Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Drug Testing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
School board tables proposed random drug, alcohol testing policy after public concerns about scope, equity and penalties
Summary
The Roswell Independent School District board voted to table a second-reading update to policy J4450 on random drug and alcohol testing after public comment and board members raised concerns about the 45‑day penalty, inconsistent application across activities, testing costs and the need for broader stakeholder input.
The Roswell Independent School District Board on Jan. 13, 2025 voted to table a proposed update to policy J4450 (drug use in school activities; random drug and alcohol testing) after public comment and a lengthy board discussion about the policy’s scope, penalties and equity.
A parent and substance‑use prevention coordinator who identified herself as the coordinator of substance abuse prevention at La Casa Community Behavioral Health urged the board to delay action so community experts, coaches and students could provide further input. She said the proposed 45‑day suspension for students found in violation is “a very long period of time,” that enforcement has not been equal across schools and student needs vary. She described a personal case: her son, who has an IEP and takes medication for ADHD and “had severe PTSD” after witnessing a teammate’s murder, told her “if I did not have football, I don't know where I would be right now,” and that removing extracurriculars could harm students who rely on them as protective factors.
The public comment prompted board members to raise questions about the policy’s reach and consistency. Board member James Edwards argued the district was testing athletes while other student groups were effectively exempt and called for “a little bit more consistency” across activities, saying “we're letting everybody else get a pass.” Edwards moved to table the policy and to reconvene a policy committee with additional stakeholders; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote. The board did not adopt the policy at this meeting.
Board and staff discussion summarized key points raised at the meeting: the policy as written applies to extracurricular and school‑sponsored activities, not only athletic events; current practice has focused testing on NMAA‑sanctioned athletics because of cost and logistics; the proposed language seeks to close a gap that previously treated in‑season and out‑of‑season athletes differently; and middle‑school participants were explicitly included in the revised draft. Staff said the district has not historically tested non‑athletic clubs because of cost, but that consequences for possession or use could apply to members of other school organizations if the board chose to expand testing.
Cost and technical questions also figured in the discussion. Board members asked staff to return with concrete numbers for sample rounds of testing (staff noted the district typically uses a percentage‑based sampling approach) and to clarify how repeated testing across multiple seasons can lead to higher chances of any one student being selected. Several board members asked that the next discussion include community substance‑use experts, coaches and parents.
The board’s action was procedural: motion to table (mover: James Edwards; second: not specified in the record), outcome: tabled by voice vote. The district indicated it will reconvene policy committee members and return with additional information for further consideration.
Because the board tabled the matter at second reading, no changes to J4450 were adopted at this meeting. Staff said the current policy and its stated consequences remain in effect until the board takes further action.
