Q&A of the Day – How Effective Are Metal Detectors in Schools?
Each day I feature a listener question sent by one of these methods.
Email: brianmudd@iheartmedia.com
Social: @brianmuddradio
iHeartRadio: Use the Talkback feature – the microphone button on our station’s page in the iHeart app.
Today’s Entry: I’ve been following the decision by PBC Schools to implement metal detectors. I’d like to know what we know about their effectiveness and how big (or little) of a pain they’ve proven to be for students. Also, with school resource officers already in place do you think they’re necessary?
Bottom Line: It’s a great topic and one worth diving into for sure with the Palm Beach County School Board having approved a proposal last week to implement metal detectors in all public high schools within the district. The $2.25 million authorized by the school board will be used to purchase metal detectors which will be phased in after the completion of a previously approved pilot program. The pilot program is set to take place in the near future, perhaps starting as soon as this summer, at the following high schools: John I. Leonard, Palm Beach Gardens, Palm Beach Lakes, and Seminole Ridge. The exact timing for the implementation of the metal detectors across the district is to be determined. As for the general effectiveness of metal detectors, there’s a large sample size spanning greater than 30 years at schools across the country we can draw data from in assessing the question.
The first school to implement the use of metal detectors was an inner-city Detroit High School in the 1989-1990 school year. Since then, there’s been a slow and steady growth in their use. Entering the current school year nationally, a total of 2% of elementary schools used metal detectors, 7% of middle schools and 10% of high schools. There have been temporary uses of metal detectors used at schools, during times of specific concerns or as part of a random use of metal detectors which select school districts across the country occasionally will use. The best sample size of a single school district comes with the largest school district.
The New York City School District has used metal detectors for many years. Since 2016, the schools have been required to report data on the confiscation of weapons from students attempting to enter schools. Since the 2016-2017 school year there have been more than 1,000 weapons, ranging from knives to guns, which have been confiscated due to detection by metal detectors. That’s a rather eye-opening number of confiscated weapons within effectively a five-year window (due to the NY School Districts’ prolonged remote learning program during COVID). And it leads one to wonder how many weapons regularly make their way onto school campuses which go undetected generally.
Various studies have been conducted over time attempting to gauge the net impact of the use of metal detectors in schools. The most common result has been insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness. That’s largely because in many districts there’s not a clear baseline for weapons making their way onto campuses prior to the implementation of metal detectors, and in many school districts there are commonly very few, if any, weapons confiscated. It can be hard to know if the deterrence of metal detectors has led to students not attempting to bring weapons to school. That said, there is one accredited study from over a decade ago which provided data on the impact metal detectors had on student behavior. The study found that students were 43% less likely to attempt to bring a weapon onto school campuses once they implemented metal detectors. That’s significant for a couple of reasons.
It’s safe to say all parents and faculty would prefer a 43% lower likelihood of weapons making it into our schools. The benefit of significant deterrence is self-evident. But beyond deterrence the benefit is magnified. First, no system is going to be perfect. Much like how we’ll occasionally hear of weapons making their way past airport security screeners, it’s safe to say there’s an error rate with metal detectors. Additionally, there are obviously weapons which may not be made of detectable metals. For that reason, deterrence is the most effective safety protocol of all as there’s no rate of margin for error. The other benefit can be intent.
While there have occasionally been credible stories of children genuinely making mistakes with weapons they’ve brought onto campus (for example a student who had a hunting rifle in a compartment in his truck’s bed, and stories of multi-tool knives used for hunting, fishing and camping being placed inside of backpacks of pants pockets). When students are regularly going through metal detectors to enter school there’s a heightened state of awareness, and thus a lower likelihood of legitimate mistakes being made. What that commonly indicates is that when weapons are detected and confiscated, there’s greater reason to suspect potential ill-intent by the students possessing them which carries the benefit of not only removing weapons from these potentially troubled students, but also allowing school districts to examine those students further to evaluate known risk factors such as social media postings and behavior, interviews with other students about behavior, etc. This can aid in identifying and removing troubled students from schools that might otherwise go undetected.
In Florida it’s easy to look at the success we’ve had with the implementation of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Safety Act, highlighted by the implementation of school resource officers and think we’ve done enough. Given the data we have and the seemingly ever rising risk of violent/copycat behavior with troubled students, and at times adults who target schools, layering in this next level of school security with what we’ve already done strikes me as a pragmatic and effective way to continue to stay on the right track from a school security perspective.