For everyone insisting MCPS reinstate SROs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do most of the Principals want them?

That's easy: Principals want SROs to absolve themselves of responsibility. School security reports to principals. SROs report to MCP.

MCPS data doesn’t support your argument. In 2019-2020, 97% of MCPS arrests were initiated by the schools’ administration. In other words, the issue was so dire that admin needed police to step in. That doesn’t “absolve” principals of anything; the documentation exists that they requested the support. All it shows is that there is an actual need for police presence and MCPS officials acknowledged that.

+1 The current "engagement officer" does actually work with the Principal.

All I know is that when there was that national school threat on social media a few months back, my 13 yr old DD felt safer seeing all the cops around the school that day. That's good enough for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No thanks. I’m a parent with 3 kids in MCPS and I support a police presence in school buildings.

What do you propose as an alternative to keep our kids safe?

They're only two kinds of people who feel that way people who don't really have children or people who are misinformed.

3 kinds
And people who have a clue about what really goes on in MCPS high schools during the day. The stuff that there isn’t any data collected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think an SRO will protect my kid from a school shooter situation. But I think they are needed to deal with in school regular violence so that that does not fall to the teachers or other staff.

All the evidence suggests otherwise and SROs just make things worse.

So, again, then why do Principals want SROs in school? And it's not to absolve themselves of responsibility as a PP has already proven to be otherwise. The vast vast majority of the times when cops were called were initiated by the school admin. They clearly felt that whatever security they had was not adequate enough to deal with the situation.

Nothing MCPS has done has reduced the violence, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No thanks. I’m a parent with 3 kids in MCPS and I support a police presence in school buildings.

What do you propose as an alternative to keep our kids safe?

They're only two kinds of people who feel that way people who don't really have children or people who are misinformed.

3 kinds
And people who have a clue about what really goes on in MCPS high schools during the day. The stuff that there isn’t any data collected.

Nope, they're covered by the misinformed category

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think an SRO will protect my kid from a school shooter situation. But I think they are needed to deal with in school regular violence so that that does not fall to the teachers or other staff.

All the evidence suggests otherwise and SROs just make things worse.

So, again, then why do Principals want SROs in school? And it's not to absolve themselves of responsibility as a PP has already proven to be otherwise. The vast vast majority of the times when cops were called were initiated by the school admin. They clearly felt that whatever security they had was not adequate enough to deal with the situation.

Nothing MCPS has done has reduced the violence, either.

All the principals I know think it's a terrible idea. Where do you get the idea that they're for this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think an SRO will protect my kid from a school shooter situation. But I think they are needed to deal with in school regular violence so that that does not fall to the teachers or other staff.

All the evidence suggests otherwise and SROs just make things worse.

So, again, then why do Principals want SROs in school? And it's not to absolve themselves of responsibility as a PP has already proven to be otherwise. The vast vast majority of the times when cops were called were initiated by the school admin. They clearly felt that whatever security they had was not adequate enough to deal with the situation.

Nothing MCPS has done has reduced the violence, either.

All the principals I know think it's a terrible idea. Where do you get the idea that they're for this?

They did a survey a few years back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please go watch last night's episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and learn a little more about why SROs not only don't work but cause harm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgwqQGvYt0g

More people should watch the show and get informed. So tired of these dumb posts supporting this useless policy.

[Anonymous]

National studies and experience are informative but not determinative of what happens here. Only 2/3 of SRO programs even have MOUs and we don’t know what’s in them. The guardrails for minimizing over criminalization of students of color are the provisions in the MOU that clearly delineates what is discipline and what is criminal behavior. Our current MOU is excellent. It was significantly improved with this clear delineation in 2017. And arrests went down soon thereafter. We have one of the lowest arrest rates in the state and certainly in the nation.

On the flip side of violence prevention; there are several types of violence and each needs different approaches. Mass shootings are less than 1% of violence and there are evidence based ways to reduce those. That doesn’t include an SRO although there is significant data showing SRO presence reduces the number of killed.

What happened at Magruder wasn’t a mass shooting. It was regular community violence. And that needs a different approach. Gun control doesn’t help — the guns are already illegal. Mental health is not the primary driver of this type of violence. Provide mental health services for kids because it’s the right thing to do. But not because you think it will significantly reduce violence. This type of violence is driven by interpersonal arguments, drug deals gone bad, defending turf, and maintaining social credibility. The number one way to reduce this violence is focused deterrence - which includes police presence combined with social supports. We have decades of evidence showing police presence (regardless of arrest rate) prevents violence. Of course it has the potential community harm of over policing. But that’s what the MOU is for.

Non-enforcement community engagement is the evidence based best practice for building community trust between police and residents. And good SRO programs are just that — 99.9% non-enforcement engagement. Please give schools, some of which are as big as small towns, this safety benefit. You can demand oversight and accountability to ensure any harm is prevented.

I guarantee ghost guns are a game changer and Magruder is only the first school shooting we will have. Not the last. Sad as it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:National studies and experience are informative but not determinative of what happens here. Only 2/3 of SRO programs even have MOUs and we don’t know what’s in them. The guardrails for minimizing over criminalization of students of color are the provisions in the MOU that clearly delineates what is discipline and what is criminal behavior. Our current MOU is excellent. It was significantly improved with this clear delineation in 2017. And arrests went down soon thereafter. We have one of the lowest arrest rates in the state and certainly in the nation.

On the flip side of violence prevention; there are several types of violence and each needs different approaches. Mass shootings are less than 1% of violence and there are evidence based ways to reduce those. That doesn’t include an SRO although there is significant data showing SRO presence reduces the number of killed.

What happened at Magruder wasn’t a mass shooting. It was regular community violence. And that needs a different approach. Gun control doesn’t help — the guns are already illegal. Mental health is not the primary driver of this type of violence. Provide mental health services for kids because it’s the right thing to do. But not because you think it will significantly reduce violence. This type of violence is driven by interpersonal arguments, drug deals gone bad, defending turf, and maintaining social credibility. The number one way to reduce this violence is focused deterrence - which includes police presence combined with social supports. We have decades of evidence showing police presence (regardless of arrest rate) prevents violence. Of course it has the potential community harm of over policing. But that’s what the MOU is for.

Non-enforcement community engagement is the evidence based best practice for building community trust between police and residents. And good SRO programs are just that — 99.9% non-enforcement engagement. Please give schools, some of which are as big as small towns, this safety benefit. You can demand oversight and accountability to ensure any harm is prevented.

I guarantee ghost guns are a game changer and Magruder is only the first school shooting we will have. Not the last. Sad as it is.

well stated, all of it, and ITA

Police presence in the form of community engagement officers can be a deterrent. It's not a panacea, obviously, but it can be a deterrent. Same argument for gun control. It's not a panacea, but it's a start and can prevent or make it more difficult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think an SRO will protect my kid from a school shooter situation. But I think they are needed to deal with in school regular violence so that that does not fall to the teachers or other staff.

All the evidence suggests otherwise and SROs just make things worse.

So, again, then why do Principals want SROs in school? And it's not to absolve themselves of responsibility as a PP has already proven to be otherwise. The vast vast majority of the times when cops were called were initiated by the school admin. They clearly felt that whatever security they had was not adequate enough to deal with the situation.

Nothing MCPS has done has reduced the violence, either.

All the principals I know think it's a terrible idea. Where do you get the idea that they're for this?

The principals' association, along with all 25 high school principals are in support of keeping officers in schools:

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/Resources/Files/SRO/MCAAP%20SRO%20Position%20Statement_BOE.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think an SRO will protect my kid from a school shooter situation. But I think they are needed to deal with in school regular violence so that that does not fall to the teachers or other staff.

All the evidence suggests otherwise and SROs just make things worse.

So, again, then why do Principals want SROs in school? And it's not to absolve themselves of responsibility as a PP has already proven to be otherwise. The vast vast majority of the times when cops were called were initiated by the school admin. They clearly felt that whatever security they had was not adequate enough to deal with the situation.

Nothing MCPS has done has reduced the violence, either.

I mean if the school had to call the cops when the SROs were present in schools, means that they are pretty much useless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think an SRO will protect my kid from a school shooter situation. But I think they are needed to deal with in school regular violence so that that does not fall to the teachers or other staff.

All the evidence suggests otherwise and SROs just make things worse.

So, again, then why do Principals want SROs in school? And it's not to absolve themselves of responsibility as a PP has already proven to be otherwise. The vast vast majority of the times when cops were called were initiated by the school admin. They clearly felt that whatever security they had was not adequate enough to deal with the situation.

Nothing MCPS has done has reduced the violence, either.

I mean if the school had to call the cops when the SROs were present in schools, means that they are pretty much useless.

or it means that if the SRO hadn't been there, the situation could've been much worse and/or escalated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think an SRO will protect my kid from a school shooter situation. But I think they are needed to deal with in school regular violence so that that does not fall to the teachers or other staff.

All the evidence suggests otherwise and SROs just make things worse.

So, again, then why do Principals want SROs in school? And it's not to absolve themselves of responsibility as a PP has already proven to be otherwise. The vast vast majority of the times when cops were called were initiated by the school admin. They clearly felt that whatever security they had was not adequate enough to deal with the situation.

Nothing MCPS has done has reduced the violence, either.

I mean if the school had to call the cops when the SROs were present in schools, means that they are pretty much useless.

or it means that if the SRO hadn't been there, the situation could've been much worse and/or escalated.

to wit

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/Resources/Files/SRO/MCAAP%20SRO%20Position%20Statement_BOE.pdf

Some of these ways can be quantified with direct, specific examples of how SROs
intervened in situations quickly before they got out of hand. In that same vein, their positive impact in times
past may be impossible to quantify and know because the proactive measures they took have thwarted serious
incidences

[Anonymous]

Where do JO’s kids go to school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think an SRO will protect my kid from a school shooter situation. But I think they are needed to deal with in school regular violence so that that does not fall to the teachers or other staff.

All the evidence suggests otherwise and SROs just make things worse.

So, again, then why do Principals want SROs in school? And it's not to absolve themselves of responsibility as a PP has already proven to be otherwise. The vast vast majority of the times when cops were called were initiated by the school admin. They clearly felt that whatever security they had was not adequate enough to deal with the situation.

Nothing MCPS has done has reduced the violence, either.

All the principals I know think it's a terrible idea. Where do you get the idea that they're for this?

I think you're a little out of the loop. The principals have been quite clear on the fact that they want SROs:

mymcmedia.org/mcps-high-school-principals-support-keeping-school-resource-officers/