Insecurity in schools as a matter of concern

Narrative Argument about Education

Introduction 

Student security is an issue that needs a thorough evaluation and analysis. School administrators need to craft strategies and methods that ensure safety and wellbeing of students in school. As per an article from the USA Today, since the notorious Columbine shootings, there has been a total of twenty-one other school shootings. The shootings have resulted to the death of approximately ninety students and faculty members, forty injuries, and nearly eight suicides ending the binge (Goldstein, 2007). Ratting on peers is something that has been a taboo since the historical times, more so in the more immature and younger academic culture, fundamentally eliminating any chance to preventing tragedy. To improve the odds of tragedy prevention campuses in the years to come, the undrafted prohibition on silence among cronies must be lifted. As people seek to protect staff and students at educational institutions, care must be exercised not to impose on fundamental civil rights. 

Thesis: Insecurity in schools has been a matter of concern as many students have lost their lives over the past few years because of dangerous actions undertaken by their peers. Some of the students are well aware of plan of their colleagues but are afraid to tell on them. The question that crosses people’s minds is whether it is okay to rat on other students.

Analysis

Goldstein (2007) brings up a powerful argument, but the ramifications of allegations that may end up being false can be shocking for the school and the students. Visibly exasperated with what seems to be lack of urgency in the identification of learners who are potentially harmful, the author makes a reflective proposal, one that needs the faculty to be more active and students to take a more proactive approach to student hostility by freely pointing out their colleagues who they deem are dangerous. The approach, whereas reasonable in its nature, depicts a double-edged sword because a peculiar behavior does not necessarily mean one is dangerous. Teachers and other people in authority should be in a position to differentiate between students who are displaying their unique personalities and those who are really dangerous ( The Associate Press, 2013). This calls for some federal bureau investigation officers, psychologists, or people trained in human behavior because if that is not the case, then anyone else will not be able to identify the correct thing. Parents also have a role to play in revealing the nature and traits of their children. 

Goldstein (2007) writes of parental roles in terms of how much responsibility is vested with the parents when their child is engaged in anti-social behavior. In the article, Goldstein questions why the parents of the students with the pipe bomb in the vehicle were not aware of the activities of their children. The question is who should be held responsible when calamity strikes; is it the school personnel who are supposed to have a higher sense of urgency, parents who have the responsibility to understand what their children are doing, or students who should take the responsibility on reporting on their friends. Finding a balance between actual defiant trait and accusations can be difficult in a community where individuals are allowed; sometimes dispirited to be who they desire to be. 

The issue lies with whether or not being who you want infringes on other people’s rights, and if there is a hint of violence, should someone report. James Eagan Holmes, the young lad accused of the Colorado attacks displayed his self-expression with his characterization of ‘The Joker’ and as per the Associated Press; he had informed a colleague four months before the shooting that he wanted to massacre people. Goldstein’s (2007) arguments that peers need to tell on one another seems to be appropriate in this case, conceivably lives could have been saved had the individual who received the information reported the discussion to someone in authority at the campus. As evidenced by Newtown and Columbine, the potential for campus violence always exists. The counter squabble entails how student threats of school violence are addressed. 

Zero lenience strategies are fertile grounds for over-enthusiastic administrators to target learners who may prove different but in the real sense never pose a threat to the student body or the staff. Several cases have been documented whereby students are expelled by scared institutional personnel who escalated minor occurrences into major events. Regrettably, school violence is a reality, and there are no grounds to argue against drafting strategies with the aim of ensuring students security, but there needs to be a balance ( The Associate Press, 2013).  Subsequent to the Newtown catastrophe, psychologists across the nation offered their professional judgments about the killer. Albeit they had different opinions, they shared one common term ‘obsessed.’ Creators of school strategies are supposed to be careful not to be classified in the same category; common sense must take priority over national paranoia that many at times singles out a specific type of individual.

After 9/11, scholars of the Middle Eastern descent informed on their campuses later became aggressive environments because of the terrorism obsession. Goldstein’s (2007) assertion that his suggestion will not be acknowledged by everyone means even he understands the prospective for backlash. The author admits the perils associated with his suggestion, in addition to the danger of misapprehension when an individual is, according to his words, doing their “thing” (Goldstein, 2007). He understands there will be periods when ‘ratting out’ could lead to penalties for innocent people, setting groundwork for authorized action against the institution. Goldstein (2007) nonetheless argues that it is a small price to forfeit if a mass obliteration of life can be avoided. His notions have merit, but profiling and stereotyping are major issues in the nation, and placing people’s human rights at-risk in an endeavor to practically deal with school violence, traverses a fine line between harassing and protecting students. There may be one formidable solution, but there is one thing for sure; schools administrators should be careful when drafting the methods applied to identify potentially dangerous instances. 

Conclusion

Therefore, the paper crafted a response to Warren Goldstein ’s article ‘ Why It’s OK to Rat on Other Students: How do you teach people to do the right thing? Students should be advised to report certain queer characters exhibited by colleagues to respected school authorities to ensure they are safe and regulation of dangerous peers. Teachers involved in crafting rules, programs and strategies should ensure the measures put in place are effective. This will help ensure individuals are not punished for actions they are not or have never contemplated being involved in. Administrators should use psychologists to identify what traits are dangerous and those that are not. 

References

Goldstein, W. (2007).  Why it’s ok to rat on other students.  The Chronicle Review. The Chronicle 

of Higher Education. Retrieved from: http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Its-OK-to-Rat-On-Other/32330/  on January 17, 2014

The Associate Press (2013).  Why did james holmes do it? One year later, accused “dark knight” 

killer remains a mystery . Retrieved from: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/year- dark-knight-killer-remains-mystery-article on January 17, 2014.