That sounds better than what happened at my district. Where I work the legislature said that it is up to the districts. Then the insurance provider for the districts weighed in and said that if a teacher is to carry, they need the same level of training as the school resource officers. The school resource officers are trained as regular police and are police officers, they just happen to be employed by the district instead of the city.
Translated, for a teacher to carry they need to also be a police officer, with the full academy training and psychological testing. Needless, to say, the districts are not going to pay for that much training. If it were available and affordable I would be willing to spend a couple of summers in the training, but the training isn't available that way. For all intents and purposes, the training requirement became a ban.
I agree with the posts above that it would be good to see it spread. Really, this is something that needs to be developed and made available nationally to teachers in schools that receive federal funding. Yes, I said nationally. This address states that would try to use impossible, unavailable, or unaffordable, training as a defacto ban. The FBI, or the Secret Service, could be called on to develop a . . . just to pick a number out of the sky. . . 6-week programme of training. I included the Secret Service in this exercise in spitballing ideas, largely because of the
report they published on their research into school shootings.
It is well known that school shooters shop almost immediately when they meet armed resistance. They frequently kill themselves at that point. Yes, I know there are exceptions to that pattern in, admittedly rare, school shootings; but it is common enough that it makes sense to offer armed resistance as early in the event as possible.
Sound pretty down-home if you ask me.