Well,
let me start by saying that I am heartbroken for the Parkland, Florida parents
of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School students who were senselessly murdered on Wednesday by the coward Nikolaus Cruz. I can hardly fathom the
anguish a parent feels as he or she mourns and tries to make sense of the death
of a child. The only consolation I can offer to the parents, families, and friends of the victims in the context of this
incomprehensible tragedy is, “I’m so very sorry.”
 |
| A popular image on Facebook and Instagram recently. |
Immediately
after the Parkland, Florida massacre on Valentine’s Day, the hand-wringing,
finger pointing, and politicization of the tragedy began in earnest. Social
media has made every damned moron in the world a political spin doctor. Supporters
of gun control point fingers at supporters of gun rights directing
culpability to President Trump, the National Rifle Association (NRA), and
Congress. Some claim gun rights supporters care more about guns than children.
On the other hand, gun rights supporters assert that the anti-gunners would
take away the rights of responsible citizens to own firearms for protection and
sport and leave guns in the hands of only those who would do us harm including
criminals, the mentally ill, and a hypothetically tyrannical government.
Social media has
made every damned moron in the world a political spin doctor.
Reasonable people, and many unreasonable
people as well, continue to debate meaning of Second Amendment of the United
States Constitution, which reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to
the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed.” Short of a Constitutional Convention, during which
the efficacy and legitimacy of the United States Constitution would be debated
and, perhaps, changed, the Second Amendment remains and continues to be debated
in the context of gun laws in the United States.
 |
| Nathan G weighs in. |
While
that debate continues, little has changed and school shootings continue. Even
as those opponents spar over the value of existing laws, Congress is frequently
blamed for the snarl of new gun control legislation. It seems when it comes creating
legislation, the more disputed an issue is, the less effective the compromise.
The House passes a bill, the Senate changes it to satisfy enough senators to
get a majority, and thereby dilutes the original intention. So, it is with our
bicameral legislature.
Frankly, I don't think any sane person wants these sorts of tragedies to happen ever again. Considering
the strong, opposing views relating to firearms and the current bearing of the
United State Congress and Senate, however, what can realistically be achieved to keep
our schools and our children safe?
Perhaps,
an answer lies within our local school districts rather than with Congress.
A community
elects a school board to represent the preferences of a community as they
relate to how its children are educated. Board members are our neighbors and,
often, our friends. Those elected board members establish education guidelines in
the context of federal and state mandates and the collective bargaining
agreement with the teacher’s union. While education is a school district’s principal
charter, support services like administration, custodial services, student
transportation and, yes, even security are within the purview of the school
board. It turns out, a school board has many options at its disposal to help
insure the security and safety of its students and employees.
An
option that has been bandied is the use of armed security. “Some school districts
are already moving in that direction. In September, a state board in Arkansas
voted to allow 13 school districts to train their teachers and staff as armed
guards, and at least seven states – including Ohio, Colorado, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Washington – have armed guards in schools.[i]” School
districts in New Jersey “ . . . will now be allowed to hire a retired police
officer under the age of 65 who has the training as a police officer, has had a
career as a police officer. They will be able to hire them to be an officer in
the school. He will be allowed to carry a gun as long as he continues with the
requirements for the permit.[ii]”
However, the use of armed guards is not permitted in many states and some school
administrators may express concern about the vetting process for privately
contracted armed guards.
 |
| Both sides of the debate have statistics to support their position. |
Some
school districts have created the position of “Student Resource Officer (SRO)” and
have partnered with local police departments to fill those positions. The SRO
is a law-enforcement officer employed by the municipality’s police department. The
SRO’s job description involves student character education. The SRO may almost be
an extension of the school guidance department as he or she forms constructive
relationships with students. The SRO potentially identifies at-risk situations
among students and follows up with the school or even a student’s family. An SRO
may also act as a deterrent of drug use/dealing, cyber-bullying, and even
technology threats. Of course, as a member of the local police department, an
SRO carries a side-arm, which both may discourage a school shooting or stop an
active shooter.
Both
the option of a third-party armed guard and an SRO is an expense. For example,
the annual cost of each SRO to a school district including salary, benefits,
and mandatory pension contribution may be $125,000 or more. It would be up to
the constituents in a district to approve a school budget which includes such
positions.
Reasonable people, and many unreasonable
people as well, continue to debate meaning of Second Amendment of the United
States Constitution, which reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to
the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed.”
Another
and, likely, less costly option is for a school district to develop a partnership
with local law enforcement agencies. Such a partnership may require the
leadership of a school district including a superintendent and board members to
identify opportunities to develop that relationship. Perhaps, a superintendent
of schools invites a police chief to attend and participate in or hold a
non-voting position at school board meetings. A superintendent of schools may
join and participate in a local chamber of commerce or attend Police Benevolent
Association meetings to foster those professional relationships.
 |
| No citation for this meme found on Facebook. |
Using
those relationships as a foundation, school district
leadership can brainstorm with law enforcement ways to improve safety and security
at the schools. Some ideas that may come from the partnership include random visits,
assemblies, or even linking police vehicles and/or police dispatch to school
cameras. Such a partnership would probably not be difficult to develop. After
all, not only is it in the police department’s best interest to prevent potential
criminal activity in its jurisdiction, many police officers themselves have children in school.
Still
another effective control is a monitored secure vestibule for school visitors. A
secure vestibule for visitors when they enter a school can provide time to
check identification and, for a potentially dangerous person, contain that
person in that secure space and prevent him or her from entering the student
area. Many school already employ a greeter, although a capital expenditure approval would
have to be granted, again, by voters to construct or modify a building for the
secure vestibule.
Other
ways our school districts have to help insure the safety of students and faculty
at our schools include:
• Eliminate building master keys in favor of key cards or biometric verification access issued only to background-checked,
authorized school district staff;
• Use exterior surveillance cameras at automobile entrances for license plate
verification and checks;
• Require
regular parent and other non-faculty volunteers to complete background checks;
• Install contact
alarms on all non-monitored doors.
Clearly,
not all solutions that a school district can undertake are appropriate for all school
districts. Moreover, these and other safety and security practices and tools
are small pieces that create a much larger safety and security tapestry. Some of what may work in St. Louis,
Missouri, for example, may not work in Brooklyn, New York. On the other hand, the
same tools that work in Baltimore, Maryland may also work in San Antonio,
Texas. Factors including finances, building limitations, and voter preferences will
determine the protocols a school district will undertake.
Until
a Constitutional Convention is convened to resolve, once and for all, what the
Second Amendment of the Constitution means, we have a better chance to agree
about ways to protect our children from gun violence within our own school
districts than Congressional members from St. Louis, Missouri, Brooklyn, New York,
Baltimore, Maryland, and San Antonio, Texas have on agreeing on gun legislation.
Of
course, no solution will be completely effective. However, hand-wringing and special-interest social media debate is, clearly, accomplishing nothing. By proactively tailoring a
safety and security plan to a school district and, more specifically, to each school
that includes a combination of these and other tools and practices, we can reduce, possibly
to nearly zero, the chance that another tragedy like the one in Parkland, or Sandy
Hook, or Columbine, or . . . will ever happen again.
[i] “How
Schools Are Working to Prevent School Shootings.” Allie Bidwell.
U.S. News & World Report. January
15, 2014.
[ii] “NJ
Schools Can Hire Retired Police Officers for Security.” Briana Vannozzi.
NJTV News. December 2, 2016.
