2022-12-11 19:06:06

Heightened Security and Safety Measures in Public Schools

Anne Cline
York College of Pennsylvania
June 2004

At a public high school in a suburban town, the bell rings and students file into the hallways. Teachers stand guard in front of classroom doors, watching for misconduct. During lunch, teachers monitor the cafeteria. The one security officer for a student population of 2,000 makes his or her way through campus, on the lookout for anything suspicious. The schools main entrances remain unguarded as parents, teachers, and students come and go throughout the day.

A couple of years ago, scenes like these were common in public schools around the country. Today they are almost nonexistent. Public schools used to have minimum security in which teachers, administrators, and a single security guard monitored students behavior and school violence. Currently these types of security and safety measures are rarely implemented in public schools (Ellis, 2003). Growing public anxiety over acts of violence in public schools has prompted educators and lawmakers to drastically heighten security and safety measures in public schools in order to reduce and prevent violence and ensure safety in schools. Recent incidents that have caused public concern over school violence and increased security in schools are the Columbine shootings, the September 11th tragedy, an increase in terrorism, and the 47 school-associated violent deaths that occurred between July 1998 and June 1999 (Snell, Bailey, Carona, amp; Mebane, 2002). These incidents have also caused students to fear for their safety. In the year 2000, 1.1 million students reported avoiding areas in school out of fear for their safety. Students feeling unsafe in their own schools is another reason why security and safety measures have recently been heightened in public schools (Ellis, 2003).

The measures that schools are taking to reduce school violence and increase students safety include adopting a zero tolerance policy, increasing physical security, increasing liaison with law enforcement and private security agencies, and offering students types of violence prevention programs. These heightened security and safety measures have both advantages and disadvantages towards the public school system (Bridges, 1999).

Increased Physical Security

Public schools have increased their physical security system in a variety of ways. Many schools have started to limit access to their property by locking all unmonitored entrances and requiring all visitors to check in at the main office. Visitors are also now issued distinct identification that they are required to wear while on campus (Begar, 2002). Schools have begun to assign specific individuals to monitor campus perimeters and hallways and provide two-way radios for staff members responsible for monitoring campus activities. School personnel have also begun conducting routine security inspections of the exterior and interior of the campus and reporting any suspicious activity to school officials or the police (Triplett, Trulson, amp; Snell, 2001). Walk-through metal detectors have been in use in many inner city schools over the past couple years, while hand-held detectors and random weapons screenings are more popular on smaller, rural campuses. Surveillance cameras are now popular in public schools. Thirty-two percent of public schools around the country use surveillance cameras. Medium size campuses now install at least twenty-five surveillance cameras in classrooms, hallways, gyms, cafeterias, parking lots, football fields, and on each school bus ('Security Toughens,' 2001).

Many public schools have now started to enforce rules regarding students attire. Some public schools are now requiring their students to wear uniforms just as students in private schools do. School uniforms help identify intruders more easily. Schools have started to require students to carry only see-through purses, backpacks, and bookbags. This allows school officials to detect weapons, illegal substances, and other items that lead to or promote school violence more easily (Ellis, 2003). Schools are also safeguarding their campuses by requiring that students wear visible student identification at all times. This will also help keep outsiders and troublemakers from sneaking onto campus (Bridges, 1999).

Zero Tolerance Policies

Since the mid-1990s a growing number of schools have adopted zero tolerance policies under which students receive predetermined penalties for any offense, no matter how minor. Public schools have zero tolerance policies for firearms and other weapons, alcohol, illegal or legal drugs, tobacco, and violence. Over 80% of the nations schools have some form of zero-tolerance policy in place ('Security Toughens,' 2001). In Mississippi, the penalty for having a gun on school property is a fine of $5,000 and up to three years in prison. Louisiana law states that any student carrying a firearm on school grounds shall be imprisoned at hard labor for no more than five years. In Ohio students have been expelled or suspended from school for sharing aspirin, Midol, and Certs tablets, and for bringing nail clippers and scissors to class (Snell et al., 2002).

Liaison with Law Enforcement and Private Security Agencies

The presence of law enforcement officials and private security personnel is rapidly increasing in public schools. Twenty-three percent of schools reported having police or security personnel stationed 30 hours or more at the school in a typical week. These officials perform multiple tasks such as patrolling school grounds, assisting with investigations of students who break school rules, conducting searches, and arresting students who commit crimes (Begar, 2002).

Security guards and police officers have the responsibility of identifying places in public schools that must be mon





几年前,这些场景在全国的公立学校很常见。今天,他们几乎不存在。公共学校使用最起码的安全,教师、管理员和单一的保安监控学生的行为和学校暴力。目前,公立学校很少实施这些类型的安全和安全措施(埃利斯, 2003)。公众对公立学校暴力行为的日益焦虑促使教育工作者和立法者大幅加强公立学校的安全和安全措施,以减少和预防暴力,确保学校的安全。最近发生的事件使公众对学校暴力和学校安全增加的关切是:耧斗菜枪击事件、911悲剧、恐怖主义增加,以及1998年7月至1999年6月期间发生的47起与学校有关的暴力死亡事件(斯内尔、Bailey、carona和前,2002年)。这些事件也使学生担心他们的安全。在2000年,有110万学生报告说,由于担心安全,避免了学校的地区。学生在自己学校感到不安全是最近公立学校加强安全和安全措施的另一个原因(埃利斯,2003年)。



公立学校以各种方式增加了他们的人身安全系统。许多学校已经开始限制进入他们的财产,锁定所有无监视的入口,要求所有访客在主要办公室检查。游客现在也有明确的身份证明他们在校园时需要穿( begar , 2002)。学校已开始指派具体的个人来监测校园周边和走廊,并为负责监测校园活动的工作人员提供双向无线电。学校人员还开始对校园的外部和内部进行例行的安全检查,并向学校官员或警察报告任何可疑活动( triplett , trulson,和斯内尔,2001年)。过去几年,穿过金属探测器在许多市内学校使用,而手持探测器和随机武器筛选在较小的农村校园更受欢迎。监控摄像头现在在公立学校很流行。全国有三分之二的公立学校使用监控摄像机。中型校园现在在教室、走廊、体育馆、自助餐厅、停车场、足球场和每辆校车上安装至少20个监控摄像头(“安全,”2001)。



自20世纪90年代中期以来,越来越多的学校采取了零容忍政策,在这种政策下,学生无论多么轻微,都会受到预先确定的处罚。公立学校对枪支和其他武器、酒精、非法或合法毒品、烟草和暴力实行零容忍政策。超过80%的国家的学校实行某种形式的零容忍政策( '安全更坚强,'2001年)。在密西西比州,在学校财产上有枪的罚款是5000美元的罚款,最多三年监禁。路易斯安那州法律规定,任何以学校为理由携带枪支的学生,不得超过五年监禁。在俄亥俄州,学生被学校开除或休学,因为他们分享阿司匹林、米多尔和确实的事情药片,并将指甲剪和剪刀带到班上(斯内尔等人)。(2002年)。


在公立学校,执法人员和私营保安人员的人数迅速增加。有3%的学校报告说,在一个典型的一周内,警察或保安人员在学校停留30小时以上。这些官员执行多项任务,例如巡逻校园,协助调查违反校规的学生,进行搜查,逮捕犯有罪行的学生( begar,2002年)。

安全警卫和警官有责任查明公共学校的地点,必须监测发生财产损坏、犯罪或身体暴力的情况。这些地方通常是大厅、厕所、自助餐厅和停车场(埃利斯, 2003)。在这些特定地点进行巡逻,可以避免或至少尽量减少危险。在适当的时候,安全警卫或警官可以有效地工作( begar,2002年)。当面对打架或其他身体暴力事件时,警卫需要采取与暴力程度和学生对他们的命令的反应相称的方式(埃利斯,2003年)。

驻扎在公立学校的警官的一项主要任务是搜查学生。警官有权进行随机先发制人的搜查学生储物柜和个人财产。他们甚至可以在搜索学生时使用经过专门训练的嗅狗。在进行搜查时,警察正在寻找武器、毒品、酒精和学校官员报告失踪的物品。警察还允许搜查学生的车辆,有或没有原因( '安全更坚强',2001年)。


公众对最近学校暴力的焦虑已导致公立学校提供预防暴力方案。这些节目试图在它开始之前预防暴力。华丽年代的公立学校报告说在1999-2000年有一个预防学校暴力方案。这些方案针对违反校规的学生进行惩罚,并试图阻止这些学生通过向他们表明他们的行为是不能接受的未来暴力行为(triplett等人)。(2001年)。与此同时,这些方案力求避免将冒犯学生定为刑事犯罪。预防暴力方案使罪犯留在教室里,这避免扰乱他们的教育,也帮助学校不会因为停学或开除学生而失去上课经费。这些方案的例子是横扫行动和'到处反对暴力的学生'或s。a.v.e ( begar,2002年)。


在公立学校加强安全有一些好处。由于公立学校的安全增加,国家对犯罪的恐惧程度较低,而且一直在下降。12至18岁学生的百分比报告说,为了自己的安全避免了一个或多个地点,从1995年的9%下降到1999年和2001年的5%(斯内尔等人)。(2002年)。2001年,由于害怕暴力而缺课的学生减少了6%。由于安全增加,学校犯罪也有所减少(桥梁,1999年)。2001年拥有受管制物质的人数下降了4%,2001年对学校雇员的攻击下降了16%。在1995年至2001年期间, 6年级学生的受害情况从10%下降到6% , 12年级学生的受害情况从6%下降到3%(斯内尔等人)。(2002年)。


加强学校安全措施,包括加强人身安全,加强与执法和私营保安机构的联络,并采取零容忍政策有许多缺点,可能不会有效。物理安全方法,例如安装监控摄像机和金属探测器,可能非常昂贵和无效。在国家一级,公立学校每年的安全开支为795美元,每人为19.28美元。许多人认为这笔钱可以更好地用于提高教育质量( '安全更坚强',2001年)。在公立学校增加警察和警卫人员,已将维持教室秩序和纪律的责任推卸给教师和执法人员。警官和保安人员的存在也起到每天提醒学校犯罪的作用,并可能无意增加教职员工和学生对犯罪的恐惧( begar,2002年)。最后,没有可靠的证据表明零容忍政策改善学生的行为。学校管理人员声称,家长们对学校纪律政策的严厉程度感到不满,并认为他们走得太远了(triplett等人)。(2001年)。






begar , r r(2002年)。扩大公立学校的警力和学生的权利。社会正义、29 ( 1/2)、119。

桥梁, d(1999年)。保护我们的学校。联邦调查局执法公报、68 ( 9 )、22 .

埃利斯, 1 f ( 2003 ) .学校安全的基本策略:教师和学校的实践指南。安全管理、47 ( 1 )、107 .

安全更坚强作为学生返回这一年(2001年)。公司安全、27 ( 15 )、1至7

斯内尔, c , Bailey , c , carona , a , , , d ( 2002)。学校犯罪政策变化:近期猖獗的学校犯罪的影响.美国的
刑事司法杂志、26 ( 2 )、269

triplett , r , trulson , c , amp;斯内尔, c(2001年)。学校环境中的社会控制:评估基于学校的新兵训练营.犯罪与犯罪、47 ( 4)、573。





您需要先支付 30元 才能查看全部内容!立即支付