U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES

ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

VOLUME II

WEDNESDAY

FEBRUARY 21, 2007

The Advisory Committee met in the Training Room, 1W105, U.S. Department
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C., at 8:30 a.m.,
David Long, Chairman, presiding.

# PRESENT

DAVID LONG, Chairman

DEBORAH PRICE

KIM DUDE

FREDERICK ELLIS

MIKE HERRMANN

RALPH HINGSON

MONTEAN JACKSON

RUSSELL JONES

SHEPPARD KELLUM

SUSAN KEYS

TOMMY LEDBETTER

MICHAEL PIMENTEL

DENNIS ROMERO

BELINDA SIMS

HOPE TAFT

HOWELL WECHSLER

[ALSO PRESENT]{.underline}

Donni LeBoeuf, representing Robert Flores, of the US Department of
Justice

Catherine Davis, Designated Federal Officer and Executive Director of
the Committee

A-G-E-N-D-A

Welcome, David Long, Chairman 4

Public Comment 4

Discussion 5

FERPA - LeRoy Rooker, Director of Family Policy Compliance Office 42

Discussion (continued) 71

Russell Jones, Virginia Polytechnic Institute 75

Wrap-up 84

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

8:39 a.m.

MR. LONG: I wanted to, as we get started, remind us and I\'ve had
several questions. I\'ve been talking with the Dixon Group and the
question was about expenses and checks and so forth. They are here now
and at the break you can pick them up from the table right back here by
the door where you came in.

Anything else, Debbie, as we start that you want to say? If not, we\'ll
move right into the public comment phase of the meeting. If there is
anyone \-- it\'s a little more difficult in this room as I\'m speaking
in the microphone. It there is someone behind me that wishes to step
forward for public comment, would you please come forward at this time.

Seeing none and hearing none, we will then move on. I have just been
informed that LeRoy Rooker, who will be giving the FERPA presentation,
will be here at the time that is stated here so we\'ll go ahead and move
to discussion. Then as soon as it\'s that time, LeRoy will come in and
make that presentation.

Let me start this out. This was to have been originally in our original
thought process and agenda and time frame to have been a conference call
but because of things that happened such as the release of the report
that we heard a summary of yesterday and the budget, things we talked
about, this meeting was changed from a conference call, the original
time table and agenda, conference call to a face-to-face meeting here in
Washington. Let me just start this discussion.

Maybe, Debbie, I need to ask you, we are scheduled to be back in March.
Given timetables, given things that have happened, should we in March
have that face-to-face meeting in Washington or conference call? That\'s
one part of the question.

The other would be then taking it up to June when the report is due.
What about the April and May meetings because they were originally
scheduled, if my memory is correct, to be two conference calls in a row.
If we could start that, what is your feeling?

MS. PRICE: Let me just mention what that pattern represents. The
thinking was in March we would have had these meetings and we would have
had discussions. We could come together as an Advisory Committee and
start to put some meat to what we would go forward with in our final
report.

Then Bill Duncan, who I think just went down to the other room, he would
draft up some things which we would e-mail back and forth and then those
conference calls would be the times when those issues that weren\'t
worked out by e-mail could be discussed and then the final report would
be given to the Secretary.

I woke up this morning thinking about this. Whenever an Advisory
Committee does a report it\'s printed and bound and it\'s a nice looking
document. It won\'t be in that structure in June. What we would present
to the Secretary is a Word document.

Then after that document is actually presented then we would go and get
it actually bound because that process of actually printing the final
report has to go through so many editing things and GPO and all of this
that it takes forever.

If we had to wait for them until we presented it, we would have written
the report last month. Once we present the report to the Secretary it
will be online and people can get it. It just won\'t be as pretty as the
final report document.

MR. LONG: What\'s the thought? We\'re in February now. Knowing that the
report to the Secretary will be June, what about the March meeting which
is supposed to be face-to-face and a conference call in those three
months? Is that still appropriate or should that change?

MS. TAFT: I\'m much better at seeing documents like this than I am
reading them over the screen or the internet so I wondered if it was
possible to maybe have the people work up a document of what
recommendations we have come up with so far, put them all into a
document, send that out to us, let us do a conference call in March and
then come back in April and really kind of fine-tune it and talk about
those recommendations.

That would give them time to get something prepared by June. I just
think that we need some time after we\'ve gotten the initial document to
come face-to-face and discuss what\'s in it instead of doing it by
telephone because telephone conversations don\'t always make me as
focused on the conversation at hand as a personal meeting does.

MR. LONG: Other comments?

MR. JONES: Yeah, I like that, the iteration of that. I think it would be
great if we could get what has been proposed, I guess including this
meeting, mapped out.

Then coming together because I think there is something about coming
together and walking through the recommendations and making sure that we
are coming to consensus and throw out whatever we don\'t think. I think
that\'s a good plan, not that I need another trip to Washington.

MR. LONG: Others?

MR. HERRMANN: I agree with holding off on the March meeting and going to
April. I think one thing I would like to get fairly quickly is some
sense of exactly what the recommendations are to this point because I
think I\'m kind of confused about exactly what those are. It felt like
we left a lot of things up in the air. I just want to be sure we are on
the same sheet of music at this point.

MR. LONG: Shep.

MR. KELLUM: Yeah, I was going to endorse what the folks are saying this
morning. One of the questions is what is the state of our shared vision
about what we want to do together in the way of a report and how does it
jive with what the Secretary has asked us to do.

I\'m assuming we are working toward some kind of a framework for the
next stage of bringing all the kinds of data together into one place
with policymaking and with practitioners in the field as to what we
really think needs to happen to what seems, to me, to be a hugely
fractionated bunch of operations with very little interrelation.

This is ranging from what we learned yesterday from Fred and his group
to talking about data systems that are all over the place and the very
expensive and not integrated data systems that are not applied to
practice but, in fact, hang out there potentially pejorative to school
buildings rather than helpful.

The partnership issue \-- I\'m looking at Hope. The partnership issue
which is probably the least taught of all aspects of research in
education and research on anything, graduate students are just not
taught how to relate to school district in a way that helps the school
district accomplish its mission.

The research establishment stands aloof. The components I think stand
aloof. I would hope that the report really is an integrative document at
the right level of abstraction without the details of the plumbing.

That does lay out a framework for bringing things together and it\'s not
the first time this country has tried to do that but I think it\'s
important to pursue that end. I have to apologize. I got up this morning
about 5:30 \-- I\'m looking at Deborah \-- and talked to Dave about it a
little bit yesterday.

I sent out a long-term impact paper on the first and second grade
randomized field trials we\'ve been doing in Baltimore for 20 some
years. Just to give you a sense of what a rigorous trial looks like in
partnership would not have been possible without 95 percent of the
families and more providing written consent in partnership with the
school district.

That kind of partnership, which brings together the research with policy
and with program and how do you roll it out if it works. All those
issues need to be in one framework. I mean, we\'ve got to somehow begin
to apply. We\'re just not teaching people how to do research anymore.

We are trying to bring the researchers, the policymakers, the
practitioners into one place to accomplish institutional missions. I
would think that a short report which could somehow bring that off would
be a very important contribution.

I would like to see us aim that way. I think we do need to come
together. I was listening to Kim yesterday talk about her doubt that, in
fact, you can really tease out what works precisely in the context of a
gazillion things going on in every school building and, you know, how
you do that, the limits of what you can do in a trial and so forth.

All that requires us to come together to come up with a shared vision, I
think. We\'re not there yet but, as Mike was saying yesterday, Mike
Herrmann, I think we are approaching something like that kind of a
shared vision and need to work on it. That\'s what my hope would be for
what we get out of all of this.

MR. LONG: Mike.

MR. PIMENTEL: All right. Let me get my little Texas mind straightened
out here because I know what I want to say but sometimes I select the
words and don\'t communicate the message I want to convey.

At this table here is a tremendous amount of resources and I want to go
along with what Russell and Hope have suggested about the meeting in
April because I have got to admit there is a spirit of confusion that is
lying within me that is causing me to have some concern.

I do try to be as positive as I can. I do believe that at this table
it\'s not that often we are going to pull together the different
sciences and skills and expertise that is here to discuss these things
that can have some meaningful impact on the lives of our children across
our country.

I have no misgivings about what I am here. I know that I serve in an
advisory capacity. I have no misgivings. I do know what that is. I do
understand Secretary Spelling\'s obligation and commitment to our
nation.

But as we move forward, we have an opportunity here to make meaningful
contributions and the Secretary has an opportunity to take advantage of
the suggestions and recommendations we bring forward. I just hope and
pray that whenever we get our report done that we are submitting a
report of substance and not rhetoric and bureaucracy.

I would like to go over it and review what it is we\'ve done because I
go home tomorrow or today and, quite frankly, I\'m going to go, \"What
did I get out of this meeting?\" That is going to be that I saw some
snow. Sorry.

MR. ROMERO: Good morning, all. I agree with everyone\'s comments. I
think particularly Mike\'s comment about sort of beginning to have a
dialogue as a group and see where we stand. I think we all have a lot to
learn from one another but, at the same time, we have a lot to offer to
the table.

I am humbled by sitting with this group here because when I hear someone
say, \"I\'m a principal,\" I cringe and I go back to my days of being in
high school again. Not that I didn\'t have such a bad time there just
for the record.

I think we need to start putting some meat from our own perspectives,
from our own expertise, and have an open discussion about some of these
issues. I know that I am learning tremendously and I honestly am having
a tremendous appreciation for the work that the Department of Education
does.

This is really important and the issues are so vital to our nation\'s
children. I think we owe both the Secretary, we owe the Department of
Education, and we owe it to the kids that we all serve to really ensure
that we have a common understanding or are willing to reach a common
understand but we don\'t do that unless we first start to have that
dialogue. I would suggest that we do this at the April meeting and begin
to move forward in that direction.

MR. LONG: Susan.

MS. KEYS: Just given the sentiment, I am a little concerned about
letting go of the March meeting as a time for us to begin our dialogue.
Do we have sufficient time to do what we need to do if we don\'t come
together in March and possibly repeat and come together again in April
to finish our work?

There\'s a lot to be done and a lot of good dialogue that needs to
occur. Is it unrealistic to have something to us to begin working with
in March? I\'m just asking. It just seems to not come back again until
the middle of April when the real meat of what we need to do is still
ahead of us. I\'m just asking the group. I\'m just happy to do whatever.

MR. PIMENTEL: Coming together in both March and April?

MS. KEYS: Well, I hate to let March go when we don\'t know how much is
ahead of us. Why not keep on track and see what we can accomplish. I
just think it\'s a long time between now and April.

MR. LONG: Montean.

MS. JACKSON: I would definitely like to suggest that we have our
preliminary drafts to us before the March meeting so that we can tie it
back into the blue print and begin working on aligning some of the
things that we have already recommended that may or may not have been
considered in this initial blueprint.

The other piece that I would like to see added is a revisit of the
overarching mission of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Again, I think some
of the things we addressed early on with regard that we may be too
broad. Safe and Drug-Free Schools has turned into a very broad mission
and objective that may not be able to be accomplished, especially with
declining funding resources.

Again, I would like to state that some of the issues that came up for me
yesterday were things that I thought definitely were not included in
this draft blueprint that were brought up at past meetings with regard
to the flexibility of it remaining at the LEA level versus the state
level and the data collection.

I would like to see some information regarding data collection and what
has been collected at the SEA level that has been submitted to the
Department of Education on an annual basis and what additional data
collection information that possibly was needed or would have been
beneficial because, again, there has been an assumption made on several
of us as I\'ve listened to a lot of these meetings that one research
isn\'t aligned with practice with what is being implemented in LEAs.

I know for a fact that the Department of Education and the Office of
Safe and Drug-Free Schools has supported evidence-based and SAMHSA has
provided us with that list that much of the funding has gone toward
using evidence-based curricula as we implement our programs.

Data collection has been going on for years and we have used multiple
data collection streams from climate surveys, YRBS, PRIDE surveys, etc.,
etc. Again, I am unclear myself as to what additional information is
being requested or has been requested and has it not trickled down to
LEAs so that we can provide either SEA national that information. I kind
of would like a little bit more information provided to me as a
Committee member so I can see where we\'re at, where we need to go, what
things besides just the charge that we had on the table by Secretary
Spelling what other things might be of interest or we could be providing
this advisory board.

MR. LONG: Fred and Howell.

MR. ELLIS: I think, Susan and Montean have some great points about
timing. As much as I hate to commute to D.C. from Northern Virginia,
this morning was two hours, I think we really do need to. Even though we
have spent a lot of time hearing from a lot of experts and a lot of
different panels and have had some discussion, I think the real meat of
what we have left to do is this discussion among us.

To me there seems to be three major topics. One is addressed in the
charges that we received from the Secretary which is, of course, the
main purpose of this Committee\'s existence, providing the answers to
those issues that she wanted feedback on.

I think the other one is one that Montean hit on is that during our
process we have either heard or discussed. Jim has been very consistent
in bringing about his advocating his issues in terms of the long-term
longitudinal studies and whatnot. I could never accurately restate what
he has so many times.

I think those are all legitimate issues that the Committee should
consider. Let\'s hash them out, let\'s discuss them, and let\'s see
which ones, if any, we want to include in our report back.

Then the final issue, I think, is funding. I think we have an
opportunity to talk about funding. We all know that the
administration\'s budget proposal is probably going to be modified a
great deal when it gets to Congress. I think we have an opportunity to
keep in mind who the audience is for this report.

Although it is addressed to the Secretary, there will be many other
people reading it. I think it would be wise for us to consider that and
to maybe take this chance to state what we feel on a consensus kind of
format.

In order to do that, my point was I think Susan is right on the money. I
think we need to get some basic information from the recordkeeper folks
to us by March. I think that would be very wise. I think the easy part
is getting through the charges from the Secretary relatively easy. I
think the more difficult ones are the last two.

MR. WECHSLER: I just want to speak up on behalf on our beleaguered
friend the writer who I saw when Montean suggested that we have a report
delivered to us in advance of the March meeting I saw a shudder go
through him. I don\'t know what he would write.

What you described is the simplest task, responding to the charge from
the Secretary. There are three things and we have come to agreement on
one of them, safe school choice, but the two more complicated ones, the
data and the state program, we have only scratched the surface.

If he were to write something for us in advance of March, unless we
accomplish a whole lot in the next few hours, I don\'t know what he
would say. I don\'t know what use that would do.

MS. JACKSON: But maybe then that would just be it. That\'s where we
start. That\'s where we\'re at. We resolved item No. 1 and all the rest
still need to be discussed. Then we could be drafting up again our
ideas, recommendations, and suggestions so that when we meet in March we
are prepared to discuss the other items that still are left sitting on
the table. I believe some of us have just gotten a little lost and
everything is kind of gray.

MS. KEYS: Have we had two preliminary reports? Okay. So I think even to
just go back and see what came out of those preliminary reports is a
starting point.

MR. JONES: Yes, just real quickly. I mean, I think both Montean and
Susan are right on. Matching the blueprint up with or that the
expectations of the Secretary with what we\'ve been doing is so
important. I keep having this thought process that there is nothing
worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.

I\'m not sure if we\'re sure what it is in some instances we are to be
doing and then how to go about doing that. I guess to put it briefly I
agree. I think we need to see where we are, what the concepts are, what
the topics are, etc., the progress that\'s been made, and then how to
move forward.

MS. TAFT: The Secretary called the Advisory Committee together because
it was written into the law of No Child Left Behind. She has some very
important things that she would like to see accomplished with this. I
think Congress also had a few things they would like to see accomplished
by this Advisory Committee.

If you look at who\'s around the table, you get a sense that Congress
really wanted to make sure that the Department of Education was
integrating their safe and drug-free school efforts with the efforts of
the other federal agencies and with the state and local LEAs and SEAs
because of the composition of this group.

I don\'t know that we have even talked about that or how it could be
more seamlessly integrated into the other things that are happening at
various Government levels. I also think they were very concerned about
the gathering of data and the use of data.

I was a little disappointed in this meeting in that I know at least I
suggested some other people to talk about data from a state and local
perspective and there was not a panel convened to talk about that level
and how you could build a data system from the ground up that would be
useful at all levels.

I agree I think we have some more work to do before we are ready to
present anything to the various audiences from the Secretary to the Hill
and to the people at large because what is recommended by this group,
even though it is only advisory will resonate out in the field.

MR. LEDBETTER: I\'m not sure I\'m quite as eloquent as Russell or
Montean but I think I agree with both of them. We have heard a lot of
people make presentations to us. We\'ve had a great deal of discussion
but when it comes right down to it, I\'m not sure what we have
accomplished to this point.

I, too, would like to see something in writing where we can look at it
and say, \"These are the things that we have agreed upon and these are
the things that we have not.\"

At least then we would have something to reference and move forward
because we can come together and come together and come together but
until we have something concrete that we can look at and say these are
the things that we have agreed upon, I think it\'s very difficult for us
to make much progress.

I guess I\'m a visual person. I would like to have that in my hands
where I can look at it and say, \"Okay, I agree. These are the things
that we have reached some consensus on.

MS. SIMS: Good morning. Guess I just want to make sure I\'m on the
record as agreeing with these last comments that have been made about
rethinking what we do with our time for March. I think maybe a meeting
would be appropriate with the Federal Government but I can go either
way. I go with the flow.

Regarding what Hope was saying about not discussing, sort of coming
together of the different federal entities around the table with regard
to Safe and Drug-Free schools and all the other programs going on, I
mean, I would say that if we looked back at our notes and the
transcripts from these meetings, we would learn that it has been brought
up numerous times at our various meetings.

At the state grants meeting some of the presenters of those panels even
talked about wanting streamlining of the data systems, coordination so
that they weren\'t repeating these evaluations for all the different
entities that they are involved with, drug-free communities, SPF-6, Safe
and Drug-Free Schools.

I think it has been brought to our attention and we have even brought it
up amongst ourselves so we need to revisit what we said, what\'s been
requested by the people that we have asked to come and present to us,
and see whether or not we have a specific recommendation regarding that
and, if not, then we need to include one.

The things that really resonate with me from these various meetings
we\'ve had have been the panelists\' presentations, just hearing from
people out in the real world who are trying to do this program.

Going back to the first meeting with the state grants program everyone
got up there and said whether or not they thought it was worthwhile to
continue the program. I know that everyone got up there and said
basically, yes, it\'s worthwhile but the resources are very tight. A
decrease in the available resources will bring this program under more
pressure to actually be able to be implemented in a quality manner.

We really should go back and look at what we\'ve heard and line it up
with this proposal for the coming budget and make some specific
recommendations not just based on how we feel but based on the testimony
that has been given to this Advisory Committee.

MR. LONG: Kim.

MS. DUDE: I think whenever you\'re in a group or whenever you plan
anything it\'s kind of a ready, aim, fire sort of concept. I think we
have spent probably 80 percent of our time in the ready stage by getting
informed through all these panels. I\'ve found them all very
fascinating. I have learned a great deal.

I think we spent about 20 percent of our time aiming and, of course, we
are nowhere near ready to fire. I think we should have a March meeting
and we spend our entire time aiming. No more panels. Just the entire
time just talking because we really had very little time to do that, to
really process everything that we have learned so far.

I think it would be unfair to expect the writers of this to write down
what we have processed because we really haven\'t processed very much
yet. We really haven\'t aimed very much.

We have come up with some conclusions but not very many so I guess I\'m
of the opinion that I would rather have us meet in March and spend the
entire time processing and coming up with the direction that we want to
take. Then allow the writers to put that all together and then look at
that after that point and we decide whether that\'s where we want to
fire or not.

MR. LONG: Shep and Russell.

MR. KELLUM: Yes. Let me follow up with a comment that Belinda made. I
think there is a lot more that we have talked through than we can retain
just in memory. If we go back and do what you were talking about,
Belinda, look at what the notes are, what we\'ve said. Just look for the
big ideas. Just abstract the ideas that make some salience to a person
who is trained in writing to pull out important notes, important items.
Just have those circulated and I think it might be a refreshing review
of the different perspectives we bring. I feel like that in some sense
instead of processing, as Kim was talking about \-- I guess it was Kim
that said that.

In a sense we are saying the same thing over and over again because we
haven\'t somehow managed to move ahead in understanding each other. That
takes time and I think that it\'s correct that we really need to spend
time doing that. For me it would be very helpful just to look at an
abstraction from what we\'ve said of key points. Just see what they look
like.

MR. LONG: Russell.

MR. JONES: Yes, I think Kim really hit the nail on the head, the work
process. To just put on my therapeutic cap for a moment, it\'s very
important when you are talking with a client to get as much data as you
possibly can but the real active ingredient is a processing of that
information, pulling it together, integrating it, etc. I think we have
done a lot of data gathering but in terms of processing and synthesizing
that information, that is yet to be done.

MR. LONG: Several thoughts. One is I want to ask the folks \-- first of
all, I agree. I am also one of those visual learners that needs a series
of bullets, even if it\'s a one-pager. The other thing I don\'t need is
like 11 pages. Hear me, Bill? I say that for his sake because that leads
into the next part.

A couple of committee members have alluded to that and as professionals
we all understand that we only have so much time in a day. We all have
full-time jobs. If this could be succinct where have we been, even if
it\'s bullet form, that\'s fine.

Just so that we can see it and then start to pull our collective thought
processes together so that when we come together for that discussion
that we do have those bullets to see where we\'ve been and where there
has been agreement, or where there has been some semblance of agreement
because that will save time also.

I do agree that I think we probably agreed on a little more than we
think. As you said that, I started going back in my mind. I think there
has been agreement on some things that if we put them down it might take
a 10-minute discussion and say, \"We\'ve been through this. Is there
anyone that really has a big disagreement over this?\" If we could do
that, the other thing I wanted to ask about, before that next meeting
there\'s 18 business days. I would ask can you physically \-- I can\'t
see you back there. Can you physically pull that together? If that can
be pulled together, and I think that\'s a question we have to ask
because that gets back to your ready, aim, fire.

If that can be pulled together to get out to us so that we can start to
arrange our thoughts, then we go back to the March meeting. Then I want
to ask this bearing in mind that part of this is a selfish part of a
human being. Should that be a one-and-a-half-day meeting or a one-day
meeting?

For us when it\'s a day and a half, it\'s three days for us because we
travel one full day and then we meet and we leave at 11:00 or 12:00 and
then we get home at 10:00 at night or 11:00 at night, which is fine but
I want \-- I\'m asking that from a selfish point of view.

MS. JACKSON: Then, David, would the following two meetings be
telephonic?

MR. LONG: Then we would go to those to ask what the Committee wished to
do.

MS. TAFT: Maybe the March meeting could be a one-day meeting because we
will have something to respond to. Then the April meeting could be a
day-and-a-half meeting where we would really put the final touches on
whatever we decide in March.

MR. LONG: Even if it\'s a one-day start at 8:00 instead of 9:00.
There\'s about six or eight of us sitting in the lobby of the Holiday
and we could be doing this. If you said one day, I would propose that we
start earlier to get in more discussion time if that is your \--

MS. DUDE: Selfishly, I would rather have one-and-a-half-days in March
than coming in March and April. I mean, the number of times we have come
to D.C. is just an unbelievable number of times and it has become very
difficult for me professionally and personally.

I would rather \-- I guess maybe we don\'t decide on the April meeting
until we have the March meeting. We may get enough done in March that we
don\'t need to have the April meeting. I would just like to put the vote
in for between March and April having one meeting if possible.

MR. LONG: Kim just put C on the table. That is a consideration. If we
have instead of a one-day in March if we have a day and a half and then
perhaps, because we don\'t know the answer to that, as you stated, that
we would then not have an April meeting face-to-face. Then it might be
the potential that we have a May meeting but we don\'t know. That would
be dictated by how it goes in March.

It now appears from your very candid discussion that a March meeting is
necessary so let\'s plan on a March meeting. When I\'m talking I\'m just
watching. March meeting, day and a half. Is that correct? Then see where
it goes from there as to what we do in April and May.

I\'m sorry. We just got a cue that even when you ask a question if you
would please hit the mic so they can get it on the record. I think that
the question was from Tommy Ledbetter would that still be on, is that,
the 19th and 20th? I don\'t have it in front of me.

MS. JACKSON: Yes.

MR. LONG: 19th and 20th. The answer was yes, or do you wish to have that
up for discussion?

MR. JONES: I cannot do it that day. I\'m really sorry. I\'m scheduled to
do trainings in Baton Rouge and New Orleans. I can\'t do it on the 19th.

MR. LEDBETTER: I can be here the 19th but I cannot be here the 20th.

MS. KEYS: Catherine is suggesting an 8:00 to 6:00 meeting on the 19th.

MS. DAVIS: Your second day meetings are only three hours so if you
extend the first day from 8:00 to 6:00 you are adding two hours to the
normal day so it\'s a long day but if it helps alleviate some of the
travel angst.

MR. LONG: I want it noted for the record that Catherine and I did not
talk. That is an option now hearing this discussion. Tommy, you said you
could not be here the 20th? Is that what I heard?

MR. LEDBETTER: The 20th is the day I go to St. Petersburg, Russia.

MR. LONG: Is that an option if we have the one-day on the 19th from 8:00
to 6:00?

MR. HERRMANN: I like that option.

MR. JONES: I would really like to be here, you know. I can meet the
following week. I can meet the week before but I would really like to be
at that meeting if there is any way possible.

MR. LONG: I\'m only going to say I think this was the scheduled date.

MR. ROMERO: I would suggest if we could do it the week after because I,
too, am not available. I will be in Rhode Island the first day. I have
to be in, I think, Milwaukee the next day. I also, with Russell, would
like to be very much part of this.

MS. PRICE: With all due respect, the dates have been planned since the
beginning of this Advisory Committee and have been known by all Advisory
Committee members. I just want you to realize that if we move it, we are
going to miss somebody else so we do need to know because we have the
[Federal Register]{.underline} notice ready to go to the [Federal
Register]{.underline} tomorrow.

We need to have a decision today on what we are going to do. I do mean
that with all respect. These dates have been out there since July and
have been known by all and were agreed to by all. If we are changing it,
we need to figure that out now and then consider who would not be there
if we move the dates.

MR. ROMERO: Can I suggest and maybe take a poll and see who else is not
available that day.

MS. PRICE: Let me mention one other thing and this might give you some
time to think. Lee Rooker because we didn\'t have a public speaker came
down early so he has been sitting here waiting and now it\'s now for his
presentation. Is this something that we can listen to Lee\'s
presentation and then come back to talking about the dates so that we
are not keeping Lee, out of respect for Lee, out of his office for an
unknown quantity of time while we decide a date?

MR. LONG: Then, with that, we\'ll have Mr. LeRoy Rooker, Director of
Planning Policy Compliance Office, to talk to us about FERPA. Thank you
for being here.

MR. ROOKER: Good morning, everyone. We\'ll talk about a couple of items
here that we administer out of my office, the Family Policy Compliance
Office. We administer the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act which
affects the privacy protection of student education records. We\'ll also
talk about another law we administer, Protection of Pupil Rights
Amendment which has to do with the surveying of students and regulations
around those particular surveys.

I\'m happy at any point to entertain questions also or at the end. I
think everyone has the handout so we\'ll just move quickly through. I
know you have lots going on here. These are very brief summaries of the
laws.

In terms of FERPA it relates to three primary rights that parents have.
They have rights to inspect and review education records, to seek
amendment of those records. They have a right to have some control over
the disclosure of information from those records.

Rights belong to the parents. Once they turn 18 the rights are
transferred to the student or post-second institution. Everything falls
into one of those three primary rights.

Education records are records which are directly related to the student
and maintained by the school or party acting for the school. Virtually
anything that is maintained at a public school on a student that is
identifiable to the student is going to be an education record. This
includes things like handwriting, video/audio tapes, computer media,
microfilm, microfiche. Any means by which those records are maintained.

To be directly related means in some way it\'s going to be personally
identifiable to that student. Personally identifiable includes the
student\'s name, a social security number, a student ID number. Also
includes other information to make the student\'s identity easily
traceable so if you\'ve got something where information is
de-identified, then it\'s not directly related. It wouldn\'t be
personally identifiable to the student or directly related.

If it\'s easily traceable to the student, even though other personally
identifiable information may have been deleted, it\'s still going to be
an education on that record. That\'s where you get into issues like
small cells and those sorts of things.

MS. PRICE: Lee, could you give an example about classroom with a small
minority population and what that might look like?

MR. ROOKER: Sure. In terms of the easily traceable and, as I mentioned,
the small cell issue, if there is statistical information being provided
that would generally be nonpersonally identifiable so social security
numbers and other identifiers are taken out of that, but coupled with
other information may identify the fact that a particular member of a
minority population, for example, could be identified out of the release
of information based on various pieces that would be part of that
information disclosed.

If you had a subset of information that indicated in this subset all of
the students failed to pass the particular class and that identified
those students \-- if the information could identify those students even
though other personally identifiable information had been taken out, it
would still be protected information under FERPA.

Generally to release any kind of personally identifiable information
from education records take a consent from the parent or the student so
that is when it\'s being disclosed as a general rule outside the
particular school.

There are a number of exceptions, however, that permits the disclosure
of information in personally identifiable form in FERPA. One is to
school officials at the school district who have an legitimate
educational interest and others in the school where student seeks and
intends to enroll from one school to another.

Information could be transferred on that student. Any information at a
particular school could be transferred to the other school. The
information can be disclosed to state and local officials in connection
with serving the student under the juvenile justice system.

If there is a state law in a particular state that permits the
disclosure in order to serve a student prior to adjudication, then
information could be disclosed on that particular student. This comes
into play with at-risk students. Again, it\'s based on there being a
state law that permits this kind of disclosure.

In order to do that, any receiving party of that information has to
certify in writing they won\'t further redisclose that information and
only use it for the purposes of this particular student.

Information can also be disclosed to comply with a judicial order or
subpoena as long as notification is given to the parent. Health or
safety emergency exception. If the health or safety of the student or
others is at risk, the information can be disclosed to the appropriate
parties.

Directory information. This is information not generally considered
harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed and includes things like
names, address, date and place of birth, dates of attendance, degrees
awarded, that type of general information that would not generally be
considered harmful or an invasion of privacy.

However, I should mention here, too, parents have the right to opt out
of the release of directory information so it\'s not an absolute that
information can be disclosed without consent under this exception. If a
parent opts out, then it could not be.

Education records can be disclosed to school officials who have been
determined to have a legitimate educational interest. Districts have to
define this term, the term \"school official\" and \"legitimate
educational interest\" among others who could be school officials with a
legitimate educational interest or law enforcement unit officials at the
school district.

Those law enforcement unit officials employed by the school district who
could be designated as school officials with a legitimate educational
interest at the institution, at the school, which is a way there is an
exception in FERPA to the broad definition of education records.

It says that law enforcement units created at the school district by the
school\'s law enforcement unit is created for law enforcement purpose
and maintained by that law enforcement unit separate and apart from
other education records would not be education records.

They are exempt from that definition. This permits school districts to
release information that generally would not be releasable without
consent. It\'s a significant exception in FERPA that Congress carved out
for disclosure of information related to law enforcement issues at the
school.

Yes, question?

MR. HERRMANN: Are those specifically law enforcement agencies based out
of the school district, not a law enforcement agency that is working
through a memorandum or whatever with the local police department?

MR. ROOKER: You could have. It\'s generally law enforcement unit
officials who are employed by the school district. However, you could
have through contract with local law enforcement in a community to have
individuals who perform that function for the school. However, in order
to do that it has to be made clear that at the time they are serving as
the law enforcement unit official for the school they are a school
official. They could not provide information back to the local law
enforcement from education records, for example, or any information to
which they might have access. Yes, you can have different arrangements
in regard to that. When we wrote the regulations on this several years
ago, it was made clear every school district can have a law enforcement
unit associated with them, even if it\'s someone who performs other
functions at the school. You could have a principal at a small school
also be the law enforcement unit official there. It would be a matter of
designating them as serving that other function.

The health and safety emergency exception that\'s in FERPA says that the
disclosure can be made to the appropriate parties in connection in an
emergency if the knowledge of the information is necessary to protect
the health or safety of the student or others so it\'s not just to
protect the student. It\'s the student or others which, again, gives
some latitude there for schools in terms of releasing information here.
That\'s the FERPA piece in terms of education. I don\'t know if there
are any particular questions about educational records before we move on
to talk about the surveying piece that we do.

MS. PRICE: I don\'t have a specific question but I\'m wondering if Shep
or Russell or some of those that are more focused on the data issue
because I don\'t know just if you would glean out from your presentation
that some of what you\'ve talked about directly reflects some of the
issues related to collecting data on kids and tracking. I just wanted to
mention that so that I could instigate those questions if you have them.
Maybe give an example and does that conflict with FERPA.

MR. ROOKER: Yes, sure.

MR. FLORES: I think a key question here has to do with what is
considered adequate procedure for obtaining consent. A lot of times
researchers think about doing passive consent or they will send out
letters saying, \"We\'re going to be collecting this type of
information.

Please let us know if you don\'t want your child to participate\...\" in
this, that, or the other study. Is that acceptable under these rules or
does there have to be a written consent for each piece of data that\'s
collected?

MR. ROOKER: Some of that would depend. We\'ll actually get into
Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment more talking about serving of
students and that sort of things. In terms of what Debbie was mentioning
that efforts to collect data, to do research on students, and an effort
to do this based on information and education records is clearly
affected by FERPA because, as you can see from this, that if something
is directly related, that student is personally identifiable in some
way, that information under FERPA generally has to be protected from any
kind of redisclosure so when you get into a lot of different types of
research, this can impact on that.

We have opined on this particular issue. I actually have a letter on our
website to the Tennessee State Department of Education relating to
collection or release of information to researchers for research
purposes and how that can generally be done under FERPA, although doing
a longitudinal study becomes quite \-- it\'s more difficult because,
again, you\'ve got to keep in mind the small cell issue and that you
don\'t identify students through the collection of information that\'s
there. All of this is affected by FERPA.

MR. KELLUM: Let me say something research-y. In actual fact, a lot of
what you\'ve been saying boils down to the partnership between the
researchers and the local school district and the facilities. What is a
school official becomes an issue.

In Baltimore, for example, the research team is declared part of the
school district. We carry IDs and the like. Nonetheless, we get active
written consent on anything which is beyond the day-to-day monitoring of
grades and the like because we believe that if we can\'t get active
consent, we\'ve not done our homework in partnering with the families.

Through the school district and the school building through the
principal we have to establish that kind of rapport which allows the
mutual self-interest of families, school buildings, and researchers to
come together in a common vision.

We don\'t train researchers how to make those partnerships so a lot of
the research enterprise comes from the fact that researchers are not
very good at establishing the kind of rapport which makes these
regulations actually of mutual importance to the research as well as to
the school district and the families. That\'s the underlying process
that we have to somehow bring to light.

In Baltimore, for example, we do randomized field trials. There are many
components of that including random assignment of kids to classrooms.
The school district, the Board of School Commissioners, says that it\'s
their function to assign kids to classrooms. They don\'t want to do
tracking so they are in favor of balancing classrooms so random
assignment when you work through trust turns out to be for the families
very often the quote is \"creating an even playing field\" so some kids
are not in one classroom because their parents are more vociferous and
other kids are dumped into the bad classroom where the classroom
management is likely to be very poor.

There are a lot of process issues. What they come down to is the way the
researchers, the school district, and the families really work through
the very legitimate concerns. FERPA is not an imposition on researchers.

It is a facilitator. It is supposed to make it possible to establish
some guidelines of what you\'re supposed to do if you want to muck
around with somebody\'s kids. I\'m trying to get some tone to the whole
thing.

MR. ROOKER: Sure. That is an excellent point, each point you\'ve made
there. I would re-emphasize the signed consent provision in FERPA is a
wonderful thing. Signed consent is a wonderful thing because as you deal
with families, if you are really doing in depth research and really
going to deal with them, then that is why that consent provision is
there to say, \"Hey, they can give you access to anything.\"

MS. KEYS: I just wanted to clarify for my own sake. FERPA has to do with
a request for an existing record.

MR. ROOKER: Yes.

MS. KEYS: Student record where the PPRA is more a request to survey a
student.

MR. ROOKER: Yes.

MS. KEYS: One is asking permission to access something that already
exist. The other is to collect something new.

MR. ROOKER: That\'s a very good summation. You are absolutely right
because FERPA deals with education records. That\'s what it affects. It
is not a confidentiality law. It doesn\'t say you can\'t talk to kids or
any of these sorts of things.

It says how the school treats a record that it maintains is important
and has to be treated in a very particular way. In terms of the PPRA, as
you point out, this deals with the surveying and it is, if you will, a
future record almost. It deals with two things here.

One, we have Department of Ed funded surveys. If you have a Department
of Ed funded survey, then before a minor student is required to
participate in such a survey that reveals information concerning one or
more of eight protected areas of information

\-- we\'ll look at those in just a moment here

\-- that active consent, consent from the parent, would be obtained.

We\'ve got an active consent with a Department of Ed funded. Other
funded surveys, HHS, CDC, state entities, if someone else is funding it,
then schools are required to notify parents of students scheduled to
participate in the survey.

Again, if it gets into one or more of these eight protected area and
provide them with an opportunity to inspect and review the survey and
also an opportunity to opt their child out so this is passive consent.

If it\'s funded by anyone other than the Department of Education, the
consent is passive which means you notify the parent and tell them if
they don\'t want their child participating to tell you in writing as
opposed to the active consent which would tell us it\'s okay to survey
your child.

Those eight protected area I\'m not going to go through all of them here
but you have them there on the next couple of overheads but they are
all, you will notice, nonacademic in nature. They are personal. They get
into different types of behavior, attitudes, this sort of thing.

If the survey doesn\'t venture into one of these, then it\'s not subject
to PPRA. If it does venture into one or more of these, then PPRA does
come into play either active or passive consent, either one. One of the
things that\'s required regardless of whether it\'s active or passive
consent is direct notification to parents of students who are
participating in these surveys.

This is either through U.S. Mail or e-mail of those students who are
actually going to be participating in the survey or asked to. There
needs to be \-- there are actually a couple of different notifications
here.

We have models on our website for any that are out there available to
any school. There is a general notification that goes to the general
population. It can be sent home in the backpack or any other means. Then
there\'s the direct notification for those students who are actually
going to be surveyed and that\'s where we get into U.S. Mail or e-mail
directly to the parent the notification to advise the parent of their
right to opt their child out of the activities, the specific or
approximate date scheduled for the activities and the right to inspect
and review the survey material.

So that is a very quick run-through of PPRA. PPRA, as pointed out, is
something future or something that is going to be done so you are
notifying parents, the school districts are notifying parents and where
appropriate getting consent for having the opt-out on the surveying.

Again, only if it gets into one of those eight areas. We get lots of
questions about different types of surveys that don\'t get into these
areas and those aren\'t affected by \--

MS. PRICE: Lee, for the Ed funded that is required, what about if it\'s
voluntary, if you do a survey that\'s voluntary?

MR. ROOKER: Right. The term required is not a defined one so what we
look at is the totality of the situation. We would look at whether,
indeed, it was a voluntary survey or not. One investigation we did in
New Jersey dealt with what was called a voluntary survey but every
student who missed was brought in to take the survey afterwards. The
totality of the situation told us this was not voluntary. This was a
required survey called voluntary so it depends on what that really looks
like.

Then the issue comes down to because PPRA the right belongs with the
parent so at what point can you let the child make the decision as
opposed to the parent. What age and that sort of thing. Again, all of
the totality of that comes into play when we look at that.

MR. ROMERO: Just one quick question. Are the notifications if they are
voluntary notifications, and obviously this is going to go to the
parents, are they offered in other languages besides English?

MR. ROOKER: We don\'t have them available in any language other than
English. There are school districts that do notification both for FERPA
and PPRA in other languages depending on the size of a particular
population.

MR. JONES: Just real quick, do these guidelines supersede or are they
fully consistent with HIPAA and IRB guidelines?

MR. ROOKER: Okay. In terms of HIPAA, FERPA when it comes to medical
records, which is where we go with HIPAA, that FERPA applies to medical
records at schools as opposed to HIPAA. That is in the HIPAA regulations
and is made clear that records that are subject to FERPA are not subject
to HIPAA\'s privacy rule so FERPA is what governs there. We have
information on our website on that, the HHS regulations, for example,
that are there.

In terms of IRB we work closely with the office here at the Department
that is charged with the administering of that particular law. Those
IRBs have to comply with the requirements of both PPRA and, when
appropriate, also with FERPA.

They are very good in making that known to the various IRBs that when
you get into actual either surveying of students if it gets again into
these areas that you need to be aware of PPRA and comply with that. If
you get into accessing student records or needing to access student
records again, then it\'s got to be in compliance with FERPA which
generally means signed consents to do that.

MR. JONES: So if I\'m approved by my IRB to do research, surveys, etc.,
I can assume that these guidelines have been met or not?

MR. ROOKER: I would never assume they are but they are subject to both
of these laws. Again, IRBs are determined other than here at the
Department of Education. The Department of Education, though, in working
with the various IRBs around the country are very conscious of both of
these laws and bring them to their attention. Hopefully they are being
pulled in when they make any kind of determination on any request.

MR. KELLUM: Russell\'s questions are not trivial. I don\'t know how many
of you know what all these initials are. IRB, Institutional Review
Board, that is the local agency inside the institution that judges
whether you\'ve met FERPA or HIPAA or anybody\'s overriding guiding
principles.

It\'s interesting because one of the tasks of this Advisory Committee is
to bring together, you can see from the makeup, across federal agencies,
researchers, policy makers, program people, and so forth. An IRB of a
school district is not the same IRB as at Johns Hopkins School of Public
Health or at American Institutes for Research.

These are institutional IRBs who, in fact, can get into very interesting
debates as to whose jurisdiction any particular program is going to
happen. What we are talking about is a process by which the researcher
and the policy makers and the institutions need to come together,
another example of partnering.

How those criteria get interpreted is going to be an increasingly
important process. Just the idea of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, the word
\"Schools\" implies one IRB, drugs and the rest, NIH, and so forth. We
are talking about coming together on how we oversee information systems.

As we create integrated information systems across education, health,
child farewell and the like, these are going to be an underpinning that
protects the kids and the families from undue exposure and injury.

When the Secretary says, \"Can you make an information system everybody
will agree on,\" the answer has got to be yes because we have to somehow
come together across these institutions in any case. We have to learn to
do it.

MR. ROOKER: Very good.

MR. LONG: Montean.

MS. JACKSON: Also, because many of our LEAs actually have drug and
alcohol programs within their systems, as well as some of the partnering
that goes on with local providers, what about 42 CFR? Is that aligned
with FERPA? Again, if consents are being signed at the school level for
the release of information under the governing regulation of 42 CFR is
that sufficient?

MR. ROOKER: Yes, as long as, again, if consents are being signed consent
can get anyone anything for any purpose so the key Mr. Kellam mentioned
is getting that consent. If that\'s there, you can do anything with
that. You simply fill in what\'s going to be disclosed and to whom.

MR. LONG: Thank you very much, LeRoy. We appreciate the presentation.
Thank you for coming down and sharing this with us.

MR. ROOKER: My pleasure. Again, you will find contact information in
your handout so if there are questions that come along or if you run
into questions as you are dealing with your constituents as well,
hopefully we are very accessible. We also have our website up there
which has a lot of information on it as well that could be helpful and
follow on on this.

MS. PRICE: Let me just give a commercial for Lee\'s office, the Family
Policy Compliance Office. There is not an office here at the Department
that doesn\'t have their fingers \-- their fingers aren\'t in our pies
in one way, shape, or form. Those pictures of the desks are exactly what
their decks look like up there.

One complement to give to Lee and Ellen, particularly Ellen Campbell who
has listened in on several of our meetings, also from that office, they
really are there to help people before they get themselves in the middle
of a problem and can usually figure out what those circumstances are.

Not ways to get around the law but ways to directly address the law as
we look at the Advisory Committee things and as we address those things.
But even as you go out into your day-to-day jobs that touch on these
things, if in doubt just ask them because they really are quick to get a
response.

They really do want to work with you so that all are aided in this
process. It\'s an office to really be complemented in what they do
because, like I said, every office here at the Department touches them
so their workload is heavy but they do a great job.

MR. ROOKER: Thank you, Debbie. Great point that Debbie makes right there
is we would a whole lot rather get involved ahead of the problem than
after. It\'s a lot easier to keep out of trouble than it is to go back
and walk the dog back so it\'s better if we can get in. If you\'ve got
questions at any point or they come up, they arise, we are happy to work
to try and see what are the limits that we have there.

MS. PRICE: Another thing is so many folks think because FERPA or PPRA is
out there that they are just really hesitant to do anything when they
really have the ability to do a lot of things. I\'ve seen that with many
of the regulatory agencies like DEA. Doctors are afraid to do certain
things because they are afraid of the DEA.

If you are trying to do something to get the direction and support and
clear guidance from FERPA is only helpful and helps eliminate those
barriers out there and those fears that several education communities
have.

MR. LONG: Thank you again, Lee.

We\'ll take a break. If we could start again at five after. It\'s six
minutes of.

(Whereupon, at 9:58 a.m. off the record until 10:08 a.m.)

MR. LONG: Folks, if we could please come back and find our areas, we\'ll
resume. Okay, folks. As we resume, I would now like to go back to the
conversation that we were having to bring that to closure and that
subject is when we would meet next and what the duration of that meeting
would be. I think there was consensus that whatever the length of that
meeting or the date, then that would dictate what would then happen in
March and April.

Mike, you had your hand up.

MR. PIMENTEL: I did hear how some people are having some problems with
the conflict in the date. However, I would strongly \-- very strongly
recommend, and I know you were being very kind by saying with all due
respect. The fact is we all knew what the dates were. We worked through
that all together.

As much as I love Russell, Dennis, you just can\'t make it but that
doesn\'t constitute me having to go back and reschedule and look at my
availability. I would strongly suggest we just stay with the dates we
have set.

I love the idea of going until 6:00 and making it a one-day meeting but
with consideration to those who have to travel so far to allow them the
opportunity to stay that night and take the next flight out in the
morning. If we can, I\'m fine with that.

MR. JONES: I love you, too, Michael, but I sure want to be at this next
meeting.

MR. LONG: You two, enough. I\'m just going to ask how many could and
would prefer to meet on the 19th? Let\'s see a show of hands. Let\'s see
if we can just do this. Sixteen. It will be the 19th. The next question,
although we have mentioned it, I would also like to ask this.

Would you prefer \-- how many would prefer to meet from 8:00 to 6:00 and
make the 19th a one-day meeting? Let\'s see a show of hands if you wish
to do that. It will be the 19th of April and we will meet from 8:00 a.m.
until \-- I\'m sorry. I apologize, the 19th of March. After all of that
I said the wrong month. The 19th of March from 8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.
Thank you for that.

The other thing I think, with all the discussion we had on dates and
times and what was going to happen in the future, great consideration,
all of that discussion lasted about 14 or 15 minutes just prior to LeRoy
and then just after. I want us to bear that in mind because several of
you have alluded to the fact that we have quite a group sitting around
here.

I think when we really \-- this gets to the second part, the segue. We
get that one or two-pager from Bill and I talked to him at the break and
he said absolutely he can do that and get that out in a rather quick
fashion. I don\'t think you used that term, Bill, but in a timely
fashion.

Then we\'ll start to bring those things together. I think some of that
discussion when we see those things we can do some of the very positive
discussion and come to some agreement.

Having said that, I received \-- I\'m not sure what this was. Catherine
said something about Russell.

MS. PRICE: You had something that you wanted to say?

MR. WECHSLER: Yes.

MR. LONG: This is back on page 9, Russell, where it says, \"For
additional items on the agenda there will be a five-minute timeline.\"
That\'s on page 12.

MR. WECHSLER: Okay. Five minutes.

MS. PRICE: And that\'s on your handouts for everybody. They are in the
inside pocket.

MR. JONES: Just real quickly, I\'m going to try my very best to make
that meeting on that Monday. Maybe I can fly out of here right to New
Orleans.

I\'ve got all kinds of goodies. Let me just bring some information to
the attention of the Committee. First of all, I wanted to thank the
Committee for allowing the panel last meeting to talk about trauma. I
just wanted to highlight a couple of things that were said and also
distribute some information.

The information that is going around is information from the National
Child Traumatic Stress Center as well as information from the National
Children\'s Center of Poverty, National Center for Poverty at the
Columbia University.

I also sent out some information on the \-- you guys should have gotten
an e-mail concerning the impact of trauma on children. There is also
some information coming by Langtree and Briere out of Long Beach,
California.

The point is just to \-- I thought there were a number of very excellent
question raised subsequent to the discussions and I just wanted to kind
of summarize some of that information. I\'ve got this written so I\'ll
read this in the interest of time but, again, just pointing out the
important role, the potential role of trauma on children.

In 1990 former President George Bush set a goal stating that by 2000 all
children would be ready to learn. Despite many valuable efforts, in 2007
this goal is yet elusive. One obstacle preventing the obtainment of this
goal might be trauma.

To date the nation\'s school children are yet to be systematically
screened, assessed, or treated for traumatic stress. In spite of its
prevalence, 25 percent of children and adults in the general population
and 90 percent of youth experience trauma in high-risk situations.

These situations include 50 percent of youth in the child welfare
system, 60 to 90 percent of children in the juvenile justice system, and
up to 91 percent of urban youth. The point is attention needs to be
given to this very vital area.

I just have a couple of real poignant statistics here, in fact, I had
one of my graduate students, Rachel Moore, collect for me. Just a couple
of, I think, real important points. The question is how does violent
exposure impact learning? That was one of the questions asked last time.

These findings are within the last 10 years. Decreased IQ and reading
ability, lower grade point average, more days of school absence,
decreased rates of high school graduation, increased expulsion and
suspensions, the achievement gap.

The negative affects of trauma exposure may explain one aspect of the
bleak reality that African American and Latino students continue to
trail far behind Caucasian peers in schools such as higher dropout rates
from high school after generation education reform. Again, just a few
facts.

I think it\'s also important to look at the role of trauma following
natural and technological disasters. Doing multiple deployments to the
Gulf Coast just recently as last week in Mississippi the devastating of
Katrina on children was drastically and painfully observed.

I had an opportunity, in fact, I first met Deborah as well as the
Secretary, in the Gulf Coast area where a wonderful series of seminars
were set up to educate school principals and other officials of the
impact of trauma. And also the commitment of the Department of
Education.

I also subsequent to that had the opportunity to meet with Laura Bush
and to advise her on the impact of children and trauma and meet her in
New Orleans shortly after the storm. There is no doubt there has been a
good commitment of both the Department as well as the White House in
terms of Katrina as it relates to education. However, there is a lot
more that needs to be done.

We were at a meeting at the National Center for Children of Poverty at
Columbia. This was called by Jane Knitzer. We were coming up with
wonderful recommendations in terms of what needed to be done to help
children impacted by trauma.

I asked the group if I could bring those recommendations here and have
them presented to the Secretary. You all have those. I just wanted to
highlight the first four of those again, just the need for attention to
the potential impact of trauma on children in our nation. Again, I\'ll
just go through the first four.

No. 1, develop statewide and tribal-level trauma coordinators across the
country in partnership with SAMHSA.

No. 2, build the capacity of learning communities, especially childcare
settings and school-developed trauma informed culture.

No. 3, develop a mechanism for training, teachers, and administrators on
recognizing the signs of trauma, building trauma-informed learning
environments, developing trauma-informed responses, and understanding,
knowledge, as well as much about the history of a child\'s youth and his
or her family to better serve as the whole child.

Last but not least, 4, examine the unintended consequences of the
implications of No Child Left Behind and develop interventions that
support children, youth, and their families to help them succeed.

Then we\'ve got a number of very specific steps beneath there. Again, I
just wanted to bring this attention to the Committee and would be very
happy to assist in following up on this in any way possible. We\'ve got
a very active team at Virginia Tech. We\'ve got six outstanding graduate
students and 13 to 15 undergrads and we partner with national and
international organizations around the country. Thank you very much.

MR. LONG: Thank you very much, Russell. I\'m a numbers nut and I also
read. Just a question. I think it\'s the fourth page, recommended
responses.

MR. JONES: Yes.

MR. LONG: I didn\'t know where all this went out to, what the audience
was. Recommended responses, No. 3, the last sentence there. \"At least
half the 100,000 school buildings and all the 1,500 school districts.\"
I believe that would be 1,000.

MR. JONES: Okay, yes.

MR. LONG: I\'m just pointing that out so if this goes out to someone
that they might raise that question.

MR. JONES: Exactly. Thank you.

MR. LONG: I think it was just in haste to get this published. Thank you
very much.

MR. JONES: Thank you.

MR. LONG: Yes, Montean.

MS. JACKSON: This goes back to the original item that you mentioned for
Bill and the two-page document. I was just wanting to make also a
possible suggestion or recommendation.

Perhaps it would be in matrix form perhaps with in one column the
information that we are charged with and then any of our recommendations
that are aligned with one or any of the particular objectives that we
are expected to respond to. Maybe another column for possibilities or
whatever but just matrix form might be help as well.

MR. LONG: I think that\'s a good point. As you were talking I turned to
Bill and, true to Bill, he just went, \"Yes.\" Good suggestion and you
have an answer.

Yes, Dennis.

MR. ROMERO: Just one comment to Russell on the No. 1 item. Just as an
FYI, later this past summer I made a very wise commitment to bring
issues of children trauma to the forefront of mental health and
substance abuse services and to that end Dr. Lark Hong came on board as
a senior policy adviser. She has really done a lot of work in this area.

We also have established and developed a policy with tribal entities
across the nation. In fact, we\'re starting what I call our road trip to
all ten consultation centers starting this month. One of the topics for
discussion is issues of trauma, suicide, and prevention and early
intervention issues so just as an FYI.

MR. JONES: In fact, I met with her last week in Pittsburgh so I\'m very,
very aware of that initiative. Thank you.

MR. LONG: As we head then for March 19th so that we are very focused,
it\'s going to be, as we said, 8:00 to 6:00 one-day meeting. I was
keying off what Montean just said about a matrix. Is there anything else
that we need or need to do or should receive prior to that meeting so
that at 8:00 a.m. on the 19th that we have a full day of extremely
productive discussion?

MR. KELLUM: Going back to Montean\'s idea, it\'s a little bit
complicated. What we are trying to do is to look at those three
questions that we were to address as an Advisory Committee. One of our
questions is sort of an elephant in the room when we are talking about
what the nature of the report is and how we come to shared vision.

It\'s how much we integrate across those three versus deal with each of
them separately. You can\'t deal with information systems very
creatively if you\'re not going to ask how does it relate to program and
policy. All of a sudden we\'re talking about crosscutting.

I just would be wary of grouping all our recommendations within each of
the three rather than having an opportunity to see across the three. How
would you see these really operating in a much more forceful integrating
fashion.

It\'s not that it\'s either/or but somehow if we create a matrix, we
want to make sure that you could do crosscutting across the three. It\'s
extremely important because things like encouraging partnerships across
researchers, policymakers, practitioners, program people, community
institutions, families, and the like.

That crosscuts all three. You can\'t do information systems, as you just
heard from LeRoy, without partnership because they require participation
and buy-in and neutral self-interest and the like. Anyway, just wanted
to throw that out.

The other thing is, Dave, I really recognize the importance of parsimony
but I\'m not sure a one-pager is going to do it. We could compromise.
Not 15 but somewhere in between is likely to be what would be most
useful.

MR. LONG: I think in that discussion with Bill whatever is appropriate
to make sure that the information comes forward, sure.

MR. LONG: Ralph, did you have \--

MR. HIGGINS: We made a decision to meet on the 19th for a full day but
somehow I thought I heard the possibility that we should continue to
keep the morning of the 20th open. I\'m wondering if we are trying to
compress too much into one full day.

MR. LONG: I don\'t have a problem with that personally but that\'s my
response. Any other comments to that? It was my understanding that it
would be 8:00 to 6:00. Any other comments?

MR. HERRMANN: I think if we just work really hard and agree that we are
going to shut it off at 6:00 we\'ll probably get as much done. I mean,
for me if we\'re going

to \-- I would really prefer the one day simply because I\'m so far
behind at home and at work and everywhere else. That\'s just me.

MR. LONG: Yes. I\'m sorry.

MS. SIMS: I don\'t want to go against Shep but I do like Montean\'s idea
of somehow structuring or summarizing the information in some kind of a
graphic format like a matrix, something that we can just get a quick
summary of what some of the recommendations are, where they line up.
Maybe they will be repeated in the different cells, you know, some of
these issues. I think that we have attended to the issues of not
treating these three areas as silos enough that the final report
wouldn\'t end up that way. As a way to start I would sort of like to see
it all in bullets on a page or maybe a front and back somehow as a way
to get started. It\'s just easier for me than getting a 10-page
document.

MR. LONG: I just \-- and I want to qualify this. I have one of those
superintendents in the counties that we run for office. I would propose
that it be a one-page on 11 by 14 paper. The point being that I think we
can get it but it\'s important that it be succinct.

I think also in a discussion like this we see the personalities of the
positions we hold. Some of us are in positions where we are used to
one-pagers because anything more than that we won\'t read the second
page anyway.

I don\'t mean that as a negative. It\'s just the way it is. I think
however Bill can arrange that to be as succinct as possible so that we
can move forward with a very positive discussion on the 19th.

Yes, Shep.

MR. KELLUM: Not to disagree with my Program Officer who gives us the
check but I do \-- she doesn\'t give me the check. No, seriously, I
think we could have it both ways which is a great solution to almost
anything. If we have things organized by the three aims, that\'s one
issue.

I think maybe we ought to say let\'s have a crosscutting parameter so
that where there are recommendations which deliberately cut across these
three that be noticed because, in fact, that gives us a building block
for thinking about a report which hopefully is not going to be in three
chapters but will somehow have some kind of integration across data,
policy, programs, partnering, institutions, and the like.

MR. LONG: I\'m also trying to bear in mind those 18 business days that
Bill can get us something that we can be looking at. I think if we keep
this as simple as possible bearing in mind your discussion, that it can
be crosscutting.

I know now that you sit here, Shep, you\'re laboring under the
assumption that you\'re going to get one of these one-pagers. Bill just
said he\'s not going to send it out to everybody. Never mind.

Yes, Russell.

MR. JONES: I don\'t think the two are orthogonal. I think we can have
the one-pagers and the one, two, three but also have the crosscutting. I
think both can be done. I\'ve sat on committees where you do both.

MR. LONG: Again, I want to be very conscious of his time and I think to
have it very succinct and whether it\'s a one-pager or whatever just do
it and then we\'ll go from there but we\'ve got to have something down.
I\'m concerned about the 18 days. I really am.

MS. KEYS: I think we ought to let Bill figure it out.

MS. PRICE: My experience in working with Bill is he is very capable of
figuring out how to best meet all the needs of what you said here.
We\'ll move on to another subject and Bill will take of it.

MS. KEYS: The only thing I wanted to add is I think we\'re coming
together again for a day. It\'s going to be a roll-up-your-sleeves
work-hard day and I think it\'s important that we all come prepared to
work and that we have reviewed and understand the charge and understand
what some of the materials are that we have been sent previously.

We do have two preliminary reports that we\'ve read those, that we\'ve
made notes, and that we are really ready to make the best use of that
day that we can.

MS. TAFT: Speaking of what might go into that report, are we going to
have any recommendations on data coming out of this meeting?

MR. LONG: Yes, and we\'ll get to it as soon as Tommy \-- that question
was asked yesterday. We gave two suggestions. We\'ll go back to that and
then you can enhance it if you wish.

Tommy.

MR. LEDBETTER: I\'m not sure that I understood what he meant when he
said it earlier but, Russell, is this what you meant by focusing too
hard on the fuzzy? Is that what we have been doing here?

MR. JONES: Yes. I think we got the fuzzy. It\'s a sharp image of the
fuzzy. I\'m sure we\'re going to move that along nicely.

MR. LONG: The question if we could enhance what Hope was just asking and
that is any recommendations on data bearing in mind \-- we are going to
be getting this one-pager bearing in mind we\'ll have that one full-day
of discussion.

One of the things that was mentioned yesterday when the question was
asked is that we have a common and coordinated data system. That was one
that I think four or five people mentioned. Then from there we said if
you had other recommendations it could be part of the infamous
one-pager.

MS. TAFT: I would like to emphasize that all of the at least federal
level departments have a common language so that people at the local
level can have the same set of guidelines and that it be built from the
bottom up so that data is useful at all levels which, I think, can be
done. I think NASTAD is working on an effort under that parameter for
SAMHSA right now to make it an integrated system.

MR. LONG: Others? Ralph.

MR. HIGGINS: Looking at some data recommendations, there are a few pet
peeves that I have or agendas that I would like to put on the table. One
is I was looking through this book where they were talking about the
numbers of suicides and homicides in schools.

I think that we ought to be thinking not just about what happens during
school hours on school property but what happens to young people who
happen to be students. A lot of the harm that they may encounter may
occur in the community and outside of the specific school boundaries.
That is why you heard me before talk about the need for schools and
communities in which they are located to work together. One of the
things that I think would be very important, the STOP Act, which has
just passed the Congress, included a provision that all unnatural deaths
under 21 be tested for alcohol.

I think that is very important. The last two decades alcohol related
traffic deaths in the United States of the population have been cut in
half. The greatest declines have occurred among people who are under the
age of 21 partly because of raising the legal drinking age to 21 and
zero tolerance laws and education that went around those.

But we don\'t have that type of data for homicides, suicides, falls,
drownings, burns, and so on. I think it is very important now that we
have this law on the books. There\'s no money behind it but this be
something that we emphasize the importance of.

I think that we need to learn more about the trends in homicides and
suicides and what proportion are alcohol related. It cost about \$50 per
post mortem test which in the grander scheme of things to me is a small
investment for that type of data.

Second thing I think that would be useful in the Youth Risk Behavior
Survey or in the PRIDE survey or other surveys that are collected to
include information about the secondhand effects of alcohol and drug
use. I think that Henry Wechsler from the Harvard School of Public
Health did a great service to this country when he included questions
about secondhand effects of college student drinking.

We find if we take the data that he\'s collected and project it out to
the populations that those samples are supposed to represent, that there
are nearly 700,000 college students every year who are assaulted by
another drinking college student and nearly 100,000 date rapes and
sexual assaults perpetrated by another drinking college student.

What that information about secondhand effects does is it provides a \--
it creates a sense of obligation that the colleges and the communities
in which they are located need to do something to address the problem. I
think that would be very important.

I noticed in the 2005 youth risk behavior survey unlike the 2003 survey
that the questions about academic performance suddenly are no longer
there and I don\'t know why that is. I think that it would be very
useful if students could continue to be asked about their grade point
average and if we include questions also about absenteeism. That would
enhance the data collection. Those are just a couple points I wanted to
make sure I got across.

MR. LONG: Good. Thank you. Other comments regarding data?

MR. JONES: Is this the recommendation time?

MR. LONG: Yes.

MR. JONES: I had a couple but I can wait.

MR. LONG: No, this is \--

MR. JONES: Now is the time. Great. Okay. So based on the information
that was shared yesterday a number of questions were raised some of
which had been raised before. I think one thing that would be good is a
critical analysis of the current data collection methods and that
includes both the management information systems, the YRBSS and the
PRIDE as well as growth models.

Secondly, perhaps a clarification of the relationship of all data
methods within the No Child Left Behind and Safe and Drug-Free Schools
initiatives. Those relationships to policy, assessment, as well as
intervention efforts so they can kind of see those linkages there.

Third, a cost effective analysis of our measurement systems, dollars and
sense, where that\'s taking us. Are we really getting the bang for our
buck. The articulation of a conceptual and empirical framework for the
assessment and intervention strategies that are presently being engaged.

Application of an initial conceptual and empirical framework and where
things went awry. That relates to what Bill was saying yesterday, Bill
Modzeleski, saying that he had brought together a group of researchers
and scientists and kind of mapped out a framework. I\'m just wondering
what that framework looks like and to what extent it has gone awry if,
in fact, it has gone awry.

I think I\'ve just gone one or two more. A review of the systems of care
with relationships to partnership-based initiatives. That is kind of
thinking outside of the box. I\'m hoping that we can glean from
information that is presently in the literature in terms of building
partnerships, the integration of different systems of mental health as
well as public health care systems around the country.

A critical review of the translation of data collection to practice.
We\'ve got tons of wonderful data but I\'m not sure the extent to which
those data are being translated into practice.

Then last but not least, and I don\'t know how doable this is, but hire
\-- what is this? Okay, yeah. It\'s kind of a business model. I don\'t
know how this would be done but it\'s kind of an assessment of the
translation of this knowledge into evidence-based practices, how we
would actually do that. I mean, I don\'t know if we can do that as a
group but just kind of get the detail in terms of how our data is being
translated into practice.

MR. LONG: Thank you, Russell.

Any others as it relates to \-- yes, Mike.

MR. HERRMANN: One of the things that I think was very clear to be
yesterday in reflecting on the presentation that I gave and that other
folks gave is the data collection for this program has not kept up with
the scope of the program itself.

I think if you look at where this program was when NCLB was authorized,
you know, there are all sorts of issues around school security, around
traumatic events, around youth suicide issues that at our level we spent
a lot of time on but those measures are not even addressed in any of the
other pieces that we\'ve been looking at.

I think there is really a desperate need to sort of revisit all of that
data collection piece and really look at pieces of data that address the
scope of the program as it is at this point because I think the program
really has changed dramatically since its inception. I think that is a
very important piece.

I think the other thing is somehow we\'ve got to get to a realistic
point about what is reasonable to expect schools to collect and states
to collect given all the other challenges that we have and sort of the
scope of the funding that\'s available because all of the money that\'s
available to state and local programs could go to data collection and
there would be no funding left for programs. I think we\'ve got to come
up with a realistic sort of expectation for that.

MR. KELLUM: There\'s a lot of overlap in our comments and that\'s
reassuring. I would like to see us, first of all, endorse the idea that
we\'ve developed a plethora of data-gathering operations with more or
less success but at great expense and that we recognize that these have
not reached their full utility which is to say the application of the
data to practice and the institutional structure.

That\'s No. 1, to recognize that we have all these pieces that are very
expensive but they are not being integrated sufficiently and integrated
sufficiently and integrated with practice. That\'s a recognition.

I would like to see us also recognize that data are extremely expensive
in person power, financing, time, all of those issues of expenditure so
we recognize that. What we want to do is create an integration of data
gathering with practice and institutional structuring so that these are
all one operation with different function, not separate operations.

They are going to integrate across federal, state, and local
institutions those activities which are necessarily interrelated.
Academic achievement, drug abuse, school failure, delinquency and
violence all have common risk factors that need to be addressed. Kids
don\'t come in separate components. The same are being addressed from
different perspectives but separately.

The model of healthy students or safe schools which did begin to bring
together all these components is a model that we should be pursuing
further. That\'s at the kind of integrating structuring level.

At the concrete level we\'ve got now a very expensive state-wide
assessment systems operating. They are management information systems.
We are using them to identify places where there are big problems but
separately from solutions to those problems.

The management information systems give us opportunity to see how we can
allocate what little money there is from each agency but collectively
there would be more money across agencies to bring to bear on those hot
spots of problem areas. The data should be guiding the allocation of
resources. The data that tells us where the problems are and the quality
of the problems should guide how we think about allocating our resources
and what kinds of resources.

So the management information systems are a necessary component. But,
again, in regard to data we have not brought to bear enough light on the
fact that we are in each school district in every school gathering
developmental data. The grades and scores and achievements and
expulsions, suspensions are all part of a single child\'s record over
time.

With proper safeguards of the kind we saw Fred illustrate and his staff
yesterday, we should be able to integrate these management information
systems with individual school records.

In order to do that we would need to have a partnership which we\'ve
talked about in general but must be specifically specified within FERPA
guidelines that allows for information to be used about each child over
time to see what is working for which children under what circumstances
and what more is needed.

We need to have, in other words, an integrated data system which
highlights hot spots through the management information systems, the
slice in time, the salami slice in time that we do, with the growth
modeling or the developmental records of children so that, in fact, we
can monitor progress of kids academically and all those things that
impinge on academic performance including trauma and other matters.

So what we\'re talking about is creating a framework which builds on
safe students and health schools, whatever it is, and which, in fact,
allows us to collaborate and partner at the federal, state, and local
levels.

I think that\'s what we should be aiming at. We need to discuss the
feasibility. One of the issues is recognizing the vital importance of
bringing the NIHs and the SAMHSAs and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools,
those with a research mission and those with a mission of rolling out
what works and at the federal, state, and local levels bringing those
into one perspective.

The bottom line is they have to be partnering. They have to be
partnering at those three levels, the federal, state, and local levels.
You can\'t do randomized field trials which is the way you find out what
works for which kids very precisely and under what circumstances without
partnering with families, school buildings, school districts, and the
feds, the NIHs and the SAMHSAs and the like.

One other thing. The major frontier in research these days is not can
you find something that works. There are programs out there that do
impact with rigorous randomized trials as to what works, at least in
some areas. We need more of such programs. Our real frontier is what the
heck do you do if it does work?

How do you roll out a program? How do you take a program from one trial,
repeat it in a different place or in the same place and roll it out from
12 schools to 115 schools as in Fairfax County? What is that roll-out
process? That cuts across all of our institutional boundaries.

It\'s no longer purely research. It\'s no longer purely dissemination.
It ain\'t a question of are they using effective programs. I can tell
you we now know that they are not \"they.\" The people in the front line
are not going to use these programs with fidelity unless there is
continuing mentoring at multiple stages within these institutions and
with monitoring of fidelity.

Whether it\'s instruction we\'re talking about as in open court or
whether it\'s the behavior monitoring or management in classroom levels,
or whether it\'s a family classroom program, they all require fidelity
of implementation.

The kind of monitoring and mentoring that we\'re talking about is really
research frontier as well as a practice frontier. We\'re talking about
reorganizing ourselves not from a different direction but following the
logical next steps of the huge investment we\'ve made in research and
practice and institution building.

MS. DUDE: One thing I would like to add, I don\'t disagree with anything
you just said. Actually, this is different than that, and that is if we
are discussing adding additional questions or changes in questions, it
seems like most of the questions we ask are asking about negative
behaviors that they may have participated in.

I have mentioned this before but I would like to put a plug in for
asking positive questions as well whether they be protected behaviors
they may have or the whole injunctive norm idea of what they think of
people who do negative things.

That way the practitioner can not only look and see, \"Okay, here are
the negative behaviors I need to address,\" but, \"Here is some positive
information I can feed back to the students to hopefully help change
their behavior.\" I just want to put in a plug for asking positive
questions as well.

MR. LONG: Thank you, Kim.

Russell, Howell.

MR. JONES: Just real quick. Kim, in response to what you said, that\'s
right on because in trauma research we\'ve been guilty of asking
negative questions.

However, there is recent data that suggest this whole notion of
post-traumatic growth when asking people what was the silver lining
following Katrina, for example, we found in the Harvard Katrina study
that many people felt that they could do things they couldn\'t do
before.

They felt a greater closeness to other family members and they had a
greater faith in God as a result of the storm. There can be positive
things that come from negative experiences.

MR. WECHSLER: I have three specific suggestions in relation to data.
First of all, as the state program evolves into some new form perhaps,
it is absolutely incomprehensible that the different states are using
different measures to look at the same variables. It just doesn\'t make
any sense. You have to be able to compare across states, compare across
school districts.

Is it hard? Yes, it\'s very hard to come to consensus. There has to be
something done with people at the state level. People are going to be
unhappy. A little secret we have about data collection is that all of
the measures stink. Nothing is ever very satisfactory.

It\'s the best you can come up with. People are going to be unhappy.
It\'s okay. You have to have similar measures being used across the
states. There\'s no question about that.

The other two comments focus on what it is that we\'re measuring. I just
want to remind people we had a very powerful and persuasive panel. It
seemed to me the thing I took from it was that in their opinion perhaps
the most important thing to measure were perceptions of the school
climate.

When it relates to what are the real measures that we want to get, you
guys are absolutely right on in terms of bringing it back into program.
You have to tie the data into program. Where we get led astray when we
focus only on the extreme outcomes, the behavior outcomes, drug use and
violence and suspensions and truancy, yes, we want to have an impact on
those.

Yes, we need to continue measuring them but the reality is there are
9,999 other factors in society besides Safe and Drug-Free Schools that
are having a strong impact on those outcomes. We need to look at more
intermediate measures.

Those are probably the most important measures to assess whether Safe
and Drug-Free Schools is truly having an impact. The perceptions of
school climate would be one. You should hold Safe and Drug-Free Schools
accountable. Can they move the dial on improving the perceptions of the
school climate.

Then the third comment is related. That is that the other thing that is
an intermediate measure that we really ought to be holding programs
accountable for is are they increasing the number of schools that are
implementing the science-based practices that the research literature
has identified as likely to be the most effective things in improving
relevant behaviors.

It\'s not easy coming to agreement on those. There will be lots of
controversies and challenges but there have been solid studies on this
for decades now. It\'s time for the research community and the program
community to come together.

At least we can say if more schools are doing these things, A, B, C, D,
and E, that\'s good for the nation so let\'s try to measure how many
schools in my state under my Safe and Drug-Free School program are
implementing those best practices.

MR. LONG: Thank you, Howell.

Susan.

MS. KEYS: I just wanted to say that I thought what Shep summarized very
comprehensively is a very bold move. Personally I like being bold. I
think he\'s proposing or recommending a very radical change in the way
we do business, the way NIDA does business, the way CDC, the way SAMHSA,
the way the Department of Education goes about data collection.

He is really suggesting and I think we need to recommend to the
Secretary that she use her ability to convene at the secretarial level a
further discussion of how this collaboration might go forward and very
dramatically change how we use our institutional resources to collect
the kinds of data that we need to inform Congress and to support the
programs.

It definitely has to be linked with the program. Unless we really
undertake some very profound system changes, it\'s going to be a drop in
the bucket and not really impact what needs to be done.

MR. LONG: Okay. Let\'s start to wrap this up.

MR. LEDBETTER: At the risk of muddying the waters a little bit, I think
I just need to throw this out there for your consideration. We speak
about data. I\'m not sure that everyone understands the climate of
education nationally right now. The most obvious thing that\'s happening
is a reduction in funding. We are all aware of that.

One of the things that looms out there is that if you look at your
building level leaders throughout the nation who are within retirement
age within the next five years, you\'re probably looking at between 40
and 50 percent of all of them leaving the field within the next five
years if they choose to do that.

Now, with that said, does that create a problem? To me yes, it does.
Most of us who \-- most of the principals in the United States recognize
that. They recognize that there is going to be an extreme shortage of
building-level administrators.

How does that tie to data? To me there\'s two aspects of data.
Collecting the data is the simplest part of it. Once the data is
collected then you get into the interpretation of the data. What does it
mean? Having the data is useless to you unless you can get some
interpretations from the data to try to figure out what the data means.

As a building level administrator that is the important thing to me. No
one to this point has mentioned or even thought about how we will train
all these new building-level administrators as to how to use this data.
With a decrease in funding that just complicates the problem.

Having the data irregardless of what type of surveys we use or anything
else is pretty meaningless if we can\'t teach the people how to use the
data. When we come back next month and so forth, I think that\'s
something that is pretty important that needs \-- to me there needs to
be a recommendation of some type that goes into all of this about trying
to train people about the data.

I can be quite frank with you. I receive my PRIDE survey reports. I get
them. What do I do with those reports? I read them, I look at them, and
I say okay. I either think our problem is worse, it\'s better, but what
am I going to do with it.

Our principal has been there for a long time and these new principals
are going to take it and look at it and they are overwhelmed with
everything else they have coming across their desk already. Will they
take that information and use it? I\'m not sure they will unless there
is some training provided for those people.

Over the next five years you\'re going to see some major changes in the
leadership and education throughout the United States. I think it\'s
important that if data is the key, and the research tells us that data
has to drive what we do.

I don\'t care if it\'s an academic classroom or wherever, data has to
drive what we do. If data is the driving force behind what we\'re doing,
then there needs to be some recommendation about some training for all
of these new folks as to how to use all this data.

MR. JONES: Just two quick points just to follow up on what Tommy is
saying. That\'s right on. You know, any masters level or doctoral level
student will tell you the most difficult part of doing a thesis or a
dissertation is interpretation of the data. It\'s not collecting it.
It\'s the interpretation of it and making sense out of it in a
conceptually relevant fashion.

I just want to echo what Susan said. I mean, I think what Shep is
saying, and I think we are in agreement, is going to the Secretary and
really arguing for a paradigm shift, I mean, in the way we do business
to do it differently. We are doing some things well but without the
integration and the level of nuance kind of thinking, the frameworks.

I mean, you know, looking at it differently. Looking at it from a
different perspective and doing business differently. We\'re not pleased
with the results that we\'ve gotten from many of the initiatives within
the context of No Child Left Behind and Safe and Drug-Free Schools.

The question is how do you change that? It\'s going to take the brain
together of the different parties, the NIMHs, the SAMHSAs, the CDCs. You
know, it\'s gimbling, man. Hopefully we can get it done but, Shep, I
like so much what you\'re saying and I really think that\'s the way to
go.

MR. LONG: Yes, Ralph.

MR. HIGGINS: Yeah. I think the points that were just made about the
interpretation of the data are really critical. You know, I don\'t think
it\'s so much a matter of researchers going and providing information to
school administrators about how to interpret the data that we collect.

I think we have just as much to learn from you about how you think the
data ought to be interpreted and what measures you think are important
and what are the objectives that you think are important to be achieved
in your educational systems and do we have the right measures to assess
whether or not we are meeting your goals or the goals that your
community thinks are important.

As I listen to Shep and others, I think one of the things we ought to
do, and I don\'t know the specifics of how to put this together, but I
think we need to think about developing some kind of ongoing process
where there can be continuing dialogue between the various types of
parties that are around this table around this type of issue so that we
can engage in a continual improvement process and not have just a
snapshot of recommendations that will go off into cyberspace somewhere
but rather to have a continuing dialogue so that we can really thrash
through these issues over time together and make continuing improvement.

MR. LONG: Thank you.

MR. HERRMANN: Yeah. Tom brought up an excellent, excellent point. It\'s
just kind of right in front of us because with NCLB, I mean, there\'s
just a whole profession that has developed in terms of collecting,
interpreting academic data.

I think just now maybe they are beginning to start to realize that folks
have to know how to use that data. The problem is this data is not
connected to that data and somehow we\'ve got to be sure that connection
gets made and that training happens. That\'s an excellent point.

MR. LONG: Yes.

MS. SIMS: Just to remind the group that I think a week or so ago Dennis
had sent around some articles showing the link between drug abuse
prevention programs and academic outcomes. The information is there. At
the last meeting I suggested that we come up with ways to distill this
information in the formats that can be useful out in the community
through either tool kits or little brochures or something just so that
as we are going out if our recommendations are around integrating all
these data systems and trying to look at the links between what we\'re
doing in terms of programming and academic outcomes that it really has a
leg to stand on. Research also supports that this is important to look
at. The programs that they\'re doing can have an impact on students\'
progression academically.

MR. LONG: As we wrap this up, this has been \-- this is the type of
conversation that we need to have for eight hours. That is why I\'m
excited hearing this and as we look forward to March 19th.

I was thinking as you were talking about \-- as we were talking about
the integrated systems and putting this together, and we all know this
but this is why I think there has to be a recommendation regarding,
Susan, what you were saying, Shep, and what a lot of others were chiming
in to say about that integration and the things that are going on with
all of the discussion.

It\'s already happening across this great country in spite of us. This
is the way we humans are. On a district level if the district office
isn\'t doing it, those sites will do it anyway. They will find a way and
they will get it done for the children.

On a county level or an intermediate level it\'s the same way. On a
state level it\'s the same way. If the state is not doing it, and now
we\'re talking about data, the integration and those outcomes, the
counties and the intermediate agencies and the districts will do it
anyway for the children. I would say the same thing. If the Federal
Government is not doing it, the states will do it anyway for the
children. What we\'re really saying is let\'s put that together. Let\'s
just say it because people talk about it and that is my way of saying
\-- I\'m hearing it now in this discussion. That\'s why I\'m so excited
about the 19th.

I think we need to be outside that box. We have to be creative. We
don\'t have to agree. It\'s what you say is going to go into that
report. My recommendation, I\'m hearing it here, is that they be very
strong creative recommendations.

With that, I\'ll \-- this was a great discussion. Debbie, you wanted a
minute to wrap up here.

MS. PRICE: I just wanted a minute because yesterday Fred asked a budget
question and it is information that we\'ve sent to you so I encourage
you to continue to read the things Catherine sends to you. I did print
out the budget dollars that went out.

There are two things because I\'m not sure if you all follow the funding
for 2007 but we were under a continuing resolution that kept continuing
and kept continuing. We had some assumptions of what those numbers may
be for 2007 but we weren\'t confirmed. There are a couple of numbers in
this chart under the 2007 current that are not accurate because since
this went to Congress, the budget proposal, they did the CR.

One is the mentoring number in 2007 should be \$48 million 814. Let\'s
see. The overall total \-- let me just see here \-- the subtotal under
national programs \-- anyway, I\'m getting lost looking at this, Larry.

Anyway, nonetheless, this gives you a pretty good idea. They will revise
this chart. It just hasn\'t been revised yet to give you the accurate
numbers but you can see what the 2007 budget numbers are and our
appropriation numbers are in the President\'s budget proposal for 2008.

I know that we sent out the link to the budget information in the big
budget book which is more like this rather than this. It has some
descriptions and dialogue about what is done. The budget justifications
recently went up on the Department website so you can look more at that
for the future but these are the numbers.

MR. LONG: Well, thank you very much, folks. Everyone be safe.

MR. JONES: I just want to thank Catherine Davis for doing such an
outstanding job. I think she does that consistently so just wanted to
thank you publicly.

MS. DAVIS: Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 11:12 a.m. the meeting was adjourned.)