ANALYSIS Learn From Penn State’s Failures Distinct lessons are to be learned by everyone in education in the wake of the Report of Special
Investigative Council and former FBI Director Louis Freeh, “Regarding the Actions of the Pennsylvania State University Related to the Child Sexual Abuse” committed by Jerry Sandusky. Te “scathing 267- page report” blasts officials at all levels of the university. Freeh had been hired by the Special Investigations Task Force formed by the Penn State Board of
By Peggy A. Burns, Esq.
Trustees last November to conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the criminal charges against Sandusky, former Athletic Director Tim Curley and Senior Vice President Gary Schultz. Te lessons for school transportation directors and their supervisors from Penn State failures are
most directly revealed by (1) the actions — and inactions — of first-hand witnesses to incidents of abuse, and (2) the inaction by administrators whose duty to act was triggered by the information they had. Sadly, this tragedy and the utter disregard by the Penn State hierarchy of abuse of students was not a problem that happened “there” and could not happen “here.”
STATUTORY AND POLICY DUTIES TO REPORT CHILD ABUSE All states have passed mandatory child abuse reporting laws as required for federal funding. Tese
❝ Any policies
pertaining to background checks must be consistent with state law and followed by transportation directors. ❞
statutes vary tremendously in terms of definitions, identification of mandatory reporters and other key provisions. At least partial responsibility for Sandusky’s conviction on 10 counts of child abuse must be assigned to the failure of a system under which more than a few people kept silent on suspicions of abuse during that time. In a scurry to beef-up existing legislation, law makers across the country have introduced a virtual flood of legislation. It is absolutely necessary for all student transporters to update their knowledge about mandatory reporting responsibilities in their own state. What you thought you knew may have changed. As of June 4, according to the National Conference
of State Legislatures, more than 100 bills in 30 states and the District of Columbia were introduced this year on the reporting of suspected child abuse and neglect; 11 of these states have enacted laws. Currently, a revised Florida law, which went into effect on Oct. 1, is called the “toughest” by victims’
advocates. Te law requires anyone to report known or suspected cases of child sex abuse. Te “Pro- tection of Vulnerable Persons” law imposes significant fines and the possibility of criminal charges on anyone — from university coaching staff to school teachers to administrators to students — who “will- fully and knowingly” fails to report any suspicious sexual abuse they encounter. Other states may follow suit to insist that a Penn State incident not occur within their own boundar-
ies. And school districts and bus companies should — if they haven’t already — reviewed their own policies, which, in some cases, may go beyond state law in imposing duties to report on staff members at all organizational levels. Be sure your staff members understand clearly both their obligations and the possible consequences for failure to report any incident of suspected child abuse.
BEYOND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Background checks. Te Freeh report notes that the University policy “Background Check Process”
was not strictly followed and allowed some volunteer coaches and counselors to “fall through the cracks” without appropriate clearance. Any policies pertaining to background checks must be consis- tent with state law and followed by transportation directors. When administrators succumb to pressure to hire “warm bodies” or fail to implement policies and programs designed to protect students, they may be found to be deliberately indifferent to the safety and welfare of children. Employee training. Under the University policy “Protection of Minors Involved in University Spon-
sored Programs,” training about appropriate behavior with students for staff of such adjunct programs was required. However, the Freeh report found that the policy was inconsistently applied, and training of administrators of youth programs supported by the University was significantly inadequate. Active awareness is essential to avoid liability. While failure to report is a core topic of the Freeh re-
port, sexual conduct by persons in a position of trust with students can be both a trigger for criminal prosecution and a serious concern under Title IX. Tis federal discrimination law may lead to imposi- tion of money damages for a school district. Tough private bus companies are not covered by Title IX, they can certainly be the subject of civil litigation under state law, and a school district may be liable under Title IX for not taking appropriate steps when responsible school district officials know about
34 School Transportation News Magazine October 2012
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84