U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

34–631 PDF 2008

NCLB: PREVENTING DROPOUTS

AND ENHANCING SCHOOL SAFETY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND LABOR

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 23, 2007

Serial No. 110–23

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

(

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Chairman 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Linda T. Sa ́nchez, California 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr., New York 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

David Davis, Tennessee 

Timothy Walberg, Michigan 

Dean Heller, Nevada

Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director 

Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on April 23, 2007 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of Members: 

Altmire, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Pennsylvania, prepared statement of .......................................................... 76

McCarthy, Hon. Carolyn, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, questions for the record ......................................................... 77

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck,’’ Senior Republican Member, Committee 

on Education and Labor ............................................................................... 2

Miller, Hon. George, Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor ......... 1

Prepared statement of the Delaware Statewide Academic Growth 

Assessment Pilot .................................................................................... 88

Statement of Witnesses: 

Montecel, Marı ́a Robledo, Ph.D., executive director, Intercultural Development Research Association ........................................................................... 18

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 20

Norwood, Dr. Jane, vice-chair, North Carolina State Board of Education .. 13

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15

Smith, Kenneth M., president, Jobs for America’s Graduates ..................... 23

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 25

Trump, Kenneth S., president and CEO, National School Safety and 

Security Services, Inc. .................................................................................. 27

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 29

Responses to Mrs. McCarthy’s questions ................................................ 81

Wise, President, Hon. Bob, Alliance for Excellent Education, former Governor, State of West Virginia ....................................................................... 5

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7

(1)

NCLB: PREVENTING DROPOUTS

AND ENHANCING SCHOOL SAFETY 

Monday, April 23, 2007

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Washington, DC

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 3:02 p.m., in Room 2175, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George Miller [chairman of 

the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Miller, Kildee, Payne, Scott, Hinojosa, 

McCarthy, Tierney, Wu, Grijalva, Bishop of New York, Sanchez, 

Sestak, Loebsack, Hirono, Yarmuth, Hare, Clarke, Shea-Porter, 

McKeon, Castle, Biggert, and Davis of Tennessee. 

Staff Present: Aaron Albright, Press Secretary; Tylease Alli, 

Hearing Clerk; Alice Cain, Senior Education Policy Advisor (K-12); 

Adrienne Dunbar, Legislative Fellow, Education; Denise Forte, Director of Education Policy; Ruth Friedman, Senior Education Policy 

Advisor (Early Childhood); Lloyd Horwich, Policy Advisor for Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education; Lamont Ivey, Staff Assistant, Education; Danielle Lee, 

Press/Outreach Assistant; Jill Morningstar, Education Policy Advisor; Ricardo Martinez, Policy Advisor for Subcommittee on Higher 

Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness; Joe Novotny, 

Chief Clerk; Lisette Partelow, Staff Assistant, Education; Rachel 

Racusen, Deputy Communications Director; Mark Zuckerman, Staff 

Director; James Bergeron, Minority Deputy Director of Education 

and Human Services Policy; Robert Borden, Minority General 

Counsel; Steve Forde, Minority Communicatins Director; Taylor 

Hansen, Minority Legislative Assistant; Victor Klatt, Minority Staff 

Director; Susan Ross, Minority Director of Education and Human 

Services Policy; and Linda Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant 

to the General Counsel. 

Chairman MILLER. The Committee on Education and Labor will 

come to order for the purposes of holding a hearing on preventing 

school dropouts and enhancing school safety. And I want to welcome everybody to this afternoon’s hearings. 

These two issues are critically important to students, parents, 

educators and communities across the country; and we plan to address them during the Elementary and Secondary Act reauthorization. Nationally, only about 70 percent of students graduate from 

high school with regular high school diplomas. In fact, each year 

schools lose approximately 1.2 million students who drop out for a 

2

wide range of reasons. This means that nearly one-third of our students are missing the opportunities provided by a high school diploma. This is a serious problem that demands our attention and 

hard work. 

It hurts more than the students. It also harms our economy and 

our economic competitiveness. 

While we have to do more to ensure that all children graduate 

from high school, the dropout rate is far worse for poor minority 

students and students with disabilities. Only about half of all African American and Hispanic students graduate from high school on 

time with a regular diploma. High school students living in low-income families drop out of school at six times the rate of students 

of high-income families and students with disabilities are twice as 

likely to drop out as those who do not have disabilities. 

We know that earning a high school diploma is a critical prerequisite to joining the middle class. High school dropouts earn 

over a quarter of a million dollars less in a lifetime than those who 

hold high school diplomas. The disparity widens to a million dollars 

when dropouts’ incomes are compared with college graduates’ incomes. 

We are far from solving this dropout crisis, and that is why we 

are having this hearing. As a part of our ongoing process to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, this committee is reviewing elements of successful dropout prevention programs, many of which you will hear about today. Beyond just socioeconomic factors, experts have identified early indicators that help 

schools predict when a student is likely to drop out of high school. 

Research in four school districts shows that we can identify over 

half of the future dropouts as early as the sixth grade by looking 

at a small number of telling indicators: attendance, discipline, and 

trouble mastering basic reading and math skills. 

Programs across the country that have successfully identified 

and prevented high school dropouts have common elements. Among 

other things, they seem to focus on meeting both academic and 

nonacademic needs of students in a caring, nonthreatening environment. One key element of students’ success is ensuring the 

schools are safe and free from drugs and violence. 

No Child Left Behind contains several provisions that attempt to 

encourage safe learning environments for students and teachers. 

Research shows that if students do not feel safe, they are more 

likely to have academic problems and they are more likely to drop 

out. 

I want to thank Congresswoman McCarthy for her leadership on 

school safety issues, and today’s witnesses will help us approach 

the NCLB reauthorization with a strong focus on how to promote 

safe learning environments and to help students most at risk of 

dropping out. 

And I want to thank all the witnesses in advance. 

And at this point, I would like to turn to Congressman McKeon, 

our senior Republican on the committee. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for 

convening today’s hearings. And at the outset I would like to recognize Dr. Herb Fisher, the elected Superintendent of the San 

3

Bernardino County schools, the largest county in the country. I 

represent half that county. It is good to have him here today. 

I am pleased the issues of graduation rates and school safety are 

included in our series of hearings on No Child Left Behind. For the 

past year, we have been weighing in a very bipartisan way the successes and shortcomings of the No Child Left Behind Act, and indeed, the two issues before us today are critical to the foundation 

of our school systems and to the NCLB reauthorization. 

Under No Child Left Behind, as we know, in addition to meeting 

academic achievement standards in reading and math, public 

schools and school districts must meet at least one additional academic indicator in order to be deemed as having made adequate 

yearly progress. For a high school this additional indicator must be 

its graduation rate. 

This afternoon I look forward to more closely examining the high 

school graduation and dropout provisions in No Child Left Behind 

and to hearing recommendations for improving the law. In particular, I will be eager to learn more about how graduation rates 

are calculated by States and school districts, what is being done to 

ensure those rates are accurate, how they must be reported to ensure schools are increasing the academic achievement of their students, and what States and school districts are doing to improve 

student outcomes in high school. 

I am pleased that this hearing will also focus on school safety. 

After last week’s events at Virginia Tech, the memories of Columbine, the flurry of school shootings of last fall and other unspeakable tragedies which have taken place in our Nation’s classrooms have become all too fresh in our minds once again. 

The issue of school safety is not new to this committee. Currently, No Child Left Behind includes various components to help 

protect students, including the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 

Communities program, which provides funds to States and school 

districts to support drug and violence prevention efforts. 

No Child Left Behind also allows a child to transfer out of a 

school identified as persistently dangerous regardless of whether 

that child has been the victim of a violent crime at school. Under 

the law, each State must establish a policy requiring that a student 

attending a persistently dangerous public school be allowed to attend a safe school within his or her school district, including a public charter school. 

Unfortunately, States’ efforts to implement the persistently dangerous schools provision have been uneven. For example, States 

may not uniformly define violations or offenses. States vary in establishing a threshold number of incidents which must occur before 

a school is identified as persistently dangerous; and States may differ in establishing a time frame during which incidents or offenses 

must occur in order for a school to be defined as persistently dangerous. This uneven nature is a matter I look forward to discussing 

today, because I believe it goes to the heart of our effort to improve 

the lives of students who are trapped in dangerous schools. 

Mr. Chairman, working collaboratively to ensure classroom safety is among our highest callings. Simply put, parents must not 

have to question the safety of their children when they are at 

4

school, and teachers and school personnel should be confident that 

they will be safe when they go to work each day. 

Again, thank you for holding this hearing on two very important 

topics, and I once again thank our witnesses for joining us. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Our first witness is Governor Bob Wise. Bob Wise is President 

of the Alliance for Excellent Education, and he has held that position since February 2005. Prior to joining the Alliance, Governor 

Wise was Governor of West Virginia, and prior to that he was our 

colleague here in the House of Representatives from 1983 to 2001, 

where he was very active on the issues of clean air, and mental 

health where he provided the first parity bill. 

Is that right? Yes. And we welcome you here today, Governor 

Wise, and I look forward to your testimony. 

We will also hear from Jane Norwood, who is the Vice Chair of 

the North Carolina State Board of Education, and a professor in 

the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Appalachian 

State University. Dr. Norwood is also Past President of both the 

North Carolina College Professors of Reading and the North Carolina Council of International Reading Association. 

Dr. Cuca Marı ́a Robledo Montecel is the Executive Director of the 

Intercultural Development Research Association in San Antonio. 

Dr. Robledo Montecel is a nationally recognized expert on the prevention and recovery of dropouts. She has chaired the San Antonio 

Community Education Leadership program and has served as a 

board member of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. 

Kenneth Smith is President and CEO of the Jobs for America’s 

Graduates, Inc. And prior to founding Jobs for American Graduates, Mr. Smith served as staff aide to President Nixon and 

founded 70001 Limited, a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping high school dropouts obtain employment. He also served as a 

senior advisor to Delaware Governor Pierre du Pont. 

And I believe Mrs. McCarthy is going to introduce our remaining 

witness, Mr. Trump. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

having this hearing. I would like to introduce Ken Trump to the 

panel. 

Ken is an expert in the area of K-through-12 school safety and 

emergency preparedness training and consulting, and is based in 

Cleveland, Ohio. He has over 20 years of full-time experience in the 

school safety profession and has worked with school and public 

safety officials in 45 States. 

Ken has authored two books and 45 articles on school safety and 

emergency preparedness issues. He is also knowledgeable in gang 

prevention and intervention and related youth safety topics serving 

on an anti-gun committee in Cleveland. 

He was also an invited attendee at the White House Conference 

on School Safety in October of 2006. Ken has also testified before 

the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee as 

a school safety and crisis expert. 

Mr. Trump, I want to thank you for your tireless efforts on school 

safety and for your being here today. The committee will benefit 

greatly from your input on the issue of school safety. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

5

Welcome to all of you. We look forward to your testimony. Those 

of you who have not testified, when you begin to speak, we will ask 

you to turn on your microphone and bring it toward you so everybody in the room can hear. And a green light will go on in front 

of you; and then when you have a minute remaining, an orange 

light will go on, and you should consider trying to wrap up your 

remarks; and then a red light, and that should allow us time for 

questions from the members of the committee. 

Governor Wise, Bob, welcome to the committee. And I just would 

like to say to the witnesses, this is a topic that is discussed among 

the Members of Congress on the floor of the House when we are 

having conversations about our districts. The questions of these 

two issues, of dropout—school dropout rates and what causes that, 

and what we can do to prevent it. And, of course, the issue of 

school safety. 

So your appearance here is important to us, and we appreciate 

your taking your time and for all of your experience in these fields. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB WISE, PRESIDENT, ALLIANCE FOR 

EXCELLENT EDUCATION, AND FORMER GOVERNOR, STATE 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Mr. WISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is a pleasure to be 

back in front of you and the members of the committee around, 

also, your importance in tying together safety and learning because 

learning can’t take place if it is not in a safe environment. Since 

you have taken about the first 3 minutes of my statement, eloquently outlining the crisis—and indeed it is a crisis in high 

schools——

Chairman MILLER. Oh, you are far more eloquent though. So you 

can go ahead and repeat it, and they won’t even recognize it. 

Mr. WISE [continuing]. I am going to move forward to recommendations, except to make one point that when many of us 

have the privilege of attending high school commencements during 

this next month, and we watch those young people joyfully walk 

across the commencement stage, just remember that there are also 

over 1 million that are not walking across that stage that started 

in the ninth grade with them. Unfortunately, for those young people, graduation day is just another day of either being in the unemployment line or minimum wage job. 

So—almost one out of three of our ninth graders starting will not 

finish in a 4-year period, so we know and you laid out well, I 

thought, Mr. Chairman, in your statement the nature of the crisis 

in high schools. 

Could I talk a little about what can be done under No Child Left 

Behind and also why we are where we are? I would like, first, to 

address the missing middle in our Nation’s secondary schools. And 

that is the Federal funding that goes to middle and high schools. 

If I could draw an air graph, starting from the table to the top 

here and that is $18 billion, this reflects what the Federal Government spends directly for K-through-6, Title I-Head Start, pre-K-to6 and a billion dollars for Reading First for $18 billion. 

Over here is higher education, postsecondary; it is around $16 

billion. It is Pell Grants, financial aid, does not include guaranteed 

student loans, that would be much higher. 

6

So what are we spending then, in comparison, on middle and high schools? Here is middle schools at about $2.5, and here are 

high schools at about $2.5 for a total of $5 billion in our secondary 

schools system. 

We don’t want one penny taken out of these other areas. They 

don’t get enough. But we do think we ought to be looking at the 

commitment that is being made in middle and high schools. 

Secondary to look at is No Child Left Behind, which I support 

the concepts of, but it does not hold true accountability at the high 

school level. The law looks at test scores, but it does not look at 

whether students actually graduate. It is like running students 

around the mile track, and we rigorously assess them at every 

tenth of a mile except the finish line, and then we throw it out. 

And so Congressman Hinojosa, for instance, has been trying to address this problem for some years now with the Graduation for All 

Act. 

Beyond accountability, the school improvement requirements 

under NCLB, namely school choice and supplemental educational 

services, don’t work at the high school level. One reason, 75 percent 

of school districts only have one high school; choice doesn’t apply 

there. 

There is another major reason that really affects all of Title I, 

or all of high schools, and that is that the main carrot and the stick 

under NCLB is Title I funding and yet only 8 percent of students 

receiving Title I services are in high schools. Therefore, whether or 

not a high school makes AYP or not really doesn’t matter; the supports and the sanctions simply aren’t available for them. 

Now, there are successful models. Ken Smith talks for Jobs for 

America’s Graduates; the Institute for Student Achievement, talent 

development; go look at Jeb Stewart just a few miles from here in 

Virginia, Granger High School. All have proven that with the right 

elements that you referred to, Mr. Chairman, even schools filled 

with low-income and minority students, who start out way behind, 

can succeed. 

What can we do to address this problem? Well, one thing we can 

do is to have improved measures of AYP that also have graduation 

rates as a strong determinant. 

Second is then using this improved measure of AYP to determine 

whether or not schools qualify for a new high school improvement 

fund that uses proven strategies to turn around low-performing 

schools. This would be essentially State run. The districts would 

have the turnaround teams, but the Federal Government would 

team with them. 

Incidentally, this new vision for high school reform is actually included in bipartisan legislation being introduced in the Senate 

today by Senators Bingaman, Burr and Kennedy, called the Graduation Promise Act. 

What other measures? Well, 71 percent of our eighth graders are 

reading below grade level according to the National Assessment for 

Educational Progress. So authorization of a Striving Readers program—and, Congressman Yarmuth, your efforts, we greatly appreciate—and the sponsorship of this is critical to making sure that 

they are able to help the 70 percent reading below grade level to 

meet the content standards of their tougher courses. 

7

We would also look at NCLB including a major investment in 

States’ quality data systems in accordance with the recommendations of the data quality campaign. From the classroom to this committee room, we need good data to make the decisions that are so 

important. 

And finally, let me leave you with one last thought, and that is 

that there are more than 15,000 high schools in this country, yet 

only 2,000 of them, 15 percent, are producing half of America’s 

dropouts. We know where they are. We know what to do about it. 

The question is whether in this reauthorization of No Child Left 

Behind we have the will to do something about it. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Wise follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Wise, President, Alliance for Excellent 

Education, Former Governor, State of West Virginia 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the invitation to speak with you today. I appreciate 

your commitment to education, as well as that of the other distinguished Members 

of the Committee. 

In the coming month, millions of high school seniors will walk across the stage 

at graduation ceremonies to receive their high school diplomas. Auditoriums and 

gymnasiums around the country will be packed to the brim with proud parents and 

relatives. For many students, Graduation Day will be the culmination of thirteen 

years of study; for others, it will be the doorway to postsecondary education. But 

for nearly 1.2 million students nationally who started high school with these graduating students, it will likely be just another day that they are unemployed or working at a minimum wage job because they have already dropped out of school. 

For students to succeed in high school or at any level of education, it is critical 

that they feel safe and engaged in their schools. My organization, the Alliance for 

Excellent Education, has developed a list of the ten elements of a successful high 

school for students and their families. Those elements are: challenging classes, personal attention for all students, extra help for those who need it, skilled teachers, 

strong leaders, necessary resources, user-friendly information for families and the 

community, bringing the real world into the classroom, family and community involvement, and a safe learning environment. 

As a parent, I worry first that my child is safe, both physically and emotionally, 

and then I worry about the teaching and curriculum. Every high school must guarantee the safety of its students, teachers, staff, and visitors, and every school should 

be kept free of drugs, weapons, and gangs. School leaders should build a climate 

of trust and respect, which includes encouraging peaceful solutions to conflict and 

responding directly to bullying, verbal abuse, or other threats. Schools are the 

guardians of our children during the day and all else is second to their security. 

Safety and engagement are the pillars of dropout prevention in our schools. For students to be successful, though, we must also ensure that they graduate from high 

school with the skills necessary to succeed in college and the twenty-first century 

workforce. 

Crisis and Economic Impact 

Forty years ago, the United States was number one in the world in high school 

graduation rates; it now ranks seventeenth. The nation’s fifteen-year-olds, when 

measured against their counterparts in other industrialized nations, rank fifteenth 

in reading, twenty-third in math, and thirtieth in problem-solving skills. 

This does not bode well for the future economic well-being of the nation, nor for 

the continued prosperity of its people. An increasingly global, technologically-based 

economy is demanding ever higher levels of knowledge and skills from its workers. 

The U.S. Department of Labor estimates that almost 90 percent of the fastest growing U.S. jobs require at least some postsecondary education. 

In a world in which a meaningful high school diploma has become the minimum 

qualification necessary to obtain a good job and support family well-being, far too 

many American students are being allowed to fall off the path to prosperity. This 

problem has escalated to crisis proportions in thousands of the nation’s high schools 

and is hampering the opportunities of millions of students. 

8

Every school day, 7,000 students drop out—that’s 7,000 students who could have 

become teachers or researchers, small business owners, or Representatives. Of the 

students who enter ninth grade each fall, a third will not graduate from high school 

within four years. Another third will graduate but without the skills and knowledge 

needed to succeed in college or the twenty-first century workplace. And only a third 

will graduate four years later with those necessary skills. 

The dropout levels are particularly acute in roughly 2,000 high schools across the 

country. Research by Robert Balfanz and Nettie Legters of the Center for Social Organization of Schools at Johns Hopkins University has shown that about 15 percent 

of the nation’s high schools produce close to half of its dropouts. These schools are 

the nation’s dropout factories. They have weak promoting power—the number of 

seniors is routinely no more than 60 percent of freshmen four years earlier. Year 

after year, often for a decade or longer, about as many students drop out as graduate. In the worst cases, a freshman class of four hundred often produce 150 or 

fewer graduates. 

The numbers are even worse for minority communities in our country. Only about 

55 percent of black students and 52 percent of Hispanic students graduate from 

high school on time with a regular diploma, compared to 78 percent of white students. Only 16 percent of Latino students and 23 percent of African-American students graduate prepared for college, compared to 40 percent of white students. And 

the news could get worse. Based on projections from the U.S. Census Bureau, the 

white population is expected to grow by only 1 percent by 2020, while the Hispanic 

population will increase by 77 percent and the African-American population by 32 

percent. If the nation cannot do a better job of serving minority students and ensuring that they graduate from high school, the nation’s overall graduation rate will 

fall even further as a growing number of minority students are left behind. 

Dropouts are not the only ones who pay the price for a lack of a quality education. 

Analysis by my organization, the Alliance for Excellent Education, with assistance 

from the MetLife Foundation, reveals that if the 1.2 million high school dropouts 

from the Class of 2006 had earned their diplomas instead of dropping out, the U.S. 

economy would have seen an additional $309 billion in wages over these students’ 

lifetimes. And that’s only for one year—we can expect the country to lose another 

$309 billion in potential earnings later this year as dropouts from the Class of 2007 

fail to graduate with their classmates. If this annual pattern is allowed to continue, 

more than 12 million students will drop out of school during the next decade at a 

cost to the nation of $3 trillion. 

Recent research conducted by a group of the nation’s leading researchers in education and economics has shed some light on exactly how much a high school dropout costs the nation in lost taxes, increased health care costs, higher spending on 

crime, and more expenditure on support programs such as welfare. According to a 

recent report, which was published by Teachers College at Columbia University, 

male high school graduates earn up to $322,000 more over the course of their lifetimes than dropouts, while college graduates earn up to $1.3 million more. 

On the flip side, the Alliance projects that if the U.S. education system could raise 

minority high school graduation rates to the current level of whites, and if those 

new graduates go on to postsecondary education at similar rates, additional personal income would increase by more than $310.4 billion by 2020, yielding additional tax revenues and a considerably improved economic picture. 

While some high school dropouts might eventually find good jobs and earn decent 

livings, most will spend their life in a state of uncertainty—periodically unemployed 

or on government assistance. Many will cycle in and out of prison. In fact, about 

75 percent of America’s state prison inmates, almost 59 percent of federal inmates, 

and 69 percent of jail inmates did not complete high school. If we could increase 

the male graduation rate by only 5 percent, we could save $7.7 billion a year by 

reducing crime related costs and increasing earnings. 

High school graduates have better health and tend to live longer than high school 

dropouts. Individuals with higher educational attainment also are less likely to use 

public health services such as Medicaid. An Alliance analysis found that if every 

student in the class of 2005–2006 graduated from high school, the nation could save 

$17.1 billion in lifetime health costs. 

Federal Role and NCLB Reauthorization 

The good news is that, although there is a significant crisis, we know much about 

how to respond. The reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) offers 

an opportunity for you as the education leaders in the House to put the ‘‘Secondary’’ 

into the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and take some critical steps towards improving our nation’s middle and high schools. The realities of global competitiveness, the rapidly-diminishing prospects of those students whose high schools 

9

fail to prepare them for college and work, and the resulting widening opportunity 

gap all make middle and high school reform an imperative issue from an economic, 

national security and civil rights perspective. 

The time is right for the federal government to take bold leadership in advancing 

secondary school reform—leadership that is appropriate to the crisis and in line 

with the federal government’s tradition of intervening to assure the security of the 

nation, reduce poverty and increase equity, and advance research to inform effective 

practice. The increasing urgency to address the trouble plaguing secondary schools 

has been bolstered by an avalanche of reports recognizing the link between improving secondary education and increasing and maintain competitiveness. Such reports 

include ETS’s The Perfect Storm and National Council on Economic Education’s 

Tough Choices—Tough Times. 

For education reform to truly take hold and be successful, it must happen at all 

levels of education, from the schoolhouse to Capitol Hill. As a nation, we will never 

reach the goals of No Child Left Behind or make every child a graduate without 

significantly increasing funding to improve America’s high schools—levels of investment equal to the levels of reform. But I am not interested in simply making the 

current dysfunctional system just more expensive. Reforms must be targeted and research-based and investment should match that reform. 

Currently, there is little federal investment in our nation’s high schools and we 

are getting what we pay for. As of now, the federal funding in education funds targets the bookends of the education system—concentrating on grades pre-K—6 and 

higher education. The ‘‘missing middle’’ is our nation’s secondary schools, which receive little to no funding from the federal level. Funding for grades pre-K—6 totals 

nearly $18 billion. Funding for postsecondary education totals nearly $16 billion and 

that is without taking into account student loans or other tax incentives. However, 

funding for grades 7–12 is close to $5 billion. 

Why NCLB Doesn’t Work for Secondary Schools 

Unfortunately, the focus of NCLB reflects the current federal funding priorities 

in education—NCLB was just not set up for secondary schools. I am not here to 

criticize NCLB. I am here to tell you why it does not work for high schools and how 

you can fix them in reauthorization. However, I believe it is critical for us to remember all of the core reasons NCLB was written and became law when we discuss the 

crisis in our nation’s high schools. The law was written to provide all children, including poor and minority children, with access to a high-quality, standards-based 

education—the same reasons federal action must occur at the high school level. 

NCLB, despite its shortcomings, has put a spotlight on the achievement gap—a gap 

that is startling at the high school level and illustrated in the shocking graduation 

rates I described earlier. 

NCLB was designed to address grades K-8 and generally it did not even really 

contemplate the law’s interaction with secondary schools. For example, the original 

Bush Administration proposal was twenty-eight pages and only mentioned high 

schools twice. In addition, NAEP, known as the nation’s report card, is only required 

in fourth and eighth grades so there is no on going national measure of student 

achievement. And, despite low literacy rates in the upper grades Reading First, the 

federal investment in reading skills, is only a K-3 program. As a result, NCLB policy is often neglectful of or even at odds with the needs of America’s 14 million high 

school students, particularly the 6 million students who are at risk of dropping out 

of school each year. 

NCLB at its core is about accountability for improving student achievement. However, there is not true accountability at the high school level—the law looks at test 

scores but not if students actually graduate. It’s as if we are clocking runners in 

a race every mile but then do not pay attention to whether they cross the finish 

line. Because Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is focused solely on test scores, there 

is a perverse incentive to push out the kids who do not score well. Further, these 

tests generally measure proficiency in the tenth grade, not preparedness for graduation and beyond. 

Despite calculation of graduation rates being part of the law, there is no accountability tied to those rates. States calculate high school graduation rates in different 

and, in many cases highly inaccurate and misleading, ways. Subgroup graduation 

rates do not count for NCLB; therefore the graduation gaps and the low graduation 

rates of poor and minority are not reflected in AYP determinations. Even if the 

graduation rates were accurate and accounted for students in subgroups, NCLB 

does not require schools and states to make meaningful progress in increasing graduation rates. While states, districts and schools are held accountable for getting all 

students proficient in math and reading by 2014, there is no such ultimate goal for 

graduation rates. The consequences are that most states do not have meaningful 

10

goals for improving graduation rates each year and that schools can make AYP 

while showing little to no progress on graduation rates. 

In 2005, the National Governors Association (NGA) took an important first step 

in recognizing these problems and moving toward a solution. The NGA Graduation 

Rate Compact was originally signed by all fifty of the nation’s governors pledging 

to adopt accurate and consistent measurements for reporting high school graduation 

rates. However, two states have since backed out of the commitment; only a few 

states have yet implemented the Compact rate; and because the Compact did not 

address accountability, definitions, rates, and growth goals for accountability are 

still not consistent state to state. NCLB should operationalize the Compact by requiring that graduation rates are disaggregated and increase over time as part of 

accountability. 

Beyond accountability, the school improvement requirements or sanctions under 

NCLB (which only apply to Title I schools, thus missing the vast majority of high 

schools) namely school choice and supplemental education services (SES), simply do 

not work at the high school level. School choice often is not applicable at the high 

school level. Seventy-five percent of school districts have only one high school. In 

cases where districts do contain more than one high school, they are often concentrated urban districts with many low-performing high schools. And in the cases 

where such districts do contain high-performing high schools, those schools only 

have a handful of transfer slots available, thus ensuring no real improvement for 

a failing high school. In the case of SES, because Title I funding is extremely limited, very few students in high schools actually receive the services. Further, given 

extracurricular, social and work demands, high school students are not likely to opt 

in to extra tutoring. Finally, regardless of whether or not SES and school choice 

even could work for high school students, neither provide the research-based improvement strategies that will turn around low-performing high schools. 

At the root of why NCLB does not work for high schools is the fact that of Title 

I funds almost never even reach high schools. Title I is both the ‘‘carrot’’ and the 

‘‘stick’’ that gives NCLB impetus. NCLB requires all schools to report on their assessment performance every year, however sanctions only apply to and are funded 

for the schools receiving Title I funds. Yet only 8 percent of Title I participants are 

high school students. Other major funding streams are also not reaching high 

schools. Seventy percent of entering freshmen cannot read at grade level. However, 

the major federal investment in reading, Reading First, stops in third grade. 

Given the problems facing our nation’s secondary schools, secondary schools need 

systemic reforms that NCLB simply does not provide or require. Much is now 

known about how to renew and revitalize the country’s middle and high schools so 

as to ensure that more students succeed. Local school districts and the states have 

an undisputed and critical role to play in redesigning the nation’s secondary schools 

to meet the needs of the 21st century, and many of them are working hard to implement effective reforms. Schools such as JEB Stuart High School in Falls Church, 

Virginia and Granger High School in Yakima, Washington and programs such as 

Institute for Student Achievement (ISA) and Talent Development, in communities 

scattered across the nation are proving that with high expectations and the necessary support, today’s students—even those who are most highly at risk of dropping out—are up to the challenge. These schools are successfully keeping students 

in attendance, improving their achievement levels, and graduating them prepared 

for success. 

NCLB Reauthorization and High Schools 

For all of the reasons I described earlier, the Alliance believes NCLB reauthorization must look at multiple means to improve the nation’s high schools from accountability and improvement to literacy to critical data systems. First, I will discuss accountability and school improvement, the cornerstone of federal school reform policy. 

Accountability and Improvement 

To turn around low-performing high schools, NCLB must include a new system 

of meaningful high school accountability system that is tied closely with school improvement. While the current structure of NCLB does not work for high schools, it 

can be built upon to leverage the student achievement gains and improved preparedness and graduation rates needed for students and the nation to succeed. 

As discussed earlier, adequate yearly progress (AYP) currently does not include 

the appropriate indicators of a high school’s performance. An appropriate measure 

of AYP at the high school level must include high quality assessments that are performance-based and aligned to college and work ready standards not administered 

before eleventh grade and consistent, disaggregated graduation rates. Both assessment performance and graduation rates should be required to increase over time. 

11

In this new system of accountability and improvement, such a measure of AYP 

would act as a ‘‘thermometer’’ to see if schools are meeting appropriate goals. In 

other words, it would tell us something is wrong but further diagnosis and treatment are needed. 

That improved measure of AYP would determine whether or not schools enter a 

new school differentiated improvement system. That new system, a High School Improvement Fund would turn around America’s lowest performing high schools and 

give students attending those schools a chance to graduate ready for college and 

work. The High School Improvement Fund would support more comprehensive state 

accountability and improvement systems at the high school level. 

Under this new system of improvement, states would set up new statewide systems that utilize multiple measures or indicators to appropriately assess high school 

quality. Formula grants would be distributed to the states, based on poverty and 

graduation rates, to establish and/or expand statewide, differentiated high school 

improvement systems guided by research and best practice. These systems would 

be approved by the Secretary as part of a rigorous peer-review process. States would 

then develop a set of school performance indicators to be used, in addition to the 

new measures used to determine AYP, to analyze high school performance, determine the amount and type of support each school needs, and guide the school improvement process. States would also define a minimum amount of expected growth 

on each school performance indicator to demonstrate continuous and substantial 

progress. 

States would then determine how data from the school performance indicators 

and AYP data will be used to place high schools in need of improvement into one 

of three school improvement categories. Unlike current law, how schools fit into the 

following categories is not determined by how long the school has been failing, but 

by how badly the school is performing. The first category is schools needing targeted 

assistance, which are schools that have just missed making AYP and are performing 

well on most indicators, but a targeted intervention, such as improved instruction 

for ELL students or a school wide literacy plan, is likely to improve student outcomes. The second category is schools needing whole school reform, which are 

schools that have missed making AYP by a significant margin or for multiple subgroups and are struggling on most other indicators. Such schools could benefit from 

a school wide strategy to address the multiple layers of school improvement demonstrated from research and best practice. The third category is schools needing replacement which are schools that are failing large numbers of students by most or 

all measures and likely have been for some time. Improving student outcomes in 

those schools would call for replacement with more personalized, rigorous and welldesigned school models. 

Under this new system, development and implementation of the improvement 

strategies would come from the local level. For each high school that did not make 

AYP and was placed into one of the three categories I just discussed, district-led 

school improvement teams would use the school performance data, a school capacity 

audit and needs assessment, and data about incoming ninth graders, to develop appropriate school improvement plans. The high school improvement plans would lay 

out the evidence-based academic and nonacademic interventions and resources necessary to improve student achievement, reduce dropout rates, meet annual benchmarks, and make adequate yearly progress. Districts would then apply to the state 

on behalf of their high schools, for funds necessary to implement the high school 

improvement plans and complementary district wide strategies. States would award 

subgrants to districts with approved applications, with funds going first to those districts serving high schools needing whole school reform or replacement. 

Districts and high school improvement teams would implement the high school 

improvement plans, directing funds first to implement the plans for schools in need 

of whole school reform or replacement. In subsequent years, high schools that meet 

the annual benchmarks on school performance indicators, even if they do not make 

AYP, could continue to implement the school improvement plan. High schools not 

meeting the annual benchmarks for two years would be redesignated into a different 

school improvement category and required to develop a new school improvement 

plan with state involvement. 

Research, evaluation and technical assistance are critical for this system to work. 

States would be able to reserve 10 percent of funds to implement the requirements 

of the statute and also to build the capacity to support the school improvement efforts. The Secretary would also reserve funds to provide technical assistance and regional training programs; to develop and implement or replicate effective researchbased comprehensive high school reform models; and to evaluate the program and 

determine the most effective interventions. 

12

A new, more appropriate measure of AYP and the High School Improvement Fund 

provide the foundation for true, systemic high school reform. However, alone, a new 

accountability and improvement system will not be successful in preparing students 

to graduate with the skills to succeed in postsecondary education and the workforce. 

NCLB must include other measures that will inform teaching, support students and 

provide the interventions that will ultimately improve student achievement. 

Striving Readers 

As I mentioned earlier, 70 percent of eighth graders cannot read at grade level. 

Unfortunately, the federal investment in reading, the Reading First program, disappears after third grade, which is exactly the point at which expectations for student literacy increase. This lack of basic reading skills contributes greatly to students failing to master the knowledge they need to succeed after graduation, or simply dropping out entirely. In the last year, Congress has repeatedly discussed improving our nation’s competitiveness. Clearly education plays a critical role in how 

economically competitive we are as a nation. I understand the Senate may soon consider legislation on this very topic. While the conversation has focused tightly on 

math and science, I ask you to consider the role literacy plays in the success students have in math and science. A 2006 report by ACT found that high school students with higher level literacy skills performed better in math, science, and social 

studies courses in college, had higher college GPA’s, and returned to college for a 

second year at higher rates. 

In response to the need, Congressman Yarmuth, a member of this Committee, will 

be introducing the Striving Readers Act, which would improve literacy skills by 

helping every state, district, and school develop comprehensive literacy plans that 

ensure every student reads and writes on grade level. The bill will support training 

teachers to use assessments and literacy strategies to help struggling readers, train 

leaders to support teachers, and provide reading materials for schools that lack 

them. NCLB must include Striving Readers so that low literacy is no longer a reason students fail to succeed in high school. I want to thank Congressman Yarmuth 

for his leadership and encourage all of the members of the Committee to cosponsor 

the bill when it is introduced. 

Voluntary National Standards 

To be competitive, students need to leave high school with a college- and workready diploma. Our students and the nation are spending billions of dollars at the 

college level and in the workplace on remediation because our students are not leaving high school with the necessary skills. The Alliance estimates that the amount 

saved in remedial education costs at U.S. community colleges if high schools eliminate the need for remediation would be $3.7 billion a year. This figure includes $1.4 

billion to provide remedial education to students who have recently completed high 

school, and this figure includes in the almost $2.3 billion that the economy loses because remedial reading students are more likely to drop out of college without a degree, thereby reducing their earning potential. 

NCLB should establish a process for developing shared education standards to ensure that all students are held to the same high expectations aligned with the requirements of postsecondary education and the workforce. The federal government 

should also offer states high-quality performance assessments to regularly measure 

student progress towards those standards and fulfill the testing requirements of 

NCLB. This action would remove a significant financial burden from states and increase the quality of assessments. In addition, the federal government should provide states with incentives and supports for adopting such standards and aligning 

them with their key systems, such as their curricula, graduation requirements, and 

professional development. 

Data Systems 

To turn around low-performing high schools, educators and policy makers need accurate information about how students are doing in school. High-quality longitudinal data systems using individual student identifiers are critical to improving student achievement. However, most states and school districts have not yet fully implemented such systems. The federal government must help states build the infrastructure needed for data to be collected, reported to the public and used by educators to improve education. NCLB should include a major investment in grants to 

states to build such systems in accordance with the recommendations of the Data 

Quality Campaign, as well as grants to build the capacity to use data to improve 

teaching and learning through professional development, effective data collection 

and other key functions. NCLB should include $100 million in competitive grants 

to build those systems, and $100 million in formula grants to every state to align 

13

those systems with district systems and build educator capacity at state and local 

level to use the data to improve teaching and learning. 

Thank you 

Again, I want to thank the Chairman and the Committee for their leadership on 

this critical issue. I urge you to seize the opportunity of NCLB reauthorization to 

take our nation’s high schools into the twenty-first century. The quality of high 

school education is increasingly central to national concerns, including securing the 

nation’s global economic position, reducing threats to national security, and assuring 

equal opportunity for a population that is growing increasingly diverse. By appropriately extending its education focus to include the needs of students in middle and 

high schools, the federal government can move the nation from ‘‘no child left behind’’ 

to ‘‘every child a graduate.’’

Chairman MILLER. Dr. Norwood? 

STATEMENT OF DR. JANE NORWOOD, VICE CHAIR, NORTH 

CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION 

Ms. NORWOOD. Good afternoon, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon and members of the committee. On behalf of the National Association of State Boards of Education, I want to thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about 

graduation rates and what we need to do——

Chairman MILLER. Could I ask if you could just pull the microphone a little closer to you. 

Ms. NORWOOD [continuing]. And what we need to do to ensure 

that every child has the opportunity to graduate from high school, 

ready for college and work in the 21st century. In North Carolina 

we are moving toward greater accountability with more accurate 

data and reforming our system accordingly. 

My colleagues at State Boards of Education from around the 

country are also engaged in similar efforts to improve the high 

school curriculum and raise student achievement. We recognize 

that the institution of the American high school must undergo 

sweeping improvements in order to prepare all students for today’s 

economy. High schools must reject the notion that students with 

differing abilities should be prepared for different futures. 

Today, I would like to share with you the lessons we have 

learned and what the implications may be for your work at the 

Federal level. Effective high school reforms must focus on the core 

issues of literacy, high school structure, teacher quality and dropout prevention. 21st century high schools should ensure that every 

student takes relevant, challenging and integrated courses taught 

by qualified teachers and has the opportunity to access online and 

higher education courses. 

Graduation rates and dropout prevention are perhaps the most 

pressing concerns at this time. Many States have begun to accurately measure and report graduation rates as a first step toward 

dramatically improving dropout prevention efforts and closing 

achievement gaps. 

In North Carolina, we decided to calculate a 4-year cohort graduation rate, that is, students who started ninth grade and graduate 

4 years later rather than an annual dropout rate that only counted 

incidences of dropout. In February we reported our first 4-year cohort graduation rate of 68.1 percent, a dramatic downward revision 

14

from previous figures that had prompted State, local and general 

public attention to prevent these dropouts. 

Beyond simply calculating rates accurately, we must reform our 

education system to improve graduation rates and prevent and recover dropouts. We have to use dropout information to help students. This will take a systemic effort across numerous policy areas 

to align standards with college and work expectations, ensure access to rigorous courses and early college opportunities, promote 

support for struggling students, promote interventions in our most 

chronically underperforming schools and more. 

Last year, our State board approved a framework for a more rigorous high school curriculum that will better prepare students to 

succeed in their postsecondary and workforce careers known as the 

Future-Ready Core. The framework consists of 17 courses critical 

to the economic and societal demands of the 21st century. Examples of other innovation are that our General Assembly funded literacy coaches at middle schools. Schools are offering summer transition programs to ease students into new high school environments. Also many of our high schools are implementing ninth 

grade academies. 

North Carolina students can also attend Learn and Earn High 

Schools. Students in these programs can earn an Associate Degree 

before leaving high school, a degree that will transfer to the university system and satisfy the first 2 years of a 4-year degree. 

Nationally, school districts have developed plans that create 

early identification and innovation for students who are considered 

at risk. There are dual enrollment opportunities and early college 

high schools; increasing the compulsory attendance age, for example, from 16 to 18; recovering or regaining students that have 

dropped out; establishing truancy prevention programs which involve schools, law enforcement agencies, families, business community and social service agencies working together; and partnering 

with community college and the adult education community to entice dropouts to return by offering them an alternative education 

path to recover credits and receive their diploma through nontraditional means, such as the North Carolina Virtual Public School. 

We simply cannot achieve the overarching goals of No Child Left 

Behind without effective high school reforms. More support is needed from the Federal level for reform and to increase graduation 

rates, from codifying the right rates to supporting a range of efforts 

and interventions. This assessment should reinforce the wide-ranging work going on in the States and promote continuous innovation. 

We call the three Rs of dropout prevention ‘‘Reform, Relevancy 

and Reading.’’

In crafting dropout prevention and high school reform policies, 

policymakers cannot lose sight of relevancy of the real-world impact and reaction of their best-intended efforts at the school and 

classroom level. We need to be sensitive to the unique circumstances, interests, needs and demands of students. 

Finally, nothing can be accomplished unless we dramatically improve literacy rates, especially of high school students. Nothing less 

than a new paradigm is required, one based on joint problem solving, collaboration, practice and collective accountability that enVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:17 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-23\34631.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
15

gages students in purposeful reading, writing and all subjects being 

taught. 

In today’s world, we must communicate the message that a high 

school education has become a bare necessity and should be a minimum expectation, if not a basic right, for all students. We have an 

obligation at the local, State and Federal level to protect and promote this right. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this very important topic. I look forward to answering any questions you may 

have. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Norwood follows:]

Prepared Statement of Dr. Jane Norwood, Vice-Chair, North Carolina State 

Board of Education 

Good afternoon, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, and members of the 

committee. On behalf of the North Carolina State Board of Education and the National Association of State Boards of Education—NASBE—I want to thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about graduation rates and what 

we need to do together to ensure that every child has the opportunity to graduate 

from high school ready for college and work in the 21st century. 

In North Carolina we have taken great strides toward focusing on this vital issue, 

moving toward greater accountability with more accurate data, and reforming our 

system accordingly. North Carolina may be a leader in high school reform, but we 

are not alone in these efforts. My colleagues on state boards of education from 

around the country are engaged in similar efforts to improve the high school curriculum and raise student achievement. Over the last several years, as a national 

organization NASBE has undertaken multiple projects related to graduation rates 

and accountability. I am proud that NASBE and my state are partners with the 

Gates Foundation in redesigning high schools. We recognize that the institution of 

the American high school must undergo sweeping improvements in order to prepare 

all students for today’s economy. High schools must reject the notion that students 

with different abilities should be prepared for different futures. 

Today I’d like to share with you some of the actions we are taking, the lessons 

we have learned, and what the implications may be for your work at the federal 

level. 

Overview of the Issue 

Effective high school reforms must focus on the core issues of literacy, high school 

structure (including use of the school day and the school calendar), teacher quality, 

and dropout prevention. 21st Century high schools should ensure that every student 

takes relevant, challenging, and integrated courses taught by qualified teachers and 

has the opportunity to access online and higher education courses. 

Among reform strategies, graduation rates and dropout prevention are perhaps 

the most pressing concerns at this time. 

Nationally, we have learned a lot about graduation rates and their meaning. To 

reinforce the work of the Alliance for Excellent Education, the National Governor’s 

Association graduation rate task force, and others, many states have begun to accurately measure and report graduation rates as a first step toward dramatically improving dropout prevention efforts and closing achievement gaps. 

In North Carolina, the first step in addressing the dropout epidemic was the decision to calculate a four-year cohort graduation rate in keeping with the Governors 

Compact, rather than an annual drop out rate that only counted incidences of drop 

out during one year. The dropout problem needed to be more personal—it needed 

to represent the students who were in school in grade nine and absent at graduation. We do not include in our graduation rate any student we can’t verify as attending another education institution, excluding the community college system unless 

students are attending it as part of a public high school program and not a GED 

program. 

Indeed, in February we reported our first four-year cohort graduation rate of 68.1 

percent, a dramatic downward revision from previous figures that has prompted 

state and local leader scrutiny of, and public attention to, reducing dropout rates. 

16

Moving Forward: Beyond the Graduation Rate 

Beyond simply calculating rates accurately, however, we must reform our educational systems to dramatically improve graduation rates and prevent and recover 

dropouts. It is not enough to have accurate rates—we have to use that information 

to help students. And here I have to tell you that our experience is that this will 

take a systemic effort across numerous policy areas—to align standards with college 

and work expectations, ensure access to rigorous courses and early college opportunities, promote supports for struggling students in reading and other areas, promote 

interventions in our most chronically underperforming schools, and more. 

Last year, our state board approved a framework for a more rigorous high school 

curriculum that will better prepare students to succeed in their post-secondary and 

workforce careers. Known as the ‘‘Future-Ready Core,’’ the framework consists of 17 

courses, including four units of English and four units of math, our board has identified as critical to the economic and societal demands of the 21st century. 

In addition, our General Assembly is funding literacy coaches at middle schools 

to ensure that students entering ninth grade are stronger readers. Many of our high 

schools are offering summer transition programs to ease students into the new high 

school environment. Also many of our high schools are implementing Ninth Grade 

Academies. These smaller learning environments offer additional support to students in English Language Arts, Reading, and Mathematics. 

North Carolina students can also attend Learn and Earn High Schools. Students 

in these programs can earn an Associate Degree before leaving high school—a degree that will transfer to the university system and satisfy the first two years of 

a four-year degree. Governor Easley is asking the General Assembly to fund the 

final two years of college for eligible students whose families qualify at two times 

the national poverty level. Those students would graduate from college debt-free. 

Strong incentives for staying in school such as the ones cited are being developed 

to keep North Carolina students from dropping out. 

Nationally, many states and school districts have developed plans that create 

early identification systems for students who are considered ‘‘at-risk.’’ A few states 

have focused on dual enrollment opportunities and early college high schools, programs that are designed to encourage students to earn college credit while completing high school in an effort to take a preventive approach to curbing the drop 

out problem. 

One approach to curbing the dropout rates some states are taking is to increase 

the compulsory attendance age, for example, from 16 to 18. However, in most cases 

a parent or guardian can allow a student to withdraw from school by signing a written consent form. Although this tactic has become increasingly popular among 

states, critics have argued that compulsory attendance laws take away freedom and 

make the case that teenagers who are kept in school against their wishes will not 

learn. 

School systems are also making efforts to recover or regain students who have 

dropped out. This generally includes establishing truancy prevention programs, 

which offer services to help students overcome personal and social obstacles that 

have led to a decline in attendance. These strategies bring together schools, law enforcement agencies, families, the business community, and social services agencies. 

School districts have also partnered with community colleges and the adult education community to entice dropouts to return by offering an alternative education 

path that allows students to recover credits and receive a diploma through nontraditional means. Recovery efforts are still in their infancy, but many education officials 

are now beginning to understand the importance of re—engaging the dropout population through nontraditional techniques. In North Carolina students can access 

credit recovery courses through the North Carolina Virtual Public School. 

Moving Forward: Implications for Federal Policymakers 

But more broadly, we simply cannot achieve the overarching goals of the No Child 

Left Behind Act—100% student proficiency and closing the achievement gap—without effective high school reforms. Moving ahead, all of this suggests some important 

lessons for your work at the federal level. In summary, more support is needed for 

high school reform and to dramatically increase graduation rates, from codifying the 

right rates to supporting a range of efforts and interventions. This assistance should 

reinforce the wide-ranging work going on in the states, and promote continued innovation. 

There are several effective systemic solutions that can be incorporated into state 

and federal policies. You hear a lot about the three R’s so I offer 3 R’s to help you 

remember my testimony today: Reform, Relevancy, and Reading. 

Reforms must promote intervention and recovery efforts as part of the comprehensive restructuring of high school. Creating an ‘‘early warning system’’ can be helpful 

17

in preventing students from dropping out. Other initiatives can include identification and turnaround efforts at schools graduating low percentages of students. In 

North Carolina, with the help of Gates dollars, the Department of Public Instruction 

has added a turnaround division to work with low-performing high schools. This 

turnaround effort provides a leadership coach for the high school principal who also 

participates in extensive professional development offered through the University of 

North Carolina. Curriculum specialists broker needed content-based staff development for teachers who often times are inexperienced or new to the state and are 

unfamiliar with the North Carolina standards. 

It is critical that states, schools, and districts have accurate data in order to address the dropout problem. Key to this effort is improving the ability of schools to 

calculate the precise number of students leaving school, along with developing robust state data systems. 

We also need to more carefully scrutinize the milestone transitions in the middle 

of the P-16 continuum. A student’s move from elementary school to middle school, 

and the middle school to high school transfer are fraught with academic, emotional, 

and social strains on students, many of whom we would already consider ‘‘at-risk.’’

These comprehensive reforms cannot succeed without the broad support of education stakeholders and the public. Just last week, the State Board of Education 

hosted a second retreat on high school reform. Over one hundred people representing education, business, nonprofit, and civic sectors gathered to discuss high 

school reforms. The purpose of the discussions was to measure the amount of 

progress being made in high school initiatives currently underway and to set strategies for scaling up promising practices and findings. In North Carolina, we believe 

that if high school reform is to be effective, the whole community must grasp the 

urgency for change and feel ownership of any new redesign. 

The second ‘‘R’’ is relevancy. In crafting dropout prevention and high school reform policies, policymakers cannot lose sight of the real world impact and reaction 

of their best-intended efforts at the school and classroom level. We need to be sensitive to the unique circumstances, interests, needs, and demands of students and 

schools. States must provide access to the full range of curriculum offerings and 

courses of study to all students. 

For example, NASBE will soon undertake a new national research project on student participation in high school athletics and the link between athletics and academics. In preparing for this project, we came to appreciate the recognition policymakers must give to the integral role athletics now often plays in the high school 

experience when crafting high school reform policies. In working to improve the 

quality of secondary schools, educators cannot ignore the significant influence athletics can have on academic decision-making, and vice versa. Any successful comprehensive high school reform—such as longer school days—must take into account 

the impact on athletic programs because it is one of the primary considerations of 

many local communities across the country. 

Finally, nothing can be accomplished unless we dramatically improve literacy 

rates among students, especially the reading skills of high school students. Individually, middle and high school students lacking the necessary literacy skills are more 

likely to dropout, go to jail, and be unemployed. More broadly, the national literacy 

crisis will seriously hinder this nation’s ability to sustain its economy and well-being 

into the 21st century. I am pleased to have chaired a year-long NASBE study of 

adolescent literacy. The result was a report, Reading at Risk, detailing the status 

of student literacy rates across the nation and policy recommendations for a new 

vision of teaching and learning for all students. 

You all are no doubt aware of the damning and dismal statistics. The scope of 

the literacy problem is staggering. According to the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), approximately two-thirds of 8thand 12th-graders read 

below the proficient level. For minority students, almost half of African American 

and Latino 8th-graders read below basic level. Accordingly, it is estimated that 

about half of the incoming 9th-graders in urban, high-poverty schools read three 

years or more below grade level, meaning that large numbers of entering students 

cannot comprehend factual information from their subject matter texts and struggle 

to form general understandings, develop interpretations, and make text connections. 

Nothing less than a new paradigm is required—one based on joint problem-solving, collaborative practice, and collective accountability that engages students in 

purposeful reading and writing in all subjects being taught. 

Brenda Welburn, NASBE’s Executive Director, has called reading a ‘‘basic human 

right.’’ ‘‘An inability to read in today’s world,’’ she says, ‘‘is to be consigned to educational, social and economic failure—an existence entirely devoid of meaningful 

life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. School leaders have an absolute and unVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:17 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-23\34631.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
18

equivocal educational responsibility and moral obligation to ensure that every child 

learns how to read, and read well.’’

Conclusion 

In today’s world we, as education leaders, must communicate the message that 

a high school education—a high school diploma—has become a bare necessity and 

should be a minimum expectation, if not a basic right, for all students. We have 

an obligation to protect and promote this right. Effective, meaningful and rigorous 

high school reform policies are needed at the local, state, and federal levels in order 

to increase graduation rates, prevent dropouts and raise overall student achievement. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this very important topic. I look 

forward to answering any questions that you may have. 

Chairman MILLER. Dr. Robledo Montecel. 

STATEMENT OF MARI ́A ROBLEDO MONTECEL, PH.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERCULTURAL DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATION 

Dr. ROBLEDO MONTECEL. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member 

McKeon, distinguished members, good afternoon and thank you for 

the invitation to appear before you. 

I am the Executive Director of the Intercultural Development Research in San Antonio, Texas. IDRA is an independent research 

and training organization. For 34 years we have worked closely 

with schools, school systems, parents and communities across the 

country. Our goal is to assure that every child has access to quality 

education that prepares him or her for a good life and for a productive contribution to this great democracy that are these United 

States. 

We have partnered with thousands of educators, administrators 

and business, family and community leaders to strengthen public 

education at national, State and local levels. IDRA designed and 

leads the award-winning Coca-Cola Youth Program, a model program that has helped schools in the United States and in Brazil 

succeed in keeping 98 percent of students in school and learning. 

In 1986, I served as principal investigator for one of the first 

statewide studies of school dropouts. With that study, IDRA developed in Texas an enrollment-based methodology that has become 

the foundation for dropout counting methods across the country, including those at the Harvard Civil Rights Project and the Urban 

Institute. That seminal IDRA study also looked at the cost of 

undereducating our young people. 

Findings from our annual cost study totaled over 20 years indicate that $730 billion have been lost to the State of Texas alone. 

With the magnitude of these losses what is needed is a seismic 

shift from dropout prevention to graduation for all. And all must 

mean all. Many dropout prevention efforts fail because they are too 

small or piecemeal or because they blame students or parents or 

minority communities for the problem. 

Dropout prevention efforts also fail because all too often schools 

plan for a failure. Recently, I was talking with a teacher. She had 

been hired to teach freshman English in a large inner city high 

school. When she learned she had 38 students and that they had 

been assigned to her class, she marched to the principal’s office and 

said to him she could never do a good job with 38 students in one 

19

class. He told her, don’t worry, in 6 weeks your class will have 24 

students. The other 14, he assured her, will drop out within 6 

weeks. 

We need to be honest about the fact that right now we plan on 

one-third of students leaving school before they graduate. We plan 

on children leaving school. This assumption is built into classroom 

assignments, teacher hiring practices, curriculum purchases and 

facilities planning. 

It is time to plan for success, not failure. To move from dropout 

prevention to graduation for all, I would offer primarily recommendations focused at the campus, district and systems levels. 

At the campus level, strengthen and support school level change 

through local accountability teams. Community oversight is the 

critical missing ingredient in effective and accountable dropout prevention efforts at the local level. Local accountability teams would 

review the local dropout and graduation data disaggregated by subgroups, as well as data on school factors affecting the graduation 

rate, such as parent involvement, student engagement, curriculum 

access and teaching quality. Using these data, a team would develop a comprehensive plan of action to include all students. Funding priorities would be based on campuses with the lowest graduation rates. 

Secondly, fund district-wide efforts that focus on elementary to 

middle and middle to high school transition points. Research very 

clearly shows that students drop out at key transition points. Research also shows that there are effective strategies that create 

safe passage for all of our students. 

Chairman MILLER. Excuse me. I am told that your microphone 

is not on, and I am worried about recording this. 

Go ahead. Just proceed. 

Dr. ROBLEDO MONTECEL. Sorry. That is why I had to——

Chairman MILLER. You were doing well in the room. It is just the 

recording. If I can hear you, let me tell you, they heard you. 

Dr. ROBLEDO MONTECEL. Secondly, we fund district-wide efforts 

that focus on elementary to middle and middle to high school transition points. Research shows that students drop out at key transition points. Research also shows there are effective strategies that 

create safe passage for students. 

Targeted school districts would demonstrate use of effective and 

coordinated practices that align curriculum, that create cross-level 

student tracking systems, that support joint planning and coordinated professional development. Funding priorities would be based 

on States and school systems with the lowest graduation rates. 

Thirdly and finally, our recommendation is to fund the Graduation for All Act and comprehensive efforts that will address the 

issue of graduation for all students. I would also recommend that 

you designate a minimum of 5 percent of NCLB allocations within 

each title to efforts that graduate all students. 

Planning for success obviously requires investment. Designating 

5 percent of Title I to address dropout strategies for disadvantaged 

students is clearly needed, and every component of NCLB can play 

a unique role in graduating students from high school. The same 

would be true for preparing, training and recruiting high-quality 

20

teachers out of Title II, improving language and instruction for 

ELL students out of Title III and informing parents out of Title V. 

If 5 percent of NCLB allocations within each title were designated for graduation for all efforts, it would cost the equivalent 

of $900 for each of the almost 1.3 million students who drop out 

of school each year. Many schools in our country operate on a 100-

day instructional day schedule, which means what is being recommended is a $5-a-day investment. 

In this country, not so long ago, it seemed unreasonable to think 

that we would have universal education through primary school. 

We have that. Now we must have universal education through high 

school. Our children deserve it, our democracy demands it, and our 

economy requires no less. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

[The statement of Dr. Robledo Montecel follows:]

Prepared Statement of Marı ́a Robledo Montecel, Ph.D., Executive Director, 

Intercultural Development Research Association 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the 

invitation to appear before you to discuss an emerging vision that ensures graduation for all. 

I am Marı ́a Robledo Montecel, executive director of the Intercultural Development 

Research Association in San Antonio, Texas. IDRA is an independent, non-profit organization founded in 1973, committed to one mission: creating schools that work 

for all children, especially those children who have traditionally been left behind—

those who are poor, minority or speak a language other than English. 

We have partnered with thousands of educators, administrators, and business, 

family and community leaders to strengthen public education at the national, state 

and local levels. IDRA designed and leads the award-winning Coca-Cola Valued 

Youth Program, a model program that has helped schools in the United States and 

Brazil succeed in keeping 98 percent of students in school and learning. 

IDRA has worked with schools in Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma 

and Texas through our federally-funded equity assistance center and across Texas 

through our federally-funded Parent Information and Resource Center. We have 

partnered with thousands of educators, administrators, and business, family and 

community leaders to strengthen public education in Arizona, California, Georgia, 

Michigan, Oregon and Pennsylvania, among many others. 

We have worked closely with schools and school systems, helping them address 

the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. In collaboration with the Public 

Education Network, IDRA conducted a statewide hearing in Texas on NCLB, bringing together stakeholders across the education spectrum to gain first-hand insight 

on NCLB implementation. IDRA has also partnered with the Hispanic Education 

Coalition to frame recommendations for NCLB reauthorization regarding English 

language learners; on which the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational 

Fund recently testified before the Senate. 

In 1986, I served as principal investigator for one of the first statewide studies 

of school dropouts. With that study, IDRA developed an enrollment-based methodology that has become the foundation for dropout counting methods by other researchers across the country, including the Harvard Civil Rights Project and the 

Urban Institute. Since 1986, Texas schools have lost more than 2.5 million students. 

One student is lost every four minutes. 

That seminal study also looked at the cost of under-educating our young people. 

Findings from our annual cost study, when totaled over 20 years, indicate that $730 

billion have been lost to the state of Texas alone. 

But IDRA has never limited its work only to research the problem; it has also 

dedicated its work to creating solutions that keep students in school, such as IDRA’s 

internationally recognized, research-based Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program. 

With the magnitude of this loss, what is needed is a seismic shift from ‘‘dropout 

prevention’’ to graduation for all; and ‘‘all’’ must mean ‘‘all.’’ Many dropout prevention efforts fail either because they are too narrow, or piecemeal, or because they 

blame students and parents for the problem. Dropout prevention efforts also fail because all too often schools plan for failure. 

21

Recently, I was talking with a teacher. She had been hired to teach freshman 

English in a large inner-city high school. She had finished preparing her curriculum, identifying books and her principal now sent her a list of students for the 

coming school year. When she learned 38 students had been assigned to her class, 

she marched to the principal’s office and told him that she could never do a good 

job with 38 students in one class. He told her: ‘‘Not to worry. In six weeks, your 

class will have 24 students.’’ The other 14, he assured her, will have dropped out 

by then. 

We need to be honest about the fact that right now we plan on one third of students leaving school before they graduate. This assumption is built into classroom 

assignments, teacher hiring practices, curriculum purchases and facilities planning. 

Some will say we cannot afford to adopt an emerging vision that expects all students to graduate. But this ignores the short- and long-term costs of insufficient or 

misdirected action. 

Over the last two decades, the inability of schools to hold on to students through 

high school graduation has cost the state of Texas about $730.1 billion in forgone 

income, lost tax revenues, and increased job training, welfare, unemployment and 

criminal justice costs. 

It is estimated that across the United States, 1,252,396 students in 2004 did not 

graduate on time (Urban Institute). Based on this number, the cost to the country 

is $325 billion in lost wages, taxes and productivity for one class of students (Alliance for Excellent Education). By contrast, if every household were headed by an 

individual with at least a high school diploma, there would be an additional $74 billion in collective wealth in the United States (Alliance for Excellent Education). 

IDRA’s research shows that for every $1 invested in education, states yield a $9 

return. Texas economist Ray Perryman estimates that just a 10 percent reduction 

in dropouts would produce 175,000 new jobs in the state and $200 billion in economic output (Zellmer, 2004). 

We must move from a low and archaic expectation that only some of our country’s 

students can successfully graduate from high school to a guarantee that all of our 

students will graduate. 

It is time to plan for success, not failure. 

To move from dropout prevention to graduation for all, I offer three primary recommendations focused at the campus, district and system levels. 

At the campus level, strengthen and support school-level change through Local 

Accountability Teams. 

Community oversight is a critical missing ingredient in effective and accountable 

dropout prevention efforts at the local level. 

For years, researchers, educators and policymakers have generally focused on ‘‘fixing’’ students rather than on strengthening the school systems that are responsible 

for ensuring that children and youth succeed throughout the educational system. 

It is not about fixing students; it is about schools that make a difference and succeed with all students. The student-deficit approach has never worked. 

What does work are dropout prevention efforts that focus on the inherent value 

of the students and their families. But it is critically important to recognize that 

what exists is not enough. Part of this emerging insight is that we cannot simply 

look for a new or better, or even another ‘‘program’’; what is needed are effective 

systemic reforms that will improve a school’s holding power. 

We also know that schools and communities working together have the capacity 

to craft and carry out effective solutions that will make a difference for students. 

Most recently, under IDRA’s new Graduation Guaranteed/Graduaciθn 

Garantizada initiative, we have been piloting a school holding power portal that 

gives community-school action teams data on how their schools are doing on student 

attrition and achievement. The portal provides data on the factors (from teaching 

quality to curriculum access and funding equity) that affect attrition, achievement 

and school holding power at the campus level. 

The community of El Paso has been a forerunner in these efforts. Last June, higher education and high school leaders in El Paso gathered more than 150 parents, 

educators, students, school board members and community members to raise awareness about high attrition rates and develop a plan for achieving their vision of 100-

percent graduation for every child in their community. They asked IDRA to provide 

technical assistance, data and facilitation to support local action and used IDRA’s 

Quality Schools Action Framework for their gathering (‘‘ENFOQUE’’) and next 

steps. 

Local accountability teams like this keep schools from working in isolation. They 

are better able to use best practices and create new solutions to strengthen the 

school’s holding power for every student it serves. 

22

Local accountability teams would review their local dropout and graduation data, 

disaggregated by subgroups, as well as data on school factors affecting the graduation rate, such as parent involvement, student engagement, curriculum access and 

teaching quality. Using these data, the team would develop a comprehensive graduation plan of action to include all students. These plans would addresses local accountability, identification and removal of barriers, and the monitoring and evaluating of the plan’s implementation. Teams would bring together critical stakeholders—parents, educators, community, business and higher education leaders and 

students. Funding priorities for pilot projects would be based on campuses with the 

lowest graduation rates. 

Secondly, fund district-wide efforts that focus on elementary-to-middle and middle-to-high school transition points. 

Research shows that students drop out at key transition points. Research also 

shows that there are effective strategies that create safe passage for students. 

Targeted school districts would demonstrate use of effective and coordinated practices that align curricula, create cross-level student tracking systems, and support 

joint planning and coordinated professional development for teachers and administrators. Funding priorities would be based on states and school systems with the 

lowest graduation rates. 

Not too long ago, parents put their children on a flight to visit their grandparents 

across the country. When the flight arrived at its destination, the grandparents 

were there, eagerly waiting to greet their grandchildren. After everyone had left the 

airplane, the grandparents were frantic—where were their grandchildren? How 

could the airline have lost them? 

Quickly, the flight crew and airline agents mobilized to find those children, and 

in what seemed like an eternity the children were found in another airport. The airline president apologized profusely and promised to find out what had happened and 

change the system so that a child would never be lost again. 

In today’s schools, two out of five students are lost, one out of two Hispanic students and one out of three African American students are missing. They never reach 

their final destination—high school graduation. Even worse, no one is looking for 

them, some will not even admit they are gone. Those who do admit they have lost 

students, usually blame the students or their families for the loss. 

Imagine if the airline president had said that their young charges had not arrived 

because they were minority or because their parents were poor or because the children were bored or were not ‘‘good’’ children. 

Instead, everyone in that airline took responsibility for ensuring safe passage for 

those young passengers. 

The same must be true of our schools. Schools, too, must take responsibility for 

ensuring safe passage for our children—they must hold on to them from the beginning of their journey to their final destination. 

With a newly focused NCLB investment, school districts across the country can 

shore up the key transition points that students face (elementary to middle to high 

school to college and university) to secure a ‘‘safe passage’’ when they are most vulnerable to lack of attention and support provided by schools. 

Thirdly, our recommendation is to fund HR 547 the Graduation for All Act and 

to designate a minimum of 5 percent of the NCLB allocations within each Title to 

efforts that focus on graduating all students. 

Research on best practices of high performing schools, for example, has for many 

years examined the links among a constellation of indicators on student outcomes. 

What is less well understood is which change strategies and school and community capacities will ensure that schools as systems can hold on to all students and 

secure their success. 

To bridge this gap, IDRA has been developing the Quality Schools Action Framework in our collaboration with schools and communities. It offers a model for assessing school outcomes, identifying leverage points for improvement, and focusing and 

effecting change. 

Students are far more likely to succeed and graduate when they have the chance 

to work with highly qualified, committed teachers, using effective, accessible curricula, when their parents and communities are engaged in their schools, and when 

they themselves feel engaged. We know that this becomes possible when schools and 

school policy reflect good governance and the funding to provide excellent education 

for all students. 

Planning for success requires investment. 

Every component of NCLB plays a unique role in all students graduating from 

high school. Title I focuses on improving academic achievement for disadvantaged 

students. Designating 5 percent of Title I to address dropout strategies for disadvantaged students is clearly needed. The same is true for preparing, training and reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:17 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-23\34631.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
23

cruiting high quality teachers (Title II); improving language and instruction for 

English language learner and immigrant students (Title III), and informing parents 

(Title V)—all key factors needed to increase graduation rates for all students. 

If 5 percent of NCLB allocations within each Title were designated for graduation for all efforts, it would cost an estimated $900 for each of the 1.3 million students 

who have dropped out of school. Many schools in our country operate on a 180-instructional-day schedule which means that what is being recommended is a $5 dollar a day investment. 

Just as successful schools require an integrated, coordinated plan that has everyone working together to support a common goal, it must also be the case that the 

reauthorization of NCLB set an example of integrated and coordinated policies and 

funding that are specifically targeted at improving high school graduation. 

In this country, not so long ago, it seemed unreasonable to think that we would 

have universal education through primary school. We have that. Now we must have 

universal education through high school. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Smith. 

STATEMENT OF KENNETH M. SMITH, PRESIDENT, JOBS FOR 

AMERICA’S GRADUATES 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

McKeon, for this opportunity to present a 26-year track record that 

has been carried out by Jobs for America’s Graduates. 

Let me commend the committee on behalf of our Chairman, who 

is a former member of this organization, John Baldacci, who sends 

his regards for holding this hearing on a matter of such importance 

to our Nation and to our collective futures. 

We believe Jobs for America’s Graduates is one of the Nation’s 

largest and, we believe, most successful, consistently applied models. And I think that is important, that the statistics I am going 

to recite come from a consistently applied model over 26 years, 

500,000 at-risk and disadvantaged young people. We believe we 

have a very long track record and we have an awful lot of bases 

upon which—for you to take a look and to make recommendations. 

The results over the 26 years are consistent and, we believe, 

compelling: a 93 percent return-to-school rate. These are the young 

people identified by the schools as most likely to drop out. A 92-

plus percent graduation rate last year, 90 percent overall for the 

last 26 years, and an 80 percent rate of success at the end of 12 

months on the job, in college, in the military, or some combination. 

Over the past years, we have also developed, at the request of 

the schools and governors and others, a model to serve high school 

dropouts. We have about 5,000 high school dropouts enrolled in 

that application of our model. 

Let me just give you the lessons we think we have learned after 

all these years and a half million young people later. Improvements 

in curriculum and increased rigor are essential, but they are not 

sufficient if you really want to reduce the dropout rate. 

To best ensure success in reducing the dropout rate, there are 

several things we have learned that make a great deal of difference. Perhaps the most important is engagement. It appears to 

us to be a critical dimension of a sustainable strategy of dropout 

prevention and recovery. Everything seems to work if young people 

are engaged, and not much seems to work if they are not. 

Part of the engagement process is assembling the assets of the 

community as described here by others. Another we have come to 

find is the opportunity to be involved in a student organization, to 

24

be involved in something positive, constructive, that is aimed at 

high school graduation, that is aimed at success in the labor market. 

Ninety percent of our young people say they were never invited 

to join anything ever before. They never were invited to join anything. It makes an enormous difference. Come join the JAG Career 

Association, and not only that, would you like to be the president, 

the vice president, and you would like to be a leader? A fundamental ingredient to success is somebody who cares. You know 

that. We know that. It is so simple, but it is absolutely accurate. 

Accountability matters a lot. If you don’t know where you are 

going, it is hard to get there. Work, it turns out, matters a lot. We 

have got some independent research that was conducted with funding from other organizations that shows that work for this population is part of the form of engagement. Twenty hours or less of 

work improves high school success because they have got a relationship with why they are going to school, and particularly if they 

are disadvantaged, they need the money. 

Employer involvement is very important. Community involvement is very important. We do need to have everybody to make 

this work. 

Maybe most importantly, we can do this. We can do this. We 

have got 26 years of experience that says, as the many other programs, this can be done. The difference is whether we can take it 

to scale. 

Let me just spend 2 minutes on engagement and some recommendations. We find that having a staff member who is that 

somebody who cares intensively involved with 35 or 40 of these atrisk young people every day, 7 days a week for as many years as 

you can makes a decisive difference, decisive difference. If you 

make those staff members accountable for graduation from high 

school and success on the job, that is a very powerful combination 

and it works. 

We offer a student organization, as I mentioned. These young 

people flock to it. It is remarkable how engaged they become and 

how excited they become, and they begin to show up for school because they have got a reason to be there. 

Getting involved in community service activities: It is great for 

the community; it is better for the kids. Self-esteem, they are worth 

something, they are contributing back. 

Our recommendations for your consideration as you look at the 

various laws that you are going to reauthorize or act on this year: 

Absolutely, accountability is something that we continue to reinforce. Our experience says accountability gets results. 

We do encourage you to encourage engagement, encourage involvement, encourage ways for young people to be engaged in addition to academic work. 

Recognize the value of work. We have got a lot of data which we 

have got in your booklets. Work does make a difference. Lots of 

independent research demonstrates that. 

Value the role of both the teacher and the mentor, somebody who 

cares. Value that in your future legislation because those people 

make the difference in whether or not young people succeed. 

25

And finally, we encourage you to look ahead to scale. Take systems that work to scale, take evidence to scale. 

Even within existing resources, we could have a much greater 

impact if they were devoted to those things that have been proven 

to work. Thank you very much. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

Prepared Statement of Kenneth M. Smith, President, Jobs for America’s 

Graduates 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the 26 year track record 

of success and some of the most important lessons we have learned about dropout 

prevention and recovery over that quarter of a century. 

Let me commend the Committee, on behalf of our Chairman and your former colleague here in the House, Governor John Baldacci, for holding this hearing on a 

subject of such critical importance to the future of our nation as you consider the 

most important federal legislation impacting dropout prevention and dropout recovery strategies through the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind and other legislation later this year. 

Very briefly, Jobs for America’s Graduates is one of the nation’s largest and, we 

believe, most successful, consistently applied, national models of dropout prevention 

and, more recently, dropout recovery. 

Today JAG has a rare national ‘‘footprint’’, with operations in 30 states, serving 

well over 40,000 of our nation’s most at-risk youth and impacting over 1,000 communities across our country. 

JAG programs range from the inner-cities of Chicago, Atlanta, and Phoenix to the 

most rural parts of Eastern Montana, Northern New England, and a number of Native American Reservations and right here in our Nation’s Capital. 

JAG also has one of the longest track records and bases of experience of any dropout prevention and youth development program. We are completing our 27th full 

year, having served well over 500,000 high-risk youth in almost every socio-economic, geographic, and educational setting found in our country. 

The results over a quarter century are both consistent and, we believe, compelling: • A 93% return to school rate while targeting high-risk, dropout prone youth. • A 92.4 percent graduation rate for the most recent cohort. • An 80 percent overall success rate at the close of the 12-month follow-up period 

after graduation, with graduates employed, pursuing a postsecondary education, 

and/or enlisted in the military. 

In addition, over the past eight years we developed and are now rolling out nationally an application of our Model serving dropouts specifically in conjunction with 

community colleges. Nearly 5,000 young adults are enrolled in that application of 

the JAG Model. 

Lessons learned 

In the five minutes available, we thought it best to present to you some of the 

most important lessons learned over 26 years about what our experience and data 

suggests it takes to prevent dropouts, or to recover them: 

1. Improvements in curriculum and increased rigor are essential, but rarely sufficient to prevent dropouts or improve overall academic achievement for at-risk youth. 

2. To best ensure academic and economic success for at-risk youth, it is imperative 

to provide a fuller range of support and engagement which addresses non-cognitive 

needs. 

3. Engagement is, perhaps, the most critical dimension of a sustainable strategy 

of dropout prevention and recovery. Everything works if young people are engaged, 

they are involved, they see hope, and they feel a sense of self esteem. Very little 

works if they do not. 

4. Part of the engagement process is to ensure that the assets of the community 

are available to help overcome personal as well as academic barriers. 

5. Engaging young people with positive, ‘‘real-world’’ experiences such as schooland community-based service-learning and career exploration motivates young people to stay engaged with school, achieve academically, pursue higher goals and define themselves as positive contributors to the community. 

6. Offering engagement services where youth already congregate, such as school, 

makes it more likely that they will receive the support they need—and will be 

served by people who know them by name. 

26

7. In the end, a fundamental ingredient to success is having somebody who cares 

and who listens—somebody who is responsible for providing consistent support and 

mentoring and held accountable for the individuals’ success. 

8. In addition to the key ingredient of a caring adult who serves as a mentor and 

guide, the other needs which must be met include safe places, healthy starts, effective education and opportunities for service and civic engagement. 

9. Overall accountability for success by the sponsoring organizations as well as 

for individuals who are entrusted with the educational and, in some cases, employment outcomes is another essential component. 

10. Work matters—a lot. Part-time work at 20 hours or less per week is very favorable for both the long-term income and academic success for dropout prone 

youth. As another form of engagement, it makes school much more relevant and understandable. 

11. Employer and community leader involvement in addition to education add important value to the sustainability of dropout prevention programs and rates of individual success. 

12. Most importantly for your consideration: We know what to do to cut dropouts 

rates and recover dropouts—whether it is our 26 years of experience, or that of others, we DO know what is effective. What, as a nation, we have not been able to 

do is take those proven solutions to scale. 

In short, there are proven solutions and methodologies for reducing dropouts, improving graduation rates, and ensuring transition to employment and further education for at-risk youth. With an emphasis on intensive engagement, clear accountability for educational success, work, and community involvement, we can reduce 

dropout rates very significantly—and we can do it now. 

Engagement 

Time will not permit a full discussion on all of these conclusions. However, let me 

focus on that key issue of ‘‘engagement.’’

Everything we have learned over 26 years serving over 500,000 high-risk youth 

indicates that engagement is a key to dropout prevention. In our case that includes: 

• Intensive personal engagement by our staff member—the JAG teachers who are 

with our young people every day during school, and after school, during the summer 

and for weekend activities, and follow-up over the course of the year after they graduate and go to work or college. Our staff members are constantly engaging our 

young people in constructive and interesting job preparation, educational advancement, and self esteem building activities. 

• The JAG model includes a highly motivational student organization, designed 

on the success of the vocational student organizations and Junior Achievement—but 

aimed for these at-risk youth—is another key. 90% of our young people tell us they 

had never been invited to join any organization ever before. The chance to be part 

of a group, a team, and to be offered opportunities to lead are all extremely powerful 

means for school retention and success. 

• Work is a vital form of engagement, we have found. That conclusion is backed 

up by recent research by the Center for Labor Market Studies. Work engagement 

enhances student achievement and success in school, especially for high-risk youth. 

• Engagement in community service activities, in service learning, and in school 

activities are all part of our student organization activities’ core engagement process. 

Recommendations for consideration for the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind 

The recommendations we have are based on the experience I have discussed. 

• Accountability for educational outcomes is at the core of what we have learned 

leads to results. 

• Find ways to ensure high-risk youth in particular have serious and sustained 

opportunities for real engagement. Consider providing new opportunities for highrisk youth to be part of a positive student organization that reinforces educational 

success. 

• Recognize the value of work as a part of the educational success strategy, especially for high-risk youth. 

• Value the role of both the teachers and the role of the mentors—who may be 

the same, or a second individual. 

• Encourage/incent scale for proven methodologies to accelerate improvements in 

outcomes. 

Again, on behalf of Governor Baldacci and the Board of Directors of Jobs for 

America’s Graduates, we very much appreciate this opportunity to share our 26 

years of experience and would be more than pleased to answer any questions. 

27

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Trump. 

STATEMENT OF KENNETH S. TRUMP, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

NATIONAL SCHOOL SAFETY AND SECURITY SERVICES, INC. 

Mr. TRUMP. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon and distinguished members, thank you for the invitation to be here today 

to speak with you about the most important issue to every parent 

in this country and education, the safety of their children. 

Congresswoman McCarthy, thank you for your leadership and 

your kind introduction, and allowing me to forgo the background 

and to go right into the important points here. 

For many school dropouts, maintaining the academic standards 

of No Child Left Behind is directly related to our ability to have 

safe and secure schools. Children cannot learn and teachers cannot 

teach if their focused attention is on their safety rather than what 

is going on in the classroom. Parents will forgive educators, legislators and everyone else if their test scores go down for a year. They 

will be much less forgiving if something happens to their child that 

could have been prevented or better managed in a crisis. 

Parents and educators are increasingly frustrated as they feel 

that support for school safety actually may be waning as we invest 

our resources into many other critical infrastructures to protect our 

homeland, but in recent years school safety funding and emergency 

planning funding have actually been cut. 

Three immediate steps, in my professional opinion, the Congress 

can help to address this issue include, No. 1, improving school 

crime reporting for K-through-12 schools so that we can identify 

trends and develop strategies accordingly; No.2, restore recently 

cut funding and look at future funding resources for expanding 

safety to children; and No.3, if necessary, look at the current Federal organization and structure for delivery of funding and school 

safety services to see if those mechanisms and administrative 

structures can be even more improved. 

No. 1, school safety crime reporting: One of the dirty little secrets 

in education today is that there is no comprehensive, mandatory 

Federal school crime reporting and tracking for K-through-12 

schools. Current Federal crime and violence statistics largely rely 

upon academic research studies, not incident-based, incident-driven 

data based on real crimes that occur in school. While the Cleary 

Act that was enacted by Congress to improve crime reporting and 

data collection and communications to parents on a college level 

was a very positive move, K-through-12 schools do not have that 

information, and parents do not have that resource. 

Today, there is largely a hodgepodge collection of over a halfdozen academic surveys and research studies that tell us various 

things, but no data on actual crimes reported in schools, as many 

of you have seen on uniform crime reporting, for example, with the 

FBI on crime stats. 

To give you an example, the annual Indicators of School Crime 

and Safety Report: 2006 is best summed up in the one line on the 

section on violent school deaths which states, quote, ‘‘Data for 

school-associated violent deaths for 1999-2000 through 2004-2005 

school years are preliminary.’’ how can we base policy and funding 

for 2007 and 2008 on preliminary data from 1999 to the present? 

28

This forces Congress to make funding and policy decisions based on 

a best-guesstimate approach, rather than real, actual crime data 

and can leave the American public being misled on the exact extent 

of violence in schools and our communities. 

When frontline educators and public safety officials hear the Indicator reports say, ‘‘Violent crimes in schools are actually down 50 

percent since 1992,’’ they laugh. But this is not a laughing matter. 

The Gun-Free Schools Act, which Congress passed, actually has 

loopholes. It only requires schools to report students who are expelled for gun offenses. The key words here being ‘‘students’’ and 

‘‘expelled.’’ it does not include nonstudent adult trespassers, strangers who come onto the property, or even expelled students who 

come onto campus with a firearm. That is not mandatorily reported 

to the State and, in turn, collected at the Federal level. 

And there are also questions as to whether students who are special education students, who technically are not expelled, are actually reported because they may have modified educational placements but not expulsions. So are some significant gaps even in existing reporting structures. 

Ranking Member McKeon mentioned persistently dangerous 

schools and very appropriately said there were varying definitions 

and confusion in terms of what States are using to define ‘‘persistently dangerous schools.’’ and we know that in many school communities, due to the interest in protecting image, there has historically been a perception and culture of downplay, deny, deflect and 

defend when sharing information to parents in the community, 

even though schools are more open today to calling the police than 

ever. 

In my written testimony, Exhibit 3 actually identifies over 20 national news stories in the last 5 years where crimes in schools have 

been underreported, including one situation where one State’s largest school district failed to report over 24,000 serious incidents including fights, thefts, drugs, sex and weapons offenses to the State 

as required by their State’s law. 

Congresswoman McCarthy has introduced H.R. 354, the SAVE 

Act, that would improve accountability, accuracy and transparency 

in school crime reporting, build better guidance to school districts 

on crime reporting, close those loopholes in the Gun-Free Schools 

Act, and require States that incorporate the FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System, NIBRS, in determining what is 

known as ‘‘persistently dangerous schools’’ while providing resources to schools who need help the most instead of punishing 

principals who accurately report and honestly tackle school crime 

problems. 

In short, we must shift the conversation from academic surveys 

to incident-based data so that we have accurate information. We 

have seen the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program deemed as ineffective largely because the PART assessment has determined the 

data was inaccurate. 

SAVE requires no new bureaucracies or overwhelming expenditures. It requires no invasion of privacy; the FBI will not be coming 

to a neighborhood near you to investigate your school crime assault 

in the bathroom. And it requires a focus on incident-based data, 

29

not individual-based data, where it would be an invasion of individual privacy. 

Number two, restoring funding cuts. Very briefly, the Emergency 

Response and Crisis Management grant, now known as the Readiness and Emergency Management grant in the Education Department has been cut almost 40 percent since 2003 from $39 million 

in 2003 to $24 million this past year at a time where we are protecting our infrastructure and homeland security and other elements. 

I also encourage Congress to look at opening up the Nation’s 

homeland security policy on funding to include schools. Schools are 

soft targets. We most recently saw—the FBI reported just a month 

ago a homeland security advisory about foreign nationals with extremist ties obtaining licenses to drive school buses and buy school 

buses. 

There are other examples that raise some concern, and many—

all of us remember the Beslan, Russia, incident which was not unforeseeable, but—it could potentially happen here, but there is a 

denial to even discuss that possibility again, out of fear of alarming 

parents. And to look at our school funding of resource police officers, police officers in schools have been cut. Keeping in mind that 

our city and county law enforcement officials are our ‘‘first responders,’’ our educators are our ‘‘very first responders.’’

And finally, I would say that, if necessary, I would encourage 

Congress to take a look—there has been a great deal of controversy 

and discussion about the effectiveness of the Safe and Drug-Free 

School program. What those in the field would ask of you is, if it 

is determined to be ineffective, that Congress act quickly to restructure, retool or define a replacement for that, so that we don’t 

have the continued funding gaps; and to look at the structure so 

that Homeland Security, the Departments of Justice and Education 

can capitalize on their strengths. 

I thank you for your time. I thank you for your attention and encourage you to look at the SAVE Act and the accompanying bill to 

pass that, to change the backwards trends of Federal funding on 

school safety. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Trump follows:]

Prepared Statement of Kenneth S. Trump, President and CEO, National 

School Safety and Security Services, Inc. 

Chairman Miller and distinguished committee members, thank you for inviting 

me to appear before you today to provide testimony on what undoubtedly is the 

number one education concern of parents in our nation: The safety and security of 

their children at school. 

My name is Kenneth Trump and I am the President and CEO of National School 

Safety and Security Services, Incorporated, a Cleveland (Ohio)-based national consulting firm specializing in school security and school emergency preparedness consulting and training. I have personally had the opportunity to work with K-12 

school officials and their public safety partners in urban, suburban, and rural communities in 45 states during my career of over 20 years in the school safety profession. 

In addition to working with educators and public safety officials nationwide, my 

background includes having served over seven years with the Cleveland City School 

District’s Safety and Security Division as a high school and junior high school safety 

officer, a district-wide field investigator, and as founding supervisor of its nationally-recognized Youth Gang Unit that contributed to a 39% reduction in school gang 

crimes and violence. I later served three years as director of security for the ninthlargest Ohio school district with 13,000 students, where I also served as assistant 

30

director of a federal-funded model anti-gang project for three southwest Cleveland 

suburbs. 

I have authored two books and over 45 articles on school security and emergency 

preparedness issues. My education background includes having earned a Bachelor 

of Arts degree in Social Services (Criminal Justice concentration) and a Master of 

Public Administration degree from Cleveland State University; special certification 

for completing the Advanced Physical Security Training Program at the Federal 

Law Enforcement Training Center; and extensive specialized training on school 

safety and emergency planning, terrorism and homeland security, gang prevention 

and intervention, and related youth safety topics. 

Presently I volunteer as Chair of the Prevention Committee and Executive Committee member for Cleveland’s Comprehensive Anti-Gang Initiative, one of six Department of Justice-funded federal and local collaborative model projects to address 

gangs through enforcement, prevention, and reentry strategies. I was an invited 

attendee at the White House Conference on School Safety in October of 2006. In 

1999, I testified to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee as a school safety and crisis expert. 

School districts and other organizations engage our services to evaluate school 

emergency preparedness plans, provide training on proactive school security strategies, develop and facilitate school tabletop exercises, conduct school security assessment evaluations, and consult with school administrators and board members on 

management plans for improving school safety. We have increasingly found ourselves also called to assist educators and their school communities with security and 

preparedness issues following high-profile incidents of school violence. In the past 

several years alone, we have worked in a school district where a student brought 

an AK-47 to school, fired shots in the halls, and then committed suicide; in a private 

school where death threats raised student and parental anxiety; and in a school district where a student brought a tree saw and machete to school, attacked students 

in his first period class, and sent multiple children to the hospital with serious injuries. 

My perspective on school safety is vastly different from the many other types of 

other witnesses you may have heard from in the past, or will hear from in the future. I am not an academician, researcher, psychologist, social worker, law enforcement official, or government agency representative. Instead, I bring to a perspective 

of front-line experience in working with public and private school staff, their public 

safety and community partners, and parents of our nation’s children on school violence prevention, security risk reduction strategies, and emergency preparedness 

measures. 

School climate: parental and student expectations and needs for academic achievement 

Preventing school dropouts and meeting the academic standards our legislative 

and educational leaders have established, including those under the No Child Left 

Behind federal education law, requires that our schools first be safe. Children cannot learn and teachers cannot teach at their maximum capabilities if their attention 

is distracted by concerns about their personal safety. I have personally experienced 

firsthand in the school communities in which we have worked after a crisis how parental, student, and educator attention to safety trumps, and often consumes, the 

entire focus over academics in a school community for weeks and months, and sometimes years, after the tragedy. 

Parents will forgive educators, legislators, and others with whom they entrust 

their children’s education and safety if their children’s test scores go down for one 

year. They are much less forgiving if something harmful happens to their children 

that could have been prevented in the first place or better managed in a crisis which 

could not be averted. Parents, students, educators, and public safety officials are increasingly frustrated with what they believe to be a lack of awareness, interest, and 

support on school safety, especially as they have watched federal and state budgets 

for school safety and emergency planning being cut while resources are being increased elsewhere to better protect other critical infrastructure environments of our 

homeland. 

Parents are desperately looking to educators and their elected officials for help in 

better protecting their children in our nation’s schools by improving violence prevention and intervention programs, developing improved threat assessment measures 

to provide for earlier detection and diversion of persons plotting to cause harm, improving school security measures in a balanced and comprehensive manner, and better preparing our educators for managing school crises and emergency situations 

which cannot be averted. 

31

Parents and educators are increasingly demanding that we not only do more, but 

do better, in improving safety in our educational climate. While many improvements 

in school safety, security, and emergency planning have been made in schools postColumbine (April, 1999), the progress we saw in the months and years after that 

tragedy has been stalled and is slipping backwards in many school communities. 

Federal and state school safety funding cuts, pressures on meeting new academic 

standards, and diverted attention to the many other issues challenging our nation 

have caused school safety to fall to the back burner from here in inside the Beltway 

to our local neighborhood school offices. 

As we meet here today, eight years after the Columbine High School tragedy in 

1999, we find ourselves discussing the many aspects of school safety that we were 

discussing eight years ago almost to the day. We cannot change school climate if 

we do not change the conversation. This hearing and your attention to school safety 

provides an opportunity to take meaningful steps to change the conversation and 

the backwards direction school safety policy and funding has taken in recent years 

so that we may prevent dropouts and protect those children and teachers whose 

focus should be firmly on the academic achievement we so strongly desire, instead 

of on their personal safety as they attend school. 

Congressional action for improving school safety 

Congress is poised, beginning with the leadership of this Committee as demonstrated by your attention to school safety today, to take reasonable, practical, and 

meaningful steps to change the conversation, change the school climate, and make 

our nation’s K-12 schools safer. 

Three immediate steps needed, in my professional opinion, include: 

1. Improve K-12 school crime reporting so that Congress, states, and local school 

districts will have incident-based data, instead of the current reliance upon perception and opinion based survey data, to make sound policy and funding decisions related to improving safety in America’s schools; 

2. Restore recently cut funding, and expand future funding resources, for school 

violence prevention, school security, school-based policing, and school emergency 

preparedness planning; and 

3. Examine the current federal organization and structure for the oversight and 

management of federal school safety policy, programming, and funding. 

1. Improve school safety by improving school crime reporting 

Congress can and should improve school crime reporting. If we cannot accurately 

identify the scope and severity of school crime and violence, we will never be able 

to reduce school crime and violence, and improve safety in our schools. 

Current federal school crime and violence data is limited to surveys, not incident-based data on school crimes and violence 

One of the ‘‘dirty little secrets’’ in our nation’s education community is that there 

is no comprehensive, mandatory federal school crime reporting and tracking of actual school crime incidents for K-12 schools. While Congress enacted the Cleary Act 

in 1990 to improve crime reporting and collecting on college campuses, K-12 schools 

have no such requirements or incident-driven data in place. Federal school crime 

and violence data by-and-large consists of a hodgepodge collection of just over a halfdozen academic surveys and research studies. 

The primary source of federal data on school crime and violence is known as the 

annual Indicators of School Crime and Safety Report. The most recent report, Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2006 was released on December 3, 2006. Data 

in these reports is typically outdated by several years by the time it is published. 

One of best examples of the poor quality of federal data is reflected in the Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2006 report itself in the section on, ‘‘Indicator 1: 

Violent Deaths at School and Away from School.’’ The last line in the first paragraph of this section states, ‘‘Data for school-associated violent deaths from the 

1999-2000 through 2004-05 school years are preliminary.’’ This leads to one simple 

question: If the data our federal government has on school-associated violent deaths 

is only complete up to 1999, and the data for 1999-2005 is ‘‘preliminary,’’ how can 

we expect to make solid school safety policy and funding decisions in 2007 and 

2008? 

Exhibit 1 to this report includes a table from Appendix A of the 2006 ‘‘Indicators’’ 

report which lists the half-dozen or so surveys and the limited sample sizes of each. 

Sadly, this is what Congress, state legislatures, local school districts often refer to 

for making policy and funding decisions, and for advising the American public on 

what they believe to be trends in school crime and violence. 

While we recognize the difficulties and limitations in federal data collection, and 

appreciate the fact that the surveys are certainly better than nothing, the fact is 

32

that they are still just that: Surveys. There is a vast difference between perception 

and opinion-based survey, and actual incident-based data on actual occurrences of 

school crime and violence. The absence of incident-based data forces this very Congress to make federal policy and funding decisions based upon a ‘‘best-guestimate’’ 

approach driven by perceptions and opinions, rather than data on actual crimes 

which occur on school campuses. 

Most importantly, not only is Congress forced to make school safety policy and 

funding decisions based on a ‘‘best-guestimate’’ approach, but the American public 

is being inadvertently mislead when these surveys are being used to claim that 

school violence in America is actually decreasing over the past decade. When frontline educators and public safety officials hear quotes from this federal source claiming that violent school crime is down over 50% since 1992, they laugh. But this is 

no laughing matter. Still, the Department of Education and others inside and outside of the Beltway continue to claim school crime has been decreasing over the past 

decade, repeatedly referring to the ‘‘Indicators’’ reports, and this very information 

has long been fed to those of you in Congress as a basis for making policy and funding decisions. 

How would we know if school crime is actually up or down when there is no actual incident-based federal data collection? It is widely believed by me and my colleagues in the school safety field that the federal survey data grossly underestimates the extent of school crime and violence. Reality exists somewhere in between, 

but statistically, nobody actually knows exactly where this ‘‘somewhere’’ is because 

there is no federal mandatory K-12 incident based data—just surveys. 

In fact, my non-scientific data collection from national news accounts and, educators and school safety officials working in schools, on school-associated violent 

deaths, which unlike the federal data is not ‘‘preliminary’’ and is up-to-date as of 

the last business day before this testimony, shows that school-associated violent 

deaths have increased from the 2000-2002 time period, and have remained steady 

the past few years. See Exhibit 2 for a chart of this data. While this data is not 

scientific, it does beg the question of a private citizen can monitor national news 

and school safety sources to put together more timely data than the federal government. Sadly, school and safety administrators have told us they rely on our informal 

data as being more accurate and timely than that produced by the federal government. 

Even data from the Gun Free Schools Act (GFSA) required by law passed by Congress is limited due to loopholes in reporting. The GFSA requires local education 

agencies to report to states students expelled for gun offenses on campuses. The key 

words here are ‘‘students’’ and ‘‘expelled’’. Schools do not have to report non-students arrested on campuses with firearms because they are not students, nor would 

reporting be required for students who are already expelled due to other offenses 

but return to campus with a firearm. There are also questions as to whether special 

education students who offend are all being reported under GFSA since their disabilities may technically not result in ‘‘expulsion’’ from school, but instead in modified educational placements and services. 

Additionally, the ‘‘Persistently Dangerous Schools’’ component of the federal No 

Child Left Behind law requires states to create definitions of a ‘‘persistently dangerous school’’ so that parents may have the option of school choice. This label alone 

is considered to be the ‘‘Scarlet Letter’’ of education today. The result has been that 

to avoid creating a politically volatile relationship with local education agencies, 

states have created definitions of ‘‘persistently dangerous’’ that are so unreachable 

that they could not be met by most school districts even if they wanted the label. 

The result, at best, has been well intended legislation that has been lost in the politics of implementation. 

The aforementioned points should beg this Committee, and Congress in general, 

to ask how you can make sound policy and funding decisions when as a nation, we 

do not even have timely and accurate incident-based data on how many school-associated violent deaths and gun offenses occur on campus, much less the many, many 

more common forms of school violence and crime such as assaults, sexual assaults, 

other weapons offenses (such as bladed weapons), threats and menacing, extortion, 

etc. 

School crimes are underreported to police, states, and to the public 

While educators today are more open to calling the police than ever before in the 

history of education, far too many principals, superintendents, and school board 

members still believe that the public will perceive them to be incompetent leaders 

and poor managers if the public becomes aware of crimes, violence, and serious discipline problems which occur in their schools. The result has been a historical culture of ‘‘downplay, deny, deflect, and defend’’ when it comes to local districts reportVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:17 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-23\34631.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
33

ing crimes to police and discussing school crimes, violence, and discipline problems 

with parents. 

Exhibit 3 to this testimony is an extraction from our web page on school crime 

underreporting (See www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/school—crime—reporting.html). 

The exhibit provides a synopsis of approximately 20 national news stories from the 

past five years which document examples of the underreporting of school crimes to 

police, states, and the public. Stories discussed situations including an initially unreported firearm discharge at a private school, a case where high school where a 

student was stabbed to death reported to their state no fights or assaults for the 

entire school year, and a situation where one state’s largest school district failed to 

report over 24,000 serious incidents, including fights, thefts and drug, sex, and 

weapons offenses, to their state as required by law. 

Furthermore, I have personally conducted surveys of our nation’s school-based police officers (School Resource Officers or SROs) which indicate that police who work 

in schools believe that school crimes are underreported to law enforcement. Four annual surveys of over 700 officers per year, for each year from 2001 through 2004, 

found 84% to 89% of school-based officers indicating that it is their professional belief that crimes occurring in schools have gone unreported to law enforcement. Most 

educational administrators will admit this as well, although they will do so privately 

versus going on the record since doing so would place their jobs at risk. 

Far too many educators also believe that if they even talk with parents about 

school security and emergency preparedness measures, it will alarm many parents 

and draw adverse media attention (many deem ANY media attention as being adverse, even when it is not). They also believe that what they perceive as ‘‘negative 

attention’’ that would be drawn from public awareness on school safety issues will 

also somehow jeopardize the public confidence in their leadership and, in turn, potentially jeopardize voter funding requests and parental/community support of the 

school district. 

Interestingly enough, most parents believe just the opposite of what some educators believe they would think. Parents tell us time and time again that their biggest fears are that there are not enough security measures in place at their children’s schools and that school emergency planning is ‘‘not on the radar’’ of their 

school administrators. While some school officials too often are afraid of creating 

fear and an adverse image of themselves by talking about—and dealing with—

school security and emergency preparedness issues, their resulting silence and inaction actually creates the very fear and negative images they so desperately want to 

avoid in the eyes of parents and the media. 

Why do so many local school administrators underreport school crime? The answer tends to fall into one of two categories: 

1) Many school administrators fail to distinguish crimes from violations of school 

rules. As such, many crimes are handled ‘‘administratively’’ with disciplinary action, 

such as suspension or expulsion, but are never also reported to police for criminal 

prosecution. Oftentimes this is due to a lack of training of principals on distinguishing crimes from disruptive school rule violations, and/or a lack of clear policies 

and procedures (and a lack of enforcement for those that do exist) on reporting 

school crimes to police. 

2) Far too many school administrators believe that by reporting school crimes to 

the police, they will draw adverse media and public attention to their school. These 

school administrators believe that parents and the community will view them as 

poor managers of their schools if their school has a high number of incidents or appears in the media because of a school crime incident. Many building administrators 

(principals) are pressured by central office administrators and/or school boards, either directly or indirectly, if their school crime reports, discipline cases, suspensions 

or expulsions, etc. are ‘‘high’’ or ‘‘higher’’ than other schools. 

These ‘‘image’’ concerns result in the underreporting of school crimes for political 

and image purposes. Sadly, the honest principal who deals head-on with incidents 

and reports crimes, often unfairly suffers adverse political consequences while the 

principal who fails to report incidents and sweeps them under the carpet is rewarded administratively and from a public relations perspective for allegedly having 

a ‘‘safer’’ school. The reality is that the principal with the higher statistics may actually have a safer school because he or she deals with the problems head-on and reports incidents. 

It is therefore not surprising why some education associations and lobbyists may 

very well oppose incident-based school crime data, instead preferring to continue 

doing things the same old way by using limited academic surveys and research studies that do more accurately disclose the extent of school crime and violence to the 

American public. The challenge for Congress will be to determine whether it wishes 

to continue making policy and funding decisions based upon opinion and perception 

34

survey data, and in turn continue to get the same results we have had in recent 

years with school safety, or if Congress is willing to ‘‘change the climate by changing 

the conversation’’ through requiring the use of incident-based data. 

H.R. 354—The SAVE Act 

This Committee, and your colleagues in Congress, can act now to make a difference in school safety. H.R. 354, the Safe Schools Against Violence in Education, 

or the ‘‘SAVE’’ Act, introduced by The Honorable Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy 

of New York, calls for meaningful and practical steps to improve accountability, accuracy, and transparency to our nation’s parents and educators in the reporting for 

school crimes and violence. It also calls for much better guidance on reporting school 

crimes, tightening of loopholes in the Gun Free Schools Act reporting, and the use 

of incident-based data (instead of just perception and opinion-based data from surveys) in determining safe climates for academic achievement (currently known as 

‘‘persistently dangerous schools’’ designation by states under No Child Left Behind). 

The SAVE Act closes the loopholes in the Gun Free Schools Act by including reporting requirements for students who are already expelled, removed or suspended 

from school, as well as non-students who may bring a firearm on campus or on a 

school bus. Current law only requires reporting on students who have been expelled. 

The Act will also require certification that data is accurate and reliable, an important component for improving accountability of those who report school crime data 

who may otherwise be tempted to underreport whenever the absence of such accountability certifications may allow them to do so. 

Equally important, The SAVE Act requires states to use already available data 

from the FBI’s National Incident’s Based Reporting System (NIBRS) in determining 

what is now known as ‘‘persistently dangerous schools’’, a label that The SAVE Act 

would modify to ‘‘safe climate for academic achievement’’ options to remove the stigma of ‘‘persistently dangerous’’ which encourages underreporting by local schools. By 

enacting The SAVE Act, the introduction of NIBRS data into school safety policy 

and funding decisions would provide the first meaningful effort to shift the conversation on school safety in this country from one based upon perception and opinion surveys, to actual incident-based data on real crimes that actually occur at our 

nation’s schools. Congress, state legislators, and local educators could finally begin 

to have a national and state data source on school crime based upon real incidents 

going on in our schools, rather than on the perceptions and opinions of a limited 

population tapped for an academic survey. 

We have already seen how the lack of good data can have a detrimental effect 

on safety programs. The Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), a rating tool developed by the Administration, rated the Safe and Drug Free School state grants 

‘‘ineffective’’ for FY 2007, because ED was unable to demonstrate that those programs worked. As a result, the Administration terminated the state grants programs in its FY2007 budget. The PART stated: ‘‘while the program requires grantees to report their progress against locally developed measurable performance goals 

and objectives, this reporting does not produce comparable national data. The Department of Education has not provided national performance measures that help 

improve local programming decisions and are of equal use to State, local and Federal administrators.’’

The surveys can and should continue. But they should not be the sole source of 

school crime and violence data in our nation. Surveys can supplement actual incident-based data, and surveys can continue to exist along with the new focus on 

NIBRS incident-based data. Congress and others rely upon improved data to make 

public policy and funding decisions, just as they do with the current FBI Uniform 

Crime Reports on actual crime incidents in our communities, which is augmented 

by many research reports and victimization surveys on crime in our neighborhoods. 

The SAVE Act will also provide resources to schools that need it the most. We 

cannot continue punishing school administrators who accurately and honestly report 

school crimes. Educators who acknowledge school crime problems and tackle them 

head on should be provided the resources to correct the problem, instead of being 

left hanging out to try in the eyes of adverse media attention with no support for 

making their schools safer. 

Opponents of incident-based school crime reporting, who tend to prefer limited 

perception and opinion surveys over real crime data (perhaps to further the image 

and perception obstructions that are a part of the historical culture of education 

downplaying school crimes), often tend to cloud the issue with ridiculous assertions 

about the process and outcomes of moving to incident-based data. It is therefore important to recognize the following: 

35

1. The SAVE Act requires no new bureaucracies or overwhelming budgetary expenditures to collect school crime data. It simply calls for the breaking out of existing data in a manner to identify K-12 school-based crime incidents. 

2. The SAVE Act reflects no invasion of privacy. The FBI or other federal agencies 

would not be ‘‘coming into a school near you’’ to investigate or oversee school criminal incidents. 

3. The SAVE Act focuses on incident-based data, not individual data. There would 

not be an invasion of privacy or focus on individuals, just a record of the number 

of types of incidents that occur. 

If presented opposition to the SAVE Act, members of Congress should simply ask 

the same question myself and my colleagues ask: ‘‘Why would anyone be against 

having more accurate school crime data?’’ In my experience of over 20-years in the 

school safety field, I have yet to be able to find a legitimate answer to this question. 

As such, I encourage Congress to pass H.R. 354, The SAVE Act, and its related 

H.R. 355, the feasibility study bill for exploring the NIBRS data collection school 

crime data reporting-out process identified in The SAVE Act. 

We cannot change the climate if we do not change the conversation. It is time 

for Congress to act to change the conversation if we expect to better identify school 

crime and violence problems and trends, and make meaningful and accurate policy 

and funding decisions for preventing and managing these problems. 

2. Restore recently cut funding, and expand future funding resources, for 

school violence prevention, school security, school-based policing, and 

school emergency preparedness planning 

In recent years, Congress has repeatedly cut funding for the federal Safe and 

Drug Free School Program which is the primary funding source for school safety 

and violence prevention efforts. It is worth noting again that the federal Program 

Assessment Rating Tool (PART) assessments which identified the state grants component of the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program as ‘‘ineffective’’ noted the problems with the lack of quality data associated with this program. Again, data lacking 

quality is impacting federal policy and funding on the major source of funding for 

keeping our schools safe. 

Additionally, even in today’s world of attention to our nation’s homeland security, 

federal funding for the Education Department’s Emergency Response and Crisis 

Management (ERCM) program, now known as the Readiness and Emergency Management (REM) for Schools program, has been cut almost 40% since 2003. According 

to PowerPoint slide data from a presentation by a Department of Education official, 

the program has been cut from over $39 million awarded to 134 school sites in FY 

03, to only $24 million awarded to 77 sites in FY06. See Exhibit 4 for this document 

detailing these facts. 

It is worth nothing that the numbers of applications for this ERCM/REMS grant 

program have ranged from over 550 in its first year of FY03 to 301, 406, and 379 

the following years. Given the Department of Education has issued the RFP for this 

grant toward the end of each school year (April-May) and required submissions 

around May-June, it is logical to believe there would be greater interest and more 

applications had the Department not chosen to put out calls for proposals at the end 

of the school year when educators are focused on testing, graduations, and schoolyear closure and therefore have more difficulty in putting together complex grant 

applications with multi-agency partners from their communities. Many of us in the 

school safety field believe the number of applications would be even greater if the 

call for proposals was put out earlier in the school year and not when school administrators are so overwhelmed with year-end school matters. 

At a time when Congress is funding more resources to protect our national infrastructure such as airports, monuments, and the hallways of our government offices 

themselves, how can we justify cutting almost 40% from an already pithy amount 

of funding for helping to protect the children and teachers in the hallways of our 

nation’s schools? 

Unlike many other narrowly focused federal grant programs, the ERCM (now 

REMS) grant provides for a comprehensive and balanced program consisting of prevention, mitigation, preparedness, and response components in order to be successfully funded. This means that school programs can be designed as they should, not 

skewed towards prevention programming-only or security/policing/emergency response-only, but designed instead with a balanced and comprehensive approach of 

prevention, preparedness, and response. The threats facing our schools today require nothing less. 

Congress should immediately act to restore funding cut for the ERCM (now 

REMS) program and significantly increase future funding multiple times the original already-under-funded $39 million funding allocation for this program. The need 

36

is significant. Reducing school emergency prevention and preparedness funding in 

a post-911 and post-Columbine world is illogical, counterintuitive, counterproductive, and inconsistent with our overall national homeland security philosophy 

of prevention and preparedness. 

Congress should also closely examine the issue of schools as potential targets for 

terrorism. Congress should make sure that K-12 schools are an integral part of our 

nation’s homeland security preparedness policy and funding. This should include 

opening up Homeland Security funding to K-12 schools for use in protecting schools 

and school buses. Schools clearly fit the definition of a ‘‘soft target’’ and an attack 

upon our schools would have not only a devastating impact on Americans emotionally, but a severe impact on the American economy if the ‘‘business’’ of education 

shut downs and/or is disrupted due to a catastrophic terror attack upon our educational infrastructure. 

We need only look at the following quote from the National Commission on Children and Terrorism’s report of June 12, 2003: ‘‘Every day 53 million young people 

attend more than 119,000 public and private schools where 6 million adults work 

as teachers or staff. Counting students and staff, on any given weekday more than 

one-fifth of the U.S. population can be found in schools.’’ Schools and school buses 

have basically the same number of children at the same locations every day of the 

week in facilities and buses that are unquestionably soft targets. 

There are a number of ‘‘red flags’’ that appear to be going unnoticed in recent 

years. News reports in June of 2004 indicating a suspected sleeper-cell member of 

al-Qaeda who obtained a license to drive a school bus and haul hazardous materials; 

the reported (appropriate) reclassification of schools to a higher risk category in its 

national risk assessment program by the Department of Homeland Security in 2006; 

March of 2007 alert by the FBI and Homeland Security Departments about foreign 

national with extremist ties obtaining licenses to drive school buses and buying 

school buses; and even a top school administrators employed in the Detroit and DC 

schools who was federally charged in 2005 with a conspiracy with terrorists according to news reports. Add to that a number of other suspicious activities around 

schools across the country, the Beslan, Russia, school hostage siege and murders in 

2004, and the history of schools and school buses being terror targets in the Middle 

East. 

In short, the tactics have been used elsewhere in the Middle East and in Beslan, 

Russia. An attack our educational system would have a devastating emotional and 

economic on America. And it is not unforeseeable except to those who do not wish 

to acknowledge and deal with it for political and image reasons. 

Yet to date, from inside the Beltway to our local communities, public officials have 

largely been afraid of talking about, and acting proactively upon, the idea of schools 

as potential terror targets out of fear of alarming parents. I pray we do not face 

the day where we have a ‘‘911 Commission’’ type hearing asking how a terrorist attack that occurred upon a school in the United States could have been avoided. We 

know that denial, downplay, and ‘‘Ostrich Syndrome’’ make us more vulnerable. We 

cannot continue the current course of ignoring the threat of terrorism to our nation’s 

K-12 schools. 

Congress also needs to revisit federal funding for the hiring, and most of all for 

the training, of our nation’s school police officers (known as School Resource Officers 

or SROs). Justice Department programs for School Resource Officers have suffered 

major cuts in recent years, in effect decimating the COPS in Schools program that 

helped to protect our children and educators. Funding for training school security 

personnel, in addition to school police officers, is sorely lacking and desperately 

needed as limited education funds are focused on academic achievement strategies 

for meeting mandated test score standards. 

While our local police, fire, and emergency medical service personnel are our ‘‘first 

responders’’, our educators, school security personnel, and school-based police officers are our ‘‘VERY FIRST responders.’’ We must give them the training and tools 

to do protect our children and teachers. 

3. Examine the current federal organization and structure for the oversight 

and management of federal school safety policy and programming 

Congress should also act in a swift and effective manner to determine the direction of the state grant component specifically, and the overall program in general, 

for the Safe and Drug Free School (SDFS) Program. The dramatic cuts of the SDFS 

program state grant allocations in recent years has resulted in this program bleeding a slow death. Our nation’s educators cannot be left standing by idly while the 

major source of funding (SDFS) for school safety and violence prevention, and the 

aforementioned school emergency preparedness grants continue toward elimination. 

37

If Congress is determined to allow the SDFS to die, it needs to create a replacement source of primary funding for school violence prevention and preparedness. 

Perhaps then this would mean looking at making the EMCR/REMS grant program 

as the new model for federal funding of school crime and violence prevention, mitigation, preparedness, and response. 

Perhaps also it means Congress needs to look at how federal school safety and 

policy is managed in the federal government administrative structure. The Department of Education has long been the lead source for violence prevention curriculum, 

intervention programming, and dealing with strategies school as bullying prevention, youth suicide, and related prevention policy and funding, and many believe 

they the expertise for addressing these issues is best housed in the Education Department. Congress should explore whether the Departments of Justice and/or 

Homeland Security’s richer history, experience, knowledge, and expertise with security, policing, and emergency preparedness programming would provide a more focused leadership on managing K-12 school security, policing, and emergency preparedness components of our nation’s school safety policy and funding. While these 

two departments do work, and should continue to work, with the Department of 

Education, perhaps the emphasis of responsibility for specific programmatic areas 

would be worthy of restructuring and/or realigning. 

In short, if the current program in the Department of Education is indeed determined to be ‘‘ineffective,’’ Congress needs to ‘‘fix’’ it and to do so quickly. While it 

is very questionable if the SDFS program is as ‘‘broken’’ as some believe, especially 

since it has been evaluated by PART using faulty data (or the absence of data), then 

there is a responsibility for Congress to replace it with an effective funding source 

Closing comments 

I thank Chairman Miller and the members of this committee for seeking my 

input. We cannot change the climate of our educational institutions until we change 

the conversation. This Committee, and your colleagues in Congress, can change the 

conversation by improving school crime reporting, restoring and expanding funding 

for school crime prevention and emergency preparedness, and examining the structure and delivery of current federal school safety policy and funding delivery to better protect our nation’s schools. 

I encourage you to act now by advancing H.R. 354 (The SAVE Act) and H.R. 355; 

by moving swiftly to address the backwards trend of federal school safety funding 

cuts our educators have been subjected to in recent years; and by examining whether the current housing, structure, and delivery of federal school safety policy and 

funding is adequate. 

Our nation’s children and teachers depend upon your leadership and action today. 

38

EXHIBIT 1


tex-1.eps
39


tex-2.eps
40

EXHIBIT 2


tex-3.eps
41

EXHIBIT 3


tex-4.eps
42


tex-5.eps
43


tex-6.eps
44

EXHIBIT 4

Chairman MILLER. Thanks very much to all of the panelists. And 

I can see a lot of interest here. 

Let me begin by linking this to discussion around No Child Left 

Behind, if I might. And to each of the panelists—I don’t know if 

Mr. Trump wants to speak to this or not—but the question of 

whether or not there is an effort, not admitted to, but an effort to 

pushing students out because you are afraid of what they will do 


tex-7.eps
45

in terms of their test scores, whether this, in fact, is taking place 

or not. 

Dr. Norwood, whatever way you want to——

Ms. NORWOOD. In my real life, not being a State board member, 

I worked with student teachers; and I can say that this is a reality. 

And what concerns me is not only the feeling that some students 

may be pushed out, but also—I am not sure that the general public 

is ready to accept the responsibility of keeping them in, because it 

is going to be expensive to keep them in. 

You have to have more teachers, you have to have more classrooms. This is indeed a problem. 

Chairman MILLER. Governor Wise? 

Mr. WISE. I think—I think—I think I had better learn how to 

push this button. 

I think that the—what Dr. Norwood has said and also Dr. 

Montecel has illustrated, as well, ‘‘push-out’’ is a problem. But then 

also what is a problem is—and that only encourages more dropouts. 

We identified in one of our publications, one State had 22 different ways to avoid classifying you as a dropout, although you 

weren’t in school. And so this push-out is a problem. 

And then how you determine the final benchmark graduation 

rates is another which is critical. While under No Child Left Behind we would urge the Congress to make graduation rates one of 

the determinants of AYP and also to insist that graduation rates 

be disaggregated in the same manner that NCLB requires test data 

to be disaggregated so we can truly see who is and who isn’t making it across the finish line. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Ms. Montecel? 

Dr. ROBLEDO MONTECEL. Chairman Miller, I think it is absolutely so that push-outs are a reality in our schools and that in 

some cases that occurs as a result of the desire for school districts 

to look good and get rid of students that are not doing well on 

tests. 

I would urge us, though, to take a bit of a longer-term perspective, and I would suggest that accountability systems did not create 

dropouts. Losing children from our school systems has been a problem, is a problem. 

Chairman MILLER. I understand that. And I am going to infringe 

on your time because there are two other questions I want to get 

answered. 

But it is just the question that that, in fact, is happening. 

Dr. ROBLEDO MONTECEL. Hispanic dropouts has been at 80 percent in the 1940s, so I am just saying accountability did not create 

dropouts. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that is true. What we see 

in the school districts we work in is, they push the students to us; 

not out, but to an alternative or to another option. In many ways, 

we prove we can keep 93 percent of them. We are an option before 

the push-out, but we do see it, I have to admit. 

Chairman MILLER. Okay. Again, what data did we have? 

I was in a discussion with some people, and on the question of—

we have a 4-year requirement—whether or not we should allow 5 

46

years to keep some of these kids. And when they seek out the people who have left school, to bring them back, active programs to 

bring them back, a significant number of these students are actually very close to graduation. They may have 35 out of 40 requirements and something has happened, and they did not come back. 

But when you get them to come back and a significant number 

of them end up graduating, why is this happening? Here they have 

shown diligence. And, one, is it accurate that there are a significant number of them that are, in fact, relatively close to graduation? And the ability to recover them——

Mr. WISE. I will jump in first. The data that we use both from 

the Manhattan Institute, as well as the research arm of Education 

Weekly, plus NCS, suggests that the bulk of dropouts occur in the 

ninth and tenth grades, and that goes to some of the warning indicators that some of the other witnesses have talked about, which 

are, once you have failed a course, once you have been held back, 

once you have had a certain number of absences, you are much 

more inclined to drop out. And once you have been held back in the 

ninth grade, it is very difficult—a large number of those students 

will then drop out. 

There are a number that do get to 11th or 12th grade, and there 

you are dealing with boredom or failure to be engaged. They are 

easier to bring back. 

However, the data does seem to me to be pretty clear. We are 

seeing somewhere around 30 percent of our kids not cross the finish line; and of course, for kids of color, that number is far higher. 

Chairman MILLER. Quickly, Ms. Norwood. 

Ms. NORWOOD. One of the things to think about with this is the 

kids, as Governor Wise said, that are close to graduation get out 

there and they see the problems of not having a high school diploma. And so then they are more willing to come back to finish 

it. 

But what happens when you lose them early is a major problem 

because we allow 16-year-olds to make life-changing decisions without their parents even being involved. A kid can walk into the 

counselor’s office and say, I am leaving school today, and he is 

gone; we don’t let him make other kinds of life decisions like that. 

So we need to have clear data on who is leaving and how to prevent——

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. We said that we get 92 percent graduation rates. 

That is true. A third of them, to reinforce your point, don’t occur 

until the late summer or the fall because by the time we get kids, 

they are already way behind. 

The good news is, we can stay with them until they graduate. 

But the evidence of our program and the evidence of our dropout 

recovery program is, there is a good portion that are pretty close. 

Chairman MILLER. My time has expired here. 

I just want to say, Mr. Smith, I am really—I would like to get 

back to you on this question of ramping to scale if there is time, 

but I also want to thank you for your testimony. I have been telling 

my staff since November of last year, I attended a conference at the 

George Lucas Foundation, and we spent a couple days looking at 

successful programs, and I said, the watchword in education is 

47

going to become ‘‘engagement,’’ and there you are, you have finally 

arrived. 

They haven’t listened to me until now. But thank you for your 

testimony. 

Mr. McKeon. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I served on a local 

school board for 9 years, and it was a high school board, and so 

we had 7 through 12, and I never could get a handle on dropout 

rates because—I don’t know how—I don’t know how anybody can 

say what the number is, because we don’t have a system to know 

whether they have gone to another school or another State or another country and whether they have graduated someplace else. 

Am I wrong? 

Can you tell me, how you do track dropouts and how do we know 

for sure that people are dropping out, not graduating? Anybody. 

Ms. NORWOOD. This is one reason why North Carolina has gone 

to the cohort, the cohort group of who starts in ninth grade and 

who finishes in 4 years. We can keep that number. If they are 

there, we know they are there. If they are not there, that is what 

is left. And so that has worked well for us. As I said, we had to 

the bullet to have such a 68 percent number. 

Mr. MCKEON. So if you have 68 percent that start in the 9th and 

graduate in the 12th, that doesn’t really mean that you have a 32 

percent dropout rate? 

Ms. NORWOOD. No, it doesn’t mean we have a 32 percent dropout 

rate. But we aren’t finishing with those kids in 4 years. 

Mr. MCKEON. You aren’t, but somebody else may. 

Ms. NORWOOD. Well, we are counting—in our group, we are 

counting anyone who goes to community college for a program that 

is a high school program, not a GED. We are working, partnering 

with the community colleges to make sure where these—some of 

these people are. But if they leave the country, if they leave the 

State, we truly don’t know. 

But we do know that in North Carolina last year we had like 

22,000 kids who dropped out. Now they may drop back in next year 

and drop out again, but 22,000 did leave schools last year. 

Mr. MCKEON. But they may not have left school. They may have 

just left your schools. 

Ms. NORWOOD. But they did not ask for records and that type of 

thing. 

Mr. WISE. Mr. McKeon, you illustrate two problems. One is determining whether or not they are dropouts and the second one is 

what happens to them, which is why we think it is essential that 

NCLB also assists States in developing good longitudinal data systems that can truly track them. 

If there is a positive story coming out of Katrina, it is that when 

Katrina—Louisiana had a fairly sophisticated system and Texas 

has been developing one, and when the Katrina victims showed up 

in Texas schools, the two systems were able to talk to one another 

and trade information so these students could get situated. 

Well, we need to be doing the same. Florida is developing a system, a number of other States; there are 14 States that are presently receiving Federal assistance to do this. If you ramp that process up—and it is a relatively small dollar value; if you ramp that 

48

process up, you will be able to deal with many of the problems that 

you are talking about; and also you will have greater ability to 

make certain decisions, as well as every school board member, as 

well as every teacher in the classroom. 

Mr. MCKEON. Until we really understand that, we don’t really 

know what our dropout rate is; we don’t really know what the 

problem is. 

I think, gut feeling, I have some—I have some feelings of why 

kids are dropping out. I think engagement. I think having something for them. If you are a ninth grader and you have no intention 

of going to college, and the only track is college preparatory and 

it is something you are just not interested in, we don’t really offer 

much in the way of alternative. And so there you lose any chance 

for engagement. 

I think that this is a problem that has a lot of different solutions. 

I would like to see us really try to first address what the problem 

is and then try to work on the solutions. 

Dr. ROBLEDO MONTECEL. I think also there is a convergence of 

data that one can look for. And in Texas, for example, we find now 

that—from many different sources, it is very clear that one out of 

two Latinos drops out of school before graduating high school. It is 

also important to have a credible, clean way of counting, one that 

makes sense to the public; and that usually is the percent that 

drop out who started ninth grade and didn’t graduate. 

So I think the NGA efforts to create a Federal credible definition 

are very good. I think we ought to do that quickly and make sure 

that we address the issue, because there is absolutely no doubt 

that it is a pressing, persistent issue, especially for minority students. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Kildee. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We see dropping out as 

an after-the-fact event. But truancy, especially chronic truancy, 

generally precedes the dropping out. I taught school for 10 years, 

and you could predict who was going to drop out by the truancy 

rate pretty well. 

And I know education is a local function, a State responsibility 

but it is a very important Federal concern. Can No Child Left Behind play a role in trying to minimize both truancy and dropping 

out? 

For example, we have a disaggregation of data for testing. 

Should we have disaggregation of data for truancy and graduation 

rates to see how certain groups are being treated or even valued 

in certain school systems? 

Mr. SMITH. I would agree with that, yes. I think the whole 

disaggregation of data is a really important mechanism by which 

this Congress and governors and State legislatures can get their 

arms around the problem; otherwise, it gets lost in the larger numbers. And truancy is absolutely a predictor. 

And making the case again for engagement, if you can find a way 

to engage those young people and get them back early, but the 

longer you let them go the harder it is. 

The disaggregation of truancy is something I would recommend. 

Mr. KILDEE. Governor? 

49

Mr. WISE. Congressman, the answer, we feel, is absolutely correct. And truancy is a significant factor in a number of low-performing schools. We would suggest that an improved measure of 

AYP under our new High School Improvement Fund, one of the 

things you could use would be multiple measures to evaluate high 

schools. For instance, teacher turnover would be one, truancy 

would certainly be another; you might even do safety in the 

schools. These would help determine what are the high-priority 

high schools to be targeted for this strategic found. 

Mr. KILDEE. Yes, ma’am. 

Dr. ROBLEDO MONTECEL. The other thing that these types of indicators would do would be to give local communities information 

about what to do, where to attack the problem. And I think it is 

important that NCLB provide information to the local communities 

as they seek to address the issue. And to do that, they need to 

know, are our teachers teaching? Are they qualified? Are our parents involved? Are our students engaged? To what extent and how? 

Do our kids have access to the curriculum? 

All of these things, together with measures like truancy, that are 

already clear and imminent threats, and students will drop out 

once they are not showing up in school a lot. But these other measures will help the local community to get at the issue earlier. What 

do we do? 

Mr. KILDEE. I can recall when I was teaching, very often someone in authority would say, well, don’t worry, he or she will be 16 

in a few months, and they will be gone because that is the mandatory school attendance age. And most schools are doing a tremendous job out there, but there are some schools, some places, where 

certain people are valued more than others; and that is why we 

have always asked for disaggregation of data, to make sure that no 

child is left behind. 

And as I say, we do that on testing. We want to have the data 

disaggregated. But I think it would be wise to do that on truancy 

and graduation rates, because there is no question that some 

groups are really, unfortunately, valued more than other groups in 

our schools, or we wouldn’t be insisting upon the disaggregation of 

data. 

And I thank you for your—yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORWOOD. One other thing I would like to ask you to consider and that would be flexibility in inventive programs so that 

school systems can receive funds to try new things, try different 

things to re-engage those kids who are being truant, whether it be 

Saturday academies or evening academies or whatever it is to get 

those kids back and engaged in school. 

So rather than just having funds for cookie-cutter programs, 

allow local flexibility with some of the funding. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Castle. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple things. 

One, Mr. Trump, I think your programs that you have spoken 

about in terms of safety are vitally important. I don’t have a question for you specifically about that, except to say that is something 

we should be considering. And to Mr. Smith, who has had great 

success with Jobs for America’s Graduates, had as great success 

50

with Jobs for Delaware’s Graduates before that. I have worked 

with him, and congratulate him on that. 

Ken, if you could just tell us very briefly, because I have other 

questions, how that would work. In a typical case, how would Jobs 

for America’s Graduates, or Delaware’s graduates or the particular 

States, come in and deal with a kid; and what would they do 

versus what would a school do? If you could, give us a 30-second 

synopsis. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Congressman. 

While the Governor of Delaware actually helped to grow the program, which has now been in Delaware for 26 years, in the end, 

it boils down to four things. 

Number one is motivation. If you don’t capture the kids, you 

don’t get them motivated, the rest of it doesn’t work. That means 

the right person, the job specialist, the staff member, and the 

school; and secondly, the youth organization, the engagement to 

motivate them to come and to participate. And frankly, to care 

about whether or not to is, do something in school. 

Number two is, you have to get them through school, and you 

have two problems. One is, you have to get academics; the other 

is, you have to solve the home problems and the outside problems. 

Mr. CASTLE. Be specific about what you do, though. I understand 

what you have to do. What do you do—you do? 

Mr. SMITH. The staff members are responsible, first of all, and 

accountable to get the 90 percent graduation rates. Therefore, you 

have to find the right remediation or deliver the remediation to 

catch them up so that they do, in fact, graduate within that school 

year if you can. 

Number two is, you have got to find the community resources. 

If the young lady is pregnant, if the young man is on drugs or 

picked up by the police or they are homeless, you have to find a 

solution to that problem because otherwise they are not going to 

graduate. So you have to engage the community services and organize it and make it work. 

Third, you have to work and have this motivational student organization. The staff member is responsible for organizing and engaging young people during school, after school hours, in the summer, 

on weekends around a set of activities that are employment- and 

graduation-related, but are fun and engaging to do. 

Finally, that staff member is responsible the year after leaving 

school to make sure they do graduate; if need be, that they get a 

job, they get a raise or promotion on that job and or go on to higher 

education or both. And that is what that staff member does. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. 

I guess this is for Governor Wise, primarily. We were talking 

about this a little bit before the hearing began, but sort of building 

on what Mr. McKeon was asking, as well, I worry about the graduation rates and the way we measure these. 

The States have various methodologies for doing this. As you 

have indicated, we tend to describe people who are no longer in 

schools as ‘‘dropouts’’ sometimes. And I am not suggesting we don’t 

have a huge dropout problem, but in terms of writing legislation, 

of No Child Left Behind, of funding dollars, of dealing with this, 

I worry about it. 

51

I remember a couple years ago the governors were up to their 

ears in putting this together, which a couple of you worked on; and 

I just wonder where that is today. I mean, to me, it would be tremendously helpful if we get some measurement of dropout rates 

that all the States were endorsing, that we naturally could endorse, 

as well, and really be able to measure in terms of a lot of the different measurements that we need to do at our level, too. 

Mr. WISE. Congressman, you and I both come from a similar 

background as being former Governors. And, you’re right, the NGA 

did adopt a compact, which all 50 Governors signed in a number 

of organizations, including my own. 

Having said that, let me observe—and what it did was essentially, as Dr. Norwood is talking about, is to set up a 4-year measurement system. But let me observe something. First of all, a couple of States have already stepped back from the compact. Second 

is several States—States are all over the board as to when they 

will actually implement it some many years hence. And also there 

is no accountability to it. As you well know, compacts have the political life of the one who signed it, and then it is up to his or her 

successor as to what happens with it. For all those reasons we 

think it would be worthwhile to take the model of the compact, 

enact it and make it truly a common measurement that we are all 

using. Now we are all able to compare apples to apples. 

Mr. CASTLE. I have one final question. Sometimes I wonder about 

the whole cultural aspect of this. One of you mentioned that if you 

graduate from high school, you are liable to earn half a million dollars more, something like that, and another half million if you 

graduate from college over the course of your life. And I worry 

about all this being educationally oriented. Should we be oriented 

some to what we are doing to television, to the Internet, to other 

cultures which are out there, we as politicians? I wonder sometimes if the focus is too much on just education and not the broader 

area of how do we motivate people by pointing out that their future 

is much brighter if they stay in school. Just something to think 

about. 

Mr. WISE. Can I respond? Congressman, you are absolutely correct. Our organization spends a good deal of time doing that. Only 

25 percent of the American public has some contact with the public 

school system. Seventy-five percent don’t. There are two groups 

that are affected every day somebody drops out. And incidentally 

before we all go home today, 7,000 schoolchildren will disappear; 

that is, they will drop out of school today, each and every school 

day. 

The first group that is affected are the schoolchildren themselves, 

the economic costs that you just mentioned. The second are the rest 

of us. They reflect the 2006 dropout group will cost our country 

$309 billion in lost income alone over their lifetime. Now, multiply 

that times 10 years and you can see the cost to all of us. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Hare. 

Mr. HARE. Thank you. My question is focused on two areas. I 

hope I have enough time for you to address both of them. First is 

my concern about dropouts in a rural community, since I have a 

52

congressional district that has a tremendous amount of rural area. 

I wonder if perhaps, Mr. Smith and Ms. Norwood, you could address the unique challenges that you see that rural school districts 

have in confronting dropout problems and how we in Congress 

could possibly address those problems in terms of dropouts in the 

rural communities and the special problems we may be seeing 

here? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. We have had a lot of experience in rural 

areas from rural eastern Montana, northern New England and 

rural parts of Arizona, California and elsewhere. The challenges 

are really different. The good news is we have been able to get 

similar results. But I will tell you it does take even more of a community effort in rural areas to make it work, and you really do 

need employers and you need the community and you need them 

all tied together through this job specialist as somebody to pull it 

together. Ultimately in the end you have got to give these young 

folks hope that they can find work in that area, because if not, if 

you don’t have hope, it is not going to work. 

So either being able to show them where employment is or even 

help them create employment, which sometimes in rural areas it 

has got to be the only other solution, it is a crucial part of giving 

these young folks hope and the opportunity to succeed. Most young 

people want to stay where they are, despite how they may talk 

about it, but in the end they are most comfortable. The key is to 

make sure there is a future for them, and the key to that is a job. 

Ms. NORWOOD. One of the things North Carolina has invested in 

is the North Carolina virtual public school, and this is a resource 

for all students in North Carolina where they can take classes virtually. And the hope there is several things, that we can bring in 

some of those who have been dropouts and bring them back in; 

also, that we can make all courses available for all students across 

North Carolina, so that in case a student wants to take Mandarin 

Chinese and they happen to live in a county that would not attract 

such a teacher, that that course is available for them by the virtual 

school. 

We are really working hard to make North Carolina more global 

and take down those walls of distance and ruralness so that those 

kind of things can be available for every single child in our State. 

Mr. HARE. Thank you. We were talking about school safety and 

there has been a great amount of discussion in my district about 

positive behavioral learning intervention, and in particular a program called Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports, PBIS. I 

am wondering if you are familiar with that. The schools that have 

this program tell me they have seen a remarkable decrease in expulsions and suspensions. Are any of you familiar with the program or would you support funding or other resources to be allotted to schools that wish to implement these types of interventions 

under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act in 

NCLB? 

Ms. NORWOOD. I am slightly familiar with the program as used 

in one particular elementary school. I think it is a very good program. Anything we can do to help train teachers how to work with 

children and to work with their behavior I think is excellent. The 

one caution I would have is I don’t want us to go with one egg in 

53

one basket. If we could have several options, I think it would be 

good. 

Mr. HARE. There is a small community in Roosevelt, Illinois, and 

they use this and it was amazing. The principal was telling me and 

the school district administrator was saying that reinforcing positive behavioral things; in other words, focusing on if somebody does 

something wrong. We spend a lot of time doing that, but we don’t 

spend enough time. As you said, I think, Mr. Smith, when you 

talked about getting them involved and when they do something, 

they get credit for what they have been able to do. And I talked 

to some of the students that were in the program. They thought it 

was wonderful. I wasn’t sure if anybody on the panel encountered 

that in their areas. 

Ms. NORWOOD. One thing I will say is it works well with novice 

teachers because it gives them a strong instrument to work with 

and a strong structure. Novice teachers frequently have discipline 

problems. 

Mr. HARE. One thing I wanted to ask you, Doctor, you talked 

about the dropout rate among Hispanic students. A lot of 

teachers in my district said it is because kids get into junior high 

and they go home with homework to a home where the parents 

don’t speak English and can’t help them with their homework. And 

a lot of the educators in my district are saying we need to fund 

that type of program because otherwise those kids get lost and fall 

off the radar screen. You don’t see them any more because there 

is nobody there to help them through. I don’t know if you would 

agree with that. 

Dr. ROBLEDO MONTECEL. I think in my mind obviously we always need to see how we might be supportive of parents as, Mr. 

Hare, you are suggesting, and I think we ought to do that. My experience and the research that I have seen really says that Latino 

parents care a lot about their children’s graduation and they may 

or may not be able to support the homework piece of it. And so for 

example in the parent engagement work that we do, we work with 

parents to make sure that they can work with the schools to support their child, rather than having to—sometimes you know it 

seems almost like we have to wait another generation until the 

parents are educated before Latino children can graduate, and I 

think that that is not so. The parents that we talk to really care, 

and schools tell me that they are very interested in finding out how 

to become engaged. The community oversight groups that I mentioned I think are one way in which parents can get together and 

see how do we help the school together, because parents bring that 

kind of commitment that no one else does about their children. So 

if they have data about how their schools are doing, about how the 

graduation rate is and about how to help with that, then I think 

that that will work. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Ms. McCarthy. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you 

again calling for this hearing. I happen to look at the students that 

drop out in the areas that we are, especially with the gangs. In 

New York and Long Island we have a big problem with that. And 

I know District Attorney Charlie Hynes, going back a number of 

54

years, he was taking dropout numbers from Brooklyn and then 

looking at the crime rate that was in the local area. And he found 

the crime rate was obviously higher where those kids had dropped 

out. So what he did was, working with Department of Justice 

money, picked the kids up every morning. If they didn’t show up 

in school, the police went and picked them up. They brought them 

to a safe area. At that area there was a social worker, there were 

tutors, trying to find out what was motivating this kid, and how 

to get him back into the system, and he had great success. Obviously it cost money, but it is one way to go. 

Mr. Trump, one of the things that you brought up was the Cleary 

amendment. I think a lot of people here don’t know what it is. We 

dealt with it a little bit a couple years ago in higher education. The 

Cleary Act was named after a young girl that was killed at Lehigh 

University in her residence hall. Her parents worked to enact a law 

so that colleges would have to report the kind of crimes that they 

had on campus. It was then that they found out there were 38 violent crimes in Lehigh for a short time before this young girl died. 

I think what I am trying to gear towards with the data that you 

had talked about earlier, that K through 12 schools were not reporting the incidence data that is needed even though our colleges 

are, I guess my question would be, would a Cleary-like crime tracking system be useful for K through 12? Do you think parents of K 

through 12 students would like to have access to the crime data, 

and how would K through 12 crime data be helpful to policy makers? But also following through with that, if we know that there 

are schools that have a higher rate of incidences, whether it is bullying or any of those, would that also cause some children to drop 

out? 

Mr. TRUMP. Congresswoman, absolutely. We know that gang influences, an unsafe environment, actually bullying and harassment 

certainly would contribute to kids, particularly who don’t have the 

support, the engagement and the involvement. They are just giving 

up and leaving and dropping out of schools. The parents don’t know 

what they don’t know. The average parent in this country drops off 

their kids at school in the morning and there is an inherent assumption that we have had over all of our years that when we drop 

off our kids they are safe at school. So parents don’t know what to 

ask for, they don’t know where to look and nobody is volunteering 

the data for them because of the image concerns, because of the political aspect in a school community. So I think parents want to 

know. I want to know as a parent of two children. That is my number one concern. Test scores are second, the academic is second. I 

want to know when I drop them off in the morning that I am going 

to get my daughter and my son back in the same healthy condition 

that afternoon. Parents don’t know where to look. Even the best of 

principals who are tackling problems and dealing with it head on 

are not going to put something in their school newsletter or under 

a Web site saying, by the way, the police were at our school 10 

times this year. 

So there needs to be some outside support such as what has been 

recommended to Congress here to make that available in spite of 

all the pressures not to so the parents can make an informed decision. If we are talking about issues of school choice, if we are talkVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:17 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-23\34631.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
55

ing about parental options under persistently dangerous situations, 

we want people to make informed decisions. And I also want to see 

legislators at the congressional level here and at the State levels 

making decisions based on real incidents reported to law enforcement, not perception surveys and opinion surveys. We do it in the 

Justice Department with uniform crime reporting, FBI statistics, it 

can be done with the NIBRS data that has been proposed in your 

SAVE legislation. And I think we can have the surveys to support 

that, crime surveys and perception surveys and dealing with bullying and prevention issues, but we also have to know how many 

crimes occurred at the school in real numbers, not just 

perceptional. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. The other things that I found by talking to high 

school students, they certainly seem to know a lot more about what 

is going on in the school than the teachers or anybody. It is amazing what an earful I get when I ask that question of what is going 

on, what bugs you the most. I think the sad part is a lot of the 

kids do feel unsafe. They are saying, oh, no, school is fine, but they 

don’t feel that way. That is a shame because if we don’t have a 

school that is open for academic learning, it could be a real problem, and why put the stress on the kids. 

Mr. TRUMP. We have heard student engagement, Congresswoman, mentioned several times here. We want students engaged 

in about safety issues in schools. If we ask kids where they feel unsafe, what they recommend, kids are straightforward. They will tell 

you exactly what they think and it may not always be the same 

as what we as adults think. There is a huge gap between what 

many school officials think parents want to hear and what parents 

actually want to hear. Parents tell me that they are not concerned 

the police are at the school or that their schools have an emergency 

plan. They are concerned that they don’t know that school safety 

is on the radar. They are not finding out. They know a police car 

was there, but nobody wants to tell them what is going on. It is 

the lack of information that creates fear, not the availability of information. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Grijalva. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me tell Mr. Smith 

that I just finished meeting with JAG students in my district and 

they were both working on a forum that was very well attended on 

the DREAM Act dropout prevention and your staff there. Plus your 

program should be commended. These kids are planning to go to 

college, these kids are planning to have careers. And I would say 

2 or 3 years ago that wouldn’t have been the case, so just a comment. 

Let me if I may, Dr. Norwood, Governor Wise, one of the areas 

that we don’t talk about enough in this reauthorization process and 

in general in public education, you mentioned it briefly, Governor, 

is middle schools and their role, and counting dropouts 9 through 

12. I think there is a phenomenon when kids are leaving before 

then and there is also a phenomenon that they may not physically 

have left but they have left. And these all result in the increasing 

dropout rate in the high school level. Under No Child Left Behind, 

as we go through this process, as we integrate a comprehensive 

56

strategy on dropout prevention, where does the middle school fit? 

And I will begin with you, Governor. 

Mr. WISE. Middle school, Congressman, obviously is critical. The 

indicators for dropping out, many of them are quite evident in the 

sixth grade; absenteeism, truancy, literacy and so on. You said the 

key word, which is ‘‘comprehensive.’’ In No Child Left Behind we 

ought to be looking at this as a seamless system from pre-K all the 

way to grade 20, graduate school or the work place, as opposed to 

segmented areas. So with middle school what I would suggest is 

the same application we have been talking about in high schools; 

namely, targeting, because there are a number of low performing 

middle schools. Targeting the same kind of interventions there that 

we are talking about in high schools I think would go a long way. 

Also recognizing essentially at the Federal level and in most States 

we stop being involved with literacy reading in the third or fourth 

grade, and yet it is in the middle school that the child’s mind begins to turn. Where before we have been teaching them—they have 

been learning to read. Now they need to read to learn. So we need 

to continue our adolescent literacy efforts all the way through middle school and high school. 

Ms. NORWOOD. If you go back and look at several years ago, the 

middle school concept that came about, about teachers teaming together and working together, this is a lot like what they are doing 

now in high schools. And it is sort of like we kind of left it in the 

middle school and now we are putting it back in in the high school. 

And we need to put it back into the middle school where kids were 

connected, especially connected with at least one adult who knows 

them. 

The literacy problem is a major problem in the middle school. 

That is one reason why North Carolina is starting to fund literacy 

coaches, so they have one person in each middle school, especially 

right now our low performing middle schools, that will help the 

teachers teach this. Governor Wise is right on target talking about 

we teach kids to read in K through 3, but we don’t teach them how 

reading can work for them in the fourth grade through middle 

school through high school. And that is a learning process too. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. I would suggest that if you looked at 

the Feeder System, from elementary through middle school, the 

same indicators would be there. Let me if I may, Dr. Montecel and 

Mr. Trump, we are talking about nonacademic variables that create dropouts or create kids who want to leave school. I am assuming a couple of other variables. Let’s use the 15 percent responsible 

for 50 percent example. In those neighborhoods, areas, you would 

find the high schools are the poorest quality structurally, physically, technologically. You would find external and internal violence, crime. And so my question is where does something as simple as bricks and mortar and renovation, upgrading facilities, 

where would that fit as a noneconomic variable in terms of dropout 

prevention and overall safety for that community and for the kids 

coming to that school? If you wouldn’t mind, Doctor. 

Dr. ROBLEDO MONTECEL. Two important nonacademic variables 

that the research shows, one is school resources and those resources being available for keeping kids in schools. So funding equity would be clearly important. The other is governance efficacy 

57

and governance at the local level that is required in order to assure 

that the local policy supports keeping all students in school instead 

of not. So I think that you are absolutely right, Mr. Grijalva, that 

that is critical. I think then when you couple those two, governance 

efficacy and equity in funding, with the four key variables for keeping kids in school then you have got it made. 

One quick thing, sir, 80 percent of Latinos drop out before the 

ninth grade and so you are absolutely right 

about——

Mr. GRIJALVA. The middle school question? 

Dr. ROBLEDO MONTECEL. Yes. 

Mr. TRUMP. Two points, Congressman. We know that the climate 

the children are in to them tells them a message as to how much 

we value them. If they are in dilapidated facilities that are poorly 

maintained they are going to feel that that is a reflection of how 

we feel about them. The second aspect is there is an area called 

crime prevention through environmental design. When we are looking at building new buildings, renovation and design of schools, 

there are many things that you can do, simple things, line of sight 

visibility, how you position gyms, media centers, cafeterias, areas 

that are used for after school events in one area to section off the 

other end of the building so it is not open to the evening, lighting, 

natural observation. There are many things you can do in the physical climate to actually improve safety without creating a prison 

like environment. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. 

Chairman MILLER. Mrs. Biggert. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it was in the 

last session of Congress there was a proposal in the President’s 

budget to zero the Perkins Grant. And so I went out in the district 

to the vocational schools within the district and talked to the teachers there and talked to the students, and I was really pleasantly 

surprised about what was going on. In our schools we have a conglomerate of schools and we will have one vocational ed facility. 

But I was really amazed at the number of kids and the stories that 

they told about how they had been going to drop out and then they 

had this voc ed teacher, whether it be auto mechanics or they were 

working on engines of airplanes or whatever, and worked with 

them. And I think you have all been talking about the one person 

that connects with and engages that student. Or they were in construction. But what happened to them was when they got so interested in those courses, that they realized why they needed the basics, why they needed the math, why they needed the English, why 

they needed to be able to read instructions and the scientific instructions that they needed. I just wonder if we are leaving that 

behind. There are so many different ways that a child or student 

connects with the schools. And I don’t know if any of you have noticed that difference. 

The other thing I might add is PE. In Illinois we have physical 

education, is required every day. It is a State law. There are some 

schools that try to say recess qualifies. But I also think that really 

gives kids the physical blowing off steam that doesn’t happen when 

they are not having, particularly the younger kids—well, they are 

not able to concentrate as well. 

58

Just those two things. I wonder if any of you have any comments 

about that. I think probably, Mr. Smith, you talked about this engagement and jobs. 

Mr. SMITH. Absolutely. Most of our young people never had a 

chance to go to vocational education. They missed it somehow. 

They didn’t either know about it or whatever. They missed it. If we 

can catch them early enough we encourage them to look that direction, for all the reasons you have cited; it is real, it is concrete, they 

understand. 

Secondly, the vocational student organizations have done wonderful things; the Future Farmers of America, the Distributive 

Education Clubs of America, 3 million young people a year, highly 

motivational to engagement. The young people in the program we 

are serving couldn’t join because they weren’t a member of a vocational program. So over and over again there was no route for them 

to become engaged. The mechanism of engagement is what has 

made vocational education really a very strong part of what we 

have done in this country, and the vocational student organizations 

have been that motivational tool that helped encourage them to 

come and stay. I think what you saw is actually broad across the 

country. 

Dr. ROBLEDO MONTECEL. Ms. Biggert, the RAND Corporation 

studied the Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program as a type of student 

engagement, and the key they found was that in that program students are seen as valuable and important young people who have 

a contribution to make. And this could happen in this program, it 

could happen in many programs. But in that particular program 

kids who are at risk of dropping out are actually put as tutors of 

younger kids and they learn what they didn’t learn the first go 

around and they feel better about themselves and they become contributors instead of problems that need fixing. RAND found that 

this was the key in terms of engaging students. And I think voc 

ed does that, participating in sports does that. Young people need 

many and different ways to find what it is that they can connect 

with in schools. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Ms. Norwood. 

Ms. NORWOOD. Beyond the connection that kids can make with 

this, this is also an area that got a bad rep as people thinking it 

was not rigorous. I was at a meeting last week at Charlotte Motor 

Speedway with business leaders and educators talking about what 

kind of 21st century skills are needed to run NASCAR. And this 

is very scientific, it is very mathematical. These kind of classes can 

teach very rigorous, deep level thinking skills to kids. 

Mr. WISE. Congresswoman, one of the areas that could be borrowed from Perkins in terms of the NCLB reauthorization is a provision you put in this year in Perkins that permits a Federal fund 

to be used for developing personal graduation plans for the students so that as we talk about personalization and knowing them 

and where they live this would give us the ability, starting in the 

seventh grade, to develop a personal graduation plan to maximize 

their opportunities. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Is there anything more we need to do on that, because it still seems so many of the schools complain that they have 

all these academics and they can’t be bothered with moving them? 

59

Mr. WISE. I have heard that many times myself. The reality is 

every student is entitled. Certainly the most at risk ought to be entitled to have a plan that maximizes their chances for success. 

Presently the Federal law only permits the funds to be used in Perkins. We would suggest making it also a permissible use under 

ESEA or No Child Left Behind. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. Mr. Sestak. 

Mr. SESTAK. Thank you, sir. Mr. Smith, I am always kind of 

taken when I hear comments like yours and others in the education area about how a comprehensive approach seems to work 

best. You talk about engagement. It is not dissimilar to my experience in the military how, and you had mentioned, I thought from 

a great question from Representative Castle, how you do it. If 

someone gets pregnant or something you are actually engaged with 

them. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. 

Mr. SESTAK. It harkens back to my experience where you have 

a young sailor who gets someone pregnant. We couldn’t outsource 

it. We were our own human resources, so the young ensign just 

dealt with it, because we couldn’t afford to lose that kid. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. 

Mr. SESTAK. To your question, Governor, or comment, that at the 

end of this 2-hour hearing 7,000 individuals will have dropped out. 

So that means after five of these hearings are done, the 35,000 will 

have dropped out. How do you scale this up to a question I think 

the chairman would have gotten to, but it is mine. The investment 

attendant to it. In the military we are not a social welfare organization and yet we would have done anything to keep that kid. 

Mr. SMITH. Absolutely. The bill in the Senate that has just been 

put in today that Governor Wise referred to, we are convinced if 

you could put some incentives on the table States and communities 

would respond. And I think it is important they respond. I wouldn’t 

recommend to you that you do it all at the Federal level. But if you 

can incent the States and local communities, businesses and others 

and schools, around the outcomes that you are looking for and provide either matching incentive money and say this money must be 

spent on things that are proven to work by whatever definition you 

care to put in the law, then you will find assets aggregating around 

things that work and they will go to scale. I think there is an opportunity here for the Congress to lead and that the States and the 

local communities will follow. Money obviously helps to encourage 

them. But our view of this is that it should be in some form of 

matching or incentives with clear criteria for what you define you 

want the other end to be. If it is drop out reduction, say that, or 

whatever it is that you decide to do. 

In the end engagement doesn’t cost very much, but it costs a little bit and therefore they do not spend on engagement because they 

think everybody is looking only at academic achievement they everybody is only looking at academic achievement. They don’t appreciate, as you have described in the military, if you do a little bit 

extra you save that young man or young woman in the schools. 

And the little bit extra can make a decisive difference in the outcomes. And all of a sudden, by the way, these students are earning 

60

State money and all of a sudden there is more money in the schools 

because the students are there, so on and so forth. 

So I believe it can be done. And I believe the States are looking 

for solutions. The Governors are looking for solutions. And if there 

was a way that you could incent them I think they would respond. 

Mr. SESTAK. If I could, off of Representative Biggert’s comment. 

My district lost 1 out of 5 manufacturing establishments it had in 

the last 3 years. You can go down to Aker Shipyard and they are 

hurting in the Philadelphia area for MIG and TIG welders. These 

artisan skills upon which our country was so well built is an important aspect. When I had the MIG and TIG welders, you would flip 

your helmet down, you light the arc, you lay the bead. Not today. 

Today you have got to have a higher level of education. And we 

can’t lose. It is not just vocational training. They need a higher 

level of science and math because you sit at a computer now and 

you are talking about nanofabrication and all. You have got to 

learn how to actually lay that bead to a computer to put it on a 

machine. 

To both of you though, how do you incentivise people to recognize 

that it is a No Child Left Behind value attendant to higher education in math and science and eventually reading and the attraction to that high value manufacturing skills that we need? 

Dr. ROBLEDO MONTECEL. Congressman, I think that the 

incentivising and the developing of models has to occur in a few 

districts. Let me tell you why I say that. Schools, there are a number of schools that are very successful, individual campuses. But if 

we are talking about bringing to scale and if we are talking about 

incentivising, then I think we have to find ways in which districts 

are willing to say we will graduate all students, this is how we are 

going to do it, give us a little bit of help here, we are going to implement best practices. I think that the States have a lot to do with 

this, but I really do think that one needs to get as close to the 

locals as possible and then to be able to work across those key 

transition points where we lose kids when they move from elementary to middle and from middle to high school. 

Mr. SESTAK. It seems. 

Dr. ROBLEDO MONTECEL. Yes, yes. 

Mr. SESTAK. Thank you very much. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Yarmuth. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the 

panel for some very interesting testimony. I represent a community 

that has a school district of just under 100,000 students. And one 

of the things that I have learned has been that we have an incredible mobility problem. 250 kids every day move schools, 1,250 a 

week, which means that over the course of the school year half the 

students have gone from one school to the other. And I know that 

this is a huge frustration in terms of No Child Left Behind because 

many teachers and schools are judged on kids that, it is a moving 

target essentially, kids they see part of the year and not the rest 

of the year. 

So my question is I assume, although I haven’t seen a correlation, that there is a disproportionate number of dropouts that come 

from this population that is constantly moving. And they move for 

all sorts of reasons; broken households, evictions, seasonable workVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:17 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-23\34631.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
61

ers, you name it. Is there something in the law that—I know in 

terms of No Child Left Behind many teachers say this is where the 

push-out comes to a certain extent, too, that they are frustrated because of the kids they get and they are being graded. Is there 

something in the law that we can do to make it so that these kids 

who are moving around constantly don’t become the victims of a 

combination of their own situation and the law in terms of helping 

them stay in school? 

Mr. WISE. Yes, sir. In fact if you have a 100,000-student school 

district, then on average you probably are going to lose 2,500 a 

year dropping out. One of the things that can be done is to provide 

these data systems with a longitudinal data system but with a student identifier number; in other words, as that student moves from 

one school to another, preferably across the State even but certainly within their own school district, that you are able to track 

that student every step. And the teacher who gets that student the 

next day knows automatically how that student is faring, what the 

student’s strengths and weaknesses are. As the student moves forward you are able to track. It is not just tracking. It is also what 

is the plan that you deliver for this student. How do you customize 

it to meet the student’s needs as they move from one school to another. In terms of getting a maximum bang for the Federal buck, 

that could be one of the ways you could assist most. 

Fourteen States, as I mentioned earlier, are receiving Federal 

funds to do this. It will both save funds, it will make the learning 

experience much more accountable and much more credible and it 

will also permit you to make certain decisions you are going to 

have to make in years to come with good data. 

Dr. ROBLEDO MONTECEL. The migrant program that has to connect seasonable workers as they move from State to State has actually developed some good examples of how that might work. I think 

also by coupling not just the courses, the curriculum, aligning the 

curriculum, but assuring the graduation plan follows the student 

and that graduation plan is based on the student’s assets. The 

main problem is that schools are really not prepared to build on 

children’s assets. For example, Army kids are very mobile, CEO 

kids are very mobile. That doesn’t become a problem because the 

school finds ways of integrating them. And that is what the challenge is here. 

Mr. YARMUTH. So this is definitely a national problem and not 

State by State? 

Mr. WISE. It is. And the mobility has increased significantly in 

our society in just the last 30 or 40 years. 

Mr. YARMUTH. We have a program in my community called 

Youth Alive and it was started by a man named Kenny Boyd, who 

was one of these kids who was about to fall off the cliff in his life 

and somehow pulled himself up. He is an African American man, 

a true hero, who started a program where at risk population kids 

come after school. They feed them, they help them do their homework, they expose them to different options, they expose them to 

college. They have a trip every year where they just show them college campuses to show them there is a different type of life path 

available to them. As he says, they could serve many more kids. 

They serve about 50 kids at any one time. The key is getting the 

62

kids to voluntarily come in. And I assume this is a problem or an 

issue with the JAG program as well. How do you get the kids to 

come into the program? Is there a way institutionally that we can 

create some kind of method for creating this type of—motivation is 

a hard way to create, I understand, but to get kids into these programs? Because I assume many communities have similar ones. I 

know a lot of faith based institutions do as well as the school systems. 

Mr. SMITH. There is a lot of good examples. We would like to believe we are one of them, but there’s lots of good examples. I think 

in the end we are back to the simple equation, it takes somebody 

who reaches and holds and engages the young people. And two is 

to create a series of activities like the gentleman just mentioned 

that gives them a reason to come and attend and feel good about 

doing so and want to come. But when you can watch the absentee 

rate drop like a rock when you implement the program you described or others, it is really not that hard. We know what it takes 

to engage and to get them to come. 

The other important news, almost all of our young people, however at risk, really do want to be like the rest of us. They really 

do want to succeed, they really do want to do the right thing. You 

just have to give them an opportunity to do it. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you. 

Chairman MILLER. Yes, Doctor. 

Dr. ROBLEDO MONTECEL. If young people have a sense they are 

valuable and important they will come. If they have support that 

is given them they will come. And if their family and community 

is acknowledged, recognized and incorporated they will come. And 

we find those are the three keys in terms of assuring that kids take 

advantage of opportunities that are given them, is that they are 

important and valuable. And programs work on that basis rather 

than on fixing their deficits. You and I wouldn’t show up if that 

was the purpose of us being somewhere. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Tierney. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all the witnesses for their testimony today. Governor, how are you? 

Mr. WISE. I am doing great. 

Mr. TIERNEY. You look like you are. I just want to ask a couple 

general questions. If we decided that we were going to make this 

part of the determination yearly progress and disaggregate the 

numbers, do we have a pool of programs that we know are effective 

and that work that could be designated as those programs that 

people ought to choose from if they are going to implement that? 

Mr. WISE. I would like to jump in on this. Absolutely yes, Congressman. I want to say the same thing to Mr. Sestak as well. We 

do know what works. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Particular programs or just in theory? 

Mr. WISE. We have both programs and elements. You heard the 

common elements, whether it is Jobs for America’s Graduates represented by Ken Smith, whether in New York City it is Institute 

for Student Achievement, whether in Baltimore it is Child Development, whether it is First Things First in Kansas City, and so on 

down the line. Here is a research base that has been developed 

particularly over the last 5 to 10 years that tells us what works. 

63

And we have many schools already in play which have all the indicators for failure and yet students are turning around. So we do 

know what works. 

We also know that we have to have common elements to it. The 

legislation that we are talking about posing would provide along 

the lines of what Congress Yarmuth is talking about, is money that 

States and districts would match also having to come up with a 

plan that they could either use these models or use what they have 

already proven to work, but to turn these low performing schools 

around. 

There are basically three types of schools that need help. One 

has something wrong with it but it is not serious; target and intervention, such as literacy, you take care of it. The second is more 

systemic. There you probably are going to have to deal with the 

culture of the school but you can keep the school in place, you just 

have to change the structure, deal with the personalization and a 

number of other issues. The third one is significant, and that is replacement of the school, probably about 5 to 10 percent of our high 

schools, which is the most difficult to do. But once again there are 

models that will work for each of those. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Would you leave it to the Secretary’s office to determine whether or not a local education agency’s program was acceptable as a model? 

Mr. WISE. No. The Secretary would obviously have something to 

say about it. But I want this done as much as possible at the State 

and local level. They will have to develop the turnaround teams, 

they will have to develop the plans. The Secretary is going to have 

to acknowledge whether or not he or she thinks the plan will work. 

You just don’t want the money out the door. This has to be coming 

from the State. 

Mr. TIERNEY. They can develop it, but our control on that is that 

the Secretary’s office would determine whether or not they developed it properly? 

Mr. WISE. Right. Under our plan the Graduation Promise Act is 

that each State would get a certain amount of money which would 

then go to districts based upon two factors. One is poverty rate and 

graduation rate. The State and the districts would put together the 

plans and put together the turnaround teams. The Secretary is a 

partner to it, but it is not strictly a Federal decision. 

Mr. TIERNEY. If you were going to determine whether or not a 

school was underperforming based on their failure to have a graduation rate that was acceptable, how would you determine what 

the acceptable graduation rate was and how would you change it 

from year to year? What is an acceptable graduation rate? Is it 

school by school, is it nationwide, who determines it and how, or 

would you just work on progress to increase it or improve it by a 

certain amount? 

Ms. NORWOOD. My preference would be school by school or by 

State. And part of the way I am basing my opinion on is with No 

Child Left Behind North Carolina just fairly recently got approval 

to do a growth model. And a growth model for us has always been 

where we felt we needed to go. And I see the growth model concept 

is fitting into this also. 

64

Dr. ROBLEDO MONTECEL. I think also one has to deal realistically 

with accountability measures, et cetera. I think if we are going to 

really shift from dropout prevention to graduation for all, which we 

have to do, we have dropped from first in the world in graduating 

students from high school 4 years ago to 15th or 16th. We are not 

economically competitive and we cannot be until we see high school 

graduation as a new minimum. And I think that in order to do that 

we really just have to go for graduation for all. That being said, 

then I think it important to make sure that at the local level there 

be data not just about outcomes in terms of graduation but also 

what is it that the school is or isn’t doing that is holding kids in 

school so that the schools and the communities can work together 

on the school improvement and the progress measures that would 

need to be put in place. 

Mr. WISE. I would just add to that if you do this, which we would 

support, you measure progress at every level, the school, the district and the State. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. 

Chairman MILLER. If I might follow on. Governor Wise, there 

was a lot of discussions in meetings I have attended over the last 

6 months or so about the idea, and you sort of alluded to it, this 

question of dropout factories. Where do they fit on the time line 

here? Apparently everybody knows where they are. They know 

what is taking place there. And usually they talk about dropout 

factories and shutting them down. 

Mr. WISE. The most extensive research on dropout factories has 

been done by Johns Hopkins University and two researchers, Bob 

Belfanz and Nettie Letgers. Their data is what I have talked about. 

I don’t think you can shut them all down. Working with Johns 

Hopkins and others, the legislation that has been introduced would 

suggest that there are three ways to approach it. One is to look at 

where these dropout factories have a particular problem, but there 

is one problem, bad literacy, whatever it is. The second classification are those where it is much more systemic within the school 

but you can change the culture of the school. The third is you have 

to replace the school totally. It has educational Legionnaire’s Disease. You can’t do anything for that building but just to take it 

down. That is estimated to be only 5 to 10 percent of those dropout 

factories. 

Chairman MILLER. And get on with that task? 

Mr. WISE. If you get on with that task you will deal with about 

half the dropouts in this country. You will deal with about half the 

African American dropouts and close to the same number of Hispanic dropouts. 

Chairman MILLER. You are saying in 5 percent of schools you 

would be dealing with half the dropouts? 

Mr. WISE. I am saying 15 percent of the schools, you would be 

dealing with half the dropouts in this country. 

Chairman MILLER. Ms. Sanchez. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am particularly interested in this topic because I have school districts that I represent 

in my congressional district that have a 50 percent-plus dropout 

rate for Hispanic students, African American students, and other 

65

minority students. And those are rates that haven’t changed in 30 

years. So clearly there is something that is not working. 

And I want to touch on the issue of school safety for a minute 

because I think I read somewhere in my materials if students don’t 

feel safe they are less likely to graduate. The U.S. Department of 

Education has looked at several school safety factors, and something that I have a particular interest in is school bullying. It is 

something that has gone on since time. So when I experienced it 

or saw it growing up it was just sort of a ‘‘kids will be kids’’ mentality and teachers scratched their heads and nobody thought much 

about it. 

I am very much focused on that issue because in parts of my district we have actually seen things as serious as a rise in gangs as 

a result of kids being picked on and wanting to feel protected in 

school. We know that students who bully are more likely to go on 

to become adult career criminals. Kids who are bullied are more 

likely to experience suicide and depression and other negative effects. And nearly one in every three American schoolchildren experiences bullying at some point. Interestingly enough, kids that are 

more likely to be bullied are kids that are doing well in school, that 

are performing well and get picked on by their peers. And yet when 

I have had meetings with superintendents in the different school 

districts that my congressional district overlaps with there really 

isn’t a comprehensive anti-bullying curriculum in schools. Some 

schools have just formulated their own. 

But I am curious to know what you think we may be able to do 

to try to help reduce that on school campuses. And interestingly 

enough, I just last night on 60 Minutes saw a piece where school 

shooters, almost every single one, has that common element in 

their background, that they were bullied when they were in school. 

So I am interested to know what your thoughts are on trying to 

help reduce violence in schools and some of the other negative consequences that come as a result of bullying. 

Dr. Norwood. 

Ms. NORWOOD. You have really hit on one of the things that is 

probably one of our ugliest problems that we have in schools. And 

one thing I will ask the staff to do is get you a copy of the Standard. There is an article in it talking about bullying. Because one 

of the things is that some of the things you think of as commonsense solutions are not really solutions. And the bullying is a real 

problem. And I think personally that it is a real problem because 

everybody accepts it. There are certain people who think other people should be bullied, and I am talking about adults. And this is 

a thing that is going to take an entire community to work on. 

As I said, I would like to send you a copy of this so that you can 

read through it at your leisure because it is pretty eye opening of 

what works and what doesn’t. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I would appreciate that. Other thoughts, Mr. 

Trump? 

Mr. TRUMP. Congresswoman, two things. One is we need to define what is bullying. In many of our schools our schools actually 

have policies and procedures under discipline; extortion, harassment, physical assault, intimidation. So one of the things we stress 

is look at what you have. I think what Dr. Norwood is saying is 

66

are you fully conscious of those resources you already have policy 

wise. And on the other side of that certainly climate and awareness 

with staff. The other thing is the physical security. There was a 

study, I don’t have the citation with me, within the past year of 

where the bullying occurs. When the researcher looked at where in 

the school are places that are less safe, one of the most places, the 

biggest place of concern is in our school restrooms. Adults don’t supervise there. So we not only have to look at climate and culture, 

but supervision, adult visibility and, as we say, the fourth R of education, with reading, writing and arithmetic, today is relationships. 

The adult relationship with the kids so they feel comfortable 

coming forward to report the student with the gun and the fact 

that they are a bully. 

Dr. ROBLEDO MONTECEL. Ms. Sanchez, to add a bit to that, we 

have been working with school systems in which the Latino population has grown tremendously in a very quick period of time. In 

many States throughout the United States, as you know, there is 

hypergrowth of Latinos. And I think that speaking directly and 

working directly with the relationships between communities that 

were never next to each other before, and that would include African American, Latino and white students, and seeing each other in 

very direct ways, parents of those communities working together to 

create some solutions to the harassment and the bullying issues 

are producing some very good results at the local level. 

Mr. SMITH. Congresswoman, there is some good evidence that 

also shows that young people who are involved in something else 

don’t tend to be the ones doing the bullying and don’t tend to be 

the ones causing the problems. It is those that are not involved in 

something else, in effect, that create that something else to be involved in. 

So, again, the argument of providing multiple opportunities and 

get young people into them, school principals will tell us with the 

arrival of the kind of program we provide, the demeanor and the 

climate of the school changes. All of a sudden things that were acceptable before aren’t now, and many of these young people are 

now engaged in something constructive. So in the end, it is back 

to engagement and involvement, and in enough opportunities, I 

think you will see that bullying and the discipline issues go down. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield. 

Mr. KILDEE. [presiding.] The gentlelady from New York Ms. 

Clarke. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to 

touch on a couple of other indicators that some of my colleagues 

have touched on, but I wanted to go into greater depth. 

I am from Brooklyn, New York, and research shows that academics coupled with socioeconomic factors influence basically a student’s decision to drop out of high school. And I am looking at the 

issue of school safety taking on a whole new dimension when you 

are dealing with working-class communities, immigrant density, 

working toward systemic poverty. So the schools located in a particular area oftentimes correlate with, you know, the conditions of 

the area. And I just wanted to get from, you know, what have you 

looked at or have you experienced in your interactions with others 

that can be done to address the students leaving that school enviVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:17 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-23\34631.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
67

ronment when you have the pressures of such an environment 

bearing down on them? Any——

Dr. ROBLEDO MONTECEL. Ms. Clarke, I think your comments 

point to a very important issue, and that is that solving the decision of dropouts is not just tinkering at the edges. We have to really look fundamentally as how we educate children, especially African American and Latino children, and where we educate them. 

Latino children, African American children continue to mostly go to 

schools that are highly segregated, which in the United States also 

means that they are high-poverty schools. So you have children of 

the poor who are attending schools that are poor, and in which are 

concentrated big problems, and in which there are few resources. 

And so I think it important to look systematically at those issues, 

and when we are looking at schools that fundamentally need to be 

shifted, that we look not just at the outcomes that are being produced, but at what is it about those systems that just plain doesn’t 

work for our kids. 

Ms. NORWOOD. Also in North Carolina we are looking at the concept of schools are not in isolation, but that schools are part of the 

community. And our chairman Howard Lee has been very strong 

working with the faith community, especially in our lead-performing schools, to try to get the faith community to work along 

with the school system and provide some of the support that the 

students may not be getting. So it is the community, the whole environment looking at this rather than just the schools in isolation. 

Mr. WISE. And it is also about in dealing with the environment, 

the first thing is what can you do about the environment within 

the school, and we talked a lot about the personalization process, 

having an adult in the school that you can go to so that the adult 

knows firsthand what are some of these other issues that a student 

is facing. But let us be frank. With 1 guidance counselor for every 

500 students, with a teacher having to handle 120 to 150 students 

a day, there isn’t going to be a lot of personal attention in the 

present structure either within the educational system or outside. 

So what is it we can do and what is it through the Federal process you can do to provide incentives and assistance to school districts to do school-based services, have the school open longer hours 

obviously, to have health counselors there, the other kinds of operations that are so important that can assist students with their 

basic, basic needs? I have seen—for instance, in Philadelphia I visited a school recently which has services available to it through 

communities and schools. There are other successful models like 

this that are trying to grapple with that problem. 

We have to deal with the child in their whole world. 

Ms. CLARKE. I just want to—and I am going to have you respond 

as well, Mr. Trump—but I want to sort of bring to the surface the 

fact that a lot of our students, no matter what kind of antiseptic 

environment we try to create for them in the educational facility 

if they are going into a community where you have generations of 

dropouts—because we have been talking about the dropout phenomena that took place over 30 years; we are talking about going 

back to communities where your role models, your environment has 

not been progressing in terms of, you know, the educational arena. 

You have a severe struggle there. And if that—if that is the real 

68

constant in the student’s life, you know, how do we address it in 

the school? And then what are we talking about in terms of the responsibility of the wider community? And I just sort of wanted to 

put that the table, Mr. Trump. 

I see you sitting up, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. TRUMP. Congresswoman, I want to reinforce one of the 

things we hear often is that schools reflect the broader community, 

and I think that is true. But we also know from my work in Cleveland schools when I ran the gang unit in the school district in one 

of my previous lives, we knew oftentimes in the worst of communities that school was the safest place for that child, as long as we 

have an environment with firm, fair and consistent discipline and 

the support systems during school and most of all at 3 o’clock when 

the bell rings, where do they go next, and when you have that connection to some of the things that we have heard with the rest of 

the panelists here. So I think that the school can make a difference 

in an uphill battle, and we have to have that linkage between what 

happens after school as well. Even in the toughest communities, 

sometimes school is the safest place. 

Mr. KILDEE. Gentleman from New York Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP OF NEW YORK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

for this hearing, and I want to thank the panel. It has been very, 

very interesting and informative testimony. 

Mr. Smith, before I came to the Congress, I was a college administrator, and I spent an awful lot of time looking at the issue of attrition and persistence on the college level. And I was struck that 

the factors that you outlined that contribute to persistence on the 

high school level are virtually the very same factors that contribute 

to persistence on the college level. And I am wondering how far 

that goes. 

One of the things we learned about college attrition is that students tend to drop out when they can’t see a connection between 

what it is they are doing and what their ultimate goals are. I am 

assuming that is also true on the high school level. And so I want 

to take that and link it to something that was in Secretary 

Spellings’ report on higher education in which the committee found 

that there was an insufficient articulation between what high 

schools teach and do and what colleges expect. 

And so I am wondering do you see possibilities, fruitful possibilities, for more liaisons between high schools and colleges and more 

interventions on the part of colleges in getting high school students 

involved in what college students do, whether it is student newspaper or radio station or whatever, to get them, in effect, turned 

on to staying in high school and then moving on to college? 

Mr. SMITH. We have got some great experience, and the Gates 

Foundation has got some research that shows for really high-risk 

kids in 10th grade, if you can get them on a college campus to start 

taking some of their high school courses as well as college courses, 

it cracks the environment. It changes the whole thing. All of a sudden they are adults. All of a sudden they get treated like they are 

adults because the assumption is they are. And guess what? They 

start responding that way. 

We have some very limited evidence, and we are going to try and 

find ways to get more, that says involving young people early, creVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:17 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-23\34631.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
69

ating that relationship early is critically important. We have also 

got some evidence that reinforces your point. 

In Ohio we did some research. We tracked all the kids in Ohio 

that go on to public higher education institutions. Sixty-one percent 

go on to year 2, about average around the country. The young people of—jobs-for-hire graduates with the intervention of the jobs specialist staying with them for the year is 82 percent. And these were 

the at-risk poor kids, which just references the point that that kind 

of intervention, involvement, engagement, caring, help them see 

where they are going, make the connections to work. It works. It 

doesn’t matter whether it is in college or high school. 

Mr. BISHOP OF NEW YORK. On the issue of involvement and engagement and caring, another thing from college persistence is that 

the single greatest factor correlating with student success and student persistence was the existence of a substantive out-of-class relationship with a member of the faculty. Moving that to the high 

school level—and actually, K through 12, one of the things that we 

are dealing with in No Child Left Behind is the so-called highly 

qualified teacher. There is some discussion now of changing that 

from highly qualified teacher to highly effective teacher. Certain 

groups are proposing that. 

How do you feel about that, all of you, the notion of moving towards a highly effective teacher, and perhaps linking the out-ofclass involvement and the substantive engagement of a member of 

the faculty, whether it be a 6th grade teacher or a 10th grade 

teacher, with their, in effect, making that an integral part of their 

performance evaluation. Anyone? 

Dr. ROBLEDO MONTECEL. Teachers are, of course, key. Teachers 

teach and engage kids, and kids stay in school. 

I think that the notion of teacher effectiveness is a good one. We 

want to know whether teachers are doing what our kids need. 

I would also urge that we not move away too quickly, though, 

from whether and how teachers are trained and whether and how 

they are qualified and certified, because it is such a huge problem 

in the schools in which dropping out is the biggest problem, and 

that is the number of teachers that just plain are not certified to 

do what they are doing, are teaching out of area and other things. 

So I would urge us not to move away from that. 

Mr. BISHOP OF NEW YORK. Fair enough. 

Dr. Norwood. 

Ms. NORWOOD. If you move toward the highly effective, I think 

you will be looking at a different kind of thing also. I think you 

have to have the highly qualified on one side and highly effective 

as a second part of it. 

The other thing is you have to look at what you are putting on 

teachers’ plates. Teachers have so much on them right now. As 

Governor Wise mentioned a minute ago, 150 kids a year—I mean, 

a day, even just getting those names down gets to be difficult. 

And so I think this is a way to move, but we have also got to 

change the culture of what a teacher is expected to do within a day 

in order to do this. 

Mr. BISHOP OF NEW YORK. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. KILDEE. The gentleman from New Jersey Mr. Payne. 

70

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Good to see you again, Governor. Pleasure serving with you. 

Let me ask a question as it was indicated that schools are extremely segregated. I think in my State, they are more segregated 

now than they were before Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. 

And so because African American, the schools are that way, there 

seems to be some type of disproportionate harsh and frequent discipline on African American students; you know, no tolerance or 

whatever. Do you think that some of that may have something to 

do with the high dropout rate with African Americans and Latinos, 

I think, to a lesser degree? 

Dr. ROBLEDO MONTECEL. Segregation? 

Mr. PAYNE. In many of the schools they have harsher discipline 

in schools that are predominantly——

Dr. ROBLEDO MONTECEL. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. We have 

been looking at this issue of discipline of students, and, of course, 

male students get the brunt of what goes on by discipline, but we 

have found in State after State an overrepresentation of disciplinary action against young Latino and young African American 

males. And we are talking about, you know, treating students as 

valuable and important young people and recognizing the contribution that they can make. That hardly happens when, by virtue of 

color, you are seen to be a threat to the school and to society. 

And so I do believe that that is an important issue to look at and 

would recommend that that be one of the indicators, that at the 

local level, as schools are looking at dropout rates and what is related to that in terms of the school’s performance, that that serve 

as an indicator to the list that Governor Wise and others have spoken about this afternoon, sir. 

Mr. PAYNE. Yes. 

Ms. NORWOOD. I agree that we are seeing much more segregation 

today than when I started in this business. It is getting to be quite, 

quite a factor. Some people are calling it trying to have neighborhood schools, but I am not going to get into that. 

If you look at the suspension and expulsion reports, you will see 

that they are overwhelmingly kids of color and overwhelmingly 

males. I think one of the problems—and I don’t have the answer 

for this—is we need to recruit more minority teachers, minority 

teachers who understand these kids a lot more than people who 

look like me, to be terribly honest. And so this is a problem. And 

so we are going to have to attack it from several fronts, but kids 

who are—suspended kids who are expelled are more likely going to 

be dropouts than other kids. 

Mr. WISE. Could I also chime in as the importance of recruiting 

more minority teachers is to provide the incentives or whatever it 

takes to get them into the schools where they are needed the most 

and where we get our highest-performing teachers into our lowestperforming schools instead of the process which works right now, 

which is we don’t get that. 

So it is individualization, it is spending more time, structuring 

your school day so that that teacher is able to spend time with a 

number of students that he or she is allotted, such as Mr. Smith 

talked about earlier; having a personal graduation plan so they 

71

know they are valued; and also having teachers that are culturally 

sensitive to their concerns. 

Mr. PAYNE. Yes, Mr. Trump. 

Mr. TRUMP. I would say from a tangential perspective as a school 

security system, we have a significant turnover with school administrators now, people retiring. We are getting more new deans, assistant principals and principals who are administering that discipline you are talking about. It is critical we do adequate preparation on training them, on mentoring the new administrators who 

are coming in so they understand the principle of firm, fair, consistent discipline, fair discipline, and creating a safe and secure climate. 

Mr. PAYNE. You know, I taught for about 10 years myself years 

ago at a predominantly African American high school and middle 

school, coached and all that, and we did have a large number at 

that time of African American men at the school, and the discipline 

was not a problem at all. However, there have been changes, too, 

in society not just—Mr. Chairman, if you give me a half second 

more, I am color blind. Thank you. 

Just quickly on the manner in which when I was teaching, long 

back when—while it wasn’t Abraham Lincoln’s day, but it was a 

while ago, you could really do more things. The society was different. You didn’t have as many potential problems, it seemed, unless they were just kept under the carpet. But there were things 

we could do, you know, trips, sports after school, you know. We always played the students in athletics—and we had some pretty 

good athletes who were the teachers, and we would always beat the 

kids—not up, but in the games. 

The problem of today where you—because of so many stories you 

hear about children being abused, parents don’t let their kids go 

out to play anymore. This whole question of suits, do you think 

that, too, is a constraint on teachers today? 

Dr. ROBLEDO MONTECEL. I think the relationship between the 

school and what is happening in the community is, of course, very, 

very crucial. And the constraints on schools, the constraints on 

communities, the need for engaging communities with schools is 

huge. 

I think that all efforts that can find new ways to bridge the 

school and the community and the school and parents—we know 

that a very, very effective dropout prevention measure is, in fact, 

good parent involvement so that teachers know what is going on 

in the home, parents know what is going on in the school. And, yes, 

I think that that might speak to some of those things, Congressman. 

Mr. KILDEE. Gentleman from Virginia Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the advantages in 

coming this late is a lot of the questions have already been dealt 

with. For example, we don’t have to debate whether we are going 

to have disaggregated data on dropouts because I think that has 

been pretty well solved. And one of the questions—one of the first 

questions we had in dropouts is to make sure we count the dropouts, because people were given all kinds of different numbers. 

And, Governor, you have indicated that the Governors have come 

72

up with a methodology that you believe will count—accurately 

count or as accurately as you can—count the dropouts? 

Mr. WISE. Yes, sir. It is a good start, and what they did in 2005 

was reach a compact all 50 Governors agreed to. Basically it works 

on the 4-year model, cohort model, 9th graders starting, and you 

look at seniors finishing. 

Mr. SCOTT. If people move into the district, what happens? 

Mr. WISE. In their methodology they also account for that. But 

I want to stress that it is very useful to a point, but the—because 

what it does is it provides a common methodology; however, it does 

not have accountability, and it does not have disaggregation. That 

is what we hope you will do. 

Mr. SCOTT. When we passed No Child Left Behind, in the beginning I was active in making sure there was a provision in there 

that punished you for having a high dropout rate. You know, you 

want to achieve AYP, so you will do that which helps you get there. 

And the formula essentially gives you an incentive to have a high 

dropout rate because the more people drop out, presumably your 

scores go up; if you try to keep people in, your scores are lower, 

and therefore you have a disincentive to have a low dropout rate. 

The formula ought to be such that if you have a low dropout rate, 

you are—your chance of achieving adequate yearly progress is enhanced. So we need to try to get the formula straight so that the 

incentives are there to try to make sure that you have a reason to 

have a low dropout rate. So that is one of the things that we said 

from the beginning. 

Now, Governor, you indicated that there is no question the dropout—we know that some dropout prevention programs work. They 

are effective. Is that right? 

Mr. WISE. Yes, sir. I will be glad to supply——

Mr. SCOTT. Is it a virtual certainty that a good dropout prevention program will also reduce juvenile delinquency, drug use and 

teen pregnancy? 

Mr. WISE. Yes, sir, and our organization has done some analysis 

of this. Sixty-five percent of all State prison inmates are high 

school dropouts. We also have calculated that you could save I 

think it is $17 billion a year in Medicaid costs and other healthrelated costs by cutting the dropout rate sharply. So there are clear 

indicators in both cases, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, you have also indicated that 15 percent of the 

schools have 50 percent of the dropouts. Now, if you were distributing—if you had a Federal formula that was distributing snow removal money, you wouldn’t expect Boston and Miami to get the 

same amount? 

Mr. WISE. No, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Would it make sense to target the money to where 

the clearly identified problem is? 

Mr. WISE. Well, we would suggest and what—the bill that was 

introduced in the Senate today, the Graduation Promise Act, would 

target the money based upon graduation rates and poverty rates, 

and so this would—and then it would go to the State and then to 

the local school districts. So this would get it to those areas that 

need it the most, where it is snowing the heaviest. 

73

Mr. SCOTT. If we know what works, we ought to know what those 

programs cost. We have heard descriptions of the problem is in the 

hundreds of billions, maybe trillions over a few years, and the 

budget is in the handful of millions, the President’s budget cut that 

little bit out. Could you give us an idea of how much money we 

ought to be spending to solve this problem? 

Mr. WISE. We propose in the legislation that has been introduced today a $21⁄2 billion targeted fund. Will that be sufficient to take 

care of——

Mr. SCOTT. Did you say billion? 

Mr. WISE. Billion, yes, sir. Would that be sufficient to handle every school? No. But as far as an authorization, $21⁄2 billion a 

year gets it started. And I might add it still does not take from 

Title I. This would be a separate fund so we would not be taking 

dollars from other important areas covered by Title I. 

Mr. SCOTT. And at the present level of funding in the 4 million, 

with—a million with an M—is clearly insufficient. 

Mr. WISE. It is insufficient, and while the President—we do applaud the President for recognizing the problem and creating a 

High School Improvement Fund in Title I; however, he takes a lot 

of that money from Perkins and other programs. This would be 

new money that would be necessary. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. KILDEE. The gentleman from Texas Mr. Hinojosa. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the panelists for bringing such good information 

to our committee. 

And I would like to direct my first question to Dr. Robledo 

Montecel. Would you please describe for us some of the effective 

practices that have helped students navigate the transition points 

from elementary to middle school and from middle school to high 

school, and how can we scale up these effective practices that you 

recommend? 

Dr. ROBLEDO MONTECEL. Yes. There are three keys. One is to 

make sure that what you are doing is valuing kids instead of trying 

to fix them, Congressman. 

One important, effective practice around that is to make sure 

that children who are at risk or at risk circumstances have the best 

teachers—the Governor spoke to that before—find ways in which 

that can happen; make sure that reading is focused on not only at 

the elementary level, but at the secondary we continue to assure 

that young people can read, that young people can write, that 

young people can engage with science and mathematics, and those 

would be important pieces. 

The other one would be to assure that children have the support 

that they need that will help them to stay in school. That might 

range from making sure that their health is well, making sure that 

they have those things that all of the rest of us take for granted, 

and for the schools to work with the community to assure that students are supported. 

And then thirdly and importantly, sir, the bringing of parents to 

schools not just for bake sales or for telling them that their child 

messed up. We talk to parents all the time who are very happy 

when the school doesn’t call because it means their child hasn’t gotVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:17 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-23\34631.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
74

ten into trouble. That is very—that is an indictment, I think, of 

how things are at the moment. 

So to bring parents in, to work in partnership with the school, 

but also, in relationship to graduation for all, to have the community and the parents in the community look at how their school is 

doing, and get indicators of how the school is doing, and have parents have easily accessible information. 

We have been working with a community in El Paso and a community in the Rio Grande Valley that is doing marvelously, making 

sure that parents have the information that they need to support 

the school in keeping all kids in school. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. I agree with you on all of the keys that you described, particularly that of reading both at the elementary school 

as well as at the high school, because certainly a lot of the students 

are not at reading at grade level when they get into high school. 

And I also like to approach the parental involvement because I 

am a very strong proponent of that. I obviously realized that sometimes the resources, the financial resources, are not there. Elaborate on your proposal to dedicate 5 percent of NCLB funding to 

dropout prevention. 

Dr. ROBLEDO MONTECEL. Well, I mentioned before, sir, that I 

think this is going to take more than tinkering at the edges, and 

therefore funding will be crucial. 

The Governor was speaking about the new money that needs to 

be invested. I think as well it would be very important to look at 

how each of the existing titles of No Child Left Behind can focus 

on graduation for all so that in terms of Title I, for example—and 

most of the money, as you know, goes to elementary education—

if there were created a 5 percent stream not to replace, but in addition to the new moneys, that would focus on graduation for all, 

then this would help to really shift the paradigm of, oh, well, 30 

percent of our kids are going to drop out, and, oh, well, one out of 

two Latinos will do the same. 

Taking also, for example, in terms of Title III English language 

learners, we know the dropout rate among 16- to 19-year-olds of 

English language learners is 69 percent. It would be hugely important both in terms of the new money as well as within Title III to 

encourage those efforts that look at how to assure that English language learners not only learn English, but also learn the content 

that is being taught, have access to the curriculum and graduate 

from high school. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Governor Wise, you and Dr. Robledo have mentioned and certainly emphasized the point that the No Child Left 

Behind emphasizes K-6 and not enough emphasis in the secondary 

schools, and both of you seem to have a really good grasp of the 

fact that No Child Left Behind has been underfunded each of the 

last 6 or 7 years. 

So would you please tell me your thinking about funding for 

grades 7 to 12, which is, according to your material, close to $5 billion. Tell us what would be the right amount. 

Mr. WISE. The right amount—well, what we believe would start 

the process of intervention particularly with a lot of the areas that 

Dr. Montecel was referring to would be a strategic fund of $21⁄2 billion a year targeted to high schools and possibly as well to middle 

75

schools that are the lowest performing, and to use the researchbacked models that are proven to work. 

Quite frankly, Congressman, I am not advocating to this committee that we simply put more money into already dysfunctional 

systems, but that we look towards a systematic restructuring so we 

get the rewards we want, the outcomes. And we are singing, I 

think, chapter and verse, because obviously reading is such an incredible part of this, that whether or not you are able to enact this 

reform, which we hope you would, you would also consider a Striving Readers Initiative that would target monies to many of these 

school districts that have such high—or have such low, I should 

say—reading rates, according to NATE, 70 percent or less—or more 

reading below grade level, plus the fact that one out of five of our 

students is an ELL student. Clearly we need a reading initiative 

that accompanies this. 

But in terms of dollars I would say we can start in a serious way 

for somewhere around $3 billion a year. And interestingly enough, 

if we did that, that would only bring to about $8 billion for grades 

6 to 12 versus the 33 billion. 

The reality is there isn’t enough at any level. And if I could add 

just real quickly, to provide justification in the economic sense, 

once we move past the obviously moral case is the recent Columbia 

Teachers College study out that looks at some of these initiatives 

we talked about today and shows if we can simply cut the dropout 

rate in half, we would bring $45 billion more in the Federal Treasury either through increased tax revenues, because people are 

earning more, or through reduced social costs. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you, Governor. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Hinojosa. 

This has been an outstanding hearing. All of you obviously have 

great knowledge, and you have great care for young people, and 

that is very important. Some have knowledge and don’t have the 

care. You obviously—you really motivated us up here. 

You know, this meeting started at 3 o’clock Monday afternoon. 

Governor, you know how hard it is to get people back here at 3 

o’clock on Monday afternoon. Twenty-two Members showed up for 

this. I think that is a record. Twenty-two Members showed up for 

this hearing because we knew that this is very important. We knew 

we were going to have people here who really had that knowledge 

and that care for people. And you have done an outstanding job, 

and you can leave here today feeling that you have influenced us 

who have a moral obligation to do more for children. You have informed us, and you have motivated us, and I personally appreciate 

that. I know all the Members on both sides deeply appreciate that. 

This has been outstanding. 

And I will, without objection, say that Members will have 14 

days to submit additional materials for the record, and any Member wishes to submit follow-up questions in writing to the witnesses should coordinate with the Majority staff within the requisite time. 

[The information follows:] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Altmire follows:]

76

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jason Altmire, a Representative in Congress 

From the State of Pennsylvania 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on enhancing school safety 

and reducing the number of students who drop out of high school. 

I would like to extend a warm welcome to all of the witnesses. I appreciate the 

time you took to be here today and look forward to your testimony. 

The rate at which high school students in this country are dropping out of school 

is a crisis. Nationally, only 70% of students whom enter high school graduate with 

a regular high school diploma four years later. These numbers are even more disturbing for minority students, with only 55% of Black students and 52% of Hispanic 

students graduating with regular high school diplomas in four years. 

The impact of these students dropping out of high school has severe consequences 

both for the students who drop out and for our nation as a whole. Students who 

do not earn a high school diploma on average make significantly less money than 

their peers who graduate and have a much greater chance of being incarcerated. 

As several of the witnesses pointed out in their written testimony, NCLB was 

structured and implemented in a way that has not been effective in preventing students from dropping out. Part of the issue is that less than a third of federal money 

that goes to primary and secondary schools goes to students in grades 7–12. Another 

part of the problem is that school interventions have not been adapted for high 

schools and graduation rates have not been disaggregated or accurately measured 

on a school by school basis. 

Today, I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses about how NCLB can 

best be modified to best deal with the growing high school drop out crisis. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and shedding light on 

this important issue. I yield back the balance of my time. 

[Questions for the record submitted by Mrs. McCarthy to Mr. 

Trump follow:]

77


qf-1.eps
78


qf-2.eps
79


qf-3.eps
80


qf-4.eps
81

[Responses to Mrs. McCarthy’s questions from Mr. Trump follow:]

Responses to Questions for the Record From Mr. Trump 

NO. 1 BACKGROUND

Mr. Trump, in 1990, Congress enacted the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act. The ‘‘Clery Act’’ is named in memory 

of 19 year old Lehigh University freshman Jeanne Ann Clery who was assaulted 

and murdered while asleep in her residence hall room on April 5, 1986. Jeanne’s 

parents, Connie and Howard, worked to enact the law after they discovered that 

students hadn’t been told about 38 violent crimes on the Lehigh campus in the three 

years preceding her murder. With the passage of the Clery Act, higher education 

institutions across the country were required for the first time to release campus 


qf-5.eps
82

crime statistics to their current and prospective students and employees. Under the 

Clery Act, colleges and universities are required to provide an annual security report to students and prospective students on security policies and crime statistics. 

The report must include data collected by campus security and local law enforcement. Additionally, under Clery the Education Department makes summary crime 

statistics available on its website. As you note in your testimony, there is no similar 

crime data system in K-12, rather, K-12 uses inferior, unreliable data in program 

administration.

QUESTION: How would a more Clery-like crime tracking system be useful for 

K-12? Do you think parents of K-12 students would like to have access to crime 

data? How would K-12 crime data be helpful to policymakers?

RESPONSE: A Clery-like crime tracking system for K-12 schools is sorely needed. 

Currently, the majority of data published by the U.S. Department of Education is 

based upon a collection of a half-dozen or so academic research-type studies, selfreport surveys, etc., not actual incident-based data. Congressional leaders must take 

a ‘‘best-guestimate’’ approach in making policy and funding decisions, since the data 

provided to them by the Department of Education is primarily survey data. 

Contrast the Education Department’s survey data for K-12 schools with the type 

of data required by the Clery Act, and the difference is one of night and day. And 

when making policy and funding decisions on Department of Justice issues, Congress has not only victimization and other surveys, but most importantly has Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and associated data compiled based upon actual criminal 

incidents reported to law enforcement. Yet when it comes to the safety of our children in K-12 schools, there is a lower standard than what we have for colleges and 

universities, and the broader society in general: Mostly surveys. 

Unfortunately, parents do not know what they do not know—and no one is rushing to tell them what they do not know. K-12 schools have historically operated in 

a culture of ‘‘downplay, deny, deflect, and defend,’’ where protecting school image 

often takes precedent over honestly, accurately, and openly informing parents about 

the extent of crime, violence, and discipline problems in their childrens’ schools. 

Schools have also enjoyed a history of ‘‘inherent trust’’ given to them by parents, 

a trust where the silent majority of parents send their kids to school each assuming 

that schools are safer, less disruptive, more crime-and-violence free, and better prepared for emergencies than may actually be the case. 

Sadly, few organizations are advocating for improved school crime reporting. The 

education organizations seem to prefer surveys over hard incident-based data, presumably because they perceive that many of their members, while perhaps more 

open today than in decades past, are still caught up in the ‘‘downplay, deny, deflect, 

and defend’’ culture previously referenced. Parent organizations, like the education 

organizations and others in our society, have been fed the questionable U.S. Department of Education data and ‘‘schools are the safest place in the community’’ mantra 

that has been the sound byte since the 1999 Columbine tragedy, that their knowledge of the questionable data is limited, and thus is their advocacy for improvement 

of the data. 

We have a saying that we use regularly when training educators and others on 

school safety: We can’t change the climate if we don’t change the conversation. It 

is far past time for changing the conversation from one based upon academic research studies and surveys, to one based upon actual incident-based data. 

NO. 2 BACKGROUND

Mr. Trump, you attended the White House Conference on School Safety in October 2006, which came in the wake of a rash of tragic school shootings last fall. Although we do not have any national data from law enforcement on weapons in 

schools, according to the Indicators report, which as we know is based on survey 

and not actual crime data, in 2005 students surveyed throughout the nation reported that between 4 to 11 percent of those surveyed carried a weapon to school, 

including guns, knives and clubs. The Indicators report also found that there was 

no measurable change in the percentage of students who carried a weapon at school 

between 1999 and 2005.

QUESTION: Did the President’s Conference address the issue of reducing the 

amount of weapons in schools? Were they are new policies and funding announcements resulting from this Conference?

RESPONSE: As I recall, one young man asked the Attorney General’s panel about 

the issue of firearms in schools. Panelist responses to this question, and in the earlier panel member presentations, included discussions of enforcement of existing 

83

firearms laws in and around schools, changes needed in the broader society, and the 

need to provide climates where students feel comfortable in reporting weapons on 

campus. 

The White House Conference on School Safety focused upon reviewing and discussing ‘‘best practices.’’ There were no new policy or funding announcements during 

this conference, or to my knowledge, none after the conference as well. In a number 

of conversations with attendees and others during and after the conference, many 

individuals, including myself, were hoping to see announcements of restoration and 

expansion of recent funding cuts to school safety programs such as the Safe and 

Drug Free School Program state grants, the Emergency Response and Crisis Management (ERCM, now Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools—REMS—

grants), COPS in Schools program in the Justice Department, and other federal 

school safety resources. Unfortunately, this did not occur. 

NO. 3 BACKGROUND

Mr. Trump, as you know the Gun Free Schools Act requires States to report firearm incidents, including school names, to the Secretary annually. ED however, is 

not collecting data on the names of schools, citing the Paperwork Reduction Act. As 

Chairman Miller told one of the Reading First witnesses last week during the hearing, you don’t get to ignore the law. I agree, and so in March I wrote a letter to 

the Secretary asking her to explain what appears to be non-compliance with NCLB.

QUESTION: Do you know what the ED does with the GFSA data the States send 

them? Do parents have access to this information? Do you think parents would like 

to have access to information about firearms in their child’s school?

RESPONSE: As a parent, I would certainly want to have access to information 

about firearms in my children’s school. And I would easy access, not something I 

would have to do a FOIA or other public records request to receive, or dig through 

a million web pages to find it buried deep on a government web site, if it is there 

at all. This is yet another example of the, ‘‘Parents don’t know what they don’t 

know,’’ situation I have repeatedly referenced in connection with this hearing. 

I would be interested in hearing why the Education Department apparently arbitrarily decided to exclude the names of schools in the annual federal report. While 

I have no firsthand knowledge of what they were really thinking in doing so, based 

upon my experience of nearly 25 years in working in school safety, my gut feeling 

tells me that the real underlying reason may have to do with the historical culture 

in the education community of protecting schools’ images by downplaying incidents 

of crime and violence. 

I do believe, however, that the individual(s) who made the decision to dismiss the 

intent of Congress in the GFSA to include the names of schools should be called 

upon to formally explain himself/herself in this decision, and asked some pointed 

questions. 

NO. 4 BACKGROUND

Mr. Trump, I have heard from concerned parents all over the country who have 

children who were the victims of crimes. In one case, a mother named Bonnie Levine from California contacted our office to tell us that her son, had been violently 

assaulted in school. Even though her son had been assaulted by another student at 

the school on school grounds, the school refused, upon Ms. Levine’s request, provide 

her son with the option to transfer to another public school in the district. In fact, 

the school never even told the family that they had the right to transfer under the 

law, Ms. Levine discovered this through her own research.

QUESTION: Do you think it is important for parents to be given notice of the 

transfer option?

RESPONSE: Almost every week I hear from parents across the country who are 

frustrated with issues of discipline, crime, and/or violence n their children’s schools. 

One of the most common frustrations voiced by parents is that they feel school officials are downplaying and even covering up these offenses. While the majority of 

school administrators are good people doing a tough job, parents and our broader 

society fail to see just political an issue school safety really is, and how these administrators are often pressured by their school boards and central office administrations to downplay discipline and crime issues. 

Parents like Ms. Levine and the many others I receive emails and contact from 

almost weekly need to know the truth. Contrary to what far too many school officials still believe, parents hear from students, school employees, and others that 

there are problems with discipline and crime in their schools. They just don’t know 

84

the true extent of it. Ironically, the negative image many school officials fear they 

will receive by admitting and tackling school crime and discipline problems headon is actually created by their downplaying and denying of crime, and in turn creating a fear of the unknown within parents. 

Parents also should be notified of their right to transfer their children under the 

law. If my child is trapped in an unsafe situation I, as a parent, should easily be 

made aware of my options to remove my child from an unsafe situation. How we 

define ‘‘unsafe’’ is a tough issue, i.e., the quandary we face with ‘‘persistently dangerous schools,’’ but if the law is such that a transfer option exists, parents should 

not be kept in the dark about their options to transfer, in my opinion. 

NO. 5 BACKGROUND

Mr. Trump, in your testimony you raise concern about schools and school buses 

as potential terrorist targets. In fact, less than one month ago the FBI and Department of Homeland Security issued an advisory to local law enforcement about foreign nationals with extremist associations who have obtained licenses to drive buses 

and who have purchased school buses. The terrorist siege of a school and subsequent murder of hundreds of children in Beslan, Russia, in 2004 is still fresh in our 

minds.

QUESTION: From your professional perspective, what would be the potential impact of a terrorist threat or attack against our schools? What needs to be done to 

better prepare our nation’s schools against a potential terrorist-related attack?

RESPONSE: Most elected and administrative officials, from inside the Beltway 

down to our local schoolhouses, are terrified (in my opinion) of openly discussing the 

potential for schools and school buses to be targets of terrorism. Simply put, they 

are afraid of creating fear and panic among parents, so this whole issue has been 

swept under the rug and out of public discourse. 

As a nation, we acknowledge the terrorist threat against our airports. We acknowledge the potential terror threat against our government office buildings. We 

acknowledge the potential for a terrorist threat against monuments, bridges, military facilities, financial institutions, retail malls, and about every other place—except our K-12 schools. When it comes time to discuss schools, ‘‘downplay, deny, deflect, and defend’’ seems to become the mantra over our homeland security philosophy for elsewhere in society of openly discussing the threat and better preparing. 

Fear is reduced by education, communication, and preparation—not Ostrich syndrome or government spin to downplay the problem. 

And no only are we not candidly having this conversation within our governments, with our parents, and within the education community to the extent which 

we should be doing, but our resources for better preparing for this potential threat 

have actually been cut. As noted in my April 23, 2007, hearing testimony, the funding for the Education Department’s Emergency Response and Crisis Management 

(ERCM), now Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools (REMS) grant, 

has been cut almost 40% since 2003, from a pithy $39 million in 2003 to $24 million 

in 2006 and a quoted $24 million again now in 2007. 

A terrorist attack upon our nation’s schools would have an emotionally and financially crippling impact on this country. If the ‘‘business’’ of education is shut down 

like the business of the airlines was shut down for weeks after 9/11, our economy 

would suffer a severe blow, not to mention the shockwave impact elsewhere in other 

businesses from parents who have to stay home from their jobs to take care of their 

children who they would not be sending to school. And of course, emotionally parents would be shocked and paralyzed by a terrorist attack upon their children’s 

schools. 

In short, we need to have our nation’s leaders acknowledge the threat of terrorism 

that could potentially face our schools and school buses. It needs to be openly discussed in a balanced, calm, rational, and contextual manner. And the federal resources for preventing and preparing our schools for such emergencies certainly 

need to be restored and expanded, not cut as has been repeatedly done in recent 

years. 

NO. 6 BACKGROUND

Mr. Trump, you note in your testimony, and have even included an exhibit with 

a chart from an Education Department official’s presentation, that the Department’s 

Emergency Response and Crisis Management (ERCM) program (renamed this year 

as the Readiness and Emergency Management (REMS) for Schools program) funding has been cut almost 40% from 2003 to 2006. We also know that when NCLB 

passed in 2001, it authorized $650 million for FY2002 for the state grants, but that 

85

since then actual appropriations have been much less and that the President proposed zeroing out the state grants in his FY2007 budget. Your testimony raises the 

need for better prevention and preparedness for school shootings and other violence. 

You also stress the need to have more focused attention and preparedness for potential acts of terrorism against our schools and school buses, an area you believe has 

been given inadequate attention.

QUESTION: How do the dramatic funding cuts for the ERCM and, Safe and 

Drug Free School program, impact local school violence preparedness and preparedness for emergencies? How are these grant programs used by schools and what is 

their value to school administrators?

RESPONSE: It makes no sense to me, my fellow school safety professionals, our 

educators, our public safety officials, and anyone else I talk with across the country 

that at a time when our federal government has put additional resources into protecting airports, bridges, monuments, and even the very hallways of government offices in which our Congressional hearings on this matter are held , that funding for 

protecting the hallways in which we send our kids and teachers each day has been 

repeatedly cut. 

It is critically important for the House Education and Labor Committee to understand that the state grant program of Safe and Drug Free Schools is a totally separate and distinct line item from the Emergency Response and Crisis Management 

(ERCM, now Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools, REMS grant) line 

item under the national programs of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. In 

other words, restoring funding for the state grant component of the Safe and Drug 

Free Schools overall program would not automatically restore the funding for the 

ERCM/REMS grant since ERCM/REMS is considered a national program line item 

program under the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. 

Regarding the state grant program component of the Safe and Drug Free Schools 

Program, while critics have said that the amount of dollars going to local school districts is too small to be effective, my experience of over 25-years in the school safety 

field shows just the opposite. Have there been cases of misuse and abuse? Absolutely. But should we throw out the baby with the bath water? Absolutely not! It is often said that the ‘‘average’’ school district will receive about $10,000 in 

state grant program funding from Safe and Drug Free Schools. Can this make a difference in local schools? While critics say ‘‘no,’’ they are just plain wrong. Many 

schools have stretched a little money a long way to support violence prevention curriculum, staff awareness and training to recognize early warning signs of violence 

and assess threats, simple security needs, and many other initiatives to make 

schools safer. 

Additionally, the proposal to redirect this state grant component money of the 

Safe and Drug Free School Program from local districts to state education agencies, 

as is reportedly being proposed for the FY08 budget, is illogical and counterproductive. The proposed $99 million, to be distributed among all states and DC, 

would likely see the pithy $2 million or less per state be siphoned off largely for 

state administrative costs, a costly conference or two (that the majority of school districts in the states would not even send representatives), and other minimally effective state programs. The vast majority of local schools would lose the already little, 

but important, amount of money they have been receiving to do important things 

on the frontlines in their local schools and communities. In short, this proposal, in 

my professional opinion, is ludicrous. 

The ERCM/REMS school emergency planning grants have been exceptionally 

helpful to schools. The model includes elements focused on prevention, mitigation, 

preparedness, and response. Schools must have activities in their proposals to address all of these components, but unlike many other federal and state grants, they 

can tailor the emphasis on one or more of these categories to meet the current needs 

and planning levels unique to their school districts. 

Some districts may be stronger in prevention and less organized and ready for 

preparedness and response. Others may be just the opposite. ERCM/REMS grants 

allows school officials to support their strengths while building upon their weaknesses with programming and resources in this one-stop grant. 

Recipients of this grant have also told me that their receipt of the grant has also 

served to help push school emergency planning higher on the agenda of upper level 

school administrators and boards who are so busy with meeting the educational 

standards resulting from No Child Left Behind that school safety and emergency 

planning has unintentionally been pushed to the back burner in their districts. The 

ERMC/REMS grant requires schools to have firm commitment and participation by 

the critical community organizations, ranging from public safety agencies (police, 

fire, emergency medical services, emergency management agencies, etc.) to commuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:17 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-23\34631.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
86

nity partners (mental health, public health, etc.), in their schools’ emergency planning process. The grant encourages, and actually gently forces, these relationships 

to be built prior to an actual crisis. 

The ERCM/REMS grant helps schools get dusty crisis plans off the school office 

shelves and updated, tested and exercised, and staff trained, on school emergency 

preparedness. The grant takes a comprehensive and balanced approach, yet is flexible to meet the needs and gaps unique to each local school district applicant. In my 

25-years of school experience, it is the most balanced and comprehensive school safety grant program I have ever encountered, and one in which I have seen school districts consistently do meaningful, practical, cost-effective, and useful things. 

As noted in my full written testimony, the number of applications for the ERCM 

grant were well over 550 the first year it was available (FY03). However, the Department of Education, for reasons that baffle many of us who have looked at this 

issue, started issuing the request for proposals for this program extremely close to 

the end of each school year, such as in the May through July period. School officials 

are overwhelmed with year-end testing, graduations, close of the school year, summer vacations, etc., and their public safety and community partners are often hard 

to locate due to late spring and summer vacations, so many have been unable to 

apply that I truly believe would pursue this grant program if proposals were opened 

at a more reasonable and school-friendly time of the year, such as between October 

and February, versus ED’s recent practice of May through July time period. 

I encourage the House Education and Labor Committee to actively and in united, 

bipartisan fashion: 

1. Restore cuts in funding in recent years to bring the state grant program of the 

Safe and Drug Free Schools Program back to its original level; 

2. Restore cuts in funding for the national program, under the Office of Safe and 

Drug Free Schools, now known as the Readiness and Emergency Management 

(REMS) grant, formerly Emergency Response and Crisis Management (ERCM), back 

to its original FY03 funding level of over $39 million, and expand funding for this 

project no less than five times that original amount, to better prepare our nation’s 

schools for preventing, preparing for, and responding to emergencies of all types 

(natural disasters to school shootings to terrorist attacks). 

and to make sure that funding for both of these separate and distinct programs 

are included in the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind in this Congressional 

session. 

NO. 7 BACKGROUND

Mr. Trump, your testimony addresses threats to safety coming from within our 

schools such as school shootings, weapons offenses, and other serious disciplinary 

offenses. You talk at length about schools and school buses as potential targets for 

terrorist, a threat from outside of the school. We also know that in the Fall of 2006, 

an adult, non-student stranger took hostages in a Colorado school, killing one young 

girl and himself, which was followed a few days later by an adult stranger who 

killed the children in an Amish school in rural Pennsylvania.

QUESTION: Should we place our emphasis for safe school policy and funding on 

the threats from within our schools or the threats from outside our schools? Has 

our funding and programmatic focus been balanced on both internal and external 

threats, and prevention and preparedness?

RESPONSE: Schools must take an ‘‘all hazards’’ approach to considering, and preparing for, threats to school safety. Threats to school safety come from both within 

and outside of the school, not ‘‘either—or’’. Potential threats may include weather 

and natural disasters, HAZMAT spills on roadways or railroads adjacent to schools, 

or utility failures. Potential threats of crime and violence range from non-custodial 

parent abductions at elementary schools to school shootings and even acts of domestic or foreign terrorism. Schools must be prepared for preventing and managing all 

of these threats, both internal and external. 

Historically, federal funding has tended to come in the form of grants that are 

narrowly focused on one or a few issues (gangs, suicide, drug prevention, mental 

health, etc.) rather than offering a one-stop, comprehensive grant that requires 

schools to address all components from prevention to preparedness and response, 

with an emphasis on those components where they need more help and less emphasis on those for which they are already fairly well prepared. The Emergency Response and Crisis Management (ERCM), now Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools (REMS) grant, is one of the few, if not the only, federal school safety grant that is so comprehensive and balanced within one grant itself; thus the reaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:17 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-23\34631.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
87

son I believe that Congress needs to fully restore and significantly expand funding 

for this program. 

NO. 8 BACKGROUND

Gangs are a growing concern in my district. Gang violence has also been identified as a concern in other communities throughout the nation. Your biographical information indicates that you created and supervised a Youth Gang Unit in the 

Cleveland City School District back in the 1990s which reduced school gang crimes 

and serious incidents over 39% in three years. It also indicates that you served as 

assistant director of a DOJ-funded anti-gang project, one of four model projects in 

the nation at that time, for three southwest Cleveland suburbs.

QUESTION: Mr. Trump, based on your experience in working with gangs and 

your current role as a school safety consultant nationwide, are you seeing any recent 

trends in gang activities around the nation? How does an increase in gang activity 

in our communities impact safety in our schools? What can we do to better prevent 

and respond to gang violence in our communities and schools?

RESPONSE: Gang violence tends to be cyclical; that is, we tend to see it rise and 

fall over time in a given decade, with variances community-to-community based 

upon the uniqueness of each community and history of gangs in that community. 

We are, however, unquestionably seeing an increase in gang activity in many communities across the nation in the past three years or so. Department of Justice efforts have acknowledged and responded to the rise in gangs in a number of acknowledgements in the past year or two, in particular. Media stories of gang influences 

and activities in communities and in schools across the nation have also been steadily increasing, in my observations, in the past couple years. 

The biggest obstacle for schools, and communities for that matter, is their tendency to deny gangs. There is a good deal of academic research, and whole lot of practical experience, in the gang prevention and enforcement field to support this observation. Schools, police, government agencies, social services, and communities themselves must acknowledge gangs early on when they surface in a community, or the 

official denial will help fuel the growth of gangs and gang violence. 

Gang violence in schools and elsewhere is different from non-gang violence in several ways: 

1. Gang violence typically involves a larger number of individuals; 

2. Gang-related violence tends to be more retaliatory and escalates much more 

quickly than non-gang violence; and 

3. Gang activity is usually more violent in nature and often involves a greater use 

of weapons. 

School and public safety officials must look at gang activity differently and not 

as one-on-one, isolated incidents. Otherwise, the problem can escalate so quickly 

that a school lunchroom fight between rival gang members will escalate into a potential drive-by shooting just hours later at school dismissal. 

School and community responses require a balanced approach of prevention, intervention, and enforcement strategies. Schools must work very closely with law enforcement to share information on gang activity since what happens in the community spills over into the schools and vice versa. Communication and coordination 

among schools, police, probation, parole, social services, mental health, courts, and 

community re-entry for ex-offenders is critical to make sure our ‘‘systems’’ communicate and function in as organized, or hopefully more organized, manner than the 

gangs themselves. 

Practical steps schools can take include: 

1. Communicate to staff, students, and parents that schools are neutral grounds 

and that gang, drug, and weapon activities will receive priority response 

2. Apply discipline in a timely, firm, fair, and consistent manner 

3. Institute student anti-gang education and prevention programs 

4. Establish a mechanism for student conflict mediation 

5. Train school personnel and parents in gang identification, intervention, and 

prevention techniques 

6. Obtain input from youth on violence-related concerns and prevention strategies 

7. Establish cooperative relationships and communication networks with parents, 

law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies, social services, and other community members. Set up mechanisms and structures to promote information-sharing and coordination among agencies addressing youth, gangs, and related public 

safety efforts. 

88

Gangs are a community problem, but schools are a part of that community and 

cannot operate in isolation while hoping that the gang members will drop their gang 

alliances and activities once they cross the schoolhouse door. 

Congress can help in providing resources from a law enforcement perspective, as 

is appropriate and necessary, and can be found in a number of Department of Justice programs. But the House Education and Labor Committee can also help by 

looking at school-based gang prevention, intervention, and enforcement program 

funding to help schools develop specific programs and strategies to prevent and 

manage gang activities on campus. Justice Department resources typically go to law 

enforcement and other public safety agencies, yet K-12 schools need gang-specific 

program funding to address prevention, security, and preparedness issues related to 

gang violence in our schools 

[The statement of the Delaware Statewide Academic Growth Assessment Pilot follows:]


door-1.eps
89


door-2.eps
90


door-3.eps
91

Mr. KILDEE. And again, thanks to you, and without objection, the 

hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

Æ


door-4.eps