Who Decides a Student Is a Threat?

The warning about the warning system

In 1998, after a series of school shootings, the United States Departments of Education and Justice published a guide called Early Warning, Timely Response. It was meant to help schools recognize children who might need help and respond before a crisis.

But buried inside that safety guidance was a warning about the warning system itself.

The guide said, “None of these signs alone is sufficient for predicting aggression and violence.” It also cautioned that using warning signs as a checklist against individual children could be harmful. Schools were told to consider context, avoid stereotypes, and not overreact to a single word, action, or sign.

That distinction matters now because the school-safety system has changed dramatically. Many districts no longer rely on an informal principal’s judgment when a student says or does something alarming. They use multidisciplinary behavioral threat-assessment teams, formal documentation, law-enforcement or mental-health participation, and increasingly standardized state reporting systems.

So this investigation asks a simple question with a complicated answer: Who decides that a student is a threat, what information can be gathered and shared, what happens to the record, and where do parents fit in?

Historical guidance; it does not control current law or prove that every later threat-assessment system follows the same safeguards.

Primary sources: SRC-01: Early Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools. Source pinpoints and qualifications.

Watch the Investigation

Video starts muted where browser autoplay is supported. Use the player’s volume control to enable sound.

Watch Investigation 003 on YouTube

What threat assessment is supposed to be

First, we need to be precise about what threat assessment is supposed to be.

The United States Department of Education describes a threat assessment team as a group of officials that identifies, evaluates, and addresses threats or potential threats to school security. Depending on the school, that group may include principals, counselors, school law-enforcement personnel, outside mental-health professionals, and local police.

The Texas School Safety Center uses an important formulation: a sound threat-assessment process should distinguish between someone who makes a threat and someone who actually poses a threat. That is not a semantic detail. An angry statement, dark drawing, impulsive joke, or troubling online post may warrant attention. But the existence of a disturbing expression does not, by itself, establish intent, capability, planning, or a pathway to violence.

That is also why the old 1998 warning remains relevant. A safety system becomes dangerous when indicators are treated as a profile instead of evidence that must be interpreted in context.

Actual team composition varies by jurisdiction and district.

Primary sources: SRC-05: What is a threat assessment team? · SRC-03: School Behavioral Threat Assessment Toolkit. Source pinpoints and qualifications.

What federal FERPA guidance allows

Now consider the information side of the process.

Federal FERPA guidance says a school may, under specified conditions, disclose personally identifiable information from education records without parental consent to outside members of a threat-assessment team when those members qualify as school officials with legitimate educational interests. The school must satisfy FERPA’s outsourcing conditions, and team members remain subject to redisclosure restrictions.

That means parents should not assume that a threat assessment stays inside the principal’s office. Depending on the team structure and the facts of the case, school records can be seen by people outside the ordinary classroom chain of command. Federal guidance does not authorize unlimited sharing, but it does create a lawful pathway for multidisciplinary review.

Primary sources: SRC-06: Does FERPA permit sharing education records with outside threat assessment team members?. Source pinpoints and qualifications.

Texas case study: team authority and parent participation

The legal details vary across states, so I want to use Texas as a concrete current case study rather than pretend there is one nationwide rule.

Texas Education Code section 37.115 requires school boards to establish a threat assessment and safe and supportive school team to serve each campus. Those teams assess reported threats and harmful, threatening, or violent behavior; gather and analyze data; determine risk and appropriate interventions; and may refer a student for mental-health assessment or other services.

The statute defines harmful, threatening, or violent behavior broadly enough to include verbal threats, threats of self-harm, bullying, cyberbullying, fighting, weapons, sexual assault, sexual harassment, dating violence, stalking, and assault when the conduct could lead to intervention or discipline.

That breadth does not mean every child engaging in one of those behaviors is a violent threat. It tells us what may enter the system. The assessment is supposed to determine what the behavior means and what response is appropriate.

Parents have an important statutory role in Texas. Before a threat-assessment team conducts a threat assessment of a student, the team must notify the parent or person standing in parental relation to the student. The parent must be given an opportunity to participate, either in person or remotely, and to submit information about the student.

But notice is not the same thing as prior consent. The law also preserves the ability of school employees to act immediately to prevent an imminent threat or respond to an emergency. And when services are proposed, separate consent rules may apply depending on the service and the student.

Primary sources: SRC-02: Texas Education Code §37.115 — Threat Assessment and Safe and Supportive School Program and Team. Source pinpoints and qualifications.

Texas case study: the record and Sentinel

The record itself deserves attention too.

Texas law says materials and information provided to or produced by a threat-assessment team during a student threat assessment must remain in the student’s school record until the student’s twenty-fourth birthday. Texas School Safety Center guidance also notes transfer requirements for threat-assessment records when students move between Texas public schools.

Beginning August 1, 2025, Texas required behavioral threat assessments to be conducted and reported through the state’s Sentinel system using the state-provided instrument and field guide. That is a significant institutional change: threat assessment is not merely a local conversation; it is now part of a standardized statewide administrative process.

Record-access, transfer, and destruction rules should be checked against current district policy and other applicable law. Sentinel is Texas-specific; do not generalize it to other states.

Primary sources: SRC-02: Texas Education Code §37.115 — Threat Assessment and Safe and Supportive School Program and Team · SRC-04: School Behavioral Threat Assessment Toolkit — Requirements · SRC-11: Safe and Supportive Schools — Behavioral Threat Assessment / Sentinel. Source pinpoints and qualifications.

What the safety research shows—and what it cannot establish

None of this means threat assessment is inherently improper. The safety evidence is serious.

The United States Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center studied forty-one incidents of targeted school violence at K through 12 schools from 2008 through 2017. The report found concerning behaviors in every studied case. It also found that in many cases other people had knowledge of troubling behavior before the attack.

That is exactly why schools cannot simply ignore credible threats, escalating behavior, weapon access, specific planning, or communications of violent intent.

A second Secret Service report studied sixty-seven plots to attack schools that were reported and stopped from 2006 through 2018. The agency concluded that targeted school violence is preventable. But the report also cautioned that its open-source sample was not every plot during that period and should not be treated as a frequency trend.

Those qualifications matter. If a study begins with completed attacks or known plots, the findings can tell us what appeared in those dangerous cases. They cannot automatically tell us how often the same behaviors occur among millions of students who never become violent. That is the denominator problem.

A behavior can be common among attackers and still be a poor stand-alone predictor if it is also common among nonviolent students. That is why context, specificity, trajectory, capability, corroboration, and professional judgment matter more than a crude checklist.

Primary sources: SRC-07: Protecting America’s Schools: A U.S. Secret Service Analysis of Targeted School Violence · SRC-08: Averting Targeted School Violence: A U.S. Secret Service Analysis of Plots Against Schools. Source pinpoints and qualifications.

Training and oversight in the assessed Texas districts

There is also a quality-control question inside the system itself.

The Texas Education Agency’s 2024–2025 school-safety report described District Vulnerability Assessments covering approximately thirty percent of Texas school districts. Among the assessed districts, ninety-six percent complied with the requirement to retain threat-assessment materials until the student’s twenty-fourth birthday. But 22.93 percent had not ensured that each team completed required training on evidence-based threat-assessment programs.

That finding should be read carefully. It is not evidence that 22.93 percent of Texas students were assessed incorrectly. It is a compliance finding about the districts reviewed in that assessment cycle. But it does show why parents should ask not only whether a school has a threat-assessment team, but whether the people exercising that authority are properly trained and following the governing procedure.

Primary sources: SRC-09: Annual Report 2024–2025: School Safety and Security in Texas. Source pinpoints and qualifications.

What parents should ask before a problem occurs

So what should a parent know before a problem occurs?

Ask who serves on your child’s campus threat-assessment team. Ask what behaviors can trigger a referral. Ask whether anonymous reports can initiate review. Ask what information the team may gather from school records, social media, disciplinary files, counselors, law enforcement, or outside providers. Ask when you will be notified. Ask whether you may attend, submit context, correct factual errors, and receive the team’s findings or conclusions under your state and district rules.

Then ask the records questions. What document is created? Where is it stored? Who can access it? Is it transferred when your child changes schools? How long is it retained? What process exists to challenge inaccurate information?

And ask the most important substantive question: What does this school do to distinguish a child who made a troubling statement from a child who actually poses a credible threat?

Primary sources: SRC-02: Texas Education Code §37.115 — Threat Assessment and Safe and Supportive School Program and Team · SRC-05: What is a threat assessment team? · SRC-06: Does FERPA permit sharing education records with outside threat assessment team members?. Source pinpoints and qualifications.

Safety, evidence, and the child behind the record

A serious safety system should be capable of holding two truths at once. Genuine warning behavior must not be ignored. And children must not be reduced to a permanent risk label because of a single statement, a misunderstood drawing, a mental-health struggle, an unpopular opinion, or a moment of adolescent stupidity.

The 1998 federal guide understood that tension. It warned schools to take concerning behavior seriously without turning warning signs into a predictive profile.

Today the systems are more formal, the teams are broader, the records can travel farther, and in some states the information can remain for years. That makes due process, parental participation, professional training, and narrow evidence-based judgment more important, not less.

The question is not whether schools should respond to genuine threats. They should. The question is who makes the judgment, what evidence the judgment rests on, what happens to the child’s record, and whether families are treated as partners in a high-stakes process.

At the Parent Research Center, we have linked the governing statutes, federal FERPA guidance, Secret Service studies, Texas implementation materials, and the historical federal warning so you can examine the evidence for yourself. Read the full investigation and review the Evidence Board at ParentResearchCenter.com.

Primary sources: SRC-01: Early Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools · SRC-02: Texas Education Code §37.115 — Threat Assessment and Safe and Supportive School Program and Team · SRC-06: Does FERPA permit sharing education records with outside threat assessment team members?. Source pinpoints and qualifications.

Intent Ladder: purpose, authority, practice, consequence

Level 1 — Stated Purpose

School-safety agencies state that threat assessment is intended to prevent targeted violence and connect concerning individuals with appropriate intervention.

Level 2 — Authorized Capability

Law and FERPA guidance authorize multidisciplinary assessment, specified information gathering/sharing, parental notification/participation, and interventions under defined conditions.

Level 3 — Operational Practice

Texas has moved threat assessment into standardized team procedures, record retention, inter-district transfer rules, annual reporting, and Sentinel documentation.

Level 4 — Institutional Consequence

A safety judgment can create a durable student record and can influence discipline, mental-health referrals, law-enforcement involvement, special-education review, and future school handling. This is a documented institutional consequence, not proof of improper intent.

Primary sources: SRC-02: Texas Education Code §37.115 — Threat Assessment and Safe and Supportive School Program and Team · SRC-04: School Behavioral Threat Assessment Toolkit — Requirements · SRC-06: Does FERPA permit sharing education records with outside threat assessment team members? · SRC-07: Protecting America’s Schools: A U.S. Secret Service Analysis of Targeted School Violence · SRC-10: Mandatory Safe and Supportive Schools Program Reporting · SRC-11: Safe and Supportive Schools — Behavioral Threat Assessment / Sentinel. Source pinpoints and qualifications.