With School Starting and 8 Months After Newtown, Many Parents Fear for Their Child’s Safety

A new poll shows that lower-income Americans fear more about school safety than those with greater means.

Chicago Police patrol the neighborhood as Crystal Stoval delivers her niece Kayla Porter from their South Side home to Gresham Elementary School on the first day of classes Monday.
National Journal
Matt Vasilogambros
Matt Vasilogambros
Aug. 29, 2013, 8:23 a.m.

It’s been eight months since the deadly shoot­ing at Sandy Hook Ele­ment­ary School, but many par­ents are still be­ing afraid for their chil­dren’s safety.

Gal­lup re­leased a new poll on Thursday as mil­lions of chil­dren across the coun­try re­turn to school, ask­ing 508 par­ents of chil­dren between kinder­garten and 12th grade wheth­er they feel their old­est child is at risk of vi­ol­ence in his or her school. The sur­vey found that 33 per­cent of those par­ents fear for their child’s safety, the same per­cent­age as when this ques­tion was asked after 26 chil­dren and teach­ers were mas­sacred at the New­town, Conn., school in Decem­ber 2012.

After the shoot­ing, Pres­id­ent Obama and many Demo­crat­ic lead­ers at­temp­ted to pass sev­er­al bills re­lated to gun safety, in­clud­ing a ban on as­sault rifles, stricter back­ground checks, harsh­er pen­al­ties for il­leg­al gun traf­fick­ing, and new meas­ures for school safety. All of them failed be­cause of op­pos­i­tion from Re­pub­lic­ans who feared the meas­ures would in­fringe on the Second Amend­ment and pri­vacy rights of law-abid­ing cit­izens.

The pres­id­ent, in­stead, vowed to at­tempt to re­vive this de­bate later and, for the time be­ing, pur­sue ex­ec­ut­ive ac­tions that he said would help pro­tect chil­dren. On Thursday, the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion re­vealed two more ex­ec­ut­ive ac­tions: one that closes a loop­hole to re­strict ac­cess to some of the more dan­ger­ous weapons, in­clud­ing ma­chine guns and short-barreled shot­guns; and one that will deny re­quests to bring mil­it­ary-grade fire­arms back to the United States to private en­tit­ies, with a few ex­cep­tions such as mu­seums (since 2005, the gov­ern­ment has al­lowed 250,000 of these weapons to come back to the U.S.).

Fol­low­ing the Con­necti­c­ut shoot­ings, Obama an­nounced that the ad­min­is­tra­tion would pur­sue 23 ex­ec­ut­ive ac­tions to re­duce gun vi­ol­ence, in­clud­ing meas­ures to im­prove men­tal health and im­prove school safety.

In the five years lead­ing up to the New­town mas­sacre, par­ents of chil­dren between kinder­garten and 12th grade were less wor­ried about school safety. In 2008, just 15 per­cent of those par­ents felt their child was in danger, ac­cord­ing to Gal­lup.

But this doesn’t mean the U.S. is at its peak in par­ent­al con­cern for school safety. The shoot­ings at Columbine High School in Col­or­ado shook par­ents to the core, it seems, more than the New­town shoot­ing. In the af­ter­math of those shoot­ings in April 1999, 55 per­cent of par­ents said they were wor­ried about school safety. That num­ber re­mained high for two years.

 

And per­haps the sad truth about why par­ent­al fear is not as high as it was fol­low­ing Columbine, Gal­lup ex­plains, is that “Amer­ic­ans may be a bit more ac­cus­tomed to hear­ing about sim­il­ar tra­gedies today than at the turn of the cen­tury.”

It’s also not sur­pris­ing that fear for school safety var­ied by in­come levels, and that lower-in­come par­ents have great­er fear than those with more means. Par­ents whose in­come is less than $50,000, which is near the na­tion­al av­er­age, are twice as wor­ried as par­ents with in­comes over that level. The reas­on likely has to do with the areas in which lower-in­come Amer­ic­ans live, where vi­ol­ence is more likely.

But it might be some com­fort that chil­dren are less likely to ex­press worry or con­cern for their safety while in schools. Just 10 per­cent of par­ents say their chil­dren feel un­safe when they go back to school.

This Gal­lup sur­vey was con­duc­ted by phone Aug. 7-11, and has a sampling er­ror of 5 per­cent­age points.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
8 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×