Dear Editor:
(In response to, ‘They did not feel our students were in imminent danger,? The Citizen, Nov. 28, page 13)
I believe there is reason for concern.
I do not agree with the school district’s position that having the alternative high school in the same building as an elementary or preschool is a good idea. Actually, I think it is a ‘bad? idea and am concerned with any administration that thinks this is appropriate. It would be hard to argue otherwise, given the recent event(s). If the statements attributed to Superintendent Lorrie McMahon in the paper are accurate, I have questions.
According to the report, she stated that ‘Neither us nor the police department believe our students were in any danger, and (the police) are the ones who determine the level of safety.? So ? if there wasn’t ‘any? danger why did the sheriff order a lockdown of the building? Practice drill?
Obviously, at the time it was thought there was ‘some? danger. I guess that could depend on your definition of danger. I could agree there was no ‘imminent? danger ? but only if we define imminent danger as a student running around in the building shooting a gun. Kind of late to do a lockdown if that occurs. I guess what happened could best be described as a ‘potential? danger. Isn’t that what a threat is? A potential danger? Isn’t ‘danger? only ‘potential harm??
Once harm happens it is no longer a ‘danger? it is ‘harm.? So it seems like semantics class here. I guess we are actually talking about the ‘level? of danger. But, there obviously was ‘danger? involved.
It seems the sheriff took appropriate actions and prevented ‘danger? from becoming ‘harm.? I also question if having a separate ‘alternative? school with a very low graduation rate is even appropriate – given the current (and near future) economic status of the school district.
Richard Wimble
Ortonville