Request By:
Mr. Glenn A. Riedel
Principal
Paul G. Blazer Senior High School
Blazer Boulevard
Ashland, Kentucky 41101
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Robert L. Chenoweth, Assistant Deputy Attorney General and Chief Counsel
You have asked the Office of the Attorney General to consider a matter involving local school board policy. Your question is whether a board of education may have opposite rulings on the same policy. You gave an example relating to your question of the situation of one student being expelled for possession of marijuana and another student having no punishment. Your question is not one which may be simply answered in the affirmative or negative as we will point out below.
Local boards of education are directed in KRS 160.290 and KRS 160.340 to adopt regulations and policies regarding the conduct of pupils. Teachers and administrators are to hold students to a strict account for their conduct in accordance with those regulations adopted by a local board of education pursuant to KRS 160.290. See KRS 161.180(1). Thus, without doubt, these statutes authorize school boards to make and have enforced policies and regulations for the government of student conduct. As stated in Casey County Board of Education v. Luster, Ky. 282 S.W.2d 333 (1955) at page 334:
"The only concern of the courts is to determine whether the school rules and regulations are reasonable or whether they are arbitrary."
The board itself, employees of the board and those dealing with school officials, which of course includes parents and students, are expected to know and follow applicable school board policies and regulations. This fact is borne out by language in KRS 160.290(2) which reads:
"The rules, regulations and bylaws heretofore made by any governing body of a school district, or hereafter made by a board of education, shall be consistent with the general school laws of the state and shall be binding on the board of education and parties dealing with it until amended or repealed by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the board."
Also, a local board of education's own interpretation and application of its policies and regulations are to be given extreme deference. This point was honed recently in a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, Board of Educ. of Rogers, Ark. v. McCluskey, U.S., 102 S. Ct. 3469 (1982). The United States Supreme Court concluded that lower federal courts are ill-advised to supplant the interpretation of the regulation of those officers who adopted it and are entrusted with its enforcement. The Court said a school board's interpretation of its regulations controls and cited its previous case of Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 (1975).
With the above general principles expressed, we turn now to responding directly to your question. Although school boards must see that their policies and regulations are reasonable and nonarbitrary, both on their face and as applied, we do not believe this responsibility requires in all situations the exact identical result. However, careful scrutiny in this regard must be observed. For example, in Clark Bd. of Ed. v. Jones, Ky.App., 625 S.W.2d 586 (1981), copy attached, a circuit court's decision was affirmed wherein it had been determined a local board of education had "acted arbitrarily in automatically expelling the students for the use or consumption of alcoholic beverages without determining whether such use or consumption constituted cause for suspension or expulsion." 625 S.W.2d at 588. The trial court had chastised the local board of education for not having considered more than just the facts going toward the violation which had prompted the explusion consideration. The Court of Appeals stated:
"No other factors - the previous general conduct of the students involved; the academic standing of the students; the probability of a recurring violation; and the consideration of alternative punishment or restrictions - were considered by the appellant [school board] in its action." Id.
A consideration of such factors could then clearly lead to differing results emanating from the same policy. Nevertheless, different results would seem to be questionable if the underlying facts concerning two students were basically the same, for example, first offense and no other problems in school. However, to be noted is that the Court of Appeals in the Clark County Board of Education case upheld the need for other factors to be considered determination of the trial court relative to an explusion matter. The Court of Appeals determined there was nothing wrong with the school board's suspension policy, pursuant to KRS 158.150, which provided in part that suspension was to be "mandatory on the first offense for the use of, possession of, or trafficking in drugs or alcoholic beverages on school property in transit to or from school, or at school functions, whether on or off school property. "
We trust the above will be of assistance to you and your school system with respect to the application of school board policies and regulations. If you have additional questions concerning this matter or if we may be of further assistance, please contact us.