Welcome to School News & Commentary

Just click on INDEX to take you to a complete listing of all articles appearing on this page

The Worse Job in Llano County (October 20, 2008)

Lately I’ve been up to my eyeballs in writing about the Presidential race and haven’t commented much on local news happening in and around Llano, Texas, USA. The reason is simple enough, the future of our country is seriously at risk should the wrong candidate get elected and I intend to do everything in my power to keep that from happening. But let’s turn to the local scene for the moment, specifically the Llano ISD 2008-2009 school budget.

As in the past, this year’s budget is higher than the preceding year – both increased appraisal values and increased tax rates have brought this about. Between a Maintenance and Operating Fund budget of $27,342,839 and an Interest and Sinking Fund budget of $4,411,043, a total of $31,753,882 will be paid by taxpayers this coming year to support the government-run school known as Llano ISD. With an estimated enrollment of 1,990 students that comes to $15,957 per child. That’s what the Llano ISD costs Llano ISD taxpayers.

The way the Texas system works, however, is that $11,690,437 will be taken out of the $31,753,882 in revenues and sent elsewhere, never to be seen again.  That’s almost 37 percent of what we taxpayers are paying into the “system.” That leaves about $20,063,445 for us to spend within our own school district. However, once the Interest and Sinking Fund revenues are deducted, $18,718,825 is actually the amount left to spend on education.  That comes to about $9,406 per student. So where Llano taxpayers might think they are supporting students to the tune of $15, 957 annually, only $9,406 annually is being allocated to them – a drop of $6,551 or 41 percent. There’s nothing like a socialistic government-run institution hell-bent on redistributing the wealth.

All that Congressional smoke and mirrors legislative maneuvering a little while back resulted in more money for schools collectively and less for certain individual school districts such as our own. Taxpayers were screwed royally while being told what a great bi-partisan compromise the legislators had reached. So what else is new?

So let me give a “congratulations” to our local school board and Superintendent. They are fighting a losing battle within an impossible system but at least they are in there fighting. Let me illustrate.

Recently, they decided to pay off $1,300,000 in Interest and Sinking Fund debt rather than let it go to term. If it went to term, an additional $526,500 would be paid out in interest. The District had $2,714,171 in surplus funds so the money was there to pay off the debt and realize a savings of $526,500 in interest payments in the process. Of course that takes away from the $2,714,171 surplus cushion they had but it was a calculated risk that still leaves the District with $1,414,171 in surplus funds. I think it was the right choice for which they should be congratulated.

Here’s another problem with which the School Board and Superintendent has to struggle. All financial calculations for federal and state payments are based on a weighted average daily attendance, not the actual average daily attendance. For example, the estimated average daily attendance for 2008-2009 is 1,809 while the estimated average weighted attendance is 2,336. That’s why it’s so critical that the school have perfect or near perfect attendance – it affects the bottom line. Those parents who indiscriminately keep their kids home from school or student jackasses that intentionally cut school are costing taxpayers a bundle. 

By law, schools are required to budget $110,000 to take care of one child with severe problems i.e. special education children. The District, however, is given credit for the number of special education children they have enrolled. Increasing the number of special education children, increases the amount that need be budgeted for them but improves the weighted average attendance figures which, in turn, helps to reduce the amount that has to be sent out of the District – not much but every bit helps.

Blame it on the educators and politicians who dreamed up such a nutty system but don’t blame it on the Llano ISD Board of Trustees. It’s got to be the most frustrating job, if not the worst job in Llano County.

 NOTE: A special thanks to the one individual willing to take the time out of their busy schedule to further my education re government-run schools in Texas as well as locally that actually knows what they’re talking about. To protect the innocent, they shall remain nameless.

 ©2008 Harvey H. Klee

A Special Guest Article (Posted June 23, 2008)

Response to last week's "Taking Responsibility for One's Own Conduct"

[NOTE: The points raised and study references cited herein are so critical to addressing the problems facing our young people today and society in general that it has been reproduced here in its entirety as a guest article]

Your article on the non-graduating TAKS flunkees is spot on.
It is indeed hard to imagine how with five shots at it that they could not pass it.  Of course, there could be individuals who really cannot do the academic work (for whatever reason), and that person should not graduate as "social promotion" was ceased long ago. 

But it is of particular importance that if any of these kids were academically capable of doing the work and simply did not, that they not graduate. It seems fundamental that if one is not graduating then one does not walk across the stage, proudly or otherwise. I would hope that parents are doing all they can do enforcing study time, curfew if necessary, seeking tutors, having parent-teacher conferences as their child was failing the TAKS the first four times. Hopefully they were engaged in the problem, but one must wonder.

Graduation is darned important. Failing to graduate is a fundamental cause of many of the social ills and criminality from which we suffer today. Without the education, the job opportunities are fewer. Some skills that should aid good decision-making are absent.  Bad decisions in life and financial matters coupled with poor earning capacity eventually lead to many problems such as unmanageable debt, abusive relationships, divorce, drug and alcohol usage and many times, criminal behavior.

Graduation, of course, is but an indicator (hopefully) of a basic education.  Actually becoming educated is the goal that must be achieved.  There is an interesting 2003 article from the Brookings Institute, "The Behavioral Aspects of Poverty" (Isabel V. Sawhill, Senior Fellow, Economic Studies, http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2003/fall_useconomics_sawhill.aspx, accessed June 16, 2008) which concludes that more than simply being an economic deficit, poverty is a deficit of work and work ethic, education, and marriage, often coupled with early child-bearing.

Further, William Galston, the former advisor to President Clinton, has found that in order to avoid being poor you have to do three things: (1) graduate from high school, (2) wait until getting married to have children, and (3) wait until age 20 to have children. Only 8% of people who do those three things are poor, compared to 79% for those who do not.   (this is something I've often quoted, but only recently discovered the source which according to http://www.irrationalknowledge.com/09-07-2006/poverty-and-culture/ is

William Galston’s findings are widely available on the internet, but there is surprisingly little by way of reference for it. So here is the scoop: as reported by the sociologist James Q. Wilson on page 11 (and the reference section) of his book The Marriage Problem, Galston’s findings are actually based on the research study ‘According to Age: Longitudinal Profiles of AFDC Recipients and the Poor by Age Group. Prepared for the Working Seminar on the Family and American Welfare Policy.’ by Charles Murray and Deborah Laren, available here.)

That is an important point:  if kids will do just three things, then only 8% of those will wind up in poverty.  If they don't, 79% will end up in poverty. The three things are

That's simple, and graduating high school is the first step.  The failure to do these three things as a factor in both juvenile delinquency and adult criminal behavior is confirmed over and over in court.  The cause and effect is unmistakable and the consequences are horrific. 

It is sad when something (graduation) so terribly important to society is cheapened by trying to selfishly walk non-graduating, non-achievers, across the stage in a ceremony to which they did not earn the right.

Hon. Gil L. Jones, 33^rd Judicial District, Presiding Judge

The Case for School Uniforms (Posted June 23, 2008)

At least once a year the Llano ISD goes through the exercise of adopting a new school dress code hoping that this time they’ll get it right. Unfortunately, they get stumped by definitions of what is permissible under the dress code that are vague, ambiguous, and unclear. They should give up the ghost and simply adopt a school uniform.

Here are a few examples of what passes for explicit standards regarding the Llano ISD student dress code:

·        All students are required to wear appropriate (clothes/footwear).” What is the objective standard for “appropriate?”

·        “Sleeveless blouses and shirts are permitted for females when worn with the appropriate undergarments.” Again, what is the objective standard for “appropriate?”

·        “Appropriate undergarments must be worn at all times…” Again, what is the objective standard for “appropriate?”

·        “Skin-tight apparel may be considered inappropriate.” This implies that skin-tight apparel may it also be considered appropriate. What objective standards have been adopted to determine appropriateness and inappropriateness? 

·        “Extreme styles, as determined by school officials, will be prohibited.” What objective standards have been adopted by school officials to determine what an “extreme style” is?

The list goes on but the point is that the school has adopted a dress code without objective standards against which it can be enforced. It’s up to some vague group referred to as “school officials” that are to exercise their subjective judgment after the fact that is destined to cause embarrassment to students and their parents. Most, if not all of which, can be avoided with the adoption of a school uniform.

The subject has come up several times but it is always voted down for one reason after another. I guess the feeling is if the ACLU is against school uniforms so should the school board and administration.

As one proponent argued, “There is no question that school uniforms can instill a feeling of school spirit, school pride and social acceptance. When compared to designer clothes and name brand basketball shoes, school uniforms can also be a cost effective solution to school wear. Surely, this is an appealing benefit to those families that find it difficult, if not impossible, to afford such luxuriance. Certainly, parents will find that it is easier to shop for their children’s school attire, and the students will be able to quickly choose their outfits for school in the morning. Younger children can be persuaded to wear school uniforms. Some children may even like the idea of school uniforms and the feeling of being part of the school community.”

The irony is that the Llano ISD already has a school uniform policy but it isn’t applied to all students. There are football uniforms, baseball uniforms, track uniforms, basketball uniforms and a uniform for just about every sports activity in which students are engaged. Then there are cheer leader uniforms, band uniforms, and uniforms worn for other extra-curricular activity. There’s even a uniform worn when one graduates. It’s called a cap and gown.

At least one United States Appellate Court of which I’m aware has upheld the constitutionality of school uniform policies, See, Jacobs v Clark County School Dist. 9^th Cir. Ct. of Appeals (May 12, 2008) The Court found no constitutional freedom of speech violation, no free exercise of religion violation, and no due process violation in the adoption of such a policy. In other words, there seems to be no legal impediment to adopting a school uniform policy.

In summary, school officials have a responsibility to provide a safe, secure, and productive learning environment.  Dress and appearance play a role in doing so. Adopting a school uniform policy can help reduce the potential for conflict by;

1.  Reducing conflict stemming from socio-economic status, i.e., conflicts stemming from comments and personal attacks about who has better clothing and so on.  

2.  Reducing ways in which gang members can identify themselves which, in essence, is a form of intimidation and creates fear.

3.  Reducing the risk of students being robbed to and from school, or for that matter in school, of expensive clothing, jewelry, etc.

4.  Uniforms can also help school administrators identify non-students, trespassers, and other visitors in the hallways who stand out in the crowd.

5.  School uniforms would free up the time school officials have to teach, educate and administer.

Those in favor of a dress code over a school uniform policy simply haven’t made a persuasive case for their position. If the school boards and administration are caving-in to a few parents opposed school uniforms then it’s a case of the tail wagging the dog. Once again it would appear politics has won out over principle.

And remember Klee’s Law: “Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils.” (Hector Berlioz)

Taking Responsibility for One’s Own Conduct is a Rarity (Posted June 16, 2008)

There’s a lot of whining going around because 5 Llano ISD High School students failed to graduate with their class due to their failing to pass the TAKS mathematics test. Congratulations to the school board and administration for adhering to some reasonable academic standards in education, with the noted exception of Board members Bob Bender, Becky Robinson and Norm Long who would have let them graduate.

Not graduating for failing to pass the minimal standards set by the TAKS test also happens to be the law. The law in Texas requires that high school seniors not graduate unless they pass exit-level TAKS tests in math, as well as other subjects.

During their junior and senior years of high school, students are given five chances to pass the test. Yeap, one can flunk it 4 times in a row and still pass with a marginal score that doesn’t even demonstrate one’s competence in the area. Not only do they get 5 bites at the apple, the correct answer to each question on the test is given in the multiple choice answers. All the student has to do is choose the right answer from the choices given. Special education students can take watered-down versions of the test that are simpler yet.

There are sample tests up the gazoo available free of charge from the Texas Education Agency and on the internet with which one could practice. Special tutoring at the high school is also available at no cost (except to taxpayers). Private companies also make tests and tutoring available at nominal cost. In other words, there are no excuses for not taking and passing the TAKS test – at least by the fifth time around.

In plain talk, easy understood they haven’t met the minimal requirements for graduation so they don’t get a piece of the pie i.e. a diploma.

Here is a sampling of the ridiculous the arguments put forth at a recent school board meeting as to why the 5 students who failed to pass the TAKS test in math should be allowed to graduate with their class.

·        Only four in ten local school districts did not make a concession for students who failed to pass the test on their final try.

In other words, because 60 percent of the local school districts fail to obey the law and chose to treat a high school diploma as a worthless piece of paper awarded to any dunce who stays in school until they’re 18 years old, so should the Llano ISD.

·        A group of 300 citizens signed a petition asking that the mathematically challenged 5 be allowed to graduate.

See comments immediately above.

·        The Llano High School 2008 Senior Class signed a petition asking for the same thing only they went a bit further: they placed the blame for the 5 students failing the TAKS test equally on the school district: “If they were not prepared for the TAKS test, the district should have done a better job.”

By the same reasoning, the 2008 Senior Class should credit the school district for the 115 students who passed the TAKS testing requirements. One can’t have it both ways.

·        “It’s pretty heartbreaking to think students who have been with us since kindergarten will not graduate with us.”

No, thinking about the young men and women who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq fighting terrorism is heartbreaking. There’s nothing heartbreaking about a student who refuses to study and now must face the consequences.   

The sad thing is that 3 Board members went along with this inanity. But for a swing vote of one, the mathematically challenged 5 would have marched across the stage to receive something they didn’t earn: a high school diploma. I wonder how those students i.e. “Llano’s best and brightest”, who made the effort, studied hard, gave up their free time to prepare for the tests, and paid attention to the reason why they’re in school in the first place would feel when they see the laggards getting the same reward as they.

If there was any sense of individual responsibility or character among those who failed the TAKS test they wouldn’t be complaining. After repeated cajoling and being given every break in the book they just decided not to make the necessary effort and for that, there’s a price to play. Apparently, it’s a lesson some graduating students, parents and school board members haven’t learned.

And remember Klee’s Law: “The great Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that a good catchword could stop people from thinking for 50 years. The big catchword this election year is “change” – and it already has stopped many people’s thinking in its tracks.” (Thomas Sowell)

©2008 Harvey H. Klee

School Bus Safety - Unsafe at Any Speed, Part 7 and Wrap-up (Posted May 5, 2008)

To demonstrate the distinct differences between American school buses and school buses in the United Kingdom, a six member commission was created in the summer of 2007 in the UK to study the safety of the American “big yellow school bus.” The Commission concluded that UK children were safer on European buses for the following reasons:

·        Roofs are stronger

·        Structure is stronger

·        Testing is more real world

·        Window glass is more prone to stay in place and not fracture

·        Seatbacks are more padded

·        Seatbacks are truly high back, 31” versus 20”

·        No luggage rack which prevents escape.

The UK’s Commission findings correlate with 40 years of research in the United States that have reached the same conclusions.

Australia is yet another country that provides superior school bus safety to children. The feat has been accomplished because Australian standards require virtually the identical dynamic testing as Europe to evaluate bus safety. Also, the Australian National Road Transport Commission has not allowed the bus industry to manipulate data and research.

The French government and Renault Corporation have also been studying bus safety in rollover events for many years. The international community has forced school bus manufacturers to build safer buses for children. These international organizations that oversee school bus safety have children safety in mind, not the welfare of the bus company industry executives or bus lobbyists.

In Europe, bus manufacturers are required to conduct a series of dynamic tests to evaluate side and roof structural integrity. There are no comparable dynamic standards in place in the United States to evaluate school bus safety. Without real world safety compliance testing, school bus crashworthiness will never be achieved in America.

One of the most compelling arguments against using seat belts in buses for years has been that seat5 belts would displace children because of the space needed to add the seats belts on a standard 39” bus seat. This argument is no longer valid since the school bus component part suppliers realized that integrated seat belts could be accomplished on a standard 39” bus seat.

For example, the SafeGuard seat by IMMI utilizes lap/shoulder belts that fits small children up to high school student sizes in a standard 39” bus seat. Further, The SafeGuard Seat actually uses crashworthiness principles to implement compartmentalization.

The C.E. White Student Safety Seat with controlled seat collapse capability is another example of a school bus seat that protects children of all sizes while fitting a standard 39” bus seat while using the principles of crashworthiness and compartmentalization. The Collins DuraStraint Child resistant Seat fits children up to 50 pounds and their 39” seat with integrated lap/shoulder belts fit children of all sizes.

For years, opponents of seat belts on school buses made the following arguments against adding seat belts:

·        There’s not enough fatalities to justify the costs

·        There’s no data that supports seat belts on buses will make a safety improvement

·        There’s not enough room to place seat belts on buses without displacing children

·        Children will not wear seat belts.

As data and research doomed each argument, other arguments against improved safety were made that were equally unsupported by facts. However, the one argument that remains at the forefront of the resistance movement is costs associated with adding seat belts on school buses. The facts do not support this position.

When the 15 year life span of the school bus is factored into the costs of improved safety, the costs of adequately protecting our children is .03 cents per day, per student. Also, school bus seats and floor structures have been required since 1977 to be strong enough to support aftermarket installation of seat belts. Hence, there is no added cost associated with seat belt retro-fits unless the manufacturers have been violating this FMVSS regulation.

Texas is on the right road. Following a school bus accident that claimed the lives of two Beaumont Westbrook High School soccer players and seriously injured several others, the Legislature passed a law requiring each new school bus purchased after September 10, 2010 to be equipped with lap and shoulder belts. The law should be extended to include all school buses on Texas roads, not just those purchased after September 10, 2010. Incidentally, the Austin School District has required seat belt restraints on its school buses for the last two decades.

Again, my thanks to attorney E. Todd Tracy of the Tracy Law Firm in Dallas, Texas for much of the information contained in this series of articles on school bus safety. Additional information is available at the firm’s web site at http://www.vehiclesafetyfirm.com.

Bottom line: The Llano ISD recently purchased 15 school buses at a cost of $90,000 apiece i.e. $1,350,000. None are equipped with seat restraints. All are sub-standard with respect to overall safety construction. That’s a lot of taxpayer money being spent for new school buses that are unsafe at any speed simply because parents don’t want to drive their children to school.

And remember Klee’s Law:  “Civil rights cannot include everything that is done by government which benefits particular groups, individually or collectively. The whole case for civil rights is that every American is entitled to them. Civil rights are not about doing special things for special groups.” (Thomas Sowell)

School Bus Safety - Unsafe at Any Speed, Part 6 (Posted April 28, 2008)

One of the ways a crashworthy vehicle provides occupant protection is by controlling energy that is transmitted into the survival space. For years, the school bus industry argued that the size of the school bus offered a greater degree of protection from injury because a bus is so large that it will absorb energy and the children will not be hurt.  

This position actually violates Newtonian physics. If a vehicle weights 3,000 pounds or 24,000 pounds (weight of a large school bus) and experiences a delta velocity of 30 mph, the unrestrained objects inside both vehicles experience the same delta velocity, no matter the weight of the object.

Amazingly though, the NHTSA has stated as late as October 2007, that since school buses are larger and heavier then their impacting partners, lower crash forces will be imparted on bus occupants. This is technically accurate in that lower G’s will be experienced on the bus, but delta velocity is what causes the injury and the delta velocity is the same regardless of weight.

School buses are not tested with test devices inside the vehicle to evaluate loads on the body. Further, no dynamic test standards exist to evaluate what type of loads are experienced inside the survival space following frontal, side, rear and rollover tests to instrumented dummies.

Testing conducted by manufacturers has shown that the structure of school buses fails to allow for ride down of the crash pulse. Instead, the force loads are not dissipated in a controlled manner. This energy that is not absorbed by controlled crush ends up being delivered into the survival space and into the occupant’s body.

The interior of the school bus must also absorb energy so as not to transmit injurious forces to an occupant. However, the NTSB concluded in 2001 that “overhead storage racks, seat frames and sidewalls are not designed to be energy absorbing.”

Protecting the fuel system from fire is not the only kind of fire that should be protected against. However, the NHTSA argues that fuel-fed fires in school bus accidents are statistically insignificant. This position is misplaced since the school bus test to evaluate fuel tank and line fires is conducted in such a way that no fire could ever result because the test is outdated, unrealistic and lacks any semblance of what actually happens in the real world.

The NHTSA’s myopic view about school bus fires also overlooks fires from other accelerant sources to the engine compartment. When total school bus fires are researched, the numbers are alarming. In fact, 13% of all school bus accidents involve some type of fire.

In 1990, the NHTSA evaluated whether FMVSS 301 has improved school bus safety. The authors concluded that “data on fires in school buses were insufficient to permit relevant conclusions on the effect of FMVSS 301”

In October 1995, the NHTSA refused to provide additional protection for school buses by relocating the fuel tank and providing additional structure around the fuel tank.

Unfortunately, America is far behind the international bus manufacturers in achieving occupant safety. European bus manufacturers have been rolling buses over since the 1930’s. Some of the most advanced roof testing and roof design has come out of Hungary where engineers have studied ways to build bus roof structures that are resistant to crush.

In Europe, buses must be subjected to either a complete rollover or evaluated using a tilting platform and articulated vehicle. The goal for either scenario is the preservation of the survival space. Many European bus companies use both tests to evaluate bus structure.

Volvo Bus is one of the world’s biggest manufacturers of large buses. Volvo’s Bus’ safety philosophy is the same as its parent company Volvo Corporation: Safety is and must always be the basic principle for all engineering design. Survival space must be maintained. A Volvo bus must withstand rolling over without crushing the roof. The front structure utilizes a front impact protection design which spreads the force of an impact into the entire frame structure. Actual crash testing into the side of Volvo buses is also conducted to evaluate the total side structure, restraint, ejection mitigation and energy channeling systems.

Restraint must be provided so that ejection is minimized. All Volvo buses use lap/shoulder belts because Volvo believes that seat belts save lives. Testing is then conducted with instrumented dummies so that total bus protection can be evaluated. Laminated glass is used to serve as an ejection barrier. Rollover testing with dummies is conducted to evaluate restraint performance.

Energy must be controlled. Volvo also uses a front under-ride protection system that helps eliminate the disparity in height and weight. A steel structure is located behind the bus bumper that prevents the oncoming vehicle from becoming wedged under the bus. This protects the vehicle’s occupants and allows energy to be channeled throughout the bus’s frame.

The bus driver’s legs are protected by energy absorbing panels that are designed to deform in a predetermined manner. Bus passengers are protected by energy absorbing material within the entire seating compartment including the storage racks.

Fire must be eliminated. Volvo buses use automatic extinguisher systems in the engine compartment and passenger compartments. Studies have shown that a 72 passenger seat bus will be 100% engulfed in flames in three minutes even with fire retardant fabrics inside the bus.

Next week’s article will compare the distinct differences between American school buses and school buses in other countries. 

School Bus Safety - Unsafe at Any Speed, Part 5 (Posted April 21, 2008)

This week’s article goes further into the issue of school bus ejections in crashes and the structural integrity, or lack thereof, of school buses.

 On December 1, 2004, the NTSB released its “Most Wanted” transportation improvement devices to better protect bus passengers from being ejected. To date, no standard has been proposed requiring ejection mitigation glass on school buses including the latest bus changes proposed in 2007. Ejection mitigation glass used on vehicles today has proven effective in protecting against ejections.

ETG (enhanced technology glass) is an advanced glazing system that incorporates the Safeflex K series high security interlayer which was derived from PPG’s experience with hurricane impact glazing technology which provides increased tear strength and penetration resistance during 150 mph wind tests. Vehicle glazing has evolved from its original task of keeping bugs out of our teeth to the multi-functionality of Enhanced Technology Glass which protects against ejection.

According to General Motors “all 10 and 15 passenger vans have Enhanced technology Glass to help protect passengers during a crash. This specialty glass is located in the rearmost side window positions next to the fourth and fifth-row passengers. The glass is designed to help mitigate the risk of ejection for passengers seated next to the ETG windows who do not have the benefit of side curtain airbags.”

If this glass is safe enough for 12/15 passenger vans, it would be safe in Type 1 school buses and should be used immediately as a much needed safety feature.

With respect to structural integrity, on August 31, 2007, the Congressional Research Service reported that large school buses have energy-absorbing designs for front ends. These authors must not have reviewed the crash tests where the entire front structure of a Type C bus crashed into the bus’s survival space. There was no controlled crash like is seen when a properly designed vehicle is evaluated under the same test.

The authors of the congressional report also wrote that school children are protected because they are positioned above the level of most other vehicles on the road which provides protection from side-impact crashes. Sadly, they must not have reviewed the side-impact tests where school buses literally tore apart.

The authors have failed to consider that the NHTSA has never conducted a single rollover test to evaluate the occupant protection capabilities of school buses. Roof testing by American bus manufacturers has revealed that the roof structure of buses is incapable of protecting the survival space during a rollover.

Had these authors search deeper, they would have found records dating back to the 1940’s, where school bus designers always feared that the points where panels and pieces were fastened together called joints where prone to structural failure.

In 1967, the Ward Body Company subjected one of their school bus bodies to a rollover test, and noted separation at the joints due to rivet, screw and huckbolt (fastener) failures. Other tests revealed that simply increasing the number, size and quality of fasteners did not prevent joint separation. As a result, designers created continuous longitudinal interior and exterior panels for sides and roof. The design was called the Lifeguard design and reduced overall body weight, the number of fasteners used and man-hours for assembly. However, the Lifeguard design required very large roll-form presses and special equipment to handle the panels. Also, the panels had to be cut to exact length for each bus order which created marketing difficulties. After 1973, the Lifeguard design was not widely used by bus manufacturers.

One school bus manufacturer has begun to use adhesive bonding techniques that have been used by the aeronautical industry for years. The adhesive bonding has proven to be much stronger than other fastening techniques. In fact, the actual material fails before the adhesive bonding separates. Despite this new bonding technology, antiquated body fastener techniques continue to be used extensively among most American bus manufacturers.

Next week I’ll explore how the distribution of energy and crash forces affects the crashworthiness of school buses and the prevention of post-collision fires.

School Bus Safety - Unsafe at Any Speed, Part 4 (Posted April 14, 2008)

Persuaded by opponents against school bus seat belts, the NHTSA decided in 1976 that seat belts were not required on large school buses. Instead, occupant protection would be provided by compartmentalization which refers to a system of protecting unrestrained passengers by using high-backed, well-padded and well anchored seats designed to absorb energy from frontal impacts, placed in relatively, closely-spaced rows.

Compartmentalization can be potentially beneficial in frontal impacts if the seat is properly padded, high-backed and allows the unrestrained occupant to ride down the crash forces. However, most high school bus seats are nor properly padded and are not reinforced adequately to the floor. Further, most bus seat backs are only 20 inches tall. The 20 inch bus seat allows the striking occupant to override its head or torso over the top of the struck seat back.

Compartmentalization provides no safety protection in side impacts as seen during NHTSA’s sled test program. However, seat belts do provide protection in side impacts and rollovers based on NHTSA’s accident simulations. Compartmentalization offers no safety to students who are out-of-position because the driver has swerved or the student bounces off the seat when the bus hits a bump.

The NHTSA’s finally concluded in 2002 that “compartmentalization fails to provide adequate protection in rollover and side impacts which account for one-third of all accidents.” They failed to mention out-of-position children. The NHTSA’s conclusion is three decades late.

Testing by UCLA researchers in 1967 revealed that seat belts on buses increased safety. In 1986, the NHTSA reported that student behavior improved on buses equipped with seat belts. Opponents of school bus seat belts argue that children will not wear a seat belt on school buses. They forget that children of this generation have grown up using seat belts. The importance of wearing seat belts is preached by caregivers each day to children. Children oftentimes remind their own parents to buckle-up.

The National Academy of Sciences in 1987 found that seat belts would reduce fatalities by 20 percent and serious injuries by 40 percent. In 1989, the transportation Research Board determined that seat belts would prevent one fatality and minimize several dozen serious injuries each year. However, the study concluded that a federal mandate requiring mandatory school bus installation was not necessary. In 1999, the NTSB found that compartmentalization was an incomplete occupant protection system. A 2002 NHTSA study found that lap/shoulder belts have the potential to be effective in reducing fatalities and injuries in non-frontal crashes.

Despite overwhelming safety data, only six states currently require seat belts on new buses (California, Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York and Texas). That requirement does not apply to school buses already in use. In hearings before the NHTSA in July 2007 regarding seat belts on school buses, the school bus industry spokesman testified that only two percent of America’s school buses were equipped with lap/shoulder belts.

Lap/shoulder belts will help prevent complete ejection but they cannot prevent partial ejection. Partial ejection through window openings has been addresses in passenger vehicles with rollover airbag curtains and side impact airbag curtains after the window glazing proposed rulemaking change was defeated that would have required ejection mitigation glass. However, no such ejection mitigation airbags exist on school buses.

To prevent or minimize the risk of partial ejection through a school bus window, bus manufacturers should use ejection mitigation glass rather than tempered glass. Ejection mitigation glass is commonly referred to as laminated, plastic or bi-layer glass. Ejection mitigation glass is far less likely to shatter in a crash than tempered glass and is therefore more likely to prevent passengers from being ejected from the bus in a crash. There is no federal standard mandating ejection mitigation glass on school buses. As such, school bus manufacturers continue to use tempered side glass rather than the safer ejection mitigation glass.

Opponents against improved school bus glass may argue that ejection is rare. In 1999, the NTSB wrote that FARS (fatal accident reporting service) data is not a reliable source for identifying the number of fatal occupant ejections in buses. Rather than improve data retrieval methods to determine how prevalent the ejection problem is in school bus crashes, nothing was done.

Next week’s article will discuss more the prevalence of school bus ejections and the structural integrity of school buses.

School Bus Safety - Unsafe at Any Speed, Part 3 (Posted April 7, 2008)

Last week I discussed the problem of the lack of uniformity in school bus design and its affect on school bus safety. Many of the standard rescue tools may not work on certain parts of all buses. This week’s article gets into the statistics of actual injuries to school children, the underreporting of same and what can be done to mitigate the damages caused in school bus accidents.

According to the Transportation Research Institute, school buses are involved in more fatal crashes than transit, inter-city or charter buses combined. Yet, one of the primary arguments that opponents against improving school bus safety make is the low numbers of school bus fatalities. In fact, one of the primary culprits of this flawed position has been the NHTSA.

For years, the NHTSA has reported that there were only 74 deaths involving students on school buses between 1995-2005. However, the NHTSA fails to accurately report the number of serious injuries to children on school buses. The NHTSA also fails to discuss the medical costs incurred due to these in juries, the lost time from work the parents of the injured student endure or the lost time from school the injured student experiences. Each of these is a critical statistical event that must be considered and have not been. 

The American Academy of Pediatrics reported in its November 2006 issue that 17,033 children are injured each year in school bus accidents. The study concluded that three times more school bus injuries were occurring than had ever been reported by the NHTSA. Of these hospitalizations, 1,200 involved traumatic brain injury. The authors of the study concluded that seat belts would have prevented the vast majority of these injuries.

In Texas alone, there are seven fatalities and 857 injuries to school children each year in school bus accidents.

What is not shown in these statistics is the long-term consequences and costs associated with a school bus accident. This point can ve demonstrated by studying a tragedy involving the Westbrook High School soccor team in Beaumont, Texas whose charter bus rolled over on March 29, 2006. Charter buses are actually less regulated than school buses in terms of occupant protection requirements.

In the accident, Ashley Brown and Alicia Bonura died. Two girls were pinned under the bus for over an hour. One player had her arm amputated, another had permanent disability of an arm and hand. Another suffered extensive facial disfigurement. Combined, this soccer team endured 17 surgeries, eight months of lost school instructional days, hundreds of hours of physical therapy, millions of dollars of medical expenses, and the horror continues because the medical costs continue to increase, The psychological scars of these children may never heal.

The charter bus they were on had no seat belts and glass that failed to mitigate against ejection. If these girls had been belted, and injuries and deaths most likely would have been avoided.

Even though slogans like Buckle Up, It’s The Law; Buckle Up For Safety; Don’t Be A Dummy, Buckle Up; and Click It, Or Ticket have been around for years, these slogans do not apply top school buses. In 47 states, there are mandatory seat belt laws for children, but these laws do not apply to school buses. How confusing for our children is this?

You can receive a ticket for not buckling your seat belt in a parent’s vehicle. However, no ticketed can be given to students on school buses. Why not? Because 85% of our nation’s school buses do not have seat belts. This simply defies logic since engineers, physicians and crash safety experts all agree that seat belts in vehicles save lives and minimize injuries.

The American Automobile Association has written that “restrained occupants are more likely to escape harm by spreading the force of impact and gradually stopping the body, safety belts effectively reduce the severity of injuries.” The NHTSA and NTSB must agree since seat belts are mandatory in all vehicles. The FAA and NTSB must agree that seat belts on aircraft save lives since you are required to wear a seat bet during takeoff, landings and turbulent air. However, the occupant protection value of set belts on school buses has been debated for decades.

Advocates of school bus seat belts contend that seat belts reduce injuries by keeping children within their seating compartment in side impacts, evasive maneuvers and rollovers. Advocates also note that a restrained occupant will improve student behavior and reduce distractions to drivers. Seat belts on school buses have been proposed by the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons, American College of Preventative Medicine, Physicians for Automotive Safety, the National Coalition for School Bus Safety, and the National PTA. European Union countries and Australia have required lap/shoulder belts in school buses for over a decade.

Opponents against requiring seat belts on large school buses contend that studies have shown that adding seat belts is not a cost effective safety improvement over the safety principle known as compartmentalization. They note that studies have shown that seat belts might save one life and several serious injuries each year, at an annual cost of millions of dollars. They also contend that adding seat belts decreases seating space and would displace some children, forcing additional bus purchases. They have also suggested that children may not use seat belts on school buses. The lobby against seat belts has been lead by the National association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services, the national School Transportation Association and the bus manufacturers.

Next week’s article will look more deeply into the pros and cons of seats belts and other safety considerations for school buses.

 School Bus Safety - Unsafe at Any Speed, Part 2 (Posted March 31, 2008)

Last week I introduced the subject of the crashworthiness of school buses and school bus history. This article discusses the problem of the lack of uniformity in school bus design and its affect on school bus safety. The school bus industry defines four types of school buses. As such, many of the standard rescue tools may not work on certain parts of all buses.

The Type A school bus consists of a bus body constructed upon a cutaway front-section vehicle with a left side driver’s door, designed for carrying more than 10 persons. This definition includes two classifications: Type A-1, with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, and a Type A-2, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more. Type A school buses meet all federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for school buses.

The Type B school bus consists of a bus body constructed and installed upon a front-section vehicle chassis, or stripped chassis. Type B-1 buses have a gross vehicle weight rating less than 10,000 pounds. Type B-2 buses have a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds. Part of the engine is beneath and/or behind the windshield and beside the driver’s seat. The entrance door is behind the front wheels. Type B school buses meet all federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for school buses.

The Type C school bus, also known as a “conventional,” is a body installed upon a flat-back cowl chassis with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds, designed for carrying more than 10 persons. All of the engine is in front of the windshield and the entrance door is behind the front wheels. Type C school buses meet all federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for school buses.

The Type D school; bus, also known as a “transit style,” is a body installed upon a chassis, with the engine mounted in the front, mid-ship, or rear with a gros vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds, and designed for carrying more than 10 persons. The engine may be behind the windshield and beside the driver’s seat; it may be at the rear of the bus, behind the rear wheels; or midship between the front and rear axles. The entrance door is ahead of th front wheels. Type D school buses meet all federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for school buses.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are not the same for all four types of buses. If a bus is considered Type I, it has a gross vehicle weight rating of over 10,000 pounds which are Type C and D buses. No seat belts are required on Type I buses. Type II buses have a gross vehicle weight rating less than 10,000 pounds, thus may be either Type A-1 or B-1 buses. Seat belts are required on all Type II buses.

Of the 484,000 buses in the United States, 85% are Type I buses which are not required to have a seat belt. Hence, 20,485,000 children (409,700 buses X 50 children) are exposed each day to injuries and death risks that could be prevented simply by adding seat belts.

School bus safety should focus on one thing: How well does a bus protect our children during an accident? However, if the big yellow bus was crash rated like a minivan – it wouldn’t even get 1 star which is the lowest safety rating given by the NHTSA.

The federal government commissioned UCLA to conduct crash testing in 1967 because the “number of injuries and the number of fatalities was considered too high.” UCLA found that poor seat design was a major contributor to injuries and fatalities. The UCLA study reached the following conclusions: 

1.     Seat backs should be 28” high and well padded.

2.     Left and right interior side panels should be well padded.

3.     A well padded aisle panel should be installed.

4.     Lap belts were suggested to keep children within the seating “compartment.”

Armed with UCLA’s bus safety results, it still took 10 years for the NHTSA to promulgate school bus safety standards. However, the standards were inadequate. For example, FMVSS 222, the most significant of the new bus standards, fell way short of the UCLA recommendations. Seat backs were 8” shorter than recommended, there were no provisions for left and right side padding, no aisle panels were defined and no lap belt restraints were required.

Now the NHTSA proclaims that there are 38 FMVSS provisions that apply to school buses. However, much like their vehicle counterparts, these provisions are inadequate to protect children in the event of an accident. How so? They are outdated. They are inept. They are minimal. They fail to evaluate a dynamic event like a crash. They are unrealistic in their application.

For example:

FMVSS 217, “Window Retention and Release,” but does not require the use of laminated glass that can help prevent ejection. This type of glass is critical since most buses do not have seat belts.

FMVSS 220, “School Bus Rollover Protection,” has no requirement to actually test the strength of a roof when rolling or under dynamic conditions.

FMVSS 221, “School Bus Body Joint Strength,” and FMVSS 222, “School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection,“ do not require that a crash test be performed. In short, the federal school bus standards fail to protect children. As a consequence, school bus manufacturers are left within their discretion to develop safety features for American children on school buses without oversight from any public agency such as the NHTSA.

Next week’s article will explore school bus accident statistics, the failure to accurately report the number of serious injuries to children on school buses and the overall cost of same.

School Bus Safety - Unsafe at Any Speed (Posted March 24, 2008)

School districts establishing their own transportation systems, rather than using revenues for education, has been a bane of mine for many years. Not only it is unnecessary, extremely expensive and an environmental disaster but a safety hazard as well. According to E. Todd Tracy who heads up the Tracy law firm in Dallas dedicated to vehicle safety issues, school bus manufacturers and the NHTSA are complicit in duping school districts, states and parents about school bus safety.

 Mr. Tracy believes that while the school bus manufacturers are the self-proclaimed experts on bus safety, they should be held responsible for injuries and deaths to children on school buses just like vehicle manufacturers are held responsible for occupants in passenger vehicles. “Parents, school administrators and state officials should band together and demand school bus crashworthiness. A call to arms is necessary to protect children on American school buses.” This is the first of several articles on the subject. With various individuals running for a place on the upcoming LISD Board of Trustees it is imperative that parents know where they stand on the issue.

Since 1968, passenger vehicles in the United States have become safer because of a principle known as vehicle crashworthiness. Vehicle crashworthiness is the science of preventing and minimizing injuries through the use of safety systems. There are five basic principles of crashworthiness:

1.     Restrain the Occupant

2.     Prevent Ejection

3.     Maintain Survival Space

4.     Manage Collision Energy

5.     Prevent Post Crash Fires

Vehicle crashworthiness principles were initially developed during the Korean War by Colonel John Paul Stapp and Hugh de Haven who were losing American soldiers in the field that survived helicopter and airplane crashes, only to die due to crush related and fire injuries. These men later developed and designed aircraft structures that protected the survival space of ther aviator, used five-point restraint harnesses that provided maximum restraint and ejection prevention and utilized fuel tank bladders, metal braided fuel lines and break-a-way, quick disconnect attachments t0o protect against fire.

Ultimately, vehicle crashworthiness safety principles were applied to racing cars. This explains why vehicles traveling close to 200 mph can hit walls and rollover seven or eight times, yet the driver gets out of the vehicle, waves to the crowd and is racing the next weekend.

Unbelievably and sadly, vehicle crashworthiness principles have not been applied to school buses as vigorously as they have to airplanes/helicopters, racing cars or passenger vehicles. This of course defies common sense since millions of children each day ride school buses and to various school-sponsored events.

The United States school bus system is the largest mass transportation system in the world. The national fleet is approximately 482,000 buses, and they travel billions of miles per year. However, most American school buses do not contain seat belts, fail to contain glass that mitigate against ejection risks, have inadequate structural integrity to provide adequate protection in frontal, side and rollover accidents and lack post crash fire protection features. The next time your child gets on that big yellow school bus ask yourself this question:  “How safe are school buses in the event of an accident?”

The answer is simple: buses that transport our children will not protect them if a serious accident occurs because buses are not crashworthy and fail to utilize available and affordable occupant protection safety systems.

A quick overview of school transportation history helps to understand the problem better. In 1837, children were taken to school in horse-drawn carriages called school hacks, school trucks or kid hacks. These were often nothing more than wagons or sleds. By 1914, a wooden kid hack was placed onto an automobile chassis that was horse drawn. Ingress and egress was through a door at the rear so the horses would not be startled. In 1927, the first all-steel school bus was built. It contained steel stretched over wood with canvas windows.

In April 1939, Dr. Frank W. Cyr organized a conference at Teachers college, funded by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation for transportation. Officials from then each of the 48 states, as well as specialists from school bus manufacturing and paint companies attended the conference. Engineers from Blue Bird Body Co., Chevrolet, International Harvester, Dodge, and Ford Motor Company, as well as paint experts from DuPont and Pittsburg Paint attended. Together with the transportation administrators, they met for seven days and agreed on 44 standards, including the bus color and some mechanical specifications such as body length, ceiling height, and aisle width for school buses.

The lasting standard from this conference is the familiar yellow school bus design and paint scheme. Dr, Cyr chose the “school bus yellow” with black lettering paint scheme because it was easy to see in the early morning and late afternoon.

For the next 30 years, virtually no safety advances were made in school bus safety, even though researchers in the 1960’s were demonstrating that safety improvements were needed to better protect children in frontal, side, rear and rollover accidents.

In 1974, Congress determined that “school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety, since such transportation involves the nation’s most precious cargo – the children who represent our future.” These amendments finally came in 1977, when the NHTSA adopted school bus safety standards.

In 1977 school bus safety standards have never been revised, even though attempts have been made to improve the crashworthiness of school bus safety to keep up with improved occupant protection technology. Each of these efforts to improve school bus safety has been resisted by the school bus manufacturing industry as well as others.

In July 2007, the NHTSA heard oral statements on proposals to make school buses safer by enacting regulations that have been requested since the 1960’s. The formal comments ended January 22, 2008. It could be years before any safety rules are finally adopted, since it took 10 years since the 1967 UCLA study to final rule making on the last set of inadequate school bus standards.

Next week’s article will address the lack of uniformity in school bus design standards and their affect on safety.  

School Superintendent Illegally Electioneering? (Posted March 17, 2008)

A recently published article in Texas Insider.org by Peggy Venable (Director of the Texas office of Americans for prosperity and one of my heroines) puts the spotlight on that which Llanoites should be well familiar. With her permission, Ms. Venable’s article is republished here in full to alert Llano citizens of the need to be alert to any possible illegal politicking going on within the Llano ISD. It’s happened before and with school trustee elections coming up in May, it could happen again..

Alvord ISD Superintendent John Trice and Larry Wilson (Assistant Secretary of the School Board) appear to have lost their minds, and should soon lose their jobs. They are using their positions to electioneer.

We don’t know who is advising him, but clearly no one with any sense is advising the Alvord school officials. Tison was reported early in his campaign as “currently looking for a political consultant. In the meantime, he is relying on the Texas Parent PAC.”

It is anticipated that these school officials broke a myriad of laws. It isn’t our job to prosecute them, but to call public attention to their shenanigans and to call for a public outcry against public school officials using their position to influence elections.

These nitwits have sent a letter to “Fellow Educators and School Employees”, which all but threatens school district employees to vote for State Rep Dist 61 candidate Joe Tison.

This letter begins with, “We assume your family, health and livelihood are most important to you.” (Duh!)

“With confidence, we endorse Joe (Tison) and do ask your support and vote. As career educators, public schools are our 1st priority and primary reason to support Joe.” (And here we thought the family and health were priorities!)

Even superintendents should do their homework. Several items in the letter are blatantly false, such as Rep. King’s support for elimination of the Texas Infrastructure Fund (TIF) was a big loss to school districts.*

There was nothing subtle about the letter:

“…we can elect the candidate of our choice…….if we all vote!”

The letter goes on to say “We can win with Joe Tison in the primary and general election if….

1. Every school employee and their family members support and vote for Joe.
2. Every school employee tells other family members & friends why they should support/vote for Joe. Ask each of these to tell three others
3. Some employees participate in a campaign strategy meeting (inform Mr. Trice)
– This is the Superintendent!!!
4. Employees will display a yard sign supporting Joe Tison. You can contact Mr. Trice or Mr. Wilson at 427-8711 for a sign.
5. Go to the polls for early voting. Employees could group together and go vote.”

The letter ends with a basic civics lesson:

“Important to remember:
1. Please vote in the Republican Primary…
2. The candidate receiving the majority of votes wins the primary and their name will be listed on the General Election Ballot in November.
3. Registered voters can vote for any party’s candidate in the General Election.”

“You have our thanks and respect.

John Trice & Larry Wilson”
(Letter is signed by each)

Friends, my bet is that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama won’t be any too happy that these school district employees are being encouraged to vote in the Republican primary.

UPDATE: A call to Supt Trice at 5:07 pm Tuesday went into his voice mail. He was likely out campaigning for Joe Tison.

To find out more about these issues, please visit: http://txpayervoice.blogspot.com/

Prayer in Government-run Schools – What will they think of next? (Posted February 25, 2008)

A North Texas couple filed a lawsuit against Governor Perry claiming that the State’s Moment of Silence observed in public schools (at least in some of them) is unconstitutional. Chief Counsel for the Liberty Legal Institute, Kelly Shackelford, stated: “This is a great victory against those who would try to deny every individuals right to religious liberty. The ultimate intolerance is someone attacking a moment of silence because they are worried others will decide to pray in their free time. This is a victory for everyone who believes in freedom.”

While I may not go that far, it certainly is a victory for everyone who believes in the First Amendment – something of which the United States Supreme court hasn’t cared too much about over the last few years. That Amendment, by the way, states in that Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise of (religion). The “Congress” referenced therein is the United States Congress and, by way of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, applies to the states as well. So if Texas allows students to freely exercise their religious beliefs they are in keeping with the Constitutional mandate to do so.

Of course the First Amendment also prohibits Congress, and by way of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states, from establishing a religion [the exact wording is “respecting an establishment of religion”] but I know of no instance in our history where the federal government or any of the states have done that following the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, contrary to what the “Supremes” seem to imagine.

The “Supremes,” however, have not totally emasculated the First Amendment in the area of religion. For example, by law, no school district can adopt a policy that prevents, or otherwise denies participation in, constitutionally protected prayer in public schools.

The catch is, “What is constitutionally protected prayer?” The Constitution defines it as any prayer not involving the state respecting an establishment of religion. The “Supremes,” however, define it differently and don’t require the “establishment of religion” element required by the Constitution, leaving it up to the “Supremes” to decide each instance of alleged infraction on a case-by-case basis. In the process they’ve rewritten the Constitution.

So here’s what we’re stuck with - until the next revolution: Religious activity sponsored by any government agency is prohibited BUT religious activity initiated by private individuals, such as students, is not. Examples: reading the Bible or other scriptures; saying grace before meals; pray or study religious materials with fellow students during recess, the lunch hour, or other non-structural time to the same extent that they may engage in non-religious activities.

Of course students may not be compelled to participate in prayer or other religious activities. Nor may teachers, school administrators and other school employees, when acting in their official capacities as representatives of the state, encourage or discourage prayer, or participate in such activities with students.

As pointed out above, the government’s justification for these “rules” is ludicrous but is done so by the expedient of ignoring the plain language of the Constitution. For example, “endorsing” religion is treated the same as “establishing” religion when they clearly are different.

The dictionary meaning for “establishing” is: to start or set up something: to start or set up something that is intended to continue or be permanent; to place something permanently: to place something securely and permanently in a position, situation, or condition; to confirm truth of something: to investigate something and prove or confirm its truth or validity; to cause something to be recognized: to cause something or somebody to become generally accepted or recognized; to make church national and official: to make a church an official national institution; and, to cause plant to grow successfully: to grow, or cause a plant to grow, successfully in a new place. [Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation.

While the dictionary meaning of “endorsing” is: to approve something formally: to give formal approval or permission for something; to support somebody or something: to give public support to somebody or something, especially during an election; to promote product: to give public approval of a product for advertising purposes; to sign back of check: to sign the back of a check, money order, or negotiable document in order to cash it or to make it payable to a specific payee; to sign receipt: to sign a document to acknowledge receipt of a payment; to write on document: to write a comment on the back of a document. [Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation]

Clearly the two words and meanings are different. “Establishing” is prohibited by the Constitution, “Endorsing” is not. But it is through this substitution of words i.e. amendments to the constitution by judicial fiat, that the right to freely exercise one’s religion is being lost under our Bill of Rights.

The next time you vote for a President, choose the one least likely to emasculate the few Constitutional rights we have left by their appointments to the bench – that leaves out all Democrats and all but 2, maybe 3, Republican candidates.And remember Klee’s Law: “Experience is something you don’t get until right after you need it.”  (Steven Wright)

©2008 Harvey H. Klee

Lack of Teacher Fingerprinting May Explain the Problem (Posted February 4, 2008)

It is no secret that educators, as an occupational group, have the highest incidence of sexual assault against youngsters than any other group. Sexual misconduct by public school employees has increased 128 percent over the last 10 years according to the Texas Education Agency and has prompted new legislation.

All this time I took it for granted that all teachers were fingerprinted and subjected to thorough background checks before releasing them into our classrooms. I was mistaken. The education lobby has been able to protect educators from such stringent background investigation up until now. Although most professions, in fact most vocations that require licensing, require fingerprinting. Educators, however, for the most part have been able to side-step the issue.

The Texas Education Agency estimates that between 1–2 percent of veteran teachers i.e. as many as 8,000 teachers will have hidden their criminal records. Yet in all this time the Texas Education Agency has done little to safeguard our children from sexual predator educators.

Currently, most school districts only conduct state background checks for budgetary purposes and do not include checks on crimes that may have been committed out of state.

Starting in 2003 some national data base checks of teachers were conducted in Texas but it wasn’t required of teachers already certified. They were exempt from the fingerprinting requirement. Since those checks were conducted, however, almost 200 candidates were found to have serious criminal records including sexual misconduct and crimes against children. Unfortunately, the Texas Education Agency didn’t wake up to the fact that those certified before 2003 might have similar criminal records and should have been included in the background checks. 

Because the education establishment i.e. the Texas Education Agency, national and state educator organizations, local school districts, etc. refused to clean their own house the state has had to step in and do it for them. Senate Bill 9 passed last year and signed into law now requires all Texas public school districts and charter schools to conduct national criminal history checks on certified employees i.e. teaching and administrative employees as well as substitute teachers, teacher assistants, custodial and cafeteria workers. Better late than never but to those who have had their children victimized by educators, better yet never late.

The deadline for fingerprinting all certified employees is September 1, 2011 while custodial and cafeteria workers will undergo fingerprinting immediately. Districts will be chosen by the Texas Education Agency at random for compliance between then and now and those selected will have 80 days in which to comply. Several school districts have volunteered to begin compliance immediately.

Fingerprinting is not the panacea for weeding out undesirables but it is a step in the right direction. The limitation of fingerprinting is that offenses revealed by the background checks will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine one’s continued employment in the school district. Teachers with prior convictions may be allowed to resign in lieu of termination which is the prevailing trend among school districts, or even allowed to remain on the payroll.

Also, those who have been placed on deferred adjudication for sexual misconduct in another state would not be caught by the background check since deferred adjudication is not a conviction, although it could become one if the offender violates the terms of their deferment. Further, if one had engaged in sexual misconduct but there was no prosecution or arrest they would not be found in the national data base.

A parent will never know of what offense(s) their child’s teacher(s) may have been convicted, whether teachers convicted of a criminal offense are currently on the school’s payroll or whether teacher(s) with prior convictions have been knowingly hired by the school district, since that information is kept confidential. The opportunity for “cover-up” is just as great as before the new fingerprinting law was passed.

Although Texas Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst said, when announcing the passage of the new law: “The new statewide criminal background check system will give administrators critical information they need to help prevent individuals who work on a public school campus from harming students,” there is no guarantee that they will act upon it. It’s been shown that many do not, even when they are aware of a teacher’s history of sexual assault.

Already some educators are complaining about the new law. Many are concerned that their juvenile records might be exposed resulting in job loss. Although, the state will pick up the cost for currently employed teachers, newly hired teachers will have to pay between $50-$60 to be fingerprinted and checked through the system – unless the school district i.e. taxpayers, picks up the tab. Others complain that fingerprinting is an invasion of privacy. However, every profession and occupation requiring fingerprinting that I know of has had to pay for the “privilege” of having their fingerprints taken and background checks conducted and were required to waive any imagined right to privacy in the process – it’s the price one pays for the business they’re in.

And remember Klee’s Law: “Freedom is when the people can speak; democracy is when the government listens.” (Alastair Farrugia)

©2008 Harvey H. Klee

National Data Base of Problem Teachers (Posted January 28, 2008)

With Texas ranking second in the nation in the number of teachers caught in sexual misconduct (See: Too Much Sex Education in Our Public Schools

11/05/07) it would be helpful for parents to know if any of their children’s teachers have been in trouble for any reason at all, including sexual misconduct. Well, there is a way. The Sarasota Herald-Tribune has made available a nation-wide searchable data base of teachers that have been in trouble for one reason or another,

The Florida newspaper began reporting on sexual misconduct among teachers in Florida some time ago. After years of pursuing the matter, they were finally able to obtain the information from the Florida Department of Education. The information they obtained was taken from a nation-wide list maintained by the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC). It does not provide information as to why a teacher may have been in trouble, however, only the fact that they have been and may include a multiple of reasons such as sexual misconduct, financial misconduct, criminal convictions, etc.

An Associated Press investigation earlier last year found that during years 2001 to 2005, inclusive, about one-quarter of all disciplinary actions against teachers involved sexual misconduct. Two thousand five hundred seventy educators had their teaching credentials revoked, denied, surrendered or sanctioned following findings of sexual misconduct.

The problem for researchers was that NASDTEC’s information was not available to the general public. Their data base is available only to other state education agencies. Once the Sarasota Herald-Tribune got hold of the information under the Freedom of Information Act, however, they decided to publish it and make it available to all interested parties: http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20071219/NEWS/997571940&SearchID=73304350639109 All one need do is to go to this URL and type in the teacher’s name and state to find out if they’re in the data base.

Since NASDTEC is a non-profit voluntary organization the data it collects is only data volunteered to them. They cannot force reporting compliance. Consequently the list is not complete as to every teacher who has ever been in trouble. No detail is given as to why any given teacher had been penalized, just that they had gotten into trouble for some unspecified reason. It’s left up to the respective school districts or state agency to take appropriate action – not a very comforting thought since most school administrators are reluctant to discipline errant teachers, much less publicize their actions to the general public that pay their salaries 

There are about 37,000 names listed in the data bank – excluding about 4,000 Florida teachers that go back some 20 years. What the data bank does tell us is that school districts across the nation in many instances know, or should know when a teacher has been in trouble and that they are given the opportunity to screen those individuals further before making a commitment to hire them or keep them on their payroll.

Granted, all infractions are not listed, some may be minor or major breaches of conduct and the list isn’t complete, but it’s better than no information at all. It should be incumbent on all school districts to utilize the data base and enter every educator’s name on their payrolls to determine if any of them are listed and follow-up with investigative interviews, further background checks, etc., if their names crop up. Failure to do so would constitute malfeasance on the part of trustees and administration officials, alike.

One can argue that releasing the list for public access may discourage school districts from reporting educator infractions to NASDTEC in the future. However, such an argument ignores the fact that educators, as an occupational group, have the worst sexual offender record against children than any other occupational group. Little has been done to stem the tide of increasing instances of sexual predators within their ranks i.e. there isn’t much evidence that even with the information available to them significant action is being taken to clean house.

If the Llano ISD or Burnet CISD isn’t running their teachers’ names through the data base – including coaches, there’s nothing stopping parents and any other concerned citizen from doing so on their own. Again, the web site is: http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20071219/NEWS/997571940&SearchID=73304350639109

And remember Klee’s Law: “A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.” (Steven Wright)

©2008 Harvey H. Klee

Index of School News publications available on this page

To read a particular article, simply click on the title below