When school safety becomes a tech race

School design matters for safety. International CPTED Association CPTED in Schools Guidebook - photo by Jeremy Bitterman Photography, Lacamas Lake ES/Mahlum Architects 

by Gregory Saville

“In May, 2022, there was a school shooting… as I watched it unfold, having been in law enforcement for 23 years, I saw the mistakes that were being made and I got angry. I got really angry!" – James Fuller, Director of Operations, Northern Star, non-profit school safety coalition.

A few years ago, my friend James Fuller uttered those words when, in response to the tragic Uvalde school shooting in Texas, he worked with other colleagues to launch Northern Star, a non-profit school safety coalition. I was invited to advise and join this group on their search for answers to this ongoing nightmare that is school violence. 

Months later there we sat, in our first leadership workshop on prevention strategies and school safety plans. I looked around the room and was impressed with all the experience: educators, police, ex-military, veterans, mental health experts, school principals, and criminologists.

Here was a volunteer group of passionate and committed souls, community members and parents among them, dedicating their considerable experience to the complex problem of school violence. James wanted answers, not a rush for public safety theatre (the use of high visible security measures with the appearance of safety, regardless of whether they reduce risk).

Their first decision: adopt school safety planning that was evidence-based, community-based and effective! What a breath of fresh air.

Then this week happened.

RISK AND REALITY

On Monday I watched a newsclip from a private school in Colorado that plans to use high-speed mini-drones that fire pepper-spray and strike active shooters. What could go wrong?

Each year, the vast majority of schools in the U.S. will never experience gun violence. Depending on how you measure the problem, there is an average risk of roughly 1 incident per 400 schools that experience a shooting incident, whether or not there is injury. Mass shootings with injuries and fatalities are much rarer at about 1 incident per 10,000 schools. 

Does the low-risk matter if drones help, even slightly? If they help, who can argue with that logic? Not the state of Georgia who has spent $500,000 to pilot the drone system in five public schools. Not Florida who has spent over $550,000 to implement the technology at three high schools. And now, not one Colorado public charter school that decided to pay for its own drones. 

Thats over a million dollars! It is never wise to argue actuarial logic when it comes to the emotional topic of child safety. Still, a million dollars might go a long way with other evidence-based mitigation and prevention strategies. 

Should school safety employ defensive technologies or socially sophisticated prevention solutions?
Photo - Minidrone ZLEA, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Let’s be crystal clear. Schools should prepare for all high-risk tragedies, no matter how rare. And I am not the Luddite in this case because I have not seen the drones up close nor seen evaluation trials on their effectiveness. 

Yet, I cannot ignore the elephant in the room! Are we yet again investing in the latest reaction technology while neglecting other forms prevention? 

Those of us with years working and researching the science of crime prevention wonder if this is a pattern we’ve seen before. SafeGrowth blogs over the past decade tell a cautionary tale about reactive suppression technologies and highly targeted response strategies. Consider:

• Predictive policing
• SQF policing
• K5 security robots, and
• ShotSpotter AI technology.

In SafeGrowth, when it comes to technology, we employ a simple principle learned over the years. Don't discard effective prevention while embracing the latest suppression technology. As the ancient German proverb warns, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. 

Whether intended or not, highly publicized defensive technologies can contribute to the cultural script surrounding rare but highly publicized forms of violence. That doesn't mean the drones cause violence, but it does mean educators and communicators should think carefully about how these technologies are presented alongside what we know about contagion effects. 

Balancing safety - the ying/yang approach

A BALANCED RESPONSE

What if there was another approach? What it we adopted a more balanced covenant between technologically sophisticated reactive solutions and the socially sophisticated preventive solutions with evidence of success? 

Call it the ying/yang for school violence prevention.

What if school leaders decided that every dollar invested in emergency suppression technologies should be matched by equal attention to helping local schools create their own comprehensive safety approach? Like what?

Approaches like those promoted by Northern Star’s methodology for school-based safety plans. Approaches like those the International CPTED Association recommends in their CPTED in Schools Guidebook to build pro-social school cultures, encourage safer environmental designs, strengthen peer networks, and improve self-awareness and conflict management. (NOTE: Those strategies are part of this year’s ICA CPTED Conference in Calgary, Oct. 2-4) 

Perhaps, in addition to drones, there will even be an approach that forges voluntary agreements with media news conglomerates to limit the sensationalizing of tragic shooting events. Limiting crime contagion might also go a long way to prevent school shootings. 

Security technology is attractive because it promises certainty. Communities are difficult because they require patience. School violence prevention is not easy, but nothing worthwhile ever is. Imagine if spending was more balanced...what a difference that might make! 

Do something! Northern Star's fight against school violence

James Fuller, director of operations at the non-profit Northern Star, explains why the organization was formed 

by Gregory Saville

I first met James Fuller a few years ago at a dinner in Dallas after co-teaching a leadership program with a colleague. He shared how he and a group of ex-military veterans had embarked on a bold mission: tackling the pressing issue of school violence and shootings. James passionately described why he took on this tough, uncertain journey. You can hear his full story in the video above.

Their non-profit, Northern Star: Community and School Safety Initiatives, is focused on offering free anti-violence and school development programs. As their website puts it, their vision is to “Unite under a common mission to combat community and school violence at its roots.”

They were looking for some training and specialist expertise in crime prevention, CPTED, socio-emotional learning, and a range of other school safety approaches to offer schools across the nation. 

There could be no higher cause in this journey and we agreed to provide some research and training to help. 

 

School shooting data shows alarming increases 
Chart courtesy of Rogova247, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

SCHOOL VIOLENCE

There is no shortage of strategies and research on school violence and shootings. On this blog, we have been writing about school safety for over 15 years. We’ve had school safety experts like Tod Schneider from Oregon, my blogs on school CPTED lighting, Mateja’s blog on crime in European schools, and sexual assault in schools, and a New Zealand teacher’s work to involve students in their own crime prevention.

Then there was the International CPTED Association school guidebook called CPTED in Schools, co-edited by school safety expert Gerard Cleveland.

Sudbury Secondary School
A high school with new renovation and updated architecture - photo Google Earth

SO MANY STRATEGIES, SO LITTLE IMPLEMENTATION

The problem is not a lack of viable strategies. It is a way to put them into action. In the field of urban planning, there is a CPTED concept known as the urban village versus the urban fortress. 

The idea is that there are hard and soft styles of architecture and planning. In a school setting it is the difference between a school that looks like a prison – tall gates, barbed wire, CCTV, armed guards – and a school that looks like a village – open campus design with ample natural surveillance and opportunities to prevent crime.  

I pointed this out in an interview with NPR a few years ago about school redesign: “the best practices can take a decade or two to permeate through the public narrative.” 

Northern Star is not willing to wait. The key for knowing which style is most appropriate comes down to the school context and the quality of their safety plan. That is where the Northern Star methodology is different from other prevention approaches. 

The urban fortress versus the urban village - we cannot allow our schools to become fortresses but we must still create safe environments

INCLUSIVITY

The first thing I noticed about Northern Star is their inclusivity. They brought in school violence experts, mental health specialists, educators, criminologists, women’s empowerment leaders, researchers, law enforcement, and many others. They are an impressive group clearly committed to mitigating the plague of violence and shootings in one of the most vulnerable places in society – the school.

The Northern Star approach is similar to the collaborative neighborhood plans in SafeGrowth, except they are focused specifically on schools and school violence. They base their Community-based School Safety Action Plan Development and Implementation methodology on a bedrock of evidence-based strategies. 

Accordingly, they are regularly apprised of findings from powerful databases such as the K to 12 School Shooting Database by criminologist David Reidman, assistant professor at Idaho State University and also the Averted School Shooting Database, initially funded by the Department of Justice COPS Office 

It has been a pleasure to work with this group over the past year, along with other colleagues, helping them develop their unified action plan.