Should Safety Be a Criterion in Ranking Schools?
When parents search for the “best schools” for their children, they often turn to rankings that emphasize academic performance, college readiness, or extracurricular opportunities. But in an era where school shootings, bullying, and mental health crises dominate headlines, a pressing question arises: Should safety be a formal criterion in how we rank schools?
The answer isn’t as straightforward as it seems. Let’s unpack why safety matters, how it intersects with education, and whether it deserves a spot alongside traditional metrics like test scores.
—
The Case for Prioritizing Safety
Imagine this: A student walks into a classroom feeling anxious, distracted, or outright fearful. Maybe they’re worried about a bully in the hallway, an unstable classmate, or even the structural integrity of the building itself. Can they focus on algebra or literature under these conditions? Research says no. Studies consistently show that emotional and physical safety are foundational to learning. When students feel unsafe, their cognitive resources are diverted toward survival instincts, leaving little room for curiosity or critical thinking.
Safety also impacts long-term outcomes. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) links unsafe school environments to higher dropout rates, poor mental health, and diminished career prospects. For example, students who experience bullying are more likely to develop anxiety or depression, which can derail their academic journeys. If rankings ignore safety, they risk promoting schools that excel academically but fail to protect their most vulnerable learners.
Moreover, safety isn’t just about avoiding harm—it’s about fostering belonging. Schools with strong anti-bullying policies, inclusive cultures, and trauma-informed staff often see higher student engagement. When kids feel respected and supported, they’re more likely to participate, take intellectual risks, and build meaningful relationships. These “soft” factors are harder to quantify than SAT averages, but they shape the quality of education just as profoundly.
—
The Counterargument: Is Safety Too Subjective?
Critics argue that safety is too nebulous to measure objectively. Unlike test scores or graduation rates, which are standardized and quantifiable, safety involves perceptions, emotions, and cultural contexts. For instance, a school in a high-crime neighborhood might implement rigorous security measures but still struggle with student anxiety. Conversely, a rural school with minimal security protocols might feel inherently safer due to its close-knit community.
There’s also the risk of oversimplification. Reducing safety to a single ranking metric could lead to misguided comparisons. A school might score well because it has metal detectors and security cameras, but those features could create a prison-like atmosphere that stifles learning. Alternatively, a school might downplay incidents to protect its ranking, leaving systemic issues unaddressed.
Another concern is equity. Schools in underfunded districts often lack resources to address safety challenges, such as hiring counselors or upgrading infrastructure. If rankings penalize these schools for safety shortcomings without acknowledging systemic inequities, they could exacerbate existing disparities. Wealthier schools, with their larger budgets, could game the system by investing in superficial safety measures rather than addressing root causes like racism or socioeconomic inequality.
—
Finding a Balanced Approach
So, how can we reconcile these complexities? The key lies in redefining what “safety” means in an educational context and developing nuanced metrics to evaluate it. Here are three ways to approach this:
1. Expand the Definition of Safety
Move beyond physical security (e.g., lockdown drills, surveillance) to include emotional, social, and psychological well-being. Metrics could track incidents of bullying, student access to mental health services, teacher training in conflict resolution, and student surveys on feelings of belonging. Organizations like the National School Climate Center already use such frameworks to assess school environments holistically.
2. Contextualize the Data
Rankings should account for a school’s unique challenges. A urban school grappling with neighborhood violence shouldn’t be compared directly to a suburban campus with different risk factors. Instead, rankings could highlight how effectively schools address their specific safety challenges, such as partnerships with local mental health providers or community-based violence prevention programs.
3. Prioritize Transparency Over Punishment
Safety metrics should encourage schools to openly report incidents and seek solutions, rather than hide problems to avoid penalties. For example, a school that reports a bullying incident and demonstrates proactive steps to address it could receive a “safety improvement” badge, signaling progress to families.
—
What Existing Rankings Get Wrong—and How to Fix It
Most popular ranking systems, like U.S. News & World Report or Niche, mention safety briefly, if at all. They focus on college readiness, teacher qualifications, and resources—metrics that matter but don’t tell the whole story. To their credit, some platforms now include student diversity or club offerings, reflecting a growing recognition of non-academic factors.
However, integrating safety requires a deeper shift. Imagine a ranking system that assigns equal weight to:
– Academic Rigor (test scores, advanced coursework)
– Student Support (counselor-to-student ratios, mental health resources)
– Safety and Climate (bullying rates, student satisfaction surveys)
– Equity (achievement gaps, access to opportunities)
This model would push schools to excel in areas that truly impact student well-being, not just test prep.
—
The Bottom Line for Families and Educators
Parents deserve to know whether a school’s glowing test scores come at the cost of student well-being. Educators, meanwhile, need incentives to create environments where kids can thrive emotionally and intellectually. Including safety in rankings isn’t about shaming “unsafe” schools—it’s about elevating those that nurture the whole child.
Of course, no metric is perfect. But by broadening our definition of educational excellence to include safety, we send a powerful message: A school’s value isn’t just measured by what students achieve, but by how they feel while getting there.
So, should safety be a criterion in ranking schools? The answer is yes—but only if we measure it thoughtfully, compassionately, and with an eye toward progress over perfection.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » Should Safety Be a Criterion in Ranking Schools