Conference Call

November 20, 2006

Minutes

Members Present :
David Long
Kim Dude
Frederick E. Ellis
Mike Herrmann
Montean Jackson
Russell T. Jones
Sheppard Kellam
Susan Keys
Tommy Ledbetter
Seth Norman
Michael Pimentel
Deborah A. Price
Dennis Romero
Belinda E. Sims
Hope Taft
Howell Weschler

Also Present:
Catherine Davis, Designated Federal Officer
Donnie Leboeuf, Surrogate for J. Robert Flores

Minutes prepared by:
The Dixon Group
Frances McFarland Horne, Consultant
November 20, 2006

The conference call convened at 2:10 p.m.

Advisory committee discussion focused on a draft interim report concerning the Persistently Dangerous School (PDS) section of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) Act.

Summary

Sheppard Kellam noted that the draft report does not provide a context for these recommendations, and he expressed concern that separating out PDS as a concept was ill conceived. He added that what is needed is a better understanding that violent, bullying, and physically aggressive behavior is associated with low achievement and with risk factors for drug abuse and further bad behavior. He further commented that separating PDS out as a concept is not as useful as helping kids learn, reducing risk factors, tuning in to the early evidence of dangerous behavior, and practicing prevention. He noted that the USCO information system, which is separate from expensive, ongoing assessment systems, is failing, and he suggested that the concept of PDS be revisited.

Deborah Price and David Long suggested that an introductory statement be added regarding the concept of PDS and that conceptual statements be tied into each subset of recommendations. Frederick Ellis added that the recommendations for improving school safety focus on prevention and on partnerships with the community.

The committee agreed that contextual information should be added and that the report should emphasize that these recommendations should be set within a public health framework.

Tommy Ledbetter emphasized that these were preliminary recommendations and that all the necessary information was not yet available to the committee. He suggested that the committee wait until it has all information and then make final recommendations for the June 2007 report.

Belinda Sims pointed out that some recommendations were not clear in terms of who would implement them [i.e., local education agencies (LEAs,) Federal government, State government]. Deborah Price responded that the OSDFS would have to look over the recommendations and define the Federal role in each. She also noted that many recommendations will be implemented by all three levels, and she suggested that it would be better to remain vague about responsibilities at this point.

David Long suggested that the sections be numbered in future drafts of the interim report.

Designation of Unsafe Schools (6 recommendations)

Dennis Romero requested clarification on item 2, "Consider incidence of violence as the only factor." David Long responded that this item should reflect that incidence of violence should be considered as only one factor, not the only factor. Committee members agreed that parenthetical language should be added such that the recommendation says, "Consider incidence of violence as only one factor (not the only factor)…"

Susan Keys commented that item 1, which suggests changes in terminology, did not provide specific examples or discuss why the current terminology is not acceptable.

Deborah Price noted that although both the committee and the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS) have discussed terminology and agreed that the term "persistently dangerous" was stigmatizing, they had not been able to propose new terminology.

The committee agreed to add "because of the strongly negative connotation of ‘persistently dangerous' to this recommendation.

Improving School Safety (7 recommendations)

Deborah Price suggested that item 3, which suggests the creation of school-safety programs equivalent to the national program, should be revised to suggest the creation of school-safety programs "similar to" or "with characteristics similar to" the national program. Such a change would emphasize the positive. Committee members agreed with this change.

In response to a question from the committee, Deborah Price clarified that these recommendations were suggested in the context of unsafe schools and the issue of school choice, although this context could be broader in the final report.

Data Issues

The committee had no comments specific to this section.

Parental Notice of Safety Conditions of Schools (2 recommendations)

The committee had no comments specific to this section.

Transfer Option

Frederick Ellis remembered the committee's consensus that victims should not have to transfer schools, but he questioned the recommendation that students who victimize others should be transferred. He expressed concern that this recommendation appeared to be an unfunded mandate.

Susan Keys recalled that the committee had focused more on supporting transfer if a victim wanted it. She suggested that the recommendation should provide options and choices, rather than mandates. Deborah Price agreed with Susan Keys' suggestion, because transfer options might prove difficult for some school districts, for example districts where there is only one high school.

Hope Taft pointed out that in the State of Ohio , 11,000 students had been sent to the office for bullying. Sheppard Kellam stated that in schools with low achievement and prevalent drug use, 10% to 15% of the population was involved in some kind of violence. He added that the unsafe school option also referred to criminal offenses and that prevalence rates for arrests could be as much as 80% in the top 20% of students exhibiting bad behavior. Hope Taft added that in an Ohio school system, 100 students had been arrested for drug use or weapons.

The advisory committee agreed that this section should promote positive outcomes and provide options rather than requirements.

Sheppard Kellam noted that "who is transferred" should be struck from item 2.

Funding (2 recommendations)

Sheppard Kellam thought that item 2 was ill advised. He pointed out that recommendations should provide guidance for using money most effectively to accomplish goals. Item 2, however, appeared to suggest that money be given to the governor or LEA and that they be allowed to determine how the money should be used. He observed that expensive child assessments had been conducted in each state, and he suggested that these assessments be used to identify the LEAs with the greatest need, which would then determine where State grant-in-aid money is focused. He further pointed out that the wording of item 2, which calls for the State grants program to continue as currently administered, is problematic. Rather than provide agencies with inadequate funding and ask them to make the best of it, states should use the assessments of schools and students to assess and identify areas of greatest need and provide money to those areas, with the caveat that effective programs should be used to address that need. The Department of Education also should provide guidance about acceptable, effective programs.

Tommy Ledbetter recalled a California report showing that schools classified as persistently dangerous were not truly the ones that needed help. Instead, the schools that need the most help did not qualify because they had not been classified as persistently dangerous. He suggested that item 2 could give States some leeway to identify at-risk schools and perform interventions before those schools were classified as PDS.

Another committee member added that item 2 referred to having LEAs compete for State grants and allowing the States determine the best programs to fund.

Hope Taft reminded the committee that the State grants program ensured that States monitored and verified PDS. She added that the committee had no national data and that no one at the national level could say which LEAs needed more help.

Deborah Price added that State governments require that dollars going to LEAs are used on effective programs and that LEAs receive lists of available effective programs. However, these programs cost more than the LEAs receive from state grants.

Sheppard Kellam stated that from a public health point of view, there are too many information systems but not enough use of the ones that are needed. He reiterated earlier comments about USCO and suggested that the advisory committee either focus on USCO or make a general comment that the USCO information system is not working and that each state has an information system that focuses on needs, including "bad behavior needs."

The advisory committee agreed that paragraph 7, which encompasses item 2, should be deleted and that this issue would be considered further for the final report.

Next Steps

David Long reminded the committee that a conference call would be held on December 18, 2006, to discuss the data requirements section. This call would help the advisory committee prepare for the upcoming meeting in Washington , DC on January 16-17, 2006.

Several committee members noted conflicts with the January meeting. They agreed to quickly look for alternative meeting dates, but Deborah Price also noted that the meeting had to be posted in the Federal Register, which might hinder the ability to change the dates.

Deborah Price stated that advisory committee members could send representatives if they were unable to attend the meeting. She added, however, that substitutes would not be able to vote should voting items arise.

Sheppard Kellam emphasized that the committee should look closely and carefully at data requirements, because the public health and education fields historically have not worked together. David Long agreed that the data requirements section should ensure that these two fields align with each other.

Hope Taft requested more information about the kinds of panelists the OSDFS wanted to participate in the January meeting. Sheppard Kellam suggested that panelists represent health, health services, and education. David Long added that panelists for the data requirements section should include researchers and individuals who are implementing programs.

Deborah Price noted that the OSDFS had not yet determined what the panels should represent. She invited committee members to provide input about possible panel topics, as well as potential panelists. Suggestions can be discussed by email before the December 18 conference call, then explored further at the conference call.

David Long thanked everyone for their work and suggestions on the interim draft.

Other Business

Tommy Ledbetter reported that a school bus in Huntsville, Alabama had gone over an overpass and that several students had died and more students were critically injured. Information at that point was still somewhat sketchy. He provided Deborah Price with the name of superintendent of the affected school system.

Deborah Price responded that the Office would follow up.

The conference call adjourned at 3:15 p.m.