Safety for students: Is fortifying schools the answer?

Schools are supposed to be supportive learning facilities. They not only teach science, history and arts, but also basic social skills, networking and establishing friendships. Cooperation and trust between teacher and student are a precondition for a friendly, productive learning environment. However, this trust is now put to the test, as students are undergoing growing supervision.

The United States have created a booming security industry. Already in 2012, the federal government has spent $45 million alone on police officers monitoring schools. Security companies make business offering high tech protection for children, and frequent shooting exercises (so called “lockdown” scenarios) have become mandatory in American schools. Aside from that, studies suggest that around 70% of schools are protected by security guards or police and 60% are supervised by security cameras. At least 10% of American schools feature built-in metal detectors, and the number is rising. Many have strict disciplinary policies to keep students in line; problematic individuals are often expulsed from class to prevent violent outbreaks.

The reason for those measures is simple: American schools are no longer a safe space for children. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, schools are the second-most-common place for mass-shootings in the USA – In the first three month of 2018 alone, 17 school shootings took place. In accordance to that, in 2018 the US-Government has passed a new law to increase the financing of school safety measures. This program should finance local law enforcement, training programs for school staff and students, new equipment and technology, as well as threat assessment. However, this has triggered a broad debate about the future of school safety measures and their possible trends.

Overall counselling and recommendations

Quick and easy solutions to various security issues can already be found on the World Wide Web, offering a comprehensive overview on possible security gaps that need to be addressed. “Expertsecuritytips” shows 20 safety measures to keep students safe, while websites like “schoolsecurity” advertise “best practices” for school security, including the training of school staff and strengthening partnerships with public safety officials. While cyber threats don’t seem to be a pressing issue in schools, “LiveTiles” describes the importance of cybersecurity in the digital classroom and how to address it.

If a more drastic, individual approach to the issue is desired, various companies offer active counselling towards an overall security overhaul of schools. In this regard, Schoolsafetyoperations offers to analyse the schools’ security situation, work out an emergency plan and to utilise proactive countermeasures. In the same area, Safeschools advertises “market-leading school programs” that are “time and money saving and help school administrators to make the classrooms safer for all actors”.

Technological trends in schools

The introduced mechanisms can range from smaller gimmicks to entire security networks, therefore offering a variety of choice. The implementation of entire security technology seems to be more and more the trend:

• A school in Massachusetts introduced military sensors and infrared cameras to monitor hallways: Active areas (where possible shots are fired) are displayed on a digital floorplan, which allows a coordinated response by the police.
• A buzzer system for school entries, instant lockdown-alarm-buttons and external flashing lights outside the school (to indicate danger) are part of a system used by a public school in Illinois.
• Many schools use vestibules with two entrance doors, where visitors are monitored and identified by surveillance before entering.
• Another school in Indiana uses bulletproof classroom doors, panic buttons for teachers and deployable “hot zone areas” to distract the attacker while monitoring from surveillance.
• On a smaller scale, single devices for less money also come to play: The “Boot” is a rectangular shaped plate that can be assembled to quickly lock doors – independently of locks. Next to that, bullet-proof white-boards and backpacks are also available to individually be protected from a possible school shooter.
• A school in Florida uses software to monitor the entire social media channels of its students. If hints are given towards a dangerous direction, school officials and the police visit the suspect at home.
• The trend has also reached Europe: Companies offer distress call stations for schools, connected with security agencies or the police. In some parts of Austria, this system is already requested by concerned parents and school staff.  Body cameras are used as part of a pilot project in two schools in the United Kingdom to stop disruption of students. However, their use is highly debated, since they only roll when enabled by teachers to record a specific moment.

Self defence

• Another, more drastic measure was proposed by the president of the United States (Donald Trump) himself: To arm teachers with concealed weapons, making them able to face the attacker head on – and eliminate the threat on first contact.
• This criticised measure is already in practice in northern Texas, where former police officers are offering proper gun training to teachers.
• Aside from that, the close combat self-defence training of teachers is witnessing a growing trend. Various companies offer comprehensive self-defence courses featuring a range of combat training styles and disarming techniques, as an alternative to awaiting help from outside.
• In some courses even small kids from elementary schools are taught how to react in case of an attack. Throwing items like canned goods to distract the attacker seems to be within the acknowledged possibilities.

Critique

However, a security industry of the described sort is not undisputed. Many citizens have their concerns about the growing securitization of schools, transforming them more and more into fortresses that some even portray as prison-like.

• There are no clear indications that these measures actually prevent school violence or hinder an active shooting attack. In fact, it is highly debated, whereas the high securitised climate and control does not exacerbate the problem. Studies suggest that these measures have a negative impact on the social climate in schools.
• The common practice of constant surveillance via cameras and metal detectors in schools is one aspect of this: Critics see a system that puts students under a criminal justice system, where American schools (unintentionally) fuel a school-to-prison pipeline that fosters an insecure environment and racial discrimination. This problem is also promoted by the implementation of police officers. They are generally not trained for this job and therefore usually cannot relate with the age or the issues of the children they are working with.
• The frequent school drills and lockdown scenarios could actually make the problem worse. Studies suggest that the drills contribute to a negative school climate. They could also awake a fascination with the phenomenon. It was also mentioned, that Drills might routinise the potential shooters since they are often students of the same school. In fact, the intruder of the Florida shooting knew that pulling the fire alarm would automatically unlock all classroom doors, therefore proving this safety measure completely ineffective.
• Another big issue is the cost of all security measures: School staff needs constant refresher courses for their safety training; additional police forces in schools are expensive and usually needed elsewhere. Further equipment – from smaller door-blockers, to entire overhauls or even high tech surveillance, depending on the scope – exceeds the limits of funding. Estimates suggest that the costs for implementing new “physical security” (including security cameras, surveillance, perimeter fencing, locks and training of staff) can range from $100 thousand for elementary to $170 thousand for high schools.
• Products offered, specifically the ones that are blocking doors to protect scholars, are somewhat problematic, and create a false feeling of safety. Critics mention, that many devices need time to be installed and fine motoric skills, which are generally not given in a stressful intruder-scenario. Moreover, they are generally not as effective as already built in security measures.
• There is also a growing discomfort among teachers who feel pressured to be the heroic first-line of defence against shooters. Even though the various training programs do not specifically request this, they commonly suggest fighting the intruder head-on instead of seeking refuge. One teacher mentioned, for example, that children throwing stuff at the attacker put everyone even more in danger.
• Another concerned teacher spoke out in regard of arming the teachers. She mentioned that “just arming school staff” with guns would not do the job: The wielding teacher must be willing to use the gun when the time comes. He must also learn to recognise who poses a threat and who does not. Extra time and resources are needed for proper training this as well. The guns must be kept safe, but also available at all times which raises the question of where to put them during class. Last but not least: Are smaller handguns enough to stop a willing attacker with the semi-automatic rifles, they usually use? In this context, there are many concerns that the school environment will become even more dangerous (in fact, a first victim has already been caused by weapon training).
• This brings on another debate, namely the question of gun restriction. After the shootings in spring 2018, students the United States went out in the streets, demanding the reformation of gun control laws. Although this is a much bigger question, it shows how complicated and entangled the problem of school security really is. There is no easy solution, therefore it is essential to keep researching and debating openly about any potential threats and fears.

Author: Johannes Braunbruck