Skip to comments.Teachers who get police training could get extra pay, carry guns
Posted on 08/09/2007 2:03:43 PM PDT by neverdem
A proposal that Nevada teachers be allowed to carry concealed weapons garnered a lot of notoriety but little traction among state lawmakers this year. Now comes this idea: Give bonus pay to teachers - from kindergarten to college - who would be trained and armed as reserve school police officers.
Faculty-turned-campus cops would supplement the thin ranks of campus police and be in position to respond quickly to campus emergencies, the two champions of the idea say.
Others worry about allowing teachers to be put in that kind of position.
The idea will be taken up at separate meetings this month by Nevada System of Higher Education regents and the State Board of Education.
The proposal was initiated in June ago by Regent Stavros Anthony, a Metro Police captain, who was thinking in terms of college campuses. State Board of Education member Anthony Ruggiero, an investigator with the state attorney general's office, wants to extend the concept to the state's K-12 teachers as well.
It expands the idea, proposed during the 2007 legislative session by Sen. Bob Beers, R-Las Vegas, that teachers be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus, provided they had undergone 40 hours of training. The bill died in committee.
To become reserve campus police officers, teachers would have to pass a physical and psychological evaluation, as well as a comprehensive background check. Those who make it through the selection process would have to pay about $1,190 for classes at the community college's Law Enforcement Training Academy, including "Firearms I & II" "Defensive Tactics/Physical Training" and "Introduction to Juvenile Justice." An additional $1,000 would be required for the academy uniforms and equipment.
After completing the training, teachers would be responsible for $1,500 in uniform and equipment costs, although their guns would be provided by the school police department. School districts would then have to pay the auxiliary officers $3,000 annually.
Ruggiero said he met with School Police officials in Washoe and Clark counties, and he assured them that the reserve officers would be expected to follow the directives, rules and regulations of each individual school district police department.
The idea is a win-win, Ruggiero said: Teachers would have an opportunity for more training and pay, and schools would solve the perpetual shortage of campus cops.
"Rather than trying to reinvent the wheel, why not use the resources you have in place?" said Ruggiero, who is himself a reserve officer for UNLV's campus police. "I'm sure there are teachers out there that have thought about becoming officers. We shouldn't restrict them . We should train them."
Education officials say so far there are more questions than answers about the proposal.
If a child becomes violent during class, would the teacher-officer be allowed to use more aggressive means of restraint than a regular teacher? In a campus emergency, would the teacher-officer leave his classroom unattended to respond?
"I'm a common-sense guy, but it's hard to wade through this," said John Jasonek, executive director of the Clark County Education Association, which represents most of the district's 18,000 teachers. "Right now this isn't passing the initial sniff test."
Clark County Schools Superintendent Walt Rulffes said he would like to see how the proposal plays out at the university level.
"There may be some value in having teachers who want increased security training to receive that training," Rulffes said. "But it's too soon to say whether they should actually be able to carry firearms."
Rulffes said he's not even wholly comfortable with regular school police officers carrying guns, even though he realizes it's a necessary response to the level of violence and criminal activity in the community at large, which often spills onto campuses.
He also wonders whether the program would encourage teachers to leave the classroom in pursuit of better-paying jobs in law enforcement.
Ken Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services based in Cleveland, said the proposal to turn teachers into reserve officers is misguided.
"Teachers get into education to teach, not to be cops," Trump said. "Teachers are already overwhelmed with all of the academic, behavioral and administrative tasks they have to perform. To say you're going to add a whole other role and mind-set is unrealistic."
Debate about arming teachers surfaces periodically in other states, usually in the wake of a high-profile campus shooting, Trump said.
"Rather than off-the-wall proposals, how about our legislators focus on stopping the cuts to funding for school safety and emergency preparedness, mental health services and support programs," Trump said. "That might actually provide an improved learning environment, instead of trying to make teachers into cops."
Emily Richmond can be reached at 259-8829 or at email@example.com.
Worth a gander. We can only link the source.
Many states require that a teacher remain with their students at all time; an unattended classroom leaves room for bad behavior by students and lawsuits by parents. The state would have to change the rules to allow teachers to leave their classroom in an emergency.
Finally ......sheepdogs with teeth looking after the little lambs !
Nevada gets a clue......
Of course, the wussy education union leaders "are agin it".
And you talk about not "passing the smell test", but the new "NRA alternative" certainly doesn't.
Many states also have “dual teacher” classrooms... Just throwing that out.
(Not addressed to you TW, just adding it to my post)
This isn’t a mandate to make teachers into cops, it’s a chance for teachers to do more than what they have been doing (and justify a big pay raise)
“who would be trained and armed as reserve school police officers.”
This is a better idea than just giving them guns. Too many teachers shouldn’t even be allowed to handle sharp objects, let alone firearms.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water...we (conservatives) need to learn the value of incrementalism as utilized by left for decades. Let this be the camel's nose under the tent, a reverse 'slippery slope,' if you will.
A few teachers qualify under the stringent standards. When it becomes obvious they're not having shootouts in the halls of the school, the idea will become more accepted; maybe even a few of their hoplophobe coworkers might go to the range with them a few times, and see what a good idea it is. Sooner or later, an armed teacher will save some lives, and eventually, there will be a call for more armed teachers.
Why? Police officers go through hundreds of hours of training before they're allowed to go out on the streets. Those assigned to deal with hostage situations go through hundreds of more hours of instruction. Both spend time training and re-training in the course of their job. You want to take a teacher, put them through a few hours training once, and then send them out there expecting them to deal with an armed intruder situation a few years later?
There is no need for or alternative to the NRA. This is yet another divide and conquer organization.
Defending the 2nd Amendment is a street brawl, and one the NRA is used to winning time and time again, against formidable odds.
I see plenty of good reasons why the gun grabbers would love to split the "hunters and sportsmen" from the RKBA gun owners (2nd Amendment as an antidote to governmental tyranny) and the self- and home-defense gun owners.
First you drain the NRA of "hunters and sportsmen", thereby depleting membership and funding. Make the "hunters and sportsmen" happy, and then aim all of your gun grabbing shots at the now-neutered RKBA and self-defense "nuts" of the NRA.
After a while the duped "hunters and sportsmen" will find themselves restricted to single and double barrel shotguns, bolt action, unmagazined hunting rifles, and the rest of it.
Bill Clinton often said he wasn't opposed to "huntin' and sport shootin'", even though the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee it.
Why? Police officers go through hundreds of hours of training before they're allowed to go out on the streets.
Why? because if you let gov't establish as a fact that people need such 'special' training to bear arms, over-training will become an infringement on our right to carry.
Police officers go through hundreds of hours of training before they're allowed to go out on the streets because they are given special powers/duties.
Everyones power to carry is not special; it's an ordinary inalienable right.
Yes. Two reasons. Firstly, the teacher won't be "going out on the street". Any situation they encounter will be more like those clear-cut situations faced by normal CCW holders. Secondly, the track record of CCW holders in such incidents is actually BETTER than that of the "highly trained police".
Pretty soon the only way you will be able to tell the prisons from the schools will be by the number of people who never finish their term.
They were replaying The Young Lions for the umpteenth time on AMC this morning and Marlon Brando sayths in his sexthy, phony Gerh..man acthent, “Yes, if I have to kill to create world peace then that is what I will do...”