STUDENTS DESERVE CLEAR POLICY ON ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION

Knox County Schools officials got their knuckles rapped by a Chancery Court
judge last week, and we hope it wakes them up to their behavior toward
students who have violated the zero-tolerance policy and want an
alternative education.

The case began in January 2001 with a ninth-grader identified only as J.C.
Three other students have since joined the case, and a fifth student was
allowed to join the case during the hearing last week. The students, who
were expelled for zero-tolerance offenses, claim they have a constitutional
right to a free public education, regardless of their offenses.

Zero-tolerance offenses include possessing lethal weapons, drugs or alcohol
or striking a teacher or other school employee. Students found guilty of
committing zero-tolerance offenses are expelled for two semesters.

The school system did not have a choice in creating such a policy. The
state required each school system to adopt a zero-tolerance policy to help
prevent and stop violence in schools. But officials do have the power - and
should exercise it - to make the policy fair to the students.

Making the school environment safe for all students is a laudable goal, but
this should not be done by denying students their basic right to due
process. Judge Sharon Bell said as much during the hearing last week.

Bell ruled that school officials have two choices: They can admit all
students expelled under the zero-tolerance policy to an alternative
education program or they can revamp the review process.

If they revamp the process, the school system would have to establish clear
standards for admitting or not admitting policy offenders to alternative
programs. Officials would also have to provide reasons for denying access
to the programs.

We don't think this is unreasonable.

"There is a right to due process and to be advised of the qualifications
that get you in or keep you out," Bell said after testimony showed there
are no written guidelines for considering expelled students for alternative
school.

She later said, "Respectfully, I do not believe the Knox County policy
contains specific criterion sufficient to meet constitutional muster."

What could be clearer? And why have school officials dragged their feet for
two years on this issue?

We do not take zero-tolerance offenses lightly. Students who violate the
policy endanger others as well as themselves and when, found guilty,
deserve the tough punishment prescribed. The question is whether they still
deserve a chance for an education - albeit away from the school they
normally attend?

While we agree with Marty McCampbell, Knox County deputy law director, that
students can forfeit their right to an education, the students deserve
their day in court.

Under the present review policy, students are not involved at all and are
given no reason when they are denied access to alternative education programs.

The Knox County school board has been working on changing its
zero-tolerance policy since last summer. Sam Anderson, chairman of the
board, has said a new policy will be in effect before the next school year.

This is a step that is long past due.