A reader posted:
Nazareth school locked down; toy gun foundNazareth Area School District officials found a toy gun during a morning search after two Shafer Elementary students told their principal they heard someone had a weapon. The students said they heard the rumor at the bus stop, according to Superintendent Victor Lesky.The school went on lockdown shortly before 9 a.m., meaning students were not allowed to leave their classrooms.Officials searched students' lockers and backpacks before finding the toy gun, said Lesky.The parents of the student were notified and called to the school. The boy will face disciplinary action, including a suspension and must undergo counseling.By 10 a.m., Shafer had resumed its normal class schedule.- reporting by Arlene MartÃnez, The Morning Call
The article can be read here.
My daughter told me that there was an announcement stating a code white then code red and the announcement included the words "Lock-Down".
I'm sure there will be more on this in the future, but it seems disciplinary action and counseling COULD be severe depending on the circumstances. The child did nothing with the toy gun according to the report. The child's age is not known, the school is from K to fifth grade, so maybe between 5 and 11. It will be interesting to see how this develops.
I'm a bit surprised that the school would use the words "Lock-down" over the PA system for all children to hear. They have emergency response plans and in light of recent events in Lancaster, it probably did panic some children (not to mention teachers and staff). The code along ought to have indicated the degree and measure without unduly alarming children, but again I'm relying on my child's comment and am not familiar with the emergency plan.
We received a note at the end of the day and then the report in the Morning Call was posted a few minutes after 4:00 p.m. Did anyone receive an email alert? Was it posted on the district web site this morning to alleviate concerns and fear by parents? I'm genuinely asking these questions as I did not have daytime internet access today.
What are your thoughts on how this has been handled so far? What else do you know?
6 comments:
I think the school acted properly. They were not told that it was a toy but simply a weapon. Yes, the code red lock down announcment may seem severe but given the possibility that a weapon may be present in the building I think that the message does indeed need to be quick and of a nature that will be taken very seriously. Thankfully it was only a toy but what if it was real, would you really want a more relaxed atmosophere in the building while officials searched or have the children locked in their classroom until the matter is resolved.
As recent history has proven, gun violence can happen anywhere and I think that the school needs to take any threat very seriously.
I may not have been 100% clear, I think it is important that there was a lock down, but I don't think specific phrase lock-down is needed if the code system includes it. For instance a code white might mean there is a situation of concern, and a code red might mean there is a lock down situation. The teachers and staff ought to know the meaning of the codes. In light of what has happened the children don't need to know it is a lockdown, the code red is probably sufficient.
It is not for me a case of having a relaxed atmosphere but a potentially less excited one.
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough in the initial post and thanks for reading.
Well, there was a lockdown. So why not call it a "lockdown?" Maybe "code sunshine" is more sufficient. Or perhaps go into "lollipop mode."
Principal over loudspeaker: "Teachers and Staff, please prepare the area for full Lollipop Satus."
Children:"Yaaay!"
Looks like you missed my point.
There is no issue with the naming system utilized by the school, but if the codes include whether or not the school is in lock down status, then the use of the term lock-down is redundant and thereby not needed.
The code could have been announced and the teachers could have responded accordingly.
When you put this term and incident in the context of recent events and consider we are dealing with five to eleven year olds, for some of these children it probably created a more scary situation than was needed or actually existed.
The boy was in 5th grade and brought it to school because his brother was being picked on. I know the boy is a very good boy but his intention was beyond scary. I discussed it with both of my boys who were scared but this is the real world and let them be scared so they are aware that anything can happen. My question would be, if he had access to a real one would he have brought that to school?
I agree that we do need to let them know that this is not a "perfect" world and that there are bad things out there, and that they can't always trust and know things will be good and safe.
This is where I guess I can only wonder (and there is no psych degree on my wall that's for sure), if it could also be that the response of bringing a gun to protect would only be because of the exposure the child's already had?
Again, by 5th grade, I'm sure my daughter will be exposed to a lot more than she is now in 3rd, and her younger sister will get even more earlier. But I guess no matter what way you look at it in an age of instant and increasingly graphic information (pictures and video) there is going to be greater exposure to younger and younger children.
What they see and hear about they won't be able to comprehend in terms of outcomes or consequences. And as you note if a real gun were accessible what would have happened.
I can only imagine it will raise more questions than it answers. At the same time, I understand the bullying is very bad in the middle school and given this situation it obviously needs to be addressed and reduced as much as possible as early as possible.
Finally, does anyone else think Mr. Mudlock's getting more than his share of a baptism by fire here?
Let's see, this incident, the teachers contract issue, the fire alarm that sent the school to the high school, probably a few more minor ones I'm not thinking of off-hand - all in the first 90 days.
I'll bet he's wondering what next.
Thanks for the note and added insight.
Post a Comment