Carolyn Fath Exhibit 20 in the prosecution's case against Maia: A water bottle filled with just over three ounces of bourbon.

On March 14, three top Madison school officials spent most of their day trying to convince an independent hearing examiner to expel a 14-year-old honors student from East High School. Joseph Hill, expulsion and truancy coordinator for the district, argued the case along with his expert witnesses, Mary Kelley, principal of East High, and Mikki Smith, assistant principal. A court reporter, hired for the occasion, recorded the proceedings.

Maia, the student, attended the hearing, along with her attorney, Jeffrey Spitzer-Resnick, and her mother, Melissa Meyer, who cried through much of the five-hour hearing.

A 32-ounce water bottle filled with just over three ounces of bourbon was produced as evidence. It was Exhibit 20 in the prosecution's case against Maia.

Maia brought the water bottle to school on Feb. 20, along with one like it that she gave to a friend. School officials pulled her out of class that morning and, based on an anonymous tip, asked her if she had pot in her possession. She had none but admitted she had alcohol in her backpack.

Under Section 402a of the school district's Student Conduct and Discipline Plan, Maia was initially suspended for five days; she was suspended for another 10 once Smith recommended expulsion.

On March 18, Alicia Connolly-Lohr, the independent hearing officer, ordered that Maia be expelled from school through the 2014-15 school year -- with readmission possible this summer under various conditions -- based on the recommendation of Superintendent Jennifer Cheatham. Citing confidentiality concerns, Cheatham declined to comment on her expulsion recommendation.

In her written decision, Connolly-Lohr noted that her decision was based on certain findings, including that the "behavior significantly endangered the health and/or safety of others, damaged property or caused serious disruption, and the recommended expulsion is in the interests of the school district."

During the hearing, Meyer pleaded for leniency for her daughter. She argued that Maia had never been in trouble before, that she did not have a drug or alcohol problem, and, as three teachers testified in letters, that she was an exemplary student and an asset -- not a danger -- to her school. She also noted that Maia and her friend both registered zero when Madison police administered a breathalyzer test.

Maia acknowledged she made a grave mistake and swore she’d never do anything like it again. "All I want to do is go back to school," she said through tears.

The school board will review Connolly-Lohr's expulsion order in closed session on March 31. It's the same date the board is expected to review a proposed rewrite of the district's "zero-tolerance" policy -- the very policy under which Maia is being recommended for expulsion.

During the expulsion hearing Hill repeatedly argued that the hearing examiner had no choice but to expel Maia from school. "There is no discretion," he said. There is no provision, he added, for a student "who has an exemplary academic record" or is "the star of the basketball team."

Kelley stated under oath that school board policy dictates the length of expulsion, but admitted during cross-examination by Spitzer-Resnick that she did not know what that length was.

Spitzer-Resnick says the code of conduct "does allow discretion as to the terms of the expulsion."

And, he adds, "It's not like the board's hands are tied here. They have some options."

Code of conduct rewrite

District spokeswoman Rachel Strauch-Nelson provided a copy of the "Superintendent's Baseline Expulsion Disposition Grid" when asked about the matter of discretion in expulsion terms. Under these guidelines, a student who commits a Level IV violation, as Maia did, would typically be expelled for three semesters.

But the rules clearly allow for exceptions: "The Superintendent may choose to deviate from the grid for any non-arbitrary [sic] related to the Superintendent's assessment of what the interests of the school demand in response to a given situation, under all of the facts and circumstances."

During his closing argument, Spitzer-Resnick criticized the recommended punishment for Maia as "nothing less than zero tolerance run amok."

Zero-tolerance policies date to 1994, when Congress got tough on the problems of guns in schools. The Guns Free Schools Act required all states to mandate that schools expel students who bring firearms to school. Over the years, school districts expanded their policies to cover alcohol and drug infractions and behavioral issues.

Such policies provide mandatory punishments for certain offenses and leave little room for discretion or alternative methods of discipline.

Supporters have argued that firm guidelines are needed to reduce violence and misbehavior in the school, but zero-tolerance policies have long been controversial. Cases where kids have been expelled for bringing an Advil or a butter knife to school have made national headlines. Efforts to repeal these policies have been gathering steam locally and nationally, particularly as statistics reveal that black and Hispanic students are disproportionately suspended and expelled.

When asked to explain the rationale for expulsion as punishment, Cheatham chose instead to talk about the new direction the district is taking with its disciplinary policy.

"We are in the process of making some pretty serious changes to our code of conduct," she says, noting draft plans for new rules governing elementary and middle/high school behavior. "Those changes are specifically designed to address exclusionary practices like suspensions, like expulsions, which we know generally do not support students. In fact, suspensions and expulsions predict higher rates of future misbehavior. And school removals, generally speaking, are associated with a higher likelihood of students dropping out."

Cheatham acknowledged that she has the power to exercise discretion in making expulsion recommendations but that she generally follows district guidelines. The board, she says, "absolutely" has discretion in how it treats an expulsion recommendation.

"Ultimately it is the board's decision whether to follow it or adjust it in some way."

Cheatham agreed some will see a contradiction in her comments about the future direction of student discipline and the expulsion recommendation she made for Maia.

"Situations like these have actually led us to the proposed changes we're bringing to the board," she said. "I have no doubt that the board [will be]... making their final decisions with the new guiding principles in mind."

Depressed and demoralized

Under the current code of conduct, Maia's offense -- bringing alcohol to school and distributing it -- is a Level IV violation. These are classified as "behaviors that significantly endanger the health and/or safety of others, damage property or cause disruptions."

Other Level IV violations include bringing a weapon to school, possessing and setting off an explosive device, and committing aggravated sexual assault.

An "expulsion review document" prepared by the district notes that Maia has maintained a perfect behavior record since starting elementary school. "She had never been in a principal's office in her life," says her mom.

But she is, like many teenagers, vulnerable to peer influence. Maia says she was getting a lot of pressure to bring money for pot for a show choir road trip to Chicago to see Phantom of the Opera. She does not smoke and didn't want to spend money for weed. But she wanted to fit in.

Bringing a few ounces of alcohol in a water bottle seemed to be a solution.

Maia said she immediately regretted her decision, even on her walk to school. "I felt uncomfortable the entire way," she said during her expulsion hearing. During her second-hour class she thought about emptying the water bottle and then received a text from her dad, who asked about the missing alcohol. She confessed and asked him to pick up the bottle. But before that could happen she was taken to the principal's office and suspended that day.

Meyer says her daughter is depressed and demoralized about being banished from school. Before her suspension, she was enrolled in three honors classes -- history, English and biology -- as well as ceramics, algebra, French and show choir. She also played soccer.

Once Maia was suspended, Meyer says it took about a week for her to get homework from school to bring home to her daughter.

"She sat down and tore into it," recalls Meyer. "When she finished she said, 'God, it feels good to do homework.' Then she started to cry."

Few students expelled

After the March 14 expulsion hearing, Maia was allowed to return to school the following Monday. But it was a short-lived reprieve. The independent hearing examiner issued her expulsion order the next day. Maia found out about it when a district official called her on her cell phone at school.

Maia says she tried to finish out the school day but was too distraught to do so.

According to a "Student Conduct and Discipline Report" presented to the Board of Education in September 2013, "relatively few" of the students recommended for expulsion are actually expelled.

In 2012-13, just 24 students were expelled out of the 146 recommended for expulsion. According to Nancy Yoder, the district's director of student services, that is less than a tenth of a percent of the entire student population of some 25,000.

Those not expelled included students who were deemed to have a disability related to their behavior (56) or who had opted to attend the Phoenix Program (47), the district's alternative school for expelled students. Another 28 had their expulsion dismissed by an administrator. Yoder could not explain why the numbers did not add up to 146.

Maia was offered the chance to go to the Phoenix Program. But Meyer says the program, which relies in part on online classes and is held in the Boys & Girls Club, was not a good option for her daughter.

After the hearing examiner issued her recommendation, the district started providing Maia with two hours of private tutoring with a teacher whom she meets at a local library. But she's not able to continue with her biology class, which includes a lab, or ceramics or French, which her tutor does not know, says Meyer.

According to a 2012 report from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, the Wisconsin Constitution guarantees a free public school education for Wisconsin children. The only time a school district may deny education services is "if a student is not a resident of the district or if a student is currently expelled from another Wisconsin public school district."

Meyer says since turning down the Phoenix Program, she has been unable to get answers about future options for her daughter's schooling. "At no point has anyone addressed her education."

In a 2010 blog post, school board member Ed Hughes explained why he was not a fan of the school's zero-tolerance policy.

"Expelled students who do not qualify for special education services are essentially barred from their schools for the period of their expulsion and receive no services. Banning a student from any contact with his or her school undermines the student's engagement, relationships and learning, the three cornerstones of academic success."