A second attempt at introducing legislation that would have changed how state mandated school safety drills are conducted in Connecticut failed Monday afternoon after strong criticism from stakeholders in Newtown earlier this month.
The now-removed sections of House Bill 5416 had earlier this session proposed to lower the annual number of fire drills from 10 to seven and drop the number of required crisis response drills from three to two, where one of the two drills would be for staff only. The proposed legislation also proposed that protocols must 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 prohibited active-shooter simulations.
The provisions were carried over from legislation last year that proposed similar changes, but ultimately failed in the Senate after passing out of the Education Committee and House of Representatives.
Proponents of the change this year testified that safety drills — specifically pertaining to active-shooter drills and lockdowns — were often traumatizing or harmed students’ emotional well-being. Opponents, however, countered that the drills are important for preparation purposes and it would put children in danger if the number of drills held in an academic school year was lowered.
Rep. Jennifer Leeper, D-Fairfield, who introduced the language, says it was misinterpreted by those who opposed the bill.
“I feel like what happened was a whole lot of misinformation to scare people on what the purpose of this was,” Leeper told The Connecticut Mirror, adding that the legislation was drafted after “working with a lot of young people and hearing how traumatizing these drills can be, the lack of consistency from district to district and also the way [the drills] make our kids feel like school shootings are … an inevitability.”
Among those in opposition of the bill was Rep. Mitch Bolinsky, who represents Newtown — a southwestern Connecticut town that’s home to Sandy Hook Elementary School where 26 people, including 20 first-graders, were killed in a mass shooting in 2012.
“I come from a place that has experienced something that no town in the world should ever have to experience,” Bolinsky said at the public hearing last week. “I have a higher responsibility … to not take chances with the life of children. This proposal takes chances with the lives of children.”
Newtown’s chief of police, first selectman and district superintendent also shared testimony opposing the legislation.
“The Newtown Board of Education had the wherewithal to learn from those tragedies that came before us. They developed practical and safe lockdown drills for our teachers and our students. These drills increase the likelihood of survival for our staff and our students,” said Newtown Chief of Police David Kullgren, adding that the drills taught educators to lock their doors, turn off their lights and remain silent. “On the day of the Sandy Hook school shooting, I was a shift supervisor and one of four on the first four-person teams at that school. I personally witnessed the heroism of our teachers. They performed exactly how they were trained to do.”
[10 years after Sandy Hook, the police who were there still struggle to forget]
Proponents, like Jonathan Perloe, the director of communications for CT Against Gun Violence, said the bill was “not calling for prohibiting lockdown drills,” but would have “help[ed] ensure that crisis response drills don’t do more harm than good.
“It’s important to balance the likelihood that the skills being taught will ever be used against the harm caused by the fear and anxiety created by the drills themselves,” Perloe said.
Leeper said her intent with introducing the bill again was to place restrictions on active-shooter simulations, differentiate between crisis-response drills and active-shooter drills and that lowering the state-mandate was meant to serve as a “floor” not a “ceiling.”
“I worry the way we have incorporated [these drills] into our school culture has made our kids feel like it’s a very real and present threat and I feel like that’s a failure of adults that we’ve shouldered the crisis of gun violence onto our kids,” Leeper said.
But Bolinsky argued that “trauma in school children for a three-time-a-year drill is absolutely bizarre.
“If we’re looking for reasons why kids are traumatized, we have plenty of conflict in our schools. … There’s tons of bullying. We locked them out of their schools and isolated them for two years,” Bolinsky told the CT Mirror.
“The crisis drills are not the reason for it,” Bolinsky said.
Some students disagree, like Mia Ausiello, a high school senior who said she remembers school lockdowns at the age of 6 and the anxiety associated with them, and also testified in support of the bill.
“I remember our kindergarten teacher telling us all to hide in our cubbies, along the wall of our classroom. I remember watching her expression change, the bright smile that was always there faded completely, to an almost unrecognizable display of fear that 6-year-old me couldn’t quite grasp. … The last thing I remember was the sense of relief that fell across the faces of all 25 of us, still in our cubbies, when the principal came on the loudspeaker to announce the all-clear,” Ausiello said.
“I remember in middle school we learned what to do in an active shooter situation: things like stacking chairs against the doors, throwing our book bags at the shooter, etc. The constant thought of something like this happening at my school stayed in the back of my mind, and haunted me,” Ausiello added. “We are kids. That’s a lot of stress to put on a 6-year-old child. … I believe that reducing the number of lockdown drills schools are required to do will help lower the anxiety and fear amongst students and teachers.”
School safety experts concede to both sides of the issue and say there “isn’t a singular right answer.”
“Drills are supposed to create safety. They’re supposed to have you prepared. They’re supposed to have you ready, but on the counter-side, there may be unintended consequences happening as a result of the way we’re managing them right now,” said Sandra Chafouleas, a professor who specializes in educational psychology at the University of Connecticut. “But is decreasing the number of drills the solution to the problem?”
Limited research exists on the “right” number of drills that are effective both for maintaining student mental health and encouraging safety preparation, Chafouleas said.
“I don’t think that you’re gonna find a concrete answer of the difference between [having] three or one [drill]. That kind of data doesn’t necessarily exist. It’s really a matter of what’s happening in that one drill or those three drills and how you are involving kids,” Chafouleas said. “It depends on context.”
Chafouleas added effective recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics include emphasizing dialogues between school staff and students and better utilizing trauma-informed practices.
Both Leeper and Bolinsky said they expect the legislation to be introduced again next year.