Case Study of Educational Leaders Who Have Led in the Aftermath of a Rampage School Shooting

Home , Sacrifice (2005), Sacrifice (2009), Sacrifice (2012), Virginia Tech shooting, Walk of My Life

THE DEPTH OF SACRIFICE: CASE STUDY OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERS WHO HAVE LED IN THE AFTERMATH OF A RAMPAGE SCHOOL SHOOTING

A dissertation submitted to the Kent State University College of Education, Health, and Human Services, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor in Philosophy

Robert W. Hunt

May 2020

ii A dissertation written by

Robert W. Hunt

B.A., Kent State University, 1996

M.Ed. Admin., Ursuline College, 1999

Ph.D., Kent State University, 2020

Approved by

______, Director, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Rosemary Gornik

______, Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Catherine Hackney

______, Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee John Rainey

Accepted by

______, Chairperson, Department of Teaching, Kimberly S. Schimmel Learning, and Curriculum Studies

______, Dean, College and Graduate School James C. Hannon of Education, Health, and Human Services

iii

HUNT, ROBERT W., Ph.D., May 2020 FOUNDATIONS, LEADERSHIP, AND ADMINISTRATION

THE DEPTH OF SACRIFICE: CASE STUDY OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERS WHO HAVE LED IN THE AFTERMATH OF A RAMPAGE SCHOOL SHOOTING (193 pp.)

Dissertation Director: Rosemary Gornik, Ph.D.

The purpose of this case study was to examine and articulate the experience of a rampage school shooting through the lens of educational administrators. It examined how administrators navigate and are affected personally and professionally by a rampage school shooting one and five years post shooting. The setting was Central High School

(pseudonym) in the Northeast. Media reports and public records provided foundational knowledge regarding the events, and in depth interviews were conducted with participants.

The study identified themes that allow for an understanding of the short and long term personal and professional implications of leading a school through such an event.

The study informs how to support educational leaders forced to lead a school building confronted with a traumatic event, and the impact of the event on the school community.

The implications of the research highlight the need for better preparation of current and future educational leaders in the area of crisis leadership. They provide a better understanding of the challenges faced by these educational leaders. Finally, they inform crisis planning and incident response.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My initial admittance to my doctoral journey required an interview in which I was informed that my timeframe for program and dissertation completion was 10 years. I was astonished at what I perceived as a ridiculous period of time. A member of the committee paused and said, “remember life happens.” Life certainly happened along the way with much adversity and struggle side tracking and placing a large amount of doubt if this would ever get done. I have reached this point just under the 10 year deadline and have others to thank and recognize for not allowing me to quit along the way.

I want to thank and recognize the staff at Kent State University for helping me along the way. They welcomed me in half way through the program and made me believe this was possible going above and beyond at all levels throughout my journey. I want to recognize my talented dissertation committee. Each of you offered unwavering support and patience with me throughout this process. Your insights and encouragement have led to this meaningful body of work. I would not have made it through without your consistency, understanding, and wisdom.

I want to acknowledge my participants for sharing a deeply personal event. I have come to admire your strength and ability to persevere personally and professionally.

You are all inspiring leaders that have committed to helping others as evidenced by your willingness to be involved in this study. My hope is that this work has captured your courage and does in fact help others. I want to recognize James individually. As I have completed this work, I cannot help but wonder how much the stress of this event

contributed to your far too early departure from this earth. You were a heroic leader that has impacted many.

I want to thank my family as you have consistently believed and supported me in all of my endeavors. You have all contributed to any level of success I have experienced in life; however, it is your presence and commitment during times of crisis and confusion that make you very special.

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my wife and children. It took me way too long in life to appreciate every moment with all of you. I am blessed at so many levels, and you are all the foundation of all that I do and all that brings happiness to my world. While I love the title of Dr., it is the title of husband and father that means the most.

As a parent we are supposed to be a teacher to our children. However, it is the four of you who have taught me so much. Ashton, it is your personality and sense of humor that are contagious. You have the ability to light up and take over any room.

Always know that is a gift that can be used to bring happiness and joy to others. Never doubt your place in this world as most likely those around you are looking for you to lead. You have taught me to laugh and not take myself so seriously. I look forward to the day when I can visit your classroom and witness you inspiring young minds.

Braden, I am amazed by your loyalty, genuine care for others and work ethic.

Your competitiveness and commitment to a goal are admirable. These characteristics will take you far in this world. Always remember it is ok to fail or make mistakes as true growth happens in these moments. I am so proud of the young man that you have become. You have taught me to slow down and appreciate all the good that surrounds me daily. I am confident that you will make a tremendous impact as you move forward.

Emmie, you remind me so much of your mom even as a young child. You have her amazing spirit, imagination, and large personality. Daily you remind me it is important to play and have fun as laughter brings so much joy. Please know how much

joy you bring every single day to your Dad. Never lose that sparkle because it will take you far.

My youngest son, Hawk; I could write a book on what you have taught me early in your life. You literally faced death and demonstrated amazing strength, perseverance, and grit. You may not remember the process but always remember that you have demonstrated an amazing capacity to overcome adversity, and there is nothing you can’t do or become if you take this approach to the rest of your life. You have taught me the importance of perspective and appreciation of time.

My hope for all four of you is that in this accomplishment, I have demonstrated the importance of remaining committed to a goal and seeing something through. You may not realize this but you have all served as a significant motivation in getting this done. I love you and encourage you all to look out for each other in this world. We look forward to watching all the Hunt children will accomplish.

Shannon, I end this dedication with you as you serve as my beginning and end. I am so fortunate to have joined you on this journey of life. As an educator you have challenged and inspired young people. As a person you constantly put the needs of others in front of your own. You believe in me when I don’t believe in myself. You refused to allow any talk of not getting this done. You are my inspiration for so much.

Thank you for loving me and being an amazing wife and mother. This one is because of you, LL!

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iv

DEDICATION ...... vi

CHAPTER

I. DEFINING THE STUDY ...... 1 The Story ...... 1 Problem Overview ...... 3 History of School Violence ...... 4 Emerging National Concern ...... 6 Public Demand for Change ...... 8 Evolution of the Offender ...... 9 Conceptual Framework ...... 12 Purpose of the Study ...... 15 Research Questions ...... 15 Methodology ...... 16 Definitions/Key Terms...... 18

II. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 19 Student Achievement/Attendance ...... 20 Organizational Culture ...... 23 Leadership ...... 28 Crisis Leadership ...... 32 Post Traumatic Stress ...... 39 School/Community Impact ...... 43 Effects on Educators ...... 44 Conclusion ...... 46

III. METHODOLOGY ...... 48 Research Questions ...... 48 Research Design...... 49 Setting ...... 51 Participant Selection ...... 52 Heath ...... 53 Dennis ...... 53 Lark ...... 54 James ...... 54 Mark ...... 54 Data Collection ...... 55 viii

Data Analysis ...... 57 Trustworthiness ...... 59 William ...... 63 Jacob ...... 63 Conclusion ...... 66

IV. FINDINGS ...... 67 The Day of the Shooting ...... 69 Heath—The Day of the Shooting ...... 69 Dennis—The Day of the Shooting ...... 73 Lark—The Day of the Shooting ...... 76 James—The Day of the Shooting ...... 80 12 Months Post Shooting ...... 84 Loss of Sense of Control ...... 84 Heath—Loss of control ...... 85 Lark and James—Loss of control ...... 86 Personal impact ...... 87 A Need to Serve Others Above Personal Recovery ...... 89 Heath—Service of others over self ...... 89 Dennis—Service of others over self ...... 91 Lark—Service of others over self ...... 92 James—Service of others over self ...... 94 Vivid Defining Moments ...... 94 Heath—Defining moments ...... 95 Dennis—Defining moments ...... 97 Lark—Defining moments ...... 97 James—Defining moments ...... 98 5 Years Post Shooting ...... 100 Recovery is Not a Straight Line ...... 101 Heath—Recovery is not a straight line ...... 101 Lark—Recovery is not a straight line ...... 101 Dennis—Recovery is not a straight line...... 102 Setbacks...... 103 Lark—Personal recovery ...... 104 James—Personal recovery ...... 105 Us Versus Them ...... 106 Mark—Us versus them ...... 107 Heath—Us versus them...... 110 Post Traumatic Growth (PTG) ...... 112 Heath—PTG ...... 113 Dennis—PTG ...... 114 Lark—PTG ...... 115 James—PTG ...... 116 Mark—PTG ...... 117 ix

Importance of Team ...... 117 James—Importance of team ...... 118 Dennis—Importance of team ...... 119 Lark—Importance of team ...... 120 Heath—Importance of team ...... 120 Validation ...... 121 Participant Verification—Member Checking ...... 121 Community Member—Student Validation ...... 122 Superintendent—Data Verification ...... 123 Principal—Data Validation ...... 127 Summary ...... 132

V. DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE ...... 134 Summary and Discussion of Findings ...... 135 12 Months Post Shooting ...... 135 Loss of Sense of Control ...... 136 A Need to Serve Others Above Personal Recovery ...... 138 Vivid Defining Moments ...... 141 Summary of Findings—5 Years Post Shooting ...... 143 Us Versus Them ...... 146 Post Traumatic Growth ...... 148 Importance of Team ...... 150 Broader National Concern ...... 154 Gun Control ...... 155 Arming Teachers ...... 157 Active Shooter Drills ...... 158 Funding and Support...... 160 Recommendations at a National Level ...... 161 Implications for Practice ...... 163 Leadership ...... 163 Crisis Leadership ...... 166 Crisis Planning ...... 168 Mentoring ...... 171 Recommendations for Further Research ...... 172 Conclusion ...... 175

REFERENCES ...... 177

x 1

CHAPTER I

DEFINING THE STUDY

“The moment when you realize everything has changed, and will never be the same.”

~Unknown

The Story

It was 7:25 a.m. in October at Central High School (Central High is a pseudonym), a building of 1,200 students in grades 9–12. The high school is the center of this rural community that has a population of 5,000. It was a cold, overcast day that started in a very typical manner. Busses moved throughout the community picking up students to take to the secondary campus. At the high school, the energy of youth was present as students strolled into the building talking about the events of the weekend.

Like every morning, students gathered in the cafeteria and could be seen finalizing last minute homework that had slipped their mind or socializing with friends while enjoying breakfast. They all awaited the first bell that would release them into the building to begin another school day. This was the last routine moment for the students, staff, and community of this small town because what would happen next would end a chapter of normalcy and forever change the school, the community, and those thrust into action as leaders of the district.

At 7:28 a.m. a student stood up from his table unveiling a handgun and began shooting. As the deafening sound of gunfire roared, chaos broke throughout the building.

At least 10 shots were fired in the cafeteria as students and faculty ran to escape the confines of the school cafeteria. Staff throughout the building scrambled to direct

2 students into classrooms while hallways leading away from the cafeteria were flooded with students running from the incomprehensible event that just occurred. As the gunman proceeded further into the building, the shooting rampage continued. A brave teacher physically dragged one of the wounded students from the hallway into a classroom and began administering first aid. Suddenly, the gunman was confronted by a teacher’s aide. After taking a few shots at this relentless hero, the gunman immediately fled the building. The actual event within the school lasted less than a minute; however, in this short period of time, five students were shot in the cafeteria and one student was wounded in the hallway.

The first 911 call came from the building principal at 7:38 a.m. after the building was placed into lockdown. This is essentially for all students and staff to secure and remain in their current locations. By 7:57 a.m., the halls of the building contained only

S.W.A.T. personnel; the wounded students were being transported from the school to helicopters that had landed at a nearby shopping center. By 8:39 a.m., the gunman was in custody while his victims were fighting to stay alive. By the end of that week, the fears of all involved were confirmed: three students had died and two students were seriously wounded.

By early afternoon students had been evacuated and, the educational leaders who led the event found their way to the board office in shock at what they had been through and scared about what was ahead. A cafeteria, once a place for students to socialize and relax amidst the pressures of a rigorous high school curriculum, was now a crime scene with blood stains, police tape, and shell casings. The administrative team had conducted

3 what would later be recognized as a textbook response to an active shooter situation with flawless evacuation and parent reunification. Over the course of the next two weeks these administrators experienced funerals, reopened the building, and provided the necessary supports for students and staff to begin the healing process. They provided support and services to teachers and students suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome and talked to the families of the victims weekly. They led the event for the school and community under local, state, and national media scrutiny. They provided every possible support for others but like many educational leaders who have been forced to lead through traumatic events did little to take care of themselves. The recovery and impact of the event was not achieved in days, months, or years but is an ongoing process.

Problem Overview

Shootings in American school campuses are a growing problem. Since 2000 the annual rate of school murders has doubled (Borum, Cornell, Modzeleski, & Jimerson,

2010). According to an FBI report titled Active Shooter Incidents in the United States

2018 (U.S. Department of Justice, 2018), the average number of active shooter incidents in schools (ASIIS) over the past 19 years was 3 per year, with annual levels fluctuating between 0 to 6 incidents. The years with numbers of incidents greater than the 19-year average occurred more frequently in the last 10 years. ASIIS are most likely to happen at the high school level or higher (39 out of 57). The average incident deaths from ASIIS was 8.6. The three highest years include the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting (32), the 2012

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (26), and the 2018 Parkland High School shooting (17). Most of the deaths from ASIIS resulted during incidents that met the

4 threshold for a mass killing (83%). Many, including support staff, teachers, and administrators, are forced to witness these traumatic events. Educational leaders are increasingly being thrust into the role of leading their school districts and communities through these horrific events. There is little understanding and research on the short and long term implications on educational leaders who are faced with having to lead during these situations. It is critical to begin to articulate their experiences to inform crisis planning, administrative preparation program, potential interventions, and supports needed for those facing these issues in the future. Although these specific areas are opportunities for future research, the articulation of the experience and perspective will serve as a strong foundation for future work.

History of School Violence

Violence in American schools has grown in frequency and intensity over time.

According to Blumstein and Wallman (2006), the surge of juvenile homicides perpetrated in schools more than doubled during the 1980s. This has been attributed to societal issues of an expanding juvenile drug culture, violence within media, and access to guns

(Cornell, 2006, p. 11). Over the course of the last decade, as a result of increased legislation on school discipline policies on weapons and drug possession, juvenile crime statistics have declined. Despite this, the media’s real-time and in-depth reporting of school shootings and violence substantiated the public’s perception that America’s schools were no longer safe (Algozzine & McGee, 2011).

School violence has been present throughout the history of education. The nature of violence has evolved and changed over time. In the early 20th century, where students

5 in urban schools sought dominance in criminal syndicate power struggles, concerns about school order and safety in public schools was justified. The weapons evolved from “fists and stick to chains and bats to knives and guns” (Cornell & Mayer, 2010, p. 2) with the evolution of gang and group violence. School governance became the responsibility of local Boards of Education and with this type of school violence changed (Cornell &

Mayer, 2010). For example, the most violent mass murder of children in American school history was committed on May 18, 1927, in Bath, MI. Andrew Kehoe, a disgruntled school board member and avid farmer, faced foreclosure of his farm. Kehoe blamed the increased taxes caused by the building of the new school for his financial loss, and as a result, he sought revenge on citizens by targeting their children. This tragedy accounted for 45 deaths, 38 of which were children, while seriously injuring 58 others in

America’s first school bombing (Bernstein, 2009).

Violence continued as one of the worst school shootings in U.S. school history occurred in 1966 in Austin at the University of Texas. The perpetrator, known as the

“Clock Tower Sniper,” was an engineering student who reigned terror on the campus with an arsenal of weapons, killing 16 people and wounding 31 others. The incident was credited with the formation of the special weapons and tactic teams, S.W.A.T. This ushered in a new era of activism and conflict with individuals and groups. The U.S.

Congress responded to a rise in school violence with various legislative action, Safe and

Drug Free Schools Act of 1986, The Gun-Free School Act of 1990, the Safe Schools Act of 1994, and a revised Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1996. These acts attempted to

6 provide school safety through intervention and elimination of weapons possession

(Cornell & Mayer, 2010).

Emerging National Concern

The first nationwide study of violent school deaths which examined 105 cases was called “School-Associated Deaths in the United States 1992-1994” (Kachur et al.,

1996). The study concluded that violent deaths at schools, although very rare, were more common than previously believed. The study indicated the leading cause of death was homicide and firearm was the prevalent weapon of choice. Victims and perpetrators were young, typically teen males.

However, the pervasive threats of school violence continued as more deadly incidents of school violence dominated the media, generating more attention and a greater sense of vulnerability. The reporting of violent acts became more pervasive and personal by national media as school violence moved into suburban and rural schools with perpetrators who were middle-class White teenagers. The school shootings in

Paducah, KY; Pearl, MS; and Jonesboro, AR brought serious question to the safety and security of public schools. In 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice to prepare an annual report on school safety (U.S. Department of

Education, 1998).

School violence reached an unprecedented level of attention on April 20, 1999, when two students entered Columbine High School unleashing an assault on students and staff. This was a well-planned, military style assault. The highly planned attack included a fire bomb to distract firefighters, propane tanks converted to bombs placed in the

7 cafeteria, and 99 explosive devices and bombs in cars in the school parking lot. The perpetrators murdered a total of 12 students and one teacher while injuring an additional

21 people prior to taking their own lives. This shooting was highly reported by national media and brought a harsh reality to school officials and community safety forces that they were not prepared for this type of an event.

The Impact of Columbine changed the landscape of the school safety profession

forever, causing many schools to play “catch up” with decades of neglect in

security and emergency planning, while setting a new threshold for best practice

in school safety. (Trump, 2004, p. 2)

School-associated violence ranges from verbal intimidation to vandalism, theft, assault, gang activity, and murder. Violence such as occurred at Columbine falls within a small subset of lethal school violence, termed a rampage school shooting, an event characterized by a rage, resulting in multiple injuries and possibly deaths (Harding, Fox,

& Mehta, 2002; National Research Council, 2003). In a rampage shooting, a gunman with some connection to the school apparently chooses victims at random. Although the gunman chooses most victims at random, some may be symbolically selected as they represent a particular group that wronged or slighted the shooter in the past. A review of statistics of school-associated violent deaths reveals that rampage school shootings do not typically occur in urban schools; rather they take place in small, rural, and suburban communities with low-incidence of crime (National Center for Education Statistics,

2007).

Public Demand for Change

The “School-Associated Violent Deaths in the United States, 1994-1999” study

(Anderson et al., 2001) is the only known systematic examination of the school violence incidents covering this time frame. The study indicated that during this time frame, 220 events resulting in 253 deaths. Single-victim incidents decreased; however, multiple victim incidents significantly increased. Patterns of behaviors and risk factors were identified as well as recommendations for intervention and prevention programs for at-risk students were provided (Anderson et al., 2001). These events led the public to demand a change in school policy and safety protocols, and at risk student behaviors needed immediate action. School districts implemented a variety of policy and procedures to improve the image of safety (Trump, 2004). School safety and security became a multi-million dollar industry as school districts allocated personnel and financial resources to better prepare for these events.

Unfortunately, perpetrators also took more time to plan and prepare for these measures, as they are often part of school preparation and planning. The topic of school safety became a central focus for educational administrators throughout the country.

Media attention and parent concern forced school leaders to take immediate necessary steps to improve the safety and security of their buildings with limited resources while also developing plans to be effectively reactive to an active shooter within their schools.

This added additional stress to administrators, teachers and students as they were thrust into crisis leadership scenarios that obviously, at best, minimize fatalities under an active

9 shooter scenario. This requires school leaders to develop a new set of leadership skills that were not previously needed.

Shootings within school buildings can no longer be considered random. This is an evolving issue increasing in intensity and frequency within our country. With more than one-half of the U.S. suffering from the pain and anguish of kid-on-kid and kid-on-teacher violence, America has a growing epidemic on its hands: child domestic terrorism (Ruffini, 2006, p. 168). In an effort to classify and identify perpetrators, the

U.S. Departments of Education and Justice requested the United States Secret Service to study school violence. In their report, “The Final Report and Findings of the Safe School

Initiative: Implications for the Prevention of School Attacks in the United States,” it was identified that rarely were incidents of violence sudden or impulsive acts. Perpetrators in schools carefully select targets, plan the details of their actions, and often share the plan with others. There are cases in which planned attacks were avoided by students, teachers, or administrators who intervened. The report indicated that there is no single motivation for school killings or one type of assailant broadening the potential field of perpetrators for school authorities (U.S. Department of Justice, 2002; Ruffini, 2006).

Evolution of the Offender

In 2003, the National Research Council (NRC) investigated deadly school violence between 1992–2001, “Deadly Lessons: Understanding Lethal School Violence”

(Moore, Petries, Braga, & McLaughlin, 2003). The study concluded that inner-city violence stemmed from known issues of drugs, poverty, and racial segregation. The study also addressed suburban and rural school shootings as “personal and retaliatory,

10 provoked by a sense of victimhood, a motive often reported by the media in the aftermath of violent school incidents” (Cooney, 2012). Ferguson, Coulson, and Barnett (2011, pp.

11-12) attempted to identify potential assailants and predictive elements to prevent school violence. Conclusions from the study, “Psychological Profiles of School Shooters:

Positive Directions and One Big Wrong Turn,” reveal that school violence is most likely perpetuated by people who have a history of antisocial personality traits, suicidal thoughts, depression, undiagnosed mental health problems, or an obsession about individuals or society-at-large who have wronged, bullied, or persecuted them. These individuals see with rage, hatred, and despondency until they lash out at individuals or a society they believe has done them great wrong. Mental health, as well as our failure to address it as a society, is at the core of these events (Ferguson, 2012, p. 1).

The occurrence of perpetrators resorting to violence in secondary schools and college campuses became more consistent and to some extent, normalized by constant media reporting. This changed on the morning of December 14, 2012, when a

20-year-old male, heavily armed, went to Sandy Hook Elementary School (SHES) in

Newtown, CT, and killed 20 elementary students and six adults. This event shattered what had seemingly become an acceptable norm with school shootings at the secondary level as small elementary children fell victim to a rampage shooting. Schools were forced to rethink current training and approaches to protecting students leading to a more traditional passive “lock down” to a more aggressive, active response called Alert,

Lockdown, Inform, Counter, Evacuate (A.L.I.C.E).

Many hoped Sandy Hook would lead to the necessary change and be a final chapter in school shootings. However, on February 14, 2018, 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz entered Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and began shooting students and staff members with a semi-automatic AR-15 type rifle after activating the fire alarm.

Seventeen people were killed, and 17 others were injured. Cruz blended in with students fleeing the school and was eventually arrested in a residential area.

An October 3, 2018, article released by Education Week identified 19 school shootings with injury or death in 2018. Many different methods are used for tracking school shooting data and this study used the following criteria:

 firearm was discharged

 any individual, other than the suspect or perpetrator, has a bullet wound

resulting from the incident

 occurred on K–12 school property or on a school bus

 occurred while school is in session or during a school-sponsored event

Those 19 school shootings resulted in 7 school employees killed, 27 students killed, 74 injured totaling 108 killed or injured. These numbers represent clear victims of this violence; however, the number of those impacted by these events far exceeds 108. Those that witnessed the violence, responded to the incident, family, friends, and the entire community also become casualties of these events. This evolving issue is placing tremendous pressure on educational leaders to respond as they are evaluating the level to which they harden their campuses, prepare staff, and most recently consider arming teachers.

In April of 2018, the Washington Post created a database to determine how many children have been exposed to gun violence during school hours since the Columbine

High School massacre in 1999. The Post’s information was developed from news articles, open-source databases, law enforcement reports, and request for information from schools and police departments.

They found more than 135,000 students in 164 schools, which quickly grew to

193 primary and secondary schools and more than 187,000 on 193 campuses. At the time of this work the count now stands at more than 226,000 children at 233 schools (see

Figure 1). This included 143 children, educators, and others who have been killed in assaults and another 294 who were injured. In 2018 alone there were 25 shootings—the highest number during any year since at least 1999. This number could be exponential higher if parents and siblings were to be included (Woodrow & Steven, 2018).

Conceptual Framework

This study added to the body of knowledge available to educational leaders who are forced to lead after a rampage school shooting. Thus, the research focused on the perceived impact of managing a school shooting on an educational leader, school, and community. Research does exist analyzing the impact of a school shooting on academic achievement, attendance, and enrollment. Additional work has been completed which focused on the assailant, victims (both physically harmed and witnesses), as well as strategies for school safety and interventions. Studies have specifically looked at the impact on school “staff” as well as classroom teachers.

Figure 1. Students exposed to gun violence post Columbine

In her September 5, 2018, article written for the New York Times titled “Teaching in the Age of School Shootings,” Jeenen Interlandi addresses the impact of school shootings on teachers. She indicates that the trauma teachers experience after a school shooting can be severe. According to Robert Pynoos, co-director of the federally funded

National Center for Child Traumatic Stress, which assists in coordinating school response to traumatic events, “Their PTSD can be as serious as what you see in soldiers but unlike

14 soldiers teachers did not sign up for this, and have not been trained to cope with it”

(Interlandi, 2018).

Mears (2008) conducted a qualitative research study into the challenges faced by parents and families in the years following the shootings at Columbine High School.

This research informs responses by educators and crisis teams to a school shooting or other community-wide trauma. This work has received a great deal of recognition for its quality and insight. For the purpose of this study, it demonstrates the importance and value of sharing the lived experience of those who have actually encountered these events.

Research studies have been completed that analyze perceived leadership styles and ability to lead in a time of crisis. There is a noticeable void in research specific to the educational leader forced to lead through these types of events in terms of their personal recovery and the long-term recovery of the school and community. While there is a wealth of literature available specific to post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), there is a void specific to the unique impact of the increased stress placed upon those responsible for the direct leadership and healing of a school and community post shooting. This void provided an opportunity to better understand the perspective of those who have been forced to deal with this situation and guidance for those facing this challenge in the future. Additionally, there is value in understanding the long-term impact on the school and community.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this case study was to examine and articulate the experience of a rampage school shooting through the lens of educational administrators. This study adds to the information available on how school leaders negotiate and are affected by a rampage school shooting by investigating the experience specifically to those responsible for leading during and after a school shooting. By understanding the short- and long-term personal and professional implications of leading a school through such an event, we obtain a better understanding on how to support educational leaders forced to lead a school building confronted with a traumatic event, and the impact of the event on the school community.

Research Questions

Through an in depth exploration of the following research question, this study addressed a research void by exploring and articulating perspectives of educational leaders who have been forced to deal with an episode of a rampage school shooting: what is the perspective of an educational leader who directly led a school after a rampage school shooting? This was further clarified through the following sub questions:

1. What are the perceived residual impact(s) on the educator first 12 months post

event?

2. What are the perceived residual impact(s) on the educator 5 years post event?

Methodology

The approach for this study is a qualitative case study. This case study seeks to explore and articulate the experiences of administrators who directly led during or after a traumatic event, specifically a rampage school shooting.

Participant selection was purposeful with established criteria:

1. High School Principal (Heath)—in the building the day of the shooting,

remained in this role for five years following the shooting.

2. Assistant Principal (Dennis)—in the building the day of the shooting,

remained in this role for one year following the shooting. Led the building on

the day of the shooting.

3. Assistant Principal (Lark)—in the building the day of the shooting, remained

in this role for two years following the shooting. Led reunification on the day

of the shooting.

4. Superintendent (James)—in the district to lead post shooting, remained in the

district one year following the shooting.

5. Superintendent (Mark)—joined the district one year after the shooting and

currently serves in this role.

Additional participants were selected to be interviewed for the purposes of data verification to enhance trustworthiness. These participants include the following:

1. Superintendent (Jacob)—led another school district after a rampage school

shooting.

2. High School Principal (William)—in another school building responsible for

leading after a rampage school shooting.

3. Community Member/Parent—an involved volunteer at the high school at the

time of the shooting and had a student in high school two years post shooting.

4. Student—a Junior in high school the day of the shooting.

The researcher obtained a variety of artifacts to review prior to conducting the interviews to obtain a factual basis for the events. This encompassed researching and reviewing available media accounts related to the shooting. This included the day of the shooting, subsequent weeks to follow and publications in local and national media years post shooting. Available police reports were difficult to obtain due to an ongoing lawsuit and confidentiality of minors. The superintendent did produce agendas and written correspondence post shooting to be reviewed, which provided additional insight.

Data collection took place through constructed interviews that were recorded and coded to determine emerging themes. The data collected from James is archival as these interviews were conducted during a prior mini study and the individual has since passed away. The following reflexive practices were utilized to ensure trustworthiness: triangulation, member checking, and researcher biases. The trustworthiness was enhanced as independent school leaders responsible for managing school shootings around the country reviewed the data and provided additional context for validation purposes.

Definitions/Key Terms

Active shooter is “an individual actively involved in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined or populated area” (US Department of Homeland Security, 2008, p.

2).

Community references all individuals who live within the school boundaries.

Crisis leadership as used in this study references specific responsibilities or direct action related to the school shooting.

Crisis Planning/Preparation as used in this study refers to the internal plan of a school district to lead and guide actions after a school shooting.

District leader references a superintendent of schools.

Educational leader references a building or district school administrator.

Principal references a building level administrator who has the day-to-day responsibility of leading and managing a school building.

Rampage school shooting references a gunman with some connection to the school who selects victims apparently at random, though some may be selected for their symbolic significance, perhaps representative of a group that has wronged or slighted the shooter in the past.

School staff references all certified, classified, and administrative employees in a school setting.

Teacher references certified employees with instructional responsibilities.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this study was to address a research void by exploring and articulating the perspective of school administrators who have been forced to lead during and/or after a rampage school shooting. This study provides insight into the necessary support structures for educational leaders thrust into these very intense situations.

A shallow amount of research exists on the general topic of school shootings as it relates to their increasing frequency in our country and around the world. Much of the existing work focuses on the negative influence on student achievement, poor attendance, and impact on community attitudes/perceptions towards the school district. There is smaller amount of research on the influence of these incidents on those staff members present for the school shooting and subsequent recovery. The psychological effects of school crime among teachers are well known (Nims, 2000). Research conducted by

Kadel and Follman (1993) and Nims (2000) reported that teachers who experience violence at school often display symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The terms crime and violence are often difficult to delineate in the literature and available statistics when studying school shootings. In this study, the focus is on the violent act of a rampage school shooting and the lived experience of educators forced to lead in response to gun violence and death in a school. In a study of school shootings at

West Paducah, Kentucky, and Jonesboro, Arkansas, Newman, Fox, Roth, Mehta, and

Harding (2004) found that teachers experienced multiple negative long-term consequences including illness, divorce, burnout, and career change. The intent of this

20 chapter is to review the available research relevant to school shootings. This includes a general review of literature relevant to the impact on the operations of school specific to attendance and academic achievement. This is relevant due to the impact this will have on school culture and ability to respond or heal as a school and community. This section also provides insight into the psychological and professional impact, effects of school shootings on educators, and leadership theory related to crisis leadership. Missing from the literature is an exploration into the lived experience of school leaders managing these traumatic incidents. This work is intended to add to the literature corpus to better construct a deep understanding of the experiences of school leaders who lead a district through a school shooting. Findings from this study should inform administrative response with more effective support systems for impacted school leaders.

Student Achievement/Attendance

It is important to understand the literature specific to school culture and educational leadership within this study, as they will serve as the lens for the lived experience in terms of findings and possible areas for future study. However, it is also important to review the body of research that has been conducted specific to the topic of school shootings. There is a substantial body of research with a focus on the impact on student achievement, attendance, and enrollment post shooting. Although not a direct correlation to the impact on a school leader, it is critical to be aware of this work as it impacts overall school culture and can inform the response planning for leaders facing these types of incidents in the future.

There is a broad range of literature on the impacts of school shootings on student achievement, attendance, and culture. The majority of this research was conducted after the Columbine High School shooting which occurred on April 20, 1999, in which two student perpetrators killed 12 students and one teacher. This event serves as a landmark in terms of the amount of attention and research into school shootings.

The immediate impact of shootings in schools is the change in the manner that students perceive the learning environment. A sense of safety and security are critical elements to an effective learning environment (Bonanno & Levenson, 2014). A school shooting is an extremely violent act significantly impacting students. This causes varying degrees of PTSD leading to poor mental health that impairs learners’ ability to focus leading to poor academic performance (Beland & Kim, 2016). Students feel the academic and psychological impacts of traumatic events for months and even years after the incident (Sawchuk & Blad, 2018).

Paolini (2015) found that trauma faced by students that witness an attack involving a gun is similar to that experienced by the students who have been shot. This level of distress can take a significant amount of recovery time, and the longer the recovery, the greater the negative impact on student academic performance. Fry et al.

(2018) argued that children exposed to physical violence have trouble coping with school life. Some of the most common effects of such exposure include a rise in dropout rates, decreased possibility of graduating, increased absenteeism, and decline in academic performance.

Beland and Kim (2016) found that shootings in schools cause a dramatic increase in student and staff absenteeism directly impacting student achievement. Gershenson and

Tekin (2015) researched the impact of student performance of elementary students during the Beltway Sniper attack in 2002. They found this event to have negatively affected student performance with reduced rates of proficiency on state assessments that were within five miles from the site of the attack. The effects of such events were shown to be pronounced in math proficiency rates with students in grades 3 through 5 as well as decrease in grade 3 reading proficiency. According to Gershenson and Tekin (2015), school shootings have resulted in a decline in school proficiency rates between 2% and

5%. The impact was more significant in schools that had higher proportions of students from racial minority groups as well as those from socioeconomically disadvantaged families. The same findings were affirmed in a 2010 study by Poutvaara and Ropponen who looked at the impact of a school shooting in Finland. The shooting coincided with national high-school matriculation exams. They found that the average performance declined with a greater impact on male students.

Research has also indicated that public school shootings negatively impact student enrollment. According to Beland and Kim (2016), the decline in enrollment of students post shooting is an indicator that most parents and children avoid schools with a history of shootings. Abouk and Adams (2013) noted an increase in the enrollment at private high schools in the surrounding area in which a school shooting occurred. By examining the enrollment, there was a rise between 9–11% at surrounding private schools after a

23 shooting in a local public school (Abouk & Adams, 2013), and an average drop of enrollment in the school in which the incident occurred to be between 6–12%.

It is evident that the available research demonstrates the impact of a school shooting on academic achievement, attendance, enrollment, and the learning environment. This, in conjunction with the psychological implications for students and staff, presents a significant impact on the overall organizational culture creating a very intense leadership challenge for administrators. Therefore, it is important to understand research on organizational culture to better inform the necessary response by the administrator.

Organizational Culture

In an instant a violent shooting substantially impacts the stability of a school and community. What we understand to be true about the evolution of organizational culture indicates that it develops slowly over time. There are few events in an organization that can immediately shift and crack the developed organizational culture to the core.

However, a school shooting is one such event. Therefore, it is critical to understand the relevant research on organizational culture to effectively guide an appropriate leadership response.

The concept of organizational culture does not have one definition that is clearly accepted within the field of study. As a result, many authors often develop their own definitions to best match their research (Lee & Yu, 2004). According to C. J. Fisher and

Alford (2000), academia failed to deliver a clear or consistent definition of organizational culture and, at one time, there were over 160 different definitions. However, many of the

24 leading researchers in this field identify common characteristics. Moorhead and Griffin

(2004) identified three common attributes of definitions of organizational culture that included: (a) all definitions referred to a set of values held by individuals in an organization; (b) the values that made up the organization’s culture were often basic assumptions made by the organization’s employees; and (c) emphasis was on the symbolic meanings, which communicated the cultural values.

Schein (1999) defined organizational culture as

The pattern of basic assumptions that a given group has invented, discovered or

developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal

integration, and that have worked well enough to be considered valid, and,

therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and

feel in relation to those problems. (p. 3)

Mallak (2001) identified four cultural components that included symbols, language, narratives, and practices. These components were prevalent in each of the thought leaders in their definition of culture:

1. A set of shared values and beliefs understood and shared by members of an

organization (Recardo & Jolly, 1997).

2. A complex of values, beliefs, and behaviors that become part of the social

fabric of organizations (Davis & Landa, 2000).

3. Something to do with the people and unique quality and style of the

organization (Lee & Yu, 2004).

4. The glue that holds the organization together (Balthazard, Cooke, & Potter,

2006).

5. The underlying values, beliefs, and principles that serve as a foundation for

the organization’s management system as well as the set of leadership

practices and behaviors that both exemplify and reinforce those basic

principles (Carmeli & Tishler, 2004).

Although the definitions and descriptions of culture varied, specific components, such as values and beliefs, were generally present. Certo and Certo (2006) described culture as “sets of shared values and beliefs that organization members have regarding the functioning and existence of their organization” (cited in Wells, 2003, p. 7). The importance of the Certo and Peters’ definition was the link between employees’ values and beliefs and the success of the organization.

There is a significant amount of research indicating that history is an important factor in culture. Schein (1999) stated organizational culture began with the organization itself including initial success and impact of initial leaders. Later Schein (2004) identified three drivers to the beginning of culture: the beliefs, values, and assumptions of the founders, learning experiences of organizational members and new beliefs, values, and assumptions by new employees. It is evident that leadership, mission, and vision, as well as organizational design and decision making are the foundation of organizational culture (Want, 2006).

Schermerhorn, Hunt, and Osborn (1997) reported three levels of culture: observable culture, shared values, and common assumptions. Schein (1999) defined three levels of culture and their interaction in the following manner:

1. Visible but often not decipherable (Artifacts & Creations)

2. Greater level of awareness (Values)

3. Taken for granted (Basic Assumptions)

They both articulate that to understand culture and to ascertain more completely the group’s values and overt behaviors, it is within the underlying assumptions that actually determine how group members perceive, think, and feel.

Values are often considered the foundation of organizational culture; values can influence an organization and provide a common direction for employees, their daily behavior (Deal & Kennedy 1982), and the function of the entire system (Reilly &

Ehlinger, 2007). Values are global beliefs that take into account the behavior and choices made by individuals (Stackman, Pinder, & Connor, 2000). Sagiv and Schwartz (2000) believed that values are the heart of culture that guides the organization. Reilly and

Ehlinger’s (2007) research showed that, when the values were shared between the organization and the employee, the personal loyalty, identification, and commitment to the organization increased. Abbott, White, and Charles (2005) also indicated that organizational commitment was higher when employees believed the organization as having values of humanity and vision. As a result, this translated into changes in workplace behaviors. Tannenbaum (2003) emphasized core values and operating values, noting that there was a strong correlation between a leader’s alignment of

27 decision-making principles with core values and the increased performance and productivity of an organization. This insight is important, as it will serve as a starting point for a leader to begin the healing and cultural rebuilding process necessary.

Many researchers attempted to better understand culture by researching dysfunctional organizational culture (Ashkanasy, Broadfoot, & Falkus, 2000; Deal &

Kennedy, 1982; Schein, 1999, 2004). Balthazard et al.’s (2006) research identified factors that could lead to organizational culture dysfunction. They studied over 60,000 individuals, and the results clearly linked dysfunctional cultural styles to deficits in operating effectiveness and efficiency. Griffin (1990) also looked at dysfunctional organization culture. He suggested that organizational culture may not only contribute to dysfunctional behavior, but that it could also detract from it in a variety of ways. Griffin also found that leaders, in fact, motivated and encouraged such behavior.

There is a substantial amount of research on how organizational culture reflected the influence of leadership. According to Schein (2004), leaders created culture while culture defined leaders. Both Turner (2006) and Wyatt (2002) examined the relationship between leadership and culture. Turner drew the correlation between cost containment in correctional institutes to organizational culture. The author wrote that cost containment could occur only if the organization’s culture reflected a cost control environment and concluded that organizational change could occur only when leaders understood and recognized their culture. Wyatt’s survey-based study examined the employees’ perspective. He found that if employees lack confidence in their senior leadership, the organization’s culture and economic stability are negatively affected. This is an

28 important finding when viewing this research through the lens of a school and community recovering from a school shooting. It will be important for leaders to identify, build, and potentially repair the linkage between values of stakeholders.

This review provides clarity on the importance of the leader’s ability to impact culture during a time of mass crisis. Research has indicated that the leader is critical to the evolution and core of organizational development. In an event of this significance with the mass media attention, emotion of loss, and intensity in cultural disruption, a leader must respond with equivalent strength. The research indicates that the leader’s message should begin or be grounded in shared core values and beliefs. A leader must be able to articulate and communicate this consistently while blocking out all distractions to provide a vision for recovery. This highlights the extreme amount of pressure and stress placed on school leaders forced to lead these crises. The research on organizational culture provides insight into the type of leadership response necessary and direction into further investigation into leadership.

Leadership

There is a wide depth and breadth of research on organizational and school leadership that can provide insight into facing the unique challenges of leading a school after a rampage school shooting. Prior to delving into the specific work focused on crisis leadership, it is important to place a broader historical framework on relevant leadership theory.

A school shooting immediately changes the entire organization presenting unique leadership challenges both short and long term. Burns (1978) identified two types of

29 political leadership: transactional and transformational. Transactional leadership represents those exchanges in which the superior and subordinate reciprocally influence one another deriving in something of value (Yukl, 1981). In the most simplistic of terms the leader gives a subordinate something they want in return for something the leaders want. This creates a relationship where both sides are rewarded through mutual dependence (Kellerman, 1984). Transactional leaders must regularly fulfill expectations of their followers. Thus, effective transactional leadership is contingent on the leader’s ability to be flexible as they must meet and respond to reactions and changing expectations of followers (Kellerman, 1984). There are obvious limitations to this type of a leadership significantly exasperated in a time of a large-scale crisis such as a school shooting. Those who have been through a school shooting have lost a sense of security, purpose, and often motivation. There is a complete shift in organizational norms and equilibrium. Increased wages, improved working conditions, and other external motivators will not resolve these issues and require a more intimate, purpose driven leadership approach, a transformational leader.

Transformational leadership originates in the personal values and beliefs of a leader. According to Bass (1985), transformational leaders, who are known for their impressionable characteristics, operate out of deeply held personal value systems that include such values as justice and integrity. As described by Bass, transformational leaders gain influence by demonstrating important personal characteristics such as self-confidence, dominance, charisma, and a strong belief in the moral righteousness of one’s beliefs. Transformational leaders have a strong understanding of self and value

30 relationships and are better prepared to lead during a time of crisis. They have an opportunity to leverage these relationships and their personal characteristics to motivate and inspire staff to move forward. Transformational leaders are known for setting examples to be emulated by their followers.

Both transformational and transactional leadership have strong philosophical underpinnings and ethical components. Transformational leaders are grounded in morals and ethics. Sergiovanni (1992) believed that we mistakenly describe schools as an organization thinking traditional management theory leads to success. However, developing and thinking of a school as a community enterprise requires a leader with strong moral authority. Sergiovanni stated,

There are two reasons for the failure of leadership. First, we have to view

leadership as behavior rather than action, as something psychological rather than

spiritual, as having to do with persons rather than ideas. Second, in trying to

understand what drives leadership, we have overemphasized bureaucratic,

psychological and technical-rational authority, seriously neglecting professional

and moral authority. (p. 3)

Sergiovanni referred to the importance of the hand, heart, and head of leadership. The hand is what has dominated literature prior to the 1990s, focusing on leadership style as it relates to subordinates. The heart refers to a leader’s beliefs, values, dreams, and personal vision, which become the foundation of his or her reality. The head of leadership is the mindset and ability of a leader that has developed over time through experience and reflection. According to Sergiovanni, “The head of leadership is shaped

31 by the heart and drives the hand; in turn, reflections on decision and actions affirm or reshape the heart and head” (p. 7). A leader who understands his or her position is a result of obtaining a significant level of moral authority within the community enterprise creates a significant level of responsibility. In a time of crisis as a result of a school shooting, a substantive part of recovery will be in the strength and conviction in communication of the ongoing, unwavering values that drive the enterprise.

Bennis (2009) identified three pillars on the ethics of leadership: the moral character of the leader, the ethical values embedded in the leader’s vision which followers either embrace or reject, and the morality of the processes of social ethical choice and action that leaders and followers engage in and collectively pursue. Such dimensions of leadership have been widely acknowledged (Kouzes & Posner, 1993).

Dukerich, Nichols, Elm, and Vollrath (1990) found morally mature leaders led by example, and as a result, those they lead displayed a higher moral reasoning. The smaller but growing literature on public policy leadership is less obvious to moral dimensions than the literature on management leadership. Studies done by Warren Bennis (2009) distinguished between managers and leaders by arguing that leaders are people who do the right thing; managers are people who do things right. Safty (2003) stated that leadership is more than management or governance, power or authority but more of a higher moral purpose.

According to Safty (2003),

Leadership is always tied to morality. Measured by its results, leadership in

whatever field should be the vision-driven achievements of those people who are

able to transform their environment, morally elevate their followers, and chart

new paths of progress and human development. (p. 84)

The understanding of moral and ethical leadership intersects with the work on positive psychology (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). There is a growing field of study on the development of virtues in leaders as a foundation for strong leadership. Peterson and

Seligman developed a list of 24 strengths organized under six virtues: wisdom and knowledge, courage, humanity and love, justice, temperance, transcendence. Rea,

Stoller, and Kolp (2016) believed leadership development should be centered on a virtue-based system of ethics that can be tied back to Plato 2,400 years ago in his

Academy. Rea et al. stated that, “This is inherently a social process—virtue is learned, not inherited. Leaders are already teachers of their culture, whether they are aware of it or not, so they should ask themselves how they can be better” (p. 14).

Organizational and community recovery from an event such as a school shooting requires a transformational leader with a strong foundation in ethical leadership who can articulate a path moving forward. Although established leadership theory provides insight responding to an event of this significance, it is important to delve deeper into research specific to crisis leadership.

Crisis Leadership

There is an emerging field of research and inquiry into the difference between leadership and crisis leadership. Schoenberg (2004) indicated 70% of professionals believe there is a difference between leading during a normal situation and leading during

33 a crisis. However, the development of a crisis leadership model and theory is currently evolving. According to Heifetz, Linsky, and Alexander (2009):

To lead is to live dangerously because when leadership counts, when you lead

people through difficult change, you challenge what people hold dear—their daily

habits, tools, loyalties, and ways of thinking—with nothing more to offer perhaps

than a possibility. Moreover, leadership often means exceeding the authority you

are given to tackle the challenge at hand. People push back when you disturb the

personal and institutional equilibrium they know. And people resist in all kinds of

creative and unexpected ways that can get you taken out of the game: pushed

aside, undermined, or eliminated. (p. 5)

The purpose of this section is to delve into leadership specific to crisis.

Researchers define a crisis in numerous ways. Coombs and Holladay (1996) identified a crisis as an event that threatens or challenges the legitimacy or image of an organization. Similarly, Lerbinger (1997) identified it as an event that has the potential to threaten the organization’s reputation, profitability, and survival. Crises may permanently redefine an organization in a new and unexpected light that changes an organization’s culture and business (Halverson, Holladay, Kazama, & Quiñones, 2004).

According to Pearson and Clair (1998), organizational crises are low-probability, high- impact events that threaten the organization’s ability to work successfully. A school shooting is a low probability, high impact event that completely disrupts the organizational and community equilibrium. The intensity of a school shooting is only magnified by the rapid distribution of information through social media platforms. Social

34 media has created more open access to information to all public transforming news from a local level to a global level almost immediately. John Kotter (2001) judged leadership on the ability to cope with change, and as a result, the more change demands more leadership. This very accurately describes the level of intense leadership required to support students, staff, and the community after a school shooting.

Crisis leaves people shaken and frozen in place. “Our bodies respond to crises in primitive ways and we find ourselves in the midst of a storm of emotional and physical reactions that we cannot understand or control” (Bloom, 1997, p. 5). The demonstration of leadership in crisis is partially an individual leader’s capacity to overcome the normal physical response to lead others effectively. In Western cultures, the suppression of most emotions and the measured display of others is a social expectation of those in professional roles, and keeping control of one’s emotions is perceived as a strength in organizational settings (Fineman, 1993). These expectations are even higher for organizational leaders. Organizations are assumed to be rational, impersonal, and objective systems, and leaders’ responsibilities include keeping them that way. Not only are leaders expected to control their own emotions, but they are also responsible for others’ emotions. Employees’ public displays of emotions are often expected to be private. These same expectations are exacerbated in time of crisis (Fineman, 1993).

Crisis leadership involves making decisions quickly in a context of threat and uncertainty while relying on personal strengths to lead the human side of crisis (Klann, 2003). Crisis leadership models identify key themes or elements of influence that facilitate a crisis. A leader is charged daily with communicating, assessing, and providing vision and sense of

35 calmness for an organization. These same elements must be addressed when managing a crisis (Klann, 2003).

The personal and leadership attributes of a leader in a situation of crisis include character, competence, and courage. A character leader is a person with integrity and one who has a moral conscience whose actions and words are consistent. A character leader also treats others with dignity and respect and demonstrates self-control in areas of morality and moderation. A competent leader in crisis instills confidence in those who follow and helps remove fear and uncertainty. A courageous leader, one who is truthful in difficult circumstances, has the ability to make hard decisions, confront the realities of the situation, and accept responsibility for the risks involved (Klann, 2003, pp. 16-18).

Daniel Goleman’s research (2000) labeled emotional intelligence as the ability to be self-aware as well as the ability to manage emotions effectively, motivate others, and empathize with others’ feelings accurately. He found that leaders with a higher emotional intelligence performed better in crisis but further discovered that the most effective leaders need to be able to switch between various styles of leadership. In his work Primal Leadership, Goleman stated,

Understanding the powerful role of emotions in the workplace sets the best

leaders apart from the rest—not just in tangibles such as better results, and

retention of talent, but also in the all-important intangibles, such as a higher

morale, motivation and commitment. (p. 4)

There is arguably no greater crisis igniting extreme emotion than that of a school shooting. Therefore, it is likely that the higher the level of emotional intelligence of the leader, the better prepared they are to lead during a traumatic event.

Research indicates that preparation for and investing in the development of leadership are requirements for effective leaders. It is important for leaders to have flexibility and control and portray a level of confidence in making decisions (Klann,

2003). Leaders that evaluate and mitigate risk through proactive planning will be higher performing when faced with an organizational crisis (Garcia, 2006; Hesselbein, 2002).

History shows that people tend to blame the cause of an event on an individual or on external factors. Coombs (2004) stated, “If stakeholders believe an organization could control a crisis, they will also hold the organization responsible for the crisis” (p. 267).

This idea highlights a direct, negative relationship based on the history of past crises and the reputation of an organization. If the level of violence is significant, then the leaders’ simultaneous response must be equivalent. Emotions and behaviors need to be focused on those in need and those who are attending to the needs of others. Leadership is not about serving personal interest; more about serving others. People push back when the personal and institutional equilibrium they know is disturbed. And people resist in all kinds of creative and unexpected ways that can get you taken out of the game: pushed aside, undermined, or eliminated. People do not resist change per se; they resist loss and nothing tests leadership like crisis (Klann, 2003). It is important for leaders to recognize the ethical conflict brought about when witnessing such a high level of violence that impacts all involved (Linzer, Sweifach, & Helft-LaPorte, 2008).

Sudden crises include both technical and adaptive components. Leaders will face both external and internal pressure to see the crisis solely as a technical problem with straightforward solutions that can quickly restore order, even if this means ignoring the adaptive issues and focusing on technical issues (Heifetz & Linsky, 2013). This may be the driving factor in administrators rushing to return everyone to school after a shooting.

Their goal is to establish routine immediately when the reality is this is an adaptive problem and issue that requires time to respond. Heifetz and Linsky stated,

In times of adaptive stress, groups exert pressure on people in authority to solve

the problems that seem to be causing it. Consequently the behaviors of authority

figures provide critical clues to the organization’s level of distress and its

customary methods for restoring equilibrium. (p. 4)

People must face the challenge of adapting to a difficult reality, and the adaptation requires giving up an important value or a current way of life.

In these situations leadership becomes dangerous when it must confront people with loss. Leaders must challenge people to answer core but painful questions. Of all that we value, what is really the most precious and what is expendable? People do not resist change; they resist loss. The hope of leadership lies in the capacity to deliver disturbing news and raise difficult questions in a way that people can absorb, prodding them to take up the message rather than ignore it or kill the messenger (Heifetz & Linsky,

2013).

The presumption that school leaders are educated, trained, and prepared to handle school emergencies and develop crisis intervention plans to respond to acts of violence

38 against students and adults is not adequately supported in the research. Beck and Murphy

(1994) stated that little attention is given in school administration preparation programs to ethical issues and protocols to address them. Strike, Haller, and Soltis (2005) similarly suggested that little academic preparation is offered at the university level on ethical decision making or methodology regarding conceptualizing a problem. Without specific training on how to identify the technical and adaptable issues facing the school organization, leaders are not prepared to lead in these types of crisis.

Planning and preparing for a response to a violent school incident requires school leaders to prepare for a continuum of threats that could potentially affect the safety of their school on any given day (Trump & Eith, 2019). University programs alone will never be enough to prepare administrators for the daily challenges of the work, especially in the area of crisis leadership related to violence. Administrators lead multifaceted organization with unpredictable demands with few administrators having had any formal training in crisis leadership (Lovely, 2004). Even less exists in preparation for school administrators to effectively manage their own personal emotions and lives post traumatic event.

Research on organizational culture, leadership, and crisis leadership provides guidance on how best to begin the leadership of a large-scale crisis. However, it does not provide insight into the personal and professional impact of responding with such intensity to lead during these incidents. This leads to a need to understand available research on trauma.

Post Traumatic Stress

The most significant impact of school violence on educators found in the current literature is from the psychological concept of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

This section is intended to provide a broad overview for the reader based on literature, but not an in depth analysis of the psychology and work in this field.

A traumatic event is an activity that results in actual death or severe injury

(American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Those who witness the event may experience intense fear and helplessness (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). For example,

Lyytinen (2010) studied the school shooting on November 7, 2007, in Finland in which an 18-year-old male student opened fire at his school, Jokela School Center in the municipality of Tuusula, killing 9 people: 6 students, 2 staff members (the school principal and the school nurse), and himself. The event caused “uncontrollable,”

“negative” as well as “sudden” emotional trauma for those involved in the incident

(Lyytinen, 2010).

Posttraumatic stress is referred to as normal reactions to events that meet the criteria for a traumatic event (Lyytinen, 2010). Most people experience normal stress reactions without developing PTSD. However, when the stress bypasses an individual’s normal recovery process, the individual becomes susceptible to PTSD. According to

American Psychiatric Association, PTSD is a mental complication that results when an individual is exposed to an event that is deemed to be traumatic leading to three common symptoms: re-experiencing, arousal, and avoidance.

Ardis (2004) described PTSD as having four clusters of symptoms following exposure to trauma. The first cluster, which occurs right after the trauma lasting days, involves intense fear combined with a sense of helplessness and horror. According to

Ardis this can be debilitating—at times, teachers and students are unable to function shortly after a shooting. However, administrators are put in a position where organizational leadership must prevail and their focus is on returning the school to order.

The second cluster of symptoms involves a re-experiencing of events through

“flashbacks.” Individuals begin re-living the event over and over again bringing back the emotions as if they were back in the situation. The third set of symptoms includes avoidance behaviors—staying away from anything that reminds the victim of the trauma.

The horror of the initial trauma and flashbacks elicit both mental and physical negative responses. In the case of a school shooting, any exposure to the area or the building in which the event occurred could trigger recurring flashbacks. Daniels, Bradley, and Hays

(2007) pointed out that in this stage absenteeism of students and staff increases as the traumatized individuals seek to escape.

Daniels et al. described the fourth and final stage as one in which individuals with

PTSD experience increased sleep disturbances, irritability, difficulty concentrating, hypervigilance, or being easily startled. These symptoms “often arise within three months of the event, acute, and may persist for longer than three months, and be considered chronic. Symptoms may be delayed in their onset, sometimes not surfacing until six months or more after the violence” (Daniels et al., 2007, p. 654).

The seriousness, along with the duration of a traumatic experience, influences the magnitude of the developed PTSD symptoms (Lyytinen, 2010). Symptoms often last longer when the traumatic experience is extremely severe and lasts for a long period. The findings of Lyytinen study on the effects of Jokela School shooting showed that PTSD symptoms are significantly higher for those who interacted with the stressor (the shooter) compared with those who did not interact with the stressor (Lyytinen, 2010). Likewise, direct exposure to traumatic incidents generates an increased risk of PTSD (Lyytinen,

2010). In support of Lyytinen’s argument, Turunen and Punama (2014) indicated that exposure to extreme stress including danger, affects those involved physically, emotionally, and their response to traumatic stress. The author further asserted that overwhelming danger influences individuals to detach the cognitive, sensory, as well as motor, processes to handle the unbearable emotions within unstable consciousness

(Turunen, 2014). Detachment is, therefore, one of the adaptive responses at the time of traumatic events, but sometimes it increases the risk of mental health issues (Turunen,

2014).

Mears (2008) provided insight into the impact of a school shooting as the research specifically focuses on the Columbine school shooting and impact on students and parents. Mears determined location, intention, and connection all factor into the intensity of the individual’s response. A theme developed in which both parents and students experienced a level of trauma. According to Mears’ qualitative study, Table 1 illustrates consistent themes identified of concern for students and parents who had primary exposure to traumatic violence.

Table 1

Themes

Impact on students Impact on parents

● Depression ● Secondary traumatization ● Anxiety and hypervigilance ● Feeling unprepared to parent a child who ● Anger had experienced “a war zone” ● Oppositional behavior ● Uncertainty about the future ● Withdrawal ● Fear of further violence ● Risk Taking ● Sensitivity to exploitation and further ● Sense of fore-shortened future violation ● Academic difficulties ● Frustration from lack of closure ● Difficulty expressing self ● Depression ● Disruption of home life ● Generalized anxiety; hypervigilance ● Marital discord ● Feeling or not being understood

Additionally, secondary exposure to traumatic violence include:

● Loss of sense of security and safety

● Shattered worldview and life assumptions

● Loss of ability to trust in others, in a system, in predictability

● Extended grief states

● Disconnection from what had been conventional wisdom

● Difficulty with language (a type of aphasia)

● Trouble describing the experience

● Separation from those who have not shared the experience (trauma

membrane)

Mears (2008) determined that the effects of a school shooting play out in many different ways; therefore a spectrum of services must be made available. The impact of trauma is intensified when an entire community is impacted (Mears, 2008).

School/Community Impact

A school shooting is a period of crisis for the entire community, but most especially for individuals employed and enrolled in the school. Those who witness the incident may present with altered behavioral and cognitive processes as well as disturbed state of well-being (Lyytinen, 2010). Although the immediate impact of such shooting is fear, the long-term result is the post-traumatic stress. While the symptoms could be temporary, long-lasting consequences could manifest as victims develop chronic psychiatric disorders. This can be evidenced by the journey of Samantha Haviland, who at 16 years old was a victim in the attack at Columbine High School. Even today, at age

35, she indicates that she has never fully escaped the effects of the shooting that occurred on the Littleton, Colorado campus. She demonstrates that the nightmare of the events of that morning linger in her mind. The results of such events include changes in sleeping pattern, anxiety, and the relationship of students with friends and teachers. In extreme cases, students may be psychologically affected, resulting in detachment from the community. In these extreme scenarios of PTSD, the student ceases to participate in activities that foster coexistence in a society.

PTSD in schools across the country is becoming an epidemic due to a rise in school violence. “Although school districts make efforts to provide students with mental health services, it has also been shown that school personnel may not receive the support they need following mass trauma” (Daniels et al., 2007, p. 657). A school shooting is a

“period of psychological disequilibria, experienced as a result of a hazardous event or situation that contributes a significant problem that cannot be remedied by using familiar

44 coping strategies” (Roberts, 2000, p. 7). The impact is intensified for school leaders because they carry the burden of leadership and must compartmentalize their own emotional crisis while attempting to lead under an extreme crisis situation.

Effects on Educators

There has been research conducted on the effects of school violence on staff, most notably teachers. Specifically, the psychological trauma of witnessing a school shooting includes “both immediate and long term consequences. Immediate reactions to this sort of trauma include physical, behavioral, emotional, and cognitive responses” (Daniels et al., 2007, p. 653). In the classroom, Elliott, Hamburg, and Williams (1998) reported that fear and heightened levels of stress lead to burnout and unproductive work. Newman et al. (2004) reported teachers who worry about their safety, whether generalized violence such as fighting, bullying, or a school shooting, are more likely to leave the teaching profession.

These events cause a high level of trauma creating fear among teachers, students, and staff inside and outside of the impacted school. There becomes an acceptance of reality that the place in which has traditionally been one of academic, social, and emotional growth is no longer safe. This causes the fear that “our school could be the next one on the evening news and that our own students could be the ones running for their lives” (Daniels et al., 2007, p. 133). Everyone in education and in surrounding communities monitors the response and begins the process of wondering, what if this was our school.

Today every school has crisis response plans in place outlining how to react during and post event whether generalized school violence or a specific school shooting.

Daniels et al. (2007) documented services provided for students, including critical incident stress debriefing and dealing with PTSD symptoms. While there are many services for children, there is a disconnect in support provided to front line staff including teachers and administrators. Daniel (2007) cited in the Paducah and Jonesboro study that district administrators felt a need to get their schools back in session as soon as possible

(p. 654). This urgency to return to normal is often justified as appropriate modeling for students; however, it is a staff left without the necessary support. Everyone involved must receive intensive support services for any type of normalcy to occur. Kondrasuk,

Greene, Waggoner, Edwards, and Aradhana (2005) found that 60% of respondents did not voluntarily seek counseling, and 75% of school districts did not require counseling for teacher victims following an act of school violence.

The responsibility for administrators forced to lead these incidents becomes magnified as recent events indicate that students, parents, and community are dealing with the impact of school shootings long after the return to school. In March of 2019,

Jeremy Richman, the father of one of the 20 children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary

School, committed suicide. This was shortly followed by two student survivors of the

2018 Marjory Douglas High School shooting taking their own lives. Although researchers have not established a direct link between mass shootings and the likelihood of suicides, they have found connections between the trauma of those events and the mental health risk factors that can lead to suicide. Lowe and Galea (2017) conducted a

46 meta-study of research conducted in the wake of 15 mass shootings. It was determined that survivors and community members affected by violence showed signs of post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, two prime risk factors for suicide. Voght

(2019) referencing Dr. Kelly Posner, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University who studies suicide prevention, noted there is an increased prevalence of “survivor’s guilt,” like perceived responsibility and perceived preventability—the notion that someone could have done something to stop the event. This results to an extension in time and intensity for those leaders attempting to move forward as a school and community.

Administrators responsible for managing these incidents seek to restore the disrupted equilibrium. Much of this section provides insight into a need for support services for staff prior to returning to school. Although it could be argued that this evidence naturally supports the same need for administrators, that work has not yet been addressed in research. There is a substantial responsibility of administrators to lead through the crisis that potentially adds to the possibility for increased emotional impact that must be considered and evaluated in the leadership literature.

Conclusion

Lindy (1985) observed that after a traumatic experience, those impacted surround themselves with a protective environment in order to avoid further violation described as a trauma membrane. While there are countless investigations into school violence, possible causes, potential solutions, and impact on school operations, first-hand accounts of its impact on schools and communities are rare. There is a greater void in research

47 specific to the experience of those thrust into the role of leading. This gap in the literature provides a substantial opportunity to better inform future leaders facing this issue.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this case study was to examine and articulate the experience of a rampage school shooting through the lens of educational administrators. This study adds to the information available on how school leaders negotiate and are affected by a rampage school shooting by investigating the experience specifically to those responsible for leading during and after a school shooting. By understanding the short- and long-term personal and professional implications of leading a school through such an event, we have obtained a better understanding of how to support educational administrators forced to lead a school building confronted with a traumatic event, and the impact of the event on the school community.

Research Questions

Through an in depth exploration of the following research question this study addresses a research void by exploring and articulating perspectives of educational leaders who have been forced to deal with an episode of a rampage school shooting: what is the perspective of an educational leader who directly led a rampage school shooting? This is further clarified through the following sub questions:

1. What are the perceived residual impact(s) on the educator first 12 months post

event?

2. What are the perceived residual impact(s) on the educator 5 years post event?

Research Design

I selected to examine this case study with qualitative methods. Merriam (2002) stated,

The key to understanding qualitative research lies with the idea that meaning is

socially constructed by individual interactions with their world. The world, or

reality, is not fixed, single, agreed upon, or a measurable phenomenon that is

assumed . . . there are multiple constructions and interpretations of reality that are

in flux and that change over time. (pp. 3-4)

Specific to this study it is critical to investigate how the social, political, and organizational aspects of leading a community through a rampage school shooting affect the leader responsible for responding and leading during the aftermath of a rampage school shooting. This requires the researcher to develop a deep understanding of the experience of the leaders involved.

Merriam (2002) identified several key characteristics that cut across the various qualitative research designs including the following:

● Researchers strive to understand the meaning people have constructed about

their world and their experiences.

● The researcher is the primary instrument for data collection and data analysis.

● There is a lack of theory or an existing theory fails to adequately explain a

phenomenon.

● The process is inductive whereby researchers gather data to build concepts,

hypotheses, or theories rather than deductively deriving postulates or

hypotheses to be tested.

● Findings are inductively derived from the data in a qualitative study and are in

the form of themes, categories, typologies, concepts, tentative hypotheses and

even substantive theory (Merriam, 2002, p. 133).

Many of these characteristics apply to this work as the researcher was the primary source of data collection, and, as discussed in Chapter 2, there is a gap in the available research on the experience and impact on the school leader that has led a district through a school shooting. The data were coded deductively in a search for emerging themes.

The ability to delve deeply into a topic and to present the results in a rich narrative form is the basis for the decision to conduct qualitative inquiry.

This research was designed as a case study. Stake (2000) identified conceptual responsibilities of case study research that will serve as the basis for this research which include the following,

(a) bound the case by conceptualizing the object of the study; (b) select the

themes or issues; (c) seek patterns of data to develop the issues; (d) triangulate

key observations and bases for interpretations; (e) select alternative interpretations

to pursue; and (f) develop assertions about the case. (p. 448)

The original intention of the study was to focus on one administrator; however, through the evolution of the research, it became evident that the case is best bounded by a group of administrators due to the fact that they all have very deep personal emotions and

51 reactions relative to the school shooting. The case is time bound by the shooting and the five year post shooting recovery. It is also bound by a specific school building and district in which the shooting occurred.

Setting

Central School District is in the middle of a large rural county. It serves as a county seat that is located in the town center surrounded by shops and restaurants. The population is slightly above 5,000. The community demographic is 97% Caucasian,

0.43% African American, 0.02% Native American, 0.45 Asian, 0.02% Pacific Islander, with 0.10% reporting other. In addition, 30.5% of households had children under the age of 18 at the time of the incident. The average household is 2.35 and average family size is 3.02. The city population is 24.9% under the age of 18, 6.9% from 18–24, 29.9% from

25–44, 22.5% from 45–64, and 15.8% 65 years of age or older (U.S. Census Data, 2010).

The median income for a household in the city is $54,063 and the median income for a family is $57,845.

Central School District enrollment is approximately 2,800 students and the campus is located within walking distance to the town center. The district has four elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. Central High School has approximately 1,100 students and a graduation rate that consistently exceeds 95%. There are a variety of academic opportunities for students including: Advanced Placement,

College Credit, and visual and performing arts. This academic experience is enhanced by co-curricular and extracurricular offerings for students. Central High School has strong athletic programs that are well supported by the community.

Participant Selection

The focus of this study is to explore and articulate the experience of a rampage school shooting through the lens of educational administrators. Therefore, the primary participants in this study were all certified and practicing educational administrators at the time of the shooting. The participant selection was purposeful, meaning that they were individuals who purposefully informed an understanding of the research problem and central phenomenon in this study (Creswell, 2007). Patton (1990) stated,

“Information-rich cases are those from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the research, thus the term purposeful sampling” (p.

169).

The participants were selected based on the criterion identified by Stake (2006):

Do the cases provide good opportunities to learn about complexity and contexts? The established criteria for my participant selection is school administrators with direct crisis leadership responsibilities in one school district that had a rampage school shooting with fatalities. Thus, participants are school administrators with direct leadership responsibilities at Central High School and Central School District when the shooting event with fatalities occurred. All of the participants meet this criteria providing very different, yet meaningful experiences of managing a school shooting. The following are the primary participants for this case study: high school principal (Heath), assistant principal (Dennis), assistant principal (Lark), the superintendent in place at the time of the shooting and subsequent school year (James), and the superintendent who joined the district a year after the shooting (Mark).

Heath

Heath (all names in this study are pseudonyms) is a lifelong educator who began his career as a middle school teacher prior to moving into administration. At the time of this study he has completed over 20 years in education. Prior to taking the high school principalship at Central High School, his first administrative position was as an Assistant

Principal with the primary responsibility of overseeing the secondary athletic program in a large urban school district. He served as the principal of Central High School for nine years, four prior to the shooting and five post shooting. After Central High School, Heath went on to serve as the high school principalship at another district prior to accepting his current position as a Human Resource Director. Heath’s family has lived in the Central

School District community for 15 years and his children still attend this school district.

Dennis

Dennis is a lifelong educator who began his career as a middle school language arts teacher in an urban school district. He relocated to the southwest United States to teach middle school in one of the largest public school districts in the nation. During his time within this district he entered the administrative preparation program and transitioned into a teacher leader/coaching role. He accepted the position of assistant principal at Central High School and served in this capacity for three years, a year and a half before and after the shooting. Dennis left Central High School to become a principal in another district.

Lark

Lark is a lifelong educator who began her career in special education prior to pursuing a career in administration. She accepted the position of assistant principal at

Central High School three years prior to the shooting and remained in the district two years after the shooting.

James

James also is a life-long educator who began his career as a special education teacher prior to pursuing a career in education. He then held a variety of administrative positions throughout the course of his career prior to coming to Central School District as a superintendent. He served as superintendent at Central School District for eight years.

He was intending on retiring after his seventh year but agreed to stay on an additional year due to the shooting. James then accepted a superintendency at another school district before retirement. James was interviewed regarding his career, the shooting and its perceived impact of the shooting on him as well as on the school and community and this archival data was used for verification purposes.

Mark

Mark currently serves as the superintendent of Central School District. He joined the school district a year post shooting and served in this capacity for five years at the time of this research. Prior to leading Central School District, he was an assistant superintendent and eventually superintendent at a neighboring school district that had a higher level of poverty and diversity. His administrative career began as an elementary principal after six years as an elementary classroom teacher.

Data Collection

This qualitative case study searched for deep meaning and understanding. Yin

(1994) wrote that case study research should commence with a statement of propositions answers to how and why questions to be tested with the data gathered which is a deductive approach to qualitative research. The research questions within this study focused not only on articulating the experience of a leader who has led a rampage school shooting but also at how this experience impacted him or her personally and professionally.

Data collection took place through in-depth qualitative interviewing that meet three criteria established by Rubin and Rubin (2012):

1. The researcher is looking for rich detailed information, not for yes-no,

agree-or-disagree responses.

2. The researcher does not provide specific answer categories; rather, the

questions are open-ended.

3. The questions that are asked are not fixed.

The following open-ended questions were utilized to guide the interviews of the main participants; however, follow up and clarification questions were included as the conversations evolved:

1. Please provide me with an overview of your educational and professional

background?

2. Talk about Central Schools and the community prior to October 15th (not the

actual date)? What were issues facing the district?

3. Describe the events of October 15th from your perspective.

4. In reflection, is there a specific moment in which the magnitude of the event

became a reality for you?

5. How did this event impact the various constituents (students, staff,

administrators, parents)? What steps were taken to provide support?

6. How did this experience impact you personally and professionally? How did

this experience impact other administrators personally and professionally?

What supports were put in place or did you pursue?

7. Anything else that may be relevant to the personal/professional impact of such

an event on a building or district leader?

A semi-structured approach with a responsive interviewing style was utilized.

This was selected to build rapport with the participants allowing them to feel free and safe in sharing a very personal, emotional experience. An attempt was made to develop a conversational partnership throughout the course of the interviews. As this is a very sensitive and personal topic for participants, they were permitted to self-select the setting in which they would like to conduct the interview sessions. Suggestions were made to ensure privacy and confidentiality. The data that were obtained from James was archival as it was obtained during the preliminary study and he passed away during this research.

The questions and focus of this interview aligned with this study specifically. As the risk to participants is beyond what is experienced in everyday life, a mental health referral was provided to the participants.

Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed for coding and analysis. A predetermined allotment of time was established and a natural ending point determined as the interviews progressed. The ending time was identified based on a natural chronological or topical break but also if the participants demonstrated anxiety due to the topic matter. There were a series of interviews with each of the participants. Rubin and

Rubin (2005) stated that interviewing requires a high level of concentration as the researcher listens hard, trying to extract themes, deciding what to follow up on and how, and asking for explanations, clarifications, and examples. This was very draining for participants and researchers must take the appropriate time to calm down and reflect. No more than one interview per day was conducted, and participants were afforded at least three days between interview sessions.

Additional sources of data were acquired including the following: media reports, secondary participant interviews, memos and other documents acquired through a public records request specific to incident reports, and witness statements. These sources of data were analyzed to provide foundational knowledge on the sequence of events and provide insight into the media reaction.

Data Analysis

Creswell (2014) described social constructivists as those who believe individuals seek understanding of the world in which they live and work. The goal of the research is to rely as much as possible on the participants’ views of the situation being studied. The questions are often broad and general so that participants can construct the meaning of a situation. Constructivist researchers often address the processes of interaction of

58 individuals recognizing that their own backgrounds shape their interpretation and they position themselves in the research to acknowledge how their interpretation develops.

Rubin and Rubin (2005) stated, “Data analysis is the process of moving from raw interviews to evidence-based interpretations that are the foundation for published reports”

(p. 201). The analysis of the information is completed through classifying, comparing, weighing, and combining material from the interviews and artifacts to extract the meaning and implications revealing patterns.

A deductive approach was utilized to analyze the data. The main step of this is known as the “dance of interpretation” by Crabtree and Miller (1999). These steps are describing, organizing, connecting, corroborating/legitimating, and representing the account. According to Strauss and Corbin (1990) the procedures are designed to develop a well-integrated set of concepts that provide a thorough theoretical explanation of social phenomena under study.

The data analysis process was thorough and progressed through phases to identify themes. The first phase included the open coding which is the interpretive process by which data are broken down analytically. Transcriptions were initially coded into data points relevant to the first year after the shooting and five years post shooting as articulated by participants. These data were then selectively coded separating the data points into personal and professional data points. According to Strauss and Corbin

(1990) open coding enables the investigator to break through subjectivity and bias.

Breaking apart the data challenges assumptions and ideas to be examined in contrast to the data.

The next phase of data analysis required axial coding between participants.

Strauss and Corbin (1990) described axial coding as the development of categories, and the relationships tested against the data. Categories emerged and continued analysis of data verified the level of intensity and frequency of emerging themes. Finally, the categories and subcategories were analyzed utilizing axial coding. According to Strauss and Corbin (1990), categories are related to their subcategories and their relationships are tested against the data. This allows for further development of the categories.

Trustworthiness

Measures were taken throughout the study to ensure trustworthiness. Guba (1991) provided four criteria that he believed should be considered by qualitative researchers in search of a trustworthy study:

a) credibility (in preference to internal validity)

b) transferability (in preference to external validity/generalisability)

c) dependability (in preference to reliability)

d) confirmability (in preference to objectivity).

Lincoln and Guba (1985) argued that ensuring credibility is one of the most important factors in establishing trustworthiness. This was achieved by the researcher conducting an in depth study of media reports and documents prior to conducting interviews establishing a clear understanding of timeline and events in preparation for the interviews. Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, and Allen (1993) recommended prolonged engagement between investigator and the participants increases credibility and trust between the parties. Participants were interviewed over the course of weeks; they were

60 provided transcription of interviews and invited to verify and respond to emerging themes. Participants were involved throughout the study providing an opportunity to develop relationships and ownership within the study.

Triangulation is another method used to confirm the emerging findings and enhance credibility. This study is specific in terms of time and location. Participants in the study were actively engaged in the immediate crisis leadership as well as the school and community recovery efforts post event. Denzin (1978) identified four different modes of triangulation: sources, methods, investigators, and theories. Of these four, two were used in this study: sources and methods. First, drawing on more than one source or participant, I provided an opportunity for triangulation. By including more than one perspective with each participant, credibility was established with the data as common patterns were derived from more than one source of data collection. While the perspectives of the participants did not match, common themes did emerge within the participants. This shared experience provided the opportunity to check events, emerging themes and facts as reported by other participants during the interview process. In addition, there are a variety of documents that exist to verify information. Court, police, and media reports were analyzed to verify information provided by participants in terms of time, location, and description of events.

The researcher also utilized tactics to help ensure honesty with participants when contributing data. For this study, participants were given the opportunity to refuse to participate in the project to ensure participants were willingly to share freely. At each

61 session, it was made clear to participants that they had the right to withdraw from the study at any point without disclosing a reason.

Shenton (2004) stated that frequently debriefing sessions between the researcher and the steering group enhances credibility. These conversations provide a sounding board for the researcher to test developing ideas and interpretations, and probing from others may help the researcher to recognize personal biases and preferences. In this study, frequent updates were provided to the committee providing an opportunity for feedback and guidance.

Lincoln and Guba (2000) termed “progressive subjectivity,” or the monitoring of the researcher’s own developing constructions, which the writers consider critical in establishing credibility. The researcher maintained ongoing transcriptions for reflection after every interview session in which notes were taken and data reflected upon. This assisted with the identification of emerging themes but also assisted with the identification of potential researcher bias and future areas for exploration.

Lincoln and Guba (2000) considered member checking as the single most important provision that can be made to bolster a study’s credibility. Merriam (1998) defined member checking as taking tentative interpretations back to the people from whom they were derived and asking if the results are plausible. Checks relating to the accuracy of the data took place throughout the collection of data. Participants were asked to read transcripts of dialogues in which they participated and asked to consider if their words matched what they actually intended. They were also provided emerging theories

62 and inferences for feedback. These methods of data verification provided participants an opportunity to comment on the interpretation of the data.

Merriam (1998) believed that validity “is concerned with the extent to which the findings of one study can be applied to the next” (p. 98). This is the ability to demonstrate that the results of the work can be applied to a wider population. Stake

(2000) and Denscombe (1998) suggested that, although each case may be unique, it is also an example within a broader group and, as a result, the prospect of transferability should not be immediately rejected. Firestone (1993) suggested that it is the responsibility of the researcher to ensure that sufﬁcient contextual information about the

ﬁeldwork sites and experiences enable the reader to make such a transfer. It is also the responsibility of the researcher to provide a thick description of the phenomenon to allow readers to have a proper understanding of it, thereby enhancing the opportunity for transferability. Transferability can be enhanced by effectively binding the study. This study is bound by a specific event on a specific date. Participants were limited and have a shared experience and interviewed on multiple occasions providing a depth to the information.

Borgman (1986) stated that understanding of a phenomenon is gained gradually, through several studies, rather than one major project conducted in isolation. This study should serve as a baseline for research in this area. However, by engaging additional participants that provide an outside perspective on the findings can enhance to the validity of the results. These additional participants enhanced the trustworthiness and

63 have been purposefully selected for data verification. These participants included two individuals.

William

William (all names are pseudonyms) is a lifelong educator. William served as a high school principal that had a rampage school shooting. William reviewed the findings of the study providing feedback to verify and/or enhance the findings.

Jacob

Jacob is a lifelong educator with a number of district leadership positions throughout his career. He was hired as superintendent at a district that had a rampage school shooting. Jacob reviewed the findings of the study providing feedback to verify and/or enhance findings.

Fidel (1993) believed that a study is determined dependable if you were to repeat the same methods with the same participants similar results would be achieved. Lincoln and Guba (2000) believed to address the dependability, it is critical to report the process in detail. This allows future researchers to replicate the work. Reliability is the extent to which research can be replicated to produce the same results. This is a difficult concept in a case study as human dynamics and experiences are never completely static or controlled. A lack of a single reality within a controlled environment makes this a difficult concept to address. Therefore, the extensiveness of the interviews and saturation of the administrative personnel that fit the necessary criteria supported the outcomes and validity of the findings. Merriam (1998) deemed the term reliability in the traditional sense to be a misfit when applied to qualitative research. She suggested thinking about

64 the dependability or consistency in the results. The aforementioned techniques to ensure trustworthiness also support the reliability of these findings. This increased reliability by structuring interviews with consistent questioning and coding methods in identifying emerging themes.

The final facet of trustworthiness is confirmability. Patton (1990) recognized the difﬁculty of ensuring real objectivity as tests and questionnaires are designed by humans, which could allow for the intrusion of the researcher’s biases. The concept of conﬁrmability is the qualitative investigator’s comparable concern to objectivity. Steps must be taken to ensure the experiences of the participants are not influenced by the experiences and opinions of the researcher. This is accomplished, in part, by the researcher admitting his own predispositions related to the topic. It is important that the researcher remains reflexive and identify any personal biases. Lincoln and Guba (2000) defined reflexivity as “the process of reflecting critically on the self as researcher, the human as instrument” (p. 183). The researcher builds further credibility with the reader when exposing potential biases. This process of bracketing helps frame the perspective of the researcher for the reader. As the researcher, it is important to acknowledge that I am a former high school principal that was leading during a time in which multiple students committed suicide. The experience impacted me both personally and professionally and, in part, motivated my interest in this work. It is important for me to acknowledge and recognize the potential impact of this experience on this study and an audit trail was maintained with a clear path of the research decisions and findings.

Ethics

In order to protect the rights of the participants in this study approval was obtained from the Kent State University Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the study was conducted within the established guidelines. All data records have been maintained and retained securely in a password-protected computer in a secure private office.

Participants were provided a complete overview of the study and rights prior to providing consent. The participants reserved the right to end their participation at any point during the study.

According to Rubin and Rubin (2012) the core of the expectations and obligations that are part of a research relationship is assuring that the interviewees do not come to harm as a result of the research. This, obviously, is a highly emotional event in the personal and professional life of each of the participants. Each of the participants was offered immediate and ongoing counseling by the school district. They were also provided access to a variety of services for their own recovery as well as support for family members.

This study required participants to share a difficult experience that had a significant impact on their personal and professional life. As Hatch (2002) indicated, qualitative research is very one sided in terms of the researcher asking for and taking a great deal from participants. Hatch stated, “Reciprocity is an ethical issue in any research effort, but it is especially important when participants invest themselves in close relationships with the research and trust them with sensitive information” (p. 66). They were repeatedly reminded of the importance of their story in this work and how it will support others facing these difficult leadership challenges moving forward.

Conclusion

A case study utilizing qualitative methods was selected to conduct this research.

This was conducted in a systematic, thoughtful manner to effectively and accurately articulate the experience of those directly responsible for managing the aftermath of a rampage school shooting. Appropriate measures that have evolved in qualitative methods research to ensure trustworthiness and quality of the findings were implemented. The researcher was the primary data collector and a multistep approach with an audit trail was utilized to evaluate data as to inform the research questions established within this study.

In the next chapter, I report my findings to the following research question: what is the perspective of an educational leader who directly led a school after a rampage school shooting? This was further clarified through the following sub questions:

1. What are the perceived residual impact(s) on the educator first 12 months post

event?

2. What are the perceived residual impact(s) on the educator 5 years post event?

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

The purpose of this case study was to examine and articulate the experience of a rampage school shooting through the lens of educational leaders. This study has added to the information available on how school leaders lead and are affected by a rampage school shooting by investigating the experience specifically to those responsible for leading during and after a school shooting. By understanding the short- and long-term personal and professional implications of leading a school through such an event, we have obtained a better understanding of how to support educational leaders forced to lead a school building or district confronted with a rampage school shooting, and the impact of the event on the entire school community.

This chapter presents findings for the following questions: what is the perspective of an educational leader who directly led a school after a rampage school shooting? This was further clarified through the following sub questions:

1. What are the perceived residual impact(s) on the educator first 12 months post

event?

2. What are the perceived residual impact(s) on the educator 5 years post event?

In response to my questions and in order to deeply understand the experience of the participants, the process began by evaluating all available media reports and copies of police records to better understand the facts around the case. A series of interviews were then conducted to understand the experience of participants. Open coding was first used to disaggregate data into two categories, one year after the incident and five years after

68 the incident. These data were then selectively coded and categorized as to their personal or professional impact. This led to four data sets: 1 year personal impact, 1 year professional impact, 5 year personal impact, and 5 year professional impact. Each one of these categories was axially coded leading to a cross categorical analyses per participant.

Participants were then provided a copy of initial findings and asked to submit feedback.

Finally, administrators from outside of the school district with similar experience, leadership of a school after a shooting, reviewed the findings offering additional insight and clarity.

Participants were asked a series of open ended questions to freely share their experience. Each one shared their recollection of the events, their role, and their challenges of the situation. Each participant was also asked specifically regarding the perceived impact personally and professionally one year and five year post incident.

After a brief summation articulating the experience of participants at the beginning of the shooting, the findings focus on and are organized by the research study sub questions:

1. What are the perceived residual impact(s) on the educator first 12 months post

event?

2. What are the perceived residual impact(s) on the educator 5 years post event?

There were both personal and professional impacts articulated by participants that emerged during the data analysis process.

The Day of the Shooting

“One Moment Can Change a Day, One day Can Change a Life.”

~Buddha

This study clearly seeks to articulate the experiences of those faced with leading a school building and district through what has been defined as a rampage school shooting and more specifically articulates the short- and long-term impact personally and professionally. This section is introduced by articulating an overview of the day of the shooting from the perspective of the three leaders that were most closely responsible for the leadership of the incident from a school perspective. After spending hours interviewing, transcribing, and analyzing data, to frame the level of emotion and pressure placed upon each administrator, I believe it is important to begin by articulating a summary of the initial reaction. This information not only articulates the experiences, but also correlates with the emerging themes identified later in this chapter.

Heath—The Day of the Shooting

Heath was in his fourth year as high school principal at Central High School. It is important to note that in addition to his role as principal, Heath also was a community member with kids in the middle and elementary schools within the Central School

District. This fact was noted by all administrators directly involved in the leadership of the event, as it was perceived by others, and acknowledged by Heath, that this placed upon him an additional layer of stress and responsibility. In fact Heath stated:

This added to my burden as everywhere I went people wanted to talk about the

shooting. Not in a bad way or an annoying way. It was always awkward. People

would ask “how are you doing, is there anything I can do?” In my mind I was

thinking, “yes you can leave me alone and let me coach my kids’ football team.”

I just couldn’t escape talk about the shooting to get a moment of peace.

Heath’s day began in the high school office as he spoke to the athletic director about a program issue. This was not usual as he very much is a student-centered leader and would typically be in the hallways or the cafeteria. At 7:37 a.m., he heard what was described as an “unmistakable sound” of gunshots. Before he could react, students were running and screaming in terror while Heath rushed towards the hallway. As he entered the hallway with the athletic director he heard screaming students saying, “He has a gun.”

Immediately Heath returned to the office to direct the building into lockdown. This was followed immediately by the gathering of students in and around the office and locking them down in his personal office. It quickly became silent and Heath could not stay in the office any longer. Heath stated, “We walked out of our office and there was no one to be seen. The silence was incomprehensible and there was an absolute sense of fear. Fear for personal safety, fear for what might be around the next corner.”

Officers quickly showed up and very soon the building was a crime scene and completely out of control. “We were told to stay in the office, remain in lockdown and wait for direction,” stated Heath. At some point Heath made the decision that he needed to contact his wife. “The call was very quick. I know I was short and felt completely in a fog, like a dream. I honestly don’t remember what I said.”

The shooter rode the bus to school that day sitting with his sister as he did every other morning. He sat at a table waiting for the beginning of the day and at some point

71 made the decision to pull out a handgun and begin shooting those around him. Heath stated,

Then he decided to stand up, took his sweatshirt off walked up behind the three

students, put a gun up behind their head and killed all three of them. In less than a

minute he changed everything for that school and the people within it.

Heath went on to explain that an employee within the cafeteria supervising students immediately went towards the sound believing it to be fireworks. Very quickly he realized a student had a gun and charged at the shooter. The assailant took one shot at the employee that hit a vending machine and immediately began to flee from the scene.

On the way out of the building, the shooter took one more opportunity to fire at another student who had yet to find a classroom in which to hide. This student was hit in the back and forever paralyzed.

Heath then reported going into the cafeteria and freezing when he saw the victims fighting for their lives and immediately wondering what happened to all of the other students. Quickly he came to the horrific realization that a large group of students had witnessed the shooting and had done what they were taught to do and were now hiding in the back of the cafeteria. Getting choked up, Heath stated:

It was really tough seeing that and knowing we had a large group of kids not only

witness this up close and personal but to have to wait, hide, and walk by the scene

again will always be with me. This was tough for me to process as an adult, and I

can’t imagine doing this as a high school student. Many of these were the most at

risk kids moving forward.

Within a short period of time a rumor of a second shooter became the focus of the team causing everyone to remain in lockdown. As explained by Heath, it was later determined that a boy at the table that was not shot stood up holding his cell phone and froze in shock. Other students thought he was holding a gun and this was reported causing additional anxiety and time in lockdown throughout the building. The lockdown lasted approximately 2 hours and Heath communicated with staff via email trying to let them know they were safe and eventually, “the good guys would get to them.”

An assistant principal at a nearby elementary school led reunification and by

12:30 student reunification was completed. At that point Heath and the superintendent walked over to the elementary building. Heath stated:

As you can imagine we didn’t have much to say. We were both crying. We just

told them we don’t know when we are coming back; we don’t know what the plan

will be. I don’t really remember what I said. It was more of a thank you for

everything; we will be in touch. We didn’t know when we would be coming back

and thought probably no time soon as the building was a crime scene and there

was blood and brain matter all over the cafeteria.

It was during these comments that it became very apparent that there was a sense of a lack of preparation for what was ahead. This was not a lack of an emergency response, evacuation, or reunification plan but more of the actual leadership capacity necessary to return to school and what would lie ahead for the students and the staff in terms of recovery.

The remainder of the afternoon and evening was spent in the district central office as the superintendent and law enforcement prepared for press conferences. At 5:00 p.m. the governor showed up to offer his support and the planning began for what was ahead for the school and community. Heath stated:

I got home around 9:00 p.m. and was obviously exhausted. I remember wanting

to see the kids. I don’t remember talking that night. I know I must have said

something; I just remember wanting to hold the kids. My oldest was 9 and he

obviously knew something big had happened. For some reason, he wanted to

sleep with me. And in some way that helped.

Dennis—The Day of the Shooting

Dennis served as the assistant principal of Central High School for three years.

His professional background includes serving in districts that were much larger with a great deal more diversity than Central. He was in the position of assistant principal for a year and a half prior to the shooting. The day of the shooting he was in the office when the gunfire began. He stated, “I thought initially it was fireworks and began thinking we were going to have to suspend someone pending expulsion and began walking towards what I heard.” Reality struck as students began running and screaming identifying a shooter within the cafeteria.

Very quickly kids were brought into the office from the hallway and locked down.

He went and made another announcement to lock down the building and was asked to check out the cameras to see if they could see what was going on in the cafeteria. He came to the realization that trying to access cameras was not a worthwhile use of time

74 and it was determined that the shooter had left the building. Dennis was then placed in charge of emailing staff and within minutes the police were on scene. Dennis stated:

At this point it became almost like we were dropped into a movie. Police were

going through the building dismissing classrooms to the reunification site, kids

were laying in the cafeteria in their own blood, and we were trying to move

students that had locked down in the cafeteria to the library to get them away

from the scene. We were fairly limited to the office area and we began, once

again, trying to access the cameras.

Dennis then recalled Heath telling him to call his wife to make sure she knew he was ok.

He stated:

It was the worst call I ever had to make partially because she didn’t pick up. She

was home with our young children and it was early. She didn’t have her phone. I

was worried she would see the news or get a call and not know that I was ok.

Eventually I spoke with her and she asked if I was ok. I remember saying, I don’t

know. I am physically.

For the next few hours it was all about managing from the building while the other assistant was managing reunification. They were monitoring attendance the best they could and communicating back and forth with the other assistant principal. Dennis stated:

At one point, I walked into the cafeteria; there was police and EMS standing

around; blood everywhere. One of the EMS workers said this was one of the

most horrific things he had ever seen. Everything about this scene was so

contradictory to our experience of school. It was difficult to process and

impossible to forget.

This was the first of many comments made by each participant highlighting the dichotomy between what they were observing and what they were forced to deal with and the purpose of what school should be and why they chose to be educational leaders.

Students were being dismissed to the reunification site when a police officer approached Dennis stating they needed to get into a locked area of the building. They inquired about getting the custodian. Dennis did not want the custodian to have to do this, so offered to help. He stated:

I started to jog down the hallway in my suit with a plain clothes cop that I knew

very well. I turned the corner and there was a line of SWAT with masks and

automatic weapons. They drew the guns yelling, “Who the hell are you? Why are

you running the halls?” I’m yelling “I am the principal, opening the door.” They

said, “God damn it; quit running.”

After a pause for reflection Dennis said, “For me, it was tangible, I was helping. I was trying to get there, to help kids, or do something for someone and meanwhile they are clearing the building ready to shoot anyone that looks suspicious.”

The day proceeded and Dennis worked with other administrators to support during the reunification of students and parents. He eventually was able to go home and commented that this was the third hardest moment of the day and began to choke up.

My daughter ran up to hug me. She was too young to know what happened. She

was excited to sit down and eat. I hugged my wife and remember holding her

very tight. We sat down to eat and I remember my daughter putting her feet on

the table. I immediately addressed it with her and then remember thinking does

that really matter, four kids are not going home tonight and maybe never will go

home. I guess that’s when the first element of this providing a bit of perspective

hit me.

As Dennis prepared to try to get some sleep that night he received a text informing him that he was to report with the other assistant principal to the police station first thing in the morning to review the surveillance tapes to identify and name kids. He said:

We knew these kids [choking up], excuse me; this is tough. But we had to watch

over and over again the route the kid took that morning. Identify the kids all

around. I walked through a cafeteria of 700 kids almost every morning. They

asked us to watch basically a silent movie of a murder. That sticks with me. That

doesn’t leave.

Lark—The Day of the Shooting

Lark served as the assistant principal at Central High School. She led the district safety drill that was conducted prior to the shooting that is credited by every participant as a critical event in his or her ability to lead after the shooting. Lark began her interview with, “You know you go to work. It’s a Monday, you go to work and you think it’s going to be like any other Monday, until it isn’t. And then there was never, just another

Monday again.” She was in the student services office at the time of the shots. She recalled:

I was there and all of the sudden I heard what sounded like balloons popping and I

pretty quickly realized they were not balloons. You should never, ever, ever hear

your students screaming in terror and running for their lives and that is exactly

what was happening in front of me.

Lark moved toward and stepped out into the hallway and realized that she didn’t have her radio. She understood something big was going on and may need her radio so immediately went back into the office. As she was asked to watch the video of the shooting the next day, Lark quickly realized the impact of that moment.

What I saw sent a chill through my entire body, as I stepped back to the office to

get my radio is when the shooter went right by the door. Like as the door I

walked through was closing the shooter ran by gun in hand. Had I not gone back

for my radio, I would have been face to face with the shooter. That is hard to

understand, it still is.

It was evident that this moment was very significant to Lark as she realized how close she was to potentially a very different outcome.

Lark continued and stated that at this point things kind of become a blur but recalls going into a girls’ bathroom right across from the office and getting two girls to come into the office.

Their poor eyes were as big as saucers. I am like, “You gotta get in here now.” I

guess it was like a mother hen. Those are my kids. I use to talk about my kids all

the time. I’d be in places and I talk about my kids and people would be like how

many kids do you have? I’m like, 1,200. Central is pretty large but these are my

kids, they still are. And our reality is that day we together experienced loss in a

lot of ways.

Lark explained that they were locked down in the office and were informed that students had been shot. We didn’t know how many shooters, where they might be. Lark decided she had to make a quick phone call. She stated:

I didn’t know what was unfolding. I quickly went into one of the staff bathrooms

and made a quick call to my brother to tell him that if something happened to me,

he had to let the girls know that they were my world. I woke him up. He had no

idea and was like, are you kidding me? I told him to just promise me you’ll tell

them they were my world and hung up the phone.

This moment highlights the struggle between the natural fear for personal safety and the responsibility to lead.

The next thing she remembered was being in the cafeteria trying to help move kids to the library. She said:

I remember hearing we need to get the kids out of the cafeteria. I remember

walking in the cafeteria and the scene. I saw a lot of blood everywhere. You

never thought about this when you went into education . . . there isn’t anybody

that went into education for any other reason than to first and foremost help

students grow and make a positive impact on their lives. And all of the sudden,

here I am in the middle of a murder scene. I just couldn’t believe it; I still can’t

believe it.

The administrative team quickly convened in the office and it was decided that

Lark would go over to the elementary school and lead reunification. It was during this process that she realized the mother of one of the victims was in line for reunification.

According to Lark:

I’ve got the mom that lived three doors down from the school whose son was shot

and later ended up passing away in line to pick up her son. I grabbed my cell

phone because I didn’t want to have this conversation over the radio and called

Heath or James, I can’t even remember. I said I have this parent here to pick up

her son and I know he is not here. I immediately put myself in the parent’s shoes.

I know this boy; he was my part of the alphabet. I cared about him and had his

mom on speed dial. It was decided that our speech and language pathologist

would tell her. I remember the mom screaming, “this school can call me about

every little thing but can’t call to tell me my son has been shot.” Of course this

was not intentional as we thought the police had notified the parents of the

wounded students. It shouldn’t have happened that way. To this day, I can see

that conversation and hear her saying those words.

Reunification seemed to go very well as most students were able to contact parents via cell phone and were patient. Lark recalls,

It was like 11:30 or 11:45 and most kids were gone. I remember like I’m walking

up and down the halls getting kids, and taking care of various issues. There were

some kids that had information so needed to get statements. I was just trying to

be helpful. At one point I remember just kind of feeling like this really isn’t

happening.

This highlighted a point brought up by each participant. There was a sense of the event being surreal, and each participant identified consistently there was a sense that they could not believe this was happening to and around them.

After reunification Lark recalls going over to the board office to begin response planning and eventually headed home later that evening. Lark stated:

I got home at about 7:00 p.m. that night. I lived alone at that time and began

walking in the door. My daughters were both away at college. I walk in and my

oldest daughter is there waiting. She had spent the day watching the news. I

asked her, “What are you doing here?” She responded that she couldn’t let me

come home to an empty house and gave me a hug. At that moment, it meant

everything.

Three of the four participants found great solace in being able to hold their children that evening, understanding how fortunate they were after what they had experienced.

James—The Day of the Shooting

James served as the superintendent of Central School District. He was on his way to a meeting out of district when Heath called to inform him there was a shooting. James said:

I don’t normally pick up my cell phone when I am diving. For some reason I did

that morning. Heath told me there was a shooting in the cafeteria. Your heart

stops. The whole world stops. It’s kind of like being at a funeral for a close

family member. Everything else is still going on, but you are in a capsule. I felt

this enormous burden. That burden has never left. It is like I put on a shirt that

morning that I can never take off.

James immediately redirected and began rushing to the scene and picked up his phone.

I call in this order. My wife, my daughter, and my Mom. I felt like I needed to

tell them I was fine, I would be tied up all day so don’t try to call. Don’t worry

about what you see on the news. I don’t know how or why this happened just

pray for the kids.

By the time James arrived to the community all the roads were blocked but fortunately the officer knew who he was and let him through. James rounded a corner and got a first look at the school.

My heart sank and reality hit as I saw the building. It looked nothing short of a

movie scene. There were literally hundreds of police officers around outside. It

seemed like every police and rescue squad from all surrounding areas was there.

I’ll never forget that image.

James proceeded to the command center, which was located about 500 feet from the school. He stated:

It seemed like mass confusion at first and felt like I was on a movie set. All of

these intense images surrounded me and, at times, I would focus in on one and it

felt almost like slow motion. Like the back of an EMS truck was open and it was

obvious they were working on a student. We saw one student come out on a

stretcher and they were holding up a sheet or something to try to block the student

from media photos and maybe protect us from the sight. I’m thinking, you have

to be kidding me, almost like a dream. They informed me there was a couple of

kids shot, we don’t know how many yet and one of the EMTs looked at me and

said it doesn’t look good in there. This was the second blow of the morning, not

only did we have a shooter but it looks like there would be fatalities.

There was a lot of emotion with James throughout his interviews when having to state that students died. It was evidently a difficult reality for him to accept and come to terms with moving forward.

As the victims were transported and the evacuation started, James remembered that he had a short piece of paper and was listing the names of those who were injured.

He stated:

It started with one name and I knew the kid and family. I then kept getting more

names and was thinking to myself this cannot be real. The list kept getting longer

and longer and before it was over there were six names on the list. I remember

this because I wanted to make sure I had the appropriate names and started to pull

up faces from our attendance system. I distinctly remember thinking what if my

kid’s name was on that list.

After the majority of the evacuation of students had been completed James and the central command team moved over to the board office to begin planning for next steps and prepare for the media who had swarmed upon the entire community. James said:

We went over to the board office and into the boardroom, we called it our war

room. That’s where we stayed for the most part of that whole first day and night.

Actually for the next few weeks that became my home. Some nights even long

after the shooting, I sat there staring at the walls thinking about the event. I am

not sure why.

The remainder of the day James spent working with media specialists, monitoring of social media, and preparing statements for every news cycle. James stated:

The morning was spent stressing over the kids and the families, the afternoon and

evening was a different type of stress and pressure because it was so critical to say

the right thing and be strong for our school and community. I spoke about

healing, supporting kids, and supporting each other. It was really hard to talk. It

is hard to talk about any tragedy but harder when the incident has the level of

violence that happened that day. I remember we announced one student passing

and I thought about the parents sitting at home watching me on the news. I drove

home late that night and cried the entire way home. I never told anyone that.

In closing his description of the day of the shooting James made a statement that articulated how he felt that day as well as how this impacted him long term:

Everything stopped that morning. It was like when I was a kid and John F.

Kennedy was shot. I can remember it was quiet in my school. The principal kept

coming over the PA. They even decided to send us home early. It was like a dark

cloud came over our country. Nobody knew what to do. Everybody felt like

something is very wrong. That’s what happened that day, and it continues. It was

like I personally gained 50 lbs. that day that has never gone away.

12 Months Post Shooting

There was a noticeable difference with each participant when discussing and recollecting the events of the day of the shooting and 12 months post shooting. Their body language, level of emotion, tone, and overall seriousness of the content were dramatically different. Each of them became emotional at various points in discussing the day of the shooting and/or subsequent funerals. Throughout the interviews individual participants indicated physical, emotional, and psychological symptoms personally the first year that depending on the level of intensity and longevity could have been deemed post traumatic stress like symptoms. None of the participants were diagnosed or pursued treatment. These included difficulty sleeping, trouble focusing, being short tempered and irritated, abusing alcohol, reexperience of the trauma through flashbacks, and emotional numbness. Additional themes did emerge from participant interviews related to the first

12 months that provide insight into the perspective and impact of this experience both personally and professionally. The emerging themes for the first 12 months post shooting are as follows: a loss of sense of control, a need to serve others above personal recovery, and vivid defining moments.

Loss of Sense of Control

“There are moments in life when it is all turned inside out—what is real becomes unreal,

what is unreal becomes tangible, and all your level headed efforts to keep a tight

ontological control are rendered silly.” ~Alexander Hemon

Each interviewed administrator discussed a sense of a loss of control professionally the day of the shooting that lingered over the months to come due to the seriousness of the event. This began with the day of the shooting when the police entered the building.

Heath—Loss of control. Heath recalled,

He took over the building from the school almost immediately. At that time, I

was literally watching the victims being taken from the building. It was hard to

realize you are not in charge. It is the police now that will run the show.

Later in the initial interview he stated:

The elementary had not come to school yet and the police made the decision to go

to that building instead of the middle school. That is one of those things I cannot

emphasize enough, when the police show up they take over your building and the

decisions. It is no longer your building; they make every decision and you just

help when they ask. In fact, at some point I went with the lieutenant before the

building was fully evacuated to the assistant principal’s door. He stopped me and

said, “What are you doing?” I responded that I want to see the tape. He said, “I

can’t allow you to see the tape. If I let you see the tape, you may get called to the

stand and I would be letting you see evidence before it’s public.” It was those

kind of things that change your perspective. You asked what was going through

my head. It was those little things, like wow this is really big.

As Heath continued to recount the day he stated,

I was not going classroom to classroom. The SWAT team was handling the

evacuation because it was a crime scene. It was really hard for me not to be able

to go help, not be able to go to our staff and students.

This was clearly an issue for every participant.

Lark and James—Loss of control. This loss of control was also noted by Lark when she stated, “They take over your building. It is no longer your building. It’s a crime scene. It’s just you taking orders at that point while everyone else is locked down.”

James stated:

The police take over the school when there is a crime scene. We were just

observers. As a superintendent, you have no control and do not call the shots. I

was there just collecting information and answering any questions that I could. It

is tough when you are typically the one calling the shots and you know there is

staff and kids in there and you have nothing you can do for them. The police did

a great job but they did it from a safety and security perspective and I was there

thinking about our staff and kids from an educator perspective. You know the

emotional impact and things that would be needed. That was frustrating and hard.

This feeling extended beyond the initial incident the day of the shooting and was present throughout that first year. James stated:

It seemed like that entire first year we had to continually react to the next issue.

We had a great team that was always out in front of things but this was different.

It just kept coming. Obviously, it was the day of the shooting and then it was

getting students and staff back, then the funerals, then working with attorneys,

then thinking about graduation, the summer, the suicide attempts, coming back to

school. It just was never ending and it almost felt like it was happening to you

that you were not out in front of it, not at all how we like to operate as leaders.

James acknowledged,

It was tougher on the building administrators as they had to deal with it on the

front line day after day. I know it took a toll on each one of them, especially

Heath having to live in the community. It surrounded him everywhere. It is fair

to say that the first year was survival for all of us.

Personal impact. The severity of managing an event of this magnitude brought a similar feeling personally. Heath recalls:

I know my wife would say that I was shorter with her, probably more distant that

first year. I do recall a time, which is funny now. We had been dealing with all

of this and there was some kind of school event that I had to go to on a Friday. I

was exhausted; we had been working so hard and the days were intense. I walk in

the door and the first thing I hear is my wife yelling down to me that I had to

hurry up and get ready or we were going to be late. I just lost it. I yelled I don’t

want to go to this fucking fundraiser; I just want to sit on my fucking couch and

get just a little peace and quiet. As I turned the corner after yelling, I walked right

into our babysitter who was a board member’s daughter. I immediately said, “Oh

hi. I am going to get dressed now.”

This sense of being on edge was reinforced by each participant at various points during the interviews. Heath went on to explain:

In that first couple of weeks I never thought about me or my family, only the

school and the kids. There was just way too much to process and deal with. The

days went into the nights and there were constantly decisions to be made. I don’t

remember much about the first week as the events of the week kind of guided me.

I remember very little about my family. My wife would tell you I became distant

and didn’t want to talk about everything that was coming at me. I definitely held

it together at work but there were times that didn’t happen at home. My wife has

told me that I made a comment one day when she was complaining about

something at work. I obviously was not being attentive or caring. She became

frustrated and my response was something like, “Really did any students get

killed in your office today?” Again, I don’t recall this but I am sure it is true. I

know there are a lot of administrators that go through this and the marriage is a

casualty. I was lucky to have such a supportive wife.

Heath also recalled a time in which this surfaced at work. Heath stated:

One of the challenges we had that is fairly unique to other shootings is our shooter

lived. So every two weeks or so his face would be in the paper. We had this

librarian that would bring me the newspaper every time he was on the front page

and ask what she should do with it. I had enough at that point and told her I can’t

control the media or what is in the newspaper. I crumbled it up and threw it in the

garbage.

James described similar feelings and stated:

I was certainly short with people at home and at work, which was not like me.

We were working so hard to try to get through. I remember someone specifically

accusing me of choosing a student support program based on where my wife was

working. It was one of the few times in my life where I completely lost my

temper. It is hard when everything is happening around you but very few people

know how intense and lonely leadership can be during a time like this.

It was evident that each participant wanted everything they could control post recovery to be perfect and anything short of this became frustrating.

A Need to Serve Others Above Personal Recovery

“Sometimes you find yourself, when you lose yourself in the service to others.”

~Unknown

Throughout the interviews each of the participants expressed a strong sense of student and staff recovery being their central focus and motivation while acknowledging their own personal recovery and impact of this event was not a consideration. Many of the participants overtly mentioned that the recovery of the students was of paramount importance before they could ever think about themselves, and this was most present throughout the first year. There were multiple data points in which participants acknowledged that educational leaders are constantly putting students and staff first and that this reality is magnified during a time of crisis like a rampage school shooting.

Heath—Service of others over self. There was clearly little thought or concern of personal recovery or seeking assistance in understanding the impact of this event amongst participants. Heath stated:

There was some guilt, confusion, a lot of anger and more than anything I felt bad

for the kids. Their innocence was taken away; their childhood was taken away.

High school is supposed to be about memories, relationships, and figuring out

who you are. A lot of those kids had to grow up immediately because they were

faced with tragedy in their school. When the emotions got high I kind of got

stoic. I felt my role was to get us back. I didn’t want to allow us to be viewed as

something bad happened and there was a bad response by the school that made it

worse. That kid stole their innocence—completely changed not only their high

school experience but their lives forever. All I could do was think about trying to

make it better for the kids. That kept me going, that forced me to get over what

issues I might have. Maybe not the best way to deal with things but is all I cared

about.

It was recommended to the team by a national expert that they should try to get the students back to school as soon as possible. Heath said, “at that moment I thought we needed to involve kids in everything we did moving forward. They had to be part of the process. Student involvement was a part of everything we did.” He went on to explain,

There was such a need to get stuff done; there was no time to think about me. I

needed to make sure this happened right for the kids. I needed to do everything

possible to not let this define their high school experience. I didn’t think about

my needs.

A few months post incident Heath agreed to go to a counseling session with his wife. He stated:

I went with my wife maybe 2–3 months after the shooting. We went to a family

therapist. The lady asked a number of questions that we answered. At the end of

the session she kind of looked at both of us, my wife asked what are our next

steps? The therapist paused and said, “He is not ready.” My wife said, “What do

you mean?” And she said, “Well, he is really busy and he has an agenda and is

wrapped up in the recovery of his students and his school. He is not in a place to

unwind and talk.”

Heath went on to explain, “We never went back but she was right, all I could think about was the recovery; it was almost obsessive. I am just lucky my wife was so understanding.”

Dennis—Service of others over self. Dennis also identified the teams’ commitment to the students, staff, and community over their own personal recovery. He stated:

We never took the time to take care of ourselves that first year. I guess my

personal drive was the students and the staff. I think every decision we made as

an administrative team was about how do we make this better for kids and staff.

How are we going to make them feel safe and not afraid to walk around our

building? That’s all we talked about and all we did. I honestly don’t remember

ever talking about ourselves or how this impacted our well-being.

Dennis was brought up in a Catholic household and a few of the victims were not baptized which led to a conversation at home about their own children. A few weeks

92 after the shooting, Dennis decided to call the church on his way home as he felt like he should talk to someone. Dennis stated:

I decided to meet with the priest about baptism and this incident. It was a

Catholic Church and we were married Catholic but were not practicing. I started

with we would like our kids baptized and I think I need some help as I was just

involved in a school shooting. The priest seemed to ignore the whole school

shooting issue and only focused on the baptism and how my wife and I needed to

be practicing Catholics. He kept talking about my sister-in-law and

brother-in-law who we selected as God parents were not married Catholic. He

went as far as suggesting that they would have to get remarried as a Catholic. I

was like, “Okay, let’s skip the baptism. Can we get some why or meaning behind

this shooting I am trying to process.” He responded, “I’m really concerned about

your kids being baptized.” I left and never went back. I just put my head back

down and we went back to work trying to help the kids.

Dennis concluded,

I told my wife that if she ever thought this was impacting me or our family to let

me know, and I would immediately get help. It just never came up again and that

experience certainly did not motivate me to pursue other options.

Lark—Service of others over self. Lark consistently referred to the students as her kids and it was evident that from the first moments of the incident their recovery was the priority. She stated:

You’re sitting there thinking, “Oh my goodness, what are we going to do?” Your

kids are lying on the ground bleeding. We are all walking around that to help

others. It was all about I’ve got to take care of everybody. I’ve got to get

everybody where they need to be. I need to get them to safety. I need to help the

police get whatever information they need. I need to be of assistance. That was

what got me through the first week, probably through the first year. But the

reality is that is what we all solely thought about going forward.

As each participant addressed their own recovery, there was an immediate recalling of all of the things that took priority and were on their plate preventing this from even being a possibility.

Having to watch the video to assist police in the investigation was obviously an event that had a significant impact on Dennis and Lark. Lark recalled:

We had to go and we had to watch the tape. I remember the police officer saying

that you are going to see the whole thing. In that moment, I thought this is what I

have to do for my kids. It was like, we’ve got to put these pieces together. We’ve

got to figure this out. I remember watching from that perspective; it was horrific.

I will never get it out of my head. But I was thinking this is what we have to do to

help move forward. I mean those are my students. I watched them get killed.

That is a pretty deep pain. But at that time, all I wanted to do was help the rest of

the kids and staff.

Lark went on to explain,

I had to be at work, got to be there. I was so focused on the needs of kids, the

needs of staff and the needs of parents who kept calling saying they don’t know

what to do. That’s all I could focus on was who can I help next.

The first summer post shooting Lark decided to go to a counselor.

I went in thinking I need to find out from the counselor what it’s going to be like

for my kids when they return to school so I can be ready for them. None of us

thought about our needs that first year.

James—Service of others over self. James stated,

There is a famous quote, “You either lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.”

I am really proud that our team led but in hindsight we never really thought about

ourselves. I mean we leaned on each other to get by and maybe that was our

therapy.

It was very evident that the team put the needs of the students and staff above their own personal recovery. The implication of that was noted by James: “I still worry about all of them, my team. There is no question it aged us all.”

Vivid Defining Moments

“We do not remember days, we remember moments.” ~Cesare Pavese

Each participant had moments early in the process that they can recall in which the magnitude of the event became a reality and have developed into the mental image of the event that remains vivid today. Every participant at some point utilized a movie as an analogy to his or her experience and like a movie each has scenes that are engrained and within them. Participants were more serious and emotional and described these moments

95 in greater detail. Although the experiences are more closely related to the actual shooting, they are obviously with them long term to process personally as a significant impact of the event. These events provide insight into perspective as well as the personal and professional impact of leading a district and community through a rampage school shootings.

Heath—Defining moments. Heath recalled a defining moment that came the day after the shooting when he was permitted to enter the building to gather things from his office to begin the process to return to school. He recalled entering the building and seeing plywood blocking off areas, crime scene tape and feeling surreal as he was in the middle of a crime scene in which 24 hours ago kids were killed. He stated:

I then went into my office to gather some things to go work at the board office

and my cell phone rings. There was no number on the screen and thought it was

an issue with my phone because it went crazy the day before when all the text and

phone messages began hitting. I decided to answer and it was a lady who asked,

“Is this Heath?” I said yes. She then explained that she would like to schedule a

phone call with President Obama. Then in all of my wisdom I informed her that I

had a couple of meetings but could probably do around 11:00 a.m. I quickly

realized I just told the lady I was too busy to talk to the President of the free

world. She said that works perfectly and would call on this number.

Heath went on to say:

At 11:00 a.m. exactly the phone rang and it was the same lady asking if I was

ready to talk to the President. He came on the phone, offered condolences from

he and Michelle and let us know he was praying for us all. He let me know he

watched the media coverage from DC and it looked like we have done a

tremendous job managing everything and offered to help if we needed support. I

thanked him and said we have a great staff. He said that he understood that but

mentioned it takes a great leader. I made another comment about how everyone

came together to support. He then said something like, your leadership saved

lives and will continue to help the community heal. I just sat there for a minute

because I realized how big this really was and how many people were watching

this response. I also realized at that moment this would be part of me forever.

Another such moment occurred a few months later. Heath, when asked about how he was able to cope personally early on, stated:

The problem with this is that it never really went away. Let me give you an

example. A few months after the shooting we planned a trip to go away. We

drove to Florida. We were on the beach and I was playing catch with the kids.

There was another family not too far away and I started a conversation with the

father. He and I were just chatting about college basketball and the kid’s

activities. In the middle of the conversation he stops and says that I feel like I

know you from somewhere. He then asked what I do for a living, and I responded

that I was a high school principal. Immediately he said, “You are from that

district that had the shooting, that’s how I know you. I saw you on the news.” So

even going across the country, I could not get away. I could never get away. I

mean the guy was nice and respectful. It was a reality check for me on how big

this incident really was and how much this was going to be a part of me moving

forward.

It was evident that this was even more impactful for Heath as a community member who was active with his children.

Dennis—Defining moments. For Dennis one of the moments came during the incident when the building was secured and the police were managing the evacuation of students classroom by classroom. Dennis stated:

We had a T.V. in our main office. We had it there for announcements and videos

to be played for the student body. That day we turned it on a national news

channel while the evacuation was happening. I remember stopping and looking

up at the T.V. They were showing an aerial view of our building from a

helicopter. If I put my hand out the window or walked out the front door, I would

have been on the T.V. It was just surreal, almost like I was outside myself going

through the motions but not really in the situation. And then, for some crazy

reason in that moment, I realized the magnitude of what I was involved in and

how intense this might be in the coming days.

Lark—Defining moments. One moment recalled by Lark emphasizes the intensity of the emotion during the time in which there was still an active threat. Lark stated:

After I retrieved my radio I realized the office doors were unlocked and we were

extremely vulnerable. There were two entry doors and I knew I had to go out in

the hallway to lock the door from the outside. I walked toward the door knowing

or thinking there was at least one shooter in our building. We had no idea he was

gone or what was outside of that door. I remember that I opened the door and I

was shaking so bad that I could barely get the key in the lock. I was thinking you

can do this, you have to do this. I have never felt so much fear but by the time I

got to the second door it went right in and I had started to block out my own

emotions and think about what we needed to do. For some reason that moment at

the door is extremely vivid for me.

Lark’s description of blocking out or compartmentalizing her own emotions is a good descriptor of the impression left by all participants.

James—Defining moments. For James there were a series of moments that strung together involving the families that had a significant personal impact early which remained with him at the time of the interview. James stated:

The first time I had to speak at the first gathering was the most difficult one on me

personally. There were thousands of people inside the church and outside

watching on a monitor. I stepped up to speak and I had a long pause, almost in a

daze. People probably didn’t even notice but if I shut my eyes right now I can see

my hands grabbing and squeezing the podium. All I could think about were the

parents that lost their kids, I felt like this happened under my watch. I don’t

remember speaking. I remember thinking about these parents.

James then had moments of interaction with the families the weeks following the shootings that remain vivid. He stated:

I was at a funeral and when I saw the first casket come in my world came

crashing down on the inside. I remember my eyes moving off of the casket and

saw directly through to one of the family members. They were staring directly at

me. Even as the casket rolled by they remained stoic staring right at me, and I

was thinking what could possibly be going through their mind. I obviously felt

they blamed me and wherever I went that was in the back of my mind.

Two weeks following the shooting the district was required to deliver insurance paperwork. James felt strongly that he needed to be the one to deliver the paperwork to the families. There was supposed to be a victim advocate that attended with him that cancelled on the day he was to meet with two of the families. James stated:

There was no way I could have a secretary call to reschedule, I had to go. I

remember pulling in the driveways. Even now if I close my eyes, I can remember

the type of driveway, where the entry door was, what was on the front porch, it

was the longest walk of my life. Both homes were filled with family, food

everywhere, and this was two weeks out. It was at this moment I realized the

number of people beyond the immediate family that were grieving. I could feel

everyone staring at me. I had to explain the insurance pieces to them. It was bad.

Facing them, telling them I am sorry. The one family that waited in line on the

day of the shooting refused to meet with me. This was tough.

About 7 months after the shooting, James recalls an additional interaction with the families. He stated:

100

The district provided a child bereavement specialist in from across the state that

was very good with the families. They facilitated meetings with families

biweekly, after the commotion of the event went away for over a year. The

specialist reached out to me and asked if I would face the families. I went and

apologized to them, and I think they were taken aback. I told them I was sorry. I

told them I should have called them personally sooner. They were still angry,

said a lot of things that were difficult to hear. At least, I was able to get it off my

chest. That day changed me; it hurt. I think now long term, I am sad more often.

I’m not the same. It was the hardest thing I ever had to do.

Each participant very clearly articulated impactful moments that have defined this time period in their minds and although most are within the first year clearly remain with them today as something to continually process.

5 Years Post Shooting

Each of the participants was asked specifically about their experience and personal and professional impact of the event 5 years post shooting. Additional clarity was brought to this section as Mark, the superintendent who took over post shooting, was able to provide unique insight and perspective on the longer term recovery. While none of the participants have been diagnosed with or received any treatment for ongoing emotional issues or post traumatic stress there are indications of the emotional impact over time including the following: reexperiencing events, emotional and physical reaction to sound, and a greater concern regarding personal and school safety, anxiety, and sadness. Participants were less emotional and more reflective when discussing the more

101 long-term impacts of the shooting. The emerging themes five years post incident are as follows: recovery is not a straight line, us versus them, post traumatic growth, and importance of team.

Recovery is Not a Straight Line

“Every setback might be the very thing that makes you carry on and fight all the harder

to become a little better each day.” ~Les Paul

Participants consistently referenced the ongoing ebb and flow of the recovery process over the course of time stressing that recovery is not a straight line.

Heath—Recovery is not a straight line. This theme first emerged during the interviews with Heath and was affirmed by all participants. Heath utilized the analogy of the events of the 911 terrorist attack to describe the initial reaction and response. He stated:

When it started we moved through everything as one community, staff, students,

and the school. There was a tremendous feeling of togetherness to overcome.

The best way I could describe it was the way the country came together after 911.

There was a sense that we as a country would overcome. It was the same with us.

Centralstrong became the mantra. That didn’t last forever and things got tougher

and tougher and staff issues really began to arise and then there was the lawsuit

from the parents that is still going on. Obviously that continues to add stress to all

of us.

Lark—Recovery is not a straight line. Lark specifically mentioned the comment that became the title for this emerging them. She stated:

102

Recovery is not a straight line. There are huge ups and downs for students, staff,

and if we are honest, administrators, at least for me. You’re never the same

person after witnessing that. It is not natural to listen to gun fire in school

hallways, students screaming and running in terror. It all came in waves, some

we knew about and there was no way to be prepared. Even today, I hear and

could repeat the pattern of the gunfire.

Dennis—Recovery is not a straight line. Many of the participants became frustrated with the consistent commentary around the “new normal” as it indicated that the shooting happened on a certain date and by a certain date things would return to normal. Dennis stated:

There is a new building, a new culture, a new everything. When you have

someone come in and murder children, it’s different. I’m not sure there’s a

normal. I think the normal becomes, there’s a school shooting that happened

here. We are trying to love the hell out of our kids and staff and will continue to

do that.

He proceeded to say, “and this is such a unique and intense event that there are constant and consistent challenges that set individuals and even large groups back requiring support.” He went on to say:

My professional normal now is that this is still part of me and present. The

lawsuit is still going on and I have to update the superintendent and the staff as I

may be in the media. And people just look at you differently. I call it the puppy

dog eyes. If I talk about my background and mention Central or inform my

103

secretary that I am speaking at a conference, there is an awkward pause often

followed by a sigh as people don’t know what to day. I specifically remember

telling my secretary, “Enough with the puppy dog eyes.”

Setbacks. There were many events that the team could prepare for that they relied on outside experts and each other to become prepared. This included management decisions such as what do we do with the students’ lockers, counseling support for staff and students, and programming decisions. Each participant spoke of an increase in suicide attempts for years after the shooting for which experts prepared them. However, there were events that could not be foreseen that dramatically impacted the recovery path for the school district. Heath recalled one moment that was a tremendous set back for the district:

The biggest moment that changed everything was Sandy Hook. That was in

December and close to our anniversary date. Innocent little kids. I think that is

when everybody realized it was ok to hurt. That event took many of us right back

to that place, that entire day I spent in my office with the employee who charged

our shooter. I remember thinking I am not ok and if I am not ok this guy is a

mess. He left that day and didn’t return for weeks. I felt a need to help, angry

and wondered how is this still happening.

Unlike many other rampage school shootings the perpetrator survived; therefore, the trial was an ongoing reminder of the shooting. Also unique was a prison escape by the shooter three years post shooting that again brought panic to the entire community.

Heath recalled:

104

My wife comes to me at 9:30 or 10:00 p.m. and asked if he escaped. I say no way

and then immediately find out on Twitter he and two other scumbags escaped. I

got out of bed and started getting dressed. My wife asked, “where are you

going?” I said, “I am going to school and will probably be there awhile.” I went

to central office with our new superintendent and we were listening to the live

police radio. We received a message from the governor saying, “we are going to

get him and I promise it will be tonight.” All over social media throughout the

community were rumors that he was coming back to Central. Around 1:30 a.m.

he was back in jail and then we have to do a press conference. It was like we

were right back in it. What do we do about school the next day? Who says what

at the press conference? For many this event brought them right back to the

shooting and it is moments like this that we felt almost like we were starting over.

Lark—Personal recovery. Each participant presented stories of the recovery path consisting of high and low moments which were often dictated by outside events.

They were each asked to discuss their own recovery. They all acknowledged there were good and bad days. However, each participant has recognized that this is now part of who they are as people. Lark stated:

It never goes away. My kneecaps quivered for the first time the day of the

shooting when I had to stand in front of the staff at the reunification site. For

whatever reason that still happens today. I still hear the pattern of gunfire, the

shots that were fired. That sound doesn’t go away. I startle easily. I am certainly

not a fan of fireworks and the sound of sirens or a helicopter can bring me back to

105

that day. I position myself in every room so that I can see the door. You’re just

never the same. It is like any experience good or bad; it never goes away but you

learn from it and you deal with it. That doesn’t mean that I don’t function. I

function every single day.

She later stated,

There are times when I am driving some place and all of the sudden I think, oh

my gosh, this really happened. Almost like did that really happen? I think it’s

always with you and sinking in, but I think our whole team is in a better place

now.

James—Personal recovery. James expressed not only his own personal anxiety but a high level of concern for the administrators that had to be on the front line. He was concerned about the stress and anxiety they carried with them. James stated:

I think the closer you are to that incident at the moment, the greater the potential

impact. I also believe that each person is an individual with their own history. I

believe some of the past experiences of our team impacted how they were

affected and to what degree.

When pressed to his own personal recovery, he stated:

You know, the higher up you go, the more responsibility you have and you feel

exponentially more responsible, especially with something like this. I worried

about not doing enough for everyone and taking care of them. I would tell you

personally, I am sad more often. I find myself drifting off task more often. If I

106

think about myself years out from the shooting, I would say my highs are not so

high and my lows are really low.

James went on to explain the professional impact, “I may be a bit less empathetic to staff, a little more direct. I have a sense of urgency almost edgy to get things done.”

Mark—Recovery is not a straight line. Mark has a unique perspective coming into the district post shooting but also described the recovery as an ongoing “roller coaster” for the school and community. Mark stated:

I think the long term impact of this is underestimated and I think the casual

observer may look and think this should be over by now. There are setbacks

everyday in our school district related to this event. We are hypersensitive to

social media posts and are dealing with this almost daily. I don’t think it is that

we are overreacting. The reality is this district has seen the worst possible

outcome which gives everything a different lens. There is a much higher

mountain to climb every time there is a simple event. We are still dealing with

that journey today and I am not sure after an event like this that you ever get back

to normal because certain things act as triggers and you don’t always know what’s

going to be that next trigger sending a wave through the district.

Us Versus Them

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” ~Abraham Lincoln

Participants identified a unique challenge that developed over the years post incident as faculty retired or left the district to pursue other opportunities. There was an

107 evolving of two camps within the district, those that were in the district/building at the time of the shooting and those who joined the district post shooting.

Mark—Us versus them. Mark, the superintendent who was hired a year and half post shooting, described taking over central as a very “unique leadership challenge.” He stated:

When I first got to Central you could just tell something was very different. I

would describe it as a real closing of ranks. The teachers that were there and

lived through that event and everything that happened that first couple of years

really closed the ranks very tightly. Everyone including administrators were very

suspicious of outsiders. Very closed to outsiders. That was the first very apparent

element of the culture. It was hard to break into that. People would be nice and

they would respect the position but it was hard and there were many

conversations that included pointing out that I wasn’t here or part of what the

school went through.

Mark continued to discuss this challenge and his own evolution as a leader within these circumstances:

I think for me a big challenge was that I was not there for the shooting. I learned

very quickly to be sensitive to that fact and had to temper the pace in which we

approached change. I have to consistently acknowledge that I wasn’t here for the

shooting but have great empathy for those that were here and continue to advocate

to obtain resources to support the ongoing recovery. A leader put into the

108

circumstance of coming in post event has a very sensitive and unique leadership

challenge.

Mark provided a variety of examples that developed after joining the district that highlight the unique challenge of coming into as an outsider. He stated:

About two years after I came to the district our high school was selected by Nike

to receive some gear and promotional items. They wanted to bring in a helicopter

to the high school. This is a no brainer in most schools. We had to do a

tremendous amount of ground work with our staff, students, and community to

prepare them because their recollection of helicopters were the news flying over

the day of the school shooting and a constant reminder of what occurred. Another

example is that the district has worked with local safety forces to whenever

possible eliminate sirens when going past the school buildings due to the impact

on staff.

Mark recalled an event with his Assistant Superintendent who was an administrator in the district at the time of the shooting:

We were in a meeting and an ambulance went by. You could see him get tense,

mind wander and look out the window. I had to say to him they are not coming

here. There are so many little things, things you would not even think about that

can set people here back. Something as simple as a balloon pop or an injury at

gym class that has an ambulance respond to the school can create uneasiness even

today with some of our staff.

Academic initiatives and pace of change were also difficult to lead. Mark stated,

109

The building administrators that handled this situation did a great job. Heath very

much was committed to the school and students. He wanted to protect the

students and rebuild the environment. Education had to take a back seat.

The challenge for Mark became when to try to move forward educationally and at what pace. He stated:

My sense, it was very difficult to push because I am new coming into a district

with this tragic event. I wanted to push some different things and some

initiatives. I learned real quick to be sensitive because people were at a different

tipping point all the time. So you come in with a new initiative and immediately

hear, you just don’t get it, we are barely functioning today. Things I would have

liked to have seen done at a faster rate with curriculum and instruction had to

wait. I was used to making decisions to move in a direction and just moving

forward. We were constantly pumping the brakes and I had to wonder, is it really

too much for them right now? When will it be the right time to address these

things? I felt like I was asking them to drink from a water fountain and they felt

like they are drinking from a firehose. If pressed, I would say I would have liked

to see more happen in those five years, especially at the high school but I can’t

tell you who was right, who was wrong, and if it could have moved faster.

He concluded this by stating,

I felt that Heath insulated the staff from initiatives to protect them and provide

more time for recovery. I can’t tell you if it is because he knew that they are not

110

ready to deal with it right now or that he shared the same experience. I am sure it

all played into this reality.

Mark identified another emerging challenge that had developed in the district that was confirmed by Heath. Mark stated:

We lost many of the administrators early which is consistent with research but

Heath was different, Heath remained and certainly was committed to helping the

staff and students through. He was different as he was also a community member,

which had to add an additional layer. I worried about him and wondered if an “oh

shit” moment was ever going to happen.

Heath—Us versus them. Heath also identified the realities and impact as time proceeded for staff that had been at Central on the day of the shooting. Heath stated:

Four years later when all the students were out of the school that were there at the

time of the shooting, all the sudden now we started to see the run out of teachers

that realized that they have taken care of the kids and now they have their own

issues to deal with. There were many after that point that had significant

reactions to the situations requiring therapy, which obviously impacted the

building.

Heath recognized this development not only with staff by within himself. He said:

After that freshman class graduated there was an “oh shit” moment among

everyone. I don’t know if it happened at the same time, if it was the day of

graduation. I don’t know when exactly but I know it happened for me and I

remember thinking, it’s just us now. The kids are gone, nobody else has gone

111

through this at the level we did. A lot of new issues, more with staff started to

surface at this point.

It was at this point that Heath began considering advancing in his career.

Prior to this I was certainly interested in moving into central office. After the

shooting, I felt a real need to get those kids through and was committed to that.

Things changed a bit when that freshman class left. I began to think it might be

ok if I were to leave.

Mark also identified an emerging issue within the district that is current and began to develop around the third year post shooting. He stated:

The other element that is emerging is that we have seen staff members begin to

transition out of the district, retirements and that kind of thing. Obviously, we

have been replacing these positions. At the high school now there is a strong

undercurrent of two groups, new and veteran. This exists at some level in every

school. But our veterans were here for the shooting and our new teachers were

not. The veterans have a sentiment that these new hires will never get it. The

new teachers understand that it is sensitive, but didn’t live it. So they don’t know

how to deal with it effectively with their colleagues.

This was also addressed by Heath.

But I don’t know until every staff member leaves internally that it will ever be

normal for them. I think it gets closer and closer as people leave. Students will

always know it happened, but I bet there are kids there now that don’t know the

date.

112

Heath also acknowledged the impact as students cycled through the building for him personally and professionally. He stated:

I had such a connection with those kids and certain staff members. As they

moved on it became different, I guess it is like every organization that experiences

cultural change over time. However, what we went through together is different,

more intense and the change was very difficult.

Professionally this presented another leadership challenge for Heath as he was managing programs and initiatives with two very different types of staff. He stated:

Most building principals have the early adopters who will jump on any initiative a

secondary group that will join in after they have evaluated and understand the

why and a tier that is more difficult that needs to be motivated. We had a lens of

who was here, who was not here, and how can we move forward.

He concluded, “It was also difficult administratively as I had new assistants and a new superintendent. I felt like I became the voice for those that knew the depth of the impact while they didn’t, and how could they, understand.”

Post Traumatic Growth (PTG)

“Trauma doesn’t have to defeat you. It can be a perfect opportunity for growth. Don’t

just make a comeback. Use it as a catalyst forward.” ~Matt McWilliams

As has been stated, the experience of witnessing and managing a school shooting as an administrator has a significant impact personally and professionally. Many of the impacts can be perceived as negative. However, throughout the interviews I was not anticipating positive outcomes; however, in trauma and adversity there is an opportunity

113 for personal and professional growth. Each of the participants identified areas of growth that are indicators of post traumatic growth (PTG).

Tedeschi and Calhoun in the mid-1990s began researching and defining positive transformation that takes place with individuals following trauma called post traumatic growth (PTG; 1996). In a 2016 article in a journal published by the American

Psychological Association, Collier stated, “People develop new understandings of themselves, the world they live in, how to relate to other people, the kind of future they might have and a better understanding of how to live life.” Collier continued, “PTG refers to someone who experiences a traumatic event that challenges his or her core beliefs, endures psychological struggle (even mental illness such as post-traumatic stress disorder) and then ultimately finds a sense of personal growth” (Collier, 2016, p. 48).

Heath—PTG. As these events emerged during the interviews, participants were extremely reflective and had obviously thought about the implications of being thrust into this role personally and professionally. Heath stated:

This certainly changed my perspective on leading and managing a building. I

started to be able to see things from a bigger perspective and recognized the

importance of developing relationships with outside resources including safety

forces, local businesses and mental health services. I have always valued people

but this has ingrained in me the importance of relationships and the importance of

taking human interest into decision making. I have learned not everyone and

every district places as high level on this as I do. I know that piece at times

frustrated people. But I have really learned the importance of fit with a district. I

114

am much better at my current position in Human Resources because I consider the

human element as I make decisions and am surrounded by like minded people

within the larger organization.

Heath has also been asked to speak at the local, state, national, and international level on school safety. He participates in a national leadership recovery network. He stated,

“There is no question these opportunities are part of my recovery. I want to help others and get a lot out of these opportunities to share our story.”

Heath was also able to identify growth personally. He pointed out similar growth as a husband and a father. He stated:

A lot was going on for a time emotionally for me personally. I was not as good of

a father and husband as that I am today. I appreciate my family much more. It is

interesting. I appreciate when I get to watch my kids do things. I look forward to

seeing them compete. I look forward to them getting a D on a test and have to

struggle to make up ground to bring up a grade. I appreciate watching and being

involved in sons’ sports and love watching my daughter grow up. I appreciate the

relationship I have with my wife much more than before and the year following

the incident. I took things for granted and was unintentionally more

self-absorbed. I am more focused on my family and enjoying time with them.

Dennis—PTG. Dennis had similar thoughts when reflecting on the personal and professional impact. He stated:

Professionally I obviously have a greater expertise and understanding of safety

and take this very seriously in my current role as principal. I have a much better

115

perspective when working with staff in terms of helping them understand the

severity of an issue on a given day.

Dennis also finds healing in helping others. He stated,

I have not done as much of the presenting but have done a few. I get a lot out of

sharing this with others. I guess I feel like if my burden can help someone else

than I should do all I can. People did it for me when I was in that position.

In terms of personal impact Dennis responded,

It is hard to say that I am a better parent as my kids were so young. I certainly

appreciate and maybe I value the time I have with them more than I would have

without going through this experience. There is no question I value those that are

close to me.

Lark—PTG. Lark was also very reflective about the impact of this event on her personally and professionally. She stated:

I have endured a lot in my life. I believe now that I was meant to be there that

day because I could handle it. I certainly would never choose it and it has

impacted me. I have an appreciation for my own resilience. I don’t love things

that have happened to me but I have been able to stand back up and move

forward. I also really try to look for positives. It may be as simple as there is a

pretty flower but I am grateful for those simple things. I take every day serious

and get up having a purpose to help as many people as possible in big and small

ways.

Professionally, Lark stated:

116

I think it has helped with my development of perspective. An event like this

forces personal and professional perspective. You just don’t sweat the small stuff

as much. It would really bother me in the past when a staff member would be

going off about any issue. I now put into a much larger context and have a better

understanding of what it is I should be worried about or focusing on.

James—PTG. James also discussed his professional growth post shooting.

He stated:

I am definitely a proponent of personal safety and teaching that to kids at a young

age. I was probably a little conservative with change prior to the shooting. If I

had to be critical I had been a superintendent for quite some time and was maybe

a little stuck in my ways and happy with the way things were. Since then I have

been a little more organized and more aggressive in getting things done.

Like all other participants, James also acknowledged how the events have provided perspective for him: He stated:

It gives you a little different perspective, a little more empathy for those in need.

As superintendent, you have to make a lot of decisions that impact people and that

can carry a lot of stress and worry. The things that got to me before don’t as

much anymore because you understand how bad it can be. Confrontations are

different now because usually the person sitting across from me knows I have a

completely different perspective on things. Maybe that helps.

Like others James has participated in presentations. He stated, “I’ve actually discovered a lot of relief from doing those presentations. It is calming for me somehow and I feel

117 like I am growing professionally and helping others.” James was guarded in talking about his family and his personal response but stated, “I have always liked to tinker in my barn. But now I appreciate the time there, the silence, the simple tasks a lot more.”

Mark—PTG. Mark has also identified how the unique leadership challenge coming into the district has led to growth as an administrator. He stated, “I constantly have to think about the shooting when I make a decision, write a publication or interact with the staff. I would say this has made more attentive and reflective as a leader.” He went on to state:

I know myself well enough to say that when I came here, high on the emotional

scale was not a strength for me. That is not how people would characterize me

and I am aware of that. However, this experience has made me much more

sensitive to how people respond to decisions that I make as a leader. People are

much more in my mind now when going through the decision process.

It was obvious that leading this event has forced a great deal of reflection by each participant in both his and her personal and professional life. They were all able to identify areas in which they have improved and grown due to this experience.

Importance of Team

“Together we will unite, in the face of what seeks to divide us.

And in that we will one day thrive.” ~Jean-Claude Juncker

Each participant who had direct responsibilities during the time of the shooting recognized the importance of team. They each identified how their team came together as a critical factor in managing the aftermath. There developed an interdependence that

118 allowed them to work collaboratively on the multitude of decisions that they faced. This also provided an internal support structure assisting with the balancing of the workload for team members. Each participant recognized how important this was for and referenced other rampage school shootings that were not led effectively as a break down amongst the administrative team.

James—Importance of team. James consistently mentioned the quality of his administrators and importance of team in this situation. He stated:

I was so fortunate to have the people I did in place that day. Everybody did their

job post shooting and recovery. We were all committed to one thing and that was

helping the kids and the community. There was a tremendous amount of personal

sacrifice that took place during that time, and we all supported each other.

It was evident how critical James felt coming together for each other was to be effective in managing an incident of this magnitude. He stated:

You can see if there is going to be a problem with the leadership of a school

shooting within 48 hours. Just listen closely to the people at the microphone. Our

team including the safety forces made sure we delivered a consistent message.

We did not want the media to fracture our team. The police should have done this

or the school should have done that. One message, one person responsible.

James concluded with:

I remember watching the news the evening of one of the shootings and the

superintendent made the statement that he was concerned about the leadership in

the building and that an investigation would be launched immediately. That guy

119

was all about self-preservation. Leaders can either come together or make a bad

situation worse by dividing the district and community further.

Dennis—Importance of team. Dennis also identified the importance of the approach taken by the administrative team. He stated:

Heath, Lark, James, and I were very close. We could talk to each other. We

would constantly text about what was going on and who might need help. We

made sure that things were covered but really worked together. If someone

needed rest, had to be home for kids, or whatever someone else would step up.

We had strong, close relationships and reassured each other that we could get

through. I keep saying WE a lot because that’s how we approached everything. I

believe we were much better because every decision and everything we tried to do

involved all of us. I think that is how we got through this and maybe it was our

way of dealing with it. Leaning on each other. Even now we talk or text. If

something is going on with the lawsuit we check on each other.

Dennis also discussed his concerns with some of the leadership of other rampage school shootings:

It seems now the routine is if there is a shooting, the principal is immediately

removed followed shortly by the assistant and they try to start new. I can’t

imagine this working at Central as knowing the kids and the community was so

important to our ongoing recovery. That approach just drive wedges between

administrators, police, school and community. You have to come together and

that’s what we did.

120

Lark—Importance of team. Lark also mentioned the importance of team and believes the connectedness of the administrative team was critical. She stated:

We were a family. We are really, really tight. Even before the shooting we had a

great working relationship and we had similar values in terms of leading the

school. James, the goodness in his heart. He was supposed to retire at the end of

that year. He committed to an additional year because of the shooting. We were

all incredibly grateful as it was a selfless gesture but he knew someone coming in

that didn’t understand the school and was trying to learn their way would not

work.

Heath—Importance of team. Heath also acknowledged that there was productive interdependence amongst the team that was critically important. He stated:

One of my odd quirks now is that I read everything about every school shooting

that happens. I have watched how critical the initial response and the message

from leaders right from the beginning matters. We were fortunate in that we all

worked well together, looked out for each other and made sure we continued to

move forward.

He concluded, “when one of these happens now I certainly sympathize with those in charge but am disheartened when it is not handled well or finger pointing begins. At that point it is the school and community that suffer.”

It was evident that each of the participants after years of reflection was able to identify the importance of team in successfully managing the event. This was evident not

121 only when discussing the event at Central but identifying a lack of team in other events that have occurred nationally.

Validation

There were multiple steps taken to validate the data gleaned from the study. The details of the findings were reviewed against media and police accounts of the shooting.

There were two opportunities for member checking afforded to the participants. Each, with the exception of James as he passed away during the study, was provided a copy of his or her transcription to review and provide clarification of any statements.

Additionally, each participant was provided with an opportunity to review the findings and provide feedback. A community member and student present in the cafeteria were also interviewed and provided feedback validating the findings. Finally, two educational leaders that had direct responsibility in managing two of the most horrific school shootings in American history reviewed the findings and provided feedback for validation purposes.

Participant Verification—Member Checking

The feedback from each participant was positive reinforcing the accuracy of what was captured within the study. Two of the participants provided a few clarifications that were more detail than substantive. Each of the participants was asked if he or she disagreed or believed anything was missed within the study and all responded in the negative. Heath stated, “This did an extremely good job of capturing the emotion and impact of what we had to deal with during that time. As I read it, I could feel myself going back there.” The most difficult part for Heath was reading comments from James.

122

“It was really hard hearing his words now that he is gone. I could totally hear him saying everything that was in this study.”

Dennis provided very similar feedback after reviewing the findings. Dennis was initially taken aback by the labeling of this event as a rampage school shooting. In his words, “I never really thought of this incident in those terms. However, the more I reflected the more it made sense.” In response to the accuracy of the findings, he stated:

I’m not going to lie, but I put off reading this for many reasons. But when I did, I

was completely impressed. It was great reading the stories of Lark and Heath.

Difficult to read from James—for obvious reasons. This work does a phenomenal

job of capturing the pain and success (if that is the right word) from this

experience. When I was finished, I told my wife that I would like her to read it at

some point. She never heard many of the stories/situations that we dealt with and

are included in this work.

Heath referenced the perspective of the others. “It was so interesting, and difficult, to hear the memories and reflections of others. In all of this, we never stepped back and shared to this level.” He concluded with, “This is difficult to read but had a positive impact and it very much captures our experience.”

Community Member—Student Validation

A parent and student were interviewed specifically to provide their insights into the impact of managing this event on the administration. The feedback provided a unique insight into the home and student perspective of the incident and recovery. It also validated some of the findings within the study.

123

The parent stated, “We were all numb for most of that entire first year. I can remember seeing James and Heath everywhere. They were extremely committed to helping our kids but you could tell it took a toll.” She went on to explain, “They all looked very tired, maybe even sad. I just can’t imagine the amount of pressure and stress. Everything that was happening was about the healing of students, staff, and community.” She then highlighted the importance of team, “They were very consistent with their message, worked to involve the kids and the parents in decisions and appeared to be a strong team. This was critical. In all of the chaos they guided us through.”

The student provides a very unique perspective and was more reflective years after the shooting. She stated,

Like most high school students, I was pretty self-centered at the time worrying

about me and my friends. I didn’t look too much beyond that. Now I can

recognize how difficult it must have been for Heath. I felt like it surrounded us as

kids and it was a cloud that wouldn’t go away. It had to be the same for him.

She went on to explain, “he was always very involved with kids but this increased a lot after the shooting. You could tell how much he cared about us and wanted us to be a part of how we did things.”

Superintendent—Data Verification

Jacob (pseudonym) agreed to assist with data verification and was provided a copy of the findings. He was asked to spend some time reviewing the findings and was given a questionnaire related to the findings. He was provided the choice of completing the questionnaire or having a phone conference to debrief. He elected to complete the

124 questionnaire and offered a follow-up phone conference for clarity. The focus of the interview was to discuss the findings and determine if he believed they related to his experience. The following served as guiding questions for the interview:

1. After reflecting on Chapter 4, provide any general feedback or thoughts you

might have.

2. As you have read in Chapter 4, individual participants indicated symptoms

personally the first year that depending on the level of intensity and longevity

could have been deemed post traumatic stress. None of the participants were

diagnosed or pursued treatment. These included difficulty sleeping, trouble

focusing, short tempered, irritated, average then normal use of alcohol,

reexperience of the trauma through flashbacks, and emotional numbness. Did

you are anyone within your administrative team with direct responsibility of

leading have similar symptoms of PTSD? Official diagnosis of PTSD? How

were they addressed?

3. The below themes emerged from participants and were described in depth in

the findings regarding the first 12 months post shooting. Reflecting on your

personal experience, did these themes resonate or remind your experience?

Feel free to include examples.

a. Loss of a sense of control

b. A need to serve others above personal recovery

c. Vivid defining moments

125

4. After reflecting upon your own experience regarding the first year post event,

is there anything you believe to be missing from the findings that you or your

fellow administrators experienced?

5. The below themes emerged from participants and were described in depth in

the findings regarding the first 12 months post shooting. Reflecting on your

personal experience did these themes resonate or remind your experience?

Feel free to include examples.

a. Recovery is not a straight line

b. Us versus them

c. Post traumatic growth

d. Importance of team

6. After reflecting upon your own experience regarding the first year post event,

is there anything you believe to be missing from the findings that you or your

fellow administrators experienced?

7. After reviewing these findings, is there anything else you would like to share

or feel strongly that needs to be articulated regarding the personal and

professional impact of managing/leading after a school shooting?

Jacob is retired from education after over 40 years of service. He served as superintendent for 20 years and was named as superintendent of the year in his state. He was hired as superintendent in a district two years after one of the most horrific school shootings in U.S. history that took place in another state. In retirement he is a national recognized consultant on school safety.

126

In response to feedback on the study’s findings 12 months post shooting Jacob stated, “I inherited a more-than-willing, completely traumatized leadership team and school board. Many, many staff members were symptomatic of post traumatic stress and the trauma described within this study.” He identified with all of the symptoms articulated in the study including: loss of sleep, increase uses of alcohol, irritability, and retraumatization. Additionally Jacob specifically addressed the loss of a sense of control, need to serve others above personal recovery, and vivid defining moments. He stated,

There were triggers that were completely unpredictable almost daily that could be

individually devastating. We had to encourage staff to leave the classroom when

emotions took over and had a protocol in place to monitor children during those

times. It was not uncommon for multiple educators to need a timeout daily.

Additionally, Jacob mentioned that the concept of serving others over personal recovery was very evident with his administrative team. He stated that the issue of serving others over personal recovery “resonated deeply” and this is systemic within these events.

Jacob concluded his reflections on the short term impact adding, “There is a tremendous feeling of isolation that becomes present very early on and remains consistent throughout the process as these are very tenuous environments in which one is forced to lead.”

The themes that were articulated in the findings five years post shooting were also verified by Jacob. He specifically addressed the inconsistency with recovery mentioning how frequently events would set back individuals and possibly the entire district. Jacob stated:

127

Recovery is not a straight line and there are constant setbacks along the way. It is

a very slow process and although this theme can be generalized to other school

shootings, no recovery is the same. Not school to school, not even individual

people within the same school.

He went on to address the theme of us versus them by stating:

There is a tremendous difference between those that were in the building that day

and not, those that were in the district at that time and those who were not. It

presents a very difficult leadership challenge as it fractured the district. Many

people didn’t even know they needed help until an event or something served as a

trigger.

Jacob concluded by stating that the importance of team and coming together is paramount to recovery and any type of movement forward.

Principal—Data Validation

William (pseudonym) was interviewed for data verification purposes and was provided with a copy of the findings to review. He was asked to spend some time reviewing the findings and was provided with a questionnaire related to the findings. He was provided the choice of completing the questionnaire or having a phone conference to debrief. He selected the phone conference and this lasted approximately 90 minutes.

Interview notes were taken throughout the conversation. The focus of the interview was to discuss the findings and determine if he believed they related to his experience. As the interview progressed it became evident that William has served as a part of the recovery team for many administrators who have been thrust into managing a rampage school

128 shootings throughout the country and felt confident in verifying these themes were present in all of these incidents.

William served as a high school principal in a building that had one of the most historic school shootings in U.S. history. He began his educational career as a Social

Studies teacher, senate sponsor, and coach. He transitioned into dean of students, assistant principal, and eventually principal at the same high school. He became principal 3 years prior to the shooting and remained in this position 15 years post shooting.

Shortly after the shooting William approached the school board offering to tender his resignation, which was met with strong resistance. After this took place, he made a commitment that he would remain in his position until the preschool class in the district at the time of the shooting graduated from high school. He discussed this commitment early in the interview stating,

Staying this long would not happen today. The politics and society would not

allow it. In fact, I would not recommend it for administrators. It is not healthy

for them. I am involved in a lot of these now and actually counsel people to leave

post recovery.

William is an author and is often contacted post rampage school shootings due to his personal experience and insights developed with helping others over the last 20 years.

He has served as a mentor and support for leaders thrust into these difficult situations. In fact, he served in this capacity for Heath. Heath stated:

129

I didn’t want to talk to my local colleagues or friends that are all in

administration. I wanted to talk to William because he knew what I was dealing

with and he had been there. He was the single most important resource for me

personally.

William was first asked to provide his reactions and thoughts about the study’s findings as it related to his personal experience. He stated, “This work absolutely nails it personally and professionally. This captures the emotion and the challenges. As I was reading I felt the emotion again and every theme was present in our situation twenty years ago.” William went on to comment regarding his own experience highlighting the theme of recovery is not a straight line:

These events are a marathon not a sprint for the school and community. Recovery

is not measured in days, weeks or even years and this work captures that fact. I

read the story of James, Heath, Dennis, and Lark but insert the faces of my own

people and my own experiences. In fact, I believe that many of the findings of

five years translate to 20 years post shooting.

William was next asked to address any of the themes that emerged that may have been present with his own experience. He responded, “Again they all do, they are all present in my personal experience as a high school principal, and I have seen them in the schools I have tried to help over the years.” William provided an example of vivid defining moments that have long lasted as a reminder of the intensity of what he had to deal with and process. One such moment was during the shooting:

130

I remember facing the gunmen distinctly. We came face to face and honestly I

should not be here today. I remember being in the office when the fire alarm

went off and thinking this must be a senior prank. I remember the strobe light

that goes off with the fire alarm more than the actual noise. I walked out of the

office and immediately was faced by the gunmen. I froze and can remember the

glass was breaking behind me from the gunfire. I was actually thinking about

what is it going to feel like when the bullets pierced my body and then started

thinking about my family.

William recounts another moment later in the day as he had relocated to oversee things at the reunification site, which was at an elementary building. He stated:

We utilized an elementary building as a reunification site and all those little kids

experienced that grief at some level. I remember years later when the students got

to the high school they would tell me about how they remembered that day. We

had parents seated in the gymnasium bleachers to be reunified. It started with a

huge group of parents and slowly the number dwindled down. At some point a

grief counselor came up to me and said the students are all gone, we have to tell

them. We have to have them fill out a report. I couldn’t believe it, many of your

participants talked about this being like you were dropped into a movie and that’s

exactly how it was.

William also related to the theme of service above self. He recalled this was certainly something that was present for years to come but actually began for him during the shooting. He stated:

131

I remember running towards the gunfire knowing I had to get to a group of kids

before the shooters. I just had to protect them. I gathered a group of them and we

hid. I can remember his footsteps coming towards us, his boots hitting the

hallway. I had a huge key ring with like 30 keys. For some reason, I believe a

higher power. The first key I put in worked and we were able to get out.

William was also able to identify with the theme of recovery not being a straight line and us versus them as time went on. He shared a variety of incidents including student suicides and car accidents that set the school back. He stated, “It seems like every time we would take a step forward something would happen and it was like everyone was retraumatized.” This also happens with William personally. He stated:

My personal recovery is ongoing. I always know when a school shooting or any

rampage shooting takes place because in less than an hour my phone will start

blowing up from the media. I remember I was on the golf course when El Paso

happened and the media started calling. It always takes me right back to that

place. Part of my recovery was to develop a keystone when the emotions rush

back. When this happens, I immediately grab my necklace to remind myself this

is not my shooting.

William was very forthcoming regarding his own recovery and personal consequences of leading after such a traumatic event. He shared that after 18 years of marriage he was divorced and that he remains estranged from his daughter. He stated,

“My daughter told me one time that she lost her Daddy that day.” William mentioned that the emotion at home articulated in the findings is very real. He stated,

132

It is like a level of resentment develops. You look at your spouse and there is no

way they could ever understand or put together what you are dealing with or

processing. It is not their fault but it makes it very difficult.

William very much supported the findings within this work and believes they are generalizable to not only other rampage school shootings but far exceed the timeline looked at within the study. He stated, “These are very real and transcend the time frame of five years. I would say they apply 10, 15, and 20 years out.” His insights were valuable in evaluating the validity of the data.

Summary

This chapter discussed the case study of five participants: Heath, Dennis, Lark,

James, and Mark. The findings indicated that participants had similar experiences both personally and professionally as a result of leading through a rampage school shooting.

The emerging themes for 12 months post shooting included the following: a loss of sense of control, a need to serve others above personal recovery, and vivid defining moments.

There was a significant difference in the emotional level of participants as they recalled events that fell into the first 12-month timeframe. The data indicate the level of anxiety, stress and pressure of the participants during this time, as well as some of the personal and professional reactions.

The emerging themes five years post shooting are as follows: recovery is not a straight line, us versus them, post traumatic growth, and importance of team. Participants were much more reflective when discussing issues within this time frame. They more clearly articulated personal and professional impact. Although they all acknowledge that

133 the impact and recovery is ongoing, they are able to identify areas of growth from having endured the experience.

134

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE

The purpose of this case study was to examine and articulate the experience of a rampage school shooting, in which three students died and three students were wounded, through the lens of educational administrators. This study is grounded in research specific to leadership, crisis leadership, trauma, and culture. This study has added to the information available on the leadership challenges faced by school administrators responsible after a rampage school shooting. Additionally, the work articulates how school administrators are affected by a rampage school shooting through investigating their specific experiences at a deeper level. By understanding the short- and long-term personal and professional implications of leading a school through such an event, this study has examined the confluence of schools, leadership, societal issues, and pressures.

The research has addressed the following question: what is the perspective of an educational leader who directly led a school after a rampage school shooting? As well, it addressed the following sub questions:

1. What are the perceived residual impact(s) on the educator first 12 months post

event?

2. What are the perceived residual impact(s) on the educator 5 years post event?

This chapter analyzes the findings from conceptual bases supporting this study as well as places this work in a larger societal context. It also articulates implications for practice and makes recommendations for further research. The findings provide a pathway to better prepare educational leaders and administrative preparation programs.

135

Additionally, the findings highlight a broader national and societal issue that we are facing in our country specific to gun control and mental health.

Summary and Discussion of Findings

Prior to summarizing and discussing the study it is important to note a phenomenon that was present with each participant that did have an impact on the study.

Participants, especially early in the interview process, had a very difficult time focusing their responses on the personal impact of these events. They told their stories in a way that focused on events and impact on others. There were multiple instances where the same or very similar question had to be asked again or brought back around to get the participants to internalize and talk about themselves and their personal journey. I would not describe this as a limitation for the study but a point of clarity for those interested in extending this work or conducting similar work. The researcher needs to schedule enough time to build rapport and trust with participants who will eventually create an environment in which they feel comfortable being vulnerable enough to share the personal and professional impacts. The interview sessions with participants were typically twice as long as anticipated and future researchers should build in sufficient time, particularly if they do not have a prior relationship with the participants.

12 Months Post Shooting

136 the day of the shooting and/or subsequent funerals. Throughout the interviews individual participants indicated symptoms, that depending on the level of intensity and longevity, could have been deemed post traumatic stress. These included difficulty sleeping, trouble focusing, being short tempered and irritated, abusing alcohol, reexperiencing the trauma through flashbacks, and emotional numbness. None of the participants was diagnosed or pursued treatment. It took significantly more time than anticipated to get participants to talk about themselves in terms of personal and professional impact.

Themes did emerge from participant interviews related to the post event that provide insight into the perspective and impact of this experience both personally and professionally. These themes had multiple data points with each participant and have been verified by other administrators who have led in the aftermath of other school shootings in our nation. The emerging themes for the first 12 months post shooting are as follows: a loss of sense of control, a need to serve others above personal recovery, and vivid defining moments.

Loss of Sense of Control

Each administrator interviewed discussed a sense of a loss of control professionally and personally the day of the shooting that lingered over the months to come due to the seriousness of the event. This began with the day of the shooting when the police entered the building and was an extremely present theme as participants discussed the 12 months post shooting. There were a number of data points that support this theme professionally with very concrete examples such as the police taking over the day of the shooting.

137

Less apparent were specific examples of this theme’s impact personally.

However, as a researcher I felt and identified in data a strong undertone of emotion and anxiety around the initial phase of recovery for participants personally. They each expressed a similar recollection in which they felt that events were happening to and around them with little or no ability to be able to foresee what was coming. This created a very high level of concern and stress about what could be next for the school that transitioned over into their personal lives. This speaks directly to the crisis leadership, data shared in Chapter 2, and most specifically to the disruption to the equilibrium articulated by Heifetz and Linsky (2002). They described the level of leadership necessary needing to be equivalent to the level of disruption to the organizational equilibrium.

Although Heifetz and Linsky (2002) referred to the disruption to the organization, a similar disruption was identified within the participants as they recollected the initial response to the shooting. In data verification, William articulated this loss of sense of control personally as he related strongly to the participants’ recollection of instances of irritability and short temperament. According to William, “my ability to process this over 20 years allows for a deeper understanding of the impact on my life.” Personal impact was more difficult to articulate for Heath, Lark, and Dennis. Future research should consider the inclusion of family and close friends with specific inquiry into the loss of sense of control. This could provide insights into the personal impact on administrator by prompting additional memories and deeper reflections from the participants.

138

A Need to Serve Others Above Personal Recovery

Throughout the interviews each of the participants expressed a strong sense of student and staff recovery as their central focus and motivation acknowledging their own personal recovery and impact of the event was not a consideration at this time. Many of the participants overtly mentioned that the recovery of the students was of paramount importance before they could ever think about themselves and this was most present throughout the first year. There is significant data in which participants acknowledged that educational leaders are constantly putting students and staff first and that this reality is magnified during a time of crisis like a rampage school shooting.

The Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (National Policy Board for

Educational Administration, 2015) defined 10 professional standards. Standard five states, “Effective educational leaders cultivate an inclusive, caring, and supportive school community that promotes the academic success and well-being of each student.” A rampage school shooting brings such intensity, pain, and emotion that it completely turns the school building, district, and community upside down. The grieving and healing process becomes overwhelming and creates a deep cultural shock that very few have experienced. There is media attention and scrutiny leading to varying opinions on responsibility causing a significant leadership challenge to rebuild the environment as articulated in this standard. All participants within this study articulated this issue, repairing and attempting to restore the educational community, as the single focus throughout the recovery process. This in part explains their lack of willingness or ability to take the time to pursue any personal help in the aftermath of the shooting.

139

In comparison to all other themes identified within the 12-month response to the shooting, participants’ placing others first had the most supporting data and was woven through every conversation with participants. It was extremely moving to listen to how committed these leaders were to the recovery of students and staff. This obviously came at a great level of personal sacrifice with varying degrees of long-term impact as demonstrated in the findings of this work. James shared an example when he stated:

I always worked a lot of hours and the job of superintendent is to some extent

24/7. However, this was different, as my mind never shut down that first year

post tragedy. I had a great deal of anxiety and was always on edge. My single

focus was on helping others recover. The intense anxiety eventually subsided and

is not as bad now but it is certainly more present than before this happened. What

is on the other end of that next phone call worries me.

This is one example of a theme that wove through all of the participants as the recovery of students and staff became their priority over friends, family, and self.

It was evident from each participant that a significant part of their personal recovery and ability to move forward was tied to the recovery of the students, staff, and community. It appeared that each of the participants had come to the realization that there was nothing that could have been done to prevent the shooting but that did not remove a level of sadness and guilt to overcome in their work with the recovery process.

Their ability to deal with this personally was directly tied to the progress of the students and staff. The data provided evidence that the administrators made the recovery of the

140 school their central priority immediately after the shooting above family and self. This was apparent with Lark when she stated:

I always referred to them as my kids, and my kids were hurting. Everything I did,

all I focused on was trying to help them get better. I guess that became our

therapy. I remember having a horrible cold and could barely speak but just kept

thinking I don’t have the time to be sick right now.

The intensity of this theme should inform better preparation for future school leaders and identify this as a risk factor that could lead to unintended consequences.

William best articulated examples of these consequences. He stated, “My daughter told me one time that she lost her Daddy that day. I was never the same.” This provides an opportunity for further research. The level and intensity of the leadership challenge early in the recovery process prevented participants from seeking a mental health assessment or support. It would be beneficial to determine if there was any consistency in the timeframe in which participants felt they were comfortable focusing in on their own personal recovery. Understanding this timeframe would better inform the recovery process and supports necessary for these administrators.

This theme also highlights a broader concern that is developing with rampage school shootings. Recent events indicate a potential trend in which boards of education are quickly removing leaders from their positions shortly after the event. The data in this study indicate that there is a relationship between the recovery of the school and the recovery of the administrator. If that is the case removing these individuals could have a substantial impact on the personal recovery of these educational leaders. Furthermore,

141 there is also evidence in the data to indicate this type of turnover could adversely impact the broader recovery. The Central High School student stated:

The fact that Heath stayed in the district for us made all the difference. We felt

like he was with us and was there for us. I am not sure what would have

happened if he was not there.

This indicates that serious consideration should be given by both the individual and board of education prior to recommending or pursuing a change in leadership post shooting.

Vivid Defining Moments

Each participant in this study shared vivid defining moments early in the process.

These moments serve as a mental image of the magnitude of the trauma and stress of the event that remain with them today. Every participant at some point utilized a movie as an analogy to his or her experience and like a movie each has scenes that are engrained and within them. Participants were more serious and emotional and described these moments in greater detail. Although the experiences are more closely related to the actual shooting, they obviously remain with them today. This provides insight into the personal depth of the impact and possible opportunity for support in dealing with these memories long term. These events provide insight into the personal and professional impact of leading a district and community through a rampage school shootings.

Each of the participants incorporated moments that were both heroic and horrific providing insight into the intensity of the actual shooting and significant trauma in which those involved were forced to lead. It became obvious throughout the participant interviews that these moments are present and vivid in their minds and become a deep

142 life experience that cannot be forgotten or erased. The recalling of these events was evidently painful eliciting an emotional and physical response from participants. For an outsider these moments provide clarity on the level of trauma that was experienced and carried forward by these educators to deal with personally and professionally. In addition to framing the intensity of events for the reader, this does raise a need for potential psychological support in how to cope with or compartmentalize these intense experiences and images moving forward as their recollection has the potential to serve as a set back.

An example of this was articulated by Lark when she stated: “The pattern of gunfire that I heard that morning is with me today. I can close my eyes and relive it. Loud noises, balloons and fireworks raise my anxiety and take me back to that moment.”

Each participant articulated impacts that depending on the intensity and frequency are symptoms of post traumatic stress. Post traumatic stress is referred to as normal reactions to events that meet the criteria for a traumatic event (Lyytinen, 2010). Most people experience normal stress reactions without developing PTSD. However, when the stress bypasses an individual’s normal recovery process, the individual becomes susceptible to PTSD. According to American Psychiatric Association, PTSD is a mental complication that results when an individual is exposed to an event that is deemed to be traumatic leading to three common symptoms: re-experiencing, arousal, and avoidance.

Each of the participants retained these defining moments, and their obvious reaction when discussing the incident serve as evidence that there is some level of re-experiencing the event. As was evidenced in the data, it became obvious that there was not time due to the significant leadership challenge for administrators to seek counseling or support.

143

However, the participants did demonstrate symptoms of PTSD that indicates the potential need for additional support services. These included irritability, lack of sleep, increased usage of alcohol, and reimagining the events. It would be beneficial to understand to what extent recalling these memories places these individuals on the spectrum of PTSD to take appropriate action. This is addressed in recommendations later in this chapter.

Summary of Findings—5 Years Post Shooting

Each of the participants was asked specifically about their experience and personal and professional impact of the event 5 years post shooting. While none of the participants have been diagnosed with or received any treatment for ongoing emotional issues or post traumatic stress, there are indications of the emotional impact over time including the following: reexperiencing events, emotional and physical reaction to sound, and a greater concern regarding personal and school safety, anxiety, and sadness.

Participants were less emotional and more reflective when discussing the more long-term impacts of the shooting. The emerging themes five years post incident are as follows: recovery is not a straight line, us versus them, post traumatic growth, and importance of team.

Participants consistently referenced the ongoing ebb and flow of the recovery process over the course of time stressing that recovery is not a straight line. This was the most present theme throughout the interviews with participants as there were numerous examples provided that demonstrated the intensity and longevity of the healing. For example years later participants were significantly impacted when a 20-year-old male, heavily armed, entered Sandy Hook Elementary School (SHES) in Newtown, CT, killing

144

20 elementary students and six adults. These events elicited a significant response from those who have had similar experiences. This very intense reaction is a critical point for leaders that are in districts in which these types of events have occurred. The leaders must ensure that staff be provided the necessary permission to be flexible with the instructional day and be able to quickly deploy mental health services when these types of external events occur.

Every participant provided examples of how unforeseen, outside events often served as setbacks for students, staff, and community. They acknowledged that this is also the reality of their personal recovery. Most of the participants discussed the importance of giving back and trying to help others. In fact, two participants admitted that they were not personally interested in participating in this study initially but decided that if this could help others it was worth the impact it might have on them. This speaks to their level of self-awareness and understanding of the potential negative impact of recounting the events. It also points to the fact that as time passes administrators gain a deeper perspective and understanding of the personal impact of these events.

Heath, Dennis, and Lark all sought a version of outside support one time within the first six months and all found that this was premature. Heath and his wife’s session ended with the counselor saying, “He is too busy and too focused on the recovery of others. He is just not ready right now.” As has been articulated the intense nature of this leadership challenge during the initial months after the shooting force these leaders to have a singular focus—the recovery of others.

145

It is evident that after five years post incident the administrators have gained a much greater insight into the magnitude of the event. Participants were more reflective and calm while sharing challenges personally and professionally that were in this time frame. It is at this point the participants demonstrated a greater level of self-awareness and reflection. This was consistent with all participants and may provide an opportune time for these leaders to seek additional support in helping with the processing of events and framing them appropriately moving forward in life. The three participants from

Central never pursued any type of ongoing therapy. Dennis stated:

In the beginning there was just too much going on to consider taking time for

yourself. As time passed, my wife and I talked about this a little more. I told her

that if for some reason she ever thought I needed help or that this event was

causing problems to let me know.

William did receive ongoing counseling after the event. He stated:

Part of my motivation early on was to demonstrate to our staff and students that it

was ok to get help. I wanted to make sure there was no stigma attached to it and

thought by doing it myself that would help others step forward.

Obviously, this is a very personal decision based on many factors. However, James had strong views on this as he reflected on his team. He stated: “I should have mandated counseling for everyone. Maybe an initial screening at first and then a more in depth session a year or two after the shooting. It is a lot to process and live with it every day.”

146

Us Versus Them

Participants identified a unique challenge that developed over the years post incident as faculty retired or left the district to pursue other opportunities. There was an evolution of two camps within the district, those that were in the district/building at the time of the shooting and those that joined the district post shooting. Although this might be an obvious anticipated outcome by an outsider, the data indicate this to be a very significant, cultural issue that provides a clear leadership challenge for those taking over in this environment.

Moorhead and Griffin (2004) identified three common attributes of definitions of organizational culture that included: (a) all definitions referred to a set of values held by individuals in an organization; (b) the values that made up the organization’s culture were often basic assumptions made by the organization’s employees; and (c) emphasis was on the symbolic meanings, which communicated the cultural values. This definition provides a lens to better understand this issue. Those staff members and administrators that were present for the school shooting and short term response held completely different values of the organization. Their focus remained on student and personal recovery from the shooting. While those new to the district attempted to express empathy, they placed greater value on moving forward with student learning and academic improvement. This leadership challenge is discussed in greater detail later in the chapter.

The emergence of this theme through the inclusion of educational leaders that joined the districts immediately following a rampage school shooting became the most

147 surprising development of the study. It would be anticipated that there would be a difference between the perceptions and actions of educators in the district at the time of the shooting and those that were not. However, the significance of the divide between these two groups articulated by the participants was substantial. The data from the participant who joined the district post shooting provided clarity on the realities and challenges. This information would be beneficial for other school leaders entering a district after a rampage school shooting. Specifically it provides insight into the importance of acknowledgment and pace of change initiatives.

These insights were articulated during the participant interviews. James provided unique insight into this phenomenon through the lens of what he described as “traditional change theory.” He spoke of the characteristics of the diffusion of innovation theory in which there are early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards (Rogers, 2003).

According to James, however, “in the wake of a school shooting these groups do not apply as everyone in the building has a significant reaction and each reaction is different.” The implication for the leader is that this evolves into a cultural issue and being well versed on climate and cultural change theory and practice would benefit administrators thrust into these leadership challenges.

This leadership challenge is extremely complex and there are few situations that can immediately impact or change the organizational culture. Reilly and Ehlinger’s

(2007) research showed that, when the organization and the employee shared values, there was greater personal loyalty, identification, and commitment to the organization. It is important for leaders to reestablish and continuously articulate the shared values that

148 will help inspire staff to come together to heal and eventually continue to grow a positive organizational culture that leads to increased student achievement.

Post Traumatic Growth

The experience of witnessing and leading a school shooting as an administrator has a significant impact personally and professionally. Many of the impacts can be perceived as negative. Throughout the interviews I was not anticipating participants articulating positive outcomes from this experience; however, in trauma and adversity there is an opportunity for personal and professional growth. Each of the participants identified areas of growth that are indicators of post traumatic growth (PTG).

In recent years, there has been evolving research specific to mindsets and grit as a basis for achievement and success. Throughout participants’ interviews it became evident that these skills were omnipresent and necessary. Lark stated:

I have always had to be persistent and had to develop thick skin to overcome

things in life. I certainly don’t like that I have gone through difficult times but

believe they better prepared me for this experience. This took a tremendous

amount of personal and team strength. The reality is that today I am stronger as a

person and professional because of this experience.

Dweck (2006) conducted work around the importance of mindset. She separates individuals into two categories: fixed versus growth mindset. Those with a fixed mindset believe their qualities are fixed traits and cannot be changed. These people document their intelligence and talents rather than working to develop to improve them. They also believe that talent alone leads to success and effort is not required. Alternatively, in a

149 growth mindset, people have an underlying belief that their learning and intelligence can grow with time and experience (Dweck, 2006).

As participants were sharing their experiences, it became evident that the intensity of leading during this event forced a need for a growth mindset. Participants were consistently put into situations in which they were not prepared and were required to lead. These leaders were put in the most intense leadership environments and found a way to not only move forward the school district but also themselves. Lark demonstrated this growth mindset the first summer after the shooting when she pursued counseling not for her own personal help but to better prepare her for the needs of the students when they returned to the school. The participants’ willingness and need to help others during the crisis and even now as professionals demonstrates the development of this growth mindset.

Duckworth has conducted research on “grit” and defines grit as passion and sustained persistence applied toward a long term achievement combining resilience, ambition, and self-control in pursuit of a goal that takes months, years, or even decades to accomplish (Duckworth, 2016). Leader participants were faced with arguably the most difficult leadership challenge in education: restore order and create an educational environment in which violent murders took place. Each articulated passion and persistence in working to overcome this challenge often above their own personal needs.

This was evidenced multiple times by participants. Lark stated:

150

I had to be at work, got to be there. I was so focused on the needs of kids, the

needs of staff and the needs of parents who kept calling saying they don’t know

what to do. That’s all I could focus on was who can I help next.

James also evidenced the importance of grit:

I can remember mornings in which I had to drag myself out of bed. I would

describe it like having the worst hangover or a morning where you got no sleep.

It was like it took every part of my being to drag myself up to head back to the

office when all I wanted to do was lay there. I remember on those days thinking,

I have to be there. How can I expect our staff to show up for kids if I can’t do it

myself.

This challenge required a tremendous amount of grit as the constant ebb and flow of recovery is ongoing and exhausting. Educators go into this field because they care about people; it is their motivation and passion. Some of those educators eventually pursue leadership positions because they want to expand their impact on students and adults. A rampage school shooting puts leaders in a situation where everyone in the organization is suffering. Aware of it or not, leaders take on the burden of wanting and needing to help everyone and the recovery of others is put in front of everything else, including themselves. These participants demonstrated a tremendous amount of persistence, grit and compassion for others in their work in leading the recovery process.

Importance of Team

Each participant who had direct responsibilities during the time of the shooting recognized the importance of team. They identified how their team came together as a

151 critical factor in managing the aftermath. It was important to note that the reference to team included not only the school but all safety forces. Within the school administrative team, there developed an interdependence that allowed them to work collaboratively on the multitude of decisions that they faced. Dennis recalled a moment in which he was walking with James that provided evidence of the importance of team:

We were walking to the memorial service that had what seemed like a thousand

people in attendance. I knew I had to talk to James and had no time to wait. I

didn’t want to because I knew how much he had on his mind. I explained to him

that we had state testing coming and I had contacted the department to extend our

testing window but I needed a letter from the superintendent. He looked at me

like, are you kidding me right now. Before he could say anything, I told him that

I wrote the letter, explained to your secretary why it was important and all you

have to do is sign. He paused, looked me right in the eyes, grabbed my shoulder,

and said thank you. We were all doing what we could and we were there for each

other. That moment really stands out in my mind.

The team became an internal support structure assisting with the balancing of the workload for team members. Dennis said:

Heath, Lark, James, and I were very close. We could talk to each other. We

would constantly text about what was going on and who might need help. We

made sure that things were covered but really worked together. If someone

needed rest, had to be home for kids, or whatever someone else would step up.

We had strong, close relationships and reassured each other that we could get

152

through. I keep saying WE a lot because that’s how we approached everything. I

believe we were much better because every decision and everything we tried to do

involved all of us. I think that is how we got through this and maybe it was our

way of dealing with it. Leaning on each other.

Each participant recognized how important this was for him or her to avoid the feeling of isolation. They also referenced other rampage school shootings that were not led effectively as a break down amongst the administrative team. This was a theme that was strongly reinforced through data verification. James stated:

This administrators’ and board’s ability to come together as a team was the single

most important factor in our district’s ability to respond effectively. An event like

this will either unite or divide the school and community.

During the evolution and emergence of this theme, I found myself studying well-known school shootings in our country. The stronger the internal team (school administrators and board of education) and external team (law enforcement and government officials) in sharing a consistent message of support and hope has an impact on the media coverage and overall foundation for the recovery moving forward. It is vital that school administrators and school boards avoid seeking an outlet for blame and focus on developing a consistent message of hope for moving forward. Recently there have been rampage school shootings in which superintendents and principals have been removed from buildings in response to the event. Key administrators in both Newtown post Sandy Hook and Parkland post Marjory Stoneman Douglas were removed. This study’s findings indicate that having consistent leaders with established relationships in

153 place throughout the recovery is a critically important factor. The importance of team and message consistency is an important reality that should be identified and discussed as part of the crisis response planning process for schools and communities. This also has implications for district leaders as they select and develop their school teams in crisis preparation.

An important implication was also articulated by Heath when discussing team.

Heath has moved on to two different districts since leaving Central. This has furthered his belief and understanding of how much team played into their ability to lead the event post shooting. He spoke specifically to the importance of fit when considering a new position professionally. In this context the word fit is much broader and significant than enjoying the people you work with every day. In Heath’s words: “It is important to surround yourself with people that you want by your side when crisis happens as success in these situations lies in the level of trust that exists within the team.” The balance of an administrative team is important as various leadership challenges require different skills sets. However, for Heath the importance of valuing relationships as a foundational pillar for a team is important. In his words:

I know sometimes the new superintendent that took over after the shooting at

Central got frustrated with me because I wanted to take things slow. I even saw

that in the district I went to next that was much more top-down type of leadership.

Developing meaningful relationships takes time and if those around you don’t

value it, there is inevitably a conflict and misalignment.

154

District leaders are often considering the various personalities and characteristics of potential new hires on an administrative team. Very few look at the team dynamics or the “fit” of a new candidate through the lens of working together in the wake of a school shooting; however, the insights provided by these participants should expand the thinking of district leaders moving forward.

Broader National Concern

With more than one-half of the U.S. suffering from the pain and anguish of kid-on-kid and kid-on-teacher violence, it appears that America has a growing epidemic on its hands: child domestic terrorism (Ruffini, 2006, p. 168). It has become evident that school shootings are no longer random anomalies and are now a growing national crisis.

The intensity and frequency of these traumatic events are unique to the United States of

America. Although this study was conducted at a micro level specific to a group of participants who experienced one rampage school shooting, it furthers the case that this is a growing national problem with serious implications. The data within this study indicated the significant impact a rampage school shooting has on students, staff, administrators, and the broader community. The findings also articulate the traumatic nature of this recovery and perspective on the extensiveness of the timeline and necessary resources required throughout the recovery process. Throughout this study, as a researcher, it was a constant challenge to better understand the why behind not only this specific case study but the broader problem facing our nation. It is important to address the broader issues and offer insight based on these findings to inform the conversation moving forward. Prior to delving into recommendations it is important to put context

155 around the national conversation and point out what is not working or helping in making progress.

Gun Control

This nation is facing a societal crisis around rampage school and mass shootings.

The evolution of these incidents continues to lead to shootings that are more frequent with higher numbers of victims. As found in this study, the victims of these shootings far exceed those physically injured or killed. Families, friends, and entire communities become victims of these events and all are a part of the societal impact. Many factors have been attributed to this problem including: the increase in violent video game usage, media attention given to rampage school and mass shootings, breakdown of the traditional American home structure, access to, and capabilities, of guns, drug and alcohol abuse, increase in mental health needs, and a lack of social services to intervene with those in need. However, according to a 2019 study conducted by the National

Council for Behavioral Health:

While there is increasing demand to identify potential perpetrators of violence and

develop preventive measures, there has been insufficient research on the root

causes of the problem or resources to address them. Such causes include social

alienation and social problems (including deficiencies in the educational system,

poverty, discrimination, the lack of job opportunities, etc.), as well as the lack of

quality and comprehensive mental health care.

Increasingly it is the political affiliation of the individual or media source that is the determining factor on which of these elements has the most merit. The reality is that

156 there is no one single causal factor but there is a political reality in our country that is a major contributing factor to any progress on this issue.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has taken over the political system in our country as self-described absolutists when it comes to the right to bear arms. In doing so they have utilized this approach to defending the second amendment as a position to prevent any reasonable, responsible gun legislation. They ignore the fact that when the second amendment was written in 1791 the weapon of choice was a musket with a magazine capacity of one, effective rate of fire of three rounds per minute, and a maximum average accuracy rate of 50 meters. The most recent weapon of choice for mass shootings, AR-15, however, has a magazine capacity of 30, effective rate of fire of

40 rounds per minute and a maximum average accuracy rate of 550 meters (Ingraham,

2016). It is evident that weapons have evolved well passed the original intent of the protections provided by our forefathers and this is a necessary starting point for conversation related to addressing this crisis. Furthermore, data indicate the United

States has had more mass shooters and more guns per capita than other economically developed countries (M. Fisher & Keller, 2017; Wintemute, 2015).

The NRA has essentially bought politicians loyalty as evidenced by the fact that they spent an estimated $54.4 million to assist in electing our country’s most recent republican president as reported by the Federal Election Commission. The NRA goes to extreme lengths to defend the right to bear arms and has virtually opposed every form of gun regulation, including restrictions on owning assault weapons, retention of databases of gun purchases, background checks on purchasers at gun shows, and changes to

157 registration of firearms. Currently a variety of gun control measures are being ignored by a Republican controlled Senate due to the overwhelming control the NRA has on these politicians. Therefore, any common sense gun reform that addresses the number of guns, functionality of guns, and those that have access to guns is blocked. The nation experiences one mass shooting after another followed by a two-week media cycle of political rhetoric ending with absolutely no change. This point was highlighted by Heath when he stated:

It is not like the first six months was easy but there was this tremendous

outpouring of support and sense of, we will get through this together. It was

when the media went away and there were other things that caught the eye of the

politicians when things got really difficult.

This political reality blocks any progress in an area that is a significant causal factor in today’s America of mass shootings (Maguire, 2017).

Arming Teachers

Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, on February 14,

2018, in which 17 individuals were killed and an additional 17 injured, started a national conversation regarding gun control largely due to the advocacy students. This led many to consider arming teachers as an appropriate measure in response to the increase in frequency of rampage school shootings. Many politicians latched onto this and states began taking action. According to a Giffords Law Center 2019 report titled Guns in

Schools, teachers or other school staff in 31 states can legally carry weapons in schools.

In five states (Idaho, Kansa, Missouri, Texas and South Dakota) teachers or other school

158 staff are explicitly authorized by state law to carry firearms. The remaining 26 states leave approval, policies, and training requirements up to local school districts or allow teachers with concealed weapons permits to carry firearms in schools.

The idea that the best approach to solving gun violence in schools is to permit more guns in schools enrages educators that understand that more is not better in this situation. Hepburn and Hemenway (2004) overwhelmingly conclude that more guns equates to more deaths. Furthermore, they stated that carrying guns, knives, and other arms creates a higher likelihood of physical violence and injuries. There is no evidence that arming teachers, despite their level of skill and comfort with firearms, would be an effective method to confront the increasing rates of rampage school shootings. Heath specifically spoke to this in his interview: “Arming teachers is the craziest of the ideas out there right now. This is another reactive measure in which we are trying to limit the number of casualties and not getting to one root causes of this issue.” There is no research indicating that increasing the presence of guns will serve as a deterrent to school violence. Increasing access to guns in schools for students and staff creates an increased probability of accidental and potentially intentional incidents of violence.

Active Shooter Drills

The reality of the increasing number of rampage school shootings has significantly changed the landscape and culture within schools across the country with significant time and resource allocations made in the area of safety and security.

Educators are spending countless hours creating plans and conducting drills preparing for a rampage school shooting. Many states throughout the country mandate active shooter

159 drills and school districts are implementing training programs to prepare students and staff in how to react in these events. A commonly used training program being implemented throughout the country is Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter, Evacuate

(A.L.I.C.E). The training for this program places students and staff in a position in which an active shooter is identified in an area of the building and a decision is first made to run or lockdown. Students are also trained in techniques to counter an active shooter if trapped in a classroom. There is an inherent sadness and negative effect developing into an emerging concern with the amount of anxiety and stress these drills and training place on both students and staff. In his article, What are Active Shooter Drills Doing to Kids?

Hamblin (2019) quoted Colleen Derkatch, a professor at Ryerson University in Toronto, who studies how we assess risk when it comes to our health:

The more prepared we are, the more heightened our sense of risk. One potential

effect we haven’t considered is how these kinds of preparedness activities affect

kids psychologically, and could increase a sense of feeling at risk. They really

expand the ways in which we feel increasingly under siege.

Schools are currently dealing with a significant increase in mental health issues for students and this is proving to be an additional layer of stress. Additionally, nationally we are facing a shortage in teachers as the role and responsibilities of teachers is being significantly changed by this reality (Hamblin, 2019).

Emerging work indicates that these drills have a negative impact on students and staff due to the level of anxiety created for those involved. However, the full-scale drill

160 conducted at Central was credited by the administrative and community participants as a critical activity in their ability to effectively lead the incident. Lark stated:

I can’t imagine how we would have been able to respond if we had not done that

drill. We all knew the plan and were able to respond accordingly to at least make

the day move efficiently. I don’t think this impacted the number of victims or

changed the outcome but it did impact the quality of our response.

Educators work tremendously hard to protect children and provide a safe environment to grow socially, emotionally, and academically. It is a difficult reality to accept that by introducing these drills there is an increased level of stress for students and staff, which creates an ethical issue for school administrators. However, not preparing students and staff is a level of educational malpractice that could cost student and staff lives. This emerging conversation regarding the impact of these drills on students and staff does unveil an opportunity to better engage mental health professionals on how these are introduced and implemented.

Funding and Support

School districts have become the landing place for growing societal issues through mandates established by legislatures at both the federal and state level. There are countless examples including drug and alcohol education, tobacco and vaping education, sex education, date rape, suicide prevention, and the list can go on and on. These are followed by additional mandates that include standardized testing, curriculum and special education services having a tremendous personnel, and financial impact.

161

The most impactful example of this was the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1997 and 2004. The requirements have placed significant service obligations and bureaucracy on school districts. Although federal dollars do flow to school districts to assist in this area, they are significantly less than the cost of the mandate. To be clear IDEA was and is needed and beneficial for students; however, this is an example of how the federal government mandates services and does not fund these completely. This forces many districts back to their local communities for additional funding. The reality of school districts is that they are being mandated to train staff, secure buildings, provide mental health services, and implement intervention and threat assessment programs with little or no financial support. This is the broader reality in which school districts are currently operating leading to an environment with a tremendous amount of stress as they attempt to balance the educational, social, and emotional needs of students while attempting to address societal issues through mandates.

Recommendations at a National Level

This work has led me to better understand the issue of rampage school shootings at a higher level. Not one area or action would solve this very complex issue. However,

I believe there to be some very clear necessary steps that would serve as a starting point to put our schools, community, and country in a better place in terms of rampage school shootings.

First, we must remove barriers to begin to take substantive action in the area of gun reform. This can either be accomplished through significant campaign finance reform eliminating organizations like the NRA from sidetracking necessary reform or we

162 must find courageous leaders willing to take on this important issue. Specific recommendations regulating or eliminating access to assault rifles and high capacity magazines would be an appropriate first step. This could be enhanced through universal background checks and “red flag” laws that permit family members and law enforcement to file extreme risk protection orders and restrict or temporarily remove a person’s access to firearms when their behavior suggests that they pose a violent threat to themselves or others.

In schools and within the broader community we need to better develop and communicate reporting pathways that lead to swift and meaningful intervention. The result would be clear methods for individual citizens and school personnel to report concerning behaviors or individuals. This is only effective if there are appropriate personnel in place to evaluate referrals and appropriate intervention services in place.

This will undoubtedly lead to potential challenges regarding infringement upon individual civil liberties; however, we know many of the assailants in these incidents demonstrated at risk behaviors. It is important to empower those responsible for intervention and services to aggressively pursue and support those that are at risk.

Finally, we need to increase the mental health services in school districts throughout our country. This is going to require funding and a multifaceted approach that includes better preparing educators working with students on a daily basis to be able to identify at risk behaviors and putting in schools the necessary professionals to provide mental health services to students.

163

Implications for Practice

This study articulated the experience of educational administrators who led after a rampage school shooting and identified short- and long-term ramifications personally and professionally due to this responsibility. The study identified emerging themes that inform current educational leaders on the realities and possible personal and professional implications of these events. The results serve to inform administrative preparation programs, crisis management planning and necessary support services for those thrust into these difficult leadership situations.

Leadership

The presentation of these findings provides insight for current and future educational leaders into the experience and personal and professional impact on administrators responsible for leading and managing after a rampage school shooting.

Awareness of the themes articulated within this study provides the reader with an opportunity to understand at a deeper level the challenges and implications of an individual in a leadership position following a rampage school shooting. This information affords practicing or future leaders an opportunity to consider and better plan for the challenges that consistently arise with these events. The findings allow leaders to place into perspective the things that they are dealing with and processing personally and professionally helping with the feeling of isolation. The results provide a level of reassurance that the emotions and events they are experiencing are common to others that have been forced to lead a rampage school shooting and not a result of anything that they have or have not done.

164

The findings inform leadership theory as it relates specifically to leadership after a rampage school shooting. Both Heath and James discussed the importance of relationships as a foundation to their leadership and ability to move through this complex leadership challenge. As described by Bass (1985) characteristics of transformational leaders include self-confidence, dominance, charisma, and a strong belief in the moral righteousness of one’s beliefs. Transformational leaders have a strong understanding of self and value relationships and are better prepared to lead during a time of crisis. They have an opportunity to leverage these relationships and their personal characteristics to motivate and inspire staff to move forward. Transformational leaders set examples to be emulated by their followers. Both Heath and James emerged as transformational leaders who leveraged strong relationships that had been built over time to provide hope and inspire students, staff and community to move forward together.

There was significant evidence from participant interviews and within news media reports that demonstrated the transformational leadership qualities of these two individuals. This was evident in the first press conference in the afternoon of the shooting. James provided a clear message that the entire staff was committed to helping the families of the victims and the entire student body and community overcome this adversity. He was empathetic, caring, and clear in his message. Another such moment occurred when students returned to the high school three days after the shooting. The student body gathered in the center of town and walked to the building together. James stood at the front door of Central High School and hugged every student as they returned to the building. The student participant in this study specifically remembered that

165 moment and spoke of how this helped her to enter the building that day. She stated,

“That hug got me over the hump. I knew he was there and I knew the staff was there for me.”

It is critical for leaders put into these positions to understand the importance of being relational and supportive and share a vision of the future. All of the administrative participants clearly had strong value systems professionally that was built around doing what is best for students highlighting the importance of moral and ethical leadership.

Their actions and approach to the recovery reinforced these characteristics consistently throughout the interviews positively impacting the overall recovery of students, staff and community. Heath stated:

Early on we made the decision that students had to be involved with all of the

decisions around this recovery. I would bring them in on everything—What are

we going to do with lockers? Graduation? Anniversary? We used surveys

constantly and student voice was very important to our recovery.

The significance of the importance of value based, relational leadership was strengthened by Dennis as he reflected upon taking over the school district. He described himself as “lower on the emotional EQ scale” relating more to the characteristics of a transactional leader. He identified this as a significant challenge as he entered and attempted to move the district forward as an outsider who did not understand the significance of the need to develop relationships as a foundation prior to introducing any type of change beyond the recovery of the school district and community. It is very clear

166 that transformational leaders need to be at the forefront and face of the recovery for the school district.

Crisis Leadership

The experiences articulated by the participants align with current crisis leadership theory as it was evident that this event served as a complete disruption to the equilibrium of the school as an organization (Heifetz & Linsky, 2002). The participants were put into the unfortunate situation of being witness to and impacted by the horrific event but placed in a position in which they were responsible for the reestablishment of the organization.

Heifetz and Linsky differentiate between technical and adaptive challenges in a time of crisis. It was evident through the sharing of this experience that the participants were faced with both of these challenges throughout the recovery and experienced significant internal and external pressure. Framing the various components of this intense leadership challenge into these categories (technical, adaptive, internal, external) would be a beneficial activity to strategically move forward. For example, Heath described the overwhelming response of gifts, cards and offers of programming support immediately after the shooting. Heath stated:

One day my secretary calls me over the radio and says there is a gentleman at the

front door. I went to see him and he informed me that he worked at an

organization that supports autistic males and they had constructed an arch of hope

for the school. They literally brought it with them with no notice. She then

informs me that they would like to see where we were going to put it. It ended up

167

being great as they interacted with kids but it was the day-to-day little things that

could consume you and take over from thinking about the big things.

It is important for those thrust into these situations to have clear roles and responsibilities in place. Having individuals respond to the tactical decisions is critical so those responsible can focus on the more significant long-term adaptive problems. Additionally, it is equally important to remember the importance of relationships as evidenced while

Heath was embedded in the tragedy, it was important for him to take time to be with students.

The results of this study specific to leadership and crisis planning have serious implications for administrative preparation programs and current practitioners. Currently administrative preparation programs do not effectively prepare leaders for the intensity and complexity of this level of a leadership challenge. There is a lack of capacity development specific to the area of crisis leadership, which would better prepare future leaders for these types of events. Crises may permanently redefine an organization in a new and unexpected light that changes an organization’s culture and business (Beck &

Murphy, 1994). John Kotter (2001) defined leadership as the ability to cope with change.

More change demands more leadership. This describes the level of intense leadership required to support students, staff, and the community after a school shooting.

This work should be incorporated and put through the lens of a school shooting in educational administrative classes that focus on leadership theory. Further study into the area of crisis leadership and a review of this body of research would be beneficial reading within administrative preparation programs as a means to better understand the

168 challenges and framing of an appropriate leadership response. The findings speak to the necessity to better prepare leaders for a broader continuum of threats and increasingly higher levels of violence within our schools. They indicate a need for additional leadership education specific to crisis in addition to how one can effectively manage their own personal emotions and lives post traumatic event.

Crisis Planning

These findings can be used to improve building and district crisis plans that are in place for school districts and communities across the country. The results indicate a need for mental health and stress management supports for building and district leaders facing these challenges. Multiple participants indicated the dichotomy in the fact that first responders that witness these types of events cannot return to work without psychological screening and necessary mental health services. James stated:

There were first responders that were on the scene the day of the shooting that

were with us when we welcomed staff back two days later. I remember one of

them telling me he could not return to active duty until he had a mental health

screening. I thought to myself we witnessed and saw the same things, maybe we

should be doing this but there just wasn’t the time.

A similar system needs to be in place for educators that experience these events. James’s comments and the results of this study recognize the intensity of the leadership challenge early in the process preventing leaders from having the time to seek personal support.

This fact should be taken into consideration in structuring the necessary support over time. These leaders should be included on the necessary continuum of services provided

169 to all students and staff leading to a monitored recovery plan over an extended period of time. Leaders should consider building this into their Employee Assistance Program

(EAP) as well as into negotiated agreements with certified and classified staff members.

The findings indicate that it is critically important that crisis plans specify roles and responsibilities in terms of leading from the district and building perspective. As a result of this study we have a better understanding of the challenges and leadership skills necessary to respond to a rampage school shooting. This information should be utilized when assigning roles and duties within a crisis plan. For example, a leader that is very task oriented but uncomfortable when speaking about sensitive issues or emotions should not be placed in the role that is out front publicly, but would be an excellent candidate for monitoring recovery resources and or managing those reaching out to assist the district.

These results also indicate that a response to this type of an event is very personal in nature and is subject to a variety of factors such as proximity to the event, relationship with the victim(s) or the perpetrator(s) and previous experiences with death or violence.

Therefore, roles and responsibilities should be reassessed immediately after an incident to ensure everyone can operate effectively. The individual assigned a leadership role in planning may not have the capacity to lead due to the personal impact. The proximity to the actual shooting or prior experiences may have an unforeseen impact on the administrator limiting their ability to perform a role. Dennis reinforced this when he stated:

We all had difficult jobs at that point in time but I cannot imagine what James had

to take on being the one that interacted with the victim’s families on a regular

170

basis. He was certainly the right person at the right time but that had to be so

tough. I don’t know that I could have done that.

It should be considered to assign a primary and secondary person for each role based on skill set in the crisis plan. As part of the plan, it should be built in that roles will be evaluated and reassigned to ensure the best individual is in the appropriate role based on their reaction to the event.

Lastly in terms of crisis planning, it is critical for schools and communities to be aware of the findings related to the importance of team and consistency in message, which has a substantial impact on the recovery for the entire community. Participants reinforced this as a critical piece for recovery throughout the study. Although difficult to write this into a plan, it would be beneficial to have conversations in advance and include prompts within the plan that establish protocols ensuring consistent messaging. James reinforced the importance of this when recollecting their initial response:

We were very clear in what was going to be said at every press conference. I was

going to talk about the school response and support systems for students, staff and

community. The police talked about the investigation and the prosecutor spoke to

the next steps in terms of the shooter. We did not want the media trying to drive a

wedge between us. It was the same for every press conference.

Crisis teams should construct a general responsibility for school and safety forces within the plan so this can be shared and followed in the event of an incident.

171

Mentoring

There is an abundance of valuable research on the importance of mentoring at all levels of education. Charlotte Danielson (1999) found that mentoring helps novice teachers face their new challenges; through reflective activities and professional conversations, they improve their teaching practices as they assume full responsibility for a class. Danielson also concluded that mentoring fosters the professional development of both new teachers and their mentors. Brown, Anfara, Hartman, Mahar, and Mills (2001) surveyed 98 principals and interviewed 44 of them to examine the learning process of new administrators. They found that, unfortunately, many beginning principals learn their jobs through on-the-job training. When asked what methods would help them adjust more effectively, the survey participants cited sharing experiences with colleagues as a preferred activity. This study’s results emphasize the importance of a mentor that has experience with the direct leadership responsibilities in a rampage school shooting.

The participants of this study consistently reinforced the importance of having someone to consult or provide input into decisions who have had experience leading with this type of incident. This person should not be considered a professional providing mental health services but rather a trusted colleague to work through various decision points and share their emotions to provide an outlet limiting the overwhelming sense of isolation. Heath reinforced this when he stated:

I appreciate all the people that reached out along the way, but I didn’t want to talk

to my wife or the principal down the street about this. When Frank DeAngelis

from Columbine called I picked up the phone because that’s who I needed to talk

172

to. I wanted to talk to someone who had been there. He helped me tremendously

and remains my friend today.

The National Association of Secondary School Principals has recently reinforced the need for this as they have created the Principal’s Recovery Network to support administrators during immediate and long-term recovery. It is evident that utilizing this type of network will provide a relevant mentor for those who must face this type of event in the future.

Recommendations for Further Research

This study discovered that there are consistent personal and professional implications for educational leaders who lead post rampage school shooting one and five years after the tragedy. Two educational leaders with direct experience in leading after a rampage school shooting have validated the study’s findings. However, throughout the course of completing this study opportunities for further research emerged and could be explored. Researchers interested in pursuing these recommendations or similar work should be aware of the amount of time necessary to truly understand the experience of these individuals, as it is imperative to accurately articulate their experiences. As previously stated, it took longer than anticipated to build rapport and help move participants to a place in which they felt comfortable in talking about the impact of these events personally and professionally.

The study participants were directly responsible for leading after a rampage school shooting took place in their school or district. The decision was made to select one school shooting to ensure the case was time bound and the events were consistent for

173 all participants. The study allowed me to immerse myself with participants to deeply understand their experience and perceived impact of this event on them personally and professionally.

Each one of the themes that emerged from the data provides additional research opportunities. Researchers could identify participants from various rampage school shootings and conduct a qualitative study on one of the specific themes. This would allow further depth and clarification as well as improve the recommendations that have implications for future leaders.

Each of the participants in this study shared a common event, a rampage school shooting at Central High School. They had a consistent set of events and were able to share not only their perspectives but their perceptions of the other participants to enhance and validate the findings. There is an opportunity to extend the depth of understanding of the personal and professional implications by expanding the sphere of participants to include family members and staff. This would allow for an additional opportunity to extend and possibly enhance the findings by including the unique perspectives of those closest to these educational leaders.

Each participant identified that Heath, Central High School Principal, carried a greater burden throughout the process due to the fact that he resided in and had children attending the school district. Participants believed this to be a significant additional burden both personally and professionally that had to be navigated. Heath stated on multiple occasions that it was difficult to get away from the stress and pressure of managing and leading the school shooting. He felt it impossible to get away or shut off

174 his role as high school principal out in the community. The consistency in which this was discussed leads me to believe this provides an opportunity for further study looking specifically at the school leaders that reside within the communities in which the event occurs. A researcher could seek to compare the impact on those administrators that live within the district versus those who live outside of the district. They could also seek to better articulate this concept with an in depth study focused solely on issues that these administrators face and the impact of this on them personally and professionally.

This study identified themes that emerged specific to one and five years post shooting. Participants identified a clear divide between those who experienced the school shooting and those who joined the district after the shooting. Participants that led other school shootings validated the theme of “Us versus Them.” This presents a unique leadership and cultural challenge within the school district. As was articulated in this study, recovery is an ongoing process that far extends the five-year benchmark established in this study. Therefore, more administrators nationally are going to be thrust into managing school districts that are at some point on the recovery timeline. This phenomenon warrants additional study, as it would be very beneficial to understand at a deeper level the strategies, mistakes, and approach of leaders who have stepped into this type of divided environment. This work could lead to a better understanding of the perspectives of both groups and seek to clarify strategies to bridge this divide during the healing process.

Earlier in this chapter it was discussed that leading in this situation resulted in the further development of a growth mindset and grit for each participant. Each identified

175 this experience as life changing in terms of how they perceive the world and approach their work. There is an opportunity to further understand the level of impact these events have on the development of both grit and mindset. These are both emerging areas in the study of leadership and could further this work. This could inform the available research into the two areas specific to school shootings and serve as inspiration for those thrust into this situation in the future.

Lastly there seems to be an emerging theme recently to remove the leaders within the building and the district within the first 12 months’ post shooting. These findings would indicate that this would further disrupt the equilibrium of the organizational culture creating more instability negatively impacting the recovery process. There is an opportunity to better understand the impact of this organizationally but also the impact this has on the leaders that are removed as so much of this study’s participants’ recovery were connected to the recovery process of students, staff, and community.

Conclusion

It was 7:25 a.m. in October at Central High School, a building of 1,200 students in grades 9–12. Within a half hour, because of the actions of one student with a gun, lives were changed forever. All within the building were victims that day; however, the casualties of the rampage school shooting that morning extended far beyond the walls of the high school and the ramifications would continue far beyond that October morning and ripple throughout the school and community for years to come.

This study focused on one segment of that very large population of casualties, the administrators who woke up on a typical Monday morning only to have their personal

176 and professional lives changed forever. This research has articulated the experience of a group of educational administrators who were forced to lead in the aftermath of a rampage school shooting identifying the personal and professional impact of this one and five years post shooting. The study is entitled The Depth of Sacrifice as it provides insight into the intensity of the challenge and the impact on those put in a position to lead a recovery when they were first and foremost victims as was everyone else.

Research indicates that rampage school shootings are increasing in frequency and intensity throughout our country. This study identified that there was a gap in research specific to the impact on school administrators that become responsible for the recovery for the school and community. The work has demonstrated that there are consistent implications and challenges for those put into the situation of having to lead in the aftermath of a rampage school shooting. As indicated within this chapter, the results can and should be used to inform educational administration preparation programs, crisis management planning, and post incident recovery. The work also provides insight into the complexity of the issue of leading post rampage school shooting as well as the necessary leadership capacity and characteristics to effectively move a school and community forward. Although this study has furthered the available body of research in the area of rampage school shootings, it has only scratched the surface on opportunities to further understand this complex issue. It is the hope of this researcher that this work serves as a beginning rather than an end.

REFERENCES

178

REFERENCES

Abbott, G. N., White, F. A., & Charles, M. A. (2005). Linking values and organizational

commitment: A correlational and experimental investigation in two organizations.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(4), 531-551.

Abouk, R., & Adams, S. (2013). School shootings and private school enrollment.

Economics Letters, 118(2), 297-299.

Algozzine, B., & McGee, J. (2011). Reported occurrence and perceptions of violence in

middle and high schools. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies,

84(3), 91-97.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

disorders. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Anderson, M., Kaufman, J., Simon, T. R., Barrios, L., Paulozzi, L., Ryan, G., . . . Potter,

L. (2001). School-associated violent deaths in the United States, 1994-1999.

JAMA, 286(21), 2695–2702.

Ardis, C. (2004). School violence from the classroom teacher’s perspective. In W. L.

Turk (Ed.), School crime and policing (pp.131-150). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson Education.

Ashkanasy, N. M., Broadfoot, L. E., & Falkus, S. (2000). Questionnaire measures of

organizational culture. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson

(Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 131-145). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

179

Balthazard, P. A., Cooke, R. A., & Potter, R. E. (2006). Dysfunctional culture,

dysfunctional organization. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(8), 709-732.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY:

Free Press.

Beck, L., & Murphy, J. (1994). Ethics in educational leadership programs: An expanding

role. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Beland, L. P., & Kim, D. (2016). The effect of high school shootings on schools and

student performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(1), 113-

126.

Bennis, W. G. (2009). On becoming a leader: The leadership classic (4th ed.). New

York, NY: Basic Books.

Bernstein, A. (2009). Bath massacre: America’s first school bombing. Ann Arbor, MI:

University of Michigan Press.

Bloom, S. (1997). Creating sanctuary: Toward the evolution of sane societies. New

York, NY: Routledge.

Blumstein, A., & Wallman, J. (2006). The crime drop in America, Revised Edition. New

York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Bonanno, C., & Levenson, R. (2014). School shooters: History, current theoretical and

empirical findings, and strategies for prevention. Sage Open.

https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014525425

180

Borgman, C. L. (1986). The user’s mental model of an information retrieval system: An

experiment on a prototype online catalog. International Journal of Man-Machine

Studies, 24, 47–64.

Borum, R., Cornell, D., Modzeleski, W., & Jimerson, S. (2010). What can be done about

school shootings? A review of the evidence. Educational Researcher, 39(1), 27-

37.

Brown, K., Anfara, V., Hartman, K., Mahar, R., & Mills, R. (2001). Professional

development of middle-level principals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of

the American Education Research Association, Seattle, WA. (ERIC Document

No. ED 457 595)

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Carmeli, A., & Tishler, A. (2004). The relationship between intangible organizational

elements and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 25,

1257-1278.

Certo, S. C., & Certo, S. T. (2006) Modern management. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Collier, L. (2016). Growth after trauma—Why are some people more resilient than

others—and can it be taught? American Psychological Association, 47(10).

Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor/2016/11/growth-trauma.aspx

Coombs, W. T. (2004). Impact of past crises on current crisis communications: Insights

from situational crisis communication theory. Journal of Business

Communication, 41, 265–289.

181

Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (1996). Communication and attributions in a crisis: An

experimental study of crisis communication. Journal of Public Relations

Research, 8, 279–295.

Cooney, M. (2012). Honor Cultures and violence. Oxford Bibliographies. New York,

NY: Oxford Press.

Cornell, D. G. (2006). School violence: Fears versus facts. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cornell, D., & Mayer, M. (2010). Why do school order and safety matter? Educational

Researcher, 39(1), 7-15.

Crabtree, B., & Miller, W. (1999). A template approach to text analysis: Developing and

using codebooks. In B. Crabtree & W. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research

(pp. 163-177). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods

approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Daniels, J., Bradley, M., & Hays, M. (2007, December). The impact of school violence

on school personnel: Implications for psychologists. Professional Psychology:

Research and Practice, 38(6), 652-659.

Danielson, C. (1999). Mentoring beginning teachers: The case for mentoring. Teaching

and Change, 6(3), 251–257.

Davis, T., & Landa, M. (2000). Changing dynamics: How workforce culture can boost

corporate performance. CMA Management, 74(10), 26-29.

182

Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate culture: The rites and rituals of corporate

life. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.

Denscombe, M. (1998). The good research guide for small-scale social research

projects. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Denzin, N. (1978). The research act (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Duckworth, A. (2016). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance. New York, NY:

Scribner/Simon & Schuster.

Dukerich, J. M., Nichols, M. L., Elm, D. R., & Vollrath, D. A. (1990). Moral reasoning in

groups: Leaders make a difference. Human Relations, 43, 473–493.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random

House.

Elliott, D. S., Hamburg, B., & Williams, K. R. (1998). Violence in American schools: A

new perspective. In D. Elliott, B. Hamburg, & K. R. Williams (Eds.), Violence in

American schools (pp. 3-28). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic

inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ferguson, C. J. (2012, December 15). Sandy Hook shooting: Why did Lanza target a

school? Time Ideas. Retrieved from http://ideas.time.com/

Ferguson, J., Coulson M., & Barnett, J. (2011). Psychological profiles of school

shooters: Positive directions and one wrong turn. Journal of Police Crisis

Negotiations, 11(2), 141-158.

183

Fidel, R. (1993). Qualitative methods in information retrieval research. Library and

Information Science Research, 15, 219–247.

Fineman, S. (1993). Organizations as emotional arenas. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotion in

organizations (pp. 9-35). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Firestone, W. A. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to

qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 16-23.

Fisher, C. J., & Alford, R. J. (2000). Consulting on culture: A new bottom line.

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 52(3), 206–217.

Fisher, M., & Keller, J. (2017, November 7). What explains U.S. mass shootings?

International comparisons suggest an answer. The New York Times.

Fry, D., Fang, X., Elliott, S., Casey, T., Zheng, X., Li, J. . . . & McCluskey, G. (2018).

The relationships between violence in childhood and educational outcomes: A

global systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 75, 6-28.

Garcia, H. (2006). Effective leadership response to crisis. Strategy and Leadership, 34(1),

4-10.

Gershenson, S., & Tekin, E. (2015). The effect of community traumatic events on student

achievement: Evidence from the beltway sniper attacks. Education Finance and

Policy, 1-54.

Giffords Law Center. (2019). Guns in schools. Retrieved from

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/guns-in-public/guns-in-

schools/

184

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78-

90.

Griffin, R. (1990). Management. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Guba, E. G. (1991). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries,

Educational Communication and Technology, 75–91.

Halverson, S. K., Holladay, C. L., Kazama, S. M., & Quiñones, M. A. (2004). Self-

sacrificial behavior in crisis situations: The competing roles of behavioral and

situational factors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 263-275.

Hamblin, J. (2019). What are active shooter drills doing to kids. The Atlantic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/02/effects-of-active-

shooter/554150/

Harding, D. J., Fox, C., & Mehta, J. (2002). Studying rare events through qualitative case

studies: Lessons from a study of rampage school shootings. Sociological Methods

& Research, 31(2), 174-217.

Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing educational research in education settings. Albany, NY:

SUNY Press.

Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the

dangers of leading. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2013). A survival guide for leaders. Boston MA: Harvard

Business Review.

185

Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership:

Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Boston, MA:

Harvard Business Press.

Hepburn, L., & Hemenway, D. (2004). Firearm availability and homicide: A review of

the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal, 9, 417-440.

Hesselbein, F. (2002, Fall). Crisis management: A leadership imperative. Leader to

Leader Institute. http://www.pfdf.org/leaderboos/L2L/fall2002/fh.html

Ingraham, C. (2016). What “arms” looked like when the 2nd Amendment was written.

The Washington Post.

Interlandi, J. (2018). How do you walk back into the classroom: Teaching in the age of

school shootings. The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/05/magazine/school-shootings-

teachers-support-armed.html

Kachur, S. P., Stennies, G. M., Powell, K. E., Modzeleski, W., Stephens, R., Murphy, R.,

. . . Lowry, R. (1996). School-associated violent deaths in the United States, 1992

to 1994. JAMA, 275(22), 1729–1733.

Kadel, S., & Follman, J. (1993). Reducing school violence in Florida. Greensboro, NC:

SERVE (SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education).

Kellerman, B. (1984). Leadership: Multidisciplinary perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Klann, G. (2003). Crisis leadership. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership

Press.

186

Kondrasuk, J. Greene, T., Waggoner, J., Edwards, K., & Aradhana, N. (2005). “Violence

Affecting School Employees,” Education Faculty and Presentations Publication –

University of Portland – Pilot Scholars.

Kotter, J. P. (2001). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, 79(11), 85-96.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1993). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why

people demand it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Lee, S. W., & Yu, K. (2004). Corporate culture and organizational performance. Journal

of Managerial Psychology, 19(4), 340-359.

Lerbinger, O. (1997). The crisis manager. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lindy, J. D. (1985). Trauma membrane and other clinical concepts derived from psycho-

therapeutic work with survivors of natural disasters. Psychiatric Annals, 15(3),

153-160.

Linzer, N., Sweifach, J., & Helft-LaPorte, H. (2008). Triage and ethics: Social workers

on the front line. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 18(2),

184-203.

Lovely, S. (2004). Staffing the principalship: Finding, coaching and mentoring school

principals. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

187

Lowe, S. R., & Galea, S. (2017). The mental health consequences of mass shootings.

Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18(1), 62–82.

Lyytinen, E. (2010). Posttraumatic stress symptoms among school personnel after the

Jokela school shooting: A longitudinal study of exposure, interventions, and

symptom changes. Retrieved from

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5b65/d9ecab26c0230f6dc61931760e08942a84ca.

pdf

Maguire, R. (2017). Audit shows NRA spending surged $100 million amidst pro-Trump

push in 2016. Retrieved from https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/11/audit-

shows-nra-spending-surged-100-million-amidst-pro-trump-push-in-2016/

Mallak, L. A. (2001). Understanding and changing your organization’s culture. Industrial

Management, 43(2), 18-24.

Mears, C. (2008). A Columbine study: Giving voice, hearing meaning. The Oral History

Review, 35(2), 159–175.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Moore, M., Petries, C., Braga, A., & McLaughlin, B. (2003). Deadly lessons:

Understanding lethal school violence. Washington, DC: National Academies

Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10370

188

Moorhead, G., & Griffin, R. W. (2004). Organizational behavior. Boston, MA:

Houghton Mifflin Company.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Indicators of school crime and safety:

2006. Retrieved January 2, 2019, from www.schoolsafety.us

National Council for Behavioral Health. (2019). Mass violence in America: Causes,

impacts, and solutions. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from

https://www.thenationalcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Mass-Violence-

in-America_8-6-19.pdf

National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2015). Professional standards

for educational leaders 2015. Reston, VA: Author.

Newman, K., Fox, C., Roth, W., Mehta, J., & Harding, D. J. (2004). Rampage: The social

roots of school shootings. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Nims, D. R. (2000). Violence in our schools: A national crisis. In D. S. Sandhu & C. B.

Aspy (Eds.), Violence in American schools: A practical guide for counselors (pp.

3-20). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Paolini, A. (2015). School shootings and student mental health: Role of the school

counselor in mitigating violence. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling

Association.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

189

Pearson, C., & Clair, J. (1998). Reframing crisis management. The Academy of

Management Review, 23(1), 59-76. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/259099

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook

and classification. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Poutvaara, P., & Ropponen, O. T. (2010). School shootings and student performance.

CESifo Working Paper Series No. 3114.

Rea, P., Stoller, J., & Kolp, A. (2016). Exception to the rule: The surprising science of

character-based culture engagement, and performance. New York, NY: McGraw

Hill Education.

Recardo, R., & Jolly, J. (1997). Organizational culture and teams. SAM Advanced

Management Journal, 62(2), 4-7.

Reilly, A. H., & Ehlinger, S. (2007). Choosing a values-based leader: An experimental

exercise. Journal of Management Education, 31(2), 245-263.

Roberts, A. (2000). Crisis intervention handbook: Assessment, treatment and research.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ruffini, J. A. (2006). When terror comes to Main Street. Denver, CO: Archangel Group.

190

Safty, A. (2003). Democracy and governance. Boston, MA: UOB Press.

Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2000). Value priorities and subjective well-being: Direct

relations and congruity effects. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(2),

177-198.

Sawchuk, S., & Blad, E. (2018). A long journey ahead seen for survivors of shooting.

Education Week, 37(23), 15.

Schein, E. H. (1999). The corporate culture survival guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. (1997). Organizational behavior. New

York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Schoenberg, A. L. (2004). What it means to lead during a crisis: An exploratory

examination of crisis leadership. Crisis Leadership, Syracuse University S.I.

Newhouse School of Public Communications.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992). Moral Leadership. NASSP Bulletin, 76(547), 21-30.

Shenton, A. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research

projects. Education for Information, 22, 63-75. 10.3233/EFI-2004-22201

Stackman, R. W., Pinder, C. C., & Connor, P. E. (2000). Values lost: Redirecting

research on values in the workplace. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. Wilderom, & M.

F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 37-54).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

191

Stake, R. E (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, L. (1990). Basics of grounded theory methods. Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage.

Strike, K., Haller, E., & Soltis, J. (2005). The ethics of school administration (3rd ed.).

New York, NY: The Teachers College Press.

Tannenbaum, M. A. (2003). Organizational values and leadership: learn more about the

importance of aligning core and operational values in the strategic-planning

process and the bottom-line benefits of investing in a performance-oriented

organizational culture. The Public Manager, 32(2). Retrieved from

https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-107216029/organizational-values-

and-leadership-learn-more-about

Tedeschi, R., & Calhoun, L. (1996). The posttraumatic growth inventory: Measuring the

positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9(3), 455-471.

Trump, K. S. (2004). School safety left behind 1 School safety threats grow as

preparedness stalls and funding decreases. Cleveland, OH: National Association

of School Resource Officers.

Trump, K. S., & Eith, C. (2019). A holistic approach to school safety. Alexandria, VA:

The American Association of School Administrators.

Turner, C. A. (2006). Organizational culture and cost-containment in corrections: The

leadership dimension. Public Administration and Management.

192

Turunen, T., & Punama, R. (2014). Psychosocial support for trauma-affected students

after school shootings in Finland. Violence & Victims, 29.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Summary of housing and population characteristics.

Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-

census/decade.2010.html

U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Annual report on school safety. Washington, DC:

Indicators of School Crime and Safety.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2008). Active shooter: How to respond.

Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/active_shooter_booklet.pdf

U.S. Department of Justice. (2002). Preventing school shootings: A summary of a U.S.

Secret Service safe school initiative report. Washington, DC: National Institute of

Justice.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2018). Active shooter incidents in the United States 2018.

The Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State

University and the Federal Bureau of Investigations.

Voght, K. (2019). The troubling connection between mass shootings and suicide. Mother

Jones. Retrieved from https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/03/the-

troubling-connection-between-mass-shootings-and-suicide/

Want, J. (2006). Corporate culture: Illuminating the black hole. New York, NY: St.

Martin’s Press.

193

Wells, D. L. (2003). The relationship between employee-organization cultural fit and

organization performance (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest. (UMI

No. 3109819).

Wintemute, G. J. (2015). The epidemiology of firearm violence in the twenty-first

century United States. Annual Review of Public Health, 36(1), 5–19.

https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-publhealth-031914-122535

Woodrow, C., & Steven, R. (2018). Scarred by school shootings 187,000. Washington

Post.

Wyatt, W. (2002). Weathering the storm: A study of employee’s attitudes and opinions.

Work USA.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and method (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Yukl, G. (1981). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.