Revised Substance Abuse Policy To Be Distributed To Students

By Larissa Lytwyn

A revised substance abuse policy in which students could be recommended for expulsion after their second offense of using a controlled substance on school grounds will be distributed within the first few days of school, according to Superintendent of Schools Evan Pitkoff.

Under the former substance abuse policy, students were potentially expelled for one calendar year at their third offense.

The revised policy was approved by the Board of Education, 4 to 2, subject to modification, during a special school board meeting on June 23.

While Chairman Elaine McClure, Vice Chairman Lisa Schwartz, Secretary Andy Buzzi, and Paul Mangiafico voted in favor of the policy, board members David Nanavaty and Tom Gissen voted against it, expressing concern over some of the policy’s language and definitions.

During the board’s August 17 meeting, the only amended change set for approval in the new policy was to remove the sentence, “Students shall not smoke or use tobacco products on school property or at any school sanctioned activity, on or off school property as provided by law.”

The school’s smoking and discipline policies are in the process of being separately revised.

The proposed revision was unanimously passed.

Mr Nanavaty said he still had a number of worries about the new policy. He said he was concerned that a student making a “voluntary disclosure” of his or her substance abuse problem to a staff member while under the influence could be unfairly punished.

“They’re making a cry for help,” he said, “and I don’t think they should be punished for that.”

“But they’re also getting [professional] help,” said Mr Buzzi.

“And they’re getting punished,” replied Mr Nanavaty.

“For using [a controlled substance] on school property,” Mr Buzzi returned, “which is against school rules.”

Mr Nanavaty then pointed out that the ingestion of a controlled substance is not subject to criminal punishment, questioning once more the fairness of disciplining an under-the-influence student “caught” while approaching a staff member about their problem.

In addition, Mr Gissen distributed a memo to his fellow board members on his “disappointment” on seeing such “limited amendments” proposed for the new policy.

He briefly reflected on the three core concerns he had about areas of the policy’s language and definition.

“The most grievous of these failures,” he stated in his memo, “is…that the definition of ‘distribution’ includes ‘passing.’ Identifying ‘distributing’ as to deliver, sell, pass, share or give…. has made this policy absurdly vague as to its implementation in the real world.”

According to the policy, distribution is mandatory grounds for expulsion.

Mr Gissen said he believed that the term was too broad and all encompassing.

In the vagueness of the language, a student passing a cigarette to another on school grounds could be under the same severity of punishment as one dealing hard drugs.

Mr Gissen also pointed out that the definition of drug paraphernalia is inconsistent with the description of it in the current discipline policy.

In the substance abuse policy, drug paraphernalia “includes any item that in the school’s judgment can be associated with the use of drugs, alcohol or mood-altering substances.”

Under the discipline policy, the term is “used or designed to be used in the consumption, sale or distribution of drugs, alcohol or tobacco.”

“These definitions should be made consistent,” said Mr Gissen.

Finally, Mr Gissen said he was concerned about the manner in which students suspended for 60 calendar days for use or possession of illegal substances was orchestrated in context to the separate exclusion from school activities.

“When those activities continue over the summer, it is unclear if those summer days will be included in the 60-day ban,” he said. “Due to the lack of clarity in the current drafting, it is entirely possible that a student could be banned from school activities for 40 days at the end of one school year, practice with the football team the entire summer, then be banned for 20 days in the fall.”

Ms McClure said that the issue would continue to be discussed and the policy potentially revised in the weeks to come.

Mr Mangiafico said he was concerned over how the new policy would be communicated to the district’s families.

Though there was brief consideration of distributing the revised smoking and discipline policies along with the new substance abuse regulations together for, as Ms Schwartz put it, “a higher impact,” Dr Pitkoff indicated that too much time could elapse.

He said that the substance abuse policy would be mailed within the first few days of the 2004-05 school year to the parents of students at the high school and middle school.

Parents of students at Reed and the town’s four elementary schools could receive the policy through the schools’ weekly “Thursday” or “Friday” folder of important school-related information.

Dr Pitkoff also said Newtown High School Principal Bill Manfredonia had told them that, if needed, an addendum could be made to the school’s policy handbook.

The new policy will also be posted on the Board of Education website just in time for the beginning of school, said Assistant Superintendent of School Alice Jackson.

Mr Mangiafico said it was important that the information be released soon, and clearly, to avoid any surprises at the beginning of the school year.

For further information on the new substance abuse policy, contact the Board of Education office at 426-7621.