April 23, 2017

School Safety and Security: Responding to Terroristic Threats

student secuirty

In the wake of recent incidences of gun violence, school safety and security has become an increasingly pressing concern in the United States and Canada. Schools, summer camps, daycare centers, and other agencies charged with the safety of children have a duty to protect them, and their ability to do so depends on solid policies, training, and appropriate response to security threats. Laws, regulations, and internal policies designed to shield children from harm may be developed proactively in response to a risk assessment or reactively in response to an event that caused injury to a child. Both are valid options in today’s climate of terroristic threats to school safety and security. Inaction is not. Schools and other child-centered programs must consider and develop appropriate responses to this new dynamic.

Schools generally respond to terroristic threats quickly and decisively, but examples suggest that, at times, responses might not be sufficient based on the level of risk to school safety and security. In December 2015 — two weeks after 14 people were murdered nearby in a San Bernardino, Calif. center for people with developmental disabilities — the Los Angeles Unified School District responded to an e-mail threat to students by closing more than 1,000 schools for a day. At about the same time, New York City officials acknowledged having received a similar threat, but considered it so “outlandish” that they dismissed it as a hoax. As it turned out, nothing did occur in L.A. and the students were safe. New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton accused his Los Angeles counterparts of overreacting, but the question remains: What if the threat had been credible and the school had failed to act?

The incidences in New York and Los Angeles are not isolated to large American cities. In November 2015, authorities in Canada — a country that prides itself on its low crime rate — reacted to the latest in a rash of e-mailed threats by closing 71 schools in Quebec and Ottawa. Nothing was found in any of those searches, either. “Notwithstanding the fact that these threats seem to be unfounded, they are taken very seriously by police and will be the subject of an investigation,” police in Quebec said.

Taking action in response to these threats, which met the provincial definition of a terrorist act, is the right thing to do. Ignoring or making light of any terroristic threat places students and teachers at risk.


Appropriate Response to School Safety and Security Threats

The standard of professional care and legal standards for determining what constitutes a credible threat are contradictory and confusing. Until the U.S. Supreme Court defines a common standard, various contradictory lower court opinions will persist. With no clear standard of what constitutes a credible threat to school safety and security or how a school or other agency should respond to one, personnel must take all terroristic threats or suspected threats seriously.

States and provinces have definitions of what constitutes a terroristic threat, and these definitions may fit in the context of schools as well. For example, Pennsylvania law defines a terroristic threat as a threat to commit violence with intent to terrorize another person, to cause evacuation of a building, or to cause serious public inconvenience with reckless disregard for the risk of doing so. In the school context, a warning of a mass shooting that prompts a school evacuation and disrupts education constitutes a terroristic threat under Pennsylvania law, and in response, action can be taken against the perpetrator.

In addition to state and provincial laws, other resources provide guidance for schools:

  • In its 1999 report, “The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment Perspective,” the FBI’s Critical Incident Response Group recommended that schools adopt threat-response policies based on three tiers: low-level threats carrying a minimal risk; medium-level threats, which could possibly be carried out but are not entirely realistic; and high-level threats that pose a serious and imminent danger. The report provides guidance for categorizing threats into each tier.
  • A 2004 report by the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Secret Service, “The Final Report and Findings of the Safe Schools Initiative: Implications for the Prevention of Attacks in the United States,” suggests that there are productive actions that educators and others can pursue in response to the problem of targeted school violence and terrorism.
  • Another 2004 publication from the Department of Education and Secret Service, “Threat Assessment in Schools: A Guide to Managing Threatening Situations and to Creating Safe School Climates,” builds on the previous report. It sets forth a process, known as threat assessment, for managing students who may pose a threat.

The latter two reports stress that school shootings are rarely impulsive acts. The shooters told other students (though not the victims) about their plans in advance of their actions, but the other students did not tell adults. Telling others constituted a terroristic threat, but in many cases the students who knew of the threat failed to act. They did not report the threat to a school official who might have been able to intervene to prevent the compromise to school safety and security.

Perhaps these students did not know how to respond. Schools should provide training to staff, students, and parents and incorporate a definition of terroristic threat in the student code of conduct, the school security policy, and information that goes home to parents. Information from the school should clearly specify how a student, staff member, or someone from the community is to report threat information to a school official and how the official should respond. A good example is the policy of the School District of Philadelphia regarding terroristic threats. After defining a terroristic threat, Philadelphia’s policy states that:

  • Staff members and students shall be made aware of their responsibility for informing the building principal about any knowledge relevant to a possible or actual terroristic threat.
  • The building principal shall immediately call 911 and follow the district’s crisis plan after receiving a report of such a threat.
  • The principal shall react promptly to this information and knowledge, in compliance with state laws, regulations, and procedures established with local law enforcement.


School Safety and Security Threats Require Swift and Decisive Action

Sometimes there is no obvious threat, yet a terroristic act takes place. Depending on circumstances, the school might not be held responsible. For example, in a case in which I was engaged as the expert witness, a woman came through the front door of an elementary school with what she said was her nephew’s lunch in a brown bag. She asked the school secretary if she could take it to her nephew’s classroom. The secretary, who knew the woman, agreed. The woman went to the first-grade classroom, walked through the door, and greeted the teacher, “Good morning, Ms. Miller.” She then reached into the “lunch” bag, pulled out a revolver, and shot and killed the teacher in front of 24 children. Is it necessary to search every person who comes into a school, is known by staff, is the parent or aunt of a student, and who says she is there to bring a forgotten lunch to a child?

The answer is, “No.” In this case, it was my opinion that the school acted appropriately and reasonably under the circumstances. In this suburban community, there was no undue concern about a threat to the safety of the children in the school from outside sources. There was no announcement of a terroristic threat — the person entering the school did not say she was there to shoot a teacher. The secretary did not see a weapon, and she had no reason to believe the woman meant any harm. The woman was “screened” when she came into the school — she was known, she showed her license, signed in, and stated what was determined to be a legitimate reason for being there. Should the secretary have called the student to the office to pick up his “lunch?” Should the secretary have taken the “lunch” to the student? She would have noticed that the bag was too heavy for a peanut butter-and-jelly sandwich. But these thoughts come to mind after a tragedy like this. Can we do better in some situations? Yes, but this school, in my opinion, did nothing wrong. This terrible tragedy was sparked by a neighborhood spat. It is unfortunate that it ended with devastating consequences for 24 children.

There may be other, more obvious, situations that call to task the decision making of school personnel. One such example occurred in Texas, when a man approached a greeter in the school hallway and told her: “I am a gunman. My target is inside of the building. I’m going in the building. You stop me.” The principal did not call 911 because the man was immediately recognized as a parent and school volunteer. It appeared as if he had no weapon, and the school simply asked the man to leave. He did.

After this incident — which occurred less than a year after the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School — some parents felt that the school should have treated it more seriously. Though the man told police he was testing the school’s security response, he was later charged with making terroristic threats. The charge was appropriate, but was the school’s response reasonable? Even though the greeter at the front door recognized the man as a parent and trusted him, could he have carried out his threat? Yes, he could have. The duty of the school is to protect the students. Whenever there is any terroristic threat or reasonable suspicion of a threat, the school must act swiftly and decisively.

Closing school and depriving students of a day or so of their education, if it assures their safety, is worth the effort and is appropriate. Not having a clear policy, failing to train staff, and not addressing terroristic threats that might place students and staff in harm’s way can result in injury or death — and costly civil litigation from the harmed party. The best practice is always to place the protection of children and the wider school community at the top of the list. After all, learning can’t take place if children and staff don’t feel safe.
Schools should review state and provincial laws, agreements with law enforcement agencies, and other resources. Review existing school or program policies and procedures for responding to a terroristic threat. Inform and train students and staff about both the policy and what constitutes a terroristic threat, and if one occurs, carry out procedures decisively. Treating seriously any potentially deadly threat to a school or its inhabitants and involving the authorities without debating its credibility is the best course of action in regards to school safety and security.

Violation of Right to Bodily Security and Student Injury at School Resulting from Seclusion and Restraint

injury from restraints at school

Liability for Student Injuries at School

The first responsibility of educators and those who supervise children in residential programs, day care centers, before- and after-school programs, and other settings is to make sure that these programs foster learning and care in a safe environment. Asking third graders to move a cart with a heavy TV on top, inadequate staff instruction in safe techniques to quell disruptive students, not carefully checking that the door to the pool closes and locks the way it is supposed to, excessive discipline, playground aides talking among themselves but failing to pay attention to the children, not providing a sufficient number of nighttime supervisors in a dormitory, and a school police officer not trained on how to interact with children with behavioral disorders — any of these circumstances can lead to student injury at school or death of a child and high litigation costs. The overriding professional standard of care is to protect children’s health, safety, and well-being. Under this umbrella fall the development and implementation of policies, adequate staff training, and a level of supervision reasonably calculated to keep children safe.

Children in public and private schools and residential programs can be subjected to harm by the very adults charged with protecting them. Preventing this from occurring requires getting to know a student, his or her emotional status, and what circumstances might trigger certain behaviors. For example, a child who has an Individualized Education Program (IEP) is recognized as someone who needs special accommodations. The IEP must be adequately developed and then implemented by all staff who come in contact with the student, including teachers and classroom assistants, bus drivers, cafeteria staff, school police, and custodians. When staff is neither informed about a student with special needs nor trained in techniques for de-escalating combative behavior, the stage is set for disaster. And if results are student injury at school, the school can be held liable.

Understanding the child’s abilities and limitations, knowing how to interact positively with the child, establishing clear policies, consistently following the rules, and adequately training staff will go a long way toward avoiding interactions that end up resulting in student injury at school.

Student Injury at School and Failure to Meet Standards of Care

Let’s look at some examples from my own work as an expert witness on standards of care in schools and residential facilities. In California, a child who had autism and mild mental retardation was forcibly restrained by as many as four people who held her at her classroom desk while forcing her to color a sheet of paper for one to two hours. She was also placed in a locked seclusion room for as many as five hours a day, during which she experienced severe duress and wet herself. She was told she could not change her clothes until she finished her time out and then finished the work she had refused. Even when time out was over, the child was kept in the seclusion room because it was designated as her classroom by the school. This case was litigated before a hearing officer and a court, with both holding that the school had violated her rights.

In this case, the school had a duty to develop an IEP that was reasonably calculated to help this student benefit from her education and to deal with any behavior or disability issues that could prevent her from learning. If she was being forced to color and was locked in seclusion for hours, she was not benefiting from her education. The school breached the professional standard of care that requires it to revise the IEP if it is not working. Any time a student must be overly disciplined, the IEP and any behavior plan are not working. In this example, the school failed to assess the child’s placement in an adequate way; failed to conduct a behavioral assessment to determine why the student was behaving the way she did; failed to develop a plan to de-escalate her behavior; and failed to train staff how to intervene appropriately to protect her from harm. In my opinion, the combination of these failures led to the physical restraint of the student, her placement in a seclusion room, and psychological, emotional, and educational harm.

In another example, a school resource officer in New Jersey shot a child numerous times when the student allegedly acted aggressively toward him. No one had told the officer that the student, who was in a special education program at a public school, had a disability that manifested as aggressive tendencies, nor did the school train the officer in how to de-escalate aggressive behavior of this student or others with similar behaviors. The student was carrying a knife. The officer ordered him to put it down several times, and when he did not, the officer fired his semi-automatic pistol at the boy nine times. The police department that hired the officer and placed him in the school in collaboration with the board of education investigated. Ultimately, it determined that the officer had acted properly and according to police protocol under the circumstance.

This example brings into focus the role of police and school resource officers. Many schools either directly employ police officers or have agreements with police departments to allow officers in the school to work alongside staff. These arrangements are generally positive. Officers on campus are able to observe students in the context of the school and get to know them, as well as interact with them in the community after school, which can strengthen community/police relations.

In schools, the key to effective police work is training. Officers who interact with students must understand the school behavior code, information about specific children who need special supervision, and the developmental stages of children. Many seventh and eighth grade children, for instance, are developing social maturity — and they don’t always think before acting. High school students, on the other hand, can be quite mature and may have other goals when interacting with one other. More importantly, students with disabilities may need to be communicated with in a different way than non-disabled students and might react unpredictably if they are frustrated or perceive that they are being bullied.

The police officer who emptied his weapon at this student had seen the student around the school but had no idea about his disability. He was never informed that under some circumstances, this student was capable of becoming aggressive — not because of his nature but because of an emotional immaturity that caused him to act before thinking. School staff understood how to de-escalate this student’s behavior when he began to show signs of frustration or anxiety, and they had been successful at protecting him and other students in such circumstances. The professional standard of care requires that all school personnel who are likely to encounter the student’s behavior be trained in how to deal with it by de-escalating the situation. The school resource officer was not trained to deal with the student in this way, however. His only training was from the police department: If a person coming at you with a weapon does not follow a command to drop the weapon, you may protect yourself with deadly force. Police are trained to focus on crime, and when a school does not adequately train a school resource officer to deal with students who have behavioral issues, a child can be harmed.

In another case for which I was the designated education administration and supervision expert witness, a judge ordered a school district to place a teenage student in a residential school that specialized in services for severely emotionally disturbed children. The school disagreed with the order but was obliged to comply. On the student’s second day at this facility, he ignored a staff person’s directive. Interaction between the student and the staff member escalated to the point where the staff person forcibly “placed” the student on the floor and sat on his back to restrain him. When the student struggled violently, the 200-pound male staff member pressed harder with his body to keep the student in place. Eventually, the student stopped struggling. He was dead when the EMTs arrived. The staff member was fired.

This case was complicated because the state, through the administrative law judge, ordered placement at the residential facility. The state was immune to a lawsuit, leaving the public school, the facility, the staff member, and his supervisors as defendants. The public school did not agree with the placement but complied under a legal order. The questions in this matter, then, were whether the residential facility met the professional standard of care and whether it acted appropriately and reasonably under the circumstance to protect the safety, health and well-being of the plaintiff.

My analysis of the facts led me to the opinion that the facility was negligent in its training. The school created a situation that otherwise would not have existed had the staff member been adequately trained and supervised. The staff member was minimally trained but no one assessed his ability to restrain a student in a safe manner. This was the first time the staff member had restrained a student in this manner. According to witnesses, the staff member did not attempt to de-escalate the situation — as is recommended by most accepted training in the use of physical restraint — before applying the deadly restraint. In my opinion, the staff member did not exercise reasonable care when it was quite apparent that disastrous injury could result from his action. His failure to de-escalate the confrontation and, in my opinion, failure to exercise care that even a careless person would use amounted to reckless disregard of the consequences of sitting on a student’s back. It is likely that the trier of fact in such a lawsuit would determine this behavior gross negligence. My expert opinion was that the school’s failure to provide adequate training was a proximate cause of this child’s wrongful death.

Student Rights to Bodily Security

Schools and other programs responsible for children can misuse punishment, and the effects of that misuse can cause years of damage to a child. Any new teacher, camp counselor, or child care worker knows that teaching children appropriate behavior is important for their own safety. What I learned as a teacher and school administrator is that establishing a mutual sense of respect is the first step on that path. Without question, everyone needs to know how to get along with others and to interact in a socially appropriate manner. However, one must be extremely careful when using punishment to change behavior — especially the behavior of an often temperamental or non-communicative child with a disability. Ill-timed, vengeful, and capricious punishment without incentives only creates a negative template for children to follow. Punishment that places kids in isolation only provokes counter aggression. When teachers deal with a student’s frustration or misbehavior by putting him in isolation, it is likely that the student would respond by expressing aggression through screaming, disrobing, soiling himself and, in some cases, hurting himself. Because of their disability, some students are unable to express themselves verbally, so they express their frustration the only way they were taught — through aggression.

When a child is restrained or forcefully taken to a time-out room, slammed into a chair, and yelled at to “sit still,” or encounters a teacher who slaps, pinches, or spanks her, her constitutional right to bodily security has been breached. The right to security of one’s person and body is generally protected when there is no justification for physical contact. This does not prohibit physical contact that is justified by a need to protect others or school property or to maintain order, and when the manner and degree of authorized physical force or restraint is reasonable. While some incidents of student abuse give rise to multiple constitutional, statutory, and common law claims of injury to bodily security, those sources create different standards of student rights and school district liability. Title IX indirectly supports the view that sexual abuse of students is a serious invasion of a constitutional civil right.

Student suicides and sexual abuse of students have brought to light another theory of constitutional right, namely that public schools, as state-created, state-operated institutions with full, though temporary, control and custody of their students, have a “special relationship” with an affirmative constitutional duty to protect students from harm which includes student injury at school. It is easier to prove a violation of this duty than to prove that a school was grossly negligent or deliberately indifferent to student harm. Students injured at school by school employees while in the custody of the school may argue that their public school relationship is more like the situation of a prison, where inmates are substantially required to be there and controlled by the state. However, in public schools, the duty-to-protect argument is open to further clarification and case development and is often the subject of many lawsuits against schools and other programs in charge of caring for children. In two federal cases (Walton v. Alexander [1994] and Pagano v Massapequa Public Schools [1989]), for instance, courts have issued contradictory opinions on the circumstances around which a “special relationship” exists.

Duty to protect is often the subject of cases involving wrongful death and serious student injury at school. The concept of constitutional breach of protecting children and their bodily integrity may be argued in such cases. To mount a strong defense against such a claim, the school or agency must show it had and implemented, at the time of the alleged injury, clear and concise policies, a comprehensive training program, and diligent supervision that assured that through its administration and/or other employees, the school or agency is protecting the health, safety, and well-being of children.

School Safety and Security: Tips for Assessing Liability in School Violence Lawsuits

School Violence Lawsuits

Students and their parents have an expectation that schools will keep them safe from harm.

The uncertainties surrounding the Massachusetts teacher murder of Colleen Ritzer last month and the death of student Kendrick Johnson in Georgia earlier this year illustrate how the unexpected can occur and school safety and security is a serious concern schools administrators are faced with on a daily basis. Schools have a duty to protect students, and students and their parents have an expectation that schools will keep them safe from harm. In the school context, appropriate supervision compels a school to take proactive steps to provide a reasonably safe environment. The school is not expected to supervise every activity of its students every minute of their day, but when it has knowledge of circumstances that may pose an unusual safety risk, administrators are obligated to go beyond mandates to develop and implement standards of care that create a reasonable environment of safety. In this article, we will explore this idea through a couple of case studies.

Each school’s unique setting and student environment play a role in the development of appropriate policies and procedures designed to protect students’ safety. If, for instance, an urban school is located in a high-crime area with gang activity, the administrator has a duty to observe and assess the milieu and to develop a plan for keeping students safe. These procedures may include assigning school resource officers on each floor of the building, training staff in gang-related issues, or installing a metal detector at the door. If the school determines a metal detector necessary, then it has a duty to train staff in its use and maintenance.

Twenty miles away in a leafy suburban town, another school exists. Here, there is no gang activity, the crime rate is low, and an assault on a student or staff member has never occurred. In this context, a metal detector isn’t likely to be necessary, but — as with most schools around the country — the administrator will develop procedures to screen visitors. These procedures will likely require locked doors, a surveillance camera at the front door, and a buzzer. Under the procedures, the person screening the visitor may be required to ask specific questions, such as the person’s name and the purpose of the visit. Once a legitimate reason for the visit is established, the door is unlocked.

But even in a seemingly safe environment — with all the protection of armed officers, metal detectors, policies and procedures, and locked doors — a student or teacher can be seriously injured or, worse, murdered as recently happened in Massachusetts teacher murder.  In some cases, it’s easy to see where a school failed to pay attention to obvious dangers. In our urban school, an out-of-repair metal detector failed to pick up a weapon smuggled in by a teenager intent on killing a student in a rival gang. In other cases, it is more challenging to determine where or whether failure occurred. In our suburban school, a woman known to the screener said she was there to bring her nephew the lunch he left at home. After being buzzed in, the woman walked to a first grade classroom, pulled a revolver from a lunch bag, and killed the teacher in front of the students.

School’s Duty to Protect Students

At the school in the first example above, there was a recognized need for a metal detector at the entrance because of known gang activity and a past history of on-campus violence. The school made a decision to install a metal detector to protect students. Once that decision was made, it could be viewed as an admission that interventions are needed to curtail dangerous behavior. Therefore, the school also took on a responsibility to ensure that the metal detector was always working properly. If the metal detector failed and a student entered the school with a weapon and injured or murdered another student, then the school may face a lawsuit for neglect.

In the example of the second school, the administration determined that it needed only a front-door check-in system, based on its assessment of the environment around the building’s location. There had never been an assault in or around the school, so the risk of harm was deemed to be low. As with the urban school’s decision to use a metal detector, this school chose to implement a safety policy — this one requiring front-door screening. Once in place, that policy must be enforced, regardless of who is at the door.

Schools develop and implement safety plans to protect their students. Both schools in our example consciously took steps to do this. And yet, at both, someone was murdered.

An attorney’s Approach to Litigation Cases Involving Schools Safety and Security

Attorneys are advocates for their clients. In the case of the murdered gang member, the plaintiff attorney will argue that the school breached its duty to protect her client from harm, and this failure was a proximate and direct cause of her client’s death. A staff member was supposed to be on duty but was not. The lighting was less than adequate, failing to meet the local building code; the school hallway was overcrowded; and the metal detector failed. Together, she will contend, these were a recipe for disaster.

The defendant attorney, on the other hand, will argue that the incident would have occurred even if a staff member was in close proximity because the murder happened quickly and without warning. He will also admit that the lighting failed to meet the standard, but will add that it was adequate and even with better lighting the incident could have happened. As to the alleged overcrowding, the defendant attorney will argue that this had nothing to do with the incident and that, because of budgetary issues, the school was operating double sessions. Metal detectors and other security systems fail, but was the alleged failure a proximate cause of the incident? After all, the student could have thrown the weapon into the building through an open window and retrieved it after going inside.

Looking at the case of the suburban shooting, the defense attorney will argue that the school determined the level of security necessary to protect the students and implemented a standard of care. She will argue that there was no way the screener could have foreseen that a person known to the school would enter under false pretenses and kill a teacher with whom she had a neighborhood feud. The plaintiff attorney will argue that the school had a duty to conduct a stronger screening at the door, escort the person to the classroom, or call the student to the office.

Assessing Professional Standard of Care in School Violence Cases

In assessing liability, plaintiff and defendant attorneys should first determine whether a school met the professional standard of care under the circumstances. That standard begins with legally mandated requirements and cascades down to school policies and procedures. Professional standards may be required through statutes, ordinances, or regulations; set forth by relevant organizations, such as the National Fire Protection Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Camping Association, National Federation of State High School Associations, or U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission; or constitute the customary professional practice of those conducting such activities or operating such facilities.

An attorney must assess the professional standard of care, the resulting duty, and whether the school met the duty. In this process, both plaintiff and defendant attorney should consider two principles:

1.            Compliance with standards does not necessarily entitle a school to summary judgment. Some standards may not have been adequate for the situation. When there is a known gang rivalry in the area or when a student known to have severe behavior problems is in the hall, having a teacher walk the hall between class periods may meet “compliance” but might not be the most appropriate standard under that circumstance. Appropriate action must be viewed in the school context and with an understanding of specific information about individual students. Customary industry practices are relevant for determining whether a standard has been met, but compliance alone is not determinative of the standard that a specific situation might require.

2.            If a school did not comply with standards, evidence of proper care is much easier to show. Some standards may not be related to the injury or loss; there must be proximate cause. In some situations, the level of care promulgated by the standard may not be necessary for providing a safe environment; the standard may go beyond a minimum requirement.


In our two examples, can it be demonstrated that the risk of injury or death was foreseeable? To a reasonable administrator, could the murder of a student in a school where gang members roam the halls have been foreseen? Could action have been taken to prevent it? In the suburban school, could the murder of the teacher by a known visitor who was allowed entry to the building via a well-established procedure been foreseen? Could action have been taken to guard against it? School officials’ conduct cannot be considered unreasonable if the risk is unforeseeable.

The test of foreseeability is foresight. The administrator in these and other situations where safety is a concern must, from the circumstances, be able to foresee a danger to the student or teacher that presents an unreasonable risk necessitating protection from harm.

The gang murder case illustrates this point. In this school, it was well known that there was a high level of gang activity in and around the school. Teachers recognized the wearing of colors representing rival gangs and were on heightened awareness of the potential risk of harm to students when disputes erupted between gang members. The school was undergoing a large construction project that forced students to be re-routed through a tunnel between classes. The unusual traffic pattern created by the construction provided less visibility and more crowded conditions, and this, coupled with the gang activity, prompted a decision that a staff member would be assigned to the tunnel for extra supervision. Thus, the school did foresee the potential for danger that presented students with an unreasonable risk of harm.

The standard of care established in this circumstance was that the school was to have a supervisor posted in this location to watch for danger and intervene where necessary. But on the day of the murder, the school breached its own standard of care by not assuring that a supervisor was there. In the unsupervised tunnel, an argument erupted between two rival gang members, a weapon was drawn, and a student was killed.

Looking at the case of the suburban shooting, the school appeared to do everything right. It followed its duty by screening the person — but someone was still murdered. Could it have been foreseen that a personal disagreement involving a staff member and a neighbor would spill over in a classroom full of children? A reasonable school administrator would be unlikely to conclude as much.

Proximate Cause

Before a school can be held liable for alleged negligent conduct, it must be proven that the negligent act caused the injury. Mere occurrence of an incident, like the murders in our examples, does not support an inference that the school was negligent. The plaintiff has the burden to prove that the school was negligent by its action (or failure to act), resulting in injury or death.

Thus, in contrast to the test of foreseeability, the test of proximate cause is hindsight. Would the incident have occurred if the school had acted appropriately and within the professional standard of care in the circumstance?

In our examples, both attorneys can apply the probable consequences rule. According to this rule, the school would be liable if an incident was the natural and probable consequence of one’s negligence. In the urban school, a reasonable administrator might conclude that the school is at fault because it had notice of the danger and set out to protect students by establishing standards, yet failed to meet its standards of care. In the suburban school, the school set out to protect students from danger, put a procedure in place, and followed the procedure and its standard of care — yet the murder still occurred.


Schools have a duty to keep students out of harm’s way. Most often, they succeed. However, even when protections are implemented, a student or teacher can be seriously injured or murdered. For attorneys, assessing the merit of filing a lawsuit or the strength of a defense hinges on a clear determination of three elements: the professional standard of care; the duty of the school; and whether it was foreseeable that a student or teacher could be hurt or killed if the school breached the standard.

Through this process, it will become easier in some cases to see where a school failed and injury or death resulted. In other situations, it will be evident that the school took every reasonable step despite the occurrence of an injury or death. Analysis of the facts, as seen through the eyes of a reasonable school administrator, can hold the key to whether to file, strongly defend, or settle school liability cases.

Wrongful Death Lawsuits against Schools and Agencies

liability in wrongful death school cases

Wrongful Death School Lawsuits

The death of a child is always emotionally difficult for parents, relatives, and caretakers. Often, an allegation arises that the death resulted from the negligence or misconduct of the person responsible the safety of the child.  In wrongful death lawsuits against schools and agencies determining the merit of such an allegation hinges on sifting out the emotion and focusing on facts: Did the school or agency have a duty to protect the child, were standards of care followed, were those standards breached, and did the breach result in a child’s death?

When the child is in school, a daycare program, or camp, the school or agency has a duty to protect the child by providing appropriate supervision. When there is an allegation that a school or agency breached that duty and a child died a wrongful death, a claim may ensue. This article will provide guidance for attorneys who are considering filing a wrongful death complaint or who must defend a school or agency against such a complaint.

According to the 2012 National Vital Statistics Report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1,296 c    children between ages 5 and 14 died in 2011 from accidents other than motor vehicle accidents, assault, suicide, and medical diseases. Although the CDC does not specify exact causes of death within this population, it is reasonable to assume that many occur while children are under the supervision of an adult in a school or other agency. In its Indicators of School Crime and Safety 2012 report, the U.S. Department of Education tallied 31 student, staff, and nonstudent school-associated violent deaths during school year 2010–2011. It is likely that some of these deaths are wrongful deaths, which are those that can be attributed to the negligence or misconduct of another individual. In a school or agency, that individual can be a supervisor, another student, or a third party.

To bring a successful wrongful death cause of action, all of the following elements must be present:

  • The death of a human being
  • Death caused by another’s negligence or intent to cause harm
  • Survival of family members who suffer monetary losses as a result of the death
  • The appointment of a personal representative for the decedent’s estate

For a school or agency to be found liable for the wrongful death of a child, the school or agency must have had a duty to care for the person who died and breached that duty, resulting in the child’s death. The death, in turn, must be shown to have caused injury or loss to others, such as surviving parents and siblings.

In the context of schools and other agencies, wrongful death claims can arise from any number of situations. Some examples include: a bus accident; a child falling from a cliff during a field trip or drowning in a swimming pool; a 300-pound, fold-up lunch table falling onto a child from a cafeteria wall; a student being shot and killed on school property by the school security guard; excessive discipline (e.g., putting a disruptive student to the floor and sitting on his back, resulting in suffocation); or administering the wrong medication. Unfortunately, these represent only a small sample what might cause of the death of a child.

Conditions for Liability in a Wrongful Death Case

A school or agency may be held liable for the wrongful death of a child in the same way that it may be held liable for the injury of a child. The conditions are the same — but the ultimate result is death, and damages are focused on survivors rather than the party who sustained the injury.

A plaintiff or defendant attorney should consider the following questions when considering the merit of filing a wrongful death complaint or mounting a defense of a complaint:

  • Did the school or agency have a duty to protect the decedent in the particular situation?
  • What was the reasonable standard of care to apply under the circumstances, and did the school or agency apply that standard?
  • If there was a breach of this standard, was it a significant factor in causing the death?
  • Were there intervening variables that may have prevented the proximate cause of injury or death?
  • Did the child who died contribute to his or her own death through self-negligence?

Duty to Protect

Those responsible for the safety of children have a duty to anticipate potential and foreseeable dangers and to take reasonable precautions to protect children from those dangers.

For activities that take place during the normal course of the program day, the duty to protect is usually easy to prove. Courts have held that this duty may apply beyond the grounds of the school or other agency, depending on the circumstance. For instance, the school or other agency may have a duty to protect children during a visit to a park from wandering into a busy highway.

Failure to Exercise a Reasonable Standard of Care

In the Houston Independent School District, construction was taking place on a junior high school campus. A tunnel linked the old and new portions of the building. A school policy required that a staff member be present at both ends of the tunnel to supervise students and to be aware of any behavioral issues that might lead to the harm of a student. This was determined to be an appropriate level of supervision.

A student in the tunnel died after he was attacked and struck in the head with a screwdriver. On the day of the attack, one teacher who was assigned supervisory duty called in sick and the school failed to replace him at the post. As the expert witness in this case, my opinion was that this was a failure to exercise the school’s own standard of care and the professional standard of care in the field.

If a supervisor does not take reasonable steps to protect a child from injury, that person and the employer can be found negligent. Courts will weigh the actions of the employee against how a reasonable employee in the same position would have acted in a similar circumstance.

For instance, would a reasonable supervisor tell children to cross a street to meet her at a park entrance when that entrance is across a busy highway without a crosswalk? More than likely, a court would deem it irresponsible for a supervisor to instruct children to meet her across the highway at a location that a reasonable supervisor would consider dangerous.

Proximate Cause

If a child entered the roadway, was struck by a motor vehicle, and died, attorneys would need to determine all the facts. These may include intervening variables, like vehicle failure or road-design failure, to mount an effective strategy.

This illustrates another important question to consider: If the supervisor failed to exercise a reasonable standard of care, did this failure result in the child’s death?

The ability to prove this element depends on establishing that a child’s death could have been reasonably foreseen and prevented. If the death could have been anticipated and prevented by an employee through the exercise of a reasonable standard of care, legal causation may exist.

The question for the attorney to ask is whether the death of the child was a natural and probable result of the wrongful act and should have been foreseen by the supervisor in the context of the circumstances.

Revisiting the example above, it may be established that a reasonable child supervisor would have observed that vehicles were traveling at a potentially dangerous speed and that there was no crosswalk at the location where children were gathered. If the children were 5 or 6 years old, a reasonable supervisor would understand that they would not have the capacity to protect themselves from harm because of their age. A reasonable supervisor would consider that if she directed the children to cross the roadway at this location, it is foreseeable that a vehicle could strike a child. A jury could determine that the supervisor’s decision to instruct the children to cross the street was a deliberate action that placed the child in harm’s way and was the proximate cause of the child’s death.

A wrongful death claim will not be successful if the death could not have been prevented. If the supervisor in our example gathered the children together when they left the bus, escorted them to the corner, observed that there was a traffic light and crosswalk, instructed the children about the dangers of crossing the street and the precautions to take, and then instructed them to cross when she was sure the traffic stopped, the supervisor would have acted reasonably under the circumstances. Now, let’s suppose that a car failed to obey the stoplight, hitting and killing a child. In this situation, a jury may determine that the supervisor did everything possible to protect the child, and that a third-party act was the proximate cause of the child’s death. The unavoidability of the accident, in other words, nullifies proximate cause.

Contributory Negligence

If it can be shown that a child contributed to his or her own death, the school or agency may invoke contributory negligence, a common defense against liability. If the court holds that contributory negligence was a factor in the child’s death, the school or agency may be held only partially liable or not liable at all, depending on the jurisdiction.

Take the case involving the drowning death of several students attending a leadership conference at a youth camp in Chicago. My review and analysis of the facts led me to conclude that the students, because of their age and capacity to understand the dangers, were able to guard their own safety but made decisions that inevitably lead to their death. Thus, the camp, in my opinion, was not responsible.

The students left their cabin after their supervisor was asleep, went down to a river that was clearly marked with warning signs, and placed several boats into the water. The boats began to sink, causing students to abandon the boats and drown. The school sponsored the event at the camp and as such had the responsibility to supervise the students during the day and at night, but did not place the appropriate number of supervisors in the cabin at night. Therefore, I concluded that the school and the students bore responsibility for their deaths.

Contributory negligence is difficult to prove among children between the ages of 7 and 14, unless it can be shown that a student is unusually intelligent and mature. In this case, the students were 17 and 18 years old and were selected from their peers to participate in this leadership-training program because of their intelligence and maturity.


Because these claims are emotional, it can be easy to jump to a conclusion. The plaintiff or defendant attorney should review potential negligence issues in a step-by-step manner to determine the merit of a claim or strength of a defense.

Duty to supervise, reasonable supervisory care consistent with the standard required in the field, breach of duty, and contributory negligence are factors that can present a roadmap to effective litigation. An expert witness can assist plaintiff and defendant attorneys with a thorough analysis of these issues.

Another Look at Guns in Schools: Liability

school liability

Guns, Student Safety & School Liability

South Dakota became the first state to enact a law explicitly authorizing school employees to carry guns on the job. Several other states already have provisions in their laws — or no legal restrictions — that make it possible for teachers to possess guns in the classroom. In fact, a handful of school districts do have teachers who carry firearms. Eighteen states allow adults to carry a loaded gun on school grounds, generally provided that they have written permission from an administrator or the school board. Only some of those laws specify reasons for giving teachers or adults the authorization to carry a firearm.

The American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association have campaigned against such measures, but not all teachers and administrators share their position. In Tennessee, the membership of Professional Educators of Tennessee, a nonunion professional organization, is split about 50-50 on proposals like this. J.C. Bowman, a spokesman for the organization, told reporters in Chattanooga, “Some don’t want the responsibility, and they worry about liability.”

School liability for injury from guns

Liability, the legal responsibility for damages, is a real concern whenever something can possibly cause harm to a person. Poorly designed playgrounds, heavy televisions not properly strapped to a TV cart, poorly lighted parking lots — and guns — all present a risk of harm to kids and staff. Take, for example, the potential for harm when a security officer left a firearm unattended in a Michigan charter school bathroom. The school claimed that no children were in danger. Was there a risk of harm?

From a liability perspective, consider this potential scenario: What if two students went into the bathroom when the gun was left there? One student picks up the gun and, out of curiosity, pulls the trigger, shooting and seriously wounding — or worse, killing — his classmate. How would that situation play out in terms of negligence? Would the school be liable? Negligence is the failure to exercise the standard of care for the wellbeing of others that a reasonable and prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances. If this school employee breached his legal duty to protect students from an unreasonable risk of injury by leaving his gun in the bathroom (negligence) and a student was harmed (proximate cause), would the school be liable for the security guard’s negligence?

In the wake of the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, one Pennsylvania state representative proposed that with proper training and certification, teachers should be allowed to carry guns in classrooms. The security officer’s actions in Michigan, however, raise questions of whether he was properly trained and whether his superior or principal appropriately supervised him. Appropriate and adequate training and supervision are elements, once demonstrated, that can help to protect a school from liability stemming from an employee’s negligence. If the board of education, for instance, approved a rigorous training program that attuned the security officer to the risks firearms in school and how to protect students and others from harm, the court may be convinced that the school provided appropriate training. The school, then, might not be found liable if the officer fails to exercise proper control of his weapon, in violation of school policy.

The National Rifle Association has called for arming school security officers. Could more guns in schools prevent another Sandy Hook, or does it create opportunities for negligent behavior and school liability? Does it really help our kids feel safe at school?

Some students and teachers say that placing cops in schools to keep kids safe often has the opposite effect — it intimidates students. In effect, it makes the police the de facto disciplinarians in schools. Some students have voiced the feeling that they’re walking into a prison every time they enter their schools patrolled by armed police officers. One student dropped out of school because her backpack and pockets were searched every time she came to school.

The National Association of School Resource Officers, a training organization for police officers who work in schools, received more than double the normal requests for training after the Newtown tragedy. Properly trained school resource officers (SROs), working with school employees and students, can help to create a safe school environment. Susquehanna Township, Pa., Police Chief Rob Martin, whose department has assigned an SRO to the Susquehanna Township School District for the past 7 years, told the Harrisburg Patriot-News that staffing a school with an SRO “is about helping them, counseling them, guiding them through a very tough period in their lives.” It’s not, he added, about arresting kids or finding kids in trouble. When part of an effective school safety team, SROs can benefit schools and develop positive bonds with students. The officers can train faculty and staff to deal with emergencies, help to develop safety plans, conduct safety drills, and teach students about personal safety. SROs can also humanize police who are in the school on a regular basis and are there to kelp kids.

But it can also go very wrong.

David came to his middle school with a knife some described as a machete. He walked into the SRO’s office, a 9-by-12-foot space with a desk, chairs, and a filing cabinet. He approached the SRO and, according to the officer, threatened him with the knife. Several teachers watched events unfold through a window but were helpless to intervene. The student was shot 12 times by the officer, who never even attempted to leave the room for his own safety. The student had a behavioral disorder and was in a special class where he received behavior modification and counseling. His teachers knew how to use strategies to calm David, “disarm” him emotionally, and even to take the knife from him.

The school never communicated this information to the SRO, who acted in a negligent way by all standards. Is the school now liable for this student’s death? In this case, the key question becomes whether the school adequately trained the SRO regarding the needs of the student and how to deal with his behavior. If it did not, the school may be vulnerable to liable for the actions of its SRO.

This incident raises an important consideration in any discussion about arms in schools: Whether a school provides appropriate training in interactive skills between students and staff.

In a small private school for children with behavioral disorders, a high school student acted out violently after his teacher directed him to do something that he didn’t want to do. The student rampaged through the school and into the parking lot, brandishing a pair of scissors. The school called 911, and three local police officers confronted the student as he ran from the school. “Put down the weapon,” the police commanded. “Put down the weapon. Put down the weapon.” The student ran toward the officers. According to police procedure, one of the officers shot and killed the student.

The town and its police department were exonerated because, according to the judge, the procedure met the standard in the field of police work and the officer acted in accordance with the standard. The school, however, severely missed the mark. The school through its teacher, counselors and administration, created a situation that caused this student to snap — leading to a situation requiring the police to “control” him and ending in tragedy. In this situation, even though school personnel carried no weapons and did not shoot the boy, it was sued for negligent supervision of the student alleging its failure to act in a way to protect the student from harm. The school filed for summary judgment which was granted by the court.

Key issues: training, risks, and obligation

Is security a state of illusion? Are there risks of liability if things go wrong? These are serious questions that schools need to explore. Of course, there are liability risks. If something goes wrong, what should an attorney review? One of the most important elements is training. Was the person carrying the weapon appropriated trained? What did that training consist of? Was the person informed about specific students and how the staff deals with them so that the student doesn’t escalate the danger to a point of no return? Is there a risk of calling the police to handle a student when the police don’t know the student but the school possesses the skills to “talk the student down?”

Preventing school-related injuries is an ethical and legal obligation for schools. Whether arming school personnel increases or decreases this risk is a matter of debate. It also raises important questions about the type of culture we want to cultivate in schools. Because a wide range of injuries are litigated and often require schools to pay costly awards to injured parties, the issue of guns in schools takes on even greater importance.

Abduction of Students from Schools is Preventable with Proper Safety Procedures

School Safety and Security

Keeping students safe at schools and away from dangers of abduction is schools duty.

Recently another child didn’t make it home at the end of the school day. This time, it was because a substitute teacher at Bryant Elementary School in Philadelphia handed over a 5-year-old to an adult whom school personnel didn’t properly screen.

Posing as the girl’s mother, a woman walked into the school and signed in at the front desk. In violation of school safety protocol, she walked not to the school office but directly to the classroom. There, she told a substitute teacher she had come for the child — and took her out of the building. Several things went wrong here: Because the woman never went to the office, nobody checked her identification. The substitute teacher handed over a child to an adult without finding out who she was or checking with the office.

After a day- and evening-long search for the girl, a sanitation worker found her clad in just a T-shirt — shivering and crying for help but otherwise OK — in a playground at 4:30 the next morning.

How does something like this happen when we have been so sensitized to school safety following the atrocity at Sandy Hook Elementary School? How did this happen in any school, where staff has a duty to protect children from harm? Kids are in danger when adults fail to pay attention and become complacent.

It was a lot easier for the substitute teacher to let the child go with someone he did not know than to contact the office and follow the school’s protocol. Was the person at the sign-in desk distracted — or just unobservant? Why didn’t he or she make sure that the visitor went to the office, where her identification would have been checked?

Having a policy isn’t enough

When it comes to protecting our children, don’t ever take the easy way out. It can lead to tragedy.

In the nearly 100,000 public and 33,000 private schools in the United States, administrators, teachers, and other staff sincerely want to protect children from harm —and, as we saw at Sandy Hook Elementary, some even die protecting their children. Schools establish procedures to protect kids — things like checking the identification of anyone who takes a child out of school; making sure the identification matches an up-to-date list of people approved to take the child; ensuring that the child knows the person; and, if it’s not the parent picking up the child, that the parent knows who’s there and gives permission. But, as with the Philadelphia incident, procedures don’t protect children when adults don’t follow them.

As an education expert witness, I have provided consultation to attorneys around the country on similar cases. In one, a student slipped out of school undetected and drove off in a car, only to get into a serious accident. In another case, a 7-year-old student was allowed to leave the school with a teenage boy she didn’t know. The boy then took the child to a nearby apartment and sexually abused her.

It’s not always possible to keep an eye on every student every moment of the school day. In the case of the student who left the school undetected, it was my opinion after reviewing the issues and documents that the school had proper procedures in place and met the standard of care. The student snuck out. Was the school liable when she got into a car and drove into a tree? No. She planned to leave and deliberately evaded detection. The school did nothing to encourage her to do what she did.

It was something else, though, in the case of the 7-year-old who left school with the teenager she didn’t know. A 14-year-old called an elementary school to say he was coming to pick up his sister because their father had been in an automobile accident. The 7-year-old didn’t have a brother — and the father was safe at work.

The school had a set of steps in place for anyone wishing to take a student out of school early. The protocol required the secretary to check the student file to ensure that the person had the parents’ permission to pick up the child. Next, the secretary is to check for proper identification and, in some situations, contact the parent to verify that their child can leave. None of these things happened, nor did the office staff check out the boy’s story that “their father” had been in an accident. The office staff simply asked the child to report to the office.

When the girl got there, the secretary said, “Your brother is here to pick you up.” Not wanting to alarm her, the secretary didn’t say anything about the father. In a quiet voice, the student said, “I don’t have a brother.” Still, he was allowed to leave with her. The teenager, who knew the girl from the neighborhood, walked her a few blocks to his mother’s apartment, brought her upstairs, and sexually assaulted her. After the assault, he walked the traumatized little girl back to the school, left her at the front door, and walked away.

It’s not difficult for a reasonable person to figure out what went wrong in this situation. So why don’t school officials — who have a special duty to protect our kids — pay attention?

Part of the reason is leadership in the building. It’s fine to have policies. But the principal of a school is responsible for making sure that the staff knows the rules, why they exist, and the consequences for ignoring them or becoming lax in enforcing them. In too many cases involving abductions from schools, I have seen students injured or killed after a school’s good policies were not followed.

It was preventable

Returning to the Philadelphia case — what should have been done? What would have saved this little girl from the trauma she will likely live with for a long time?

Quite simply, the school should have followed its own protocol!

According to a district spokesperson, policy requires anyone taking a student out of school to go to the office and provide identification that matches a list of approved individuals. News reports indicate that the person signed in at the front door using the first name of an individual who was, in fact, on the list. No one, however, verified that this person was whom she claimed to be. That was the first breach of school protocol. The police believe the person was a stranger unknown to the girl.

The person was told to go to the office. But no one could have been watching, because the woman walked right to the girl’s classroom. Another breach of school protocol, did the school, through its staff, act reasonably and meet the standard of care in accordance with customs and practices of the field? No.

This, in my opinion, placed the child in harm’s way and created a situation that otherwise would not have existed had the school followed its own protocol. As a result of these failures, the student was abducted, taken to an unknown location, blindfolded, released, and found crying in a park.

We cannot protect all our children all the time. But it is the duty of schools to foresee that danger can come to children if safety protocols are not followed to the letter. This unfortunate situation is yet another reminder that kids are vulnerable and the adults around them have a responsibility to watch over them.

3 Questions in the Wake of the Sandy Hook School Shooting

Children and parents should never have to experience the pain and suffering that was brought down on them in Newtown, Connecticut. What went wrong?

By all accounts, Sandy Hook Elementary School had appropriate safety measures in place. Doors were locked when class started. There was a system to check visitors before they were allowed in the building. Teachers were well trained and knew what to do in this type of emergency. There had been lockdown drills and safe places were established for children and teachers to go. Everything was done right.

There was nothing the school could have done differently to prevent this horrendous incident. No one could have predicted that a person with mental health issues, armed with an assault rifle and two other semi-automatic weapons, would shoot out the glass and force his way into the school. This is neither the type of school nor a community where a security guard is needed at the entrance. The safety measures were appropriate. The staff implemented them, went into lockdown mode, and protected their children the best they could — sometimes acting as human shields.

There are three things that we must ask ourselves as a nation after this tragedy:

  1. Are schools developing and updating safety plans on a regular basis with the involvement of parents, teachers, and the community?
  2. Are we providing sufficient mental health services in our schools and communities — and had the shooter received such services, is it possible that this would have been avoided?
  3. Is it necessary to allow semi-automatic weapons in the hands of civilians?

Safety in schools

A good school safety plan is a detailed blueprint of procedures designed to keep children safe during normal school operations and in an emergency.

It should include such things as: the chain of command; where school safety agents normally stand; visitor-screening procedures; how to report an intruder; how to cover lunchrooms if staff are absent; and provisions for security before school, while classes are in session, and during after-school community programs.

Even the best safety plans are worthwhile only if a school community is familiar with their provisions. Staff and students should know clearly what to do in everyday situations — and during a crisis.

Every school should prepare a safety plan, review it annually, and update it as the school’s needs change. It should distribute a school safety handbook to all staff and parents annually. A strong board of education policy and adequate funding to support a school safety committee are necessary.

The very lives of our children are at stake.

Mental health services

What causes me the most concern is the emerging information about the shooter as a troubled individual. A full picture is not yet available, but reports suggest he had Asperger’s syndrome, had a history of difficulty getting along with classmates, was home schooled, and eventually dropped out of school. His mother reportedly was not pleased with the way his high school dealt with his disability, and this seems to be why she withdrew and homeschooled him. Often, children with Asperger’s syndrome are misunderstood, shunned, or bullied because of their different way of interpreting social interactions. If they are not taught how to improve their social interactive skills, and if other kids misunderstand and ostracize them, it can lead to frustration and anger.

Schools generally provide some level of services for students who experience mental health or other issues that generate from a disability. But through the consulting work I do with schools and my expert witness services with attorneys, I have found that it’s never enough — no matter whether the school is in an affluent community like Newtown or the inner city. The level of services depends on the school budget, which often depends on a community’s ability to support the budget. Poorer communities don’t provide much service.

Students who don’t get along with peers usually get branded troublemakers. Standard discipline — detention and suspension — without attempting to deal with the root issues leads only to despair for the student and continued problems in school. When troubled behavior repeats itself, there’s a need to find out what is causing this student to act out, help this student understand what drives his behavior, and take steps to change it. This isn’t always easy to do. When schools don’t have the baseline resources to even consider this kind of intervention, we are on the path to losing our kids and laying our children open to being hurt.

Parents don’t usually tell others about the trouble their child brings into the family. Families keep these secrets, and sometimes, frustration builds either to the Hook of giving up or dealing with the child in counterproductive ways. These parents need help. They need to understand why a child behaves in a way that causes others to be fearful of her. They need tools that will help them at least try to work effectively with a child so that their actions do not exasperate the problem behavior.

Parents also need to know that they can’t always do it alone, and that it’s okay to ask for help. They need to feel comfortable about seeking help, and they may need help paying for these services. We need to remove treatment barriers imposed by one’s type of insurance and by insurers’ level of payment to mental health professionals.

The very lives of our children are at stake.

Gun control

I’m not going to wade into the gun-control debate, other than to say that the Second Amendment was written at a time when the militia used muskets that took several minutes to reload — not semi-automatic rifles that spew dozens of bullets in a few seconds.

In this situation, a young man with a history of social-interactive problems and little, if any, mental health support, had access to his mother’s legally registered weapons — and acted on whatever compulsion or illness drove him. If the shooter, disturbed as he may have been, had not had access to that weapon, parents today would be thinking more about their child’s upcoming winter break than whether they are doing the right thing by even sending their child to school.

Is it necessary to allow semi-automatic weapons in the hands of our civilians?

The very lives of our children are at stake.


Newtown, Connecticut, will heal, but this horrible tragedy is a reminder that we have work to do. I would like our nation to remember that while schools are, by and large, safe places, it takes the involvement of all of us to make them so. I would like our nation to focus renewed energy on the provision of, and equitable funding for, mental health services to kids and parents. I would like our nation to have the courage to take real steps toward effective gun control.

Schools are safe places for our kids. Let’s make them even safer by focusing on what we can learn from this sadness.