fact, I never hear any of the kids coming and going through my house talk about it one way or the other. It is not an issue with them -- girls, sports, movies, music, and "how hard was the test," are the subjects I hear discussed. As to the fear that "everyone will know if my kid flunks the test" -- it has proved groundless. I never hear my son and his friends discuss who failed the drug test. Only one time was this ever brought up in my home, when my son told me a story of a young man that was bragging at school about flunking the test. It appears to me that the school administration is being very discreet.
Alice Gilroy is the Editor and Publisher of
the Floyd County Hesperian-Beacon.
Lisa Mosley
As a faculty and administration, we had to develop some type of program to help combat the lackadaisical attitude of the students. We decided that perhaps the best way was to give some type of reward to those students who were doing what they were supposed to be doing. Thus we began a Friday morning tutorial that allowed students who were caught up in class assignments and passing to sleep in and not come to school until 9:30 a.m. Those who were behind or failing in at least one subject had to come at 8:00 a.m. for tutorials.
This, for a time, seemed to raise the students' level of performance a bit. However, we still found that only a small number of students wanted to excel. The vast majority were perfectly content to be mediocre, even though they had the ability to perform far beyond what they were doing. I attribute much of this to the rise in drug use and students not being held accountable for it. They were no longer afraid to talk about what they had done out of school and even seemed to take some pride in making sure that we as faculty members knew that they were drinking heavily and using drugs ... as they wanted to. Performance in the classroom plummeted and morale among the faculty was low also.
Personally, at the end of the spring semester of 2002, I never wanted to step into a classroom as a teacher again. It took all the strength within me to walk back through the doors in the fall. However, I do feel that because we were able to begin drug testing those in extra-curricular activities, the performance and attitudes of these students are much higher this year. On the whole, the attitude and performance of the students I teach has been much better, and at least renewed my spirit to consider continuing to teach.
However, the use of illegal substances is still extremely high in our small community, particularly in those students who do not participate in extracurricular activities.
What is the ultimate outcome of this controversy? That question may never be answered because we as a community and school district still do not have the ability to do what we think would help all students perform better -- mandatory drug-testing for all 6th-12th graders. However, from my vantage point, the ability to test those involved in extra-curricular activities has at least helped raise the level of performance of a portion of our student body.
Lisa Mosley is a resident of Lockney and the art teacher at the high school.