School Metal Detector Rules Drafted, Debated

More than half a year after Hamden schools’ leadership first purchased metal detectors as an ​“emergency” safety intervention, the Board of Education (BOE) is drafting protocols to govern how the security devices are used.

The BOE’s policy committee unanimously voted Monday night to advance a first copy of those rules, which, as currently written, allow the district to use metal detectors on any school property or at any school-related event as directed by the school superintendent. The full Board of Education will review that document — which you can read here — two times and have opportunities to revise the draft before taking a final vote on its passage.

Metal detectors were originally introduced at Hamden High School last December in response to an increase in school fights and a series of ultimately discredited gun violence threats. The new policy suggests that metal detectors could be used more broadly — across school locations, before bus rides, or at academic events, for instance — down the line.

“Persons entering a school building or attending a school activity may be subject to daily, regular, or random screening with a metal detector,” the write-up reads. ​“The metal detector may be a walkthrough, hand-held, or other type of metal detection device… The screenings may take place before entering a school building, gaining access to school grounds, being admitted to a school activity, boarding or unloading a school bus, and/or before gaining access to any other location and/or activity sponsored by the school district.”

“So playing devil’s advocate here, it seems like it really is a carte blanche, so to speak, to search students anytime with a metal detector,” Hamden BOE Member Austin Cesare observed during the meeting. ​“Is that an accurate statement? That anytime, anyplace, someone could be searched throughout school grounds?”

“The policy doesn’t limit us in other words,” responded Susan Smey, Hamden Public Schools’ director of media, assessment and intervention. ​“If we became aware of a situation at noon, it doesn’t say we can’t use a handheld device in the middle of the day because we have a belief that there might be an issue — say, as students are going into the lunchroom — and I don’t know that we would want to be limited. We need the options.” 

Superintendent Gary Highsmith, however, told the Independent that it was not his intention to expand the implementation of metal detectors. Since there is, to date, no policy in place dictating when and where metal detectors can be employed, Highsmith argued that the newly proposed regulations could be seen as ​“narrowing” the potential utilization of detectors.

Right now, Highsmith said, high school students go through the metal detectors any time they enter their building during school hours, like at morning drop-off or after returning to class from a doctor’s appointment.

When asked what the phrase ​“random screening” would mean in practice, Highsmith said in ​“his mind” it meant that the high school principal or himself could decide to screen students less frequently than daily, as is currently the case. For example, he said, security guards could screen students ​“every Monday or Wednesday, or screen ​“every 14th kid” that passes through school doors.

It would not mean, he said, sending someone ​“just randomly walking down the hallway” through a metal detector.

Highsmith’s interpretation may not reflect the full implications of the draft document — but the protocol does recognize Highsmith as the executive who could determine when utilization of metal detectors is or is not appropriate. 

Responding to concerns from Cesare and others that the policy could be the launching pad for expanded school surveillance, Highsmith said: ​“I’m certainly not one who wants to militarize the school. But I’m also not one who’s gonna turn their back on any reasonable security measures we can take.”

He added that he does not have ​“any reason to believe students are finding [the metal detectors] intrusive” or that the devices are ​“in any way impacting the operations of the school.”

“Anecdotal information,” he said, has led him to think that generally ​“students do feel safer” thanks to the added security measures.

Several students interviewed by the Independent Tuesday afternoon suggested that some high schoolers have largely adjusted to the presence of metal detectors in their schools, with short wait-times to get into classrooms standing out as the most commonly cited imposition.

Sophomore Chris Chica, who said he often comes to school late, reported that the metal detectors ​“take too much time in the morning, and it makes me more late ​’cause I gotta walk through that and clean my bag and all.

Freshman Makayla Golett said she doesn’t experience any wait-time outside the building because she arrives early to avoid any crowds. She also questioned whether the metal detectors were really needed. ​“I personally think it’s not needed anymore because who’s going to pull out a gun?” she said.

“It’s like, you need to be safe, you never know,” her friend, Faye Ford, argued.

Another student, Nick (who declined to have his photograph taken) said that, with time, the metal detectors have become less of a disruptive presence in school. Unlike, the first few trial days last winter, he recalled, when it could take over an hour to get into class, ​“it’s gotten a lot easier.”

“It’s just you know, everyone has everything inside their plastic bag. If the metal detectors do go off, it’s a quick search just making sure everything’s perfect, but other than that, it’s been really easy and efficient.”