In Jonesboro, AR, two boys, ages 11 and 13, set off their school's fire alarm and shot classmates and teachers as they emptied into the schoolyard. Four were killed and 11 wounded. In Springfield, OR, a 15-year-old opened fire in his school cafeteria, killing two and injuring 23. His parents were found dead at home. In Pearl, MS, a 16-year-old killed his mother with a butcher knife and then headed off to school where he shot and killed his ex-girlfriend and another female student. In Paducah, KY, a 14-year-old opened fire on his school prayer group, killing three female students and wounding five others.
This spate of killings has struck horror in the hearts of everyone who has heard of them from students, to parents, to school faculty, to the government. The problem seemed so pervasive, Clinton mandated a study to determine the extent of the epidemic, the possible causes, and what might be done to abate the violence. More research must be completed, but it is obvious that no single solution exists for all schools. A specific, comprehensive approach must be taken, involving students and the community. Parental involvement must be increased and outlets must be found for students to express their anger and frustration. Other policies such as metal detectors and uniforms may be instituted to assist the efforts of a larger program, but used alone these methods are likely to be found ineffective.
Because every place and every perpetrator is different, there is no single determining factor. Which solution is appropriate for which school must be determined after examining the community in which it exists and the applicable causes. Focusing on the South, where these recent examples took place, solutions geared toward reducing gang violence may not be as effective while those attempting to reduce firearms on the grounds, encourage students to participate, and increase parental involvement may create more results.
Education ...