# Presentation: 488599

## No Child Left BehindUnsafe School Choice Option (USCO)

**The Colorado Perspective and Experience**
- Presented to the National Advisory Council for the
- Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools
- Washington DC, Oct. 23, 2006

- Janelle Krueger, Principal Consultant
- Colorado Department of Education (CDE)

## This presentation covers 3 areas:

- Reasons for some of the resistance encountered upon passage of the Unsafe School Choice Option
- 2.	The approach Colorado used to implement the policy requirement
- Developmental process
- Considerations for establishing the criteria
- 3. Considerations for the National Advisory Council regarding future recommendations

**Notes:**
If the resistance is not understood, it cannot be addressed and may continue if/when law is reauthorized.

This subject deserves an honest, civil discourse from a variety of perspectives before improvement can be expected.

May help answer the question, “Why haven’t more schools been identified as persistently dangerous?”

## Reasons for Resistance

- It must first be stated that.......
- Resistance to this law should not be interpreted as being uncaring about school safety or students’ well-being.
- The fear of being perceived as unconcerned about safety stifles open dialogue. We need the dialogue to make informed decisions.

**Notes:**
Dedicated professionals work tirelessly every day in our schools to maintain safe and civil learning environments.  Their opinions matter.

Disagreements across the States are to be expected. Each unique perspective deserves to be heard.

## Reasons for Resistance, cont.

- 1. Colorado already meets the intent of the USCO law:
- Colorado Revised Statute– Title 22, Article 36 – “Public Schools of Choice”
- Permits enrollment in any school within a district
- Permits enrollment in a district other than the district where the family resides
- Allows parents to withdraw students during the school year and enroll elsewhere.

## Reasons for Resistance, cont.

- Already meets intent, cont.
- Colorado Revised Statutes – 22-32-109.1 – “Safe School Act”
- Mandates school-by-school reporting of certain crimes and code-of-conduct violations
- Colorado Revised Statutes – 22-7-601 et al: “School Accountability Reports”
- Issued to all parents each year
- Each contains school safety-related information

## Colorado – School Accountability Report – Safety and Discipline Section

**Notes:**
SDI helps parents select schools also.

## Reasons for Resistance, cont.

- School Accountability Reports (SARs), cont.
- In addition to being delivered to parents, SARS are widely publicized, as are school safety-related data:
- On various Websites
- In school district annual reports
- In newspapers, newsletters, performance reports, etc.

## Reasons for Resistance, cont.

- Regarding Victims of Crimes:
- Schools of Choice provision also applies to anyone victimized in that he/she can also transfer to another school
- Colorado Revised Statute 22-33-106 prohibits re-enrollment of the perpetrator in the same school as the victim or a member of the victim’s family if the perpetrator is expelled and adjudicated.

## Reasons for Resistance, cont.

- Because Colorado already met the intent of the law, people often referred to the USCO provision as....
*	**“**A solution looking for a problem.”*

## Reasons for Resistance, cont.

- 2. All new requirements in Title IV, Part A (SDFSC) for a State Education Agency were _unfunded mandates_. Implementing the USCO provision, even though it is in Title IX, largely fell to the Title IV program directors.
- NCLB changed the formula for distributing funds to Local Education Agencies from 91% of a State’s allocation to 93% of its allocation.

## SDFSC Funding History Colorado Department of Education’s Admin. & TA Budget

- USCO enacted

- USCO funded

## Reasons for Resistance, cont.

- 3. The motive of the law was questionable:
- No additional support is included in the law for “persistently dangerous” schools to overcome their circumstances. Not all states can provide assistance.
- No transportation support is given to the parents. Traveling greater distances in rural areas makes it unlikely that parents would choose to transfer their child.

## Reasons for Resistance, cont.

- 4. Although the intent of the law has merit, the validity of the law was questioned because:
- If another school option was not available parents would be forced to continue sending their child to a school deemed to be persistently dangerous.  (This raises a moral question for why such a school would be allowed to operate at all.)
- Districts had to implement the State policy by the start of the 2003-04 school year with no regard given to the availability or quality of school-by-school data.

## Reasons for Resistance, cont.

- 5. Speculation lingered about whether or not a judgment of “persistently dangerous” would be believed.
- Would it match most parents’ or the general public’s perception?
- Would it be based on credible data or suspicious data?
- Would suspicious data reinforce those who already questioned the validity of the law?  Would it add to the criticism?

## Reasons for Resistance, cont.

- Laws that require “reactionary” measures run counter to a “preventionist’s” belief system.
- People couldn’t seem to get past the actual words – “persistently dangerousness” – in conjunction with whole-school settings.  It seemed counter-intuitive.
- “Persistence” applied to a school setting implies a high probability that most students will be harmed if they continue to attend the school. Nobody seemed to know of any schools that fit this description.

**Notes:**
Preventionists:
Prefer to invest time, energy, and limited resources toward positive youth development that reduces the propensity to engage in negative risk behaviors
Do not believe in placing negative labels on others, or publicly humiliating people into modifying behaviors.

## Reasons for Resistance, cont.

- 	*“**We don’t have persistently dangerous schools.  What we have are safe schools where a few students occasionally pose a danger to a few other students.”*
*(Dangerous individuals vs. Dangerous schools)*

## Reasons for Resistance, cont.

- Getting past the label, cont.
- Fear of being labeled caused people to wonder if data would start being disguised to the point of undermining the law.
- Fear of the media attention caused people to wonder if a school’s reputation would be unfairly ruined to the point of not being able to soon restore it.
- Many asked, “Wouldn’t it be more fair to give schools a chance to improve before labeling them?”
- (Reminder: Colorado students can transfer within a school year so should not feel “trapped” in an unsafe situation.)

## Reasons for Resistance, cont.

- And finally,
- 8. The atmosphere surrounding much to do with the new NCLB Act had emotions running high and tensions building between state and local partners.
- 		*“**NCLB is basically the federalization of the American public school system.”*
- Attempts to “micro-manage” building-level staff and environments do not go over well in a “local control” State – for either the locals or the State.  It violates a belief system.

## Colorado’s Approach to Implementation

- So how does a State implement a policy that is perceived to be....
- Unnecessary
- Unfunded yet adds more work
- Unwanted and unfair
- Controversial and counter-intuitive, and
- In violation of belief systems, yet.....
- ......Is well intended for the protection of students?

## Colorado’s Implementation, cont.

- To overcome resistance and gain buy-in:
- Didn’t let detractors distract. Stayed focused.
- Tried to address concerns if possible.
- Established a process that included key stake-holders with credible reputations.
- Allowed for input from various perspectives.
- Concentrated on its positive potential and took advantage of what it had to offer, i.e. initiating more dialogue about what creates a safe and civil school environment

## Steps to developing the policy:

Assembled a “Safe Schools Subcommittee” 
Members nominated by members of the H.R. 1 Hub Committee.
H.R. 1 was the Bill Number assigned to the No Child Left Behind Act.  
The Hub Committee included representatives from state education associations and organizations, which included local educators. 
The Hub Committee’s work included discussions and input for how the Colorado Department of Education would implement various requirements of all NCLB Title Programs.

- Assembled a “Safe Schools Subcommittee”
- Members nominated by members of the H.R. 1 Hub Committee.
- H.R. 1 was the Bill Number assigned to the No Child Left Behind Act.
- The Hub Committee included representatives from state education associations and organizations, which included local educators.
- The Hub Committee’s work included discussions and input for how the Colorado Department of Education would implement various requirements of all NCLB Title Programs.

- Colorado’s Implementation, cont.

## To gather more input from local school and community representatives:

Oct. 2002 - Held a Safe School Forum in Denver. Forty-nine local representatives attended from throughout Colorado
Teachers, principals, “Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities” program coordinators
Non-school district employees: Students, Parents, School Board members, School Resource Officers
Attention was paid to cultural and geographic diversity.

- Oct. 2002 - Held a **Safe School Forum** in Denver. Forty-nine local representatives attended from throughout Colorado
- Teachers, principals, “Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities” program coordinators
- Non-school district employees: Students, Parents, School Board members, School Resource Officers
- Attention was paid to cultural and geographic diversity.

- Colorado’s Implementation, cont.

## Colorado School Demographics

- 64 Counties
- 178 School Districts
- 1,700 + public schools
- 700,000+ students
- “Small, Rural” = 95 districts, or 53%
- 	Approx. 25 districts account for approx. 75% of the total student population – mostly the **“I-25 Corridor”**

- Counties

## In addition to the Forum’s outcomes, the Safe Schools Subcommittee considered:

CDE data collection methods already in existence
School safety-related data already mandated to be reported
USCO policies being drafted by other States
The US Education Department’s Non-regulatory guidance

- CDE data collection methods already in existence
- School safety-related data already mandated to be reported
- USCO policies being drafted by other States
- The US Education Department’s Non-regulatory guidance

- Colorado’s Implementation, cont.

## Colorado’s Implementation, cont.

- Proposed criteria for determining “persistently dangerous” was based on:
- A value of trying to identify schools that are truly and persistently dangerous as opposed to schools where some unsafe behaviors occur, but overall are basically safe.

## Colorado’s Implementation, cont.

- Continued...Proposed criteria based on:
- The need for the data to be objective
- The need for the indicators to be measurable and based on standardized definitions

## Colorado’s Implementation, cont.

- Continued...Proposed criteria based on:
- The need to use indicator data that is already collected by CDE in order to notify schools by the 2003/04 school year if they are potentially identifiable as persistently dangerous

## Colorado’s Implementation, cont.

- Continued...Proposed criteria based on:
- The desire to create a system that encourages more accurate reporting rather than dealing with disciplinary problems that don’t rise to the level of dangerousness

## Colorado’s Implementation, cont.

- Continued...Proposed criteria based on:
- The desire to direct more assistance toward schools in greatest need of addressing school safety issues, without exceeding CDE’s capacity to do so.

## Colorado’s Criteria

- The Safe School Committee devoted much discussion to the “persistently dangerous” words, both of which are subjective terms.
- ....seldom, sometimes, often, frequently, *persistently*, always....
- ....risky, unsafe, *dangerous*, deadly....

## Colorado’s Criteria, cont.

- Persistently = two consecutive years
- 	After the first year of meeting the criteria, the school would be notified of being “potentially identifiable” as a persistently dangerous school.
- 	Technical assistance would be offered but written corrective action plans are not required.

**Notes:**
No corrective action plan because:

Getting labeled the following year is incentive enough for school leaders to determine their own course of action.

CDE does not have enough resources to process the plans and monitor them.

It’s both a local control issue (they don’t owe us a plan) and a state workload issue.

## Colorado’s Criteria, cont.

- Dangerousness indicators:
- Alcohol violations
- Drug violations
- Assaults/fights
- Robberies
- Other felonies
- Firearm expulsions per the Gun-Free Schools Act, and
- Number of school employees engaging in unlawful behavior
-       			   Continued, next page

## Colorado’s Criteria, cont.

- Problems encountered with the data:
- It was discovered that many districts were not reporting assaults/fights according to the definition and guidelines.
- Due to a state statute “glitch” the definition was restricted to 1st and 2nd degree assault, but many districts were including all fights, including verbal arguments.
- Actual “fights” were not defined or collected. This overly inflated the numbers of assaults for many districts.
- “Dangerous weapons” uses an overly broad definition. Types of weapons are not collected. Therefore, it was not included in the criteria.

## Colorado’s Criteria, cont.

- Annually reported total incidents must exceed for _two consecutive years_:
- 45 if fewer than 299 students
- 90 for 300 to 599 students
- 135 for 600 to 899 students
- 180 for 900 – 1,199 students
- 225 for 1,200 – 1,499 students
- 270 for 1,500 – 1,799 students
- 315 for 1,800 – 2,099 students
- 360 or more for 2,100 or more students

## Colorado’s Criteria, cont.

- Observations about the criteria:
- Having a range is based on the premise that the less students the less violations and the more students the more violations, as long as the ranges are relative.
- Numbers are set higher than might otherwise be, due to the assault/fight data being problematic.
- Any school meeting the criteria would truly and undeniably be persistently dangerous.

## A note about data (The 3 R’s)

- In order to have credible data used to pass judgment on a school that includes serious consequences, all schools must consistently:
**Refer** students for disciplinary action
**Report** the referrals
**Record** the reports
**Standardize definitions** of violations across all schools.
- Any breakdown in any of the above four items weakens the integrity of the district’s data collection system, and therefore weakens the State’s system.

## To date:

- No persistently dangerous schools have been identified
- “Potentially identifiable” schools have been identified, but it was later discovered that they reported data inaccurately.

## Considerations for the Council

- Three options for reauthorization:
- Eliminate this provision
- Leave as is with no changes
- Data collections should improve over time
- Stabilizes the data reporting and recording
- States can still modify criteria if they deem it necessary

## Considerations, cont.

- 3. Retain the USCO provision with revisions:
- Allow States to opt out if they can _demonstrate_ meeting the intent of the law:
- open enrollment/schools of choice, and
- safety reports to parents
- still allows the States for whom this provision is working effectively to maintain their effort, especially if lacking other options

## Considerations, cont.

- Retain with revisions, cont.
- Continue to allow States the flexibility to set criteria according to their **unique** needs and circumstances:
- definitions aligned to criminal or education-related statutes
- mandatory reporting items,
- level of resources (financial, staffing, time)
- local ownership
- local demographics

## Considerations, cont.

- Retain with revisions, cont.
- Change the name to “_Safe_ School Choice Option” or something that strengthens advocacy for victims of crime and mistreatment

## Considerations, cont.

- Retain with revisions, cont.
- If most or no States use less than two years of data, add that to the law
- However....
- Don’t add additional administrative work or oversight
- Don’t attempt to micro-manage local practice from the federal level

## In summary...

- Resistance has waned but not everyone is yet convinced this law is good policy
- Colorado’s **process** for setting the criteria was valued by many
- For the future – One size does not fit all.  Flexibility is essential.

## Presenter’s Contact Information

- 	Janelle Krueger
- 	Principal Consultant, Prevention Initiatives
- 	Colorado Department of Education
- 	201 East Colfax Avenue
- 	Denver, CO 80203
- 	(303) 866-6660
- 	Krueger_J@cde.state.co.us