The Legal Debate: School Administrators and Bomb Threats - Presumption of Loco Parentis

In the legal context, the principle of loco parentis implies that school administrators assume the role of parents and are entrusted with the care and safety of their students. Given this presumption, should school administrators be held responsible for child endangerment if they choose to keep the school open during a bomb threat? This article explores the legal and practical implications of this question, emphasizing that the majority of bomb threats are hoaxes and that keeping the school open is often the most sensible course of action.

Overwhelming Hoax Rate Prevents Mindless Closure

Hoaxes Overrun the Threats: According to the Hartford Insurance company, a significant majority of bomb threats are false. The statistics from the Hartford Insurance indicate that out of the bomb threats received, 90-95% are not accompanied by actual bombs, leaving only 5-10% with real potential danger. This data underscores the importance of a cautious but measured response rather than precipitously closing the school.

A credible threat, one that is well supported and specific, might warrant evacuation, but the vast majority of threats are unfounded. In a 12-year period (1990-2002), the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) reported that only 1.3% of actual bomb incidents were preceded by bomb threats. This minimal correlation highlights the rarity of a bomb threat indicating a genuine bomb incident.

Evacuation Risks Far Exceed the Benefits

Evacuation Risks: The decision to evacuate during a bomb threat can itself be risky. The sudden evacuation can lead to chaos, with the potential for injuries due to trampling and panic. In some cases, a person making a false threat has utilized this chaos for nefarious purposes. A reported incident illustrates a caller who used a hypothetical bomb threat to trigger an evacuation and then shot students as they were being evacuated.

These incidents highlight the need to consider not just the threat itself, but the practicalities of a mass evacuation. The potential for additional harm during the evacuation process should be a significant factor in the decision-making process.

Encouraging More Threats by Closing Schools

Subsequent Threats: Closing the school in response to a bomb threat can inadvertently reward the false caller and encourage future threats. If students learn that they can influence school policy and operations just by making a bomb threat, the frequency and intensity of these threats are likely to increase, especially during high-stakes testing periods.

The risk of increased harassment and hostility towards school employees forms a significant legal and moral concern. The decision to close schools and evacuate must be based on a careful assessment of the situation, not on the mere presence of a threat.

Financial and Administrative Implications

Financial and Administrative Burden: Closing a school on short notice is not only disruptive to students but also imposes a financial and administrative burden on the school system. Short-term evacuations can result in lost instructional time, disrupted school routines, and increased administrative costs for the school and the parents.

This burden is not insignificant. Schools should be vigilant without being overly reactive. A well-thought-out response that balances safety with the practical needs of the school community is imperative. This includes a protocol that clearly outlines the steps to be taken in case of a bomb threat, with a focus on early intervention and measured action.

Final Considerations

While the principle of loco parentis carries with it a responsibility to safeguard students, the overwhelming majority of bomb threats are false. In the face of a bomb threat, school administrators must weigh the potential risks of an evacuation against the safety of the students. Keeping the school open, when feasible, is often the most sensible option, provided it is done with a thorough and considered approach. Panic and arbitrary actions can lead to more harm than good, and it is crucial to maintain a level of caution that does not jeopardize the well-being of the school community.