July 31, 2003 TO THE SUPERINTENDENT ADDRESSED: SUBJECT: School Safety Choice Option (SSCO) Section 9532 of the No Child Left Behind Act requires each State to identify campuses at which persistent patterns in student behavior warrant a transfer option for students attending that campus. In Texas, this option is designated the School Safety Choice Option (SSCO). Additionally, each state must ensure that students who are victims of a violent criminal act on school property have the option to transfer to a safe elementary or secondary school within the local educational agency (LEA). Identification of campuses required to implement the SSCO will occur annually. All campuses required to implement the SSCO for the 2003-2004 school year were notified prior to the release of this letter. Adoption of Local Policy. As specified in the Texas Consolidated State Application for State Grants Under Title IX, Part 9302 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Public Law 107-110), each LEA, as a condition of receiving funds under the No Child Left Behind Act, is required to adopt a local policy that provides guidelines for the transfer of students who are victims of violent criminal acts. Information and Guidance for the 2003-2004 School Year. Enclosed are the following: 1. Definition of a violent criminal act; 2. Guidelines for LEA Victim Transfer Policies; 3. Methodology for identification of campuses required to implement the SSCO; and 4. A Question and Answer Document concerning the SSCO. Planning for the Future. State policies governing implementation of the School Safety Choice Option will be refined over the next school year. Issues to be addressed for future years include: Methodology for Identification of Campuses Required to Implement the SSCO. The Texas Education Agency intends to revisit this methodology for purposes of identifying campuses required to implement the SSCO in subsequent years. In the future, campuses may be identified based in part on behaviors for which removal or expulsion is discretionary in addition to those for which expulsion is required. Data Integrity. The Texas Education Agency maintains system safeguards to ensure the accuracy of data reported through the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS). School district data used by the TEA undergo routine screening to validate data integrity. This routine screening or systems safeguards procedure may trigger school district data investigations. Current safeguards will be reviewed and supplemented where necessary to ensure the validity of data used to identify campuses required to implement the SSCO. Schedule. The schedule for identification of campuses required to implement the SSCO will be accelerated in future years. It is anticipated that identification of campuses will occur during late spring and early summer and that campuses identified will be notified no later than July 1st. Early Warning Notice. The Texas Education Agency will consider issuing warning notices in the future to campuses that have not been identified but are approaching the threshold for identification as a campus required to implement the SSCO. Data Collection. PEIMS data standards must be refined to ensure that disciplinary action reason codes reflect uniform state standards with respect to reporting of knife possession and offenses occurring at charter schools. o Knives. The methodology used for identification of campuses required to implement the SSCO for the 2002-2003 school year excludes consideration of data reporting student possession of knives (PEIMS Disciplinary Action Reason Code 12). Exclusion of these data in no way reflects a policy judgment about the danger posed by knives. Rather, reports of knife possession were excluded from consideration because current data standards permit significant disparity in the types of conduct that may be reported by school districts as “possession of an illegal knife.” The methodology for identification of campuses subject to the SSCO must be based on standardized data. Data collection requirements will be revised to ensure consistency in reporting so that knife offenses may be included in this analysis in future years. [Note: Reports of possession of switchblade knives were included in the analysis because these knives are reported in a standard way under the Prohibited Weapon category.] o Charter Schools. Current data standards require open-enrollment charter schools to report only a small subset of the data used to identify campuses required to implement the SSCO for the 2003-2004 school year. Thus, charter schools were excluded from the analysis conducted for this purpose. Data collection standards applicable to charter schools will be reconsidered in view of the state’s obligation under federal law to identify campuses required to implement the SSCO. School officials are encouraged to review current-year PEIMS data to identify trends that indicate possible identification as a campus required to implement the SSCO in future years. If you have questions regarding this issue, please contact the Division of Safe Schools at 512-463-9982. Sincerely, Robert Scott Chief Deputy Commissioner Victims of Violent Criminal Acts A student who becomes a victim on campus of one of the violent criminal acts listed below is entitled to transfer to another grade appropriate campus. Note: The Texas Education Agency has requested guidance from the U.S. Department of Education regarding extension of the transfer option to siblings of victims of violent criminal acts when the sibling would otherwise be required to attend the campus on which the violent criminal act occurred. Districts will be notified when guidance is received. o Attempted murder under Texas Penal Code Sections 19.02, 19.03, and 15.01 (reported under PEIMS 425 Action Reason Code 17) ; o Indecency with a child under Texas Penal Code Section 21.11 (reported under PEIMS 425 Action Reason Code 18); o Aggravated kidnapping under Texas Penal Code Section 20.04 (reported under PEIMS 425 Action Reason Code 19) o Assault on student under Texas Penal Code Section 22.01(a)(1) (reported under PEIMS 425 Action Reason Code 28); o Aggravated assault on student under Texas Penal Code Section 22.02 (reported under PEIMS 425 Action Reason Code 30); and o Sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault against a student under Texas Penal Code Sections 22.011 and 22.021 (reported under PEIMS 425 Action Reason Code 32). Guidelines for LEA Victim Transfer Policies Each district and charter school must develop a local policy to guide transfers for students who are victims of a violent criminal act, whether or not they are located on a campus required to implement the School Safety Choice Option. The policy must include the following: a. Timelines and procedures under which parents may request transfers. b. Timelines for processing and approving transfer requests. c. Duration for which a transfer is approved and procedures for renewal of a transfer. d. Collection and maintenance of victim data information, e.g., date the incident occurred, incident number, and identity of perpetrator. If the district does not have another public grade-appropriate campus, the district is encouraged to join into an agreement with a neighboring district to accept transfers. Methodology for Identification of Campuses Required to Implement the School Safety Choice Option Pursuant to the requirements of NCLB, Texas has developed a definition and methodology for identification of campuses required to implement the School Safety Choice Option (SSCO). A campus will be required to implement the SSCO if it meets the following criteria: The campus is coded as a Regular Instructional Campus in AskTED; and The campus has reported to PEIMS (425 Record) three (3) or more selected mandatory expulsion incidents per 1000 students in each of three consecutive years. TEA will use the following mandatory expulsion incidents self-reported on a campus’s PEIMS 425 Record of Incidents as the basis of determination. All incidents related to a continuation action from a prior school year or district are omitted from this formula. Incident Chart Discipline Description of Behavior Action Reason Code Mandatory Expellable Incidents Included in Definition 11 Used, exhibited, or possessed firearm 13 Used, exhibited, or possessed club 14 Used, exhibited, or possessed weapon 16 Arson 17 Murder, attempted murder 18 Indecency with a child 19 Aggravated kidnapping 29 Aggravated assault on school employee 30 Aggravated assault on student 31 Sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault on school employee 32 Sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault on student 36 Felony controlled substance 37 Felony alcohol violation Required Implement SSCO to Three (3) or more per 1000 students per year in each of three (3) consecutive years All regular instructional campuses that have at least one of the above mandatory expulsion incidents in any of the most recent three years will be included in the pool of campuses analyzed. Each incident is counted once, regardless of the number of students involved. Formula for Identifying Campuses Required to Implement the SSCO Step 1: Calculate the number of selected incidents per year for the three most recent consecutive years (1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002). Step 2: Divide the cumulative enrollment of each campus by 1000 (Adjustment Factor for Campus Size). Step 3: Divide the number of incidents for each year by the Adjustment Factor for Campus Size. Step 4: Identify campuses with three (3) or more incidents (using the Adjustment Factor for Campus Size) across the three most recent years. Step 5: Campuses that are at or above three (3) incidents per 1000 students across the three school years are identified as required to implement the SSCO. School Safety Choice Option Question & Answer Document Based on Section “C” of Draft USDE Guidance 1. What must an LEA do when one or more of its campuses are required to implement the School Safety Choice Option (SSCO)? At a minimum, an LEA that has one or more schools required to implement the SSCO must, in a timely manner: (1) Notify parents of each student attending the school that the state has required the campus to implement the SSCO; (2) Offer students the opportunity to transfer to a safe public school, including a safe public charter school, within the LEA; and (3) For those students who accept the offer, complete the transfer. In addition, an LEA should also: (4) Develop a corrective action plan; and (5) Implement that plan in a timely manner. Parental notification regarding the status of the school and the offer to transfer students may be made simultaneously. 2. What is “timely implementation” of these steps? Although “timely implementation” depends on the specific circumstances within the LEA, generally, an example of timely notification to parents or guardians is within ten school days from the time that the LEA learns that the school has been required to implement the SSCO. An example of timely development of a corrective action plan and the offer to students of the opportunity to transfer generally is within twenty school days from the time that the LEA learns that the school has been required to implement the SSCO. Transfers of students generally should occur within 30 school days. 3. Should the LEA submit its corrective action plan to the SEA for approval? Yes. In addition, after approving an LEA’s corrective action plan, the SEA should provide technical assistance as the plan is implemented and should monitor the LEA’s timely completion of the approved plan. 4. What types of corrective action may be taken? Corrective action should be based on an analysis of the problems faced by the school and address the issues that resulted in the school being required to implement the SSCO. Some examples of corrective action include hiring additional personnel to supervise students in common areas, increased instructional activities in areas such as conflict resolution, working with law enforcement officials to identify and eliminate gang-related activities, in-service training of teachers and administrators concerning consistent enforcement of school discipline policies, limiting access to campuses, and hiring of security personnel or purchase of security equipment. 5. What resources are available to help schools implement corrective action and help cover the costs of transportation? (Questions C-5 and E-5) Consistent with applicable requirements such as those contained in the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act “Principles of Effectiveness,” Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act State Grant program funds may be used to implement planned corrective actions [section 4115]. LEAs may also consider using the flexibility provided under Section 6123(b) of the ESEA, which provides for the transfer, under certain circumstances, of funds from one ESEA program to another. Detailed information concerning the permissible uses of transferred funds will soon be available in nonregulatory guidance from the United States Department of Education which will be released later this summer. State and local resources may also be used to help schools implement corrective action. Section 9532 of the No Child Left Behind Act does not authorize resources specifically to help cover transportation costs when a student elects to transfer to a safe, grade-appropriate public school. However, under certain circumstances Federal funds may be used. For example, Title IV, Part A funds may be used to establish safe zones of passage to and from school to ensure that students travel safely on their way to school and on their way home [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(v)]. In addition, Title V, Part A funds may be used to help cover costs such as tuition or transportation related to transfers for this purpose or expansion of public school choice [sections 5121(8) and 5131(12) and (25)]. In addition, LEAs are encouraged to work with local victims’ assistance units to determine if they have funds available if the student who is transferring has been a victim of a violent criminal incident. 6. What does the LEA do when corrective action has been completed? Under the SSCO policy, a school will be notified when it has successfully completed its corrective actions. The campus will be reassessed in the following year using the agreed upon criteria for identification of campuses required to implement the SSCO. 7. Must all students attending a campus required to implement the SSCO be offered the opportunity to transfer? Yes. 8. Are students at campuses required to implement the SSCO required to transfer to another school in the LEA? No. Students are not required to transfer, but must be offered the opportunity to do so. 9. If a student attending a public school campus required to implement the SSCO elects to transfer to a safe public school, how is the school selected? To the extent possible, LEAs should allow transferring students to transfer to a school that is making adequate yearly progress and has not been identified as being in school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. The LEA is encouraged to take into account the needs and preferences of the affected students and parents. 10. If a student elects to transfer to a safe public school, is the transfer permanent or temporary? The transfers may be temporary or permanent, but must be in effect as long as the student’s original school is required to implement the SSCO. In making the determination of whether the transfer should be temporary or permanent, LEAs should consider the educational needs of the student, as well as other factors affecting the student’s ability to succeed if returned to the transferring school. For example, an LEA may want to consider allowing a student to complete his or her education through the highest grade level at the receiving school. 11. What if there is not another school in the LEA for the transferring student(s)? LEAs are encouraged, but not required, to explore other appropriate options such as an agreement with a neighboring LEA to accept transfer students. Final non-regulatory guidance on Section 9532 of the No Child Left Behind Act should be released by the U.S. Department of Education by August 11, 2003. Adjustments may be made to the School Safety Choice Option policy after receipt of the final nonregulatory guidance.