Districts considering metal detectors should weigh the full range of evidence, especially when doing so in lieu of funding other prevention efforts¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 3 claims (3 mixed) · 1 study (1 review), q2 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 3 claims rest on one study

Description¶

The brief's concluding recommendation is that school districts considering metal detectors, particularly as a substitute for other prevention efforts, review the whole evidence base on effectiveness, cost and unintended consequences. It states districts "should consider this range of evidence" before adopting hardware approaches such as metal detectors in response to post-Parkland security mandates.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Districts should review evidence on effectiveness at preventing shootings and detecting weapons, costs to purchase, staff and maintain, and potential negative consequences before adoption.

Constraints¶

• The brief states there is "little evidence to support their effectiveness at preventing school shootings or successfully detecting weapons at schools."

Target Learners¶

• K-12 school districts and their students

Target Learning Goals¶

• School safety and violence prevention while protecting the learning environment

Claims¶

• Two mass shootings exemplify how metal detectors can be insufficient at stopping such attacks [~W]
• Metal detector use disproportionately affects students of color, who are more likely to pass through detectors daily [~W]
• Metal detector use in US schools has held steady or slightly decreased since the 1990s despite renewed calls after the Parkland shooting [~W]

Related Strategies¶

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• 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