What our schools need to do to protect students from killers

On February 14th, our nation witnessed yet another mass shooting which left 17 innocent students and faculty dead at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. It was the third deadliest shooting at a school or university since 1999.

Our national discourse has been reignited with respect to the safety and security of our schools. I believe school building safety and security merits serious and extensive reexamination.

I approach this topic not just as a concerned Pennsylvanian, not just as a father of four, but as someone with extensive training and experience in the topic of building security.

As a former United States Marshal, I have been personally responsible for security planning and implementation at four federal courthouses across 33 counties in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The steps I believe need to be taken are not only derived from over two decades of personal experience, but also from consultation with former colleagues who are globally-recognized experts in the field of building security.

The U.S. and State Department of Education as well as many school districts have taken significant and worthwhile measures to prevent tragedy from striking and to mitigate the loss of life should tragedy strike. But, we would be mistaken to assume that the status quo in our state is adequate when it comes to prevention and preparedness.  It doesn’t take an expert to recognize that two Pennsylvania students, who might be separated by nothing more than a township line, can find themselves subject to two dramatically different standards of protection.

School administrators and faculty must be trained and prepared to address an active shooter situation as part of a broader Comprehensive School Safety Plan (CSSP).

Boiled down to its essence, a CSSP should consist of three phases: Assessment, Planning, and Training.

It is my strongly held conviction that finite school safety resources should not be allocated without a professionally-conducted preliminary needs assessment. Without an objective evaluation of a school’s assets and unique needs, the potential exists for taxpayer dollars to be mismanaged or spent with suboptimal efficacy. It should be determined whether the school effectively utilizes physical access control mechanisms and other technology-based security tactics to protect students.

After a preliminary needs assessment has been completed, a unique safety plan must be developed for the school. This presents one of our major policy hurdles – simply stated, “onesize-fits-all” plans do not work. Customization is the name of the game.

Every school’s customized campus protection program should align existing security protocols and infrastructure with global best practices, giving careful consideration to the uniqueness of each school. Plans should identify critical locations, vital emergency equipment, and personnel duties at each school.  Plan developers, along with school administrators and staff members, should compose a guide for implementing, evaluating, and sustaining the program. Goals and objectives, as well as milestone timelines should be established for their individual program.

The third, and arguably the most important phase of a Comprehensive School Safety Plan is training. Unpreparedness becomes more evident as the seriousness or complexity of the event rises. Robust training acclimates responders to stress.  To anyone who questions the appropriateness of subjecting educators to rigorous active shooter training, I would respectfully remind them that in the absence of armed security personnel, school staff becomes the student’s de facto security detail.

Even after school systems adequately assess, plan, and train, there must be understanding that there is a shelf life to what they have accomplished. A robust protection program requires incremental modification. Every year, staff people come and go, workspaces and classrooms change, facilities are altered, and the benefits of training fade. Constant and intentional refreshment of all phases should be thought of as the “new normal” on school campuses.

I am a firm believer in local control, but the complex nature of this endeavor necessitates professionalized outside involvement and uniformity. On some level, I believe it would be unrealistic and unfair for individuals trained in education to develop and implement CSSP’s unilaterally. Collaboration with local school officials will be important, but standardization and quality are paramount.

Instead of requiring principals and district superintendents to assess, plan, and train staff themselves, perhaps a more realistic expectation would be managing, tracking, and documenting compliance with new requirements and mandates related to school safety.

The time for proactive policymaking is now and I am actively working on legislation to encompass the Comprehensive School Safety Plan that I have outlined. Nothing is more important than the safety of our children.

Sen. Mike Regan is a Republican from Carroll Township.