N.J. high school student: safety from shootings shouldn’t be a budget item – NJ.com

Report on School Safety and Sustainable Development in New Jersey School Districts

Executive Summary

This report analyzes the challenges to ensuring student safety within New Jersey public schools, with a specific focus on the Flemington-Raritan School District (FRSD). The prevailing model, which subjects critical safety measures to budget referendums, directly conflicts with the principles of several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This analysis highlights the urgent need for systemic change to create sustainable, safe, and effective learning environments, aligning with SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

Challenges to SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)

A secure learning environment is a fundamental prerequisite for achieving Quality Education (SDG 4). The current climate of uncertainty and fear, exacerbated by lockdown drills and budget-contingent security, undermines this goal.

• Erosion of Well-being (SDG 3): The constant threat of violence and the nature of lockdown drills contribute to anxiety and fear among students, negatively impacting their mental health and overall well-being.
• Impediments to Quality Education (SDG 4): When safety is not guaranteed, the focus shifts from learning to survival. Furthermore, budget cuts proposed in the FRSD, which include the reduction of 30 teaching positions, directly degrade the quality of education available to students.
• Unsafe Environments: The potential removal of Class III security officers from every school building due to failed budget votes leaves students and staff vulnerable, creating an environment not conducive to effective teaching or learning.

Institutional Failures and Contradiction of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

The practice of linking school safety funding to public referendums represents an institutional failure to protect vulnerable populations, a core tenet of SDG 16. This approach makes a fundamental right—the right to a safe education—a variable dependent on local economic pressures and voter sentiment.

• Weak Institutional Frameworks: The reliance on “referendum politics” for essential services demonstrates a lack of strong, reliable institutions capable of ensuring public safety and justice.
• Widespread Systemic Strain: The issue is not isolated to FRSD. Districts such as Jackson Township, Hillsborough, and Hunterdon Central face similar challenges due to restrictive state budgeting laws (e.g., the 2% tax levy cap) and inadequate funding, indicating a statewide institutional problem.
• Ineffective Governance: The current system forces communities into untenable choices between funding education, ensuring safety, and avoiding tax increases, which undermines the promotion of a peaceful and inclusive society.

Pathways to Sustainable Solutions through SDG 11 and SDG 17

Several New Jersey districts provide innovative models for sustainable funding and safety, demonstrating the power of partnerships as outlined in SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) and contributing to safer, more resilient communities under SDG 11.

Models for Emulation:

• Municipal Partnerships (SDG 17): The Bridgewater-Raritan district successfully splits the cost of police officers with the municipality, a collaborative model that FRSD has not yet pursued.
• Shared-Services Agreements (SDG 11): Clinton Township has effectively capped security costs through shared-services models, creating a more financially sustainable and resilient community safety plan.
• Alternative Funding Streams (SDG 17): Other districts leverage state and federal grants, such as the School Violence Prevention Program (SVPP), to fund security enhancements without increasing the tax burden on residents.

Recommendations for Action

To align with the Sustainable Development Goals and ensure long-term student safety, a proactive and collaborative approach is required. The following actions are recommended for the Flemington-Raritan Board of Education and district leadership.

1. Establish a Multi-Stakeholder Task Force: Form a “Safety and Funding Task Force” comprising students, parents, law enforcement, and municipal officials, embodying the collaborative spirit of SDG 17.
2. Pursue Sustainable Funding: Mandate the task force to actively research and apply for state and federal grants, moving away from a reliance on local referendums.
3. Implement Collaborative Governance Models: Direct the task force to formally evaluate and pursue shared-services agreements and other cost-sharing partnerships with local government entities.
4. Advocate for Systemic Change: Utilize the task force as a platform to advocate for state-level policy reforms that guarantee school safety funding is treated as a non-negotiable, essential service rather than a discretionary budget item.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article touches upon the mental well-being of students who experience fear and anxiety during lockdown drills. The text states, “For many, that silence isn’t calm — it’s fear pretending to be preparedness.” This highlights the psychological impact of school violence threats on young people.

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  The core issue of school safety is directly linked to providing a quality education. A safe learning environment is a prerequisite for effective teaching and learning. The article demonstrates how budget cuts threaten this environment, mentioning potential reductions of “30 teachers, all class three officers, and JV sports,” which directly impacts the quality and accessibility of education.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  This goal is relevant as it aims to make communities, including their essential institutions like schools, safe and resilient. The article discusses community-level solutions, such as the proposal for a “Safety and Funding Task Force, inviting students, parents, police, and town officials,” and mentions how other districts like Bridgewater-Raritan have split costs with their municipality, emphasizing community-wide responsibility for safety.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This is the most prominent SDG in the article. The discussion revolves around preventing violence (school shootings) and strengthening institutions (school boards, local and state governments) to protect citizens, particularly children. The article critiques how safety is left to “referendum politics” and budget cycles, calling for “permanent solutions” and more effective governance. The call to action urges the Board of Education and superintendent to create a task force, which is a step towards building more effective and inclusive institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  • Target 3.4: Promote mental health and well-being. The article’s description of students’ fear during drills directly relates to the need to address and promote mental well-being within the school environment.

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  • Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities to provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all. The entire article is an argument for achieving this target, focusing on the necessity of funding security measures like “dedicated Class III security officers” to ensure schools are safe and non-violent.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  • Target 11.7: Provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces. Schools are critical public spaces for children, and the article’s central theme is the urgent need to ensure they are safe for all students and staff.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. The article is a direct response to the threat of school shootings, a specific form of violence. It references the Sandy Hook tragedy where “Twenty children and six educators were killed,” underscoring the goal of preventing such deaths.
  • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The author’s call to form a “Safety and Funding Task Force, inviting students, parents, police, and town officials” is a clear advocacy for this target, aiming to move away from top-down budget decisions to a more inclusive and participatory process for ensuring school safety.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicators for SDG 4 and 16

  • Presence of security personnel: The article explicitly mentions the presence of “dedicated Class III security officers for every building” as a key protection measure. The number or ratio of security officers to students could serve as a direct indicator of safety investment.
  • Funding for safety: The article discusses the use of “State and federal grants — like the School Violence Prevention Program (SVPP) grant” and shared-services models. The amount of budget allocated to safety, sourced from taxes, grants, or partnerships, is a measurable indicator.
  • Incidents of violence: The reference to the Sandy Hook shooting implies that the number of school shootings and related deaths is a critical (and tragic) indicator of the failure to ensure safety. The ultimate goal is to reduce this indicator to zero.

• Indicators for SDG 16

  • Community participation in governance: The proposal to create a “Safety and Funding Task Force” implies an indicator related to institutional responsiveness. The existence and active participation of such multi-stakeholder groups (students, parents, police, officials) in decision-making would be a measure of progress towards Target 16.7.

• Indicators for SDG 3

  • Student perception of safety: While not a formal metric, the author’s personal account of fear during drills (“wondering if enough is being done to actually keep us safe”) suggests that student surveys on feelings of safety and mental well-being could be a valuable indicator.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: nj.com