DISTRICT MAY REVISE ZERO-TOLERANCE POLICY

STOUGHTON --In a move away from the 'zero tolerance' policies of the 1990s,
Stoughton public school officials are considering student suspensions in
place of expulsion hearings, at least initially, for first-time offenders
involved with drug/alcohol use on school premises or at school-sponsored
events.

"We're going to do new things with first-time offenders . . . but keep some
of the old (policies)," Supt. Myron Palomba said.

Under the district's current Student Behavior and Responsibility Policy
(1009.0), mandatory consideration for expulsion, accompanied by a five-day
suspension, automatically proceeds when a student is found in: possession,
ownership, use, or intent to distribute illegal drugs.

Under the proposed Stoughton policy (1009.18) is a provision which would
suspend a student up to five days, but keep their expulsion in abeyance if
the student and parents agreed to conferences/counseling and unannounced
drug testing.

Three first-time offenders for marijuana possession who were expelled during
the current school year at Stoughton High School could have returned to
school within a week under the proposed change.

However, if the student and/or parents don't abide to a detailed
education/counseling program, the student could still be expelled.

(The three students expelled for marijuana possession at Stoughton High
School were all suspended for at least one year. Although two students were
suspended for alcohol usage this year, none were expelled.)

"The board requested that the administration draft a first-offender policy
that provides a treatment/intervention option prior to possible expulsion
for drug/alcohol use," Stoughton High School Jerry Movrich said.

"I support the new proposal, because it's another tool . . . which instead
of proceeding with expulsions, you set up intervention and educational
measures for (first-time offenders)," Movrich said.

Movrich said some board members wanted a program for the district more in
line with programs in effect at Janesville, Monona Grove and Oregon schools,
which set up intermediary stages instead of proceeding directly to an
expulsion hearing before a board of education.

Under Wisconsin statutes, only a board of education can expel a student
within its district.

"A student who is charged for possession of marijuana or any other illegal
drug, as a first-time offender, while on school premises that includes
school-owned property, vehicles on school property, or any other property
that is used for a school sponsored activity . . . shall be subject to a
pre-expulsion conference (during the student's five day suspension)," the
proposed policy reads.

The conference would include an agreement by the student and
parent/guardian, for the student to complete a ?re-entry plan? defined by
the superintendent in collaboration with professional staff.

The plan may include: a drug assessment consisting of a urine drug screen, a
comprehensive drug/alcohol history and attending an alcohol/drug class at
the expense of student/guardian.

Submitting to mandatory, unannounced drug tests, remaining on campus for the
entire school day, attending all classes and having on-school parking
privileges revoked could also be part of the plan.

The expulsion would be held in abeyance if the student and/or guardians
agree to the above conditions.

A first-time offender involved with alcohol use would also be subject to
expulsion (which hasn't occurred in recent memory in the district, according
to Movrich) if the student didn't follow the same above program.

However, while participating in the intervention program, the student's
suspension could be for less than the five days required for marijuana
possession.

Board member David Handt said the phrase "may include," dealing with the
specifics of the education/intervention plan should be changed to "shall
include" However, several board members said the options of what to include
gave "professionals," including school counselors, more leeway in tailoring
the intervention plan to fit individual cases.

But board members agreed the phrasing should be reconsidered by the Policy
Committee and a final recommendation brought back to the board as soon as
possible.