It has finally happened. Despite widespread opposition from many Floridians, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act has taken effect this week. Under the Guardian Program, educators trained to carry firearms can now do so discreetly on Florida’s elementary, middle, and high school campuses. Enacted in May, this legislation allows teachers to be armed, with the exception being those whose sole responsibility is instruction. Thus, educators who have additional roles, such as coaching, are eligible to carry weapons.
Many residents of Florida fought passionately against this measure. The overwhelming majority of educators, administrators, parents, students, and school districts opposed the initiative, but politicians moved forward with the law regardless.
The legislation mandates that every school must have at least one armed individual present but allows districts the option to employ either a School Resource Officer (SRO) or staff members trained under the Guardian Program. Out of Florida’s 67 counties, only 39 have chosen to participate in the Guardian Program. Many of these counties felt compelled to adopt this program due to budget constraints that made hiring a full-time SRO unfeasible.
In my own district, Brevard County, I attended school board meetings where members anxiously discussed budgeting for an SRO to meet the law’s requirements while also addressing parental concerns about arming teachers. The financial reality was stark. A trained SRO costs around $80,000 annually, while training a teacher is only a few thousand dollars. Consequently, some schools have resorted to using a Guardian, barely meeting compliance with a law largely opposed by those it directly impacts. My children were fortunate enough to have a full-time SRO in their schools, but the frustration lingered: we didn’t want this law, and when it was enacted, the funding to support it was insufficient.
The critical question remains: what is our nation doing? For many, it is painfully clear that introducing more firearms will not resolve our gun violence issues. Make no mistake; the challenges surrounding school safety and the threat of mass shootings are fundamentally linked to gun access. While we must address mental health concerns, adding more guns only exacerbates the problem.
So what solutions could genuinely enhance safety? Implementing red flag laws, conducting comprehensive background checks for all firearm sales, and establishing a national registry that links every gun to its owner would be effective measures. Stricter penalties for negligent gun storage and voluntary buy-back programs could also help. Instead of fostering safety, we are placing teachers and school personnel—whose identities remain unknown to parents—armed with concealed firearms in our children’s learning environments.
It’s understandable that some proponents of this program were driven by genuine concerns for student safety. However, the haste and emotional nature of these decisions overlooked critical statistics regarding gun accidents and safety. Research shows that having a firearm in the home significantly increases the likelihood of a shooting incident within that household. The risk of death from accidental shootings is 3.7 times higher for those living in homes with guns compared to those without.
This legislation poses especially grave dangers for children of color. A study from several cities indicated that for every instance where a gun in the home was used in self-defense, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and eleven suicide attempts or completions. Despite these alarming statistics, lawmakers appear to believe that they can ignore the reality of gun violence in schools.
Participants in the Guardian Program are required to undergo training, including psych evaluations, drug screenings, and 144 hours of firearms training, with compensation of $500. While this might seem reassuring, the statistics regarding effectiveness and accuracy are concerning. The notion of a lone teacher facing an assailant armed with a semi-automatic weapon is disheartening, particularly when considering the potential for tragic mishaps that could result in harm to children.
Currently, we instruct our children to hide from potential threats, hoping that a fatigued history teacher with a sidearm can intervene in a crisis. It’s a risky gamble, one that assumes the unlikely success of an armed educator against a heavily armed aggressor.
Furthermore, we have not adequately considered how this program will disproportionately affect students of color. Rep. Lisa Matthews, a member of the House, attempted to propose amendments aimed at protecting these children in situations where a teacher may feel threatened, but those amendments failed.
Here we are, moving in the opposite direction of what is needed to protect our children from gun violence. I am both disappointed and outraged, and I will continue to advocate against introducing firearms into our classrooms. If you share my concerns, I encourage you to explore resources such as this guide on pregnancy and consider joining efforts to keep our schools safe from guns. For more information on home insemination, check out this comprehensive post that covers various topics related to family planning.
In summary, as we confront the realities of gun violence in schools, we must advocate for policies that prioritize safety without resorting to more firearms. The evidence suggests this approach is misguided, and it’s time for us to rethink our strategies in order to protect our children.