ARMING TEACHERS TO MITIGATE SCHOOL SHOOTINGS 1

Arming Teachers as a Means to Prevent and Mitigate School Shootings: Assumptions, Readiness, and Contrast to Law Enforcement Officers Involved in Encounters with Armed Assailants

Sheldon Greenberg, Ph.D.

Johns Hopkins University

Since the tragic deaths at Sandy Hook Elementary School, there has been renewed call for action to prevent and stop multiple casualty shootings, including allowing teachers and other school officials to carry firearms in the classroom and other facilities. This article seeks to provide new and additional perspective to the national debate about arming teachers and other educators (principals, counselors) as a means to prevent, mitigate, and end multiple casualty shooting events occurring in schools. It cites evidence that police officers, trained in and committed to using firearms, do not shoot accurately in crisis situations and that teachers will be less effective in doing so. It provides insight from public safety officials who participated in two roundtable discussions about assumptions made about teachers using firearms against armed assailants. Finally, as a means to demonstrate emotional and tactical readiness and risk, it considers the evidence and compares police officers and teachers using a firearm to intervene in a confrontation with an active shooter. The article concludes that the concept of arming teachers and other school officials as a means to prevent and mitigate multiple casualty shootings and other violent encounters, while well-intentioned, creates greater risk than it seeks to resolve.

Law enforcement officials, particularly those who serve large jurisdictions, cite gun violence as a problem within the society, but not in schools. In a 2012 survey of 1,000 law enforcement agencies (58% response) conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum, primary concern about gun violence was attributed to gangs and drugs. Respondents cited twelve “most effective/most used” gun violence prevention strategies, ranging from increased reliance on federal prosecution to directed patrols emphasizing gun detection. There were no recommendations calling for arming teachers or other citizens to prevent violence. (PERF, 2012)

Every school shooting is heinous and warrants public outcry, but, while there has been an upsurge of school shootings in the United States and globally over the past decade, the number of incidents remains relatively small. The small number of incidents makes study using survey and observational methods difficult. (Wike & Fraser, 2009) The number of incidents in which school teachers or other school officials used a firearm to stop an assailant is not known. What is known is that schools remain among the safest places in society. Despite public and media outcry over the spate of shootings and increased fear in the schoolsettings, children have the least risk of harm in school when compared to their homes, neighborhoods, and other environments.(Muschert & Spencer, 2009) In some locales, particularly in urban settings, schools offer young people sanctuary from fear and threat of harm.(Antrop-Gonzalez, 2006)

The 1999 Columbine High School tragedy, followed by Virginia Tech and other high-profile incidents, sparked a national and global dialogue about multiple casualty shootingsin places the vast majority of people considered as “safe havens.”(Barry, McGinty, Vernick, & Webster, 2013) The resulting national discussion on "active shooters" overshadowed long-needed discussion on the broader safety andsecurity issues in schools such as crime prevention, minimizing harassment, access to weapons other than guns, and cross-profession (law enforcement, fire/EMS, security, public health) coordination of services.(Greenberg, 2007)

The Congress of the United States, along with state and local legislatures, called for studies, passed new laws, and funded new and expanded endeavors to enhance security in facilities with vulnerable populations, especially schools. Between 1999 and 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice funded the hiring of over6,500new school resource officers through the COPS in Schools program, raising the number to an estimated 17,000.(Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2012) School officials and other policy-makers developed and implementedschool safety plans and policies designed to prevent violence and mitigate and respond to active shooter incidents and other acts of violence when they occur.(Astor, Meyer, Benbenishty, Marachi, & Rosemond, 2005) In the almost decade-and-a-half since Columbine, debate over risk factors, the value of armed officers in schools, sharinginformationon those who pose threat, and intervention strategies continue. (Hong, Cho, Allen-Meares, & Espelage, 2011)

An “active shooter” is defined as an armed person who has used deadly force and continues to do so with unrestricted access to additional victims. (El Paso County Sheriff’s Office, n.d.) This definition is expanded by some law enforcement agencies, citing the active shooter as a person who does not necessarily expect to escape or, in some cases, survive the encounter. Other definitions refer to an active shooter situation as one that taxes available response resources, causing lawenforcement agencies todevelop new and expanded tactics. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security defines active shooter as “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearm(s) and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims.”

In the wake of the Columbine High School shootings, the U.S. Secret Service and Department of Education conducted a review of 37 incidents of targeted school violence occurring between 1974 and 2000. The findings showed that school shootings are planned events,often driven by revenge, targeted toward specific individuals, and carried out by young people who are familiar with the weapons they use – most often handguns. The incidents occur quickly, with over half ending within 15 minutes and over one-fourth lasting less than five minutes. (Vosselkuil, et al., 2002)

The December 12, 2012 deadly shooting in Sandy Hooks Elementary Schoolthat resulted in the death of 20 children and six adults (the perpetrator’s mother was a seventh adult victim, killed at a different location) intensified dialogue about gun violence in schools. The incident raised the discussion about access to guns, information sharing about people who have mental illness, and placing police or armed security officersin schools. It drew increased attention to the issue of young people, many identified as troubled, choosing to kill others. (Newman, 2004)

Among the strategies put forth to end or minimize a catastrophe in a school caused by an “active shooter”is the concept of allowing and encouraging teachers to carry firearms. Because the idea is recent, because there are so few school shootings, and because prevention is difficult to measure, there is little research to date on the impact or potential impact of teachers carrying guns in schools. There is little conclusive evidence on the impact of allowing weapons on college campuses, a concept that has been discussed and debated for a longer period. (Bouffard, Nobles, Wells, Cavanaugh, 2012)

Legislation allowing teachers to carry weapons in schools has been proposed in a number of states – Tennessee, Florida, Oregon, California, Kansas, and others. In some locales, the discussion went beyond “allowing” to “encouraging” and “requiring.” A December 9, 2012 headline in the Washington Post read, “Va. (Virginia) bill would order schools to arm teachers.” The proposed legislation would require some teachers or other staff members within each school to carry a concealed weapon. (Vozella, 2012)

At the time of this article, 18 states allowed adults to carry loaded weapons on school grounds with permission (some require written permission) of the principal or school board. (NBC News, 2013) In some of these states,there is confusion and conflict about the authority to carry and use. In Utah, for example, teachers were given the authority to carry concealed firearms on school property, but have been warned about using them. Teachers were informed that an edict permitting them to carry concealed guns does not give them license to use them. The warning stated that, although they have the right to carry a concealed weapon, they will be” in breach of contract” and “subject to the law” if they use it. (Phillips, 2008)

There is polarization on the issue. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has called for putting armed police officers and security personnel in every school and has suggested that arming teachers might have prevented the death of the children in the Sandy Hook incident and would dissuade future attacks. (Barker, 2012) The National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, two organizations representing teachers, issued a joint statement callingsuch proposals "astounding and disturbing." (Wolfgang, 2012) In a non-scientific survey of 11,000 educators, three-fourths of the nation’s teachers stated they are opposed to carrying guns in school, but 90% support the presence of armed security personnel in school buildings. (Sperry, 2013)

In some jurisdictions, insurance companies have responded to the potential negative liability created by arming teachers. In Kansas, for example, EMC Insurance Companies, the largest insurer of schools in the state, refused to insure any district that arms its employees despite a law that authorizes them to carry guns. (Llopis-Jepsen, 2013) Insurance companies in six other states that passed laws allowing teachers to carry guns in school have reacted similarly. (Neil, 2013)

Generally, people, including decision makers and policy setters, have perceptions about school shootings that haveonly slight basis in research and continue to draw conclusions based on what they learn from media sources. (Menifeld, Winfield, Homa, Cunningham, 2001) The evidence – the body of knowledge on school shootings necessary to guide policy makers and others – has evolved across disciplines such as psychology, sociology, public health, criminology, and has yet to be unified in such a way as to effectively influence practice. (Muschert, 2007) One effort to overcome this disparity and gain a perspective on the evidence occurred in January, 2013, at a national summit held at the Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health. The summit onReducing Gun Violence brought together leading scholars and subject matter authorities from public health, law enforcement, education, and other disciplines to discuss the evidence. The summit resulted in a text, Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis, which is guiding strategy andpolicy. (Bloomberg, 2013)

Law Enforcement Officers’ Perspective: Assumptions about Arming Teachers

The concept of arming teachers is based, in part, on the belief and support by several studies, such as those by Lott, Kleck, and Gertz, that people authorized to carry weapons will use them successfully for protection. (Webster, Ludwig, 1999) Other studies refute these findings and show that guns owned for protection rarely are used for that purpose, even during the commission of a crime such as a home invasion.(Webster, Vernick, Ludwig, Lester, 1997; Kellerman, Westphal, Fischer, Harvard, 1995)

To gain perspective, two roundtable discussion sessions were held at the Johns Hopkins University, School of Education, Division of Public Safety Leadership. A diverse group of law enforcement practitioners serving the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States was asked to provide opinion on the concept of arming teachers. Participants were asked to draw on their experience and training to discuss teachers and other school officialsusing a handgun to end a multiple casualty event. Practitionersin the two roundtables ranged in rank from police officer to deputy chief of police, had an average of over ten years of service, and represented local, state, and federal law enforcement. All were students in the graduate program (Master of Science in Management) at the Johns Hopkins University.

Thirty-six officials, representing 14 agencies, participated in the roundtable sessions which were held in January, 2013. The roundtables were structured facilitations, but dialogue was intentionally informal. All of the 36 officials had completed at least one agency-sponsored training program on active shooters. They participants were asked two questions:

  1. Is there merit to arming school teachers and other school officials as a viable means to prevent and end school shootings?
  2. What assumptions do you believe people, including key decision makers, make about the ability of teachers, principals, counselors, and other school officials using a handgun in a classroomor other school environmentto stop an active shooter?

Five of the 36 participants perceived that there was merit to arming teachers and offered support to their response. All five stated that they believed arming teachers may be a deterrent to some potential assailants, assuming that having armed teachers in schools was well-publicized and that the publicity was continuous. None of the five perceived that teachers would perform well in a shooting encounter. They added that arming teachers and other school officials would require the “right training” and that the training would have to be “ongoing.”

There was general agreement among the 36 roundtable participants that:

  1. Arming teachers creates more risk than it has the potential to resolve, supported by evidence on the risks associated withgun ownership (Campbell, Webster, 2003)
  2. There is more than a casual risk that students could gain access to a gun in aclassroom
  3. Teachers may use a firearm in the heat of argument or when exposed to risk of harm that does not warrant application of lethal force
  4. A large portion of the population, including policy-makers,legislators, and news reporters, makeassumptionsabout an armedteacher confronting an active shooter and that these assumptions are used to support decisions. Roundtable participants cited the following assumptions and labeled most of them as “weak:”
  1. The teacher is adequately trained in using a firearm in a crisis encounter
  2. The teacher is close to where the shooting occurs or can get there in time to intervene
  3. The teacher has time to “size up” the situation
  4. The teacher has clarity of focus/clarity of thoughtabout aggressing toward the shooter
  5. The teacher’s handgun is “at the ready,”near hand, or in hand when needed
  6. The teacher can quickly remove the weapon from a safety holster (if one is used)
  7. The teacher remembers to unlock the weapon
  8. The teacher remembered to load the weapon
  9. The teacher remembers to chamber a round (if a semi-automatic weapon is used)
  10. The teacher is left alone to shoot (not simultaneously engaged by or with students)
  11. The teacher will shoot quickly and accurately
  12. The teacher will shoot accurately while moving(shootings are not stationary events)
  13. The physical environment allows a“clean” shot at a “clear” target
  14. The line of fire does not jeopardize others (students or others in the background)
  15. The teacher has sufficient momentary cover to enable the shot(s)
  16. The assailant (active shooter) is still or still-enough for the teacher to get a clean shot
  17. There is a single assailant
  18. The assailant will not see and react to the teacher drawing or firing a handgun
  19. If encountered in a close “combat” situation, the teacher will retain his or her weapon
  20. The assailant will succumb and cease firingwhen shot
  21. Responding police officers will recognize the armed teacher as other than one of the assailants (a significant concern of the roundtable participants)

Police Officer Inaccuracy in Shooting Encounters

For a police officer, the decision to apply deadly force is taken seriously and discussed in training throughout his or her career. Most police officers are familiar with policy and the use of force continuum and are proficient in shooting skills and approach tactics. They are versed in the accountability, liability, and investigations that will follow the event.

When it occurs, the decision by a police officer to apply deadly force is sudden, occurs in an atmosphere of chaos and panic, and is over in a matter of seconds. (Engel, Smith, 2009) Like police officers, teachers using a gun to end an active shooter situation are expected to assess the situation, ensure a clear line of fire, shoot well, minimize loss, and bring the situation to closure.

Police officersroutinely experience high anxiety/high threat situations – home invasions, intrusion alarms, traffic stops, and prowlers – and are prepared to take whatever action is necessary to bring them to closure. Officers who respond to these situations are prepared to use of their firearm, if needed. They assess the situation and, based on experience, skill, intuition, policy, and law, and apply the appropriate force necessary to resolve it.

Despite their training and exposure to life-threatening events, evidence shows that police officers do not shoot accurately in a crisis encounter. The lack of shooting accuracy occurs in one officer/one assailant situations and in those in which more than one officer or assailant is involved. There is a comprehensive body of literature on lethal force encounters that cites the inaccuracy of policeofficers in shootings. (White, 2006; Doerner, Ho, 1994)