The document discusses the history and legality of student drug testing in the United States, highlighting key Supreme Court rulings that established the constitutionality of testing student athletes and participants in extracurricular activities. It emphasizes the necessity for clearly written policies, the importance of respecting privacy and due process rights, and the ongoing legal challenges faced by schools regarding drug testing procedures. The document also clarifies what the Supreme Court did not mandate concerning drug testing practices in schools.

1. Student Drug TestingStudent Drug Testing
William Allan Kritsonis, PhDWilliam Allan Kritsonis, PhD

2. HISTORY OF STUDENT DRUGHISTORY OF STUDENT DRUG
TESTINGTESTING
 The U. S. Supreme Court ruled drug testingThe 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 forauthorized the use of federal funds for
random student drug testing (2002).random student drug testing (2002).
 The U. S. Supreme Court ruled schoolsThe U. S. Supreme Court ruled schools
could test extracurricular participantscould test extracurricular participants
(2002).(2002).

3. Verononia School District v.Verononia School District v.
ActonActon
This is the landmark case that determinedThis is the landmark case that determined
only students involved in interscholasticonly students involved in interscholastic
sports were tested and then only after asports were tested and then only after a
consent form has been signedconsent form has been signed..

4. Who are We Testing ?Who are We Testing ?
Random drug testing is typically directed atRandom drug testing is typically directed at
students who want to participate instudents who want to participate in
extracurricular activities, includingextracurricular activities, including
athletics, which have proven among theathletics, which have proven among the
most effective pathways to preventingmost effective pathways to preventing
adolescent drug use. However, all tooadolescent drug use. However, all too
often drug testing policies actually preventoften drug testing policies actually prevent
students from engaging in these activities.students from engaging in these activities.

5. Student Drug Testing ProgramStudent Drug Testing Program
A successful student drug testing program must haveA successful student drug testing program must have
clearly written testing policies and procedures regardlessclearly 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 theThe first section should explain why the school needs the
SDT program.SDT program.
• Next, an introduction or position statement shouldNext, 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 technicalThird, a discussion section should address the technical
details, options and procedures that the program willdetails, options and procedures that the program will
feature.feature.
• Lastly, the school’s, student’s and parent’s rights andLastly, the school’s, student’s and parent’s rights and
responsibilities should be addressed.responsibilities should be addressed.

6. Privacy/ Due ProcessPrivacy/ Due Process
• The policy did not violate the students’ privacyThe 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 “minimallybecause the policy was found “minimally
intrusive” in that the students could provide aintrusive” in that the students could provide a
urine, hair, or saliva sample. The purpose forurine, 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 (Educatorsand 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. (EducatorsSection 19 of the Texas Constitution. (Educators
Guide to Texas School Law p. 372).Guide to Texas School Law p. 372).

7. NOT ALL DRUG TESTING ISNOT ALL DRUG TESTING IS
PROTECTED 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 ofBoard of Education of
Pottawatomie v. EarlsPottawatomie v. Earls permitted public schoolpermitted public school
districts to drug test students participating indistricts to drug test students participating in
competitive extracurricular activities. In its ruling,competitive extracurricular activities. In its ruling,
however, the Court only interpretedhowever, the Court only interpreted federalfederal law.law.
Schools are also subject toSchools are also subject to statestate law, which maylaw, which may
provide greater protections for students’ privacyprovide greater protections for students’ privacy
rights. These laws vary greatly from state torights. These laws vary greatly from state to
state and, in many states, the law may not yetstate and, in many states, the law may not yet
be well-defined by the courts.be well-defined by the courts.

8. cont’cont’
Since the 2002Since the 2002 EarlsEarls decision, lawsuits havedecision, lawsuits have
been filed in many states, includingbeen 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 testingchallenging school districts’ drug testing
policies. Most of these school districts willpolicies. Most of these school districts will
spend thousands of taxpayer dollarsspend thousands of taxpayer dollars
battling these lawsuits with no guaranteebattling these lawsuits with no guarantee
of success. (Associated Press).of success. (Associated Press).

9. U.S. Supreme Court DID NOTU.S. Supreme Court DID NOT
Say...Say...
 The CourtThe Court DID NOTDID NOT say that schools are required tosay that schools are required to
test students involved in competitive extracurriculartest students involved in competitive extracurricular
activities.activities.
 The CourtThe Court DID NOTDID NOT say drug testing of all students orsay drug testing of all students or
specific groups of students outside of those participatingspecific groups of students outside of those participating
in competitive extracurricular activities (i.e. studentin competitive extracurricular activities (i.e. student
drivers) is constitutional.drivers) is constitutional.
 The CourtThe Court DID NOTDID NOT say it is constitutional tosay it is constitutional to
drug test elementary school children.drug test elementary school children.
 The CourtThe Court DID NOTDID NOT say that it is constitutionalsay that it is constitutional
to test by means other than urinalysis.to test by means other than urinalysis.
 The CourtThe Court DID NOTDID NOT say that schools are protectedsay that schools are protected
from lawsuits under their respective state laws.from lawsuits under their respective state laws.

10. Related VideoRelated Video
Steffner_Drug_Testing.mpgSteffner_Drug_Testing.mpg

11. ReferencesReferences
 Associate Press (2007).Associate Press (2007). Components of DrugComponents 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). TheThe
Educator’s GuideEducator’s Guide toto
TEXAS 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).