Project Review: Agreement, Disagreement, and Arguments

 

I recently received a review of my project to develop a school security system. It was written by one of the most reputable and authoritative international organizations in this field.

I won’t mention the organization’s name for two reasons:

1. I didn’t receive permission from its authors to do so;

2. so that this wouldn’t be seen as hidden advertising.

The review is critical but constructive. I respect the criticism and have decided not only to take it into account but also to address each point publicly—with respect for my opponents, but with clear counterarguments. Here’s what came of it:

Quote from the review: 1. When it comes to school safety, we must take into account the serious budget and staffing constraints that educational institutions face. The excessively high number of security personnel, technology, and so on that you propose is simply unrealistic even for the best-funded schools in the wealthiest countries, such as the United States.

My comment: I completely agree that the measures I’m proposing are expensive, but it’s worth asking: Can an effective security system for a facility where large numbers of people from a particularly vulnerable group gather - children and teenagers, who, due to their young age and lack of life experience, fall into this very category - really be cheap? I think the answer is obvious: it’s impossible in principle. Cheap security measures often do more harm than good, because parents believe their child is safe and protected at school, but when a dangerous incident occurs, the security system either fails to function as it should or doesn’t work at all. In general, any half-measures in the area of safety are like installing a gate without a fence, or putting an expensive, reliable lock on a door made of cardboard. Formally, they’re there, but in reality, they’re useless.

The issue of funding depends on the approach taken to address it. Let me clarify right away that I may be mistaken in some of my conclusions; I have based my analysis on information from open sources, as well as on reports from analytical agencies regarding crimes committed in U.S. educational institutions. Currently, most U.S. schools handle their own security independently. Schools operate autonomously when it comes to acquiring and using security equipment, developing regulations and protocols, and hiring security personnel and officials responsible for security matters. Local law enforcement agencies provide immediate response in emergency situations and are indirectly involved in the prevention of crimes and incidents. Municipal education departments—and in some cases, state-level departments (offices, bureaus, etc.) - are responsible for the safety of educational facilities. Additionally, there are individual officials, and in some cases, teams or units within police and fire departments that oversee these matters. All of these individuals need to be trained, and periodic additional training and professional development should be provided. There are also various municipal councils, inter-school councils, and other officials, administrative services, and community groups. There are various targeted programs aimed at improving safety, funded through the budget or grants, and much more. Simply put, there is money available in this area—and quite a lot of it - but the question is whether it is appropriate and effective to use it. Incidentally, the system in Russia is largely similar.

My proposal, as outlined in the draft, is to centralize these processes and consolidate tasks, functions, and funding into a single system. The first step in this process is to completely relieve school administrations of responsibility for the safety of educational institutions. Let school leadership, along with teaching and administrative staff, focus on education, student development, and extracurricular activities; safety should be handled by professionals. In this case, the school would allocate all available funds from its budget line items for security and safety, crime prevention, and accident prevention at educational facilities - as well as other expenses directly or indirectly related to this area—to a single specialized police service. This service ensures comprehensive security for the educational facility, both on and off school grounds, ranging from prevention to the elimination of direct threats. Equally important is the fact that this service bears full responsibility for this area of work. This service is established as a specialized unit but is part of the existing municipal police force, which significantly reduces the cost of its establishment and operations. More details about this service, its objectives, and capabilities can be found in the draft proposal.

It seems to me that the main problem here is not a lack of funds, but rather how wisely they are spent.

Quote from the review: 2. Furthermore, it is very important to realize that in the United States and most developed countries, the number of deaths from violence is significantly lower than the number of deaths from other causes, such as non-violence-related medical emergencies, children being struck by cars and school buses, etc. Although acts of violence resulting in mass casualties receive extensive media coverage, they are among the rarest causes of death in schools in the U.S., Canada, the United Kingdom, and, in my experience, in developing countries.  I am almost certain that if you had reliable data for Russia, the situation there would be the same or similar.  It is very important that the budgets and personnel allocated to security measures do not lead to an increase in the number of deaths because these risks are being overlooked — every year we face preventable fatalities because schools spend too much on measures to counter active shooters, while ignoring the dangers that claim the lives of far more students and staff.

My comment: I fully agree that the number of victims of mass killings and terrorist attacks in educational institutions in most countries’ accounts for less than 5% of the total number of deaths, injuries, and victims of other types of crimes. It’s just that these incidents receive less media and public attention. In Section «III. Proposed Solution», I listed the risks and threats that the implementation of the security measures specified in the project should significantly mitigate. These include:

1. Criminal and terrorist threats:

Property crimes:

- theft (of both personal properties belonging to students and staff and property belonging to the educational institution);

- extortion;

- robbery;

- armed robbery;

- fraud;

- intentional damage to or destruction of property (including both the personal property of students and staff and the property of the educational institution).

2. Crimes against the person (against both students and employees):

- assault;

- causing bodily harm of varying degrees of severity;

- insults;

- threats of murder or physical violence;

- sexual harassment, lewd acts;

- rape;

- defamation;

- stalking;

- bullying.

3. Crimes against public order and security:

- the formation and operation of organized criminal groups (gangs);

- the formation and operation of organized extremist groups;

- the dissemination of extremist ideology;

- involvement in criminal activity;

- involvement in extremist activity;

- involvement in groups and organizations whose activities are prohibited;

- hooliganism;

- illicit trafficking in weapons, ammunition, and explosives;

- terrorism.

4. Crimes against public health:

- illicit drug trafficking;

- illicit trafficking in potent or toxic substances.

5. Non-criminal threats:

- traffic accidents;

- fires;

- dangerous animals;

- other natural or man-made emergencies that pose a direct threat to the life, health, or property of students, staff, or the educational institution.

At the same time, these same cases of mass killings are often the inevitable consequences of other crimes that preceded them - crimes that had been committed with impunity on school grounds over a long period of time. It is unpleasant to admit, but it is a fact that very often security personnel, teachers, and administrative staff at educational institutions are aware of threats, bullying, harassment, and other crimes taking place on campus, as well as the existence of informal extremist or criminal groups. They know, but they remain silent and do not intervene; the reasons vary - from fear and reluctance to get involved to a sense of powerlessness - and often these are deliberate actions by school leadership, an attempt to preserve the institution’s «reputation» and avoid negatively impacting its statistics. The solutions proposed as part of the project are designed to change this - to shift from passive observation to active intervention, threat forecasting, prevention, and early detection and suppression. The system is built on the principle of multifunctionality; it is designed to ensure children’s safety at all stages and against threats of any nature (including natural and man-made ones), from the moment they leave home for school until they return.

Quote from the review: 3. It is important to analyze the cost-benefit ratio of measures designed to protect human life. In other words, how likely is it that a particular measure will prevent serious injury or death, given the costs involved, and where, from a statistical standpoint, could these resources be better allocated.

My comment: I completely agree; a rational and balanced approach is at the core of this project. It is impossible to calculate all possible scenarios and risks purely hypothetically - practical testing is necessary. That is precisely why the concluding section of the project states that the proposed system has not been tested under real-world conditions, and therefore its practical effectiveness has not yet been proven. In any case, it cannot be implemented immediately and across the board; first, an experiment is needed - a practical test of its functionality under real-world conditions - over the course of several years in a single region or in several cities across different regions. Testing under real-world conditions will inevitably reveal certain shortcomings and oversights; this is a normal part of the 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 components will be verified and proven in practice through repeated testing and verification under various conditions and scenarios. It will be a template that can be used worldwide, with minor adjustments for local characteristics, but the foundation will remain the same—one that, drawing on international experience, will only become better and more reliable year after year.

Quote from the review: 4. We have several peer-reviewed studies conducted in the United States that show that school climate and culture, as well as student supervision, are among the most effective measures for preventing homicides, while the effectiveness of measures such as metal detectors, surveillance cameras, and the like has not been confirmed. As one example, see the 2016 Rand Corporation report on school security technologies.  Although it is important to note that school surveillance technology has advanced significantly since then, we know that we must be careful not to create a prison-like atmosphere, as this could actually increase the likelihood of school shootings.

My comment: I do not deny that creating a supportive and comfortable moral and psychological environment, maintaining a high cultural standard, and providing quality supervision of students are effective measures for preventing crime among students. The proposed bill does not hinder the implementation and use of measures aimed at fostering a positive environment, culture, and supervision in educational institutions; all of these can coexist without interfering with one another. They simply serve different purposes. Technical security and monitoring measures are effective when applied correctly. I have read the 2016 Rand Corporation study and fully agree that, at the time of publication, the use of metal detectors, surveillance cameras, and other such devices had not demonstrated particular effectiveness; I would add that even now, 10 years later, the situation has not improved. Technology has advanced significantly, yet the effectiveness of its use has remained at the same level. The reason is that, in most cases, these measures are used haphazardly. One of the project’s most important objectives is to address this very problem: to integrate individual technical security measures into a single automated security system (section: «III. Proposed Solution»; subsection: «4. Technical Security Measures»; section «Multifunctional Software and Hardware Complex»). This will greatly increase their capabilities and effectiveness, transforming them into an effective tool for preventing and suppressing offenses.

Quote from the review: 5. I am skeptical of some of the technologies you propose, as I do not believe they are reliable enough to justify the associated costs.  I served as an expert witness in a U.S. Federal Trade Commission investigation into false advertising claims by companies manufacturing AI-powered weapon detectors, and these devices absolutely do not do what the manufacturers promised - and still do not.  For example, they fail to detect 9mm micro-pistols in about 45% of cases - not to mention situations where security personnel are not paying attention, and without taking into account attempts to bypass security checkpoints - 9mm micro-pistols currently account for about 25% of all pistol sales in the U.S. - my carry pistol holds 13 rounds, and I have yet to visit a single facility where they are used where I wasn’t confident I could bring it into the secured area. Furthermore, having worked with the seven largest public school systems in the country and many modern, medium-sized school districts (each with 100,000 students), I have come to the conclusion that attempting to implement too many high-tech systems leads to serious disruptions, since people are unable to manage that much technology — we face the same problems in casinos, where huge sums are invested in security technology and personnel, yet on any given day, between 20 and 205 surveillance cameras can be taken out of service—even though their budgets far exceed that of a school district. When drawing up a budget, it is essential to account for the costs of the entire IT staff—not only for installation but also for ensuring the smooth operation of systems, updates, cybersecurity, and so on.  This often results in very large budget allocations.  Another important factor is the existing infrastructure.  Many large, open-plan buildings in Florida and California lack modern infrastructure, so running electrical wiring and fiber-optic cable for each camera, access control device, sensor, etc., can cost $3,000—and this is often the case.  For example, in one project we completed in 2018, installing a single $300 surveillance camera cost $3,000.

My comment: I fully understand the expert’s skepticism; in fact, at first, I myself was very skeptical of AI-based security technology. But technology is advancing, and the solutions being offered are becoming increasingly effective. I had the opportunity to personally observe a modern X-ray scanner used by transportation security personnel, where the signal is processed not only by the operator but also by AI. Currently, this system is capable of recognizing and identifying not only the gun itself but also its individual components in approximately 95% of cases. Importantly - especially given its priceм - the device itself has significant potential for upgrades; it does not require replacement of the unit or its individual parts (except for routine maintenance) - updating and enhancing its software is sufficient.

Every year, technology becomes higher quality, more accessible, and less expensive; the number of communication methods, wireless connectivity options, and remote control capabilities increases; and the speed and bandwidth of communication channels grow. Connecting and replacing equipment is becoming easier, faster, and less expensive. The project does not call for the installation of particularly expensive equipment (except for introscopes); everything else falls within the mid-range price segment, offers a high level of reliability and energy efficiency (low power consumption), and some components - such as pressure-sensitive sensors - are among the simplest, cheapest, and most reliable available. But as I mentioned earlier in Answer No. 4, the technology itself is not what matters most; what matters is exactly how it is used. In this regard, I would like to highlight another key principle of the project: technology should complement and enhance human capabilities, not replace them.

Quote from the review: 6. As mentioned earlier, measures to identify problematic behavior and intervene are at least as effective—and, in my experience, often even more effective—than many school security technologies. Furthermore, they generally provide a much higher return on investment than many more expensive approaches, such as electronic weapon screening.

My comment: With all due respect to the expert’s qualifications, professional competence, and experience, I disagree with this statement. This is a one-sided approach; while it may be effective to some extent against internal threats, we must not forget that internal attacks account for only 52–54% of crimes committed in schools and other educational institutions. How can we counter them using these methods? A telling example is the attack on Covenant School in Nashville on March 27, 2023. According to a statement by Nashville Police Chief John Drake, published in «The Tennessean», the school was not the perpetrator’s original target. According to Drake, Hale had planned to attack another location, but it turned out to be too well-protected, so the perpetrator chose the school as a less secure target. If we focus all our efforts in only one direction, schools will become attractive, easy targets for mass murderers. This is especially true now that extremist groups such as «764», «NLM», «Red Dolphin», «Columbine», «Killer Cult Maniacs», and others like them have effectively declared schools, other educational institutions, and places where large numbers of children gather to be their targets. The first high-profile killings have already taken place. The question is, what can we do to counter them?

Let me reiterate: I do not deny that creating a supportive and comfortable moral and psychological environment, maintaining a high cultural standard, and providing quality supervision of students are effective measures for preventing crime among students. But if we rely solely on these measures, scenarios like the one at Covenant School will recur regularly.

 

In conclusion, I would like to sincerely thank the experts for taking the time and making the effort to provide such detailed and honest feedback. I greatly value your experience, as well as your objectivity and candor in your assessments and conclusions.

I am grateful for your specific comments; I will definitely take them into account as I refine the project, but overall, I will continue to move toward a systemic approach, which I consider the most promising.

Our perspectives do indeed stem from different paradigms: you view schools as autonomous entities, while I view them as elements of a single, managed system. I do not believe that either approach is absolutely right or wrong - they both solve the same problem, just in different ways. Time will tell which one is more effective.

However, I would like to say that I fully understand that there are currently many administrative, financial, and legal challenges, and that making the necessary changes to the system is difficult—and in some cases, impossible. So perhaps we shouldn’t get bogged down in discussions of existing barriers, but rather acknowledge that the current system is outdated and requires serious modernization, taking into account current and future threats that it is unable to address. Criminals and terrorists face no bureaucratic obstacles; they refine their methods much faster than we do, and we have already fallen seriously behind them—a gap that continues to widen, and it is certainly not in our favor. The question is which strategy to choose: to look for excuses for inaction or to start looking for ways to stay one step ahead.

Author: Roman Grishin

#review #expert #school #safety #schoolsafety #school_safety #security #K12 #opinion #position #comment #response #project #system #criticism #proposal #evaluation #threat #terrorism #crime