School safety can no longer be a hypothetical discussion. As of Feb. 17, 2026, there were at least six school shootings in the U.S.
This includes four on college campuses and two on K12 groups, leaving five people dead and others injured, according to CNN’s analysis of data from the Gun Violence Archive and Everytown for Gun Safety.
Those incidents follow several consecutive years in which school shootings have reached record levels. In 2024 alone, there were at least 83 incidents nationwide.
For district leaders, that trend demands more than reactive planning. It requires a reassessment of where prevention truly begins.
Leadership sets the starting point
In our work with schools across the country, our recurring challenge is what psychologists describe as normalcy bias. This is a form of denial and occurs when the deeply human assumption is that because something has not happened before, it is unlikely to happen in the future.
This mindset is understandable. After all, schools are places of learning, community and trust. Yet history demonstrates that serious incidents can occur in districts of every size, demographic and geography.
When they do, the consequences extend far beyond the immediate emergency response: Staff morale plummets, enrollment declines and the community trust is gone. In some cases, campuses are physically altered or even closed.
School leaders operate “in loco parentis”, or in place of parents. During the school day, districts assume responsibility for the well-being of the students entrusted to them.
That responsibility carries moral weight and legal precedent. Safety, therefore, cannot be treated as an optional upgrade dependent solely on available funds. It must be understood as a foundational obligation of leadership.
Prevention begins with a third-party expert assessment and evaluation of readiness. When was the last time your district conducted a substantive tabletop exercise that tested assumptions under realistic conditions?
Are exterior doors consistently secured throughout the school day, or do convenience and routine undermine policy? Do staff members know to report concerning behavioral indicators, and are there clear protocols for acting on those reports?
In many high-profile school attacks, subsequent investigations have revealed red flags, that someone noticed something beforehand, like a threat shared with classmates, troubling online posts, violent ideation in conversations or escalating behavioral red flags.
The issues rarely have no warning. More often, it is the failure to recognize those signals as actionable or to move them quickly through a clear chain of responsibility.
In some situations, evaluating those warning signs may require involving additional expertise. School leaders should not hesitate to involve law enforcement or other external partners when a situation raises serious concern. Effective prevention means using every appropriate resource available to assess risk and protect students.
Technology cannot compensate for gaps in awareness or accountability if the threat comes from within. Leadership must first establish that prevention, not just response, is the objective.
Aligning systems with strategy
Once that leadership commitment is clear, systems must reinforce it.
A perimeter-focused approach doesn’t mean we’re turning schools into fortified facilities. Instead, it emphasizes layered protection that creates visibility and controlled access before a potential threat reaches students and staff.
This may include early, defined entry points, visitor management protocols that verify identity, exterior camera coverage that monitors approach paths and gathering areas and monitoring practices that ensure active oversight rather than passive recording.
Districts sometimes address security incrementally. For example, they upgrade locks in one budget cycle, add cameras in another or assign monitoring responsibilities without evaluating workload or training. Over time, these well-intentioned steps can produce fragmentation.
Effective prevention requires integration. Policies must align with infrastructure, and that infrastructure must align with daily operations.
Even the most advanced access control system will fail if doors are routinely propped open. Conversely, well-trained staff operating within clear protocols can significantly reduce risk even before technological enhancements are made.
Security planning cannot be static. Campuses evolve, enrollment changes and community dynamics shift. Periodic reassessment, coordinated training with first responders and continuous improvement are essential components of a sustainable safety strategy.
Accountability for school safety
Ultimately, school safety is a governance issue, not a facilities or IT issue. District leaders must ask a difficult but necessary question: If a serious incident were to occur, who owns the outcome?
Accountability in this context provides clarity of responsibility. Prevention is rarely undone by a single failure; it is weakened gradually through delayed assessments, inconsistent enforcement of protocols or the assumption that yesterday’s calm guarantees tomorrows.
Parents send their children to school expecting them to return home safely. Acting “in loco parentis” requires districts to examine vulnerabilities before they are exposed by a crisis. It requires intentional planning that begins at the perimeter, not after the breach occurs.
The responsibility is significant, and so is the opportunity to lead proactively.
