Which Is More Scandalous: The Training for Armed Teachers or the Training for Police Officers?
On average, the minimum requirement for cops is about 650 hours, compared to about 1,300 hours for barbers.

A recent New York Times story about armed teachers casts doubt on the adequacy of the training they receive with a misleading comparison to the hours required to become a police officer. The real scandal here is not how little training is mandated for teachers who want to carry handguns in school but how little training police officers receive for a job that extends far beyond handling firearms.
Under a new Ohio program, teachers who volunteer to carry guns as a safeguard against mass shooters have to complete 24 hours of firearms training. "The law in Ohio has been especially contentious because it requires no more than 24 hours of training, along with eight hours of recertification annually," the Times says.
Although the training for teachers is more extensive than Ohio's requirements for armed security guards, the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio thinks it is plainly inadequate. "That, to us, is just outrageous," Michael Weinman, the union's director of government affairs, tells the Times, which adds: "By comparison, police officers in the state undergo more than 700 hours of training."
That is hardly an apples-to-apples comparison, as the Times more or less concedes in the next paragraph. Supporters of the new law, it notes, "say 24 hours is enough because while police training includes everything from traffic tickets to legal matters, school employees tightly focus on firearm proficiency and active shooter response." If anything is "outrageous" here, it's how easily someone can qualify as an armed agent of the state empowered to detain, search, and arrest people as well as use deadly force against them.
As the Cincinnati Enquirer noted in 2020, Ohio requires much less training for police officers than it does for "the person who cuts your hair." Basic training for cops involves 737 hours of training, compared to "1,500 for licensed cosmetologists and 1,800 for barbers."
Some cities in Ohio go beyond the state's minimum requirements. "Cincinnati police run a 28-week training program," the Enquirer noted, while "Columbus and Cleveland police both offer 1,100 hours of training to recruits"—still less than you need to accept money for a haircut. The paper added that "the level of training often depends on a department's finances, which vary dramatically across the state."
Police training is actually more rigorous in Ohio than it is in most states. According to the Institute for Criminal Justice Training Reform (ICJTR), the national average for basic training is 652 hours. State minimums range from zero hours in Hawaii to 1,321 in Connecticut. In Hawaii, the ICJTR notes, "agencies such as the Honolulu Police Department may provide training to some [officers], but not all attend." And while Ohio does not allow cops to start working before completing basic training, 37 states do.
Insider notes that "the average US police department requires fewer hours of training than what it takes to become a barber or a plumber." According to a 2017 Institute for Justice report, the average training requirement for barbers was about 1,300 hours. To qualify as a master plumber, you have to complete trade school and up to five years of apprenticeship.
The Institute for Justice reported that three states and the District of Columbia required licenses for interior designers. In those jurisdictions, it noted, "aspiring designers must pass a national exam, pay an average of $364 in fees and devote an average of almost 2,200 days—six years—to a combination of education and apprenticeship before they can begin work." In Louisiana, which requires that interior designers have 2,190 days of education and experience, someone with a high school diploma can work as a police officer for up to 12 months even before completing basic training, which entails a minimum of 450 hours.
In Texas, the report noted, "eyebrow threaders with 20 years of experience are being told they must stop working and spend between $7,000 and $22,000 and 750 hours in a government-approved beauty school that does not even teach threading." But if you want to wear a badge and carry a gun as a law enforcement officer in Texas, you need just 696 hours of training and can work up to a year before completing it.
In addition to firearms training, would-be police officers are supposed to learn "everything from traffic tickets to legal matters," as the Times puts it. Those "legal matters" include complying with constitutional constraints on the use of force. But as UCLA law professor Joanna Schwartz points out, that aspect of police training typically provides nothing more than a brief overview of major Supreme Court cases.
While "police departments regularly inform their officers about watershed decisions," Schwartz notes in a 2021 University of Chicago Law Review article, "officers are not regularly or reliably informed about court decisions interpreting those decisions in different factual scenarios—the very types of decisions that are necessary to clearly establish the law about the constitutionality of uses of force." Yet the doctrine of qualified immunity, which shields officers from civil liability for alleged misconduct that did not violate "clearly established" law, is based on the premise that officers can reasonably be expected to know the relevant cases, giving them fair warning about when they are overstepping constitutional limits. Schwartz calls that assumption "qualified immunity's boldest lie."
Even when officers should understand that a particular use of force is unlawful, they do not necessarily act accordingly, as dramatically illustrated by the 2020 death of George Floyd in Minneapolis. In federal court last week, J. Alexander Kueng and Tou Thao, two of three officers who failed to stop their colleague, Derek Chauvin, from killing Floyd, were sentenced to three years and three and a half years, respectively, for violating Floyd's constitutional rights. The week before, the third officer, Thomas Lane, received a federal sentence of two and a half years. Lane had previously pleaded guilty to a state charge of aiding and abetting manslaughter, for which he has not yet been sentenced. Kueng and Thao are scheduled to be tried on similar charges in January.
Active Bystandership for Law Enforcement (ABLE), a training program that was established in 2021, aims to avoid situations like this by encouraging officers to intervene when a colleague violates someone's rights or seems about to do so. ABLE, which was developed by Georgetown University's Center for Innovations in Community Safety, grew out of a New Orleans program known as EPIC (Ethical Policing Is Courageous) that was launched in 2014 under the guidance of Ervin Staub, an emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. It is based on insights gained from research into why people either intervene or fail to intervene in emergency situations.
ABLE entails eight hours of training conducted by officers who have completed a week-long certification program. But this is a supplement to standard training that so far has been adopted by just 265 or so of the country's 18,000 police agencies. Is it too much to expect that police departments add another eight hours to basic training, which would increase the average from 652 hours to 660, so that officers are less likely to look the other way when a colleague needlessly escalates an encounter or uses unlawful force?
Additional training is by no means a silver bullet for police abuse. It seems doubtful that any amount of instruction would have changed Chauvin's behavior. And when cops lie to convict defendants or willfully misuse their authority to punish people who irk them, the problem is not that they were never taught they should not do that.
Still, "active bystandership" training might have affected how Kueng, Thao, and Lane responded when Chauvin kneeled on Floyd's neck for nine and a half minutes. It was clear that Lane, a rookie who twice suggested that Floyd be moved from his stomach to a position in which it would have been easier for him to breathe, remembered what he had been taught about the dangers of "positional asphyxia." If his training had included more emphasis on the duty to intervene and had better equipped him to do so, he might have been more insistent, and Floyd might still be alive.
Even basic information about techniques commonly used by police might help prevent Fourth Amendment violations. A couple of years ago, the Johnson County, Kansas, Sheriff's Office reached a $150,000 settlement with a couple whose home was searched in 2012 based on a drug field test that misidentified tea in their trash as marijuana. Neither the deputies nor their boss, then-Sheriff Frank Denning, seemed to be aware that such tests are notoriously unreliable, notwithstanding a warning label that said their results "are only presumptive in nature" and should be confirmed by laboratory analysis. A little instruction on how often field tests finger innocent people could help reduce false arrests, not to mention thousands of guilty pleas based on a technology that is not accurate enough to be used in court.
You probably can think of additional examples. The notion that a few months of training (if that) is enough to prepare people for a job that presents myriad opportunities to wrongfully detain, interrogate, search, arrest, assault, and kill people is risible. Americans would be safer if states took those risks more seriously than the danger of a bad haircut.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
We Koch / Reason libertarians despise police. This isn't surprising given that our philosophy exists to protect the wealthy and powerful. Billionaires like our benefactor Charles Koch have little use for cops since they can just hire full time private security. Furthermore, cops are part of the so-called "criminal justice" system that locks people behind bars — reducing Mr. Koch's supply of cost-effective labor.
#AbolishThePolice
What about REM? What kind of music do #KochLiberaltarians like?
Gordon Sumner is now sad.
I made $30,030 in just 5 weeks working part-time right from my apartment. When I lost my last business I got tired right away and luckily I found this job online and with that I am able to start reaping lots right through my house. Anyone can achieve this top level career and make more money online by:-
Reading this article:>> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
Cardi B
No need for more regulations. Accountability and markets can solve this lickety-split.
* Allow victim prosecution, so victims of bad cops aren't dependent on government prosecutors for justice.
* Require cops to carry malpractice insurance, personally paid by them. Sure, cop wages would rise to cover most premiums, but that's the key: bad cop premiums would price them out of the field.
Victims can already sue. The fact is, Prison Guards, Teachers, Police, Firemen, and every other state employee is a member of a union that will protect them at all costs. They have very deep pockets and even deeper political connections.
A teacher in LA had been caught masturbating in class and credibly accused of fondling students over two decades. Nothing. Not even disciplinary action. When he photographed his students eating cookies he coated with his own sperm, it took 3 years to get him fired, at which point he sued (and won) for wrongful termination.
The problem isn't the police, the teachers, or their training. Its a corrupt politically driven legal system that uses them in furtherance of it's own ends, so bad behavior will be protected so long as it remains politically useful to do so.
The real scandal here is that you have to be licensed to cut hair
Hey, a bad haircut can really screw up your week
Meanwhile British cops are required to have 3 years of training. 6 times the U.S.! And then 12 weeks of firearms training (a lot more than 24 hours). Great podcast on the differences in training and policing from Freakonomics Radio #476.
And they still kill people carrying table legs. And get away with it. Not so different than US cops
All so they can arrest people for posting memes
“Idea’s are more powerful than weapons. We don’t allow people to have weapons, why should we allow them to have ideas?”
-some progressive
That's similar to most countries - Japan, Europe, etc virtually all require 2-3 years of classroom training in everything from law to psychology. Not surprisingly I guess, those countries also have none to very few police killings. If police know what they are doing, they don't need to kill as many people.
The amount of conflict the police deals with (which can often end in tragic ways) has far more to do with society, ethnicity, and culture, moreso than any training or policies. Places like the US or Russia are very violent societies with ridiculously high murder rates (for majority-white countries), whereas places like Liechtenstein or Japan are far more civilized with far less violent people and cultures. I doubt the amount of police training can have a significant shift on society.
Cops tend to deal with those who are going to end up on the wrong side of the law - everywhere. The particulars may differ. The ways of dealing with it may differ. But it ain't the occupational difference between a barista and a prison warden.
And the US actually is not a particularly violent society. Our violence is extremely lethal. Meaning we have higher homicide rates. But assault, robbery, rape, etc - no.
What we do seem to have is:
a)incompetence at all stages of the criminal justice system
b)that is politicized rather than solved.
And yeah - I do think low levels of training, selection, etc of cops is one part of that
News flash, it ain't the 'classroom training' that's keeping the Japanese (and most European) police forces from killing people.
In federal court last week, J. Alexander Kueng and Tou Thao, two of three officers who failed to stop their colleague, Derek Chauvin, from killing Floyd, were sentenced to three years and three and a half years, respectively, for violating Floyd's constitutional rights. The week before, the third officer, Thomas Lane, received a federal sentence of two and a half years. Lane had previously pleaded guilty to a state charge of aiding and abetting manslaughter, for which he has not yet been sentenced. Kueng and Thao are scheduled to be tried on similar charges in January.
And I am not entirely comfortable with those charges.
Why not? They're finally getting the same treatment as the people they've been arresting. Stacked charges with unjust sentences is the norm for the rest of us. What's wrong with cops getting a taste of their own medicine?
What finally? Thomas Lane had been on the job two days. It’s not like he had a long history of being a dirty cop. And he’s also not a prosecutor who stacked charges.
re: "Lane had been on the job two days" - That's a factor for the jury to consider at sentencing. Lane's peers (that is, cops generally) argue that it is not a factor to consider when deciding to arrest and prosecute one of us.
Kill them all equally, let God sort them out.
How often do you get arrested?
Must be frequently.
I don't like the attitude that he should be punished symbolically for the crimes of others.
Is it too much to expect that police departments add another eight hours to basic training, which would increase the average from 652 hours to 660, so that officers are less likely to look the other way when a colleague needlessly escalates an encounter or uses unlawful force?
Needless escalation and unlawful force are how cops show that they're tough and don't take any shit. You don't want police to be pussies do you? Besides, training won't change the fact that reporting on each other is one of the few things than can get a cop fired.
The difference between police training and teacher training is that the teachers have to be taught to overcome their natural inclination to NOT shoot people. Cops can skip that part of the instruction.
Do you remember high school? Those teachers need to be taught NOT to shoot their students.
But don't you dare train them to not talk to kindergarteners about their sex life!
The paper added that "the level of training often depends on a department's finances, which vary dramatically across the state."
Missing from the article is any evidence that additional training produces superior police services. Do we have any evidence that big city police with big budgets and lots of training do a better job at respecting individual rights than their small-town peers? Most of the stories of police excesses seem to be coming out of the big cities. It strikes me that a Barney Fife with all the training in the world is still going to be Barney Fife.
In my experience, small town cops, rural sheriff's departments and rural highway/state patrol officers are far easier to work with than larger urban police forces. Maybe not for outsiders, this I'm not sure of, but I've had generally good interactions with Montana Highway Patrol, Alaska State Patrol, Idaho State Patrol, and my local sheriff's offices. The worst interactions I've had are with urban police forces, Spokane County Sheriff's Department, Kootenai County Sheriff's Department and Moscow Police Department (go figure, university town and I had a student parking pass).
I've heard the opposite - corrupt small town cops who are essentially above the law. In one instance they harassed a person they didn't like on a personal level, by stopping him and making him remove the seats of his car and just hassling him and wasting his time for entertainment (it's not like they had any real crimes to deal with). There was zero recourse this guy had, legally, and they could just mess with him for fun whenever they didn't have something else to do. In another case, the town judge and sheriff and other authorities were related and they ganged up on a guy to find him criminally guilty for a completely fabricated crime, in order for a family member to sue him in civil court afterwards and get a lot of money (he was new in town and significantly wealthier, and must have rubbed some people the wrong way). In cities I think it's harder to pull that stuff off, plus the cops are often busy with real bad hombres as one would say.
You've heard, I've lived. Who do you think has more pertinent experience and knowledge?
And in a small town you can't hide that kind of bullshit for long. It becomes known to the community, which will usually correct such actions with social pressure. I was in a bit of a personal conflict with a county commissioner, and we both serve on our church council, public pressure let him know quickly his actions were not very popular and to knock it the fuck off. Our state AG is from my town, he and his family got into a pissing contest with a local organization over some land ownership, the community definitely turned against him as a result. No, that kind of shit happens in Hollywood but not the real world. Small towns more than anywhere else are defined by social conformity, step to far out of line and your risk major ostracizing, even if your from one of the 'elite' families. There is a norm that is expected and abuse of that norm is generally dealt with in informal methods.
In my experience, it's the suburban cops who are pieces of shit. City cops have bigger shit to deal with (and I'm not part of the demographic that creates those problems), and smaller town cops, at least where I'm at now, know the locals at least by sight and aren't trying to harass us.
Don't have much experience with rural cops.
Suburban cops want nothing more than to feel important and exercise power over others, but don't usually have many good excuses to do that. So they go after traffic and minor drug stuff with a lust to screw people over.
Same thing, rural cops learn who are the trouble makers, and know about everyone else, at least by sight. Hell, half the time they don't even pull me over just indicate I need to slow down.
I got pulled over once with a brake light out when I first moved here. Asked for my proof of insurance and pulled out a folder to find it. Cop went back to his car while I looked. Came back and I told him I couldn't find it but could pull it up on my phone. He said not to bother, just replace the bulb. No ticket. I drive around town a lot now. I'm a good driver and don't do anything unsafe, but there's plenty of times they could pull me over and don't.
They're highly visible, but really don't hassle people much.
Like a bad haircut isn't a crime, Sullum?
Are wonder how much training cops have to get before they stop being assholes?
I*
Remember when the psycho mass shooter guys were hitting churches? Hard to go down in infamy when some old guy puts your lights out before you can even kill enough innocents to qualify as a "mass shooting."
So we are not hearing much about church shootings any more; and most recently the loser [name redacted] in the Indiana mall didn't do so well. So it looks more and more like the best "gun free zone" to go for remains the schools.
I do not like that some teachers [presumably those, as with churches, volunteer to be on a security team] will have to carry guns in school; but honestly, is there any other way to stop the odd lunatic from targeting them?
And no you're not going to make guns go away, at least not in the United States. Even if you were to get an AWB 2.0, there are around 400 million guns, and even IF you could make the "assault weapons" disappear, remember that most shooters [even "mass" shooters--i.e., Cho/ Virginia Tech] rely on pistols.
But if you are so inclined to make that sanctimonious argument don't let me stop you; just don't expect me to waste my time responding.
The last assault weapons ban targeted pistols as well.
Not that I disagree with you.
the current assault weapons ban going through congress does affect pistols. the bill bans all mags holding more than 15 rounds, regardless of the firearm type. the bill also requires a serial number & date of manufacture on all mags and all firearms. it also bans hundreds of rifles owned by millions of americans. if passed millions of us would instantly become felons.
Tens of millions.
Well, in for a penny, in for a pound.
If they want to make me a federal felon, I may as well make it worth it.
The democrat population could use some thinning.
Look, barbers need more training because they don't get qualified immunity.
Weren’t barbers basically surgeons back in the day?
Leftist shill JACOB SULLUM strikes again. The article isnt a defense of the 2nd amendment and a teacher's right to carry, but rather a call for larger police training budgets.
We hear Jacob whine about George Floyd but I suspect he'd say Ashli Babbit had it coming. Does anyone remember the article Jacob wrote, declaring Trump had advocated for injecting bleach?
Hey Reason.com. Keeping clowns like this destroys your libertarian creds.
No, I don't remember that article. Please cite it for me and others with bad memories.
https://reason.com/2020/04/24/its-not-fake-news-trump-did-actually-suggest-that-injecting-bleach-could-be-a-cure-for-covid-19
That's crazy, because the transcript itself of the interview showed that a few sentences afterward the famous "inject bleach" statement, Trump clarified that he didn't mean to say bleach should be injected.
TDS is real, and Sullum has it bad.
How long before a cop is patrolling by himself?
Depends but most departments it is a year. And it's generally fairly easy to get canned in that period. But your OJT really depends on how good your training officer is.
scotus has upheld the constitutional right to carry a firearm so why should any training be required for teachers to carry? i can carry into the grocery store without any training and there are plenty of children running around. last time i checked training is not required to exercise our constitutional rights. it does say "shall not be infringed".
It can be a job requirement. Which is what we’re discussing.
no it's not. carrying a firearm is not a job requirement, it's optional. what's actually happening is they're saying that ONLY teachers can carry in the gun free zone called a school and to do so they need certain training. what they're doing is allowing only a certain group of people to exercise their rights.
Just FYI, calculating using 14 hours of training a day (some days it's much longer, others, like Sunday it's shorter, but it averages out), 7 days a week, for 10.5 weeks Army Basic is 1,029 hours. And then you do AIT, which is anywhere from 6 weeks long to over a year, depending on MOS.
So I get that it's fun to hate cops... but how important is the hyper focus on it really?
There's a lot going on in the world. A lot of really bad stuff. A lot of it affects all of our lives, including yours, directly.
How often do cops directly affect people's lives?
For 99% of people... almost never. Maybe once or twice a year.
But here it is presented and discussed as one of the most important issues in the world.
You're being played.