When the Commonwealth legislature passed Act 26 in 1995, its intent was to create policies and procedures for protecting life and limb of all who attend, visit, or are employed in the state’s schools. Understandably, the goal was and continues to be provision of an environment free of the fear that inhibits learning. As leverage to reduce school violence, the act authorized the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) to identify schools deemed “dangerous” and to authorize the expenditure of funds to ameliorate conditions leading to persistent violence.
At the heart of the procedures is district completion of an annual “school safety” report. Upon review of the reports, PDE must require that schools identified as persistently dangerous write a plan for corrective action. Presumably, funds would flow to the schools, enabling the plans to be put in action and the violence reduced.
Just released on December 3, 2008 is a report by Pennsylvania’s Auditor General on PDE’s implementation of the safe schools law, on how successfully policies and procedures have been created and implemented to address the problem. In essence, the Auditor General found that the intent of the law has not been carried out. Of special focus are the policy gap consequences for students in the School District of Philadelphia.
As such reports go, there is an equal measure of response from PDE to the findings. Over two dozen recommendations are given for creating policies and procedures to enact the intent of the law. Rather than debate here the pros and cons of the Auditor General’s findings and PDE’s responses, readers are encouraged to visit this website for further reading and thinking: http://www.auditorgen.state.pa.us/
What is evident in the safe schools law controversy is a clear disconnect, to whatever level we wish to state it, between law, policies, and procedures.
