random student-athlete drug testing in illinois high schools

The Past, Present, and Future 1

The Past, Present, and Future

of Random Drug Testing for High School Student-Athletes

Brett Burton

LEEA 625

April 7, 2007 Dr. Kiracofe

Legal Research Paper

Northern Illinois University


Introduction

Imagine being a fourteen year old freshmen football player about to embark on a four year journey

as a student-athlete. Your parents are very proud and enthusiastic about the amazing journey that lies

ahead. Furthermore, your parents have taught you the importance and relevance of staying away from

the temptation of drugs and alcohol, and making good decisions. Thus far, you have complied and

resisted trying drugs and alcohol. However, you learn that the high school you’ll be representing as a

student-athlete has a different perception of you and your teammates. The school’s perception of

student-athletes may indicate that your peer group is more prone to using alcohol and drugs compared

to other extra-curricular groups. Therefore, school administration, the board of education, and parents

have supported a random but mandatory drug urinalysis test for student-athletes. In order to complete

as an athlete at your high school you are required to submit a physical examination, a student and

parent signed athletic code of conduct, an emergency medical card, and a permission slip to test your

urine for drugs and/or alcohol at random and before the beginning of every season. If you disagree

with any of these requirements then you will not be allowed to participate on the football team this

year, or any other year that you are enrolled at this school, as well as other sports.

This hypothetical but realistic scenario holds true today for certain high school student-athletes.

However, does this mean that by refusing to take a urinalysis drug test, you have eliminated the

opportunity to compete in high school sports? The answer is “yes” for certain school districts and

athletic programs, but should public school districts enforce mandatory urinalysis drug testing for high

school student-athletes? Is there a benefit to drug testing high school student-athletes?

According to Yamaguchi, Johnston, and O’Malley (2003) who completed a study pertaining to

drug testing students in the 8th, 10th, and 12th grade, thus found little significant data supporting the

effectiveness of drug testing (p. 13).


Another important conclusion from the same study was that drug testing student-athletes

demonstrated no significant impact on the frequency of “illicit drug use” (Yamaguchi, Johnston, and

O’Malley, 2003, p. 13). Another research article pertaining to drug testing of high school student-

athletes theorized that drug testing student-athletes would cause a decrease in their abuse of illegal

drugs, but cause an increased use in the regular student body as well as athletes that quit the team

(Taylor, 1997, conclusion section). Since empirical evidence demonstrating the benefit of drug testing

high school student-athletes is inconclusive one must wonder, “why drug test them at all?” So, what is

the true rationale behind drug testing high school student-athletes?

Walter Champion, Jr., believes that the United States Supreme Court as well as other circuit courts,

was justified in drug testing high school student-athletes because athletes agree to relinquish their

property rights when competing on athletic teams (Champion, 1997). Equally as important, Champion

defines this type of mentality as the “so-called locker room mentality.” The “locker room” mentality

is a term used to describe the nuances of an athletic locker room. High school athletes change their

clothes, shower, and use the restroom with very little privacy. Therefore, high school athletes

participate on athletic teams and the nuances of the locker room on their own volition. Hence, athletes

relinquish their property rights in order to play sports (Champion, 1997). As a former high school

athletic director, I am torn between individual rights and mandating drug testing for high school

student-athletes. I’m even more in a quandary

as a parent of future student-athletes. In my professional and personal experience as an athletic

director as well as a high school and collegiate athlete, I believe there could be a benefit for high

school student-athletes being drug tested. As an athletic director for over two years, it was typical for

me to issue consequences for student-athletes that violated the possession and use of alcohol clause in

the athletic code of conduct. Another and recent example, applies to the five Oswego High School


Students who were killed in an alcohol related driving accident which included three survivors. Two

of the five deceased teenagers were student-athletes at Oswego High School, one a football player the

other a wrestler (Wang and Moyer, 2007). Perhaps if Oswego High School had a policy which

mandated a drug urinalysis test for student-athletes this could have prevented these two athletes from a

devastating accident. It’s impossible to predict but the current outcome has devastated the school and

the community. As far as my personal experience as an athlete I am well aware of the drug and party

culture that exists with student-athletes. My first experiences with alcohol, marijuana, and steroids

were all with my high school football and baseball teammates. When I attended college and competed

in football and baseball the partying became more frequent and intense. When I reflect upon this

partying it appears that it was almost an expectation and a major part of the “off the field bonding” that

takes place with teammates. If you didn’t party and abuse other illegal drugs with your teammates,

then you were an outcast. From my perspective, which has been formulated through personal and

professional experience is that all high school athletic programs would benefit from a random drug

testing policy. Although I may be an advocate for random student drug testing, the question still

remains, “does random student drug testing programs for student-athletes violate the Fourth and/or

Fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

The focal point of the Fourth Amendment that has been challenged by citizens that disagree with

random student drug testing of student-athlete pertains to “unreasonable searches and seizures.” The

aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment that has been called into question pertains to “property rights” in

high school athletics and extra-curricular activities. The purpose of this research paper is to examine

the past, present, and future of random student drug testing programs for high school student-athletes.


Past

In order to have an understanding of random student drug testing programs for high school student-

athletes, one must first have knowledge of historical U.S. Supreme Court, as well as district court

cases that have been instrumental in finding these policies permissible. The first case that set a

precedent which indirectly supporting random drug testing programs for high school student-athletes

was T.L.O. v. New Jersey U.S. 325 (1985). The T.L.O. case is examined because it was instrumental in

allowing school officials to drug test high school student-athletes. The T.L.O. case occurred during the

first week of March in 1980 when a teacher believed two high school girls were smoking in the

bathroom. Next, the teacher escorted the students to the assistant principal’s office because smoking in

the restroom was against school rules. One of the girls confessed to the assistant principal that she had

been smoking in the restroom. The other student denied smoking. The administrator believed the

student was being dishonest and decided to search the contents of her purse. As he was performing the

search he noticed rolling papers at the surface and proceeded to examine the purse further since rolling

papers were associated with marijuana use. The assistant principal discovered marijuana in small

plastic bags, a pipe, money, a list of names that indicated students owed her money for drugs, and a

couple of student letters that illustrated she was a drug dealer. The assistant principal called the police

and she was apprehended. Then, the student confessed to the police that she had been selling drugs in

school and “the state brought delinquency charges against T.L.O.” (Dupre and Gardner, 2006, p. 611).

Also, the school issued an out of school suspension to T.L.O. for smoking in the bathroom. The parent

of T.L.O. challenged the administrator’s search claiming it was an illegal search motivated by a

confession which violated her Fourth Amendment Rights. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of

New Jersey. The court stated schools have a right to search students when they have “reasonable

suspicion” that an illegal act has occurred or in order to follow school rules and policies that are


established for safety reasons. The T.L.O. case provided the impetus for schools to search student’s

based on reasonable information without a warrant. It had a significant impact on random drug testing

high school student-athletes because it placed the safety of students as the main issue, as well as

acknowledging reduced individual rights for students when present during school. Another court case

that was paramount in establishing a precedent for random student drug testing programs was Griffin

v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987).

Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987) was a case that occurred two years after T.L.O. which

focused on a warrantless search based on “special needs” [*873]. Although Griffin did not pertain to

public schools, the case did establish a precedent for a search that doesn’t require a warrant, which has

carried over to the U.S. public school system. The facts of Griffin

v. Wisconsin are pertinent to comprehending the historical context or random student drug testing

programs for high school athletes. Griffin, a convicted felon, was placed on probation by the state of

Wisconsin. A convicted felon is basically a ward of the state because they remain in legal custody. In

addition, any probation officer may conduct a search without a warrant, as long the probationer’s

supervisor approves and “reasonable” grounds exist to search [*871]. In this particular case a detective

provided a probation officer with a tip stating that Griffin may be in possession of a gun [*872]. The

probation officer then searched Griffin’s residence without a warrant and discovered a weapon. The

U.S. Supreme Court ruled the warrantless search did not violate the Fourth Amendment and was

indeed a legal search (Pp. 875-880). There are three significant keys that have influenced or impacted

random student drug testing policies for high school athletes. First, both student-athletes and

probationers have reduced privacy rights. Second, searches pertaining to “special needs” [*871] are

relevant for both probationers and student-athletes. Third, both student-athletes and probationers have

other parties that are concerned about their welfare (Pp. 875-880). Probation officers focus on making


certain that convicted felons are safe and in accordance with the law. As far as high school athletes are

concerned, the state or teachers/coaches have an inherent need to guarantee that athletes are safe.

T.L.O v. New Jersey and Griffin v. Wisconsin are two cases that have set an indirect precedent for

random student drug testing for high school athletes. Furthermore, both cases had a major impact on

the next case Schaill v. Tippecanoe County.

Schaill v. Tippecanoe County School Corp. 864 F.2d. 1309, 1988, was tried one year after Griffin v.

Wisconsin and three years after T.L.O. v. New Jersey. The case occurred in the state of Indiana where a

high school baseball coach decided to mandate a urinalysis drug test to sixteen players on the varsity

baseball team. The coach had great suspicion that the baseball players were abusing drugs. The

urinalysis test concluded that five of the sixteen players had tested positive for marijuana. Since the

baseball team had demonstrated to the community and other athletic programs that athletes were

abusing drugs, lead to additional information that suspected other athletes were abusing drugs as well.

Tippecanoe County School District decided to implement a student-athlete random drug urinalysis test

for student-athletes. During the next season two athletes opposed the random urinalysis drug test and

decided to take legal action. The plaintiffs in this case were Darcy Schaill and Shelley Johnson.

Shelley Johnson was a swimmer who was on the varsity swim team the year before the random urine

drug test was implemented. Both girls had declined to sign the consent waiver allowing permission for

the Tippecanoe County School District to issue a random urinalysis to any student-athlete. The

plaintiffs claimed that Tippecanoe was violating their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments. The district court ruled in favor of Tippecanoe County School District allowing the

institution of the random urinalysis drug test for student-athletes. The court based its decision on many

factors. First, the court claimed that the manner the urine specimen was collected was constitutional

and those athletes relinquishing a degree of privacy rights by voluntarily participating on a team.


However, the urinalysis is a legal search. Equally as important, the court declared the random drug

testing policy only penalized athletes that tested positive for drugs by reducing a certain percentage of

the total athletic season, therefore the policy did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment or any other

rights. Another important factor the district court took into consideration was Tippecanoe produced

three cases in which student-athletes were injured while competing under the influence of drugs.

Therefore, the court concurred with Tippecanoe that instituting a random urinalysis drug test would

assist in preventing drug induced injuries while competing in athletics. The significance of this

particular case was that it had established a precedent for other school districts, which were interested

in implementing a random drug test for middle and high school student-athletes. Tippecanoe was

significant because it provided a segue to the U.S. Supreme Court Case Vernonia S.D. 47J v. Acton.

Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton 515 U.S. 646 was the first case which addressed random

student drug testing policies in the U.S. public education system. Vernonia occurred seven years after

Tippecanoe and was the very first case that was tried by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Vernonia

School District, located in the state of Oregon, implemented a student-athlete drug testing policy to

address the pervasive drug problem within its student population. Since Vernonia noticed an increase

of student infractions caused by drug and alcohol abuse, Vernonia decided to address the problem by

implementing a urinalysis drug test for student-athletes. Also, the school district expressed that

competing in athletics increases the risk of injury and that requiring drug testing of student-athletes

would be another means for athletes from Vernonia and opponent schools to be safe. Next, the

Vernonia School District hosted a parent

night to receive feedback from parents regarding drug testing student-athletes. The parents supported

the policy. In addition, the school district required all student-athletes in the district must have a sports

physical with a licensed doctor, a signed parental athletic code of conduct consent form, and a pre-


season mandatory urine drug test with parental consent. Equally as important, ten percent of student-

athletes would be subjected to a random urine drug test during the season. It’s important to mention if

a student-athlete is taking a prescription medication they must submit a copy of the signed prescription

to the school administration. The information would be shared only with the school administration and

not law enforcement. If a student-athlete’s urine tests returns positive then the school district would

provide a series of consequences to counseling for first time offenders and/or suspension from

athletics. The policy was challenged by James Acton, a parent of seventh grade football player, who

refused to sign parental consent for a urine drug test. Therefore, Mr. Acton’s seventh grade son was

not allowed to participate on the football team. Mr. Acton “filed suit” and wanted a hearing to

determine if the Vernonia Drug Testing Policy violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution (to be free from unreasonable searches) and the Oregon Constitution.

The primary issue of the case was to determine if random student-athlete drug testing programs

violated the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that random student drug testing for middle

and high school athletes was acceptable. The Court’s rationale or reasoning to explain their decision

was based on three important aspects in accordance with the Fourth Amendment. First, the court

examined the privacy rights of student-athletes. According to the U.S. Supreme Court the nature of

being an athlete reduces privacy rights. Athletes dress for practices and games in locker rooms that are

wide open for any other athlete or coach to view. Also, athletes shower in locker rooms that may not

possess private stalls. Another important facet was that the U.S. Supreme Court believed that

competing in high school sports is completely on the student athletes’ own accord. Competing as an

athlete is completely based on “voluntary” participation. Second, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed if

drug testing student-athletes was “intrusive.” The court analyzed the way the drug testing was

performed. Then the U.S. court compared the manner in which student-athletes were drug tested to


using a public restroom. Girls performed their test in a private closed door stall while an adult

supervised outside of the stall to listen for anything not appropriate. The boys provided a urine sample

with their backs turned from the person and over a urinal.

Also, it’s important to mention that the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the specifics of the reading

of the drug test. Vernonia School District made it clear that they would be examining the urine for

illegal drugs and alcohol. They would not be searching for prescription medication as long as it was

cleared with a doctor’s note before the sample. Equally as important Vernonia School District would

not share this information with law enforcement. Third, the U.S. Supreme Court examined student-

athlete drug testing and [*653] “its promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” The U.S.

Supreme Court declared that playing athletics is risky and/or dangerous. Therefore, it was in the best

interest of Vernonia to keep student-athletes as safe as possible and make certain that they were not

under the influence of drugs while participating in athletics, which proposes a greater risk of injury.

The Vernonia case assisted in establishing the safety of students, particularly students that are held to a

higher standard, as a priority. Furthermore, the Vernonia case provided a segue for schools to

randomly drug test students in athletics but other extra-curricular activities as well.

Although Vernonia occurred over twelve years ago, a more recent U.S. Supreme Court case

addressed the ability of school districts to randomly drug test students that participate in clubs or

activities such as Future Farmer’s of America, student council, band, etc…. The Board of Education

of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls 536 U.S. 822 (2002) has

played a significant role in public education because it has been paramount in the present context of

random student drug testing programs. The next aspect of this research paper will pertain to the

present state of random student drug testing policies in public education.


Present

The Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls

536 U.S. 822 has provided an impetus for present random student drug testing programs. In order to

comprehend present random student drug testing programs it’s vital to examine the facts of the case.

The Board of Education of Pottawatomie County School District adopted a policy that mandated

students involved in extra-curricular activities such as band, choir, academic teams, etc… as well as

sports teams would have to provide a urine sample that would be tested for illegal drugs. In addition,

students were required to provide the school district with a list of prescribed drugs or medications to

school authorities; however, the urine would only be tested for illegal drugs. Furthermore, the drug

testing results would be extremely private and only parents would be notified, not the police or

authorities. Also, students involved in extra-curricular activities that tested positive would not

penalized by the school as long as they agreed

to attend a drug counseling program and not continue to test positive for illegal drugs. The drug testing

policy was challenged by a student that participated in band and an academic team.

The student claimed the Pottawatomie County School District’s drug testing policy violated his/her

Fourth Amendment rights. The District Court ruled in favor of Pottawatomie County School District

but The United States Court of Appeals over turned the decision of the lower court and claimed

Pottawatomie County School District’s policy violated the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme

Court in a 5-4 decision reversed The United States Court of Appeals decision and ruled in favor of

Pottawatomie County School District’s policy. The Court based the decision on various aspects. First,

students participate in extra-curricular activities on their own accord. Therefore, students have less

privacy rights. Second, the method in which the urine was collected was less invasive than the method

used in Vernonia. Third, student’s privacy rights were not truly violated since the information was not


discussed with any other parties other than the parents. Fourth, Pottawatomie County School District

provided the U.S. Supreme Court with significant data demonstrating an existing drug problem among

the student population. Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court had never established a precedent of stating

that school districts must demonstrate a drug problem before allowing random drug testing.

The Pottawatomie County School Districts random drug testing policy has expanded the

authorization of drug testing policy for school districts nation wide. The significance of

Pottawatomie’s random drug testing policy has provided some school district’s an opportunity to even

test students for weekend drinking. In January of this year, Pequannock Township High

School in Pequannock, New Jersey implemented a random urine test to find out if alcohol was

consumed over the weekend. The urine test is able to detect alcohol use from the past eighty hours and

the Pequannock School District Board of Education approved the policy

because of the increased number of alcohol related deaths of teenagers (Porter, 2007). The

Pequannock School District implemented a random drug testing program in 2005 for student-athletes,

which came about after a student that died from an overdose of heroin (Porter, 2007). Therefore,

Pequannock School District was compelled to address the underage drinking problem with the high

school student population.

Another important facet of the program is students who test positive for drugs or alcohol will

receive counseling instead of being “kicked off a team or barred from extra-curricular activities”

(Porter, 2007). Although it is evident that many school districts across this great nation are attempting

to implement drug or alcohol testing programs for student-athletes and other students, the question still

remains: Are random student drug testing programs effective? And will these programs exist in the

future?


Future and Findings

Researcher, Joseph R. McKinney, examined the effectiveness of random student drug testing

programs. During the course of his research McKinney discovered and provided a statistical analysis

pertaining to random student drug testing programs. First, McKinney revealed that there has been an

increase among school districts adopting random student drug testing programs in the United States

(2006, p.1). Furthermore, as part of random student drug testing programs, school districts have

instituted a “larger drug awareness and prevention” component to these

programs (McKinney, 2006, p.1). Another important factor pertaining to McKinney’s research was the

empirical evidence provided which found an alarming rate of drug use within the student

population. McKinney cited a Columbia University survey that revealed that “sixty-two percent of

high school students and twenty-eight percent of middle school students” stated that drugs are

available or present at school (2006, p.1). Equally as important, McKinney provided

financial data pertaining to the negative cost factor of drug abuse among public school students.

McKinney stated that “substance abuse adds at least forty-one billion dollars each year to the costs of

elementary and secondary education” (2006, p.1). Another important research statistic McKinney

provided pertaining to drug and alcohol use among middle and high school students was “eighty-one

percent have drunk alcohol, forty-seven percent have used marijuana and twenty-four percent have

used another illicit drug” by the time they have concluded their high school careers (2006, p.1).

McKinney provides the various statistical data because the data provides a rationale explaining

random student drug testing policies. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court obviously is privy to the

national drug epidemic among teenagers and has been supportive of random drug testing policies for

student-athletes and students involved in extra-curricular activities. The Supreme Court has been

supportive of random student drug testing policies because it provides public schools a means to


control and address drug use with students. Since there has been unlimited data providing a rationale

for random student drug testing programs, it’s important to examine their effectiveness. McKinney

examined sixty-five Indiana high schools with random student drug testing programs. A survey of

these high schools revealed that the “majority of respondents reported that student drug use had

decreased since the program began, and that the random student drug testing program did not affect

student activity participation levels adversely” (McKinney, 2006, p.2). In addition, principals that were

interviewed did not believe random student drug testing policies had a negative affect on prevention

classroom programs. Equally as important, the surveyed high schools illustrated that forty-five percent

increased in student activities, forty-six percent increased in student

participation in athletics, and seventy-nine percent of the schools achieved higher graduation rates

since the inception of random student drug testing programs. Therefore, quantitative and qualitative

data exists supporting random student drug testing programs; however, policies of this nature are very

political in a school district. The political aspects of random student drug testing may place a burden

on school leaders, particularly school superintendents. School superintendents are the primary forces

in sustaining, promoting, and establishing future random student drug testing policies. The final aspect

of this paper will focus on the future of random student drug testing policies in United States public

schools.

In order to examine the future of random student drug testing programs it’s paramount in

understanding the superintendent’s perspective, financial dilemma, and the option of providing

prevention programs.

The superintendent of a school district must be a strong proponent of random student drug testing

programs for a school board to consider adopting policies of this nature. Furthermore, the

superintendent should provide quantitative and qualitative reasons supporting random student drug


testing programs and the overall benefit the programs will have for its student population. Research

pertaining to studying superintendents and their attitudes toward random student drug testing policies

is limited and unsupportive. A study completed by DeMitchell, Carroll, and Schram in 2006 focused

on superintendents and drug testing policies. According to the study

only “15 percent” of superintendents were considering creating a drug testing policy after the

Vernonia court case and “69 percent” were not considering to develop one at all (p.2). Equally as

important, the research focused on twenty-five school districts which currently have random

student drug testing policies for student-athletes and the attitudes of school superintendents toward

such policies. As previously stated many superintendents were not interested in developing random

student drug testing policies after Vernonia, and “thirty-nine percent” of superintendents strongly

believe that their communities will not support random student drug testing for student-athletes

(Carroll, DeMitchell, & Schram, 2006, p.12). The rationale behind school superintendents in this study

not advocating for the implementation on random student drug testing policies revolves around four

main factors. The four pertinent factors superintendents consider are “personal viewpoint, school

board’s viewpoint, research, and court decisions” (Carroll, DeMitchell, & Schram, 2006, p. 16). The

main factor regarding the superintendent perspective evolves around the political nature of the

superintendent position. As evidence has indicated in this research paper (see McKinney), there is an

overall benefit for public schools that adopt random student drug testing policies for student-athletes.

However, superintendents have to weigh the positive benefit and the school board’s perspective in

considering drug testing policies as an option. According to Charles Russo and Timothy Ilg, authors of

the article “Drug Testing of Students: Suggestions for Sound Policy Development,” public school

superintendents should follow a specific protocol when contemplating on adopting random student


drug testing policies for student-athletes (p. 2, 1999). For example, the authors state school

superintendents should have a discussion with the board of education and provide

drug use data among current students (p.2, 1999). Next, the superintendent should consider the

“community’s attitude toward the perceived drug problem and review pre-existing and policies and

practices” (Ilg and Russo, 1999, p.2). Then, the school superintendent should formulate a

district task force pertaining to a random student drug testing program for student-athletes, followed

by drafting a policy (Ilg and Russo, 1999, p.2). Another important aspect of the task force and the

superintendent would be to “examine the cost factors” when considering adopting a drug testing policy

for student-athletes, which is a segue to the next aspect of this research.

Russo and Ilg found drug testing students would cost twenty to thirty dollars per test for illegal

drugs, and to test for steroids would be one hundred dollars per sample (p.2, 1999). Equally as

important, the authors point out that other expenses would be a significant cost factor such as

providing funds for staff to coordinate the testing (Ilg and Russo, p.2, 1999). In addition, according to

the National Federation of High Schools there are many financial factors to consider when drug testing

student-athletes. There are two main types of drug tests or methods available to schools. First, the

immunoassay or radioimmunoassay, which is utilized for testing drugs such as amphetamines,

marijuana, cocaine, opiates, and PCP

(www.nfhs.org/web/2004/04/drug_testing_how_much_does_drug_testing_cost). The second drug test

is gas chromatography-mass spectrometry which screens for steroids. The cost of immunoassay test is

between twenty and fifty dollars and for gas chromatography is between eighty and one hundred

twenty dollars. Also, if a school would like to test for additional drugs, such as alcohol, nicotine, and

LSD the cost would increase ten dollars per substance,

(www.nfhs.org/web/2004/04/drug_testing_how_much_does_drug_testing_cost). Even though

http://www.nfhs.org/web/2004/04/drug_testing_how_much_does_drug_testing_cost



random student drug testing programs are fantastic in theory, they are extremely expensive. Major

public high schools in the suburban areas of Chicago typically will have a range of four to six hundred

athletes for the year. If a school decides to drug test student-athletes the accrued cost

will be astronomical and considering the financial status of many districts in the state of Illinois,

implementing random student drug testing programs is not a viable of option. Therefore,

superintendents and school districts may want to pursue less expensive options that may be productive

in reducing drug use amongst student-athletes. Drug use prevention programs may be an affordable

option for public schools that don’t have the financial resources to implement random student drug

testing programs.

The Illinois High School Association, which is the organization that oversees public and private

schools that offer athletic teams, provides prevention resources to high schools in Illinois. For

example, the IHSA offers a free program that encompasses the Illinois Learning Standards and

provides resources on preventing steroid use among high school student-athletes

(http://www.ihsa.org/sportmed/success.htm). As far as the National level is concerned the National

Federation of High Schools has “taken a proactive role toward nationwide steroid awareness by

establishing a campaign titled “Make the Right Choice” (www.nfhs.org/web/2005/0/nfhs). The

program provides public schools with educational DVD’s with video highlights from high profile

athletes and coaches on the negative effects of steroids. Furthermore, “Make the Right Choice”

provides schools with posters and brochures with the nuts and bolts of steroid abuse (Bubp, 2005, p.1).

Another program that has been proactive in preventing steroid abuse with student-athletes is called

“ATLAS.” ATLAS is defined as the

http://www.nfhs.org/web/2005/0/nfhs

http://www.ihsa.org/sportmed/success.htm


Adolescents Training and Learning to Avoid Steroids program (Mathias, 1997, p. 2). The purpose of

the program is to provide training and information to parents and students about the harmful effects of

steroids and give the appropriate “knowledge and skills to resist steroid use”

(Mathias, 1997, p.2). It is apparent that state and national high school associations focus on steroid use

among athletes; however, public schools and school leaders may continue to look at local resources to

provide educational prevention opportunities.

The purpose of this research was to examine the past, present, and future of random student drug

testing programs for high school student-athletes. The research analyzed precedent setting U.S.

Supreme Court cases pertaining to search and seizure and the Fourth Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution. Furthermore, the research analyzed The Board of Education of Independent School

District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls 536 U.S. 822 case, which expanded random student

drug testing programs to other extra-curricular activities. Furthermore, the research addressed the

superintendent’s perspective, financial costs, and the benefit of prevention programs that focused on

steroids. In closing, it’s important to reiterate that random student drug testing programs may be

beneficial for public schools to control and address drug abuse within its student population. However,

the financial cost of these programs may not be a realistic option for most public schools.


References

Bjorklun, E.C. (1994). School locker searches and the fourth amendment. West’s Education Law Reporter, 92, 1-8.

Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002).

Bubp, J. (2005). NFHS encourages support of steroid education. Retrieved on March 14, 2007 from www.nfhs.org/web/2005/07/nfhs_encourages_support_of_steroid.aspx.

Carroll, DeMitchell, & Schram (2006). Student drug testing policies: The Superintendent and the courts. West’s Education Law Reporter, 206, 1-26.

Champion, W.T. (1997). A critical look at the so called locker room mentality as a Means to rationalize the drug testing of student-athletes. Villanova Sports and Entertainment Law Journal, 4, 8297 words.

Drug Testing-How Much Does Drug Testing Cost? Retrieved on March 14, 2007 from www.nfhs.org/web/2004/04/drug_testing_how_much_does_drug_testing_cost.

Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987).


Ilg, T.J. & Russo, C.J. (1999). Drug testing of students: Suggestions for sound Policy development. West’s Education Law Reporter, 134, 1-4.

Lloyd, D., O’Malley, P., Yamaguchi, R. (2003). The Relationship between Student Illicit Drug Use and School Drug Testing Policies. Journal of School Health, (Retrieved February 4, 2007 from Eric FirstSearch, ERIC No. ED. 476 910).

Mathias, R. (1997). Steroid program scores with high school athletes. National Institute of Drug Abuse, 12, 1-4.

McKinney, J.R. (2006). The effectiveness and legality of random student drug Testing programs revisited. West’s Education Law Reporter, 205, 19- 31.

Moreno J.D. & Shamoo, A.E. (2004). Ethics of research involving mandatory drug Testing of high school athletes in oregon. American Journal of Bioethics, 4, 25-31.

New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985).



http://www.nfhs.org/web/2005/07/nfhs_encourages_support_of_steroid.aspx


Russo, C.J. and Morse, T.E. (1995) Drug testing of student athletes: Another weapon in the war against drugs. School Business Affairs 61 (12): 60-62.

Schaill v. Tippecanoe County School Corporation, 864 F. 2d 1309 (1988).

School to Test for Student’s Weekend Drinking. Retrieved January 31, 2007 from www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/01/30teen.drinking.ap/index.html

Shields, E.W. (1998). Relative likelihood of in-season and off season use of alcohol by High school athletes in North Carolina: Trends and current status. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 43, 48-63.

Taylor, R. (1997). Compensating behavior and the drug testing of high school athletes. Cato Journal, 16.

Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995).

Wang, J. and Moyer, C. (2007, February 13). Oswego Residents, Schools Mourn Lost, Injured Teens. The Aurora Beacon News. Retrieved February 18, 2007, from http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/254474,2_1_AU13_FATALCRASH_S2.article.

.

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/254474,2_1_AU13_

http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/01/30teen.drinking.ap/index.html

random student-athlete drug testing in illinois high schools

Sports

drug testing studentathletes

high school sports

effectiveness of drug

drug testing students

high school youll

future of random drug

school administration

certain school districts