« On the ballot: Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux and Meredith Conroy on representation in elected office | Main | Calling in sick: Amanda Mull on protecting everyone with paid sick leave »

03/03/2020

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Ariana Padilla

In the article 'Schools should heed calls to do lockdown drills without traumatizing kids instead of abolishing them' by Jaclyn Schildkraut talks about how K-12 schools have been practicing realistic active shooter drills and controversy has arisen because of them. Many people believe kids shouldn't participate in active shooter drills because it's traumatizing, but Schildkraut believes they should be involved. Based on the information given in the article I also agree students should participate in active shooter drills.

1. In the article, Schildkraut claims she agrees with some of the teachers´ and Everytown's concerns about how active shooter drills can be traumatizing, but not if they're executed in an appropriate manner. She believes that children should be involved because prepares them in case there is ever a real situation involving a shooter, as well as it will reduce stress if the situation ever occurs because students will know what to do.

2. Schildkraut compares how a drill and exercise are two different procedures. She describes a drill as being a procedure that only requires practice, whereas exercises involve realistic sights and sounds. This matters to kids and school staff because exercises will induce more trauma and stress within the children. I agree with Schildkraut comparing lockdown drills with other drills because it is the same thing, you practice the drills to know what to do if the real situation ever occurs.

3. Steps that can be taken to reduce the trauma students may go through during a lockdown drill is by defining objectives and making sure the students are prepared. In Schildkraut's study, she discovers that lockdown drills make students feel more prepared and enhances the ability to do what's needed during an emergency. Schildkraut frames this evidence in a way that establishes credibility by saying it was followed through with Nickerson, Syracuse's school safety leader Thomas Ristoff and then after presenting her evidence follows up with a study from the National Association of School Psychologist with information that can be strengthen her claim.

4. According to students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas Highschool, some proactive changes that could be implemented at the national level to better prevent school shootings is ban semi-automatic weapons that shoot high-velocity rounds, ban accessories that simulate automatic weapons, establish a database of gun sales and universal background checks, and many more reasonable points. Although they do not directly mention active shooter drills, the students bring up that the national level needs to dedicate more funds to mental health research and the funding for school security. If Schildkraut used this editorial as a nayser for her argument she would most likely bring up that banning certain guns is unnecessary and that there is no need to close gun auctions because it would not prevent other school shootings from occurring, but she would agree with dedicating more funds to mental health research and school security.

Jay

Schildkraut compares how a drill and exercise are two different procedures. She explains that a drill as being a procedure that only requires practice, whereas exercises involve realistic sights and sounds. This matters to kids and school staff because exercises will induce more trauma and stress within the children. I feel thats even though exercises are more dramatic its important to have them so you know how others will react if the situation was real. The use of drills will give them practice, but if they don't know what the real situation could look like they might not respond how they should.

Peter Schwab

Schildkraut develops her stance throughout this article, and does so in a clear and organized fashion. It is informative on the topic and argues that school lockdown procedures are sufficient, but there is room for change. Fake blood on acting students and screaming and noises throughout the building is unnecessary, and like she says, it turns the drill into more of an exercise. During a fire drill, there is no need to light the building on fire because you are not exercising the situation, just practicing how to respond. It is important to consider the needs and emotions of every single student. I agree with her stance, and applaud the distinction between exercises and drills. There is no need to exercise the "worst-case scenario" every time during a drill, as the reward of students' awareness of the possibility of that scenario is certainly outweighed by the cost of their changed mental health and other possible long-term effects. And again, I believe the current lockdown procdures at a majority of schools throughout the country are sufficient, but changes toward the bettering of students' mental health would not hurt.

Melanie

The article, "Schools Should Heed Calls to Do Lockdown Drills without Traumatizing Kids Instead of Abolishing Them" by Jaclyn Schildkraut, discusses how some schools use very harsh lockdown practice methods (including some that involve fake blood and screaming) in order to scare the kids into complying with the rules and regulations that should be followed during a real lockdown. Schildkraut expresses her disagreeance with these tactics and i completely support her. Lockdown drills should be informative, not traumatizing. The fact that kids have to even be practicing these drills is scary enough. In other words, the fact that school shootings have become so much less taboo than they were meaning that kids have to constantly practice for if an intruder comes into the building should be enough for the kids to understand the severity of the situation they are practicing for. Kids should not be even more traumatized throughout the simulation drills, especially since there are less severe ways out there to help them practice what actions to take during these traumatic situations.

John Singletary

In the article 'Schools should heed calls to do lockdown drills without traumatizing kids instead of abolishing them' by Jaclyn Schildkraut talks about a new drill K-12 schools have been making students participate. Realistic active shooter drills are the new drill being implemented into schools, and it is causing problems. Much controversy has arisen because of this new drill. Parents, kids, and others believe children shouldn't participate in active shooter drills because it is a traumatizing event. Schildkraut, however, presumes they should be involved. With the information given in the article, I disagree with Schildkraut, and the fact students should participate in active shooter drills.
In the article, Schildkraut weakens her argument claims giving her claim less credibility by agreeing with some of the teachers and Everytown's concerns about how active shooter drills are traumatizing. She believes that children should be involved because it prepares them in case there is ever a real situation involving a shooter. Schildkraut also believes that it will reduce stress if the situation ever occurs because students will know what to do. She disagrees that it will be traumatizing if the drill/ active situation is done correctly.
Schildkraut explains the difference between a drill and an exercise. She describes them as "Exercises incorporate realistic sights and sounds, such as the simulated screaming and bleeding that might occur during a mass shooting. Drills, on the other hand, only require practice, such as evacuating a building or locking doors and getting as many people as possible out of sight." These are two different things that would affect how traumatizing the exercise is. This matters to kids and school staff because exercises will induce more trauma in kids. I disagree with Schildkraut comparing lockdown drills with other drills because they are vastly different things, even though drills are practiced, so students, faculty, and visitors know what to do if the real situation ever occurs these drills are in essence inherently different than one another. A fire drill is a standard basic drill; they occur naturally happen and can happen in many places and are useful for students to have learned for the rest of their life. In a fire exercise vs. drill, the worst would be the smell of fire. An active shooter exercise is inherently different. This is more on the basis of preparing an entire generation of Americans for a warfare type environment except in an environment that is supposed to be safe. As Schildkraut wrote, there would be screaming, blood, and realistic sights and sounds in one of her exercises. Students, faculty, and visitors aren't coming to schools to be randomly stressed with one of these pragmatic drills. With all the issues going on with this current generation mentally, emotionally, and otherwise, this type of event could be a stressor, the reason a person would snap and commit this crime. This is something that could affect students for the rest of their life, with experts worried that these random exercises, drills, or whatever one would like to call it causing PTSD with research being undertaken to prove or disprove this worry.
3. As Schildkraut adamantly explained, drills are different than exercises. Steps that could be taken to reduce the ordeal's effect on students would be # 1, making the students know about the training ahead of time. This would allow them to prepare for the trial mentally. Walking out and explaining what students are supposed to do ahead of time would enable a student to be better prepared. Based off only Schildkraut's study, she discovers from her research that lockdown drills make students feel more prepared and enhances their ability to respond and do what's needed during an emergency. Schildkraut frames her evidence in a way that establishes credibility by saying it was followed through with Nickerson, Syracuse's school safety leader, Thomas Ristoff, and then after presenting her evidence shows a study from the National Association of School Psychologist with information that strengthened her claim.
Students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas Highschool explained some proactive changes that could be implemented at the national level to prevent school shootings better is ban semi-automatic weapons that shoot high-velocity rounds, ban accessories that simulate automatic weapons, establish a database of gun sales and universal background checks and many more reasonable points instead of taking the more reactive route that drills are to this crisis. They don't directly mention active shooter drills; instead, the students bring up that at the national level, we need to dedicate more funds to mental health research and the funding for school security. If Schildkraut used this writing by the students as a naysayer for her argument, it would most likely be that banning certain guns is useless; it would not prevent other school shootings from occurring as guns are so prevalent in American society. She would more likely agree with committing more funds towards mental health research and school security, as she would believe it would protect the students more efficiently.

Makayla Stevens

In the article "Schools should heed calls to do lockdown drills without traumatizing kids instead of abolishing them" Jaclyn Schildkraut talks about how the controversy of having K-12 students participate in realistic drills and exercises that could occur within a school. There is a debate about whether students need to participate to be less traumatized if it was to occur or if students were being traumatized by the actual exercise/drill. Based on Schildkraut’s response and the article, I agree that children should participate in the drill and teachers participate in the exercise.
1. In the article, Schildkraut inserts evidence of both disagreement and agreement weakening her overall claim. Schildkraut establishes in the third paragraph that she agrees with the concerns that teachers and parents are having in Everytown but she does not agree with the abolishment of students participating in drills. She claims that if students participate in drills they are being prepared for events that can happen at school and it will become less stressful. Schildkraut included that she does not agree with this idea of abolishment because although it can provide a traumatic experience, it allows for students to be prepared for any situation. She also includes that she does not agree with the way these drills are executed because some schools are producing traumatic events.
2. Schildkraut makes a distinction between an exercise and a drill. She inserts exercises “incorporate realistic sights and sounds” while drills “only require practice, such as evacuating a building or locking doors…”. According to Schildkraut, drills and exercises are different because of the traumatic effect of both. For kids, exercises provide much more trauma than drills. I agree with Schildkraut when she compares lockdown drills to other “emergency preparedness drills” like fire drills because all drills are made for students and teachers to be prepared and ready for these situations. Although the drills do require different action it is still a drill and will prepare for less stress.
3. To reduce the trauma students might experience during a lockdown drill, inform the students ahead of time of the drill so they are mentally prepared for what is coming. Schildkraut included in the article that after the drill has occurred, allow students to ask any questions they have. Found in Schildkraut’s study, her research showed that lockdown drills make students feel more prepared and enhance their ability to respond and do what's needed during an emergency. Schildkraut frames this evidence and establishes credibility by including Elizabeth Zhe and Nickerson's research and following that, a decade later, Nickerson, Thomas Ristoff, and Schildkraut research. Schildkraut also included information about the National Association of School of Psychologists to establish strong credibility and evidence.
4. According to students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas Highschool, some proactive changes that could be implemented at the national level to better prevent school shootings is ban semi-automatic weapons, ban accessories that simulate automatic weapons, create a database of gun sales and universal background check, close gun shows, raise firearm purchase age, dedicate more funds to mental health research and professionals, increase funding for schools security, and many more actions that decrease the tragedies that have occurred. They do not mention active shooter drills, but they include that there should be better funding for school security because in their case their school was only provided, one on-campus officer. Most of their solutions were based on national security changes and banning anything related to a public showing of guns. If Schildkraut used this editorial as a naysayer in her argument she’d most likely disagree with banning the gun showing and sales because it does not relate with her argument. Schildkraut would find banning useless because it will not stop other school shootings from happening. She would support the increase in funding for school security and funds for mental health research and professionals because it would be more efficient evidence for her claim and protect students. Although having more security will not stop these shootings from happening it will provide students with more protection and can decrease the amount of damage that could occur.

Miracle A Johnson

1. In the article, Schildkraut agrees with some of the teachers’ and Everytown’s concern about how active shooter drills could traumatize kids. She believes that children should be involved because it prepares them in the situation of a real active shooter. Doing this will also relieve stress in a real case because everyone would know what to do at any time given.

2. Schildkraut compares how a drill and exercise are different types of procedures. She describes a drill as being practice, such as evacuating a building or locking doors, whereas an exercise incorporates real sounds and sights such as people bleeding, gunshots, and screaming. The affair matters to students and teachers because exercises will produce trauma and stress within children. I do agree with Schildkraut because her comparison is accurate; schools practice the drills to know what to do in a real situation if it ever occurs.

3. To reduce trauma, students should know they’re experiencing a drill or simulation rather than a real situation. Also, drills should be scheduled ahead of time with scenery appropriate for all ages. In Schildkraut’s report, she discovers that lockdown drills make students feel prepared and increase their thinking on what to do next in a real emergency. Skildkraut frames this evidence by following up with a statement by Nickerson, Syracuse school safety leader Thomas Ristoff. Later on, in the text, she concludes her testimony with a follow up from the National Association of School Psychologists to strengthen her claim.

4. Students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas Highschool believe there are a few proactive changes that could be executed at the national level to prevent or reduce school shootings. A few being to ban semi-automatic weapons that shoot high-velocity rounds, ban accessories that simulate automatic weapons, establish a database of gun sales and universal background checks, and many more reasonable points. Although they do not directly touch on active shooter drills, the students bring up that the national level needs to dedicate more funds to mental health research and the funding for school security. If Schildkraut used this editorial for her argument, she would most likely bring up that banning certain guns is unwarranted and that there is no need to close gun auctions because it would not prevent shootings at other schools. Although her point of view may differ, she would agree with dedicating more funds to mental health research and school security.

Chaston Pierce

1.) From the beginning of her response Schildkraut implies that she both agrees and disagrees with the claims made by Everytowns on lockdown drills. This can be very confusing because it can be very contradicting when she agrees with something that was related to something that she disagreed with prior. Overall Schildkraut tends to disagree with Everytowns main claim that "They say that drills shouldn’t be a surprise, involve realistic details or include kids." In her conclusion paragraph she states "evidence available indicates that practicing what to do when an emergency arises is worthwhile." making her point known that she believes lock down drills are useful. However Schildkraut does mention that "drills don’t have to be scary to be effective." this is referring back to the point that Everytown made which was that the lock down drills are traumatizing for students.
2.) As stated earlier, Schildkraut agrees that lock down drills are useful but do not need to be scary. To elaborate on this point she separates drills and exercises. To put it in her words "Exercises incorporate realistic sights and sounds, such as the simulated screaming and bleeding that might occur during a mass shooting. Drills, on the other hand, only require practice." This is saying that not only will a simple drill be effective but that it is different from the exercises that have been reported to frighten or traumatize the students. An example made to elaborate on this point was the connection to a fire drill. Schildkraut explains "Nobody sets schools on fire during fire drills to make them seem realistic." This is the same principle, there is no trauma but the children still learn the correct procedure if an accident does arise. I think that this is a great comparison due to it being school related and on topic with the drills. Also it drills home her point that drills can be effective without being traumatizing.
3.) Everytown wants to stop lock down drills for one main reason. It is because they believe that the drills themselves are too traumatizing for the children. This is a fair statement considering some of the school make gunshot sound and shot the teachers with plastic pellets. To reduce this Schildkraut suggest cutting out exercises all together and instead stick to just drills. This would result in the children just practicing staying hidden and quite and cut out the trauma. She also claims to tell the students when the drill is happening so that they can understand that it is not real as to not send them into shock. Schildkraut cites studies that prove that students felt more prepared if something were too happen while they were at school. She introduces these studies stating from early years to present day to portray to the reader that the methods that are being used are consistently working. This validates her claims and helps to solidify her argument.
4.) According to the editorial written by witnesses of a mass shooting in Florida in 2018, a constantly main topic was semi-auto weapons. There idea to being proactive differs a lot from Schildkraut due to how they look at the situation. Instead of teaching kids to to hide, they believe that placing stricter laws on guns would be more proactive. Another line of reasoning that they brought up was mental health. They believe that if there are mental health background checks on gun purchasers there would be less shootings.

Kaitlyn N Riley

In the article “Schools should heed calls to do lockdown drills without traumatizing kids instead of abolishing them” by Jaclyn Schildkraut, Schildkraut addresses the concerns within the traumatizing experience that a lockdown drill can have on a child. She expresses the importance of a lockdown drill and just how beneficial they can be to a child's safety when done in a nonfrightening way.
1) After the claim that school lockdowns should be abolished in schools because they are traumatizing to young students, Schildkraut made her statements on what she agreed and disagreed about the abolishment of drills. Schildkraut agreed that a drill can be traumatizing for a child, especially when there is fake blood and fake shooting involved. She does not think that the level is necessary and the children should be scared. She does, however, disagree that the drills should be abolished. Throughout the article, Schildkraut explained just how important a lockdown drill is to a child's safety. She argues that making a child familiar with the operation better prepares them for the future. Overall, Schildkraut does agree with the concerns for a child to experience a drill that involves loud noises or blood, but disagrees that a child should not participate in a drill.
2) Schildkraut makes the distinction between an exercise and a drill. She states that an exercise is when something is real and in regards to a child's lockdown exercise, they would fully experience what it would be like to have a shooter in the classroom. In an exercise, there would be fake gunshots and blood, which can be too much for a child to witness. A drill, however, is compared to going through the motions. Schildkraut explains how during a drill a child will learn what to do and where to go, but don't experience anything too realistic that would cause them to be afraid. Schildkraut also compares a lockdown to other emergency procedures such as fire or tornado drills. I agree with this because just like a fire or tornado drill, a lockdown drill is important and teaches a child how to protect themself in case of an emergency.
3) The steps that should be taken in order to reduce trauma within students is to make sure that teachers and staff are heavily involved to ensure security, and make the drills less intense. There is no need for fake blood or fake guns, as long as a child knows how to take cover and protect themselves that is all that they need to know. They should establish a plan that makes them feel secure and prepared for if anything were to happen. The benefits to a lockdown drill that Schildkraut provides is that when a child experiences a drill, they are more prepared for a real-life situation and are more aware of the situation. She states that a child should be prepared in order to protect their safety. In order to frame her credibility, Schildkraut includes research from studies from researchers such as Elizabeth Zhe, Amanda Nickerson, Kristina Vargo, and Thomas Kristoff.
4) The students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, provide many solutions they believe would help bring down the rates of school shootings and provide safety to students. In the article, they explain that banning semi-automatic weapons, providing more money to mental health institutions, raising the age of purchasing a firearm to 21, providing higher security levels in schools, and many more solutions. The students, however, do not mention lockdown drills as a solution to the problem of gun violence. If Schilkraut were to include this article to her argument, she would agree with the facts that there should be more security in schools, less gun accessibility, and higher funding to mental health. However, Schildkraut would be an advocate for lockdown drills because she believes it prepares students.

Noelle

Jaclyn Schildkraut, in “Schools should heed calls to do lockdown drills without traumatizing kids instead of abolishing them,” writes about the debate between whether or not lockdown drills and exercises should be practiced by students in schools. Exercises and drills are different in a lockdown, and Schildkraut believes that drills should continue to be practiced. She uses evidence that convinces me that drills should be practiced, as they prepare students in case of danger.

1. Schildkraut agrees with the claims of teachers from Everytown that lockdown drills should not be a surprise to kids, to prevent causing trauma. However, she does think that drills are necessary, which she states in paragraph three. Her claim is confusing, as she supports drills but not exercises, and agrees with the teachers but also disagrees. She has mixed opinions on the topic. The report states that drills can increase student awareness of how to respond during a real situation without making them feel unsafe. Schildkraut agrees with this, as she believes drills prepare students better. A major point she disagrees with is how lockdown drills are executed. She thinks students should have an idea of when the drill is coming up, and that simulations involving fake blood and pellets are unnecessary. She thinks they can cause trauma, which should not be a goal of a drill.

2. Exercises are simulations that incorporate “realistic sights and sounds.” These could be fake blood, screaming, and fake attackers. Drills are just repeated practices of what should happen if a real lockdown were to occur. Drills do not incorporate fake blood, etc. According to Schildkraut, drills and exercises are different because of the trauma associated with them. Exercises often produce more trauma as it seems more real. I do not agree with the comparison of fire drills to lockdown drills. While both, in real situations, can cause harm, the drills and exercises are much different. A fire drill is not as traumatizing, as everyone just has to evacuate a building. A lockdown drill is where students hide and prepare for a shooter. A lockdown drill seems much more traumatizing as it seems more life-threatening.

3. Students should know when a lockdown drill is going to take place to prevent trauma. Teachers should remind them that it is just a drill and that nothing bad will happen. The reports show that drills make students feel more prepared for an actual lockdown. Drills can increase student awareness without making them feel more stressed or unsafe. She establishes credibility from the framing of the evidence by including numerous reports from credible places and people. For example, she writes that all of the reports were in academic journals, and some experiments were conducted by licensed psychologists. All of these sources increase her credibility.

4. According to the students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, there needs to be stricter gun laws. They think there should be stricter background checks, and that the age to buy a firearm should be raised to 21. They want to ban semi-automatic weapons and accessories like bump stocks. They also want privacy laws to be changed so that mental healthcare providers can talk with law enforcement easier and for there to be increased funding for school security. They do not think active shooter drills are the answer. If Schildkraut used this editorial as a naysayer, she would most likely criticize the banning of semi-automatic weapons, as school shootings would still occur. Shooters would just use a different kind of gun, as there are many options. She would most likely agree with the students’ other points.

Abigail Oldfield

1. Schildkraut believes that children should experience lock down drills so that they are more prepared. She does agree with the teachers of Everytown about how they should be drills and not exercises so that it doesn't traumatize the children in the schools. What she doesn't agree with is about the fact that drills should not be a thing at all. She believes that drills make the children more prepared in the case of an active shooter and it also lessens the stress that they may feel in an active shooter situation, as they will know what to do. She just thinks that they should lack the traumatic factor, not disappear all together.
2. Exercises are meant to be more realistic and will include anything from children screaming, to fake blood. A drill is less realistic and more about just knowing where to go and how to act in a certain situation. Schildkraut believes that the difference does matter because an exercise is going to be much more traumatizing to the children and the staff in the school than a drill would be. I agree with her comparison of a lock down drill to a fire drill. A fire drill and a lock down drill aren't meant to scare students, but to prepare them for if a situation were to happen.
3. Some steps would be notifying the students that a drill is going to be occurring, and to constantly remind the students that they are in no type of danger at that point. Studies show that children who have been through lock down drills feel more prepared for the actual situation. It also decreases stress while increasing a student's social awareness. Schildkraut increases her credibility by using sources by licensed psychologists that have ran experiments, and by using information from many academic journals.
4. The students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School believe that if there were more strict gun laws in America, that the number of school shootings would go way down. They also believe that there should be a ban on semi-automatic weapons, and that the funding for school security should be increased. They do not think that active shooter drills are the only answer and that stricter policies need to take place. If Schildkraut used that editorial as a naysayer, I believe that she would agree with most of their points, except for the one about banning semi-automatic weapons. I believe that she would argue that the shootings would still happen because the shooter would just use a different type of gun.

Marie


Schildkraut states that she agrees with some teacher’s opinions on the matter, and agrees that the drills can be traumatizing, but that they don’t have to be if they were just done in a “better way” . Students should be more encouraged to be involved with the drills, as if there were ever a real situation, the students will be prepared and more likely to be calmer with obvious respect to the situation that they’re in.
Schildkraut claims that a drill is going through steps that are completely hypothetical and detached from the real scenario: a numbered procedure. An exercise however is more involved, and imitates the situation. I do agree with this comparison, as like a fire drill the common lockdown involved an announcment over the speaker as a warning (sometimes), and like a fire drill the students all groan and automatically do what is expected of them. It has been a long, long time since I’ve had a teacher tell us any instruction during a fire OR lockdown drill other than where to wait outside, or what wall to huddle by, everything else has become known instinct.
Students should have the rules explained thouroughly, and then explained why those rules are important. A person is more likely to follow through with a rule if they know why they’re following that rule. For example, people know they are not supposed to drive on the opposite side of the road, because they are aware if they do they’re almost guaranteed an accident. Schildkraut claims that children generally feel more prepared because of lockdowns, and are more likely to know what to do and follow through. She establishes credibility by following up with a reference to a legitimate association, the National Association of School Psychologists.
The Student’s of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School believe that semi-automatic weapons should be banned, as they are what allow school shooters to spray a crowd like they tend to, and to ban accessories that simulate automatic weapons, establish a database of gun sales and universal background checks, etc. The students believe that the government should pay more towards mental health checks, as a lot of the school shooters that cause this rise in need for drills had mental issues that caused them to go to drastic measures. Schildkraut would likely agree with mental health checks and research, but however would elect to disagree with the fact that certain guns should be banned, as guns in a school facility are banned in the first place, if you ban certain guns, then only the people who don’t follow the rules will have those guns which would render them even more dangerous.

Alexis Kalogeropoulos

I agree with Schildkraut that drills in schools should only be kept as drills and not turn into exercise like she stated in the article. At all public schools there is a wide age range and maturity range in students that needs to be taken into consideration during school drills. As stated in the article “Sometimes, role-playing kids and teens, covered in fake blood, are scattered throughout their schools – screaming.” Having multiple students laying on the floor in fake blood and screaming will only make other students scared which will cause the drill to go haywire and not go smoothly. Also mentioned by Peter Schwab, another responder to this article, “There is no need to exercise the "worst-case scenario" every time during a drill.” If the worst case scenario was to be brought out during every drill, students may start to think what happening around them is real and will start to panic. Drills are only required in schools for students and staff to practice exiting the building as smoothly and as fast as possible. Adding other students laying on the floor screaming in fake blood will only distract others and god forbid a real scenario happens where student and staff absolutely have to leave the building, the student will think it's okay to stop and take their time exiting because thats what was practiced in the drill.

Irvin Mejia

This article was very intriguing because it informed me that instead of having drills like a lock down be "a false image", it should be so that the people can experience the immersion "more
realistically". Not in a way to be too realistic, but it should make the people learn. For example, there should be no fake blood or screaming by someone in the event. Also, this article is more than just the stereotypical three approaches: lock the door, hide and be quiet. With this, you can get more safety and allow the cops to arrive. Instead, it should be that the students should be taught on what to do on their own, make them less anxious and possibly traumatized, and what can do to help others to like, for example,evade the criminal. All it takes is more experience, for it to be more effective to make their lives safer and to be prepared for the actual event.

Luke Murphy

1. Throughout the article, Jaclyn Schildkraut describes how lockdown drills are affecting kids in public schools. Since the turn of the century, school shootings are becoming more and more prevalent, especially in the U.S. This has raised questions about what lockdown procedures should be and how they really affect the children. Schildkraut describes how important this issue is, this is what she agrees with throughout the article, that something needs to happen in order to fix this issue. She disagrees with the point that schools should get rid of drills, she describes how these may be scary, but being prepared is very necessary in situations like these.
2. Schildkraut compares and contrasts the drills and exercises. The drills are controlled situations where the kids sit in the room quietly. Whereas, exercises include, blood and gunshot simulations in order to simulate what a real experience is like. Schildkraut describes the exercises as going too far, but the drills are a necessity like a fire drill. I don’t agree with her on this, because I feel like if students were exposed to what would happen in real situations, they would be better prepared for if the real thing came.
3. Schildkraut believes that things like the fake blood and screams should be removed from drills in order to make them less traumatizing for the students. The benefits she describes the drills to give students more confidence, if this were to happen in real life. SHe establishes credibility by referring to studies by psychologists and many other grade levels of drills, showing how they are successful.
4.The editorial from the survivors of the parkland school shooting are describing what they think would help this issue after experiencing it first hand. They believe that to fix this issue, it must happen at the federal level. With gun control laws, making weapons hard to get, banning automatic rifles, and enhancing school security. They do not offer active school shooting drills, they offer government reform in order to not prepare kids for when it happens but to attempt to get rid of the issue as a whole. If Schildkraut used this in her article, it would strengthen her claim, by describing students who witnessed the horror first hand, who don’t think the active drills are successful in stopping this issue.


Brandon Gillner

1) She agrees that drills should continue because many studies show that they allow students to follow procedures easier without the stress. However she does not agree with the use of exercises that implement fake blood or plastic bullets and come without warning. She is against this because they can cause traumatic experiences and severe mental health problems.

2) The difference between a drill and an exercise is that an exercise involves the use of things like fake blood and gunshots and happen at random. A drill is planned and is made known to the students like a fire drill. This difference matters because can be drills are much less traumatic. I agree that the comparison between fire drills and lock down drills is a good one because they don't simulate the actual event they only practice the procedure.

3) Some of the steps that should be taken to reduce trauma would be to tell the students before the drill, not include elements like fake blood or fake gunshots, and consult with psychiatrists. The benefits of having these drills is that students can respond more calmly and not panic when in these situations for real. Schildkraut frames this evidence is good light only reporting that the studies found positive evidence to supporting her claim.

4) Some of the changes that the students want implemented are major gun reform, more security presence at schools, mental health professionals at schools, and many more. Lock-down drills were not apart of this list. She would use this as a naysayer saying that the banning of certain guns would not do much because it would not stop people from obtaining them or the shootings from happening. She would agree that mental health professionals at schools and increased funding is a good idea.

Grady Meeks

The article expresses many changes that should happen with school lock down drills, such as scheduling. Schildkraut believes scheduling of these drills will help child feel more safe and less likely to have trauma compared to having a random drill. The article also mentions how there is a lack of research about lock down drills and how improved research could help school know the most effective way to conduct a lock down exercise or drill.
1. Schildkraut states her claim in the end of the introduction. She agrees with the increasing concern. However, she disagrees that there should be no drills for the students because the few studies done show that through students preforming these drills, they become more likely to follow them in a real emergency, rather than trying to listen to a teacher when there adrenaline is pumping.
2. The main difference between drills and exercises is that drills have things such as sounds or sights that your sense can reach to such as an exercise does. With a lock down drill, you just go in the corner; with a lock down exercise you may go to the corner and hear simulated gun shots. I don't agree with her comparison because setting the school on fire would be like an actual shooting to the drill. A more accurate comparison would be a change in lighting to look like fire, fake smoke (harmless) coming out the building or in the building, heat in the building such as that from a fire, or even sounds of a fire.
3. The drill should be planned for a specific date and time. The drill should also have school administrators involved to help build conficence in the students throught the administrators example. schildkraut makes this information creditable by including the research behind it and the studies that prove it.
4. The editorial suggest ban of semi automatic high velocity guns because, "Civilians shouldn’t have access to the same weapons that soldiers do. That’s a gross misuse of the second amendment." The editorial does not meantion anything about drills. I think that this editorial doesn't really relate to the main article because this editorial about how to stop mass shootings, while the main article is about the best way for lock down drills to be conducted in schools.

Avery Leusch

1.Schildkraut agrees with the report stating that drills are needed to prepare students and that realistic sound effects and visual effects can traumatize students. However, she disagrees with the idea to not include students in drills to prepare them for rare but possible situations. She disagrees with this because students need to be confident enough in any situation to know how to handle a crisis, and practice will help them gain that confidence in case of an emergency.
2. According to Schildkraut, a drill does not involve real-life effects while an exercise does. The difference between the two is important because realistic effects can cause trauma to students especially if they aren’t aware the situation is going to happen. Personally, I do agree with Schildkraut’s comparison of lockdown drills to emergency preparedness drills (like fire drills) because a drill is important for students and staff to understand what to do and why to do it in an emergency.
3, To reduce trauma, students should be aware that a lockdown drill is going to happen, and sound effects like gunfire and visuals like fake blood should not be used. In drills, students should only experience what they should do during a lockdown emergency. According to the reports Schildkraut references, the benefits of drills include helping students understand what to do in a crisis and why, which gives them more confidence.
4. According to students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas Highschool, some proactive changes that could be implemented at the national level to better prevent school shootings include the banning of semi-automatic weapons that shoot high-velocity rounds, the establishment of a database of gun sale and universal background checks, the banning of accessories that can simulate automatic weapons, and more. The student editorial does not directly mention active school shooting drills, but it does mention increased funding for school security. If the editorial was used by Schildkraut as a naysayer, she might disagree with the idea of banning guns due to the facts that it will not get rid of the problems being faced by schools in regards to intruders and unwanted guests.

Taylor M

1.) From the beginning of her response, Schildkraut implies that she both agrees and disagrees with the claims made by Everytowns on lockdown drills. This can be very confusing because it can be very contradicting when she agrees with something that was related to something that she disagreed with prior. Overall Schildkraut tends to disagree with Everytowns main claim that "They say that drills shouldn’t be a surprise, involve realistic details or include kids." In her concluding paragraph she states "evidence available indicates that practicing what to do when an emergency arises is worthwhile." making her point known that she believes lockdown drills are useful. However Schildkraut does mention that "drills don’t have to be scary to be effective." this is referring back to the point that Everytown made which was that the lockdown drills are traumatizing for students.
2.) As stated earlier, Schildkraut agrees that lockdown drills are useful but do not need to be scary. To elaborate on this point she separates drills and exercises. To put it in her words "Exercises incorporate realistic sights and sounds, such as the simulated screaming and bleeding that might occur during a mass shooting. Drills, on the other hand, only require practice." This is saying that not only will a simple drill be effective but that it is different from the exercises that have been reported to frighten or traumatize the students. An example made to elaborate on this point was the connection to a fire drill. Schildkraut explains "Nobody sets schools on fire during fire drills to make them seem realistic." This is the same principle, there is no trauma but the children still learn the correct procedure if an accident does arise. I think that this is a great comparison due to it being school-related and on topic with the drills. Also it drills home her point that drills can be effective without being traumatizing.
3.) Everyone wants to stop lockdown drills for one main reason. It is because they believe that the drills themselves are too traumatizing for the children. This is a fair statement considering some of the schools make gunshot sound and shot the teachers with plastic pellets. To reduce this Schildkraut suggests cutting out exercises altogether and instead stick to just drills. This would result in the children just practicing staying hidden and quiet and cut out the trauma. She also claims to tell the students when the drill is happening so that they can understand that it is not really as to not send them into shock. Schildkraut cites studies that prove that students felt more prepared if something were to happen while they were at school. She introduces these studies stating from the early years to the present day to portray to the reader that the methods that are being used are consistently working. This validates her claims and helps to solidify her argument.
4.) According to the editorial written by witnesses of a mass shooting in Florida in 2018, a constantly main topic was semi-auto weapons. Their idea of being proactive differs a lot from Schildkraut due to how they look at the situation. Instead of teaching kids to hide, they believe that placing stricter laws on guns would be more proactive. Another line of reasoning that they brought up was mental health. They believe that if there are mental health background checks on gun purchasers there would be less shootings.

Tyrell Minor

In the article 'Schools should heed calls to do lockdown drills without traumatizing kids instead of abolishing them' by Jaclyn Schildkraut, the author writes about increasingly realistic active shooter drills and how they psychologically affect those involved.

Schildkraut mentions that she agrees with some of the teachers and Everytown's concerns, but disagrees that children shouldn’t be involved in these drills. Schildkraut believes that children should be involved because in this day and age where school shootings are becoming more common, drills prepare students in the event where there is a real shooter on campus.
Schildkraut claims that a drill is only practice of what one should do in a scenario, while an exercise involves realistic visuals and sounds. This difference does matter to children and staff, as one could get confused during an exercise and believe it to be real, which is of course, typically a traumatic experience. I do believe lockdown drills are similar to other emergency preparedness drills such as fire/tornado drills. They instruct and test students/staff on the proper procedure during such events.
Steps that can be taken to prevent stress during a drill could be explaining several times that this is just practice. Schildkraut mentions how lockdown drills help students feel better prepared and ready to take the correct actions during such an emergency. She also shows the evidence in a way that builds credibility by mentioning prominent individuals involved in studies about lockdown drills.

Kirkland Kessler

1.) Schildkraut agrees that drills are important for students because it helps prepare the student for an actual situation. However, she does not agree with the use of fake blood and gunshot sound effects. This is because she believes it can cause a traumatic experience for a child.
2.) The difference between a drill and an exercise is a drill only requires practice, whereas an exercise incorporates realistic sights and sounds which could include things such as screaming and bleeding that might occur in a mass shooting. I agree with her comparison with a fire drill because a fire drill is not meant to scare the students, but to teach them what to do in that situation.
3.) Students should always be informed that a lockdown drill will occur and be reminded that they will be safe and in no danger to reduce trauma. Studies show that students who have been involved in a lockdown drill are more prepared if it were to happen for real. Schildkraut frames this evidence by only showing positive evidence to help support her claim.
4.) According to the editorial by students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, some proactive changes that can be implemented at the national level to help prevent school shootings is to ban semi-automatic weapons. However, they did not mention lockdown drills in this. If Schildkraut were to use this evidence she would disagree that banning semi-automatic weapons would stop schools shooting. Although it might cause fewer shootings it still does not help the fact that intruders are still able to make it into schools that are not well secured.

Kylie Laux

I agree that there needs to be lock downs practiced in our schools, but they can be very traumatic. A normal lock down is okay because you just sit in the dark, but school shooter drills can be very scary for a lot of people. Although they are scary, shooter drills will probably continue to happen until there is a change made because we need to be informed of what to do in that situation. When is the government going to make a change instead of children having to practice being hunted? When will students start to feel fully safe at school again?

Jody Nichols

1. She states her claim after she states what opinion she's responding too. The major argument she disagrees to is that students shouldn't be involved in lockdown training. She also agrees with the major point that changes need to be made so that they aren't traumatizing to students. She makes this agreement based on the small pool of academic studies on this subject that say that students benefit from practice and that students need to be able to make critical choices that may save their life in an actual scene encase something happens to the staff or teacher.

2. The difference between a drill and an exercise is one in a simulation and one is practice. A drill is just practicing the motions of what should be done, and exercise is putting those motions into action with a similar setting to the actual thing. She compares some of the drills like fire drills to lockdown drills.I agree with her comparison for the reason that students will not always be with a staff member who knows what to do.

3. Getting rid of fake bloodied students and plastic bullets. As well as making sure there is a calm area and method to learn and making sure everyone is up to date to them. The benefit is that is helps students and staff have a clear mind to do what needs to be done in a chaotic area. She uses her own research as well as the small area in the research.

4. According to the Parkland students claim that gun laws need to be restricted to where any guns can't be purchased until their 21 as well as taking some gun accessories of the market and tracking guns or ban when sold off hand. Furthermore pushing for a better budget on school security and mental health. It's not directly mentioned but they suggested ideas and plans that would help prevent rather than handle an active shooter. Schildkraut would agree in further funding on mental health and school budget but disagree at some of the gun laws they proposed.The editors at Parkland would certainly take issue with the argument that there are no enough being done to prevent an active shooter especially from their point of view being survivors of an active shooter. However they're point is more focused on preventing and eliminating the threat, rather than making sure their fellow youth are prepared for it to happen again. In an ideal world this wouldn't happen but this is not an ideal world so we should be prepared for the worst.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

About They Say / I Blog

  • New readings posted monthly, on the same issues that are covered in “They Say / I Say” with Readings—and with a space where readers can comment, and join the conversation.

Follow us on Twitter to get updates about new posts and more! @NortonWrite

Become a Fan