Apparently the final curriculum for an optional class on firearms safety to be taught in Virginia public schools has been approved and it has some serious flaws.  I would give it at most a grade of D.For starters in talking about firearms safety, it talks about the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, Jr.!!  What does the targeted murder of a political figure have to do with gun safety?  That would be like a driver’s education class talking about how car bombs are used by terrorists to blow up innocent men, women, and children!

For kindergarten, the curriculum talks about people who legitimately have guns, “Helpers who carry a gun as part of their job.”  Police, military, and park rangers.  Fine and dandy, but NOTHING about mommy and daddy having a gun for protecting the family.  Nope, just me being a radical, I guess.  How silly of me.  Of course only “government officials” have guns for a good purpose!

In higher grades, it becomes “People who use guns to protect.”   You guessed it, ONLY government officials are shown.  No way a parent would have a gun to protect.  They do acknowledge that someone might own a gun for hunting, target shooting, or if an actor in a movie.

This true/false question is asked as part of the curriculum:

“4. Hunting and sport shooting are responsible reasons for an adult to have a gun.   True   False”

There is no mention of self-defense as a responsible reason for having a gun in the curriculum.  How are these children going to look at their parents if they own guns, but don’t hunt or target shoot?  Sounds like the answer is “irresponsible.”

The company that developed the publication is RJK and Associates – a company that deals with COMMUNITY VIOLENCE (http://www.rjkandassociates.com/about-us/).  What does a firm that deals with community crime and violence reduction know about gun safety?  Probably as much as they know of the mating habits of tuna fish.  What credentials or experience does RJK and Associates have in firearms safety training?  Why didn’t Virginia Department of Education go to an actual Virginia-based authority on gun safety – the NRA – to draft this curriculum?

Looking at other sources used for the curriculum, many are either hostile towards civilian gun ownership, discourage gun ownership, or they deal with unrelated issues like crime and violence.

Some examples:

The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health  [PVC:  Bloomberg?  You know you just can't make this stuff up!]
The Center for Disease Control
Virginia Department of Education:  Discipline, Crime, and Violence Annual Report
University of Michigan Health System

The NRA’s wording of the main rules is superior, especially when dealing with children – short non-verbose and direct commands, like:

Don’t touch    vs.     Leave it alone

and

Tell an adult    vs.     Let an adult know

THIS CURRICULUM IS UNACCEPTABLE.  As written it is as much government indoctrination as it is firearms safety.

I will be contacting the Governor’s Office about this on Monday and I will let you know what actions they plan on taking to fix this flawed curriculum.

If you would like to send an email to Dr. Patricia Wright, the Superintendent of Public Education for the Virginia Department of Education, here is her email:

Patricia.Wright@doe.virginia.gov

You should be polite, but firm, saying that you oppose this curriculum for its skewed, unbalanced agenda, and for implying that murders and assassinations are somehow connected with “gun safety.”  Ask why parents aren’t listed as people who use guns to protect instead of just government employees?  Ask why a firm which specializes in community violence was chosen to create a curriculum on gun safety, something that is totally unrelated to community violence.  Since the curriculum was supposed to be centered around the NRA’s Eddie Eagle program, ask why the NRA was not asked to write the curriculum instead.

Thanks to Alan W. Rose for bringing this to VCDL’s attention.

Here is a link to the curriculum:

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/boe/meetings/2011/09_sep/agenda_items/item_b.pdf