A different take on protecting children

[Sleuth]

OK, is a hot topic, but I would like your input:

At most schools, the response to any threat other than a fire is "lockdown", holding the kids and teachers in nice, discreet packets. If the shooter enters the room, the kids are in a tight group, making one large target.

What do you think about training the kids to run outdoors, to different locations? (This would be particularly useful at schools where each room has an outside door.)

1. Hitting a moving target is much harder than most people think. Then it takes time to shift from target to target.
2. This would force a shooter to take more time - time for police/guards/teachers/staff to respond. (I'll not get into the armed/unarmed issue here).
3. The dispersed students, even in groups, reduce the 'target rich' environment for the shooter, and perhaps leave him/her/it isolated in the school, to be neutralized by responders.

Your views?

[Iowa #1603]

In theory it sounds like a better plan


HOWEVER....................children "running wild" frees them from the supervision of the school staff & lets face it , kids don't always have the best decision making skills.

When I drop my children off at school (especially grade school age) I expect them to be fully supervised at all times by competent staff who are always with them.

I think letting children flee in different directions would be a liability risk for the district


I like the discussion tho.......................

[Tom S]

It might work on a single story building with windows that open. On a two story or taller, the gunman could just set up at the end of the hallway with a lawn chair and a 44 oz Big Gulp and own the corridor. I think a better solution would be solid doors with heavy dead bolts that could be locked from the inside, then shelter in place.

[Hyperion]

In theory I prefer the lockdown policy opposed to letting kids disperse turning it into a free for all. It will depend on the individual building, but the ability to lock a classroom from the inside, and/or barricade the door and deny access to a shooter can save lives. We have seen quick response times to these incidents recently and I am a proponent of anything we can do to buy time for the responders.

One thing of particular note is what other countries that face real terrorist threats do to protect their schools. I was recently in a middle eastern country where all the schools I saw were surrounded by walls and had a controlled access point. On the surface it's the kind of thing that people don't want to associate with their kid's elementary school, but it seems somewhat effective. They didn't look like prisons or anything of the sort, just schools with a stone wall around them with an officer at the gate. Like Col Grossman talks about in "On Combat" people will still refuse to accept that violence can happen to their children in school, regardless of the reality.

[Guest]

I think lock down is the way to go. All of my schools had heavy classroom doors and would be hard to kick open. They also has a very small window.

I think the best way to protect the kids is to add better locks to these doors and keep the door locked while class is in session. If someone needs to come in while class is in session they knock and will be let in by the teacher once identity is made through the window.

Also have a Police Officer in every school

I do not think having the children run around is a good idea. If the guy is outside trying to shoot them and the police arrive, a child may get hit in the crossfire if there is an exchange of fire between the police and suspect.

[PhilipCal]

Looking for the perfect option? There ain't one. That said, and taking your thoughts into consideration, "lock down" is probably the best option. Not perfect, but the best one on the table currently. Just my .02

[Max K]

What do you think about training the kids to run outdoors, to different locations? (This would be particularly useful at schools where each room has an outside door.) Your views?

My view is that this is a complex problem with many variables. I would want to know the opinion of the SWAT team commanders who responded to some of the worst "gun-free zone" massacres. Also I would like to see this in a software simulation, where you could change any of the variables, such as: how many children, what age, percentage likelihood that they will act as trained, number of shooters, weaponry of shooters, is the school a gun-free zone (=more dead bodies), are any school employees likely to be armed, etc.

[Max K]

We ain't gonna tip our hand on here...

Hmm. That makes sense, but it also means that the original poster's question perhaps SHOULD NOT be answered in any real way, outside of a 'harmless' coffee table conversation with speculation about what might happen. I think I've wandered into a more serious topic than I realized. Then again, there is the school response and the police response: maybe the school response is okay to talk about (but not the police response).

[crass cop]

In a perfect world it would be great....., but in reality kids and possibly teachers WILL panic and run into the street, some could just run away and become unaccounted for, there could be a sniper in the bushes nearby,(like those boys tried to do in Kentucky years ago I think?), some panicky mom drives her SUV into a group of kids darting between cars, etc, etc.
It would be better to be in lockdown with secure doors and windows and not to be released until the police advise all is clear.


We could "what if" it to death though

[Tom S]

With each of these tragedies, lessons are learned and prevention/response is modified. And for each modification, a potential perp will change his plans and come up with a work around. Cat and mouse, mouse and cat. My mind already sees the next soft spot. Sigh.

[codemanski]

With each of these tragedies, lessons are learned and prevention/response is modified. And for each modification, a potential perp will change his plans and come up with a work around. Cat and mouse, mouse and cat. My mind already sees the next soft spot. Sigh.

Perhaps that's the answer to the question. Rather then ONE response protocol, have two, or three or more. "Change it up" so the perp doesn't know what to expect. I'll leave it at that...TMI on a public forum isn't very healthy.

[SgtScott31]

Hmm. That makes sense, but it also means that the original poster's question perhaps SHOULD NOT be answered in any real way, outside of a 'harmless' coffee table conversation with speculation about what might happen. I think I've wandered into a more serious topic than I realized. Then again, there is the school response and the police response: maybe the school response is okay to talk about (but not the police response).

It's public knowledge that active shooter incidents are going to be attacked immediately by the first on-scene officers. How they "attack" is information we won't mention here.

[Sleuth]

Thank you all for your thoughts - Max K in particular.
My thinking is colored by:
My wife is on the local school board, and
Response time to our school can be 45 minutes - or more (big county, few SO deputies)

And I think we can OPSEC ourselves to the point where good ideas are unknown outside of the officer(s) who though it up.
Please remember, discussion here is NOT adoption by any particular school district.

So, any other thoughts?
(Max K, existing school construction is a major issue. One school has a playground right along a major highway, with only a 4 foot chain link fence. Anyone driving by could have a field day.)