School Security Survey

Date: 21 August 2001

Conducted by the State Council of the NSW Teachers Federation

1. Survey clearly indicates that theft, vandalism and arson in schools has increased significantly and in many schools is clearly causing a disruption to the education of students and is costing teachers and the department far too much time and money.

2. It should be noted that there is no universal solution. Something which works in one school proves to be ineffective in another. What is clearly needed is for the Department of Education to have its own security experts who can visit schools , discuss the problems with the school and its community and design a system and a course of action which is appropriate for that school.

3. The most common complaint was that private security guards were either not responding to call-outs by the Department of Education's School Security Unit or were taking far too long to respond. Thieves can break in, take want they want and be gone long before a security guard arrives. If a fire is set and it is caught early then damage to the school and teaching resources is minimised.

Some schools report the good old days when the Department of Education employed its own security officers who arrived promptly, apprehended intruders and minimised damage. Federation has received reports of private contractors who were doing a good job who were undercut at the next round contract tenders and were replaced by a cheaper firm who did an much inferior job.

We also have reports of security guards supposedly visiting schools and giving the all-clear when dozens of windows had been smashed earlier that night.

We have also received a report that private contractors are not interested in apprehending intruders because they will have to go to court and they are not paid for their court time.

4. Some schools expressed concern that thieves arrived to steal their computers so soon after a new shipment of computers had arrived. They wondered if the thieves were being informed about the delivery of computers.

5. Another significant weakness in the system is where only some buildings are covered by the alarm system, vandals and thieves limit their attacks to the building without alarm.

6. There were a number of reports about parents and the community getting fed up with delays and inaction by the Department of Education and paying for alarm systems and security guards themselves. Money which should be spent on special and additional resources is being spent on the basics. There are also cases where in order to get something done the parents or a community club or organisation has agreed to pay half the cost of security measures such as fences.

7. The 1983 School Security Report recommended that resources and buildings which were lost or damaged should be replaced quickly in order to minimise the disruption to the education of the students. There are many cases where this is not being done. While teachers are entitled to claim up $1,000 for loss or damage to personal teaching resources kept at school, clearly the Department in some cases is failing to inform teachers of their rights and in other cases telling teachers they cannot claim

8. There also appears to be some design problems with some security systems and a lack of education of people using the school about the requirements of the security system. There have been cases of schools being billed for false alarms and there have been cases of real alarms which have been misinterpreted to be false alarms.

9. The cost to the Department of Education of theft and vandalism far exceeds the amount of money the Department is spending on security measures. The Department needs to recognise that if it spent more on security it could save money.

The figures indicate that the total cost of fire, theft and vandalism was fairly static at just under $12million per annum for the three financial years 1995-98 but jumped significantly in 1998-99 to $19.08million and again in 1999-2000 to $24.33million. In response to a question from the P&C the Department said that the security unit's budget for 1999-2000 was approximately $6million. It has become very difficult to obtain accurate figures from the Department in recent years. From 1984 to 1998 the Department's Annual Report contained detailed and accurate information about costs and expenditure in this area but hardly rates a mention for the last two years.

This appears to be a trend. The Annual Report used to contain detailed information on school closures. Last financial year the report said if you want this information you should seek it under FOI.

Following the publicity about Oak Flats High School journalists who were seeking information or photographs from schools have been obstructed by the Department of Education. Principals who were willing to provide the information have been instructed not to do so and not to allow journalists on to the school ground. The Department seems to be embarrassed by the extent of the problem and is going to great lengths in an effort to cover it up.

For further information

Contact:	John Hughes
Union:	Labor Council of NSW
WWW:	http://www.nswtf.asn.au

LaborNET is proudly created, designed and programmed
by Social Change Online for the Labor Council of NSW
[Credits] [Site Matters]