Common Core, two words that rattle many parents’ nerves from sea to shining sea; however, there are two other words that should shake us to our very core: Education Code. In the February 2013 Ventura County held “Threat Assessment: Prevention of Targeted Violence in Schools,” the education codes plays a far bigger role in defining acceptable words and behaviors, posing an insidious threat to every child and family in ways we have never imagined.
Most worrisome, boys are already diagnosed with ADHD, 13.2% v. girls (5.6%) according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta, GA because of their actions. Like moving. Now, their very boy-like pushing, shoving, joking sarcastically and name-calling will signal red-flags. Everything that define boys in their formative years may well indict them. Or worse. It’s no wonder they are twitchy; boys are not allowed to duke it out anymore but if they did, odds are they won’t grow up to become Adam Lanzas or Timothy McVeighs.
Behavior and words not the only warning signs for school officials to pounce on: drawings and other creative outlets with persistent or intense violent themes (p. 13); violent attire (camouflage fatigues, violent message t-shirts; inappropriate possession of violent literature and information pertaining to known or suspected hate groups; rebellion against school authority; perceived injustices; violent music and other media are all up for grabs. Camouflage pants? In fact, the bolded text in the page 4 box reads FAILURE TO ACT: “The Secret Service says when a child indicates that he is thinking about committing a violent act, and an adult does not take decisive action to stop him, the child sees this as getting ‘PERMISSION TO PROCEED.’” Excuse me but what does the Secret Service have to do with public school?
American English is chockfull of rich colloquialisms, expressions and idioms that we use daily. Regionally. Generationally. Automatically. They spill out of our mouths as much a part of the culture as is our American fabric and our Judeo-Christian heritage and now, if a student says, does, draws, wears or reads something perceived as a “safety threat,” (s)/he well will be given a first warning by the requisite administrator. The parents will be also addressed and asked outright “Do you have a firearm in the home?”
Does it all come down to one big dystopian reality? A student stands up for him/her self after a false accusation by a K-16 authority figure and finds him/her self labeled as defiant. A kid says or does an impulsive act and now it’s an act of violence with a diagnosis of ADHD on the side. Will speaking up with a different POV now be assessed as a threat? And what really is a threat? Apparently, a lot more than we knew. Who and what a threat is will be determined solely by school administrators according to our sheriffs and the document. Good luck if principal doesn’t like your kid. Or you. And worse, kids lie. Now, one kid doesn’t like another and can now “anonymously” report an incident for which no further investigation is required? By the way, there is no second warning. Real or perceived, if your son or daughter is anonymously reported being the culprit or being in the same room as the culprit(s), (s)/he is considered part of the problem. In a second “incident,” the appropriate public school administrator will write up your child and contact law enforcement for further “investigation” of the family.
Welcome to the police state. Literally.
Sources for “The Education Code” parts 1, 2 & 3.
i. Los Angeles Unified School District’s 2011 Quick Reference Guide for Threat Assessment & Management threat assessment and management (School Mental Health, Student Health & Human Services).
ii. California Education code, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.html/edc_table_of_contents.html,
iii. Threat Assessment, Prevention of Targeted Violence in Schools, February 2013, Office of Education, Ventura County
iv. California Threat Prevention and Intervention Strategies1, Diana Browning Wright, DCS 2002
v. Ventura County Sheriff’s Office Threat Assessment Plan, February 2013, Pentis, Fryhoff
vi. Threat Assessment Guidelines, Attachment VII.a., p. 1-15; VII.b.; VII.c., p. 1-14; VII.d., p. 1-15; VII.e.
vii. Crisis Resource List, 2011-2012, School Mental Health – LAUSD, Crisis Counseling & Intervention Services
viii. Sonoma County School Crisis Response & Recovery Resource Guide, November, 2012, Revised.
ix. Sonoma County School Crisis Response & Recovery Go-To Guide, April 17, 2012, Revised; Cynthia C. Moore, LCSW, Melinda K. Susan, MA, NCSP
x. Transient or Substantative Threats? (PPT adapted from PENT website)
xi. Post Test-Threat Scenarios and Answers to Post Test-Threat Scenarios developed by Dewey Cornell, University of Virginia with input from Diana Browning-Wright, CDE-DCS