REVISIONS DUE FOR ZERO-TOLERANCE POLICIES

Revisiting the public schools' zero-tolerance policy is a periodic and
entirely reasonable duty of the Knox County Board of Education, yet it
presents this ongoing challenge: Proper discipline of students who commit
dangerous offenses while ensuring a safe environment for all students.

The school board made some changes in its policy this week and will take
the matter up on a second reading next month. If the changes are approved,
the new policy will take effect when school begins.

A separate discipline policy will give principals more discretion to
determine punishment for offenses that previously would have gotten
students automatically expelled from school for two semesters: knives,
alcohol or drug paraphernalia.

Physically attacking a school employee, for example, will continue to
warrant a full year's suspension, as well it should. Bringing guns or
controlled substances to a campus also will produce the same result.

Other offenses might merit expulsion, but that decision now will be made by
principals instead of someone at the central office. The intent of the
offender and due process for the student accused of the offense will be
factors in determining the extent of the punishment.

State law requires every school district to adopt a zero-tolerance policy
in an effort to reduce the potential for violence and drug abuse in public
schools. Knox County's policy has gone beyond state requirements, and
legislators several years ago eased up on the statewide law.

Knox County's policy was close to being absolutist when it was first
implemented. Board members during the early and mid-1990s no doubt believed
that any cracking in the policy could bring down the entire system, and the
expulsions for the most part reflected that, even though many offenses
merited the harsh penalties.

Changes have come because of court decisions chipping away at the policy
and questions about the system's responsibility to educate students guilty
of zero-tolerance offenses. The revised policy takes those elements into
account.

The board also approved on first reading a policy that would send nearly
every suspended student to alternative schools, which would be established
in each of the 14 middle schools and 12 high schools. Those students
apparently will attend in the evening, not while their peers are in classes
during the day.

The changes did not earn unanimity from the board. Two members voted
against changes in the zero-tolerance policy as well as the alternative
school policy. Jim Williams, a former principal, predicted that alternative
classes will not serve as strong enough deterrent for students who cause
problems. Brian Hornback, vice chairman of the board, said the revisions
"undermine our position of maintaining a safe learning environment."

Their views deserve consideration, but revising the discipline policies is
long overdue.

The key always will be swift and consistent enforcement of school
regulations, protection for the majority of students who need safe schools
and attentive teachers who do not have to double as police officers.

Creating the greatest amount of safety for all students and placing a
premium on learning will always be the primary goals of the education
system. Zero tolerance and all other discipline policies must fit those
standards.