IASB revisits proposal to arm teachers, M-S board to discuss in November

BY DANI TIETZ
dani@mahometnews.com

Should Illinois give the power to local school districts to decide if they will allow administrators, faculty or staff in their building to be armed?

The topic, which is once again being brought up by Mercer County School District 404 in rural western Illinois, will be voted on by delegates representing each school district at the Illinois Association of School Boards Resolutions Committee on Nov. 23. 

In 2018, the IASB delegates voted 203-179 against the resolution. 

Mahomet residents Mary Fortune, Jennifer Livingston and Maggie Kinnamon are asking the Mahomet-Seymour Board to vote against the measure in 2019. 

Board members were given the resolutions for the Nov. 23 delegate assembly last week. Before coming to a consensus on how they will want their delegate (usually the board Vice President) to vote, they have been instructed to study the information.

Within the measure, voluntary district employees would have the ability to carry a concealed firearm on district property, provided the employee has a valid Illinois FOID card, holds a certified Illinois Concealed Carry License, has completed all additional training and certifications set forth by the respective school board, one of which must include yearly certified Active Shooter Training. 

According to WQAD 8, the Mercer County School Board members passed a resolution on May 16, 2018 with a vote of 4-1 to push for legislation that would permit boards to allow staff to conceal carry.

Board President Julie Wagner noted the growing concern for student safety with school shootings and that school districts may be too far away for law enforcement to get to an emergency scene within a reasonable amount of time.

It was said at the Mahomet-Seymour School board meeting that Mercer County Schools were asking for the measure because the schools within the district are far away from law enforcement. 

The rural county that has a population of around 15,000, has five schools, three in Aledo, one in Joy and one in New Boston. Four of the five schools are a few minutes away from at least one law enforcement officer. Mercer County Junior High is ten minutes away from law enforcement. 

The Mercer County School board provided two Student Resource Officers from the Aledo Police Department and the Mercer County Sheriff’s Department in 2018. The district has been in discussion with the Aledo Police to extend the SRO position to a full day. 

In 2019, the board approved a full-time SRO for Mercer County Junior High in Joy, Ill. 

Making student safety their number one concern, the district has also implemented the “Keeping Kids Safe in Mercer County” initiative and the “Say Something” campaign, alongside securing buildings with security cameras, vestibules and limiting access during the school day. 

Mercer’s rationale for bringing the measure forward, though, is that while student safety is a top priority in all districts, some school districts are unable to employ full-time security due to lack of financial resources. 

Like the Mercer County Schools, the Mahomet-Seymour School District has a student resource officer in partnership with the Mahomet Police Department. The one officer spends time between four buildings, but the SRO office is in Mahomet-Seymour High School. The district has also installed security measures throughout the district, and is beginning discussions on what it looks like to have entrance vestibules in each of the buildings.

Should the Mahomet-Seymour School Board vote yes to the measure the IASB is supporting, Superintendent Lindsey Hall said the power to create a policy for the Mahomet-Seymour School District is in the school board’s hands, not the State’s.

“It’s local government at its best in terms of this is coming from the most local level of a school board and could become law,” Hall said.

But that is only if the State of Illinois creates the policy that gives school districts that power. The delegates vote will signal to legislators whether or not the majority of school districts support the measure.

Kinnamon, a teacher of 28 years, said she feels very strongly in opposition to the measure. 

“I’ve always considered my number one responsibility to be keeping my students safe,” Kinnamon said. “I absolutely do not consider arming school personnel to be an effective way of keeping students safe.”

Kinnamon said that in her research law enforcement officers receive an average of 840 hours of basic training, including 168 hours on self-defense and use force. She said that in states that allow school personnel to be armed, the state requires significantly less training for the staff that is armed. 

“In a country with a huge gun problem adding more guns to the mix is the opposite of what we should be doing. I personally would feel less safe with a colleague of mine armed at school, and I would feel less safe sending my own three children to school knowing an employee was armed.”

Livingston echoed Kinnamon’s statistics, saying that “guns in school increase the chances” of a child accessing the guns. 

She urged the district to focus on the prevention of violence. 

“Those committing violence on school grounds most often have connection to the school and shooters often exhibit warning signs of potential violence,” Livingston said. 

She commended Hall for her communication regarding a bullying and threat recording tool on the district website earlier this year. 

“I would encourage regular communication about using the tool to record any safety concerns.

Hall sent an email out to parents last week reminding them of the tool.

Livingston also suggested the development of a threat assessment team that could intervene when students mention that they might harm themselves or others. 

Education and training for both students and parents is another tool Livingston asked the district to employ.

“The district could also offer a public gun safety training, such as the Be Smart training,” she said. “Limiting access to weapons is a key means of gun violence prevention,” she said.

Livingston’s final suggestion was that the district reconsiders how routine state-mandated intruder drills are practiced.

She called the price “too high” for graphic and realistic drills, but also said there is no evidence that the drill is effective in preparing students for intruders when they are required to imagine harmful situations. 

Fortune said that this type of resolution, one that affects everyone, would have been a great opportunity for the school district to involve the community in a discussion.

“As an educated professional, I would be horrified if the professional organizations that I belong to wrote a resolution like this: poorly worded, no data, no research. There’s nothing here that is defining enough. Even if a school district wanted to do this, and Mahomet didn’t, I guarantee that with this loosely-worded resolution, it’s an accident waiting to happen.”

Board member Merle Giles said that he would support the measure as it gives control to local school districts.

“I wouldn’t want the State telling Mercer County nor us what we have to do, for instance, even if it was for them having guns in their school,” Giles said.

“But I wouldn’t vote to have guns in our schools. We’ve got a local proximity (local law enforcement) that beats what Mercer County apparently has.

“That whole process about us voting for local rule doesn’t mean that we also would vote for the topic if it came up locally.” he continued. 

Board President Max McComb added, “We could, in theory, support (the resolution) because it gives the local district the ability to make a choice, but know darn well we would never do that here.”

The Mahomet-Seymour School Board will revisit the topic, along with the other IASB resolutions in November. 

The IASB supports Mercer County’s resolution.