Most school leaders probably don’t know that the component of ALICE training in which children are taught to attack armed intruders in schools was actually rejected by the school district in which the model originated in 2006.

A.L.I.C.E. (Alert-Lockdown-Inform-Counter-Evacuate) Training is a program being advocated in a small but noticeable number of school-communities.  Along with others in education and law enforcement, I have raised a number of questions regarding the program’s implementation including those in my recent blog post entitled ”Parent Questions: ALICE Training & Teaching Kids to Fight Gunmen.”

I thought it would be interesting to take a look back at a number of news stories highlighting the introduction and subsequent rejection of ALICE training in what appears to be its school district of origin.

ALICE Training thrust into national spotlight in 2006 

ALICE Training for schools appears in news stories to have originated in Burleson, Texas. News stories first highlighting the program in 2006 include:

Burleson schools train students, teachers to fight off intruders: An Associated Press article appearing in the Houston Chronicle described ALICE Training as, “…training students and teachers to fight back with everything from books to scissors,” and, “…training for teachers and students instructs them to disrupt attackers by barraging them with classroom supplies.”

The story says the Burleson Independent School District had trained about 600 teachers and received a $95,000 federal grant from which the training could be continued.  The article indicates an elementary school principal’s husband, a former police officer, developed the training with fellow police officers and military friends.

The principal was quoted as saying: “Just because the gun goes off does not mean you can’t still fight. You can still try to gain control of the situation where you can get the children out.”

A related story was published on msnbc.com:

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

Typically I ignore snark and snipe attacks made against me on the Internet. As a higher-profile figure with over 25 years experience in the school safety field, they come with the territory.  And typically they come from people who are jealous and/or insecure anyway.

But every now and then one occurs that is just too good to pass up.  As a part of my daily research of online writings about school safety, I encountered one of those Thursday evening.

Earlier this week, I provided a keynote and two breakout presentations to over 600 school administrators, police officers and safety professionals at the Indiana School Safety Specialist Academy in Indianapolis.  The keynote session topic focused on administration center and board meeting security.

One of the attendees, assistant principal Stephen Satterly Jr., later attacked me online for a comment I made after showing a video of a Florida school board shooting last December where a well-intended school board member attempted to attack an armed gunman by striking him from behind with her purse.  In reviewing numerous take-away lessons from the video I stated one lesson is, “Don’t bring a purse to a gun fight.”

Mr. Satterly apparently thinks it is a great idea to attack an armed gunman with a purse. The board member, who had been told by the gunman to get out of the room, presumably meant well.  But the questions I raise are whether there were other options and was it the best decision given the facts at hand?

Attacking an armed intruder with a purse is not something I train or advise people to do.  Mr. Satterly, though, says that as an assistant principal it is his job to help teachers become more “warrior-like” and that, “The lady in the board room is to be commended.  Sure, she can learn from it.  We all learn from each experience.  But dammit, she acted, when others ran, or froze!”

Yes, she can learn from it.  But she is also lucky to be alive to learn from it and lucky her actions did not trigger a man who was not shooting to do so.  And apparently unlike Satterly and his employer who presumably endorses his teaching of teachers to be “warriors,” teaching a board member to hit an armed gunman with her purse is not something I would teach people to do.

True warriors train endlessly in their use of self defense tactics and weapons. Teachers, students and school board members typically do not do so in a preK-12 setting.  And most experienced, level-headed school administrators do not advocate for one-shot “training” sessions or setting school policy to direct their staff or students to attack armed individuals.

It is disappointing that an education professional and self-proclaimed “sheepdog for kids” who preaches being “warrior-like” was sheepish by first attacking me in a personal blog instead of speaking up during the conference session itself or coming directly to me one-on-one immediately afterwards.  Perhaps Mr. Satterly lacks the nobility he likes to claim in his blog that others don’t have.  Or perhaps the real reason for his sniping has to do with the fact I once made a challenge to his superintendent on a questionable bidding process for a school safety consulting project Satterly oversaw in his district.

Now in fairness to Satterly, he did open his blog by noting he, “…had an opportunity to see part of…,” my presentation.  Perhaps he was tardy for the beginning of the session or skipped out after the part he decided to critique.  Or maybe he simply is not attentive to detail as evident where he mistakenly refers in his  article to the Bay District Schools (where the board shooting took place) as the Panama City School Board.

Either way, I’ll set the record straight here.  People will make personal decisions in a crisis and heroic acts may result.  But when one assumes the responsibility to train people to act a certain way, they accept a huge responsibility and liability.

I, for one, take a deeper responsibility to not err on the side of puffery and warrior-talk by formally training people in an hour workshop or with a few videos to attack armed intruders with a purse, by throwing textbooks, or taking similar actions. I do believe in training them to think critically, to practice thinking critically and faster through tabletop exercises and drills, and to use their brains in a crisis rather than their emotions and egos.

And it is obvious that on this last point of teaching people to use their brains rather than their emotions and egos, there is still a lot of work to be done.

How are school officials trained at your school?

Ken Trump

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

Follow Ken on Twitter @safeschools

Principals need leadership, not just money, to make their schools safer and better prepared for emergencies.

While presenting a Monday regional workshop in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, on “Focusing on Fundamentals” of security and emergency preparedness, an assistant principal reminded me how easy and cost-effective it can be to stay on top of their school crisis planning.

Low Cost, High Impact Integrity Checks on School Security and Crisis Guidelines

During a break, he explained to me how his school district maintains its emergency/crisis plan on the district’s intranet system so teachers can pull it up on their computers.  But he suspected a number of teachers had not reviewed the plan.  So he randomly visited three classrooms and asked the teachers to pull up the plan on their classroom computer.

The administrator’s worst fears were realized as none of the three teachers knew how to access the plan on their computers.

This was a great example of how school administrators can conduct “integrity checks” of their security and emergency / crisis plans without spending money.  Other checks can be made too without spending a lot (or for that matter, any) money.

For example, several years ago one school district engaged support from a local university class to test their access control and staff awareness.   Over a designated period of time, the college students fanned out across the city and tested school security by recording how far they could walk through the schools without being stopped.  It was not surprising to learn that the majority could walk fairly easily and far too long throughout the district’s schools before being stopped.

I also learned about a building administrator who conducted detailed inspections and debriefings of lockdowns at his school.  He had the courage to tally “by-name” accounts of who did and did not follow procedures. Then he distributed the final debriefing to all staff.  During the next drill, he saw dramatic improvement in staff performance.

And over the years, when introduced to school secretaries while we do our assessment consultations, I kindly ask them to show me their bomb threat checklists. Too often, these beloved staff members had to get up, leave their desk areas, and dig  their plans out of a file cabinet or drawer on the other side of the room.

Time and Leadership Key to School Safety

School officials do not have to wait for beefed up budgets to keep their fingers on the pulse of school safety.  They do need to exert leadership and dedicate some time to the process. By conducting their own integrity checks, administrators can help make a difference.

Are your school administrators demonstrating active leadership on school safety?

Ken Trump

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

Federal authorities acknowledge a credible terrorist threat to your city or to a city near you. What does a school principal and superintendent do?

School officials faced this very reality last night when federal homeland security officials acknowledged a credible al-Qaeda terrorist threat to NY City and Washington, DC.

School safety officials in New York City and DC likely have detailed security and emergency preparedness plans specific to a credible terror threat. But what about schools in smaller school districts in the region or in other U.S. cities?

Place yourself in this position: It is late Thursday evening. Schools are closed for the day. National news alerts say federal homeland security officials acknowledge a credible threat involving vehicle-borne explosives.

Speculation and rumors abound, questionable details leak to the media about stolen rental trucks possibly picked up by terrorists in a large Midwest city, and public safety officials hold late night press conferences about the seriousness of the threat and heightened security measures.

Today the focus is on NY City and DC.  But what about the many smaller cities and their schools in the broader region?

And what if the location changed to another area of the country?  Suddenly overnight, the same type of credible threat is announced but the location is a different large city area in the Midwest or on the west coast.

For well over a decade, I have written about schools and terrorism on my web site, blog, and again in my latest book on Proactive School Security and Emergency Preparedness Planning.  Still, there are some who want to dismiss this conversation as being “alarmist” instead of as being a practical, balanced “realist” perspective.

Is your city and school district prepared to respond to a credible terrorist threat on a moment’s notice?

Ken Trump

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

Communication, coordination, and complacency.

These three themes repeatedly surfaced in comments by morning panel members for The Press Club of Cleveland’s: Behind the Scenes of a Crisis, September 11 10 Years Later program.  The September 7th program’s morning panel included representatives from the FBI, Red Cross, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Cleveland Police, Regional Transit Authority, and other regional leaders.

Common Themes: Communication, Coordination, and Complacency

The message from local public safety experts reinforced those we have heard nationally over the past decade:

• Communication – The importance of agencies communicating effectively and efficiently with one another to prevent and prepare for terrorism and other disasters, and the need to communicate in an honest, effective, and timely manner with the public;
• Coordination – Having layers of security and preparedness measures designed through the coordination and partnership of public safety agencies, their community partners, and the public; and
• Complacency – Concerns that with decreasing budgets and distance in time from 9/11, the general public and others are increasingly complacent about terrorist threats and homeland security issues compared to their levels of interest in the time following 9/11.

Another repeated theme: The shifting emphasis on domestic terrorist threats and radicalization of those from within our nation.

Schools, Terrorism, and Preparedness

Tom Kelley, director of the Lorain County Emergency Management Agency and Homeland Security, shared that one thing that surprised him the most on 9/11 was parents rushing to take their children out of school.

Tom’s comments made me think: “How would most schools respond today?”  While many schools are much better prepared today than they were a decade ago, I also know many schools are still marginally prepared, at best, to effectively manage such a situation.

Rick DeChant, a former TSA administrator at Cleveland Hopkins Airport whose background includes service with the U.S. Coast Guard and current head of a veteran’s program for Cuyahoga Community College, raised another important point:

There are a lot of detailed emergency plans, but are we doing enough of the drilling and exercising of these plans to make them meaningful?

Speaking from my school observations nationally, I can easily say the answer is, “No!,” and the urgency to do so has stalled in many school districts.

Shifting the Mission to Prevention While Protecting Individual Liberties

Stephen Anthony, Special Agent In-Charge of the Cleveland FBI Office, shared how the FBI was tasked to address terrorism post-9/11:

The FBI’s job is to not only investigate incidents and leads, but to prevent the next attack while also protecting the civil liberties of Americans.

School administrators face a similar challenge:

Not only investigate incidents but focus on preventing school shootings, violence, terrorist attacks, bullying, and other threats while at the same time creating a supportive and welcoming climate for students, staff, and other members of their school community.

These are easy things to demand, but very challenging to do.

The Next Decade

No one knows exactly how terrorist and other security threats will evolve over the next decade.  In the months ahead, anticipate a ramped up focus on domestic terrorism, radicalization of individuals already within our country, and the “lone wolf” actor who perpetrates terrorist attacks.

As if this alone is not a challenge, our public safety, school, and other front-line guardians need to tackle these threats with rapidly decreasing budgetary resources and steadily increasing apathy.

One thing is clear: The first and best line of defense will be those on the front lines.  Not just our front line first responders, but more so our students, teachers, and public in general.

What is your state of awareness and preparedness?

Ken Trump

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

Overloaded.  Burned out.  Unemployed.

Distracted. Disjointed. Stressed.

These are just a few words describing what I see and hear more and more every day.  I find them among school staff, parents, neighbors, family, and about everywhere else life takes me each week.

Uncertain Times Breed Stress and Anxiety 

We live in a time of economic uncertainty, political divisiveness, and rapid changes in our personal and professional lives.  Talk to just about anyone and you’ll find they have some stressor (or multiple stressors) that seem to be adding a new level of intensity to their lives.

The school safety field is no different.  Severe budget cuts, the increasing politicization of school safety, and other burdens in education have pushed school safety to the back burner in many school communities.  These dynamics have also beaten down even the most passionate of front-line advocates for school safety.

In April of this year, my third book on school safety, security and emergency / crisis preparedness was published.  After months of writing, rewriting, and editing, I took a break from School Security Blog and other writing.  I needed a mental break from writing, fast paced travel, and the emotional drain of watching so many school safety efforts across the nation shift from proactive to reactive — and in many cases to “non-existent.”

We all need to know it is normal to need a break and  it is o.k. to be human.

A New Look at School Safety 

Summer break is a natural time for school people to reflect and regroup. Although the amount of time between school closing and school reopening seems to be getting less and less each year, the pace is slower than it is during the regular school year.  We can exhale, spend time with our family members and, physically and mentally separate from our workplace pressures.

Stepping back to unwind does not mean stepping away from our passion and commitment to an issue — in this case, school safety.  Since January I have been researching and analyzing a number of areas including:

• dramatic shifts in federal school safety policy and funding;
• increased politicization of school safety by civil rights activists to further their social and/or political agendas;
• defined patterns of fundamental school security and preparedness gaps; and
• an ongoing inside study of trends and issues in the news media, social media, and related communications issues that increasingly influence school safety and education in general.

The list is a lot longer, so look forward a rejuvenated School Security Blog in the weeks and months ahead.

Time to Rejuvenate School Safety

The school safety field needs to be rejuvenated.  Passionate people need a morale booster.  They need to know someone has their backs.  They need to know that people still care and that it is critical for them to care today more than ever.

I am bouncing back to do my part.  Will you join me?

Ken Trump

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

What have we learned and what is the state of school security and emergency planning 12 years after the Columbine High School attack in 1999?

The answer is simple:  We need to return to a focus on the fundamentals.  A new generation of school board members, superintendents, central office administrators, school safety specialists, principals, teachers, support staff members, and their community partners needs practical nuts-and-bolts resources for managing school safety during tight budget times.

Ken Trump’s third book is now available to help meet these needs.

Proactive School Security and Emergency Preparedness Planning introduces new dedicated full chapters on managing the current national hysteria around bullying, preparing schools for terrorism, managing school safety on tight budgets, parents and school safety, and managing media and parent communications in the postcrisis stage of school emergency planning. These five new chapters offer practical, common-sense frameworks and steps school leaders can take to proactively manage and respond to highly visible, emotional, and political aspects of school safety leadership in today’s security-sensitive school community. The guidance in these chapters will help school leaders navigate complex school safety issues while operating under unprecedented budget constraints.

Educators and safety officials will also benefit from new subchapter sections on hot topics that have emerged over the years since my first books. Administration building and board meeting security, after-hours school security; athletic and large event security; cell phones; Election Day security; elementary school security; Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and school privacy exceptions; Tasers and school police; training staff on school security and emergency preparedness; transportation security; diversifying emergency drills; tabletop exercises; and financial and continuity of operations plans are among the new and expanded subchapters. Readers who found my earlier publications helpful in covering a wide range of school security issues will find more best practices and issues to consider with the addition of these new topics.

 Practical, cost-effective, and realistic ideas are loaded into these chapters and subchapters:

• The Evolving Threats to School Security
• The “Politricks” of School Security: Denial, Image, and Underreporting
• Comprehensive School Safety Planning and Leadership
• School Security Assessments
• School Security Strategies and Issues: Board meeting and administration office security, athletic and large event security, bomb threats and suspicious devices, cell phones and text messaging, gangs, hotlines and anonymous reporting, private and independent schools, SROs and school police, school security staffing, student involvement in school safety planning, Tasers and school police, transportation security, uniforms and dress codes, zero tolerance, and more
• Managing Bullying (without new programs and expenses)
• Preparing Schools for Terrorism
• Managing School Safety on Tight Budgets
• Parents and School Safety
• Early Warning Signs of Violence
• Assessing and Managing Threats
• Lessons Learned from School Crisis Incidents
• Emergency Preparedness Planning and Preparation
• Emergency Response and Crisis Management
• Managing Media and Parent Communications on School Safety and Crisis Issues
• The Post-Crisis Crisis:  Mental Health, Security, Financial, Operational Continuity, Liability, and School-Community Political Issues
• Future Directions: State, Federal, and Academic Support for School Safety

…and much more!

A full look at the Table of Contents at Corwin’s web site will provide more details. 

Ken Trump

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

Libya, Iran, Al-Qaeda, Mexican drug cartels, and the list of other possible threat sources to U.S. national security and public safety continue to grow. 

In fact, one veteran national public official openly asked this week if the U.S. has more international enemies now than we did just prior to 9/11.  When you think about it, it is a reasonable question.

Minimal Conversations on Schools as Terror Targets

Our federal government has never fully, openly, and proactively addressed the threat of terrorism to our schools.  I testified at a hearing of the House Homeland Security Committee in 2007 on “Protecting our Schools: Federal Efforts to Strengthen Community Preparedness and Response.”  The General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report around that time which cited weaknesses in school emergency preparedness.

The National Advisory Committee on Children and Terrorism authored 2003 reports on schools and terrorism.

I also participated in a 2003 National Strategy Forum special working group conference in D.C. on “Schools: Prudent Preparation for a Catastrophic Terrorism Incident.”

In 2004, the U.S. Department of Education put out a letter advising schools of heightened security concerns in response to the Beslan, Russia, school terror siege.

In addition to numerous professional articles, I authored a detailed web page on Schools & Terrorism: School Terrorism Preparedness.  My new book published in April of 2011 also has a dedicated chapter on Preparing Schools for Terrorism.

Even Less Action on Schools as Terror Targets

And with minimal scattered things said and written about schools and terrorism, where are we now?  About as far ahead as we were before or right after 9/11:  Not very far ahead at all.

In fact, it is arguable that we moved backwards.  In the past month, the Obama Administration eliminated the only dedicated K-12 school emergency planning grant (REMS) program for schools in the FY2012 budget.  Congress then followed up by eliminating the program for FY2011 in a politically expedient move to get to a Continuing Resolution for the 2011 budget.

Local school boards and administrators are following suit by cutting school security, policing, and preparedness measures.  These areas tend to be first on the chopping block.

And the Threats Continue to Grow

Yet we continue to see a number of high-profile violent incidents in schools. A number of veteran school safety professionals believe any day now ”Columbine 2″ could occur somewhere in the country.

In the past year, I have seen a growing number of incidents involving adult, non-students posing a serious threat to schools.  In January of 2011, an employee of the Bethlehem Area School District in PA was arrested for a plan of attack upon his school.  Also in January, in Elizabeth City, NC, a 24-year-old man was arrested for threatening to “shoot up’ a school after federal officers found five firearms and 200 to 400 rounds of ammunition while searching his home.  He also had an AK-47 assault rifle on layaway.

Meanwhile, our list of international enemies grows with many on the list having histories of terrorist activities.  Closer to home, the “radicalization” of Americans has become a popular topic of conversation among terrorism experts, Congressional officials, and other national security gurus.

A respected friend and colleague with over 35 years in education, many of those as an administrator in local school and then at the state level, recently shared his perspective that one of the least talked about but foreseeable potential next threats to our schools could be from domestic terrorists.  Whether driven by social, political, economic, or other influences, such individuals could easily target schools in their own local areas.

There is legitimate cause to take a closer look at the potential for threats to schools from domestic terrorism.  The overall climate of our society at many levels is one of concern, uncertainty, frustration, and anxiety.

And the climate in many K-12 schools is not much better.  Budget cuts, education reform, and a tunnel vision focus on improving test scores has shifted the focus off proactive security and emergency preparedness planning in far too many districts.

Will it take another tragedy to focus on school security and emergency preparedness?

Ken Trump

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