Conference Call

May 14, 2007

Minutes

The May 14, 2007 conference call began at 2 p.m.

In the absence of David Long, chairman, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Advisory Committee teleconference was chaired by the Designated Federal Official, Catherine Davis. Davis noted that all committee members should have received the latest revised version of the committee's report, with changes indicated by highlighting. Davis noted that Fred Ellis and Susan Keys [not present] had each informed her they had no further comments to make in the report. The committee proceeded through the draft report, section by section, with Davis inviting comments.

SDFSCA State Grants Program

Belinda Sims urged that on page four, middle paragraph, the phrase ‘safety efforts' be changed to ‘efforts,' generically. Sims then called attention to the sentence on page 5, first full paragraph: ‘One difficulty in determining the effectiveness of the State Grants Program is that there is no consensus at the federal level or from state to state about the definition of safety problems….' She asked if the difficulties following from weak definitions affected alcohol and drug abuse efforts as well as safety efforts. Tommy Ledbetter said his recollection was that this finding related only to safety efforts. Sims said the statement should be applied to the effectiveness of the overall program. Hope Taft agreed with Sims. Catherine Davis said the matter needed clarification. Taft said she recalled discussing the difficulty of collecting data due to the absence of shared definitions. Ledbetter said an underlying theme in much committee discussion was the lack of a definition of what constituted an ‘unsafe school.' Deborah Price said she had no objection to adding the words ‘drug abuse.'

Belinda Sims called attention, page 6, first paragraph, to the words: ‘The safety effort would be greatly aided by bringing together experts to determine best practices that can be communicated to LEAs.' She urged adding ‘alcohol and drug use' to ‘safety effort.' Catherine Davis agreed.

Belinda Sims asked if the committee wished, on page 7, first paragraph, to add the phrase ‘the committee recommends' to the following sentence, as indicated: ‘Some of the challenges related to overburdening schools might be alleviated by clarifying the meaning of terms like safety that the committee recommends should refer to personal and interpersonal safety…'. Deborah Price commented that she thought the addition was unnecessary; Sims said it was a question for the committee. Catherine Davis noted that all suggestions would be reported in an email to committee members.

Mike Herrmann said he believed a paragraph should be added on page 4 stating that the committee had heard testimony from a variety of programs on their ability to produce demonstrable outcomes. Second, he noted that the text referred to a chart, but he did not have one. Clarifying, Catherine Davis said the chart had been emailed to members shortly before the conference call. Herrmann noted that, on page 6, the matter of LEAs being overburdened was listed as an emerging issue that was not being addressed; he did not regard ‘overburdening' as an emerging issue, but as a structural one.

Howell Wechsler called attention to the statement, page 6, first paragraph, that information on best practices should be communicated to LEAs. He believed this did not go far enough, urging that follow-up be done to determine if schools were implementing such practices. Mike Herrmann called this an excellent point.

Howell Wechsler called attention, on page 8, second paragraph, to: ‘(1) giving the SEAs more of the grant money so they can provide technical assistance to LEAs and (2) giving a much larger portion of money to SEAs, so they can provide data collection assistance.' He said he did not recall a distinction having been made between technical assistance and data collection; both were important. Hope Taft asked, relative to page 8, first paragraph, whether data collection and technical assistance were the only things for which the governor's 20 percent of State Grants funds could be used; if so, she thought it represented a drastic change in policy. Deborah Price said that receipt of the 20 percent was contingent on action being taken on technical assistance and data collection, not that these were the only areas where such funds could be spent. Russell Jones asked if other funds could be spent on data collection; Price said they could.

Howell Wechsler called attention to the statement on page 8, second paragraph: ‘Under this second recommendation, the Department would create accountability with guidelines for SEAs to be held accountable to encourage partnerships between LEAs and communities and to provide funding based on needs and performance.' He asked if any committee members wished to comment on this; he felt the Department should create greater accountability.

Hope Taft called attention to the statement, bottom of page 8: ‘1) developing a competitive process that allows a more limited set of local associations to get larger grants from states, or (2) providing a smaller number of grants to schools selected based on high prevalence of specified issues related to substance use and safety…'. Taft asked what the difference was between 1) and 2). Deborah Price said the first was competitive; the second was need-based. Taft commented that the first option did away with the universal funding approach. She said the report included nineteen things that LEAs were urged to do; if the universal approach was eliminated, there would be nobody to do them. Both federal and state governments, she added, were looking to LEAs to create change; if an LEA received no money, it would not be able to do so.

Mike Herrmann called attention to page nine, top paragraph: ‘The Committee also recommends separating the Title IV application and reporting process from the consolidated application for federal funding.' He thought it important that both the LEA and SEA submit applications.

Hope Taft called attention to page nine, fourth paragraph: ‘ The Committee believes State Grants money should be used on basic needs such as the development of emergency or security plans.' She thought more examples should be given so as not to create the impression that ‘security plans' was the only need recognized.

Dottie LeBoeuf [standing in for committee member Robert Flores] called attention to page nine, final paragraph, ‘The Department could sponsor research into the current extent of partnering…'. She asked if this meant conducting research or compiling data. Russell Jones said research would be more useful. Deborah Price noted that as the words ‘could sponsor' included the possibility of research, this wording provided greater flexibility.

Unsafe School Choice Option and identification of Persistently Dangerous Schools

Donnie LeBoeuf called attention to page 11, first full paragraph: ‘Where possible, the school district ought to encourage counseling or other interventions for the perpetrator…' She believed this recommendation was too mild. Russell Jones said the suggestion had originally been his; now, however, he wished to make it stronger. While LEA actions could not be mandated, he believed the need for counseling should be stressed as strongly as possible. LeBoeuf suggested that if a student had been expelled, counseling could be made a condition for reinstatement. Mike Pimentel said this raised the question of who would pay for counseling. Tommy Ledbetter commented that if the government was going to require something, then the government should pay for it. Pimentel agreed. Deborah Price, commenting on use of the word ‘ought,' said that the committee could recommend, but could not direct. Pimentel suggested the committee urge that federal authorities attempt to identify funding streams that would support counseling. Jones and Ledbetter expressed agreement. LeBoeuf asked if the phrase ‘ought to encourage' should be replaced with ‘should be encouraged.' Price said she believed the current working was preferable.

Howell Wechsler called attention to the statement, top of page 12: ‘State criteria for determining what schools are “persistently dangerous” vary widely and many are nearly impossible to meet.' He believed the committee's point was not just that reporting standards varied, but that schools that ‘played by the rules' tended to get penalized. He thought this was a compelling criticism. Deborah Price said she did not wish the committee to engage in ‘finger pointing.' Wechsler said his point was that people who followed correct procedures tended to get punished. Russell Jones asked if the term ‘persistently dangerous school' was going to be replaced; Catherine Davis said this was in the report.

Requirements for Data under No Child Left Behind

Belinda Sims suggested, page 15, final paragraph, adding the phrase ‘on drug and alcohol use' to the sentence: ‘The Committee suggests the Department determine what data it is reasonable for states to collect.' Sims further called attention to, on page 18, second paragraph: ‘Given justifiable concerns with expense, it might be helpful to have a cost analysis of data gathering efforts.' She suggested adding ‘it might also be useful to sponsor research on how to implement tested strategies.'

Howell Wechsler noted that on page 17, third paragraph, the data to be collected was identified; he asked if LEAs might view this as burdensome. Perhaps, he added, the statement should be that school-based programs should work with community organizations on collating data. He believed the data was important, but doubted whether it was something most LEAs believed they could so. Russell Jones said he liked the emphasis on collaborative efforts.

Additional Issues:

Hope Taft noted that the Committee from Agudath Israel of America was the only source of comment that was specifically named in the report; she asked if this caused its comments to ‘stand out' more than those of others? Deborah Price said she thought not; she believed that comments made had generally been incorporated into the report; the committee was named, Price added, because it referred to a specific educational institution. Taft said that, in the interests of consistency, she thought it better not to be specific. Howell Wechsler said he thought it odd to identify only one individual organization by name in the report.

Russell Jones commented on page 18, final line: ‘Department could also identify best practices in dealing with trauma…' He suggested substituting the word ‘should.' Deborah Price agreed.

June meeting schedule

Deborah Price discussed planning for the schedule June 11, 2007 meeting at which the committee report is to be presented to Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. Price said that, likely, the Secretary would have only 30 minutes available: did the committee wish to make the presentation the occasion for a full committee meeting, or should the committee chairman singly present the report? She asked committee members to email their thoughts to Catherine Davis in the next 48 to 72 hours. Price noted that the meeting would be in Washington D.C. Russell Jones commented that given the amount of work that had gone into the report, he would like to be present.

Deborah Price stated that any additional comments on the report text or the chart should be delivered by email as soon as possible.

The teleconference ended Monday, May 14, at 3:05 p.m.

Appendix A:

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Advisory Committee

Members

David Long (Chairman)
Superintendent
Riverside County Public Schools

Kim Dude
Director of the Wellness Resource Center
University of Missouri - Columbia

Frederick E. Ellis
Director
Office of Safety and Security
Fairfax County Public Schools

Montean Jackson
Safe and Drug Free Schools Coordinator
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District

Russell T. Jones
Professor of Psychology
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
Department of Psychology

Sheppard Kellam
Director
Center for Integration Education
and Prevention Research in Schools
American Institutes for Research

Tommy Ledbetter
Principal
Buckhorn High School

Seth Norman
Judge of the Division IV Criminal Court
Davidson County Drug Court

Michael Pimentel
Chief
San Antonio Independent School District Police

Hope Taft
First Lady of the State of Ohio

Deborah A. Price
Assistant Deputy Secretary
Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools
U.S. Department of Education

J. Robert Flores
Administrator
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
US Department of Justice

Michael Herrmann
Executive Director
Office of School Health, Safety and Learning Support
Tennessee Department of Education

Ralph Hingson
Director
Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research Branch
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

Susan Keys
Chief
Prevention Initiatives and Priority Programs Branch
Division of Prevention, Traumatic Stress and Special Programs
Center for Mental Health Services
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Health and Human Service

Bertha Madras
Deputy Director, Demand Reduction
Executive Office of the President
Office of National Drug Control Policy

Dennis Romero
Acting Center Director
Center for Substance Abuse and Prevention
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Health and Human Service

Belinda E. Sims
Prevention Research Branch
Division of Epidemiology, Services and Prevention Research
National Institute on Drug Abuse
National Institute of Health

Howell Wechsler
Director of Division of Adolescent and School Health
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Certified by:

_______________________

David Long

Report prepared by:

Mark Bernstein

Dixon Group

May 16, 2007