*Remarks to the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Advisory
Committee*

*Mike Herrmann, Executive Director*

*Office of School Health, Safety and Learning Support*

*Tennessee Department of Education*

*Monday, August 21, 2006*

Mr. Chairman and members of the advisory committee; thank you for
allowing me the opportunity to speak with you regarding the State Grants
portion of the Safe and Drug-free Schools and Communities Program.

Our time is limited so let me get right to the heart of what I would
like to share with you. I've tried to align my comments with the
questions that the Committee has been asked to address relative to the
State Grants Program.

[Strengths]{.underline}

In terms of the strengths of the program:

First, the State Grants program is the only source of funding for
alcohol and drug education and violence prevention that reaches into
virtually every school district in our state. Without the State Grants
program in Tennessee, the overwhelming majority of our schools simply
would not address these two extremely important issues in any systematic
or ongoing way.

Second, and equally important, the State Grants program provides an
infrastructure, at both the state and local level, for school-based
policy and practice in these vitally important areas. When Tennessee
began a major methamphetamine initiative last year, this infrastructure
enabled us to reach the education community and those that could make
things happen quickly and efficiently. More recently the Governor's
Office of Homeland Security wanted to enhance the security and
preparedness of our schools. The training and strategies and the people
were built upon the work and organization established by the State
Grants program.

Last November this infrastructure, including the relationships that have
been built between our state department and the U.S. Department of
Education, were particularly important when one of our students shot
three administrators, killing one. As a result of the relationships and
resources already in place, we were able to move quickly to support the
district in restoring a shattered learning environment.

The State Grants program is the only universal funding stream that
addresses some of our most significant barriers to learning. The ability
of students to learn and teachers to teach is directly related to the
safety and order of our schools and the health and well-being of our
students. When administered with vigor and strong leadership, this
program is as much a school improvement strategy as it is a drug and
violence prevention program.

[Challenges]{.underline}

The State Grants program certainly has its share of challenges. Most
notorious of which is undoubtedly the difficulty we have in
demonstrating effectiveness.

Because each local program is different, it's almost impossible to
develop a universal set of outcome indicators. Most of our local
managers are educators -- not evaluators.

The small amount of funding most districts receive is frequently cited
as being too little to implement research-proven programs. I would
submit that there are many very effective strategies and/or activities
that actually cost very little to implement. The real challenge with
small amounts of funding is that the program manager at the local level
probably doesn't have the time or training to carry out some of the more
complex tasks deemed necessary to document effectiveness.

Another challenge is one of perception. Is this a school safety or an
alcohol and drug program? And too often in education or government
circles, we perceive importance and funding to be one and the same. As a
result, state and local program managers must be particularly strong if
they're going to be heard.

[Effectiveness]{.underline}

So, is the States Grants Program effective in promoting safe and
drug-free schools? In our state I certainly think so. Our most recent
Youth Risk Behavior Survey data indicates consistent and significant
declines in almost every category of drug usage. The number of guns
found in our schools has declined every year for the past 7 years.

By using our discretionary funds to cover out-of-pocket expenses
associated with the implementation of important programs, over 1,200 of
our schools have implemented Life Skills, Second Step or Olweus
programs. 3 of our 4 urban school districts have long-running student
assistance programs that have been able to use State Grants funds to
leverage strong fiscal support from their communities.

A lot of work has gone into developing the specific indicators that will
be a part of the Uniform Management Information System. The adoption of
those measures will be invaluable in allowing us to compare apples to
apples across districts and states, and to draw attention to the extent
of our challenge. However, I'm afraid that they will be of limited value
in demonstrating effectiveness.

It would be nice to be able to document reductions in 30-day drug use or
positive changes in school climate at the building level; however, with
funding that hovers in the \$5/student range that is simply not a
realistic expectation and probably not a very good use of limited
staffing at the local level.

A more practical and productive option would be to identify specific
strategies that we know from research and experience are tied to the
outcomes we desire. To a certain extent many of those elements are
already built into the legislation. We can support and document the
adoption of research-proven practices, particularly when federal and
state resources are directed toward developing those skill sets in local
program managers.

I think one of the most important items this committee can look at is
how to transfer what is learned from research and more fully-funded
national programs to the manager at the system and building level. So
much of what is needed is not dependent upon funding, but rather upon
changes in policy and practice. Action is more important than programs.

[Program structure]{.underline}

In terms of the structure of the State Grants Program, I think it's
important to make funding [available]{.underline} to every school
district as it is now, but across the board we need to be more
prescriptive and firm about how the program is administered. This might
mean that some districts or states would choose not to participate.

At the same time, we must provide a strong network of training and
support to all schools, including those who choose not to pursue
funding. This could entail both federal and state-level resources. This
will require additional flexibility for states in awarding funds
including the ability to set aside a larger proportion of funding for
statewide initiatives.

[Emergency management issues]{.underline}

Our schools have been significantly impacted by events like the
terrorist attacks of September 11 and Hurricane Katrina. Much of the
basic planning and response procedures that were followed in these
events had previously been developed as a result of the series of school
shootings that began ten years ago. One important change is that we now
realize the important role that schools can and should play in the
overall community response process. Public information, emergency
sheltering, feeding and transportation are tasks that schools are
uniquely prepared to provide.

In order for the education community to be a full player in these
processes it is important that we build an infrastructure that includes
federal, state and local participation. The State Grants Program can and
should be an important building block for that infrastructure.

In Tennessee, I serve as one of two Department of Education Emergency
Services Coordinators who can be activated by the Governor to serve at
the State's Emergency Operations Center in the event of a major
disaster. Over the past several years, SDFS State Grants funds have been
combined with Homeland Security funding to provide emergency management
training to hundreds of schools and first responder teams.

[Closing]{.underline}

To a large extent, I think many of the questions that will be raised
today come down to a question of will. Do we have the will --
particularly at the federal and state level -- to make this program
work? I know that everyone sitting on this panel can provide you with
examples of districts that are doing outstanding work with very limited
funding. We can hold everyone to those higher standards if we
simultaneously provide leadership and support.

The last several years have been difficult for the State Grants program.
No Child Left Behind, major budget cuts and an ongoing threat of
elimination have been difficult to weather. But despite it all we still
have an experienced and committed cadre of folks out there ready to do
what needs to be done. They deserve a long-term commitment. I encourage
you to recognize the important role that the State Grants program must
play if we are serious in our commitment to safe and drug-free schools
and communities.