Substance-abuse policy revisited in Carroll
The Carroll County school board approved several changes to the system’s substance-abuse policy last night, specifically dealing with sanctions involving extracurricular activities.
Now when students are caught on school grounds or at a school-sponsored event with a “dangerous substance” – drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc. – they will be placed on “restricted eligibility,” as opposed to being effectively banished from their extracurricular activities during that time.
That means students caught will still be permitted to associate with their clubs and other school organizations during the sanction period. The revised policy allows them to attend practices/games/performances, travel and sit with their teams and even wear uniforms – but not actually play or perform.
The revisions also tackled the district’s policy on “constructive possession,” which holds students responsible for non-school-related/off-campus situations and locations where controlled/illegal substances are present.
Director of student services Dana Falls said the “vast majority” of comments from the public on the matter “indicated that it’s time to let those go away.”
School officials say the revisions “reflect a desire to effect positive changes in decision making for students” – allowing them to maintain their relationships with their coaches and teammates – instead of punishing them for poor choices. Some parents also told school officials that coaches are often some of the best people to steer kids in the right direction after such an incident, Falls said.
What do you think? Is this a positive reinforcement for bad/illegal behavior? What policies do other school systems have in such situations?
Baltimoresun.com's 
Comments
I think the restricted eligibility is a fine idea. It serves as a sort of time out for older kids and keeps them in supervised activities rather than cutting them loose, which is more likely what they really need.
Regarding constructive possession, that decision is a bit trickier. If each student were to consider him or herself as a representative of their school, then every action taken, whether in school or out, is clearly a reflection on both the student and the school. However, I can see that it may be outside the school's jurisdiction to hold them responsible for outside actions. On the flip side, if there's a kid who is known to be dealing or participating in drug trade, I'd rather not have them in school with MY child...
Posted by: Cindy | July 11, 2008 12:02 AM
You make an interesting point about constructive possession.
Removing the off-campus/non-school-sponsored clause doesn't mean school officials can't (or won't) look into certain activities/behavior... But I think it would hinge more on how such behavior impacts the learning environment, instead of automatically sanctioning it. So let's say your child were in class with a known drug dealer... just because that student deals outside of the school context doesn't mean the school system won't investigate or pursue the matter, especially if it's deemed a threat to other students' learning.
Posted by: Arin | July 11, 2008 8:27 AM