In recent years the traditional and
trustful security system of schools in the US has been the topic of continuous
discussions and debates. Following the rampage shootings of the late 1990s and
early 2000s, many schools have adopted new and moderns security measures, such
as the presence of law-enforcement officers on campus, requiring ID cards to
enter the vicinity and high-tech security cameras installed at every corner. As
the seemingly safer and stricter practices are put in broader use around the
country, their effectiveness and usefulness are closely followed and
scrutinized. While some agree with the government and believe that the new
security system will decrease the use of weapons and violence in schools,
others criticize its negligence in addressing the real problem—what causes
students to turn to rampage shootings.
Katherine
Newman discusses the causes of rampage shootings in US schools in her book
“rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings”. She believes that it is the
convergence of many psychological and social factors that drive a troubled
student to such an act. Newman believes that while the popular explanations of
rampage shootings—mental illness, temporary insanity, family problems,
bullying, peer support, gun availability, violent media, etc.—are all viable
factors, none of them alone could affect a student enough to make him turn to
mass shootings in his school. Considering Newman’s theory, it seems obvious
that increased security measures are not the solution to the problem.
In
fact, PBS reports that despite the heightened security in US schools, the
number of on campus shootings has not decreased. While policies, such as
training law enforcers on campus to take down the “active shooter” in a timely
manner, ensures a decrease in the number of injured students and teachers, it
in no way tries to understand and prevent such acts. With the new budget plan, Congress has set aside an
increased amount of money to promote safer school environments. This will
mainly be used to train law-enforcement officers to take posts on campuses and
install security checkpoints. However, again the emotions and mental state of
distressed students are placed as a secondary issue. Education Secretary Arne
Duncan believes the new system to be successful in making schools more secure
and safe. On the other hand, he believes that: “This is a societal problem,
it’s not a school problem.”(PBS) Therefore, it is hard to solve a cultural
problem with just an increase in security.
Rampage
shootings are not common. Yet, even the small number of incidents points to
some shortcomings in our educational and social system. Though improving
security measures is certainly essential and helpful, there is a necessity to
examine and address the sources of the violent acts. Perhaps, paying closer
attention to students’ mental shape would reduce the aggression. After all, as
Newman points out, the shooter-students usually demonstrate early signs of
trouble and psychological instability. Instead of focusing all forces towards
security, benefitting the future of youth should be top priority.
Sources:
Newman, Katherine. rampage:
The Social Roots Of School Shootings. New York. 2004. Pages 3-73.
PBS. Hefling, Kimberly. “Despite increased security, school
shootings continue.” Washington. February 2, 2014. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/despite-increased-security-school-shootings-continue/
I agree with this paper's implication that school shootings can not simply be prevented by security cameras, increased police force and increased security measures. Turning school into a prison will not prevent rampage shootings alone. This paper addresses a similar point discussed earlier in this class regarding high security systems. There is no effort to understand youth; to understand where they are coming from, why they misbehave, and how administrators can act to support students emotionally and psychologically. Instead of guidance counselors, officers are taking the lead in disciplinary measures and in education around discipline and crime. Students with psychological problems due to early or current experiences or students who are inclined to act out in mass violence for whatever reason are undetected by the adults they around for most of the day (school staff) because those adults simply don't take the time to listen. Cameras can not detect and prevent violence before it occurs,for that, genuine human intervention through meaningful youth-centered conversation is requisite.
ReplyDeleteShushi did a great of providing evidence via the PBS article to support Newman’s claim, which added credibility to the argument. While I agree that metal detectors and related security measures help deter students from being weapons to schools, I agree that policymakers need to focus on the cause of rampage shootings, rather than simply piling on invasive security measures. I also agree that preventative measures should be policymakers’ key focus. Past rampage shootings, such as the Columbine High School shooting, have proven that security cameras alone are not enough to prevent violence or murder within schools. I agree with Shushi’s argument that more money and attention should be paid to the mental health of students, instead of just exposing them to (frequently antagonistic) security measures such as armed guards, or visible ID cards and closed campuses which do little to nothing to prevent a student from committing acts of violence in their own school. I also agree with one of Newman’s argument that since most school shooters display warning signs more attention and resources should be diverted towards preventing school shootings, rather than combatting it if it occurs through use of armed guard and similar security measures.
ReplyDeleteI agree that having security systems in schools is necessary, but they do not prove to be a sufficient preventative measure of violence, especially with regards to rampage shootings. Security can only go so far in its attempt to prevent violence from occurring because the mental states of the students who commit these crimes are being ignored. In order to understand the reasoning behind the students who commit these shootings, one must look at their backgrounds and consider why they feel the aggression they do. Security systems in schools cannot fully prevent crimes from happening; the belief that security in schools will produce a lower rate of crime is simply idealistic. It is not possible to stop a problem without knowing or learning the cause. I agree with the article’s external source in that these crimes are a product society, not school; therefore, schools cannot be expected to be able to stop a crime that functions on a much higher scale than that of educational institutions. Rampage shootings are an unfortunate product of a society that does not promote the importance of mental health, particularly that of students. Until psychological problems are dealt with, the rampage shootings will still occur, and despite the fact that they are uncommon occurrences, they really should not occur at all.
ReplyDelete-Marlow McCurdy
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is a well written blog that synthesizes Newman's argument well. I do agree with Shushi that while having in school security measures may be helpful in preventing some school shootings, we need to focus more our money and time on our youth's psychological well being starting at a young age as well as training adults and authorities working in the school system to recognize early warnings signs that school shooters may show. As well as focusing our time and energy on what specific early life experiences (ie: different forms of abuse) may have an impact youth guilty of school shooting rampages. This would be better done through having more school counselors, therapists and trainings and less armed officials in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteIn this class we have seen how many scholars agree that, as Shushi describes, heightened security measures in schools are not the most ideal solution to school violence, and that these measures fail to address the underlying issues that drive students to commit violent crimes in the first place. I also appreciate how Shushi highlights Newman’s contention that rampage shootings are the consequence of both psychological and societal factors; it seems that heightened school security leaves not only individuals’ problems, but also society’s problems, unaddressed. Still, I am sympathetic towards the teachers and school administrators who implement these security measures as an attempt to increase school safety, and I would like to think that many of them do indeed wish to address the real root causes of school violence—they simply don’t have the knowledge or the means to do so.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking purely from personal experience (my mom teaches 2nd grade at an urban, low-income school), I imagine that while there are some teachers who might just be cruel or uncaring in their excessive disciplinary referrals, there are also many who just cannot allow one trouble-making student to disrupt the learning of 29+ other students. Kupchik alludes to this in his description of “teaching to the rules,” and observes that teachers often default to removal from the classroom and fail to pull students aside to talk about their behavioral issues or provide extra tutoring for the class that they miss while suspended. However, is it fair or even realistic to expect a human teacher to somehow conjure up extra time and energy to provide a student with the intense intervention he or she might require, especially while in the middle of trying to teach the rest of the class? Likewise, is it realistic to expect a school to somehow conjure up the extra funding and resources to hire someone to provide for the academic and behavioral needs of every single student, especially in a community of increasingly absent or under-qualified parents? Heightened security, though insufficient, may just seem like the most efficient or effective “next-best-thing” for school administrators faced with an increasingly difficult situation.
Newman outlines that the root of such rampage shootings lies in the psychological problems of youth. From this we should note that preventative measures should also be taken to promote a healthier society, instead of spending all efforts on material measures such as surveillance systems, bag searches, etc. The PBS article supplements the essay’s argument as we can deduce from this that safety precautions are not the full solution; because the issue lies within the perpetrator, we must think carefully about the source of the violent acts. Kupchik outlines in his book how security measures are actually not promoting safer environments, and with that knowledge we need to further take into account the psychological instability and social issues that surround the perpetrators of rampage shootings. Schools should focus on integrating the student body and every individual rather than imposing zero-tolerance policies or having hall monitors curtail student action.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to Sushi Hovannisian’s paper, I want to agree with the idea that the modern security measures adopted by schools do not get to the root of the problem when it comes to school violence and rampage shootings.
As Katherine Newman discusses, there are many factors that affect how a person acts (specially when it comes to rampage shootings). It seems as though the proper way to manage the issue would be by trying to provide some sort of individualized counseling -to see how every student is feeling/doing throughout their education. Obviously that takes a lot of funding and effort so even if we turned all the spending we use for surveillance and police force in schools, there would not be enough money to cover that.
Based on the readings, it seems as though the issue with rampage shootings has to do with some sort of disconnection the "problem" student has from the rest of the student body and other people. It is a little bit disturbing that instead of trying to increase programs that help people find a place where they “belong”, there is a bigger effort on trying to increase ways in which students can feel intimidated or just as a number(police enforcement in schools, cameras, etc.).
-Karen Ruiz Pina
I think Shushi made a great argument in this essay. I especially thought Shushi and Newman's argument that "increased security measures are not the solution to the problem." It could be an effective measure in dealing with the active shooter, but it does not do much in terms of preventing the very acts of shooting from occurring. I agree with Shushi that much more fundamental than mere increased security must be dealt with in order to delve deeper into the origin of the problem. Why are youths expressing their frustration, anger, or troubles through such act of violence? Is that the only way they can express themselves? Is the society somehow not addressing the needs of the youth? How is the society dealing with the mentally ill children who may be at risk of such actions? I think such questions require more than just simple measures of increased school security.
ReplyDeleteThis essay did a great job of outlining the main point of Katherine Newman's discussion of rampage shootings which is that an increase in security measures does not necessarily decrease the amount of shootings due to the fact that it ignores the root causes of the problem. There is mention of a student's mental health, peers, and family environment which collectively can cause an individual to become a rampage shooter. I completely agree with the idea that the increased security measures, while possibly lowering the amount of damage a shooter can do, does not prevent the act of shooting itself. This is due to the fact that increased cameras and security guards more often than not are trained to only respond to these rampage shootings. While quick response times may limit the amount of deaths or injuries, there is a lack of emphasis placed on prevention of these shootings. I feel that there should be more money placed into school programs which aid these children who may not have a stable mental health or have family issues. Instead spending all of the funding on increased security, some of it must be directed towards programs to educate and help the youth in need in order to prevent the shooting from ever happening.
ReplyDeleteShushi’s paper points out perfectly the frequent shortcut undertaken by policymakers who, faced with the tremendously important issue of rampage shootings, attempt to reduce the occurrence of such events rather than addressing the roots of the problem through a better accompanying of students throughout their education. Instead of increasing the number of police officers on school grounds, one might want to expand the budget devoted to counselors and school therapists available on campus. The latter, properly trained, would be more capable of identifying students in distress and providing them with a much-needed help.
ReplyDeleteEven though the increased security is a required protection to avoid more unnecessary tragedies, it cannot be the only policy response to the “trend” of rampage shootings. These draconian New Regime measures are unreasonably pervasive, infiltrating the life of students to the point where the distinction between self-imposed morals and school discipline becomes blurry. This climate of constant fear of punishment actually creates a sense of uneasiness: why would one need police officers at school unless the school was unsafe? Implicitly, students are brought to internalize this environment of anxiety and rigid discipline which paradoxically triggers appalling reactions by the most unstable elements of the student body. Therefore, preventing the escalation of distress in at-risk students, rather than regulating every single aspect of the life of students at school, should be the top priority of government and school authorities.
There seems to be contradiction in many ways regarding just how to deal with youth and security on school campuses. Kupchik argued that increased security measures caused more issues than it solved because the root of the problem was not taken into account, solved or improved, thus exacerbating the situation. This blog post explains that Newman concedes the difficulty behind the causes of rampage shootings. The post gives several viable factors which Newman discusses and argues that no one factor can be the sufficient cause for a rampage shooting. This incentives the search for these root causes through risk factors. Many other posters here argue that increasing access and training for counselors and therapists may help as well. Although this may be a solution, let us not fail to consider that these counselors and therapists also look for risk factors to determine whether these youth are a harm to themselves or others. Yet, the research says looking for risk factors tend to lead to profiling, strict and zero-tolerance rules, and other measures that are also counterproductive, while in good intention, attempt to prevent the issue. Others on this comment thread argue that we should treat the root of the cause of rampage shootings. However, this is not always clear nor is it always the same among all shooters and I do not find it as simple as increasing the number of trained professionals, either law enforcement or therapists, will treat the problem. Just as youth are not incentivized to go to law enforcement for health, similarly they would be stigmatized for going to a therapist, which would exacerbate the problem. So maybe the problem is instead the lack of understanding from all parties involved in the situation, from peers to adults to school officials to law enforcement. It all needs to be reformed in order to treat the problem, not just one element. This brings up another issue, how does each element need to be changed and to what extent. Can these issues even be solved because of the distrust of the institutions implementing the reform. What does seem clear, is that this is not as simple as a solution as it seems nor is it likely that reforms will work as quickly as people would hope.
ReplyDeleteShushi, I really like your analysis of school shootings as a shortcoming of our educational and social systems. However, I think its also important to consider how college students, not quite adults but still sort of youth, have internalized school shootings, and the responses we find to counteract the problem. In lecture, Prof. Morrill explained that schools are the safest places for students, and most child abuse and youth deaths occur at home, in automobile accidents, public places etc. The media creates a culture of fear in regards to school shootings. I am completely guilty of zoning off in lecture and thinking about how I would escape if a shooter burst into the room. In fact, today I heard rhythmic tapping and automatically panicked and wondered if I could survive a two story jump out of a window. This culture of fear envelopes not only students, but especially parents. A little known fact is that Columbine had the latest monitoring system, but was still unable to control killings. Instead of focusing on mental health, it seems the public is responding with increased surveillance and policing in schools. I am unsure how to respond to surveillance. For example, in my policing class, we had a police chief visit as a guest lecturer. I initially felt afraid because of his gun, but then realized our room was most likely the safest on campus due to his training if a killer came into the room. I also realize this mental framework is dangerous because it normalizes violence and surveillance, instead of treating school shootings as a social issue.
ReplyDelete-Victoria Rodriguez
Shushi outlines Newman’s arguments very well in this essay. I also agree that added security measures alone cannot prevent rampage shootings. By adding security measures, schools neglect how rampage shooters develop and only focus on the shooting itself. Like Kupchik, Newman would believe that zero-tolerance policies would hurt youth more than it would help them. Some of the rampage shootings in history have occurred on campuses with surveillance cameras and security guards. It is negligent to place the entire blame and solution on security. Zero-tolerance policies might attempt to prevent students from misbehaving and committing small crimes, but in doing so it starts to treat the students as criminals and not students. Newman felt like adults should make themselves more available to their students. By enacting these policies, there seems to be a disconnection between students and their teachers. Teachers rely on the rules and law enforcement and put no effort into mending their students’ problem, which can be one of the factors that cause students to become rampage shooters.
ReplyDeleteThis essay provides convincing support of the argument that such security measures aren't addressing the actual issue and in turn aren't doing what they are supposed to be doing. There are some serious problems with simply magnifying security in schools without thinking more critically through the issue. Such security measures are attempting to provide a solution to a problem without understanding the actual issue. Furthermore, these measures taken are such that they cause significant changes in the school environment that are beyond the intended purpose (of the security measures). Thus, it is reasonable to suppose that in addition to failing to achieve their intended purpose and address the actual cause of such issues directly, these measures might cause unintentional harm. Lastly, Kupchik makes a similar point in Homeroom Security that perhaps what these youth need is to be listened to and to have their emotional issues addressed rather than forcing so much discipline into the environment that students feel they can't communicate with administration with regard to emotional issues and more
ReplyDeleteThis essay clearly addresses the issue of how schools are increasing security measures, how these measures are benefiting the schools, and whether these measures are enough to deal with rampage shootings. Shushi describes how the increased security in schools involves introducing the presence of law enforcement officers onto school campuses, having ID checks to enter the schools, and the installment of cameras to monitor the students throughout the school. According to Shushi states that while the increased security measures do provide more protection to the students in staff during the occurrence of a rampage shooting, it does little in the way of preventing them from actually occurring. She does a good job of explaining that in order to try and prevent them more resources need to be dedicated to the understanding of the individuals and what drives them to commit these rampage shootings in the first place. Overall, her essay does a good job of discussing rampage shootings and analyzing them based on work of Katherine Newman.
ReplyDeleteI think that Shuhi did a good in her essay by exposing points clearly and also mentioning the reading of Katherine Newman. To begin with I think the author did a good job at addressing the question that the author titled the essay, through many of the points that Newman makes in her article and the external resource that she uses from pbs. On a separate note I also find one of the points that the author described in the essay, where it is noted that Newman’s believes that no one social or psychological factor alone that can affect a student enough to make him turn to mass shootings, like the articles we read on media effects on violence and aggressiveness which in turn also tend to make the same point that it is all relative to a youth’s life experience in regards to psychological and social factors that may all in fact cumulate and lead someone to be aggressive, violent, and or turn to mass shootings. I also think the pbs quote the author brings up by Education Secretary Arne Duncan is also a valid argument for why school are now turning to more security measures to decrease aggressiveness, violence, and rampage shootings even though students may feel like they are help captive. The author points out that there is commonly early signs of distress amongst the shooter students which portrays that the priority of schools should be to rather than to invest in security measures, the investment should be to benefit the youth future. Overall I think the authors essay brought about good points.
ReplyDelete