'No Child' Data on Violence Skewed

A 2006 comptroller's audit of high schools in New York showed that at least one-third of violent and disruptive incidents listed in school records were not reported to the State Education Department. At several schools, more than 80 percent of the documented incidents were not being reported; in some instances, they included such crimes as sex and weapons offenses.

After the audit, New York began imposing stricter rules on reporting violence and following up. In August, the state announced that it had 27 persistently dangerous schools -- far more than any other place. Yet New York is still struggling with accountability: In September, a New York City comptroller's audit showed that more than 1 in 5 offenses at 10 high schools surveyed were not reported to the state.

The Department of Education's August audit, which looked at state school systems in California, Georgia, Iowa, New Jersey and Texas, found inaccurate reporting of disciplinary offenses in all five states.

Such reports undercut the trust federal and state officials say they place in local school administrators to record accurate statistics.

"We do have what I'd call trust and belief in the state," said William Modzeleski, associate assistant deputy secretary for the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. "They say this is accurate data." There is some monitoring, he said, but strict auditing "would take an inordinate amount of staff time and resources, which we just don't have."

But that trust can be misplaced, especially among principals in schools at risk of receiving a negative evaluation, experts warn.

"You can't force them to do it," said Beverly Caffee Glenn, executive director of the Hamilton Fish Institute at George Washington University. "What's in it for them? You get a reputation as being an ineffective professional."

" 'Persistently dangerous' has been the scarlet letter of education," said Kenneth S. Trump, a school security consultant. "They don't want to do it because of the political implications. Even if you got the label, so what? There's no resources attached to that that help you get off the label."

Congress left it to the states to define persistently dangerous. All the Department of Education can do is provide guidance to the states -- advice that is often ignored.

"You have 50 different definitions," Modzeleski said. "There are similarities, but there aren't any that are alike."

In Virginia and the District, offenses that meet the threshold are those that would result in imprisonment: among them, homicide, arson and assault with a deadly weapon. In Maryland, they are offenses that would result in expulsion or a suspension of 10 days or more: bringing a weapon or drugs to school or engaging in repeated fights. Brawling, bullying and making threats generally do not count toward the designation.

One part of the Department of Education's guidance recommends that states consider only the most recent year's tally of violent incidents to determine whether a school is persistently dangerous. Fewer than 10 states do this. More than half of the states, including Maryland and Virginia, require their benchmarks to be met for three consecutive years in order to receive the label.