l1?1“:'m m... DEVELOPING A, JUSTIFICATION FOR THE INCLUSION 'OF' 'A ‘ COMPREHENSWE SAFm EDUCATION PROGRAM mma 4 PUBLIC SCHGOLS or NEW YORK 3m: THESIS FOR THE 06602133 OF PH. o. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSIT‘~ ROBERT ALSERT man 1970' arr-{€99 EM?! ‘ . .1,..i.;_ ‘ .-*~._ -- 1524's.“, 3:???) 3 £2 ti? University f1 This is to certify that the thesis entitled Developing a Justification For The Inclusion of a Comprehensive‘ Safety Education Program in the Public Schools of New York State presented by Robert Albert Ulrich has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for 1311.11.— degree in Education \ flaw @ 71444va Major professor Robert O. Nolan Date 0 r 0-169 A 'n. "w "Fr“ . .h—O’ _ im5§_ ABSTRACT DEVELOPING A JUSTIFICATION FOR THE INCLUSION OF A COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY EDUCATION PROGRAM IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF NEW YORK STATE BY Robert Albert Ulrich The purpose of this study was to survey safety education programs existant in selected New York State Public Schools to develop a rationale for a comprehensive Safety Education Program, and to recommend a model organizational pattern to permit the inclusion of a Safety ‘Education Program in any New York Public School System. Literature was reviewed concerning recommendations for safety programs, suggested personnel requirements, and the philosophical value of the program in school curricula. Existing state department of education safety publications and curriculum guides from school systems reputed to have successful programs were also reviewed. A questionnaire was designed to gather data concerning the state-of—the-art of safety education in selected New York Public Schools. School systems were stratified for a random sampling which would include a ten percent representation of city superintendencies, village superintendencies, and central school districts. ‘Robert Albert Ulrich Data were gathered to show whether or not school systems employed safety supervisors and/or school coordi-i nators, the qualification, and preparation recommended for these persons, whether safety courses were required in the preparation of teachers, and whether in-service meetings or training programs were held for instructional and other staff persons. Data were also sought concerning whether safety education was taught at elementary, junior high, senior high, and adult education levels. The methods of instruc- tion, types of programs, and amount of time spent in safety education were also requested. Finally, information concerning whether or not the school had plans and policies for a number of emergencies, special programs and events in the school was sought, as well as evidence concerning a safety inspection program and an accident reporting system being in operation. a The Findings of the Study 1. Very few school systems have complete safety education programs on a K-12 basis. 2. Few school systems employ safety personnel on the coordinator or supervisory level. 3. Only about one-fourth of the school systems reported having a safety administrative handbook for teachers, and very few schools had any curricular guides available for teachers. Robert Albert Ulrich 1.. The majority of schools reported offering safety education .programs in their schools. In these cases the most often used method of safety education programming alas its integration into other subjects and programs. Often in many cases one or two assembly programs are used. 5. In schools with coordinator and/or supervisory personnel, more thorough safety programs were in evidence. DEVELOPING A JUSTIFICATION FOR THE INCLUSION OF A COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY EDUCATION PROGRAM IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF NEW YORK STATE By Robert Albert Ulrich A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary School Curriculum 1970 Cent} g) Copyright by ROBERT ALBERT ULRICH 1971 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to take this opportunity to express his thanks and appreciation to the many people who have contributed time and effort to the completion of this investigation. Special appreciation is extended to Dr. Robert O. Nolan, his advisor, and to Dr. Charles A. Blackman, whose guidance and help have been a constant source of inspira- tion. The other members of his committee, Dr. William A. Mann, and Professor Gordon Sheehe have provided valuable assistance throughout the writer's doctoral program. Appreciation is extended to Dr. Robert L. Marshall and Dr. Robert L. Baldwin at Central Missouri State College for their valuable advice and cooperation during this study. Personnel from the responding school systems have aided the successful completion of this study. A very special note of thanks is due the investi- gator's wife and family who offered unending cooperation and encouragement for the completion of this study. ROAOU. iii ' TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. THENATUREOFTHEPROBLEM.......... INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . .1. . . . . . Need for Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . ml-‘WHH ‘Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . Delimitations of Study . . . . . . . . . 10 Basic Assumptions Upon Which' Study is Based . ... . . . . . . . . . 10 A Philosophy of Education . . . . . . . . 11 Philosophy of Safety Education . . . . . 13 PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Preparation of a Questionnaire . . . . . 16 Revision of Questionnaire . . . . . . . . 16 Other Data Requested . . . . . . . . . . 16 Scope of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Treatment of Data . . .'. . . . . . . . . 17 SW RY O O C O O O O O O O O O '0 O O O O O 1 7 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . 19 iv ~Chapter III. PROCEDURES USED FOR THE STUDY . . . DEVELOPMENT OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA . Safety Supervisor or Director . Supervisor qualifications . . School Safety Coordinators . . Coordinator qualifications . . . . . ”In-Service” Safety Education Programs Safety Courses For Teachers Required Safety Instruction in Elementary Grades JMethod of instruction . . . . . . . . Safety Education in Middle and/or Junior High Schools . . . . . . . Safety Education.in the Senior High Schools . . . . . . . . . . Safety Education in Adult Education Safety Education Information Provided for Teachers . . . . . . School Plans, Procedures, Policies for Special Events or Emergencies . . . . Complete Accident Reporting System Special Programs Offered To Students Student Safety Programs, Clubs, or Committees . . . . . . . . . . . Officially Adopted, School Policy Regarding School Safety Education . Page 46 A6 50 52 53 56 6O 6O 62 6h 67 67 71 7h 78 81 81 85 87 89 89 chapter. V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . I SUMMARY . .‘. . . . . . . . . . ._. . . CONCLUSIONS . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . RECOMMENDATIONS ............ DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY................... APPENDICES.................... A. Questionnaire Used for the Study . . . . . . B. List of Selected School Systems Surveyed . . C. Initial Letter of Explanation To School Superintendents . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. Grade Levels and Numbers of Pupils Enrolled By School Level in 33 School Districts Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 93 93 . 98 101 105 106 107 112 112 123 125 126 Table 1. 2. 3. A. 5. 9. 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES Distribution of School Size by Pupil wall-meat O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 Number of Respondents Reporting A School‘ Safety Education Supervisor or Director . Safety Supervisor Qualifications and .Recommended Preparation for Supervisors . Minimum Requirements Used by Schools For Employment as Safety Education Supervisor . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . Number of Respondents Reporting Recommendations for A Minimum Preparation for Safety coordinators o o o o o o o o 0 Number of Respondents Reporting In-Service Education Programs in Safety Education . . Number of Respondents Reporting School Requirements For Teachers to Have Safety Education Courses in Their Preparation............... Number of Respondents Reporting Safety Education Taught in Elementary Schools . . Number of Respondents Reporting Methods of Safety Education Instruction Taught in Elementary Schools . . . . . . . . . . Approximated Time Devoted to Safety Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Respondents Reporting Safety ' Education Taught In Middle or Jr. Highs O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 vii Page 54 55 57 59 61 63 65 68 69 72 73 ‘Table 13. 14.. 15. 16. 17. 18. 7.19. 20. Page Number of Respondents Indicating Amount of Time in Middle and Junior High Schools Devoted to Safety Instruction . . . . . . . 75 Number of Respondents Reporting Safety Education Taught in Senior High . . . . . . . 77 Number of Respondents Indicating Amount of Time In Senior High Schools Devoted to Safety Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Number of Respondents Reporting Safety Programs in Adult Education and .Methods of Instruction Used . . . . . . . . 80 Number of Respondents Reporting Safety Education Information Provided for Teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Number of Respondents Reporting Plans or Policies for Safety in School . . . . . . . 8h Number of Respondents Reporting An Accident Reporting System . . . . . . . . . 86 Number of Respondents Reporting Special Programs Offered To Students. in safety 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 88 Number of Respondents Reporting Student Safety Program, Clubs, or Committees . . . 9O viii CHAPTER I THE NATURE or THE PROBLEM INTRODUCTION ’ Historically, accidents have substantially con- tributed to society's death and injury rate. Recently, accidents have taken the fourth position on the death causal scale when all ages are considered. I Accident data on death rate show a steady increase each year. Between 1958 and 1968 the number of accidental deaths annually rose 27 percent.1 Between 1967 and 1968 a 2 percent increase was evident in number of deaths.2 In 1968, more than 113,000 persons died as a result of acci- dents.3 Accidents are the leading cause of death for the age groups of 1 year through 44 years.“ In 1968, accident costs to the citizens of our society reached the astronomical figure of nearly 23‘billion dollars.5 1National Safety Council, Aggident Facts (Chicago: National Safety Council, 1969), p. 13. 21.9.1.9.- 3;§;Q.,.p. 8. 42239, 51239., p. a. 2 Safety Education has been proposed and included in school curricula for many_years. As early as 1919, a comprehensive safety education program was initiated in the Detroit Public Schools.6 This program included:. (1) a study of traffic accidents among school age children, (2) conStruction of a course of study for elementary schools, (3) instruction of a class at Detroit State Teacher's College, and (A) school cooperation with all civic agencies concerned with public safety.7 Kansas City launched a program in its schools, in the early 1920's.8 Since these first programs, other schools have initiated programs of safety education to prepare young citizens for safe living. It would appear that educational programs for acci- dent prevention have not adequately met the needs of today's youth and adults. A realistic program must be developed and aimed directly at the needs of citizens to attack the problem of accidents and their resulting upward spiral of death and injury. While the aCcidental death rate in New York State per 100,000 population is lower than many other 'states, there remains evidence that the rate is climbing. Accident Facts from 1966, 1968, and 1969 show a steady _1 6Herbert J. Stack and J. Duke Elkow, Education For Safe Living (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 19555, p. 9. 71bid. 31bid. 3 9'10’11 A twenty year summary of motor vehicle increase. accidents alone in New York State shows the number of people killed increased from 1,8h8 in 19h8 to 2,935 in 1967.12 ~ \ p§tatement of the Problem The purpose of this study was to survey safety education programs existant in selected New York State public schools, to develop a rationale for a comprehensive safety education program, and to recommend a model organi- zational pattern to permit the inclusion of a safety education program in any New York Public School System. More specifically, answers were sought to the following questions: 1. What provisions are made in New York public schools for safety education on a kindergarten through grade 12 basis? 2. What specific topics are a part of the New York schools' curriculum which could be utilized in a total safety program? 9National Safety Council, Accident Facts (Chicago: National Safety Council, 1966), p.—l9. 10National Safety Council, Accident Facts (Chicago: National Safety Council, 1968), p._l9. 11National Safety Council, Accident Facts (Chicago: National Safety Council, 1969), p.—l9. ' 12New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, Accident Facts (New York: Department of Motor Vehicles, 1968), p. 8. 1.. 3. How do administrators, supervisors, and teachers view safety related subjects as a part of the school curriculum? A. How'might a comprehensive safety program be implemented into the curriculum of New York public schools? Need for Study Man's efforts in the world have centered themselves around a need to conquer the world in which he lives. As his work became more diversified and complex, and with the pressures to develop more and more goods and to live with others, his psychological pressures led to imbalance, and more accidents causing injury and death seemed to become prevalent. Sternberg indicated that at the bottom of the problem is man's inability to better manage (a) himself, (b) his behavior, (c) inter-persOnal relationships, (d) knowledge, (e) the products and his technology.13 To develop a sound economic and social program for man, it is necessary to reduce the backward force of the loss of time and life that hampers the progress of society. As accident records are checked, it is noted that accidents causing death and injury happen to people of all ages, from infancy through adulthood. 13Robert Sternberg, ”Traffic Safety Education in Michigan," Michigan Challenge (Michigan State Chamber of Commerce, Novemberl963), p. 17. 5 :Mhny of the accidents that happen could have been .avoided had the person been.aware of the knowbhow to deal :with dangers around the home, in traffic as pedestrians or cyclists, at school, at play, around water, concerning poisons and firearms to name.just a few. This infbrmation, carried forward and expanded as their lives become more complex, will serve to provide the foundation for a safer and more abundant life. 'Therefore, a comprehensive safety education program (is needed to prepare people of all ages to live safely in today's modern society. While difficult to prove empirically, it is felt that safety programs in the public schools of New York State are sporadic in nature. Visitations to many schools throughout the state over a number of.years tended to strengthen this feeling. During several terms of office in the New York State Driver Education Association, opportunity was afforded to visit many schools and to discuss existing programs with numerous teachers. Safety programs in elementary schools either seemed to flourish or be near non-existent with the interest or lack of interest on the part of the individual teacher. A few school systems had outstanding programs, due largely to the broad planning.done by interested persons. Generally, however, there were only sporadic programs, and there was no evidence of continuing programs being con- ducted. In most cases, there was no general broad 6 curriculum planned from which teachers could work. In addition, only a_very few schools had administrative or supervisOry personnel assigned to handle or develop programs in this area. f Safety Education is included in the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education in New York State. Section 153 of the Commissioner's Regulations states, in part: Instruction in Safety Education, including highway, and traffic safety, shall be given to all pupils in . both elementary and secondary grades: such instruction shall be made a definite part of the school program either as a special subject or in connection with instruction in other subjects; comprehensive plans for safety education shall be organized by local school authorities including highway and traffic safety, home safety, recreational safety, industrial and occupational safety, and school safety to insure the development of safety habiii in all the varied activities of everyday life; 0 e‘ o It was found by personal experience that often this regulation is regarded only as strong suggestion, and that in actual practice, little evidence is available of program 'existence. It seems strange that with existing educational regulations, and the evidence of concern for safe living .from industry and interested civic and service organizations and groups, that a lack of safety education programs still exists in many schools today. It seems true, then, that the solution to the accident problem and to the safety 1“University of the State of New York, Regulations ‘of the Commissioner of Education of the State of New York (AIEany, The State Education Department), Section 155, .Safety Education, mimeographed. 7 .education problem will depend upon the ability of Safety , Education leaders to bring abOut the needed change and redirectiOn in educational programs. But change is never easy, since it threatens the pattern of life and work of many. .Most persons either consciously or unconsciously resent indications of the need for change. Probably the most common response is to ignore the facts which indicate the need for change and to continue traditional patterns of conduct. This is true of individuals; it is true of institutipns. Other forces that impede change include lack of . funds, gaps in knowledge, legislative limitations, and outmoded administrative patterns. However, the forces which'hinder change in . . . education can be overcome as the leadership in this field is able to create a program (of l . . education) to serve society more effectively. 5 It is hoped, through education, to develop effective and efficient citizens, well prepared in the art of problem solving so they can make sound decisions as to their future well being. To be successful, safety education must be well grounded in this philosophy. If we are to question the need for a Comprehensive Safety Education Program, one needs only look at the accident records to see that our educational programs are not meeting the needs in the state and nation. Educational programs are needed on all levels-- elementary, Junior High, Senior High, and Adult Education. . A rationale for the establishment of a Comprehensive Safety Education Program is needed which is based on a sound 15United States Department of Health, Education, and welfare, Education for a Changing World of Work (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1963), p. 218. 8 . philosophy of education that can serve as the basis for the development of programs and policy at the state and local levels. . This rationale is further needed to present a program model that Can be used to develop safety education programs in keeping with other education programs in New York State, and to determine that such a program is within the philosophical and economic realm of possibility. Definition of Terms l§afety supervisor or director. A person responsible for the development or determination of administrative policy and procedures regarding the over-all safety educa- tion program for the entire school system. Directs the activities for the safety coordinators in each school building and receives reports from them. ‘§afety coordinator. A person in a particular school building responsible for carrying out the policies and procedures of the supervisor or director. He works with . the principal and teachers in his building to encourage, develop, improve, and analyze safety instruction at all grade levels. He organizes "in-service" safety programs and activities for faculty and students, is responsible for uniform accident reporting and study, and serves as a contact person for the supervisor or director. 9 Safety education. The process of using adminis- trative practices, instructional techniques and protective features in a comprehensive program designed to reduce accidents, conserve human and material resources, and to make it possible for students to participate in additional activities. This covers all phases of Safety Education including traffic safety. ‘§chool accident. A recordable accident is one which .results in pupil injury severe enough to cause the loss of one-half day or more of school time, or requires medical attention.‘ In—service educatiOn. Educatidnal programs con- ducted at the local school district level to provide instruction and information vital to the local staff and administrative personnel, for the purpose of upgrading knowledge and background in any subject area, activity or program. Safety education program. Those activities and practices that tend to be presented and entered into by the staff and students to prepare them to do safely those things that they will be doing anyway. Driver Education is included in this type of program, but is only a part of the total safety education program of the school. Full-time supervisor. A person hired by the Board of Education who devotes 100% of his time to supervising, 10 directing, and administering the total school safety educa- _tion program. Part-time supervisor. A person hired by the BOard of Education who devotes any set portion of his time to supervision, directing, and administering the total school safety education program. ‘Qelimitations of Study 1. The study will be limited to data drawn from New York State public education. No attempt will be made to use data from non-public schools. 2. An analysis will be made of data from selected educational personnel, supervisory perSonnel, educational data, safety related organizations,and accident record facts. , . 3. The study will limit its application to public schools in New York State. Basic Assumptions Upon Which .73tudy is Based 1. That Safety Education is necessary as_a part of the public educational experience. 2. That a Safety Education program should be integrated into the general curriculum offerings in the New York public schools. 3. That a workable program model for New York's schools can be developed by an analysis of relevant literature and data. 11 This study reviewed ideas, or philosophies utilized as bases for curricular inclusion. (Since the rationale for inclusion of safety in a curriculum seemed inherent to the general educational philoSophy of a school system, it seemed necessary to review a philosophy of education as well as a philosophy of safety education. A Philosophy of Education Whitehead stated "There is only one subject matter ' for education, and that is life in all its manifesta- tions."l6‘ Very basically, the main purpose of education is to prepare the individual for life. Throughout this process, each person is encouraged to develop to his fullest potential to take his place in society. Therefore, the educational process must include not only a means of personal growth and development, but also a realization of the societal environment in which he is to live. This further task for education is that of providing a person the necessary tools to deal with his personal and social needs. Growth and development of the individual was funda- mental to John Dewey's educational philosophy. Since growth is the characteristic of life, education is all one with growing: it has no end be ond itself. The criterion of the value of sc ool education is the extent in which it creates 16A. N. Whitehead, The Aims of Education and Other Essays (London: Williams and Morgard Ltd., 1932), p. 10. 12 a desire for continued growth and supplies means for making the desire effective in fact 1 Dewey's philosophy was also concerned with the interperSonal relationship of man's development and his social needs. The social environment consists of all the activities of fellow beings that are bound up in the carrying on of the activities of anyone of its members. It is truly education in its effect in the degree in which an individual shares or participates in some conjoint activity.l JMan is constantly learning, changing, developing and becoming. This happens as a result of his reactions to the society around him. Henderson stated: No one is born with the self he becomes already predeterminedl9 . . . Because a human being is so dependent upon society for his development, individual ‘welfare and societal welfare are inter-dependent. Since man's nature is fundamentally social, it would seem to be a mistake to think of education exclusively in terms of individual growth without reference to society and social needs.20 Education, as Peters suggests, should be concerned with intrinsic values, to prepare a person fully so that he can use his knowledge to help himself make sound decisions.21 17John Dewey, Democracy and Education (New York: The MaCMillan Co., 1916), p. 62. 181bid., p. 26. 19Stella Van Petten Henderson, Introduction to Philoso h of Education (Chicago: Univers1ty of Chicago ress, A), p. 33. 2OIbId. 21R. S. Peters, Ethics and Education (New Jersey: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1966), p. 84. 13 ' Our schools, then, must provide the climate and atmosphere in which growth and development can take place. Experiences which allow the student to examine his environ- .ment, physical and social needs are of utmostimportance. The significant role of the school is to accept children, to understand their circumstances, and upon this acceptance and understanding to create an environment which complements the rest of their living.22 - The goal of education is the personal growth of the learner, helping him achieve a richer and more fulfilled (life.23 Thus, education must concern learners with examining life, weighing evidence, determining what is of value, developing goals, and working toward the fulfillment of a rich and satisfying life. ' Philosophy of Safety Education Safety education shares the same general goals as general education. In fact, it is an integral part of the total education process. Education, as presented earlier, is preparation for a meaningful and satisfying life. Albert W. Whitney said "The very most right thing about safety is that it leads to the more abundant life."2h 22Howard Lane and Mary Beauchamp, Human Relations in Teaching (New York: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1955), p.I6. 23Samuel Tenenbaum, "Selected for Review" in Educa- tional Leadershi (Washington: Association for Supervision and urriculum Development, NEA, October, 1969), p. 97. 2“Stack, op. cit., p. 1b. 11b . For one to have the Opportunity to take full advan- tage of what.life.may provide, and to develop himself fully, one must remain alive and free from the damaging effects of accidents. There are.many definitionsof the term "accident”. Perhaps one definition that would be most complete is that by William Tarrants: 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 an unsafe condition, or some combination of unsafe acts and/or unsafe conditions.25 Life in our modern, complex civilization is con- stantly faced with numerous risks. How well man functions in this environment is closely related to the degree of risk he is willing to take to accomplish that which he has set out to do. The good life is filled with adventure, excitement and risk. As man develops his place in society, and strives for that good life, he is constantly faced with new and changing hazards. In order to live safely, one must (1) understand the many hazards that a person must encounter in his various daily activities, (2) develop attitudes that predispose him to adjust properly to his 'environment, and (3) master those skills that enable him to 26 cope with potentially dangerous situations. This seems to give purpose and direction to the fight for the good 25Ibid., p. 293. 26A. E. Florio, and G. T. Stafford, Safety Education (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1969), p. 26. 15 life. These suggestions are not at all brand new. In 1919, in an address to the N.E.A. Convention, A. W. Whitney stated: . . It cannot be given to all of us to fight for freedom, but the fight for safety, the fight for real adventure, the fight for a life that shall be the measure of a purpose instead of the marred result-of purposeless chance is within the right of all of us.27 Man is able to use his intelligence to probe the mysteries of science, and to develop more and more instru- ments of technology to advance modern culture. These new developments must be used with prudence, for tied to these advances and new inventions are new and unforeseen risks. Because the benefits of the new inventions are so exciting, and so desired, the risks involved must be assumed. There- fore, the conCept of safety in the modern world should be: "28 "Safety for essential adventures. .,It seems more and more apparent then, that the key to this safety for essen- tial adventures must, in fact, be the task of education- education for progress, safety education.29 27Stack, op. cit., p. 15. 28Don Cash Seaton, et al., Administration and Su ervision of Safet Education (New YorE: THe MacMillan Company, 1909), p. 15. 29Stack, op. cit., p. 17. 16 PROCEDURES Preparation of a Questionnaire A questionnaire was developed to examine the safety education offerings in selected public school systems in New York State. Information was sought_to ascertain the administrative and supervisory structures in effect in these schools with regard to safety, school safety policies and procedures available, types of programs offered, techniques of presentation, and related activities conducted in the field of safety education. The data provided a picture of the state of the art of safety programs being conducted in the public schools of New York State. Revision of Questionnaire Following the development of the questionnaire, a small group of experts in the field of safety education was selected to review and evaluate the questionnaire. After their critical analysis of the instrument was received, and reviewed, the questionnaire was revised to be more clear, concise, and meaningful. Other Data Requested Curriculum guides, references, and administrative policies were requested from several selected school systems in the United States, regarded as having successful Safety Programs. 17 4§cope of the Study A . Public school systems in New York State were stratified to provide a listing of centralized school dis- tricts, city school superintendencies and village superin- 'tendencies. Eighty school systems were randomly selected from these lists. This represented ten percent of the V total number of public school districts in New York State. Within this number, ten percent of each stratified group was also represented. The sChooldistricts used in this study are listed in Chapter III, Table 1. ‘geatment of Data Following receipt of returned questionnaires, the data were analyzed. These data were combined with those gained from the literature review, and additional informa- tion submitted by schools contacted for the purpose of explaining their Safety Education programs. Conclusions and recommendations were formulated as all information and data were critically reviewed and analyzed. SUMMARY Chapter I developed the need for the public schools in New York State to be concerned with safety education programs. A philosophy of education was reviewed, and a philosophy of safety education presented. The problem statement, assumptions under which the study was performed, 18 together with a brief overview of procedures used in the study were reviewed. . An extensive review of the literature related to the study will be found in Chapter II. . Chapter III discusses the procedures used to conduct the study. Data gathered are presented and analyzed in Chapter IV. 1 Chapter V contains a summary of the study together with conclusions and recommendations gathered from the literature and data analysis. Implications for further research are also presented. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE An extensive study was made into literature related to this study. Little literature was found that would relate directly to the form that this study is attempting to develop. There are various materials, reports, and studies done by the National Education Association, National Safety Council, boards of education of individual school systems, state departments of education, and individuals which related to portions of this study. Information was also received from school districts considered to have outstanding safety educatiOn programs. These materials had been developed through trial and refinement as the result of a district's experience dealing with items relative to safety. It is not the intention of this project to recommend the adoption of every item, process, or action recorded or mentioned in the reports of school systems. .However, this project examined and studied these existing successful programs, noted similarities and differences, and attempted to develop a basic foundation upon which to build a rationale for a comprehensive safety education program for New York's public schools. 19 20 No attempt was made in this study to review all of the materials in any area. Rather, an attempt was made to look at the report information that was most representative and pertinent to this study. As early as 19h0, the American Association of School Administrators in their Eighteenth Yearbook published a list of practical suggestions that dealt with safety education in schools. Many of these same suggestions still permeate the present field of procedures and policies. These suggestions included: 1. Experience shows that many accidents are preventable through a program of education. 2. Instruction in safety is an essential part of the modern school's program of producing good citizens. 3. The determination of the character and the extent of the school safety program and the selecting of teaching methods to be used are professional responsibilities of educators. A. Rural schools operating under numerous condi- tions specifically different from those of urban schools should make an effort to adjust their safety programs to the special conditions of their environment. 5. Safety education for adults is a primary responsibility of the community and the state. 6. In each community it is the responsibility of the board of education and its executive staff to build and to maintain school buildings which are safe. 7. Responsibility for areas of safety education not designated specifically by law should be assigned by agreement to the agency or agencies most competent to achieve the desired goal. 8. Teaching youth to be safe and intelligent operators of motor cars is a responsibility of the community. 21 9. The school has a responsibility for systematic instruction in all aspects of safety. 10. School systems embracing several schools should organize safety coordinating agencies. 11. A formal or informal safety council or committee, or other liaison among safety agencies, should be established in every community. 12. In their efforts to advance the safety move- ment, educators should reCognize the need for appraisal and research. 13. It is remarkable hOW’mUCh can be accomplished if no one is too anxious about who receives credit. . 1h. Effective programs of safety education should be adequately financed. 15. The time has come for educators to preBare themselves for leadership in safety education.3 Several years later, the National Safety Council, published the results of a study committee from the Safety Education Supervisors Section of the National Safety Council. This report recommended among other things that: Safety instruction should be an integral part of the school program and should further develop under- standings, attitudes, values, skills, habits and appreciations which will assist the learner in meeting the responsibilities of safe living in today's world. Safety instruction should seek to develop fully the potentialities of the "whole child" as a happy, well-integrated personality, who can contribute to a better way of life for all. The school should carefully select and plan safety experiences, the method of instruction, and the use of instructional materials to meet the needs of each individual. The learning environment, therefore, should provide experiences that continuously challenge the individual to think clearly and to act wisely in terms of safe living for himself and others. 30American Association of School Administrators, Safety Education, Eighteenth yearbook (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1940), p. 356. '22» The school should utiliZe community resourCes to implement its program and to further supplement its efforts in safety education. Safety education should be a vital part of community life. It requires cooperative planning, selecting, utilizing of community resources to the extent that they will contribute to and enrich the quality of safety education. It must be developed with an aware- ness of the pattern of characteristics of child growth and development. Educating each child for safe living must take into consideration all factors that influence his attitude toward life. Safety education should develop a continuous aware- ness of the value of human life and the physical well- being of individuals, and at the same time recognize the achievement of others in meeting these requirements. Life and human well-being are priceless and can be conserved only to the extent that we are aware of and can appreciate their value. Safety education should be continuous and contribute to the enrichment of all areas of living. Education is the ongoing process of life and safety education is the continuous process of conserving it. The Safety experiences in school should be continuous and consistent with those out of school. Safety education should help each individual not only to avoid accidents, but also to free him to live "life more abundantly".3l Strasser, Aaron, Bohn, and Eales suggest the responsibility for the total safety program for school youth rests with the school management--the school board and the superintendent.32 However, it is the responsibility of everyone related to the school to provide instruction in 31National Safety Council, "Basic Principles for Safety Education," Safety Education, Vol. 35 (December, 1955): PD. 12-13- 32Marland K. Strasser, et al., Fundamentals of Safety Education (New York: The MacMillan Co., 196A), p. 117. 23 'safe practices, and to provide a safe environment for school youth.33 In order to implement and carry out his responsi- bilities, each superintendent should: 1. Employ teachers with safety training and conduct inrservice safety training for all school personnel to meet the needs of their job functions. . 2. Provide for cooperative, democratic participa- tion of all school employees and students in the conduct of safety instruction and activities. Define authority and responsibility of each person. 3. Provide a centralized structure for organization and~administration of the program. A. Establish a program of accident records and reports to gather data on safety hazards and unsafe practices within the school's operation. 5. Provide a safe school environment. 6. Conduct a continuous program of evaluating safety instruction and activities within the school district. Revise the school safety program when necessary to meet changing needs as revealed by these data.3h Several writers suggested that school districts should seriously consider employing full-time supervisors of safety education to plan, organize, conduct, and coordinate the necessary programs and reports pertinent to a successful total safety program in schools. Gilliland in his 1955 study, recommended that "each school system should assign the administration, supervision, and coordination of 33Ibid. 3“Ibid., pp. 121-122. 24 . 7‘ the school safety program to a qualified member or members of the school personnel.35 _ Aaron underscored this suggestion in 1960, stating that schools should employ full-time supervisors of safety 36 education. ,He further recommended some personal require- ments for this position. These included: 1. Five years of teaching experience in safety education. - 2. Great interest and a desire to work in the safety education field. 3. Considerable background, preparation, preferably a major in safety education.3 Aaron also listed certain other recommendations concerning the supervisor's interest and activities. These included statements concerning: 1. Attendance at refresher courses, workshops, etc. 2. Attendance at state and national Safet conferences each year. . 3. Adequacy of designated supervisory time. A. An individual's professional growth through in-service training. . 35Lonnie Gilliland, Sr., ”Practices in Safety Education in the School Systems of Selected Cities in the United States" (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1955), p. 189. 36James Ethridge Aaron, "A Study of Supervisory Practices in Safety Education in Selected Cities in the United States" (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1960), p. 100. 37Ibid. 25. 5. Acceptance of responsibility for the develop- ment of the instructional service and environmental safety aspects of the school's-total program.38 ' fMarshall, in l96l,_stated‘that the majority of the systems reporting in his study had:assigned the responsi- bility of safety education programs'to qualified profese sional Staff members.39 Engelhardt in 1961 stated that: One staff person should be designated to guide the safety education program for all schools in the System and a full-time supervisor should be appointed for school systems in communities which can afford them, particularly those with a population of 50,000 or more . Engelhardt further recommended that supervisbrs have formal preparation in the.field as a prerequisite to appointment.“1 The National Commission on Safety Education stated that a director of safety education at the district level should have: i- 1. special preparation-and experience in safety education beyond that required for teaching driver and traffic safety education. 39Robert L. Marshall, "An Analysis of Safety Education Programs in Selected Public Schools of the United States with Recommendations for School Systems in Establish- ing or Evaluating Safety Education Programs" (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 1961), p. 2&1. hQMelvin E. Engelhardt, "The Administration of Safety Education Programs in Selected School Systems" (ngpblished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 19 1 . hlIbid. 26 2. An advanced degree in safety education, or in a closely related field with specialization in safety education. ‘ . - . 3. Several years of teaching experience including teaching of driver and-traffic safety education. A. Familiarity with details of school organization for safety education programming at all levels. 5. Personal characteristics which are appropriate ' for effective supervision.42 ~ - In addition to supervisory staff, every teacher in the schools should have an understanding of and an appre- ciation for the elements of the school safety education program."3 This can be accomplished through faculty meet- ings, in-service workshops, and other means.#4 As materials from school systems are read and studied, and as other literature is pursued, it was noted that many programs were in general agreement concerning the most basic fundamentals of what Constitutes a safety program and the general need for such programs. However, as the specific areas of safety programs were studied, a wide variance of procedures was found. Procedures of operation, instruction, reporting, staffing, and planning varied broadly from one school to another. The Safety Education thational Commission on Safety Education, A School Safety Education Program (Washington: National Education Association, 1966), p. IO. 43National Commission on Safety Education, School Safet Education Checklist (Washington:~ National Education Association, 1 7), p. 17. hhlbid. 27 _ Curriculum Guide from San Diego County Schools suggested that approaches currently in operation through engineering, enforcement, and. education can be effective in: "(1) alter- ing human behavior in a manner that will lower the liklihood of injury-producing acts or conditions and (2) reducing the severity of damage when such events take place, or such conditions exist.”h5 Marshall divided the duties of safety education in a school system into three main areas: administration, protection, and instruction."6 A The National Commission on Safety Education in two publications followed this same division of responsibility as they developed a guide and checklist for a school safety education program.l’7'48 San Diego County schools curriculum guide also stressed these three general areas of concern in safety education.‘(‘9 In defining and developing the specific programs in the schools whose programs were studied for this review, some wide differences of program technique were found. hsSan Diego County Board of Education, A Guide to Safety Education: Kindergarten through Grade Twelve (San Diego, California: Department of Education, 19697, p. 1. h6Robert L. Marshall, 0 . cit., p. 16. 47A School Safety Education Program, op. cit., p. 5. A8School SafetJ Education Checklist, op. cit., pp. 1-400 . r “gsan Diego County Board of Education, loc. cit. 28 Florio and Stafford suggested that specially designed programs can be accomplished by: 1. Examining the accident records of the school and community. . 2. Conducting interviews of distributing question- naires. ' 3. Observing the safety practices of all age groups. A. Studying environmental factors. 5. Utilizing available aids such as research studies, authoritative materials in the safety field, and the opinions of experts.50 In addition, content for a safety education program can be geared to: 1. The pupils' interests. 2. Their level of maturity. 3. Their knowledge. A. Their readiness to learn. 5. Their desire to improve, as indicated by tests and classroom discussion. 6. Legal requirements.51 Schmidt noted that safety programs from several school systems offering safety programs on a K-12 basis seemed to be most consistent in the following areas: 1. Safety patrols. 2. School crossing guards. 50A. E. Florio and G. T. Stafford, Safety Education (New York: McGrawbHill Book Company, 1969), p. 51. 5lIbid. 3. Am 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 29 Fire Safety Programs. Driver Education. I Youth traffic safety conferences. School bus driver safety institutes. EmergenCy evacuation programs. Accident reporting, recording, and analyzation. Indoor safety patrols. Safety patrol leaders' camps. Bicycle safety programs. Publications relating to safety procedures.52 Provisions were made in the schools' programs reviewed for training and re-training of school personnel including nurses, secretaries, cafeteria workers, custodi- ans, and general building repairmen. 53 The majority of the several schools surveyed by Schmidt indicated a program in safety education on several levels throughout the K-12 program, but here too, wide deviations existed. Programs seemed, in some cases, to be sporadic, and displayed no evidence of continuing programs being carried on throughout the school program, especially in the concluding years of the student's education. 54 52Duane H. Schmidt, "A Study of Safety Education Curriculums in Selected Public Schools to Determine Consis- tent Standards in Safety Education Programs" (Unpublished term report, Central Missouri State College, 1970), pp. 31-32. 53Ibid., p. 32. 5‘Ibid. e 30 Ashby stated: "Education proceeds on the theory that safety is a quality or characteristic of whatever human- beings do, rather than an entity distinct within itself. Safety is involved in any function or activity of life. . . ."55 School and state departments of education safety publications were.reviewed. Several seemed to stand out as having rather thorough curriculum offerings. The Kansas City, Missouri, Public schools have developed a number of publications prepared for use by their teachers. Some publications had not been updated for several years; however, the fact that there is information available to teachers is worthy of note. It should further be noted that many of their publications were in the process of being revised at the time this writer reviewed them. The publication, Safety Responsibilities and Regula- tions, Manual of Operations, indicated that safety education is regarded as an important matter by all personnel by underscoring such topics as: I. Introduction . II. Safety Responsibilities Superintendent Assistant Superintendent Supervisor of Safety Education 55Lyle W. Ashby, "The Educator's Point of View," Report to President's Conference on Occupational Safety (Washington, D.C., 1960), p. l. 31 Principal School Safety Coordinator Teacher Nurse Custodian School Secretary Pupil Cafeteria Worker Bus Driver Parents ‘Workers or repairmen III. Policies, Rules, and Regulations for Safety Accident Reporting Operation of School Safety Patrols School Safety Committee Field Trips and Excursions School Bus Rules Parking Hitchhiking Reporting Home From School Fire Safety School Fire Procedures Fire Prevention Fire Hazards Fire Drills Driver Education Building Inspection Civil Defense Tornado Enemy Attack Other Safety Hazards Dogs on School Grounds Bombs in School Buildings. Guns, Knives, etc. Matches, firecrackers, etc. Snowballing Molestatio Fighting 5 56Kansas City, Missouri, Public Schools, Safety Responsibilities and Regulations Manual of Operations ansas City Missouri: Department of Safety Education, January 1963), pp. 1-32. 32 The Resource Guide for Safety Education offered information to Kansas City teachers that can be correlated and imple-’ mented in existing programs.' The contents included such topics as: need for safety education, objectives for safety education, and the use and organization of the bulletin. Other items included were: opportunities for safety educa-' tion in traffic, home, schools, playground, school trans- portation, fire, first aid, civil defense, rural, seasonal and vacation safety; special problems in teaching safety in the high school in areas of driver education, physical education, practical arts and science, units and project development in special areas as: traffic safety in the kindergarten trip to the fire station, problem of the turning car, the seventh grade safety coordinator, school safety committee and social and community life committee. In addition, a thorough listing of audio visual aids and selected references by topic was provided.57 5 A publication dealing specifically with emergency procedures was recently circulated to all Kansas City staff members. Smergency Procedures deals with crises in the school, civil defense, fire, tornado warning, bombs, 57Kansas City, Missouri, Public Sohools, Resource Guide for Safet Education, Curriculum Bulletin No. 103, Kansas City, Missouri, PuBlic Schools, June 1958. . 33 epidemics, electricpower failure, break in gas line, and break in water main.58 In addition to the publications listed, other special Curriculum.study guides are provided. These include: Handbook and Guide for Driver Education Teachers,59 Life Savers,60 and.Motorcycle Study Guide. .These publications provide material for, and are issued to 61 all teachers in the‘system. Lansing Public School System provides many materials for its teadhers. The 196A publication entitled Safety Education, A Suggested Guide for Elementary Teachers, provides information and lesson guides for such topics as: 'Traffic Safety while walking, in cars or buses, on a bicycle; at sChool; with the Safety Patrol; at home: in the commupity; during the seasons, autumn, winter, spring, summer; fire prevention; civil defense. In addition, a 58Kansas City, Missouri, Public Schools, Emergengy Procedures, Safety Education Department, Kansas City, ’Missouri, Public Schools, April 1969, pp. 1-8. 0 59Kansas City, Missouri, Public Schools, Handbook 'And Guide for Driver Education Teachers, Safety Education Dagartment, Kansas City, Missouri, Public Schools, April 19 5, mimeographed. 60Kansas City, Missouri, Public Schools, Life Savers, Safety Education Department, Kansas City, Missouri, PuBIic Schools, mimeographed. . 61Kansas City, Missouri, Public Schools, Motorcycle Stud .Guide, Safety Education Department, Kansas City, Miss6uri; Public Sbhools, September 1968, mimeographed. j34 . bibliography-of visual aids and printed materials is pro- vided.62 Other special publications for Lansing teachers- include: Fire Safety,.63 Emergency Procedures and First Aid,6h Bus Driver Rules and Regulations,65 and Driver Education.66 A special program conducted to train school Safety patrols in the Greater Lansing area was reviewed. The program is sponsored cooperatively by the Safety Coupcil of Greater Lansing, The Police Departments, and the Boards . of Education of Lansing and East Lansing, Michigan, and supported financially by the citizens of that general area.67 These schools also participate in the Green Pennant Safety Program sponsored in the Greater Lansing Area by 68' Oldsmobile and Fisher Body Divisions of General Motors. 62Lansing Public Schools, Safety Education: A Sug- .gested Guide for Elementary Teachers. The Board of Educa- tion, City of‘LansIng and The Saféty Council of Greater Lansing, 196A. 63Lansing School District, Fire Safet , Administra- tive Bulletin No. 6llh.l. Lansing Public Schools, 1968. 61'Lansing School District, Emergency Procedures and First Aid, Lansing Public Schools, 1965. 65Lansing School District, Bus Driver Rules and Regulations, Lansing Public Schools, mimeographed, no date. . ' c 66Lansing School District, Driver Education, Lansing Public Schools, mimeographed, no date. 67Lansing School District, Official Handbook Greater Lansing School Safety Patrols, Greater LansingSchool Safety Patrol, Lansing, Michigan, 1967, p. 5. 68Lansing School District, The Green Pennant Safety Program, Greater Lansing School Safety Patrol, Lansing, Michigan, brochure. .35 Los Angeles City Schools offer a safety eduCation program. Curriculum guides for elementary grades were reviewed. These presented ideas and suggestions by grade level to introduce habits, attitudes and skills associated with safe practices as pedestrians, going to and from school, on the playground, in building and classrooms, during emergency drills, and at home.69 The Division of Safety Education of the School District of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania offers a twenty-six point safety involvement program for students and staff of that school system. These points are: p 1. Responsibility of the Division Staff 2. Safety Coordinators in all Schools 3. Instruction in the Schools A. Safety Consultant and Information Service 5. Accident Reporting and Analysis 6. Employee Accident Prevention 7. 6,000 Safety Patrol Boys 8. School Crossing Guards 9. Pedestrian Safety Education ProjSCt 10. Driver Education Program 11. Driver Improvement (violators) course for adults 12. Fire Safety Education Project C 69Los Angeles City Schools, Safet , Publication No. 375, Los Angeles City Schools Division of Instructional Services, 1957, pp. 1-22. 13. 11.. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2h. 36 Administrative Bulletin No. I Fire Safety in Schools In case of fire Unidentified Smoke Unusual odors or fumes The fire drill Prevention and control Fire Prevention Inspection Fire Drills Safety Flyers Student Safety Organizations Corridor and stairway patrols Safety Councils or commissions Junior fire departments Bicycle clubs Safety Conferences Conferences of School Safety Coordinators Youth Traffic Safety Conference School Bus Matrons and Bus Attendants Safety Conferences .Conferences of Cafeteria and other workers Safety Patrol Leaders Camp Philadelphia Safety and Fire Conference and Exhibit Home and School Council Bicycle Safety Programs Emergency and Survey Services Civil Defense Red Cross Activities Surveys of Specific Hazardous Situations and Conditions National School Safety Honor Roll Listing Summer School and Summer Playground Programs School Safety Magazine 37 .25. Community Activities- 26. Evaluations7O _ Safety Education is tied quite closely with Health and First Aid measures in the City School System of Rochester, New York. Instruction in the safety field centers on the general topics of (1) In the home: falls, poisons, fire: (2) In the school: a. gymnasium, play areas, pool, home economics room, shops, laboratories, classrooms, and in and around the building; b. fire drills “and air raid alerts; (3) In the community: agencies dealing with safety-Chamber of Commerce, Police Bureau, Settlement Houses, Youth Board and Recreation; (4) Yeararound recreational areas: commercial amusement centers, swimming areas, playgrounds, parks, boating and sailing areas, - Skiing and water skiing areas, hunting and fishing areas; (5) at work: safety in various types of occupations; (6) on the highway: driver, passenger and pedestrian safety, bicycle and vehicle safety.71 70School District of Philadelphia, Hi hli hts of the Safet Education Pro ram, Division of Safety Education, Pfiiladelphia Public SchooIs Pennsylvania, September 1968, .mimeographed. 7J'City School District, Rochester, New York, Health Education Grades 8-9, Division of Instruction, City ScHooI District, Rochester, New York, 1967, O. 53. .33 A school safety patrols' program operates within 72 In addition, a school Junior Safety the school system. Council functions under the following set of purposes: 1. To promote individual, school, home, and community safety among the pupils. 2. To encourage individual responsibility for personal safety and the safety of others. 3. To cooperate with the City Department of Public Safety and other civic agencies devoted to the promotion of safety education. A. To assist in developing the overall school safety education programs. 5. To enlist the help of all pupils in the school in carrying out the major objectives of the Junior Safety Council.73 A comprehensive curriculum guide for a seven week Safety Education and First Aid program is provided for teachers of Health II in the high school. The safety education section is divided into the units of: General Aspects, Home Safety, School Safety, Recreation Safety, Traffic Safety, and Civil Defense.74 This curriculum guide is designed to fulfill the following objectives: ‘ 0 72City School District, Rochester, New York, Manual of PoliciengStandards and Procedures For Health, Safety, Physical Education and Recreation, Elementary Schools, Department of Health and Phy51cal Education City School District, Rochester, New York, July 1962, p. 60. 73Ibid., p. 52. 7“City School District, Rochester, New York, Safety Education, Department of Health and Physical Educa- tion, City School District, Ro‘chester, New York, mimeo- graphed, p. l. 39 1. To learn to avoid dangers when possible and‘ develop habits of thought and action that will become functional in meeting emergencies. 2. To cooperate with public and other agencies" for public safety in the community. 3. To understand the responsibility of the indi- vidual in making school safety programs effective. A. To accept the fundamental concept that accidents are caused; they do not happen. 5. To take an active interest in the protection of life, health and property of the community in which you . live. ‘6. To appreciate the responsibility of the indi- vidual for the safety of the troup and the effect of individual conduct on.the safety of others. 7. To accept the accident data as a guide to constructive action in accident prevention. 8. To respect and understand safety rules, regula- tions, laws and practices. _ 9. To develop cooperation in the solution of such safety problems as traffic hazards and safe driving. 10. To educate pupils to live in harmony with their school environment.75 It was noted that each school safety program reviewed included a report of accident statistics and evidence that 75Ib1d. AD these accidents had been studied and analyzed.76’77’78’79’80 Lansing school district published situations and apparent causes and used these as background and study information in safety programs. They also integrated results of analysis into their subseguent safety bulletins.81 JMany state departments of education have prepared a curriculum guide or syllabus for driver education, but few have a school-wide program or guide in all aspects of safety. Regulations of the Commissioner of Education of the State of New York states: 76Kansas City, Missouri, Public Schools, A Summary of Student Accidents 1961-68 School Term, Safety Education Egartment, Kansas City, Missouri, Public Schools, July, 8 mimeographed. . . 77Lansing School District, Accident Facts, Depart- ment of Safety Education, Lansing Public Schools, January, l§69, mimeographed. 78Los Angeles City Schools, A Report of Pupil and Em lo ee Accidents, Division of InstructionaIPlanning and Services, Eos Angeles City Schools,_l967. 79School District of Philadelphia, Student and 'Em 10 ee Accident Facts of the Philadelphia Public Schools, F1Ee £555 Division of Safety Education, PhiladelphiaPublic Schools, Pennsylvania, February, 1968, mimeographed. 80City School District, Annual Statistical Report: l¥68-62, Division of Planning and Research, City School D str1ct, Rochester, New York, March, 1969. 81Lansing School District, How They Got Hurt, Department of Safety Education, Lansing Public Schools, January, 1969, mimeographed. 1&1 Instruction in safety education, including highway and traffic safety shall be given to all pupils in both elementary and secondary grades; such instruction shall be made a definite part of the school program either as a special subject or in connection with instruCtion in other subject; comprehensive plans for safety educa- tion shall be organized by local school authorities including highway and traffic safety, home safety, recreational safety, industrial and occupational safety, and school safety to insure the development of safety habits in all the varied activities of everyday life; and the instruction in safety education shall be given for not less than 30 periods, or the equivalent there— of, in each year in the junior high school (grades 7 to 9) and for not less than 15 periods or the e uivalent thereof in each year of the senior high school grades Rhode Island State Department of Education publishes Safety Education Bulletins three times per year which keep teachers informed of required fire drills, school bus drills, accident reports, and other information pertinent to the field of general safety education.-83 ‘Wisconsin suggests that the topics of traffic safety, home safety, school safety, recreational safety and farm safety be taught in primary and intermediate and junior high grades. Occupational safety is added to the list for the senior high school grades.8£+ The Wisconsin Guide states: , 82The University of the State of New York, Safety Education, Section 153, Regulations of the Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, mimeographed. 83State Department of Education, Safet Education Bulletin, The Department of Education State of Rhode IsIand, September, 1969, mimeographed. 8“Department of Public Instruction, Safety Curricu- lum Guide, Curriculum Bulletin 27, State of Wisconsin, Cooperative Education Planning Program, June, 1961, pp. 3-1... L2 Each teacher shall devote not less than thirty minutes each month teaching pupils safety, and another 'thirty minutes each month teaching fire prevention.35 IMaine' 5 guide includes some topics that have not been included in others reviewed for this study. These topics included: planning for safety instruction in schools, the place of safety education in kindergarten through grade 12 teaching safety through other curriculum areas, safety education for physically handicapped children, and legal aspects of school Safety.86 Other materials are available that could be used to help guide teachers, and to make safety programming a defi- nite part of regularly planned lesson content. For example, the American Automobile Association publishes several .booklets entitled Ten Traffic Safety Guides. These are divided into age groups such as for teachers of grades K-3, h—6, and Junior High.87’ 88 Helpful hints are provided together with background materials and listings of related materials appropo to the suggested lesson outlines. Birnbach, serving as consultant to the American Automobile 35Ibid., p. 8. 86Department of Education, Safety Education for Maine Schools, State of Maine, Department of Education, 1957, p. 2. 87M. Elizabeth Crabtree and Luverne C. Walker, Ten Traffic Safety Guides 1967-1968: Grades K93, and A-6, American Automobile Association, Washington, 1967. 88Jerrold Glassman, Ten Traffic Safety Guides 1962- 1268: Junior High, American Automobile Association, as ington, 1 07. A3 _ .Association developeda booklet for elementary grades in «which safetypictures and messages were presented to the .student, and thestudent drew his own picture relating his' experience with the presented lesson idea.89 The National Commission on Safety Education provided some excellent curriculum.helps for teachers in the area of elementary andintermediate grades. Each unit included information as: Why accent safety, what to know and do, and how to develop the Unit.90'91 A plan used by some districts in the state of New York to offer specialized programs to students is the Board of Cooperative Educational Services (hereafter referred to as BOCES). Several school districts cooperate to offer special programs, facilities and services not feasible in 2 each individual district.9 An example of this type struc- ture would be the First Supervisory District of Erie County, New York in which nineteen school diStricts participate.93 89Sidney B. Birnbach, My Own Safet Stor (Washing- ton: American Automobile Association, 19675. 90National Commission on Safety Education, Safety Guides for You--in the Primary Grades (Washington: National Education Association, 1961). 91National Commission on Safety Education, Safety Guides for You--in the Intermediate Grades (Washington: National Education Association, 1962). 92First Supervisory District, The Board of Coopera- tive Educational Services (Buffalo, New York: ‘First Super— visory District of Erie County, 1968), pp. 1-5. 93Ibid., p. h. M . “Trade and technical courses are offered on two and three "year programs. Programs are multi-occupational in nature and offer opportunities for the gifted and college-bound student, the non-college cound, and the handicapped.9h Work-study programs are offeredas well as adult programs in such areas as auto mechanics,.electronics, computer programming, computer circuitry, refrigeration, and machine shop practice.95 »In addition, the BOCES structure.provides special (services to the cooperating districts such as data process- ing, special education services, curriculum development, film library, learning resource center, materials production service instructional television service, inuservice education, consultive services, and special pupil personnel services.96 . This chapter has reviewed the literature pertaining to the offerings in the nation's schools. It was seen that some schools regard safety as an adjunct to existing courses such as health or physical education. Other schools attempt to integrate safety offerings into all phases of the curriculum offerings. .More information concerning driver education was evident than in any other specific area. 941bid., p. 6. 95Ibid., p. 9. 961bid., pp. 10-19. #5 Curriculum materials and guides are available from a number of sources, including national organizations, insurance companies, state departments of education, and a number of school systems deeply involved in safety education programS- .More' and more schools and state departments of education are developing broad based safety education pro- grams from kindergarten through grade 12. CHAPTER III" PROCEDURES USED FOR THE STUDY The data used in this study was obtained by using a survey type questionnaire. The questionnaires were sent to selected public school systems in New York State to determine the state-ofbthe-art of safety education. Public school systems were stratified to separate city superinten- dencies, and centralized districts. From these lists, a 10 percent sampling was randomly selected using a table of random numbers. A total of eighty public school systems ‘were contacted. This made a representative sampling of each group mentioned above. The questionnaire information served as the main research instrument. Additional information was gained through an extensive review of the literature as described in Chapter II. DEVELOPMENT OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE A questionnaire was developed from experience gained from (1) teaching experience in several states, including - New York, Michigan and Missouri, (3) several terms of office in the Driver and Safety Educators Association of New York State, (3) discussions with leading safety educators, and A6 47 (h) infonmation available in textbooks and available curriculum guides. AQuestions were designed to determine .the state-of—theéart of safety education programs being conducted in the public school systems of New York State. . Questions were also designed to obtain pertinent information concerning the type of programs being conducted, methods by which these programs were being conducted, and the back- grounds and qualifications of those persons responsible for these programs. Question format was designed for ease of completion by the respondent. Check marks, and short number answers were asked for in most instances. Additional space was provided for short answers to be written. 'A panel of eight nationally recognized educators \ were asked to evaluate the questionnaire form. Members of the panel agreed to serve in an advisory and evaluative capacity. Copies of the questionnaire were sent to each member of this panel to read, to evaluate, and to make suggestions for clarity, proper warding, and strengthening ‘ of the instrument. These panel members were selected because of their long involvement in the field of safety education and to gain the benefit of their experience. The members of the panel were: . Mr. Lewis Clark . Director of Safety Education Lansing City School District Lansing, Michigan 48903 Dr. Lonnie Gilliland Director of Safety Education 3157 Elmwood Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73116 ' 48 Dr. Dalibor Kralovek Division of Safety Education School District of Philadelphia ' Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 Dr. Robert L. Marshall Director, Safety Center Central Missouri State College warrensburg, Missouri 64093 Mr. Ronald Patterson Supervisor of Safety Education Ft. Myers Public Schools Ft. Myers, Florida Dr. Thomas A. Seals Coordinator of Safety Education San Diego County Schools San Diego, California Mr. Nevin Wasson Supervisor, Department of Safety Education Board of Education 1211 McGee Street Kansas City, Missouri Nun Cecil Zaun Director, Safety and Driver Instruction Los Angeles City School District Los Angeles, California 90033 Complete evaluations of the questionnaire were received from each member of the panel. Suggestions received from the panel members were included in the questionnaire during revision. The revised questionnaire was presented to the writer's doctoral advisor for final approval. The advisor's suggestionswere incorporated into the final form and the questionnaire was duplicated and mailed to the 80 selected New York State Public Schools. A copy of the questionnaire is found in Appendix A. The listing of selected school systems surveyed is found in Appendix B. L9. . The first mailing of the questionnaires was made on wa'lo, 1969. The mailing included a letter of explanation from the investigator. A copy of this letter is included in .Appendix C. In addition, a letter from Dr. Robert 0. Nolan, Director of Driver Education, Michigan State University, Chairman of the investigator's doctoral committee, was included encouraging participation in the study investiga- tion. On June 10, a second mailing was made to those school systems that had not returned their completed ques- tionnaires. The second mailing included a letter from the investigator requesting them to complete and return the questionnaire. Also, a self-addressed post cardrequested trespondents to check one of two statements and return the card to the investigator. The statements were: (1) that the questionnaire was being completed and would be mailed upon completion, and (2) that an additional questionnaire was needed. . The third and final mailing was made on July 8, 1969 to those school systems who had net submitted completed questionnaires. This mailing included a brief letter of request for completing the questionnaire, and a post card for them to check a response item. Final results of the three mailings are noted in Appendix B. Fifty of the 80 school systems returned questionnaires, for a percentage of 62.5. Fourteen school systems indicated by post card or letter that they were not , —.50 . able to participate in the study at this time. Three school .systems indicated by card that they planned to participate ' in the study, but completed questionnaires were not received. There was no response of any kind from thirteen school systems. I In several instances, personal visits-and interviews were conducted to check on completeness of questionnaire responses, and to determine validity of responses given. In several instances, on the second and third mail- ings, additional questionnaires were requested by school systems. In all but three instances completed question- naires were returned within several days. Several school systems requested an additional copy of the questionnaire for their personal use. In almost every instance, those school systems returning completed questionnaires requested an abstract be sent to them following completion of the study. The 62.5 percent return was considered adequate to produce valid data for interpretation and to develop a rationale for a comprehensive Safety Education Program and a model organizational pattern which would permit inclusion of a Safety Education Program in public school systems in New York State. SUMMARY School systems were stratified to separate city superintendencies, village superintendencies, and . 51‘ centralized districts. A 10 percent sampling was randomly -selected. ‘ f . A questionnaire was developed.. This was reviewed by a panel of eight nationally recognized educators. Following revision, and approval by doctoral advisor, the question- naire was mailed to eighty randomly selected school systems. Questionnaires were returned by 50 of the eighty school systems contacted, for a percentage of 62.5. Fourteen school systems were not able to participate in the study. ‘ Three school systems indicated interest, but did not return questionnaires. No response of any kind was received from thirteen school systems. 3 Two follow-up letters were sent to urge participa- tion. Personal visits and interviews were made to several school systems to determine validity of responses given, and to obtain clarity and completeness of responses. CHAPTER Iv ' PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA To determine the state of the art of safety educa- tion programs in the public schools Of New York State, a questionnaire was used as the main data gathering instru- ment. Questionnaires were received from fifty of the eighty school systems contacted. .Questionnaires were not complete ‘in several instances for a number of reasons, such as: (1) no programs were in existence in the particular school systems, (2) there was not a person designated as either safety supervisor or school coordinator in that system, (3) the person responding to the questionnaire was not knowledgeable about particular.segments of the school's program, (4) some questions did not apply to certain school systems-—marked N/A on the questionnaire form, and (5) items ‘were simply left blank on the questionnaire form. ‘With regard to information sought concerning the schoOl, it was noted that the questionnaire was completed in most instances, by either the district principal or the driver education instructor. Others responding to the questionnaire were directors of health, physical education, recreation, and safety, and supervising principals and superintendents. This item was not completed on fourteen questionnaires. 52 Districts contacted varied in size by pOpulation from.l,000 persons to well over 50,000persons. 'The .majority of the districts reporting size infbrmation were between 1,000-5,000 and 5,000-10,000 persons. Nineteen school systems fell within these two size groups. In several instances, no up-to-date figures were available concerning size of school district. Information concerning size of the school districts by pupil enrollment was reported by 33 of the50 responding districts. A complete listing of schools reporting enroll- ment figures divided into grade-level groups is presented in Appendix I. A summary of total enrollment figures from the 33 districts is presented in Table l. The smallest number of pupils enrolled reported was 1,000, and the largest reported was 8,800. ‘Safety Supervisor or Digector Table 2 contains a summary of the responding school systems in New York State concerning system wide safety education supervision. Only 5 schools reported having such a person employed as either a safety supervisor or director. In two instances, this person was the person who completed the questionnaire. Only one school system responding reported having a full-time safety supervisor. Four Others stated this was a part-time position. The supervisor's staff size varied. In one instance there was one full-time staff member, and in one instance two part-time staff 5h Table 1 Distribution of School Size by Pupil Enrollment ggpils Enrolled NO. of Schools 1000 - 15000 2 1501 - 2000 5 2000 - 2500 ' A 2501 - 3000 6 3001 - #000 0 #000 - 4500 1 #501 - 5000 2 5001 - 5500 2 5501 - 6000 - 3 6001 - 6500 3 6501 - 7000 O 7001 - 7500 2 7501 - 8000 0 8001 - 8500 1 8500 - up 2 55 ' Table 2 'Number of Respondents Reporting A School Safety Education Supervisor or Director* Number of Schools Responding Topics gee No 'Full Time Part Time Other 1. Schools ' Having Supervisors 5 A5 1 h 0 Number of Staff 1. Number of persons devoting full time ' 1 2. Number of persons devoting part time 2 3. Number of persons assigned in addition 1 (entire to teaching duties elem. staff) A. Number of full-time secretaries 1 5. Number of part-time secretaries' 44 When Position Established' 1. Less than two years 0 2. Between two and five years 3 3. More than five years ' 2 Why Position Established 1. To develop a better program , . j; 2. Administrative order ' 1 3. Community influence ' l A e Other I (a. Need of person to perform duties 1 *Personnel from 50 school systems responding to this item. 56 amembers were evidenced. In anOther instance, one district .elementary school charged.its entire teaching staff with safety responsibility as an aid to its four nurses and six physical education teachers. In this instance, the physical education teachers had safety responsibility in addition to ‘their regular teaching duties. It was noted that the One school district having a full-time supervisor, also employed a full-time secretary to supplement the program. Part-time secretaries were noted in the other four instances. . In the five school systems noting supervisory posi- tions, three stated the position had been established and in effect between two and five years, while in two cases the position had been in operation for over five years. All of the five school districts reporting super- visory positions noted that the reason for having this position was to develop a better program. One school dis- trict mentioned that in addition to desiring a better program, the position was established by an administrative order as a result of community influence. ‘§upervisor qualifications. Information received concerning how supervisors were selected, and recommenda- tions for minimum preparation for a person to qualify for such a position is presented in Table 3. As in Table 2 only five school systems responded to these questions. 57 Table 3 0 ’Safety Supervisor Qualifications and Recommended Preparation for Supervisors How Did This Person Become Safety No. of Sphools _fiucation Supervisor 1. Hired specifically 1 2. Promoted because ' a. Special training g b. Education c. Experience 2 d. Interest 3 3. Volunteered or requested position 2 h. Assigned 2 Recommendations for a Minimum Pre aration for a Safety Education Supervisor 1. A course in Safety Education 2 2. A minor in college preparation _ 1 a. Number of hours 0 3. A major in college preparation 1 A. A special degree in this field 1 a. B. S. in Safety Education 0 b. M. S. in Safety Education I c. Specialist (6th year) in Safety Education ‘ 0 d. Doctorate in Safety Education 0 5. Teaching Experience 7 0~ a. Number Of years 1 Less than four years 0 2 Five years I 3 Eight years or mere I 6 e Other ' a. Interest 1 b. Health Education Background I __I__ c. Physical Education Background / 4 Y 58 w ‘ In only one instance was the person hired specifi- cally for the position. In three instances, the individual was promoted because of special training, education, experience and interest. In two caSes, the person was assigned this position after having requested or volunteered. I I for it. § Recommendations for minimum preparatiOn for the job of safety supervisor varied among the five respondents. They ranged from a course in safety education (2), a minor in college preparation (1), a major in college preparation (1), to a special degree in this field on the master'S< level (1). Teaching experience was recommended as necessary preparation. Five years and eight years were recommended . as minimum amounts of teaching experience necessary prior to entering such a position. Other.recommendations included interest on the part of the person, and either a health and/Or physical education background. While several recommendations were made concerning preparation for such a position, it was noted that very few schools have officially adopted any definite minimum requirements, as shown in Table A. One of the five respond- ents to this section stated a course in safety education and a degree in physical education, one school district required a special degree but did not state at what level, and three . stated that no requirements were set by their school district. 59 Table 4 IMinimum Requirements Used by Schools For Employment as Safety Education Supervisor Topics ‘ No. of Schools 1. A course in Safety Education 1 2. A minor in College Preparation 0 ca. Number of hours . 0 3. A major in College Preparation 0 A. A special degree in this field 1 a. 3.3. in Safety Education 0 b.'AM.S. in Safety Education 0 c. Specialist (6th year) in Safety Education 0 d. Doctorate in Safety Education 0 5. Teaching Experience 0 a. Number of years 0 6. Other a. Not Applicable 2 b. Degree in Health and Physical Education 1 c. No minimum requirements ' 1 60 p§chool Safety Coordinators _ In only two school districts of the 50 responding was there any evidence of a special safety coordinator in each of the district's school buildings. .In one district this was the additional duty of the nine employed nurses in the schools. Each worked about 2 hours per week in the area of safety education. Safety was included as a portion of expected duty, and no special compensation or remunera- tion was given. In the other school system responding, the safety program was a part of the job Of the director of health, physical education, and recreation. His responsi- bility was the entire district. His time allocation for safety programming was about eight hOurs per month in each level-elementary, junior high, and senior high. In two school districts, the supervisor Of safety education held regular in-service meetings with the persons having safety responsibilities in the district's schools. In one instance five combined meetings per year were held while in another, ten in-service safety related meetings were held with elementary teachers each year. Coordinator qualificatiOns. Recommendations for minimum preparation by a person to serve as a school safety coordinator are presented in Table 5. Forty-two school systems responded to this questionnaire item. Leading items concerning preparation were a course in safety education (13) and a college minor in safety education (8). Three 61 Table 5 Number of Respondents Reporting Recommendations for A Minimum Preparation for Safety Coordinators Qualifications Number of Schools Responding 1. A course in Safety ‘ Education 13 2. A minor in College Preparation 8 3. A major in College Preparation 3 A. A special degree in this field 0 a. B.S. in Safety Education 2 b. M.S. in Safety Education 2 c. Specialist (6th Year) in Safety Education _ 1 ,d. Doctorate in Safety Education 0 5. Other a. Experience 1 b. Not applicable 13 * *Personnel from #2 School Systems responded to this item. 62 respondents recommended a college major in safety education. In five instances a special’degree in safety was suggested. Two respondents recommended a B.S. in Safety, two recom- mended a M.S. in Safety, and one recommended a specialist degree. Thirteen respondents marked this item not- applicable. . Only two respondents indicated that any qualifica- tions had been established as minimum requirements for the employment Or selection of school safety coordinators. One stated at least a course in safety education, but preferred a major in safety education. The other respondent stated that they looked for (characteristics) such as teaching experience, interest in the field, and success in safety programs as a volunteer, as criterion for selection and employment. :In-Service“ Safety Education Programs Table 6 summarizes the thirty responses concerning whether the school Offers "in-service" education programs for various groups Of faculty and staff. The most frequently mentioned group trained by "in-service" programs was school bus drivers. Sixteen school districts indicated they conducted such programs, and held between 1 to 4 meet- ings per year. Four districts reported yearly in-service safety programs for all teachers in the system. Three held sflmilar programs for driver education teachers, and two conducted yearly programs for administrators. It was C 63 Table 6' Number of Respondents Reporting In-Service Education Programs in Safety Education ‘r Number of Schools Responding Topics . ‘ng ‘Np Number Per Year 1. Administrators 2 O 1 2. Teachers h 0 1 3. School bus drivers 16 0 1-4 4. Driver Education Teachers 3 O 1 5. Individual school safety coordinator 0 0 0 6. Other Employees 5 0 1 7. Others . a. ‘When need arises . 1 0 0 b. Physical Education Personnel 1 O O c. Coaches 1 0 0 *Personnel from 30 school systems responded to this item. 64 interesting to note that Schools with supervisory personnel in the area of safety were the ones conducting in-service (programs for most of their.employees. In several cases school systems indicated "in-service" education programs being conducted for p11 employees of the district. Mbst responses indicated from one to four meetings per year, however, one respondent mentioned holding in-Service‘ programs "only when the need arises". Safety Courses For Teachers Required Data concerning those school systems who require any of their teachers to have safety education courses-in their preparation is presented in Table 7. Eleven of the #9 school systems responding to this item stated their school system did require some safety education preparation for some of their teachers. One school system required nine semester hours of safety education related courSes in the preparation of all teachers in the system. A number of schools reported some amount of safety education required of teachers in certain subject areas. All eleven responding affirmatively to the requirement item indicated between 2-12 semester hours of education courses for driver education teachers were mandatory. The majority Of these (5) required six semester hours, three schools required 3 semester hours, one required 2 semester hours. The highest requirements for driver education teachers came from two school districts. 65 Table 7 Number of Respondents Reporting School Requirements For Teachers to Have Safety Education .Courses in Their Preparation Topics 1. Schools Requiring Courses Number of Semester Hours ‘Reqfiired By Schools 1. Elementary 2. Junior High 3. Senior High A. Teachers of a. Health b. Physical Education c. Driver Education d. Industrial Arts e. Science f. Others (1) Swimming Yes Number 0 £552.12 1 “I“ (I) ...: O ll oc A Number Of Schools Responding ‘N9 38 Number of Samester ours __2_ _9__ .1. £2. 3:22. 2-12 2-12 _Z:L __é_ *Personnel from #9 school systems responded to this item. 66 One required 9 and one required 12 semester hours of safety courses. _ Ten districts required from 2 to 10 semester hours of safety for teachers of physical education, including swimming. The majOrity of these school systems (6) required six semester hours. A requirement of between 2 and 12 semester hours of safety courses for teachers Of Industrial Arts was evidenced by eight school districts, with 3 semester hours indicated in six of the eight school districts. In five Of the eight schools reporting a requirement of from 1 to 9 semester hours Of safety courses for teachers of health, the requirement was 3 semeSter hours. One district required 2 semester hours, and three districts required 3 semester hours_of safety courses for science teachers. An interesting note was that in one school system, 9 semester hours were required by all teachers while in other schools the requirement varied by subject. For example, in one school district the requirements were: Health (6), Physical Education (6), Swimming LessOns (6), Driver Education Teacher (12), Industrial Arts Teacher (12), Science Teachers (3). It seemed strange that swimming was singled out in addition to physical education in this school system, especially since the semester hour requirement was identi- cal. Generally speaking, where the requirement varied 67 among courses, the heavier requirements, in the majority of instances, were in the areas of physical education and. driver education. Safety Instruction in Elementapy Grades . Safety education was taught in elementary grades in 37 of the AL schools responding to this item;- Table 8 shows that in almost every instance, 3A of the AA, instruc-' tion was conducted or planned by the individual classroom‘ ‘ teacher. In addition, 14 schools incorporate the use of non-school personnel such as firemen and policemen. Five schools requested use of educational television as'a medium or aid, and four indicated use of specialists, such as the safety supervisor, or driver education teacher, do some Of the instructing. Also noted were methods including general assemblies, physical education claSSes, and instruction given by school bus drivers. Methodology of inStruction will be more fully described and discussed in the next section, and in Table 9. IMethOd Of instruction. Information concerning techniques used for safety instruction in elementary schools is summarized in Table 9. In only one responding district was it noted that safety education was taught as a separate subject. In this school, this was not the only method used, however. Special safety projects were reported used by 11 school districts. Thirty-two responders indicated their method Of instruction was to have safety 68 Table 8 Number of Respondents Reporting Safety Education ' Taught in Elementary Schools Number of Schools Responding Topics ‘ Yes Np Safet‘ Education Tau ht in - Elementary SchooI 37 7 How Safety Education Taught 1. Individual classroom teacher 2.. Specialist (Driver Education Teacher, Safety Supervisor, Etc.) 3. Educational TV A. Non-school personnel (firemen, policemen, etc.) 5 o Other F Mr F a. Not applicable 1 b. General assemblies 1 c. Bus drivers 1 d. Physical Education classes 1 69 Table 9 Number ofReSpondents Reporting Methods of Safety Education Instruction Taught in Elementary Schools Methods Of Instruction 1. 2. 3. A. 7. Separate subject Special project Integrated with another subject a. b. c. d. e. f. 3r Health Social Studies Science Physical Education Shop Home Economics Language arts When it comes up in a subject Special unit of another subject a. b. c. d. e. f. Health Science Social Studies Physical Education Shop Home Economics Co-curricular activities Assembly Program a. Number per year {1 1-2 per year 2 3-5 per year 3 6-8 per year ll Fl ..5... 2h Other a. Safety in Physical Education and Sports b. T.V. Tapes 0. Fire and Civil Defense Drills d. Bus Drills WAT WHAT |~H+ H13 7O . education integrated with another subject or subjects in 'the regular curriculum. The subjects used for integration of safety programs were: health (20), social studies (19), science (21), physical education (6), shop (A), home 6 economics (4), language arts (2), and whenever it comes up, in a subject (1). ‘ Nine schools indicated that safety education was offered as a special unit in another subject. Subjects listed for this technique of instruction included: health (6), science (8), social studies (8), physical education (2), shop (3). and home economics (3). In 23 cases, assembly programs were used as an additional method of instruction in safety education, and in 5 instances co-curricular activities were add as still another technique. In only one instance were 1 to 2 ‘assembly programs per year listed as the only method of safety instruction in the elementary grades. Sixteen schools mentioned conducting 1 or 2 assembly programs per year, five stated they were holding from 3 to 5 programs per year, and three schools indicated between 6_and 8 safety related programs were held each year. Other tech- niques mentioned included: safety in physical education and sports (1), television tapes (1), fire and civil defense drills (1), and school bus drills (1). Data also showed that in some schools the only safety instruction received is via state mandated drill procedures. 71 The amOunt of time spent specially devoted to safety education varied greatly from school to school. It was extremely difficult for many schools to estimate even a rough approximation. Twenty-nine respOndents did attempt . some estimate of time spent. Table 10 contains a summary of this information. In five instances between three and -nine sessions of 25 to 60 minutes per school year were devoted to safety instructiOn. Nine schools stated that safety instruction was integrated throughout the school year. Seven reported spending from three to twenty minutes per week with safety instruction. In other schools, very. little time if any was spent exclusively devoted to safety instruction. Several schools reporting noted time amounting to that needed for conducting combined state mandated drills. Safety Education in Middle and/or Junior High Schools While only three middle schools are actually in existence in the school districts selected for this inves- tigation, it seemed more practical to include information from this school structure with the junior high schools reporting for they include grades 6, 7, and 8 in most instances. Summary information concerning the methods of safety instruction used in the thirty-one reporting middle and/hr junior high schools is presented in Table 11. 72 (Table 10 Approximated Time Devoted to Safety Education Topics Number of Schools Responding lee E9. 1. Schools devoting time 29 13 2. Average amount of time a. Integrated throughout the year 2 b. 10-1h minutes per week 1 c. 3-20 minutes per week 2 d. 1-2 sessions per month 1 e. 3-5 hours per month 7 1 f. 1-2 sessions per month 1 g. 15-20 minutes per semester 3 h. 3-9 sessions, 25-60 minutes per year 2 i. 21 or more weeks per year 1 73 Table 11 Number of Respondents Reporting, . Safety Education Taught In ' Middle or Jr. Highs Topics Number of Schools Responding Safet Education Tau ht In ' Yes ‘39 Eiadle andZor gun1or Eigh Schoo s ' ' Methods of InstructiOn 1. Separate Subject 0 2. Special Project 3 3. Integrated with another subject 26 a. Health 18 b.. Home EcOnomics 5 c. Driver Education I d. Shop - Industrial Arts 2 e. Physical Education f. Social Studies Z g. Science h. Guidance 3 A. Special Unit of Another Subject 2 a. Health 3 b. Social Studies c. Science 6 d. Physical Education I e. Home Economics I f. Industrial Arts I 5. Educational T.V. 3 6. Assembly Programs 12 a. Number per year 1 1 per year 8 2 1-2 per year 3 2 per year A 3-4 per year 7 o Other a. Fire, Civil Defense, and Bus Drills 1 b. Not applicable I~ . 7h _ ‘° As with the elementary schools, the most often used method of presentation of safety material was to integrate it with another subject. This was the method indicated by 26 respondents. .Courses used as the parent for integration purposes included: health (18), home economics (5), driver education (1), industrial arts or shop (5), physical education (6), social studies (7), science (12), and guidance (3). Nine school systems indicated safety educa- tion as a special unit of another course. Health (9) and science (6) headed the list. The medium of Educational Television was mentioned used by three respondents. Use Of‘ assembly programs was mentioned as a technique used by 17 respondents. In 16 of these cases one or two safety related programs were presented per year. The amount Of time devoted was again difficult to ascertain. The most common response was that these programs were integrated through the year, and amounts of time varied so greatly, it was difficult to approximate. Some school systems indicated numbers of sessions held, but did not indicate length. Others estimated time spent per day, week, month, semester or year, but did not indicate any specific number of sessions. A general summary of responses to this item appears in Table 12. ‘§afety Education in the Senior High Schools More respondents completed this section than either the elementary or junior high sections. This may be true 75 Table 12 Number of Respondents Indicating Amount of Time in.Middle and Junior High Schools Devoted to Safety Instruction A roximated_Time Devoted .9 Safety Education 1. Not applicable 10 2. None . 1 3. Integrated through the year 2 A. 3-45 minutes per day 2 5. 3-30 minutes per week 3 6. 1-2 sessions per month 'I 2 7. 1-9 sessions, hO-60 minutes each per semester 2 8. 6-9 days per semester 1 9. 3-9 hours per year. 3 10. 1-2 sessions per year 2 76* in part to the fact that in some schools the only safety veducation fOrmally presented is in the driver education course. This was true in 19 of the reporting school I districts. A total of 38 of the A9 schools reSponding to this item indicated Offering some type of safety education. Summary information concerning this item is included in Table 13. Safety education was mentioned as being offered as a separate subject in 3 districts, and as a special project in A other districts. However, the most common method, , again, was integration with another subject. This was the case in 23 situations. The list of courses used as the parent course for safety education inclusion had a strong newcomer in senior high schools-—driver education (11). Others included: industrial arts (7), health (21), social studies (3), science (12), physical education (12), and home economics (10). Eleven school systems Offered safety education programs as a special unit within another course. Driver education found its way into this list also. It was mentioned in four instances. Health (8) and industrial arts (6) were the highest on the list of courses featuring special safety units. Physical education (A) and home economics (3) Were also mentioned. Three school systems reported using educational television as an added technique of presenting safety information and programs. Careful note revealed these 77 Table 13 r- 'q‘” "I“ "' ' Number of Respondents Reporting Safety Education Taught in Senior High:‘ I Safety Education Taught i . ‘_p,SeniorHigh School Yes 3‘32 1. Schools Having Programs. 38 ‘11 V ! IMethod of Instruction 1. 2. 3. A. Separate subject Special project Integrated with another subject a. Industrial Arts b. Driver Education c. Health d. Social Studies e. Science - f. Physical Educatio g. Home Economics Special Unit of Another Subject a. Health b. Physical Education c. Driver Education d. Home Economics e. Industrial Arts Educational T.V. Assembly Programs a. Number per year 1 1 per year 2 1-2 per year 3 2 per year A 3-h per year Driver Education Course Only Other a. Fire, Bus, and Civil Defense Drills b. Not Applicable 11 H- F NWT |+H+ AHA» H“ 78 three to be the same ones mentioning this.medium used in junior high programs, and also included inthe elementary schools reporting uSing television. It was noted that most schools having this equipment available tended to use it in curricular offerings on all grade levels. 4 Assembly programs were mentioned by 13 districts for safety programs. In 11 cases these programs expanded or strengthened on-going curricular Offerings. In two cases, this was the only method of providing safety instruc- tion for students. Amounts of time spent in safety education in the senior high schools was as difficult to pin point as it was on the other levels. Table 14 reviews the senior high school responses concerning time at the senior high level V devoted to safety education. Eleven respondents marked this item not applicable. Six districts indicated three Lh- minute sessions per week were devoted to safety instruction. Four schools indicated that safety programs were integrated throughout the year, but did not indicate a definite amount of time spent in such instructional programs. ‘szety Education in Adult Education Safety education had found its way into the adult education programs Of 25 of the 45 schools responding. NO adult education programs of any kind were Offered in h schools, as is shown in Table 15. In most cases it was noted that the safety education program presented were 79 Table 14 Number of Respondents Indicating Amount of Time In Senior High Schools Devoted to Safety.Instruction roximated Time Devoted ARI—ff “p a ety Education 1. 2. 3. h. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Not applicable Integrated throughout the year 3-20 minutes per day 45 minutes per day, 3 semester 3-hh minutes per week A 1-2 sessions, AO-6O minutes per month Driver Education class per semester 6-9 days per semester 3-5 sessions, 21 or more minutes per semester 1-2 sessions per year 6-9 hours per year ...: ...: ~li N 0‘ ~+ H H N N 80 Table 15. Number Of Respondents Reporting Safety Programs in Adult Education and Methods of Instruction Used Adult Education Yes Np_ Not Applicable 1. Schools having programs 25 16 4 Methods of Instruction 1. Separate subject ' O 2. Incorporated in other subjects 1 a. Shop 1 b. Home Economics 1 c. Physical Education 1 3. Driver Education a. Driver Improvement 5. Other a. Qualification course specified by Motor Vehicle Bureau 1 W 81 directed toward traffic safety. Driver Education programs vwere offered in all 25 instances. Driver improvement programs and the required Department of Motor Vehicles Pre-Licensing Instruction Course were others mentioned. In one case safety was reported incorporated into adult physical education, home economics and industrial arts courses in addition to driver education. Safety Educatipp Information roVIded for Teachers , Table 16 shows the kinds Of safety education materials supplied by the district for teachers in the system. Forty-five school systems responded to these items. Seventeen stated that an administrative handbook, developed by local personnel, was available to teachers in the system. In sixteen cases these have been developed on a Kindergarten through grade 12 basis. In one school, Administrative Guides were available for elementary and junior high levels only. Safety curriculum guides were available in only five school systems. Only one of these was done on a K-12 basis. Materials available for teachers had been officially adopted by the responsible school authorities in 13 districts. School Plans, Procedures, Policies for _pecia1 Events or Emergencies Several of the items included in the list Of plans and policies concerned those required by the state such as fire drills, civil defense drills, and school bus drills. 82 Table 16 Number of Respondents Reporting Safety Education Information Provided for Teacher Number Of Schools Respondipg Topics 1. 2. 3. 4. Administrative Handbook a. Elementary b. Middle or Junior High c.’ Senior High d. K-l2 Safety Curriculum Guide a. Elementary b. Middle or Junior High c. Senior High d.» K-12 Materials Developed by Local Personnel Materials Officially adopted Yes 17 17 13 H H O ...: 0‘ N O N H N2 28 38 28 32 .83 Thiety-seven school diatricts Of the 50 responding answered questions relating to whether or not the school had plans, procedures, and/or policies for special events or emergencies happening in and around the school. several schools requested extra copies of the questionnaire form for their own use, stating that the list of situations in this item was of special interest to them. Table 17 summarizes the responses to this item. In 36 of the 37 responses, plans were in evidence concerning fire in School buildings. Other policies reported by a number of school districts were: sending ill pupils home (35), civil defense drills for nuclear attack (33), caring for pupils injured while under school juris- diction (32), interview by a police Officer (31), driver education (33). School bus drillse-load and unload (31) and emergency procedures (31) were also reported as areas of policy concern by schools. Procedures or policies existed in only about one half of the schools reporting items such as safety patrols (18), sending pupils on errands (2), and molestation of children (16). Only 8 respondents indicated a policy for riot or unruly students. This may be an item of recent concern by school systems since only a small number responded to the question. . Safety patrols were more common in elementary schools than in junior and senior high schools, while driver .dfi‘ at. Table 17 Number of Respondents Reporting Plans or Policies for Safety in School. Number Of Schools Respondipg Jr. Sr. Topics Yes ‘Np Elem. High High 1. Fire in School Buildings_ 36 0 35 23 35 2. Second Means Of Alarm 29 6 29 27 28 3. Civil Defense Drills a. Natural disaster 21 1A 21 20 21 b. Nuclear attack 33 2 31 29 32 A. School Bus Drills ‘ a. Load and unload 31 A 31 29 31 b. Emergency procedures 31 A 31 29 31 5. Bomb threats (by phone) 2A 11 2A 21 2A 6. Riot or unruly students 8 27 ‘ 8 7 8 7. Safety Patrol .18 .719 16 8 9 8. Caring for pupil injured while under school jurisdiction 32 3 32 3O 32 9. Sending pupils on errands 20 17 20 15 18 10. Excursions and field 7 trips 29 6 29 26 29 11. Christmas Trees 29 6 28 26 28 12. Sending ill pupils home 35 0 35 33 35 13. Removal of pupil from ' " school by police Officer 29 6 29 26 29 1A. Interview Of pupil by a police officer 31 A 31 27 3O 15. Driver Education 33 3 0 O 33 16. Molestation Of Children 16 19 16 13 15 17. Pupil bitten by dog 22 13 20 17 19 18. Other 0 O O O O '85 education was mentioned only by Senior high schools. In :most cases schools having plans and policies in existence, evidenced these plans at all grade levels. Complete Accident Reporting System Table 18 shows that all 36 respondents to the question concerning whether or not the school had a complete accident reporting system indicated they did for student accidents. (In all but one instance this included staff accidents as well. In the one case, no answer was given concerning staff accidents rather than an indication that reports were not made, or records not kept. . In 32 schools, reports were analyzed and corrective action was taken in every instance possible.. One school system reported that accident reports were made, records kept, but that data were not analyzed, nor were corrective measures taken. 'One may question the value of time and effort spent in making and keeping records if they are not used for any purpose other than to have them on file in the event of a court case, or legal question. Examples of corrective action taken, following accident analysis, were mentioned by 27 respondents. In most cases these included routine correction such as clean- ing up debris, checking for similar situations existing elseWhere in the school, or asking for increased care on part Of students and staff. ‘Ufi 3 Number of Respondents Reporting An Accident Reporting System 86 Table 18 Topics 1. 2. 3. Student accidents Staff accidents Accident report forms a. Analyzed b. Corrective Action Number of Schools Responding Yes 36 35 32 .33. N3 00 N No Response 0 l 87 In several instances, however, the action taken evidenced a definite change in policy or the additiOn of a safety measure. These included: 1. PlacingabraSive materials on shower room floor 2. Changing design of chalk trays I 3. Substituting paper milk cartons for glass bottles 3 A. Correcting sidewalks--leveling or replacing 5. Lessening physical education requirements for girls in tumbling 6. Modifying playground equipment which caused injuries 7. Adding handrails on bleachers 8. Stripping slippery floors of wax Special Programs Offered To Students Table 19 presents a complete summary of responses to the special safety related programs Offered to students. Five school systems marked this item not applicable in their system. Responses were received from A5 additional school systems. Programs most commonly Offered included pedestrian safety, bicycle safety, driver education, and swimming. It was noted that in schools Offering programs in pedestrian safety, bicycle safety and safety patrols, these were predominantly presented in the elementary schools. Table 19 Number of Respondents Reporting Special-Programs Offered To Students in Safety* 88 Topics 1. 2. 3. A. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Pedestrian Safety Bicycle Safety Safety Patrols Recreational Safety Hunter Safety Motorcycle Safety Safety News on Bulletins Driver Education Water Safety a. Swimming b. Boating Ac. Diving Other Number of Schools Responding 21 16 15 NO 11 16' 29 3O 3O '33 36 6 2A 29 30 O Elsa- 22 25 15 11 OWOH l H Ol-"O‘ Jr. H’gh NJ-‘HOOPKJUI 15 11 Sr. H gh i 6 6 A 13 13 11 A 38 17 13 12 O * 5 schools marked this item N/A 89 Schools which provided’recreational safety programs and swimming prOgrams, generally did so for students of all age groups. Prbgrams offered predominantly at the high , school level included hunter safety, motorcycle and driver education, boating and diving. Student Safety Programs, Clubs, or Committees ' The technique of student involvement in safety activities in schools and communities was not in evidence in many schools in this survey. Only 7 Of the A9 indicated that safety committees or clubs were in existence. In all cases reported, these were in elementary schools. In all but one instance these were conducted as separate clubs or committees within the school. Table 20 reviews activities and club membership. In most cases members were either appointed or volunteered for membership in the school safety club. Activities of these clubs included helping develop school safety regulations, assisting during fire and other emergency drills, conducting school safety survey, planning special safety programs, and publishing school safety paper or newsletter. Officially Adopted; School Policy Regarding School Safety Education Three schools Of the 50 reporting districts indi- cated that an Officially adopted policy statement concerning safety education was in effect. Even in these three instances this statement was not included because in one 90 Table 20 Number of Respondents Reporting Student Safety Program, Clubs, or Committees Number of Schools Responding Topics Yes ‘39 Sphools with Safety Programs 7 A2 What Level 1. Elementary g 2. Junior High 3. Senior High 0 How Conducted 1. Separate club or committee 6 2. A committee in student council 0 3. Other a. Teacher and classroom safety council 1 How Obtain Membership 1. Elected 1 2. Appointed I 3. Volunteer Z A. Invited I Activities of Club 1. Help develop school safety regulations A 2. Assist during fire drills 3 3. Assist during other emergency drills A A. Conduct school safety survey A 5. Conduct community safety survey O 6. Assist safety coordinator for the school I 7. Plan safety related program for the school E 8. Publish school safety paper or newsletter 9. Other a. Assist PTA 1 b. Conduct I c. Control school safety patrol 1 91 case it was out of print and was being revised.' In another instance the physical education handbook carried the safety procedures,-which included nothing more than fire and air raid drill procedures. Finally, the regulation of the State Commissioner of Education was included as the policy adopted by another school. This evidence seems to indicate that a lackadaisical attitude permeates the atmosphere in the schools reporting on their safety education programming. Concerning stated objectives of the safety program, only two school systems indicated any answer. In one case this was a general statement in keeping with the commis- sioner's regulations. It was aimed at protecting students .from injury, and protecting the school from liability. In the other, the statement reported indicated that their policy was to conform with state regulations, insurance, and liability. A number of schools included information with their completed questionnaire which evidenced that some statements and policies were in effect in their schools. Many of these were not over-all policies, officially adopted by the school program. Often these regulations were adopted and approved by department chairmen, for use in an individual school building. Individual statements on recommended policies and procedures most often included the following topics and areas: 92 1. Procedures of dealing with injuries on school premises or under school SuperviSion. ‘“ I A 2. Student insurance 3. School liability ‘ A. School bus rules, drills, etc. 5. Physical education-including swimming pool and playground ‘._ A 6. Fire and civil defense drills 7. Laboratory courses including' a. Industrial Arts b. Home Economics 0. Science—-especially chemistry and physics d. Driver Education Evidence presented throughout this chapter indicates that there are policies and programs in effect in a good number of schools, but that these are, in most cases, not officially adopted, underwritten, or demanded by the chief administrative body of the school system. In a number of cases, corrective action was taken only after an accident had taken place. On-going safety programs, engaging the help of safety clubs, school coordinator and supervisory personnel, together with safety inspections and constant vigilance to serve as preventive measures for accidents and injuries were not evidenced by respondees. CHAPTER v ' 311mm, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study was designed to review present programs of safety education in selected New York Public Schools to provide data to develop a rationale for a comprehensive Safety Education Program and recommend a model organiza- tional pattern to permit the inclusion of a Safety Education Program in any New York Public School System. SUMMARY Since the inclusion of safety programs in a curricu- lum seemed inherent to the general educational philosophy of a school system, philosophies of education and of safety education were reviewed. An extensive review of literature related to this study was made. Information wasgathered concerning the importance of safety education to the lives of citizens. Of particular note was the fact that recommendations for safety education programs have been discussed for many years by a number of leading educators. Curriculum guides from school systems known to have safety programs in operation were reviewed to gain insight into the types of programs being conducted, and what types of programs seemed successful. 93 9A Data concerning the state-of-the-art of safety - education in the public schools of New York State was gathered by means of a questionnaire. Public school systems were stratified into city superintendencies, village super- intendencies, and centralized districts. From these groups, a 10 percent sampling was randomly selected. A total of eighty schools were contacted. The questionnaire was designed to gather pertinent safety program information from the schools. A panel of eight nationally recognized educators evaluated the questionnaire. Following revision and approval by the study advisor, the questionnaires were mailed to the selected school systems. A total of 50 of the 80 school systems returned questionnaires for a percentage of 62.5. .Personal visits were made to several schools to determine completeness of questionnaire responses and to check on validity of responses given. Questionnaire responses were tabulated and analyzed. From this data, several conclusions and recommendations have emerged. As data collected concerning the safety programs existant in the public schools of New York was studied and analyzed, it became evident that not much was being done currently in the schools in the area of safety education. In some instances, responses indicated that administrative personnel had not given thought to developing policies 95 concerning special situations Such as:_ 1) molestation of children, 2) pupil bitten by a dog. 3) Christmas trees, A) riot or unruly students, or 5) removal from school or interview of a student by a police officer, to suggest a few. These items were considered important by those programs considered to be successful, and by the panel of eight experts who reviewed the questionnaire as a part of a safety program. It would seem necessary then, that serious consideration be given to the list of concerns outlined in the questionnaire as recommended parts of a comprehensive safety program. A comprehensive safety program must be concerned with a "total program," in which all areas of safety are considered for all age groups throughout the school and community. As accident rates continue to climb, it is imperative that accident records be studied, that corrective programs be initiated, and that corrective measures be taken to eliminate hazards and problem areas. A comprehensive, total safety education should provide educational and informational programs for: 1) kindergarten through twelfth grade, 2) Adult Education, 3) business persons, A) community organizations, 5) service groups, and 6) citizen groups in the community. A comprehensive safety program should include such concerns as: 96 I. Administration and Supervision II. III. A. A full-time safety supervision in the district who is specifically trained for this position ' B. A safety coordinator assigned in each school building in the district C. Secretarial support staff for these staff positions Staff Education A. A general safety course required in the prepara- tion program of all teachers in the system B. In-service educational programs on a regular basis for all staff including: 1. 2. 3. h. 5. Administrators All teachers School bus drivers School safety coordinators Custodial, cafeteria, clerical and support staff Safety Education Programs for Students A. Integrated into the curriculum B. Meet fully the Commissioner's Regulations for safety education C. Special programs for 1. 2. 3. A. pedestrian safety bicycle safety safety patrols recreational safety ...-«p» V. VI. VII. 97 5. hunter safety 6. motorcycle safety 7. water safety a) swimming b) boating c) diving 8. driver education D. Student safety club on all levels (K-12) Special Safety Education Programs for: A. Adults B.' Senior Citizens C. Driver Improvement Groups Educational Support for Teachers A. Administrative handbooks 1. Written on a K-12 basis 2. Developed for individual school district 3.‘ Adopted officially by the school board B. Curriculum guides 1. Written on a K-l2 basis 2. Developed by local persons and tailored to school and subject areas Special Policies Developed for Emergency Situations A. Published for all staff personnel B. See Appendix A, Study Questionnaire, question #9. A Complete System for Accident Records A. Regularly reported B. Studied fully to determine cause 98 C. Corrective action taken to eliminate danger, hazard, or lack of education A . - VIII. Program Evaluation A. Continuing evaluation B. Insure up-to-date programs C. Programs re-designed to meet the school and community need CONCLUSIONS 1. It was noted that when and where a community wants or is sold on safety education, such programs will be in evidence in the curriculum. 2. In most instances, there was little evidence of continuing safety programs being offered in schools surveyed. 3. Safety programs, when offered, were usually sporadic in nature. 4. There are very few Safety Supervisors in the public schools of New York State. . 5. Safety programs are in evidence in schools haVing safety supervisory personnel. 6. There is ample work for the safety supervisor. In the schools when there was a part-time supervisor, part- time secretarial help was also employed. A full-time supervisor used a full-time secretary. 7. In each school, there is a definite need for Safety curriculum guides in schools for teachers. Very few 99 _ schools responding to this study have such information available. I 8. There is a needfor more schools to develop 'Administrative Safety materials for teachers. ,9. Of those few schools developing an Administra- tive Handbook, most are preparing such material on a K-l2 basis. 10. In-service safety education programs were found to be held only by those school systems with safety super- visory personnel. 11. Schools hiring supervisory safety personnel did so to develop stronger programs. . 12. Some schools conduct in-service safety education programs "after-the-fact" conducting such programs only when the need arises. 3 13. Most all schools had driver education programs. Often schools told a lot about safety education programs, but upon close examination, the offerings available were in driver education only. 1h. In some school systems, the only safety educa- tion provided was via state mandated drill procedures. 15. Safety education programs were most often offered as a special unit of another subject, or integrated within other subjects. 16. Safety education was most often offered as a part of science, health, and physical education classes. 100 17. Recommendations suggested forminimum prepara- tion for safety.supervisors and directors were not adhered to in all instances by those same schools when they hired such personnel. . ‘ w 18. School bus drivers tended to receive the most in-service education programs of any staff group. 19. Only a small number of schools require safety education courses in the preparation programs of the teachers they hire. 20. When safety courses are required in preparation programs of teachers for employment, it was usually required for teachers of health, physical education, driver educa- tion, industrial arts, and science. 21.~ Safety education was most often taught by the individual classroom teacher at the elementary level. 22. Assembly programs were often used for special safety programs in the elementary schools. Schools con- ducting assembly programs most often held one or two such programs per year. 23. In middle and junior high schools, safety education was most often integrated with another subject. Highest on the list of subjects used as the parent course for safety education programs were health and science. 24. Safety related assembly programs were used in some middle and junior high schools. 25. The most commonly used method for safety instruction in the senior high schools was via integration 101 with other subjects. Highest on the list of subjects used was health, followed by science, physical education, driver education, and home economics. 26. Safety education instruction was most prevalent in adult education in the area of driver education. 27. When special safety policies were in effect in schools, they were found to be quite consistent across all grade levels. 28. In schools that incorporated an accident reporb- ing system, these were usually analyzed and corrective action taken following the accident. 29. Special safety programs were most often geared to the age level wherein the most benefit or need was evident. 30. Very few schools conduct student safety clubs or committees. Those in existence were found mainly at the elementary school level. 31. There were found to be wide gaps in safety education programs in the schools participating in this study. 32. More thorough programs seemed to be offered where supervisory and trained personnel were in evidence. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. All teachers should have a basic safety educa- tion course in their preparation. 102 2. All schools, regardless of size, should have a person responsible for coordinating safety education programs. 3. In multi-school districts, a safety Supervisor should be employed or designated to coordinate and direct the safety programs and activities conducted by the safety coordinator in each school building. A. School safety supervisors should arrange for special in-service training programs in various areas of safety. 5. Safety programs should be designed on a Kinder- garten through grade 12 basis. 6. More safety programs need to be designed and conducted to involve more students in safety related activities. 7. Curriculum materials must be developed to include safety topics for use in all subjects on all age and grade levels. 8. School safety policies must be developed, approved, and provided for all teachers. Too often teachers never see or know the school policy. 9. Serious consideration should be given to cooperative methods and approaches to provide needed pro- grams for schools of all sizes. The Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) program in New York State is this type of facility and technique. 103 For example, it would hot be economically sound to expect every school to provide a multiple-car off-street driving range and/or simulation equipment for a driver .education program if there is only a small number of students eligible for the course. ‘ However, by adopting the BOCES approach, several schools could cooperatively provide additional outstanding services and programs for their students. This cooperative program would allow schools to participate in such endeavors on a prorated cost based on the number of students involved. Cooperative Safety Center facilities could be used as the foundation for many types of safety related programs within the several school or town area. An economically sound use of facilities, personnel and equipment would thus be possible. In addition, broader curricular offerings could be provided and developed. 3 Through the BOCES framework, school systems could cooperate and share staff, facilities, and program offer- ings to bring meaningful information and programs to the students in the cooperating schools. ,In addition, this cooperative BOCES "center" would be a source not only of education programs, but also a source of information for teachers, a resource for material, help, and direction for integrating special safety programs into their curriculum. Further, the staff of such a cooperative "center" would be available to serve as consultant and advisory personnel to 10h aid administrators and teachers in developing and executing their programs. This program structure would allow a home ‘base for special programsto be offered such as hunter safety, recreational safety, water safety, as well as a ' locatiOn for activities such as safety conferences and other special activities and programs for both students and other; citizens. ' It has been this writer's experience to direct and conduct a cooperative driver and safety education program through the Safety Center at Central Missouri State College. Seven area schools cooperatively use the most up-to-date and complete set of facilities and equipment possible for a program. Equipment includes a multiple-car off-street driving range, a driving simulator, multi-media programmed learning equipment, educational television, dial-access information storage and retrieval equipment, and video-tape equipment. Not one of the seven cooperating schools have either the number of students necessary or the funds available to provide this equipment for their students. Cooperatively, however, they are able to offer a most thorough, interesting and exciting course of study to their students. It would seem that the BOCES framework would be a sound, justifiable, and flexible model to be used to build and expand safety education programs for the New York State Public Schools. 105 DISCUSSION During this study, and while tabulating and analyzing data, several underlying ideas or thoughts have come to mind. While these cannot be factually reported from the data presented, they seem, in fact, to be inherent as either problems or feelings concerning the study results. 1. It was felt that safety education was given only lip service by some school administrators. 2. In some instances the only reason any safety programs were conducted was to satisfy the most minimum requirements. , 3. Safety programming has not been sold properly to educators, to students, or to citizens. A. There is a lack of safety related material included into curriculum materials in the public schools. 5. There is a lack of publicrelations, and community involvement in safety curricular offerings. 6. Driver education is often construed to be the only program that is needed in order to have safety included in the school curriculum. 7. Often administrators have policies written to' cover special situations and/or events, but these are not available to the teachers in the system. 8. It seemed that some administrators had not taken time to consider safety policies and practices needed for safe and efficient operation of the school program. 106 On a more positive vein, as School systems were visited, and questions were asked, it was felt that more safety educatiOn was being conducted than the questionnaire revealed. Teachers, especially.in the elementary grades," gig,include safetypractices, safety recommendations and ‘policies in their classrooms. These were not considered or realized as special safety programs. However, it would seem that this type of programming would fit that most highly recommended technique, in that it was fully immersed wdth their regular classroom activities. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ' 1. Further research is needed to develop the kinds of programs that could be incorporated into a BOCES Program format. , I . 2. There is a need to study and determine the kinds of specific safety programs that are mostgenuinely needed in the schools in New York State. 3. Studies are needed to determine the type of BOCES Network needed to provide safety education programs for all schools in New York State. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Dewey, John. Democracy and Education. New York: MacMillan CO. ’ 19160 ‘ . . Florio, A. E. and G. T. Stafford. Safety Education. New YOrk: lMcGraw-Hill Inc., 1969. Henderson, Stella Van Petten. Introduction to Philoso h of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, .Lane, Howard and Mary Beauchamp. Human Relations in Teaching. New York: Prentice-HalI, Inc., 1955. Peters, R. 8. Ethics and Education. New Jersey: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1966. Seaton, Don Cash, Jerbert J. Stack, and Bernard I. Loft. Administration and Supervision of Safety Education. New York: MacMillan Co., 1969. Stack, Herbert J. and J. Duke Elkow. Education For Safe Living. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., I966. Strasser, Marland K. and others. Fundamentals of Safety Education. New York: .MacMillan Co., 1964. Whitehead, A. N. The Arms of Education and Other Essays. London: Williams and Norgate Ltd., 1932. BULLETINS Birnbach, Sidney B. Mngwn Safety Story. washington: American Automobile Association, 1967. Crabtree, M. Elizabeth and Luverne C. Walker. Ten Traffic Safety Guides 1967-1968: Grades K:3. Washington: American Automobile Association, 1967. 107 108 Crabtree, M. Elizabeth and Luverne C. Walker. Ten Traffic {§afety Guides 1967:1968: Grades A-6. Washington: American AutOmobile Association, 1967. City School District, Rochester, New York. Annual Statistical Report: 1968-69. Rochester: Division of ‘PIanning and Research, March, 1969. . Health Education Grades 8- . Rochester: Division of Instruction, 196 . . Manual of Policies, Standards and Procedures for Health, Safety, Physical Educatign and Recreation. Rochester: Elementary Schools, Department of Health and Physical Education, July, 1962. . Safety Education. Rochester: Department of Health and Physical Education, no date. (Mimeographed.) Department of Education. Safety Education for Maine Schools.. State of Maine: Department of Education, 1967. Department of Public Instruction. Safety Curriculum Guide. Curriculum Bulletin No. 27. State of Wisconsin: Cobperative Education Planning Program, June, 1961. First Supervisory District. The Board of Copperative Educational Services. Buffalo:. First Supervisory District of Erie County, 1968.' Glassman, Jerrold. Ten Traffic Safepy Guides 1967-1968: Junior High. Washington: American Automobile Association, 1967. Kansas City, Missouri, Public Schools. A Summary of Student Accidents 1967-68 School Term. Kansas City: Depart- ment of Safety Education, July, 1968. (Mimeographed.) . Emergency Procedures. Kansas City: Department of Safety Education, April, 1969. . Handbook and Guide For Driver Education Teachers. Kagsas City: Department of Safety Education, April, 19 5. . . Life Savers. Kansas City: Department of Safety Education, no date. (Mimeographed.) . Motorcycle Study Guide. Kansas City: Department of Safety Education, September, 1968. (Mimeographed.) 109 Kansas City, Missouri, Public Schools. Resource Guide for Safet Education. Curriculum Bulletifi No. 103: Kansas City: Department of Safety Education, June, 1958. . Safety Responsibilitiestand Regulations Manual perations. Kansas City: ‘Department of Safety ‘Education,January, 1963. Lansing Public Schools. Safety Education: A Suggested Guide for Elementary Teachers. Michigan: Board of Education, City of Lansing and The Safety Council of Greater Lansing, 196A. . Lansing School District. Accident Facts. Lansing: Department of Safety Education, January, 1969. (Mimeographed.) . Bus Driver Rules and Re ulations. Lansing: Department of Safety Education, no date. (Mimeo- graphed.) . Driver Education. Lansing: Department of Safety Education, no date. (Mimeographed.) . Emergency Procedures and First Aid. Lansing: Department of Safety Education, 1965. . Fire Safety. Administrative Bulletin Number 611A.l. Lansing: Board of Education, 1968. . How They Got Hurt. Lansing: Department of Safety Education, January, 1969. (Mimeographed.) . Official Handbook Greater Lansing School Safety Patrols. Lansing: Greater Lansing SchoOl Safety I atrOI, 19670 . The Green_Pennant Safety Program. Lansing: Greater Lansing School Safety Patrol, no date. (Brochure.) Los Angeles, California, City Schools. A Report of Pupil gpd Employee Accidents. Los Angeles: Division of Instructional Planning and Service, 1967. . Safety. Publication No. 375. Los Angeles: Division of Instructional Services, 1957. National Commission on Safety Education. A School Safepy Education Program. Washington: National Education Association, 1966. 110 National Commission on Safety Education. Safety Guides for lpu-In the Intermediate Grades. Washington: National Education Association, 1962. ‘ - . Safety Guides fgr You-In the Primary Grades. Washington: National Education Association, 1961. . School Safety Education Checklist. Washington: National Education Association, 1967. National Safety Council. Accident Facts. Chicago: National Safety Council, 1966. . Accident Facts 'Chicago: National Safety Council, 1968. - . . Accident Facts. Chicago: National Safety Council, 1969. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. Accident Facts. Albany: The Department of Motor Vehicles, San Diego County Board of Education. A Guide to Safepy Education Kindergarten through Grade Twelve. San Diego: Department of Education, December, 1969. School District of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Highlights of the Safety Education Program. Philadelphia: DiVision of Safety Education, September, 1968. (Mimeographed.) . Student and Emplgyee Accident Facts of the Philadelphia Public Schools. File No. 550. Philadelphia: Division of Safety Education, February, 1968. (Mimeographed.) State Department of Education. Safety Education Bulletin. State of Rhode Island: Department of Education, September, 1969. (Mimeographed.) DOCUMENTS U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Education for a Changing World of Work. Washington: U28. Government Printing Office, 1963. (Mimeographed.) University of the State of New York. Regulations of the Commissioner of Education of the State of New York: Safety Education. Section 153. Albany: The State Education Department, no date. (Mimeographed.) 111 MULTI VOLUME WORKS AND SERIES American Association of School Administrators. Safety Education. Eighteenth Yearbook. Washington: National Education Association, 19AO. PERIODICALS National Safety Council. "Basic Principles for Safety ’Education," SafetyEducation, Vol. 35, 1955. Sternberg, Robert. "Traffic Safety Education in Michigan," Michigan Challenge, November, 1963. Tenenbaum, Samuel. "Selected for Review," Educational Leadership, October, 1969. UNPUBLISHED WORKS Aaron, James Ethridge. "A Study of Supervisory Practices in Safety Education in Selected Cities in the United States." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, New York University, 1960. Ashby, Lyle W. "The Educator's Point of View." Report to President's Conference on Occupational Safety. Washington, D. C., 1960. Engelhardt, Melvin E. "The AdminiStration of Safety Educa- tion Programs in Selected School Systems." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Columbia University, 1961. Gilliland, Lonnie, Sr. "Practices in Safety Education in the School Systems of Selected Cities in the United States." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1955. Marshall, Robert L. "An Analysis of Safety Education Pro- grams in Selected Public Schools of the United States With Recommendation for School Systems in Establishing or Evaluating Safety Education Programs." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Kansas, 1961. Schmidt, Duane H. "A Study of Safety Education Curriculums in Selected Public Schools to Determine Consistent Standards in Safety Education Programs." Unpublished term report, Central Missouri State College, 1970. APPENDI CES APPENDIX A Questionnaire Used for the Study SPECIAL INQUIRY REGARDING SAFETY EDUCATION PROGRALE IN SELECTED PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN NEW YORK STATE Explanation and Instruct ions: The items in this questionnaire are designed to gather intonation con- cerning the "State of the Art" of Safety Education in selected school systems in New York State. Items 1-6 deal with safety personnel and their training. Items 7-11. request information concerning instructional programs in Safety Education. Wherever squares [j are provided, please (J) the appropriate square(e). Blanks areprovided in some items for Specific "mber" meme Space is provided in some items for brief details, descrip- tions, or lists to be entered. The items were designed to take a minimum of time to complete. Your coop- eration will be greatly appreciated! THANK YOU]. Definition of Terms: 1. 2. 3. A. 5. 7. Safety Supervisor of Director: A person responsible for the development and determination of administrative policy and procedures regarding the over-all safety education program for the entire school system. Directs the activities for the safety coordinators in each school building and receives rcports from them. Safety Coordinator: A person in a particular school building responsible for carrying out the policies am procedures of .the supervisor or director. He works with the principal and teacher in his building to encourage, develop, improve, and analyze safety instruction at all grade levels. He organizes "in-service" safety programs and activities for faculty am stiflents, is responsible for uniform accident reporting and study, and serves as a contact person for the supervisor or dirBCtOre Safet Education: The process of using administrative prac- tices, fitmcti'onal techniques and protective features in a comprehensive program desigied to reduce accidents, conserve human and material resources, and to make it possible for students to participate in additional activities. This covers all phases of Safety Education including traffic safety. School Accident: A recordable accident is one which results in pupil infiury severe enough to cause the loss of one-half day or more of school time, or requires medical attention. Lil-Jew Education: Educational programs conducted at the local school district level to provide instruction and infor- mation vital to the local staff and administrative personnel, for the purpose of upgrading knowledge and background in any subject area, activity or program. Safety Education Program: Those activities and practices that terd to be presented and entered into by the staff an! students to prepare them to do safely those things that they will be doing away. Driver Education is included in this type of program, but is only a part of the total Safety Education Program of the School. Full Time: A person hired by the Board of Education who devotee 1W of his time to supervising, directing, and administering the total school safety education program. Part Time: A person hired by the Board of Education who devotes any set portion.of his time to supervision, directing, and administering the total school safety education program. ii -1- About your schools: School Address (Street) (City) (State) Person completing this questionnaire: (Zip) Title: Population (total residents), of the school district or system Number of professional staff members . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number0fotherstaffmembers................ Number of schools in your district or system: Number Elementary schools (Grades____thru____) Pupil Enrollment Number Middle Schools (Gradeswthruu) Pupil Enrollment Number Junior High Schools (Grades____thru____) Pupil Enrollment Number * Senior High Schools (Grades____thru____) Pupil Enroleent Number Junior Colleges (Grades 13 and It.) Pupil Enrollment -2- 1. Does your school system have a Safety Education Supervisor or Director? [jyes If yes, a. b. O. 8. f. [Jno If no, proceed to item #2 See Definition #1, p. ii) His/Her Name (if different from person on page 1) Is this ”Simon 8:31:31: (See definitions #7 a 8, p. ii) EJOther How large is his staff? Number of persons devoting full time to supervision, direction, or coordination of school safety education Number of persons devoting part—time to this activity Number of persons for whom this is assigned as duty in addition to regular teaching assignment Number of full-time secretarial personnel Number of part-time secretarial personnel When was the position of safety education supervisor or director established? ULess than two years ago CJBetween two and five years ago EJMOre than five years ago Why was the position established? EJTo develOp a better program EJAdministrative order [JCommunity influence CJOther. Please explain How did this person become Safety Education Supervisor or Director?' DHired specifically for this position DPromoted because of: DSpecial training [JEducation Umberience [JInterest [JVolunteered for or requested this position [JAssigned tnis duty that would you recommend as a minimum preparation for a Safety Education Supervisor or Director? []A course in Safety Education [3A minor in college preparation ( hours) []A major in college preparation CJA special degree in this field [33.3. in Safety Education 014.5. in Safety Education EJSpecialist (6th year) in Safety Education [JDoctorate in Safety Education [JTeaching experience. Number of years CJOther I Cont'd h. Which of the following have been established as minimwm re- quirements for persons to be employed in your school system in the position as safety education supervisor or director? [IA course in safety education EJA minor in college preparation ( hours) CJA major in college preparation [DA Special degree in tnis field [38.8. in Safety Education CJM.S. in Safety Education EJSpecialist (6th year) in Safety Education [JDoctorate in Safety Education [JTeaching experience. Number of years [30ther 2. Does each individual school in your school system.have a Safety Coordinator assigned who works with the supervisor or director of safety education? (See Definition #2, p. ii) . Dyes fine a. How many persons does this include? b. Circle the grade level from which the coordinator is assigned in the individual schools: Elementary schools K - I - 2 - 3 - L - 5 - 6 Junior High Schools 7 — 8 - 9 Senior High Schools 10 - H - 12 o. Is some form of compensation given for this assignment? [Jyes Elno If yes, is this in the form of: CJThis is the teacher's only assigned duty [JReleased time is given EJExtra pay [JOther d, that formula, criterion, or basis is used to determine the type and amount of compensation given for duties as school safety coordinator? Elementary Middle or Jr. High Senior High e. How many hours does this person spend in his duties as school safety coordinator? ‘ Elementary ....... of hours per (number) (day, week, month)’ Middle or Jr. High of hours per number (day, week, month) Senior High ...... of hours per Znumber) (day, week, menth) .2. 2 Cont'd f. Does the supervisor of safety education have regular inpservice meet- ings with the safety coordinators? (See definition #5, p.ii) With combined group? [jyes [jno If yes, Number per year Elementary' [jyes [Jno If yes, Number per year Middle or Jr. High [jyes [jno If yes, Number per year Senior High [jyes Ejno If yes, Number per year 3. Nhat would you recommend as minimum preparation for an individual school safety coordinator? EJA course in safety education EJA minor in college preparation EJA major in college preparation DA special degree in this field [33.3. In Safety Education C3M.S. in Safety Education EJSpecialist (6th year) in safety education ClDoctorate in safety education EJOther' - h. Which of these qualifications have been established as minimum requirements for employment or selection of school coordinators for your school system? EJA course in safety education CJA.minor in college preparation EJA major in college preparation EJA special degree in this field C]B.S. in Safety Education CJM.S. in Safety Education EJSpecialist (6th year) in safety education DDoctorate in safety education CJOther EJNone of the above 5. Does your school offer "in-service" education programs in safety education for: (See Definition #5, p.ii) a. Administrators [jyes []no number per year b. Teachers [Jyes [Jno number per year c. School bus drivers [Jyes [Jno number per year d. Driver education teachers [jyes [jno number per year e. Individual school safety coordinator [Jyes [Jno number per year 1‘. Other employees E] yes Dno number per year g.' Others - please list Dyes Dno number per year number per year number per year 6. Does_your school system require any of its teachers to have safety education courses in their preparation? [Jyes Cjno If yes, which ones: a. Elementary [Jyes If yes, number of semester hours b. Junior High [Jyes If yes, number of semester hours c. Senior High [Jyes If yes, number of semester hours d. Teachers of: Health .........; [Jyes If yes, number of semester hours Physical Educ.... CJyes If yes, number of semester hours Driver Educ...... CJyes If yes, number of semester hours Industrial Arts.. [Jyes If yes, number of semester hours ______ Science.......... [Jyes If yes, number of semester hours Others 7. ~5- In your school system, is safety education taught in: (See definition #3, p. 11) a. Elementary Grades? Dyes fine (1) How? DIndividual classroom teacher . DSpeciaIist Driver Education Teacher, Safety Supervisor, Etc. UEducational TV DNon-school personnel - (firmen, pelicanen, etc.) UOther, please explain (2) Methods of instruction Dseparate subject Dspecial Project ' EJIntegrated with another subject such as, Health, Social .Studies (list subject(s) DSpecial unit of another subject such as: Health, Ecial Studies (list subject(s) ) DOG-curricular Activity ‘ DAsssmbly programs (number per year ) DOther, please explain (3) Approndmately how much time is devoted to safety education? D l-2 D Minut es D Day NUMBER [3 3~5 OF [3 Hours PER [Week Cl 6—9 (length D Days D Month (of sessions) C! 10-11. of sessions) DWeeks Cl Semester C] 15-20 [J School year (3 21+ If other, explain b. Middle schools and/or Junior High? Dyes Um (I) How? U Separate subject DSpecial project DIntegrated with another subject such as: Social Studies, Health (list subject ) DSpecial unit of another subject such as: Health, Physical Education, etc. (list subject(s) ) DEducational TV DAssanbly programs (number per year ) DOther, please explain ~6- 7 Cont'd (2) Approximately how much tine is devoted to safety education? [31-2 DMinutes [may NUMBER D3-5 OF DHours PER DWeek [36-9 (length of UDays UMonth (of sessions)C]lO—ll. sessions) DWeeks DSemester [115-20 DSchool Year [321+ If other, explain c. Senior High Schools? Dyes Dno How? DSeparate subject DSpecial project DIntegrated with another subject such as: Health, Home Economics, etc. (list subject(s) ) DSpecial unit of another subject such as: Health, Physical Ed- ucation, Home Econcmics (list subject(s) ) DEHucational TV . DAssembly programs (number per year ) DDriver Education Course only DOther, please explain (1) Approximately how much time is devoted to safety education? [3 1-2 DMinutes D Day NUMBER U 3-5 OF DHours PERU Week D6~9 (length of [Days DHonth (of sessions )[3 lO-ll. sessions) UWeeks DSanester [315-20 DSchool Year [321+ If other, please explain d. Adult Education? Dyes Dno (1) How? DSeparate Subject UIncorporated in other subjects (list subjects __ ) [3 Driver Education DDriver Improvement DSenior Citizen Programs DOther, please explain 8. Is safety education information provided for teachers in your systan in the form of: a. Administrative Handbook (directives and policies)? Dyes Dno If yes, at what level? DElementary DMiddle or Junior High USenior High DIG-12 b. Safety Curriculum Guide? Dyes Dno If yes, at what level? Dmmentary DHiddle or Junior High [3 Senior High D L12 8 Cont'd C. d. -7. hbre these materials develOped by local personnel? [3333 [330 Have these materials been officially adOpted by the responsible school authorities? [jyes Dno If available and if possible, please enclose a copy or advise where they'may be obtained. 9. Does your school system have plans and/or procedures and policies with regard to: d. 6e 1’. So he i. j. k. Is no no Go Do Qe re pric Fire in school building.... Second.means of alarm...... (in case of electrical failure or black out) Civil Defense Drill (1) Natural disaster...... (blizzard, wind) (2) “Clear AttQCkeeeeeeeo School Bus Drill (1) 103d and unload....... (2) Emergency procedures.. Dabthreats (by phone)..... Riot or unruly students.... Safety Patrol............u Caring for pupils injured while under school juris- diction............uuuu Sending pupils on errands.. Excursions and/or field triPSeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Christmas trees............ Sending ill pupils home.... Removal of pupil from school by police officer... Interview of pupil by a pOlice Officereeeeeeeeeeeee Driver Educationeeeeeeeeeee Molestation of children.... Pupil bitten by dog........ Other - please list: ~— Yes [3 E3 DDDDD D D DDDD D DDD DD ‘32 E] E] UDDDU U U DDDD D DDD DD Elan. Jr. Hi. D D U E] Cl 0 D D a D E} D [3 Cl [3 D E] D D D c] E] E] D D D c] [3 D D D D [:1 Cl [3 E3 [3 [3 D El 3: Hi. D D D D D D D D ’D D D D D D D D D D D D D D 10. Does your school system have a complete accident reporting system for: Se b. Student accidents: Dyes (See definition #4, p. ii) Staff accidents Dyes Dno Dno 10 Cont'd If yes, are accident report forms: a. Inflated? Dyes Dno b. Is corrective action taken? Dyes Dno c. h-iefly give one mnlple of how corrective action was taken. If yes, and if possible, please enclose a copy of the yearly accident rqiort smary, or advise where they may be obtained. 11. Does your school systen offer special progruns to its students such as: 1221c m H‘s Jr. “1: 2' H1. 22s ... a. Pedestrian safety D D D D b. Bicycle safety program D D D D D c. Safety Patrols D D D D D d. Recreational safety D D D D D e. Hunter safety programs 0 8 8 B D f. Motorcycle safety 0 8 a. Safety news or bulletin D D D D h. Driver qucation [3 D D D D 1e “t0? $.wa (l suit-hing D D D D D (2 boating D D a D D (3) diving ' D D U U D D D D 12. 1b you have a student safety program, club or comittee in your school? DIes DNo a. If yes, at what level? D Repentary D Junior High D Senior High b. How is it conducted? D Separate club or conittee D A committee in Student council D Other, please explain 1:. Its members are D Elooted D Appointed D Volunteer 0 Invited -9- 12 Cont 'd l d. last dose the club do? DHelp develon school safety regulations DAssist during fire drills DAssist during other energency drills (air-raid) DConduct school safety survey DConduct commnity safety survey DAssist safety coordinator for the school DPlan safety related programs for the school. DPublish school safety paper or newsletter DOther, please list: 13. Does your school have in effect an officially adapted policy statesent with regard to school safety education? (:1 yes Dno If yes, please enter it here, or attach a copy, or advise where it may be obtained: ll» What are the stated objectives of this safety education progrua? Please list them here, or attach a cepy, or advise there they may be obtained: If ypu wish an abstract of this study, please indicate. ' DYss Dllo If you have any materials relating specifically to safety education not asked for elsewhere in this questionnaire, the investigator would appreciate a copy of each available itea. hhen completed, please mail in the stamped envelope to: Robert A. Ulrich Assistant Professor Safety Ii‘ducation Center Central Missouri State College “arrensburg, Insecuri 6W3 10m ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION IS DEEPLY APPREC IATED! APPENDIX B List of Selected School Systems Surveyed 3* City Superintendencies 1. 2. 3. A. 5. APPENDIX B ‘ . Albany City Schools, Albany, New York Buffalo-City Schools, Buffalo Long Beach City Schools, Lbng Beach Rochester City Schools, Rochester Home City Schools, Home watertown City Schools, Watertown Village Superintendencies 8! ¥*** **** t 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 1h. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2h. Bay Shore Public Schools, Bay Shore Bethpage Public School, Bethpage Central Square Public Schools, Central Square East Rockaway Public School, East Rockaway Fredonia Public Schools, Fredonia Hamburg Public Schools, Hamburg Hempstead Public Schools, Hempstead Horseheads Public Schools, Horseheads Ilion Public Schools, Ilion Kenmore Public Schools, Kenmore Malone Public Schools, Malone Malverne Public Schools, Malverne Massena Public Schools, Massena Orchard Park Public Schools, Orchard Park Potsdam Public Schools, Potsdam Vestal Public Schools, Vestal Wellsville Public Schools, Wellsville Westbury Public Schools, Westbury Central School Districts * 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Alice Freeman Palmer Central School, Windsor Amherst Central School, Amherst Batavia Central School, Batavia Canajoharie Central School, Canajoharie Canisteo Central School, Canisteo Canton Central School, Canton Cassadaga Valley Central School, Cassadaga Valley Center Moriches Central School, Center Moriches Horace Greeley Central School, Chappaquee Clayton A. Bouton Central School, Voorhersville Cleveland Hill Central School, Cheektowaga #83 ** ****¥**# X 75. 76. 77- 78. 79. 80. Colonic Central School, Albany Canestota Central Sohool, Canestota Dansville Central School, Dansville Dundee Central School, Dundee Eden Central School, Eden' Ellicottville Central Schools, Ellicottville Floral Park Central School, Floral Park Forestville Central School, Forestville Friendship Central School, Friendship Frontier Central School, Hamburg Glens Falls Central School, Glens Falls Greece Olympia Central School, Rochester Griffith Institute and Central School, Springville Guilderland Central School, Guilderland Hammondsport Central School, Hammondsport Hauppauge Central School, Hauppauge Holland Central School, Holland Honeoye Central School, Honeoye Kenmore East Central School, Tonawanda Lake Shore Central School, Angola Lewiston-Porter Central School, Youngstown Liberty Central School, Liberty Maryvale Central School, Cheektowaga Medina Central School, Medina New Hartford Central School, New Hartford 'New Paltz Central School, New Paltz Newfane Central School, Newfane North Collins Central School, North Collins Onondaga Central School, Nedrow Ossining Central School, Ossining Oswego Central School, Oswego Penfield Central School, Penfield Pulaski Academy and Central School, Pulaski Randolph Central School, Randolph Royalton-Hartland Central SchooL Middleport Rye Central School, Rye Sandy Creek Central School, Sandy Creek Saranac Central School, Saranac Silver Creek Central School, Silver Creek Tonawanda Central School, Tonawanda Valley Stream Central School, Valley Stream Warrensburg Central School, Warrensburg Wellsville Central School, Wellsville White Plains Central School, White Plains Williamson Central School, Williamson Survey Respondents APPENDIX C Initial Letter of Explanation To School Superintendents “KIDHULA U a v Education for Service CENTRALBWEBOURISTATE(XHJIIWI kummnmnmmnmmamnuewm May 10, 1969 Dear The purpose of this letter is to request that your school assist in a study designed to determine the "State of the Art" of Safety Education Programs in the public schools in New York State I am interested in New York State for several reasons. It is my home state, I taught in Hamburg, New York for twelve years, I have been active in the DASEANYS, and served as President of this Association during 1968. I am also very much interested in improving the safety education offerings in the schools in New York State. The NBA National Commission on Safety Education in its publication, A School Safety Education Program, states, "Safety authorities . . . now consider education as a foun- dation for conserving human and material resources." The American Association of School Administrators, in their l9hO Yearbook, states, "It is to the school particularly that we must look for the development of the knowledge, the atti- tudes, the habits, and the skills that are necessary if we are to live with reasonable safety in the modern world." This study is a part of my doctoral research at Michigan State University. It is my hope to develop a "Rationale for the Inclusion of a Comprehensive Safety Education Program in the Public Schools of New York State." Your school has been selected as a part of this study. Would you please complete the enclosed questionnaire, or have the person with responsibility for Safety Education Programs in your school system do so. Please return the completed questionnaire in the enclosed, self—addressed, stamped envelope by June 15, 1969, if at all possible. It was hoped that the conclusions and recommendations from this investigation will be helpful to educators and support groups concerned about the total Safety Education Programs in the schools of New York State. If you would like an abstract of this study, please indicate this on the questionnaire. Thank you for your time and support on this study. Your cooperation will be deeply appreciated. Sincerely, Robert A. Ulrich Assistant Professor Safety Education Center have I APPENDIX D Grade Levels and Numbers of Pupils Enrolled By School Level in 33 School Districts Reporting ~ 3.51 mm;:.‘ “A“ wen-surf rigor . ~37“: 21.-:- mosoow H \Oooflovrpwm H0 HH Hm H0 Ht >mwm20HN 0 0w>0mm >20 zczwmwm 0w wcmHhm mszthu wK mOzOOfi mwmamadmww owmamm mcnwwm Axumv Axuov “anal Axuov 19-00 AHuov Axuov Axurv “anal Auuov Axumv Apnmv lanai Axuov Apnov Hmmw Hwoo r000 wwqo #000 mmo mmq owo omo bme Hmmb mmoo 000 Nm00 Ewaawm Amumv z» z> z> z> onwamm wcvupm z>. z> z> z> z> z> z> z> z> 0H? bm z» z> z> wcvwwm #00 H000 00H H000 mmo mmo HH00 weapon mums Aqupwv Acnpmv flpouemv Aouwwv Apoupmv AQIHNV Asupmv Acupmv Acupmv Acupmv Aeupmy Acupmv Aquamv Apoupwv peed coo mmoo poem pro two mmo “do two who» Hutu. HNOO 000 000. eoamw mumm mm00 mmoo mowo orwo H000 Hwaa NHHb. Home upon moon rope Hmoo. page Once 000m mmmm mmmb 0mmm 00mm mboa 000m OmNN whoa oaou moom 004m Oman «00a 005a mmmm amao 000a ampoa ‘ OOma 00m 0mm 000m OmNN Con 000 Omaa Ono Noaa naaa mum 00ma Obaa new 005 can omaa Ono “U... Amaloav Amalov Amaloav Amaaoav Amalmv Amaumv Amauav “Nauoav Amanmv Amauov Amanoav Amauoav “mauov Amauoav Amausv Amalnv Amalov Awaloav Amaubv swam uoasom . Rs 0mma 00¢ 00m mmoa mama mmm OmNa was mama VD 0mma .mNJ mm4a <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 Amusv Amusv Amnsv Antsy Amlnv Aonsv aousv Amusv 20:50 20:50 20:50 Amusv 20:50 maadsm mousse swam posses <2 .<2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 005.. maamsm nonmao <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 3-3 macuaz 00mm ooma mbma 00m4 some OOma 0mm 00mm .000 mama. mmmm mama 000m 0m0m 000 000a 00wa oamm 0mm naamnm moccao 3-5 3-3 mum lousy Asuxv Aouav Asuev Aouxv Asuev Asuxv Aouev lanai Amuav lands an; lousy lousy lousy Aouxv .hnmpcosoam mm mm am On mm mm mm om mm 4N mm mm am om ma ma ha ea ma aooaom