The Abby Werner Case and The Authority Gap: Why Teachers Couldn’t Act and Why the Defense Got It Wrong

By John Huber

Marylandk12.com

When defense expert Dr. Amy Klinger testified in the Abby Zwerner case, her statements shocked and stunned many in the school safety community, and not in a good way. She argued that “school safety is a shared responsibility” and implied that teachers could and should have taken action, such as initiating a lockdown or searching a child before the shooting occurred. On its face, this sounds reasonable. In reality, it’s dangerously misleading.

This article dismantles that argument, showing why teachers could not legally act, why policy places authority squarely on administrators, and why Klinger’s testimony drew sharp criticism from leading safety experts.

The Defense’s Argument

Klinger told jurors: “School safety is a shared responsibility. Teachers are first-line responders.” She also suggested Parker’s delay was reasonable because the threat seemed “implausible for a six-year-old.”

The defense leaned heavily on this narrative: if safety is shared, then no one person failed. But this framing ignores the legal and procedural reality of school safety protocols. They also continued to rely on the statement that the Assistant Principal “met standards.” We will see this is because the standards do not prioritize such situations. This is no fault of Dr. Parker, and we will see it is much more complex than originally thought.

The Virginia Board of Education’s Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Principals outline seven core standards: Instructional Leadership, School Climate, Human Resources Management, Organizational Management, Communication and Community Relations, Professionalism, and Student Academic Progress. Notably, school safety is not explicitly listed as a standalone standard; it is only implied under broader categories like organizational management and climate. During her testimony, defense expert Dr. Amy Klinger, while not explicitly saying so, seemed to base her argument on this omission, asserting that former assistant principal Ebony Parker “did not breach professional standards.” This might be technically true because those standards do not specifically include crisis response. Klinger argued that Parker’s role was collaborative and that “school safety is a shared responsibility,” suggesting that no single administrator bears sole accountability for emergency decisions.

It was, in my opinion, a mistake for the defense not to look into or emphasize what the standards actually are. Perhaps this is something that will be explored in the criminal trial.

The larger issue is that schools and school systems still do not provide proper training and emphasis on emergency planning and response; however, the bottom line is that, while they (administrators) might not have the training for it, they are still responsible.

The Reality of Policy and Law

Here’s the truth: Under Virginia (and most U.S. districts’) crisis protocols regarding lockdowns, generally, only administrators can call a lockdown. Teachers lack that authority to avoid chaos and liability. Virginia law mandates lockdown drills but does not grant teachers unilateral authority to declare one. Regarding searches, teachers cannot legally search students either. Doing so without administrative approval risks lawsuits and violates Fourth Amendment protections. Virginia’s Board of Education guidelines explicitly require administrative oversight for searches.  Amy Kovac confirmed this on the stand when she said, “Teachers cannot call a lockdown without administrative approval.” (Court TV testimony) The bottom line is that teachers did their job by reporting concerns repeatedly. The failure was administrative.

Yes, safety is “shared”—but shared responsibility does not equal shared authority. Suggesting teachers should have acted ignores the legal and professional boundaries that exist for good reason. It also shifts blame away from the person who had the power to act: Ebony Parker.

Dr. Ann Shufflebarger, the plaintiff’s expert, put it plainly: “Professional standards require administrators to prioritize safety over testing.” (Court TV testimony).  Contrast that with Klinger’s stance that Parker acted “appropriately cautious.”

Leading safety voices blasted this reasoning. Dr. Kenneth Trump, a nationally recognized school safety consultant said, “If you have information about a threat to student and staff safety, it is not just ‘see something, say something.’ School administrators and staff need to also know how to ‘do something.’”  Rich Wistocki, a veteran school safety trainer, criticized the notion that teachers should improvise lockdowns: “That’s not policy. That’s not training. Suggesting otherwise is reckless.” He warned that such advice undermines clear chains of command and crisis protocols.

When experts misrepresent standards, they don’t just sway juries, they erode public trust and jeopardize future safety planning. The takeaway is clear: teachers cannot act outside their authority and administrators must own their responsibility for safety decisions.