8 Chapter 8 – Taking the Next Steps – Making the Standards Work for You
As we have seen throughout this research and as is shown by the overarching multitude of educational statistics, schools in the U.S. are largely safe places designed for the growth, enrichment, and education of our children. However, as was noted in the opening quote of this work by Publilius Syrus, “He is most free from danger, who, even when safe, is on his guard” (Trump, 2010). No K-12 faculty or staff member, nor administrator wants their school to be included in the statistic of the average number of 23 in-school homicides annually (Bergeron, 2014, pg. 16). By the same token, no parent wants to get the call (nor principal wants to make the call) from school that informs them that their child has been hurt or injured in an accident or incident. Additionally, each K-12 educator hopes to have the confidence and knowledge that if something bad does happen, that they will have the judgement, skills, and abilities to keep themselves and their students safe.
That is what the School Safety and Security Standards (S4) Project and the publication of this guide is ultimately all about – developing a set of research based voluntary school safety and security standards, providing tools and assistance to assist in meeting those standards, and then evaluating the impact of those standards on the knowledge and confidence of both individuals and schools within the K-12 environment.
Conclusion/Discussion
With the completion of this research and the publication of this guide, that goal outlined for the project was largely achieved with evidence of the positive impact of the S4 standards and the process of implementing and evaluating them has had on the improvement in both knowledge and confidence in the K-12 participants involved in the project. Additionally, while the basic S4 process has proven valuable in that regard, the addition of experiential learning opportunities such as table-top or full profile exercises, realistic emergency drills, and even interactive on-line training can all be used to enhance this impact and effect on individual participants.
Similarly, the use of the S4 standards either as an individual or collective self-assessment tool or as the basis for an external assessment, only reinforces this effect. This process also provides a solid basis for the possible creation of an ongoing program that ultimately helps to create a culture of school safety and security in schools and school systems who decide to adopt it. Going forward, it is not far-fetched to consider that this type program might be adopted statewide, nationally, or even internationally and could eventually form the basis for a comprehensive voluntary school safety and security accreditation program at some time in the future.
Why the difference of change between knowledge and confidence? In light of the results of the S4 project research, one of the lingering questions is, why the results regarding the participants’ perceived level of change in regards to knowledge and confidence, differed in the way that they did, especially in relation to the differences between the ‘Standards Only’ and the ‘Standards and Experiential’ participants. Based on the results of the initial pilot study, the expectation was that knowledge and confidence would likely track closely together. While the reasons why, cannot be determined from the quantitative data alone, the qualitative responses on the other hand, may provide some indicators for this difference.
Simply put, both the S4 process itself and the experiential learning events served to focus participants on the topics of school safety and security and provided tools, checklists, and assessments that allowed participants to feel more comfortable with their knowledge level regarding school safety and security. On the other hand, when it came to confidence level perceptions, the experiential learning events – particularly the full profile active shooter exercise and to a lesser degree the interactive video – may have provided a critical window into what could actually go wrong and just how bad the outcomes could be of such an incident. It seems that this may have had the unintended effect of causing participants to question or be less sure of their confidence level about school safety and security even though they felt their knowledge level had increased.
Somewhat related to this is the fact that in both cases, the experiential learning events were one-time experiences without reinforcement or follow-up. It would be interesting to see what impact a series of experiential learning events over the course of a school year might have on the confidence level of participants, especially if these were designed to build the participants experience base from one exercise to the next. Of course, as mentioned previously, the biggest challenge to something like this in the K-12 environment, is being able to carve out the time to implement such a program given the academic schedule and all of the other mandatory requirements that K-12 teachers and administrators must contend with. One suggestion from a research participant was to incorporate a different one of the emergency drills listed in the S4 standards each month as part of the existing monthly mandatory fire drill procedures.
Why voluntary standards instead of just making them mandatory? Additionally, one of the questions that came up fairly often in the conduct of the S4 project research was why the author/PI advocated for a set of voluntary standards versus a state or federally mandated set of mandatory standards for all schools and school systems. The primary impetus for this is that one of the critical observations made in the course of the S4 research is that schools and school officials in the current K-12 system already have enough mandatory requirements to contend with. In many cases, these type of requirements tend to foster a check-the-block type attitude where requirements are met only superficially or only up to the level to be able to report compliance versus being done in a comprehensive and detailed manner to actually achieve results. This is not by any means an indictment of mandatory requirements – just an observation of the author/PI. However, one of the dangers of such an approach is that it can foster a false sense of security and confidence with administrators pointing to compliance with a mandatory standard (although superficially) versus true effectiveness based on the participatory and voluntary nature of the S4 process.
One of the key strengths of the S4 process being a voluntary set of standards is that participants seem to view themselves as full partners in the process. Having the ability for the standards to be used at all levels and by all employees, tends to enhance this sense of ownership and involvement. Many of the qualitative comments and observations tended to highlight this impact.
How should the S4 standards be used within schools and school systems? One of the key perceived strengths of the S4 standards is in their ease of use and the ability of schools of all sizes and types to use them. Additionally, the flexibility built into the standards allows for adjustments to particular school cultures, resource constraints, and changing hazard and threat situations. Ideally, schools would hopefully see the value in the S4 standards and make them part of their ongoing school safety and security programs. At a minimum, the hope would be that schools would use the standards as part of the annual school start-up process and would conduct both self and external evaluations prior to the beginning of the school year to account for changes and adjustments made over the Summer break period.
The standards also suggest specific items and processes that should be added to the normal school educational rhythm – such as conducting and updating threat and hazard assessments, conducting training and drills on a periodic basis, and leveraging existing processes and systems as part of the S4 process and program. The biggest benefit in this regard is that school safety and security becomes a more visible part of the day to day operations of the school and the school system, versus simply being an annual report filled out by the Assistant Principal that is forwarded to the main central office. Overall, the desire is to have the S4 standards and program become a dynamic part of school operations. It is the author’s sincere hope that you will find the S4 standards and this guide useful in your own school environment.
