The first real possibility for federal firearms legislation in decades has been sketched out by a bipartisan group of senators.
It comes in the wake of the May 23 school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, in which an 18-year-old gunman killed 19 children and two teachers before being killed himself in a gunfire exchange with police.
Perhaps inspired by concerns that the shooter entered the school through a door with a malfunctioning lock, and faced few other barriers or restrictions during his attack, the bipartisan proposal would boost both physical security measures and the number of mental health workers in schools.
Another approach popular among some politicians to increase school safety is so-called school hardening, such as adding surveillance cameras, metal detectors, door-locking systems, arming teachers and even armed guards.
The Uvalde shooting, like every school shooting, raises questions and concerns for parents and community members about how schools might be able to deter a prospective shooter from attacking. My research and the research of others finds that there is no way that schools can become so secure as to prevent gun violence.
Researchers use the term school climate to describe the attitudes, beliefs, values and expectations that hold together school life, and the extent to which members of the community endorse them. While physical security features affect students’ perceptions of school safety, school climate and the actions of teachers and staff also factor into feelings of safety.
School security has become a major industry. Each year, more than $2.7 billion is spent on hardening schools.
But there is currently no conclusive evidence that any of these measures prevent school shootings. Schools’ attempts to make students safer don’t actually do that, and cost schools money that could help increase staff and better equip classrooms for learning.
School administrators feel pressure to make quick decisions about security, often based on limited or poor information.
When they buy equipment, administrators may fall prey to the idea that the systems are taking care of things so the people don’t need to prepare.
In addition to not being effective in reducing gun violence, an overreliance on surveillance strategies may make students feel less safe at school. The presence of metal detectors has complicated effects and contradictory research findings. For example, metal detectors may increase students’ feelings of fear and may also violate privacy. At the same time, they may reduce the number of weapons brought on campus.
Complicating the notion of hardening access to school buildings is the fact that about half of school shootings are carried out by people within the school community who would likely be allowed into the school and permitted to pass through security checks.
School safety is not just a physical challenge but a psychological one too.
A comprehensive approach to school safety actively engages students, teachers and parents, identifies high-risk individuals using threat assessment techniques, and instructs teachers and administrators to refer these students to mental health services.
Increasing school-based mental health services is a proven way to increase school safety and promote a positive school climate, and includes teaching students conflict management and emotional coping skills. Research suggests that these efforts support the well-being of students, thereby increasing school safety.
Schools cannot be hardened enough to prevent gun violence. Schools can, however, become more physically and psychologically safe so students can learn and thrive.
Elizabeth K. Anthony is an associate professor of social work at Arizona State University. Distributed by The Associated Press.