An Administrator's Guide to California Private School Law

Chapter 10 - Privacy Rights Of Students And Employees

physical exams and rules regulating their conduct a higher degree of regulation than is required of the rest of the student body.” 1742 Finally, the Supreme Court noted that the school district was facing a great increase of disciplinary problems, fueled by drug and alcohol abuse. 1743 Seven years after the Vernonia decision, the United States Supreme Court in Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls , once again upheld a public school policy that allowed urinalysis drug testing for middle and high school students who engaged in extracurricular activities. 1744 While the federal authorities provide guidance with regard to drug testing students, private Schools in California should be aware that their students are protected under California’s Constitution which has often been construed “as providing greater protection than that afforded by parallel provisions of the United States Constitution.” 1745 For example, in an unpublished decision, a California Court of Appeal found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction preventing a public school district from enforcing a drug- testing policy that required students to provide a urine samples on demand. 1746 The school’s random drug testing policy covered all students who participate in Competitive Representational Activities (CRA's), including competitive, extra-curricular or co-curricular activities. Such activities included athletics, choir, band, science bowl, trimathlon, mock trial, bowling club, chess club, photography club, future business leaders of America, and future farmers of America. The activities encompassed by the policy included graded courses and courses that satisfy admission requirements for the University of California and California State University. The school district tested for methamphetamine, chlorochromate, amphetamine, phencyclidine, cocaine, marijuana, methadone, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, opiates, oxycodone, nicotine, and alcohol. The Court relied on the California Constitution’s right of privacy when rendering its decision. It found that the school did not show, on balance, a need to test the students that outweighed their right to privacy. It is important to note that the random drug testing of athletes, testing with consent, or testing based upon a reasonable suspicion of drug use or possession, was not challenged by the students or discussed by the court. The Court of Appeal found that the school district did not show a specialized need to target students participating in CRA's for drug and alcohol testing or that an acute problem of drug or alcohol use among this population of students existed. 1747 We recommend that drug and alcohol testing policies contain the following elements:  Schools should identify the need to test the targeted population of students, such as athletes or students who participate in overnight trips, due to disciplinary problems that arise from alcohol or drug use.  The policy should explain its purposes. For example, a school adopts a drug

and alcohol testing policy for the safety, welfare and best interests of its students, to address disciplinary problems and to promote a drug-free campus.  The policy should explain the manner in which the drug testing is implemented. For example, testing may be done randomly after obtaining written consent to testing as a condition of participation athletic activities.

An Administrator’s Guide to California Private School Law ©2019 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 391