We were recently given a presentation on the latest Cheshire Youth Survey and unfortunately underage drinking, drugs and underage sex are on the rise even in Cheshire. We continue to hear/read about symptoms of this problem (such as the Lacrosse party that was busted this past spring) and often there are consequences for those students caught in the presence of and/or consumption of alcohol, tobacco or drugs. BOE Policy #5131.62 clearly articulates the consequences of violating Standards of Behavior/Extracurricular Activities/Out of School Behavior although some choose to take a chance and ignore it.
A concerned stakeholder recently raised their objection to this policy in that it puts the BOE into a position of being "judge/jury/executioner" and that it unfairly targets students participating in sports with greater consequences than those not participating in sports activities. Below, is the text concerning policy 5131.62.
Cheshire Board of Education – Policy #5131.62
Standards of Behavior/Extracurricular Activities/Out-of-School Behavior
"Participation in extracurricular activities and student leadership positions is a privilege, not a student right. It is the position of the Board of Education that students attain and retain this privilege by maintaining high standards of decorum, both in school and school-related activities, and outside of the school environment.
The Board of Education directs the administration to develop standards of conduct for participation by students in extracurricular or leadership activities. Further, the Board directs that appropriate notification of this policy and its attendance regulations be provided to all students and parents annually.
For students in grades K-6, possession, use, sale or distribution of alcohol, tobacco or controlled
substances outside of school shall be treated as an issue requiring counseling, and the student may be subject to discipline including but not limited to suspension and/or expulsion under the Board of Education’s disciplinary policy, as appropriate. As such, the Board directs school staff members to work with the parents of the child and appropriate agencies to address the issues associated with the possession, use, sale or distribution of these substances. For grades 7-12, school disciplinary consequences and counseling as appropriate are to occur.
Extracurricular Activities Students Grades 7-12
Regulation Regarding Involvement with Alcohol, Tobacco or Drugs (Outside of School)
Participants in extracurricular activities including but not limited to all interscholastic, intramural and club sports, student organizations and other school-sponsored associations or groups, shall not possess or consume, knowingly be in the presence of a person(s) who unlawfully possesses, sells or distributes, alcoholic beverages or any controlled or prescription substance without a prescription, including steroids, or shall not possess or consume, sell or distribute tobacco, on or off school grounds, at any time during the school year and for the period of time school sponsored activities occur during summer recess.
For the first violation of this regulation, the student shall be suspended from participation in all extracurricular events or leadership positions for three weeks and/or as may be appropriate for one performance. * For athletes, the suspension shall be three weeks or six contests, or until the end of the current season, whichever is shorter. Any student who is suspended from participation in extracurricular activities under this regulation shall be required to participate in a counseling program as a condition of reestablishing eligibility, which counseling may include participation by the student’s parent/guardian. In conjunction with the suspension from extracurricular activities, both the student and his/her parent/guardian will be required to sign a statement acknowledging the consequences of subsequent violations of this regulation. The student will be permitted to participate in all activities, including but not limited to practices, meetings, and subsequent work sessions.
For the second violation, the student will be suspended from all extracurricular activities for 180
consecutive school days. The student may be required to take part in an additional counseling program to reestablish eligibility, which counseling may include participation by the student’s parent/guardian.
For third and any subsequent violations, the student will be permanently banned from all extracurricular participation for the duration of his/her length of time remaining at Dodd Middle School, or Cheshire High School. The student will be encouraged to participate in an appropriate chemical dependency program.
When disciplinary action is contemplated pursuant to this policy, the assistant principal or designated administrator shall hold an informal hearing with the student, at which time the student will be given an opportunity to explain the situation."
The section of the policy that is considered to be "unfair" is highlighted in bold above. I think this policy is fair and clear. As parents/guardians we sign the policy handbook and it's our parental responsibility to make certain our children are aware of the consequences of their actions with regards to these policies. These policies, or this one in particular, only seems to be a problem when someone gets caught.
Many in town believe that the punishment for underage drinking, illegal drugs and tobacco should be harsher. I agree but when it comes to punishment and consequences...is the town doing enough to punish the "enablers" that facilitate these illegal activities to occur? How far can/should government go on this matter? No matter how many policies/laws are written to combat these illegal activities...at the end of the day it's up to us as parents/guardians to take responsibility for our children which can also mean not being "enablers" of these illegal activities.
Thoughts?
Tony Perugini
Tony Perugini
43 comments:
There's nothing unfair about this policy. If it were actually followed in EVERY single case, maybe we'd see less underage drinking and fewer parents/coaches enabling these kids.
The BoE doesn't have to be the judge/jury/executioner IF the school administrators and staff enforced their own rules. If they don't follow their own rules then the BoE would have to enforce them for them.
Maybe the BoE should add on to that policy with a statement to the effect that "any school staff/administrator/coach/town employee who fails to enforce the policy will suffer consequences
of 3 weeks unpaid suspension."
Just look what happened with that lacrosse party.
A rule is a rule is a rule...Let's make everyone follow them.
7:03, as you're probably aware these policies are set in place for the administrator(s) to follow. The BOE doesn't intervene on every single case regarding 5131.62, nor should we.
Regarding the lacrosse issue, someone did make me aware of your issue and I'm looking into it.
I agree with ALL sincere, thoughtful efforts to curb teenage drinking, but my knee/jerk bla, bla, bla radar goes off when I hear talk of “tougher” penalties, zero tolerance, “sports is a privilege” arguments, rather than better strategies – that are monitored and measured. The current BOE policy for kids getting a 10-9 is a nuclear bomb dropped on a kid who may have invested 2500+ hours in their sport. The pain they will feel for this dream dashed will last a lifetime. Dumb kid who knew the rules? Natch … Deserving meaningful punishment and rehab? YES! … Deserving to be hit in the head with a rock? I don’t think so … unless you live in Kabul. Do sports teach any positive behaviors? Why so quick to take it away? Also, due process would be nice - giving the kid a chance to present his/her side is as American as beans and franks.
If you really want to stop alcohol related accidents and deaths, set up breathalyzers in all Cheshire restaurant parking lots on weekends between 11:00 PM and 1:00 AM. How many of the advocates for tougher teenage laws would be caught in the net? It certainly would be entertaining reading the police blotter every Thursday morning :-)
Three weeks or six contests, which ever is shorter, is not a nuclear bomb. It is an appropriate amount of time. No dreams will be dashed for the first time offender.
As far as I know if you're a student caught at a party where there's alcohol, regardless whether you're drinking it or not, you'll get a 10-9. It's a pretty clear law and shouldn't be arguable. Don't you think everyone would say "they didn't know there was alcohol at the party"...no excuses..know before you go.
"...giving the kid a chance to present his/her side is as American as beans and franks."
Actually, it's not an American dish but was invented by the French (Cassoulet)...and part of the classic French Cuisine.
It is a nuclear bomb for kids who's championship game is the next day ... and thank you for the beans and franks correction. It helps me demonstrate how intellectual people are missing the point.
No dedicated student athlete would be partying the night before a championship game..they'd at least wait until after the championship game like the lacrosse team did.
Point is that kids have to be held accountable for their mistakes just as adults should be...but we all know that doesn't happen here in our perfect little town.
"Point is that kids have to be held accountable for their mistakes just as adults should be...but we all know that doesn't happen here in our perfect little town."
True, but if adults are not willing to hold their children accountable for their mistakes/poor choices than what chance does the child have in life?
I don't know what the definition of an enabler is per this topic but it could apply to parents willingly allowing their children to take chances and get caught. Enablers definitely includes those adults that allow drinking/illegal activities to occur among students within their own homes.
When did we ever hear about the owner of a residence where drinking was going on (i.e. lacrosse party) getting arrested, fined or imprisoned? The apples don't fall far from the trees.
Homecoming is next weekend. My daughter is not going. She doesn't want to risk being in the wrong place at the wrong time. She knows in large gatherings there's bound to be alcohol (maybe even drugs)somewhere somehow, and with this being on school grounds it would mean an automatic suspension. Now I know why she didn't go to any football games, either. I'm sad for these kids -- not because of the presence of alcohol -- some things will never change -- but that the penalty is so harsh (something that has changed since I was a teen -- we were allowed the opportunity to be around "it" and make the choice not to drink it, smoke it, snort it, shoot it) that it's not worth the risk of going at all. I've heard that participation at school dances has dropped. Is this why?
My definition of an enabler is (a.) the person responsible for bringing alcohol or other illegal substances to a party. (b.)the person hosting the party and knowingly allowing these illegal activities to occur (c.)Parents/Guardians that condone this behavior and knowingly allow/support their children to participate in these illegal activities. (d.) those people selling and/or allowing our youth access to illegal drugs, alcohol and tobacco.
It's clear and just via the policy what happens to students caught in these situations. But I also believe that perhaps more needs to be done by holding the enablers responsible as well. I believe this is law enforcements' responsibility as well as DCF.
I can't recall ever reading a story about persons responsible for hosting a busted party nor what the consequences were for them, if any.
I hope this clarifies my definition of an enabler for you.
Tony Perugini
We are off topic. The question is is it unreasonable to kick kids off their sports team if they are caught in the presence of alcohol - off school grounds. Here are my questions:
1. Why is this a BOE issue? Does the BOE also have punishments for kids not wearing a seatbelt? Or talking on cell phone while driving? How about eating too much chocolate? Or being in the presence of other kids eating too much chocolate? I believe deaths due to diabetes is about 3x deaths from alcohol related car accidents. Are our schools still selling soda in vending machines?
2. Why take away sports for any violations that do not impact learning? Don't kids learn anything valuable playing sports? How does it make sense to take away a sport when a kid does something wrong?
3. Why is there no due process? Shouldn't a kid have a hearing before being punished?
It seems pretty simple: If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
Once again, missing the point. What if they DIDN'T DO THE CRIME? Have you read our 14th Amendment lately calling for "due process" and the right to be heard. I'm beginning to think this is one more example of a bunch of academics living in such an uncommon atmosphere that common sense can rarely reach them.
It's not the Boe that set the law/ordinance regarding who gets a 10-9, I believe it's a town ordinance. So if you want to change the definition of a 10-9 you'll have to speak with the town council or police.
We're not talking about the 10-9. We're talking about the PENALTY resulting from a 10-9 --Policy #5131.62 set by the BOE. Maybe you're getting your blogs confused. We're talking about the policy here -- maybe you should go back and re-read the title.
"Once again, missing the point. What if they DIDN'T DO THE CRIME? Have you read our 14th Amendment lately calling for "due process" and the right to be heard."
Um...if you were issued a 10-9 and don't agree with it, you can and have the right to request a hearing with the police dept by filling out and submitting this form:
http://www.cheshirect.org/police/files/F5712146533E49B9A01571A98CC678B9.doc
Additionally, you can also request a hearing with the BOE.
Have you tried either route and what was the outcome?
Can you explain the situation in which you didn't commit the crime but were wrongfully accused/punished for it? I assume this is related to this policy, correct?
Can you explain the situation in which you didn't commit the crime but were wrongfully accused/punished for it? I assume this is related to this policy, correct?
If a student is issued a 10-9 and feels they have been wrongfully accused of "knowingly being in the presence of alcohol", they can send in the ticket with a not guilty plea. If the judge determines they are not guilty they do not suffer the penalties associated with this policy -- i.e. immediate suspension from school sports and activities. However, if the timing is such that a ticket is received while they're currently involved in an activity or sport, they are suspended from that activity or sport the very next day without any mechanism for an appeals process for them to be heard and tell their side of the story. In other words, even if a judge finds them not guilty in court, they will have already suffered the penalty of being suspended from their sport or activity -- often at great expense to their self-esteem and the success of their team's victory.
The other issue is whether the BOE has the authority to impose penalties when infractions are incurred off school grounds. In a case involving a student suspended for possession of marijuana off school grounds the CT Supreme Court ruled in favor of the student saying that the BOEs policy claiming that such crimes (off school grounds) "seriously disrupt the educational process" is a bit of a stretch.
Yes, in a specific incident 4 phone calls were made to the police department directly to the arresting officer the day after a key player was issued a 10-9 off school grounds. The call was not returned for five days... too little, too late. The championship game was over -- and yes, they lost. There are many other similar incidents that I am aware of.
It does beg the question: What's worse? A teen accused of knowingly being in the presence of alcohol, or a policy that dictates a penalty that may be violating our Constitution?
"In other words, even if a judge finds them not guilty in court, they will have already suffered the penalty of being suspended from their sport or activity -- often at great expense to their self-esteem and the success of their team's victory."
So, in your case, what did the judge rule? Guilty or Not Guilty? It seems that if the ruling was not guilty, your argument may have more weight behind it.
"What's worse? A teen accused of knowingly being in the presence of alcohol, or a policy that dictates a penalty that may be violating our Constitution?"
I think what supersedes the above is root cause. What is the root cause that led to a teen being accused of knowingly being in the presence of alcohol? The police were called, they arrived, they found evidence and issued the tickets. It appears that in these stories, that yes, something illegal did occur at these parties. Otherwise there's no ground to issue a 10-9.
But the root cause, or the blame, is not about policy or the constitution, it's the cowards that enable alcohol to be present among teens. It's these rotten apples that ruin it for everyone else.
Take root cause a step further and the question that's always raised is: What are the parents/guardians doing to prevent teenage drinking/smoking marijuana, etc? It seems there's a mentality that "we all know kids do it" and "we did it when we were kids" so that seems to make the practice acceptable to some.
No, root cause comes down to the parents of these wrongfully (allegedly) accused teens not going after the parents of the teens that supplied, took part of or condone the use of alcohol..let alone allowed their residence to host such activities.
My advice is rather than attack the BOE for doing the right thing, how about taking responsibility for the safety of your teen and going after the parents that allow their teens (or themselves) to ruin it for your teen? It's one thing to hide behind the Constitution (it's the easy way out) but another thing to take responsibility for the problem in your own hands. If this were the case and more parents stood up against these cowards, there wouldn't be a need for policy or laws against underage drinking. Until that happens, these policies/laws will only become harsher over time.
Sorry.... all conjecture. I'll only argue ignorant people to a point. I will, though, keep my ear to the ground for a law suit. My gut is that the plaintiff will win and I'll move from this town as soon as I can so I don't end up paying higher taxes for the compensatory damages... Good bye....and good luck!
"My gut is that the plaintiff will win and I'll move from this town as soon as I can so I don't end up paying higher taxes for the compensatory damages..."
Since this insane argument is related to sports...perhaps we should eliminate sports from our school district all together. Problem solved.
Yes, I agree. And thank you for playing into my hand to reveal that the root cause of this problem is that the BOE doesn't support sports in this town. Thanks again.
Maybe rather than making 4 phone calls that went unanswered, you should have gone right up to the station after the 1st unanswered call and spoke with the police chief face to face to get your issue explained or resolved.
"Since this insane argument is related to sports...perhaps we should eliminate sports from our school district all together. Problem solved."
That's a bit drastic I think. Although, some will argue that as a school district, we shouldn't be offering sports since it's not mandated by the CT State Dept of Ed.
There's always more to these stories than what's being posted here. So don't rush to judgment or take drastic action yet.
"Yes, I agree. And thank you for playing into my hand to reveal that the root cause of this problem is that the BOE doesn't support sports in this town. Thanks again."
This is perhaps one of the most ignorant statements I've seen in some time. The BOE just passed motions and a funding plan to install a turf field at CHS. The BOE also started work on renovating the CHS Boys/Girls locker rooms utilized by...sports. Yep...the BOE surely doesn't support sports in this town. LOL.
Obviously something has happened in town regarding a championship game and a player. Also, the girls soccer coach was fired apparently over a 10-9 issue. Can anyone tell us uninformed citizens what happened?
Good luck getting the straight story on the soccer coach & the 10-9 issue. There's so much stuff that happens and you never even hear about it...just the way they want it.
The Herald explains the 10-9 with the coach and the soccer player.
Here's how the whole thing could have been avoided. If the soccer coach was a cop then he'd have been notified about the police going to the party. Then he could have cleared out his important players before the big bust. That's how it works in FB.
"We're not talking about the 10-9. We're talking about the PENALTY resulting from a 10-9 --Policy #5131.62 set by the BOE. Maybe you're getting your blogs confused. We're talking about the policy here -- maybe you should go back and re-read the title."
If you get the 10-9 ordinance revamped to read that only those actually caught with a drink in hand will get the 10-9 then the BOE would likely change their policy to reflect the same when it came to their 3 weeks or 6 game exclusion. Thus if your kid wasn't caught with the drink in hand then you have nothing to worry about. Get it??
I think what's sad about the article in the Cheshire Herald is that nobody discusses the fact that there was a party with alcohol present and that 9 kids were issued citations. It seems nobody cares about the teenage drinking problem in this town...at least not the parents or the coach mentioned in the article. Both seemed to care more about getting caught than allowing children to be put into harms' way.
It seems that the point of the article is that the punishment is unfair because the timing was inconvenient forcing someone to miss a game.
Consequences are always inconvenient.
Until this event, I was aware of the consequences of a student receiving a “ticket” for being in the presence of alcohol, but I never gave much thought to the enforcement process or to the impact for the children involved. While I agree there must be consequences, I do not believe that removing a child from the very activity that may keep him out of further trouble, is the right way to punish. Being involved in sports is what encourages my children to maintain their grades at acceptable levels. It occupies their time, so they are not at loose ends and venerable to the very influences the law is designed to keep them away from. Take away their sports, make them feel responsible for letting their team down, keeping them from being seen by college coaches and potentially getting into a college they might not have otherwise been able to attain-- I don’t believe that these actions are what the policy was designed to achieve.
Currently, the policy only targets the children who are active and involved in the school system and in extracurricular activities. These activities are what develop and build leaders-That level of maturity does not happen overnight, nor does it happen immediately. But it does happen, which is why parents encourage children to participate. This policy, as currently enforced, only punishes the children who do participate. It has no effect on the students who hang out around at 7-11, or at the mall, or in less public places, making them even more venerable to negative influences, but without a consequence for bad behavior.
The policy should be reviewed with an eye of developing consequences for all students, regardless of their extracurricular activities. Require a student to do community service; volunteer at a local medical center, work with the health teachers and speak with elementary students about the dangers of drinking. There are many options that could be equitably applied to all students, not to just a select few.
The fact that this issue has sparked so much controversy speaks for itself -- Cheshire should review this policy. It's a great town to live in, but are we crossing the line from vigilance to militancy? The coach did the right thing by upholding the policy, but the wrong thing by unknowingly voicing his opinion publicly disagreeing with the penalty associated with it. It was unintentional, politically incorrect, and he has apologized. Change never occurs unless someone speaks up, and seldom occurs without discomfort. Instead of being condemned, maybe he should be applauded, and common sense should tell us to give him another chance. At the end of the day, parents should parent, coaches should coach, and policy-makers should be careful when creating the policies that others are asked to enforce. We should be clear of the freedoms and limitations of our own role, while being respectful, and less critical of how others perform theirs – different from each other, but all towards the common goal of our children, our schools, and our town. Maybe then we can avoid some of the hypocrisies that have reared their ugly heads through this mess.
The coach will get another chance. According to the CHS principal, the job has been posted and he can apply if he wants. Sort of an odd statement to make if you ask me.
"The coach did the right thing by upholding the policy"
Huh?? The police inform the school when they issue their 10-9s and the school upholds the policy by hopefully enforcing it. The policy speaks for itself and as it's been said before the student athletes are well aware of the rules.
The only reason this is sparking so much discussion is because the parents of the girl who was caught are mad that she couldn't play in the championship round.
What they should be mad about is that the rules seem to be different depending on who you are and what team you're on. Maybe the real truth would come out if people weren't so afraid to speak up.
You're almost right. The girl and the coach were over-punished, BUT there's still an 800 lb. gorilla in the room that nobody is talking about.
As someone mentioned before, the policy is always fine until someone gets caught.
The problem is not the policy but rather the 10-9's. The 10-9 should be changed to distinguish between those that weren't drinking and unknowingly in the presence of alcohol vs. the guilty.
Responsibility sucks doesn't it?
"The only reason this is sparking so much discussion is because the parents of the girl who was caught are mad that she couldn't play in the championship round."
Bingo!!!
Some of these students have 10-9's in other towns. The internet is a wonderful thing.
The sad part of the issue is that parents dont want to hold thier children accountable. I find the number of adults who want to write off thier childrens poor choices as a rite of passage or blame the police for doing thier jobs. I know where my kids are. I check up and follow up on them as is MY responsibility. If you really think that your kid " didnt know there would be booze", you are ignorant. Think back a few years, I/you always knew ahead of time what the "party" was about. Too many parents in our little Nirvana want to blame the police and others for juniors mistakes. Kids make mistakes, they need to face the responsibility of those mistakes. Thats what makes them responsible adults. If junior has to miss a soccer game or two, thats not bad. Imagine how many games they would miss by getting drunk and in an accident or something else. AND with regard to the "lacrosse party" I dont remember seeing anyone come forward with any proof of any inappropriate actions. Put up or shut up. Its easy to say something happened, but hard to offer proof.
policy that dictates a penalty that may be violating our Constitution?
WHAT???? Where in the Constitution does it guarentee the right to play soccer..
Too Harsh...I feel that students should not be penalized merely for being in the presence of underage drinking. Students that are not drinking are not enabling ones that are. That is a ridiculous statement. If a party is "busted" then each person in attendance should be checked for consumption of alcohol, drugs, whatever. If they are consuming the above, then they should be punished as noted in the policy. If they are there and are not using illegal substances, then they should be sent home and not punished. Perhaps they should be commended for NOT drinking and making the right choice. Perhaps they just want to socialize w/their friends. However, now kids are forced to not attend parties because they are afraid that one or more students who do not make the right choice will bring a punishment on them that they do not deserve. Perhaps if the BOE changes the policy to punish ONLY the offenders/consumers of illegal substances, then more kids that do not partake would attend parties and set a positive example for others. They can show that you do not need to comsume alcohol to have a good time. Perhaps positive reinforcement or setting a good example would be a better deterent to underage drinking. This policy is way too harsh for those kids that are not drinking at parties. They are given the same penalty as the ones that are drinking. Is that really fair???? I think not!
In the presence vs In "Possession"- as soon as police show up dont ALL the kids drop the beer from thier hands...... Therefor nobody would be in "possession". From what I understand of the 10-9 law, you dont need to be in actual possession, you need to be in a place of control (readily able to pick up). If only the kids who held the alcohol were arrested all the alcohol would be on the floor at the mention of police. The other alternative would be to allow police to "breath test" kids at such an event. Unfortunately this would be a time consuming, and illegal, testing process. Stop whining about sports and get your priorities in order. Who at ANY of these parties called the police to say there was alcohol, or who sought out a responsible adult.
So, the policy is too harsh because...
- Kids were somewhere doing something they shouldn't be doing or condoning.
- The parents are irresponsible.
- Drinking is OK because everyone does it and kids have nothing better to do in town.
- Policy is just fine until little Johnny gets caught then the policy no longer applies.
- The policy is too harsh because someone can't play in a soccer game.
- Sports is above the policy.
- The police incorrectly issued 10-9's to students.
- The 10-9 needs to change so kids that are knowingly in the presence of and condoning alcohol (but not drinking it) don't get a ticket.
Did I miss anything?
I'd like to see a penalty implemented whereby the parents of these so-called innocent student victims get fined for each incident.
The fine should reflect the cost of educating a student in Cheshire. What is it, $13K per student? The first offense would fine parents $13K, 2nd offense $26K and third offense could be $39K plus jail time.
I'm betting that given the number of incidents we have...these fines could easily pay to reinstate some for some of the lost teaching positions.
Unfotunately, many of these comments above are written by individuals who obviously feel that parents of Cheshire are condoning underage drinking. The statement above me is a comedic one at best. Some parents are so self-righteous and finger pointers. I hope none of them find themselves in a position such as this down the road. Because sadly, teenagers will be teenagers. And many times it is not whether they will make mistakes, but when they will make them. Most importantly, it is how they learn by them.
The point here is that if a child is not drinking or partaking in illegal substances, then they should not be punished. To merely be around alchohol and uderage drinkers should not be a punishable. Take the time to breathilize, whatever. That time would be well spent if it proves that someone is drinking or that some child is not and making a good decision. Then punish accordingly.
Actually, many parents do make the right choices. I as a parent, call the home where my child is attending, speak w/the parents there, offer my assistance and I make sure the party is supervised. Which by the way I did that evening. So, am I supposed to be punished because underage drinkers drank and the parent I spoke w/lost control of her party. The woman did get a ticket that evening; so she is going to get punished.
So again, I go back to the basic problem I have with this policy. Punish those that are partaking and not those that are not! Very simple!!!
"Actually, many parents do make the right choices. "
Yes, apparently, just look at the drop in 10-9's and busted parties. Heck, even our underage drinking statistics have decreased dramatically. You folks are doing just fine! Pat yourselves on the back.
Post a Comment