ILNews

Protecting students from the worst

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

With a little thought, Frank Bush can easily imagine a range of scenarios that could put school children in danger.

An individual bent on harming people could circumvent the security cameras and locks on the building by breaking a school window and spraying the classroom with bullets. A school bus could crash or a student could get into a fight.

Life is fragile, the executive director of the Indiana School Boards Association said. But just as the possibilities for injuries are endless, no single solution will likely provide complete security.

Keeping their students safe is always a top concern of school corporations, attorneys said. Safety measures are reviewed and introduced not just to protect the children from unspeakable violent acts but also from fires, tornadoes, bullying, thefts and drugs. However, the December shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., which took the lives of 20 students and six teachers, has fostered new concerns and is expected to inspire a crop of school safety bills in the Indiana General Assembly.

“I do believe awareness has been heightened,” Bush said. “I do think people are very concerned about disastrous events that occurred and are looking for responsible solutions for safety in schools.”

State and federal statutes have been enacted over the years to address security and protection issues related to students. Schools have safety specialists and emergency preparedness plans detailing what to do during a natural disaster or the procedures for a lockdown. Guns are prohibited within 1,000 feet of a school, and Indiana students caught with a firearm could be expelled from school for a year.

Shortly after the Connecticut tragedy, speculation surfaced if Indiana Code 35-47-9-1 could pave the way for teachers to carry guns because the statute includes an exemption from the school gun-free zone to anyone employed or authorized by the school to act as a security guard or who performs or participates in a school function.

The Legislature and schools often work together but, as attorney Marsha Volk Bugalla noted, the intent that seems clear in a proposal can become cloudy later. While drafting the bill the language may be very plain, but when it is implemented situations not contemplated can arise.

“We always want to be cautious that whatever we do is thoughtful and it’s not just an emotional response,” Bugalla, of Frost Brown Todd LLC in Indianapolis, said.

School resource officers

Days before the 2013 legislative session convened, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller held a press conference to discuss Senate Bill 270, a school safety proposal. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Pete Miller, R-Avon, provides two-year grants of up to $50,000 to school corporations for school resource officers.

Zoeller emphasized the legislation was not a reaction to Newtown. The attorney general had initiated a study in the fall into the use of school resource officers in Indiana schools with the intent of assessing the benefits and concerns about existing SRO programs.

Duties of these officers can vary from district to district. Some are predominately used to provide security while others counsel misbehaving students and intervene in bullying situations. The study found a majority of parents and school administrators were “highly positive” that SROs were in their schools.

Miller’s bill is designed to define the duties of SROs as well as expand the program beyond the estimated one-quarter to one-third of Indiana school corporations that have them. It would appropriate $10 million into the Indiana Safe School Fund to support the grants.

“This proposal would be a good first step to meet an immediate need and expand resources officers into schools that don’t already have them, and still give the Legislature and Executive Branch the opportunity to look at other more long-term comprehensive safety options,” Miller said.

Funding could become the obstacle to this bill. Even Miller described the funding source as “conceptual at this point” with the details being adjusted during the legislative session.

Some school corporations will have enough money to be able to continue the SRO program when the grant expires, Bush said. Other school corporations are operating with such limited cash they have no revenue to match the grant unless they take a drastic step like laying off teachers.

“It’s going to be an unequal distribution of opportunity unless schools and the Legislature can come up with 100 percent of funding for the program,” he said.

Moreover, he questioned whether a $50,000 match would be enough. Would the SRO work five days a week, he asked. If the school has multiple buildings, would $100,000 ($50,000 plus the matching grant) cover the officers needed? Would the officer be in the high school, the elementary school, or at basketball and football games?

He maintains the schools and Legislature need to collect data. There needs to be more information on such things as which school corporations have SROs and how many of those officers are armed.

A January report from the National Association of School Psychologists on school safety emphasized the need for mental health services. The recommendations stated increasing services for mental health, along with social-emotional learning in the classroom, will improve the students’ physical and psychological health as well as academic performance and problem-solving skills.

Also, while the association supports “reasonable building security measures,” it cautioned against putting more armed guards in schools or arming the teachers. The report warned that “an over-emphasis on extreme physical security measures” will not improve school safety and could undermine the schools’ primary mission to educate.

Playgrounds to guns

David Day, partner at Church Church Hittle & Antrim, has represented school corporations for 35 years. Safety has always been an issue, but he has seen that attention turn from preventing injuries on the playground to protecting the students during mass shootings. Now, doors are not only locked, they are also numbered so in the event of an emergency, school personnel can direct the first responders to the correct location.

The focus of school safety changed with the April 1999 shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado and the terrorist attacks of 9/11. This caused school corporations to look at security in a new way and, particularly as a result of Columbine, brought about policies addressing bullying, Bugalla said.

After Newtown, Bugalla fielded calls from school superintendents while the schools assured parents and children they were safe.

“I think schools are always open to anything and everything that will help make them safe, bearing in mind that a school is not a prison,” she said.

Still, Day said, school administrators will become worried if a lot of new rules are passed but the funding remains nebulous. Echoing Bush, he advocates having a “good discussion” at the local, state and federal levels that takes into account that these problems are complex and not remedied with a single solution.

As Bush illustrated with his imagined scenarios, there always is another possibility for a horrifying incident.

“It’s a serious, serious thing that weighs on people’s minds when the next event is going to occur,” he said. “I just hope it happens in a way where someone can be stopped before it happens.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT