This article serves as a
supplement to the previously published project on the main
website - a comprehensive security system for schools and other educational
institutions designed to protect against criminal, terrorist, and other
threats. It was prompted by a critical review of the project that I received;
its authors represent one of the most serious and authoritative international
organizations in the field of educational facility security.
I will reiterate that I view
criticism - especially constructive criticism - in a completely normal and
respectful manner; it allows me to identify and address vulnerabilities and
errors that are clearly visible from an outside perspective. I view all
critical comments and well-reasoned recommendations - especially those from
recognized experts and practitioners - as a form of self-education and always
take them into account in my work. I have outlined my main arguments regarding
the comments mentioned in the review in a separate article.
After receiving the main
review, I received another letter from the same author, which no longer
contained criticism but rather a recommendation to take into account, when
developing the project, the specific features of how educational institutions
are organized and operate in different countries - primarily in the United
States. I will quote from the letter:
In the United States and many
other countries, such as the United Kingdom and India, the government has very
limited control over independent schools, and they operate as separate
entities. In the United States, only one state has a public school system. That
is precisely why the remaining 49 states have between 30 and 250 separate
public school systems, which, although regulated by federal and regional
governments, are administered by local authorities and enjoy significant
autonomy. And this is not unique to the U.S., so keep in mind that there are
significant differences between countries.
This letter served as an
additional incentive for me: if even leading experts cannot see a way beyond
the existing system, then this system has truly become a “comfort zone.” But a
comfort zone is a place where growth stops. Meanwhile, threats are growing. And
we are falling behind.
I am very familiar with the
situation described by the expert; I have pointed out that I drew on the
American experience as the basis for the units for the prevention and
suppression of direct (explicit) threats outlined in the draft. Specifically,
the experience of establishing and operating police services such as the New
York City Police Department’s School Safety Division (SSD NYPD) and the Los Angeles
School Police Department (LASPD). I studied their activities, legal status, and
effectiveness in considerable detail, comparing them with other cities and
states where similar police services exist or do not exist. At the same time, I
studied, using open sources, the principles governing the organization and
operations of educational institutions and childcare facilities in various
states - including kindergartens, schools, colleges, and universities. I also
examined the regulatory legal acts governing their status, the procedures for
interacting with local and federal authorities, the police, and the community,
as well as how security issues are addressed.
In short, based on an analysis
of the information, it can be concluded that the school safety system in the
United States does not have a single federal (state) standard and is managed at
the state and local school district levels. Most schools employ the most basic
measures: access control, video surveillance, the presence of police officers,
school security personnel, or private security guards, and regular emergency
drills. Within the administrative structures of local governments, school
districts, and certain large schools, there are specialized staff positions
(coordinators, directors, deputies, specialists, etc.) that are entirely
focused on security issues. In some states, state law provides for the
possibility of teachers carrying firearms and using them to stop an attack in
cases of direct threats to themselves and students. The Department of Education
and law enforcement leadership periodically send guidance materials on safety
issues to schools, but all these documents are largely advisory in nature.
Within the administrative structure - both at the state level and at the level of
individual school districts - in addition to officials from the departments of
education, there are various commissions, committees attached to school boards,
and task forces responsible for overseeing security matters.
A system like this took shape
as early as the second half of the last century, when the main security threats
to students and school staff were teenagers who poured glue on the chairs of
teachers they disliked, smoked in the schoolyard, broke light bulbs in the
restroom, stole pastries from the cafeteria, or scrawled graffiti on the
principal’s office door. Nowadays, the nature and severity of these threats
have significantly increased and changed. Today, no one is surprised by serious
and particularly serious crimes committed in schools - including those involving
bladed weapons or firearms, sexual harassment, rape, theft, robbery, and
extortion—or serving as a breeding ground for arms and drug dealers, organized
crime gangs, and extremist groups. Yes, this situation does not exist in every
school, but unfortunately, it is present in many, and the proportion of such
schools (colleges, universities, etc.) is growing year by year.
Yes, it’s unpleasant to admit,
but it’s a fact - in the 21st century, educational institutions have become
high-risk environments.
The existing security system
for educational institutions simply wasn’t designed to handle a situation like
this. Yes, there have been many attempts to expand and modernize it, but the
potential for modernization is limited, and it has now been exhausted. In its current
state, the system is incapable of countering modern and emerging threats; it
has become obsolete. This is not a criticism of its creators; it is a normal,
natural process for any component of the state and municipal governance system.
Over time, and under the influence of changes in the country’s social and
political life, the system reaches the end of its useful life and becomes
unsuitable for further use.
A system that is not updated
to address new threats ceases to provide protection. It becomes a mere prop. We
put locks on cardboard doors and then are surprised when they are broken into.
This is exactly what we are witnessing right now.
In my project, I propose a new
approach to ensuring the security of educational institutions. This framework
has been developed with consideration for both existing and potential threats
of all types—from criminal to natural and man-made. It is a new and
unconventional approach based on the principle of centralization, in which
schools and other educational institutions are not autonomous entities but
rather components of a unified, managed system. However, I want to emphasize
that this applies only to security matters; it will not affect other areas of
operation in any way.
The first step in the project
is administrative reform (Section III: Proposed Solution; Subsection 1:
Administrative and Legal Measures; Paragraph 1.2), the essence of which is to
completely relieve the administration of an educational institution of
responsibility for organizing, ensuring, and maintaining public order and
safety on its premises. This involves not only removing responsibility but also
prohibiting interference in the process of organizing and implementing public
order and safety. Only this will allow for the creation of a solid foundation
upon which a transparent and effective system can be built in the future, where
responsibilities are clearly delineated. Educational institutions will be able
to focus on their primary mission - the education and upbringing of the younger
generation.
This is a necessary condition;
without it, there is no point in even beginning any reforms - they will yield no
results. A major problem for public safety - and a significant boon to crime - is
the competition among educational institutions to maintain their reputations
and achieve positive statistical results. This compels their leadership to use
any means necessary to conceal committed offenses from official record-keeping
and full investigation until these incidents begin to lead to serious
consequences and it becomes impossible to conceal them any longer. It is not
uncommon for staff members to use their official positions to interfere with
the work of security services, demanding that rules be disregarded for the sake
of the educational process or other institutional priorities. The current
(autonomous) security system allows them to do so, and criminals actively
exploit this vulnerability. The result is obvious.
The only effective way to
change the situation is to strip the administrations of educational institutions
and education officials of any influence over safety issues. Safety matters
should be handled exclusively by specialized professionals who possess the
necessary expertise and resources. But most importantly, their top priority
will be the lives and health of students and staff at the educational
institution, rather than its reputation or statistical reporting.
A detailed model for creating
a security system based on the principles of centralization and a clear chain
of command—specifying the interdependencies and the impact of various elements
on specific processes and the resolution of specific tasks—is outlined in the
draft.
The issue of funding also
depends on the willingness and approach to addressing it. When transitioning
from a decentralized to a centralized security system, financial flows are also
centralized; in other words, instead of 10 recipients, there will be one. Own
funds (including those freed up by reducing the institution’s own
contribution), municipal, regional, and federal subsidies, grants, donations,
targeted funding, and co-financing under various programs. All funds are
received by the “Specialized Police Service” (Section III: Proposed Solution;
Subsection: 3. Prevention and Suppression of Direct Threats to Security). It also
assumes full responsibility for all tasks related to the protection and
security of educational institutions; details on how this will be implemented
can be found in the draft (Section: III. Proposed Solution; Subsection: 3.
Prevention and Suppression of Direct Threats to Safety). Funds are reallocated from
some sources to others. This is not an increase in spending; it is a
redistribution of existing funds to improve their effectiveness. Yes, expenses
will rise initially—investments in infrastructure, technical equipment, and
organizational costs will be needed—but eventually, costs will drop to current
levels, and the budget will become more transparent and predictable. The
question is, are we willing to spend these funds on an effective system rather
than on a false sense of security? If we want results, we’ll have to invest in
them - that’s a fundamental principle. In this case, the end justifies the means,
because the goal is people’s lives and health - first and foremost, children, who,
due to their age and limited life experience, cannot yet protect themselves, so
we adults are responsible for their safety.
The project is fully suitable
for implementation in the United States and other countries with a developed
system of local self-government and an autonomous (independent) system of
education. This is provided that local authorities deem it necessary to adopt
it. A number of U.S. government officials, governors, senators, members of
Congress, and public figures have spoken out about the need for concrete and
effective measures to increase safety in educational institutions. Furthermore,
based on an analysis of media publications, social media, and other online
platforms for communication, discussion, and expressing one’s views, there is a
growing public demand for such measures in the U.S., which means that similar
initiatives will receive support.
I would add that implementing
this project in the United States may even be easier than in any other country,
as it already has a solid legal foundation for doing so. There is a
well-established and developed system of local self-government, where local
authorities can make organizational decisions without lengthy coordination with
the federal government, as well as a local police force, which serves as the
foundation for prevention and rapid response.
The main critical argument
raised by my opponents is that the system I propose has not been tested in
real-world conditions, and therefore its practical effectiveness has not been
proven. I agree; this is indeed the case, which is why I myself state that it
cannot be implemented immediately and across the board. First, an experiment is
needed - a practical test of its effectiveness under real-world conditions - over
the course of several years in a single state or even a single city. Real-world testing will inevitably reveal
certain shortcomings and oversights; this is the correct scientific approach
and a normal working process for anything new. In just a few years, taking into
account the corrections made to errors and shortcomings identified during the
experiment, as well as the additions and improvements made, this will be a
completely different model. The effectiveness and functionality of each of its
elements will have been tested and proven in practice through repeated trials
and verifications under various conditions and scenarios. A template whose
effectiveness has been proven in practice can be used worldwide, with minor
adjustments for local characteristics, but its fundamental foundation will remain
the same - one that, drawing on international experience, will only become better
and more reliable year after year.
The main outcome is that
schools will once again become places where parents can send their children
without fear - places that embody reliability, confidence, and safety. Places
where children gain knowledge and life experience, make friends, and experience
positive emotions. A place where administrative and teaching staff focus
exclusively on their core mission - educating and nurturing the younger
generation—while safety is the responsibility of professionals. I have
dedicated my life to this cause and am confident that this is an achievable
goal.
Knowing how pragmatic
Americans are - and for me, this is an exceptionally positive quality - I invite
you to take a look and assess the prospects and opportunities that creating
such an international model for school safety systems opens up.
I first voiced this idea
nearly 20 years ago, and over the years, my conviction has only grown stronger:
that Safety will be the most valuable resource in the 21st century.
Author: Roman Grishin
#review #expert #USA #US #schoolsafety #educationalsafety #safety #security
#K12 #opinion #position #comment #response #project #system #criticism
#proposal #evaluation #threat #terrorism #crime
No comments:
Post a Comment