NCLB's “persistently dangerous” school mandate is plagued with inaccuracies
The federal mandate to identify "persistently dangerous" schools under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is plagued with inaccuracies because local school officials underreport criminal activity on campus and states have established definitions for dangerous schools so high that few, if any, schools are identified. A 2006 report from the New York State’s comptroller’s office concluded that many school officials had significantly underreported cases of violent and disruptive behavior. For example, one Albany high school reported only 144 violent or disruptive incidents for the 2003-04 school year, while the school’s internal records revealed 924 incidents. Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi cites the "really stunning failure of schools to adequately report" violence. Although local officials complained about vague reporting guidelines, he says there were "strong indications local officials had manipulated data to avoid airing embarrassing incidents of crime."
That school officials might deliberately be sweeping problems under the rug is no surprise to Ken Trump, president of the National School Safety and Security Services, who calls the "persistently dangerous" designation the new "scarlet letter of education." He believes part of the problem is that NCLB allows states to establish their own definitions, rather than having a uniform federal standard. This makes it difficult to discern the actual number of truly dangerous schools. For example, under South Carolina’s definition a school must report one incident of homicide, sexual assault, or kidnapping, or report a number of lesser crimes equal to 1% of the school enrollment, for three consecutive years. In California, more than 1% of students in a school must be expelled for a serious crime for three consecutive years. "In some states, you could have multiple incidents like Columbine and not meet the criteria," says Mr. Trump. Some state officials contend inaccuracies are the result of lack of training, low priority put on reporting by overworked school personnel, and confusion caused by changes in reporting rules as state officials seek to improve the process. Decades of statistics make clear that public schools are the safest place a child can spend his or her day, so it was never likely that large numbers of schools would be designated as unsafe. In addition, some school officials argue their schools are wrongly targeted because they have diligently reported student offenses and have been proactive in eliminating dangers to the school environment by conducting weapons and drug searches. But, with fewer than 30 schools deemed dangerous last year, many agree more work needs to be done to improve the accuracy.
School Board News
By Del Stover
[Link to full story]
[Editor’s Note: The New York comptroller’s report is available at the first link below. For background on the controversy over the "persistently dangerous" provision, see the second link. Some critics accuse state and local officials of setting the standard far too high, while others argue the opposite: that no school can prevent every serious incident and that the term "persistently dangerous" connotes an extreme environment that is, by definition, exceedingly rare. The news summary at the third link profiles one Texas school that argued it was penalized for its aggressive safety efforts. The New York Daily News article discusses three New York special education schools where the label has alarmed and angered parents and educators.
In a decision earlier this year by the Georgia Court of Appeals, at the final link below, the court allowed a lawsuit to go forward in which the plaintiff parents alleged that improper and dangerous school practices of not reporting violent incidents and not calling 911, for fear of the NCLB stigma, contributed to the severe injury of their child by delaying needed medical attention. Under Georgia’s definition, having one incident in each of three consecutive years earns a school the label. The chief judge of the court filed a separate, specially concurring opinion to share his observations on the NCLB provision. An excerpt: "This case amply illustrates bad consequences flowing from good intentions…. This scheme—well-intentioned though it may be—led to the current situation: a school not only failing to report crimes against students, but also failing to seek appropriate medical attention for injured students. In other words, the legislation produced the exact opposite of the result intended, and it increased the threat of harm to our children."]
[New York State Comptroller report]
[NSBA School Law pages on NCLB "persistently dangerous" controversy]
[NSBA School Law pages on Texas school]
New York Daily News
By Rachel Sheier
[Link to full story]
Bajjani v. Gwinnett County Sch. Dist., 630 S.E.2d 103 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)
[Link to full opinion]