When Facing the Unthinkable: Rethinking School Safety Strategies
The idea of a school shooting is every parent’s worst nightmare and a reality no student should ever face. Yet, in recent years, conversations about school safety have shifted from hypothetical discussions to urgent planning. One piece of advice that occasionally surfaces—including statements like “If a shooter enters the school, attack them”—has sparked debate among educators, parents, and safety experts. Where does this advice come from? Is it practical? And what alternatives exist to protect students and staff during such a crisis?
The Origin of “Attack the Shooter” Advice
The suggestion to confront an active shooter isn’t new. It stems from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s “Run, Hide, Fight” protocol, originally designed for workplaces. The “fight” component advises individuals to disrupt the attacker’s plans as a last resort when escape or sheltering isn’t possible. In schools, however, translating this into actionable steps for minors raises ethical and practical questions.
Proponents argue that passive responses—like locking doors or hiding under desks—rely too heavily on luck. For example, during the 1999 Columbine shooting, some students survived by playing dead, while others were tragically found in predictable hiding spots. Advocates of a proactive approach believe that organized resistance (e.g., throwing objects, tackling the shooter) could reduce casualties by creating chaos, delaying the attacker, or even stopping them entirely.
The Case for Resistance
Real-world examples occasionally support the idea of fighting back. In 2017, a student at North Park Elementary in California successfully disarmed a shooter alongside his teacher. Similarly, during the 2018 Parkland shooting, coach Aaron Feis sacrificed himself to shield students, demonstrating how decisive action can save lives.
Psychologists note that humans have three instinctive reactions to danger: fight, flight, or freeze. Training students to override the “freeze” response and act decisively—even if that means confronting the threat—could empower them in life-or-death scenarios. Programs like ALICE Training emphasize situational awareness and teach techniques for distracting or disarming attackers, such as using chairs, books, or fire extinguishers as improvised weapons.
The Risks of Encouraging Confrontation
Critics, however, highlight significant flaws in this strategy. First, most K-12 students lack the physical strength or training to safely engage an armed adult. A failed attempt could escalate violence, putting more lives at risk. Second, urging confrontation may inadvertently place blame on victims—implying that those who couldn’t fight back “didn’t try hard enough.” Third, focusing on fighting overlooks the emotional trauma of asking children to make split-second combat decisions.
Law enforcement agencies like the FBI caution that confronting a shooter should only be a last-resort option. In chaotic situations, students might misidentify threats (e.g., mistaking a police officer for the shooter) or become trapped in crossfire. Additionally, active shooters often wear body armor or carry multiple weapons, making them harder to subdue without professional intervention.
What Do Safety Experts Recommend?
Modern school safety strategies prioritize prevention and layered preparedness. For instance:
1. Threat Assessment Programs: Schools identify and support students exhibiting warning signs (e.g., social isolation, violent fantasies) before crises occur.
2. Enhanced Security Measures: Controlled access points, panic buttons, and trained security personnel can deter or delay attackers.
3. Mental Health Resources: Counseling services and anti-bullying initiatives address root causes of violence.
During an active shooting, the consensus remains that evacuation and sheltering are safer first responses. Classrooms are encouraged to practice lockdown drills that include barricading doors with furniture, silencing electronics, and staying out of the shooter’s line of sight. If escape is impossible, hiding in closets or storage rooms—not under desks—offers better concealment.
A Balanced Approach to Empowerment
While the “attack” advice is controversial, it underscores a larger truth: preparedness saves lives. Schools should avoid one-size-fits-all solutions and instead provide age-appropriate training that balances caution with courage. For example, high schoolers might learn basic self-defense tactics, while younger students focus on following teacher instructions and recognizing safe exits.
Open conversations are also crucial. Students should feel comfortable reporting suspicious behavior, and teachers need clear protocols for emergencies. Parents can advocate for updated safety policies, such as funding for school resource officers or trauma kits in classrooms.
Conclusion: Beyond the Debate
The question of whether to confront a school shooter reflects a painful reality: no strategy guarantees survival. However, fostering resilience—through prevention, preparation, and community support—can reduce risks and empower individuals during unthinkable moments. Rather than fixating on a single tactic, schools must adopt holistic safety plans that address both immediate threats and the societal factors fueling violence. After all, the best way to protect students isn’t just to prepare for the worst but to work tirelessly toward a future where such preparation isn’t necessary.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » When Facing the Unthinkable: Rethinking School Safety Strategies