Student Drug TestingStudent Drug Testing

William Allan Kritsonis, PhDWilliam Allan Kritsonis, PhD

HISTORY OF STUDENT DRUG HISTORY OF STUDENT DRUG TESTINGTESTING

The U. S. Supreme Court ruled drug testing The U. S. Supreme Court ruled drug testing student athletes was constitutional (1995).student athletes was constitutional (1995).

The NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT, The NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT, authorized the use of federal funds for authorized the use of federal funds for random student drug testing (2002).random student drug testing (2002).

The U. S. Supreme Court ruled schools The U. S. Supreme Court ruled schools could test extracurricular participants could test extracurricular participants (2002).(2002).

Verononia School District v. ActonVerononia School District v. Acton

This is the landmark case that determined This is the landmark case that determined only students involved in interscholastic only students involved in interscholastic sports were tested and then only after a sports were tested and then only after a

consent form has been signedconsent form has been signed. .

Who are We Testing ?Who are We Testing ?

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

Student Drug Testing ProgramStudent Drug Testing Program

A successful student drug testing program must have A successful student drug testing program must have clearly written testing policies and procedures regardless clearly written testing policies and procedures regardless of whether it is random. of whether it is random.

• The first section should explain why the school needs The first section should explain why the school needs the SDT program.the SDT program.

• Next, an introduction or position statement should Next, an introduction or position statement should further define the role and extent of the program. further define the role and extent of the program.

• Third, a discussion section should address the technical Third, a discussion section should address the technical details, options and procedures that the program will details, options and procedures that the program will feature. feature.

• Lastly, the school’s, student’s and parent’s rights and Lastly, the school’s, student’s and parent’s rights and responsibilities should be addressed.responsibilities should be addressed.

Privacy/ Due ProcessPrivacy/ Due Process

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

• Further, the policy did not violate the students’ Further, the policy did not violate the students’ due process rights guaranteed by Article I, due process rights guaranteed by Article I, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution. (Educators Section 19 of the Texas Constitution. (Educators Guide to Texas School Law p. 372). Guide to Texas School Law p. 372).

NOT ALL DRUG TESTING ISNOT ALL DRUG TESTING ISPROTECTED UNDER THE LAWPROTECTED UNDER THE LAW

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

cont’ cont’

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

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

The Court The Court DID NOTDID NOT say that schools are required to say that schools are required to test students involved in competitive extracurricular test students involved in competitive extracurricular activities.activities.

The Court The Court DID NOTDID NOT say drug testing of all students or say drug testing of all students or specific groups of students outside of those participating specific groups of students outside of those participating in competitive extracurricular activities (i.e. student in competitive extracurricular activities (i.e. student drivers) is constitutional.drivers) is constitutional.

The Court The Court DID NOTDID NOT say it is constitutional to say it is constitutional to drug test elementary school children.drug test elementary school children. The Court The Court DID NOTDID NOT say that it is constitutional say that it is constitutional to test by means other than urinalysis.to test by means other than urinalysis. The Court The Court DID NOTDID NOT say that schools are protected say that schools are protected

from lawsuits under their respective state laws.from lawsuits under their respective state laws.

Related VideoRelated Video

Steffner_Drug_Testing.mpgSteffner_Drug_Testing.mpg

ReferencesReferences

Associate Press (2007). Associate Press (2007). Components of Drug Components of Drug Prevention/not PunishmentPrevention/not Punishment

Steffner Drug Testing. MpgSteffner Drug Testing. Mpg Walsh, J., Kemerer, F., & Maniotis, L. (2005). Walsh, J., Kemerer, F., & Maniotis, L. (2005). The The

Educator’s GuideEducator’s Guide totoTEXAS SCHOOL LAWTEXAS SCHOOL LAW, (6. Th ed). Austin, University of , (6. Th ed). Austin, University of Texas Press (pp. 372-373).Texas Press (pp. 372-373).