Printed from the blog of Lori Greene, AHC/CDC, CCPR, FDAI
Email:, Blog: or

Feb 01 2018

Legislative Update on Classroom Barricade Devices

Category: News,School Security,VideosLori @ 12:10 pm Comments (5)

On Tuesday, I wrote about a bill that was passed by the Utah Senate, which would allow classroom barricade devices to be used in Utah schools.  While most of you don’t live or work in Utah, the actions of state legislators can have a ripple effect that spreads to other states.  So far, only two states – Arkansas and Ohio – have modified their codes in order to allow retrofit security devices that are not compliant with the model codes.  In Arkansas, the change was made by the state legislature, despite the strong objections of the state fire marshal – who was also the top law enforcement officer in the state.  In Ohio, the Board of Building Standards conducted months of hearings and research, ultimately concluding that the state codes should not be changed.  They were forced by the state legislature to change the codes anyway.

I have been following the situation in Utah closely, and have contacted the senator who sponsored the bill, as well as the state fire marshal and others.  The bill has moved very quickly, with little time for legislators to consider the potential unintended consequences of the bill.  I am sure that the proponents of the bill have the best interests of the students and teachers in mind, but some of the information provided in the legislative hearings and committee meetings was not accurate.

For example, here are some quotes from the Senate Education Committee meeting:

“Right now, in any of our school districts, in any of our charter schools, or for the state charter school board, or the state school board, if our educators decided they wanted to move towards installing locks on the doors to protect students in an active-shooter situation, they are blocked from state law by doing so.” (9:43)  [LG Comment:  Schools are not prohibited from installing locks, but locks must comply with the adopted code requirements for free egress, fire protection, and accessibility.]

At 10:55, a clip is played from what sounds like a press conference with a law enforcement official from Sacramento, regarding the school shooting in Rancho Tehama.  Although the officer talks about the results of the locked doors, I didn’t hear him say anything about classroom barricade devices – these methods are not compliant with California state codes.  After the officer speaks (13:43), the senator states, “The only lockdown that a school could do right now is to lock the exterior doors.  And so, if someone penetrated an exterior door in Utah right now, they could go from classroom to classroom to classroom, and the children and the teachers would be just sitting in there waiting to be shot at.  There’s no locks on the insides of the doors of the classrooms.  A teacher can’t lock the door – they could maybe try to barricade it, they could push their desk against it and things like that, but our current building and fire codes prevent those locks from being installed.”  [LG Comment:  Code-compliant locks on classroom doors will provide the necessary protection for students and teachers.  Locks to prevent access by an intruder are NOT prohibited by the building codes and fire codes.]

At 14:36, the senator states, “Before I show you this next video, I want to tell you that Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York, have all adopted similar exceptions to the International Building Code and the International Fire Code that I’m proposing that Utah adopt.”  [LG Comment:  As I mentioned above, only Arkansas and Ohio legislators have forced changes to the state codes.  Other states from the senator’s list – California, Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, and New York, have issued documents stating that locks used on classroom doors must be compliant with the model code requirements – barricade devices are not allowed in those states.  Several other states that were not on the senator’s list have also issued documents reinforcing the requirements for code-compliant locks – Connecticut, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, and Tennessee.  In a few states – Kansas,  Louisiana, Michigan, and New Jersey – some types of barricade devices are currently being allowed by the code officials, even though they do not comply with the adopted code requirements for those states, or with the ADA.  The vast majority of states do not allow classroom barricade devices, including most of the states that were cited as having adopted similar exceptions to the Utah bill.]

The senator then shows a video from a manufacturer of classroom barricade devices. Since the recording is audio-only, we can’t see the video, but here is another marketing video from the same company.

After the presentation, there were no questions from anyone on the committee.  The Utah state fire marshal spoke next.  You can hear his testimony beginning at 18:57.  The committee then voted unanimously to support the bill.

Here is the full audio from the Utah Senate Education Committee meeting:

Yesterday, there was a meeting of the House Education Committee, which addressed a few of the concerns associated with classroom barricade devices, including the lack of compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act (1:38:10) and the potential for unauthorized use of the device (1:38:54).  At 1:43:00, the Utah State Fire Marshal was given 5 minutes to speak.  Because there were additional people waiting to give public testimony, the meeting will be continued this afternoon.  If you don’t see the embedded audio below, click in the link at the beginning of this paragraph.

You need to login or register to bookmark/favorite this content.

Recent Posts

5 Responses to “Legislative Update on Classroom Barricade Devices”

  1. Robert Spicher says:

    The news is reporting that today a 12 year old girl opened fire “inside a classroom”. No other details yet but it wouldn’t appear that the barricades would have done any good in this situation, and as you have been warning us, may have actually impeded the escape if they were installed. Two, students shot, one in the head. Suspect in custody. Will be interested to know more.

  2. Laura Pedersen says:

    Not to be overly cynical, but I would not be surprised if some of the legislators involved in pushing this bill have some sort of financial stake or personal relation to a company that makes barricade devices. I believe that already turned out to be the case in one of the midwestern states, if I recall correctly.

  3. David Kenyon says:

    As an Architect and hardware specifier I am baffled by these so called legislators that apparently know nothing about door hardware and locking systems. The statement in the article above, mentions that only the exterior doors are capable of being locked and that an intruder could go from classroom to classroom unimpeded. Having specified school hardware on multiple occasions most classrooms get a mortise lock with an F05 classroom lock. This lock can be locked by the teacher – therefore not allowing entry into the classroom. Therefore that statement may be totally unjustified or completely irrelevant. Individuals that do not understand door hardware, locking functions, electric interface, key fobs, card readers etc. should not be dictating the use of these barrier devices that go against life safety codes. Lori – I want you to know that I feel your PAIN and that I am as frustrated about this issue as most are in the Hardware Business. May the CODES be with You !

    • Lori says:

      I appreciate your solidarity, David. It makes me nauseous to see the headlines and wonder if this is going to be the school shooting where the shooter used the barricade device to secure the classroom. That was actually discussed during the second House Education Committee meeting – and the answer was basically that if the shooter was barricaded in one room with the victims, at least the other classrooms would keep the other students safe behind their barricade devices!

      – Lori

Leave a Reply

This website or its third party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy. If you want to know more or withdraw your consent to all or some of the cookies, please refer to the cookie policy. By closing this banner, scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to browse otherwise, you agree to the use of cookies.

This website or its third party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy. If you want to know more or withdraw your consent to all or some of the cookies, please refer to the cookie policy. By closing this banner, scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to browse otherwise, you agree to the use of cookies.