School Lock Downs

[Citroen]

I have been researching the rationale behind school "lockdowns" when an active shooter is present. I am unable to find any explanation as to why this is a good strategy.

Can anyone shed any light on this? Exactly why would you want to confine the potential victims to an area?

Any help would be appreciated. My research is for a paper on the subject.

Thank you.
John
Charlotte, NC

 

[Autolycus]

Because a hallway full of children is also easy pickin's.

 

[Old Fuff]

The pervailing theory is that you lock the killer out, and keep the students in the room where they'll be safe because the door is locked. Also when the police arrive they won't find students and others running around and getting in the way.

This thinking of course does not take into consideration the possibility that the the killer may be able to force a classroom door, or that he might already be in the room, or that he starts his killing spree while students are moving around the halls coming or going to whatever.

Part of the plan of course is that no one, (with the exception of the killer) will be armed, because only the police are qualified to respond to the threat.

Plus for extra security we have a sign at the door that says, "THIS IS A GUN-FREE ZONE!.

And usually when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

 

[mekender]

the idea is that locking the children in the rooms keeps them out of the way of a potential criminal... bank robbers, jail escapees, suspects that run from traffic stops, all unlikely to hurt children, but they could get caught in a crossfire... obviously, once the violence starts on the campus, this becomes a very bad idea...

 

[Grizfire]

I see your point, after all, this is what Cho did, is it not.

 

[english kanigit]

I have actually thought about returning to my old high school and talking to the principal about this particular subject. The reason I haven't yet is that the SRO who worked there when I was in school (and knew me and my, uhhh, eccentricities) isn't there. Just by broaching this topic I would probably be locked up as some crazy-conspiring-to-commit.

At my high school we never had lockdowns, not that I can recall at least. What we did have was the occasional bomb scare. The SOP for that was to get every body out of the building which is something I can understand. My problem is that they had everyone in one place and what a shooting gallery it could be.

Immediately across the street was the schools old sports field. The field itself is roughly 1/4x1/8 of a mile. There are no buildings save for some small, freestanding metal bleachers. On the north side of this field running diagonally SE to NW there is an old, abandon railway. These tracks see very little if any use and grown over with brush and scrub that could easily hide a man standing. If somebody is trying to be sneaky about being there you can forget about finding them... This rail berm is anywhere from 40 yards to 90 yards from the center of the athletic field which, coincidently if there has just been a bomb scare, about 500 or more people will just be standing around. Not exactly a pretty picture.

Now I am no security expert but this just seems like a bad situation just waiting to be exploited. :banghead:

Ek

 

[ReadyontheRight]

I believe school lock downs are SOP because it makes it easier for the police to control the situation. And it makes it easier for them to catch the perpetrator - because when the shooting stops, it is probably because he killed himself. Or hopefully a victim took him down.

Despite what we see on T.V. and in movies, the job of the police is NOT to stop these murdering idiots in the act. There are many examples of heroic police officers who stopped crimes, but the real job of police is to collect evidence after the fact of a crime.

I am not faulting police at all. There are certainly many very heroic cops. But the fact is...crimes happen too fast to ever stop them. Even if it's a 2-hour stand-off, that's not really a lot of time. The bad guy is driving.

I personally think a "fire drill" response in schools would save more lives. Get the kids out of the buildings. It's pretty difficult to shoot kids who are running away. Even if they are congregated together in a field, they stand a much better chance than crouching under a desk with only one way out the door.

If one were to don the tin-foil hat, a "lock-down" also makes the "ANOTHER SCHOOL SHOOTING!!!" event more newsworthy. The news reporters can stand safely outside. They have time to film the locked-down facility and interview those who escaped...knowing that the murdering idiot is safely inside the building.

I think the whole "lock down" idea is flawed and worth a rational discussion.

 

[Gingerbreadman]

I think the whole "lock down" idea is flawed and worth a rational discussion.

What we were supposed to do during a lockdown at my old high school was basically to line up against wall across from the classroom door. I don't think that the genius who came up with that one is into rational thinking.

 

[gallo]

Part of the plan of course is that no one, (with the exception of the killer) will be armed, because only the police are qualified to respond to the threat.

Plus for extra security we have a sign at the door that says, "THIS IS A GUN-FREE ZONE!.

Are you suggesting that school students be armed to defend themselves against a nut case?

 

[Oana]

Are we talking K-8, high school, or college here? What's good for an elementary school would (should) differ from a college. I'm not sure what's best for schools in their present state (unarmed and helpless). Obviously, allowing CC is the way to go, but what do we do in the meantime?

Our college's policy is basically lock and barricade the doors, turn off the lights and take cover. I'm of the opinion that this isn't necessarily a bad policy, especially if lacking a firearm. Pretending a classroom is empty is smart. OTOH, something needs to be communicated about how to act if a shooter has entered the room or is headed in your direction. "Hide under a desk" is a rotten idea. All of these policies assume the shooter won't get into the room. Well, what if he does?

I guess I'm not opposed to a lockdown in theory, as long as individuals have a generous helping of common sense and a defensive mindset. AKA no cowering in the corner if the shooter breaks in. All policies should state, "In case of danger, use brain."

What we were supposed to do during a lockdown at my old high school was basically to line up against wall across from the classroom door. I don't think that the genius who came up with that one is into rational thinking.

Did they recommend facing the wall too?

 

[TimboKhan]

Locking down isn't a horrible idea, particularly in elementary, junior and high schools were masses of terrified kids scattering in all directions does nothing more than make for a target-rich environment. It has it's drawbacks, though.

First, if the person is already in a building, it's not particularly hard to shoot through windows, kick in doors, etc.

Second, in the unlikely (yet still theoretically possible) event that a coordinated attack is made on a school, a lockdown works for the attackers because it keeps everyone in one place. Again, you can lock a door, but a school is not a vault. If you want to get in, it isn't hard. A single shooter also has everyone in one place, but I am talking about a coordinated attack, not some nut that is at most going after one or two specific targets and at least is just shooting whatever moves.

Third, and really this is related to my first point, once they are in, locking the outside doors accomplishes nothing.

Now, with that being said, what are the alternatives? Better architecture with less and clearly defined points of entry helps, but it isn't likely nor possible to replace every old school with a brand new one. Arming teachers, a subject broached more than once, is one theoretical solution, but in my opinion as both a shooter and a educator, it isn't a very good one. I don't know many teachers who wouldn't lay it down for their kids, but I also don't know many teachers who have the time or the money to get the type of training necessary to stop a shooter in a school full of freaked-out kids. I simply can't imagine a worse tactical situation. Also, looked at realistically, there is simply no way that teachers will ever be legally allowed to arm themselves on school property. Ever. I don't care if Ron Paul is president and congress is made up of life members of the NRA, it simply isn't going to happen.

So, that leaves a bunch of unanswered questions. One solution that seems to be working (in conjunction with a lockdown policy) is parental volunteers acting as campus monitors and "screeners" (and, of course, actual campus monitors). In the middle school across the street from my house, there are student monitors. You cannot walk into that school without a pair of kids, with walkie-talkies, walking up to you, saying hello and asking where you need to go. It works too. There are other solutions out there, which work to one degree or another, but they all support a lockdown response as opposed to replacing one.

Anyway, it's a tough nut to crack. I am not super-fond of lockdowns, but neither do I have a particularly good solution that is any better.

 

[308win]

There is no good answer. High school aged kids and even middle school aged kids could be turned out and most of them could (not would, could) get to a place of relative safety. The same wouldn't hold true for K-6 kids; so there you would be, several hundred kids roaming with several hundred anxious, angry, and desperate parents trying to find them. Although this would be better than a room full of kids who were shot because they had no chance to avoid/evade.

I am torn on arming teachers/administrators; the effectiveness would depend on the individual; and, I suppose something is better than nothing.

 

[kk5ib]

Westside

I live in the Westside school district, near Jonesboro, AR. Fake fire alarm in middle school, teachers and kids out into a kill zone, perps armed with scoped semi-auto rifles 100 yards away, 11 year old with 30 carbine, 13 year old with Remington 742 30-06, six killed, nine wounded (think those numbers are right). What do you do with a lock-down and a fire alarm? The shooters were off campus in the woods, and successfully pulled of an ambush. Armed teachers might have helped but it would have been handguns against rifles at a long range for handguns. Also the attack happened so fast that there was much damage done before anyone realized what was going on. No simple answer to cover all situations.
Darryl

 

[TallPine]

A "lockdown" would be a bit more effective if the doors actually had locks on them

 

[foghornl]

In MOST schools, yeah you are quite safe, behind the locked carboard door [ keyed outside deadbolt, thumb-turn bolt inside] with the cheapest grade of thin glass window making up abput 1/3 of the door....

\\\\\smarmy mode off

taught my kids....if it sounds like shooting outside, stay inside. If shooting is inside, toss desk/chair through exterior window, immediately follow desk out.

 

[Macpherson]

I think lockdowns are an effective defense against school shooters, for some of the reasons mentioned above. Unfortunately with these situations there's very little chance of a happy ending; there's just no 100% effective way to stop someone from doing damage if they have no concern for their own life. Internal lockdowns isolate the students and staff so the shooter must spend a lot of time and effort breaking into each room get at his victims, and time is not on his side. I also am not convinced that a shooter would be able to break into the classrooms; every school I have visited has had heavy solid core fire doors with deadbolts that would take a swat team sledge to break down. This may not be the case in all schools, but past shootings seem to demonstrate that the shooters look for easier targets if they encounter properly secured doors. (The exception to this being VA Tech, but I'm not sure if the door Cho broke into even had a lock).
Lockdowns minimize the number of students running loose in the hallways and reduce the number of targets the shooter has. I don't favor locking the outside exits of the building, it seems like that could delay emergency response and doesn't benefit the victims already inside. I'm on the fence about whether armed teachers would an effective solution, frankly I dont think even 1% of teachers would choose to arm themselves even if they had the option, for any number of reasons. I think a better option would be to arm the security personnel that most schools already have, or at the very least have a few trained "first responders" in each school who would be armed (or have fast access to arms), who would take charge of the evacuation/lockdown and engage the shooter if the opportunity. They would not be responsible for actively seeking the shooter but would be equipped to defend themselves or their students if necessary. Lockdowns are just one component of defending against these attacks. They aren't perfect, but they are better than nothing.

 

[TimboKhan]

The other problem with arming teachers is that it assumes that the teachers themselves would want to be armed. From experience, I assure you that many would not. In a good number cases, it's misguided hoplophobia, but in other cases, it's simply a matter of preference. I am as big a supporter of the 2A as you will find, but I wouldn't carry at school, even if I could. Let me tell you why:

1. As mentioned in my previous post, it's about as horrible a tactical situation as there is. Look at the police response to school shootings the last few years, and you will notice that they don't just charge in and start hunting for bad guys. Partially this is because of common sense, but partially this is because there are a lot of innocent bystanders in the building.

2. If I were to carry, and had to use my gun to repel a shooter, god help me if I hit a kid on accident. Not only would that be the worst possible thing for me personally, but it would crush me financially, permanently end my career, and would do no good in general. I know, some of you are thinking "Thats a risk I would take", and philosophically I agree that if I were to shoot an invader and hit a kid, thats acceptable because I theoretically saved many more lives. The problem with that is that I only theoretically saved many more lives, and if it were your kid that was the sacrifical lamb, so to speak, would you really care about the lives of the others? My guess is "no".

3. Frankly, I don't want the responsibility. I love my kids and would take a bullet for any of them, but I don't want to be in a position where I might hurt a kid, ever. The problem, as I see it, is that when people talk about arming teachers, they seem to ignore the fact that you are placing an enormous amount of responsibility above and beyond the tenets of "self-defense" on that person.

4. Tool-wise, a pistol is a bad idea in this situation anyway. Even if I would carry and even if I did want the responsibility, I wouldn't want to try and defend myself and the students with a pistol. Not in that environment. A school is not my house, and engagements will be more likely to be at longer than normal distances. I can't shoot a pistol well at 50 yards under stress, but I know for a fact I can shoot a rifle well at longer distances than that under stress, mostly because I have done so. In the extremely unlikely event that teachers are allowed to be armed, I highly doubt that they will be allowed to haul rifles around.

5. I again go back to time and money. I necessarily put in at least 60 hours a week during the school year, and some weeks even more. I'm not complaining about that as much as I am pointing out that when the school year is in session, I am busy and simply don't have time for a lot of other stuff. While I also won't complain about us poor teachers being underpaid, I will say that I don't make enough money teaching to justify spending money to go to Thunder Ranch or something. It is unlikely to the highest level of unlikeliness that the district is going to spend the money to send teachers off to train them in the art of armed combat.

6. Finally, there are parents. Like it or not, those are not our kids we are teaching, and as a result, we have a responsibility to the parents. My guess is that the majority of parents DO NOT want their kids' teachers to walk around packing heat. Even though a good deal of this is simple hoplophobia, it still remains a fact. You can't believe some of the stupid, petty and insane things some parents will complain about. I can only imagine the outcry if I were to carry a gun. I once was threatened physically (over the phone) by a parent because I sent a kid to the office for vandalism, three times. When the parent came in, and saw that I am a big, imposing dude and not a milquetoast, the threats went away, but the complaints about why I was picking on thier kid persisted. For hours. At one point, I honestly was about to lose my temper and just start screaming, but I opted to just refer them to the principal, which was the better strategy. My point in telling you that is to simply this: Those are other peoples kids. We may not agree with how they raise them, but it is not our place to take major decisions out of the hands of parents, and exposure to guns is a major decision. I disagree with teaching kids that firearms are bad, but it is not my place to counter a parents on the morals and ethics they want their kids to learn, anymore than it is my place to tell a kid that he or she should always vote republican, be a christian or drink mountain dew. My job is to teach them a particular subject as best as I can, help them explore different moral and ethical values via community service projects, clubs and assignments, and to lead by example.

 

[jcoiii]

At my college, where I am a police officer, we have a hard rule and an unspoken one. The lockdown is initiated to keep the panicky, clingy, grab onto the nearest officer and pull them down students AND faculty out of the way. Our response is proceed to shots fired, enter and kill suspect. Now assuming the guy doesn't kill himself and decides to move from one classroom to the next, we'd rather have the students locked in their classroom than running around in the halls. First, they're easier targets and second, we can't shoot the BG with students running around in the halls (rule #4).

Now, the unofficial rule is, if you hear gunshots in a room near you, get out and away as quickly as possible. If you're in the room, do what you gotta do. When we enter, hit the damn floor. Given the layout of our campus, only those immediately close to the shooter would hear the shots. The others in other buildings wouldn't know of anything until we locked them down (theoretically).

Official rule, lockdown. Unofficial rule, do what you gotta do.

 

[fireflyfather]

in public k-12 schools, the lockdown is primarily for ADMINISTRATIVE purposes after the fact. It makes the accounting of victims/survivors, and the dispersal of them to parents easier for the principals once all active shooters are done. If the kids run away, the principal is left wondering where they are, and when the parents show up demanding their kids, they are in deep kimchee. So, the short version is that it is primarily an exercise in covering their own butts. Add to that the delusion that many hoplophobes have that if you submit/cower you will not be harmed, and the delusion that a locked door will somehow stop someone who is willing to bring a gun and pull a trigger, when a huge glass window takes up most of the adjacent wall. They also somehow seem to think that the crappy structural walls in our school district will stop bullets. Hiding and hoping the shooter moves on to the next class is a valid tactic, but it is essentially Russian Roulette. Multiple (not all) armed staff (administrators, trained teachers, custodians, security, etc), better architecture, and an after-action contact plan (instead of a fire drill mentality) would be better options. Sometimes you need to flee the shooter.

 

[Citroen]

Thank you all.

I appreciate the many thoughtful and helpful responses. From what I read and from my own opinion is that, like so many situations, we are not talking "one size fits all".

The one thing that I did not see from the responses (I may have missed it and if so apologize) was for schools to treat "active shooter" scenarios the same as fire drills. When was the last time that a student died in a fire at a school? Yet our schools still have fire drills!

Why not conduct "active shooter" drills where all involved (except, hopefully, the active shooter) get to experience trying out the plan and, while no lives are at stake, improving what does not work?

It does seem like each school should have a "custom" plan that suits their situation.

Anyway, thanks for the suggestions. If I can flesh out the idea I'll let you know when it will be published.

John
Charlotte, NC

 

[1gkek]

I think active shooter drills would be a little too dramatic for the kids. I don't want my 6 year old having those dreams. The number of incidents is very low, I don't think the benefits would outweigh the stress it would put on tykes. If you tried to make it less scary, you risk the kids not taking it seriously, a bad combination.

 

[ilbob]

There is no real good answer for these kind of situations. The main reason that the authorities chose a lockdown as their response is to control the student body and keep them in one area where they can be supervised by adults. This is usually a good idea.

If there is a shooter going room to room, it just makes it easier for the shooter to find more victims.

Most lockdowns are not from shooters in the school but when there are nearby incidents such as robberies when the police are after someone and they would prefer to make it more difficult for the BGs to get hostages.

Even if there is a shooter going room to room, I am not sure having a bunch of 6 or 7 YO kids running in every direction is a better solution. Kids that age do not have the judgement needed to make good decisions about anything, much less how to protect themselves. Even older children such as those in HS rarely have the judgement to decide such things for themselves.

 

[fireflyfather]

ilbob: If there is an active shooter coming towards my room, I am going to tell the kids to RUN LIKE HELL AND DON'T STOP. Hopefully that room will have a back/side door or windows on the other side (my classrooms usually don't). Then again, some of my students may very well return fire instead.

There is no good answer. You are correct. Most of the lockdowns are for nearby problems (robberies, etc). I had that happen once, robbery across the street, and fled through campus, just a few days after a highly publicized school shooting in our city. In that case, lockdown IS a good idea, for the most part. The problem is that when you realize an active shooter is hunting down specific targets or targets of opportunity, the best option for individual safety is to FLEE, not barricade without a proper barricade or means of defense. Sure, it's easier to keep track of who is ok and who is hurt/dead, but that shouldn't be our concern in an active shooter scenario.

My former principal (former marine DI), at the urging of a science teacher (a former Annapolis grad), asked the school district what the district policy was on the use of force in self defense during an active shooter scenario. Their response: "we have no policy on the use of force in such a scenario". I think some of the staff took that to mean that as long as we were within the law, that we had carte blanch to protect the kids.

What they really meant was "we don't want to think about this/get in legal trouble/piss off parents...so you are on your own/we don't really care enough about you to formulate a publicly stated policy, so just hide behind a flimsy glass window and pray."

I give the principal kudos for asking (and if the school cop didn't bag the shooter, he probably would have taken the guy on with bare hands or nearby blunt objects), but the bottom line is that the schools are interested in covering their butts, not protecting staff/kids, since a shooter bears legal responsibility for deaths, and the school will be unlikely to have to pay in the event of a student/staff death. If they have a public policy endorsing self-defense, they WILL get sued by the shooter's family, and will send a "dangerous" message to students (self defense is a legitimate reason for the use of force) that administrators DO NOT WANT THEM TO HEAR.

 

[jmr40]

Lockdowns have other uses. We practice about once a year where I teach, but the only time we have actually used it was when the police tried to arrest someone and they ran into the woods near our school with a gun. The idea was to keep the bad guy out. We did not let kids change classes and walk outside the building to prevent them from becoming a hostage.

 

[Citroen]

Again, thank you!

In the schools that I have visited, as a student, as a parent, as a police officer responding to an alarm, and as a voter going to the polling place, I found that class rooms had one door and in that door was a large glass panel. Kinda hard to "lock down" those doors and certainly no "back door" to use for escape. Few schools have CCTV to help assess a situation and, as far as I know, the PA system is one way - you can't listen in from a central location.

Restrooms in modern high schools do not even have doors at all! They did when I was in school so I guess the "no doors" is a new policy.

School design may have changed, and I hope that it has, but I doubt it. I also doubt that any single "plan" or really lack thereof, is going to provide much in the way of protection.

I don't think a head in the sand policy or attitude by faculty or parents will provide much in the way of saving lives. While it may be unpleasant to think about an attack at our kid's school, just ignoring the posibility and hoping it won't happen is going through life with your fingers crossed.

Maybe a forum of people who believe in and support self defense is a good place to begin discussion of policy review? After all, it is your children who are the stakes in this endeavor. How does the local PTA address this?

John
Charlotte, NC