Baird - thanks for sharing the article. We agree on quite a bit when it comes to the failure to solve the problem of school violence.
When I think about the challenge you mention, I see three groups of people:
- Group 1. There are people in organizations who have actually addressed it, but we probably don't know about them because they choose not to talk about it. It is hard to KNOW if you got it right or not, so I understand the hesitation from actual practitioners to make claims here.
- Group 2. There are those who choose to ignore the threat and pretend like everything is fine (I'll come back to them in a second).
- Group 3. There are those who recognize they don't have the violence prevention and security capabilities they need, but don't know how to address them.
In most of my writing, I focus on that 3rd group because (to your point) learning how to effectively act on emerging threat data is tough, but not impossible. For the same reasons I'm not qualified to be a school principal, I can only hope that those who are, are seeking the support and guidance they need to build functioning violence prevention programs.
Because if we can, collectively, improve the performance of Group 3, the “leaders” in Group 2 who are choosing to put kids and their community at risk will only become more obvious and can be held accountable for choosing to not address this problem.
That gap between seeing and acting is really critical to understand if the tool (the AI-enabled camera) is going to support the outcome (a prevented attack). Thanks for highlighting that.
That gap can be a double-edged sword if it isn't acknowledged. It has stopped organizations (including those that had advance warning of an imminent threat) from acting. And it has led to poorly initiated responses in which the context around the observation wasn't communicated or articulated effectively.
But those are also really clearly scoped problems that an organization can address and, as a result, get the most out of these tools.
Baird - thanks for sharing the article. We agree on quite a bit when it comes to the failure to solve the problem of school violence.
When I think about the challenge you mention, I see three groups of people:
- Group 1. There are people in organizations who have actually addressed it, but we probably don't know about them because they choose not to talk about it. It is hard to KNOW if you got it right or not, so I understand the hesitation from actual practitioners to make claims here.
- Group 2. There are those who choose to ignore the threat and pretend like everything is fine (I'll come back to them in a second).
- Group 3. There are those who recognize they don't have the violence prevention and security capabilities they need, but don't know how to address them.
In most of my writing, I focus on that 3rd group because (to your point) learning how to effectively act on emerging threat data is tough, but not impossible. For the same reasons I'm not qualified to be a school principal, I can only hope that those who are, are seeking the support and guidance they need to build functioning violence prevention programs.
Because if we can, collectively, improve the performance of Group 3, the “leaders” in Group 2 who are choosing to put kids and their community at risk will only become more obvious and can be held accountable for choosing to not address this problem.
Thanks again!
That gap between seeing and acting is really critical to understand if the tool (the AI-enabled camera) is going to support the outcome (a prevented attack). Thanks for highlighting that.
That gap can be a double-edged sword if it isn't acknowledged. It has stopped organizations (including those that had advance warning of an imminent threat) from acting. And it has led to poorly initiated responses in which the context around the observation wasn't communicated or articulated effectively.
But those are also really clearly scoped problems that an organization can address and, as a result, get the most out of these tools.
Thanks for the comment.