[23] state that one of the most important instruments for combating school violence in South Africa is the National School Safety Framework (NSSF). The Minister of Education endorsed the NSSF in April 2015. This framework is based on national and international laws and policies and emphasizes the protection of teachers and students for high-quality learning environments ([14]). A study by [23] emphasizes the NSSF’s dedication to protecting children’s rights and promoting the goals set out in the National Development Plan. To guarantee safe and fair access to education, the framework provides a methodical approach to implementation, monitoring, and accountability, along with minimum safety requirements for schools.

The NSSF’s early application has brought to light problems and insights that require further study. Notwithstanding the framework’s comprehensive approach to reducing violence, many schools inaccurately believe that school safety is primarily the responsibility of law enforcement or educational authorities ([23]). This myth impedes efficient execution and overlooks the complex measures required to address violence in educational contexts. Furthermore, non-physical interventions meant to change behavior and improve school climate have been underutilized while physical security measures like police presence and reinforced infrastructure have been given priority ([34]). According to [20], school safety is still a significant issue in South Africa, and violence there has a detrimental effect on the learning environment. Education laws intended to improve school safety are essential to reducing violence and creating environments conducive to learning. However, it is important to consider how well these regulations enable educators to address violent situations in the classroom.

To investigate how the NSSF affects teacher agency in South African schools, [15] conducted research. According to their research, even while the NSSF provides guidelines for lowering violence and guaranteeing safety, these guidelines frequently fall short of fully enabling educators to deal with violent incidents in the classroom. The study found that, when it comes to putting pedagogical techniques that address disruptions caused by violence into practice, the NSSF mechanisms and the larger school environment fall short of supporting teacher agency, according to [15]. Even while teachers are supposed to take on several responsibilities in enhancing school safety, such as gathering information and developing plans, the NSSF does not offer instructions on how to put appropriate teaching strategies into practice. As such, educators are left to deal with violent situations on their own without enough assistance, which makes it more difficult for them to keep the classroom productive.

To ensure the safety and security of both staff and students, [24] emphasizes the legislative requirements and standards for school infrastructure and facilities. According to a study done in Oyo State, Nigeria, following such guidelines is crucial to reducing security risks in public secondary schools ([11]). Among the many things covered by these standards are accessibility standards, maintenance procedures, safety features, and building codes. The minimum structural standards for school buildings are outlined in building codes, which ensure they are earthquake- and flood-resistant. Effective emergency response depends on safety features such as first-aid kits, emergency exits, and fire alarms ([3]). Regular inspections and repairs are required by maintenance procedures to keep facilities in top shape and reduce risks to occupants ([9]). According to [11], accessible restrooms, elevators, and ramps make sure that schools are accessible to all students, including those with disabilities.

[16] clarified that the laws governing school buildings and amenities in Punjab, Pakistan. The research emphasizes the importance of these laws in improving school security and advancing educational fairness. Student and staff safety largely depends on building codes and safety features, and maintenance procedures ensure that facilities are kept up to date and safe. Accessibility requirements help ensure that all students, regardless of physical ability, can use educational facilities and resources. Securing safe and welcoming learning environments that promote student achievement and well-being requires adherence to these rules ([16]).

Ensuring infrastructure standards are followed greatly enhances the general security of Tshwane North District secondary schools. Therefore, schools can reduce different safety hazards and guarantee the welfare of staff and students by following legal requirements and standards. For instance, maintenance procedures guarantee that facilities are safe and operational, and appropriate building codes and safety features help avoid accidents like building collapses and fires. Standards for accessibility ensure that all students can use educational resources and facilities, fostering diversity and equal learning opportunities. Furthermore, by offering favorable learning conditions that promote student development, adherence to infrastructure standards raises the standard of education generally ([11]; [16]).

[16] clarified the state of the law about security protocols and emergency preparedness in educational institutions. They stress the value of strong legal frameworks that specify how to put access control systems, security cameras, and emergency response plans into practice. [11] study on public secondary school security in Nigeria provides additional insight into the significance of legislative provisions in addressing security issues in educational settings. Although [11] focuses on a different geographic setting, the results highlight the importance of laws in enhancing school security and safety. Thus, within the framework of these studies, the general security posture of schools in the Tshwane North District was improved, in part, by legislative measures requiring security assessments, emergency response planning, and cooperation with relevant stakeholders.

Legislative requirements and recommendations are essential to ensuring the provision of support services and student well-being in schools, as [16] argue. These laws provide a framework for addressing several aspects of student welfare, such as counseling services, mental health support, and social-emotional problem interventions ([16]). Such mandates are crucial in creating an organized strategy to enhance student well-being in educational institutions, as Khalid and Tadesse stress. Legislative frameworks clearly influence the support systems available to students, as evidenced by provisions related to mental health support and counseling services ([28]). To properly address students’ psychological issues, [4] stresses the need for qualified professionals, such as counselors and mental health practitioners, in schools. These services must frequently be available by law, guaranteeing that students have the tools they need to deal with problems like stress, anxiety, and depression. Legislation, then, facilitates the creation of school settings that prioritize students’ physical, emotional, and psychological needs by outlining precise standards and requirements.

According to [28], legislative actions can also support a comprehensive approach to school safety by addressing a broad spectrum of student needs. This method, as [16] do, acknowledges that student well-being has several aspects and calls for all-encompassing strategies. Laws push educational institutions to combine mental health support services with physical security measures to foster learning environments where pupils feel secure, encouraged, and in control. Legislative requirements emphasize interventions to address social and emotional problems among students, as well as mental health care. [28] covers laws that improve students’ social and emotional skills, such as empathy, conflict resolution, and communication. With these initiatives, a constructive school culture emphasizing inclusion, diversity, and respect for one another is sought to be created.

3.5.1. Perceptions of School Safety among Secondary School Teachers

For communities and educators globally, ensuring school safety is a top priority. Research consistently shows that a favorable school climate strongly influences academic performance, overall school success, and student well-being ([7]). In their study of more than 25,000 high school students, [7] found that students’ academic engagement and sense of school connectedness were strongly correlated with their perceptions of safety, including perceptions of bullying, drug use, and security.

This emphasizes the need of establishing secure and encouraging settings for the development of efficient teaching and learning methods. Furthermore, thorough strategies emphasizing enhancing school climate are necessary to address issues related to school safety. According to [6], a comprehensive school climate strategy should be implemented so that it successfully handles school safety issues. It has been demonstrated that programs that emphasize good relationships between students and between students and teachers, for example, help lower bullying and violent incidents and create safer learning settings.

Measuring school climate and the understanding of its various aspects, however, is a challenging task. The Key dimensions of school climate, as reported by students, were systematically reviewed by [21]. Thus, safety, relationships, teaching and learning, institutional environment, and school improvement procedures. [21] discovered that even when different measurement instruments are available, different studies define and quantify these dimensions differently. Practical evaluation and improvement of school climate are hindered by this lack of standardization, underscoring the need for more coherent measurement techniques. Practical manuals have been created in reaction to these issues to help schools enhance their climates. [36] offer high schools a detailed manual on how to improve their climates inside an MTSS (multitiered system of support) framework.

Furthermore, studies indicate that the school environment can influence the relationship between academic success and family structure. Positive school climate perceptions were linked, in a study by [26], to higher self-reported GPAs in various family structures. This suggests that students, particularly those from low-income families, can benefit from a favorable school climate. Interventions to improve school climate, however, may not always be as successful as they could be, given circumstances such as family structure and socioeconomic level. Thus, several factors, including the school climate, intervention techniques, measurement difficulties, and contextual factors, affect secondary school teachers’ perceptions of school safety.

3.5.2. Factors Contributing to Lapses of School Safety in Schools

According to research, several significant factors contribute to lapses in school safety. These factors include issues with students’ code of conduct, institutional policies, the school climate, and external influences. According to [13], inappropriate school climate, which can be defined as things like bullying, insecurity among students, and incompetence on the part of teachers, can fail safety precautions. According to the findings of one study, for instance, [19] found that negative student perceptions of the school environment, particularly regarding safety, were associated with lower academic performance and more behavioural issues. Moreover, [37] underscored that a poor school climate increases the likelihood of delinquent behavior, which can jeopardize school safety.

The students’ actions are another factor contributing to potential breaches in school safety. In the workplace, behaviors such as violence, bullying, and drug abuse can create a potentially hazardous environment for both the staff and the students. [21] emphasized the importance of addressing specific aspects of the school climate, such as relationships and safety, to reduce the frequency of harmful student behavior. Furthermore, [10] proposed that a favorable school climate can improve student behavior, which in turn can lead to increased safety. This would be in addition to their emphasis on the significance of school climate in improving attendance and grades.

In addition, the institution’s rules and procedures are very important for the safety of the school ([11]). Policies about discipline, security, and crisis response all have an impact on the overall level of safety that the school provides ([5]). According to [19], the overuse of security cameras and metal detectors can foster mistrust among students and make them feel insecure or threatened. On the other hand, harsh disciplinary actions, such as zero-tolerance policies, can unfairly single out specific student groups and heighten tensions within the school ([37]).

Concerns about the community and societal issues are external factors that can affect school safety. Inequality in socioeconomic status, access to firearms, and the rate of crime in the surrounding neighborhood are examples of external factors that have the potential to permeate the school environment. According to [19], schools in high-crime neighborhoods may face additional challenges in ensuring the safety of their students. This is because students in these neighborhoods may be exposed to gang activity and violence outside of the classroom. It is also important to note that societal issues such as racism, poverty, and the stigma associated with mental health are a factor that undermines school safety initiatives.

For communities and teachers globally, ensuring school safety is a top priority. Research consistently shows that a favorable school climate strongly influences academic performance, overall school success, and student well-being ([7]). In their study of more than 25,000 high school learners, [7] found that learners’ academic engagement and sense of school connectedness were strongly correlated with their perceptions of safety, including elements such as bullying, drug use, and perceived security.

Across all fifteen participants, it emerged that the group retains a persistent, if qualified, sense of vulnerability while at school, a judgment shaped by influences that are at once institutional and social. A widely shared, prominent code, “insufficient security personnel,” appeared in the remarks of numerous respondents. For instance, Participant A observed, “Theschoolbudgetdoesnotextendtopermanentsecuritystaff, andtheprovincialmandateseldomallocatesguards.” Atthesametime, Participant M added, “Withoutanadequatesecuritystructure, visitorscanenterandactwithoutrestraint.” Participant D emphasized that, while guards are nominally deployed, “theoutcomeisineffective,” suggesting that a mere security presence without professional training offers little effective deterrence. Such gaps in coverage, or the intermittent supply of inadequately qualified staff, cultivate an atmosphere in which teachers and learners alike are left to negotiate, essentially on their own, the risks posed by both the student body and external visitors.

A smaller but consequential group of responses coded as “presenceofstructuredsafetyprotocols” suggested that some teachers recognized targeted and sustained interventions. Participant E noted, “Theschoolfencinghasbeenreinforced, andwemaintainarobustpartnershipwiththeCommunityPolicingForum,” while Participant L observed, “Wehavetheelectricperimeter; visitorsmustobtainpriorauthorizationfromateachertogainaccess.” Such developments provided a measure of reassurance; nonetheless, the teachers unanimously agreed that the protocols remain hollow without ongoing supervision and a comprehensive suite of behaviour-management practices. Their accounts consistently assert that educator safety remains contingent and tenuous, dependent on both ongoing infrastructural upgrades and a stringent, coherent disciplinary framework to establish an authentically safe school climate.

Collectively, the perspectives of all fifteen participants highlight a prevailing view that existing safety protocols within their schools are both inadequate and unreliable, calibrated not by policy but by geographical and institutional variations. Emergent thematic coding identified the phrase “inconsistent or insufficient security measures” as a recurring motif. Participant A offered a salient illustration: “Thedepartmenthasdeployedsafetysecurityforthepreviousmonthortwo, whichhashelped, butwedonotknowhowlongtheywilllast,” neatly capturing the policy’s impermanence, which undercuts its effectiveness. Participant B added nuance by stating, “Aschoolrunningwithoutsufficientinfrastructureorenoughsecurityguardswillhavesafetyissues,” thereby situating security within a broader lattice of resource scarcity. Participant M succinctly characterised the pedagogical fallout: “Ourenvironmentisnotsuitableforteachingandlearning,” explicitly linking structural neglect to educational harm. A guarded facility did not guarantee protection. Participant D noted, “Eventhoughwehaveabiggateforsecurityandsecurityguards, itisineffective,” signifying that the mere presence of barriers and personnel is insufficient when their competence and coordination remain unassured.

The collective accounts of all fifteen participants convey a pronounced distrust in their institutions’ capacity to safeguard staff, articulated through pervasive scepticism about the sufficiency, uniformity, and equity of current protections. A prominent thematic code, “leadershipinattention,” signals a widespread conviction that administrators do not elevate safety to a deliberate, strategic agenda. Participant J expressed profound discontent: “Theschoolmanagementteam… simplydoesnotregardthewell-beingoftheteachersasaseriousconcern,” while Participant K unambiguously remarked, “Inmyview, schoolsafetyissimplynotpartofthecalculationatall.” Participant O provided further scrutiny of administrative fragmentation, stating, “TheSMTdoesnotarticulateacoherentmessage… thatispreciselywhywestruggletomanagediscipline.” These evaluations are reinforced by reports of slow administrative reaction to security breaches, a notable shortage of monitoring, and the intermittent application of published regulations. Collectively, such deficiencies foster an atmosphere in which educators experience pervasive vulnerability and inattention. The secondary thematic code identified, “perceptionthatpoliciesfavourlearnersoverteachers,” encapsulates widespread irritation with the existing statutory apparatus related to school safety. A significant number of respondents contend that the prevailing regulatory landscape confers overly broad rights on learners, thereby constraining teachers’ ability to enforce order. Participant F crystallized this sentiment by remarking, “Teachersarenotthatsafe… thosepoliciestelltheteacherthatifyoujusttouchachild, youaregoingtofaceseriousmisconduct.” Participant I echoed the observation, remarking, “Theonlyonethatisprotectedintheschoolisthelearners,” whilst Participant L supplemented the critique by observing, “Thelegislationisalwaysaccommodatinglearners… wearenotprotected.” Such statements substantiate a prevailing conviction that, notwithstanding the detection of imminent safety risks, the procedural and statutory restrictions imposed upon teachers effectively weaken their disciplinary authority and compromise the integrity of the entire safety configuration within the educational institution.

There is a notable divergence in the degree of awareness and comprehension of Department of Education (DoE) safety policies, with a prevailing theme of constrained or fragmented knowledge. The recurring code “generalawarenesswithoutdetailedunderstanding” surfaced in nearly every transcript. Several respondents acknowledged the existence of safety policies yet confessed to a lack of familiarity with their comprehensive provisions and associated procedures. Participant C, for instance, remarked that “thegovernmenthasestablishedsafetyguidelines; however, schoolsdonotconsistentlyadheretotheseprotocols,” indicating a cursory awareness without knowledge of the policies’ operational intricacies. Participant O disclosed, “Idonotunderstanditatall… mostoftheprincipalsarestrugglingalotwithimplementingthatpolicy,” while Participant N characterized the situation by stating, “Iamunawareofwhatishappeningwiththeschoollegislation, especiallyinourschool.” Such limited comprehension was frequently coupled with exasperation at what respondents deemed excessive procedural intricacies, which they perceived as obstructing the effective implementation of policy in their schools.

The collective respondents exhibit marked divergence in their application of statutory provisions governing school safety, with several characters portraying the requirements as distant abstractions that do not adequately cohere with the situated practices of pedagogy. A recurrent thematic strand, identified as “perceived learner-centered bias,” epitomises the conviction that current legal stipulations privilege the protective interests of pupils at the expense of the safety of instructional staff. Participant F, for instance, contended, “Itismorechild-centered… itmakesitlessfriendlytoteachersbecauseitismoreaboutifyoudothistoachild… butnothingifthechilddoesthistoaneducator.” Participant I offered an analogous appraisal: “Theonlyonethatisprotectedintheschoolisthelearners,” while Participant L corroborated this assessment, stating, “Thelegislationisalwaysaccommodatinglearners… wearenotprotected.” Such commentaries manifest a pervasive sentiment among educators that statutory codifications are not neutral guarantors of safety but asymmetrical architectures that curtail the scope of pedagogical authority and render staff susceptible to learner-perpetrated misconduct.

Across the interviews, a clear consensus emerged: existing safety regulations in schools are poorly applied, often mere formalities, and undermined by capacity limitations and contextual pressures. The recurring phrase “policiesintheorybutweakinpractice” captures the pervasive disappointment with the disparity between codified rules and field realities. Participant C observed, “Thecentralauthoritieslayoutsafetyguidelines, yetactualcomplianceattheschoollevelremainserratic.” Atthesametime, Participant G asserted, “Inpractice, thesafetypolicyisabsent.” Participant O elaborated, “Manyprincipalsareoverwhelmedbytheexpectationtoenforceapolicythat… thesystematicstepsandrolesarerarelyarticulated.” Collectively, these testimonies indicate that, despite statutory frameworks, sustained and systematic operationalisation is absent, mainly because compliance liabilities are neither adequately scrutinised nor uniform across the district and school levels.

A recurrent theme articulated by all fifteen interviewees was “schoolinfrastructureasabarriertosafety,” denoting a pervasive conviction that deteriorating facilities and a failure to sustain them expose both learners and educators to preventable risk. Respondents frequently attributed instances of compromised safety to identifiable frailties in the built environment, including jagged fences, gates that remain unlatched, and buildings showing signs of neglect. Participant D observed, “Wemayhavealargegateandguardsonthepremises, butthatdoesnotmatterwhenthedesignandupkeepareneglected,” thereby illustrating how ostensibly protective elements operate in practice only when actively maintained and correctly conceived. Participant G expressed frustration with the lack of systemic facility maintenance, remarking, “Whentheinfrastructureisneglected, themessageisclear: theenvironmentisunsafeforallofus.” Participant H added that structural gaps invite intrusion: “Whenthefenceisbreached, andentryisunmonitored, hereishowfraud, theft, orevenviolenceappearsoncampus.” Taken collectively, the testimonies indicate that a secure, regularly attended environment is a prerequisite for safeguarding the educational community; without that condition, the campus remains a predictable target.

The irregular availability of dedicated security personnel emerged across interviews as a persistent vulnerability in school safety protocols. Respondents reported that sporadic guard shifts leave campuses defenceless during highly sensitive periods, early-morning arrivals, the hours immediately following dismissal, and large extracurricular gatherings. Participant G noted, “Sometimestheguardisnothere… whenthathappens, anythingcanhappen,” conveying the heightened sense of risk when oversight vanishes. Participant H added that inadequate supervision of entryways poses an additional hazard: “Peoplecanjustwalkin… thereisnopropercontrolofentry.” Participant D underscored the collective effect by observing, “Eventhoughwehaveabiggateforsecurityandsecurityguards, itisineffective,” revealing how irregular monitoring undermines even physical barriers. In the absence of a continuous, dependable guard presence at critical ingress and egress points, the school cannot maintain a secure perimeter.

The limited degree of community engagement emerged as a decisive factor contributing to the observed lapses in school safety. Interviewees uniformly observed that parents and residents seldom participate in school safety initiatives, thereby weakening the shared moral and operational obligation to cultivate a secure environment. A common theme arose when Participant H remarked, “Manycommunitymembersareilliterate… theydonotseetheneedtoparticipateinschoolmeetings,” highlighting the interrelated barriers of educational deficits and limited information. Participant N illustrated the broader social ecology by noting that “childrenmanagenumeroushouseholds… drugandsubstanceabuserunrampant,” thereby situating the school hazard in a household and neighborhood context. Participant D framed the surroundings even more starkly: “Ourcommunityisviolent,” underscoring the extent to which the external environment not only neglects to buttress but actively erodes the conditions for school safety.

The participants consistently indicated that minimal parental engagement in safety initiatives presents a persistent obstacle in all sampled schools, thereby attenuating the impact of even well-conceived safety protocols. Respondents commonly observed that notices for safety workshops, policy review gatherings, and general school assemblies are routinely disregarded. Participant H commented, “Manycommunitymembersareilliterate… theydonotseetheneedtoparticipateinschoolmeetings,” drawing attention to the interplay of low educational attainment and probable scepticism toward institutional processes as barriers to constructive participation. Participant O corroborated this by stating, “Whenwecallformeetingsaboutsafety, onlyahandfulcome,” thereby documenting the chronic, narrow attendance that shifts decision-making authority to a limited, potentially unrepresentative segment of the parental body. The resulting gap in broader community consultation compromises the procedural legitimacy and substantive relevance of safety protocols, which may consequently be formulated on perceptions that do not accurately reflect the students’ domestic environments.

The presence of external individuals on school grounds is consistently identified as a significant security hazard, with respondents reporting recurring breaches that undermine overall safety. Many accounts attribute vulnerability primarily to structural failures and deficient visitor management, conditions that render control of access virtually non-existent. Participant H articulated, “Thebrokenfenceandtheabsenceofproperentrysupervisionallowanyonetostrollin,” implicating both dilapidated physical barriers and the absence of deliberate oversight. Participant G echoed this sentiment, asserting, “Theschoolisinconstantdisrepair, andthesurroundingareaisanythingbutsecure,” arguing that the degradation of both the site itself and its immediate neighbourhood compounds the risk. Participant D further remarked that, “Alargegateandthepresenceofsecuritystaffoperatebutstillfailtodeterunauthorizedaccess,” emphasising that hardware measures, in isolation, fail without constant, vigilant application of policy and personnel evaluation.

Several respondents connected the intrusions to wider patterns of community crime, gang intrusion, and substance use, which intensify the perception of danger to an alarming degree. Participant N explained that dominant social determinants impact the school environment, asserting, “Drugabuseandsubstanceabusearesignificantcontributors,” and observed that these patterns frequently extend to school grounds when outsiders engage with the campus. Participant D bluntly commented, “Ourcommunityisviolent,” suggesting that the volume and gravity of hostile episodes are closely tied to the prevailing socio-political context. Participant M observed, “Weonlyseethepolicewhensomethingbadhasalreadyhappened,” revealing that official security actions are predominantly reactive. This cycle of delayed response permits recurrent exploitation of the same weak points, effectively consigning both educators and students to a perpetual atmosphere of instability.