No: It poses more potential problems than it solves
TCharles Russo
he death of any child is a tragedy. Even more tragic is when children die in school shootings. Thus, the names Columbine, Sandy Hook and Parkland will live on in infamy even though research shows that schools are the safest places for children to be during school hours.
Given this fact, peaceful methods to resolve their differences, does arming teachers demonstrate to children that what they are being taught does not work?
The third issue concerns logistical questions. Who will ensure that teachers are adequately trained to use firearms safely? Will all teachers be armed? Do weapons remain in school overnight or can teachers come to school armed via concealed carry? What if teachers can take weapons home and a group of students attacks a teacher in an attempt to steal the weapon? Moreover, can individuals who have never fired weapons before be counted on to discharge their weapons safely and accurately? After all, it is one thing to engage in target practice in controlled environments, something else altogether to discharge a weapon in crisis situations.
The fourth concern emerges during actual emergencies. What happens when the first police officer arrives at the scene of a school shooting and confronts two welldressed enough, armed adults both claiming to be educators? Does the officer fire or wait? What happens if the police officer makes the wrong choice?
The fifth reason why arming teachers is a bad idea is how it might change the perceptions of students and parents about educators. Generally perceived as caregivers, is it worth essentially turning teachers into armed state agents akin to the police? Also, might having to be armed result in the loss of otherwise strong candidates who do not wish to be involved with weapons?
Instead of arming teachers, there are two things that educators, policymakers, and lawmakers should consider. First, educators should make sure that they have devised, implemented and practiced comprehensive school-safety plans informing all in educational communities what to do should shootings or other emergencies arise.
Second, because most school shootings involve students who were known to have troubled histories, particularly as at Columbine and Parkland, school boards should work with community mental-health and social-services agencies to provide better professional development. This will help staff members to identify students with psychological or emotional problems in the hope of getting them help so as to avoid these unspeakable tragedies.
In sum, as attractive as the notion of arming teachers is to some, there is no evidence that doing so could, or would, have avoided the school shootings in Columbine, Newtown or Parkland. In fact, as discussed above, devising a policy such as the one suggested by DeVos results in having many more questions unanswered than resolved. Thus, absent evidence that arming teachers would have helped to keep students safer, policymakers, lawmakers and educational leaders must seek to devise proactive means of continuing to keep America’s school children safe.