We will end this week's discussion on the ASSAULT and dismantlement of our US public education system by looking at the two sides of PROMISE PROGRAM goals. We showed yesterday the goal of ROTC and PROMISE are tops in creating the breakdown of civil society leading to civil unrest civil wars using the same deliberate tactics as in Latin America driven by SCHOOL OF AMERICA. But PROMISE has another goal-----
ENDING AND DISMANTLING ALL OF 'AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT' ---ALL OF FEDERAL EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND ACCESS TO QUALITY K-12 PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITY---
CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA PROMISED GLOBAL 1% they would not leave any REAL left social progressive policies from last century standing and Americans with Disabilities ----that includes our children with social behavior problems -----is what PROMISE PROGRAM attacks.
OBAMA era literally wiped out all civil rights and liberty gains for our US citizens with disabilities. PROMISE PROGRAM was aimed at our US public schools requiring opportunity and access for our children with disabilities in receiving a quality education. OBAMA and Clinton neo-liberals for his 8 years attacked every agency tied to DISABILITY RIGHTS---from VETERANS to SENIORS---to CHILDREN---to CHRONIC DISEASE VECTORS.
'Over the course of the 1960s and 70s, several pieces of legislation created new regulations for schools, public and commercial buildings and transportation. These regulations required public-serving institutions to make “reasonable accommodations” allowing equal access to people with disabilities. Disabled Americans were guaranteed the right to attend desegregated schools and the freedom to enjoy simple pleasures such as taking a train downtown or shopping in a supermarket'.
An Overview of the Americans With Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became law in 1990. The ADA is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and all public and private places that are open to the general public.
The purpose of the law is to make sure that people with disabilities have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. The ADA is divided into five titles (or sections) that relate to different areas of public life.
Title I - Employment
- Helps people with disabilities access the same employment opportunities and benefits available to people without disabilities.
- Applies to employers with 15 or more employees.
- Requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified applicants or employees. A “reasonable accommodation” is a change that accommodates employees with disabilities so they can do the job without causing the employer “undue hardship” (too much difficulty or expense).
- Defines disability, establishes guidelines for the reasonable accommodation process, and addresses medical examinations and inquiries.
- Regulated and enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/disability.cfm (link is external)
Title II - Public Services: State and Local Government
- Prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by “public entities” such as state and local government agencies. .
- Requires public entities to make their programs, services and activities accessible to individuals with disabilities.
- Outlines requirements for self-evaluation and planning; making reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures where necessary to avoid discrimination; identifying architectural barriers; and communicating effectively with people with hearing, vision and speech disabilities.
- Regulated and enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice. http://www.ada.gov (link is external)
Title III - Public Accommodations and Services Operated by Private Entities
- Prohibits places of public accommodation from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. Public accommodations include privately owned, leased or operated facilities like hotels, restaurants, retail merchants, doctor’s offices, golf courses, private schools, day care centers, health clubs, sports stadiums, movie theaters, and so on.
- Sets the minimum standards for accessibility for alterations and new construction of commercial facilities and privately owned public accommodations. It also requires public accommodations to remove barriers in existing buildings where it is easy to do so without much difficulty or expense.
- Directs businesses to make "reasonable modifications" to their usual ways of doing things when serving people with disabilities.
- Requires that businesses take steps necessary to communicate effectively with customers with vision, hearing, and speech disabilities.
- Regulated and enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice. http://www.ada.gov (link is external)
Title IV - Telecommunications
- Requires telephone and Internet companies to provide a nationwide system of interstate and intrastate telecommunications relay services that allows individuals with hearing or speech disabilities to communicate over the telephone.
- Requires closed captioning of federally funded public service announcements.
- Regulated by the Federal Communication Commission. http://www.fcc.gov (link is external)
Title V - Miscellaneous Provisions
- Contains a variety of provisions relating to the ADA as a whole, including its relationship to other laws, state immunity, its impact on insurance providers and benefits, prohibition against retaliation and coercion, illegal use of drugs, and attorney’s fees.
- Provides a list of certain conditions that are not considered disabilities.
- Public Transportation offered by a state or local government is covered by Title II of the ADA. Publicly funded transportation includes, but is not limited to, bus and passenger train (rail) service. Rail service includes subways (rapid rail), light rail, commuter rail, and Amtrak.
- If transportation is offered by a private company, it is covered by Title III. Privately funded transportation includes, but is not limited to, taxicabs, airport shuttles, intercity bus companies, such as Greyhound, and hotel-provided transportation.
- The U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration releases information, guidance and regulations on transportation and the ADA. http://www.fta.dot.gov/ada (link is external)
We have discussed in detail the goals of WRAP-AROUND-SERVICE policies in PRETENDING all that strong social benefit inside each public school----from counselors, school nurse, to public safety officer, to special needs classrooms with teachers having specialized training in teaching those special needs children------DISAPPEARED. They were replaced by outsourced, criminal and corrupt global banking 5% freemason/Greek player small business non-profits channeling all those Federal and state public education funds that once provided children like CRUZ having violent behavioral problems a stable classroom in a public school designed for those special needs. Today, WRAP-AROUND -SERVICES filled with PAY-TO-PLAY the same ROBBER BARON systemic fraud and corruption taking all treasury revenue-----fills our national media and provides FAKE DATA telling us all these outsourced programs are working and putting CHILDREN FIRST.
We have looked at each outsourced social service to show the corruption---the FAKE DATA----the fact that these outsourced programs are only TEMPORARY to segue OUT real public school disability opportunity and access in ENDING ALL US DISABILITY RIGHTS.
This PROPAGANDA comes from MASSACHUSETTS---HARVARD-----who send global banking 5% players like RUNCIE----ARNE DUNCAN-----SCHOOL BOARD CEOs to LIE AND HIDE goals of killing our strong US public schools.
PROMISE PROGRAM is simply another worthless program within WRAP AROUND SERVICES having NO evidence of success. We are to believe that sending children with violent behavior problems like CRUZ----can be solved with a few days of counseling then back into mainstream classrooms with teachers having a few hours of special needs training overwhelmed trying to teach 30-40 students in a classroom.
Below we see RAGING global banking 5% freemason/Greek players none of whom could care less for CHILDREN. Economic Policy Institute is global banking 1% Clinton neo-liberal.
'How to fix our schools
Joel Klein, chancellor of the New York City public school system, and Michelle Rhee,
1 Rothstein, Richard. "How to Fix Our Schools." Economic Policy Institute (2010). http://www.epi.org/publication/ib286/'
These public school policies were WRAPPED AROUND ----RACE TO THE TOP.
Uplifting the Whole Child:
Using Wraparound Services to Overcome Social Barriers to Learning
By Colin A. Jones, August 11, 2014
For all endnotes, please see the PDF version of this paper.
As the birthplace of public education, Massachusetts has long believed in the promise of schools to advance opportunity and civic engagement for all. However, there is reason to question the level to which education today is delivering on this promise for all children across the state.
Students facing family, health, and economic challenges enter schools with complex barriers to success. These barriers include frequent movement between schools, housing insecurity, hunger, and family stressors such as interaction with the child welfare or criminal justice systems. All of these challenges are linked with poverty and disproportionately affect communities of color.1 Policy discussions often overlook these barriers, yet they constrain the effectiveness of many educational strategies.
Educators have struggled with the question of whether school structure or external factors, such as poverty, better explain achievement gaps. Rather than taking a narrow approach, a set of promising models has taken both external and school factors into account, intentionally confronting non-academic barriers while also providing strong academics. There are numerous terms for these efforts, including community schools, full-service schools, integrated student supports, and wraparound services. The term wraparound services is how we refer to them throughout this paper.
WHAT ARE WRAPAROUND SERVICES?
Wraparound services are student and family supports integrated with and often delivered directly within schools.2 Wraparound services help schools address social and non-academic barriers to student learning.
Examples of wraparound services are broad and include:
- Health, dental, and vision care
- Mental health services
- Behavioral health, nutrition, and wellness
- Parent and family targeted services including:
- Adult education, such as classes on child development, GED, English as a second language, and basic vocational skills
- Service referrals and assistance
- Social work and family crisis response
Wraparound services have the potential to help children, families, and teachers alike. The theory behind wraparound services suggests that students whose health and wellness needs are attended to will be healthier, more focused, and better able to learn. Similarly, families engaged with schools and supportive services will have increased capacity to support child learning and health. Finally, for schools, having additional systems for confronting social challenges that impede learning, will allow teachers and administrators to focus on instruction.
Well-designed wraparound programs provide some services directly within schools while providing others through careful coordination with external agencies. This is an important balance to strike. Providing comprehensive services inside schools may be logistically challenging or duplicative of existing programs. However, merely referring students and families to outside providers may not meet immediate or ongoing needs as effectively as offering services in the schools that see kids and families on a daily basis.
The following discussion excludes some services that are also important to child development. For instance, we do not analyze teaching and learning occurring throughout the school day, afterschool, extended learning time, pre-kindergarten, or social services not integrated with schools.
For more information on providing pre-kindergarten to all three- and four-year-olds across the Commonwealth, see MassBudget's Building a Foundation for Success. A future paper in the Roadmap to Expanding Opportunity series will examine options for increasing learning time.
Wraparound services have been around for over 30 years. One of the first efforts to provide them was under the umbrella of "community schools." Beginning in the 1980s, groups such as Schools of the 21st Century in New Haven, Connecticut, the Children's Aid Society in New York City, and the West Philadelphia Improvement Corps implemented school-based social services.3 These schools hosted community centers, provided health services, built family supports, and leveraged partnerships with business and non-profit groups.
Wraparound services gained recent attention with the success of the Harlem Children's Zone. This organization operates in a 97 block area of New York City, providing an integrated set of school and community services for children and families. Services range from pre-natal care and parenting classes, to high-performing K-12 schools and college coaching.4 Influence of the Harlem Children's Zone is reflected in the United States Department of Education Promise Neighborhood Grants, spanning 20 states, including Massachusetts. These grants support neighborhood based collaborations to deliver "cradle-to-career solutions" centered on high performing schools and family supports.5
It is challenging to isolate the effects of wraparound services from the effects of schools themselves. A frequently cited 2011 study of the Harlem Children's Zone, done by Will Dobbie and Roland Fryer, pointed to high performing schools, not wraparound services, as the driver of impressive educational gains. However, Harlem Children's Zone schools feature wraparound services as defined here, including wellness and nutrition programs, mental health, medical, and dental care.6 It is unclear whether the impressive results of these schools, including closing racial achievement gaps within several years, would be possible without wraparound services.
Current estimates indicate that wraparound services reach 1.5 million students in close to 3,000 schools nationally. Nearly all the service providers target low-income youth, with African American and Hispanic youth comprising 75 percent of the total student population.7
NATIONAL CASE STUDIES
With a wide variety of services in operation, it is useful to look at specific initiatives that have achieved strong results. These organizations can inform the development of wraparound services in Massachusetts.
Overall, the research on wraparound services is mixed. The organization Child Trends identified 11 formal evaluations of wraparound services to date and found that only a subset of programs have achieved positive results.8 Positive effects found among these studies include increased attendance, grade point average, and academic achievement.9
The following section explores specific details about three high-performing models, operating from local to state scale, and discusses their outcomes. These case studies span wraparound services provided through a non-profit agency, school district, and a statewide initiative, displaying the diversity of the field.
1. Children's Aid Society of New York City (CAS) – Non-Profit Model
The non-profit Children's Aid Society (CAS) of New York City brought a wide range of services together under an umbrella of supports coordinated with an independent non-profit as the lead agency. CAS has implemented high-quality wraparound services in a community school program since 1992. The project began with two pilot public schools in neighborhoods identified by CAS and city leaders as lacking key social supports and quality education.10 The initiative has grown to 16 in schools in 2014.11
The expansive range of supports includes a wraparound director, family resource center, adult education, job training, medical and dental care, preventative health education, social workers, and mental health counselors.12 CAS also includes an extended day schedule and early education services through Head Start.
Evaluation results for Children's Aid Society, particularly the original sites, have been encouraging. A Fordham University study indicated that CAS elementary students achieved proficiency growth ranging from 143 to 250 percent in math and reading scores between 1993 and 1996.13 This study also documented other positive effects including increased attendance, higher parent involvement, and improved access to health services.
Later evaluations of Children's Aid Society confirmed strong academic performance versus comparison schools. However, there were reported difficulties maintaining the high level of academic growth, measuring all the relevant data, and coordinating the relationship between wraparound services and classroom instruction.14
A cost-benefit analysis of Children's Aid Society also showed a strong return on investment. A 2013 study by the research firm The Finance Project showed a 10-to-1 return on each dollar invested in the first CAS elementary school and a 15-to-1 return for the first middle school site.15 The benefits arose from academic performance, health and wellness improvement, teacher retention, and parent involvement. This analysis included the entirety of Children's Aid Society services including early child care, thus the value of the wraparound services as defined here is likely somewhat lower.
2. Tulsa Area Community School Initiative (TACSI) – District Model
The Tulsa Area Community School Initiative (TACSI) has also demonstrated success with wraparound services. In this case, the lead agency is within a public school district. TACSI has shown the potential to help lower income students perform on par with higher income peers in math, while drastically reducing gaps in reading. However, it has achieved these results only in its developed sites, covering one-third of sites overall.
TACSI began in 2007, reaching over 9,000 students and their families in 18 community schools across the Tulsa and Union public school districts in Oklahoma.16 As of 2012, TACSI had expanded to 23 schools.17
TACSI founders convened an array of youth service and child welfare agencies involved with the public schools, aiming to replace fragmentation and limited impact with holistic strategies to enhance academic, family, and health outcomes.
TACSI shares similarities with other wraparound services. Site coordinators work in tandem with a management team including families, community partners, and school staff. The site team collaborates to assess needs and priorities, giving each school site a unique mix of offerings.
Although specific services vary, they include youth development, family support and engagement, and health and wellness supports. TACSI also provides medical services open to students and families in the district. TACSI collaborates with a local Department of Health to provide health classes, prevention programs, and additional social workers.18 Other partners provide specialized services such as home visiting, job training, adult education, and counseling services for youth with incarcerated parents.19 TACSI partners supplement the work of existing school social workers and counselors, significantly reducing caseloads for district staff.
An Oklahoma Center for Education Policy study showed that in developed sites, which are a third of all locations, TACSI dramatically increased the performance of low-income students. The study shows developed sites outperformed all other schools, including those with more affluent populations.20 The chart below shows that TACSI fully closed the achievement gap in standardized math scores between low-income students and higher income peers, while reducing the gap in reading by 76 percent.21 Low-income students in developed sites actually outperformed higher income peers by 3 points in math (shown below as a negative gap) while achieving scores only 6 points lower in reading.
The promising results from TACSI come with some limitations. TACSI developed sites were only a subset. In addition, TACSI faces challenges with obtaining consistent and sustainable funding, as it depends on funds from private foundation grants, Title I, and non-profit partners stretched by the ongoing effects of the Great Recession. Resource shortages have reduced available services. For example, only half of sites have a full-time coordinator and most lack unified family resource centers.22 There were also significant challenges with principal and teacher turnover, suggesting a need for consistency in building a shared vision for partnerships and services.
3. California Healthy Start – State Model
The previous two cases provide strong evidence for wraparound services delivered at the local or regional level by non-profits or school districts. The California Healthy Start grant provides a useful example of a state level approach with diverse operating structures.
Starting in 1991, Healthy Start provided $88,000 planning grants and $700,000 operating grants to local consortiums creating wraparound services tailored to specific high-poverty communities.23 Services provided by Healthy Start sites include school based health clinics, mental health services, case management, adult education, and supports for basic needs such as food and clothing.24
California's approach provides guidance on how to facilitate cost sharing and develop operational partnerships. Local partnerships consisted of school districts, non-profits, state and local agencies, and private foundations required to raise 25 percent of the state grants. In addition, recipients were limited to 3 years of funding before they were expected to continue independently.25
California Healthy Start achieved much larger scale than the other case studies. Between 1991 and 2007, 651 operational grants reached 1,388 schools with over 1 million students.26 These figures reflect the students served throughout the grant period, sites that continued operating beyond three years likely served additional students. A report from UCLA found that 82 percent of Healthy Start grantees continued to offer services after three years.27
Evaluations of Healthy Start demonstrated benefits across many grantees and identified a subset with particularly strong results. An evaluation in 1996 showed that families experienced increased access to food, shelter, transportation, employment, child care, and medical care.28 Family emotional health increased for recipients in concert with a decrease in the mobility rate, the percentage students leaving schools, suggesting enhanced family stability. The study also showed increases in student grade point averages, standardized test scores, and positive behavior in school.29 While overall school wide increases in academic performance across Healthy Start were three percentiles on state tests, there was higher growth in the lowest performing elementary schools, which achieved proficiency increases of 25 percent in reading and 50 percent in math.30
Healthy Start studies showed that grantees were able to leverage each dollar invested towards additional resources. A profile of six Healthy Start sites found that the grantees were able to leverage between 3 and 17 dollars of additional resources for each state dollar invested. The funding came from private partners, state agencies, and federal grants, suggesting that wraparound service centers can leverage additional resources.31
If we were to adopt wraparound services statewide, we could build on existing work already in place across the state. While wraparound services are active in Massachusetts, existing programs have yet to reach the scale or the range of services provided by the evidence-based national case studies.
The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Wraparound Zone (WAZ) grant is one of these existing programs. Starting in 2011-2012, this grant helped districts address non-academic challenges. The goals are to enhance positive school climate, identify student needs, integrate service resources, and create district level feedback and improvement.32 The WAZ initiative provided $16,000 grants to 18 schools in Fall River, Holyoke, Lawrence, Springfield, and Worcester in the first year, and operated with up to two years of additional support.33 Lynn and Wareham were added in the 2012-2013 year. These districts were expected to supplement state funding with $99,000 from various other sources including Race to the Top, school turnaround, and local funds.
The Massachusetts WAZ initiative has limitations. It excludes provision of actual services and was limited in how many staff positions could be funded. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) specifically prohibited grant funds from being used for direct services. The total grant of $99,000 plus $16,000 per-school typically provided support for coordinators at the school and district levels, however there were also cases of staff adding wraparound activities on top of other duties.34 The staffing covered by the grant is sparse compared to the multiple administrators and direct service providers available under models like the Children's Aid Society. The funding, assuming the average of four schools per district, is 30 percent less than the funding provided to grantees in California Healthy Start. With the expectation that localities will assemble 86 percent of the funding, the expiration of Race to the Top, and the conclusion of the WAZ grant in 2013-2014, continuation of the initiative for the handful of districts is in question.
Overall, there were mixed results with implementation in WAZ schools and the districts that built services in line with case studies in the field used funding and staffing beyond the grant amount. Schools in the WAZ initiative reported successes in improving school culture, discipline, and family involvement. In some areas, the initiative has led to district-wide changes in practice and has received a level of local support that will allow it to be sustained over the long-term. However, frontline staff have expressed concerns about sustainability of the services and local partnerships after the grant funding ends.
In Holyoke, wraparound service practices have taken hold, despite some initial challenges. While one school built on existing strong partnerships with the WAZ grant, another was rated chronically underperforming by DESE and was the subject of a takeover plan.35 This reflected variation in take-up in Holyoke Public Schools and a leadership transition. The current district leadership has prioritized wraparound services and, with a full-time district administrator, has expanded to three full-service community schools while introducing some wraparound elements district-wide.36 The full service schools feature a site coordinator, two school based health clinics, family liaisons, and a wide range of partnerships with community, government, and university agencies. This expansion was done with district funding, as WAZ grants only cover a part of the costs. The initiative has created infrastructure that can be sustained and even expanded based on Holyoke's decision to make further investments in wraparound services. Funding and staffing limitations remain an impediment to providing the full range of services district-wide.
Fall River Public Schools leveraged the WAZ initiative to shift practice and priorities across the district. Fall River used partnerships more than direct services to drive the change. Fall River has focused wraparound efforts on creating positive school climates and behavior management systems, under the guidance of a supportive superintendent and a district coordinator who possesses deep experience with local agencies.37 The district is now increasing its focus on family engagement. It has placed social-emotional learning on par with district academic goals. Each school assigns administrators, school counselors, and partners to wraparound services and sends a representative to meetings of a district taskforce. This helps ensure that practices are consistent and influence district policy. The coordinator from Fall River suggested that with a district administrator, willing partners, leadership buy-in, and structures to train staff, it is possible to create district wide wraparound approaches, after which these systems can become institutionalized.38
The WAZ initiative is only one example of active programs in the state. Wraparound service partnerships have broadened to include cross sector collaborations between non-profits, universities, and public agencies. In some cases, medical institutions have partnered with school districts to provide wraparound services. In Boston, the Children's Hospital Neighborhood Partnerships (CHNP) has partnered with Boston Public Schools to provide social workers and psychologists within under-served schools. In 2013, CHNP reached 11 schools and 1,930 students providing comprehensive mental health and wellness services. These include clinical interventions, supports for students displaying warning signs, and health promotion activities aligned with creating safe and supportive schools.39 CHNP combines delivery of these services with capacity building, including providing consultation and professional development for school staff on mental health awareness and response.
CHNP has achieved positive results both on access and outcomes according to Boston Children's Hospital internal data. CHNP reports indicate that it provides mental health crisis intervention services 30 times faster than alternatives, conducts three times as many therapy sessions with students, and achieves a mental health improvement rate for children of 85 percent.40 This performance reflects the advantages of school-based services, compared to community health centers or district response teams, which by necessity serve larger populations.
BUILDING A STATEWIDE WRAPAROUND SERVICES MODEL
Based on the successful case studies profiled above, a review of the relevant literature, and discussion with Massachusetts experts and practitioners, the following section describes key features of a high-quality wraparound services model that could be implemented across Massachusetts. For each of these elements, we also estimate what it would cost to provide them. While each of the preceding case studies is different, a number of key features of successful programs emerge. Each of the elements discussed below reflects the most consistent practices from the case studies and the field at large. The five key elements of a strong wraparound services model are:
- Wraparound services coordinators
- Comprehensive health service clinics
- Mental and behavioral health, wellness, & prevention programs
- Family resource centers
- District administration
Wraparound Service Coordinators
The strongest wraparound service models all include a clear point-person tasked with identifying, coordinating, and overseeing services. This ensures that services are sustained and that the social-emotional support responsibilities do not fall unduly on teachers and principals. Site coordinators can develop keen awareness of community needs and specific family challenges, while interfacing with administrators, teachers, and providers. Coordinators must also work closely with external partners to ensure seamless integration.
A full-time coordinator, with a graduate degree costs roughly $526 per-student. This assumes the coordinator would be a public health or social work professional, operating with a caseload near 200 families, and includes funds for salary, professional development, clerical support, and overhead.41
Comprehensive Health Service Clinics
Numerous wraparound service models include direct service medical clinics within schools. All high performing models profiled here feature some form of medical, dental, or vision care. Children's Aid Society of New York City specifically provides all of these within a comprehensive health center.
Richard Rothstein and colleagues placed these costs at roughly $549 per student in 2014 dollars. This captures the cost of providing a pediatrician, dentist, optometrist, aides to the medical professionals, administrative support, and clinic startup costs.42 This figure includes an inflation adjustment and excludes mental health services, which are covered in the following section.
It is preferable to consider the costs of school based clinics within the context of existing health systems, not as new standalone costs. However, there are notable systemic challenges with integrating school-based health services with other coverage in Massachusetts. Structural barriers impede school-based clinics from receiving traditional health insurance reimbursements if they are outside of a child's health care network. Regulatory changes along with cooperation between school districts, medical providers, and managed care organizations would assist the expansion of school-based care.
A strong example of such partnerships taking hold is in Lynn, where a local community health center operates school-based clinics in nearly one-third of district schools, covering over half of the city's middle and high schools.43 The school based clinics are able to receive insurance reimbursements for services in cases where the Lynn Community Health Center is the primary care provider for a student, or where they have received a referral from a primary provider. However, there is a financial disincentive for outside providers to give referrals to school-based care regardless of the strong medical case for the services.
Mental and Behavioral Health, Wellness, & Prevention Programs
Mental and behavioral health programs support healthy outcomes and behavior for youth while contributing to positive school climates. Such services enhance school capacity for responding to all types of mental health challenges that impede learning. Services include mental health crisis intervention, clinical treatment and therapy, outreach to students at risk of developing mental health concerns, and school-wide trainings on mental health awareness.
Wellness and prevention services also contribute to a school climate of positive culture and behavior. Topics covered include healthy lifestyle choices, nutrition, stress management, anti-bullying, healthy relationships, conflict resolution, and diversity. Similar to mental health services, these may be directed at an entire school, classrooms, small groups, or individual students with distinct needs. Numerous evidence based curricula exist in the field, such as those implemented by the Boston Children's Hospital Neighborhood Partnerships.
These services are well suited to help address school bullying and are aligned with the State's Safe and Supportive School legislation of 2008. This law initiated the creation of a framework for addressing behavioral health, assessed school capacity, and made recommendations for improving related systems statewide.44
The Boston Children's Hospital Neighborhood Partnerships reported costs of $111 per student in the 2012-2013 school year. This figure includes a clinical team composed of 14 licensed social workers and psychologists serving 11 school sites with a total population of 6,800 students.45
Family Resource Centers
Resource centers designed to support parents and families are a key element of strong wraparound services. Resource centers can offer skill building for parents on topics such as child development, employment, GED, and English. Centers can also provide guardians with assistance in connecting to outside social service agencies. Together these services better equip caregivers with the skills and resources necessary to effectively support their children.
To accomplish these goals, some states have implemented family resource centers, bringing evidence-based practices to statewide scale. Kentucky has operated family resource centers within its Department of Health and Family Services since the 1990s, with the explicit aim of addressing non-academic barriers to student success.46 These school-based resource centers offer a mix of services and referrals, including child care and afterschool programs, adult education, health services, employment assistance, and family crisis intervention. Parent focused staff with rigorous professional training oversee the services.47 Centers are located within schools with a low-income population of 20 percent or more and are accessible to all families.48
John Kalafat and colleagues (2007) found that the Kentucky centers are associated with higher student achievement on proficiency exams, as well as positive behavior and higher academic ratings from teachers.49
Adjusting the Kentucky Family Resource Center model to Massachusetts would cost $97 per student annually. This reflects inflation and regional adjustments from Kentucky appropriations in 2011.50
Existing work on family resource centers across Massachusetts could be involved in expanding these services. Seven school liaisons work under the Child and Youth Readiness Cabinet, a collaboration led by the Massachusetts Departments of Education and Health and Human Services. These liaisons act as intermediaries between state agencies, school systems, and families accessing services.51 Liaisons are based in seven state family resource centers in Boston, Brockton, Holyoke, Lawrence, Springfield, and Worcester. This effort is acting on objectives of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS) aimed at coordinating and improving services across all state agencies that serve youth.52
For wraparound services to be effective, they have to engage with existing social services and the related state agencies, and measure performance on delivering results for kids. It is critical that program measures are attuned to improving areas of weakness and identifying what works. Towards these ends, district administration is included in this wraparound model. Such administrators would interface with state and local agencies and staff involved in the delivery and coordination of services, such as the interagency school liaisons under EOHHS.
District wraparound administrators manage, support, and evaluate school wraparound coordinators. The role includes setting strategy and performance goals as well as providing school level coordinators with professional development opportunities and support.
Since district wraparound administrators work within an overall district mission of academic success, this model assumes these administrators would serve as assistant superintendents. The cost of regional and district administration is $29 annually per-student. This figure is equal to the average state spending level for assistant superintendents according to a DESE report from 2013.53
STATEWIDE COST PROJECTION
The total per-student cost of a wraparound services model containing the five elements discussed above is $1,312 annually. Wraparound services of this scope are not equally necessary for all school districts in the Commonwealth. All the case studies profiled here operate in under-resourced areas where many students were not otherwise receiving these important non-academic supports.
For this reason, eligibility criteria should be carefully designed. One approach could be to provide wraparound supports to schools eligible for school-wide services through Title I Elementary and Secondary Education Act grants. In order to qualify for school-wide Title I support, a school must have a low-income population of at least 40 percent.54 For estimating state-wide costs, we assume that the unit of implementation is the district, since a key element of high-quality services is district support and coordination.
Applying this cutoff point to traditional districts across the state creates a target population in Massachusetts of 65 districts serving 356,000 students. These districts are representative of all regions of the state, including vocational-technical schools, and regional schools, and are of diverse population size and composition. The average number of students in these districts is 5,500, with a maximum of 54,000 students in Boston. There is no exact science to selecting a cutoff point. For example there are several Gateway Cities with populations of between 34 percent and just under 40 percent low-income students (Attleboro, Barnstable, Peabody, and Westfield).
Under these assumptions, the full cost of statewide wraparound services is roughly $468 million. Utilizing the average student population of 5,500, the average cost of implementation is $7 million per-district. These estimates do not consider existing services that could be coordinated or current partnerships in schools; therefore they do not necessarily represent new spending in these areas. A key example of this is school-based health care. In this case, shifting existing healthcare spending on kids to school-based clinics could greatly reduce any net additional cost.
Massachusetts could share the costs between the state and localities to ensure the feasibility of the five element wraparound services model and to facilitate the creation of local partnerships. The matching formula could reflect the Commonwealth's Chapter 70 education formula that takes into account diverse need and ability to pay at the local level. This would create diversity in the amount that cities and towns would contribute. Alternatively, Massachusetts could adopt a system similar to California's Healthy Start grant by requiring that municipalities gather a set percentage of the resources locally. This approach has the downside of not taking into account localities' differing ability to pay.
Either form of matching should include local district or municipal spending, state and federal grant funds, and private sources of funding or in-kind services from partners. All resources dedicated to services under the wraparound umbrella should be eligible towards matching.
Regardless of whether a matching system is used, existing partnerships and services should be included in building comprehensive wraparound supports. Identifying existing services should be included as a condition of eligibility for additional funding. Identification of related services would help ensure that state funds are used to initiate supports that do not currently exist at the local level while integrating what is already working.
CONCLUSION & POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
Confronting students' non-academic or social barriers through wraparound services has been shown to be effective across the country. This approach holds potential for Massachusetts. Wraparound services covering the five elements described above would greatly broaden the range of school-integrated services available to thousands of children and families across the Commonwealth.
While wraparound services assist in creating the conditions for learning, the necessary complement to these supports is highly effective schools with engaging and rigorous academics. When combined, these building blocks can create a foundation for academic and social progress, particularly in under-resourced areas, helping students from all backgrounds receive a quality education.
Sufficient time and planning are necessary to build wraparound services at district or statewide scale. Among the national case studies, numerous examples were created and refined based on experience over multiple decades. Each community has unique strengths and challenges. Community partnerships designed to build on strengths and address challenges must reflect the input of all local stakeholders and incorporate the feedback of diverse community members and professionals, who may be working together in unprecedented ways. All of these tasks require ongoing collaboration, feedback, and improvement. The 3-year timeframe of both the California Healthy Start and the DESE Wraparound Zone grants is a reasonable estimate of adequate time.
Evaluation of results throughout the process will help ensure that progress towards positive outcomes for youth and families – as well as potential impediments to success - are identified. These services have the potential to improve a broad set of family and youth indicators, in addition to improving traditional academic measures such as standardized test scores. Many of the initial effects are on mental health, physical health, family stability, and access to services. Growth in these areas can in turn promote academic success. The means by which this positive cycle can best be initiated are as unique as each community and family.
It is important to consider the interaction of wraparound services with existing state efforts to support youth and families. Particularly, the interaction between school-based medical services and existing health coverage is a critical point of alignment. Services directed at mental health, safe and supportive schools, existing school counseling and nursing, family access centers, and other initiatives should be incorporated into a unified, intentional, and holistic system of support for youth and families.
1 Rothstein, Richard. "How to Fix Our Schools." Economic Policy Institute (2010). http://www.epi.org/publication/ib286/
We saw in Florida with CRUZ as a school shooter not only a child tied to military training while struggling with personal violent/depressive behavior issues----we saw in CRUZ a child who QUIT SCHOOL because he could not be successful in mainstreamed classrooms----he could not receive the professional special needs hands on teachers he needed to be successful----and because CRUZ KNEW attending a few days of outsourced counseling would do nothing but send Federal funding to an outsourced non-profit which received that funding whether CRUZ attended PROMISE classes or not.
Looking at FAKE DATA from across the US where all these PROMISE PROGRAMS were installed-----all we see is the MARCH TO REHABILITATION CAMP FREE LABOR/CHILD LABOR exactly as exists in CHINA.
We KNOW all this talk of FREE COMMUNITY COLLEGE is the ending of our US PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS moving to apprenticeship tracking ----and that is the goal of PROMISE PROGRAM. It will be found that children like CRUZ cannot be successfully mainstreamed into classrooms and instead they will be tracked to pre-K to career vocational training only apprenticeship CHILD LABOR.
CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA and their global banking 5% freemason/Greek players----PROMISE THAT IS THE GOAL.
The DATA shows this is all a success---except when it is NOT A SUCCESS.
Replicating the Tennessee Promise
As Tennessee’s Promise program expands to include adult students, other community college scholarship programs are figuring out how to replicate its success.
ByAshley A. Smith
March 2, 2017
While many states and cities are still working through the details and funding behind their attempts to create a free community college program, Tennessee has been busy expanding its scholarship.
The state was the first to create a free community college program. Now in its second year, the Tennessee Promise has led to student retention gains even as the number of participating students increases.
That success was highlighted recently by the state’s move to expand the Promise to include all adult residents through Tennessee Reconnect -- which already allowed adult residents to earn a certificate for free at any Tennessee college of applied technology. (The expanded program requires adults to not already have an associate or bachelor's degree, be a state resident for at least a year, apply for federal student aid, participate in an advising program and attend college at least part time.)
“One of the things we always heard was, ‘What are we doing with adults?’” said Mike Krause, executive director of the Tennessee Higher Education Commission. “And now we’ve been able to answer that question. We built a seamless message that is about everyone going to college.”
More than 33,000 students have received the Promise scholarship and enrolled in college since the program began in 2015, with nearly 23,300 enrolled in 2016.
But, as some states and cities are learning, replicating an initiative like the Tennessee Promise isn’t an exact science. And there are a few common barriers many programs have faced, including finances and politics.
“Money is the logical explanation,” said Laura Perna, director of the Alliance for Higher Education and Democracy at the University of Pennsylvania, who has examined more than 150 Promise programs to assemble a database of characteristics. “Many states have a number of programs spending a lot of money on different types of financial aid already. So it’s important for a state to consider the resources they have available.”
For instance, Oregon, which is using money from the state budget to fund its Promise initiative, allocated $10 million to the program last year. However, officials are estimating the cost will rise to $13.5 million as the state deals with a budget shortfall. Oregon has also seen some of its universities object to the Promise money, with some arguing for more funding for a state scholarship that benefits low-income students who attend public, four-year institutions.
Yet in Tennessee, the program's expansion is less controversial because it won’t directly cost taxpayers. The state is expecting the expansion to cost about $10 million a year, but those funds will come from lottery dollars. The main Promise program also is primarily funded from the state’s lottery reserves, which were placed in an endowment.
This year the total cost for the scholarship is $25.3 million.
“If you’re going to establish a program, you want it to be politically and financially sustainable,” Perna said. “Certainly we know from research that money matters, but it’s not the only thing that matters if you want to improve college attainment for underserved students.”
Where Oregon is facing a backlash from its four-year institutions, Tennessee allows public and private universities that offer an associate degree program to participate in the Promise program.
Four percent of Tennessee Promise students are enrolled at private institutions this year, with a 2 percent annual gain, according to the state higher education office.
“The compromise we made with the governor put us in a position where we would not oppose [the Promise],” said Claude Pressnell Jr., president of the Tennessee Independent Colleges & Universities Association. “We found, due to transfers and adult learners, our enrollment has gone up slightly over the past few years.”
While enrollment has increased at all the state's private institutions, Pressnell said three in particular have seen enrollment gains and the largest share of Tennessee Promise students: Cumberland University, Martin Methodist College and Carson-Newman University.
All three of those private institutions have recruited Promise students, either by agreeing to match the scholarship with institutional aid or by hosting Promise orientation sessions on their campuses, he said.
“I don’t think the other states know we do it,” Pressnell said. “It’s billed as a community college program, and they don’t realize that it’s portable to a four-year institution with an associate degree. Even in this state, it’s the least publicized piece of the program.”
Among the state’s four-year public universities, however, some institutions have taken an enrollment hit in recent years. At the University of Tennessee Martin, for instance, undergraduate enrollment is down 2.4 percent since last year, according to state data. The campus doesn’t offer associate degree programs.
However, UT Martin officials are more likely to praise the Promise program than blame it for low enrollment. After all, the university has seen a 14 percent decrease in enrollment over five years -- a trend that predates the Promise.
“We think the Tennessee Promise program is a good thing,” said Keith Carver, chancellor for UT Martin. “When you talk about a state trying to get 55 percent of its population to a postsecondary degree, whether it’s a technical certificate, an associate’s degree at one of the state’s community colleges or a four-year degree from one of our four-year colleges or universities, that’s a really good thing.”
Carver said it is reasonable to suspect that the Promise program has had some influence on the decrease in Martin’s undergraduate enrollment. But because the population was already in a decline, the reason for the change has been difficult to quantify.
UT Martin faces other issues that impact enrollment more -- an overall declining population in rural western Tennessee and high unemployment when compared to the rest of the state.
Instead, UT Martin is focusing its efforts on transfer students.
The campus is up 4.3 percent in Promise students who have transferred in, Carver said.
“As tough as our jobs are, in terms of dwindling pool of students, we’re having to work much more strategically,” he said.
Beyond the Money
Chris Baldwin, a senior director at Jobs for the Future, said as other states examine Tennessee and look at creating Promise programs, it’s important to note that the changes the state made weren’t decided overnight.
“What Tennessee has been able to do and the success they’ve had is broader than free community college,” he said. “For one, it fits the performance funding they’ve had for a long time. There’s a robust set of things they’ve done around developmental education and streamlining through guided pathways … I’d hesitate to say the success is purely about free tuition, so if you’re replicating it, it would mean you have to replicate a lot.”
Baldwin points to the Detroit Promise scholarship, which, while generating a lot of interest in community college, doesn’t solve the underlying problems students have, such as academic challenges and not having financial stability in their lives to sustain enrollment and be successful.
As New York pursues a free college program and other, similar Promise programs emerge across the country, the question will be what they are doing beyond free tuition, he said.
In Tennessee, officials feel their biggest impact hasn’t been financial but messaging. Perhaps that’s why Krause said he isn’t surprised other states haven’t exactly replicated the Tennessee model.
“It’s amazing to see more states haven’t realized by changing the messaging and leveraging financial aid … it takes time,” he said. “A lot of people are watching to see how it goes through a full cohort.”
For those not knowing JOHNSON AND JOHNSON is about the worst of global multi-national corporations measured at ever social level -----and yes, here is that raging global neo-liberal LAISSEZ FAIRE player now giving all kinds of PROMISES. Oh, this is so PROGRESSIVELY PROMISING say global banking 1%.
Johnson and Johnson has morphed from a US corporation providing household products to being THE MOOR'S LAST SIGH======ABRAHAM and his global black market corporation selling BABY POWDER to hide what was his most profitable GLOBAL DRUG CARTEL.
'Robert Wood Johnson
I - Wikipedia
Robert Wood Johnson I (February 20, 1845 – February 7, 1910) was an American industrialist.He was also one of the three brothers who founded Johnson & Johnson'
We saw with the Florida school shooting as all school shootings across the US------happening by young white male children---in predominately white schools -----while the same is happening in our black communities the difference being these young black children are shooting in their communities. Below we see MR ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON PROMISING a targeted 99% of black children. All these RACE TO TOP GLOBAL ONLINE COMMONER CORE----PRE-K TO CAREER APPRENTICESHIP CHILD LABOR attacks all US population groups. So, we are simply watching our strongest in world history US public school system being PIECE-MEALED away with outsourcing and myth-making. As usual, it is those global banking 1% FAKE RELIGIOUS freemason schools promoting these policies replacing US PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
Global banking 1% far-right wing ECONOMIC PROGRESSIVE neo-liberalism is the OPPOSITE of our REAL left social progressive AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT ---I AM MAN----300 YEARS OF US PUBLIC EDUCATION.
'create "healthy villages"---ah, there is HILLARY'S ---IT TAKES A VILLAGE. Those global banking 1% care so much for our US and new immigrant 99% of citizens black, white, and brown citizens.
Empowering boys and young men of color to heal, grow and thrive.
Forward Promise aims to improve health and enable success in school, work, and life.
Boys and young men of color (BYMOC) are critically important members of their communities and contributors to society. Unfortunately, however, challenges with neighborhoods, housing, schools, jobs, and economic security often lead to limited positive options—and long-term challenges for health.
Forward Promise is an initiative of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation which is working to strengthen the supportive networks and relationships that surround BYMOC and their families.
In communities around the nation, and in collaboration with numerous other foundations and organizations, the program is working to advance solutions and create "healthy villages" that enable BYMOC to grow up healthy and reach their fullest potential.
Here is the global banking RIGHT WING media playing this game of OBAMA-----when all these US public education policies are written by global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS---taking our US public schools back to 1000BC 99% of people don't need to know.
When the US ROTC representative in Chicago was asked why ARMY JUNIOR ROTC always ends up in low-income public schools his reply----the school's administration ASKED FOR this ROTC. No, these school principals today have absolutely no voice or control in how our local public schools operate---our classroom teachers have absolutely no voice or choice of what is taught in US public school classrooms----and if any local public school employee or parent/child QUESTIONS these RACE TO TOP dismantling of our US public schools and strong 99% EDUCATION they are immediately threatened of job and/or ability to send their children to the fewer and fewer and fewer community schools left open.
THAT IS HOW BALTIMORE WORKS-----driven by global banking 5% freemason/Greek pols and players tied to BALTIMORE CITY COUNCIL---MAYOR PUGH----BALTIMORE SCHOOL BOARD AND ITS CEO----MARYLAND ASSEMBLY POLS FROM BALTIMORE----all doing whatever global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE JOHNS HOPKINS ----which controls all Baltimore public policy TELLS THEM------these global banking 5% players PROMISED to do anything they are told.
So, now our 99% of WE THE PEOPLE are being forced to fight against each other because our classrooms are filling with children having different learning needs while teachers are pushed through lower quality professional teaching programs while children are being made more and more BORED with ONLINE ONLY LESSONS. Oh, it is OBAMA'S fault----as too CLINTON/BUSH.
IT'S THE BAD GUYS WITH GUNS SAYS ARNE DUNCAN---NOT MOVING FORWARD CIVIL UNREST CIVIL WAR LATIN AMERICAN SCHOOL OF AMERICAS BRUTAL MILITARIZED GOALS COURTESY GLOBAL 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS KNIGHTS OF MALTA---TRIBE OF JUDAH.
'Obama Education Chief Arne Duncan Urges Boycott of Public Schools Until Gun Control PassedObama-era education secretary Arne Duncan urged a gathering of Parkland parents in Broward County to keep their children home from school until Congress passes national gun control laws.
20 Jul 2018, 9:27 AM PDT'
Broward County Likely ‘Inspiration’ for Obama School Discipline Policy to Report Fewer Arrests, Suspensions
26 Feb 2018 BREITBART NEWS. Dr. Susan Berry
The Broward County school district’s adoption of a school discipline policy that was praised by the Obama administration for seeking to reduce the reported number of school suspensions, expulsions, and arrests may have played a role in the fact that Nikolas Cruz remained under the radar until his shooting rampage in Parkland, Florida, on February 14.“The facts pattern that has emerged strongly suggests it played a role,” Manhattan Institute senior fellow Max Eden tells Breitbart News. “It’s not actually accurate to say that what Broward County did was the result of the Obama policy. It might be more accurate to say that what Broward County did was in some way the inspiration for Obama’s policy.”
The Obama-era Departments of Education and Justice – under education secretary Arne Duncan and Attorney General Eric Holder –issued school guidelines in 2014 that claimed students of color are “disproportionately impacted” by suspensions and expulsions, a situation they said leads to a “school-to-prison pipeline” that discriminates against minority and low-income students.
“Broward County was the first to have the goal of lowering suspensions, lowering expulsions, lowering arrests,” explains Eden. “And, so, they decided to reduce police involvement by not bringing in cops to arrest kids for a whole range of serious offenses, and then, as you would expect, the arrests go down when you stop arresting. That was taken to be a sign of success, based on that metric alone.”
According to the Obama administration’s 2014 “Dear Colleague” guidance, any school district whose disciplinary measures showed “disparate impact” – meaning a disproportionately greater number of minority students are affected – is open to investigation by the Departments of Justice and Education, regardless of whether the behavior leading to the discipline is unacceptable.
Eden explained at National Review in November how the Obama-era school discipline policy “extended Black Lives Matter’s ideology down into America’s classrooms”:
Social-justice activists assumed that just as racial disparities in the criminal-justice system must be evidence that cops are (at least implicitly) racist, so too racial disparities in school suspensions must be evidence that teachers are (at least implicitly) racist. Therefore, teachers — like cops — have to be restrained.
Several years before the Obama school discipline policy appeared, however, the Broward County school board hired as superintendent Robert Runcie – who had worked for Duncan in Chicago – and also joined with the NAACP, law enforcement, and government agencies to adopt the district’s Collaborative Agreement on School Discipline, dubbed PROMISE (Preventing Recidivism through Opportunities, Mentoring, Interventions, Support, and Education).
As M. Catharine Evans reports at American Thinker, in academic year 2011-2012, just prior to the school board’s decision to hire Runcie, the Broward County public school district had 1,062 school-related arrests – the highest number in Florida.
The Obama administration’s Department of Education was also involved in implementing PROMISE. Obama, who routinely dangled carrots in the form of matching federal grants to local districts for their participation in Common Core and Race to the Top, doled out millions to Broward.
With the promise of federal monies, it’s no surprise that Superintendent Runcie (annual salary: $335,000) was happy to oblige his friends in D.C. Within a year of Runcie’s arrival, student arrest rates were down 66 percent, and Broward County Schools were about to hit the federal jackpot.
One of the premises of the PROMISE program cited in the agreement and supported by data from the Obama Department of Education Office for Civil Rights reads:
WHEREAS, across the country, students of color, students with disabilities and LGBTQ students are disproportionately impacted by school-based arrests for the same behavior as their peers.
“In 2015, the Obama administration brought them to a White House Summit on rethinking school discipline and to highlight their success and tell school districts throughout the country, ‘Look at what Broward is doing as an example,’” Eden says.
Broward County Sheriff Union president Jeff Bell told Laura Ingraham on Fox News that he places some blame for the horrific shooting on the school board and the adoption of its PROMISE program:
For years they know that the schools have been soft targets, and they claim that they want to have better police presence inside the schools, and they want tougher security, but, yet, they do not want to cough up the money to pay for that better security and fortify their schools and have better designs. They don’t want that. And, then when they are fortunate to have a school resource officer deputy on scene, and armed police presence, a lot of the liberal-thinking principals on campus there, they don’t want the police officers making arrests on campus, and they don’t want the drugs to be found on campus, and they don’t want the warrants to be served on campus because it looks like there’s bad stats at the school.
So, I place a lot of blame on the school board with that and some of the programs that they’ve initiated with the state attorney and the sheriff’s office in years past. For example, the PROMISE program … the problem is when that program started, we took all discretion away from the law enforcement officers to effect an arrest if we choose to.
During an interview Sunday with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel first defended the PROMISE program as one that is “helping many, many people,” but then later admitted that if a report is not made about an aggressive student’s behavior to law enforcement, “there’s no malfeasance or misfeasance if you don’t know about something”:
TAPPER: I think there are a lot of people, sir, who think that there are a lot of mistakes, other than that one deputy.
But let me ask you something else. A lot of people in the community have noted that the Broward County School Board entered into an agreement when you were sheriff in 2013 to pursue the — quote — “least punitive means of discipline” against students.
This new policy encouraged warnings, consultations with parents and programs on conflict resolution, instead of arresting students for crimes.
Were there not incidents committed by the shooter as a student had this new policy not been in place that otherwise he would have been arrested for and not able to legally buy a gun?
ISRAEL: What you’re referring to is the PROMISE Program.
And it’s giving the school — the school has the ability under certain circumstances not to call the police, not to get the police involved on misdemeanor offenses and take care of it within the school. It’s an excellent program.
It’s helping many, many people. What this program does is not put a person at 14, 15, 16 years old into the criminal justice system.
TAPPER: What if he should be in the criminal justice system? What if he does something violent to a student? What if he takes bullets to school? What if he takes knives to schools? What if he threatens the lives of fellow students?
ISRAEL: Then he goes to jail. That’s not applicable in the PROMISE Program.
TAPPER: That’s not what happened. But that’s not what happened with the shooter.
ISRAEL: If – Jake, you’re telling me that the shooter took knives to school or bullets to school, and police knew about it?
TAPPER: I don’t know if police knew about it.
ISRAEL: No. Well, police …
TAPPER: I know that the agreement that you entered into with the school allowed the school to give this kid excuse after excuse after excuse, while, obviously …
ISRAEL: Not for bullets, not for bullets, not for guns, not for knives, not for felonies, not for anything like that. These are infractions within the school, small amounts of marijuana, some misdemeanors.
You’re absolutely exacerbating it. That’s not …
TAPPER: There are at teachers at the school had been told, if you see Cruz come on campus with a backpack, let me know.
Does that not indicate that there is something seriously awry with the PROMISE Program if these teachers are being told, watch out for this kid, and you don’t know about it?
ISRAEL: We don’t know that that has anything to do with the PROMISE Program. I didn’t hear about this until after the fact. I have heard about this information about a week ago. I do know about it. I don’t know who the teacher was. It hasn’t been corroborated, but that has nothing to do with the PROMISE Program.
I can’t, nor can any other Broward sheriff’s deputy, handle anything or act upon something you don’t know about it. There’s no malfeasance or misfeasance if you don’t know about something.
“So much of the question that we should be asking is how did Cruz go under the radar and what role these policies played in that, because we have evidence that, at a lower level, these dynamics are playing out in school districts across the country,” Eden asserts.
He observes that in Washington, DC, principals of nearly every high school “systematically took suspensions off the books.”
“They told teachers not to let those students back into school, but they never told Central Office about it,” he explains. “So how much troubling student behavior was never able to be processed because of the way administrators reacted to a shift that says we expect you to post lower numbers on disciplinary problems?”
Evans notes that in October 2016, Broward County’s school board and its partners renewed the PROMISE agreement:
After the 2016 signing, it was announced a couple of weeks later on October 18, BCPS was the only large urban district in the country to receive a Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) grant from the U.S. Dept. of Education totaling $53,808, 909. One of the TIF’s grant priorities is listed as “improved life for students in poverty/students of color.”
Nevertheless, as the Washington Post reported, the Florida Department of Children and Families report regarding the investigation into Cruz states that, in 2016, school resource officer Scot Peterson had been approached by investigators, but “refused to share any information … regarding [an] incident that took place with” Cruz.
The Post continues:
That same year, the sheriff’s office revealed Thursday, it was told about “third hand information” from a “neighbor’s son” suggesting that Cruz “planned to shoot up the school,” although the specific school was not listed. The sheriff’s office said a deputy contacted the caller, determined that Cruz had knives and a BB gun and sent the information to the school resource officer — presumably Peterson. It is unclear whether he investigated.
“If we’re trying to answer the question, ‘How did Nikolas Cruz remain under the radar?’ it certainly seems as though part of that answer is the fact that the radar was shifted and that students like him were supposed to be put under the radar in the first place,” Eden suggests. “The point of the PROMISE program was to not let them know about it.”
We will discuss ENTERPRISE ZONE public policy next week to remind our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE and our 99% of new immigrant citizens from where all these global banking 1% TALKING POINTS surrounding WRAP AROUND SERVICES began----you know a few decades ago at the start of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ROBBER BARON fleecing of our US Federal agencies-----WRAP AROUND was tied to ENTERPRISE ZONES used to PRETEND any of the US city development these few decades had to do with PUBLIC BENEFIT----while privatizing every public agency then filling it with fraud and corruption. PROMISE PROGRAM is simply the latest in a long history of what EVERYONE KNOWS was always BAD PUBLIC POLICY.
All this is FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1%------nothing left happening.
'As secretary of Housing and Urban Development during the George H.W. Bush administration, Kemp continued to push hard for enterprise zones, which he liked to call empowerment zones'
Enterprise Zones: A Bipartisan Failure
By Bruce Bartlett, The Fiscal Times
January 10, 2014On Wednesday, President Obama endorsed the idea of “promise zones,” a variation of the old Republican idea of enterprise zones. These new zones—located in San Antonio, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Southeastern Kentucky and the Choctaw Nation in Oklahoma—will receive intensive federal support, together with state and local initiatives, to raise growth and employment.
The idea of targeting tax and other incentives to specific areas dates back at least to the 1968 presidential campaign, when both Richard Nixon and Bobby Kennedy endorsed the idea. In the 1970s, the idea was picked up in England, where more than two dozen enterprise zones were established.
In the 1980s, New York Reps. Jack Kemp and Robert Garcia, the former a Republican and the latter a Democrat, cosponsored legislation to create enterprise zones in the U.S. But they failed to get Congressional approval, although some state-level enterprise zones were created.
As secretary of Housing and Urban Development during the George H.W. Bush administration, Kemp continued to push hard for enterprise zones, which he liked to call empowerment zones. Legislation was finally enacted in 1993 and expanded in 1997 and by subsequent legislation. In 2000, Congress enacted the New Markets Tax Credit as an additional enterprise zone incentive. Thus we now have considerable experience with the enterprise zone idea in operation.
Unfortunately, the evidence shows that enterprise zones are at best a very weak generator of jobs. The U.S. Government Accountability Office has done several studies and concluded that there was no significant difference in economic growth or job creation inside the enterprise zones from the surrounding area.
Academic research confirms this conclusion. A 2006 article in the Journal of Urban Affairs found only a few instances in which economic activity in the zone was better than that in comparable areas outside the zone. An article in the Economic Development Quarterly in 2009 found “no evidence that these enterprise zones affected the employment of zone residents.” An article in the Journal of Urban Economics in 2010 found, “The evidence indicates that enterprise zones do not increase employment.”
The evidence is equally weak regarding the New Markets Tax Credit. A 2009 article in the Public Finance Review found no change in investment in low-income communities. A report on the tax credit for the Treasury Department by the Urban Institute in 2013 found that job creation was small and carried a high cost, averaging $53,162 in tax credits for each job created.
There are a variety of reasons for why enterprise zones have failed. One is that businesses simply gamed the system and figured out ways to get the tax cuts without doing much of anything in return, something economists call “rent-seeking.” Often, the “job creation” in the zones resulted simply from the relocation of business just outside the zone into the zone. Another problem is that high taxes are not a significant reason why businesses don’t invest in the inner cities now. It’s more because they lack an educated labor force, transportation, a local population with purchasing power and other factors that the enterprise zone concept didn’t address.
Supporters refuse to acknowledge that enterprise zones were a good idea that was worth trying and just didn’t work. Instead, they keep beating this dead horse as if it is still an untried idea from which we have no experience of failure. On Dec. 18, Sens. Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell, both of Kentucky, proposed new enterprise zone legislation as if they just came up with the idea for the first time.
It is tempting to members of both parties to come up with a place-oriented policy that targets the problems of poverty and unemployment in high-profile locations where they are especially bad. In theory, a relatively small amount of money can be leveraged to jump-start growth in areas where there may be positive spillover effects.
This approach is attractive in an era when government resources are severely limited. Democrats are unable to repeat Lyndon Johnson’s “war on poverty,” which was launched 50 years ago this month, while the sorts of big tax cuts implemented by Ronald Reagan 33 years ago are also off the table due to the budget deficit.
Perhaps the new Obama administration initiative will add something new to the tried-and-failed enterprise zone strategy of the last 20 years. But I am extremely doubtful. To me, this looks like the equivalent of establishing a government commission to investigate a problem; that is, a way to appear to be doing something about it without really doing anything at all.
We see in the US global banking 5% freemason/Greek pols and players working for CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA and foreign sovereignty of MALTA ---KNIGHTS OF MALTA----as we saw in last post with ARNE DUNCAN pretending to care about these children and families victim of school shootings-----GUN CONTROL GUN CONTROL GUN CONTROL while installing SCHOOL OF AMERICA K-university corporate charter schools knowing the global gun and drug cartels feeding our US cities and counties work for global banking 1%.
What did global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS Latin American leaders do as they geared up for continuous civil unrest civil wars in Chile, Argentina, Central America ----they passed GUN CONTROL LAWS. SCHOOL OF AMERICAS/CIA/SPECIAL FORCES dumping military weapon caches to any military junta while 99% of LATINO citizens were told they should not OWN GUNS.
REAL left social progressive academics back in 1970s-80s when we could actually get REAL COMMUNICATION from those 99% of LATINO citizens were shouting back then-----THEY TOOK OUR GUNS AND WE ARE FACING CIVIL UNREST CIVIL WAR with militarized junta having all the BULLETS AND AK - 47S they need. Of course those 99% of LATINO men, women, and children were killed, brutalized with no means of protection.
When REAL left social progressives who always fought for gun control laws stand with our US 99% of citizens FIGHTING FOR 2ND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS-----we do this not only because 50% of Americans like owning guns----we do this because we KNOW HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF---MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE-----CIVIL UNREST CIVIL WAR courtesy global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS KNIGHTS OF MALTA----TRIBE OF JUDAH part of goals of WW 3.
Let's just STOP MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----to stop all the goals of widespread civil violence being installed by global banking 5% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA freemason/Greek pols and players. Remember, it is not the 99% of US black, white, and brown citizens---it is not the 99% of REAL Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, Seik citizens ----hold those global banking 5% freemason/Greek CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA players ACCOUNTABLE.
Gun Control Laws Have Failed Latin America
by José Niño
It’s no secret that Latin America is rife with violence. A recent ranking from the Citizen’s Council for Public Security and Criminal Justice(CCSPJP) further illustrates this point with the top 10 most violent cities in the world being exclusively located in Latin America. Additionally, Latin America has the dishonor of having 43 of the 50 most violent urban centers located in the region.
These shocking levels of violence can be attributed to several factors — corruption, failed drug war policies, and the lack of rule of law in the region.
But there is one elephant in the room that is largely ignored in the discussion of crime in Latin America: the stringent gun-control laws present in these countries.
While the previously mentioned factors cannot simply be discounted, the lack of coverage on Latin American gun control policy is rather alarming.
Countries like Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Venezuela feature some of the most draconian gun control policies in the region. With crime rates at already high levels, gun control simply makes matters worse for law-abiding citizens fearful of criminals.
A more detailed look at the countries’ gun laws is necessary to understand the degree of gun control that is prevalent in these countries.
Brazil has some of the most violent cities on the planet, with 19 of them in the CCSPJP’s top 50 rankings. Brazil’s notoriously high crime rates have spurred the Brazilian political class to enact all sorts of heavy-handed attempts to curb crime. Since the 1990s, Brazil has passed over a dozen pieces of gun control laws and regulations.
To own a firearm, Brazilians must be 25 years of age, hold a gun license, pay registration fees, and go through extensive background checks. Prior to 2004, only 3.5% of the Brazilian population legally owned firearms, all thanks to the country’s onerous registration system. Despite Brazil’s gun control status quo, crime rates have continued to rise without end.
Colombia is no stranger to violence. Violent encounters with the brutal guerilla forces of the FARC and drug cartels have been the norm in Colombia over the past few decades. While former Colombian President Álvaro Uribe’s security measures did play a considerable role in curtailing organized crime and guerilla warfare in the first decade of the 21st century, Colombia remains among the most violent countries in the region. Colombia features four cities in the CCSPJP’s top 50 most violent cities rankings.
Although the Colombian Constitution of 1991 does allow for civilians to possess and carry firearms, they still must go through considerable amounts of red tape to exercise their right to self-defense.
Civilians 18 and older are limited to the purchase and carry of small caliber handguns and shotguns with a license. However, higher caliber handguns and semi-automatic guns are prohibited, and can only be possessed under “exceptional circumstances.” Additionally, all guns must be registered with the military, which has a monopoly on the sale of weapons and issues all gun permits.
A 2014 study revealed that there are more than 500,000 legal guns in the hands of over 400,000 owners, with private security making up more than half of the ownership. This comes as no surprise when factoring in the aforementioned regulations.
One needn’t look any further than across the border in Mexico to comprehend the failures of gun control in curbing crime. Like Brazil and Colombia, Mexico has some of the most stringent gun control policies in the region.
With only one official gun store in the country, located in the capital of Mexico City, law-abiding citizens have very little options for attaining weapons. Potential buyers must not only submit references and demonstrate that their income was legally earned, they also must be photographed and fingerprinted. And once they’ve successfully jumped these hoops, they can only purchase one firearm.
Despite all the red tape in acquiring a firearm, Mexico is awash with guns in criminal hands.
This has not served the Mexican people well, as they are frequently at the mercy of powerful drug cartels.
While extreme, the Venezuelan case can shed light on the effects of gun control. The late Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro’s socialist policies have not only impoverished millions of Venezuelans, but they have also completely ripped the social fabric of Venezuelan society apart.
As a result, Venezuela has 10 of the most violent cities in all Latin America according to the CCSPJP’s ranking, with Caracas at the top of the list.
In response to the rampant levels of crime, the Venezuela government started by banning the private ownership of firearms in 2012. Studies show that while Venezuelan crime rates were already high before the ban, Venezuela’s gun control measures did not seem to make a dent on crime
With the Venezuelan government’s recent call to mobilize armed militia members, it makes sense for Venezuelans to be allowed to carry weapons for self-defense not only to protect themselves from common criminals, but from a government that has a proven track record of tyrannical behavior.
A Modest Proposal
What can be done in the short term to ameliorate the rampant degree of violence in Latin America?
For starters, it would behoove Latin American policymakers to consider tackling these problems from a self-defense angle. A good first step would be to allow law-abiding citizens to freely own and carry firearms for self-defense.
These policies would come in handy in a region where the integrity of law enforcement and military forces is frequently called into question. The harsh reality is that in many Latin American countries the lines between the political and criminal classes are blurry at best. Thus, counting on public entities to deliver security services in these countries is simply a fool’s errand.
Eighteenth-century Americans understood the importance of private gun ownership as a bulwark against potential tyranny. But gun ownership has also served as a practical means of self-defense for numerous citizens, especially when considering the inefficiency of police agencies in providing security.
All in all, Latin America would benefit from policies that allow law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to self-defense. While this may not be a cure-all for the region’s rampant violence, it at least gives the citizenry a fighting chance in the face of organized crime and authoritarian regimes.