Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parent urges more permanent security at Philip Simmons High; district outlines random weapons-screening pilot
Summary
A parent urged the Board for more resources and additional school resource officers after a recent shooting near Philip Simmons High; the superintendent described a district pilot for random weapons screeners and emphasized layered safety measures.
Kristen Scanlon told the Berkeley County Board of Education during public comment on May 5 that while she appreciated the district’s “immediate action” following a recent incident at Philip Simmons High School, the school community needs more permanent safety resources.
Scanlon, who identified herself as the parent of a student who was riding a bicycle near the campus when a 17-year-old was shot in the neighborhood, said one resource officer cannot manage metal detectors and still ensure students get to class on time and feel safe. “I think we need another resource officer at our school,” she said. She asked the board to provide more staff and resources to help students and staff feel safe at school.
Superintendent Dixon addressed safety later in his superintendent’s report and described a pilot program “involving the random deployment of weapons screeners during school hours” at Phillips (Philip) Simmons High School. Dixon said the screeners are grant-funded equipment that had previously been used at athletic events and that the program will be random and unpredictable rather than a daily fixed presence. He emphasized a “layered protection” approach and the district’s emphasis on community reporting by encouraging students and families to “see something, say something.”
Dixon said the district will constantly evaluate the deterrent strategy and that no single measure guarantees safety. He thanked school staff and security teams for supporting the pilot and said the district is committed to ongoing evaluation and additional measures as needed.
The public-comment appeal and the superintendent’s report together reflect both family concern about an immediate safety incident near the school and the district’s current, limited steps to add randomized screening equipment and monitor its effectiveness. Board members did not take formal action during public comments; subsequent resource decisions would require administrative planning and possible budget or personnel actions.
