Arming teachers is just one of Devos’ dangerous ideas
The old union and civil rights song asking, “Whose side on you on?” is relevant when considering U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy Devos’ approach to her job. While the mission of her department is “to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access,” her actions appear to be the opposite. Whose side is she on?
Under her leadership, the department has weakened or reversed policies designed to protect college students from predatory proprietary schools and lenders; proposed regulations to make it harder for student borrowers to make a complaint or seek relief from debt when the school defaults on its promise; and promoted charter and religious schools over neighborhood public schools.
Instead of looking at other countries to review policies that help prepare students for “global competitiveness,” she looks the other way. While other countries promote practices that assist students in “entering school ready to learn,” as former President George H.W. Bush said was necessary, she does the opposite. She has cut federal funding for needy students when we know that poverty and inadequate nutrition in the U.S. are major causes for student underachievement.
And now she is considering the reallocation of funds from the “safe-and-healthy-students”
category of the “Student Support and Academic Achievement program” (Title IV) to allow states and school districts to pay for firearms and firearm training for teachers and school staff. These funds are intended to address the social, emotional, and academic needs of students, not to buy guns. In fact, according to John King, a former secretary of education, there are now 1.6 million students in schools with sworn police officers but no guidance counselor.
Devos is following the lead of her boss, President Donald Trump. After the shooting at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., Trump endorsed the idea of arming teachers. He stated that teachers carrying a concealed gun could end attacks “very quickly.” Outrage followed. After all, the Parkland school had an armed officer on site.
Even in regions where teachers are allowed to have firearms in school, the sentiment is negative. Teachers don’t want to be armed or have access to a gun. They cite the evidence from research showing that more guns equals more killing. As John Scheu, the superintendent of Sidney City Schools in Ohio, said, “We can’t stop an active shooter, but we can minimize the carnage.”
Can we? I am reminded of “friendly fire” in warfare. It is estimated that 24 percent of U.S. deaths in the Gulf War were from friendly fire, as were 30 percent of those during the Vietnam War. We know that having a gun at home greatly increases the risk of death from gunshot. Children in the U.S. are 11 times more likely to die from gunshot than children in other developed countries because of the availability of guns.
The “Student Support and Academic Achievement” grant program is intended to support and improve student learning, including mental health counseling and anti-bullying programs. Isn’t it a tragic irony that Devos wants to take money from mental health support to buy guns to protect students against those with emotional problems? Whose side is she on?