Preventing School Shootings and Violence

States Not Waiting for the Federal Commission on School Safety Report:  The Guidance You Need is Here and Available

[CLICK HERE for the Full Version of this Blog]

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. 

[CLICK HERE for a Summary of these Events.]

   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.

[CLICK HERE for an Expanded Discussion in the Full Version of this Blog]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 

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.

[CLICK HERE for an Expanded Discussion of this Report in the Full Version of this Blog]

_ _ _ _ _

   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

School Climate, Student Voice, On-Campus Shootings, and now Corporal Punishment??? (Part III)

Listening to Students—When They Make Sense; and Not Listening to Students—When They’re Ready to Kill

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

   I honestly was not planning a Part III to this Series—a Series that was prompted by the tragedy, five weeks ago, at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida where 17 souls lost their lives and at least 20 additional students and staff were injured.

   But this Part III has become necessary. . . at least, for three reasons. 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Reason #1: Listening to Students When They Make Sense

   Today (Saturday, March 24), hundreds of thousands of students (with parents, educators, and other community supporters) are rallying—in Washington, DC and across the country—in the “March For Our Lives.” 

   Here, they are publicly proclaiming that they can no longer trust—with their lives—the adults responsible for their safety and well-being in school or at school events. 

   But they are also gathering to hold our political leaders accountable for not reasonably and responsibly controlling individuals’ access to weapons of war and mass destruction.  Indeed, as discussed in Part I of this Series, since 1990, these weapons have already killed over 180 students and staff in America’s schools in over 190 separate incidents.

   And included in this number are two more student deaths (one, the shooter) in a southern Maryland high school just this past week.

   But there are other victims.

   Critically, an analysis of U.S. Census and Education Department data shows that more than 800,000 students now go to school in a public-school district where a school shooting has taken place. 

   And the collateral damage here includes the trauma of losing friends and acquaintances forever, the fear that it could happen again, and the anxiety of needing to focus on escape routes rather than square roots.

_ _ _ _ _ 

   But the more critical Question is: “Are We Listening to Our Students’ Voices?”

_ _ _ _ _

Reason #2: Using Violence Against Students who are Trying to Stop Violence

   A week ago, on March 14, and as a prelude to today’s March For Our Lives, tens of thousands of students across the country walked respectfully out of their classrooms—many to organized events—to gather for 17 minutes to:

   * Honor the fallen Parkland, FL students and staff;

   * Express their frustration with adults and political leaders who have done little to curb gun violence, improve school safety, and address the mental health needs of both students and adults; and

   * Talk about the actions needed to prevent it from ever happening again.

_ _ _ _ _

   Many of these events were supported by educators, parents, and community leaders who seized this as a teachable moment in history and political science.

   Many of these events were organized as acts of civic engagement, rather than civil disobedience.

   And, many of these events fostered opportunities for students and staff to talk together, to learn from one another, and to elevate the students’ voices to a greater good.

_ _ _ _ _

   But in Greenbrier, Arkansas, when three students walked out of their high school for 17 minutes to participate in the National Walkout Day and show solidarity for their Parkland peers, they were disciplined.

   The discipline, in fact, involved having the students choose between two days of in-school suspension or corporal punishment—two “swats.”  As top students, and not wanting to miss classes for two days, the students chose the “swats.”

   In a March 16 article and exclusive interview with 17-year-old Wylie Greer from Greenbrier High School [CLICK HERE], Rose Minutaglio wrote:

Greer says gun control has always been an important issue that concerns him. "So many people have died and will continue to die because politicians refuse to act,” he says. Seeing the aftermath of the [Parkland] shooting and the reactions of the high school students emboldened him to stand up. Greer was especially inspired to walk out of school after hearing Parkland survivor Emma González speak publicly about gun control.

“I walked because I have seen the debate around gun control die and get shut down so many times," he says. "People said it would be different after Sandy Hook, and it wasn't. They said it would be different after Pulse, and it wasn't. They say it is going to be different this time, after Parkland, and I want it to be. If walking out brings the debate back to people’s minds, if it keeps the victims of Parkland from dying a second death in our minds, then I am willing to accept any consequences."

Greer says he was initially “scared and nervous” about the pain, but eventually felt resolved. “I understood what had to happen, and was prepared for that,” he says. The three students were each "swatted" twice with a paddle by their dean. Greer was paddled during his sixth period class, and describes it as a "temporary sting" on his thighs that was not "dealt with malice or cruelty." But while the ordeal wasn’t painful, he says, the idea that "violence should be used to intimidate children and young adults into silence disgusts me,” Greer says. “It is barbaric and cruel.”

_ _ _ _ _

   But—at face value, the “swats” are not the issue.  And the Greenbrier punishments were not unique in that hundreds of other students across the country were punished for walking out of class on March 14 (for example, in Downers Grove, Illinois, 1,000 students received one hour of detention for their walk-out).

   The issue is that the “educators” (including the Superintendent) in this District chose to value their “discipline code” over the students’ "honor code"--their desire to communicate and participate in a national issue and discussion.

   A related issue is that the school acted to suppress their students’ voices and opinions with an act of violence.

   And, a corollary issue is that the newest Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) focuses on improving school climate, student involvement, and supportive learning environments as ways to improve school safety, student engagement, and academic proficiency.

   The interpretation of these students’ walk-out as a “disciplinary offense,” and the use of corporal punishment clearly contradicts the intent and spirit of ESEA. 

   What were these “educators” thinking???

   [CLICK HERE for an Earlier Blog on Corporal Punishment]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A Brief Expanded Discussion on School Climate

   Positive school climate is correlated with high levels of school safety and student connected-ness, lower rates of school bullying and discrimination, lower rates of school absences and student delinquency, higher rates of students’ satisfaction with school and life, and higher rates of academic success—especially in English language arts and math.

   I have written about the importance of school climate many times over the five-plus years of writing this Blog.

   [CLICK HERE for a Summary: School Climate and Safety, and School Discipline and Classroom Management:  A Summer Review of Previous Blogs]

   But, today, I want to briefly outline what schools target when they facilitate positive school climates.  This is important because, while school climate is evaluated by the students, positive school climate occur when schools explicitly and continuously involve their students. 

   And when students are not involved in the school climate process (or, they are negatively entangled in it as in Greenbrier, Arkansas)—students may become disengaged, they may not feel safe and protected, and they may not trust the adults who try to reassure them that their interests are important.

   Briefly, based on a comprehensive review of the research, the following characteristics occur in schools with positive school climates:

   * The students are learning the social, emotional, and behavioral skills—from preschool through high school—that relate to interpersonal, social problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution, and emotional control and coping interactions.

   * The student-staff and student-student relationships are anchored by the respect for diversity and individual differences; strengthened by social, emotional, and physical supports; and empowered by collaborative and inclusive interactions.

   * Instructional environments are differentiated and geared to student learning and progress; are academically safe and encourage experimentation, risk-taking, and personal growth; and focus on creating independent learners and behavioral self-managers.

   * The school—physically, procedurally, and relative to its mission, vision, values, norms, and expectations—is organized to be and, in reality, is physically and emotionally safe and secure for students, staff, and others.

_ _ _ _ _

   Building and sustaining these characteristics requires “drilling” them down to specific actions and activities with clear and measurable outcomes.  But it also takes a collaborative “village” of students, staff, and others working together.  And, it takes communication, commitment, trust, and consensus.

   It also takes common sense and, for educators, the ability to sometimes let students (especially at the secondary levels) take the lead and determine their own path.

   Every school in the country had time to engage their student bodies before the March 14 walk-outs. . . . remember the Parkland tragedy occurred on February 14 !!!  

   How many schools put their school climates and student relationships at risk when they missed the March 14 opportunity for discussion and debate by responding to their student walk-outs with inflexibility and discipline?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Reason #3: Not Listening to Students when They are Ready to Kill

   The last reason for writing this Part III Blog message is that we are not doing a good job at listening to our students who are in need, who are contemplating suicide, or who are planning violence— including the deaths of others as they approach and enter our schools.

   But the “job” includes:

   * Identifying these students and telling the right people

   * Conducting valid threat analyses in less than 24 hours from the time of referral

   * Having comprehensively skilled health, mental health, law enforcement, and other related agencies and professionals in and available to our schools who can provide immediate attention to impending situations

   * Creating positive and safe school environments that include adults who listening to students, and who teach and reinforce the prosocial student-to-student interactions that prevent the “triggers of violence”

   * Involving parents and others in the community as committed and active participants in establishing proactive patterns of listening to our children and youth

_ _ _ _ _

   But the job also includes understanding how mental health interfaces with violent, dangerous, and self-damaging behavior.

   From recent position statements and press releases from the National Association of School Psychologists:

As the nation looks to understand and respond effectively to this tragedy, it is imperative that we stay focused on facts and what we know works to prevent violence and keep our children and youth safe. Particularly important to understand is that the majority of people with mental illness are not violent. There have been frequent reports in the news that the perpetrator had a troubled past, was in treatment for mental health concerns, and that this may have been related to his homicidal behavior. To conclude that the presence of an issue like depression predisposes someone to commit this type of violence perpetuates an incorrect stereotype and maintains a stigma that often creates a reluctance to seek treatment.

Homicidal behaviors are the result of a complex combination and interaction of risk factors that may be environmental, biological, or both. In most cases, the presence of a diagnosable mental illness alone does not predispose someone to extreme or calculated violence. Implying so risks undermining the important efforts to reduce stigma around mental health problems and disabilities, and may discourage individuals and families from seeking appropriate treatment. With appropriate treatment, especially early intervention, people who experience adverse childhood experiences or struggle with mental health issues can lead rich, full, and productive lives. Violence, as seen this week, is related to an interaction of risk factors.

[To address these risk factors, we need to] increase access to comprehensive mental and behavioral health services and supports in schools. Only a fraction of students in need of mental health services actually receive them, and among those that do, the majority access these services in school. Schools are an ideal place both to promote mental wellness and to identify and support students struggling with mental health issues. School-employed mental health professionals, like school psychologists, can help guide school-wide prevention and intervention mental and behavioral health services, provide direct services to students in need of support, help teachers and other school staff understand the warning signs that individuals may be at risk of causing harm to themselves or others, and provide appropriate threat assessments and supports to identified students.

_ _ _ _ _

   Critically, Congress has heard this part of our students’ pleas.

   Included in the federal budget, just passed and signed this past Friday, are the following funds related directly or indirectly to school safety. 

   According to the Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives (March 21), the budget includes:

   Department of Justice

   $75M (million) for School Safety Grants

   $10M for the VALOR Initiative (police officer safety and wellness programs)

   $10M for the Police Act grants (active shooter training for police)

   $94M for Youth Mentoring Grants (peer-to-peer mentoring for at-risk youth)

_ _ _ _ _

   Department of Education

   $90M for school safety national activities that improve students’ safety and well-being during and after the school day (includes the Project SERV Program that provides counseling and referrals for mental health services for schools affected by violent or traumatic crisis0

   $1.1B for Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants that support safe and healthy students, including school mental health services, bullying and harassment prevention, mentoring and school counseling, and training for school personnel

   $20M for Violent Crime and Gun Reduction/Project Safe Neighborhoods (gang enforcement efforts)

   $4M for Gang and Youth Violence education and prevention

_ _ _ _ _

   Department of Health and Human Services

   $26M for Healthy Transitions to provide grants to states to improve access to mental disorder treatment and support services for young people facing mental health conditions

   $75M to help expand the behavioral health workforce, including in rural and medically under-served areas, and increase access to child and adolescent services

_ _ _ _ _

   We all know that an unreal number of warnings and warning signs were missed last month in Parkland, FL.  This must not occur again.

   How can we not understand the anguish, frustration, and fear of the March For Our Lives students when we failed those at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School so dramatically?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   In Part I of this three-Blog series, School Shootings: History Keeps Repeating Itself. . . What We Already Know, and What Schools, Staff, and Students Need to Do. . .

   [LINK HERE to Part I]

. . . I emphasized that, while we need to remember the fallen and mourn our losses, the ultimate school violence goal is to prevent the next act of violence, the next (God forbid) school shooting. 

   To help attain this goal, I re-reviewed the June 2004 U.S. Secret Service and Department of Education document, The Final Report and Findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the Prevention of School Attacks in the United States. 

   Analyzing 37 targeted school shootings from 1974 to 2000, this Report discussed the many different motives underlying these atrocities—concluding that most of the investigated shooters had no diagnosed mental health issues.

   The Report concluded that there is no single profile of characteristics that can predict a school shooter, to which I added two missing components:

   * First, the factors related to school shootings are complex, and the ways to prevent them are layered and comprehensive.

   * Second, more focus is needed on school safety, school discipline, classroom management, and student self-management, and the root causes from each past shooting needs to be applied to prevent any future potential events.

_ _ _ _ _

   In Part II, School Shootings, Comprehensive Prevention, Mandatory (Mental Health) Reporting, and Standardized Threat Assessments. . . What Schools, Staff, and Students Need to Do, and The Help that They Need to Do It . . .

   [LINK HERE to Part II]

. . . I analyzed existing—largely state—gun control and related laws that are approximating the laws being advocated at the federal level.  I did this to demonstrate that we can successfully impact our nation’s laws, because we have already impacted many laws at the state level.

   In fact, the Boston Globe estimates that approximately 27,000 of the 38,658 people who died in gun-related deaths in 2016 could saved if every state had the same gun laws as Massachusetts. 

   This article [CLICK HERE] provided (a) state-by-state statistics on gun-related deaths in 2016, (b) how many lives would have been saved by Massachusetts-like gun laws, (c) how many of seven “common-sense” guns laws each state has enacted, and (d) how to contact each state’s Governor and State Senate and House leader.

_ _ _ _ _

   But I made two additional recommendations in the Part II Blog:

   * To establish laws, similar to existing child abuse laws nationwide, requiring professionals and others to report individuals (including students) suspected of potential school violence.  

    * To develop and require a standardized threat assessment for any individual reported as immediately above.

_ _ _ _ _

   Now, in this Blog, I have tried to encourage us to listen to our students’ voices. . . both to help them to feel safer, and to help them be safer.

   But there is one more voice that I feel must be heard. . . at least, right now.  It is the voice that usually cries out in our inner-city schools. . . but is not often heard.  It is the same voice as those from the Parklands, or the Sandy Hooks, or the Columbines, or the Jonesboros. . . but it rarely get the  same attention.

_ _ _ _ _

   I am not trying to cater to people’s emotions today, but to your rationality.

   I am not trying to make political statements, but help us face practical realities.

   And, I am not trying to live in the past, but I want to help our students live. . . so that they will have a path to establish their futures.

   We must listen to our students. . . because they are making sense.

   We must listen to our students. . . who are not making sense. . . especially if they are ready to kill.

_ _ _ _ _

   I hope that this information has been useful to you.  I know that we all dedicated to protecting our students, making our schools safe, and addressing the social, emotional, and behavioral needs of those students who are struggling in our midst.

   There are school-based solutions, and experienced professionals who can help schools and districts go to the next level of success relative to strengthening school climate and school safety. 

   Let me know how I can assist you in this charge.  I am always available by e-mail or conference call.

Best,

Howie