abcnews.go.com
Active Shooter Drills: Detrimental Mental Health Impacts Outweigh Unproven Benefits
Active shooter drills, conducted in over 95% of US public schools, are causing a 40% increase in student anxiety and depression according to a recent study, raising concerns about their efficacy and potential to inadvertently provide blueprints for future attacks.
- What are the immediate mental health consequences of widespread active shooter drills in US schools, and how do these consequences compare to the drills' purported benefits?
- While over 95% of US public schools conduct active shooter drills, a 2021 study revealed a 40% increase in anxiety and depression among students in the three months following these drills. This highlights the potential negative impact on mental health, outweighing any potential benefits. The drills' efficacy in preparing students for real-life scenarios remains largely unproven.
- Considering the lack of standardized guidelines, what are the variations in active shooter drill practices across different schools, and how do these variations contribute to inconsistent outcomes?
- The ubiquity of active shooter drills, mandated in at least 40 states, contrasts sharply with the lack of standardized guidelines and the mounting evidence of their detrimental effects on student mental health. This disparity underscores a critical need for regulatory reform and evidence-based training practices.
- Given the potential for these drills to inadvertently aid would-be attackers and the significant negative impact on mental health, what alternative approaches to school safety should be prioritized?
- The potential for active shooter drills to inadvertently provide blueprints for future attacks, especially given that 3 in 4 school shooters are current or former students, necessitates a shift in focus. Prevention strategies, such as secure gun storage and peer-to-peer reporting of concerning behavior, should become prioritized over potentially harmful drills.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's framing emphasizes the negative consequences of active shooter drills from the outset. The headline and introduction immediately highlight the potential harm, setting a negative tone that persists throughout the piece. The inclusion of the Madison, Wisconsin shooting in the introduction strengthens this negative framing by immediately associating drills with real-life violence. This prioritization of negative impacts might disproportionately influence the reader's understanding of the issue.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language such as "marked damage," "lasting harms," "deeply traumatizing," and "grim risk." These terms carry strong negative connotations and influence the reader's perception. More neutral alternatives could include "negative impacts," "potential drawbacks," "stressful experience," and "potential concern." The repeated emphasis on negative consequences also contributes to a biased tone.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the negative impacts of active shooter drills but doesn't explore potential benefits or alternative perspectives on their effectiveness. While acknowledging some schools use basic training, it doesn't detail the range of approaches used in effective drills. The lack of this balanced perspective could lead to a biased understanding of the issue.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat false dichotomy by framing the debate as solely between the harms of drills and the lack of evidence supporting their benefits. It doesn't fully explore the possibility of modifying drills to mitigate harm while maintaining some level of preparedness. The implied choice is between completely abandoning drills and continuing the current, potentially harmful practice.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the negative impact of active shooter drills on students' mental health, leading to increased anxiety and depression. These drills, intended to improve safety, are counterproductive as they cause significant trauma and do not demonstrably improve preparedness. The ubiquity of these drills in schools across the US, despite lacking evidence of effectiveness and potentially increasing the risk of harm, negatively affects the quality of education by disrupting learning and increasing the stress level of students.