Part 3: Glass is Here to Save the Day!

by Thom Zaremba, shareholder at Roetzel & Andress

This is the final part of a three-part blog.

My last two blogs examined some of the reasons building codes have been slow to adopt changes to make buildings safer from active shooters and explained a new test standard that may be needed to push some glass industry code changes across the finish line. This blog will examine changes to doors, windows and entrances to education occupancies.

Without going into all their details, if adopted, the glass industry’s proposals would change the design and construction of schools to:

• Require all main entrances to provide those inside the building with a clear view of those approaching the school,
• Require all doors and most glass used in main entrances to be constructed to meet forced-entry resistance criteria specified in ASTM F3561; and
• Permit, but not require, all other first-floor doors and most windows to meet the forced-entry resistance criteria specified in ASTM F3561.

They would also make some changes to classrooms. They would:

• Require all classroom doors to have a clear view into adjacent corridors; and
• Require all doors or windows capable of providing access into a classroom to be constructed to meet the forced-entry resistance criteria specified in ASTM F3561.

These proposals require clear views from inside schools and classrooms to the spaces immediately outside them. That might sound like the glass industry is just trying to sell more glass. But they’re not! Clear views outside schools and classrooms are essential to keeping kids safe.

Active shooters are often seen at school entrances carrying military-style rifles toward their targets. Clear views allow those responsible for school safety to identify threats approaching main entrances and lock down access areas, including entrance doors. In classrooms, teachers who can see into adjacent corridors can make safer decisions during emergencies, whether evacuating or engaging in lockdown procedures. Clear views help schools see and delay potential threats before they enter our schools or classrooms.

In addition to requiring clear views, these proposals permit but do not require first-floor entry doors to meet the criteria of ASTM F3561. Understanding why may need some clarification.

My first blog on this subject noted that a credible risk assessment is a prerequisite for building designers to know whether any particular ingress area warrants the additional protection of building them to ASTM F3561 standards. Let me illustrate with this example.

Imagine a school with its main entrance directly off a parking lot. People enter the building through large glass doors. The vestibule is attached to a larger lobby area with glass panels extending beyond the sides of the vestibule to enable those in the building to see anyone about to enter from the parking lot. The vestibule doors can be locked electronically from inside the building. Let’s say the gymnasium has an exterior door that leads to a playground surrounded by high walls. The only access to and from the playground is through doors in the adjacent gymnasium.

This hypothetical school is designed with a main entrance that provides expansive views to the outside. It’s easy to see why that entrance area should be built using materials tested to meet the forced-entry resistance standards. It also illustrates why the gymnasium doors leading to an outside playground protected from access by high walls do not need added protection or costs. A pre-construction risk assessment will determine which of the ingress areas in this school do—or do not—need the added protections afforded by ASTM’s new standard.

Now that we have a consensus test standard, we can take a step forward in making our schools uniformly safer from active shooters. I wish the glass industry godspeed in its quest to change how our schools are built.