MoCo defunded police/school resource officers, causing a school shooting and a lawsuit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My crystal ball says an SRO would have prevented this tragedy. Yours says otherwise. The truth is, we'll never know.

An SRO has never prevented a tragedy.

Wrong. I’m a high school teacher who has witnessed a tragedy being averted by an SRO. I had a student with a huge knife, which he brought to school to threaten/hurt another. The SRO talked him down and retrieved the knife.

So yes, it happens. We just don’t advertise it when it does.

I don't doubt that some SROs have done good, even averting incidents.

But OP and others seem to be asserting that the presence of an SRO would have prevented this specific tragedy, and that SROs overall are a net good for the school environment, justifying the cost and negative effects. Neither of those things has proven to be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My crystal ball says an SRO would have prevented this tragedy. Yours says otherwise. The truth is, we'll never know.

An SRO has never prevented a tragedy.

Wrong. I’m a high school teacher who has witnessed a tragedy being averted by an SRO. I had a student with a huge knife, which he brought to school to threaten/hurt another. The SRO talked him down and retrieved the knife.

So yes, it happens. We just don’t advertise it when it does.

I don't doubt that some SROs have done good, even averting incidents.

But OP and others seem to be asserting that the presence of an SRO would have prevented this specific tragedy, and that SROs overall are a net good for the school environment, justifying the cost and negative effects. Neither of those things has proven to be true.

They also haven’t proven to be false.

My response was to the comment above, that “an SRO has never prevented a tragedy.” That simply isn’t true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My crystal ball says an SRO would have prevented this tragedy. Yours says otherwise. The truth is, we'll never know.

An SRO has never prevented a tragedy.

Wrong. I’m a high school teacher who has witnessed a tragedy being averted by an SRO. I had a student with a huge knife, which he brought to school to threaten/hurt another. The SRO talked him down and retrieved the knife.

So yes, it happens. We just don’t advertise it when it does.

I don't doubt that some SROs have done good, even averting incidents.

But OP and others seem to be asserting that the presence of an SRO would have prevented this specific tragedy, and that SROs overall are a net good for the school environment, justifying the cost and negative effects. Neither of those things has proven to be true.

100% agree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My crystal ball says an SRO would have prevented this tragedy. Yours says otherwise. The truth is, we'll never know.

An SRO has never prevented a tragedy.

Wrong. I’m a high school teacher who has witnessed a tragedy being averted by an SRO. I had a student with a huge knife, which he brought to school to threaten/hurt another. The SRO talked him down and retrieved the knife.

So yes, it happens. We just don’t advertise it when it does.

I don't doubt that some SROs have done good, even averting incidents.

But OP and others seem to be asserting that the presence of an SRO would have prevented this specific tragedy, and that SROs overall are a net good for the school environment, justifying the cost and negative effects. Neither of those things has proven to be true.

They also haven’t proven to be false.

My response was to the comment above, that “an SRO has never prevented a tragedy.” That simply isn’t true.

See: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/304291.pdf

“ research evidence does not, as a whole, yield support for school policing as an effective strategy to improve safety and security.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My crystal ball says an SRO would have prevented this tragedy. Yours says otherwise. The truth is, we'll never know.

An SRO has never prevented a tragedy.

Wrong. I’m a high school teacher who has witnessed a tragedy being averted by an SRO. I had a student with a huge knife, which he brought to school to threaten/hurt another. The SRO talked him down and retrieved the knife.

So yes, it happens. We just don’t advertise it when it does.

I don't doubt that some SROs have done good, even averting incidents.

But OP and others seem to be asserting that the presence of an SRO would have prevented this specific tragedy, and that SROs overall are a net good for the school environment, justifying the cost and negative effects. Neither of those things has proven to be true.

They also haven’t proven to be false.

My response was to the comment above, that “an SRO has never prevented a tragedy.” That simply isn’t true.

See: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/304291.pdf

“ research evidence does not, as a whole, yield support for school policing as an effective strategy to improve safety and security.”

And once again:
My comment was in response to “an SRO has never prevented a tragedy.” Your citation doesn’t refute that at all.

SROs have prevented tragedy. I have seen it happen with my own eyes. The same SRO also took a gun off a student. I didn’t mention that earlier simply because I didn’t see it, and only heard about the incident from the teacher of that classroom.

Yes, tragedies have been prevented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My crystal ball says an SRO would have prevented this tragedy. Yours says otherwise. The truth is, we'll never know.

An SRO has never prevented a tragedy.

Wrong. I’m a high school teacher who has witnessed a tragedy being averted by an SRO. I had a student with a huge knife, which he brought to school to threaten/hurt another. The SRO talked him down and retrieved the knife.

So yes, it happens. We just don’t advertise it when it does.

I don't doubt that some SROs have done good, even averting incidents.

But OP and others seem to be asserting that the presence of an SRO would have prevented this specific tragedy, and that SROs overall are a net good for the school environment, justifying the cost and negative effects. Neither of those things has proven to be true.

They also haven’t proven to be false.

My response was to the comment above, that “an SRO has never prevented a tragedy.” That simply isn’t true.

See: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/304291.pdf

“ research evidence does not, as a whole, yield support for school policing as an effective strategy to improve safety and security.”

That link has a lot of recommendations in order to increase the effectiveness of an SRO program, most of which were already in place when the county Exec pulled SROs from the schools against the universal recommendations from principals to keep them.

That’s the problem with using national data when addressing local concerns. Our officers were already held to much higher standards than officers in other jurisdictions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My crystal ball says an SRO would have prevented this tragedy. Yours says otherwise. The truth is, we'll never know.

An SRO has never prevented a tragedy.

Wrong. I’m a high school teacher who has witnessed a tragedy being averted by an SRO. I had a student with a huge knife, which he brought to school to threaten/hurt another. The SRO talked him down and retrieved the knife.

So yes, it happens. We just don’t advertise it when it does.

I don't doubt that some SROs have done good, even averting incidents.

But OP and others seem to be asserting that the presence of an SRO would have prevented this specific tragedy, and that SROs overall are a net good for the school environment, justifying the cost and negative effects. Neither of those things has proven to be true.

Having worked in both middle and high schools for a long time, I strongly disagree. I doubt you've been in them long enough to see some of the violent fights that have been averted or strong, behavior disordered kids who have very poor impulse control and direct their anger towards innocent kids and teachers. Who do you think should intervene?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My crystal ball says an SRO would have prevented this tragedy. Yours says otherwise. The truth is, we'll never know.

An SRO has never prevented a tragedy.

Wrong. I’m a high school teacher who has witnessed a tragedy being averted by an SRO. I had a student with a huge knife, which he brought to school to threaten/hurt another. The SRO talked him down and retrieved the knife.

So yes, it happens. We just don’t advertise it when it does.

I don't doubt that some SROs have done good, even averting incidents.

But OP and others seem to be asserting that the presence of an SRO would have prevented this specific tragedy, and that SROs overall are a net good for the school environment, justifying the cost and negative effects. Neither of those things has proven to be true.

Having worked in both middle and high schools for a long time, I strongly disagree. I doubt you've been in them long enough to see some of the violent fights that have been averted or strong, behavior disordered kids who have very poor impulse control and direct their anger towards innocent kids and teachers. Who do you think should intervene?

I'm not sure what is to disagree with. I acknowledge and am grateful for those instances when SROs have helped avert violence. But the question remains whether those instances outweigh the documented negative impacts and justify the overall expense. Most studies that I have seen indicate that they do not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My crystal ball says an SRO would have prevented this tragedy. Yours says otherwise. The truth is, we'll never know.

An SRO has never prevented a tragedy.

Wrong. I’m a high school teacher who has witnessed a tragedy being averted by an SRO. I had a student with a huge knife, which he brought to school to threaten/hurt another. The SRO talked him down and retrieved the knife.

So yes, it happens. We just don’t advertise it when it does.

I don't doubt that some SROs have done good, even averting incidents.

But OP and others seem to be asserting that the presence of an SRO would have prevented this specific tragedy, and that SROs overall are a net good for the school environment, justifying the cost and negative effects. Neither of those things has proven to be true.

Having worked in both middle and high schools for a long time, I strongly disagree. I doubt you've been in them long enough to see some of the violent fights that have been averted or strong, behavior disordered kids who have very poor impulse control and direct their anger towards innocent kids and teachers. Who do you think should intervene?

I'm not sure what is to disagree with. I acknowledge and am grateful for those instances when SROs have helped avert violence. But the question remains whether those instances outweigh the documented negative impacts and justify the overall expense. Most studies that I have seen indicate that they do not.

PP here. If we are going to allow students with extremely aggressive and violent behaviors to walk the halls of our public schools and not be educated in separate facilities as used to be the norm, then we need to be prepared for what might happen. The average teacher (male or female) isn't strong enough to protect the other kids when the students I mentioned lose control. If it were your child who is being hit, kicked, battered, etc, then I think you would believe it's worth the expense. Otherwise, we need to have an alternative placement/plan for those who have a known history of the behaviors I described.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My crystal ball says an SRO would have prevented this tragedy. Yours says otherwise. The truth is, we'll never know.

An SRO has never prevented a tragedy.

Wrong. I’m a high school teacher who has witnessed a tragedy being averted by an SRO. I had a student with a huge knife, which he brought to school to threaten/hurt another. The SRO talked him down and retrieved the knife.

So yes, it happens. We just don’t advertise it when it does.

I don't doubt that some SROs have done good, even averting incidents.

But OP and others seem to be asserting that the presence of an SRO would have prevented this specific tragedy, and that SROs overall are a net good for the school environment, justifying the cost and negative effects. Neither of those things has proven to be true.

Having worked in both middle and high schools for a long time, I strongly disagree. I doubt you've been in them long enough to see some of the violent fights that have been averted or strong, behavior disordered kids who have very poor impulse control and direct their anger towards innocent kids and teachers. Who do you think should intervene?

I'm not sure what is to disagree with. I acknowledge and am grateful for those instances when SROs have helped avert violence. But the question remains whether those instances outweigh the documented negative impacts and justify the overall expense. Most studies that I have seen indicate that they do not.

PP here. If we are going to allow students with extremely aggressive and violent behaviors to walk the halls of our public schools and not be educated in separate facilities as used to be the norm, then we need to be prepared for what might happen. The average teacher (male or female) isn't strong enough to protect the other kids when the students I mentioned lose control. If it were your child who is being hit, kicked, battered, etc, then I think you would believe it's worth the expense. Otherwise, we need to have an alternative placement/plan for those who have a known history of the behaviors I described.

The decision whether or not to have SROs should be made by the people within schools, not politicians. When PGCPS surveyed the community, the vast majority of students and teachers said to keep SROs. MCPS didn’t have a similar survey. Instead, politicians made the decision without considering much community input.

I’m a teacher. I’ve seen the incredible good SROs can do. As somebody who is directly impacted by this decision, I would like to think I can have a say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My crystal ball says an SRO would have prevented this tragedy. Yours says otherwise. The truth is, we'll never know.

An SRO has never prevented a tragedy.

Wrong. I’m a high school teacher who has witnessed a tragedy being averted by an SRO. I had a student with a huge knife, which he brought to school to threaten/hurt another. The SRO talked him down and retrieved the knife.

So yes, it happens. We just don’t advertise it when it does.

I don't doubt that some SROs have done good, even averting incidents.

But OP and others seem to be asserting that the presence of an SRO would have prevented this specific tragedy, and that SROs overall are a net good for the school environment, justifying the cost and negative effects. Neither of those things has proven to be true.

Having worked in both middle and high schools for a long time, I strongly disagree. I doubt you've been in them long enough to see some of the violent fights that have been averted or strong, behavior disordered kids who have very poor impulse control and direct their anger towards innocent kids and teachers. Who do you think should intervene?

I'm not sure what is to disagree with. I acknowledge and am grateful for those instances when SROs have helped avert violence. But the question remains whether those instances outweigh the documented negative impacts and justify the overall expense. Most studies that I have seen indicate that they do not.

PP here. If we are going to allow students with extremely aggressive and violent behaviors to walk the halls of our public schools and not be educated in separate facilities as used to be the norm, then we need to be prepared for what might happen. The average teacher (male or female) isn't strong enough to protect the other kids when the students I mentioned lose control. If it were your child who is being hit, kicked, battered, etc, then I think you would believe it's worth the expense. Otherwise, we need to have an alternative placement/plan for those who have a known history of the behaviors I described.

The decision whether or not to have SROs should be made by the people within schools, not politicians. When PGCPS surveyed the community, the vast majority of students and teachers said to keep SROs. MCPS didn’t have a similar survey. Instead, politicians made the decision without considering much community input.

I’m a teacher. I’ve seen the incredible good SROs can do. As somebody who is directly impacted by this decision, I would like to think I can have a say.

PP here. I agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My crystal ball says an SRO would have prevented this tragedy. Yours says otherwise. The truth is, we'll never know.

An SRO has never prevented a tragedy.

Wrong. I’m a high school teacher who has witnessed a tragedy being averted by an SRO. I had a student with a huge knife, which he brought to school to threaten/hurt another. The SRO talked him down and retrieved the knife.

So yes, it happens. We just don’t advertise it when it does.

I don't doubt that some SROs have done good, even averting incidents.

But OP and others seem to be asserting that the presence of an SRO would have prevented this specific tragedy, and that SROs overall are a net good for the school environment, justifying the cost and negative effects. Neither of those things has proven to be true.

Having worked in both middle and high schools for a long time, I strongly disagree. I doubt you've been in them long enough to see some of the violent fights that have been averted or strong, behavior disordered kids who have very poor impulse control and direct their anger towards innocent kids and teachers. Who do you think should intervene?

I'm not sure what is to disagree with. I acknowledge and am grateful for those instances when SROs have helped avert violence. But the question remains whether those instances outweigh the documented negative impacts and justify the overall expense. Most studies that I have seen indicate that they do not.

PP here. If we are going to allow students with extremely aggressive and violent behaviors to walk the halls of our public schools and not be educated in separate facilities as used to be the norm, then we need to be prepared for what might happen. The average teacher (male or female) isn't strong enough to protect the other kids when the students I mentioned lose control. If it were your child who is being hit, kicked, battered, etc, then I think you would believe it's worth the expense. Otherwise, we need to have an alternative placement/plan for those who have a known history of the behaviors I described.

I think we might be talking past each other. I absolutely agree that violence in schools is a problem that needs to be addressed. (I do question how you might define and segregate "students with aggressive and violent behaviors", but that is another conversation.)
I also think that any solution to that problem needs to not exacerbate other issues within our education system and society as a whole. Any solution needs to have a reasonable monetary cost, so that other aspects of education do not suffer. And any other solution needs to have demonstrable efficacy.

SROs in theory and in a vacuum make sense. In practice and based on existing research, they may not.

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/school-resource-officer-sro-duties-effectiveness
https://www.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/JPRC-Police-Schools-Brief.pdf

And while there are certainly instances of SROs preventing violence, they are proven ineffective at preventing shootings- the subject of this thread. They also have significant other negative impacts.

"We find that SROs do effectively reduce some forms of violence in schools, but do not prevent school shootings or gun-related incidents. We also find that SROs intensify the use of suspensions, expulsions, police referrals, and arrests of students. These effects are
consistently over two times larger for Black students than White students. Finally, we observe that SROs increase chronic absenteeism, particularly for students with disabilities."
https://www.edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai21-476.pdf

The question is whether they do more good than harm OVERALL. From what I have seen, it does not seem that they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My crystal ball says an SRO would have prevented this tragedy. Yours says otherwise. The truth is, we'll never know.

An SRO has never prevented a tragedy.

Wrong. I’m a high school teacher who has witnessed a tragedy being averted by an SRO. I had a student with a huge knife, which he brought to school to threaten/hurt another. The SRO talked him down and retrieved the knife.

So yes, it happens. We just don’t advertise it when it does.

I don't doubt that some SROs have done good, even averting incidents.

But OP and others seem to be asserting that the presence of an SRO would have prevented this specific tragedy, and that SROs overall are a net good for the school environment, justifying the cost and negative effects. Neither of those things has proven to be true.

Having worked in both middle and high schools for a long time, I strongly disagree. I doubt you've been in them long enough to see some of the violent fights that have been averted or strong, behavior disordered kids who have very poor impulse control and direct their anger towards innocent kids and teachers. Who do you think should intervene?

I'm not sure what is to disagree with. I acknowledge and am grateful for those instances when SROs have helped avert violence. But the question remains whether those instances outweigh the documented negative impacts and justify the overall expense. Most studies that I have seen indicate that they do not.

PP here. If we are going to allow students with extremely aggressive and violent behaviors to walk the halls of our public schools and not be educated in separate facilities as used to be the norm, then we need to be prepared for what might happen. The average teacher (male or female) isn't strong enough to protect the other kids when the students I mentioned lose control. If it were your child who is being hit, kicked, battered, etc, then I think you would believe it's worth the expense. Otherwise, we need to have an alternative placement/plan for those who have a known history of the behaviors I described.

I think we might be talking past each other. I absolutely agree that violence in schools is a problem that needs to be addressed. (I do question how you might define and segregate "students with aggressive and violent behaviors", but that is another conversation.)
I also think that any solution to that problem needs to not exacerbate other issues within our education system and society as a whole. Any solution needs to have a reasonable monetary cost, so that other aspects of education do not suffer. And any other solution needs to have demonstrable efficacy.

SROs in theory and in a vacuum make sense. In practice and based on existing research, they may not.

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/school-resource-officer-sro-duties-effectiveness
https://www.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/JPRC-Police-Schools-Brief.pdf

And while there are certainly instances of SROs preventing violence, they are proven ineffective at preventing shootings- the subject of this thread. They also have significant other negative impacts.

"We find that SROs do effectively reduce some forms of violence in schools, but do not prevent school shootings or gun-related incidents. We also find that SROs intensify the use of suspensions, expulsions, police referrals, and arrests of students. These effects are
consistently over two times larger for Black students than White students. Finally, we observe that SROs increase chronic absenteeism, particularly for students with disabilities."
https://www.edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai21-476.pdf

The question is whether they do more good than harm OVERALL. From what I have seen, it does not seem that they do.

It’s important to compare apples to apples. The Montgomery County council and exec regularly applied national data to the SRO debate, failing to take into account what was already working well within MCPS. MCPD and the SRO program were already doing many of the things national data says that SROs should do. For example, SROs were not initiating a ton of arrests, and therefore they were not merely serving as disciplinarians within the school. They responded when they HAD to respond, like when an actual crime was committed. As a teacher, I can tell you that students do commit crimes within the school buildings. I’ve seen students carry weapons, deal drugs, etc. Yes, we absolutely need to respond to these negative behaviors as they affect all of us in the building. Most (over 90%) of SRO interactions before the county exec destroyed the old program didn’t even end up on student records. Students were referred to teen court, etc. The old program had a ton of merits.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/Resources/Files/SRO/MCPD-SRO-FAQ.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My crystal ball says an SRO would have prevented this tragedy. Yours says otherwise. The truth is, we'll never know.

An SRO has never prevented a tragedy.

Wrong. I’m a high school teacher who has witnessed a tragedy being averted by an SRO. I had a student with a huge knife, which he brought to school to threaten/hurt another. The SRO talked him down and retrieved the knife.

So yes, it happens. We just don’t advertise it when it does.

I don't doubt that some SROs have done good, even averting incidents.

But OP and others seem to be asserting that the presence of an SRO would have prevented this specific tragedy, and that SROs overall are a net good for the school environment, justifying the cost and negative effects. Neither of those things has proven to be true.

Having worked in both middle and high schools for a long time, I strongly disagree. I doubt you've been in them long enough to see some of the violent fights that have been averted or strong, behavior disordered kids who have very poor impulse control and direct their anger towards innocent kids and teachers. Who do you think should intervene?

I'm not sure what is to disagree with. I acknowledge and am grateful for those instances when SROs have helped avert violence. But the question remains whether those instances outweigh the documented negative impacts and justify the overall expense. Most studies that I have seen indicate that they do not.

PP here. If we are going to allow students with extremely aggressive and violent behaviors to walk the halls of our public schools and not be educated in separate facilities as used to be the norm, then we need to be prepared for what might happen. The average teacher (male or female) isn't strong enough to protect the other kids when the students I mentioned lose control. If it were your child who is being hit, kicked, battered, etc, then I think you would believe it's worth the expense. Otherwise, we need to have an alternative placement/plan for those who have a known history of the behaviors I described.

The decision whether or not to have SROs should be made by the people within schools, not politicians. When PGCPS surveyed the community, the vast majority of students and teachers said to keep SROs. MCPS didn’t have a similar survey. Instead, politicians made the decision without considering much community input.

I’m a teacher. I’ve seen the incredible good SROs can do. As somebody who is directly impacted by this decision, I would like to think I can have a say.

Removing SROs entirely from schools certainly seems like a huge mistake. Hope all the school systems who took this draconian approach will reverse course and reinstate SROs in schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My crystal ball says an SRO would have prevented this tragedy. Yours says otherwise. The truth is, we'll never know.

An SRO has never prevented a tragedy.

Wrong. I’m a high school teacher who has witnessed a tragedy being averted by an SRO. I had a student with a huge knife, which he brought to school to threaten/hurt another. The SRO talked him down and retrieved the knife.

So yes, it happens. We just don’t advertise it when it does.

I don't doubt that some SROs have done good, even averting incidents.

But OP and others seem to be asserting that the presence of an SRO would have prevented this specific tragedy, and that SROs overall are a net good for the school environment, justifying the cost and negative effects. Neither of those things has proven to be true.

Having worked in both middle and high schools for a long time, I strongly disagree. I doubt you've been in them long enough to see some of the violent fights that have been averted or strong, behavior disordered kids who have very poor impulse control and direct their anger towards innocent kids and teachers. Who do you think should intervene?

I'm not sure what is to disagree with. I acknowledge and am grateful for those instances when SROs have helped avert violence. But the question remains whether those instances outweigh the documented negative impacts and justify the overall expense. Most studies that I have seen indicate that they do not.

PP here. If we are going to allow students with extremely aggressive and violent behaviors to walk the halls of our public schools and not be educated in separate facilities as used to be the norm, then we need to be prepared for what might happen. The average teacher (male or female) isn't strong enough to protect the other kids when the students I mentioned lose control. If it were your child who is being hit, kicked, battered, etc, then I think you would believe it's worth the expense. Otherwise, we need to have an alternative placement/plan for those who have a known history of the behaviors I described.

I think we might be talking past each other. I absolutely agree that violence in schools is a problem that needs to be addressed. (I do question how you might define and segregate "students with aggressive and violent behaviors", but that is another conversation.)
I also think that any solution to that problem needs to not exacerbate other issues within our education system and society as a whole. Any solution needs to have a reasonable monetary cost, so that other aspects of education do not suffer. And any other solution needs to have demonstrable efficacy.

SROs in theory and in a vacuum make sense. In practice and based on existing research, they may not.

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/school-resource-officer-sro-duties-effectiveness
https://www.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/JPRC-Police-Schools-Brief.pdf

And while there are certainly instances of SROs preventing violence, they are proven ineffective at preventing shootings- the subject of this thread. They also have significant other negative impacts.

"We find that SROs do effectively reduce some forms of violence in schools, but do not prevent school shootings or gun-related incidents. We also find that SROs intensify the use of suspensions, expulsions, police referrals, and arrests of students. These effects are
consistently over two times larger for Black students than White students. Finally, we observe that SROs increase chronic absenteeism, particularly for students with disabilities."
https://www.edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai21-476.pdf

The question is whether they do more good than harm OVERALL. From what I have seen, it does not seem that they do.

It’s important to compare apples to apples. The Montgomery County council and exec regularly applied national data to the SRO debate, failing to take into account what was already working well within MCPS. MCPD and the SRO program were already doing many of the things national data says that SROs should do. For example, SROs were not initiating a ton of arrests, and therefore they were not merely serving as disciplinarians within the school. They responded when they HAD to respond, like when an actual crime was committed. As a teacher, I can tell you that students do commit crimes within the school buildings. I’ve seen students carry weapons, deal drugs, etc. Yes, we absolutely need to respond to these negative behaviors as they affect all of us in the building. Most (over 90%) of SRO interactions before the county exec destroyed the old program didn’t even end up on student records. Students were referred to teen court, etc. The old program had a ton of merits.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/Resources/Files/SRO/MCPD-SRO-FAQ.pdf

Thanks for this link. It prompted me to do a little more research. I was surprised to find this:
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/Resources/Files/CEO/MCPD-CEO-FAQ.pdf

Seems like the only difference here is that the officer is wearing plain clothes, not permanently present (but does patrol multiple times a day and has an office space), and not involved at all in school discipline.

What is the issue?