William Kritsonis, School Law, Ch 9 Drugs in Schools

1
Student Drug Testing

• William Allan Kritsonis, PhD

2
HISTORY OF STUDENT DRUG TESTING

• The U. S. Supreme Court ruled drug testing
  student athletes was constitutional (1995).
• The NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT, authorized the use
  of federal funds for random student drug testing
  (2002).
• The U. S. Supreme Court ruled schools could test
  extracurricular participants (2002).

3
Verononia School District v. Acton

• This is the landmark case that determined only
  students involved in interscholastic sports were
  tested and then only after a consent form has
  been signed.

4
Who are We Testing ?

• Random drug testing is typically directed at
  students who want to participate in
  extracurricular activities, including athletics,
  which have proven among the most effective
  pathways to preventing adolescent drug use.
  However, all too often drug testing policies
  actually prevent students from engaging in these
  activities.

5
Student Drug Testing Program

• A successful student drug testing program must
  have clearly written testing policies and
  procedures regardless of whether it is random.
• The first section should explain why the school
  needs the SDT program.
• Next, an introduction or position statement
  should further define the role and extent of the
  program.
• Third, a discussion section should address the
  technical details, options and procedures that
  the program will feature.
• Lastly, the schools, students and parents
  rights and responsibilities should be addressed.

6
Privacy/ Due Process

• The policy did not violate the students privacy
  rights guaranteed by Article I, Section 9,
  because the policy was found minimally
  intrusive in that the students could provide a
  urine, hair, or saliva sample. The purpose for
  which the test results could be used was limited,
  and test results were confidential (Educators
  Guide to Texas School Law p. 373).
• Further, the policy did not violate the students
  due process rights guaranteed by Article I,
  Section 19 of the Texas Constitution. (Educators
  Guide to Texas School Law p. 372).

7
NOT ALL DRUG TESTING ISPROTECTED UNDER THE LAW

• In 2002, by a margin of five to four, the U.S.
  Supreme Court in Board of Education of
  Pottawatomie v. Earls permitted public school
  districts to drug test students participating in
  competitive extracurricular activities. In its
  ruling, however, the Court only interpreted
  federal law. Schools are also subject to state
  law, which may provide greater protections for
  students privacy rights. These laws vary greatly
  from state to state and, in many states, the law
  may not yet be well-defined by the courts.

8
cont

• Since the 2002 Earls decision, lawsuits have been
  filed in many states, including Indiana, New
  Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas and
  Washington, challenging school districts drug
  testing policies. Most of these school districts
  will spend thousands of taxpayer dollars battling
  these lawsuits with no guarantee of success.
  (Associated Press).

9
U.S. Supreme Court DID NOT Say...

• The Court DID NOT say that schools are required
  to test students involved in competitive
  extracurricular activities.
• The Court DID NOT say drug testing of all
  students or specific groups of students outside
  of those participating in competitive
  extracurricular activities (i.e. student drivers)
  is constitutional.
• The Court DID NOT say it is constitutional to
• drug test elementary school children.
• The Court DID NOT say that it is constitutional
• to test by means other than urinalysis.
• The Court DID NOT say that schools are
  protected from lawsuits under their respective
  state laws.

10
Related Video

• Steffner_Drug_Testing.mpg

11
References

• Associate Press (2007). Components of Drug
  Prevention/not Punishment
• Steffner Drug Testing. Mpg
• Walsh, J., Kemerer, F., Maniotis, L. (2005).
  The Educators Guide to
• TEXAS SCHOOL LAW, (6. Th ed). Austin, University
  of Texas Press (pp. 372-373).