MISSOURI  SAFE  SCHOOLS

Newsletter of the Missouri Center for Safe Schools                                  May 2002


 

FROM THE DIRECTOR . . .

 

The past ten months have been active.  Here are some of our activities since July 2001:

·        Supervising the Safe Schools Symposium

·        Presenting Safety Coordinator Trainings and a wide variety of school safety workshops

·        Collaborating with SEMA on Multi-hazard training for Showcase School Districts

·        Conducting numerous safety reviews (16 districts, 4 charter schools, and 4 parochial schools)

·        Participating in many state and regional conferences (committee members, presenters and participants)

·        Convening two Advisory Board meetings

·        Attending a myriad of committee meetings

All of these activities emphasized the importance of school safety and communication. Each of these events provided opportunities for MCSS staff and school district officials to gain additional expertise in handling school safety issues. 

On another note, I would like to recognize the members of the Advisory Board and thank them for their time, effort and commitment to the issue of school safety.  The members are:  Judge John Beaton, Circuit Court of Dunklin County (Kennett); Rep. Bill Boucher, State House of Representatives (Kansas City); Ms. Julie Cole-Agee, Missouri Juvenile Justice Association (Jefferson City); Dr. Daniel Colgan (President), Superintendent of St. Joseph School District; Dr. Jerry Cooper (Vice-President), Assistant Dean UMKC School of Education; Mr. Fred Crawford, Chief of Safety and Security, Parkway School District (St. Louis); Rep. D. J. Davis, State House of Representatives (Lafayette County); Dr. James Dougherty, Director DeLaSalle Education Center (Kansas City); Ms. Marge Gibson, Superintendent of Northeast Randolph County R-IV (Cairo); Mr. Rodney Karns, Consultant; Mr. Dennis Lewis, Director of School Public Safety, Springfield School District; Dr. John Martin, Superintendent of Grandview C-4 School District (Vice President elect); Ms. Munnie Pacino, Family Court of St. Louis County; Mr. Richard Phillips, Executive Director of Alternative School Network Association; Ms. Rusty Rosenkoetter, Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (Ad hoc member); Dr. Allan Schlinder, Executive Director of the Missouri Association of Alternative Education; Mr. Gene Vinson, Director of CMSU Regional Prof. Dev. Center; Dr. Chris Wright, Superintendent of Riverview Gardens School District; and Dr. Gary Wright, University of Missouri-St. Louis.  As one can see the board is very diverse and talented.  Again, your efforts are appreciated!

As the school year winds down, I wish each of you a safe and successful graduation and closing of the school year.  May you have a relaxing summer.

 

                                Glenn Berry

______________________________

 

FROM DEE . . .

 

What's new in Title IV?  Title IV of No Child Left Behind still emphasizes the need for prevention of drug and alcohol abuse and violence. Districts are required to implement activities that have some data to prove effectiveness and that address the results of a school/community needs assessment. Allocations will work a little differently than they have in the past. Under No Child Left Behind there are no funds reserved for districts that have a high need based on community data. Therefore all funds will be allocated to districts on a formula basis. If your district has received a large amount of "additional funds" in the past, your Title IV allocation will probably be smaller than last year. However, if your district has not received "additional funds" in the past, your allocation will most likely be somewhat larger than it was last year. We hope to have allocations available by mid-May.

The Learning First Alliance has published a document called Every Child Learning:  Safe and Supportive Schools. If you have not read it you can find it and a summary on the Learning First Alliance web page, www.learningfirst.org    

 

        Dee Beck, Coordinator

Federal Programs

        DESE

______________________________

 

MISSOURI SCHOOL VIOLENCE HOTLINE

Toll Free 866-748-7047

 

The Missouri School Violence Hotline began operation on October 1, 2001. As of March 29, 2002, the hotline had received 145 reports. The hotline receives reports on a variety of school violence concerns, such as threats, fights, bullying, and weapons being brought on to school property. Most of the School Violence Hotline calls are coming from concerned parents. The hotline also receives calls from school personnel and students, as well as anonymous callers. The hotline is operated Monday through Friday from 7am to 6pm, excluding state holidays. There is a recording for after hours.

We are currently in the process of sending pencils, magnets, and awareness cards to over 300 schools statewide. Our first shipments were mailed the week of April 8th and will continue throughout the month of April. Any school needing items to promote the new hotline can call our hotline number, 1-866-748-7047, to make their requests.

 

            Heather Clemens

            Social Service Supervisor

            Missouri School Violence Hotline

            Department of Social Services

            Division of Family Services

 

_____________________________________

 

BACKFLOW PREVENTION IN SCHOOLS

 

During the past few years, local water suppliers have notified many Missouri school districts that they are required to install backflow assemblies.

Backflow is the unwanted reversal of flow in a water distribution system.  The directional flow of water changes all the time in a plumbing system.  When water has come in contact with chemicals, such as in a boiler system, we do not want the contaminated water flowing back into the plumbing system where it might be consumed.  The locations where contaminants can physically enter the water system are called cross connections.

Backflow is prevented by installing plumbing devices that allow water to only flow through them in one direction.  These assemblies must be testable to ensure they are functioning correctly.  All backflow prevention assemblies must be tested at least annually.

Many schools have water using equipment or processes that may pose a threat to health such as boiler heating systems, chill water systems for temperature control, chemistry and biology laboratories, irrigation systems for athletic fields or landscaping, and other areas involved in janitorial activities.  All of these recognized cross connections require backflow.

The state regulation which requires backflow protection, 10 CSR 60-11, reads: “Backflow prevention assemblies shall be installed on the customer water system as close a possible to the point of service connection and prior to any other connection or branch line.”  This wording gives the water purveyor some discretion as to where the customer is allowed to locate the assembly.   If there are numerous cross connections within the building, a backflow preventer on the service line would satisfy the state regulation which protects the public water system from the customer.  That would not, however, protect the students, staff, and other occupants from sources of contamination within the school.  Therefore, it is recommended that each cross connection within the school be isolated with an additional protection device.  Only the backflow preventer on the service line is required, by the state regulation, to be testable.

For additional information you may review the state regulation 10 CSR 60-11.010 (http://www.sos.state.mo.us/adrules/csr/csr.asp) or contact the Department of Natural Resources’ Public Drinking Water Program.

 

            Mike Logston

            Department of Natural Resources

            (573) 751-4594

___________________________________

 

 SAFETY COORDINATOR TRAINING

 

We are in the process of scheduling Safety Coordinator Training through the Regional Professional Development Centers for next year. So far we have scheduled as follows:

Kirksville RPDC (660-785-4220) Nov 7

Rolla RPDC (800-667-0665) Nov 12

Southeast RPDC (800-401-6680) Nov 13

Maryville RPDC (800-663-3348) Nov 19

Warrensburg RPDC (800-762-4146) Nov 21

Columbia RPDC (800-214-2753) Dec 4

Kansas City RPDC (800-555-9048) Jan 16

Basic Safety Coordinated Training (3.5 hours) will be presented in the morning.  Advance Safety Coordinator Training (3 hours) will be presented in the afternoon.  Registration will be through the Regional Professional Development Center.

The purposes of the Safety Coordinator Training Program are:

  1. Provide statewide consistency regarding the role of the district safety coordinator.
  2. Identify new safety issues and share lessons learned.
  3. Promote the statewide networking of safety coordinators.
  4. Promote on-going improvement in the comprehensive safety programs of districts.

The Safety Coordinator Training Program consists of basic and advanced training.  All District Safety Coordinators are encouraged to complete the 3.5 hour basic course at least one time.  The material is updated continuously and it may be beneficial to attend this course every other year.  The material presented includes:

The 3 hour advanced course addresses different topics from year to year.  Some of the information addressed in the advanced course will be rolled into the basic course for subsequent years.  Safety Coordinators should attend the advanced course each year.  During school year 2002-2003 the material presented as part of the advanced course will include:

 

_____________________________________

 

PLAYGROUND SAFETY INITIATIVE AT LEE’s SUMMIT

 

Utilizing the resources of National Program for Playground Safety, Boundless Playgrounds and other agencies, the Playground Safety Initiative team of Lee's Summit R-7 School District is working to provide "SAFE" playgrounds for all students.  The acronym "SAFE" stands for the following:

·         "S":  Supervision and Surfacing. Age-appropriate, fall surfacing and equipment maintenance (National Program for Playground Safety)

·         "A":  Access.  Fully-integrated & universally accessible playgrounds (Boundless Playground, ADA)

·         "F":  Fun.  Playgrounds that meet the physical, emotional needs of children of all abilities.

·         "E":  Educational.  Playgrounds that meet the intellectual needs of children of all abilities.

Objectives:

1.       Develop guidelines for acquiring new as well as replacing older playground equipment in the District. 

2.       Evaluate and map existing playgrounds and equipment to identify hazards and to determine

a time line for developing corrective actions.

3.       Develop a protocol for designing new outside play environments and for making modifications or additions to existing playgrounds that will meet the physical, emotional, social and intellectual needs of all students.  This protocol will be administered in accordance with the age levels using the facilities.

4.       Consider adopting the National Program for Playground Safety training program ("SAFE") for administrators, staff and students.  The program would cover all twelve months of the year and include summer school and Kid's Country.

5.       Refine the incident reporting and emergency response procedures for playground related student injuries including those occurring during summer school or at Kids Country.

6.       Review maintenance and upkeep procedures.

7.       Develop playground alternative funding strategies for the District, building, PTA and community organizations.

 

Mark White

Environmental / Risk Manager

Lee's Summit R-7

(913) 986-2447

___________________________________

 

INVESTIGATING STUDENT THREATS

 

One common thread running through almost all the school shootings was that the attacker made some threat of violence before the day of the attack.  As a result, all threats of violence must be taken seriously by school districts, thoroughly investigated, and appropriate action taken.  School administrators should be aware, however, of First Amendment issues related to student threats.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.  The U.S. Supreme Court has held that certain types of speech are not entitled to protection: fighting words, obscenity, defamation, and true threats.  The Supreme Court has not established a test for distinguishing a true threat from constitutionally protected speech.  Consequently, a student who is disciplined for making a threat at school may challenge that the disciplinary action is a violation of his First Amendment rights. 

In Lovell v. Poway Unified School District, 90 F. 3d 367 (9th Cir. 1996), a student who was suspended for threatening a school counselor challenged the suspension as violating her right to freedom of speech.  The 9th Circuit ruled in favor of the school district, stating that the student’s statement constituted a true threat because a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those to whom the maker communicates the statement as a serious expression of intent to harm or assault.

In Doe ex rel. Doe v. Pulaski County Special School Dist., 263 F.3d 833 (8th Cir. 2001), the 8th Circuit, which includes Missouri, adopted the 9th Circuit test for determining whether a threat made by a student constituted a true threat.  In that case, the 8th grade Arkansas student challenged his expulsion from school based on certain writings made at home during summer vacation that allegedly threatened a classmate.  The 8th Circuit ruled that the composition was protected speech since, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would not have foreseen that the composition would have been interpreted by the classmate to communicate a serious expression of intent to harm her.  However, in November 2001, the 8th Circuit granted a rehearing of this case en banc and vacated the judgment.  This means that the original ruling, made only by a panel of 8th Circuit judges, has been voided and the entire membership of the 8th Circuit will hear the case.

Even in cases where the courts have ruled that the school district violated a student’s First Amendment rights by disciplining the student for making a perceived threat, the courts have noted the duty of a school district to investigate student threats and take appropriate action.  Further information on dealing with student threats can be found in the FBI report The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment Perspective available at www.fbi.gov/publications.htm.  Disciplinary action alone, unaccompanied by any effort to evaluate the threat or the student’s intent, may actually exacerbate the danger.

 

                         Susan Anderson, Esq.

______________________________________

 

 

 

CHARGES FOR CENTER SERVICES IN SCHOOL YEAR 2002-2003

 

The Missouri Center for Safe Schools continues to provide school districts with a wide array of services to help improve safety.  Some of our services will have a small charge to offset expenses.  Following are the services and associated charges:

·         Student training (ie. peer mediation, etc.) $30 per hour

·         Staff inservices $50 per hour

·         District safety reviews:

        3 or fewer school buildings         $100

        4 to 8 school buildings                $200

        9 to 15 school buildings             $300

        16 buildings and more                $400

 

_____________________________________

 

 

Dr. Russ Thompson, Associate Director of the Missouri Center for Safe Schools, is the newsletter editor.  If you would like to submit an article for a future Missouri Safe Schools Newsletter, please send him your submission by e-mail to thompsonrs@umkc.edu or mail it to:

        Dr. Russ Thompson, Assoc. Dir.

        Missouri Center for Safe Schools

        UMKC School of Education, Suite 024

        5100 Rockhill Road

        Kansas City, MO 64110-2499

Check out the web page for the Missouri Center for Safe Schools at http://www.umkc.edu/safe-school and call us at our offices in the School of Education, University of Missouri-Kansas City, (816) 235-5656.