Code of Conduct Changes Met With Mixed Reactions

Every parent of a Katonah Lewisboro child has likely signed the district Code of Conduct, a 32-page document that outlines student's right and responsibilities and provides specific definitions of prohibited student conduct along with subsequent disciplinary actions.

The code is subject to an annual review. This year's proposed changes include regulating some off-campus behavior of students, and disciplining those who have "passively participated" in prohibited acts. Read the draft on Patch, posted with this article.

John Jay Middle School principal Rich Leprine, who headed up the review committee, presented the proposed changes at the June 3 board of education meeting.

A statement was added to include off-campus behavior in student discipline, if the "district determines in its discretion that such conduct has a nexus to school activities."

The language was added to address situations such as cyberbullying. If it occurs at home, but the student is approached about it at school, the electronic messages may be considered in disciplinary action, said Leprine.

This changed was lauded by the board, who cited the dangers of cyberbullying and the need to take a hard stance. Student board member Mike Mitchell asked about about how to determine the nexus, and school superintendent Robert Roelle said it could also work in the reverse--it might be an off-campus party that started as a school event.

"We had a problem with alcohol at an off-campus party that started as a cast party, and the education commissioner has supported that those types of events may be directly connected," he said.

The same section was modified to define passive participation at the site of a prohibited act, now clearly linking a student's presence at dangerous events to potential disciplinary action. 

Another proposed deletion would strip students of responsibility of attempting to resolve conflicts with peers. Counsel made the recommendation to keep students safe from intervening in potentially violent acts, said Leprine. Board president Mike Gordon asked for it to be re-written in such a way that encourages kids to be peaceful mediators.

"Let's not deputize them as vigilantes, but give them some encouragement to do the things we are teaching them to do," he said.

One change that the student government recommended but didn't make it to this round: revising the language related to photography use on school grounds. Currently the code requires students to obtain consent for all photos taken, a provision that is both impractical and unenforceable, said Mitchell.

"If a student takes a picture of his friend in the cafeteria, you don't have teachers say that's ok, that one isn't. This language has no real relationship to what actually happens—there are actually few instances of casual student photography with faculty consent," he said. 

Board member Mark Lipton said that it wasn't the average lunchroom picture the provision was protecting from, and Gordon agreed. "An inappropriate  pose can appear with an unpleasant subtitle around the internet. This provision doesn't require consent for every photograph," he said.

The board agreed to circulate some language potentially including Mitchell's suggestions.

While the law states a copy of the handbook must be mailed home, the committee plans to explore the cost-saving measure of providing an abbreviated version with sign-off pages and posting the full code online.

Some were not convinced that the code of conduct was anything more than a liability document. "I'm looking at these changes, and can't come up with reasons that they protect students but they [do] protect the district from lawsuits," said Mitchell. 

Lewisboro parent Lucy Heaton felt the code wasn't there for her to fall back on when her daughter's essay was stolen and destroyed in school two years ago. "I couldn't fall back on anything to tell me what to do. I would like to see the community look out for each other more," she said.

Roger Davidson, father of two third-graders in the district, applauded the restriction of electronic devices as an attention boosting measure. "We need to teach quality of attention," he said. "The use of an iPod won't improve your art. The electronic age requires a strong partnership between parents and school."

The code of conduct is a mandate of New York's Safe Schools Against Violence Act. Signed into law in 2000, Project SAVE also requires schools to develop emergency response and school wide safety plans.

The code is subject to further review before adopting final changes.