Don’t Arm School Police

This piece originally appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

There is an emerging national debate about school policing. It is not about whether school police should be armed but about how best to improve school environments and ensure student success while minimizing unnecessary student arrests. Emerging best practices aim to reduce police involvement in routine disciplinary school matters, ensure fairness in disciplinary processes, and increase the ratio of counselors and student support services to cops.

Sadly, while many communities explore how to improve school climates by building trusting relationships between adults and students, Pittsburgh debates the arming of school police.

A recent Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial and a resolution adopted by the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers’ executive board both put forth troubling arguments that are at odds with what we know about school policing.

The most immediate impact of arming school police would be felt by students, as school-based police spend the bulk of their time interacting with students in nonemergency situations. Having officers patrol the hallways with firearms sends a negative message to students. It makes many students feel that they are being treated like suspects. It can have an intimidating presence and can contribute to negative attitudes about police, in general.

There is no evidence that arming school officers increases overall safety or improves relationships within school communities. Having an armed officer stationed in schools has neither prevented nor stopped “active shooter” incidents. It did not at Columbine High School nor has it elsewhere. Thankfully, these tragic situations are still rare in schools.

How school-based police interact with students and the tools they carry and sometimes use have been the source of controversies. Incidents involving the use of even less lethal police tools, such as Tasers and pepper spray, have resulted in complaints, lawsuits, and injuries to students. These have been on the rise in recent years.

Pittsburgh is far from alone in not having armed officers in schools. The largest school district in the state, Philadelphia, does not permit its school police to carry firearms. Instead, the School District of Philadelphia, its police department, and the city police department have focused on instituting policies and programs designed to reduce unnecessary student arrests, which have been cut in half in recent years. And, so far, there has been no major uptick in violence in those schools.

Unarmed school staff does not mean that schools are defenseless in emergency situations. School districts have arrangements, formal or informal, with local law enforcement in which outside assistance is provided when needed in emergencies, such as when there is a bomb threat or serious injury.

Especially troubling is the editorial’s argument that school police should be armed because police in surrounding communities are.

Places of learning are not security zones or criminal justice institutions, and they should not be staffed that way.

The national conversation about school policing has begun to focus on what kind of staffing is appropriate for schools. In 2016, the U.S. Department of Education released data showing that 1.6 million public school students attend schools with full-time police officers but no counselors. Recent studies have found that the number of police exceeds the number of counselors in many districts.

Forward-thinking districts are reconsidering the kinds of support staff that work in schools, not whether they should be armed.

View comments (43)
Read the Terms of Use


"Especially troubling is the editorial’s argument that school police should be armed because police in surrounding communities are."

There's another point to be made here in defense of the decision. While I agree that fewer guns in our schools should be preferable, it's important that officers are equipped to handle situations they've been trained to respond to. We expect our officers to run toward trouble and protect the innocent; if a local department needs a school officer to step off campus and assist with an emergency, being without a gun limits that officer's ability to safely respond.

True, a cop walking past classrooms with a gun could intimidate students, but it's up to the officer to behave and carry him/herself in a manner that doesn't create tension on campus. My school officers were all armed and it never bothered anybody -- they were still able to joke with kids during recess and be present during school functions.

If anything, teaching our youth that police officers carry firearms will teach them from a young age not to be alarmed when they see a cop carrying a gun. If we try to create world for our children that says "cops don't carry guns", how do we expect them to respond when they see a police officer who is armed.

As a new father, I dream that my daughter will get to grow up and attend school and never see a firearm in her young life. But if anybody should be carrying one, it should be a police officer.


"Having officers patrol the hallways with firearms sends a negative message to student...makes (them) suspects. It can have an intimidating presence and can contribute to negative attitudes about police..."

Or, if officers do their jobs with politeness, courtesy and respect; it could also show that it's the bad cop’s attitude and not the tool (firearm) that is the problem which must be addressed! To wit:

This however could lead to a greater acceptance of firearms as the legitimate emergency lifesaving tool that it is designed to be. But I can see how the author's (and ACLU's by extension) anti-gun biases confound this and so the focus remains on the "tool" (gun) and not the actual problem (disgusting behavior of those in authority which should and must be addressed). It's always easier to focus on an inanimate object (gun) and not the real issue - bad human intention and behavior. Thus, the disinformation/propaganda campaign against life-saving emergency tools (firearms) continues either willfully or through intentional intellectual laziness and dishonesty.

Hopolophobia is a terrible problem and frankly I'm not sure how or if we can overcome the cultural divide that it feeds. The reality is; however, that mass killings almost exclusively occur at so called "gun free zones" and it rarely ends until someone resists, and, yes; usually with a gun to end the massacre. As common sense dictates and the Dali Lama has even said, "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."

Perhaps we should be asking why we as a society apparently value property over our children's lives. That is, why are armed guards used to protect money; but yet hopolophobia leaves our kids and other "so-called gun free zones" vulnerable to predators to indiscriminately shoot victims with poor means of resistance. And yet the first thing we do is send in ARMED police to end the threat (and rightfully so). But too often they’re minutes away despite their best efforts. Someone on scene can (and has) end the carnage much faster.

Which leads us to another lie and bias is this propaganda piece, "Having an armed officer stationed in schools has neither prevented nor stopped “active shooter” incidents."

I just found multiple examples with an anonymous non-google search such as: When a 62-year-old man armed with two handguns forced his way into Sullivan Central High School in Tennessee on August 30, 2010; he was immediately engaged by cop (School Resource Officer) Carolyn Gudger who put her body between the gunman and a student and started what would turn out to be a more than a 10 minute gun-to-gun encounter. Gudger used the time to slowly move the man to a less crowded part of the school. When other officers arrived on the scene, a brief gun battle erupted ending with the gunman mortally wounded.

There are many other examples easily found for the more honest willing to look. Suffice it to say I would expect more honestly and rigor from an ALCU employee.

And then going on to cite Columbine as the example is either willful ignorance or outright propaganda again, because as a result of Columbine; policy and tactics changed from setting up a perimeter and waiting for SWAT as in Columbine, to now the FIRST ARMED officer on scene goes in to stop the murdering.

And why this artificial choice between armed defenders and counselors in schools? Our kids deserve to have both as both could contribute to safety and a better society overall if, again, we were to focus on appropriate behaviors and not inanimate objects in a hopolophobic obsession.

It’s unfortunate this kind of misinformation, once again, has me considering whether its worth renewing my ALCU membership or not. I mean, it is dangerous enough when we start picking and choosing which parts of The Constitution we're willing to stand up and defend; but actually attacking parts of it...?


When paid armed bodyguards protect the rich including the presidents kids it didn't send negative messages. The parents, cops, and teachers will need to let the kids know the cops are their for their protection just like the fire extinguisher is their to help stop fires.


I went to public school through the 90's and 2000's. We had armed RSO's. Never once did I feel intimidated or threatened when interacting with the officer, that officer was very liked and respected in my high school. None of my fellow students EVER felt threatened or expressed feeling scared.


The only real way to make are schools safer is to get rid of the niggers.

Mr Nigger

Ay yo white boy imma throw sum of my chicken and watermelon at you if you don't shut up mane


Somebody should get rid of YOU!

Nom De Guerre

Eat shit you racist coward. Crawl back into your hole and bite your tongue before we cut it from your throat.


*our. ...our schools safer. You obviously didn't pass, idiot. The problem isn't "niggers;" it's idiots like you.


You are an ignorant racist and an idiot, and that's the NICEST way I can think of to describe you.

If you trace the history of school shootings, who are the perpetrators? WHITE people.


Stay Informed