Minneapolis Star Tribune, Feb. 17
Reconsider overly realistic ’active shooter’ drills
Sound recommendation from national teacher unions: Schoolchildren shouldn’t be put through this trauma.
As the nation marks two years since the Stoneman Douglas high school shooting in Florida, some schools are doing drills that nearly re-create its horrific circumstances, in which a former student killed 17 and injured 17 on Valentine’s Day 2018 in America’s deadliest high school shooting to date.
One response to the plague of school shootings has been a rush to ramp up school security measures - including simulations of what happens when shots ring out on a school campus. Some drills involve the sounds of gunfire, “victims” lying on the floor or a role-playing gunman rattling classroom door handles.
But such all-too-realistic exercises can do more harm than good. Traumatizing students - especially younger ones - is not the way to protect them.
That’s why a national teacher union call to reconsider active shooter drills constitutes sound advice. Last week, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association and Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund recommended ending unannounced shooter drills as well as drills that simulate shooter actions.
That recommendation is backed up by a National Association of School Psychologists’ warning that overly graphic realistic drills involve risks. If they’re not done properly, counselors say, such drills can cause physical and psychological damage. NASP recommends that school-employed mental health professionals should be involved in every stage of training, and parental consent should be mandatory.
Nationally, about 95% of schools drilled students on lockdown procedures in the 2015-16 school year, according to a recent survey. More than 4.1 million students experienced at least one lockdown in the 2017-18 school year alone, according to a 2018 analysis by The Washington Post - including at least 220,000 kindergartners and preschoolers.
In Minnesota, state statutes require school boards to adopt a “crisis management’’ policy to respond to potential violent situations. That policy must include at least five school lockdowns, five fire drills and one tornado drill. We nearly all can remember school fire drills that taught youngsters what to do in case of fire without unduly frightening them.
During a meeting with the Editorial Board this week, several metro area school superintendents and board members said their districts meet state law requirements but don’t conduct graphically realistic exercises. Rather, they said, like many state districts they make their safety protocols more transparent and avoid using “active shooter’’ in drill descriptions. Rather, they emphasize procedures that should be followed in the event of a range of emergency situations that could include someone bringing in or firing a gun.
And the superintendents emphasized the need for additional mental health services as prevention. They said increasing numbers of their students experience trauma and other untreated psychological and emotional problems that can be barriers to learning. Those types of mental health issues have also been found in many teen and young adult shooters.
While well-intentioned, graphic shooter drills involving kids ought to be dropped.
___
The Free Press of Mankato, Feb. 18
Need a REAL ID? Get going now
Why it matters:: If you plan to fly in the fall or next winter and don’t have a REAL ID, you need to apply for one soon or risk being grounded.
If you plan to get on an airline later this year and don’t yet have the new REAL ID driver’s license you best get to your nearest license center pronto.
Beginning on Oct. 1, those without the new license, or a passport, won’t be able to board a domestic flight.
Officials from the state Driver and Vehicle Services division told lawmakers the crush of applications coming in for REAL ID means they are unlikely to get the licenses to everyone who applies prior to Oct. 1.
Only about 13% of residents already have the new license. But many others have passports, which also can be used for domestic flights. Still, only about half of Minnesotans have an identification that will allow them to board a commercial airline.
For those who don’t fly, or who at least have no trips planned for the next year or so, there is no pressure to apply for the REAL ID. But many residents need to get the process rolling sooner than later.
The state’s problems of fulfilling REAL ID request are mostly self-inflicted.
Too many drivers have procrastinated when they have long known the Oct. 1 deadline is approaching.
But what really complicated the issue was politics in the Legislature.
The federal government passed the REAL ID law in 2005 in response to the 9/11 attacks. The idea was that people would be better screened while applying for the new driver’s license by presenting several documents to prove who they are, thus making flying safer for all.
While every other state passed laws to comply, Minnesota dawdled, not approving a REAL ID law until 2017. The legislation was delayed by some who used the bill to raise issues about undocumented immigrants getting a driver’s license.
But the REAL ID law helps ensure only those with lawful citizenship status get the new license. People must provide verified proof of birth, residence, Social Security numbers and lawful citizenship status.
Some state lawmakers have said they would be willing to work with the DVS to see if the Legislature could pass a law that would help ease the licensing process. One idea is to rewrite some of the requirements on documents that need to be brought in. For example, many people laminate their Social Security card but that isn’t allowed for proof of someone’s Social Security number because it’s considered an “altered” document. If lawmakers can ease the process while still ensuring it’s secure, they should.
And for those seeking a REAL ID, they should pre-apply online and read and understand the documents needed.
State officials say they think they will be able to get REAL IDs in time to people who apply in the next couple of months. But for those who want to fly next fall and winter there is no reason to push the deadline. Any glitch that arises could cause further delays in processing the new licenses.
___
St. Cloud Times, Feb. 14
St. Cloud council still doesn’t grasp that dissent isn’t disrespect
The St. Cloud City Council’s replacement Monday of its 10 rules of conduct with eight “aspirational principles of civility and professional conduct” leaves one glaring hole the council must fill.
More clarity is needed involving the eighth principle: “Respect the majority vote.”
As followers of this needless saga know, “respecting the majority vote” is precisely what started this debate. To avoid wasting any more time on this issue, the council must better define that principle.
A quick recap
The council in September voted 4-2 to censure at-large member George Hontos after he wrote a letter to the St. Cloud Times Opinion section expressing his disagreement with an August council decision to change the order of regular council meeting, moving public comment to the end of the meetings, after adjournment.
In his commentary, Hontos raised compelling points against the council’s 5-2 decision to move the public input period to after the meeting is adjourned and not televise it. He also objected to limits on what council members could say during open discussion.
His letter was focused on the issues and rested largely on the importance of free speech, the public’s right to know and the ability of elected officials to best represent their constituents.
He made clear he disagreed with the majority vote, and he even challenged his peers to poll their constituents about their decision. But his commentary - agree with it or not - was not even close to being disrespectful.
Yet that essentially is what four council members declared with the absurd censure votes that followed.
The problem remains
And therein lies the problem.
Adopting this principle of “respect the majority vote” without any definition or context allows a majority of the council - this one or in the future - to do again to any dissenting member just what it did to Hontos.
Not only will that further the wrong (and milquetoast) message that disagreement equates to disrespect, but it continues to cloud free speech rights.
That’s certainly on the mind of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, which came to the defense of Hontos and free speech last fall and again Tuesday.
The ACLU expressed satisfaction with the changes Tuesday, but told the Times it will keep watching the council.
“While this is a significant improvement, we are concerned that the new principles still include a requirement to ‘respect the majority vote,’ which is not defined and has the potential to squelch opposing viewpoints,” ACLU staff attorney David P. McKinney said in a statement to the Times. “We will continue to monitor the application of these principles to ensure that they are not applied in a manner that interferes with the free speech rights of council members.”
Potential solution
Solving this problem is not difficult.
The council must acknowledge it understands respectful disagreement is acceptable among members by adding more clarity and substance to “respect the majority vote.”
Here’s a starting point: “Respect the majority vote. Council members are free to state publicly they disagree with a majority vote. If they cite reasons, those should relate to the policy issue at hand, not the people who crafted policy or the made the decision.”
In a simpler time, this would be defined as “Sure, disagree. Just don’t be a jerk about it.”
Apparently, though, too many council members are either easily offended when a peer does not agree with them, or they want to silence potential dissent.
That latter seems more like something out of the Mafia - or today’s White House. Regardless, it’s not a sign of a healthy democratic society.
Again, the council needs to amend the new language to prove it truly supports free speech and fully understands dissent does not equal disrespect.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.