School Safety: A Critical Issue for School Administrators

Introduction

Among the key priorities of educational leaders in primary and secondary schools in the United States and throughout the world is to provide students and staff with safe, violence-free learning environments. As this article discusses, though, disruptions can and do occur almost anyplace, demonstrating that no school is immune to discipline related concerns.

Despite the safety measures and strategies put in place in schools, misbehaviors and disruptions do occur, some of which are violent. Turanovic and Siennick (2022) described school violence as encompassing multiple types of aggressive acts, including physical aggression, bullying, fighting, and bringing weapons to school. Zhang and Jiang (2022) noted incidents of violence are events in schools that potentially cause harm to students, teachers, and/or visitors.

Despite the best efforts of educational leaders, teachers, and school governing boards, unfortunately, there have been, and will continue to be, student discipline incidents and events ranging from routine to crisis proportions. Disciplinary matters, including acts of violence, can impinge on safety and by extension, school climate. In fact, school safety concerns rank as one of the most difficult issues in education (Elbedour et al., 2020). Due to the importance of student well-being and its relationship to organizational climate, educators must constantly focus on school safety (Kowalewski, 2020).

Aware of the need for school safety, the first section of this five-part article discusses general factors related to school violence and various disruptive behaviors. The second section explores routine and nonroutine school disruptions while the third offers information regarding school safety protocols. The fourth part discusses planning processes for school safety while the fifth addresses specific strategies and recommendations for educational leaders to help advance safe school environments. The article ends with some final reflections.

Factors Related to Disruptions or Discipline

What factors contribute to disruptive behaviors, disciplinary incidents, and violence in primary and secondary schools? While the answer to this question is so complex as to defy a definitive explanation, potential predictors are worth considering when thinking about why negative events occur in schools. Being aware of these factors may help educational officials be better prepared in order to avert problems and contribute to safe and productive learning environments.

Risk factors for student discipline issues and possible violence typically include a history of violence, illegal drug, or alcohol use, associating with individuals exhibiting illegal or delinquent behaviors, and unhealthy family dynamics such as poor parent–child relationships. Other potential contributing factors include mental health diagnoses and living in economically deprived areas (Lewis & Carlton, 2022).

Additional contributing factors in the United States include a history of victimization, attention deficit and learning disorders, deficits in social cognitive or information processing abilities, and high emotional distress (Turanovic & Siennick, 2022). Further, hyperactive or impulsive personality or poor academic performance and delinquent/antisocial behavior may signal potential challenges (Turanovic & Siennick, 2022). Young people engaging in antisocial behavior outside of school are more likely to cause headaches in schools as well (Turanovic & Siennick, 2022).

Other factors that may signal potential challenges include personality traits such as hostility, internalizing problems, moral disengagement, and self-esteem issues (Turanovic & Siennick, 2022). The same authors report that individual schools and communities may have predictors of potential school violence such as histories of school disorders, school size, high levels of community crime, and economic deprivation.

School demographics may also play a role in the relationships between school environments and students’ senses of safety. Statistics on bullying suggest incidents are more frequent in public schools located in cities rather than suburban or rural areas. Moreover, schools where the students with color represent 25% or less reported fewer bullying incidents than those where 51% to 75% of the population were students of color (NCES, 2023).

The demographics of communities where school systems are located can be factors in school safety. Peguero et al. (2020) stated “]t]here are significant distinctions across urban, suburban, and rural communities both in the experience of school violence and in the resources allocated toward safeguarding schools from violence” (p. 77). The presence of any of the predictive factors discussed does not automatically mean school violence or disruptions will occur. Rather, educators should take these factors into consideration when developing safe school policies and procedures.

As noted, safety represents a serious concern in the United States (Gregory, Cornell, et al., 2010). DeAngelis and Lueken (2020) offered two key findings: first, students in middle and high schools are more likely to experience violence than their peers in elementary and secondary. In addition, safety concerns are more likely in innercity schools and districts with higher incidences of poverty rather than rural communities.

During the 2019–2020 school year, 77% of American primary and secondary schools recorded at least one or more incidents of crime, a rate higher than that reported to law enforcement agencies (Wang et al., 2022). Officials in 70% of public schools recorded one or more violent incidents while 32% reported one or more incidents to sworn law enforcement. In terms of rates, public school students experienced 19 violent incidents per 1,000 students but reported only five violent incidents per 1,000 students to sworn law enforcement. Consequently, the existing difficulties may be more significant in reality than demonstrated by the data. Because school leaders must be aware that the potential for disruptions is real, they must use every means at their disposal to mitigate those challenges. Awareness of possible indicators of trouble is a necessary skill leaders need to master in order to foster safe schools.

Unfortunately, as reflected by numerous examples of disruptions in other countries, school violence is not isolated to the United States. Zhang and Jiang (2022) report that in China, for example, gender and ethnicity play a major role in school violence, particularly bullying. Additionally, they suggest family economic and socioeconomic status also plays a role in bullying violence in China. Zhang and Jiang (2022) continued on to point out that the grade level of students plays a role in bullying, noting that children in primary settings were more likely to bully as opposed to middle or high school students, possibly due to their immaturity. Finally, they observed that students with good social skills lessened the chance of bullying while those with poor social relationships were more inclined to act as bullies. As further evidence of what Zhang and Jiang discussed, in a tragic incident in China, a man in Beiliu wielding a knife broke into a school, killing two children and wounding 16 (Yiu & Theodorou, 2021).

At the same time, in Finland a 12-year-old fired a pistol at three 12-year-old peers, one of whom died while the other two were seriously injured (Kirby, 2024). Such incidents highlight the point that school violence and shootings are not isolated to the United States because they represent an international problem requiring school leaders to develop safety plans that work.

Two Categories of Issues

In response to the need to address school safety, educational leaders, politicians, and policy makers must develop rules of expected behaviors and conduct for students. Managing student behavior through those expectations creates the potential for positive school climates by addressing physical safety of staff and students (NIJ, 2020). Educators must make it clear that students who ignore codes of conduct, ranging from expectations on dress, punctuality, behavior and social conduct, just to mention a few, will face disciplinary consequences.

One approach to examining issues impinging on safety, and by extension, school climate, is separating events into two general categories. The first focuses on routine daily school discipline concerns, while the second highlights more violent incidents such as shootings, gang violence, fights with multiple participants, and other significant occurrences that are far more serious and traumatic. In either situation school leaders must strive to deal with whatever circumstances arise and return their schools to normalcy.

In order to manage either category successfully, educational leaders must invest considerable amounts of time, professional development, resources, and infrastructure aimed at providing safe and secure school facilities conducive to positive learning environments for students. Unfortunately, the challenge of providing safe school environments is made all the more difficult due to factors such as advancing technology, constantly changing legal requirements, and a plethora of outside dangers (Case IQ, n.d.).

The first tier of a wide variety of issues are routine disciplinary events including student management concerns such as disrupting class, talking back to teachers, bullying peers, being tardy to class, treating teachers, and staff disrespectfully, and an array of matters typically addressed in student conduct policies. In order to manage these matters while maintaining safe school environments, administrators must develop rules spelling out, regulations, and expected student behaviors. Student codes of conduct must also detail the consequences associated with each type of misbehavior. In most of these situations, school leaders will administer discipline to the students such as detentions, suspensions, or even expulsions shortly after infractions occur.

Codes of conduct often evolve to keep up with new challenges. For example, a current concern in the United States is the use of cell phones in classes as educators have started developing policies limiting or eliminating student use of these devices (Jimenez, 2024).

All of these activities fall under the umbrella of routine school discipline and student management. Although it can be challenging and time consuming for administrators, it is all part of the business of running schools effectively. Unfortunately, educators face far more problematic and potentially harmful concerns such as major fights among students and shootings that may lead to injury or harm. As noted, examples of school violence include bullying and cyber bullying, fighting, use of weapons, gang violence and sexual violence (NCES, 2023).

In an effort to control disruptions and violence, educational leaders have adopted policies and procedures to help mitigate and potentially reduce incidents of school violence, crisis, and disruption (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2024). To this end, school leaders have installed cameras, electronically controlled locking doors, modified windows, employed security personnel typically known as school resource officers (SROs), and have even armed school personnel (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2024).

Maintaining safe environments is critical because when disruptions, discipline-related outbreaks, or violence occur in schools there may be detrimental effects on learning, creating stress and emotional difficulties for students and staff. Even more troubling, discipline concerns may lead to injuries, property damage, and tragically, sometimes fatalities. It is the responsibility of administrators to do everything possible to secure and preserve safe school environments so teachers, students, and visitors are comfortable.

Keeping students and staff members safe is essential if environments are to be conducive to learning and is all the more challenging because school leaders are expected to provide a welcoming and open environment for community members. Educational leaders are tasked with providing safety while encouraging open, accessible campuses but face a potential dilemma because this often means allowing parents and local residents into facilities for school related events, community activities, recreational sports, civic group meetings, or school extracurricular activities. Because parents and tax payers believe they have rights to access community facilities including schools, it is important to allow it when possible. As important to maintaining positive community relations as these events and activities are, they open schools to increased potential of disturbances and problems.

Educational leaders must be aware that difficulties can not only occur before, during, or after school but can happen anywhere in or around educational facilities because no school is immune to violence or disruption. Consequently, it is imperative for leaders to devote time and effort aimed at mitigating potential headaches regardless of the time of day or the location.

Unfortunately, no matter how much time, effort, and resources leaders devote to maintaining safe school environments, disruptions and potential incidents of violence are likely to never be completely eliminated. Accordingly, it is important that educators, students, parents, and communities do everything in their power to eliminate or deal with these incidents.

Preserving good student behavior is important because when disruptions occur, they have a negative impact on school climate as instruction will be interrupted and student learning will suffer. Without effective discipline policies and safety programming, the potential for negative school climate increases.

Not surprisingly, academic and behavioral outcomes are adversely affected when students are exposed to school violence (Nguyen et al., 2020). When students feel safe at school, they may experience senses of well-being that translates into improved attendance and better grades. Unfortunately, the opposite can be true because feeling unsafe at school can result in poor attendance and lower grades.

Whether minimal or excessive, disruptions at schools affect learning processes and students’ feelings of well-being and safety. Maslow suggested a hierarchy of needs, which orders human needs from basic factors such as safety to higher levels such as self-actualization (Maslow, 1943). Bosworth et al. (2011, p. 199), indicated “Students who are focused on meeting basic needs for safety and health cannot spare full attention to learning and academic success.”

In light of disciplinary concerns, it is vital for educational leaders to promote programs in their school systems that will effectively develop safe and secure environments. Without effective discipline policies and safety programming, the potential for negative school climates increases.

One positive statistic the NCES released was that the percentage of U.S. public-school administrators reporting student bullying incidents occurring at least once a week was lower in the period ranging between 2019 and 2020 than in 2009 and 2010 (NCES, 2022). As a sign of the times, unfortunately, public school officials reported that cyberbullying doubled between 2009–2010 and 2019–2020 (NCES, 2022), making them the most common and prevalent types of discipline problems they reported.

Cyberbullying is not limited to U.S. schools. For example, in Europe, one in six students experienced some form of cyberbullying (World Health Organization, 2024). A second study noted that of eight European countries reviewed, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, and Spain, cyberbullying was most prevalent in Bulgaria and Hungary, and least prevalent in Spain (Sorrentino et al., 2019).

Boys perpetrated cyberbullying more often than girls in the United States. According to a 2024 report by the Pew Research Center, 36% of girls were cyberbullied compared to 26% of boys (Seitz, 2024). Given student access to the cyberworld, it is of little wonder that this method of bullying occurs so often. However, disruptive issues are not limited to cyberbullying.

Another factor related to student bullying is how the number of incidents varied by grade. Middle school leaders reported higher numbers of bullying incidents than in secondary and elementary settings (NCES, 2022). NCES (2022) data further reveal a higher prevalence of overall discipline, safety, and crime issues occurring within 7–12 grades rather than elementary grades. Student bullying also occurred more frequently in schools with larger enrollments.

Perhaps the most significant, even if relatively infrequent, violent school disruption today in the United States are shootings. As a tragic example, there was a recent shooting in Georgia by a 14-year-old male student claiming the lives of two teachers, four students, and wounding nine others. Shootings increased 124% between the 2020–2021 and 2021–2022 school years (USA Facts, 2024). About 61% of school shootings occurred at high schools possibly due to the age of shooters while approximately 12% happened at middle or junior high schools, and 23% at elementary schools (USA Facts, 2024).

Gun violence is not isolated to the United States because, as noted, in 2024 a child was shot and two others wounded by a shooter in Finland (Brennan & Edwards, 2024). In Europe there are other incidents of student violence, disruptive behavior, and inattentive or aggressive behavior in classrooms. For example, in Finland at a trade school a shooter killed 10 people and then burned their bodies before taking his own life (Benbenishty & Astor, 2008). In Serbia in 2023 a 13-year-old male shot eight peers plus a security guard (John, 2023). These are tragic examples highlighting the importance and significance for a need to do everything possible to secure school environments and maintain safety.

An important consideration for educational leaders is where school shootings are most likely to occur. Eighty percent of incidents were randomly scattered among hallways, classrooms, parking lots, and gyms; the remaining 20% of shootings were outside of school buildings either at front or side entrances (USA Facts, 2024).

More than 338,000 students in the United States experienced some form of gun violence while in school since the 1999 Columbine High School tragedy (Cox et al., 2024). In 2022, there were 46 more school shootings than in any other year since Columbine, mirroring the general rise in gun violence in the United States (Vossekuil et al., 2004). Most shootings happened as a result of disputes between or among students that escalated (Rock, 2023). Between 1966 and 2024 there were 406 school shootings during morning classes, 341 school shootings occurred at sporting events, 304 shootings happened during school dismissal times, and 271 school shootings occurred afternoon classes in the United States (Statista, 2024). The majority of school shooters were students at the school where they attended (Rock, 2023). The most common age of school shooters was 17 although younger students were occasionally involved. Ninety-eight percent of shooters were male (Martin & Bowman, 2021).

The aftermath of shootings and accompanying trauma exacerbates fear and stress in students which may cause ancillary issues such as anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder (Lowe & Galea, 2017). Fortunately, while the number of shootings is relatively low. When they do occur, they affect not only the school where the incident happened, but by extension, schools everywhere.

All of the examples identified above have the potential to create serious effects on school climate and student safety thereby impinging on learning environments. As such, educational leaders must act to mitigate and deal with these types of concerns by developing safety plans to help maintain orderly and safe school environments.

Evaluating School Safety Plans

In light of the potential safety concerns occurring in schools, it is incumbent on educational leaders to develop approaches strengthening protocols for school safety. The first step to consider is evaluating concepts and factors describing school safety.

In a suggested approach to evaluate school safety, in 2022 the Global Alliance for Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in the Education Sector devised the Comprehensive School Safety Framework (CSSF). This model emerged following extensive research conducted on causes of violence, preventing school violence, assessing violence, and responding to school violence. The report suggests safety improves when positive school climates are evident, thus promoting positive overall outcomes. Physical safety, school climate, and student behavior are the three components the CSSF report identifies as essential for school safety. These three areas address the primary characteristics necessary for school safety. School climate and physical safety are integral to maintaining safe schools. Managing student behavior enhances chances for positive school climates by addressing physical safety for all (Global Alliance, 2022). After developing general parameters for school safety through evaluation and reflection, the next step requires planning.

Planning for Safety

Safe school environments do not occur by chance. In order for educational leaders to best provide safe and orderly school climates, there must be a process for involving people who will be instrumental in developing viable plans and policies related to safety. As the expression goes, failing to plan is planning to fail. School safety is too important a topic not to devote time and resources. To be sure, planning is required if safe school environments, conducive to meaningful learning opportunities for students are to be developed.

School leaders should aim to foster building schools where students want to come to learn, teachers want to come to teach, and parents are satisfied their children are safe. In order for this to occur, it is helpful to provide leaders with a variety of best practices, policies, and safety considerations in order to develop plans. In this way, there is an initial starting point for leaders to begin a process for planning. Further, safety plans must be tailored to individual schools; no one plan is suitable in all circumstances or schools (Kowalski, 2011). Nevertheless, understanding best practices is a helpful starting point for school leaders to begin their planning processes.

When thinking about planning, leaders must have clear visions of what they must address. One school safety approach suggests that in order for students to feel safe in schools, four domains must be addressed: physical, social, emotional, and cognitive (Knightsmith, 2022). Student well-being in these four areas should have a positive impact on school climate and thus improve opportunities for teaching and learning.

The essential point is that in order for school leaders to develop good safety plans, they must have focus clearly on what they must address. Having articulated visions for areas of concern, planners can begin to develop strategies to mitigate potential challenges.

As evidence of the importance of planning, at least 43 states and Washington DC, require school systems to have safety plans in place (School Safety Solution, 2020). In at least 29 of the 43 states’ law enforcement agencies must be involved in the planning process (School Safety Solution, 2020).

School safety plans should have two primary purposes: preventing as many problem situations as possible and providing guidelines when disruptions occur (Kowalski, 2011). In acting, school officials must devise overarching plans providing policy and guidelines instructive to building leaders as they develop individual building safety plans. System-wide plans, which are broad in scope, should include available resources and requirements for planning procedures. Consideration of resources runs the gamut from first aid supplies, communication equipment, and community resources such as police and fire expertise. At the same time, building plans should focus primarily on the particular roles, responsibilities, and infrastructure specifics of individual facilities and their staffs.

There are seven stages in the process of developing, implementing, and evaluating school safety and security plans (Kowalski, 2011). As indicated, while no one size plan fits all schools, each must be crafted in such a way as to conform to the needs of particular schools. Thus, it is beneficial if school leaders consider all seven stages in order to take a systematic, inclusive approach to developing safety plans suitable for their individual facilities.

The first step is consideration of all possible safety concerns that might occur. While it is impossible to envision every possibility, researching and reflecting on various scenarios can be very instructive and lead to better plans. The second step is developing the scope of planning. This includes details for prevention of potential problems, who will be responsible to deal with identified matters, and how procedures for returning schools to a state of normalcy will occur (U.S. Department of Education, 2007).

The third step involves appointing a crisis team for each school building. Leaders should assign teachers and staff members who are good communicators, can deal with stress, and are highly regarded by peers, students, and parents to leadership positions. Team members should be given specific areas of responsibility including who will be chair and who will be second in command. Other role functions may include lead communicator, first aid personnel, and first-responder coordinator.

The fourth step is conducting a safety audit. Audits typically include analyzing current policy, reviewing current communication protocols, studying access to police, fire, and additional emergency services, considering the physical infrastructure of buildings, and reviewing current student discipline records. This step should include consideration of such questions as secure entrances to buildings, locations and maintenance of security cameras, and clear signage.

The fifth step is constructing the actual safety and security plan. The construction process should include identifying potential crises, determining responses, and appointing team members for specific roles.

The sixth step involves preparing staff for various situations that might occur. This includes communicating the safety plan to staff, ensuring that everyone knows and understands their role, and providing opportunities for practice. The final step is plan evaluation. There should be ongoing formative and summative assessments of plans in order to continually improve policies and protocols. In this way, plans are kept current with new laws and threats and will not become out of date.

An excellent resource for information on planning, Facilities Management Express (Building a School Safety Plan: A Guide to a Secure Learning Environment, n.d.), offers three suggestions. First, policies should include timelines in order to ensure that plans are constructed and evaluation occurs. If plans are subject to formative and summative evaluations they will be updated as new issues surface. The quality of safety plans will be enhanced if the process is viewed as an ongoing activity. Second, school leaders should access and use current data when developing plans. This is clearly an important step that strengthens planning processes. Third, relying on outside expertise regarding safety plans is beneficial, and results in better plans. With constantly changing landscapes of potential threats, it is important to keep current by developing and maintaining up-to-date strategies.

Specific Strategies to Improve Safety

Having a planning process is important. When planning is done carefully, procedures will be in place helping maintain safe environments for students and staff. However, specific measures must be considered when developing safety plans. Safety strategies can be divided into two broad categories, authoritarian and educational (Holland, 2023). Both approaches have potential to improve school climate while reducing opportunities for discipline problems and violence. When climates are strong and positive, schools tend to be more resistant to violent incidents (Lesneskie & Block, 2017).

Final Reflections

Maintaining student discipline by managing their behavior through thoughtfully developed policies, rules, and student conduct codes is imperative if leaders are to attain orderly and productive school environments. Equally important is consideration for true crisis events that totally disrupt normal operations.

Regardless of the events, and, the countries in which they serve, school leaders must be prepared to deal with whatever type of situation occurs. In order to have the best chance of success, leaders must adhere to the old adage; prior planning prevents poor performance. If educational leaders consider all possible situations, involve people in planning processes, take into account a variety of safety strategies, and consistently implement, and practice them, they will enhance the probability of maintaining or restoring order and balance in their schools.

In efforts to maintain safe schools and prevent disruptions, both hardening and educational strategies have a place. The important point is school leaders must take into account a wide variety of strategies in order to improve school climate and successfully deal with challenges that arise.

Educational leaders must take serious looks at school infrastructure to devise the best approaches to keep staff and students safe. Areas such as secure entrances, security cameras both inside and outside facilities, up-to-date key systems, and clearly marked signage, are but a few of the infrastructure matters that should be addressed.

Equally important is predetermining systems of crisis communications. As such, policies should address who will serve as primary communicator, where will communication originate from, having well-maintained public-address systems, and availability of multiple communication devices. Policies should also consider how to keep parents, media, and emergency agencies such as police and fire, and staff up-to-date.

School leaders must determine the roles of various people during crises. The responsibility of being crisis team leader, the chief communicator, and who will be in charge of first aid are but a few of the roles that must be assigned.

Additional suggestions in safety planning may include developing threat assessments, site assessments, and providing training for staff and students. All of these steps may add strength to comprehensive safety plans.

Finally, educational leaders should ensure that safety plans are practiced regularly. Leaders must plan for how students will exit buildings, where they will go after exiting buildings, how they will be reunited with parents, lock down procedures, and shelter in place procedures. School leaders should regularly review and update policies and procedures.

In sum, the responsibility of safe school planning rests with educational leaders, but must involve communities and their resources as well. School officials must form good relationships with parents, emergency service organizations, and the media in order to deal successfully with any situations that may develop.

Unfortunately, worries over student discipline will likely never be completely eliminated either in schools or society at large because they are part of the human condition. Nevertheless, educational leaders must do everything in their power to provide safe schools where students can learn and parents can feel that their children are in good hands.