Parental doubts about armed school security in South Huntington

On Jan. 25, the South Huntington school district board of education voted to contract Upfront Security Associates to provide armed security at each of the district’s school buildings. On Jan. 30, guards with concealed firearms were stationed in district parking lots. The board and central administration said this measure would provide an extra layer of security in the event of a school shooting.

Several members of the board described the decision-making process as lengthy and judicious, but the board and central administration have not addressed the fact that the majority of respected, independent research on school shootings, along with details of nationally publicized cases of school violence, provide scant evidence that armed guards prevent — or even help mitigate — potential safety threats. We’ve asked the board for such evidence and haven’t received it. 

In an attempt to assuage concerns about positioning armed security on campus, the board and central administration explained that the armed guards have extensive law enforcement experience and have been directed to only enter the school or interact with students in the event of an emergency.

Still, when our children get off the bus and walk into school, they will be in the proximity of firearms. In other words, the institution of armed security on South Huntington school grounds represents a qualitative shift in the learning environment for all students, faculty, and staff. 

Since the board voted, we have wondered what this decision says about our schools, our community, and our country. If nothing else, these questions deserve robust public dialogue in search of common understanding. 

The district prides itself on clear and regular communication with its families, and in most circumstances, that pride is warranted. Teachers and building administrators send daily messages about everything from bus delays to extracurricular opportunities. Central administration regularly communicates about events, initiatives, and concerns. The superintendent recaps each week with a robocall to families.

While this proposal was presented at a public meeting on Jan. 11 and voted on during an open session on the 25th, we were unaware of it. The first proactive communication about this issue was on Jan. 26 — after the vote. We received another message on Jan. 30 informing us that the guards were in place. Reviewing public commentary from the Jan. 25 board meeting, it’s clear we were not the only parents left unaware. Yes, we should have paid closer attention to the board of education meeting agenda, but we also maintain that a decision of this magnitude — in terms of both dollars and public policy — deserved far wider publicity and more thorough community input.

The intuition of every parent and educator is to do whatever is necessary to protect their children, especially at school. Schools are meant to be places where children cultivate their talents, explore their passions, and form lasting, supportive relationships. But in this case, intuitions are not our best policy guide. There simply isn’t legitimate evidence that armed guards improve school safety, and that makes us wonder whether $750,000 could be put to better use providing resources and opportunities for our children. 

District leadership typically goes above and beyond to communicate with families and to demonstrate transparency, so its decision to take such a different approach this time is concerning for us. While this contract has already been executed, we call on the board to thoroughly explain the evidence-based process that informed this striking decision. 

This guest essay reflects the views of Graham and Laura Otton, parents of two children in the South Huntington school district.