School Rights vs. Parent/Student Rights

[girlunderglass]

I know this is going to be a controversial topic that most of us will likely agree upon. But I think it's time we brought it up.

Schools have the right to place the build under a "lock down" in the event of a catastrophic issue- which is determined by either the principal or the superintendent. In such an event, all students are to remain within the interior of the school until the lock down is lifted- which can go well past the normal hours of school. Additionally, in such cases, a parent is not allowed to pick their child up or even go onto school property.

I have a huge problem with this.

I can understand that in the event of a shooting, it is considered dangerous for anyone to go onto a schools property as it could cause the issue to escalate. However, if the lock down is placed as a result of an off sight terrorist threat or action, darn skippy I want to go get my kids.

Being a NY'er, on 911, all school districts within the area were locked down. Now I was only pregnant with my kids at the time, but my youngest brother in law was 9 years old. We were the closest adults in the area at that given time and we were not allowed to pick him up from school. (We had planned on picking him up regardless of whether the terrorist attacks of 911 took place or not. His grandmother had passed away and we needed to get him so we could travel to her funeral) When my husband (whom is on his emergency contact card) went to the school, he was not permitted to enter or wait for his brother to be released.

Mind you, NYC is a good 60+ miles from where I live.

Had this been fast forwarded to present time and it were my kids, I would be beside myself that I was not allowed to get my kids from school.

What is your take on lock down laws, your rights as a student and your parents right to step in and take action for their own children?

[attonbitus]

hmmm rather complex situation but i can definitely see the reasoning behind it. The verification of the person picking them up is probably very hard considering most school offices aren't setup for that kind of thing. Not to mention during such a crisis they would probably be over loaded as well.

Actually that's about it for me. If a person picking up the child can be verified as a parent or guardian then I really don't see a reason for the school to keep the child. It's very much like a parent/guardian signing the kid out of school. The main problem is that verification of ID during such a crisis would probably be the biggest hurdle as you'd probably have phones out etc. Also, I highly doubt schools keep any other type of info to confirm ID other than contact numbers and addresses.

[Atmos]

My top priority: Safety

Safety first, safety first, safety first.

I presume the whole purpose of lockdown along with other precautionary measures taken by the staff is for the safety of all personel in the facility.

And whether it's because of a school shooting or terrorist attack, I personally think that schools potentially infringing rights of parents or students is much more minor than having parents, guardians, or emergency contacts infringing on the school's responsiblity to keep the students safe.

Of course I'm assuming that lockdowns have specific exceptions to those in need of immediate medical attention, bringing in the bomb squad/SWAT, etc - but given any dangerous emergency situation, how would a panicked parent wanting to pick up their child(ren) better ensure the safety of their child, themself, and/or the bystanders in the scene?

Now picture a whole mob of panicked parents....crowding in with their horde of personal vehicles blocking the entrances and exits for the emergency vehicles...only putting more individuals(the parents) at risk in the scene?

If it was safer for the students and staff to be outside of the facility, then I would assume the staff would make the necessary arrangements but in most cases its safest staying indoors.

(Schools shooting come in all wicked shapes and sizes for instance the shooting in Jonesboro, Arkansas in '98 when the shooters pulled an false fire alarm, waiting for the students and staff to gather outside so they could fire at the victims from the woods.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/juvmurders/stories/jonesboro.htm )

If a parent doesn't trust or like the protocols or procedures of school systems...well I guess there's always home school. If you decide to put you child in a public/private school system that also means you are deciding to put the responsibilty of your child's safety into their hands for the duration of the school hours. That's all there is to it, IMO.

I understand that many parents, guardians, or as any loved one who have a child/sibling/etc in lockdown of any threatening situation would not just sit home on their butts doing nothing until lockdown ceases as it's completely natural to feel unsecure of the child's safety unless they are standing right beside you unharmed and inside your imaginary parental force field(lol), but the reality is parents can't control the situation any more or less than the staff and emergency personel at hand. If anything, the incoming of more bystanders rushing into the scene only puts themselves at risk and makes the situation harder to handle.

Being a bit of an overprotected big brother I would always think that my brothers would always be in safest in any given situation as long as there were in my parents or my supervision. But with my experience as a lifeguard I believe you just got to give the proper space to those who's job it is to ensure people's safety.

But that's just my take.

[Gran Gran]

Considering that 9/11 cause a world wide panic situation....


Anyhow, where we live we get severe weather in spring and fall, horrific thunder storms and tornadoes. We just had a couple of incidents here, tornado warning when the school bus was to run...

Frankly in that case, no matter how badly I want my kid home, it would be unwise for me to risk getting out. granted I don't trust those 60ish school buildings, but it's better then a car...

We also live near a chemical instalation and in case of an accident there, the school would be equipped to handle it.

Also, in events - like 9/11 - of undetermined size (remember we didn't know what was going to happen next, even people in Europe were scared and feared attacks) it seems to me that the kids would be safer in school as well, without parents in a fragile state of mind adding to the situation.

[Fireman]

If it was me in a situation like that I would rather be at home than in school.
I live where there are tornadoes and floods in the spring, and next to a nuclear power plant so stuff like that happens.
But I am Home Schooled so it does not matter.

[spirityue]

Hmm, this is a tough one. While I do agree as well as understand from a safety point of view, that public schools need to have some type of protocol for extreme situatons, I have to admit, if it were my kids, I would definately want to be able to get to them. We live right smack in the middle of three major nuclear plants, which basically means that if one of them went kerplooy, we wouldn't really have much of a chance of survival, in a horrific incident such as that, I feel that if we all are doomed, I'd rather have my family together. As for other such problems, like someone entering the school and shooting the place up or whatever, that is one of the major reasons I homeschool. I'll be damned if my kids are gonna be subjected to stuff like that while I can still fully protect them here at home. But there are tons of families out there that have to use the public school system, and can't readily get to their kids in time of a crisis, so, in that respect, I think that schools implementing the lockdown is a good thing.

[Zenjamin]

If the primary issue is the state infringing on the rights of the parents, this law should not be in effect.
If the primary issue is safety, this law should not be in effect.
If the primary issue is catching the cornered assailant and punishing him, this law should be in effect.


Seriously, think about it, if you are a student and gunshots go off, there will be a general atmosphere of fear and petrified panic. No student will be able to leave, the doors bared.

And these doors are barred because the state believes there is a criminal in the building. and they want to "control" the situation.
Now, the shooter/terrorist/common criminal knows he is cornered... and that is never a good thing.

from a safety perspective, this makes just about as much sense as locking the fox in the hen-house, to ensure that you can catch him and prevent him from doing any more damage.


As a high school history teacher(in training), the first thing I would do, would be to break the windows, make sure the coast is clear, get the students outside, and tell them to scatter and run to a random house and call the police. after which I would go looking for the shooter myself, and get the other students to stop acting like frightened sheep.

now, the one argument you could make for safety, is that there could be a sniper on the roof of the school.
But if that was the case, they would just pull the fire alarm and wait for people to group up in their designated positions... in the case of modern weapons, the closer together people are, the more vulnerable they become.

in either case, allowing the children to get safe themselves and away from the threat is far preferable to waiting under a desk, hoping that it will protect you from a bullet or a bomb in the time it takes for the police to respond, arrive at the school, assess the situation, and decide weather to use force (bullets, followed by dead kids and a suicide) or negation (hostage kids, followed by dead kids and a suicide)


Its not hard to see. im sure it has been broght up before.
But this is just another method of letting the state "take charge" to "catch the terrorist" or "neutralize the threat" without consideration to the direct loss of security and safety of "the people".




... Im sorry if I painted a grim picture. but I live in Colorado and grew up with the Columbine shooting.(I wasnt in the high school)
The general opinion was, if someone had just gotten the students as far away as possible, so many lives could have been saved.

[2X the All-Powerful!]

Once you sign away your rights to the school, you have no rights but the ones the school leaves you. It sucks, but w/e, if you don't like it, you either change how the school runs yourself or change schools.

[silentxorchestra]

Hmm This is interesting,
it's bad that American schools have to consider things like school shootings as possibilities, but unfortunately they do happen and I suppose lock down would be for the safety of the children.
In Ireland no one even considers school shootings as a possibility, and they don't happen. Mainly because it's illegal to own a gun here. There are plenty of stabbings though but that's a different story...

[uverworldluv]

Well, I think that it depends on the type of lock down situation. With 9/11, no one was certain what was going to happen next, and they probably didn't want to put more people in danger by having parents attempt to get their kids from school. For a situation like that, in my opinion, it seems like it was a good idea to keep the kids in school.

However, there are certain lock down situations that seem like it's more dangerous keeping kids in the school. For example, if a shooter entered a school and it was put on lock down, all of the children would be stuck inside, making the shooter's job that much easier. The police would need time to be contacted, so until they came, everyone would be completely defenseless. Yes, the rules of the school are everyone is supposed to keep quiet and stay away from the doors and windows, but the shooter would know that there are kids somewhere in the school. First place of interest? A classroom. Pick any one and there's a high chance that there are people in there. This kind of situation would be safer if they found a way to get the kids out and away from the building.

All in all, I think a lock down is a smart idea if the threat is away from the school. If the threat is in the school, I believe a lock down puts kids and staff in a more dangerous situation.

[spiritmage234]

May 20, 2008 20:05:30 GMT -5 2X the All-Powerful! said:

Once you sign away your rights to the school, you have no rights but the ones the school leaves you. It sucks, but w/e, if you don't like it, you either change how the school runs yourself or change schools.

Yeah it's basically like when creators hand their series/brainchildren to some company: once they get the patton to that series, they can mess around with it as much as they want.

OR, you can be a rebel and lead a revolt against comformity.

But rebellions just don't work like they use to.

This situation is similiar to that rather irrelevant story that we were informed earlier this year, about the middle schooler who wanted to get off the school bus but wasn't allowed to by the bus driver, and then some crap happened.

School rules says that you aren't suppose to get off of stops that aren't your designated stop (which I would find hard to keep track of as a bus driver. They never tried to stop us when we got off of the bus at a different stop when I was in middle school.). So, more than likely, security rules in schools are different from school district to district.

That, or some schools have some really lax security.