I read a post on the Education Week website recently that was hard to believe. It described a school drill in Indiana and a related bill lawmakers in that state are considering: “In an active-shooter training, Indiana elementary teachers were asked to kneel down and face a classroom wall before being shot, execution-style, with plastic pellets by local law enforcement.
“Terrified teachers were screaming during the exercise, which left them with welts and bruises. … State legislators are considering a school-safety bill that, among other things, would require schools to conduct at least one active-shooter drill each school year. The bill has already passed the state House, and is now being considered by the Senate.”
The post didn’t mention that Indiana already requires one “man-made occurrence” drill per semester — a bomb threat, knife threat or lockdown drill, for example. But based on a 2018 report from Fox News, some state legislators in Indiana didn’t think the mandate was sufficient because it allowed districts to fulfill the requirement with a fire drill. And, as that report noted, this kind of emergency preparedness training is not limited to Indiana schools. Indiana State Police troopers give active-shooter training at businesses, teaching the “run, hide, fight” approach. Sgt. Trent Smith said such preparation is necessary because “people who are intent on committing mass murders plan carefully,” “are very well versed in what they’re doing,” and “know they have a limited amount of time to do as much damage as possible.”
Indiana’s reaction to mass shootings in schools and in the workplace is not an outlier. According to a National Center for Educational Statistics report last year, 90 percent of school districts required active-shooter exercises. Since the 1999 Columbine High School shooting, 32 states have passed legislation requiring lockdown drills, with six states requiring active-shooter drills specifically designed to simulate an event in which an intruder intent on committing mass murder is in the school.
Where does New Hampshire fit into this pattern? After the school shootings last year in Parkland, Fla., Gov. Chris Sununu created a School Safety Preparedness Task Force whose report was issued in June. The report summarized existing laws and regulations, which include a mandate that each school include two emergency response drills as part of its evacuation drill quota, plans that address “all potential hazards including natural and human threats (e.g. earthquake, active threat, and acts of violence).”
From the perspective of the task force, this level of preparedness is insufficient. Consequently, it recommended that four of the drills address all potential hazards and one of the drills specifically test the emergency response to an armed assailant.
And Vermont? Its reaction to the Parkland school shootings was markedly different, in large measure because, on the heels of that tragedy, police arrested a former Fair Haven Union High School student who allegedly planned to use a shotgun he purchased to cause “mass casualties” at the high school.
In response to that incident, the Vermont Legislature, with the support of Gov. Phil Scott, passed three bills that tightened laws regulating the purchase of weapons and made it possible for judges to confiscate weapons from “those who pose an imminent threat to themselves or others.” At the same time, the governor asked the Agency of Education to complete a thorough assessment of the emergency preparedness plans in each school. In doing so, the governor reinforced the principle of local control, allowing each school district to determine the frequency and nature of schoolwide drills.
As we have just observed, not every nation in the world reacts to mass shootings the same way as ours. Last month, a gunman entered two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, and killed 50 worshippers. The prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, acted quickly and decisively in response, imposing an immediate ban on assault weapons. The ban included a buyback plan and allowed “tightly regulated” exemptions for some gun owners, such as hunters and farmers. “I strongly believe that the vast majority of legitimate gun owners in New Zealand will understand that these moves are in the national interest, and will take these changes in their stride,” Ardern said.
Conversely, most states in this country prefer to allow pretty much anyone to buy pretty much any weapon they want pretty much any time they want. In other words, to paraphrase Indiana State Police Sgt. Smith, most states would prefer to allow “people who are intent on committing mass murders” to be able to “plan carefully” by acquiring the all weapons they need “to do as much damage as possible” in “a limited amount of time.”
At the same time, we tell schoolchildren to report suspicious behavior while subjecting their teachers to simulated executions.
Our country’s response to mass shootings is very different from New Zealand’s. So here’s a question for parents and voters to ponder: Which country will have a healthier democracy in the long run?
Wayne Gersen, of Etna, is the former superintendent of the Dresden School District.