Back in the day, teachers taught and students listened. Many older residents yearn for that simpler, less chaotic time. Even Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was wistful in his recent reminiscence: “Teachers commanded, and students obeyed.”

Let’s get real: That was then and this is now.

After the Parkland, Florida, shooting that resulted in 17 deaths, school safety has come to the front and center of just about everyone’s top of mind awareness.

Virtually every school district in the Times News’ five-county region has either approved of beefing up security, discussed the possibilities or has already put new initiatives into place. It all comes at a price.

Not long ago, it would not have even occurred to administrators and parents to have armed guards stationed at their schools. Now, the whole notion has been turned on its ear: Not having beefed up security is unthinkable and not an option.

So, in less than a generation, security has gone from a nontopic of concern to one of overriding importance. With good reason.

So far this year in the United States, there have been 14 school shootings that resulted in 32 deaths — including 26 students — and 67 injuries. The number of those killed or wounded in school shootings has already eclipsed the total number in all of 2017 when 25 were killed and 60 were wounded.

The deadliest, of course, was the Valentine’s Day massacre in Parkland, Florida, when 17 were killed by a gunman police said is 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz. This incident renewed the call for stricter gun-control laws and launched a nationwide movement to get students involved in the political process to bring about change.

The number of schools with a security guard, a school resource officer or other sworn law enforcement officer on campus at least once a week has gone up from 42 percent in 2005-06 to 60 percent last year. While security at all schools increased, the change is most dramatic among elementary schools, where the percentage of security personnel has risen from 26 to 50 during the same time period.

In some cases, local districts have hired armed police personnel to add to other security measures; in other districts, school officials have brought in consultants to examine the security measures already in place and determine what needs to be done to improve them.

Local boards of education have been discussing these issues for a decade or more, but now it is being done with more urgency, especially as the number of incidents continues to grow and the realization sinks in that, yes, it can happen here just as it has in any number of smaller districts throughout the country.

Some local districts are scrambling to firm up plans before the start of the 2018-19 academic year, which is less than a month away. In the Panther Valley district, for example, the board has met with the Summit Hill Police Chief Joseph Fittos, who has recommended to borough council that it provide armed security at the intermediate school/high school along Route 209 in Summit Hill borough between Lansford and Nesquehoning.

Summit Hill Borough Council recently voted to have a part-time officer patrol Panther Valley schools at unannounced times. But they rejected the district’s proposal to share in the cost of a school resource officer that would be dedicated to covering the district full-time.

A number of districts will be looking to finance these security enhancements with special grants that would cover costs for a year, two at the most. After that, however, the districts for the most part will be on their own to pick up the costs.

The National Association of School Psychologists says school safety is essential to a student’s well-being and learning. “Students who do not feel supported and safe at school, both physically and psychologically, cannot learn to their fullest potential,” a spokesman for the association added.

The association, however, takes a contrarian view and cautions against turning schools into fortresses. “There is no clear research evidence that the use of metal detectors, security cameras, or guards in schools is effective in preventing school violence,” the association says, citing studies conducted during the past 15 years. “In fact,” it claims, “research has shown that their presence negatively impacts students’ perceptions of safety and even increases fear among some students.”

School officials, however, are hearing the clamor from parents and other community members who are urging board members and administrators to “do something” to ensure that this unspeakable violence is not visited upon our schools.

As we saw in Parkland, Florida, the presence of an armed security person on the premises does not guarantee complete safety.

Most experts recommend that arming personnel is just one piece of the security puzzle that must be put into place to reduce the risk of this type of violence occurring in our schools. It must be part of a comprehensive security plan that includes, among other things, an upgraded identification system, security monitoring, metal detectors and staff and student training and education about what to do if a shooter is on the premises.

By Bruce Frassinelli | tneditor@tnonline.com