Active Shooter Drills Traumatizing Kids

[Nanuk]

Foolishly thinking that someone who designs schools for a living might have something to offer in reviewing schools for safety and security, I contacted the NRA to ask how I could become certified as a School Shield consultant. The answer: I can't. Why not? Because I'm not a cop.

Its not cop bias, its ignorance. I would think that you could offer insight to design and materials. But what do I know, I am just a semi retired Fed.

 

[TunnelRat]

I am also an NRA certified instructor in Basic Pistol, Personal Protection In the Home, and a few others. I'm an NRA-certified Chief Range Safety Officer as well as a CMP Range Officer.

I watched an NRA certified instructor kill two people (force on force with UTM) in a course specifically on Active Shooter Response for the Concerned Citizen (taught by Todd Rassa). Only one other person in the class felt the need to kill. The other 12 people in the course got through it without having to kill them and no one was saved from her effort. It was quite eye opening for the person to see that there was another way out (we watched the videos of every other student's experience during the lunch break and then again at the end of the day). She had presented a pistol, expected compliance, and when she didn't get it she was in a world of trouble.

If a law enforcement background isn't a guarantee of performance, and there are times when it hasn't been (as mentioned in this thread), frankly neither is some NRA certification. All any certification provides is a basis for understanding the minimum experience of a person (and even then some people put a lot more into their work than others). Quantifying that experience in a way that "proves" the usefulness of someone isn't easy.

 

[FireForged]

anyone can amass certificates but until they have the occasion actually utilize their training in real circumstances, make decision and take actions ( over and over) make mistakes, fail and learn from their mistakes.. they dont know what they dont know. Rookies leave the academy with all sorts of "training" and certifications but it takes months and months, usually a year or more ..sometimes longer to actually become adept at properly dealing with potential dangerous circumstances. I am not sure why anyone would feel that going to some classes would imbue them with warrior competence via pure osmosis.

Going to classes and learning is a good thing. Application of tactics, techniques and methods on a training field is a good thing. Knowing something more than you did prior to the class is a good thing. I just wouldn't confuse that with competence or experience. Those things usually come later

 

[JERRYS.]

how about the nuclear bomb drills of the 50s?

 

[TunnelRat]

anyone can amass certificates but until they have the occasion actually utilize their training in real circumstances, make decision and take actions ( over and over) make mistakes, fail and learn from their mistakes.. they dont know what they dont know. Rookies leave the academy with all sorts of "training" and certifications but it takes months and months, usually a year or more ..sometimes longer to actually become adept at properly dealing with potential dangerous circumstances. I am not sure why anyone would feel that going to some classes would imbue them with warrior competence via pure osmosis.



Going to classes and learning is a good thing. Application of tactics, techniques and methods on a training field is a good thing. Knowing something more than you did prior to the class is a good thing. I just wouldn't confuse that with competence or experience. Those things usually come later

Then that again gets into what should or shouldn't be expected of an armed teacher in these situations or even a law enforcement officer in those situations.

I've seen people with prior training shut down in force on force. It wasn't because their training was bad, they themselves lacked courage, or they didn't have the physical strength when it came to hand to hand. In most cases it was because their training taught them that doing this causes that, and when that didn't happen they hadn't considered an alternative.

My point in all of this is people assume they'll push people through some standard training and they'll get people performing at an expected level. That's not always the case.



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Aguila Blanca]

If a law enforcement background isn't a guarantee of performance, and there are times when it hasn't been (as mentioned in this thread), frankly neither is some NRA certification. All any certification provides is a basis for understanding the minimum experience of a person (and even then some people put a lot more into their work than others). Quantifying that experience in a way that "proves" the usefulness of someone isn't easy.

The School Shield program isn't about training first responders to deal with active shooters, it's about assisting schools in formulating a comprehensive plan for safety and security. I admit that there is nothing in the NRA Basic Pistol curriculum that would pertain to an active shooter situation. The Personal Protection classes -- maybe. My forty years of experience as an architect, dealing with school design and construction and building and fire codes -- definitely. I think I can bring as much to the table as a cop. Cops don't know building and fire codes -- some of their suggestions may be code violations. They don't know hardware -- they may not understand the nuances of classroom door lock options, how they work, what's NOT allowed by code, and what options are available that ARE allowed by code.

The School Shield reviews are supposed to be conducted by a team, not by one individual. If that team can't include an architect because he's not a cop -- it's intentionally omitting potentially valuable insight. And, IMHO, it demonstrates that there is a cops-only bias even within the NRA. And that was my point.

 

[FireForged]

Then that again gets into what should or shouldn't be expected of an armed teacher in these situations or even a law enforcement officer in those situations.

I've seen people with prior training shut down in force on force. It wasn't because their training was bad, they themselves lacked courage, or they didn't have the physical strength when it came to hand to hand. In most cases it was because their training taught them that doing this causes that, and when that didn't happen they hadn't considered an alternative.

My point in all of this is people assume they'll push people through some standard training and they'll get people performing at an expected level. That's not always the case.

Exactly...

This is why I keep saying that at least with occupational professionals you generally have someone who has faced danger and it adept in making decisions and taking actions in those type of fast moving circumstances.

 

[TunnelRat]

The School Shield program isn't about training first responders to deal with active shooters, it's about assisting schools in formulating a comprehensive plan for safety and security. I admit that there is nothing in the NRA Basic Pistol curriculum that would pertain to an active shooter situation. The Personal Protection classes -- maybe. My forty years of experience as an architect, dealing with school design and construction and building and fire codes -- definitely. I think I can bring as much to the table as a cop. Cops don't know building and fire codes -- some of their suggestions may be code violations. They don't know hardware -- they may not understand the nuances of classroom door lock options, how they work, what's NOT allowed by code, and what options are available that ARE allowed by code.

The School Shield reviews are supposed to be conducted by a team, not by one individual. If that team can't include an architect because he's not a cop -- it's intentionally omitting potentially valuable insight. And, IMHO, it demonstrates that there is a cops-only bias even within the NRA. And that was my point.

I don't doubt your architecture background, but that wasn't the only background information you gave. You brought up the NRA instruction background as well and my comment was more on that.

You're right that having something with a construction background for a program about fortifying a location makes sense. In my experience when starting a program such as you mention you get many people that volunteer their "help", whether it is helpful or not. The default answer sometimes becomes to turn down people regardless because saturation becomes problematic. That's a possibility here too, or it could be as you say and they didn't care because you aren't a cop.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[FireForged]

I wouldn't take it personally.

As important as architecture and fire codes are... its probably not what is driving the train. Comprehensive planning of this type is likely about methods, operations, information sharing and specialized security/protective infrastructure. Much of those types of things come from local think tanks made up of LEOs, LEO vetted and highly specialized sub contractors, security consultants and information shared from specialized programs. Building the physical plant is not likely the problem, they will probably have a municipal/county project manager or 2 or 3, a facilities manager, a schools facilities superintendent, local fire departments to oversee fire code issues, local code enforcement liaisons and of course a architectural firm. I agree with TunnelRat, its probably more about access to information.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

... or it could be as you say and they didn't care because you aren't a cop.

It's not "it could be." I was specifically told that I could not apply to be a School Shield consultant because I am not a law enforcement officer.

 

[TunnelRat]

It's not "it could be." I was specifically told that I could not apply to be a School Shield consultant because I am not a law enforcement officer.

Then maybe it wasn't what you thought it was, or what they determined they needed wasn't what you thought they needed (not saying you were wrong). As Forged said I wouldn't take it personally.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[FireForged]

Just to be clear: when an armed teacher responds to the sounds of an active shooter, presumably by making his or her way towards the threat and abandoning the classroom full of students in front of them, who is in charge of the defensive measures within the classroom? Please don't tell me we are actually going to trust one of the students on this one. Been around many high school students lately?

Brother.. you have highlighted one of MANY problems with utilizing Teachers as protective services. Its common sense but people simply do not want to here that. They just want to feel good.


If EVERYTHING fails and a badguy tries to harm kids in the classroom, the armed teacher could be the last line of defense. In that circumstance, I could set aside all the other issues which make the idea of Teacher/Defender a problematic concept. Outside of that narrow circumstance, the arming of Teachers as "the plan" is counter to most everything I have ever learned about protection. It looks good on paper and it makes people feel good but its just not a competent protection plan for many reason.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Building the physical plant is not likely the problem, they will probably have a municipal/county project manager or 2 or 3, a facilities manager, a schools facilities superintendent, local fire departments to oversee fire code issues, local code enforcement liaisons and of course a architectural firm.

The physical plant IS part of the problem. It's one thing when planning a new building. When surveying an existing building, the building may very well be part of the problem, and a member of the survey team who knows how [for example] school locks work and what the codes require/allow could be important.

As for local architects? Let me provide an example from the real world:

Several years ago the high school in my home town was planning a major addition and renovation project. $30 million worth of construction ... back when $30 was real money. Much of the money was coming from a state grant, and the rules here are that if the state funds the construction, the state gets to review the plans for code compliance. But the law only gives the state 30 days to review the plans once they've been submitted. If the state can't do it in that time, they let the local building official do it.

That's what happened in my town. But it's a small town, with only one guy as the entire building department. He didn't have the time to review a $30 million construction project within a 30-day window. I'm licensed as a building inspector as well as an architect, so the town hired me to review the plans as a consultant to the building department. Fine.

This was about a year or maybe two years after Columbine. Security -- and the possibility of a school shooter -- was high on everyone's list of priorities. I attended some of the public meetings on the project. The public asked about it, and the school board assured them that every effort was being made to ensure safety and security.

So imagine my surprise when I opened up the plans and found that all the classrooms in the new addition were going to have glass sidelights next to the classroom doors. And not bullet-resistant glass (which is very heavy and VERY expensive), just the same tempered glass you'd find in any storefront near a door. This was not a code violation, so it was outside of my responsibility. Nonetheless, I was bothered by it enough that I went over to the police department and discussed it with the deputy chief. He agreed: "That's pretty stupid." So I took it to the school board, and they referred it to the architects.

The architects' response was, "But we like it." So that's the way it was built.

So I'm not impressed by mention of the superintendent, a facilities manager, or an architect. Security is a mindset, and if the players aren't committed to understanding security as opposed to paying lip service to it, they're not bringing anything worthwhile to the table.

 

[seeker_two]

It's not "it could be." I was specifically told that I could not apply to be a School Shield consultant because I am not a law enforcement officer.

Then maybe it wasn't what you thought it was, or what they determined they needed wasn't what you thought they needed (not saying you were wrong). As Forged said I wouldn't take it personally.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

As someone who works in a school and understands that security takes in a lot of different aspects that require diverse perspectives, I take it personally. The NRA is becoming more irrelevant to the personal protection discussion and more statist in its direction. Cops don't have all the answers....sometimes, they don't even know all the questions.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Aguila Blanca]

^^^ It's that diverse perspectives part that makes me so upset that the School Shield program is only open to LEOs. There is no diversity of perspective. Of course cops don't have all the answers. Just as architects don't have all the answers. But together, cops and architects might offer a broader range of options than a team made up only of cops.

 

[TunnelRat]

Nonetheless, I was bothered by it enough that I went over to the police department and discussed it with the deputy chief. He agreed: "That's pretty stupid."

So what about this interaction really required you to be an architect though? Even the deputy chief, without your background, was able to notice that sidelights next to doors wasn't a great idea. I think even a number of people here would be able to make that determination. It had more to do with common sense than true design know-how.

So I took it to the school board, and they referred it to the architects.

The architects' response was, "But we like it." So that's the way it was built.

So this had nothing to do with either you or law enforcement recognizing a problem. The people you explained the problem to didn't care. In that case what difference does either a law enforcement or architecture background make? You can lead a horse to water.

It's that diverse perspectives part that makes me so upset that the School Shield program is only open to LEOs. There is no diversity of perspective. Of course cops don't have all the answers. Just as architects don't have all the answers. But together, cops and architects might offer a broader range of options than a team made up only of cops.

And because your assistance was refused you know for a fact that no one on the program will have any knowledge of building and construction considerations?


I want to roll back to something. You have a good deal of experience in architecture, obviously. That alone qualifies you to comment on physical security. Yet in that previous post you brought up your NRA instructional and shooting background. Why? You don't really need that background to comment about architecture. The reality is when it comes to this type of situation some background with firearms and application of force is sort of expected, hence, imo, why you presented additional background. Is it really that surprising that the NRA would look primarily to law enforcement for this program? While I don't doubt that physical security should be part of the equation, most schools are strapped for money as is. How many will have the money to do major renovations specifically for school shootings? My guess is this Shield program will have more to do with helping schools work with what they have and low-cost changes that might be made rather than serious remodeling.

 

[FireForged]

So imagine my surprise when I opened up the plans and found that all the classrooms in the new addition were going to have glass sidelights next to the classroom doors. And not bullet-resistant glass (which is very heavy and VERY expensive), just the same tempered glass you'd find in any storefront near a door. This was not a code violation, so it was outside of my responsibility. Nonetheless, I was bothered by it enough that I went over to the police department and discussed it with the deputy chief. He agreed: "That's pretty stupid." So I took it to the school board, and they referred it to the architects.

How did that project involve school shield?


If they are limiting school shield to LEO ( 3+ years experience and up), its likely because the skill set which is paramount to the program is relative to LE training, knowledge, experience and not construction.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Where I used to work has all the glass rooms with glass walls. You could bring down shutters but the idea was an attractive open concept. I asked the building supervisior (a for real ex-SEAL) what it would take to bring down a panel. He said about 4 shots. So much for hiding. Another school was building the same type of labs and I was asked my opinion by a colleague there. I mentioned the shooter aspect. He said it was a good one but probably go nowhere vs. aesthetics.

 

[GarandTd]

We live in a shallow society where, often times, aesthetics takes precedence over safety and functionality. As an equipment operator and truck driver, I run into many problems with landscape architecture that make a delivery with a large vehicle nearly impossible. These things are rarely on the mind of the common architects or the people paying for the project. As long as it looks good in the drawings and for the PR photos afterward.

 

[Lohman446]

I reference it as "building monuments to themselves" when aesthetics are given unreasonable precedence (and funding) over functionality. Common around here in schools and hospitals.

Back to a couple questions that came up:

What standards should teachers be required to train to and qualify for: IMO teachers seeing to carry a firearm in the classroom should follow the same yearly (or whatever) qualification standards as the minimum standard for a member of the state police force be it highway patrol or state police officer. This gives a "statewide" standard.

Who should pay for it: Teachers (or a third party) should be responsible for the bill for their initial training but, once achieved and qualification kept up, the district should pay for ongoing training and qualification - again the minimal training required of officers. No the district is not paying for your trip to Gunsite (or whatever).

Liability insurance: On the district. Districts foot the bill for suits pertaining to teacher and administration indiscretion all the time. This at least is intended to do some good.

What is the role of the armed teacher? Defense of the classroom / immediate area only. Teachers are not to be used in some active engagement exercise to aggressively pursue and eliminate threats. The role of the armed teacher is a last ditch effort should the defensive measures of the classroom be overcome.