Focus on Student Safety as Community Considers State College High School Renovations

In a week that included both information and decisions that will move us closer to a plan for the future of State College Area High School and reports of a security incident at that same high school, I couldn’t help but notice the irony.

The number one goal expressed by the community members who responded to the survey distributed by the State College Area School District (SCASD) Board of Directors about the high school renovation was to “maximize student safety and security.”

Just days after the board work session in which the results of the survey were discussed, we learned of the alleged stalking and threatening of a student at the high school by a recent State High graduate who seemingly had access to the school during school hours.

Is this a signal that we might be missing something?

First, it is important to commend the SCASD administration, as well as local law enforcement, for managing the potential threat within the school and then providing the public with notice of the incident.

This incident points out the difficulty in managing a facility that houses 2600+ teenagers and dozens of teachers and staff for 8 hours per day. Moving that many people, through two buildings, with multiple exits, back and forth across a busy street, several times a day, must be a nightmare in this post-Columbine, VA Tech and Sandy Hook era of school safety.

The incident further provides support for the data from agencies like the FBI which tell us that schools are most at risk from violence from someone “within” rather than the stranger from outside.

According to the experts, the design of the campus and the facility is key to maintaining a secure educational environment.

We learned last week that options for the much needed renovations at the high school have likely been whittled down from the 7-8 presented by the architects to those two which seem to have garnered the most support from the community. The option which would have split the school into two smaller high schools was quickly eliminated due to what was described as “no support.”

The option to pull the high school off Westerly Parkway and to place it on a “campus” outside of town received considerably more support than the two school scenario but apparently not enough to justify the additional time and legal processes needed to maneuver the “growth boundary” established by local government.

When our local forefathers (and mothers) built the high school properties back in the early 1960s, Westerly Parkway was considered “out of town.” (See attached picture). I guess they didn’t have to concern themselves with man-made boundaries established on paper back then.

Let’s pretend for a moment that the Whitehall Road property isn’t 10 feet beyond the growth boundary. Picture a high school campus (still within walking distance of neighbors at Greentree, etc.) which could share some infrastructure and amenities with the new regional park going in next door.

A campus wouldn’t require students walking back and forth across a busy street. A campus that could be secured and/or locked down in the event of a threat. Land that could be leased from Penn State and might provide room for a stadium if the need or the money ever presented itself.

One can only dream.

The location and design of a building outside of town wouldn’t likely have prevented the alumni from harassing a younger student. However, it could significantly limit who is on campus (versus someone who parks at Weis or Parkway Plaza and just walks over to join the crowds at class changing time) as well as provide greater security in the event there is an incident.

On the other hand, I know when I’m beat. During the last renovation plan debacle — a mismanaged and politically driven mess that cost our community so much time and money — we asked for an inclusive and informative process in which taxpayers and parents could have a say in the decision.

This time around, even if I don’t agree with the direction the decision is going, no one can argue that it hasn’t and isn’t going to be inclusive and open.

When we trust the process, we probably should trust the decision.

The current school board, including several people for whom I didn’t cast my vote, have done their jobs. The public meetings, the open committee and board work sessions, and even the survey have all been a purposeful and directed process to seek community input.

Even those surveys, distributed in such a way to parallel our local demographic pattern and to prevent the same people from voting more than once, was an attempt to get the best information and most input. The referendum in May will be the ultimate voice of the community.

The remaining options on the table for the renovation appear to be fix up as is or a mega-school redo but this time on the south side (keeping the pool, gyms and other key features on the North). Cost will be a factor in both. There is nothing to say that these options can’t or won’t be built with security in mind.

State College is changing. We aren’t the same community featured in the photo from 1963. There are plenty of urban school districts that manage student safety in densely populated areas with limited space and without a buffer from neighbors, businesses and traffic. If they can do it, so can we.

After all, it’s only a 50 year decision.