Training teachers to shoot back

[minnhawk]

Amid an epidemic of school shootings, some teachers are being trained to shoot back

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/ar ... rylink=cpy

Long article & good read. If teachers are going to be armed, this is probably what training needs to be....


"....Crowley is an Army veteran, a federally certified firearms instructor, sniper instructor and Missouri Sheriffs’ Association Training Academy instructor. He knows the starting point for some of the teachers.

“Zero,” he said. “So it’s absolutely ground floor — stance, grip, sight alignment, trigger manipulation.”

But on a scale to 100, he said, his students will be shooting at 90 to 95 by the end of the week. If not 90 percent, they don’t graduate and the district will have to send someone else.

At the recent session, an elementary teacher struggled. Her eyes were tearing up, and she repeatedly had to run up a hill as punishment for misses.

“She’s not going to make it,” Wehmer said. “She can’t handle the stress. And if she can’t handle it out here, what would she do in a real situation?”

The woman knew she was too slow.

“I have to stop thinking scenario so much and start shooting,” she said.

Training topics include weapons maintenance, threat identification, discretionary shooting, one-handed shooting, shooting while moving, barricade shooting and “the warrior mindset.”

Five hours are spent in the classroom and 35 hours on the range. The required firearm is the Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol.

“Concealable, easy to handle and it goes bang every time,” Crowley said.

“Combat accuracy,” added instructor Fred Long, a retired Missouri Highway Patrol trooper and former Army paratrooper.

On Thursday of the recent week, too many shots missed targets. Students forgot to take the evasive sidestep.

“This is Day Four! Step off the X!” instructor Jason Long yelled.

Crowley, clearly frustrated, glared at flubbers as they left to run up the hill.

“You boys are detracting from everybody else’s training,” he said.

Part of the school shooting scenarios include the arrival of law enforcement.

“Sheriff’s department! On the ground!” the officers shout as they barge onto the scene.

By that time, the teachers should have looped around their necks the yellow security sash they must carry at all times.

“What is your name?!” the officers yell. “Do you work here?! Are there other shooters?!”

Some of the teachers’ voices wobble as they respond with their hands up and their knees in the gravel. It’s about performing under pressure, Martin said. The same as putting the school shooter target in the middle of the kids.

“It adds to the stress,” Martin said. “But it makes them better.

“They can’t fail at this.”

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/ar ... rylink=cpy

[PhilaBOR]

Way to make the teachers hate it. That will get more volunteers.

[wrench]

Yeah, that's always what I think of when it comes to training beginners. Scream at them, belittle them, and then run some laps.

[shooter115]

I see no problem with it at all. These people are volunteers and most likely not "beginners" even though it doesn't say in the article. They are stepping forward to to "be the sheepdog", the protector of children.

Having a son that will be school age before I know it. If there were armed staff at his school, I would want to be assured the person was well trained. In my opinion just having a PTC, doesn't cut it in that role. I'm not saying the avg. person with a permit shouldn't be allowed to carry in a school. But I am saying that if one or two undisclosed staff members are assigned with the responsibility to get in a gunfight in an "active killer" scenario. I want their asses trained up.

The only problem I see, is stating in the article that armed responders will be wearing a yellow sash. That should have remained private between the schools staff and local law enforcement.

[shooter115]

Bump, cause I'm curious what other members opinion on this issue are.

[Mn01r6]

Bump, cause I'm curious what other members opinion on this issue are.

"Amid an epidemic of school shootings..."

I think it is sensationalist journalism to call what we currently have for statistics an "epidemic" unless you buy into Everytown For Gun Confiscation's made up numbers.

Regardless, I support the effort to train up teachers to defend their classroom on a volunteer basis.

[Bearcatrp]

Hell ya, arm them, responsibly.

[wrench]

He knows the starting point for some of the teachers.

“Zero,” he said. “So it’s absolutely ground floor — stance, grip, sight alignment, trigger manipulation.”

Don't mistake me, shooter, I think that teachers who will be carrying a firearm need substantive training. I just believe that has to be incremental-walk before you can run.
Why take a rank beginner and treat them that way? Later on, sure, yell all you want. Seems juvenile to me.

[xd ED]

What jumped out at me was the money spent: $17,500 for 2 students.
I wonder what training one could get for nearly $9000 at GunSite or someplace similar.

It occurred to me shortly after the Newtown shootings that if properly promoted and coordinated by the NRA, teacher training could have gone from 'zero' to self defense + level at little to no expense to the school districts:
Volunteers teachers step forward, they are rewarded similarly to other extra-curricular teachers( i.e. coaches, band directors, etc).

Firearms, ammo, holster manufactures could be convinced to support the effort with their wares,

Many NRA instructors would voluntarily absorb teachers into their classes at no charge
Gun clubs, and ranges would give the teachers-in training preferred treatment/ free range time.

At some point coordinated training with local LE would commence for those qualified.

Kids are safer, the PR for the firearms' industry and all who contributed, as well as normalized gun carry would be priceless.
I don't think the cost to the school district ( one of the red flags that would get thrown up) would begin to approach the money spent on the curriculum described in this news piece.

[jshuberg]

If the goal is to train teachers to defend children from an active shooter situation, they need a similar level of training as law enforcement, with a focus on defensive tactics rather than offensive tactics. Basic pistol manipulation, fundamentals, even training for competition isn't going to be anywhere near thorough enough for them. The class described does sound crazy expensive (it will be paid for with taxpayer monies), but it also sounds like they're covering the material necessary get get their students up to speed and competent in a short period of time.

I also think a boot-camp style approach to their training is a good idea. School districts are sending teachers to these classes to come back competent to defend students with a firearm. That is extremely difficult to do in the time provided. Taking it slow, and letting them progress at their own speed in a low stress, comfortable environment would result in the *vast* majority of students not being able to make it through all of the material, and they would need to be failed out of the program. A high speed, high stress, boot-camp style training program has been proven over centuries as the best way to prepare people to correctly respond to high speed, high stress, hostile situations in the shortest period of time.

I'd agree that Gunsite academy would have been a good place to design this kind of program. The thing is, I don't think that anyone knows yet what the best way to train teachers for this type scenario is. The military knows the best way to train soldiers for the scenario they're likely to face, and so do the police. Many different training methods and materials have been tried and perfected over the years, decades, and centuries. Techniques that work have risen to the top and techniques that don't have been discarded. The threat model for law enforcement and military is very different from the threat model that teachers would encounter in an active shooter situation, and there hasn't been enough information and assessments made on which training and techniques work, and which don't. Teachers need a program specifically designed for the threat model they're likely to face, which is very different than what most existing training programs are designed for.

[goatroper]

What jumped out at me was the money spent: $17,500 for 2 students.
I wonder what training one could get for nearly $9000 at GunSite or someplace similar.

The first thing I thought of from reading the story, and the terms used, was this training being done by Tactical Response.
I know that their 5 day pistol class goes for $1,150.00. Add in travel, hotels, meals, ammo and equipment and it still seems really high.
Just with ball park figures, no way should it cost that much, unless they are also providing other services and support not mentioned.

[Mn01r6]

Could it be the total cost for the 2 students from each of 10 districts (20 students...less than $1,000 per student)

[xd ED]

Re-reading it, maybe it's the liability insurance end-run that drives up the price:

At first, insurance was a problem. Districts were told they would be dropped from regular coverage if any staff member was armed. The solution was for Martin’s company to provide $3 million of co-insurance to participating districts.

For a fee of $17,500, a district gets training for two staffers, who technically become employees of Shield Solutions and receive a salary. So far, 10 districts have taken the training. Three more signed contracts recently and more are in negotiations.

But it does appear the $17,500 is for 2 participants.