Voices

Specific legal framework for school security now essential

(China Daily)
Updated: 2010-05-11 07:59

The recent violent incidents in some primary schools and kindergartens in China has raised the issue of school security from social level to the political level, according to a May 5 report on the 21st Century Business Herald. But many people are concerned that some of the measures now in place won't be maintained in the future.

Besides improving teachers', parents' and students' sense of security, educationists believe a school security law must be introduced to regulate management of campus security so as to effectively solve the issue, the report said.

As early as March 1999, Guo Shenglian, a professor from Wuhan University of Water Resources and Electric Power, led Hunan delegation in proposing a related bill at the second session of the ninth National People's Congress (NPC). And since then some NPC deputies have also put forward bills for making a school security law in subsequent sessions. But yet here we are today and there is still no law.

Currently the legal protection of students' rights and interests is scattered in a variety of laws, including the Constitution, General Provisions of Civil Law, the Criminal Law, the Law on Protection of Minors, Compulsory Education Law and Teachers Law. But relevant regulations in these diverse laws are not in detail and some key areas remain uncovered.

Five years ago, the Ministry of Public Security and the Ministry of Education jointly released eight measures for ensuring security in schools and nearby areas. Then the Ministry of Education introduced six measures on security at middle and primary schools and kindergartens. The campus security campaign was then started across the country. Yet still the problem reemerges.

Thus it's imperative to have a school security law to regulate the management of campus security on a regular basis. The law should include three aspects:

First, identify who's responsible for school security. People have seldom been held accountable for the security lapses that have occurred in schools in recent years. One reason is that the responsibility for security is not clearly identified among governmental departments, schools, communities, parents or students.

Second, establish a long-term mechanism for school security. The measures made by the ministries of public security and education are frequently only "emergency responses" implemented when a security incident has already occurred.

For example, one of the measures required relevant departments to "urge and advise schools to set up and improve security teams, provide professional security guards and the necessary protective facilities, and to tighten campus patrols". Yet it is only when something happens that the educational departments and schools rush to spend money on hiring professional security guards and protection devices.

And then, when it seems schools are safe again, these efforts are deemed unnecessary. Furthermore, since the measures are not legally binding, educational departments and schools can opt to implement them or not as they choose.

Introducing a school security law would also, to an extent, guarantee funding for school security. Governmental departments would have to cover the cost of security professionals and devices for all schools, including public and private schools, as well as schools for children of migrant workers, and allocate them to the schools. Unfortunately, the situation at present is sadly different.

Take Beijing for instance, currently, all public middle and primary schools have escalated security and received security devices from the authorities. While schools for children of migrant workers in the urban-rural connection areas have to solve the problem themselves with the aid of social groups.

Education equality means the difference shouldn't be so pronounced on such an essential issue as school security.

(Excerpts of a commentary on the Beijing News on May 7)