“Last year we saw an unprecedented amount of aggression and violence that many attribute in part to students having been learning remotely for so long. There is every indication that what we saw manifest last year will continue to exist and escalate in the upcoming school year.” And so far, this has proven itself true.
The statement came from Kenneth Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services, in a previous interview with District Administration. To date, there have been 83 incidents involving a firearm on school grounds, according to the “K-12 School Shooting Database.” To put this into perspective, there were only 58 in the entirety of 2017. Since 2018, that number has easily surpassed 100, and it reached the highest ever in 22 with 303 incidents.
As a result, many districts entered this school year with updated safety policies. From clear backpacks to metal detectors, administrators are doing everything in their power to ensure their students are safe. But in the event of a school security threat, how can leaders assess the situation in the aftermath to figure out what led to the incident? Furthermore, leaders should know their weak points in advance. As Trump has said, districts should assess and then react, not reach and then assess.
PASS, the Partner Alliance for Safer Schools, an organization that aims to promote effective security practices to improve school safety, recently published its most comprehensive school safety guidelines. Included in the report is a list of the 10 most common K12 safety and security pitfalls designed to inform school and district leaders. According to the list, simply failing to assemble a planning team earned the number one spot.
Here’s a look at the full list:
- Failure to implement a planning team comprised of all the necessary stakeholders.
- Failure to understand priorities due to an “it won’t happen here” mentality.
- Relying simply on advanced security technology before adequate security measures are in place.
- Inconsistent implementation of disparate systems that fail to meet security objectives in a security plan or risk assessment.
- Planning or products are short-sighted and only respond to the latest tragedy instead of adhering to a long-term, holistic approach.
- Choosing the lowest-cost solutions above all.
- Reliance on emergency communications technology that is not designed for such situations.
- Overreliance on one form of emergency communication to address a broad range of security challenges.
- Failure to balance external and internal risk mitigation.
- Unnecessary products that can serve as solutions in search of a problem. For example, secondary locking devices. They can increase liability and risk.
The report itself, according to PASS, can help district leaders not only understand the best security practices, but also which ones aren’t worth the investment.
“Not only can the information provided in the Guidelines help stakeholders stay informed on nationwide best practices, but it also provides a reference point for evaluating specific solutions and products that are offered,” the report reads. “It is particularly important in today’s climate that school officials be wary of aggressive marketing of any products that are unproven, inappropriate or even illegal for school use.”
More from DA: How to ‘transform’ the way your district approaches cybersecurity
