I have read recently in a number of newspapers that school districts across the nation are being asked to consider ALICE (alert, lockdown, inform, counter, evacuate) Training as part of their Emergency Crisis Response plans. While most of the ALICE Training is the typical training that has been pretty much standard in schools for years, the controversy is over the “COUNTER” portion of the training that has trainers teaching young unarmed students to attack an armed gunman with pencils, books or any object around them. YES, you read that right! An unarmed, young child attacking an armed, crazed gunman in hopes of over-powering the gunman. Thank goodness many districts and law enforcement agencies have already turned down the Texas Businessman’s offer to have this training, but strangely enough, a number of districts have gone through with this training. There are so many flaws with this training and thinking, that would have many wondering what school district attorney would authorize this anyway. Major flaws like the fact that there is not one single shred of evidence that this strategy works or has ever saved a life. It also make a very poor assumption that every armed gunman that does breech security and enters a classroom will go Columbine and begin killing students. School Safety Experts know that’s simply not the case. Many armed gunman have entered classrooms but exited without shooting anyone. Had a student thrown something at the gunman, would that have been enough to push the gunman into a shooting frenzy? Also, since most school shooters are other students, aren’t also teaching potential gunman the class protocol? Again, the arguments NOT to move forward with ALICE far outweigh the reasons for implementation.


  1. Steven Gilroy

    I have been a certified ALiCE trainer for about 3 years. I have done trainings at Head Start agencies and churches and have been well received by all. It would seem that the author knows very little about the ALiCE program and his comments make me question his “expertise” in school safety. It would be interesting to find out who these other supposed “School Safety Experts” are and what their experience is that allows them to be called experts.

  2. Jim

    “Thank goodness many districts and law enforcement agencies have already turned down the Texas Businessman’s offer to have this training, but strangely enough, a number of districts have gone through with this training.”

    That quote speaks volumes, instead of finding common ground to help promote school safety, it would appear that competition may be the main reason for the rejection of ALICE.
    The points you bring up are valid, and they are also addressed in ALICE, it is a very simple concept. Is leaving the decision making in the hands of those actually involved a bad thing?

  3. Lt. Gary K.

    Hello Mr. Trump,

    You and I have debated this issue in the past. I am a 25+ year cop plus part time school teacher. I am a trained ALICE instructor. Below is an excerpt from your posting criticizing ALICE.

    “…the controversy is over the “COUNTER” portion of the training that has trainers teaching young unarmed students to attack an armed gunman with pencils, books or any object around them. YES, you read that right! An unarmed, young child attacking an armed, crazed gunman in hopes of over-powering the gunman.”

    Note that your first reference states “students” (plural) whereas the second states “young child (a singular reference). For clarification, IMHO A.L.I.C.E. techniques do not encourage single student “attacking an armed, crazed gunman.” A critical component is that multiple students (and teacher/s) simultaneously exploit the autonomic flinch response of the attacker by throwing objects at his face, enabling students to escape or overwhelm the attacker with sheer numbers.

    History convinces me that the overwhelming odds are that students are facing mortal danger when an active shooter bypasses lockdown, barricading, etc and enters the room. Armed madman with a gun who has breached the door tells me he is seeking targets. Sit and wait or do something to turn the tables, disrupt the madman’s thought processes, and improve chances for survival?

    Any cop will tell you that in a tactical situation, there are no guarantees on any tactic employed or ignored. Things are fluid during a dynamic situation. Your classic hostage situation scenario: The SWAT commander must decide whether to wait and see, negotiate, conduct a dynamic entry, flash bangs or not, gas or not, etc. and any choice can result in success … or tragic results. ALICE is the same way. No guarantees. It is an option to simply waiting for a first responder to neutralize the gunman. It may not work in every active-shooter-in-the-room, but neither will sitting and hoping and otherwise doing nothing.

    1. Curt Lavarello Post author

      Gary, while like my own very distinguished law enforcement career, I do respect yours as well. That said, I respectfully disagree with you post. Anyone who has worked around children in a school critical incident knows that the vast majority of children faced with graphic violence, blood and injury typically freeze up. Thus, if we really think that a student who initiates the counter-attack on a student will be followed by others who watch their classmate shot has simply not aware of Child Psychology. In addition Gary, as I told the Texas Businessman that has been selling his program, there is not ONE single case cite of an ALICE trained classroom counter-attacking an armed gunman and overtaking the threat and saving lives. There are however numerous cases where are armed gunman entered a school/class and shot no one! I have personally handled a number of them, that could have ended much differently had another student(s) attacked the gunman.

      1. Jim

        Anyone who has worked around children in a school critical incident knows that the vast majority of children faced with graphic violence, blood and injury typically freeze up. Thus, if we really think that a student who initiates the counter-attack on a student will be followed by others who watch their classmate shot has simply not aware of Child Psychology. In addition Gary, as I told the Texas Businessman that has been selling his program, there is not ONE single case cite of an ALICE trained classroom counter-attacking an armed gunman and overtaking the threat and saving lives. There are however numerous cases where are armed gunman entered a school/class and shot no one! I have personally handled a number of them, that could have ended much differently had another student(s) attacked the gunman.

        “My very distinguished law enforcement career” “The Texas businessman”
        Really? This is a debate about tactics? My experience tells me otherwise.
        So here we go, I’ve spent 20+ years in a school environment, from urban high crime areas to a high school with both urban and rural kids near a major city. ALICE does nothing more than give educators, school staff, and kids additional options when dealing with a critical incident, I also spent 8 yrs on an active tactical team, plus…….wait for it……..I retired from the military after 27 yrs of service (4 yrs active duty 23yrs guard/reserve) including 2 activations and a deployment.
        If we’d like to talk qualifcations I think I can hang. ALICE is simply an evolution of the classic “lock-down”. If you are concerned about what school attorneys are worried about, then you have lost touch with the tactical equation.
        I’m a parent and I’ve always instructed my kids to respond actively if the situation dictates, ALICE does the same thing. Could this end a tactical mistake, sure it could. But the classic lock-down has proved to be a mistake in several active shooter situations. It really is that simple.

      2. James G

        Mr. Lavarello, I am also an ALICE instructor and I have to say, I truly hope we will never see a single case of an ALICE trained class attacking an armed gunmen. “There are, however numerous cases where are armed gunmen enter a school/classroom and harmed no one!” Had those schools had ALICE training, they would have either evacuated or barricaded themselves in the classroom and the students would have been out of harms way by acting on what they thought was right, not sitting in a corner because an outdated policy says to. After reading your posts, it is clear in my mind that you have never attended an ALICE course. Any responsible person who claims to be an”expert” should at least attend the course before he/she attempts to support or refute the validity it. I’m sure since your a “security expert”, you probably already know that the DHS, NYPD, and DOJ all have active shooter policies that are nearly identical to ALICE. All of which were created after ALICE.

  4. Lt. Gary K.

    Oh, and a quick post script. Your definition of “child” was undefined. ALICE does not advocate, for example, an elementary school “child” to attack the gunman. Just wanted to be sure your readers were aware of this. ALICE training is flexible and age appropriate, what I teach 2nd Graders is far different from what I teach middle and high schooler.

    Thank you for the opportunity to participate in your forum.

  5. KT

    I am a former school administrator and I find myself squarely in the middle of this conversation.
    I would like to explain why:

    For Mr. Laverello: I would like to point out that in several recent shootings – for example the one in Chardon Ohio and the one in Aurora at the movie theater, individuals dove under tables or chairs to avoid being shot and it was definitely NOT the best decision. So when we teach students to do this in schools – we may be doing them a disservice. Even looking at Columbine and Virginia Tech – hiding under tables does not protect students from a shooter who gains entry to the room. Many of the Virginia Tech survivors are alive today because they self-evacuated.
    Also, the ALICE training is too new to have much data to support it yet, but the Kip Kinkle case stands out as one in which students tackled the shooter when he stopped to reload – probably saving many others from dying. So the idea does have at least that data to support it.

    For Lt. Gary – I have to say that most parents are horrified to think we are teaching their children to counter an armed attacker. It doesn’t fit well into the school emergency response paradigm currently in place in most schools. And there are very few, if any, school incidents where an armed attacker made his way into a locked classroom, so there is little data to show that locking down and staying put in a school incident does not work. Most of the cases in which students were shot occurred in common areas or in instances where students did not get into a locked classroom away from the shooter.

    To both of you – school shootings are far too complex to have any easy answers. I will say I am a big believer in the ALICE training for college age students, as I think they are mature enough to handle the responsibility. For high school age – I do not know enough to make an informed decision, but I trust that the schools who are using it have found the training to be beneficial. I will always have reservations about this type of training for elementary school children, but that comes from my background as a parent and educator. Perhaps if I attended a training, I would have a better understanding.

    I think the bottom line is that school districts need to work with their local responders to think their emergency response procedures through and make informed decisions about the programs they use.
    ALICE is a well-thought out program and I don’t think it’s fair to not let districts consider it’s benefits.

    On a side note: I believe that the people who began the ALICE training are a police officer and a person with military background – so I would not tend to call either of them businessmen.

    And lastly – I have not listed my name as my current job will not allow me to make public comment such as this – but I hope my points on both sides are well-taken in the spirit of a discussion of differing opinions about this topic.

  6. Teacher/Cop

    And then Sandy Hook happened where many kids were shot cowering in the corner/closet, just where they were taught to be in a lockdown. Maybe not all kids could handle the “counter” but if the teachers had been trained in they had a better chance of survival. My school is looking into Alice as we revisit our lockdown procedures.

    1. Curt Lavarello Post author

      Well again I repeat that while there may be many schools and districts subscribing to ALICE Training, it still remains an “untested” strategy as there is not 1 single case where a class of ALICE Trained School Students countered an armed intruder and demonstrated saving lives. In most cases where an armed gunman enters a school or classroom, the results have been no one gets shot. There are a number of cases where gunman were talked out of rooms by SWAT teams, or in some cases left on their own without firing a shot. Had a 1 or 2 kids starting throwing things at the gunman, the results may have been quite different. More importantly then the constant debate is, what right does ANY school district have to teach my child to attack an armed gunman?
      I have also spoken with countless school district legal advisors who, with the exception of 1, have advised that the liability in training kids to perform a counter attack on a gunman would be incredible and not recommended.

      1. Teacher/Cop

        Please keep in mind, Curt, that ALICE addresses the “active shooter” situation. Lockdowns can be fine if a gunman enters and does not engage. But once shots are fired options beside ducking under a desk or hiding in a corner need to come into play. As far as “testing” the method; two students from Sandy Hook bucked their conventional lockdown training and evacuated the building (the “E” in ALICE) and hid in a safe spot down the road. In a life and death situation it’s good to have options. The liability of a written procedure requiring people (including children) to stand/sit still for their own executions is even more severe.

  7. Gendo Ikari

    Step 1: Disarm as many staffmembers as possible. Push for additional laws to make sure as many law-abiding citizens as possible are not allowed to carry self-defense weapons.

    Step 2: Make double-sure no legal, licensed carriers are allowed in any of your buildings by using your state’s Anti-2nd Amendment “Gunbuster” laws: a $2 vinyl sticker on the door is all it takes to make sure your establishment remains free of all legal firearms.

    Step 3: Insist that school teachers have MORE legal responsibility to defend others from harm. Responsibility the Supreme Court has said even police do not have. Cops, who operate in groups with backup, body armor, more powerful weaponry, and who have fought to keep “extended capacity magazines” for their own use have no legal obligation whatsoever to protect you or your children. Teachers, armed with graphic calculators and textbooks do.

    Step 4: Barricade the door and hide in the closet till the shooting stops. Cops will be waiting in the parking lot stopping any responding medical staff from entering util they are confident the gunman has bled out from self-inflicted wounds.

    I feel safer already!

  8. parent/cop

    I read the initial article and immediately the thought of a liberal politician jumped into my head. Why? Well because Curt has taken excerpts of ALICE and twisted them to use as his argument against such training. I’d venture that Curt has not sat through an actual ALICE presentation. If he has then he knows what he is claiming (telling young children to attack) is simply not the case.

    I have 3 school aged kids (4th, 6th, 9th) I have told all 3 that if the real deal happens that they are not to go and hide in a corner and simply hope that their room isn’t chosen. They are to get out of that school one way or another.

    As a parent I think I will err on the side of caution and have my kids flee the school. I like that idea a whole lot better than waiting and hoping as noted above or counting on Curt to talk an armed gunman out of doing anything.

    Hopefully Curt will reply with some links to verifiable news sources and such to back up his claims pertaining to armed gunmen entering schools and rooms and harming no one. While I don’t doubt this has happened I suspect there to be a bit more to the stories as there is with his claims that ALICE is telling young children to attack gunmen.

    1. Curt Lavarello Post author

      Mr Goose, In response to your comments regarding me “Twisting” excerpts of ALICE you could not be more incorrect! And while I readily admit that I have not “Sat through an actual course”, I truly do not feel that is neccessary. Your comments about your three children and the instructions you provided them demonstrate your true lack of knowledge of the way most children response/react to trauma and/or critical incidents in school. Expecially in the Elementary setting, where many kids become frightened, freeze up and start to cry. Your comments are also contrary to what the ALICE Manual instructs? While you and other ALICE advocates try to minimize the “Counter” component and claim that ALICE does not teach students and others to attack armed intruders, the Response Options manual I have read that was distributed in recent years, along with news stories and videos of ALICE training, clearly indicate the opposite. In fact, an excerpt from an ALICE staff booklet states:

      “While he’s busy ducking and covering his head from our air assault, we must now begin the ground assault.” Seriously Mr. Goose? “Air Assault”, “Ground Assault” to 4th and 5th graders? In Law Enforcement we train countless days, weeks and months to make certain police can counter armed attacks with precision timing, yet we really expect little kids are going to plan a times, coordinated attack with a 45 minute training? Worse yet, is there is NOT ONE single example of an ALICE Trained classroom countering an armed gunman and saving lives! NOT ONE! So are you suggesstion that somehow kids once they see the armed gunman, they should evaluate when the gunman will shoot and then attack? Sorry, this training truly defies logic!

      Lastly, one basic argument remains. While you may chose to have your unarmed, little children attack armed gunman, what gives you, or any officer or school administrator the right to tell my child they have to? I know you have an opt out protocol, yet it is VERY misleading to parents. Most parent groups I speak too did not know the ALICE Training instructed their children to attack armed gunman. I give the owner of Response Options credit in that his un-tested training is packaged as simply giving kids “options”, which we clearly know is not the case! If it is, it is not doubt one of the worse options for children I have heard in over 20 years of school safety.

      1. michael

        Therre have been many comments about how ALICE has not been shown to save one life. Has it been shown to cost anyone their life? If there is no data on either side, then using just one side of the data is meaningless.

  9. James G

    For all those who say that most do not support the tactics of ALICE training, here are some well known agencies that use the same principles as ALICE. Strangely, they were all created after ALICE came to be. Hmmm. NYPD Active Shooter Recommendations and Analysis for Risk Mitigation, DHS Active Shooter How To Respond, US Department of Justice Guide for Preventing and Responding to School Violence 2nd edition. Just wanted to throw that out there.

  10. EP-RN

    ALICE training is a foundation of life saving response to a deadly situation. It does not matter where you are, the mall, a restaurant or a school. Training kids to react is key- get out of the building and if you can’t barricade and fight for your life. No one wants to think about training young children to do this…but you would teach them to call 911. Society cannot be encouraged to sit by, hide or dive under desks!! You like to point out that there has been no case where ALICE training has been beneficial- well what percentage of society has had the training? Can you really back up that claim? Well what history can claim is that NO GOOD HAS COME FROM HIDING IN A CORNER. One of the deadliest shootings just occurred and YOU CANNOT DENY that most of those children ( that you say freeze up and cannot react) are dead because they reacted on how they were trained! IN A CORNER!! Shame on you for not doing your research before posting an article on this subject- you should have sat through the whole class to see the videos of people reacting to shooters, most people can walk right past them- GET OUT OF THE DANGER! And that is certainly what 2 children did in the last shooting and they survived. This training can be tailored to the needs of the students. It needs to be mandatory for schools- it’s not about kung fu fighting the gunman ( you twit!) it’s about reacting to an emergency and survival. Do me a favor and go to a full training, sit through it with an open mind- try things your way in training then try it the ALICE way. And also take some time to truly look into the eyes of someone who has a mental disease and no regard for human life. Then, and only then decide if you still feel the same.
    By the way I have over 15 years in inner city ED experience, married to a law enforcement officer, 5 yrs as a sexual assault nurse examiner and 10 yrs experience with emergency preparedness- There is evil all around us, I have seen it – lived it. Are you ready for it? You should be, cause its not “if” it happens- it’s when will it happen.
    Kudos to those of you who posted before me- this really is a valuable training on many levels.

  11. Glen Mills

    First off, KT made some very thoughtful comments. I like to look at ideas with an open mind and not get too attached to a certain paradigm or fixated on single arguments for or against a position. The one thing we can look at is data and when we look at data we need to look at it as objectively as we possibly can. When we have very strong preconceived notions we might not always make the most logical decisions.

    I think one only needs to look at the data to see which techniques have been most effective at stopping active shooters. I would differentiate active shooters from armed robbers, domestic abusers, gang-bangers and assorted armed and/or escaped criminals passing through schools and classrooms. The data on active shooters is readily available online and while it shows that every situation is different it also shows that there is not one single technique to keep people from being killed. Many people have survived these incidents by hiding, many have been saved by running away and many have also been saved by intervention techniques such as tackling the offender. Police have stopped a few of these but most often the incidents unfold too quickly and are already over or nearly over by the time police respond. There has been a lot of rhetoric from supporters of gun rights saying that the only way to stop an active shooter is to have more people posses guns. While this sounds logical in many ways the data shows that armed civilians haven’t had much effect in the real world stopping these attacks. It seems that the majority of people don’t want all teachers and principals packing heat so we should explore all other options.

    Our current paradigm has us telling children and adults to lock-down and hide from active shooters. While this is a very good idea and often effective if intended victims are faced with a threat that is what they will always do. If the situation changes in that an attacker gains access to an area thought to be secure all options have been exercised. From what I have seen the creators of the ALICE system train people in more options when faced with a threat. I know for a fact that in times of crisis adults and children will very often revert to their training if they have received it.

    I think the belief that children will only freeze in crisis situations is incredibly naive and is not supported by data and history. This argument would support a theory where we should stop doing fire drills, bus evacuation drills and teaching children to call 911 because children would only freeze in these situations. This is a foolish premise and I would argue that anyone making such an assertion is underestimating the incredible abilities that children possess and further, they have never personally witnessed a child who has excelled during a crisis situation. Children save themselves and save others in crises all of the time. I teach a program called Radkids that has documented “saves” where children have avoided or even fought their way away from attempted abductions as well as avoiding fires, vicious dogs and several other dangerous situations.

    Children posses the same fight or flight instincts that adults have and these natural instincts can be improved with training. Adult or child, if you are trained to hide under desks then you will always hide under desks. If you are trained to hide, run or even fight depending on the situation you are in and your abilities you are more likely to hide, run or fight when you need to.

    I would not close my mind to anyone proposing to teach more options but I do worry when I hear someone say that we can’t take an objective look at these issues to find the best way to keep people safe. Insisting on a one-size-fits-all approach to safety is not the best approach to protecting people and an objective look at the data over the past 100+ years of mass shootings in the United States proves it.

    I will continue to look at the data objectively and I will reserve judgment until I see the ALICE program myself. I would also hope that the ALICE creators don’t get too wrapped up in their own ideas and continuously evaluate the program to improve upon what works and eliminate everything that is ineffective.

  12. Leigh Oden

    I just returned from ALiCE training and feel very empowered. As a mom, who also works in a school district, I feel it is MY job to do whatever it takes to keep my students safe. This includes getting them out of the building or off the playground to a safe location. CHAOS is what they mean by telling us to have the kids throw books, chairs, desks, pencils and whatever they can get their hands on. As the adults we will be the first ones in harms way to protect our kids as if they are our own. Would the writer rather have kids huddled in a corner (like we do for lockdown) where they could easily be shot? Kids need to know it is okay to kick, scream, bite or “take a souviner”. Better to ask forgivness than permission.

  13. Lt. Gary K.

    OK, so the million dollar question to those who do not feel that ALICE offers options to the traditional lockdown:

    An active shooter enters the classroom through an open door, is a student already in the classroom and draws a weapon, or breaks into a classroom in lockdown and initiates deadly assaultive behavior. There is no armed defender in the room (cop, school security, armed teacher). It’s kids and the gunman.

    Sit and hope? I guess many of us in the ALICE community are curious as to what the detractors suggest in lieu of ALICE procedures in the event of a situation as described above. I am open to other alternatives and am not locked into ALICE if a better option is presented. I just don’t want my daughter to sit at her desk with her hands folded if an active shooter breaches the room.

    So, what other actions should they take?

  14. Michael

    While no real research of these particular circumstances of the implementation of ALICE have probably been conducted or even have had the ability to be developed. There is ample evidence from victimology studies that fighting is better than giving in to an assailant’s intentions. Rape studies show that rapists will often retreat at the demonstration of force, particularly if there is a likelihood of being caught. Let us remember that these acts are acts of control, if the assailant is not in control he may very well retreat or perhaps give up. In Newtown, just the sound of sirens ended his killing spree. In this there is not now or ever will there be a perfect protocol or procedure that will save every life. The goal when these madmen strike is and needs to be to save as many lives as possible. There is NO way to deal with every scenario or circumstance. ALICE is an approach worthy of merit and discussion and ultimately local communities must decide for themselves. For me it is damn site better than the insanity of introducing guns into our schools by arming teachers or school personnel.

    1. Curt Lavarello Post author

      I certainly feel the topic is worthy of “discussion” even if for the mere fact that many schools are adopting policies that dictate ALICE type actions for students. My problem continues to be the fact that #1, what gives a school the right to train MY child, or any child a strategy that would have them attacking an armed intruder? I realize many here have posted that the ALICE Training is for an Active “Shooter”, yet that is not what I saw in the training manual or many ALICE Video’s I have viewed. In the manual, the “Threat” is assumed once an armed intruder enters the classroom?? I saw no where in the training manual where it states to wait for the person to begin ACTIVELY shooting, then employ the COUNTER moves. So, we are asking students to “Swarm” and throw items once they see the armed gunman enter the class. Despite the fact we know that MOST armed intruders enter a school or class and don’t shoot anyone? So these kids are to now look at the intruder, and in a split second try to climb inside the intruders head and determine if he/she will or won’t shoot? Sorry, again there is NO example of an ALICE Trained classroom “countering” a shooter and saving lives! ALICE remains an untested strategy in the school environment and does not give students their best chance for survival.

      1. Jon Larose

        As an SRO for the last 7 years in a county that has had several active shooter incidents at schools in the last ten years I cannot advocate for the “hide and hope” approach. If a homicidal maniac gains entry to a classroom full of children the “hide and hope” approach is a proven failure. If this homicidal maniac gains entry to a classroom and does not shoot anyone than by definition he is not a homicidal maniac. You say that the ALICE model is untested. Resistance from a target classroom has not been proven to provoke said shooter.

        The ALICE model teaches a counter measure as LAST option when no others exist. When “hide and hope” and “evacuate and flee” have failed for whatever reason, I would not want my ten year old to sit and wait for his turn to die. Counter attack has not been tested so it automatically will fail? This is the same thinking that told passengers of hijacked planes to be calm and comply with the hijackers. This is the same ideology that once told rape victims to lie limp so that the attack would be less severe.

        What we are currently doing in this country is costing kids their lives, and it is incumbent upon us to provide a strategy that works. Contrary to your statement, their have been several shooters that have been stopped simply by unarmed adults and students approaching the shooter and asking him to stop.(1/10/13 Bakersfield CA, 3/3/2013 Florida being the most recent but far from a complete list). Do I advocate that as a strategy? No. But it does show that even a small amount of resistance can sometimes stop these incidents and minimize the loss of life.

        The bad guys know our school policies and police tactics. They are looking for a soft target. They are looking for maximum casualties. Interview with these murderers often reveal they are looking for a higher body count than the “last guy” to maximize their exposure. If I am a bad guy and I know that one district advocates that its students attack the intruder, and one advocates sittng and waiting to die, I will pick the latter.

        It has been said that if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. Our problem is that we keep losing more and more kids to violence in our schools every decade. The current solution which you cling to has been in place since Columbine and is failing our kids. No options in these situations are perfect but in my book, the more options, the better.

        1. LJ

          I think what Israel is doing ( teacher’s have guns to protect their class) is really a better way to protect our children’s

  15. Ms. D.

    Knowledge is power. Having been through this training myself as an educator of children with special needs and a parent of teenage daughters, I feel that ALiCE training gave me insight into a situation one could never predict. It doesn’t teach children to blindly attack and make targets of themselves. It teaches people to create safety immediately and consider the most favorable options for the safety of everyone in the vicinity. Knowledge is power. I feel that maybe the author of this post hasn’t actually taken the training, because there is no mention of any of the OTHER valuable components included in the training. Do we suggest to children and their families that we can come up with no other option than cowering in a corner until we are trapped and death is certain? Do we teach our children that doing nothing to save ourselves is more civilized than fighting back? Should we not teach our children to secure a safe environment while considering other options? I hate to break it to you, but if a crazy person wants to kill your child, you better hope and pray someone is prepared, because it could mean the difference between a future and a funeral. Knowledge is power. No, there is no data proving that ALiCe is best…but there’s nothing out there to disprove it either. There’s plenty out there to prove that cowering in a corner without taking measures to protect themselves only gets us dead children. Knowledge is power. Do you want your children or their teachers to be prepared and be able to take measures to protect themselves, or are you prepared to accept that terrible things happen to good people… Knowledge is power.

  16. Deb

    Perhaps the reason we do not have evidence that ALICE works is because gunman are afraid to attack a school in which everyone is trained in ALICE?

    1. Curt Lavarello Post author

      Deb, unfortunately I doubt that is the case as there still remain many more schools that have declined the ALICE strategy, including the very school district where the originator (Mr. Crane) is from in Texas. Further, in that we know in most cases of school shootings, the suspects are also students of the school, would not we then be training the shooter in the strategy that would be used against his act?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *