
The new school year is underway.
Students are back in classrooms. Teachers are settling into routines. Athletics, after-school programs, chapel services, parent events, and countless other activities are filling school calendars again.
For those of us responsible for school security, this is also the time to ask a difficult but necessary question:
Are we prepared for the threats schools face today, or are we still operating from assumptions developed five or ten years ago?
The fundamentals of school security have not changed. We still need strong access control, trained personnel, effective communications, threat assessment, emergency planning, and partnerships with law enforcement.
What has changed is the environment around us.
Schools now have to consider a wider spectrum of threats: targeted violence, terrorism, social-media threats, swatting, political tension, potential civil unrest, cyber-related disruptions, and the rapidly developing challenge presented by drones.
The goal should not be to create fear.
The goal should be to eliminate complacency.
Start With the Basics—Because the Basics Still Matter
Emerging threats can sometimes cause security professionals to overlook the things that prevent incidents every day.
A sophisticated security program means very little if exterior doors are routinely propped open.
A state-of-the-art camera system is of limited value if nobody is watching it or knows how to quickly retrieve footage.
An emergency plan is useless if the people expected to carry it out have never practiced it.
Before worrying about advanced threats, schools should make sure the fundamentals are consistently working:
- Exterior doors remain locked and monitored.
- Visitors enter through controlled access points.
- Staff know how to report suspicious behavior.
- Radios and emergency notification systems are tested.
- Cameras provide useful coverage of critical areas.
- Security personnel maintain active patrol patterns.
- Staff understand lockdown, evacuation, shelter, and reunification procedures.
- Local law enforcement understands the campus layout.
- Emergency contact lists remain accurate.
- Security procedures are actually followed when nobody is watching.
Security is built through layers.
No single camera, guard, locked door, policy, or technology can protect a school by itself.
The objective is to create enough overlapping layers that an attacker, intruder, or other threat is detected, delayed, denied, or interrupted before reaching students and staff.
Train People, Not Just Policies
Many schools have excellent emergency plans.
The question is whether the people inside the building know what those plans actually require.
During a real emergency, nobody wants to search through a binder trying to determine what happens next.
Training should create familiarity.
Teachers should understand what different emergency alerts mean. Administrators should know who assumes command. Security personnel should know their assignments. Front-office staff should understand visitor and threat-reporting procedures. Coaches should know what to do when students are outside traditional classrooms.
Training should also include realistic scenarios.
What happens if a threat occurs during lunch?
During dismissal?
At a football game?
During chapel?
When hundreds of parents are on campus?
When students are moving between buildings?
When the primary administrator is unavailable?
The more realistic our training becomes, the more weaknesses we discover before an actual emergency exposes them.
Threat Assessment May Be Our Best Opportunity for Prevention
There is an understandable tendency in school security to focus on the moment an attack begins.
But prevention often starts much earlier.
The FBI emphasizes behavioral threat assessment as a method of examining whether a person’s behaviors suggest movement toward targeted violence. Importantly, threat assessment is not about identifying one magical warning sign. It is about looking at patterns of behavior, context, escalation, preparation, and other indicators. (FBI)
Concerning behaviors may include violent statements, fixation on previous attackers, escalating aggression, preparing weapons or tactical equipment, creating manifestos or videos, communicating violent intentions, or testing security at a possible target. (FBI)
That last point should get the attention of every security professional.
Testing security can itself be part of the warning process.
Someone repeatedly approaching restricted areas, photographing entrances, asking unusual questions, attempting unauthorized access, watching arrival patterns, or probing procedures should not automatically be dismissed as harmless.
Context matters.
Documentation matters.
Communication matters.
That is why schools need a culture where employees understand:
See something. Say something. Then make sure somebody does something.
Reporting is only the first step. Concerning behavior has to reach people who are trained and empowered to assess it.
Terrorism and Targeted Violence Cannot Be Ignored
Schools are emotionally and symbolically important places.
Religious schools in particular may also represent ideological or faith-based targets.
That does not mean schools should operate as fortresses or assume an attack is imminent. It does mean security professionals should understand that the threat landscape extends beyond the traditional concept of a disgruntled student or lone active shooter.
CISA continues to provide resources designed to help organizations and public gathering places identify suspicious activity, strengthen physical security, and prepare for terrorism-related threats and other security incidents. (CISA)
Security leaders should maintain relationships with local police, federal partners when appropriate, emergency management, neighboring organizations, and other schools.
Intelligence sharing matters.
If something significant is happening locally, nationally, or internationally, school security leaders should be asking whether it changes the school’s risk picture.
Not every headline requires a security response.
But every security leader should have situational awareness beyond the campus fence.
The 2026 Election Season Adds Another Variable
The United States is approaching the November 2026 midterm elections.
Schools do not need to become political organizations to recognize that elections can produce heightened emotions, demonstrations, disputes, misinformation, and unexpected activity in communities.
The concern is not that civil unrest is inevitable.
It is that security planning should account for the possibility of disruption.
Schools located near government buildings, major roadways, political events, demonstrations, or other gathering places should understand what could affect transportation, dismissal, special events, or access to campus.
School leaders should also determine in advance:
Who monitors developing local events?
Who communicates with law enforcement?
Who has authority to modify dismissal procedures?
What happens if roads around the school are blocked?
How would an unexpected demonstration near campus be handled?
What if an online rumor suddenly identifies the school?
These are much easier questions to answer before an incident occurs.
Swatting, Hoaxes, and Online Threats Are Part of the Modern Security Environment
A threat does not have to be genuine to create chaos.
False active-shooter reports, bomb threats, anonymous social-media posts, and swatting incidents can create enormous operational problems for schools and law enforcement.
The FBI notes that it receives thousands of school-threat tips, ranging from direct threats to cryptic social-media posts, and stresses that threats of violence at schools have to be taken seriously. (FBI)
Schools should have established procedures for quickly preserving information when online threats appear.
Screenshots disappear.
Accounts get deleted.
Posts change.
Usernames are forgotten.
Employees should know exactly who receives that information and how quickly law enforcement should be contacted.
At the same time, schools should avoid allowing rumors to outrun verified information.
Strong crisis communication is now part of strong physical security.
The Threat Above Us: Drones
One emerging security issue deserves significantly more attention from schools:
Unmanned aircraft systems—drones.
Most school security planning is still two-dimensional.
We think about threats coming through the gate.
Across the parking lot.
Through the front entrance.
Over a fence.
Through an unlocked door.
But what happens when the threat is above the campus?
CISA’s Be Air Aware initiative specifically addresses the physical and cybersecurity risks associated with unmanned aircraft systems and provides guidance for organizations responsible for infrastructure and public gatherings. (CISA)
CISA has also published guidance explaining that drones may potentially be used for hostile surveillance, to bypass traditional security measures, or even to carry dangerous payloads. (CISA)
Schools should begin asking basic questions.
What happens if an unknown drone repeatedly flies over the campus?
What if it hovers above students during dismissal?
What if it circles an athletic event?
What if someone appears to be using it to photograph entrances, security posts, cameras, or student movement?
Who reports it?
Who documents it?
Who contacts law enforcement?
Do security officers know what information would be useful to responding authorities?
Does anyone know the difference between recreational activity and behavior that should generate concern?
Even basic awareness would put many schools significantly ahead of where they are today.
Don’t Buy a “Drone Jammer”
There is another important point schools need to understand.
Seeing a suspicious drone does not automatically mean a school security department can electronically disable it, jam it, take control of it, or shoot it down.
Federal law places significant restrictions on counter-UAS activity. Federal guidance explains that disrupting, disabling, seizing, or electronically interfering with drones generally requires specific legal authority, and the federal government has warned non-federal organizations about legal issues surrounding many detection and mitigation technologies. (CISA)
For most schools, the immediate focus should therefore be:
Detect. Observe. Document. Report. Protect.
That means training personnel to notice suspicious UAS activity, record useful information, move students when appropriate, preserve evidence, and rapidly coordinate with law enforcement.
The first step in drone preparedness is not buying expensive counter-drone equipment.
It is having a plan.
Security Personnel Must Remain Engaged
Technology continues to improve.
Artificial intelligence can assist camera systems.
Access-control systems can track entry.
Emergency notification systems can instantly alert an entire campus.
But none of those technologies eliminate the need for alert people.
Security personnel have to resist the gradual normalization that occurs when nothing happens.
A guard who spends an entire shift staring at a phone is not providing the same security value as a guard actively observing people, vehicles, doors, and surroundings.
Predictable patrol patterns create vulnerabilities.
Unchallenged strangers create vulnerabilities.
Unreported maintenance problems create vulnerabilities.
The greatest enemy of an established security program may not always be the attacker.
Sometimes it is routine.
Fight Complacency
The beginning of the school year usually brings heightened security awareness.
Teachers pay closer attention to procedures.
Administrators review plans.
Security teams check equipment.
Doors stay locked.
Then the year progresses.
People become comfortable.
A door gets propped open because someone is carrying equipment.
Someone allows a visitor inside because they recognize the face.
Radio checks become inconsistent.
Security personnel settle into routines.
Drills become predictable.
Minor warning signs get dismissed because nothing happened the previous time.
That is how standards slowly erode.
The challenge for security leaders is creating a culture where vigilance continues long after the first week of school.
Five Questions Every School Security Team Should Ask
As the school year moves forward, I would encourage every security director, administrator, law enforcement partner, and school leader to periodically ask:
1. What are we assuming cannot happen here?
Those assumptions deserve examination.
2. Where can someone defeat our security with something simple?
A propped door may matter more than a million-dollar technology system.
3. What has changed since our last security assessment?
Buildings change. Personnel change. Threats change. Technology changes.
4. What emerging threat are we currently ignoring?
For many schools, drones belong on that list.
5. When was the last time we tested our plan instead of simply reviewing it?
There is a major difference.
Security Is a Daily Discipline
There is no finish line in school security.
We never get to declare the campus permanently secure.
Threats evolve.
People change.
Technology changes.
The surrounding community changes.
Our security posture has to evolve with it.
Continue conducting threat assessments.
Continue applying CPTED principles.
Continue testing access control.
Continue training teachers and staff.
Continue exercising emergency plans.
Continue building relationships with police and first responders.
Continue studying what attackers are doing elsewhere.
And start preparing for the threats that may not yet be on your checklist.
Especially the ones coming from above.
The objective is not to turn schools into prisons.
It is to create environments where children can learn, teachers can teach, and families can have confidence that the adults responsible for protecting them are paying attention.
Stay alert. Keep training. Challenge assumptions. Fight complacency.
Because school security isn’t something we do at the beginning of the year.
It is a daily discipline.





