School Drug Testing The use of illicit drugs as well as the use and abuse of prescription drugs have both become rampant problems in the United States. Of course, any societal concern of that size extends into the school realm. Obviously, it is good to identify and spot children who are abusing drugs including alcohol, marijuana, cocaine/crack, methamphetamine and heroin. There is even widespread use of pain and anxiety pills (among others) among teenagers and younger. However, the primary way to identify such children (or at least to verify suspicions) is to utilizing drug testing. While it may seem reasonable to use this technique as needed when suspicions arise, the probable cause needed to test such kids, not to mention the parental knowledge and consent that is needed, is not always easy to garner or prove. While the use of drugs by teenagers and younger kids is a problem, solutions to stop or at least slow the spread of their use is not the easiest thing to pull off.

Analysis

Background

One thing that will be explained straight off the top is the litany of implications that are faced by the author of this report due to being part of the educational realm. Indeed, even drugs that are legal for some to use and/or are not terribly harmful to most people even if illegal (e.g. marijuana) is a huge concern for minor children and the educators that service them, and for a few reasons. First, the children that use and/or abuse these substances are not generally running in the best crowds. Second, children in particular are of the kind of person that even if the substance is legal in some instances, children are much less prone to be able to use the drug in moderation and this includes alcohol and marijuana (where legal). Beyond that, the bodies of teenagers are still developing and they are not equipped to handle or absorb these drugs the way that an adult's body can. Lastly, the parents of these children have a vested interest, and on multiple levels, to ensure that their child is not using drugs.

However, the minor status of the children, the factor of parental knowledge and consent and the due process that is afforded to children in general are all complicating factors. Indeed, a school administrator might want to have all children tested just to weed out who is on drugs and who is not. Less scrupulous (and bigoted) administrators might want to single out certain groups such as black kids, athletes or others. However, this sort of mass testing is really not practical or possible. While children entering athletic programs can be tested for performance-enhancing drugs and perhaps illicit ones as well, the widespread use of drug testing usually leads to outcries and lawsuits. Some schools have gone so far to test anyone involved in an extracurricular activity and this would include non-athletic ventures such as music, scholar's bowl and so forth. In most situations, however, the school has to rely on reasonable suspicion of drug use and/or the consent of the parents involved. In some instance, truly random testing is allowed and has been sanctioned by the United States government. However, the vitriol extended about this practice is not in short supply (Clayton, 2007).

Legal Background of the Issue

Some general examples of drug testing and how it is has affected and involved schools was talked about in general up above. However, some more specific examples will be discussed below. The last statement in the prior section talks about how schools are getting blasted for drug testing. Precisely that happened in Chicago Heights, Illinois. A lawsuit was filed at a Catholic high school in that town. The accusation was levied that the testing of children at the school was disproportionately levied against African-American students as compared to the other groups at the school. Beyond that, there was an accusation that the testing itself was flawed and that several students that popped positive for cocaine were later exonerated by tests from a different and independent lab. Rather than being about simply bigotry, the lawsuit contended that the hair follicle testing method used by the school was not valid because it often leads to false positives with children or adults that have coarse and thick hair. Of course, this is precisely the sort of hair that many African-Americans have. As such, the use of that test was deemed to be improper. Nonetheless, the four children, who ranged in age from fifteen to seventeen, were suspended...

Rather than focusing on due process or something of that nature, the attorneys and families for the children expressed concern about the effects that the test results and suspensions would have on the future of their children. The Chicago Archdiocese, for their part, distanced themselves from the school by saying that each school determines its own drug testing program and that it is not something that is decided or mandated at the Archdiocese level. One sticking point where racism was brought out as an accusation is that the students ensnared by the test were not given a chance to use an alternate testing method (e.g. blood, urine, etc.) to verify the test results or to exonerate them from the same. Indeed, it would seem that no "B samples" or verification were done and this was really an oversight by the school to put it lightly (Gallardo, 2015).
A different but yet still extremely relevant example would be the case of school districts in Pennsylvania that had a much wider scope. The Supreme Court of the United States has held prior that random testing of students in extracurricular and/or sports programs is not in violation of the Fourth, Fifth or Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution (Cornell, 2016). Of course, those are the amendments that refer to due process and unreasonable search and seizure. However, some states have tighter and different standards and Pennsylvania is one of them. The school districts in question were testing any and all students that were involved in extracurricular activities or that were driving vehicles to school. The precedent case in question was a state Supreme Court decision that stated that random testing of a group was not allowed for unless it could be established that the group in question (e.g. athletes) had a high fail rate when it came to drug tests. Interestingly enough, one of the districts in this newer legal case, which was initiated by the ACLU, is actually the same school district that was the defendant in the 2003 state Supreme Court case, that being Delaware Valley district. In spite of the ruling from the state Supreme Court, the district never changed its policy and continued it unabated. The other school district got ensnared by an ACLU lawsuit due to a consent form for drug testing not being signed. The child was barred from going to the prom for that school. The consent form was not signed by the parents because they held that it was a violation of the child privacy to be subject to testing. It was further argued that random testing of such students is counterproductive because participation in extracurricular activities is seen as a way to steer kids away from drug use in general (SDW.org, 2016).

Decisions to Make

Based on the above, the author of this report would offer a few guidelines and pathways to follow:

If the United States Supreme Court has said that testing for sports/extracurricular students is acceptable, then this is what should be honored. Generally speaking, federal law and precedent wins out if the two conflict, per the Supremacy Clause to the United States Constitution. This is probably why Delaware Valley did not halt testing as they probably feel that following the federal ruling is valid (Cornell, 2016).

Random testing of at least physical athletes should be done so as to avoid the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Illicit drugs can be tested for as well as some of those are used for performance as well. Other extracurricular activities would be a harder sell and should probably be excluded. It is well-known that athletes are more prone to use drugs as part of their activity, though. The article about extracurricular activities being beneficial when it comes to keeping kids off drugs is valid. However, groups that are clearly at risk should be watched carefully.

All other testing should be on a "probable cause" basis. If there is a medical or other valid evaluation that indicates that drug use is probably going on, then testing should be done. Whether it be slurred speech, dilation of pupils (or lack thereof), and so on, it is not hard to figure out when someone is probably using drugs if one knows what to look for. The police get the same learning and training. Regardless of whether probable cause exists or not, parents should be made aware of any conduct or events that indicate a problem might exist as they have a right to know and a duty to…