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:

Related posts:

1. Parent questions: ALICE Training & teaching kids to fight gunmen   Most of us who are parents agree that safety...
2. Bringing pencils & books to a gun fight; ALICE Training raises questions   “While he’s busy ducking and covering his head from...
3. Bringing a purse to a gun fight: Training to attack armed intruders? Typically I ignore snark and snipe attacks made against me...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

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

Related posts:

1. Bringing pencils & books to a gun fight; ALICE Training raises questions   “While he’s busy ducking and covering his head from...
2. Bringing a purse to a gun fight: Training to attack armed intruders? Typically I ignore snark and snipe attacks made against me...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

“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

Related posts:

1. Bringing a purse to a gun fight: Training to attack armed intruders? Typically I ignore snark and snipe attacks made against me...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Who does the maintenance worker and his/her supervisor call? Not the police.

Shots Fired, Suspects Flee; School Staff Delay Police Call

A March 22, 2011, MercuryNews.com article reporting on Shots fired at Berkeley High School, three arrested says the school’s maintenance worker who heard the shots and saw students run called his supervisor instead of the police.  The supervisor then called someone else at the school instead of calling the police.

Fortunately, the third time was charm.  When the supervisor called someone else (not named in the story) at the school, that person called the police.

The end result: A 15-minute delay in calling police.

The suspects, who were later identified by two student witnesses who saw the gun go off in the restroom, were arrested.  At least one shot went through the wall of the bathroom and outside of the portable classroom building, and could have injured or killed someone had a person been outside, police said.

The gun was found about two hours later wrapped in a jacket in a neighborhood street.  Apparently the suspects allegedly fled, ditched the gun, and came back to school.

Later a third student carrying a gun was arrested following an anonymous tip.

What’s More Scary: Kids with Guns or Adults Who Don’t Know to Call Police? 

Three students arrested and two guns confiscated in one day are enough to capture most people’s attention.  But the shocking part of the story to this veteran school safety specialist is that two school employees failed to immediately notify police when shots were fired and suspects fleeing on campus.

What were they thinking? Were they thinking? What type of training have they received?  (All of these would be questions they and their school administrators would likely be asked in a deposition and/or trial if they were sued had someone been injured or killed.)

Security and Crisis Training Needed for School Support Staff

My colleagues and I have stepped up our school security and emergency preparedness training workshops for school support staff in recent years. This incident reinforces the need to continue doing so.

School custodians, maintenance workers, food service staff, bus drivers, secretaries, and other support staff have for too long not been provided training on school security and crisis issues.  They often are not represented on school crisis teams. 

Unfortunately, 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. Many school support staff were included in training funded by this grant, and the training was the first ever they had received on these topics. 

Many school administrators have made great strides in recent years to train and include these employee support groups in school emergency preparedness efforts.

But obviously, there is a long way to go.

Ken Trump

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

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Suspending a student who violated the rule to help a woman with her hands full is not a best practice.

A Southampton County, Virginia, middle school student was suspended from school after opening a door for a woman with her hands full, according to a WTKR news report. 

In an effort to tighten security, students were reportedly told not to open the door for anyone.  This is something we encourage school administrators and staff to reinforce to students from elementary to high school levels.

But in the Virginia case, it appears a well-intended student opened a door for a lady with her hands full.  Does this violate school rules? Absolutely.

But does the punishment meet the crime?

Perhaps there is more to this story than meets the public eye, but common sense seems to dictate that given the facts as presented, a principal’s personal lecture about the purpose of the rule and a stern warning to the student would suffice.

While I believe “zero tolerance” is a political buzz phrase that is more rhetoric than reality, incidents like the one in this story leave many people (including me) scratching my head.

Unfortunately, common sense is not always common.  And apparently neither is training for school administrators on some practical, reasonable methods for enforcing school safety and discipline best practices.

Ken Trump

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

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Have students forgotten the lessons of Columbine?

One of the top lessons from the 1999 attack at Columbine High School is that students often know ahead of time of a potential threat to school safety.  An emphasis after Columbine was placed on encouraging students to report such knowledge and/or concerns.

This February incident at Millennium High School in Goodyear, Arizona, is only one of several incidents driving recent discussions I have had with colleagues about the need to focus back on the fundamentals of school safety and emergency planning.

We have a new generation of students, teachers, school administrators, and others in school today, many who were not in these positions at the time of (or immediately after) the Columbine High School incident over a decade ago. 

It may not be a case of students and others forgetting the lessons of Columbine.  It may instead be that they have never been taught them.

Ken Trump

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

Related posts:

1. How a Pre-Columbine Mindset is Threatening School Safety Shootings, hit lists, explosives, and even a murder do not...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Students and others asked similar questions after a student took 23 students and his teacher hostage in Marinette, Wisconsin, last week. Hostages were released, but the student shot himself and later died.

Student comments included:

“They should be aware when things go wrong or something,” said sophomore Ricardo Jaimes. “Like, at least have a clue about it.”

and

 

“I was just wondering where the cops were and when we were going to get out of this,” said Austin Biehl, a sophomore who was held hostage in the classroom.

Questions also were raised about metal detectors in school.  This appears to be an increasingly common point to which people jump and questions rise after a high-profile school violence incident.

It is worth noting from the story that police had held a school shooter exercise at the school in August, which likely describes why law enforcement was said to have had an excellent response.

Sometimes things work smoothly in a school crisis incident.  Sometimes things do not work smoothly.  Typically, a little bit of both occurs in the same incident.

How would school and safety officials respond to these comments, questions, and issues if they happened at your school?

Ken Trump

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

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

My colleague, Chuck Hibbert, and I were fortunate to spend the past two days providing professional development training at a renewal for school administrators in a Midwest district which applied for and received a Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools (REMS) grant last year.  Managing media and parent communications was the topic of our first day in-service.  The second day, today, was focused on gangs and school safety.

We were fortunate to work with a district where the superintendent has been supportive of the REMS grant and in making sure the necessary time was allocated to implement the training and multitude of other activities associated with the grant.  His grant project directors, like many REMS grantees, pulled “double duty” in administering the grant in addition to their already busy central office administrative responsibilities.  The superintendent was also supportive of spending a half-day of annual renewal meeting time to focus exclusively on gangs.

Our structure for the gang training was designed to be practical and useful.  The half-day session was broken down into four segments:

1. National trends in gang violence and management, and school safety best practices for prevention and response provided from a national school safety consultant’s perspective (me);
2. A historical review of gang-specific trends and incidents over the past 20 years from the district’s now-retired school security director;
3. A presentation by a detective from the local police department who focused on specific gangs, gang identifiers, recent cases and local trends, and related information unique to the city and, in particular, to the community served by the school district.
4. Q&A, along with discussion, by school administrators, school police, and security personnel about what works in adult relationships with gang members in their schools, gang involvement by children as young as elementary school level (the police detective shared one recent case involving a 7-year-old gang-involved male), and putting gangs into the overall context of school safety and day-to-day education issues.

My belief is simple:  Outside consultants from hundreds of miles away should not be paid to come into a local school district to present a workshop primarily of identifiers (graffiti, signs, clothing, etc.) of gangs they believe may exist in a community.  Local police are the best sources and should be tapped for this task.  They know the most current information and trends, and will be the person who the educators actually see coming into their schools to investigate gang-related incidents which may occur.

The consultants can bring a perspective on national trends, best practices in prevention and response, and a bigger picture view of the impact of gangs on school safety.  They can also say some things which, for political reasons, local school administrators and police officers may or may not be able to candidly say in a training session.  These things often need to be said, but out of fear of political correctness or not upsetting other agencies, information presented can sometimes be “couched” in politically-correct manners or not said at all.

On-site feedback today was positive.  None of the presenters stepped on the toes of the other presenters, and each presenters’ comments built upon those of the other speakers.  It was a nice way of offering a balanced but candid presentation, the “big picture” nationally, an in-depth look at local gang activity, and some practical advice for preventing and managing school gang activity.

Are your school leaders willing to have open, candid conversations about the impact of gangs on school safety? Will they dedicate time to do so?  Will the presentation be properly structured to be comprehensive but also to make it useful and practical for participants?

Ken Trump

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

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

A school dean drove home this point when he said to me in a teleconference last week: “I was impressed with your presentation above all of the other presenters because you are down-to-Earth, had practical advice, and did not have all of the ‘theatrics’ of other presenters.”

This educator, along with his principal, called to discuss engaging our consulting services at his small Midwest school.  But before he may ever get any of my advice on school safety, he gave me some good insights into what is important to educators who are considering hiring a school safety consultant:  No drama. Practical, real-life problem-solving support.

His comment on no “theatrics” was not the first comment along these lines in recent years.  But such comments have intensified as education budgets, and in turn school safety budgets, are increasingly cut in districts across the nation.

“Cry on Command” School Safety Consultants?

Last month, at a national convention of school board members, a school board member from a Midwest state shared with my colleague a story from a recent school safety seminar he attended.  He said at first he was impressed with one of the presenters, but as the program went on, the presenter lost credibility in the eyes of this board member when the presenter’s “drama” increased to the level of the presenter crying during the presentation.

A year or so ago, at a different national education conference, a school leader who I met for the first time commented that she had been to a number of school safety training sessions and appreciated the practical, common-sense suggestions I had made to solving some challenges educators face daily on school safety.  She went on, unsolicited by me, to share an experience where she had heard another school safety presenter speak at four separate conferences over several years.  She, too, was impressed at the first workshop, but in subsequent workshops by this same presenter it dawned on her that the presenter cried at the same point in the presentation — and in fact, cried each time on the very same slide.

In yet another unrelated setting, a different educator summed up his thoughts on a similar presentation he attended:  “If this ’expert’ is so emotionally unstable to cry in every presentation, why on Earth would I hire that person to give me advice on keeping my kids, staff, and parents calm in a school crisis?”

Limited Resources Requires School Safety Consultant Scrutiny

The good news is the number of qualified, experienced, and competent school safety trainers and consultants has grown in the past decade.  The bad news is there are some people presenting themselves as “experts” who probably would best serve the education community by choosing another profession.

I’ve written a couple guides to help educators sort through the various types of school safety consultants.  My 2007 article in School Planning and Management magazine highlights some questions to ask and points to consider.  Our web site also has some tips for selecting school safety consultants.

Educators today have very few dollars and time to waste on school safety consultants who provide a lot of hype, entertainment, and emotional string-pulling.  They need school safety specialists who understand school climate, culture, politics, and school-community relations issues from a K-12 administrative perspective. 

Most of all, educators need practical, cost-effective, and common-sense school safety advisors who give them real world recommendations, not drama and theatrics.

What qualities do your school leaders look for in their school safety consultants?

Ken Trump

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

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Kevin McDonald, the Acting U.S. Attorney and First Assistant U.S. Attorney in that office, shares his perspective on the importance of federal, state, and local partnerships not only in putting together statewide training each year.  He also shares how helpful it has been working across agencies on specific incidents, including a foiled school attack plot and an officer-involved-shooting at a school:

We hear a lot about “sustainability” in today’s tight economy:  How do you keep things going over time, especially when money gets tight?  South Carolina’s U.S. Attorney’s Office and its partners have done so for 19-years!

Tell us about the partnerships for school safety you have in your school community.  What is working for you and who is involved?

Ken Trump

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

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.