I hate the fact that this country has been thrown into this discussion the way that it has. The events leading to this discussion were costly and horrific. As I have stated before we need to discuss the facts and not propaganda or demagogy. We should also examine the facts without emotion which, in light of events and the victims, seems an impossible task. Educators have now been thrust into the discussion as a result of so many schools being victimized. There is also a consideration by some to arm teachers.
In a recent discussion on BAM radio three education groups, a national teacher group, a national principal group, and a national superintendent group were asked about their position on arming teachers. The lens that we use must influence our opinions. The teachers’ group, whose members are closest to kids, was against it. The principals’ group, whose members are closest to the teachers, was against it. The superintendents’ group whose members are closest to outside forces of education supported it. These are groups and not individuals. I am sure that most educators of any title are willing to look at all of the facts and considerations before supporting anything that will profoundly affect our children. This is merely my observation.
Our military and police, in order to be armed and effective at defense, undergo extensive weapons and tactical training. It is not a single PD day at the beginning of the school year. They are continually trained and updated and not left to self-train. An ongoing battle in too many schools across this nation is to get Professional Development for teachers. Teachers want, but often cannot get the most relevant training in methods, tools and pedagogy in order to be a relevant educator. PD too often falls victim to declining budgets. It is not prioritized as it should be. Now we have a suggestion to arm teachers knowing that we need to initially and continually train teachers in weapons and tactics. How much time will it take them from their classes, and at what cost? Will we need to eliminate more teaching positions to support arming teachers?
What about police response teams answering the call to a mass shooting at a school? Most police first responders today train in sweeping schools for the purpose of eliminating armed threats. With armed teachers in the schools, response teams will need to hesitate with every encounter. This will take more time to clear a school. Time is an enemy in these situations. The other unanswered question is where are the hundreds of students when response bullets from armed teachers begin flying? Do armed teachers leave their students?
What about the mental perspective of these armed teachers? Most teachers that I know have the idea of helping and teaching in their DNA. That is what motivated them to be teachers and not soldiers or policemen. What does the responsibility of having to carry a gun to protect the learning community do to a teacher? Will these armed teachers need to undergo some sort of psychological testing to see if they can withstand the stress of this new responsibility, or do we rely on some imagined vigilante strength to carry them through?
I continue to come up with questions about arming people? Will the “Stand Your Ground “Law pop up in teacher defenses in cases where armed teachers felt that the community was threatened by an intruder wearing a hoody? The police and military have a great incidence of suicides because of the demands of their work and incidents these dedicated people are forced to deal with. Should that be a concern for schools? Will we need ongoing counseling to help cope with stress?
There are three things that all of these mass shootings have in common, Guns, a person who is not responsible for his actions, and victims. In order for the idea of defense to succeed here, it would be the goal to reduce or eliminate any of these components. The answer is not to add guns, or add shooters, or add victims. I think arming teachers may not fall in line with that vision.
An emotional response from any teacher would be “I would do anything to protect my students.” Most teachers think of their students in terms of family. This however is an emotional response and possibly not couched in reality for most educators. The idea of shooting someone in theory may be an easier task than doing it in reality. The intent may be there, but the ability might be lacking for many reasons.
I am not opposed to the Second Amendment. Gun ownership is not the problem. A gun, in the hands of a person not responsible for his/her actions, is a problem. That is complicated by the number of guns in America. We represent 5% of the world’s population, but we own 50% of all of the guns in the world. That is only one part of the problem. Maybe instead of the expense of arming and training teachers in every school in the country, we might want to use that money for a gun buy-back program. Australia spent $500 Billion dollars in buy backs with great success. Maybe each community could decrease the possibility of an illegal gun falling into the hands of a local person in need of help. Of course this is not the answer to the problem, but it is not adding to the problem either. Now we need to extend the discussion without regard to special interest groups that are focusing on their concerns and not the needs of the American people.
My only hesitation about doing a post on this subject is the scary people who are drawn to it. I encourage discussion, but I will not entertain comments claiming our president is enslaving us. I do not believe we need guns to fight our government. I will eliminate any comments from this post that are not advancing the discussion. I have never had to say that with any other post I have ever written. Some of the comments by some people give credence to the argument that not every person is mentally capable of gun ownership. By the way Columbine had an armed guard. The answer is NOT to Arm Teachers.
Well articulated, Tom. You and I went back and forth a bit on Twitter about the need for increased security in schools. While I believe there is room for improvement in that area, this push for teachers to be armed has gotten out of hand.
Tom, thank you! I was searching for an eloquent way to phrase this exact thought and you have done so for me. So many of my friends want all teachers armed but this is not the answer. As a former classroom teacher, I wanted nothing more than to teach my students in a safe and peaceful environment. Keeping them safe was always on my mind. But having a school where all adults are armed is not safe. What happens when that one teacher is having a bad day? Do they draw their gun and threaten a classroom full of bullies? How would knowing the teacher is armed change the dynamic of open, dynamic parent conferences? What if a child is shot and killed on accident? Or if a child gets a hold on a teacher’s gun? The dialog calling for more guns at school and around our children is nothing less than frightening. As an adult, I wouldn’t want to be in such a potentially lethal working environment. As a parent, I would never want my child in one, either.
Like this post and heartily agree with the last words – arming teachers is NOT the answer!!
I would not push for teachers to be armed, but I would not deny them. If they want to go through the extensive training that is required throughout the year then I say go for it. I wouldn’t just slap a gun in the hands of someone who is not trained.
Thanks for this. What an emotional time for teachers, parents and just about everyone. While I have certainly been overcome with the emotions of last week’s tragedy, I agree that that emotion can help shape my opinion, but has to be set aside to a degree to engage in problem solviing.
The chasm between the two extremes, you know- the ones shouting, is filled with the reasonable folks who can see both sides and work together to find a realistic and, importantly, effective answer.
From a simple, logical perspective, it seems to me that removing high-speed, high-capacity weapons from the everyday scene has to be part of a solution. A more rigorous procedure for obtaining legal weapons, including timely rescreenings also seems to have some merit. In this country people are guaranteed the right to own a gun for security or sport. Somehow, this seem to get translated into everyone can have anything they want. The right to something is far from te right to anything.
In total agreement with your thesis, and it is well argued. I just have two, small quibbles, which I hope will advance the discussion. 1. Most of the time, having a serious discussion in a calm, dispassionate manner is the right way to go, but in this case, I wonder if an emotional discussion, based on facts, is a better way. In the former case, the risk is that nothing is done afterward, and the discussion was academic. In the latter case, I think we are more liable to get action. And if we can’t get passionate in the aftermath of these shootings, when will we? 2. I want the American people to stop citing the Second Amendment as if it was brought down the mountain on stone tablets. It is not sacrosanct, so stop saying things like “I believe in the Second Amendment.” It is not a religion, but Americans talk as if it is. It is only a few words of philosophy, written in a different time, in a context far different from now. This might be heresy, but it may be time to question if it still relevant, or even if it is harming the United States. Should it be repealed? A tough conversation, but worthwhile, I think.
And while we are at it, will educators be leading the charge to take on the whackjobs at the NRA? Will teachers lead the charge to find and actively support politicians who have the balls to stand up to the NRA and do what is morally right?
Finally, I am appalled by stevenlsmith87’s comments that arming teachers “If they want to go through the extensive training” is okay. Would his mind be changed if his child was sitting in the front row of a class where the teacher was armed? I hope so.
Tom, I am glad you posted on this topic, but so saddened by the events surrounding the need to address it. It is totally beyond my comprehension that educators, who are passing on life-giving learning experiences and sharing a sense of respect and appreciation for ALL members of the human family, would even HAVE to be asked whether or not to arm themselves in preparation for a potential need to erase the efforts I just mentioned. Kill another human being? In front of children? Violent words are enough to have an educator removed, but hand out guns? And what? Have In-Service on the whens and the hows? I am embarrassed by the thought that some would consider this option.
It is sad that teachers are being put into a situation where discussions of arming them is even being considered.
Our Australian buyback and Nationwide gun law reforms.made a huge big difference but It is a more complex issue facing your Government than we faced. The Australian Government put aside $500 Million for our gun buy back which saw over 650,000 semi-automatic rifles and shotguns destroyed. It was done by adding a 1 % on income tax for one year to our medicare levy to finance the compensation. The cost was less than this and surplus went to our medicare and welfare system (in Australia every Australian is entitled to free medical treatment and it is funded by Medicare).
Sadly our reform was in response to the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 which at the time was one of the worst deadliest shootings worldwide (35 dead and 18 seriously wounded) and our gun law reforms.were introduced within 12 days.
Thanks Tom for bringing up this topic and arguing for sanity…more guns have never solved anything but filling the coffers of the gunmakers…keeping us safe will not happen by using force and peace was never really achieved with violence. How many teachers will leave the profession if there are more guns in schools…the idea of adding more guns seems insane to me and is an insult to the memory of the teachers and staff who have died protecting children and to the memory of the children killed by guns in schools.
We need to stop saying we can’t get the guns off the streets and say how can we since so many countries have been successful…and stop with the 2nd amendment bunk…our constitution has changed as we have evolved as a society..this is another time to examine the need for some changes. Let’s stop reacting with unsafe ideas and let’s respond with rational ideas.
Since our children are this country’s greatest resource, I think that we should have a trained police officer at each school. As an educator, I would not want to be responsible for having a gun. Too often they can be used against you or they can be fired accidently. We hire guards for public figures, businesses and others. We need to have protection for our most vulnerable and precious resource – our children.
Reblogged this on … Not the Principal's Office!!! and commented:
If you don’t read Tom Whitby’s stuff, start.
I don’t agree with forcing teachers to be armed, but you’d be surprised how many of us are licensed and own handguns. My cop friends even think we should be allowed to carry where we wish. Many areas already allow this and have never had a school shooting. I see armed guards every where but schools, so I wonder what target is the easiest for someone…the one where no one can fight back. This wouldn’t add new guns to the streets..they are already there in the hands of trained, background checked people, most of whom practice shooting ,more than many cops. this is not something that should be rushed into, just like all of these knee jerk reaction laws shouldn’t be rushed into. I agree there are loopholes to be fixed. One other thing, CT, where this happened has the 6th strictest gun controls in the country, yet this still happened. We also need to address the true root cause of these incidents which are about the person, not the weapon. Lots to think about and to do.
Teachers with guns is a bad idea for a number of reasons. Some schools already have armed security and that should be a choice for each district to make. Each adult in a school should be able to send a text to the local police that would summon then ASAP. As for gun control, I like the idea of requiring all gun owners to install trigger locks when the gun is not in use and anyone who’s gun is used to commit a crime should be fined or arrested. If the mother in Newtown had her guns locked up with trigger locks, her son would have had to find guns somewhere else. She made it too easy for him. We did have an assault rifle ban in place until 2004 and I would oppose doing that again.
I’m a retired Army paratrooper…used to “guns” and using them …DUMBEST idea to arm teachers…I’d refuse to carry a gun as a teacher…This was a great article…well thought out…put professional development money towards instruction and counseling training-not weapons traning…and I’m still wondering why any civilian needs a “Bushmaster”
[…] I hate the fact that this country has been thrown into this discussion the way that it has. The events leading to this discussion were costly and horrific. As I have stated before we need to discus… […]
I think the point of the opposition is that people are much less likely to enter a building in an attempt to cause harm if they know that there are weapons in that building. This is why we don’t hear about shooters entering police stations or gun stores. If you want to do a huge amount of damage or cause massive carnage, then chances are you aren’t going to try it in a place where you will get shot first. Did you look into the school shooting in Mississippi where the shooter intended to kill everyone in the school but was stopped after the vice principal went out to his own truck, got his gun out if the lock box, and then shot the shooter before more than just 2 kids were hurt? If this man hasn’t been armed we could have had another Columbine or Sandy Hook there too. I don’t think all teachers should be armed, but a select few teachers and administrators who are willing to undergo the training and responsibility. Then put a sign on the door that says “Persons in this school are armed. If you intend to enter this building to hurt our students or teachers you will be shot.” The fact is knowing that your opponent is armed deters attacks. The second amendment isn’t going anywhere so why not be proactive?
How far from the agenda of teaching and learning and educating is arming teachers? Increased security, yes. Arming teachers? If I must worry about being shot in my classroom, what does that do to the nature and intent of the educational process?
While I agree that all of our schools need increased security, I feel as you do that none of us are qualified to be armed and responsible for that part of the security in schools. I agree, it is not a one time/one day professional development lesson that we could or should use in school. We have law enforcement officers and military personnel that are specifically trained for these type of situations. What kind of message does this send to students and parents about our school if we have to arm our teachers and principals?! I certainly wouldn’t want to send my children to a school like that. Nor would I want to teach there. If the school districts want us to beef up security in our schools, they should look into having more (professionally trained) SRO’s on our campus. I’m not saying to turn our schools into an armed prison or military camp – I just think we need more of a law enforcement presence. We used to see our SRO more often, but now all of our schools in my district share the SROs.
If we were to look at the most recent, let’s just say 10 for convenience, school shootings in the US, can we really say the shooter was ‘not responsible’ for their actions? I’m not sure that is always true.
As a UK based teacher I found your post well thought out. I cannot appreciate the impact of a gun culture but the idea that as a teacher I should become a shield to violent crime is not acceptable. Arming teachers changes the whole educator role and the impact of this on individuals would concern me.
Well said. I believe we need to take the necessary precautions to ensure the safety of those in the building without becoming militant and possibly violent ourselves in the process. Locked entrances with buzzers (which Sandy Hook had), security guards (which Columbine had), bullet-proof glass, and continuing to practice drills with our kids is on my short list of steps every school should look at. As a teacher, I am not willing to carry a gun. I’m there to teach and build positive relationships with my kids, not be on the lookout for dangerous gunmen.
Another excellent post, Tom. One point I have not seen posted in the comments thus far is the fact that in all of the mass shootings I’ve seen in my lifetime, the gunman has always taken his own life at the end. Do we really think arming people inside a building is going to stop a crazed person from coming in on a death mission? I tend to think not. My guess is that person doesn’t really care how he goes. But then again who am I to try to figure out what’s going on in the head of someone who would harm children?
The other point I plan to make in an upcoming post of my own (still thinking it through) is that when sick individuals with assault-style weaponry want to get into a building, they’re going to get in, despite our buzzers, fancy glass, or “All visitors must report to office” processes. In my lifetime I’ve seen attackers assault not only schools, but cafeterias, malls, grocery stores, movie theaters, and churches. Good security practices and emergency drills are a must; however, I think many in our country have been a little too quick to react by pointing their fingers at school security. Schools usually are more secure than most public gathering places.
Thanks again for excellent food for thought, Tom.
I would also ask? If it is decided that all teachers are to be armed, what if a teacher is opposed to being armed with a gun? Would that teacher be forced to carry or would we just fire the teacher for insubordination?
“There are three things that all of these mass shootings have in common, Guns, a person who is not responsible for his actions, and victims.” Can we add a fourth? Passive resistance? A killer entered the premises and started killing. Did any of the victims (who were capable) have a plan to fight back? And if they had a plan, knowing that that they were only allowed to use their bare hands, was it right that they had to gamble their lives with the odds against them?
The arming of teacher IMO I see as 100% voluntary. And they would have to undergo specific training to fit the school environment. I do not expect they would trained to clear buildings and search for the intruder, rather to effectively and quickly take a position of ensconcement, ie., to gather children into a designated safe room, lock the door, and await help. If the teacher had a pistol in hand, trained on the door, all the better IMO. If a teacher did not, then he / she does not, and can wait for help without one.
Carrie jackson, you are right. The killer intends to kill as many as possible, and then himself. Should we just accept that, and carry on business as usual? No need to think about how to stop it, hope for the best? Or shall we use our educated minds to possibly think we CAN stop the carnage? Or if not completely, can we minimize it? Is saving 5 out of 20 better than having all 20 killed? I hate the numbers game, but what alternatives do we have? Doing nothing is NOT an alternative, it is status quo. Removing EVERY SINGLE GUN IN THE USA certainly is a viable alternative, and it may take years, if ever … waiting for that before we do anything is, IMO, still doing nothing in the mean time.
Andy Knill, you stated that “I cannot appreciate the impact of a gun culture but the idea that as a teacher I should become a shield to violent crime is not acceptable.” In effect, the loving, caring teachers who tried to protect the children after the first lines of defense were breached (the doors were broken into), they, in fact, just became that. There is no one to blame but the shooter … but until society has a more effective way of making the bad guy (or all the illegal guns) go away, while we wait for that idea solution …. IMO we all share in the blame going forward if we decide the best thing to do in the near term is nothing.
SonicGeekette, I agree with you. The armed teacher solution is just one potential piece to a potential overall program. No citizen is forced to own or carry a gun today, so no teacher or school district should be forced either. The solution must match the demeanor and capability and desire of the individual teacher AND the school community as a whole. Some schools who desire it should have it via some kind of application process (only those will should inquire), but that is no guarantee that there are any teachers or staff who will participate to begin with. But if that first grade teacher you know and love, who the children adore … happens to be a licensed holder, and is willing to help, and willing to put in extra time to be trained, I think that is a plus. I would feel my kids would be safer if they had her in homeroom when a breach had occurred.
Douglas Green, I agree with you regarding the killers access to guns. Plain and simple, prior to the crime, he was just another guy … not the “bad guy”. But he got access to guns that enabled him to become the bad guy. Allegedly he was an emotionally disturbed individual … assuming his mother did everything possible to keep the guns away from him, fully knowing he could be potential danger … I say she is still 100% liable. She did not do it on purpose I would say … but the fact remains she owned guns, and also had an adult child with emotional problems, and she failed to keep them from him. One could argue he could have gotten them on the black market, and perhaps just deferred the tragedy to a later date. Who really knows for sure. If we as society are going to get rid of guns, then it must be ALL guns … just like the nuclear race the countries are in. Until all nukes are gone, the US IMO should not relinquish theirs, and until ALL guns are gone, law abiding citizens who choose to defend themselves and not be victims should have the legal means to do so.
David Andrade, I agree with you except I would want special training for anyone expected to use a gun within a school, police officer or civilian. The average police officer is not “specifically” trained, only generically. We do not want the risk of friendly fire increasing danger during a defensive scenario. We do not want “casualties” due to the SWAT tactics that put the takedown of the intruder over the protection of the kids. We want to leave the SWAT work for SWAT … and until SWAT arrive, the training should focus on protecting the children, much like the bodyguard training that is focused on protecting the President. There is a difference in the training … most concealed carrier training courses cover the basics of personal safety and this is NOT the same as focused, scenario based training within a school environment.
Bell Gallagher, don’t feel embarrassed. You have a right to that opinion and your concern as a teacher should be respected. Not everyone owns a gun and certainly no one should ever be forced to own one. Likewise not every teacher will want to engage a killer on a rampage in the school and certainly no one including myself would expect anyone to feel the obligation to act if during a fight or flight situation, the flight response kicked in. But at the same time, if there are teachers there willing to help, and are trained in advance to engage only as a last resort, only after the kids are secured in a safe room, and only when it is the last and final option to prevent death and injury … then they should be allowed to engage and I would be thankful to them for that, and pass no judgment on the others like the children who might be passive bystanders or defenseless victims. This is ultimately about changing society for the better in the long term … and in the mean time, being able to survive in the near term.
You say time and again that you are not opposed to the second amendment right to keep and bear arms, but that runs in contradiction to everything else that you say. Evil people will find ways to commit evil heinous acts. The problem with putting restrictions on gun ownership is that it puts the restrictions on all of the law abiding people whereas the evil person will find and get a gun if that is what they want.
To label EVERYONE who belongs to the NRA as crazy is just ludicrous and doesn’t help to advance the discussion. Is arming teachers the answer? I don’t believe so, but there is already a law in place that could help advance the discussion, one that all the major religions on the planet agree upon. It is simply labeled, Thou shalt not kill.
The sad fact is that a great majority of the teachers in this country support policies and groups that support a culture of death instead of groups and policies that promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The answers we seek are not to give the federal government greater control or to pass more legislation restricting our rights, freedoms, and liberties. The answer lies in a rethinking what is truly important to us. School and education, our jobs, and how much money we make as teachers should not be the first thing of importance. It’s time for a true gut check for Americans. Can you stand up for what you truly believe in? Pope John Paul II had this to say about freedom, “Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.”
Tim….I hear you loud and clear….. I am not a supporter of NRA or ANY organization that promotes gun ownership…I believe “Don’t kill people, Don’t kill animals, Don’t kill ideas…” Having said that,miasma US citizen, I defend NRA’s right to put their stuff out there.
What PJPII might want us to focus on is the Mental Health sector/industry…we see the loners, disenfranchised, every day in our classrooms and school hallways…..go back to the number of kids who described the Newtown shooter as a loner, and someone they didn’t want to interact with. Kids know the kids who need help…..this is where school communities need to reach out, instead of turning a blind eye to these kids who are screaming for help, but are not being heard by those who can intervene.
As Educators, there is SO much on our plates….
I agree with you about school’s turning a blind eye toward many of those in need. I remember having an eighth grade student with a 3rd grade reading level. I mentioned that she needed intensive reading instruction with both the building principal and counselor in the meeting and they basically told me there was nothing they could do about it. How then was this student to understand U.S. history? How did this student come to be in an eighth grade history class without the ability to read text? Oftentimes administrators and counselors just want to pass them on to someone else instead of dealing with the true underlying problem.
This is a prime example of an ignorant individual making choices for those in the mix. We need to allow those willing to undergo the training the right to carry in schools. No longer should we sit in the corner and hide until police show up. I wouldn’t wait at home with my own children at stake. Why should I do that with my kids at school?
[…] https://tomwhitby.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/arm-teachers/ […]