The Certification Framework
Mission
Safe School Certification is an innovative technical assistance model that helps schools adopt best practices for sustaining supportive and equitable learning environments.
The framework was designed to address two key components of creating safe schools: (1) Policy: Ensuring that schools have successfully adopted required safe school laws and (2) Practice: providing the technical assistance and support around a framework of eight elements that can create policy fidelity and sustain supportive and equitable school climates.
The 8 Elements
1.) Leadership
School climate and bullying prevention efforts need to be supported and actively engaged in by school administration (principal, vice principal, etc.) in order to be effective [1]. At the same time, all members of the school’s community need to feel like they have a role and a voice in making decisions that affect school climate [2]. Schools that engage school staff, parents, and students on leadership teams are higher performing than those that have a more hierarchical model [3].
3.) Buy-in to School Climate Improvement
In order for a school to be successful in its improvement efforts, it must gain the buy‐in of the majority of the school community for the process. This means that the community is regularly informed of the efforts, they have opportunities to contribute in meaningful ways, and they can see the results of their efforts [7].
5.) Family and Community Engagement
Although school is the primary setting for youth interaction with peers, messages received at school must be reinforced by families and communities in order to be effective [9]. Active family support and engagement also helps promote student engagement in school climate efforts [10].
7.) Programs and Practices
In order for a school to be successful in its bullying prevention efforts, it must gain the buy‐in of the majority of the school community for the process. This means that the community is regularly informed of the efforts, they have opportunities to contribute in meaningful ways, and they can see the results of their efforts [13].
2.) Data and Data-Based Decision Making
Ongoing collection of valid and reliable data is critical for the leadership team to be able to assess the conditions for learning at school and make decisions about the best use of resources [4]. Teachers often underestimate, for instance, the amount of bullying that occurs at school [5]. Having systematic data collection allows schools to identify issues that may not be readily visible and to assess the impact of their efforts [6].
4.) Training
Although the vast majority of school staff want to do something to respond to bullying and other school climate issues, most report having little‐to‐no training on how to do so [8]. Providing training for all school staff (from cafeteria workers to teachers and principals)
6.) Student Engagement
Students must be actively engaged in changing the school climate and preventing bullying [11]. When students are engaged, they are much more likely to improve their behaviors and reconnect to school [12].
8.) Policy and Enforcement
Bullying prevention policies need to be enforced consistently and fairly, and investigations must be expedient and thorough [14].
Certification Process
Policy Audit and Current Capacity Assessment
To begin the process, a school must adopt their school district’s anti-harassment, anti-bullying policies with fidelity. Once a school’s policy has been audited to ensure compliance in meeting the letter of the law, a school takes part in a capacity assessment using the certification rubric. This helps a school identify areas they are performing well and areas that need improvement. It also provides the school and SSC specialists a better sense of the time required for certification.
Certification Advisory Board
At the end of Checkpoint 1 and 2, a highly-trained external certification team called the Certification Advisory Board (CAB), which includes local community representatives and experts in school climate, receive a portfolio of materials that demonstrated how a school has completed each of the elements within the checkpoint. After assessing those materials, the team provides feedback on whether the school’s efforts were sufficient to pass each checkpoint. If they were, the school moves on. In year 3, after successfully addressing each of the eight elements, and submitting a final portfolio, the board will recommend whether a school should be certified.
Checkpoint 1
Covers the first three elements.
A school has met the desired states of the first three elements—Leadership, and Buy-In to School Climate Improvement Efforts, Data and Data-Based Decision Making
Checkpoint 2
Covers the final five elements.
A school has met the desired states of the final five elements—Policy and Enforcement, Student Engagement, Family and Community Engagement, Training, and Programs and Practices.
Certification
The school has created a portfolio of its work, documenting progress towards meeting the desired states of all eight elements and your school is recognized for achieving certification.
What Certification Means:
Once a school is certified it does not mean that bullying, harassment, or violence won’t take place at the school. It does mean the school has a framework in place that, if implemented with fidelity, can lessen the likelihood of such incidents. It also means the school is better prepared to respond if they do occur. To that point, we are certifying the process, as we know that transformational and systemic change that lasts beyond leadership change takes time. We critically balance the big-picture view of what the school is hoping to achieve with the detailed work they describe in each desired state. By going through certification, schools are learning, innovating, and making connections between the elements. Their pioneering work serves as an ongoing case study that can undoubtedly help other schools as they seek to create safe, supportive, and more equitable places to learn and grow.
[1] Borum, R., et al., What can be done about school shootings? A review of the evidence. Educational Researcher, 2010. 39(1): p. 27-37.
[2] DeAngelis, K.J., B.O. Brent, and D. Ianni, The hidden cost of school security. Journal of Education Finance, 2011: p. 312-337.
[3] Bachman, R., A. Randolph, and B.L. Brown, Predicting perceptions of fear at school and going to and from school for African American and White students: The effects of school security measures. Youth and Society, 2011. 43(2): p. 705-726.
[4] Greenberg, M.T., School based prevention: current status and future challenges. Effective Education, 2010. 2(1): p. 27-52.
[5] Boyce, M.E., Organizational learning is essential to achieving and sustaining change in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 2003. 28(2): p. 119-136.
[6] Burch, P., Educational policy and practice from the perspective of institutional theory: Crafting a wider lens. Educational Researcher, 2007. 36(2): p. 84-95.
[7] Zahra, S.A. and G. George, Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 2002. 27(2): p. 185-203.
[8] Thapa, A., et al., A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 2013. 83(3): p. 357-385.
[9] Castro, F.G., M. Barrera Jr, and C.R. Martinez Jr, The cultural adaptation of prevention interventions: Resolving tensions between fidelity and fit. Prevention Science, 2004. 5(1): p. 41-45.
[10] Hallfors, D.D., M. Pankratz, and S. Hartman, Does federal policy support the use of scientific evidence in school-based prevention programs? Prevention Science, 2007. 8(1): p. 75-81.
[11] Perumean-Chaney, S.E. and L.M. Sutton, Students and perceived school safety: The impact of school security measures. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 2013. 38(4): p. 570-588.
[12] O'Connell, M.E., T. Boat, and K.E. Warner, Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People:: Progress and Possibilities. 2009: National Academies Press.
[13] Zahra, S.A. and G. George, Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 2002. 27(2): p. 185-203.
[14] McCall, R.B., Evidence-based programming in the context of practice and policy. Social Policy Report, 2009. 23(3): p. 3-18.