CASE SHOWS LEGAL PROBLEMS WITH 'ZERO TOLERENCE'

BOSTON -- Like their counterparts in many other school districts,
officials in Easthampton wanted to show local students that they
wouldn't take drug use lightly.

So several years ago, they enacted a "zero tolerance" policy. Those
caught with drugs would be kicked out.

It didn't quite work as planned. Now, the town is paying undisclosed
settlements to four students who sued after being expelled for
marijuana possession.

The case raises questions about the conflicts between schools' desire
to be tough, and students' rights to education and due process.

Under the 1993 Education Reform Act, drug use and possession is one of
several serious offenses for which students can be expelled from
school. The law, however, requires that students be allowed to have
their say.

Expulsion can range from 11 days to banishment from school for
good.

"You can't say expelled automatically. That's an oxymoron," said Peter
Sack, principal of Swampscott High School. "Expulsion by definition
requires a hearing."

The problem in Easthampton dates back to April 1997, when five
students -- three seniors and two juniors -- were expelled for alleged
marijuana possession during a school trip to Canada.

A school policy called for automatic dismissal for drug possession at
school or school-related functions.

Four of the students sued, in two different courts. Hampshire Superior
Court Judge Wendie Gershengorn reinstated the students and later ruled
that the school committee did not have the authority to draft a policy
calling for automatic expulsion.

She said the Education Reform Act was designed to have school
principals dole out punishments on a case-by-case basis. If the
settlements had not been made, the courts would have had to decide
whether the students' civil rights had been violated.

"Unfortunately schools tend to be run by educators and not by lawyers,
so chances are we are going to make mistakes with that judicial
process," said John Cullinan, who took over as Easthampton's
superintendent last summer.

The town must now pay undisclosed amounts to the four students who
sued.

"Zero tolerance policies strike me as being completely absurd," said
Holyoke lawyer Geri Laventis, who represented one of the juniors. "To
me, what it does is it just says that you're not going to get a chance
at all."

More and more districts are enacting such policies, although it's
unclear how many, said Peter Finn, executive director of the
Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents.

For school administrators, it isn't an easy decision to expel a child
caught with drugs.

On the one hand, principals and superintendents want to protect the
other children from a student who is using or distributing illegal
substances.

On the other hand, said Wayne Ogden, principal of Duxbury High School,
"If I expel a kid, and especially in a case of a student without
financial means, I may have given him an educational death sentence in
the commonwealth of Massachusetts."

Under state law, a public school may refuse to admit a student who has
been expelled from another school or district.

There is a loophole, however. A suspended student who is facing
expulsion can withdraw from school before a more severe punishment is
administered and enroll elsewhere.