The school board for the regional high schools continues its discussion concerning the disciplinary code for students as it relates to conduct away from school grounds. Present school policy covers events that are not held on school property, so the proposed code is intended to incorporate behavior of students when they are presumably accountable to the authority of their parents or the laws governing society as a whole.
The subject of the proposed disciplinary code has elicited reaction from parents from all three towns, the vast majority of them voicing opposition to the proposal based on numerous and varied arguments. The Journal covered the last Board meeting which brought in more residents than discussions on the over forty million dollar school budget. It was evidence that in this district, when it comes to children, money is usually a secondary issue.
The school board has scheduled an August 11th meeting in the Indian Hills Auditorium to continue the public discussion on the disciplinary code concerning conduct away from school. The previous article published by The Journal, Judge, Jury and Education covered a variety of issues, but focused on parents expressing concern on lack of fairness in the code. This article continues to explore the subject in different veins that may clarify some of the other issues raised.
One subject raised by residents was the process of school administrators passing judgment with regard to a criminal matter that had yet to be resolved through the judicial system. Acknowledging that the judicial system itself is imperfect, residents pointed to the checks and balances offered a defendant and found the school policy lacking those safeguards. There was concern that various districts throughout the state have different disciplinary codes, and they did not want local youth to be at a disadvantage due to these discrepancies. A review of disciplinary measures of local high schools did reveal that these are legitimate concerns.
The New Jersey Department of Education lists school “report cards” detailing a listing of various economic, academic and proportional statistics for each school district. The RIH district lists a percentage of school suspensions for 2006-07 that is more than double that of most other regional and township high schools in the area. In addition, as the percentage of school suspensions in these other districts have been dropping over the last three years, the number of suspensions in the RIH district has increased significantly. This would appear to support parental concerns that variance in disciplinary actions in school districts could negatively impact future options with regard to higher education.
The Board has indicated that the proposed code was the result of a survey that indicated underage drinking was a serious problem amongst the student population, and that a significant number of students acknowledged drinking while their parents were at home. This would appear to justify the Board needing to assume a responsibility being abdicated by the parents of students. There was no clarification concerning whether this was drinking in a familial setting or surreptitious drinking.
The last Board meeting provided only a vague understanding of what, if any, safeguards are in place to prevent abuse of the disciplinary code. The Board stated that disgruntled students seeking to inform on other students would not be tolerated, it did not address the issue of anonymous calls to the police who have a responsibility to respond to legitimate concerns they receive. The case of a school district in Minneapolis exemplifies another issue of concern where implementation of the proposed code lends itself to abuse. Just recently, teachers there searched the FaceBook website seeking out websites with pictures of students drinking and ended up reprimanding over 100 hundred students–including the suspension from extracurricular activities for some.
The RIH district spends significantly more money per student for extracurricular activities in comparison to other top performing schools in New Jersey, and it is assumed that many parents value this element of their child’s education. But because extracurricular activities are deemed privileges rather than a right under the NJ and US Constitution, many school districts are using their authority to suspend students from these activities as a disciplinary tool. Not understanding the legal restraints schools face, many parents are confused as to why school boards would target students who are least likely to be substance abusers, and deny the activities to those whom would benefit the most from being in positive structured environments proven to diminish substance abuse.
One school district in Maryland revised their conduct policy to remove the disciplinary measures imposed because of misconduct away from school. The school board in Carroll County voted unanimously this July to eliminate the part of the policy that deals with incidents outside of school. Although the policy had previously been approved, parents and residents felt it was too restrictive.
CNN’s physician-reporter Sanjay Gupta has advised that, “…even a small drink, even only a sip early on in life could be a problem later on.” But many researchers and practitioners in substance abuse, particularly alcohol, believe that addressing the issue of responsible drinking needs to begin well before one reaches the legal drinking age. Their argument is that teens raised to drink responsibly in a familial setting are less likely to use alcohol as a form of rebellion. Educating young adults to learn limits may help discourage dangerous behavior when seniors in high school transform into college freshmen.
Various organizations are approaching the underage drinking problem from a different perspective. John McCradell, the former president of Middlebury College, believes the binge drinking prevalent in colleges can be rectified by lowering the drinking age in America to eighteen. The national drinking age of 21 was imposed by Congress through control of the purse by denying federal funds for transportation to states that did not raise the drinking age to 21. The organization he founded, Choose Responsibility, believes that legal adults, those 18 years of age, should have the opportunity to apply for a license to drink and purchase alcohol much the same way drivers are licensed.