Welcome to The Guidance Channel!

September 11, 2001 ushered in a new era for the citizens of the United States. Prior to the terror attacks that toppled the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, tore open the Pentagon building in Washington D.C. and downed four jet liners, the phrase “homeland security” was unfamiliar to most Americans.

As the nation learns to deal with the full impact of a newly recognized vulnerability, Americans are being forced to face the acceptance of a new kind of “normal.” Americans must now think about keeping their communities safe and the homeland secure from terrorist threat and attack. The new normal requires a new level of vigilance and responsibility. As individuals, households, neighborhoods and communities prepare to face these unprecedented threats and prolonged uncertainty, schools must also be prepared.

Today’s preparations will not only serve school communities during times of war and terrorism but also during times of stability. Safe school planning — which includes crisis preparation and response — is not a new process for most school communities. Many have spent months and years forging critical partnerships, collaborating, planning and problem solving with the goal of providing safe and effective schools. Many have already developed viable and noteworthy crisis response plans. The present call for homeland readiness compels school administrators, school resource officers, and their school communities to update existing safe-school plans. In light of recent events and increased vulnerability, it is imperative for schools without a crisis response plan to create one.

On the federal level, homeland security is about increasing government services and resources for national security, policing and intelligence. It is also, however, about teaching individual citizens and families to be ready to protect themselves and their communities. The most basic step that school communities can take to participate in homeland security is to apply the national guidelines for family preparedness to their schools. These guidelines encourage responsibility and self-sufficiency and advise individuals and families to create their own emergency plans by:

Assembling emergency supplies.
Developing communication plans.
Learning more about the different types of emergencies they could face.

This article is designed to help school administrators and their law enforcement partners preserve and enhance their educational and safety missions in times of turmoil and prepare to the best of their ability to effectively respond to a crisis. There are four specific goals that are designed to enhance the effectiveness of this partnership. They include:

To build knowledge and understanding regarding terrorism and school violence;
To infuse readiness concepts into safe-school planning;
To inspire a commitment to respond appropriately to the call for readiness; and
To introduce new resources to help schools prepare and be ready.

Homeland Security

As a result of 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Homeland Security Department was created. The primary mission of the Department is to:

Prevent terrorist attacks within the United States;
Reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism; and
Minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery, from terrorist attacks that occur within the United States.

Citizens, households, schools and communities have received a call to action that is reasonable for a nation facing new threats and challenges. The federal “readiness campaign” essentially asks citizens to:

Be vigilant;
Take sensible precautions; and
Remain productive.

The same message promotes the idea that citizens and communities hone their abilities to be self-reliant during a large-scale crisis so that limited resources can be used where they are needed most.

For school communities, the campaign message is as simple as:

Be cautious and alert;
Do those things that are practical and appropriate to your setting; and
Don’t let the fear of terrorism interfere with your educational mission.

Understanding Terrorism

Most official definitions of terrorism include the following elements:

The systematic use of fear;
Using the threat of violence;
Committed for political, ideological or religious purposes; and
With a desire to alter the behaviors of others.

As shown by the events of 9/11, all citizens, communities and schools are affected by terrorism, either directly or indirectly. High-profile events often create a ripple effect through communities, institutions, organizations and cultures. The intensity of the ripple effect depends on one’s proximity to the event. Proximity can be measured geographically, emotionally, socially, politically, culturally, philosophically and financially. The indirect effects of terrorism are not always obvious.

Terrorism takes on many faces, forms and missions, from the international terror groups led by such individuals as Osama Bin Laden, to domestic terrorists such as Timothy McVeigh (convicted of blowing up the federal Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City) or Buford Furrow (responsible for the Los Angeles Jewish day care center attack), to the notorious school shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold from Columbine High School.

Understanding the mind set of today’s terrorists is a challenge to most people. The loss of life, destruction and intimidation that promote the terrorist’s agenda are deplorable. A lack of understanding about terrorism can lead to a denial that threats exist.

To understand how a terrorist might plan an attack, consider the questions a terrorist might use to assess a potential target:

Would an attack on the target undermine public confidence or instill fear and panic nationwide?
Would an attack on the target promote the terrorists’ agenda?
Does the target provide an essential community service?
Has this type of target been attacked in the past with success?
Would an attack on the target warrant national media coverage?
Does the target symbolize America?
Would an attack on the target set the bar for future attacks?

To date, no U.S. school has been the target of an international terrorist attack. However, schools could be considered viable terrorist targets for the following reasons:

An attack at a school would instill fear and panic nationwide. Consider the effects of the student attack at Columbine High School.
An attack on a school could promote the reputation and power of a terrorist or terrorist group.
Schools provide an essential community service. About one-quarter of the nation’s population attends school.
Domestic terrorists have previously attacked schools and education facilities. Schools were also indirect victims of terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. There were nine schools within the “Ground Zero” area.
An attack at a school would warrant national media coverage.
Schools symbolize the United States and the future of our nation.
Many schools remain easy targets due to their accessibility, vulnerability and prominence in the community.

The Tools of the Terrorist Trade

The tactical elements of international and domestic terrorists and some of those who have perpetrated acts of school violence have been similar in nature. Common elements include:

Surveillance activities prior to attack;
Access to the targeted facility;
Access to weapons or means of attack (guns, explosives, chemicals);
A strategy requiring intense discipline, planning, patience and optimal timing;
The staging of rehearsals or trial runs;
The element of surprise to the unsuspecting victim or community of victims;
The use of explosives, secondary devices and diversionary tactics;
The use of the Internet to communicate threats, strategize among cohorts, document activities, learn tactics and recruit followers;
Suicide missions involving similar mental states and focus on the part of the attacker/s;
Warning signs that are often overlooked or ignored; and
Strategies that set the bar for future events in terms of escalating fear, anxiety, destruction and the notoriety of the terrorist.

Finding the Appropriate Response

Schools have always struggled with finding an appropriate balance between providing security and creating a warm and welcoming learning environment that promotes the academic mission.

In the 1950s, school safety efforts focused on providing safe, orderly and disciplined environments. This was accomplished by managing the individual behaviors of students through classroom rules, codes of conduct and discipline. Safety efforts focused on bus, pedestrian, and bike safety education. Emergency planning took the form of practicing periodic escape drills in case of fire or other natural disasters.

The era of the Cuban Missile crisis and the fear of nuclear attacks during the 1960s generated a national call for preparedness. Many individuals and communities accepted the challenge by creating disaster response plans, bomb shelters and stocks of emergency supplies. This era also generated for schools the practice of disaster drills in which teachers and students alike were asked to duck and cover under their desks in case of nuclear attack. The present call for readiness with regard to terrorism echoes the events, activities, and emotions of this earlier time.

The 1970s ushered in a time in which some schools faced racial tensions and many schools were challenged by the impact of wide-scale drug use. The times also included the politics of war and social unrest. During this period, school rules, drills and student discipline existed as fragmented strategies for school safety. Some schools began to employ school security officers and campus supervisors to help manage these challenges.

The increase in youth gang activity and violence in schools during the late 1980s and 1990s gave rise to the concept of safe-school planning. Schools were no longer asked to bear the sole responsibility for school safety. Broad-based planning teams took a comprehensive look at the safety and prevention needs of their school community. They then developed long-term plans and multifaceted approaches to creating safer schools. The school safety language began to include such terms as collaboration, partnerships, memorandums of understanding, joint power agreements, interagency cooperation, problem solving, information sharing and pooled resources. Many schools and municipalities began to place sworn peace officers on campus to serve as peace keepers, safety experts, community liaisons, educators and problem solvers.

The high-profile shootings that occurred on school campuses across America during the mid to late 1990s tested the emergency response plans for both schools and law enforcement. No longer could school communities deny that a crisis could occur on campus on any day, at any time. These major crisis events resulted in changes within both education and law enforcement cultures. Joint efforts included the prevention of acts of school violence by attempting to detect early warning signs among students, becoming more knowledgeable about mental health issues, and addressing bullying and harassment behaviors. The sharing of critical information was extended beyond educators and law enforcement to include mental health professionals and students and parents through the use of tiplines, dialogue and training. An emphasis was placed on creating and preparing crisis response teams to assist in response and recovery.

The events of 9/11 were a springboard for changes regarding safety and security issues throughout our nation and beyond. New levels of vigilance and preparedness have been created through such initiatives as the Department of Homeland Security, new funding streams, new levels of training, and the enlistment of entire communities and everyday citizens to be ready.

The post 9/11 era has created a greater need for school communities to assess their readiness, too. Today, schools must engage in the process of securing and protecting themselves in light of new terrorist threats and challenges. Schools can move beyond the old standards of safety and security by adopting a new focus on awareness, being proactive, vigilance and responsiveness toward a goal of readiness and self-reliance.

The Case for Self-Reliance

As a result of the safe-school planning efforts occurring in school communities across America, school-based partnerships with community agencies and emergency responders have been established and continue to grow. Schools are now better positioned to work with their partners to respond to a crisis that may occur on or near their campuses. However, in the event of a large-scale disaster—either man-made or natural—schools may find that the event exceeds the planning and preparation. In such cases, existing plans and partnerships for emergency response may not apply. For example, during a large-scale crisis:

Emergency resources may be limited.
Schools may not be a high priority for response.
Community emergency responders may be deployed elsewhere.

In the event of a crisis of significant magnitude, schools will be required to depend heavily upon the relationships, resources and problem-solving skills that have already been established. The middle of a crisis is not the time to establish critical relationships, assess strengths or hone crisis-response skills.

When preparing for a large-scale crisis, planning and cross training among school-safety partners takes on new meaning and value, schools are encouraged to consider and anticipate a degree of isolation and the expanded roles and responsibility they will assume in the absence or limited availability of emergency responders during such a crisis. The training and preparation that takes place now among schools, law enforcement, emergency service providers and community leaders will inspire confidence and help schools develop the capacity to be self-sufficient and self-reliant during any kind of crisis.