When the dominos fall

We are all pretty familiar with the domino effect that occurs when weather conditions disrupt airline travel. Flights are delayed or cancelled which impacts other flights at other airports until eventually airports and flights far outside the weather event are also affected.

Today I had the “opportunity” to experience the domino effect from a school perspective.  We were in Atlanta for training at a local school when the light snow began falling shortly just after noon. By 1:30 the administrators had been called away to deal with the deluge of calls from parents wanting to know when schools would release.  As the snow began following, most of the area schools announced an early release, along with numerous businesses and offices.  In a short amount of time there were a tremendous number of people all on the roads trying to pick up their kids and get home.

Grid lock horror stories abound – people spending four plus hours in the car for a 10 mile trip. Roads closed by traffic accidents and stalled cars.  Drivers running out of gas in traffic or abandoning their vehicles and walking.  One local district dismissed students at 11:30 and at 6:30 p.m. still had kids waiting to be picked up. A district in Cobb County sent out their busses to take students home only to have the drivers turn around and bring them back when they couldn’t complete their routes due to the traffic jams.  As of this writing, the district is planning to have students spend the night at school – yes – spend the night!  One can only begin to imagine the logistical, supervisory, and liability issues involved in keeping all the students overnight.

So the lesson to be learned? First off, in this case, the dominos not just fell, but collapsed due to a mere 2 or 3 inches of snow, so don’t resort to the denial of – “well we would never have anything that bad…”  Then there’s the matter of what to do with students. Dismissing early is a tough, no-win call. If you wait too long, you could end up with students traveling in dangerous conditions, or worse yet – not be able to get students home. If you dismiss too early, there is the potential that the weather forecast doesn’t pan out. Even if you do everything right, if everyone else dismisses at the same time, a traffic nightmare on already poor roads is in the making. 

The larger lesson to be learned? Schools need to understand and anticipate their role in and the impact of community-wide events and disasters. Districts are not operating in a vacuum. The decisions made by community, government, and emergency response officials have a direct impact on schools and need to be made collaboratively with all the parties involved. School administrators cannot look at only their own little corner of the world, but  must consider how what is going on outside the school walls will effect their decisions and procedures.

Let me be clear – often there is nothing that can be done when the perfect storm of weather conditions, traffic, and community actions come together. But perhaps decision makers at the school and community levels can learn from these events and use collaboration to the benefit of all – drivers included.  Personally? It took me 92 minutes to drive 1.5 miles.  Be safe and stay warm.

The question of blame

In a press conference today, the parents of one of the victims of the recent shooting at a middle school in Roswell New Mexico made several comments that deserve some reflection. The father of 13-year-old shooting victim, Bert Sanders, told reporters he believes the boy's family are "good people," that the alleged shooter "is not a bad boy" and urged people to stop trying to find someone to blame. He went on to say that the suspect and his daughter are friends and that she feels the guman “made bad choices”.

Mr. Sanders believes that no one is the blame for the shooting. "Not the teachers. Not the schools. The responsibility is ours. We as parents need to be more involved," he said. While the spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation is commendable, his remarks today as the father of a victim who was injured but survived, raise a number of troubling questions:

Can the gunman’s parents be both “good people” AND share responsibility for their son’s actions? One would hope so, but the nagging question is if we can lay the burden solely at the feet of parents, and more importantly, how do we (and should we?) hold parents responsible for the actions of their children?

In a society that often encourages a victim’s mentality and doesn’t want to discuss personal responsibility, can we really just chalk up the shooter’s actions to “bad choices”? When these horrific events occur, the ramifications and damage ensures that no one involved will ever be the same. How can there be no responsibility in that?

If we simply shrug off school shootings as “one of those things” have we stopped looking for ways to stop them? Is it possible that there IS blame that can be assigned? We certainly can agree that spending time trying to determine blame in and of itself is pointless, but perhaps a larger conversation needs to occur that centers on why these individuals are driven to these violent acts.

And finally, there is the unpopular reminder that what the alleged gunman did in Roswell is attempted murder – a crime – not an educational event. He did not make “bad choices” by arguing with a teacher, or shoving a fellow student, or cutting in the lunch line, he attempted to end the lives of multiple individuals. We cannot lose sight of the fact that while the perpetrator may indeed be a juvenile, he attempted to perpetrate the most serious of offenses. While we must view preventing these events from both a law enforcement and educational perspective, we must understand that we are in truth responding to a criminal event involving the most heinous crime of murder. We owe it to all the victims of past shooting events to remember that THEY are the victims, not the perpetrator.

So simple answers? There aren’t any. But perhaps Mr. Sanders’ remarks today can start some important conversations.

What have we accomplished in the year since Sandy Hook?

It’s been a year since 20 children and 6 educators lost their lives at Sandy Hook Elementary school.

But what have we accomplished in that year?

We have spent an incredible amount of time and an incredible amount of money to make our schools safe, yet we the threat of violence is very real.

The tragedies at Sandy Hook, Chardon, Red Lake, Virginia Tech and Columbine can’t have been in vain.

It’s imperative that we all work together: educators, parents, legislators, students, and first responders.

We have to learn from these past events and equip educators and stakeholders with the tools and training to respond to crises.

We have to make the small shifts that can make our schools safer without turning them into prisons.

We have to work to prevent violence in our schools: to identify, assess and manage those who are risk for violence against themselves or others.

We have to stop wasting time and money searching for a “quick fix” : buying security systems, arming teachers, bullet-proof school equipment,  taking away all the guns, mandating ineffective drills.

We have to do the difficult work of implementing comprehensive, evidence-based, systemic changes that can help keep our students safe from all hazards.

We have to collaborate and figure this out-our children’s lives depend on it.

Lessons learned from today's incident at Scott High School.

Breaking news today from northwest Ohio, there was a standoff with an armed student at Scott High School. According to new reports, the student was “isolated” in a hallway in the school during the event and adjacent classroom were evacuated. After an hour of so, the student was taken into custody after being shot in the foot with a bean bag round. The school/law enforcement press conference after the incident concluded centered on how everyone had done everything right. While thankfully no one was hurt and the event ended peacefully, let’s take a moment to see if there are lessons that can be learned.

FEMA’s new guidelines – In the post-incident press conference, school officials said that staff members responded as they were trained, and the media reported that the school’s response was in accordance with what is taught in schools “across the United States”.  I don’t know how to state this diplomatically, but this is a  completely inaccurate statement. In the past, school staffs were trained in a traditional lockdown approach that consisted of hiding out in classrooms and hoping for the best. This is no longer the case. The June 2013 release of FEMA and Department of Education guidelines for schools is very specific as to the need to do more than just a traditional lockdown.  The events at Scott High School today illustrate the need for all school districts to understand and apply the new guidelines that are based on best practices.

Run, hide, fight -  If the student at Scott High School was contained in a hallway, how can we be sure that students were “out of harm’s way” as reported? It was certainly appropriate to evacuate nearby classrooms, but in this volatile situation of a person with a gun, is it best to tell students to “shelter in classrooms and closets”? Could not the rest of the building have been evacuated as well, as recommended by FEMA? – “If it is safe to do so…. The first course of action that should be taken is to run out of the building and far away until you are in a safe location.” We don’t know the specifics of the situation and the response at Scott, but during the press conference that occurred while there was still an active threat in the building, police and school officials indicated that there was no need to evacuate the rest of the students. When there is good information about where the threat is, and it is safe to do so, why wouldn’t students be moved further out of harm’s way to an off-site location?

Enhance communication – Police reported at the press conference that students were not told anything about the incident and did not know why they were in lockdown. This should not be a deliberate strategy. Staff and students should know what the nature of the incident is, so that they can respond appropriately. Imagine the fear and uncertainty of hiding in a classroom or closet with no idea as to why. While at this point we don’t know what sort of communication DID take place, there is a need for specific, timely information to be given to those involved. FEMA’s recommendations include: “Those closest to the public address or other communications system, or otherwise able to alert others, should communicate the danger and necessary action.” It remains to be seen whether or not this occurred.

It’s easy for me to sit here and Monday morning quarterback the events of this Monday morning, but we must seize every opportunity to learn from the experiences of other schools as we endeavor to keep our students safe.

School Safety Legislation Recap

I was recently asked to testify before the Ohio House Education committee in regards to HB 334 which makes modifications to existing Ohio Revised Code language regarding the expulsion of students who pose a potential threat to the safety of the school. During my testimony and the statements of others both in support and opposition of the bill, a variety of school safety issues were brought to bear, including threat assessment management, mental health supports, and involvement of the juvenile justice system in school related safety issues.

This experience coincided nicely with a recent article in Education Week that examined the legislative activity in regards to school safety that has occurred throughout the United States in response to the tragedy in Sandy Hook. As we approach the one-year anniversary of this horrific event, let’s take a moment to examine what has occurred in the legislative arena in regards to school safety in the last 11 months.

The Education Week article categorized the more than 450 proposed laws and legislative revisions that have occurred throughout the United States by their nature and intent, as well as accounting for the disposition of these proposals.  There are some interesting trends in both the legislative proposals, and what emerged as actual law.

The most legislative proposals took place in the area of school emergency planning, with 159 proposals (more than 30% of all proposed bills) being put forth. These bills required schools to conduct emergency drills, update or create emergency plans, or dealt with emergency planning measures in some other fashion. As of October 2013, only 25 of the bills have actually been signed into law (about 16%) with 90 proposals still pending (57%).

More than 18% of all proposed school safety legislation involved police in schools with 82 bills dealing with a police presence in schools (i.e. increasing police in schools etc.).  Only 4 of these bills (less than 4%) had been signed into law by October with more than 50 proposals (60%) still pending.

Interestingly, the seemingly dichotomous issues of school climate/student supports and arming school employees had an equal number of proposed bills (65 each), constituting slightly more than 14% of all legislative proposals. While most educators would agree that providing mental health supports and improving school climate is an effective preventative measure, the more extreme (and reactive) measure of arming employees had a slightly higher rate of being signed into law with 5 measures (8%) passing, leaving 31 proposed bills (48%) still pending. The proposed bills providing mental health services, counseling, or addressing school climate issues were signed into law only 4 times (6%) with 44 measures still pending (68%).

In addition to the proposals for arming employees, the divisive and diverse opinions on guns are also epitomized in the legislative proposals that dealt with the polar opposite notions of gun control and loosening gun restrictions in schools.  There were more proposed bills (56 or 12% of all proposals) to loosen or end restrictions on bringing guns onto the school grounds than there were to changes regulations governing firearms such as magazine size or sales restrictions. These gun control measures constituted 44 of the proposed bills (less than 10%). When it came to actual passage, however, more gun control measures were made into law (6 or 14%) than the easing of school gun restrictions, where only 5 measures passed, (9%).

The remaining legislative measures were 62 proposed bills regarding building safety upgrades – 14% of all legislation. These proposed bills provided money for, or addressed building security improvements such as metal detectors and alarms. Only 8 of these proposals were signed into law, (about 13% of the proposed measures).

So, let’s recap – when examining purely those legislative measure that actually were signed into law, the most action was taken in the area of emergency planning (16% of all signed bills).  We would all agree that measures on the proactive side of things – drills, crisis plans and other planning activities makes sense. From there things get a bit more dicey.  The proactive, researched-based best practice of providing mental health supports and creating a positive school climate received legislative action much less frequently, with only 6% of the proposed bills passing. Compare this with the 13% passage rate for safety upgrades or hardware purchases such as metal detectors, buzzer systems and the like.

This examination is not intended to point fingers at the activity or type of legislation; rather it illustrates the diverse issues and opinions that revolve around the question of “What can we do to make our schools more safe?” Not surprisingly, there is no quick fix or easy answer.  School crisis preparation, and the legislative requirements that it engenders, must focus equally on both prevention and response with an all hazards view – not just an emphasis on active shooter events. Maybe the biggest insight in the analysis of the legislation is not what was proposed, but rather what wasn’t – putting adequate and appropriate training in the hands of educators. Perhaps that central issue should receive some legislative attention.

For a more in-depth look at the proposed bills both by state, geographic region, and the type of legislation, click here.

How would our schools fare if we applied accountability to assessing the level of preparation and training for educators in the area of crisis response?

Accountability is (as always) a hot topic in education. Many states are currently implementing or have implemented teacher and principal evaluation systems that are based to some degree on student achievement as a measure of teacher or administrative performance.  Political and philosophical arguments aside, how would our schools fare if we applied similar accountability tactics to assessing the level of preparation and training for educators in the area of crisis response?

Let’s take a moment to compare the basic components of a typical teacher evaluation system and reflect on how these might be applied to our fundamental obligation of ensuring safety.

1. 1.     Teacher accountability systems typically include a classroom observation or walk through of some sort conducted by a trained evaluator. When was the last time your school took a critical look at potential vulnerabilities or procedural lapses through a site survey or facilities walk through?  When a vulnerability assessment is initiated, is it done by trained evaluators using an interdisciplinary approach?  

Classroom observations address not only concerns, but perhaps more significantly, make recommendations for improvements. A site survey should do the same. It’s important to examine potential vulnerabilities and craft mitigation strategies that address those vulnerabilities.

1. 2.     Accountability systems for educators increasingly include hard measures of student achievement such as standardized tests or assessments of competencies. The intent is to gather objective data on the school’s performance that are based on a common core of skills or knowledge.  If we applied this same objective approach to your school, would be find that the staff has all attained an acceptable level of knowledge or skill in crisis response?

Like a national common core of academic standards, there is also a set of established best practices for schools in the area of crisis preparation and response. In the past weeks we have discussed the new FEMA and Department of Education guidelines that were issued in June of 2013. These guidelines recommend a “run, hide, fight” approach to school violence that makes evacuation (when it is safe to do so) the preferred choice in an active shooter event. Many American schools have not addressed these new guidelines, modified their procedures to reflect them, or provided the necessary training for staff to implement them.

So how would your school fare if it were subjected to an accountability system for school safety? If your school was assessed on the effective implementation of best practices like vulnerability assessment, threat assessment management, and lockdown enhancement procedures, what would be the result?

The harsh reality is that schools are subjected to the most rigorous of all accountability systems when it comes to the safety of staff and students – the moral and ethical responsibility school’s have to protect the children in their care.  Parents will forgive the school for poor test scores, but they will not forgive or forget the injury or death of their child while in the school’s care. What is your school doing to measure up to this standard?

Let’s all stop using the terms “Vulnerability Assessment” and “Threat Assessment” interchangeably, because they are VERY different things!

Let’s all stop using the terms “Vulnerability Assessment” and “Threat Assessment” interchangeably, because they are VERY different things!

A “Threat Assessment” is about people. They are conducted when the need arises,  respond to “threatening situations in which there is concern about a particular student who has come to the attention of school administrators or other authorities.” –US Secret Service and US Dept of Education “THREAT ASSESSMENT IN SCHOOLS - A GUIDE TO MANAGING THREATENING SITUATIONS AND TO CREATING SAFE SCHOOL CLIMATES”

A “Vulnerability Assessment” is about things.  A vulnerability assessment is the “ongoing process through which school districts and schools identify and evaluate potential risks and areas of weakness that could have adverse consequences for schools and school systems.”  -US Dept of Education “A Guide to School Vulnerability Assessments”

Schools can schedule vulnerability assessments.  Districts often will contract with us to come and look at the physical school building, conduct an intruder assessment, and examine the daily operating procedures in their schools and provide mitigation recommendations.

A threat assessment management system requires the proper training for staff, and the proper adopted school policies. A threat assessment is conducted as the need arises.

Schools should be conducting BOTH vulnerability and threat assessments as components of an all-hazard approach and a comprehensive crisis plan.

Multi-hazard school safety planning for schools.

4. A written K-12 plan that addresses multiple hazards including evacuation, shelter-in-place, and lockdown situations. Fire drill and tornado drills alone do not meet this standard.

The final element we’ll examine in the Save the Children report is a K-12 multiple hazard plan. We talked earlier about the importance (and often absence) of an evacuation plan. But evacuation is only one element in an EOP that comes from an all hazards perspective. FEMA recommends that EOPs contain specific response protocols for evacuation, reverse evacuation, lockdown, shelter-in-place (for technological, chemical, and biological hazards), and severe weather. The June 2013 FEMA publication, Guide for Developing High Quality School Emergency Operations Plans is a comprehensive, free resource for schools to use in developing, reviewing, and revising their EOPs for an all hazards perspective. This document is available in the resources section of www.eschoolsafety.org.

We’ve discussed the need to revise and enhance school lockdown procedures in previous entries. Given the new FEMA guidelines issues in June 2013 regarding lockdown, it is quite likely that your school’s lockdown procedures need to be re-examined. 

School Safety Planning for Special Needs Students

3. A written plan specifically accounts for special needs children in emergency situations.

Let's talk today about the most gaping hole in our crisis preparation efforts – planning for the unique concerns of our students with special needs. In examining the 29 states that did not meet the four standards in the Save the Children report, 76% had an all hazards disaster plan mandate, 45% had a parent reunification plan requirement, 41% required evacuation plans, but only 17% addressed the needs of special education students during emergency events. In other words, the most significant area of deficit identified in the report was in the area of planning for special needs students.

It is critical that educators and planners acknowledge that there are a significant number of students in our schools who do not have the physical, emotional, cognitive, or behavioural capabilities to respond to emergency situations the same way as their typical peers. Emergency planning must address ways to provide for the safety and well being of special needs students in preventing, responding, and recovering from crisis events. Review your school’s crisis protocols and/or EOPs with this in mind. Is there even a single notation or plan for dealing with the unique concerns of special education students during the crisis events that we know will occur in the building?

The importance of parent reunification planning

2. A written family or parent reunification plan for emergency notification and reunification of students with parents.

Now let’s examine the second critical component referred to in the Save the Children report card – a family or parent reunification plan. In the aftermath of a significant crisis event such as a shooting, tornado, chemical spill, fire, or other traumatic event, the school must ensure the timely reunification of parents with their children. While this sounds simple enough, this task must be done in the harshest of conditions – during a chaotic, emotional, stressful situation with which few people have any familiarity. Oh, and did I mention that this will most likely be occurring under the microscope of media attention?  The process of reuniting hundreds of scared, emotional students with their equally hysterical parents is not something that can be done “on the fly”. It requires methodical, strategic logistical planning and practice done well in advance.

The critical considerations of parent reunification are to ensure that all students are accounted for and that they are returned to their custodial parent or guardian in the most efficient manner possible. Not preparing in advance for this difficult task ignores the school’s legal and ethical responsibilities for (1) accountability of students, (2) addressing post-event mental health concerns, and (3) maintaining the chain of custody.

Still don’t think that parent reunification should be a priority? Alissa Parker, parent of a Sandy Hook Elementary student sees it differently: "One of the most stressful things that day was reunification. We were told by three different people to look for our daughter at three different places. The chaos made it so much worse for us all." 

The good news is that developing and implementing a parent reunification plan is not an insurmountable task. It simply takes time and attention. The better news is that thanks to the I Luv U Guys foundation, almost everything you need is available in a free download. Go to http://iluvuguys.org/srm.html and get started - today.

Most schools' evacuation plans are insufficient-how does yours stack up?

Now that we’ve examined the state-by-state implications of the Save the Children report, let’s take some time to talk individually about each of the components and how these critical elements might apply to your school or organization.

1. A written evacuation or relocation plan for moving children to an alternate site that addresses multiple hazards.

The first critical element is an evacuation or relocation plan. A written plan for moving children to an alternate site should be one of the response protocols of a school and/or district’s emergency operations plan or crisis plan. This plan should include primary and secondary evacuation sites, evacuation routes, and procedures to ensure for the accountability and safety of students en-route to the site. Evacuation is an appropriate response in the event of bomb threats, damage to the building, or in any circumstance where it is unsafe to stay in the building. This requires consideration of multiple hazards when developing plans and protocols.

Does your school have a specific evacuation plan that speaks to (1) the situations in which evacuation would occur (2) the evacuation sites to go to and (3) the route and procedures to get there? More significantly, do all staff members know these things as well? Are the evacuation sites open and accessible at all times? Have arrangements been made in advance for the use of these sites? While most EOPs address evacuation in some fashion, as evidenced by the Save the Children report card findings, few of them are truly comprehensive and multi-hazard in nature. 

National Commission on Children and Disasters

In the last 12 months alone, we have seen a series of disasters and tragedies that have impacted our nation's schools. The most notable of these were the violence at Sandy Hook Elementary and the destruction of schools in Moore and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Just as significant is the myriad of smaller crisis events that directly impacted schools but were not widely covered by the media The common denominator is the reality that no school is immune from crisis events and disaster. This week's series of blog postings will examine the implications of a report on disaster preparedness in schools that was recently released by the worldwide organization, Save the Children.

Save the Children is the leader of The National Commission on Children and Disasters, which was formed after Hurricane Katrina. The commission examines regulations and licensing laws in states to evaluate the level of disaster preparedness in K-12 schools and child care facilities and recommends four standards they deem essential for basic preparedness and child safety. These standards are:

1. A written evacuation or relocation plan for moving children to an alternate site that addresses multiple hazards.

2. A written family or parent reunification plan for emergency notification and reunification of students with parents.

3. A written plan specifically accounts for special needs children in emergency situations.

4. A written K-12 plan that addresses multiple hazards including evacuation, shelter-in-place, and lockdown situations. Fire drill and tornado drills alone do not meet this standard.

A state meets a given standard if the standard is mandatory, meets national guidelines, and is applied to all providers or schools.

In 2008, only 4 states met all of the four standards listed above. That number has increased to 22 in the current 2013 report. The states that met all the required standards were Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Among the significant findings:

• Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia failed to meet the minimum standards to protect children recommended by the National Commission on Children and Disasters. This means that they met 3 or fewer of the standards.

• Six states as well as the District of Columbia don't require schools to have a disaster plan that addresses multiple types of hazards. These states include: Missouri, North Dakota, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, and the District of Columbia.
• Four states do not meet any of the commission standards: Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, and Michigan.

Go to savethechildren.org/Get-Ready to see the specifics of how your state scored. In the next series of entries, we’ll examine each of these four standards more in depth.

Self-assessment: visitor engagement and access control

Today let's look at the notion of visitor screening and access control. There really are three important issues to be considered:

1. Does your school have an access control system such as a buzzer or other device that controls who comes into the building?

Post-Sandy Hook, this is increasingly a given in most schools. The vast majority of schools today have some sort of camera or buzzer-type system that requires visitors to be "buzzed in" or admitted into the building. While access control is critical, remember that the buzzer system at Sandy Hook Elementary was easily breached by the intruder. The problem here isn't just whether or not your school has a buzzer system, but how effectively that access control is implemented beyond just the purchase of hardware.

 2.      Have staff members received training in effectively screening and engaging with visitors and have they taken ownership of those responsibilities?

A buzzer system is only an effective security measure if there are adequate secondary defense systems in place. Staff members who are responsible for engaging and screening visitors using the buzzer system should have adequate training to be able to determine who has a legitimate purpose in the school and who is a potentially violent intruder as well as how to respond to such a threat. 

Staff members should also be trained to actively engage with visitors who are in the building to detect potential intruders. Every staff member has a responsibility to greet and engage with visitors to the school regardless of their position or who the visitor is.

 3.      Do access control problems in the daily operation of the school compromise the existing buzzer system?

The best access control system in the world is rendered useless if an intruder can easily enter the building through propped open doors, unlocked entrances, or when let in by unsuspecting students or staff.  Maintaining a secure facility is another crucial second line of defense. Do not be lulled into a false sense of security that "We have a buzzer system, so we don't need to be concerned about security."

A concerned parent in a Connecticut middle school made the news this week with what he discovered at his daughter's school and their lack of access control: http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/East-Haven-Father-Arrested-After-Walking-Into-Daughters-Middle-School-228874191.html.

Parents and community members are welcome additions to a school and are vital school stakeholders. In addition, we are running schools, not prisons. That being said - not every person who comes into your school should have free and unencumbered access to every part of the "public" school. The challenge is to be a welcoming environment for those who are visiting our schools while at the same time presenting a significant deterrent for those with malicious or violent intent. An access control system combined with a well trained staff can effectively accomplish these seemingly incongruous objectives.

For more information on visitor engagement training for staff members, visit our website at www.eschoolsafety.org.

Self-assessment: Parent Reunification

Our self-assessment today focuses on the crisis after the crisis - parent reunification.

1. Does your school or district have a parent reunification plan: a means by which to reunify students with their parents after a traumatic event?

Schools do parent reunification every day as students are sent home from school via bus, walking, or parent transportation. There are times, however, when schools must reunite parents and students after crisis events such as fires, natural disasters, or acts of violence. In these circumstances, the situation is highly emotional, stressful, and chaotic and typically involves extensive media coverage. This is not the time to frantically decide locations and protocols for hundreds of traumatized students and their emotionally compromised parents while the media scrutinizes your every move.

2. Has your school's parent reunification plan been revised and/or tested in the last 2 years?

While many districts or schools do not have any plans for parent reunification, those that do often have rudimentary plans that have not been revised to reflect changes in facilities, technology, enrollment, or personnel. It is critical to put the plan to the test at least through a table top exercise that involves emergency responders and school administrators. While frequent full scale drills may not be feasible, at the least all staff members should understand their roles and responsibilities for parent reunification. A parent reunification plan that doesn't actually work isn't much better than no plan at all.

3. Do school staff members have family emergency plans in place that allow them to fulfill their professional responsibilities after a crisis event?

After a school or community wide crisis event, parent reunification will require all hands on deck. This is not the time for staff members to leave to pick up their own children or take care of their personal needs. Just as the fireman doesn't abandon the fire truck because his shift is over or he needs to go check on his family, school staff members have a moral and ethical responsibility to the children in their care to ensure their safe return to parents and fulfill their part of the chain of custody. All staff members should develop family emergency plans now so that the needs of their family are taken care of in advance.

Parent reunification is a critical, but often overlooked component of every school or district's emergency planning and response. Developing the plan is not difficult, but it requires time and advance planning. Luckily there are great resources to assist in this process. The I Luv U Guys foundation offers comprehensive resources to schools that will walk you through the plan development process. Go to http://iluvuguys.org/srm.html to download virtually everything you will need. Assistance in plan development and training is also available at our website, www.eschoolsafety.org.

EOP self-assessement

Today let’s do another brief assessment – this time of your school or district’s Emergency Operations Plan (often called a crisis plan). Just like yesterday, it’s a quick three questions:

1. When was the last time your school/district crisis plan was reviewed or updated? EOPs should be updated annually and given a through review at least every three years. A close examination of many crisis plans reveals outdated information such as incorrect phone numbers, people listed who no longer are employed in the organization or in that capacity, floor plans that do not reflect new construction or remodeling, and a host of other inaccuracies that can compromise an effective crisis response.

When revisions are undertaken, it is important to involve all relevant stakeholders in the process such as administrators, teachers, and local emergency responders.

2. Does your EOP contain all the necessary response protocols?

Crisis plans should contain specific instructions and procedures that reflect an all-hazards approach including lockdown, evacuation, reverse evacuation, severe weather, bomb threats, and shelter in place. Many EOPs address specific situations such as an active shooter, intruder, tornado, or fire rather than the response protocols to be enacted.

3. Is your crisis plan easy to use, easy to locate, and user friendly?

A thick binder of detailed checklists gathering dust on a shelf reflects a lack of planning, preparation, and ownership. EOPs should be active working documents that are consistently present in every room, easily accessible when needed, and most significantly, contains a concise description of relevant information that will quickly aid an individual in responding appropriately to a crisis event.

For additional information and step by step instructions on evaluating and updating emergency operation plans, see FEMA and the US Department of Education’s 2013 publication Guide for Developing High-Quality School Emergency Operations Plans at our website, www.eschoolsafety.org.

School safety week kick-off: FEMA Self-assessment

Let’s start #SchoolSafetyWeek with a self-assessment: according to FEMA’s newest guidelines for crisis planning in schools, these are three critical responsibilities of ALL school staff members. Have you had the appropriate training to answer yes to all three statements?

1. I can recognize the signs of a potentially volatile situation and I have been trained in ways to prevent escalation of the incident.

Note here that it is not enough to be able to recognize when things are getting out of hand – it is crucial to have the capacity to prevent and/or mitigate the incident.

2. I know the best steps for survival when faced with an active shooter situation.

This is a tricky question – you most likely know what used to be recommended – hide out and wait for law enforcement – but do you know what is currently recommended as of June 2013?

3. I know what to do to assist in a tactical law enforcement response.

Note this is not just staying out of the way, but rather working WITH law enforcement.

So how did you do? If you do not have the capabilities described above, then there is obviously a need for training in your school. Lockdown enhancement and violence prevention training is crucial for anyone working in a school.

Why does this matter?

We’ve had a lot of discussions about the June 2013 publication Guide for Developing High Quality School Emergency Operations Plans.  It’s important to note that this guide was a joint venture between FEMA, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the United States Department of Education.  Why does this matter? Well – these best practice recommendations are not just endorsed by emergency responders, but also by educational leaders.

For more information, contact us: www.eSchoolSafety.org

Schools need to work with their local law enforcement to provide access and training opportunities that will benefit both groups

Our final discussion on the critical responsibilities of school stakeholders involves the nature of a tactical response. The fire department often comes to schools to show how they look in their turnout gear so that kids aren’t afraid of them during an actual fire. We have virtually no familiarity with the nature of a tactical law enforcement response however. Schools need to work with their local law enforcement to provide access and training opportunities that will benefit both groups.  But familiarity itself is not enough. Staff members need to give consideration to their own actions during a crisis event. The basic question is “How do I not look like the shooter?” In the heat of the moment, someone pointing, yelling, grabbing the officer, or moving suddenly or aggressively is going to compromise the law enforcement response.  Even more important, especially from a student perspective, is what happens to the gun if a shooter is disarmed? The natural reaction to “help” law enforcement is most likely to pick up the gun and show it to them. Imagine how this action looks from a law enforcement perspective and the potential tragedy that might ensue.

For more information, contact us: www.eSchoolSafety.org

So, should we arm teachers?

So, let’s address the inevitable question: should teachers be armed so that they can adequately protect their students? This question is not a gun control discussion, but rather an acknowledgement of the differences in training, attitude, personality, philosophy, and purpose between educators and law enforcement officials.

Once again, FEMA’s document speaks clearly to this issue: “the possibility of an active shooter situation is not justification for the presence of firearms on campus in the hands of any personnel other than law enforcement officers.” (p. 66). Beyond the legal, insurance, and malpractice liabilities, there is the simple fact that there are a myriad of other actions that can be taken to keep students safe that do not involve firearms in the hands of teachers.

For more information, contact us: www.eSchoolSafety.org

Should significant time and attention be focused on teaching staff and students how to “fight a gunman”? Absolutely not.

Now we’ve arrived at the problematic aspect of FEMA’s “run, hide, fight” recommendations.  In the vast majority of cases, rapid evacuation and/or barricading will be the most likely response.  Unfortunately in every active shooter event, there will be people who encounter the violent intruder as the incident begins, and may not be able to evacuate or escape the individual.  FEMA addresses this explicitly: “If neither running nor hiding is a safe option, as a last resort when confronted by the shooter, adults in immediate danger should consider trying to disrupt or incapacitate the shooter using aggressive force and items in their environment…” (p. 65).  Attacking or engaging with a violent individual is obviously not the preferred situation, but it’s critical to acknowledge that when the choice is fight or die, then aggressive action must be taken.  Grab anything available as a possible weapons – books, desks, computers, even fire extinguishers – and use it aggressively against the attacker.

The issue of “countering” or “fighting” an attacker raises a lot of uncomfortable questions, but is clearly a matter of survival. Should significant time and attention be focused on teaching staff and students how to “fight a gunman”? Absolutely not. Why? Because it becomes the center of attention and the more crucial and practical skills of barricading and evacuation are overlooked.  Should we at least acknowledge that in the rarest of cases, you might have to fight to survive the incident? Absolutely.