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: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.

Source please? The fact is only 3% of incidents that were handled by SROs in MCPS resulted in an arrest.

That doesn’t count the arrests made by investigators with SRO information..

Also why don’t they publicize how many of those arrests were false?

How is that different from arrests made from teacher/staff/administration information?

Its extra staff in the schools that MCPS isn't paying for as it comes out of police funding not MCPS.

What is your solution? You have yet to give us any. Incidents are up.

The solution is that cops are only called when there is a crime.

When there is no crime (which is 97% of the time) it is referred to MCPS disciplinary proceedings.

That should free cops up for law enforcement.

They are not a concierge service.

So, you have no solution to keeping our kids safe in MCPS. Why wait till a crime happens when it could possibly be prevented? You want your child raped, beaten, etc. when if a SRO was there to prevent it, it could save them from a lot of pain and trauma. Or, are you one of those people with magical thinking that nothing bad could ever happen to you?

[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: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.

Source please? The fact is only 3% of incidents that were handled by SROs in MCPS resulted in an arrest.

So 97% of the time SROs got invoked they were not needed because no crime was committed.

That’s not remotely how the data works:
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/Resources/Files/SRO/MCPD-SRO-FAQ.pdf

Take a look at pages 8-10. SROs do more than issue arrests. I posted this above on this thread: they are part of a community and serve a valuable role. Teachers can’t do what they do, nor can administrators.

You want cops delivering food? Really? Ffs!

Actually, yes, I do want them to deliver food. Not everyone had transportation or the ability to get to the school during the workday and it was a good way to have eyes on kids that might be at risk at home. Think about it logically. It wasn't just about the food. It was about student safety at home as well. Having kids have access to food at home is pretty important. Not everyone has your privilege.

It’s also a good way for an SRO type cast a poor kid as trouble when they previously thought they were quiet good students.

I’m sure the PTA has enough hands to get food to children, or have a church earn their tax free status.

Our PTA doesn't have enough volunteers. Nor do most places. The food is not just about the food. You really live in a bubble. And, it's also not about the child being a good child. Its a welfare check on kids to make sure they are ok if they are with bad parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But in school they are protected. That is the point. Schools do not call police for things that would be called immediately in the open population. Fights, assaults, rapes, theft, drugs, etc…

Administration’s job is to keep the school having the least amount of cases reported against them. It’s pretty scary what goes on that most aren’t aware of. And the police are frustrated when a parent has to be the one to contact them and the school does very little to help the victim or the police due to confidentiality.

No they aren't protected. Crime is a crime even in schools. You still have the right to file charges and an obligation to your community to ensure that violent criminals are removed.

Yes they are protected. The PP is right. Even when there is a crime during school, MCPS does not have to call the police. That is the whole point. And when you have to contact the police on your own, the police have a hard time obtaining anything from the school. They always say that MCPS has been trying to keep police out of the school for years now. I know this first hand because it happened to my child and it was a terrible situation. The school did more to protect themselves than to protect my child.

[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: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.

Source please? The fact is only 3% of incidents that were handled by SROs in MCPS resulted in an arrest.

That doesn’t count the arrests made by investigators with SRO information..

Also why don’t they publicize how many of those arrests were false?

How is that different from arrests made from teacher/staff/administration information?

Its extra staff in the schools that MCPS isn't paying for as it comes out of police funding not MCPS.

What is your solution? You have yet to give us any. Incidents are up.

The solution is that cops are only called when there is a crime.

When there is no crime (which is 97% of the time) it is referred to MCPS disciplinary proceedings.

That should free cops up for law enforcement.

They are not a concierge service.

So, you have no solution to keeping our kids safe in MCPS. Why wait till a crime happens when it could possibly be prevented? You want your child raped, beaten, etc. when if a SRO was there to prevent it, it could save them from a lot of pain and trauma. Or, are you one of those people with magical thinking that nothing bad could ever happen to you?

This is like fearmongering straight out of the 1960s daisy commercial.

[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: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.

Source please? The fact is only 3% of incidents that were handled by SROs in MCPS resulted in an arrest.

So 97% of the time SROs got invoked they were not needed because no crime was committed.

That’s not remotely how the data works:
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/Resources/Files/SRO/MCPD-SRO-FAQ.pdf

Take a look at pages 8-10. SROs do more than issue arrests. I posted this above on this thread: they are part of a community and serve a valuable role. Teachers can’t do what they do, nor can administrators.

You want cops delivering food? Really? Ffs!

Actually, yes, I do want them to deliver food. Not everyone had transportation or the ability to get to the school during the workday and it was a good way to have eyes on kids that might be at risk at home. Think about it logically. It wasn't just about the food. It was about student safety at home as well. Having kids have access to food at home is pretty important. Not everyone has your privilege.

It’s also a good way for an SRO type cast a poor kid as trouble when they previously thought they were quiet good students.

I’m sure the PTA has enough hands to get food to children, or have a church earn their tax free status.

I’m still waiting for one of the anti-SRO posters to provide data that backs up this absurd argument about typecasting kids and intentionally getting them in trouble. Would somebody please point to MCPS data that shows SROs behaving this way?

I have worked with great SROs who helped bridge gaps between police and the community. They proved themselves to be great resources for the students, and many students actively sought them out. Show me MCPS or MoCo data that demonstrates these bonds were somehow insincere,

[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: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.

Source please? The fact is only 3% of incidents that were handled by SROs in MCPS resulted in an arrest.

That doesn’t count the arrests made by investigators with SRO information..

Also why don’t they publicize how many of those arrests were false?

How is that different from arrests made from teacher/staff/administration information?

Its extra staff in the schools that MCPS isn't paying for as it comes out of police funding not MCPS.

What is your solution? You have yet to give us any. Incidents are up.

The solution is that cops are only called when there is a crime.

When there is no crime (which is 97% of the time) it is referred to MCPS disciplinary proceedings.

That should free cops up for law enforcement.

They are not a concierge service.

So, you have no solution to keeping our kids safe in MCPS. Why wait till a crime happens when it could possibly be prevented? You want your child raped, beaten, etc. when if a SRO was there to prevent it, it could save them from a lot of pain and trauma. Or, are you one of those people with magical thinking that nothing bad could ever happen to you?

Definitely need to keep out the SROs if you are concerned about kid safety. Just can't help but think about Tyre Nichols.

[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: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.

Source please? The fact is only 3% of incidents that were handled by SROs in MCPS resulted in an arrest.

So 97% of the time SROs got invoked they were not needed because no crime was committed.

That’s not remotely how the data works:
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/Resources/Files/SRO/MCPD-SRO-FAQ.pdf

Take a look at pages 8-10. SROs do more than issue arrests. I posted this above on this thread: they are part of a community and serve a valuable role. Teachers can’t do what they do, nor can administrators.

You want cops delivering food? Really? Ffs!

Actually, yes, I do want them to deliver food. Not everyone had transportation or the ability to get to the school during the workday and it was a good way to have eyes on kids that might be at risk at home. Think about it logically. It wasn't just about the food. It was about student safety at home as well. Having kids have access to food at home is pretty important. Not everyone has your privilege.

It’s also a good way for an SRO type cast a poor kid as trouble when they previously thought they were quiet good students.

I’m sure the PTA has enough hands to get food to children, or have a church earn their tax free status.

I’m still waiting for one of the anti-SRO posters to provide data that backs up this absurd argument about typecasting kids and intentionally getting them in trouble. Would somebody please point to MCPS data that shows SROs behaving this way?

I have worked with great SROs who helped bridge gaps between police and the community. They proved themselves to be great resources for the students, and many students actively sought them out. Show me MCPS or MoCo data that demonstrates these bonds were somehow insincere,

I've been waiting for the pro SRO protestors to also provide any data. I heard there were SROs at Parkland and Uvalde and that didn't do any good. It's clear they aren't that helpful if you are concerned about safety so not sure what the point is exactly.

[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: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.

Source please? The fact is only 3% of incidents that were handled by SROs in MCPS resulted in an arrest.

That doesn’t count the arrests made by investigators with SRO information..

Also why don’t they publicize how many of those arrests were false?

How is that different from arrests made from teacher/staff/administration information?

Its extra staff in the schools that MCPS isn't paying for as it comes out of police funding not MCPS.

What is your solution? You have yet to give us any. Incidents are up.

The solution is that cops are only called when there is a crime.

When there is no crime (which is 97% of the time) it is referred to MCPS disciplinary proceedings.

That should free cops up for law enforcement.

They are not a concierge service.

The presence of police also acts as deterrents. If your neighborhood is known to have a lot of crime, wouldn't you want cops patrolling around 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: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.

Source please? The fact is only 3% of incidents that were handled by SROs in MCPS resulted in an arrest.

That doesn’t count the arrests made by investigators with SRO information..

Also why don’t they publicize how many of those arrests were false?

How is that different from arrests made from teacher/staff/administration information?

Its extra staff in the schools that MCPS isn't paying for as it comes out of police funding not MCPS.

What is your solution? You have yet to give us any. Incidents are up.

The solution is that cops are only called when there is a crime.

When there is no crime (which is 97% of the time) it is referred to MCPS disciplinary proceedings.

That should free cops up for law enforcement.

They are not a concierge service.

So, you have no solution to keeping our kids safe in MCPS. Why wait till a crime happens when it could possibly be prevented? You want your child raped, beaten, etc. when if a SRO was there to prevent it, it could save them from a lot of pain and trauma. Or, are you one of those people with magical thinking that nothing bad could ever happen to you?

There is an SRO there, they just don’t discipline or deliver food.

[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: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.

Source please? The fact is only 3% of incidents that were handled by SROs in MCPS resulted in an arrest.

So 97% of the time SROs got invoked they were not needed because no crime was committed.

That’s not remotely how the data works:
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/Resources/Files/SRO/MCPD-SRO-FAQ.pdf

Take a look at pages 8-10. SROs do more than issue arrests. I posted this above on this thread: they are part of a community and serve a valuable role. Teachers can’t do what they do, nor can administrators.

You want cops delivering food? Really? Ffs!

Actually, yes, I do want them to deliver food. Not everyone had transportation or the ability to get to the school during the workday and it was a good way to have eyes on kids that might be at risk at home. Think about it logically. It wasn't just about the food. It was about student safety at home as well. Having kids have access to food at home is pretty important. Not everyone has your privilege.

It’s also a good way for an SRO type cast a poor kid as trouble when they previously thought they were quiet good students.

I’m sure the PTA has enough hands to get food to children, or have a church earn their tax free status.

Our PTA doesn't have enough volunteers. Nor do most places. The food is not just about the food. You really live in a bubble. And, it's also not about the child being a good child. Its a welfare check on kids to make sure they are ok if they are with bad parents.

Why are you only checking on “certain” children?

[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: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.

Source please? The fact is only 3% of incidents that were handled by SROs in MCPS resulted in an arrest.

That doesn’t count the arrests made by investigators with SRO information..

Also why don’t they publicize how many of those arrests were false?

How is that different from arrests made from teacher/staff/administration information?

Its extra staff in the schools that MCPS isn't paying for as it comes out of police funding not MCPS.

What is your solution? You have yet to give us any. Incidents are up.

The solution is that cops are only called when there is a crime.

When there is no crime (which is 97% of the time) it is referred to MCPS disciplinary proceedings.

That should free cops up for law enforcement.

They are not a concierge service.

The presence of police also acts as deterrents. If your neighborhood is known to have a lot of crime, wouldn't you want cops patrolling around there?

If your teens like to dress in black and play capture the flag with fake guns do you want cops just rolling through?

[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: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.

Source please? The fact is only 3% of incidents that were handled by SROs in MCPS resulted in an arrest.

That doesn’t count the arrests made by investigators with SRO information..

Also why don’t they publicize how many of those arrests were false?

How is that different from arrests made from teacher/staff/administration information?

Its extra staff in the schools that MCPS isn't paying for as it comes out of police funding not MCPS.

What is your solution? You have yet to give us any. Incidents are up.

The solution is that cops are only called when there is a crime.

When there is no crime (which is 97% of the time) it is referred to MCPS disciplinary proceedings.

That should free cops up for law enforcement.

They are not a concierge service.

So, you have no solution to keeping our kids safe in MCPS. Why wait till a crime happens when it could possibly be prevented? You want your child raped, beaten, etc. when if a SRO was there to prevent it, it could save them from a lot of pain and trauma. Or, are you one of those people with magical thinking that nothing bad could ever happen to you?

Definitely need to keep out the SROs if you are concerned about kid safety. Just can't help but think about Tyre Nichols.

Tyre Nichols was an adult and the police brutality in his case had nothing to do with schools or teens. So it’s a stretch to apply it here.

Your argument only would make sense if you weighted violent or negative offenses between police and youth over violent offenses between students. Even though the vast majority of offenses occur between students and not police, and what drives kids to not feel safe at school by far is the dangerous or destructive behavior by their peers, not the police.

[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: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.

Source please? The fact is only 3% of incidents that were handled by SROs in MCPS resulted in an arrest.

So 97% of the time SROs got invoked they were not needed because no crime was committed.

That’s not remotely how the data works:
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/Resources/Files/SRO/MCPD-SRO-FAQ.pdf

Take a look at pages 8-10. SROs do more than issue arrests. I posted this above on this thread: they are part of a community and serve a valuable role. Teachers can’t do what they do, nor can administrators.

You want cops delivering food? Really? Ffs!

Actually, yes, I do want them to deliver food. Not everyone had transportation or the ability to get to the school during the workday and it was a good way to have eyes on kids that might be at risk at home. Think about it logically. It wasn't just about the food. It was about student safety at home as well. Having kids have access to food at home is pretty important. Not everyone has your privilege.

It’s also a good way for an SRO type cast a poor kid as trouble when they previously thought they were quiet good students.

I’m sure the PTA has enough hands to get food to children, or have a church earn their tax free status.

I’m still waiting for one of the anti-SRO posters to provide data that backs up this absurd argument about typecasting kids and intentionally getting them in trouble. Would somebody please point to MCPS data that shows SROs behaving this way?

I have worked with great SROs who helped bridge gaps between police and the community. They proved themselves to be great resources for the students, and many students actively sought them out. Show me MCPS or MoCo data that demonstrates these bonds were somehow insincere,

I've been waiting for the pro SRO protestors to also provide any data. I heard there were SROs at Parkland and Uvalde and that didn't do any good. It's clear they aren't that helpful if you are concerned about safety so not sure what the point is exactly.

I already have provided data. There are multiple links throughout this thread with data specific to MCPS. You are welcome to go review them all. Once again, your frequent references to Parkland or Uvalde aren’t making the statement you think they are, especially since the topic of this sub thread is allegations that SROs frame students. Provide local data and respond to that topic, please.

[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: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.

Source please? The fact is only 3% of incidents that were handled by SROs in MCPS resulted in an arrest.

So 97% of the time SROs got invoked they were not needed because no crime was committed.

That’s not remotely how the data works:
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/Resources/Files/SRO/MCPD-SRO-FAQ.pdf

Take a look at pages 8-10. SROs do more than issue arrests. I posted this above on this thread: they are part of a community and serve a valuable role. Teachers can’t do what they do, nor can administrators.

You want cops delivering food? Really? Ffs!

Actually, yes, I do want them to deliver food. Not everyone had transportation or the ability to get to the school during the workday and it was a good way to have eyes on kids that might be at risk at home. Think about it logically. It wasn't just about the food. It was about student safety at home as well. Having kids have access to food at home is pretty important. Not everyone has your privilege.

It’s also a good way for an SRO type cast a poor kid as trouble when they previously thought they were quiet good students.

I’m sure the PTA has enough hands to get food to children, or have a church earn their tax free status.

Our PTA doesn't have enough volunteers. Nor do most places. The food is not just about the food. You really live in a bubble. And, it's also not about the child being a good child. Its a welfare check on kids to make sure they are ok if they are with bad parents.

Why are you only checking on “certain” children?

They checked on anyone requesting food delivery. Parents request it.

[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: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.

Source please? The fact is only 3% of incidents that were handled by SROs in MCPS resulted in an arrest.

So 97% of the time SROs got invoked they were not needed because no crime was committed.

That’s not remotely how the data works:
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/Resources/Files/SRO/MCPD-SRO-FAQ.pdf

Take a look at pages 8-10. SROs do more than issue arrests. I posted this above on this thread: they are part of a community and serve a valuable role. Teachers can’t do what they do, nor can administrators.

You want cops delivering food? Really? Ffs!

Actually, yes, I do want them to deliver food. Not everyone had transportation or the ability to get to the school during the workday and it was a good way to have eyes on kids that might be at risk at home. Think about it logically. It wasn't just about the food. It was about student safety at home as well. Having kids have access to food at home is pretty important. Not everyone has your privilege.

It’s also a good way for an SRO type cast a poor kid as trouble when they previously thought they were quiet good students.

I’m sure the PTA has enough hands to get food to children, or have a church earn their tax free status.

Our PTA doesn't have enough volunteers. Nor do most places. The food is not just about the food. You really live in a bubble. And, it's also not about the child being a good child. Its a welfare check on kids to make sure they are ok if they are with bad parents.

Why are you only checking on “certain” children?

They checked on anyone requesting food delivery. Parents request it.

People ask for cops to deliver food? Have you thought after the 1st delivery and they realized a cop was swinging by they stopped asking for food?

You want a check the welfare on only poor kids? Why? You don’t think kids with food get abused? See how you are just setting poor people up to have more negative interaction with police?