TexasCHLforum.com

From a RAND study: What Teachers Think About Carrying Guns at School

Based on the survey results, RAND estimated that about 550,000 of the nation’s roughly 3 million public school teachers would be personally interested in being armed at school. The majority of those teachers (roughly 358,000) would be women in rural or suburban schools, the RAND report says.

That is around 18% of teachers willing to do the job.

For example if Uvalde was "average" there would be around 50 teachers out of 279 willing to do the program. The district could pick up the entire cost for guardian training and perhaps a few school marshals to replace the 1 officer they would have to let go. That would average 6 guardians/marshals per school, which would certainly make the schools a substantially harder target.

Chemist45 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 9:22 pm LDB415 asked

I wonder how many parents and other good citizens are concerned enough and would gladly pay $700 to go through the program? Then the cost to the district is zero.

I would.

For you guys who already have an LTC and carry gear the cost would be the lower end. Say $500 for initial training/ammo and (assumed) sustaining training $300/year (liability/maintain proficiency)

I ran some cost estimates. Glassdoor is showing Texas police officers cost an average of $66K/year. Armed Security Officers cost perhaps as much as $55K/year.

Armed teachers (Guardians), with schools paying for their mandatory training, firearm, ammo as well as an annual sustaining training day would cost an average of $329-to-685/year depending on whether school districts pay them salary for training days and required equipment (most of these costs are startup costs so they would be front loaded).

That means you can afford as many as 200 armed teachers for what you would pay for 1 cop (averaged out over seven years).

Putting this in perspective, Ulvalde school district had 7 officers for 8 schools. Reducing 2-3 officers, Uvlade School District could have afforded to train and arm ALL 279 teachers in the school district.

I am not suggesting Ulvade rely exclusively on armed teachers, as police serve other functions. Its likely a combination of officers and qualified armed teachers would be most effective at protecting our schools. We need to be looking at how many teachers are both capable and willing and what the best ratio of police to armed teachers is.

*updated

This discussion reminds me of Paul Howe's article: ACTIVE SHOOTER: TRAIN NOW OR PAY LATER

Responding to an Active Shooter is the most difficult mission to perform of all the
missions skills assigned to either patrol or tactical officers. Why? Active Shooter
response requires a practiced and rehearsed plan ahead of time. Not only does the
plan need to be rehearsed, but officers need to take special equipment to ensure that
after the threat is neutralized and the medical contingencies encountered are
addressed. Essentially you must be prepared to perform a cold hit on an unknown
target, a task that requires a degree of skill to be successful.

Active shooter classes are generally two-days, 16 hours in length. I have found that
this is not enough time to cover all the contingencies.

Reading up on HB 3, it sounds like there may be more demand for School Guardian training going forward:

Armed Security Officer Requirement in House Bill 3 (2023)

House Bill 3 (HB 3), effective September 1, 2023, adds new Texas Education Code section 37.0814. This new law requires each school board to determine the appropriate number of armed security officers for each district campus and, absent a good cause exception, ensure at least one armed security officer—specifically, a commissioned peace officer—is present during regular school hours at each campus. A school board can claim a good cause exception to this requirement due to lack of funding or qualified personnel. If the board claims a good cause exception, the board must provide an alternative standard that may include reliance on a school marshal or an employee or contracted individual who has completed the handgun safety course required for handgun license holders and is authorized to carry a firearm by the district (often called a “guardian” in school board policy).

Does a district’s alternative standard have to involve reliance on school marshals or guardians?
No, but it can. HB 3 specifically states that a board that claims a good cause exception must develop an alternative standard with which the district is able to comply, which “may include providing a person to act as a security officer who is a school marshal or a school district employee or a person with whom the district contracts who has completed school safety training provided by a qualified handgun instructor certified in school safety under Section 411.1901, Government Code and carries a handgun on school premises in accordance with written regulations or written authorization of the district under Section 46.03(a)(1)(A), Penal Code.” The locally authorized individual with school safety training by a qualified handgun instructor is often called a “guardian” in local school board policy.

Has anyone seen an uptick in guardian training?