We need to talk about school intrusion

[thefool_wa]

Last weekend I was listening to the radio and the DJ started a discussion regarding a report that some schools are starting to teach their students to "act up" against armed school invaders.

This discussion (which I participated in, my POV was aired on the side of pro) inspired me to write a story that takes the whole idea to the next level. I felt that, if they were going to teach students to fend off invaders, why not have a group of students whose purpose it is to defend their school against this type of thing as both a deterrent and a fully armed response force. My story is called Intrusion, and is linked below.

http://www.immigratetomars.com/Stories/Intrusion.mht">Intrusion

Before you read, a disclaimer of sorts. This story is violent, not happy, and contains adult themes in a juvenile setting including a love scene that some may find inappropriate. The love scene is short and tasteful, but descriptive, so please be warned and, please, don't alert me. I tried to ask Skinner about this yesterday and got no response (he's a busy guy). However, the issue is one I would like to pursue discussion on, so I'm going with forgiveness over permission (hoping the 1st amendment is on my side).

My intent is to put both sides of the issue on the line and take neither pro nor con through the story. Ultimately, the main character expresses my honest opinion at one point when he says, "I'm not sure if there is a right, or even a best answer." So I guess you could say I am as on the fence about the idea of armed student responders as the story is.

If you like Intrusion and would like to read more of my stuff, check the rest of the web site where it is posted. The link is in my sig line.

on edit: please don't post if you choose not to read the story.

[Branjor]

1. Teaching students to "act up"

against armed school invaders makes me think of the holocaust. In the concentration camps, if inmates, who largely outnumbered guards, had swarmed the guards and overcome them, many less may have died.

In that vein, I don't think a group of students whose purpose it is to defend the school would work as well. It would just render most students, outside of the defending group, passive onlookers depending on the "defenders" to defend them. Large numbers of passive people is what enables single or small numbers of armed aggressive individuals to do the most damage.

ETA: I did not read "Intrusion", just what you said about schools teaching students to "act up."

[thefool_wa]

2. I would tend to agree

My points during the radio discussion were directed also at the deterrent effect that would happen if those who would invade knew it was not going to be easy. I said "acting up" because what they are teaching is more like resistance than actual defense. I take it to the next step where the schools would have a large group of resistors and a small group of armed responders.

As to onlookers, I think that would stop being a problem if you trained the responders (martial arts, discipline, improvised weapons, that type of thing) in an "after school activity" environment. Plus, if you get enough volunteers, they become a massive resistance force backed by a small group of armed students. That would be a huge deterrent.

You should read the story, it really makes you think. (at least that's what those who have read it so far have said). I've never gone to this extent to pimp one of my stories before but, with the strong, emotional reactions I've received, I had to share.

[skygazer]

20. That's a pretty far-out hypothesis in re the Holocaust

And there are no facts upon which to base it. It's simply untrue that there was no resistance on the part of camp or ghetto inmates - there was. In Auschwitz, for example, an underground resistance group managed to blow up one of the crematoriums and the Warsaw uprising is well known.

Both of these (and others) ended badly for the inmates and there is no evidence that any lives were saved by those heroic actions. I admire them, don't get me wrong, but to assume that people could have saved themselves or others had they acted more "bravely" is hideously insulting to the millions who died and the few who survived.

The truth is, even had a large group swarmed the guards and made some kind of escape, they were malnourished, unarmed and had absolutely nowhere to go. The entire countryside was filled with people who would kill them or turn them in in a heartbeat. In addition, those who were left, the people who couldn't leave because of illness or because they were caught, would have been murdered for sure. The powers in charge had all the advantages of might and weaponry and support.

Even after the war when it was supposedly "safe", Jews were murdered by mobs in many places. Ludicrous to assume that they could have somehow overpowered anyone at the height of the Holocaust.

[MichiganVote]

3. The idea that students be "taught" to "act up" against intruders

is proof positive that the adults in this country are out of control and have no secure margin of reason.

You'll recall that at the time of the Columbine mudrders, more students survived by running away from the shooters...than running at them.

[thefool_wa]

5. Well

If the girls in the Amish school had done more than just cower in fear or flee, maybe more of them might be alive today.

Either way, people are dying when this happens. Why should the students just roll over and let them do what they will. It's that type of response that encourages violent intruders because it makes it easy.

Did you read the story, I have a feeling you might have an opinion about it that I want to here.

[Lars39]

8. Those Amish girls showed bravery, not fear.

They were raised to be pacifists.
Two of the sisters volunteered to be shot first in the hope that the gunman wouldn't kill the rest.

[thefool_wa]

10. They are still dead

And, while I do respect their upbringing, I would rather have my children (and I have two, they are not Amish) die fighting to defend themselves and their friends than roll over and die along with them.

I am not necessarily saying that we should have armed responders in schools (even though that is the subject of Intrusion, I use it to magnify the issue to the ultimate end and present an argument, not an opinion). I do, however, feel that students who are trained and ready to respond to an invader in their school work as a deterrent and as a line of defense.

The kids in the world are, apparently, already on the front lines. We should ask them if they want to fight to defend, or run and hope they don't get shot in the back. Providing a training ground for those who would volunteer to defend their friends and their school is something I could get behind (even if I'm not sure where I stand on actually arming them).

[Lars39]

12. They should not be having to make the choice of whether to fight

or defend while they are in school. It is the adult's job to see that they are protected.

[thefool_wa]

14. Why not? Most of the time they create the threat

It is grossly obvious that school administrations cannot defend our schools from this type of intrusion. They do nothing effective about bullying (because, in most cases, the students won't go to an adult authority figure) and espouse "zero tolerance" policies that are toothless and ineffective in their simple blindness to what the real problems are.

So what is the alternative, SWAT teams and armed police in the schools? Hell no! School kids are intimidated enough by adults and authority figures without having armed guards in the halls. I honestly feel they would welcome the protection of other students and despise or resent the protection of armed adults (I did when I was in High School).

Adolescents are people too, and giving them the option to stand up against an obvious threat that, in most cases, is created by other students in their environment goes a long way toward making them responsible adults.

[MichiganVote]

15. You said it yourself...the girls were Amish. Where did you learn

that the Amish teach violent reactions to violence. As it was, reports indicated that one of the girls tried to use the only thing she had left, her life. May not have worked but she at least tried to save what she could.

Seems you not only want to change schools, curriculums and what all, you also think you can change a religion. Get real.

[thefool_wa]

16. I do think we need to change the schools

But what I am suggesting is the implementation of an extra-curricular activity designed to help prevent this type of thing from occurring and respond to it when it does. This would be helpful in both a deterrent and reactionary sense.

If a student's religion says don't do it, no one should force them to. However, if a student feels that a little disciplined training might help them stifle bullying in the school and help save lives should the absolute worst occur, then good on them! Get a permission slip and let them do it! (I have comments about this group as an anti-bullying tool elsewhere in this thread, not in the story)

Since it is a religious school with specific principles in this regard, I admit the Amish school was a bad example here. I used it as a situational example, not as a place where I thought these ideas should be specifically administered. I can see where what I said could be construed that way, but it was not my intent to say they should change their beliefs.

Though, the barb with what happened there is that it seems the guy picked that school BECAUSE they would not resist, which I think bolsters my point that if an intruder knows it will be a fight, they will stay away.

[uppityperson]

4. I don't like the idea, feel better usage of energies, and regarding 1amend

I looked at your story but did not read it, so cannot comment on it. However, this is a forum with rules, we must follow the rules or risk the consequences. Free speech is fine, but forums have rules and by participating you agree to follow those rules. There are many other places to free speech.

Regarding teaching students to "act up" against intruders, I feel there are better usages of time, energy, resources. School shootings are terrible tragic events. However, more students die in car accidents and by suicide and drug abuse. So, I would rather see the resources go towards dealing with those issues. For school intrusions, I subscribe to prevention (including "tattling") and running away.

[thefool_wa]

6. What do you mean by "forums have rules"

I read them and do not believe I have violated any. The post istself has a disclaimer regarding the story and you don't have to read it if you don't want to.

This is a volitile issue, I know, but not taling about it is allowing it to happen more and more every day.

[thefool_wa]

13. One further comment

There is another aspect of this type of school group that can be explored: anti-bully enforcement.

The primary cause of school intrusion, it seems, is the alienation and abuse of particular students by school bullies. This is an epidemic problem and has been around forever. It is not something the adult staff can control (or they would have it under control) - but a peer group whose purpose is to stop bullying and defend the school from any intruders can go a long way to stopping these incidents almost completely.

This is a huge problem that deserves much more attention and resources than you give it credit for needing. Plus, if you make something like this an after school activity with a single faculty instructor, the resources consumption is minimized.

I know you said you "looked at" my story, but, please, give it a read.

[uppityperson]

19. Thanks but I don't want to read your story.

I agree that anti-bullying is a good thing to do. However, I think that school intrusions are a minor problem in the world. As I said before, they are tragic, but spending time and energies on drug, alcohol, safe driving would be my preference (more people are hurt by kids driving drunk than school shootings). And spending time and energy on anti-violence stuff between people (not just bullying but DV and general esteem stuff).

per your post #6:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

"forums have rules" is in response to your "(hoping the 1st amendment is on my side)." This forum has rules and I am not saying that you broke any, but there is no guarantee of free speech on any forum, beyond what the rules say. I have read this "you are limiting my right to free speech" other times on forums, and, like it or not, private forums have rules and do limit free speech to what they say in their rules.

[LWolf]

7. I have never heard anything like that.

With the latest round of school violence, our "intruder drills" have not changed any. It is still our job to protect students from intruders, not put them on the front lines and send them against the intruder.

[thefool_wa]

11. They are already on the front lines

There have been way too many of these types of incursions in the past month or two for us to pretend that the status quo is working.

I feel a deterrent is necessary and, while I strongly oppose adult strike teams and more police in schools, I am on board with the idea of students choosing to defend themselves against this kind of thing. And if they want to, they should be properly trained to do so (not throwing books and making noise, actual training).

If you take a group of trained, volunteer responders in a Jr High, Middle School, or High School and give them a dual role of defense and anti-bully enforcement, I think it can go a long way to preventing these types of things before they happen. And when they do, you have people on site who are trained and ready to do what needs to be done, defend their friends.

[LWolf]

17. My students are not on the front lines in our school.

They know that. Of course, being a rural K-8 school, everybody knows everybody. We have good security measures in place; no adults, including parents, are allowed on campus past the front office without a security clearance. To be honest, I've been a little uncomfortable with that. I prefer a campus open to parents. Still, it means that we don't get kids snatched during custody battles (and there are always at least a dozen going on at any one time, even within our small student body,) and all adults the kids see have a security clearance. The gates and doors around the school perimeter are locked during the school day, leaving the front office as the only entry.

We have no "security" personnel. No guards. We all do hall/field/bus/etc. duty. My school board, and my administrators, will not suggest or sanction putting kids in charge of defending the school. I guarantee it, and I'd be demonstrating at school board meetings if they did. Defending themselves might be different. Still, I don't think I'd like self-defense classes as part of school. To me, that would be teaching fear. It establishes a mindset that sees school as a threat. I'd rather structure our public schools differently.

The closest we've come to any sort of "threat" occurred on a field trip last year. We were at a state park, where we'd been rock climbing. We were on picnic tables set up near the trail down the canyon, and a scruffy, dirty, uncombed man walked by on a path next to the tables several times. The first time, I took a good look at him; he never looked at my 8th grade girls sitting at the table. When he came back the other way, I casually moved between the tables and his path. The next trip by, I was joined by my two teaching partners. We never spoke about it, just made sure that our presence was visible, and that we were between the man and the students. One table of girls said that he looked "creepy." I said that he was probably camping at the campgrounds nearby, and there to rock climb just like we were. "Still," said another girl, "you paid attention and moved in front of us." I nodded. She asked, "Would you die to protect us?" I looked at her and said calmly, "Of course. That's part of my job. When your parents send you to school, they count on me to protect what is most precious to them." She nodded, and they returned to lunch. Conversation over.

If we really want to safeguard our public schools from intruders, I would suggest restructuring the physical and social setting. Small schools, small classes, more adults per student on campus, and giving social skills as much weight as academic skills would be a good start. Most school shooters have been students themselves. If we set up school to be socially safe and healthy for all, I don't think we'll have kids going postal. Of course, that would fly in the face of contemporary American culture, which thrives on bullying. Treating others with civility and respect needs to begin at home, and in neighborhoods, and be supported and continued at school.

Setting up gates, guards, dogs, and teaching kids to operate as if they are in a war zone on campus does not create a safe, healthy social environment, in this teacher's opinion.

[thefool_wa]

18. I totally respect your point of view

I'm not sure if I have been clear on this, but I am really on the fence over the whole issue. The only solid opinion I hold here is that teaching kids to defend themselves (in any situation) is an excellent idea. But, before I get started, know that the idea of student-led defense is something I see as applicable primarily in a high-school setting, possibly jr high, but not elementary school at all. Teachers and staff are there for the protection of elementary aged kids.

I've lived in the inner city and American suburbia and I can tell you that, when it comes to the social environment of the High Schools, it is nasty in there. It was getting bad when I was in High School (admittedly almost 15 years ago), but it is way worse today. The schools around here are overpopulated and underfunded. What's worse is that, even though there are huge student bodies, there are so many more people that live here and don't have children that go to the schools they stand in the way of any financial progress toward the ideals that you spoke of.

It would be great if the schools could be made smaller and the teachers more attentive (or even attentive at all), but the reality is that all they do around here is enforce tragically ineffective zero tolerance policies and put cops at the door. This, as you said, just makes it worse. A student force would be almost invisible and help promote security without being as intrusive as armed adults.

Self defense training is excellent on discipline, morale, spirit, and self confidence. Knowing that there are peers there to defend you from school bullies and invaders has to be something that the victims of this type of thing would flock to. Adult led enforcement of anti-bullying policies is ineffective because of the stigma over tattling and the observed inability of the adults to actually curb it. Peer-led response has enough potential to work that I feel it should be at least tried.

These are not ideas for every school, and I don't kid myself that it is something you can force on a community that objects to it. But, I figure, why not ask the kids (again High School, possibly Jr High) if they think this type of program would be effective or if any of them would be willing to participate. I think we as parents (and teachers) would be shocked to see how many are tired of it and want to help.

Thank you for the most thoughtful and thought provoking response to this post so far. You seem like you definitely have the best interest of your students at heart, and that is truly commendable. Too many around here just want to shout down someone who has a radical idea that disagrees with their own sensibilities. Thanks for not being that guy.

[LWolf]

21. I have a radical idea for those urban schools.

I know they are not the same as my rural school. Here's my radical idea:

Let's pour our resources into our cities and neighborhoods here at home, instead of overseas. Let's provide abundant affordable housing, excellent public transportation, and community law enforcement. Let's delete the factors that lead to high crime and unsafe neighborhoods where the families live, and around the schools. When the school is not a fortress in the midst of a war zone, it won't resemble one, either.

Affordable housing, utilities, food, and transportation for all. Safe, clean communities that support the people who live in them. We can't do it overnight, but we could make a beginning. Meanwhile, scale those urban schools down to a more human level, where every single student is known to the adults and each individual's needs are addressed.

Our local high school, having gone through a "becoming suburban" growth spurt, is bursting at the seams. They had their very first shooting incident this year. A student accidentally shot the gun he brought to show off, and the bullet lodged in the ceiling. There are plenty of guns in rural America; it's just that out here, kids with guns in the home do "hunter safety" courses, as well as getting training and oversight by parents. Not out of fear, but as a common sense measure. Common sense that one particular student obviously didn't use! General self-defense approached and taught as a common sense measure, like swimming lessons and other safety programs, would probably be a good idea. I don't know what self-defense tactic disarms a shooter who is determined to take people with him/her, though.

There aren't any easy answers, but exploring different ideas through civil discussion is a good start. I think the bully attitude that goes on the attack verbally with an idea that is "different" is the same bully attitude that leads to school and community violence. I don't condone verbal or physical bullying, and I think that the verbal often provokes the physical response.

[nosillies]

9. Here is the training the OP is referring to

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0610190086oct19,1,409272.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

This is happening at one Texas school district.

[Jamastiene]

22. I believe self defense is good for children to learn.

I am all for teaching children to defend themselves. As a scrawny kid, I was bullied a lot in school. I started having thoughts of pulling off an attack on my high school at one point. I never went through with it, thankfully. Part of the reason I decided NOT to do that was that my mother took me to the local parks and recreation and I started taking karate lessons. Another big part of why I never actually did it was that my therapist recommended to my mother that she let me choose some activities away from school where I could meet people. I chose punk rock concerts. Between those two things and a few really nice guys in my advanced placement classes, I made friends and suddenly didn't care any more about the bullying at school. I learned a few very simple nonviolent reactions to take toward the bullies that worked also. Ninety nine percent of the problem with bullies is that no one ever stands up to them. No one ever punishes them. Kids have to do it themselves to a degree.

One thing I would like to point out about self defense courses is that they also teach nonviolent reactions and techniques to stave off attacks before they happen. It can be useful for children especially to know things like the fact that they can scream, "NO!!!" in some cases and avoid being abducted. It might seem silly, but it can make the difference between life and death for those kids.

I, personally, see nothing wrong with making martial arts or self defense optional "gym" classes. In other words, any kids who may not be big enough for their age to play football or basketball, could choose an option to take martial arts or a self defense course instead.

As far as arming one group of students to defend the school, I'd rather leave the decision to individual kids. Let them decide if they think they have a chance to take an offender down only on a volunteer basis. I personally know many of my friends in high school would have done just such a thing just because they were those types of guys. Three of the ones I am talking about later became police officers when we got out of school. One is the chief of police for the city here now. They seemed to always be the ones who handled all the fist fights in school anyhow. The teachers kept saying "I don't make enough to take a punch. Let 'em fight it out." Otherwise, the fights would not have been broken up by the faculty or staff. It was always those same three guys who are now cops who broke up the fights in school. I still trust the two who are still alive today. The third was sadly killed in a drug raid in Fayetteville. Oddly enough, they named a bridge for him there, but not here in our hometown. They were good guys to talk to in high school. They became my protectors after getting to know me and finding out some of my gripes about the bullying situation. Personally, I'm glad they were around. I give those three and one other one who just simply stood up for me when a guy was calling me a satan worshipper because I liked Metallica, quite a bit of credit for helping me stay in school and not losing it.

Without those three factors above all others (punk rock, a little karate/self defense and the guys who would later become police officers), I would have been like the kid in Paduca or worse, I would have enlisted another wayward disillusioned alienated kid to pull off a Columbine style killing. I was at that point when I met those guys and my therapist recommended the concerts and karate. That therapist might have been a total flake by wearing fuzzy bunny slippers and pajamas to the mental health clinic (to his job), but I credit him with getting my mother to see the problem and help me make friends and get out of that hell and loneliness somewhat.

My point is simple. There are kids who have what it takes to fight, but then there are those situations that even they might not be able to handle it. Then there are kids who just wouldn't be able to fight, but they could learn tactics to resist at least. I certainly wouldn't be against martial arts and self defense being offered in the schools if for no other reason than to diversify the options students have and to give some other outlet for the bullied kids to express their inward angst. That was my saving grace. The angst I had/have never completely went away, but how I handle it now is sooo much better than killing the bullies would have been.