The document discusses the history and legal framework of student drug testing in US public schools. It summarizes key Supreme Court rulings allowing drug testing of student athletes (1995) and extracurricular participants (2002). While the Supreme Court has ruled such testing is constitutional, it has not said all forms of testing are allowed and schools may still face legal challenges under state laws. The document also provides guidance on developing legally sound student drug testing policies and procedures.

1. Student Drug Testing
William Allan Kritsonis, PhD

2. HISTORY OF STUDENT DRUG
TESTING
 TheU. S. Supreme Court ruled drug testing
student athletes was constitutional (1995).
 TheNO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT,
authorized the use of federal funds for
random student drug testing (2002).
 TheU. 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 school’s, student’s and parent’s 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 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.

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