THE CHANGING NATURE OF ZERO-TOLERANCE POLICIES

After an almost year-long discussion and debate, the Knox County Board
of Education last week approved a revised policy of discipline and
alternative education, much of which falls under the conversational
heading of zero tolerance.

This is not your older brother's or older sister's zero-tolerance
policy, one that was almost absolutist in its implementation. Some
offenses - bringing a knife to campus, for example - that brought an
automatic two-semester expulsion the last decade now might bring a
lesser punishment.

Knives, alcohol and drug paraphernalia now are in a category called
Level IV that is less serious than zero tolerance. Having those items
on campus still might bring expulsion, but it will be at the
principal's discretion; it will not constitute an automatic expulsion.

Discretion should by all means involve due process - consideration of
intent, motive and other extenuating circumstances. It should not mean
principals are required to be lenient in doling out punishment. Some
of the Level IV infractions well might deserve a full two-semester
expulsion, but no doubt many will not.

Firearms, battery of a school employee and unlawful drugs remain
strict zero-tolerance penalties under the new policy and under state
law, as well they should. Students should know these offenses from the
first day of school and be aware of the punishment they face for violations.

At the same time, the school board made it easier for students
suspended or expelled because of zero-tolerance and other disciplinary
offenses to continue their classes, albeit at a different time of day
if not a different school. The board set aside $500,000 for a teacher,
an aide and security guard at each of the county's 12 high schools and
14 middle schools.

That change was in response to a lawsuit in Knox County Chancery Court
and to state law that required each school system to make available an
alternative school.

In the lawsuit, Chancellor Daryl Fansler ruled that the school system,
by keeping a student on the waiting list because no slots were open,
was not making the alternative school available as the state required.

The vote to change the discipline policies was not unanimous. Several
parents spoke out against the changes at last week's meeting,
contending that schools will not be safer for their children. Some
board members voted against the changes, arguing they will lead to
more discipline problems and inconsistent punishments from school to
school. The criticism should not be dismissed lightly.

Yet, the changes were overdue. As Marty McCampbell, deputy county law
director who represented the board in the Chancery Court lawsuit
noted, "This is a philosophical shift for the school board. It used to
be about punishment. Now it is about keeping kids in school."

Certainly the creation of a safe learning environment remains the
ultimate goal of the disciplinary policies. The changes need to be
monitored closely. If safety of students or faculty is imperiled in
any general way, school officials and school board members will need
to reassess the program.

The policies will work best if enforcement is swift and sure and
punishment is even handed and administered with a strong dose of
common sense.