Armed Teachers?

            Last week’s topic discussed the decision by the leadership of some school districts to have armed police inside school buildings. This week’s topic will discuss the decision by the leadership of some school districts to provide firearms training to teachers.

In response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School the leadership of some school districts decided to provide teachers with firearms training.  The rationale to provide firearms training teachers is based on the idea that in the event of a potentially deadly crisis, an armed teacher would be able to counter or eliminate the threat and minimize fatalities.

The rationale behind the decision to provide firearms training to teachers is reckless and irresponsible.  This flawed rationale assumes that 1) having armed teachers will act as a deterrent to future deadly crises and 2) in a crisis an armed teacher will act in the manner of a trained professional.

The assumption that training and arming teachers will deter future deadly crises is wrong.  It is virtually impossible to predict when and where a catastrophic event may occur.  Therefore, district leaders should focus on ensuring protocols involving the visitation of individual into school buildings are stringent and comprehensive.  Typically, when a visitor comes into a school building, the visitor signs in at a front desk, sometimes a request for identification is asked by the person at the front desk and the visitor is sent to the main office.  At the main office, the visitor states their purpose for the visit and waits to conclude the purpose of their visit by either waiting to pick up their child or being taken to a room for a conference.  Visitation protocols could be strengthened by having a secured waiting room that is near the front desk and directly away from children.

Having a secure waiting room could prevent a violent act from occurring since the potential offender would likely show signs of nervousness or frustration over not being able to directly enter the building to reek havoc.  This display of nervousness or frustration would be a warning sign of a potential threat.  The secure waiting room would be the place to further assess if the visitor is a threat to school safety.

The final flaw in the rationale of training armed teachers is the belief in how a teacher will respond to a real threat to school safety.  The assumption is the armed teacher will respond to an armed threat with deadly force if the threat cannot be countered or deterred.  Asking a teacher to be prepared to take a life is a zero sum gain.  I do not believe enough thought was considered to the emotional toll and trauma a teacher will go through if he/she has to take the life of another person, even if the act was justified.  If trained service men and women have emotional and traumatic damage from taking lives in war, how do we expected teachers who will be given significantly less training will respond to the emotional trauma?