Unsafe School Choice Option Policy

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION UNSAFE SCHOOL CHOICE OPTION POLICY COMMENT/RESPONSE FORM

This comment and response form contains comments from the September 7, 2016, State Board meeting when the draft policy revisions were considered at Proposal Level. In addition, one public comment was received.

Topic: Unsafe School Choice Option Policy Meeting Date: December 7, 2016

Code Citation: Federal Title VIII, Part F, Subpart 2, SEC. 8532 Level: Adoption Resolution

Division: Learning Supports and Specialized Services Completed by: Office of Student Support Services

Summary of Comments and Agency Responses:

The following is a summary of the comments received from State Board members and the Department’s responses. Each commenter is identified at the end of the comment by a letter that corresponds to the following list:

A. Mark Biedron, President State Board of Education

B. Ernest Lepore, Member State Board of Education

C. Jack Fornaro, Member State Board of Education

1. Jennifer Keyes-Maloney New Jersey Principals and Supervisors Association

1. COMMENT: The commenter asked why gang fights were being removed from the Unsafe School Choice Option (USCO) policy formula revision and how often they were reported annually. (C)

RESPONSE: The Department collects data on any fight at school over the Electronic Violence and Vandalism Reporting System (EVVRS). Therefore a fight that is gang-related will continue to be reported over the EVVRS and, if it resulted in major or serious injuries it would be included in the proposed persistently dangerous school calculation. From 2013-2015, there were 3,426, 3,035, and 3,122 fights, respectively, of which a total of four were reported as gang related. Whether an incident is gang related is not always apparent to school staff since, according to the EVVRS definition, confirmation from a law enforcement official, the victim, or the offender that the incident was gang related is required and this confirmation may not always occur.

2. COMMENT: The commenter asked why sale/distribution of drugs was being removed from the USCO policy formula. (C)

RESPONSE: Drug sales should be treated very seriously by schools. It is violent behavior associated with a drug sale, not the sale itself, that would more likely lead a student to feel unsafe at school. The Department will continue to collect drug possession, use, and sale at schools over the EVVRS and report these incidents in the Commissioner’s Annual Report to the Education Committees of the Senate and General Assembly on Violence, Vandalism and Substance Abuse in New Jersey Public Schools. 3. COMMENT: The commenter asked why harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB) was being removed from the USCO policy formula. (C)

RESPONSE: The Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act not only changed the definition of HIB that was used when the USCO formula was first developed, it also requires very specific standards and procedures, contributing to an increase of affirmed HIB incidents. There is wide variability regarding the types of incidents that are reported as HIB. For example, HIB may be reported for or include: shunning, name calling, teasing, hazing, electronic messaging, physical contact, etc. When an incident of HIB involves a serious violent offense, it will still be captured in the proposed persistently dangerous school formula under one or more of the given criteria (e.g., assault with injury, robbery, use of a weapon, etc.). Since multiple incident types can be selected for a given incident in the EVVRS, a HIB case that involves an assault with injury or a weapon will be included in the persistently dangerous schools formula. 4. COMMENT: The commenter asked why kidnapping is being added to the USCO policy formula and how often it is reported annually. (C)

RESPONSE: All of the proposed revisions to the USCO policy formula are expected to increase the validity, or more accurately measure the danger in a school, because they focus on violent incidents. Kidnapping was added because it is a violent act that can be objectively measured and can be used in determining a school’s level of safety. One kidnapping incident was reported in 2014-15, 1 in 2013-14, and 2 in 2012-13. 5. COMMENT: The commenter asked for clarification regarding the number of years a school must meet the criteria before the school is considered persistently dangerous. (A)

RESPONSE: Schools must meet the dangerous criteria for three consecutive school years to be considered persistently dangerous in both the current and proposed USCO policy formulas. 6. COMMENT: The commenter asked how many schools would be expected to be persistently dangerous based on the new formula. (A)

RESPONSE: The Department does not anticipate that the USCO policy formula revision will greatly impact the number of schools identified as persistently dangerous. The formula will be applied to schools in stages starting with the 2016-17 school year. We currently have two schools identified as early warning. The new formula would be applied to incidents reported during the current school year to determine whether either of these two schools meet the criteria for a persistently dangerous school for three consecutive years. Sixteen schools met the current criteria in 2015-16 for one year, and the new formula will be applied to incidents reported during the current school year to determine whether any of these schools meet the criteria for early warning status.

7. COMMENT: The commenter asked how many schools have been identified as persistently dangerous in the past years. (B) RESPONSE: No schools have been identified as persistently dangerous schools since the 2008- 09 school year. 8. COMMENT: The commenter asked if the removal of certain categories in the proposed USCO policy formula revision were due to political correctness. (C)

RESPONSE: The United State Department of Education’s non-regulatory guidance strongly encourages all States to annually review and revise their definition of a persistently dangerous school. The New Jersey USCO policy has had only minor revisions made since its initial approval on June, 18, 2003. From December 2015 through April 2016, a working group consisting of a representative sample of school districts, Department of Education staff and members of the Education-Law Enforcement working group met to review and discuss the current USCO policy and identify any areas needing revision. The USCO working group proposed the new criteria following federal guidance that the formula should be objective, valid, reliable, and measure dangerousness in a school.

9. COMMENT: The commenter offered support of the proposed changes, finding them consistent with federal guidance to use “objective criteria” to identify persistently dangerous schools, with changes that more concretely and accurately identify measures of danger within a school, and focus on the activity of a student, rather than sometimes unknown student affiliations such as gang affiliation. The commenter also supports the addition of the “early notification” process. (1)

RESPONSE: The Department appreciates the commenter’s support. Adoption Resolution December 7, 2016

A RESOLUTION APPROVING REVISIONS TO THE UNSAFE SCHOOL CHOICE OPTION POLICY

WHEREAS, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Act) of 1965 SEC. 8532, as reauthorized under the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, sets forth that each state receiving funds under this Act shall establish and implement a statewide policy requiring that a student attending a persistently dangerous public elementary school or secondary school, while in or on the grounds of a public elementary school or secondary school that the student attends, be allowed to attend a safe public elementary school or secondary school within the local educational agency, including a public charter school; and

WHEREAS, to improve student achievement, our schools must provide safe, nurturing environments where students can learn and are valued and respected; and

WHEREAS, the focus of the Unsafe School Choice Option provision of the Act is on working with schools proactively to identify those schools at risk of being labeled persistently dangerous and offer them technical assistance to improve school safety; and

WHEREAS, only minor revisions have been incorporated into the Unsafe School Choice Option policy in New Jersey since its initial approval by the State Board of Education on June 18, 2003; and

WHEREAS, the policy has been revised in accordance with the law to ensure that the criteria used continue to accurately reflect school safety in New Jersey; and

WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Education recommends that the New Jersey State Board of Education approve the revised Unsafe School Choice Option policy for New Jersey; now therefore be it

RESOLVED, that the New Jersey State Board of Education approves the revised Unsafe School Choice Option policy; and be it further

RESOLVED that district boards of education shall fully comply with implementation with the 2016-2017 school year.

______Kimberley Harrington, Acting Commissioner of Education Mark W. Biedron, President Acting Secretary, N.J. State Board of Education N.J. State Board of Education