As educators, we think of student technology use in two ways — as an innovative technique we use to “jazz up” a lesson by integrating a digital application into an already existing concept, such as having students use Google Maps to chart the exploration of the Atlantic; or as a distracting disciplinary problem. In reality, students’ use of technology is not a distinct set of activities that are situation specific, but rather an immersive, all-encompassing way of viewing and interacting with the environment around them. This high level of engagement by students does not suddenly stop or change based on an adult’s seemingly arbitrary notion of whether the use is “appropriate.” Events encountered in the students’ world are dealt with using the very same technology through which they are viewed.

This inability to separate technology from teenager presents us with the intimidating notion that a crisis event in a school will also become a technological event. In this discussion we are not referring just to the most horrific of crisis events such as an active shooter, but to the frequent and inevitable crisis events that all schools will face, such as the death of a student, a medical emergency, severe weather or a potential intruder.

In a world of uncertainty, we can be sure of two things: crisis events will continue to occur in schools and students’ use of technology will continue to grow. Given these realities, one critical aspect of crisis planning and management is an awareness of the impact of student technology use during any type of crisis event. While this is a broad and ever-changing construct, there are some basic notions that should form the foundation of our understanding.

Students are using technology during school crisis events in surprising ways.

One might assume that even the most technologically connected teenager, constantly RT-ing and posting that #selfie, might take a short social media hiatus during a school crisis event. This is certainly not the case as many students continue to use technology and social media during such events and, in fact, often use these methods to communicate and share information with increased frequency.

Recent crisis events have yielded scores of examples that demonstrate this phenomenon with startling clarity. During recent lockdown events, students texted each other names of the wounded, tweeted the identity of the shooter, posted photos of the SWAT team, live-blogged the event with minute-by-minute updates, instagrammed photos of the alleged perpetrators, and even were asked to call the media for an interview — all while still in lockdown — as the school administrators and law enforcement officers struggled to sort out and respond to the crisis itself.

Following crisis events, students engaged in Twitter debates, updated their Facebook status with their opinions on the school’s crisis response, uploaded the video they took, and activated websites to memorialize the victims, demonize the perpetrators and express their reactions to the event.

As technology “immigrants,” our reaction to this reality may be to try to shut down this communication. Prohibiting the use of technology or confiscating cellphones during crisis events is simply not a viable (or reasonable) alternative legally, logistically and ethically, let alone from a safety perspective.

Students use technology (specifically social media) very differently from educators.

It is important to understand the difference between the ways that students (technology natives) communicate compared with that of older people (technology immigrants). For instance, if a middle-aged woman were on a transit bus and a fight broke out, it would not occur to her to use social media to relay information about the fight. Later, after she was safely home, she might share her experience in a conversation with her family. For younger adults, the fight on the bus would be fair game for social media, after the person was safely out of harm’s way. By contrast, the majority of students would likely be instagramming pictures of the fight and sharing their reaction on various platforms — “ppl R fightin on the X2 bus #soscared #gohomeX2yourdrunk #nobutreallyihaveanappointment”— while on the bus, as the fight continues around them.

Cellphones are as powerful and more capable than desktop computers were just a few years ago.

It is easy to underestimate the power of mobile devices. Instead of imagining an individual with a cellphone in his pocket, envision a student sitting in a classroom equipped with a tape recorder, a video camera, a still camera, a laptop, a compass, a pager and a telephone.

The most recent iPhone has roughly twice the general computing power of an Apple desktop from 10 years ago. Consider the audio- and video-recording capabilities of mobile devices such as cellular connectivity, GPS and accelerometers; mobile devices are even more capable than a similarly powered desktop computer. This powerful technology is in the hands of individuals who are able (and eager) to quickly use all of its capabilities — and the device is always with them.

If students can physically access technology they will use it. Period.

Let us first eliminate the notion that because we say we don’t allow students to use their phones during school, this will preclude them from accessing technology during unusual events. While a student’s phone may not be visible during the history exam, when an unusual, exciting or emotional event occurs, let alone a crisis event, that device will be put to use. Instead of fighting this inevitability, we should be putting it to work to our advantage. Consider this: In the middle of a crisis event, we have a mechanism that students know how to use to quickly and easily convey critical information about the incident, receive instructions about what to do to ensure their safety, inform their parents about their whereabouts, and receive assurances from the school as the event unfolds. Who doesn’t want that?

There are helpful and appropriate ways for students to use technology in school crisis events, but we have to teach them.

The key here is to provide adequate training for students (and staff) about the effective and appropriate use of technology during a crisis event. When students are taught and understand both the application of technology for their personal safety and implications of its use in crisis events, they will spend less time uploading pictures of the paramedics doing CPR or posting rumours about who they think hid the suspicious package, and more time enhancing the quality of the school’s response by following the texted directives about the evacuation location or notifying Mom and Dad that they are safe.

There needs to be a frank discussion between the school, the students and the parents about what we know to be true about the capabilities and use of the technologies students possess, and how it is evident that they will be used in a crisis event.

Students need to understand the implications of their technology use during a crisis event. The most basic concept that must be assimilated is that survival — not sharing — of the incident is the top priority. The potential danger of disseminating sensitive information is something that most students have not considered in their rush to update their friends. Finally, students must realize that if most students in the school text, tweet and call simultaneously, the technological infrastructure will be overwhelmed, compromising the capabilities of emergency responders to save lives and endangering all those involved.

But the strategy here is not to scare students into submission, but rather to empower them to use the capabilities they possess. Students should be trained how to effectively call 911: under what conditions to call, what information to provide and what to do next. Emergency procedures should be adopted and communicated to students on how to provide status updates to parents, how to check in with the school in the event of an unforeseen or rapid evacuation, how to access emergency instructions from the school’s website, and the like. The responsibility is ours as educators to build the capacity of students to use the technology tools in their possession and respond appropriately to the crisis events that we know they will face.

About the Authors

Dr. Amy Klinger is an assistant professor of educational administration at Ashland University in Ohio. She has been a teacher, office administrator, principal and college professor. Author of In Search of Safer Schools, she has conducted extensive research in school safety and crisis planning and teaches Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) courses on school safety for law enforcement and school officials across the United States.

Amanda Klinger works at the intersection of school safety, the law and technology. She was an occasional teacher before completing a law degree and representing clients in civil and criminal proceedings. She worked as an advocate in North Carolina’s juvenile justice system for youths charged with crimes and as a parent attorney in abuse, neglect and dependency proceedings. She is a member of the board of directors for Students Against Violence Everywhere (SAVE).

The mother-daughter tandem has presented nationally in the United States on bullying/cyberbullying, crisis management, legal issues in school safety and other school safety issues.