Protect Yourself so You can Protect Others – A Critical School Safety Concept

Anyone who has flown commercial air in the last decade or so has heard the safety message that they should put their own mask on before putting the oxygen mask on others such as small children in the event of a loss of cabin pressure. Though many people do not realize just how fast they can lose consciousness, they do understand that it is logical because they cannot properly protect children if they become unconscious while trying to help a child put their mask on first. There is an important school emergency preparedness point in this example from commercial aviation. School employees should be taught to take care of their own safety first so they can in turn be capable of protecting students and other staff. As at least two school employees have already died heroically but needlessly in school shooting situations because they did not apply this concept, it bears mention.

Law enforcement officers, fire service professionals and other public safety personnel are trained on this point heavily. Many deaths in these fields have provided practitioners in those fields with object lessons that should not be forgotten. An acquaintance of mine died in just this manner when he hit a utility pole while rushing to the aid of a fellow officer. His fatal crash not only took his life, but it also diverted valuable assistance to the officer in distress because additional units had to rush to his aid when he crashed.

Just as public safety officials must be trained to overcome the natural tendency of caring people to sometimes put the safety of others first inappropriately, educational employees should be trained to consider what help they will be able to provide if they become incapacitated because they do not take adequate steps to protect themselves before they act to protect others.

Carefully Define your Scope of Work for School Safety Assessment Projects

One thing I have noticed in reviewing bid solicitations for many school safety assessment projects over the years is that the requests for proposals (RFP’s) for these projects are almost always different from one another. One reason that almost no two RFP’s are alike is that each client has its own needs and focus. Another reason they vary so much is that there are so many different approaches to conducting assessments for schools.

Even the terminology for the assessments varies widely. For example, here are some of the more common descriptors used for these processes:

• School security assessment

• School security audit

• School safety assessment

• School safety audit

• School hazard and vulnerability assessment

• School risk assessment

• School hazard hunt

• School tactical site survey

• School safety, security, climate, culture and emergency preparedness assessment

• Student supervision assessment

• School emergency preparedness assessment

This list could easily run to a full page if we listed all of the terms we have seen in RFP’s. While there is no problem with the use of any of these terms, it is important to understand that these terms without a proper scope of work all mean different things. For example, an “audit” implies a different approach to and “assessment” and a school security assessment will be taken by many vendors to exclude general safety issues and does not cover issues relating to school climate, culture or emergency preparedness. Taking the time to determine what aspects relating to school safety need to be evaluated before writing an RFP can go a long way to a more effective and practical bid process.

For example, one attendee to a state – wide training program on school safety evaluation and assessment related that her district had paid a consultant an enormous sum of money to assess school in her district. Though the consultant presented himself as one of the nation’s top experts, he only spent about forty five minutes in each school and delivered very basic reports in contrast with the processes we were outlining in the training session. The district had tried to terminate the contract with the consultant due to numerous complaints that had been received by district staff and area public safety personnel but the consultant had threatened to litigate the district. The district ended up attending a training session on the coordination of school safety assessments and re-doing all of the assessments themselves. In hindsight, the district realized that a failure to properly define the scope of work had helped contribute to this unpleasant situation.

A little bit of research prior to releasing a bid solicitation can help to make sure that the services that are desired match those that are delivered, reduce the costs of the services and ensure that safety is enhanced by the process.

Use Caution When Making Public Statements after a Safety Incident Occurs

Education leaders naturally want to reassure students, parents, staff and the community when a school safety incident takes place. It is quite normal for a school superintendent or headmaster to make a statement to the media like “our schools are safe” in an effort to calm fears. However, statements of this sort made when stress levels are high and people are in pain due to a tragedy can have two very negative and lasting consequences increased exposure to civil liability and an increased loss of public confidence. While issues of potential civil liability exposure should generally be viewed in balance with the many other demands of effectively operating schools, they should not be ignored.

Statements that we commonly see such as “safety is our number one priority” are easily attacked and refuted in a deposition or trial. For example, an attorney may ask a school superintendent who makes such a public statement if safety is the largest budget item during a deposition. As the answer to this question will always be no, this line of questioning will likely be used to suggest that the school leader has intentionally misled the public in regards to the actual level of safety. While this point may seem trite to some, I have seen a number of instances were a single poorly worded phrase has had a dramatic impact in school safety litigation. Working as an expert witness in school safety malpractice cases reveals just how important wording can be. In the same manner, the media frequently uses similar tactics when covering school safety which can do serious long term damage to the reputation of school leaders and their organizations. One superintendent in an affluent well-funded suburban school system made the mistake of stating during a school board meeting that his school system was the safest district in the nation while addressing an incident that had occurred. When he was challenged as to the validity of this statement by parents and the media, he stuck to his statement rather than modifying it. Area media began to hammer the superintendent and the district by reporting as many safety incidents as possible for more than a year. The damage to the district’s credibility lasts to this day.

Fortunately, there are ways to help reasonably assert the organization’s emphasis on safety while reducing the problems that can result from these types of statements. By carefully choosing the way such statements are phrased, school spokespersons can get the message out that safety is a priority in an honest, effective and easily defensible manner. The first rule of thumb is to ask, “Could I prove that this assertion is true and valid in court and under oath?”. For example, if we go back to the oft heard statement that “student safety is our number one priority” the answer is clearly no. However, the statement “we take student safety seriously in our school district” would be much easier to validate in a district that does indeed have a comprehensive and effective safety program.

Taking the time to carefully phrase statements relating to student and staff safety can save money and can help to build rather than reduce confidence.