(Betsy) Elizabeth Compton

EDAD 6317: School Public Relations

Fall 2015
Project #2

Crisis Plan Evaluation

I work in a small charter high school, with only ninth and tenth grades.
Our current school population is 224. Our situation is a little unique in that
we are currently leasing our space from a local church. Our campus is
spread out over twelve buildings. Ten of these are portable buildings with
two classrooms each. They are situated fairly close together, but far away
from the other two buildings. They are all used for classrooms, with the
exception of one used as my office. The church building has a sanctuary,
which we refer to as C1 and use for music and debate classes. It also has a
large rectangular room with a divider, creating two rooms used for Art and
Leadership classes. The church building also contains rooms for the
principal, counselor, administrative assistant, registrar/attendance clerk, and
receptionist. The gym building has a basketball court used for Athletic
Conditioning classes and a dance room used for Dance and Theatre. The

other classrooms in the gym are used for the nurses station and boys and
girls dressing rooms.
Because we are not in a traditional school building, there are several
safety concerns. The distance between buildings, lack of intercom system,
lack of bells, and lack of phones in the church and gym building classrooms
all create problems for crisis communication. Therefore, it is important the
faculty and staff members clearly understand the protocols for any crisis.
Unfortunately, this is an area in which we are lacking. We have covered this
information, but I know many teachers still have questions and are unsure
what to do in every circumstance. Out of twenty teachers, eight are in their
first year of teaching and five are only in their second. These teachers are
still learning many aspects of following policies and procedures. Their focus
so far this year has been on learning the online gradebook, attendance, and
discipline tracking systems. As a first year administrator, I now see the
importance of reviewing the crisis plan(s) over and over until a clear
understanding is evident among everyone on campus.
Our current campus crisis plan was developed by our school nurse.
She was asked to develop a medical crisis plan, but created a full plan for
other emergencies as well. I will evaluate this plan using the domains set
forth by T-TESS; Distinguished, Accomplished, Proficient, Developing, and
Needs Improvement. The T-TESS model assumes all lessons have room for
growth and nothing is ever perfect. This same philosophy should apply to
safety procedures. For the purposes of this crisis plan review, Distinguished

will serve as the highest possible rating. It should show thorough

preparedness and plan for every aspect before, during, and after a crisis. On
the other end of the spectrum, Needs Improvement should signify that
element of the plan is lacking in several areas and does not adequately
address the safety concerns within an emergency. Accomplished, Proficient,
and Developing should all show various levels of preparedness according to
the spectrum. This five variable rating system is similar to a numerical
rating system of one to five, but allows for each area of the plan to be
assessed differently.
The first section of the plan is clerical. It lists the administrators
names and phone numbers, as well as, outside emergency and
nonemergency lines. That is followed by a list of the various codes to be
used over the radio in an emergency. I understand using codes can help non
responders listening to radio calls feel more safe and secure, however, I feel
this list is a lot to remember for most people during an emergency. I believe
most will remember Code Red is fire and Code Blue is medical emergency,
but the other colors do not seem to directly correlate, which makes them
harder to keep straight. For example, Code Pink is for a missing student and
Code Purple is for an aggressive student. I could see these easily being
confused. In either of those cases, I would recommend my faculty members
radio for security to come to or call the classroom. Hopefully, the codes for a
possible chemical spill or bomb threat would be very seldom, also causing
issues with remembering their specific color code. Due to this slight

complication, I would rank the coding system of the crisis management plan
as Proficient. It is a great idea to be able to specify the emergency in code,
but it is not practical for teachers with limited time to practice associating
the codes to incidents.
The next section focuses on medical emergencies. This section is very
detailed. It lists the protocol to follow and assigns roles for the first
responders and emergency medical team (made up of eight teachers and
administrators). In addition, it contains basic first aid steps for the first
responders waiting on the school nurse or outside emergency responders to
arrive. I think this section is extremely important. In a crisis, some people
are unable to remember what to do. If this information was completely
understood, and then reviewed periodically, it could be life-saving. Due to
the details and clear instructions, this section is rated Accomplished.
The next section is devoted to fire emergencies. This section is also
detailed and presented in the order responders should act. The section
mentions the outside locations for students to gather in a fire, but does not
specifically list which rooms should evacuate to each area. This is a much
needed change. I would recommend adding a campus map with primary and
secondary fire escape routes listed. Since our campus is so large and spread
out, there could also be additional maps with more detail showing each
individual building. These routes should also be posted in every classroom.
Unfortunately, signs do not exist. This is a major problem I would like to
change. While it has been verbally explained numerous times, a visual

representation of where to go in a fire emergency would be helpful for all.

Because of this glaring omission in the crisis plan, this section should be
rated Needs Improvement.
Procedures for what to do in a lockdown situation are provided in the
next section. The focus is on a threatening intruder or violent student on
campus. Our portable buildings are not approved for lockdown, so this policy
is a little different than in a typical school building. This is not distinguished
in the plan, but should be. Our campus administration was told by our
district consultant that in an aggressive person/active shooter/bomb type
situation, our students safest option is to run away from the school building.
We have verbally said this to our teachers, but it is not listed that way in the
plan. The plan gives directions that are not possible. It states to lock the
door. None of our classrooms have locking doors. Some dont even have
door knobs. We have asked the church to replace them numerous times, but
the church refuses. The plan also states to close the blinds and keep the
students in a closet or corner of the room. We have no blinds on any
windows and no closets in any rooms. This section could be very fitting for a
different school building, but is not applicable to our current location.
Therefore, it is rated Needs Improvement.
The next section is about extend power outages. Although I just read
this for the first time very recently, weve followed these procedures a lot
already this school year. Our portable buildings are connected to a
generator. Weve had many issues with it running out of coolant, tripping the

breaker, and not being turned on in time. I have a matrix of where each
classroom can go during any given class period to a location in one of the
two main buildings. It is not an ideal situation because it means three or four
classrooms share the sanctuary at once, but it keeps everyone safe. I would
recommend adding this document in the crisis plan. That would keep all of
the necessary emergency information in one place. Many of the other items
on the list in this section relate to freezing weather. It is doubtful in Texas we
would need to worry about projectors and other equipment freezing in a few
hours, but it is still good to have the information in case of a long-term power
outage. Overall, this section should have a Proficient rating. It meets the
needs, but could be improved with more details.
The next to last section focuses on chemical spills. I understand it may
be standard protocol to include this in a crisis plan, but it seems unnecessary
for our current situation. We do not have any science labs or chemicals for
experiments, etc. Our cleaning crew is contracted out and carries their
equipment with them, taking it off campus when they are not there. The
church cleaning closet is locked in a section that no school employee or
students have access to at any time. It seems as if this section was taken
out of another handbook. It is great for the future when we have our own
building and real science labs, but it is unnecessary for now. Therefore, it is
rated Developing.
Weather and natural disasters are covered in the last section. Weather
is already a huge problem for our campus. Our twenty portable classrooms

are quite far from the main buildings. The students walk through a parking
lot that is uncovered to get there. The parking lot has several drains, but the
largest is near the entrance to the portable building section and pools a lot of
water in heavy rains. Last week, our students had to walk through two to
three inch puddles to get to class. The information in the policy is great for
our classes in the main two buildings, but once again not applicable to the
portable classrooms. The portable buildings are not sturdy enough to
withstand a tornado, flooding, or earth quake. The directions do not address
the need for students in these classrooms to evacuate and go to the other
buildings. Depending on the weather or disaster taking place, the
evacuation process could be complicated. This is a major area lacking in the
plan and needs to be addressed for our specific situation. Therefore, this
section earns a rating of Needs Improving.
Overall, the plan is generic enough to apply to a lot of situations, but
not specific enough to apply to our current school campus situation. I am
unsure how the plan developed by the district contracted person will differ
from this current plan. I assume the same subject areas will be addressed. I
am not sure if it will just provide overriding district policies or specific
campus plans. Both are important in a crisis management plan for smooth
implementation. The plan in its current state deserves a rating of
Developing. Hopefully, the new plan will address the deficits and provide
clear expectations for safety.