One of the foremost needs in school safety should be to address the ongoing prevalent danger that “Secure Mode” presents.
There are many individuals and several organizations and companies that discuss or promote this terminology. Unfortunately, it makes sense to those who are not considering the ramifications.
Considering the number of schools and school personnel that are willing to latch on to the term and command should begin to shed light on the issue. Most schools have policies and directions to keep all exterior doors locked during the school day; many add to that by limiting access to certain entries, some even requesting authentication before granting entry.
If such methods are truly effective, why then is “Secure Mode” needed? Advocates say that it is a useful indication for “responsible parties” to verify the school’s security. Therein lies the issue; “Secure Mode” itself tells everyone in the school that they will receive a warning before the school really needs to be secured. Events have shown, repeatedly, that simply is not the case.
Instead of providing an additional layer of protection, “Secure Mode” then does the opposite. By including it in planning and preparation, by its mere existence, the message is conveyed that buildings do not fully need to be secured. We either lock something or we don’t; there is no in between. And since most of schools propped doors come from students, telling them that someone will check the doors as soon as the command is given is as good as giving them permission to do it, regardless of what policy says.
Understandably, with schools having so many issues, they may want to be able to notify some staff of an issue so that certain (or all) doors will be checked. Unless all staff are being told to check doors, then the building does not need an announcement. These staff members may be contacted by other communication methods, or doors may be checked or verified by other means. The “mode” can be eliminated and promotion of a continually secure building begun.
The last conceivable argument for the “Secure Mode” is that many buildings don’t have air conditioning, so windows may be open and need to be secured. While it is debatable that those staff with windows open actually close them following such a command, the basic argument remains the same: schools should be secured to begin with. If funding for building or room air conditioning and purifying units is not available, other means for providing secure ventilation – rather than a school announcement which causes more issues than it solves – need to be sought. In other words, the real problem needs to be addressed, not glossed over or swept under the rug. There are solutions for the ventilation issue, though none are as appealing as the thought they are not needed. Ultimately, the arguments for “Secure Mode” whittle down to the reality that we are in a world where school building security is a necessity that must be addressed with preventative measures, not a reactive process which cannot provide any realistic protection.
There is only one path forward: eliminating commands and notifications for securing a facility and providing instructions and training to all occupants on the processes for making it happen. Everyone in the building needs to understand they have a part in making their school safe. They may not prop the door, but they may be thankful for someone who did; they may not use the propped door, but they may know who did and not scold or report them; they may not know who propped the door, but may not remove the object holding it open. Everyone is responsible; everyone takes part in school safety or no one is safe. This is the sad reality of today and no terminology will change that.
Is your school secure or does it wait for a “Mode”?