Bathroom security announcement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not that I'm the staunchest supporter of the Bring Back SROs campaign, but it's worth noting that DCPS and the City Council are doing a 180 and going back to the SRO model after pledging to phase them out a few years earlier, which was similar to MoCo: https://wjla.com/news/local/dc-school-resource-officers-sros-city-council-reviewing-students-schools-crime-youth-violence-teens-washington-carjackings-shootings-police-mpd-safe-amendment-act-2023-trayon-white-vincent-gray-brooke-pinto-phil-mendelson-dmv#

Soooo....yeah. The talking point that SROs are unpopular and unwanted doesn't really hold water.

Too often, people want to run with policies that only work in an ideal state. Unfortunately, human beings aren't predictable and not always good. Security and safety have to be there to account for and protect for those instances.

That's odd since every study shows they're more of a liability to student safety. It's not like they did much good at Parkland or Uvalde when present for the student massacres, but if people would rather their taxes pay for bathroom attendants than teachers, then by all means...

You keep bringing up two incidents that aren't related to MCPS, and make broad generalizations about SROs. It's like making a generalization based on a few bad apples of, oh, let's say black kids doing bad things in MCPS, so let's just all assume those kids are bad. Right?

MCPS study on SROs was inconclusive; there were some pros and cons that they found. They wanted to continue the study but the Progressives like Elrich pulled the plug on the SRO funding before MCPS could complete their internal study.

DCPS is bringing back SROs; much of their leadership are black. MCPS needs to follows and bring back SROs. Bringing in more teachers isn't going to stop the uptick in violence or drug use in the bathrooms. Maybe if those kids went to class instead of doing drugs in the bathrooms, their grades would go up.

DCPS isn't bringing back SROs. 4 members of Council are making a proposal, with no guarantee of it passing

They are literally reversing course on a stance and policy they just passed a few years ago. How can you possess this much cognitive dissonance and function as an adult?

From the WaPo article:
"Four D.C. lawmakers are backing a proposal that would keep police officers in schools, reversing a measure that sought to remove law enforcement from campuses by 2025."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/03/02/dc-schools-sro-police-safety/

Maybe it will pass, maybe it will not. But you cannot claim as fact that they are bringing back SROs.

Obviously, but the fact that this many members are reversing course is a sign that the tides are shifting and everyone is reconsidering the merit of the no-SRO model. Which is the point of bringing this up as an example....

It was an 8 - 5 vote to remove them. 4 CMs have proposed this new legislation. That doesn't add up to reversing course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not that I'm the staunchest supporter of the Bring Back SROs campaign, but it's worth noting that DCPS and the City Council are doing a 180 and going back to the SRO model after pledging to phase them out a few years earlier, which was similar to MoCo: https://wjla.com/news/local/dc-school-resource-officers-sros-city-council-reviewing-students-schools-crime-youth-violence-teens-washington-carjackings-shootings-police-mpd-safe-amendment-act-2023-trayon-white-vincent-gray-brooke-pinto-phil-mendelson-dmv#

Soooo....yeah. The talking point that SROs are unpopular and unwanted doesn't really hold water.

Too often, people want to run with policies that only work in an ideal state. Unfortunately, human beings aren't predictable and not always good. Security and safety have to be there to account for and protect for those instances.

That's odd since every study shows they're more of a liability to student safety. It's not like they did much good at Parkland or Uvalde when present for the student massacres, but if people would rather their taxes pay for bathroom attendants than teachers, then by all means...

You keep bringing up two incidents that aren't related to MCPS, and make broad generalizations about SROs. It's like making a generalization based on a few bad apples of, oh, let's say black kids doing bad things in MCPS, so let's just all assume those kids are bad. Right?

MCPS study on SROs was inconclusive; there were some pros and cons that they found. They wanted to continue the study but the Progressives like Elrich pulled the plug on the SRO funding before MCPS could complete their internal study.

DCPS is bringing back SROs; much of their leadership are black. MCPS needs to follows and bring back SROs. Bringing in more teachers isn't going to stop the uptick in violence or drug use in the bathrooms. Maybe if those kids went to class instead of doing drugs in the bathrooms, their grades would go up.

DCPS is NOT bringing back SROs. It's a proposal that will likely not pass.

Why are you insisting that although SROs have been shown to be ineffective elsewhere that this isn't applicable to MCPS?

MCPS initial study actually was not conclusive. It pointed to pros and cons. And, all Principals want SROs.

Why do you insist on mentioning incidents that did not occur in MCPS? Furthermore, that was two negative incidents out of how many where SROs were involved?

How is having a metal detector, which is something the county wants to look at, any better than having an SRO, who can build relationships with students?

No study is conclusive, and MCPS never even got to complete their own study. But, they used the below studies as a starting point. That study doesn't indicate either way whether SROs are a negative or a positive; rather, it suggests there are pros and cons and needs further study and evaluation. But, that never happened because Progressives pulled the plug before the study could be done. What were they afraid of? That the study wouldn't support their narrative?

https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/C2S2RR727C3F/$file/SRO%20Program%20210511.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not that I'm the staunchest supporter of the Bring Back SROs campaign, but it's worth noting that DCPS and the City Council are doing a 180 and going back to the SRO model after pledging to phase them out a few years earlier, which was similar to MoCo: https://wjla.com/news/local/dc-school-resource-officers-sros-city-council-reviewing-students-schools-crime-youth-violence-teens-washington-carjackings-shootings-police-mpd-safe-amendment-act-2023-trayon-white-vincent-gray-brooke-pinto-phil-mendelson-dmv#

Soooo....yeah. The talking point that SROs are unpopular and unwanted doesn't really hold water.

Too often, people want to run with policies that only work in an ideal state. Unfortunately, human beings aren't predictable and not always good. Security and safety have to be there to account for and protect for those instances.

That's odd since every study shows they're more of a liability to student safety. It's not like they did much good at Parkland or Uvalde when present for the student massacres, but if people would rather their taxes pay for bathroom attendants than teachers, then by all means...

You keep bringing up two incidents that aren't related to MCPS, and make broad generalizations about SROs. It's like making a generalization based on a few bad apples of, oh, let's say black kids doing bad things in MCPS, so let's just all assume those kids are bad. Right?

MCPS study on SROs was inconclusive; there were some pros and cons that they found. They wanted to continue the study but the Progressives like Elrich pulled the plug on the SRO funding before MCPS could complete their internal study.

DCPS is bringing back SROs; much of their leadership are black. MCPS needs to follows and bring back SROs. Bringing in more teachers isn't going to stop the uptick in violence or drug use in the bathrooms. Maybe if those kids went to class instead of doing drugs in the bathrooms, their grades would go up.

DCPS is NOT bringing back SROs. It's a proposal that will likely not pass.

Why are you insisting that although SROs have been shown to be ineffective elsewhere that this isn't applicable to MCPS?

MCPS initial study actually was not conclusive. It pointed to pros and cons. And, all Principals want SROs.

Why do you insist on mentioning incidents that did not occur in MCPS? Furthermore, that was two negative incidents out of how many where SROs were involved?

How is having a metal detector, which is something the county wants to look at, any better than having an SRO, who can build relationships with students?

No study is conclusive, and MCPS never even got to complete their own study. But, they used the below studies as a starting point. That study doesn't indicate either way whether SROs are a negative or a positive; rather, it suggests there are pros and cons and needs further study and evaluation. But, that never happened because Progressives pulled the plug before the study could be done. What were they afraid of? That the study wouldn't support their narrative?

https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/C2S2RR727C3F/$file/SRO%20Program%20210511.pdf

Why do insist on pretending SROs work when it's well documented throughout the country that they do not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can people who don’t work in schools be against something principals unilaterally want? How can you be so presumptuous?

Because they are activists with a political agenda to advance. They don't care if the kids, or teachers, are collateral damage.

Yes, since it's well documented that everyone is less safe with SROs, not sure why the same people keep insisting we need them. I mean it's not like they did the kids at Parkland or Uvalde any good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not that I'm the staunchest supporter of the Bring Back SROs campaign, but it's worth noting that DCPS and the City Council are doing a 180 and going back to the SRO model after pledging to phase them out a few years earlier, which was similar to MoCo: https://wjla.com/news/local/dc-school-resource-officers-sros-city-council-reviewing-students-schools-crime-youth-violence-teens-washington-carjackings-shootings-police-mpd-safe-amendment-act-2023-trayon-white-vincent-gray-brooke-pinto-phil-mendelson-dmv#

Soooo....yeah. The talking point that SROs are unpopular and unwanted doesn't really hold water.

Too often, people want to run with policies that only work in an ideal state. Unfortunately, human beings aren't predictable and not always good. Security and safety have to be there to account for and protect for those instances.

That's odd since every study shows they're more of a liability to student safety. It's not like they did much good at Parkland or Uvalde when present for the student massacres, but if people would rather their taxes pay for bathroom attendants than teachers, then by all means...

You keep bringing up two incidents that aren't related to MCPS, and make broad generalizations about SROs. It's like making a generalization based on a few bad apples of, oh, let's say black kids doing bad things in MCPS, so let's just all assume those kids are bad. Right?

MCPS study on SROs was inconclusive; there were some pros and cons that they found. They wanted to continue the study but the Progressives like Elrich pulled the plug on the SRO funding before MCPS could complete their internal study.

DCPS is bringing back SROs; much of their leadership are black. MCPS needs to follows and bring back SROs. Bringing in more teachers isn't going to stop the uptick in violence or drug use in the bathrooms. Maybe if those kids went to class instead of doing drugs in the bathrooms, their grades would go up.

DCPS is NOT bringing back SROs. It's a proposal that will likely not pass.

Why are you insisting that although SROs have been shown to be ineffective elsewhere that this isn't applicable to MCPS?

MCPS initial study actually was not conclusive. It pointed to pros and cons. And, all Principals want SROs.

Why do you insist on mentioning incidents that did not occur in MCPS? Furthermore, that was two negative incidents out of how many where SROs were involved?

How is having a metal detector, which is something the county wants to look at, any better than having an SRO, who can build relationships with students?

No study is conclusive, and MCPS never even got to complete their own study. But, they used the below studies as a starting point. That study doesn't indicate either way whether SROs are a negative or a positive; rather, it suggests there are pros and cons and needs further study and evaluation. But, that never happened because Progressives pulled the plug before the study could be done. What were they afraid of? That the study wouldn't support their narrative?

https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/C2S2RR727C3F/$file/SRO%20Program%20210511.pdf

Why do insist on pretending SROs work when it's well documented throughout the country that they do not?

Why do you insist on parroting this line over and over again, despite evidence that counters this narrative and perspective being repeatedly shown to you and you dismissing it? At best, the evidence is mixed and unclear on the efficacy of SROs. Some evidence says yes, some says no.

You denying the evidence in favor of SROs so you can repeat your narrative regardless is silly. Are you getting paid to do this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not that I'm the staunchest supporter of the Bring Back SROs campaign, but it's worth noting that DCPS and the City Council are doing a 180 and going back to the SRO model after pledging to phase them out a few years earlier, which was similar to MoCo: https://wjla.com/news/local/dc-school-resource-officers-sros-city-council-reviewing-students-schools-crime-youth-violence-teens-washington-carjackings-shootings-police-mpd-safe-amendment-act-2023-trayon-white-vincent-gray-brooke-pinto-phil-mendelson-dmv#

Soooo....yeah. The talking point that SROs are unpopular and unwanted doesn't really hold water.

Too often, people want to run with policies that only work in an ideal state. Unfortunately, human beings aren't predictable and not always good. Security and safety have to be there to account for and protect for those instances.

That's odd since every study shows they're more of a liability to student safety. It's not like they did much good at Parkland or Uvalde when present for the student massacres, but if people would rather their taxes pay for bathroom attendants than teachers, then by all means...

You keep bringing up two incidents that aren't related to MCPS, and make broad generalizations about SROs. It's like making a generalization based on a few bad apples of, oh, let's say black kids doing bad things in MCPS, so let's just all assume those kids are bad. Right?

MCPS study on SROs was inconclusive; there were some pros and cons that they found. They wanted to continue the study but the Progressives like Elrich pulled the plug on the SRO funding before MCPS could complete their internal study.

DCPS is bringing back SROs; much of their leadership are black. MCPS needs to follows and bring back SROs. Bringing in more teachers isn't going to stop the uptick in violence or drug use in the bathrooms. Maybe if those kids went to class instead of doing drugs in the bathrooms, their grades would go up.

DCPS is NOT bringing back SROs. It's a proposal that will likely not pass.

Why are you insisting that although SROs have been shown to be ineffective elsewhere that this isn't applicable to MCPS?

MCPS initial study actually was not conclusive. It pointed to pros and cons. And, all Principals want SROs.

Why do you insist on mentioning incidents that did not occur in MCPS? Furthermore, that was two negative incidents out of how many where SROs were involved?

How is having a metal detector, which is something the county wants to look at, any better than having an SRO, who can build relationships with students?

No study is conclusive, and MCPS never even got to complete their own study. But, they used the below studies as a starting point. That study doesn't indicate either way whether SROs are a negative or a positive; rather, it suggests there are pros and cons and needs further study and evaluation. But, that never happened because Progressives pulled the plug before the study could be done. What were they afraid of? That the study wouldn't support their narrative?

https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/C2S2RR727C3F/$file/SRO%20Program%20210511.pdf

Why do insist on pretending SROs work when it's well documented throughout the country that they do not?

Why do you insist on parroting this line over and over again, despite evidence that counters this narrative and perspective being repeatedly shown to you and you dismissing it? At best, the evidence is mixed and unclear on the efficacy of SROs. Some evidence says yes, some says no.

You denying the evidence in favor of SROs so you can repeat your narrative regardless is silly. Are you getting paid to do this?

Well, they had SROs at both Uvalde and Parkland it didn't seem to do a lot of good protecting those kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can people who don’t work in schools be against something principals unilaterally want? How can you be so presumptuous?

Because they are activists with a political agenda to advance. They don't care if the kids, or teachers, are collateral damage.

Yes, since it's well documented that everyone is less safe with SROs, not sure why the same people keep insisting we need them. I mean it's not like they did the kids at Parkland or Uvalde any good.

NP here. Your line of argument doesn’t hold.
SROs were not effective in 2 incidents that you know of.
Most of the times, if SROs effectively foiled a dangerous situation early on, you probably wouldn’t even hear about it.
The fact that in 2 cases, SROs didn’t work is meaningless.
No one expects them to be a 100% barrier to school shootings.
They provide only one layer of security. We desperately need more staff in schools along with smaller classrooms

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can people who don’t work in schools be against something principals unilaterally want? How can you be so presumptuous?

Because they are activists with a political agenda to advance. They don't care if the kids, or teachers, are collateral damage.

Yes, since it's well documented that everyone is less safe with SROs, not sure why the same people keep insisting we need them. I mean it's not like they did the kids at Parkland or Uvalde any good.

NP here. Your line of argument doesn’t hold.
SROs were not effective in 2 incidents that you know of.
Most of the times, if SROs effectively foiled a dangerous situation early on, you probably wouldn’t even hear about it.
The fact that in 2 cases, SROs didn’t work is meaningless.
No one expects them to be a 100% barrier to school shootings.
They provide only one layer of security. We desperately need more staff in schools along with smaller classrooms

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not that I'm the staunchest supporter of the Bring Back SROs campaign, but it's worth noting that DCPS and the City Council are doing a 180 and going back to the SRO model after pledging to phase them out a few years earlier, which was similar to MoCo: https://wjla.com/news/local/dc-school-resource-officers-sros-city-council-reviewing-students-schools-crime-youth-violence-teens-washington-carjackings-shootings-police-mpd-safe-amendment-act-2023-trayon-white-vincent-gray-brooke-pinto-phil-mendelson-dmv#

Soooo....yeah. The talking point that SROs are unpopular and unwanted doesn't really hold water.

Too often, people want to run with policies that only work in an ideal state. Unfortunately, human beings aren't predictable and not always good. Security and safety have to be there to account for and protect for those instances.

That's odd since every study shows they're more of a liability to student safety. It's not like they did much good at Parkland or Uvalde when present for the student massacres, but if people would rather their taxes pay for bathroom attendants than teachers, then by all means...

You keep bringing up two incidents that aren't related to MCPS, and make broad generalizations about SROs. It's like making a generalization based on a few bad apples of, oh, let's say black kids doing bad things in MCPS, so let's just all assume those kids are bad. Right?

MCPS study on SROs was inconclusive; there were some pros and cons that they found. They wanted to continue the study but the Progressives like Elrich pulled the plug on the SRO funding before MCPS could complete their internal study.

DCPS is bringing back SROs; much of their leadership are black. MCPS needs to follows and bring back SROs. Bringing in more teachers isn't going to stop the uptick in violence or drug use in the bathrooms. Maybe if those kids went to class instead of doing drugs in the bathrooms, their grades would go up.

DCPS is NOT bringing back SROs. It's a proposal that will likely not pass.

Why are you insisting that although SROs have been shown to be ineffective elsewhere that this isn't applicable to MCPS?

MCPS initial study actually was not conclusive. It pointed to pros and cons. And, all Principals want SROs.

Why do you insist on mentioning incidents that did not occur in MCPS? Furthermore, that was two negative incidents out of how many where SROs were involved?

How is having a metal detector, which is something the county wants to look at, any better than having an SRO, who can build relationships with students?

No study is conclusive, and MCPS never even got to complete their own study. But, they used the below studies as a starting point. That study doesn't indicate either way whether SROs are a negative or a positive; rather, it suggests there are pros and cons and needs further study and evaluation. But, that never happened because Progressives pulled the plug before the study could be done. What were they afraid of? That the study wouldn't support their narrative?

https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/C2S2RR727C3F/$file/SRO%20Program%20210511.pdf

Why do insist on pretending SROs work when it's well documented throughout the country that they do not?

Why do you insist on parroting this line over and over again, despite evidence that counters this narrative and perspective being repeatedly shown to you and you dismissing it? At best, the evidence is mixed and unclear on the efficacy of SROs. Some evidence says yes, some says no.

You denying the evidence in favor of SROs so you can repeat your narrative regardless is silly. Are you getting paid to do this?

Well, they had SROs at both Uvalde and Parkland it didn't seem to do a lot of good protecting those kids.

Well, it seems you are back to sweeping generalizations. Should we post sweeping generalizations about black kids doing bad things?

[Anonymous]

I prefer to listen to the people with actual experience and boots on the ground vs people who just cherry pick incidents.

All MCPS Principals want SROs. That's all I need to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not that I'm the staunchest supporter of the Bring Back SROs campaign, but it's worth noting that DCPS and the City Council are doing a 180 and going back to the SRO model after pledging to phase them out a few years earlier, which was similar to MoCo: https://wjla.com/news/local/dc-school-resource-officers-sros-city-council-reviewing-students-schools-crime-youth-violence-teens-washington-carjackings-shootings-police-mpd-safe-amendment-act-2023-trayon-white-vincent-gray-brooke-pinto-phil-mendelson-dmv#

Soooo....yeah. The talking point that SROs are unpopular and unwanted doesn't really hold water.

Too often, people want to run with policies that only work in an ideal state. Unfortunately, human beings aren't predictable and not always good. Security and safety have to be there to account for and protect for those instances.

That's odd since every study shows they're more of a liability to student safety. It's not like they did much good at Parkland or Uvalde when present for the student massacres, but if people would rather their taxes pay for bathroom attendants than teachers, then by all means...

You keep bringing up two incidents that aren't related to MCPS, and make broad generalizations about SROs. It's like making a generalization based on a few bad apples of, oh, let's say black kids doing bad things in MCPS, so let's just all assume those kids are bad. Right?

MCPS study on SROs was inconclusive; there were some pros and cons that they found. They wanted to continue the study but the Progressives like Elrich pulled the plug on the SRO funding before MCPS could complete their internal study.

DCPS is bringing back SROs; much of their leadership are black. MCPS needs to follows and bring back SROs. Bringing in more teachers isn't going to stop the uptick in violence or drug use in the bathrooms. Maybe if those kids went to class instead of doing drugs in the bathrooms, their grades would go up.

DCPS is NOT bringing back SROs. It's a proposal that will likely not pass.

Why are you insisting that although SROs have been shown to be ineffective elsewhere that this isn't applicable to MCPS?

MCPS initial study actually was not conclusive. It pointed to pros and cons. And, all Principals want SROs.

Why do you insist on mentioning incidents that did not occur in MCPS? Furthermore, that was two negative incidents out of how many where SROs were involved?

How is having a metal detector, which is something the county wants to look at, any better than having an SRO, who can build relationships with students?

No study is conclusive, and MCPS never even got to complete their own study. But, they used the below studies as a starting point. That study doesn't indicate either way whether SROs are a negative or a positive; rather, it suggests there are pros and cons and needs further study and evaluation. But, that never happened because Progressives pulled the plug before the study could be done. What were they afraid of? That the study wouldn't support their narrative?

https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/C2S2RR727C3F/$file/SRO%20Program%20210511.pdf

Why do insist on pretending SROs work when it's well documented throughout the country that they do not?

Why do you insist on parroting this line over and over again, despite evidence that counters this narrative and perspective being repeatedly shown to you and you dismissing it? At best, the evidence is mixed and unclear on the efficacy of SROs. Some evidence says yes, some says no.

You denying the evidence in favor of SROs so you can repeat your narrative regardless is silly. Are you getting paid to do this?

Well, they had SROs at both Uvalde and Parkland it didn't seem to do a lot of good protecting those kids.

Well, it seems you are back to sweeping generalizations. Should we post sweeping generalizations about black kids doing bad things?

Not really, just observing an undeniable pattern of abject failures with regard to this idea that SROs somehow make schools safe. Frankly, they don't as is clear when you look at almost every major incident where they've been present.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not that I'm the staunchest supporter of the Bring Back SROs campaign, but it's worth noting that DCPS and the City Council are doing a 180 and going back to the SRO model after pledging to phase them out a few years earlier, which was similar to MoCo: https://wjla.com/news/local/dc-school-resource-officers-sros-city-council-reviewing-students-schools-crime-youth-violence-teens-washington-carjackings-shootings-police-mpd-safe-amendment-act-2023-trayon-white-vincent-gray-brooke-pinto-phil-mendelson-dmv#

Soooo....yeah. The talking point that SROs are unpopular and unwanted doesn't really hold water.

Too often, people want to run with policies that only work in an ideal state. Unfortunately, human beings aren't predictable and not always good. Security and safety have to be there to account for and protect for those instances.

That's odd since every study shows they're more of a liability to student safety. It's not like they did much good at Parkland or Uvalde when present for the student massacres, but if people would rather their taxes pay for bathroom attendants than teachers, then by all means...

You keep bringing up two incidents that aren't related to MCPS, and make broad generalizations about SROs. It's like making a generalization based on a few bad apples of, oh, let's say black kids doing bad things in MCPS, so let's just all assume those kids are bad. Right?

MCPS study on SROs was inconclusive; there were some pros and cons that they found. They wanted to continue the study but the Progressives like Elrich pulled the plug on the SRO funding before MCPS could complete their internal study.

DCPS is bringing back SROs; much of their leadership are black. MCPS needs to follows and bring back SROs. Bringing in more teachers isn't going to stop the uptick in violence or drug use in the bathrooms. Maybe if those kids went to class instead of doing drugs in the bathrooms, their grades would go up.

DCPS is NOT bringing back SROs. It's a proposal that will likely not pass.

Why are you insisting that although SROs have been shown to be ineffective elsewhere that this isn't applicable to MCPS?

MCPS initial study actually was not conclusive. It pointed to pros and cons. And, all Principals want SROs.

Why do you insist on mentioning incidents that did not occur in MCPS? Furthermore, that was two negative incidents out of how many where SROs were involved?

How is having a metal detector, which is something the county wants to look at, any better than having an SRO, who can build relationships with students?

No study is conclusive, and MCPS never even got to complete their own study. But, they used the below studies as a starting point. That study doesn't indicate either way whether SROs are a negative or a positive; rather, it suggests there are pros and cons and needs further study and evaluation. But, that never happened because Progressives pulled the plug before the study could be done. What were they afraid of? That the study wouldn't support their narrative?

https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/C2S2RR727C3F/$file/SRO%20Program%20210511.pdf

Why do insist on pretending SROs work when it's well documented throughout the country that they do not?

Why do you insist on parroting this line over and over again, despite evidence that counters this narrative and perspective being repeatedly shown to you and you dismissing it? At best, the evidence is mixed and unclear on the efficacy of SROs. Some evidence says yes, some says no.

You denying the evidence in favor of SROs so you can repeat your narrative regardless is silly. Are you getting paid to do this?

Well, they had SROs at both Uvalde and Parkland it didn't seem to do a lot of good protecting those kids.

Well, it seems you are back to sweeping generalizations. Should we post sweeping generalizations about black kids doing bad things?

Not really, just observing an undeniable pattern of abject failures with regard to this idea that SROs somehow make schools safe. Frankly, they don't as is clear when you look at almost every major incident where they've been present.

By the same logic, murder laws don't work, so let's get rid of them, too, because clearly, those laws are abject failures given the number of murders in this country.

Apply the same logic to Restorative Justice - abject failure. There's a whole thread about it. Why don't we get rid of that, too? But Progressives insist that it can work even though MCPS's own data shows that it isn't working.

If MCPS gets rid of RJ, implements real consequences, expulsion and the like, not just slaps on the wrist, then you might have an argument. But until then, Principals want SROs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not that I'm the staunchest supporter of the Bring Back SROs campaign, but it's worth noting that DCPS and the City Council are doing a 180 and going back to the SRO model after pledging to phase them out a few years earlier, which was similar to MoCo: https://wjla.com/news/local/dc-school-resource-officers-sros-city-council-reviewing-students-schools-crime-youth-violence-teens-washington-carjackings-shootings-police-mpd-safe-amendment-act-2023-trayon-white-vincent-gray-brooke-pinto-phil-mendelson-dmv#

Soooo....yeah. The talking point that SROs are unpopular and unwanted doesn't really hold water.

Too often, people want to run with policies that only work in an ideal state. Unfortunately, human beings aren't predictable and not always good. Security and safety have to be there to account for and protect for those instances.

That's odd since every study shows they're more of a liability to student safety. It's not like they did much good at Parkland or Uvalde when present for the student massacres, but if people would rather their taxes pay for bathroom attendants than teachers, then by all means...

You keep bringing up two incidents that aren't related to MCPS, and make broad generalizations about SROs. It's like making a generalization based on a few bad apples of, oh, let's say black kids doing bad things in MCPS, so let's just all assume those kids are bad. Right?

MCPS study on SROs was inconclusive; there were some pros and cons that they found. They wanted to continue the study but the Progressives like Elrich pulled the plug on the SRO funding before MCPS could complete their internal study.

DCPS is bringing back SROs; much of their leadership are black. MCPS needs to follows and bring back SROs. Bringing in more teachers isn't going to stop the uptick in violence or drug use in the bathrooms. Maybe if those kids went to class instead of doing drugs in the bathrooms, their grades would go up.

DCPS is NOT bringing back SROs. It's a proposal that will likely not pass.

Why are you insisting that although SROs have been shown to be ineffective elsewhere that this isn't applicable to MCPS?

MCPS initial study actually was not conclusive. It pointed to pros and cons. And, all Principals want SROs.

Why do you insist on mentioning incidents that did not occur in MCPS? Furthermore, that was two negative incidents out of how many where SROs were involved?

How is having a metal detector, which is something the county wants to look at, any better than having an SRO, who can build relationships with students?

No study is conclusive, and MCPS never even got to complete their own study. But, they used the below studies as a starting point. That study doesn't indicate either way whether SROs are a negative or a positive; rather, it suggests there are pros and cons and needs further study and evaluation. But, that never happened because Progressives pulled the plug before the study could be done. What were they afraid of? That the study wouldn't support their narrative?

https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/C2S2RR727C3F/$file/SRO%20Program%20210511.pdf

Why do insist on pretending SROs work when it's well documented throughout the country that they do not?

Why do you insist on parroting this line over and over again, despite evidence that counters this narrative and perspective being repeatedly shown to you and you dismissing it? At best, the evidence is mixed and unclear on the efficacy of SROs. Some evidence says yes, some says no.

You denying the evidence in favor of SROs so you can repeat your narrative regardless is silly. Are you getting paid to do this?

Well, they had SROs at both Uvalde and Parkland it didn't seem to do a lot of good protecting those kids.

Well, it seems you are back to sweeping generalizations. Should we post sweeping generalizations about black kids doing bad things?

Not really, just observing an undeniable pattern of abject failures with regard to this idea that SROs somehow make schools safe. Frankly, they don't as is clear when you look at almost every major incident where they've been present.

By the same logic, murder laws don't work, so let's get rid of them, too, because clearly, those laws are abject failures given the number of murders in this country.

Apply the same logic to Restorative Justice - abject failure. There's a whole thread about it. Why don't we get rid of that, too? But Progressives insist that it can work even though MCPS's own data shows that it isn't working.

If MCPS gets rid of RJ, implements real consequences, expulsion and the like, not just slaps on the wrist, then you might have an argument. But until then, Principals want SROs.

Your argument is clearly flawed. Anyway, why divert funds from teachers to prison guards anyway. Just get MCPD to do its job. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not that I'm the staunchest supporter of the Bring Back SROs campaign, but it's worth noting that DCPS and the City Council are doing a 180 and going back to the SRO model after pledging to phase them out a few years earlier, which was similar to MoCo: https://wjla.com/news/local/dc-school-resource-officers-sros-city-council-reviewing-students-schools-crime-youth-violence-teens-washington-carjackings-shootings-police-mpd-safe-amendment-act-2023-trayon-white-vincent-gray-brooke-pinto-phil-mendelson-dmv#

Soooo....yeah. The talking point that SROs are unpopular and unwanted doesn't really hold water.

Too often, people want to run with policies that only work in an ideal state. Unfortunately, human beings aren't predictable and not always good. Security and safety have to be there to account for and protect for those instances.

That's odd since every study shows they're more of a liability to student safety. It's not like they did much good at Parkland or Uvalde when present for the student massacres, but if people would rather their taxes pay for bathroom attendants than teachers, then by all means...

You keep bringing up two incidents that aren't related to MCPS, and make broad generalizations about SROs. It's like making a generalization based on a few bad apples of, oh, let's say black kids doing bad things in MCPS, so let's just all assume those kids are bad. Right?

MCPS study on SROs was inconclusive; there were some pros and cons that they found. They wanted to continue the study but the Progressives like Elrich pulled the plug on the SRO funding before MCPS could complete their internal study.

DCPS is bringing back SROs; much of their leadership are black. MCPS needs to follows and bring back SROs. Bringing in more teachers isn't going to stop the uptick in violence or drug use in the bathrooms. Maybe if those kids went to class instead of doing drugs in the bathrooms, their grades would go up.

DCPS is NOT bringing back SROs. It's a proposal that will likely not pass.

Why are you insisting that although SROs have been shown to be ineffective elsewhere that this isn't applicable to MCPS?

MCPS initial study actually was not conclusive. It pointed to pros and cons. And, all Principals want SROs.

Why do you insist on mentioning incidents that did not occur in MCPS? Furthermore, that was two negative incidents out of how many where SROs were involved?

How is having a metal detector, which is something the county wants to look at, any better than having an SRO, who can build relationships with students?

No study is conclusive, and MCPS never even got to complete their own study. But, they used the below studies as a starting point. That study doesn't indicate either way whether SROs are a negative or a positive; rather, it suggests there are pros and cons and needs further study and evaluation. But, that never happened because Progressives pulled the plug before the study could be done. What were they afraid of? That the study wouldn't support their narrative?

https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/C2S2RR727C3F/$file/SRO%20Program%20210511.pdf

Why do insist on pretending SROs work when it's well documented throughout the country that they do not?

Why do you insist on parroting this line over and over again, despite evidence that counters this narrative and perspective being repeatedly shown to you and you dismissing it? At best, the evidence is mixed and unclear on the efficacy of SROs. Some evidence says yes, some says no.

You denying the evidence in favor of SROs so you can repeat your narrative regardless is silly. Are you getting paid to do this?

Well, they had SROs at both Uvalde and Parkland it didn't seem to do a lot of good protecting those kids.

Omfg - she’s backkkkkk

Your lines never get old and they still mean nothing

[Anonymous]

Well, since the Springbrook thread was closed, I guess I can post the newly released details regarding the incident since the fight started in....you guessed it: the bathroom!

Source: https://moco360.media/2023/11/28/stabbing-at-springbrook-high-school-one-person-in-custody/

According to a police press release, Montgomery County Police patrol and Community Engagement Officers responded to the school at approximately 11:28 a.m.

When police arrived, Montgomery County Public Schools security had isolated four male students who were involved in the fight. According to the release, the fight began inside of a school bathroom.

One 17-year-old student was charged with first-degree assault and has since been transported to the Montgomery County Central Processing Unit and awaits a bond hearing, according to police.

Two students who were involved in the fight were charged with second-degree assault. And one student was charged with possession of a controlled dangerous substance, the press release said.

So we've got weapons in MCPS high schools, illegal drugs and physical violence in our bathrooms still raging. This has been going on for years. The Magruder shooting, which also occurred in the bathroom in 2021 should have been a turning point for MCPS. But it appears that MCPS thinks doing nothing is the best course of action.