The rule says that to be listed as "persistently dangerous," a California school must expel more than 1 percent of its students for any of nine types of crimes in each of three consecutive years.
Since 1998, enrollment at Locke has ranged from 2,264 to 3,048 students. In that time, the school never referred more than 20 students in one year to district administrators for expulsion. In 2001-2002, it referred only 1.
Locke faces no risk at all of becoming a "persistently dangerous school."
Why are its students so infrequently expelled? It depends on what the meaning of "expelled" is. Problem students in the Los Angeles Unified School District are sometimes given "opportunity transfers" to other public schools. They are sometimes sent to a "continuation school." If they are old enough, they can be sent to an "adult" school. Sometimes they even go to jail. But they are rarely "expelled."
California school authorities concocted a Clintonian definition of "persistently dangerous school." It will protect the state's federal education funding while keeping poor kids trapped in places like Locke. And California may not be alone: Officials in Arkansas, Georgia, Florida and Illinois have determined there are no "persistently dangerous schools" in those states, either.
Whose interests are being served here? Well, liberal politicians can still do photo ops and poverty tours at Locke and similar schools.
And who is victimized? In a few weeks, hundreds of 13-year-old girls will be forced to begin their freshman year at this battle zone of a high school. My bet is there won't be a single member of the Clinton, Gore or Davis families among them.