Most of us who are parents agree that safety is more important than academics at our schools.  We entrust educators with our children for a good chunk of time each school day.  We demand that they take reasonable steps to protect our kids, and expect that they use good common sense in doing so.

Yet many parents, public safety officials and educators question whether school and police officials advocating to teach students to attack armed intruders meet the “reasonable” and “common sense” aspects of parental expectations.

In Loco Parentis delegates temporary, not permanent, parental power

The legal concept of in loco parentis means “in place of the parent.” School officials certainly have a temporary delegation of parental power while children are in their custody during the school day.  But in loco parentis does not grant educators a permanent and involuntary reduction of parental liberties.

Parents can and should have a voice in limiting the scope of power delegated to school officials in certain areas impacting their child. Parents can certainly demand accountability from the temporary caretaker of their child.

In short, parents do not relinquish their primary right to make decisions regarding the best interests of their child simply because educators enjoy in loco parentis authority through the necessity created by mandated school attendance.

One of those areas where parents can and should have a voice is in the safety of their children.  They especially should have a voice and a choice when educators and/or safety officials propose teaching and directing students to act in a manner which the natural parents believe could increase the risk of harm to their children.

What parents should ask about ALICE Training and schools teaching kids to fight gunmen

In my blog post entitled Bringing Pencils & Books to a Gun Fight; ALICE Training Raises Questions, I joined a number of educators, public safety officials and parents who challenge those who propose teaching K-12 school kids to bombard armed gunmen with books, backpacks, desks, etc.  This action is part of what is sometimes referred to as A.L.I.C.E. (Alert-Lockdown-Inform-Counter-Evacuate) Training, a program being advocated in a small but noticeable number of school-communities.

In that article and on my web page on Teaching School Students to Fight Gunmen, I raise a number of questions parents and others should ask on aspects of this proposed training of students including on:

• Age appropriateness and developmental factors;
• Considerations and implications for special needs students;
• Qualifications of the instructors and methods of instruction of this training; and
• Liability of the trainers and the agencies involved (school district, law enforcement agency, etc.)

among many other concerns.

Parents should not only ask questions, they should do so formally in writing and if not resolved at the administrative level, ask them at public school board meetings.  Some steps parents could take if such a program is being proposed or is already in place in their child’s school include:

1. Ask for a written copy of the school board’s formal policy and all school district regulations, procedures, etc. related to the ALICE Program (where this specific program is proposed) or similar programs under a different name where teaching kids to fight armed intruders is being proposed;
2. Request a written copy of the entire curriculum and training materials used to train-the-trainers and to train students;
3. Request copies of all public records (memos, emails, correspondence, etc.) between school officials and law enforcement agencies related to the planning and implementation of the training program;
4. Ask for written notification from all agencies (school district, police department, etc.) and specific trainers/employees who are accepting by-name liability for the implementation and potential ramifications of the program;
5. Request a copy of legal opinions and findings obtained by school board members and administrative officials regarding implementation of such training programs.  If they refuse to provide legal documents, they still should be asked whether or not such an opinion was formally requested and obtained;
6. Ask for opt-out policies and related documents available to parents who do not wish for their children to participate in such training, and copies of specific procedures governing what happens with those who opt-out; and
7. Ask your school’s parent organization (PTA, PTO, PTU, etc.) if they are aware of the proposed training program and if they support it.

This list could go on.  As I start probing with such records requests, I fully expect most school boards to have no formal policies and many board members may not even be aware of the full liability implications of such training. But a closer look at the above and related documents, or the absence of such internal analysis and planning documents, should help parents begin to better understand what some officials are teaching their children to do.

I increasingly wonder whether parents are being given the full story in those districts pursuing these program.  In fact, some of the specific cases I have seen to date suggest parents may be told nothing or only part of the aspects of this training in a sugar-coated manner.  Parents deserve full disclosure with discussion of the proposed new approach and its associated risks.

At least now parents know some specific questions they can start asking and public records they can request to make informed decisions.

Ken Trump

Visit School Security Blog at:  www.schoolsecurityblog.com

Follow Ken on Twitter @safeschools

Visit and “Like” Our Facebook Fan Page at: www.facebook.com/schoolsafety

“While he’s busy ducking and covering his head from our air assault, we must now begin the ground assault.”

This quote from a staff training booklet on the A.L.I.C.E. (Alert-Lockdown-Inform-Counter-Evacuate) plan struck me when it was shared by a client school district.   The quote was included in a section called, “OK, I made him mad. Now What!?”

And this followed a section that included asking if the reader could visualize a person trying to shoot while being bombarded with books, backpacks, desks, etc.

Was this a military fighter’s guide?  No.  Maybe a guide for S.W.A.T. training at the local law enforcement academy?  No.

Try a staff booklet for teachers.  Yes.  Teachers.

‘Bringing a purse to a gunfight’ draws out common sense

My recent post on Bringing a Purse to a Gun Fight fortunately brought out some sensible educators who supported my questioning of those who advocate teaching teachers and students to attack armed intruders.  One school principal said:

“I will not be advocating that my staff attack a gunman. We will do a table top and discuss what to say or not to say in these situations. I am sorry that you were attacked by one of my colleagues. It also frightens me that someone actually thinks that woman with the purse acted rationally. I wonder if he would want his wife or daughter to hit a gunman with a purse.”

Other emails came in with similar and even stronger supportive comments.

It was refreshing to see that so many, and based on my conversations with folks in the field I would venture to say the majority of, veteran school administrators and safety officials fall in on the same side of questioning this proposed approach.

Strong on military and warrior talk; Light on education, child, and implementation Talk

The advocates of teaching kids to attack armed gunmen, who primarily come at the issue from a military and/or law enforcement background, appear to be well-intended and genuinely concerned about the safety of kids and teachers.  But their writings and teaching are heavy on the “warrior” theme and light on a discussion and apparent understanding of the implications for implementation of their concept in a preK-12 educational setting.

The concept may have some applicability in college and university settings. And at least one training company’s web site is promoting it for not only schools, but also for colleges, churches, hospitals, and workplaces.

The marketing of the concept with its heavy warrior theme resonates with individuals with professional military and law enforcement careers.  And it should.  This is who they are, what they chose for a career, and how they train and develop their mindset to do their jobs.

But it has light-to-non-existent writing about age appropriateness, child emotional and physiological developmental issues, child and teen psychological issues, special needs children considerations, trainer background and standards, methods of delivery (duration, intensity, repetition and reinforcement, etc.) for educators and children, etc.

Preying on emotions, chest thumping, warrior calls and related tactics to defend this theory may sound good, but the devil is in the details of implementation.  And implementation considerations for this proposed approach are more complex than how a local news article described one sheriff’s approach to ALICE training:

“Students can be given an overview of the program in an assembly or in the classroom.”

An overview?  An overview??? And in a one-shot presentation?

Sorry folks, but not with my kids you won’t.  Nor should you with anyone else’s kids other than your own, if that’s what you want to teach them.

The devil is in the details of implementation and in this case, the details are missing

See the issue here is both the concept and the implementation.  Law enforcement officers and those in our military don’t get an “overview” of weapons training and self defense training.  They are required to take repeated and ongoing training, updates, certifications, recertifications, etc.  Even coaches spend hours, weeks and years working with youth to develop their athletic skills, temperament and ability to perform in a particular sport.

But we’ve worked in school districts where the plan was reportedly to include 20 to 25 minutes of instruction for kids in an assembly or classroom setting.  Training for teachers may be a bit more.  But never have I heard or read of it being much more than a quick, one-shot deal.

And even if more was proposed, there are many other implementation questions and issues a number I outline in detail on my web page on Teaching School Students to Fight Gunmen including:

• Is it unrealistic to expect 25 students and a teacher to react simultaneously, with split-second accuracy and timing, when a person with a gun unexpectedly walks into a room?
• Would throwing objects incite a suspect not otherwise planning on shooting?
• What age appropriateness and child developmental factors have been researched and incorporated into this proposed approach for teaching kids to attack armed gunmen?
• What considerations have been given for special needs students (physically-challenged, emotionally disturbed, autistic, medically fragile, learning disabilities, pre-school and childcare centers housed in schools, etc.)?
• Who will instruct the programs? What is the basis for their qualifications? What is the basis of their certification, what standing does this certification have in the field, who is the authorizing/certifying agency and what is their credentialing/credibility — or is it just a certificate of attendance at a conference?
• What liability insurance do the trainers carry and will they, their agencies, and the organizations that trained them to be trainers sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which includes indemnifying school districts if lawsuits are filed in connection with such training?
• Will the school district mandate every student participate? What about parents who do not approve? What steps will be taken to address the safety of those children, as well as those who could not participate even if they wanted to do so (special needs, etc.)?

A 2011 letter to parents from the superintendent and two principals of one Ohio district actually provided a vague announcement of the program (no mention of teaching kids to attack armed intruders), invited parents to an evening hour and one-half meeting to “preview” the program, and gave a “participation waiver” for parents of students in grades 7-12 who did not want their children to participate in the ALICE “assembly.”

As a school safety professional and a parent, this is a letter that makes me go, “Hmmmmmm…..,” — before I start asking a whole lot of other questions.

Supportive references are for workplace and adult, not child and school, settings

Now some advocates for this approach claim their training is consistent with the Department of Homeland Security, state homeland security agencies, local law enforcement guidelines, etc.  And they’re probably right on the part that DHS and others have put out publications on workplace violence and geared toward adults which discuss a last resort effort of attacking active shooters.

But none of these publications are preK-12 school specific.  None of them are specifically designed and exclusively (or for that matter at all) address preK-12 school settings, teaching children and teens, child development and special needs school populations, etc.   Indeed, these publications are written for adults in workplace or other public settings.

And anyone can rattle off a list of names of individuals and incidents where teachers and other adults (such as during 9/11) have stepped up to tackle, disarm and/or fight armed intruders.  They did so by their own choice and with their own heroic drive to do so.

But not everyone is a warrior.  Not everyone is going to react in the same way in a threatening situation.  And not everyone, teacher or student, is comfortable with being force trained to “become a warrior.’

You decide; You’ll be responsibile and liable

I am not trying to force anyone to accept my opinion.  In fact, although I’ve been a life-long supporter and advocate for law enforcement, School Resource Officers (SROs), and our military, there are a number of people from those backgrounds who have and will continue to disagree with me.  That’s fine.  My respect and advocacy for them will be no less than it ever has been.

But unlike some of the advocates for this approach, I go beyond the emotion and look at the implementation details or lack of.  And there is a lot of “lack of” with what I have seen in this proposed and implemented on this approach to date in preK-12 settings.

Those who fail to consider these details help build the litigation consulting businesses of people like me who do expert witness work.  But by the time it hits that point, it often means someone has been injured or lost a life.

So while some advocates will pull the emotional strings with warrior themes, chest puffery, and themes of nobility, the level-headed educator and safety professional should take a more critical eye to both the concept and to the details of implementation.  For it is she/he who will ultimately be responsible and liable.

Ken Trump

Visit School Security Blog at:  http://www.schoolsecurityblog.com

Follow Ken on Twitter @safeschools

How would you feel if a stranger abducted and sexually assaulted a female during lunchtime and in the same block as your daughter’s school? 

And how would you feel if your school administrators and police officials never told you, other parents, and students about the incident for 12 days?

This happened near David Douglas High School in Portland, Oregon. But police asked school officials not to alert the public out of concern it would impede their investigation according to a February story from The Oregonian. 

School officials eventually issued a letter advising parents to go over “common safety precautions” with their children such as walking in groups and running or yelling if approached.

As a former school investigator of such incidents, I understand the goal of arresting and prosecuting such a suspect.  But as a parent, I also understand how angry I would be if I knowingly let my child walk in this area with no knowledge of the incident and the specific accompanying heightened risks. 

As a national consultant on school security issues, my advice to school (and police) officials would have been to err on the side of communicating the true circumstances to students, parents, and the school-community in a timely manner. First, I would want students, parents, and my school neighbors on heightened alert. Maybe they saw something, or would see something, to identify the suspect.

I would have a hard time living with myself as a principal if I withheld information on a known threat and one of my students was subsequently abducted, sexually assaulted, or otherwise victimized.  Giving general information may or may not push people’s attention to the desired heightened level.  Discussion of a specific incident likely would create greater attentiveness.

I believe most parents and students would agree, even if the suspect in the initial attack was not immediately apprehended.  Chances are such an immediate apprehension could be highly unlikely anyway.

Ken Trump

Visit School Security Blog at:  http://www.schoolsecurityblog.com

Parents:

1. Talk with, not at, your kids.

2. Give them, not your smart phone, your full attention.

3. Work to live, don’t live to work.

Build a relationship with your kids today!

Ken Trump

Visit School Security Blog at:  http://www.schoolsecurityblog.com

A parent’s worst nightmare: A 17-year-old girl is abducted and raped on the way to school.  What advice should parents give their children?

A brutal sexual assault on a Cleveland girl last week captured media attention.  Our local ABC affiliate, WEWS, asked me to provide safety tips for children to and from school.

My primary point was that as adults, we teach kids to be respectful and to follow the directions given by adults.  But we must teach them that in cases where they are in danger, they should do just the opposite.

A few tips I discussed include:

• Kids need to travel in groups or have a buddy system.
• Kids should stay on main streets and pathways.  Avoid isolated backstreets, alleys, empty lots and fields, etc. 
• They should not walk up close to any approaching cars. Head in the opposite direction if the car pulls up next to them. 
• Children should never go with a stranger.
• If they are grabbed, kids should kick, bite, hit, scream and do anything to get loose and to draw attention.
• Call 911 from any phone for free, even pay phones or inactivated cell phones.

Kids have good gut instincts, in many cases.  They need to follow their sixth sense.  As adults, we tend to teach it out of them instead of teaching them to follow-it.

Ken Trump

Visit School Security Blog at:  http://www.schoolsecurityblog.com

A 14-year-old South Carolina high school student shoots at a school resource officer (SRO).  He has two pipe bombs in his backpack.  A search of the student’s home finds a wide array of items including shotgun and handgun shells, multiple cigarette lighters, exploded bomb pieces, 14 carbon dioxide cartridges, and the list goes on. Authorities later find social media messages giving pre-indicators of the incident and anxiety increases in the school community.

Obviously, this is a crisis.

Less obvious to the broader school community is the “crisis after the crisis” educators, parents, and school-community members face in trying to determine the next steps once this immediate threat is resolved.

Crisis After the School Crisis: Demands for Metal Detectors, “Guarantee” It Won’t Happen Again

The conversation after a school crisis increasingly jumps to metal detectors. Parents want some type of “guarantee” an incident of violence will not occur again.  To help reassure parents, educators often believe they must provide some type of physical and tangible evidence of increased security.

Parents often look to metal detectors.  But as I addressed in my September 2nd article entitled School Security Versus the CSI Effect & TSA Effect, some parents and media falsely believe that because a school uses metal detectors, there is a “guarantee” that no weapons will ever be in the school.  This is simply not the case.

Metal Detector Conversations Should Focus on Implementation Questions

The argument for or against metal detectors typically boils down to two philosophical perspectives:

1. For metal detectors:  Schools should take every possible step to protect  child at all expenses.  Safety is the number one concern.
2. Against metal detectors: We do not want to create a “prison-like” environment and adversely effect school climate.

As a provider of post-crisis consulting services  to work with school districts and their school-community after a crisis, my colleagues and I start with a different line of discussion on the issue: Implementation. 

Some questions and points to consider:

1. If a school decides to use metal detectors, will they do so on a 24/7 basis to be effective?  If you run them just during the school day, what prohibits a student from dropping a bag of weapons in his/her locker during after-school and evening times when the building is open and accessible for student activities, athletic practices, etc. — and then coming in the next day, go through the metal detectors clean, and get the weapons from the locker?
2. How will you fund not only the metal detectors, but the additional security staffing to secure all doorways when they are in use, to operate the detectors 24/7, etc.?
3. Will parents be willing to drop off their students earlier each day in order to get hundreds or thousands of kids screened and in their classes on time?
4. Are parents, grandparents, and others willing to cooperate with all screening when they come to school to volunteer, attend athletic events and plays, etc.?
5. What will be done to secure all ground level windows of the building so someone cannot go through the metal detector screening and then have someone hand him/her a gun through an open classroom window?
6. Do parents and others recognize that even with a 24/7 operation, there will be no weapons screening at bus stops, on school buses, on school sidewalks and parking lots, etc.?

and the list goes on and on.

Most parents and other members of the school-community will realize from these questions that there are significant implication issues beyond the philosophical argument for metal detectors.  Metal detectors are an appropriate tool for some school districts, but they do not provide the quick fix some parents believe they will offer.

Perhaps most difficult is for parents to realize that even in an environment with intense metal detector screening, x-ray scanning of visitors, and strip searches — our prisons — we still have weapons, murders, gangs, drugs, sexual assaults, and other violence. 

In short, these messages do not provide the real thing that parents are seeking after a crisis:  A 100% guarantee it won’t happen again.

And the hard part is for educators to be honest in telling parents that while they truly wish to do so, this is one guarantee that no one can honestly provide.

Avoid Knee-Jerk Reactions, Conduct a Rational & Cognitive Assessment

School leaders should debrief every drill and critical school safety incidents.  Rational and cognitively performed reviews of prevention, security, and emergency preparedness measures should be conducted after a crisis.  It is a reasonable and timely expectation of parents for such reviews to occur.

Oftentimes these reviews point out many positive school safety measures already in place in a district.  They can also lead to practical, common-sense, and meaningful improvements in school safety — many of which cost more time than money.

Many times the best improvements in security will not be an additional camera on the wall or metal detectors at the door.  Truly good security is often invisible as the first and best line of defense is a well-trained, highly alert staff and student body.

What say you?

Ken Trump

Visit School Security Blog at:  http://www.schoolsecurityblog.com

Is the parent volunteer in your child’s school a convicted sex offender or drug dealer?

School officials struggle balancing parental involvement and protecting students from adults with criminal backgrounds who want to volunteer at their child’s school.  The tension was highlighted in Wednesday’s Associated Press article entitled Would-be School Volunteers Thwarted By Their Past. 

Parent Volunteers with Criminal Histories Pose Complex Challenges 

In my interview with the AP reporter for this story, Eric Tucker, I discussed a number of complex issues with these situations:

1. School officials are not trained experts in assessing recidivism risks of parents with criminal backgrounds. Can your elementary school principal assess and predict whether a parent convicted of drug use and sales five years ago will be a repeat offender?  Can the principal predict whether a grandfather convicted of sexual abuse of a minor ten years ago will harm a student if he volunteers at his grandson’s school?  It is hard enough for psychiatrists and criminal justice professionals to evaluate criminal offenders. These are pretty unrealistic expectations to put upon a school principal, which makes case-by-case evaluation of volunteer requests by parents or family members with criminal histories a challenge.
2. Most schools have limited resources to conduct criminal history checks, much less other more extensive background checks.  Many schools do not even conduct volunteer criminal history checks, which is a best practice, due to financial and staffing constraints.
3. School officials cannot blindly give volunteers with criminal histories access without a case-by-case review.  While school administrators want parental involvement, and prefer to avoid confrontation and conflict with parents which would arise by challenging a parent on past criminal history, they have to deal with these situations. They can’t simply turn their heads and ignore this issue.
4. There are parents with criminal histories who have reformed and do not have ill intentions.  In my years in school safety, I have met many parents with “less than stellar” backgrounds.  One interesting trend I’ve noticed, though, is that many (if not most) of them have wanted the best for their child at school.  Many want to support their child just like any other parent without a criminal history, and some are even more motivated to do so in order for their children to have a better opportunity than they had with bad choices in their lives.  And we know some of the parents with criminal histories have been “clean” in terms of no criminal record for many years since their last criminal record.  So we can understand the frustration of those who turned their lives around and simply want to support their child at school.

Unfortunately, these circumstances present quite a “teachable moment” about the long-term effects of criminal involvement.  Adults with criminal histories may have their encounter with police, the courts, and the correctional system in their rear-view mirror.  But the consequences long beyond the prison time, such as when issues arise with school volunteers with criminal histories, can be personally embarassing, hurtful, and long-lasting.  This might serve as a “teachable moment” for the younger generation of delinquent teens who often fail to think long-term.

Volunteer Background Checks, Policies, and Supervision are Essential

School leaders should conduct criminal history background checks on volunteers. They have an obligation to find out if they might be about to put a sexual offender in a classroom with elementary kids.  Schools should have legally-sound policies to govern the process of conducting the criminal history checks, as well as for evaluating situations on a case-by-case basis. 

It is also important that school leaders live up to their obligation to have school staff supervise all students even when volunteers are assisting in the classroom and school.  No volunteer, parent or otherwise, should be left  with children without a school employee present and supervising.

Parent volunteers contribute significantly to a school’s climate and a child’s educational experience.  Making it a safe process can keep such participation a wonderful experience for all. 

Ken Trump

Visit School Security Blog at:  http://www.schoolsecurityblog.com

The frustrated father whose daughter was bullied on a Florida school bus was justifiably upset, but wrong in how he approached the issue.

Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right

James Willie Jones made national news this past week when a school bus video captured him yelling at students and the bus driver, and gesturing in anger in frustration aboard the bus.  He believed his daughter, a 13-year-old with cerebral palsy, had been repeatedly harassed on the bus.

Yesterday, Jones apologized for his behavior - Fla. dad sorry for storming school bus, threats:

“At that time, I was a bully. And I apologize again for that,” said Jones. “If you see the tape, I feel like I was backed up against the wall as a parent. I just didn’t know where else to go. We definitely don’t want to promote that.  We don’t want vigilantes going on buses, threatening kids, because kids have rights too.”

Jones, like many parents, was frustrated that efforts to address safety concerns about his daughter were incomplete or unsuccessful. His concern is legitimate.  His methods for dealing with his frustration were inappropriate, however, and actually ended up with him being criminally charged by authorities.

Steps Parents Can Take to Address School Safety Concerns

This is why back in January, I provided some Steps Parents Can Take to Address School Safety Concerns.   Parents don’t know what to do and/or how to do it.  And in most cases, no one is rushing to tell them.

Parents need to follow these steps or similar efforts.  As frustrating as it will be, they also need to recognize incidents may not stop on the first time school administrators address the issue with students. 

Often it requires ongoing monitoring and, unfortunately, revisiting the issue more than once until the matter resolves.  In some of the more extreme cases this could, and often does, take more time than anyone (students or the adults) prefer.

Persistence Pays (Albeit it a Frustrating Process)

Two wrongs don’t make a right, as the saying goes, and parents need to make sure their students’ frustrations, as well as their own frustrations, do not further complicate an already difficult situation.  Being persistent and following the proper process, while sometimes frustrating itself, can lead to the resolution students and parents desire if they take the proper steps to address their safety concerns.

Ken Trump

Visit School Security Blog at:  http://www.schoolsecurityblog.com

If a parent unexpectedly asked your school’s principal, superintendent, or school board member the following two questions, could they immediately answer each one with specific responses?

1. Will you name 10 specific strategies your schools are using to prevent crime and violence in your schools?
2. Will you list 10 specific measures your schools have taken to prepare for, and to manage, an unpreventable school crisis incident?

School leaders should be prepared to provide concrete, specific examples for each question without having to stammer, stutter, research, or delay a response. 

Most schools have measures in place for each of these two areas.  But are your school’s leaders aware of them?  Can they intelligently discuss them on a moment’s notice if asked in a school office, central office hallway, by the media, or when stopped by a parent for a casual conversation at a local shopping mall?

If not, now is a good time to better prepare.  These are things parents, and potentially the media, want to know.  Better to prepare up-front than get caught unprepared following a high-profile school safety incident.

Ken Trump

Visit School Security Blog at:  http://www.schoolsecurityblog.com

Prevention and preparedness.  Parents want to know about both of these school safety components.

Could you and your school leaders answer these two questions with specific examples if asked unexpectedly?

1. What specific steps have you taken to prevent incidents of violence and crime in your school(s)?
2. How well prepared are your school staff to respond to and manage those crisis incidents which cannot be prevented?

Ken Trump

Visit School Security Blog at:  http://www.schoolsecurityblog.com