Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 5 · column 1 of 4 · from the scan, no model involved
BY ROBERT W. EASTHAM I ' Kappahannock Newa Contributing Writer"
• At the end of part I of this essay, I referred to “we ! ye" who learned (or should have learned) an impor■ rt lesson, (a) drafting a new school drug policy with • eth in it and, (b) insuring that the rules are converted i to action (implementation). The “we three” I had in nind were Board Members Allan Stokes, Walter Masei yon and myself. We know that (b) does not automatally follow (a) from our experience in many walks of ife; and we did try to make the new drug policy as nearly self-enforcing as possible.
Mr. Stokes, Charles Eldred, and I were given, in he fall of 1979, the job of examining the then-current ‘‘bool drug policy and recommending to the full board a n iffer stance against this insidious threat in the schools. 11 our redrafting sessions there were often two “attor0 for the prosecution” and one “attorney for the de• even though no actual defendent or particular uffifce was in our minds at the time, just the general "■fiein well known to all members.
INew policies are supposed to govern persons and ■ !®ns in the future after “fair warning.” (There were ‘'-tat 222 pages in the policy manual of the local school 1 ‘ when I left it in 1983 and not a single rule was, or \ ■< vj) want to be, an ex post facto law!)
*l’he public was aw are of this work going on and sug>'•-Sons were plentiful:
Alcohol was equated by some with illegal sub-t arpjies, such as marijuana and cocaine; it should be a I""t'and alcohol policy. The school board agrees and nacte it so.
i* Fach child is different and each case is different, so 0 eijic (and automatic) penalties would be unfair and mrjalistic. There were reservations on the school board ■hojt this one but the ultimate response was the deciimiof t he Mikado, to “let the punishment fit the crime,” n each case.
vThe board set up complex procedures to ensure the uniqueness of each case and of each offender. This led, - you surely expect.to charges of different and discrim,'iut<>ry treatment for different students, i.e., of unfairness sometimes, from the same people who had insisted "t. unique handling of each drug case from the outset! i'he answers to this seeming puzzle is actually simple: ’he real message meant to be conveyed was, “My child’s • use will always be unique!”
• It cannot be the business of the School Board to reduce enrollment or keep children out of the classrooms and li e educative process through suspensions and exnulsions; therefore, some system of “in-school suspen1 r i;' or organized and directed homework for each day s assignment, while under suspension, must be der
75.4%