Petition to bring back SROs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our schools don’t need to look or feel like prisons.

I suggest ess t you give the new STO program a chance with the new rules and changes it shall make schools safe for all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The new model will be that you can call the CEO directly but that part has not been implemented yet.

If you can’t text your front office and get the CEO you should report that. Starting Fall 21 CEO’s were back in schools the same way SRO were. Also students can approach CEO’s if they want. CEO’s are just not allowed to create fake relationship with students to purposely narc on them to investigators they have to live by the same privacy rules teachers do unless it’s a criminal investigation.

Again: I have a very novel experience with security in schools as well as cities, events, sports events, and govt buildings.

You are extremely misinformed.

No I’m not. But pushing the narrative that there are no sworn officers at schools is false.

I’m not sure what spreading false information get you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The new model will be that you can call the CEO directly but that part has not been implemented yet.

If you can’t text your front office and get the CEO you should report that. Starting Fall 21 CEO’s were back in schools the same way SRO were. Also students can approach CEO’s if they want. CEO’s are just not allowed to create fake relationship with students to purposely narc on them to investigators they have to live by the same privacy rules teachers do unless it’s a criminal investigation.

Again: I have a very novel experience with security in schools as well as cities, events, sports events, and govt buildings.

You say you have experience with “security,” not with SROs. Your language also shows extreme bias (“fake relationships,” “purposefully narc”). The combination of the two demonstrates we have nothing further to discuss.

I’ve worked with too many amazing SROs to entertain this any further.

Please explain to me how the SROs on site at parkland and uvalde helped?

I am stunned that you keep using the same argument over and over again with no shame.

When all you’ve got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The new model will be that you can call the CEO directly but that part has not been implemented yet.

If you can’t text your front office and get the CEO you should report that. Starting Fall 21 CEO’s were back in schools the same way SRO were. Also students can approach CEO’s if they want. CEO’s are just not allowed to create fake relationship with students to purposely narc on them to investigators they have to live by the same privacy rules teachers do unless it’s a criminal investigation.

Again: I have a very novel experience with security in schools as well as cities, events, sports events, and govt buildings.

You are extremely misinformed.

No I’m not. But pushing the narrative that there are no sworn officers at schools is false.

I’m not sure what spreading false information get you.

Like many here have been telling you..reading is fundamental. CEOs are not the same as SROs. And you have the audacity to spread lies and argue with people who have actual direct experience in the school. Are you Wil Jawando?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our schools don’t need to look or feel like prisons.

I worked in Baltimore city jail. There’s more violence in our high schools than there was there in open population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The new model will be that you can call the CEO directly but that part has not been implemented yet.

If you can’t text your front office and get the CEO you should report that. Starting Fall 21 CEO’s were back in schools the same way SRO were. Also students can approach CEO’s if they want. CEO’s are just not allowed to create fake relationship with students to purposely narc on them to investigators they have to live by the same privacy rules teachers do unless it’s a criminal investigation.

Again: I have a very novel experience with security in schools as well as cities, events, sports events, and govt buildings.

You say you have experience with “security,” not with SROs. Your language also shows extreme bias (“fake relationships,” “purposefully narc”). The combination of the two demonstrates we have nothing further to discuss.

I’ve worked with too many amazing SROs to entertain this any further.

Please explain to me how the SROs on site at parkland and uvalde helped?

It's well known that SROs do almost nothing for school safety and in many cases have made matters worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our schools don’t need to look or feel like prisons.

I worked in Baltimore city jail. There’s more violence in our high schools than there was there in open population.

Kids who are violent and assaulting others would be charged with felony assault and jailed so there are serious consequences for these actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our schools don’t need to look or feel like prisons.

I've often wondered why the far-right astroturfers that post here are obsessed with turning schools into prisons. Maybe their test data indicates it's a strong wedge issue among uninformed voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The new model will be that you can call the CEO directly but that part has not been implemented yet.

If you can’t text your front office and get the CEO you should report that. Starting Fall 21 CEO’s were back in schools the same way SRO were. Also students can approach CEO’s if they want. CEO’s are just not allowed to create fake relationship with students to purposely narc on them to investigators they have to live by the same privacy rules teachers do unless it’s a criminal investigation.

Again: I have a very novel experience with security in schools as well as cities, events, sports events, and govt buildings.

You are extremely misinformed.

No I’m not. But pushing the narrative that there are no sworn officers at schools is false.

I’m not sure what spreading false information get you.

Like many here have been telling you..reading is fundamental. CEOs are not the same as SROs. And you have the audacity to spread lies and argue with people who have actual direct experience in the school. Are you Wil Jawando?

So you lie for political reasons. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our schools don’t need to look or feel like prisons.

I've often wondered why the far-right astroturfers that post here are obsessed with turning schools into prisons. Maybe their test data indicates it's a strong wedge issue among uninformed voters.

I don’t think I’ve seen any far right astroturfers posting here (but certainly have in other threads). People pushing for the metal detectors (which I’m opposed to because I think they are ineffective) are definitely parents — the RM meeting about the guns had a LOT of parents requesting metal detectors. I’m one of the parents that does want more security so my kid doesn’t have to hold her pee until open lunch and go at Panera. I’ve also still got questions about the difference between the CEO and SRO program. Based on the bullet point chart summarizing the new MOU, it appears there are some material differences with respect to enforcement of the laws regarding drug distribution and the officer’s abilities to be a deterrent presence in the hallways. I’m a liberal progressive but I’m actually in favor of trained law enforcement and I think our MCPD officers are generally pretty good (not unverizally, but unfortunately no group is universally good).

Fwiw, I went to HS in the 80s and we had an officer in school in plain clothes but everyone knew he was an officer, and everyone knew his sole purpose standing there was to ensure no drug deals at least in the hallway where he was standing. The school security officers mainly just gave out disciplinary slips if you were in the hallway during class without a hall pass. Guns weren’t as much of an issue back then because even though I lived in the Wild West with few gun laws, guns were actually expensive back then so really not a lot of people had them. People had switchblades in their boots or pockets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our schools don’t need to look or feel like prisons.

I've often wondered why the far-right astroturfers that post here are obsessed with turning schools into prisons. Maybe their test data indicates it's a strong wedge issue among uninformed voters.

No one wants to turn schools into prisons. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Students and staff want to be in a safe learning environment. Just like in PG County: https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/education/pgcps-school-board-vote-school-resource-officers/65-551556ee-53c7-4288-acff-255dc8b01b58
I'm also not a far-right astroturfer so way to go on making assumptions there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our schools don’t need to look or feel like prisons.

I've often wondered why the far-right astroturfers that post here are obsessed with turning schools into prisons. Maybe their test data indicates it's a strong wedge issue among uninformed voters.

No one wants to turn schools into prisons. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Students and staff want to be in a safe learning environment. Just like in PG County: https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/education/pgcps-school-board-vote-school-resource-officers/65-551556ee-53c7-4288-acff-255dc8b01b58
I'm also not a far-right astroturfer so way to go on making assumptions there.

PG county reduced their security staff in schools with arrest powers by 2/3.

Also their program is almost exactly the same as MCPS except PG assigns 1 teacher/school and MCPS assigns a team to a group of schools do they have coverage for sick days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The new model will be that you can call the CEO directly but that part has not been implemented yet.

If you can’t text your front office and get the CEO you should report that. Starting Fall 21 CEO’s were back in schools the same way SRO were. Also students can approach CEO’s if they want. CEO’s are just not allowed to create fake relationship with students to purposely narc on them to investigators they have to live by the same privacy rules teachers do unless it’s a criminal investigation.

Again: I have a very novel experience with security in schools as well as cities, events, sports events, and govt buildings.

You say you have experience with “security,” not with SROs. Your language also shows extreme bias (“fake relationships,” “purposefully narc”). The combination of the two demonstrates we have nothing further to discuss.

I’ve worked with too many amazing SROs to entertain this any further.

Please explain to me how the SROs on site at parkland and uvalde helped?

It's well known that SROs do almost nothing for school safety and in many cases have made matters worse.

Again you keep saying this, but post no evidence of how this applies to Montgomery County, or even Maryland. What incidents in Montgomery County can you refer to in which having the SROs have made matters worse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our schools don’t need to look or feel like prisons.

I've often wondered why the far-right astroturfers that post here are obsessed with turning schools into prisons. Maybe their test data indicates it's a strong wedge issue among uninformed voters.

I don’t think I’ve seen any far right astroturfers posting here (but certainly have in other threads). People pushing for the metal detectors (which I’m opposed to because I think they are ineffective) are definitely parents — the RM meeting about the guns had a LOT of parents requesting metal detectors. I’m one of the parents that does want more security so my kid doesn’t have to hold her pee until open lunch and go at Panera. I’ve also still got questions about the difference between the CEO and SRO program. Based on the bullet point chart summarizing the new MOU, it appears there are some material differences with respect to enforcement of the laws regarding drug distribution and the officer’s abilities to be a deterrent presence in the hallways. I’m a liberal progressive but I’m actually in favor of trained law enforcement and I think our MCPD officers are generally pretty good (not unverizally, but unfortunately no group is universally good).

Fwiw, I went to HS in the 80s and we had an officer in school in plain clothes but everyone knew he was an officer, and everyone knew his sole purpose standing there was to ensure no drug deals at least in the hallway where he was standing. The school security officers mainly just gave out disciplinary slips if you were in the hallway during class without a hall pass. Guns weren’t as much of an issue back then because even though I lived in the Wild West with few gun laws, guns were actually expensive back then so really not a lot of people had them. People had switchblades in their boots or pockets.

What questions do you have?

The only change to drug enforcement is possession of small amounts of pot and paraphernalia (which are citations in MC not criminal) are now discipline issues not crimes. Basically MCPS deals with these issues instead of cops,

I grew up in MCOS in the 80’s and we had way more drugs back then and we could smoke in the student lounge but the drugs didn’t kill us like fentanyl. Fights worked th we Marlee’s out cops and teachers did not get involved.

[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: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.

The new model will be that you can call the CEO directly but that part has not been implemented yet.

If you can’t text your front office and get the CEO you should report that. Starting Fall 21 CEO’s were back in schools the same way SRO were. Also students can approach CEO’s if they want. CEO’s are just not allowed to create fake relationship with students to purposely narc on them to investigators they have to live by the same privacy rules teachers do unless it’s a criminal investigation.

Again: I have a very novel experience with security in schools as well as cities, events, sports events, and govt buildings.

You say you have experience with “security,” not with SROs. Your language also shows extreme bias (“fake relationships,” “purposefully narc”). The combination of the two demonstrates we have nothing further to discuss.

I’ve worked with too many amazing SROs to entertain this any further.

Please explain to me how the SROs on site at parkland and uvalde helped?

It's well known that SROs do almost nothing for school safety and in many cases have made matters worse.

Again you keep saying this, but post no evidence of how this applies to Montgomery County, or even Maryland. What incidents in Montgomery County can you refer to in which having the SROs have made matters worse?

It was shown that SROs created many false arrests and provided bad information to investigators. They will no longer be used in this capacity.