School Security Technologies

Oh, no! You won't be getting a printed SCUP–45 Preliminary Program in the mail this year. Instead, SCUP is going green and regularly updating this digital version (PDF), which you can download at any time.

Check it out! You don't want to miss higher education's premier planning conference, and your one chance this year to assemble with nearly 1,500 of your peers and colleagues: July 10–14, Minneapolis.

---

---

SCUP Link

We often find useful resources at the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF), which is headed by SCUPer Judy Marks. This (currently 16-page) resource is created by NCEF and updated quarterly, because the technologies and their use are changing so rapidly. The NCEF's mandate is for K–12 education, but this and many other resources there are valuable to higher education planners as well.

Over the past decade electronic security technology has evolved from an exotic possibility into an essential safety consideration. Technological improvements are coming onto the market almost daily, and keeping up with the latest innovation is a full time job. At a minimum, a basic understanding of these devices has become a prerequisite for well-informed school security planning.

Before resorting to high-tech security solutions, school officials should think carefully about the potential for unintended consequences. Technological fixes may be mismatched to the problems being addressed. They can be expensive. Any network will require continual maintenance, eventual upgrading, and constantly updated virus protection and intrusion detection systems (IDS) to watch for hackers or unauthorized transfers of data. A full-blown information technology (IT) department will usually be essential.

An over-reliance on electronic technology can backfire with power outages and technological failures. Some security technologies raise political and philosophical concerns. Still, technology, used correctly, can be highly functional and cost effective. Its pros and cons must be weighed carefully within the context of local sensibilities and conditions.

Don’t start by choosing a technology and looking for a problem it can solve. The process should be the reverse: Identify and prioritize the problems before jumping to solutions, and analyze solutions carefully before committing funding. It’s not uncommon for districts to invest in a particular technology district-wide before analyzing and priority-ranking the real concerns of the individual schools. Every school should be capable of quick lockdowns and evacuations, but the details beyond that can vary considerably. Some schools are in rough neighborhoods where violence is endemic, others are not. Some schools are constrained by meager budgets, others have deep pockets. Leaky roofs may take precedence over electronic access control systems.
Partial measures can prove to be wasted investments. Secure front doors are of little value if back entries remain uncontrolled. Metal detectors and ID cards won’t stop bullying behavior, nor will security cameras stop offenders, as has become all too evident at many school shootings. On the other hand, comprehensive access control and improved emergency communication systems are usually good investments.

---

Regional SCUP Events! Enjoy the F2F company of your colleagues and peers at one of three SCUP regional conferences this spring:

• March 24–26: Cambridge, MA - "Strengths and Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats"
• April 5–7, San Diego, CA - "Smart Planning in an Era of Uncertainty"
• April 7, Houston, TX - "Sustaining Higher Education in an Age of Challenge"