Dozens of people, bags weighing on their backs, wait in a long line snaking around the building. One by one, they remove their electronics and pass through a towering metal detector at a sluggish pace.
This building is not an airport. It isn’t a courthouse or a government building. It’s a high school on a typical Monday morning.
In light of the recent student stabbing at West Potomac High School, FCPS is implementing a new security program that seeks to reduce the threat of weapons in schools. A weapons detector called the CEIA Metal Detector, operated by an attendant, will instruct students to pass through while holding electronics in hand.
Something must be done to combat the wave of school violence in the United States, and FCPS can be part of this solution. However, metal detectors are not the answer. The detection system is expected to cost an extraordinary $7,000 per door at each school. Instead, FCPS should act by improving training for teachers, implementing violence prevention initiatives for students and improving mental health infrastructures.
While the intention is commendable, metal detectors are not the answer. Instead, FCPS must prioritize comprehensive violence prevention strategies, enhanced mental health support and more mediation training for staff.
Metal detectors have proven to be ineffective solutions to violence in schools. In New York City, an area with a far higher crime rate than McLean, only one weapon was found for 23,034 students scanned. In contrast, physical searches without a metal detector caught almost 60% of the weapons brought into schools. Metal detectors are easy to circumvent—students can enter through unmonitored doors or hide prohibited items.
The only way a metal detector would truly be effective in preventing students from sneaking weapons into schools is if there was a device and professional to operate it present in every door at McLean. Seeing how McLean has about a dozen doors, this would be highly impractical and incredibly expensive. The alternative would be to close down all doors except the ones with metal detectors present, which would be highly impractical. If metal detectors are statistically ineffective and easy to avoid, FCPS should not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars installing them in schools.
The presence of metal detectors also transforms schools to feel more like correctional facilities than centers of learning. This can foster anxiety, mistrust and a sense of criminalization among students—especially students of color, who are already disproportionately affected by increased policing measures.
Another major drawback of metal detectors is that they can be very time-consuming. At FCPS high schools after the recent installation of the detectors, TSA-style lines wrapped around the school. To pass through a metal detector every morning while removing electronics from bags would take up a significant amount of time, especially if students are limited from where they can enter the school.
The cost of metal detectors, operator salaries, installation and additional necessities would add up to be hundreds of thousands of dollars from the county’s budget—funds that could be used instead be used to increase teacher salaries or improve facilities.
School violence is a grave, prevalent issue that the county must address. But metal detectors are an ineffective, impractical and expensive solution. Many incidents of school violence are linked to unaddressed mental health issues. Increasing the number of counselors, psychologists and social workers in schools, FCPS can provide students with the support they need before problems escalate. Accessible mental health services on campus and peer support groups would help identify and address issues early on.
Similarly, regular professional development for teachers and staff on crisis intervention, trauma-informed practices and cultural competency ensures that adults in the building are prepared to support students and respond appropriately to threats. Ultimately, FCPS should shift its focus from introducing metal detectors to looking at stronger, proactive solutions to avert motives.
