THE TALE OF TWO REPORTS: ARE SCHOOLS SAFE OR NOT?

Warren Throckmorton, PhD July 3, 2004

Are your kids safe at school?

In the space of three days, two independent reports have questioned the safety of the nation's schools. First, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Educators Network (GLSEN) released a report on June 28 which gave 42 states failing grades on policies designed to ensure safe schools for all students.

Then, June 30, the Department of Education released the widely quoted report concerning educator sexual misconduct suggesting that one in ten students may have been victimized by school staff. At the same time and place these reports were released, the nation's largest teacher's association, the National Education Association, is holding its annual convention.

Meeting in Washington, DC, the NEA reacted to one of the reports with "umbrage" as spokeswoman Kathleen Lyons put it. Another spokesman, Michael Pons, dismissed one of the reports saying the nation's public schools are "statistically...one of the safest places for children to be."

Which report drew the ire of the NEA? Despite the frightening suggestion that 4.5 million students may have been the victim of educator misconduct, the NEA panned the Department of Education report on sexual abuse. I could find no published response to the GLSEN report. In fact, the NEA plans to give GLSEN's president an award during the convention.

So why the different reactions? Both reports fly in the face of the NEA's contentions that the schools are one of the safest spots for children. The GLSEN report suggests that 84% of the states have policies that make going to school an unsafe experience for all students and yet not a peep of outrage from the NEA.

To best understand the silence, one should know that the NEA has provided funding to GLSEN and recommends GLSEN's website to teachers for information concerning sexuality. And as noted above, the NEA plans to give GLSEN's Kevin Jennings a civil rights award. The NEA leadership seems to like GLSEN.

On the other hand, the NEA doesn't appear to like the producer of the sexual misconduct report. In addition to producing reports designed to improve school safety, the Bush administration's Department of Education is responsible for implementing the No Child Left Behind law. This effort to bring standards to the nation's schools is clearly on the NEA hit list as is evidenced by the organization's website.

Ok, so the NEA shares political goals with GLSEN and opposes those of the Bush Administration's Education Department. Isn't it understandable that you would go a little easier on your political allies than on those with whom you disagree?

Understandable, maybe, but I don't think such an approach is desirable for the NEA. To have credibility, the NEA needs to assure its members and the nation's parents that it does not base policy on political expediency. Can we trust the NEA to speak as experts on education when the leadership of the organization seems to make public statements informed more by political allegiance than by research and best practices?

This is not a frivolous question. If GLSEN's policy analysis is correct, then the vast majority of the nation's schools are unsafe accidents waiting to happen. However, the NEA says that schools are among the safest places for children.

I am confused. If 84% of the country fails the GLSEN safety policy tests, how can the NEA spokesman still be correct? According to GLSEN spokesman Joshua Lamont, the report grading the states "represents the first systematic measurement and comprehensive analysis of statewide policy to ensure the safety of all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity."

If the schools are as safe as the NEA claims, then the GLSEN report must be missing the mark. Given the NEA belief that schools are basically safe, shouldn't the NEA come out and criticize the GLSEN analysis with the same vigor as has been directed at the sexual misconduct report?

In my view, the NEA should criticize the GLSEN analysis for one primary reason: the analysis is flawed. GLSEN's study basically reports a few of their policy objectives, matches them to current law and policy in the states and finds very few states where such policies exist. Specifically, if a state had an anti-bullying law mentioning gay students by name, then a higher grade was received.

Having a law protecting all students against bullying did not count positively in the GLSEN analysis. Is this because protecting "all" students is not really the objective? Rather, having sexual orientation mentioned in law is the aim.

GLSEN looked at no statistics concerning bullying or violence. For all anyone knows, states with "Fs" could have fewer incidents of violence than schools graded "A." In short, the report doesn't reveal any research or substance about safe schools, all the while claiming the vast majority of schools are unsafe.

Clearly the issue of educator sexual misconduct needs more attention and better research, but the report reviewed nearly 900 studies to substantiate its claims. The only direct relationship the GLSEN report has to actual safety is that it's a pretty safe bet that GLSEN will not be challenged by the NEA. Seems to me that the NEA is suffering from a case of misdirected umbrage. The cure? A dose of reality would help. Perhaps parents need to let the NEA know we want action not umbrage.

Warren Throckmorton is Director of College Counseling and an Associate Professor of Psychology at Grove City College.

Footnote: Episcopal Academy in Philadelphia has implemented the GLSEN program at the behest of Bishop Charles E. Bennison.