The $10 Million Question: Why School Safety Systems Fail and How to Fix Them Before It's Too Late

The verdict came down on November 7, 2025: a Virginia jury awarded former teacher Abby Zwerner $10 million in damages after a 6-year-old student shot her in her classroom. The assistant principal, the jury found, had acted with gross negligence by ignoring multiple warnings from staff members who reported that the child had a gun that day.

Let that sink in. Multiple people sounded the alarm. Multiple opportunities existed to prevent the shooting. And yet, a teacher was shot, suffered life-threatening injuries, and now lives with a bullet fragment permanently lodged against her spine.

This wasn't a failure of one person. This was a failure of systems.

As school leaders, we must ask ourselves an uncomfortable question: Could this happen in our district? And more importantly, do we have integrated systems in place that would prevent it?

The Pattern We Can No Longer Ignore

The Richneck Elementary shooting isn't an isolated incident, it's part of a pattern that stretches back through decades of American education. From Columbine in 1999, where 14 people died because integrated response systems didn't exist, to Parkland in 2018, where 17 lives were lost despite warning signs that were never connected into a coherent response, to countless incidents in between. Since then, the story is painfully familiar.

Warning signs appear. Staff members notice. Concerns are raised. 

But without integrated systems that connect these dots and mandate immediate action, the pieces of the puzzle never come together until it's too late.

The Richneck case is particularly instructive because it exposes something many districts don't want to acknowledge: implementation is not the same as integration. Schools and districts often have programs in place—threat assessment protocols, behavior management systems, safety procedures—but these programs exist in silos. When the moment of crisis arrives, there's no cohesive system ensuring that information flows to the right people and that action is taken immediately.

As Zwerner's attorney stated in closing arguments: "A gun changes everything. You stop and you investigate." But that only happens when systems are truly integrated, when every staff member knows their role, and when protocols are so deeply embedded that they function automatically under pressure.

The Real Cost of Fragmented Systems

Let's be direct about what's at stake here: the $10 million settlement in the Richneck case represents only the financial cost and that doesn't include legal fees, insurance premium increases, or the district's reputation damage. The true cost is incalculable: a teacher's life is forever altered, a child's trajectory irrevocably changed, and a community's trust shattered.

I've worked with over 100 school districts in my 30+ years in education, both inside the system as a teacher and administrator and now as a consultant specializing in integrated behavioral health systems. What I've learned is this: districts don't lack good intentions or dedicated people. They lack integrated systems that work together.

Most districts have implemented something:

• MTSS frameworks
• PBIS programs
• SEL curricula
• Threat assessment protocols
• Safety procedures

But here's the critical question: Are these programs integrated into a cohesive system, or are they operating as separate initiatives competing for time, attention, and resources?

When I walk through schools conducting ALIGN Audits, I consistently find districts that have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on programs that aren't fully implemented, aren't being used consistently, or aren't connected to other systems in meaningful ways. Staff don't understand how the pieces fit together. There's no clear process for escalating concerns. Decision-making protocols are unclear or unknown.

And then we wonder why, when the moment of crisis arrives, the system fails.

Building Systems That Actually Work: The BRIDGE Framework

After working with hundreds of districts and studying what research tells us about sustainable systems change, I developed the BRIDGE Framework (Building Responsive Integrated Dynamic Governance & Excellence). This framework addresses not just what needs to be in place, but how to ensure it's actually working when you need it most.

The framework rests on four core components that must work together:

1. Proactive: Creating the Foundation

This is about establishing safe and predictable environments not through rigid control, but through clear expectations that are defined, taught, and reinforced by everyone.

In too many schools, we expect students and staff to demonstrate complex social and emotional behaviors without ever explicitly teaching them. We wouldn't expect students to master algebra without instruction; why would we expect them to master self-regulation, conflict resolution, or recognizing warning signs without the same level of intentional teaching?

The research is overwhelming: when students feel genuinely connected to their school and have at least one trusted adult relationship, behavior improves, attendance increases, and academic outcomes strengthen. The same is true for staff, when they feel supported and connected, they're more engaged and effective.

2. Preventative: Getting Ahead of Problems

This is where many systems break down. Preventative systems require teaching staff to recognize early warning signs and creating structures for continuous monitoring.

One southern California district I worked with made a simple but powerful change: they had administrators and staff greet students daily as they arrived and left campus. This one practice created opportunities for relationship-building, decreased behavior issues, and increased everyone's sense of safety. Why? Because staff were now seeing students consistently and noticing changes in patterns, which are the early indicators that someone was struggling.

Think about the Richneck case: multiple staff members noticed warning signs throughout the day. But was there a clear protocol for escalating those concerns? Was there a team meeting structure that would have brought those puzzle pieces together? The jury found there wasn't, and a teacher paid the price.

3. Responsive: Acting at the Right Level

When concerns are identified whether academic, behavioral, or social-emotional, there must be a tiered system of support that can respond at the appropriate level of intensity.

This isn't about having programs; it's about having processes. When a teacher raises concern, what happens next? Is there a clear pathway? Are there defined decision points? Is there someone responsible for ensuring the concern doesn't fall through the cracks?

I worked with a district to establish multiple monitoring teams; grade-level/department, site leadership, and an intervention team with strategic overlap. Key individuals participated across meetings specifically to connect dots and remove barriers to intervention.

This structure works because warning signs rarely appear to just one person. One teacher notices increased aggression. Another observes social withdrawal. A yard supervisor reports conflicts with peers. The cafeteria worker sees a student who's stopped eating lunch.

When these observations flow through connected teams with clear escalation protocols, patterns emerge early. Teams can activate tiered interventions immediately, not after waiting weeks for the "right" meeting. A student gets connected to support before the crisis escalates and before warning signs become violent action.

That's the difference between implementation and integration: not just having teams; but ensuring they're strategically connected with protocols everyone understands and can execute immediately.

4. Immediate Response: Crisis Management

When something serious happens whether it’s a significant behavior incident, a mental health crisis, or a safety threat, you need systems that can activate immediately.

This is where the Richneck case completely broke down. There were multiple reports of a gun. But there was no immediate, systematic response that would have triggered a search and potentially prevented the shooting.

These systems can't be developed in the moment of crisis. They must be in place, practiced, and so deeply embedded that they function automatically when needed.

Why Adult Mindset Matters More Than Student Behavior

Here's something I've learned that might sound counterintuitive: sustainable systems change doesn't start with changing student behavior. It starts with adult mindset and collective efficacy.

The districts that successfully build integrated systems to respond to student behavior needs are the ones who slow down initially to train all staff thoroughly, providing them with the knowledge and skills to support students and, more importantly, to have a genuine voice in building the system. When staff understand the "why," when they feel connected to the mission, and when they have collective efficacy (the belief that together they can make a difference) then they become true partners in the work.

Your staff are not just implementing your checklist, they're actually living the system. They're the ones who notice the warning signs, speak up about concerns, and ensure the system functions as designed.

The Integration Imperative

Twenty-six years after the Columbine shooting, we're still asking "why?" after school shootings. But I would argue we're asking the wrong question.

The question shouldn't be "Why did this individual act?" The question should be: why didn't our systems prevent them by noticing the individual’s struggles and intervening?

Because the hard truth is that in nearly every case from Columbine to Parkland to Richneck, warning signs existed. People noticed. Concerns were raised. What failed wasn't awareness, it was system integration.

Integration means:

• Programs that work together rather than compete for resources
• Information that flows to the people who need it
• Removal of barriers preventing students from receiving the support they need
• Clear protocols that everyone understands and can execute
• Systems that function under pressure, not just on paper
• A culture where speaking up about concerns is expected and acted upon

The Stakes Have Never Been Higher

In districts across America, there are educators showing up every day to schools with fragmented systems of good people trying their best within structures that aren't designed to protect them or the students they serve.

We can do better and we must do better!

The question isn't whether your district has programs in place. The question is: Are those programs integrated into a system that will actually function when it matters most?

What You Can Do Right Now

If you're a district leader reading this and wondering about your own systems, here's where to start:

1. Conduct an honest audit. Gather your leadership team and ask:
   • If a staff member reported a serious concern right now, what would happen?
   • Can you trace the pathway from concern to action?
   • Do all staff know this pathway?
   • Have you practiced it under pressure?

2. Look for the gaps between programs. You likely have PBIS, SEL, threat assessment protocols, and safety procedures. But how do they connect? When does one system trigger another? Where are the handoff points?
3. Talk to your staff. What leadership thinks is happening and what staff experience can be very different. Do they feel empowered to raise concerns? Do they know what happens when they do? Do they believe their concerns will be acted upon?
4. Consider bringing in an external perspective. Sometimes we're too close to our own systems to see the gaps. An ALIGN Audit provides an objective, comprehensive review based on research and best practices, not just one more vendor trying to sell you another program.

A Final Thought 

When building integrated systems, you will experience what feels like breakdowns; moments when protocols fail, when staff push back, when budgets get cut, when leadership changes. These aren't signs of failure. They're opportunities to build systems that can survive these breakdowns, and regenerate to grow into something stronger.

Because the alternative of fragmented programs, good intentions without integration, and response plans that exist only on paper, is what leads to outcomes like Richneck Elementary, Parkland and Columbine.

Our students and staff deserve better. They deserve systems that actually work when it matters most. 

The $10 million question isn't whether we can afford to build integrated systems. It's whether we can afford not to.