Why Armed Teachers WON'T Stop School Shootings

[Obiwan]

**Disclaimer** I have two children in private school

But...as to level playing fields....

(I also don't mind paying for the education of our young...I just mind being TOLD where and how it will be done....with MY money)

The Christian School my girls attend costs slightly more than half what the public school gets per student. And yet their classes are smaller and the cirriculum is tougher...

Sure...they don't have a football team but...I have girls!

Since My kids are not in public school, BUT I pay a bundle in property taxes....my school money goes to the general fund...lucky Government.

So...while vouchers would give me back MY MONEY to pay for my childs education, it would allow kids from any economic background a chance to go to a better school...but only a chance...

Colorado now offer vouchers to kids that are in really bad schools and doing poorly.

But...having a voucher does not get you into private school....at least not all of them. Poor students (knowledge, not $) can't pass the entrance exam...and discipline problem children don't make it either.

Oh...by the way....if they do get in, the parents get the voucher from the public school.....for some amount less than the normal state budgeted amount....so the school district REFERRING the student gets the balance....

While it is not level.....it is certainly tipped in the balance towards the public school.

Because the voucher comes FROM the tax roll, it evens things quite well....I would get the same voucher as somebody that pays half the taxes I do.

I see HUGE public schools sitting empty and I cringe at the thought at how much better the ebb and flow of students could be handled by the private sector..


Look at (for profit) charter schools....they are not huge brick monuments to the teachers union...they are simple...functional buildings...built simply for the purpose of teaching...for money...it CAN be a beautiful thing!

 

[Dex Sinister]

Armed Teachers WON'T Stop School Shootings

And wearing seatbelts will not stop auto accidents: Therefore we should ban the wearing of seatbelts.

Given the following:
Number of students enrolled in grades K-12: 45,000,000
Number of teachers: 2,600,000
Number of schools: 87,000
Number of school districts: 14,883

Assumed true, but irrelevant. We already know that there currently exists one teacher per classroom of students – and the question is hardly whether students are sitting unsupervised in classrooms.

Even in states with "shall-issue" concealed carry permit laws, less than 5% of the population actually gets a CCW permit.

Assumed true, but irrelevant. The percentage of police officers who carry guns is near 100%. There is no reason to assume that if teachers were persuaded that being armed would "save the children," that numbers might not be closer to police than CCW holders.

"The fact the permits are available does not mean that everyone will carry a gun. Usually only about 1% to 4% of a state's population will choose to obtain a permit."

See above.

I'm going to speculate that teachers tend to be more politically liberal and anti-gun than the general population. If so, the number of CCW permits among teachers would be fewer than the general population.

See above.

If 3.3% of the teachers get a permit (and actually carry), there would be an average of 1 armed teacher per school.

Except that most, (if not all) schools today have some staff that operates as designated security personnel for that school, and if arming school staff became possible, it would be quite logical to assume that those people, at a minimum, would be armed in addition to any teachers who chose to do so.

If 3.3% of the teachers get a permit (and actually carry), there would be an average of 1 armed teacher per school. However, the teachers with guns wouldn't be evenly distributed among the nation's 87,000 schools. They would probably be more concentrated in "conservative" areas. Thus, one school with 5 armed teachers would mean that 4 schools wouldn't have any.

Meaning that the chance of an attack at that particular school with 5 armed teachers would go down commeasurably. However, the method – taking a flat percentage, and then assuming concentrations – is invalid. It is more likely that in conservative areas, especially if armed teachers became fashionable or if an administrator promoted the idea aggressively, that given schools would have a much higher concentration of armed teachers because many people, teachers included, have difficulty not being "fashionable."

Even if teachers with CCW permits were allowed to carry their guns at work, and they actually did, the chances of one being present during a school shooting are probably less than we like to admit.

If they are teachers, and it is their job to be at school, and that is what they are paid to do, presumably they will be there fairly frequently. And as previously stated, no one claims that unattended classrooms exist.

If one considers that some spree-killers are also suicidal, and therefore wouldn't be deterred by the threat of an armed teacher (or police officer), the picture looks even more dismal.

If one considered that some arsonists are suicidal, the existence of fire departments is shown to be a useless exercise in futility.

For information purposes, I'll point out that there are about 670,000 full-time law enforcement officers in the United States.

Out of 280,000,000 people in the US, or about 0.239% of the total population. Let’s review that: That’s zero point two four percent of the total population. However, since the existence of police fails to prevent all crime, they are probably a useless exercise in futility.

Divided equally among 3 shifts per day, there are about 223,000 LEOs on duty at any given time.

Or 0.079% of the total population on duty at any given time as police. However, since the existence of police fails to prevent all crime, they are probably a useless exercise in futility.

Number of students enrolled in grades K-12: 45,000,000
Number of schools: 87,000
If 3.3% of the teachers get a permit (and actually carry), there would be an average of 1 armed teacher per school.

Or 0.193% of the entire K-12 population, or 244% more armed teachers on duty per student than armed police per citizen on duty. Two guns per school would be 489% more armed teachers on duty per student than armed police per citizen on duty. Three guns per school would be 732% more armed teachers on duty per student than armed police per citizen on duty.

Frankly, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the number of suicidal, armed and dangerous 5-to-12 year olds is “fairly small.†Logically, we're worrying about Jr highs and High schools, not K-6's.

And of course, just as the number of police is not uniform across the country, it is likely that the number of armed teachers would not be uniform across the country. Ignoring for a moment various state laws to the contrary, I would hardly be surprised to find that teachers in downtown Chicago, IL, Newark, NJ, Baltimore, MD, Washington, DC, and Los Angeles, CA, carried guns at a "slightly" higher percentage than teachers in Natrona, Wyoming.

Dex };>=-

 

[Glock Glockler]

[/b]BTW, I'm an old dinosaur who still remembers this same issue back in the 60's wearing a slightly different coat: when "bussing" was first implemented to balance racial levels throughout school systems, parents were furious because some kids who had formerly been attending affluent area schools got shipped off to the poorer schools... [/b]

So you think that it's ok to single people out based on their color and ship them off to a school that neither they nor their parents want them to go to?

The fact that you consider tax money spent on education to be equated to welfare doesn't MAKE it like welfare, it remains just your opinion.

You are advocating the govt use guns to take money away from people to fund a social program that they might disagree with and might not make use of in the slightest and you dont consider that to be welfare? No, it is not just his opinion, you do advocate forced welfare programs.

The government takes away our money in taxes and spends it on many things, the vast majority of which are stupid, useless sinkholes of pork barrel waste. IMO, educating the public is one of the better places to administer what you call "governmental welfare".

1 - You'd first have to convince me that the educational product resulting from govt schools is worth something in the first place. Most American children cannot perform even 4 function math, can barely read, and are housed in govt mandated indoctrination centers where they receive a constant barrage of leftist propaganda. No thanks, that is not education, that is more properly called socialization, and I want no part of that.

2 - If you or any other person wants to actually "invest" in educating the next generation there is nothing preventing you from voluntarily donating money to an educational charity.

 

[Norton]

If there's any doubt that the .gov schools are not indoctrinating your kids yesterday was a case in point.

Some of my more common sensical kids came ot me after lunch to show me a bunch of propaganda from a PETA representative that had been handed out as the kids came from the cafeteria.

Seals being clubbed, the KFC brochure, milk = pus stickers. All laced with gruesome pictures and profanity.

 

[Joe Demko]

I've been teaching since 1985. Things have changed in the system for the worse in those years. Let me address some of the points that you guys have been talking over:

1) Public Schools v. Private Schools- we are required by law, in the public school system, to take (and keep) any student from the district. Except under very narrow circumstances we cannot refuse to accept a student, nor can we get rid of one. Private schools, on the other hand, can screen their students and also get rid of troublesome ones. If you want to fairly compare public school education to private education, it would be more accurate to compare the public school kids from the right half of the bell curve to a private school population. Private schools typically do not deal with the legions of special education, emotionally disturbed, and other "needs" kids that the public schools have no choice but to accept. In the school where I teach, close to 50% of the kids are classified as "needs" in one way or another. Special education is the largest single department in the school in terms of number of teachers.
2) Mainstreaming- this is the worst thing that ever happened to public education in the US. The idea was that the "needs" kids would profit from being part of the general population. It was driven primarily by the parents of needs kids who felt that their children were being stigmatized by being placed in self-contained special education classes. The real result was that the "needs" kids are shortchanged because a regular classroom teacher, with 20-30 students in the room, can't give the "needs" kid nearly the amount of individual attention required, and the other kids get shortchanged because the "needs" kid absorbs a disproportionate amount of teacher attention. Bottom line? Both the "needs" kids and the rest of the kids get rooked out of an education.
3)Compulsory Attendance- if it were up to me, I'd eliminate it. We spend an unbelievable amount of time and effort on a rather small fraction of the population trying to force them to learn. We force them to attend through fines and probation and so forth, but all they do when they're here is goof off. There needs to be free public education available to all, IMO, but I think I'd ditch the compulsory attendance part, at least after grade 6.
4)Arming Teachers- as a group, I've never found teachers to be as liberal as some you have indicated. I've taught in PA and TX, and all the teachers I've known in both states held pretty old-fashioned values. So, I don't think you'd get resistance to being armed on the basis of teachers being anti-gun. More of the resistance would be along the lines of "I signed a contract to teach, not to be armed security!" Still, if you made it voluntary you'd have no shortage of armed teachers, I expect.
5) Taxes funding education- I'm in favor of it, and I was before I went into teaching, too. An educated populace is every bit as much an investment in the strength and security of this country as a military. An ignorant populace puts us at a disadvantage in the international business environment and also puts us at risk politically. An uneducated mob is the most easily swayed.
There are things wrong with the public education system. Most of those flaws date back to no earlier than the 1970's and 80's. The system worked well for a lot of people for a lot of years before that. It needs repaired, not discarded.

Oh, and when I'm officially permitted to carry in the classroom, I want to use my personal weapon, not one purchased by the taxpayers. Probably use the USP...

 

[mvpel]

An ignorant populace puts us at a disadvantage in the international business environment and also puts us at risk politically. An uneducated mob is the most easily swayed.
There are things wrong with the public education system. Most of those flaws date back to no earlier than the 1970's and 80's. The system worked well for a lot of people for a lot of years before that. It needs repaired, not discarded.

Compusory attendance did not exist in the United States until 1852 in Massachusetts. Years prior, Alexis deToqueville described the US as one of the best-educated, well-read countries in the world.

The absence of compulsory attendance does not mean that kids won't get an education, any more than the fact that the government doesn't run food production and distribution means that people will starve to death.

You say an uneducated mob is easily swayed, but that, in general, is basically what's going on in our school systems, swaying included.

Profit-seeking private industry with government incentives is good enough for food production in the bread basket of the world, why isn't it good enough for our primary educational system?

 

[Joe Demko]

Historically, before there was public education, there was nothing but private education. The people of the time changed that because private education couldn't/didn't do the job alone. That is a fact.

 

[mvpel]

Actually, the first class of compulsory-schoolers had to be escorted to school under armed guard because their parents were so incensed about it.

Horace Mann, a socialist, deeply admired the Prussian model of schooling, which turned out good little soldier-citizens who wouldn't question the government or complain, and who would be good workers in the factories.

People who know enough to balance their checkbook, follow instructions in the factory, and read the newspaper over coffee don't tend to be discontent.

http://www.sntp.net/education/school_state_3.htm
--
As the historian Robert Seybolt wrote:

In the hands of private schoolmasters the curriculum expanded rapidly. Their schools were commercial ventures, and, consequently, competition was keen.... Popular demands, and the element of competition, forced them not only to add new courses of instruction, but constantly to improve their methods and technique of instruction.

Schooling in that early period was plentiful, innovative, and well within the reach of the common people. What effect did it have? High and Ellig note that 80 percent of New Yorkers leaving wills could sign their names. Other data show that from 1650 to 1 795, male literacy climbed from 60 to 90 percent; female literacy went from 30 to 45 percent. Between 1800 and 1840, literacy in the North rose from 75 percent to between 91 and 97 percent. And in the South during the same span, the rate grew from 50-60 percent to 81 percent. Indeed, Senator Edward M. Kennedy's office issued a paper not long ago stating that the literacy rate in Massachusetts has never been as high as it was before compulsory schooling was instituted. Before 1850, when Massachusetts became the first state in the United States to force children to go to school, literacy was at 98 percent. When Kennedy's office released the paper, it was 91 percent.
--

... and ...

--
It is important to understand that the purpose of the schools was to indoctrinate the citizens in the official religious outlook, for, as Luther put it, "no secular prince can permit his subjects to be divided by the preaching of opposite doctrines.... Heretics are not to be disputed with, but to be condemned unheard. " Unsurprisingly, it was in Calvinist New England that compulsory schooling first arrived in America.
--

I recall a quote to this effect by some famous totalitarian or another: "To those who would oppose us, I say, 'your children are ours already.'"

 

[Apple a Day]

A simple question that cuts though the jive

Who has the right to tell me, an American citizen, where I can or can't exercise my Constitutional rights?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."
What sort of role model do you want teaching your kids: a citizen who openly and responsibly exercises his/her rights or a servant of the government who is powerless?
I'm a teacher, a gun-owner, and a CWL-holder. For those of you that are arguing about numbers, add me to the + column.

 

[Glock Glockler]

I'd like to know why people automatically assume typical classroom schooling to be a necessity for education.

I know several people who are very successful, some even being millionares, who were absolute failures in school. They basically dropped out of high school and started working in things that interested them and learned what they had to in order to be successful. Years later some of them went back and studied various topics that they were completely uninterested in when they were supposed to be learning them in school and many became quite learned in history, economics, languages, grammar, etc.

By the same tolken I know people who excelled in academics but who could not transition that into real world success.

The main point is that people are different and many learn and develop in different ways. There is no cookie cutter one-size-fits-all system of education that govts see fit to push people through. If we dont want to be overtaken as a world power we are going to have to get our act together and that means we need a far more market oriented approach to education instead of the current soviet approach.