Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually don't care if it's SROs or MCPS Security. But someone needs to be in control, hold kids accountable and make sure that threats are neutralized.

If that's done by SROs, fine. If MCPS security gain expanded powers and jurisdiction to do some of the things SROs used to do, great. But the schools must be a safe, secure environment.

I agree but it wasn’t safe with SROs and security.

A lot safer when we had SROs. Since SROs were removed, the calls for cops have increased dramatically.

Exactly how it should work. Success!

So you didn't want SROs because too many kids were being reported to SROs (cops) but now that the number of cops being called to the schools for the same reason has increased, it's ok? Hold on while I scratch my head for a few minutes.

It’s working because cops are only getting involved in crime at school and they’re not hanging around school harassing kids.

Do you realize that when SROs were around, crime was lower than they are now? When SROs were around they actually mitigated issues that otherwise would've resulted in an arrest? Without SROs, more kids are actually getting charged of crime.

Actually, when SRO’s were around less criminals were caught. I guess sitting in the school, eating snacks with the teachers was not in effective form of identifying crime outside the school.

So now what you’re saying is you do not want criminals arrested ? You don’t want cops to stop the threat outside the school before it enters?

You are mad because teachers and administrators have formed a relationship with Montgomery County Police and they feel comfortable calling for help.

Sounds like you don’t know what you want.

That would be you that's confused. We're talking about crime IN school, babe. Crime IN school has gone up since SROs were removed.

No the PP was correct. SROs statistically do little to deter crime in schools and more often than not it's been shown they make matters worse. The right like the head of the NRA is always pushing this as a solution when in fact the only way to get guns out of schools is common sense gun reforms

SROs were present at both Parkland and Uvalde and didn't seem to them a lot of good.

And, they've been present at other schools and saved lives.

https://www.nasro.org/news/2022/09/01/news-releases/sro-success-story-school-resource-officer-saves-students-from-abusive-grandmother/

https://www.nasro.org/news/2022/04/21/news-releases/sro-success-story-school-resource-officer-saves-student-from-suicide-attempt/

https://www.wkrn.com/video/sro-saves-choking-student/7695111/

https://abcnews.go.com/US/lone-school-resource-officer-engaged-gunman-saved-lives/story?id=53884377

In the first story, a car entered the drop off line and two kids got out of the car. Two patrol cars were already "not far behind." The SRO did nothing that wasn't already going to happen.
In the second story, the SRO absolutely did something commendable. But it wasn't a crime or violence that was deterred and any other adult or administrator could have done the same thing.
In the third story, same thing. Very commendable life saving act not necessarily performed by a trained law enforcement officer
In the fourth story, a gunman shot and killed a student and then the gunman shot himself in the head. The SRO prevented neither.

Do you work on a school, or have children in a school?

I work in a school. I have children. I want SROs from both a teacher AND a parent standpoint. You are trying to negate the good work SROs do simply to prove some point. The very real truth is SROs have performed FAR more positive services for our schools than get published. I should know, because I’ve seen it.

I can’t understand why a few posters want to deny schools this support. If you haven’t been in a school lately, you really have no idea what we are dealing with. To deny support because “I don’t like them” is to deny students an additional resource at a time in which we are in critical, critical need. Frankly, it’s a selfish viewpoint, and one that does real harm to our students.

Yes I have children in school.
I never said "I don't like them" (and those that have not supported SROs have generally given reasons much beyond that.)
One can think that schools need a lot more support and resources without believing that SROs are the right solution to that problem.

SROs are ONE solution, and they work remarkably well when you place them with other supports (teachers, admin, counselors, etc.)

Nobody is suggesting they are the ONLY solution. Also, some people (including me) have posted reports and anecdotes that show their positive effects on a school environment.

Again: why would we take away a necessary support at this critical time?

The question is whether they ARE a necessary support, and the evidence is not there.

On the contrary:
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/Resources/Files/SRO/MCPD-SRO-FAQ.pdf
(Contains ACTUAL statistics that demonstrate the effect of MCPD SROs within the district.)

Since MoCo didn’t bother to ask the community whether SROs should stay, the best we can go with is what PGCPS found out when they asked that question:
https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/pgcps/Board.nsf/files/BX4VD4802E1E/%24file/CEO%27s%20Rec%20School%20Safety%20and%20Security%20Report%2001142021.pdf

80% support SROs at the high school level. 70% support SROs in middle school.
92% who have actually interacted with an SRO report the interaction as “positive.”
70% report that SROs build positive relationships.

The hard facts show that SROs do make a positive impact in this region and that (in places where community was actually asked) the majority supports the program.

PP you are responding to. The question was whether there is data showing they are "necessary" in MCPS.

1. PG Survey: This is a survey of sentiment, so not evidence of necessity. It was also conducted outside of MC over the holidays from 12/21-1/8, the response rate is less than 2% of the population, and nearly half of the respondents were teachers who very understandably want to have as many more adults in the school as they can get, regardless of their role.

2. MC Police-Produced Document: Can you show me where in this document it proves the positive impact? The first 7 pages detail the training requirements. Page 8 describes generally how the SRO is present int he school community. The final pages state that there were 27 physical arrests, 242 citations in one school year. How does this support SRO's being a "necessary" thing and effective at preventing and deterring violent and non-violent crime?

And since we are throwing around documents from biased sources, there is this letter that states: "In MCPS during the 2018-19 school year, Black students received 45% of school-based arrests in MCPS despite representing 22% of the student population, even though data demonstrates that Black students misbehave at the same rates as their peers. Special needs students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) received 25% of arrests in MCPS despite representing 12.2% of the student population.
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/Resources/Files/agenda/col/2021/20210204/testimony/testimony47-MeganBerger.pdf

There is also this presentation that states:

"There is no evidence, in Maryland or elsewhere, that police presence reduces school violence. There is no empirical evidence that police presence will prevent mass shootings from occurring. One study found that an increase in police presence did not decrease any category of school-based offenses. Students’ perception that police treat them unfairly can have a counterproductive effect on student behavior. School police have made Black students feel less safe because of over-policing and racialized police violence."
https://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/32840/Coalition-Reform-School-Discipline-SRO-Presentation

Anonymous wrote:The SRO's are not wanted because they are required to involve police in matters which the school want to keep things hush hush. The more arrests, assaults, etc... the worse the school looks. Now do I think teachers and staff want them? Yes. Does administration and central? Absolutely not

This is so true. Do you know a MCPS school is not mandated to contact the police when there is a rape on campus? Right now schools are barely contacting police for things police should be contacted for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually don't care if it's SROs or MCPS Security. But someone needs to be in control, hold kids accountable and make sure that threats are neutralized.

If that's done by SROs, fine. If MCPS security gain expanded powers and jurisdiction to do some of the things SROs used to do, great. But the schools must be a safe, secure environment.

I agree but it wasn’t safe with SROs and security.

A lot safer when we had SROs. Since SROs were removed, the calls for cops have increased dramatically.

Exactly how it should work. Success!

So you didn't want SROs because too many kids were being reported to SROs (cops) but now that the number of cops being called to the schools for the same reason has increased, it's ok? Hold on while I scratch my head for a few minutes.

It’s working because cops are only getting involved in crime at school and they’re not hanging around school harassing kids.

Do you realize that when SROs were around, crime was lower than they are now? When SROs were around they actually mitigated issues that otherwise would've resulted in an arrest? Without SROs, more kids are actually getting charged of crime.

Actually, when SRO’s were around less criminals were caught. I guess sitting in the school, eating snacks with the teachers was not in effective form of identifying crime outside the school.

So now what you’re saying is you do not want criminals arrested ? You don’t want cops to stop the threat outside the school before it enters?

You are mad because teachers and administrators have formed a relationship with Montgomery County Police and they feel comfortable calling for help.

Sounds like you don’t know what you want.

That would be you that's confused. We're talking about crime IN school, babe. Crime IN school has gone up since SROs were removed.

No the PP was correct. SROs statistically do little to deter crime in schools and more often than not it's been shown they make matters worse. The right like the head of the NRA is always pushing this as a solution when in fact the only way to get guns out of schools is common sense gun reforms

SROs were present at both Parkland and Uvalde and didn't seem to them a lot of good.

And, they've been present at other schools and saved lives.

https://www.nasro.org/news/2022/09/01/news-releases/sro-success-story-school-resource-officer-saves-students-from-abusive-grandmother/

https://www.nasro.org/news/2022/04/21/news-releases/sro-success-story-school-resource-officer-saves-student-from-suicide-attempt/

https://www.wkrn.com/video/sro-saves-choking-student/7695111/

https://abcnews.go.com/US/lone-school-resource-officer-engaged-gunman-saved-lives/story?id=53884377

In the first story, a car entered the drop off line and two kids got out of the car. Two patrol cars were already "not far behind." The SRO did nothing that wasn't already going to happen.
In the second story, the SRO absolutely did something commendable. But it wasn't a crime or violence that was deterred and any other adult or administrator could have done the same thing.
In the third story, same thing. Very commendable life saving act not necessarily performed by a trained law enforcement officer
In the fourth story, a gunman shot and killed a student and then the gunman shot himself in the head. The SRO prevented neither.

Do you work on a school, or have children in a school?

I work in a school. I have children. I want SROs from both a teacher AND a parent standpoint. You are trying to negate the good work SROs do simply to prove some point. The very real truth is SROs have performed FAR more positive services for our schools than get published. I should know, because I’ve seen it.

I can’t understand why a few posters want to deny schools this support. If you haven’t been in a school lately, you really have no idea what we are dealing with. To deny support because “I don’t like them” is to deny students an additional resource at a time in which we are in critical, critical need. Frankly, it’s a selfish viewpoint, and one that does real harm to our students.

Yes I have children in school.
I never said "I don't like them" (and those that have not supported SROs have generally given reasons much beyond that.)
One can think that schools need a lot more support and resources without believing that SROs are the right solution to that problem.

SROs are ONE solution, and they work remarkably well when you place them with other supports (teachers, admin, counselors, etc.)

Nobody is suggesting they are the ONLY solution. Also, some people (including me) have posted reports and anecdotes that show their positive effects on a school environment.

Again: why would we take away a necessary support at this critical time?

The question is whether they ARE a necessary support, and the evidence is not there.

On the contrary:
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/Resources/Files/SRO/MCPD-SRO-FAQ.pdf
(Contains ACTUAL statistics that demonstrate the effect of MCPD SROs within the district.)

Since MoCo didn’t bother to ask the community whether SROs should stay, the best we can go with is what PGCPS found out when they asked that question:
https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/pgcps/Board.nsf/files/BX4VD4802E1E/%24file/CEO%27s%20Rec%20School%20Safety%20and%20Security%20Report%2001142021.pdf

80% support SROs at the high school level. 70% support SROs in middle school.
92% who have actually interacted with an SRO report the interaction as “positive.”
70% report that SROs build positive relationships.

The hard facts show that SROs do make a positive impact in this region and that (in places where community was actually asked) the majority supports the program.

People seem horribly uninformed about how ineffective they are and how much more dangerous they make things. They had SROs that both parkland and uvalde and it did not help.

When a person presents relevant data, they are “informed.” When a person states generalities that are not cited, they could be considered “uninformed.”

You mention Parkland and Uvalde, neither of which are in Montgomery County. The data above (did you read it?) shows clear proof that SROs have been beneficial in Montgomery County. You provided two examples from different states. Are they tragic? Absolutely. Do they prove that SROs are ineffective nationwide? Not at all.

You have not presented data.

How many kids were falsely arrested by cops because of SRO’s in Montgomery County?

I did. Clearly you didn’t bother to click the link, which has tons of relevant statistics, explanations about arrests, etc.

You apparently want me to make up some data about falsely arrested students. Perhaps… just perhaps… the data doesn’t exist for Montgomery County because it doesn’t happen? There also aren’t that many arrests in the first place. There were 27 during the last year with SROs. 27 in a system with 160,000 students. That’s… not a lot. That’s also because they are able to proactively keep kids from getting physically arrested through interventions. This is all in the report, if you care to read it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually don't care if it's SROs or MCPS Security. But someone needs to be in control, hold kids accountable and make sure that threats are neutralized.

If that's done by SROs, fine. If MCPS security gain expanded powers and jurisdiction to do some of the things SROs used to do, great. But the schools must be a safe, secure environment.

I agree but it wasn’t safe with SROs and security.

A lot safer when we had SROs. Since SROs were removed, the calls for cops have increased dramatically.

Exactly how it should work. Success!

So you didn't want SROs because too many kids were being reported to SROs (cops) but now that the number of cops being called to the schools for the same reason has increased, it's ok? Hold on while I scratch my head for a few minutes.

It’s working because cops are only getting involved in crime at school and they’re not hanging around school harassing kids.

Do you realize that when SROs were around, crime was lower than they are now? When SROs were around they actually mitigated issues that otherwise would've resulted in an arrest? Without SROs, more kids are actually getting charged of crime.

Actually, when SRO’s were around less criminals were caught. I guess sitting in the school, eating snacks with the teachers was not in effective form of identifying crime outside the school.

So now what you’re saying is you do not want criminals arrested ? You don’t want cops to stop the threat outside the school before it enters?

You are mad because teachers and administrators have formed a relationship with Montgomery County Police and they feel comfortable calling for help.

Sounds like you don’t know what you want.

That would be you that's confused. We're talking about crime IN school, babe. Crime IN school has gone up since SROs were removed.

No the PP was correct. SROs statistically do little to deter crime in schools and more often than not it's been shown they make matters worse. The right like the head of the NRA is always pushing this as a solution when in fact the only way to get guns out of schools is common sense gun reforms

SROs were present at both Parkland and Uvalde and didn't seem to them a lot of good.

And, they've been present at other schools and saved lives.

https://www.nasro.org/news/2022/09/01/news-releases/sro-success-story-school-resource-officer-saves-students-from-abusive-grandmother/

https://www.nasro.org/news/2022/04/21/news-releases/sro-success-story-school-resource-officer-saves-student-from-suicide-attempt/

https://www.wkrn.com/video/sro-saves-choking-student/7695111/

https://abcnews.go.com/US/lone-school-resource-officer-engaged-gunman-saved-lives/story?id=53884377

In the first story, a car entered the drop off line and two kids got out of the car. Two patrol cars were already "not far behind." The SRO did nothing that wasn't already going to happen.
In the second story, the SRO absolutely did something commendable. But it wasn't a crime or violence that was deterred and any other adult or administrator could have done the same thing.
In the third story, same thing. Very commendable life saving act not necessarily performed by a trained law enforcement officer
In the fourth story, a gunman shot and killed a student and then the gunman shot himself in the head. The SRO prevented neither.

Do you work on a school, or have children in a school?

I work in a school. I have children. I want SROs from both a teacher AND a parent standpoint. You are trying to negate the good work SROs do simply to prove some point. The very real truth is SROs have performed FAR more positive services for our schools than get published. I should know, because I’ve seen it.

I can’t understand why a few posters want to deny schools this support. If you haven’t been in a school lately, you really have no idea what we are dealing with. To deny support because “I don’t like them” is to deny students an additional resource at a time in which we are in critical, critical need. Frankly, it’s a selfish viewpoint, and one that does real harm to our students.

Yes I have children in school.
I never said "I don't like them" (and those that have not supported SROs have generally given reasons much beyond that.)
One can think that schools need a lot more support and resources without believing that SROs are the right solution to that problem.

SROs are ONE solution, and they work remarkably well when you place them with other supports (teachers, admin, counselors, etc.)

Nobody is suggesting they are the ONLY solution. Also, some people (including me) have posted reports and anecdotes that show their positive effects on a school environment.

Again: why would we take away a necessary support at this critical time?

The question is whether they ARE a necessary support, and the evidence is not there.

On the contrary:
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/Resources/Files/SRO/MCPD-SRO-FAQ.pdf
(Contains ACTUAL statistics that demonstrate the effect of MCPD SROs within the district.)

Since MoCo didn’t bother to ask the community whether SROs should stay, the best we can go with is what PGCPS found out when they asked that question:
https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/pgcps/Board.nsf/files/BX4VD4802E1E/%24file/CEO%27s%20Rec%20School%20Safety%20and%20Security%20Report%2001142021.pdf

80% support SROs at the high school level. 70% support SROs in middle school.
92% who have actually interacted with an SRO report the interaction as “positive.”
70% report that SROs build positive relationships.

The hard facts show that SROs do make a positive impact in this region and that (in places where community was actually asked) the majority supports the program.

People seem horribly uninformed about how ineffective they are and how much more dangerous they make things. They had SROs that both parkland and uvalde and it did not help.

You state two bad situations but there are tons more where SRO's were effective. So, what is your solution to directly impact our MCPS schools? Clearly the do nothing approach isn't working.

Anonymous wrote:Let's think beyond just shootings too. Wouldn't having an SRO be a deterrent to doing drugs / robbing people in the bathrooms?

And, the rapes.

Anonymous wrote:Let's think beyond just shootings too. Wouldn't having an SRO be a deterrent to doing drugs / robbing people in the bathrooms?

Of course they would.

Let's think beyond just shootings too. Wouldn't having an SRO be a deterrent to doing drugs / robbing people in the bathrooms?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually don't care if it's SROs or MCPS Security. But someone needs to be in control, hold kids accountable and make sure that threats are neutralized.

If that's done by SROs, fine. If MCPS security gain expanded powers and jurisdiction to do some of the things SROs used to do, great. But the schools must be a safe, secure environment.

I agree but it wasn’t safe with SROs and security.

A lot safer when we had SROs. Since SROs were removed, the calls for cops have increased dramatically.

Exactly how it should work. Success!

So you didn't want SROs because too many kids were being reported to SROs (cops) but now that the number of cops being called to the schools for the same reason has increased, it's ok? Hold on while I scratch my head for a few minutes.

It’s working because cops are only getting involved in crime at school and they’re not hanging around school harassing kids.

Do you realize that when SROs were around, crime was lower than they are now? When SROs were around they actually mitigated issues that otherwise would've resulted in an arrest? Without SROs, more kids are actually getting charged of crime.

Actually, when SRO’s were around less criminals were caught. I guess sitting in the school, eating snacks with the teachers was not in effective form of identifying crime outside the school.

So now what you’re saying is you do not want criminals arrested ? You don’t want cops to stop the threat outside the school before it enters?

You are mad because teachers and administrators have formed a relationship with Montgomery County Police and they feel comfortable calling for help.

Sounds like you don’t know what you want.

That would be you that's confused. We're talking about crime IN school, babe. Crime IN school has gone up since SROs were removed.

No the PP was correct. SROs statistically do little to deter crime in schools and more often than not it's been shown they make matters worse. The right like the head of the NRA is always pushing this as a solution when in fact the only way to get guns out of schools is common sense gun reforms

SROs were present at both Parkland and Uvalde and didn't seem to them a lot of good.

And, they've been present at other schools and saved lives.

https://www.nasro.org/news/2022/09/01/news-releases/sro-success-story-school-resource-officer-saves-students-from-abusive-grandmother/

https://www.nasro.org/news/2022/04/21/news-releases/sro-success-story-school-resource-officer-saves-student-from-suicide-attempt/

https://www.wkrn.com/video/sro-saves-choking-student/7695111/

https://abcnews.go.com/US/lone-school-resource-officer-engaged-gunman-saved-lives/story?id=53884377

In the first story, a car entered the drop off line and two kids got out of the car. Two patrol cars were already "not far behind." The SRO did nothing that wasn't already going to happen.
In the second story, the SRO absolutely did something commendable. But it wasn't a crime or violence that was deterred and any other adult or administrator could have done the same thing.
In the third story, same thing. Very commendable life saving act not necessarily performed by a trained law enforcement officer
In the fourth story, a gunman shot and killed a student and then the gunman shot himself in the head. The SRO prevented neither.

Do you work on a school, or have children in a school?

I work in a school. I have children. I want SROs from both a teacher AND a parent standpoint. You are trying to negate the good work SROs do simply to prove some point. The very real truth is SROs have performed FAR more positive services for our schools than get published. I should know, because I’ve seen it.

I can’t understand why a few posters want to deny schools this support. If you haven’t been in a school lately, you really have no idea what we are dealing with. To deny support because “I don’t like them” is to deny students an additional resource at a time in which we are in critical, critical need. Frankly, it’s a selfish viewpoint, and one that does real harm to our students.

Yes I have children in school.
I never said "I don't like them" (and those that have not supported SROs have generally given reasons much beyond that.)
One can think that schools need a lot more support and resources without believing that SROs are the right solution to that problem.

SROs are ONE solution, and they work remarkably well when you place them with other supports (teachers, admin, counselors, etc.)

Nobody is suggesting they are the ONLY solution. Also, some people (including me) have posted reports and anecdotes that show their positive effects on a school environment.

Again: why would we take away a necessary support at this critical time?

The question is whether they ARE a necessary support, and the evidence is not there.

On the contrary:
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/Resources/Files/SRO/MCPD-SRO-FAQ.pdf
(Contains ACTUAL statistics that demonstrate the effect of MCPD SROs within the district.)

Since MoCo didn’t bother to ask the community whether SROs should stay, the best we can go with is what PGCPS found out when they asked that question:
https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/pgcps/Board.nsf/files/BX4VD4802E1E/%24file/CEO%27s%20Rec%20School%20Safety%20and%20Security%20Report%2001142021.pdf

80% support SROs at the high school level. 70% support SROs in middle school.
92% who have actually interacted with an SRO report the interaction as “positive.”
70% report that SROs build positive relationships.

The hard facts show that SROs do make a positive impact in this region and that (in places where community was actually asked) the majority supports the program.

People seem horribly uninformed about how ineffective they are and how much more dangerous they make things. They had SROs that both parkland and uvalde and it did not help.

When a person presents relevant data, they are “informed.” When a person states generalities that are not cited, they could be considered “uninformed.”

You mention Parkland and Uvalde, neither of which are in Montgomery County. The data above (did you read it?) shows clear proof that SROs have been beneficial in Montgomery County. You provided two examples from different states. Are they tragic? Absolutely. Do they prove that SROs are ineffective nationwide? Not at all.

You have not presented data.

How many kids were falsely arrested by cops because of SRO’s in Montgomery County?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually don't care if it's SROs or MCPS Security. But someone needs to be in control, hold kids accountable and make sure that threats are neutralized.

If that's done by SROs, fine. If MCPS security gain expanded powers and jurisdiction to do some of the things SROs used to do, great. But the schools must be a safe, secure environment.

I agree but it wasn’t safe with SROs and security.

A lot safer when we had SROs. Since SROs were removed, the calls for cops have increased dramatically.

Exactly how it should work. Success!

So you didn't want SROs because too many kids were being reported to SROs (cops) but now that the number of cops being called to the schools for the same reason has increased, it's ok? Hold on while I scratch my head for a few minutes.

It’s working because cops are only getting involved in crime at school and they’re not hanging around school harassing kids.

Do you realize that when SROs were around, crime was lower than they are now? When SROs were around they actually mitigated issues that otherwise would've resulted in an arrest? Without SROs, more kids are actually getting charged of crime.

Actually, when SRO’s were around less criminals were caught. I guess sitting in the school, eating snacks with the teachers was not in effective form of identifying crime outside the school.

So now what you’re saying is you do not want criminals arrested ? You don’t want cops to stop the threat outside the school before it enters?

You are mad because teachers and administrators have formed a relationship with Montgomery County Police and they feel comfortable calling for help.

Sounds like you don’t know what you want.

That would be you that's confused. We're talking about crime IN school, babe. Crime IN school has gone up since SROs were removed.

No the PP was correct. SROs statistically do little to deter crime in schools and more often than not it's been shown they make matters worse. The right like the head of the NRA is always pushing this as a solution when in fact the only way to get guns out of schools is common sense gun reforms

SROs were present at both Parkland and Uvalde and didn't seem to them a lot of good.

And, they've been present at other schools and saved lives.

https://www.nasro.org/news/2022/09/01/news-releases/sro-success-story-school-resource-officer-saves-students-from-abusive-grandmother/

https://www.nasro.org/news/2022/04/21/news-releases/sro-success-story-school-resource-officer-saves-student-from-suicide-attempt/

https://www.wkrn.com/video/sro-saves-choking-student/7695111/

https://abcnews.go.com/US/lone-school-resource-officer-engaged-gunman-saved-lives/story?id=53884377

In the first story, a car entered the drop off line and two kids got out of the car. Two patrol cars were already "not far behind." The SRO did nothing that wasn't already going to happen.
In the second story, the SRO absolutely did something commendable. But it wasn't a crime or violence that was deterred and any other adult or administrator could have done the same thing.
In the third story, same thing. Very commendable life saving act not necessarily performed by a trained law enforcement officer
In the fourth story, a gunman shot and killed a student and then the gunman shot himself in the head. The SRO prevented neither.

Do you work on a school, or have children in a school?

I work in a school. I have children. I want SROs from both a teacher AND a parent standpoint. You are trying to negate the good work SROs do simply to prove some point. The very real truth is SROs have performed FAR more positive services for our schools than get published. I should know, because I’ve seen it.

I can’t understand why a few posters want to deny schools this support. If you haven’t been in a school lately, you really have no idea what we are dealing with. To deny support because “I don’t like them” is to deny students an additional resource at a time in which we are in critical, critical need. Frankly, it’s a selfish viewpoint, and one that does real harm to our students.

Yes I have children in school.
I never said "I don't like them" (and those that have not supported SROs have generally given reasons much beyond that.)
One can think that schools need a lot more support and resources without believing that SROs are the right solution to that problem.

SROs are ONE solution, and they work remarkably well when you place them with other supports (teachers, admin, counselors, etc.)

Nobody is suggesting they are the ONLY solution. Also, some people (including me) have posted reports and anecdotes that show their positive effects on a school environment.

Again: why would we take away a necessary support at this critical time?

The question is whether they ARE a necessary support, and the evidence is not there.

On the contrary:
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/Resources/Files/SRO/MCPD-SRO-FAQ.pdf
(Contains ACTUAL statistics that demonstrate the effect of MCPD SROs within the district.)

Since MoCo didn’t bother to ask the community whether SROs should stay, the best we can go with is what PGCPS found out when they asked that question:
https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/pgcps/Board.nsf/files/BX4VD4802E1E/%24file/CEO%27s%20Rec%20School%20Safety%20and%20Security%20Report%2001142021.pdf

80% support SROs at the high school level. 70% support SROs in middle school.
92% who have actually interacted with an SRO report the interaction as “positive.”
70% report that SROs build positive relationships.

The hard facts show that SROs do make a positive impact in this region and that (in places where community was actually asked) the majority supports the program.

People seem horribly uninformed about how ineffective they are and how much more dangerous they make things. They had SROs that both parkland and uvalde and it did not help.

When a person presents relevant data, they are “informed.” When a person states generalities that are not cited, they could be considered “uninformed.”

You mention Parkland and Uvalde, neither of which are in Montgomery County. The data above (did you read it?) shows clear proof that SROs have been beneficial in Montgomery County. You provided two examples from different states. Are they tragic? Absolutely. Do they prove that SROs are ineffective nationwide? Not at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually don't care if it's SROs or MCPS Security. But someone needs to be in control, hold kids accountable and make sure that threats are neutralized.

If that's done by SROs, fine. If MCPS security gain expanded powers and jurisdiction to do some of the things SROs used to do, great. But the schools must be a safe, secure environment.

I agree but it wasn’t safe with SROs and security.

A lot safer when we had SROs. Since SROs were removed, the calls for cops have increased dramatically.

Exactly how it should work. Success!

So you didn't want SROs because too many kids were being reported to SROs (cops) but now that the number of cops being called to the schools for the same reason has increased, it's ok? Hold on while I scratch my head for a few minutes.

It’s working because cops are only getting involved in crime at school and they’re not hanging around school harassing kids.

Do you realize that when SROs were around, crime was lower than they are now? When SROs were around they actually mitigated issues that otherwise would've resulted in an arrest? Without SROs, more kids are actually getting charged of crime.

Actually, when SRO’s were around less criminals were caught. I guess sitting in the school, eating snacks with the teachers was not in effective form of identifying crime outside the school.

So now what you’re saying is you do not want criminals arrested ? You don’t want cops to stop the threat outside the school before it enters?

You are mad because teachers and administrators have formed a relationship with Montgomery County Police and they feel comfortable calling for help.

Sounds like you don’t know what you want.

That would be you that's confused. We're talking about crime IN school, babe. Crime IN school has gone up since SROs were removed.

No the PP was correct. SROs statistically do little to deter crime in schools and more often than not it's been shown they make matters worse. The right like the head of the NRA is always pushing this as a solution when in fact the only way to get guns out of schools is common sense gun reforms

SROs were present at both Parkland and Uvalde and didn't seem to them a lot of good.

And, they've been present at other schools and saved lives.

https://www.nasro.org/news/2022/09/01/news-releases/sro-success-story-school-resource-officer-saves-students-from-abusive-grandmother/

https://www.nasro.org/news/2022/04/21/news-releases/sro-success-story-school-resource-officer-saves-student-from-suicide-attempt/

https://www.wkrn.com/video/sro-saves-choking-student/7695111/

https://abcnews.go.com/US/lone-school-resource-officer-engaged-gunman-saved-lives/story?id=53884377

In the first story, a car entered the drop off line and two kids got out of the car. Two patrol cars were already "not far behind." The SRO did nothing that wasn't already going to happen.
In the second story, the SRO absolutely did something commendable. But it wasn't a crime or violence that was deterred and any other adult or administrator could have done the same thing.
In the third story, same thing. Very commendable life saving act not necessarily performed by a trained law enforcement officer
In the fourth story, a gunman shot and killed a student and then the gunman shot himself in the head. The SRO prevented neither.

Do you work on a school, or have children in a school?

I work in a school. I have children. I want SROs from both a teacher AND a parent standpoint. You are trying to negate the good work SROs do simply to prove some point. The very real truth is SROs have performed FAR more positive services for our schools than get published. I should know, because I’ve seen it.

I can’t understand why a few posters want to deny schools this support. If you haven’t been in a school lately, you really have no idea what we are dealing with. To deny support because “I don’t like them” is to deny students an additional resource at a time in which we are in critical, critical need. Frankly, it’s a selfish viewpoint, and one that does real harm to our students.

Yes I have children in school.
I never said "I don't like them" (and those that have not supported SROs have generally given reasons much beyond that.)
One can think that schools need a lot more support and resources without believing that SROs are the right solution to that problem.

SROs are ONE solution, and they work remarkably well when you place them with other supports (teachers, admin, counselors, etc.)

Nobody is suggesting they are the ONLY solution. Also, some people (including me) have posted reports and anecdotes that show their positive effects on a school environment.

Again: why would we take away a necessary support at this critical time?

The question is whether they ARE a necessary support, and the evidence is not there.

On the contrary:
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/Resources/Files/SRO/MCPD-SRO-FAQ.pdf
(Contains ACTUAL statistics that demonstrate the effect of MCPD SROs within the district.)

Since MoCo didn’t bother to ask the community whether SROs should stay, the best we can go with is what PGCPS found out when they asked that question:
https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/pgcps/Board.nsf/files/BX4VD4802E1E/%24file/CEO%27s%20Rec%20School%20Safety%20and%20Security%20Report%2001142021.pdf

80% support SROs at the high school level. 70% support SROs in middle school.
92% who have actually interacted with an SRO report the interaction as “positive.”
70% report that SROs build positive relationships.

The hard facts show that SROs do make a positive impact in this region and that (in places where community was actually asked) the majority supports the program.

People seem horribly uninformed about how ineffective they are and how much more dangerous they make things. They had SROs that both parkland and uvalde and it did not help.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually don't care if it's SROs or MCPS Security. But someone needs to be in control, hold kids accountable and make sure that threats are neutralized.

If that's done by SROs, fine. If MCPS security gain expanded powers and jurisdiction to do some of the things SROs used to do, great. But the schools must be a safe, secure environment.

I agree but it wasn’t safe with SROs and security.

A lot safer when we had SROs. Since SROs were removed, the calls for cops have increased dramatically.

Exactly how it should work. Success!

So you didn't want SROs because too many kids were being reported to SROs (cops) but now that the number of cops being called to the schools for the same reason has increased, it's ok? Hold on while I scratch my head for a few minutes.

It’s working because cops are only getting involved in crime at school and they’re not hanging around school harassing kids.

Do you realize that when SROs were around, crime was lower than they are now? When SROs were around they actually mitigated issues that otherwise would've resulted in an arrest? Without SROs, more kids are actually getting charged of crime.

Actually, when SRO’s were around less criminals were caught. I guess sitting in the school, eating snacks with the teachers was not in effective form of identifying crime outside the school.

So now what you’re saying is you do not want criminals arrested ? You don’t want cops to stop the threat outside the school before it enters?

You are mad because teachers and administrators have formed a relationship with Montgomery County Police and they feel comfortable calling for help.

Sounds like you don’t know what you want.

That would be you that's confused. We're talking about crime IN school, babe. Crime IN school has gone up since SROs were removed.

No the PP was correct. SROs statistically do little to deter crime in schools and more often than not it's been shown they make matters worse. The right like the head of the NRA is always pushing this as a solution when in fact the only way to get guns out of schools is common sense gun reforms

SROs were present at both Parkland and Uvalde and didn't seem to them a lot of good.

And, they've been present at other schools and saved lives.

https://www.nasro.org/news/2022/09/01/news-releases/sro-success-story-school-resource-officer-saves-students-from-abusive-grandmother/

https://www.nasro.org/news/2022/04/21/news-releases/sro-success-story-school-resource-officer-saves-student-from-suicide-attempt/

https://www.wkrn.com/video/sro-saves-choking-student/7695111/

https://abcnews.go.com/US/lone-school-resource-officer-engaged-gunman-saved-lives/story?id=53884377

In the first story, a car entered the drop off line and two kids got out of the car. Two patrol cars were already "not far behind." The SRO did nothing that wasn't already going to happen.
In the second story, the SRO absolutely did something commendable. But it wasn't a crime or violence that was deterred and any other adult or administrator could have done the same thing.
In the third story, same thing. Very commendable life saving act not necessarily performed by a trained law enforcement officer
In the fourth story, a gunman shot and killed a student and then the gunman shot himself in the head. The SRO prevented neither.

Do you work on a school, or have children in a school?

I work in a school. I have children. I want SROs from both a teacher AND a parent standpoint. You are trying to negate the good work SROs do simply to prove some point. The very real truth is SROs have performed FAR more positive services for our schools than get published. I should know, because I’ve seen it.

I can’t understand why a few posters want to deny schools this support. If you haven’t been in a school lately, you really have no idea what we are dealing with. To deny support because “I don’t like them” is to deny students an additional resource at a time in which we are in critical, critical need. Frankly, it’s a selfish viewpoint, and one that does real harm to our students.

Yes I have children in school.
I never said "I don't like them" (and those that have not supported SROs have generally given reasons much beyond that.)
One can think that schools need a lot more support and resources without believing that SROs are the right solution to that problem.

SROs are ONE solution, and they work remarkably well when you place them with other supports (teachers, admin, counselors, etc.)

Nobody is suggesting they are the ONLY solution. Also, some people (including me) have posted reports and anecdotes that show their positive effects on a school environment.

Again: why would we take away a necessary support at this critical time?

The question is whether they ARE a necessary support, and the evidence is not there.

On the contrary:
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/Resources/Files/SRO/MCPD-SRO-FAQ.pdf
(Contains ACTUAL statistics that demonstrate the effect of MCPD SROs within the district.)

Since MoCo didn’t bother to ask the community whether SROs should stay, the best we can go with is what PGCPS found out when they asked that question:
https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/pgcps/Board.nsf/files/BX4VD4802E1E/%24file/CEO%27s%20Rec%20School%20Safety%20and%20Security%20Report%2001142021.pdf

80% support SROs at the high school level. 70% support SROs in middle school.
92% who have actually interacted with an SRO report the interaction as “positive.”
70% report that SROs build positive relationships.

The hard facts show that SROs do make a positive impact in this region and that (in places where community was actually asked) the majority supports the program.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The trolls are strong in this thread!

+1
I was going to take the time to write something logical and backed by evidence, but it just isn’t worth it. The anti-SRO poster(s) will just derail any attempt at a reasoned discussion.

You can’t write something logical that is pro-SRO because nothing logical is pro-SRO.

+1

We had amazing SROs but they don’t belong in schools.

Are some SROs nice people yes. Do they prevent crimes, no. Are they equipped to single handedly take down a gunman. No. If you want your SRO dead, sure. They need SWAT at the school if you really worry about gunman.

If an SRO can't take down a gunman then our training system is woefully lacking. The SROs in my high school in the 90s carried guns. You're telling me a trained adult can't take down an amateur 14 year old incel with his mommy's rifle? I could take down one of these guys and I have only been to skeet shooting ranges and indoor shooting ranges maybe like 15 times in my life.

I think you watch too many movies and don’t really understand what its like.

Lol they think they can hit a moving target while taking fire with kids in the background and not hit those kids.

People are wildly uninformed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The trolls are strong in this thread!

+1
I was going to take the time to write something logical and backed by evidence, but it just isn’t worth it. The anti-SRO poster(s) will just derail any attempt at a reasoned discussion.

You can’t write something logical that is pro-SRO because nothing logical is pro-SRO.

+1

We had amazing SROs but they don’t belong in schools.

Are some SROs nice people yes. Do they prevent crimes, no. Are they equipped to single handedly take down a gunman. No. If you want your SRO dead, sure. They need SWAT at the school if you really worry about gunman.

If an SRO can't take down a gunman then our training system is woefully lacking. The SROs in my high school in the 90s carried guns. You're telling me a trained adult can't take down an amateur 14 year old incel with his mommy's rifle? I could take down one of these guys and I have only been to skeet shooting ranges and indoor shooting ranges maybe like 15 times in my life.

No. They can’t. The training is to enter the building in triangle formation which requires 3 police. But the SRO doesn’t want to end up like the Parkland cop so they will go in alone and they will die.

The kids at Parkland and Uvalde had automatic weapons I think specifically an AR-15.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The trolls are strong in this thread!

+1
I was going to take the time to write something logical and backed by evidence, but it just isn’t worth it. The anti-SRO poster(s) will just derail any attempt at a reasoned discussion.

You can’t write something logical that is pro-SRO because nothing logical is pro-SRO.

+1

We had amazing SROs but they don’t belong in schools.

Are some SROs nice people yes. Do they prevent crimes, no. Are they equipped to single handedly take down a gunman. No. If you want your SRO dead, sure. They need SWAT at the school if you really worry about gunman.

If an SRO can't take down a gunman then our training system is woefully lacking. The SROs in my high school in the 90s carried guns. You're telling me a trained adult can't take down an amateur 14 year old incel with his mommy's rifle? I could take down one of these guys and I have only been to skeet shooting ranges and indoor shooting ranges maybe like 15 times in my life.

No. They can’t. The training is to enter the building in triangle formation which requires 3 police. But the SRO doesn’t want to end up like the Parkland cop so they will go in alone and they will die.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The trolls are strong in this thread!

+1
I was going to take the time to write something logical and backed by evidence, but it just isn’t worth it. The anti-SRO poster(s) will just derail any attempt at a reasoned discussion.

You can’t write something logical that is pro-SRO because nothing logical is pro-SRO.

+1

We had amazing SROs but they don’t belong in schools.

Are some SROs nice people yes. Do they prevent crimes, no. Are they equipped to single handedly take down a gunman. No. If you want your SRO dead, sure. They need SWAT at the school if you really worry about gunman.

If an SRO can't take down a gunman then our training system is woefully lacking. The SROs in my high school in the 90s carried guns. You're telling me a trained adult can't take down an amateur 14 year old incel with his mommy's rifle? I could take down one of these guys and I have only been to skeet shooting ranges and indoor shooting ranges maybe like 15 times in my life.

I think you watch too many movies and don’t really understand what its like.