Throwing the Baby out with the Bathwater

The Hartford Courant recently carried a story about Newtown’s representation in Hartford: “Some say CT school safety drills are traumatizing kids. Newtown officials defeated a bid for change.”

It is unfortunate that Newtown is now headlining as a town with little empathy for the students who are disturbed by crisis response drills.

Having served on the District Safety and Security Committee for the four years following the mass shooting in Newtown, I was part of the district’s post-tragedy response, and I was part of the team that presented on school security to a national audience at the American Federation of Teachers’ conference in 2017. I know the importance and seriousness of Newtown’s crisis response drills, and I understand the value of practice.

The bill that some Newtown officials opposed would have lowered the annual number of fire drills from ten to seven and dropped the number of required crisis response drills from three to two, where one of the two drills would be for staff only. I don’t have enough information to know what the right number of drills is; nor do the experts. So, waiting for more research from the Connecticut Department of Education before reducing the number of drills seems wise.

However, there were some important parts of the proposal that were lost when the section of the bill addressing crisis response was tossed in its entirety.

The proposed legislation would have required that protocols be “trauma-informed” and “age-appropriate,” with accommodations for students with relevant disabilities and an option for parents to opt their child out. The bill also would have prohibited active-shooter simulations.

Many students and parents spent the day at a public hearing in Hartford to offer their personal testimony about the negative impact of crisis response drills. Unlike some of the Newtown officials who testified that they were not aware of students being traumatized by crisis drills, I have heard directly from parents and teachers in Newtown who have been greatly disturbed by lock-down drills and have a strong, visceral reaction to any suggestion of active shooter drills. Additionally, I am aware of the cloud of apprehension that these drills create for this generation of students.

Incorporating a requirement for protocols to include trauma-informed practices and prohibiting active shooter drills would not have made our schools any less safe and could have helped mitigate emotional harm that some students feel.

Additionally, the proposal to replace a crisis drill with a staff-only drill is worthy of consideration. Newtown has conducted several “table top” exercises since 2013, in which administrators and emergency response personnel are challenged with scenarios which they must respond to in “real-time” (without student participation). These exercises are incredibly valuable in helping adults learn and gain confidence in their ability to think on their feet, and they complement the rote drills that several testimonials supported as promoting “muscle memory.”

Of course, dealing with the root causes of gun violence should be the first priority, but as long as school lockdowns are necessary, associated student distress should not be dismissed. After all, being concerned about the lives of children goes beyond just keeping them alive.

Unfortunately, in this case, improvements to the statutes were lost when the entire proposal was thrown out.

Legislating isn’t always about accepting or rejecting an entire proposal. It can be about working with others to find the best path forward.

If I am elected to serve Newtown in Hartford, I will not lose sight of the bigger picture - the need to address the underlying causes of gun violence. Importantly, I will be a legislator who works with others to keep students and staff safe physically AND mentally.