Anonymous wrote:

I'm just hoping that this is not some sort of new normal. School fights break out every day, and some high schoolers are big and rather imposing.

Yet in the past, unruly behavior at school was always managed without the use of stun guns. As I understood it, the kid in this case became aggressive after being compelled to return to class after the lunch break. Why would there not have been a way to defuse the situation short of inflicting violence on the kid?

Seriously, you can't be this dumb. That's a gross mischaracterization of the situation. They didn't tase the student to get her back to class, they tased her because she punched a freakin' staff member:

"According to Principal Renay Johnson, the student, 16, who remains unnamed to protect her privacy as a minor, refused orders by Security Guard Kathleen Greene to enter Blair's building at the end of fifth period. After several failed orders, Greene called Blair's Resource Officer to the scene for assistance. Johnson said the student refused to comply with security and became increasingly disruptive, striking the officer. In response, the officer used a Taser on the student. Three other police officers also responded to the scene as backup."

http://silverchips.mbhs.edu/story/12055

And heaven forfend that a student be asked, or <gasp> TOLD to go to class. It's completely unreasonable to think kids should be in class, or obey the direction of staff and police. Especially a 16 yo freshman - she couldn't possible gain anything from going to class (except perhaps avoiding becoming a 17 yo freshman). What were those officers thinking? They shodul have asked her about her feelings,not told her to go to class in the middle of the school day.

Gimme a break.

As a parent with a child at Eastern Middle School, I read this situation and wonder if it could have been handled differently. You are right, on the surface, it seems perfectly reasonable to ask a child to go back to class. But, I have heard stories from my child about the way that fights and disruptions are handled at Eastern, and it just makes me shake my head. The confrontational manner and the unwillingness to actually explore what the problem is from the child's perspective just makes these situations worse. My child has told me several stories that make me sad for the child who got in trouble -- kids who were being bullied but were punished by the administration rather than the administration punishing the bullies, kids who got upset when teachers were extremely disrespectful, kids who misinterpreted a situation and acted out, kids who received differential punishment (i.e. worse punishment or less "flexibility" than their more affluent white peers).

I don't know what went on in this particular situation at Blair, but I do know that schools have handled these incidents for years without tasers.

As a county resident, I also find the liability MCPS is opening up the MoCo taxpayer to pretty scary. What are the policies/rules for use of the taser? What are the after-application procedures -- is each use of the Taser being tracked and justified? Are there any post-tasering debriefings so that the security team can think about how the situation could have been shaped? Are there any public reporting requirements on use of the Taser? Can I see on the MCPS School Safety at a Glance report that School XXX used a Taser XX number of times? What kind of injuries can potentially result from misapplication or application to a medically "vulnerable" student?

Of course there are going to be increased arrests. The SRO is able to ferret out the crime. That's a good thing.

I'm just hoping that this is not some sort of new normal. School fights break out every day, and some high schoolers are big and rather imposing.

Yet in the past, unruly behavior at school was always managed without the use of stun guns. As I understood it, the kid in this case became aggressive after being compelled to return to class after the lunch break. Why would there not have been a way to defuse the situation short of inflicting violence on the kid?

Seriously, you can't be this dumb. That's a gross mischaracterization of the situation. They didn't tase the student to get her back to class, they tased her because she punched a freakin' staff member:

"According to Principal Renay Johnson, the student, 16, who remains unnamed to protect her privacy as a minor, refused orders by Security Guard Kathleen Greene to enter Blair's building at the end of fifth period. After several failed orders, Greene called Blair's Resource Officer to the scene for assistance. Johnson said the student refused to comply with security and became increasingly disruptive, striking the officer. In response, the officer used a Taser on the student. Three other police officers also responded to the scene as backup."

http://silverchips.mbhs.edu/story/12055

And heaven forfend that a student be asked, or <gasp> TOLD to go to class. It's completely unreasonable to think kids should be in class, or obey the direction of staff and police. Especially a 16 yo freshman - she couldn't possible gain anything from going to class (except perhaps avoiding becoming a 17 yo freshman). What were those officers thinking? They shodul have asked her about her feelings,not told her to go to class in the middle of the school day.

Gimme a break.

Anonymous wrote:the parents seem electrified over this issue

<snicker>

You have a black administrator (Principal Johnson) who oversees the school. This happened on her watch.

Anonymous wrote: The "federal data"cited most likely completely ignores the fact that black and Hispanic "children" who are affected because they are the the ones most likely to be involved in fighting, etc.

No.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2013/0331/School-suspensions-Does-racial-bias-feed-the-school-to-prison-pipeline

Anonymous wrote:Children or even teenagers do no go to jail in Montgomery County for shoving matches or cursing. The "federal data"cited most likely completely ignores the fact that black and Hispanic "children" who are affected because they are the the ones most likely to be involved in fighting, etc.

"The use of police in schools has increased dramatically in the past 12 years,
largely due to increases in US Department of Justice funding. This study used
data from the School Survey on Crime and Safety to assess the extent to which
the addition of police in schools is associated with changes in levels of school
crime and schools responses to crime. We found that as schools increase their
use of police, they record more crimes involving weapon and drugs and report
a higher percentage of their non-serious violent crimes to law enforcement.
The possibility that placement of police officers in schools increases referrals
to law enforcement for crimes of a less serious nature and increases recording
of weapon and drug offenses requires that more rigorous research be carried
out to assess more carefully the school climate and school safety outcomes
related to this popular and costly practice."

http://www.ccjs.umd.edu/sites/ccjs.umd.edu/files/pubs/Police%20Officers%20in%20Schools-Effects%20on%20School%20Crime%20and%20the%20Processing%20of%20Offending%20Behaviors.pdf

the parents seem electrified over this issue

According to the Post this kid was charged. The issue is not about police in the schools. It is about an administration that lacks the trust of the students and the incompetence Johnson has brought to the school.

Johnson portrays herself as a courageous leader and is anything but.

Anonymous wrote:NY Times on April 18:
Stationing police in schools, while common today, was virtually unknown during the 1970s. Things began to change with the surge of juvenile crime during the ’80s, followed by an overreaction among school officials. Then came the 1999 Columbine High School shooting outside Denver, which prompted a surge in financing for specially trained police. In the mid-1970s, police patrolled about 1 percent of schools. By 2008, the figure was 40 percent.
The belief that police officers automatically make schools safer was challenged in a 2011 study that compared federal crime data of schools that had police officers with schools that did not. It found that the presence of the officers did not drive down crime. The study — by Chongmin Na of The University of Houston, Clear Lake, and Denise Gottfredson of the University of Maryland — also found that with police in the buildings, routine disciplinary problems began to be treated as criminal justice problems, increasing the likelihood of arrests.
Children as young as 12 have been treated as criminals for shoving matches and even adolescent misconduct like cursing in school. This is worrisome because young people who spend time in adult jails are more likely to have problems with law enforcement later on. Moreover, federal data suggest a pattern of discrimination in the arrests, with black and Hispanic children more likely to be affected than their white peers.

Children or even teenagers do no go to jail in Montgomery County for shoving matches or cursing. The "federal data"cited most likely completely ignores the fact that black and Hispanic "children" who are affected because they are the the ones most likely to be involved in fighting, etc.

"Consistent with prior research (I. M. Johnson, 1999), this is perhaps an indication that the presence of SROs may to some degree serve as a deterrent for serious crime. This possibility is strengthened by the significant and positive relationship that was observed for the presence and number of security guards with the incidence of school violence and school serious violence. Specifically, controlling for frequency of employing security guards in the school, which is significantly related to a school having a high incidence of crime, the presence of SROs is significantly associated with a lower incidence of serious school violence. Therefore, this result may suggest that having an SRO independent of having security guards may be an effective strategy to prevent serious school violence. It is quite possible that the presence of SROs, in addition to acting as a deterrent, may encourage positive interactions between the police and the students. This direct line of positive communication with an authority figure other than their parent may serve as a mechanism to reduce students’ likelihood from becoming involved in serious and violent crime. Furthermore, these SROs can be active partners with and liaisons between the teachers, school support staff, school administrators, and the larger community."

http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/wpcn20/11/2#/doi/full/10.1080/15332586.2011.581511

NY Times on April 18:
Stationing police in schools, while common today, was virtually unknown during the 1970s. Things began to change with the surge of juvenile crime during the ’80s, followed by an overreaction among school officials. Then came the 1999 Columbine High School shooting outside Denver, which prompted a surge in financing for specially trained police. In the mid-1970s, police patrolled about 1 percent of schools. By 2008, the figure was 40 percent.
The belief that police officers automatically make schools safer was challenged in a 2011 study that compared federal crime data of schools that had police officers with schools that did not. It found that the presence of the officers did not drive down crime. The study — by Chongmin Na of The University of Houston, Clear Lake, and Denise Gottfredson of the University of Maryland — also found that with police in the buildings, routine disciplinary problems began to be treated as criminal justice problems, increasing the likelihood of arrests.
Children as young as 12 have been treated as criminals for shoving matches and even adolescent misconduct like cursing in school. This is worrisome because young people who spend time in adult jails are more likely to have problems with law enforcement later on. Moreover, federal data suggest a pattern of discrimination in the arrests, with black and Hispanic children more likely to be affected than their white peers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SROs are part of a community policing model which focuses on proactive prevention and suppression of crime. It is relationship-based, and an SRO seeks to establish and foster close, trusting relationships with students and staff. There is evidence, both nationally and in this county, that the model is effective in preventing crime in schools.

Seems to me that using weapons on kids, like the taser, would harm the trust and relationship-emphasis they are trying to build.

Seems to me you are playing dumb to make a point. Not very effective.

Don't tase me, bro.

Anonymous wrote:SROs are part of a community policing model which focuses on proactive prevention and suppression of crime. It is relationship-based, and an SRO seeks to establish and foster close, trusting relationships with students and staff. There is evidence, both nationally and in this county, that the model is effective in preventing crime in schools.

Seems to me that using weapons on kids, like the taser, would harm the trust and relationship-emphasis they are trying to build.