A recent controversial proposal to Senate Bill 1 that will require schools to employ an armed security person known as a “school protection officer” during school hours, has been solidified.

The new amendments to the bill, which was softened in early April during a House Ways and Means Committee hearing, provides that public schools must employ an individual with a loaded firearm unless the school receives an annual waiver from the state. Warsaw Community Schools Superintendent Dr. Craig Hintz and Wawasee Community School Corporation Superintendent Dr. Thomas Edington, both said that should the mandate stay in effect, both school systems will attempt to receive grants to help in the hiring of trained security personal.

The bill, which has received significant national attention, is the first of its kind in terms of mandating armed personnel in public schools.

According to Section 5 of the bill, unless a school receives a waiver, the school shall do the following beginning Jan. 1, 2014:

• Have at least one designated school protection officer on the premises of the school during regular school hours.

• Require at all times during regular school at least one designated school protection officer on the premises of the school to carry a weapon.
• Weapon means a loaded firearm and does not include a Taser, electronic stun weapon or another device designed to temporarily incapacitate a person
• Ensure that the identity of a school protection officer who is not in a law enforcement uniform remains confidential.

Section 6 of the bill adds that a school protection officer, who is not in a law enforcement uniform, may not carry the officer’s weapon in a manner that is visible. It also states that the individual serving as protection officer is considered a school employee, regardless of if the individual accepts compensation for performing their duties.

Though the mandate was sponsored by Rep. Jim Lucas and received initial support as a way to lessen vulnerability in schools, it quickly became clear the mandate was not popular with the general public. Though many other states are considering allowing schools to employ an armed official, Indiana would have been the first state to mandate this security approach.

In an attempt to soften the initial decision that required schools to employ an armed protector, the House Ways and Means committee created a provision that would allow a school district significantly more say in the matter. The new provision allows the governing body of a public school the ability to opt out of the mandate through receiving a waiver from the secured school safety board.

“The governing body of a public school may apply to the secured school safety board for a waiver from the requirements of Section 5 of this chapter after meeting at least one time each year in executive session to consider whether a waiver is appropriate. The governing body must submit a waiver application in the manner and form prescribed by the secured school safety board under IC 10-21-1-9.”

According to Dr. Edington, Wawasee schools currently plan to apply for a grant that would provide approximately $50,000 to be utilized in staffing a fully trained individual. The two-year grant could potentially be split up to staff either one full-time individual to go between the schools or several part-time individuals who could service the schools throughout various times during the day.

“Right now it would be our plan to apply for a grant. Our district would be able to receive $50,000 for two years but then there is no funding promise after that. If the funding is available we would certainly apply for that and would plan to use that in some way to enhance our school safety. We have one officer at present who covers five buildings, this would increase the coverage or allow us to approximately double the coverage. We are happy about that.

“When it comes to actually arming teachers, we expect that teachers would be trained in education and that they would do their best daily to work with our children,” Edington added. “The extra addition of being involved in actual school safety and carrying a weapon, if an emergency should happen and that armed teacher leaves to take care of that emergency, they also leave a class full of children. There are some practical things we aren’t sure about right now. We will be happy for school safety grant opportunities and to make the most of that.”

Wawasee wasn’t the only school system to feel this way. Dr. Hintz, Warsaw is also not in favor of arming teachers or principals at their schools. Hintz said should the schools be mandated to seek out a protection officer, they intend to employ an off-duty, trained law enforcement officer to fill that position. Hintz, like Edington, also said WCS would seek out grants to help offset the additional costs of employing armed personal.

“My position is that I am not in favor of arming teachers or principals in any of our schools,” said Hintz. “We do favor, as evidence of some of the decisions we made recently, that we employ off-duty, trained law enforcement officers to help keep our schools safe.”

When asked if the cost of supplying a protection officer was a concern for the school system Hintz replied, “Certainly, if it’s a mandate that comes from the state then the first question I have is, is there funding that will go along with the mandate? If they mandate that we must have law enforcement officers or security in our buildings and they aren’t sending any funding with that, then as a system we are going to have to come up with a way to fund that. There are some grant dollars available currently and perhaps there will be more available after the session and we would be very interested in securing grants for law enforcement officers.”

To view Senate Bill 1 click here.