As a psychologist with nearly 25 years of experience, I’ve encountered numerous urgent requests from parents seeking same-day appointments after their child was suspended for being labeled a threat at school. Whether the threat is verbal or behavioral, schools are tasked with enforcing policies that prioritize safety above all else. But in these scenarios, mental health professionals are increasingly placed in the difficult position of providing a ‘clearance’ letter—without an established relationship with the child—while balancing the expectations of both parents eager for their child to return to school and administrators seeking assurance that the child poses no risk.
In this blog, I’ll delve into the background of this challenging situation and offer my approach on how to navigate these requests responsibly.
Zero Threat Policies: History and Enforcement
The concept of “zero threat” policies in schools began gaining traction in the 1990s, particularly after a series of high-profile school shootings. These policies emerged in response to growing concerns about student safety and a need for schools to maintain strict control over potentially dangerous behaviors. The intention was to create a standardized, non-negotiable approach to threats of violence, regardless of the student’s age or intent.
While the initiative was initially enacted to address severe cases of student violence, these policies soon evolved to include verbal threats, gestures, and any behavior that could be perceived as a danger — regardless of the age of the student. While the goal is to keep schools safe, zero threat policies have led to a “one-size-fits-all” enforcement approach, which does not always consider the developmental stage of the child or the context of the behavior.
Examples of Zero Threat Policy Enforcement
Scenario 1: A Kindergartener Says “I Hate You! You Should Die!”
In a zero threat policy environment, a kindergartener who makes this statement may be sent home immediately, even if the child does not fully understand the seriousness of their words. School officials may notify the parents, citing the need for a behavioral assessment. The child could be temporarily suspended, required to attend therapy, or meet with a school counselor before returning to class. In many cases, this type of scenario is handled with an emphasis on teaching conflict resolution and emotional management, but it is not uncommon for schools to overreact due to heightened safety concerns.
Scenario 2: A Fourth Grader Threatens a Peer With Scissors
If a fourth grader, visibly agitated in the classroom, waves scissors and yells, “I’m going to kill you!” at a peer, the response is likely to be more severe. School officials may evacuate the classroom, involve resource officers, and call the child’s parents immediately. The child could be suspended, sent for a mental health evaluation, or referred to an alternative school setting for an unknown period of time. In this case, the school’s response is based on the perceived immediacy of the threat and the potential for harm, especially with the use of an object like scissors.
Scenario 3: A First Grader Draws a Violent Picture of Shooting a Classmate
Another scenario might involve a first grader who draws a picture of a classmate being shot. The child might not have intended to harm anyone but could face mandatory counseling and a psychological evaluation. Even in cases where the child is simply expressing frustration through art, schools often err on the side of caution under zero threat policies.
Developmental Foundations and Threat Assessments
From a developmental psychology perspective, elementary-aged children are just beginning to develop complex problem-solving skills, moral reasoning, and empathy. Impulsivity is common, and young children often struggle to understand the long-term consequences of their words and actions. At this stage, children may not have the cognitive ability to fully grasp the severity of violent statements. They may use phrases that they have heard others say or have seen in videos. These statements are almost never intended to be taken literally, but rather are an expression of how large the emotions are to them in the mind of a child who has years of emotional maturing ahead.
Yet, not every threat should be dismissed as harmless. Key questions for professionals include:
- Does the child have a history of aggressive behavior or difficulty managing anger?
- What is the child’s understanding of the statement they made? Do they comprehend its seriousness?
- Are there any other concerning behaviors, such as cruelty to animals, setting fires, or a fascination with weapons?
- Does the child have access to real weapons at home or in their environment?
For professionals, determining whether the child poses an actual threat involves considering the context in which the comments were made, the child’s emotional state, and their history of behavior. In many cases, threats from young children can almost always be linked to stress, frustration, or difficulties with emotional regulation, rather than an actual intent to harm.
Consequences of Zero Threat Policies: Suspension, Therapy, and Evaluations
When elementary-aged children make alarming statements, such as threatening to harm others or expressing violent intent, it is crucial to understand the psychological and developmental factors at play. These behaviors often lead schools to seek clinical ‘evaluations’ to discern whether the child is truly a threat to others or simply exhibiting impulsive, emotionally driven reactions without real intent to harm.
These types of scenarios often result in children being sent home, suspended, or required to attend therapy before returning to school. Parents are usually contacted and informed that their child’s behavior violates the school’s zero-tolerance policy on threats. In some instances, the child is referred for counseling or psychological evaluation to assess whether they pose a risk to themselves or others. This can be an alarming experience for families, particularly when young children are involved, as parents may feel that the school is overreacting to impulsive, age-appropriate behavior.
School Administrations’ Request for Mental Health Letters
When children make threatening statements or engage in concerning behavior, school administrations frequently request a letter from a mental health professional stating that the child is not a risk to themselves or others. This places therapists in a difficult position. From an ethical standpoint, mental health professionals must conduct thorough assessments to understand the child’s emotional and psychological state before providing such a clinically-sound impression or opinion. Rushing to provide a letter without an in-depth evaluation – and without a prior relationship with the client and their family – could compromise the integrity of the therapist’s role and, more importantly, the child’s safety. Often, schools or parents request same-day crisis appointments for the sole purpose of obtaining a letter to allow the child to return to school. This can create ethical dilemmas for therapists, who may feel pressured to provide the reassurance schools seek without the necessary time for comprehensive evaluation.
Ethical conflict arises from balancing the need to support the child and family with the responsibility to make an informed judgment. It is crucial for therapists to carefully weigh the potential risks, recognizing that providing a letter prematurely could either understate the child’s difficulties or overpromise their safety.
Parental Reactions
Parents’ responses to these situations can vary widely. Some parents may feel defensive, arguing that the school is overreacting to normal childhood behavior. These parents often express frustration with the school system, feeling that their child is being unfairly labeled or punished for what they see as a misunderstanding. They may request a mental health letter in hopes of quickly resolving the situation and allowing their child to return to school without further complications.
Other parents may be deeply concerned, worried that their child’s behavior is an early sign of serious emotional or behavioral issues. They may become anxious about the child’s well-being and readily agree to counseling or therapy in the hopes of preventing future incidents. In some cases, these parents may feel overwhelmed by the need to suddenly navigate mental health services and behavioral assessments, particularly if their child has not exhibited such behaviors before.
Additionally, some families might feel ashamed or embarrassed, unsure how to handle the school’s response and fearful of the stigma that could result from their child being labeled a “threat.” This can cause reluctance to fully engage with recommended interventions.
Warning Signs and Guidance for Therapists
Therapists asked to provide clinical reassurance to schools must be cautious. Keep in mind, when parents are eager to secure a quick return to school for their child, there may be a subconscious—or even deliberate—tendency to minimize the severity of the child’s behavioral or emotional issues. Even when therapists request parents complete behavioral questionnaires, the accuracy of the information provided cannot be guaranteed. In some cases, parents may withhold or downplay critical details, fearing that full disclosure could delay receiving the necessary clearance letter, thus complicating the therapist’s ability to make a fully informed assessment.
While impulsive comments are common in elementary school children, certain red flags should be taken seriously:
- A preoccupation with violence or weapons.
- Persistent aggressive behavior across multiple environments (home, school, with peers).
- History of behavioral problems, particularly those involving physical aggression.
- Lack of remorse after making violent statements or engaging in harmful actions.
When providing letters to schools, therapists should consider the following:
- Include a thorough assessment of the child’s history, emotional state, and risk factors.
- Avoid dismissing concerning statements without exploring the broader context.
- Offer recommendations for interventions that address the child’s emotional needs, such as anger management, social skills training, or play therapy.
- Collaborate with the school to create a safety plan if needed, ensuring that the child receives support while balancing the safety of others.
My approach to balancing the needs of both the parent and the school administration begins with an initial meeting where I meet with the parents and child to discuss the situation that led to the office visit. During this time, we explore the child’s behavioral and emotional functioning, looking at their school history, relationships with friends, and family dynamics. My goal is to understand whether the incident at school was an isolated, out-of-character event or part of a broader pattern. I also assess the child’s awareness of the severity of their actions—whether they understand the problems their behavior has caused, why they are meeting with me, and if they show any justification or remorse. Together, we talk about the potential benefits of therapy, not just as a reaction to the event, but as a proactive way to build emotional and behavioral skills.
Recommendations:
Rather than providing a clearance letter at the end of this session, I ask the parents to sign a consent form allowing me to share information with someone at the school, like the vice principal or school psychologist. I then give the parents a factual letter stating that I have met with the child, discussed the relevant issues, and that the family is committed to a course of therapy. I also encourage connecting the child with a school guidance counselor, ensuring they have a trusted adult on campus who can provide support in case of future incidents. Before the family leaves, I make sure to schedule a follow-up appointment to discuss any fallout once the child returns to school, emphasizing the importance of ongoing communication and emotional processing after such an event.
The enforcement of zero threat policies in schools presents both practical and ethical challenges. While these policies are intended to maintain a safe learning environment, they often result in swift and severe consequences, even for young children who may not fully understand the weight of their words or actions. For mental health professionals, providing letters that assert a child is not a risk involves careful consideration of both the child’s mental state and the school’s safety concerns. In the face of these challenges, collaboration between parents, schools, and therapists is key to supporting the child’s emotional and developmental needs while ensuring the safety of the broader school community.
In conclusion, the evaluation of threats made by children requires a holistic understanding of their developmental stage, emotional needs, and the potential influence of external factors such as violent media. By drawing from both psychological theory and practical assessment, professionals can offer informed guidance on whether a child poses a genuine risk or is simply struggling with underlying emotional or developmental challenges. Therapists receiving requests to provide ‘clearance’ letters are advised to be cautious about their role during these events.
