Over the last twenty years in the United States, there have been hundreds of school rampage plots that have successfully been averted (Daniels, 2019; Madfis, 2014a). During this same period, however, American schools have prioritized discipline and security in a manner which has exaggerated the extent of school violence as a social problem and dramatically transformed public education as a social institution. In the wake of numerous highly publicized multiple-victim school homicides that occurred during the 1990s, American schools responded with massive changes to their disciplinary policies and security apparatuses. With the intention of preventing future rampage attacks, such as mass shootings and bombings, schools implemented increased security through school resource officers (hereafter, SRO’s), cameras, locked doors, and lockdown procedures, and expanded discipline via zero-tolerance policies with mandatory arrests and school exclusions (King and Bracy, 2019). This cluster of practices, which Hirshfield and Celinska (2011) have collectively referred to as “school criminalization ,” represent the fairly recent but pervasive incursion of law enforcement personnel, ideology, and technology into the school setting. In addition, many school officials and academics responded with a risk assessment approach by focusing upon the identification of potential school shooters through warning sign checklists, behavioral profiles, and threat assessments.
Whatever failures or successes these varied approaches have had with regard to fighting school crime or violence more generally, no prior scholarship has looked at the numerous cases of rampage plots which have actually been averted in order to discern if and when any of these developments have actually played a preventative role. In fact, with the exception of a few recent studies (Daniels, 2019; Daniels et al., 2007, 2010; Langman & Straub, 2019; Larkin, 2009; Madfis, 2014a; Madfis & Cohen, 2018; Pollack, Modzeleski, & Rooney, 2008), social scientists and the public at large possess next to no systematic information on the rampage attacks which have been plotted and planned, yet never came to fruition. Through their exploration, this study endeavors to understand not only how schools assess violent threats and construct risk generally and at times problematically, but also what social and individual forces have been at work in practice to prevent instances of school rampage violence from taking place.
Research Questions and Background Information on Averted School Rampage Incidents
Averted incidents of school rampage offer a unique opportunity for social scientific investigation. As there has been little empirical research on how previous rampage plots have been thwarted, most of the rhetorical arguments regarding how future attacks are to be prevented amount to mere speculation and rely on far too many problematic assumptions about the unlimited benefits and minimal consequences of enhanced school criminalization and risk assessment.
First, this book will explore the process by which schools engage in the risk assessment of their students. To what extent are school officials aware of various forms of violence risk assessment and what are their perspectives regarding the utility of these techniques? Which approaches are utilized for what purposes? What criteria do police and school officials deem most important in the assessment of student threat? How do school officials manage student threats and maintain a sense of safety in the school community? The second goal of this research was to ascertain how student threats of rampage violence have been successfully averted. In particular, how have these threats come to the attention of authorities? What role did risk assessment and the criminalization of schools play in the prevention of the rampage plots? What additional factors, policies, or procedures permitted the rampage to be averted?
My data reveal that, between the years 2000–2009, there were at least 195 averted incidents where student plots to kill multiple peers and faculty members came to the attention of authorities and thus were thwarted. I conducted in-depth interviews with thirty-two school and police officials (administrators, counselors, security and police officers, and teachers) directly involved in assessing and preventing potential rampages at eleven middle and high schools located across the Northeastern United States.
All of the eleven schools that granted me permission for interviews were public institutions. Nine were high schools, one was a middle school, and one was a junior/senior high school. Two were located in Pennsylvania, one was in New York, two were in New Jersey, three were in Massachusetts, and three were in Connecticut. All eleven schools were located in communities where the vast majority of residents were white. Seven of these schools were located in suburban predominantly middle-class communities, three of them were located in very affluent suburban areas, and one school was in a lower middle-class rural community. In order to preserve the anonymity of participants, pseudonyms have been used for all individuals and schools, and no sources (whether news media reporting or legal documentation on specific cases) can be explicitly referenced or cited. This is consistent with how Daniels and his colleagues (2007, 2010, 2011) presented their findings on incidents of averted school rampage killings.
In the first case at Adams High School, a 16-year-old male student, who later admitted to making and exploding more than 40 bombs in the woods near his suburban home, sent videos of himself firing his father’s guns and using the homemade explosives to a friend. The friend’s mother notified the police, and numerous weapons, including two assault rifles, and detailed plans to commit a rampage attack at his school were seized from the teenager’s bedroom.
The second case occurred at the affluent Blane High School, where several students came forward to inform administrators that one of their peers had brought explosives to school with him. When school officials searched this student’s backpack, they discovered tennis balls filled with explosives. Later, police found four additional explosive devices at the student’s home.
In the third incident, a 15-year-old student at Courtside High School stole three handguns and hundreds of rounds of ammunition from his father’s safe. According to the best friend he entrusted to hold onto these weapons for him, he intended to use them in his plan to attack the school.
The fourth incident ended when three teenagers were arrested while walking down a street carrying an arsenal of weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition, after failing in their attempt to steal a car. They intended to use the vehicle to embark on a killing spree throughout their town, including a massacre at Donovan High School of students who had teased them.
The fifth case involved three teenage students at Everton High School creating very detailed and threatening profiles on a social networking website. These profiles featured, among many other disturbing images and words, a digital countdown clock ticking down to the anniversary of the Columbine massacre and several communications and videos expressing the desire to kill lots of people.
Four students at Finley High School, in the sixth incident, were involved in elaborate planning and extensive training to commit a rampage attack at their school. Despite many attempts, these students were never able to attain their own firearms, but they did acquire BB guns, knives, axes, gunpowder, and several homemade explosives. When one of the conspirator’s dedication to carrying out their deadly plans became in question, the other three plotters went to school authorities and blamed everything on their reluctant friend, though the complicity of the whole group was eventually revealed to the police.
In the seventh case, several students at the affluent Greenvale High School expressed serious concern to school administrators about one of their peers having what they perceived to be a hit list of the names of his current and former teachers written in his notebook. The student ultimately left the school voluntarily rather than facing expulsion.
The eighth incident entailed five students at a rural combined middle and ...