Reporting school violence

Performance-based rewards and punishments are instituted to increase accountability within organizations, but such mechanisms inevitably increase something else: the incentive to cheat. And as Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner revealed in their 2005 best-seller “Freakonomics,” no field is immune from dishonesty in reporting, not even public education.

Mr. Levitt, an economist, used an algorithm to catch a number of Chicago teachers filling in answers left blank by their students on standardized tests. These teachers, pushed to make sure all their students showed achievement gains, willfully engaged in academic fraud.

The blanket designations of laws such as the federal No Child Left Behind Act can have that effect. Lousy scores from a couple of indifferent kids can have an entire campus labeled “failing.” No administrator or teacher wants that on their resume.

And even if a school meets all the standards in the classroom, what goes on in the hallways, bathrooms and courtyards can land a campus in hot water with regulators. No Child Left Behind mandates that schools with frequent incidents of violence that result in arrests be deemed “persistently dangerous.” That designation, if uncorrected, can allow students to transfer to other schools and eventually compel states to take over unsafe campuses from nonperforming school districts.

There’s no indication the Clark County School District has fudged its numbers in making academic progress under No Child Left Behind. But its measurements of violence in local high schools simply don’t pass the smell test.

As reported in Sunday’s Review-Journal, the district’s accountability reports for the 2006-07 school year show a number of high schools are severely under-reporting the number of incidents of student violence that results in suspension or expulsion.

For example, Bonanza High School reported only one violence-related student suspension or explusion last year to the state, but submitted 40 recommendations for expulsion with the school district’s Education Services Division. Canyon Springs High School reported 18 incidents to the state, but made 80 recommendations for expulsion to the district.

Mojave High School, which saw four students shot at a bus stop last week, informed the state of 57 violence-related suspensions and expulsions — none involving violence to staff — but requested 52 expulsions alone with Education Services.

“That’s an out-and-out lie,” said teacher Rich Whitney, who alleged he was struck in the chest by a Mojave student last year. “All of those numbers are way low. They aren’t right.”

The Chicago-area deception discovered by Mr. Levitt was deliberate. The Clark County School District’s, on the other hand, might be a result of inefficiency. Schools use two different computer systems to record daily incidents. If the deans responsible for entering violence-related data fail to convert the entry from the district’s secondary system to the administration’s primary database, errors will result.

Associate Superintendent Edward Goldman points out that the misrepresentations of the accountability reports don’t equate to a lack of action on student safety issues. “To me, the important thing is that they are dealing with the incidents,” he said.

But what’s troubling is that high schools had something to gain by under-reporting violence on their accountability reports: avoiding the “persistently dangerous” tag. Just as those Chicago teachers had something to gain by filling in their students’ answer sheets.

“Clearly there are errors,” said Deputy Superintendent of Instruction Lauren Kohut-Rost. “Information and procedures need to be tightened up and followed.”

Ms. Kohut-Rost said the school district will investigate. Good. But for integrity’s sake, the district should bring in an outside investigator. Upon reviewing their accountability reports, principals and region administrators simply had to know the violence-related data were wrong — the under-reported numbers should have jumped off the page.

The Clark County School District leadership has failed the confidence of parents and taxpayers once on this issue. They shouldn’t put themselves in a position to fail twice.