*wasn't responsible.

Anonymous wrote:As a parent to a child who was a victim of violence I'm school this year I highly encourage any parent who's child was the victim of a crime to call the police immediately vs letting the school handle it.

I'm confused.
Numerous times posters on this board have said the BOE wasn't responding for SROs being removed from school and pointed the finger at Montgomery council. So why is the school board president making this statement:

School Board President ‘Not Interested In Seeing the SROs Return’; Other Options Discussed

https://www.mymcmedia.org/school-board-president-not-interested-in-seeing-the-sros-return-other-options-discussed/

It sounds, to me, like the BOE had a whole lot to do with having them removed.

As a parent to a child who was a victim of violence I'm school this year I highly encourage any parent who's child was the victim of a crime to call the police immediately vs letting the school handle it.

Anonymous wrote:
For this new iteration to work, we need to ensure all aspects -- mental health supports, wellness centers, RJ AND police -- are appropriately funded and staffed. The staffing will be difficult, though. Nobody wants to work for government. We could appropriate all the money in the world for social workers, but if they don't want to work here, we can't force them. And this is a growing concern across all public sector jobs. Social workers to teachers, to trash collectors to police to firefighters.

+1 And second guessing, Monday morning quarterbacking every move and statement makes it harder to recruit good people.

Of course, there should be accountability, but nitpicking every nuance filled situations is not going to help. I certainly wouldn't want that kind of position.

We are making it harder and harder for people to want to take on these types of public service jobs, as you noted -- from teachers to police. This will lead to "not the best" people taking on the jobs.

I just read yesterday that nationwide, 1/3 of Superintendents quit this past year. This forum alone is a microcosm of what we are seeing nationwide. Look at the anti-McKnight thread. I don't know her; I don't love or hate her. She has a tough job, as do most of the school staff. But, there are is a lot of second guessing and nitpicking going on, and it's not helping. I hope we don't see the same thing happen here, but I know it will.

Anonymous wrote:Great post above. I've also been involved in the process, albeit I suspect from "the other side" and I agree that the failure to deliver any of the services/mitigations that were originally promised has been detrimental to schools and student safety.

If I were cynical, I'd say Elrich removed the SROs without providing any additional wraparound or non-police solutions intentionally, and knowing that a "falling off the clifff" version of removing SROs was going to lead to an increase in violence.

I want to call this part out, though, and emphasize the importance. "Keep it transparent. Tell me about the oversight and accountability mechanisms." My concern about having sworn officers in schools is that we know that accountabilty for police is almost nonexistent. A history of court deference to law enforcement, the strength of the police union, and a culture of covering up for bad cops all combine to create a toxic brew. It's like all the folks on this board complaining about "restorative justice" except the folks getting a hug and a cookie when they behave violently are 200 lb adults with guns.

So, if we see some accountability for CEOs above and beyond what we would normally see for cops, I think this model may survive.

PP here and thank you. I agree that there are challenges holding police accountable for a variety of reasons. The FOP is a huge concern and works tirelessly to ensure that officers are not disciplined. Over the past few decades in the county, management rights have been voluntarily given away in collective bargaining and are very difficult to get back.

The good news here is that the SRO positions are subject to a very selective hiring process. They have to submit applications, get interviewed, their personnel records reviewed, etc, and up until this year, principals had input into the selection process. So while nobody can guarantee appropriate discipline (although a new disciplinary framework is coming later this year), the Chief can easily remove that person from their SRO assignment. And there are some other changes at the State level that may help with transparency. People can request police personnel files under the MPIA act now.

I will disagree that there is a pervasive culture of coverup in these local departments. There was a lengthy interview with a Baltimore City police officer after Freddie Gray was killed, and what he said rang very true. That 10% of the cops will always do the right thing and 10% of the cops will get away with murder if they can. But in between, there's that 80% who sway to either side based on departmental leadership. Integrity comes from the top, and I firmly believe that, having worked with several police departments over the years. There are 18,000 police departments in this nation, governed by 50 state legislatures and countless local governments. They are not monolithic, neither in integrity nor corruption. No human institution is perfect, but the local LE agencies (I don't know anything about Takoma Park; they live in their own little silo) are really top notch.

For this new iteration to work, we need to ensure all aspects -- mental health supports, wellness centers, RJ AND police -- are appropriately funded and staffed. The staffing will be difficult, though. Nobody wants to work for government. We could appropriate all the money in the world for social workers, but if they don't want to work here, we can't force them. And this is a growing concern across all public sector jobs. Social workers to teachers, to trash collectors to police to firefighters.

Anonymous wrote:Great post above. I've also been involved in the process, albeit I suspect from "the other side" and I agree that the failure to deliver any of the services/mitigations that were originally promised has been detrimental to schools and student safety.

If I were cynical, I'd say Elrich removed the SROs without providing any additional wraparound or non-police solutions intentionally, and knowing that a "falling off the clifff" version of removing SROs was going to lead to an increase in violence.

I want to call this part out, though, and emphasize the importance. "Keep it transparent. Tell me about the oversight and accountability mechanisms." My concern about having sworn officers in schools is that we know that accountabilty for police is almost nonexistent. A history of court deference to law enforcement, the strength of the police union, and a culture of covering up for bad cops all combine to create a toxic brew. It's like all the folks on this board complaining about "restorative justice" except the folks getting a hug and a cookie when they behave violently are 200 lb adults with guns.

So, if we see some accountability for CEOs above and beyond what we would normally see for cops, I think this model may survive.

Agree that the ^^PP post was great.. thoughtful, and really does see both sides.

I disagree with your last statement. A lot of kids are getting away with extremely bad behavior because of RJ, and MCPS just passes the troublesome kids around to different schools. If you look at the infographic, just in the four months of 2021 alone we have a history of violence in the schools -- weapons, assaults. FFS.. why are we putting up with this.

Not understanding what Elrich's end game was for allowing an increase in violence in our schools. You think he did that so that people would be clamoring for police to come back to school? eh.. not buying that. IMO, Elrich, like many other uber progressives, has too much of a kumbayah attitude, thinking all we need is RJ and a hug and all will be well.

Kids aren't perfect; admin and staff aren't perfect; cops aren't perfect. So, we put guardrails in place, and MoCo and MCPS will definitely be putting the CEOs on the hotseat/spotlight and disecting every incident that involves the CEO.

The ^^PP had it right.. the majority of kids being victimized by the violence are black and brown. They more than any other group need to be protected from the violence in our schools. Staff can't do it alone; Elrich can't do it; RJ isn't cutting it.

Great post above. I've also been involved in the process, albeit I suspect from "the other side" and I agree that the failure to deliver any of the services/mitigations that were originally promised has been detrimental to schools and student safety.

If I were cynical, I'd say Elrich removed the SROs without providing any additional wraparound or non-police solutions intentionally, and knowing that a "falling off the clifff" version of removing SROs was going to lead to an increase in violence.

I want to call this part out, though, and emphasize the importance. "Keep it transparent. Tell me about the oversight and accountability mechanisms." My concern about having sworn officers in schools is that we know that accountabilty for police is almost nonexistent. A history of court deference to law enforcement, the strength of the police union, and a culture of covering up for bad cops all combine to create a toxic brew. It's like all the folks on this board complaining about "restorative justice" except the folks getting a hug and a cookie when they behave violently are 200 lb adults with guns.

So, if we see some accountability for CEOs above and beyond what we would normally see for cops, I think this model may survive.

As someone who has been involved in this process, I think MCPS was doing it correctly from the beginning, last year. They had a truly thoughtful and in-depth examination of the pros and the cons of the SRO program. They had all stakeholders at the table, including police. Elrich and the Council have excluded police from the coproduction of public safety, which was extremely shortsighted. Both in the task force to reimagine public safety (Elrich) and the policing advisory commission (council).

And I think if MCPS had been allowed to make the decision last year, we would have seen something much more similar to CEO 2.0

Elrich unilaterally pulled SROs out and MCPS had to deal with the cards they were dealt. They have some great approaches to the student support side, wrap around services, etc., all of which are necessary. But police are necessary too.

Meta-analyses of SRO programs show that overall, they reduce violence in schools but increase arrests. But those analyses and other studies rarely take the guiding MOU into account. Montgomery County has long had an MOU that delineates between school discipline and criminal conduct. It is light years ahead of many other programs around the nation and has been used as a model to develop best practice training across the nation.

For example, in the year ending 2020, Montgomery County had 70 school arrests, while Anne Arundel County, half our size, had over 600. Wicomico County, which has 15,000 students total, had 240 arrests.

Regardless of our low arrest rate, the conversation about school safety should have included racial disparities in victimization in the schools. Black and brown kids are more likely to be assaulted than white kids. And for kids ages 12-18, school is actually a more dangerous place than out in the community. It doesn't make sense to ban police from those areas when we know that combining wrap around social services with LEO presence is the number one best violence reduction practice out there. It cannot be one or the other in isolation. It needs to be both. And now, the County is moving toward that. Keep it transparent. Tell me about the oversight and accountability mechanisms. Report on it annually. But do the right thing and provide the best resources we have to keep kids safe. They can't thrive if they aren't safe. Public safety is foundational to the welfare of our entire community. We are smart enough to do it right and do it fairly.


https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/iscs20.pdf

At least McKnight is doing something. I am glad they are bring them back but I don't like the don't respond.

Anonymous wrote:In school violence is spiraling out of control.
They had better bring them back now and in force.

And I don't see why they won't be in uniform. It's a deterrent.

yep..

In four months:

Since August 31, 2021 there have been 102 sex assaults, 87 assaults, 82 school threats, 76 controlled substance incidents, 57 weapon-related incidents, 57 conflicts, 35 mental health incidents, 28 property crimes and four robberies.

The sex assaults and weapons incidents are particularly scary to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They won't be in uniform, and MCPS/School will have a say in who the CEO for the school is.

https://www.fox5dc.com/video/1032627

About time. I think MCPS played this one right. They listened to both sides.

You're wrong. There isn't two sides.
There's a need for safety in school.

Period.

OP here.. I don't disagree, but MCPS kowtows to progressive pro-RJ crowd. So, this is a good compromise.

In school violence is spiraling out of control.
They had better bring them back now and in force.

And I don't see why they won't be in uniform. It's a deterrent.

Anonymous wrote:They won't be in uniform, and MCPS/School will have a say in who the CEO for the school is.

https://www.fox5dc.com/video/1032627

About time. I think MCPS played this one right. They listened to both sides.

You're wrong. There isn't two sides.
There's a need for safety in school.

Period.

More info



https://wjla.com/news/crisis-in-the-classrooms/montgomery-county-public-schools-school-police-resource-officers-community-engagement-crime-stabbing-shooting-assault

Here are the differences:

The community engagement officer would not be placed in the schools permanently.
They would engage with schools across the entire cluster and not just be limited to one school.
They would have a direct line of communication with the school, not just the principal.
They wouldn't respond to school incidents.
However, they would take the lead in any death, sexual assault. robbery, hate crime, physical attack requiring the 911 call, felony theft, firearms, brandishing a deadly weapon and gang-related events.
Joint professional learning.

Of course, the pro-RJ group doesn't want this at all, even as schools with high URM have the most violence.

Memo here.
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/council/Resources/Files/agenda/cm/2022/20220209/20220209_ECPS1.pdf

They won't be in uniform, and MCPS/School will have a say in who the CEO for the school is.

https://www.fox5dc.com/video/1032627

About time. I think MCPS played this one right. They listened to both sides.