Around 9 a.m. on April 22, a hall monitor discovered graffiti on a restroom wall at the school insinuating that something threatening might occur the next day. Reacting to the potential threat, Wright decided to delay the start of school by three hours on April 23.

But in doing so, his only explanation to the public was that school had been delayed because of a security concern and that he had chosen to err on the side of caution.

"It's not a Columbine thing," Wright told The Herald on the night of April 22, the day the graffiti was discovered. "It falls into the category of phone calls, rumors and graffiti."

Wright explained that he did not want to release specific details because he did not want to encourage copycat behavior by other students. But the dearth of details left parents and students in limbo.

The result was predictable. About half the student body stayed home.

We think Wright's reaction was well-intentioned. Clearly, his first concern was the welfare of the students and a desire not to alarm the community.

But by withholding information about the nature of the threat, he may unintentionally have increased the level of alarm among students and parents. With no solid information, they naturally were free to imagine the worst.

The school district might want to establish some basic guidelines for the release of information if such threats occur in the future. While principals need the autonomy to make decisions about how best to respond in these situations, a blueprint for dealing with public concerns could be helpful.

Parents need information to respond sensibly to these situations. It is understandable that many parents, not knowing the extent of the threat, simply kept their kids home for the day.

Again, we have no doubt Wright's intentions were good. But he could have avoided panic and distress by being more forthcoming about what prompted him to delay the start of the school day for three hours.