Upper Darby School Board votes to implement weapons-detection system after two recent incidents

The Upper Darby School District Board of School Directors voted Sept. 24 to approve a motion to implement a weapons-detection system, according to the board meeting transcript; the transcript does not include the full wording of the motion or a roll-call vote.

The vote followed public comments and a special meeting in which board members said they had considered input from the community. Board President Fields called the vote and members responded verbally; the transcript records the result as “motion carried.” Dr. McGarry, identified in the meeting as a district administrator, outlined public participation procedures before the vote.

The decision came after speakers described two recent safety incidents in the district and urged action. “We want our children safe physically, and we want our children safe mentally,” said Edward Ganges, a resident of 1905 Greenhill Road. Several parents and school employees said they supported adding detection systems to reduce the risk of weapons in schools; others urged a slower, more studied approach.

“Put the metal detectors in place so that we can pay attention to other things that need to get done,” said Amy Sandman, an employee of the Upper Darby School District and Upper Darby High School. Sandman said staff time is being consumed by threat monitoring and that implementing detection systems would allow administrators and staff to focus on other school duties.

Opponents and skeptics raised concerns about cost, crowding and psychological impacts on students. “With 4,000 kids in the high school…if there was an overwhelming urge to have weapon detecting systems here for over a million dollars being spent, I would think this room would be overwhelmed,” said Ian Clarice, a Drexel Hill resident. Michael (Mike) Bente, also a resident, urged the board to ‘‘pump the brakes’’ and study alternatives and peer experiences before implementing a permanent, large-scale system.

Bernard Galati, who said he has 40 years of experience in public safety, recommended a broader, layered approach. He urged the board to use the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency’s school-safety assessment criteria and to consider traffic and staffing changes at Upper Darby High School’s drop-off points to address congestion and safety risks while detection systems are implemented.

Virtual commenters also weighed in. Maisie Moore emailed in support of weapons detection systems, saying the risk of violence outweighed cost and inconvenience; the transcript includes several other emailed comments supporting a security upgrade.

Speakers on both sides asked the board to monitor psychological effects after installation. “If it goes that we do in fact put the detectors in place, I would ask that the board look into any possible psychological impact on the kids, that they monitor it closely across the years,” said Edward Ganges.

The transcript records the board’s formal motion as approved but does not include the motion’s text, the identity of the motion’s mover or seconder, a roll-call vote, or an implementation timeline. The board posted the meeting agenda to BoardDocs at least 24 hours before the meeting, and the public comment process was governed by policy 903, which the board referenced when opening the public hearing.

The meeting concluded after the public-comment period and reading of emailed comments. The transcript does not specify next steps, staffing plans, locations where detectors will be placed, contract terms or budget line items. Those details were not recorded in the public transcript and remain to be specified by the district.