1. Coordinated School Health & Safety Programs Bob Higgins, MA, ICPS, CPC-R Safe Schools Consultant Coordinated School Health & Safety Programs Michigan Department of Education

2. Big Changes at USED  Elimination of State Programs for SDFS –No more formula grants to schools –No more Governor’s Discretionary grants  End of formula grants; all competitive  Overdue re-authorization of ESEA  Shift in focus for Office of SDFS

3. Former US ED Funding Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools  Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities –Grants to schools and Governor’s Discretionary  Elementary and Secondary School Counseling  Physical Education Program  Foundations for Learning  Integrating Schools and Mental Health Systems  Alcohol Abuse Reduction

4. CSHSP Grants from OSDFS  Community Service  State Data Management  Integrating Mental Health in Schools  Building State Capacity  Safe and Supportive Schools

5. Proposed Change to US ED Funding Supporting Student Success  Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students

6. Funding Comparisons for US ED Programs Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools – $365,000,000 Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students – $410,000,000

7. What’s the goal at ED? President Obama: “Produce a higher percentage of college graduates than any other country in the world by the end of the next decade.”

8. How do we get there? Secretary Duncan’s Four Assurances Goal 1: Adopt rigorous standards. Goal 2: Recruit and retain effective teachers. Goal 3: Build data systems. Goal 4: Turn around low-performing schools.

9. Where does the Office of Safe & Drug Free Schools fit in? It’s simple. Students can’t learn if they don’t feel safe. Period.

10. How are we doing now? Are our schools safe? What is a safe school? What is our standard? How do we measure it?

11. Traditional View Says We’re Doing Great No Violence = Safe School

12. Very Few Students Get Shot at School Number of homicides of youth ages 5-18, by location: 2004-2005 Source: Student-Associated Violent Death (SAVD) Study, 2006

13. Rates of Victimization at School Have Dropped Dramatically Number of student-reported nonfatal crimes against students ages 12-18 at school: 1992-2006 * Methods used to measure victimization were redesigned Source: National Crime Victimization Survey, 2006 Year

14. The Traditional View is Wrong “Incivil behavior” – verbal threats, hate language, bullying, social rejection – is almost twice as likely to predict student “self-protection” (skipping school, avoiding areas/activities) as is crime (theft, attacks) at school.

15. US 15 th out of 24 in Bullying Prevention Source: Society at a Glance 2009 - OECD Social Indicators, 2009.

16. Many Students Experience Bullying Percentage of students ages 12-18 who reported being bullied at school and being cyber-bullied anywhere during the school year, by sex: 2007 Source: Indicators of Crime and School Safety, 2008

17. Rivers, I., Poteat, V.P., Noret, N., Ashurt, N. (2009). Observing Bullying at School: The Mental Health Implication of Witness Status. School Psychology Quarterly. 24:4, 211-223.

18. Some Groups are Singled Out for Harassment Question: “At your school, how often are students bullied, called names or harassed for the following reasons?” Source: From Teasing to Torment: School Climate in America 2005

19. Rivers, I., Poteat, V.P., Noret, N., Ashurt, N. (2009). Observing Bullying at School: The Mental Health Implication of Witness Status. School Psychology Quarterly. 24:4, 211-223.

20. Teachers and Students Make a Difference In classrooms where both students and teachers had strong attitudes and actions against bullying and aggression rates of aggression were 1/3 to ½ of classes where peers alone (and not teachers) had strong attitudes against aggression Henry, D., Guerra, N., Huessmann, R., Tolan, P., VanAcker, R., & Eron, L. (2000). Normative influences on aggression in urban elementary school classrooms. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(1), 59-81.

21. Peer Intervention Works, but Isn’t Common  Of bullying episodes in which peers intervened, 57% of the interventions were effective (i.e., the bullying stopped within 10 seconds).  Peers intervene in only 11-19% of all bullying incidents. Source: Hawkins, Pepler and Craig 2001

22. Petrosino, A., Guckenburg, S., DeVoe, J. and Hanson, T. (2010). What characteristics of bullying, bullying victims, and schools are associated with increased reporting of bullying to school officials? (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2010- No.092). Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Education Laboratory Northeast and Islands. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.

25. Pheobe Prince 10 th Grade South Hadley, MA 1994 – January 2010 Carl Joseph Walker Hoover 6 th Grade Springfield, MA 1998 – April 2009 Christian Taylor 9 th Grade Richmond, VA 1994 – May 2010 Tyler Clementi College Freshman Ridgewood, NJ 1992 – September 2010 Asher Brown 8 th Grade Harris, TX 1997 – September 2010 Seth Walsh 8 th Grade Tehachapi, CA 1997 – September 2010 Justin Aaberg 10 th Grade Anoka, MN 1995 – July 2010 Hope Witsell 8 th Grade Ruskin, FL 1996 – September 2009

26. School Climate Model In a Safe and Orderly Environment, … StudentsFamilyStaff …. Stakeholders Engage their Environment Students Parents Staff …and Stakeholders Have Positive Relationships StudentsStaffFamily Staff

27. Winners of Safe and Supportive Schools Grants Arizona California Iowa Louisiana Kansas Maryland Michigan South Carolina Tennessee West Virginia Wisconsin

28. Safe and Supportive Schools Two prongs: –Create data management system combining survey and incident data –Fund and support schools in implementing programmatic interventions

29. Safe and Supportive Schools Grant Data Management Will allow us to: –Add new surveys to current MiPHY system – school climate, bullying –Provide training to schools on interpreting data to drive decision-making –Selecting programmatic interventions tied to student health and safety and healthy school environment

30. Safe and Supportive Schools Grant Programmatic Interventions  Eliminating Barriers  BullyFree Schools  Michigan Model  Coordinated School Health and Safety  Talk Early-Talk Often  Transformative Conferencing  Cultural Competency  SMY training  Organizational Change  Parent Action for Healthy Kids  Restorative Justice  Second Step

31. Tie Safe Schools into Ed Reform Agenda Goal 1: Adopt Rigorous Standards Safe Schools: Need School Climate Standards Goal 3: Build Data Systems Safe Schools: Measure school climate with the same rigor we measure academic progress

32. Tie Safe Schools into Ed Reform Agenda Goal 2: Recruit and retain effective teachers. Safe Schools: Provide Effective Professional Development Goal 4: Turn around low-performing schools Safe Schools: Provide grants, technical assistance, and programmatic interventions to PLA schools

33. Contact Information: Bob Higgins, Safe Schools Consultant 608 W. Allegan Street Lansing, MI 48933 517-373-1024 higginsr@michigan.gov