Jump to content

Menu

s/o Appropriate and effective school security -- what do you believe?


msjones
 Share

Recommended Posts

I stated in the other thread that I was surprised most schools do not have an armed officer on campus. I always had one at my school growing up (80s-90s) and the schools in our area do as well. I do not like the idea of having multiple armed officers on campus because then it would feel less like a school and more like a prison. I don't like the idea of administrators or teachers being armed. That's not their job and I wouldn't feel comfortable with them taking it on.

 

Maybe schools could start hiring security people for their support staff? There's always a front office person or two who answer phones, check ids, sign for packages, and check students in/out. Maybe schools should fork over more cash so that front person is armed and trained.

 

I also think pretty much all schools need to come up with better procedures when someone does get in. The procedures in place now, at least at my dd's school, are ridiculous. They lock their doors, are told to sit still, and to be quiet. They're basically sitting ducks unless help arrives first. I honestly don't know what the solution is but I think there should be people working on a better plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure but yesterday my dd14 walked in the front door of her school, went past the front office, and went to her locker. She was exempt from the final exam during 1st period so her absence wasn't reported since all the kids had written excuses from the teacher anyway. I was stunned that no one noticed someone walking in the front door to ask where they were going.

 

They just made a policy change that all students are to use the front door and not try to get people to let them in the side doors. I'm not sure how that can be enforced.

 

I don't think my dd's school has a security guard/team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe there should be an armed staff member whose primary job is security.

 

Of course such a person could not completely prevent an attack (this is true of police officers/marshals/guards everywhere), but he/she would be able to respond much more quickly than the police.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Armed officers are common place in schools around here. My understanding it is a position from the police dept and you are assigned "school duty". And that officer is there every day all day. I agree that with the amount of extra fluff the schools insist on - receptionist, secretary, and who know what else - my local has 5 full time office people who stay in the office doing office stuff ( I really don't know what they do) . I don't see why a couple of them couldn't be replaced with another trained armed guard. Much like big corporations who have that guard who greets you when you walk in. With all the tech In schools today, why couldn't teachers access school cameras from their rooms and see just what is going on.

 

And the intruder policy is a joke. Teachers should be at least taught basic defense. There should always be a plan to GET OUT not hide everyone in the bathroom. If that is the policy, then just like the schools invest in building with flame retardant and flame proof material, bullet proof needs to be added. The classrooms doors should be bullet proof. Windows too. At least give them something to hide behind that can protect them.

 

And I don't think we can argue anymore about funds would be better spent on another teacher or aide or program. School safety is a basic building block that comes first .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest inoubliable

I'm not really sure. I attended very small Catholic academies up until high school. Three different schools - older buildings, newer buildings, basement of a church - and none of them had any sort of security that I recall. But, then, those were private schools and a bit different from a typical public school in almost every way anyway.

I went to local public high schools in the late 90s. I do remember having a "resource officer" at the county school. This was a new thing. A new second county high school had just opened up that year and *they* had a resource officer and so we got one, too. I don't remember them being armed. At all. They stayed outside when buses were loading and unloading - walking up and down the sidewalk to monitor. They stayed in the front office during school hours. I'm not sure how effective they would have been had someone come in and started shooting. The city public high school that I went to had several "resource officers". They had pepper spray. They were all over the school and interacted with the students and staff all the time. I think they would have been more effective at preventing a tragedy than the county school's one officer. More officers at the city school and so they were patrolling more of the school grounds at all times of the school day. They were armed with pepper spray. I've never had pepper spray shot at me, but I've seen enough Youtube videos to figure that it would make a would-be shooter drop their weapon pretty quickly.

I guess that's what I think. I think that having several "officers" around a campus would be a good idea. Give them pepper spray. Give them bean bags. Something to distract a possible nutter so that they can be disarmed. Give them walkie-talkies. Give them uniforms so that they have a presence. Train them to be interactive - know the students as much as possible, know the staff - so that they'd recognize quickly (hopefully) when something or someone is off. Do background checks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want armed officers at school.

 

I don't know what the answer is. I think all of these insane measures mostly just annoy the people who would never cause harm to anyone. For example, I'd hate to think I'd be frisked and treated like a criminal for wanting to go down to my kid's school for whatever reason. I hate this whole lock down stuff. That would have terrified me as a kid.

 

 

I agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want armed officers at school.

 

I don't know what the answer is. I think all of these insane measures mostly just annoy the people who would never cause harm to anyone. For example, I'd hate to think I'd be frisked and treated like a criminal for wanting to go down to my kid's school for whatever reason. I hate this whole lock down stuff. That would have terrified me as a kid.

 

 

Imagine my asking this in a conversational and interested way (not snarky or angry, but interested and listening):

 

Why don't you want armed officers at school?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with armed officers or with some people, who are vetted, having concealed weapon permits and carrying. I do have a problem with gun-free zones since they are less safe. And no, I am not carrying now nor have I ever had a permit to carry but am coming around to the thinking that since I am a stable person and can shoot, maybe I should be carrying so that if a massacre starts someplace I am at, I could potentially stop it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't know. I understand the desire to want to feel safe, especially now while emotions are running high. And I like guns and want more guns in my home personally.

 

However, I remember HATING school. It wasn't an awful school nor was I bullied. The teachers weren't mean. I just hated having to be there. I hated being told what to do all-day, every-day. I hated that I felt imprisoned against my will in a place that did not feel that it had any applicability to me. I hated the mind-numbing, stupid, boringness of it all. Not just the work (I'm not talking about a desire to be more challenged), but all of it. It looked boring. It smelled boring. It WAS boring. The place was boring, the work was boring, the people (adults and kids) while decent and kind, were BORING. I never made serious friends, though I got along with everyone. My school was quite safe (I have no recollection of an event more violent than a couple of boys who got in a shoving match that resulted in an accidentally broken VCR). And it was quite "open". Doors were unlocked. No one was "checked" in or out. BTW, I'm 35, so this isn't from "the good ole days".

 

If I had been forced to attend a prison (school) that looked as much a prison as it actually was (armed guards, fences, barbed wire, metal detectors, etc) I would have hated it even more.

 

Everett Reimer wrote a book in the 70s called "School is Dead" which directly addresses the parallels between school and prison.

 

I wouldn't want that for anyone. Especially considering how statistically unlikely this is to happen to a given person (I don't mean that to seem cold, I really do understand the "feel" of the moment, but statistically, this is still an abberation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At my mother's school, all outside doors to the school are locked. The office must buzz you in, then you must check in at the office and get a badge that says "Visitor". Also ALL of the classroom doors are locked during school hours. If you want to enter a classroom, you must knock on the door, the teacher looks out, and then lets you in. If the doors were replaced to be bulletproof, then that would be even better. She teaches in a very small town of 1,500 people, so it's not like this is a big city/bad neighborhood.

 

I think bulletproof doors and glass combined with locking all doors while children are present is a good system. And I wouldn't be opposed to having a "resource officer" in each building either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest inoubliable

If I had been forced to attend a prison (school) that looked as much a prison as it actually was (armed guards, fences, barbed wire, metal detectors, etc) I would have hated it even more.

 

Everett Reimer wrote a book in the 70s called "School is Dead" which directly addresses the parallels between school and prison.

 

I wouldn't want that for anyone. Especially considering how statistically unlikely this is to happen to a given person (I don't mean that to seem cold, I really do understand the "feel" of the moment, but statistically, this is still an abberation).

 

Reading that got me thinking. I don't want/wouldn't have wanted a prison-like atmosphere, either. I do see the value in having metal detectors in schools where knives and guns ARE issues, though. Maybe I'm just pulling this out of nowhere, but Chicago and Detroit come to mind. Armed guards and fences, though? Blech. I just can't see how that makes any kid feel any safer and, as you mentioned, these situations are not as common as people are fearing they are right now in this moment. Investing the kind of money that it would take to install bullet-proof doors and windows and hiring extra police staff to come and patrol the schools... well, I'm thinking that money could be used better if we vetted and trained community volunteers to be on site and given the authority to question a kid or adult who looks squirrely.

 

Another quick thought. (And, forgive me if none of what I write is flowing well. This Sudafed really is trippy!) The big county public school that I went to had fights. In every hallway. After every class. Knock-down, drag out, hallways-in-gridlock-until-it-was-broken-up face crushing fights. They lasted all of 20 seconds, usually. Know why? Because the teachers were out in the hallways! And the teachers never got in trouble for grabbing a kid by the back of his shirt and dragging him off of his opponent and sitting them on the floor and yelling "Sit! Stay there until I tell you otherwise!" while they went after the other guy. I can't see many teachers doing that today. For fear of a lawsuit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out here the current level of security is all exterior doors are kept locked(can be opened from inside of course), Each morning there is a teacher posted at each exterior door to greet the children and screen who is coming in. Once classes begin only the front door is open and people must check in in the office when they enter. Of course bad guys are not going to sign in. The school does lock down drills almost as often as they do fire drills, so as soon as someone walks past without checking in, 1 secretary gets the intercom ready while the second (if they have 2, if only 1 than the principal or vice pricipal) go into the hall to see who it is and what business they have in the school. If the person who checked the person does not come back in the office with an obvious "everything's all right" or if let's say it was a gunman who fires a shot, the one on the intercom immediately announces the code for lock down and triggers the alarm for the police.

 

In some high schools in bigger cities with gang issues the schools only allow students to enter the front doors through metal detectors, and they have on campus police officers, who only carry taser guns not real guns.

 

School violence beyond a fight with perhaps a knife is a rare thing in Canada so these safety measures are enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Restricting access would be a big help.

 

In the other thread I mentioned steel doors. If schools could be retrofitted with steel doors that automatically lock down with a push of a button in the office that would be a good thing. I keep thinking if Sandy Hook had had something like that many of those children would be alive today.

 

And alarm system connected to the same button would alert teachers that emergency measures needed to be into place immediately.

 

Securing classrooms separately from the admin office. More steel doors with a buzzer to get in after showing ID and having a legitimate purpose to be on the other side of the doors.

 

High block walls to protect kids on the play ground. Moving targets are harder to hit but once shooting starts everyone will bottleneck in the doorways trying to get into the building for protection.

 

Gated entrances to the property. While it would not prevent someone coming in with a weapon during school intake hours it may stop someone coming on campus during odd hours. The booth could be manned by the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction on a rotating basis.

 

Those are a few. I could come up with more depending on the building if I could see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for asking ;)

 

Even apart from any recent shootings, I have been surprised by how much elementary schools lack any sort of real security measures. There are several in our town right on very busy streets with just a short chain link fence and the kids are outside having recess, etc. I've always thought how easy it would be for someone to come up and grab a kid and no one would notice. I guess that doesn't happen often enough (or ever) for people to worry about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At my mother's school, all outside doors to the school are locked. The office must buzz you in, then you must check in at the office and get a badge that says "Visitor". Also ALL of the classroom doors are locked during school hours. If you want to enter a classroom, you must knock on the door, the teacher looks out, and then lets you in. If the doors were replaced to be bulletproof, then that would be even better. She teaches in a very small town of 1,500 people, so it's not like this is a big city/bad neighborhood.

 

I think bulletproof doors and glass combined with locking all doors while children are present is a good system. And I wouldn't be opposed to having a "resource officer" in each building either.

Sadly there is no such thing as bulletproof. Bullet resistant is the best technology we have to date.

 

But, yes, they should be Kevlar lined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for asking ;)

 

Even apart from any recent shootings, I have been surprised by how much elementary schools lack any sort of real security measures. There are several in our town right on very busy streets with just a short chain link fence and the kids are outside having recess, etc. I've always thought how easy it would be for someone to come up and grab a kid and no one would notice. I guess that doesn't happen often enough (or ever) for people to worry about it?

 

Where I live, people (mothers with small kids and small, home daycares) use the school playgrounds during the day when school is in session. No one ever minds as long as you aren't there during recess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly there is no such thing as bulletproof. Bullet resistant is the best technology we have to date.

 

But, yes, they should be Kevlar lined.

 

:tongue_smilie: Well, you know what I mean. Some kind of door where someone can't just kick it in and bullets won't fly through it like melted butter. A good sturdy door that would hold someone back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for asking ;)

 

Even apart from any recent shootings, I have been surprised by how much elementary schools lack any sort of real security measures. There are several in our town right on very busy streets with just a short chain link fence and the kids are outside having recess, etc. I've always thought how easy it would be for someone to come up and grab a kid and no one would notice. I guess that doesn't happen often enough (or ever) for people to worry about it?

Yeah, I don't like chain link. It is too easy to snipe someone through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the high schools in our area have RSOs in the building, but I've always believed that was intended for more (and I hate to say it) "typical" student-on-student violence. There was no formal security in my area when I was in high school (early to mid 90s.)

 

I really don't see a need to change schools much. Not unless we're asking for similar measures in all our buildings. My kids go to the library, the mall, the supermarket, the movie theater... I don't intend to arm myself to protect them in those places. I don't expect to go through metal detectors before getting my grocery cart. I don't feel a need for armed guards at my library.

 

That's not to say a madman will never strike when we're there, but I'd rather live a normal life than act as though that slim chance were highly likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure, really.

I would like to know why it appears large scale (mass) violence doesn't happen at private schools. Even using google, I found nothing, in the United States (with the exception of the Amish school - is that a private school or a community school?).

Having had a child in both public and private school I can only note the differences in security.

 

There was no formal security at either school (public or the private/Catholic).

 

Security:

Public - nothing. You went into the office and signed in - but the office opened directly to the school hallway and classrooms (through an unsecured, unlocked glass door). I often saw parents go into the office, nobody would be there to greet them (faculty wise) and they would simply... walk into the school building without signing in. There were also several school entrances to choose from, a large campus to "secure", with a couple different buildings. No security until high school here and I'm not sure what that consists of - but I know they are very large compared to our elementary schools; one high school here serves MANY elementary and middle schools.

 

Private/Catholic - Only two entrances to the main school building. The back door was only able to be opened from the inside, I believe; usually locked on the outside. The main entrance was always locked from the outside, able to be opened from the inside. To be buzzed in, you rang the buzzer, looked into the camera above the door, and spoke through the intercom to state your business and/or who you are there to see; the door was then unlocked remotely (from the office and you stopped there to check in before proceeding). The only other buildings open to the school children for use was the sanctuary (church) which admittedly had NO security really and the gym (which had similar settings on the doors compared to the main school building).

 

Other thoughts:

The private school was obviously much smaller and, therefore, easier to secure. One small school building, roughly the size of a brick ranch home. Approximately one class per grade (Pre-K through grade 8) with the exception of, I think, grade 3 (which had two classes), all side by side down one hallway. Only small windows on each door and I think they were kept locked on the outside (I'm not positive of this though). Minimal staff/adults in the building - only teachers, a school nurse, the principal, the lady at the front desk, and the school nurse. Otherwise, lunch was supervised by vetted parent volunteers (who had background checks and child protection workshops on file). Any outsiders, who ought not be there or hadn't been through the check in proceduce were immediately noticable.

 

The public school was large with many hallways and sometimes 3 or 4 classes per grade K-5. Many different entrances and exits to secure. Tons of faculty on campus, in and out of the buildings - front office faculty, teachers, teacher assistants, student teachers, lunch ladies, librarians, admin, janitors... and parents who hadn't been vetted wandering the school building, going in and out as they pleased, often without having checked in at the front desk.

 

If the private school needed something, anything, little hesitation was given on the parent's end about donating to it - whether that need be new playground equipment... or added security. Parents had a vested interest in the school; students who constantly caused problems weren't entitled to be there and were unceremoniously kicked out if, after help, they continued to cause problems; whereas, in the public school, we would be told that there was nothing they could/would do because Jonny had a difficult home life or his parents didn't show for requrested meetings - the school couldn't force much in the way of "help" for troubled students beyond the school guidance counselor.

 

 

I have no idea why, exactly, I typed it all out or if it is even relevant to the conversation. I know there are more public schools than private, but there isn't a comparable ratio of private school shootings to public school shootings - there has been no large scale private school violence. The private schools have drugs, bullies, fights, and smaller scaled violence - but why no mass shootings? I have to assume there is some less than obvious difference. We know that the children who attend aren't "better" than public school students... so what is the difference? What are they doing at their schools that our public schools can emulate? Smaller schools that are easier to secure? More of a zero tolerance policy towards troubled students (which I'm sure could be argued and it would be pointed out that it would infringe on the rights of somebody, somewhere)?

 

I don't know. I wouldn't be adverse to guards, personally. I think this would be a wonderful opportunity to employ military vets who have passed a psych screening. Beyond that, I'm lost and only using this thread to try to put my own thoughts on the matter in order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, it's more likely that a student will be attacked and injured by another student than a random stranger entering off the street. Why don't we do much about that?

 

That's also part of the job of the on campus police officer. There was a locker room fight several months ago at dd's middle school and the officer stopped it before anyone was hurt. It's the only fight they've had at her school in the 1.5 years she's attended, and she has an armed officer on site the entire school day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article was linked to in the other thread - http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Lt-Col-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/

 

It is written as though speaking to police but it has some good ideas at the end of the article. I like the idea of teacher training. As the article says, we spend a lot of time and resources on fire prevention; we should do the same for safety drills.

 

I have no problem with an armed officer, possibly plain clothes, at the schools. I am trying to think of this as more than just a response to an intruder. What about a terrorist or bomb threat nearby? Having teacher training for locking down the school can serve many purposes more that just a gunman. My dad talks about have drills for a nuclear bomb threat during the 50's and 60's. I know people are saying it will make the kids scared, but wouldn't it also serve as a benefit. Having smart well thought out safety drills that they kids know can be extended into regular life. They can take that training from school to know what to do if there is a threat at the mall or a restaurant. We can make our kids more empowered and stronger, not scared.

 

We need to recognize that there are threats, even though we wish they didn't exist. Pray for peace but prepare for the worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure, really.

I would like to know why it appears large scale (mass) violence doesn't happen at private schools. Even using google, I found nothing, in the United States (with the exception of the Amish school - is that a private school or a community school?).

Having had a child in both public and private school I can only note the differences in security.

 

There was no formal security at either school (public or the private/Catholic).

 

Security:

Public - nothing. You went into the office and signed in - but the office opened directly to the school hallway and classrooms (through an unsecured, unlocked glass door). I often saw parents go into the office, nobody would be there to greet them (faculty wise) and they would simply... walk into the school building without signing in. There were also several school entrances to choose from, a large campus to "secure", with a couple different buildings. No security until high school here and I'm not sure what that consists of - but I know they are very large compared to our elementary schools; one high school here serves MANY elementary and middle schools.

 

Private/Catholic - Only two entrances to the main school building. The back door was only able to be opened from the inside, I believe; usually locked on the outside. The main entrance was always locked from the outside, able to be opened from the inside. To be buzzed in, you rang the buzzer, looked into the camera above the door, and spoke through the intercom to state your business and/or who you are there to see; the door was then unlocked remotely (from the office and you stopped there to check in before proceeding). The only other buildings open to the school children for use was the sanctuary (church) which admittedly had NO security really and the gym (which had similar settings on the doors compared to the main school building).

 

Other thoughts:

The private school was obviously much smaller and, therefore, easier to secure. One small school building, roughly the size of a brick ranch home. Approximately one class per grade (Pre-K through grade 8) with the exception of, I think, grade 3 (which had two classes), all side by side down one hallway. Only small windows on each door and I think they were kept locked on the outside (I'm not positive of this though). Minimal staff/adults in the building - only teachers, a school nurse, the principal, the lady at the front desk, and the school nurse. Otherwise, lunch was supervised by vetted parent volunteers (who had background checks and child protection workshops on file). Any outsiders, who ought not be there or hadn't been through the check in proceduce were immediately noticable.

 

The public school was large with many hallways and sometimes 3 or 4 classes per grade K-5. Many different entrances and exits to secure. Tons of faculty on campus, in and out of the buildings - front office faculty, teachers, teacher assistants, student teachers, lunch ladies, librarians, admin, janitors... and parents who hadn't been vetted wandering the school building, going in and out as they pleased, often without having checked in at the front desk.

 

If the private school needed something, anything, little hesitation was given on the parent's end about donating to it - whether that need be new playground equipment... or added security. Parents had a vested interest in the school; students who constantly caused problems weren't entitled to be there and were unceremoniously kicked out if, after help, they continued to cause problems; whereas, in the public school, we would be told that there was nothing they could/would do because Jonny had a difficult home life or his parents didn't show for requrested meetings - the school couldn't force much in the way of "help" for troubled students beyond the school guidance counselor.

 

 

I have no idea why, exactly, I typed it all out or if it is even relevant to the conversation. I know there are more public schools than private, but there isn't a comparable ratio of private school shootings to public school shootings - there has been no large scale private school violence. The private schools have drugs, bullies, fights, and smaller scaled violence - but why no mass shootings? I have to assume there is some less than obvious difference. We know that the children who attend aren't "better" than public school students... so what is the difference? What are they doing at their schools that our public schools can emulate? Smaller schools that are easier to secure? More of a zero tolerance policy towards troubled students (which I'm sure could be argued and it would be pointed out that it would infringe on the rights of somebody, somewhere)?

 

I don't know. I wouldn't be adverse to guards, personally. I think this would be a wonderful opportunity to employ military vets who have passed a psych screening. Beyond that, I'm lost and only using this thread to try to put my own thoughts on the matter in order.

 

I think the answer is mostly statistics. Public schools handle a far larger percentage of the school-aged population than private schools do. So they have a far larger chance of having the one person who will do this sort of thing. A mass shooting is a statistical abberation, which is even less likely in a statistically smaller sample group (private schools).

 

While the kids may not be "better" in the humane sense of the word, they are better in the sense that the private schools can and do "select out" the outliers in behavior: socially maladjusted students, bullies, other serious behavior problems, etc. So their sample is not only far smaller, but more socially and mentally stable as a whole. That's not a judgement on kids with issues, or whether their issues are even their fault, just a reality of how private schools get to select and public schools don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the school and the reasonable expectations of threat.

 

Should there be armed officers in high schools in neighborhood with active gang wars? No question.

 

Should there be armed officers in idyllic elementary schools like Sandy Hook where violence seems almost beyond comprehension just because an isolated mass-shooting took place there? No.

 

I don't think we should over-react to the level of threat, or buy into the paranoia that likely fed this tragedy in the first place.

 

Bill

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes, exactly.

 

There are armed security officers at our high school. But it's an urban area, there are over 3000 students in the school plus staff, and there are gangs. So it seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

When I was in high school our security officer (who was "plain-clothes," but was he packing? Probably) was named...and I swear on all things that are good and truthful that I'm not lying....Buck Savage. And if you ever saw him you'd know the name fit him to a T.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was in high school our security officer (who was "plain-clothes," but was he packing? Probably) was named...and I swear on all things that are good and truthful that I'm not lying....Buck Savage. And if you ever saw him you'd know the name fit him to a T.

 

Bill

 

 

LOL that's awesome (the name). We had security at my highschool. Two of them were armed. And you also did not cross the principal. No way no how . The toughest bad boys in school would straighten up tall if there was even a CHANCE of that happening. Mr C meant business.

 

I do not want to walk in to an elementary school prison. I don't think kids should live in fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Block walls, elaborate buzz in systems, steel (Kevlar lined) doors, and armed officers are unlikely to make schools seem less prison-like.

 

Bill

 

I agree, but what is the alternative? Do nothing and accept that these events (rare as they are) are the price of living in our culture? That doesn't seem acceptable either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Block walls, elaborate buzz in systems, steel (Kevlar lined) doors, and armed officers are unlikely to make schools seem less prison-like.

 

Bill

If it is done right. Sure. Use your imagination. Security does not mean ugly

 

We were asked about security not how to make rainbows and fuzzy bunnies.

 

Nice landscaping to disguise the wall, doors painted purple and covered with art, the good guys around interacting with kids and showing them they aren't to be feared aren't bad things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If it is done right. Sure. Use your imagination. Security does not mean ugly

 

We were asked about security not how to make rainbows and fuzzy bunnies.

 

Nice landscaping to disguise the wall, doors painted purple and covered with art, the good guys around interacting with kids and showing them they aren't to be feared aren't bad things.

 

 

I am not against sensible solutions, nor against armed officers where appropriate. I just fear an over-reaction that fuels the paranoia that I think is at the very heart of the problem.

 

Resources are scarce, and for the cost of block walls, the landscaping to make them less ugly, steel-reenforced entries, and full time armed officers, one could make some other choices that would benefit schools a great deal more.

 

More teachers, more aids, a librarian, a music teacher, art teacher, computer labs, PE coaches, and stuff like that.

 

There is a high cost to living in fear, both psychologically and financially.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not against sensible solutions, nor against armed officers where appropriate. I just fear an over-reaction that fuels the paranoia that I think is at the very heart of the problem.

 

Resources are scarce, and for the cost of block walls, the landscaping to make them less ugly, steel-reenforced entries, and full time armed officers, one could make some other choices that would benefit schools a great deal more.

 

More teachers, more aids, a librarian, a music teacher, art teacher, computer labs, PE coaches, and stuff like that.

 

There is a high cost to living in fear, both psychologically and financially.

 

Bill

Those are two separate issues, hon. Unless you are simply looking at an overall lack of funding.

 

The cost of burying one's head in the sand is the possibility of getting ones @$$ shot off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will preface my response, first. I was anti-gun at one time (why would I ever need one). Then I was held up at gunpoint in the city of Chicago - during the time it was illegal to own a handgun in the city.

 

Now I believe in concealed carry for law abiding citizens who pass the necessary qualifications. Except in Illinois, I cannot get permission to carry concealed. Only state in the nation to deny this. This may change soon, but my guess is the state will make it so hard and so expensive to obtain a cc that it will become more of a class issue.

 

I believe that allowing school staff to carry concealed could be an answer. This would be done on a voluntary basis. There may already be staff who own guns. There may even be staff who cc if that is allowed in their state.

 

Volunteers would be trained (for free) at the local police academy alongside local police and then they would requalify the same as police personnel (usually annually). It is in the best interest of these staff volunteers because they could be in the line of fire also should another incident occur, and it is in the best interest to the school and community because armed security guards will cost more than regular staff who wish to take on this additional volunteer responsibility.

 

Now, the best security is to deal with the mental health issues which seem to lead up to these violent rages. I believe these individuals are mentally ill, but they are not exempt from their crime because they planned (in the case of Columbine, the planning was over the course of a year) their terrorist act with forethought. They knew exactly what they were doing, they wanted to hurt people, and, in a number of cases they knew they would not come out of the situation alive. These individuals are the most dangerous because they have nothing to lose. So this is not just a gun or security issue but a mental health issue as well.

 

The world can be a dangerous place. Terrorism does not just happen overseas - it can happen right here in a mall, a movie theatre or a school. To wish this away is not realistic in my humble opinion. I choose not to live in fear, but if I was allowed to take extra measures to protect myself and my family I may very well do so. But I am denied that opportunity. Too bad the criminals don't obey the law the way I do.

 

How did Lanza get his Mother's guns? They may have been sitting around in the house and if this was the case Nancy Lanza was not a very responsible gun owner in my opinion and given her son's issues. I heard he broke into her gun safe, but this is not confirmed. It may have been an easy safe to break into; it may not have been. If he did break into a strong safe it would show how determined he was to hurt others. He would have found a way to hurt others if the guns had not been there. This man was a ticking time bomb.

 

This horrible murder of the children and staff at a school will continue to circulate in the media primarily because of the gun(s) involved, which turn it into a political situation and hot potato. If the murderer had beat his mother to death with a golf club, stolen her car and driven it through the outer wall of a school classroom, killing and maiming children and staff, would we be so polarized on the issue? Would such a tragedy still be making news?

 

Anyway, it is a complex issue. I don't think we have learned much since Columbine. And, sadly, evil is in the world. 9/11 happened with evil intent, determination, and box cutters. Bad (and sick) people will find ways to do bad and sick things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Yep, they have metal detectors. They rummage through their bags. They search their lockers. They lock them inside. They all have numbers and IDs.

 

Despite that, they still have too many problems. It was listed as persistently dangerous several years in a row. So for all that security, it's not all that secure.

 

They act like caged animals because they are treated like caged animals.

 

 

Dehumanizing students and their school environments certainly has consequences.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have two resource officers in every high school. We have one resource officer in every middle school. We have none in our elementary schools. I was talking to one of our officers in my school (I teach in an urban high school with a large gang influence, although the gang violence takes place off campus) about putting resource officers in our elementary schools. He asked if I thought it was a good idea. I said I thought it was a better idea than arming me and our front office secretary. He agreed with that.

 

I know it wouldn't phase my kids to have a police officer in their school. However, my kids are upper middle class white children who never deal with police. How would having officers in the schools affect minority children? For good reasons, minority children have very different feelings about police officers. Whereas white people generally teach their children that police officers are helpful, many minority children learn that police officers are scary and to be avoided. Having a police officer in elementary schools would certainly make it harder for schools to get minority parents involved.

 

I don't know the answer, but I am sure the answer does not involve me being armed while teaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My best friend was over tonight. Not anti-gun in the least. She is also not a homeschooler and not a good candidate to be one - she abhors the thought of homeschooling her children (wonderful, wonderful woman and mother, just not the least bit interested)... but she was the first to say that if our teachers are allowed to conceal carry, her children will be pulled out of bm school immediately. We hear all the time about disinterested, overwhelmed teachers who are inappropriately disciplining their students - yelling at them, cursing at them, even getting physical with them. Just her pov... and I think it's a valid one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...