9. The Panel urges the Board of Education to request the reassignment of police to the schools until such time as the principals and the local precinct commander agree that continued police presence is no longer necessary.

10. Regular meetings should be held with the precinct commander, the principal, the staff member in charge of safety, the narcotics coordinator, and the custodian.

Following is a summary of the recommendations on safety administration and personnel from the Interim Report:

1. Responsibility for the application of the guidelines designed to meet the designated objectives should be delegated by the Chancellor to an Administrator for School Safety whose sole responsibility would be to administer the safety program.

2. Specialized personnel should be assigned in the schools to work in the safety program. It is not desirable to build a paramilitary force which would have a tendency to become institutionalized and thus might persist long after the societal conditions which called it into being have disappeared. Personnel to be selected should include:

a. Student Service Officers-in the number to be determined by the Assistant Chancellor for School Safety in consultation with high school principals and District Superintendents.

b. Student Service Coordinators-twenty professionals-former teachers, lawyers, policemen, etc.-to serve in teams of two as sources of information, advice, supervision, and emergency aid. They would provide a continuing liaison between the Central board and the high schools and Community Districts on matters of safety.

3. All Student Service personnel should be hired on the same basis as other non-teaching school staff. They should have the same job security and fringe benefits.

4. Student Service Officers and Coordinators should not wear uniforms nor carry arms.

5. Separate training programs should be developed so that Student Service Officers and Student Service Coordinators can each have a thorough grounding in community relations and people management as well as City and school laws and regulations.

6. Principals should receive special training on how to respond to the new types of problems arising in schools today. The course should include sensitivity training focused on such problem areas as the disaffected student and the community expressing hostility to the school. It should also cover such topics as how to recognize a brewing crisis, how to respond to a non-negotiable demand, and when to call the police.

7. Attendance at safety workshops by high school principals should be required of all present principals and be a prerequisite to appointment for all future principals.

As a result of further study, the Panel now adds the following recommendations:

1. The Safety Office should include two assistants to the Administrator, one for operations and one for administration.

2. The Board of Education and the Administrator for School Safety should enlarge the corps of Student Service Coordinators.

3. Community School Districts should be urged to participate in the new safety program and training which is being offered to them by the Central Board. 4. In-school safety personnel should be selected by each school principal, subject to screening and hiring by the Administrator for School Safety. The Panel also made the following recommendations:

1. A task force of principals should meet with representatives from the Chancellor's office to seek more effective ways of dealing with cases of suspension, while mindful of the rights of the suspended student and those of the rest of the student body.

2. The Board of Education should acquire the camera and laminating machinery which will enable every student and teacher have a plastic I.D. card containing both his photograph and program.

3. Increased psychological and psychiatric services should be established within the school system.

4. An effective grievance machinery should be established in each school. 5. Safety personnel should use every available resource to reduce the amount of drug use in the schools.

III. IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM

In establishing a program of school safety, the Panel had to consider not only the actual problems, but the problems as they are perceived by the public including members of the school community. Students cannot learn and teachers cannot teach in an atmosphere where they fear for their personal safety. Whether their fears are grounded in reality or are a reaction to exaggerated rumors, these fears must be reduced to a minimum if the education provided by the schools is not to be seriously impaired.

School safety is a real problem, certainly, to those who have been mugged or robbed or had their authority aggressively challenged. It is a real problem also to the taxpayer who, in 1971, paid $1,300,000 for security guards, over $3,500,000 for police stationed in the schools, and suffered $3.700,000 worth of damage from vandalism, arson, and unlawful entries. This does not include the many unreported losses, the labor spent on washing or repairing graffiti-covered walls, nor the educational loss suffered due to equipment stolen from the classroom. It is also a deeply felt problem to many who have never been confronted but who have read or heard about or viewed incidents which may or may not have been greatly exaggerated. The school safety program must alleviate these perceptions and fears, as well as reduce the actual level of incidence.

A survey of the literature on school safety shows a mass of data and opinion on the failure of the "system" to hold student interest, producing an increasingly large number of dropouts or class cutters. The turned-off students represent a major threat to school safety. Not only do non-attenders damage people and property in their own school, they usually make up the vast majority of the intruders in other schools. That is, those who invade and thereby threaten the tranquility of the schools, as in the recent rash of robberies, usually found to be of school age and often on the register of some other school. As the literature says repeatedly, if their teachers could interest them in staying in class and in school, the safety problem would decrease sharply. In the elementary schools and some junior high schools, the age level of intruders is apparently no different although the Community School Boards, even more than the General Board, lack reliable data.

The literature also includes specific suggestions regarding smaller school size, better drug programs, universally available day care centers to give children a better start in school, and greater vocational and other educational alternatives. Virtually all of the books and articles surveyed emphasized the need for a broader range of options to satisfy the many needs of the vast student population. When education is restricted to rigid teaching and narrow curriculum requirements, and takes place in massive imposing buildings, students tend to feel they are in prison and react accordingly.

Specific case studies were conducted in four large New York City high schools all with troubled histories. The study staff questioned more than 300 people within four groups-administrators, faculty, students, and security personnel. The perceptions of these groups were sought regarding the causes of disruption and crime in the schools.

The major problem areas with respect to school safety mentioned by more than four of these 16 groups of respondents (4 groups in each of 4 schools) were: The large number of exits and entrances in the building and the impossibility of keeping out intruders;

Class cutters;

Low reading scores and the consequent frustration with or apathy toward learning among turned-off students;

Teacher insensitivity to students, particularly minority students or those not highly motivated;

Laxness of discipline on the part of courts, teachers and administrators;
Insufficient counseling personnel; and

Too few guards.

It is interesting to note that no student groups mentioned low reading scores as a factor in school safety and no administration group mentioned laxness of discipline. All student groups mentioned teacher insensitivity.

All four groups in two of the schools and three in a third school agreed that the level of disruption and drug abuse had lessened in 1971-1972 compared with the previous year. This coincides with other evidence obtained by the study staff such as:

1. The Police Department's Crime Analysis Report of Complaints in the public: schools which shows fewer complaints in almost every category-anti-personnel} crimes, anti-property crimes, larceny and drugs and other felonies as well as misdemeanors and violations for January to May 1972 compared with January to May 1971. Only arrests for loitering and possession of dangerous weapons showed any increase.

2. Two-thirds of the 93 high schools responded to a questionnaire asking whether there had been less, the same, or more incidents of vandalism, assault, theft, weapons, narcotics, bombs, and general disturbances. In every category except paint damage, theft of school property, and drugs other than marijuana, "same" was the largest category. There was "more" paint damage and theft but "less" pushing and possession of hard drugs reported.

3. The staff interviewed school security directors from Chicago, Washington, Baltimore, New Orleans, Houston, and Seattle. In every case these men indicated a drop in drug abuse (which neither they nor the respondents in New York could explain) and all but the Houston director indicated a general decrease in school crime and violence in 1971-1972 compared with the previous year.

That the cry for a greatly expanded safety program should have come to a crescendo in the fact of these data, however "soft" they may be, is one part of the difficulty of developing a program. While there are real fears on the part of many people who have been personally involved in school-related incidents, the public perception is that school violence is increasing at a time when it appears, in fact, to be decreasing. A school safety program is an obvious necessity and school safety is clearly a major problem. However, deployment of safety personnel must be based on a realistic appraisal of more accurate data and an analysis of long-range trends, rather than on local and current hysteria.

The problem of getting an accurate picture of the nature and dimensions of the school safety problem is compounded by political considerations. Because the media tend to play up incidents of violence, many groups have publicized school problems for their own ends. For instance, from reading or viewing, the average New Yorker may believe that teacher rape is a common every day occurrence. Yet a compilation of principals' reports released by the High School Principals Association shows one rape and twelve attempts from September 1971 through April 1972. Considering a high school teacher population of more than 10,000, this is a lower rate for that particular crime than is found in many cities of that size.

However, the general public and the teachers' perception of school safety problems is such that school safety became a major issue in the negotiations between the Board of Education and the United Federation of Teachers. A muchpublicized provision of the resultant contract calls for 1200 para professionals to provide additional security in the schools. Unless these 1200 men and women are carefully screened and trained there is a real danger that implementation of the contract provision could result in introducing potential safety violators into the schools rather than in bringing in personnel who will make schools safer. Some principals tend to downplay safety problems and refuse to file complaints or permit arrests in their schools fearing that such incidents will reflect poorly on them as chief administrators. However, these same principals, when seeking more safety personnel, tend to exaggerate the safety problems in their schools.

One school security director in a major city reported that he had gone so far as to threaten to invoke the law which makes it criminal to conceal a crime. After he hinted to two or three principals he would take this kind of action if they did not report all criminal incidents, they apparently spread the word. It is his belief that, at this point, he is hearing about any reportable incident in the schools.

On a more clearly political level, several elected officials on both the city and the national level have held hearings on violence in the schools which have made headline news. However, a close reading of the testimony indicates that it has been heavily weighted in favor of horror stories with few dispassionate witnesses attempting to make an objective assessment of the problem.

When, in response to the Interim Report of this study, the Board of Education appointed Eldrige Waith as Chief Administrator for School Safety, it was frontpage news. Only a few weeks later, one local official, without having talked to Mr. Waith, claimed that his appointment had been nothing but a publicity gimmick. Once again, the media had been used to get personal publicity and the seriousness of Mr. Waith's mission was ignored.

IV. CURRICULUM AND SCHEDULING

Only 55 percent of those who entered the freshman class in New York City high schools in 1965 graduated in 1969. This was pointed out in the guidance study conducted by the Academy for Educational Development and confirmed by the Fleischmann Report. The Fleischmann Report emphasized that those who received a general diploma (35 percent of the class of 1971) have neither "the skills to continue their education nor occupational training of any kind." Within this massive failure, whether academic or socio-psychological, lie the seeds of much of the disruption in the schools.

Students assigned to history and English classes who are incapable of reading the texts, students who feel anonymous among their 4,000 or more fellows, and students who can see no useful purpose in the courses in which they are enrolled, are likely to cut class or drop out. And it is these non-attenders who represent a major source of school incidents. Thus school unrest has roots that go back long before the disruption occurs and any efforts to provide school safety must encompass this reality.

Innumerable studies and experiments have demonstrated that students who cannot or will not learn by traditional methods of teaching can be reached through one or more of the several innovative approaches that have been tried. Not only would more flexible curricula and scheduling serve to siphon off the non-class-attending troublemakers, but alternatives would make school and learning a happier and more productive experience for many who now sit docilely through the standardized school routine.

While the Panel believes that some students, particularly in the 18- to 21-yearold range, probably should not be on the school register at all. They should be regarded as trespassers if they enter the school. However, many of these in-school dropouts would probably attend class if what was offered in class was made meaningful to them. Others would attend an alternate facility as the Auxiliary Services for High Schools proper counseling made them aware of the program.

Many start with the basic handicap that they are unable to read. Again, the Fleischmann report addresses itself to this problem, suggesting that 8th, 9th, and 10th grades should stress reading, writing, and mathematical skills. It should be noted that the requirement for a high school diploma in New York City is reading at the eighth grade level! The Panel feels that 8th grade may already be late to concentrate on reading skills, but for the 30 or 40 percent in some schools who have not achieved even the minimum degree of proficiency by 8th grade, remediation is clearly indicated to compensate for earlier failures in the system. Care must be taken that remediation does not appear infantile but is geared to a teenage interest level.

At Morris High School, for instance, in a mini-school organized for popular music lovers, hitherto disaffected students built an electric organ which involved reading plans, making mathematical calculations--and achieving success. School attendance among this group rose from 50 to 81 percent.

Many of those who have or could easily acquire the basic skills are turned off by the rigidity of the curriculum offered and the absolute demands for attendance at prescribed hours. One ongoing program which is reaching 8,000 to 10,000 students per year with apparent success is the Auxiliary Services for High Schools. At present, this program helps dropouts further their education, develop work skills, and generally bridge the gap between school and the world of work. In addition to counseling and job training or placement, the program provides basic education and remediation leading to a high school equivalency diploma. No safety personnel have been requested or asigned to this service. There is no compulsion upon students to attend the center where they are enrolled which may be the reason why they do continue the education they had terminated in regular school.

It is an anomaly of the New York State law that local school systems are reimbursed least where they need it most. There is no reimbursement at all for those who attend the Auxiliary Services since they are technically dropouts. But even if they were enrolled in a regular high school, the system would only be reimbursed for the days they attended. There is a higher rate for high schools where education is more expensive than for grade schools. This is known as weighted average daily attendance (WADA). Thus, under present rules, the

penalty for non-attending students falls most heavily on inner city high schools where truancy and illness are high and costs and needs are greatest.

The Panel joins the Fleischmann Commission in recommending that the New York State Board of Regents propose to the State Legislature that it revise its regulations to permit reimbursement on the basis of all types of school enrollment, not just average daily attendance in traditional schools.

Another type of non-traditional education which would probably appeal to far more students than can now enroll is the Alternative High School. Such a school, generally an off-shot of a regular high school, is one to which streetworkers or aides refer students who are unable to cope with the standard routine. The particular value of this type of educational opportunity is that the students are involved in planning the curriculum and have a sense of participation and relevance. To too many students, the standard curriculum seems totally unrelated to their concerns and realities whereas reading, even of Shakespeare, can seem meaningful if taught, for instance, in terms of authority figures or gang wars or other concepts familiar to the student. Student participation in determining what and how to learn, and teacher sensitivity to the realities in the lives of the students are the key to the success of this type of program.

The Panel recommends that the opportunities for alternate study be greatly expanded so that students feel a sense of relatedness to the curriculum offered them.

Looking at the relative safety of the vocational schools, it is apparent that such goal-oriented education is also extremely appealing to certain students. More opportunities for career education or for some form of work-study would undoubtedly provide a satisfying educational experience for many who are turned off by a general education. Again referring to the Fleischmann Report, the Panel agreed that career education should be updated and should be offered in areas of manpower shortage so that those who complete their training can find a market for their skills.

The Panel recommends expansion and modernization of career and work-study opportunities for those students for whom such tangible goals would serve as an educational inspiration.

One way to encourage the underachieving student is to offer him the opportunity to tutor a younger child. Experiments with cross-age tutoring have shown that such programs can have a powerful educational impact on the students who do the teaching, often far beyond the effect on those receiving instruction. The sense of success and responsibility which this offers the often failing and irresponsible tutor may divert his potential for disruption while making the "system" seem far less rigid.

The Panel recommends that the Board of Education make provision for crossage tutoring by high school students wherever it seems feasible and desirable. Among other educational options which should be explored and expanded are street academies which provide temporary "sheltered" facilities for troubled students expected to return to their regular schools; credit for experiential learning; satellite academies designed to provide unmotivated high school students with specific opportunities for on-the-job training; evening schools for the chronic latecomer; other flexible scheduling to meet personal or employment needs; skill centers; independent study opportunities; and intensive courses taking as little as three weeks to master a specific subject.

While implementation of any of these suggestions will require considerable effort on the part of the school system, the potential benefits to be realized by continuing to engage the interest of those who now cut class or cut school altogether may more than warrant not only the effort but the expense. (In some cases, the Academy's study on guidance points out, more efficient use of existing staff and facilities may minimize costs.) If such programs do, in fact, reduce safety hazards by decreasing the number of potential perpetrators, any costs may be more than offset by a reduction in the costs related to disruption, violence, and vandalism.

In addition, the Panel believes that a substantial investment by the school system in extensive psychological referral services would "pay off" in terms of lessened tension and disruption.

In summary, the Panel recommends that the curriculum and scheduling offered in New York City high schools be made more flexible to meet a wider variety of student needs.