The issue of conducting spot inspections of lockers and backpacks of students in schools is quite sensitive and requires full awareness of all existing rules and ethical standards. There are multiple opinions, both in support of such events and against them. They can, in part, help to ensure public safety and maintain schools as comfortable and secure environments for learning. However, such searches are also contrary to students’ rights to personal boundaries and privacy. In this regard, it is necessary to study all the facts in order to come to an unambiguous opinion regarding this issue.
Schools are responsible for creating a safe learning environment for all students and proactively addressing potential harmful risks. However, targeted searches of students’ lockers and backpacks may not always show sufficient effect. This procedure may not be effective in catching students who bring drugs or weapons for various reasons, such as hiding prohibited items elsewhere. Students may carry prohibited items with them just knowing about the searches, which makes such procedures ineffective enough and only negatively affects students’ psyche. In such cases, constant searches will not be able to preventively secure students.
Another negative consequence of carrying out searches of backpacks and lockers can be creating the opposite effect and an environment of distrust in the school. Suspicion among students of school administration can also undermine relations between students, which will negatively affect their academic performance and extracurricular activities. Many students may feel that their privacy has been violated, leading to public outrage or, in extreme cases, strikes. This discrediting of school authorities can lead children to be afraid to seek help or report serious wrongdoing.
A suitable alternative to targeted searches of lockers and backpacks would be to create a conducive environment for communication and learning in schools. This could be achieved through the implementation of suitable programs and policies that would promote the development of public culture. These policies could also include lessons warning about the dangers of violence and drug use. Such training programs can become a factor in increasing students’ confidence in the educational institution, which will increase their desire to address and record violations. In addition, politicians can provide programs to help students acquire conflict resolution skills. In this way, the likelihood of gun use in school is reduced, and the learning environment can become safer.
Since searches of students’ homes can be a frustrating and ineffective security measure, schools could take better steps to prevent such items from being brought in. A less invasive way would be to install CCTV cameras that monitor key areas of the school or the entire area. This would make it much easier for personnel to locate prohibited items and facilitate their seizure. This would require additional security personnel to patrol the school grounds and adjacent streets. A suitable option for detecting prohibited substances or weapons may be to conduct searches using specially trained dogs (Thrun Law Firm). Thus, there will be no invasion of privacy, as personal items will not be inspected. Thus, the administration will be able to stop the appearance of prohibited things in the educational institution without violating the privacy rights of students.
Another potential downside to conducting student search procedures can be discrimination and prejudice. Although school officials have the right to search students if there is a strong suspicion that they are in possession of weapons or drugs, it remains unclear exactly what suspicions can serve as a reason for searches. This may leave room for bias towards some students who have poor relationships with school staff. Some students are from historically marginalized groups, such as students of color or indigenous people. Due to hidden prejudice and incorrect treatment of such people by the school administration, they can be wrongfully accused of possession of prohibited items and subjected to searches. This state of affairs may further cause discrimination and oppression on the part of other students concerning falsely accused students.
Establishing regular searches, regardless of the weight of their causes, has implications for deeper social problems. Invasive searches of student property risk perpetuating a culture of control and surveillance that can affect students’ daily lives outside of school (Rospigliosi 523). Thus, the consequences of these actions can become a problem even after graduation into adulthood. Violation of civil rights and freedoms has the risk of becoming the norm of behavior for many structures within their teams. This order of things can significantly disrupt the relationship between people and the state, which can lead to long-term consequences in the form of distrust of the authorities.
In conclusion, it should be noted that conducting searches of lockers and backpacks of students in schools is an illegal and unethical way to ensure security. In addition, such a revolutionary method is not able to provide a sufficient level of reliability since students can carry dangerous items with them or hide them in other places. In order to establish a trusting and reliable relationship between students and the administration of the educational institution, the best solution would be to ensure that the risks under consideration do not exist in another way. As an example, in this way, it would be possible to install CCTV cameras or strengthen patrolling of the school territory. Thus, students would feel more comfortable and safe knowing that their personal belongings are inaccessible.
Works Cited
Rospigliosi, Pericles Asher. “The risk of algorithmic injustice for interactive learning environments.” Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 29, no. 4, 2021, pp. 523-526. Web.
Thrun Law Firm. Considerations for Conducting Student Searches. MASSP. (n. d.). Web.