S T U D E N T  D R U G  T E S T I N G  P P T
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

S T U D E N T D R U G T E S T I N G P P T

on

  • 413 views

Educational Background ...

Educational Background

Dr. William Allan Kritsonis earned his BA in 1969 from Central Washington University, Ellensburg, Washington. In 1971, he earned his M.Ed. from Seattle Pacific University. In 1976, he earned his PhD from the University of Iowa. In 1981, he was a Visiting Scholar at Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, and in 1987 was a Visiting Scholar at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. In June 2008, Dr. Kritsonis received the Doctor of Humane Letters, School of Graduate Studies from Southern Christian University. The ceremony was held at the Hilton Hotel in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
413
Views on SlideShare
413
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

S T U D E N T  D R U G  T E S T I N G  P P T S T U D E N T D R U G T E S T I N G P P T Presentation Transcript

  • Student Drug Testing
    • William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
  • 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).
  • 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 .
  • 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.
  • 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 school’s, student’s and parent’s rights and responsibilities should be addressed.
  • 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).
  • NOT ALL DRUG TESTING IS PROTECTED 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.
  • 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).
  • 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.
  • Related Video
    • Steffner_Drug_Testing.mpg
  • References
    • Associate Press (2007). Components of Drug Prevention/not Punishment
    • Steffner Drug Testing. Mpg
    • Walsh, J., Kemerer, F., & Maniotis, L. (2005). The Educator’s Guide to
    • TEXAS SCHOOL LAW , (6. Th ed). Austin, University of Texas Press (pp. 372-373).