Hb1062

[XD-9Guy]

I think we should be careful, I'd hate to see a bunch of people complain and say the training is too much for a teacher to handle if the result is everyone saying let's forget it the teachers don't think they have time for the training anyway. 240 hours is a lot but I think there are folks in education that feel like this is important enough that they will make that commitment. And I don't know how relevant daycare expenses are, every daycare we spoke with(which is in excess of 40 in the metro area, because we recently went through the selection process) charges you for your position whether you take your child in or not. If you want to stop paying when you are off in the summer months that means you have to give up your position and basically dis-enroll your child. Many will take your child back once you return to work, but only if they still have an opening - if they fill your spot then you are shopping for another daycare.

Coach, I completely understand your point regarding a teacher/reserve officer not needing the same level of knowledge but when you think about the responsibility that would come along with this scenario there is a TON of knowledge provided to LEOs that would be valuable to these reserve officers too. Even things that seem unrelated at first glance like observation skills and report writing - those are things that would be crucial for these people to prepared for. Have you seen a corporate accident report these days? They are very detailed and I can imagine that the reports the a teacher/reserve officer would be asked to complete in the event of an incident would be even more in-depth.

240 may very well be over the top, but I can't convince myself that 40 would be sufficient - I would really have to see the 240 curriculum to make a fair assessment on the matter.

 

[CoachR64]

The training is unrealistic. I think the author of the bill designed this as a feel good bill knowing most large school districts will never allow teachers to carry and the excessive training requirements would stop many from doing so. If you are involved in a shooting as a civilian, should you have to go through a 240 hour course to be able to write up reports? Teachers are civilians. Civilians carry every day in areas with as many people as a school, such as malls and movie theaters. We are using the whole "but there are kids!" excuse here that the anti gun folks are using to justify excessive infringements on our rights. Our kids are around people every day that carry guns inside of Walmart, grocery stores, etc... I don't really see a huge difference Ina teacher carrying at school versus that same teacher carrying at a birthday party for his kids at a pizza joint.

What I do see as needed is qualifiying and training on marksmanship as well as specifically training for an active shooter scenario. The rest is unnecessary.

 

[CoachR64]

Day care is relevant. I pay by the day for coverage for my child with a private in home sitter and do not pay for days my child doesn't go to his sitter. For 6 weeks in the summer, that would cost me $900 extra.

If someone wants to pay me a teacher salary and an officer salary, then ok. But forcing a teacher to be both just to carry is silly. If you are forcing a teacher to be a reserve officer, schools are going to push them into that role, serving at events for the school. Making arrests, writing reports, etc... Would become part of it. Teachers are civilians and should be treated as such. Should really be no different than an armed civilian stopping a shooting in a coffe shop. Let the police come make the reports, arrests, etc.

 

[XD-9Guy]

It's not a "but there are kids" argument for me - it's a "we'll be amongst the first to do it and we'll have a big target on us" argument. The anti crowd will be watching schools that implement these kind of programs like hawks and if there is an incident that doesn't go exactly the way it ought, it will be blown out across the world in moments so they can show everyone "what a failure the program is". That's why it's so important that everyone is prepared and over-prepared isn't such a bad thing, we can always scale it back in the future if we can show where the training is excessive. Right now you can't carry at all, period, exclamation point - so this is still a step in the right direction. They chipped our rights away a little at a time so we wouldn't get to stirred up about it, I don't see any reason we can't use the same approach to take them back.

You are fortunate in your daycare situation and I can assure you that you are in a HUGE minority in being able to pay by the day, especially in an "in-home" daycare. If you are pleased with her, I would appreciate you PMing her info so I can check her out... and I am being completely serious about that.

But also realize that I meant, I don't know that daycare is a relevant talking point for the majority of teachers, it is for you - but your username leads me to believe that you coach as well as teach which means that you will likely struggle to find time for any sort of scheduled training. I'm very familiar with the time investment coaching requires, regardless of sport, and know that it is going to be really hard for a lot of coaches to get training in even if they cut the training in half to 120 hours. I know some coaches that work in excess of 40 hours per week in the off season, but that doesn't mean that we make the rules to accommodate teachers that have chosen to coach. I'm confident that if they put this into practice, the agencies responsible for training would do their best to find a way to create schedules to accommodate everyone in education - I just want to see it started.

And you are right that in a perfect world this wouldn't even be a discussion... the teachers that are shooters would be carrying their firearms and that would be comforting to parents and fellow teachers. But we all know we aren't living in a perfect world, it has lots of flaws.

 

[CoachR64]

How many police incidents go just the way they ought? Training and the real deal are not the same. No amount of training will prevent something from possibly going wrong. Mr Murphy is always around.

This is not a true step In the rignt direction. It is another measure to create an illusion of safety. Again, most large district will not allow it in any way, shape or form, and many teachers at schools that do will be prevented from doing so for a variety of reasons. My school district spent 10s of thousands putting in "lobby guard" where visitors have to scan a drivers licesne when checking in. Looks great to see an article In the paper that talks about all this cool stuff we are doing to protect kids. What you don't see is that there are multiple entrances to the schools open and unguarded daily. To even use the system, you have to purposefully seek out the office and use it. It doesn't protect kids. Just an illusion of safety that looks good to outsiders.

I see no point in putting in measures that are not realistic, as they will ultimately be ineffective. If we are going to do something, than we need to do something meaningful. Other wise, it is nothing but more smoke and mirrors. As far as coaches go, they are the ones traveling and often at schools in late hours and weekends when there is no officer around. They are the ones most likely to need to protect students.

I was going into criminal justice before I chose the teaching path. I thought I wanted to be in law enforcement. I felt called to my professon and I love what I do. I would not do it differently. I teach an extra class, coach 2 sports, am working on my masters, and will be watching my son this summer. I've been shot in a gun free zone and no the dangers of them. I've never committed a crime. I fail to see how becoming a police officer makes me any better able or willing to lay down my life and protect my students.

 

[CoachR64]

I do have a couple of other questions:

If it is does pass and officer status is required, is it still up to the district or will the officer status trump the district and allow the teacher to carry? Officers can already carry at a school, so this one puzzles me a bit.

Also, with it being officer status, is their reciprocity? If an administrator from school x goes through the steps to carry and legally carries at his school, what would happen if school x travels to school y for a basketball playoff game? Would said administrator be allowed to carry or does the right to protect kids only apply within boundaries of the home school/district?

Lots of questions and tricky situation that I don't think have been addressed well or thought of with this bill

 

[XD-9Guy]

That's an excellent observation, if you are legal to carry at your school I don't think anyone should be able to disarm you because their school doesn't support, if you are taking your kids there for a ball game they are still your responsibility & you have your duty. It seems that there would be significant pitfalls to a lack of reciprocity or if they leave it up to each district & not all districts approve it. Seems to me if you give them "police level" training you have to give them the flexibility they'll need to do their duty. I think we're safe in acknowledging that this is in its infancy and there are more questions than answers.

 

[mr ed]

The whole point of the 240 hours training is so that no one will do it!

 

[rawhide]

The news reports we are seeing now claim 240hrs of reserve officer training will be mandated for a teacher to carry. This is a great way to insure almost no teachers will receive the training necessary to carry at school. Another illusion of safety measure. We need to get realistic about protecting our kids.

Looks like feel good legislation to me.

Considering the environment teachers work in, I am not opposed to situation specific training as a matter of responsibility. Training I would seek regardless of the law. The objective, as I see it, is to allow teachers to protect themselves and the students on their campus. Requiring teachers to be reserve law enforcement is unnecessary. Teachers in Utah have been carrying for more than a decade with zero incidents.

Wouldn't the state or school district paying for such training effectively obligate trained teachers to be on call to handle all kinds of situations unintended by this legislation? There are many teachers who probably could not, for physical reasons due to age or disability, pass or complete such training but could most certainly confront and prevent an active shooter from doing more harm. I want to be able to respond to a deadly threat as effectively as possible, not be on call as a part-time resource officer or security guard.

 

[CoachR64]

Response I just received from Mr. Flick:

Thank you for your concern regarding this legislation. *There was extensive discussion regarding the training requirements in HB 1062 and the Executive Director of CLEET was present to discuss options available through his agency. *The bill is still in the very early stages of the legislative process and many proposed changes were discussed. *Steve Emmons, Executive Director of CLEET, brought up many of your concerns in his presentation to the Committee. *He said that if the bill were to pass, it would be likely that CLEET would create a modified program based on their existing reserve officer training. *The 240 hour limit would likely stay in place but there would be less focus on logistics and more emphasis placed on school security, concealment, and weapon retention in the case of an assailant trying to disarm the licensee. *He also mentioned possibly including their current "Active Shooter" training (which is a 2 day course) into the 240 hours but he was somewhat concerned as the Active Shooter Training has a large focus on teamwork and group response to a threat. **

We will continue to monitor HB 1062 and other bills on this subject. *If you have any other questions or need more information, please feel free to contact me at any time. *Thanks!