Mandatory Drug Testing of Student Athletes: A Policy Response to Vernonia School District,47J v. Acton

Abstract

The prevalence of drugs on the campuses of our nation's schools is of great concern to parents, educators, and society in general. To combat the rising tide of drug use a school district in Vernonia, Oregon passed a mandatory random drug testing policy which was later upheld by the United States Supreme Court. This research studied the response to this court case by surveying randomly selected superintendents in five geographic regions of the nation. The data sought to ascertain if any policy actions would be taken in response to the United States Supreme Court decision and whether superintendents believe that suspicionless, random drug testing of student athletes is effective in combating drug use in our schools.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Acton v. Vernonia School District, 47J, 23 F.3d 1514 (9th Cir. 1994).

Anable v. Ford, 663 F. Supp. 149 (W.D. Ark. 1985).

Author. 1995. “U.S. Says Teen-Age Drug Use Is Up,” Boston Globe (December 16): 12.

Bjorklun

E. C.

School Locker Searches and the Fourth Amendment. 92

Ed. Law Rep. [1065] (Oct. 6, 1994).

Brooks v. East Chambers Consolidated Independent School District, 730 F.Supp. 759 (S.D. Tex. 1989).

Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967).

DeMitchell

T. A.

1994. “Security: An Emerging Fundamental Value in Educational Policy Making?” International Journal of Educational Reform, 3: 348–353.

DeMitchell

T. A.

1995a. “The Fourth Amendment and Student Drug Testing Policies: A Split Decision in the Federal Courts,” International Journal of Educational Reform, 4(3): 362–368.

DeMitchell

T. A.

1995b. “Student Drug Testing Policies: The Supreme Court Decides: Part Two,” International Journal of Educational Reform, 4: 488–495.

10.

Horowitz

D. L.

1977. The Courts and Social Policy. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

11.

Hostetler

A. J.

1995. “More than 1 in 10 Report Going to High School Armed, CDC Says,” Boston Globe(April 1): 3.

12.

In Interest of Dumas, 515 A.2d 984 (1986).

13.

In re Frederick B., 237 Cal. Rptr. 338 (1987).

14.

National Education Goals Panel. 1994. The National Education Goals Report: Building a Nation of Learners. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

15.

National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989).

16.

New Jersey v. T.L.O., 105 S.Ct. 733 (1985).

17.

Odenheim v. Carlstadt-East Rutherford Regional School District, 510 A.2d 709 (1985).

18.

People v. Taylor, 192 Ill. Dec. 630 (Ill. App. 4 Dist. 1993).

19.

Reich

R. B.

, ed. 1988. “Policy Making in a Democracy,” in The Power of Public Ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 123–156.

20.

Schaill v. Tippecanoe County School Corporation, 864 F.2d 1309 (7th Cir. 1988).

21.

Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association, 489 U.S. 602 (1989).

22.

Sommerfeld

1993. “About 10% of Youths Say They Have Fired a Gun or Been Shot, A New Survey Finds,” Education Week (Aug. 4): 21.

23.

State ex real Juvenile Department of Washington County v. Dubois, No. J89-0333, Dec. 18, 1991.

24.

State of New Hampshire v. Drake, No. 93-604, June 27, 1995.

25.

Stefkovich

J. A.

1995. “The Status of Student Drug Testing in the Public Schools after Schaill and Acton,” Illinois School Law Quarterly, 15(2): 58–71.

26.

T.J. v. State, 538 So.2d 1320 (Fla. App. 1989).

27.

Vernonia School District, 47J v. Acton, 63 USLW 4653, 115 S.Ct. 2386 (June 26, 1995).

28.

Wirt

F. M.

, and Kirst

M. W.

1982. Schools in Conflict. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.