Tell me you don't understand how teachers get hired without telling me you don't understand how teachers get hired.
You're proposing an unfunded mandate. You'd need to hire enough teachers to take on a quarter of your students. That's at least 2-3 new hires in most systems, meaning at least $150k the schools would need to find (exclusive of benefits). In addition to materials.
Yeah. They're not going to do that. Because the law specifically allows schools to require teachers to teach up to 20% of their time outside of their subject area. So that's what the schools will do. How do I know? Because the last two or three times the state imposed a required course, that's exactly how the schools handled it. Why would they handle it any differently now? Your "roving teachers" idea won't work because different schools have radically different class schedules, and because each town handles its own schools. They won't regionalize for math instruction; why do you think they'd regionalize for firearms instruction?
I'm not looking for a reason not to do this; I don't need to. The union would do that for me. They'd be against this too, as would a vast number of Eastern Mass parents who'd push back against gun instruction in the schools.
Again, I think it's a good idea. I also think it's a naive one.
Oohhh intentional ignorance, got to love it. Or are you just a good union doobee trying to protect the fiefdom.
I've had some involvement in schools, mostly the budget side which includes personnel. I'm sure it varies from school to school but for the most part they handle money like a bunch of idiots. Way to heavy in administration at the detriment of teaching and the students.
But let's get to specifics of your response.
It's not an unfunded mandate because,
as I specifically said, the instructor would be paid by the state, the school pays nothing.
You are trying to make the person a "school teacher" probably so your union will have another cult follower. They are not. They are a subject matter expert dedicated to providing instruction.
Ya I know, the idea that they are not a "teacher" but are capable of imparting knowledge just doesn't sit well with "teachers", but its working in the business and industrial world, and the trades, from even before there were "teachers". So maybe there is something to the idea.
And schools do in fact bring in outside speakers and arrange time and location for the students to attend, this would be the same.
And this is NOT a firearms safety course. Its a general safety program focused on the risks of modern civilization (stuff they may encounter around the house or outside). Firearms would be one item out of dozens, don't make them anything more than the other items. This is not a training class and it is NOT a 2a or any other type of legal presentation.
An example.
This is ammonia and bleach.
The have many uses but there are risks as well. Some of the risks are;
A
B
C
General you never mix the two, never allow any to enter you body or get into your eyes.
There are legitimate uses for them and if you do need to you shoud first talk to your parents to be sure the use is nessisary and safe.
This is a firearm.
The have many uses, both legal and illegal, and safe and dangerous.
Generally speaking they should always be handled as if there are unsafe, this prevents accidents, which can be faitle.
For the most part you (the attendees) will not be handling a firearm unless you are participating in an activity with parental aproval. This is something you should talk with your parents about.
They are not toys, they are not something you show off, and if you find one it's best to leave it alone and inform an appropriate adult (need to work on the idea of who is appropriate).
These are knives, saws, and axes.
and so on..........
The concept can be easily promoted by pointing out that kids were chewing Tide Pods, maybe giving them some information on the risks of what is around them is a good idea.