School Safety, Term Paper Example

Imagine a mother kissing her children goodbye and wishing them a good day at school. Later in the morning the airwaves are interrupted with a breaking story: A homicidal and possibly suicidal student has come to the Cape Henlopen High School in Connecticut armed with an assault weapon, threatening to kill everybody in the school (ABC News, 2012). The screen flashes to the SWAT team arriving at the school and the multiple ambulances already lined up at the school’s entrance. What can the school district do? According to the newsflash the student entered the school undetected. Breeches of safety such as the occurrence have become all too common in the United States. The effects are usually long-lasting, deterring students from receiving the quality education they deserve.

Bryant (2004) observed that parents, neighborhood activists, and even law enforcement personnel are quick to blame school officials when such a tragedy occurs. Families believe that school officials should know that a horrific incident is likely to occur (Cullen, 2009). In this era of school violence, school officials have to assume greater roles than in previous generations. In earlier, calmer times the duties of school officials was to monitor education. Teachers’ instructional methodologies were monitored; students’ test scores were evaluated.

In the present generation, school officials need to expand their horizons to neighborhood activities, build strong bonds with various members of the community-at-large, and seek the help of law enforcement. Some of our nation’s schools now have metal detectors through which each faculty member and student must pass on their way into the building at the start of the school day (Krumm & Losh, 2007). Police personnel have become frequent visitors to schools, are in many environments are present throughout the school day. Drug sniffing dogs walk through corridors. Computers need to be more closely monitored. Other students have been asked to report to school personnel odd demeanors of their friends. Adult volunteers are required to submit to background screening and fingerprints (Cullen, 2009). After they are approved, school officials ask them to monitor the surrounding neighborhoods, thus guaranteeing the safe arrivals and departures of children attending school each day. Indeed, the violence of the late 20^th and early 21^st centuries has required school administrators to become much more involved in students’ safety (Conoley & Sullivan, 2004).

Because of recent and continually escalating violent outbreaks affecting our schools administrators have found it necessary to take measures for student safety. School buildings now have limited access (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). Students and personnel are required to enter and exit the building through secured access, often monitored by security cameras and in some instances by law enforcement personnel. To further increase the security of the building, often, other entrances have doors fitted with push-bars that open from the inside but which are locked on the outside. Doors like this permit easy exit from inside the building but keep out intruders who try to gain undetected entrance to the building. When school guests arrive on the premises they need to be directed to the main office where, after identifying themselves, they will be given some type of identification to wear on their clothing. Administrators need to train both students and teachers to question and alert authorities to strangers they observe in the school building who are improperly identified (U.S. Department of Education, 2012).

Student and faculty parking lots are equipped with cameras so that activities outside of the school building but still on the school’s property can be monitored (Jimersomn, Brock, & Pletcher, 2005). School officials are providing bar-code decals placed on car windows, permitting access to gated parking lots. If a student or employee permanently leaves the learning center, computers will disallow access of those window stickers.

To further create a more secure school environment, administrators need to have established crisis plans and building level response teams in place and ready to address problems before the arrival of law enforcement personnel. Team members need to be trained in CPR, positive interventions and the associated support to deter problems or to offer remediation when potential problems have been identified, and to be able to direct pedestrian and motor traffic away from hotspots while directing police and fire officials to trouble areas upon their arrival (Schonfeld & Newgass, 2003).

Concern for both student and faculty safety, and the need for school administrators to be able to demonstrate to the general public that schools are safe have caused several new trends to emerge. The first of these new trends is bullying prevention (Whitted & Dupper, 2005). In the decades following World War II, bullying consisted of bigger kids picking on smaller kids. Bullying often existed in a school’s playground but rarely followed children beyond the schoolyard. The development of digital media caused changes in bullying. Students use cellphones, email, texting, and websites to constantly harass other students (Kerbs & Jolley, 2007). In an effort to curtail bullying school officials are providing in-school training in character education (Kerbs & Jolley). These administrators are working with local politicians, churches, and law enforcement officials to put into place laws geared to curtail bullying.

A concern related to bullying, but with characteristics of its own, is gang prevention and intervention. Decades earlier, gangs were associated primarily with turf wars in predominantly lower socioeconomic communities (Bryant, 2009). Due to the increased prevalence of dual income households and the current national economic downturn gang activity is no longer restricted to those lower socioeconomic communities, but has infiltrated neighborhoods across the United States (Johnson, 2008). When children don’t have the benefit of parental supervision, they will turn to gangs for inclusion in their activities. Usually gang leaders will keep themselves safe while urging less experienced youths to do their bidding. Thus, stronger and more popular youths find themselves managing other, not as streetwise children. The answer to reducing gang activity is to provide safe havens for play and study following the end of the school day (Tursman, 2009). These centers may be located in public buildings or be run by church, or other volunteer groups. Sometimes school officials can find the funds necessary so that teachers, after the conclusion of their workday, can be paid to stay with students who, without supervised activities, might find themselves getting into trouble. Reduction of gang activities among students may help to reduce conflict between students, thus reducing the need of some students to bring weapons into the school building on the premise that school officials can’t protect them (Cullen, 2009).

Conflict management and peer mediation, usually conducted in-school, is still another emerging trend (Jimersonm, Brock, & Pletcher, 2005). When students are trained to recognize deviant behavior among their peers they are in a better position to notify school officials. Observation by student peers with notification to school officials may keep events from escalating out of control. These programs, either purchased from outside vendors or created by school faculty, help students to recognize behavior that deviates from normal expectations. It also helps students to monitor each other and to assign meaningful punishment among themselves; having students apologize to those they offended or requiring them to skip some kind of school activity. Peer mediation does not permit any one person to be in-charge: Today’s offender may be tomorrow’s chairperson (Jimersonm, Brock, & Pletcher).

School violence is a relatively new area. A generation ago children got into trouble for gum chewing, or worse, disposing of chewed gum by sticking on the bottom of desks and chairs (Brigman et al., 2005). Presently, relaxed laws on the ownership of weapons combined with relatively inexpensive weapons have helped to create a get-even mindset among students who feel that they have been treated unfairly. Digital media is available to almost everyone, thus creating the ability to stalk the most innocent. School officials must turn to community activists, parents, and law enforcement, and the courts to strengthen the laws that affect offenders.

Students need to know that when weapons are involved they will be prosecuted as adults and given the maximum sentences provided by law. Digital media, easier to conceal and use, needs to be more closely monitored by parents, school officials, and law enforcement, working in tandem to ensure student safety. Even though both parents may be employed outside of the home, when school eds, parents must still remain responsible for the actions of their children. There is no single action on the part of school officials which will prevent a crisis from occurring. However, the probability of crisis can be tempered by the possibility of crisis when school leaders, neighborhood activists, parents, and law enforcement personnel cement harmonious relationships designed to watch over and protect our children.

References

ABC News, Channel 47 (2012, February 3). Teen threatens to kills students and staff at Cape Henlopen High School. www.wmdt.com/story/16670235.

Brigman, G., Mullis, F., Webb, L., & White, J. (2005). School counselor consultation: Skills for working effectively with parents, teachers, and other school personnel. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Bryant, D. (2009). Community responses crucial for dealing with youth gangs. Washington, DC: Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 1-6.

Bryant, R. (2004). In the aftermath of trauma: Normative reactions and early interventions. In Post-traumatic stress disorders: Issues and controversies (pp. 197-211). New York: Wiley & Sons.

Cullen, D. (2009). Columbine. New York: Twelve Hatchette Book Group.

Conoley, J., & Sullivan, J. (2004). The real world: Good ideas are never enough. In School violence intervention: A practical handbook (2^nd ed.), pp. 416-437. New York: Guilford Press.

Jimersonm, S., Brock, S., & Pletcher, S. (2005) An integrated model of school crisis preparedness and intervention – A shared foundation to facilitate international crisis prevention. School Psychology International 26(3): pp. 275-296.

Johnson, K. (2008). Gangs in schools: Breaking up is hard to do. Malibu, CA: Pepperdine University, National School Safety Center.

Kerbs, J. & Jolley, J. (2007). The joy of violence: What about violence is fun in middle-school? New York: American Journal of Criminal Justice 32(12): pp. 119-134.

Krumm, B., & Losh, M. (2007) Toward a positive perspective on school violence prevention in schools: Building connections. New York: Journal of Counseling and Development 82(3): pp. 287-293.

Schonfeld, D., & Newgass, S. (2003). School crisis response initiative. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Tursman, C. (2009). Safeguarding schools against gang warfare. New York: School Administrator 46(5): pp. 9-15.

U.S. Department of Education (2012). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2011. National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES 2012-002). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Whitted, K., & Dupper, D. (2005). Best practices for preventing or reducing bullying in schools. Chicago, IL: Children and Schools 27(3): pp. 167-175.