snuffed out

Bill to arm some Tennessee teachers with handguns killed in House committee

PHOTO: Marta W. Aldrich
The State Capitol in Nashville is home to the Tennessee General Assembly.

A bill that would open the door to arming some Tennessee teachers died Tuesday after state lawmakers exchanged occasionally harsh words about whether educators with handguns would actually make students safer.

Meanwhile, another bill emerged as an alternative and would place armed, off-duty law enforcement officers in schools that aren’t already patrolled by school resource officers. It’s an expensive measure — up to $48 million annually — but lawmakers who back it pledged to get that number down.

Chairman Harry Brooks declared that the proposal to arm teachers failed on a close voice vote after almost an hour of debate in the House Education Administration and Planning Committee.

The decision ended the march of a measure that had easily cleared two legislative hurdles and was scheduled to make its debut later Tuesday in the Senate, where the powerful chairman of the chamber’s education committee had signed on as a co-sponsor. The bill already had 46 co-sponsors in the 99-member House.

But the measure was opposed by Gov. Bill Haslam, who is proposing additional money to hire more school resource officers in economically distressed counties without them. The state’s largest teachers union and the Tennessee Sheriffs Association were also against arming teachers.


Here are five things to know about school resource officers in Tennessee


Lawmakers asked pointed questions about training, liability, and the need for armed teachers when, just last week, the governor submitted his emergency school safety plan in response to the Feb. 14 shooting that left 17 people dead at a Florida high school.

The exchange got testy when Rep. Eddie Smith talked about two school shootings near his Knoxville district in 2008 and 2010.

“To be honest with you, it feels like the bill has been put together on the back of a napkin that’s held together with bubblegum and duct tape,” said Smith, who did not offer specifics. “I just don’t think this is the right time to bring this bill up. I don’t think this bill is ready.”

Sponsoring Rep. David Byrd took issue with that, saying that he’s worked on the bill for three years, initially as a way to provide security coverage in two rural counties that he represents that haven’t had school resource officers for years. “It wasn’t something I wrote down on a napkin,” the Waynesboro Republican told Smith.

Rep. Roger Kane, a Knoxville Republican who is a former teacher, suggested that it’s smarter for teachers to stay with their students during a lockdown situation, and he questioned how an armed teacher could confront a shooter with a semi-automatic weapon.

"A teacher with a handgun taking on an intruder with an AR-15 is bringing a slingshot to a bazooka festival."Rep. Roger Kane

“A teacher with a handgun taking on an intruder with an AR-15 is bringing a slingshot to a bazooka festival,” he said. “You can’t win that competition.”

Others praised Byrd’s bill as a way to make schools safer, especially in rural areas where many educators are avid hunters who are used to handling guns.

“What I love about this legislation, it keeps a question in the mind of someone who comes [into schools] who would do harm to our children,” said Rep. Terri Lynn Weaver, a Republican from Smith County. “Unfortunately, we just don’t live in Mayberry R.F.D.

Also Tuesday, committees in both the House and Senate unanimously advanced another bill that would allow armed, off-duty officers to provide security in schools that don’t already have an SRO.

Unlike SROs, those officers could not address student discipline unless a crime is committed. But they also could pursue SRO certification, which requires an additional 40 hours of training.

“This bill is not meant to be a permanent solution,” said Rep. Micah Van Huss of Jonesborough, sponsoring the measure along with Sen. Mark Green of Clarksville. “It’s meant to be an emergency measure for four years until we’re able to get something more permanent in place.”

Van Huss said the bill’s annual $48 million price tag was the maximum and could be pared down to almost half of that. He pledged to work on that with the House Finance Committee.

The governor is neutral on the bill, said Haslam press secretary Jennifer Donnals.

Haslam’s school safety plan includes an additional $30 million for school safety grants, but most of that is a one-time boost in spending.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated with additional information.

First Person

We work at Denver’s Title I schools, too. Here’s why we’re ready to strike.

PHOTO: AAron Ontiveroz/The Denver Post
Students in kindergarten on the first day of school at McGlone Academy.

We are a group of teachers representing schools in the far northeast region of Denver. Many of us now receive “incentives” for working at Title I schools where many students live in poverty — and we are also willing to strike in support of the union’s proposed salary structure, which moves some of the money used for those incentives into long-term base pay.

Why? In short, we would rather have our base pay prioritized than earn bonuses that are not reliable, may not be working, and may also take the pressure off the district to solve systemic problems our schools face.

Issue #1: The current bonuses can’t be relied on. The “hard to serve” school label is based on free and reduced-price lunch percentages, which vary on an annual basis. Teachers at Marie L. Greenwood Academy, for example, could lose their “hard to serve” label because their school dropped just barely below the threshold. Additionally, John Amesse Elementary School and McGlone Academy are less than two miles apart, serve similar populations, and are a part of the same network; however, due to ambiguous calculations based on test scores, free and reduced-price lunch numbers, and teacher turnover rates, McGlone teachers receive larger bonuses than John Amesse teachers. This is not fair nor equitable. Teachers need money they can depend on.

Issue #2: It’s not clear that the current bonuses are working. We have not seen conclusive evidence that the incentives we receive for working in hard to serve schools have affected teacher retention or recruitment. Every year, schools in our area are hiring for positions that often get filled by first-year teachers. Many of the schools that receive these incentives still suffer from the same high turnover rates the bonuses were meant to remedy.

Issue #3: The current bonuses let the district off the hook. Some have argued that teachers in Title I schools deserve significant bonuses because the challenges faced in our work are difficult and taxing. However, many of these issues are due to systemic problems that the district would be better off trying to solve directly.

We know that increasing incentive pay to work at “hard to serve” schools will not fix the issues around segregation in Denver Public Schools. Increasing incentive pay to work at “hard to serve” schools will not fix the issues around some schools lacking nurses, social workers, counselors, support for Spanish speaking and emerging bilingual students, and support for special education programs. It will not solve issues around the lack of reliable technology, funding for arts, comprehensive neighborhood schools, or the flood of issues that we all feel in our schools on a daily basis.

We support the union’s proposal because we want the decisions we make as educators to stem from a love of our schools, a desire to serve our students, and a hope to support our community. We want teachers to seek out and stay at our schools because they believe in our vision, our mission, our students, and our community.

We are also passionate about a clear and transparent pay schedule. We want that structure to recognize our dedication to the field and our commitment to furthering our education – not a system that provides one-time bonuses that are in our checks one year and absent the next due to circumstances outside our control.

Anyone who enters our classrooms will see that we are doing our best with the resources we have in order to lift up the students in Denver who are most impacted by systemic racism and poverty. Let us come together on this idea: Fair pay for teachers means better outcomes for students. If we can stand together on this, then we can help improve the lives of so many more students, teachers, and families.

This piece was written by Jessica Schneider, Noel Community Arts School; Tanessa Bass, John H. Amesse Elementary; Rebecca Roberts, John H. Amesse Elementary; Valerie Henderson, Sandra Todd Williams Academy; Brian Weaver, Florida Pitt Waller ECE-8; Michelle Garrison, Farrell B. Howell ECE-8; Michael Sitkin, DCIS @ Montbello; Cory Montrieul, DCIS @ Montbello; and Nik Arnoldi, Escalante-Biggs Academy.

Last minute

Teachers union continues voting on possible Denver strike

PHOTO: Michael Ciaglo/Special to the Denver Post
Eagleton Elementary School first grade teacher Valerie Lovato, left, and East High School French teacher Tiffany Choi hold up signs as the Denver teachers union negotiates with district officials.

Denver teachers resumed voting Tuesday evening on whether to go on strike, a decision that will touch tens of thousands of people in Colorado’s largest school district.

The vote comes after months of negotiations left Denver Public Schools and the Denver Classroom Teachers Association still $8 million apart and with serious philosophical disagreements about how teacher compensation should be structured. Denver teachers are riding a wave of activism by their peers across the country that began last year and continues to build. Teachers in Los Angeles just reached a tentative deal with their district after more than a week on strike.

Members of the teachers union began voting on a strike Saturday. A final round of voting began at 4 p.m. Tuesday and will end at 9 p.m. Union officials said Tuesday evening that results would be announced at 9:30 p.m.  

On Tuesday evening, a steady stream of teachers bundled against the cold made their way into a Knights of Columbus Hall in downtown Denver where the last voting session is taking place.

Maria Cruz, an early childhood education teacher for the past two years who previously worked as a paraprofessional in the district, said she voted “yes” to strike hoping it will push the district to close the gap between its offer and what the union is seeking.  

“Teachers come and go and come and go and they never stay because there is not enough pay,” she said. “It doesn’t validate the teaching profession.”

The earliest a strike could start would be Jan. 28. On Tuesday evening, district families received a robocall from Denver Superintendent Susana Cordova making clear that classes would go on as normal on Wednesday, and that district officials intend to keep schools open for the foreseeable future.   

Cordova has said she’ll ask for state intervention if the vote is yes, which could delay a strike. If teachers do walk out, the district intends to keep schools open and students learning by relying on substitutes, tapping central office staff with past teaching experience, and using pre-packaged lessons plans for every grade and subject area. 

A Denver strike would affect roughly 71,000 students in district-run schools.

District officials went on the offensive over the weekend, making the argument that their offer was generous and responsive to longstanding teacher complaints about stagnant salaries.   

The district also published its new salary schedule online alongside the salary schedules of other Denver metro area districts.

The two sides disagree on how much new money the district should put into teacher compensation and also on how that compensation should be structured. The district has said it will not compromise on offering bonuses to teachers at high-poverty and hard-to-serve schools. The union wants smaller bonuses and more money to go into base pay.

This would be the first teacher strike in Denver in 25 years.