......... 5‘. ,., .' r; A NATIONAL SURVEY DE THE STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION AND SELECTED SCHCDI. SYSTEMS ’ To DETERMINE METHODS DE STUDENT ACCIDENT REPORTING FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESIGNING A MODEL STATEWIDE STUDENT ACCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM} * " ‘ Thesis for the Degree” of PM). MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ROBERT EUGENE COSTANTE r 1971 This is to certify that the thesis entitled A National Survey of the State Departments of Education and Selected School Systems to Determine Methods of Student Accident Reporting for the Purpose of Designing A Model Statewide Student Accident Reporting System presented by Date 11/13/71 0-7639 Robert Eugene Constante has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PhD; degree in Secondary Education (Traffic) awaw Major professor Mich i gen University l€"r.I I: .‘ A 1&0, WET-l TEST-EMS ABSTRACT A NATIONAL SURVEY OF THE STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION AND SELECTED SCHOOL SYSTEMS TO DETERMINE METHODS OF STUDENT ACCIDENT REPORTING FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESIGNING A MODEL STATEWIDE STUDENT ACCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM BY Robert Eugene Costante Statement of the Problem The purpose of this research was to determine the principal procedures and methods being used in statewide and systemwide student accident reporting programs in order to assess the most frequently used and most effec- tive elements. This information obtained was utilized as the basis for designing a model statewide student acci- dent reporting system. The essential objectives of this investigation were to determine the procedures, methods, and techniques employed by selected school systems throughout the United States in deve10ping programs for the collection, process- ing, analysis, and utilization of student accident inform- ation. The subordinate objectives of the study were: (1) to assess the degree and type of accident reporting Robert Eugene Costante being conducted at state and local school system levels, (2) to assess the uses made of summarized and analyzed accident data, (3) to asseSs processing procedures and data analysis used by school systems for accident report- ing, and (4) to assess specific information included on state and local school systems' accident reporting forms. Research Methods and Techniques The primary methods used in researching this study were an extensive review of the literature related to stu- dent accident reporting, and development of the survey questionnaire. The research survey was limited to the 50 state departments of education and 78 local school systems. Sixty-five of the local school systems were chosen from those school systems reporting student accident summaries to the National Safety Council for the period of 1965-68. The remaining local school systems were selected by the 13 state departments of education having no school system reporting to the National Safety Council. Two survey questionnaires (state and local) were designed and used as the instruments to obtain informa- tion relevant to all phases of student accident reporting progjzuns that would be necessary for designing a model Systenwmide accident reporting program. They requested data cxzncerning: (1) general safety education Robert Eugene Costante information, (2) accident reporting procedures, (3) pro- gram uses of analyzed data, and (4) accident report form information. Pretesting the survey instrument took place in large school systems in the state of Michigan. The questionnaires were distributed by mailing survey packets to the 128 selected educational agencies. The initial mailing and subsequent follow-up brought a total of 100 returns, or 78.1 per cent. The data were tabulated as separate percentages of state and local school system reSponses, and carried to the nearest 1/10 per cent. A narrative analysis accompanied each tabulation comparing the responses of state and local school systems, and evaluating the mean- ing of the data. Major Findings and Conclusions Within the stated limitations of this study, the following major conclusions were made: 1. Research supports the premise that accident reporting systems demonstrate through analysis ways to reduce the number of accidents. 2. The majority of surveyed systems have legal authority to establish accident reporting programs. 3. Data revealed that accident reporting is presently conducted in all surveyed local school systems, Robert Eugene Costante and by 27.9 per cent of the responding state departments of education. 4. There is need to provide more qualified staff to organize, administer, and supervise accident reporting programs. 5. There is need to deve10p and implement viable administrative and curriculum guides in accident preven- tion and reporting. 6. Inservice programs in accident reporting procedures need to be increased. 7. Accident reporting must include all schools and all students, staff, and employees involved in the educational system. 8. Governmental immunity laws should be abolished in order to improve the quality of accident prevention programs. 9. There is need to establish more effective accident prevention support groups. 10. State departments of education need to design statewide accident reporting systems for the collection, processing, and analysis of accident data for accident prevention and reduction and for curriculum planning and improvement. 11. There is need to incorporate the use of computers for processing and analyzing systemwide accident n v;- v t a‘ o." -y.. I" H - Robert Eugene Costante data, but it was found that manual tabulation is accept- able for small systems. 12. The use of analyzed data to do special studies is an effective method for assessing the causes of acci- dents; however, data revealed that Special studies are seldom done. 13. Data revealed that annual summaries are most practical for the majority of systems that use manual tabu- lation. It was further shown that monthly and semi-annual summaries of accident data are the most feasible way of providing the information to assist in developing pro- cedures for reducing accidents. 14. It was shown that approximately two years are needed.for the planning, design, development, and implemen- tation of a statewide student accident reporting system. 15. It was shown that greater effort should be Inade to effectively use analyzed data by students, pro- fessional, and nonprofessional staff, and to distribute the data to other state, local, and national governmental and nongovernmental organizations. 16. It was shown that the most common use of analyzed accident data is for insurance purposes and possible legal defense against negligence litigations. 17. Findings indicate that an overwhelming major- ity of systems which have or are planning accident reporting forms include the minimal information A NATIONAL SURVEY OF THE STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION AND SELECTED SCHOOL SYSTEMS TO DETERMINE METHODS OF STUDENT ACCIDENT REPORTING FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESIGNING A MODEL STATEWIDE STUDENT ACCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM BY Robert Eugene Costante A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1971 DEDICATION This study is dedicated to the memory of my father, John Costante, who passed away August, 1966, and my mother, Mary Piccalo Costante, who both made this all possible through their love and dedication. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study could not have been undertaken without the cooperation and encouragement of many fine people at Michigan State University. Special appreciation is extended to Dr. Robert O. Nolan, Professor at Michigan State University, College of Education, and Highway Traffic Safety Center whose continual encouragement and guidance as academic advisor have been a constant source of inspiration throughout all phases of my doctoral program. Many thanks to Dr. William A. Mann of the College of Education for his personal dedicated support, and to Dr. Robert E. Gustafson of the College of Education and Highway Traffic Safety Center for his efforts in providing constructive criticisms. An expression of sincere gratitude to Dr. Joseph Dzenowagis, Department of Health, Physical Education and 'Recreation, for his valuable support during this study. The data for this dissertation was generously supplied by state departments of education and selected school system officials throughout the country. Without their unselfish cooperation, this study could not have been completed. iii The patience, understanding, unending support, and typing and editing assistance from my wife, Carol, are gratefully acknowledged; and to Gina and Robb, who missed the compansionship of their dad on many days. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . Xi VITA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Chapter I. NATURE OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . 1 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . 10 Justification for the Study . . . . . 12 Definition of Terms . . . . . . 15 ~Assumptions Upon Which the Research is Based. . . . . . . . . 18 Delimitations of the Study. . . . . . 19 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . 21 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . 23 Introduction . . . . . . . . . 23 Purposes of a Systemwide Student Accident Reporting Program. . . . . . . 26 Uses of Accident Reporting, and Adminis— trative Procedures in Accident Reporting . . . . . . . 30 Negligence and Liability . . . . . . 35 Student Accident Report Forms. . . . . 42 Accident Report Summarization and Data Analysis. . . . . . . . . 46 Present Funding and Status of State Level Accident Reporting Programs . . . . 52 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Chapter Page III. PROCEDURES AND METHODS EMPLOYED IN THE STUDY. 58 Scope of the Study . . . . 58 Selecting the Population and Samples . . 58 Instrument Design. . . . . . . . . 61 Pretesting the Instrument . . . . . . 65 Survey Distribution and Response. . . . 66 Follow— —up Procedure . . . 66 Methods for Data Tabulation and Analysis . 67 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 IV. ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF SURVEY DATA . . 70 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 70 PART I: GENERAL SAFETY PROGRAM INFORMATION Legal Authority to Include Accident Pre- vention Programs . . . . . . . 73 Staff Persons Responsible for the Various Types of Accident Prevention Programs . 75 Number of Staff Persons Responsible for Accident Prevention Programs . . . . 78 Budgeting Funds for Accident Prevention ' PrOgrams. . . . . . . . . . 82 Administrative Guides for Accident Pre- vention Programs . . . . . . . 84 Curriculum Guides for Accident Prevention. 87 Inservice Programs in Accident Prevention. 90 Methods of Including Safety Education in the Curriculum. . . . . . . . . 92 Governmental Immunity Status Laws . . . 94 Support Groups for Accident Prevention. . 97 Federal Funds for Accident Prevention Programs. . . . . . . . 99 Administration of Accident Prevention Programs Defined in Job Descriptions . 101 Educational Levels at Which Accident Reporting Should be Conducted. . . . 104 PART II: ACCIDENT REPORTING PROCEDURES Types and Degrees of Accident Reporting . 106 Scope of Accident Reporting . . . . . 109 Types of Accident Report Forms . . . 112 Number of Surveyed Systems and the Per- centage Having Student Accident Reporting Programs . . . . . . 114 Methods of Processing Accident Data. . . 119 vi Chapter Page Manual Tabulation of Accident Data . . . 121 Distribution of Accident Report Summaries. 124 Projections for Systemwide Accident Reporting . . . . . . . . . 126 Recipients and Quality of Accident Data . 129 PART III: PROGRAM USES OF ANALYZED DATA Uses of Analyzed Student Accident Data. . 132 Special Studies Using Analyzed Accident Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Significant Areas Omitted from the Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . 139 PART IV: ACCIDENT REPORT FORM INFORMATION Items Included on Report Forms . . . . 145 Problems with Accident Report Forms. . . 155 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . 160 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 160 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Major Findings. . . . . . . . . . 165 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . 176 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Recommendations for Future Research. . . 187 Statewide Student Accident Reporting Model. . . . . . . . . . . . 188 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 APPENDICES. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 227 vii 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES Number and percentage of questionnaire returns . . . . . Responses of state and local school systems surveyed, expressed in Question #1 . . . . percentages: ReSponses of state and local school systems surveyed, expressed in Question #2 . . . Responses expressed in percentages: Responses of state and surveyed, expressed in Question #4 . . . . ReSponses of state and surveyed, expressed in Question #5 . . . . Responses of state and surveyed, expressed in Question #6 . . . . Responses of state and surveyed, expressed in Question #7 . . . . Responses of state and surveyed, expressed in Question #8 . . . . Responses of state and surveyed, expressed in Question #9 . . . . Responses of state and surveyed, expressed in Question #10. . . . percentages: Question local school percentages: local school percentages: local school percentages: local school percentages: local school percentages: local school percentages: local school percentages: viii of states and local school systems #3 o 0 systems systems systems Page 67 74 76 79 83 85 88 91 93 95 98 Table 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. ReSponses of state and surveyed, expressed in Question #11. . . . Responses of state and surveyed, expressed in Question #12. . . . Responses of state and surveyed, expressed in Question #13. . . . Responses of state and surveyed, expressed in Question #14. . . Responses of state and surveyed, expressed in Question #15. . . . ReSponses of state and surveyed, expressed in Question #16. . . . local school systems percentages: local school systems percentages: local school systems percentages: local school systems percentages: local school systems percentages: local school systems percentages: ReSponses of local school systems expressed in totals and percentages: Question #17 . ReSponses of state departments of education expressed in totals and percentages: Question #17. . . ReSponses of states and local school systems expressed in totals and percentage . . . Responses of state and surveyed, expressed in Question #18. . . . Responses of state and surveyed, expressed in Question #19. . . Responses of state and surveyed, expressed in Question #20. . . . ReSponses of state and surveyed, expressed in Question #21. . . . local school systems percentages: local school systems percentages: local school systems percentages: local school systems percentages: ix Page 100 102 105 108 110 113 115 116 117 120 122 125 127 Table 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Responses of state and local school systems surveyed, expressed in percentages: Question #22. . . . . . . . . . . ReSponses of state and local school systems surveyed, expressed in percentages: Question #23. . . . . . . . . . . Responses of states and local school systems expressed in percentages: Question 24 . . Responses of states and local school systems expressed in percentages: Question 25 . . Responses of local school systems expressed in percentages: Questions #26 to #56 . . Responses of state school systems expressed in percentages: Questions #26 to #56 . . ReSponses of state and local school systems expressed in percentages: Question #58. . Page 130 133 140 141 146 147 157 Appendix A. B. LIST OF APPENDICES Letter to Chief State School Officer . . . Letter to Superintendents of Schools . . . Cards Sent to State and Local Superintendents to Assess the Name of the Person Selected to Respond to the Questionnaire . . . . . . Letter to Chief State School Officers of States not Reporting to the National Safety Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter to State and Local Survey Respondents Designated to Complete the Questionnaire . . Letter to State Respondent Designated to Complete the Questionnaire in Those States Not Reporting to the National Safety Council. Survey Questionnaire for State Departments of Education . . . . . . . . . . . Survey Questionnaire for Selected School Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . Follow—up Letter to State and Local Super- intendents . . . . . . . . . . . . Thank-you Letter to State and Local Super- intendents and Designated Respondents . . . State and Local Responses to Openended Questions on Survey Questionnaire . . . . Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . Classifications and Population of Selected School Systems. . . . . . . . . . . Questionnaire Survey Return Chart . . . . xi Page 229 231 233 235 237 239 241 248 256 258 260 280 284 289 . v o»... u ". v 9'4, Appendix Page 0. L. F. Edward's Findings on Public School District Immunity Status in the United . States I O O O O O O O I O O O O 292 P. Questionnaire Respondents and their Titles . 294 xii VITA Name: Robert E. Costante Birthplace: Fairmont, West Virginia Birthdate: September 17, 1934 Elementary School: East Park Elementary Fairmont, West Virginia Secondary School: Central Junior High School and East Fairmont High School, Fairmont, West Virginia Undergraduate Studies: B.S., Fairmont State College Fairmont, West Virginia 1955-59 Graduate Studies: M.S., West Virginia University Morgantown, West Virginia 1959—60 Baylor University Medical School, Physical Medicine Dallas, Texas University of Florida, 1963 Gainsville, Florida Maryland University 1965-66 College Park, Maryland Frostburg State College, 1967 Frostburg, Maryland Towson State College, 1968-69 Towson, Maryland Ph.D., Michigan State Uni- versity, 1969 5.8., 1970-71 East Lansing, Michigan Military Experience: U.S. Navy, 1951-54; Tours of Duty--Europe, Africa, South America and Asia Minor xiii Teaching Experience: College and University Teaching Experience: Driver education instructor, football and basketball coach, Englewood Senior High School, Jacksonville, Florida 1961-62 Driver education instructor, football and basketball coach, Suwannee Senior High School, Live Oak, Florida, 1962—64. Athletic and recreation director, Florida Sheriffs' Boys Ranch, Suwannee County, Florida, 1962-64 Driver education instructor, football and baseball coach, High Point Senior High School, Greenbelt, Maryland, 1964-65 Athletic director; chairman and teacher of health and physical education depart- ment; football, wrestling and baseball coach; and driver education instructor, Suratts- ville Senior High School, Surrattsville, Maryland, 1965-67 State educational supervisor for driver and traffic safety education, Maryland State Department of Educ., Baltimore, Maryland, 1967-70 University of Maryland Graduate courses Towson State College, Maryland, Graduate courses Frostburg State College, Maryland, Graduate courses Salisbury State College, Maryland, Graduate courses xiv CHAPTER I NATURE OF THE PROBLEM Introduction The consequences of the accident problem in this nation are staggering. In terms of loss of human life, more than 115,000 human beings were killed in 1970 due to accidents. In addition, over 10,800,000 people suffered disabling injuries during this lZ-month period.l Aside from all the human losses and disabilities, there is still another loss, the economic loss to this nation-~a total of over $25 billion in the past year. These are not problems that have just happened this year or last; this slaughter has been going on for the past half century. The accidental death toll for the past ten years totals well over one million lives; of this number, approximately half, or 500,000 deaths, can be attributed to motor vehicle accidents.3 The economic loss to this country in the last ten years due to accidents has been $180 billion.4 1National Safety Council, Accident\Facts (Chicago: National Safety Council, 1970), p. l. V 2 3 Ibid. Ibid. 41bid. What the United States needs is a national commit— ment toward the elimination of these senseless losses. However, this is not the way of the American people; they are often indifferent and apathetic. One wonders how long this nation can go on ignoring the loss of its people and resources. The National Commission on Safety Education emphatically brought this out when it asserted that at the present rate, "It is estimated that one out of every two people will be killed or injured in an automobile acci- dent during his life time."5 The problem lies in the difficult task we face in changing the attitudes of people toward the seriousness of this national problem. There needs to be an effective way to make each citizen realize that accidents do not happen; they are caused by carelessness and inattention. Research indicates that if a student is afforded an effective safety education program that prepares him with the proper knowledge, skills, and attitudes, he will make more responsible decisions in unsafe situations.6 Research also shows that these basic attitudinal concepts, if learned early enough, are enduring and will continue into adult life.7 5National Commission on Safety Education, Driver Education (Washington, D.C.: National Education Associa- tion, 1961), p. l. 6 National Safety Council, "Why Teach Safety?" School Safety (Sept.—Oct., 1965), 7. 7 Ibid. The need to understand attitudes in relationship to the accident problem affects all human beings. Behavior is based upon attitudes, and guides the actions a person makes in a given situation. If we are to influence stu— dents' behavior to prevent accidents, we need a program of instruction from infancy through the pre-school period, followed by strong influence from the elementary grades through secondary school. Rather than trying to change a behavior, we must instill in the children behavioral reSponses that invoke low—risk decisions, rather than the high-risk ones that cause most accidents. We must design educational programs that will pre- pare our children to make safe decisions based on the con- cept of self—preservation. At the same time, we do not want to create educational programs that are void of adventure and true life experiences. A valid concept of safety does not mean banning potentially dangerous activities from whiCh stu- dents can obtain valuable knowledge and real world experience. We merely desire to eliminate an unsafe adventure and substitute one of higher qual— ity that will be more efficient and no less fun; in other words, an enjoyable, low—risk activity. _ An accident rarely has one cause. Most often it is caused by a combination of factors, and the accident would not have occurred if any one factor had not been 8Richard Bishop, "A Realistic Concept of Safety for the School Age Child" (paper presented at the National Eégig. Conference, Michigan State University, February 7, present; a sort of chain of events causes the accident. Therefore, the aim of an accident reduction program should be to break the chain of events which contributes to an accident. Some of the basic human causes of accidents are: (1) lack of attention, (2) lack of knowledge, (3) inade- quate perception, (4) a reduction of physical or mental capacities, and (5) projection of undesirable personal traits.9 An accident reduction program will have the greatest effect if there is an investigation of all facets of the accident and an attempt is made to eliminate those controllable factors in an accident. Understanding the human causes of accidents and designing programs and methods toward the eradication or reduction of this human dilemma are imperative needs. More than 50 years ago, Albert Whitney challenged the N.E.A. Delegate Assembly to provide all students with safety education programs to instill the proper attitudes 10 The one effective method of about human preservation. providing these programs, it appears, is through our edu- cational system. Many school officials, parents, and 9William Mann, "The Nature of the Problem Drivers" (paper presented at the Driver Improvement Conference, Michigan State University, December 15, 1965). 10Herbert Stack and J. Elkow, Education for Safe Livin (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-HaIl, Inc., 1966 , p. 4. community leaders have become increasingly aware of the need for schools to assume the responsibility in the effort to conserve human resources through an effective program of accident prevention in our schools. The dimensions of our task, as educators in the field of accident prevention, require that we reassess our responsibility in administering, instructing, and pro- tecting the 60 million students in our educational systems, with whose well—being we are entrusted for approximately 25 per cent of a student's day.11 Many administrators would argue that there is neither the time nor the justification for the inclusion of accident prevention programs in education. The reasons for, and reSponsibility of, accident prevention programs were presented in the first broad study of importance in this area of safety, a two-year study of procedures in the field, published by the Association of School Adminis- 12 trators. The findings of a study committee of the Safety Education Supervisors section of the National llU.S., Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, Public School Attendance, Teachers and Expenditures (Washington, D.C. Government Printing OffIce, 1970), p. 1. lemerican Association of School Administrators, Safety Educatidn, Eighteenth Yearbook of the American Association of School Administrators (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1940), pp. 356-361. Safety Council further justified the inclusion of accident prevention programs in the curriculums.l3 Accident prevention programs have been in the cur- riculum since 1919, as shown by Stack and Elkow.l4 Despite this early beginning and the proven validity of their effectiveness, accident prevention programs have not had total acceptance in the public schools. This failure has been caused by general apathy of school administrators at all levels as they have failed to provide the necessary support for developing comprehensive programs of accident prevention throughout the school systems. If educators were to lose their governmental immunity and be held accountable for their actions, or the lack of them, they would be more responsive to the nation's need for safety education. In essence, this means educa- tional administrators would be required to design workable programs of accident prevention to meet students' needs. This would include primary prevention-~averting accidents entirely, and secondary prevention—~reducing the serious- ness of an accident or injury after it has occurred. The accident problem demands both individual and collective effort to meet the responsibility of developing 13National Safety Council, "Basic Principles for Safety Education," Safetnyducation (December, 1955), 12-13. If 14Stack and Elkow, op. cit., p. 9. viable programs so that students will have the ability to cope with existing and potential hazards in their environ- ment. To evaluate whether an educator lives up to his responsibilities in providing for the safety and welfare of his students perhaps can best be accomplished through an assessment of the students' personal injuries. There is no more effective way of doing this than through a student accident reporting system, be it accountability of the educator at the school, district, or state level. In order to establish an effective student acci- dent reporting system, there must be a plan to organize, design, and execute a systemwide program. That is the purpose of this study-—to determine the present student accident reporting systems at the state and local levels in order to design a model statewide student accident report- ing system. In designing a program to attack the accident problem, the educator must know some of the causes of accidents in the school environment. Harper provided three primary classifications of accident causes: (1) un— safe conditions, (2) unsafe acts or practices, and (3) un— 15 safe personal factors. To further support these, 15George Harper, "Campus Accident Problems," Safety Education (February, 1955), 13-14. Lawson compiled an extensive list of frequent sources of accidents.16 The design of a systemwide accident reporting pro— gram must be approached as a management responsibility, and scientific methods utilized for accident reduction assessment. This can best be accomplished through an effective system of data collection of all accidents that occur throughout the system. Thus, another purpose of this study is to demonstrate the need for designing a computer-managed system for data collection, processing, and analysis for the improvement of accident prevention programs in the schools. Ultimately, the proposed computer-managed accident reporting system would provide educators with instant data on various activities in the curriculum as to their accident frequency and potential. The availability of this information would enhance the probability that educational decisions would be based on objective data. This proposed method would be used to integrate curriculum change for accident prevention and reduction by providing educators with essential informa— tion on student accidents. Stack and Elkow supported the need for objective accident data by reporting that, "If agencies secured more 16Douglas Lawson, School Administration Procedure and Policy (New York: Odyssey Press, 1953), pp. 49-51. accurate and more reliable data, it would be possible for the researcher to delve more deeply into the basic causes 17 The functions of an accident reporting of accidents." program are to collect, summarize, and analyze the sys- tem's accident reports in order to assess the causes of accidents for the purpose of preventing or reducing need— less accidents. Accident data can be analyzed further for curriculum modification and improvement. Adequate accident prevention programs must be designed by educators to eliminate or reduce student acci- dents, if not because of their special in loco parentis responsibilities, then for their own protection. As indi- cated by Stack and Elkow, a student accident reporting system can be used as a defensive system in case of law- suits resulting from an accident or injury, or as a pro- tective device in the sense that teachers and school boards are provided with a basis for an effective defense if a negligence suit is brought against them.18 Further support for the development of a syste- matic procedure for collecting, processing, analyzing, and utilizing student accident data for the prevention of 17Stack and Elkow, op. cit., p. 33. lBIbid., p. 65. 10 accidents was provided in studies by Aaron,19 Gilliland,20 21 22 23 Kralovec, Miskow, and Williams. Statement of the Problem Purpose The purpose of this study is to survey State Departments of Education and selected school systems to determine their methods of student accident reporting for the purpose of designing a model statewide student acci— dent reporting system. Essential Objectives 1. To determine the procedures, methods, and techniques employed by state departments of education in program development fOr the collection, processing, analyz- ing and utilization of student accident information. 19James Aaron, "A Study of Supervisory Practices in Safety Education in Selected Cities in the United Statesr (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York Uni— versity, 1960), pp. 100—107. 20Lonnie Gilliland, "Practices in Safety Educa— tion in Systems of Selected Cities in the United States" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1955), P. 3. 21Dalibor Kralovec, "The Role of the Building Safety Coordinator," Safety Education (December, 1958), 6e7. 22Frank Miskow, "You're in Charge," School Safety (Jan. and Feb., 1970), 12—13. 23J. Williams, C. Brownell, and E. Vernier, The Administration of Health and Physical Education(New York: W. B. Saunders Co., 1964), p. 51. 2. 11 To determine the procedures, methods, and tech- niques employed by selected school systems in collecting, processing, data. 3. analyzing, and utilizing student accident To design a model student accident reporting system that may be incorporated as a statewide program. Subordinate Objectives 1. To assess the types of student accident report- ing being conducted at state and local levels. To assess the uses made of summarized and analyzed data of student accidents. To assess specific information obtained on student accident reporting forms. To assess processing procedures and data analysis. To make specific research assessments of the essential variables that are included on the survey instrument. a. Is there legal authority to include acci- dent prevention programs in the systems? b. Is there adequate professional staff responsible for the activity of accident prevention through data analysis? c. What are the methods of funding the various programs? 12 d. Are the various programs mandatory or voluntary? e. Are there administrative and curriculum guides available within the systems? f. What are the variables within the system» wide programs? 9. What kinds of inservice programs are pro~ vided throughout the various selected state and local school systems? h. What are the various methods of including the programs of accident prevention within the systems? i. What is the status of state and local school systems regarding governmental immunity doctrine laws? j. What are the variables of accident report- ing procedures? k. What are the variables of administrative responsibilities? Justification for the Study The justification for the inclusion of a statewide student accident reporting program is quite evident, when one understands the accident problems that affect school age youngsters. In the age group 5 to 9 years, accidents cause more deaths than the next seven causes combined. In 13 the next age group, 10 to 14 years, accidents cause three times as many deaths as the next cause. In the age group 15 to 19 years, accidents cause more than six times as many deaths as the next cause of death. In a year's time, more than 24,000 school children in this country lose their lives in needless accidents.24 Educational institutions can reduce the number of accidental deaths and injuries among children and staff, but a systematic, vigorous, and effective accident pre- vention program is necessary. Not all accidents can, or will be prevented, but present accident prevention pro- grams throughout the country attest to the value of an organized program in reducing injuries and deaths in the nation's schools. The problem requires leadership with vision and organizational teamwork; these are the effec— tive ingredients for a successful program. The most important element of an accident pre- vention program is the system for reporting accidents. Its prime importance is in the areas of prevention and correction. It is also significant when there is need for a legal accounting for the causes of accidents. An important component of any program to reduce or eliminate accidents was effectively stated: 24National Safety Council, Accident gacts, p. 89. 14 One of the most effective devices in plotting to eliminate accidents is an accident reporting sys- tem. Accident reporting services establish acci- dent facts which provide the impetus for corrective action, thereby helping to insure against the repe- tition of accidents. The reasons for establishing a statewide accident reporting system were eloquently stated by J. W. Edgar, Commissioner of Education in Texas, in 1968: The schbol administrator of today has a major goal in accident prevention, along with the reduc— tion of injuries and accidents. The use of an accident reporting system, established as a part of a well-balanced safety program, can decidedly help attain this goal, for accident reporting is the keystone of all safety programming. The schools of Texas must take an active role in accident prevention and there should be a well- planned and comprehensive program for accident reporting with data properly evaluated. The safety education curriculum must be designed in relation to this program's findings. Improvement in the school environment and effec- tive and realistic curriculum planning, will help reduce the number of accidents and injuries. The schools have the Opportunity to reduce accidents and to coordinate school, home and community coop- eration toward an improved, total safety program. It is important to provide the best possible preparation for accident reporting, safety pro- cedures, and safety education for the school system and the community. 5 Texas now has a statewide accident reporting program involving over 1,200 school districts. It is this type of 25Joseph Dzenowagis, "An Accident Reporting Sys- tem, Why Bother?" Journal of Health, Physical Education and Recreation (Feb., 1962), 2. 26D. L. Hunt, "Quantitative Paradigms of Adminis- trative Rates for Accident Prevention in Selected Texas Public Schools" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Texas Techn. College, 1969), Appendix. 15 commitment that must be made by all educational leaders in this country. The administration must formulate and actively support the program, create interest among the teachers, and guide program procedures. It is hoped that through effective analysis of present programs, sufficient information can be obtained for the design of an effective model for states to use in implementing statewide student accident reporting pro- grams in their systems to reduce the number of accidents. Definition of Terms Accident. An unforeseen event or occurrence that happens without the will or design of the person or per— sons involved in the event; an unusual, unexpected, or undesigned happening. Full—time Staff in Safety Education. The person who is hired by the educational system, who may be titled "Safety Director, Supervisor, or Coordinator," who devotes 100 per cent of his time to supervising, directing, coor- dinating, and administering the total school safety edu- cational program. Governmental Immunity. Immunity from tort actions enjoyed by governmental subdivisions in common—law states. Injury. A wrong or damage done to another, either to his person, rights, reputation, or property. 16 In Loco Parentis. Being charged with some of the parents' rights and re5ponsibilities in the place of the parent. In-service Programs. Educational programs con— ducted by the state or local educational agency, designed to provide informational programs that may be offered in the areas of administrative, instructional, or protective programs. These programs could be offered to professional staff, nonprofessional staff, and/or students (such as student aides or crossing guards). Liability. The state of being bound in law and justice to do something which may be enforced by legal action. Liable. Bound or obliged in law or equity; responsible; chargeable; answerable; compelled to make satisfaction, compensation, or restitution. Negligence. The omission of doing something which a reasonable or prudent man, guided by those normal con- siderations which ordinarily regulate human affairs, would do; or the doing of something which a reasonable or pru- dent man would not do. Nonschool Jurisdictional Accidents. Includes all accidents not occurring under the jurisdiction or sponsor- ship of the school. Part—time Staff in Safety Education. A staff person who is hired by the educational agency to perform 17 the same activities as a full—time person, but who only contributes a portion of his time to these reSponsibili— ties. Planned. A program that is designed or is being prepared to be implemented into the system. Recordable Accident. An accident which (1) re- sults in a pupil injury severe enough to cause the student to lose one-half day or more of school time, (2) is severe enough to cause the loss of one-half day or more of pupil activity during nonschool time, or (3) does property damage as a result of a school jurisdictional accident. Reportable Accident. (1) Any school jurisdic- tional accident that results in any injury to a pupil and/or property damage, or (2) any nonschool jurisdic- tional accident which results in injury causing restric- tion of activity to the pupil. Safetngoordinator. Staff person located within a particular school, who is responsible for carrying out the administrative policies and procedures of the school and the system. His work in the school is to work with teachers, students, and the administration in all areas and facets of safety and accident prevention programs. Safety Education. The coordination of adminis- trative practices and instructional techniques in a com- prehensive program designed to reduce accidents and con— serve human and material resources. 18 School Jurisdictional Accidents. Those accidents which occur on school property, to pupils enroute to or from school, or during school-Sponsored activities away from school property. Staff Member in Safety Education Administration. A staff person responsible for the development or determi— nation of administrative policy and procedures, regarding the over-all safety education program for the entire state or local school system. He directs the safety activities within his system. State Department of Education. Includes all chief state educational agencies in each state; this is due to the many titles of the 50 state educational agencies in the United States. System. Refers to: (1) a statewide educational organization and all of its local subsystems, or (2) the local school district including all of its schools. 3255. A legal wrong committed to the person or property of another. Assumotions Upon Which the Research in Based 1. Accident prevention programs are a necessary part of a student's educational experience. 2. Accident prevention programs should be inte- grated into the general curriculum offerings of K through 12 in this country. 19 3. Student accident reporting programs are a necessity if a true evaluation of the accident prevention programs is to be made. Student accident reporting is an effective method of assessing the causes of accidents, and can be used to develop methods of prevention or reduction of school accidents. 4. A model accident prevention program can be designed through the assessment of present student acci- dent reporting programs. 5. A model student accident reporting program can be developed from the relevant literature and the data analyzed in the survey. Delimitations of the Study One hundred twenty-eight survey questionnaires were sent to 50 state departments of education, and to a group of 78 selected school systems. The following specific delimitations were within the scope of the survey. 1. The study was limited to data provided by the responding state departments of education and selected local school systems. 2. Data from the responding state departments of education and local school systems was that presented by authorized staff members designated by various state and local superintendents. 20 3. The selected local school systems were chosen from those reporting to the National Safety Council's summary of student accidents for 1965-68. 4. The selection of school systems was limited to one from each of three classifications for each state. The three classifications were based on the population of the area in which the school system was located: (a) 500,000 and above; (b) 100,000 to 499,999; and (c) 99,999 and below. The largest school system within each of the three classifications was selected. 5. In the 13 states not having a community report- ing to the National Safety Council, a copy of the local questionnaire was sent to the state department of educa- tion, along with the state copy. In turn, the designated state reapondent was asked to select a school system in his state which he felt had the most efficient student accident reporting system. 6. Only public school systems in the 50 states were included in the study. 7. Only data collected from the survey question- naire and information gained from the literature reviewed were included in the study. 8. The study was limited to data collected during the summer of 1971. 9. Within the survey questionnaire, some questions provided for an Option of more than one response. Therefore, some tables showing percentage totals will exceed 100%. .- 21 Overview Chapter I has included an introduction to the problem to be researched, including the importance of the study, the purpose, objectives, and justification of the study, definition of terms used, assumptions upon which the research was based, and limitations of the study. Chapter II is an extensive review of the litera- ture related to student accident reporting systems and functions. Included in Chapter III are the methodology and procedures utilized in the various phases of the prepara- tion of the survey instrument and its revision, the survey technique, and the investigation. Included are procedures used for mailing and follow-up of the survey questionnaire, a complete review of methods used in data tabulation and analysis, and a summary. A presentation of data collected and a complete analysis of the four survey areas of both studies and their results are found in Chapter IV. The four program areas are: (1) general safety program information, (2) state and local school systems' accident reporting procedures, (3) program uses of analyzed data, and (4) accident reporting form informa;ion. The chapter con- cludes with a summary of specific findings. 22 Chapter V contains the summary, major findings, conclusions, discussions, implications for future research, and a recommended model program plan for a statewide stu- dent accident reporting system. 01 ~ I CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction An extensive search was made into the literature related to student accident reporting. It was found that few research studies have been conducted in the area of student accident reporting, and the few that were done were not directly related to deve10ping systems of accident reporting. It is not the purpose of this chapter to review the field of safety education, but rather to examine several areas related to school accidents which appear significant to this research, particularly student acci- dent reporting programs and the procedures for designing them. The majority of literature related to this investi- gation was found to be other than research based. The major portion of literature was found to be in the form of reports and speeches, and recommendations arising from professional meetings, conferences and seminars. A few theses, dissertations, survey studies, and other like re- search contributions were reviewed. 23 0|. 24 Throughout much of the literature reviewed, refer— ence was made to the need for establishing student acci- dent reporting programs in public school systems in order to assess the accident prevention programs in effect, or to eliminate or reduce the accident rate. Less obvious in the literature reviewed was information on specific exist- ing programs in student accident reporting. This indi- cates the need and the justification for this study. To design an effective accident reporting system, we must first understand and define what constitutes an accident. wynn said, "An accident is an unexpected event which occurs to an individual as he engages in normal pursuits, and which leads to physical injury or property damage."1 Hadden and others presented this definition: An accident is the chain of events and circum- stances leading to unintended injury. Injuries resulting from known or obvious intent on the part of either the injured or another person are not counted as accidental injuries. When no injury results, the event is not considered an accident. The American Standards Association stated briefly, "An accident is an event which results in physical harm to a person." It went on further to include traumatic lWillis wynn, "An Epidemiological Analysis of Student Accidents" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Uni- versity of Utah, 1968), Abstract. - 2W. Hadden, E. Suchman, and D. Klein, Accident Research (New York: Harper Row, 1964). p. 148. 25 injury and disease, as well as adverse mental, neurologi- cal, or systemic effects resulting from exposure or cir- cumstances encountered in the course of employment or activity.3 A definition that is widely accepted is, "An acci- dent is an unplanned and uncontrolled event in which the action or reaction of an object, substance, person, or radiation results in personal injury."4 As quoted by Stack and Elkow, "An accident [is] an unplanned not necessarily injurious or damaging event, which interrupts the completion of an activity, and is invariably preceded by an unsafe act and/or unsafe condi- tions."5 A Columbia University-sponsored safety research project devised this interpretation of an accident, as reported by WYnn: By an accident we generally mean an event which is unintended, unexpected and which gen- erally hurts somebody. Accidents are caused-- and the cause will, more than not, involve an action by the victim himself; but, while acci- dents have causes, it is seldom that these causes are readily apparent to the victim or anyone else prior to the accident. We are seldom able to foresee with certainty that an injurious event will occur. We see rather, that there is probability that it will occur. This uncertainty is fundamental to the accident problem. . 3Stack and Elkow, op. cit., p. 293. 4 5 Ibid. Ibid. 61bid. 26 Thus far we have presented a definitive framework for accidents; next we must move toward designing a system of accident reporting. Since the educational system is responsible for students 25 per cent of the day, then it is morally and legally the duty of the system to design and manage a program of protection for them while in the schools' custody. Presented in the following section are some of the purposes of a total systemwide accident re- porting program. Purposes of a Systemwide Student Accident Reporting Program A total systemwide accident prevention program must include the following four functions if it is to operate effectively: (1) the administration of the sys- tem's accident prevention program must concern itself with adequate leadership in a systemwide accident report- ting program; (2) the instruction program should cover all areas of accident prevention; (3) a protection system should provide protection through adequate safeguards by coordinated planning, engineering, inspection, and evalua- tion through analysis; and (4) the total program should be based upon a well-planned and coordinated accident report- ing system, which would provide an evaluation of the effectiveness of the prevention program.7 7Da1ibor Kralovec, "A Total School," Safety (NOV."DeC. ' 1965) I 8-10. QII 27 Presented next are the views of some of the out- standing leaders in accident prevention, concerning the need for a systemwide approach toward evaluation of acci- dent prevention programs within the curriculum and the elements in designing and implementing a systemwide acci- dent reporting and analysis program. Dr. Yost, of the University of West Virginia, felt that: Basic to any safety program is an adequate system of accident reporting. Only through a sound investigation and reporting system can leadership be exerted to guide in the formation of administrative policy, to improve facilities and equipment, to allow for program development and evaluation, to serve as a legal protection, and above all, to prevent recurrences of acci- dents through corrective action. Jean Proetsch, formerly of the National Commission on Safety Education, stated that: Accident record keeping is more than busy work; its basic purpose is to provide informa- tion for support of a safety education program for all children and school employees. Accident reports are necessary for the safe and efficient operation of school systems as well as for the protection and education of the students. In addition to the use of such reports to reduce and prevent needless accidents, carefully ana- lyzed reports have far-reaching implications for buildings, equipment, and school management, as well as for curriculum practices. 8Peter Yost, "Better Leadership, The Key to Safety in Athletics," Safety (Jan.-Feb., 1967), 8-11. 9Jean Proetsch, "An Analysis of Accident Report Forms Used by Public School Systems" (unpublished Master's thesis, American University, 1965), p. 50. 28 Accident reporting is the element within the total accident prevention system which will provide a basis upon which to evaluate the program. It tells the what, who, when, where, how, and why of each accident that occurs within the system. It is an effective method for curricu- lum improvement and change, and is undoubtedly the most effective method for accident reduction in the schools. Jewett cited accidental trauma as being the most common cause of death in school age children, and stated that it is extremely important to collect further factual data in the epidemiology of injuries, so that further gains can be made in accident prevention.10 The systematic accumulation of school and non- school jurisdictional accident and injury data can provide the school superintendent with information upon which to base: (1) curriculum guidance to educate the child for safe living; (2) a realistic evaluation of safety pro- grams' efforts on a regular basis; (3) changes in build- ing structure and facilities, or procedures to improve the environment of the school system; (4) organizational and administrative improvements to strengthen the management aspects of the safety program; (5) a strong public rela- tions program, thus lessening public demands for crash loTheodore Jewett, M.D., "Accidental Trauma in the School Age Child," The Journal of School Health (June, 1962), 203. 29 programs of little value if an unusual incident occurs; (6) a strong leadership role in community safety efforts; (7) an assessment of the costs of accidents and injuries and their relationship to the operating expenses of the school system.11 Stack and Elkow further supported this view by stating that accident rates provide a base from which to measure the effectiveness of a safety education program and serve as a basis for revision of the program or cur- riculum.12 Herman Rosenthal pointed out that completion of accident reports is the function and duty of the teacher. He further focused attention on the fact that a teacher should not attempt to color or distort and indicated that the report should be submitted within 24 hours and not later than 48 hours, unless extenuating circumstances arise.l3 Accident records are an important element of the accident prevention program. The records need to be 11National Safety Council, Student Accident Reporting Guidebook (Chicago: National Safety Council, I966), p. lo 12 Stack and Elkow, op. cit., p. 29. 13City of New York Board of Education, Proceed- ings of the City Wide Conference with Principals' Repre- sentatives of Men and Women Chairmen of Health Education (New York: Bureau of Health Education, 1953), p. 23. 30 maintained and tabulated for studying the causes of acci- dents, and for planning and updating the accident preven- tion programs in the curriculum. Marshall, in his study, found that the majority of school systems have a complete accident reporting system that includes professional staff and nonprofessional members.l4 Uses of Accident Reporting, and Administrative Procedures in Accident Reporting At the 1959 National Safety Congress, George Silverwood, one of the early leaders in the accident pre- vention and reporting movement, stated a number of facts that should be considered in administering the accident reporting system.15 In order to have an effective accident reporting system, there must be a well-coordinated organizational and administrative plan. Stack and Elkow presented some administrative procedures that are fundamental in deve10p- ing a systemwide accident reporting program.16 14Robert Marshall, "Analysis of Safety Education Programs in Selected Public Schools of the United States" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Kansas University, 1961), p. 67. 15George Silverwood, "The Most Important Accident Facts," National Safety Congress Transactions, Vol. 23 (Chicago: NatIOnal Safety Council, 1959), p. 64. léStack and Elkow, Op. cit., p. 292. 31 The success of a systemwide student accident reporting program lies in the hands of the safety super- visor. Zaun presented a job analysis of the activities necessary for the collection, analysis, and use of data from accident reports as based on the findings of a study conducted by the National Safety Council and was reviewed for pOssible use.17 Some responsibilities of the safety supervisor in developing a systemwide accident reporting program were presented by Nevin Wasson, Safety Supervisor of Kansas City Public Schools.18 The following suggestions were recommended for principals in using accident statistics to implement the accident prevention program. 1. As the basis for talks to parent groups. 2. As informational background for articles in the school newspaper. 3. As a source of information in developing a safety handbook for parents, teachers and students. 4. As the basis for lists of safety regulations for the school shop and gymnasium. 5. As a guide for incorporation of safety instruc- tion into the school curriculum. 6. To assist teacher understanding of good super- visory practices as related to the protection of the child. 7. As the basis for projects for the junior safety patrol or the student council.19 17Cecil Zaun, "Wanted: A Job Analysis for Safety Supervisors," Safety Education (April, 1957), 22-23. 18Nevin Wasson, "Supervisors in Safety EduCation, Safety (March-April, 1966), 16-18. 19National Safety Council, I‘It's More Than a Report," Safety Education (March, 1965), 27. 32 The following are recommended responsibilities of the safety coordinator in accident prevention and accident reporting programs. 1. Assist the principal in organizing a safety program in their respective schools. 2. See that safety assemblies are presented in each school building at least three times a year. 3. Provide first aid and safety lectures and courses for administrators, staff, and other school personnel. 4. Inspect school buildings three to four times a year for safety hazards and/or unsafe condi- tions. 5. Obtain from each school building a thorough annual record of the number of accidents, their causes and locations. 6. Investigate the causes of these accidents. 7. Formulate recommendations from accident data. 8. Follow up on these recommendations by elimi- nating hazards and/or causes and by establish- ing safety rules and regulations for all school buildings.20 D. L. Hunt presented five areas in which the administrator is involved in accident reporting: 1. Accident prevention planning through student accident reports. 2. Administering the accident report system. 3. Improving the safety features of the environ- ment by analyzing accident data. 4. Improving the accident prevention programs through analysis of school accidents. 20Marlene Bieber, "The Causes and Prevention of Safety Hazards and Accidents and the Liability Involved in the Public School Systems Throughout the U.S.," National Safety Congress Transactions (Chicago: National Safety Council, 1967), p. 102. 33 5. Improving community relations and their sup- port efforts through effective use of acci- dent summaries and their analysis.21 The teacher's responsibility in accident reporting is most crucial, and there should be an organized plan of execution in the event of an emergency injury or illness to a student. Following is a suggested plan of action: (1) have and know your plan of action; (2) maintain a supply of accident report forms and prepare them after the situation has been controlled and when time permits; (3) assess the situation and remain calm; (4) give aid to the injured and provide comfort and aid-~medica1 or other—- within your capabilities and responsibilities; (5) send for assistance if needed, such as the administrator, nurse, equipment, etc.; (6) control or correct the acci- dent scene, be it students or the environment; (7) com- pletely fill out the accident report form and return to predesignated person within 24 hours; (8) make curriculum or environmental changes, whatever was the cause of the accident. Fill out a report for needed repairs, if the accident report form does not provide for this; (9) be sure to provide adequate follow-up after each accident analysis to prevent recurrence of the mishap; (10) if the 21D. L. Hunt, "Quantitative Paradigms of Adminis- trative Responsibilities for Accident Prevention in Selected Texas Public Schools" (unpublished Ph.D. disser- tation, Texas Technological College, 1969), pp. 76-79. 34 immediate cause of the accident is unknown, a special study of the occurrence may provide some insight as to the cause; (11) make note to replenish your first aid supplies if used and if you are responsible for them; (12) it should be your plan to do a safety check of your teaching area each morning; for laboratory teachers-- physical education, science, home economics, shop, etc.-- this should be very thorough and include all machines and equipment; (13) the teacher in leadership capacity at the time of the accident should maintain a file and record of report forms on all personal injuries for future corrections in curriculum or environment, or for possible negligence suits brought against him due to injury. Dr. Joseph Dzenowagis, of Michigan State Uni- versity's Health, Physical Education and Recreation Depart- ment, suggested that teachers be more aware of the fre- quency of accidents in their aCtivity. He listed the accident information that should be known: Instructors should know the accident frequency of each activity that he teaches or supervises. These are: A) the injury frequency rate; B) the injury severity rate; C) the parts of the body most-frequently injured; D) the types of injury most likely to occur; E) the probable causes of injury. The instructors and supervisors should then be prepared to employ appropriate accident 35 prevention measures for the accidents that are likely to occur in the activity they teach.22 A publication by Byrd stated the ways that stu- dent participation could immeasurably improve a school accident prevention program: (1) program planning for accident reduction, (2) student accident prevention leadership, (3) safety inspections for causes of acci— dents, (4) hazard hunts through the use of analyzed accident data, (5) accident reporting procedures, (6) analysis of accidents and near accidents, and (7) cor- recting physical hazards found through data analysis. "Beyond having the administration and the faculty set an example of concern and leadership in accident prevention, the most effective contribution schools can make is to actually involve the students."23 The administrator, for his own protection as well as for those within his organization, must become acutely aware of his professional liability due to negligence. This tOpic will be explored next. Negligence and Liability The review of literature in the area of student accidents and liability involved in public educational 22Joseph Dzenowagis, "Accidents and Injuries in College Physical Education Programs for Men," National Safety Congress Transactions, Vol. 23 (Chicago: National Safety Council, 1962), p. 111. 23Oliver Byrd, School Health Administration (New York: W. B. Saunders Co., 1964), pp. 422-424. 36 systems in this country is an important aspect of this study, and the area that shows the greatest depth of research in accident reporting. The great concern of educators in accident report- ing programs stems from two major causes. One is the physical welfare of pupils; the second is liability. It is a disturbing thought to be liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars due to a lawsuit for personal injury and property damage, which may happen when an accident occurs in the execution of one's duties as an educator doing public service. These are frightening concerns of educators today, who are faced with the changing attitude of the public regarding the accident situation in the nation's public schools. A greater responsibility than ever before is being placed on the schools and their professional staff for providing increased safety for children. Providing safety is becoming increasingly more difficult with the extended programs, a larger percentage of the student body taking part in more vigorous activities, the use of more mechanized equipment in the schools, and the over- crowding in the classrooms. All these elements go into making the school environment a much more dangerous place in which to be. Research findings by Bieber indicated that a higher rate of accidents to school-age children occur 37 under the jurisdiction of school than any other place.24 Although educators have long been concerned about pupil injuries, a study of the accident situation in many school 'systems shows that there needs to be renewed effort to cope with the accident problem.25 The question is asked, "Why is there a greater tendency to hold educators financially liable for injuries to the pupils with whom they are entrusted?" The present philosophy is that when a tort is committed, it is ex- pected that the person who was responsible or negligent will be ruled to pay for such damages as may be deemed appr0priate by the courts. The philOSOphy of compensating those receiving the damage in an accident really began to take hold in this country when the state of Maryland passed the first 26 This law made it Workmen's Compensation Law in 1902. mandatory for industry to compensate the employee for an - accident that had occurred while in performance of his duty. The public is now holding the educator responsible for his acts, and if he is considered negligent in the performance of his duties, he will be brought before a 24Bieber, op. cit., p. 2. ZSIbid. 26 Stack and Elkow, oo. cit., p. 6. 38 civil court for the purpose of defending himself against a case of negligence. If it can be proven that the defendant (the educator) failed to act as a reasonably prudent person would act under similar circumstances, he can be held liable. The courts are beginning to rule in favor of the injured person. This is chiefly because the law requires children to attend school, and neither the parent nor the student has any individual control over the school environ- ment.27 This was also shown by Knaak as he described a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling in 1967: It must be borne in mind that the relationship between the child and school authorities is not a voluntary one, but is compelled by law. The child must attend school and is subject to school rules and discipline. In turn, the school author— ities are obligated to take reasonable precautions for his safety and well-being.28 A greater number of cases are brought before the court each year by persons seeking damages for alleged negligent acts of school districts and their personnel.29 However, in most cases the plaintiff is confronted with the age-old rule that school districts are not liable for the negligence of their employees while acting in a 27Harry Rosenfield, "School Liability," National Safety.§ongress Transactions, Vol. 23 (Chicago: National Safety Council, 1962), p. 8. 28William Knaak, School District Tort Liability in the 70's (St. Paul, Minn.: Morfis Publishing Co., 1970) I p. I. 29 Ibid. 39 governmental capacity. This governmental immunity in the United States originated from the English common law that "the King can do no wrong." It is ironic that the English courts abrogated governmental immunity years ago, but it still exists in the majority of the states today.30 However, there is a growing trend throughout the country by both the courts and the state legislatures that governmental immunity be abrogated and that the indi- vidual injured in a school accident, due to the willful act or negligence of the school district or its employees, should have an equal right of restitution as one injured due to the negligent acts of a private enterprise or its employees. In an effort to assess the immunity status of public school systems in the United States, L. F. Edwards conducted a nationwide survey of state departments of edu- cation in 1969 to determine their particular status of immunity in five specific areas. Listed are questions assessed on the survey. 1. Do the public school districts in your state have governmental immunity for liability? 2. Does this immunity apply only to governmental activities or does it apply also to any pro- prietary activities of school districts? 3. Are board members and employees immune? 4. Was the immunity created by the legislature or is it maintained by court decision? 30L. F. Edwards, Public School District Immunity Status in the United States (Chicago: Kemper Insurance Group, 1969), p. l. 40 5. Does your immunity apply to pupil tranSpor— tation?31 In summarizing Edwards' findings of public school governmental immunity, a total of 35 states have immunity; 21 also grant preprietory immunity. In 27 states, the immunity status is defined by statute. Of the 27, 11 states have no immunity. Of these 11, 8 are defined by statute and the courts have abrogated immunity in 3 of the states.32 A complete listing of states and how they reSponded to his survey is included in Appendix 0. In view of the fact that losing governmental immunity in the public school systems correlates to a greater need for establishing a systemwide student acci- dent reporting program, the need for a model plan is imperative. The administrator holds a less vulnerable posi- tion than the teacher in liability cases. Although court cases involving pupil injuries are not uncommon, seldom is legal responsibility charged to the school administrator; this covers the positions of the superintendent through the other administrative staff such as the supervisor and the principal. The lawsuits instigated by injured pupils usually name the person directly concerned with the mis- hap, such as the teacher or a nonprofessional school Bllbid. 321bid., p. 2. 41 employee. Many times the school board is joined with the teacher as co-defendant, due to the board's position as the employer and its responsibility for the teacher's act.33 Like a teacher, an administrator can be held liable for his own personal acts of negligence or wrong- doing under general principles of tort law. If he is re- sponsible for promulgation of rules or regulations of adequate supervision and fails to implement or design such action, he may be negligent. However, liability is not imposed on an administrator due to negligent or wrongful acts of a subordinate, even though he may hire teachers and other school employees, and supervise their performance and activities. It has been established that the school board is the employer of the teacher.34 The professional responsibility of the educator is to provide his pupils and his staff with a safe school environment which is free of hazards, and to initiate procedures and practices that promote accident prevention programs to reduce or eliminate pupil and employee accidents. This can be accomplished by: (l) requiring all school accidents to be promptly reported 33National Commission on Safety Education, Who is Liable for Pupil Injuries? (Washington, D.C.: N.E.A., 1963), p. 29. 34 Ibid. 42 and investigated, and (2) initiating a complete system of accident reporting and analysis.35 It is felt that using accident data for legal pur- poses is indeed valid and necessary. However, it should not be the sole or main purpose for collecting accident data. The most important reason is for analyzing the causes of accidents in order to prevent future accidents. Proetsch supported this view in her study: Much more emphasis is placed on accident record keeping for insurance purposes or to pro- tect school personnel in case of litigation than to improve the safety education program. In my Opinion, this is an appalling indictment against administrators of the involved schools. Schools that follow such head-in-the-sand practices simply miss the point of accident reports.36 Student Accident Report Forms In order to analyze school jurisdictional acci- dents completely, a complete report must be made on every accident that occurs within the school jurisdiction. Such reports are a means of improving and revitalizing the accident prevention curriculum. It will also assist the administration in making desirable modifications in the use, maintenance, and structure of equipment, buildings, and play areas. Dzenowagis stated that: The form to use for accident reporting is the form which best suits the needs of the particular 351bid., p. 32. 36Proetsch, Op. cit., p. 10. 43 school or department. Standard forms may be limiting, but whether a standard form is selected or is especially prepared, it should be done by the people intimately involved in the accident reporting system. . . . In the final analysis of an accident, the who, what, when, where, and how have little meaning with— out the yhy. The‘HEture Of an accident report is limited unless the last action is included in the report. It is upon the evaluation of the factual information derived from accident reports that the findings are established and conclusions are based.3 Proetsch found that: No matter how simple or complex the report form is, the use to which it is put is the key factor in improving safety in the schools. If the form is not used, it will provide no information. It matters not how accurately the forms are filled out, the reporting system will have missed its mark if the information is not analyzed and the findings applied to curriculum and physical plant changes. In Proetsch's study of report forms used by schools, 80 school systems were surveyed. Each was to supply a sample of the form they used. Of those tacted, 39 sent report forms; of this number, about (10) were forms-prepared by nonschool agencies, and of these were specific forms for insurance purposes. public asked con— 25% many 39 Proetsch felt that if accident reports are to pro-' vide information on school activities and to support safety education and accident prevention programs, 37Dzenowagis, Op. cit., p. 111. 38Jean Proetsch, "Accident Reporting," Safety (Nov.-Dec., 1967), 9. 39 Ibid., p. 10. 44 reporting procedures must be designed with and by the schools to meet their needs.40 Diane Imhulse, in Lutheran Education, also provided support for developing a report- ing form that meets the needs of the students.41 Wynn, in his study, indicated the circumstances under which filing an accident report would be necessary. 1. Accidents resulting in any injury which caused the student to be absent from school or which seriously curtailed his school participation. 2. Accidents which required treatment by licensed medical personnel. 3. Accidents which required the administration Of first aid. 4. Accidents which occurred due to the presence Of an environmental hazard. Concerning accident report forms, the National Safety Council said: It is recognized that there is no one report form that will satisfy the needs of every school system. There is no one format that can be said to be better than any other. But, there is a required body of information which is basic to the analysis and utilization of accident and in- jury data, if the information is to have any value for accident prevention purposes. In addition, the report form should appear to be simple and should be easy as possible to complete. There is no short cut to an adequately completed report; it does take time and effort.43 4°Ibid. 41Diane Imhulse, "Safety Education is Relevant," Lutheran Education (Jan., 1970), 228. 42 wynn, op. cit., p. 21. 43National Safety Council, Student Accident Reporting Guidebook, p. 8. 45 The need for standardization is a must in main- taining an effective systemwide accident reporting system; this cannot be emphasized enough. The National Safety Council and its Committee on Student Accident Reporting have worked years to establish and maintain a nationwide standard in reporting accidents. The greater the standard- ization Of reporting, the more effective and valuable the data collected become toward assessing the causes and methods of prevention Of accidents within the school. In reviewing the literature, it has become quite apparent that there is no student accident reporting form with which to supplant the present student accident form which was designed and approved by the Safety Supervisors Section of the National Safety Council, comprised of over 800 members. 80, in a sense, this is the instrument that the professional safety educators have designed, tried, and changed over the years and will, more than likely, revise again as the need arises. Of course, different school districts may want additional kinds Of information on their reports, but in establishing district and statewide reporting systems, there must be standardization concerning the realm of accidents reported. It is most important that there be a complete understanding of the definitions used in acci- dent reporting. It is the only way that comparisons can 46 be made when analyzing data within the system, in the state, or across the country. For this reason, the defi- nitions of minimum content of the National Safety Council's Standardized Reporting Form are presented in Appendix L. These 21 items cover one of the four sections of the questionnaire in this study. Accident Report Summarization and Data Analysis The summarization Of accident reports requires effective planning and maximum utilization Of all re- sources available, be it staff, secretary, or facilities such as computers and Office machines. Every attempt should be made to derive maximum utilization from the collected data. It is a complex task that takes time, and it may require several summaries in order to come to specific conclusions. In review of accident report analyses from school systems from all over the United States, it became apparent that safety supervisors need to Obtain assistance from professional peOple in the area of publication design techniques in presenting their summaries and analyzed data. A great deal of effort is required on the part of many people to collect data over a year's time, and it is poor management to lose the meaning of all these data by failing to prepare them in an effective fashion so that the facts will sell themselves to those responsible for 47 implementing curriculum changes. It would behoove safety supervisors to budget additional funds for data publica- tion or to solicit professional help within the school system. Some recommendations which could assist the super— visor who is beginning to analyze his data were made by Florio in a study on accidents and injuries. He indicated that accident reports must be accurately kept and uni- formly analyzed. He stated that the analysis of data should be done periodically, at least annually, to deter- mine the course Of action in accident prevention. He further pointed out that the primary objective of summariz- ing and analyzing accident records is to assess potential hazards and plan programs to minimize their frequency.44 DeMaurO stated that keeping good records and con- ducting an effective analysis Of student and employee accidents can, with relative Speed, answer questions that may arise, such as: "Is this or that safety program worth- while?" or "Is this safety equipment accomplishing its in- tended task?" These are the kinds of questions a safety supervisor should ask himself before analyzing his data.45 44H. E. Florio, "Accidents and Injuries in College Physical Education," National Safety Congress Transactions, Vol. 23 (Chicago: National Safety Council, 1962), pp. 109- 110. ‘ 45Dan DeMauro, "Utilization for Special Studies," National Safety Congress Transactions,VOl. 23 (Chicago: National Safety Council, 1967), p. 44. 48 It is important to keep in mind that accident information is the tool that the supervisor uses in order to assess the accident prevention program's effectiveness. These data tools are only as useful as the judgment and skill of the supervisor is in drawing meaningful implica- tions from the summarized data. The procedure of systems analysis of accident reporting programs is the process whereby the evaluation of the total program of accident prevention is accomplished through data processing of accident reports. In surveying the literature in the area Of data processing of accident reports, only two short articles in the National Safety Congress Transactions of 1965 and a chapter in the National Safety Council's Standard Student Accident Reporting Guide- 2293 were found. Therefore, as expected, not many school systems are using computers for data analysis. In the Opinion of the leaders in the field, in order to have an effective statewide student accident reporting system, the existing computers available in most state educational agencies must be utilized. The method most frequently used by school systems is manual tabulation of its reports. Many school systems, large and small, continue to use this procedure even though they may have computer availability as some are afraid of computers. It is felt by some that the system they have has served them well over the years, so they see no reason 49 to change. If they could overcome this fear of using the new technique, they would see how simple data processing with computers is. In most cases, it is volume that forces most school systems to move toward computer assist- ance in accident data analysis. Once the safety super- visor has used computer assistance for data analysis, he usually becomes a disciple of its use. The use Of computers in data analysis is a heaven— sent device for the safety supervisor and his staff. Before the arrival Of data processing assistance, the safety supervisor spent entirely too much time processing his reports by hand; therefore, little use was made of the final results of this effort. In many cases this procedure enslaved the over- worked person to the point that the real objectives of accident reporting were never quite accomplished. This time-consuming ordeal caused many people in the field just to give up on accident reporting; or as is commonly done in many school systems, reports are collected only for possible legal purposes, retained for a few years, and then destroyed--all too often because of the seemingly insurmountable tasks Of hand-tabulating accident reports. Today this need not be, for most large school systems have their own computers-~if not, they are renting them. If on-site computer use is not possible, the safety supervisor should budget funds to buy computer time from 50 a private concern. In some instances, the use Of facili- ties at some local college or university can be arranged. Actually, very little time is required to tabulate even a large school system's accidents; it amounts to only a few hours of computer time. Philip Barad, of I.B.M. Data Processing Division, said that the use of data processing will do much to free the professional educator from being a records clerk, to better utilize his experience and knowledge, and keep him free to think. Computers are robots and they need the intelligence Of man to use them effectively. The only limits of data processing are those of man himself.46 As stated before, computer processing of accident information will provide the safety supervisor with much- needed time to devote to the total accident prevention program. The supervisor should question the adequacy of the data he is currently processing. Norman Patterson said that in preparing accident data, the concern is not whether we use hand tabulation or data processing; but the most urgent consideration is support for much-needed programs that include nationwide 46Philip Barad, "What Data Processing Can Do for the School," National Safety Congress Transactions (Chicago: NatiOnal Safety Council, 1965), p. 32. 51 reporting, tabulating, and analyzing Of accident data, and standardized programs of accident prevention.47 In making data available to the selected groups in the system, it must be remembered that the success of annual summaries in calling attention to the accident problem is one of identifying major hazards within the educational system, be it in the area of services, facili- ties, Or instruction. The success or failure of accident prevention programs will hinge on the ability to present, to all concerned, the pertinance of the findings and con- clusions that have been drawn from the accident records. As stated by one of our accident prevention leaders, "The variety of improvements that can result from the analysis Of accident problems is as diverse as the variety of acci- dents that occurs."48 A total system of accident reporting takes the whole support of many people if it is to be successful. It is one of three distinct but closely related systems within a total system of accident prevention. First, there is the Accident Data System. Its function is to gather and process the facts of accidents happening to persons in the given organization--say, a school district. Two major procedures make up this system. One is report- ing, including whatever investigations are 47Norman Patterson, "Hand Tabulating of Student Accident Reports," National Safety Congress Transactions, Vol. 23 (Chicago: National Safety Council, 1965), p. 28. 48Dzenowagis, Op. cit., p. 111. 52 required to compile the facts. The other could be called processing. In other words, tabulat- ing, categorizing, analyzing, and interpreting the facts. Operation of the data system depends upon personnel, established policies, regulations, and definitions, as well as upon printed forms, hardware, and orderly routines. Second, is the Feedback System. This is the connecting link. It is dedicated to furnishing appropriate information from the accident data so as to trigger, support, and guide the accident prevention process. Procedures in this system include selecting significant data, preparing this information in a form useable to the appro- priate elements of the accident prevention system, and communicating effectively. The feedback sys- tem is dependent upon the adequacy and interpre— tation Of accident data, upon personnel, and upon the avenues of communication services available. Included in the latter of course, is creative exploitation of current communication services, and developing new ones. Third, is what may be called the Accident Prevention System. This is the pay off. It is supposed to turn information and know-how about hazards and accident events into safe environment and safe people. It is the culmination of every— thing safety work is all about. In a school district, this system must include everyone in- volved in curriculum, building, instruction, policy making, rule and procedure drafting, main- tenance, plant planning, and administration. It, too, will depend materially upon communica- tion, both internal and external. 9 Present Funding and Status of State LeveliAccident Reporting Programs There has been a recent movement throughout the country to develop statewide accident prevention programs, due to federal monies that are being allocated for this purpose. During 1966 the Louisiana State Department of 49Lewis Clark, "Feedback of Accident Data," National Safety Conggess Transactigns (Chicago: National Safety Council, 1968), p. 76. 53 Education made plans for a statewide student accident reporting system with the use of title V, E.S.E.A. Federal funds. From those plans, they designed and implemented an effective statewide reporting system. The second type of federal funding of accident prevention programs is the 1966 Highway Safety Act, which was created to establish standards in the area Of acci- dent prevention. The Maryland State Department of Edu- cation initiated a statewide accident prevention program in 1967 for its public schools. This state program included a plan for a statewide accident reporting system which is to go into effect in the fall of 1972. Some states are using these federal acts as vehicles for funding their accident prevention and report— ing programs. One school system reported utilizing Model Cities Act funds for a safety program on a local level. Other states having statewide student accident reporting systems included Texas, Wisconsin, Deleware, Kansas, Hawaii, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Minnesota, Missouri and Utah. The main purpose of establishing a statewide stu- dent accident reporting system is to provide state—level summaries and analyses for the benefit of all school sys- tems within the state. Basically, the principles that apply to establishing a student accident reporting system at the local level also apply at the state level. John 54 Urlaub presented the following guidelines that should be followed in establishing a statewide system: (1) the collection agency should be broad enough in scope to furnish a comprehensive picture of the accident problem; and (2) there should be direct liaison between the col: lection agency and the local administration, to insure 50 A statewide student personal and immediate attention. accident reporting system will reflect the quality Of local accident reporting. It is here that the state agencies can provide leadership and assistance toward improving their accident prevention programs. Glenn Peavy, Program Director of Safety Education with the Texas Educational Agency, who coordinates the largest student accident reporting system in the country, pointed out three important factors for developing and maintaining a successful accident reporting program. All three are predicated on the agency's ability to communi- cate them: (1) accident reporting and accident record keeping; (2) giving local supervisors a workable technique that they understand and are able to employ in their systems; and (3) pointing out the advantages for them v—v— 50John Urlaub, "Can Student Accident Reports Collected for a State Agency be Positively Utilized Locally?" National SafetyCongress Transactions, Vol. 23 (Chicago: National Safety Council, 1968), p. 79. 55 if they compile and report their accidents to the state agency.51 Leonard Rollins, as chairman of the Accident Re- porting Committee for the Illinois State Department of Instruction, reported at the 1967 National Safety Congress that: If a safety program is to meet the needs Of the pupils, the school must secure all available information on the type and frequency Of student accidents. In order to insure complete and accur- ate data that can be used as a basis for a valid analysis, the entire school system should adopt and uniformly follow an accepted reporting pro- cedure. Until we know where, when, to whom and why accidents happen, there is little the school can do to prevent them. Student accident reporting is a proven and effec- tive program worth the effort to design, initiate, and maintain for the reduction of student accidents within the school system. Summary An extensive search was made into the literature related to accident prevention, and specifically in the area of student accident reporting. The review was con- ducted and presented within the framework of the total 51Glenn Peavy, "Can Student Accident Reports Col- lected for a State Agency be Profitably Utilized Locally?" National Safety Congress Transactions (Chicago: National Safety Council, 19697] p. 82. 52Leonard Rollins, "At the State Level," National Safety Congress Transactions (Chicago: National Safety Council, 1967), pp. 42—43. 56 needs Of education toward establishing a systemwide acci- dent reporting program. It was found that very few research studies have been conducted in the area of student accident reporting. Specifically, those contributing most to a better under- standing of student accident reporting were: Student Accident Reporting Guidebook, a publication Of the National Safety Council which covers the area of student accident reporting; Proetsch's Master's thesis, "An Analysis of Accident Report Forms Used by Public School Systems," which presented the information requested on various report forms throughout the country; Wynn's dis- sertation, "An Epidemiological Analysis of Student Acci- dents," assessed the causes of accidents; and Bieber's doctoral study, "The Causes and Prevention Of Safety Hazards and Accidents and the Liability Involved in the Public School Systems Throughout the United States" covered the broad area of student accident reporting. In review of the educators' role in accident pre- vention and student accident reporting, some excellent research has been conducted by James Aaron, R. L. Marshall, and Lonnie Gilliland to show the administrators' role in accident reporting. An exceptional doctoral study was done in this area by Hunt--"Quantitative Paradigms of Administrative Responsibility for Accident Prevention." CU cum {I w~ u 57 In the area Of educators' responsibilities for student accidents, several up-to-date studies have been conducted by Knaak, and Edwards on negligence and liabil- ity. In reviewing these studies, it was found that one of the basic reasons that many school systems have acci- dent reporting is the threat Of being found negligent in student accidents. All too often, the program is a pro- tective device for educators, rather than a program for the protection of the students. Throughout much of the literature reviewed, reference was made of the need to establish student acci- dent reporting programs in the public school systems, but very little information was found on actual program development Of such systems. The major portion of the literature was found tO be in the form of reports, speeches and recommendations made at conferences, and articles written for journals. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES AND METHODS EMPLOYED IN THE STUDY The procedures used in researching this study consisted of: determining the scope Of the study, select- ing the population and samples, instrument design, pre- testing the instrument,survey distribution and follow-up, and data tabulation and analysis. Scope of the Study The sc0pe of this study includes the purpose and specific Objectives Of the research, as listed in Chapter I. Succinctly, it is "A National Survey Of the State Departments of Education and Selected School Systems to Determine Methods Of Student Accident Reporting for the Purpose of Designing a Model Statewide Student Accident Reporting System." Selecting the Population and Samples In order to adequately survey a selected group of school systems,a procedure for selecting the sample popu- lation had to be established. It was decided at the inception of this study that data would be sought on a 58 .3‘ ... IN Q\N .I ~\ 59 national basis from the state departments of education, rather than from a sampling of states. This was important because of the alleged qualitative and quantitative dif- ferences between programs from state to state due, in part, to the great differences in needs and state govern- ments. As for the local school systems, surveying a com- plete population Of some 18,000 school districts would not serve the needs Of, nor be practical to, this study. Therefore, a method and procedure were needed to select a sample Of school districts throughout the United States in order to assess their programs of student accident reporting. It was suggested that the school systems making annual reports to the National Safety Council would be the most desirable pOpulation from which to Obtain a sample. The National Safety Council has been collecting student accident data since 1922. It was felt by the advisory committee for the study that if a model was to be designed for systemwide student accident reporting programs, a survey should be conducted of those school systems which presently are involved in student accident reporting so as to learn from their experience in program design and develOpment. Therefore, all school systems reporting accident injuries on standard summary forms to the National Safety Council for the school years 1965-68 60 were used as the pOpulation from which a majority of sample was selected. It was stated by Council authori- ties that the list of reporting schools is compiled for a three-year period; therefore, the most current list at the time of the request was that listed above. The procedure of selecting a sample from the population was to design classifications of three dif- ferent sized school systems from each Of the states having school systems reporting to the National Safety Council. The classifications consisted of all these school systems that were located in cities or counties having populations of: (1) 500,000 and above--classification A; (2) 100,000- 499,999--classification B; (3) 99,999 and below--classifi- cation C. From each classification the largest school system within the largest district was selected as the sample from that particular state. The city and county populations were obtained from the 1970 Federal Census.1 In those states not having a school system in each clas- sification, no attempt was made to include a school system from a lower classification to fill the vacancy. Listed in Appendix M are the school districts from each state according to classification and states, with the populations noted. 1Leeman H. Long, ed., The World Almanac and Book of Facts (New York: Newspaper Enterprise Assoc. Inc., 1970), p. 264. 61 In the 13 states not having a community reporting to the National Safety Council, a copy of the local questionnaire was sent to the state department of educa- tion, along with the state copy. In turn, the designated state reSpondent was asked to select a school system in his state which he felt had the most efficient student accident reporting system. Instrument Design Before designing the questionnaire, an extensive search was conducted on the methods of instrument design and survey questionnaire develOpment. As indicated by educational research authorities such as Good and Scates: The questionnaire is a major instrument for data gathering in descriptive survey studies and is used to secure information from varied and widely scattered sources. The questionnaire is particu- larly useful when one cannot really see personally all Of the peOple from whom he desires responses or where there is no particular reason to see the respondent personally. This technique may be used to gather data from any range or size territory, sometimes national.or international.2 It is the prime purpose Of descriptive research in educa- tion to tell "what is" Of a specific problem. Descriptive studies serve many very important functions within the field of education. Under certain conditions it is Of tremendous value just to merely know what the current state of the activ- ity is. Descriptive research provides us with a starting point and is, therefore, Often carried out 2Carter Good and Douglass Scates, Methods of Research (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1954), p. 606. 62 as a preliminary step to be followed by more rigorous research control technique.3 The validity Of the questionnaire in a descriptive 4 The use Of survey was pointed out by Spar and others. the questionnaire approach was endorsed by Perten.5 One need not justify descriptive research any further, for a great many descriptive studies are the direct source of much Of the knowledge gained in education. In view of what was learned from the survey liter- ature, it was decided to utilize the questionnaire method in seeking and assessing information from both the state departments of education and local education systems. A comprehensive outline was develOped of the kinds of information needed in order to meet the purpose and objectives of the study. Using this outline as a guide, questions were written requesting the vital data in the area Of accident prevention in general and speci- fically in-student accident reporting. From the original material, extensive elimination and combining of groups of questions was done. Two survey questionnaires were designed; one for the state departments of education and the other for the 3Walter Borg, Educational Research (New York: David McKay, Inc., 1967), p. 202. 4Walter Spar and Rinehart Swenson, Methods and Status of Scientific Research (New York: Hoya and Breth, 1930), p. 232} SMildred Perten, Survey, Polls and Samples (New York: Harper Brothers, 1950), p. 57. 63 local school systems. The questions were basically the same, except for additional responses per question and slight changes to include specific agency distinctions and needs. The basic approach in questioning was to determine the procedures and various elements related to the student accident reporting activities conducted by the state and local educational systems. The questionnaires were divided into four parts: Part I--General Safety Program Information; Part II-- Accident Reporting Procedures; Part III--Program Uses of Analyzed Data; and Part IV--Accident Reporting Form Information. Part I requested information in the area of general program elements in organization, administration, and services such as: (1) legal authority, (2) staff, (3) funding, (4) administrative and curriculum guides, (5) in-service programs to lower systems, (6) legal asPects of the program, (7) administrative responsibili- ties toward the program, and (8) federal aid to the program. Part II included some specific student accident reporting information such as (l) the extent of the stu- dent accident reporting in the system, (2) types of acci- dent information recorded and reported, (3) the type of form used, (4) the number of school systems reporting student accidents, (5) the methods of accident data 64 processing and why the method was used, (6) how Often the data was reported, (7) projections for program develop- ment, and (8) the collection and distribution of data. Part III surveyed program uses of the analyzed data such as: (1) to encourage program improvement; (2) to evaluate the program; (3) to assess the cost of accidents; (4) to determine who receives the data; (5) to use for curriculum planning and improvement; (6) to demonstrate preventive measures; (7) to analyze the total accident picture such as causes, trends, high-risk areas, and special studies to gain public acceptance; (8) to provide the public with information and statistics, and (9) to use for legal purposes. 1 Part IV was designed to evaluate the information included on accident reporting forms. The items included on the questionnaire sought to determine the minimum accident fact information requested by the National Safety Council and others. The instrument underwent three revisions. The original copy, which will be called copy 1, was reviewed by the committee and a group of selected individuals in the areas Of accident prevention and education. A revi- sion of COpy 1 was made to regroup several questions. COpy 2 was presented to the study committee, and copies also were sent to several state and local safety super- visors throughout the country. The copy was reviewed by 65 the Educational Research Department Of Michigan State University and the Research and Planning Division Of the Maryland State Department of Education. Additions and deletions were made, based on several suggestions. The third copy was prepared and presented to the study com- mittee. They suggested that additional choices and options be provided the reSpondent. Therefore, copy 4 was prepared with Open-ended responses such as "Specify others." All suggestions were valid and worthwhile, and helped improve the effectiveness of the survey instru- ment. The fourth copy of the instrument was used in the pretesting phase of the development Of a survey question- naire. Pretesting the Instrument A program Of pretesting was suggested by the study committee, and with the assistance Of the program advisor, a plan was designed to pretest the instrument in large school systems in the state Of Michigan. The school sys- tems were those that had extensive student accident re- porting programs. Visits were made to each Of the selected school systems; a half day was spent discussing the survey instrument with the safety supervisor, and having him complete the questionnaire and Offer his Opinion of its total effectiveness in meeting the Objectiveq A complete statement Of approval was voiced by all who were visited. One minor change was made in both questionnaires. c. U1 2. i ‘L 66 Survey Distribution and ReSponse Prior to mailing the survey instrument to the selected superintendents, a cover letter was obtained from Dr. James Sensenbaugh, State Superintendent of Maryland Public Schools. His support was rendered, because the study would be used by Maryland to upgrade and revise its planned statewide student accident reporting program. On June 10, 1971, a complete packet of survey materials was sent to each of the 128 educational systems included in the study. Copies of all survey material can be found in Appendices A-J. As the completed questionnaires were received, a record was maintained-~a thorough check of the completed questionnaires as they came in, a check on responses, and a check of the respondents' names and titles. One questionnaire was discarded due to incomplete information. Follow-up Procedure Due to the time of the year the survey was con- ducted, and considering a severe postal delay in mailing the questionnaires, the June 25 deadline for the return of the questionnaires was impractical. The follow-up questionnaire was mailed two weeks after the initial return deadline. The responses from the initial mailing and from the follow-up are presented in Table l. A 67 complete list of reSpondents can be found in Appendix P. TABLE l.--Number and percentage Of questionnaire returns. State Dept. Local . Type of Response Of Educ. Systems Comb1ned NO. % NO. % No. % Initial Mailing 50 100 78 100 128 100 Initial Mailing Returns 35 7O 33 42.3 68 53.1 2d Mailing Returns 8 16 24 30.8 32 25 Number not ReSpond- ing to Either Mailing 7 14 21 26.9 28 21.9 Total Responses 43 86 57 73.1 100 78.1 Methods for Data Tabulation and Analysis The findings of this survey were obtained through the use of the questionnaire. Additional information was gained from an extensive search of the literature. I In presenting the methods used in tabulating the data, it must be remembered that the primary purpose of the study was to determine methods and procedures used in student accident reporting at the state and local levels. The study was conducted as two separate surveys, but responses are presented together in tabular form for more efficient evaluation Of procedures used. The analysis and 68 percentages of responses by state and local agencies are presented in the same table, but located in different columns. Each question asked on the questionnaires is pre- sented and the percentage of response from state and local agencies provided. A total possibility of up to 14 responses could be made to a question; each of the responses were tabulated as percentage of response by totals of state and by totals of local school systems. For all practical purposes, the questions in the state questionnaire were identical to those in the local questionnaire. The only differences were several addi- tional responses for local school systems, such as "Do you follow the state administrative guide or curriculum guide?" These inquiries, of course, would not be applic- able to the state departments of education. It should be understood that the local school systems and the states are not compared to each other, except to show the frequency of responses to the identi- cal questions On program procedure. Several questions provide open-ended responses, where other activities or procedures were listed. A list of these is presented as general statements. Summary Presented in this chapter on procedures and methods used in the study was the scope Of the study, 69 selecting the population and samples, instrument design, pretesting the instrument, survey distribution and follow-up, and data tabulation and analysis. Chapter IV includes data tabulation and analysis presented as percentages of responses made by total state returns and total local system returns. The data are presented in tabular form and analyzed by percentage of total responses to the various question elements. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF SURVEY DATA Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to report the find- ings of the national survey of state departments of education and the selected school systems regarding their programs of student accident reporting. In the preceding chapter, methods for data analysis of research findings were presented. Contained in this chapter will be an analysis of the data and presentation of the findings. The study was designed to identify and describe significant elements within the accident reporting systems of the selected populations. The instrument that was used to gather this data was the survey questionnaire, sample OOpies which can be found in Appendices G and H. Questionnaires were mailed to the fifty state departments of education and seventy-eight local school systems. Forty-three state departments of education (86%) and fifty-seven local school systems (73.1%) completed the survey questionnaires. This was an overall return Of one hundred questionnaires (78.1%). 70 71 The respondents completing the questionnaire were designated by the respective state and local superintendents of the selected school systems. The designated respondents had various titles which ranged from Director of Safety Education to State Superintendent of Schools. The admin- istrative titles consisted of Administrator, Director, Supervisor, Coordinator, Chief, Consultant, and Specialist attached to the specific areas of safety, health, physical education, transportation, driver education, aviation, recreation, athletics, pupil services, research, health services, security and nursing personnel. The non-curricular, or service areas, that were included in the respondents' titles were: State and Local Superintendent, Deputy and Assistant Superintendent, Research Director, Auxillary Service Director, Legal Affairs Officer, and Business Administrator. A complete list of all respondents and their titles can be found in AppendixfiP. Question 3 of the questionnaire will further present the accident prevention staff picture. This chapter is divided into four parts, as was the survey questionnaire. Part I assesses the general program elements in the accident prevention programs of each of the survey groups. It requests information pertaining to: 1) legal authority to include accident prevention programs; 2) staff persons responsible for these programs; 3) number of administrative staff available for these programs; 72 4) means of funding; 5) types of administrative and curric- ulum guides for accident prevention programs; 6) how accident prevention is included in the curriculum (if at all); 7) inservice programs provided; 8) governmental immunity laws covering its system; 9) system supported professional organizations in the field of safety; 10) federal assistance for safety programs; 11) whether adminiStrative~re5ponsibility is defined; and 12) opinion as to who should conduct reporting programs. Part II assesses the specific accident reporting elements and procedures of the surveyed systems. It questions: 1) whether there is student accident reporting in the system--the type and scope; 2) the type of reporting form used; 3) the number of districts (or schools) within the system and the number having accident reporting programs; 4) the method Of data tabulation used and whether it is satisfactory; 5) how often accident data summaries are distributed and to whom; 6) projections for a systemrwide reporting program; and 7) the quality of collected data. Part III evaluates the specific uses of analyzed student accident data at the state and local educational levels. It asks: 1) the purpose, Objective and uses of analyzed data; 2) whether there have been any special studies done in the system using analyzed accident data; and 3) what significant areas of concern in student accident reporting were omitted from this questionnaire. 73 Part IV assesses the accident information included on the report forms of the various respondents. It requests answers on: 1) specifically what items are included on their report forms; and 2) any problems they have had with their reporting forms. The survey findings of the state department Of edu- cations' programs, and those of the selected school systems' student accident reporting systems will be presented to- gether, but tabulated separately. The findings will be listed in tabular form and expressed in percentages to the nearest tenth. Within the survey questionnaire, some ques- tions provided for an option of more than one response. Therefore, some tables showing percentage totals will exceed 100%. A narrative analysis will immediately follow each table. PART I GENERAL SAFETY PROGRAM INFORMATION Legal Authority to Include Accident’PEevention Programs Table 2 presents the percentage of response of state departments of education and selected local school systems to survey question l--Does your system have legal authority to include: A. Safety education in the public schools? Data in Table 2 reveal that 94.7% of local school systems and 83.7% of the reSponding states have legal authority to include safety education in the curriculum. 74 .Emumonm ooccmam N m “oz N 2 «mm» H M "mom .mmmcommmn Hmooa com oumum mo umwa ouoamfioo How M xwocommd comes .cucmu “mouse: on» Ou ooocson coopcoouom oousmfioo Hmsuoge o.o o.o o.o m cOwumosom mo m.mm G.HH m.mH z muemsunmmmo ~.om «.mm s.mm » mumum m.H m.H m.H m s.me m.m m.m z msmumsm m.m~ n.4m 5.4m w Hooeom Hmooq )EET. gin. dQS VnSS m.t.1 WT? (ms 0.... 01: d m.} TLu.n Ttu.e O 4+ .E a I. .+ 1.6 omi OWLA «APR 5 a s a newcommmm x m. m. m m. 033mg 1: O O O O O o p. O 9 J T. _ T. _ S S .c .6 U h m G U "condone on muenocusm domed o>mc uowuumwo Hoocom HO aw ommmmnmxm .om>o>usm madamhm Hoocom Hmom* m d cos we: ”moms c ocouoummmemo mow: oumum use» moon «Ha cowvmmso wwuwm mQMII.N MAm » oumum I I m.H m.a m.a m «.4m m.ms m.mm m.~H m.v~ z Maoumsm m.ma H.H~ e.ov >.>m e.mn w Hoocom Hmooq siu nue_1p.s .lneo any .as Adm“ uAOe.Sn. vnuo as: “we a Indon (1% n1 n3 O1e rATIO.Inr 1. «SA 01a Til éAJPe war. as 24 1: I4eu su 41 15 K ATIu.+ nu .e r. r. 6 T:u.+ nun. O o n “w 5 mm 1. . w w noncommom H manflmmom IIdII .IIHIII m .Illalll .Ilull m .Ildll "Mom manwmcommmu Ho>oa.eoum>m Mao» um somuom mmmum m muocu mH «mt coHumoso .Nm cowumoso «”mommucooumm cw oommmnmxo .om»o>usm meoumhm Hoonom HMOOH can mumum mo noncommumll.m Manda 77 A. safety education? The data in Table 3 reveal that 75.4% of the local school districts and 74.4% of the state departments of education reported having at least one staff member responsible for safety education in a full-time or part-time capacity, (this will be assessed in greater depth in question 3). The data further reveals that 1.8% of the local school systems and 9.3% of the responding states indicate that they plan to add additional staff for the activity of safety education. B. driver education? Data in Table 3 reveal that 87.7% of the local school systems and 100% of the state departments Of education have at least one staff member responsible for the subject area Of driver education who is working full- time or part-time in this curriculum area. It is further shown that 1.8% of the local systems plan staff for this area. C. combined duties in safety education and driver education? Data in Table 3 reveal that 40.4% of the local school system personnel and 65.1% of the state respondents report that the person responsible for supervising the driver education program is also held accountable for safety education. The findings also indicate that 1.8% Of the local systems plan to combine the duties. 78 D. student accident reporting activities only? Data in Table 3 reveal that only 21.1% of the local school districts and none of the state educational agencies indicate that they have a staff person responsible for accident reporting activities only. The data in Table 3 further reveal that 6.9% of the states do plan to add additional staff who would be responsible only for accident reporting. E. If your system has other staff arrangements, specify. Data in Table 3 reveal that 15.8% of the local school systems and 16.3% of the state departments Of education provide additional responses. A complete list of these responses can be found in Appendix K. Number of Staff Persons Responsible for Accident Prevention Programs Table 4 presents the percentage of response of state departments of education and selected local school systems to survey question 3—-What is the number of adminis- trative staff in your office responsible for (A) safety education and (B) driver education? A-l. Safety education, full-time staff. The data in Table 4 reveal that 71.9% of the local school systems and 81.4% of the state departments of education have no staff working full-time in safety .sucmu ummnmoc ecu OD momcpcoonmm ODDSQEOO Hoopoms 79 I I I I I e.e m.mm m.mm w osfle unmmIIcOHumosom Ho>eno I m.o m.m e.e m.m m.o m.oe e.mm w wees HaomIIcoHumosom no>flno I m.m m.m I e.e s.s m.ae H.44 A mass DAMEIIcoHnmusom snowmm I I I I m.m I m.oH e.Hm N mafia HasmIIc0flumosom suommm Ame pew Lac eoenmospm to .mndmo mnmnm I I I I I I o.mm e.hv w OEHB unmmIIGOHumosom HO>HHD m.a I I I m.a o.e m.Hm m.em w OEHB HasmIIcOHDmosom HO>HHQ I I I I I m.m M.Sm e.oe A mass pnmmIIaoflnmosom Shaman I I I I m.m c.» m.mH m.Hs A mass HHsEIIcoHnmusem seamen Amv one “my mEmumwm Hoooom Hmooq n m m e m m a o chmHmm mo Hmofidz meflumosom Hm>HHo Amv can .coflpmosoo mnemmm Aflnmnumflcflfiom mo menace may we Dcsz ”me coeummso .m¢ coaummso *"mommucmoumm CH oommmumxo meumxm Hoosom HOOOH out mmucum m0 mmmcommmmll.v mamme 80 education. The data further indicates that 15.8% of local school systems and 16.3% Of the states have 1 staff member working full-time in safety education. The data also shows that 7% of the local school systems and the state departmentsof education have two persons working full-time in safety education. It is further reported that 3.5% of the local school systems and 2.3% of the states have three personnel responsible only for safety education. The analysis also shows that one local school system (1.8%) has 10 full-time staff members in safety education (Los Angeles, California, one of the largest school systems in the country). B-l. Driver education, full-time. Data in Table 4 reveal that 57.8% of local school districts and 23.4% of the states have no full-time employee in driver education. Table 4 further indicates that 31.6% Of the local school systems and 46.5% Of the state departments of education have one full-time driver education staff member. The data also shows that 7% of the local school systems and 6.9% of the states have two full-time driver education personnel. The findings indicate also that 1.8% Of the local school systems and 9.3% Of the state agencies have three full-time members on the driver education staff. The local school systems report no additional staff members in driver education on a full-time basis other than one school system having seven staff members, but the 81 state department of education data reveals 4.7% have four full-time staff persons, 2.3% report five full-time staff members, and 6.9% indicate six full-time persons in driver education. A-2. Safety education, part-time staff. The data in Table 4 reveal that 40.4% of local school systems and 44.1% of state departments of education report no staff members working part-time in safety education. The Table further indicates that 54.3% of the local school systems and 41.9% of the states report having one person working part-time in safety. It is also shown that 5.3% of local school districts and 4.7% Of the state agencies indicate having two employees devoting part of their time to safety activities. The data further reveals that local school systems report no additional part-time staff, but it was indicated by state department of education reponses that 4.7% have three persons working part-time in safety, and 2.3% have five and six staff members devoting partial time to safety acitivites. B-2. Driver education, part-time staff. The data in Table 4 reveal that 47.4% of the local school systems and 62.8% of the state departments of education report having no staff working part-time in driver education. It is further indicated in the tabulation of driver education staff, that 52.6% of the local school 82 districts, and 32.5% Of the states report one person working part-time in this area. The findings also show that no local school system has more than one part-time staff member, whereas, 4.7% of the state respondents indicate having two driver education personnel devoting partial time to its aCtivities. BudgetingtFunds for Accident Prevention Programs Table 5 presents the percentage of response of state departments of education and selected local school systems to survey question 4—-Does your system budget funds for: A. safety education? The data in Table 5 reveal that 57.9% of the local school systems and 34.9% of the state departments of education indicate that they budget funds for safety education activities within their educational systems. It was further reported that 3.5% of the local school systems and 2.3% of the states plan to include budgeting in the area Of safety education. B. driver education? The data on Table 5 reveal that 84.2% of the local school systems and 83.7% of the state departments of education report that they budget funds for their driver I education programs} and that 2.3% of the states plan to budget funds. .Ecumoum oocccam N m «02 N 2 «no» N w "MOM .momcommon Hmooa one mumum mo owed womadfioo How M xflocommd momz .cvcmu ummumms may on octagon mmmpcmonmm omosmfioo Hmsuome 83 m.~ m.~ m.~ m coeumosom mo 4.5m m.ma H.me z muemsuummmo m.mm >.mm m.em M oumum o.o o.o m.m m ~.Hm m.ma H.~e z msmomsm m.m m.vm m.hm M Hoocom Hmooq 9730 any Thws Adm.+ “ex nee a "a n_I n.a o p;e «.A five 1:1;1 p.9 2.4 In 41 15 .A 5 I. I. .61 O O n w w noncommmm manemmom “How mccsm ummoao uOHHumHo HOOEOm Ho mumum H90» moon new cowumoso .em cowummso «umwmmucmoumm CH oommmumxo .owmm>nom mfidumhm Hoonom HmooH can mumum mo noncommmmIi-m Manda V RH UVI‘ - 0 ‘,II f‘\‘ .QJ 84 C. Does your system have other funding methods for safety and driver education? Specify. The data in Table 5 reveal that 8.8% of the local school systems, and 32.6% Of the state departments of education indicate other funding procedures, and 2.3% of the responding states are planning to budget for these program areas. A complete list of these responses can be found in Appendix K. Administrative Guides for AcOIdent Prevention Programs Table 6 presents the percentage of response Of state departments of education and selected local school systems to survey question 5--Does your system have an administrative guide for: A. safety education? The data in Table 6 reveal that 45.6% of the local school systems and 30.2% of the state departments Of education have an administrative guide for safety «education. The data further indicates that 8.8% of the local school systems and 13.9% of the state departments of education are planning to develop guides in this area. B. driver education? The data in Table 6 reveal that 63.2% of the local school systems and 95.3% of the state departments .Emnmoum owcccam N m «oz N 2 and» N M ”MOM .wmmcommwu Hmooa one oucum mo umwa mumamfioo How M xflocmmmd womee .cucmu “menses ecu Op omoosou wmmucmoumm omusmfioo Hcsuose 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 000000000 00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 2 00005000000 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 00000 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 z 0500000 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 000000 00004 5 SO 97:0.81. 81.81.. 91.810 GPSED 80.. SS 8 d3 1UT.1.0 PUQO PUQO P1910 P1 Pp. an. a ueI n ET. n ET nr...:am nr. ml. 38 90.9an SPILL 331...... OABPC. 0A 38 7:1 80980 9130 2980 283.81. 98 91. I. 21 M «II M 1; M «IPA u 4: 1x A HBO TAB Tab I 09 .E T .0 000. 0000 00.00 0 0...... 0 0 CASE 0. P.e .c Pa .0 Pa .c P a .c maowmmom a 8 a o 0 m 0 o m a «How mowsm O>Humuumflcfleom cm o>mc unfiuumwo Hoonom no oucum H90» moon um“ coHumoao i i II in .mw cowumoso «umommucooumm c0 commonmxo .oomo>nsm madamMm Hoonom HMOOH one woman no mOOGOQMOMII.w mange 86 of education have administrative guidelines in the area Of driver education. It is further reported that one state (2.3%) plans an administrative guide in the near future. C. the combined areas of safety education and driver education? Data in Table 6 reveal that only 8.8% of the local school systems, and 9.3% Of the states combine safety and driver education in one guide. It is further shown that 1.8% of the local agencies and 2.3% of the states plan to combine the areas into one guide. D. Does your system follow the state guide in safety education? The data in Table 6 reveal that 54.4% of the local school systems follow the state administrative guide in safety. One local school system (1.8%) reports plans to use the state guide. E. Does your system follow the state guide in driver education? Data in Table 6 reveal that 71.9% of the local school system use the state administrative guide in driver education. F. Doestyour systems follow the state combined guide for both safety education and driver education? Data in Table 6 reveal that 22.8% of the local school systems do follow the state combined guide in both areas of Safety Education and Driver Education. CU Cu H A. 87 This low figure reflect the fact that only 9.3% of the states report having a combined administrative guide in these areas. G. Does your school system follow guides other than those mentioned? Data in Table 6 reveal that 7% of the local school systems and 16.3% of the state departments Of education respond that they have other administrative arrangements. It is further indicated that 1.8% of the local school systems and 2.3% of the state agencies plan to use other administrative procedures. K A complete list of reSponses can be found in Appendix Curriculum Guides for Accident Prevention Table 7 presents the percentage of response Of state departments of education and selected local school systems to survey question 6--Does your system have a curriculum guide for: A. safety education? Data in Table 7 reveal that 43.9% of the local school systems and 34.9% Of the state departments Of education report having a curriculum guide in the area of safety education. I‘ll-vial ninillI ooudkunn .V‘Vl.l h 88 .Ecnmoum cocccam u 0 «OZ N z «mow N M ”MOM .momcommou 00000 one mason m0 #000 ODOHQEOO How M xwocmmmm mom«« .cucou awesome on» on octagon ommucoonmm oousmfioo 0090040 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 0 000000000 00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 2 00005000000 0.00 «\z 0\z «\z 0.0 0.00 0.00 w 00000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 z 0500000 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 s 000000 00000 SO I.G.Sn 001.90..“ eT.sn )90 so. as . o. 00 S000 Ti 0a: 00.0 00. .0; 08 0.81. 30.1. 05.1. 2 0A 08 1.1 Open... Elem seem” W81. 98 9.1. J. 1 4r. 4; u 41 AK .0 300.. 0.00. 0.00. 20.0. 0.. 0. A . 00.. a a I s. A P .c S .c o 0 m a o m 0 "How mowsm ESHSOAHHOO m m>cs EwumMm no woman Moo» moon "0* cowumoso .00 cowummso «ummmmucoonom c0 commoumxo .ommm>090 mEdumMm Hoocom HMUOH one woman mo noncommmMII.n Manda 89 It is further indicated that 5.3% of the local school systems and 11.6% of the states report that a safety education curriculum guide is planned. B. driver education? Data in Table 7 reveal that 26.3% of the local school systems and 90.7% of the state departments of education report having a curriculum guide in driver education. The findings also show that 3.5% of the local systems and 4.7% of the states are planning a curriculum guide in this area. C. the combined areas of safety education and driver education? Data in Table 7 reveal that only 8.8% of the local school systems, and 9.3% of the states combine safety and driver education into one curriculum guide. One state (2.3%) plans a combined guide in these areas. D. Does your system use the state curriculum gtide in safety? Data in Table 7 reveal that 49.1% of the local school systems report that they follow the state curriculum guide in safety education, and 1.8% indicate that they plan to use their state guide. E. Does your system use the state curriculumtguide in drivgr education? Data in Table 7 reveal that 57.9% Of the respond- ing local school systems use the state curriculum guide in driver education. 90 F. Does your system follow the state combined curriculum gpide in safety and driver education? Data in Table 7 reveal that 24.6% of the local school system follow the state combined guide in these areas. One system (1.8%) plans to use the combined curriculum guide of its state. G. Does your system have curriculumtguide arranggments, other than those specified? Data in Table 7 reveal that only 7% of the local school systems and 13.9% of the state departments of education report any other arrangements for their curriculum guide. A complete list of responses can be found in Appendix K. Inservice Programs in Accident Prevention Table 8 presents the percentage Of response of state departments of education and selected local school systems to survey question 7--Does your staff provide inservice programs in: A. safety education? Data in Table 8 reveal that 63.2% of the local school systems and 53.5% of the state departments of education provide inservice programs in safety education. It is further indicated that 3.5% of the local systems and 9.3% of the states plan inservice programs in this area. 91 .Ewumonm oocscam N m «02 N z 000» N M "MmM .momcommon 00000 ocm 00000 no 0000 wumamfioo 000 M xwocommm 00000 .c0c00 umoucmc 0B0 00 omocsou 0m00c0000m o00omfioo Hms0ome o.o m.m m cowumosom 00 0.0 m.ov z 00cmfiuummoo 0\z 0.00 0.00 0 00000 m.m m.m m m.mm m.mm z mfimummm «\z 0.00 0.00 s 000000 00000 . 8 7.. mm m0 0 u IT. _ D p 3 S 0.1. 0.1 0.0 0:0 409 1.0 u @. Wm m. n. 0000000000 ”fl w 1 WA 0000000020 m m G U m fl "0000:00 00000 0:0 00 macumoum 000>Hmmcw mo0>00m 00000 50% 0000 "mm 00000050 .00 00000000 «umomcucoouom :0 oommonmxo .o0>0>050 0&000M0 000:00 00000 one 00000 00 00000000MII.0 momma 92 Based upon the number of systems indicating staff responsible for safety education, 12.2% of the local administrators and 20.9% of state staff are not providing this vital service. B. driver education? Data in Table 8 reveal that 63.2% of the local school systems and 95.3% of the state departments of education provide inservice programs in driver education. It is also shown that 5.3% of the local systems plan to institute inservice programs. Methods of Including Safety Education in the Curriculum Table 9 presents the percentage of response of state departments of education and selected local school systems to survey question 9-—Does your system include safety education as: A. a separate course in the curriculum? Data in Table 9 reveal that 3.5% of the local school systems and 9.3% of the state departments of education include safety education as a separate course. No respondents indicate plans to incorporate this approach of teaching safety. 93 .8000000 0000000 N 0 «oz N z «00% N M "hmm .000000000 00000 000 00000 00 0000 00000500 000 M 00000000 00000 .00000 0000000 000 00 0000000 0000000000 00000000 0000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 000000000 00 m.m 000 0.0 0.00 2 00000000000 0.00 3.0 0.00 m.m 0 00000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.00 «.00 0.0 0.00 z 0000000 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0 000000 00000 Ponm¥u sedu "an? 009 1.19 e OTIO WTU no 3 Te} U{;:+ 30 Ins 1.8 1. O A C.U.T. 118 1387.. 01...... e n T.Sd 00000 0u0 000 men mmw M. .04 P w 0.0. Imé 00000000m .0 Tim. We 0 m .0 00000000 89 1. .01. . u a 0 m 0 0 m 0 "00 000000000 000000 0000000 E000>0 000000 00 00000 000» 0000 ”0* 00000000 .00 00000000 0000000000000 00 00000nmx0 .00>0>000 0000000 000000 00000 000 00000 00 00000000mll.m mamme 94 B. included with other subjects? Data in Table 9 reveal that 96.5% of the local school systems and 97.7% of the state departments of educa- tion include the teaching of safety with the other subjects. It is further shown that 2.3% of the state systems plan this approach to safety. C. not provided at all in the schools? Data in Table 9 reveal that 1.8% of the local school systems and none of the state departments of education responses indicate exclusion of safety in the curriculum, and one local system (1.8%) plans to delete it from the curriculum. D. left up to the individual schools or school systems? Data in Table 9 reveal that 61.4% of the local school systems leave the instruction of safety to their schools, and 90.7% of the state departments of education leave safety education to the discretion of the individual school systems. It was reported by one local school system (1.8%) that they plan to leave the matter to the schools. Governmental Immunity Status Laws Table 10 presents the percentage of response of state departments of education and selected local school systems to survey question 9--Does your educational system have: 95 .0000000 0000000 N 0 «02 N z «00» N M ”00% .000000000 00000 000 00000 00 0000 00000000 000 M 00000000 00000 .00000 0000000 000 00 0000000 0000000000 00000000 0000000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 000000000 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2” 00000000000 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 00000 0.0 0.0 0.0 m 0.00 0.00 0.00 z 0000000 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 000000 00000 nTu lma “.1. 00.0 0...: 0 7:0. uq+m 1. 000000000 m0 0.0% .0 00000000 .00 T. .4. .6 3.0.“ p. v. #1 M TL 8 .c 0 m 0 0 m 0 u0>00 000000.00000000000 000» 0000 “00 00000000 .00 00000000 «”00000000000 00 000000000 .00m0>000 0000000 000000 00000 000 00000 00 00000000mll.o0 mqm00 000000 00000000000 0000 0000 ”00* 00000000 .o00 00000000 0000000000000 .00 000000000 .00m0>000 0000000 000000 00000 000 00000 00 000000000II.00 0000B 99 combined safety and driver education association. The findings further indicate that 4.7% of the state agencies are planning a combined association. E. combinations of_groups other than those specified? Data in Table 11 reveal. that 8.8% of the local school systems, and 13.9% of the state departments of education report other groups. Most other arrangements combine safety with health or physical education. A complete list of all responses can be found in Appendix K. Federal Funds for Accident Prevention Programs Table 12 presents the percentage of response of state departments of education and selected local school systems to survey question ll--Has¥your system received federal funds for safety programs? If so, list from.what laws or acts. A. Safety education? Specify source. Data in Table 12 reveal that only 5.3% of the local school systems, and 30.2% of the states have received federal funds for their safety education programs. It is also shown that 2.3% of the responding states are planning to obtain federal funds for these programs. 100 .8000000 0000000 N 0 «02 N z 000» N w "000 .000000000 00000 000 00000 00 0000 00000800 000 M 00000000 00000 .00000 0000000 000 00 0000000 0000000000 00000800 0000000 o.o m.~ 0 000000000 00 0.0 0.00 z 00008000000 0.m¢ «.00 a 00000 0.0 0.0 0 «.00 5.00 2 0800000 0.00 0.0 M 000000 00000 :.s.unrs.s=.s wwwnowwn 1.000Aum.uq.a a 00...". m .00.». . Kur. ..A.} 0 o 0 o 0 w 0 m... 000000000 00000000 .lel IIWIlllml IMIIJ-Illfil «0000 00 0300 0003,8000 0000 .00 m0 000 .08000000 000000 000 00000 0000000 00>00000.800000 000000 00 00000 0000 000 “00* 00000000 .000 00000000 0000000000000. 00 0000000x0 .0000>000 0800000 000000 00000 000 00000 00 0000000001I.~0 0000B 101 The majority of these funds came from the Highway Safety Act of 1966. The next most frequent source was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and one from the Model Cities Program. A complete list of responses can be found in Appendix K. B. Driver education? Specify source. Data in Table 12 reveal that 31.6% of the respond- ing local school systems and 93.1% of the state department of education respondents, report receiving federal funds for the development of their driver education programs. The impact of the Highway Safety Act is well demonstrated here, for all but few responding systems received their funds from this act. The law 89-564 defines the use of these funds in driver education. A. complete list of responses can be found in Appendix K. Administration of Accident Prevention Programs Defined in J05 Descriptions Table 13 presents the percentage of response of state departments of education and selected local school systems to survey question 12--Are the administrative duties defined in your job description? .0000000 0000000 N 0 «02 N z «000 N 0 ">00 .000000000 00000 000 00000 00 0000 00000000 000 0 00000000 0000* .00000 0000000 000 00 0000000 0000000000 00000000 0000000 102 m m o o m.~ 0 000000000 no m.mm 0.00 0.00 m.mm 2 00000000000 ~.>m ~.om m.00 0 00000 o.o o.o o.o 0 0.00 0.00 m.- 0.0m z 0000000 0.0m «.00 0.00 0 000000 00000 d8 9 010d? @198 EU 19mm. nuxo as: do on 1 as 9.000. du 60 . JiAr. +i3+P I. Jesu IQaP £190 T. 0000 0900 unmw a £0. a 1. T. 1.1. s u a. m. 000000000 uh...” m m £5 mm. 00000000 T... cc. .1» u m 6 P lml ulm..l Iml. lml .lml « 000000000000 000 000» 00 0000000 000000 0>000000000000 000 000 «N00 00000000 . .N00 00000000 «000000000000 00 0000000x0 ~000000000 0000000 000000 00000 000 00000 00 000000000|I.m0 0000B 103 A. Non-applicable? Data in Table 13 reveal that 28.1% of the local school systems and 23.3% of states indicate that (B) student accident.reporting, (C) accident prevention in the curriculum, and/0r (D) administering the safety education programs, were not listed in their job descriptions. Thus, the question was non-applicable to them. B. Student accident reporting and analysis? Data in Table 13 reveal that 49.1% of the local school systems and 16.3% of the state departments of educa- tion report that the duties of student accident reporting and analysis were included in their job descriptions. It is also shown that 2.3% of the states plan to include this in administrative job descriptions. C. Accident prevention in the curriculum? Data in Table 13 reveal that 47.4% of the local school systems and 30.2% of the state departments of education report curricular accident prevention contained in their job descriptions. D. Administering the safety education program? Data in Table 13 reveal that 56.1% of the local school systems and 37.2% of the states respond that administering the safety education program is included in their job descriptions. It is noted that 2.3% of the state reapondents indicate that it is planned to include this activity in their job description. 104 Educational Levels at Which Accident Reporting Should be Conducted Table 14 presents the percentage of response of state departments of education and selected local school systems to survey question l3--Shou1d student accident reportingybe conducted: A. at the state level? Data in Table 14 reveal that 54.4% of the local school systems and 83.7% of the state departments of education are of the opinion that student accident report- ing should be conducted at the state level. It was further indicated that 3.5% of the local school systems, and 2.3% of the states responded a "planned" to this question. B. at the school district level? Data in Table 14 reveal that 96.5% of the local school systems and 100% of the state respondents indicate .that accident reporting should be an activity that is conducted at the local level. One local school system (1.8%) responded "planned" to this question. This is an inaccurate statement in two respects: 1) this is an opinion question; and 2) 100% of the local respondents reported having a student accident reporting program in question 17. 105 .Emumoum omccmam "mu 02 Z mwNHW "mom .mmmcommmu Hmooa can mumum mo “mad mpmamfioo How M xwocmmmm mmm«« .aucwu ummummc mnu o» octagon mmmucmonmm oopsmfioo Hmsuo<« o.o o.o o.o m.m m coaumosom mo H.mm m.m o.o m.ma z mpcmsuummmo m.m n.om ooa ~.mm w mumum o.o m.m m.H m.m m «.mm m.mH m.m m.me z msmumam m.H >.om m.mm v.¢m u Hoosom Hmooq so Gees Ise Isa a m m. w m. s m m. a m m a Is HIam someqm 9.4 Ale T.o 7.9 I} T. I. 1. .c .L a .c a u e.+t. .x. m .A m m.” noncommom 4 m. w m. w mansmmom a!» I T... o 1. m o o m < “cmposvcoo on mcwuuommu ucmofloom ucmosum vasonm ”Maw cowummso .maw sowummso «ummmmucmonmm ca pmmmmumxm .ommm>nsm mfimumam Hoonom Hmooa can mumum mo noncommmMII.vH wands 106 C. as an educationalflactivity at both levels? Data in Table 14 reveal that 80.7% of the local school systems and 90.7% of the state respondents consider accident reporting as an educational activity of both agencies. It is further shown that 3.5% of the local systems are planning the activity at both levels. D. arrangements other than those listed? Specigy. Data in Table 14 reveal that only 1.8% of the local school systems and 6.9% of Lhe states report other arrangements for accident reporting. One notable exception that has proven very effective, is that student accidents in the state of Kansas are reported to the State Health Department for summary and analysis. A complete list of the responses to this question can be found in Appendix KL PART II ACCIDENT REPORTING PROCEDURES Types and Degrees of Accident Reporting Table 15 presents the percentage of response of state departments of education and selected local school systems to survey question 14*--Is the student accident reporting in your system? * State level responses for question l4-D and lS-A show an inconsistency, due possibly to the options. 107 A. systemwide? Data in Table 15 reveal that a 100% of the local school systems, and 27.9% of the state departments of education report having a systemwide program of accident reporting. It is also shown that 9.3% of the states are planning to institute a statewide system of reporting. The overwhelming response from the local school systems is due to the fact that these systems were selected from those reporting summaries to the National Safety Council. B. standardized and required? Data in Table 15 reveal that 94.7% of the respond- ing local school systems and 20.9% of the state departments of education report having a standardized and required student accident reporting program. The findings also show that 9.3% of the states are planning standardized and required reporting. C. voluntary? Data in Table 15 reveal that only 5.3% of the local school systems and 39.5% of the states permit voluntary reporting. It is further indicated that 2.3% of the states plan to make their program voluntary. D. non-applicable? Data in Table 15 reveal that no local school system, and 37.2% of the state departments of education indicate that this question is non-applicable to their HBEF.‘ T&I.Ulhvfl.l~fllii 1 It P.I>II\\V.I\FFI ”GI IEr,t C I>H.II F chfl~tc .v 01-": .7 RIM claw .lL‘I‘ ‘ I. .IN h¥ c Wfifi..v‘zllhcazflv-l I | m HI n3N‘N PN.vm ooa M Hoosom Hmooq «so am Aw m was a d U T. b pm S Tie VI. n n 1 by 1 Te. u T... p .I: o 3 z e m u e e a J .H W. W w. W m... noncommmm, .c a w manwmmom p. m m D U m m "unfluumflo Ho mumum Mao» cw mcwuuommu usmvwoom unopsum may mH “vaa cowummso .¢H* sowummso «ummmmucmoumm cw ommmmumxm .Um>m>H5m mfioumhm Hoonom HMOOH was wumum mo noncomeMII.mH Mammy 109 situations. This means that these states do not conduct any degree of accident reporting on the state level. E. conducted any way other than specified? Data in Table 15 reveal that 1.8% of the local school systems and 6.9% of the state departments of education provide other arrangements for student accident reporting. A complete list of these responses can be found in Appendix K. Scope of Accident Reporting Table 16 presents the percentage of response of state departments of education and selected local school systems to survey question 15--Does your system have accident reporting for: A. non-applicable? Data in Table 16 reveal ‘that no local school system and 62.8% of the states report that this question is non-applicable to their situations. This would mean that they do not have a program that reports student, professional or non-professional accidents. B. student accidents? Data in Table 16 reveal that 98.2% of the local school systems and 30.3% of the state departments of education indicate that they have reporting of student 110 .Emumoum wmccmam H m «oz .mmmcommmn Hmooa was mumum mo Umfia muwamfioo How M xflpdmmmm mmm«« .cucmu ummummc may ou poocsou mmmucmonmm @musmfioo Hm9p0¢« "How mcwunommu ucmcwoom m>ms EmDmMm H50» moon m m m m h.¢ n.v m.m .m coflumosem mo m.m~ m.em m.ma m.ma m.m m.mm z mpcmsuummmo m.HH 0.0 m.c~ m.mm m.om » mumum m.H m.H 0.0 0.0 0.0 m «.mm m.hm m.bH o.vH m.H 0.0 Z mfimumhm m.Hm H.N¢ m.Nm o.mm N.mm N HOOSUm HmOOA esdu MAD. .1952 sd es en 31.10 ou.n 904.? 1.1 3.4 do onenou are?» Ado n p.o «on gun $33. I oTPq 33 IF I. 939 msu Ipeo $9 95 I. .e s a. rb lienun .ceo enu o u S 6m T.U1.I S U1. 9 4 I. u.+ T. 4 q fl m m ,w m & m. mmmcommmm W W a manwmmom m m D U m d “ma“ coaumwso .mH* cowummso «ummmmucoonmm as Ummmmnmxm .om»m>usm mfimumhm Hoonom HmooH can mumum mo mmmdommwMII.mH mnmda lll accidents. It is further shown that 2.3% of the states plan to include reporting of student accidents. There is only one local school system that reports not having systemwide reporting of student accidents. This is inconsistent with question 12 in which all school systems reported having systemwide student accident report— ing. C. professional staff? Data in‘Table l6 reveal that 86% of the local school systems and only 23.3% of the state departments of education report professional staff accidents. The data further indicates that 4.7% of the states plan reporting of professional staff accidents. D. student accident reporting_on a 24 hour basis? Data in Table 16 reveal that 82.5% of the local school systems and 20.9% of the state departments of education respond that they report student accidents around the clock. It is also shown that 4.7% of the states plan 24 hour reporting. E. accidents occuring during the summer months? Data in Table 16 reveal that 42.1% of the local school systems and none of the state departments of education include reporting of accidents during the summer months. It is further shown that 1.8% of the local systems and 6.9% of the states plan to incorporate the reporting of student accidents occuring during the summer months. 112 F. non-professional staff accidents? Data in Table 16 reveal that 31.6% of the local school systems, and only 11.6% of the state departments of education report non-professional staff accidents. It is also shown that 1.8% of the local systems and 6.9% of the states plan to include the reporting of accidents of its non-professional staff. Types of Accident Report Forms Table 17 presents the percentage of response of state departments of education and selected local school systems to survey question 16--What type of reporting form do you use? A. Non—eeplicable? Data in Table 1? reveal that none of the local school systems and 60.5% of the state departments of education indicated this question non—applicable to their situations. This high state response correlates closely to question 15-A where 62.8% of the states indicated that they had no reporting of student accidents. B. The National Safety Council's Standardized Student Accident Report Form? Data in Table 17 reveal 33.3% of the local school systems, and 13.9% of the state departments of education use the National Safety Council's form. .Emumonm coccmam u m «02 u 2 «wow u M "mwM .mmmsommmn HmooH cam mumum mo umwa mumHmEoo How M xfiocmmmm wmm«« .npcmu ummnmmc may on omocsou mmmpcmonmm oopsmfioo Hmsuomg 113 o.o ¢\z o.o o.o m coaumonom mo m.oa o.m~ o.m~ m.oo z mucmsuumomo m.m~ m.ma m.ma w macaw o.o o.o o.o o.o m m.om n.¢m a.me a.oo o.o z msmumMm «.mm m.m m.o~ m.mm » Hoonom amooa UQOIE 300.9 1.309 .3531. EU BOX 985 001. 01.9qu a 1. nd 1. mm A IWJG du PmKO OQWO mp. m 8 .L. seom . . m 60 J .cPQN T. .can .6 8 I.B.L. ErAD. 0 1.1 O T. D. 1 1. W. p 1.30.. I 3. POT. “haw m% s m. “mm m. mmmcommmm mugs. mm. u mo W a maoammoo an H I. ma 3 T. D. D. I S m m o o m m moms so» on Show mcwuuommn mo mam» umgz "mafi cowummso .ma¢ cowummso «ummmmucmoumm cw commmnmxm .oo>m>usm madamhm Hoocom Hmooa new mumum mo noncommmMII.hH mqm¢a 114 C. A variation of the National Safety Council's form? Data in Table 17 reveal that 26.3% of the local school systems and 13.9% of the states report use of a variation of the Council's form. It was found from sample report forms sent by various school systems with the completed questionnaires, that those that are using variations of the Council's form, differ only slightly. In most cases, the changes were not in the area of data information on the accident but was additional information for individual system information or for coding purposes. D. A form designed by_the state department of education. Data in Table 1? reveal that a mere 5.3% of the local school systems report that their forms were designed by the state departments of education. E. A form designed by your system to meet_your needs? Data in Table 1? reveal that 63.2% of the local school systems and 23.2% of the states have designed an accident reporting form to meet their individual system needs. gumber of Surveyed Systems and the Percentege_Having Student Accident Reporting Programe Tables 18, 19, and 20 present the percentage of response of state departments of education and selected 115 .mEmum>m mcHuHommH usmpwoom ucwcsum pm: Eon» mo HHm umnu mcHumoHocH Don .mHoocom mo Hmnfisc muH mcHumHH no: mEmummm Hoonom mmmnBIIMZ% OOH OH .con .xumo OHOOH .um OOH HO chooomHz .mmm oomuo OOH OO .ocHz .ousHoo OOH OO .O> .3 .uoosuHom OOH pH .oon .xumm oHoocHH OOH HO .nmmz .mcmxomm OOH mo .non .monmm pcmuo OOH OO .o> .ocoscon OOH HOm .non .uHouumo OOH NH unosuo> .oamesm OOH OH .mmmz .smsuHmz OOH Om zoo: .OoHo oxoq oHom OOH OO .mmmz .oHoHOOcHuoO OOH ON sou: .MoHo sszHum OOH OOH .oz .ouosHoHom OOH mmm mmxoe .CODmsom OOH MH mchz .coumcHEumm OOH OH moxoe .ooOoHHuox OOH OO .cms .oHHH>mHooH OOH v muoxmo .m .mconoum OOH Hm .GMM ..ou COmummme OOH OOH .oo .m .oHHH>ooouo OOH HO momcmx .MuHo Ommcmx OOH HHH .mo .aouooOBOHo OOH Hm msoH .OoHo Oon OOH Hm .mm .mHum OOH «NH .UGH .mHHommcmecH OOH OH cooouo .ouomooz OOH av .ocH .Ouoo OOH OHH osooono .MoHo msooono OOH Om .OcH .uumome OOH OH oHoo .Ooozoxmo OOH OOO .HHH .omooHoo OOH OOH oHoo .OOOHo>oHo OOH Om oanH .oOHom OOH OOH oHco .HuomooHocHo OOH OH .mHm ..oo Eoouoo OOH m muoxmo .z .HmmcHuumm OOH 3.mz _ .mHm ..oo mmHHmcch OOH m .>.z .oomoomuooumOcHumom OOH OOH .OHO ..oo nosouoomHHHm OOH «Oz .9 .z .OcmoH4 OOH O .Hoo .OHoOHHz OOH OH oonoz .z .omomHumo OOH OH .ocoo .conoomno OOH Om .O .z .oomomNHHm OOH OOO .OHHoo .moHooo< moH OOH Om HuoommHz .OHOHOOOHHOO OOH NO .OHHoo .mHOOOOHo OOH HOH HuoommHz .MOHo mmmoox OOH Om .xsm .xoom oHuoHH .z OOH O HugommHz .HmoHccOm OOH OO .xum .xoom oHuOHH OOH HH .mmHz .mHoose OOH O .NHH< .mHmocmHo OOH Om .OmHz .oomxomn OOH OO .mHa .OHHooz mcHuuommm mHoocom mcHuuomom mHoocow OIIO mo .ozu-< msoomsm Hoooom OIIO Oo .ozuua msoumsm Hoooom .mEmumxm mcHuHommu ucmpHoom mcH>on Hogan: may Amy can uoHuuch Hso> CH mHoonom mo Hones: Adv one pampsum uhH* :OHummsO .OHO coHummso "mommucoouom pom mHmuou CH ommmmumxm mEoumxm Hoocom HmooH mo noncommmMII.mH mqmde 116 .cOHumosom mo ucmEDHmmmo mumum mcu ou csocxcs mH mfimumMm Hoonom mo Hogan: wnaIIZD .nucmu ummnmoc on» ou ommucwoumm wmusmeoo Hmsuofla zo HOH moHsomz OOH «Om GHmcoomHB ZD omH HmmwmmHmmflz 2: Om OHOHOHH> some O.OO OOO muomooon 2: OOO oouooHoOmz 2: OOO :mOHoon 2O HOH OHoHOHH> z: HOO muummsnommmmz OOH HNO.H mmxoe OOH Om OOOHsumz ZD omH 0mmmmfldmfi ZD vN 0Gflmz ZD HON muoxmo nusom O.hm Ow McMHmHsoq 2: mm mcHHoumu :Dsom ZD NOH mxosucoM 22 OO ocmHmH moocm OOH mHm mamcmM OOH OOO mHom>Hsmoooo 2: OOO oon 2: OOO oooono z: OHO.H mHooHHHH 2: 2D mg0%..on OOH mHH ocmoH ZD oom muoxmo cuuoz 2: ZS HHmsmm 22 «OH moHHoumo ounoz zo HOH onuomo z: mmn Mnow 302 m.mm no moHnon m.mH OO OOmez 3oz OOH ON mumsmHmo 2: OOO Momumb 362 2: 2D usoHuomccou OOH OH mom>mz m.m~ HOH oomuoHou ZD ON>.H mxmmunmz 2D 25 MHGHOMHHMU z: z: mcmucoz z: mam mcoNHH< m.OH HOO HnsommHz zo mNH mEMAMH¢ msmumonm mfiwumMm mfimumoum mfimummm mcHuuommm Hoozom mcHuHommM Hoonom cuHs m mo .02 mmumum nuHs w mo .02 mmumum mmEmumMm mcHuHommu ucmowoom ucmcsum mcH>ma muowuumHU Hoocom no any cam .mumum Mao» cH muoHnuch Hoocom mo Adv nonfisc on» mum and: "OHO aoaomoao .hHu cowumoso «ummmmucmoumm can mHmuou CH ommmmumxm :OHumoscm mo musofiunmmmp mumum mo mochQmMMII.OH mnmcs .nucmu ammumms map ou mmmoucmoumm omusmfioo HmsuomO 0.0~ NOO.O OOO.~H moumum w mcHuuommm .oz mDOHHumHo mo .02 .mfimumMm mcHuHommH HomoHoom psmosum mcH>ms mDOHHume mo Hogans map Hmv cam .mpmum use» CH muoHHumHU Hoocom Hfiv mo Hogans one. ”hHfi COHummso 117 omm.m OOO.m mcHuHommm Hmuoa OOH OO OO mHooooO HmHoooO OOH OOO OOO OHoooom OOHO uoHooO OOH OOO OOO mHooooO oOHm uoHoon OOH . ONO.~ . ONO.~ mHooOoO OnmuomsmHm w mcHuuommm .oz , mHoonom mo .02 mHoonom mo momma .HMHommm 0cm .cmHn-u0Hcmm .sch HoHcsn.mumusmfioHo "woman 0D mcHonooom umHH umEmDmMm msHuHommH usmpHoom ucmcsum msH>mc mHoocom «0 Amy can .DOHHumHo Mao» cH mHoonom mo fidv Hogan: was "OHO sowummso «.mmmucmouom can mHmuou cH ommmmumxm mEmumMm Hoosom HMOOH can mmumum mo noncommmMII.O~ mamas 118 local school systems to survey question l7--What is the (A) number of schools or districts in your system, and (B) the number having student accident reporting systems? Data in Table 18 reveal. the number of schools in each responding local school system; and Table 20 indicates the total number of responding schools, and the number and percentage of those with reporting programs. It is readily seen that every responding local school system has 100% systemwide reporting programs. It is certainly one of the outstanding findings of this study. It is also a tribute to the programs of the selected schools used in this study--a total of 2,924 elementary schools, 475 junior high schools, 405 senior high schools, and 86 special schools--totaling 3,890 schools involved in the analysis of this question. Table 19 reveal the number of school systems in each responding state and the percentage of those known to the state department of education as having student accident reporting systems. Table 20 indicates the total number of school districts in the responding states (12,406) and the number andpercentage with known reporting programs, (2,982--24%). These tables clearly indicate the lack of statewide reporting systems, and even the lack of informa- tion as to the status of reporting on the local levels. 119 Methods of Processing Accident Data Table 21 presents the percentage of response of state departments of education and selected local school systems to survey question 18--What method of data process- ing of student accidents is used in your system? A. Manual tabulation? Data in Table 21 reveal that 86% of the local school systems and 18.6% of the state departments of education manually tabulate their student accident data. It is further noted that 2.3% of the states are planning to use this method of data processing. B. Cemputer assistance? Data in Table 21 reveal that only 10.5% of the local school systems and 11.6% of the state departments of education report that they use computer assistance for data processing of student accident reports. It is further indicated that 7% of the local systems and 9.3% of the states plan the use of computer assistance. C. A combination of both.methods? Data in Table 21 reveal that 7% of the local schoOl systems and 11.6% of the state departments of education respond that they use a combination of manual tabulation and computer assistance in data processing of student accidents. It is further shown that 1.8% of the local systems and 6.9% of the states plan to combine the use of both methods for data processing. .Emumoum cmGGMHm u m «02 u 2 “wow u H "amM .mmmcommmn HmooH can oumum mo umHH mpoHdEoo How M chcmdm¢ coma“ .nucmp ummummc map on octagon mmmucmoumm cmvsmfiou Hmsuoda 120 0.0 m.m m.m m.~ m coHumoscm mo ~.Om m.hO m.O~ m.ON m.mH z mucwfiunmmmo m.m O.HH O.HH 0.0H » mumum 0.0 O.H O.h 0.0 m h.vm O.H ~.Hm h.hm ~.~H z mfimummm m.m O.h m.OH 0.00 M Hoosom Hmooq sic o.u1 NHOp. eHo H+m .amw Ado 9.4 aoo mve 9 non m. o Ham u 0.9 .L. "no rid nnu 114 I. CHOW. SH“ TL? 3: 9 9% 43 at a O. O. O. g H... w a T. e o o noncommmm .. O... H... m. w oHonmoo m loll .IOIII Ilol IIuII IIMI IHHII momma mH mucmcHoom ucmcsum mo mchmmooum spam no conumfi punk ”OHO GOHummsO .OHO GOHUmmsO «ummmmucooumm GH Ummmmumxw .Ummm>nsm mfiwummm Hoocom HMOOH can mumum mo noncommmMII.HN mumsfi 121 D. Non-applicable? Data in Table 21 reveal that only 1.8% of the local school systems and 67.5% of the state departments of education state that this question is non-applicable to their situations. E. Methods other than those specified? Data in Table 21 reveal that 3.5% of the local school systems and 2.3% of the state departments of education respond affirmatively to this question. There are two local school systems that do not analyze their data and one state, Kansas, that indicate that the State Health Department collects and processes the accident data. A complete list of responses can be found in Appendix K. Manual Tabulation of Accident Data Table 22 presents the percentage of response of state departments of education and selected local school systems to survey question l9--If you use manual tabulation of accident data, is it: A. non-applicable? Data in Table 22 reveal that 8.8% of local school systems and 79.1% of the state departments of education indicate that this question is not applicable to their situations. 122 .Emumoum coccmHm n m «02 u z “mow u M "MmM .mmmcommmn HmooH can oumum mo umHH wumeeoo How M prcmmm4 mmOOO .nucmu amoumms on» on coccsou mmmusmonmm cmusmfioo Hmsu04« m N 0.0 0.0 0.0 m GOHumoscm mo 0.0H O.vH m.OH m.m H.mh z mucmsuummmo m.O m.m O.v O.HH w mumum O.H O.H 0.0 0.0 m 0.00 «.mn 0.00 0.0~ 0.0 2 msmuOMO ~.m O.mH 0.0m O.HO » Hoocom Hmooq A u Om OOOO OOOO OOO O. 9 uieaoo ml: 9 9nu9 auu 99 .9149 dIue “544 T. 1.1 JIan nIon s I. I. 3: ms QQQS i u 0 .A m.& 9 9 9 .b 9 .a 90m..A Maw...“ m... u. m1 o .c A0 9 noncommmm m. 3m an a oHonmoo s O .6 IIuOI lml IMI o ImII IIOII ”uH mH .mumc ucwcwoom mo GOHumHsnmu Hmscms mus sow «H “me GOHummso .me coHummso «"mmmmucmoumm cH commmumxm .comm>usm memumam Hoodoo HmooH can mumum mo momcommmMII.N~ mumma 123 B. meeting your needs? Data in Table 22 reveal that 61.4% of the local school systems and 11.6% of the state departments of educa- tion indicate that manual tabulation of accident data meets their needs. C. because_you do not have available computers? Data in Table 22 reveal that 36.8% of the local school systems and 4.6% of the state departments of education indicate that they use manual tabulation because they do not have available computers. D.‘ because your system is too small for other methods? Data in Table 22 reveal that 15.8% of the local school systems and 6.9% of the states report that their systems are too small for methods other than manual tabulation. One school system responded "planned" to this question. E. for reasons other than those specified? Data in Table 22 reveal that 5.2% of the local school systems and 6.9% of the states provide other responses to this question. It is further shown that 1.8% of the local systems and 2.3% of the states are planning other methods of processing data. A complete list of responses to this question can be found in Appendix K. 124 Distribution of Accident Report Summaries Table 23 presents the percentage of response of state departments of education and selected local school systems to survey question 20--Are summaries of reported accident data distributed: A.. monthly? Data in Table 23 reveal that 29.8% of the local ‘school systems and 9.3% of the states report that they provide monthly summaries of their accident reports. It is further shown that 2.3% of the states are planning to distribute monthly summaries. B. semi-annual sammaries? Data in Table 23 reveal that 14% of the local school systems and only 2.3% of the state departments of education indicate that they distribute semi-annual reports of analyzed accident data. It is further shown that 1.8% of the local school systems and 2.3% of the states are planning semi-annual summaries. C. annually? Data in Table 23 reveal that 68.4% of the local :school systems and 32.7% of the state departments of educa- ‘tiom.provide accident summaries on an annual basis. It is also shown that 6.9% of the states are planning annual accident summaries . .Emumonm cochHm n m «oz u 2 «mm» H M "MOM .mmmcommmu HmooH cam oumum mo umHH ouOHmEoo mom M prcmmmm OOOOO .nucmp pmwnmmc map on cmpcsou mmmncmoumm cmusmfiou Hmsuo¢O 125 m.~ m.O m.m m.m m .GOHpmoscm mo O.NO O.mm m.v m.vm m.>m z mucmsuummmo O.HH O.~m m.m m.m w oumum 0.0 0.0 O.H 0.0 m O.H 0.00 0.0m ~.OO 0.00 z msoumMO m.OH ¢.OO 0.0H O.mm w Hoocom Hmooq Ow O0 m OH... .O Ann 9 m“ nam u TL- 08 n HI. 1. TV T71 D. P. U5 o J: T. .L I u .A T. T. .A q a .A .A .c T. x. .6 .c 9 x noncommmm OHnHmmom m m D U m ¢ "cmuanuuch mumc ucmcHoom counommh mo mmHHmEEsm mum "ONO sOHummso .ON¢ cowummso «"mmmmucoouom . cH commmumxw .cm>m>usm mfimumwm Hoocom HmooH can oumum mo mmchQmOMII.ma gamma 126 D. by means other than those specified? Data in Table 23 reveal that 10.5% of the local school systems and 11.6% of the state departments of education indicate other ways of summarizing data. It is also shown that 2.3% of the states are planning other means. A complete list of all responses can be found in Appendix K. E. non-applicable? Data in Table 23 reveal that 1.8% of the local school systems and 62.8% of the state departments of education report that accident summaries are not applicable to their present accident prevention programs. Projections for Systemwide Accident Reporting Table 24 presents the percentage of response of state departments of education and selected local school systems to survey question 21—-What are your projections for a systemwide reporting program? A. Do not consider implementing a program. Data in Table 24 reveal that no local school system*and only 6.9% of the state departments of education indicate that they are not planning a reporting program. * Previously reported that 100 percent of local school systems had a program in effect. See question 14-A. .Emnmonm UmccmHm n m “02 u 2 «wow u M ”MOM .mmmcommmu HmooH can mpmum mo umHH mumHmEoo How M chcmmmm mwmaa .cucmu umwnmmc mg» on omccson mmmucmonmm cmpsmfioo Hmsuodg 127 m.m O.HH m.O 0.0 0.0 m cowumoscm mo m.mm m.mm H.Nh N.mh H.mm z mucmsunmmmo m.¢ m.om m.h~ m.ON m.O w mpmum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 m OOH OOH OOH 0.0 OOH 2 maximum 0.0 0.0 0.0 OOH 0.0 M Hoocom Hmooq coo .A.t an. e ule O.I.onv Adm“ a a 7:0 mHOO e 21. 91. 3nd ddu Hoe Tao Tao 9 Ta 1_Laou n... 5.. sz mum Ommw .A e 9 . 1 .OOoe . M M m mu: H .m .m . m“ noncommmm . u mHnHmmom 5 m m o O m « memumoum mcHuuommu wcHslfimumMm o How mCOHuomnoum Mao» mum umsz "HNO coHummso .HNO GOHummso gummmmucwonom cH commmumxm .Ummmbusm mfimumam Hoocom HmOOH can mpmum mo mmmsommmMII.vN mamas 128 The local response is in accord with 100% system- wide accident reporting already in effect, and the state response indicates that almost all states have, or are planning, reporting programs. B. A_program now in effect. Data in Table 24 reveal that 100% of the local school systems and 20.8% of the state departments of education report systemwide reporting programs. These are important findings gleaned from this study. However, there is some variation of the state response in correlation to question l4-A which virtually asks the same thing; that percentage is 27.9%. What the reasons are for this is unknown. C. l to 2 years away. Data in Table 24 reveal that no local school system and 27.9% of the state departments of education indicate they are planning a systemwide program in l to 2 years. D. 3 to 4 years away. Data in Table 24 reveal that no local school system, and 30.2% of the state departments of education indicate that they are planning a systemwide program in 3 to 4 years. It is also shown that 11.6% of the states indicate hopefully having such a reporting program in 3 to 4 years. 129 E. Projections other than those specified. Data in Table 24 reveal that no local school system, and 4.5% of the state departments of education indicate other projections for a reporting program. Most plans are predicated on whether or not additional funds and staff will be made available. A complete list of responses can be found in Appendix K. Recipients and Quality of Accident Data Table 25 presents the percentage of response of state departments of education and selected local school systems to survey question 22--If you collect accident data: A. is non-applicable? Data in Table 25 reveal that 5.2% of the local school systems and 62.8% of the state departments of education indicate that this question is not applicable to their situations. B. is sufficient data being collected? Data in Table 25 reveal that 63.2% of the local school systems, and 23.3% of the state departments of education report that they are collecting data sufficient for their needs. It is also shown that one local school system responds "planned" to this question. 130 .Emumoum UOCCMHm H m «oz .mmmCommmH HmooH ccm mumum mo umHH mumHmEoo HOH M chCmmmm mmm«« .Cquu ummnmmC OCH op OOOCCOH mmmquoumm cmusmfioo Hmsuoma O O m.m m m 0.0 9.9 m.~ 0.0 m coHumoOom Ho m.Om 0.0H 0.0 0.0m 0.0H O.HH 0.0H O.~O z mucosuummoo 0.0 0.0~ O.HO O.HH 0.0~ 0.0~ m.m~ w oumum O.H 0.0 ~.O N.O ~.O O.H O.H o O.OO 9.9m 0.00 0.00 «.ma 0.0H O.HO ~.O z msoomsm 0.0H 0.00 0.00 0.0~ O.~O 0.00 m.mO 9 Hoocom HOUOH OI... OHHOOO Haws OOO OOOO OOO“... OOO OH- 8U. 90 P8 9 PO PO 1. SO ds I41. du 38 JJue Ede sa Emil 1T;;u IE; I. T.1 1.9AO 0. Tax HP .4 o. .o 1.9 9.L 1 9 HI .I J: éSUEn. .COBQ n9? 8?: HiAme OQO O .A S_A1. 13A? 9A.... 0.9 8 ES 1.8.... p. é I. v.2 ance .Op.P n“? D. nae eTre q a O n On On OO .. OH... OOO O 32...... . . mHnHmmom O. O OO. OOH Om am ,. I U.L I 3 a. E e a a I m o m m o o m C "mH .mumc qucHoom pomHHoo so» MH "NNO COHummso .wa Covamso *"mmmmucmonmm CH commonmxw .cmmm>usm mfimumhm Hoonom HCOOH OCm macaw mo mmmCommmMII.mm mqmme 131 C. is it presented in a manner that is easily interpreted? Data in Table 25 reveal that 80.8% of the local school systems and 25.6% of the state departments of education report that their data is presented in an easily interpretable manner. It is further shown that 1.8% of the local school systems, and 2.3% of the states are plan- ning to improve the communicability of their accident data. D. is there adequate distribution of the data? Data in Table 25 reveal that 52.6% of the local school systems and 23.3% of the states feel that there is adequate distribution of the accident data. It is further indicated that 5.2% of the local systems and 4.7% of the state agencies are planning to increase their distribution. E. is the data made available to students? Data in Table 25 reveal that 29.8% of the local school systems, and 11.6% of the state departments of education make their data available to students. It is further noted, that 5.2% of the local systems are planning to provide their students with this data. F. is the data made available to professional staff? Data in Table 25 reveal that 65% of the local school systems and 32.6% of the states report that they make accident data available to professional staff. It is also Shown that 5.2% of the local systems, and 2.3% of the state agencies make copies of analyzed data for their professional Staff. TABLE 26.-Responses of state and local school systems surveyed, expressed in percentages:* Question #23. Is your student accident data analyzed and used Question #23: geanord queprooe meqsfis II91340 M eqq ezfiteue on astooqos sun on seinseem U 9Arqu9A91d eqexnsuomep on aquemerxme “I pue buTuueId mnTnoTJJno Io; astooqos II? M 0: BIqEIIEAP exam on astooqos 9g; ur squeprooe 0 J0 qsoo eqq ssesse on gsmEJBOJd K39ges burofiuo U burqenIeAe go sueem e se 5939p queprooe 9zrxemmns m on sqorxqsrp IO stooqos efiexnooue on m getqeortdde —uou POSSlble Responses 54.4 59.6 54.4 68.5 31.6 50.9 Local School 63.2 1 26.3 1.8 Systems moxcx [\lnln Departments of Education State *Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth. **See Appendix K for complete list of state and local responses. No; P = Planned program. N: Yes; Key: 132 .G. is the data made available to non-professional staff? Data in Table 25 reveal that 40.4% of the local school systems and 20.8% of the state departments of education distribute data to their non-professional staff. It is further shown that 3.5% of the local systems and 2.3% of the states are planning to do so. H. is it presented in a manner other than those specified? Data in Table 25 reveal that 10.5% of the local school systems and 6.9% of the state departments of education indicate other procedures for distribution of accident data. It is also shown that 1.8% of the local systems are planning additional methods. A complete list of these responses can be found in Appendix K. PART III PROGRAM USES OF ANALYZED DATA Uses of Analyzed Student Accident Data Table 26 presents the percentage of response of state departments of education and selected local school systems to survey question 23—-Is your student accident data analyzed and used: A. non-applicable? Data in Table 26 reveal that 5.2% of the local aschool systems and 62.8% of the state departments of educa- tion indicate that this question is not applicable to their situations. TABLE 26.-Responses of state and local school systems surveyed, expressed in percentages:* Question #23. Is your student accident data analyzed and used Question #23 gainiord queprooe mensfis IIQJBAO sq: ezfiteue oq astooqos sq: on sexnseem 9Arqu9A91d eqexqsuomep on aquemerxme pue buruuetd mnInoTJIno Io; gsTooqos {Te 04 GTQPITPAQ exem oq gsTooqos sq; ur squeprooe go qsoo sq; ssesse oq asmexfioxd Kaeges Burobuo burqenTEAe go sueem e 59 5939p queprooe ezrlemmns on sqorxqsrp IO stooqos 9621noou9 o; aetqeortdde —uou POSSlble Responses 133 31.6 54.4 54.4 59.6 65.0 40.4 68.5 50.9 Local School 1.8 1.8 63.2 26.3 1.8 Systems >4 State 62.8 2 Departments of Education 6.9 *Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth. **See Appendix K for complete list of state and local responses. No; P = Planned program. N: Yes; Key: TABLE 26 . --Continued . Is your student accident data analyzed and used: Question #23: I asesn 19691 etqrssod pue eouexnsur Jo; atrounoo K19;es Teuorqu 9H4 04 GTQP —TTeAe exam on aserouebe Tequemuxerb 2 84918 Jeqqo IO; asm91601d Images '3' '3' Tooqos IO; aloddns ortqnq PTInq 01 auorqonpex queprooe Io; serpnqs Teroeds GAQTQTUT 04 asmexboxd 134 \ONO [\HO (OF-{O [\N l‘l‘I—I Q‘Q‘ 47.4 47.4 10.5 AqTAque xsrm wuncq h —qbrq IO Teroeds equosr on w queprooe quepnqs uT spuezq H orxqsrp 10 84938 O eurmxeqep oq Pos31b1e Responses >1ZCL Local School Systems 23.3 State mm \OV‘ Departments of Education *Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth. **See Appendix K for complete list of state and local responses. Planned program. P: No; Yes; N Key: 135 Both percentages correlate with earlier responses to questions regarding analysis of student accident data. B. to encourage schools or districts to summarize accident data? Data in Table 26 reveal that 50.9% of the local school systems and 25.6% of the state departments of education utilize analyzed data to encourage their subsystems to summarize data. It is further shown that 1.8% of the local systems and 4.5% of the states plan to use analyzed data for this all important function. C. as a means of evaluating ongoing_safety programs? Data in Table 26 reveal that 68.5% of the local school systems, and 32.7% of the state departments of education use analyzed accident data for evaluating and improving their accident prevention programs. It is further indicated that 1.8% of the local school systems and 4.5% of the states plan to use analyzed data for this purpose. D. to assess the cost of accidents in the schools? Data in Table 26 reveal that 31.6% of the local school systems and 13.9% of the state departments of education utilize their accident data to evaluate the cost of accidents. It is further shown that 1.8% of the local systems and 4.5% of the states plan to use analyzed data for this function. 136 E. to make available to all schools? Data in Table 26 reveal that 54.4% of the local systems and 23.3% of the state departments of education make analyzed and summarized accident data available to all schools. It is also shown that 1.8% of the local systems, and 4.5% of the states are planning this function _of accident data. F. for curriculum planning and improvement? Data in Table 26 reveal that 54.4% of the local school systems and 30.3% of the state departments of education utilize accident data for curriculum planning and improvement. It is also indicated that 3.5% of the local systems and 6.9% of the states are planning this use for accident data. G. to demonstrate preventive measures to the schools? Data in Table 26 reveal that 59.6% of the local school systems and 27.9% of the state departments of education use their analyzed accident data for demonstrat- ing preventive measures to their schools. It is also shown, that 3.5% of the local school systems, and 4.5% of the states are planning this function for accident data. H. to analyze the over-all system accident picture? Data in Table 26 reveal that 65% of the local school systems and 25.6% of the state departments of 137 education analyze the over-all accident picture of the system through analyzed accident data. It is further indicated, that 3.5% of the local school systems, and 6.9% of the state departments of education are planning to use their accident data for this purpose. I. to determine state or district trends in student accidents? Data in Table 26 reveal that 63.2% of the local school systems and 27.9% of the state departments of education indicate that they use analyzed data to determine trends in student accidents. It is also shown that 3.5% of the local systems and 6.9% of the states are planning to utilize analyzed data for this purpose. J. to isolate special or high-risk activityeprograms? Data in Table 26 reveal that 61.5% of the local school systems, and 25.6% of the state departments of education use analyzed accident data to isolate special or high-risk activity programs. It is further indicated that 5.2% of the local systems, and 6.9% of the states are planning this activity for analyzed data. K. to initiate epecial studies for accident reduction? Data in Table 26 reveal that 47.4% of the local school systems and 23.3% of the state departments of educa- 'thxxuse analyzed accident data to initiate special studies 138 for accident prevention and reduction. It is further shown that 10.5% of the local systems, and 9.3% of the states are planning this function of analyzed data. L. to build_public support for school safety_pr0grams? Data in Table 26 reveal that 47.4% of the local school systems and 30.3% of the state departments of education use accident data to gain public support for safety programs. It is further reported that 1.8% of the local systems, and 4.5% of the state agencies plan this use of analyzed accident data. M. for other state_governmental agencies? Data in Table 26 reveal that only 29.8% of the local school systems and 20.8% of the state departments of education make their analyzed accident data available to other agencies. It is also shown that 1.8% of the local systems and 6.9% of the states are planning this use of accident data. N. to make available to the National Safety Council? Data in Table 26 reveal that 73.7% of the local school systems and 23.3% of the state departments of education supply the National Safety Council with their accident data. It is further indicated that 9.3% of the state agencies are planning to submit summaries to the Council. 139 O. for insurance and_possible legal uses? Data in Table 26 reveal that 89.6% of the local school systems, and 18.6% of the state agencies, report that they analyze accident data for possible legal reasons. It is also shown that 4.5% of the states are planning to incorporate this as a use of accident data. Special Studies Using Analyzed Accident Data Table 27 presents the percentage of response of state departments of education and selected local school systems to survey question 24--Have there been any special studies done in your system using analyzed student accident data? Specify. Data in Table 27 reveal that 19.3% of the local school systems and 16.4% of the states report that there have been special studies conducted in their systems using analyzed accident data. it is further indicated that 3.5% of the local school systems plan this use of analyzed data. A complete list of reSponses to this question can be found in Appendix K. Significant Areas Omitted from the Questionnaire Table 28 presents the percentage of response of state departments of education and selected local school 140 .Emumoum cmCCmHm n m «02 u 2 «no» u M ”MOM .M xHCCmmmd CH UCsom ma Cmo mmHOCum HmHommm mo umHH mumHmEoo 4«« .Cquu ummemC on» ou mommucmoumm cmusmfioo Hmsuoflt m.m 0.00 m.mH msmummm HooCom HCOOH I O.mm «.mH CoHumoscm mo mqusuummoo mumum .mlw ZIw wlw «ammumc qupHoom quUCum cmuhHMCm OCHmC Emumhm Mao» CH.mCoc mchsum HCHowmm MCM Coon mums» m>mm «em CoHummCo .Ow COHummso «ummmmucoouom CH commmumxm mswumwm HOOCom HMOOH ch mmumum mo mmmCommm II.>~ mamas 141 «02 u 2 «mm» u w "MOM .mmmCommou mo umHH mumHmEoo o How M xHCCommm OOOOO .Cquu ammummC OCH on mommquonm Umusmsoo Hmsuode .mqupHoom HooComICoC msmum> HOOCom CH umoH mHCoC CCmcsum mfimnmonm COHqu>mHm HCooo m Cm Hoom mum 3 mmmum 0H doom pCmcHoom CH cmmonEm mmuscmooum u p. C .m. m mmHOCmmm HCCoHucoscm sump CCC mqucHoom mCC HoOCom HmooH OCC myopm mo mHCmCoHumHmM mHooCom OCH CH com: mum muomm mCu 30C mmHOHCm> Houoz Ho .ummo OCm moHHOC mm Cosm .mmHOCmmm CoHuomHHoo HmCuo OCHuHommH UCOUHOOC CH mmmoosm mo mmummc Co quEmumum mcumon 3wH>wH uCOUHOUC mmmuuHEEoo HMHommm «0 mm: mHooCom wumqusmHm How mmwnm mumummom mummmm OHOHOHC CCC CCHHummcmm *«cmuuommm mEmuH HMOHQMH *«cmuuomom mEOUH HCOHmNH OO OH msmummm HooCoO HmooH 0.00 O.m~ aoHumoscm mo .mumwo mumum ZIw wlw ZIw MI» mmHHMCCoHumOCU mHCu_Eoum cmuuHEO mums OCHuHome . qucHoom qucsum CH CHOOCoo mo momma uCCOHMHCmHm CCCS "mm COHummCo .mm COHummCo «ummmmquond CH pmmmmhmxm mfimummm HOOCOm HMOOH GCC mmumum mo mmmCommOMIl.m~ mqmma 142 systems to survey question 25--What significant areas of concern in student accident reporting were omitted from this geestionnaire? Data in Table 28 reveal that 14% of the local school systems and 23.3% of the state departments of education list items they feel were omitted from this questionnaire. It is also noted that typical responses to this question are listed. The typical responses listed in Table 28 will be reviewed as to their value of inclusion in accident report- ing systems. State Response--It was stated that pedestrian and bicycle safety, and the use of special committees and accident review boards should have been included in this questionnaire. Pedestrian and bicycle safety is a specific area of accident prevention that concerns types of program inclusion such as fire safety, and recreational safety. It was not within the scope of this study to deal with these instructional areas. The use of committees and review boards were actually covered in question 10 which asked about groups of this type within the system. Specifically, lO-E was an open ended question where those special groups should have been listed by their respective systems. 143 As for "the use of other collection agencies, such as the police department and the motor vehicle department", this question was considered for possible inclusion in the questionnaire because of this researcher's prior know- ledge of the state of Kansas' arrangement for collection of accident data. It was ommitted due to the lack of space (six pages was to be the limit of length), and because this writer wanted to deal specifically with these activities of the educational systems themselves. The inclusion of "relationship of state and local educational agencies" would have been an interesting question to survey. However, to tabulate and to make a meaningful analysis of individual relationships would not work well with the response plan of this questionnaire--Yes, No, and Planned. Also too, this was primarily a survey of types of student accident reporting programs. As for "specific areas where accidents occur", this writer was interested in this aspect as an item on the accident report form (Part IV); not for the causes of accidents, but as an element in accident reporting programs. Local School System Responses.--"There should have been separate areas for elementary schools". It must be restated again, that it was not the purpose of this study to isolate instructional program areas, such as those included in elementary, junior high, or senior high school, but to assess the systems' accident reporting procedures, regardless of what level. 144 A "statement on degree of success in accident reporting" was ruled out for inclusion because of the fact that it is an opinion question. Only one opinion question was included and that was to assess at what level accident reporting should be conducted--at the state, and local level, or at both levels. An item that would have probably improved the questionnaire is "How the facts are used in the schools". These experiences would prove helpful in determining the use of accident data. "School bus accidents and data" was not included because of its specific nature. It was not within the scope of this study to assess particular accident areas. Again, it was not within the scope of this survey to assess specific "procedures employed in accident pre- vention programs". The section of questions on safety education (Part I) was included only as general background information for the accident reporting programs themselves. The area of "student hours lost in school versus non-school accidents" would have probably proved most interesting. However, there would most likely be few systems researching this specific area, and if there were any, it should have been included in the question on special studies. 145 PART IV ACCIDENT REPORT FORM INFORMATION Items Included on Report Forms Tables 29 and 30 present the percentage of response of state departments of education and selected local school systems to survey questions 26-57 indicatieg which of the listed items of the National SafeEy Council's Standard Student Accident Report Form they include on their report forms. If the systems do not have a report form they were requested to include those items they would include if they_were to design a form. A brief statement will be presented concerning the analysis of the responses and of the state and local school systems. 26. Non-applicable. Data in Tables 29 and 30 reveal that 1.8% of the local school systems and 58.1% of the state departments of education state that these questions are not applicable to their situations. These percentages correlate with earlier responses indicating systemwide reporting programs. There are slight variations with the state response from question to question. 27. Meme, Data in Tables 29 and 30 reveal that 78.9% of the local school systems and 30.3% of the state departments of education indicate that they include the name of the injured 1146 .momCommwu MOOCO «CoHuCCuHm Ho Emumoum HCHCOHHHCQ HHmCu ou OHCCOHHdmmICOC u ¢\z Emumoum cmCCMHm u m “oz u 2 «mm» H w EHOH m CH OCCHOCH OHCOB so» mEmuH mmmCu .mEmumMm HooCom HcooH mo umHH mumHmEoo o How M chCwmm< mwm««« "AOMOO .Cquu ummnmmC OCH ou mommquonm cmusmfioo Hmsuo<« I H.OO O.OH IIIOOHoooO .uoguo .HO I H.O~ H.OO oHoOouooom .OO I O.HH O.OO HOH>Hooo Ho monoum .OO I O.HH H.OO oHomuuoOOO OO I O.H O.OO oomuoo Oo HuH>Huo< .HO I “.mH O.OO OHO HOCHH OaH>HO . . . oco Oo ououmaOHO .OO I O H O OO HoooHoom Ho ooHomooH OO I n.mH m.Nm HCOUHOOM HOOCOmICOC I O.HH O.OO OCOHOOOHO . . . . m.HmmH0CHHm .mm HOOCOm .CoHuOHUmHHCO am I O.O O.OO OcHfloooH com I O.O O.OO OCOHOH Ho omsmo .OO Iuoo Oo ousHOcOHO .HO I O.OH O.OO umoH OOOO .02 .HO I m.m O.NO HCOQOH wo sumo .Hm I m.NH O.mm MHCnCH mo mwuwma .Om I O.OH O.OO coHoOHHoOoo .OO I O.H O.OO OouoHcH moon mo sumo .Om I O.OO 0.00 oOOsOO souoaoua .OO I O.H O.OO OHOHOH Oo ousomz .Om I O.HH O.OO OoOOOOOOO .aoxmo I O.H O.OO .xoos “CoHuom O>Huomnuou .mv mo Mme .DCmcHoom I O.OO O.OO HooomO Oo osHo_Ocm mono .HO HmComem mwcmCD .OO I O.O N.HO Emnmoum I 0.00 O.HO coHuHoooo HmonMco HOHooom Ho moose .HO HmOHCOCOoE mwmmCa .Ov I O.OH N.Om .HO .mmp .CuCoE “wad .Hm I H.HN H.OO pom oOmmaO .OO I O.O O.OO xom .Om I O.H O.OO 1.ouo HoosoHOOoO I O.H O.OO Hooaom .OO ©w>Ho>CH >0COO< .Ov . . . I O a O HO OOOCOOO ON I H.O O.OO HHmoonOoOoua . . . Icon .HmaonmoO I O OH O OH 8982 HO Iouov :oHOH>uooom .OO I I O.H .Iaxz .ON OIO ZIO HIO msouH shoe uuooom OIO ZIO OIO OEOHH show Huoaom .mma ou ONO mCOHummCO “COHHCEHOMCH EHOM mCHuHommH HCOUHOOC ">H puma .Omt op ONO mCoHummCO «ummmmquonm CH cmmmmumxm meumMm HOOCom HmooH wo mmmCOQmomII.mN mqmde 1u47 .mOmCommOH _mOuOum mo umHH OOOHQEOO m Hem M XHUCOQQ< OOm««« Emumonm UOCCOHC u m EHOH m CH OOCHOCH cHsos COM mEOuH OmOCu “oz u z umOM n N MOOCO “CoHumsuHm Ho ECHOOHQ HOHCOHDHOQ HHOCu ou OHCOOHHQQOICOC u ¢\z ">OM«« .CUCOD umOHmOC OCH Cu mOmmuCOOHOQ OOHCQEOO Hmsu0¢O I O.ON O.OH IIIHOHoooO «Hocuo .HO O.OO O.OH O.ON OHomcuooom .OO O.HO O.HH O.OO HOH>HHUO Oo moumum .NO O OO O HH O OO oHnmuCodom Om O.OO O.N O.OO coOuoo Oo OHH>Hno< .HO O.OO O.OH O.ON OHO OOCHO OOH>HO . . . . oco Oo m...C.o....cH.Hm .OO O OO O O O NO noooHoom Ho :oHumooH OO O.OO 0.0 O.OO oooaHoom HooaomIooc O.OO O.H O.OO OHOHOOOHO . . . O.HooHocHCO .HO Hooeom .coHuoHOmHCsO Om O.OO O.H O.OO OcHuCooou com O.OO O.N 0.00 OCOHCH Ho mmomo .OO Iuoo Oo ousuchHm .NO 0.00 m.N 0.00 umoH OOOO mo .02 .HO 0.00 O.N O.OO uuoOou Oo oomo .HO N.OO 0.0 O.Nm OCOHOH Oo mouOoo .OO 0.00 O.H O.OO coHnOHuomoo .OO O.OO m.N O.OH oouoHcH OOoo Ho Hana .OO 0.00 O.HH O.OO OOOEOO Huuoaoua .OO O.OO I O.HO OCOHOH Oo ousumz .OO 0.00 0.0H O.HN OOHOOOOOO .aoxmo O.OO I O.HO . xoo3 “COHOOO O>HuOOHHOU .OO O0 MOO .HCOUHOOO . 0 EH Cm O O . O.OO O.OH O.HN Honomw O o .o O u O HO HOCOOHOQ OOOOCD .OO O.OO I O.HO EOHOOHQ O.OO O.OH O.HN aoHOHOooo HmonxaC HOHoOOO so OOOCO .NO HOOHCOCOOE OmmmCD .OO O.OO m.N O.Om .H% .mmp .CHCOE “Omd .Hm O.OO O.OH O.HN how owmmco .OO 0.00 I O.HO xom .Om O.OO O.H O.OH 1.oom ucosOHOOmO O.OO I O.HO Hooaom .ON Oo>Ho>oH HocmOO .OO . . . . o O HO O O O NO mmouOOO ON O.OO O.HH O.OH iHmconmmOou . . . . Icoc .HmconmoO O HO O HH O OO msmz ON Iouav oonH>uooom .OO I I H.OO I.<\z .ON OIO ZIO HIO OCOHH snow unoaom OIO ZIO OIO OEOHH shoe uuooom .Ome OD ONO mCoHumOCO “COHDOEHQOCH ECOO OCHOHOQOH uCOpHood ">H puma .OOO 0» ONO mCoHumOCO «"mOmmuCOOHOQ CH UOmmOHQxO mEODm>m HOOCOm Oumum mo mOmCommOMII.Om mqm<9 148 on their form. It is further shown that 48.8% of the states plan to include this item on their forms. 28. Address. Data in Tables 29 and 30 reveal that 91.2% of the local school systems and 32.6% of the state departments of education include this item on their report forms. It was also shown that 41.9% of the states are planning to incor- porate this item into their forms. 29. School. Data in Tables 29 and 30 reveal that 96.4% of the local school systems and 41.9% of the state departments of education include this item on their report forms. It is further indicated that 48.8% of the states plan to include this item on their reports. 30. Sex. Data in Tables 29 and 30 reveal that 92.9% of the local school systems and 41.9% of the state departments of education include the sex of the injured individual on the report form. It was further reported that 48.8% of the states plan to include this item as a possible response on their statewide report forms. 31. Age: month, day, year. Data in Tables 29 and 30 reveal that 84.2% of the local school systems and 39.6% of the state departments of education include this item on their report forms. It is 149 also shown that 46.5% of the states are planning to include the age of the injured on their forms. 32. Grade or special level in non-graded school situations. Data in Table 29 and 30 reveal that 91.2% of the local school systems and 41.9% of the state departments of education feel that it is necessary to include this item on report forms. It is also noted that 48.8% of the states plan to include this item in their future report forms. 33. Date and time of the accident; day of the week. Data in Table 29 and 30 reveal that 96.4% of the local school systems and 41.9% of the state departments of education include the exact time and date of the accident. It is further indicated that 48.8% of the states are planning to incorporate this item in their report forms. 34. Nature of the injury. Data in Table 29 and 30 reveal that 96.4% of the local school systems and 41.9% of the state departments of education include the nature of the injury on the report form. It was further reported by 48.8% of the states that they plan to include this item on their reports. 35. Part of the body iejured. Data in Table 29 and 30 reveal that 96.4% of the local systems and 39.6% of the state agencies indicate that they include this item on their accident report forms. It is also shown that 48.8% of the states plan to use this item on their report forms. 150 36. Degree of injury. Data in Table 29 and 30 reveal that 85.9% of the local school systems and 32.6% of the state departments of education include the degree of injury in their report forms. It is also shown that 44.2% of the states plan to incorporate this in their reports. 37. Number of days lost. Data in Tables 29 and 30 reveal that 82.5% of the local school systems and 39.6% of the state departments of education include the number of days lost in their report forms. It is also shown that 48.8% of the states plan to include this on their forms. 38. Cause of the injury. Data in Tables 29 and 30 reveal that 92.9% of the local systems and 39.6% of the state agencies incorporate this item in their report forms. It is further reported by 48.8% of the states that they plan to include this item in their forms. 39. Jurisdiction; school or non-school accident. The data in Tables 29 and 30 reveal that 82.5% of the local school systems and 37.3% of the state departments of education report that they include the jurisdiction of the accident in the report forms. It is also shown that 48.8% of the states plan to include this item on their report forms. 151 40. Location of the accident. Data in Tables 29 and 30 reveal that 96.4% of the local systems and 37.3% of the state agencies consider the location of the accident an essential item on their report forms. It is further noted that 48.8% of the states indicate that they would include this item on a future report form. 41. Activity of the person at the time of the accident. Data in Tables 29 and 30 reveal that 96.4% of the local school systems and 39.6% of the state respondents report this item on their forms. It is also shown that 48.8% of the states would include this item if they had a report form. 42. Status of the activity. Data in Tables 29 and 30 reveal that 85.9% of the local school systems, and 30.3% of the state departments of education include the status of the activity on their report forms. It is also indicated that 41.9% of the states plan to include this item in their accident report forms. 43. Supervision; professional or non—professional. Data in Tables 29 and 30 reveal that 89.5% of the local school systems and 30.3% of the state agencies report that it is important to determine supervision of the activity. It is also shown that 46.5% of the states report that they would include this item. 152 44. The agency involved (egeipment, apparatus! etc.) Data in Tables 29 and 30 reveal that 94.7% of the local school systems and 34.9% of the state agencies include the involved agency on their report forms. It is further indicated that 48.8% of the states report that they would include this item on their report forms. 45. Unsafe act. Data in Tables 29 and 30 reveal that 77.1% of the local school systems and 27.9% of the state departments of education include this item on their report forms. It is further shown that 46.5% of the states are planning this item for their report forms. 46. Unsafe mechanical phyeical conditiop, Data in Tables 29 and 30 reveal that 71.9% of the local systems and 27.9% of the state agencies include the physical condition of involved equipment in their report forms. It is further indicated by 46.5% of states that they would include this item. 47. Unsafe personal factor. Data in Tables 29 and 30 reveal that 68.4% of the local systems and 27.9% of the state departments of educa- tion consider unsafe personal factors an important inclusion on report forms. It is further noted that 48.8% of the responding states would include this item on future forms. 153 48. Corrective action; taken, suggested. Data in Tables 29 and 30 reveal that 75.4% of the local school systems, and 27.9% of the state departments of education include this item on their report forms. It is further supported by 48.8% of the states that they would include this item if they were to design their report forms. 49. Property damage. Data in Tables 29 and 30 reveal that only 43.9% of the local school systems and 30.3% of the state agencies include this item on their forms. It is also shown that 48.8% of the states plan to incorporate this item in their reports. 50. Description of the accident Data in Tables 29 and 30 reveal that 78.9% of the local school systems and 34.9% of the state departments of education include a description of the accident in the report form. It is further noted that 46.5% of the states would include this item if they had report forms. 51. Date of the report. Data in Tables 29 and 30 reveal that 92.9% of the local school systems and 39.6% of the state agencies include the date of the report in the form. It is further shown that 48.8% of the states would include this item in a planned report form. 154 52. Signature of the person completing the form. Data in Tables 29 and 30 reveal that 92.9% of the local systems and 34.9% of the state respondents indicate that they require the signature of the person completing the report form. It is also indicated by 48.8% of the states that they would include this item on their forms. 53. Signature of the principal. Data in Tables 29 and 30 reveal that 80.7% of the local school systems and 34.9% of the state agencies consider the principal's signature important on the report. It is reported by 48.8% of the states that they would include this signature on the report. 54. Signature of the personeproviding first-aid. Data in Tables 29 and 30 reveal that 82.5% of the local systems and 25.6% of the state agencies require the signature of the person administering first aid. It is also shown that 48.8% of the states plan to require this signature on their report forms. 55. Reportable. Data in Tables 29 and 30 reveal that 80.7% of the local school systems and 30.3% of the state departments of education include this item on their accident report forms. It is further noted that 46.5% of the state systems would include this item. 155 56. Recordable Data in Tables 29 and 30 reveal that only 70.1% of the local school systems and 23.3% of the states include this item on their report forms. It is further indicated that 46.5% of the states are planning to include this item on their report forms. 57. Items other than those listed. Data in Tables 29 and 30 reveal that 10.5% of the local school systems and 14% of the state agencies report additional items on their forms. A complete list of these responses can be found in Appendix K. Problems with Accident Report Forms Table 31 presents the percentage of response of state departments of education and selected local school systems to survey question 58--Do you have any problems with your reporting form? Specify. Data in Table 31 reveal that 36.8% of the local school systems and 27.9% of the states indicate that they have problems with their report forms. Some of the typical problems are listed. 156 Typical Local School System Reeponses "Due to seasonable activities, most data is applicable only a year later". This could be rectified with monthly summaries. "Too much leeway for variation in reports". Guidelines should be develOped to accompany the forms, and inservice training provided for persons likely to complete the reports. "Receiving reports on time". Pressure must be applied to enforce rules and regulations regarding report forms; principals could lend support to this action. "Lack of personnel for program improvement". Facts supporting the need for additional staff must be presented to the controlling authorities. It can be shown how added personnel would actually save money in terms of cost of accidents if programs were improved. "Form not designed for computer reading". Assistance can be sought from computer programming experts in redesigning forms for computer use. Typical State Responses "Negligence of persons completing form". Pressure must be brought to bear upon those who are not providing accurate data, and inservice programs provided to those likely to complete the forms. "Keeping personnel informed of needs and changes". Provide monthly bulletins, or inform the principals to keep their staffs abreast of changes. 157 oz u 2 OOO» u w "MOM .mOmCommOH mo umHH OuOHmEoo m How M prCOmm< OOOOO .CHCOO umOHmOC OCH 0» mOmmOCOOHOm OOOCQEOO HOCuoCO OCHOOOH HOHCQEOO How UOCmHmOU uoC Euom OCOEO>0HQEH Emumoum How HOCComHOm mo MUCH OCH» Co muuomOH OCH>HOOOM OHHOQOH Co C0HOOHHO> How MOBOOH CODE ooe HOumH COO» m OHCOOHHmmO mHCo mH COCO Omos OOHOH>HHOO HOCOOOOO ou Ono «*pOuHomOM mEOuH HOOHmmH OCH» Co manomOH OCHHOOO COHDOOOHQHOOCH CoEEoo Show OOOHmEoo Ho OOCmuHomEH OCHmmOHQEH mOHHCnCH HOCHE uHomOH 0p COCB OCHCHEHOOOQ mOmCOCo OCO mOOOC mo OOEHomCH HOCCOOHOm OCHmOOM snow OCHOOHQEOO mComHOm Ho OOCOOHHOOZ sapOuHomOM mEOOH HOOHmMH N.mO 0.00 msmumsm Hooaom HmooH le le H.Ne O.HN aoHumosOm mo .umoo oomum Zlm le OMCO OH umHH «snow OCHuHomOH HCom_CuH3 mEOHCon NCO O>OC so» on “OOO COHumOCO .OOO COHumOCO «umOmmuCOouOm ,CH OOmmOmeO mEOumhm HoOCOm HmooH UCO Opmum mo mOmCommOMII.Hm Manda 158 "Determining when to report minor injuries". Established guidelines would keep all informed of what is reportable and what is recordable. "Impressing importance of a complete form". This can be accomplished through administrative assistance in this matter, at the school level and through inservice programs in this area. "Common interpretation". Provide guidelines and follow systemwide and national standards. "Getting reports on time". There must be direct administrative action here and inservice training programs provided. A complete list of responses to this question can be found in Appendix K. SummaEy The purpoSe of this chapter was to present and analyze the data that was obtained by surveying the fifty state departments of education and seventy-eight local school systems to assess their program methods and procedures. in student accident reporting. I The questionnaire method was used to determine the needed information. A total of 78.1% of the survey «questionnaires were returned—~86% response from.state 159 departments of education, and 73.1% from the selected local school systems.' Persons completing the questionnaire were designated by state and local school system superintendents. The respondents' titles ranged from Directors of Safety Education to State and Local Superintendents. Throughout the chapter, the findings present evidence that supports the author's assumption that most student accident reporting programs now in effect in the surveyed systems need to be revised and redesigned so as to meet the changing needs of the educational systems. The data provides sufficient information on existing accident report- ing programs for designing a model statewide student accident reporting system. Chapter V will present the summary, major findings, conclusions, discussion and recommendations of the study, as well as a model for establishing a systemwide student accident reporting system. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction The major purpose of this chapter is to present a summary of the study conducted, the major findings of the national survey, the conclusions derived from and a discussion of the study, recommendations for future re- search, and a recommended model statewide student acci- dent reporting system. SummaEy Statement of the Problem Pugpose.--The purpose of the study was to determine methods of student accident reporting for the purpose of designing a model statewide student accident reporting system. Specific Objectives 1. To determine the procedures, methods, and techniques employed by state departments of education and local school systems in develop- ing programs for the collection, processing, 160 161 analysis, and use of student accident informa- tion. To design a model student accident reporting system that may be incorporated as a statewide program. Subordinate opjectives.--In order for the study objectives to be met, the following areas had to be assessed: 1. The type of student accident reporting being conducted at state and local levels. The uses made of summarized and analyzed data of student accidents. Specific information obtained on student accident reporting forms. Processing procedures and data analysis. Legal authority to include accident prevention programs in the curriculum. . The number of professional staff responsible for accident prevention programs. Methods of funding accident prevention programs. Whether accident reporting programs are mandatory or voluntary. Whether there are administrative and curriculum guides for accident prevention programs within the systems. 162 10. The variables within the systemwide programs. 11. The kinds of inservices provided throughout the various state and selected local school systems. 12. The methods of including the accident prevention programs within the various systems. 13. The status of governmental immunity doctrine laws in state and local school systems. 14. The variables of accident reporting procedures. 15. The variables of administrative responsibilities. Methods and Procedures The Survey.--The primary method used in researching this study was the survey technique which consisted of six major research procedures: (1) determining the scope of the study, (2) selection of the population and description of the sample, (3) design and revision of the instrument, (4) pretesting the instrument, (5) distribution of the questionnaire and follow-up, and (6) tabulation and analysis of the data. The research survey was limited to the 50 state departments of education and a sample of 78 local school systems, 65 of which were chosen from those school systems reporting student accident summaries to the National Safety Council for the period 1965-68. The local systems were selected from three size classifications within the total population of schools reporting to the Council. The 163 remaining 13 school systems were from states having no community reporting to the National Safety Council, and were chosen by their respective state departments of education. The instrument that was designed and used was the survey questionnaire. The design of the questionnaire took place after extensive research and advice from several authorities in the field, and the study committee. The questionnaire (found in Appendices G and H) consisted of four parts: (1) general safety education information, (2) accident reporting procedures, (3) program uses of analyzed data, and (4) accident report form information. The questions in these four parts requested information relevant to all phases of student accident reporting programs, and necessary for designing a model systemwide accident reporting program. Pretesting the survey instrument before release to the designated educational systems took place in large school systems in the state of Michigan. Distribution of the questionnaire was accomplished by mailing survey packets to the selected educational agencies. The returns from the first mailing were: 35 state departments of education (70%), and 33 local school systems (42.3%), for an initial total of 68 completed questionnaires (53.1%). 164 Follow-up materials were sent to each of the educational systems not responding. The second mailing brought eight additional state returns, for a total of 43 (86%); the local school systems provided 24 additional returns for a total of 57 (73.1%). The initial mailing. and subsequent follow-up brought a total of 100 returns (78.1%) out of a possible 128. Review of Literature.--A secondary method used for determining the methods and techniques employed in student accident reporting systems was an extensive search of the literature related to accident prevention in general, and specifically to the area of student accident reporting. The_review was conducted and presented within the frame- work of the total needs of education toward establishing a systemwide accident prevention and reporting program. It was found that very few research studies have been conducted in the area of student accident reporting. Some studies justified the inclusion of accident prevention in the public schools. Other outstanding studies analyzed professional and administrative responsibilities and duties in accident prevention. In the area of educators' negligence and liability toward student accidents, several up-to-date studies have shown public school districts and educators' immunity status in the United States. In uncovering this area, which is extensive, it was found that one of the basic reasons many school systems have accident 165 reporting is due to the threat of being found negligent in student accidents. This is an indictment of American educators, who are primarily concerned about their own welfare, rather than that of their students. Major Findings Presented here is a summary of the major findings of the survey. They will be presented in four parts, which are those areas considered essential to assess in order to fulfill the ultimate objective of this study-~to design a model statewide student accident reporting program. Part I--§eneral Safety Program InformatiSn l. Ninety-four per cent of the local school systems and 83.7 per cent of the state departments of education report having legal authority to include safety education in the curriculum. 2. Seventy-five point four per cent of the local school systems and 74.4 per cent of the state departments of education report having at least one staff member responsible for safety education in a full-time or part-time capacity. 3. Twenty-one point one per cent of the local school systems and none of the state departments of education indicate 166 that they have a staff person responsible for accident reporting acitvities only. Seventy-one point nine per cent of the local school systems and 81.4 per cent of the state departments of education have no staff working full-time in safety education. It was further shown that 28.1 per cent of the local school systems and 18.6 per cent of the states have one or more staff members engaged full time in safety education. Fifty-seven point nine per cent of the local school systems and 34.9 per cent of the state departments of education indicate that they budget funds for safety education activities within their educational systems. Forty-five point six per cent of the local school systems and 30.2 per cent of the state departments of education have administrative guides for safety educa- tion. The findings further indicate that 13.9 per cent of the states are planning a guide in this area. Forty—three point nine per cent of the local school systems and 34.9 per cent of the state department of education report having curriculum guides in the area of safety education. It is further shown that 5.3 per cent of the local systems and 11.6 per cent of the states are planning a curriculum guide for safety. 10. 11. 12. 167 Sixty-three point two per cent of the local school systems and 53.5 per cent of the state departments of education provide inservice programs in safety education. Ninety-six point five per cent of the local school systems and 97.7 per cent of the state departments of education include the teaching of safety education with other subjects. Sixty-one point four per cent of the local school systems leave safety education instruction to the discretion of the individual schools, and 90.7 per cent of the state departments of education leave the subject of safety education to the prerogative of the school districts. Forty-seven point four per cent of the local school systems and 41.9 per cent of the state departments of education indicate their educational systems still have governmental immunity in legal suits incurred by school jurisdictional student injuries. Forty-seven point four per cent of the local school systems and 76.7 per cent of the state departments of education have a state or district safety council or committee to support their safety and accident prevention activities. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 168 Twelve point three per cent of the local school systems and 30.2 per cent of the state departments of education indicate they have state or district safety associations. It is further noted that 6.9 per cent of the states are planning a safety association. Five point three per cent of the local school systems and 30.2 per cent of the state departments of education have received federal funds for safety education programs. It was found that the majority of these funds were obtained through grants from the Highway Safety Act of 1966. Forty-nine point one per cent of the local school systems and 16.3 per cent of the state departments of education report that the duties of student accident reporting and analysis are included in the job descriptions of their administrative staff. Fifty-six point one per cent of the local school systems and 37.2 per cent of the state departments of education include administering the safety education program in their job descriptions. Eighty point seven per cent of the local school systems and 90.7 per cent of the state departments of education consider accident reporting as an educational activity of both state and local educational systems. 169 Part II--Accident Reporting Procedures 1. One hundred per cent of the local school systems and 27.9 per cent of the state departments indicate they have systemwide student accident reporting. Ninety-four point seven per cent of the local school systems and 20.9 per cent of the state departments of education report having a standardized and required student accident reporting system. The findings also show that 9.3 per cent of the states are planning such a program. Ninety-eight point two per cent of the local school systems and 30.3 per cent of the state departments of education indicate they have reporting of student accidents. Eighty-six per cent of the total school systems and 23.3 per cent of the state departments report professional staff accidents. Eighty-two point five per cent of the local school systems and 20.9 per cent of the state departments report student accidents on a 24—hour basis. Forty-two point one per cent of the local school system and none of the state departments of education report student accidents during the summer months. 10. 11. 170 Thirty-one point six per cent of the local school systems and 11.6 per cent of the state departments of education report nonprofessional staff accidents. It was further shown that 6.9 per cent of the states are planning to include these accidents as part of their responsibility. Thirty—three point three per cent of the local school systems and 13.9 per cent of the state departments of education report accidents using the National Safety Council's Standardized Student Accident Report Form. It is further shown that 26.3 per cent of the local systems and 13.9 per cent of the states use some variation of the Council's form. One hundred per cent of the 57 surveyed local school systems report that all of their 3,890 schools have student accident reporting systems. Of the 43 responding state departments of education (which represent 12,406 school districts), only 24 per cent of their school districts have known student accident reporting programs. Eighty-six per cent of the local school systems and 18.6 per cent of the state departments of education use manual tabulation in processing their student accident data. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 171 Seventeen point five per cent of the local school system and 23.2 per cent of the state departments of education use computer assistance or a combination of both methods for the processing and analyzing of their accident data. Sixty-one point four per cent of the local school systems and 11.6 per cent of the state departments of education which used manual tabulation in processing their accident data indicate it is meeting their immediate needs. Twenty-nine point eight per cent of the local school systems and 9.3 per cent of the state departments of education provide monthly summaries of their accident reports. Fourteen per cent of the local school systems and 2.3 per cent of the state departments of education summarize their accident data semi-annually. Sixty-eight point four per cent of the local school systems and 32.7 per cent of the state department of education provide accident summaries on an annual basis. Twenty-seven point nine per cent of the state depart- ments of education are planning a statewide student accident reporting program within two years. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 172 Sixty-three point two per cent of the local school systems and 23.3 per cent of the state departments of education feel sufficient data are being collected. Eighty point eight per cent of the local school systems and 25.6 per cent of the state departments of education provide summarized data that they feel are easily interpreted. Fifty-two point six per cent of the local school systems and 23.3 per cent of the state departments of education indicate they adequately distribute their accident data. Twenty-nine point eight of the local school systems i and 11.6 per cent of the state departments of education make their accident data available to students. Sixty-five per cent of the local school systems and 32.6 per cent of the state departments of education make their accident data available to their professional staff. Forty point four per cent of the local school systems and 20.8 per cent of the state departments of education distribute summaries to nonprofessional personnel. Part III--Program Uses of Analyzed Data 1. Sixty-eight point five of the local school systems and 32.7 per cent of the state departments of education use analyzed accident data to evaluate their accident prevention programs. 173 Thirty-one point six per cent of the local school systems and 13.9 per cent of the state departments of education utilize their accident data to evaluate the cost of accidents. Fifty-four point four per cent of the local school systems and 23.3 per cent of the state departments of education make analyzed and summarized accident data available to all schools. Fifty-nine point six per cent of the local school systems and 27.9 per cent of the state departments of education use their analyzed accident data to demonstrate preventive measures to their schools. Sixty-five per cent of the local school systems and 25.6 per cent of the state departments of education evaluate the over-all accident picture of the system through analyzed accident data. Fortyvseven point four per cent of the local school systems and 23.3 per cent of the state departments of education use analyzed accident data to initiate special studies for accident reduction and prevention. Fifty-four point four per cent of the local school systems and 30.3 per cent of the state departments of education utilize accident data for curriculum planning and improvement. 10. 11. 174 Sixty-three point two per cent of the local school systems and 27.9 per cent of the state departments of education use analyzed data to determine trends in student accidents. Sixty-one point five per cent of the local school systems and 25.6 per cent of the state departments of education use analyzed accident data to isolate special or high-risk activity programs. Seventy-three point seven per cent of the local school systems and 23.3 per cent of the state departments of education supply the National Safety Council with their accident data. Eighty-nine point six per cent of the local school systems, and 18.6 per cent of the state departments of education analyze accident data for insurance or possible legal reasons. Part IV--Accident Report Form Information 1. A majority of all systems surveyed include the information that is contained in the National Safety Council's Standard Student Accident Report Form on their own report forms. At least 72 per cent of all systems which did not have an accident report form indicate they would include the items on the National Safety Council's Form in developing their systemwide forms. 175 One point eight per cent of the local school systems and 58.1 per cent of the states indicate that the accident reporting form information listed on the survey is not applicable to their situations. The highest percentage of response concerning the use of items listed on the National Safety Council's Standard Student Accident Report Form was 96.4 per cent from the local school systems, and 41.9 per cent from the state departments of education. The items most often selected as being included on the local school systems' accident report forms were: "the name of the school," "date and time of the accident," "nature of the injury," "part of the body injured," "location of the accident," and "activity of the injured person." The items most often selected as being included on the accident report forms of the state departments of education were: "the name of the school," "sex of the injured," "grade of the injured," "date and time of the acci- dent," and "nature of the injury." The lowest percentage of response concerning use of the Council's report form information was 43.9 per cent from the local school systems and 23.3 per cent from the states. The item least often mentioned as included on the local school systems' accident report forms was "property damage caused by the 176 accident." The item least often mentioned as being included on the accident report form of the state de- partments of education was "recordable accident." Eighty point seven per cent of the local school sys- tems and 30.3 per cent of the state departments of education indicate their accident report forms include "reportable accident." Seventy point one of the local school systems and 23.3 per cent of the state departments of education state that their accident report forms include “recordable accident." Sixty-three point two per cent of the local school systems and 72.1 per cent of the state departments of education report having no problems with their accident report forms. Conclusions The following conclusions are based upon the findings of this study. 1. Research supports the premise that accident reporting systems help demonstrate through analysis ways to re- duce accidents. Therefore, administrators should take action toward the design, development, and implemen— tation of accident reporting programs within their systems. 177 The data reveal that state and local school systems have the legal authority to establish student accident reporting programs. They should exercise this right by designing, developing, and implementing system- wide accident reporting programs. The data indicate there is need to provide better qualified and more full time safety educators to organize, administer, and supervise systemwide accident reporting programs. It was shown by the data that there is a need for greater financial support of accident prevention activities and programs at the state and local school system levels. The survey findings indicate there is a need to design and develop state and local administrative guides in accident prevention programs which would include administrative procedures for systemwide accident reporting programs. Revealed in the study is the need to design and develop viable curriculum guides in accident preven- tion that meet the demands of the changing future. Findings show there is a need to provide inservice programs for all levels of personnel who are involved in accident prevention activities. This includes all levels of administrative staff, teachers, students, auxilliary staff, and resource personnel. 10. 11. 12. 178 The study shows there is a need to provide accident prevention activities at all levels of education and to incorporate these activities in all subject areas in order to prepare the students for becoming participating members of this society. The study shows there is a need to abolish the states' governmental immunity of educational agencies, so as to force educators to be more responsible for their educational programs and the youth in their custody. The survey reveals a need to establish state and local accident prevention associations and sup- port groups to further the safety activities of the community. The data reveal a need for additional funds to be provided for the support of state and local accident prevention programs and activities. The survey shows there must be more realistic job desoriptions incorporated into the duties of those who administer and supervise the accident prevention activities, so as to define the administration of safety education and accident prevention in the curriculum and student accident reporting programs. 13. 14. 15. 16. 179 It is shown in the survey that specific policies must be established concerning who is responsible for accident reporting at the state and local levels of education. The study shows there is need for more viable student accident reporting programs at the state and local school system levels. Such programs should be standardized, required, and systemwide, and should be designed for the purpose of meeting the needs of students for the prevention and reduction of accidents, rather than as possible protection against legal suits for negligence. The data reveal that accident reporting programs should encompass accident prevention and reduction for all participating members of the educational system. This should include students and professional and nonprofessional staff, and should incorporate accident reporting analysis on a 24-hour-a-day, 12—month basis. The findings support the need to analyze the basic causes of accidents at the local, state, and national levels. Thus, a student accident reporting form should be designed as a standardized, statewide form that would incorporate the needs of the state and local school systems. It should also include the elements needed to supply standardized data to the National Safety Council. 17. 18. 19. 180 The survey indicates there is need for the state departments of education to better assess their status and responsibilities in the area of student accident prevention and reporting programs. The data reveal occasional total ignorance regarding state educational administrators' knowledge of the existence and needs of accident prevention and reporting programs in their states. The data indicate that state and local school systems have not incorporated the use of computers for accident data processing for more efficiency, greater reliability, and more effective analysis. However, if it is shown that if a school system is entirely too small to use computers in accident data analysis(and some were found to be so), they should discover the best and most efficient methods of manual tabulation. The findings show that annual summaries are the most practical form of accident reporting for most school systems. However, it was demonstrated that the most effective way of reducing accidents is to provide monthly and semi-annual summaries of accident analyses. With the use of computers, the additional time and cost of more frequent analysis is insigni- ficant. 20. 21. 22. 23. 181 It is concluded from the findings that those state and local school systems which do not have system- wide accident programs now in effect, should allow approximately two years for planning, developing, and implementing such a program. This would provide ample time to conduct a pilot program in selected schools or systems to demonstrate its effectiveness. It is shown that the collection of accident data should be evaluated in regard to the amount collected, and whether data summaries are presented in an easily interpretable manner. The study reveals that when accident data are summarized and analyzed, every effort should be made to distribute the data adequately for educational and informational purposes. Recipients of the data should include students, professional and non- professional staff, other state and local educational and noneducational agencies, and the National Safety Council. The information presented should be viable and easily interpreted by each group to which it is distributed. The findings reveal that program uses of analyzed data should include making it available to all schools for the purpose of evaluating, planning, and improving ongoing programs of accident prevention. Reports should provide information as to overall 24. 25. 26. 27. 182 school system trends, so that special studies can be conducted in high-risk activities for the purpose of demonstrating preventive measures for accident prevention and cost reduction. It is further shown that analyzed data could be used to support additional financial and public assistance in accident programs and activities. The data indicate that the most common use of analyzed data is for insurance purposes and possible legal support against negligence litigations. The survey shows that little use is being made of analyzed data to do special studies in the area of accident causes and for program improvement. The survey respondents indicate that the survey questionnaire thoroughly covers the activity of student accident reporting and its procedures for the purpose of providing support information for the design of a model systemwide reporting program. The survey findings indicate that an overwhelming majority of state and local school systems which have accident reporting forms include the basic minimal information that is requested on the National Safety Council's Standard Student Accident Report Form. This indicates that there would be little difficulty for states to establish a statewide student accident reporting system if they choose to 183 incorporate those items that are included on the Council's form. Most of those systems planning programs indicate they would do this. 28. The survey findings indicate that the most prevalent problems with accident report forms concern personnel's inadequacy in the use of the form. The problems center around lack of understanding, failure to complete the form or to follow directions for completion, failure to report all accidents and to meet reporting deadlines, and little concern for the accident reporting procedure. Discussion Presented in this section are the views of the writer on several underlying assumptions that were gleaned after reviewing the literature and analyzing the survey data. Though these assumptions cannot be supported factually by the survey data, they are nonetheless logical deductions based on the findings of this study. 1: An overwhelming majority of educational systems have the legal authority to design, develop, and initiate accident reporting systems at the state level, but have failed to implement such programs. 184 Administrative support is needed at the state level, in order to implement accident reporting programs. This means providing full time, qualified staff members with sufficient funds to coordinate a state- wide student accident reporting system. State departments of education need to make greater efforts to obtain the needed monies (be it state or federal funds) to establish statewide accident reporting systems. An increased effort is needed on the part of state and local school systems to design, deve10p, and implement administrative guides for systemwide accident prevention programs. Greater effort and support are needed in establishing statewide safety education associations to provide assistance to the professional educator in safety activities at all levels and in all subject areas. The safety association should be a separate organiza- tion, and not a part of the state driver education association or any other area, such as physical eduCation or health. \Including safety education with these high accident frequency areas is not a justifiable reason for combined professional organiza- tions. This, of Course, does not implyIthat educators from these areas should not be members of, or support the activities of, a state safety association. 185 Specific accident prevention and reporting duties need to be defined in the job descriptions of the staff persons responsible for these administrative areas. Written policy agreements are needed between state and local school systems to provide student accident data for the purpose of providing systemwide accident data analysis, in order to assess ways to reduce accidents within the state educational system. A concerted effort is needed on the part of the state departments of education to establish required and standardized reporting procedures for their state educational systems. If there is to be an evaluation of the safety of the educational environment and to assess the safety curricula in order to reduce acci- dents, then there must be a program to analyze all accidents that occur within the systems to all stu- dents, professional and auxilliary staff. This . Should be done on a 24—hour basis, in order to pro- vide more realiable and effective data. Computers should be used for accident data processing and analysis on the local level, and must be utilized in a statewide accident reporting system. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 186 Supervisors should seek professional help in design- ing and producing their systemwide accident summaries, in order to present their findings more effectively to the various recipient groups. Educators should design accident reporting systems to meet the needs of the students for accident reduction and prevention, and not merely for the legal protection that it affords the system. In the areas of instruction that have highvrisk activities, an in-depth study of each activity in which students participate should be conducted, using analyzed accident data. These analyses will better prepare new teachers who conduct high accident frequency activities, and will help to upgrade the safety instruction of experienced educators. College instructors in high accident frequency activities are not preparing new teachers for the various hazards of their fields; traffic safety education is the one exception. Greater emphasis in safety education needs must be made in health, physical education, recreation and in the vocational and science fields. Insurance companies should establish a policy whereby they would have a differential rate for those school systems that do not have viable student accident reporting programs. 15. 187 Insurance groups should establish scholarships to prepare and retain instructors in the field of acci- dent prevention and reporting, conduct workshops and seminars in accident reporting procedures, and sponsor research studies in this area. Recommendations for Future Research Listed are some of the more important areas to be considered for future research, which became apparent during the course of this study. 1. How accident data are utilized in the various instructional areas. Procedures in programming and data processing of student accidents with the use of computers. Methods of conducting special studies using analyzed data. ‘ How analyzed student accident data can effectively improve the curriculum for accident prevention or reduction. ’ Methods of preparing and presenting accident sum- maries for dissemination. 188 Statewide Student Accident ReportingModel ‘ On the basis of the findings in this study, and research conducted in the area of student accident report- ing, the plan listed below is a model for establishing a systemwide accident reporting program. Title of the Function Statewide Student Accident Reporting System. Scope of the Activity This activity is designed to involve all public school systems in the state in the collection, processing, and analysis of data regarding all recordable accidents of all students and professional and nonprofessional staff in the educational system. Legal Authority to Establish the Program Legal authority includes state laws or statutes permitting or requiring safety education as a part of the educational program of the state. Assess whether the authority is directed or assumed: A. State laws requiring programs B. Statutes 1. Regulations 2. Standards 189 State and Local Agreement A state and local school systems agreement should be made whereby: all local school districts will provide reports of all recordable accidents; and the state will be responsible for collecting, processing, analyzing, preparing, and disseminating accident data, and also for conducting research in accident causes using analyzed data. Purpose of the Program The primary purpose of establishing a statewide student accident reporting system is to systematically collect, summarize, and analyze reports of accident injuries that occur throughout the state's public schools to assess their causes in order to develOp accident pre- vention procedures to prevent or reduce needless accidents, and to improve the curriculum to educate the child to make low-risk behavioral choices in his daily living. A total, systemwide accident reporting program is designed to evaluate the state and local school systems' ongoing accident prevention programs in view of the four functions of administration, instruction, protection, and evaluation. The design of an accident reporting system should be viewed as a continuing process that is to be modified and improved as experience is gained and as needs change. 190 Functions of a Statewide Student Accident Reporting System I. Organization A. Policy Statements State departments of education should establish policy statements on safety education, and spe- cifically a student accident reporting program for the state's entire educational system. The policy statements should emanate from the policy-making agency. An example of a policy statement may read as such: there must be an accident reporting system within each school district of the state. The system will be required to collect, process, sum- marize, and analyze all accidents that cause the loss of one-half day of school activity for a stu- dent or employee, or an accident causing school prOperty damage. It will be further required that all school districts take corrective action on the causes of known accidents. A complete record of local school district accident summaries will be forwarded annually to the state department of edu- cation for processing and summarizing for the pur- pose of providing a statewide analysis of all accidents. Copies of the state analyzed accident data will be distributed to each local school 1'! ij 191 district superintendent and his administrators of the accident reporting program, along with suffi- cient copies for each school within the district. Budget Requirements Adequate budgeting of funds should be allo- cated to support effectively a statewide student accident reporting system and all its functions; this would include organization, administration, supervision, and research and development programs. An example of a budget for a statewide program would be the development of a fiscal budget which would provide Specific funds for the needs of the program a year in advance. Such program needs would include staffing, equipment and facilities, materials, and publication costs, and consultant and personnel expenses. PhilOSOphy, Goals, Purpose, and Specific Objectives A philosophy of accident prevention and stu- dent accident reporting should be established by the state educational agency. It is also necessary to establish goals and purposes of the statewide student accident reporting system. The philosophy, goals, and purposes should be based upon the assessed needs of the system, but developed pri- marily upon the needs of the students. Specific program objectives should be formulated in view of 192 the needs of the state in accident prevention and student accident reporting. The objectives should be designed with anticipated program needs and desirable outcomes in mind. Staff Requirements and Responsibilities Staffing requirements should be assessed and adequate personnel provided to support effectively the statewide student accident reporting system. The staff selected to administer and supervise the statewide program should meet the national stand- ards of professional preparation in accident pre- vention. The staff's responsibilities should be consistent with the needs of the state, and should be on a full-time basis in the area of accident prevention. It is vitally important that a professionally qualified staff be obtained to perform the func- tions listed below: 1. Be able to perform the tasks of coordinating, administering, and supervising the statewide student accident reporting program. 2. Be able to assess and evaluate accident causes and design preventive measures. 3. Be well versed in the field of accident pre- vention and reporting. 193 4. Know the best procedures in collecting, pro- cessing, and summarizing and be able effec- tively to analyze accident data. 5. Be able to conduct workshops, inservice pro- grams, conferences, and seminars. Aside from these responsibilities, the safety supervisor should meet the certification standards of the state in the area of accident prevention. He should have completed at least a Master's degree in the area of safety education or accident pre— vention, and have a minimum of three years of teaching experience, with various other experi- ences in the field. Facilities and Equipment In implementing and maintaining an efficient program, it is essential that adequate facilities and equipment be obtained. Many school systems lease equipment for their programs, including com- puter time from other state or private agencies. However, most state departments of education have computers available for their normal activities and the safety supervisor needs to plan a convenient time to program and analyze his accident injury data with the computer specialist. Other equipment that is needed is a key punch machine to prepare the coded accident information from the accident 194 report forms, and an Optical scan reader to read the accident report form information. There is also need to provide adequate office space for the various staff activities in maintaining a statewide student accident reporting system. II. Administration A. Develop Immediate and Long-Range Goals It is essential that immediate and long-range goals be planned for the accident reporting pro- gram, in order to determine better the present and future needs of the program in preparing the budget, staffing requirements, and other program needs. Establish and Maintain Rules and Regulations Rules and regulations should be established that will best meet the needs of administering and supervising the statewide student accident reporting system. The rules and regulations should be incorporated into an administrative guide that would be made available to all respon- sible for, or associated with, the statewide program. Provide Program Assistance to Local School Systems Provide assistance to local school districts and their school for the improvement of their accident prevention programs through the use of 195 the student accident reporting system. Speci- fically, the assistance would be to local admin- istrators, supervisors, and teachers in regard to meeting the goals and objectives of the statewide program. Coordinate Continuing Education Coordinate the continuing education of teachers and supervisors by providing financial assistance for courses and advance graduate work in program elements of student accident reporting. The con- tinuing education program would be one that would also require state and local school district safety administrators to attend annual workshops in stu- dent accident reporting procedures. Each local school district would be required to conduct at least two workshops a year for each of the in- school safety coordinators to prepare them better to assess and improve their accident prevention and reporting procedures. These workshops would be conducted by state and local educators in the field. Establish and Maintain Communications Maintain professional relations with state, local, and national organizations involved in accident prevention and reporting programs, such as the state and local safety associations 196 and the National Safety Council. Work with these groups to further the activities of aboident pre- vention and reporting at the state, local, and national levels. Methods that could be used in maintaining com- munications with the various groups are for the state staff to belong to state, local, and national safety associations; attend their meetings, work- shOps and conferences; and participate in their activities in accident prevention and reporting. The state staff should communicate their program needs and support the needs of the groups, invite the groups to state safety programs, provide them with state findings in student accident reporting, and solicit their available resource people in state programs or activities. Conduct and Maintain an Evaluation System Develop an evaluation system to assess the functions and activities of the statewide student accident reporting program. Maintain an ongoing and continuous system of evaluation to assess whether the program is meeting its goals and objectives and the needs of the students and the system. A statewide accident reporting program is basically established to maintain better a 197 continuous evaluation of the safety of the edu- cational environment, and whether the curriculum prepares the student to live his daily life in a safe manner. The role that each level of the educational system plays in this evaluation sys- tem is: 1. It is the state department of education's role to evaluate the quality of accident prevention of the local school system level by collecting, processing, and analyzing the local school system accident data. This evaluation can be maintained by administering and supervising an effective statewide accident reporting system. The role of the local school systems in pro- gram evaluations is that their accident re- porting systems provide the method for evalu- ating the safety of the individual schools' environments and the quality of the accident prevention programs within the curriculum of each school. This evaluation can be main- tained by administering and supervising an effective accident prevention and reporting system at the local school district level. 198 Coordinate Federal and State Funding Many federal and state funding programs for accident prevention designate the state department of education as the agency responsible for the maintenance and distribution of the funds. It is important that effective accounting procedures be used in handling these funds. The expenditures should be based upon program needs and established priority. There are various ways to finance a statewide accident reporting program: 1. Most states use state apprOpriation funding procedures for the activity of accident pre- vention and reporting. Some states set up special funds for the program, and some budget funds as part of the state department of edu- cation's program expenses. 2. To support the local effort of accident pre- vention and accident reporting, various local appropriations are budgeted for the specific activities. 3. Federal grants are used by many states to fund accident prevention and reporting programs. The two most commonly used programs are the Highway Safety Act and the Elementary and 199 Secondary Education Act, specifically Titles II and IV. Coordinate the DevelOpment of an Administrative Guide . It is the responsibility of the state depart- ment of education to plan and coordinate the development of administrative guidelines to manage better the statewide accident reporting system. The administrative guidelines should be designed as a tool to be used by state and local educators within their systems and should be designed by state and local educators in the field. Coordinate Program Needs with Institutions of Higher Learning The state department of education must main- tain an effective relationship with the state colleges and universities to provide the needed training for new teachers in the field and to retrain experienced educators. There should be a plan for coordinating the state program with institutions of higher learn- ing. This could be done by including them in the state's program of continuing education, whereby the college and university staffs would be able to contribute their experience to state confer- ences, workshOps, and seminars. In addition, 200 accident prevention needs should be communicated to themso that they may utilize this information in educating new and experienced teachers in order to prepare them adequately for the necessary tasks. Establish and Coordinate State Accident Reporting Procedures 1. Establish a Standardized Accident Report Form A standard, uniform accident report form must be used throughout the state, and should incorporate the vital elements of: a. b. WQo was involved in the accident/ WEeE_were the elements involved in the accident? WEee did the accident happen? Whege did the accident happen? Hey_did the accident happen? Why did the accident happen? 2. Establish Standardized and Required Reporting Procedure In order to have an effective statewide student accident reporting system, there first needs to be an acceptable standardized report- ing form that meets the needs of the state's school systems, and a uniform and required reporting procedure that all local school 201 systems in the state must follow. Such a procedure would be: a. Collect state accident injury data. 1. In order to be meaningful, the informa— tion collected must be uniform. The collection tool, the report form, must be standardized throughout the state in order to be meaningful and useful for comparative studies, state and nationwide. In order to assess effectively the state's accidents, there needs to be required reporting of the accident injury data. This is necessary in order to eliminate or reduce gaps in information provided. In order to analyze effectively the state's accident injury reports, the incoming data must be coded for use and analysis. b. Process state accident injury data 1. The most effective, efficient, and economical method is with the use of electronic data processing equipment. Provided on the next page is a flow chart on electronic data processing. 2()2 3 uCOcHoou COCO woe. HBCHM I go mHm>H¢z¢ a BZHDHUQ‘ 3 MO mHme¢z¢ s30: .oneomHme . Hozmoammm ezmoHooc mzomHmma . ezmoHOOC mnmoumm .ezmoHooc COHCOOO as... Masonic 3 C0m3 QOOUNM BZmQHUU¢ BZNQHUU¢ mBZHOm ZOHBDmHmBmHQ msmommm BZMQHUUC mfizmaHuofl wQMfiU mmB1ensky, Jack and Bonvechio, Richard. Principles of School Health. New York: D. C. Heath and Co., 1966. 213 Spar, Walter and Swenson, Rinehart. Methods and Status of Scientific Research. New York: Hoya and Breth, 1930. Stack, Herbert Jones. Safety for Greater Adventure and the Contribution of Albert W. Whitney. New York: New York University, 1953. Stack, Herbert Jones and Elkow. J. Duke. Education for Safe Living. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice- Hall Inc., 1957. Strasser, Marland and others. Fundamentals of Safety Education. New York: MacMillan Co., 1964. Turabian, Kate L. A Manual for Writers. Chicago: Uni— versity of Chicago Press, 1970. Turner, C. E.; Sellery, C. M.; and Smith, S. L. School Health and Health Education. St. Louis: The C. V. Mosby Co., 1966. United States Dept. of HEW. Education Directory_(Coun- ties and Cities) 1970-71. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1971. . Education Directory_(Federal and State Governments) 1970-71. Washington, D. C.: U. 8. Government Printing Office, 1959. . Education Directory (Public School System) 1970-71. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1970. Williams, Jesse F.; Brownell, C. L.; and Vernier, Elmon L. The Administration of Health Education and Physieal Education. 6th ed. New York: W. B. Saunders Co., 1964. Wilson, Charles C., ed. School Health Services. 2nd ed. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1964. Bulletins and Pamphlets American Association of School Administrators. School District Liability. Washington, D. C.: National Education Asso., 1953. Baltimore Public Schools. School Safety Checklist. Baltimore: Baltimore City Public School System, 1961. 214. Clark, Lewis. Safe or Sorry: A Summary of Student and Employee Accidents, 1969- 70 School Year. Lansing, Michigan: Lansing Public School District, 1970. Edgar, J. W. Your Pupils: Their Safety Lies in Your Hands. Austin, Texas: Texas Educational Agency, 19 8. Farkas, George P. Accident Summary 1964-65. Indianapolis, Indiana: Indianapolis Public School System, 1965. Kansas State Department of Health. Kansas Student Accident Report. Kansas City: Kansas Department of Health, Keifer, Norvin C. Some Problems of Accident Prevention. New York: Equitable Insurance Society of the United States, 1962. Key, Norman. Status of Driver Education in the United States. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1960. Lansing Department of Safety Education. Accident Facts. Lansing, Michigan: Lansing Public SchooI District, 1969. Lansing Department of Safety Education. How They Got Hurt. Lansing, Michigan: Lansing Public School District, 1969. Lansing Department of Safety Education. A Suggested Guide for Elementary Teachers. Lansing, Michigan: Lansing Public School District, 1964. Los Angeles Division of Instructional Planning and Services. A Report of Pupils and Employees Accidents. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Board of EducatiOn, 1957. . Report of Accidents to Pupils and Employees-- AComparative Study. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Board of Education, 1961. National Commission on Safety Education. Accident Research for Better Safety Teaching. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1964. . A School Safetijducation Program. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1966. . Driver Education. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1961. . On Safetijducation, Safetnyuides for You. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1961. 215 . Safety Guide for Yeu-—In the Intermediate Grades. Washington, D. C.: National EdECation Association, 1962. . Safety Guige for You--In the Primary Grades. Washington, D. C.: National Education AssociatIOn, 1961. . Who is Liable for Pupil Injuries? Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1950. National Council on Schoolhouse Construction. Guide for Plannin School Plants. Nashville, Tenn.: Pea53dy CoIIege, I958. National Education Association. Health Concepts, Guides for Healtplnstruction. Washington, D. C.: National Education Asso., 1967. g! . The Teacher and the Law. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1959. . The Teacher's Day in Court. Washington, D. C.: NationaI Educatibn Association, 1959. National Safety Council. Accident Facts. Chicago: National Safety Council, 1969 and 1970. . Bulletin on Safety Coordinators' Responsibili- ties. Chicago: National Safety Council, 19 . . Major Contributions to Safety Education. Chicago: National Education Association, 1961. New York University Center for Safety Education. The Administrator and Schoql Safety Programs. New York: New Yofk University, 1951. New York Bureau of Health Education. Proceedings of the City Wide Confereeee with PrincipalsT Representatives of Men and Women Chairmen of Healthducation. New York: City Board or Education, 1953. Potts, David. A Report on School Accidents in the State of ' Louisiana During the School Year of 1967-68. CEicag : NationaI Safety Council, I969. Robins, F. Dale and Miles, L. C., Jr. School Law and Tort Liabilit . Salt Lake City: Utah Education Associa- tion, I966. San Diego County Board of Education. A Guide to Safet' Education, Kindergarten through Grade Twere. San Diego: Department of Education, 1969. 216 School District of Philadelphia. Highlights of the Safet Education_grograms. Philadelphia: Board of Educa- tion, 1968. . Student and Employee Accidents. Philadelphia: Board of Education, 1968. Smith, Norvel L. Alameda CountyASchools' Analysis of Pupil Accidents. Haywood, California: Department of Education, 1962. Stratemeyer, Clara G. Accident Research for Better Safety Teachin . Washington, D. C.: National Education Asso., I 964. _ E Svarc, Francis C. What You ShouleJKnow About Standarg i §tudent Accident Reports. Chicago: National Safety 5, Council, 1960. ;A »United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Accidental Deatpand InjupyStatistics. Washington, j fif‘c.: U. 3. Government Printing Office, 1970. . Public School Attendance, Teachers and E enditures. Washington, D. C.: U. 8. Government Printing Office, 1959. William, William A. An Accident Prevention Pro ram for School Shops and Laboratories. Chicago: National Safety Counci1,'I969t Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Safet Curri- culum Guide. Madison: G. E. Watson Co., 1561. Wisconsin University. The Role of Education in the Preven- tion of Accidents. Madison: Wisconsin University, 1960. Periodicals Adams, James R. "Oh, Who Cares About Safety." Safety Education. January (1963), pp. 5—7. Barad, Philip. "What Data Processing Can do for the School." Notional Safety Congress Transactions. Vol. XXIII. Chicago: National Sa ety Council, I965, p. 32. Brody, Leon. "Psychological Aspects of Accident Causation." Annual Safety Education Review. Washington, D. C.: American AssociatiOn of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 1964, pp. 98-100. 217 . "The Accident Phenomenon." Personnel Adminis- tration (November-December, 1963), pp. 11-14. Burnette, William. "Accident Reporting in Colleges and Universities." National Safety Congress Transac- tions. Vol. XXIII. Chicago: National Safety Council, 1963, pp. 134-135. Clark, Lewis E. "Feedback of Accident Data." National Safety Congress_Transactions. Vol. XXIII. Chicago: National Safety Council, 1963, p. 76. Collins, George J. "Overcoming Physical Hazards in Public Schools." Safety (November-December, 1965), pp. 34-370 Conway, Frank J. "Who's Liable?" Safetnyducation (Octo- ber, 1960), p. 4. Cox, Paul. "Accident Record Tabulation." Public Safet Systems (September-October, 1968), pp. 81-82. Cushman, William D., ed. "2.7 Decades of Research." Safety (March-April, 1967): PP. 23-24. DeMauro, Dan. "Utilization for Special Studies." National Safety Congress Transactions. Vol. XXIII. Chicago: National Safety CounCil, 1967, pp. 86-89. Diebold, John. "Automation, the New Technology." Harvard Business Review (November-December, 1953). Dodge, Eleanor J. "Sound Approaches for Teaching Safety in Elementary Schools." Safety (September-October, 1966). pp. 16-18. Dzenowagis, Joseph G. "Accidents and Injuries in College Physical Education Programs." National Safety Congress Transactions. Vol. XXIII. Chicago: National Safety Council, 1962, p. 110. . "An Accident Reporting System, Why Bother?" Journal of Health, Physical Education and Recreation (Feh. 1962), p. 24. . "What They Believe." Safety Education (Dec., 1961), p. 40. . "What's Your Safety I.Q.?" Safetnyducation (NOV. ' 1956) I pp. 42-450 Edwards, L. F., Jr. "PhiloSOphy of Employee Accidents." National Safety Congress Transactions. Vol. XXIII. Chicago: National Safety Council, 1969, pp. 69-72. At)— .“IZII IA. 218 Florio, A. E. "Accidents and Injuries in College Physical Education Programs for Men." ‘National Safety Con- gress Transactions. Vol. XXIII. Chicago: Natihnal Safety Council,i962, p. 109. . "Educational Aspects of the School Safety Program.9 annual Safety Education Review. Wash- ington, D. C.: American Association of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 1964, pp. 88-93. . "Organizing for Safety." Annual Safety Educa- tion Review. Washington, D. C.: American Associa- tiOn of’Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 1969’ pp- 42'43. Franzen, Irvin. "Can Student Accident Reports Collected for a State Agency be Profitably Utilized Locally?" National SafetyCongress Proceedings. Vol. XXIII. Chicago: NatiOnal Safety Council, 1968, pp. 78-79. Garber, Lee O. "Personal Liability of Professional Employees." The Nation's Schools (January, 1954), pp. 70-71. . "Schools that Earn Money May Lose Their Immunity." The Nation's Schools (September, 1964), p. 54. Giovannini, Victor. "Hazard Hunting in a Brand New School." Safety Education (March, 1964), pp. 15-17. Hamachek, D. E, "Tales Computers Can Tell." Safety Education (February, 1964), p. 43. Hampton, Peter J. "Why Does He Have Accidents?" Safety Education (September, 1962), pp. 14-17. Harper, George W. "Campus Accident Problems." Safety Education (February, 1955), pp. 13—14. Hase, Gerald J. "Nature and Frequency of Accidents Among Elementary School Children in New York State." Journal of School Health (December, 1958), pp. 343- 349. Hein, Fred V. "Health Aspects of Accident Prevention." Annual Safety Education Review. Washington, D. C.: American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 1963, pp. 67-69. Hixon, L. B. "A Checklist for a Safer School." The Ameri- can School Board Journal (April, 1952), pp. 43-44. 219 Houston, Laurence. "Legal Aspects of Safety in School Recreation:" annual Safety Education Review. Washington, D. C.: American Association fOr Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 1962, pp. 4-9. Imhulse, Diane. "Safety Education is Relevant." Lutheran Education (January, 1970), pp. 226-231. . "White House Conference on Children." School Safety (November, 1970), p. 14. Jack, Harold K. and Wheeler, Virginia. "A Job Analysis for Safety Education Supervisors." Safety Education. (Feb. I 1959) , pp. 16-180 Jewett. Theodore C., Jr., M. D. "Accidental Trauma in the School Age Child." The Journal of School Health (June, 1962), pp. 201-206. Kigin, Denis J. "Tort Liability Affecting Shop Teachers with Provision for Avoiding Accidents and Litigation. National Safety Congress Transactions. Vol. XXIII. Chicago: National Safety Council, 1960, pp. 70-74. . "Would you be Liable If." Safety Education (February, 1964), p. 43. Kralovec, Dalibor W. "A Total School Safety Education Pro- gram." Safety (November, 1965). PP. 8-10. . "The Role of the Building Safety Coordinator." Safety Education (December, 1958). Light, Kenneth L. "When is an Accident not an Accident." Safetijducation (February, 1964), pp. 23-24. MacDonald, Joseph. "Are Accident Prevention Programs in America Commendable? National Safety Congress Trans- actions. Vol. XXIII. Chicago: National Safety CounciI, 1969, pp. 81-84. Mann, James. "Teach the Concept." School Safety (October, 1966), pp. 4-5. McGinty, J. T. "Accident Reporting and Analysis are Necessary." Association of School Business Officials er the United States and Canada Proceedings. vol. LI. Minneapolis: A.S.B.O., 1965, pp. 6-99. McKinlay, Richard J. "Some Sociological Perspectives on Accident Research." National Safety Congress Trans- actions. Vol. XXIII. Chicago: National Safety Council, 1968, pp. 13-15. 220 Miles, James B. "The School Principal and Accident Pre- vention." Safety Education (June, 1957), p. 6. Miller, Gene H. "Particulars of 300 Pupil Accidents." Safetnyducation (December, 1951), pp. 12-15. Miskow, Frank. "You're in Charge." School Safety (January and February, 1970), pp. 12-13. National Safety.Council. "A Job Analysis for a Safety Education Supervisor." Safety Education (November, 1959), PP. 16-17. . "Basic Principles for Safety Education." Safety Education (December, 1955), pp. 12-13. . "It's More than a Report." Safety Education (March, 1965), pp. 81-82. «nun-nmmv...‘ “- l .I . "Why Teach Safety." School Safety (September- October, 1965), pp. 23-24. Nihan, James F. "State Laws for Safety Education." National Safety Congress Transactions. Vol. XXIII. Chicago: National Safety Council, 1963, p. 33. Noe, John C. "Professional Responsibility in Safety Education." Safety (November-December, 1965), p. 16. Parrish, Henry M. and others. "Epidemiological Approach to Preventing School Accidents." The Journal of School Health (May, 1967), pp. 2363539. Parson, Floyd. "Educating for Safety." National Education Association Journal (February, 1968?, pp. 67;70. Patterson, Norman. "Hand Tabulating of Student Accident Reports." National Safety Congress Transactions. Vol. XXIII. Chicago: National Safety CounciI, 1965, p. 28. Peavy, Glenn. "Can Student Accident Reports Collected for a State Agency by Profitably Utilized Locally?" National Safety Congress Transactions. Vol. XXIII. Chibago: National Safety Council,*l969, p. 82. Pechar, Stanley F. "Accidents and Prevention in Secondary School Physical Education." Netional Safety Con- ress Transactions. V01. XXIII. Chicago: National Safety Council, 1962, p. 107. Planek, Thomas. "Developmental Problems in Safety Research." National Safety Congress Transactione. Vol. XXIII. Chicago: National Safety Council, 1969, pp. 109-112. 221 Proetsch, Jean. "Accident Reporting." Safety (Nov.-Dec., 1967), pp. 4-60 Recht, J. L. "BirLevel Reporting of Accidents." Journal of Safety Research (June, 1970), p. 54. ‘ Reed, Thelma. "Using Standard Student Accident Reports." Safety Education (January, 1957), p. 13. Rogers, Virgil M. "Automation, Some Implications for Safety Education." Safety (Nov.-Dec., 1965), pp. 11-12. Rollins, Leonard. "At the State Level." National Safety Congress Transactions. Vol. XXIII. Chicago: National Safety Council, 1967, pp. 82-83. Rosenfield, Harry N. "Legal Liability and the Cost of Accidents." Safety Education (April, 1957), p. 4. "Legal Liability for School Accidents." Annual Safety Education Review. Washington, D. C.: American Association of HeaIth, Physical Education and Recreation, 1964, pp. 101-112. . "School Liability." Netional Safetnyongress Transactions. Vol. XXIII. ChiCago: National Safety Council, 1962, pp. 10-22. Schaplowsky, A. F. "Training Public Health Workers in Accident Prevention." National Safety Congress Transactions. Vol. XXIII. Chicago: National Safety Council, 1963, pp. 89-90. Schneider, Nathaniel 0. "Will Their Attitudes Hurt Them?" Safety Education (January, 1960), pp. 9-10. Seeley, Darwin. "School Accidents and Teacher Liability." Journal of School Health (May, 1962), pp. 29-31. Shapiro, F. S. "Your Liability for Student Accidents." National Education Association Journal (March, I535). pp. 46-47: Shaw, Frederick. "Employee Accidents." National Safety Congress Transactions. Vol. XXIII. Chicago: National Safety Council, 1962, p. 7. Silverwood, George P. "The Most Important Accident Facts." National Safety Congress Transactions. Vol. XXIII. Chicago: National Safety Council, 1959, pp. 62-64. 222 Smith, Lester V. "Safety in the School Environment." Annual Safety Education Review. Washington, D. C.: American Assotiation for Heaith, Physical Education and Recreation, 1962, pp. 44-47. Spadafore, Jeanie. "The End of a Dream." Safety Education (May, 1957), p. 25. Solley, William H. "Nature and Causes of Accidents on the University of Florida Campus." National Safety Congress Transactions. Vol. XXIII. Chicago: National Safety Council, 1960, pp. 29-33. Stack, Herbert J. "Why Teach Safety?" Safety (Sept.-Oct., 1965) I pp. 6-70 Thygerson, Alton L. "Attitudes Toward the Accident Problem." California Journal of Traffic Safety Education (Jan., 1970), p. 22. Truedale, John C. "So You are a Good Samaritan." Journal of the American Association of Health, Physica Education and Recreation'YFeb., 1954i, pp. 25-29. Urlaub, John. "Can Student Accident Reports Collected for a State Agency be Positively Utilized Locally?" National Safety Congress Transactions. Vol. XXIII. Chicago: National Safety Council, 1968, p. 79. Wasson, Nevin. "Supervision in Safety Education." Safety Mar.-April, 1966), pp. 16-18. Westaby, Janice R. "Accident Prevention in Public Health." National Safety Congress Transactions. Vol. XXIII. Chibago: Natibnal Safety Council, 1963, pp. 122-126. Williams, William A. "The Elements of a Safe School Shop Environment." Safety (Nov., 1969), pp. 71-74. Yost, Charles Peter. "Better Leadership, The Key to Safety in Athletics." Safety (Jan.-Feb., 1967), PP. 8-11. . "National Conference on Accident Prevention in Physical Education Athletics and Recreation." gournal of the American Association of Health, ghysical Education and Recreation‘YMay, 1964), p. 2. "Teaching Safety in the Elementary Schools." gournal of the American Association_for Health, PhysicaIBEducatiOn and Recreation (July, 1962), p. 32. 223 "Total Fitness and Prevention of Accidents." Journal of the American Association for Health Physical EducatiOn and Recreation (March, 1967i, pp. 33-371 Zaun, Cecil. "Wanted: A Job Analysis for Safety Super- visor." Safety Education (April, 1957), p. 22. Unpublished Research Studies and Pepers Aaron, James E. "A Study of Supervision Practices in Safety Education in Selected Cities of the United States." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, New York University, 1960. "I Appenzeller, Herbert T. "An Analysis of Court Cases Per- taining to Tort Liability for Injuries Sustained in a Public School Program of Physical Education." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Drake University, 1966. urn-sauna Bieber, Marlene Jenkins. "The Causes and Prevention of Safety Hazards and Accidents and the Liability Involved in the Public School Systems Throughout the United States." Unpublished Doctor's disserta— tion, Nebraska Teachers' College, 1966. Bishop, Richard W. "A Realistic Concept of Safety for the School Age Child." Paper read at the National Home Demonstration Council Conference, Feb. 7, 1961, 'Michigan State University. Cleetwood, Cleet C. "Legal Liability for Injuries Sustained in Public School Programs of Interscholastic Athle- tic." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Duke University, 1959. Constantine, Gus A. "Legal Liability for Injuries Sus- tained in the Transportation of Public School Pupils." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Duke University, 1958. Edwards, L. F., Jr. "Public School Districts' Immunity Status in the United States." Unpublished research for the Kemper Insurance Group, Chicago, Illinois, 1968. I Engelhardt, Melvin E. "The Administration of Safety Educa- tion Programs in Selected School Systems." Unpub- lished Doctor's dissertation, Columbia University, 1961. I 224 Erickson, A. M. "A Study of the Nature, Frequency, and Related Administrative Factors of Physical Educa- tion Accidents Among Girls in Selected Samples of Secondary Schools in New York." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, St. John University, 1969. Forsgren, D. A. "Study of Supervisors and Employees' Benefits Concerning Non—Safety Benefits Stemming from Their Participation in Plant Safety Programs." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Colorado, 1965. Gilliland, Lonnie, Sr. "Practices in Safety Education in Selected Cities of United States." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1955. ‘3 Graham, Peter J., Jr. "A Survey of Liability Insurance for Physical Educators Within the United States." Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1965. I... Hannaford, Earl S. "The Significance of Safety Attitudes in Industrial Accident Prevention." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, 1957. Hartman, Charles H. "Performance Standards in Safety Education; Fact or Fantasy?" Paper read at the National Safety Congress, Oct. 28, 1968, Chicago, Illinois. Hunt, D. L. "Quantitative Paradigms of Administrative Rates for Accident Prevention in Selected Public Schools." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Texas Technological College, 1969. Jacobs, William. "The Administration of California Laws Holding School Districts Liable for Negligence." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of California, 1964. Jones, R. W. "The Legal Rights and Legal Liabilities Involved in Pupil-School Relationships in the Colorado Public Schools." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Denver, 1961. Koehler, Robert Wendell. "A Study of Legal Liability in Education with Emphasis on Physical Education in Selected States from 1955-1965." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Utah, 1967. Kralovec, D. W. "The Safety Education Program of the Philadelphia Public Schools--Historica1 Background." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Temple University, 1961. 225 Laws, Donald F. "An Exploratory Sociological Approach to Childhood Accidents." Unpublished study at Univer- sity of Maryland, 1962. Mann, William A. "The Nature of the Problem Driver." Paper read at the Driver Improvement School Confer- ence, Dec. 15, 1965, Michigan State University. Marshall, Robert James. "The Duties and Liabilities of Public School Teachers as Evidenced by Court Deci— sions." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1963. Marshall, R. L. "Analysis of Safety Education Programs in Selected Public Schools of the United States with Recommendations for School Systems in Establishing or Evaluating Safety Education Programs." Unpub- lished Doctor's dissertation, University of Kansas, 1961. Nihan, James F. "A Study of State Laws and State Educa- tion Departments' Regulations for Safety Education in Public Schools of United States." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, New York University, 1961. Pfistes, Richard G. "A Comparative Analysis of High and Low Accident Rates for Michigan High School Farm Shops." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michi- gan State University, 1960. Proetsch, Jean L. '"An Analysis of Accident Report Forms Used by Public School Systems." Unpublished Master's thesis, American University, 1965. Rosenfield, Harry N. "Liability for School Accidents." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, New York Univer- sity, 1940. . "Tort Liability of School Districts." Paper read at a School Law Conference, Sept. 29, 1964, University of Pennsylvania. Schreiber, Robert J. "Development of Procedures for the Evaluation of Educational Methods Used in Accident Prevention." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Columbia University, 1957. Teal, G. E. "Accident Prevention Programming in the United States Air Force." Unpublished Doctor's disserta- tion, New York University, 1956. 226 William, N. D. "An Exploratory Study of Factors Related to Accidental Injury to Children of Elementary School Age." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers, 1965. Wynn, W. D. "An Epidemiological Analysis of Student Acci- dents." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Univer- sity of Utah, 1968. Yost, Charles Peter. "An Analysis of Graduate Theses in School Safety in the United States from 1925 to 1950." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Univer- sity of Pittsburgh, 1956. APPENDICES 227 APPENDIX A LETTER TO CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICER 228 is A. SENLBENIAUGH ‘ fu'N'l'NL‘EH‘ MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT or EDUCATION STATE OFFICE BUILDING 30I WEST PRESTON STREET. BALTIMORE BIZOI May 31, 1971 To Chief State School Officers: Mr. Robert Constants, a member of the staff of the Maryland State Department of Education who is on educational leave at Michigan State University, is conducting a survey to obtain information on programs of student accident-reporting systems. He is requesting data which will help revise and update a statewide student accident reporting system for the Maryland public schools. The plan will utilize automatic data processing in the analysis of student accidents. It is our belief the approach will provide an effective method of analysis of student accidents and will lead to improvement in pro- grams of instruction aimed at eliminating or reducing student accidents. Enclosed is a survey questionnaire which we hope could be completed by your staff member reSponsible for safety education. We would be most grateful if the form is returned by June 25, 1971, to Mr. Robert Constants, Apartment 104C, 4376 Okemos Road, Okemos, Michi- gan, 48864. Your effort to assist us in this study will be greatly appreciated. Upon completion we will be most happy to provide you with a copy of the survey results. J MES A. SENSENBAUGH State Superintendent of Schools J AS:MWR: g Enclosures 229 APPENDIX B LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS OF SCHOOLS 230 .5 A SENSENBAUGH O ...-suI~IIIND£H' K; M I M ,., r .- N“ MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT or EDUCATION STATE OFFICE BUILDING 30I WEST PRESTON STREET, BALTIMORE 2I20I May 31, 1971 To Superintendents of Schools: The Maryland State Department of Education is conducting a nationwide survey on student accident reporting systems and would be interested in receiving the benefit of your experience. Mr. Robert Constante of our staff, who is on educational leave at Michigan State University, is conducting the study for us. Enclosed is. a survey form seeking Specific information pertaining to your program on student accident reporting. Would you have your staff member who is responsible for safety education com- plete the form and return it in the self-addressed enveIOpe by June 25, 1971, to Mr. Robert Constante, Apartment 104C, 4376 Okemos Road, Okemos, Michigan, 48864. Your effort to assist us in this survey will be most appreciated. Si ely, ( Z... I J ES A. SENSENBAUGH State Superintendent of Schools J AS:MWR: g Enclosure 231 APPENDIX C CARDS SENT TO STATE AND LOCAL SUPERINTENDENTS TO ASSESS THE NAME OF THE PERSON SELECTED TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE 232 1870-1970 WEATHER SERVICES Robert E. Constante 4376 Okemos Road, Apt° 104C Okemos, Michigan 48864 Dear Superintendent: Please provide the name, address and phone number of your staff member whom you have selected to complete this questionnare and return at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your unselfish assistance. NAME TITLE ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP TELEPHONE 233 APPENDIX D LETTER TO CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS OF STATES NOT REPORTING TO THE NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL 234 at. A. IINOIN‘OAUGH ‘7‘ .U"IIN"~O'~Y MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION STATE OEEICE BUILDING 30I WEST PRIITON STREET. BALTIMORE 2‘20! May 3, 1971 To Chief State School Officers: Mr. Robert Constante, a member of the staff of the Maryland State Department of Education who is on educational leave at Michigan State University, is conducting a survey to obtain information on programs of student accident-reporting systems. He is requesting data which will help revise and update a statewide student accident reporting system for the Maryland public schools. The plan will utilize automatic data processing in the analysis of student accidents. It is our belief the approach will provide an effective method of analysis of student accidents and will lead to improvement in pro- grams of instruction aimed at eliminating or reducing student accidents. Enclosed are two survey forms, one of which we hope could be completed by your staff member responsible for safety education. The second form should be sent to a local school system in your state which has an estab- lished student accident reporting system. Attached to the second survey form is a letter to the local superintendent explaining the need for the survey. We would be most grateful if forms are returned by May 25 , 1971, to Mr. Robert Constante, Apartment 104C, 4376 Okemos Road, Okemos, Michigan 48864. Your effort to assist us in this study will be greatly appreciated. Upon completion we will be most happy to provide you with a copy of the survey results. ES A. SENSENBAUGH State Superintendent of Schools JAS:MWR:g Enclosures 2 35 APPENDIX E LETTER TO STATE AND LOCAL SURVEY RESPONDENTS DESIGNATED TO COMPLETE THE QUESTIONNAIRE 236 ATTENTION: Survey Respondent Designated to Complete the Questionnaire. Dear Sir: It is hoped that you will take a few minutes from your busy schedule to complete the enclosed questionnaire requesting information on student accident reporting programs in your school system. It would be appreciated if you would answer each question pertaining to your specific program. If you feel that there is need to explain your situation, you may do so in the area provided, or you may want to explain on a separate sheet of paper. We would like very much to hear any comments you may want to make pertaining to your program. Your assistance in this nationwide survey, which is being supported by the Maryland State Department of Education, is greatly appreciated. We will be most happy to send you an abstract of the study upon its completion. Please return the questionnaire on or before June 25, 1971 in the self-addressed, stamped envelope provided. Sincerely, Robert Constante 237 APPENDIX F LETTER TO STATE RESPONDENT DESIGNATED TO COMPLETE THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN THOSE STATES NOT REPORTING TO THE NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL 238 rm: fl. IE8 A SENSENIAUGH AT: SUPERINTENDENT MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION STATE OEEICE BUILDING 301 WEST PRESTON STREET. BALTIMORE 21201 ATTENTION: State Survey Respondent Designated to Complete the Questionnaire. Dear Sir: It is hoped that you will take a few minutes from your busy schedule to complete the enclosed questionnaire request- ing information on student accident reporting programs in your school system. It would be appreciated if you would answer each question pertaining to your specific program. If you feel that there is need to eXplain your situation, you may do so in the area provided, or you may want to explain on a separate sheet of paper. We would like very much to hear any comments you may want to make pertaining to your program. In addition, it would be appreciated if you would forward the additional questionnaire enclosed to a local school district within your state which you feel has the most effective student accident reporting program. Your assistance in this nationwide survey, which is being supported by the Maryland State Department of Education. is greatly appreciated. We will be most happy to send you an abstract of the study upon its completion. Please return the questionnaire on.or before June 25, 1971 in the self- addressed, stamped enveIOpe provided. a? .1... t Cong 239 APPENDIX G SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION 240 NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ACCIDENT REPORTING PROGRAMS OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION AND SELECTED SCHOOL SYSTEMS State Department of Education Questionnaire Attached are a series of questions on student accident reporting in safety education programs. Please circle in the letter(s) Yes (Y), No (N), Planned (P), Non-applicable (N/A), or respond as specified that best reflects your particular system. This survey questionnaire was designed to take a minimum of time to complete, approximately 18 minutes. Organizational Procedure Part I General Safety Program Information Items 1'13 Part II Accident Reporting Procedure Items 14-22 Part III Program Uses Of Analyzed Data Items 23-25 Part IV Accident Reporting from Information Items 26-58 If you have any material or information on your safety education programs, we would appreciate a copy in order to better understand your programs. Your assistance and cooperation is deeply appreciated. Dr. James A. Sensenbaugh State Superintendent of Schools Baltimore, Maryland Please return the completed questionnaire in the stamped, self-addressed envelope provided on or before June 25, 1971. Return to: Robert Constante 4376 Okemos Road Okemos, Michigan 48864 Name and title of person completing the questionnaire: Name and address of your educational agency: 241 242 QUESTIONNAIRE DEFINITIONS Accident--an event which usually produces unintended injury, death, or property damage, occurring without the will or design of , the person who causes it. Full-time Staff-—a person hired by the Board of Education who devotes 100% of his working time to supervising, coordinating, directing, and administering the total safety education program. Governmental Immunity--immunity from tort actions enjoyed by govern- mental subdivisions in common-law states. Liability--Legal responsibility; the state of one who is bound in FAT law and justice to do something which may be enforced by action. ' f . . . . . . l Non-school Jurisdictional Acc1dents--inc1udes all accidents not occur- .1 ring under the jurisdiction or sponsorship of the school. Part-time Staff--a person hired by the Board of Education who devotes any set portion of his time to supervising, directing and administering the total school safety education program. P1anned--a program that is designed or is being prepared to be imple- mented into the system. Recordable Accident--an accident which: (1) results in a pupil injury severe enough to cause the student the loss Of one-half day or more of school time, or (2) is severe enough to cause the loss of one-half day or more of pupil activity during non- school time, or (3) does property damage as a result of a school jurisdictional accident. Reportable Accident--(l) any school jurisdictional accident that results in any injury to a pupil and/or property damage, or (2) any non-school jurisdictional accident which results in injury causing restriction of activity to the pupil. Safety Education--the process Of administrative practices and instruc- tional techniques in a comprehensive program designed to reduce accident and conserve human and material resources. School Jurisdictional Accidents--those accidents which occur on school property, to pupils enroute to or from school, or during school sponsored activities away from school property. State Department of Education--to include all chief state educational agencies in each state due to the many titles of the fifty state educational agencies in the United States. System--referring to: (1) a state-wide educational organization and all Of its local subsystems, or (2) the local school districts including all of its schools. Tort--1egal wrong committed to the person or property of another. 10. 243 Part I ggneral Safety Education Program Information Does your state have legal authority to include: (A) safety education in public schools? (B) driver education in the schools? (C) is it an assumed authority for (A)? Is there a staff person at the state level responsible for: (A) safety education? (B) driver education? (C) combined duties of (A) and (B)? (D) student accident reporting activities only? (E) other; specify Number Of administrative staff in your state Office in: (A-l) safety education: full-time (A-2) part-time (B-l) driver education: full-time (B-2) part-time Does your school system budget funds for: (A) safety education? (B) driver education? (C) other funding: specify Does your state have an administrative guide for: (A) safety education? (B) driver education? (C) combined areas of safety and driver education? (D) other: specify Does your state have a curriculum guide for: (A) safety education? (B) driver education? (C) combined plan of (A) and (B)? (D) other: specify DO you provide in-service programs to the local school districts: (A) in safety education? (B) in driver education? (C) non-applicable; explain Does your state include safety education as: (A) a separate course in the curriculum? (B) included in with other subjects? (C) not provided at all in the schools? (D) left up to the local school districts? Does your state educational system have: (A) tort liability? (B) governmental immunity doctrine laws? (C) if not, explain your situation Does your state have: (A) a state safety council or committee? (B) a state driver education association? (C) a state safety association? (D) a combined safety and driver education association? (E) other; specify D (E) non-applicable? Your projections for a system-wide reporting program? (A) DO not consider implementing a program. (B) A program now in effect. (C) l to 2 years away. (D) 3 to 4 years away. (B) Other; specify If you collect accident data, is: (A) non-applicable? (B) sufficient data being collected? (C) it presented in a manner easily interpreted? (D) there adequate distribution of the data? (E) the data made available to students? (F) the data made available to professional staff? (G) the data made available to non-professional staff? (H) other; specify x 22222 KKKK KKKK 22222 KKKKK 22222 "U'U'U'U'U KKKKKKK N/A "U'C'U /A / 22222 'U'U'U'UE’ F'U’U'U'U / /A 22222222 "D'U'D'U'U'U’U 253 Part III Program Uses Of Analyzed Data 23. Is your student accident data analyzed and used: (A) non-applicable? (B) to encourage schools to summarize accident data? (C) as a means of evaluating ongoing safety programs? (D) to assess the cost Of accidents in the schools? (E) to make available to all schools? (F) for curriculum planning and improvement? (G) to demonstrate preventive measures to the schools? (H) to analyze the overall school district accident picture? (I) to determine district trends in student accidents? (J) to isolate special or high risk activity programs? (K) to initiate special studies for accident reduction? (L) to build public support for school safety programs? (M) for other state governmental agencies? (N) to make available to the National Safety Council? (0) for insurance and possible legal uses? KKKKKK 222222 KKKKKKKK 24. Have there been any special studies done in your system using analyzed student accident data? If yes, list the studies and their results: 25. What significant areas Of concern in student accident reporting were omitted form this questionnaire? Specify: Part IV Accident Reporting Form Information* Please circle those items that you require on your system-wide standardized student accident reporting form as a minimum inclusion. If your system has no reporting program, indicate those items you would include in a form. 26. Have no reporting program 27. Name 28. Address 29. School 30. Sex 31. Age; month, day, year 32. Grade or special program 33. Date and time of accident; day of the week 34. Nature of injury 35. Part Of body injured KKKKKKKKK * Definitions for items 27-56 are presented in Appendix L. 2 \ ’U'U'D’U'U'US’ 22222222 'D’U'U'U’U'U’U'U / 2222222222 "U'U'U'U'U'U'U'U'UP j PAIL-“2H . _fi 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 254 Degree Of injury Number of days lost Cause of injury Jurisdictional classification of accident (school or non-school) Location of accident Activity Of person Status of activity Supervision (professional, non-professional) Agency involved (apparatus, equipment, etc.) Unsafe act Unsafe mechanical-~physical condition Unsafe personal factor Corrective action taken or recommended Property damage (estimated) Description Date of report Report prepared by (signature) Principal's signature First aid provided by (signature) Reportable Recordable Others; specify List some problems you have with your reporting form, if any: KK 22 'U K 2 KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK I-< 2 222222222222222222 'U ’U'U'U'U'U’U'U'U’U'U'U’U'U'U'U'U’U'U 'U "U APPENDIX I FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO STATE AND LOCAL SUPERINTENDENTS 255 .ME. A. BENIINIAUGH STATE SUPERINTENDENT MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION STATE OFFICE BUILDINC 30! WEST PRESTON STREET. BALTIMORE 21201 July 10, 1971 Dear Fellow Educator, You may recall the letter sent to you on June 10th from F1 Dr. James A. Sensenbaugh, State Superintendent of Maryland A? Schools, requesting your aid in a survey to develOp a model E student accident reporting system. The comprehensiveness a. Of the findings is dependent upon the cooperation of all superintendents contacted. Our request may have come at the time when the staff member selected by you to complete the questionnaire was extremely busy and thus unable to complete this assignment. An attempt was made to keep the information non-technical and avoid the necessity for long, time consuming responses; just simple Yes or NO responses, as a rule. It could be, the questionnaire has been misplaced. In that event, I have taken the liberty of enclosing a complete packet which includes cover letters and the survey question- naire, along with a self-addressed, stamped envelOpe for returning the completed questionnaire. With your assistance, it is hoped that the study will indicate the current status of student accident reporting. Your attention to this request will be greatly appreciated. Respectfully, flaw 562%.; W Robert Constante 256 APPENDIX J THANK-YOU LETTER TO STATE AND LOCAL SUPERINTENDENTS AND DESIGNATED RESPONDENTS 257 .94!!! A. SENIINIAUGH sTATE SUPERINTENDENT MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION STATE OPEICE BUILDING 301 WEST PRESTON STREET. BALTIMORE 21201 August 1971 Dear Sir: May I take this Opportunity, on behalf of the Maryland State Department of Education, to personally thank you for taking time from a busy schedule to designate a member Of your staff to respond to the recent questionnaire sent by me and entitled: A National Survey of State Departments Of Education and Selected School Systems' Student Accident Reporting Programs. We sincerely believe that the contribution made by you and others will materially assist us in ultimately developing a better student accident reporting system. On completion of the study, which is projected for the end of the year, we will be most happy to send you an abstract of our findings. Sincerely, Robert Costante tax @2467 Copy to your respondent 258 AHENDD(K STATE AND LOCAL RESPONSES TO OPENENDED QUESTIONS ON SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Questions: 2E, 3C, 4C, 5G, 66, 7C, 9C, 10E, 11A 5 B, 13D, 14E, 18E, 19E, 20D, 21E, 22H, 24", 25", 57-, 58. 259 Question 2: Is there a staff person at the system level responsible for (a) safety education; (b) driver education; (c) combined duties in both areas; activities; States.RespOndingto (e) Alabama Iowa Louisiana Michigan Missouri North Dakota Rhode Island (d) student accident reporting (e) other; specify. Response Made School transportation Safety education through 12th grade Youth Safety Council Activities Preparation and dissemination of safety curriculum materials and teacher workshop School bus safety General instructional program School bus safety Local Systems Responding to (e) Glendale, Arizona Indianapolis, Indiana Baltimore, Maryland Kansas City, Missouri Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Louisville, Kentucky Gary, Indiana Jackson, Mississippi Response Made Safety education provided as needed Civil Defense Accident reporting is a func- tion Of the safety Office Driver improvement schools and school bus safety Health, safety and driver education Health and physical education Supervisor of Health, Safety, Physical Education and Athletics Combined with physical educa- tion and safety education. 260 317.02. ‘HS'. .4 151 Question 3: States Respondingto (c) Local School Responding to (c) North Little Greenville, S Boise, Idaho Louisville, Kentucky 261 Number of administrative staff in your system's Office in (a) safety education: fulltime and part-time; (b) driver education: fulltime and part-time; (c) other, specify. No Responses Made Systems Response Made Rock, Arkansas Supervisor of Health, Safety, and Physical Education A program is planned. One fulltime person supervis- ing safety education, transportation and driver education. Health and Physical Education, Safety and Driver Education. outh Carolina Question 4: States Responding to (c) Alabama Delaware Georgia Idaho Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Missouri Rhode Island Does your system budget funds for: (a) safety education; (b) driver education; (c) other funding; specify. Response Made School bus safety State funds for program Highway Safety Act funds in driver education Driver education state supported Highway Safety Act funds in driver education State and federal funding State ear—marked funds from Dept. of Motor Vehicles Funds for safety raised on local level only Federal grant--Highway Safety Act Highway Safety Act Highway Safety Act School bus funding Local School Systems Responding to (a) Clearwater, Florida Farmington, Maine Cincinnati, Ohio Houston, Texas Kansas City, Kansas 262 Response Made State Dept. of Education Federal funds Individual program included in overall budget Federal grant Not as a specific item Question 5: Does your system have an administrative guide in (a) safety education; (b) driver education; (c) combined areas of (a) and (b); (d) follow- ing the state guide in safety education; (e) following the state guide in driver education; (f) or following the state combined guide in both areas; States Responding to (9) Alabama Massachusetts New York Pennsylvania Rhode Island Virginia wyoming (9) other; specify. Response Made ”‘ School bus safety Health and safety combined Motorcycle, pedestrian, and snowmobiles Five school, patrol, bicycle, aviation administrative guide School bus guide Health and safety education Revising driver education guide fall of 1971 Local School Systems Responding to (9) Indianapolis, Indiana Farmington, Maine Response Made Provide frequent administra- tive bulletins in safety education and driver educa— tion National Safety Council for Safety Education W KE‘II' ”j b n.- . 263 Question 6: Does your system have a curriculum guide for: (a) safety education; (b) driver education; (c) combined areas of (a) and (b); (d) use the state guide of (a); (e) use the state guide of (b); (f) following state combined guide in both areas; (9) other; specify. States Responding to (9) Massachusetts Michigan Missouri Nevada Pennsylvania Rhode Island Virginia wyoming Response Made Health and safety combined In the process of being developed Motorcycle education and pedestrian safety Motorcycle and driver education Fire, school, patrol, bicycle, aviation safety program School bus safety program Health and safety Revising present guide, fall of 1971 Local School Systems Responding to (9) Indianapolis, Indiana Farmington, Maine Grand Rapids, Michigan Jackson, Mississippi Response Made American Automobile Associa- tion recommended textbooks, lesson guides, test and workbooks Combination of all areas Safety education is integrated throughout the curriculum guides of the various sub- ject areas Specific area booklets, bulle— tin and annual accident reports 264 Question 7: Does your staff provide inservice program to your systems (a) in safety education; (b) in driver education; (c) non-applicable. Explain. States Responding to (c) Response made Texas Provided through regional educational service centers Maryland In school bus safety Local School Systems Responding to (c) Response Made Glendale, Arizona Inservice provided as is needed F. Grand Rapids, Michigan Provide inservice programs to non-public schools Rutland,‘Vermont Insufficient staff to provide needed service Question 9: Does your educational system have (a) tort liability; (b) governmental immunity doctrine laws; (c) if not, explain your situation. States Responding to (0) Response Made Alabama State Board of Adjustment meets its moral obligation Kentucky Permission can be obtained to sue the state Massachusetts Each local school district handles its own matters Maine Decisions made on each individual cases Local School Systems Responding to (c) Response Made Glendale, Arizona Liability for school district personnel who might be liable Baltimore, Maryland If there is negligence, the legal division of the city government may pay for medical expenses of the accident Elizabeth, New Jersey No longer pleaded Louisville, Kentucky Elkhart, Indiana 265 Immunity does not extend to an employee. The Board of Education is immune when liability is placed on the vehicle, a waiver is placed on the immunity to the extent of the limits Of the insurance policy Some harmless Question 10: Does your education system have (a) a safety council or committee; (b) a driver education association; (0) a safety association; (d) a combined safety and driver education associa- tion; (e) other, specify. States Responding to (e) Connecticut Idaho Massachusetts Michigan Rhode Island Wisconsin Response Made Connecticut Safety Commission Coordinating members of several safety associations Health education curriculum advising committee of which safety is a part Michigan State Safety Comm. New England Driver Education Association School Safety Coordinator Association Local School Systems Responding to (e) Clearwater, Florida Hettinger, North Dakota Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Houston, Texas Springfield, Missouri Greenwich, Connecticut fi‘ Response Made School Safety Committee con- cerned with pedestrian and vehicle traffic to and from school State Association in Driver and Safety Education Regional State Association Gulf Coast Driver Education Association, a regional association established by the state association. State Driver Education Assoc. Part of a city-wide Safety Committee 266 Question 11: Has your system received federal funds for safety programs, and if so, list from what laws or acts? (a) safety education; specify source; (b) driver education; specify source. States Responding to (a) and (b) Response Made Alabama (a) -- (b) Highway Safety Act Arizona (a) -- (b) Highway Safety Act California (a) -- (b) Highway Safety Act Colorado (a) '- (b) Highway Safety Act Connecticut (a) Highway Safety Act (b) Highway Safety Act Delaware (a) Highway Safety Act (b) Highway Safety Act Florida (a) _- (b) Highway Safety Act Georgia (a) -- (b) E.S.E.A. and Highway Safety Act Hawaii (a) '- (b) Highway Safety Act Idaho (a) Highway Safety Act (b) Highway Safety Act Iowa (a) -- (b) Highway Safety Act Kansas (a) ‘- 7 (b) Highway Safety Act Kentucky (a) Highway Safety Act (b) Highway Safety Act Louisiana (a) Title V, E.S.E.A. (b) Highway Safety Act Maryland (a) Highway Safety Act (b) Highway Safety Act Massachusetts (a) -- (b) Highway Safety Act Michigan (a) -- (b) Highway Safety Act Minnesota (a) -— (b) Highway Safety Act Mississippi (a) -- (b) Highway Safety Act Missouri (a) - (b) Title V of E.S.E.A. and Highway Safety Act New Jersey (a) -- (b) Highway Safety Act ill! wiri'l'lqll 267 New Mexico (a) Highway Safety Act (b) Highway Safety Act New York (a) -- (b) Highway Safety Act North Carolina (a) Highway Safety Act (b) Highway Safety Act North Dakota (a) Highway Safety Act (b) Highway Safety Act Oklahoma (a) -- (b) Highway Safety Act Pennsylvania (a) -- (b) Highway Safety Act Rhode Island (a) Highway Safety Act (b) ‘- South Dakota (a) Highway Safety Act (b) Highway Safety Act Tennessee (a) -- (b) Highway Safety Act Texas (a) -_ (b) Highway Safety Act Virginia (a) -- (b) Highway Safety Act Washington (a) -- (b) Highway Safety Act West Virginia (a) -- (b) Highway Safety Act Wisconsin (a) Highway Safety Act (b) Highway Safety Act Wyoming (a) ~- (b) Highway Safety Act Local School Systems Responding to (a) & (b) Response Made" Mobile, Alabama (a) -- (b) Highway Safety Act Chicago, Illinois (a) -- (b) Highway Safety Act Baltimore City, Maryland (a) Highway Safety Act (b) Highway Safety Act Farmington, Maine (a) Highway Safety Act (b) Highway Safety Act Duluth, Minnesota (a) -— (b) Highway Safety Act Hittinger, North Dakota (a) -- (b) Highway Safety Act Cleveland, Ohio (a) -- (b) Highway Safety Act Cincinnati, Ohio (a) —- (b) Highway Safety Act Lakewood, Ohio (a) -- (b) Highway Safety Act 268 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (a) E.S.E.A. (b) Highway Safety Act Erie, Pennsylvania (a) -- (b) Highway Safety Act Brookings, South Dakota (a) —— (b) Highway Safety Act Houston, Texas (a) -- (b) Title III and Title I of Model Cities Louisville, Kentucky (a) -- (b) Highway Safety Act Los Angeles, California (a) Highway Safety Act (b) Highway Safety Act Jackson, Mississippi (a) -- (b) Highway Safety Act Question 13: Should student accident reporting be con- ducted (a) at the state level; (b) at the school district level; (c) an educational activity at both levels; (d) other, specify. States Resppnding to (d) Response Made Hawaii From school level to district to state level Wisconsin Pilot project at state level Local School Systems Responding to (d) Response Made Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Reporting should be conducted at the individual.schools- Question 14: Is the student accident reporting in your system (a) system-wide; (b) standardized and required; (c) voluntary; (d) N/A; (e) other, explain. States Responding to (e) Response Made Georgia NO reporting activity Iowa Accident reporting on a volun- tary basis and no report required at the state level Kansas Accident reporting conducted by state Health Department Massachusetts As per local school district policies and group insurance policies North Dakota Rhode Island Tennessee 269 A system—wide system being designed Some schools keep records Local schools systems Local School System Responding to (e) Response Made Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania A computerized system-wide program in effect. Question 18: What method of data processing of student accident is used (a) manual tabulation; (b) computer assistance in data analysis; (c) a combination of both methods; (d) no-applicable; (e) other, specify. States Responding to (e) Response Made Iowa Unknown Maryland Optical scan to be used in a Massachusetts North Dakota demonstration project No study has been done to assess its practically In the process of being designed. Local School Systems Responding to (e) Response Made Kansas City, Kansas State Department of Health tabulates states student accidents Jackson, Mississippi Presently working on improved method of data processing Question 19: If you use manual tabulation of accident data, is it (a) N/A; (b) meeting your needs; (c) because you do not have available computers; (d) because your system is too small for other methods; (e) other; specify. States responding to (e) Response Made Hawaii Presently being revised Kansas State Health Dept.'s activity Pennsylvania Have not put plan into effect yet Texas 270 A computerized program soon to be implemented Local School Systems Responding to (e) Indianapolis, Indiana Duluth, Minnesota Gary, Indiana Jackson, Mississippi Response Made Presently classifying and coding Computer use for data analysis is under consideration A planned program but not put into effect Have computers and have a planned program and will be used system-wide for data analysis next year Question 20: Are summaries of reported accidents distributed (a) monthly; (b) semi-annually; (c) annually; (d) other; specify; (e) N/A. States Responding to (d) Hawaii North Carolina Texas Wisconsin Response Made No summaries being made Attempts are made to encourage the local schools to make up summaries 100 schools preparing monthly summary reports for a pilot project Left up to local individual school districts. Local School Systems Responding to (d) Indianapolis, Indiana Fairmont, West Virginia Green Bay, Wisconsin Harlingen, Texas Jackson, Mississippi Response Made Whenever a specific accident trend occurs and during certain seasons of the year Accident summaries not pre- pared A bi-monthly summary is prepared Do not prepare or report summaries Prepare special reports during the school year as needed. Question 21: 271 Your projections for a system—wide reporting oz 02 02 on wood wow 02 oz Camcoomdz x on omcm wow 02 no» mo» 02 mm» mflcamufi> umw3 x mm moan mom mm» oz 0: 0: oz neuocunmmz x 02 02 02 wow 02 mm» QACAmua> x no wow; wow 02 mo» 02 mo> uCOEum> x thuovcnz mucousmcH 02 oz 02 mm 036m com 02 02 Lou: x 02 02 mo» me» mm» mm» maxok x hm 00am 03m oz my» mow 02 mo» ommmmccofi x >H0umpcmz wucnuomcH 02 my» mw> no» no» muoxao cusom x mm omen wow 02 an 02 mo> mow cuoxoo cuaom x mo» 02 oz 02 mm» mm» acflaouau bosom x we» mm» m6» my» mm comm wow mo» mm» panama mpozm x Nm comm wow 02 new we» 02 mm» aficm>~>mccmm x 02 02 oz 0: 0m coca wow 32 oz commuo x mo 006m 00m 02 or 02 mo» mo» anzmfixo x eusmcH hczumo> 02 on 0: mo» m0» 0420 x me own; cum mo> mo» auoxao buuoz x 02 oz 0: my» me wow“ wow may no» mafiaouou cuuoz x 02 02 Nv mama 0.4m 02 OZ 0.. OZ XMON 39..” x x ousm:H >8xnmo> He can ov wobna mum mo» no» ovaxo: 302 x wusmcH >AXumu> mm 096m now an coca o;m my» mm» >0mnon 362 x x gunman Anxumvx oz 02 02 um moan 90m way my» muwbmofia: 30: kuOumpcaz oocnnsmcH 02 02 0: 02 oz opm>oz x mv> way my» mm» «M wood 00m 02 mow uxmounoz x >u0umpco£ mucououcm oz oz oz 02 oz acoucoz x m0» we» may wvr mow mm» au30mmuz x mm omnm mompoz 02 an m:» my» me» Haawmmflmmfl: x my» oz we» oz my» wcmncx x 02 mg 030m 03m mm 994; 03m 02 02 oon x ha wood 00m be omso 00m FA owed 03m me> no» wcmflnCH x 02 0H omen mom 0H curd com 02 oz mwocfiflflH x ma Doom oom mv> mo» may ma omen mom ococH x >u0uanccz oceanswcH 02 cm owed vow oz mu> aflmuomo x ma omen wwm ma wmnn mmm unquofim 02 no» mo» mo» NH comm mom no» wchoavo x 02 HA omen wow 02 mm» usofiuuoccou x 0H mmam mum oz 0: wow 02 oz ovouo~ou x 02 02 m can n woman com 02 oz mACLONAHmU x mm» mu» mo» mo> no» mo» mqmcoxu< x 02 02 oz 02 02 oz eco~4u4 N ooem mom mxmaa< x mm» m0» m0» mm» 02 mo» nEnbmH¢ mcodmauoo Qujbaum pvcsaucH UmcaaocH >AHoscfi>wpcm pudom mo mvaufi>fiuo< mofiua>fiuu< wuoum unsou cofiuouuaamcauh moozoaaam Agnew: m< humuofluaoum HmucoECuo>oo Hausa xm maucum xuwczflfiw m39¢8w >9HZDEEH HUHmbmHD JOCZUm UHAQDQ mmkdbm OHHHZD mzh Zn pQUSHUcH muoneoz ounce HooLom umflxm xuflcaEEH moon 292 APPENDIX P QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDENTS AND THEIR TITLES 293 ‘ L'JJ-flA _n'fi-AL’O ' J-T STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION Alabama--J. H. Boockholdt, Assistant Director, Division of Administration and Finance. Arizona--Jay Smith, Consultant for Driver and Safety Education. California--Robert Terry, Consultant in Driver Education. Colorado-FDr. John Thompson, Consultant for Health, Physi- cal Education and Safety. Connecticut--David Jacobson, Consultant for Driver and Safety Education. Delaware--Frank Jelich, State Supervisor of Driver and ‘ Safety Education. Florida--Benton Clifton, Acting Administrator of Health, Physical and Driver Education and Summer Programs. Georgia--J. B. Angelo Crowe, Consultant for Driver and Safety Education. Hawaii--Paul Miho, Program Specialist of Student Safety; and Larry Silva, Program Specialist of Driver Education. Idaho--Allan Cafferty, Consultant for Driver Education. Illinois--A. Edward Johnson, Director of Safety Education. Iowa--Donald Koroch, Chief of Driver and Safety Education. Kansas--Jay Scott, Director of Driver Education. 294 295 Kentucky--George Logan, Consultant for Driver Education and Traffic Safety. Louisiana--Kenneth Doyle, Assistant Supervisor of Safety Education. Maine--Rona1d Spiegel, Consultant. Maryland--Morris Rannels, Coordinator of Pedestrian and Passenger Education. Massachusetts--Matthew Towle, Administrative Assistant. Michigan--M. D. Whale, Coordinator of Driver and Safety Education. Minnesota--Gene Beaika, Assistant Supervisor of Traffic Safety. Mississippi--Leonard Cain, Supervisor of Driver Education. Missouri--Dr. Robert Taylor, Director of Health, Physical 1 Education and Safety. Montana--Curtis Hahn, Supervisor of Traffic and Safety Education. Nebraska--C. Larry Vice, Director of Driver Education and Safety. Nevada--Paul Cohen, Consultant for Health, Physical Educa— tion, Recreation, Safety and Driver Education. New Jersey--Paul Selby, Consultant for Curriculum and Instruction of Driver Education. New Mexico--Wa1ter Cunningham, Driver and Safety Education 1 Specialist. New York--Louis Frani, Supervisor of Safety Education. 296 North Carolina-~Norman Leafe, Director of Health, Safety and Physical Education. North Dakota--Richard Klein, Assistant Superintendent in Charge of Instruction. Oklahoma--Henry Vaughan, Administrator of Safety, Driver Education, Health and Physical Education. Oregon--Dr. D. D. Williams, Director of Auxiliary Services. Pennsylvania--Ray Fulmer, Coordinator of Highway and Aviation Education. Rhode Island--Orlando Savastano, Consultant for Physical Education, Recreation, Safety and Driver Education. South Carolina--Hardisick Stuart, Jr., Research Assistant on Legal Affairs. South Dakota--Wyland Borth, Driver Education Consultant. Tennessee--James Gumm, Director of Health, Physical Educa- tion, Recreation and Safety. Texas--Glenn Peavy, Program Director of Safety and Driver Education. Virginia--Harold Lakey, Assistant Supervisor of Health and Physical Education. Washington--William Hiblar, Associate Supervisor of Safety Education Programs. West Virginia-~Roy Walter, Director of Driver Education and School Transportation. Wisconsin--Don Gehrmann, Driver Education and Traffic Safety Consultant. 297 Wyoming-~Kelvin Clayton, Consultant for Driver Education, Health and Physical Education. Local School Systems Mobile, Alabama--Mrs. Elaine Maxime, Supervisor of Nurses. Glendale, Arizona--Harold Griner, Safety Coordinator. Little Rock, Arkansas--Ceci1e Hudson, Supervisor of Health, Physical Education and Safety. North Little Rock, Arkansas-—Leslie Rogers, Supervisor of Health, Safety and Elementary Physical Education. Glendale, California-~Dr. W. R. Pedrick, Deputy Superin- tendent. Los Angeles, Ca1ifornia--Phillip McGrath, Safety Education Specialist. Greenwich, Connecticut-~W. C. Walffer, Assistant Superin— tendent. Milford, Delaware--Char1es Moses, Director of Pupil Services. Hillsborough County, Florida--Harold Mossey, Supervisor of Safety. Pinellas County, Florida-—Len Balas, Supervisor of Physi- cal Education, Driver Education and Off—School Safety. Putnam County, Florida-~Sidney Dunn, Director of Educa— tional Services. Boise, Idaho--Homer Clough, Supervisor of Safety and Transportation. Chicago, Illinois--Francis Svarc, Director of Safety. 298 Elkhart, Indiana--K. Stepley, Business Administrator. Gary, Indiana--Miss Dorothy Preuss, Supervisor of Health Services. Indianapolis, Indiana--George Farkas, Supervisor of Athletics, Physical Education, Health and Safety. Iowa City, Iowa-~Richard Lahr, Administrative Assistant. Kansas City, Kansas--O. L. Plucker, Superintendent. Jefferson County, Kentucky--Charles Stout, Director of Safety Education. Louisville, Kentucky--Mrs. Wilhelmina Zimmerman, Super- visor of Health, Physical Education, Safety and Driver Education. Farmington, Maine--Ronald Bailey, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent. Baltimore, Maryland—-Dr. Frank Bennett, Director of Safety Education. Springfield, Massachusetts--Thomas McNulty, Director of Health, Physical Education and Safety. Waltham, Massachusetts--James Fitzgerald, Superintendent. Detroit, Michigan--Harvey Hatter, Supervisor of Safety Education. Grand Rapids, Michigan--Weldell Emery, Director of Athlen tics and Safety. Lincoln Park, Michigan--Dr. James Doyle, Deputy Superin— tendent. Duluth, Minnesota-~Harry Braun, Supervisor of Driver Education and Safety. 299 St. Louis Park, Minnesota-~Harold Enestvedt, Superintendent. Jackson, Mississippi--Mrs. Dora Mooney, Coordinator of Safety and Physical Education. Tupelo, Mississippi--C. E. Hellady, Superintendent. Hannibal, Missouri--Seaton Bonta, Superintendent. Kansas City, Missouri--Mrs. Gerry Silvey, Secretary for Health and Safety Department. Springfield, Missouri--Jim Grammer, Director of Security and Safety. Elizabeth, New Jersey--Charles Shallcross, Director of I Physical Welfare. Carlsbad, New Mexico--Reid McCloskey, Director of Person- nel and Assistant Superintendent. Albany, New York--L. T. O'Neill, Director of Health Education. Hastings-on—Hudson, New York--Gino Gualanik, Assistant Superintendent. I Hettinger, North Dakota--Gordon Reinke, Superintendent. Cincinnati, Ohio--Guy Guddemeyer, Director of Research, and Robert Englert, Director of Elementary Schools. Cleveland, Ohio--Edmund Chay, Supervisor of Safety Education. Lakewood, Ohio--Roger Holmes, Assistant Superintendent. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma-~Gene Dipboye, Director of Driver Education and Safety. Medford, Oregon--Glenn Schireman, Supervisor of Health and Physical Education. 300 Erie, Pennsylvania--James Mahoney, Coordinator of Health and Safety. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania--John Hartman, Supervisor of Safety Education. Greenville, South Carolina-~W. H. Earho, Assistant Super— intendent for Operations. Brookings, South Dakota--Charles Webbenhurst, Assistant Superintendent. Harlingen, Texas-~Noe1 Jackson, Assistant Superintendent. Houston, Texas-~Donald Board, Director of Safety. Brigham City, Utah--E. W. Payne, Director of Education. Salt Lake City, Utah-~Dr. Earl Smith, Administrative Assistant. Rutland, Vermont--Dr. James Tinney, Superintendent. Richmond, Virginia--Ulis Shelton, Supervisor of Safety. Spokane, Washington-~J. K. Stalloop, Director of Business Services. Fairmont, West Virginia--Kenneth Harris, Assistant Super- intendent. Green Bay, Wisconsin--Wayne Johnston, Safety Coordinator. 11.01:...- T I- l I Iallulu IIIIIIII ~ ‘I _' .. MmWMM R ll, 3 l. L '1 III u " ll'l l 46 8379 Jill)“ 1293 03 llHl/MIWIIHIIIW