print add to favorites

How to Prevent School Shootings?

(based on 3 ratings)
by Hannah Boyd
Topics: School Safety and Violence, more...
How to Prevent School Shootings?

On April 20, 1999, two students went on a rampage through Columbine High School in Colorado, throwing bombs, shooting twelve people, and shattering the peace of mind of parents everywhere. If it could happen at that typical suburban school, parents wondered, could it happen at my child’s school? Why do school shootings happen, and what can we do to prevent them?

As terrible as school shootings are, and as sensationalized as they’ve been in the media, they’re still rare. “I believe strongly that one violent death on a school campus in the United States is too many, but K – 12 schools and college campuses are still the safest places for young people,” says Scott Poland, Ed.D, the author of four books on school crises. Still, according to the Prevention Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System in 2005, the frightening reality is that over a million students are threatened or injured with a weapon on school property every year.

The good news? In the wake of Columbine and other large-scale school shootings, schools have tightened security and instituted “zero tolerance” rules so that violent students can’t return to campus. The bad? This may not be enough. “Most of the prevention emphasis at schools is focused on hardware measures, such as more police presence and surveillance cameras,” says Poland. “I’m not opposed to these measures, but non-hardware measures, such as adding mental health professionals, knowing every student well, and teaching problem solving and anger management are also important.”

“We need to look at the environment of the school, community and family,” says Vincent Wincelowicz, Ph.D, former member of the FBI and Vice-President of the Foundation for the Prevention of School Violence. “Clues about violent behavior are there, but we do not interpret them correctly.”

While the Secret Service has been unable to profile a “typical” school shooter, PAX/Real Solutions to Gun Violence has issued a list of warning signs that includes: “a cry for help in which a person issues a threat; expresses violent fantasies, posts violent language or warnings online;” “unusual interest in violence, fascination with death, weapons or violent behavior;” “rage;” “externalization of blame: ‘everyone is against me;’” “withdrawing from friends or activities or taking more risks.” Many have been bullied and are depressed and suicidal.

Detailing a 2001 Secret Service report on 37 school shootings, Poland concludes, “The shootings were not impulsive acts, as they were planned over weeks and months. Almost all of the perpetrators talked about what they were going to do to classmates. One of them, at his trial, said he told 40 friends of violent plans and thought one of them would have tried to stop him.”

So while metal detectors and surveillance cameras are useful, simply encouraging kids to take threats seriously may be the most important step we can take in improving school safety. Tell your children to trust their instincts and to report any suspicious talk directly to you, a teacher, or to 1-866-SPEAK-UP, the free, anonymous weapons threats hotline established by PAX. Your school might also consider starting a chapter of SAVE, the National Association of Students Against Violence Everywhere, which has received numerous awards from crime-fighting groups.

Unfortunately, no one can make the world 100% safe for children, but knowing your kids know what danger signs to look for and feel empowered to act on them will go a long way towards earning back that peace of mind.

One comment so far »
Rate this article:

Take Action

  • this article with friends and family.
  • Have a question about School Safety and Violence? Ask it here.
  • Publish your work on education.com.
1 comment

Comments from readers

  1. May 7, 2009
    John Byrnes says:
    Research has determined that from the Moment of Commitment (the point when a student pulls their weapon) to the Moment of Completion (when the last round is fired) is only 5 seconds.  If it is the intent of a school district to react to this violence, they will do so over the wounded and/or slain bodies of students, teachers and administrators.
     
    Educational institutions clearly want safe and secure schools. Administrators are perennially queried by parents about the safety of their schools. The commonplace answers, intended to reassure anxious parents, focus on the school resource officers and emergency procedures. While useful, these less than adequate efforts do not begin to provide a definitive answer to preventing school violence, nor do they make a school safe and secure.
     
    Traditionally school districts have relied upon the mental health community or local police to keep schools safe, yet one of the key shortcomings has been the lack of a system that involves teachers, administrators, parents and students in the identification and communication process. Recently, colleges, universities and community colleges are forming Behavioral Intervention Teams with representatives from all these constituencies. Higher Education has changed their safety/security policies, procedures, or surveillance systems, yet K-12 have yet to incorporate Behavioral Intervention Teams. K-12 schools continue spending excessive amounts of money to put in place many of the physical security options. Sadly, they are reactionary only and do little to prevent aggression because they are designed exclusively to react to existing conflict, threat and violence.  These schools reflect a national blindspot, which prefers hardening targets through enhanced security versus preventing violence with efforts directed at aggressors.  Security gets all the focus and money, but this only makes us feel safe, rather than to actually make us safer.
     
    Some law enforcement agencies use profiling as a means to identify an aggressor. According to the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Department of Education’s report on Targeted Violence in Schools, there is a significant difference between “profiling” and identifying and measuring emerging aggression; “The use of profiles is not effective either for identifying students who may pose a risk for targeted violence at school or – once a student has been identified – for assessing the risk that a particular student may pose for school-based targeted violence.”  It continues; “An inquiry should focus instead on a student’s behaviors and communications to determine if the student appears to be planning or preparing for an attack.”  We can and must assess objective, culturally neutral, identifiable criteria of emerging aggression.  
     
    For a comprehensive look at the problem and its solution, http://www.aggressionmanagement.com/White_Paper_K-12/
     

Add your own comment

Have questions about this article or topic? Get answers with JustAsk.
Post Comment