States
Not Waiting for the Federal Commission on School Safety Report: The Guidance You Need is Here and Available
Dear Colleagues,
As we begin the
2018-2019 school year, school safety is on the minds of every parent, educator,
and community. . . many students. . . and many state legislatures. And while more have already been
reported in August. . . since the beginning of 2018 and as of June 25th, there
have been 41 deaths and 74 injuries in school shootings. And this does not include the countless
number of hidden “injuries” for those present and emotionally harmed by these
events.
And while the
“lightning rod” for much of the recent discussion and action still is the
tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL., based on my
work in schools during the past month (e.g., from Alaska to Philadelphia),
there is a pervasive and continuing sense of anxiety and concern relative to
“Who’s next?”
_ _ _ _ _
Critically, though.
. . a related, but less discussed topic involves the school violence that falls
short of a school shooting. Indeed, Education
Dive’s Jessica Campisi recently reported (August 23, 2018) that there were
3,654 violent incidents and threats in schools last year—a 62% increase from
the 2016-2017 school year.
Fully half of these
incidents occurred in ten states: California, Florida, New York, Michigan,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, Illinois, North Carolina, and Virginia.
So clearly, contradicting
some media reports and numerous national professional association
pronouncements—including recent testimony provided to the Federal Commission
on School Safety—schools were increasingly more dangerous last year than
the year before.
Focusing on last
year’s “top ten” most violent school states, the Education Dive article
went on to describe an Educator’s School Safety Network analysis that
noted:
- The ten states of concern are geographically spread throughout the country.
- They have different gun control policies and school security measures.
- Except for Virginia, these states are among our 10 most populous states.
- Many of these states have a great number of school districts, resulting in more difficulty coordinating services and staff, and less funding for teacher training.
But the biggest
“take-away” from this analysis is that demographics do not predict violence. That is, there are few functional “common
denominators” across these ten states to help us draw large-scale conclusions
that will prevent or address future school violence on a broad scale.
This “un-pattern”
is similar to that emphasized by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s
United State Secret Service . . . as it recently reconfirmed that there is
no single profile of a student attacker as it relates to school violence.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The Federal
Commission on School Safety: Most
States are (Wisely) Not Waiting
Immediately after
the Parkland shooting (in March, 2018), President Trump appointed U.S. Secretary
of Education Betsy DeVos to lead the Federal Commission on School Safety.
Consisting only of the Secretaries of Education, Health and Human Services,
Homeland Security, and the Attorney General, the Commission was charged with:
. . . (Q)uickly providing meaningful and actionable
recommendations to keep students safe at school. These recommendations will
include a range of issues, like social emotional support, recommendation on
effective school safety infrastructure, discussion on minimum age for firearms
purchases, and the impact that videogames and the media have on violence. There
is not one plan that fits all schools across the country, so the Commission
will be focusing on all variations of school size, structure, and geographic
locations with their final recommendations.
(In a political
move—inappropriately taking advantage of the Parkland tragedy, the Commission
was also charged with making a recommendation on retaining, eliminating, or
adapting the Obama-era guidance putting schools on notice that they were
at-risk of violating federal civil rights laws if their discipline-related
policies, procedures, or practices led to disproportionately higher rates of
discipline for students in one racial group.)
While its report is
forthcoming, a review of the Commission’s hearings and activities. . . and
advanced releases of its likely content. . . suggest that its “meaningful and
actionable recommendations” will be thin if not non-existent.
This prediction is
strengthened, with all due respect to the different sites and participants, by
the site visits and experts chosen by the federal government to participate in
the Commission’s thirteen formal events— largely held during this past
summer.
Indeed, numerous
independent reports have expressed concerns with (a) the topics and content
chosen, (b) the researchers and presenters invited, (c) the specific sites visited,
and (d) the restrictions placed on those presenting at the “open” Public
Listening Sessions.
The biggest
concerns centered around beliefs that the federal governmental agencies leading
the Commission were controlling the agenda (i.e., what was highlighted,
discussed, and not discussed), and that they were singularly “giving voice” to
people and programs that they were funding (or had funded for many years).
As such, it
appeared that the Commission’s agenda and meetings were driven more by politics
and the need to manage (or limit) the discussion, than by open-ended inquiry
and the pursuit of the best ideas to make our schools, staff, and students
safer.
More
specifically:
- The discussion regarding guns was virtually ignored—except as related to arming educators.
- Many of the invited presenters were researchers (rather than practitioners), and/or were researchers affiliated with grants or Technical Assistance Centers funded by one of the federal agencies seated on the Commission.
- A common (largely unresponded to) plea to the Commission was to take a broader, proactive, multi-faceted climate and relationship-centered approach to school safety—going beyond the emphasis on “hardening schools” through technology, physical security measures, active shooter drills, and a “bunker” mentality.
- The “mental health” discussion occurred most directly during the Wisconsin visit. But the focus was largely on trauma-informed care, a presentation of the state’s system of mental health supports, and the importance of interagency collaboration and parental advocacy. There was virtually no discussion of school shooters, or the relationship of this mental health approach to successfully addressing school violence.
Tragically, the
Department of Education’s (and Betsy DeVos’) “consideration” as to whether
federal funds can be used by schools to purchase weapons, appeared to get more
attention than all of the previous discussion on the diverse ways needed to
make schools safer.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
What the States Have
Done Since Parkland
Added to the
Commission issues above is the fact that Congress has done virtually nothing to
directly address school shootings in our country— other than to slightly
increase the funding available for school safety.
Thus, the “good
news” (given the federal government’s leadership gap) is that state
legislatures, some state departments of education, and many districts and
schools have not waited for the Commission or Congress to act.
Indeed, state
legislatures have considered at least 261 school safety bills since the
Parkland shooting, with most of the proposals focusing on law enforcement and
school police, adjusting laws related to carrying guns in schools, and
providing additional school safety funding.
From this, at least 29 bills and six resolutions have passed—including
measures increasing the penalties for school threats and creating ways for
students to anonymously report safety concerns.
Relative to
funding, at least 26 states have appropriated at least $960 million for school
safety programs this year—with additional states ready to weigh in when their
biennially-scheduled legislatures meet this coming year.
Critically, though,
most of this school safety funding has targeted upgrades to help school
facilities to be more physically protected and technologically
sophisticated. Precious little money has
been allocated to address students’ health, mental health, interpersonal,
and/or wellness status and/or concerns.
In this latter area
since Parkland, a number of states passed bills establishing school safety task
forces. Whether by legislation or
executive order, the following states (at least) have formed school safety task
forces: Nevada, Utah, Ohio, Michigan, Texas, Mississippi, Wyoming, South
Carolina, Kentucky, and Tennessee.
Some states have
already (recently) issued new school safety reports: Florida, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.
And some states
(e.g., Massachusetts) issued comprehensive reports within the past two to five
years.
_ _ _ _ _
The point is
that: Collectively, there is already
a great amount of excellent information available to help districts and schools
analyze and address their preventative and responsive needs in the area
of school safety, student violence, and school shootings.
And while the
Federal Commission may (being kind) add to the information, most states are
already taking action, and—for the states that are waiting, the wait may cost
lives.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
School Shootings
and Students’ Health, Mental Health, and Wellness
Over the years in
writing this Blog, I have addressed the issue of health, mental health, and
wellness innumerable times. I have
always emphasized that the goals and primary targets need to be students’ social,
emotional, and behavioral self-management skills.
Said a different
way, children and adolescents need to be (in a developmentally-sensitive way)
taught, prompted, reinforced, and corrected (when needed) as they demonstrate
and apply their interpersonal, prosocial problem-solving, conflict
prevention and resolution, and emotional control and coping skills.
Most students learn
these skills through directed and consistent instruction at home and in their
classrooms as part of a Social-Emotional Learning and classroom management
process. Other students (including those
with apparent mental health issues) need different intensity levels (tiers) of
services, supports, programs, and interventions. Ultimately, these interventions are
identified through a diagnostic assessment process— similar to what a medical
doctor does for a persistent or serious physiological condition.
I have also
detailed the necessary science-to-practice of self-management components for
districts and schools: Positive Relationships
and School/Classroom Climates; Identified Behavioral Expectations and Skill
Instruction; Student Motivation and Accountability; Consistency (in
implementing the above four components); and Applications to Different
Settings, Students (Peer groups), and Individual Student Circumstances (e.g.,
bullying, trauma, disability, homelessness, home, or medical situations).
The point here
and the relationship to school shootings is:
When students learn
and consistently demonstrate interpersonal, prosocial problem-solving, conflict
prevention and resolution, and emotional control and coping skills—individually
and from peer-to-peer—the probability of a school shooting or other acts of
violence decreases.
Moreover, when
schools are implementing all five of the self-management components with
integrity, the probability of identifying and serving students with significant
mental health needs increases.
This again
decreases the probability of a school shooting or other acts of violence.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Already Known: Enhancing School Safety Using Threat
Assessments
Another area that
states, districts, and schools do not need to wait for involves conducting threat
assessments. In fact, the U.S.
Department of Human Services (which ironically is directly seated on the Federal
Commission on School Safety) published, Enhancing School Safety Using a
Threat Assessment Model: An Operational Guide for Preventing Targeted
School Violence two months ago
while the Commission was still deliberating.
Quite honestly,
this Report represents an important contribution to the school
violence/shooting prevention conversation.
Without being too cynical, it may well surpass any contribution that
comes out of the Commission as a whole.
_ _ _ _ _
Beyond this
document, and as noted above, states, districts, and schools are encouraged to
look at the existing work and deliberations of others.
While new,
innovative practices are always emerging, there already are many excellent
school safety blueprints and examples of successful practices. If anything, there probably are more ideas
and suggestions than any district or school could reasonably implement.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary
Given the Federal
Commission on School Safety’s politicized decisions regarding what topics to
emphasize, which speakers to invite, and what locations to site-visit, its
Final Report will need to be reviewed through a lens of objectivity and
practicality relative to preventing and responding to school shootings.
Critically, this is
also true of the other already-existing reports and recommendations.
Indeed, we cannot
afford to be investing time, money, training, and other resources on school
safety strategies that have not been objectively evaluated for their efficacy
and impact. We cannot risk any more
lives on financially-motivated promotions, in contrast to evidence-based
practices.
In the end, we must be guided by the following
“truths”:
- Districts and schools must re-evaluate their current understandings of the multi-tiered characteristics and factors that will keep their facilities, students, and staff safe. Even if this was done last year (especially before Parkland), new assessments are recommended now.
- While district and school facilities need to be physically safe—both structurally and technologically, leaders need to strategically plan for the health, mental health, and wellness factors that help these facilities to be safe on a social, emotional, and behavioral level
- To this end, districts and schools need to evaluate how they “match up” and what they are systematically and planfully doing relative to the five Science-to-Practice Components of student self-management described above.
- Districts and schools need to look at their threat assessment processes, along with the school, district, and community resources needed and available to facilitate these processes. They need continually ensure that people and processes, assets and agencies are aligned and coordinated on an ongoing basis.
- Districts and schools need to review their data-bases to identify current students who may need additional multi-tiered services, supports, programs, and interventions—helping them to be more successful relative to their interpersonal, social problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution, and emotional control and coping skills.
_ _ _ _ _
While there are
still so many things to do at the beginning of this new school year, school
safety must be at the top of the list.
As noted earlier,
the federal government and many states have made millions of dollars available
to help our schools, staff, and especially students be safer. Thus, to a large degree, money is not the
problem.
The problem is how
districts and schools are going to use the money.
And if money is not
invested in the social, emotional, and behavioral needs of students, all of the
funding devoted to our schools’ physical, structural, and enforcement status
will not matter.
If there is
anything that I can do to assist your district or school in its social,
emotional, behavioral, and mental health arenas, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
As many of you
know, I have been working in these areas for virtually my entire career. I am NOT chasing the “school safety
ambulance.” I have been advocating for
and helping schools to be safe even before the first wave of school shootings
back in the 1990s.
Best,
Howie
