Metal Detectors and Feeling Safe at School

Gastic, Billie

doi:10.1177/0013124510380717

Cited by 61 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, this finding supports results from previous studies suggesting that students in schools with metal detectors tend to feel less safe than students at schools without such security measures (e.g., Gastic, 2011;Hankin, Hertz, & Simon, 2011).…”

Section: Impact Of School Security Measuressupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Overall, study findings indicate that the presence of metal detectors was associated with increased concerns for safety among students, and these concerns were compounded by the number of visible security measures present in the school environment. Moreover, this finding supports results from previous studies suggesting that students in schools with metal detectors tend to feel less safe than students at schools without such security measures (e.g., Gastic, ; Hankin, Hertz, & Simon, ).…”

Section: Students’ Perceptions Of Safety At Schoolsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…In support of this notion, a study by Booren, Handy, and Power () found that perceptions of school climate and violence were associated with safety strategies, and higher ratings of school climate and connection predicted a safer and more civil school learning environment. Further, as previously discussed, some studies have found that fear associated with visible security measures may attenuate students’ feelings of positivity and warmth while negatively impacting school climate (Gastic, ; Hankin et al, ; NASP, ; Perumean‐Chaney & Sutton, ; Schreck & Miller, ). Considering such findings, future investigations could help with understanding specific architectural features that contribute to a safe and welcoming school environment.…”

Section: Students’ Perceptions Of Safety At Schoolmentioning

confidence: 86%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An alternative to fortified schools: Using crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) to balance student safety and psychological well‐being

Lamoreaux¹,

Sulkowski

2019

Psychology in the Schools

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to tragic school shootings, heightened attention has been devoted to making schools safer through the implementation of security features. However, excessive security measures have a negative impact on school climate, student functioning, and academic achievement. Therefore, there is a critical need to design schools that are safe and secure, yet also welcoming and comfortable. As a promising approach in this regard, crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) is an architectural philosophy that aims to deter criminal or antisocial behavior through environmental design, and it includes a focus on natural surveillance, access control, and territorial reinforcement. This review discusses pertinent effects of the school environment on student outcomes, extant research on the impact of visible security measures, the relationship between students’ perceptions of safety and academic functioning, and how using CPTED could concomitantly address the physical safety and psychological comfort of students at school.

show abstract

Section: Impact Of School Security Measuressupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Students’ Perceptions Of Safety At Schoolsupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Students’ Perceptions Of Safety At Schoolmentioning

confidence: 86%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An alternative to fortified schools: Using crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) to balance student safety and psychological well‐being

Lamoreaux¹,

Sulkowski

2019

Psychology in the Schools

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this regard, metal detectors have been associated with both elevated (Bachman, Randolph, & Brown, 2011;Gastic, 2011; and reduced (Tillyer, Fisher, & Wilcox, 2011) fear at school. Studies of the relationship between metal detectors and students' attitudes about school policies are similarly mixed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Disproportionality in Daily Metal Detector Student Searches in U.S. Public Schools

Gastic

Johnson

2014

Journal of School Violence

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the effectiveness of metal detectors to improve school safety remains debated, many public schools continue to rely on this technology to control school violence. Among them is the 1% of public schools where students are searched on a daily basis by metal detector. This study examines the school-level risk factors associated with daily searches to estimate the disproportionality of their use in high-violence, majority-minority public schools. Analyzing data from the 2007−2008 School Survey on Crime and Safety, this study finds that 91% of public schools that perform daily metal detector searches of students are high-violence, majority-minority schools. However, the results also show that, among high-violence schools, those with majority-minority enrollments are significantly more likely than others to conduct these searches. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of policy responses to school violence that are distinct and disproportionate according to student demographics, rather than safety conditions. KEYWORDS metal detectors, urban schools, disproportionality, students of color, school violenceWhile the use of metal detectors is the rarest intervention used by public schools to reduce school violence, it remains among the most controversial. The National Center for Education Statistics reports that, in the 2009−2010 school year, only 1% of public schools conducted daily metal detector checks of students. Urban schools (3.7%), high schools (4.8%), schools of 1,000 students or more (4%), schools enrolling 50% or more students of color (3.4%), and schools where more than three quarters of

show abstract

“…Multi-tiered systems of support security cameras, or guards in schools prevents school violence (Tanner-Smith, Fisher, Addington, & Gardella, 2018), and some research has found that such measures are associated with more incidents of crime and violence at school (Nickerson & Martens, 2008;Steinka-Fry, Fisher, & Tanner-Smith, 2016). Even more importantly, many students feel such measures are unnecessary (Bracy, 2011) and feel less safe when they are in place (Bachman, Randolph, & Brown, 2011;Gastic, 2011;Perumean-Chaney & Sutton, 2013). A quick fix is not the answer; instead school safety requires a more comprehensive approach to both preventing fatal violence while promoting supportive school environments and mental and behavioral health of all students.…”

Section: Tablementioning

confidence: 99%