Available data suggest schools with metal detectors identify more weapons through searches without scanning devices than through scanning¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · reviewr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? New York City schools reported that 57 percent of confiscated weapons in a single school year were found without using scanning devices. → Schildkraut 2019
q2 i? In NYC, only one dangerous item was found for every 23,034 students scanned across the five boroughs. → Schildkraut 2019 (2)
Evidence¶
Schildkraut 2019¶
Schildkraut, J., & Grogan, K. (2019). Are metal detectors effective at making schools safer? San Francisco, CA: WestEd. https://www.wested.org/resources/are-metal-detectors-effective-at-making-schools-safer
q2 · i? · review · r2
The brief reports NYC data: "57 percent were found without using scanning devices" of weapons confiscated in a single school year, suggesting most finds came from manual searches.
"New York City schools, for example, reported that of the weapons they confiscated in a single school year, 57 percent were found without using scanning devices"
Schildkraut 2019 (2)¶
Schildkraut, J., & Grogan, K. (2019). Are metal detectors effective at making schools safer? San Francisco, CA: WestEd. https://www.wested.org/resources/are-metal-detectors-effective-at-making-schools-safer
q2 · i? · review · r2
The brief cites NYC scanning data showing an extremely low yield: "for every 23,034 students scanned in the five boroughs, just one dangerous item ... was found." The brief cautions these data cannot show any deterrent effect.
"other data indicate that for every 23,034 students scanned in the five boroughs, just one dangerous item (including, but not limited to, firearms) was found"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Metal detectors impose substantial equipment, personnel, training and time costs on schools — related
- Metal detector effectiveness depends heavily on the human element: training, correct operation and functioning equipment — related
- Two mass shootings exemplify how metal detectors can be insufficient at stopping such attacks — related
- Students report feeling less safe and more likely to perceive violence and disorder in schools with metal detectors — related
- Common physical and exclusionary safety measures can cause harm to the very students schools are trying to protect — related
- Metal detector use in US schools has held steady or slightly decreased since the 1990s despite renewed calls after the Parkland shooting — related
- Hardening strategies such as police in schools and metal detectors intervene too late in the pathway to violence to prevent attacks — related
- Security cameras show no evidence of improving school safety, and evidence does not support expanding metal detector use — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
metal-detector-weapon-detection-evidence-weak |
title |
Available data suggest schools with metal detectors identify more weapons through searches without scanning devices than through scanning |
description |
Available data suggest schools with metal detectors identify more weapons through searches without scanning devices than through scanning |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2019 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-09 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — schildkraut-2019, schildkraut-2019-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.