• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Classroom Security

LGreene

LGreene

REGISTERED
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,165
Location
San Miguel de Allende, Mexico
I saw a post on LinkedIn from a fire marshal who is battling with the local police chief and school district about the use of classroom barricade devices...the law enforcement argument is that life safety codes are archaic. If anyone else is facing this problem, I just wrote an article for Domestic Preparedness that might help. There is a link to the article in this blog post: http://idighardware.com/2017/10/tea...e-safety-while-addressing-classroom-security/

If you have addressed this issue in your jurisdiction, I'd love to hear about how it went down.
 
A couple of interesting things about the "archaic" law...the issue of classroom security was discussed at length during the most recent model code development cycle. If the stakeholders felt that the codes needed to be updated/relaxed, that was their (our) opportunity. But the existing requirements were maintained, AND a new requirement was added - the ability to unlock the door from the outside with a key.

Also this...

"The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) reported that between 2000 and 2013, there were 1,456,500 non-residential structure fires in the United States, with 1,260 civilian deaths and 21,560 civilian injuries. For the same period, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) published statistics on active shooter incidents, counting 160 shootings resulting in 487 deaths and 557 injuries."

AND...what about the ADA?
 
My understanding the allowance of barricade devices are "not an operating mechanism or architectural component of the building or the door and can be deactivated in one motion and defaulted by administrators and safety forces from the ingress side of the door.”

Although these devices may hinder the function but they do not alter the approved door hardware operation. The function is the code requires that exits shall be unobstructed at all times. And if this is a concern would the AHJ prevent the use of furniture such as desk, chairs, cabinets and utilizing other tools as umbrellas, brooms, belts, etc. from being employed during an active shooter in progress?
 
I won't get sued if someone pushes a desk in front of a door, I will get sued if someone uses a device that I approve and someone doesn't make it out of the room alive....
 
steveray said:
I won't get sued if someone pushes a desk in front of a door, I will get sued if someone uses a device that I approve and someone doesn't make it out of the room alive....
Click to expand...

Other than maintenance from obstructions how is it required to be approved or disapproved if the device does not involve alterations to the door or structure?

barracuda-door-lock-dsi-3.jpg
barracuda-door-lock-dcs-2.jpg
 
I don't want to see those devises at a final inspection or a butter knife slid between the casing covering the door.

But after I'm done and I've finalized the permit, do what's necessary to protect the classroom.
 
Pcinspector1 said:
I don't want to see those devises at a final inspection or a butter knife slid between the casing covering the door.

But after I'm done and I've finalized the permit, do what's necessary to protect the classroom.
Click to expand...

There are ways to protect the classroom from access by an intruder, that will also allow easy evacuation if that's the best course of action.
 
Agree Francis, but unfortunately in this litigious society, if I know about it (in place or an intent to use)and do nothing, I am probably negligent and that is not a risk I am willing to take. Luckily for me, I haven't had to get involved in those conversations with my schools as they have not pulled any permits for any work in the last 5 years or so since I have been here...
 
Francis Vineyard said:
A chain and padlock would be a violation if used in such a manner but for possession?
Click to expand...

If I had no other option for securing a door in an intruder situation, I would do what I had to do - barricade with furniture, tie the door closed, etc. But schools (and other facilities) should be proactive about securing these doors, and the methods they employ should be code-compliant. Another major concern is the possibility that an unauthorized person could use a barricade to secure a door, locking themselves inside with victims and preventing or delaying access by staff and emergency responders. This has happened at 3 schools with fatalities that I can think of off the top of my head. I also read a study about barricading incidents in schools and I think there were 19 incidents in that study. In the 3 with fatalities, the perpetrator brought materials from outside to barricade the doors...why make it easier by hanging a barricade device next to the door? The statistics on violence in schools are scary; I wouldn't want my kids in a classroom where they could be locked in. There are plenty of code-compliant options. If we're going to let price override life safety, it's a slippery slope.
 
steveray said:
If I know it is there and do nothing, I "approved" it....
Click to expand...

Pcinspector1 said:
I don't want to see those devises at a final inspection or a butter knife slid between the casing covering the door.

But after I'm done and I've finalized the permit, do what's necessary to protect the classroom.
Click to expand...

I agree with both Steveray and PCinspector1, to an extent. As an inspector, if I see a device as shown/discussed, it is my responsibility to write a correction notifying the responsible party that this is a violation. If I can then educate them as to why it is a violation, a reasonable person would comply and find an alternative approach. That said, after I am done with the final inspection, it becomes the responsibility of the Fire Marshall - with whom I would of already discussed the issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JBI
LGreene said:
If I had no other option for securing a door in an intruder situation, I would do what I had to do - barricade with furniture, tie the door closed, etc. But schools (and other facilities) should be proactive about securing these doors, and the methods they employ should be code-compliant. Another major concern is the possibility that an unauthorized person could use a barricade to secure a door, locking themselves inside with victims and preventing or delaying access by staff and emergency responders. This has happened at 3 schools with fatalities that I can think of off the top of my head. I also read a study about barricading incidents in schools and I think there were 19 incidents in that study. In the 3 with fatalities, the perpetrator brought materials from outside to barricade the doors...why make it easier by hanging a barricade device next to the door? The statistics on violence in schools are scary; I wouldn't want my kids in a classroom where they could be locked in. There are plenty of code-compliant options. If we're going to let price override life safety, it's a slippery slope.
Click to expand...
I understand that schools and other government regulated facilities may have local laws or ordinances that provide proactive policing; however my question is by what authority does the code allow the Building or Fire Official to prohibit a device by mere possession?

And I agree it's a slippery slope, then they start banning crazy stuff like super glue.
 
LGreene said:
If I had no other option for securing a door in an intruder situation, I would do what I had to do - barricade with furniture, tie the door closed, etc. But schools (and other facilities) should be proactive about securing these doors, and the methods they employ should be code-compliant. Another major concern is the possibility that an unauthorized person could use a barricade to secure a door, locking themselves inside with victims and preventing or delaying access by staff and emergency responders. This has happened at 3 schools with fatalities that I can think of off the top of my head. I also read a study about barricading incidents in schools and I think there were 19 incidents in that study. In the 3 with fatalities, the perpetrator brought materials from outside to barricade the doors...why make it easier by hanging a barricade device next to the door? The statistics on violence in schools are scary; I wouldn't want my kids in a classroom where they could be locked in. There are plenty of code-compliant options. If we're going to let price override life safety, it's a slippery slope.
Click to expand...

Good post.


There is a simple solution to this dilemma. But when you say it out loud, people look at you funny. o_O I think, in this one case, we could look to Israel for an example.
 
Francis Vineyard said:
I understand that schools and other government regulated facilities may have local laws or ordinances that provide proactive policing; however my question is by what authority does the code allow the Building or Fire Official to prohibit a device by mere possession?

And I agree it's a slippery slope, then they start banning crazy stuff like super glue.
Click to expand...

Remember, possession is 9/10ths of the law. ;)
 
Francis Vineyard said:
I understand that schools and other government regulated facilities may have local laws or ordinances that provide proactive policing; however my question is by what authority does the code allow the Building or Fire Official to prohibit a device by mere possession?

And I agree it's a slippery slope, then they start banning crazy stuff like super glue.
Click to expand...

Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue......
 
The difference is how obvious the intent is. When the door is chained and padlocked shut, I know what the intent of the chain and padlock is. If it just hanging up beside the door I may not. It could be to secure a compound outside, someone's bicycle, I don't know. Now if there is a device thats only purpose is to barricade the door, thus not making it code compliant, code officials have a moral and legal responsibility to act. As Steveray pointed out, not doing so would be seen as negligence by the court system.

This is fundamentally no different than the retail store blocking an exit with merchandise.
 
tmurray said:
The difference is how obvious the intent is. When the door is chained and padlocked shut, I know what the intent of the chain and padlock is. If it just hanging up beside the door I may not. It could be to secure a compound outside, someone's bicycle, I don't know. Now if there is a device thats only purpose is to barricade the door, thus not making it code compliant, code officials have a moral and legal responsibility to act. As Steveray pointed out, not doing so would be seen as negligence by the court system.

This is fundamentally no different than the retail store blocking an exit with merchandise.
Click to expand...
Somewhere in the code gives us the legal authority of proactive policing to confiscate a device that is designed for securing a door shut and is not being used for the time being based on the notion that it could be for an unethical purpose?

But "Mcgivering" knives and forks would be okay in your opinion? One could just as well extend a handle to the door lever preventing outward swing.
https://www.littlethings.com/dinner-fork-door-lock/
 
Francis Vineyard said:
Somewhere in the code gives us the legal authority of proactive policing to confiscate a device that is designed for securing a door shut and is not being used for the time being based on the notion that it could be for an unethical purpose?

But "Mcgivering" knives and forks would be okay in your opinion? One could just as well extend a handle to the door lever preventing outward swing.
https://www.littlethings.com/dinner-fork-door-lock/
Click to expand...

Ideally, schools would be aware of what is acceptable by code before purchasing retrofit security products. The biggest problems occur when the schools spend tens of thousands of dollars and are then told that the product they bought is not code-compliant. is there a way to proactively educate school administrators as well as code officials?
 
FV,

I couldn't confiscate anything, If I believed that someone intended to violate the code in this way, I would write a letter to the superintendent of schools, the Town Manager, FM, and my boss documenting that I saw what could likely become a violation and to instruct the occupants that they could be criminally liable if they used it. Kind of like when I bring my gun into a State forest hiking, it is illegal, but I figure if I really need it, I will take that risk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top