3432%20Emergencies%20-%20WSSDA%20P%26L%20News%20June%202022.pdf

Parent document: REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 5_30 PM-02-12-2025.pdf

Text

JUNE 2022

MODEL POLICY
& PROCEDURE

Emergencies

CONTINUED on next page


(S) POLICY JUNE 2022

CONTINUED from previous page

provides students, teachers, and staff with lifelong
skills for responding to both natural and human-made
disasters that one may encounter during their life
course.

To keep Washington State’s schools as safe as
possible from an active shooter, a layered approach is
needed. The first layer involves prevention. The goal
of prevention is to avert a threat or to have measures
in place to recognize and address the warning signs
before tragedy strikes. Washington State has invested
many resources for prevention, including but not
limited to threat assessment/crisis response teams,
anonymous tip lines,mental health resources, access
control and physical security measures (e.g., locking
entry points, screening visitors, installing surveillance
cameras), school safety and security staff, and school
resource officers. In an ideal world, these prevention
measures would be failsafe. However, we know from
previous mass school shootings that these prevention
measures are insufficient. Thus, the second layer is
mitigation.

The main focus of mitigation is to reduce harm and
save as many lives as possible when prevention
measures fail. Mitigation involves training students,
teachers, and staff on how to respond when they are
in an active shooter situation. When examining active
shooter trainings, two questions must be asked. First,
what is the content of the training? In other words, what
skills/knowledge are provided to students, teachers,
and staff to respond to an active shooter in their
school? Second, how is the training implemented?
This question seeks to uncover exactly how people
are taught the content, which is precisely where HB
1941 comes into play. While HB 1941 does not alter
the content of what students, teachers, and staff are
taught to do, it does provide guidance on how they are

learning the emergency preparedness material. Our
peer-reviewed scientific research indicates that active
shooter training—done in an age and developmentally
appropriate manner—results in a reduction of

levels of reported fear, worry, and confusion while
simultaneously increasing feelings of safety, confidence,
and empowerment for the vast majority of students and
teachers.

Content

Content for active shooter training falls into three
categories: single-option, dual-option, and multi-option
responses. A single-option response—also known as
traditional lockdown—trains individuals to lock doors,
turn out lights, remain quiet, get low to the ground,

CONTINUED on next page

Our peer-reviewed scientific research indicates that active shooter
training—done in an age and developmentally appropriate manner—
results in a reduction of levels of reported fear, worry, and confusion
while simultaneously increasing feelings of safety, confidence, and
empowerment for the vast majority of students and teachers.

POLICY AND LEGAL NEWS =» WSSDA 13


CONTINUED from previous page

and hide in a corner. All individuals regardless of
proximity to the threat are instructed to respond in this
manner. Thus, it is often referred to as a one-size-fits-all
approach.

The second category—dual-option response—provides
individuals with two options to Survive an active
shooter incident. Just like a single-option approach,
the dual-option approach includes turning off the
lights, locking the doors, remaining quiet, and hiding
in a corner. However, this category recognizes there
may be instances when students, teachers, and staff
are unable to get behind a locked door. In this case,
individuals are then instructed to self-evacuate or flee
the scene.

The third and final category—multi-option response—
encompasses the options included in both the single-
and dual-option responses with an important caveat
about locking down the room. Not only do these
approaches endorse locking the door, but they also
explicitly promote the use of environmental objects (e.g.,
desks, chairs, tables, furniture) to barricade doors and
other less obvious points of entry (e.g, a floor-to-ceiling
window). These approaches also support fleeing the
scene if one can do so in a safe manner. However, most
misunderstood is the inclusion of active resistance as

a response if students and educators find themselves

face-to-face with an intruder. Active resistance can
include swarming the shooter, but more frequently
includes throwing environmental objects (e.g., books,
water bottles, notebooks, computers) to distract and
disrupt the shooter, providing an opportunity to escape.
This option will be used by the least amount of people
as most will not come into contact with the shooter.
Examples of multi-option responses—Run. Hide.

Fight. and ALICE (Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter,
Evacuate)—can be found on the Washington Office of
Superintendent of Public Instruction’s website.

It is important to note that multi-option responses do
not mandate students or teachers to do any of these
actions, but rather provide various options to choose
from depending on their proximity to the shooter. Much
like fire safety where students can evacuate, get low
to the ground, or Stop, Drop, and Roll, multi-option
responses account for how close the person is to the
threat. Furthermore, the actions in dual-option and
multi-option responses are not linear. Individuals have
the ability to choose between each of the available
options depending on the fluidity of the situation.
Providing individuals with more than one option to
respond to an active assailant is endorsed by the

CONTINUED on next page

JUNE 2022



CONTINUED from previous page

Unfortunately, there have been
cases where schools have
conducted an active shooter

I training that was unannounced
with a mock active intruder,
crisis actors, fake blood, and
simulated gunfire. This form of
training should never be done
with K-12 students.

CONTINUED on next page


CONTINUED from previous page

guidelines for ensuring trauma-informed active shooter
drills. First, all drills should be announced through
multiple modalities (e.g., PA announcements, text,
email, phone) and explicitly be stated as a drill so
there is no confusion that the exercise could be a real
threat. Parents/guardians should also be included in
receiving the announcements so they are notified in
advance when a drill is going to occur. This inclusive,
multi-modal approach to communication reduces panic
and fear among all involved and removes ambiguity.
Additionally, announced drills avoid a dangerous
desensitization problem. If students and educators
continually go through unannounced drills, they may
become complacent and not take them seriously, even
when the threat is real.

Second, all drills should be developmentally and age
appropriate. Although the content will remain the
same, the implementation of the training will vary
depending on the grade level and ability of the student.
Thus, training done with high school students will be
different than that done with elementary students.
Furthermore, it may be necessary to offer the training
through multiple modes (e.g, visual, auditory, reading,
writing) to take into account various student learning
styles and abilities. This approach will enable students
to comprehend, retain, and process the material (i.e.,
solidify the content) and ensure the material is taught
in accordance with students’ accommodations in IEPs
and 504 plans.

Third, drills should not recreate or simulate a shooting.
Just as we do not fill hallways with fake smoke for fire

JUNE 2022

drills, active shooter drills should not involve the sound
of simulated gunfire or people role-playing an assailant
or victim. Although this type of simulation—or full-
scale exercise—is useful for first responder (e.g., law

Additionally, announced

drills avoid a dangerous
desensitization problem. If
students and educators
continually go through
unannounced drills, they may
become complacent and not
take them seriously, even when
the threat is real.

enforcement, fire, EMT) training, it has no place in the
schoolhouse and will result in psychological harm.

Fourth, after a drill, students, teachers, and staff
should debrief. During this time, individuals can
discuss the training, address any questions that may
have arisen, and process feelings and emotions from
the drill. Additionally, teachers and staff can monitor
reactions by actively looking for signs of anxiety or
distress and provide individuals with immediate
support and resources. This attention is particularly
critical for students, teachers, and staff with histories
of trauma, loss, and/or certain behavioral or learning
considerations. Having mental health professionals and
staff present during and after drills is ideal.

Fifth, teach calming and coping strategies as part of
any emergency preparedness training. This can include
a variety of behaviors, including but not limited to, deep
breathing, picturing a happy place, and the “54321”
technique to ground the person. Giving participants

the chance to hone and practice those coping and
stabilization techniques during a mock emergency will
help them be ready to use the techniques when they
are needed most, despite feeling nervous or scared.

CONTINUED on next page

POLICY AND LEGAL NEWS =» WSSDA 16


CONTINUED from previous page

Sixth, be aware of students, teachers, and staff who
have experienced recent trauma or loss. Provide access
to appropriate mental health resources and services.
Additionally, continue to teach and remind individuals to
use various calming and coping strategies. This step’s
crucial component is not re-traumatizing individuals with
the training.

School safety is a critical issue facing all Washington
State schools. To ensure safety, schools try to prevent
and address threats in order to avert tragedy. For fire,
this includes the use of flame-retardant materials,
policies on the storing of flammable materials, events
with fire departments, and fire safety activities to
educate individuals on how to prevent fires (e.g,,
discussions on lighter and match safety). For active
shooters, prevention may involve providing outlets for
people to report concerning behavior, training/hiring
school safety and security staff, school resource officers,
and access to mental health professionals (e.g., school
counselors). However, we know that in both cases—fire
and active shooter—prevention can fail. As a result,
school safety also involves preparing students, teachers,
and staff on how to respond when a crisis happens at
school. Just as it would put individuals in danger if they
did not regularly practice how to respond to a fire at
school (e.g,, fire drills), it would also endanger the lives
of students, teachers, and staff if they did not practice
how to respond to an active shooter situation. Thus, in
addition to having the knowledge and skills, training for
when prevention fails is imperative.

Although fire drills have become standardized over

the course of many decades, the same cannot be

said concerning active shooter training. There is much
variation in both the content and implementation of
active shooter training across the country. Luckily, the
passage of HB 1941 allows for a critical first step in
standardizing active shooter training across Washington
State. Specifically, HB 1941 mandates that students,
teachers, and staff should continue to be provided with
the content taught in active shooter training. However,
this content is now required to be implemented in

a “trauma-informed and age and developmentally
appropriate” manner. As HB 1941 goes into effect,
Washington State has created an environment for

all students, teachers, and staff to learn potentially
lifesaving knowledge, without causing undue stress or
psychological harm.

JUNE 2022

Authors: Cheryl Lero Jonson (Xavier University, Associate
Professor, Department of Criminal Justice) and Brooke Miller
Gialopsos (Seattle University, Assistant Professor, Department
of Criminal Justice, Criminology & Forensics)

Sources

¢ National Fire Protection Association. (2022).
US school fires, grades K-12, with 10 or more
deaths. https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-
Research/Data-research-and-tools/Building-
and-Life-Safety/Structure-fires-inschools
US-school-fires-with-ten-or-more-deaths

¢ Peterson, J., & Densley, P. (2022). The Violence
Project database of mass shooters. The
Violence Project.

¢ Campbell, R. (2020). Structure fires in schools.
National Fire Protection Association.

¢ Jonson, C. L., Gialopsos, B. M., & Moon, M.
M. (2021, December). Mass shootings: We
can prevent them, reduce harm. Cincinnati
Enquirer. https://www.cincinnati.com/
story/opinion/2021/12/13/opinion-mass-
shootings-we-can-prevent-them-reduce-
harm/6430596001,

¢ Jonson, C. L., Moon, M. M., Gialopsos, B. M.
(2020). Are students scared or prepared?
Psychological impacts of a multi-option active
assailant protocol compared to other crisis
emergency preparedness practices. Victims &
Offenders, 15(5), 639-662.

¢ FEMA. (2015). IS-907: Active Shooter: What
You Can Do.

¢ FEMA. (2013). IS-O362.a: Multi-Hazard
Emergency Planning for Schools.

¢ The National Child Traumatic Stress Network.
(2018). Creating school active shooter/intruder
drills.

WSSDA has updated Model Policy and Procedure

3432/3432P - Emergencies to reflect HB 1941.
This is an Essential Policy.

POLICY AND LEGAL NEWS » WSSDA

17