Wake County Schools outlines event security plan, board moves to closed session on violence-prevention planning

At a Wake County Schools board meeting, district security staff described a districtwide “toolbox” of physical and procedural measures for school safety, reported adoption figures for the Rave emergency app and outlined a collaborative event‑security operations plan, then the board voted to go into closed session to “formulate plans relating to the prevention of school violence” under G.S. 143‑318.11.

The presentation was led by Mr. Scott, a district security staff member, who said the district’s approach combines physical infrastructure such as cameras, door locks, weapon‑detection systems and emergency notification systems with processes and partnerships: emergency operations plans, reunification procedures, staff supervision plans and coordinated work with school resource officers and community organizations. “The number one thing I want you to know, guys, is it’s a collaborative event plan,” Mr. Scott said, describing how a security administrator, the principal, athletic director, SROs and other stakeholders jointly develop plans for events ranging from small fairs to large athletic contests.

Why it matters: The district framed the work as part of a broader strategic priority on operational effectiveness and school safety. Board members asked about how plans are developed, how community volunteers and local partners are used, and how the district balances transparency with operational security.

Key details presented - Rave emergency app: Mr. Scott said the district launched the Rave system last year and reported 3,488 staff members had downloaded the full app; 11,101 staff members were set to receive notifications even if they had not installed the app. He said Rave has been used in lockdown drills and that usage and signups increase after drills. - Access/check‑in system (referred to in the presentation as “recata”): For the 2024–25 school year, the presenter said there were on average about 5,000 interactions with the system per school, “a little over 1,000,000 total transactions in a year,” and three confirmed offender matches so far; staff said the district continues to tune filters to reduce false positives. - Lockdown and reunification protocols: The district plans to move from “code red/code yellow” terminology to the Standard Response Protocol and aims to launch the change in the 2026–27 school year; the district also said it will standardize reunification procedures and rely on established templates. - Event operations plan: The template is intended to be scalable and collaborative, clearly assigning roles and responsibilities for administrators, volunteers, SROs, off‑duty officers and contracted security. Mr. Scott said plans are tailored to each site and provided as a working document that can be distributed during events (for example, in mobile command vehicles). - Community partnerships and volunteers: Board members pressed for clarity on how principals tap neighborhood organizations and volunteers. Mr. Scott and other staff encouraged principals to identify community partners (church groups, PTA volunteers, “Dads of Great Students”/Watch D.O.G.S.–style programs) and noted volunteers must complete the district volunteer screening before being assigned duties. - Law enforcement ties and perimeter awareness: Staff described ongoing information‑sharing with SROs and local law enforcement and said officers who work in beat areas often feed neighborhood intelligence to schools, which staff said strengthens awareness of off‑campus threats that could affect school grounds.

Board action After questions and discussion, a board member made a motion “to go into closed session to formulate plans relating to the prevention of school violence through the development of emergency plans under G.S. 143‑318.11.” The motion was seconded, and the board proceeded to a voice vote; the chair called for ayes and none voiced opposition, and the board cleared the room for closed session.

What the presentation did not provide or left unspecified - The presentation referred to a Rave launch “last year” and also mentioned February or March as a start month; the transcript did not specify the calendar year. The district did not provide a precise calendar date for the program launch in the open session. - The presentation used the name “recata” for the access/transactions system; the district did not provide vendor contract details or costs during the open session. - The public session did not include any formal votes on policy changes; the only formal board action recorded in the open session was the motion to enter closed session under the cited statute.

The board’s move to closed session means further details about the district’s plans for preventing school violence and certain operational specifics will be discussed outside the public meeting under the state statute cited by the board. The district said staff would return with additional information as appropriate following that closed session.