Shooting Threat

You said, "I see no reason for school to commence if police are on site."

I DON'T know what it was that you meant, since you were either using the wrong word or excluding part of your sentence.

 

What, exactly, does Freakonomics of all places mean?

I see no actual refutation. All I see is deflection; you're terrified of kids coming to school if a threat has been made, yet school violence is in actuality a very remote risk. You simply are outraged by the possibility and use that as an excuse to overreact.

 

Neither. I wrote it wrong and left out a word. I meant, "If police are on the campus then I see no reason for school not to commence" Crappy wording but there ya go.

I clarified that in my last post. As long as certain precautions are taken and an officer is present I don't have a problem with school going on as normal.

 

And? I honestly don't care. Regardless of risk percentages and statistics... school violence happens. It could happen at any time, just look at Sandy Hook. And that person was not even a student! That entire situation was basically unpreventable. In that situation nothing could be done.

But a threat being made? On a specific day? If there is a small chance, or risk, that a shooting could be prevented, heck, I would go for it.

How is my reaction overreacting? Shutting down school for a day hardly seems like overreacting.

 

Maybe I'm wrong for this, but I don't live my life by statistics and percentages. In my experience, I've found that often times they don't apply to real life as much as one might think.

I just go with my gut and instincts.

 

"I don't care about data." You're a teacher and you don't care about data? THAT is terrifying.

Perhaps becoming educated about the fact that just because something sounds horrendous and is in the news every time the event occurs, it doesn't mean that it occurs with any measurable frequency.

Basing all of your decisions, especially decisions as a school administrator/educator, on your "instincts/gut" is terribly myopic.

Now, what does Freakonomics as a source do to discredit this argument at all?

 

:lol: Really? That scary huh?

Yes. Exactly. The best attitude is a cavalier one! I will sit down, crack open my research book full of school shooting data and think that, because the probability of it occurring is so low, that it will never happen at my school. Ever. Sounds good Taking precautions? Out the window.

Man, I have really been going about this the wrong way. Thank you I feel like a new woman.

My sight is just fine actually. I can see up close and far away.

It's known for its misleading statements and discredited arguments. I think it's humorous and everything but I take it all with a grain of salt.

You said you were well-educated on risk. I just assumed you would tell me what you know, not copy and paste from an iffy source.

My apologies.

 

The OP hasn't been back. I hope she's okay.

 

Where did anyone say "no precautions would be taken?" You're the one who claimed the only precaution to be taken has to be closing the school.

I'll wait for your proof that Freakonomics has made misleading statements. I'll also go ahead and state that, compared to the inane and ridiculous arguments you've made on this thread, I'm probably going to take the assessments of a Harvard and MIT-educated economist who has won the John Bates Clark award over yours.

No offense. Keep claiming that we must stop our lives every time we perceive an increased risk, regardless of reality.

I mean, your "gut" is better than hard data and rational thought, right?

 

Are the holidays stressing people out or something? Not the most friendly debates lately...

 

Seems that way. I'd like to participate in this discussion and others, but I'm not interested in getting my head bitten off, you know?

 

This type of naively ignorant, dichotomous thinking from educated individuals responsible for nurturing the gift of critical thought in students needs to be addressed forcefully.

This poster then goes on to say that "If we hold school, we will have a Sandy Hook/Columbine situation."

Absurd.

The other poster was also the first to throw out insults in an otherwise polite discussion.

 

Way to throw me under the bus? And put words into my mouth?

 

Was this addressed to me or Honest Teacher? At this point I am super confused.

 

Not to you....

 

Okay. I was just making sure I wasn't crazy!

 

Who threw out the first insult?

Hint: It wasn't me.

 

You put those words in your own mouth in this thread. I still want a response to the absurd implications made in your LAST post.

 

Rats! I was hungry too!

 

Gross.

 

1) I really hate the existence of this board, or at least the fact that topics are purposefully closed almost as soon as they get here. If this board has to exist, then it should be set up to allow debates to continue.

2) Being fearful in this situation regardless of what the data says is perfectly natural. I'd find it weirder NOT to be worried in such a situation.

3) With that said, the decision on whether or not to close school has to come down to ability to keep students safe in the event that a threat was credible. If a threat is very credible, but there are steps put in place to ensure that all students will be safe, then keep schools open. If a threat isn't credible, but there aren't available resources to keep students safe, then school should be kept closed.

 

I'm sure we can all do better than this. It sounds like "John started it, Mom".

 

My bet would be everyone would agree, but the problem is that there's no such thing as absolutely safe. Also, it's not possible to guarantee the safety of anyone, to a certainty. It's always going to be a judgment call, and it's kind of complex, yes?

 

It is complex, and I'm glad I'm not the one that has to make decisions like that, but I think as a general rule, there are steps that can be taken to ensure safety when a threat has been made.