Some Districts Easing Rules on Discipline

Just a few years after zero tolerance policies swept onto the nation’s campuses in a fervor of anti-drug and anti-violence sentiment, some public schools are softening the rules.

The changes have been prompted by a number of cases in which educators found that mandatory expulsions and suspensions were too harsh for relatively minor alcohol and weapons incidents.

In Seattle, Boy Scouts were expelled for accidentally bringing their Scout knives to school. In south Orange County, a girl was kicked out for sipping a glass of champagne--served by her prom date’s mother.

And then there was the 10-year-old in Colorado--later reinstated--who brought her mother’s bread knife to school by mistake and was expelled, although she had turned it over to school authorities.

“We were just throwing kids out,” said Ed Harcharik, assistant superintendent of the Brea Olinda school system in north Orange County, which recently scrapped its zero tolerance policy for more flexible rules. “It was a tough love policy without the love.”

Today, the American Bar Assn., which is gathering in San Diego for its mid-year conference, is expected to adopt a formal resolution opposing zero tolerance at schools. Such policies cut against “every principle of fairness and justice,” said Robert Schwartz, executive director of the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia.

The ABA resolution says that such policies are increasingly unhelpful, given that crime of all sorts has declined at public schools since 1990. Schwartz also cited studies showing that, despite their promise of subjecting all children to the same consequences, zero tolerance policies have punished black and Latino students disproportionately.

Not all school boards went for the harsher policies. While many suburban systems adopted strict rules, the trend was less pervasive in some larger school districts.

The Los Angeles district adheres to state rules that expel students for having guns and significant amounts of drugs, but it is almost unheard of for a student to be expelled for showing up at a school dance drunk, said Linda Wilson, the district’s head of discipline.

And in many communities that adopted the absolutist policies, the districts continue to defend them. Ed Sussman, superintendent of the Downey Unified School District, credited his system’s policy with drastically reducing campus violence and deterring drug and alcohol abuse.

But a growing number of districts are changing their policies, subtly and without fanfare. Administrators have begun meting out lighter sentences for knives and alcohol while maintaining that they still have zero tolerance policies. In many cases, students are unaware of the changes.

“It’s taken about five years . . . but I started noticing last year that schools are rethinking it,” said John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a legal education group that has fought against zero tolerance policies in court.

“We haven’t seen as many dire cases in the last few months. I think, psychologically, schools are still using the term ‘zero tolerance,’ but they’re starting to use a little more common sense and discretion.”

Ronald Stephens, executive director of the National School Safety Center in Westlake Village, agreed.

“Many of our schools eliminated due process, and this is something protected under the 14th Amendment.” Now, he said, “the policies are being redefined and relaxed. . . . They are providing for a greater degree of discretion and judgment.”

Students’ Futures Came Into Play

In the 30,000-student San Jose Unified School District, officials say they still have a zero tolerance policy. But “we have gotten better at looking at each case to make sure it makes sense,” said Steve Berta, manager of student services.

San Jose adopted its zero tolerance policy in 1993. Other large Northern California districts, such as Oakland Unified and San Francisco Unified, did not enact such strict policies.

“It’s the old pendulum swinging,” Berta said. “The pendulum first swung out, and they were a little stricter, saying ‘This could be a weapon, even though it’s a nail file.’ Eventually people started feeling that was not appropriate for what the policy was for.”

In the Capistrano Unified School District, a fast-growing system in south Orange County, administrators no longer automatically expel or transfer students caught drinking, said Supt. James Fleming.

Ninety-four percent of Capistrano parents said in a 1999 survey that they like the district’s seven-year-old zero tolerance policy.

But officials were finding it increasingly hard to stomach cases in which the Ivy League futures of weeping straight-A students were threatened because their prom dates had talked them into having a nip in the limo, Fleming said.

A turning point was the champagne incident. Before a high school winter formal three years ago, students gathered at one family’s house so parents could take pictures. To celebrate, the parents passed a few bottles of champagne around to the children.

Some declined. Others had just a few sips, and a few became quite tipsy. But most failed a breath analysis test given at the dance. And, in keeping with the policy, all of those who failed were transferred to other schools.

“We were absolutely shocked that that happened,” said board member Crystal Kochendorfer.

Board members eventually hit on a solution: Without officially changing the policy--or telling teenagers--they now consider students’ prior academic and disciplinary records as well as the circumstances involved in their drinking.

“That’s why you’ve seen fewer lawsuits,” Fleming said. But nevertheless, he said, the policy has led to a decrease in campus drinking. “The proof in the pudding is we made it through our winter formals without having to expel anyone.”

In part, it was fear of lawsuits that this year persuaded Vista school officials in San Diego County to begin considering students’ records and the circumstances of their infractions before expelling them.

Supt. Dave Cowles said he learned of a 1997 state attorney general’s report that called it illegal for schools to automatically expel students the first time they are caught drinking or using small amounts of drugs. In the next few weeks, board members will review the policy, he said.

Officials in other districts, however, said they do not believe that the attorney general’s report is legally binding and that it does not apply to districts that transfer students to other campuses.

The Tustin school system in Orange County kept its zero tolerance policy, but changed the rules last spring to give principals more discretion over whether students should be expelled.

In New Jersey’s West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District, officials are taking another look at their zero tolerance policies after an April incident in which a fourth-grader was referred to police because a classmate told her parents he had threatened her, said district spokesman Gerri Hutner.

It eventually became clear that the 9-year-old had threatened only to shoot her with a wad of paper. But by then, uniformed patrol officers had visited the child’s home in the middle of the night to question him, and he was not allowed back into class until he had a psychological evaluation.

“He feels like he did something horribly wrong,” said the boy’s mother. “The punishment didn’t fit the crime.”

Being Expelled for a Nail File

Zero tolerance came into vogue in the middle and late 1990s, after the federal government in 1994 mandated that all schools receiving federal funds must automatically expel any student who takes a firearm to campus. California also has a requirement for schools to expel students caught dealing drugs or brandishing knives.

Frightened by a series of shocking school shootings, however, many school boards took the policies further. Along with assault rifles and pistols, districts added BB guns, knives and even toy guns and nail files to the list of items that could get you expelled.

And for good measure, many also threw in alcohol, Tylenol and aspirin, and decided that they would extend their reach to cover any school-sponsored event, on campus or not.

“It’s somewhat of a different climate now,” said Judith Seltz, head of communications for the American Assn. of School Administrators. “As people see how these zero tolerance policies actually play out, districts have decided that’s not really the direction they want to go in.”

Orange County’s Newport-Mesa schools were among the first in California to adopt a zero tolerance policy, and the district has been debating it ever since. The rules, approved to stem open and widespread drinking at high school events, call for students to be automatically transferred to another district campus after a first offense.

On-campus drinking has declined, school officials said, but the district was hit with a high-profile lawsuit after a student was stopped after school and police found a marijuana pipe in his car.

There was not enough marijuana to merit criminal charges, but police notified school officials, who moved to transfer the boy. The district also weathered the embarrassment of three cases in which the children of school board members were caught drinking.

Board members have tweaked the policy several times. They rewrote the rules to allow principals to spare elementary school children who brought pocketknives and toy guns to school.

And last year, they hastily retrained school officials after parents complained that teachers were looking the other way when athletes and honor students turned up drunk, said Assistant Supt. Jaime Castellanos. Officials are also working to add options for suspended students to get counseling.

One school board member, Jim Ferryman, said he wants the district to consider options other than automatically transferring students to other district schools.

“We’re transferring a lot of kids,” he said. “It just escapes me as to what that accomplishes, besides transfer the problem somewhere else.”

Seattle school administrators were stunned when their own policy meant expelling a student for having a box cutter in his backpack--to use in his after-school job at a supermarket. (The discipline was later reduced to a short suspension.)

Other students also were recommended for expulsion for bringing tools needed for after-school jobs.

And then, there were those Boy Scouts. One example: At a troop meeting after school, a boy returned a camping knife to his friend’s jacket, but didn’t tell him he’d given it back. The next day, a teacher picked up his coat and out tumbled the knife. He was expelled, but that sentence was shortened.