Archived Information IMPROVING SAFETY AT HIGHEST-RISK SCHOOL SITES

1
Archived InformationIMPROVING SAFETY AT
HIGHEST-RISKSCHOOL SITES

• Meredith Rolfe
• California Department of Education
• Safe and Healthy Kids Program Office
• October 23, 2006

2
Persistently Dangerous School Identification
Californias Experience

• CDE assembled a PDS Advisory Committee in March
  2002
• 20 randomly selected large and small, rural and
  urban LEAs
• Also included legislative staff, Governors
  staff, Office of the Attorney General, and staff
  from several CDE offices

3
Advisory Committee Process

• The committee began with a clean slate all
  ideas considered
• Goal was to develop policy, to define
  persistently dangerous, and to identify
  implementation issues

4
Policy DecisionsOF PDS Committee

• The committee believed that the process
• Must improve safety at the highest-risk school
  sites not just ID them
• Must use objective data
• Should use existing data if possible
• The committee also decided that
• Persistent means repeated over time more than
  one year

5
California State Board of Education PDS Definition

• Uses existing expulsion data for the most serious
  offenses, plus non-student gun violations
• To be considered a PDS
• Must have high rates for three consecutive years
• Must have more than 1 of students expelled for
  these offenses

6
PDS Offenses

• Causing serious injury
• Robbery/extortion
• Assault/battery v. school employee
• Sexual assault or battery
• Firearm violation

• Selling a controlled substance
• Possessing explosive
• Non-student firearm violation
• Brandishing knife
• Hate violence

7
PDS Implementation Lessons Learned

• Hard data isnt hard
• Schools with high rates can be safe
• Schools with low rates can be dangerous
• Schools with low rates may have fear
• Identifying sites based on incident data alone is
  unfair

8
More Lessons Learned

• Some feel that it is not statistics, but the
  absence of a good safe school plan or program
  that indicates high risk
• The label Persistently Dangerous is so
  emotionally loaded that it defeats the programs
  purpose

9
Implications for the Future

• The goal of any future program should be to
  IMPROVE SAFETY at highest-risk sites
• Any program which simply identifies or labels
  schools as dangerous, without helping schools
  improve, will not improve safety, and
• Will not necessarily identify highest-risk sites

10
Improving Highest Risk School Sites

• Resources for improvement a must, or schools will
  avoid the label, rather than dealing with the
  problem
• All-day law enforcement presence, plus a
  long-term prevention program, costs about
  180,000 per site per year

11
Alternatives for IdentifyingSchool Sites

• There are many possible ways to identify sites,
  but no process will result in a positive outcome
  unless LEAs are convinced that the process will
  benefit them and their students.
• Any process must be initiated with a campaign to
  ensure the support of LEA administrators

12
Gaining the Support ofLEA Administrators

• State Superintendent should emphasize importance
  in public campaign
• Education of each LEA administrator on students
  perceptions in that LEA
• Workshops on the connection between perceptions
  of safety, other protective factors, and success
  in learning
• Once there is local support, there are a number
  of alternatives for implementing a program. Three
  possibilities follow.

13
Alternative Onefor Identifying Sites

• Require each LEA to nominate one site, or 2 of
  its sites, as the highest priority school safety
  site(s)
• Nominated sites with lowest student perception of
  safety at school would receive a grant to improve
  school safety
• Call the grant recipients high priority school
  safety sites

14
Alternative Two

• Use local hard data, plus local knowledge of
  the schools to interpret the data
• Identify 1 of sites using state data
• Have a grant application process
• Only sites identified as part of the 1 would be
  qualified to apply for the grant

15
Alternative Three

• Use an anonymous survey seeking student
  perceptions of safety
• Not subject to as much reporting bias as incident
  data
• Perceptions dont always reflect reality - use in
  combination with other information
• Should be a standard survey nationwide

16
Recommendations forReauthorization

• Reauthorization should mandate identification of
  high priority school safety sites, and provide
  funds.
• No identification of school sites should be
  required unless they are given funds or another
  positive incentive.
• Title IV funding must be retained, or their is no
  point in talking about improving school safety.