Upper Darby officials present $1.16 million weapon-detection proposal for three secondary schools; public responses split

The Upper Darby School District on Sept. 24 presented a plan to install AI-based weapon-detection systems at its three secondary schools — Upper Darby High School, Drexel Hill Middle School and Beverly Hills Middle School — at a projected four-year cost of about $1,163,000, with equipment and staffing details and public concerns discussed at a joint Education & Pupil Services and Finance & Operations Committee meeting.

Superintendent Doctor McGarry opened the presentation by saying the district asked administration to review the technology after incidents on the high school campus on Sept. 3 and Sept. 13. “Implementing a weapon detection system will act as another security measure that will serve to reduce the likelihood of a weapon in our secondary schools,” McGarry said, adding that the review begins on slide 20 of the district’s packet and that the district would continue other safety and supportive services regardless of the board’s decision.

The proposal focuses on an AI-driven system (not a conventional metal detector) that highlights a small area on a person’s body it deems suspicious. Administrators said the district expects about a 10% alert rate initially—largely driven by compliant students carrying everyday metal such as Chromebooks, three-ring binders, keys or eyeglasses—and estimated roughly 400–600 daily searches at the high school until compliance improves. McGarry said one lane of the system can “approximately process 2,000 individuals in about 15 to 20 minutes” under ideal conditions, and administrators acknowledged implementation would slow morning entry during the first weeks.

Nut graf: The district presented specific equipment, staffing and cost estimates and said it would return with usage data if the board approves. The proposal drew mixed public feedback at the meeting and from emailed comments: some parents and staff urged prompt adoption to protect students; others warned of harm to students’ mental health, questioned cost and effectiveness, and urged investments in counseling and family outreach instead.

Key details and costs

- Year 1 capital and installation estimate: $913,930 covering equipment for Upper Darby High School (two primary locations with four lanes total), Drexel Hill Middle School and Beverly Hills Middle School plus one device for the high school stadium.

- Wands: Administrators recommended about 16 handheld wands (for targeted secondary checks) at roughly $4,320 total.

- Year 2–4 software/license costs: annual licensing per site quoted in materials ranged from about $7,700 to more than $36,000 depending on configuration; over four years administration presented a total cost of about $1.163 million, or about $1.168 million when the wands were added.

- ID system: Separately, the district estimated a full student-ID scanning approach (maintaining daily ID checks in addition to the detection system) could add roughly $450,000 a year in recurring costs and would require hiring an estimated 50–60 additional staff; the administration recommended implementing the weapon-detection system first and considering ID changes later to reduce immediate staffing needs.

Logistics, staffing and technical notes

Director of Public Safety Anthony Vaughn described lane placement and staffing: Upper Darby High School would have two locations (gym and main “pack”) with two double lanes (four lanes total) and about three staff per lane (12 staff at those two locations); Beverly Hills Middle School would have four lanes with three staff per lane (12 staff total); Drexel Hill Middle School would have two lanes at the main entrance, one lane in the cafeteria and a lane for special programs (three staff per lane, with fewer staff expected for the special-program lane). Vaughn said the district has visited other school districts and large venues that use the same vendor technology.

McGarry and Vaughn emphasized this system is not foolproof and described searches as occurring under the district’s existing search policies: “The system would provide a red orangish box around an individual that would highlight where we think there could be a weapon. That only aids us in our reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a search,” McGarry said, citing the district’s student-discipline and weapons policies and the school code as the legal framework for searches.

Privacy and records

Administrators said the video or monitor image from the system would be retained during the school day but is subject to the district’s records-retention process and would be deleted unless required for an investigation. “During the school day, yes. But we have a records retention process that over a period of time, they would be deleted,” McGarry said, adding that footage would be preserved when required for student matters or at the request of police under existing memoranda of understanding.

Public reaction and staff input

Public comment at the meeting and a large batch of emailed comments showed a split in the community. Supporters said the systems provide an additional layer of protection and urged the board to act quickly; Edward Brown, a former board president, said visiting other districts convinced him such a system “offers another layer of protection to hopefully protect our children.” Several parents who said their children were present during recent incidents urged prompt adoption.

Other speakers raised practical and philosophical objections. Multiple commenters, including Megan Rubino, argued funds would be better spent on social workers, counselors and family outreach, warning that scanners can give a false sense of security and may stigmatize or traumatize students. Concerns included increased morning wait times, how noncompliant students and those with medical implants would be handled, use of the system for after-hours events and how community groups use district facilities.

Next steps and board direction

The board’s administration said the weapon-detection item had been advertised for a special voting session immediately after the committee meeting. McGarry said if the board approves, the district expects roughly four to six weeks to receive resources and begin initial implementation and that administration would return in about one month after implementation with data on the number of alerts and any findings; any weapon found on school property would also be reported in the district’s required safe-schools reports.

At the committee’s close the board indicated consensus to advance two policy updates (Policy 317.1, educator misconduct; and Policy 824, maintaining professional adult-student boundaries) to another reading, and administrators said the weapon-detection proposal would be included on the advertised special voting meeting agenda. No final board vote on the detection systems occurred during the committee meeting; the formal vote is scheduled for the special voting meeting.