Seiha Srey, the 17-year-old southern Maine boy accused of having stabbed to death a high school senior two years ago, will not attend Cape Elizabeth’s schools. At least, that has been the ruling of Cape Elizabeth’s school board.

On Feb. 8, the board upheld its superintendent’s decision to ban Mr. Srey from Cape Elizabeth High School, opting instead to priovide him with private tutoring sessions in his home.

Mr. Srey, who is living with a guardian in Cape Elizabeth while free on personal recognizance bail, is accused by the state of having killed Robert Joyal during a fight in a restaurant parking lot in Portland two years ago. While progress is being made toward a March trial, the state’s case against him has several weaknesses, including a prime witness having changed his version of events on several occasions.

Originally, Cape Elizabeth’s school officials said they would allow Mr. Srey to attend classes; that choice was reversed a few days before he was to start school, after several parents expressed concerns about student safety, especially for a nearby kindergarten wing.

Mr. Srey’s guardian, Nance Monaghan, said she would appeal to a court the school board’s decision. She rightly notes that he is being denied the same sort of educational opportunities afforded to other students, including those with known criminal records and known problems with violence.

Maine is a national leader in the mainstreaming of students. School policies and education theory here clearly desire that, in all but the most exceptional circumstances, physical and emotional impairments should not impede a child’s ability to learn alongside his peers.

This is an unusual circumstance, but it does not yet rise to exceptional. This student is, until a jury finds otherwise, innocent of the crime. There is evidence that Mr. Srey had been involved with gang activity and has used violence, much like many other students attending schools throughout Maine. For now, Mr. Srey is no different than any other student from whom a school district might reasonably expect behavioral problems.

Certainly, Cape Elizabeth has cause to treat Mr. Srey’s presence in high school as a potential threat and has reason to exercise vigilance over his activities and conduct that it would not extend to other students. But it is wrong to prevent him from attending school because of a potentiality, especiallly when it runs so contrary to the fundamental principle of presumed innocence. The court should make that abundantly clear to Cape Elizabeth and send Seiha Srey back to school, where, for now at least, he belongs.