Addressing the Gaps in School Security: Enhancing Training, Standards, and Compensation

Keith Pachulski
Mar 24
7 min read

Updated: Apr 15

Ensuring the safety of students and staff within educational institutions is non-negotiable. Yet across the country, school security programs are built on inconsistent foundations—fragmented training, undefined roles, and underfunded personnel. While some districts have implemented robust protective measures, others operate with minimal oversight, vague responsibilities, and outdated protocols. These gaps not only undermine preparedness—they increase institutional liability and leave students vulnerable to avoidable risks.

This article outlines the most critical deficiencies in current school security frameworks and provides actionable recommendations for education leaders, policymakers, and district security planners. Topics include national inconsistencies in officer training, state-level disparities in policy, ambiguity in role definition, the consequences of low compensation, and strategic solutions for professionalizing school security infrastructure.

Inconsistent Training Standards Across States

The role of school security officers (SSOs) and school resource officers (SROs) is critical, yet there is a notable lack of uniform training standards nationwide. This inconsistency can lead to significant disparities in the quality of security provided across different regions.

Case Study: Connecticut's Approach

In Connecticut, armed security officers deployed in nearly 50 school districts receive minimal training—limited to a brief course in drug and gang detection at the police academy. Their roles differ drastically between districts: some are involved in student discipline, while others are restricted to observational duties only [1].

NASRO and Standardized Training

Organizations like the National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO) offer a 40-hour Basic SRO Course covering adolescent development, de-escalation, school law, and emergency response. Despite its availability, many districts don’t mandate this training—meaning officers may be deployed without ever learning how to interact effectively with minors or navigate school-specific scenarios [2].

This inconsistency in training leaves serious gaps in the ability of security personnel to respond appropriately and consistently across jurisdictions. The same incident could be handled professionally and calmly in one district, and mishandled in another—purely based on uneven preparation.

Disparities in State Requirements

Across the U.S., there is no consistent baseline for what qualifies someone to serve as a school security officer or how school safety protocols should be implemented. Requirements for training, certification, and even the definition of the officer’s role differ drastically from state to state. This inconsistency creates measurable gaps in threat preparedness, officer performance, and liability exposure. In many cases, whether a school has adequately trained security staff is determined not by its risk profile, but by its ZIP code.

The 50-State Problem

According to the Education Commission of the States, while 44 states and D.C. require schools to have safety plans, there’s no consensus on what those plans must contain. Some emphasize physical security; others require training or drills. This lack of alignment creates major disparities in institutional readiness across state lines [3].

Texas Example

In Texas, school-based peace officers must complete active shooter response training every four years. However, this narrowly focused requirement often excludes broader school-specific threat response capabilities—such as student behavioral management, trauma-informed intervention, and de-escalation techniques relevant to minors [4].

Schools are complex, dynamic environments with distinct legal, emotional, and safety needs. Without standardized state-level policies guiding training content and frequency, school security preparedness is left largely to local interpretation—resulting in a patchwork system that’s difficult to evaluate or improve.

Threat Complexity and Role Ambiguity

School security roles are often broadly defined—or not defined at all. Officers may be asked to act as emergency responders, mentors, disciplinarians, or counselors, often with little clarity about where their responsibilities begin and end.

A Day in the Life: Too Many Hats

In a single week, a school security officer might participate in an active threat drill, break up a physical altercation between students, manage a custody-related dispute at the front office, and help de-escalate a mental health crisis in a classroom. Each of these situations demands a different skillset—tactical readiness, conflict resolution, legal awareness, and emotional intelligence. Without structured training and clear protocols, officers are forced to improvise, exposing themselves and the school community to unnecessary risk.

Mission Creep

In many districts, SSOs and SROs are tasked with enforcing school discipline—monitoring hallways, intervening in minor behavioral issues, or enforcing dress codes. This not only detracts from their primary mission—safety and threat response—but also erodes trust with students, who begin to see security as punitive rather than protective.

Clear Policies Are Essential

Officers should be integrated into a school’s threat assessment and emergency response infrastructure—not positioned as hall monitors or behavior managers. Role clarity needs to be codified in policy and reinforced by school leadership. When roles are clearly defined and aligned with a strategic security plan, officers are more effective, and schools are safer. Ambiguity, on the other hand, creates liability—both legal and operational.

The Hidden Impact of Low Compensation

Low pay for school security personnel continues to be one of the most overlooked threats to the integrity of school safety programs. It directly impacts the ability to recruit and retain qualified individuals and undermines long-term stability.

What the Numbers Say

In Texas, the average salary for a school safety officer is approximately $57,825 per year, according to broader compensation data [5]. However, actual district-level postings often fall far below that. In districts like Arlington ISD, officers earn around $15.99 per hour—roughly $33,270 annually [6]. Nationwide, the median wage for school-based security guards is $37,170 [7].

These wages are not competitive with equivalent roles in law enforcement, corrections, or private sector security. For a position that carries significant public safety responsibilities—often with expectations of rapid decision-making in life-or-death scenarios—this pay gap is indefensible.

Recruitment and Retention Impact

The result? Qualified candidates—particularly those with backgrounds in private security, law enforcement, or military service—often bypass school security roles entirely. The low compensation, limited advancement opportunities, and lack of formal recognition make these positions unappealing, even for individuals with the exact skillsets schools need.

This leaves districts routinely hiring underqualified applicants or entry-level personnel with minimal experience in threat assessment, incident response, or youth engagement. High turnover becomes the norm, and with it, the constant loss of institutional knowledge and campus familiarity.

In many cases, officers cycle through so quickly that they never develop operational awareness of the school environment—its layout, student dynamics, or known vulnerabilities—leaving response capacity fragmented and inconsistent. This not only degrades safety but also imposes recurring administrative and training costs on already stretched school budgets.

Risk Amplification

When school security is treated as a low-skill, low-pay role, it attracts candidates who may lack the necessary judgment, resilience, or training to manage high-risk, high-liability situations. These roles often involve solo decision-making under pressure—handling volatile student behavior, confronting unauthorized individuals, or reacting to emerging threats. Without the right personnel, these moments become liabilities.

High turnover further compounds the problem. Each time a security officer leaves, the school loses operational continuity: knowledge of students, access control patterns, and incident response workflows all reset. This results in inconsistent enforcement, diminished deterrence, and slower response times when incidents occur.

Schools that fail to invest in professionalized, stable security staffing are not just under-protecting—they are increasing their exposure to reputational, legal, and operational risk with every untrained or unsupported hire.

Recommendations for School Leaders and Policymakers

A secure school doesn’t start with metal detectors—it starts with competent, supported professionals who know how to manage complex risk environments. These recommendations focus on building a scalable, standards-based security foundation applicable across districts:

1. Establish National Training Standards - Develop and mandate a core curriculum for all school security personnel, modeled on frameworks like NASRO's but extended further. Required competencies should include adolescent development, behavioral threat assessment, trauma-informed response, legal use of force, and emergency procedures tailored to school environments.

2. Require Ongoing Certification and Continuing Education - Security in schools isn’t static. Officers must be retrained regularly in evolving tactics, community-sensitive policing, and the latest trends in school-based threats (e.g., swatting, online radicalization, etc.). Set a mandatory renewal period—ideally every 1 to 2 years—for certification tied to performance and recertification training.

3. Define and Enforce Role Clarity - Publish detailed job descriptions and SOPs that clearly separate law enforcement duties from disciplinary oversight. Security personnel should work collaboratively with school administrators and mental health staff but not be used as a first-line response to routine student misconduct. This distinction must be reinforced at the policy and operational level.

4. Implement Compensation Reform - Competitive compensation attracts qualified talent and reduces turnover. Match pay scales to local law enforcement or emergency response standards, accounting for the high expectations and situational risks these roles entail. Where full-time roles aren't feasible, offer enhanced part-time packages with training stipends and advancement pathways.

5. Integrate with Local Law Enforcement and Emergency Response - Ensure school officers participate in joint training exercises with municipal police, EMS, and fire response units. Scenario-based drills improve coordination and reduce confusion during real incidents. These partnerships also increase situational awareness for both school staff and external responders.

6. Incorporate School Security into Broader Risk Management Plans - School security personnel should be a formal part of campus emergency planning, risk assessments, and after-action reviews. Their presence should not be reactive—it should be proactively woven into everything from infrastructure design to community engagement protocols.

Final Thought

School security isn’t about optics—it’s about outcomes. It’s about whether the person standing in the hallway knows how to identify a credible threat, de-escalate a mental health episode, respond to an armed intruder, or guide students to safety.

Currently, too many districts are filling that role with undertrained, underpaid, and under-supported personnel because there’s no consistent standard telling them otherwise. That’s a failure of policy, not of people.

The risks we ask school security teams to manage are real, immediate, and often evolving faster than the institutions they're meant to protect. If we're serious about safeguarding students, we must treat these roles with the seriousness they demand—by enforcing training standards, clarifying responsibilities, and funding them accordingly.

Until then, school security will remain a patchwork system—strong in some places, dangerously weak in others.

Talk to a Security Advisor

If your district or institution is re-evaluating its security posture, we can help. Schedule a no-obligation consultation to discuss how to strengthen your school’s protective measures with trained personnel, realistic planning, and cost-effective implementation.

📅 Book time with us