Even though the Arizona School Facilities Oversight Board has a list of recommended building safety measures to minimize security threats, critics say the Board’s failure to include them under its “minimum guidelines” means the state is not required to fund their implementation.
The issue of “school hardening” is also being tied to long-simmering debates about Arizona’s school facilities funding in general, which has left many districts – particularly those in poorer districts – struggling with improvements and new construction across the board.
A 2017 lawsuit, which is ongoing, alleges state budget cuts have dangerously reduced capital funding for maintenance and equipment. The state now only funds needs when districts fall below minimum guidelines.
Board representatives have countered that SFB has awarded more than $300M in building renewal grants in the past two years and stated student safety is the responsibility of individual districts.
The Arizona Legislature repealed the state’s Building Renewal Fund in 2013 to continue dealing with financial fallout from the Great Recession. The Fund had been used for upkeep and maintenance and allowed extra monies for security measures.
Under the current system, the state only grants funding when buildings fall below the Board’s minimum standards. For maintenance and other facility needs, districts must turn to voter-approved bond funding. Voters in smaller and poorer districts approve bond requests at a lower rate than those in wealthier, more populous areas.
The Board issued a set of 11 recommendations for school security in 2014 and the features should be considered as a design element for any school. Those recommendations were:
- A threat assessment tailored to the specific school campus.
- Exterior building lighting that is difficult to vandalize or remove.
- A well-marked administrative entrance at the front of each school, including a single point of entry where possible.
- Classroom security that includes locks that can be engaged from inside the classroom.
- Student restrooms that can be monitored by teachers, which includes a maze entry with a privacy screen rather than a door that allows for audible supervision.
- Main school entrances with a double door vestibule, with inner doors locked during school hours.
- Sidelights in classrooms that allow teachers to view activity in corridors. Classroom windows, where possible, should be made of ballistic glass.
- Perimeter fencing, made of an eight-foot chain link fence with small mesh.
- A security alarm system, separate from a telephone or public address system.
- A camera system to cover key playground areas, building entrances and main common areas such as cafeterias and gyms.
- Classroom telephones to reach the school office and emergency personnel.
The Board has not, however, included the recommendations in its guidelines for minimum adequacy, which critics allege means the Board is not required, or even allowed, to fund their implementation. Other critics have said the minimum guidelines are, themselves, inadequate and force districts to rely on extra funding from capital overrides to meet basic facility needs.
There are currently two bills before the State Legislature for enhanced school safety. House Bill 2542 would provide $5.16M for a state fund to help county sheriffs create school safety programs. HB 2134 would provide a $150K grant for districts to use for school resource officers or counselors.
Many schools around the state included security measures in bond requests last year, with mixed results. Others are considering them as part of upcoming bond requests. (Source)