No Bull, no Fluff, No Smudges

The Flagler County school district has several options if it chooses to supplement school security provided by the Flagler County Sheriff’s deputies with additional armed guards.

One option is to train current school staff, including faculty, deans, principals, non-instructional personnel and bus drivers. A second option is to create a district program that would hire its own armed guards–what would be the district’s own security service. A third option is to contract with an existing security service other than the Sheriff’s Office.

None of the options are cheap. Initial annual costs range from over $150,000 to nearly $600,000.

The school board last month opted not to go forward with the so-called “Guardian” program, as the state refers to arming civilians on school campuses, at least not this year. The deadline to qualify for training dollars was too short, and the district did not have all the information it needed to make an informed decision. On Tuesday, Tommy Wooleyhan, the district’s safety specialist, briefed the school board during a workshop on what, more precisely, such an armed civilian program would cost.

Depending on what approach the board takes, the district would develop a budget for next April or May, to be adopted ahead of the 2023-24 school year, the earliest when an actual armed civilian program would be put in place. Still: that’s assuming the board would go that route. Currently, the board is divided on the matter.

“It’s a large financial impact to our district. There’s a lot to think about with this,” Wooleyhan told the board.

The first option would use plainclothes (or undercover) existing employees as guards. Administrators like principals and assistant principals work 12 months a year, so their training would be incorporated into the program. But if a 196-day employee, such as a teacher, were to be part of the program, that employee’s training time would have to be paid at the same rate as the employee would be paid when teaching. But the district administration is discouraging the use of teachers. “Who could volunteer for these services are principals, assistant principals, dean, guidance counselors, media specialists, instructional and non instructional employees that are not assigned to any individual classrooms,” Wooleyhan said. “This is just off local recommendations.” Classroom teachers could be a “possible exception” if they are former members of the armed services or law enforcement, he said. The district would develop policies to identify the armed staffers.

Using that option and arming 12 staffers, for at least one such armed presence at each school, the district estimates training costs alone would run to $78,000. Weapons, armored vests and radios would add $75,000, for a first-year cost of $153,000, with an additional annual training cost of $2,300 per employee. For a dozen employees, that would be $27,600 (at today’s dollars).

If the district wants to have at least two armed staffers at each school, or a total of 24, the first-year cost would jump to $247,000, and recurring training to $55,200.

That’s still not the complete figure. When the district last discussed the program, Trevor Tucker, the chairman of the school board, wanted to know the supplemental insurance costs that would inevitably be part of such programs. Oddly, the costs differ depending on the employee. For a school employee to be armed, a non-instructional employee’s insurance cost would be $250, half that of a teacher’s insurance cost. Aggregate additional costs would be from $6,000 to $12,000.

The Sheriff’s Office would conduct the training, which is an additional cost. Only part of that cost would be covered by a state grant. “We do not know what the sheriff’s part would receive,” Wooleyhan said. “What we do know is that there are $6.5 million out there for the 67 districts in the state of Florida. So if you take that, that’s about $100,000 per district, at a minimum you are guaranteed $100,000. So we know there would be a financial impact to our district as well.” “Obviously it’s the least expensive way to go. Not necessarily the best way to go,” Board member Cheryl Massaro said. She wants district staff surveyed on the option, knowing that there are employees who are strongly opposed, while others not necessarily so. Massaro wants a better idea of the breakdown.

The second option would be for the district to develop its own armed security service. It would pay guards an hourly rate, plus a coordinator who could travel between schools. They would be visible as armed guards. They would be employed for a full year, enabling them to cover summer school, as well as cover sports or other extra-curricular events. That option “would be creating a whole new job description, a whole new salary lane, they could be a whole new bargaining unit, all that, and would be holding brand new position for for Flagler schools,” Wooleyhan said.

For just nine armed security personnel under that scenario, the district would have to shoulder a new cost of $467,000 in the first year, with recurring annual costs of at least $360,000, plus at least $10,000 in health insurance costs.

“It is a preferred option for some district safety specialists in other districts rather than the plainclothes,” Wooleyhan told the school board. “The plain clothes guardian is a cheaper option. But identifying those guardians is sometimes a challenge.” In other words, making the difference between an armed staffer and an armed assailant during an emergency situation could lead to a staffer getting shot, when responding law enforcement may be confused as to who is what.

The third option would be contracting with a security agency. The state has approved agencies. Some districts have adopted that model, especially in larger districts where the local law enforcement agencies don’t have the personnel to cover all the schools. Those security employees would not necessarily have to have additional training. That option would cost $585,000 in the initial year. The services are provided vehicles. The district would be responsible for that cost, which amounts to over $110,000 for 10 vehicles.

Whichever option the district chooses, if it were to go that route, would create a cost in addition to the existing contract with the sheriff’s Office. That contract currently costs the districts $1 million for 12 deputies (including a commander) and nine crossing guards.

The numbers were clearly a surprise to the board.

“Are we doing as much to refine our practices and student services so we don’t need the Guardians, even if we go down that route and add the Guardians?” School Board member Janet McDonald asked the superintendent. “Collectively, as our departments work together, we absolutely are always trying to meet the needs of our students and our families,” Superintendent Cathy Mittlestadt said. “So that proactive piece, we do have identifiable indicators, who the student services team is to support the students at the school based site, or if there’s some type of alternative placement. I think we’re doing yeoman’s work in terms of trying to be very responsive to the needs of our families. Sadly, it’s always the what if and the unknown. But we are not going to settle on that. We’re always going to make sure that we’re doing everything within our resources to make sure we’re able to be responsive and proactive at the same time.”

The district is also working on an agreement with the Colorado-based I Love You Guys Foundation. It offers programs focused on responses to school-assailant situations and reunification methods. “Reunification” is the term used to describe how students who have been locked down or involved in a potential active assailant situation are accounted for and reunified with their parents. (The district is preparing to carry out one such exercise in October with the sheriff’s office and the Emergency Operations Center.) The organization’s website says its program is used in 30,000 organizations around the world (not just schools). It disseminates them through training events and exercises.

“This is preventative stuff that we are actually doing,” Wooleyhan said. “We are required to identify and train employees that are to be trained in threat assessment within 90 days, per state statute. We’ve been working with our student services team and our mental health coordinator.”

The sheriff’s school resource deputies are at each of the nine schools. Two deputies are at each of the two high schools. Imagine School at Town Center, the publicly funded, privately run charter school, also has a sheriff’s deputy.

So the county has to pay 6 million + for private schools. Can the county afford patrols with weapons?

Take the money out of the money used for books – they’re not welcome here anyway.

Uvalde had armed officers who failed to respond..

THE MOST EXPENSIVE WALK THROUGH METAL DETECTOR COST $5K! These people are in the business of “educating” our children? Really? REALLY REALLY??? I’m sorry. Flagler, along with anyplace that even considers this, is a complete and total embarrassment.

Good luck! You’re gonna need it.

There’s no price for safety. How many people do you thing make it past the metal detectors? If someone truly wanted to get on a school campus they could. It happened last year during a track meet. 2 student went into the gym played basketball with the gym class and ate lunch in the cafeteria. Why wouldn’t we want experienced and educated extra safety at our schools. Sorry haters I’m all for it.

I’m all for charging the parents with school aged students for additional security. That way if something doesn’t go well on any given school day, they can sue themselves, carry life insurance on their own children & complain about what they provided for their own children’s safety.

Flagler County & City of Palm Coast can add this additional amount to your tax bill. Bunnell can add that if that is where you live just the same. Are you still on board with that as a payment plan ?

No way. I will never pay a property tax increase for this BS. Right-wing mentality is sick. Armed teachers? Looking at kids genitals? Banning books that open the mind? Harassing kids that are different? Yet they’re still supporting sex trafficker Matt Gaetz, Trump the rapist con man spy, and numerous other GQP immoral people that like to beat wives, don’t care if their kids are raped, and have cruelty in their hearts, ‘cause, ‘Merica. 🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮

What total Bullshit!!!!! Palm Coast has more than enough retired vets that would work for a 1/4 of that number. And they would do a better job…..

Obviously, schools need to consider all options to increase student safety, but they should be affordable and realistic, and I don’t think these are. Let’s not spend more money on security then we do on education.

If a kid EVER gets hurt or killed in any scenario where someone was authorized to bring a gun for protection, especially if that wasn’t their actual job there, the amount of money spent for security will be a joke compared to that lawsuit.

Arming civilians is asking for problems, serious ones. Knowing how to technically shoot a gun doesn’t mean they can handle high stress situations. If it’s locked in a box in a locked drawer behind a locked door, how is anyone going to get to it fast enough? Timing is everything in emergencies.

The best case scenario in my opinion is to give well trained people weapons that are not lethal, such as stun guns, tear gas etc. If we need to bring weapons into schools, let’s consider things that will stop a shooter but not kill a kid, even if it’s not as effective. Instead of hiring security guards to just look at drivers licenses as people come through or ask them why they’re there, fill those positions instead with people that have specific training and pay them more.

Research realistic options, not just something that creates the illusion of security, but isn’t very useful overall. One example would be fake cameras (which I know are not used here anyway), but the the easiest way to make this point. Cameras won’t prevent a problem but can document it after it’s too late. If all that’s needed is documentation, pretty much every kid at every age has a camera on them at all times now. Since gun violence is the number one killer of children these days, obviously having cameras isn’t a very effective deterrent.

It seems the mentality of shooters demonstrates they’re usually not trying to sneak out, and they’re not trying to survive. They want you to know who they are and how powerful, how helpless everyone is now, how people will never forget them. It’s about vengeance, and how sad that is, their victims are so innocent. They’re desperate to be noticed and go out in a blaze of glory. It’s pretty hard to stop someone who is suicidal, they have nothing to lose, and extra security is pointless if this isn’t kept in mind. Terrorists and kamikaze pilots have proven traditional security measures don’t always work.

I think money would be better spent on offering instruction to every student on how to deal with bullies and other stressors in life, how to pass tests, avoid being a victim, what you might call real world skills. Teach self-defense classes because violence is going to happen outside of the schools too, for their entire lives.

Telling kids to report bullies hasn’t eliminated that problem to say the least, better to teach skills on how to deal with jerks because it’s going to happen all your life! Anyone who ever had a horrible boss (or partner, neighbor, coworker etc.) can testify to that. Just saying ‘no to drugs’ didn’t solve that problem either. These ideas have the right objective, but their methods are flawed, and extreme school safety is going to be a journey too.

Teaching traditional academics needs to expand to consider the emotional and mental well-being of ALL children. We’re thinking of this as a sideline, or for students who ask for help or clearly demonstrate they’re stressed out, but this should be standard practice in every school for every age.

The number one correlation between shooters is they felt bullied, they felt disempowered, and obviously didn’t deal with that appropriately. These are skills that could be taught proactively. Yes, it would be a while before that really impacts this current issue, but think of the quality of life effects it would have on every child.

Having someone down the hall with a gun in their hand won’t help that one classroom much, the problem is letting people in and out of the school. Focus on prevention first. It’s already a serious challenge to keep a shooter out of the school, but I think that’s the area to prioritize, apparently criminals look for easy targets, so let’s not make it so easy! That would also address threats from potential vandals and predators also.

In a high school students come and go throughout the day, very easy to get past security (if they even have someone at the gate). If you want know how easy it is to enter a school ask any student, keeping in mind many shooters probably have that same information.

It’s time to focus primarily on solutions that would prevent problems, not dealing with worse case scenarios.

Don’t we already have police at every school. Why is this an issue. If we had a security guard at every front entrance like they do at gated communities, we wouldn’t have to have multiple officers and if we made the schools smaller that might help too. If a kid is sick or leaving early the nurse or and office could sent a text/radio to security. Only during morning drop offs and pick up would cars be able to go on campus. Also every school should have cameras at all doors and hallways and security could monitor those cameras. @25,000 each person x10 schools is 250,000. … i know we are paying a lot more for the police to stand up there.

Don’t you think prevention would start with it being a place where a bad would know it wouldn’t be filled with sheep but rather filled with a few sheep dogs even if their ineffective in action?

Also it should be banned to even name these people or report on the event.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.