STUDENT RIGHTS UP FOR REVIEW

PRINCETON - A student's right to carry a Walkman or cell phone to
school, to have flowers delivered to their girlfriend or boyfriend on
Valentine's Day and what they may wear were all up for debate Tuesday
night at the Mercer County Board of Education meeting.

The board conducted the first reading of changes to the Student Code
of Conduct. Though it was just the first reading, and no vote was
taken on the changes, board member Greg Prudich voiced several
concerns about the policies.

Section 3.3.A.8 of the code, entitled "Possession of
Inappropriate Personal Property," states, "A student will not
possess personal property that is prohibited by school rules or that
is disruptive to teaching and learning."

Prudich argued that the statement was too vague, and he could think
of many items that would not be inappropriate in normal
circumstances, but if used in a wrong manner, could be disruptive. He
stated that the students could argue the property was not
inappropriate, but they could still use it to disrupt class. He
suggested expanding the definition, but admitted he was not sure how
to do so. Others argued that some items, such as cell phones and
Walkmans, which might be appropriate during lunch times, would
obviously be inappropriate during class time.

The next topic addressed was a section regarding dress and grooming.
The policy states, "Students will not dress or groom in a manner
that disrupts the educational process or is detrimental to the
health, safety or welfare of others." It also states that students
will not dress in an indecent manner.

Prudich argued that since a separate dress code was already
established, having this section in the code of conduct would
complicate matters. He voiced concern that students could violate the
dress code, but not the code of conduct, and therefore technically be
following the rules.

Prudich also pointed out another inconsistency with the new Code of
Conduct. Two rules, one a Level II violation, which carries up to a
10-day suspension from school, and the other, a Level III violation,
which could mean expulsion, were found to be similar.

The Level II violation states, in part, that "A student will not
ignore or refuse to comply with directions given by school
authorities."

The Level III violation reads, "A student will not willfully
disobey a teacher."

Prudich argued that the two rules were too similar, and it would be
up to the authorities to decide which violation the student had
broken. This could result in some students receiving different
punishments for the same infraction. Others stated that the Level II
violation meant a student simply ignoring an authority figure, while
the Level III violation would mean a student going out of his or her
way to disobey. A second reading of the School Interruption Policy
was also conducted. The revised policy restricts announcements made
over the public address system and phone calls to both teachers and
students to emergency calls only.

A new section bans vendors from delivering flowers, food or other
retail items to any Mercer County School. Vendors must now make the
deliveries to the student's home, or private address.

One public comment received on the interruption policy argued that
the new section would create a hardship on rural students, where
at-home delivery is difficult. The board also addressed the growing
problem of cell phone use, and whether teachers were using them
during instructional time. They concluded that the individual
schools would be responsible for taking action if a teacher was found
to be doing so. The policy passed unanimously, with the exception of
board member Lynne White, who was ill and not present.

A first reading the Substance Abuse Policy was also on the agenda.
The policy has been changed to reflect a new policy of testing any
students when suspected of being under the influence of any of the
prohibited or illegal substances described in the policy.

While he commended the policy, Prudich did find one area
questionable.

"I do not see why the law enforcement agencies need to be
contacted if a student has a positive drug test," said Prudich.
"I don't see what they could do if we contacted them." The
policy itself simply states that school authorities would have the
right to test any student for drug use, if they suspected the
student was currently under the influence. Board member Gene Bailey
also liked the policy.

"I think this is more important than the random drug-testing
policy," Bailey said. Superintendent Dr. Deborah Akers added that
this policy helps to get at the students not covered by the random
drug testing policy.

All of the issues raised, concerning both the Substance Abuse Policy
and the Code of Conduct, will be addressed by the legal counsel for
the board, and changes may be made. The next regular board meeting
will be on Dec. 20.