The appeal must also be dismissed on the merits. Petitioners claim in conclusory terms that the suspension determination was arbitrary and capricious. One student was so upset that she was unable to attend her regularly scheduled activities and went to the guidance office. The principal had to conduct an investigation over the course of the rest of the day, interviewing students, discussing the matter with the superintendent, calling the student's parents to come to school to pick him up, and advising the student of the suspension. The principal was thus unable to attend to the ordinary administrative activities required to operate the school.
Petitioners also contend that the contract of conduct is coercive and unlawful.
I have carefully examined the contract, which permits the suspended student to be readmitted to the classroom on probation upon certain conditions. The contract's provisions include an acknowledgement by the student that he received a suspension for the remainder of the 1999-2000 school year, and that he desired to return to classroom attendance. Upon execution of the contract, the student would be readmitted to classroom instruction as of the start of the second semester, upon the conditions that he will diligently complete his courses, abide by the rules and regulations of the district and the rules of conduct in the student handbook, and will not engage in the specific types of behaviors that had resulted in the suspension. The contract further provides that, if the student violates any of these conditions, upon written notice mailed to the student and his guardians, the superintendent in his discretion could reimpose the period of suspension which had been stayed by virtue of the contract. If the student contests the claim that he violated the conditions, he could request a conference with the superintendent, which would result in a written determination by the superintendent as to whether the suspension will continue to be stayed or will be reimposed.