Pubdate: Fri, 25 Nov 2005
Source: Bluefield Daily Telegraph (WV)
Copyright: 2005 Bluefield Daily Telegraph
Contact:  http://www.bdtonline.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1483
Author: Jeff Fleming, Princeton Times
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?225 (Students - United States)

STUDENT RIGHTS UP FOR REVIEW

PRINCETON - A student's right to carry a Walkman or  cell phone to
school, to have flowers delivered to  their girlfriend or boyfriend on
Valentine's Day and  what they may wear were all up for debate Tuesday
night  at the Mercer County Board of Education meeting.

The board conducted the first reading of changes to the  Student Code
of Conduct. Though it was just the first  reading, and no vote was
taken on the changes, board  member Greg Prudich voiced several
concerns about the  policies.

Section 3.3.A.8 of the code, entitled "Possession  of
Inappropriate Personal Property," states, "A  student will not
possess personal property that is  prohibited by school rules or that
is disruptive to  teaching and learning."

Prudich argued that the statement was too vague, and he  could think
of many items that would not be  inappropriate in normal
circumstances, but if used in a  wrong manner, could be disruptive. He
stated that the  students could argue the property was not
inappropriate, but they could still use it to disrupt  class. He
suggested expanding the definition, but  admitted he was not sure how
to do so. Others argued  that some items, such as cell phones and
Walkmans,  which might be appropriate during lunch times, would
obviously be inappropriate during class time.

The next topic addressed was a section regarding dress  and grooming.
The policy states, "Students will  not dress or groom in a manner
that disrupts the  educational process or is detrimental to the
health,  safety or welfare of others." It also states that  students
will not dress in an indecent manner.

Prudich argued that since a separate dress code was  already
established, having this section in the code of  conduct would
complicate matters. He voiced concern  that students could violate the
dress code, but not the  code of conduct, and therefore technically be
following  the rules.

Prudich also pointed out another inconsistency with the  new Code of
Conduct. Two rules, one a Level II  violation, which carries up to a
10-day suspension from  school, and the other, a Level III violation,
which  could mean expulsion, were found to be similar.

The Level II violation states, in part, that "A  student will not
ignore or refuse to comply with  directions given by school
authorities."

The Level III violation reads, "A student will not  willfully
disobey a teacher."

Prudich argued that the two rules were too similar, and  it would be
up to the authorities to decide which  violation the student had
broken. This could result in  some students receiving different
punishments for the  same infraction. Others stated that the Level II
violation meant a student simply ignoring an authority  figure, while
the Level III violation would mean a  student going out of his or her
way to disobey. A  second reading of the School Interruption Policy
was  also conducted. The revised policy restricts  announcements made
over the public address system and  phone calls to both teachers and
students to emergency  calls only.

A new section bans vendors from delivering flowers,  food or other
retail items to any Mercer County School.  Vendors must now make the
deliveries to the student's  home, or private address.

One public comment received on the interruption policy  argued that
the new section would create a hardship on  rural students, where
at-home delivery is difficult.  The board also addressed the growing
problem of cell  phone use, and whether teachers were using them
during  instructional time. They concluded that the individual
schools would be responsible for taking action if a  teacher was found
to be doing so. The policy passed  unanimously, with the exception of
board member Lynne  White, who was ill and not present.

A first reading the Substance Abuse Policy was also on  the agenda.
The policy has been changed to reflect a  new policy of testing any
students when suspected of  being under the influence of any of the
prohibited or  illegal substances described in the policy.

While he commended the policy, Prudich did find one  area
questionable.

"I do not see why the law enforcement agencies  need to be
contacted if a student has a positive drug  test," said Prudich.
"I don't see what they could  do if we contacted them." The
policy itself simply  states that school authorities would have the
right to  test any student for drug use, if they suspected the
student was currently under the influence. Board member  Gene Bailey
also liked the policy.

"I think this is more important than the random  drug-testing
policy," Bailey said. Superintendent Dr.  Deborah Akers added that
this policy helps to get at  the students not covered by the random
drug testing  policy.

All of the issues raised, concerning both the Substance  Abuse Policy
and the Code of Conduct, will be addressed  by the legal counsel for
the board, and changes may be  made. The next regular board meeting
will be on Dec.  20. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake