Although Malz’ second change was not implemented the first time he proposed it, the school district has since come on board. “An adolescent comes to school with a collective life experience, both positive and negative, shaped by the environments of family, school, peers, community, and culture,” Malz writes. “Out of that collective experience comes values, prejudices, biases, emotions, and the student’s responses to training, stress, and authority. His or her behavior at school is affected by the entire range of experiences and influences. No one factor is decisive.” His statement reminds us that the person who decides to commit an act of violence acts out of his experience. He continues by reminding us these killers had prep time with the potential for warning signs to be picked up by others. “By the same token, however, no one factor is completely without effect, which means that when a student has shown signs of potential violent behavior, schools, law enforcement and other stakeholders have the capacity and the responsibility to keep that potential violent behavior from materializing,” Malz states.
In collaboration, the Jordan School District and Jordan Police Department enacted a School Threat Assessment Policy and Procedures. This community recognized the potential “to categorize the seriousness of a specific threat and to provide appropriate and effective response adhering to the fundamental rational that the safety of the students and staff is primary yet common sense dispositions based on the threat level need to be utilized.” All the individuals involved recognize that zero tolerance policies often stigmatize children and many students face extreme consequences for a poor choice in words or conduct. On the other hand, ignoring the signs or statements of a potential murderer would be dereliction of duty for both law enforcement and school personnel. Nobody wants to be the one who saw potential for violence and remained silent.
Although there isn’t enough space in this column to outline Jordan’s policy in detail it has several key points. First, it establishes a Threat Assessment Team made up of the School Superintendant, Chief of Police (or designee), the Principal of the school involved, the Dean of Students (JHS) or the assigned Homeroom teacher (JMS or JES), the school counselor, a member of the juvenile division of the County Attorney’s Office and a mental health professional if available. Second, it defines the threat including assessing motivation and any precipitating incidents. The policy identifies types of threats, factors including specific, plausible details, the emotional content of a threat and precipitating stressors and levels of risk. The team assesses characteristics of the student’s life that might add to the possibility of them acting out their threat. Although designed for use with students, the assessment can be utilized when any person makes a threat against the school, students, or staff members. All of these factors cannot guarantee a school shooting will be prevented, but these are real-time, immediate actions taken to improve school safety in Jordan.
“The community expects that the school district and the Police Department will do everything in their power to assure the safety of their children,” Malz writes. By moving officers into the schools and implementing a School Threat Assessment, Jordan School District and Jordan Police Department show they aren’t going to wait for the rest of the country to determine solutions for them. They’re willing to devise and implement their own.