Opposition to the policy lives another day due to the persistent efforts of Terry Meese. Ms. Meese came supplied with copies of NJSA statutes which outline under what circumstances a school may be allowed to impose consequences for conduct away from school. On the surface, it did not appear that the proposed policy for RIH met these standards. Other school districts in the state have implemented similar policy, so most of the Board was confident that they were within the law. Member Belsky, an ardent supporter of the proposed code, did request a delay so that he could familiarize himself further with the statutes highlighted by Ms. Meese.
The opposition to the proposed policy implementing disciplinary measures for behavior unrelated to school functions continued at was to be a final acceptance of the code. The Board of Ed has been holding open discussions on the subject for over a year now. In summary, the code provides levels of suspension from extracurricular activities based upon an accusation of criminal behavior. School administrators would conduct an investigation and hold a hearing prior to implementing the suspension.
The majority of parents expressing opposition to the code have stated that they believe the code is counter-productive, an infringement on their parental responsibilities, and unconstitutional in spirit. They have argued that the Board should not be imposing themselves into legal matters; that the code is in conflict with the American values of innocent until proven guilty; and, that it is open to abuse by creating an avenue for malicious reporting. One parent questioned the Board as to their own behavior as teenagers, which was an interesting question in light of a recent study seeming to indicate that teenagers today are more responsible. The Foundation for Child Development’s recent study showed safety and behavioral concerns to be the one area showing significant gains between 1975 and 2005. In contrast, today’s teenagers are only slightly better at math and slightly worse at reading than their middle-aged elders.
There has been very little public support for the policy, but the Board believes that the results of a survey indicated that the drinking and drug problem in the schools was significant. In previous meetings, it was noted that teenagers are drinking while their parents were home. Parents present at the meeting perceived this argument by the Board to be the basis for the expansion of school authority. As arguments against the policy have grown repetitive, one resident questioned the validity of the survey. There was not an immediate response from the Board as to whether the survey questions differentiated alcohol use in a familial setting from surreptitious drinking in the home behind a parent’s back.
The faces of opponents to the policy change from meeting to meeting, but their arguments remain constant. Many residents who have only recently become familiar with the proposed code repeatedly expressed dismay that such a highly controversial issue was being debated and voted on during the height of the summer vacation season. Others were concerned that the Board was not eager to have any additional public discussion as they have gotten into the habit of routinely changing the venue for meetings at the last minute.
Also being considered with the conduct code is a new policy concerning bullying and harassment. The proposed code available from the RIH website did not appear to meet the minimum requirements required by the State, and the Board was questioned about their commitment to what appears to be a more prevalent problem. The Board was confronted with statistics that show incidences of violence to be six times higher than the number of incidences involving alcohol or drugs. It was noted that the NJSA statute allowing the imposition of consequences was more likely intended to address issues of cyberbullying rather than other isolated instance of criminal mischief.
The question of addressing cyberbullying appears to hold the same potential for a healthy public debate. Opponents of the proposed code held differing views when it came to the school responding to cyberbullying which occurs off campus and involves issues of free speech.
Ms. Meese has been very active in opposing the proposed policy, but there does not appear to be any wavering in her efforts to prevent its imposition. Offering what she believed to be her final argument against the policy, she indicated she felt a moral obligation to challenge the policy in court. Many of the other residents speaking at the public session indicated they would support her efforts.