Conference Call
April 19, 2007
Minutes

Members Present:

David Long, Chairman
Kim Dude
Fred Ellis
Mike Herrmann
Montean Jackson
Russell Jones
Tommy Ledbetter
Mike Pimentel
Hope Taft
Deborah Price
Ralph Hingson
Susan Keys
Dennis Romero
Belinda Sims
Bertha Madras
Howell Wechsler

Also Present:

Catherine Davis, Designated Federal Officer
Bill Duncan, writer for the Committee
Donni LeBouef, representing J. Robert Flores

Report prepared by:
Mark Bernstein
Dixon Group
April 20, 2007

* * *

Conference Call: April 19, 2007
The call began at 2:00 p.m.

Opening comments:

David Long [chair] conveyed the thoughts and prayers of the committee to Russell Jones, professor of psychology at Virginia Polytechnic and State University , Blacksburg , Virginia , in the aftermath of the recent tragedy at that campus.

David Long expressed his thanks to Bill Duncan for work done on the draft final report of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools committee.

David Long asked Deborah Price, assistant deputy secretary, Department of Education, what outcome she desired of the day's conference call. Price said she hoped the committee would ‘walk through' the document to draw comments, make corrections and identify omissions. She noted that, had each individual member written a report, they would differ; the important thing, she thought, was that a consensus be reached that could be forwarded to Secretary Margaret Spellings.

David Long noted that the report covered three areas: the State Grants program; the unsafe school options, and data requirements. He urged beginning discussion with the second, as it seemed the most straightforward.

* * *

Unsafe School Choice Option and Identification of Persistently Dangerous Schools

Question #1:
Do the USCO provision, or provisions with a similar purpose (ensuring that no child is required to attend an unsafe school) adequately provide the authority, direction, and clarity for schools to be identified as persistently dangerous?

Susan Keys called attention [page 10] to the sentence: ‘In terms of specific students who are the victims of violence, the Committee believes the Department could provide guidelines and training for assisting students who victimize others and those who are victims to prevent further incidents.' She sought clarification as to whom such guidance should be provided – to school officials, administrators, teachers, etc.? Russell Jones suggested the answer was ‘all of the above.' David Long accepted the clarification.

Second, Susan Keys called attention [page 10] to the sentence: ‘If the victim doesn't want to transfer, the district may be required to move the perpetrator (in circumstances where that is appropriate).' She suggested the phrase “may be required” be altered to “should consider.” David Long said there had been earlier discussion on this; he noted that many school districts have policies stating circumstances in which the student would be expelled. Keys's suggestion, he added, would incorporate the language of those policies.

Montean Jackson suggested that in the first paragraph, above, the statement on the advisability of using multiple sources of information should be altered to include school staff as a source. This suggested was accepted.

Question #2:
Considering that there are over 100,000 schools in the United States and data reflects more than 150,000 serious violent crimes committed in schools annually, do [the reported] numbers accurately reflect the number of schools identified as persistently dangerous accurately reflect the safety of our nation's schools?

No comments were addressed to this section.

Question #3:
What changes to USCO would be necessary to address the underlying purpose of the USCO provisions?

Mike Herrmann said it was not clear to him which statements were being presented as findings and which as recommendations; he believed format should clarify this. He felt the committee had made a clear finding that USCO provision was not accomplishing its stated aim.

Question #4:
Is there adequate guidance that enables schools and school districts to know what is expected of them regarding USCO and Persistently Dangerous identification?

David Long asked if committee members had any actions to recommend that would improve the effectiveness or management of the provision. Mike Pimentel suggested that USCO be linked with the State Grants program and the data collection requirements; this had been discussed at various points, he said; this was a point at which it should be linked.

Tommy Ledbetter commented that the committee had agreed that the term ‘persistently dangerous' was a bad one; among other things, it was not consistently applied across state lines. He did not, however, recall agreement on using the phrase ‘Safe School Choice' as an alternative. If, he added, this was to be the suggested new term, he would seek further discussion. Deborah Price said she did not think it was an agreed term; rather, it was presented here as an example. David Long concurred; adding that he, too, believed a less stigmatizing name was needed.

* * *

The SDFSCA State Grants Program

Susan Keys suggested adding the word ‘often' to the sentence: ‘The Committee also notes that problems related to school safety are [often] related to problems with drug and alcohol use.' Hope Taft noted that the section discussed the school safety effort, but did not make reference to the alcohol, drug or public health effort, and should do so. Keys, Mike Herrmann, Russell Jones, Montean Jackson, Ralph Hingson and Belinda Sims agreed.

Question #1:
Is the SDFSCA State Grants Program working effectively to promote safe and drug-free schools across the country, specifically in rural, urban and suburban settings?

No comments.

Question #2:
What are the difficulties in determining the effectiveness of the program?

Mike Herrmann commented that no consensus existed at the federal or state-to-state level as to what the desired outcomes of the program were. Hope Taft expressed agreement. Ralph Hingson called attention to the phrase: ‘when a school is safe.' He believed that a school was embedded in a community; the issue was not simply whether school grounds were safe, but extended to include the surrounding community. Taft called attention to the formal name in the legislation; i.e., Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities. Deborah Price said community safety was beyond the scope of the legislation; the Department had no statutory role beyond school grounds. Montean Jackson noted that had frequently stressed the importance of collaboration with the community. Tommy Ledbetter said that he, as a school administration, might not seek funds from a program if acceptance of those funds gave him obligations to the community; he doubted those in education were trained for such a task.

Susan Keys said greater attention needed to be paid to outcome measures; without defining the issues, it was difficult to define a goal; with defining a goal, it was doubly difficult to determine effectiveness. She thought the phrase ‘drug-free' left unclear whether it was the schools or the students who should be drug free. She added that before goals could be defined, terms needed to be clarified: did ‘drug free' include students coming to school with drug residues in their body?

Dennis Romero said he believed people welcomed definitions; their absence created confusion. The goal of ‘safe and drug-free' was not going to be completely reached; at the same time, it was what was being aimed for. However the terms were defined, he urged that it be remembered that ‘safe' and ‘drug free' were interconnected. Hope Taft commented that the phrase ‘drug-free' was Congressional wording; she believed where definition was needed was in the data section: there, a number of words needed to be defined.

Montean Jackson said ‘drug-free' related both to schools and students; she noted that Title IV concerned both prevention and intervention. Ralph Hingson said he did not believe schools could successfully tackle the problem in isolation; if drug use was reduced in schools, but not in the surrounding communities, then ‘waves will keep washing up on to the shore.' Jackson noted the frequency of references to community partnerships. Dennis Romero expressed agreement with Jackson ; the effort needed to be collaborative. David Long suggested adding a phrase that efforts to reduce drug and alcohol use were not the sole province of local school districts or the Department, but needed a collaborative effort. Hope Taft and Ralph Hingson agreed.

Question #3:
Is the SDFSCA State Grants Program working effectively to promote safe and drug-free schools across the country, specifically in rural, urban and suburban settings?

Mike Herrmann suggested substituting the word ‘assess' for the word ‘identify' in the sentence: ‘The Committee believes that if LEAs cannot first identify where they are on safety and drug- and alcohol-use issues, they will be unlikely to figure out what is effective.'

Bertha Madras said that if there was no uniformity in the questions being posed, how was it possible to draw national conclusions? Deborah Price said states were requested to use common measures and were encouraged to use particular definitions: still, this remained a matter of state choice. Mike Herrmann said one of the data recommendations was that greater uniformity was needed.

Question #4:
Are there mechanisms that could be proposed that would help determine if programs being supported with SDFSCA State Grants Program funds are effective in meeting program purposes?

Hope Taft suggested that the phrase ‘ identify Keys indicators of safety' be extended to include reference to alcohol and drug use as indicators. Ralph Hingson agreed.

Question #5:
Are there emerging issues facing students and schools today that the SDFSCA State Grant Program does not address and should they be addressed in the SDFSCA State Grants Program?

Hope Taft noted that the program's charge had been considerably expanded since 9/11; should it be reduced? Mike Herrmann noted that, subsequent to the enactment of NCLB, issues of preparedness and security had risen to greater prominence. Noting this broader definition of safety since 9/11, Taft said it was unfair to ask the program to manage this broader charge with reduced funds. Belinda Sims suggested that discussion in the draft of the need to respond to other safety concerns might promote conflicts over resource allocation. Bertha Madras asked if there was a mechanism for doing a cost-benefit equation. What, she added, was the frequency of school emergencies unrelated to drug or alcohol use? A hierarchy, she said, could be created based on the data; the committee's report should some statistical basis to sustain its assertions.

Question #6:
The SDFSCA State Grants Program includes a focus on safety. Sec. 4114 (d)(7) states that recipients of the SDFSCA State Grants must have “a plan for keeping schools safe and drug-free” including, a “crisis management plan.” Considering the Nation's focus on emergency response and crisis planning is this language sufficient to address the concern for crisis management in our schools or are?

No comment.

Question #7:
Is the structure of the SDCFCA State Grants Program (awarding funds to the State Education Agency and the Governor), the most effective mechanism for the use of these funds?

Mike Herrmann said the fundamental question was whether funding should be universal to local school districts or whether some competitive or needs-based approach should be used. He suggested creating a table in the report that would present the alternatives, with the strengths and weaknesses of each. David Long said this approach would add clarity. Russell Jones and others agreed.

Mike Herrmann called attention [page 8] to the sentence: ‘The Committee also recommends removing the Title IV moneys from the consolidated application for federal funding.' Actually, he said, the committee had recommended separating them; when these were combined, he said, Title IV money appears to get lost.

Hope Taft called attention [page 7/8] to: ‘other significant recommendations included: (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 (so that the grants program is linked to actual need).' She asked if these would be subjects of the May conference call; David Long said they would be.

Discussion ensued on the question of funds being reserved in each state for the governor's office. Tommy Ledbetter said he believed combining these funds could strengthen the program. Hope Taft commented, as the wife of a former governor, that those funds had been used to draw in community involvement; she did not know that this would happen if the funds were lumped together. Ledbetter commented that in Alabama , the Governor sits on the state Board of Education and his/her views are represented there. Ralph Hingson supported consolidation: with the overall budget continuing to shrink, all current activities could not be continued. This drew the comment that it was important to have some funds directed at activities to be conducted at the state level.

Question #8:
Is the balance between flexibility and accountability contained in the statute working?

Question #9:
Could State and local flexibility be balanced with additional core requirements that would encourage LEAs to address specific issues?

Question #10:
How can the tension between the “Principles of Effectiveness” provisions that require that funds be spent on research-based activities and the broad list of authorized activities (many of which lack a strong research base) be resolved?

No comments were made.

* * *

Requirements for Data under the
No Child Left Behind Act

Question #1:
Is the amount of information being collected appropriate?

Question #2:
Is the information being collected the “right” information to help the nation assess where it stands on issues related to youth drug use and violence prevention? Is the information being collected the “right” information to help Federal, State and local officials manage youth drug use and violence prevention programs?

Kim Dude urged that data other than incidence data be collected; those surveyed should also be asked about their prevention efforts. Mike Herrmann expressed agreement. Montean Jackson noted that page 15, paragraph 2, addressed this in part.

Question #3:
Is there other data that could be collected that would be more useful or fill higher priority needs?

Susan Keys called attention [page 15] to the sentence: ‘The Department could also stress training of how success in school safety can be determined.' She asked if the Department was being called on delivering training or measuring its effectiveness. Second, she called attention to the phrase [page 15] ‘information about protective behaviors students are engaged in (i.e. extracurricular activities, discussions with parents),' noting that these were things that went beyond protective behaviors. Ralph Hingson said he thought it important to state clearly what data was needed and why; this needed to be explicable to people: further, school personnel needed to be consulted about what needed to be measured. Several committee members expressed agreement.

Question #4:
Would a requirement that UMIRS be collected using standard definitions provide greater clarity and direction to schools and school districts? If so, which terms should be defined in a standard way?

Question #5
Are there activities that we can undertake to address concerns about the costs and burdens associated with data collection?

Hope Taft asked whether this segment suggested the Department was responsible for coordinating the data collection efforts of other departments, or whether the Department was merely responsible for cooperating when such was sought: that is, were they a convener or a participant? Ralph Hingson expressed doubt that a given department could determine what other departments did with their data; on the other hand, the Department of Education should have a clear vision of what data it needed.

Hope Taft said drug and alcohol use needed be perceived not simply as a safety issue, but also as a public health issue. Susan Keys said Taft's view should be reflected throughout the document. Four committee members agreed. Ralph Hingson urged including the perspective that reductions in drug and alcohol use would bring improvements in academic performance and school attendance. This statement met with general approval.

Additional issues:

David Long then introduced the additional issues:
Nonpublic schools:
Rural/urban schools:
Trauma:

No comments were made on these.

General discussion:

David Long asked if the questions raised could be incorporated into a draft ready for discussion at the May 14, 2007 conference call. Deborah Price said they could.

Mike Herrmann said he thought it important to remember that many of those reading the report would have little prior information on the various aspects of the program; he urged each section be prefaced by a paragraph explaining it and describing the main issues involved. Deborah Price said a separate piece providing background and definitions was planned. David Long commented that, in reviewing the draft, he was concerned with the scope and variety of activities on the Department's ‘plate.' Some, he suggested, might better be assigned to intermediary organizations or national professional organizations.

David Long termed the 80-minute conference call highly productive. He thanked all for taking part.

The conference call ended Thursday, April 19, 3:21 p.m.