The debate over whether everyday people should have more or fewer guns continues to ignite concerns on both sides of the argument. But, regardless of stance, when it comes to schools, it’s not the role of the state to mandate even a single policy about whether school districts have the right to secure schools as they wish.

State Sen. Don White, R-Indiana, agrees. On Tuesday, the Senate Education Committee held a hearing for his proposed bill, which would allow teachers to carry firearms in school buildings and on school grounds. 

But the policy has sparked controversy over how to protect students in the event of a crisis. According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, an Advisory Committee on Violence Prevention formed by the Senate has said it supports schools hiring security officers, but it “strongly opposes arming school administrators, teachers or other non-law enforcement personnel.”

The committee’s stance is not entirely unfounded. If a school district can afford measurements to protect students through non-violent means, the district should pursue them. 

For example, USA Today reported Wednesday on a device called Bearacade, which is a door block made of sturdy metal that makes a room practically impenetrable. It was invented by an Ohio-based company after the 2012 shootings at Chardon High School, which left three students dead and three injured. Without question, bringing in such devices is advantageous to student safety. 

The problem with adopting a strict statewide policy is that school districts don’t have uniform budgets or access to additional resources. Many school districts cannot afford to hire a significant number of enforcement officials or buy devices to protect the site. 

As a result, school districts should have the right to adopt the measures they deem most appropriate and possess the sovereignty to do so. 

As White has said, many rural schools “would be a minimum of 25 to 40 minutes away from getting state police help, minimum, unless they just happened to be luckily on patrol in that area.”

Pennsylvania schools come from areas with diverse socioeconomic conditions, so a uniform policy wouldn’t be efficient. Over recent years, education centralization — most notably through standardized testing — has already infringed on the sovereignty of individual districts. 

The democratic process should allow citizens of a district to elect board members to make hard choices. Perhaps no harder choice can be made than one regarding students’ security. But that choice must be left to school boards and administrations, not state committees or departments.

For Pennsylvania, sweeping policy simply wouldn’t work the same way for a rural school as it would for a city or suburban one. The makeups are too spread apart. 

Policymaking should be focused on school board decisions, rather than statewide mandates. White’s proposal is fair, and it’s time for the state to acknowledge it as such.