Pubdate: Mon, 26 Mar 2007
Source: Courier-Post (Cherry Hill, NJ)
Copyright: 2007 Courier-Post
Contact:  http://www.courierpostonline.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/826
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?225 (Students - United States)

SCHOOL DISTRICT SHOULDN'T USURP PARENTAL ROLE

Moorestown officials must be careful not to overreach with discipline policy.

No parent or school official in Moorestown, or in any other South 
Jersey district, would admit supporting teenage substance abuse or 
other potentially dangerous behavior. Yet, the Moorestown school 
district's initiative to regulate the risky behavior of students off 
campus has some parents asking if administrators are being too intrusive.

As with most new regulations, interpretation and enforcement will be 
key. If parents find the school district is encroaching too far into 
their private lives or imposing regulations arbitrarily, it's up to 
them to demand change. Some in the community have already said the 
school board's new policy regarding student drug and alcohol use goes too far.

It appears Moorestown school officials, like officials throughout New 
Jersey, are trying to meet the community's insistence that they do 
more to crack down on student substance abuse and violence. Parents, 
judges and state officials throughout the nation have recognized that 
schools, who often are given the responsibility of surrogate parents, 
have a significant opportunity to help mold student behavior. But 
should schools have a say in how students behave once they leave 
school for the day, the weekend or over the summer?

Parental Responsibility

Moorestown school board officials, backed up by 30 years of case law 
and recent state Education Department regulations, say they do.

Moorestown's revised policy allows school administrators to punish 
off-campus student behavior if it meets two tests:

A student's behavior is a danger to himself or herself or a danger to 
others at the school;

And, a student's off-campus behavior will disrupt or affect school operations.

Across the country, school districts' right to suspend students from 
school or extracurricular activities for off-campus behavior has been 
regularly upheld by courts and administrative judges. But that 
doesn't mean parents should not be involved in setting school policy. .

Interim Moorestown Superintendent Timothy Brennan said nine parents 
have come to public meetings to say the board is reaching too far; 
two parents have said the board should have gone farther. Other 
parents have sent e-mails questioning the policy, he said. Two of the 
nine board members -- A.J. Kreimer and Richard Kaye -- voted against 
penalizing students' off-campus behavior when it is not directly 
related to school activities.

"I have a strong aversion to the school's reaching out and usurping 
parental responsibility," Kreimer has said.

The rules clearly encroach upon the responsibility of parents to 
control their children.

Brennan said a student who engages in underage drinking over a 
weekend, but arrives sober to school on Monday would not be subject 
to school penalties. But if the student or his friends came to school 
to spread the word about future drinking parties, they could face 
penalties, he said. Yet, it should be parents' responsibility to take 
charge of this situation and ensure their children aren't drinking at home.

But under Moorestown's revised policy, the district could suspend a 
student for 10 days and order a mandatory one-year intervention program.

The board plans to tighten the rules even further, requiring a 
mandatory 45-day suspension from extracurricular activities, such as 
sports teams and student government, if students are caught violating 
school policy on or off the campus. Unlike attending classes, 
extracurricular activities are viewed as a privilege and not a right 
under New Jersey regulations.

But that doesn't mean the district should throw kids off a sports 
team or ban them for a club because it heard about unacceptable 
off-campus behavior. Such bans without a guilty plea or conviction 
are too much of a reach by the schools.

Still, with the pervasiveness of drugs and random school violence, 
parents might need or want help keeping their children under control. 
But it is not clear whether the seven-member board majority who 
approved tightening district policy has widespread support of 
parents. The policy was approved a day after a fight between two 
Moorestown high school boys led to the discovery of lists for 
weapons, drugs and possibly drug clients. A search during a two-hour 
lockdown at the high school did not turn up weapons or drugs.

But board members had already planned to tighten the rules in 
response to four students found with cocaine and amphetamines at the 
school in December. Brennan said the tougher policy was discussed 
with parents, students and outside experts before its adoption. Based 
on feedback from some parents and board members, he said, the policy 
could be further revised.

Too Much Control?

The question for Moorestown parents and others is whether school 
boards should exercise this level of control over their children. It 
probably will take a challenge from a Moorestown family to determine 
if school administrators have gone too far. Parents might need help 
controlling their children, but most don't want to be replaced as the 
primary disciplinarian and teacher of values. The school board ought 
to revise this policy so it doesn't tread too far into punishing kids 
for things they do when they're under their parents' care. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake