Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety Weapons Detection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Newton County presents weapons-detection pilot findings; no board vote requested
Summary
District staff reported results from a pilot of weapons-detection screenings at secondary schools and stadium events, summarizing recovered items, staffing needs, community survey results and three policy/options for the board to consider; staff sought guidance but no formal action was requested at the meeting.
Dr. Mike Barr, Newton County Schools chief operations officer, reported the findings of the district’s weapons-detection systems pilot, saying the program was introduced after two major incidents early in the 2024–25 school year and that “we remain committed to ensuring our students and staff are safe in our schools.”
The district deployed detection systems at Sharp Stadium on Nov. 5, 2024, and later ran 19 random screenings at all middle and high schools (grades 6–12, including Newton County STEAM Academy). Barr said prohibited items recovered during the pilot included two knives, vape devices, pepper spray and mace, a stun gun, cannabis edibles, piercing tools, unauthorized medications and lighters.
The pilot’s operational findings centered on staffing and flow. Barr told the board that middle schools initially required about 23 operations staff and averaged 16 school staff; those numbers stabilized near 16. High schools initially required 25–30 school staff plus about 23 operations staff for a total staffing need between 48 and 53. He said, “We anticipate that operational independence will continue to increase with experience and training.”
Survey feedback summarized by the district showed 93% of respondents supported weapons detection at middle and high schools; among school leaders, 60% reported minimal disruption to instruction, 70% said staffing was sufficient, and 90% supported continued use (some conditionally, pending additional staffing). Barr also reported an average confidence score of 2.6 out of 5 for schools’ ability to operate the systems independently.
The district laid out three options for the board to consider: discontinue the systems; continue screenings on a random, rotating basis; or implement detection systems fully across all secondary schools. Barr said there was no requested board action at the meeting and that “more detailed information will be provided to the board prior to the next meeting to assist in the decision making process.”
Board members did not vote on the item during the meeting; staff indicated that decisions would need to account for equipment and staffing costs and, if continued, a board policy establishing use rules.
The presentation framed the detection systems as one part of a layered safety strategy that also includes people (SROs and staff training), infrastructure (cameras, secure entry), conduct expectations and mental-health supports.
No formal policy change or procurement motion on the detection systems was taken at the meeting; staff recommended returning with additional cost and staffing details to inform the board’s future direction.
