6 Ways to Navigate the Complexity of School Safety Terminology

There are many terms we use every day that we assume are universally understood. However, many of these words are deeply subjective, shaped by personal experiences, cultural background, resilience, and countless other factors. Words like victim, safe, secure, bullied, mental health, and emotional health can mean different things to different people depending on the context in which they're used and who is using them.

This subjectivity becomes especially problematic in emergency response and crisis management, where the push for standardized terminology is strong. We strive to maintain consistency for the sake of clarity, effective communication, and evidence-based decision-making. But when we try to standardize language tied to personal feelings or psychological impact, we risk erasing the nuance that defines the individual’s experience. A generalized term may help streamline processes, but it can also obscure the reality of those it seeks to define.

For example, if we investigate the causes of violent behavior and attempt to attribute them to emotional or mental health concerns. We often find ourselves relying on incomplete or flawed data. We know bullying in schools is underreported. We understand that emotional struggles frequently go unnoticed or undocumented. Yet we continue to make decisions based on data that is, at best, a partial snapshot. This begs the question: why are we using flawed and incomplete data to drive critical decisions?

The problem intensifies when we use standardized definitions to determine whether someone has been bullied or is experiencing mental health issues. Doing so assumes the individual understood the definition, agreed with it, and that someone observed, intervened, and recorded the situation. In a recent conversation, a respected colleague argued that there’s no evidence supporting the claim that many active shooter suspects were bullied. But absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. Just because something wasn't documented doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

We must acknowledge that children are more likely than not to experience bullying in school, and that mental health concerns among youth are rising at an alarming rate. If we accept that our data is flawed and incomplete, how can we use it to make informed decisions? Here are some strategies that have helped me navigate these challenges:

• Create working definitions for subjective terms you use regularly. Keep them flexible and adaptable to fit varying circumstances.
  
  
• Acknowledge the continuum of human emotion and experience—rarely do these fit neatly into predefined categories.
  
  
• Promote understanding within your organization so everyone knows how to apply your working definitions appropriately and consistently.
  
  
• Accept the complexity of human behavior. This work is more art than science; no two cases are identical, and few will align perfectly with textbook definitions.
  
  
• Recognize that much of the evidence you need was never captured. Documentation gaps are common and expected.
  
  
• Make the best decisions possible with the information available, not the ideal information you wish you had.

In a world where the most critical issues are often the hardest to define, striving for rigid clarity can sometimes do more harm than good. Our challenge is not to eliminate subjectivity, but to manage it thoughtfully—acknowledging its presence, adapting our practices, and making informed choices despite the imperfect data. True leadership in this space means embracing nuance, fostering empathy, and creating space for complexity in pursuit of more meaningful and effective outcomes.