The Sky is NOT Falling - School Fatalities

A Serious Look at School Fatalities

According to a study released in 2012, wolves are the number one cause of death in the United States.  After the Reynolds HS shooting, a group called Everytown for Gun Safety posted a map showing 74 school shootings since the Sandy Hook massacre.  What do these two events have in common?  They are not true.

The fictitious Wolf Study was cited in a rather humorous article in The Onion, a website of parodies and satirical stories.  Though the article involves made-up facts, it rings true in several ways as borne out by research in the field of what is known as terror management theory TMT.  TMT research indicates that people often become convinced that they are more likely to experience catastrophic but extremely rare events than factual risk evaluation indicates.  For example, though most passengers on commercial aircraft survive aviation crashes, most people believe they will be killed if they are on a plane that crashes.  TMT also explains why many people fear events that are bizarre and unusual even more than events that pose much greater actual risk because they as far more common and even deadly. 

Besides delivering humor, this story highlighted how wildly inaccurate statistical data is often used to generate increased and sometimes unrealistic levels of fear among the public.

The second study was of great concern because it used a flawed process to identify school shootings.  Shortly after it's release, The Blaze and CNN took a closer look at the figures.  The 74 alleged school shootings were reduced to 15 which included university shooting incident.  While 15 incidents is still tragic, this data provides a much more accurate indication of risk in a nation of more than 300 million people and 55 million K12 students.  It is important to keep in mind that while many people automatically think of any “school shooting” in terms of active shooter events, the majority of these fifteen tragedies are not active shooter incidents but are in fact, far more typical of the types of shootings that have claimed many more lives than active shooter incidents.  Though they are truly catastrophic and shocking events, active shooter incidents are not the leading cause of violent death at school.

Early in 2014, Safe Havens International commissioned me to do a study on the leading causes of death in K12 schools in the US.  On April 16, 2014, this study was released as part of a project for the Maine Department of Education.  It was called Relative Risks of Death in US K12 Schools.

The study centers around a very important question. Are active shooter incidents being addressed at the expense of the all­‐hazards approach? This question is a crucial one because preventable school fatalities may be occurring if resource allocation does not match the actual safety risks for K12 schools.

This was an observational study of open-source material.  Events were identified using the Department of Homeland Security definition of an Active Shooter, “An Active Shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearms(s) and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims.”

The Top Five Causes of Death in Schools from 1998-2012:
1) School Transportation-Related Crashes (525)
2) School Homicides (489)
3) School Suicides (129)
4) Active Shooter Incidents (62)
5) Interpersonal Disputes (61)

The following were findings from the study:
1) Active Shooter Incidents are not the leading threat for fatal incidents schools face.
2) Active Shooter Incidents in schools (K12) are not happening more frequently.
3) Active Shooter Incidents should not be the primary focus for a school's prevention, mitigation and emergency preparedness efforts.
4) More focus needs to be given to school transportation-related safety.
5) More focus needs to be given to school homicides and school suicides.

Schools are better served using a risk assessment-based approach to school safety, as part of the All-Hazards emergency planning model.  School fatalities are a serious issue, one that is better served through proper data analysis and research.   My colleagues and I have spent considerable time and energy developing some of the most advanced training resources to address active shooter events available including the IS-360 training program which was part of the 2013 White House School Safety Initiative and recently released web courses.  At the same time, the research indicates that we should also address the less publicized situations that claim more lives than active shooter incidents as well.

 Oh, and keep an eye out for the wolves.

Close Quarter Combat in our Schools

Close Quarter Combat

In the current discussion of Run, Hide, Fight (RHF) in schools, particular attention has been given to the "Fight" portion.  When it comes to having individuals close with and engage an enemy, this is the very definition of Close Quarters Combat (CQC).  There are many names this concept be called, but there is no denying that this meets the definition, "Hand-to-hand fighting at close quarters."

The RHF video has reportedly had nearly three million views, and has certainly spawned great discussion, and rightfully so.

The video, created by the City of Houston's Office of Homeland Security (Ready Houston) was not made with schools in mind, but for adults in the workplace who have the responsibility to make their own decisions about their safety.  These adults comprise an autonomous population who can decide how best to apply the RHF concepts.

Ready Houston wanted to make a catch phrase similar to "Stop, Drop and Roll" to help people remember what to do in the rare event a shooter attacks their workplace.  In that regard, they have been highly successful.  Their efforts have certainly raised awareness of Active Shooter Response for adults.  While I may disagree with parts of RHF, they are to be commended for raising awareness, and jump-starting a much needed discussion.

There are elements of RHF that are applicable to schools. However, schools and hospitals are comprised of largely non-autonomous populations that will be incapable, for various reasons, of making decisions about their safety.  Therefore those responsible must make these decisions.  There is a vast difference between an individual making a decision for themselves and a person making decisions that will affect a group.  The tactics a school, or hospital, chooses to use should reflect that difference.

I, nor anyone I have been professionally associated, have ever advocated that adults faced with a life-or-death situation of an Active Shooter in the classroom should go out like a lamb.  Where we differ from others is in how we instruct educators (Or hospital personnel) up to that point, and in how the school (or hospital) addresses the decision-point should CQC be needed.  

For example, police officers and military personnel receive tremendous amounts of training in CQC, and their leaders have the statutory authority to order them into harm's way.  Education personnel receive no such training, beyond a few hours in a workshop, and educational leaders have no statutory authority to order their teachers into danger.  In Indiana, the law allows teachers to "opt out" of administering life-saving injections to students.  While there is no case law concerning Active Shooter training, it is only a matter of time, and courts rely heavily on precedent.

Until such a time as the statutory authority is provided, schools should stress an All-Hazards approach to preventing, mitigating, and preparing to respond and recover from more likely events.  Such planning may include Active Shooter Incidents.  Planning should be unique for each district, and should not include "canned plans" that are the same for every school.

 
There should be a frank, honest, on-going discussion on how best to secure our schools.  That discussion needs to continue.

School Shooting "Response " Options, Part II

Responding to School Active Shooter Incidents (ASI's)

In yesterday's blog, several issues with the ALICE approach were identified.  There are hidden financial costs due to Workman's Comp claims that, nation-wide, likely run into the millions.  Some schools that have replaced their emergency plans with ALICE.  The presentation approach used by ALICE is not true, criterion-based training, meaning that no effort is made to determine how well attendees have learned the material.  ALICE proposes that school personnel, and in certain circumstances students, engage in Close-Quarter Combat (CQC), which the Marine Corps defines as "physical confrontation between two or more combatants."

In thousands of assessments across the country, Safe Havens International personnel have found that school staff, some of whom have received ALICE and other 'proactive response' training, are responding improperly when faced with gun situations that are not ASI's.

There are possible serious liability issues with the implementation of ALICE, especially in its current state.  In a recent article of a school board in California advocating this approach, a member of the administrative staff said, "It also means a bad call could put lives at risk, but Lilga said that should not affect staff decisions. She said they are covered by Good Samaritan laws, which prevents people from being liable for civil damages if they act in good faith to help in emergency situations." 

This statement may not likely survive court scrutiny.  If a school trains an employee and the employee then makes a bad decision, even in good faith, then liability may still be conferred upon the school, if not the employee.

Analysis

The question then becomes, if ALICE and other 'proactive response' options are of concern, what are the alternatives?

1.  Use the All Hazards Approach, in which a school conducts regular risk and threat assessments, mitigates and prepares for identified risks/threats, coordinates their activities with local first responders, uses the National Incident Management System and the Incident Command System to respond and recover from any incident.  Under this approach, preparedness for an ASI would be one protocol among many in a school's emergency plan.

2. Use The Window of Life, a process for approaching the first 30 seconds of an incident, the critical time in which a situation can be won or lost by the decisions made.  Safe Havens International has a short, free video on The Window of Life.  A free, downloadable poster can also be found on Safe Haven's website.  The process is easy to remember; Take care of yourself, take care of others, protect your space and contact public safety.

3. Use a concept called "Permission to Live".  A well-trained, empowered employee can see beyond a written emergency protocol, and will know when it is appropriate to act outside of a protocol.  For example, during an ASI the protocol may call for a lockdown, but the employee may see an opportunity to safely evacuate his/her students.  He or she should not necessarily be constrained by the protocol, but guided by them.  The key is empowering the employee and giving them the means to be able to think tactically during high-stress moments.

Under ALICE, staff are given presentations on what to do during an incident, and are essentially instructed to "engage".  Even after being told to do so only as a last resort, what the participant remembers is "engage".  No attempt is made to assess the participant's retention of the material, so once the presentation is over, the schools are left to their own devices. 

What the school should do is to provide a protocol to guide actions, based upon a teacher's own comfort level, knowledge and background.  A teacher who is attempting to evacuate a class under fire when the teacher is ill-prepared to do so, or has not been trained to do so would most likely end up with tragic results, thus that particular teacher would follow the lockdown protocol.

We should be asking if schools should be ordering teachers to engage in CQC, even as a last resort.  There are those who have the personal inclination, background, and even training to engage in CQC.  But what of those school staff who do not have the personal inclination or background, even after they have received training?

It is imperative that schools take the time to consider these points before sending themselves down a path that may lead to tragedy.

School Shooting "Response" Options?

School Shooting Response

The Greenfield Daily Reporter reports that Appleton, WI schools are considering ALICE.  ALICE stands for Alert-Lockdown-Inform-Counter-Evacuate.  With each new shooting, schools are looking for a quick fix, based upon emotions from Sandy Hook and other shootings, and ALICE seems to give it.  But does it really provide what people hope?

Analysis

Michael Dorn, in a soon-to-be-released blog, outlines some hidden financial burdens of this program in the form of workmen's comp claims.  There is also a lack of a research base, and issues with implementation of poor training practices.

Around the country, Safe Havens International has found schools that have replaced their emergency plans with ALICE, which is not for what ALICE was intended.  While such implementation is not at the direction of any ALICE proponent, this shows the care that schools need to take when implementing a new program.  The courts require, and parents expect, due diligence by the school when considering changes to a school's emergency plans.

Some questions parents should ask of their schools, and schools should ask of themselves:
1. Does the school utilize All-Hazards planning?
All-Hazards planning helps a school prepare to face any threat, natural or man-made, that the school has identified as a viable risk.  A 'proactive response' strategy like ALICE is best used as a tool in this toolbox, not as a plan in and of itself.

2. Is the school properly training its staff in the implementation of its emergency plan?
The workmen's comp claim mentioned above are a sign of improper training.  Are the teachers actually being trained, or are they being presented to?  Training involves the attainment of an established criteria that demonstrates basic competence, followed by repetitive training that keeps the learned skill fresh and possibly even increase the level of competence.  Presenting is just passing along information, and passes along the burden of retaining the knowledge to the recipient.

Specifically, a program like ALICE is teaching teachers, and in some cases students, how to employ Close Quarter Combat (CQC) against a shooter.  While we can all agree that passively sitting in a room and getting shot is a bad thing, telling a lay person what to do without giving them the true means to implement it is just as bad.

A soldier in US Army Basic Training is provided 40 hours of basic hand-to-hand training.  This provides a trainee with the basic knowledge of unarmed combat, and is at least 20 times more instruction than an ALICE trainee receives.

3. SHOULD a school be providing such training to its staff and students?
There is an old saying, "Just because one can do a thing doesn't mean a person should do that thing."  We can tell our teachers and children to attack an attacker without giving them the proper tools, but should we?

People enter into law enforcement and the military knowing ahead of time what may be expected of them.  There is extensive screening and training that takes place to allow these people, who already have a propensity to deal with aggression, to face aggression.

Education is not one of those professions.  It is a caring, nurturing profession that does not lend itself to facing aggression. Do we want this profession to turn into one in which steely-eyed, square-jawed warriors will face any threat?  While this sounds great, in theory, how practical is it?

Great consideration should be given before we turn our schools into Spartan enclaves.  In subsequent posts, I will examine facets of ALICE, and provide sound, researched tactics that will help schools better respond in the unlikely event a shooter enters their school.