Armed Officers in our Schools – is it really a good idea?

Homeland Security conducts an unannounced lockdown drill

A natural tendency, when confronted with a problem with no easy solution, is to do SOMETHING !

A good rule of thumb, when confronted with a problem with no easy solution, is to do NOTHING !

At least, not right away. There are reasons that there are no easy solutions, and we need to understand what those reasons are. At the same time, in these situations there are inevitable pressures to prove your high level of concern and decisiveness by doing something. You are on the THINK/ACT Continuum.

That’s where school board members now find themselves on the issue of school security.  Since the February 14 Parkland school shooting, the questions are “What if it had happened here?”  And “Are we doing enough to keep our kids safe?”  This has actually been an issue for much longer, going back to the Columbine High School shooting in 1999, and Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012. I doubt that any boards of education are only now reacting to these senseless, heartbreaking events.  The question before us is how to strike a balance between fortifying our schools, introducing “active shooter” vocabulary, training kids and staff on lockdown procedures; and ensuring that the educational space feels like a place for safe and nurturing learning.

As our district board and administration crafted the 2018-2019 budget, I found myself opposed to the idea of introducing an armed, retired police officer to the learning environment (for details on this option in New Jersey, see the NJSBA site, Asked and Answered: School Safety and Armed Security). My objections are many; basically, I’m skeptical it will make a difference, other than to make us feel like we’ve done something.  The downsides and risks are greater than the potential rewards.  Let’s start with some basic facts:

• We have invested heavily in school security already, in resources and services that do make a difference. These include: adding an extra locked inner door at main entrances; visitor identification systems linked to a law enforcement database; replacement of every lock, and every classroom door; 39 campus cameras linked to the local police department; extensive staff training on lockdown procedures, and options for responding to intruders.  And, we have an excellent, cooperative relationship with our police department.
• Even the most capable, committed onsite officer could not be everywhere at once. In fact, we are not even funding the position to be onsite during the full school day (issues related to their pension, responsibility for benefits, etc.).
• If we are concerned with the potential danger of guns in our schools, we are now the ones introducing firearms. Worth thinking about, at least.  What would happen if an unruly student were to physically threaten a staff member – what would an armed officer do?  Is there any risk at all of over-reaction?

A board member who raises these issues runs the risk of appearing uncaring; besides, wouldn’t we spare any expense for the safety of our kids?  Let’s look then at some national facts.

• “Rates of student victimization at school have continued to decline, fewer students have brought weapons to school, and fewer students report fear of harm in school, according to a federal report” released in March.
• The number of school-related violent deaths is virtually unchanged from 1994-1995 to 2014-2015.
• The odds of any given child killed in a school shooting is less than 1 in 1 million; statistically, the average elementary or secondary school can expect to experience a mass shooting about once every 150,000 years.
• There is a growing concern, substantiated by some research, that School Resource Officers (which serve a different function from an armed Class III, retired police officer) feed a school-to-prison pipeline (see Putting more cops in schools won't make schools safer, and it will likely inflict a lot of harm, The Washington Post, February 22).

I would refer you to my sources, TheCase for Limiting School Security, March 19 and Data:Schools Have Gotten Safer Over Time, April 10, 2018 both in Education Week.

My point: there is a law of diminishing return at work here; once you’ve spent six-figures plus as my board has on school security, introducing an armed guard onsite is not going to do too much, other than make you feel like you’re doing something (even though you clearly have already).  The ironic fact that we can’t avoid here is that the worst cases of school violence have come from within!  Specifically, the violence is often perpetrated by current or former students. Be the board member who asks,

• Are our mental health services and early intervention strategies adequate?
• Is our school climate one that is strongly averse to bullying?
• How does our staff demonstrate compassion for the kids who struggle?

It’s hard to argue with board and administration when they say that there is no excuse for not taking every conceivable security precaution.  But I would challenge that thinking.  As the thoughtful member at the board table, you do have good cause to take a step back and consider what other actions can we take that will have more of an impact on the safety and well-being of our students.