Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor:

Lately, there has been some discussion in the local media regarding whether or not the District 17 Board of Education's expulsion policy for possession of drugs or alcohol on school property or at school events (away sporting events, field trips, etc.) is too harsh. The Board also met with concerned students, parents and others from the community on March 3, 2005 , to listen to some of their concerns on both sides of the issue.

The Board wishes to thank those who have engaged in this active debate, both at the March 3 meeting and through subsequent communications. If nothing else, we feel that raising community awareness of the problem of drugs and alcohol in school (and this is a problem that schools everywhere are wrestling with, not just District 17) can only be beneficial in helping to thwart the problem in the long run. And, we genuinely appreciate some of the creative expulsion alternatives put forth during the March 3 meeting. They will certainly be considered as options in future deliberations.

We would also like to take this opportunity to clarify some things and to express our viewpoint. While it might be frustrating both to the reader and to the Board, please understand that we are not at liberty to divulge particulars regarding any of the expulsion incidents, even if some of those particulars have, correctly or incorrectly, been made public.

Much has been made of the Board's "zero tolerance" policy and many have commented that "zero tolerance" policies have been proven to be ineffective. This begs the question of what exactly is a "zero tolerance" policy.

hearing

Our policy is not the type of policy that is generally considered a "zero tolerance" policy, the type believed to be proven ineffective. On the other hand, some of our critics have asked to see our guidelines (they don't exist for reasons explained above) or have even insisted that we adopt guidelines that would specify a punishment for a particular set of circumstances. This is ironic, because this is precisely the type of policy that would fall into the ineffective "zero tolerance" category.

In light of all this, on March 28, the Board's Policy Subcommittee met and agreed that there is nothing wrong with the current policy as written. Instead, we feel that the displeasure is not so much with the policy itself as with the discretion exercised by the Board in the administration of the policy. However, the public probably is unaware that there have been cases where, based on the evidence, the Board has determined that the administration failed to prove its case. There have also been cases where, based on the particulars of the case and the record of the student, no expulsion was recommended. And in both of these types of cases, the Board was exercising its independent discretion and was not following the recommendation of the administration.

Our policy, and the fairly strict administration thereof, are not new. Yet despite the number of expulsions over the last few years, we find it interesting, at best, that the issue only surfaced now.

We have been accused of having our decision made before the hearing, based on the fact that the decision is read to the student and part of what is read is typed in advance. While it is true that some of the language is "boilerplate legalese" typed out in advance, as indicated above, the particulars of the decision are based on the hearing and are in no way pre-determined.

Much of the criticism has focused on the impact of our decisions on the students being expelled. While this is certainly a genuine concern - one which we certainly share and take into account - we also have to consider the impact of our decisions on all of the other students in the school. Our goal is to provide a drug and alcohol free environment. We want to keep these substances away from our school. One way to do that is to prevent those involved in these incidents from having access to the school, at least for a while. What message is sent if we allow these same students right back into the schools the very next day to serve an in-school expulsion, as has been suggested by some?

Speaking of in-school expulsion, some have suggested that providing a tutor to whose we expel outside of school is costly to the communities. People should know that the cost of providing constant supervision for in-school expulsion would cost significantly more to the taxpayers. But we hasten to add that our motivation is not cost-related.

The fact that the Board has received comments recently regarding an improvement and cleaning up of the high school's reputation suggests that the expulsion decisions are having a positive effect on the rest of the students in the school who are not participating in the misconduct.

A writer to the Haddam Bulletin likened the administration's tactics to those of Hitler's Gestapo, a truly unfortunate reference to those who lived in Germany under the Nazis. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the administration is obligated to follow up when a situation is referred to them, which is how most of these incidents occur. Sometimes a teacher overhears something or students tell something they know. Investigating such reports is not a case of administrative abuse of power. Administrators cannot turn their backs when someone tells them of an improper situation.

It should also be noted that several months ago, the Board of Ed ucation rejected the idea of using dogs to sniff lockers throughout the schools on a periodic basis with no justifiable cause. Those who generally support our strict expulsions did not agree with our rejecting the drug-sniffing dogs, but we felt it was the right decision to make.

Finally, we strongly feel that everyone in the community - but especially parents and the students themselves - have to accept responsibility for the upbringing of our young people. It's very easy to point a finger at the schools - they're too lax (which we used to hear) or too strict (which is more commonly heard now) - as if the schools are the only ones responsible for the values and actions of our youth. Remember, the schools are not to blame when a kid brings drugs or alcohol to school, on a field trip, or to any other school-sponsored activity.

As the Board of Education for Regional School District No. 17, we will continue to hold the interests and safety of all our students as our primary goal, and we will always welcome public input on this and other issues critical to meeting the needs of our children. We do not take our responsibility as elected officials lightly. You have asked us to protect, educate and guide our communities' children; this is a significant trust you place in us. With that in mind, we will continue to make decisions that we believe are in the best interest of all of our children.

We hope you will actively express your opinions on issues affecting our children. Agendas for all upcoming Board of Education meetings can be found a www.rsd17.org (click on " Board of Education" on the menu at the left). Come and let us know what you think.