William Kritsonis, School Law, Ch 9 Drugs in Schools - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

William Kritsonis, School Law, Ch 9 Drugs in Schools

Description:

William Kritsonis, School Law, Ch 9 Drugs in Schools – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:899
Slides: 12
Provided by: Will1945
Category: Other
Tags: ch | drugs | in | kritsonis | law | school | schools | william

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: 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).
About PowerShow.com