Tamaqua parents protest policy

A group of parents in the Tamaqua Area school district have been doing their homework, and they are eager to share it with the Tamaqua Area school board at the security committee to discuss arming teachers Wednesday evening.

Three of those parents, Jennifer Paisley, Megan McGeehan and Liz Pinkey, met with the Times News to discuss the policy, why they believe it is the wrong approach and what they believe would be a better approach to school security.

One thing is clear. They do not want teachers to be armed.

“Teachers are there to teach the students. That’s why they went into that career. They don’t want to be armed. They don’t have the street smarts to react in such a situation,” said McGeehan, a mother of three children, two of whom are in the Tamaqua area schools.

“We don’t have an objection to them doing something to protect the kids. We have an objection to them arming the teachers,” added Pinkey.

But it’s not just the fact that there will be guns in the classrooms that worry the parents. They also fear the policy itself won’t solve the problem.

“This policy is ineffective until the first shot is fired,” says Pinkey. “A shot has to be fired before a teacher can pull a gun and fire a shot, and it’s anyone’s guess where that shot goes.”

Pinkey points to other district policies that aren’t being followed.

“I can walk into any building and nobody asks me for ID. Nobody stops me. What’s to say that this policy will be followed? Past practice equals future performance,” she said.

“I don’t think any teacher should go into school thinking, ‘Can I take the life of a student?’ ” added Paisley.

Paisley thinks the policy is an overreaction. “I don’t understand why we are going from level one security to level 10 security,” Paisley said. “Shootings aren’t very common. We’re preparing for the worst-case scenario.”

“They didn’t have a clear vision of what they wanted this policy to accomplish. They just wanted to put guns into the hands of teachers,” she added. “We can’t just hope that this policy is going to work. We need solid evidence that it will work.”

McGeehan said, “This policy opens the district up to a lot of liability issues.”

Identifying problems

More than anything, though, the parents want a more comprehensive approach.

“If they were truly interested in addressing this issue, they would have come up with a multifaceted plan that included bringing a sense of community into the schools and mental health services. It seems like they said ‘we are just going to arm the teachers and that’s all we’re going to do,’” said Paisley.

“We need to be more proactive in identifying individuals who might be at risk to do something like this,” Pinkey suggested.

“Virginia has a model where they have a team to help identify individuals. It’s a team of people — school psychologist, members of law enforcement and school staff — that would label at-risk kids and get them the help they need before they ever get into the mindset that this is something that they need to do,” Paisley said. “We also already have resources to help. The district has the SHINE and STEP-Up programs.”

The parents were equally distressed about the way the policy was rolled out to the public. Parents have said that they weren’t aware that arming staff was even being considered.

“We have tools available in the schools like robocalls, letters to parents, the Remind app, so why aren’t they using these tools to communicate with parents?” asked McGeehan.

Board member Nicholas Boyle has said that the policy had been discussed since February of this year and bemoaned the fact that parents do not attend school board meetings when these issues are being discussed. Board President Larry Wittig has also said that the issue of securing the buildings and protecting students from a potential shooting threat have been discussed since the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012.

“We’ve taken ownership of the fact that we should have been more diligent. We rely on school board members to do what’s in the best interest of our children without having to police every single meeting. But I also think they had the opportunity to reach out to the community, especially if you know this is a controversial issue. They want the public’s opinion but they didn’t go down the right avenues,” Paisley said.

Resource officers

The parents are open to the addition of armed resource officers but disagree with board member Boyle’s call for having 12.

“I think we can have five — one in the high school, one in the middle school, one in the elementary school, one in West Penn and one floater who would cover sick days,” Paisley said.

On financing the addition of full-time armed resource officers, neither Paisley nor McGeehan found cause for concern.

“If it’s your child then you want what’s best for them. If that means a small tax increase, then that’s what is necessary,” McGeehan said. “There are also several grants that other school districts have received to pay for security.”

“If you are truly concerned about keeping them safe, then there should be no limit to what you’re willing to spend,” Paisley added.

Both Paisley and McGeehan agreed that this incident has caused them to commit to keeping a closer eye on the board.

“Absolutely, yes. We will make sure we are present at school board meetings,” said Paisley. “It’s sad that it took this to make us realize that we should be at the school board meetings.”

When asked if they would continue to send their children to Tamaqua Area schools if the policy remains as-is with armed staff members, both Paisley and McGeehan hesitated.

“That’s something that I would have to discuss with my husband, but it has been considered,” McGeehan said.

Paisley’s focus was on changing the policy, rather than other options for her children’s education. “I’m hopeful and optimistic that we can come together and find a solution that everyone agrees with. I haven’t thought of anything that far off. It is something that we will consider.”

McGeehan then turned the question on its head to add another perspective.

“There’s also a consequence for teachers who don’t want to be around guns in the school. How many educators will we lose because of this policy?”

Parents are hopeful that the meeting on Wednesday will be productive.

“I hope we are going into this meeting knowing that we are all on the same team. We all have the same goal. We all want the safety of our children the number one priority,” Paisley said.

The board will meet at 6 p.m. Wednesday in the middle school larger group instruction room.