search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Bret E. Brooks, an instructor for Gray Ram Tacti- cal, said the threat of parental kidnapping is one of the most common issues a bus driver will face. “Te bus driver may know this is the kid’s parent but not know there are custody issues,” Brooks said. “Tis threat information does not get passed down to the bus driver in many cases.” Brooks suggested that school districts should take a closer look at the hiring process to get the right people. “I think in the interview process you must pose the question how would you handle this type of event,” he added. ”If you don’t hire the person who has the mentality to deal with these situations, they won’t have the confidence or mindset to deal with them.”


Armed or Unarmed


Some security experts and many school admin- istrators said they hope the increased emphasis on training will obviate the discussions on whether to arm bus drivers. In several states where some school districts allow concealed carry by unidentified school personnel, bus drivers are neither exempt nor are they specifically designated. Trainers and security experts either approach the topic with caution or eschew it totally as a bad idea. “My personal view is the answer to this problem is not to pass out the pistols and win the gunfight,” said Tom Foley, assistant professor at the Emb- ry-Riddle College of Security and Intelligence in Prescott, Arizona, and an expert on physical security. “Tat decision should be driven by law enforcement response time. If it is going to be 15 minutes or more for the police to arrive then that risk may war- rant arming somebody, but they should be trained on the appropriate use of force and how to shoot in a tactical situation as opposed to a two-hour course on gun safety.” Kevin Quinn, the former president of the Nation- al Association of School Resource Officers and a 20- year career SRO in Arizona, recently wrote an article that addresses arming school staff. He said he wrote the article based on facts so people can come to their own conclusion. “And that conclusion is that it is not a good idea,” Quinn said. Obviously, in rural sit- uations, school districts will have to make a decision as to what’s in their best interest, especially if they do not have a police officer assigned as an SRO.” Utah allows school staff to carry concealed weap- ons at school, as long as they are certified. Murrell Martin, pupil transportation director for the Utah State Office of Education, said the law has been in effect for a couple years and was passed in response to the increase in school shootings and resulting


44 School Transportation News • JANUARY 2016


legislative involvement. Martin, who carries a permit for concealed carry, said some bus drivers were certi- fied before the law was passed. “I can’t say who it is carrying, but a bunch more (bus drivers) have gotten certified since the law went into effect,” he said. “It created a bit of a stir when it happened. Some felt it should be disclosed who is carrying. Others have the attitude that bad guys need to find out for themselves who is carrying and who is not.” Gary Moore, safety coordinator at the Missouri Center for Educational Safety said things change when someone is shooting at you, no matter how good a shot you are. “If you put a gun in a bus driv- er’s hands and they hit the target, they will be a hero. But if they hit a teacher or student, you are a zero, and you’ve completely changed your life forever. You will face lawsuits. “I don’t say yes or no. (But) when you pull that trigger there’s no taking that back.” l


An increase in school shootings and violence on the bus, especially against drivers, and the resulting media attention, has scared many transportation departments into seeking more protection for their employees.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60