Committee Hearing, October 21, 1999

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION and PUBLIC SAFETY - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, October 21, 1999 2:00 p.m. - - - Resolution No. 990650 - A resolution authorizing City Council's Education and Public Safety Committees to hold a joint emergency public hearing demanding that Philadelphia School District Superintendent David Hornbeck personally appear before this joint committee with a definitive plan guaranteeing the safety of all 205,000 Philadelphia School District students, teachers, and employees. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ, Chairman COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REID MILLER, Chairperson COUNCILWOMAN BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY COUNCILMAN RICHARD MARIANO COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215) 561-2220 I N D E X RESOLUTION 990650 PAGE DAVID W. HORNBECK, Superintendent, Philadelphia School District ------------ JOHN MC CLEASE - Director of School Safety --- 30 ERIC SHAPIRO, Exec. Director of Facilities --- 44 PAT HARRIS, Exec. Assistant to Chief of Staff -59 HARRY TISHLER, General Counsel, Phila. School District -------------------------------- 63 BERNARD TRENT, Safety Advisor ---------------- 93 - - - 3 RESOLUTION NO. 990650

We'll be beginning in a few minutes. As soon as Superintendent Hornbeck gets in, we will begin this hearing. (Pause.)

Good afternoon and welcome to City Council hearing of the Committee on Public Safety and the Committee on Education of the City Council of Philadelphia. The Chairperson of the Education Committee Donna Miller is present. I am Chairperson of the Public Safety Committee. And we will have a hearing on Resolution 990650. Present in the room is Councilman Mariano, Councilman Cohen, Councilman Kenney. And I will read the resolution: A resolution authorizing City Council's Education and Public Safety Committee to hold a joint emergency public hearing demanding Philadelphia School District Superintendent David Hornbeck personally appear before this joint committee with a definite plan guaranteeing the safety of all 205,000 students, teachers and employees. That is the title of the resolution. That gives you the parameters. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 Obviously, Mr. Superintendent, this Council is gravely concerned when any incident of violence occurs within the classrooms of our schools. And given the nature of today's society and given the experience -- we have been joined by Councilwoman Blackwell. And given the experience that we have had across the country with guns and gun violence, and obviously we haven't had any of the incidents that can compare with any of the incidents of Columbine and other places across the country, but nevertheless, we have to be able to see what type of environment our children and our teachers and principals go into every day and make sure that that environment is one that is safe and one that provides the parents of those children peace of mind that when they send their kids to school, they expect them to be back at 3:30. So given that, Councilwoman Miller, do you have anything?

Good afternoon. I would first like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for coming. The issues of school safety have been debated for a long time. And it is a shame what happened, a near-fatal tragedy has again 5 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 occurred to turn our attention back to a major problem. Our children cannot be educated, and we as members of the Philadelphia community at large cannot expect to feel at ease without some measures of appropriate security safeguards for our children and those who endeavor to teach and oversee their development. Every day my own 15-year-old leaves the house. I wonder about her safety. And try as I may not to convey to her that during the course of her growing up that she will be faced with real substantiating issues. Rather than placing any level of blame, I am hoping that today we will begin meaningful dialog and accountability. I would also like the committee members who have graciously taken time from their schedule in order to join us in this necessary exchange. Thanks also to the Superintendent and private citizens -- I don't think we're going to have any private citizens -- for coming to testify before this committee. It is desperately important that we make sure that all measures are taken that will help secure the safety of, not just our students, but our faculty and other 6 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 staff and other people working in our schools. My daughter goes to a small school, a very small school, public school, and I don't think that they're at as much risk as some of the larger high schools. But I just want to thank people for coming today, and I'll have further comments later. Thank you.

We have also been joined by Councilman Frank Rizzo. Superintendent Hornbeck, you have the microphone. Please identify yourself for the record.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Council. My name is David Hornbeck, I'm the Superintendent for the Schools for the Philadelphia School District. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on this very important subject of school safety. The safety of our students and our teachers, our other staff, is Rule 1, at the School District. Our kids simply can't learn in an environment which they are not safe or do not feel safe, and our staff cannot teach and be effective if their classrooms and their schools are not safe. 7 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 I turn to the events of Bartram on October the 4th. The incident began when Dr. William Burke, an assistant principal, received a report that a conversation between two students led a teacher to believe that one of the students had a gun. Dr. Burke proceeded to investigate. He and the teacher, Mr. Vincent Hawkins, called the students into the hallway, and in an ensuing struggle Dr. Burke suffered a gunshot wound to his thigh. Thankfully, his wound was not life threatening. The incident, however, underscores how important it is that we be vigilant about school safety. It also reminds us of the commitment and dedication of thousands of administrators, teachers, and other employees to Philadelphia's students. All of us salute Dr. Burke and Mr. Hawkins for being the kind of persons they are. Dr. Burke particularly should be thanked, not only for his response to the crisis on October 4th, but for his remarks to me at the hospital and to the news media afterwards. He was very anxious for the people of Philadelphia to know that the incident was, in fact, an isolated one, and that the vast majority of students at 8 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 Bartram do behave, and behaved that day in a responsible manner. We also should note the tragedy that has gripped the family of Eric Coxen, who made the serious error of bringing a gun into a school building. At the age of 15, his life is now sidetracked in the wrong direction. Against this backdrop, allow me to update you and your colleagues on the district safety plan for the public record. As I have stated, no one cares more about safety of our students and teaches than we do. As long as our students and staff come to school fearfully, learning will be diminished. Thus, we have moved forward on an extraordinary array of initiatives, implementing an aggressive safety plan over the past five years to increase the security our students and staff. We've increased the number of uniformed school police officers from 274 in 1996 to 400 today, an increase of 46 percent. We've installed video surveillance cameras in 46 high schools and middle schools. We have walk-through metal detectors, 9 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 swipe card systems, and X-ray machines operational today in high schools. This program has been 4 funded to date by a grant from the federal 5 government. 6 We use hand-held metal detectors 7 extensively, having conducted nearly 700 of them in 8 our schools over these past five years. 9 Safety corridor teams, providing safe 10 passage to and from school, were equipped and in 11 place during the last school year. We have the 12 capacity to provide this support for any school that 13 wants one and develops the necessary community 14 partnership. We have established a partnership between our own police, the Philadelphia Police Department, the Housing, SEPTA and Temple University police forces to escort truant students back to their schools. At the same time, working with the city's family court system we've created truancy in and schools and in community locations, to make them more accessible to parents. We have a 24-hour telephone hotline so that any information related to school safety can be received at any time. 10 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 All school principals receive training in content and procedures for development and implementing school safety plans. A survey in May determined that all schools had viable safety plans.

The School District's Family Resource Network is charged with the responsibility to ensure that plans are reviewed and updated annually. We opened 40 new after-school programs last year and will open 40 more this year. We operate 120 after-school recreation programs in our gyms throughout the city in partnership with the Recreation Department. These programs run five evenings a week and on Saturdays. m. during the week. Also in partnership with the Department of Recreation, we participate in the I Can End Violence program, also known as ICE Violence. This program is conducted in six schools. Last year, in 50 schools, we conducted conflict resolutions programs. And in 60 schools 11 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 had peer mediation programs. The school District has strong partnerships with anti-violence organizations all across the city. In these partnerships, we provide school and neighborhood-based violence prevention early-intervention activities. Examples include PAAN, the Philadelphia Anti-drug and Anti-violence Network, and Safe and Sound in Philadelphia. In the case of Safe and Sound, two violence prevention specialists have been in place in each of three high schools -- Bartram, South Philadelphia, and Olney -- since the opening of school in September. Also, Neighborhood Coordinating Teams have been established on a pilot basis in North Philadelphia to work on safety and violence prevention. If these teams are successful, they will be expanded to other parts of the city. Our partnership with the Philadelphia Department of Health's Community Behavioral Health is implementing a program of behavioral supports and intervention in eight different clusters for the 1999-2000 school year. Our outstanding success generally in winning grant money has also paid off in the award 12 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 of a Safe School Healthy Students Initiative and Safe and Drug-Free School grant. Funds from these grants will provide after-school programs and expand truancy courts. They will increase our work with PAAN, and they will provide support to student assistance teams in all high schools and in many middle schools. The point is that we make student and staff safety a priority area of attention day in and day out every day of the year. The urgency of the matter did not arise from the tragic events in Colorado. It did not arise out of the incident at Bartram High School. We know that safety measures are necessary to improving our students' ability to read and do math and know science. We placed safety in a priority position five years ago, and our record demonstrates that we have been working harder to make the schools safe. That investment is bringing results. In the past years, the number of all incidents involving weapons has dropped from 1105 in 1996-97 to 905 last year, an 18 percent drop. During that same period, the number of incidents which children have brought guns to school has 13 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 dropped from 30 to 22 to 19. I understand that all of these numbers are of little comfort to a parent if his or her child has been in harm's way in school or on the way to and from school. Please understand that I take no comfort myself from two harsh realities: First, for most of our youngsters, school is the safest place they will be in the course of their day; and, Secondly, to a large degree our schools are a reflection of the harsh realities of the communities in which we live and work. Neither of these realities changes the fact that we accept and take seriously our responsibility for safety and welfare of our students, teachers, and staff. The statistics show that our efforts have produced results. As I cited earlier, the District has seen a reduction in the number of weapons cases. Further, in the vast majority of the cases in which our principals recommend expulsion of the student, expulsion does occur.

In Act cases in which a student with a 24 weapon is not expelled, it is because the principal, 25 who is intimately familiar with the circumstances of 14 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 the child and the incident, expressly recommends against it. Or, it is because expulsion is inconsistent with the standards that the District has adopted to ensure that its discretion is applied fairly and consistently. There are, for example, circumstances when expulsion would be indefensible, as in the case of very young children. We believe that we employ a fair and judicious approach to handling these cases. We honor the professional judgment of principals where individual cases warrant such judgment. Our record also underlies the fact that we believe that in the area of safety, as with achievement itself, we must improve continuously. We always welcome constructive suggestions. To that end, we have taken three actions in the past three weeks. First, we accelerated the installation of additional walk-through metal detectors, swipe card systems, and X-ray machines. Whether or not this will materially alter the safety in the 11 additional schools, it will raise the comfort level of students and staff, which is in itself important. At the same time, the District, at the 15 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 Board of Education meeting on October 12, 1999, committed itself to the immediate purchase and installation upon delivery of metal scanners, ID card readers, and X-ray machines for all of our high schools. The Board's intent is that all students, staff, and visitors will be required to pass through these machines as they enter all of our high schools. Second, I have directed our General Counsel to consult with the City Solicitor regarding the School District's possible participation in a lawsuit against gun manufacturers. I have also directed our Director of Government Relations to prepare a report for me on the status of gun control legislation in the state legislature. The sheer availability of guns to our students and guns to be used to harm our students, particularly in the streets, is outrageous. If the involvement of the School District of Philadelphia and other school districts across the Commonwealth with whom I am in touch can help reduce the presence of guns, I want the District to lend its support. Third, on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week I met individually with Commissioner of Police 16 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 John Timoney, Recreation Commissioner Michael DiBerardinis, and Safe and Sound Director Naomi Post. In each case, I asked that they assist the School District in reexamining the safety measures we have already taken to determine if expansion of them and/or additional initiatives are in order. Each immediately agreed to do so. I asked Commissioner Timoney to examine all that we presently do, and to advise us on what additional steps he recommends are warranted to secure the safety of our students and our staff. This includes the deployment of our personnel and our technology. The Commissioner and his senior staff have agreed to do so. m. m. are better covered. In addition, the Commissioner heads the Anti-Violence Task Force of the Mayor's Cabinet on Children and Youth. We will examine whether there are further possible strategies that we've not already embarked upon that we can employ through interagency collaboration. 17 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 I've asked Commissioner Timoney, Mr. DiBerardinis, and Ms. Post and intend to ask Judge Panepinto from the Family Court to meet with me together so that we can continue to coordinate and expand our many efforts. This will be part of our ongoing effort to intensify our work and our partnerships also involving the faith communities, parents, agencies, and other community groups. No one cares more about the safety of our students and staff than we do at the School District. Our record confirms that.

I hope that the Council and the community at large will support our continuing efforts to improve the safety of our schools as we pledge to redouble our intent to help children achieve in the safest environment possible. I'd be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Superintendent. In the press it was reported that -- that's how we get most of our information here in City Council. It was reported that many of the metal detectors had been received months, if not a long time before any incident before they were 18 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 installed and that they had been put away and no 3 process had been established to deploy them in different schools. Could you explain to us when did you acquire and purchase the metal detectors, what was the process used, and why were they not timely deployed throughout the system if you saw the need, because you went out and bought metal detectors, and then not deploy them across the system.

As is frequently the case, I'm sure you all had this experience from time to time, what you read in the paper is not always quite accurate. So I am pleased that you asked me the question.

That never happens to us. (Laughter.)

In January of '98 we started the pilot program with walk-through metal detectors at Shallcross and Ben Franklin. We later moved part of the machinery from Shallcross to E.S. Miller, and it was in May or June of '99 that two of the walk-through metal detectors were moved to Bartram High School, which is the reference to machines being in a high school, quote, months in 19 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 advance. The other high schools, the other 11, did not begin to arrive until the end of August and on up into September. And indeed, there were still four of them that only arrived last week. So the reference to several months did in fact include Bartram. They were physically in Bartram in June -- no, at the end of May.

Why were they not installed?

At that time we decided we wouldn't start that at the end of the school year. And during the summer we didn't install them because we put our people to work on other things when kids weren't in school. When September arrived, the electrical work was scheduled on September the 16th, which was about two and a half weeks after school started. And so that's the chain of events that led those two particular ones not to be installed.

But you had equipment in May in Bartram.

Right.

The shooting occurs October 4th. 20 RESOLUTION NO. 990650

Right.

It's inconceivable, to me anyway, that having that there, it takes from May until October for a shooting to take place for then to say "Oops, we should have had those metal detectors and maybe this would not have happened."

I agree with you.

Who dropped the ball? Who is responsible? You're ultimately responsible, obviously, because you're here. Why was this not done if the equipment -- if education and safety go together, you cannot teach in an unsafe environment.

Right.

If the purchasing of this equipment, which is very expensive, is not a thing that you go down out to the corner hardware store and get it. It is something that is a capital improvement and you go in there and you do it. Why do you have it and then it takes a shooting six months, five months after you have acquired and delivered the equipment to the school for a decision then to begin to take place about installing these instruments?

Well, if the question in 21 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 part is do I wish that we had done it in May, the answer is yes.

Well, obviously you wish. I'm not asking whether you wish.

But for the reason that in fact it took place is for the reasons that I suggested a little while ago. The fact is that we made the judgment. In retrospect it turns out to be a wrong judgment.

Point of information. Who purchased this? You have a purchasing department, right?

That's correct.

Now, the person that installs them should be the factory representative, or do the School District employees install them?

We do it.

Why would we do something that we don't do all the time? The people we buy them from have technicians that do that all the time. I mean, I worked with my hands for 20 years, and there are certain things I couldn't do. Once you learn how to do something, it's easier and 22 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 it's faster. When your employees are going to do something, they're going to take their time because they really don't know how to do it. But when in fact your rep comes out, that should be part of the process --

Let me make absolutely certain that I'm saying it correctly when I say that we do it. Is that correct, John? We do it?

Superintendent, isn't that part of the purchase contract, installation?

The fact is that just as we moved ones from Shallcross to E.S. Miller to Bartram, we have the ability to set these up and we assumed that responsibility and we could have done, as Councilman Ortiz suggest, as I say I wish we had done in retrospect, that we had deployed our people to do that rather than deploying our people to do other things during the summer. The events that led to that was the fact that there is a whole array of stuff that our staff does with kids not there and with the fact we have not yet --

But --

Could I just finish my 23 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 answer to your question? I'll answer all your questions. But the fact that we chose to put our staff to work on other things, and in part because the scanners weren't there and it is better it all goes in at once, was a judgment call.

Excuse me, Superintendent. And I don't believe you're being -- we're not asking -- I do not believe that you use math teachers or science teachers or principals or vice principals or guidance counselors, the teaching faculty, to install metal detectors.

No, never said we did.

So when you say that you had your staff doing other things, you have electricians available?

That's right. Those are the kinds of people who install metal detectors.

So why were they not installing metal detectors.

Because they were doing other things. That's what I just told you.

What other things?

What's more important than safety? 24 RESOLUTION NO. 990650

Excuse me, please. What other things?

Fixing windows, fixing toilets.

How long does it take to install a metal detector in school? You have it delivered, it is there; how long does it take?

It takes a matter of hours.

No one could go to the electricians and say, "This is the duties" -- you must have more than one.

Of course, we could have installed them back in May. I've never suggested otherwise. I don't understand what it was that led people to think we couldn't have.

Chairman Miller has a question.

I have a question that's really a point of information. Who gives the directive to install? Is that left up -- it comes out of your office or is it left up to individual schools? Who gives the directive?

The decision is made 25 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 centrally. The primary decision on which schools is made by Mr. McClease who is head of school security. But the primary thing that has to get done to get the metal detectors installed is the electrical work. The electrical work is done within our facilities unit and that gets assigned on a request from Mr. McClease's office to Mr. Shapiro's office and work orders are filled and they go out. And in this instance, all I'm saying is that the work orders during the summer when the kids weren't there did not include that. Was there plenty of time, were there plenty of electricians to do that rather than someplace else? Absolutely. I'm not trying to suggest otherwise; never have. But the decision was made, in retrospect wrongly, that we would do some of the other things that get schools ready for September rather than that.

Who made that decision, first of all, that that was not a priority? And if you're getting schools ready, wouldn't safety be part of the equation?

The decision was made between the office of school security and the assignment in facilities. But in saying that, I RESOLUTION NO. 990650 don't want in any way to shift the responsibility to either Mr. McClease or to Mr. Shapiro. In retrospect, it was a wrong decision. But they weren't negligent in their work, in my judgment. It was not an unreasonable decision against the backdrop of the record. For example, as I said in my testimony, we have dropped from 30 guns to to 19 and another 10 subpart of that, which you may or may not know, is 11 that out of the 30, only 7 of those were even in 12 high schools. There were 8 of them in middle 13 schools and 4 of them in elementary schools. So 14 there were, in fact, 35 high schools in the previous 15 year where there were no guns, and the record didn't 16 suggest that there was going to be them. So as I 17 say, it can be. I wish it had have been. It was in 18 a sense a wrong decision now that -- but it's like 19 saying that it was a wrong decision to not have put 20 a metal detector at Masterman or Central or 21 someplace else. Now, nothing happened there so 22 we're not having a hearing about that, but it's the same kind of priority setting about where you put these things.

Councilman Rizzo. 27 RESOLUTION NO. 990650

Superintendent, you as superintendent of the public school system, if you say that if you have a priority, do they follow your directives? If you would have said that this is a priority important to me, would that have gotten done the beginning the school?

Yes.

Why wasn't that a priority to you?

It was a priority. So were also a lot of other things that we were doing. I don't know how to say more clearly that in retrospect -- and let's just make it my decision. I don't mind that. That's why I said I didn't want to put it on Mr. McClease or Mr. Shapiro. In retrospect, the decision not to do it, my decision, was wrong. I don't know how to say it more clearly.

I understand, but when you purchased these, I think in hand with the purchase should have, in my opinion, been the directive that I want these installed the minute they hit the building because it's a high priority to me, the superintendent of schools, that our teachers and students be safe in these buildings. 28 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 So obviously, with no disrespect, it wasn't a priority to you.

Thank you.

No, I'm not finished. Superintendent, the systems that were put in in the schools, could they also incorporate and to get a bigger bang for our buck, couldn't they also incorporate our entry system process they scan and also log our students in and out of the buildings? Can't they do more than one thing?

They can and they do. And ironically, it's one of the reasons, again in retrospect the wrong one, that that equipment was not all here and it is better when you train the kids to go through this stuff if the X-ray machine and the walk-through and the attendance swipe card thing are all in place. Our decision, again, building on experience arising out of this is that if we end up now with walk-through metal detectors on site and we don't have the other, we go ahead and installed the metal detectors even if we don't have the other systems, but in all of these instances and the Board decision that was taken on whatever day it was, October 12th, was not just that we would 29 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 purchase sufficient walk-throughs for all the high schools, but that we would also have the swipe cards and the X-ray machines at the same time.

You mentioned about a better sense of security that the parents have now about the buildings where this equipment is installed. I'd like to talk about a false sense of security. Could you elaborate on the training and also the calibration, the quality assurance of this equipment? Because I myself have boarded an aircraft, I had a pager that I forgot to take off and the equipment didn't work. And I realize that I got through the detector without the equipment working, and I learned that the machine was out of calibration and everyone that passed through that day was not scanned properly. What I'd like to know, the staff that operates this equipment, have they, A, all been trained, and what do we do weekly, monthly basis to make sure this equipment is calibrated and performing to give us a sense of security?

Let me ask Mr. McClease to respond to that because he's got a lot more of the details about the training and maintenance of 30 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 the machines than I do. Mr. McClease, if you would identify yourself and respond to Councilman Rizzo's question.

John McClease, Executive Director of School Safety for the School District of Philadelphia. Councilman Rizzo, the vendors deliver the machines for us. The vendors set them and we have received training from the vendors on what the settings should be on the different machines in the different schools, because each school sets different numbers into the machine for them to be set up properly. The vendor sets that in place. We have that all recorded. And every day when our people go out, they make sure those settings are where they should be.

But does someone come back to do -- you know, we check the exhaust vehicles to make sure they're not putting out emissions. What are we doing to bring that vendor back to test the machine to make sure that that setting 3 does what 3 supposed to do?

Well, what we can do is we can make arrangements with the vendor to come 31 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 back every three months to check these machines if the vendor thinks that's a necessity. We'll have discussions with him to find out how often it has to be double checked, and we'll look into that.

Yes, I think that would be -- the manufacturer certainly must have a recommendation on what type of calibration process that equipment should undertake.

Sure. We'll check that out and we'll follow whatever procedures the vendor sets up.

Jannie, and then Councilman Kenney.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I would first like to say that I know the work of Jimmy Lewis back there. I know what he does, what he does for schools and for children who live there. They work with me in my district and help me help kids. I know that Eric Shapiro has done a great job. I've talked with them over the years to try to find out what's best to do, what's going on, and what we can do. And the same for Mr. McClease. Having said that, let me ask you, Mr. 32 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 Hornbeck, where are the -- when the incident happened at Bartram High School, I went there the next day. Where now are the detectors? You had one where, in Ben Franklin? You put an additional one at this point at Bartram, which makes it three. You have two in West Philly. And where are they?

Th detectors?

The detectors.

They are in Olney, Strawberry Mansion, West Philadelphia, Overbrook, Edison, Bartram, E.S. Miller, Ben Franklin, Germantown, William Penn, Frankford, Gratz, and King.

How did you determine who gets what? Does every high school -- what's the determination, the criteria for schools getting detectors?

When the decision was made about these 14, it was based on Mr. McClease analysis of incidents rates among and between the high schools. But on the October 12th board meeting, the Board made the decision to purchase sufficient sets of these scanners and so on so that every high school would in fact have them. 33 RESOLUTION NO. 990650

Now, why isn't it -- when a detector is installed, why is there a fight for personnel to run it? Should not we have a program when we put it in place we have everything that works in sync so that Bartram now have people running the third detector?

Someplace in your office, in fact, is a memorandum response to that question because you're absolutely right. To have the equipment without the personnel doesn't make any sense. And from the beginning, we had both the equipment and the personnel. What we did not have and what we added at Bartram is an additional set of equipment because in the first two or three days we decided that -- I think it was two that we had in there initially.

Exactly.

And so we decided it was too slow so we moved another one in there. But when we moved them in, we also moved the personnel in that were necessary to do the job.

Absolutely. Because they asked for four. Now, my question now is it was taking 34 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 two full periods at Bartram. It's a little less than that. The same thing was happening at West, it was taking about a period and a half. How do you reconcile if the doors open at 7:30 and kids go in and they have a class at o'clock and they're not 7 finished going in -- and I've been there. The kids 8 are fine, they behave. The girls generally have more books than the guys. No disrespect. And they have book bags. If they don't have book bags it moves quicker. For guys they just use the wands. But when they have the book bags, they go through the detectors, the students are great, they' fine, they're in line, they're glad to do it, all of that is fine. But given the volume of students, how do you reconcile, for example, a Bartram who may have 2100 kids with two or three detectors and schools with maybe 1400 or 800 students with two detectors and the time, how do you reconcile a student losing maybe two classes in the morning to have this process done? What's the plan?

Well, fortunately, to our knowledge, there is no school at this point losing two. I think that there are some instances still where they're losing part of the first class, which 35 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 is unacceptable. What we discovered when we did this piloting at Ben Franklin -- Shallcross, and E.S. Miller are a little different because they're so small. But Ben Franklin is a good sized high school. And what we discovered was that when the necessary training of the personnel and, in fact, the training of the students takes place before you commence the process itself that the movement through is such that as far as I know at Ben Franklin right from the beginning there was no 12 appreciable problem there. The challenge at both Bartram and in some of the other places is that, in fact, the training didn't take place for the kids particularly. The staff were trained, but not the kids, so they didn't how to go through. And that did in the first week, particularly -- in fact, particularly the first three days at Bartram backed kids up significantly. But as soon as the training of the kids and the flow takes place in a proper fashion, as we learned to do it at Franklin, that ought not to be a problem. In addition, at Bartram, for example, we have changed the roster a little bit so that advisory takes place in the first period so that as 36 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 kids come in, if they should be late because of some kind of a delay associated with that, then they're not missing part of the math class. And so we're trying to adjust the schedule to also be part of the accommodation.

I heard that that will happen. But let me ask a follow-up question. If you change advisory to third period maybe, so what happens at first period? They're still missing something.

No, the advisory is being changed to first period so that it's not a class that they're missing, not third period.

All right, thank you. And I'll verify that because I know it was taking two periods at first, then it was down to a period and a half. And it was still a little more than that at West, and so I'm glad to hear that. I knew they were talking about changing that system. As you know, we had hearings back -- oh, gosh, City Council adopted in November 1993 a report on school violence that we had, and we've been dealing a lot in this area. As we know, we also had hearings on dealing with crime on see-through book 37 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 bags that were made in Colorado. In fact, we had said maybe if Columbine had followed their own rule, maybe they would not have had this outbreak of violence. We've been really, really fighting this issue of violence a lot over the years. I have here I picked up -- in fact, I went out to get four pages line by line of some 60 bills and resolutions that we've been introduced in this Council to deal with this and have had many reports adopted. And chief among them was a resolution that was adopted passed by this Council that dealt with an emergency system and school violence that we would have a uniform system for every school. You will remember, the Board finally -- we had hearings on it. The Board finally adopted -- I haven't put my fingers on that. I'll have my staff bring it down. We passed out a big blue form that was to be posted in each school like next to fire drill, here is what you do when there is a health emergency. A health emergency can be meningitis that has happened or a health emergency can be a shooting. We were told that they would be in June, that those posters would be in each school. I see no mention of that. I passed that around. The 38 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 Councilmembers will remember that we passed that big poster around that was to be posted in schools. I would like to ask you to respond to that issue.

Well, I'll be glad to confirm. Even as we speak it's being printed and the training of use of it so that people really know what it says, it's not just stuck up on a bulletin board, have already been scheduled.

This is my last follow-up question for other members of the committee. Mr. Hornbeck, you told me in June that they would be installed then. They're not even made mention of in your testimony. Obviously, as so many other things are, it was an afterthought, another attempt on our end to make a difference, and then it's just ignored. We asked for inspections of kitchens and bathrooms so that kids don't get sick. A lot of things that this Council has passed, and especially with issues dealing crime, we don't do these things because we want to waste everyone's time and energy. We do these things because we believe that we have to cover every end we can to make sure our children are save. It's very 39 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 disappointing. And the transcript will indicate that you said they would be in school at the end of June. We passed it around, we showed it, I took it to -- in fact, during the primary I took it to meetings throughout my district, used it as a campaign issue. This is one of the areas where we tried to made a difference in public education. And certainly now to hear that now we have to train people is absolutely unconscionable and unacceptable. You say that after fighting this for two years to have a one system to health emergencies which includes school violence, and now to hear, "well, we said we were going to do it but we didn't because we have to train people," my goodness. It's just unconscionable that the School District would make a commitment to all Members of Council, tell us that there is a system that will be installed next to your fire drill, you have a poster for school emergencies what each person does, and now to say we have to train people; please. That insults our intelligence, and it's certainly an affront to every Member on this Council and the children who attend the School District and everyone who works there. We're asking the chairmen of both this 40 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 joint Committee on Education and Public Safety would certainly if you would to submit something to me, to the chairmen of these committees, as to when they will be posted in the schools with a specific date and that you would honor your commitment.

I'll be glad to do that.

I have no idea how this can be an oversight fighting two years just to get you to consider it. How can you decide that it's not important enough to meet your commitment and having a sign posted to have a uniform system school wide for what happens when you have a shooting, what happens when a child has a health injury. I have no idea how you can decide that it doesn't matter what Council says, that we can do what we choose and we'll just ignore them. We can just pass things and it doesn't matter, we just won't do it. It wasn't even a money issue. It takes you printing paper. It wasn't even a money issue. Obviously, it was just an issue that what Council determines is important, even when it's passed, even when you agree to it, does not mean enough for you to do it. That's unconscionable, Mr. Superintendent, absolutely unconscionable. And we 41 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 certainly want to see that done and we want to see that done right away and we would like to know from you know the date as to when we can expect that.

We will give you a date certain before quitting time tomorrow.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Mariano.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Councilwoman Blackwell. It was really good. Superintendent, I just need this broken down into a time sequence. First of all, I appreciate you having the intestinal fortitude to admit you're the head of School District and that you're the place to blame, but we're not really here to place the blame on someone. You know, you smile, but sometimes by your mannerisms and they way you speak with us, I think it's a bother that you're down here. And that's just my observation of this whole process. 42 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 The Councilwoman just laid out a plan. We tell you we need these things. Now this isn't something we invent in our minds that we have to have. It's definitely something that should be in a modern district the size of the School District of City of Philadelphia. You decide two years ago to order one or two or three or five -- maybe Mr. McClease can help you -- metal detectors.

It began in January of '98 which is about months. 12

Seventeen months 13 ago we decide and then somebody from your purchasing 14 department goes and looks at them decide which is a 15 better model and we get a contract and somebody buys 16 it. Someone from the company comes out and explains 17 how it works and instructs people how to install them. Is there a monitoring process? You Mr. McClease spoke about they come by and calibrate them as Councilman Rizzo. But I will tell you that it's been my experience, any time you buy -- from the construction industry, any time you buy something, they usually don't like other hands touching their stuff because there's some kind of warranty here. I mean, you probably have great electricians and 43 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 before somebody said you were probably having people fix toilets and all, but electricians are doing different things. They probably don't want to do this work. I can't understand why the factory representatives would come out at least on the first two. Or did I miss something here?

The main work that needs to take place, as I said a moment ago, is the electrical work. It's not the thing.

It's just getting the voltage to a spot so it's powered bu 110 volts.

Then you plug it in.

And the calibrations a big deal.

The vendors deliver it, the vendors set it up, the vendors --

And they stay there they watch?

They stay there, they calibrate it to make sure it's set up right for that location.

How long does it take to run the electricity, two hours, three hours?

I think Mr. Shapiro can 44 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 answer that better.

Mr. Shapiro.

My name is Eric Shapiro, I'm the Executive Director of Facilities. We simply provide the wiring that the vendor recommends through specifications.

110 volts at a certain spot?

There's two different issues. One is wiring for the machine's cable and the other is to plug the machines in for electricity. Two hours at maximum to pull electric depending on whether panels needed or there's enough sufficient electric in the building. We do not, Mr. Mariano, mess around with the equipment at all.

You don't physically stand it up, do the mechanics?

No. All we do is configure -- when they configure where the equipment goes, we put the outlets in and pull wire for cable that needs to be done.

So we have two hours for electrician. What's the man hours on the physical mechanics of setting up this X-ray 45 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 detection, five hours.

Oh, setting up, when they come and they deliver it, it's just the vendor, the technician, that comes with the equipment. However long it takes them. They can maybe set it up in a half hour making thier calibrations or it might take them an hour.

Well, we'll two hours. So that's four hours to do this.

Because it's setting it up, it's checking it, running it, checking it, you know, they go through a process like that.

The problem in my mind and I think the problem in many of my colleagues' minds and the problem in our constituents' minds are is why when we know we need this, why doesn't it become more of our priority? And Superintendent already said he's to blame. Like any good leader, he should take the blame. But we have to answer to constituents. Why isn't this four hours or two hours planned out a lot faster? Like we know we're getting them in May so we should have them installed by June. So if we're putting 14 in that's 4 man hours. It would take two guys three 46 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 weeks to put them in, and that's time off for holidays.

Let me make sure we get back to the facts so we can keep them straight. They were not -- of them were not here. 7

Two. 8

Let's get it back on the 9 record again what was here. We are talking about 10 two metal detectors that were at Bartram in May. 11 And in retrospect, the four hours that it would have 12 taken to install those should have been done in at 13 least no later than June. They were not done 14 because the decisions that were made that ultimately come back to me were made to put our electricians to doing other things rather than that. The other ones, the other 11 that we ordered didn't come in until beginning and the end of August. They finally all arrived on Wednesday, October the 13th. And in those instances, the four hours that it took, or whatever it is, took place the next day.

Now, let's go back, since you brought it up the two at Bartram. Superintendent, the two at Bartram, and you already 47 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 admitted wrong you were wrong, and this isn't about you being wrong, it's about the answers I give my constituents, okay?

Right.

Now, the four hours at Bartram to put these two machines in, what was more important for your people to do, in your mind? You made a decision, you said it was wrong. And to err is human, to forgive is devine. I forgive you. I mean, I understand. But what was more important for electricians to do except this life safety devices that City Council -- and that's why we get mad because it seems like when we say something, it's not that important.

Well, I don't know what all the work orders were that the electricians worked on during the summer. Mr. Shapiro could give you a whole list. I'm sure they including bathrooms. I'm sure asbestos removal. I'm sure they included any number of other things. And the decision in retrospect was wrong to put the time into those rather than into the four hours it would have taken do it at Bartram because it is the case that the record to Ben Franklin was that if that 48 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 metal detector had been in place on October the 4th at Bartram Mr. Coxen would not have gotten that gun in the school and Dr. Burke would not have been shot.

This is my last question, Superintendent. Now, this goes to your years of experience as a Superintendent in education, why would a 15-year-old boy, in your mind, feel the need to bring a handgun into a high school, let alone any school? That's the big question here, and nobody's answered that. So there's some perception out there that in this man's mind or this young boy's mind that he's not safe going to school. Is somebody after him? Is he a thug? I mean, what's going on?

Well, I don't know what was in his mind on October 4th. I was told by the police that he said that he had bought the gun in the summer because he was afraid in the streets in the summer. What it was on October 4th that led him to have the gun in his pocket, I just don't know.

Thanks.

Can I follow up?

Councilman Kenney, 49 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 please.

Thank you. There may be some confusion that I'm not on the committee and I'm just sitting here. I am on the Public Safety Committee, and I'm just sitting here because it's a little crowded up there. Before I shift the attention away from metal detector for a moment, I just have two immediate comments. I think the response of the Superintendent to Councilman Rizzo's question, to Mariano's questions, to Ortiz' and to Blackwell's questions indicate very clearly to me that the first sentence of the second paragraph, "The safety of our students, teachers and other staff is rule number one." Apparently, it may be one of the top 10 rules and there are other things that have gotten in the way of this rule number one as it relates to the timely installation of metal detection systems. The second thing I would suggest is that maybe there's some OSHA prohibition, but Home Depot does sell heavy duty extension cords. Maybe that could have been employed until the time we had the electricians do this work of installing this electrical system. 50 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 Having said that, I want to move to another area, and I have a few questions regarding who has the responsibility to accurately report incidents of violence and weapons to the Pennsylvania Department of Education Office of Safe Schools? Under Act 26, it requires that reporting annually.

Comes from Mr. McClease's office.

So he has the responsibility of reporting it.

Well, the original report has to come from the personnel at the school.

And then he has the responsibility of gathering it?

We don't have a go-between here. Would you respond to Councilman Kenney's question?

John McClease, Executive Director for School Safety for the School District of Philadelphia. The Superintendent reports that annually, reports that information annual to the State. 51 RESOLUTION NO. 990650

Who is the gatherer of that information.

I am the gatherer, my office.

And the principals are responsible for the initial reports?

Yes, sir, they make the initial reports to our office.

Is there a policy that each school principal or school administrator must follow? Is it something in writing that they can read, a handbook of some kind that requires them or gives them information on what is required in the reporting process and what needs to be reported?

Yes, there's district policy that spells that out.

I would appreciate if at sometime I could get a copy that forwarded to the two Chair People of the Committee and to the members of the Committee. In the 1997-1998 report to the Secretary of Education Office of Safe Schools, and I'm comparing Philadelphia to Pittsburgh because I think it's obviously a smaller district but it's in 52 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 Pennsylvania and it's probably the closest one in size to Philadelphia. Pittsburgh, and correct me if I'm wrong has a student population of about 45- to 50,000, and Philadelphia has a population of about 212,000, give or take. Pittsburgh recorded a total number of incidents of 5,543 reported to the Secretary of Education for 50,000. And Philadelphia reported 2,782 incidents. I find that number totally unbelievable considering the size of the Philadelphia school system and the size of the Pittsburgh school system, that we would be reporting 3,000 less incidents of violence in our schools in the course of 1997-98.

It's a very complicated way of reporting. I don't mean to sidestep it. In reporting those incidents, the State requires that we report every time -- we identify every child who is involved in an act of violence, an act of drugs or weapons possession. So that report every time a child is reported to us and that's recorded, we create an annual report and send that information to Harrisburg.

Let me go to a specific area of reporting. This is the number of 53 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 assaults on student, student on student for 1997-98. Pittsburgh school system with 50,000 students reported a number of 4,694 assaults student on student in that calendar year. And Philadelphia reported 692. Again, based simply on the size of the school systems and a much larger number of students in the Philadelphia school system, I find it unbelievable that only 692 were reported in Philadelphia when 4694 were reported in Pittsburgh. Either one, because I think ultimately it's the Superintendent who, I guess, signs the report or signs the letter that sends the report to the Secretary of Education. And what concerns me about these numbers is that, are we getting a true reflection of what the violence levels are in our schools when Pittsburgh, I mean, if they're telling the truth, has many more numbers, greater instances than Philadelphia. How is that humanly possible?

I can't answer the questions about Pittsburgh. One of the things that happened early on when I came here is that incidents actually went up because we tried -- there had been a reputation that our principals didn't want to 54 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 report incidents because they thought they'd get in trouble for it. We tried to make clear that we want incidents reported. In our case, we do not treat fights as assaults. Is that the right way to put it?

If there's a fight, if there's a push and shove and it's other because two kids just had words with each other, that's resolved in the school and we make sure the kids resolve it, shake hands, and it's all over.

How about a situation where it's not chest to chest pushing incident, but does not come to fists to cuffs but an actual drawn out, drag out fight, are they assaults?

Absolutely, they're assaults.

Who makes and what policy is set to make a decision on determining whether or not it was simply a school boy pushing match as opposed to two almost men banging away at each other?

It's a judgment that gets made at the school.

By the principal? 55 RESOLUTION NO. 990650

In some instances -- I mean, it is basically the principal, but based more often than not on a description of the incident by other staff in the school, people who actually saw it, that is. And I don't know whether Pittsburgh counts fights in the same way or not.

I think I would like to know as a Councilmember and as a parent or as a taxpayer all what goes on in a violent way. I mean, violence is violence, whether it is a gun, which is much more serious than two people in fist fight, but I think that two people in a fist fight may indicate some predisposition of a violent approach to their problems. And I commend you on your peer mediation and other areas that you're trying to take to get kids to calm down. But when two almost adult males square off at each other in a school room or in a hallway, to me, that's an assault. It may be a mutual assault, but it certainly is an assault and not to be characterized in any way as some kind of prep school boxing match in a gymnasium. I mean, this is a fight in a hallway that could potentially create a serious incident of other kids getting involved in fights or other weapons being pulled. 56 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 It's more serious than simply a pushing match. And if Pittsburgh reports it, maybe we should be looking at the potentiality of reporting it ourselves. Because I think if we want to get a true -- the same thing we went through with the police department. When Commissioner Timoney came here and recognized that we were under-reporting our crime, the city had the reputation of being one of the safest largest city the country when in fact it isn't. And rather than simply have the reputation and not have the reality, I'd rather know the reality to improve the reality and not worry about the reputation.

Same thing with the rape issue.

And we're going through it now. What is the School District's policy of a student that's caught with a weapon? And I mean a weapon in a general term.

Under Act there's an 21 automatic recommendation for -- not a 22 recommendation, requirement for expulsion and that 23 ends up being mitigated for one of two reasons in 24 some instances. In some instances, the principal 25 makes a recommendation to me, which is turned over 57 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 to our disciplinary office, that a variety of circumstances in a given case suggests that the child ought not to be expelled. And in many instances, when the principal makes that recommendation because he or she knows the circumstances, we don't expel. There are other instances, and I think I'm right when I say most of those are instances involving young children that a 9-year-old who has brought a box cutter to class, for example, ends up not being expelled although under those circumstances technically the youngster is in violation of Act 26.

Well, if that child is not expelled what action is taken, what other alternative action?

Depends on the circumstances. In many instances, the child is suspended. In other instances, the child is sent to another school. It depends on the record of the child, other incidents in his record. Frequently, it's the case that the child has never had any kind of infraction before and so they'll be a counseling session with a parent. We try to tailor the 58 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 response to whatever the circumstances are.

Is there a specific written policy that gives administrators guidelines as it relates to these types of gray areas, young children, no prior incidents? And if there is, can we get a copy of that policy?

We can. We have procedures that lay out how to implement Act in 10 the School District, and we'll be glad to get that 11 to you. 12

Thank you. Now, let 13 me go back again to the Secretary of Education, the 14 report to the Secretary on the Office of Safe 15 Schools, and I'm not asking you to comment on the 16 Pittsburgh situation, but I'm going to compare 17 Philadelphia to Pittsburgh again. In 1997-1998 in 18 Pittsburgh with 50,000 students, they expelled 350 19 children, 350 students in that period of time. In 20 Philadelphia, according to the report now -- the 21 report may not be accurate, but this is the report 22 that's provided by the District to State and this is 23 what's been published -- 212,000 students in 24 Philadelphia in 197-,98 there were none that were 25 expelled. 59 RESOLUTION NO. 990650

When was that? I'm sorry.

1997-98.

I think that's inaccurate.

It may be inaccurate, but this is what's been reported to the Secretary of Education, Office of Safe Schools.

At least that's what they printed.

It may be a typographical error, but how many students, do you know, that expelled in 1997-98 as it relates to Act 26? I'm sorry, Chair People, if I get to a point where I'm going over and we go around, I'll come back and have some other questions.

Pat Harris, I'm the Executive Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Would you repeat the year, please?

This is according the Secretary of Education's Office of Safe Schools Report 1997-1998 350 expulsions in Pittsburgh; 0 in Philadelphia. The Superintendent believes that that 60 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 may be inaccurately reported or a typographical error. I'm curious as to how many were expelled in that year?

According to my records, there were 152 expulsions for that year.

Now, we can try to figure out how that got reported inaccurately, but I guess my next question is how could we have 152 expulsions in a system with 212,000 students when Pittsburgh expelled 350 with 50,000 students.

It's hard to comment on that without commenting on Pittsburgh. I know how the 152 got expelled. I can't comment on Pittsburgh.

Do you find that the discrepancy is questionable?

Well, one of the other factors is that I think I'm right in saying that Pittsburgh has no remedial disciplinary schools. And we have several hundred kids -- 600 in our three RD schools.

Is that alternative education?

Alternative education, so 61 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 it may well be that we have 800 where they have 300.

How many are in alternative education in the year?

Over 600.

Let me just keep the year straight. 97-98 how many were not expelled were assigned to some type of alternative education setting?

Well, tell you how many were assigned to some alternative. And if you are assigned to alternative educational setting at one of the three RD schools, your considered to be and student and not expelled.

I'm comparing it -- only the numbers I have are for'97-98. Obviously, '99 or this year's has not been reported. This is just last year.

Of the EH21s referred 334 were assigned to remedial discipline schools.

Well, we have a problem again with the numbers because according to what was reported to the Secretary of Education Pittsburgh assigned 267 out 50,000 students. Philadelphia reported to have assigned 2. If the 62 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 number is accurate 334, Pittsburgh still seems to be at least proportionately doing a little bit more both in expulsion and remedial alternative educational settings than we are. If you care to comment, that's fine. If not, maybe we can figure out why the numbers are wrong and why they were reported. Obviously, these numbers came from someplace. Or maybe not obviously. They came from someplace from the Philadelphia school system. So, again, trying to get a clear picture on what exactly is going on in our schools is difficult if what's being sent to the Commonwealth under Act is not, 15 in your opinion, accurate. And what you're telling 16 me is accurate is still much less proportionate to 17 the number of actions taken by the Pittsburgh school 18 system. 19

Harry Tishler can add 20 some light. 21

Harry Tishler, Assistant 22 General Counselor of the School District. Again, I 23 can't speak for Pittsburgh, but I do know one of the 24 potentials for the reporting problem. When the 25 reports are made to Mr. McClease's department, which 63 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 are called incident reports that you were referring to earlier, those reports are usually filed within to 48 hours after an incident in which in the 5 case of an arrest means suspension and an arrest 6 initially. The due process that's required to give 7 a student a transfer to a disciplinary school, which 8 also referred to in the act as an alternate 9 education setting. Or an expulsion literally takes 10 months because of the testing that has to be done 11 and the due process. So the reports that they get 12 from Mr. McClease's office will only go on recording 13 the discipline up to the initial suspension. 14 Obviously, the State has worked out with Pittsburgh 15 some follow-up reporting system which they haven't 16 asked the School District of Philadelphia to show 17 several months later what ultimately happened to the 18 case in a disciplinary sense. The Dr. Harris 19 referred to you the numbers of student who actually 20 were sent to alternate education settings and 21 expelled. 22

Well, I would 23 suggest that maybe, a la the Philadelphia Police 24 Department and now the issue relative to the sexual assaults and rapes that we go out of our way to try 64 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 to get an accurate picture of what is exactly is going on in these schools because apparently what's being reported is not what your understanding is. I think that's very important to have at least a baseline understanding of how violent our schools are or are not.

Well, I certainly agree that it's worth re-looking at that. I don't draw the conclusion in doing that it's been inaccurately reported. There are a lot things that come out of Harrisburg that have problems, as far as I'm concerned. But I'd be glad to look into it.

I'll make a suggestion that you don't go there. We've got enough trouble with Harrisburg. Maybe it was inaccurately typed. I just have one question relative to this area, and I'd like to come back again once you go around. This has to do with the issue of expulsions over a four-year period, '95-'96, '96-'97, '97-'98 and now this year. There is information that's come out of the central office of the School District that has three categories of expulsion potential. One is an approved expulsion, 65 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 the other students that are not expelled, and then there is this category called pending. In the three years prior to this year, there were no 5 students in the category pending list; there was zero. So, for example, in 1997 there were 104 total expulsions processed, according to the School District; 63 were approved for expulsion; 41 were not expelled; and zero pending. In 1998-99 there were 73 total expulsions processed, 31 approved for expulsion, 10 students not expelled, and 32 pending. Of those 32 pending, 18 of those pending students were in the expulsion process for a gun, a handgun. 14 were in the expulsion process for the possession of some type of weapon other than a handgun. My question is what does "pending" mean and are those pending students in the normal student body of our public high schools or middle schools.

The reason for the pending category and why they would have greatly increase since 1997 would be simply the federal amendment to the IDEA or the Special Education Law. Prior to 1997, a regular ed student doing the type of conduct that would lead to expulsion would simply go in front of the Board for an expulsion hearing. Now, 66 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 under the rewording of the IDEA, any student, regular ed with absolutely no indication of any special ed exceptionality can either invoke the protections of the IDEA which would require the student to be evaluated and if the parent disagrees with the conclusion of non-exceptionality, they can go through the entire state hearing process with an ultimate appeal to the District Court or the Commonwealth Court. Even if the parent doesn't invoke it on their own, the wording of the IDEA requires the School District to go through the evaluation process if there was any disciplinary history that might have suggested to anyone at any time that the student had a discipline problem, which again prior to '97 wouldn't have even come under the IDEA. So, again, before the case can even be presented to the Board, there is at least a two-month delay to have the student -- one, to get the parent's permission to have the student evaluated. Two, have the student evaluated and then see if the parent agrees or takes us through the whole special ed due process before it's presented to the Board.

While I can 67 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 sympathize with you on federal mandate. They mandate a lot of things that drive us crazy. Of those children that are pending, of those 5 children, according to this information had used 6 either a knife or a gun or had possession of a knife 7 or gun to put them into that status in the first in 8 the first place to be potentially expelled, and the 9 other 14 had exhibited non-weapon but some violent 10 action that has put them in that category. Of those 11 32 students currently in this school calendar year, 12 where are those kids at every day? Are they in a 13 classroom? Are they in a regular school setting? 14 And who knows about their potential or their 15 situation or their potential for violence? 16

There's two or three 17 answers to that. One, that classification of case 18 you just responded to almost always, unless the student was under 10 years of age, resulted in an arrest in addition to whatever we're proceeding on it. So in many cases they are being held at either the study center, a detention alternative program, house arrest, et cetera. We do have the ability for 45 days to move them under the IDEA to a alternate placement like Shallcross, Boone, or Miller while we 68 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 proceed on this. But, again, the federal law is such that, again, if the parent chooses to string us out and if the juvenile court does not deem it to be sufficient seriousness to require the student's placement through that proceed, we very well be forced to put the student back.

Can you find out for me, without giving the names, obviously, because confidentiality is an issue, of the 32 students we're talking about how many today go into a regular classroom, not alternative school, not in the youth study center, not in a detention for any other purpose, but they are going into a regular school building every day?

You're talking about what time period?

As we speak now, this year, this school year -- I'm sorry. Or even now, because a lot of this reporting is a year back. Of those 32 kids that were pending, 18 for weapons, 14 for violence, how many of those because of this federal mandate and restrictions are in a classroom, a normal high school, middle school classroom without the knowledge of all the other parents of 69 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 all those other students?

Thirteen of the pending cases the Board has already expelled this year, that due process was completed prior to their last --

How many are pending now?

Beg your pardon?

How many are pending as we speak?

Fourteen.

Of those 14, do we have any idea where they are?

We can find out.

Could you just make it available to us?

And those who were expelled, are they out of the system now or is there a process after expulsion?

Again, that's a rather complicated situation. Under Pennsylvania law, when a student is expelled and assuming they're still of compulsory school age, initially the responsibility for their education falls back on the parent. However, if the parent either demonstrates that they 70 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 don't have the wherewithal -- although these days with charter schools and home schooling that shouldn't be the case very often. If they don't have the wherewithal or simply do not act, the School District has one of two options which we take both. One, immediately upon Board action, we notify the juvenile court of the students who are under their supervision who have just been expelled by the Board and we request them to provide an alternate education program, either of a residential or day treatment nature or in the meantime we would have to provide a minimal program which is described by the Commonwealth Court has similar to a homebound program where lessons are sent home and the student receives a tutorial of two to three hours per week. The problem with that, again, and the reason we try to work with the juvenile court is that puts the student on the street either in the neighborhood or in and around the school during the entire school week and not very much under control or supervision.

Finally, if you could just get me -- what I want to know is of those individuals in the pending category, how many of those are in a regular comprehensive high school 71 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 classroom. I'd like to come back. Thank you.

We'll be back. Councilwoman Miller.

I just want to ask a question regarding, do you send the charter schools information about the child behavior if there's a discipline problem? Because many charter schools are having lots of problems out of children that evidently have a record of misbehavior and violence.

Under Act 26, Act has 13 two distinct portions. One is what do you with kids 14 with weapons. The other deals with disciplinary 15 records and retention. Under Act 26, any public 16 school, including charter schools, receiving a 17 student from another public school should and, from 18 what I know for the School District of Philadelphia, 19 does get their disciplinary records as soon as they 20 notify the School District or the school that the 21 student last attended that the student has now 22 enrolled in their program. One of the problems has 23 always been that sometimes receiving schools, 24 whether they be public schools in other districts or 25 newly formed charter schools, never notify the old 72 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 school that the student has now enrolled with them so it's a question of not only not getting disciplinary records, they don't get the shot records and they don't get the academic records.

I have a student last year at a middle school in my district, an A-B student who was, I guess, in the pending the category. I don't think they wanted to expel her, I'm not really sure, but she brought a knife to school for protection. Girls had threatened her after school the previous day. The principal thought she was a great wonderful student, never had any trouble out of her. However, until they determined what they would do with her, she was to go to Carmen. The mother was very upset, called me. I called the principal. We talked about it. So what we did, to make a long story short, send her to a charter school for eight grade. I'm not sure what's happened to her for ninth grade, but my recommendation was then at that point to keep her in the charter school system. A kid like that, that has never been in trouble before, honor roll student, what types of recourse would the mother have other than to allow 73 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 her child to go to Carmen? I know Act has -- I know there's some 4 legalities here, but all kids that are in trouble 5 aren't troublemakers. 6

That's the kind of 7 exception that principals sometime request, and when 8 they do, we frequently respond affirmatively to have 9 a child that has a good record, this is an 10 aberrational situation and well make some other kind 11 of disposition. It will frequently be the case if a 12 weapon is actually involved that it won't, 13 especially like a real life knife in a high 14 school -- 15

This was middle. 16

Or middle school. It 17 would probably be unusual to keep that student in 18 that school. It would not be unusual to send that 19 student on a lateral transfer to another school. 20 Perhaps in an instance like you described where the 21 young lady apparently said that she was carrying the 22 knife because she was afraid, a transfer to another 23 school could well take her away from the people whom 24 she was afraid of and so that may under certain 25 circumstances be the resolution. But I don't know 74 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 the particulars of that. But there are a variety of things that can be done.

I have some questions just about the plan or the proposed plan. In the plan you talk about the partnership with community behavioral health and they will be providing programs supports and interventions. What exactly are the program supports and interventions and in what charters?

Most of what that refers to are mental health supports, various kinds of counseling, for example. And in a sustained sort of way we piloted that with the Department of Health, CBH last year in the Olney and Audenried clusters, and this year that will expand, I think I'm right, to six additional clusters. I can et those six to you, but I can't tell you what they are today.

I think most people in City Council worried and are just shocked over what happened at Bartram. Particularly, I know I've been on the committee for three years and the subject of a safety plan or emergency plan has come up. I need to ask you, you do have the statement that safety is number one. Is school safety the 75 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 number one priority?

It has to be, and it does continue to be. And because if a kid or a parent of a kid or a teacher doesn't have a sense of security, then it diminishes the prospect of good teaching and learning going on. That being said, I wouldn't suggest to you for a moment that the 12,000 teachers and 212,000 kids do in fact have yet entirely that sense of safety. I will say that in the wake of all of this, it's been made clear to me by lots of people, including Dr. Burke, as I suggested in my testimony, that this is hardly a situation in which kids are running rampant throughout the school; they're just not. It's a bad wrap on the schools and what goes inside of them.

Superintendent, the tragedy of this hearing here is that we're talking about in essence making schools more like prisons rather than intellectual centers, and that is a troublesome idea to me, that's a troublesome problem. I've always said that I have not seen schools where learning is taking place have discipline problems. And you mentioned Bartram, South Philadelphia, and Olney, and Olney seems to be 76 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 having problems in which an environment of safety is needed for the learning in that very troubled school to begin taking place. And I'd like to ask you about -- because I've been getting reports from students and other individuals involved with Olney that students are almost ready to, again, as they did two years ago, do a walk-out because they don't feel safe inside the school and things are happening. And since you mentioned it in the report, I'd like to hear what you're doing about Olney in creating an environment of learning in that school that would prevent students from walking out, that would prevent 1500 kids from being absent daily at Olney that they were currently, and I believe they still are. I don't know of the attendance has gotten any better.

There are three big things that are going in Olney that I think hold for a better future. One is finally toward the end of last year and particularly in June there was a broad-based sort of I'd characterize it as seizing of responsibility, not just accepting responsibility by a broad-based group of people in the community, from the faith community and from others, with both 77 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 representatives of PIA and others leading that. And as I said to them on the evening in June, I had not been so encouraged in the last three or four years as I was that night that parents and community people were coming forward. It also included, which I also found really terrific, a group of students from Youth United for Change. That's one piece of it, and they followed through during the summer and, as I think you know, participated very deeply in the process that has identified a new principal. Which is the second thing I would say is that we still have the final checks to do, and we went true some bumps on that as was reported in the press, but the selection of Mr. Johnny Van for the principal-ship there. In fact, even after those bumps was reconfirmed by the community, was reconfirmed by the Home School Association and the site selection committee. And subject to those final routine sorts of checks, Mr. Van who has had a successful record in turning around other high schools will be the principal. The third thing that has gone on there is the selection this summer of a very strong new cluster leader there whose background is running a 78 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 successful high school. And Carlos Lopez is bringing a kind of leadership to that effort that I think holds great promise for the future of Olney. So those three things coming together, I think, I hope, will paint a different future than the one that has characterize Olney for the last 8 or 15 years. 9

Thank you. 10

Mr. Hornbeck, would you ask or direct someone to fax us another copy so we have it on the record of the information listed on the poster for health emergencies so that we may that by the end of the day? And No. 2, I wanted to ask a follow-up question on these able academies. We've been talking about discipline schools in terms of -- now, the one in my area, 49th and Wyalusing, works and I hear a lot of positive feedback from the community. Councilwoman Verna and I visited one, and it's been one of her main issues since they were formed two years ago at the Christian Street Y that was not working. So we would like to know what the follow-through on that. I know that able academy students were to be removed from class for generally 79 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 one report period and then go back. Obviously, at least at that location, those students would not have been prepared to go back after one semester. There was not the content of course work. It was basically trying to stop students from killing one another and the quietest one, trying to put her charge of the others. There was no way that they could leave a program, go back with any level of continuity and be able to continue on their school year. Have you had follow-through examinations of the able academies and what are they?

Pat Harris, Executive Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Last year we did an intensive review of all the able academies and from that we made recommendations to the Superintendent and also to cluster leaders. Part of the problem has been in the last four years the inability to get folks who are, number one, qualified to o with this kind of youngster; and number two, those willing to take on this kind of responsibility. We are seeing a large range, a wide range of a different kind of a problem now that appears to be more mental health related than perhaps is identified as a learning problem. 80 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 And what has resulted is that we probably have not provided the kind of support and professional development that the staff in those facilities needed to stay abreast of the best practices in the area of instructional strategies that they need to best intervene and then prepare the youngsters to return to the setting school. Another major piece that has been missing probably we put able academies in place is the ability to provide the psychiatric and psychological support along with some real human service type needs. So a part what we've recommended is the creation of what looks more like a mental health educational model in those sites. And as a result, what we're doing this year is forming partnerships with outside organizations to bring in those, not only psychological, psychiatric wrap-around medical social service type resources before the youngster is then assessed and returned to the sending school or similar kind of school. Another area that we were probably deficient in was actually doing a qualitative and comprehensive intake process for these youngsters. 81 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 So that what was happening was we were removing the youngster because they were problematic an in a school and actually just holding youngsters for three months or in some cases four months or longer and without really looking at reading levels, math levels, trying to get really a true psychological assessment of where a youngster was at that particular time and developing an individual behavior plan and educational plan for those youngsters so that both plans were implemented simultaneously over a three- or six-month period with some kind of assessment at the end of that intervention before returning the youngster to the school. So we are very aware that what you describe exists at a couple of the able academies, and it is our intention this year to develop a comprehensive professional development plan, which was started actually in last May, in addition to bringing in the kinds of services that we need in these sites.

Thank you. I would say, Mr. Hornbeck, that we've had many discussions in here about working with the mental 82 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 health consortium. We've had discussions here about the -- when we listed, I believe it was 4 alternative health agencies or other agencies who 5 came in to supplement and compliment the nursing 6 staff of the school and we found that was very 7 successful because students were telling them about 8 bad home situation, about abuse, about violence, et 9 cetera, et cetera. And you made the commitment that 10 you would extend those programs. That conversation has never come up again. We've had the discussion many times, I've said over the period in my opinion we have four groups of students in one class. We have those who are mentally or he emotionally ill; that's one grouping. We have another grouping who are angry or they had bad day or they're worried about getting school and they're afraid, all of that who are having bad time that day. We have a third group which the School District has never adequately dealt with, and that is those who are on ritalin, prozac, and other behavior altering drugs which the Board denies in real numbers as to what that issue is, Councilman Kenney. And then the fourth group is just the, quote unquote, normal kid that we were when we went to school and that's in a classroom. 83 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 And until we adequately and realistically address this grouping, we are going to have a problem getting special teachers because they don't know what they're going to be able to work with when they come to class. They want to teach, but they don't know who they can teach, how they can teach, and what level the kids on. If you have children junior high school who are reading on third or fourth or fifth grade level and you're teaching eight grade class, how do you deal with all those groupings? There are a lot of basic questions here that we're not addressing and we all know these are real issues. Finally, let me just say that we are very cognizant of the world we live in and the social issues that face us. We only ask that the School District, and we have a right to expect, that you have a plan for children. We know you can't implement everything, but there's no real plan and that's the disappointment of it all. You're supposed to plan, you're supposed to try to make our children safe, you're supposed to try to educate them, you're supposed to try to give them a good life. And we are here asking all of these questions 84 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 because you haven't shown us that you have a plan to take care of the all the children in the school district, and that is the sad part, that is the sorrow of it all. Thank you.

Councilman Kenney.

May I make a comment, please? I respectfully disagree, Ms. Blackwell. In fact, not only do we have a plan, it is the most comprehensive plan in any school district in America. And not only that, but we've got the evidence that in fact it is working in the principal areas that school districts are supposed to work, and that is that kids can read and do math and do science increasingly better and better for the most part than any other school district of any size or diversity in this country. I can't leave dangling out there that sort of observation about either the central office or the clusters or our teachers or principals. The work of the teachers and principals of this system over the last four years have in fact produced goods on the bottom line. And it is in fact recognized nationally. Moreover, it was recognized within the last 24 hours even within the state. I'm sorry that that's not the subject of 85 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 resolution or a hearing here that 57 percent of Philadelphia schools will be receiving cash awards from the State because of the improvements in academic performance and attendance, and that represents 27 percent of all the awards in the entire state. So we can leave it at the fact that we disagree about it, but the notion that we don't have a plan for all of the kids and in fact that plan is not working is not borne out by the facts.

Certainly, we do disagree on that point. We have wonderful schools. I have grandkids who go to many them from Cappa on down to elementary schools. But we do not have plan to reach those kinds at the very, very bottom of the level in some of our poorest urban schools where you can't go in a bathroom and find a clean place to use the facilities, you can't wash your hands because all the faucets are broken, you can't do these things. And to bring it to another level, I'm now Finance Chair, not Education Chair, and I will say that we meet in my area, part of my area is University City. The University of Pennsylvania, as you know, we've had meetings with you about building a new school. They have to build 86 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 that school because in one neighborhood, Spruce Hill, our home ownership was down to like 3 percent because of the fact that our schools were so poor. Now, whether or not we have good schools affects our base, it affects folks moving in our city, it makes people leave our city, and it's not the moral thing, the right thing to do and the issue for which you have a responsibility, but it also affects the very survival of our city. We've got to have a plan and one that pulls those schools at the bottom up as well as maintains those great schools like the Cappas and Centrals and Girls High, and the Mastermans and Lambertons that are already doing fine. And with that, I say thank you and I'm finished.

Councilman Kenney.

Thank you very much. I want to go back again to some of the issues of reporting and incidents of violence. According to the Daily News, in your statement given October 12, 1999, it was reported 905 incidents of students possessing a weapon were reported to the Philadelphia Police Department. Of those instances, how many students were in fact expelled? 87 RESOLUTION NO. 990650

You said 1995?

No, this is October 12, 1999. The Daily News reported that, and the statement issued by Dr. Hornbeck was reported that 905 incidents of students possessing a weapon were reported to the Philadelphia Police Department. I would imagine the last year. Of those incidents, how many students were expelled? I think this is a statement you gave at Bartram.

I made it just an hour ago.

I'm sorry, today's date.

I'm just looking for -- 905 last year, so that must have been '98-'99.

It's the same 905, whoever it was reported to.

And how many of those were expelled?

Last year, I guess that's '98-'99. Something in the neighborhood of -- let us send you that, Councilman Kenney.

Okay. On January 1999, it was reported that a student pulled a .22 88 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 caliber automatic pistol out in class and pointed it at another student at Bartram High School. The teacher quoted in the report was Beverly Beck. Is there any way to found out how the situation was dealt with, where the student is now? And considering the fact that on January 13, 1999, we had a student pull out a .22 semiautomatic in class, would that not have indicated the need for metal detectors immediately as opposed to -- maybe we should have moved the one we moved out of Shallcross to Bartram if in fact kids were actually pointing a gun out in school prior to this incident with the on vice principal.

We can find out. What day was the incident?

January 13, 1999.

At Bartram?

At Bartram. Potentially, we had an incident that indicated that there was a weapons problem, or at lease one weapon problem in that particular school months before the incident that almost ended the life of a vice principal.

That was one of the seven 89 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 high schools that year. It was no doubt one of the factors that was taken into account when we decided to have Bartram be one of the places that we put metal detectors.

From January '99 -- we went through this about the delay, but January '99 through September '99 is quite some time. Could you tell me what a special ed student is and what qualifies a student as a special ed student?

Well, under federal law, a special education student is a student who has a disability and that disability gets in the way of his learning.

Any disability? My non-professional understanding of a special ed student is a student who is confined to a wheelchair, a student who has a visual impairment, a hearing impairment, a mental impairment towards learning. What other types of special ed students are there? Could you look at a student be able to tell whether or not that student is a special ed student.

Just by observing? 90 RESOLUTION NO. 990650

By observing a student in classroom.

No. 5

What qualifies or classifies a special ed student?

I'm not sure you included emotional disturbance in your categories. If you did, then --

No, I didn't.

Well, then that's one thing. There is a very large number of students that sort of are normally referred to as kids with learning disabilities. Dyslexia is probably the best known one of these and that has to do with the way the brain processes information and you can't tell -- who was it, Roosevelt who was Dyslexic? You couldn't tell that he was disabled. But there was a second part to the definition which is real important and that is that the disability actually gets in the way of learning. Sometimes it doesn't get in the way of learning and so they're not a special ed student.

A student who displays outrageous behavior in the classroom or who 91 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 acts out, screams out, gets up and walks around, disrupts the classroom, is that generally categorized as a special ed student?

Not because of that.

Is that not an emotional type of problem that would classify or potentially classify that student as a special ed student.

The student might be a kid with a disability, but it may be that he's just a bad kid, too.

What happens when a special ed student brings a weapon to school?

That falls under those categories that Mr. Tishler was referring to. The law provides, and you guys correct me if I'm wrong, that if the behavior of a student, whatever the infraction is, is determined to be the consequence of the student's disability in contrast to being just a bad kid, then that student is accorded certain protections and he can't be expelled and he has to be provided for in some programmatic manner.

Who makes that decision? 92 RESOLUTION NO. 990650

In the first instance, school personnel do. If the parents agree with the decision of school personnel, then that's the decision. If the parents don't agree, then there is a due process procedure that can in fact ultimately end up in court. And I think I'm right that there have been instances in which the Court of Appeals and maybe even the Supreme Court has made those decisions.

But are school personnel qualified to make a decision on whether or not that child should be classified as a special ed student?

Absolutely. That is who is qualified to do it.

Who makes that decision? Is there a school psychiatrist or psychologist?

Psychologist.

In every school?

Not in every school, but it is a psychologist that most often is the moving party in doing certain psychological evaluations. There are other school personnel that are involved 93 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 in determining program placement, but the psychologist is a key person.

But predominately or primarily based on the opinion of that particular psychologist of this individual that is creating a disturbance or in fact brings a weapon or in fact creates a violent incident, that particular psychologist could determine whether or not that child is going remain in that classroom setting and whether or that disruption and violence and potential is going to continue in that building?

Bernard Trent, I'm the Safety Advisor for the School District, I'm also a psychologist. The answer to your question is it's a team decision, and that team is supposed to collect data and undertake what's called a nexus inquiry manifestation determination. The law also provides for removal of that student if he or she presents as an immanent threat to health, welfare, safety of self and others to an alternate placement for 45 days, during which time the School District supposed to initiate due process to make that placement permanent. So there is a mechanism and place for 94 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 removal of those types of students.

Theoretically, that team approach is applied to a student who has brought a gun to a school or who has created a violent incident or assault on another student, and that team decides that child is a special education student or should be classified as one. The potential exists that that student would remain in that school in that class in the vicinity of the child he or she assaulted with the student body and the teachers that he or she may have pulled a gun on and nothing can be done in that?

No, theoretically, no, that should not happen. As I indicated, the way the law is written now, if in deed that student presents as a threat although he or she is special ed, they can be removed for 45 days. During that 45-day period, the school is supposed to undertake or initiate due process to either make the placement permanent or, as I indicated, to definitely make a determination as to whether the program was appropriate. But the student can be removed from the school.

But the student can be returned to the school? 95 RESOLUTION NO. 990650

Ultimately yes, and the 1997 amendment to the federal law significantly increased that as a possibility.

Could we get some information on the last year how many of those individuals who went through this process were evaluated, were put into 45-day alternative setting, were returned back to either the school where they created the incident or to another comprehensive high school or middle school without the knowledge of the staff and other parents and student body about what it is that kid was being transferred there for?

Yes. The answer is yes.

Let me tell you my concern. My concern is is that the federal government has created this special education classification that has gone far beyond what any of us would normally would understand to be special education or students with disabilities, far beyond that. There are behavioral issues, other types of issues that create disturbances and potentially cause violence in the school. What I'm concerned about is if that individual has exhibited that 96 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 violence, simply because of the over-parameter protections of this special ed classification, this individual could potentially be put back into a classroom with someone's children, with our children, without having any of the necessary precautions that could create potentially another violent incident with a gun, with a knife, with a weapon or with some physical assault. And one of the things that Councilperson Blackwell is talking about is that people having confidence in sending thier kids to the public school system or staying in Philadelphia because of their public school or educational choices, that kind of situation is intolerable. Now, you may say, and I understand if you do, that the federal government is in some way put this our backs. But I got to believe there must be some way within this system that we can identify these young people and remove them from our midst within those comprehensive schools and middle schools so that we can create a safe environment. I haven't agreed with a lot of what Dr. Hornbeck has said today or otherwise, but I will say one thing, this is small group of people that are 97 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 causing this problem. The overall number of children in or schools are good, decent, hard-working kids of various levels of ability and achievement. But they will not ever achieve and cannot ever achieve if a small group of disruptive, violent psychotic people are permitted to stay in those buildings threatening staff, intimidating students and creating havoc. Now, federal guidelines, federal policies, federal laws aside, there's got to be a way we can work our way through this, know who these people are and remove them in a permanent way. And whether they have to go to -- when I was a kid, Daniel Boone, whether they have to be transferred out to Glen Mills, whether they have to go to some form of a prison, I don't really care. All I know is unless we can remove these children from this system, we're never going to engender any confidence in it with anybody.

Thank you, Councilman. Just a few more. I think Councilwoman Miller has a request for information.

Yes, I do. In the information packets that were forwarded to this 98 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 committee, both committees and its members, I am requested a description of terms like wrap-around and are children that receive wrap-around services in regular classrooms or are they separated in another classroom? But I think we just can't assume that acronyms that are used in your everyday language people here understanding. And the type of child that would be -- I'm just using wrap-around as an example -- that would be assigned a wrap-around person. Also, I'd like to know more about the Houston project. I read it in the paper. I'd really like to get some information on that. And I actually went into the internet -- I'm teaching myself have how to use the computer -- to try and find information on the Houston project, and I guess I couldn't find it. But isn't that the disciplinary project that you want to use here in Philadelphia?

Yes.

That's all I want.

And according to the resolution and YOUR testimony is more or less a detailing of programs that are currently within the 99 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 district. The resolution calls for a plan, a plan that you can submit to the committee that details what steps are taking place and so on down the line to ensure, as it says, to guarantee the safety of all school children. And if you can have a narrative of that plan put together and sent to us within two weeks, we would really appreciate that.

I will try to do that. It will be partial at that point because the work with Mr. DiBerardinis and Mr. Timoney will not have been completed by then, but we can certainly give you a paragraph on each of the things that we're doing and how we're doing it and together that in fact is our plan for safety in the schools.

Well, once we get that detailed plan -- if you need time, can you tell me how much more time you need? We would like to have a hearing in order to discuss the plan as it's detailed by you, Commissioner Timoney and Mike DiBerardinis and so on and go over that. I don't want to get a plan that is not complete.

Well, my guess is that it will be probably the second week or so in November before Mr. Timoney and Mr. DiBerardinis, Ms. Post, 100 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 Judge Pinto and I get together. I don't know what they're going to suggest. I can tell you by the end of the November what the process will be. One of the things, for example, that I hope that the Commissioner may well want to do is a kind of security audit of schools across the city. And if he thinks that makes sense, then I would be able to tell you that that's what we're going to do, but I would not probably until much later than that to be able to --

We do not expect that, but if you can do that, I think the committee, Ms. Miller and I will appreciate it. We would make it accessible to the record. Councilman Kenney, you have one last point?

I'd also like to recommend that until we receive this report in its comprehensive form, there has been plans, I believe, to do some type of transfer ordinance through the Appropriations Committee as we have done annually for $15 million to the District. I would like go perhaps discuss the opportunity of putting some strings upon those dollars to be used directly for 101 RESOLUTION NO. 990650 the results of what this audit and what the recommendations of the audit would be to ensure that a portion of those dollars at least would be used to provide all the necessary equipment, training, staffing that is necessary to ensure that we have safety within those schools. Now, I recognize our charter issues, but if you want the million, 9 perhaps we can get some side agreement that this 10 money will be used to totally and comprehensively 11 staff and supply our schools, all of the, were the 12 necessary equipment and training necessary to keep 13 them safe. 14 I mean, I think I voted in favor of the 15 additional appropriations all but at one time and I would I would feel better at least personally if I knew a portion of that money were going specifically to be used to keep our kids safe.

I think, Councilman Kenney, that presents all sorts of charter issues.

I'm looking for an agreement, that's all.

We will ask the Commissioner, the Superintendent, and the City Solicitor. 102 RESOLUTION NO. 990650

I want to be on record.

Superintendent, I would expect that that plan towards the end of November we would have that, and soon right after that we will schedule a hearing of this joint committee, all right?

Yes, sir. Thank you very much.

The Committee on Education and Public Safety on Resolution 990650 stands at recess to the call of the chair. (Council adjourned at 4:15 p.m.) - - - 103 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of October 21, 1999, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION and PUBLIC SAFETY ___________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR and Notary Public