Introduction
Getting a school education is a crucial stage in every child’s life. Children spend a significant part of their time in the school setting, so teachers, parents, and students want the environment to be safe. However, in recent decades, the number of accidents that threaten the lives of children has been quite common. A distinctive fear is instilled by mass shootings taking place in educational facilities throughout the country. Many stakeholders are interested in the search for a solution to this problem – politicians, school staff, law enforcement agencies, parents, and schoolchildren. One of the proposed solutions is arming teachers, which causes serious debate.
The decision to arm teachers has significant consequences, so it is relevant to study this topic. The current research paper aims to investigate the dangers threatening students at school. Another goal of the study is to explore stakeholders’ opinions on the issue of arming teachers. Finally, the paper explores the potential impact of arming teachers on student safety. Available literature on the topic is studied to achieve the established goals. Some reviews note that there is insufficient reliable research on the impact of arming teachers on the safety and use of handguns, which prevents making the right decision (The Effects of Laws). Therefore, there is a need to fill in the gaps, find out the reasons for the absence of such studies, and draw attention to their condition. The thesis hypothesis is that arming teachers can positively impact student safety. The paper’s structure covers school environment safety and threats, stakeholder opinions, the potential benefits and disadvantages, and current research on teachers carrying guns.
School Environment and Potential Threats
Students’ presence at school contains many factors which impact children and the quality of the received education. The school climate includes discipline measures, diversity and inclusion policies, social and emotional security, opportunities for open talk and assistance, and similar aspects (Rajan and Branas 861). The peculiarities of school settings must be taken into account when implementing safety measures so that they have the necessary effectiveness.
The work of schools includes many safety protocols to protect students. In particular, there are programs to respond to natural disasters, identify suicidal tendencies, combat bullying, and deal with other threats (Rajan and Branas 861). At the same time, many schools register violent incidents: about 79% of schools reported such situations between 2015 and 2016, corresponding to almost one and a half million crimes (Cobb 1). Moreover, there were about 288 shootings in American schools in ten years (Cobb 1). Therefore, although schools must be safe environments, there are a large number of threats that must be prevented.
Fear of highlighted threats, especially mass shootings, pushes the public to seek different solutions. The idea of arming teachers widely spread after an incident in Parkland, Florida, in 2018 (Schildkraut and Martaindale 1288). President Donald Trump supported this proposal agreeing that such actions could be an effective measure of protection against shooters (Schildkraut and Martaindale 1289). Even though schools are considered areas without weapons following federal laws, teachers are allowed to have them in 28 states (Schildkraut and Martaindale 1289). For example, in Florida, the governor issued a decree creating a program to prepare teachers for protection, which included measures to teach them how to shoot and psychological screenings (Schildkraut and Martaindale 1289). The emergence and adaptation of such programs are possible in various districts throughout the country.
Politicians and other stakeholders are also considering other measures in addition to arming educators to ensure safety and prevent and mitigate crime. Proposed actions include educating the public about problems, implementing legislation limiting weapons availability, identifying and addressing aggressive behavior, expanding support services, and creating a favorable climate in schools (Rajan and Branas 861). However, threats persist, and there is a need for more effective protection measures.
Stakeholders’ Opinion on Arming Teachers
Various population groups have different levels of support for the idea of arming teachers. Schildkraut and Martaindale found that public opinion was almost halved in support or opposition to arming (1291). Opinion differs depending on the status of gun ownership, political party choice, income, and other factors (Schildkraut and Martaindale 1292). The opinion also differs among the groups that are most involved in the issue of arming teachers – school staff, politicians, children and parents, and law enforcement agencies.
Implementing a policy that allows or obliges a teacher to carry a gun creates a significant shift for the profession, requiring candidates to have new competencies and readiness to shoot. Consequently, about 60% of teachers are not prepared for such policies and new obligations in addition to the significant volume of the current duties (Schildkraut and Martaindale 1292). However, many teachers believe that guns are important for protecting themselves and their students (Haines). Active protection is a preferable option for them in comparison to just hiding and seeing the deaths of students and colleagues (Haines; Should Teachers). Therefore, arming those ready for this duty is permissible for school employees.
The opinion of politicians contrasts depending on the political party. In particular, Democrats support the laws that limit weapons use and oppose arming teachers (Haines). Representatives of the Republican Party, on the contrary, propose to provide weapons to teachers who are ready for such responsibility and tighten other protection means (Haines). As a result, the opinion of politicians, as well as the public, is almost equally divided.
Schoolchildren and their parents also have different views on the situation. According to Schildkraut and Martaindale, 70% of teenagers are unsure that schools will become safer with armed teachers (1292). Some students believe that teachers will not be able to respond to the threat quickly enough (Balingit). At the same time, gun decision advocates include those whose loved ones were targeted by shooters, as they believe armed teachers could protect students (Haines). Therefore, many parents who know their children’s educators can protect their classrooms, feel more comfortable about safety (Huff and Barnhart). Such trends of views correlate with the public division on this issue.
Representatives of law enforcement agencies are an influential side in the discussion of allowing teachers to have guns. They must respond to incidents in schools and come to the crime scene. The presence of several armed people can confuse officers and prevent them from performing their duties (Schildkraut and Martaindale 1289). However, the study found that most law enforcement officials appointed school resource officers to favor arming teachers (Schildkraut and Martaindale 1299). At the same time, officers suggest that teachers need serious training to be prepared for shooting situations. Thus, from the point of view of officers, such a policy has prospects.
Armed Teachers: Advantages and Disadvantages
Benefits
An essential argument in the discussion about arming teachers is that educators can be a warning to potential criminals. Shooters and terrorists choose places of least resistance to attack, so non-armed schools are at significant risk (Balingit). The presence of teachers as protectors can make schools a less attractive place for potential criminals, as the risk to their lives also increases (Schildkraut and Martaindale 1290). Educators will be able to do their part to protect children instead of running away and hiding (The Effects of Laws). Moreover, arming teachers suggests they can respond quickly to the threat and save many of their students’ lives. The rapid response aspect is critical in rural areas, where often, due to a lack of resources or distanced locations, law enforcement agencies can come later than necessary to react effectively.
Arming teachers can be a significant addition to existing security measures. At the moment, school resource officers represent armed people on campuses. However, an analysis of 1999-2018 incidents demonstrated that in 40% of schools that were attacked, such an employee was present, which means that the officer was not enough to prevent the threat (Balingit). Moreover, their response can also be slowed in emergency situations. For example, in Parkland, it took 99 seconds for an officer to get to the shooter, and 21 people were already dead by this time (The Effects of Laws). This situation highlights how important time is in cases of threats, and armed teachers near students can respond quickly.
The issue of resources is both an advantage and a disadvantage. Training and guns for teachers require additional budget investments. However, according to a study by Schildkraut and Martaindale, arming teachers costs less than hiring school resource officers (1290). Moreover, using weapons for their protection is the right of American citizens, and many consider such a right as a moral obligation (Huff and Barnhart). Therefore, some teachers already have a weapon permit and do not need new training and gun.
Drawbacks
Opponents of the idea believe that arming more civilians, especially in schools, carries significant risks. For example, there is a chance of accidental shots, weapons falling into the students’ hands, and even a miss in the event of incidents during defense (Schildkraut and Martaindale 1290). Many researchers suggest that greater gun availability is no guarantee of protection against potential violence (Rajan and Branas 861). According to Rajan and Branas, there is uncertainty about how to organize and manage the armament of teachers (860). Training teachers to shoot is potentially possible, but, at the moment, there are no applicable evidence-based principles and guidelines to create the necessary training programs (Rajan and Branas 861). These aspects also need to be considered when deciding on arming teachers.
An important consideration on the issue of arming teachers is the cost of such measures. In particular, placing one armed school resource officer in each American school can require between $19 billion and $22 billion yearly (Rajan and Branas 861). Arming a few teachers in a single school will require even more resources and an increase in the part of the budget allocated to ensure school safety.
Current Research
Although the issue of the impact of arming teachers on safety is causing fierce debate in society, there needs to be more scientific research. Many researchers and organizations note that no reliable scientific research proves or refutes the effectiveness and influence of arming teachers (Rajan and Branas 861; Schildkraut and Martaindale 1302; The Effects of Laws). Consequently, the perceived effectiveness depends on public opinion, which has no consensus and radically different views (Schildkraut and Martaindale 1302). For these reasons, there is a need for reliable longitudinal studies which will analyze data from schools where armed teachers are present and absent over several years. Such a study would provide evidence about the impact of weapons on safety.
There is also uncertainty in the studies about how safety improvements are perceived regarding safety. Part of the research suggests that strengthening safety measures, such as the use of metal detectors, dogs, and additional security officers, is an appropriate option to improve safety and prevent crimes (Cobb 37). In such a case, a warning that school teachers are armed and willing to protect their students could deter potential criminals. Other studies demonstrate that increased measures may have a negative effect on the sense of security (Rajan and Branas 861). Surrounded by such means as weapons, metal detectors, and similar tools, students may find themselves in a tense waiting for an attack instead of feeling calm. Such expectations lead to increased anxiety, stress, and the risk of depression in students and school staff. Moreover, radical punitive measures aimed at various crimes do not often have the necessary deterrent effect (Rajan and Branas 861). Such ambiguity in research highlights the need for additional credible studies.
Discussions and Conclusions
Reviewing current literature and research, there is no reliable evidence on how arming teachers affect student safety. Existing assumptions about effectiveness are considered regarding public opinion and perception of such a decision. The present study finds the arguments for arming teachers more compelling. Adequate training programs for volunteer teachers with thorough checks can aid in arming (Isbell et al. 10). Despite the risks of carrying weapons, teachers can play a crucial role in responding quickly to a threat when seconds are needed to save several lives.
Works Cited
Balingit, Moriah. “Republicans, Reluctant to Pass Gun Regulations, Push Arming Teachers.” The Washington Post, Web.
Cobb, Kevin Devon. Safety Perceptions of School Safety Teams: How Safe Do We Perceive Our Schools to Be? 2021. Dissertation Manuscript. ERIC Database. Web.
Haines, Matt. “US Teachers Debate Guns in the Classroom.” Voice of America, Web.
Huff, Aimee DinnÃn, and Michelle Barnhart. “Arming Teachers – An Effective Security Measure or A False Sense of Security?” The Conversation, Web.
Isbell, Laura, et al. “Arming Teachers for School Safety: Providing Clarity for State Policies.” Texas Education Review, vol. 7, no. 2, 2019, pp. 6-13, Web.
Rajan, Sonali, and Charles C. Branas. “Arming Schoolteachers: What Do We Know? Where Do We Go From Here?.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 108, no. 7, 2018, pp. 860-862. Web.
Schildkraut, Jaclyn, and M. Hunter Martaindale. “Should Firearms be Allowed in K-12 Public Schools? An Analysis of Law Enforcement’s Perceptions of Armed Teacher Policies.” Security Journal, vol. 35, 2022, pp. 1288–1307, Web.
“Should Teachers Carry Guns? The Debate, Explained.” Education Week, Web.
“The Effects of Laws Allowing Armed Staff in K–12 Schools.” RAND Corporation, Web.