• Home
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact

Nancy Bailey's Education Website

Revive, Rally and Recover Public Schools

  • Activism
    • Anti-Charter Schools
    • Anti-Common Core State Standards
    • Anti-Corporatization of Schools
    • Anti-High-Stakes Testing
    • State Action Groups
    • School Buildings
  • School Curriculum
    • General Education
    • Educators
    • Parents
    • Reading
    • Math
    • Science
    • Social Studies
    • The Arts
    • Technology
    • Discipline
    • English Language Learners
    • Special Education
      • Autism
      • Emotional and Behavioral Disabilities
      • Learning Disabilities
      • Developmental Disabilities
      • Gifted
      • Other
    • Early Childhood Education
    • Elementary School
    • Middle School
    • High School
    • Student Careers
  • Other Countries
    • England
    • Finland
    • Australia
    • New Zealand
    • Canada

“Duck and Cover Kids,” and the Problems with “Teachers Packing”

March 29, 2018 By Nancy Bailey 2 Comments

By Jim Gifford

I recall from my youth the cliché “Duck and Cover”.  This was the catch-phrase created for our nuclear war drills which were designed to prepare all children at school to hide or “duck” under their own desks in order to survive a hydrogen bomb.

Yes, survive a nuclear holocaust.  No bombs were ever dropped during this time, so we can only guess how effective Duck and Cover would have been, thank God.

Today’s children are being readied for a recent national threat: mass school shootings. The teaching profession is set to not only teach, nurture and inspire their students, but also to shoot them if necessary.

The “Duck and Cover” campaign was a simple-sounding answer to solving the problem of calming the population.  My parents believed that there could be a nuclear war at any moment.  If it occurred during school hours, Duck and Cover would theoretically keep their children safe.  It was almost certainly not sufficient to protect them, but it gave everyone a believable solution to a terrifying worry.

Washington and Nashville are now encouraging arming some of our teachers. The goal is to help calm parents and politicians about any potential mass shooter who might massacre their children.  Teachers packing guns is the proposed solution to Columbine, Sandy Hook

and, now Parkland.

“Teachers Packing” is easy to say, simple sounding catch-phrase designed to mollify parents and politicians, just like “Duck and Cover”.

After almost 70 years of living in this great country I have developed an aversion to any solution to a problem that sounds too good to be true. Being a teacher, currently, and for the last 22 years has given me an appreciation of life in the modern-day high school classroom.  My conclusion: teachers carrying loaded guns is not a wise answer to this threat, because it is simplistic. Most citizens do not sense the fragility of a well-functioning classroom.

What could go wrong?

 Unintended consequences, unanswered questions:

  1. Weapon stolen from class,
  2. Accidental discharge,
  3. Are teachers allowed to instigate shootings?
  4. Will weapon be carried openly?
  5. Who pays for training?
  6. Who pays for liability insurance?
  7. Who does the training?
  8. What weapons will be approved/disapproved?
  9. Who decides in this Brave New World?

Bridges crossed:

  1. Will schools be branded as dangerous environments?
  2. Will schools become thought of as minimum-security prisons, or armed camps?
  3. Is a welcoming, nourishing environment being traded for the illusion of a safe one?
  4. What keeps a Barney Fife-like teacher from being armed?
  5. What keeps any school district from trading an expensive, but effective Student Resource Officer (SRO) program for a cheaper “teacher packing” one?

These are some of the possible, or I believe, probable phenomena that will occur once America crosses this bridge.  Arming teachers is a quick fix.  It is a course that will not easily be altered.  Unlike “Duck and Cover”, it most assuredly will be tested.

What are we risking for our children, our future?

Jim Gifford is an English Teacher at Oakland High School, Murfreesboro, Tennessee. He is also a Vietnam War veteran (U.S. Navy), and became a qualified “expert” to use a .38 caliber handgun while he served. However, he is against having loaded weapons in the classroom.

 

Filed Under: Featured Tagged With: Arming Teachers, Duck and Cover, guns, teachers

Comments

  1. James Katakowski says

    March 29, 2018 at 11:10 am

    Way too many guns too many things could happen not safe I do not support this whatsoever.

    Reply
    • Nancy Bailey says

      March 30, 2018 at 8:03 am

      Thanks, James. I’m with you and Jim on this. I find it inconceivable.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Follow me!

Enter your email address to subscribe to my blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

My Books

front cover

NEW BOOK!
Do we really want an America where we no longer own our public schools?

Buy Now

front cover

This book says “no” to the reforms that fail, and challenges Americans to address the real student needs that will fix public schools and make America strong. Buy today and use coupon code "RLEGEN15" to save 20%!

Buy Now

Connect With Me!

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Archives

Tag Cloud

Arne Duncan Autism Betsy DeVos Bill Gates charter schools child development Children class size Common Core Common Core disabilities dyslexia early childhood education education reform Florida high-stakes testing Hillary Clinton inclusion learning disabilities mental health parents Personalized Learning play poverty preschool private schools privatization public schools reading recess retention School Choice School Privatization school reform special education students Students with Disabilities Teacher Preparation teachers Teach for America teaching Technology testing the arts vouchers

Copyright © 2018 Nancy E. Bailey · Web Design by HNH Marketing.