Wittig: gun law ‘changes nothing’
Tamaqua School Board President Larry Wittig says a new law doesn’t change the district’s controversial policy about arming staffers.
Gov. Tom Wolf signed Senate Bill 621 on Tuesday, “which clarifies existing law to mandate explicit and more robust training requirements for armed school security personnel and further prevent the arming of untrained nonsecurity personnel, including teachers,” according to his office.
Wolf said, “My administration worked to amend this bill to prevent it from allowing teachers to be armed. Pennsylvania law now makes clear that teachers may not be armed. Moreover, this bill now standardizes training and clarifies my administration’s guidance against arming teachers — guidance that some school districts attempted to ignore.”
Wolf said the bill “defines ‘school security personnel’ to clarify that only school police officers, school resource officers, and school security guards are “security personnel.”
He added, “The students, parents and educators in this Commonwealth can now be secure in the knowledge that teachers can dedicate themselves to teaching our children, and that the security of school facilities rests in the hands of trained, professional security personnel.”
Wittig says, however, “It changes nothing.”
He added, “Teachers were not mentioned in the law.”
The school board adopted the policy last fall and agreed in January to temporarily suspend the implementation of the controversial policy, No. 705, following the filing of two legal challenges, one by the union and another by a group of Tamaqua parents. The board, however, revived the plan in April, saying appeals of the court cases could last for years, and the district is ready to move forward.
Wittig said from what he can see, the law “changes nothing relative to (Policy) 705.”
“It does talk about training, but it does not say that a security guard cannot have another job in the district,” he said. “The bill does not ensure that teachers can’t carry weapons.”
Director Nick Boyle echoed Wittig’s sentiment.
“There is nothing in that law that says you can’t arm teachers,” Boyle said. “Teachers are not even mentioned in the law.”
The district said carrying a firearm would be voluntary and not an incidence of their employment, which would require the same training as police officers.
It also contends that although no specific state statute authorizes the district to enact its policy, none prevents it from doing so.
Boyle dismissed it as “political posturing.”
Fight continues
Steven J Cholish, the PSEA/NEA UniServ representative, said the teachers will not withdraw the lawsuit against the district.
“Although we are pleased with the legislation that Gov. Wolf has signed into law, we believe that we must continue our suit to ensure that only properly trained law enforcement professionals are carrying firearms in Tamaqua Area Schools, as well as any other schools in the State of Pennsylvania. It is still our position that only properly trained law enforcement professionals can ensure the safety of the students, faculty and staff,” Cholish said.
Shira Goodman, executive director of CeaseFirePA, who worked with parents to file a suit against the district, agreed that the lawsuit must continue.
She said, “The Department of Education and the governor believe the law does not allow arming teachers,” but the law must be clear.
Goodman said the law might end up as part of the litigation.
“The governor must be clear on what this means, so that schools are not arming teachers, cafeteria workers and other staff,” Goodman said.
She said the organization asked the governor to veto the bill in favor of making it more clear.
Goodman said there is no evidence that adding more armed personnel makes schools safer and could be detrimental in that it creates confrontations.
“Everybody wants schools to be safe,” she said.
Goodman thinks teachers and experts should be called to testify to enhance the law.
She believes, “We need to be investing in school guidance counselors to identify kids at risk. That’s more proactive than a knee-jerk reaction.”
Marta Gouger contributed to this report.
Comments
ENJOY
Progressive Socialists enjoy big government over reach. The security within that local district, and all decision to do with it, should remain among the local people. State... Butt Out!
As for Wittig he always was a smug ass for as long as i have known him.
Where you in the United States Military? ....If yes,....Thank You for your service.
Sincerely
The problem is that precious children must be protected. I propose a military like solution. Volunteer teachers would undergo extensive training just like military training. No one would be forced to do it. The selected teachers would carry concealed. Most of these shootings are over in a few minutes. Having a teacher right there would be a tremendous benefit.The teacher would recognize the intruder immediately. Just the common knowledge that some teachers are armed would make a potential shooter think twice. All groups overlook this deterrent advantage of quick response and confusion. Certainly, augmenting teachers with armed police/guards would be better albeit more expensive and more visible. The mistaken fear of guns by educated teachers is the fundamental flaw that subjects our precious kids to vulnerability. Only people with guns can protect people from killing others with guns. Gun free zones are invitations to crazy killers. Those volunteers with guns must be trained the military way. Safety, safety, safety, practice, and familiarity must be ingrained into the teacher (ex military/ LEO- preferred). Please don’t think that it would be like a John Wayne Western shootout. When educated teachers think that a bucket of rocks is enough deterrent, that indicates that they have an unrealistic fear of guns since they believe that either unqualified gun handlers or John Wayne gunslingers would be rampant. Just the opposite is true. Military trained, efficient, discreet professionals would be what I propose. This is why all three groups misunderstand this problem. How many more precious children must be sacrificed before we come up with an Earthly solution? Even with a monetary stipend to compensate the volunteers this program would be more cost effective, more immediate, and more realistic than anything else.