An RCMP investigation into a social media threat made toward Don Ross Middle School has sparked discussion on the difference between a student who issues a credible threat and a frustrated youth blowing off steam.
The incident in late May came in the midst of other similar events near Squamish and around the Lower Mainland.
Days before, a threat directed toward Whistler Secondary School prompted officers to arrest a youth. Days afterwards, another arrest was made in Richmond for threats related to McMath Secondary.
While no arrests were made in the Don Ross incident, which was deemed an empty threat, the situation has drawn attention to longstanding questions among those who work in education.
At what point should authorities refer threats to police? What distinguishes a real threat from blowing off steam? How should schools respond to threats in a manner that balances safety with the need for classes to continue?
To begin with, Sea to Sky School District officials detailed some of the response strategies used by schools in the Squamish area when responding to a threat.
Supt. Lisa McCullough said cases can be assessed as low, medium or high risk.
This can prompt a variety of different responses.
The first step is often to call in a multi-disciplinary assessment team, she said. This could include teachers, counsellors, psychologists and other staff who are trained for such scenarios.
Once authorities identify the student who made the threat, they then try to talk to staff members who are in contact with the youth to figure out what would be considered normal behaviour for the student.
Family, parents, the student’s employer and police officers may also be asked to weigh in on the assessments.
Efforts are made to understand whether the youth has become associated with a different crowd, if the student’s disposition has changed and whether there are troubles at home.
The greater the change to a student’s expected behaviour, the more seriously a threat may be taken, said McCullough.
Sudden changes in a student’s willingness to talk and be open, as well as signs of agitation and sleep pattern changes, are also cues to get involved, she added.
To make these assessments, it often involves a lot of work to get to know the youth before a threat occurs.
“We’re always checking in on kids, and when we do see a change in baseline behaviour, that’s when we make a phone call to parents or we sit down with a counsellor and try to suss out what is going on,” said Phillip Clarke, district principal of learning services.
In addition to being trained for such situations, staff members have also been given procedures from the Ministry of Education to help them figure out the seriousness of the threat, he added.
Sometimes this actually ends becoming more of an assessment as to whether these students are threats to themselves, rather than their peers, Clarke said.
Once authorities have determined the seriousness of the threat, a response is put in place. This can be as simple as getting the student to talk to a counsellor. If authorities believe more immediate physical threats could happen, schools could inform police and initiate escalating measures. If a threat is believed to be coming from outside, a “hold and secure” pattern will be invoked, barring school entrances to all except for police.
Danger coming from inside could prompt an evacuation. Another option would be a lockdown, where students and teachers lock themselves in classrooms and the lights are cut to give the impression no one is in the room. Sometimes circumstances may even call for duck-and-cover procedures akin to an earthquake drill.
But while procedures to react to threats are necessary, a seemingly never-ending topic of debate among social psychologists is how to predict which students will act on violent comments.
For Edward Taylor, the director of the school of social work at the University of B.C. Okanagan, students’ histories are the number one indicator.
“The best predictor is whether they have participated in violence before,” he said. “Some of the things a school wants to do is to ask the question, ‘Has this person been known to participate in violent acts?’”
This can include fights, property damage and self-harm, he said.
Other things to look at would be the threat-maker’s mental health and whether they have access to a support system to help them deal with problems, Taylor said.
Peer groups are another important thing to observe, he noted, and whether the friends of a threat-maker are known to have violent histories.
It’s also important to note if this person is getting affirmative comments for fantasizing about destructive behaviour either online or from real-life peers, he added. Authorities should be concerned if those who made the threat believe they deserve revenge for having been wronged and feel entitled to settle a real or imagined score, Taylor said.
“Now I’m starting to enter into that grey zone of danger because now I may start obsessing about it,” he said when describing a potential perpetrator’s thought process. “I may start seeing myself as victimized and needing to do something about that victimization.”
But perfectly predicting who will act on a violent threat is not possible because there aren’t any schools that have the amount of resources necessary to get all the data possible on every potential threat-maker, he said.
“The problem with this, is it takes a lot of work from counsellors and teachers – it’s systematic work that no one has the time to do,” Taylor said.
To help address this issue, Taylor suggested using peer counsellors, who are trusted students who keep an eye on high-risk youth in their classes.
This could also help reduce stigma that may be directed at high-risk youth, he said, because getting school counsellors to check up on students often singles them out. Having peer counsellors chat with someone can be less intrusive and stigmatizing, Taylor said.
Finally, when a threat is made, it’s often crucial to look at how it’s phrased.
The more specific a threat, the more seriously it should be treated.
If a would-be perpetrator mentions a time, a place and a method, this should be flagged, Taylor said. For example, if students say, ‘The school deserves to be blown up,’ authorities should ask them how they would go about the task.
This would prompt questions asking whether those students have access to explosives, know how to operate a bomb, and have picked out a place and time to set it off, among other things, Taylor said.
If the students can’t answer those questions, there’s a good chance the remark was just a way for them to blow off steam.
However, if there are signs threat-makers have a solid, detailed plan for making a violent act happen, their comments should be taken seriously, Taylor said.
