Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims, their families, the responding public safety officials and our nation as a whole in the aftermath of the tragic terrorist attacks on Americans on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, and subsequent terrorism threats that have struck our nation and the world in the many years that followed.  As our nation and the world continue to struggle with the threat of terrorism, we are asked about the appropriate context and practical recommendations for preparing one of our softest potential targets: Our schools.

It important to remember that no single strategy, or even a collection of multiple strategies, fits all school and school-community situations. District and building specific guidelines for managing emergency situations must be individually developed, trained, tested and exercised.

The Terrorist Threat to Schools:  Ostrich-Syndrome, Naysayers, and Reality

Although a terrorist attack upon a school in the United States may be improbable, the first step toward preparedness is admitting that it is at least possible that terrorists could strike a school or schools in our country.  Even the U.S. Department of Education, a federal agency characterized for years by their denying and downplaying of the potential for a terror attack upon American schools, issued an advisory to schools in October of 2004 with recommendations for heightening security and emergency preparedness in light of the Beslan, Russia, school terror attack months earlier. (Click here to see U.S. Department of Education heightened security advisory in .pdf file format.)

Some consultants and trainers who are inexperienced in the school safety profession may be overly alarming on the issue of terrorism and schools.  Some public officials, consultants, and trainers take a “company line, middle-of-the-road, and politically-correct” position of downplaying and completely dismissing the possibility of a terror attack on American schools because doing so is consistent with the wishes of the bureaucracies with which they are associated.  And yet other self-proclaimed “experts” in anti-terrorism, emergency planning, and/or school safety appear to ride the politically-correct fence of talking out of both sides of their mouths:  They talk about terrorism and schools when it serves their benefit (such as when they are paid to speak on the topic and/or to sell their questionably-beneficial products), while downplaying it at other times in an effort to please the official naysayers who provide them with funding elsewhere.

At National School Safety and Security Services, we believe that the key to successfully preparing school communities without creating panic is for school and public safety officials to be candid about the possibility that schools can be impacted by terrorism.  Success in managing the issue also requires that officials communicate terrorism issues in a balanced and rational context, and that they educate their school communities on the roles that everyone plays in keeping schools and communities safe.  Denial (aka: Ostrich-Syndrome) and inconsistent messages exacerbate, not reduce, fear and panic.

Frequently used weak arguments from the “naysayers” who misguidedly attempt to downplay the possibility of a terrorist attack on U.S. schools, along with our counterpoints to their self-serving denial, include:

Naysayers:  “Terrorist attacks upon schools in the U.S. and abroad are statistically rare events.  It has been an extremely rare event when terrorists attack a school.”

Reality:  The Columbine High School attack in 1999 was an extremely rare event which no one ever thought would or could happen.  It was an attack in an American school at a level for which no prior precedent had been established.  The impact of Columbine changed the landscape of the school safety profession forever, causing many schools to play “catch-up” with decades of neglect in security and emergency planning, while setting a new threshold for best practices in school safety.

The 9/11 terror attacks on America were extremely rare events which no one ever thought would or could happen.  These were attacks on the U.S. at a level for which no prior precedent had been established.  The impact of 9/11 changed the landscape of American homeland security forever, setting an unprecedented focus on heightened security and emergency preparedness measures comparable to no other time in American history.

To state or imply that we should ignore or downplay the possibility that terrorists would strike American schools defies logic and is contrary to the lessons learned on 9/11, at Columbine, in Beslan (Russia), in mass school shootings since Columbine, and elsewhere.  It is this mindset of denial and Ostrich-Syndrome (head-in-the-sand) that makes us most vulnerable.  It is also a mindset contrary to the overall goals of our U.S. Homeland Security policy which encourages “thinking outside of the box” and being proactive to prevent a future terrorism attack, rather than looking for ways to rationalize that, “It can’t happen here,” until such an attack occurs again.

Naysayers:   “Talking about the possibility of terrorist attacks upon schools only furthers the terrorists’ goals of creating fear.”

Reality:  Talking about terrorists possibly using airplanes to attack American buildings did not instill the fear which occurred on and after 9/11.  In fact, our failure to talk about the possibility of such an event before it occurred has been identified by many professionals as creating a climate which made us more vulnerable.

School and public safety officials nationwide now proactively pursue prevention programs, security measures, and emergency preparedness measures to prevent mass shootings in their schools.  The failure to talk about the possibility of such an incident occurring and the failure to take steps to prevent such an occurrence would be considered as “negligence” in the eyes of most educators, public safety officials, parents, media, and courts.  Talking about the possibility in a balanced and rational way does not create fear, but instead it reduces fear, improves preparedness, and has resulted in many death plots being foiled thanks to a heightened awareness.

The naysayer mindset that talking about the possibility of terror attacks upon our schools furthers terrorist goals of creating fears is contrary to our overall national approach to homeland security.  Our President, Congress, military, homeland security, and other federal officials talk regularly and openly about the potential for terrorists to strike our airlines, military facilities, government offices, and other American interests right here in the United States, and in turn our need to be appropriately prepared.  If we followed the logic of the naysayers who claim we should not talk about terrorism and schools, we would also not be talking about the possibility of terror attacks on our airlines and other government facilities.  In fact, using their logic, there would be no need for a Homeland Security Department…and it is this mindset which makes us the most vulnerable.

Fear is best managed by education, communication, and preparation —- not denial.  Educate school community members to define the issues and appropriate context.  Communicate with school community members to discuss risk reduction, heightened security, and emergency preparedness strategies.  Be prepared for both natural disasters and manmade acts of crime and violence by taking an “all-hazards” approach to school emergency planning.

Naysayers:  “Money spent on preparing schools for terrorism is wasted money that could be better spent elsewhere.  Just prepare our first responders in the community and they will take care of the schools if something happens.”

Reality:  Teachers, administrators, school support staff, School Resource Officers, school security personnel, and other professionals on the front lines of our nation’s school are the first responders to any emergency which occurs in their schools.  While we value our community public safety partners and we encourage our schools to work hand-in-hand with them in emergency planning, the reality is that those working inside a school will be the ones immediately responding to and managing an emergency incident while police, fire, EMS, and other community first responders are enroute.  School officials will also be the individuals working with community first responders once they arrive and throughout the emergency incident. In fact, if an event occurs on the scale of the 9/11 terror attacks, school officials may be forced to manage a school-based emergency with minimal support from community first responders if these responders are tied up managing other aspects of the emergency elsewhere in the community and/or if they cannot get to the school.  School officials will also be the individuals left to carry the school a long way through the recovery phase after an emergency.

No public budgets are unlimited and no “blank checks” exist for school security and emergency preparedness efforts, the trend over decades of schools to rely upon grants for school security and emergency preparedness is concerning.  School safety cannot be treated as a grant-funded luxury. Funding for school security and emergency planning should not only be spared from cuts, but should also be incrementally increased as we continue to increase our national defense and anti-terrorism preparedness in other public sectors.

A terror attack upon American schools would create fear and panic, disrupt the economy if the “business” side of school operations were shut down on a large scale, and instill a lack of confidence in our school and community leadership.  Such terror tactics have already been employed elsewhere including attacks upon schools and school buses in the Middle East, and in the 2004 Beslan, Russia, school terror attack, for example.  While it may not be a probability that terrorists will strike our schools, we must acknowledge that it is a possibility and take reasonable steps to prevent and prepare for such an incident. Given the growth and expansion of terrorist attacks by ISIS and other extremists, we would be foolish not to consider the possibility of similar attacks in the U.S., with potential targets including schools.

Heightened school security procedures during terrorist threats

A number of potential terrorist threats have been discussed ranging from the potential use of suicide bombers, mass shootings, and car/truck bombs to biological attacks.  In addition to the recommendations above, schools should give serious consideration to additional heightened security procedures during times of terrorist threats including:

Biological and chemical threats (including anthrax, mail handling)

In addition to basic security and crisis preparedness guidelines noted above, school officials must also take into account past national threat trends regarding biological and chemical terrorism.  School officials should encourage their school staff and communities to remain calm and not panic during these times.  School leaders may wish to consider the following as a part of their risk-reduction and crisis preparedness planning:

General recommendations related to terrorism and school safety

Specific needs will obviously vary based upon the location, local issues, and impact of unique factors influencing each school and school community.  Some issues that school and community leaders may wish to consider during these difficult times include:

9/11 Anniversary Considerations

Many school officials, parents and others in school-communities are concerned around the anniversary time of any national tragedy.  In consideration of the first 9/11 anniversary date, we offered the following recommendations for school officials to consider.  In subsequent anniversary years, the attention to the anniversary date will likely not be as great.  However, we will leave these recommendations posted for reference.

National surveys of School Resource Officers
The second largest professional industry survey of school-based officers was conducted in July of 2002 by National School Safety and Security Services. This was the first known survey of school-based police officers on terrorism and school safety related issues.

The survey found 95% of responding school-based police officers indicating that their schools were vulnerable to terrorist attacks and 79% stating that their schools were not adequately prepared for such attacks.  School officers also reported significant gaps in school security and emergency preparedness measures at their schools, and limited training and support received themselves for preventing and preparing terrorist attacks upon schools. See our page on the 2002  National Survey of School Resource Officers which includes survey highlights.

The third annual survey in the June/July of 2003 also addressed terrorism preparedness issues. Over 90% of the survey respondents believed that schools were “soft targets” for potential terrorist attacks. Over 76% of the officers felt that their schools are not adequately prepared to respond to a terrorist attack upon their schools.And over 51% of the respondents’ schools did not have specific, formal guidelines to follow when there is a change in the national homeland security color code/federal terrorism warning system.  See our pages on the 2003 National Survey of School Resource Officers which includes survey highlights.

Findings similar to those above were also represented in the 2004 National Survey of School Resource Officers.

Today, more than two decades later, an uptick in terrorist attacks internationally and the identification of homegrown terrorists here in the U.S., schools still remain to be softer targets. Paying attention to international and national trends, and taking a balanced but candid look at the possibility of terrorist attacks on our nation’s schools, is as warranted now as it was after the 9/11 attacks.

Additional information sources

No Safe Havens: Are schools vulnerable to terrorism?  American School Board Journal article by Kenneth S. Trump and Curtis Lavarello. (Adobe Acrobat Reader required)

Schools:  Prudent Preparation for a Catastrophic Terrorism Incident
(National Strategy Forum; March, 2004 / Adobe Acrobat Reader required)

U.S. Department of Education:  Deputy Undersecretary of Education’s letter on “lessons learned” from the Beslan, Russia, school terror incident (Adobe Acrobat Reader required)

Questions related to this page may be directed to Ken Trump

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *