In the wake of the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, some people decided to do something about the flood of high capacity weapons in our neighborhoods (like petitions to stop selling semi-automatic rifles at a local store and sweeping new gun control laws). Others decided to go the opposite route and create videos and vast conspiracy theories about how Sandy Hook never happened.
And others decided that sussing out the security flaws of local Alameda elementary schools was super important.
So Michele Ellson over at The Alamedan decided that it was her journalistic duty to see how “safe” a few local Alameda elementary schools. The test? Seeing if she – as a young, non-threatening looking, white woman — would be interrogated by staff if she was found wandering on to a few campuses.
Here are a few snippets:
Not one of the more than a dozen adults a reporter encountered during visits to Edison, Donald D. Lum and Ruby Bridges elementary schools offered more than a hello as the reporter wandered in and around the wide-open campuses for as long as 10 minutes. The reporter found doors to classrooms full of children unlocked, propped open or even wide open, while other security measures went untended or were outright ignored at the schools, which serve more than 1,500 students combined according to district enrollment figures.
…
Built in 1942, Edison School offers visitors multiple points of entry, included an open entryway without a door or gate. A reporter was able to enter the school and walk into a play yard full of students without being questioned by any of the adults she passed; the door to a portable full of students the reporter tested was unlocked, while a room that appeared to be a staff room was propped open by a hole punch.
The reporter had a similar experience at Lum, where some of the hut-like classrooms front directly onto Otis Drive. A sign posted on 52-year-old campus said the school had surveillance cameras monitoring for illegal activity, but the reporter wasn’t questioned by anybody during the roughly 10 minutes she roamed on and around the campus. One of the classrooms was open, with students visible to a reporter walking across the campus.
Ruby Bridges offers visitors similarly easy access; a sign on the gate through which a reporter entered said it was to be locked at all times “for children’s safety.” Again, none of the adults a reporter encountered while on campus questioned her as she roamed the campus; blocks away, a pair of police officers had stopped to question a bedraggled-looking man wandering the neighborhood with a sleeping bag hung off his shoulders.
First, let me just say, as a frequent user of the Ruby Bridges campus, the signage actually reads that the gate should be “closed” not locked, there is a difference, for children’s safety. And — during school hours — I have always found the gates to be closed, but not locked. Also, let me also point out that at Ruby Bridges, probably like most schools, the play yard where all the kids have recess is completely open. Completely open. Unless we are going to suggest that we put fences up and around all these play areas and fields too, then those are vulnerable security points as well.
I guess my initial reaction was: what was the point of this? While I, as a mother, want my children to be safe at school as much as the next person, my big takeaway from the Sandy Hook shootings was not, “Zomg! we need to lock our schools down tight in order to protect the children! Where’s the bubble wrap?” For me, I came to the realization that I should never ever let my children go to school without me telling them that I love them. I know it seems pretty simplistic, but sometimes in the rush of the morning prep, something as simple as that is sometimes forgotten. Plus, extra curricular practice occurs in the morning which often leads to exasperated yelling…I mean…loud expression on my part which leaves everyone in a slightly funky mood.
What I came to rationalize was that bad things will happen and all the locked doors and armed guards and fences and gates in the world won’t stop a crazy person with a gun from doing what he (or she) has set his (or her) mind on doing. There is this phrase from one of my favorite movies of all times, Strictly Ballroom (have you seen it? So good. My favorite Baz Luhrmann movie, but I digress) that goes something like “A life lived in fear is a life half lived.” And that is what I went through my head when I read the piece. There were suggestions from a “security expert” that talked about buzzers and single entrances, doors unable to be opened from the outside and so on and so forth and all I could think was: how does that make our children safer as opposed to little prisoners? Personally, I would be more upset if I were to learn that AUSD wanted to start to lock doors everywhere and essentially pen in students, where does it end?
I was glad to see the pushback from AUSD staff in the piece:
“Your ability to walk on the campus is very much a part of the culture we live in and expect in Alameda,” Shemwell said.
…
Zazo said that prior to the shootings, some school districts had begun removing fences and other security measures because they detracted from school security, rather than improving it.
“We could make all of our school campuses little tiny prisons with fences all around them, an extreme degree of lockdown. It is a balance that the community has to weigh in and talk about,” said Shemwell.
I think that most parents who have kids that go to local schools are more than aware of the situations at local schools. I would hazard to guess that most, not all, but most feel okay with the level of security that exists at their schools. So other than a bit of pot stirring when it came to striking fear into the hearts of over-protective Alameda parents, I don’t know if this piece reflected anything that parents of Alameda elementary school kids didn’t already know about their schools if they thought about it in terms of “school safety.” My fear is that articles like this only enhance the apprehension that some parents have naturally and then there becomes a push to invest in unnecessary expenses at schools designed to “protect” students from some unknown and scary boogeyman that may exist in the shadows.
It is a mistake not to challenge a visitor at the school. Staff should be trained to do this. A visiting badge should be required. No one should “wander” around a school. Shemwell and Sazo sound very cavalier about it. I hope there reaction was out of context. Living in a “safe” community is no longer enough. There are 300 million guns in the USA, and it is protected by Amendment. We can’t control it. In Israel, no person can have more than 50 rounds of ammunition. That would be a start. A comic mentioned that bullets should cost $10,000 each. That would be better.
Comment by Commonsense — January 17, 2013 @ 6:52 am
It may have been mistake for school employees to not challenge Michele as she wandered across the campus, but many of our elementary schools have so many parent volunteers that I think everyone has gotten lazy. Parents in a rush decide to skip signing in at the office so they can get to the classroom/lunchroom on time (been there, done that myself); teachers assume that a grownup (especially a woman, and one they may recognize from around town) is a parent. I think reminding everyone how important it is to get that visitor’s badge when they’re on campus would help kids and staff alike notice when an adult on campus has no identification.
I think it’s also important to note that the district and teachers have done some great work cultivating safer school atmospheres — including the anti-bullying program adopted several years ago, the restorative justice programs in several of our middle and high schools, and Chris Hansen’s fantastic Wall Breakers program at Lincoln. From what I’ve read, these kinds of programs are as important as locked doors and giant fences.
Comment by Susan Davis — January 17, 2013 @ 8:15 am
Thank you for this post Lauren, I too was taken aback by the security articles for many of the reasons you’ve noted above. I think it’s important to remember the Sandy Hook tragedy was not a result of lack of safety. As a matter of fact, the actions of the Principal and several Teachers saved the lives of many children. Sandy Hook happened because someone with a mental illness had access to semiautomatic weapons.
Comment by Anne DeBardeleben — January 17, 2013 @ 8:23 am
I agree with Ann. Access to the building at Sandy Hook was by breaking in through a window. Anyone with murderous intent will find a way. My issue is with elementary schools built like college campuses with multiple structures and points of access. I rejected Otis School for my son when scouting out kindergartens chiefly because of that and because of its close proximity to a public park and busy streets. At the time (13 years ago), I was also disturbed that I walked all over campus without being stopped or questioned. I felt the design and location of the school made it too easy for creeps and crazies to gain access and for the children to wander off or get into mischief in nooks and crannies. I suspect schools being bulit in the future will adopt a model that will make security a primary focus. This might help staff and teachers protect the students from outsiders and from each other. After all, the threat of violence your child is most likely to encounter in schools comes not from a latter day boogie man but from the other children.
Comment by Denise Shelton — January 17, 2013 @ 9:05 am
(Sorry, Anne, for misspelling your name.)
Comment by Denise Shelton — January 17, 2013 @ 9:09 am
If all doors are locked, children will not be able to get out in the event of a fire.
Comment by vigilante — January 17, 2013 @ 9:26 am
“I should never ever let my children go to school without me telling them that I love them.” Good on you, Lauren. I heard a dad tell his son that he loved him at Edison School this morning.
Comment by Tom Schweich — January 17, 2013 @ 10:19 am
#4 — It’s so interesting how security and aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder. I was a parent at Otis for nine years and in my view, kindergarteners there were *very* safe, because they had their own, fenced-in yard! In fact, that was part of the appeal of the school.
I also *like* the fact that many of our elementary schools are next to city parks — I think the view of and access to playing fields, trees, and flowers is wonderful for children. I wish more schools had access to those kind of natural areas.
Comment by Susan Davis — January 17, 2013 @ 11:32 am
8. To be honest, it was the school’s “literacy policy” with the multiple errors in grammar and spelling that sealed the deal.
Comment by Denise Shelton — January 17, 2013 @ 12:28 pm
Hi Lauren: Thank you for your post today. One of the primary goals of the pieces I ran on school safety this week was to generate a discussion about safety in our schools, what’s being done and what people’s expectations are, and I appreciate your willingness to engage in and promote that. I did write a piece that talked about what the district and public safety are doing to address safety and to give readers a sense of what may or may not be effective or doable in terms of keeping students and staff safe, but I also ultimately came to the conclusion that it was also important to give readers an on-the-ground sense of whether basic safety practices like greeting visitors and shutting doors and/or gates were actually being followed – practices that experts I interviewed said can offer vital seconds in the event something awful like Sandy Hook happens and ones that also address some of the scenarios school personnel are more likely to face. I knew this would be a difficult and emotional discussion to initiate – we are talking about the well-being of the most precious things in our lives, our kids – but I did think, and do think, that it is a journalist’s duty to engage the community in this discussion and others like it so that the community has a role in shaping how this is addressed and how other issues like it are addressed. I’m happy to take feedback from you or your readers and answer any questions you all may have about the stories, why I wrote them, and what I learned; I’m at michele@thealamedan.org.
Comment by Michele Ellson — January 17, 2013 @ 12:50 pm
To be fair, a more balanced piece would have also reflected on what the schools had done properly, “security-wise”, as opposed to what was found to be deficient. Additionally, the only expert you interviewed was one who stakes his livelihood on schools hiring him to institute more security procedures. While his opinion is valuable, on the other hand, I’m sure there are others security experts that would take a more measured approach depending on context and age of facilities.
Since my experience is with Ruby Bridges, you noted that the gates were not “locked” per the sign on the gate. But the sign indicates that the gate is to be closed, not locked. As commenter “vigilante” pointed out above a locked gate would make it impossible for children to exit in case of a fire. I imagine that the chances of a fire occurring is much higher than that of a school shooting.
In order to spark a discussion of what the community’s expectations are, I think there were alternative ways to do that, instead the result was a bit of “these Alameda elementary schools are unsafe, find out why!”
Comment by Lauren Do — January 17, 2013 @ 3:19 pm
doors can lock from the exterior without locking people into a building just like all emergency fire exit doors. If I am not mistaken the front entry door at Sandy Hook Elementary was a locked door with a camera but the glass was shot out.
The stock of two publicly traded gun manufacturers has gone UP 5% in value in the last month. Fear seems to drive a lot decisions from every quarter. The world if full of picket fences and then some.
Comment by M.I. — January 17, 2013 @ 3:49 pm
Sometimes, the best security arrangements are those that very few people know about. I appreciate the mandate of a reporter to investigate and report. However, if I had a child in an Alameda public school, I don’t think I would want all the details of a specific school’s security plans to be published in a popular public forum. Perhaps, something from the district level would be good, like “All classrooms will be lockable from inside the classroom by February 10, 2013,” which might be a higher priority than buying new administrative offices. Or, “We have held an earthquake drill at each elementary school and learned we need to … [fill in blank here] … and this will be accomplished by [fill in date here].” I just don’t think specific comments about specific schools in either Lauren’s or Michelle’s blogs are a good idea.
Comment by Tom Schweich — January 17, 2013 @ 4:13 pm
Hi Lauren: This piece was actually a sidebar to another story that offers a rundown of what Alameda Unified is doing in terms of planning, training and drills, along with the mental health and public safety resources Alameda Unified has in place for preventing these types of incidents. You can find it here: http://www.thealamedan.org/news/connecticut-shootings-restart-school-safety-discussion
Comment by Michele Ellson — January 17, 2013 @ 6:01 pm
I would venture to guess that kids in Alameda schools are no less safe than kids are in schools any place. Specific examples stir up hurt feelings. No one wants the implication that they’ve placed their child in an “unsafe” school. The reality is that this is an unsafe world. Kids have been the victims of stray gunshots while sleeping in their own beds under the watchful eye of loving parents. Polly Klass was abducted by a stranger climbing in her bedroom window. Sometimes the best we can hope for is that the efforts we take will lessen the likelihood of an incident or, as in the case of Sandy Hook, rely on those on the scene to do what they can to mitigate the fatalities. We don’t like to think or talk about these things, but depending on the age of the child and their personality, a parent might want to discuss survival strategies (weighing the possibility that they are putting undue anxiety on the child by doing so, of course). There really are no easy answers. Thankfully, millions of kids go to school each day and come home safe and sound. The numbers at least are in our favor.
Comment by Denise Shelton — January 17, 2013 @ 6:01 pm
Hate to rain on the kids’ danger parade but statistically schools are the safest place for kids.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 17, 2013 @ 6:56 pm
I would focus more on the Causes and would be more concerned about Children and Young Adults who sit around all day and play these Violent Video Games all day and being rewarded for killing people . They are learning this behavior somewhere.These huge massacres have been done by young adults who were Big Gammers . Interesting that I just Googled Most Violent Video Games for Kids and there are Trojans that lock up your computer on the Parenting.com that talk about Worst Video Games for Kids. It’s a Huge Industry and they certainly don’t want much exposure at this time. I would not go to the Parenting Site unless you have good computer security.
This is interesting article and safe site.
The effects of violent video games. Do they affect our behavior?
by: Brad J. Bushman, Ph.D. Professor of Communication and Psychology, The Ohio State University; Professor
of Communication Science, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
http://www.ithp.org/articles/violentvideogames.html
Comment by John — January 17, 2013 @ 8:24 pm
How sick are these games.
Call of Duty: Modern Warfar 2 Airport Massacre Scene .
Comment by John — January 17, 2013 @ 8:31 pm
The first mass shooting I remember was University of Texas in 1966. Later, in 1989 the elementary school where my husband had attended kindergarten in Stockton was shot up, by a gunman standing shooting the kids as they were out in the school yard playing, with a total of 35 killed or wounded. What are we going to do– keep the kids inside– no recess, no play? I don’t want to live in a world like that, where everything is about security and high walls are built to keep the children inside “securely”. I like to see the doors open on a hot afternoon at the school. I did many hours of volunteering at Edison and would hate to see it become like a prison for children . And are you never going to take your children to the post office or the movie theater? Shootings can happen there too.
I remember a new principal coming to Edison and wanting to put up a 12 foot fence all around it. At the time, the big issue was kidnappings. I asked her– how many children have been kidnapped from school in Alameda? She answered that she would not want to be the principal at the school the first time it happened. That was more than 10 years ago, and the 12 foot fence hasn’t happened. I am grateful.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — January 17, 2013 @ 11:29 pm
Though I personally loathe the violent video games; I never allowed my kids to have them and always wanted to point my finger in the same direction, I recently saw a quote that opened my eyes a bit more. Paraphrasing : Violent video games are available world wide yet no other country experiences the gun violence similar to America.
Comment by Anne DeBardeleben — January 18, 2013 @ 10:09 am
Schools are usually shot up by someone who was a student there [Oikos, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook,]. Workplaces are usually shot up by former or current employees [ESL, Minneapolis. "going postal"] The next shooting will probably be done by someone who is reserved & unobtrusive, already owns guns, has passed a background check, & has no history of mental illness. The violent act will probably be his first [& often last] sign of mental illness; just as sudden death is often the first sign of heart disease.
I wonder if Michele would have been stopped if, instead of high heels, she’d been wearing boots & camo, or “Gothic” apparel.
Comment by vigi — January 18, 2013 @ 10:10 am
on nature/nurture and effects of the culture and media, I just finished the crime chapter from Andrew Solomon’s “Far from the Tree”. I mentioned the interview with Dylan Kelbold’s parents and now having read it, I’d say the issue is more muddled than ever. Solomon references studies of genetic predispositions toward aggression and essentially even the genetically predisposed can be nurtured toward lesser tendencies. One imagines when predisposition meets bad environment creating Gary Gilmore. At any rate, I was interested to note that with years of research Solomon doesn’t end up putting great emphasis on media influence. There is no doubt in my mind that at every level the violence in various media does desensitize us as a population and those who grow up in real life situations of desensitization may be more effected, but to my understanding ghetto kids who play Grand Theft Auto are not going to be significantly influenced by playing the game when it is just a cartoon reflection of their real lives which are far more desensitizing. Chicken and egg speculations aside, real guns are the problem not those in video arcades. Dylan Klebold’s actions were not primarily and directly the result of his gaming habits even though playing the games may have stoked the fires of his pathology.
The NRA lobby has succeeded, through coercing politicians, in stopping ATF tracking of statistics on real gun violence as well as any funds to CDC for research into correlations between mental health and gun violence. It’s not that violent video games and bloody movies have no negative effect, it’s a matter of prioritizing. The entertainment and gaming industry have lobbies too and they will resist regulation as censorship of free speech just as NRA resists gun reform as infringement on their purist interpretation of 2nd Amendment. So maybe one thing to consider is which has the most corrosive effect on pursuing effective solutions.
The NRA wants us to be distracted with the violence of media as a major cause and with “good guys” with guns in schools as realistic solution, but La Pierre’s rally cries are cynical diversion. It’s the (real) guns stupid!
When this discussion first broke the Black Panthers toting guns to Sacramento in 1967 sprang to mind but I didn’t know enough about the details so I skipped the reference. This article is interesting. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/
Comment by M.I. — January 18, 2013 @ 10:11 am
21 Vigi, I don’t believe in any of the shootings you list that the shootings themselves were in any way the first and only signs of mental instability prior to the incidents. V Tech guy was doing creepy stalker stuff, etc. Definitely not the case in movie theater shooting or Giffords in Arizona that there were no prior signs and in neither case were locations work place, school etc., though “going postal” does come from the work place phenomena. Even if the acts seem sudden don’t you think they might be far less so if we put more resources into the mental health system?
Comment by M.I. — January 18, 2013 @ 10:21 am
You may not believe the facts, but they’re still facts, MI. Google :”workplace shootings”. I specifically left out Aurora & Arizona b/c they are neither. I don’t have much faith in psychiatry to help, perhaps because the range of eccentric human behavior is such that just about all of us fit under some diagnosis in the DSM-IV. But “mental instability” that isn’t characterized until after the fact isn’t much of a bellwether for prevention. The Aurora shooter was already under psychiatric care when he killed. And everyone seems to forget that the Fort Hood shooter was a licenced, practicing psychiatrist! If shrinks can’t stop the people they already know about, how are they going to stop those they don’t yet know about?
Comment by vigi — January 18, 2013 @ 10:57 am
24. You seem to argue that since there are no perfect solutions it isn’t worth any effort at all.
I don’t know how your use of Google infers I don’t accept facts. I referred to the Aurora and Arizona cases because your omission was obviously selective in order to bolster your point. That a majority of such incidents might be work place oriented only speaks to the causes of acute frustration, but doesn’t prove anything over all about mental health in general or our medical system.
I have personally known several psychiatrists who were some of THE most dysfunctional people one could imagine, severe alcoholics with horrible personal relationships, etc., but that doesn’t change the facts over all with regard to cause and effect or prevention with regard to these incidents becoming epidemic. The clinician in Aurora was struggling with the law. Patients rights are a slippery slope and it gets complex just like lawyer client privilege. Aside from treatment, the system of background checks for gun purchase with regard to mental illness is based on records of states which aren’t even required to participate or even to keep records. Paranoia about Big Brother is no excuse for avoiding some basic regulations. As is often said, even if many determined people can thwart such hurdles, if one life is saved those regulations have validity. As for mental health over all, because we are a nation of quick fix junkies, like meds and self help gurus, and because unlike treating an infection with antibiotics mental health problems can be incurable, that is not a reason to just shrug and be dismissive, or for insurance companies to avoid coverage. A very close friend who recently found out her son is schizophrenic has done really well by the boy by being a fierce advocate for early intervention and the best treatments available. The drugs which help still have serious side effects including shortening life span so it’s difficult to keep patients on meds, especially those whose symptoms includes their inability to self identify as ill.
Like you say, many, many of us could be diagnosed with some pretty significant conditions even though we may function day to day, to varying degrees of competence. When I was very young, I had an uncle who commit suicide with a gun after release from a state mental facility, and the cascading effect that had on our nuclear family has reverberated through my life ever since and has direct bearing on many personal issues which continue to dominate my entire being, right down to my writing this comment. Shoulda, woulda, coulda. People who are battered by the human condition in general or specific incidents like soldiers with PTSD may never be “cured” but that is no excuse to forsake the effort to strive for improving ourselves, or advocating for better social safety nets for all of us.
One of my sort of mantras is some Rilke wrote, roughly ” I dare not forsake my demons for fear my angels too should take flight”.
Comment by MI — January 21, 2013 @ 10:27 am