Kelly J. Shook Education Law Blog on Lawyers.com

By Kelly J. Shook - Associate
Schwartz & Eichelbaum Wardell Mehl and Hansen, P.C.
800.488.9045 | www.edlaw.com | information@edlaw.com

As George Bernard Shaw eloquently stated, “the single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”  This may be true in many aspects of the school environment, and emergency planning is no exception.  As school years gear up and administrators become more preoccupied with the unexpected events that inevitably arise each school year, communication regarding school emergency operations plans may accidentally fall to the wayside. However, in order to reduce panic and better ensure a proper response when school emergencies do occur, it is important to ensure that school district’s multi-hazard emergency operations plan thoroughly address communication issues that will likely arise before, during, and after an emergency event. 

Multi-hazard emergency operations plans for school districts were first mandated by the legislature in 2005.   The statute requires school districts to adopt operation plans for the mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery of emergency situations.  As a brief reminder, the multi-hazard emergency operations plan must provide for:

District employee training in responding to an emergency;

1. Mandatory school drills to prepare district students and employees for responding to an emergency;
2. Measures to ensure coordination with local emergency management agencies, law enforcement, and fire departments in the event of an emergency; and
3. The implementation of a security audit at least once every three years.

If a school district is located within 1,000 yards of a railroad track, the district is also required to include in its multi-hazard emergency operations plan a policy for responding to train derailment near a district school. 

The multi-hazard operation plan regulations ensure that school districts set up appropriate procedures for emergency threats such as natural disasters, acts of terrorism, or infectious diseases.  However, many communication nuances are not expressly discussed.  For instance, in the planning stage, it may be most effective to use “plain English” terms for emergency drills.  Secretive names like “code blue” for a tornado alert may only serve to panic students, substitutes, and teachers who may not have a clear understanding of what the code means. The last thing a district needs in an emergency situation (or in a drill) is for a teacher to have to locate the “code” book in his or her desk and attempt to decipher for the class what is going on.  District personnel may also wish to distribute multiple copies of an emergency plan (and also multiple versions—perhaps one for teachers, one for administrators, and/or one for students) in order to ensure that there are copies available throughout the school in case they are needed.

Communication during an emergency may also pose unique problems.  Does the school district’s emergency plan set forth alternative means of communication for a situation where classroom phones (or—dare we say it---even cell phones) are not available as lines of communication? Examples of such alternative modes may include intercoms, radios, or even runners. In determining possible alternative methods of communication, the district may wish to consider how vulnerable the method is to interception by others during the crisis period.

After the emergency event has occurred, school districts must immediately begin thinking of contacting parents.  As automated phone and email notification systems grow in popularity, the district may need to consider carefully the locations of those systems.  If the automated phone system is located at each school, then the district may experience communication problems if the school is not safe for re-entry after the emergency event occurs.  Locating such devices off-site of the school may help ensure that communication could be handled efficiently even if the school’s offices are not accessible.

Additionally, a school district must carefully consider how to respond to the media attention that is likely to follow an emergency.  Developing a plan for addressing the media, and perhaps developing a working relationship with the media prior to a crisis situation, may be useful for limiting the amount of media speculation surrounding an emergency event.  For instance, a school district may consider designating a “media area” for the news crews so that they may succinctly be given statements regarding the events. It may also be wise to designate a “spokesperson” at each school who will disseminate appropriate information to news crews. Remember that when dealing with the media, the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) still applies, and student names should not be released by district officials to the media.

Although these suggestions only touch the surface of potential considerations for improving a school’s multi-hazard emergency operations plan, they may be useful as a starting point for updating and improving a district’s emergency plan.  As always, school districts should contact their local counsel with any questions they may have regarding their current multi-hazard emergency operations plan.