home | faq | registered students log-in | join our mailing list | e-mail us | to order

This course meets the qualifications for 7 hours of continuing education

CA BBS, FL, NAADAC, NBCC, TX SBEPC, TXBSWE

April 17, 2007 I watch with horror as the events from Virginia Tech emerge. A massacre on campus; 32 people killed, then the killer committed suicide. He chained the doors closed so no rescue workers could come in. "The rampage consisted of two attacks, more than two hours apart - first at a dormitory, where two people were killed, then inside a classroom building, where 31 people, including Cho, died after being locked inside, Virginia State Police said. Cho committed suicide; two guns were found in the classroom building." "A SOUTH Korean student railed against "rich kids, debauchery and deceitful charlatans" in a note he left behind before carrying out the deadliest school shooting in US history, US media reported. The 23-year-old student wrote: “You caused me to do this,” in a several-page-long note that he left in his dorm room, ABC News reported. The note began in the present tense and then shifted to the past tense as Cho Seung-Hui explained his actions amid a rambling list of grievances cited by the Chicago Tribune. Cho wrote the note in his door room after he killed two people in another dorm room, ABC reported. He then re-armed and went to a classroom building on the other side of campus where he killed 30 more people before shooting himself in the head, sources told ABC. Cho had also shown recent signs of “violent, aberrant behaviour,” including stalking women and setting a fire in a dorm room, investigators in Virginia told the Chicago Tribune. Authorities found a receipt for a Glock 9 millimetre handgun, bought on March 13, in Cho's backpack which also contained two knives and a cache of bullets, ABC reported. He bought his second weapon, a .22 caliber pistol, within the last week, ABC reported." (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21577372-1702,00.html)

 

As I was writing this course, this appeared: Student fires gun in Mo. middle school 11 minutes ago JOPLIN, Mo. - A 13-year-old student fired an AK-47 into the ceiling at his middle school Monday morning after confronting a pair of students and administrators, telling them, "please don't make me do this," officials said. No one was injured, and the boy was taken into custody. The student was wearing a mask and pointed the assault rifle at Principal Steve Gilbert and Assistant Superintendent Steve Doerr, Superintendent Jim Simpson said. Simpson said the teen told them "not to make me do this," then fired a shot into the ceiling, breaking a water pipe, and said again: "Please don't make me do this." Joplin police Officer Curt Farmer said officers also found a note in the student's backpack indicating that he had placed an explosive in the school, which has about 700 students. The other students were moved to nearby Joplin Memorial Hall, and the school was closed while officers searched the building. The armed student, whose identity wasn't released, apparently had been planning an attack for a "long time," Simpson said. He didn't elaborate and said authorities did not know whether others were involved. It wasn't immediately clear how the boy got access to the assault rifle. The shooting happened about 7:45 a.m., 10 minutes before the start of classes. Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press

 

The week of horror, the week of  torture, the week in which there were three school shootings, has passed. Children and adults are being murdered in our schools, and we seem powerless to protect them. From Wednesday September 27, to Monday, October 2, 2006 there were three school shootings in the United States. This course will look at two different types of school shootings: children who kill in their schools, and adults who go to a school and kill. We will try to make sense of the insensible. Included in this course are excerpts from: National Threat Assessment Center Secret Service Safe School Initiative Checklist of Characteristics of Youth Who Have Caused School-Associated Violent Deaths The School Shooter: A THREAT ASSESSMENT PERSPECTIVE by the Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG) National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC) FBI Academy Portrait of a killer: Jeff Weise, including his graphic Internet postings and Flash movies Assessing Potentially Violent Students. Adults who kill students Practical Suggestions for Assisting Children in the Aftermath of a Tragedy Reprinted from A Practical Guide for Crisis Response in Our Schools © 2003 by The American Academy of Experts in Traumatic Stress Preventing Bullying The Fundamentals of School Security Practical Information on Crisis Planning: A Guide for Schools and Communities: Lockdown Drills

Here is a list of school shootings: October, 3, 2006 - First-grader has loaded gun in school- A 6-year-old first-grader was caught showing a loaded .38-caliber pistol to other students during lunch and breakfast breaks at Cumberland Elementary October 2, 2006 - Charles Carl Roberts IV walked into a small schoolhouse and murdered Anna Mae Stoltzfus, age 12, Marian Fisher, 13; Naomi Rose Ebersol, 7; Mary Liz Miller, 8, and her 7-year-old sister, Lina. Another five girls are hovering between life and death. Roberts bound the girls and apparently planned to molest them before he shot them, execution style, before killing himself. September 27, 2006 - Duane Morrison, 53, took several female students hostage in a Platte Canyon High School classroom, before releasing four of them. Morrison shot one of two remaining hostages, 16-year-old Emily Keyes, as a SWAT team blasted its way into the room. He then shot himself. Sept. 29, 2006: Eric Hainstock, 15, took two guns to a school in rural Cazenovia, Wis., and fatally shot the principal, a day after the principal gave him a disciplinary warning for having tobacco on school grounds, police said. Sep. 13 2006: Kimveer Gill, 25, took a Beretta Cx4 Storm carbine, a Glock 9mm handgun, and a Norinco HP9-1 short barrelled shotgun to Montreal's Dawson College, where the shooting rampage left a young woman dead and 19 others wounded. Kimveer Gill-Self-Portrait     Aug. 24, 2006: Christopher Williams, 27, went to an elementary school in Essex, Vt., looking for his ex-girlfriend, a teacher. He couldn't find her and fatally shot one teacher and wounded another, police said. Williams also killed his ex-girlfriend's mother, according to authorities. He shot himself twice in the head after the rampage and was arrested. March 21, 2005: Jeff Weise, 16, shot and killed five schoolmates, a teacher and an unarmed guard at a high school on the Red Lake Indian Reservation in Minnesota before taking his own life. Weise had earlier killed his grandfather and his grandfather's companion. Nov. 22, 2004: Desmond Keels, 16, is accused of fatally shooting one student and wounding three others outside Strawberry Mansion High in Philadelphia. The attack apparently was over a $50 debt in a rap contest. Keels is to stand trial for murder later this month. April 24, 2003: James Sheets, 14, shot and killed the principal in the crowded cafeteria of a junior high school in south-central Pennsylvania, before killing himself. May 26, 2000: Nathaniel Brazill, 13, killed his English teacher on the last day of classes in Lake Worth, Fla., after the teacher refused to let him talk with two girls in his classroom. He was convicted of second-degree murder and is serving a 28-year sentence. April 20, 1999: Students Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 23 before killing themselves at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo. May 21, 1998: Two teenagers were killed and more than 20 people hurt when a teenage boy opened fire at a high school in Springfield, Ore., after killing his parents. Kip Kinkel, 17, was sentenced to nearly 112 years in prison. March 24, 1998: Two boys, ages 11 and 13, fired on their Jonesboro, Ark., middle school from nearby woods, killing four girls and a teacher and wounding 10 others. Both boys were later convicted of murder and can be held until age 21. Dec. 1, 1997: Three students were killed and five wounded at a high school in West Paducah, Ky. Michael Carneal, then 14, later pleaded guilty but mentally ill to murder and is serving life in prison. Oct. 1, 1997: Luke Woodham, 16, of Pearl, Miss., fatally shot two students and wounded seven others after stabbing his mother to death. He was sentenced the following year to three life sentences. (source: Jill Tucker, John Koopman, San Francisco Chronicle Tuesday, October 3, 2006)   International School Terrorist Attack: The massacre in Beslan, Russia began on September 1, 2004, when Muslim Chechen terrorists stormed a middle school, taking more than 1200 school children and adults hostage. It ended three days later in a shootout with Russian security forces. Of the 344 civilians killed, 186 of them children. Hundreds more were wounded. (For more information on the Belkan School Siege, please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis)

Students who kill

Darkness to Light, a sexual abuse prevention organization, presents the shocking statistic that 72% of school shootings were perpetrated by kids who had been abused at a younger age. To see the 30-second public service announcement, go to http://www.darkness2light.org/AboutUS/archive_media.asp and follow the prompts for "School".

In their own words, the boys who have killed in America's schools offer a simple suggestion to prevent it from happening again: Listen to us. "I told everyone what I was going to do," said Evan Ramsey, 16, who killed his principal and a student in remote Bethel, Alaska, in 1997. He told so many students about his hit list that his friends crowded the library balcony to watch. One boy brought a camera. "You're not supposed to be up here," one girl told another. "You're on the list." Researchers from the Secret Service have completed a detailed analysis of 37 school shootings. They reviewed case files and interviewed 10 of the shooters. The Secret Service shared the results of its Safe School Initiative with the Chicago Sun-Times. As it turns out, kids at school usually knew what would happen because the shooters had told them, but the bystanders didn't warn anyone. That disturbing pattern gives hope: If kids plan, there is time to intervene. If kids tell, teachers or parents might be able to learn what a student is planning--if they take time to ask. Together, the school shooters make a diverse class portrait. They are white, black, Hispanic, Asian, Native Alaskan. They were in public schools and Christian schools. Few had a mental illness, although many were desperate and depressed. The shooters do share one characteristic: They are all boys. As a Secret Service consultant says, "If every parent went away from this, not worrying that their boy is going to kill someone, but listening and paying attention to depression, we'd be better off." Dedham, Bill, Examining the psyche of an adolescent killer, October 15, 2000, Chicago Sun-Times

 

There are five prevailing factors, established by Robin Kowalski, Ph.D., based upon  her research of 15 high-profile school shootings between 1995 and 2001: obsession with guns and death, feelings of ongoing rejection (either bullying, social isolation or romantic rejection), psychological problems such as sociopathic tendencies and depression and "acute rejection" -- a final event that pushes a shooter over the edge.

 

National Threat Assessment Center Secret Service Safe School Initiative In 2002, the U.S. Secret Service completed the Safe School Initiative, a study of school shootings and other school-based attacks that was conducted in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Education. The study examined school shootings in the United States as far back as 1974, through the end of the school year in 2000, analyzing a total of 37 incidents involving 41 student attackers. The study involved extensive review of police records, school records, court documents, and other source materials, and included interviews with 10 school shooters. The focus of the study was on developing information about the school shooters's pre-attack behaviors and communications. The goal was to identify information about a school shooting that may be identifiable or noticeable before the shooting occurs, to help inform efforts to prevent school-based attacks. The study found that school shootings are rarely impulsive acts. Rather, they are typically thought out and planned out in advance. In addition, prior to most shootings other kids knew the shooting was to occur - but did not alert an adult. Very few of the attackers, however, ever directed threats to their targets before the attack. The study findings also revealed that there is no "profile" of a school shooter; instead, the students who carried out the attacks differed from one another in numerous ways. However, almost every attacker had engaged in behavior before the shooting that seriously concerned at least one adult - and for many had concerned three or more different adults. The findings from the study suggest that some school attacks may be preventable, and that students can play an important role in prevention efforts. Using the study findings, the Secret Service and Department of Education have modified the Secret Service threat assessment approach for use in schools - to give school and law enforcement professionals tools for investigating threats in school, managing situations of concern, and creating safe school climates. At the completion of the Safe School Initiative, the Secret Service and Department of Education published two reports that detail the study findings and lay out a process for threat assessment in schools: Final Report and Findings: Implications for Prevention of School Attacks in the United States pdf - 185 Kb Threat Assessment in Schools: A Guide to Managing Threatening Situations and to Creating Safe School Climates pdf - 271 Kb http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac_ssi.shtml

 

There have been calls to arm teachers with guns, to install more metal detectors, and to search students before they enter the school. Do you think these changes would stop children from killing?

Checklist of Characteristics of Youth Who Have Caused School-Associated Violent Deaths The National School Safety Center offers the following checklist derived from tracking school-associated violent deaths in the United States from July 1992 to the present. Follow this link to the School Associated Violent Deaths Report. After studying common characteristics of youngsters who have caused such deaths, NSSC has identified the following behaviors, which could indicate a youth’s potential for harming him/herself or others. Accounts of these tragic incidents repeatedly indicate that in most cases, a troubled youth has demonstrated or has talked to others about problems with bullying and feelings of isolation, anger, depression and frustration. While there is no foolproof system for identifying potentially dangerous students who may harm themselves and/or others, this checklist provides a starting point. These characteristics should serve to alert school administrators, teachers and support staff to address needs of troubled students through meetings with parents, provision of school counseling, guidance and mentoring services, as well as referrals to appropriate community health/social services and law enforcement personnel. Further, such behavior should also provide an early warning signal that safe school plans and crisis prevention/intervention procedures must be in place to protect the health and safety of all school students and staff members so that schools remain safe havens for learning. _______ Has a history of tantrums and uncontrollable angry outbursts. _______ Characteristically resorts to name calling, cursing or abusive language. _______ Habitually makes violent threats when angry. _______ Has previously brought a weapon to school. _______ Has a background of serious disciplinary problems at school and in the community. _______ Has a background of drug, alcohol or other substance abuse or dependency. _______ Is on the fringe of his/her peer group with few or no close friends. _______ Is preoccupied with weapons, explosives or other incendiary devices. _______ Has previously been truant, suspended or expelled from school. _______ Displays cruelty to animals. _______ Has little or no supervision and support from parents or a caring adult. _______ Has witnessed or been a victim of abuse or neglect in the home. _______ Has been bullied and/or bullies or intimidates peers or younger children. _______ Tends to blame others for difficulties and problems s/he causes her/himself. _______ Consistently prefers TV shows, movies or music expressing violent themes and acts. _______ Prefers reading materials dealing with violent themes, rituals and abuse. _______ Reflects anger, frustration and the dark side of life in school essays or writing projects. _______ Is involved with a gang or an antisocial group on the fringe of peer acceptance. _______ Is often depressed and/or has significant mood swings. _______ Has threatened or attempted suicide. Developed by the National School Safety Center © 1998 Dr. Ronald D. Stephens, Executive Director - PERMISSION TO REPRINT FOR PROFESSIONAL PURPOSE AS LONG AS CREDIT IS GIVEN TO NSSC.

The children who kill often have been sexually abused and bullied.  Their mental and physiological state must be one of profound fear. They are depressed, and feel helpless and overwhelmed. They tell people their plans. No one picks up on the pain, the alienation. They are often lonely and isolated. The survival response is activated; flight or fight, and they fight. Finding a weapon, the overwhelmed psyche of these children finally decides to fight back. The result is deadly, to themselves and to others.

A sad commentary is now equal rights have arrived to the arena of school shootings. ONE HURT IN US SCHOOL SHOOTING WILLIAMSPORT: A 14-year-old girl opened fire with a handgun in the crowded cafeteria of a Roman Catholic school on Wednesday, wounding a female classmate in the second US school shooting in three days, the police said. The first school shooting in recent years to involve a female suspect unfolded at Bishop Neumann High School when eighth-grader Elizabeth Bush allegedly walked up behind 13-year-old Kimberly Marchese in a crowd of 115 students and shot her in the right shoulder with a .22 calibre handgun. Marchese was hospitalised in stable condition at a regional trauma centre. Reuters http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010309/world.htm Brenda Ann Spencer - her reason for shooting up the school was because she "didn't like Mondays." You can read more about her on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenda_Ann_Spencer And then there was a female shooter named Laurie Dann. However, she wasn't a student, but a mentally unstable young woman. I don't know if technically she could be consider a school shooter, although she did kill a child in a school. You can read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Dann

Excerpts from: The School Shooter: A THREAT ASSESSMENT PERSPECTIVE Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG) National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC) FBI Academy Quantico, Virginia 22135 Mary Ellen O'Toole, PhD Supervisory Special Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation Why would a student bring a weapon to school and without any explicable reason open fire on fellow students and teachers? Are school shooters angry? Are they crazy? Is their motive revenge? Hatred for the victims? A hunger for attention?The origins of human violence are complex. Thinkers, historians, and scientists have explored the issue for centuries, but answers remain elusive. The roots of a violent act are multiple, intricate, and intertwined. The mix of factors varies according to the individual and the circumstances. Understanding violence after it has occurred is difficult enough. Trying to assess a threat and keep it from being carried out is even more of a challenge. This monograph presents a systematic procedure for threat assessment and intervention. The model is designed to be used by educators, mental health professionals and law enforcement agencies. Obviously, the same events that led the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC) to this subject have also led school administrators and law enforcement officials across the country to consider and develop their own policies and procedures for dealing with threats or acts of violence in schools. This model is offered in the hope that it may help refine and strengthen those efforts. Its fundamental building blocks are the threat assessment standards outlined in Chapter II, which provide a framework for evaluating a spoken, written, and symbolic threat, and the four-pronged assessment approach, which will be described in Chapter III and provides a logical, methodical process to examine the threatener and assess the risk that the threat will be carried out. This model is not a "profile" of the school shooter or a checklist of danger signs pointing to the next adolescent who will bring lethal violence to a school. Those things do not exist. Although the risk of an actual shooting incident in any one school is very low, threats of violence are potentially a problem in any school. Once a threat is made, having a fair, rational, and standardized method of evaluating and responding to threats is critically important. The School Shooter Phenomenon and Threat Assessment Adolescent violence in general, and homicides in particular, have decreased since l993, but that hopeful trend has been somewhat obscured in the nationwide wave of concern over school shootings of the type examined in NCAVC's study. This recent form of adolescent violence is in fact quite rare. But the sudden, senseless deaths of teenagers and teachers in the middle of a school day, for no comprehensible reason, is far more shocking and gets far more attention than the less extreme acts of violence that happen in schools every week. Under the intense spotlight of national media coverage, a tragedy such as the Columbine High School shooting spreads horror, shock, and fear to every corner of the country. Educators, mental health professionals, legislators, law enforcement officers, parents, students, and the rest of the public all share a sense of frustration and helplessness and a compulsion to take some quick action that can prevent similar incidents in the future. Though understandable, this impulse can lead communities to forget the wisdom of H. L. Mencken's aphorism: "For every problem, there is a solution which is simple, neat, and wrong." In a knee-jerk reaction, communities may resort to inflexible, one-size-fits-all policies on preventing or reacting to violence. One response to the pressure for action may be an effort to identify the next shooter by developing a "profile" of the typical school shooter. This may sound like a reasonable preventive measure, but in practice, trying to draw up a catalogue or "checklist" of warning signs to detect a potential school shooter can be shortsighted, even dangerous. Such lists, publicized by the media, can end up unfairly labeling many nonviolent students as potentially dangerous or even lethal. In fact, a great many adolescents who will never commit violent acts will show some of the behaviors or personality traits included on the list. In the wake of a school shooting there is often an outcry for immediate response in the form of more stringent security precautions in schools or stricter laws aimed at school violence. However, these demands have been accompanied by little if any concerted and organized effort to understand the roots of school shooting incidents. How did a particular student come to the point of feeling that shooting fellow students and teachers was in some way an answer to his problems or emotional needs? Were there signs along the way -- not a catalogue of traits identifying him as a predicted killer, but clues that could have indicated a need for help? What was the influence of family, friends, and community? The issue facing educators, law enforcement agencies, and the wider public is not how to predict school violence. Reliably predicting any type of violence is extremely difficult. Predicting that an individual who has never acted out violently in the past will do so in the future is still more difficult. Seeking to predict acts that occur as rarely as school shootings is almost impossible. This is simple statistical logic: when the incidence of any form of violence is very low and a very large number of people have identifiable risk factors, there is no reliable way to pick out from that large group the very few who will actually commit the violent act. After a violent incident has taken place, retracing an offender's past and identifying clues that in retrospect could have been signs of danger can yield significant, useful information. However, even clues that appear to help interpret past events should not be taken as predictors of similar events in the future. At this time, there is no research that has identified traits and characteristics that can reliably distinguish school shooters from other students. Many students appear to have traits and characteristics similar to those observed in students who were involved in school shootings. ASSESSING THREATS All threats are NOT created equal. However, all threats should be accessed in a timely manner and decisions regarding how they are handled must be done quickly. In today's climate, some schools tend to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach to any mention of violence. The response to every threat is the same, regardless of its credibility or the likelihood that it will be carried out. In the shock-wave of recent school shootings, this reaction may be understandable, but it is exaggerated -- and perhaps dangerous, leading to potential underestimation of serious threats, overreaction to less serious ones, and unfairly punishing or stigmatizing students who are in fact not dangerous. A school that treats all threats as equal falls into the fallacy formulated by Abraham Maslow: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." Every problem is not a nail, of course, and schools must recognize that every threat does not represent the same danger or require the same level of response. Some threats can herald a clear and present danger of a tragedy on the scale of Columbine High School. Others represent little or no real threat to anyone's safety. Neither should be ignored, but reacting to both in the same manner is ineffective and self-defeating. In every school, an established threat assessment procedure managed by properly trained staff can help school administrators and other school staff distinguish between different levels of threats and choose different appropriate responses. Threat assessment seeks to make an informed judgment on two questions: how credible and serious is the threat itself? And to what extent does the threatener appear to have the resources, intent, and motivation to carry out the threat? A systematic approach to threat assessment should be part of the nationwide approach advocated by Attorney General Janet Reno and Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley in a 1998 letter to principals and teachers, calling for "an overall effort to make sure that every school in the Nation has a comprehensive violence prevention plan in place." Their letter, which introduced the joint Justice and Education Department publication "Early Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools," added this cautionary advice: "We also caution you to recognize that over labeling and using this guide to stigmatize children in a cursory way that leads to overreaction is harmful." The NCAVC threat assessment-intervention model presented in this paper can be used by educators, law enforcement officers, mental health professionals, and others involved in school safety. It outlines a methodical procedure for evaluating a threat and the person making the threat, with the aim of reaching an informed judgment on the danger that a violent act will actually be carried out. To use the model effectively, those making the assessments should have appropriate training. What is a Threat? A threat is an expression of intent to do harm or act out violently against someone or something. A threat can be spoken, written, or symbolic -- for example, motioning with one's hands as though shooting at another person. Threat assessment rests on two critical principles: first, that all threats and all threateners are not equal; second, that most threateners are unlikely to carry out their threat. However, all threats must be taken seriously and evaluated. In NCAVC's experience, most threats are made anonymously or under a false name. Because threat assessment relies heavily on evaluating the threatener's background, personality, lifestyle, and resources, identifying the threatener is necessary for an informed assessment to be made -- and also so criminal charges can be brought if the threat is serious enough to warrant prosecution. If the threatener's identity cannot be determined, the response will have to be based on an assessment of the threat alone. That assessment may change if the threatener is eventually identified: a threat that was considered low risk may be rated as more serious if new information suggests the threatener is dangerous, or conversely, an assessment of high risk may be scaled down if the threatener is identified and found not to have the intent, ability, means, or motive to carry out the threat. Motivation Threats are made for a variety of reasons. A threat may be a warning signal, a reaction to fear of punishment or some other anxiety, or a demand for attention. It may be intended to taunt; to intimidate; to assert power or control; to punish; to manipulate or coerce; to frighten; to terrorize; to compel someone to do something; to strike back for an injury, injustice or slight; to disrupt someone's or some institution's life; to test authority, or to protect oneself. The emotions that underlie a threat can be love; hate; fear; rage; or desire for attention, revenge, excitement, or recognition. Motivation can never be known with complete certainty, but to the extent possible, understanding motive is a key element in evaluating a threat. A threat will reflect the threatener's mental and emotional state at the time the threat was made, but it is important to remember that a state of mind can be temporarily but strongly influenced by alcohol or drugs, or a precipitating incident such as a romantic breakup, failing grades, or conflict with a parent. After a person has absorbed an emotional setback and calmed down, or when the effects of alcohol or drugs have worn off, his motivation to act on a violent threat may also have diminished. Signposts In general, people do not switch instantly from nonviolence to violence. Nonviolent people do not "snap" or decide on the spur of the moment to meet a problem by using violence. Instead, the path toward violence is an evolutionary one, with signposts along the way. A threat is one observable behavior; others may be brooding about frustration or disappointment, fantasies of destruction or revenge, in conversations, writings, drawings, and other actions. Types of Threats Threats can be classed in four categories: direct, indirect, veiled, or conditional. A direct threat identifies a specific act against a specific target and is delivered in a straightforward, clear, and explicit manner: "I am going to place a bomb in the school's gym." An indirect threat tends to be vague, unclear, and ambiguous. The plan, the intended victim, the motivation, and other aspects of the threat are masked or equivocal: "If I wanted to, I could kill everyone at this school!" While violence is implied, the threat is phrased tentatively --" If I wanted to" -- and suggests that a violent act COULD occur, not that it WILL occur. A veiled threat is one that strongly implies but does not explicitly threaten violence. "We would be better off without you around anymore" clearly hints at a possible violent act, but leaves it to the potential victim to interpret the message and give a definite meaning to the threat. A conditional threat is the type of threat often seen in extortion cases. It warns that a violent act will happen unless certain demands or terms are met: "If you don't pay me one million dollars, I will place a bomb in the school." Factors in Threat Assessment Specific, plausible details are a critical factor in evaluating a threat. Details can include the identity of the victim or victims; the reason for making the threat; the means, weapon, and method by which it is to be carried out; the date, time, and place where the threatened act will occur; and concrete information about plans or preparations that have already been made. Specific details can indicate that substantial thought, planning, and preparatory steps have already been taken, suggesting a higher risk that the threatener will follow through on his threat. Similarly, a lack of detail suggests the threatener may not have thought through all of the contingencies, has not actually taken steps to carry out the threat, and may not seriously intend violence but is "blowing off steam" over some frustration or seeking to frighten or intimidate a particular victim or disrupt a school's events or routine. Details that are specific but not logical or plausible may indicate a less serious threat. For example, a high school student writes that he intends to detonate hundreds of pounds of plutonium in the school's auditorium the following day at lunch time. The threat is detailed, stating a specific time, place, and weapon. But the details are unpersuasive. Plutonium is almost impossible to obtain, legally or on the black market. It is expensive, hard to transport, and very dangerous to handle, and a complex high explosive detonation is required to set off a nuclear reaction. No high school student is likely to have any plutonium at all, much less hundreds of pounds, nor would he have the knowledge or complex equipment to detonate it. A threat this unrealistic is obviously unlikely to be carried out. The emotional content of a threat can be an important clue to the threatener's mental state. Emotions are conveyed by melodramatic words and unusual punctuation -- "I hate you!!!!!" "You have ruined my life!!!!" "May God have mercy on your soul!!!!" -- or in excited, incoherent passages that may refer to God or other religious beings or deliver an ultimatum. Though emotionally charged threats can tell the assessor something about the temperament of the threatener, they are not a measure of danger. They may sound frightening, but no correlation has been established between the emotional intensity in a threat and the risk that it will be carried out. Precipitating stressors are incidents, circumstances, reactions, or situations which can trigger a threat. The precipitating event may seem insignificant and have no direct relevance to the threat, but nonetheless becomes a catalyst. For example, a student has a fight with his mother before going to school. The argument may have been a minor one over an issue that had nothing to do with school, but it sets off an emotional chain reaction leading the student to threaten another student at school that day -- possibly something he has thought about in the past. The impact of a precipitating event will obviously depend on "pre-disposing factors": underlying personality traits, characteristics, and temperament that predispose an adolescent to fantasize about violence or act violently. Accordingly, information about a temporary "trigger" must be considered together with broader information about these underlying factors, such as a student's vulnerability to loss and depression. Levels of Risk Low Level of Threat: A threat which poses a minimal risk to the victim and public safety. i Threat is vague and indirect. i Information contained within the threat is inconsistent, implausible or lacks detail. i Threat lacks realism. i Content of the threat suggests person is unlikely to carry it out. Medium Level of Threat: A threat which could be carried out, although it may not appear entirely realistic. i Threat is more direct and more concrete than a low level threat. i Wording in the threat suggests that the threatener has given some thought to how the act will be carried out. i There may be a general indication of a possible place and time (though these signs still fall well short of a detailed plan). i There is no strong indication that the threatener has taken preparatory steps, although there may be some veiled reference or ambiguous or inconclusive evidence pointing to that possibility -- an allusion to a book or movie that shows the planning of a violent act, or a vague, general statement about the availability of weapons. i There may be a specific statement seeking to convey that the threat is not empty: "I'm serious!" or "I really mean this!" High Level of Threat: A threat that appears to pose an imminent and serious danger to the safety of others. i Threat is direct, specific and plausible. i Threat suggests concrete steps have been taken toward carrying it out, for example, statements indicating that the threatener has acquired or practiced with a weapon or has had the victim under surveillance. Example: "At eight o'clock tomorrow morning, I intend to shoot the principal. That's when he is in the office by himself. I have a 9mm. Believe me, I know what I am doing. I am sick and tired of the way he runs this school." This threat is direct, specific as to the victim, motivation, weapon, place, and time, and indicates that the threatener knows his target's schedule and has made preparations to act on the threat. NCAVC's experience in analyzing a wide range of threatening communications suggests that in general, the more direct and detailed a threat is, the more serious the risk of its being acted on. A threat that is assessed as high level will almost always require immediate law enforcement intervention. FOUR-PRONGED ASSESSMENT APPROACH The Four-Pronged Assessment Model This innovative model is designed to assess someone who has made a threat and evaluate the likelihood that the threat will actually be carried out. Anyone can deliver a spoken or written message that sounds foreboding or sinister, but evaluating the threat alone will not establish if the person making it has the intention, the ability, or the means to act on the threat. To make that determination, assessing the threatener is critical. All aspects of a threatener's life must be considered when evaluating whether a threat is likely to be carried out. This model provides a framework for evaluating a student in order to determine if he or she has the motivation, means, and intent to carry out a proclaimed threat. The assessment is based on the "totality of the circumstances" known about the student in four major areas: Prong One: Personality of the student Prong Two: Family dynamics Prong Three: School dynamics and the student's role in those dynamics Prong Four: Social dynamics The 1999 Institutes of Medicine's (IOM) Report on Adolescents, published by the National Science Foundation, states that adolescence is frequently divided into three stages: early (ages 10-14) involving biological puberty, sexual and psychological awakening and self-awareness; middle (ages 15-17) a time of increased autonomy and experimentation and late (ages 18 to early 20's) for those who delay entry into adult independence and autonomy. Each stage produces opportunities, challenges and risks. For example, most (60 percent +) experiment with alcohol and drugs before age 15. Teasing and physical fighting is more frequent at ages 13-14 than at age 16-17. Violent criminal activity generally peaks between the ages of 15-17. About 25 percent of the adolescent population is at high risk for psycho-social problems and poor developmental outcomes such as academic failure, alcohol and other drug abuse, delinquency and problems with the law and violence. Twenty percent have a diagnosable mental health disorder at sometime during adolescence, the highest rate for any age group through the life-span. Adolescents are more diverse and heterogeneous than originally believed. Important interaction between hormonal, social, and environmental factors shape development and behavior during this period. The IOM reports that the social context in which the adolescent is developing has markedly changed during the past decade - with an increase in many negative factors, including less adult supervision. Adolescence now begins earlier - as early as age nine - and is second only to infancy in growth and change. Their social cognition is different from adults and strongly influences the adolescents' decision making. They experience emotions more intensely than adults, process information differently, and as a result make decisions differently. These factors are critical for evaluators to be skilled in recognizing the information gathered and observations of youth. It is important to observe and gather information in order to understand the context of adolescent development (K. Dwyer, personal communication, February 2000). If the student appears to have serious problems in the majority of the four prongs or areas and if the threat is assessed as high or medium level, the threat should be taken more seriously and appropriate intervention by school authorities and/or law enforcement should be initiated as quickly as possible. In order to effect a rapid assessment, it may not be possible to evaluate a student thoroughly in each of the four prongs. Nonetheless, having as much information as possible about a student and his or her life is important in order to determine if that student is capable and under enough stressors to carry out a threat. The following section outlines factors to be considered in each of the four prongs: Personality of the Student: Behavior Characteristics and Traits Understanding adolescent personality development is extremely important in assessing any threat made by someone in that age group. An adolescent's personality is not yet crystallized. It is still developing. During adolescence, young people are likely to explore or engage in what others perceive as strange behavior. Adolescents struggle with vulnerability and acceptance ("Am I lovable and able to love?"), with questions of independence and dependence, and with how to deal with authority, among other difficult issues. Clues to a student's personality can come from observing behavior when the student is: • Coping with conflicts, disappointments, failures, insults, or other stresses encountered in everyday life. • Expressing anger or rage, frustration, disappointment, humiliation, sadness, or similar feelings. • Demonstrating or failing to demonstrate resiliency after a setback, a failure, real or perceived criticism, disappointment, or other negative experiences. • Demonstrating how the student feels about himself, what kind of person the student imagines himself or herself to be, and how the student believes he or she appears to others. • Responding to rules, instruction, or authority figures. • Demonstrating and expressing a desire or need for control, attention, respect, admiration, confrontation, or other needs. • Demonstrating or failing to demonstrate empathy with the feelings and experiences of others. • Demonstrating his or her attitude toward others. (For example, does the student view others as inferior or with disrespect?) Assessors who have not been able to observe a student first-hand should seek information from those who knew the student before he or she made a threat. Family Dynamics Family dynamics are patterns of behavior, thinking, beliefs, traditions, roles, customs and values that exist in a family. When a student has made a threat, knowledge of the dynamics within the student's family -- and how those dynamics are perceived by both the student and the parents -- is a key factor in understanding circumstances and stresses in the student's life that could play a role in any decision to carry out the threat. School Dynamics The relationship between school dynamics and threat assessment has not been empirically established and therefore its level of significance can either increase or decrease depending on additional research into these cases. While it may be difficult for educators/assessors to" critique" their own school, it is necessary to have some level of understanding of the particular dynamics in their school because their school can ultimately become the scene of the crime. School dynamics are patterns of behavior, thinking, beliefs, customs, traditions, roles and values that exist in a school's culture. Some of these patterns can be obvious, and others subtle. Identifying those behaviors which are formally or informally valued and rewarded in a school helps explain why some students get more approval and attention from school authorities and have more prestige among their fellow students. It can also explain the "role" a particular student is given by the school's culture, and how the student may see himself or herself fitting in, or failing to fit in, with the school's value system. Students and staff may have very different perceptions of the culture, customs, and values in their school. Assessors need to be aware of how a school's dynamics are seen by students. A big discrepancy between students' perceptions and the administration's can itself be a significant piece of information for the assessor. Social Dynamics Social dynamics are patterns of behavior, thinking, beliefs, customs, traditions, and roles that exist in the larger community where students live. These patterns also have an impact on students' behavior, their feelings about themselves, their outlook on life, attitudes, perceived options, and lifestyle practices. An adolescent's beliefs and opinions, his choices of friends, activities, entertainment, and reading material, and his attitudes toward such things as drugs, alcohol, and weapons will all reflect in some fashion the social dynamics of the community where he lives and goes to school. Within the larger community, an adolescent's peer group plays an especially crucial role in influencing attitudes and behavior. Information about a student's choice of friends and relations with his peers can provide valuable clues to his attitudes, sense of identity, and possible decisions about acting or not acting on a threat. FINDINGS This chapter lists certain types of behavior, personality traits, and circumstances in the family, school, and community environment that should be regarded as warning signs if all or most of them -- in all four categories -- seem to fit a student who has made a threat. It should be strongly emphasized that this list is not intended as a checklist to predict future violent behavior by a student who has not acted violently or threatened violence. Rather, the list should be considered only after a student has made some type of threat and an assessment has been developed using the four-pronged model. If the assessment shows evidence of these characteristics, behaviors and consistent problems in all four areas or prongs, it can indicate that the student may be fantasizing about acting on the threat, has the motivation to carry out the violent act, or has actually taken steps to carry out a threat. The following cautions should also be emphasized: 1. No one or two traits or characteristics should be considered in isolation or given more weight than the others. Any of these traits, or several, can be seen in students who are not contemplating a school shooting or other act of violence. The key to identifying a potentially dangerous threatener under this four-pronged assessment model is that there is evidence of problems on a majority of the items in each of the four areas. However, there is no "magical" number of traits or constellation of traits which will determine what students may present a problem . Hopefully, subsequent empirical research in this area will determine which are the significant traits and how they should be weighted. However, a practical and common sense application of this model indicates that the more problems which are identified in each of the four prongs, the greater the level of concern for the assessor. 2. Behavior is an expression of personality, but one bad day may not reflect a student's real personality or usual behavior pattern. Accurately evaluating someone's behavior requires establishing a baseline -- how he or she typically behaves most of the time. Those responsible for assessing a student should seek information from people who have known the student over a period of time and have been able to observe him in varying situations and with a variety of people. 3. Many of the behaviors and traits listed below are seen in depressed adolescents with narcissistic personality characteristics and other possible mental health problems. Despite the overlap between this list and diagnostic symptoms, evaluation under the four-pronged threat assessment model cannot be a substitute for a clinical diagnosis of mental illness. Signs of serious mental illness and/or substance abuse disorders can significantly elevate the risk for violence and should be evaluated by a mental health professional. The following list of behaviors and traits, grouped in the four areas of the assessment model, was developed from three sources: NCAVC's extensive experience in assessing threats for over two decades, including current cases of threats made in schools; ideas presented at the 1999 Leesburg symposium; and NCAVC's intensive review of eighteen school shooting cases. Subject to the cautionary points mentioned above, the list identifies particular behaviors, personality traits and family, school and social dynamics that may be associated with violence. Prong One: Personality Traits and Behavior Leakage " Leakage" occurs when a student intentionally or unintentionally reveals clues to feelings, thoughts, fantasies, attitudes, or intentions that may signal an impending violent act. These clues can take the form of subtle threats, boasts, innuendos, predictions, or ultimatums. They may be spoken or conveyed in stories, diary entries, essays, poems, letters, songs, drawings, doodles, tattoos, or videos. Another form of leakage involves efforts to get unwitting friends or classmates to help with preparations for a violent act, at times through deception (for example, the student asks a friend to obtain ammunition for him because he is going hunting). Leakage can be a cry for help, a sign of inner conflict, or boasts that may look empty but actually express a serious threat. Leakage is considered to be one of the most important clues that may precede an adolescent's violent act. An example of leakage could be a student who shows a recurring preoccupation with themes of violence, hopelessness, despair, hatred, isolation, loneliness, nihilism, or an "end-of-the-world" philosophy. Those themes may be expressed in conversation or in jokes or in seemingly offhand comments to friends, teachers, other school employees, parents, or siblings. Statements may be subtle, or immediately minimized by comments such as," I was just joking," or "I didn't really mean that." Another example of leakage could be recurrent themes of destruction or violence appearing in a student's writing or artwork. The themes may involve hatred, prejudice, death, dismemberment, mutilation of self or others, bleeding, use of excessively destructive weapons, homicide, or suicide. Many adolescents are fascinated with violence and the macabre, and writings and drawings on these themes can be a reflection of a harmless but rich and creative fantasy life. Some adolescents, however, seem so obsessed with these themes that they emerge no matter what the subject matter, the conversation, the assignment, or the joke. In an actual case, a student was taking a home economics class and was assigned to bake something. He baked a cake in the shape of a gun. His school writings and other work also contained recurrent themes of violence. Low Tolerance for Frustration The student is easily bruised, insulted, angered, and hurt by real or perceived injustices done to him by others and has great difficulty tolerating frustration. Poor Coping Skills The student consistently shows little if any ability to deal with frustration, criticism, disappointment, failure, rejection, or humiliation. His or her response is typically inappropriate, exaggerated, immature, or disproportionate. Lack of Resiliency The student lacks resiliency and is unable to bounce back even when some time has elapsed since a frustrating or disappointing experience, a setback, or putdown. Failed Love Relationship The student may feel rejected or humiliated after the end of a love relationship, and cannot accept or come to terms with the rejection. "Injustice Collector" The student nurses resentment over real or perceived injustices. No matter how much time has passed, the "injustice collector" will not forget or forgive those wrongs or the people he or she believes are responsible. The student may keep a hit list with the names of people he feels have wronged him. Signs of Depression The student shows features of depression such as lethargy, physical fatigue, a morose or dark outlook on life, a sense of malaise, and loss of interest in activities that he once enjoyed. Adolescents may show different signs than those normally associated with depression. Some depressed adolescents may display unpredictable and uncontrolled outbursts of anger, a generalized and excessive hatred toward everyone else, and feelings of hopelessness about the future. Other behaviors might include psychomotor agitation, restlessness, inattention, sleep and eating disorders, and a markedly diminished interest in almost all activities that previously occupied and interested him. The student may have difficulty articulating these extreme feelings. Narcissism The student is self-centered, lacks insight into others' needs and/or feelings, and blames others for failures and disappointments. The narcissistic student may embrace the role of a victim to elicit sympathy and to feel temporarily superior to others. He or she displays signs of paranoia, and assumes an attitude of self-importance or grandiosity that masks feelings of unworthiness (Malmquist, 1996). A narcissistic student may be either very thin-skinned or very thick-skinned in responding to criticism. Alienation The student consistently behaves as though he feels different or estranged from others. This sense of separateness is more than just being a loner. It can involve feelings of isolation, sadness, loneliness, not belonging, and not fitting in. Dehumanizes Others The student consistently fails to see others as fellow humans. He characteristically views other people as "nonpersons" or objects to be thwarted. This attitude may appear in the student's writings and artwork, in interactions with others, or in comments during conversation. Lack of Empathy The student shows an inability to understand the feelings of others, and appears unconcerned about anyone else's feelings. When others show emotion, the student may ridicule them as weak or stupid. Exaggerated Sense of Entitlement The student constantly expects special treatment and consideration, and reacts negatively if he doesn't get the treatment he feels entitled to. Attitude of Superiority The student has a sense of being superior and presents himself as smarter, more creative, more talented, more experienced, and more worldly than others. Exaggerated or Pathological Need for Attention The student shows an exaggerated, even pathological, need for attention, whether positive or negative, no matter what the circumstances. Externalizes Blame The student consistently refuses to take responsibility for his or her own actions and typically faults other people, events or situations for any failings or shortcomings. In placing blame, the student frequently seems impervious to rational argument and common sense. Masks Low Self-esteem Though he may display an arrogant, self-glorifying attitude, the student's conduct often appears to veil an underlying low self-esteem. He avoids high visibility or involvement in school activities, and other students may consider him a nonentity. Anger Management Problems Rather than expressing anger in appropriate ways and in appropriate circumstances, the student consistently tends to burst out in temper tantrums or melodramatic displays, or to brood in sulky, seething silence. The anger may be noticeably out of proportion to the cause, or may be redirected toward people who had nothing to do with the original incident. His anger may come in unpredictable and uncontrollable outbursts, and may be accompanied by expressions of unfounded prejudice, dislike, or even hatred toward individuals or groups. Intolerance The student often expresses racial or religious prejudice or intolerant attitudes toward minorities, or displays slogans or symbols of intolerance in such things as tattoos, jewelry, clothing, bumper stickers, or book covers. Inappropriate Humor The student's humor is consistently inappropriate. Jokes or humorous comments tend to be macabre, insulting, belittling, or mean. Seeks to Manipulate Others The student consistently attempts to con and manipulate others and win their trust so they will rationalize any signs of aberrant or threatening behavior. Lack of Trust The student is untrusting and chronically suspicious of others' motives and intentions. This lack of trust may approach a clinically paranoid state. He may express the belief that society has no trustworthy institution or mechanism for achieving justice or resolving conflict, and that if something bothers him, he has to settle it in his own way. Closed Social Group The student appears introverted, with acquaintances rather than friends, or associates only with a single small group that seems to exclude everyone else. Students who threaten or carry out violent acts are not necessarily loners in the classic sense, and the composition and qualities of peer groups can be important pieces of information in assessing the danger that a threat will be acted on. Change of Behavior The student's behavior changes dramatically. His academic performance may decline, or he may show a reckless disregard for school rules, schedules, dress codes, and other regulations. Rigid and Opinionated The student appears rigid, judgmental and cynical, and voices strong opinions on subjects about which he or she has little knowledge. He disregards facts, logic, and reasoning that might challenge these opinions. Unusual Interest in Sensational Violence The student demonstrates an unusual interest in school shootings and other heavily publicized acts of violence. He may declare his admiration for those who committed the acts, or may criticize them for "incompetence" or failing to kill enough people. He may explicitly express a desire to carry out a similar act in his own school, possibly as an act of "justice." Fascination with Violence-Filled Entertainment The student demonstrates an unusual fascination with movies, TV shows, computer games, music videos or printed material that focus intensively on themes of violence, hatred, control, power, death, and destruction. He may incessantly watch one movie or read and reread one book with violent content, perhaps involving school violence. Themes of hatred, violence, weapons, and mass destruction recur in virtually all his activities, hobbies, and pastimes. The student spends inordinate amounts of time playing video games with violent themes, and seems more interested in the violent images than in the game itself. On the Internet, the student regularly searches for web sites involving violence, weapons, and other disturbing subjects. There is evidence the student has downloaded and kept material from these sites. Negative Role Models The student may be drawn to negative, inappropriate role models such as Hitler, Satan, or others associated with violence and destruction. Behavior Appears Relevant to Carrying Out a Threat The student appears to be increasingly occupied in activities that could be related to carrying out a threat -- for example, spending unusual amounts of time practicing with firearms or on various violent websites. The time spent in these activities has noticeably begun to exclude normal everyday pursuits such as homework, attending classes, going to work, and spending time with friends.   Prong Two: Family Dynamics Turbulent Parent-Child Relationship The student's relationship with his parents is particularly difficult or turbulent. This difficulty or turbulence can be uniquely evident following a variety of factors, including recent or multiple moves, loss of a parent, addition of a step parent, etc. He expresses contempt for his parents and dismisses or rejects their role in his life. There is evidence of violence occurring within the student's home. Acceptance of Pathological Behavior Parents do not react to behavior that most parents would find very disturbing or abnormal. They appear unable to recognize or acknowledge problems in their children and respond quite defensively to any real or perceived criticism of their child. If contacted by school officials or staff about the child's troubling behavior, the parents appear unconcerned, minimize the problem, or reject the reports altogether even if the child's misconduct is obvious and significant. Access to Weapons The family keeps guns or other weapons or explosive materials in the home, accessible to the student. More important, weapons are treated carelessly, without normal safety precautions; for example, guns are not locked away and are left loaded. Parents or a significant role model may handle weapons casually or recklessly and in doing so may convey to children that a weapon can be a useful and normal means of intimidating someone else or settling a dispute. Lack of Intimacy The family appears to lack intimacy and closeness. The family has moved frequently and/or recently. Student "Rules the Roost" The parents set few or no limits on the child's conduct, and regularly give in to his demands. The student insists on an inordinate degree of privacy, and parents have little information about his activities, school life, friends, or other relationships. The parents seem intimidated by their child. They may fear he will attack them physically if they confront or frustrate him, or they may be unwilling to face an emotional outburst, or they may be afraid that upsetting the child will spark an emotional crisis. Traditional family roles are reversed: for example, the child acts as if he were the authority figure, while parents act as if they were the children. No Limits or Monitoring of TV and Internet Parents do not supervise, limit or monitor the student's television watching or his use of the Internet. The student may have a TV in his own room or is otherwise free without any limits to spend as much time as he likes watching violent or otherwise inappropriate shows. The student spends a great deal of time watching television rather than in activities with family or friends. Similarly, parents do not monitor computer use or Internet access. The student may know much more about computers than the parents do, and the computer may be considered off limits to the parents while the student is secretive about his computer use, which may involve violent games or Internet research on violence, weapons, or other disturbing subjects. Prong Three: School Dynamics * *If an act of violence occurs at a school, the school becomes the scene of the crime. As in any violent crime, it is necessary to understand what it is about the school which might have influenced the student's decision to offend there rather than someplace else. While it may be difficult for educators/assessors to "critique" or evaluate their own school, one must have some degree of awareness of these unique dynamics - prior to a threat - in order to assess a student's role in the school culture and to develop a better understanding - from the student's perspective - of why he would target his own school. Student's Attachment to School Student appears to be "detached" from school, including other students, teachers, and school activities. Tolerance for Disrespectful Behavior The school does little to prevent or punish disrespectful behavior between individual students or groups of students. Bullying is part of the school culture and school authorities seem oblivious to it, seldom or never intervening or doing so only selectively. Students frequently act in the roles of bully, victim, or bystander (sometimes, the same student plays different roles in different circumstances). The school atmosphere promotes racial or class divisions or allows them to remain unchallenged. Inequitable Discipline The use of discipline is inequitably applied - or has the perception of being inequitably applied by students and/or staff. Inflexible Culture The school's culture -- official and unofficial patterns of behavior, values, and relationships among students, teachers, staff, and administrators -- is static, unyielding, and insensitive to changes in society and the changing needs of newer students and staff. Pecking Order Among Students Certain groups of students are officially or unofficially given more prestige and respect than others. Both school officials and the student body treat those in the high-prestige groups as though they are more important or more valuable to the school than other students. Code of Silence A "code of silence" prevails among students. Few feel they can safely tell teachers or administrators if they are concerned about another student's behavior or attitudes. Little trust exists between students and staff. Unsupervised Computer Access Access to computers and the Internet is unsupervised and unmonitored. Students are able to use the school's computers to play violent computer games or to explore inappropriate web sites such as those that promote violent hate groups or give instructions for bomb-making. Schools should maintain documentation of all prior incidents or problems involving students so it can be considered in future threat assessments. Prong Four: Social Dynamics Media, Entertainment, Technology The student has easy and unmonitored access to movies, television shows, computer games, and Internet sites with themes and images of extreme violence. Peer Groups The student is intensely and exclusively involved with a group who share a fascination with violence or extremist beliefs. The group excludes others who do not share its interests or ideas. As a result, the student spends little or no time with anyone who thinks differently and is shielded from the "reality check" that might come from hearing other views or perceptions. Drugs and Alcohol Knowledge of a student's use of drugs and alcohol and his attitude toward these substances can be important. Any changes in his behavior involving these substances can also be important. Outside Interests A student's interests outside of school are important to note, as they can mitigate the school's concern when evaluating a threat or increase the level of concern. The Copycat Effect School shootings and other violent incidents that receive intense media attention can generate threats or copycat violence elsewhere. Copycat behavior is very common, in fact. Anecdotal evidence strongly indicates that threats increase in schools nationwide after a shooting has occurred anywhere in the United States. Students, teachers, school administrators and law enforcement officials should be more vigilant in noting disturbing student behavior in the days and weeks or even several months following a heavily publicized incident elsewhere in the country THE INTERVENTION PROCESS A school cannot ignore any threat of violence. Plausible or not, every threat must be taken seriously, investigated, and responded to. A clear, vigorous response is essential for three reasons: first and most important, to make sure that students, teachers, and staff are safe (that is, that a threat will not be carried out); second, to assure that they will feel safe; and third, to assure that the person making the threat will be supervised and given the treatment that is appropriate and necessary to avoid future danger to others or himself. It is not the purpose of this paper to recommend any specific forms of intervention for a particular student or type of threat. School disciplinary policies and appropriate treatment approaches should be determined by school administrators and counseling staff, mental health professionals, and other specialists. Rather, the following discussion focuses on two specific issues: (1) the need for schools to adopt a well thought-out system for responding to threats, and (2) guidelines for the role of law enforcement agencies in the threat-response process. Threat Management In Schools A clear, consistent, rational, and well-structured system for dealing with threats is vitally important in a school. If students or staff feel that threats are not addressed quickly and sensibly, or if school administrators appear overwhelmed and uncertain at every threat, confidence in the school's ability to maintain a safe environment will be seriously undermined. This in turn can seriously disrupt the school's educational program. An effective threat management system will include a standardized method for evaluating threats, and consistent policies for responding to them. A standardized approach will help schools construct a data base, with information on the types and frequency of threats, which may help evaluate the effectiveness of school policies. Consistency in threat response can deter future threats if students perceive that any threat will be reported, investigated, and dealt with firmly. Here are some guidelines for establishing and implementing a threat management system: Inform students and parents of school policies: A school should publicize its threat response and intervention program at the beginning of every school year (or to new students when they transfer into the school). The school should clearly explain what is expected of students -- for example, students who know about a threat are expected to inform school authorities. The school should also make clear to parents that if their child makes a threat of any kind, they will be contacted and will be expected to provide information to help evaluate the threat. Designate a threat assessment coordinator: One person in a school -- or perhaps several in a large school -- should be assigned to oversee and coordinate the school's response to all threats. The designated coordinator may be the principal, another administrator, a school psychologist, resource officer, or any other staff member. The school should find appropriate threat assessment training programs for whoever is designated. When any threat is made, whoever receives it or first becomes aware of it should refer it immediately to the designated coordinator, and school policy should explicitly give the coordinator the necessary authority to make or assist in making quick decisions on how to respond -- including implementing the school's emergency response plan, if the threat warrants. The coordinator's specific responsibilities will be determined in each school, in accord with the professional judgment of the principal and administrative staff. They could include: arranging for an initial assessment when a threat is received to determine the level of threat; conducting or overseeing an evaluation after the threatener is identified, using the Four-Pronged Assessment Model; developing and refining the threat management system; monitoring intervention in previous cases; establishing liaison with other school staff and outside experts; and maintaining consistency and continuity in the school's threat response procedures. Consider forming a Multidisciplinary Team: As well as appointing a threat assessment coordinator, schools may decide to establish a multi disciplinary team as another component of the threat assessment system. Schools could draw team members from school staff and other professionals, including trained mental health professionals. The team would constitute an experienced, knowledgeable group that could review threats, consult with outside experts, and provide recommendations and advice to the coordinator and to the school administration. It is strongly recommended that a law enforcement representative should either be included as a member of the team or regularly consulted as a resource person. Making threats can be a criminal offense, depending on the threat and the laws of each state. Although most school threats may not lead to prosecution, school officials need informed, professional advice on when a criminal violation has occurred and what actions may be required by state or local laws. It is especially important that a school not deal with threats by simply kicking the problem out the door. Expelling or suspending a student for making a threat must not be a substitute for careful threat assessment and a considered, consistent policy of intervention. Disciplinary action alone, unaccompanied by any effort to evaluate the threat or the student's intent, may actually exacerbate the danger-- for example, if a student feels unfairly or arbitrarily treated and becomes even angrier and more bent on carrying out a violent act. The Role of Law Enforcement In the vast majority of cases, the decision on whether to involve law enforcement will hinge on the seriousness of the threat: low, medium, or high, under the criteria outlined earlier in this paper. Low Level: A threat that has been evaluated as low level poses little threat to public safety and in most cases would not necessitate law enforcement investigation for a possible criminal offense. (However, law enforcement agencies may be asked for information in connection with a threat of any level.) Appropriate intervention in a low level case would involve, at a minimum, interviews with the student and his or her parents. If the threat was aimed at a specific person, that person should also be asked about his or her relationship with the threatener and the circumstances that led up to the threat. The response -- disciplinary action and any decision to refer a student for counseling or other form of intervention -- should be determined according to school policies and the judgment of the responsible school administrators. Medium Level: When a threat is rated as medium level, the response should in most cases include contacting law enforcement agencies, as well as other sources, to obtain additional information (and possibly reclassify the threat into the high or low category). A medium-level threat will sometimes, though not necessarily, warrant investigation as a possible criminal offense. High Level: Almost always, if a threat is evaluated as high level, the school should immediately inform the appropriate law enforcement agency. A response plan, which should have been designed ahead of time and rehearsed by both school and law enforcement personnel, should be implemented, and law enforcement should be informed and involved in whatever subsequent actions are taken in response to threat. A high-level threat is highly likely to result in criminal prosecution. Examples of Threats Example #1: Low-Level Threat: Student John Jones sends another student an e-mail message saying: "You are a dead man." Step One -- Referral The parents and student who received the message bring the message to the attention of the school's Threat Assessment Coordinator the following morning. Step Two -- Threat Assessment - Based on the following reasons the e-mail threat is assessed as a low level of threat (1) Threat is vague and indirect: "You are a dead man." (2) Threat lacks detail. There is no specific information on how the threat is to be carried out, on the motive or intent, or on the time and place where the threat is to be acted on. (3) The means to carry out the threat is unknown. Step Three -- Four-Pronged Assessment (1) Since the threatener's identity is known, background information can be obtained from faculty members who knew the student and his family before the threat was made. They picture him as somewhat immature and prone to losing his temper, but report no seriously troubling traits or changes in behavior. (2) Interviews with the student and his parents establish that he has no access to weapons. No other information emerges to indicate that the student has made any actual preparations or seriously intends to carry out the threat. (3) The target of the threat is interviewed. His responses also suggest the threat is unlikely to be acted on: "We've had arguments before; he gets mad and says stupid things but he gets over it." Step Four -- Evaluation and Response Based on the evaluation of the threat and the four-pronged assessment of the student, the OVERALL assessment is that this is a low level threat. A law enforcement contact or resource person is advised of the incident, but administrative action will be determined by school authorities in accordance with school policy. Example #2: Medium-Level Threat: Tom Murphy, a ninth-grader, makes a videotape for one of his classes. The tape shows student actors shooting at other students on the school grounds, using long-barreled guns that appear real. On the videotape, the actor-students are heard yelling at other students, laughing, and making off-color remarks, while aiming their weapons at others. Murphy's teacher receives the tape and becomes concerned. Step One -- Referral The teacher brings the tape to the Threat Assessment Coordinator, who in turn calls a meeting of the available members of the school's Multidisciplinary Team. Step Two -- Threat Assessment - Based on the following, the videotape is determined to be a medium level of threat until more information can be obtained. (1) The threat is specific. Murphy and fellow students who are posing as shooters, are pointing weapons at other students pretending to be victims. However, it is unknown if Murphy and his friends actually intended to carry out the threat, and if the weapons displayed in the videotape are real. Some of the comments heard on the tape are explicitly threatening but all of the students are laughing and it is therefore unclear whether they are speaking seriously or joking. (2) The guns used in the videotape may or may not be real. (3) The "script" used in the videotape suggests that the threateners have given some thought to how the threat will be carried out regarding place and time. (4) It is unclear if the videotape, with all of its detail, is a serious prelude to real threat, or a joke. Step Three -- Four-Pronged Assessment (1) The Threat Assessment Coordinator and members of the Multidisciplinary Team gather additional background on each of the students who appear in the videotape. Information is sought from faculty members who knew the students and their families prior to the incident. (2) Students and parents are interviewed and it is determined that the guns used in the videotape were toys, and the students have no access to real weapons. No other information is provided that would elevate the level of the threat. Step Four -- Evaluation and Response Based on evaluation of the videotape and the assessment of the ninth-grader who organized the filming, this is reclassified as a low level threat. Law enforcement officers conducted the investigation, but administrative action is left to the discretion of the school. Example #3: High-Level Threat: A high school principal receives an anonymous phone call at 7:30 a.m. The caller says: "There is a pipe bomb scheduled to go off in the gym at noon today. I placed the bomb in the locker of one of the seniors. Don't worry, it's not my locker. I just placed it there because I can see it from where I will be sitting -- and will know if someone goes to check on it." Step One -- Immediate Law Enforcement Involvement and Emergency Response The principal calls a designated contact in the local police department as provided in the school's emergency response plan. The emergency plan is put into effect. Step Two -- Threat Assessment - Based on the following, this anonymous threat was determined to be a high level of threat. (1) The threat is direct and specific. The caller identifies a specific weapon he will use as well as a location for the assault, and the time the threat will be carried out. (2) The content of the threat suggests the caller has taken concrete steps to carry out the threat, i.e., he has placed the locker under surveillance in order to determine if someone checks on it. (3) The identity of the threatener is unknown. His means, knowledge, and resources to construct a pipe bomb are unknown. Step Three -- Because the threatener is unidentified, the Four-Pronged Assessment cannot be conducted. Step Four -- Evaluation and Response Because of its specific detail and plausible nature, this is determined to be a high level threat posing a serious danger to students and staff and requiring immediate intervention by law enforcement. If the threatener is subsequently identified, he is likely to be charged with a criminal offense and prosecuted. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS As has been noted, the threat assessment and intervention model presented in this paper was a focus of discussion at the l999 NCAVC Symposium in Leesburg, Virginia. Noting that additional research can further develop and refine the concepts and methods embraced in this model, the symposium made the following recommendation: There is a compelling need to field test, evaluate and further develop these threat assessment recommendations and to develop appropriate interventions designed to respond to the mental health needs of the students involved. This is a pressing public health need which could be addressed through multidisciplinary collaboration by educators, mental health professionals and law enforcement. The symposium also recommended that additional research should include studies on the following topics: • The presence of psychopathic and narcissistic personality traits in offenders convicted of charges arising from a school shooting. • The significance and relevance of verbal and written "leakage" for threat assessment and predicting future violence. • Determining which specific school dynamics appear to be significant risk factors in schools. • The influence and relevance of suicide and suicide ideation in adolescents who have become involved in school shootings. • Identifying significant commonalities between the school shooter's personality, background, and family circumstances, and those of other violent adolescents. • Identifying significant commonalities and differences between the adolescent school shooter and adult offenders involved in workplace violence. • A review of relevant state and federal laws and confidentiality requirements that prevent or impede sharing information that can help educators, law enforcement and social service agencies evaluate a student to assess intent, means, and motivation and the risk of his carrying out a threatened violent act. The symposium made these additional recommendations: Investigating school violence: To further develop a basis for assessment, after a school shooting or other act of school violence, investigations should be designed to obtain more information in the four areas of the student's life: (1) personality, (2) family dynamics, (3) school dynamics, and (4) social dynamics. Training: To make effective use of the assessment and intervention procedures outlined in this monograph, school administrators and staff members should receive additional training in the fundamentals of the threat assessment, adolescent development and violence, and other mental health issues relevant to the area of adolescent development Specialized training is needed for those assigned to conduct or supervise the assessment process. Training is also needed to educate and sensitize students about "leakage" and its significance in dealing with the threat of violence. Students are often in the best position to see and hear signs or cues of potential violence, and training should stress that ignoring those cues or remaining silent can be dangerous for themselves as well as others. Training should also confront the common teenage "code of silence" and students' reluctance to be branded as a "snitch" or to violate a friend's confidence. Other suggestions relating to training include: • Establish "Internal Teams" in schools to find ways to encourage students to come forward in a confidential manner with information about threatening behavior. • Encourage "Student Assistance Programs" in which concerned teachers would come together and discuss students who are having academic problems, behavioral problems, or problems at home. • Establish "Peer Assistance Groups" that will encourage students to come forward with information about possible threatening behavior in other students, and provide support to overcome self-doubts or guilty feelings about breaking the "code of silence." • Develop programs to help parents recognize when their child may be in emotional trouble or socially isolated or rejected, and help parents become more knowledgeable about where to get help and more willing to seek it. CONCLUSIONS Violence -- whether in a school, home, workplace, or on the street -- is a complex issue with complex causes and consequences. Imagining that there are easy answers and instant solutions is counterproductive: there is no easy way to attack the causes and no simple formula that can predict who will commit a violent act. It is also true, however, that violent behavior develops progressively, that making a threat represents a stage in an evolutionary process, and that there are observable signs along the way that most of us can see if we know what to look for. Overall, the level of violence in American schools is falling, not rising. But the shock and fear generated by the recent succession of school shootings and other violent acts in schools -- and by violence in society at large -- have led to intense public concern about the danger of school violence. In this atmosphere, it is critically important for schools to respond to all threats swiftly, responsibly, fairly, and sensitively, and with an understanding that all threats are not equal. It is not enough to react only to the threatening message, whether spoken, written, or symbolic. It is also vital to assess whether the person who made the threat has the intent, means, and motivation to carry it out. The procedure presented in this monograph can help schools assess a threat and the threatener, evaluate the risk, and respond appropriately and effectively. We know that students will continue to make threats in schools, and that most will never carry them out. The use of this assessment/intervention model will help school authorities identify and deal with the high-risk threats that are the major concern, and respond to less serious threats in a measured way. The same distinction needs to be recognized in the larger world outside the school as well, for the same reasons. Threats in schools are not just the schools' problem; therefore, neither is the solution. Please click here to see the report in its entirety.

Students who have killed

Portrait of a killer: Jeff Weise

A 2005 class photo of Jeff Weise. His hair is gelled in two spots to look like horns.

" When you lose your spiritual connection to God, the darkness of earth can overpower you." Gayle Downwind, who taught Weise in middle school, said there's an Ojibwe word – "maji-manidoo" – for the evil spirit that can consume a young person.

MARCH 23--The Minnesota teenager responsible for Monday's high school shooting spree last year created a violent, blood-soaked video that included an animated character shooting four people and blowing up a police car before committing suicide.... In a brief bio accompanying his Flash animations, Weise described himself as "nothin but a Native American teenage-stoner-industrialist," whose favorite movies included "Dawn of the Dead," "Thunderheart," and "Elephant," director Gus Van Sant's 2003 film about a Columbine-style school shooting (on his MSN profile page, Weise actually included an "Elephant" movie still showing two teenage characters--dressed in camouflage and carrying duffle bags containing weapons--heading for a school door).... According to police, Weise's killing rampage began with the murder of his grandfather and the man's female companion and ended at Red Lake High School, where he killed an unarmed security guard, a teacher, and five fellow students before apparently committing suicide. Seven others were wounded, including two teenage victims who remain in critical condition at a North Dakota hospital. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0323051weise1.html)

 

Reservation for death Jeff Weise's murderous rampage at the Red Lake Indian reservation horrified the nation. But in this closed and despairing world, shocking levels of violence are normal. A Salon exclusive. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Kimberley Sevcik SALON.COM Aug. 8, 2005 | The first time Jeff Weise tried to commit suicide, in the spring of 2004, he couldn't bring himself to complete the task. He sliced his wrists with a box cutter, but he lived to chronicle the incident on the Web in characteristically dramatic prose. "I had went through a lot of things in my life that had driven me to a darker path than most choose to take," he wrote. "I split the flesh on my wrist with a box opener, painting the floor of my bedroom with blood I shouldn't have spilt." The second time Weise tried to kill himself, a few months later, he looped a belt around his neck and pulled it taut. A friend found him and called the tribal police on the Indian reservation of Red Lake, Minn., home of the Ojibwa tribe. As the squad car pulled away from his house, Weise leaned toward the officer in the front seat and said, his voice raspy and strained, "I need help." The third time Weise attempted suicide, the 16-year-old not only pulled it off but also took nine people with him. Last March, in an incident that has been classified as the worst school shooting since Columbine, Weise shot his grandfather and the woman who lived with them, and stole his grandfather's 12-gauge shotgun, Glock .40-caliber semiautomatic handgun, and police cruiser. He then drove to Red Lake High School, where he killed an unarmed security guard, a teacher who summoned God for help, and five students, before turning the gun on himself.  Go to http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2005/08/08/red_lake/index.html?pn=1for the entire article

 

Jeff came from a troubled home situation. There was no abuse, no divorce, and his parents were not into drugs. It was worse than that. In 1997, Jeff's father committed suicide. Jeff was living in Minneapolis, Minnesota now with his mother and three aunts. Jeff's mother was brain-damaged in a horrible car accident in 1999. The car accident was a result of her heavy drinking. After his mother's car accident, Jeff was forced to live with one of his last-remaining close relatives; Daryl Lussier Sr. his grandfather in Red Lake, Minnesota. According to people who knew Jeff well, his grandfather wanted to kick him out of the house but legally couldn't as he (Daryl Lussier Sr.) was his guardian. Jeff didn't like his grandfather very much, and his grandfather didn't like him that well either. Jeff's relationship with his mother, years earlier when he still lived with her; was no better. Jeff described his situations in his earlier life to people on message boards on the internet, and had privately messaged the messages below (which were made public days after the shooting) to an administrator on a message board about 'cryptic writing' he belonged to: "My mom used to abuse me alot when I was little. She would hit me with anything she could get her hands on, she used to drink excessively too. She would tell me I was a mistake, and she would say so many things that its hard to deal with them or think of them without crying." " My mom got drunk one night and wrecked her car and had to relearn how to tie her shoes, I was too young to fight back or too young to stick up for myself without getting struck down when this was happening." Jeff Weise JeffWeise.com,

This is a 30-second animation by Jeff Weise, entitled "Target Practice". It is graphic and shocking, and broadcasts his intentions to kill.

WARNING: Violent and Explicit

Jeff Weise's "Clown"

Jeff Weise's LiveJournal, posted online:

Thoughts of a Dreamer About Recent Entries Profile weise Page Summary [#] (no subject) [#] (no subject) [#] Welcome to Salvation. Navigation Recent Entries Archive Friends User Info January 2005   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Jan. 27th, 2005 @ 09:37 am So fucking naive man, so fucking naive. Always expecting change when I know nothing ever changes. I've seen mothers choose their man over their own flesh and blood, I've seen others choose alocohol over friendship. I sacrifice no more for others, part of me has fucking died and I hate this shit. I'm living every mans nightmare and that single fact alone is kicking my ass, I really must be fucking worthless. This place never changes, it never will. Fuck it all. Jan. 4th, 2005 @ 06:39 pm The instrument of my resurrection was supposed to be freedom. But there isn’t an open sky or endless field to be found where I reside, nor is there light or salvation to be discovered. Right about now I feel as low as I ever have. I don’t think it’s a big secret why, really. My biggest disappointment and downfall came from what was supposed to be the one thing to lift me from the grave I’m continually digging for myself. Nah, never. Only the worthy are saved, y’know. I don’t know, but what I do know is I’m a retarded fuck for ever believing things would change for me. I’m starting to regret sticking around, I should’ve taken the razor blade express last time around… Well, whatever, man. Maybe they’ve got another shuttle comin’ around sometime soon? Ciao. Current Mood: drained Current Music: Strawberry Fields Forever - John Lennon Welcome to Salvation. Dec. 14th, 2004 @ 01:18 pm Out with the old, and in with the new. As I sit here typing up my musings I listen to Cheech & Chong Up in Smoke, the movie. Occasionally shifting my eyes from screen to screen, trying to balance out typing and observing. This is my new journal, in which I will put my thoughts down to words. My view on the days past events and whatnot, my two cents on the world in general. This is my new introductory post - all the spelling and grammatical errors area ll by-products of the new Me. Blah. That sounds so egotistical. Whilst you're here, you might as well check out the message board for the band I'm in: http://6sik6.proboards25.com/ Ciao. Current Mood: accomplished Current Music: Johnny Cash - When The Man Comes Around Top of Page Powered by LiveJournal.com

To see more of Jeff Weise's internet postings, go to:
http://jeffweise.com/profiles.html

Why? "Why?" is the question everyone has been asking since the Red Lake School Shooting started. Jeff Weise was said to be taking the medication Prozac, which is manufactured by Eli Lilly & Co. Prozac has been made famous in the past for it's questioning because there have been many killers and people who committed suicide (and both) who at the time of doing these things were on the medicine Prozac.... Did Prozac have something to do with Jeff Weise's rampage and suicide at his own school? Right now that is a popular question and we're waiting for an answer. The debate over whether or not anti-depressant drugs "make" people kill is a heavy and very mixed one. Other reasons why Jeff might have done this are because it may have been his last resort to show everyone how troubled he really was. He posted on the internet, made Flash animations, and even told a few friends he would do something like this. Nobody believed him. Jeff had a family life compelled with a father who committed suicide in 1997 and a mother who was in a nursing home 250 miles away because she was brain damaged from a car accident. Life was not easy for Jeff Weise, and when he was made fun of at his school - that didn't help him out any easier. Jeff was popular at his school, but not in a good way. Many people knew who he was but did not want to talk to him because he was quiet and never looked anyone in the eye. He did have friends, but not very many. It is not yet known why Jeff did the shooting, there are only possible explanations. We may never know what made him flip - but it was obvious it was not a spur-of-the-moment type thing, he had been "planning, waiting and hating" just as one of his MSN profiles stated. JeffWeise.com, In honor for those who lost their lives in or near Red Lake High School on March 21, 2005

 

For more information on JeffWeise, please go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Weise

The gallery  below was downloaded from LiveJournal.com;

It is called "LiveJournal for Encouraging sympathy instead of apathy.."

LiveJournal for Encouraging sympathy instead of apathy.. Friday, March 25th, 2005     March 21, 2005 - Jeff Weise, 16, of Redlake Minnesota shot and killed ten people, including himself. The dead included a teacher, five students and a security guard at the school; Weise's grandfather and his companion were killed earlier at the grandfather's house   April 20, 1999 - Eric Harris, 18 and Dylan Klebold, 17, in Littleton, Colo., had hid weapons and bombs beneath their trench coats and then ran through their school, yelling and shooting. When they reached the library, they cornered and killed their largest number of victims before turning their guns on themselves. It all happened quickly, but with devastating impact. After police got into the building, they counted 34 casualties. Fifteen students died in the melee, including the shooters.   May 21, 1998 ­ Kipland Kinkel, 15, had just been expelled from school in Springfield, Oregon, for carrying a gun to class. He returned with a semiautomatic rifle and went into the cafeteria, where he started shooting. He killed one student and wounded eight others, one of whom later died, and he also caused a stampede that resulted in more injuries. He was disarmed and taken to the police station, where he withdrew a hidden knife. He claimed he wanted to die. Police officers who went to his home discovered that he’d killed both of his parents and had booby-trapped the house with five homemade bombs---one of which he'd placed underneath his mother’s corpse. His classmates had once dubbed him the student “most likely to start World War III.” March 5, 2001, in Santee, California, 15-year-old Charles Andrew Williams went through with his threat at Santana High School. Tired of being bullied for being small and pale, he had told friends that he was going to go on a shooting spree. Then he assured them he was joking. Nevertheless, he opened fire in a high school bathroom that morning with his father's .22-calibre revolver, killing two students, 14 and 17, and wounding 13 in the nation's deadliest school attack since Columbine. One witness said the boy had a smile on his face as he fired away. From the bathroom, he stepped out into the quad, reloading as many as four times and randomly firing around thirty bullets. Then he retreated back into the bathroom, where he surrendered.   April 24, 1998 ­ Andrew J. Wurst, 14, liked to threaten other people and then laugh it off. However, no one was laughing when he took a pistol into the eighth-grade graduation dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, and killed a popular teacher. Then he opened fire into the crowd, wounding another teacher and two classmates before he ran out. The banquet hall owner went after him, disarmed him, and held him for police, but the boy acted as if the whole thing was a big joke.   March 24, 1998 - Andrew Golden, 11, and his gun buddy, Mitchell Johnson, 13, dressed in camouflage fatigues and then gunned down fifteen people at the Westside Middle School playground in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Five died, all of them female and four were children. The boys had a van stocked full of ammunition and guns, which they took from their kin. Golden went into the school and set off a fire alarm, then ran to where Johnson lay in position with the rifles. As people filed out for the fire drill, the boys began shooting.   December 1, 1997 ­ Michael Carneal, 14, liked to wear black and was thought by classmates in Paducah, Kentucky, to be a Satanist. That morning, he brought a gun to school and opened fire on a small prayer group. Three girls died and five other students were wounded. Another student tackled him, and it was soon revealed that Carneal had a pistol, two rifles, and two shotguns, along with 700 rounds of ammunition, all of it stolen. He’d threatened earlier to “shoot up” the school, but no one had taken him seriously.   February 19, 1997 ­ Evan Ramsey, 16, went to Bethel High School in Alaska with a shotgun. This is the place where other kids called him "retarded" and "spaz." He killed a boy with whom he’d argued and then injured two other students. Then he went to the administration office and shot the principal, Ron Edwards, killing him instantly. Police came quickly and ended the rampage, which appeared to be motivated only by some amorphous rage. Two fourteen-year-old friends who had discussed Ramsey’s plan with him were arrested as accomplices   February 2, 1996 ­ Barry Loukaitis, 14, dressed up like a gunslinger from the Wild West and went into his algebra class in Moses Lake, Washington. Concealed in his long duster were two pistols, seventy-eight rounds of ammunition, and a high-powered rifle. His first victim was 14-year-old Manuel Vela, who later died. Another classmate fell with a bullet to his chest, and then Loukaitis shot his teacher in the back as she was writing a problem on the blackboard. A 13-year-old girl took the fourth bullet in her arm. Then the shooter took hostages, allowing the wounded to be removed, but was stymied by a teacher who rushed him and put an end to the irrational siege. In all, three people died, and Loukaitis blamed “mood swings.” A classmate claimed that Loukaitis had thought it would be "fun" to go on a killing spree.   October 1, 1997 ­ Luke Woodham, 16, worshipped Adolph Hitler, perhaps because it made him feel powerful in light of the bullying he received from classmates in Pearl, Mississippi. When his girlfriend broke up with him, he went into a rage. He slashed and stabbed his mother that morning, then went to school with a rifle and a pistol. Right away he killed his former girlfriend and then another girl. Yet he didn’t stop there. Seven other students were wounded before he ran out of ammunition. He returned to his car for his other gun, and that’s where the assistant principal disarmed him. He complained that the world had wronged him and he just couldn’t take it anymore. “ I killed because people like me are mistreated every day,” he said. “I did this to show society: Push us and we will push back.” Two members of his group devoted to Hitler were charged as accessories to murder, and others were arrested on the basis of a conspiracy, but those charges were later dismissed. Woodham claimed at trial that he’d been possessed by demons that were manipulated by a member of his group.   November 15th, 1995 ­ Jamie Rouse, 17, dressed in black, went into Richland School in Giles County, Tennessee, with a .22-calibre Remington Viper. He shot two teachers in the head, one of them fatally. Then with a smile, he took aim at the football coach, but a female student walked into his path and was killed with a shot to the throat. Rouse had told five friends exactly how he had planned this killing, but no one had called for help   March 2, 1987 ­ Nathan Ferris, 12, was an honor student in Missouri, where he finally got tired of being teased. He brought a pistol to school and when a classmate made fun of him, he killed the other boy. Then he turned the gun on himself. He had warned a friend not to attend school that day, signaling his plans, but no one had listened to this overweight loner.

Adolescents, Antidepressants, and The Black Box Warning

	Labeling Change Request Letter for Antidepressant Medications NDA XX-XXX Dear : Please refer to your new drug applications submitted under section 505(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for [Drug Name]. We additionally refer to the September 13, and 14, 2004 meeting of the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee and the Pediatric Advisory Committee to discuss reports of the occurrence of suicidality in clinical trials for various antidepressant drugs in pediatric patients with major depressive disorder and other psychiatric disorders. Based upon the recommendations made by the committee members, we believe that additional labeling changes are warranted in order to caution practitioners, patients, family members or caregivers about an increased risk of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders who are taking antidepressant medications. Therefore, we are requesting revisions to your labeling in order to incorporate the committee's recommendations. Specifically, we are requesting the following changes to product labeling. [This new section should be added to the beginning of the package insert with bolded font and enclosed in a black box] DRUG NAME Suicidality in Children and Adolescents Antidepressants increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders. Anyone considering the use of [Drug Name] or any other antidepressant in a child or adolescent must balance this risk with the clinical need. Patients who are started on therapy should be observed closely for clinical worsening, suicidality, or unusual changes in behavior. Families and caregivers should be advised of the need for close observation and communication with the prescriber. [Drug Name] is not approved for use in pediatric patients except for patients with [Any approved pediatric claims here]. (See Warnings and Precautions: Pediatric Use) Pooled analyses of short-term (4 to 16 weeks) placebo-controlled trials of nine antidepressant drugs (SSRIs and others) in children and adolescents with MDD, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), or other psychiatric disorders (a total of 24 trials involving over 4400 patients) have revealed a greater risk of adverse events representing suicidal thinking or behavior (suicidality) during the first few months of treatment in those receiving antidepressants. The average risk of such events on drug was 4%, twice the placebo risk of 2%. No suicides occurred in these trials. [The following language would replace the current language under the WARNINGS-Clinical Worsening and Suicide Risk section.] WARNINGS-Clinical Worsening and Suicide Risk Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), both adult and pediatric, may experience worsening of their depression and/or the emergence of suicidal ideation and behavior (suicidality) or unusual changes in behavior, whether or not they are taking antidepressant medications, and this risk may persist until significant remission occurs. There has been a long-standing concern that antidepressants may have a role in inducing worsening of depression and the emergence of suicidality in certain patients. A causal role for antidepressants in inducing suicidality has been established in pediatric patients. Pooled analyses of short-term placebo-controlled trials of nine antidepressant drugs (SSRIs and others) in children and adolescents with MDD, OCD, or other psychiatric disorders (a total of 24 trials involving over 4400 patients) have revealed a greater risk of adverse events representing suicidal behavior or thinking (suicidality) during the first few months of treatment in those receiving antidepressants. The average risk of such events on drug was 4%, twice the placebo risk of 2%. There was considerable variation in risk among drugs, but a tendency toward an increase for almost all drugs studied.The risk of suicidality was most consistently observed in the MDD trials, but there were signals of risk arising from trials in other psychiatric indications (obsessive compulsive disorder and social anxiety disorder) as well. No suicides occurred in these trials. It is unknown whether the suicidality risk in pediatric patients extends to longer-term use, i.e., beyond several months. It is also unknown whether the suicidality risk extends to adults. All pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for any indication should be observed closely for clinical worsening, suicidality, and unusual changes in behavior, especially during the initial few months of a course of drug therapy, or at times of dose changes, either increases or decreases. Ideally, such observation would include at least weekly face-to-face contact with patients or their family members or caregivers during the first 4 weeks of treatment, then visits every other week for the next 4 weeks, then at 12 weeks, and as clinically indicated beyond 12 weeks. Additional contact by telephone may be appropriate between face-to-face visits. Adults with MDD or co-morbid depression in the setting of other psychiatric illness being treated with antidepressants should be observed similarly for clinical worsening and suicidality, especially during the initial few months of a course of drug therapy, or at times of dose changes, either increases or decreases. The following symptoms, anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility (aggressiveness), impulsivity, akathisia (psychomotor restlessness), hypomania, and mania, have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder as well as for other indications, both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric. Although a causal link between the emergence of such symptoms and either the worsening of depression and/or the emergence of suicidal impulses has not been established, there is concern that such symptoms may represent precursors to emerging suicidality. Consideration should be given to changing the therapeutic regimen, including possibly discontinuing the medication, in patients whose depression is persistently worse, or who are experiencing emergent suicidality or symptoms that might be precursors to worsening depression or suicidality, especially if these symptoms are severe, abrupt in onset, or were not part of the patient's presenting symptoms. Families and caregivers of pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder or other indications, both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric, should be alerted about the need to monitor patients for the emergence of agitation, irritability, unusual changes in behavior, and the other symptoms described above, as well as the emergence of suicidality, and to report such symptoms immediately to health care providers. Such monitoring should include daily observation by families and caregivers. Prescriptions for [Drug Name] should be written for the smallest quantity of tablets consistent with good patient management, in order to reduce the risk of overdose. Families and caregivers of adults being treated for depression should be similarly advised. [This language will be included for those drugs for which tapering is recommended.] If the decision has been made to discontinue treatment, medication should be tapered, as rapidly as is feasible, but with recognition that abrupt discontinuation can be associated with certain symptoms (see PRECAUTIONS and DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION -- Discontinuation of Treatment with [Drug Name], for a description of the risks of discontinuation of [Drug Name]. Rule out bipolar disorder to the extent possible: A major depressive episode may be the initial presentation of bipolar disorder. It is generally believed (though not established in controlled trials) that treating such an episode with an antidepressant alone may increase the likelihood of precipitation of a mixed/manic episode in patients at risk for bipolar disorder. Whether any of the symptoms described above represent such a conversion is unknown. However, prior to initiating treatment with an antidepressant, patients should be adequately screened to determine if they are at risk for bipolar disorder; such screening should include a detailed psychiatric history, including a family history of suicide, bipolar disorder, and depression. [The following language would replace the current language under the PRECAUTIONS- Information for Patients section.] PRECAUTIONS-Information for Patients Physicians should inform patients and caregivers about the benefits and risks associated with treatment with [Drug Name] and should counsel them in its appropriate use. A patient Medication Guide is available for [Drug Name] . The prescriber should instruct patients and their caregivers to read the Medication Guide and should assist them in understanding its contents. Patients should be given the opportunity to discuss the contents of the Medication Guide and to obtain answers to any questions they may have. The complete text of the Medication Guide is reprinted at the end of this document. Physicians are advised to discuss the following issues with patients for whom they prescribe [Drug Name] and to ask them to alert their physician if these occur: Clinical Worsening and Suicide Risk: Patients and their families should be encouraged to be alert to the emergence of anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, impulsivity, akathisia, hypomania, mania, other unusual changes in behavior, worsening of depression, and suicidal ideation, especially early during antidepressant treatment and when the dose is adjusted up or down. Families and caregivers of patients should be advised to observe for the emergence of such symptoms on a day-to-day basis, since changes may be abrupt. Such symptoms should be reported to the patient's physician, especially if they are severe, abrupt in onset, or were not part of the patient's presenting symptoms. Symptoms such as these may be associated with an increased risk for suicidal thinking and behavior and indicate a need for very close monitoring and possibly changes in the medication. Pediatric Use [This section will include either (1) a general statement for drugs for which pediatric data have not been submitted to FDA, as follows: "Safety and effectiveness in the pediatric population have not been established (see BOX WARNING and WARNINGS -- Clinical Worsening and Suicide Risk)," or (2) more specific language regarding pediatric efficacy data that have been evaluated by FDA.] Anyone considering the use of [Drug Name] in a child or adolescent must balance the potential risks with the clinical need. These labeling revisions should be submitted in the form of a "Supplement - Changes Being Effected" within 30 days from the date of this letter. Additionally, please be advised that we will also be requesting a Medication Guide in the format as outlined under 21 CFR 208 for all drugs in this therapeutic class. This Medication Guide would replace, if applicable, any patient package insert. We would also require that your product be distributed in unit-of-use packaging to ensure that every patient receives the Medication Guide. Additional information pertaining to the specifics of this Medication Guide will be forthcoming in the next 2-3 weeks. If you have any questions, call Paul David, R.Ph., Senior Regulatory Project Manager, at (301) 594-5530.   Sincerely, Russell Katz, M.D. Director Division of Neuropharmacological Drug Products Office of Drug Evaluation I Center for Drug Evaluation and Research   Date created: October 15, 2004, Updated, October 28, 2004

http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/antidepressants/SSRIlabelChange.htm

ERIC Identifier: ED435894 Publication Date: 1999-00-00 Author: Juhnke, Gerald A. - Charkow, Wendy B. - Jordan, Joe - Curtis, Russell C. - Liles, Robin G. - Gmutza, Brian M. - Adams, Jennifer R. Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Counseling and Student Services Greensboro NC. Assessing Potentially Violent Students. ERIC Digest. Although student school shootings of students have recently gained significant national attention, more routine forms of student violence (e.g., homicide, rape, aggravated assault, etc.) continue to plague our nation's schools and streets. These less sensational but equally harmful violent behaviors warrant appropriate response. This digest describes the importance of assessment and diagnosis with potentially violent and violent students. ASSESSING POTENTIALLY VIOLENT AND VIOLENT STUDENTS Firearm homicide rates for youth ages 15 to 19 increased 155% between 1987 and 1994 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 1996); and homicide arrest rates for youth ages 14 to 17 increased 41% between 1989 and 1994 (Fox, 1996). The most recent Violent Offense Arrests Reports published by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) indicate that 37,323 children ages 14 and under, and 86,130 adolescents ages 15 to 17 were arrested in 1997 for committing severe acts of violence (e.g., homicide, aggravated assault, rape) (United States Bureau of Justice, 1999). Garbarino (1999) reports approximately 10% of the 23,000 annual homicides in the United States are committed by persons under age 18. Such data clearly demonstrates the need to recognize high-risk factors which correspond to potentially violent students. HIGH-RISK FACTORS Adequate assessment is vital to the counseling process and critical to the establishment of pertinent treatment goals and objectives. This is especially true when counseling potentially violent and violent students. These students typically present a number of common risk factors (Dwyer, Osher, & Warger, 1998) which can be readily identified via a clinical interview process (Supervisory Special Agent Eugene A. Rugala, personal communication, August 31, 1998). These high-risk factors are indicated below with a brief summary suggesting their reason for inclusion. Violent Drawings or Writings. Violent students often indicate their intentions before acting violently via drawings or writings. Counselors learning of such violent drawings or writings should not easily dismiss such violent expressions. Violent poems, letters to friends, or letters to the intended victim are clear indications of violent potential. Hence, further assessment is warranted whenever a student uses age inappropriate violent drawings or writings. Threats of Violence Towards Others. Any threat of violence towards others should be immediately assessed and appropriate intervention actions should be taken to insure safety. Direct threats such as, "I'm going to kill him" as well as veiled threats such as, "Something big is going to happen to you after school" clearly are inappropriate and warrant immediate assessment and intervention. Threats should be assessed for: (a) lethality, (b) the degree to which a violent plan exists, and (c) the student's ability to secure the indicated weapon or harm instrument (e.g., poison, automobile). Any threat indicated by a student which is realistic, well planned, and highly lethal should be considered viable. Past Violent Behaviors or Aggressive History. Students who have been violent in the past or have demonstrated aggressive behaviors towards others are at greater risk of repeating such behaviors. Thus, these students are noted as being at greater risk for future violent behaviors. Animal Torturing. There exists a high correlation between students who torture animals and violence. Students who regularly torture animals or intentionally inflict harm upon animals should be assessed for violent ideation towards others. Recent Relationship Break. Students who have recently experienced a relationship break (e.g., being jilted by a girlfriend or best friend) have an increased likelihood of being violent. Isolation. The vast majority of students who isolate themselves from peers or who appear friendless typically are not violent. However, one high-risk factor which has been strongly correlated with violent behaviors towards school peers is isolation. For this reason, students isolating themselves or reporting feelings of being isolated from others should be considered at greater risk. Teased or Perceptions of Being Teased, Harassed, or "Picked On". Violent students often have a hypersensitivity toward criticism. These students report perceptions of being teased, harassed or being picked on by those they were violent toward. Therefore, students indicating feelings that they are being teased, harassed, or "picked on" should be assessed to determine whether or not they either intend to harm or fantasize about harming others. Social Withdrawal. Withdrawal from peers and familial supports can indicate the student is experiencing any of a number of concerns (e.g., depression, helplessness) which warrant assessment and intervention. When combined with other risk factors, social withdrawal may signal potential violence toward others. Inappropriate Use or Access to Firearms. Students who inappropriately use firearms by shooting at people, homes, or vehicles or have improper, unsupervised firearm access have a clear potential to harm others and act violently. No student should be allowed to posses a gun or weapon on school property or at school-related functions (e.g., dances, sporting events, etc.). Given the general impulsiveness of students and the dangers of immediate access to lethal weapons, this factor is one of the most important which should be assessed. Substance Abuse. Although substance abuse does not cause students to be violent, students under the influence of psychoactive substances often fail to think logically and experience increased impulsivity. Thus, there exists a strong correlation between substance abuse and violent behaviors. Familial Stressors. Familial stressors can engender feelings of frustration, anger, and hopelessness among students as well as adults. Noted by Peers as Being "Different". On many occasions after student violence, peers and others will note that the perpetrating student was labeled as being "different" from peers or being associated with some group. Hence, students frequently labeled by peers as being "weird", "strange", "geeky", etc. may be at increased risk for violent behaviors. Low School Interest. The genesis of this risk factor could come from any of a multitude of reasons which by themselves may not evoke violent behaviors. However, in combination with other possible violence related risk factors noted within this scale, students presenting with low school interest may have an inability to perform as well as they desire to and may feel frustrated by such inability. Additionally, these students may perceive themselves as belittled by those performing more favorably. Thus, when challenged to increase performance or when feeling harassed by those performing at higher levels, these students may become violent. For these reasons, this factor has been included. ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES Some of the above noted individual risk factors warrant immediate attention even if other risk factors are not present and the student is not perceived as violent. For example, any student experiencing symptomatology resulting from substance abuse or dependence warrants immediate treatment. Additionally, students inappropriately using firearms pose a significant danger to others and warrant intervention as well. Furthermore, any student making violent threats towards others should be required to complete a psychological assessment process and parental conferencing. Although these steps will not prevent all forms of violence from students threatening violent behaviors, they are a means to provide a reasonable safety standard and undoubtedly will help insulate the counselor and school system from potential liability. Other individual risk factors are unlikely to identify potentially violent students. These risk factors by themselves without the presence of other noted risk factors have a high probability of providing false positive evaluations. Here, for example, single risk factors such as Low School Interest or Noted by Peers as Being "Different" would incorrectly identify many nonviolent students as having significant potential for violence. Instead, counselors, teachers, and mental health professionals within the schools should look for multiple high-risk factors. Thus, a student who indicates: (a) low school interest, (b) feelings of being isolated, (c) a recent significant relationship break, and (d) specific verbal threats towards a peer, should be considered at risk and minimally warrants a thoroughly assessment with a planned intervention. A student with an abundance of the 13 identified risk factors suggests someone experiencing significant environmental turmoil and emotional stressors. These students are at significant risk of violence towards peers and are unlikely to function adequately without direct intervention. Those at this extreme end of the risk continuum warrant immediate removal from the general school environment and a structured living environment (e.g., specialized foster care, group home, inpatient psychiatric hospital, etc.) to insure safety to peers and self. Parents should be contacted and a formal evaluation for a structured living and learning environment should occur when an abundance of the risk factors are noted. Should the student be deemed an immediate danger to self or others and the parents be unwilling to appropriately support evaluation for a more structured living and learning environment, child protective services should likely be notified. In many cases child protective services can intervene to insure the child is placed in a safe environment until the immediate danger to self or others disappears. SUMMARY Student violence is a very real danger. Undoubtedly, these 13 risk factors by themselves will not identify every violent student. However, the risk factors can be readily used by school counselors and other school mental health professionals as an aid in assessing students at risk of violence. REFERENCES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (1996). National summary of injury mortality data, 1987-1994, Atlanta, GA: Authors. Dwyer, K., Osher, D., & Warger, C. (1998). Early warning, timely response: A guide to safe schools. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists (ED418372). Fox, J. A. (1996). Trends in juvenile violence: A report to the United States Attorney General on current and future rates of juvenile offending. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Garbarino, J. (1999). Lost boys: Why our sons turn violent and how we can save them. New York, NY: The Free Press. United States Bureau of Justice. (1999). Report on violent offense arrests by age, 1970-97, [On-line]. Available: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#data http://www.ericdigests.org/2000-3/violent.htm

 

Psychological clues to the teen school shooter: Pinning down the “why,” and what to do about it - By Jerome H. Radin, Ph.D. Why do teens shoot other school youth? As recently as September 2003, the newspapers were filled with “School slaying, Teen kills classmate, critically wounds second” (New York Post, September 25, 2003). We look and find that, yes, guns are involved, yes, parents are involved or perhaps not involved enough and yes, school bullies are now included in these “usual suspects.” But for some reason, none of these factors provides much comfort. And they do not supply us with a satisfying answer to the “why” of these students’ out-of-control behavior. What is perplexing in this new trauma center of society is that teens who shoot in school exhibit no inhibition, no fear to shoot. And with that essential element of control missing from the teen’s psychological repertoire for handling real and imaginary hurts and his rage against other students, we need to pin down what happened to the psychological tools youngsters need in order to feel safe among their peers. What happened to the teen’s hesitation to shoot others and what happened to his ability to protect himself? Where is that presence of fear so essential to the well-being of the individual and to society? Growing psychological tools of control From infancy, fear and rage constitute two fundamental ingredients in our emotional makeup. Along with the infant’s capacity to form attachments, these two early emotions provide a critical means of obtaining protection far beyond his frail physical body and his limited mental resources to preserve his own well-being. Fear acts as an alarm system for the infant when he senses a primitive danger, such as falling. Crying out in fear alerts an attentive parent that the infant’s safety is at risk and immediate measures must be taken. Rage appears when the infant is exposed to unexpectedly loud and sharp noises that overwhelm his senses. There are also occasions when a day of prolonged stimulation wears down the infant to produce a raging set of cries that serve to once more gain the attention of the parent to remove the danger. In each instance, the cries of fear and rage are the infant’s tools for alerting the world he is in need of protection. These basic emotions are wondrous in their efficiency. Any damage in the availability of these emotions or in getting the appropriate response from the parent is to cast the infant into profound peril. Fear and rage reappear in different forms at each stage of growth: toddler years, middle childhood, and preteen and teen years. Their shape, content and role in the individual’s development are distinctive to each phase of life, but each form is designed to assist the growing child in managing more complex interactions with parents, teachers, peers and most of all, with himself as a separate and growing person. Development centers around the child’s skill growth in the areas of attachment, separation and psychological identification. Something quite profound also grows along with emotions. Cognitive skills of perception, reasoning, judgment, learning and a moral sense emerge from the exchanges with family and the ever-widening world. It is in the amalgam of these experiences, feelings, intellectual resources, moral stance and the child’s grasp of the social world in and around her that a rich and crucial psychological orientation takes shape internally. Every child is in a vital, daily interactive relationship with the social world and its values and beliefs. At first, it is the parents who introduce their children to their beliefs about the world, beliefs about what is important, what is true and what is worthy of the child’s loyalty. Siblings and peers also make their impact on the growing child’s grasp of society’s portrait of life. Critically, it is the child himself who seeks to divine what is good, what is beautiful, what is safe and what is dangerous in his world. That guiding psychological orientation of the growing child is her perceptual attitude toward the world. Perceptual attitude structures and shapes a persons’ character, her readiness to see her world in a certain way and to take action in a way that defends her view of reality. She becomes convinced that her perception of the world and her actions in that world are “the only natural way to do it.” In fact, her actions become the right thing to do. Imagine the power of believing what is actually happening before you is the most natural and the only way to be! Anything outside your perception of the world becomes alien and untrue; it becomes someone else’s lies and fabrication of reality. Establishing that this perceptual attitude contains a person’s irresistible set of beliefs about his world, especially his belief that his way is the only way to be, allows us to set the stage for discovering the nature of the teen school shooter’s perceptual attitude and his fatal psychological flaws. Where things go wrong The teen shooter’s perceptual attitude shows a profound decline in self-defense by his absence of fear of real dangers: holding a gun, aiming and firing it at other students, committing suicide or being arrested for murder. Instead of real fear, we find instead that he has been indoctrinated in a world of fake fear, fear created for him out of continuously contrived experiences of artificial danger that are filled with violence. Over the years, industries of “shock” and “horror” have tailored their movies, video games and television shows to teen and young adult audiences. As noted in the article “A generation out of control” in the Fall/Winter 2003 edition of Healing magazine, the average child is bombarded by “200,000 acts of violence (including 40,000 murders) on television” by age 18 (source: Jack and Jill, Why They Kill, James E. Shaw, Ph.D., Ojininkta Distribution, 2000). Movies present violence in an entertaining manner that is often paired with humor, further fictionalizing the experience. Video games that place the player in dangerous and violent situations include a “save” function that enables players to “die” an unlimited number of times and still return to the game. Further, teens’ reading world in and out of school may be filled with magazines and books that feature horror stories and scary drawings. Her earlier “children’s” books feature fractured families, sexual and physical abuse, as well as others depicting vampires, monsters, spooks, death and mayhem on their covers and in their texts. So-called “comic” books are replete with violent drawings and stories. Halloween has become a national holiday of demons and destruction, enlisting our children in lessons on how to scare the neighbors. And amusement parks across our country have been deliberately designed to attract teens by having the scariest rides. The risk of facing artificial danger What are the synthetic “value” and the real peril of fake fears and fake dangers? They entice their audience by offering our youth an illusion of control over dangers that they can choose to face or choose to leave behind. Recall that fear serves as a signal for help from danger. The thrill of riding dangerously on an amusement park ride artificially calls to mind that loss of physical support of the infant. Imagine the sense of power that comes by living through such experiences – again and again. Our teens are able to control this fake fear by knowing ahead where it will appear, that the danger will be brief and that it will end quickly. It is almost as if they were their own parent who, when they were babies and toddlers, taught them about the dangers of a hot stove and about not running out into the street. The difference, and it is significant, is that those dangers are real while the thrill ride is artificial. This repeated experimenting with fake fear and fake danger blurs the difference between the genuine and fake. What triggers the teen school shooter’s loss of control? Repeated experiences of overwhelming violence inescapable from the eyes and ears of our youth have their own connection to rage. Recall that over-stimulation leads over time to raging feelings that, like the infant, require relief somehow – and quickly – for the person to survive. Confronted with the depressing possibility of a perceived lifetime of school unhappiness (such as being constantly bullied) the school shooter turns to his experience with fake fear and fake danger to help. He seeks to control the source of his real fear at school by planning something that will destroy those he perceives as his real danger. Turning to his experience with fake danger – video games, violent movies, thrill rides – he will seek something that will make the real danger a) easy to find, b) brief in existence and c) able to end quickly – just like the roller coaster or video game. Having already lost the capacity to use real fear to avoid the real danger of using a gun to solve his problem, the school shooter now moves to a point where the gun, the school and other students appear globally in his rage. Regaining control It is a bewildering and painful journey from one school shooting to the next. Our society is a resilient one, however, able to cope with the anguish we and our children inevitably suffer with each terrible crime. What we have felt most stymied about has been the unpredictable and deadly behavior of the out-of-control teen. As a society, we will have to confront the industries of “shock” and “horror” that have created twin worlds that have damaged our youths’ self-defenses, a deadly psychological flaw. One world, that of constant disorder fed through violent movies, television shows and music, not only celebrates evil over good but turns upside down which is which. Our youth can not escape from this violence when they turn to reading since so many books, magazines and even comic books are replete with horror stories and scary drawings. The second world that damages our youths’ self-defense and character creates fake fears and fake dangers that serve to confuse and confound our children. These elaborate thrills and dangers are created just genuine enough to easily fool our children into thinking that they represent reality. Prominent examples include violent video games that allow teens to play at stealing cars or performing mob hits, and amusement park rides that excite, confuse and over-stimulate in ways that match the intensity of the violence of the first world. Making things right One approach to dealing with school violence that has demonstrated significance is that of character education. Its return to national attention during the 1990s is based on the belief that the violence, dishonesty, drug abuse and sexual acting out of our youth have a common source: the absence of good character. According to Dr. Thomas Lickona’s article “Combating Violence with Values: The Character Education Solution” (reprinted in the New York State Bar Association’s publication Law Studies, Fall 1994), character education seeks to help children understand and utilize core ethical values such as respect, responsibility, honesty, fairness, integrity, compassion, self-control and moral courage. National organizations such as The Character Education Partnership, and colleges such as the State University of New York at Cortland, which houses the Center for the 4th and 5th Rs (directed by Dr. Lickona), reach out to schools, families and communities to implement training and to provide programs in character education. The aim of these settings is to furnish the means to counteract school experiences of extortion, bullying and violence by teaching students, staff and parents to develop and apply habits of courage and justice. In fact, things can change when parents and professionals focus on threats to children’s well-being. One recent example occurred when a provocative, sexually enticing catalog was designed specifically for teenagers by Abercrombie and Fitch. Applying principles of moral courage and justice, groups concerned for our children were able to have the catalog taken off the shelves. Parents and professionals who advocate for and support children can maximize their moral power by developing comprehensive approaches each time institutions project negative societal influences against children and families. We, in effect, will need to educate these industries to evolve core ethical values of their own by building on and expanding the tools of character education. Jerome H. Radin, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist, a diplomate in School Psychology (A.B.P.P.) and an Assistant Professor of Education and Psychology, Queens College, CUNY (ret.). He has had an extensive practice in child and adolescent diagnosis and therapy. Dr. Radin has published a monograph on the mentally disabled, as well as work and articles on the topics of economic planning and nuclear war. He has recently completed a book on love stories in the Holocaust, and is working on a novel about love and madness. He lives in New York with his wife and teenage daughter, and has two older step-sons.

 

Adults who kill students

04 October 2006
Schoolgirls’ killer described as ordinary man and devoted father

By Mark Scolforo
THE gunman who stormed a one-room Amish schoolhouse Monday was an ordinary man and a devoted father and showed few signs of trouble in the days before the attack, according to several people who knew chinning and family members saw no indication of problems that would lead 32-year-old Charles Carl Roberts IV to open fire on a dozen young girls.
“ Absolutely not,” said Lois Fiester, a relative of Roberts who was standing outside the family’s modest ranch house. “They’re a fine Christian family. It’s ironic and it’s heartbreaking.”

http://www.irishexaminer.com/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=world-qqqm=world-qqqa=world-qqqid=14893-qqqx=1.asp

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?100206/100206_pennsylvania_presser&Live_Desk&Amish School Shooting&acc&US&302&News&809&&&exp

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?100306/100306_penn_presser&FOX_Online&Shooter\'s Notes Shared&Shooter\'s Notes Shared&US&303&News&1139&&&exp

 

Slayer of Amish girls tortured by his past Two more victims die; five remain in hospital By Brett Hambright Intelligencer Journal Published: Oct 04, 2006 1:58 AM EST LANCASTER COUNTY, PA - Minutes before Charles Carl Roberts IV shot 10 girls, killing five, inside a Bart Township Amish school Monday, he disclosed to his wife a 20-year-old secret that haunted him since he was a boy. Barricaded inside the one-room West Nickel Mines School with the victims bound and lined in a row, Roberts told his wife, Marie, via cell phone he had molested two young children when he was 12, police said. He also confessed to having had dreams of molesting children for the past couple of years. It was a revelation his family had never heard before and a story authorities have yet to confirm, but police said the alleged sexual assaults in the 1980s were a motive for the heinous crime he would commit 20 years later. The assaults allegedly involved two relatives, ages 3 to 5. Following Roberts’ final conversation with his wife, the 32-year-old Bart Township man shot the students execution style, then took his own life. Five girls died from gunshot wounds to the head, police said. The dead were identified Tuesday as Naomi Rose Ebersol, 7; Anna Mae Stoltzfus, 12; Marian Fisher, 13; Mary Liz Miller, 8; and Lena Miller, 7. The Millers were sisters, police said. Three of the five wounded girls were in critical condition Tuesday. In response to the shootings, thousands of Lancaster County residents attended prayer services Tuesday night. Police said Roberts claimed to be seeking revenge for things that occurred in his life, including the loss of his first-born daughter, Elise, who died in November 1997 20 minutes after her premature birth. “ This was a very deeply disturbed individual underneath,” state police Col. Jeffrey Miller said Tuesday afternoon at a press conference at Middle Octorara Presbyterian Church. Police provided the following account of Roberts’ actions Monday. Roberts returned to his Georgetown Road home about 3 a.m. after completing his shift delivering milk produced on local farms for Northwest Foods. Roberts slept, then walked his children to a school bus stop on Georgetown Road at 8:45 a.m. He then left suicide notes for each of his family members — Marie and their three children, ages 11⁄2 to 7 — at their home. Marie had left the home at 9 a.m. for a prayer group meeting. In the letter to his wife, Roberts mentioned a life-changing event 20 years ago but didn’t reveal what it was. He also expressed hatred toward himself and God and said Elise’s death left him forlorn. In the notes to his children, he told them they were good and that he loved them. Roberts left the home soon after Marie’s departure and drove to a local hardware store to make his last purchases from a checklist police later found in the cab of his milk truck. The list included most of the items police found at the scene. Roberts had made check marks next to several items, including tape, eyebolts, batteries, a candle and a hose. He made two separate purchases, at 9:14 and 9:16 a.m., at Valley Hardware in Christiana. Police said he bought eyebolts — large bolts with open circles at their ends — plastic cable ties and a box of assorted hardware. He then drove to the Amish school at 4876 White Oak Road in a pickup truck borrowed from a friend or family member that was loaded with “a vast array of weaponry,” Miller said. The arsenal included two pistols, a shotgun, a stun gun, 600 rounds of ammunition and gun powder. The stun gun was purchased Thursday at Village Arms in Gap, police said. Gene McKillips, owner of the gun shop, said Tuesday he did not recognize Roberts from pictures released by police. There is no paperwork or waiting period required to purchase a 300,000-volt stun gun like the one Roberts bought for $35, McKillips said. The guns are typically used for self defense. Roberts backed up the truck to the front door of West Nickel Mines School around 10 a.m., police said. Also packed in the truck were chains, two-by-fours, nails, bolts and lubricating jelly. Roberts had “assembled a restraint system or kit,” Miller said. “ It was very odd (he) would have these other things,” he said, referring to the two tubes of K-Y Jelly and restraining devices found inside the school. Police said Roberts also brought toilet paper and a change of clothes. “ He planned to dig in for a long siege,” Miller said. “It’s very possible he intended to victimize the children in many ways prior to executing them and killing himself.” There was no evidence of a sexual assault at the crime scene. Shortly after arriving at the school, Roberts released 15 male students and three women. Teacher Emma Mae Zook escaped, along with Zook’s mother and a female student. Zook ran to a nearby home and called police at 10:36 a.m. Roberts then ordered the remaining female students, ages 6 to 13, to line up against the blackboard and then bound each girl’s legs together at their feet. He also nailed boards across the school’s two doors to block the exits. On one of the boards above ground level he had attached eyebolts, and police speculate he may have planned to use them to restrain the girls’ arms above their heads. His plans were disrupted when police arrived at 10:45 a.m. Roberts was calm when he entered the school, Miller said, but he became distraught when the first police car arrived. It was then that he called Marie, telling her he would not be coming home and confessing to the sexual assaults of 20 years ago. After a brief conversation with Marie, Roberts called 911. He warned the dispatcher to have police leave the area in 10 seconds or he would start shooting. Police traced the call to Marie’s cell phone and dialed him back. Roberts never answered, police said; instead, he began shooting the girls in their heads at close range. He fired 13 rounds from a 9 mm semiautomatic pistol and three from a 12-gauge shotgun. He reloaded the pistol and fired a bullet into his own head as police stormed through the windows. When they got inside, Roberts was dead. Police said the gunfire lasted only about a minute. Two students, Naomi Rose Ebersol and Anna Mae Stoltzfus, died at the scene, police said. Ebersol was the daughter of Amos and Katie Ann Fisher Ebersol of Mine Road, Paradise. Stoltzfus was the daughter of Christ and Lizzie Allgyer Stoltzfus, also of Mine Road. Police said Anna Mae has a sister who also was shot. Three girls died after being taken by helicopter to hospitals. Marian Fisher was dead on arrival at Lancaster General Hospital Monday. Lena Miller died at Hershey Medical Center Tuesday morning when her parents requested she be taken off life support. Her older sister, Mary Liz, died early Tuesday morning, shortly before her sister, at Christiana Hospital in Delaware. Fisher was the daughter of John and Linda Stoltzfus Fisher of Mine Road. The Miller sisters were the daughters of Christ and Rachel Zook Miller of White Oak Road. Three unidentified victims were being treated at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Tuesday night. Two of them, ages 8 and 10, were in critical condition. A 12-year-old with gunshot wounds to her arm and leg was upgraded to serious condition Tuesday night. Two of the victims, also unidentified and ages 6 and 13, are being treated at Hershey Medical Center. The 13-year-old was in serious condition Tuesday night, while the 6-year-old’s condition remained critical. The 10 victims are from seven different families, Miller said. The 26 who attended the school are from 10 families. At Tuesday’s press conference, Gov. Ed Rendell praised the resolve of the community in the wake of the killings. “ The strength and resiliency of this community give it the ability to deal with tragedy like this better than most,” he said. Douglas Hileman, pastor at Middle Octorara Presbyterian Church, talked about the healing that must take place. “ Our community truly has been hurt. This event will be a part of our history,” he said. “ In time, though, we will be remembered more for how we picked up one another’s pieces and continued together.”Intelligencer Journal Staff Writers Colby Itkowitz and Dave Pidgeon contributed to this report.

 

Charles Carl Roberts IV's suicide note:

Amish girls peer out the window of a buggy as they pass through town before the start of a funeral procession of Anna Mae Stoltzfus, age 12, a victim of the Amish school shooting in the town of Nickel Mines, Penn., on 06 October 2006. Four other victims killed by Charles Roberts were buried 05 October 2006. Five other girls remain in critical or serious condition.(AFP/Timothy A. Clary)

Reuters
Horse-drawn buggies clip-clopped past roadblocks Thursday morning as Amish families gathered to bury four of the five young girls gunned down inside their tiny rural schoolhouse.

 

October 16, 2006 OP-ED COLUMNIST Why Aren’t We Shocked? By BOB HERBERT “Who needs a brain when you have these?” — message on an Abercrombie & Fitch T-shirt for young women In the recent shootings at an Amish schoolhouse in rural Pennsylvania and a large public high school in Colorado, the killers went out of their way to separate the girls from the boys, and then deliberately attacked only the girls. Ten girls were shot and five killed at the Amish school. One girl was killed and a number of others were molested in the Colorado attack. In the widespread coverage that followed these crimes, very little was made of the fact that only girls were targeted. Imagine if a gunman had gone into a school, separated the kids up on the basis of race or religion, and then shot only the black kids. Or only the white kids. Or only the Jews. There would have been thunderous outrage. The country would have first recoiled in horror, and then mobilized in an effort to eradicate that kind of murderous bigotry. There would have been calls for action and reflection. And the attack would have been seen for what it really was: a hate crime. None of that occurred because these were just girls, and we have become so accustomed to living in a society saturated with misogyny that violence against females is more or less to be expected. Stories about the rape, murder and mutilation of women and girls are staples of the news, as familiar to us as weather forecasts. The startling aspect of the Pennsylvania attack was that this terrible thing happened at a school in Amish country, not that it happened to girls. The disrespectful, degrading, contemptuous treatment of women is so pervasive and so mainstream that it has just about lost its ability to shock. http://select.nytimes.com/2006/10/16/opinion/16herbert.html?n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/Bob%20Herbert&_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

 

NOTICE: PERMISSION IS GRANTED FOR REPRODUCTION & DISSEMINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT B. Practical Suggestions for Assisting Children in the Aftermath of a Tragedy Reprinted from A Practical Guide for Crisis Response in Our Schools © 2003 by The American Academy of Experts in Traumatic Stress—Reproduced with Permission 368 Veterans Memorial Highway, Commack New York 11725 Tel. (631) 543-2217 • Fax (631) 543-6977 • www.aaets.org • www.schoolcrisisresponse.com The manner in which children react to tragic events is dependent upon a number of variables including the age of the child, personal history, personality variables, the severity and proximity of the event, level of social support available and the type and quality of intervention. It is important to realize that most children will recover from the effects of a crisis with appropriate support from family, friends, and school personnel. It is essential that adults balance their efforts to address their child’s emotional needs with their own emotional responses during times of crises. Caregivers should remain aware that in order to “be there” for children, they need to “be there” for themselves as well. Seeking professional assistance is recommended if you or your child’s reactions begin to significantly interfere with life functioning or if negative emotional, cognitive, behavioral and physiological responses become predominant. The following are suggestions that you can utilize in your effort to assist children. 1. Be aware of your own reactions to the event. Very young children (e.g., preschool) take their cues regarding how to respond by monitoring the reactions of significant adults in their environment (e.g., parents, teachers, older siblings). Attempt to model calm behavior. Moreover, do not be critical of clingy behavior or other regressive reactions (e.g., nightmares, bed-wetting, somatic complaints) exhibited by the child. These are typically “normal” responses for children under significant forms of stress. 2. Keep yourself available for providing extra attention to your child. Such attention not only provides an opportunity for a child to express what they have experienced but also reaffirms their sense of closeness and security with you. Give them additional affection in the form of hugs or other physical contact if it seems appropriate. Don’t avoid discussion about this incident if your child expresses a desire to talk. Assisting children during such a crisis when they are most vulnerable to the deleterious effects of traumatic exposure, may provide a tremendous opportunity for caregivers to stimulate healthy, adaptive functioning. Maintain a warm, genuine and facilitative or helping attitudinal climate. 3. Be mindful of the child’s cognitive and emotional functioning level. Giving too much information to a younger child may foster a sense of confusion as well as fear and insecurity. Younger children require the use of simpler words and concepts. Do not be overintellectual in your effort to describe the incident (something that is easy to do as we attempt to reduce our own anxiety when discussing certain issues). Adolescents may try to minimize or downplay their concerns about the situation. Keep an open line of communication with them. Encourage, but do not insist on, discussion. 4. Use empathic communication by acknowledging, understanding and expressing an appreciation of your child's experience. Attempt to comprehend the feelings that lie beneath his words (and actions) and convey that understanding to him. For example, you may ask what he knows about the events and give him a chance to describe what he has been thinking about since the incident. Let him know that many people of all ages are also upset and that many are working together to prevent such a thing from happening again. When appropriate, express your own feelings (e.g., “I am sad about what happened as well . . . Let's talk about what you have been feeling . . . “). Not only does this help develop a child's vocabulary for expressing emotions (through modeling), but also begins the important process of validating and legitimizing their thoughts and feelings regarding the event. Reassure them that feelings of fear, sadness, anger, and guilt are “normal” reactions to an “abnormal” experience. 5. Do not speculate and give false information about what has taken place. This is especially true for older children (e.g., adolescents). Misrepresentation of facts may exacerbate false and distorted thinking (e.g., “Can I get drafted?”). Don't hesitate to admit that you do not have the answers for all that is asked. Don't dwell on the details and scope of the event, especially with young children. However, strive to separate fact from fiction. 6. Monitor exposure to media. Do not overexpose children to television and radio, especially preschool and elementary-aged children. This is certainly the case when graphic and perhaps, live programming is being broadcasted. Use alternate audio and video materials (e.g., videos, DVD, music) to distract them from live television viewing. You may also channel their feelings and curiosity into some form of helping behavior. For example, have them write a letter or draw pictures, donate clothes, or help raise money for those affected by the event. 7. Realistically provide reassurance about their safety. Assure them that steps are being taken to make their schools and community safer places to live, for example. Moreover, express that the event is very extraordinary and uncommon. Older kids may benefit from becoming engaged in the process of developing “safety” methods. For example, they can develop a list of emergency contact numbers or determine ways to increase communication with their family when they are away from home, etc. These responses may also foster a sense of empowerment. Again, keeping the age and developmental level of the child in mind is of paramount importance. Telling a child that they are entirely safe may be difficult at a time when you, personally, are not feeling secure. In fact, such information may be a distortion of reality. However, younger children (preschool age) will not comprehend the nature and intricacy of certain events (e.g., terrorist attacks) and thus, reassurance of safety may be the best and most healthy information that we can offer. Attempt to remain reasonably honest with adolescents about the impact of the disaster on your family as well as the world. 8. Consider the reactions of children with histories of past traumatic experiences, losses, or emotional disturbance (e.g., depression, anxiety). Traumatic incidents tend to dredge up maladaptive thoughts and feelings, especially with adolescents. Be observant for signs of suicide, substance abuse, severe sleeping and eating disturbance, and externalizing of angry or aggressive feelings. As mentioned earlier, do not hesitate to seek the assistance of a mental health professional within the school or community settings. 9. Make an effort to maintain a “normal” routine. This may be quite difficult, especially if you are directly affected by the incident (e.g., loss of a family member or friend). Keeping some consistency in household chores, dinner time, homework, bedtime can foster the healing and recovery process. Do not be overly rigid but attempt to approximate those routines that have become familiar and routine. This may help maintain a sense of ”connectedness” to the past and help mitigate against anxiety and “fear of the unknown.” 10. Monitor your own emotional status. Be aware that you may also be feeling grief, anxiety, guilt, and anger as you attempt to make sense out of the senseless. Keep in touch with close friends, family, clergy, school and mental health professionals as needed. Try to get adequate sleep and nutrition. Incorporate exercise and other enjoyable activities within your routine. Again, do not hesitate to obtain professional assistance if you or your child are in need.

"There is an emerging population we call 'bully victims'. These are kids that in some way feel that they are victimized. What happens is, they have no way of trying to get their issues addressed, so they totally reverse the table and they become the victimizer," said [child and youth professor and school violence expert, Zopito] Marini.. " Fundamentally, I think [school shootings] happen because of a real failure to connect on a number of levels - failure to connect with the body of the students, your peers, even failure to connect with parents, or the larger society," he said. "When these kids lash out, in their own perverse way, to them it is a way of connecting or at least trying to make people pay attention to them. A lot of times people don't pay attention to them and when they do, it is negative attention. If a person cannot connect with the mainstream society, they will connect with a subgroup that will let them in without judgment." (9/26/06, School violence: The psychology behind dangerous youth. Kristen De Palma, http://www.brockpress.com)

 

ERIC Identifier: ED463563 Publication Date: 2002-03-00 Author: Lumsden, Linda Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management Eugene OR. Preventing Bullying. ERIC Digest. School is supposed to be a place where students feel safe and secure and where they can count on being treated with respect. The reality, however, is that a significant number of students are the target of bullying episodes that result in serious, long-term academic, physical, and emotional consequences. Unfortunately, school personnel often minimize or underestimate the extent of bullying and the harm it can cause. In many cases, bullying is tolerated or ignored (Barone 1997; Colvin and others 1998). When teachers and administrators fail to intervene, some victims ultimately take things into their own hands, often with grievous results. In its recent analysis of 37 school shooting incidents, the U.S. Secret Service learned that a majority of the shooters had suffered "bullying and harassment that was longstanding and severe" (U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center 2000). This Digest examines the problem of bullying and some of its effects, discusses steps schools are taking, looks at ways peers can discourage bullying, and identifies other strategies that are being pursued. WHAT IS BULLYING AND HOW PREVALENT IS THE PROBLEM? Bullying occurs when a person willfully and repeatedly exercises power over another with hostile or malicious intent. A wide range of physical or verbal behaviors of an aggressive or antisocial nature are encompassed by the term bullying. These include "insulting, teasing, abusing verbally and physically, threatening, humiliating, harassing, and mobbing" (Colvin and others). Bullying may also assume less direct forms (sometimes referred to as "psychological bullying") such as gossiping, spreading rumors, and shunning or exclusion (O'Connell and others 1999). In a recent survey of more than 15,000 sixth- through tenth-graders at public and private schools in the U.S., "30 percent of the students reported bullying others, being the target of bullies, or both" (Bowman 2001). The information, gathered in 1998 as part of the World Health Organization's Health Behavior in School-Aged Children Survey and released in April 2001, is "the first nationally representative research on the frequency of bullying among students in the United States" (Bowman). Although the WHO survey queried only students in grades 6 through 10, younger students are also victims of bullying. In a study of fourth- through eighth-graders, about 15 percent reported being severely distressed by bullying and 22 percent reported academic difficulties stemming from mistreatment by peers (Hoover and Oliver 1996). According to research done by Janice Gallagher, one out of four children is bullied, and one out of five defines themselves as a bully (Schmitt 1999). Approximately 282,000 students are physically attacked in secondary schools every month (Schmitt). Many avoid public areas of the school such as the cafeteria and restrooms in an attempt to elude bullies. For some students, the fear is so great that they avoid school altogether. Every day approximately 160,000 students stay home from school because they are afraid of being bullied (Vail 1999). WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF BULLYING ON TARGETED STUDENTS? Bullying can have devastating effects on victims. As one middle-school student expressed it, "There is another kind of violence, and that is violence by talking. It can leave you hurting more than a cut with a knife. It can leave you bruised inside" (National Association of Attorneys General 2000). Students who are targeted by bullies often have difficulty concentrating on their school work, and their academic performance tends to be "marginal to poor" (Ballard and others 1999). Typically, bullied students feel anxious, and this anxiety may in turn produce a variety of physical or emotional ailments. As noted above, rates of absenteeism are higher among victimized students than rates among their nonbullied peers, as are dropout rates. According to Nansel and colleagues (2001), "youth who are bullied generally show higher levels of insecurity, anxiety, depression, loneliness, unhappiness, physical and mental symptoms, and low self-esteem." When students are bullied on a regular basis, they may become depressed and despondent, even suicidal or homicidal. As a report by the National Association of Attorneys General notes, bullying "is a precursor to physical violence by its perpetrators and can trigger violence in its victims." The psychological scars left by bullying often endure for years. Evidence indicates that "the feelings of isolation and the loss of self-esteem that victims experience seem to last into adulthood" (Clarke and Kiselica 1997). Studies have found a higher level of depression and lower self-esteem among formerly bullied individuals at age twenty-three, even though as adults these individuals were no more harassed or socially isolated than a control group (Nansel and others). WHAT CAN SCHOOLS DO TO COUNTERACT BULLYING? According to Froschl and Gropper (1999), a written anti-bullying policy distributed to everyone in the school community can help to send the message that bullying incidents will be taken seriously. Of course, to be effective, the policy must have the support of school staff, and it must be fairly and consistently applied. To discern the nature and extent of the bullying problem in their school, administrators can distribute surveys to students, school personnel, and parents (Colvin and others). Once baseline data are collected, school personnel will be better able to judge whether any subsequent changes are actually making a difference. Debra Pepler, director of the LaMarsh Centre for Research on Violence and Conflict Resolution at York University in Toronto, suggests mapping a school's "hot spots" for bullying incidents (Ruth Walker 2001). Once problematic locations have been pinpointed through survey responses or a review of disciplinary records, supervision can be concentrated where it is most needed. Barone points out that providing better supervision is not necessarily costly. For example, principals can ask teachers to stand in the doorways of their classrooms during passing time so that the halls are well supervised. To achieve permanent changes in how students interact, Colvin and others recommend not only delivering negative consequences to those who bully, but teaching positive behavior through modeling, coaching, prompting, praise, and other forms of reinforcement. Similarly, Ballard and others encourage schools to take a proactive stance by implementing programs that teach students "social skills, conflict resolution, anger management, and character education." One 15-year-old girl said, "I don't know how you do this, but we need to make acceptance cool" (National Association of Attorneys General). At Central York Middle School in Pennsylvania, all students sign anti-teasing pledges and are taught how to appropriately manager their anger. Since this practice was started, the school reports a reduction in fistfights. At Laurel Elementary in Fort Collins, Colorado, students undergo "Be Cool" training in which counselors present them with provocative situations and help them recognize the difference between a "hot response" and a "cool response" (Labi 2001). HOW CAN PEERS DISCOURAGE BULLYING? O'Connell and others (1999) assert that "peers may actively or passively reinforce the aggressive behaviors of bullies through their attention and engagement. Peer presence is positively related to the persistence of bullying episodes." Similarly, psychologist Peter Fonagy says, "The whole drama is supported by the bystander. The theater can't take place if there's no audience" (Labi 2001). According to Salmivall (1999), bullying is increasingly viewed as a "group phenomenon," and intervention approaches should be directed toward witnesses as well as direct participants. Salmivall encourages the development of anti-bullying attitudes among peers through awareness-raising, the opportunity for self-reflection and awakening feelings of responsibility, and role-playing or rehearsing new behaviors. To discourage peers from acting as an "audience" to bullying behavior, Seeds University Elementary School (UES) in Los Angeles has a policy of sending bystanders as well as bullies for after-school mediation. Students and their parents sign contracts at the beginning of the school year acknowledging they understand it is unacceptable to ridicule, taunt, or attempt to hurt other students (Labi). If an incident occurs, it can be used as an opportunity to educate students about alternative ways of resolving similar situations in the future. Teaching respect and nonviolence should start in elementary school. Some suggest that nonviolence training conducted by older peers can be particularly powerful because, as one high school student put it, younger students "don't look up to old people; they look up to teenagers" (National Association of Attorneys General). A survey administered by Naylor and Cowie (1999) found positive effects of peer-support systems designed to challenge bullying. Students accessing support, offered in the form of mentoring, befriending, mediation, and counseling, as well as their peers who provided the support, both derived benefits. WHAT ELSE CAN BE DONE? Some states are beginning to require schools to adopt anti-bullying policies. Colorado, New Hampshire, and West Virginia recently passed legislation that makes it mandatory for schools to have anti-bullying policies. Massachusetts has allocated one million dollars to "bully-proof" its schools. Students who bully often need intensive support or intervention, so it is important for schools and social-service agencies to work together. Perpetrators are frequently from "hostile family environments" (Ballard and others). They may be victims of acts of aggression at home, or witness aggression among other family members. Parents can play a role in reducing bullying. William Pollack, a psychologist, says, "Research shows that the success of any program is 60% grounded in whether the same kinds of approaches are used at home" (Labi). If everyone works together to discourage bullying and respond to incidents, fertile conditions are created for students to develop a greater sense of connection to their peers and for seeds of respect and acceptance to grow. RESOURCES Ballard, Mary; Tucky Argus; and Theodore P. Remley, Jr. "Bullying and School Violence: A Proposed Prevention Program." NASSP Bulletin (May 1999): 38-47. Barone, Frank J. "Bullying in School: It Doesn't Have to Happen." Phi Delta Kappan (September 1997): 80-82. EA 533 807. Bowman, Darcia Harris. "Survey of Students Documents the Extent of Bullying." Education Week on the Web (May 2, 2001). Clarke, E. A., and M. S. Kiselica. "A Systemic Counseling Approach to the Problem of Bullying." Elementary School Guidance and Counseling 31 (1997): 310-24. Colvin, G.; T. Tobin; K. Beard; S. Hagan; and J. Sprague. "The School Bully: Assessing the Problem, Developing Interventions, and Future Research Directions." Journal of Behavioral Education 8, 3 (1998): 293-319. Garrity, C.; K. Jens; W. Porter; N. Sager; and C. Short-Camilli. Bully-Proofing Your School. Longmont, Colorado: Sopris West. 1996. Hoover, J. H.; and R. Oliver. The Bullying Prevention Handbook: A Guide for Principals, Teachers, and Counselors. Bloomington, Indiana: National Education Service, 1996. Khosropour, Shirin C., and James Walsh. "The Effectiveness of a Violence Prevention Program: Did It Influence How Children Conceptualize Bullying?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Seattle, April 2001. Labi, Nadya. "Let Bullies Beware." Time online, March 25, 2001. Nansel, Tonja R.; Mary Overpeck; Ramani S. Pilla; W. June Ruan; Bruce Simons-Morton; and Peter Scheidt. "Bullying Behaviors Among U.S. Youth: Prevalence and Association with Psychosocial Adjustment." Journal of the American Medical Association 286, 16 (April 25, 2001). National Association of Attorneys General. Bruised Inside: What Our Children Say About Youth Violence, What Chauses It, and What We Should Do About It. Author, 2000. Naylor, Paul, and Helen Cowie "The Effectiveness of Peer Support Systems in Challenging School Bullying: The Perspectives and Experiences of Teachers and Pupils." Journal of Adolescence 22, 4 (August 1999): 467-79. EJ 609 417. O'Connell, Paul; Debra Pepler, and Wendy Craig. "Peer Involvement in Bullying: Insights and Challenges for Intervention." Journal of Adolescence 22 (1999): 437-52. Salmivalli, Christina. "Participant Role Approach to School Bullying: Implications for Interventions." Journal of Adolescence 22 (1999): 453-59. U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center. Safe School Initiative: An Interim Report on the Prevention of Targeted Violence in Schools. Washington, D.C.: Author, October 2000. Vail, Kathleen. "Words That Wound." American School Board Journal (September 1999): 37-40. Walker, Ruth. "To Stop Bullying, Involve the Whole School." Christian Science Monitor (March 13, 2001): 19.

 

Stop Bullying Now! is a website for kids on bullying, at: http://www.stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov/index.asp?area=main

Five of the eight recent major school shooting incidents have involved anti-gay teasing. Charles 'Andy' Williams (left to right), who allegedly killed two at Santana High School in California, reportedly faced anti-gay taunting, as did Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who shot 13 at Columbine High School in Littleton, Calif., and Barry Loukaitis in Moses Lake, Wash., Luke Woodham in Pearl, Miss.; and Michael Carneal in West Paducah, Ky. http://www.newtonsbaby.com/bethsbaby/

 

What Schools can do

The Department of Homeland Security has adapted its 5-color threat advisory for use in schools. Click here for the Homeland Security Color Coded Alert System for Schools

 

ERIC Identifier: ED436814 Publication Date: 1999-11-00 Author: Gaustad, Joan Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management Eugene OR. The Fundamentals of School Security. ERIC Digest Number 132. School security is a front-burner issue for educators, students, and citizens reeling from the shock of a series of mass school shootings. Yet recently released studies show significant decreases in key types of school violence. In this emotionally charged atmosphere, school administrators must strive to meet their schools' real security needs without wasting scarce resources on measures that may be unwarranted. HOW SERIOUS IS THE PROBLEM? Despite occasional high-profile tragedies, children in the United States are safer in schools than outside them. Of all violent deaths that occur among school-age children, less than 1 percent occur at or en route to school or school-sponsored events (Kachur and others, cited in Berner and others 1999). Ninety percent of all public schools reported no serious violent crimes during the 1996-97 school year. Although 57 percent reported at least one incident of crime or violence to law-enforcement officials, less-serious and nonviolent crimes such as theft, vandalism, and fights not involving weapons were by far the most common (National Center for Education Statistics 1998). Some types of school violence are declining, along with overall youth violence in the nation. Berner and others (1999) found significant decreases in several types of violence-related behaviors among high school students between 1993 and 1997, including a 28 percent decrease in self-reported weapon carrying and a 9 percent decrease in fighting on school property. They also note that the percentages of such behaviors occurring on school property were much lower than the total percentages. The number of students expelled for bringing guns to school declined 31 percent between the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years (U.S. Department of Education 1999). Reductions in violence did not occur in all subgroups, however. For example, levels of fighting remained the same among Hispanic students, Berner and others report. Their study also found no significant decreases in the percentages of students who reported being victims of theft or deliberate damage of property at school, feeling too unsafe to attend school, and being threatened or injured with a weapon on school grounds. HOW CAN SCHOOLS ASSESS THEIR SECURITY NEEDS? Periodic, routine security assessment can provide an objective review "without the denial often present before a serious incident or the overreaction that typically follows a crisis," says Kenneth S. Trump (1999). Checklist surveys are helpful assessment tools. Ronald D. Stephens (1995) provides model checklists covering areas ranging from physical security and procedures to emergency preparedness. George E. Richards (1997) suggests involving parents, students, law-enforcement and community representatives, and school staff in creating or adapting checklist surveys to the specific needs of a district and each of its buildings. Stephens recommends annually reviewing all aspects of a school-safety plan. A security assessment by an independent consultant has several advantages. An independent specialist brings objectivity and credibility as well as expertise, and can give professional validation to existing security measures as well as recommend improvements. Seeking an outside opinion demonstrates a district's openness and commitment to safety and may reduce liability (Trump). It is important to check the credentials and references of prospective consultants and make sure they are not associated with particular security product vendors (Richards, Trump). To target security efforts where they are most needed, an analysis of school-crime data can identify patterns in crime types, locations, and perpetrators. Surveys of parents, staff, and students can yield information on unreported crimes and other problematic behaviors (Stephens). HOW CAN FACILITIES BE MADE MORE SECURE? Recent tragedies involving guns and bombs have prompted many school districts to consider adding high-tech hardware to their traditional lock-and-alarm systems. Metal detectors are an expensive and controversial option. Their potential usefulness for a given school depends on many factors, including the severity of weapons problems, the availability of funds for staff and training, the physical design of buildings, and possible negative effects on school atmosphere. Hand-held detectors are less expensive and intrusive than walk-through models, and their portability permits random checks. They are particularly effective in keeping weapons out of events that take place in a confined space, notes National Alliance for Safe Schools Director Peter Blauvelt. Other high-tech security measures include photo ID systems, which may be tied into school computer databases, and closed-circuit television cameras (HADG 1999). Security cameras and other technologies are not a substitute for human beings (HADG 1999). As Hill Walker (1999) of the University of Oregon's Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior points out, Columbine High School's video cameras were not being monitored when the mass shootings broke out at that school. "If they had been monitored," he says, "perhaps the bombs brought into the school prior to the shootings would have been detected and plot uncovered. Further, if the emergency team personnel had known where the shooters were in the building, they may have been able to save lives." Increasing supervision by adding security personnel is another option. Stephens cites the pros and cons of employing local police, contracting with a security-guard service, or hiring security professionals. "The ratio of adults to the number of students who must be supervised is of critical importance," says Walker, who notes that Columbine High School had only a single school-security officer. Walker recommends that school resource officers report jointly to the school's principal and to the police department and have close connections to the community and neighborhood. Security can also be improved by cost-free measures such as changes in procedures, scheduling, and allocating space. For example, separating cafeteria entrances and exits reduces lunch-time congestion and the potential for student conflicts. It is important to control building access by limiting the number of entrances and exits and establishing visitor-screening policies. Parent volunteers can be recruited to supervise problem areas (Stephens). Closing the school campus eliminates a major risk factor (Walker). HOW CAN ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS BE CHANGED TO MAKE SCHOOLS SAFER? Identifying potentially violent students and intervening before serious problems erupt has become a high priority. The Department of Education and Department of Justice have developed Early Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools (Dwyer and others 1998) to help schools recognize danger signs and take proactive steps. The guide describes typical characteristics of children who later behave violently, signs that may immediately precede a deadly outburst, and effective intervention strategies. Helping staff, students, and parents to become more aware of these warning signs-and then to report them, either directly to school staff or via anonymous "hot lines"-may prevent future tragedies. Beware of stigmatizing students who seem to fit a standardized profile, however. Educators must consider warning signs in context, avoid stereotyping and labeling, and keep concerns confidential (Dwyer). Well-communicated, consistently enforced discipline policies with specific rules and consequences are the foundation of a positive school climate. All students should be treated respectfully to avoid creating resentment among individuals or subgroups. Walker notes that smaller schools, which provide a more intimate atmosphere and a greater sense of belonging, have fewer behavior problems than large schools. School officials should encourage staff members to form positive relationships with students. "Research shows that a positive relationship with an adult who is available to provide support when needed is one of the most critical factors in preventing student violence," Dwyer and others report. Positive attitudes and behavior among students can be fostered by teaching prosocial skills and anger management, and by peer mediation and conflict-resolution programs (Hamby, HADG, Dwyer). WHAT IF PREVENTIVE MEASURES FAIL? Every school should have a written crisis plan spelling out procedures for responding to a broad range of possible crises, including natural disasters, bomb threats, fire, homicide, and hostage situations (Stephens). The plan should designate individuals to handle specific tasks if a crisis occurs, and establish procedures for communicating among school staff and with parents, community agencies, and the media. Walker recommends that at least two people be assigned to coordinate each crisis-related task and that each school room have two means of communicating with the office, such as an intercom system and a cell phone or walkie-talkie. When creating the plan, schools should coordinate with police, fire, medical, and other agencies and determine what local, state, and federal resources exist for crisis and postcrisis help (Dwyer). Information explaining the plan should be distributed to all members of the school community, and all school staff should receive crisis training. Students and staff should practice evacuation and other crisis procedures as routinely as fire drills (Hamby, Dwyer and others). The plan should include procedures for handling the aftermath of a crisis: for example, a prepared press release describing how information will be transmitted, including locations for press conferences (HADG). Districts should coordinate with community mental-health professionals to provide immediate and long-term psychological support for affected staff, students, and parents (Dwyer and others). Even the most valiant efforts cannot make schools completely secure. But administrators can reduce the likelihood of crime and violence and ameliorate their impact by taking preventive steps and preparing effective responses. RESOURCES Brener, Nancy D., and others. "Recent Trends in Violence-Related Behavior Among High School Students in the United States." Journal of the American Medical Association 282, 5 (August 4, 1999): 440-46. Dwyer, Kevin P., and others. Early Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, 1998. 41 pages. ED 418 372. Hamby, John V. Developing a Comprehensive Violence Prevention Plan: A Practical Guide. Clemson, South Carolina: National Dropout Prevention Center, 1999. 40 pages. Health and Administration Development Group (HADG). Stopping School Violence: An Essential Guide. Gaithersburg, Maryland: Aspen Publishers, Inc., 1999. 105 pages. National Center for Education Statistics. Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S Public Schools: 1996-97. March 1998. http://www.nssc1.org Richards, George E. "Making Safe Schools Safer." American School Board Journal 184, 4 (April 1997): 38-39. EJ 547 237. Stephens, Ronald D. Safe Schools: A Handbook for Violence Prevention. Bloomington, Indiana: National Education Service, 1995. 159 pages. Trump, Kenneth S. "Scared or Prepared? Reducing Risk with School Security Assessments." The High School Magazine 6, 7 (May-June 1999):18-23. United States Department of Education. Expulsions of Students Who Brought Guns to School Drops Significantly. (sic) United States Department of Education Press Release August 10, 1999. 2 pages. Walker, Hill. Key Questions About School Safety. Testimony delivered to the Oregon Senate Education Committee, Wednesday, May 26, 1999. 8 pages. http://eric.uoregon.edu/issues/safety/testimony.html A Product of the ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, College of Education, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403-5207.

 

Lockdown Drills Practical Information on Crisis Planning: A Guide for Schools and Communities U.S. Department of Education August 2004 Preparing Your School for a Crisis Taking action now can save lives, prevent injury, and minimize property damage in the moments of a crisis. If you do not have a crisis plan in place, it is time to develop one. If you have one, review, practice, and update your plan. This brochure is designed to assist schools and communities in either situation. Although every school’s needs and circumstances are different, these checklists provide general guidance that can be adapted as appropriate to each district’s or school’s circumstances. If you would like additional, more detailed information on how to prepare your school or district for a crisis, you can order a free copy of Practical Information on Crisis Planning: A Guide for Schools and Communities, from which these checklists have been taken, on the U.S. Department of Education Office of Safe and Drug-Free School’s emergency preparedness Web site: www.ed.gov/emergencyplan. This Web site contains many other crisis planning resources as well. Mitigation and Prevention The goal of mitigation is to decrease the need for response as opposed to simply increasing response capability. • Connect with community emergency responders to identify local hazards. • Review the last safety audit to examine school buildings and grounds. • Determine who is responsible for overseeing violence prevention strategies in your school. • Encourage staff to provide input and feedback during the crisis planning process. • Review incident data. • Determine major problems in your school with regard to student crime and violence. • Assess how the school addresses these problems. • Conduct an assessment to determine how these problems—as well as others—may impact your vulnerability to certain crises. Preparedness Good planning will facilitate a rapid, coordinated, effective response when a crisis occurs. • Determine what crisis plans exist in the district, school, and community. • Identify all stakeholders involved in crisis planning. • Develop procedures for communicating with staff, students, families, and the media. • Establish procedures to account for students during a crisis. • Gather information about the school facility, such as maps and the location of utility shutoffs. • Identify the necessary equipment that needs to be assembled to assist staff in a crisis. Response A crisis is the time to follow the crisis plan and make use of your preparations. • Determine if a crisis is occurring. • Identify the type of crisis that is occurring and determine the appropriate response. • Activate the incident management system. • Ascertain whether an evacuation, reverse evacuation, lockdown, or shelter-in-place needs to be implemented. • Maintain communication among all relevant staff at officially designated locations. • Establish what information needs to be communicated to staff, students, families, and the community. • Monitor how emergency first aid is being administered to the injured. • Decide if more equipment and supplies are needed. Recovery During recovery, return to learning and restore the infrastructure as quickly as possible. • Strive to return to learning as quickly as possible. • Restore the physical plant, as well as the school community. • Monitor how staff are assessing students for the emotional impact of the crisis. • Identify what follow up interventions are available to students, staff, and first responders. • Conduct debriefings with staff and first responders. • Assess curricular activities that address the crisis. • Allocate appropriate time for recovery. • Plan how anniversaries of events will be commemorated. • Capture “lessons learned” and incorporate them into revisions and trainings. These images are from Practical Information on Crisis Planning: A Guide for Schools and Communities (PDF) http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/emergencyplan/crisisplanning.pdf

 

Lock Down School Plan 1. The signal will be given over the intercom, or other warning device, that there is now in effect a stand-by or lock-down drill. a. Where there are no bells or PA systems, administration or counselors will act as runners to notify staff of lock-down. b. As soon as a decision is made to lock down the school, administration will notify law enforcement using 911 rather than regular police numbers. 2. If students are in class at the time of the signal, a. staff will: - explain that there is an emergency; - lock the classroom doors; - have students lie on the floor; - close blinds and take any possible precautions to protect others from possible broken glass; and, - remain locked in offices until advised to move personally by administration or public safety officer or an all clear signal. b. administration will: - act with custodians to check locks on all exterior doors and classroom doors; - designate a person (an administrator, if possible) to coordinate with public safety personnel at their command post; and, - make sure that a site map and key set are available to public safety personnel. - Be available to deal with the media/press and bystanders to keep site clear of visitors. 3. If students are not in class at the time of the signal, a. teachers will: - assist administration in moving students into the nearest safe building available; - lock doors of room if possible. If lock is on the outside of the door, rubber door stops can be placed behind doors to secure; - remain with students to maintain order; - keep students in a safe area until advised personally by administration or public safety personnel to move or that there is an all clear signal; and, - avoid, if possible, large open areas such as the library, gym, lawns or parking lots. b. administration and public safety personnel will: - work with staff to move students into the nearest safe building available; - act with custodians to check locks on all exterior doors and classroom doors; - designate a person (an administrator, if possible) to coordinate with public safety personnel at their command post; and, - make sure that a site map and key set are available to public safety personnel. 4. All-clear signal will: (should be special or pre-arranged signal) a. be given after consultation with the senior public safety officer on the scene; and/or b. be a personal notification by the senior administrator. Staff is not to act upon bells or PA messages without this personal notification. 5. Dissemination of information about procedures: - Staff handbook and discussion at staff meeting - Substitute folders - Drill at least once a year. It is recommended that law enforcement be present for the drill to help monitor and improve performance Recommendation: Students should be aware in advance that there will be severe consequences for failure to cooperate with administration or staff during an emergency or drill. Source: Marin County Office of Education - Emergency Services: http://mcoeweb.marin.k12.ca.us/EmerPrep/

 

When Terrorists Strike: What School Counselors Can Do. ERIC Digest.  by Juhnke, Gerald A.  Terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, DC, and the continued threats of terrorism have the potential to engender negative psychological effects upon school age children and their families. School counselors and mental health professionals working with children need to be knowledgeable regarding interventions which allow students to openly discuss immediate and future concerns, cumulative stressors resulting from on-going terrorist threats, and post-terrorism psychopathology (e.g., anxiety, distress, etc.). This digest will familiarize readers with basic Critical Incident Stress Debriefings (CISD), outline the differences between CISD and the Adapted Family Debriefing Model for school students, and describe how mental health professionals can use this model as a post-terrorism response intervention.  CRITICAL INCIDENT STRESS DEBRIEFING VS. THE ADAPTED FAMILY DEBRIEFING: MODEL FOR SCHOOL STUDENTS  Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD) is a seven-stage, small group process originally developed for use with adult emergency workers who encounter particularly distressing situations (Mitchell & Everly, 1993). Some have cited CISD as a viable intervention with children and adolescents who experience violence or suicide (O'Hara, Taylor, & Simpson, 1994; Thompson, 1990). Yet, CISD was developed solely for adult use and did not take into account the special developmental needs of children. The Adapted Family Debriefing Model, however, was developed as an assessment and intervention method for student populations exposed to violence (Juhnke, 1997). Evolved from CISD's single group experience, the Adapted Family Debriefing Model for school students requires two separate debriefing experiences. The first debriefing experience is with students' parents only. The second is a joint student-parent debriefing experience. Additionally, unlike the CISD process which utilizes nonprofessional, adult peer facilitators, the Adapted Family Debriefing Model for school students requires the use of trained mental health professionals who have specific knowledge regarding children's developmental needs.  DESCRIPTION Roles  The primary team members within the Adapted Family Debriefing Model for school students are leader, co-leader, and doorkeeper. The leader explains the debriefing process, creates a supportive milieu, identifies those experiencing excessive levels of emotional discomfort, and directs team members via hand signals to intervene with distraught students or parents. In addition, the leader discusses with parents and students common symptoms experienced by children who: (a) have personally experienced terrorist acts or have suffered loss as a result of such acts (e.g., the death of a grandparent or sibling resulting from terrorism, etc.), (b) have witnessed via the media terrorist acts or the aftermath of same, (c) understand the potential for continued terrorist acts, or (d) experience the cumulative effects of multiple terrorist acts. The leader normalizes manifest symptoms and encourages parents to recognize more severe symptomatology which may require additional counseling (e.g., recurrent encopresis, persistent outbursts of anger, chronic hypervigilance).  Co-leaders add relevant comments during the session and give immediate support to students and parents who become emotionally distraught. They also help prevent disruption that may otherwise inhibit group dynamics. The doorkeeper prevents nonparticipants, such as news journalists, from entering the session. Doorkeepers also prevent severely distraught students or parents from bolting from sessions.  Before the Debriefing  Before the debriefing, team members should be apprized of the circumstances surrounding the debriefing. For example, is the debriefing the result of the death of a fellow student from a terrorist act? Or, is the debriefing in response to cumulative effects of terrorist activities? Additionally, teams should learn whether or not students' parents are at increased risk due to their occupations or have a greater probability of being activated into military service. These factors will likely have an influence upon participants' moods and their perceptions of terrorist acts.  Separate Debriefings for Parents and Students  Parent and student needs are often different. Thus, the first session is conducted with parents. It is important to keep the number of parents small (i.e., fewer than 12). Parents often express frustration and anger regarding their inability to adequately protect their children from terrorism. Many will perceive the situation as "hopeless" and "out of their control." Thus, it is imperative that the team keeps parents focused on the immediate needs of their children. Promises of future student safety cannot be guaranteed and detract from the students' immediate needs. Parents need to be reminded that the goals of this session are to: (a) learn about possible symptoms their children may exhibit, (b) obtain available referral sources, and (c) learn to validate and normalize their children's concerns.  During the joint student-parent debriefing, two circles are formed. No more than five or six students of similar ages should sit in the inner circle with friends or familiar peers presenting with similar concerns. Parents should sit behind their children, promoting a perception of stability, unity, and support.  SEVEN-STEP ADAPTED FAMILY DEBRIEFING MODEL 1. Introduction step. During the introduction step, the leader identifies team members and establishes rules for the debriefing experience. Persons not directly related to the children or debriefing process are asked to leave. Confidentiality is explained in terms understandable to the students and participants are encouraged not to discuss what is said within the session outside the debriefing room. The leader states that the purpose of the session is to help students better understand their feelings about the specific terrorist act and increase their coping skills related to continued terrorist threats.  2. Fact gathering step. The second step of the process is fact gathering. The leader will ask the children to report what the experience of the terrorist act was like for them. Should the debriefing be related to terrorist acts which the students indirectly observed via media coverage, the leader may begin by asking about what the students saw on television. Those speaking are encouraged to state what they did when they first saw or heard about the terrorism. Emphasis is placed upon telling the facts of what each student encountered. However, should students begin sharing feelings, the leader and co-leaders should acknowledge emotions expressed and indicate that these feelings are normal.  3. Thought step. This transitional step helps participants move from the cognitive to the affective domain. The leader asks questions related to what students thought when the terrorism erupted. During this step it is crucial to continue to validate and normalize each student's reported thoughts and perceptions.  4. Reaction step. The thought step can quickly give way to the emotionally charged reaction step. Here, the focus should be kept upon participants' reactions to the terrorism. Typically, the leader will start with a question like, "What has been the most difficult part of seeing the airliner fly into the Twin Towers?" 5. Symptom step. During this step, the leader helps direct the group from the affective domain back to the cognitive domain. The leader uses age appropriate language to ask students about any physical, cognitive, or affective symptoms experienced since the violent episode. Often the leader will discuss symptoms such as nausea, trembling hands, inability to concentrate, or feelings of anxiety, asking those who have encountered such experiences to raise their hands. Such a show of hands helps normalize the described symptoms and often helps survivors experience relief.  6. Teaching step. Symptoms experienced by group members are reported in age appropriate ways as being both normal and expected. Possible future symptoms can be briefly described (e.g., reoccurring dreams of being attacked). This helps both parents and students better understand symptoms that they may encounter and gives permission to discuss such symptoms. During this step the group leader may ask, "What have you done or noticed your friends, teachers, and parents doing that have helped you handle this situation?" This question suggests that the students are doing well and helps them begin to look for signs of progress. Sometimes older students will express feelings of support from peers, teachers, or parents. Younger students may use active fantasy, such as pretending to be a hero, to help them better cope with their fears or concerns.  7. Re-entry step. The re-entry step attempts to place some closure on the experience and allows participants to discuss further concerns. The leader may ask students and parents to revisit pressing issues, discuss new topics or mention thoughts which might help the debriefing process come to a more successful end. After addressing any issues, the debriefing team makes a few closing comments related to group progress or support. A hand-out for students and another written for adults discussing common reaction symptoms can be helpful. Younger children may prefer drawing faces which depict how they currently feel (e.g., anxious, sad, frightened). Later parents can use these pictures as conversation starters with their children at home. Hand-outs should list a 24-hour helpline number and include the telephone number for the student's school counselor. Often, it is helpful to introduce parents to their child's school counselor at the debriefing.  POST-SESSION ACTIVITIES After the session, team members should mingle with parents and children as refreshments are served, looking for those who appear shaken or are experiencing severe distress. These persons should be encouraged to immediately meet with a counselor. The promotion of peer support (both parent and student) is important. Students and parents should be encouraged to telephone one another over the next few days to aid in the recovery process.  SUMMARY & CONCLUSION The Adapted Family Debriefing Model for school students described above demonstrates promise for helping both student survivors of terrorism and their parents cope with negative psychological and social effects. The model has distinct differences from traditional CISD and was developed specifically for students. The model is relatively easy to implement and can be modified to meet the needs of students and parents alike.  REFERENCES Juhnke, G. A. (1997). After school violence: An adapted critical incident stress debriefing model for student survivors and their parents. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 31, 163-170.  Mitchell, J. T., & Everly, G. S. (1993). Critical incident stress debriefing (CISD): An operations manual for the prevention of traumatic stress among emergency services and disaster workers. Ellicott City, MD: Chevron Press.  O'Hara, D. M., Taylor, R., & Simpson, K. (1994). Critical incident stress debriefing: Bereavement support in schools developing a role for an LEA education psychology service. Educational Psychology in Practice, 10, 27-33.  Thompson, R. (1990). Post-traumatic loss debriefing: Providing immediate support for survivors of suicide or sudden loss. Greensboro, NC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Counseling and Student Services. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 315 708).

 

 

All documents used in this course are either in the public domain, or used with permission.

Thank you for joining us in this class! Please return to the check-in page at: http://www.psychceu.com/materialsandtests/login.asp to access your post-test.

 

To take the post-test, please return to
http://www.psychceu.com/materialsandtests/login.asp

To order

www.psychceu.com

e-mail us!

Frequently Asked Questions

888-777-3773

© 2024. www.psychceu.com. all rights reserved