School Drug Testing: Legal Issues and Policy Guidelines

Introduction

The use of illicit drugs, as well as the abuse of prescription drugs, have both become serious problems in the United States. Any societal concern of that magnitude inevitably extends into the school environment. It is clearly important to identify children who are abusing substances including alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin. Widespread misuse of pain medications and anxiety pills among teenagers — and even younger children — compounds the problem. The primary method for identifying such children, or at least for verifying suspicions, is drug testing. While it may seem reasonable to test students when suspicions arise, establishing the probable cause needed to justify testing, not to mention obtaining parental knowledge and consent, is not always straightforward. Although drug use among teenagers and younger children is a serious concern, solutions to stop or slow its spread are not easy to implement.

Background on Youth Drug Use and School Testing

One important context to establish is the range of implications faced by those working within the educational system. Even substances that are legal for some adults and are not considered especially harmful to most people — marijuana, for example — present a significant concern when it comes to minor children and the educators who serve them, for several reasons.

First, children who use or abuse these substances frequently associate with high-risk social groups. Second, children and teenagers are far less capable than adults of using any substance in moderation, and this applies to alcohol and marijuana alike. Beyond moderation, the bodies of teenagers are still developing and are not physiologically equipped to metabolize these substances the way adult bodies can. Finally, parents have a vested interest — on multiple levels — in ensuring that their child is not using drugs.

The minor status of students, the requirement for parental knowledge and consent, and the due process protections afforded to children all complicate the administration of drug testing in schools. A school administrator might wish to test all students simply to identify who is using drugs. Less scrupulous administrators might seek to single out particular groups — African-American students, athletes, or others. However, mass testing of this kind is neither practical nor legally permissible in most circumstances.

While students entering athletic programs may be tested for performance-enhancing and illicit drugs, widespread testing typically generates public outcry and litigation. Some schools have extended testing to all students involved in extracurricular activities, including non-athletic pursuits such as music and academic competitions. In most situations, however, schools must rely on reasonable suspicion of drug use or on parental consent. In some instances, truly random testing has been permitted and has been upheld by the federal government, though this practice remains highly controversial (Clayton, 2007).

Legal Background of School Drug Testing

The United States Bill of Rights — particularly the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments — provides the constitutional framework within which school drug testing must operate. These amendments address protections against unreasonable search and seizure, as well as guarantees of due process. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that random drug testing of students participating in extracurricular and athletic programs does not violate these amendments (Cornell, 2016). However, individual states may apply more stringent standards, and courts at various levels have issued rulings that restrict or condition how testing may be carried out.

Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, federal law and precedent generally prevail when they conflict with state law. This principle is relevant to understanding why some school districts continue testing policies even after adverse state-level rulings.

Conclusion

In the end, drug use is running rampant, but schools should not have license to act like their own version of the police or act without the knowledge and consent of parents unless the situation truly calls for some other course of action. It must also be recognized that schools can only do so much. Sometimes, removing or segregating a student is the only realistic option available. The goal should always be to balance the school's protective obligations with the constitutional and civil rights of students and their families.

References

Clayton, V. (2007). Parents, experts divided on school drug testing. msnbc.com. Retrieved 25 July 2016, from

Cornell. (2016). Bill of Rights. LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 25 July 2016, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights

Cornell. (2016). Supremacy Clause. LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 25 July 2016, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause

Gallardo, M. (2015). Parents sue Marian Catholic HS for discrimination. ABC7 Chicago. Retrieved 25 July 2016, from http://abc7chicago.com/news/parents-sue-marian-catholic-hs-for-discrimination-/1124093/

SDW.org. (2016). PA school districts sued over student drug testing. StoptheDrugWar.org. Retrieved 25 July 2016, from http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2011/mar/14/pa_school_districts_sued_over_st