Security Sensors in Schools: Separating Helpful From Hyped

Avoid: AI-only gunshot detection marketed as “plug-and-play” should be avoided or very carefully assessed. Also, systems that do not support real-time API integrations should not be considered. Today’s security solutions should all be integrated to achieve the best outcomes.

Deployment Guidelines: We may be tempted to look for a “silver bullet” solution to firearms on school grounds, but a layered approach should be the primary goal when addressing this issue. Encourage your clients to address the prevention and mental health aspects first; then augment this with technology. Layer gunshot detection with video verification and lockdown response automation.

Gunshot sensors should be installed in high-risk areas such as entryways, corridors, and large gathering spaces like gyms and cafeterias. Ensure the system supports local law enforcement protocols and is tested in real-world school acoustic environments.

Vape Detection: High Demand, Varied Results

The rise in vaping among students of all ages has created a new challenge for administrators and security teams. Vape detection sensors are now being widely deployed in restrooms and locker rooms, with varying degrees of success.

What Works: Sensors that detect not just vape particulates, but also THC and elevated CO₂ or ammonia levels, provide a more complete picture of air quality and are a better use of a single sensor. Devices that offer time-stamped data, camera activation triggers, and alert escalation pathways are also the most actionable.

Avoid: Sensors or system designs that generate excessive false alarms without offering environmental context or historical trend data should be avoided. Also, systems that do not comply with local privacy laws or ADA requirements (some units emit sound/light that may cause disruption) should be avoided.

Deployment Guidelines: These sensors are best used when installed in restrooms, locker rooms, and other unsupervised areas where students congregate. The alerts issued by these sensors should also be combined with live camera feeds outside the doors (not inside) and automatically trigger alerts to security officers or administrators who can react to the alert. Lastly, it is imperative that school staff are educated on interpreting alerts to avoid over-policing or false accusations.

Aggression and Audio Detection: Promising but Complex

Audio analytics tools are emerging that can detect yelling, aggressive speech, or signs of bullying, and escalate alerts in real time. Similarly, computer vision technology embedded in security cameras promises the ability to monitor red flags in visual behavioral cues. These tools can address incidents before they escalate, but they also raise operational and ethical concerns.

What Works: Audio sensors that detect decibel spikes and stress-related vocal patterns have been deployed in high-traffic areas with documented success. Systems integrated with behavioral threat assessment protocols and mental health response teams offer the most benefit.

Avoid: It is important to avoid overdependence on audio detection for discipline enforcement. This data should be used as an indicator, not a verdict. It is also critical that deployment in areas where audio monitoring could be deemed a violation of privacy rights be avoided entirely. State laws vary widely in this regard.

Deployment Guidelines: These sensors are best used in hallways, stairwells, and other areas where fights may occur, and they are not recommended in classrooms or private spaces. As is the common theme, the alerts should be integrated with video surveillance to allow contextual review before a response is deployed. Training of staff on response protocols tied to sensor alerts is also important.

Environmental Sensing: Underrated but Essential

While often overlooked, environmental sensors play an important role in the enhancement of a safe educational environment, especially for STEM labs, cafeterias, and areas with hazardous materials or conditions. Security designs and operations should look to integrate these sensors with other security devices across a common monitoring platform.

What Works: Sensors that detect elevated CO₂, ammonia, cleaning chemical vapors, or refrigerant leaks can prevent health crises and should be part of a holistic security system. Furthermore, integrating these with building automation systems (BAS) allows ventilation to ramp up automatically under the necessary conditions.

Avoid: “Smart air sensors” that promise pollution tracking but lack school-specific chemical detection capabilities should be avoided. These devices often do not have clear thresholds for the common environmental substances present in this environment. Purpose-built sensors are needed.

Design Guidelines: These sensors are best placed in chemistry labs, maintenance closets, kitchens, and close to mechanical equipment. It is recommended that the sensors trigger both alerts to security and automatic MEP adjustments via BACnet or Modbus integration.

AI Visual Recognition and Concealed Weapons Detection: Proceed with Caution

Visual AI solutions that claim to detect concealed weapons solely through the use of cameras are gaining traction, but most remain in the early stages of reliability. While the use of traditional video analytics has shown promise in visually detecting weapons in the past, the reliability of those systems has always been less than ideal.

Now, recent developments in AI technology have led to a huge influx of technology solutions claiming to use AI to significantly increase the accuracy of detection. These are claims that all school security stakeholders should be cautious in accepting at face value.

What Works: Screening systems that identify the presence of physical weapons through the use of walk-through portals or wands still remain more reliable than AI visual recognition technologies. To leverage camera views, expect low reliability from alerts; thus, couple them with other forms of verification.

Avoid: Any system marketed as “autonomous decision-making” should be avoided. These tools are still fallible and need verification. Solutions that lack transparency about AI training data or produce unexplained false positives should also be avoided.

Design Guidelines: Use these types of tools as just one part of layered security at entrances. Always deploy with a human review process before any intervention is triggered.

Occupancy and Real-Time Movement Sensors

Occupancy sensors, people counters, and BLE-based tracking systems have new relevance post-COVID, with schools using them to monitor hallway traffic, class densities, and emergency evacuation patterns.

What Works: Thermal or LiDAR-based sensors that count people and detect motion trends can provide useful behavioral analytics and have high accuracy rates. BLE (Bluetooth Low Energy) systems can also be embedded in staff ID badges to confirm who is where in real-time during emergencies. These systems work best when integrated to share data to cross-check accuracy.

Avoid: Avoid rolling out systems that require students or staff to carry tags without their informed consent. These systems should be clearly communicated as an opt-in function, which is a good privacy practice. Occupancy tools that lack integration with access control and video analytics platforms should also be avoided.

Design Guidelines: Use in entry/exit zones, major corridors, and special event spaces, and connect these systems to an emergency operations plan (EOP) and mass notification platforms.