Testimony of Mr. David B. Smith
Director of Prevention Initiatives
Colorado Department of Education

Hearing on
Keeping Schools Safe-The Implementation of No Child Left Behind’s Persistently Dangerous Schools Provision

United States House of Representatives
House Committee on Education and the Workforce
Subcommittee on Education Reform

September 29, 2003
Denver, Colorado

Good morning Chairman Osborne.

My name is David Smith and I am with the Colorado Department of Education. My official title is Director of Prevention Initiatives. In response to your request I will be addressing the process that the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) utilized in developing persistently dangerous schools criteria as required by the No Child Left Behind Act. My testimony will include the definition that was arrived at through this process and the subsequent findings based upon data submitted by local school districts to the department.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 required each state to identify a method for determining a persistently dangerous public school. The first step in our process was to establish a Safe Schools Committee. Members of this committee represented the following roles: a president of a local, rural school board (Buffalo School Board), an executive director of student services from a suburban school district (Lewis-Palmer), a representative from the Colorado Association of School Executives (CASE), a principal from an alternative school serving students from both rural and city areas (Greeley), a high school counselor from an urban school district (Denver), the educational policy analyst from the governor’s office, a representative from the Colorado Congress of Parents and Teachers and a representative from the Colorado Association of School Boards (CASB). The committee was staffed by CDE members who represented No Child Left Behind and Safe and Drug Free Schools.

The Safe School Committee began meeting in August of 2002. It was the role of CDE to provide the committee with information requested that included data on expulsions and suspensions, data collected from schools per the Safe Schools Act and safe school data sent to parent’s homes by way of the school accountability reports. The committee helped the department staff develop a Safe Schools Forum in order to seek broader input from schools and communities from throughout Colorado. This was a full day meeting held in October of 2002. Approximately 60 people attended this meeting and included the following representation: students, law enforcement officers, principals, parents, teachers, local school board members, the executive director of the regional office of the U.S. Department of Education, school counselors, and local safe and drug free schools and communities coordinators. The majority of the day was spent in small group sessions facilitated by independent volunteers. Department staff and members of the committee were intentionally excluded from the discussions in order to keep the input from local representatives as objective as possible. This allowed committee members to hear from a broad spectrum of people on issues related to persistently dangerous schools. The department absorbed the cost of this Forum as well as committee member participation over several months which amounted to $7,046.

The outcome of the Forum included many suggestions about school safety as it relates to persistently dangerous schools. In addition to taking these suggestions under consideration, the Safe School committee also utilized guiding principles as follows:

The Safe School Committee then set about developing criteria to be utilized in identifying a persistently dangerous school. After much discussion and several drafts the following Safe School Choice Option policy was adopted by the Colorado State Board of Education in January of 2003:

Crimes of violence, as defined by Colorado Revised Statute 18-1.3-406(2)(a)(I) and (II), are those crimes that have been committed, conspired to be committed, or attempted to be committed by a person during which, or in the immediate flight there from the person:

Crimes of violence are:

"Crime of violence" also means any felonious unlawful sexual offense in which the defendant caused bodily injury to the victim or in which the defendant used threat, intimidation, or force against the victim.

In addition, local school must follow the prohibitions regarding the enrollment of expelled students as set forth in CRS 22-33-106(4). This law requires that a student who has been expelled must be prohibited from enrolling or re-enrolling in the same school in which the victim of the offense or member of the victim’s immediate family is enrolled.

A school is determined to be "persistently dangerous" if the total number of incidents annually reported to the Colorado Department of Education for:

(A) alcohol violations, drug violations, assaults/fights, robberies, and "other" felonies as defined by the Automated Data Exchange;
(B) expulsions for firearms per the Gun-Free Schools Act; and
(C) the number of reports to CDE of school employees engaging in unlawful behavior, as required by State Board of Education Rules 1-CCR-301-37, 2260.5-R-15.05.

exceed the following numbers per student enrollment per year for two consecutive years, beginning with the 2001/2002 school year:

45 for fewer than 299 students                225 for 1,200 to1499 students
90 for 300 to 599 students                      270 for 1,500 to 1799 students
135 for 600 to 899 students                    315 for 1800 to 2099 students
180 for 900 to 1,199 students                 360 or more for 2,100 or more students.

Data will be assessed annually. The Colorado Department of Education will notify districts and schools after the first year, if a school has the potential of being identified as persistently dangerous following the second year. When determined to be persistently dangerous, districts must notify parents about their option(s) for transferring students and complete the transfer(s) upon request.

The Colorado State Board of Education approved the policy in January 2003. The first data run to determine schools that met year one criteria was completed in May of 2003. As a result 20 schools were identified as meeting the criteria for year one. In accordance with state policy those schools were notified. Year two data from the 2002-2003 school year was submitted to the department on June 30, 2003. The data run was completed in August of 2003. None of the 20 schools met the criteria for year two. The primary reason for this was the decline in numbers under the category of assault/fights. Schools indicated that they had been reporting all fights including those that did not meet the state’s definition. When using the state definition for the second year of analysis the number of assaults declined.

This concludes my testimony. Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to responding to any questions that you may have.