Anything remotely close to comprehensive and balanced federal school safety public policy and funding died in 2011.  Minus a handful of exceptions, if that many, the same can be said for state level school safety efforts.  And far too many local school districts are not far behind.

The U.S. Department of Education, academic experts and school safety professionals spent over a decade preaching that the best chance of effectively addressing school safety is to have policy and programs comprehensive and balanced in their approach.  This means prevention-only or enforcement-only approaches are destined to fail.  Prevention, intervention, mental health, security, school-based policing, emergency preparedness, school climate, school discipline and other strategies collectively reflect such balance and comprehensiveness.

Although the “comprehensive and balanced” philosophy continues to be generally accepted in professional school safety circles, it did not stop the Obama Administration, Congress, special interest groups, state governments and others from destroying anything resembling  comprehensive and balanced school safety public policy and funding in 2011.

Some factors contributing to a “perfect storm”  climate that a number of school safety professionals believe has set back over a decade of progress made in professional school safety policy and funding include: 

• Obama Administration destroys the federal Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools:  Kevin Jennings, Obama’s Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug Free Schools, finished off his two-year stint in the U.S. Department of Education by almost single-handedly destroying anything resembling a comprehensive and balanced approach the federal school safety public policy and funding.  Jennings, an Obama campaign-bundler and founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), publicly advocated almost exclusively for “anti-bullying” policy and funding.  School emergency planning, school security, school-based policing, drug prevention and other violence prevention efforts were either eliminated or marginalized to the point of total ineffectiveness with Jennings at the helm.  Jennings resigned mid-year and moved seamlessly into a CEO job at a national non-profit organization having political origins.  Bill Modzeleski, the long-time number two guy in the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, retired from federal service after a decade in that office as what some privately described as the consummate bureaucratic “survivor” who followed the political winds of the day.  The Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools was eliminated weeks after Jennings left with the remaining programs tucked away under the Department’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education where they continued the last few months of the year by putting out lame newsletters referencing other federal studies and programs, research reports, non-profit organization links and a periodic  reference to federal school nutrition and health programs. The Education Department attempted to spin the demise of this office by blaming Congress for cutting safe schools funds.
• Special interest groups intensified the politicizing of school safety by labeling gay rights special interest goals of creating federal and state laws enumerating the phrases “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” into a new protected civil rights class under the guise of “bullying.”  Simultaneous lobbying for federal “anti-bullying” laws and state-level laws have similar themes of protected class language, although federal efforts appear stalled due to the balance of power in Congress while state-level efforts have had mixed results. This “anti-bullying movement” or “safe schools movement” continues as we head into 2012.  Look for federal efforts to focus on slipping in language in the federal Elementary and Secondary Education (ESEA) Act reauthorization pending in Congress since the actual “anti-bullying” bills before Congress will likely go nowhere with the current Republican House majority.
• Civil rights special interest groups continued their assault against school-based police, school security and school discipline (suspensions and expulsions) by issuing multiple “studies” and “reports” from civil rights and liberal activist organizations.  Efforts continue behind-the-scenes to use these “studies” and “reports” to influence language in the federal ESEA Act mentioned earlier. 
• State education departments eliminated or dramatically downsized state-level school safety programs and funding.  The South Carolina Department of Education eliminated its state school safety office. Other state school safety centers or offices downsized their staff, programs, funding and/or influence.  A few state programs continue to surviveand thrive, such as the Indiana School Safety Specialist Academy in the Indiana Department of Education, but they are the exception and not the rule.
• School safety and prevention were first on the chopping block in local school district budget cuts.  2011 saw continued and intensified cuts of drug and violence prevention programs, mental health services, counselors, school security staff, school resource officer (SRO) programs, professional development training and similar school safety programs in local school districts.  Very early signs of the adverse impact of these cuts have already popped up in scattered areas.

Penny-wise but pound-foolish school safety budget cuts will likely continue into 2012 barring a major national catastrophic school safety incident with shortwaves reaching into local schools nationwide.  The politicizing of school safety will unquestionably continue, especially given the Obama Administration’s political courting of civil rights, gay rights and related special interest groups. 

Veteran school safety professional agree that it will take a long-time to undo the damages done to school safety public policy and funding leading up to and through 2011. 

Fortunately, at ground level we still have many school safety professionals advocating for truly balanced, comprehensive and professional school safety programs and strategies. Unfortunately, their backs are against the wall and they are fighting an uphill battle. They need our support, even if it is just moral support, now more than ever.

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

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:

A female is allegedly raped in a gym restroom.  A student is assaulted in a hallway during class change.  A stranger is found in an elementary school restroom.

The first question raised by parents, the media and perhaps eventually lawyers is: “Was supervision adequate?”

The answer to that question must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.  But it is a valid question.

My colleagues and I often say the key to good school safety is supervision, supervision and supervision!

Back in October of 2011, a news story in Tampa reported on an alleged rape in a high school.  The story headline read: In wake of reported rape, Hillsborough schools reviewing routines and security.

What specific routines and security?  Certainly “supervision” would be one of those, one would hope.

Critics often question the presence of security officers and school resource officers (SROs or school police as they are often called).  These critics frequently misunderstand the role of the officers, focusing on incidences of arrests instead of the preventative role safety officials play in student supervision.

Whether it is monitoring hallways, bus loading and unloading areas, cafeterias, or other common areas, school safety staff along with school administrators play a vital role in supervising areas where students travel during their school day.  The value of a teacher’s presence in hallways during class change or while doing a check of restrooms during class time can be significant.

Just like the importance of supervision by parents at home, supervision by educators and school safety staff plays a critical role in having good school safety.

Are adults visible and actively supervising students at your school?

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

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

Civil rights advocates who portray police in schools as overly arresting kids are simply wrong.

Police officers who work in schools, commonly known as School Resource Officers (SROs), generally perform more as prevention programs where officers prevent  incidents versus taking on a ”cuff’n'stuff” role with the intent of increasing student arrests.

That’s not stopping civil rights and other special interest groups to claim, as was done in this suburban Cleveland news article, that “Stories abound of ever-younger children being pulled out of the classroom for seemingly minor infractions, only to end up with a criminal record from a young age.” (ACLU says police respond to schools too often)

Two recent news stories highlight school-based police officers in a much more accurate and positive light than do a number of other recent articles, books, and other politically-driven attacks upon police in schools:

• Study says officers help deter crime in schools:  A research study in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, concluded that school resource officers are effective.  The study found it normal for reported crimes to increase after officers are placed inside schools.  The university professor leading the study said it does not necessarily mean more crimes are being committed, but that officers are reporting offenses that might have otherwise gone unreported.
• Wake survey praises having armed officers in schools.  In Raleigh, North Carolina, school administrators praised the effectiveness of armed officers in their schools.  Survey data of school administrators showed “strong support” from middle and high school principals for the SRO program. School officials presented data showing a 54% drop in violent incidents in the district’s middle and high schools over the past six years.

These findings are consistent with my surveys of SROs back to 2001.

The findings are also consistent with my first-hand work with SROs across the country.

It is time to call out the civil rights activists who continue to hi-jack school safety to further their social and political agendas.  As we peel back the layers of some recent reports, books, and news stories, you may be surprised to see who is behind these publications and the biases these individuals and organizations bring to the table.

Stay tuned for more on the latest political assault upon school safety!

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

A 62-year-old gunman pointed a .380 semi-automatic gun in a Tennessee Principal’s face yesterday. The School Resource Officer (SRO) drew her gun and shielded the Principal’s body with her own. 

The principal, Melanie Riden, was able to flee the area. The SRO, Sheriff’s Deputy Carolyn Gudger, lured the gunman into the  empty high school cafeteria — a more contained location.  Minutes later, additional officers arrived.  The male pointed his gun at the officers.  They shot and killed him.

Read the full story:  Gunman killed at Sullivan Central (High School in Blountville, TN).

Just yesterday, I wrote about SROs being mischaracterized in an article entitled, “America’s real school-safety problem.”  I challenged the positions put forth by academician Aaron Kupchick, who espoused what I consider to be an anti-police/anti-SRO/anti-school security message.  Kupchick wrote a recent book entitled, “Homeroom Security: School Discipline in an Age of Fear,” which is critical of SROs and other school security measures.

I have also written recently about, “Education Department Redefines School Safety, Downplays Violence,” where the U.S. Department of Education has redefined school safety to push “violence” to the back burner as the Department goes on overkill with bullying, school climate, “incivil” behavior, and climate surveys.

Principal Melanie Riden didn’t need a climate survey when a man pointed a gun at her face at Sullivan Central High School in Blountville, TN.  She and her kids needed their School Resource Officer.  And that police officer, Deputy Carolyn Gudger, was there for them, risked her life for them, and most likely saved some lives in the process.

Educators and students cannot afford to allow Ivory Tower academicians and D.C. politicians to skew the definition of school safety, or to skew federal policy and funding for school safety.

School safety must include conversations on, and resources to deal with, violence.  SROs, school police, and school security cannot be summarily dismissed.   And we should not apologize for wanting and/or having them in our schools

They didn’t need a climate survey, anti-bullying program, or lecture on “incivility” yesterday morning at Sullivan Central High School.  They needed a cop.  And thank God there was one right there in the school when the need struck so quickly.

Ken Trump

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

Good theory, perhaps, but clueless in understanding School Resource Officers (SROs), school security, and so-called “zero tolerance.”

This is my take on America’s real school-safety problem, an article posted Sunday on salon.com.  The article is mostly a Q&A with Aaron Kupchick, author of “Homeroom Security: School Discipline in an Age of Fear.”  He spent two years researching “zero tolerance” and security measures at four (4) public high schools. 

School Resource Officers Mischaracterized

Kupchick has quite a different perspective on a number of issues related to school discipline, School Resource Officers (SROs), school security equipment, and related topics.  For example, on SROs he described them as “great” and noted that he “really enjoyed the time” he spent with them, but then went on to say:

“But their role is an odd one for schools. They don’t have a counseling background, and they are just not able to deal with kids’ problems the way that some of these problems need. Their day-to-day experience trains them and socializes them to deal with kids in not the most productive manner. And their presence in schools creates a law-and-order mindset to govern schools rather than the type of counseling and democratic mindset that we know prevents crime.”  

I have seen great counselors in schools and every now and then, I have seen lousy counselors.  The same applies to SROs.  But in the majority of my 25+ years in school safety, the number of good counselors and SROs has far outnumbered the bad.

Kupchick notes there have been “big decreases in crime” and comes to the conclusion that, “it’s unlikely that the SROs have had an effect on that.” But in the next sentence, he says, “There have been only a few studies that have tried to look at effectiveness, and they’ve been totally mixed.”

Well if they few studies are totally mixed, how can he conclude it is unlikely that the SROs have had an effect on decreasing school crime? (We also know the claim that of dramatic school crime decreases is questionable because there is no federal mandatory K-12 school crime reporting and tracking.)

Zero Accuracy on “Zero Tolerance”

The article also claims that schools have adopted “strict policies” and are filled with “armed guards, metal detectors and drug-sniffing dogs.” Perhaps the author of the article and/or Kupchick visited four very tough schools in a large district with chronic violence or four schools in some other country?  I have been in the school safety field for over 25 years and this characterization of the majority of our schools is totally off-base. 

My take on zero tolerance is that there really is no mass conspiracy in education called “zero tolerance.”  Most administrators strive for firm, fair, and consistent discipline applied with good common sense.  Unfortunately, from time to time we see the “good common sense” missing in the application of discipline in anecdotal cases, but there is no mass conspiracy in my experience in education.

Maybe Kupchick’s research was limited to a non-representative sample of America schools.  Or perhaps Kupchick has some pre-determined, biased philosophies and slants?

I do find it ironic that an article and book portraying school discipline and school-based policing strategies as fear mongering is actually written in a manner to create unnecessary fear of reasonable school security and emergency preparedness measures.

What’s your take on the article?

Ken Trump

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

A school principal is often referred to as the “captain” of his or her ship.  When a principal is new, sometimes you hear it said, “There is a new sheriff in town.”  But rarely do you find the principal (new or a veteran administrator) actually is also really a deputy sheriff.

Unless, of course, Marie Waldrop is your school’s principal.  Marie is a veteran educator who has served the past 11+ years as principal of Irmo Middle School in Irmo, South Carolina.  She is also a well respected and highly acclaimed reserve deputy sheriff for the Richland County Sheriff’s Department.

I met Marie earlier this year as we toured the South Carolina for a series of workshops I presented in four cities over four days for educators and law enforcement professionals.  She was a part of the team from the U.S. Attorney ‘s Office, South Carolina Department of Education, South Carolina Association of School Resource Officers, and others who organized the 19th annual South Carolina school safety conference.

Listen to Marie’s leadership perspectives on the role of school safety, emergency planning, and school resource officers (SROs) from the lens of a veteran school principal:

It was not surprising for me to learn why, given her rich and diverse background, Marie also serves on the board of the South Carolina Association of School Resource Officers.  Her no-nonsense, yet compassionate and caring, traits blend together to make a principal who is firm with discipline, has no tolerance for crime on campus, makes crisis  planning a top priority, and recognizes the importance of all of these elements in creating a safe and supportive school environment which is conducive to enhanced academic achievement.

It is for these reasons I am pleased to recognize Marie Waldrop as a “School Safety Leader”!*

Ken Trump

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

*”School Safety Leaders” are individuals on the “front lines” of education who have demonstrated proactive leadership in addressing school safety, security, and/or crisis preparedness.