School board talks about concealed handguns in schools, mental health

During the regularly scheduled meeting of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District (MSBSD) on April 17, 2024, the agenda contained several resolutions that would support Senate Bill (SB) 173, which would allow designated staff to carry concealed handguns. The meeting also included the board’s opposition to SB 240, which would allow students 16 years and older to consent to behavioral and mental health services, and SB 24, developing mental health education.

First up, the school board issued a statement of support for Senate Bill 173, The Safe Schools Act, which would require school districts to grant qualified persons on assigned duty to carry a concealed handgun on school grounds under certain conditions. The intent of the legislation is that the concealed carry of firearms as an augmented response by law enforcement in the case of a crisis.

SB 173 has a provision for qualified persons granted an assigned duty under Alaska Statute 14.03.170, which lets the governing body of a school district to authorize one or more permanent employees of a school to carry a concealed handgun on the person on school grounds for defensive use.

The school board stated that SB 173 seeks to support school districts in implementing strategies to prevent and address the most severe forms of violence within Alaska’s schools.

“I don’t think we need more guns in school,” said member Ted Swanson, who recalled the Uvalde, Texas, tragedy before asking if it would be right for teachers to be expected to answer in a similar crisis. “Why would we expect teachers to be able to take the same responsibility as law enforcement?”

“You can find a sheep or wolf in any profession. A lion, too. When seconds count, the police are minutes away…Just because somebody chose to be a teacher, a shop teacher, or a math teacher, (it) should not keep them from the ability to protect our kids,” said member Brooks Pitcher. “Guns are a tool, just like a hammer…and they should be in the right hands to stop the wrong hands.”

The resolution passed 6 to 1, with member Swanson casting the dissenting vote.

The discussion then turned to the school board issuance of a statement of opposition to the committee substitute for Senate Bill 240, which would allow minors 16 years of age or older to consent to behavioral health and mental health services, authorize school personnel to recommend a behavioral health or mental health professional to a child 16 years of age or older, and relating to medical assistance coverage for rehabilitative, mandatory, and optional services furnished or paid for by a school district on behalf of certain children.

The board, in their resolution, stated that allowing minors 16 years of age or older to consent to behavioral health and mental health services denies a parent the opportunity to seek out or obtain a second opinion from a medical, mental, or behavioral health provider of their choosing.

However, the bill does read, as amended with the addition of a new subsection, in Section 2, paragraph (a) section that “…a behavioral or mental health professional working within a public school system may, in compliance with federal education law or applicable state law,” and further in subsection (3) of the same section, says that said mental health professionals “obtain informed consent from and provide behavioral or mental health service to a child who is 16 years of age or older.” The bill also lays that the mental health provider may not prescribe medications without parental consent, and that if there is a course of treatment, the mental health providers shall contact the parents, with an exception being that “there are clear clinical indications that doing so would be harmful to the minor…”

Member Swanson tried to lay out a scenario in which this bill might be beneficial: “A 16-year-old, with abusive parents, who’s depressed needs the help, doesn’t have the ability to convince the parents to allow the district to give that kid mental health services they might need.”

He said that it’s a benefit for not only the student, but for the school because failure to identify an at-risk student could result in worst case scenarios. “Then we have issues.”

“If we take care of our kids at that crucial period between ages of 16 and 18, and allow them to decide for themselves, because they are old enough to think for themselves and they do it all the time, we allow them the opportunity to ask for help when they need it, it might be what keeps a kid from doing the worst thing possible.”

Their resolution also stated that the bill would also provide an expectation for schools to support services for which they are not funded, and that school staff are not currently permitted to recommend specific licensed physicians, psychologists or other health specialists to a parent and likewise should not be making recommendations for specific providers.

“My concern’s with the bill as amended is not only that it’s adding to the younger years, but as we expand schools into school-based medical centers, and while we provide speech, language, and OT/PT services-those are important services that children need-where are we going to stop that, and what is it going to be in the community?” commented member Kendall Kruse, who then pondered what schools could look like as a result of such legislation, drawing on a fear that schools in the future could resemble a one-stop shop for self-referrals and medicalizing children at school.

“Does a kindergartner refer themselves for depression, or anxiety, or ADHD? Are schools going to become drug dispensaries? Is there going to be a pediatrician who doesn’t know your family, who has never seen your child, that doesn’t have access to chart notes?”

She implored people to think about the possible consequences of not only the passage of the bill, but what that could mean years from now.

“I am seriously concerned about the amendment and think that the expansion of services will not have consequences. These things get set up and then rolled out. What we see in the next decade is the roll out, where we will no longer have the choice. So these little decisions now may seem like all voluntary, just a few here, just a few there. We need to be thinking about what it will be like if this is forced on us. How do we want our schools to be?”

That resolution also passed 6 to 1, again with member Swanson as the lone opposing vote.

The school board also issued a resolution opposing SB 24, which would allow the Board of Education and Early Development to develop guidelines for instruction in mental health.

In their resolution of opposition, the school board said that the bill does not provide additional funding in support of the requirement, and worries that ‘mental health’ is not specifically defined in the bill and could lead to a broad interpretation of the term as to include referrals, diagnosis, or treatment.

However, SB 24, Section 3, paragraph (b) states that the state board establish guidelines for a health and personal safety education program, including guidelines for developmentally appropriate instruction in mental health. In developing guidelines for developmentally appropriate instruction in mental health, the state board is mandated to consult with Department of Health, the Department of Family and Community Services, regional Tribal health organizations, and representatives of national and state mental health organizations

The board also stated that students across the state of not demonstrating proficiency in the core academic areas of literacy and math, and that the additional requirements outside of those areas would be a detractor from more important functions of public schools.

“I think this usurps parents’ rights. They’re trying to take the place of something that parents should be responsible for. I think it’s another way that they can influence children in the ‘woke’ ideology,” said John Miller during public testimony, supporting the school board’s position, saying that the focus should remain on educating students, not trying to be parental figures.

While the majority of parents spoke in support of the MSBSD school board’s opposition to the Senate Bill, citing the removal of parents’ rights, there is a provision within the bill that would ensure “parental notification not less than two weeks before any class or program that provides instruction in mental health is provided to a child.”

“I would like to highlight the contradictions…Prioritizing students’ mental health is crucial. These resolutions simultaneously hinder students’ access to crucial information about their mental well-being,” said Ben Kolendo, the Student Advisory Board Representative during his report. “We risk depriving students in our district of vital mental health resources and guidance available within our community. The mental well-being of our students significantly impacts the overall safety of our school environment. If student have access to comprehensive information and supportive services, the necessity for the Safe Schools Act would diminish. The prominence of such legislation is only heightened when students’ mental health risks are unaddressed.”