SAFETY AND SECURITY
This chapter reviews DISD's safety and security programs in four sections:
- A. Organization and Program Coordination
- B. Security and Enforcement
- C. Student Discipline and Alternative Education
- D. Safety and Prevention
C. STUDENT DISCIPLINE AND ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION
Student discipline management includes processes for ensuring that students with disciplinary problems receive appropriate services or sanctions. In-school disciplinary programs provide one option for students, while Alternative Education Programs (AEP) offer specialized learning environments outside of the regular classroom. Truancy, dropout and Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs (DAEP) provide intervention services and accelerated learning opportunities for at-risk students who also experience disciplinary problems. Students, parents and teachers may also decide that voluntary student placement in one of these alternative programs is appropriate for a student.
DISD has 20 high schools and 22 middle schools with in-school suspension programs called On-Campus AEP programs. In 1999-2000, these on-campus AEPs had 16,487 students enrolled. These programs are staffed by Area 9 teachers. In addition, a single in-school suspension program for elementary students is located at Nolan Estes Plaza. The elementary AEP is a classroom for students with disciplinary problems that adversely affect classroom activities. The program continues the student's education and provides counseling, parent and school partnering and psychological or social service referrals to help change the student's inappropriate behavior. The typical length of stay is 30 days.
DISD offers several off-campus alternatives as well. The district has four alternative high/middle schools, the Learning Alternative Center for Empowering Youth (LACEY), the School Community Guidance Center (SCGC), Seagoville Alternative School and the Metropolitan Educational Center. It has one elementary alternative school, Barbara Manns Elementary.
In January 2000, the district contracted with Community Education Partners (CEP), a private corporation, to manage a longer-duration Alternative Education Program for DISD students. DISD also participates in the Dallas County Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program (JJAEP) for expulsion offenses. It may impose off-campus suspension for up to 90 days, refer a student to an AEP school for up to six weeks or refer a student to CEP for up to 180 days.
FINDING
DISD has dedicated substantial resources to improving its truancy and dropout prevention programs. Since it was established in 1997, the Dropout Prevention/Intervention and Recovery Office has grown from a staff of eight to 14, and its annual operating budget has risen from $352,000 to more than $595,000. The office's personnel report directly to the superintendent.
Under the direction of the Dropout Prevention/Intervention and Recovery Office, DISD has the Campus Learning Communities, which are special programs at 19 high schools that provide self-paced, computer-assisted academic accelerated learning opportunities primarily for over-age ninth graders. Participants in the Campus Learning Communities are also given an option to work in the community. DISD offers Central Learning Communities with the same academic components as the campus programs and summer school for all students in these programs who could benefit from an extended instructional year.
Such initiatives have produced impressive results. As shown in Exhibit 12-21,DISD's dropout rate for 1998-99 was lower than the state rate and all of the peer district rates except that of El Paso ISD. DISD's rate was slightly higher than Region 10. DISD's dropout rate fell significantly in 1997-98 and remained stable in 1998-99, while the state rate remained stable for all three years and the regional rate declined.
Exhibit 12-21 Source: Texas Education Agency, Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS)
Annual Dropout Rates
DISD and Peer Districts
1996-97 through 1998-99
1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 Dallas 2.4% 1.3% 1.3% Austin 1.8% 2.0% 3.7% El Paso 1.1% 1.3% 1.2% Fort Worth 2.5% 2.5% 4.3% Houston 2.8% 3.4% 3.9% San Antonio 1.6% 2.5% 2.1% State 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% Region 10 1.5% 1.2% 1.0%
1997-98,1998-99 and 1999-2000.
Note: The Austin and Fort Worth ISDs were cited by the Texas Education Agency for underreporting student dropouts during 1997-98.DISD's attendance rates improved from 1996 to 2000 (Exhibit 12-22). DISD enjoyed the greatest percent improvement in attendance of any of the peer districts.
Exhibit 12-22 Source: Texas Education Agency, AEIS District Multiyear History Data Reports, 1996-2000.
DISD Attendance Rate Comparisons with Peer Districts
1995-96 through 1999-2000
District 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 Percent Change 1995-96 to 1999-2000 Dallas 93.4% 94.1% 94.2% 94.5% 95.1% 1.8 Houston 93.7% 93.8% 93.9% 94.0% 94.2% 0.5 El Paso 95.0% 95.1% 95.1% 95.3% 95.3% 0.3 Fort Worth 93.6% 93.6% 93.5% 93.7% 93.7% 0.1 San Antonio 94.0% 93.9% 94.1% 94.2% 94.1% 0.1 Austin 93.7% 93.5% 93.8% 94.1% 93.8% 0.1 COMMENDATION
DISD has improved dropout and attendance rates through a program of prevention, intervention and recovery.
FINDING
DISD has an effective behavioral health program evidenced by the fact that every school has a student support team -- a multi-disciplinary vehicle for crisis or mental health referrals. The Psychological Services Unit divides student support team assignments between 20 psychologists and 20 social workers. Each professional responds to referrals from schools for specialized services and crisis situations. Counseling for classmates of students injured in an off-campus accident is an example of a crisis situation in which one of the psychologists or social workers may be contacted to immediately go to a school to help students with coping strategies.
COMMENDATION
DISD has implemented an effective behavioral heath program to address the psychological needs of its students.
FINDING
DISD has a strong discipline management program. It has implemented several student discipline initiatives, including Positive Classroom Management and Redirections. Redirections, an off-campus alternative education program located at the School Community Guidance Center (SCGC), provides services for youth who have violated district alcohol- and drug-related policies. DISD's counseling efforts in alcohol and drug related services, according to the 1999-2000 TEA annual evaluation report for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities (SDFSC) program, resulted in a 14 percent reduction in referrals for students under the influence of alcohol. DISD also participates in Dallas Police Department's Law Enforcement Teaching Students (LETS) program which teaches fifth-graders about decision-making and anger management. All three programs help both students and teachers resolve or de-escalate a variety of situations involving potentially inappropriate classroom behavior.
Through a relationship that began in 1995 with Boys Town in Nebraska, DISD provides administrative and campus-based classroom behavior management training plus another tier of more intensive behavior management training for use with students who show severe signs of disturbance. About a third of the district's elementary schools have received training under this program. To promote its implementation, a school's entire staff, including teachers, custodians and food service workers, must agree to consistently use the behavior management techniques advocated through the Boys Town training. The 1999-2000 SDFSC annual evaluation report issued by TEA credits this program with a 35 percent reduction in student referrals for misconduct compared to the 1998-99 school year.
DISD enjoys an effective relationship with the Dallas County Juvenile Department. The district's Responsible Behavior Programs (RBP) monitors about 1,500 students on probation, serves as the district's primary clearinghouse for information on the approximately 180 to 270 annualstudent expulsions and serves as the principal liaison between DISD and the County's Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program (JJAEP), as mandated by Chapter 37 of the Texas Education Code. The RBP reviews all student removal and expulsion referrals to ensure that they are appropriate and fair.
The RBP also trains school principals regarding disciplinary management issues and handles about 25 questions per day from principals, teachers and parents on disciplinary issues. Finally, the RBP administers an appeal process for disciplinary matters. Consequences, ranging from a referral to the principal's office to a school suspension or placement in an on-campus alternative education program for Level I offensesfrom the Student Code of Conduct, may be appealed at the school level with the principal. Level I offenses include such behaviors as cheating, smoking, fighting and selling or possessing drugs.Consequences for Level II and III Student Code of Conduct offenses, which involve mandatory removal of a student from the regular classroom, may be appealed first to the area superintendent, then the RBP and finally to the DISD board. The RBP's role in the appeal process strengthens its ability to assessthe fairness and effectiveness of the Student Code of Conduct.
COMMENDATION
DISD implements and trains campus staff on a variety of student discipline management programs that have reduced the number of Student Code of Conduct disciplinary referrals.
FINDING
School employees are confused about the district's recent changes to the Student Code of Conduct.
The district last modified its Student Code of Conduct in November 2000, when it established the Level II B disciplinary category to define when a student is to be referred to CEP. Two Level II B offenses, which include 13 activities such as fighting and petty theft and four separate disciplinary referrals from within the Level II list, are required to justify a student referral to CEP. The four disciplinary referrals are submitted to the school principal and must come from two separate teachers or administrators.These student offenses must occur on two separate days; however, the disciplinary referrals may be for repeated occurrences of relatively minor offenses. As a result, some minor Student Code of Conduct offenses, including the repeated use of profanity, can lead to children automatically being referred to CEP for 180 days. In contrast, some students committing more serious offenses, including teacher assault, are referred to AEP schools for a total of six weeks. Some view this referral policy as inconsistent and potentially unfair
DISD's Student Code of Conduct provides multiple levels of offenses, ranging from Level I (the least serious) to Level III (the most serious). The current disciplinary code is outlined in Exhibit 12-23.
Exhibit 12-23 Source: DISD Student Code of Conduct.
Summary of DISD Student Offenses and Consequences
Offense Category Possible Consequences Level I offenses Twenty-five offenses, the most common of which include noncompliance with a verbal order, disruptive action, fighting and profanity Routine teacher referral to principal's office; discretionary teacher removal from class; placement in another appropriate classroom; in-house suspension (elementary only); referral to an outside agency; referral to a student support team; referral to a Youth & Family Center; restitution; suspension (up to three days); placement in an on-campus Alternative Education Program (AEP) (no more than six weeks); emergency placement (no more than five days); family management class; voluntary peer mediation; voluntary community service and corporal punishment Level II discretionary offenses (in regular school setting) Eight offenses, the most common of which include fighting and gang activity Removal of the student from the regular school setting, including placement in an on- or off-campus AEP (no more than six weeks); suspension (up to three days); referral to a social services agency; restitution or police department notification Level II mandatory offenses (in school, at school-sponsored activities or within 300 feet of school property) Thirteen offenses, the most common of which include non-felony drug possession or use and assault Removal of the student to an off-campus AEP (for at least six weeks); referral to a social services agency; restitution or police department notification Level II B mandatory removal offenses (require 4 referrals) Offenses include Class C assault (student on student), fighting, profanity or obscenity and disruptive activity Removal of the student to an off-campus AEP (180 days to Community Education Partners (CEP) program); off-campus placement at Nolan Estes AEP (at least six weeks); referral to a social services agency; restitution or police department notification Level III discretionary expulsion offenses Offenses include felonious criminal mischief and Class A assault on school personnel Discretionary off-campus AEP placement (up to 90 days); expulsion and referral to the juvenile court for placement in the Dallas County Juvenile Justice AEP Level III mandatory expulsion offenses Offenses include firearm violations, aggravated assault, arson and indecency with a child Mandatory off-campus AEP placement (up to 90 days); expulsion and referral to the juvenile court for placement in the Dallas County Juvenile Justice AEP DISD's current Student Code of Conduct is heavily influenced by state law. Section 37.002 of the Texas Education Code, for example, distinguishes mandatory and discretionary offenses. Mandatory campus offenses, such as marijuana possession, gun possession and public lewdness, require referral to a JJAEP or a DAEP.
Recommendation 189:
Modify the district's Student Code of Conduct to align the student disciplinary offenses with the consequences.
The district should match its disciplinary sanctionsmore appropriately to the seriousness of the offense and make the Student Code of Conduct more internally consistent. For example, extend the AEP placement of students selling drugs for a longer duration than six weeks and shorten the current 180 day CEP stay for students placed for minor violations of the Student Code of Conduct. In short, ensure that DISD disciplinary policies make sense to students, teachers and administrators.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1. The superintendent convenes a team of administrators, teachers, parents and students to review the Student Code of Conduct. September 2001 2. The team develops and presents a proposal for modifying the Student Code of Conduct to the board. December 2001 3. The board adopts appropriate modifications to the district's Student Code of Conduct. March 2002 FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources.
FINDING
DISD's alternative education program referrals are growing rapidly without the benefit of a clearly articulated long-range strategy. Since 1999, district administrators have made dramatic decisions about AEP programs, often without obtaining sufficient input from AEP principals and teachers, and without the existence of a long-range plan to help guide such decisions.
As reflected in Exhibit 12-24, the aggregate number of disciplinary referrals to DISD's AEP centers increased by only 6 percent from 1996-97 to 1999-2000. However, based on the number of disciplinary referrals mid-year through 2000-01, the number of referrals will have increased by 54 percent for2000-2001.
Exhibit 12-24 Source: DISD Responsible Behavior Programs office.
Referrals to in DISD Alternative Education Programs
1996-97 through 2000-01
AEP Center 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01* Barbara Manns Elementary 291 342 529 540 576 LACEY 696 599 558 515 661 Seagoville 349 348 345 347 457 SCGC 803 843 810 858 1,080 CEP - - - 257 856** Totals 2,139 2,132 2,242 2,517 3,630
*The numbers for 2000-01 are annualized estimates based on mid-year actual data.
**CEP contract not established until January 2000. The CEP 2000-01 figure is based upon May 2001 enrollment number from CEP.DISD does not track actual enrollment or average daily attendance for its AEP centers.Since the AEP centers are not limited to students referred for disciplinary reasons, actual AEP enrollment trends could vary from disciplinary referral trends.
To the extent that student absences are an indicator of potential disciplinary problems, current trends support the conclusion that DISD may have increased AEP enrollment in the years ahead. As shown in Exhibit 12-25, from 1995-96 through 1999-2000, while district enrollment rose by 7.8 percent, the number of students with at least five unexcused absences grew by 22.1 percent.
Exhibit 12-25 Source: DISD Truancy Prevention Office.
DISD Enrollment, Unexcused Absences & Dropout Statistics
1995-96 through 1999-2000
Offense 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 District Enrollment 148,839 154,847 157,622 159,908 160,477 Students with more than five unexcused absences 43,410 43,481 35,248 45,993 53,018 Percent of students with more than five unexcused absences 29.2% 28.1% 22.4% 28.8% 33.0% Before DISD administrators decided to contract with CEP, they reportedly conducted an informal AEP needs assessment. According to interviews with DISD personnel, this informal assessment estimated that up to 10 percent of the district's secondary students would be better served by an off-campus placement and that at least 1,500 students would benefit from a longer-duration alternative than the six weeks available under the CEP system.
DISD's Area 9 superintendent has assembled a task force on AEP resource needs, but this group has held no meetings in several months. Most administrators agree that the maximum six-week stay for district-managed AEP centers is too short for many chronic behavioral problems.
In 1999-2000 and 2000-01, several pivotal program changes were made without substantial planning or stakeholder participation such as the decision to contract with CEP, the changes to the Student Code of Conduct regarding AEP referral strategiesand the decision to concentrate all drug cases at SCGC, despite the fact that SCGC teachers lacked specialized drug training.
Recommendation 190:
Develop a comprehensive long-range plan for the district's alternative education programs.
The district should reexamine its continuum of intervention programs. In conducting this review, DISD should consider the needs and effectiveness of its full spectrum of current programs. For instance, it should consider the impact of CEP on AEP enrollment and schools. It should determine whether district AEP centers should have the same resources as CEP, and whether the CEP enrollment projections are realistic. In any event, school administrators should be given as many intervention and AEP options as possible.
Once DISD has completed its needs assessment and AEP program review, DISD should develop a comprehensive long-range plan for AEP programs. This plan should provide a blueprint for projecting AEP needs and guiding future strategies.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1. The superintendent convenes a team of administrators, teachers, parents and students to review its alternative education programs. September 2001 2. The associate superintendent for Student Support and Special Services conducts a thorough review of model programs
December 2001 3. The associate superintendent for Safety, Security and Student Services develops a long-range AEP plan and submits it to the board. March 2001 4. The board adopts the long-term AEP plan, including operating plans for its alternative education centers. June 2002 FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources.
FINDING
DISD lacks a coordinated system for student transition between the home school and the alternative program. DISD has five case managers that coordinate both the student referral process and the transition process for students leaving from and returning to their home schools. Within 24 hours of each decision to transfer a student, the district sends copies of the Teacher Discipline and Principal Referral forms to the student's parents and informs them of their appeal rights. Furthermore, the district conducts a hearing before removing the student from school. Once the formal hearing has been conducted and the student's parents agree to the placement, the student is instructed to report to the assigned AEP facility.
All schools use the Principal Referral Form, which lists each offense and consequence, to generate and record disciplinary actions. The forms can be complicated, however, often listing too many separate but similar offenses, such as possessing a laser pointer, possessing a paging device, violating dress standards, violating safety rules and violating technology policy.
Administrators and teachers voiced concerns about the way in which the district's AEP students move through the system, including the fact that AEP schools end their day at 2:45 p.m. By releasing students before the end of the regular school day, additional security issues are created for regular schools.
In addition to the five case managers who oversee the transition of students back to their home schools, the district also has a transition committee to assess returning student needs.This committee is comprised of representatives of the AEPs and the district's counseling, discipline and dropout prevention programs. Even so, significant concerns remain among those involved that the district needs a better approach for ensuring that students return to their home schools in the most positive manner possible.
Recommendation 191:
Improve the district's transition process for at-risk students.
DISD should clarify and streamline its student referral and removal process. It should consolidate offenses for referral and reporting purposes as permitted by law. For example, it should streamline the principal's referral form by consolidating infrequently reported and similar offenses
It should commence transition planning for students when they are first referred to an AEP. It should ensure that every student returning from an off-campus placement is assigned a home school liaison.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1. The associate superintendent for Safety, Security and Student Services modifies the Principal Referral Form. January 2002 2. The associate superintendent for Safety, Security and Student Services, with input from principals and teachers, develops a comprehensive at-risk student referral process, including efficient referral procedures, effective tracking systems and comprehensive programs for easing the return of students to their home schools. January - June 2002 3. The associate superintendent monitors and evaluates the changes and makes modifications when needed. August 2002 and Ongoing FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources.
FINDING
DISD's contract with Community Education Partners does not include reasonable enrollment expectations or accountability standards and does include termination and accountability language that heavily favors the vendor.
Under a contract executed on January 24, 2000, CEP agreed to serve DISD students in grades 6-12 who are disruptive or at risk of dropping out. In return, DISD agreed to pay CEP $7,160 annually per enrolled student. DISD guaranteed an enrollment of 500 students for the initial semester (January to May 2000) and 1,500 students for each full academic year thereafter. This translates to an annual contract cost of $10,740,000, regardless of actual enrollment. The contract provides for cost adjustments if enrolled students fail to attend the CEP program. For instance, if the average daily attendance (ADA) rate falls below 80 percent, DISD pays CEP for the number of students enrolled times the adjusted ADA rate (that is, 80 percent less the actual ADA rate). However, this clause does not allow for cost adjustments if the district fails to enroll the guaranteed number of students into the CEP program.
In October 2000, after recognizing that actual CEP enrollment was falling far short of expectations, DISD and CEP agreed to modify the contract. The amendment allows DISD to enroll more than 1,500 students in a month to offset any under-enrollment from a previous month. The amendment also allows CEP to adjust its per-pupil fees for inflation beginning in 2002-03. For 2000-01 only, CEP provided a summer school at no cost to the district and agreed to reduce the guaranteed enrollment from 1,500 to 1,400, resulting in a contract cost reduction to $10,024,000.
The contract's full term is for five years, ending in August 2005. CEP can terminate the contract without cause on August 1 of each year with prior notification to the district by February 1. However, DISD can only terminate without cause within 90 days of the contract end date of August 2005.
DISD can terminate the contract with cause if CEP's students, in the aggregate, fail to meet the specified accountability standards and CEP fails to cure the default within 45 days of receiving notice from the district. Student progress toward passing state basic skills tests based on the average number of grade levels mastered, as measured by CEP's TAAS-Aligned Assessment in Reading and Math, is one of the two accountability standards set forth in the contract between DISD and CEP. The second is student progress toward grade level based on the average number of course credits earned by high-school students and average number of middle-school courses passed for grade promotion for middle-school students.
Under any reading of the above language, the CEP contract accountability standards are ambiguous and virtually unenforceable. However, as of April 1, 2001 CEP began to fulfill an informal evaluation plan it agreed to in January 2001. CEP retroactively administered DISD's standard end-of-course exam to all students completing credited coursework since December 2000. CEP further agreed to administer the Stanford 9, a test that other DISD schools administer, as a formal measurement of student progress.
DISD has not consistently managed the CEP contract. Originally, the superintendent assigned the contract to the Dropout Prevention/Intervention and Recovery Office but subsequently transferred it to Student Support and Special Services. At least three different contract administrators have managed the CEP contract since its inception.
The district's CEP referral process has changed as well. Initially, despite the fact that the guaranteed enrollment was based on the assumption that CEP would operate a disciplinary alternative school, the district made an administrative decision to promote CEP as the manager of its Ninth Grade Initiative, a credit recovery program for behind-grade students. After the projected CEP enrollment failed to materialize because there were not enough ninth-grade students referred under the guidelines of the Ninth Grade Initiative, the district was notified that CEP wanted to limit its focus to disciplinary students. The district then created the Level II B mandatory removal category in the Student Code of Conduct and began referring disciplinary students to CEP.
The CEP principal and DISD specialist for Discipline Management agree that a useful measure of student success is a change in disruptive behavior or Student Code of Conduct violations at students' home schools, both during and after CEP program participation. DISD's CEP contract does not mention the use of such an accountability measure. The Houston Independent School District (HISD) and its two CEP-managed disciplinary AEPs have noted changes in the number of violations of the Student Code of Conduct as a measure of student success. Current U.S. Secretary of Education and former HISD superintendent Rod Paige credits the Houston CEP program with significant reductions in the number of student disciplinary incident rates.
Recommendation 192:
Renegotiate the Community Education Partners contract to reflect district interests regarding accountability standards, guaranteed enrollment and contract termination.
The district should restructure its contract with CEP to clarify the accountability standards and make them measurable and enforceable. Second, it should incorporate a provision to modify the referral policies and procedures and enrollment guarantees based on reasonable criteria. If DISD is unable to negotiate such contract amendments, it should terminate the agreement.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1. The general counsel and associate superintendent for Student Support and Special Services develop proposed contract amendments and negotiate a contract amendment with CEP for presentation to the superintendent. September 2001 2. The superintendent presents the negotiated contract amendments to the board for approval. September 2001 3. The board approves the contract amendments. October 2001 4. The associate superintendent for Student Support and Special Services implements contract amendments for 2001-02. November 2001 FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources.