From Crisis to Community:
What Elementary Principals Learned on
9/11
Dr.
Diane McCarty, Associate Professor
P.O. Box 1003
Waverly, Iowa 50677
319-352-8316
Dr.
Lynn Nielsen, Professor
Department of Curriculum and Instruction
SEC 610
319-273-7759
From Crisis to Community: What Elementary Principals Learned on 9/11
Annotation: This paper
provides an overview of the purposes and motivation for crisis management
planning in schools and recommendations to assist school personnel in reviewing
and revising their crisis management plans in light of potential future
crises. In addition, this paper
summarizes the results of a recent national study focusing on crisis management
planning in elementary schools. Specifically, this
study examined the immediate and long-term responses of elementary school
principals to the crisis of September 11, 2001.
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to
investigate the responses of elementary principals to the terrorist events of
September 11, 2001. The objectives of
this study were to determine the degree to which elementary principals
perceived their school’s crisis management plan supported their leadership on
9/11 and in the days and weeks that followed, and the degree to which
elementary principals perceived these actions were connected to building
ongoing community in their schools.
National survey data were collected
from 1000 randomly selected elementary principals. Telephone interviews were
conducted with 30 volunteers from among the survey respondents. Interview questions elicited personal
insights, reflections and anecdotal information that illuminated and expanded
the survey data. The results of this
study link crisis management planning to effective leadership. When coupled, these elements yield a safe
school environment and development of a cohesive educational community.
Background
on Crisis Management Plans in Schools
Crisis management planning for
schools is a recent phenomenon. National
Interest has grown continually over the past 15 years because of the obvious
need for local security and preparedness in times of crisis (Buckner &
Flanary, 1996). This should not be
surprising since, as
early as 1992, Pitcher and
As early as 1987,
a national survey reported that leading school psychologists believed crisis
intervention was becoming an important issue about which more information
should be gathered (Wise, Smead, & Huebner, 1987). In spite of this early interest, crisis
intervention was still considered novel in the early 1990s (Pitcher &
Poland, 1992). Traditionally schools
have prepared for comparatively local crises such as fire, floods, or
blizzards. Modern social conditions,
both at home and at school, are adding many more crises to this list
including “AIDS, bomb threats, chemical
spills, sniper attacks, violent intruders, and terrorism, to name a few”
(Pitcher and Poland, 1992, p. 19).
School violence as well as the recent
national terrorist threats have thrust crisis management planning into the
limelight and prompted state and federal officials to become actively involved
in prevention of and preparation for future crises. In March of 1998, two boys, ages 11 and 13,
opened fire on their
Because of violent attacks such as
these and terrorist threats on the national level, crisis preparedness has
become an expected part of school safety initiatives and has prompted state and
federal legislative action. By 1999, for
example, both
Two federal legislative
efforts may also be seen as developing an expectation for school crisis
preparedness and response. First, the
School Safety Enhancement Act of 1999 proposed the establishment of the
A deluge of new books, articles and
journals related to school safety is but another indicator of a growing
interest in crisis management (Brock et al., 2001; Cornell, 1998; Decker, 1997;
Matsakis, 1994; Obiakor, Mehring, & Schwenn, 1997; Pitcher & Poland,
1992; Slaikeu, 1990; Trump, 1998).
How
has this recent ground swell of interest in crisis management shaped actions on
the local school level? School responses fall into two categories
that include first, measures which can be taken immediately and call for
organizational and procedural changes.
The second category calls for measures that are more complex and humane,
affecting the long-term climate and atmosphere of the school.
In terms of immediate actions, when
responding to a crisis, many schools sought to increase safety and security by
assigning police officers to school buildings, installing metal detectors at
entrances to prevent students from bringing weapons into the school, and
enacting zero tolerance policies to guarantee the automatic removal of students
who perpetrated acts of violence (Currie, 1994). Other immediate intervention procedures were
designed to place schools back into a ”normal” or “pre-crisis” state as quickly
as possible (Brock et al., 2001; Obiakor et al., 1997; Pitcher & Poland,
1992). These included for example, the
development of procedures for media releases, alterations to the schedule, and
outlining clear lines of command response protocols.
Long-term measures to secure a safe
school atmosphere included the development of conflict resolution programs,
violence prevention education plans and staff development in a host of academic
as well as psycho-social fields (Aguilera, 1998; Decker, 1997; Gutek,
2000).
While no sharp line can be drawn
defining the boundary between an immediate action and a long-term action, how
school leaders respond immediately following an incident can have a long-term
and cumulative impact on the school’s climate (Kline, Schonfeld, &
Lichtenstein, 1995, p. 245). Pitcher and
When school personnel are prepared to
deal with crisis, students can continue to grow emotionally, intellectually,
and physically. . . . With proper
preparation, a crisis can be used to unite students and staff in building
confidence and cohesiveness among themselves and within the larger public
community. It is possible for the school
to bring students together, forming a sense of community that only comes from a
deep sharing. A school does not realize
this benefit by taking a “business as usual” approach to a crisis situation. .
. . Because it is difficult to make all
the decisions necessary to contain the crisis and channel the emotional on the
day of an event, preplanning will be your greatest asset. (p. 6)
Learning about crisis management is
also a cumulative process. Experience
with crises creates a foundation for school leaders to build upon when planning
for the unknowns of the future.
Disasters vary in length of warning period, intensity of the
catastrophe, duration of impact, number of people involved, extent of property
damage, number of casualties, and requirements of the recovery period.
(Franklin, 1983, p. 150).
How then should schools review and revise
crisis management plans? Revision of a school crisis plan annually
is vital to keeping documents and information current. Following 9/11, most schools added terrorism
procedures to their existing plans if nothing was written on this topic
previous to this date. All plans should
include provisions for pre-planning, interventions/response and post-emergency
activities. Specific recommendations to
consider in revising crisis management plans include the following:
1.
Have
plans externally reviewed.
2.
Conduct
a risk and vulnerability assessment.
3.
Develop
a multidisciplinary planning team.
4.
Be
sure a chain of command is outlined in case a key administrator is unavailable.
5.
Standardize a school district’s plans; tailor
the system plan with site-specific procedures.
6.
Use
functional protocols for major aspects of the emergency operation plan (i.e.,
sharing news of tragedy in individual classrooms by teacher versus using the
public address system).
7.
Have
a designated spokesperson to the media.
8.
Have
a network of key communicators who deliver the same message from a pre-approved
fact sheet.
9.
Develop
a specific response plan (way to document actions taken—could be a checklist).
10. Properly distribute materials and train staff.
11. Develop a photo-tour of your school with a
hard copy photo of each facility of all critical areas, and key pieces of
equipment and controls. (Dorn, M., 2004; Virginia Department of Education,
1996, 2002)
A plethora of books and websites exist
that can provide assistance in examining crisis management plans. The reference section included with this
article is a good starting place. Following are a few websites that provide
samples of crisis management plans as well as templates to create or modify
such plans: Crisis Management Plan,
Allegan County Intermediate School District (1999), Crisis
Management Plan, Iowa
School Violence Crisis Intervention Task Force (1999), Emergency Management Guide Template,
Kentucky Center for School Safety (2001), Model School Crisis
Management Plan, , Virginia
Department of Education (1996, 2002), Crisis
Management Plan, Waukegan Community Unit School District (2003).
How
does recent research inform the decisions of school leaders when crisis
situations occur? Crisis management has increasingly caught the
attention of educational researchers and professionals. Blom (1986), a medical doctor, reviewed a
study that examined a broad school-based assessment and intervention program in
an article called “A School Disaster—Intervention and Research Aspects.” This study was implemented shortly after a
crane struck a 231-foot-long pedestrian overpass connected to an elementary
school in
Foley (1986) highly recommended the
need for staff involvement in making decisions about how schools operate
because “once they are conditioned to feel safe in offering suggestions, they
will be prepared to respond to calls for help in crisis” (p. 51). Foley shared his anecdotal responses as an
administrator to two crisis situations.
The first involved a police shooting of a recent dropout at Foley’s
school after the student took two former classmates hostage. The second situation was the death of Christa
McAuliffe, the teacher-astronaut who died in the explosion of the Space Shuttle
Challenger. McAuliffe was a teacher at Foley’s school in
Another high school principal,
Mathers (1996), spoke about the terrorist attack on the
A study by Pfefferbaum, Seale,
McDonald, Brandt, Rainwater, Maynard, Meierhoefer, & Miller (2000)
addressed the posttraumatic stress of 69 sixth graders who lived over 100 miles
from
Roberta Gaston, director of guidance and
counseling in the 40,000 student
Six months following the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001, over 8,000 children at 94 schools in
Trump
(2000) predicted that even more possible damage to children could result if
schools became direct targets of terrorists’ acts.
Attention
to international and domestic terrorism in the late 1990s should lead us to
question how vulnerable our schools might be to terrorist attacks and
threats. There is no question that
Americans overall are sensitive to the impact of violence and that the acts of
terrorists shock even the most veteran public safety officials. The shock value of terrorist threats and acts
is multiplied when children are involved.
What
would you do if your school received an Anthrax scare? What if a gunman upset with the government
enters your school and takes several staff and students hostage? Or, what if a school is bombed by international
terrorists as their means of sending a message to
Still,
although we hope that it will never occur, the sad reality is that this may be
one of the next waves of violence to hit our schools. (pp. 40-41)
The current study was built upon
prior research in the area of crisis planning and specifically focuses on the
response of elementary school principals to the events of September 11, 2001.
Introduction to the Current Study
“I think 9/11 brought our
school together as a community more so with a common interest in our country and
an interest in what it means to be an American,” words of an elementary
principal from Michigan (McCarty,
2002, p. 262).
September 11, 2001, will be forever
etched in
As educational leaders,
elementary principals respond to “routine” crises on a daily basis. However, 9/11 was as overwhelming to them as
their teachers and students. Most were
flooded by questions such as: How should I respond? What shall I tell staff, students and
families? and How do I minimize the impact these events will have on
students? How principals answered these questions
was a measure of the quality of their response that day.
To construct a picture of how
elementary principals’ responded to 9/11, we conducted a national survey of two
hundred sixty elementary principals and interviewed an additional thirty. The survey results profile the decisions
principals made that day and shed light on how they see their role in crisis
situations. So what did elementary
principals learn on 9/11?
Maintain Normalcy in the Face of Crisis
Principals
indicated that maintaining normalcy was of primary importance and their highest
priority. Returning to a state of
normalcy is a universal goal of crisis management (Brock, Sandoval, &
Lewis, 2001). Principals suggested that
“keeping school as normal as possible” was the order of the day because a
stable atmosphere would provide the best psychological environment for the
children and teachers. One principal
said, “I just told the teachers to try to make things as normal as possible for
the kids so they have this [school] as an anchor” (McCarty, 2002,
p. 311).
Another principal echoed this same thought, “We were keeping school as
normal as possible for children because we thought that was what was best for
kids. . . . We wanted school to be as
stable and as caring as possible” (McCarty, 2002, p. 247). Still another principal believed that “if you
start changing routines it sends a different kind of message [to kids]”
(McCarty, 2002, p. 333).
Follow Your Crisis Management Plan
Principals found that the Crisis Management Plan was an
important asset in the face of the uncertain events of 9/11. Ninety-seven percent of principals
reported that their district had developed a crisis management plan prior to
9/11 and many reported the plan was very useful on that day. One principal said, “It really drove home why
those plans need to be in place and everybody needs to understand what we do so
that it isn’t chaos” (McCarty, 2002, p. 256).
Still another principal said:
I
don’t know that there’s anything that really prepares you for this, but you at
least have some outlines to follow. You
have criteria that you know is in place.
It helps you focus and apply your knowledge and then deal with it
appropriately. You don’t get so caught
up in the moment that you forget what you’re supposed to be doing. (McCarty,
2002, p. 342)
Plan to Improvise
Principals found that despite
the best laid plans, they often needed to improvise when confronting
crisis. Despite the best crisis management plans, principals found
they had no prescribed “curriculum” to draw upon when facing the challenges of
9/11. Improvisation and in many cases
creativity were the order of the day. On
the west coast, where students came to school as the day’s events were
unfolding, one elementary principal spent that day walking from room to room
assuring children of their safety and talking to them in language they would
understand. In another school, the staff
created an alternative to recess by offering the choice room, a place where
children could express their fears and anxieties through a variety of artistic
activities. Another principal, on the
east coast, asked teachers to ride the school buses at the close of the day to
help students feel calm and safe.
Another principal “controlled the media” (Robinson & Henning, 2002,
p. 4) by not allowing young students to view the events over and over again on
televisions. In the absence of specific
procedures outlined in a crisis management plan many principals found it
necessary to improvise.
Update Your Crisis Management Plan Regularly
Principals learned first-hand
that the crisis management plan needed to be updated on a regular basis. While
the vast majority of principals reported having a crisis management plan, few
plans outlined specific procedures to follow in the event of a crisis of the
magnitude of 9/11. One principal did
describe how the central office sent out immediate directives activating the
district crisis management plan including specifics regarding statements to be
made to the children, the use or non-use of television, telephone protocols,
and use of community support personnel.
But this level of centralized direction was not the norm. As one principal said, “In our crisis plan,
nothing like this was really addressed” (McCarty, 2002, p. 290).
As a result, many elementary
principals found 9/11 to present them with many unanswered questions ranging
from management of public information to dispensing student medication. For example, How much information do we give
children? In what form do we give this
information? What lines of
communication are set up with the community?
Do we expose children to the media and television coverage? Do we maintain a normal schedule for the day?
Do we dismiss school or keep students in the building? In the event of evacuation, what procedures
do we follow for student medications?
Kenneth Trump, a leading advisor on school
safety, recommends, “School safety and crisis
preparedness planning should be regarded as an ongoing process, not a single
event. Safety plans and crisis
guidelines must be revisited at least annually and tweaked if necessary to meet
new challenges” (2002, p. 10). The
principals we interviewed echoed this recommendation, especially the necessity
to process problems following new challenges such as the 9/11 terrorist
attacks. As one principal commented,
“9/11 certainly confirms the need to get together and go through your
protocols. . . . We are now getting
together periodically and taking about how things are going and how we handle
situations” (McCarty, 2002, p. 237).
Build Updated Plans on Past Experience
Principals found that previous experiences responding to
crises, especially the relatively recent Columbine shootings, informed how
crisis management plans were updated and refined. In the area of crisis management, knowledge
is cumulative. A principal from
Communicate Accurately and Proactively
Principals learned the value of releasing accurate and
timely information. Some principals were overwhelmed by the
quick decision-making 9/11 demanded of them.
Others were simply numbed into silence.
In one school, the principal decided to cancel recess. When students inquired as to why recess was
cancelled, the principal told them that it was National Inside Recess Day and
communities all around were participating.
A principal in another district reported that when students asked why
recess was cancelled, she told them the school was trying out a new schedule.
These principals later regretted passing along misinformation and would have
proceeded differently had they been able to replay their decisions that
day.
In another school
outside recess was cancelled but children were given no justification. The principal of this school stated that the
teachers wished that something had been said to the children about why recess
was called off because “. . . the students started making up stuff. What they made up was not accurate” (McCarty, 2002, p. 312). Consequently, the
principal was forced into a reactive rather than proactive position as she
dispensed information about the events of 9/11.
Another principal reflected
on the importance of effective communication by saying, “I regret it now. . .
. I should have called my staff together
and done some type of debriefing, but that was not something that I thought of
[on that day]” (McCarty, 2002, p. 269).
Use Crisis to Build Ongoing Community
Principals learned that if
they channeled renewed enthusiasm for citizenship into a planned and
intentional approach for teaching citizenship, they were more likely to see
lasting results after the shock of the crisis dissipated. One principal observed, “Sometimes it
takes a crisis or a tragedy to pull people together” (McCarty, 2002, p.
309). However this positive sentiment is
difficult to sustain if not nurtured.
Elias (2001) says:
History
tells us that the positive messages of tragedy do not last very long. While hundreds of thousands of people were
directly affected by the terrorist acts, many millions were not. They will seek refuge and comfort in a return
to their routines, as well they should.
But we dare not let this moment pass without drawing an important lesson: We must educate our students for civic
participation, for the development of sound character, and to understand
clearly the gifts of our democratic freedom. (p. 40)
In the face of the 9/11
crisis many schools pulled together to ensure the immediate safety and security
of children. This “circling of the
wagons” around a common concern often created an immediate sense of unity. However, without capitalizing on this
windfall of community through intentional citizenship-building activities, in many schools the renewed sense of community
dissipated almost as quickly as it appeared.
A principal from the southwest reported:
There was a
high level of tolerance at the beginning [after 9/11]. . . . It’s the end of the year now, and . . . . I
just want to say—Did you forget all that we just learned six months ago? They’ve gone back to a lot of intolerance. (McCarty, 2002, p. 275)
In many cases crisis was the impetus for
development of citizenship and character education programs. One principal noted, “It’s sort of ironic
that after 9/11 the whole character education piece really seemed to be more
important to everybody” (McCarty, 2002, p. 380). Another principal stated that one result of
the 9/11 crisis was the development of a program emphasizing school pride and
character development.
“ . . . we’ve
started a character education theme that we’re doing. October was patriotic; November was giving
and December was a rainbow of compassion” (McCarty, 2002, p. 268). Another principal described Skills for
Success, a program designed to promote values such as citizenship, tolerance,
patience, responsibility, and respect.
Conclusion: The Worst of Times and the Best of Times
The worst of
times: On 9/11, a “community” of 19 men
working in coordinated fashion took the world hostage through shockingly violent
acts designed to create fear in the hearts of people everywhere. The terrorists’ tactics were based on the
premise that a very localized event can produce results that reverberate
internationally. The terrorists who
attacked the
The best of
times: The same mechanism works to the
advantage of principals who labor for excellence, who work to shape their
schools into safe harbors of community for the children in their charge. Over ten years ago Marva Collins (1992)
observed:
It has always
been citizens with the determination of a lit firecracker that have made the
worst of times the best of times. . . .
What has always made the
fetid times in society better times were citizens who
did not sit back with a ‘so-what-it’s-not-my-problem-attitude.’ It was those determined citizens that picked
away at the roots of evil. (p. 65)
With the same
spirit and determination, the highly localized actions of principals—who
perform daily routines that are anything but “routine”, who inspire the future
of children, who encourage under appreciated teachers, who carry with them portfolios
of daily burdens, challenges and even accomplishments—are sure to produce the
results in the lives of children that will reverberate from the classrooms and
hallways of their buildings into the city, the state, the nation and the world.
References
Aguilera,
D. C. (1998). Crisis intervention: Theory and methodology (8th ed.).
Blom, G. E. (1986). A school disaster--Intervention and research
aspects. Journal of the
Bowman, D. H. (2001). Schools struggle with what to tell students about
a day of terror. Education Week, 21(3), 19.
Brock, S. E., Sandoval, J., & Lewis, S.
(2001). Preparing for crises in the schools (2nd ed.).
Buckner, K. G., & Flanary, R. A.
(1996). Protecting your school and students:
The safe schools handbook. National
Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 80(579), 44-48.
Collins, M. (1992). “Ordinary” Children, Extraordinary Teachers.
Cornell, D. (1998);. Designing safer schools for
Currie, E. (1994). Capital gangbusters: What’s wrong with the
crime bill? The Nation, 258(4), 118-121.
Decker, R. H. (1997). When a
crisis hits will your school be ready?
Dorn, M. (2004). School safety planning: How
does your school safety plan measure up to the new model? Today’s
School,1-4. Retrieved May 28, 2004, from http://www.peterli.com/archive/ts/656.shtm
Elias, M. J.
(2001). Prepare children for the test of
life, not a life of tests. Education
Week, 21(4), 40.
Foley, C. F. (1986). Dealing with crises: One principal's experience.
National Association of Secondary School
Principals Bulletin, 70(494), 46-51.
Franklin, T. (1983). Crisis intervention in community
disaster. In L. Cohen,
Gibbs, N. (1999). Crime:
The
Gutek, G. L.
(2000). American education,
1945-2000: A history and commentary.
Hornblower, M. (1998). The boy who loved bombs. Time, 151(21), 42-44.
Kline, M., Schonfeld, D. J., & Lichtenstein, R. (1995).
Benefits and challenges of school-based crisis response teams. Journal of School Health, 65(7),
245-247.
Labi, N.
(1998). The
Livingstone,
N. C. (1982). The war against terrorism.
Mallonee,
S., Shariat, S., Stennies, G., Waxweiler, R., Hogan, D., & Jordan, F.
(1996). Physical injuries and fatalities
resulting from the
Mathers, K. (1996). Never
again would we be the same: The
Matsakis, A. (1994). Posttraumatic
stress disorder: A complete treatment guide.
McCarty, D. M. (2002). A national survey of elementary principals
response to the events of September 11, 2001. Dissertation Abstracts
International, AAT (UMI
No. 3069343)
N.Y.C. children suffer
post-traumatic stress (2002, May 2).
Obiakor, F. E., Mehring, T. A., & Schwenn, J. O. (1997). Disruption,
disaster, and death: Helping students deal with crises.
Pfefferbaum, B., Seale, T. W., McDonald, N. B., Brandt, E. N.,
Jr., Rainwater, S. M., Maynard, B. T., Meierhoefer, B., & Miller, P. D.
(2000). Posttraumatic stress two years
after the
Pitcher, G. D., &
Robinson, V., & Henning, J. E. (2002). Preparing educational
leaders for the unthinkable: Reflections on the September 11 tragedy.
Slaikeu, K. A.
(1990). Crisis intervention: A
handbook for practice and research (2nd ed.).
Trump, K. (1998). Practical school security: Basic guidelines
for safe and secure schools.
Trump, K. (2000). Classroom killers? Hallway hostages? How schools can prevent and manage school
crises.
Trump, K.
(2002). Be prepared, not scared. Principal,
81(5), 10-12, 14.
Wise, P., Smead, V., & Huebner, E. (1987). Crisis intervention: Involvement and training
needs of school psychology personnel. Journal of School Psychology, 25,
185-187.