Board to vote on arming police in Pittsburgh schools |

Board to vote on arming police in Pittsburgh schools


School board members will vote Wednesday on whether to arm police in Pittsburgh Public Schools, and some have already come out against the idea.

The board began mulling the policy change in early October, with school police Chief George Brown telling board members that his officers need guns to do their jobs.

Some board members said ahead of the hearing they will vote against the change.

School Director Sala Udin of the Hill District said armed police officers in schools would create a dangerous situation.

“Too many things can go wrong,” he said. “Somebody can get shot.

He said he would vote against the proposal.

“I’m opposed to guns on the officers in school,” Udin said. “If a situation occurs where a police officer is needed (Pittsburgh police) have a record of very quick response and so I think that’s sufficient for public schools.”

The discussion stemmed from a request to explore the policy change made by the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers in 2015, Safety Committee Chair Terry Kennedy said. Pittsburgh Public Schools police officers are represented by the union.

Board member Moria Kaleida said she, too, will vote against arming the school’s police force. She said the security program in place now is working – without any risk of a student being shot in school.

“Guns don’t belong in schools no matter who has possession of them,” said Kaleida, of Beechview. “I think it sends the wrong message to our kids. It doesn’t create a safe environment. They come to school to feel safe.”

Reach via email, board member Veronica Edwards said she is opposed to guns in schools. Board memberTerry Kennedy said she would reserve comment for the meeting.

Board members Cynthia Falls, Regina Holly, Kevin Carter, Lynda Wrenn and Sylvia Wilson could not be reached for comment.

About 60 people attended a public hearing on the matter held Monday.

“It is the duty of our public schools to educate, not incarcerate,” parent Natika Proctor said in a press release from the Education Rights Network, which opposes the issue. “I will not stand by while my child’s school invests in criminalizing and policing the student body.”

Pittsburgh school police officers are sworn officers and have received firearms training, Brown said at a meeting earlier this month. He’s concerned about threats from the outside coming into school buildings and told the board that though weapons are typically not found inside school buildings, they have been recovered from areas surrounding schools.

“If there’s a situation that goes down where there could be a very dangerous situation with an individual with a firearm, then the school police actually becomes a liability for city officers, especially if we’re working outside events,” he said at the time.

Ruth Howze, a parent organizer with the Education Rights Network, said the organization wants students to be safe but that guns are not the answer.

“There is no evidence that armed officers inside the school buildings increase school safety,” she said. “School should be a sanctuary, not a battlefield.”

Megan Guza is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Megan at 412-380-8519, [email protected] or via Twitter @meganguzaTrib.Bob Bauder is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Bob at 412-765-2312, [email protected] or via Twitter @bobbauder.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.