DS1's district switched over the summer to a new protocol, where they do not hide but instead exit the school as quickly as is orderly possible. Too much fear that gunmen are now counting on there being whole classrooms of kids, sitting ducks in closets and interior bathrooms.
What. The. Fuck.
That makes me want to vomit. All of this does. I don't even want to send DD1 to school anymore. The anxiety is starting to really get to me, to the point where I might need to ask my doctor for medication. I'm not even sure it would help, though.
There's a whole training around it. I think it's called active shooter training. In the video they show different ways to barricade in a classroom in preparation for a fight and what to use to fight back. It's fucking crazy to watch.
I understand that it's training. My question is what research supports this training as an appropriate intervention in an active shooter situation.
(My other question is why America passionately, resoundingly feels that it is acceptable to require training of children for combat. America is little better than the rebels of Sierra Leone recruiting children into war. But I know the answer to that question).
My hospital told us the same thing about fighting back.
That we are to barricade ourselves wherever we are but if the shooter entires the room it's better to throw items at them to try to distract them than to just sit there and get shot one by one.
I did no research on this, but have seen it recommended by several security forces and it makes sense in my mind as I've heard other recommendations in regards to fighting back if someone is trying to kidnap you.
I know there are some people on these boards who defend the status quo wrt the lack of meaningful gun control in this country and keep guns in their homes, etc. I remember it came up several times after Sandy Hook and they tried to defend their position, which is that *they* are responsible gun owners. Maybe so, but we know that not everyone is obviously. I hope they read this piece. They want to be able to keep their guns in their homes and not have to jump through too many hoops to get them? This is the price we all pay.
Post by UMaineTeach on Oct 4, 2015 13:00:25 GMT -5
I went through that same fear last year. The AP didn't say the agreed upon phrasing and we had no clue if it was real, a drill, or if someone was inside or outside. Didn't know which protocol to follow.
It's probably flameful, but I never practiced with my PK kids. We have never had a school wide drill, just each teacher is instructed to practice a couple times on her own. I could just not do that to them and was trusting they would be able to read my "this is fucking serious" face and tone. They did and did a wonderful job for the hour we huddled and the other 5 hours we had to stay in the room avoiding areas of the room near windows.
I know there are some people on these boards who defend the status quo wrt the lack of meaningful gun control in this country and keep guns in their homes, etc. I remember it came up several times after Sandy Hook and they tried to defend their position, which is that *they* are responsible gun owners. Maybe so, but we know that not everyone is obviously. I hope they read this piece. They want to be able to keep their guns in their homes and not have to jump through too many hoops to get them? This is the price we all pay.
They really don't care. Honestly, I feel like there is no reasoning. To some people, for whatever reason, the right to bear arms is more important than the right of others to be safe. They simply have elevated that 'right' above others. I do believe there is a level of indoctrination that has gone on in order to end up thinking this way.
I understand that it's training. My question is what research supports this training as an appropriate intervention in an active shooter situation.
(My other question is why America passionately, resoundingly feels that it is acceptable to require training of children for combat. America is little better than the rebels of Sierra Leone recruiting children into war. But I know the answer to that question).
My hospital told us the same thing about fighting back.
That we are to barricade ourselves wherever we are but if the shooter entires the room it's better to throw items at them to try to distract them than to just sit there and get shot one by one.
I did no research on this, but have seen it recommended by several security forces and it makes sense in my mind as I've heard other recommendations in regards to fighting back if someone is trying to kidnap you.
I would imagine this advice is given because if, god forbid, the shooter is active in your vicinity and you take the time to fight back, it gives people in other parts of the building more time to flee.
To be honest, the whole thing makes me sick and I can only concentrate on it for a few minutes at a time before rage seeps in at the people who are so unbelievably selfish as to put all of us in this position.
. The idea is that noise will distract the shooter, and there is research to back it up. The fighting back part isn't about having kids take the shooter down, but instead doing what they can to survive and get out of the room.
Can you share this research?
I admit, I haven't done my own research. I'm just going off what they told us at orientation.
I think we're moving toward ALICE in the future in our school district. I hate that it's even something that has to be considered.
I'm subbing in libraries and offices in several schools/districts this year, and whenever I go in for a quick training it's "Here's the password for the computer, circulation software, voicemail, ect. Here are the classlists. If we lockdown or evcauate, here's where you go." WTF that that sort of info even has to be relayed.
The saddest thing is that I've already had to use it when we had a bomb threat called in on a day I subbed.
I think we're moving toward ALICE in the future in our school district. I hate that it's even something that has to be considered.
I'm subbing in libraries and offices in several schools/districts this year, and whenever I go in for a quick training it's "Here's the password for the computer, circulation software, voicemail, ect. Here are the classlists. If we lockdown or evcauate, here's where you go." WTF that that sort of info even has to be relayed.
The saddest thing is that I've already had to use it when we had a bomb threat called in on a day I subbed.
I hate that lockdowns are a thing we practice (and have practiced since I was in school too), but the way you described it doesn't bother me - just like making sure visitors to an office building or something know where the fire exits are, or the fact that at my office all visitors have to sign in so that if something crazy happens (fire, or whatever) we know how many people were in the building.
Post by redshoejune on Oct 4, 2015 13:36:11 GMT -5
My kindergartener already had a "secure perimeter" situation this year at school. They weren't under lockdown, but there was domestic violence/family member shooting in the neighborhood and it took about 24 hours to catch the suspect, so they didn't let the kids go outside the whole day. I was actually grateful that my daughter told me they would be practicing lockdowns that week because she wasn't scared or worried at all. I never thought there was any intent to hurt the kids, or I might feel differently.
I am very curious if there is any benefit to lockdowns in an active shooter situation.
ETA: My dd practiced lockdown/fire/tornado drills at her preschool/daycare too, so doing it in kindergarten was no big deal to her at all.
Post by oscarnerdjulief on Oct 4, 2015 13:44:40 GMT -5
We have ALICE training as well. During our lockdown training, we had our doors locked, the principal came around with his key, and we had a two-by-four with a knot tied around the door with a desk under it. The knot held, but just barely. I was in the room by myself, so I stretched across the door and held it with all my strength. We're doomed anyway because we have glass windows to the left of the door.
It'd odd to think that whether I live or die could depend on how well my friend down the hall tied my knot and whether it will hold. (I could never tie the knot well enough to hold; neither could three of my kids who tried it last year.)
In discussing the idea of kids throwing things and fighting intruders, it's pretty clearly explained in our training that it is an absolutely last resort when there is a shooter in the room and no way out. Before this "last resort" scenario, there's evacuating, barricading, and basically everything else. It's assumed that fighting back is preferable to being in a corner waiting to die.
I have trouble believing I'd do anything else but evacuate in such a situation. The weird thing about our drill is that it relies on two things that probably wouldn't happen: 1) that our principal would be able to get on the p.a. and tell us where the intruder was and 2) our rooms would be unlocked. Our rooms are supposed to be locked.
My kids did this last week. Nothing puts a lump in your throat quite like having your 5YO greet you at pick-up with, "Today we had a lockdown drill and we learned to hide if a bad guy comes to our school! We stay quiet as mice and stay out of sight."
I talked to both of them about it, and then I had a conversation with my kids about playing dead. Jesus fucking Christ. I had that conversation with them, about one strategy that they could use in a mass shooting, because they're old enough now that I don't think it undermines what they're learning from their school, and I want them to know other options that have gotten other people through mass shootings. Hide, run, or if you can't do those -- play dead.
I fucking hate what this country has become. That honest to God, every day at drop-off, there is a split second when I wonder if they'll come home.
The school my kids go to is one of those low - slung 70s buildings. The kindy classrooms are windows from the ceilings to knee-level, on three sides. On a VERY main road. The older kids fare a little better, their classrooms are only glass on one or two sides, and they're at back from the road.
I'm pretty resigned to the fact that if somebody wanted to take them out, they could. There's no place to go.
It's like the fact that we have a 9' picture window that you can access from our front deck. If somebody wants in my house, the lock on the door really isn't a deterrent.
It makes me sick I think about this.
They've had lockdown drills, and they've had real shelter - in - place , when, say police are trying to apprehend a suspect in the neighborhood.
I just asked DD what they do for lockdown drills. They're "kind of scary", teacher closes the curtains, we try to stay down low, we have to be quiet, and if a bad guy comes in pretend to be dead so he doesn't get you.
As much I hate all this with the fiery passion of 1000 suns, I'm glad schools drill for this. Simply because, this is reality now, no matter how depressing and research has shown that often, the difference between life and death is having had training on what to do.
Last year our school did a drill (in addition to lockdown drills) of an "alternate pickup location". Basically they selected a school a few blocks away that would be the place where parents go to pick up the survivors in the case of a shooting. When the Principal told us at a PTA meeting I thought I was going to burst into tears right there. I'm not even lockdowns are even worth practicing? Has it saved lives in the last few years?
I have no idea if they save lives, but we had drills in high school, and when I was locked down during a campus shooting it did help emotionally because I knew we were doing all we could.
I can't accept this. I WON'T accept that this is our new normal. No fucking way! Get rid of the guns. Buy them back. I don't care, but get rid of them.
I think what also scares me a lot is that I teach in a very conservative, pro-gun town. Hunting is king here, and most students have guns in their homes and know how to use them from a very young age.
This topic has come up occasionally because of current events articles we study or after we have a lockdown drill, etc. And some of the things my students say really frighten me. A vast majority of them say they believe we should have all teachers armed in the classroom, "You can take my guns out of my cold dead hands," etc. I am in the minority in my school with what I believe about guns. And knowing that probably 80% of my kids could very easily bring a gun to school if they wanted is sickening to think about.
I will admit, if I have to give a kid a detention and s/he gets really pissed off or a kid is unhappy about a grade, this thought does cross my mind. "Did I just solidify my death sentence by giving this detention?" And fuck, I should not have to think like that because I give a detention.
I think what also scares me a lot is that I teach in a very conservative, pro-gun town. Hunting is king here, and most students have guns in their homes and know how to use them from a very young age.
This topic has come up occasionally because of current events articles we study or after we have a lockdown drill, etc. And some of the things my students say really frighten me. A vast majority of them say they believe we should have all teachers armed in the classroom, "You can take my guns out of my cold dead hands," etc. I am in the minority in my school with what I believe about guns. And knowing that probably 80% of my kids could very easily bring a gun to school if they wanted is sickening to think about.
I will admit, if I have to give a kid a detention and s/he gets really pissed off or a kid is unhappy about a grade, this thought does cross my mind. "Did I just solidify my death sentence by giving this detention?" And fuck, I should not have to think like that because I give a detention.
But those same kids have had access to guns for generations. What is different now that they might do this?
Post by laurenpetro on Oct 4, 2015 17:57:38 GMT -5
I feel like this pushes the blame onto the victims.
"Here kids. If you act like this then you won't be the dead one."
I'm feeling quite salty about this. Probably because the boys' classroom is smack dab in the middle of their school and if anything happens they're fucked.
. The idea is that noise will distract the shooter, and there is research to back it up. The fighting back part isn't about having kids take the shooter down, but instead doing what they can to survive and get out of the room.
As A.L.I.C.E. training advocates work to sell their program to school boards and superintendents, five myths continue to circulate about the program and its concept of teaching children to attack armed intruders.
A.L.I.C.E. stands for Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter, Evacuate. The “counter” component of teaching school students to throw objects at armed intruders and to physically attack them is garnering more media attention. Reporters, parents, and school board members also appear to be asking some tougher questions on the implications and implementation of the program.
Five myths about A.L.I.C.E. training occur in various news stories and other conversations on the program:
Myth 1: A.L.I.C.E. training for schools is endorsed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and/or other federal agencies.
Reality: No written evidence has been found of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the U.S. Department of Education, or any other federal agency endorsing the A.L.I.C.E. program specifically, or the concept of teaching preK-12 school children to “counter” or attack armed intruders in general. DHS has a booklet on active shooters which is focused on a workplace violence context and adult-oriented settings. There is no reference in this document, including in its section on last-resort efforts of physically responding to active shooters, about school-specific settings or the application of the booklet’s content to children. To suggest that A.L.I.C.E. training is specifically “endorsed” by DHS, and to extrapolate what DHS has published for adult workplace settings to also apply to child-centered preK-12 school settings, is a misrepresentation of DHS’s materials and is misleading.
Myth 2: The A.L.I.C.E. training program is research-based.
Reality: No formal, independent academic or other research can be found on this specific program. No research is cited in the A.L.I.C.E. Training staff booklet (copyright 2007) in circulation as recently as at least 2010. If such research exists, its advocates should cite and produce it.
Myth 3: A.L.I.C.E. training is age and developmentally-appropriate.
Reality: The aforementioned A.L.I.C.E. Training Staff Booklet makes no mention of age and developmental implementation issues. Advocates for A.L.I.C.E. training often waffle when pressed on age and developmental appropriateness, typically “caving in” and saying that they will only teach the “counter” (attacking armed intruders) component to middle and/or high school age students. Excluding certain grade levels and ages of students does not automatically equate to “age and developmental appropriateness” for the remaining students who are trained. The reality is that all students, preK-12, have age and developmental considerations different from adults.
Myth 4: A.L.I.C.E. training is inclusive of, and applicable to, students with special needs.
Reality: As noted above, the A.L.I.C.E. training Staff Booklet does not delineate implementation for special needs students. Is the answer to critics’ concerns simply that special needs student will just be excluded from A.L.I.C.E. training? If so, how will that be implemented? And how many students have special needs — physically-challenged, behavioral disorders, autism, medically-fragile, etc.?
Myth 5: A.L.I.C.E. training has a history of proven effectiveness on the “counter” component in schools.
Reality: No published information has been found documenting cases specifically where A.L.I.C.E. training has been provided in a school and the “counter” component was subsequently employed in a specific incident that clearly saved more lives than the number of lives saved using current methods and best practices. “Would be” and “could be” claims by A.L.I.C.E. advocates are theories and opinions, and should not be represented (especially in news stories) as “research” and “demonstrated effectiveness.”
I think what also scares me a lot is that I teach in a very conservative, pro-gun town. Hunting is king here, and most students have guns in their homes and know how to use them from a very young age.
This topic has come up occasionally because of current events articles we study or after we have a lockdown drill, etc. And some of the things my students say really frighten me. A vast majority of them say they believe we should have all teachers armed in the classroom, "You can take my guns out of my cold dead hands," etc. I am in the minority in my school with what I believe about guns. And knowing that probably 80% of my kids could very easily bring a gun to school if they wanted is sickening to think about.
I will admit, if I have to give a kid a detention and s/he gets really pissed off or a kid is unhappy about a grade, this thought does cross my mind. "Did I just solidify my death sentence by giving this detention?" And fuck, I should not have to think like that because I give a detention.
But those same kids have had access to guns for generations. What is different now that they might do this?
I've had these feelings the entire 8 years I've been teaching. It's not a new feeling for me. The lockdown/intruder drills have just started in the last 2 or 3 years though.
DS1's district switched over the summer to a new protocol, where they do not hide but instead exit the school as quickly as is orderly possible. Too much fear that gunmen are now counting on there being whole classrooms of kids, sitting ducks in closets and interior bathrooms.
My kid is in K and a classmate of his (a girl with long established anger management problem) threatened she was going to bring in a real gun and shoot the class.
The chances of her doing this are basically zero, but the fact that she knew to make this threat at such a young age is really troubling.
I sure hope the school still conducted a threat assessment on the kid.
I trust that the teacher did. The kid's mom works at the school and I've witnessed this girls meltdowns before. I've also witnessed her being a normal, charming 5yo.
Though, I still worry. If not this girl, another troubled kid. The school had a bomb threat last year in which they evacuated the school. That was the first time that had happened and the admin knew exactly who it was when the call was made, but took it seriously regardless.
As A.L.I.C.E. training advocates work to sell their program to school boards and superintendents, five myths continue to circulate about the program and its concept of teaching children to attack armed intruders.
A.L.I.C.E. stands for Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter, Evacuate. The “counter” component of teaching school students to throw objects at armed intruders and to physically attack them is garnering more media attention. Reporters, parents, and school board members also appear to be asking some tougher questions on the implications and implementation of the program.
Five myths about A.L.I.C.E. training occur in various news stories and other conversations on the program:
Myth 1: A.L.I.C.E. training for schools is endorsed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and/or other federal agencies.
Reality: No written evidence has been found of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the U.S. Department of Education, or any other federal agency endorsing the A.L.I.C.E. program specifically, or the concept of teaching preK-12 school children to “counter” or attack armed intruders in general. DHS has a booklet on active shooters which is focused on a workplace violence context and adult-oriented settings. There is no reference in this document, including in its section on last-resort efforts of physically responding to active shooters, about school-specific settings or the application of the booklet’s content to children. To suggest that A.L.I.C.E. training is specifically “endorsed” by DHS, and to extrapolate what DHS has published for adult workplace settings to also apply to child-centered preK-12 school settings, is a misrepresentation of DHS’s materials and is misleading.
Myth 2: The A.L.I.C.E. training program is research-based.
Reality: No formal, independent academic or other research can be found on this specific program. No research is cited in the A.L.I.C.E. Training staff booklet (copyright 2007) in circulation as recently as at least 2010. If such research exists, its advocates should cite and produce it.
Myth 3: A.L.I.C.E. training is age and developmentally-appropriate.
Reality: The aforementioned A.L.I.C.E. Training Staff Booklet makes no mention of age and developmental implementation issues. Advocates for A.L.I.C.E. training often waffle when pressed on age and developmental appropriateness, typically “caving in” and saying that they will only teach the “counter” (attacking armed intruders) component to middle and/or high school age students. Excluding certain grade levels and ages of students does not automatically equate to “age and developmental appropriateness” for the remaining students who are trained. The reality is that all students, preK-12, have age and developmental considerations different from adults.
Myth 4: A.L.I.C.E. training is inclusive of, and applicable to, students with special needs.
Reality: As noted above, the A.L.I.C.E. training Staff Booklet does not delineate implementation for special needs students. Is the answer to critics’ concerns simply that special needs student will just be excluded from A.L.I.C.E. training? If so, how will that be implemented? And how many students have special needs — physically-challenged, behavioral disorders, autism, medically-fragile, etc.?
Myth 5: A.L.I.C.E. training has a history of proven effectiveness on the “counter” component in schools.
Reality: No published information has been found documenting cases specifically where A.L.I.C.E. training has been provided in a school and the “counter” component was subsequently employed in a specific incident that clearly saved more lives than the number of lives saved using current methods and best practices. “Would be” and “could be” claims by A.L.I.C.E. advocates are theories and opinions, and should not be represented (especially in news stories) as “research” and “demonstrated effectiveness.”
Oh, oy and interesting. Now I don't know what to think on this supposed research then,
I fucking hate what this country has become. That honest to God, every day at drop-off, there is a split second when I wonder if they'll come home.
I am right here with you. I love DD's elementary school but I find myself thinking pretty much everyday at pickup about how unfavorably it is set up for a potential shooting and feeling anxious. The classroom has a large floor to ceiling window next to the door, which is also mostly glass, that opens onto the hallway. You can see the whole room through those and it would take a shooter seconds to shoot out the glass and get inside. There's nowhere in the room for the kids to hide. All the classrooms empty into one long straight hallway (small school), so there would really be no way out where they wouldn't be seen and/or vulnerable. You have to be buzzed in but the front doors are also glass.
I should be able to enjoy the airy and light feeling all those windows bring into the school. Instead I am worrying that they will mean my daughter and her classmates won't come home one day, and I am furious that this is where we are and that nothing is being done about it.
I understand that it's training. My question is what research supports this training as an appropriate intervention in an active shooter situation.
(My other question is why America passionately, resoundingly feels that it is acceptable to require training of children for combat. America is little better than the rebels of Sierra Leone recruiting children into war. But I know the answer to that question).
My hospital told us the same thing about fighting back.
That we are to barricade ourselves wherever we are but if the shooter entires the room it's better to throw items at them to try to distract them than to just sit there and get shot one by one.
I did no research on this, but have seen it recommended by several security forces and it makes sense in my mind as I've heard other recommendations in regards to fighting back if someone is trying to kidnap you.
I would imagine it's probably doesn't enhance any one individuals chance to escape and survive. But if there are multiple people in the room it means it's more likely for at least a few people to escape in the commotion. I too would be interested in seeing actual research on it.
I guess what upsets me so much is that she says we should be screaming; why? What does screaming get us? The Supreme Court has said that money is speech, so the NRA means more to Congress than our screaming poor voices ever will. We can't get campaign finance because money is speech, so the NRA will keep getting everything it wants.
It's terrible.
I used to not care much about gun control, but now I fully believe there's no such thing as a good NRA member. At least that much has changed. I'm sure I'm not alone there.
I know what you mean. This is one of those issues where I really do doubt the ability to change. Mostly because of all the "responsible" gun owners out there who won't agree to any compromise solutions which impinge on their ability to buy and store weapons that kill people.