Three Village hears arguments for and against arming school security as board seeks options on metal detectors and staffing

The Three Village Central School District Board of Education heard an extended discussion Oct. 22, 2025 about whether to arm district security personnel, add metal detectors, or change staffing models to outside-only guarded entrances.

Board members and administrators said the district is continuing negotiations with labor units and exploring cost, training and practical implications. The conversation included multiple dimensions: safety effectiveness, financial cost, training requirements, campus logistics, cultural impact on students and staff, and alternative measures such as strengthened visitor screening and mental-health supports.

Superintendent Scanlon and other administrators emphasized the need for a broad, evidence-informed conversation, saying the district will price out options and return with costed scenarios. Scanlon noted practical questions — how many metal detectors would be needed, where they would be sited, staffing for stations during peak arrival times, and whether equipment or personnel belong in a 15‑year bond (staff advised equipment is usually not appropriate for long-term bond financing).

Board members repeatedly raised cost and philosophical concerns. One member said the district’s current capital budget for ongoing projects is low (about $1.5 million annually) and urged a sustained capital strategy. Members discussed whether to pursue an outside-only security model (guards stationed outside buildings) versus concealed armed guards inside buildings, and whether to make metal detectors visible to students.

Public comment at the meeting featured several speakers and many emailed correspondents. Speakers and emails overwhelmingly opposed arming security staff. Public commenters cited research they said shows armed guards do not reliably prevent shootings, increase the potential for accidents or misidentification, and can harm school climate and student wellbeing. Parent correspondents also urged investment in mental-health support and non-weaponized safety improvements.

One in-person commenter, Jean Brunson, urged the board to "Say no to safety theater. Say no to armed security and instead continue to place our confidence in our highly trained, highly skilled security professionals," and argued that the district’s current security practices and policies are effective. Other correspondents similarly warned that adding firearms could increase harm, disproportionately affect students with disabilities, or lead to policing-style discipline outcomes. Several written comments referenced published studies and national research organizations.

Several community letters supported an armed-guard option. Those writers pointed to district surveys that showed majority parental and staff support in the district polling cited by staff, and to the district head of security’s recommendation to consider arming guards. Supporters framed arming as responding to community concerns and acting on professional security advice.

Administrators said they will return with cost estimates for multiple scenarios — concealed armed guards, outside-only guards, and metal-detector entry points — and noted that training costs and staff numbers are material considerations. Board members asked staff to provide a comprehensive, comparative cost and implementation analysis so the board and the public can consider trade-offs.

No policy change or binding vote occurred at the Oct. 22 meeting; the board said it will continue the conversation and request further detail from staff.