Petition to bring back SROs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You post data but the data does not support your position.

There were 269 incidents SROs handled, only nine were initiated by SRO’s, 260 were reported by staff. Meaning just having SROs around is not necessary, staff can call for them.

Also only 3% were real … 8. 261 never needed an SRO.

SRO’s handled 8 real incidents that needed a cop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

DP. Provide proof this actually happens. Actual proof.

Also, you have completely misinterpreted that original document, which showed how SROs interacted within schools and as part of the community. You latched onto one note (a reference to a service activity) and chose to ignore all of the valuable data in that long document.

[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.

I think this is what it boils down to. Some of the posters don’t want Police trying to build relationship with the community or the kids because the distrust is so high they only see officers trying to take advantage. Other posters see a benefit to officers that know the kids as people not just perps, and see relationships as a way to funnel information to officers to prevent crime (not just to snitch on other kids to get them into trouble). I think the former group feels like you never go to law enforcement unless you really have no choice because the risks of interacting with law enfocrement put weight the be benefits.
I really would love for McPS to do an anonymous survey, linked to student IDs (which also means it could be sorted by school and demographics like the PArc scores) that asked whether parents support SROs in schools. I really would like to see the results of that. I really don’t know what those results would look like. Then they should do the same with teachers and counselors.

[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.

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.

I think this is what it boils down to. Some of the posters don’t want Police trying to build relationship with the community or the kids because the distrust is so high they only see officers trying to take advantage. Other posters see a benefit to officers that know the kids as people not just perps, and see relationships as a way to funnel information to officers to prevent crime (not just to snitch on other kids to get them into trouble). I think the former group feels like you never go to law enforcement unless you really have no choice because the risks of interacting with law enfocrement put weight the be benefits.
I really would love for McPS to do an anonymous survey, linked to student IDs (which also means it could be sorted by school and demographics like the PArc scores) that asked whether parents support SROs in schools. I really would like to see the results of that. I really don’t know what those results would look like. Then they should do the same with teachers and counselors.

PGCPS did a surgery similar to that:
https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/pgcps/Board.nsf/files/BX4VD4802E1E/%24file/CEO%27s%20Rec%20School%20Safety%20and%20Security%20Report%2001142021.pdf

I would love to see MCPS conduct a similar survey. I suspect results would mirror PGCPS, in which over 80% of respondents view the SRO program favorably.

Meanwhile, MCPS held a focus group with three students. Three.
https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/C2S2RR727C3F/$file/SRO%20Program%20210511.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You post data but the data does not support your position.

There were 269 incidents SROs handled, only nine were initiated by SRO’s, 260 were reported by staff. Meaning just having SROs around is not necessary, staff can call for them.

Also only 3% were real … 8. 261 never needed an SRO.

SRO’s handled 8 real incidents that needed a cop.

Once again, this is a misinterpretation of the data. You have grossly oversimplified a very clear report, distorting the information to support your view. My point stands. That report clearly shows how SROs are a member of school communities. It outlines their responsibilities, training, and examples of their work.

Please provide your opposing data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

DP. Provide proof this actually happens. Actual proof.

Also, you have completely misinterpreted that original document, which showed how SROs interacted within schools and as part of the community. You latched onto one note (a reference to a service activity) and chose to ignore all of the valuable data in that long document.

I read the whole thing and found nothing of value.

I found 97% of interactions were unnecessary

[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.

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.

I think this is what it boils down to. Some of the posters don’t want Police trying to build relationship with the community or the kids because the distrust is so high they only see officers trying to take advantage. Other posters see a benefit to officers that know the kids as people not just perps, and see relationships as a way to funnel information to officers to prevent crime (not just to snitch on other kids to get them into trouble). I think the former group feels like you never go to law enforcement unless you really have no choice because the risks of interacting with law enfocrement put weight the be benefits.
I really would love for McPS to do an anonymous survey, linked to student IDs (which also means it could be sorted by school and demographics like the PArc scores) that asked whether parents support SROs in schools. I really would like to see the results of that. I really don’t know what those results would look like. Then they should do the same with teachers and counselors.

I would like to know how many parents had to hire a lawyer for the 97 % of interaction that never needed a cop.

I’d like to know how often SRO’s provided bad info to investigators based on their bias.

[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.

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.

I think this is what it boils down to. Some of the posters don’t want Police trying to build relationship with the community or the kids because the distrust is so high they only see officers trying to take advantage. Other posters see a benefit to officers that know the kids as people not just perps, and see relationships as a way to funnel information to officers to prevent crime (not just to snitch on other kids to get them into trouble). I think the former group feels like you never go to law enforcement unless you really have no choice because the risks of interacting with law enfocrement put weight the be benefits.
I really would love for McPS to do an anonymous survey, linked to student IDs (which also means it could be sorted by school and demographics like the PArc scores) that asked whether parents support SROs in schools. I really would like to see the results of that. I really don’t know what those results would look like. Then they should do the same with teachers and counselors.

I would like to know how many parents had to hire a lawyer for the 97 % of interaction that never needed a cop.

I’d like to know how often SRO’s provided bad info to investigators based on their bias.

DP.
We are still waiting for a poster above to provide that data for us. I’ve asked twice now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You post data but the data does not support your position.

There were 269 incidents SROs handled, only nine were initiated by SRO’s, 260 were reported by staff. Meaning just having SROs around is not necessary, staff can call for them.

Also only 3% were real … 8. 261 never needed an SRO.

SRO’s handled 8 real incidents that needed a cop.

Once again, this is a misinterpretation of the data. You have grossly oversimplified a very clear report, distorting the information to support your view. My point stands. That report clearly shows how SROs are a member of school communities. It outlines their responsibilities, training, and examples of their work.

Please provide your opposing data.

97% of their negative interactions were not necessary.

NINTY SEVEN PERCENT!

their success rate is 3%.

Maybe that’s an A at MCPS.

[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.

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.

I think this is what it boils down to. Some of the posters don’t want Police trying to build relationship with the community or the kids because the distrust is so high they only see officers trying to take advantage. Other posters see a benefit to officers that know the kids as people not just perps, and see relationships as a way to funnel information to officers to prevent crime (not just to snitch on other kids to get them into trouble). I think the former group feels like you never go to law enforcement unless you really have no choice because the risks of interacting with law enfocrement put weight the be benefits.
I really would love for McPS to do an anonymous survey, linked to student IDs (which also means it could be sorted by school and demographics like the PArc scores) that asked whether parents support SROs in schools. I really would like to see the results of that. I really don’t know what those results would look like. Then they should do the same with teachers and counselors.

I would like to know how many parents had to hire a lawyer for the 97 % of interaction that never needed a cop.

I’d like to know how often SRO’s provided bad info to investigators based on their bias.

DP.
We are still waiting for a poster above to provide that data for us. I’ve asked twice now.

You think mc police and the state’s attorney office will share that.

But you don’t care because it wasn’t your 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:

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.

I think this is what it boils down to. Some of the posters don’t want Police trying to build relationship with the community or the kids because the distrust is so high they only see officers trying to take advantage. Other posters see a benefit to officers that know the kids as people not just perps, and see relationships as a way to funnel information to officers to prevent crime (not just to snitch on other kids to get them into trouble). I think the former group feels like you never go to law enforcement unless you really have no choice because the risks of interacting with law enfocrement put weight the be benefits.
I really would love for McPS to do an anonymous survey, linked to student IDs (which also means it could be sorted by school and demographics like the PArc scores) that asked whether parents support SROs in schools. I really would like to see the results of that. I really don’t know what those results would look like. Then they should do the same with teachers and counselors.

I would like to know how many parents had to hire a lawyer for the 97 % of interaction that never needed a cop.

I’d like to know how often SRO’s provided bad info to investigators based on their bias.

DP.
We are still waiting for a poster above to provide that data for us. I’ve asked twice now.

You think mc police and the state’s attorney office will share that.

But you don’t care because it wasn’t your child.

I’m a teacher. I do care about my “children.” I’ve taught over 2,700. I’d care quite deeply to hear if something like this has happened to one of them. Don’t try that character attack on me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think this is what it boils down to. Some of the posters don’t want Police trying to build relationship with the community or the kids because the distrust is so high they only see officers trying to take advantage. Other posters see a benefit to officers that know the kids as people not just perps, and see relationships as a way to funnel information to officers to prevent crime (not just to snitch on other kids to get them into trouble). I think the former group feels like you never go to law enforcement unless you really have no choice because the risks of interacting with law enfocrement put weight the be benefits.
I really would love for McPS to do an anonymous survey, linked to student IDs (which also means it could be sorted by school and demographics like the PArc scores) that asked whether parents support SROs in schools. I really would like to see the results of that. I really don’t know what those results would look like. Then they should do the same with teachers and counselors.

I would like to know how many parents had to hire a lawyer for the 97 % of interaction that never needed a cop.

I’d like to know how often SRO’s provided bad info to investigators based on their bias.

DP.
We are still waiting for a poster above to provide that data for us. I’ve asked twice now.

You think mc police and the state’s attorney office will share that.

But you don’t care because it wasn’t your child.

I’m a teacher. I do care about my “children.” I’ve taught over 2,700. I’d care quite deeply to hear if something like this has happened to one of them. Don’t try that character attack on me.

Well it happens and it’s traumatic. It’s literally trauma. What HS are you in that you don’t know this happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think this is what it boils down to. Some of the posters don’t want Police trying to build relationship with the community or the kids because the distrust is so high they only see officers trying to take advantage. Other posters see a benefit to officers that know the kids as people not just perps, and see relationships as a way to funnel information to officers to prevent crime (not just to snitch on other kids to get them into trouble). I think the former group feels like you never go to law enforcement unless you really have no choice because the risks of interacting with law enfocrement put weight the be benefits.
I really would love for McPS to do an anonymous survey, linked to student IDs (which also means it could be sorted by school and demographics like the PArc scores) that asked whether parents support SROs in schools. I really would like to see the results of that. I really don’t know what those results would look like. Then they should do the same with teachers and counselors.

I would like to know how many parents had to hire a lawyer for the 97 % of interaction that never needed a cop.

I’d like to know how often SRO’s provided bad info to investigators based on their bias.

DP.
We are still waiting for a poster above to provide that data for us. I’ve asked twice now.

You think mc police and the state’s attorney office will share that.

But you don’t care because it wasn’t your child.

I’m a teacher. I do care about my “children.” I’ve taught over 2,700. I’d care quite deeply to hear if something like this has happened to one of them. Don’t try that character attack on me.

So, you don't have kids or actually care. You don't have to deal with the short and long term of a real trauma to a child and just go on about your day. You can fake pretend while doing nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think this is what it boils down to. Some of the posters don’t want Police trying to build relationship with the community or the kids because the distrust is so high they only see officers trying to take advantage. Other posters see a benefit to officers that know the kids as people not just perps, and see relationships as a way to funnel information to officers to prevent crime (not just to snitch on other kids to get them into trouble). I think the former group feels like you never go to law enforcement unless you really have no choice because the risks of interacting with law enfocrement put weight the be benefits.
I really would love for McPS to do an anonymous survey, linked to student IDs (which also means it could be sorted by school and demographics like the PArc scores) that asked whether parents support SROs in schools. I really would like to see the results of that. I really don’t know what those results would look like. Then they should do the same with teachers and counselors.

I would like to know how many parents had to hire a lawyer for the 97 % of interaction that never needed a cop.

I’d like to know how often SRO’s provided bad info to investigators based on their bias.

DP.
We are still waiting for a poster above to provide that data for us. I’ve asked twice now.

You think mc police and the state’s attorney office will share that.

But you don’t care because it wasn’t your child.

I’m a teacher. I do care about my “children.” I’ve taught over 2,700. I’d care quite deeply to hear if something like this has happened to one of them. Don’t try that character attack on me.

Well it happens and it’s traumatic. It’s literally trauma. What HS are you in that you don’t know this happens.

I don’t discredit the idea this has happened somewhere to someone, and I would agree would be traumatic. Was this in MCPS? Poor behavior on the part of an SRO would NOT be tolerated. I posted a link above that shows how many people one SRO reports to, what type of training they do so they can be sensitive to teen needs, etc.

As for what school, I’m not putting that online. I will say that I’ve seen so many positive interactions. My students have even asked the SRO to sit in on class briefly, or sit with them for a bit at lunch. What I’ve seen is students form strong relationships, and I’ve seen them value the SRO as a trusted adult in the building. I watched one of my 12th graders actively seek him out to talk after a bad weekend. I watched another get excited to see the SRO at his evening game. I have dozens of stories like these. Dozens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think this is what it boils down to. Some of the posters don’t want Police trying to build relationship with the community or the kids because the distrust is so high they only see officers trying to take advantage. Other posters see a benefit to officers that know the kids as people not just perps, and see relationships as a way to funnel information to officers to prevent crime (not just to snitch on other kids to get them into trouble). I think the former group feels like you never go to law enforcement unless you really have no choice because the risks of interacting with law enfocrement put weight the be benefits.
I really would love for McPS to do an anonymous survey, linked to student IDs (which also means it could be sorted by school and demographics like the PArc scores) that asked whether parents support SROs in schools. I really would like to see the results of that. I really don’t know what those results would look like. Then they should do the same with teachers and counselors.

I would like to know how many parents had to hire a lawyer for the 97 % of interaction that never needed a cop.

I’d like to know how often SRO’s provided bad info to investigators based on their bias.

DP.
We are still waiting for a poster above to provide that data for us. I’ve asked twice now.

You think mc police and the state’s attorney office will share that.

But you don’t care because it wasn’t your child.

I’m a teacher. I do care about my “children.” I’ve taught over 2,700. I’d care quite deeply to hear if something like this has happened to one of them. Don’t try that character attack on me.

So, you don't have kids or actually care. You don't have to deal with the short and long term of a real trauma to a child and just go on about your day. You can fake pretend while doing nothing.

Character attacks don’t affect me. I know they happen when someone has nothing valuable to contribute to a conversation.