Active shooter lockdown drills are now common in U.S. schools, in response to recent deadly school shootings. In 2019, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers worked with the advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund to issue a report calling for the end of these drills. Jaclyn Schildkraut, a researcher who investigates school shootings, argues back and makes her case for why lockdown drills are necessary in this February 12, 2020 essay.
- Schildkraut’s response to the report calling for the end of lockdown drills is complicated. She agrees and disagrees simultaneously, a move described in Chapter 4. Where do you see her stating this nuanced claim? What major argument made by the report does she agree with? What major point does she disagree with? Why does she disagree with this point?
- Schildkraut makes a distinction between an exercise and a drill. What is this difference? Why, according to Schildkraut, does this difference matter for kids and school staff? Schildkraut compares lockdown drills to other “emergency preparedness drills” like fire drills. Do you agree with this comparison? Why or why not?
- What steps should be taken to reduce the trauma students might experience during a lockdown drill? What are benefits of a lockdown drill, according to the research Schildkraut summarizes? How does Schildkraut frame this evidence in a way that establishes its credibility?
- Some argue that focusing the conversation about school shootings on lockdown drills is a reactive approach to the problem. Read this editorial written by the students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, the site of a 2018 school shooting. According to them, what proactive changes can be implemented at the national level to better prevent school shootings? Are active shooter drills part of the solution they offer? Imagine Schildkraut used this editorial as a naysayer in her argument. Frame her response to this argument using a template from Chapter 6.
They Say I Blog 
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
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.
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.
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
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.
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.
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
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.
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
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.
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.
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.
LikeLike
1) In the article, Schildkraut voices her opinion on school lockdown procedures. She agrees that it is very crucial to have these drills, but it can also cause a level of stress on the students and possibly traumatize them. Schildkraut mainly disagrees with the thought of having these drills unannounced.
2) The differences of between an exercise and a drill is that a drill is more of a shelter and place and the exercise is mainly running through the motions of what you would do during a real active school shooting. The difference matters to Schildkraut because she believes the drills causes trauma. Yes, I agree with her comparison regarding lockdown drills and fire drills because these are ways to remain students safe and comfortable as possible, not to scare the students.
3) The most significant step that can reduce the stress or trauma for a student during a drill is announcing them beforehand. According to her references, theses effectively support her claims and concludes her argument.
4) According to the students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High school, that proactive changes can reduce the amount of school shootings. Changes such as banning semi-automatic weapons, universal background checks, updating school security, and so much more. If Schildkraut used this editorial as a naysayer in her argument, she wouldn’t agree with the fact that banning guns can reduce the amount of school shootings. She would agrees that funding in enhancing security at school and mental health researching would reduce the amount of school shooting significantly.
LikeLike
In the article, Schildkraut, she makes the point to agree and disagree in the 4th paragraph of the article. She agrees that with the concerns of teachers and Everytown’s concerns, of lockdown drills being terrorizing, however, disagrees with the fact that children shouldn’t be involved with lockdown drills. She disagrees with this point because she feels as though that drills prepare for incase the supposed event happens in real life, that the students involved will still be able to act even in a situation of high stress. She also continues to make the argument that allowing students to participate in active shooter drills allows students to know what to do in the event the teacher becomes unable to protect the students during the real thing.
Schildkraut makes a distinct difference between a drill and an exercise. She defines an exercise as an instance where realistic sights and sounds to an event will occur in the drill, whereas a drill might just involve running through the necessary procedures such as closing and locking doors, hiding or evacuation, and turning off the lights. While I agree that both events do require practice, I would disagree that both events just require the basic level of prevention. A fire drill will always be, hear the alarm, and leave the building. Whereas an active shooter will always be a dynamic event and involve about a million different ways in which an event can take place, and require a lot more student involvement than a standard fire drill.
I think the way to reduce the amount of traumatization these type of drills produce, is repetition. After multiple runs of these drills/exercises, it will eventually become second nature to students and teachers alike. Schildkraut, overall states that the main benefits of practicing drills is that, it helps students feel ready if that it does occur to them, and teachers who have run through the exercises are not there to assist. She acknowledges credibility to the argument, by acknowledging the arguments of the other side, but then extending them into another scenario in which they can be used, and highlights events in where those scenarios played out.
Some of the proactive changes that the article mentions are, the ability to ban semi-automatic weapons, ban gun shows and second-hand selling, and allow proper communication and research to mental health and law enforcement. No, in that specific article they do not advertise the increase or the support for active shooter drills in the school environment. An argument that Schildkraut might make would most likely look like the following. While the victims of the 2018 Stoneman Douglas schools shooting, may advocate for harsher gun reform to prevent the act of school shootings ever occurring, they do not, however, acknowledge the fact that a school shooting doesn’t have to be done with a semi-automatic weapon, and what to do in case one does happen.
LikeLike
In the article, “Schools should heed calls to do lockdown drills without traumatizing kids instead of abolishing them”, by Jaclyn Schildkraut, she expresses her concerns about lockdown drills. Throughout the article Schildkraut both agrees and disagrees with several different claims. Schildkraut expresses this when stating, “I agree with some of the teachers’ and Everytowns’ concerns but I don’t agree that kids shouldn’t participate in drills” (Schildkraut). There has been much debate on how drills should be conducted or if any drills should be conducted at all. Schildkraut agrees with the report that these drills should be planned of time. Many have argued that only teachers and staff should be informed on how to act in these situations. Schildkraut disagrees, she thinks that “participation in training and accompanying lockdown drills make students feel prepared” (Schildkraut). She believes if students if the students feel they are prepared they will better be able to handle the real thing. Throughout the article Schildkraut defends the lockdown drills but only when it is not traumatizing to the kids.
Schildkraut has defended the lockdown drills but warned against the traumatizing effects of lockdown exercises. The difference between an exercise and a drill is just practice. An exercise is a real-life simulation. In a drill, it typically involves locking doors, shutting off lights and staying quiet. Exercises are much more realistic and traumatizing including gun shots and “stimulated screaming and bleeding that might occur” (Schildkraut). Many people tend to confuse an exercise and a drill. Exercises can cause immense trauma on students. Schildkraut makes the point of saying, “Nobody sets the school on fire during fire drills to make them more realistic.” I agree Schildkraut’s comparison to fire drills. Lockdown drills are very important. With being ten minutes away from Marjory Stoneman Douglas, I think more than ever that these drills could save students. I think the active student exercises are completely unethical.
To reduce trauma during lockdown drills, there are many steps that need to be taken. One of the things that might be helpful is letting the students know about the drill ahead of time. There should be absolutely no screaming, blood, or fake gun shots. I feel the students should be warned of the screaming, etc. in case of a real-life situation but there is no need for that during a drill. According to the research, lockdown drills allow students to feel more prepared if something were to happen. Schildkraut frames the evidence and gains credibility by giving examples from other researchers. For example, “researchers at Sam Houston State University, Misty Jo Dickson and Kristina Vargo found similar results” (Schildkraut). Schildkraut also includes information from the National Association of School Psychologists.
After the tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas Highschool, the students had a lot of ideas to help prevent something else like this from happening again. According to the students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas Highschool, they want to “ban semi-automatic weapons that fire high-velocity rounds” (Eagle Eye). These weapons are commonly used in the military during war. They are not used for safety or hunting. They provide nothing other than means of attack. The students also want to ban accessories that would allow for multiple rounds to fire rapidly. In the case of Stoneman Douglas, the gunman of Nikolas Kruz was mentally ill. These students want there to be background checks to make sure the person trying to purchase guns is sound of mind. As well as raising the minimum age to purchase 21. Nowhere in their proposals do they suggest active shooter drills. Schildkraut of course, may want to question whether students would feel prepared enough if the situation did occur. She would most likely argue with their proposals but make sure drills were also implemented, so the students feel more prepared.
LikeLike
Schildkraut states her claim “I agree with some of the teacher’s and Everytown’s concerns, but I don’t agree that kids shouldn’t participate in drills” in paragraph three of her article. ”(Schildkraut Article) Schildkraut’s claim means that she agrees that both students and staff need to be prepared for lockdown situations but disagrees that only teachers should be prepared and trained for emergency lockdown procedures. Schildkraut believes that it is equally important to train students and teachers for lockdown scenarios. Schildkraut’s logic for this belief comes from multiple students being left alone in the classroom in two of the top five deadliest school shootings.
Schildkraut believes that an exercise is incorporating “realistic sights and sounds” (Schildkraut Article)to prepare for lockdown scenarios and that a drill is a required practice for what to do during an emergency. The major difference between an exercise and a drill is that in a drill will prepare for what actions you must take during an emergency, while in an exercise you are simulating what you might experience during an emergency. I agree with Schildkraut’s that both lockdown and other emergency preparedness are done to keep students and staff members at schools safe. These drills are done to prepare staff and students for what they should do in an emergency situation.
Lockdown drills can increase student’s awareness of what to do in emergency situations but if done incorrectly can induce trauma on students. To reduce student trauma during lockdown drills schools should schedule “drills in advance”(Schildkraut Article), this advance notice on the lockdown being a drill and not an actual emergency situation will give students a peace of mind and help prevent stress. Schools should not simulate gun shoots or use fake blood during any emergency preparedness drill, (Schildkraut Article) this will only cause students trauma. Schools should also encourage all staff members to openly “answer any questions” (Schildkraut Article) students’ have after lockdown drills. Answering students’ questions about lockdown drills might not seem like it would help relieve tension about such a serious topic but if teachers are open to students about their classroom plans during an emergency situation it can give students a peace of mind. Ultimately by appropriately preparing staff and students for emergency situations the end goal and biggest benefit of lockdown drills will be accomplished, all staff members and students will be ready for any emergency situation. Schildkraut uses logos throughout her article to establish her creditability. For example, Schildkraut uses facts from the top five deadliest school shootings and from studies on lockdown drills effects on students.
In the editorial written by the students from the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Shooting they state what can be done on a national level to prevent future school shootings. Preventative measures include banning “semi-automatic weapons” and their “accessories” (Parkland Editorial), establishing a database with background checks, and providing more funds to mental health professionals. The students from the Stoneman Douglas shooting do not mention active shooter drills in the solution to prevent future school shootings. If Schildkraut used this editorial as a naysayer in her argument she might say something like nevertheless, both followers and critics of lockdown drills will probably argue that banning semi-automatic guns will not stop school shootings. Schildkraut’s logic for this might come from there being multiple other ways to obtaining firearms than through the normal procedures. Schildkraut would agree that giving mental health institutions more financial support will help decrease future school shootings but that the ultimate way to fully be prepared for emergency situations is to train students and staff on what to do.
LikeLike
Lockdown drills have become extremely common throughout America, but not without controversy. Many organizations like the Everytown for Gun Support Fund have contributed to the conversation about what the drills should look like. They believe that students should not be involved in the drills, but the realistic details that some schools include in lockdown practices need to change. Their report has left Schildkraut conflicted as she directly states, “I agree with some of the teachers’ and Everytown’s concerns, but I don’t agree that kids shouldn’t participate in drills” (Schildkraut). Schildkraut agrees with the fact that some lockdown drills are a little to real, potentially traumatizing students. Exercises that include fake blood and screams are doing more harm than good. On the other hand, Schildkraut believes that children need to be involved in the drills. She argues that drills that include students preforming necessary actions like locking doors and staying silent train students for if a real situation is to occur. The more time the students spend practicing, the more confident they will feel in these unfortunate but crucial situations.
One of the most common misconceptions in the argument over lockdown procedures is the distinction between an exercise and a drill. Schildkraut separates the two terms, describing an exercise as more realistic with events that may happen in a mass shooting like students screaming or bleeding. Drills focus on how to respond if this kind of situation were to occur, making students more confident on the steps that can keep them safe. These two ideas are the difference between traumatizing and preparing students. To further explain this idea, Schildkraut compares lockdown exercises to other emergency drills. Some argue that lockdown exercises are meant to be realistic and stimulate a real situation, but “Nobody sets schools on fire during fire drills to make them seem more realistic. Instead, everyone practices how to respond so that it’s easier to do the right thing in frightening situations” (Schildkraut). This comparison paints a perfect picture on why exercises are excessive, and drills like the fire drill mentioned are more beneficial. There is no reason to give students anxiety over exercises that are not real. Demonstrating steps to take during emergencies is the most reasonable way to prepare for these kinds of situations. This way students and staff members have practiced what to do and are more prepared with out the trauma.
Exercises that include real situations can give students anxiety rather than prepare them. In order to reduce trauma, students should be aware that they are experiencing a drill. The drills should be known in advance and be accommodating to all students. Another important step is having teachers and staff talk with their students after the drill in order to make sure that they are okay and answer any questions that they may have (Schildkraut). According to Schildkraut’s research, participating in drills that are more focused on practicing what to do makes students feel more prepared. This newfound confidence “… enhances the ability to do what’s needed during an emergency…” (Schildkraut). By including this study, Schildkraut not only builds credibility for her entire argument, but credibility for her as the author. Now that she has included her own study, the reader is more likely to trust her opinion. She has now proven to be knowledgeable on the subject matter, making the reader more likely to trust her claims.
The Parkland students experienced first-hand the power that a gun can have, and they now want changes at the national level in order to prevent mass shootings from happening in the future. They make multiple suggestions in order to limit gun violence including banning semi-automatic weapons that fire high velocity rounds, establishing a database for gun sales and background checks, raising the firearm purchase age, and increasing funding for school security. For example, the Parkland students ask a valid question about the age requirement for firearms. When you turn twenty-one you can purchase a handgun, but at age eighteen you can buy an AR-15, so “Why is it that we will be able to legally obtain a weapon that has the ability to fire over 150 rounds and kill 17 people in about six minutes…” (“Our Manifesto to Change America’s Gun Laws”) but not be able to purchase a handgun? Out of all of their suggestions, active shooter drills are not mentioned. Here Schildkraut would probably object that active shooter drills can be extremely beneficial to both students and staff members. Many of the Parkland students’ suggestions are valid, as they are great proactive changes to the issue. These reforms are great at the national and state level, but it is important to control what we can now. Lockdown drills are more than a reactive approach to the problem, they are a step that schools can take to protect students and staff members in the future. Even if you are not in the school system, it is important to take note of these gun laws. The abuse of firearms is not only affecting schools, but large events across the country. Shopping malls, bars, and restaurants are all places that Americans attend regularly that can be affected by gun violence at any moment.
LikeLike
In the article, Schildkraut inserts evidence of both disagreement and agreement weakening her overall claim. Schildkraut metions in her third paragraph that she understands and overall can agree with the concerns that teachers and parents are having in every town but she does not agree with the abolishment of students participating in drills. Due to the thee fact that she is able to show the positives and negatives of her argument should help prove her point, instead it makes it look like she is undecided or is flipping leaving her readers confused. 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 tells her readers while she does agree with having the drills she cannot agree with the way these drills are executed because some schools are producing traumatic events.
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 and staff just 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 are both necessary to practice and while may be scary would be worse if it truly happened and students and faculty were unprepared.
To reduce the trauma students might experience during a lockdown drill, talk about them more often. Teachers and other staff members should be telling students how although scary these drills could help. 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.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.
LikeLike
In the article, “Schools Should Heed Calls to Do Lockdown Drills without Traumatizing Kids Instead of Abolishing Them,” by Jaclyn Schildkraut, she speaks about how important lockdown drills are and how they should be practiced. After reading the article, I agree with her opinion on this topic. In schools, it is very unnecessary to do exercises such as having fake blood, noises in the building and screaming. She talks about how schools should be doing drills such as evacuating a building or locking doors and getting all students out of sight. I agree with her, there is no need to have these exercises done and to just have normal drills to teach students what to do in case of an emergency. Lockdown drills and fire drills will help teachers and students respond correctly to an emergency and keep everyone safe. To add to having drills in case of emergencies, I believe schools should have better security. In my past schools throughout my life, we have not had any security especially in my middle schools, and having security is very important. In case an armed shooter enters the school, there should be security to make sure he does not get around the building to put others in danger. Every school should have the best security so that all students can stay safe and do not have to live in fear in school.
In the article, “Schools Should Heed Calls to Do Lockdown Drills without Traumatizing Kids Instead of Abolishing Them,” by Jaclyn Schildkraut, she disagrees that students should not be involved in lockdown training. She describes how these lockdown drills are affecting students in school and how important it is for them to practice these drills. She believes that these active shooter drills can be traumatizing to kids just like other teachers believe, but she says that if the students are involved in these realistic drills, they will know what to do if the situation ever occurs.
In the article, Schildkraut explains the difference between what a drill and exercise are. She explains exercises as realistic sights and sounds, such as screaming and having fake blood in the lockdown procedures these schools are doing to show kids how it would be in an emergency. She explains drills as evacuating a building or locking doors and getting as many out of sight. Schools should be doing drills and not exercises that traumatize students about school shootings. If schools are doing exercises such as doing screaming and realistic sights, how would schools do fire drills? Schildkraut says that nobody sets schools on fire during fire drills to make it seem realistic. Everyone should be practicing evacuating the building instead so they know how to stay safe.
Steps that should be taken to reduce the trauma students experience during a lockdown drill is getting rid of the exercises some schools practice. There is no need to have screaming and fake blood throughout a lockdown drill because it will make students feel more scared if there was to something to happen in their school. Schools should also let students know a couple days in advance that they are going to practice a lockdown or fire drill so they are prepared. In Schildkraut’s research, she summarizes that lockdown drills make students feel more prepared and safe if there was an emergency.
LikeLike
TIn my opinion, giving the students and staff a warning and a lesson before having a harsh drill would be better, a drill is a drill, and they are definitely necessary this day in age. However, they need to be gone about the correct way. Based on what I learned from this article, it seems to me that some schools are going extremely overboard with fake scenarios and harsh drills that do nothing but scare students and staff. I do not agree with this method of preparation because it can affect a person’s mental health, cause anxiety, and create trauma when it isn’t necessary to do so. I am not saying a lockdown drill is unnecessary, I am saying they should aim to be more education based rather than fear based.
LikeLike
In my opinion, giving the students and staff a warning and a lesson before having a harsh drill would be better, a drill is a drill, and they are definitely necessary this day in age. However, they need to be gone about the correct way. Based on what I learned from this article, it seems to me that some schools are going extremely overboard with fake scenarios and harsh drills that do nothing but scare students and staff. I do not agree with this method of preparation because it can affect a person’s mental health, cause anxiety, and create trauma when it isn’t necessary to do so. I am not saying a lockdown drill is unnecessary, I am saying they should aim to be more education based rather than fear based.
LikeLike
I personally agree with Schildkraut, active shooter drills should not be so scary to the students. I agree with the fact that I believe the drills are very important in order to know how to react in the situation, especially because all of the students and teachers will probably be panicking, so the practice of what to do in the situation of an active shooter, is definitely beneficial. As someone who came from a high school that had drills, I know how they go here in my state, I had no idea that in other states they make them seem more realistic with things such as fake blood, and simulated screams and gunshots. I honestly could not imagine undergoing that as a child, or even a senior in high school. I personally would be traumatized by something like that, so I completely agree with the fact that those things may be taking it a little too far. I understand that it is important to practice what to do, but I feel like that is a little bit too much. While I do agree with most things that Schildkraut said, one thing that stuck out to me was the fact that she wrote that most people who do masks shootings at school either attend those schools, or did previously. The issue with this is that these kids know how the drills work, they know exactly where everyone will be hidden. When I was in high school and we did the active shooter drills, this was something that I thought about every single time, the fact that when we do these drills we are practically showing the next shooter exactly where we will all be, because they practiced the drill alongside us.
LikeLike
Schildkraut mentioned her standpoint in the last sentence of the introduction, and the concluding sentence in her report. She strongly agrees that exercises simulating the emergency should not be the move for preparing students, but she disagrees that that part alone should mean the abolishing of lockdown drills in schools. She disagrees because in one of her points, she says how the terms “exercise” and “drill” are two different things, and that drills statistically show how students are to be more ready should the real emergency occur.
Exercise is when the situation looks and sounds realistic, like audio clips of gunshots and screaming playing in the background, all meant to simulate a shooting. And people got to go through the exercise like it’s real-time. On the other hand, a drill is just harmlessly practicing the steps required to be more secure for real-time emergencies. According to Schildkraut, this difference matters because it can be a misconception among adults that drills are the synonym of exercises, and vice versa. I agree with Schildkraut on her comparison to lockdown drills to any other emergency drills, because drills are drills. And drills are designed for the students and school staff to be ready on what to do should the sudden occurrence of a real emergency, no matter what it is, happen.
In order to minimize the trauma that can come out of scenarios like lockdown drills, it’s simple but important for students to know that this is not a real situation happening, let them know when it’s happening, and make the drills age-appropriate for everybody. To sum it up, Schildkraut explains how the big benefit of a lockdown drill is that there’ll be less anxiety and trauma among students. That’ll be because these students will be more confident and more ready for if the situation actually happens, as they now have the knowledge of what must be done to survive through performing the drills. Schildkraut frames the evidence for these claims by describing the person who’s giving the evidence, as in their occupation.
Most of the national-level changes include actions surrounding gun reform. Like raising the age minimum for firearm purchase, creating a database for gun sales, and making a better connection between mental health professionals and law enforcement. These are good ideas, however, drills were not part of the solutions offered. Schildkraut could’ve used this editorial as a naysayer by saying something like “While it is true that general gun reform can be part of the solution for preventing school shootings, it does not necessarily follow that possibility that promoting active shooter drills can also help the cause.”
LikeLike
Everything said in this article from Jaclyn Schildkraut is accurate and true, and they should consider lockdown drills. This article is about school shootings and how children should be aware of them, and I think this should be a practice that shouldn’t be up for debate. School shootings are now pretty common in the United States, which is very sad to see, and if students and teachers are not prepared, the worst could happen. This article tells the audience that kids should be prepared, and the answer is that yes, they should be prepared. Since elementary school, young kids have been taught about fire drills, earthquake drills, and this should now be another drill that they should be prepared for. Also, what was sad to read in this article is about how many other school shootings there have been in the past, and now looking in today’s society, this is becoming very common, and this should not be. School shootings are now very common that some people would not know what to do in those situations and should prepare themselves for it if they are ever in one. Furthermore, I believe Jaclyn’s article about this situation was very well written and that, yes, they should consider showing kids about this specific drill. Finally, this article was very important because most students need to know the importance of their safety if this ever occurs in their schools.
LikeLike
In the article “Schools should heed calls to do lockdown drills without traumatizing kids instead of abolishing them”, Jaclyn Schildkraut talks about the differences between lockdown drills and lockdown exercises in schools. When conducting a drill students will just practice steps when a certain situation arises. Exercises tend to incorporate realistic sights and sounds. The author compares an active shooter drill to a fire drill. Yes, they’re both life and death scenarios, and knowing what to do when a fire breaks out is very important, but is not the same as having someone come directly into your classroom and shoot children. Her opinion is that exercises for mass shootings will traumatize our children and make them feel like they are not safe in school. Nonetheless, teachers were killed when the mass shooting at Sandy Hook occurred and young students were left vulnerable. This shows that children cannot rely on adults to know what to do in a situation like this. Because “this is America”, our children must learn at a very young age what is happening in the world and how to react to it. There were over 160 mass shootings just this year (2023), and of those 14 were targeting children. Therefore, it’s important for children to conduct active shooter exercises in school. If parents and teachers are concerned about traumatizing the kids, the exercises should be conducted in conjunction with the child’s age. As a result, they should know what to expect to see and hear during the course of this terrifying event
LikeLike