PIR report on California schools

Report as inappropriate Your report has been received

Description

The Pacific Research Institute (PRI), a free-market think tank based in California, report "Not As Safe As You Think" about safety at California schools.

Shared by: BayAreaNewsGroup

Tags

Stats

views:: 1821
posted:: 10/22/2009
language:: English
pages:: 55

Public Domain

Document Sample

Not as safe as You thiNk
What California parents should know about their children’s schools, and how state policy makers can make schools safer for all California students

By Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D., and Evelyn B. Stacey

Not as safe as You think
What California parents should know about their children’s schools, and how state policy makers can make schools safer for all California students

By Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D., and Evelyn B. Stacey

Not as Safe as You Think What California parents should know about their children’s schools, and how state policy makers can make schools safer for all California students By Vicki E. Murray, Ph.D., and Evelyn B. Stacey

October 2009 Pacific Research Institute One Embarcadero Center, Suite 350 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: 415-989-0833/ 800-276-7600 Fax: 415-989-2411 Email: info@pacificresearch.org www.pacificresearch.org Additional print copies of this study may be purchased by contacting us at the address above, or download the PDF version at www.pacificresearch.org. Nothing contained in this report is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Pacific Research Institute or as an attempt to thwart or aid the passage of any legislation. ©2009 Pacific Research Institute. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without prior written consent of the publisher.

Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................3 Introduction...............................................................................................................5 California School Safety Policy before No Child Left Behind .....................................6 California School Safety Policy after No Child Left Behind ........................................7 Persistently Dangerous School Transfer Option Violent Crime Victims’ Transfer Option Reported School-Safety Incidents .............................................................................9 Figure 1: Total Incidents, 2004–05 through 2007–08 .................................................10 A Closer Look at School Safety ................................................................................11 Figure 2: Safety Incidents as a Percentage of Total Incidents, 2007–08 Obscene/disruptive/hostile/intimidating behavior ................................................12 Figure 3a: Total Incidents Involving Obscene/Disruptive/Hostile/ Intimidating Behavior, 2004–05 through 2007–08 .....................................................13 Figure 3b: Obscene/Disruptive/Hostile/Intimidating Behavior by Subcategory, 2004–05 through 2007–08 Violence, physical injuries, or weapons ..........................14 Figure 4a: Total Incidents Involving Violence, Physical Injuries, or Weapons, 2004–05 through 2007–08 ........................................................................................15 Figure 4b: Incidents Involving Violence, Physical Injuries, or Weapons by Subcategory, 2004–05 through 2007–08...........................................16 Drugs or Alcohol .....................................................................................................16 Figure 5a: ...............................................................................................................17 Total Incidents Involving Drugs or Alcohol, 2004–05 through 2007–08 Figure 5b: Incidents Involving Drugs or Alcohol by Subcategory, 2004–05 through 2007–08 / Vandalism or stealing ...................................................18 Figure 6a: Total Incidents Involving Vandalism or Stealing, 2004–05 through 2007–08 ........................................................................................19 Figure 6b: Incidents Involving Vandalism or Stealing by Subcategory, 2004–05 through 2007–08 .......................................................................................20

continued on next page

Not As Safe As You Think

Implementing Sensible Safe-Schools Policy ............................................................21 Recommendations...................................................................................................22 Reform Efforts Stymied in California .......................................................................24 Conclusion: Toward Schools Safer than You Think ....................................................25 Appendix Table 1: Statutory Safety Violations by Category .....................................26 Suspension Procedure Appendix ............................................................................27 Expulsion Procedure Appendix ..............................................................................28 Expulsion Procedure Appendix Diagram ................................................................30 Interpreting Appendix Tables 2 through 5...............................................................31 Appendix Table 2: Top 100 Schools—Obscene/Disruptive/Hostile/Intimidating Behavior, 2007–08 .....32 Appendix Table 3: Top 100 Schools—Violence/Physical Injury/Weapons, 2007–08 ..............................35 Appendix Table 4: Top 100 Schools—Drugs/Alcohol, 2007–08 .............................................................38 Appendix Table 5: Top 100 Schools—Vandalism/Stealing, 2007–08 ......................................................41 Endnotes .................................................................................................................44 Statement of Research Quality .................................................................................49 About the Pacific Research Institute ........................................................................50

Not As Safe As You Think

exeCutive summary
All students have the inalienable right to attend schools that are “safe, secure and peaceful” according to the California Constitution. The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act also requires states to implement policies that allow a student to transfer if his or her school is designated persistently dangerous or if he or she becomes a victim of a violent crime on campus. Under current law, it takes a minimum of three years for any public school to be considered dangerous, and only if specified violations occur, under certain conditions, and those violations result in a specified proportion of disciplinary actions. The state’s definition of persistently dangerous schools is so narrow, in fact, that not one of California’s more than 9,000 public schools has ever been deemed unsafe. California parents should not have to wait years at a time before the state grants their children access to safe, secure, and peaceful schools. Most important, students should not have to be victimized before their parents can take decisive action. In spite of declining statewide enrollment, combined student suspensions and expulsions relating to school-safety violations increased 7 percent, from 788,000 during the 2004–05 school year to 845,000 during the 2007–08 school year. Those figures actually understate the true prevalence of such incidents because only those resulting in student suspensions or expulsions are reported, not the number of actual incidents that occurred. Nine out of 10 California students currently attend schools with reported incidents that resulted in disciplinary actions for violence, physical injuries, or weapons. Based on the recommendations of state and federal agencies, five reforms could be implemented immediately:

0 Report the number of actual school safety violations, not disciplinary actions. 0 Base safety assessments on the most current year of data. 0 Adopt a common-sense definition of “dangerous schools.” 0 Guarantee parental notification by districts and schools. 0 Guarantee students’ transfer options beyond their resident districts.

Not As Safe As You Think

introduCtion
Most people are likely aware that the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) is supposed to improve student achievement.1 They are likely unaware of NCLB’s “Unsafe School Choice Option,” which occupies just two lines of the nearly 700-page federal act.2 Under the provision, states have been required to craft their own definitions of “persistently dangerous schools,” including provisions allowing students to transfer to a safe public school within the same district, since the 2003–04 school year. Yet after five years in operation, former U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings admitted the provision has not succeeded.3 Nationwide, more than 150,000 serious violent crimes are committed in schools annually. Yet of the nearly 100,000 public schools nationwide, fewer than 50 are deemed persistently dangerous each year.4 The Office of Inspector General has also cited several states, including California, for failing to inform parents of their safe-schools transfer rights. Another problem with the NCLB Unsafe School Choice Option is that it is limited to public schools within a student’s current school district.5 If there are no other options within the district, officials “are encouraged, but not required, to explore other appropriate options such as an agreement with a neighboring [district] to accept transfer students.”6 This limitation poses serious obstacles for parents who want to transfer their children to safe schools. Many school districts nationwide are small and may not have safe, academically performing schools with room to accommodate students from unsafe schools. Even in larger districts with schools that could accommodate transfers, parents may not be able to transport their children to distant schools.7 A primary reason why NCLB’s Unsafe School Choice Option is not working, however, is that state definitions of “persistently dangerous” are so narrow that it is virtually impossible for schools to be so designated. California is a prime example.

The state’s definition of persistently dangerous schools is so narrow, in fact, that not one of California’s more than 9,000 public schools has ever been deemed unsafe.

Under current law, it takes a minimum of three years for any public school to be classified as persistently dangerous, and only if specified violations occur, under certain conditions, and those violations result in a specified proportion of disciplinary actions. The state’s definition of persistently dangerous schools is so narrow, in fact, that not one of California’s more than 9,000 public schools has ever been deemed unsafe.8 Such statistics demonstrate the failure of the current regulatory compliance-model approach to ensure school safety and indicate the urgent need for common-sense reform.

Not As Safe As You Think

California sChool safety PoliCy Before no Child left Behind
The California State Constitution guarantees all citizens the “Right to Safe Schools.” It states, “All students and staff of public primary, elementary, junior high, and senior high schools, and community colleges, colleges, and universities have the inalienable right to attend campuses which are safe, secure and peaceful.”9 Beginning in 1984, all California public schools were required to report the frequency and kinds of crimes occurring on campus.10 Then in the 1995–96 fiscal year, the legislature began requiring the California Department of Education (CDE) to publish annual California Safe Schools Assessment (CSSA) reports. This report quantified incidents in each school district and analyzed school-crime trends and crime rates for school districts with 1,000 or more students. The legislative intent behind this requirement was to gather data necessary for developing school crime-prevention programs.11 The CSSA reports identified 20 types of crimes or incidents, arranged into four categories: drug and alcohol offenses, crimes against persons, property crimes, and other crimes such as weapon possession, bomb threats, and trespassing.12 The last CSSA report, published for the 2000–01 school year, showed that school crime was rising in a variety of categories and had become more violent since the 1995–96 school year:

0 Drug and alcohol offenses increased overall by 14 percent, with the sale and/or furnishing of alcohol or drugs increasing 25 percent. 0 Crimes against persons increased 33 percent. While robbery and extortion incidents dropped 33 percent, batteries rose 38 percent, and sex offenses jumped by a staggering 94 percent. 0 Property crimes, including arson, theft, and burglary, overall fell 13 percent; however, vandalism rose 5 percent and graffiti increased 19 percent. 0 Other crime likewise declined overall by 17 percent, although weapons possession dropped only 1 percent. Loitering/trespassing declined 63 percent, and destructive/explosive devices fell 23 percent. Yet, bomb threats increased by 20 percent.13
In its 2002 analysis of the CSSA’s reporting methodology, however, the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) identified several flaws. One was basing the number of reported safety violations on the number of disciplinary actions taken by schools, not the number of actual incidents that occurred. Another flaw was that disciplinary enforcement policies vary widely among school districts, giving parents and the legislature an inaccurate picture of how safe schools really are. Yet another flaw was the inability to distinguish the severity of a variety of crimes, especially among the most prevalent types of offenses such as battery. The LAO concluded that the information reported was of “questionable use.”14 Many of those flaws persist in California’s current safe-schools policy adopted after passage of NCLB.

Not As Safe As You Think

California sChool safety PoliCy after no Child left Behind
Also in 2002, Congress had approved NCLB and states were adjusting their policies to comply with the new legislation. The Unsafe School Choice Option occupies just two lines of the nearly 700-page NCLB Act.15 Under this provision, beginning in the 2003–04 school year, states receiving federal funds under NCLB had to have policies allowing students to transfer to a safe public school if their current school was deemed persistently dangerous or if they became victims of a violent crime on campus. Schools were required to notify parents of this option at least 14 days before the start of the new school year. Each year, states’ compliance with the NCLB Unsafe School Choice Option must be certified before the federal government releases funding for the following year.16 In April 2002, the CDE convened an advisory committee that included representatives from 30 local educational agencies, as well as the Department of Finance, the LAO, and the State Board of Education. Public meetings were also held to help the advisory committee develop California’s statewide definition of “persistently dangerous” schools, which was adopted the following month by the State Board of Education.17 A California public school is considered persistently dangerous if it meets the following criteria for three consecutive fiscal years: For a school of fewer than 300 enrolled students, the number of incidents of firearm violations committed by non-students on school grounds during school hours or during a school-sponsored activity, plus the number of student expulsions for any of the violations delineated below is greater than three . . . [or] is greater than one per 100 enrolled students or a fraction thereof [for a larger school]. There are nine violations for which a student may be suspended:

0 Assault or battery upon a school employee 0 Brandishing a knife 0 Causing serious physical injury to another person, except in self-defense 0 Hate violence 0 Possessing, selling, or furnishing a firearm 0 Possession of an explosive 0 Robbery or extortion 0 Selling a controlled substance 0 Sexual assault or sexual battery18
Apart from establishing and implementing an Unsafe School Choice Option policy, federal law requires only 1) that states define persistently dangerous schools “in consultation with a representative sample of

Not As Safe As You Think

local educational agencies;” 2) that states create a state law that allows students who become victims of violent crimes on school grounds to transfer to another public school within the district, including a public charter school; and 3) that the Secretary of State must annually certify in writing that the state is in compliance with the Unsafe School Choice Option statute.19 The details of those policies are left up to the states.20 Persistently Dangerous School Transfer Option. To date, not one of California’s more than 9,000 schools has ever been designated as persistently dangerous. Should a school ever be so designated, the school district must notify parents in a “timely manner.” The CDE recommends the district notify parents within 10 days of learning a school has been classified as persistently dangerous. The department also recommends that districts notify parents of their transfer option at that time, but generally advises that parents should be informed of their transfer rights within 20 days of learning a school has been designated persistently dangerous. Transfers should generally be completed within 30 school days. Districts are “encouraged” but not required to “take into account the needs and preferences of the affected students and parents for students opting to transfer . . . If there is not another school within the area served by the LEA [local education agency, or district] for transferring students, the LEA is encouraged, but not required, to explore other appropriate options such as an agreement with a neighboring LEA to accept transfer students. . .”21 Violent Crime Victims’ Transfer Option. The federal Unsafe School Choice Option provision ...districts are “encouraged” also requires that any student who “becomes but not required to consider a victim of a violent crime while in or on the the preferences of students school grounds must be allowed to attend a safe and parents in finding public elementary school or secondary school within the LEA, including a public charter another school... school.” All districts were required to have their own victim transfer-option policies in place by the beginning of the 2003–04 school year. Violent criminal offenses as defined in the California Penal Code include “attempted murder, battery with serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, rape, sexual battery, robbery, extortion, and hate crimes.” It is recommended, but not required, that districts offer the opportunity to transfer within 10 calendar days. Again, districts are “encouraged” but not required to consider the preferences of students and parents in finding another school within the district. If no safe school exists within the district, officials are “encouraged” but not required to explore options outside the district.22

Not As Safe As You Think

rePorted sChool-safety inCidents
Suspensions and expulsions arising from the nine persistently dangerous schools violations are reported through the Uniform Management Information Reporting System (UMIRS).23 School-level information is publicly available through the CDE Data Quest tool from the 2004–05 school year through the 2007– 08 school year, and for this analysis the department provided UMIRS reports for all California schools for those years. These UMIRS data cover more than 30 detailed statutory violations related to the nine violations for which a student may be suspended (see Appendix Table 1).24 For manageability, this analysis groups these violations into four categories:

0 Violence/Physical Injury/Weapons 0 Obscene/Disruptive/ Hostile/Intimidating Behavior 0 Vandalism/Stealing 0 Drug/Alcohol
It is important to keep certain caveats in mind when working with these data. Contrary to its name, self-reported UMIRS data are not uniform, according to the CDE. Moreover, information reported to the department is unaudited and therefore may contain errors. The significance of the information is also open to subjective interpretation. The reporting system relies on the number of disciplinary actions taken instead of the number of actual safety violations that occurred on school campuses. Thus, schools in districts with strict discipline-enforcement practices may appear less safe than schools in districts with lax enforcement.25 The Suspension and Expulsion appendices describe the formal processes used. During the 2007–08 school year, the latest year for which data are available, California schools reported 845,000 combined suspensions and expulsions for all safety violations. That figure likely understates the full prevalence of such incidents because only those resulting in student expulsions or suspensions are reported, not the number of actual incidents that occurred.26 In fact, the U.S. Department of Education urges state education agencies to base their unsafe schools definitions on “data that relate to incidents (numbers of offenses) even when an offender is not apprehended and subsequently disciplined.”27 Even so, incidents resulting in 845,000 combined suspensions and expulsions means at a minimum:

0 91 percent of California students are attending public schools with incidents of violence, physical injuries, or weapons. 0 85 percent are attending public schools with incidents involving obscene/disruptive/ hostile/intimidating behavior. 0 55 percent are attending public schools with incidents of vandalism or stealing. 0 37 percent are attending public schools with incidents involving drugs or alcohol.28

Not As Safe As You Think

From the 2004–05 school year through the 2007–08 school year, total enrollment decreased from 6.32 million students to 6.18 million students, a 2.2 percent decrease.29 Over the same period, however, the number of suspensions and expulsions for school-safety incidents increased more than 7 percent, from almost 788,000 incidents to 845,000 incidents.30 The following sections examine this increase in greater detail.

Figure 1: Total Incidents, 2004–05 through 2007–08
860,000

NUMBER OF INCIDENTS

840,000 820,000 800,000 780,000 760,000 740,000 720,000 700,000 680,000 660,000 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

844,791

787,949

798,245

734,328

2007-08

SCHOOL YEAR

Source: Authors’ figure based on UMIRS data for all school years provided by the CDE. Statutes summarized by authors. Notes: 1. “Number of Incidents” stands for the combined number of student suspensions and expulsions. These figures may understate the actual number of incidents because they exclude incidents not resulting in student suspensions or expulsions. 2. Thirty Education Code sections are represented. Three sections—489002, 489003, and 489004—concerning school personnel and parental liability, as well as the limit on the number of days students can be suspended, are omitted from all analyses, tables, and figures.

Not As Safe As You Think

a Closer look at sChool safety
School-safety incidents based solely on the number of reported suspensions and expulsions have increased overall since the 2004–05 school year even as student enrollment declined statewide. Throughout this analysis, it should be kept in mind that the term “incidents” refers only to the number of reported suspensions and expulsions relating to school-safety incidents. It excludes incidents that did not result in those disciplinary actions and therefore understates the actual number of school-safety incidents that occurred. The 2005–06 school year stands out, however, because of the sharp dip in overall school-safety incidents in every category except vandalism and stealing compared to the 2004–05 school year. The most pronounced decline occurred in incidents relating to violence, physical injury, and weapons—in particular, a 57 percent drop in the use of a firearm, knife, explosive, or other dangerous object. This is the only category in which the number of overall incidents reported in the 2007–08 school year is fewer than the number reported in the 2004–05 school year. Figure 2 shows the types of incidents as a percent of total incidents for the 2007–08 school year. Incidents involving obscene/disruptive/hostile/intimidating behavior, followed by incidents of violence, physical injuries, or weapons, are far and away the most prevalent. Combined, these categories account for nearly 9 out of 10 of all reported school-safety incidents (88 percent). Appendix Tables 2 through 5 list the total number of incidents by category for regular California schools during the 2007–08 school year.

Not As Safe As You Think

Figure 2: Safety Incidents as a Percentage of Total Incidents, 2007–08

Vandalism/Stealing, 6% Drug/Alcohol, 7%

Violence/Physical Injury/Weapons, 34%

Obscene/Disruptive/ Hostile/Intimidating Behavior, 54%

Obscene/disruptive/hostile/intimidating behavior. Incidents involving obscene/disruptive/hostile/ intimidating behavior are on the rise. This trend is an important public-policy concern because evidence shows that a single disruptive student negatively affects the math and reading achievement of other students, and the effects accumulate over time with students’ continued exposure to disruptive peers.31 Disruptive/defiant behavior accounts for nearly 9 out of every 10 incidents in this incident category (86 percent) and is on the rise, increasing from more than 336,000 incidents in the 2003–04 school year to more than 391,000 incidents in the 2007–08 school year, a 16 percent increase. Over this period, obscene acts also increased 16 percent, from 42,000 incidents to more than 48,000 incidents. Incidents contributing to a hostile/intimidating educational environment increased nearly 43 percent, from 8,700 incidents to nearly 12,500 incidents. Incidents involving imitation firearms declined, while those related to obscenity, libel, and slander/terrorist threats remained essentially the same.

Not As Safe As You Think

Figure 3a: Total Incidents Involving Obscene/Disruptive/Hostile/ Intimidating Behavior, 2004–05 through 2007–08
480,000

NUMBER OF INCIDENTS

460,000 440,000 420,000 400,000 380,000 360,000 340,000 390,208 383,380

455,444

415,309

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

SCHOOL YEAR
Source: Authors’ figure based on UMIRS data for all school years provided by the CDE. Statutes summarized by authors. Notes: 1. “Number of Incidents” stands for the combined number of student suspensions and expulsions. These figures may understate the actual number of incidents because they exclude incidents not resulting in student suspensions or expulsions. 2. Thirty Education Code sections are represented. Three sections—489002, 489003, and 489004—concerning school personnel and parental liability, as well as the limit on the number of days students can be suspended, are omitted from all analyses, tables, and figures.

Not As Safe As You Think

Figure 3b: Obscene/Disruptive/Hostile/Intimidating Behavior by Subcategory, 2004–05 through 2007–08
450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0

NUMBER OF INCIDENTS

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

SCHOOL YEAR
Disruptive/defiant behavior Hostile/intimidating educational environment Obscenity, libel, slander/terrorist threats Obscene acts Imitation firearm

Violence, physical injuries, or weapons. Incidents involving violence, physical injuries, or weapons declined by nearly 25,000 incidents overall, or 8 percent, from the 2004–05 school year to the 2007–08 school year. The subcategory of incidents involving a firearm, knife, explosive, or other dangerous object showed the sharpest decline of nearly 58 percent. Other subcategories, however, showed alarming increases, including aiding or abetting physical injury (65 percent), hazing (27 percent), and the use of force or violence (21 percent).

Not As Safe As You Think

Figure 4a: Total Incidents Involving Violence, Physical Injuries, or Weapons, 2004–05 through 2007–08
320,000 310,000

SCHOOL YEAR

300,000 290,000 280,000 270,000 260,000 250,000 240,000

307,820

285,692

283,030

263,722

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

NUMBER OF INCIDENTS
Source: Authors’ figure based on UMIRS data for all school years provided by the CDE. Statutes summarized by authors. Notes: 1. “Number of Incidents” stands for the combined number of student suspensions and expulsions. These figures may understate the actual number of incidents because they exclude incidents not resulting in student suspensions or expulsions. 2. Thirty Education Code sections are represented. Three sections—489002, 489003, and 489004—concerning school personnel and parental liability, as well as the limit on the number of days students can be suspended, are omitted from all analyses, tables, and figures.

Not As Safe As You Think

Figure 4b: Incidents Involving Violence, Physical Injuries, or Weapons by Subcategory, 2004–05 through 2007–08
220,000

NUMBER OF INCIDENTS

200,000 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

SCHOOL YEAR
Caused or threatened physical injury Used force or violence Harassment/intimidation/hate violence Aid/abet physical injury Firearm, knife, explosive, or other dangerous object Sexual assault/battery/harassment Robbery or extortion Hazing

Drugs or Alcohol. Incidents involving drugs or alcohol increased 15 percent overall from the 2004–05 school year to the 2007–08 school year. Drug paraphernalia and use of the prescription drug Soma, a drug singled out in statute, declined over this period. Incidents in which students possessed, used, sold, furnished, or were under the influence of a controlled substance, as well as incidents of tobacco use, increased 23 percent.

Not As Safe As You Think

Figure 5a: Total Incidents Involving Drugs or Alcohol, 2004–05 through 2007–08

60,000

NUMBER OF INCIDENTS

50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0

56,679 49,778 50,492 45,495

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

Not As Safe As You Think

Figure 5b: Incidents Involving Drugs or Alcohol by Subcategory, 2004–05 through 2007–08
45,000

NUMBER OF INCIDENTS

40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

SCHOOL YEAR
Possessed, used, sold, furnished, or under the inﬂuence of controlled substance Tobacco Drug paraphernalia Prescription drug Soma

Vandalism or stealing. Incidents involving vandalism or stealing increased 24 percent overall from the 2004–05 school year to the 2007–08 school year. Acts of vandalism increased nearly 28 percent, and stealing increased 24 percent. Receipt of stolen property remained essentially unchanged, decreasing by less than 1 percent.

Not As Safe As You Think

Figure 6a: Total Incidents Involving Vandalism or Stealing, 2004–05 through 2007–08
60,000

NUMBER OF INCIDENTS

50,000

40,000

40,143

41,731

46,752

49,638

30,000

20,000

10,000

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

Not As Safe As You Think

Figure 6b: Incidents Involving Vandalism or Stealing by Subcategory, 2004–05 through 2007–08
25,000

NUMBER OF INCIDENTS

20,000

15,000 10,000

5,000 0

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

SCHOOL YEAR
Stealing Vandalism Receipt of stolen property

Not As Safe As You Think

imPlementing sensiBle safe-sChools PoliCy
California students should not have to wait three years or become victims of violence before they are allowed to transfer to safe schools. As early as 2002, the LAO expressed many of the same concerns about California’s safe-schools policy raised in subsequent years by several federal agencies.32 Persistently dangerous schools definitions crafted by the states, including California, became the subject of Congressional hearings in 2003 because only 47 schools nationwide were designated persistently dangerous the previous school year.33 Since that time, the U.S. Department of Education’s Safe and DrugFree Schools and Communities Advisory Committee, as well as the U.S. Office of Inspector General (OIG), have called for reforms that will likely be considered during the pending reauthorization of NCLB.34 A leading recommendation by those federal agencies is doing away with the persistently dangerous school (PDS) designation altogether. By design, many of those with a vested interest in not having schools designated persistently dangerous were largely responsible for crafting states’ definitions. The fear of being stigmatized creates a perverse incentive not to comply with the Unsafe School Choice Option provision. “States fear the political, social, and economic consequences of having schools designated PDS, and school administrators view the label as detrimental to their careers,” the OIG explains. “Consequently, states set unreasonable definitions for PDS and schools have underreported incidents.”35 Consider California. The state’s definition of “persistently dangerous” would undoubtedly strike the average Californian as unreasonable—in part because average Californians were not the ones who crafted it. Under the NCLB Unsafe School Choice Option provision, states were required to develop their persistently dangerous school definitions in consultation with a “representative sample of LEAs [local education authorities, or districts].” In California, that sample consisted of 30 local education agencies and staff members from several government agencies.36 While states were free to allow the input of parents and representatives from the community, they were not required to do so.37 Likewise, identifying persistently dangerous schools depends on self-reported data from schools that will face consequences based on that information, including the potential loss of students and their associated education funding should they transfer. The OIG, for example, noted that among the “many ways to circumvent the intent of USCO [Unsafe School Choice Option],” it found a distinct pattern: schools that are on the verge of being identified as persistently dangerous in one year “tend to show dramatic decreases in violent incidents the following year.”38 States can also retroactively downgrade reported incidents, as the OIG documented in New York and New Jersey.39 Consequently, not much has changed in the seven years since the LAO concluded that “the current reporting and validation system results in fundamentally flawed data that mislead the Legislature and the public regarding the overall crime ‘picture’ in the public schools and the comparative safety of campuses in different school districts.”40 Likewise, the OIG concluded that school violence is more prevalent than California’s current Unsafe School Choice Option policy suggests.41 The OIG recommended instead that the NCLB persistently dangerous school identification requirement be replaced with a mandate that schools provide parents information to decide for themselves whether a school is safe enough for their child to attend.42 The number of police reports filed by any given

Not As Safe As You Think

school would be a more accurate measure. The California Department of Justice already compiles that information for California colleges and universities. Four California school districts currently report this information as well.43 The California Postsecondary Education Commission also has a website with links to dozens of campus crime statistics resources. In fact, both the California State University and the University of California systems release annual reported crime statistics, including police reports.44 Replacing the persistently dangerous school label outright will require an act of Congress. Yet the OIG, along with the U.S. Department of Education’s Safe and Drug-Free Schools Advisory Committee, recommend some of the following changes “that can be immediately implemented to improve the identification of dangerous schools.”45 Recommendation No. 1: Report the Number of Actual Safety Violations, Not Disciplinary Actions. U.S. Department of Justice statistics indicate that school violence is more prevalent than states’ persistently dangerous schools criteria suggest. Specifically, about 2 percent of public schools (1,600) account for 50 percent of serious violent incidents, while 7 percent of public schools (5,400) account for 75 percent of serious violent incidents. Meanwhile, from the 2002–03 school year to the 2006–07 school year, fewer than 50 of the country’s 98,793 public schools have been identified as persistently dangerous each year.46 Yet if an incident does not result in an expulsion or suspension, it does not count toward a school’s persistently dangerous designation. The LAO called this approach “fundamentally flawed” because districts’ enforcement policies vary significantly.47 In fact, assessing the safety of schools based on disciplinary actions introduces perverse incentives for schools to avoid student suspensions and expulsions. As the OIG explains, “Our audit work revealed that long-term suspensions or expulsions were often avoided in favor of other corrective action, including transferring the offender to an alternative program.”48 Recommendation No. 2: Base Safety Assessments on the Most Current Year of Data. The OIG concluded that it should not take three years or more before students can transfer to safe schools and urged the CDE “to consider the Department’s suggestions in any reviews that it may conduct in the future of the State’s USCO [Unsafe School Choice Option] policy to ensure that California’s parents are provided with both the knowledge and option to keep their children safe.”49 Recommendation No. 3: Adopt a Common-Sense Definition of “Dangerous Schools.” Defining unsafe schools should be based on objective criteria students and parents would use to determine the safety of a school.50 A 2005 OIG audit of California’s Unsafe School Choice Option policy concluded that while it complied with the letter of the law, “the policy may not have met the intent of the Act, which was to provide parents with the knowledge and options to ensure that their children are attending a safe public elementary or secondary school. None of California’s over 9,000 schools have met the State’s definition of ‘persistently dangerous.’”51 In a separate audit more than two years later, the OIG again found that that the state’s definition of dangerous schools is so narrow that it is virtually impossible for any school to meet the persistently dangerous threshold—and to date, not one has.52 Recommendation No. 4: Guarantee Parental Notification by Districts and Schools. The OIG audits reveal that California’s Unsafe School Choice Option does not guarantee parents the right to transfer their children to safe schools. Some school districts have no written policies. “When the USCO policy transfer option is not included in an LEA’s written policies,” the OIG explained, “there is the risk that school administrators and parents may be unaware that the transfer option is available

Not As Safe As You Think

and not subject to the conditions stated in the district’s open enrollment policy.”53 Even in cases where students were the victims of violence, the OIG documented instances in which schools could not substantiate that parents were notified of their right to transfer their children. It was also critical of the CDE’s assurance that parents would be notified of their transfer option at the beginning of the school year. This practice, according to the OIG, “may not be sufficient notice for parents of identified student victims. At the time of the incident, parents may not recall that the USCO transfer option is available. For parents of student victims, the LEA should maintain documentation that it provided the parent with notice of the USCO transfer option at the time the LEA became aware of the incident.”54 Recommendation No. 5: Guarantee Students’ Transfer Options Beyond Their Resident Districts. Up to half of all public schools statewide, close to 5,000, lack the capacity to accept student transfers.55 Nearly one out of four (23 percent) regular California districts have only a single school, while almost a third of all regular districts (35 percent) have only one or two schools. Almost nine out of 10 of those one- or two-school districts are located in a rural area or a distant/fringe-town setting. Even including the state’s largest school districts, the median regular California district has just five schools.56 Other districts are so large that parents may not be able to transport their children elsewhere, particularly children from single-parent and dual-earner families.57 There is no federal or state statutory prohibition against permitting out-of-district unsafe-school transfers. On the contrary, both federal and state policies actively encourage such transfers when safe options are not available within a student’s resident district.58 Parents’ options should not be limited, especially when in many cases, the closest, perhaps even only, public-school options are in neighboring districts.59

Not As Safe As You Think

reform efforts stymied in California
Even though California could implement these recommendations now, the OIG noted that “there is no express statutory or regulatory requirement to support the implementation of our suggestions.”60 In 2008, a proposal was introduced in the California Assembly to implement many of those recommendations, which were also supported by the U.S. Department of Education’s Safe and Drug-Free Schools Advisory Committee.61 Under the proposed Safe School Guarantee, the state’s NCLB unsafe school definition would be made consistent with the California Constitution, which guarantees the “inalienable right” of all students and school staff “to attend campuses which are safe, secure and peaceful.” Furthermore, the plan would have redefined an unsafe school as both the U.S. Office of Inspector General and U.S. Department of Education recommend. The Safe School Guarantee proposal defined an unsafe school as a “campus where pupils and staff have the reasonable apprehension that their person or property is not secure.” Parents whose child attends a school where a student has been suspended or expelled during the current or preceding year for any of the nine violations described earlier may transfer their child to a safe public school within the district or to one outside the district if no safe in-district schools exist.62 The official analysis of the Safe School Guarantee proposal claimed, “If the bill is enacted, provisions in the statute will override regulations, which may put California out of compliance with NCLB.”63 This analysis was mistaken on several key points. First, no such federal “regulations” exist, only non-regulatory guidance. Second, the U.S. Department of Education explicitly states, “We strongly encourage all States to annually review and revise their definition of a persistently dangerous school.” Third, the department recommends that the criteria states use to determine an unsafe school “should encompass areas that students and parents would consider in determining a school’s level of safety, including rates of violent offenses as defined by the State” (emphasis added).64 Finally, the department concludes, While many States have defined “persistently dangerous” schools as schools that meet State-established criteria over a period of two to three years, we strongly encourage States to define persistently dangerous schools based on the number of incidents over a shorter period, specifically one school year. Students should not be subjected to violent offenses and activities over a period of years before a transfer option is made available.65 Still, the measure failed in committee.66

Not As Safe As You Think

ConClusion: toward sChools safer than you think
California parents should not have to wait for years at a time before the state grants their children access to safe, secure, and peaceful schools. Most important, students should not have to be victimized before their parents can take decisive action. In spite of declining statewide enrollment, combined student suspensions and expulsions relating to school-safety violations increased 7 percent, from 788,000 incidents in the 2004–05 school year to 845,000 incidents in the 2007–08 school year. Those figures actually understate the full prevalence of such incidents because only those resulting in student expulsions or suspensions are reported, not the number of actual incidents that occurred. Still, 9 out of 10 California students currently attend schools with reported incidents that resulted in disciplinary actions for violence, physical injuries, or weapons. Yet not one of California’s more than 9,000 public schools has ever met the state’s definition of unsafe because the state defines dangerous schools so narrowly that it is virtually impossible for schools to meet the legal threshold. Based on the recommendations of state and federal agencies, there are five reforms that could be implemented immediately:

0 Report the number of actual school-safety violations, not disciplinary actions. 0 Base safety assessments on the most current year of data. 0 Adopt a common-sense definition of “dangerous schools.” 0 Guarantee parental notification by districts and schools. 0 Guarantee students’ transfer options beyond their resident districts.
These reforms do not require an act of Congress, and they would help ensure the inalienable right of all students under the California Constitution “to attend campuses which are safe, secure and peaceful.”

Not As Safe As You Think

Appendix Table 1: Statutory Safety Violations by Category
CA Education Code Sections 48900a, 48900a1, 48915a1, 48915a5 48900a2 48900b, 48915c1, 48915c5, 48915a2, 48915c2 48900e, 48915a4 48900s 48900o, 48900.3 48900n, 48915c4, 48900.2 48900q CA Education Code Sections 48900c, 48900d, 48915a3, 48915c3 48900h 48900j 48900p CA Education Code Sections 48900g 48900f 48900l CA Education Code Sections 48900k 48900i 48900m 48900.7 48900.4 Total Incidents Total Enrollment Violence/Physical Injury/Weapons Caused or threatened physical injury Used force or violence Firearm, knife, explosive, or other dangerous object Robbery or extortion Aid/abet physical injury Harassment/intimidation/hate violence Sexual assault/battery/harassment Hazing Subtotal Drug/Alcohol: Possessed, used, sold, furnished, or under the influence of controlled substance Tobacco Drug paraphernalia Prescription drug Soma Subtotal Vandalism/Stealing: Stealing Vandalism Receipt of stolen property Subtotal Obscene/Disruptive/ Hostile/ Intimidating Behavior: Disruptive/defiant behavior Obscene act Imitation firearm Obscenity, libel, slander/terrorist threats Hostile/intimidating educational environment Subtotal # S/E: 2004–05 201,831 33,483 57,800 2,016 772 2,837 8,788 293 307,820 # S/E: 2004–05 36,824 7,342 5,143 469 49,778 # S/E: 2004–05 18,619 18,374 3,150 40,143 # S/E: 2004–05 336,364 41,667 2,105 1,337 8,736 390,208 787,949 6,322,141 # S/E: 2005–06 191,489 33,129 24,702 2,009 977 2,908 8,111 397 263,722 # S/E: 2005–06 34,647 6,475 3,892 481 45,495 # S/E: 2005–06 19,512 18,920 3,299 41,731 # S/E: 2005–06 329,258 40,661 2,910 1,207 9,344 383,380 734,328 6,032,794 # S/E: 2006–07 # S/E: 2007-08 193,559 38,935 36,963 2,197 2,027 2,956 8,600 455 285,692 # S/E: 2006–07 37,974 6,963 5,036 519 50,492 # S/E: 2006–07 20,582 21,617 4,553 46,752 200,782 40,633 24,347 2,174 1,271 2,986 10,466 371 283,030 # S/E: 2007-08 43,662 7,664 4,955 398 56,679 # S/E: 2007-08 23,023 23,484 3,131 49,638

# S/E: 2006–07 # S/E: 2007-08 355,869 44,809 2,230 1,138 11,263 415,309 798,245 5,555,077 391,336 48,412 1,862 1,354 12,480 455,444 844,791 6,178,033

Source: Authors’ table based on UMIRS data for all school years provided by the CDE. Statutes summarized by authors. Notes: 1. “# S/E” stands for the combined number of student suspensions and expulsions. These figures may understate the actual number of incidents because they exclude incidents not resulting in student suspensions or expulsions. 2. Thirty Education Code sections are represented. Three sections—489002, 489003, and 489004—concerning school personnel and parental liability, as well as the limit on the number of days students can be suspended, are omitted from all analyses, tables, and figures. 3. Enrollment figures represent the sum of all schools’ reported enrollment in annual UMIRS reports.

Not As Safe As You Think

susPension ProCedure aPPendix
Another shortcoming of California’s unsafe school policy is the cumbersome administrative process involved in disciplining students. On average, students can be suspended immediately or within one day after the incident. Suspensions are limited to five cumulative days, and no more than 20 days per year. It can take 30 to 40 days to expel a student—assuming there are no written requests for delay. Before any suspensions or expulsions are considered, primary disciplinary actions almost always take place with the classroom teacher. Students who refuse to follow the rules, cause classroom disruptions, or engage in other behaviors that do not require statutory action are addressed by the teacher or school official. Disciplinary actions for these behaviors include after-school detention, trash pick-up on campus, community service, and reassignment to another education program or classroom. Parents may also be asked to attend portions of their child’s school day or even be referred to a counselor. The authority for student discipline procedures is broken down as follows:

0 Teachers can implement low-level, immediate punishments and may suspend students or refer them to the principal for suspension consideration.67 0 Vice principals, principals, and superintendents can order suspensions for no more than five consecutive days or recommend expulsion.68 0 Governing boards can order suspensions and finalize expulsions only after a hearing and an agreement from an impartial administrative panel.
Suspension is commonly used for most violations cited in the Education Code to avoid expulsion or involuntary transfers. Superintendents and principals use their discretion in recommending suspension, and suspensions are rarely used for a student’s first offense.69 The student’s conduct record is also taken into account. Suspensions by teachers or administrative staff usually require a written notice, and they are encouraged to contact parents by phone or in person as well and to schedule a parent-teacher conference.70 Administrators may issue a suspension without prior conferences if an incident is identified as an “emergency situation,” where there is a clear and present danger to the life, safety, or health of the students or school employees. If a violation committed by a student poses no threat to the safety of the other students, schools administer an on-campus suspension, a preferred disciplinary action since it preserves a school’s average daily attendance (ADA), which determines funding. Suspended students remain on campus and are supervised in a designated classroom separated from other students. Teachers may let the student complete any assignments and tests missed during the suspension, although they are not required to do so.71 If the school’s governing board is considering issuing a suspension or any disciplinary action (except expulsion), a closed-session hearing must be held.72 A written notice on the board’s intent and possible consequences is mailed to the student’s parents or guardians. Within two days of receiving the notice, the hearing may take place.

Not As Safe As You Think

exPulsion ProCedure aPPendix
Expulsion is typically a consequence of last resort for schools when all other means of discipline have failed to correct students’ behavior.73 In addition to the federal zero-tolerance law mandating expulsions for firearms violations, California law also stipulates a zero-tolerance policy for the following actions:

0 Possessing, selling, or otherwise furnishing a firearm, without written permission from a certified school employee. 0 Brandishing a knife at another person. 0 Unlawfully selling a controlled substance. 0 Committing or attempting to commit a sexual assault or committing sexual battery. 0 Possession of an explosive.74
A superintendent or principal will recommend expulsion for the following, unless the situation calls for another response:

0 Causing serious physical injury to another person, except in self-defense 0 Possession of any knife or other dangerous object of no reasonable use to the student 0 Unlawful possession of any controlled substance 0 Robbery or extortion 0 Assault, sexual assault, or battery75
Students can be expelled for other incidents as well depending on their previous record. Once administrators recommend expulsion, a written notice is immediately sent home to inform students and their parents or guardians of the incident and its related disciplinary procedures. The notice should include the date and location of the hearing (held within 30 days), the reasons for expulsion, an explanation of the district’s disciplinary rules relating to the violation, an explanation of students’ and parents’/guardians’ rights to appear in person or to be represented by an attorney, the right to inspect and obtain copies of all documents to be used, the right to confront and question all witnesses who testify at the hearing, the right to view other evidence presented, and the right to present evidence on the student’s behalf, including witnesses.76 Most often, immediately after an incident, the principal or principal’s designee will meet with the parents and the student to discuss the incident and to inform them of the reasons for the expulsion recommendation and the options available. Families may accept the expulsion or request a hearing.77 Individual school boards determine district-specific academic and hearings policies within statutory guidelines.78 Expulsion hearings are conducted by the governing school board, which has up to 10 school days after the hearing to finalize its decision.79 A student may, through a written request, ask for a delay of the verdict. The governing board could decide to contract the hearing out to a County Administrative Hearing Officer with the State of California or to appoint an impartial panel of administrators, consisting of three classified personal, none of whom is employed at the student’s school or serves on the school’s board.

Not As Safe As You Think

The expulsion hearing is informal and includes an opening statement, documentary evidence, questioning of witness(es), legal arguments, and a closing statement. Finally, the Governing Board, Hearing Officer, or impartial administrative panel announces its decision based on the facts and evidence presented. If students are not expelled, they are reinstated, the case is ended, and the decision is final. If the Hearing Officer or Administrative Panel decides to expel the student, all evidence must be prepared and submitted to the Governing Board. Once the evidence is presented, the board may request or even subpoena a witness to testify. Any costs affiliated with the subpoena, including transportation, will be paid by requesting party.80 When the Governing Board decides the student is officially expelled, students and parents are sent a written explanation. The final case is then held in public session for closing statements. Expulsion is recorded on students’ permanent records, which follow them to their new schools.81 An appeal to the verdict may be filed within 30 days to the County School Board. Then the County Board must hold an informal hearing within 20 days of appeal. After the appeal hearing, the Board has three days to finalize its decision. The County Board’s decision is final. If the local school board’s decision is reversed on appeal by the County School Board, the local school board must reimburse the student’s transportation fees to the hearing.82

Not As Safe As You Think

exPulsion ProCedure aPPendix diagram
Student commits oﬀense requiring expulsion. Student caught in violation and is recommended for expulsion by principal or superintendent.

Notice sent home to inform parent/guardian. Must include hearing date, charges, rules and regulations, student/parent rights. Hearing must take place within 30 days. Governing Board contracts out to a County Hearing Oﬃcer or appointed Impartial Administrative Panel. Must decide verdict within 3 days of hearing. If student is not up for expulsion, the process is terminated and the student is reinstated in their school or other instructional program.

Hearing is held by Governing Board.

Must announce decision within 10 days of hearing.

If student is expelled, Governing Board must hold public session and give written notice to parents. Parent/guardian may ﬁle an appeal within 30 days to County School Board.

Governing Board may request or subpoena witnesses if necessary.

If student is recommended for expulsion, oﬃcers must prepare facts and evidence to present to the Governing Board.

Expulsion is recorded on student’s permanent record and will follow student to new school.

When Governing Board receives request to admit previously expelled student, a board hearing is held to decide if student is dangerous to school’s students and employees. Must announce decision in 5 days.

County Board, contracted County Hearing Oﬃcer, or Impartial Administrative Panel must hold hearing within 20 days. Decision is announced within 3 days of hearing.

Decision is ﬁnal. If original verdict is reversed, student’s transportation (to hearing) expense is reimbursed by the local school board.
Source: Authors’ chart based on the California Education Code.

Not As Safe As You Think

interPreting aPPendix taBles 2 through 5
Appendix tables 2 through 5 include only regular schools enrolling 100 or more students according to schools’ 2007–08 UMIRS reports submitted to the CDE. Schools with student enrollment less than 100 as well as schools classified as alternative, community day, continuation, juvenile hall, or special education are excluded as they are not representative of typical California public schools and therefore could distort safety statistics.83 For manageability, each safety category lists the 100 California schools with the most reported suspensions and expulsions, ranked by the number of combined suspensions and expulsions per student, along with the corresponding proportion of suspensions and expulsions per 100 students. Ranking schools this way instead of by the total number of combined suspensions and expulsions provides a more accurate picture of a school’s safety climate because the figures are proportional to each school’s enrollment.84 It should be borne in mind that the figures reported in these appendix tables represent only the number of suspensions and expulsions for each respective school-safety category, not the number of actual safety incidents that occurred. The actual number of safety incidents occurring at individual schools could be understated. Moreover, the combined suspension and expulsion figures presented in these appendix tables are an imperfect school-climate barometer because schools with strict discipline-enforcement policies are likely to report more suspensions and expulsions, while schools with lax policies are likely to report fewer suspensions and expulsions. Therefore, the statistics presented in these appendix tables should be interpreted with caution.

Not As Safe As You Think

Appendix Table 2: Top 100 Schools— Obscene/Disruptive/Hostile/Intimidating Behavior, 2007–08
County Kern Sonoma Riverside Los Angeles Riverside Riverside Los Angeles Kern Los Angeles El Dorado Riverside Riverside Los Angeles Kern Sacramento San Diego Riverside San Bernardino Kern Riverside Sonoma San Joaquin Riverside Sacramento Los Angeles Los Angeles Kings Fresno Contra Costa Kings Imperial Kern Ventura Kern Los Angeles Fresno Solano Sacramento Sacramento Santa Barbara Sacramento Kern San Mateo Santa Clara Contra Costa San Diego District Lamont Elementary Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified Moreno Valley Unified Pasadena Unified Moreno Valley Unified Moreno Valley Unified Long Beach Unified Mojave Unified Azusa Unified Black Oak Mine Unified Moreno Valley Unified Moreno Valley Unified Glendale Unified Mojave Unified Twin Rivers Unified Vista Unified School Enrollment 552 151 163 1,188 1,472 1,580 974 152 191 131 2,251 1,479 1,207 346 124 126 107 308 692 1,388 224 225 1,409 745 683 845 765 738 720 876 176 1,398 337 928 1,760 820 124 849 133 116 643 310 110 575 694 419 # S/E 2,798 439 388 2,457 2,746 2,630 1,592 241 295 196 3,363 2,199 1,788 478 170 172 146 411 922 1,817 283 279 1,717 897 782 964 860 812 756 904 180 1,364 321 876 1,649 751 113 758 117 98 527 252 89 463 552 333 # Incidents per Student 5.07 2.91 2.38 2.07 1.87 1.66 1.63 1.59 1.54 1.50 1.49 1.49 1.48 1.38 1.37 1.37 1.36 1.33 1.33 1.31 1.26 1.24 1.22 1.20 1.14 1.14 1.12 1.10 1.05 1.03 1.02 0.98 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.91 0.89 0.88 0.84 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.79 # Incidents per 100 Students 506.88 290.73 238.04 206.82 186.55 166.46 163.45 158.55 154.45 149.62 149.40 148.68 148.14 138.15 137.10 136.51 136.45 133.44 133.24 130.91 126.34 124.00 121.86 120.40 114.49 114.08 112.42 110.03 105.00 103.20 102.27 97.57 95.25 94.40 93.69 91.59 91.13 89.28 87.97 84.48 81.96 81.29 80.91 80.52 79.54 79.47

Mountain View Middle El Camino High March Valley Blair High Badger Springs Middle Sunnymead Middle Washington Middle California City High Sierra High Creekside Elementary Moreno Valley High Vista Heights Middle Woodrow Wilson Middle California City Middle Vista Nueva Career and Technology High Vista Focus Academy Moreno Valley Community Moreno Valley Unified Learning Center Victor Valley Union High Goodwill High Bakersfield City Compton Junior High Moreno Valley Unified Palm Middle Wilmar Union Elementary Wilson Elementary Manteca Unified Calla High Moreno Valley Unified Landmark Middle San Juan Unified Encina Preparatory High Torrance Unified Jefferson Middle Redondo Beach Unified Adams Middle Corcoran Joint Unified John Muir Middle Fresno Unified Yosemite Middle West Contra Costa Unified Lovonya DeJean Middle Corcoran Joint Unified Corcoran High San Pasqual Valley Unified San Pasqual Middle Bakersfield City Walter Stiern Middle Oxnard Union High Frontier High Bakersfield City Curran Middle Pasadena Unified Marshall Fundamental Fresno Unified Tioga Middle Vacaville Unified Country High San Juan Unified San Juan High Twin Rivers Unified Pacific Career and Technology High Lompoc Unified Maple High Martin Luther King Jr. Twin Rivers Unified Technology Academy Mojave Unified Joshua Middle Ravenswood City Elementary Forty-Niners Academy Los Altos Elementary Santa Rita Elementary West Contra Costa Unified Helms Middle Jamul-Dulzura Union Oak Grove Middle Elementary

Not As Safe As You Think

Los Angeles Fresno San Joaquin Riverside Fresno Tulare Shasta Fresno Sacramento Riverside Fresno Sacramento Los Angeles Contra Costa San Joaquin Sacramento Riverside Kern Placer Riverside Kern Riverside San Bernardino El Dorado Yolo Fresno San Bernardino Fresno San Joaquin Santa Clara Kern Kern Stanislaus Fresno Riverside Alameda San Bernardino Riverside Contra Costa San Mateo Riverside Santa Clara Fresno San Bernardino Sacramento Kern Fresno Sacramento San Joaquin San Bernardino Solano Imperial San Joaquin San Diego

Pomona Unified Fresno Unified Lincoln Unified Moreno Valley Unified Fresno Unified Porterville Unified Redding Elementary Fresno Unified Twin Rivers Unified Moreno Valley Unified Fresno Unified San Juan Unified Pasadena Unified West Contra Costa Unified Lodi Unified Elk Grove Unified Moreno Valley Unified Kern Union High Western Placer Unified Palm Springs Unified Mojave Unified Moreno Valley Unified Rialto Unified Placerville Union Elementary Washington Unified Fresno Unified San Bernardino City Unified Coalinga-Huron Joint Unified Manteca Unified Franklin-McKinley Elementary Kern Union High Kern Union High Keyes Union Fresno Unified Corona-Norco Unified San Lorenzo Unified Rialto Unified Desert Sands Unified West Contra Costa Unified San Mateo-Foster City Elementary Temecula Valley Unified East Side Union High Fresno Unified Hesperia Unified San Juan Unified Kern Union High Coalinga-Huron Joint Unified Twin Rivers Unified Manteca Unified Hesperia Unified Vallejo City Unified San Pasqual Valley Unified Ripon Unified Oceanside Unified

Emerson Middle Cooper Middle Sierra Middle Canyon Springs High Kings Canyon Middle Citrus High Sequoia Middle Scandinavian Middle Rio Tierra Junior High March Mountain High Tehipite Middle Jonas Salk High-Tech Academy John Muir High Kennedy High Delta Sierra Middle Samuel Jackman Middle Valley View High Ridgeview High Lincoln High Mt. San Jacinto High Mojave Senior High Vista del Lago High Rialto Middle Edwin Markham Middle Yolo High Slater Elementary Del Vallejo Middle Coalinga Middle New Vision High McKinley Elementary North High West High Barbara Spratling Middle Sequoia Middle Orange Grove High Edendale Middle Eisenhower Senior High Indio High Richmond High Bayside S.T.E.M. Academy Rancho Vista High Oak Grove High Carver Academy Mojave High Mesa Verde High South High Huron Middle Foothill Farms Junior High Weston Ranch High Hesperia Junior High Vallejo High San Pasqual Valley Elementary Ripon High Clair W. Burgener Academy

927 603 557 2,791 1,014 308 777 704 514 748 734 513 1,298 905 558 1,084 2,814 2,889 1,430 457 532 2,541 1,323 341 179 755 1,572 630 154 516 2,491 2,465 282 830 211 813 2,289 2,706 1,779 569 212 2,554 311 304 1,224 2,037 347 717 1,507 1,709 1,794 390 925 246

736 476 439 2,182 791 238 598 536 389 558 547 374 938 653 401 774 2,002 2,054 999 318 367 1,734 902 230 119 484 987 392 94 314 1,510 1,483 167 486 122 470 1,316 1,537 1,004 321 119 1,426 172 168 675 1,122 186 382 802 901 944 205 482 128

0.79 0.79 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.66 0.64 0.63 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52

79.40 78.94 78.82 78.18 78.01 77.27 76.96 76.14 75.68 74.60 74.52 72.90 72.27 72.15 71.86 71.40 71.14 71.10 69.86 69.58 68.98 68.24 68.18 67.45 66.48 64.11 62.79 62.22 61.04 60.85 60.62 60.16 59.22 58.55 57.82 57.81 57.49 56.80 56.44 56.41 56.13 55.83 55.31 55.26 55.15 55.08 53.60 53.28 53.22 52.72 52.62 52.56 52.11 52.03

Not As Safe As You Think

Source: Authors’ table based on UMIRS data for all school years provided by the CDE. Notes: 1. “# S/E” stands for the combined number of student suspensions and expulsions. These figures may understate the actual number of incidents because they exclude incidents not resulting in student suspensions or expulsions. 2. Thirty Education Code sections are represented. Three sections—489002, 489003, and 489004—concerning school personnel and parental liability, as well as the limit on the number of days students can be suspended, are omitted from all analyses, tables, and figures.

Not As Safe As You Think

Appendix Table 3: Top 100 Schools—Violence/Physical Injury/Weapons, 2007–08
County Sonoma El Dorado San Diego Riverside Sonoma Riverside Riverside San Bernardino Kings Fresno El Dorado San Francisco Fresno Ventura Kern Sacramento Los Angeles Los Angeles Sacramento Contra Costa Imperial Fresno Santa Clara Los Angeles Kern Sacramento Sacramento San Diego Fresno Yuba San Bernardino Santa Cruz San Diego San Bernardino Stanislaus Sacramento Kern Sacramento San Francisco District Wilmar Union Elementary Placerville Union Elementary Vista Unified Moreno Valley Unified Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified Perris Union High Desert Sands Unified Colton Joint Unified Corcoran Joint Unified Fresno Unified Black Oak Mine Unified San Francisco Unified Kingsburg Elementary Charter Santa Paula Union High Mojave Unified Twin Rivers Unified Azusa Unified Monrovia Unified Twin Rivers Unified West Contra Costa Unified Magnolia Union Elementary Fresno Unified Los Altos Elementary Lennox Elementary Taft City San Juan Unified Sacramento City Unified Vista Unified Fresno Unified Marysville Joint Unified Morongo Unified Pajaro Valley Unified Jamul-Dulzura Union Elementary Adelanto Elementary Turlock Unified Sacramento City Unified Mojave Unified Twin Rivers Unified San Francisco Unified School Wilson Elementary Edwin Markham Middle Sierra Vista High Moreno Valley Community Learning Center El Camino High Pinacate Middle Summit High Washington High John Muir Middle Cooper Middle Creekside Elementary Willie L. Brown, Jr., Elementary Roosevelt Elementary Renaissance High California City High Pacific Career and Technology High Sierra High Santa Fe Middle Foothill Farms Junior High Lovonya DeJean Middle Magnolia Elementary Yosemite Middle Santa Rita Elementary Century Academy for Excellence Lincoln Junior High Jonas Salk High-Tech Academy Sequoia Elementary Vista Focus Academy Tioga Middle Yuba Gardens Intermediate Joshua Tree Elementary Lakeview Middle Oak Grove Middle Columbia Middle Roselawn High James Marshall Elementary Mojave Senior High North Avenue Elementary Malcolm X Academy Enrollment 224 341 109 107 151 1,391 241 295 765 603 131 242 247 119 152 133 191 637 717 720 114 738 575 244 678 513 496 126 820 466 357 716 419 775 213 438 532 338 109 # S/E 315 306 91 84 117 958 151 184 466 367 79 139 139 66 82 71 100 312 337 332 50 320 244 103 284 211 204 51 331 187 136 271 154 282 77 158 191 121 39 # Incidents per # Incidents per Student 100 Students 1.41 140.63 0.90 89.74 0.83 83.49 0.79 0.77 0.69 0.63 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.57 0.56 0.55 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.49 0.47 0.46 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 78.50 77.48 68.87 62.66 62.37 60.92 60.86 60.31 57.44 56.28 55.46 53.95 53.38 52.36 48.98 47.00 46.11 43.86 43.36 42.43 42.21 41.89 41.13 41.13 40.48 40.37 40.13 38.10 37.85 36.75 36.39 36.15 36.07 35.90 35.80 35.78

Not As Safe As You Think

County Sacramento Sacramento Stanislaus Sonoma Alameda Shasta Sacramento San Francisco Los Angeles Butte Lake Sonoma Sacramento Riverside San Diego San Diego Los Angeles Fresno Fresno Riverside San Bernardino Los Angeles San Bernardino Sacramento Los Angeles Riverside San Bernardino Kern Solano Los Angeles Fresno Kern Sacramento Los Angeles San Diego Riverside Riverside San Diego Los Angeles Solano Alameda Los Angeles Sacramento

District Twin Rivers Unified Elk Grove Unified Modesto City Elementary Piner-Olivet Union Elementary Berkeley Unified Columbia Elementary Twin Rivers Unified San Francisco Unified Lancaster Elementary Oroville City Elementary Konocti Unified Liberty Elementary Twin Rivers Unified Perris Union High Mountain Empire Unified San Diego Unified Redondo Beach Unified Fresno Unified Fresno Unified Romoland Elementary San Bernardino City Unified El Rancho Unified Victor Valley Union High Twin Rivers Unified Lancaster Elementary Palm Springs Unified Barstow Unified Lamont Elementary Vallejo City Unified Los Angeles Unified Kingsburg Elementary Charter Mojave Unified Twin Rivers Unified Torrance Unified Mountain Empire Unified Perris Union High Palo Verde Unified Carlsbad Unified Los Angeles Unified Vallejo City Unified Oakland Unified Long Beach Unified Twin Rivers Unified

School Vista Nueva Career and Technology High Samuel Jackman Middle Evelyn Hanshaw Middle Career Academy at Piner-Olivet Willard Middle Columbia Elementary Martin Luther King, Jr., Technology Academy Excelsior Middle Piute Middle Wyandotte Avenue Elementary Oak Hill Middle Liberty Elementary Rio Linda Junior High Heritage High Mountain Empire High Mann Middle Adams Middle Tehipite Middle Slater Elementary Boulder Ridge Middle Del Vallejo Middle Pio Pico Elementary Cobalt Middle Highlands Academy of Arts and Design New Vista Middle Desert Springs Middle Barstow Intermediate Mountain View Middle Vallejo Middle Samuel Gompers Middle Washington Elementary California City Middle Orchard Elementary Jefferson Middle Mountain Empire Middle Perris High Blythe Middle Kelly Elementary Horace Mann Junior High Solano Middle United for Success Academy Constellation Community Charter Middle Rio Tierra Junior High

Enrollment 124 1,084 872 122 462 602 643 198 1,262 410 493 198 637 1,180 478 364 845 734 755 879 1,572 245 726 1,748 1,206 1,749 954 552 829 1,716 240 346 391 683 246 2,801 844 442 1,297 798 378 165 514

# S/E 44 384 308 43 162 209 221 68 432 139 167 67 213 390 157 118 273 237 240 278 494 76 224 534 363 522 284 164 246 509 71 101 114 198 71 808 243 127 372 228 108 47 146

# Incidents per # Incidents per Student 100 Students 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.28 35.48 35.42 35.32 35.25 35.06 34.72 34.37 34.34 34.23 33.90 33.87 33.84 33.44 33.05 32.85 32.42 32.31 32.29 31.79 31.63 31.42 31.02 30.85 30.55 30.10 29.85 29.77 29.71 29.67 29.66 29.58 29.19 29.16 28.99 28.86 28.85 28.79 28.73 28.68 28.57 28.57 28.48 28.40

Not As Safe As You Think

County Fresno San Bernardino Yolo Fresno Stanislaus Madera Stanislaus Tulare Kern Shasta Santa Clara Fresno Madera Fresno Monterey Riverside Sacramento Kings

District Kingsburg Elementary Charter Hesperia Unified Esparto Unified Fresno Unified Modesto City Elementary Madera Unified Modesto City Elementary Visalia Unified Panama-Buena Vista Union Redding Elementary San Jose Unified Fresno Unified Madera Unified Fresno Unified Monterey Peninsula Unified Val Verde Unified Robla Elementary Delta View Joint Union Elementary

School Lincoln Elementary Hesperia Junior High Esparto Middle Kings Canyon Middle Shackelford Elementary Martin Luther King, Jr., Middle Robertson Road Elementary Divisadero Middle Stonecreek Junior High Sequoia Middle Herbert Hoover Middle Ezekiel Balderas Elementary Ripperdan High Pyle Elementary Roger S. Fitch Middle Tomas Rivera Middle Main Avenue Elementary Delta View Elementary

Enrollment 472 1,709 259 1,014 547 810 454 967 711 777 1,126 746 170 750 731 1,235 273 101

# S/E 134 483 73 282 152 225 126 268 195 212 307 203 46 202 196 331 73 27

# Incidents per # Incidents per Student 100 Students 0.28 28.39 0.28 28.26 0.28 28.19 0.28 27.81 0.28 27.79 0.28 27.78 0.28 27.75 0.28 27.71 0.27 27.43 0.27 27.28 0.27 27.26 0.27 27.21 0.27 27.06 0.27 26.93 0.27 26.81 0.27 26.80 0.27 26.74 0.27 26.73

Not As Safe As You Think

Appendix Table 4: Top 100 Schools—Drugs/Alcohol, 2007–08
County Mendocino Mendocino Mendocino Riverside Mendocino Los Angeles San Joaquin Los Angeles Los Angeles Fresno Alameda Trinity Los Angeles Tulare San Francisco Santa Cruz Stanislaus Santa Cruz Los Angeles San Bernardino Los Angeles Los Angeles Solano Santa Cruz Ventura San Diego Alameda Riverside Alameda Plumas Los Angeles Kern Humboldt San Joaquin Sacramento Sonoma Inyo Santa Clara Fresno Shasta Orange Humboldt Solano District Mendocino Unified Mendocino Unified Mendocino Unified Banning Unified Round Valley Unified Los Angeles Unified Lodi Unified Las Virgenes Unified Los Angeles Unified Fresno Unified Hayward Unified Mountain Valley Unified Los Angeles Unified Tulare Joint Union High San Francisco Unified Soquel Union Elementary Gratton Elementary Happy Valley Elementary Los Angeles Unified Chino Valley Unified Los Angeles Unified Los Angeles Unified Dixon Unified Soquel Union Elementary Conejo Valley Unified San Diego Unified Oakland Unified Riverside Unified Oakland Unified Plumas Unified Los Angeles Unified South Fork Union Ferndale Unified New Hope Elementary Folsom-Cordova Unified Liberty Elementary Round Valley Joint Elementary Santa Clara Unified Fresno Unified Fall River Joint Unified Santa Ana Unified Fieldbrook Elementary Vallejo City Unified School Mendocino Elementary Mendocino High Mendocino Middle New Horizon High Round Valley High College Ready Academy High #5 Liberty High Las Virgenes Community Learning Center Opportunities Unlimited Charter High Design Science Early College High Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science Hayfork High Jordan New Technology High Sierra Vista High Grattan Elementary New Brighton Middle Gratton Elementary Happy Valley Elementary Our Community Charter Boys Republic High Bridge Street Elementary College Ready Academy High #7 Dixon Montessori Charter Santa Cruz Gardens Elementary Wildwood Elementary San Diego Metro Career and Tech Peralta Creek Middle Opportunity Program New Highland Academy Greenville Junior/Senior High Ramona Opportunity High South Fork Elementary Ferndale High New Hope Elementary Peter J. Shields Elementary Liberty Elementary Round Valley Elementary Briarwood Elementary Valley Preparatory Academy Charter Fall River Junior-Senior High Edward B. Cole Academy Fieldbrook Elementary Mare Island Elementary Enrollment 141 201 133 105 117 136 151 110 139 145 167 128 225 193 288 591 119 141 192 153 383 119 142 247 300 191 161 205 340 149 103 195 158 197 249 198 125 382 139 266 306 105 294 # S/E 429 204 116 72 73 81 89 64 78 78 86 60 97 82 122 250 49 57 77 61 150 46 54 93 111 70 57 72 118 50 34 64 51 62 78 62 39 119 43 82 94 30 83 # Incidents per Student 3.04 1.01 0.87 0.69 0.62 0.60 0.59 0.58 0.56 0.54 0.51 0.47 0.43 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.29 0.28 # Incidents per 100 Students 304.26 101.49 87.22 68.57 62.39 59.56 58.94 58.18 56.12 53.79 51.50 46.88 43.11 42.49 42.36 42.30 41.18 40.43 40.10 39.87 39.16 38.66 38.03 37.65 37.00 36.65 35.40 35.12 34.71 33.56 33.01 32.82 32.28 31.47 31.33 31.31 31.20 31.15 30.94 30.83 30.72 28.57 28.23

Not As Safe As You Think

County Kings Shasta San Francisco San Diego San Mateo San Diego Alameda Mendocino San Diego Monterey Los Angeles Sierra Los Angeles Stanislaus San Mateo San Diego Placer Sacramento Sacramento Los Angeles San Bernardino Los Angeles Humboldt Sonoma Kern Fresno Sonoma Kern Sonoma Plumas San Bernardino Merced Mendocino Alameda San Diego San Francisco Los Angeles San Diego Merced Los Angeles San Diego Napa San Diego Los Angeles Imperial Sacramento

District Armona Union Elementary Fall River Joint Unified San Francisco Unified San Diego Unified Jefferson Elementary San Diego Unified Berkeley Unified Ukiah Unified Fallbrook Union Elementary Carmel Unified Covina-Valley Unified Sierra-Plumas Joint Unified Los Angeles Unified Empire Union Elementary San Mateo-Foster City Elementary Sweetwater Union High Loomis Union Elementary Folsom-Cordova Unified San Juan Unified Los Angeles Unified Alta Loma Elementary Los Angeles Unified Rohnerville Elementary Santa Rosa Elementary Sierra Sands Unified Burrel Union Elementary Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified Southern Kern Unified Wilmar Union Elementary Plumas Unified Barstow Unified Atwater Elementary Ukiah Unified Oakland Unified Vista Unified San Francisco Unified Los Angeles Unified La Mesa-Spring Valley Delhi Unified Baldwin Park Unified San Diego Unified Napa Valley Unified Chula Vista Elementary Hacienda la Puente Unified Calipatria Unified Sacramento City Unified

School Crossroads Charter Fall River Elementary Sanchez Elementary Hardy Elementary Thomas R. Pollicita Middle King/Chavez Preparatory Academy Berkeley Technology Academy Calpella Elementary Fallbrook Street Elementary Carmel River Elementary Grovecenter Elementary Loyalton Elementary Rockdale Elementary Norman N. Glick Middle Brewer Island Elementary Palomar High Ophir Elementary Folsom Lake High Carmichael Elementary Melvin Avenue Elementary Carnelian Elementary Community Harvest Charter Norman G. Ambrosini Elementary Luther Burbank Elementary Faller Elementary Burrel Elementary Thomas Page Elementary Hamilton Elementary Wilson Elementary Greenville Elementary Cameron Elementary Thomas Olaeta Elementary Hopland Elementary Oakland Aviation High Palomar High Independent Study Sunnyside Elementary Walgrove Avenue Elementary Avondale Elementary Harmony Elementary Central Elementary Field Elementary Carneros Elementary Sunnyside Elementary Lassalette Elementary Calipatria High Bret Harte Elementary

Enrollment 231 298 295 355 677 209 118 278 451 419 391 207 297 556 578 440 191 164 532 674 540 327 311 334 461 113 208 486 224 110 528 474 126 112 127 273 278 430 634 759 325 231 375 661 358 517

# S/E 61 78 74 89 169 52 29 68 110 102 95 50 70 129 134 102 44 37 120 152 121 73 69 74 102 25 46 107 49 24 115 102 27 24 27 58 57 88 128 152 65 46 74 130 70 101

# Incidents per Student 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20

# Incidents per 100 Students 26.41 26.17 25.08 25.07 24.96 24.88 24.58 24.46 24.39 24.34 24.30 24.15 23.57 23.20 23.18 23.18 23.04 22.56 22.56 22.55 22.41 22.32 22.19 22.16 22.13 22.12 22.12 22.02 21.88 21.82 21.78 21.52 21.43 21.43 21.26 21.25 20.50 20.47 20.19 20.03 20.00 19.91 19.73 19.67 19.55 19.54

Not As Safe As You Think

County Riverside Butte Contra Costa San Diego Mendocino Santa Clara Monterey Santa Barbara San Francisco Santa Clara Orange

District Desert Sands Unified Paradise Unified San Ramon Valley Unified

School

Enrollment 241 213 507 830 404 176 396 413 254 103 548

# S/E 47 41 97 157 76 33 74 77 47 19 99

Summit High Children’s Community Charter Twin Creeks Elementary Memorial Academy of Learning San Diego Unified & Tech Center Ukiah Unified Eagle Peak Middle Gilroy Unified Mt. Madonna High Soledad Unified Gabilan Elementary Goleta Union Elementary Hollister Elementary San Francisco Unified George Washington Carver Elementary Franklin-McKinley Elementary Voices College-Bound Language Academy Garden Grove Unified Thomas Paine Elementary

# Incidents per Student 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18

# Incidents per 100 Students 19.50 19.25 19.13 18.92 18.81 18.75 18.69 18.64 18.50 18.45 18.07

Not As Safe As You Think

Appendix Table 5: Top 100 Schools—Vandalism/Stealing, 2007–08
County Mendocino Mendocino Riverside Humboldt San Diego San Bernardino Riverside Shasta Los Angeles Sonoma Sacramento Fresno Solano San Francisco Mendocino Fresno Siskiyou Los Angeles Fresno San Diego Alameda San Diego San Francisco Alameda Los Angeles Lassen Shasta Plumas Orange Sierra Riverside San Mateo Alameda San Bernardino Solano Los Angeles Santa Clara San Francisco Mendocino Los Angeles District Mendocino Unified Mendocino Unified Moreno Valley Unified Fieldbrook Elementary San Diego Unified Mt. Baldy Joint Elementary Banning Unified Redding Elementary Los Angeles Unified Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified Folsom-Cordova Unified Burrel Union Elementary Vallejo City Unified San Francisco Unified Mendocino Unified Fresno Unified Grenada Elementary Los Angeles Unified Fowler Unified San Diego Unified Oakland Unified Chula Vista Elementary San Francisco Unified Berkeley Unified Los Angeles Unified Richmond Elementary Fall River Joint Unified Plumas Unified Newport-Mesa Unified Sierra-Plumas Joint Unified Desert Sands Unified Belmont-Redwood Shores Elementary Oakland Unified Chino Valley Unified Vacaville Unified Pomona Unified Santa Clara County Office of Education San Francisco Unified Ukiah Unified Los Angeles Unified School Mendocino Middle Mendocino Elementary Moreno Valley Community Learning Center Fieldbrook Elementary Rolando Park Elementary Mt. Baldy Joint Elementary New Horizon High Stellar Charter College Ready Academy High #5 El Camino High Folsom Lake High Burrel Elementary Mare Island Elementary Sunnyside Elementary Mendocino High Design Science Early College High Grenada Elementary Melvin Avenue Elementary Malaga Elementary San Diego Metro Career and Tech Oakland Charter Academy Sunnyside Elementary John Yehall Chin (Elem) Berkeley Technology Academy Celerity Dyad Charter Richmond Elementary Fall River Elementary Greenville Junior/Senior High Victoria Elementary Loyalton Elementary Herbert Hoover Elementary Nesbit Elementary Howard Elementary Boys Republic High Hemlock Elementary Harrison Elementary University Preparatory Academy Charter June Jordan School for Equity Calpella Elementary Calvert Street Elementary Enrollment 133 141 107 105 208 106 105 111 136 151 164 113 294 273 201 145 135 674 226 191 152 375 245 118 124 227 298 149 357 207 522 367 267 153 402 433 201 300 278 383 # S/E 115 99 57 48 91 45 40 42 51 55 53 32 82 70 50 36 33 161 51 43 34 83 54 26 27 48 62 31 73 42 105 73 53 30 78 83 38 54 50 68 # Incidents per Student 0.86 0.70 0.53 0.46 0.44 0.42 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.36 0.32 0.28 0.28 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 # Incidents per 100 Students 86.47 70.21 53.27 45.71 43.75 42.45 38.10 37.84 37.50 36.42 32.32 28.32 27.89 25.64 24.88 24.83 24.44 23.89 22.57 22.51 22.37 22.13 22.04 22.03 21.77 21.15 20.81 20.81 20.45 20.29 20.11 19.89 19.85 19.61 19.40 19.17 18.91 18.00 17.99 17.75

Not As Safe As You Think

County Monterey Solano Shasta Sacramento Los Angeles Shasta Calaveras Solano Sutter San Diego Santa Clara Placer Alameda Kern San Joaquin Sonoma Los Angeles Orange San Joaquin Trinity San Diego Alameda Fresno Tuolumne Los Angeles Alameda Santa Barbara Los Angeles Ventura Siskiyou Shasta Marin Imperial Alameda Sacramento San Bernardino Monterey San Joaquin Los Angeles Lake Stanislaus Los Angeles San Diego Marin

District Carmel Unified Fairfield-Suisun Unified Columbia Elementary Elverta Joint Elementary ABC Unified Anderson Union High Bret Harte Union High Dixon Unified Marcum-Illinois Union Elementary San Diego Unified Santa Clara Unified Newcastle Elementary Alameda County Office of Education South Fork Union Lodi Unified Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified Los Angeles Unified Santa Ana Unified Manteca Unified Mountain Valley Unified San Diego Unified Oakland Unified Kings Canyon Joint Unified Twain Harte-Long Barn Union Elementary Los Angeles Unified Oakland Unified Santa Barbara High Los Angeles Unified Conejo Valley Unified Butteville Union Elementary Fall River Joint Unified Dixie Elementary Calipatria Unified Oakland Unified Sacramento City Unified San Bernardino City Unified San Ardo Union Elementary Ripon Unified Hacienda la Puente Unified Kelseyville Unified Modesto City Elementary Garvey Elementary San Diego Unified San Rafael City Elementary

School Carmel River Elementary Suisun Valley Elementary Columbia Elementary Alpha Technology Middle Gretchen Whitney High North Valley High Bret Harte Union High Dixon Montessori Charter Marcum-Illinois Union Elementary Fletcher Elementary Briarwood Elementary Newcastle Elementary Envision Academy for Arts & Technology South Fork Elementary Liberty High Thomas Page Elementary High Tech LA Edward B. Cole Academy New Vision High Hayfork High Harriet Tubman Village Charter Preparatory Literary Academy of Cultural Excellence McCord Elementary Twain Harte Middle College Ready Academy High #4 New Highland Academy Santa Barbara Junior High Our Community Charter Wildwood Elementary Butteville Elementary Fall River Junior-Senior High Mary E. Silveira Elementary Calipatria High Oakland Aviation High Collis P. Huntington Elementary Urbita Elementary San Ardo Elementary Colony Oak Elementary Temple Academy Kelseyville High Bret Harte Elementary Temple (Roger W.) Intermediate King/Chavez Preparatory Academy Laurel Dell Elementary

Enrollment 419 261 602 113 1,020 110 842 142 142 256 382 207 113 195 151 208 319 306 154 128 260 281 443 162 268 340 746 192 300 160 266 370 358 112 262 446 121 454 403 571 868 492 209 171

# S/E 74 45 102 19 170 18 137 23 23 41 61 33 18 31 24 32 49 46 23 19 38 41 64 23 38 48 105 27 42 22 36 50 48 15 35 59 16 60 53 75 114 64 27 22

# Incidents per Student 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13

# Incidents per 100 Students 17.66 17.24 16.94 16.81 16.67 16.36 16.27 16.20 16.20 16.02 15.97 15.94 15.93 15.90 15.89 15.38 15.36 15.03 14.94 14.84 14.62 14.59 14.45 14.20 14.18 14.12 14.08 14.06 14.00 13.75 13.53 13.51 13.41 13.39 13.36 13.23 13.22 13.22 13.15 13.13 13.13 13.01 12.92 12.87

Not As Safe As You Think

County San Diego Los Angeles Santa Cruz Los Angeles Placer Kings Santa Clara Sonoma Sonoma San Mateo Los Angeles Riverside San Diego San Diego Los Angeles San Francisco

District La Mesa-Spring Valley Los Angeles Unified Happy Valley Elementary Los Angeles Unified Rocklin Unified Corcoran Joint Unified Cupertino Union Twin Hills Union Elementary Petaluma Joint Union High Jefferson Elementary Long Beach Unified Hemet Unified San Diego Unified Vista Unified Los Angeles Unified San Francisco Unified

School Avondale Elementary Parthenia Street Elementary Happy Valley Elementary Gabriella Charter Sierra Elementary Bret Harte Elementary Nelson S. Dilworth Elementary Twin Hills Middle San Antonio High Fernando Rivera Intermediate Webster Elementary Hemet Elementary Field Elementary Sierra Vista High Christopher Dena Elementary Sanchez Elementary

Enrollment 430 650 141 150 493 520 457 221 115 453 671 698 325 109 590 295

# S/E 55 83 18 19 61 64 56 27 14 55 81 84 39 13 70 35

# Incidents per Student 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12

# Incidents per 100 Students 12.79 12.77 12.77 12.67 12.37 12.31 12.25 12.22 12.17 12.14 12.07 12.03 12.00 11.93 11.86 11.86

Not As Safe As You Think

endnotes
On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), which is a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, first enacted in 1965 and last reauthorized in 1994. NCLB is intended to improve student achievement and to hold states and schools more accountable for student progress. Education Week, “No Child Left Behind,” September 21, 2004, http://www.edweek.org/rc/issues/no-child-leftbehind/. 2 Public Law print of PL 107-110, NCLB, pp. 560–561, http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html. See also the “Unsafe School Choice Option” in Title IX, Part E, Subpart 2, Section 9532, http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/ esea02/pg112.html#sec9532; cf. Erik W. Robelen, “Unsafe Label Will Trigger School Choice,” Education Week, October 23, 2002, http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2002/10/23/08unsafe.h22.html. 3 David J. Hoff, Federal File, “A Flaw in NCLB Is Acknowledged by Spellings,” Education Week, February 27, 2008, http:// www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/02/27/25fedfil.h27.html?qs=persistently_dangerous; and Education Week, Spellings: Naming Dangerous Schools Under NCLB Not Very Successful, February 20, 2008, http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/ 2008/02/20/54726ksedsecretaryvisit_ap.html?qs=persistently_dangerous. “The legislation recognizes that children . . . can face a number of different kinds of threats to their future,” explained David Schnittger, a spokesman for Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, the chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, in 2002. “One threat is the possibility of going through life without having the opportunity to acquire the academic skills to be successful. Another is the more obvious physical threat to . . . personal security and safety.” Quoted in Robelen, “Unsafe Label Will Trigger School Choice.” 4 U.S. Department of Education (ED), Unsafe School Choice Option Report, Second Preliminary Report of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Advisory Committee, December 8, 2006, http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/ list/sdfscac/schoolrpt1.html; ED, Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Advisory Committee, “Unsafe School Choice Option,” December 2006, http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/sdfscac/topics.html#Unsafe. 5 Robelen, “Unsafe Label Will Trigger School Choice.” 6 ED, “Unsafe School Choice Option: Non-Regulatory Guidance,” May 2004, p. 14, http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/ guid/unsafeschoolchoice.doc. 7 Robelen, “Unsafe Label Will Trigger School Choice;” Jay P. Green and Marcus A. Winters, “The Effect of Residential School Choice on Public High School Graduation Rates,” Manhattan Institute Education Working Paper No. 9, April 2005, http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_09.htm. 8 ED, Office of Inspector General, An OIG Perspective on the Unsafe School Choice Option, ED-OIG/S03G0015, Philadelphia, PA, August 2007, p. 7, http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/s03g0015.pdf; and “California Department of Education’s Compliance with the Unsafe School Choice Option,” ED-OIG/A09E0025, Sacramento, CA, March 24, 2005, p. 10. See also the remarks of Bill Bond, School Safety Specialist, National Association of Secondary School Principals, and Meredith Rolfe, California Department of Education, Administrator of the Safe and Healthy Kids Program, in “U.S. Department of Education Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities,” Advisory Committee Meeting, Washington, DC, October 23–24, 2006, pp. 6 and 12; cf. Pamela M. Prah, “Reports may soft-pedal extent of school violence,” Stateline.org, November 11, 2003. 9 California Constitution, Article I, Section 28 (c), http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1. 10 Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), “Review of School Crime Reporting,” May 15, 2002, p. 1, http://www.lao.ca.gov/ LAOApp/PubDetails.aspx?id=893. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Lance T. Izumi and Matt Cox, California Education Report Card, Index of Leading Education Indicators, Third Edition (San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute, August 8, 2003), pp. 119–122, http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/ docLib/20070208_2003_Education_Report.pdf. 14 LAO, “Review of School Crime Reporting,” pp. 2–3.
1

Not As Safe As You Think

24 25

27 28

29 30

Public Law print of PL 107-110, NCLB, pp. 560–561; see also the “Unsafe School Choice Option” in Title IX, Part E, Subpart 2, Section 9532; cf. Robelen, “Unsafe Label Will Trigger School Choice.” ED, “Unsafe School Choice Option: Non-Regulatory Guidance,” p. 2. For provisions, definitions, and required actions under California law, see the California Department of Education (CDE), Unsafe School Choice Option Provisions, http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/usco.asp. Sophia Kwong Kim, bill analysis of AB 2361 prepared for the Assembly Committee on Education, Gene Mullin, Chair, April 2, 2008, p. 3, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_2351-2400/ab_2361_cfa_20080401_ 152227_asm_comm.html ; and CDE, Unsafe School Choice Option: Provisions & Definition, http://www.cde.ca.gov/ ls/ss/se/uscoattch1.asp. CDE, Unsafe School Choice Option: Provisions & Definition; cf. CDE, Unsafe School Choice Option Provisions. For policies in other states, see Gloria Zradicka, “Persistently Dangerous School Criteria,” Education Commission of the States, updated September 2004, http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/52/98/5298.pdf. The Unsafe School Choice Option in Title IX, Part E, Subpart 2, Section 9532; see CDE, Unsafe School Choice Option: Provisions & Definition. CDE, Required Actions Regarding “Persistently Dangerous” Schools, http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/uscoattch3.asp; cf. ED, “Unsafe School Choice Option: Non-Regulatory Guidance.” CDE, Required Actions Regarding “Persistently Dangerous” Schools; cf. ED, “Unsafe School Choice Option: NonRegulatory Guidance.” CDE, Required Actions Regarding “Persistently Dangerous” Schools; cf. ED, “Unsafe School Choice Option: NonRegulatory Guidance.” For related Education and Penal Code statutes, see CDE, Provisions and Definitions, http:// www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/uscoattch1.asp. CDE, Persistently Dangerous Schools, http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/uscoattch2.asp. See also CDE, Unsafe School Choice Option: Provisions & Definition; cf. Unsafe School Choice Option Provisions. State-, county-, and district-level data are available back to 2000–01. Email correspondence with Evelyn Stacey from the CDE, January 14, 2009. See also LAO, “Review of School Crime Reporting.” The LAO also notes that expulsion and suspension policies can vary from school to school. See LAO, “Review of School Crime Reporting.” Students who might otherwise be expelled could also simply be given “suspended expulsions” and transferred to other schools instead of being formally expelled. In Sacramento City Unified, for example, more than 200 suspended expulsions were granted to students in a single school year. See Laurel Rosenhall and Phillip Reese, “School Crime Soars but Few Kicked Out: Student Violators’ Presence Raises Frustration, Fear Level,” Sacramento Bee, December 10, 2006. The state’s gauge of school safety also excludes misconduct and crimes committed by school personnel and staff. That information is not officially reported. Newspaper reports are the best publicly available resource on incidents committed by school staff against students. Vicki Murray’s LexisNexis search of reported California incidents from August 1, 2006, to March 29, 2008, produced 215 results. Between 2001 and 2005, more than 300 California teachers had their licenses revoked or suspended because of sex-related offenses. More than 2,000 California teachers in all were disciplined for “misconduct.” See “Calif. Rules Mask Details of Sex-Related Misconduct,” Education Week, October 24, 2007; cf. Martha Irvine and Robert Tanner, “Sexual Misconduct by Teachers a National Scandal,” The Associated Press, October 20, 2007; Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature, U.S. Department of Education, Report to Congress Prepared by Charol Shakeshaft, for the U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Policy and Program Studies Service, June 2004. ED, “Unsafe School Choice Option: Non-Regulatory Guidance,” p. 8. Authors’ figures based on Uniform Management Information and Reporting System (UMIRS) data for 2007–08. All data provided by the CDE. See also Izumi with Cox, California Education Report Card Index of Leading Education Indicators, Third Edition, pp. 119–22. Enrollment figures represent the sum of all schools’ reported enrollment in annual UMIRS reports. The findings in this analysis differ from national findings by ED and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, among others,

Not As Safe As You Think

32 33 34

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

47 48 49

because this analysis is based on self-reported, school-level data. Reports by federal government agencies typically use surveys or victim reports. See Rachel Dinkes, Jana Kemp, and Katrina Baum, Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2008, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, ED, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC, April 2009, p. iii and appendix A, pp. 133ff., http:// nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009022; cf. “Fast Facts,” http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=49. According to the Virginia Youth Violence Project of the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia, “Contrary to public perception, violent crime in schools has declined dramatically since 1994 . . . These data are victim reports collected as part of the National Crime Victimization Survey and are not derived from school records.” See “Violence in Schools,” http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/violence-in-schools/national-statistics.html. Scott E. Carrell and Mark L. Hoekstra, “Domino Effect,” Education Next, Hoover Institution, May 29, 2009, http:// www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/Domino_Effect.html. LAO, “Review of School Crime Reporting,” pp. 2–3. ED, An OIG Perspective on the Unsafe School Choice Option, p. 9. Ibid. See also ED, Safe and Drug-Free Schools Advisory Committee, Unsafe School Choice Option Report; cf. ED, Safe and Drug-Free Schools Advisory Committee, October 23–24, 2006, Washington, DC, meeting transcript, http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/sdfscac/minutes10-23-06.doc. As of September 2009, no date has been set for the reauthorization hearings. See David J. Hoff, “NCLB: Act II, Education Week, June 17, 2009, http://blogs.edweek.org/ edweek/NCLB-ActII/. ED, An OIG Perspective on the Unsafe School Choice Option, p. 9. This fear was also expressed during testimony by opponents of AB 2361, School Safety: Safe Schools Guarantee, introduced by Assembly Member Rick Keene (RChico) on April 2, 2008. Kim, bill analysis of AB 2361, p. 3; and CDE, Unsafe School Choice Option: Provisions & Definition. ED, “Unsafe School Choice Option: Non-Regulatory Guidance,” p. 7. ED, An OIG Perspective on the Unsafe School Choice Option, p. 10. Ibid. LAO, “Review of School Crime Reporting,” p. 2. ED, An OIG Perspective on the Unsafe School Choice Option, p. 9. Ibid., 10. Data provided to Vicki Murray on March 25, 2008, by Umash Prasad, Research Analyst, California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Special Requests Unit. The four school districts are: Fontana Unified, Grant Union (Sacramento), San Bernardino Unified, and Stockton Unified. See also ED, Office of Inspector General, “California Department of Education’s Compliance with the Unsafe School Choice Option,” p. 10. California Postsecondary Education Commission, Campus Crime Information, http://www.cpec.ca.gov/links/ LinksSubPage.ASP?LinkType=38; cf. California State University Clery Reports, http://www.calstate.edu/Clery/; and ED, Office of Postsecondary Education, Investigative Reporters and Editors—Crime Stats Database, http://data.nicar. org/node/43. Quotation from ED, An OIG Perspective on the Unsafe School Choice Option, p. 3; cf. ED, Second Preliminary Reports of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Advisory Committee. ED, An OIG Perspective on the Unsafe School Choice Option, pp. 1 and 4. The public-school figure is from the 2006–07 school year. See table 87 of Thomas D. Snyder, Sally A. Dillow, and Charlene M. Hoffman, Digest of Education Statistics, 2008, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, ED. Washington, DC, March 2009, http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009020 or http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_087. asp. LAO, “Review of School Crime Reporting,” p. 3. ED, An OIG Perspective on the Unsafe School Choice Option, p. 6. “California Department of Education’s Compliance with the Unsafe School Choice Option,” p. 10. See also ED, An OIG Perspective on the Unsafe School Choice Option, pp. 6–7; and CDE, “State of California Memorandum: No Child Left Behind (NCLB): Title IX, Persistently Dangerous Schools (PDS),” January 24, 2004, http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/
46

Not As Safe As You Think

51 52

53 54 55

60 61

64 65 66

documents/infociblspdfeb04item01.pdf. ED, Office of Inspector General, “California Department of Education’s Compliance with the Unsafe School Choice Option,” p. 10. The number of police reports filed by any given school would be a more accurate measure. The California Department of Justice already compiles that information for California colleges and universities. Four school districts also report this information. See also n. 43. “California Department of Education’s Compliance with the Unsafe School Choice Option,” p. 10. ED, An OIG Perspective on the Unsafe School Choice Option; cf. Nelson Hernandez, “‘No Child’ Data on Violence Skewed,” Washington Post, November 18, 2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/ AR2007111701479.html. See also Bond and Rolfe, Advisory Committee Meeting, pp. 6 and 12; cf. Prah, “Reports may soft-pedal extent of school violence.” Additionally, as of the 2003–04 school year, students who are victims of violent crimes must be allowed to transfer to a safe school within a recommended 10-calendar-day timeframe. Schools consider incidents on a case-by-case basis and consult with local law enforcement as needed to determine whether a student has been the victim of a violent crime as set forth in the California Penal Code. Examples of violent crimes include “attempted murder, battery with serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, rape, sexual battery, robbery, extortion, and hate crimes.” See CDE, “Required Actions Regarding ‘Persistently Dangerous’ Schools,” http://www.cde. ca.gov/ls/ss/se/uscoattch3.asp. “California Department of Education’s Compliance with the Unsafe School Choice Option,” p. 7. Ibid., p. 9. Telephone conversation between Vicki Murray and Greg Wolf, Learning Support and Partnership Division, CDE, May 9, 2007. Analysis by Vicki Murray of National Center for Education Statistics “Public School District” and “Public School” locator data for California based on reported statistics in ED’s Common Core of Data for the 2006–07 school year, the most current information available. See also CDE, California School Directory, http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/sd/. This is an especially important consideration for California, given that the average school district has grown from 156 square miles in the 1993–94 school year to 158 square miles as of the 2000–01 school year. See the appendix of Green and Winters, “The Effect of Residential School Choice on Public High School Graduation Rates.” CDE, Required Actions Regarding “Persistently Dangerous” Schools; and ED, “Unsafe School Choice Option: NonRegulatory Guidance,” p. 14; and ED, “Unsafe School Choice Option: Non-Regulatory Guidance,” May 2004, p. 14, http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/unsafeschoolchoice.doc. Murray’s review on March 29, 2008, of National Center for Education Statistics, “Public School District” and “Public School” locator data, March 29, 2008. Used in Murray, “Testimony submitted to the California Assembly Education Committee - AB-2361,” April 2, 2008, http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/publications/testimony-submitted-to-the california-assembly-education-committee-ab-2361. ED, An OIG Perspective on the Unsafe School Choice Option, pp. 3 and 5. Ibid., p. 9. See also ED, Safe and Drug-Free Schools Advisory Committee, Unsafe School Choice Option Report, Second Preliminary Report of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Advisory Committee; cf. ED, Safe and Drug-Free Schools Advisory Committee, October 23–24, 2006, Washington, DC, meeting transcript. As of September 2009, no date has been set for the reauthorization hearings. See Hoff, “NCLB: Act II.” AB 2361, School Safety: Safe School Guarantee, introduced by Assembly Member Rick Keene (R-Chico), February 21, 2008, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_2351-2400/ab_2361_bill_20080221_introduced.pdf . Kim, bill analysis of AB 2361, p. 4, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_2351-2400/ab_2361_cfa_ 20080401_152227_asm_comm.html. ED, “Unsafe School Choice Option: Non-Regulatory Guidance,” pp. 7–8. Ibid., p. 8. See AB 2361, School Safety: Safe School Guarantee. See also Vicki E. Murray, “Testimony submitted to the California Assembly Education Committee - AB-2361,” April 2, 2008, http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/publications/testimonysubmitted-to-the-california-assembly-education-committee-ab-2361. The measure was opposed by the California Federation of Teachers; cf. “Legislative Action: Convention Report as Adopted April 11–13, 2008,” p. 9, http://www.cft.

Not As Safe As You Think

67 68 69

71 72

77 78 79

80 81

82 83 84

org/resources/leg/pdfs/08legreport.pdf; and the CFT Safe and Non-violent Schools Committee, http://www.cft.org/ about/comm/safe.html. EC Section 48910(a): Teacher may suspend students violating acts listed in EC 48900. EC Section 48911(a). Local school districts that belong to the Zero Tolerance Schools program have established specific suspension and expulsion policies within their school district’s discipline code, increasing the number of violations requiring mandatory suspensions or expulsions, often without regard to the student’s previous behavior or an administrator’s discretion. See http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/zerotolerance.asp, last updated December 3, 2008. It is the duty of the local school district to establish policy allowing school officials to conduct a meeting with the parent or guardian of a suspended student to discuss the causes, the duration, the school policy involved, and other matters pertinent to the suspension. See EC Section 48914. EC Section 48913. This is according to Education Code Section 48912(b), but it is only held to if there is no other request regarding compliance with Government Code 54950 or Education Code Section 35145, providing that all government boards hold sessions open to the public. CDE, Administrator Recommendation of Expulsion Matrix, May 2009, http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/ expulsionrecomm.asp. If the district decides to avoid the expulsion process, other options are available, such as involuntary transfer to community or alternative schools. See EC Section 48432.5. The CDE mandatory expulsions list, May 2009, includes controlled substances found in Health and Safety Code Section 11052 et. seq. Sexual assault as is defined in subdivision (n) of EC 48900. See http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/ expulsionrecomm.asp. See sections 216—269 of the California Penal Code, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&grou p=00001-01000&file=261-269. California Education Code Section 48918 (b), http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=480 01-49000&file=48900-48927. This step of the expulsion process was discussed through email correspondence with a public-school vice principal. California Education Code Section 48918. Governing Boards that do not meet weekly are allowed up to 40 days for a decision under EC Section 48918(a), paragraph II: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=48001-49000&file=48900-48927. California Education Code Section 48918.4. The Governing Board may hold a hearing to decide on accepting a previously expelled student. See California Education Code Section 94815.1(a). California Education Code Section 48918 (a). For a complete description of these school categories, see CDE, Educational Options, http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/eo/. Appendix Tables 2 through 5 present combined suspension and expulsions statistics for the 2007–08 school year. Experts caution that a suspension rate above 5 per 100 students for violent incidents is cause for concern. Other research indicates that a single disruptive student has a negative impact on student learning. Suspensions and expulsions for drug and alcohol violations and vandalism also undermine students’ sense of safety and well-being at school. A 5 percent combined suspension and expulsion rate is therefore intended to serve as a reasonable threshold for inclusion. Including the number of reported expulsions as well as suspensions is a more accurate gauge of school safety because expellable offenses are typically more severe and likely have a more adverse impact on a school’s climate. Moreover, the number of suspensions reported by schools far exceeds the number of expulsions reported each year. Given the severity of the violations involved and the potential consequences for schools, this phenomenon is not surprising. See Nanette Asimov, “Suspensions point to trouble in schools,” San Francisco Chronicle, May 19, 2008, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article. cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/18/MN5C10MBTP.DTL; and Carrell and Hoekstra, “Domino Effect.”

Not As Safe As You Think

statement of researCh Quality
The Pacific Research Institute is committed to accurate research and, to that end, submits all new PRI studies for review by a minimum of two researchers with expertise in the subject area, including a minimum of one external expert. To adjudicate any unresolved difference, deemed reasonable and substantive, between an author(s) and a reviewer, PRI maintains a Research Review Board (RRB). The RRB has final and determinative authority, and includes the following scholars: Professor Robert Barro, Harvard University Professor William Boyes, Arizona State University Professor Steve Globerman, Western Washington University Professor Jay Greene, University of Arkansas Professor James Gwartney, Florida State University Professor Eric A. Hanushek, Stanford University Professor David Henderson, Naval Postgraduate School (Monterey) Dr. W. Lee Hoskins, former president, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (retired) Professor Ronald W. Jones, University of Rochester Professor Lynne Kiesling, Northwestern University Professor Edward Lopez, San Jose State University Professor Ross McKitrick, University of Guelph (Canada) Professor Sandra Peart (Dean), University of Richmond Professor David Schmidtz, University of Arizona Professor Paul Zak, Claremont Graduate University

As part of its commitment, the Institute guarantees that all original factual data are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and that information attributed to other sources is accurately represented. If the veracity of any material fact or reference to an independent source is questioned and brought to the Institute’s attention with supporting evidence, the Institute will respond in writing. If an error exists, it will be noted on the Institute website and in all subsequent distribution of the publication, which constitutes the complete and final remedy under this guarantee.

Not As Safe As You Think

aBout the PaCifiC researCh institute
The Pacific Research Institute champions freedom, opportunity, and personal responsibility by advancing free-market policy solutions. It provides practical solutions for the policy issues that impact the daily lives of all Americans, and demonstrates why the free market is more effective than the government at providing the important results we all seek: good schools, quality health care, a clean environment, and a robust economy. Founded in 1979 and based in San Francisco, PRI is a non-profit, non-partisan organization supported by private contributions. Its activities include publications, public events, media commentary, community leadership, legislative testimony, and academic outreach. Education Studies PRI works to restore to all parents the basic right to choose the best educational opportunities for their children. Through research and grassroots outreach, PRI promotes parental choice in education, high academic standards, teacher quality, charter schools, and school-finance reform. Business and Economic Studies PRI shows how the entrepreneurial spirit—the engine of economic growth and opportunity—is stifled by onerous taxes, regulations, and lawsuits. It advances policy reforms that promote a robust economy, consumer choice, and innovation. Health Care Studies PRI proposes market-based reforms that would improve affordability, access, quality, and consumer choice. PRI also demonstrates why a single-payer, Canadian model would be detrimental to the health care of all Americans. Technology Studies PRI advances policies to defend individual liberty, foster high-tech growth and innovation, and limit regulation. Environmental Studies PRI reveals the dramatic and long-term trend toward a cleaner, healthier environment. It also examines and promotes the essential ingredients for abundant resources and environmental quality: property rights, markets, local action, and private initiative.

Not As Safe As You Think