The Pittsburgh Public Schools board on Wednesday called for “sensible gun safety legislation,” passing a resolution that opposes any effort to arm teachers and support staff in schools.
Seven board members voted in favor of the resolution, with board members Terry Kennedy and Cynthia Falls abstaining.
“Right now there’s many states across the country that are trying to enact legislation to arm teachers and [that goes] all the way up to our president,” said board member Moira Kaleida, who introduced the resolution with board member Lynda Wrenn. “So we just want to reaffirm that is not our belief, that is not a way to protect children.”
The resolution calls for “sensible gun legislation” and specifically opposes the “misguided suggestion” by the Trump administration, the NRA and some members of the state Legislature who have proposed arming teachers as a way to dissuade would-be school shooters.
According to the resolution, the board would support other measures, such as more extensive background checks for potential gun purchasers, providing funding for gun violence research and increased funding for school programs and staff to support student mental health, social and emotional learning and anti-bullying efforts.
A bill is currently making its way through the Pennsylvania Legislature that would allow districts to adopt their own policies as to whether their teachers could carry weapons in school.
Ms. Kaleida said the resolution was modeled after a similar one passed by the Seattle school board earlier this year. Other school districts across the country have also expressed official opposition to the idea of arming teachers, which President Donald Trump has repeatedly proposed as a way to prevent mass shootings such as the one in February at a high school in Parkland, Fla., that left 17 people dead.
The board plans to discuss at a policy workshop this fall the possibility of allowing district police officers to carry weapons. They currently are not armed.
“We want to do our due diligence and do an exploration on that and explore that process,” superintendent Anthony Hamlet said after the meeting.
Ms. Kennedy abstained from the vote, calling it “disrespectful” to push the resolution through before there was an official discussion about the policy regarding school police.
Ms. Falls, who supported a failed motion by Ms. Kennedy to remove reference to the NRA and the Trump administration from the document, also questioned the reference to opposing efforts to arm “support staff.” Mr. Hamlet said the school district’s police officers fall into that category.
Ms. Falls abstained, saying she wanted more information.
“I wanted questions answered so I could fully understand what I was voting for,” she said. “I am sure this is what my constituents would want, if I did not understand something, to ask.”
Other board members argued that passing the resolution would not change and is separate from the current policy that school police — or any other school-based staff — are not allowed to carry weapons on school property, and that they did not want to “water down” the language by removing references to the Trump administration, the NRA or some Pennsylvania legislators.
“This is an appropriate time for us to make this statement, that our federal government is wrong, the NRA is wrong, our legislators are wrong for trying to arm people in schools,” board president Regina Holley said. “This is not something that I particularly want to see in a school.”
Nina Esposito-Visgitis, president of the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers, which represents school police officers, said she believes the discussion about whether to arm the officers is one that should be had.
But the idea of asking teachers to carry weapons “is ridiculous to even talk about,” she said, noting that the union opposes such an action.
“I have shot guns recreationally,” Ms. Esposito-Visgitis said. “Would I want a gun in my possession in my classroom? Absolutely not. But our officers are a totally different story. They are trained officers. Would I trust them with a firearm? Yes, I would.
“That discussion is one I think we should have and will have,” she said.
Elizabeth Behrman: Lbehrman@post-gazette.com, 412-263-1590 or @Ebehrman on Twitter.
First Published: July 26, 2018, 1:21 a.m.
