MOBILE HAD MORE DRUG-RELATED INCIDENTS THAN OTHER STATE SYSTEMS

Under the Federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, each state is required
to establish a state "Unsafe School Choice Option" policy. Within this
policy, each state must define a "persistently dangerous school."

If a school meets the criteria of this definition, students who attend that
school or become victims of violent crimes have the option of transferring
to another school within the same school district.

Unfortunately, Alabama's policy is written so that schools can have
multiple criminal violations and gun possessions but not be considered a
"persistently dangerous school." The State Board of Education unanimously
voted to place Alabama's policy for the Unsafe School Choice Option into
the Alabama Administrative Code.

The problem is that Alabama's policy is, for all practical purposes,
meaningless. The policy is flawed in several aspects.

First, it requires that students who commit specifically defined violent
criminal offenses must be expelled if the incident is to count toward
determining a "persistently dangerous school."

Other states -- such as Georgia, Virginia, Tennessee, Florida and
Mississippi -- do not include expulsion as a requirement for calculating
the numbers of offenses for making their schools "persistently dangerous."
In those states simply the occurrence of the offense(s) is sufficient to
meet the standards of a "persistently dangerous school." Also, Alabama's
policy requires the "use" of various types of weapons, whereas other
states, such as Tennessee, require only the "possession" of a weapon.

Statewide, statistics from the Alabama Department of Education indicate
that a small percentage of criminal offenses result in expulsions. While
many assaults are not first-or second-degree violations and the
"possession" of weapons does not fall under the policy's definition, some
systems and schools self-report relatively high numbers of dangerous
offenses. During the 2002-2003 academic year, there were 3,153 assault
incidents reported to the State Department of Education, with only 50
expulsions. There were 1,360 weapons-related incidents, with only 87
expulsions statewide.

In reality, few school systems are expelling students for serious criminal
incidents. If expulsion is not the most effective discipline approach,
Alabama's policy should be changed to reflect what, in fact, is a
"persistently dangerous school."

A close look at some schools reveals high numbers of reported incidents
with low numbers of expulsions. During the 2002-03 year, Parker High School
in Birmingham reported nine weapons-related incidents and no expulsions.
Jefferson Davis High in Montgomery reported eight weapons-related incidents
with no expulsions.

Alma Bryant High School in Mobile report ed eight weapons-related incidents
with two expulsions, and eight drug-related incidents with no expulsions.

In terms of county school crime statistics reported to the State Department
of Education, of the four largest systems (Mobile, Montgomery, Jefferson
County and Birmingham), Mobile County public schools ranked the lowest in
the assault category, with 91 countywide but with no expulsions.

However, with 289 drug-related incidents reported with eight expulsions,
Mobile far exceeded any of the other three systems.

Dr. Sue Adams, coordinator of the Prevention and Support section of the
State Department of Education, defends the policy, explaining that it was
developed by a committee made up of school personnel and professional
organizations.

However, she admitted "that individual students have been offered
transfers" by some school systems based on this policy. She did not respond
to specific concerns regarding the requirements of Alabama's policy, which
makes it more difficult to find a school persistently dangerous than those
policies of other neighboring states.

Some school officials agree that the policy has had no effect. They
recognize that students who might wish to transfer from a school where
multiple dangerous incidents occur do not have that choice, because no
school in Alabama has met the definition of being "persistently dangerous."

Dr. Aaron Moyan, director of federal programs in the Birmingham city school
system, thinks that the bar may be too high to accurately define a
persistently dangerous school. However, he is concerned that if all
criminal violent crimes resulted in expulsions, the impacts on schools
would result in a large number of transfers.

This, in his opinion, would complicate the assignment of teachers, adequate
classroom space, and acceptable teacher-pupil ratios.

A University of Montevallo professor, Dr. Melvin Covington, teaches school
law to prospective school principals and superintendents. He fears that the
policy could actually make some schools more unsafe.

"The persistently dangerous school label could possibly lead to an
under-reporting by school administrators," Covington says.

The bottom line is that Alabama's Unsafe School Choice Option policy needs
to be modified in order for it to be meaningful. This should not be about
making the state superintendent, the State Board of Education or local
school administrators look good because no Alabama schools were defined as
dangerous.

What it is about is keeping violence and guns out of our schools so that
our children can feel that their schools are a safe haven.

For the sake of our children, the State Board of Education should revisit
this policy and change it to more reasonably and effectively determine a
"persistently dangerous school."