Directs Attorney General to provide annual training to public and nonpublic school students and staff on roles and responsibilities before, during, and after school emergencies.
Assembly Bill 239 expands New Jersey’s school safety training requirements by directing the Attorney General, in conjunction with the Department of Education, to provide annual training to students and staff in public schools, receiving schools, and nonpublic schools on what to do before, during, and after a school emergency. The bill defines school emergencies broadly to include lockdowns, bomb threats, active shooter incidents, and other identifiable threats. Training must cover current best practices and include topics such as incident command systems, multi-hazard emergency planning, and options-based response protocols beyond a standard lockdown.
The bill also continues and broadens existing school safety obligations for employees and related school users. Full-time employees must receive annual school security training using established drill materials and in consultation with emergency responders, substitute staff must be informed of local safety procedures, and outside youth program operators using school buildings must be given non-confidential emergency information and certify that they have trained their own staff and volunteers. The bill further requires that all training and information address the needs of students with disabilities, including accommodations and supports listed in IEPs, health plans, 504 plans, or service plans.
A239 amends P.L.2009, c.178 (C.18A:41-7), strengthening and expanding the statutory framework for school security drills and emergency preparedness in New Jersey. It adds a statewide annual training mandate administered by the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of Education for both employees and students, requires regional in-person training with an online option, and directs DOE to publish an annual training calendar. The bill affects public school districts, receiving schools, nonpublic schools, substitute employees, and outside youth program sponsors that use school facilities, while preserving limits on disclosure of student records.
The bill’s overall tone is strongly supportive of school safety and emergency preparedness, with an emphasis on standardized training, best practices, and broader participation by students and staff. Even without recorded committee testimony or votes, the structure and language of the bill suggest a preventive, consensus-oriented approach focused on readiness for serious threats. The inclusion of disability-specific planning and multiple training formats indicates an effort to make the proposal broadly usable and inclusive.
The main potential points of contention are the expanded state training mandate, the administrative burden on schools and the Attorney General/Department of Education, and the requirement that students participate in annual emergency-response training. Some stakeholders may question the cost, scheduling impact, or whether statewide training should be centralized versus left to local districts. There may also be concern about how much information can be shared with outside youth programs while complying with federal privacy law and protecting student records.