ShareThis Page
Trib editorial: Review warranted after Norwin’s ‘false’ alarm |

Trib editorial: Review warranted after Norwin’s ‘false’ alarm

| Wednesday, April 4, 2018 11:15 a.m
A screen shot from a video shows students reacting during Norwin High School's false alarm.

The inadvertent “panic” alarm set off at Norwin High School Monday should have been an opportunity to demonstrate the school’s preparedness. Instead, this specific alarm, which signals that an active shooter or intruder is on campus, reportedly set off about 15 minutes of confusion for some students and staff.

To the school’s credit, about 700 students were safely evacuated by the adults in charge. But there were accounts from students about confusion and that at least one door-locking device didn’t work. There were also reports of some students in tears and fearing for their lives.

Emergency drills at the high school are scheduled twice a year, we’re told, and advance notice is sent to parents and students. But whether the alarm was scheduled or not, there should have been no perplexity or hesitation, by students or staff (including substitute teachers), about what to do. As well, an explanation is owed as to how the false alarm was triggered — and how future episodes can be avoided.

School security has risen to the top of the public’s radar, as well it should in the aftermath of horrific school shootings. What unfolded at Norwin High School should be instructional for that school district and schools throughout the area in determining what went wrong — and what needs to be corrected.

Categories: Editorials
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.