2.5.07 - Impotent Expressions of Frustration: Evaluating student threats that use a magic word
I would like to look specifically at how to best assess student threats. I am concerned mainly with how to handle impotent expressions of frustration and anger that include a zero-tolerance “magic word,” such as “gun” or “kill.” I recognize the need to circle the wagons to protect other students but I don’t necessarily always want there to be an out-of-school suspension pending an evaluation, especially when a “threat” is equivocal and not imminent. I also don’t expect a building principal to have to bear the weight of making threat assessment decisions on his or her own.
Despite the media’s portrayal, schools still remain some of our safest places in America. We could probably debate all day long about why we went from a nation with “nothing to fear but fear itself” to a nation of fearing everything. As an aside, in my opinion the media spews fear to keep people glued to 24-7 news stations, and the governments tend to spew fear to stay in power and to keep us from questioning the government’s policies. Consequently, operating in a state of fear when these impotent expressions occur is somewhat understandably but not necessarily in the best interests of the students.
One possible alternative to a building administrator bearing the burden of making a threat assessment is to have a Student Threat Assessment Team that immediately addresses a situation. This was done in the Willamette Education Service District with their Student Threat Assessment Team. This paradigm recognizes that threats are commonplace in schools, students typically do not act on their threats, and those who plan violent attacks often don’t threaten their victims beforehand. It also recognizes the economies of scale in doing this through an ESD.
Their system is designed to look at targeted violence (plotting and planning ahead to harm someone) versus reactive violence (a visceral response to an emotionally-charged situation which often cools down when the situation is addressed quickly). This system requires cooperation among agencies including representatives from law enforcement, juvenile justice, mental health, child welfare, school districts and the ESD.
The Willamette ESD system was put into place to help curb schools’ overreaction to threats in light of ORS 339.250 (requiring the principal to consider “[r]equiring the student to be evaluated by a licensed mental health professional before allowing the student to return to the classroom setting.”). Willamette ESD recognized that this process was cumbersome due to the time it takes to get the evaluation, the lack of qualified evaluators, and possibly the lack of a qualified evaluation process.
Their process breaks down like this for the most part:
- Administrator determines if there is a need for the school’s onsite safety team to review a situation. If it is unfounded, then he/she doesn’t refer it.
- School’s safety team (administrator, counselor, law enforcement officer and someone who knows the student, such as a teacher or case worker): They determine if a heightened assessment is needed. If not they institute a safety plan (monitoring, behavior modification, increased supervision, etc.).
- If heightened assessment is needed, the student is given in-school suspension and the ESD’s Student Threat Assessment Team comes in to investigate. They can do a safety plan which includes a recommendation for suspension pending a mental health evaluation. Their job would be to scurry around shortly after an incident occurs to gather facts about the situation. They would interview all the fact witnesses, the teacher that knows the student best, and the parents to do an initial common sense assessment.
ADVANTAGES OF A THREAT ASSESSMENT TEAM:
It keeps academically vulnerable students at school if they are not a real threat, and it gets the real threats into the system quickly. The current system has the tendency of treating all “magic word” threats the same, causing the community resources to be spread too thin and causing the district to be seen as one that cries wolf.
This process allows a qualified group from outside the system to make a decision about the threat level. Juvenile Court judges struggle over decisions like this on a daily basis, but they get the input of child welfare, attorneys, and law enforcement. It’s a lot to ask a principal to make a decision about the threat level without giving him the resources needed to make such a decision. Systems that appear to have zero-tolerance to “magic word” threats have a chilling effect on the students notifying administration of threatening comments. In other words, if students think a jokingly said comment will get blown out of proportion, they will withhold the information. This is not the way break the student code of silence.
Disadvantages of this system:
It is time and resource intensive in establishing and implementing, which necessitates ESD’s involvement. However, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The current interpretation of the statute tends to send angry and frustrated students home pending an evaluation where they have time to go from reactive violence to targeted violence (if they are truly risks). Out of sight out of mind doesn’t always address the problem and can make it worse.
Willamette ESD has a PowerPoint slide show which can be viewed in its entirety through the link below. I have attached their flow chart. I strongly recommend reading the linked material, especially the real-life examples of its implementation.
http://www.wesd.org/instr_svcs/files/safe%20schools/aesa%202006%20student%20threat%20assessment%20powerpoint.pdf
