The wilful damage to our schools costs the State and school communities millions of dollars each year. It is estimated that in Queensland this figure represents about $2.5 million per year. (Courier Mail 28/11/05). Multiply this amount for all the States and it is a significant sum.
Schools are a sitting target for breaking and entering, theft and arson. Of all our public buildings, schools are closed for the most number of hours and usually are unattended during that time. The long holidays, and particularly the Christmas break is a busy time for the wrong-doers. And, of course, there are a greater number of schools in our community than other public buildings therefore the incidence of damage to schools is disproportionate to the damage of those other buildings.
But why do people damage schools and who are they likely to be? It would be interesting to ascertain from the Courts or Police records the reasons that culprits give for perpetrating such damage. In the absence of this information, we can only speculate. Theft, perhaps, is the most understandable. All schools have computers and other expensive technical equipment. These are attractive to remove as high value, readily transportable and easily convertible into cash. The motivation for this action is possibly no more than the offenders need for quick money.
Of more concern are those who wilfully damage school property by graffiti, internal damage and arson. Who are they and what is their motivation? Assuming that most of these people have passed through schools as students at some stage, is it possible that they are inflicting retribution for past experiences? Unfortunately, not all students leave our schools with happy memories of their educational experience. Schools are seen as suitable targets to express anger, disappointment and frustration.
But is there a broader, cultural issue here in that our communities do not place enough value on our schools and school buildings? Our schools are significant and very visible public assets. Many of them give a negative image of the value that the community places on education and as places of learning. If our school buildings were of a higher standard and more carefully designed, and if our schools were more integrated with community life, could we assume that vandalism to the buildings would be less?
Increasing security (more lighting, more deterrent/warning signs and more fencing) is one way to approach the problem but it does not address the underlying cause. A longer-term change of community attitudes to our schools is necessary. Is it time to re-think the concept of our isolated, institutional schools in an effort to improve their status and respect in the community.
Dr Andrew Bunting
