Denver Public Schools High School Safety Planning & Support Meetings r Sch Conducted, Developed and Produced by PrincipalEd Consulting Executive Summary This document is the result of a request for interviews of principals and safety teams at identified high schoo! sites that was initiated by Denver Public Schools Chief of Equity and Engagement, Dr. Tony Smith. During the months of April and May in 2023, PrincipalEd Consulting engaged over 150 hours of collective interview time through ‘multiple interviews of ‘Safety Teams," at each of the high schools identified by Dr. ‘Smith. Over 30 hours of interview time was devoted to individuals from district departments that are related to safety, emergency preparedness, crisis response, behavior management, mental health, and professional learning. Notations from district-level interviews inform the set of recommendations that align with this document. The quotations and notations in this document are representative of the perspectives and experiences of school-based individuals and teams. The sections are representative of the topics that were raised by the groups and include notes that generally or specifically relate to those topi ‘The majority of the school conversations focused on student support systems, from attendance, to behavior management practices, to mental health supports. Mental health, behavior, and attendance are often viewed as observable symptoms of root cause interests and initial indicators of the issues that young people are experiencing or will experience in the future. The needs of young people were at the forefront of the school-based conversations and there was a general acknowledgement that schools are not provided with the resources or support necessary to successfully prevent and respond to realities present in the lives of many students. Issues related to Emergency Management and Crisis Response interests were evident and important to the school-based teams, but did not represent the majority of discussion during the interviews (it is understood that the District Safety Plan places a significant focus on these areas) School leaders were appreciative of this opportunity to be deeply listened to and to directly inform the reflective and action-oriented processing and planning in which the DPS is engaging to improve the safety of our schools for our staff and students.Summary of Representations from School Meeting: Violence Prevention General Notations Related to Behavioral Systems 1, Strong school cultures support safety- students who are connected to the school community let staff know about current experiences and potential issues 2, School teams work well together as partners and are typically focused on and committed to their work together 3. The @iStHEESafély Plai seems to be a document representing higher level actions and the ideal and intended, butypot the necessarily the current reality of the systems as they are implemented across the Denver Public Schools 4, We often do not have any information for new enrollments, especially from other school districts, and it can be a significant challenge to provide the supports new students require as they enter our school programs 5. Data:resources or protocols are not provided to Schools to be used to inform attendance systems, behavior management, and academic success- we, generally,cdo not have MTSS systems that make data informed pravention’and response systems’possiblé 6. Effective Student Support Team/MTSS structures work in some schools to create ‘smaller student groupings that create efficiencies in monitoring and support 7. Because the district's sole focus seems to be on on reducing suspension and expulsion numbers, and although schools work to represent “real” data, there is, ent disincentive for schools to report/represent real numbers in the System 8. Social media both accelerates and magnifies behavioral issues and its impact needs to be understood and responded to as having a significant behavioral Siwhelming issue that is significantly affecting students’ physical, mental, and behavioral health- this is a lower level concern that we are not responding to effectively and that we see can develop into other issues 10, There is not district level guidance for effective responses to students who are in the possession of, using, or engaging in the sales of drugs on campus and there is a district expectation (and often direction) that there should be no behavioral response for drug and alcohol violations- this is no longer represented as an important health or behavioral issue by the district14. The iuinity Of Students Sees us as not responsive to behavioral Concerns represented by their peers- they have lost confidence in our ability to secure a safe learning environment (teachers and parents also hold this concern) 12. The explicit district push to reduce/suppress suspension and expulsion numbers has significantly increased both lower and medium level behavioral issues because training and support for effective alternative behavioral responses have not provided by the school district 13. There is a@angerously higt’ level of concérn and frustration represented by deangjin regard to their ability to be responsive to both low-level and higher level behavioral issues with students a. Not being able to respond to lower-level behaviors creates a cascading effect with student behaviors escalating in behaviors over time (sometimes quite quickly) b. We do not have effective ways to respond to attendance issues, vaping, etc., which gives students permission to escalate behaviors quickly ¢. Students naturally work to find a level at which a behavioral response might finally respond to their negative behavioral choices 14, Students understand that we are not able to be responsive to violent behaviors and that suspensions and expulsions will not happen. This empowers students to engage in high levels of misbehavior with confidence that the school site will not respond- Tier 3 options for intervention and support are not available 16."Alternative" learning environments and supports are no longer matching the distinct needs of individual students and student populations in schools 16.Some schools have been directly impacted by a high number of recent immigrant students who are adapting to a new culture and asserting violent habits and tendencies 17. Gang afiliation and related behaviors are rising in a number of schools and the district does not provide resource to support school staff with the issues that are associated with this challenge 18, There are not district level supports with social media issues that accelerate problems around safety at the school sites 19;S@hools are isolated and do not share effective practices- not growing together 20. Shared sites need support negotiating the implementation of an effective behavioral system on their campus 21.Site leadership does not feel trusted or believed in by the central organization, in regard to disciplinary issues, interests, and decisions 22,.paiants who over-advocate for their Students are easily able to push through the behavioral systemito ‘ensure their’stuidents are not held accountable for behaviors that-aresinviolation’ot éxpectations and policies /23. Adult family members who come onto campus to initiate or exacerbate conflict (0 be respondedito with significant legal action- itis not ourjob, to: manage adullparent behavior, but it is the legal system's job Attendance ere is a general understanding that effectively ensuring that students are in salves for a significant number of the behavioral issues that may lead to violence in the school environment 2. Responding early to attendance issues mitigates the likelihood of other negative behaviors occurring, especially when “interventions are high-touch and relationship driven 3. All schools represent that attendance is significantly lower than it was just a few years ago (for all disaggregated student groups) 4, A few schools feel like they have effective attendance systems- most feel that they are limited in their ability to respond to attendance concems with students 5, Attendance data for individual students and disaggregated groups is not provided in a way that is easy to view and easy process 6. Systems to respond to students who are beginning to have an attendance problems are not present in most schools and so most default to “robo-calls," letters that are sent after the problem has progressed, and referral to court- each of these are broadly understood as the least effective methods of response (8. do not have effective responses to chronic non-atten ‘students whose lack of presence at school often escalates to other school and HoNeSChiool related behavioral issues! District Level Systems 1. The DPR/Title IX investigation process is viewed as a valuable example of a structured protocol that reduces bias in investigations and provide a predictable process to support the investigation of and response to significant behavioral concern 2. Transitions between districts, schools, and alternative settings are pushed by the district to occur too quickly for appropriate placements to be designed and engaged for students who may need significant levels of support to be successful 3. We are directed to act by district personnel instead of gaining the opportunity to engage in problem-solving and consultancy that will grow our ability to better serve our studentsiS Not Support fom the district on significant responses to high-level threat fassessments- it feels like the message is “deal with it” 5, Schools do occasionally create “workarounds" to central directives and matrix-driven requirements based on their view of a safety situation- feel that this creates a liability for them as professionals, but they do not have a choice 6. Habitually Disruptive Students (as defined by statute and JKIJKR), are not held accountable by the system- schools have inconsistent understandings of a process relating to identifying and responding effectively and this element of policy is largely ignored by the district and not enforced 7. Sdhidol leaders are not able to elevate students who engage in multiple violent ids fo expulsion heatings- this is blocked by the School Equity and Opportunity Team- students are not getting the responses and supports they need to be successful 8. Deans and:school administrators are not provided with training, support; or sult with’ our most difficult behavior situations school sites are effectively told to “deal with it” and “figure out a way," by the Student Equity and Opportunity Team 9. The Student Equity and Opportunity Team members are mentioned with consistency in regard to limiting the ability for schools to: be responsive to threat assessments and violent behaviors; provide effective responses and support for students engaged in these behaviors; keep our school communities safe for students and staff. There is no level of confidence there will be advocacy and support from this team. 10. There is an Uniderstanding that: requests for expulsion hearings and/or Consultation will be denied and that no support will be provided in creating a 5 fOr student safety and success by the Student Equity ahd Opportunity = (ay joted at every school site, there is a lack of Understanding of the school Gontext by district employees that “enforce” the disciplinary process on the ‘schools. “They cannot understand the reality from their offices.”/ The Discipline “Matrix” 4. The Matrix: a. was not developed in a manner that included the voice of the school site educator b. was rolled out in 2021 without effective communication or training for the intended usersc. Is not in alignment with statute nor JK/JK-R and seems to prohibit the application of statutory interests with disciplinary responses d. as a representation of “equity"seems twisted toward advocating for students who have experienced challenges to not have appropriate levels, of support to be successful and toward a school being unable to ensure that the general student population is physically and emotionally safe e. limits options, requires specific disciplinary decisions for same behaviors (anti-equity), but does not provide options with which to respond (equity)- The same response for every person is anti-equity f. has a have a heavy focus on ISS, which is often viewed as an inappropriate and ineffective response, exacerbating the school to prison pipeline- no resource or training has been provided in the effective implementation of an “ISS” system g. takes the ability to contact DPD in response to behavioral events, when there is interest or need, and requires school leadership to defer DPD contact to Operational Superintendents or the Dept. of Safety (people who know the least about the child, the community, the situation). Site leadership does not feel trusted/is not trusted with this important responsibility h. Does not allow more than one day of suspension for most significant behavioral cases and requires that a safety plan is effectively in place after one day. Schools view this as impossible in most situations because students often do not deescalate in that timeframe, investigations can take longer than that timeframe, parent meetings do not always happen in that timeframe, restorative conversations do not typically happen in that timeframe, and communications with appropriate staff members are often not possible in that timeframe . Not only does thé matrix limit appropriate behavioy but requests for expulsion for weapons are consistently denied bf Barb Dow decision that site leaders believe is in violation of statute and pi . If a child is sexually assaulted and robbed at knife-point of up to 5000.00, we are not able to request an expulsion hearing, by definition of the matrix says “consultation with OS required for 1 day OSS for safety planning. “Expulsion may not be requested” Expulsion request may not be made in the case of sexual assault and other violent, possibly felonious, behaviors .. There has been an increase in significant/violent fighting incidents because students do not believe that there will be behavioral responses that are concerning to them. Behaviors escalate without meaningful responses.6, Lower level disciplinary responses related to drugs use and possession, ie: suspension with restorative options, are effective when used through that type of a restorative frame with the opportunity for students to engage in learning and recommitment “Nexus” 1. The term “nexus” is used in the Disciplinary Matrix but is not defined: “if off-campus, there must be a sufficient nexus to schoo!” 2. Principals cited the definition of matrix from CRS 22-33-20-106c... "Behavior on or off school property that is detrimental to the welfare or safety of other pupils or of school personnel, including behavior that creates a threat of physical harm to the child or to other children. 3, Nexus is legally (CRS 22-33-20-106c) noted not as distance (across the street or in the park next to the school), but as to whether there is a reasonable connection that makes the behavior “detrimental to the welfare or safety of the pupils” 4. School leaders and deans typically view “nexus” as a behavior likely resulting in a level of disruption at the school or impacting the emotional or physical safety of students at the school (ie: threat on social media)- doesn't this align with the statutorial intent? 5, Multiple schools noted that, as determined by the “Discipline Team” (Student Equity & Opportunity Team), threat to use a weapon by a student very near the school, in a park connected to the campus, did not represent a significant “nexus,” because it did not occur on the actual school grounds 6. There is not specific guidance provided by the district (in policy, matrix, or informally), in regard to the application of ‘nexus” to the social media context (threats, bullying, representations of weapons and intent to use weapons, etc.) 7. The application of the term “nexus” by the Student Equity and Opportunity Team almost always results in a denial of request that creates an emotionally and/or physically unsafe environment for the student who has experienced challenge and other students in the environment a, The Student Equity and Opportunity Team focuses on geographical context, not the negative impact that a behavior off school grounds may have on the physical and emotional safety of students of the school b. Drug sales on or off campus are not viewed as reason for expulsion by the matrix or by the School Equity and Opportunity Team- nothing deans cando about this and students have been empowered to sell drugs on or off campus Students with Disabilities 1, The term “Free and Appropriate Public Education,” applies to students with disabilities but is often misused by district representatives as a term that applies more broadly to all students in the school district- this distracts from our requirement to provide an effective continuum of services with appropriate placement and services to students with disabilities 2, The DPS legal staff often justify student behavior to prevent lawsuits over student safety, especially when a student with a disability is involved 3, Inappropriate placements in center programs lead to frustration by students and teacher and inappropriate, sometimes explosive, behaviors 4, Manifestation Determination meetings for students with disabilities are often poorly facilitated and fail to engage in deep conversation related to determining if a behavior is or is not a manifestation of the students disability 5. Itis not clear who has the final say in regard to whether a behavior is a manifestation of the identified disability- typically, a district representative will just direct the decision that the behavior is a manifestation 6. Rarely, if ever, do we see a manifestation determination meeting result in a response that is supportive of the student's disability. More typically, if the behavior is identified as a manifestation of the disability (almost always approved with litle or no discussion), the student is just directed back to the environment in which their behavior occurred “as a manifestation” without consideration of change or amendment to their support- his should leave us open to legal liability 7. “Not every violent behavior is a manifestation of ADHD." Mental Health Supports 1. While there are significant investments of mental health supports available to students at school sites, they are present largely because schools use additional general funds to provide2. Gfransformative Social Emotional Academic Léaming (TSEAL) is represented as ajconcept and requirement at each school site, but in action it is loosely defined and nol evidenced as a significant application at School sites 3. Some schools have strong partnerships enhancing supports for mental health and other needs, but no schools believe they are coming close to meeting the demand for the mental health needs of students 4, School-based clinics provide additional mental health supports and are greatly appreciated 5. We have some trusted community partners to support mental health and student engagement and would benefit from district support when we are needing to. deny access to some partners that are not as trusted 6. Schools believe they are meeting about 50% of student mental health needs. Family needs seem largely unmet 7. The district prioritizes the time of school-based mental health providers to test and support students with disabilities and not to provide resources to students with other mental health needs (ie: suicidal ideation, high-level threat assessment, students on a Safety Plan) 8. Many students who require mental health supports choose not to access and/or their parents do not want them to access a. does not seem to be a way to require engagement through safety plan or other means, but the lack of engagement in these supports somewhat predictably results in further behavioral and mental health challenges 9. Itis harder to return to play sports after a concussion than to retum toa classroom after a threat of weapon, violence, or a significant mental health episode- the mental health of a child should be as elevated a concern for the general population as is the physical concern for an athlete Student Safety Plans (Action Intervention Plans) 1. Safety Plans have become a replacement for expulsion, denial of admission, and effective problem-solving with families in regard to appropriate admissions and supports 2. Neither students with Safety Plans or potential victims of violent students that the district is directing to have a safety plan are being protected when we are directed to create plans instead of providing alternative settings for students, even as momentary placement, when that may be of benefit 3. Safety plans are used in place of appropriate significant responses- students are not bought into the plans and they are difficult to manage at the school site withlimited resources (ie: tracking multiple students between each of their classes drains resource and is not feasible, often times, setting the student and the school up for failure) 4. Safety plans are often used to support or are used instead of a “restraining order’ Parents often deny the provision of mental health services to students as a part of a safety plan, limiting the likely success of the plan 6. Schools have been told by the legal department that “generally, we have no legal obligation to enforce protection orders. i. This type of directive may serve to place a student in a distinctly unsafe situation, from the perspective of the court. ji, Who holds the liability if a violent act occurs when we are not enforcing a court directed protection order? 2 School Resource Officers 1, Every principal and school team engaged in the interviews communicated the need for full-time trained SROs at the school site in order to secure a consistent presence for the safety program of the school, to provide the multitude of other services that become available through SRO presence, and for being a positive addition to the school's culture and community 2. The decision to have an SRO at a school site should not be determined by the principal of a school building. This decision should be made through a policy recommendation by the superintendent to the school board and the school board should make the final policy-based decision, or the school board should work together to make and own the decision 3, SROs are necessary partners in our current school community and need to be present as partners into the future 4, There was no resource provided to school sites, in terms of staffing, budget, or training, when the SROs were pulled 5. All SROs, and especially new SROs, that receive role-specific training to become most effective partners with school leaders, staff, students, and community members, make the greatest difference for students 6. SROs are a community service position 7. SROs are the only service provider on a school site who can complete a mental health hold in support of a student demonstrating suicidal or homicidal ideation 8. Larger high schools (more than 1300) noted a need for two SROs 9. These partners need to be understood as a primary community resource for our schools- every school represented SROs as necessary for: a, community connectionsb. preventative and proactive safety planning c. student services (mandatory reporting, parent inquiries, comforting and connecting presence) d. crisis management and response e. immediate communications with emergency services f. Ongoing awareness of and immediate access to information related to community safety issues Campus Safety Officers 1. CSOs are sometimes very effective partners and other times are not connected to, nor supportive of, site needs (je: lack of training or experience sometimes leads to escalation instead of de-escalation of circumstances) _ 2, A\lafer humber of GSOs are required for them to have an impact and truly be supportive at larger school sites 3. The “Standards of Service" document for CSOs significantly limits the ability for schools to gain services aligned to specific needs of a school site a. Mainly, the “SoS” seems to represent what CSOs will not do 4, CSOs are often not trained effectively and need to be connected as stronger partners at school sites 5. The pay is not sufficient for us to be able to incent and retain effective CSOs 6. Many schools need both a larger number of CSOs and need for vacancies to be filled 7. (SehOOlS donot have consistent nor trained monitors welcoming students and visitors into the school site- because of this, the school is stretched to provide Staffing for that space and there is not a’ dedicated role focused on who\enters; sand exits the school buildings! 8. Large schools with nightlyactivities receivé no allocated CSO supports during that time Without extra scheduling and extra cost: this creates a significant liability from principals’ perspective Cameras/Radios ‘Significant issues related to cameras and radios are represented across campuses: 4. Students know where cameras are and where they are not 2. Schools often have 20+ exterior doors and windows that open- cameras are not at every door and this allows for easy access