More Money Allocated toward ASD Security Officer
By Jonathan Weaver
Armstrong School District students will be watched over again next year thanks to a state grant.
Earlier this year, school administrators were issued a $40,000 Pennsylvania Department of Education grant to fund district-wide police officers and they were issued another $20,000 officially last week.
In February, Student Transportation, Child Accounting and Safe Schools Director Jon Fair said Armstrong applied for the initial grant to provide safety to all 10 of the district schools.
“It’s just an added layer of security. We’re very fortunate in getting this grant, and we’re just looking at it as an additional layer of security that we’ll be able to have throughout our district,” Fair said in February.
Nearly $4 million was awarded to 114 schools and municipalities to fund the hiring of police and resource officers in schools across Pennsylvania.
“The safety and security of our students is a top priority,” Governor Tom Corbett said with the press release Friday. “Students who feel safe while in school are able to focus on learning, which impacts their academic growth. This funding will provide schools with the financial resources to secure the necessary personnel to ensure our students are protected while attending school.”
Last year, Gov. Corbett signed into law legislation - sponsored by Sen. Joe Scarnati (R-Jefferson) - that created a new grant program for schools and municipalities to receive funding through the Department of Education to cover the cost of hiring a school resource officer or school police officer.
Schools and municipalities can receive up to $60,000 for a school resource officer and up to $40,000 for a school police officer.
Grantees are required to fund these positions for at least two years, and will be eligible to receive 50 percent of their 2014-15 grant award during the 2015-16 school year.
Of the 114 awards, 39 are new applicants and 75 are continuation grants for schools and municipalities that received an award during the 2013-14 school year.
Continuation grants are funded at 50 percent of the amount received in the prior year.
This year, the 39 new applications were reviewed based on guidelines of the grant program, with each applicant being awarded a grant.
According to the Department of Education, priority for funding was given to schools and municipalities that employ officers who have completed additional training related to interaction with children and adolescents within a school setting.
Armstrong School District wasn’t the only grant recipient locally, as three other county districts (Apollo-Ridge, Freeport Area and Leechburg Area) all received continuation grants. Apollo-Ridge received $10,000 more than the other three districts.
Freeport Area was also awarded a $40,000 new grant
Continuation grants were also allocated to Kiski Area School District to monitor Allegheny Township, as well as New Kensington-Arnold School District to monitor schools in nearby-New Kensington.
Armstrong School District | jweaver November 17, 2014
By Elderton Parent, November 17, 2014 @ 9:28 AM
Serious question, does this mean that all of the schools will have security all day?
I understand that Elderton Elementary has a part-time principal and part-time security (as may others). It would be nice to see that there is security in all schools for the entire school day.
By localtaxpayer, November 17, 2014 @ 4:32 PM
I am glad to see the new Armstrong Central is looking towards the future.
By sickofpayingforit, November 17, 2014 @ 8:44 PM
Sounds like government keeps getting bigger and bigger to me. Paid policemen at our schools now?
Maybe try lowering taxes some so both parents don’t have to work 20 hours a day and allow them time to properly raise their children, and perhaps this won’t be needed……….
Typical government. Nothing solves problems like more tax fed positions!
By jorn jensen, November 18, 2014 @ 12:51 PM
This is a mistake. Do it the way Texas school districts do it - have volunteer concealed-carry teachers and administrators (trained, background-checked and verified), paid a stipend by the district, be the first line of defense. Maintain confidentiality as to whom is ‘carrying’.
Logic?
1) A uniformed guard will be the first target for a crazed school shooter. There is no element of surprise with a uniformed guard. Get that person out of the way and then the free-for-all begins.
2) Maintain the element of surprise toward the gunman with the gunman not knowing who may be carrying and defending.
Example: The Sandy Hook School shooting - the principal threw herself at the gunman. Heroic approach that only ended in her death. Had she been permitted and carrying, the whole thing could have ended early with a few shots. Forget the talking - that is no time to talk.
I realize that this post will incur wide criticism, but, you need to understand that the advantage of the element of surprise needs to be kept with potential victims - take it away from the perpetrator.
First comment will be, “What if a kid takes the gun away from the teacher or administrator?” Answer - Training, practice, training, certification and testing. Concealed carry means just that - concealed carry.
By mad-2010, November 18, 2014 @ 6:08 PM
Just get off the Texas School District stuff again, Please.. Get the Pros and be done with it! Sound like a Security Pro lately?? I don’t think so!!
By Elderton Parent, November 19, 2014 @ 8:03 AM
I agree with Jorn, we need teachers/administrators that are willing to carry in order to protect our students and staff. If they have the proper training there should not be an issue. Students should not even know which ones are carrying.
Currently the security at the schools are in plain clothes. So that may help some.
However, again, I am concerned with the fact that we do not have them all day, everyday at each school. It may sound like it is a bit much to be asking for but in today’s society, we need to do whatever needs done to protect the students and staff.
By jorn jensen, November 19, 2014 @ 8:34 PM
Plain clothes is much safer for the guard, or officer, than a uniform.
So, with the $60,000, how many guards/officers will we have in the 10 district schools, and for how many hours each day? Will they be armed?
Sickofpayingforit makes a good point - added public sector jobs for a ‘maybe’ situation.
Assume 500 teachers/administrators and 10% are ‘willing’. That’s 50 ‘already-on-site’ people to act as immediate responders to a ‘situation’. They’re there anyhow, performing other duties. $60k divided 50 ways is $1200 each, extra, per year, to provide ‘in-house’ immediate responder service. Or, of course, take dollars out of the $60k for the training and certification. Still pay a stipend to the teachers/administrators willing to perform this duty (volunteer concealed-carry teachers and administrators).
If there are no incidents during the year, then that is good. These people get the extra stipend, no extra public sector jobs are created, and students can learn in a safe environment.
By sickofpayingforit, November 20, 2014 @ 5:07 PM
Jorn-
Your suggestion does not reflect the current private sector work force. We do not get extra pay for additional duties. The companies downsize workforce and shift those duties to the remaining workforce for the same package.
Give the teachers training, and some form of protection from lawsuits in the absolute worst case a bystander is hit during a legitimate threat, and done dealio.
The numbers still are the numbers though. We are actively seeking to spend 10 million dollars on a complex that has a SIGNIFICANTLY higher probability of seriously injuring our students, than any wacko gunman does. Are these decisions based on facts and unskewed statistics or are they made because they appear as the “right things to do”, based on the brainwashing the media is performing by having everyone thinking there are gunfights on every other street corner in America…….
By Snakes, November 20, 2014 @ 10:05 PM
For the first time in my life I agree with Jorn. Probably still good to have one uniformed officer in schools.
By jorn jensen, November 21, 2014 @ 5:19 PM
Snakes, you’ve surely heard the expression, “Every once in a while, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn”.
Sickofpayingforit - I understand your point - I’m also sick of paying for it. On the $60k, state government makes that available as a ‘grant’ based upon the request from ‘security managers from school districts’. These ‘grants’ are tax money that you and I have paid. Regardless of one new school or a group of old schools, when whackos create a new style of crime, then we must be proactive to nip it in the bud, so I support the use of the $60k for providing enhanced security for our students, teachers and administration. The question becomes - how best to do that to get the most out of a dollar spent? I believe, as the Texans believe, first line of defense is right where the action is - in this case, the teachers’ classroom. Texans are from the same country as Pennsylvanians - they’re no smarter than us - maybe more gutsy, but no smarter.
Logic has it that the new consolidation should eliminate teaching jobs, similar to the way things are done in the private sector. Logic has it - we’ll see.
With armed volunteer teachers and administrators, hopefully they’ll never have to act on a threat - the dollars spent would be spread over a larger group for that ‘security’. It is tax dollars that I can support willingly.
By sickofpayingforit, November 24, 2014 @ 12:38 AM
Jorn-
I have said it before on the topic of grants.
Yes, the receiving body of government employees should feel a bit of pride as they are actively seeking to help their constituents, and also making effort to keep their budget in check. I get that.
As Joe American who pays through the nose every year, grants are just another level of government spending the tax money they collect from me every year. The example I use is this. Grants to a tax payer are like owning a restaurant and being given a gift card to go eat at your restaurant……..Yeah, it’s a “free” meal, but you know deep down you are still paying for the food and all the overhead associated with that meal. Hard to fully enjoy that meal, in that scenario……