What You Need to Know About Changes to the Pa. Public School Code
On June 22, Act 44 was enacted containing, among other things, new school safety provisions that have immediate requirements of schools across the state as they start the new school year.
September 17, 2018 at 03:12 PM
5 minute read
On June 22, Act 44 was enacted containing, among other things, new school safety provisions that have immediate requirements of schools across the state as they start the new school year. Article XIII of the Pennsylvania Public School Code of 1949 is amended to add Sections B, C and D, which address the establishment of a safety and security committee, provisions around school police and school resource officers (SROs), and establishing the Safe2Say program, respectively. The following are highlights of each section.
|Article XIII-B
- Establishes a safety and security committee (the committee) within the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Security. The committee will be tasked with surveying and assessing the safety and safety plans of schools in the commonwealth, including a physical assessment, policy and training assessment, and student assistance and behavioral health support assessment.
- By Oct. 31, the committee is required to develop a survey instrument to distribute to school entities to measure school safety and security preparedness.
- By Nov. 30, each school entity is to complete and return the survey instrument, and indicate whether it has had a safety and security assessment performed within the past three years (if so, it is to be submitted). The committee reviews these submissions and notifies the school of its findings. The instrument is expressly not a public document and cannot be released in response to a Right to Know Law (RTKL) request.
- A security grant program is established to make available grant funds to schools to fund a variety of safety projects, including but not limited to: community violence prevention programs, conflict resolution or dispute management, schoolwide positive behavior support, school-based diversion programs, peer helper programs, classroom management and student codes of conduct.
- By Aug. 31, each school entity must appoint a school administrator as the school safety and security coordinator for the school entity.
- This person is responsible to review the school entity's policies and procedures relative to school safety and security and compliance with laws regarding same.
- Coordinate training and resources in matters relating to: situational awareness; trauma-informed education awareness; behavioral health awareness; suicide and bullying awareness; and substance abuse awareness and emergency procedures and training drills (fire, natural disaster, active shooter, hostage situation and bomb threat).
- Coordinate school safety and assessments as necessary.
- Serve as the liaison with the committee, Department of Education and law enforcement.
- Make a report no later than June 30, 2019, and each June 30 thereafter to the school's board on the school's current safety and security practices that identify strategies to improve school safety and security (this shall be done in an executive session, and the report is not subject to disclosure under the RTKL).
- Coordinate a tour of the school entity's buildings and grounds biennially or when a building is first occupied or reconfigured, with the law enforcement agencies and first responders that are primarily the responder responsive to the school to discuss and coordinate school safety and security measures.
- School entities must train their employees on safety and security (there is no deadline to implement the first training).
- Means—may be done via the internet or other distance learning.
- Frequency—at least three hours every five years.
- Credit—employees required to undergo continuing professional education shall receive credit toward that requirement if the training program is approved by PDE and the committee.
Article XIII-C
This article contains detailed provisions for various police officer and SRO arrangements, including direct employment and cooperative agreements with municipalities. The new section further provides that school entities can apply to the Court of Common Pleas to appoint one or more school police officers; the powers and duties of that individual are delineated in the section. The police officer(s) appointed are paid by the district. Schools that employ a school police officer shall annually report information about the officer's identity and training to the Department of Education and the Office of Safe Schools. The article also allows schools to enter into agreements with local law enforcement, hire officers as independent contractors, and covers the duties and powers of SROs. The article does not preclude schools from employing other security personnel as deemed necessary.
|Article XIII-D
This article establishes the Safe2Say Program within the Office of the Attorney General. The state Attorney General is authorized to administer the program and promulgate regulations and adopt guidelines for the operation of the program. The program shall begin Jan. 14, 2019 and shall allow for the following:
- Anonymous reporting: unsafe, potentially harmful, dangerous, violent or criminal activities in a school entity or the threat of such activities;
- Establish procedures and protocols to process any anonymous tip of violent or criminal activities reported;
- Ensure the identity of the reporting party remains confidential;
- Ensure information is promptly forwarded to the appropriate law enforcement agency, school official or organization;
- The school must develop procedures for assessing and responding to reports received from the program;
- A record created or obtained through the program is confidential and is not to be disclosed pursuant to a RTKL request; and
- A knowingly false report is a crime, and information received in a knowingly false report is not included in the record of the subject of the false report.
Katherine H. Meehan is a partner with Raffaele Puppio in Media, Pennsylvania. She concentrates her practice in education law. She works closely with education, government, municipal, commercial and private clients on various matters, including employment, contracts, Right to Know, Sunshine Act and policy matters.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250