Editorial: Board should opt out of arming teachers

Suppose you're a public-school teacher and the Florida Legislature is moving toward enabling some of your colleagues to be armed with firearms.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to ask, even before legislation is passed, whether your school and district would — if given the option — participate in the armed-teachers program?

Wouldn't you — or the parents of children in those schools — wonder what impacts, for better or worse, this move would have on safety and the ability of teachers to focus on teaching and protecting their students in ways with which they are comfortable?

We believe the clear answer is yes, and so, apparently, do a lot of teachers in the Sarasota School District.

In response, the School Board will consider today a resolution that would state: If the Legislature passes the bill in question, the Sarasota district would opt out of the weapons program.

According to reporting by Ryan McKinnon of the Herald-Tribune, all five School Board members have declared that they are opposed to arming teachers, "yet the resolution is not likely to pass unanimously."

Unfortunately, that is no surprise. There is a danger that, whenever the board majority — Shirley Brown, Jane Goodwin and Caroline Zucker — is in favor of something, Eric Robinson and Bridget Ziegler will be opposed. And vice versa.

Ziegler pointed to the conclusions of a commission that examined the mass shooting last year in Parkland that "one gun" on campus — belonging to a deputy or police officer — is not enough to minimize carnage. That finding is sobering and should not be dismissed.

But it should be balanced by several factors:

• For too long at the Parkland campus, an armed deputy failed to take appropriate actions.

• Few teachers are likely to want to be armed.

• Having additional guns on campus creates an array of other safety concerns, including securing access to weapons.

• There are serious doubts about whether the proposed legislation, or any possible scenario, would provide the type of intense, high-level training required for responding to a heavily armed shooter without placing students and staff in additional jeopardy.

Ziegler said she didn't want to limit the school district's options in the future; that makes sense, but a resolution would not bind the School Board.

Robinson's opposition was grounded in politics and the same groveling that local boards and citizens feel compelled to do during the legislative session. "Here we are saying, 'Your bill sucks, but give us more money,'" Robinson said. "Which is more important, a meaningless resolution or getting more money for the students? For me, it's easy peasy."

Well, put aside for the moment that a resolution that provides advance information to school district employees is not the same as saying a bill "sucks." A simple statement that the district does not intend to participate, if given the option, will suffice.

And, yes, while we recognize the value of diplomacy, the fact is: There is nothing wrong with signaling to employees the board's intent on this touchy issue. If legislators can't deal with that, they're in the wrong line of work.