Pubdate: Fri, 26 Jul 2002
Source: Knoxville News-Sentinel (TN)
Copyright: 2002 The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co.
Contact:  http://www.knoxnews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/226
Author: Jennifer Lawson, News-Sentinel staff writer

REVISE ZERO TOLERANCE, SCHOOLS TOLD

A Knox County Chancery Court judge has ordered the Knox County Board of 
Education to revise its zero-tolerance policy for the second time.

The board has begun working on a draft of the change, but rewording the 
policy won't mean more expelled students will get into 
alternative-education programs instead of being out of school for a year. 
That was the goal of the lawsuit that produced the order.

Beginning this year, the school system will offer an alternative school 
class to 15 zero-tolerance offenders. Just over 170 students were expelled 
under the policy, which is modeled after state law, last school year.

Chancellor Sharon Bell gave the school board time to amend the policy that 
governs student expulsions for zero-tolerance offenses - possession of 
drugs, weapons and physical attacks on teachers - before she ruled that the 
policy, as it exists, violates a March 2001 court order, state law and the 
Tennessee Constitution.

"The chancellor looked at me and said, 'I can rule against you right now or 
you can go back to your board and ask them to reform their policy in a way 
that gives these students procedural due process,' " school board attorney 
Marty McCampbell told board members at a recent board workshop. The ruling, 
filed July 8, came as part of an ongoing lawsuit brought by the parents of 
two Halls High School freshmen who were expelled in September 2000 for 
taking or possessing someone else's prescription sleeping pills. The 
lawsuit claimed that free public education is a right granted by the U.S. 
and Tennessee constitutions, regardless of the expulsions.

The judge agreed and in March 2001 ordered the school board to revise its 
policy in accordance with state law and "constitutional guarantees afforded 
the plaintiffs."

The school board did revise the policy in April 2001 by adding a clause 
stating that all students expelled under zero tolerance would be considered 
for placement in an alternative school.

But the plaintiffs' lawyers asked the judge to rule that the school board 
had violated the order because 141 students' cases had been reviewed 
between April 2001 and April 2002 and none had been placed in alternative 
education.

School board members are not opposed to placing the expelled students in 
alternative school; in fact, many support the idea. The problem is money, 
they say.

"The argument we made as far as why we hadn't accepted 140 students is we 
had run out of funding," Superintendent Charles Lindsey told board members. 
He cited the state budget crisis and the mid-year cut of $9 million from 
the school system's budget.

"There's certainly not any funding to go off and start alternative 
schools," he said.

McCampbell told the board she didn't think the judge got past the fact that 
141 students' cases were reviewed but none got in.

In addition to the change made last year, the proposed wording of the 
policy will state that students involved in zero-tolerance behavior may be 
considered for alternative educational services, including homebound 
services, Richard Yoakley Alternative School and other services as they 
become available. The change also stipulates that the superintendent will 
consider factors such as seriousness of offense, previous discipline 
records, grades and attendance.

School board member Sam Anderson wondered how the school system can argue 
that it has no money for alternative school services for expelled students 
when money left over at the end of the year is transferred into the fund 
balance.

"How can we argue that we couldn't have contracted with personnel to do 
evening and alternative school?" Anderson asked. "I think that's where 
we're in a jam."

The school system did offer a pilot summer school program to 71 expelled 
students this summer. Only 31 took advantage of the one-month program that 
lets them return to school Aug. 13 instead of in January or February.

School board Chairman Jim McClain said the board has already revised the 
policy to include changes in the state law and now twice for the local 
court. He wondered if the state law the policy is based on can survive.

"I think zero tolerance is doomed eventually," McClain said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Tom