Petition to bring back SROs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PG, a majority black county isn't afraid of SROs. They did it right and decided to actually survey residents (instead of a small select group) and made the decision to keep SROs based on resident feedback: https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/education/pgcps-school-board-vote-school-resource-officers/65-551556ee-53c7-4288-acff-255dc8b01b58

A district-wide survey revealed 82% of its 13,000 respondents think SROs are important or very important to maintaining a safe learning environment.

GET 'EM WITH THE RECEIPTS AND THE FACTS!

Montgomery County is the only county in the state of Maryland to do away with SROs by the way.

Sounds like MoCo is the only county looking at actual data then since SROs are notoriously ineffective.

Exactly, since every credible study concludes that they almost never improve matters and more often subject kids to greater risk.

MCPS used data that showed SROs can help reduce violent crime in schools.

Oh no, it was the exact opposite. That's why they got rid of them.

SRO's were removed and crime and violence is up. So, what is your solution to all this? Why should our kids have fear going to school? You do realize one reason why we don't have enough staff/filled positions is because of the issues in school.

Crime is also up in the counties with SRO’s so the SRO’s are not the reason for the rise.

No one is saying that is the reason for the rise, but at least there was another layer IN THE SCHOOLS to keep the students and staff safer. So, what do you propose should happen to make MCPS safe for all students and staff. No SRO's, no discipline, no consequences...you are ok with the free for all? You must not care as you don't have kids in MCPS.

Have you read the new plan?
Have you read the suggestions in this thread.

Do you know PG county fired 100+ security personnel and are hiring counselors?

Cite the source - I mean all you anti SRO keep babbling and have no links like the for-SRO people do.

It’s in the pot -SRO post saying “PG county kept SROs.

Did you even read it? It showed 1/5 arrests were false arrests.

They kept 1 SRO /HS, changed their role and removed security guards that were given arrest record

It’s pretty close to the same as the MCPS CEO program

So are you going to cite your sources or keep babbling?

So what you are saying is that you don’t have or know where to find the SRO program for PG. County or the CEO program for MCPS?

So…. you’re babbling

So you haven’t read them and can’t link them here. Google is not that hard to use. Educate yourself.

My goodness. You literally were the first to bring it upwithout posting sources and then now you're turning it around asking US to post the links. You are a MORON and doesn't deserve to be a part of this conversation.

Agree anyone who thinks putting SROs in school is a good idea needs to educate themselves.

And anyone who assumes all SROs are bad needs stop with the progressive BS and use some critical thinking skills.

Wouldn't it be better for a kid who does not feel comfortable around cops to interact with cops in a safe setting? The charter of SROs can change; you can put guardrails on their duties. But, it's better for kids to be comfortable with the police than see them as the enemy.

If a black boy is getting bullied, threatened, victim of theft. who is he going to turn to?

It's well documented that SROs don't reduce school violence and more often put kids at greater risk. Both Parkland and Uvalde had SROs and it didn't help either place. People suggesting otherwise need to stop pushing this regressive tripe and educate themselves.

No, it isn't well documented. The study on it is not conclusive either way. There are pros and cons. You need to educate yourself.

And you constantly bringing up Uvalde and parkland has zero to do with MCPS. It's like saying a handful of black kids being violent in MCPS means that all black kids are bad. See how that works?

It is. In fact, SROs were present at the majority of school shootings and did nothing or made things worse.

OH geez. Please do not force us to keep providing you with links to multiple news stories of how an SRO has helped prevent shootings or more. We've done this already but there's nothing we can do when you refuse to see the truth.

There is literally not one news story on this thread that shows that an SRO prevented a shooting. Not one.

There are plenty of stories that have been posted before. Google is your friend.

Come up with something real. What is your solution?

2018 an ARMED SRO stopped a shooting in MD:

https://www.police1.com/active-shooter/articles/armed-sro-stopped-md-school-shooting-2-students-shot-BvrrqaXiOdlQlnqq/

March 2022 SRO stopped shooting:

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/school-resource-officer-just-stopped-an-active-shooter/

Another:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/us/dixon-school-shooting.html

Do you people even read past the headlines?

All of these show a huge failure on the SRO’s part.

But…, MCPS’s have SRO’s so what more do you want?

Please explain how those are examples of SRO failures.

Both Parkland and Uvalde are casebook examples of SRO failures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically, SROs rarely of any benefit. Both Parkland and Uvalde had SROs present and that didn't help matters.

Most experts believe they actually make things worse, and their presence escalates or increases the death toll

So there were SROs at both the Parkland and Uvalde school massacres and they did nothing?

I'm curious about this too.

Since SROs aren't of any help in a school shooting what good are they exactly? Also, with all the police incidents like the recent one with Tyre Nichols is this really a good idea?

dp.. security guards didn't stop the shootings, either. Should they be removed, too?

Some cops are terrible, that doesn't mean all cops are. A lot of the troublemaker kids in school are URM. Does that make all URM kids bad? Should we kick them all out?

Security guards have not show to contribute to the negative affects on students. Except the ones on PG with arrest powers do they got rid of them.

Kids who are violent and do drugs do have negative effects on kids. Why don't we kick them out?

Also, someone keeps posting about the security guard who had sex with a student on campus.. seems like we should kick them all out just in case they all have sex with the kids on campus.

Well, if they're assaulting others or using controlled substances this isn't an MCPS matter, but a police matter and there are places for people who break these laws.

Yes, an SRO in the school would help with this situation.

Police will respond more quickly when a cop calls more so than when a security guard or school admin calls.

You realize there are still SROs called CEOs and they are on school grounds.

Unlike SROs, the CEOs aren't permanently stationed in a particular school. They rotate, and don't interact at all with students. Some of the SROs would engage with the students to create bonds and become mentors. There are some bad SROs, as there are some bad teachers, clergy, etc.. But don't make sweeping generalizations about a group because you wouldn't like it if people did that to certain other groups.

You made a sweeping generalization that they built relationships.

CEOs are in school, they are sworn officers, they can still create relationships with students. They just are not allowed to discipline students.

But the survey done by PG county said over 80% of students had positive interactions with their SRO and felt safer with them there. MCPS has never done surveys

I know the office that is assigned to our cluster is amazing and works great with the students. He is just rarely there because he has 8 schools in the cluster and the 2 middle schools need just as much help as the high school.

MCPS did not decrease the number of SRO’s.

1st your like .. bring back STOs then when you find out they are still there and you act like they aren’t. Just say, my bad I didn’t realize they still had SROs. But you just can’t admit you were uninformed.

Again ..you really need to work on your reading or interpretation skills. There ARE no SROs in MCPS. Yes there are CEOs but they are not the same.

They are exactly the same people that were SROs. They do the exact same thing except discipline. They are cops with arrest powers and more training

Let's put this silliness to rest. No, CEOs are not the same:
https://wtop.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/CEO-2.0-Key-Components_-Talking-Points-1.pdf

It's like SRO-lite. Some of us are not content with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PG, a majority black county isn't afraid of SROs. They did it right and decided to actually survey residents (instead of a small select group) and made the decision to keep SROs based on resident feedback: https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/education/pgcps-school-board-vote-school-resource-officers/65-551556ee-53c7-4288-acff-255dc8b01b58

A district-wide survey revealed 82% of its 13,000 respondents think SROs are important or very important to maintaining a safe learning environment.

GET 'EM WITH THE RECEIPTS AND THE FACTS!

Montgomery County is the only county in the state of Maryland to do away with SROs by the way.

Sounds like MoCo is the only county looking at actual data then since SROs are notoriously ineffective.

Exactly, since every credible study concludes that they almost never improve matters and more often subject kids to greater risk.

MCPS used data that showed SROs can help reduce violent crime in schools.

Oh no, it was the exact opposite. That's why they got rid of them.

SRO's were removed and crime and violence is up. So, what is your solution to all this? Why should our kids have fear going to school? You do realize one reason why we don't have enough staff/filled positions is because of the issues in school.

Crime is also up in the counties with SRO’s so the SRO’s are not the reason for the rise.

No one is saying that is the reason for the rise, but at least there was another layer IN THE SCHOOLS to keep the students and staff safer. So, what do you propose should happen to make MCPS safe for all students and staff. No SRO's, no discipline, no consequences...you are ok with the free for all? You must not care as you don't have kids in MCPS.

Have you read the new plan?
Have you read the suggestions in this thread.

Do you know PG county fired 100+ security personnel and are hiring counselors?

Cite the source - I mean all you anti SRO keep babbling and have no links like the for-SRO people do.

It’s in the pot -SRO post saying “PG county kept SROs.

Did you even read it? It showed 1/5 arrests were false arrests.

They kept 1 SRO /HS, changed their role and removed security guards that were given arrest record

It’s pretty close to the same as the MCPS CEO program

So are you going to cite your sources or keep babbling?

So what you are saying is that you don’t have or know where to find the SRO program for PG. County or the CEO program for MCPS?

So…. you’re babbling

So you haven’t read them and can’t link them here. Google is not that hard to use. Educate yourself.

My goodness. You literally were the first to bring it upwithout posting sources and then now you're turning it around asking US to post the links. You are a MORON and doesn't deserve to be a part of this conversation.

Agree anyone who thinks putting SROs in school is a good idea needs to educate themselves.

And anyone who assumes all SROs are bad needs stop with the progressive BS and use some critical thinking skills.

Wouldn't it be better for a kid who does not feel comfortable around cops to interact with cops in a safe setting? The charter of SROs can change; you can put guardrails on their duties. But, it's better for kids to be comfortable with the police than see them as the enemy.

If a black boy is getting bullied, threatened, victim of theft. who is he going to turn to?

It's well documented that SROs don't reduce school violence and more often put kids at greater risk. Both Parkland and Uvalde had SROs and it didn't help either place. People suggesting otherwise need to stop pushing this regressive tripe and educate themselves.

No, it isn't well documented. The study on it is not conclusive either way. There are pros and cons. You need to educate yourself.

And you constantly bringing up Uvalde and parkland has zero to do with MCPS. It's like saying a handful of black kids being violent in MCPS means that all black kids are bad. See how that works?

It is. In fact, SROs were present at the majority of school shootings and did nothing or made things worse.

OH geez. Please do not force us to keep providing you with links to multiple news stories of how an SRO has helped prevent shootings or more. We've done this already but there's nothing we can do when you refuse to see the truth.

There is literally not one news story on this thread that shows that an SRO prevented a shooting. Not one.

There are plenty of stories that have been posted before. Google is your friend.

Come up with something real. What is your solution?

2018 an ARMED SRO stopped a shooting in MD:

https://www.police1.com/active-shooter/articles/armed-sro-stopped-md-school-shooting-2-students-shot-BvrrqaXiOdlQlnqq/

March 2022 SRO stopped shooting:

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/school-resource-officer-just-stopped-an-active-shooter/

Another:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/us/dixon-school-shooting.html

Do you people even read past the headlines?

All of these show a huge failure on the SRO’s part.

But…, MCPS’s have SRO’s so what more do you want?

Please explain how those are examples of SRO failures.

Both Parkland and Uvalde are casebook examples of SRO failures.

And, that's not a good reason NOT to have SRO's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically, SROs rarely of any benefit. Both Parkland and Uvalde had SROs present and that didn't help matters.

Most experts believe they actually make things worse, and their presence escalates or increases the death toll

So there were SROs at both the Parkland and Uvalde school massacres and they did nothing?

I'm curious about this too.

Since SROs aren't of any help in a school shooting what good are they exactly? Also, with all the police incidents like the recent one with Tyre Nichols is this really a good idea?

dp.. security guards didn't stop the shootings, either. Should they be removed, too?

Some cops are terrible, that doesn't mean all cops are. A lot of the troublemaker kids in school are URM. Does that make all URM kids bad? Should we kick them all out?

Security guards have not show to contribute to the negative affects on students. Except the ones on PG with arrest powers do they got rid of them.

Kids who are violent and do drugs do have negative effects on kids. Why don't we kick them out?

Also, someone keeps posting about the security guard who had sex with a student on campus.. seems like we should kick them all out just in case they all have sex with the kids on campus.

Well, if they're assaulting others or using controlled substances this isn't an MCPS matter, but a police matter and there are places for people who break these laws.

Yes, an SRO in the school would help with this situation.

Police will respond more quickly when a cop calls more so than when a security guard or school admin calls.

You realize there are still SROs called CEOs and they are on school grounds.

Unlike SROs, the CEOs aren't permanently stationed in a particular school. They rotate, and don't interact at all with students. Some of the SROs would engage with the students to create bonds and become mentors. There are some bad SROs, as there are some bad teachers, clergy, etc.. But don't make sweeping generalizations about a group because you wouldn't like it if people did that to certain other groups.

You made a sweeping generalization that they built relationships.

CEOs are in school, they are sworn officers, they can still create relationships with students. They just are not allowed to discipline students.

But the survey done by PG county said over 80% of students had positive interactions with their SRO and felt safer with them there. MCPS has never done surveys

I know the office that is assigned to our cluster is amazing and works great with the students. He is just rarely there because he has 8 schools in the cluster and the 2 middle schools need just as much help as the high school.

MCPS did not decrease the number of SRO’s.

1st your like .. bring back STOs then when you find out they are still there and you act like they aren’t. Just say, my bad I didn’t realize they still had SROs. But you just can’t admit you were uninformed.

Again ..you really need to work on your reading or interpretation skills. There ARE no SROs in MCPS. Yes there are CEOs but they are not the same.

They are exactly the same people that were SROs. They do the exact same thing except discipline. They are cops with arrest powers and more training

Let's put this silliness to rest. No, CEOs are not the same:
https://wtop.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/CEO-2.0-Key-Components_-Talking-Points-1.pdf

It's like SRO-lite. Some of us are not content with that.

They are exactly the same as shown in your link.

They work in teams now so schools don’t go without one when they are sick or on vacation.

they have more training.

Administration can call them directly without going through 911.

More and better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PG, a majority black county isn't afraid of SROs. They did it right and decided to actually survey residents (instead of a small select group) and made the decision to keep SROs based on resident feedback: https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/education/pgcps-school-board-vote-school-resource-officers/65-551556ee-53c7-4288-acff-255dc8b01b58

A district-wide survey revealed 82% of its 13,000 respondents think SROs are important or very important to maintaining a safe learning environment.

GET 'EM WITH THE RECEIPTS AND THE FACTS!

Montgomery County is the only county in the state of Maryland to do away with SROs by the way.

Sounds like MoCo is the only county looking at actual data then since SROs are notoriously ineffective.

Exactly, since every credible study concludes that they almost never improve matters and more often subject kids to greater risk.

MCPS used data that showed SROs can help reduce violent crime in schools.

Oh no, it was the exact opposite. That's why they got rid of them.

SRO's were removed and crime and violence is up. So, what is your solution to all this? Why should our kids have fear going to school? You do realize one reason why we don't have enough staff/filled positions is because of the issues in school.

Crime is also up in the counties with SRO’s so the SRO’s are not the reason for the rise.

No one is saying that is the reason for the rise, but at least there was another layer IN THE SCHOOLS to keep the students and staff safer. So, what do you propose should happen to make MCPS safe for all students and staff. No SRO's, no discipline, no consequences...you are ok with the free for all? You must not care as you don't have kids in MCPS.

Have you read the new plan?
Have you read the suggestions in this thread.

Do you know PG county fired 100+ security personnel and are hiring counselors?

Cite the source - I mean all you anti SRO keep babbling and have no links like the for-SRO people do.

It’s in the pot -SRO post saying “PG county kept SROs.

Did you even read it? It showed 1/5 arrests were false arrests.

They kept 1 SRO /HS, changed their role and removed security guards that were given arrest record

It’s pretty close to the same as the MCPS CEO program

So are you going to cite your sources or keep babbling?

So what you are saying is that you don’t have or know where to find the SRO program for PG. County or the CEO program for MCPS?

So…. you’re babbling

So you haven’t read them and can’t link them here. Google is not that hard to use. Educate yourself.

My goodness. You literally were the first to bring it upwithout posting sources and then now you're turning it around asking US to post the links. You are a MORON and doesn't deserve to be a part of this conversation.

Agree anyone who thinks putting SROs in school is a good idea needs to educate themselves.

And anyone who assumes all SROs are bad needs stop with the progressive BS and use some critical thinking skills.

Wouldn't it be better for a kid who does not feel comfortable around cops to interact with cops in a safe setting? The charter of SROs can change; you can put guardrails on their duties. But, it's better for kids to be comfortable with the police than see them as the enemy.

If a black boy is getting bullied, threatened, victim of theft. who is he going to turn to?

It's well documented that SROs don't reduce school violence and more often put kids at greater risk. Both Parkland and Uvalde had SROs and it didn't help either place. People suggesting otherwise need to stop pushing this regressive tripe and educate themselves.

No, it isn't well documented. The study on it is not conclusive either way. There are pros and cons. You need to educate yourself.

And you constantly bringing up Uvalde and parkland has zero to do with MCPS. It's like saying a handful of black kids being violent in MCPS means that all black kids are bad. See how that works?

It is. In fact, SROs were present at the majority of school shootings and did nothing or made things worse.

OH geez. Please do not force us to keep providing you with links to multiple news stories of how an SRO has helped prevent shootings or more. We've done this already but there's nothing we can do when you refuse to see the truth.

There is literally not one news story on this thread that shows that an SRO prevented a shooting. Not one.

Ok, sigh. Here we go again:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/maryland/5-clarksburg-high-students-arrested-after-gun-brought-to-school/65-b7ff209f-24ad-4798-adf7-d7db1161f582

https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/student-arrested-after-bringing-gun-to-clarksburg-high-school-according-to-principal

Yes, there were one or two incidents in the past 20 years where they did help but more often than not they didn't or made things worse by escolating the violence.

Heh? just a simple 5 second Google search showed me three just in Maryland that occured within the last 4 years.

Yeah, that one the kid shot his girlfriend then shot himself and the SRO. I’ll try to shoot the kid missed and could’ve easily shot another kid.

Understanding what you read is extremely important: It’s not yet clear whether the shooter, Austin Wyatt Rollins, was felled by the officer’s bullet or killed himself.

It is indeed clear that the shooter shot himself:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/27/597215674/sheriff-assailant-in-maryland-school-shooting-died-from-self-inflicted-wound

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the taking points posted by a PP—very helpful. Condensing, it sounds like there are three major differences with the old SRO program:
— CEOs have a designated work station at the HS but are not stationed there (unclear what this means in practice but I’d guess it means they need to at least report to shift at police station)
— ceos not allowed to patrol hallways or respond to school incidents (unclear what that means—if a security officer says “there are kids using drugs in the bathroom and they are refusing to disperse” can the CEO assist?)
— unlike SROs, ceos do not have primary response for arson or drug distribution. Unclear to me who does have primary response for that….McPS security? Principals?
Taking the second two things in combination, it appears that MCPD no longer has any role in making sure kids aren’t using or selling drugs in schools. That seems to me not ideal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PG, a majority black county isn't afraid of SROs. They did it right and decided to actually survey residents (instead of a small select group) and made the decision to keep SROs based on resident feedback: https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/education/pgcps-school-board-vote-school-resource-officers/65-551556ee-53c7-4288-acff-255dc8b01b58

A district-wide survey revealed 82% of its 13,000 respondents think SROs are important or very important to maintaining a safe learning environment.

GET 'EM WITH THE RECEIPTS AND THE FACTS!

Montgomery County is the only county in the state of Maryland to do away with SROs by the way.

Sounds like MoCo is the only county looking at actual data then since SROs are notoriously ineffective.

Exactly, since every credible study concludes that they almost never improve matters and more often subject kids to greater risk.

MCPS used data that showed SROs can help reduce violent crime in schools.

Oh no, it was the exact opposite. That's why they got rid of them.

SRO's were removed and crime and violence is up. So, what is your solution to all this? Why should our kids have fear going to school? You do realize one reason why we don't have enough staff/filled positions is because of the issues in school.

Crime is also up in the counties with SRO’s so the SRO’s are not the reason for the rise.

No one is saying that is the reason for the rise, but at least there was another layer IN THE SCHOOLS to keep the students and staff safer. So, what do you propose should happen to make MCPS safe for all students and staff. No SRO's, no discipline, no consequences...you are ok with the free for all? You must not care as you don't have kids in MCPS.

Have you read the new plan?
Have you read the suggestions in this thread.

Do you know PG county fired 100+ security personnel and are hiring counselors?

Cite the source - I mean all you anti SRO keep babbling and have no links like the for-SRO people do.

It’s in the pot -SRO post saying “PG county kept SROs.

Did you even read it? It showed 1/5 arrests were false arrests.

They kept 1 SRO /HS, changed their role and removed security guards that were given arrest record

It’s pretty close to the same as the MCPS CEO program

So are you going to cite your sources or keep babbling?

So what you are saying is that you don’t have or know where to find the SRO program for PG. County or the CEO program for MCPS?

So…. you’re babbling

So you haven’t read them and can’t link them here. Google is not that hard to use. Educate yourself.

My goodness. You literally were the first to bring it upwithout posting sources and then now you're turning it around asking US to post the links. You are a MORON and doesn't deserve to be a part of this conversation.

Agree anyone who thinks putting SROs in school is a good idea needs to educate themselves.

And anyone who assumes all SROs are bad needs stop with the progressive BS and use some critical thinking skills.

Wouldn't it be better for a kid who does not feel comfortable around cops to interact with cops in a safe setting? The charter of SROs can change; you can put guardrails on their duties. But, it's better for kids to be comfortable with the police than see them as the enemy.

If a black boy is getting bullied, threatened, victim of theft. who is he going to turn to?

It's well documented that SROs don't reduce school violence and more often put kids at greater risk. Both Parkland and Uvalde had SROs and it didn't help either place. People suggesting otherwise need to stop pushing this regressive tripe and educate themselves.

No, it isn't well documented. The study on it is not conclusive either way. There are pros and cons. You need to educate yourself.

And you constantly bringing up Uvalde and parkland has zero to do with MCPS. It's like saying a handful of black kids being violent in MCPS means that all black kids are bad. See how that works?

It is. In fact, SROs were present at the majority of school shootings and did nothing or made things worse.

OH geez. Please do not force us to keep providing you with links to multiple news stories of how an SRO has helped prevent shootings or more. We've done this already but there's nothing we can do when you refuse to see the truth.

There is literally not one news story on this thread that shows that an SRO prevented a shooting. Not one.

Ok, sigh. Here we go again:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/maryland/5-clarksburg-high-students-arrested-after-gun-brought-to-school/65-b7ff209f-24ad-4798-adf7-d7db1161f582

https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/student-arrested-after-bringing-gun-to-clarksburg-high-school-according-to-principal

Yes, there were one or two incidents in the past 20 years where they did help but more often than not they didn't or made things worse by escolating the violence.

Heh? just a simple 5 second Google search showed me three just in Maryland that occured within the last 4 years.

Yeah, that one the kid shot his girlfriend then shot himself and the SRO. I’ll try to shoot the kid missed and could’ve easily shot another kid.

Understanding what you read is extremely important: It’s not yet clear whether the shooter, Austin Wyatt Rollins, was felled by the officer’s bullet or killed himself.

It is indeed clear that the shooter shot himself:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/27/597215674/sheriff-assailant-in-maryland-school-shooting-died-from-self-inflicted-wound

And if he hadn't, you would have preferred for the SRO to not be there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PG, a majority black county isn't afraid of SROs. They did it right and decided to actually survey residents (instead of a small select group) and made the decision to keep SROs based on resident feedback: https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/education/pgcps-school-board-vote-school-resource-officers/65-551556ee-53c7-4288-acff-255dc8b01b58

A district-wide survey revealed 82% of its 13,000 respondents think SROs are important or very important to maintaining a safe learning environment.

GET 'EM WITH THE RECEIPTS AND THE FACTS!

Montgomery County is the only county in the state of Maryland to do away with SROs by the way.

Sounds like MoCo is the only county looking at actual data then since SROs are notoriously ineffective.

Exactly, since every credible study concludes that they almost never improve matters and more often subject kids to greater risk.

MCPS used data that showed SROs can help reduce violent crime in schools.

Oh no, it was the exact opposite. That's why they got rid of them.

SRO's were removed and crime and violence is up. So, what is your solution to all this? Why should our kids have fear going to school? You do realize one reason why we don't have enough staff/filled positions is because of the issues in school.

Crime is also up in the counties with SRO’s so the SRO’s are not the reason for the rise.

No one is saying that is the reason for the rise, but at least there was another layer IN THE SCHOOLS to keep the students and staff safer. So, what do you propose should happen to make MCPS safe for all students and staff. No SRO's, no discipline, no consequences...you are ok with the free for all? You must not care as you don't have kids in MCPS.

Have you read the new plan?
Have you read the suggestions in this thread.

Do you know PG county fired 100+ security personnel and are hiring counselors?

Cite the source - I mean all you anti SRO keep babbling and have no links like the for-SRO people do.

It’s in the pot -SRO post saying “PG county kept SROs.

Did you even read it? It showed 1/5 arrests were false arrests.

They kept 1 SRO /HS, changed their role and removed security guards that were given arrest record

It’s pretty close to the same as the MCPS CEO program

So are you going to cite your sources or keep babbling?

So what you are saying is that you don’t have or know where to find the SRO program for PG. County or the CEO program for MCPS?

So…. you’re babbling

So you haven’t read them and can’t link them here. Google is not that hard to use. Educate yourself.

My goodness. You literally were the first to bring it upwithout posting sources and then now you're turning it around asking US to post the links. You are a MORON and doesn't deserve to be a part of this conversation.

Agree anyone who thinks putting SROs in school is a good idea needs to educate themselves.

And anyone who assumes all SROs are bad needs stop with the progressive BS and use some critical thinking skills.

Wouldn't it be better for a kid who does not feel comfortable around cops to interact with cops in a safe setting? The charter of SROs can change; you can put guardrails on their duties. But, it's better for kids to be comfortable with the police than see them as the enemy.

If a black boy is getting bullied, threatened, victim of theft. who is he going to turn to?

It's well documented that SROs don't reduce school violence and more often put kids at greater risk. Both Parkland and Uvalde had SROs and it didn't help either place. People suggesting otherwise need to stop pushing this regressive tripe and educate themselves.

No, it isn't well documented. The study on it is not conclusive either way. There are pros and cons. You need to educate yourself.

And you constantly bringing up Uvalde and parkland has zero to do with MCPS. It's like saying a handful of black kids being violent in MCPS means that all black kids are bad. See how that works?

It is. In fact, SROs were present at the majority of school shootings and did nothing or made things worse.

OH geez. Please do not force us to keep providing you with links to multiple news stories of how an SRO has helped prevent shootings or more. We've done this already but there's nothing we can do when you refuse to see the truth.

There is literally not one news story on this thread that shows that an SRO prevented a shooting. Not one.

Ok, sigh. Here we go again:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/maryland/5-clarksburg-high-students-arrested-after-gun-brought-to-school/65-b7ff209f-24ad-4798-adf7-d7db1161f582

https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/student-arrested-after-bringing-gun-to-clarksburg-high-school-according-to-principal

Yes, there were one or two incidents in the past 20 years where they did help but more often than not they didn't or made things worse by escolating the violence.

Heh? just a simple 5 second Google search showed me three just in Maryland that occured within the last 4 years.

Yeah, that one the kid shot his girlfriend then shot himself and the SRO. I’ll try to shoot the kid missed and could’ve easily shot another kid.

Understanding what you read is extremely important: It’s not yet clear whether the shooter, Austin Wyatt Rollins, was felled by the officer’s bullet or killed himself.

It is indeed clear that the shooter shot himself:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/27/597215674/sheriff-assailant-in-maryland-school-shooting-died-from-self-inflicted-wound

And if he hadn't, you would have preferred for the SRO to not be there?

*goal post moved*

A poster asserted that the story above was “an instance of an SRO preventing a shooting.” It was not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the taking points posted by a PP—very helpful. Condensing, it sounds like there are three major differences with the old SRO program:
— CEOs have a designated work station at the HS but are not stationed there (unclear what this means in practice but I’d guess it means they need to at least report to shift at police station)
— ceos not allowed to patrol hallways or respond to school incidents (unclear what that means—if a security officer says “there are kids using drugs in the bathroom and they are refusing to disperse” can the CEO assist?)
— unlike SROs, ceos do not have primary response for arson or drug distribution. Unclear to me who does have primary response for that….McPS security? Principals?
Taking the second two things in combination, it appears that MCPD no longer has any role in making sure kids aren’t using or selling drugs in schools. That seems to me not ideal.

#1 SRO’s had no place to sit so they had to wonder the halls or sit in their car to write a report. Now they have an office.

#2 means that if a teacher is dealing with a disciplinary issue a cop can’t get involved. Often SRO’s would escalate a simple disciplinary issue that teachers were able to handle and teachers did not feel like they could tell a cop to butt out. SROs now only respond to crimes.

#3 arsons are investigated by fire Marshall’s not cops. The Bethesda mag article explains the “drug” response.

#4 no it not true that cops are not involved in drug enforcement for distribution and dangerous drugs. Anything that is a non criminal drug charge in Montgomery County (aka possession of a small amount of pot or paraphernalia ) will now be dealt with by MCPS discipline .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically, SROs rarely of any benefit. Both Parkland and Uvalde had SROs present and that didn't help matters.

Most experts believe they actually make things worse, and their presence escalates or increases the death toll

So there were SROs at both the Parkland and Uvalde school massacres and they did nothing?

I'm curious about this too.

Since SROs aren't of any help in a school shooting what good are they exactly? Also, with all the police incidents like the recent one with Tyre Nichols is this really a good idea?

dp.. security guards didn't stop the shootings, either. Should they be removed, too?

Some cops are terrible, that doesn't mean all cops are. A lot of the troublemaker kids in school are URM. Does that make all URM kids bad? Should we kick them all out?

Security guards have not show to contribute to the negative affects on students. Except the ones on PG with arrest powers do they got rid of them.

Kids who are violent and do drugs do have negative effects on kids. Why don't we kick them out?

Also, someone keeps posting about the security guard who had sex with a student on campus.. seems like we should kick them all out just in case they all have sex with the kids on campus.

Well, if they're assaulting others or using controlled substances this isn't an MCPS matter, but a police matter and there are places for people who break these laws.

Yes, an SRO in the school would help with this situation.

Police will respond more quickly when a cop calls more so than when a security guard or school admin calls.

You realize there are still SROs called CEOs and they are on school grounds.

Unlike SROs, the CEOs aren't permanently stationed in a particular school. They rotate, and don't interact at all with students. Some of the SROs would engage with the students to create bonds and become mentors. There are some bad SROs, as there are some bad teachers, clergy, etc.. But don't make sweeping generalizations about a group because you wouldn't like it if people did that to certain other groups.

You made a sweeping generalization that they built relationships.

CEOs are in school, they are sworn officers, they can still create relationships with students. They just are not allowed to discipline students.

But the survey done by PG county said over 80% of students had positive interactions with their SRO and felt safer with them there. MCPS has never done surveys

I know the office that is assigned to our cluster is amazing and works great with the students. He is just rarely there because he has 8 schools in the cluster and the 2 middle schools need just as much help as the high school.

MCPS did not decrease the number of SRO’s.

1st your like .. bring back STOs then when you find out they are still there and you act like they aren’t. Just say, my bad I didn’t realize they still had SROs. But you just can’t admit you were uninformed.

Again ..you really need to work on your reading or interpretation skills. There ARE no SROs in MCPS. Yes there are CEOs but they are not the same.

They are exactly the same people that were SROs. They do the exact same thing except discipline. They are cops with arrest powers and more training

Let's put this silliness to rest. No, CEOs are not the same:
https://wtop.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/CEO-2.0-Key-Components_-Talking-Points-1.pdf

It's like SRO-lite. Some of us are not content with that.

They are exactly the same as shown in your link.

They work in teams now so schools don’t go without one when they are sick or on vacation.

they have more training.

Administration can call them directly without going through 911.

More and better.

Did we even look at the same document?
You do realize SROs received the same 40+ hour training, correct?

I’m so confused by your response. It’s as if you don’t want to accept that this is very clearly a scaled-down replacement. I work in a school. I see this first-hand, and it isn’t the same. Not by a large margin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the taking points posted by a PP—very helpful. Condensing, it sounds like there are three major differences with the old SRO program:
— CEOs have a designated work station at the HS but are not stationed there (unclear what this means in practice but I’d guess it means they need to at least report to shift at police station)
— ceos not allowed to patrol hallways or respond to school incidents (unclear what that means—if a security officer says “there are kids using drugs in the bathroom and they are refusing to disperse” can the CEO assist?)
— unlike SROs, ceos do not have primary response for arson or drug distribution. Unclear to me who does have primary response for that….McPS security? Principals?
Taking the second two things in combination, it appears that MCPD no longer has any role in making sure kids aren’t using or selling drugs in schools. That seems to me not ideal.

#1 SRO’s had no place to sit so they had to wonder the halls or sit in their car to write a report. Now they have an office.

#2 means that if a teacher is dealing with a disciplinary issue a cop can’t get involved. Often SRO’s would escalate a simple disciplinary issue that teachers were able to handle and teachers did not feel like they could tell a cop to butt out. SROs now only respond to crimes.

#3 arsons are investigated by fire Marshall’s not cops. The Bethesda mag article explains the “drug” response.

#4 no it not true that cops are not involved in drug enforcement for distribution and dangerous drugs. Anything that is a non criminal drug charge in Montgomery County (aka possession of a small amount of pot or paraphernalia ) will now be dealt with by MCPS discipline .

#1. Our SROs always were given a place to work. They walked the halls, but they also had a “home” for work.

#2. SROs did not step in when I was dealing with discipline in my classroom. They didn’t do that to my colleagues, either. Why? Because, as you said, that would escalate the issue and the teacher would loose authority. So, clearly, SROs did not do this. Where are you coming up with this? This isn’t how SROs operated at. all.

I’d love to know where you got these beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the taking points posted by a PP—very helpful. Condensing, it sounds like there are three major differences with the old SRO program:
— CEOs have a designated work station at the HS but are not stationed there (unclear what this means in practice but I’d guess it means they need to at least report to shift at police station)
— ceos not allowed to patrol hallways or respond to school incidents (unclear what that means—if a security officer says “there are kids using drugs in the bathroom and they are refusing to disperse” can the CEO assist?)
— unlike SROs, ceos do not have primary response for arson or drug distribution. Unclear to me who does have primary response for that….McPS security? Principals?
Taking the second two things in combination, it appears that MCPD no longer has any role in making sure kids aren’t using or selling drugs in schools. That seems to me not ideal.

#1 SRO’s had no place to sit so they had to wonder the halls or sit in their car to write a report. Now they have an office.

#2 means that if a teacher is dealing with a disciplinary issue a cop can’t get involved. Often SRO’s would escalate a simple disciplinary issue that teachers were able to handle and teachers did not feel like they could tell a cop to butt out. SROs now only respond to crimes.

#3 arsons are investigated by fire Marshall’s not cops. The Bethesda mag article explains the “drug” response.

#4 no it not true that cops are not involved in drug enforcement for distribution and dangerous drugs. Anything that is a non criminal drug charge in Montgomery County (aka possession of a small amount of pot or paraphernalia ) will now be dealt with by MCPS discipline .

#1. Our SROs always were given a place to work. They walked the halls, but they also had a “home” for work.

#2. SROs did not step in when I was dealing with discipline in my classroom. They didn’t do that to my colleagues, either. Why? Because, as you said, that would escalate the issue and the teacher would loose authority. So, clearly, SROs did not do this. Where are you coming up with this? This isn’t how SROs operated at. all.

I’d love to know where you got these beliefs.

#1 not all schools are the same

#2 most complaints came from teachers in ED classrooms. Are you an ED teacher? I’m glad you agree that SRO’s should not get involved with discipline. That change must please you. It’s explained in the Bethesda magazine article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the taking points posted by a PP—very helpful. Condensing, it sounds like there are three major differences with the old SRO program:
— CEOs have a designated work station at the HS but are not stationed there (unclear what this means in practice but I’d guess it means they need to at least report to shift at police station)
— ceos not allowed to patrol hallways or respond to school incidents (unclear what that means—if a security officer says “there are kids using drugs in the bathroom and they are refusing to disperse” can the CEO assist?)
— unlike SROs, ceos do not have primary response for arson or drug distribution. Unclear to me who does have primary response for that….McPS security? Principals?
Taking the second two things in combination, it appears that MCPD no longer has any role in making sure kids aren’t using or selling drugs in schools. That seems to me not ideal.

#1 SRO’s had no place to sit so they had to wonder the halls or sit in their car to write a report. Now they have an office.

#2 means that if a teacher is dealing with a disciplinary issue a cop can’t get involved. Often SRO’s would escalate a simple disciplinary issue that teachers were able to handle and teachers did not feel like they could tell a cop to butt out. SROs now only respond to crimes.

#3 arsons are investigated by fire Marshall’s not cops. The Bethesda mag article explains the “drug” response.

#4 no it not true that cops are not involved in drug enforcement for distribution and dangerous drugs. Anything that is a non criminal drug charge in Montgomery County (aka possession of a small amount of pot or paraphernalia ) will now be dealt with by MCPS discipline .

#1. Our SROs always were given a place to work. They walked the halls, but they also had a “home” for work.

#2. SROs did not step in when I was dealing with discipline in my classroom. They didn’t do that to my colleagues, either. Why? Because, as you said, that would escalate the issue and the teacher would loose authority. So, clearly, SROs did not do this. Where are you coming up with this? This isn’t how SROs operated at. all.

I’d love to know where you got these beliefs.

#1 not all schools are the same

#2 most complaints came from teachers in ED classrooms. Are you an ED teacher? I’m glad you agree that SRO’s should not get involved with discipline. That change must please you. It’s explained in the Bethesda magazine article.

Yes, I have worked with ED students in all of my classes. Good attempt at twisting my words, but I can handle discipline in my own classroom while simultaneously being supported by the work of an SRO. There are times I am not equipped to handle a situation, like the weapon that was found in my classroom. I should NOT be expected to handle situations like that, and I should absolutely have the support an an SRO in those cases. The current CEO model doesn’t place the officer close to my classroom, nor does that officer know my children. This is a worse situation. You are welcome to spin it any way you like, of course, but it won’t match my reality nor that of many others with actual experience with SROs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the taking points posted by a PP—very helpful. Condensing, it sounds like there are three major differences with the old SRO program:
— CEOs have a designated work station at the HS but are not stationed there (unclear what this means in practice but I’d guess it means they need to at least report to shift at police station)
— ceos not allowed to patrol hallways or respond to school incidents (unclear what that means—if a security officer says “there are kids using drugs in the bathroom and they are refusing to disperse” can the CEO assist?)
— unlike SROs, ceos do not have primary response for arson or drug distribution. Unclear to me who does have primary response for that….McPS security? Principals?
Taking the second two things in combination, it appears that MCPD no longer has any role in making sure kids aren’t using or selling drugs in schools. That seems to me not ideal.

#1 SRO’s had no place to sit so they had to wonder the halls or sit in their car to write a report. Now they have an office.

#2 means that if a teacher is dealing with a disciplinary issue a cop can’t get involved. Often SRO’s would escalate a simple disciplinary issue that teachers were able to handle and teachers did not feel like they could tell a cop to butt out. SROs now only respond to crimes.

#3 arsons are investigated by fire Marshall’s not cops. The Bethesda mag article explains the “drug” response.

#4 no it not true that cops are not involved in drug enforcement for distribution and dangerous drugs. Anything that is a non criminal drug charge in Montgomery County (aka possession of a small amount of pot or paraphernalia ) will now be dealt with by MCPS discipline .

#1. Our SROs always were given a place to work. They walked the halls, but they also had a “home” for work.

#2. SROs did not step in when I was dealing with discipline in my classroom. They didn’t do that to my colleagues, either. Why? Because, as you said, that would escalate the issue and the teacher would loose authority. So, clearly, SROs did not do this. Where are you coming up with this? This isn’t how SROs operated at. all.

I’d love to know where you got these beliefs.

#1 not all schools are the same

#2 most complaints came from teachers in ED classrooms. Are you an ED teacher? I’m glad you agree that SRO’s should not get involved with discipline. That change must please you. It’s explained in the Bethesda magazine article.

Yes, I have worked with ED students in all of my classes. Good attempt at twisting my words, but I can handle discipline in my own classroom while simultaneously being supported by the work of an SRO. There are times I am not equipped to handle a situation, like the weapon that was found in my classroom. I should NOT be expected to handle situations like that, and I should absolutely have the support an an SRO in those cases. The current CEO model doesn’t place the officer close to my classroom, nor does that officer know my children. This is a worse situation. You are welcome to spin it any way you like, of course, but it won’t match my reality nor that of many others with actual experience with SROs.

A weapon would be a crime and a CEO would be involved. CEO’s are in the school and if you have not been given instructions on how to ask for a response you need to reach out to your principal.

How did you call for the SRO?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the taking points posted by a PP—very helpful. Condensing, it sounds like there are three major differences with the old SRO program:
— CEOs have a designated work station at the HS but are not stationed there (unclear what this means in practice but I’d guess it means they need to at least report to shift at police station)
— ceos not allowed to patrol hallways or respond to school incidents (unclear what that means—if a security officer says “there are kids using drugs in the bathroom and they are refusing to disperse” can the CEO assist?)
— unlike SROs, ceos do not have primary response for arson or drug distribution. Unclear to me who does have primary response for that….McPS security? Principals?
Taking the second two things in combination, it appears that MCPD no longer has any role in making sure kids aren’t using or selling drugs in schools. That seems to me not ideal.

#1 SRO’s had no place to sit so they had to wonder the halls or sit in their car to write a report. Now they have an office.

#2 means that if a teacher is dealing with a disciplinary issue a cop can’t get involved. Often SRO’s would escalate a simple disciplinary issue that teachers were able to handle and teachers did not feel like they could tell a cop to butt out. SROs now only respond to crimes.

#3 arsons are investigated by fire Marshall’s not cops. The Bethesda mag article explains the “drug” response.

#4 no it not true that cops are not involved in drug enforcement for distribution and dangerous drugs. Anything that is a non criminal drug charge in Montgomery County (aka possession of a small amount of pot or paraphernalia ) will now be dealt with by MCPS discipline .

#1. Our SROs always were given a place to work. They walked the halls, but they also had a “home” for work.

#2. SROs did not step in when I was dealing with discipline in my classroom. They didn’t do that to my colleagues, either. Why? Because, as you said, that would escalate the issue and the teacher would loose authority. So, clearly, SROs did not do this. Where are you coming up with this? This isn’t how SROs operated at. all.

I’d love to know where you got these beliefs.

#1 not all schools are the same

#2 most complaints came from teachers in ED classrooms. Are you an ED teacher? I’m glad you agree that SRO’s should not get involved with discipline. That change must please you. It’s explained in the Bethesda magazine article.

Yes, I have worked with ED students in all of my classes. Good attempt at twisting my words, but I can handle discipline in my own classroom while simultaneously being supported by the work of an SRO. There are times I am not equipped to handle a situation, like the weapon that was found in my classroom. I should NOT be expected to handle situations like that, and I should absolutely have the support an an SRO in those cases. The current CEO model doesn’t place the officer close to my classroom, nor does that officer know my children. This is a worse situation. You are welcome to spin it any way you like, of course, but it won’t match my reality nor that of many others with actual experience with SROs.

A weapon would be a crime and a CEO would be involved. CEO’s are in the school and if you have not been given instructions on how to ask for a response you need to reach out to your principal.

How did you call for the SRO?

Quietly simply texted the main office and he was at my door in less than 2 minutes. Since a CEO could be anywhere in a cluster, I doubt I’ll get the same response next time. Also, the SRO already had an established relationship with the student, so the student willingly left the classroom and talked to the trusted officer. A CEO won’t have the same type of relationship.

Again: I come from a place of experience and understanding.