School Safety and Student Violence


Kenneth S. Trump is President and CEO of National School Safety and Security Services in Cleveland, Ohio. He recently (12/99) held a dialogue with education reporters on a private listserve supported by the national Education Writers Association. Some of his comments -- of particular interest to educators and parents -- are excerpted here.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

KEN TRUMP: There is no question that (youth violence has been occurring) in the broader society for some time. I really believe that what is capturing all of the attention is that the severity of violence previously limited to the streets and homes by kids has now crossed into the sanctuary of the schools where it has never struck so boldly in the past.

I see it as being similar to the shootings in a church. The most common theme following all of these shootings has been, "We never thought it would happen here." I believe that "here" not only represents the community location, but the idea of the school itself.

People seem more willing to believe that it MIGHT happen in a back alley or somewhere else in their community, but certainly not in a school! . . . .

The data on school violence grossly underestimates what is really going on in our schools. By no means is this meant to be alarmist, but if anyone really believes that the figures they are seeing from limited surveys, or the end result of spin in some government reports, truly reflects the depth of the school violence problem, shame on them!

I applaud federal, state, and local efforts in recent years to improve school violence data collection. But also remember that school safety is one of the most political issues in education --- from a variety of angles! Add to this the fact that even recent government reports (see OJJDP report last week indicating that only 28 percent of violent crimes against children are reported to police) acknowledge the underreporting of crime and I think we should all be in agreement that, while what we have is better than nothing, we have a long way to go to get reliable and credible school violence data.


QUESTION: Ken Trump said we need to focus more on mental detectors instead of metal detectors. Any comments on that?"

KEN TRUMP: Actually I was trying to stress that there needs to be a balance somewhere between mental detectors only and metal detectors only. The entire issue has been framed as an "either-or" type argument, i.e., either only a mental health approach or only a metal detector approach. This "either-or" mentality of more prevention OR tighter needs to be framed as more prevention AND tighter security.

Security has also been falsely framed to automatically equate to metal detectors, more cops in schools, and other equipment and manpower approaches.

A professional school security program will include consistent enforcement of security-related policies and procedures, training on security threats and strategies for all personnel (including support personnel such as secretaries and bus drivers), having individuals with school security backgrounds (in-house security personnel, school resource officers, school police or, if they chose to go this route, QUALIFIED outside consultants with K-12 school security experience) conduct school security assessments to identify ways to reduce risks, and the development, testing, and training associated with crisis preparedness guidelines.

Manpower and equipment may play a role somewhere in that mix, but I'd like to see schools start with simple, common-sense things like reducing the number of open doors and greeting strangers with a radical statement like, "Good morning, may I help you?"


QUESTION: Are there any student groups working on the problem of school violence? What do high school kids think should be done to prevent violence in our schools?

KEN TRUMP: One group of kids I worked with in Texas this summer answered this question better than most adults groups I have dealt with since Columbine. They stressed three points:

1. Deal with the issue of disrespect by students. This included student-to-student and student-to-staff disrespect. In essence, they talked about improving school climate.

2. Enforce the rules firmly, fairly, and consistently that you already have on the books. They stressed that too many times there is the reality and/or the perception that certain groups of students (athletes, honor students, "regular kids" - in their words, special education students, etc.) are disciplined, treated, and viewed differently by adults.

3. Tighten up security, but don't create a prison-like environment. They stressed reducing the number of open doors, identifying visitors, and even said that they would welcome school resource officers providing that the officers could relate to, and work effectively with, kids. They talked about other issues too, but I think that you get the point.

Makes good sense to me.


QUESTION: What are your thoughts about "zero tolerance" policies?

KEN TRUMP: I always begin my opinion on zero tolerance with simple questions such as:

What did school officials have BEFORE all of the "new" zero tolerance programs? A 50% tolerance for weapons and threats? 75% tolerance?

Personally, I would love to hear more reporters seriously ask these questions. I honestly believe that most school officials would not know how to begin answering them!

My point is that zero tolerance has become political rhetoric. All schools should have always had firm, fair, and consistent enforcement of school rules and the law. It should not be something "new" or a unique program.

Threats should be taken seriously. Even if nine out of ten threats turn out to be unsubstantiated, students need to know that they will be taken seriously and that making them will result in an investigation. They also need to know that there will be consequences for their actions.

It seems that most people agree that threats need to be treated seriously and that they should receive more attention than just "kids will be kids" positions by adults. The problem, however, seems to rest not in whether there should be such serious treatement or consequences in general, but rather the appropriateness of the consequences. Each threat situation should be looked at in terms of the context in which it was made and a variety of other considerations, but the bottom line question is whether the consequences are consistent with the district's discipline policies, student handbooks, etc. for threat offenses --- and do they reflect a bit of common sense???

Looking back over my 15 years in the school safety field, I have watched the pendulum swing from denial and inaction to overreaction and the complete dismissal of common sense in some cases.

I believe that the zero tolerance phrase originally came about as a "get tough" and "be consistent" position. As I previously commented, however, I believe that it is such a political buzzword today that it is even unclear if it carries the same weight as it did in the early years of its use.

I strongly support firm, fair, and consistent school discipline. But I also believe that we have to leave some room for discretion and common sense by school administrators. Perhaps the real issue is the quality of the administrator, and whether he or she has common sense. Unfortunately, I have yet to see how we can legislate common sense or mandate it by policy.


QUESTION: What can schools do to address the more common, everyday kinds of violence?

KEN TRUMP: Schools can work on the more common forms of violence such as hall fights, pushing, harassment and ridicule by:

1. Focusing on school climate issues such as respect and diversity

2. Implementing conflict resolution programs where kids learn to peaceably solve their disputes

3. Use of violence prevention curriculum, "no bullying" programs, etc.

4. Firm, fair, and consistent enforcement of school rules through progressive discipline and, if the situation is a violation of the law, reporting of crimes to law enforcement

5. Having adequate and effective adult supervision of students, especially in common areas such as hallways, stairwells, playgrounds, cafeterias, bus drop-off and pick-up areas, and other places where we typically find a larger number of students, greater concentration of students in smaller areas, "high traffic" areas with greater pupil movement, and less adult supervision.

 
Back to "IN CASE YOU MISSED IT . . ."