This story has some truth to it, but it disregards the entire concept of risk calculation. The point is that inner-city schools are more prepared to handle and prevent violence, and indeed many of the most conspicuous and “successful” shootings have been in suburban and rural districts.
What the story doesn’t emphasize to readers is: That’s because city schools are more likely to deal with gangs on a regular basis. Most of them, I would guess, did not kick off their prevention efforts until after the problem started. Why would you expect a quiet district to make comparable efforts?
Yes, it’s naive for suburban and rural schools to think “it can’t happen here,” but it’s a fact that violence is less likely in a farm community than in a Crip-and-Blood big city. Quite logically, small-school administrators are not too inclined to take elaborate, expensive measures — at the expense of education — against the tiny possibility of an alienated white guy storming the facilities with a gun. Even if CNN feels the need to point out that few Amish one-room schoolhouses have metal detectors.
Finally, the article offers no statistics on incident prevalence in rural vs. urban schools. Here are some; urban schools are of course more likely to report violence despite their enhanced security, though on a few measures the difference is quite small. One interesting fact is that the difference between “fringe” urban and inner-city schools is pronounced when it comes to violent crime, often to the degree that “fringe” city schools are better than suburban schools.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Loading ...
No user commented in " Urban schools more protected than rural ones, CNN reports "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackLeave A Reply