Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears staff research on randomized drug‑testing for extracurricular participants, including costs and legal considerations
Summary
Staff outlined models used by neighboring divisions, legal precedent (Veronia v. Acton), proposed program mechanics (consent, third‑party testing, confidentiality), and preliminary cost estimates ($95/test; program cost depending on scope estimated $103k–$126k). Board requested further study, an RFP and a stakeholder committee before any program start.
Roanoke County School Board members received an extensive briefing on the legal, logistical and budgetary implications of a randomized drug‑testing program for students who participate in extracurricular activities.
Dr. Jamie Sulttus reviewed models adopted by nearby divisions and cited U.S. Supreme Court precedent affirming randomized testing for student athletes (Veronia School District v. Acton). She emphasized that under the proposed prevention‑focused approach no student would be expelled or suspended from school solely because of a verified positive test conducted under the program: “No student shall be expelled or suspended from school as the sole result of any verified positive test conducted by the school under this program,” Sulttus said.
Staff outlined two common sample models used locally: Salem’s approach (testing 20% of participants in each activity) and a pooled‑approach used elsewhere that randomizes a percentage across all activities. Both use independent third‑party vendors for sample selection and collection; schools provide on‑site logistics and custodial support. Confidentiality procedures were described: test results are shared only with the student, the parent/guardian and school staff with a need to know, and test records are not kept in academic files.
Consequences described in neighboring programs include assessment and rehabilitative referral (often partner services paid by parents) and activity suspensions (for example, 14 days for a first confirmed positive in one model). Staff noted variations: some divisions treat nicotine as a single‑offense with no cumulative penalty, while marijuana or other drug positives can be cumulative over a defined period.
Budget estimates: staff gave a vendor estimate (about $95 per test excluding steroid panels) and calculated that testing extracurricular participants at a 10% randomized rate would cost roughly $103,000; including parking‑permit holders or steroid testing could raise the cost to about $126,000. Staff recommended a staged process — form a stakeholder committee, issue an RFP to obtain firm pricing, and plan any implementation for the start of a full school year after community engagement.
Board direction: several members supported further study and a community‑stakeholder committee; staff were asked to develop an RFP and to return with a recommendation rather than implementing a program immediately.
