NORTHEASTERN CLINTON CENTRAL SCHOOL District Office, 2011
Each of the Northeastern Clinton Central School Building-Level School Safety Plans contains a policy and the specific procedures for contacting parents, legal guardians or persons in parental relation to the students of the building in cases of emergency.
2014-2015
The POBCSD school district Comprehensive School Safety Plan (as required by the SAVE Law – Safe Schools Against Violence in Education – Commissioner of Education Regulation 155.17) has been established to provide for the safety, health and security of both students and staff and allows for input from the entire school community. This particular component of Project SAVE is a comprehensive planning effort that addresses risk reduction/prevention, response and recovery with respect to a variety of emergencies which may occur in the school district and its component school buildings.
The purpose of this plan is to provide emergency preparedness and response instructions, information, communications procedures, and guidelines to protect the safety and well-being of students, staff, and visitors at the time of an emergency. A standardized plan has been developed for all Rochester City School District (hereinafter known as "District") buildings to promote coordinated preparedness measures and integrated emergency response procedures. This plan is designed to be used as a baseline to be adapted to the capabilities and needs of each building. This plan also serves as a planning and execution document to coordinate the actions of city and state first responders.
Sample - Safety Plan_Rochester NY
San Bruno Park School District, 2010
Parkside Intermediate is one of eight schools in the San Bruno Park School District with traditions dating back one hundred years. Parkside Intermediate has a diverse pupil body and is served by a dedicated staff. Both staff and parents comment on the positive changes that are ongoing in our school. Parkside Intermediate faces challenges in maintaining a safe school. This section of the Comprehensive School Safety Plan will describe programs in place at our school as well as strategies and programs of our school site council for continued improvement in providing a safe, orderly, school environment conducive to learning.
By G. Victor Hellman Jr., Ed.D.
An effective learning environment is one in which students and staff feel safe and secure. Unsafe or unhealthy facilities can contribute to increased absenteeism among students and staff (Simons et al. 2010), affect learning outcomes, and lead to potential legal actions against the school division. Research indicates a correlation between students’ negative perceptions of safety and negative academic performance (Milam, Furr-Holden, and Leaf 2010). In other words, students do not perform as well in facilities in which they do not feel safe. Other studies link students’ perceptions of safety to inappropriate behavior (Kelling and Wilson 2012). It is reasonable to assume that these correlations extend to perceptions of facility conditions, as students may be more likely to exhibit behavioral issues in facilities that are unkempt. America’s education facilities are in need of improvement. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, the average school facility is over 40 years old (Alexander and Lewis 2014). Although not true in all cases, aging facilities may be inadequate to serve our nation’s student population. For example, research indicates that students who attend school in older buildings that are not wellmaintained score 5–11 percentile points lower on standardized achievement tests than students in modern buildings (CGCS 2014). Furthermore, students don’t perform as well in facilities in which they do not feel safe (Milam, Furr-Holden, and Leaf 2010).
This article originally appeared in the July/August 2015 School Business Affairs magazine and is reprinted with permission of the Association of School Business Officials International (ASBO). The text herein does not necessarily represent the views or policies of ASBO International, and use of this imprint does not imply any endorsement or recognition by ASBO International and its officers or affiliates
Each day, schools and school districts are responsible for providing a safe and healthy learning environment for students. Understanding how to design and maintain school buildings is an important part of supporting that environment. Mitigation, or the capabilities necessary to eliminate or reduce the loss of life and property damage by lessening the impact of an emergency, is just one way schools can work to maintain a safe and healthy learning environment, as outlined in Presidential Policy Directive 8, our nation’s approach to preparedness. Through planning and research, schools and school districts can work to understand how the safety of the school building directly impacts the health, safety, and educational experience of students and staff.
By Bill Blumenthal, VP, PC4HS.
When launching an upgrade to your school’s cleaning program, consider starting by cleaning up your ‘cleaning’ products to reduce unnecessary chemical use. In many cases, your custodial crew and teaching staff can reduce or eliminate many cleaning chemicals—such as those with fragrances—without sacrificing effective cleaning.
To ensure that what you do use is ‘greener,’ choose products certified by Green Seal’s GS-37 or UL Environment’s Ecologo or those products having EPA’s Safer Choice label, for example. In some circumstances, an EPA-registered disinfectant might be needed as the lesser of two evils (pathogens vs. harsh germicidal chemicals).
There are sound reasons to use less cleaning chemistry.
Less Toxic, Disruptive Chemistry = Greater Health
Endocrine Disruptors (EDs), found in many common cleaning and maintenance products, are chemicals that act like hormones in humans and wildlife. EDs can also be produced by reactions related to product ingredients, such as when terpenes react with air pollution to create formaldehyde. EDs are often active in parts-per-billion, thus the “dose makes the poison” rule may not apply. Tiny amounts of EDs can have a big effect on body function and some may cause cancer (DHHS, 2014).
Ingredients such as bleach, quats, phthalates, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in cleaning or disinfecting products are suspected to cause or aggravate respiratory ills such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Asthma is the number one chronic cause of student absenteeism in schools. One out of every 10 school-aged children has asthma, resulting in more than 10 million missed school days per year (EPA, 2013). Ingredients in common cleaning products may worsen asthma (Vizcaya et al., 2015).
Breathing easier at school can improve performance of students, teachers, and staff. Thankfully, reducing or eliminating exposure to hazardous cleaning chemicals can enhance both health and the bottom line.
Less Harsh Chemistry = More Money
School funding is often based on attendance, so reducing triggers for asthma and other respiratory conditions may improve attendance and fiscal support. Elk Grove Unified schools (CA) reported a two-percent attendance gain associated with implementation of green cleaning according to a Regional Asthma Management and Prevention (RAMP) report (RAMP, 2009). Eliminating aerosols and hazardous products in a Pennsylvania school district saved $19,883.25 annually according to American School and University magazine (Shideler, 2001).
The switch to more benign ingredients in green-certified cleaning products can save money in other ways too. Major green certifications require cleaning products be purchased as concentrates to reduce packaging and carbon-intensive transport of water. Dispensing concentrated solutions via automatic dilution systems reduces the added costs associated with ready-to-use (RTU) products.
Less Dirty Chemistry = More Time, Safety
If not thoroughly rinsed from surfaces, ‘cleaning’ chemicals can actually make surfaces dirtier by leaving residues. Many residues are also biodegradable, which means they may harbor microbes that feed on residues. Removing residues is additional work and wastes time. Nonchemical interventions—such as dry steam vapor sanitation, microfiber and water programs, spray-and-vacuum systems, and other reduced-chemistry methods—may be safer cleaning alternatives that also save time.
To illustrate the benefits of one of these nonchemical interventions, consider the microfiber and water method. Microfiber cloths or mops consist of ultrafine synthetic strands, commonly polyester or polyester-polyamide blends. Microfiber cleaning cloths and mops cost more than cotton cloths or mops but are often more economical due to inherent durability and performance traits. For instance, woven microfiber (sometimes called “split microfiber”) captures particles and moisture better than cotton terry towels, without producing lint.
In many cases, microfiber cloths and mops can clean using just tap water and a mild neutral-pH cleaner, if needed. Utilizing microfiber and water instead of harsher cleaning chemicals reduces negative chemical impacts and purchasing, transport, storage, inventory, and disposal costs.
Less Unwanted Chemistry = Cleaner Environment
What is not brought into your school or classroom will not have to be removed later. Avoid the introduction of unnecessary chemical cleaners into schools. A cleaner, healthier school environment can be achieved with less cost, freeing up resources for better teaching and learning.
References
Regional Asthma Management and Prevention (RAMP). (2009). Breathing Easier − School Districts Make the Switch to Certified Green Cleaning Products. Retrieved from http://www.rampasthma.org/wp-content/upload s/2009/11/Breathing-Easier-Report.pdf
Shideler, L. (2001). A Clean School is a Healthy School. American School & University. Retrieved from http://asumag.com/maintenance-amp-operations/clean-school-healthy-school?page=4
United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), (2014). 13th Report on Carcinogens. Retrieved from http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/pubhealth/roc/roc13/index.html
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2013). EPA Asthma Fact Sheet. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/asthma/pdfs/asthma_fact_sheet_en.pdf
Vizcaya, D., Mirabelli, M. C., Gimeno, D., Antó, J. M., Delclos, G. L., Rivera, M., ... & Zock, J. P. (2015). Cleaning products and short-term respiratory effects among female cleaners with asthma. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Retrieved from http://oem.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/oemed-2013-102046.abstract
About the Author
William R. “Bill” Blumenthal is vice-president of the 501c3 nonprofit Process Cleaning for Healthy Schools® (PC4HS) organization. He is a 17-year veteran of the cleaning industry experienced in both internal and contracted operations. Blumenthal is Custodial Supervisor for Douglas County School District in Nevada. bblument1@gmail.com
Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools (REMS), Center Office of Safe and Healthy Students (OSHS), Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), and U.S. Department of Education (ED), 2013
Kids talk about school safety! Always wear the right helmet. Be safe and have fun. Careful with the clothing, Mom and Dad. SafetyGov USCPSC.
National Science Teachers Association
Note to science teachers and supervisors/ administrators: The following safety acknowledgment form is for your use in the classroom and should be given to students at the beginning of the school year to help them understand their role in ensuring a safer and productive science experience.
