Parkland review
Officials knew more about ex-student in Parkland than they say, report shows
A report finds that the school district knew far more than it is saying about the disturbed former student accused of killing 17 people at Stoneman Douglas High.
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — Immediately after 17 people were killed inside Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, the school district launched a persistent effort to keep people from finding out what went wrong.
For months, Broward schools delayed or withheld records, refused to publicly assess the role of employees, spread misinformation and even sought to jail reporters who published the truth.
New information gathered by the South Florida Sun Sentinel proves that the school district knew far more than it’s saying about a disturbed former student obsessed with death and guns who mowed down staff and students with an assault rifle on Valentine’s Day.
School administrators insist that they have been as transparent as possible; that federal privacy laws prevent them from revealing the school record of gunman Nikolas Cruz; that discussing security in detail would make schools more dangerous; and that answers ultimately will come when a state commission releases its initial findings about the shooting around New Year’s.
Superintendent Robert Runcie stresses that the school district has made no attempt to conceal information except when lawyers said it could not be released.
“That can’t be characterized — and should not be characterized — as the district doesn’t want to provide more information,” he said. “We work to be as transparent as possible. . We have nothing to hide.”
Full assessment?
In March, Runcie said, “We cannot undo the heartbreak this attack has caused in the community, but we can try to understand the conditions that led to such acts in hopes of avoiding them in the future.”
That statement came as he announced what he called an “independent, comprehensive assessment” that would be done with “transparency and a sense of urgency.”
The review fell short of what he described.
Without taking bids or interviewing consultants, the district let its outside law firm hire Collaborative Educational Network of Tallahassee, a contractor that had worked for Broward schools before and knew school board attorney Barbara Myrick professionally.
CEN’s contract, for $60,000, did not demand the thorough and transparent review that Runcie promised. Rather, it directed the consultant to analyze Cruz’s school records, interview educators and keep the details secret. The contract required the consultant to “further assist the client in ongoing litigation matters.”
CEN spent several months analyzing one issue: whether Broward schools satisfied the law in the education of Nikolas Cruz, a onetime special education student, or whether “areas of concern” should be addressed. The review made no attempt to assess whether the district adequately protected students or failed to act on Cruz’s oft-spoken plans for violence. Though Runcie said other agencies would be interviewed, none was.
The report, released in August after a court battle, concluded that the district generally treated Cruz properly. Exactly how, the public could not tell.
With a judge’s approval, the district obscured references to Cruz — nearly twothirds of the text — to protect his privacy under law. Only when the Sun Sentinel obtained and published an uncensored copy did the truth come out: Cruz was deeply troubled; the district improperly withdrew support he needed; he asked for additional services; and the district bungled his request, leaving him spinning without help.
‘I want to kill’
Startling as those details were, they pale in light of new information obtained by the Sun Sentinel, none of it included in the consultant’s report or shared publicly by the school district.
The district was wellaware that Cruz, for years, was unstable and possibly murderous:
“I’m a bad kid. I want to kill,” Cruz, now 20 years old, ominously told a teacher in middle school.
“I strongly feel that Nikolas is a danger to the students and faculty at this school,” Cruz’s eighth-grade language arts teacher wrote in a behavioral evaluation. “I do not feel that he understands the difference between his violent video games and reality.”
In middle school, he “stated he felt nervous about one day going to jail and wondered what would happen to him if he did something bad.”
Cruz told one teacher in October 2013 — 4½ years before his Parkland rampage — that “I would rather be on the street killing animals and setting fires.”
The same year, his eighth-grade class was discussing the Civil War. He “became fixated on the assassination of Abraham Lincoln,” a teacher noted. “What did it sound like when Lincoln was shot?” he asked. “Did it go pop, pop, pop really fast? Was there blood everywhere?”
At Westglades Middle School, at the beginning of eighth grade, one girl’s mother called to have her transferred out of Cruz’s class because she was concerned for her child’s safety. The mother called Cruz a “menace to society,” according to a psychosocial assessment.
‘Total negligence’
At Stoneman Douglas, Cruz disappeared on a campus with 3,300 students and no structure for emotionally troubled students like him.
Worse, the school district sent him there without a formal plan for governing his behavior — a decision the school district’s consultant found understandable.
A behavioral intervention plan would have outlined steps to take if Cruz’s behavior impeded his learning or that of others.
Sending him to Stoneman Douglas without a behavioral plan was a grave mistake, said Dottie Provenzano, a retired special education coordinator for Broward schools.
Although the consultant did not criticize the district, the report did recommend that a behavioral intervention plan “should be considered” for students with emotional or behavioral problems who move from special education to a traditional school setting.
Some in the community wonder whether Cruz’s problems at Stoneman Douglas led him to target the school later.
The school district’s actions were “just total negligence — serious, not minor,” said Provenzano, the former special education coordinator. “The way I look at it, we don’t have dead children if the school district had done what they needed to do.”
The district has tried to dispel that perception.
Public Information Officer Tracy Clark has repeatedly distributed “talking points,” or suggested comments, for administrators and school board members to make publicly, according to emails obtained by the Sun Sentinel.
On Feb. 23, she suggested phrases for a school board member to use at a news conference, including the statement: “Our thoughts and prayers remain with the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School victims, families, employees and community.”
On March 6, she issued this suggestion for school board members: “Our ability to move forward in the aftermath of this horrific attack depends on the steps we take now to understand the conditions that may have led to this tragedy.”
Similarly, the district attempted to mitigate any public outcry about its consultant’s report.
A news release proclaimed, “This report verifies that the district’s systems are appropriate and are in place.” Clark then sent out talking points for board members, who were advised to say, “I have not yet seen the report.” Or: “It seems clear that the review was thorough.” And: “We must never forget that Nikolas Cruz is responsible for this tragedy.”