10.  Educators discover paying for reasonable security measures at school athletic events is more important than turning a profit at the gate.  

9.  School districts cave to common sense by improving school employee background checks.

8.  Anti-security critics shocked to discover malls, grocery stores, fast food restaurants and other public places have security cameras just like schools.

7.  Political activists stunned when focus of debate on school suspension and expulsion data shifts from racial politics to student behavior.

6.  Parents baffled to learn they, not school principals, must take the lead in addressing cyberbullying occurring at home, at night and on weekends.

5.  School police are under attack by civil rights special interest groups and they don’t even know it.

4.  President and Congress dumbfounded by parent demands to restore cut school safety funds following national tragedy.

3.  Educators and politicians stunned by parent backlash against asinine anti-bullying laws and politically-correct school anti-bullying policies.

2.  Parents call for firing, investigation of officials after students injured while attacking intruders carrying guns and explosives, as taught to do by school administrators and police.

1.  Lawsuits against schools skyrocket due to vague anti-bullying laws and negligent security claims stemming from school safety budget cuts.

What headlines could you add to the list?

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

No related posts.

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

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

Related posts:

1. House Proposes Cuts to 2011 School Emergency Planning Grants First the Obama Administration proposed eliminating K-12 school emergency planning...
2. Obama Eliminates Emergency Planning Grants for Local Schools Federal funding for local school emergency planning grants has been...
3. Politics of Bullying & School Safety: Obama & Gay Rights Agenda The Obama Administration has politicized federal policy and funding for...

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

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

No related posts.

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

Simple: What is old is new again.

I was intrigued upon seeing the return of The Muppets in their latest movie.  Then came the plug-and-play Pac Man, Space Invaders, and other first generation video games Christmas presents. Next, a Rock’em Sock’em robot game that dates back decades is back on the market.

As I watched the kids of today get excited with the characters, shows and toys of yesteryear, it reminded me how things trend in cycles.  How quickly what is old becomes new again.  And how intriguing it is that this cyclical dynamic reaches into school safety, as well.

Now well over a decade after the Columbine High School attack, we find ourselves talking to school officials about locking their doors, having crisis teams and other basic school safety fundamentals.  While some vendors and consultants are still trying to create new products and recycle old (and often rejected) training ideas, the most rudimentary best practices have fallen to the wayside in too many school communities.

As we turn the corner from 2011 into a new year, take note of how the characters, stories and games of the past came back into importance as new and eye opening items for many individuals this Christmas.   Remember to approach your 2012 school safety efforts in the same fashion by shining a light on what many safe school advocates consider the basics and fundamentals.  To a growing number of educators, these are new and enlightening ideas.

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. When Did Common Sense End in School Discipline and Safety? Training students not to open exterior school doors to let...

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.

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

No related posts.

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

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

No related posts.

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

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

Related posts:

1. How a Pre-Columbine Mindset is Threatening School Safety Shootings, hit lists, explosives, and even a murder do not...
2. Have Students Forgotten the Lessons of Columbine? An Arizona student with a loaded gun reportedly intended to shoot...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ken Trump

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

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.