Sheriff Grady Judd, a Commissioner on the Florida school safety commission created after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (Parkland) school shooting, said last week that a new law requiring classroom doors to be locked when students are present is impossible to comply with without exceptions and the validity of the exceptions can be difficult to determine, according to a story by the Florida Phoenix (https://floridaphoenix.com/2024/07/31/legislative-clarification-may-be-needed-on-school-safety-law-commission-says/).
We can save the debate about the merits of the overall law itself for another post. More important is how this story, and Sheriff Judd’s concerns in particular, illustrate the how well-intended legal state mandates increasingly put school leaders in a bind when it comes to implementing the laws.
The devil is in the reality and details of implementation
Sheriff Judd said his county office monitoring compliance feels “boxed up” by the situation. A state education official acknowledged it can be hard to know when students stop coming and going during class change times. Anyone who understands schools also understands that students (and even some adults) come and go from classrooms during the periods when students are in classes.
Sheriff Judd reportedly fears “unintentional violations” of the law. He should fear it. And so should school administrators, teachers and support staff including school safety officials.
We have already seen how state mandates have been near-impossible to implement in several states such as those rapidly forced upon school officials for security/police staffing and other security mandates. Most of the mandates come grossly underfunded and unfunded, and frequently with short-notice for implementation.
We know the only thing school administrators have less of than money is time, but those scribes behind the mandates apparently do not understand and/or just do not care. They can say they did something, often for their own direct or indirect benefit.
“Shalls” and “musts” in mandates and proposed school security “standards” put schools in implementation – and potential legal – jeopardy
The same concept applies as a growing number of security consultant/vendor-driven proposals are underway for school security “standards.” None will likely be legally binding.
But lengthy documents filled with “shoulds” and “musts” in their language will likely provide unprecedented fodder for attorneys filing lawsuits against school boards, superintendents, principals and their school safety officials. Attorneys will be quick to argue that there is a huge difference between “should” and “shall,” and schools stand to spend millions of dollars in defense fees thanks to the individuals and organizations pushing such mandates.
While the future points to exponential growth in work for lawyers and expert witnesses, consultant/vendor-driven proposals for school security “standards” and state mandates like this one in Florida will likely pose a slew of unitended consequences and unimplementable burdens upon school leaders.
Dr. Kenneth S. Trump is President of National School Safety and Security Services
National School Safety and Security Services
Experts You Can Trust!
Connect with Dr. Ken on Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/kentrump/
Follow Dr. Ken on Twitter @safeschools
Visit and “Like” Our Facebook School Safety News Channel at: www.facebook.com/schoolsafety