Most states call schools safe |

Most states call schools safe

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Only 52 of the nation’s 91,000 public schools are labeled persistently dangerous by their states, findings that allow students in those few schools to transfer to safer places but deny a similar option for tens of millions of other children.

The lack of a label does not mean a school is without crime, but rather that there is not enough to merit the designation. There were nearly 700,000 violent crimes in America’s schools in 2000, the last year for which government numbers were available.

The new school year marks the first time that states must define and identify their most dangerous schools and let all students at those schools enroll elsewhere in their district. Most states have responded by declaring they have no schools fitting that description.

Forty-four states and the District of Columbia reported not a single unsafe school. The exceptions were Pennsylvania (28), Nevada (eight), New Jersey (seven), Texas (six), New York (two) and Oregon (one). Philadelphia’s 27 schools with the label represent more than half the country’s total. The numbers may change after final state reviews or appeals.

None of the schools in Western Pennsylvania was found to be persistently dangerous.

At a time when campuses use a range of tools to halt crime, from metal detectors to full-time police officers, 99.9 percent of schools got passing safety grades, based on self-reported data.

The order to designate unsafe schools is part of federal law designed to hold schools accountable and give students choices. But to some school advocates, the small number identified is so implausible it renders the ordered assessment meaningless.

Most states have determined that to merit the dangerous label, schools must meet at least one threshold, such as student gun violations or expulsions based on violent behavior. Typically, states tied the minimum number of incidents to enrollment — requiring a higher number at larger schools — and they only count schools that show trouble over two years or three years.

The states also based their definitions on the most serious crimes: murder, arson, robbery, kidnapping. A dangerous environment, not just unacceptable behavior, is the target, said Bill Modzeleski, school safety director for the Education Department.

“When you see what Congress said in the legislation, then clearly there probably aren’t as many persistently dangerous schools as the public may believe,” he said.

Marsha Smith, a physical education teacher in Rockville, Md., and a consultant on teenage health and school safety, added, “The public may believe that schools are dangerous, but it’s quite the opposite. Schools are the safest place for students to be.”

Government numbers show that students age 12 to 18 are facing fewer violent crimes at school — 699,800 in 2000, down 51 percent since 1993. Yet an increasing number of high school students, almost one in 10, reported being threatened or injured with a weapon at school in 2001.

The law allows students who are victims of a violent crime at school to transfer, regardless of whether their school is persistently dangerous.

California, whose 8,000-plus schools are more than in other state, listed none as unsafe. Neither did Colorado, where two young gunmen in 1999 killed 13 people and wounded more than 20 others before killing themselves at Columbine High School outside Denver.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.