June 7, 2005

![](media/image3.wmf){width="1.1472222222222221in"
height="1.148611111111111in"}

**Control Number**

**ED-OIG/A04E0007**

Kathy Cox

State Superintendent of Schools

Georgia Department of Education

2066 Twin Towers East

Atlanta, Georgia 30334-5001

Dear Superintendent Cox:

This Final Audit Report, entitled *Georgia Department of Education's
Compliance with the Unsafe Schools Choice Option Provision*, presents
the results of our audit. The purpose of the audit was to determine
whether (1) Georgia's Unsafe School Choice Option (USCO) policy complied
with Title IX, Part E, Subpart 2, § 9532 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) and applicable U.S. Department of Education
(Department) guidance and (2) the Georgia Department of Education (GDOE)
adequately implemented the policy at the State and local education
agency (LEA) levels. Our review covered school year 2002-2003 (for
reporting requirements) and the start of school 2004 (for transfer of
affected students and review of corrective action plans).

BACKGROUND

The USCO in Section 9532 requires that states receiving funds under the
ESEA establish and implement a statewide policy requiring that students
attending a persistently dangerous public school, or students who become
victims of a violent criminal offense while on the grounds of a public
school they attend, be allowed to attend a safe public school. The
Department issued the *Unsafe School Choice Option Non-Regulatory
Guidance* in May 2004. (This guidance was issued in draft form in July
2002.)

States were expected to be in full compliance with USCO requirements for
the 2003 school year, and were to identify those schools that met the
state's definition of persistently dangerous by July 1, 2003. Districts
were to provide victims of violent crimes the option to transfer at
least 14 calendar days prior to the start of the 2004 school year.
Georgia implemented the USCO policy through the Georgia Department of
Education Rule 160-4-8.16, Unsafe School Choice Option.

GDOE's Rule 160-4-8.16 defines a persistently dangerous school as any
school in which for three consecutive years:

-   At least 1 student is found by official action[^1] to have violated
    a school rule related to a violent criminal offense (including
    aggravated battery, aggravated child molestation, aggravated sexual
    battery, aggravated sodomy, armed robbery, arson, kidnapping,
    murder, rape, and voluntary manslaughter) either on campus or at a
    school-sanctioned event.

-   At least 2 percent of the student body or 10 students, whichever is
    greater, have been found by official action to have violated school
    rules related to other identified criminal offenses, including
    non-felony drugs, felony weapons, terrorist threats.

-   Any combination of 1 and 2.

Under GDOE's USCO Rule 160-4-8.16, a school shall offer to transfer a
student to another school after the third consecutive year, but the
victim of a violent crime at school must be offered the right to
transfer immediately. Though a school must meet these criteria for three
consecutive years in order to be labeled "persistently dangerous," local
and State officials will work with school administrators, parents,
educators, and others to address the problem after just one year.

GDOE developed its definition of "persistently dangerous" schools (PDS)
in consultation with the School Administrators of Georgia and staff from
the LEAs. GDOE officials also considered other state policies and formed
discussion groups to discuss how the Georgia policy should be
implemented. The discussion groups consisted of State officials and
various officials from LEAs.

GDOE rules required LEAs to collect statistics on student criminal
incidents at schools prior to USCO. The information collected was
similar to the Georgia USCO requirements for reporting incidents, and
was reported as part of the LEAs' annual school report certifications to
the GDOE. For the 2002-2003 school year, LEAs used the information
collected for 2000 through 2003 school years and reviewed tribunal
records to report USCO incidents and determine if a school was
persistently dangerous.

GDOE officials were unable to code USCO incidents into their statewide
school record system for the 2002-2003 school year. As a result, GDOE
established a website and required LEAs to self-report their USCO
incidents for that school year. Beginning with the 2003-2004 school
year, USCO incidents can be recorded when identified by the LEA into the
state record system. At the end of the school year, the LEA
superintendent must certify as to the accuracy of the reported incidents
along with all the other reported student information.

GDOE determined that none of Georgia's schools met the State's
definition of "persistently dangerous" in school years 2002-2003 or
2003-2004.

**AUDIT RESULTS**

GDOE's USCO policy generally complies with § 9532 of the ESEA and the
Department's guidance. However, GDOE has not adequately implemented
Georgia's USCO policy because it did not ensure the policy was
implemented at the local level. The three LEAs covered by our audit did
not report all incidents of criminal offenses to GDOE (See Finding No.
1), and the LEAs did not address the USCO transfer options (See Finding
No. 2).

In its response to the draft report, GDOE indicated its plans for
implementing our recommendations. GDOE's comments are summarized at the
end of each finding and the full text of the comments is included as
Attachment 1.

**FINDING No. 1 -- LEAs Did Not Report All Student Criminal Offenses For
GDOE To Consider In Determining Persistently Dangerous Schools**

The figures reported to the GDOE by the three LEAs we reviewed did not
include all offenses based upon the GDOE's USCO policy. As a result,
GDOE did not have sufficient information to ensure that it identified
unsafe schools and appropriately made PDS designations**.** In addition,
LEAs had different interpretations of GDOE's USCO policy. Although, the
inclusion of the incidents cited did not result in any of the schools
being identified as persistently dangerous, inaccurate reporting could
result in persistently dangerous schools not being identified in the
State of Georgia in the future.

GDOE policy requires determination of a USCO incident based on Georgia
criminal code. In addition, GDOE policy requires that LEAs shall
annually report data regarding students found by official action to be
in violation of a school rule related to a criminal offence. Official
action is defined as an action that include an official tribunal held by
the school system, a hearing conducted by a disciplinary hearing officer
of the school system, through a waiver process or through an action of
the local board of education. GDOE's USCO policy identified criminal
offenses to include aggravated battery, child molestation, sexual
battery, and sodomy. Other offenses include armed robbery, first degree
arson, felony drug charge, felony weapons, kidnapping, murder, rape
voluntary manslaughter, terroristic threats, and misdemeanor drug
charges.

LEA officials and school principals often had different interpretations
of what constituted aggravated battery, terrorist threat, and other USCO
incidents. For instance, Houston County allows the school principals to
make the determination of a USCO incident that is reported to GDOE;
whereas, Gwinnett County and Atlanta Public Schools centrally determine
criminal incidents based on tribunals as required by GDOE policy.
Another example is that Gwinnett County did not require first-time
marijuana offenses to have a tribunal; therefore, the first-time
marijuana incidents were not reported. If GDOE's USCO policy had been
consistently interpreted by the LEAs, GDOE may have had better
information to use in analyzing schools and determining whether a school
should be considered a PDS.

At each of the three LEAs, we reviewed records at three schools and
identified unreported incidences that should have been reported under
GDOE's USCO policy. These incidents were identified either from tribunal
records, discipline records, or serious incident reports.

-   **Houston County** did not report six criminal incidents to the
    State. These included one aggravated battery, three felony weapons,
    one terroristic threat, and one felony drug incidents. The County
    disagreed with our aggravated battery determination for Northside
    High School stating permanent physical harm did not occur to the
    student. However, the fight we defined as aggravated battery
    resulted in a broken leg, which met the State criminal code
    definition of aggravated assault.

##### Table 1.1 -- Houston County Public Schools Unreported Incidents 2002-2003

+------------------+------------+-------------+----------+----------+
| **Type of        | *          | **Warner    | **Cro    | **Total  |
| Incidents**      | *Northside | Robins**    | ssroad** | Unre     |
|                  | High       |             |          | ported** |
|                  | School**   | **High      | **High   |          |
|                  |            | School**    | School** |          |
+------------------+------------+-------------+----------+----------+
| **Aggravated     | **0**      | **0**       | **0**    | **1**    |
| Battery:**       |            |             |          |          |
|                  | **1**      | **0**       | **0**    |          |
| **Reported**     |            |             |          |          |
|                  |            |             |          |          |
| **Unreported**   |            |             |          |          |
+------------------+------------+-------------+----------+----------+
| **Felony Drug:** | **0**      | **1**       | **6**    | **1**    |
|                  |            |             |          |          |
| **Reported**     | **0**      | **0**       | **1**    |          |
|                  |            |             |          |          |
| **Unreported**   |            |             |          |          |
+------------------+------------+-------------+----------+----------+
| **Terrorist      | **0**      | **0**       | **3**    | **1**    |
| Threats:**       |            |             |          |          |
|                  | **1**      | **0**       | **0**    |          |
| **Reported**     |            |             |          |          |
|                  |            |             |          |          |
| **Unreported**   |            |             |          |          |
+------------------+------------+-------------+----------+----------+
| **Felony         | **0**      | **0**       | **1**    | **3**    |
| Weapons:**       |            |             |          |          |
|                  | **2**      | **1**       | **0**    |          |
| **Reported**     |            |             |          |          |
|                  |            |             |          |          |
| **Unreported**   |            |             |          |          |
+------------------+------------+-------------+----------+----------+
| **Total**        |            |             |          | **6**    |
+------------------+------------+-------------+----------+----------+

-   **Gwinnett County** did not report 28 non-felony drug incidents (27
    first-time marijuana) and three felony drug incidents. Gwinnett
    County did not require first-time marijuana offenses to have a
    tribunal; therefore, 27 first-time marijuana incidents were not
    reported. Since USCO incidents in Gwinnett County are based on
    tribunal records, the first-time marijuana offenses were not
    recorded. Gwinnett County stated that it did not believe that they
    were in violation of GDOE's USCO policy because first-time marijuana
    offenses did not result in an "official action" as required by GDOE.
    Official Code of Georgia criminal offenses identified in GDOE's USCO
    policy include non-felony drug charges. Non-felony drug charge is
    defined, as any person who is charged with possession of marijuana,
    which possession is of one ounce or less, shall be guilty of a
    misdemeanor. We determined that to consistently apply the GDOE's
    policy, Gwinnett should report first-time offenses that meet the
    criminal code definition.

##### Table 1.2 -- Gwinnett County Public School Unreported Incidents 2002-2003

+-------------------+-----------+------------+-----------+-----------+
| **Type of         | ######    | **B        | *         | **Total   |
| Incidents**       |  North N. | rookwood** | *Dacula** | Unr       |
|                   |  Gwinnett |            |           | eported** |
|                   |           | **High     | **High    |           |
|                   | **High    | School**   | School**  |           |
|                   | School**  |            |           |           |
+-------------------+-----------+------------+-----------+-----------+
| **Non-felony      | **36**    | **14**     | **42**    | **28**    |
| Drug:**           |           |            |           |           |
|                   | **14**    | **7**      | **7**     |           |
| **Reported**      |           |            |           |           |
|                   |           |            |           |           |
| **Unreported**    |           |            |           |           |
+-------------------+-----------+------------+-----------+-----------+
| **Felony Drugs:** | **23**    | **10**     | **9**     | **3**     |
|                   |           |            |           |           |
| **Reported**      | **2**     | **1**      | **0**     |           |
|                   |           |            |           |           |
| **Unreported**    |           |            |           |           |
+-------------------+-----------+------------+-----------+-----------+
| **Total**         |           |            |           | **31**    |
+-------------------+-----------+------------+-----------+-----------+

• **Atlanta Public Schools** did not report two felony weapons
incidents, four felony drug incidents, and one non-felony drug incident.
Atlanta Public School's officials did not disagree with any of these
determinations. They stated USCO determinations were based on tribunals
and in the 2002-2003 school year some incidents did not receive a formal
tribunal.

##### 

##### Table 1.3 -- Atlanta Public Schools Unreported Incidents 2002-2003

+------------------+-----------+-------------+-----------+-----------+
| **Type of        | ###       | *           | **CEP**   | **Total   |
| Incident**       | ### Grady | *Therrell** |           | Unr       |
|                  |           |             | **High    | eported** |
|                  | **High    | **High      | School**  |           |
|                  | School**  | School**    |           |           |
+------------------+-----------+-------------+-----------+-----------+
| **Non-felony     | **3**     | **2**       | **4**     | **1**     |
| Drugs:**         |           |             |           |           |
|                  | **1**     | **0**       | **0**     |           |
| **Reported**     |           |             |           |           |
|                  |           |             |           |           |
| **Unreported**   |           |             |           |           |
+------------------+-----------+-------------+-----------+-----------+
| **Felony Drug:** | **0**     | **0**       | **0**     | **4**     |
|                  |           |             |           |           |
| **Reported**     | **1**     | **2**       | **1**     |           |
|                  |           |             |           |           |
| **Unreported**   |           |             |           |           |
+------------------+-----------+-------------+-----------+-----------+
| **Felony         | **2**     | **6**       | **4**     | **2**     |
| Weapons:**       |           |             |           |           |
|                  | **0**     | **2**       | **0**     |           |
| **Reported**     |           |             |           |           |
|                  |           |             |           |           |
| **Unreported**   |           |             |           |           |
+------------------+-----------+-------------+-----------+-----------+
| **Total**        |           |             |           | **7**     |
+------------------+-----------+-------------+-----------+-----------+

The above instances of non-reporting by the LEAs would not have resulted
in any school being identified as persistently dangerous. We provided
detailed information concerning the unreported incidents to the GDOE for
their review. GDOE officials believed that the inaccurate reporting that
occurred in the 2002-2003 school year was the result of having to use
existing student incident data collected for GDOE reporting requirements
to meet USCO requirements. LEA officials indicated that they did not
receive the official USCO policy until shortly before the reporting
date. Since the revised USCO policy required LEA officials to review
previous years' reported incidents, they did not have adequate time to
determine whether incidents were properly classified. GDOE officials
believe that the 2003-2004 USCO information was more reliable because
LEAs have implemented systematic procedures to capture USCO incidents
when they occur.

The Department of Education *Unsafe School Choice Option Non-Regulatory
Guidance*, dated May 2004, states that in order to ensure that the USCO
data are of high quality, current, and comparable across LEAs in the
State, state educational agencies should ensure that LEAs receive
appropriate training and technical guidance pertaining to collecting the
necessary data. GDOE's USCO Policy requires USCO incidents to be based
on Georgia criminal code and official school tribunals; however, LEAs
had different interpretations of GDOE's USCO policy.

GDOE officials stated that GDOE USCO policy was sufficiently clear to
result in a consistent policy statewide because it is based on Georgia
criminal code and requires a tribunal court decision for each USCO
incident. Therefore, it has been GDOE's policy not to provide its own
interpretation regarding the classification of an offense where the
tribunal adjudicated the matter. As a result, GDOE did not formally
train LEAs and monitor LEA implementation of USCO in 2002-2003 year. In
addition, GDOE officials stated that they were not aware of different
interpretations by LEAs.

According to GDOE officials, GDOE recognizes the need to provide more
technical assistance and training in the future to help LEAs to report
consistent data. GDOE officials stated that in implementing the
provisions of USCO Rule, they have identified potential areas for
further refinement of the USCO Rule. Two of these potential areas for
refinement involve the failure to report certain incidents where (a)
local board rule does not require use of a tribunal for the alleged
offense and (b) the tribunal has not had time to convene and render a
decision prior the end of the school year. GDOE stated that it plans to
address these two areas with additional state legislation and amendments
to the USCO Rule. Also, GDOE stated that it plans to use Safe and Drug
Free coordinators to review LEAs implementation of the Georgia USCO
policy.

**[Recommendation]{.underline}**

We recommend that the Deputy Under Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free
Schools provide technical assistance to GDOE in implementing---

1.  Effective training and monitoring at the LEA level to ensure all
    USCO incidents are reported in a consistent manner.

2.  A review process to ensure that all USCO incidents are accurately
    reported.

### **GDOE Comments**

GDOE acknowledged the need for more training and monitoring at the LEA
level to ensure all USCO incidents are reported.

**FINDING No. 2-- LEAs Did Not Offer the USCO Transfer Option**

None of the LEAs reviewed formally offered victims of violent crime the
right to transfer to another school as required by USCO. Nor had any of
the LEAs implemented a formal mechanism offering the right to transfer.
Without a formal mechanism for offering the transfer, victims of violent
crimes may have remained in an unsafe environment. In addition, we did
not identify any procedures at GDOE or the LEAs to track the number of
victims of violent crime and whether they were offered the right to
transfer. As a result, the LEAs might not have accurately reported the
number of victims transferring due to violence and GDOE might not have
the information necessary to make an assessment of PDS.

Title IX, Part E, Subpart 2, Section 9532 of the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001 requires that each State provide to a student who becomes
the victim of a violent criminal offense while in or on the grounds of
that student's public elementary or secondary school the opportunity to
transfer to a safe school. The LEAs did not offer victims of violent
criminal offenses the transfer option because none of the LEAs reviewed
had developed policies or procedures for offering victims the transfer
option. LEA officials informed us that they would have agreed to
transfer the student, if requested. The LEAs stated that they believed
that the GDOE Policy only required that a transfer be made available if
the student wished to be transferred. The LEAs did not interpret the
policy to require a formal written letter to parents. However, GDOE
officials stated that Georgia's USCO Rule requires that LEAs adopt a
policy that facilitates the transfer of students who are victims of
violent criminal offenses.

As a part of their revision and amendments to the USCO Rule, GDOE is
considering options regarding the provision of written notice of
transfer to parents by the local school system. In addition, at the time
of our audit, GDOE had not initiated any monitoring activities to assess
LEA compliance with its USCO policy.

**[Recommendation]{.underline}:**

We recommend that the Deputy Under Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free
Schools require GDOE to---

1.  Require LEAs to include the transfer option in their written
    policies and retain documentation showing that victims' parents were
    notified of the USCO transfer option and whether a transfer was
    requested and completed.

2.  Monitor LEA compliance with Georgia's USCO policy, including (a)
    reviewing LEAs' transfer policies; (b) confirming that students who
    were victims of violent crimes were provided the option to transfer
    to a safe school; and (c) verifying that documentation was retained
    showing that victims' parents were notified of the USCO transfer
    option and whether a transfer was requested and completed.

### **GDOE Comments**

GDOE stated that it planned to amend its USCO Rule to require written
notification of the right to transfer to victims of violent criminal
offenses.

OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY

The audit objective was to determine whether (1) Georgia's USCO policy
is in compliance with Title IX, Part E, Subpart 2, Section 9532 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and applicable U. S.
Department of Education guidance, and (2) if the policy was adequately
implemented at the State and local levels.

The audit period encompassed the school year 2002-2003 (for reporting
requirements), and the start of the school year 2004 (for transfers of
affected students and review of corrective action plans).

There are 183 LEAs in the State of Georgia. We obtained Federal formula
grant funding information from GDOE's website and stratified the LEAs
into three groups based on the amount of funding they received --
funding 1) greater than \$10 million; 2) between \$5 million and
\$10 million; and 3) less than \$5 million. We limited our review to the
LEAs in the two groups with the higher levels of funding -- \$5 million
and above.

We obtained juvenile arrest information from the Georgia Bureau of
Investigation's (GBI) Uniform Crime Reporting Division for all counties
in Georgia. We judgmentally selected one LEA from each of the top two
funding groups based on the highest number of instances of juvenile
arrests in the respective county. Atlanta Public Schools and Houston
County Schools were the LEAs selected from group one and group two,
respectively. In addition, we judgmentally selected Gwinnett County
Schools (GCP) for review from group one because GCP was identified in
the local news media as misreporting student crime data, and they
initially identified one school as persistently dangerous.

At the three LEAs selected for review, we judgmentally selected three
schools in each LEA to review based on highest number of reported USCO
incidents to GDOE. The review at the LEAs consisted of looking at LEA
hardcopy and computer records of student incidents reported for the
three schools selected for review. We then compared the LEA computer
records of reported incidents to the school's student incident reports,
official tribunal reports, and police reports to determine if any USCO
incidents were not reported. The following table shows the schools
reviewed for each LEA and the reported USCO incidents.[^2]

+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Schools Reviewed   |                       |                       |
| and Their Number of  |                       |                       |
| Reported USCO        |                       |                       |
| Incidents**          |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Houston County     | **Gwinnett County     | **Atlanta City Public |
| Public Schools**     | Public Schools**      | Schools**             |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Warner Robbins High  | North Gwinnett High   | Grady High School     |
| School               | School                |                       |
|                      |                       | 2002-2003 -- 5        |
| 2002-2003 -- 3       | 2002-2003 -- 75       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Northside High       | Brookwood High School | Therrell High School  |
| School               |                       |                       |
|                      | 2002-2003 -- 30       | 2002-2003 -- 8        |
| 2002-2003 -- 5       |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Crossroads High      | Dacula High School    | CEP Partnership High  |
| School               |                       | School                |
|                      | 2002-2003 -- 59       |                       |
| 2002-2003 -- 10      |                       | 2002-2003 -- 8        |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

To meet the objectives of our audit, we relied, in part, on
computer-processed data that GDOE used to report USCO violations by
LEAs. Each LEA person that enters information onto the GDOE website for
USCO information (as well as other information reported under the end of
year student record data collection) must use a user identification and
password to log into the system. Once all of the information is entered
into the system, the superintendent must signoff on the data certifying
that the information is accurate and complete. The audit team reviewed
and compared USCO data shown on GDOE's website for sample LEAs with
information obtained on-site at each LEA to determine the reliability of
the data. Based on our assessment and tests, we concluded that the
computer-processed data GDOE provided was sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of our audit.

We conducted our audit fieldwork during the period August through
December 2004. As part of our audit, we visited (1) GDOE's offices in
Atlanta, Georgia; (2) Atlanta Public Schools' offices in Atlanta,
Georgia; (3) Gwinnett County Schools' offices in Lawrenceville, Georgia
and Houston County Schools' in Perry, Georgia. We contacted LEA
officials as necessary to obtain additional information and
clarifications during our audit work. We held an exit conference with
GDOE officials on March 8, 2005.

The audit was performed in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards appropriate to the scope of the review described
above.

STATEMENT ON INTERNAL CONTROLS

As part of our audit, we assessed GDOE\'s internal control structure,
policies, procedures, and practices applicable to its USCO Policy. To
make our assessment, we classified significant control into the
following categories.

-   Policy formulation and implementation

-   GDOE certification of compliance with Section 9532 of the ESEA.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   GDOE and LEA data collection and reporting.

-   LEA implementation of the USCO transfer option.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   GDOE Oversight of subsequent action (transfer options and corrective
    action plans

Because of inherent limitations, a study and evaluation made for the
limited purpose described above would not necessarily disclose all
material weaknesses in GDOE\'s USCO Policy internal controls. However,
our study and evaluation disclosed significant internal control weakness
that could adversely affect the administration of the USCO policy at the
local level. Specifically, LEAs lacked adequate procedures and/or
documentation for 1) the identification and reporting of USCO incidents,
including a lack of consistent interpretation of the criteria for
classifying incidents; and 2) implementation of the USCO transfer
option. This weakness and its impact are discussed in the AUDIT RESULTS
section of this report.

We did not assess the adequacy of the internal control structure of GDOE
and the three LEAs that we audited because such assessments were not
necessary to achieve our audit\'s objective. Instead, we obtained an
understanding of the processes that GDOE and the three LEAs used to
determine compliance with GDOE's USCO Policy and determined whether the
processes were in compliance with the applicable law and regulations.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

Statements that managerial practices need improvement, as well as other
conclusions and recommendations in this report, represent the opinions
of the Office of Inspector General. Determinations of corrective actions
to be taken will be made by the appropriate Department officials.

If you have any additional comments or information that you believe may
have a bearing on the resolution of this audit, you should send them
directly to the following Education Department officials who will
consider them before taking final Departmental action on this audit ---

Deborah A. Price

Assistant Deputy Secretary

Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools

U.S. Department of Education

Federal Building No. 6, Room 1E110

400 Maryland Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20202

It is the policy of the U.S. Department of Education to expedite the
resolution of audits by initiating timely action on the findings and
recommendations contained therein. Therefore, receipt of your comments
within 30 days would be greatly appreciated.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552),
reports issued by the Office of Inspector General are available to
members of the press and general public to the extent information
contained therein is not subject to exemptions in the Act.

> Sincerely,

/s/

> Denise M. Wempe
>
> Regional Inspector General for Audit

Attachment

**Attachment 1**

**GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION**

**COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT**

May 9, 2005

Control Number

> ED/OIG A04-E0007

Ms. Denise M. Wempe

Regional Inspector General for Audit

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Inspector General

61 Forsyth Street, Room 18T71

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Dear Ms. Wempe:

Thank you for providing the United States Department of Education's
("Department") draft audit report, entitled *Georgia Department of
Education's Compliance with the Unsafe Schools Option Provision*,
("Draft Audit Report") to the Georgia Department of Education ("GDOE")
for review and comment. We appreciate the opportunity afforded the GDOE
to respond in writing and in person to audit findings as outlined in the
Draft Audit Report.

**[Finding No. 1]{.underline}** **[LEAs Did Not Report All Student
Criminal Offenses For GDOE To Consider In Determining Persistently
Dangerous Schools.]{.underline}**

While the GDOE had not previously been made aware of the "unreported"
incidents from the Houston County, Gwinnett County, and the Atlanta
Public School systems as cited in the Draft Audit Report, the GDOE has
acknowledged the need to extend its technical assistance to the LEAs in
an effort to improve the validity and reliability of the USCO data
submitted by the LEAs. Furthermore, as evidenced by Gwinnett County's
position with respect to reporting first-time marijuana offenses, the
GDOE agrees that effective training and monitoring at the LEA level and
review of reported USCO incidents as contained in recommendations 1.1
and 1.2 are important steps towards ensuring that all student offenses
are properly reported by the LEAs.

Recommendations 1.1 and 1.2 involve processes presently under
consideration by the GDOE. We trust that working with the Deputy Under
Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools on the above-noted processes
will prove to be helpful as the GDOE seeks to refine its USCO reporting
process.

**[Finding No. 2]{.underline}** **[LEAs Did Not Offer The USCO Transfer
Option]{.underline}**

Georgia's USCO Rule does require that local boards of education adopt
policies that facilitate the transfer of students who are victims of
violent criminal offenses and wish to transfer to another school within
ten school days of the commission of the violent criminal offense.
Because Georgia's USCO Rule fails to clearly require written notice to
parents regarding the transfer rights contained in the law, Georgia's
USCO Rule will be amended to address this issue.

Moreover, as previously stated in our December 16, 2005 letter regarding
the initial audit findings, the GDOE's development of its Statewide
Student Information System will allow for the reporting of data
regarding the transfer of students who were victims of violent crimes.
Thus, the GDOE is preparing to amend Georgia's USCO Rule pursuant to
Recommendation 2.1 and to develop the necessary reporting processes to
ensure full compliance regarding the USCO transfer option as required by
Recommendation 2.2.

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the Draft Audit Report
in writing. This process has been helpful to our continued effort to
improve and refine Georgia's USCO Rule and its monitoring and
enforcement. Finally, the GDOE looks forward to the assistance offered
in the Draft Audit Report from the Deputy Under Secretary with respect
to Recommendations 1.1 and 1.2. I trust we will be able to build a model
system of USCO reporting and compliance in Georgia.

If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact me
directly.

Very truly yours,

*/s/ Kathy Cox*

Kathy Cox

KC/sg

cc: Ms. Wanda Barrs, Chair, State Board of Education

Mr. Stuart Bennett, Chief Deputy Superintendent

Dr. Jeanie Weathersby, Deputy Superintendent

Mr. Judson Turner, General Counsel

Mr. Phil Hulst, Director of Learning Support

[^1]: Georgia Rule 160-4-8.16 defines an official action as an official
    tribunal held by the school; a hearing conducted by a disciplinary
    hearing officer of the school system; through a waiver process; or
    through an action of the local board of education.

[^2]: The reported USCO incidents in the table reflect the major
    incidents reported by GDOE and the incidents of non-felony drugs,
    felony drugs, felony weapon and terroristic threat meeting the first
    criteria in the Georgia USCO Rule.