Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the taking points posted by a PP—very helpful. Condensing, it sounds like there are three major differences with the old SRO program:
— CEOs have a designated work station at the HS but are not stationed there (unclear what this means in practice but I’d guess it means they need to at least report to shift at police station)
— ceos not allowed to patrol hallways or respond to school incidents (unclear what that means—if a security officer says “there are kids using drugs in the bathroom and they are refusing to disperse” can the CEO assist?)
— unlike SROs, ceos do not have primary response for arson or drug distribution. Unclear to me who does have primary response for that….McPS security? Principals?
Taking the second two things in combination, it appears that MCPD no longer has any role in making sure kids aren’t using or selling drugs in schools. That seems to me not ideal.

#1 SRO’s had no place to sit so they had to wonder the halls or sit in their car to write a report. Now they have an office.

#2 means that if a teacher is dealing with a disciplinary issue a cop can’t get involved. Often SRO’s would escalate a simple disciplinary issue that teachers were able to handle and teachers did not feel like they could tell a cop to butt out. SROs now only respond to crimes.

#3 arsons are investigated by fire Marshall’s not cops. The Bethesda mag article explains the “drug” response.

#4 no it not true that cops are not involved in drug enforcement for distribution and dangerous drugs. Anything that is a non criminal drug charge in Montgomery County (aka possession of a small amount of pot or paraphernalia ) will now be dealt with by MCPS discipline .

#1. Our SROs always were given a place to work. They walked the halls, but they also had a “home” for work.

#2. SROs did not step in when I was dealing with discipline in my classroom. They didn’t do that to my colleagues, either. Why? Because, as you said, that would escalate the issue and the teacher would loose authority. So, clearly, SROs did not do this. Where are you coming up with this? This isn’t how SROs operated at. all.

I’d love to know where you got these beliefs.

#1 not all schools are the same

#2 most complaints came from teachers in ED classrooms. Are you an ED teacher? I’m glad you agree that SRO’s should not get involved with discipline. That change must please you. It’s explained in the Bethesda magazine article.

Yes, I have worked with ED students in all of my classes. Good attempt at twisting my words, but I can handle discipline in my own classroom while simultaneously being supported by the work of an SRO. There are times I am not equipped to handle a situation, like the weapon that was found in my classroom. I should NOT be expected to handle situations like that, and I should absolutely have the support an an SRO in those cases. The current CEO model doesn’t place the officer close to my classroom, nor does that officer know my children. This is a worse situation. You are welcome to spin it any way you like, of course, but it won’t match my reality nor that of many others with actual experience with SROs.

A weapon would be a crime and a CEO would be involved. CEO’s are in the school and if you have not been given instructions on how to ask for a response you need to reach out to your principal.

How did you call for the SRO?

Quietly simply texted the main office and he was at my door in less than 2 minutes. Since a CEO could be anywhere in a cluster, I doubt I’ll get the same response next time. Also, the SRO already had an established relationship with the student, so the student willingly left the classroom and talked to the trusted officer. A CEO won’t have the same type of relationship.

Again: I come from a place of experience and understanding.

The new model will be that you can call the CEO directly but that part has not been implemented yet.

If you can’t text your front office and get the CEO you should report that. Starting Fall 21 CEO’s were back in schools the same way SRO were. Also students can approach CEO’s if they want. CEO’s are just not allowed to create fake relationship with students to purposely narc on them to investigators they have to live by the same privacy rules teachers do unless it’s a criminal investigation.

Again: I have a very novel experience with security in schools as well as cities, events, sports events, and govt buildings.

You say you have experience with “security,” not with SROs. Your language also shows extreme bias (“fake relationships,” “purposefully narc”). The combination of the two demonstrates we have nothing further to discuss.

I’ve worked with too many amazing SROs to entertain this any further.

Please explain to me how the SROs on site at parkland and uvalde helped?

It's well known that SROs do almost nothing for school safety and in many cases have made matters worse.

Again you keep saying this, but post no evidence of how this applies to Montgomery County, or even Maryland. What incidents in Montgomery County can you refer to in which having the SROs have made matters worse?

It was shown that SROs created many false arrests and provided bad information to investigators. They will no longer be used in this capacity.

Source please? The fact is only 3% of incidents that were handled by SROs in MCPS resulted in an arrest.

That doesn’t count the arrests made by investigators with SRO information..

Also why don’t they publicize how many of those arrests were false?

How is that different from arrests made from teacher/staff/administration information?

Its extra staff in the schools that MCPS isn't paying for as it comes out of police funding not MCPS.

What is your solution? You have yet to give us any. Incidents are up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the taking points posted by a PP—very helpful. Condensing, it sounds like there are three major differences with the old SRO program:
— CEOs have a designated work station at the HS but are not stationed there (unclear what this means in practice but I’d guess it means they need to at least report to shift at police station)
— ceos not allowed to patrol hallways or respond to school incidents (unclear what that means—if a security officer says “there are kids using drugs in the bathroom and they are refusing to disperse” can the CEO assist?)
— unlike SROs, ceos do not have primary response for arson or drug distribution. Unclear to me who does have primary response for that….McPS security? Principals?
Taking the second two things in combination, it appears that MCPD no longer has any role in making sure kids aren’t using or selling drugs in schools. That seems to me not ideal.

#1 SRO’s had no place to sit so they had to wonder the halls or sit in their car to write a report. Now they have an office.

#2 means that if a teacher is dealing with a disciplinary issue a cop can’t get involved. Often SRO’s would escalate a simple disciplinary issue that teachers were able to handle and teachers did not feel like they could tell a cop to butt out. SROs now only respond to crimes.

#3 arsons are investigated by fire Marshall’s not cops. The Bethesda mag article explains the “drug” response.

#4 no it not true that cops are not involved in drug enforcement for distribution and dangerous drugs. Anything that is a non criminal drug charge in Montgomery County (aka possession of a small amount of pot or paraphernalia ) will now be dealt with by MCPS discipline .

#1. Our SROs always were given a place to work. They walked the halls, but they also had a “home” for work.

#2. SROs did not step in when I was dealing with discipline in my classroom. They didn’t do that to my colleagues, either. Why? Because, as you said, that would escalate the issue and the teacher would loose authority. So, clearly, SROs did not do this. Where are you coming up with this? This isn’t how SROs operated at. all.

I’d love to know where you got these beliefs.

#1 not all schools are the same

#2 most complaints came from teachers in ED classrooms. Are you an ED teacher? I’m glad you agree that SRO’s should not get involved with discipline. That change must please you. It’s explained in the Bethesda magazine article.

Yes, I have worked with ED students in all of my classes. Good attempt at twisting my words, but I can handle discipline in my own classroom while simultaneously being supported by the work of an SRO. There are times I am not equipped to handle a situation, like the weapon that was found in my classroom. I should NOT be expected to handle situations like that, and I should absolutely have the support an an SRO in those cases. The current CEO model doesn’t place the officer close to my classroom, nor does that officer know my children. This is a worse situation. You are welcome to spin it any way you like, of course, but it won’t match my reality nor that of many others with actual experience with SROs.

A weapon would be a crime and a CEO would be involved. CEO’s are in the school and if you have not been given instructions on how to ask for a response you need to reach out to your principal.

How did you call for the SRO?

Quietly simply texted the main office and he was at my door in less than 2 minutes. Since a CEO could be anywhere in a cluster, I doubt I’ll get the same response next time. Also, the SRO already had an established relationship with the student, so the student willingly left the classroom and talked to the trusted officer. A CEO won’t have the same type of relationship.

Again: I come from a place of experience and understanding.

The new model will be that you can call the CEO directly but that part has not been implemented yet.

If you can’t text your front office and get the CEO you should report that. Starting Fall 21 CEO’s were back in schools the same way SRO were. Also students can approach CEO’s if they want. CEO’s are just not allowed to create fake relationship with students to purposely narc on them to investigators they have to live by the same privacy rules teachers do unless it’s a criminal investigation.

Again: I have a very novel experience with security in schools as well as cities, events, sports events, and govt buildings.

You say you have experience with “security,” not with SROs. Your language also shows extreme bias (“fake relationships,” “purposefully narc”). The combination of the two demonstrates we have nothing further to discuss.

I’ve worked with too many amazing SROs to entertain this any further.

Please explain to me how the SROs on site at parkland and uvalde helped?

It's well known that SROs do almost nothing for school safety and in many cases have made matters worse.

Again you keep saying this, but post no evidence of how this applies to Montgomery County, or even Maryland. What incidents in Montgomery County can you refer to in which having the SROs have made matters worse?

It was shown that SROs created many false arrests and provided bad information to investigators. They will no longer be used in this capacity.

Source please? The fact is only 3% of incidents that were handled by SROs in MCPS resulted in an arrest.

So 97% of the time SROs got invoked they were not needed because no crime was committed.

That’s not remotely how the data works:
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/Resources/Files/SRO/MCPD-SRO-FAQ.pdf

Take a look at pages 8-10. SROs do more than issue arrests. I posted this above on this thread: they are part of a community and serve a valuable role. Teachers can’t do what they do, nor can administrators.

You want cops delivering food? Really? Ffs!

Actually, yes, I do want them to deliver food. Not everyone had transportation or the ability to get to the school during the workday and it was a good way to have eyes on kids that might be at risk at home. Think about it logically. It wasn't just about the food. It was about student safety at home as well. Having kids have access to food at home is pretty important. Not everyone has your privilege.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the taking points posted by a PP—very helpful. Condensing, it sounds like there are three major differences with the old SRO program:
— CEOs have a designated work station at the HS but are not stationed there (unclear what this means in practice but I’d guess it means they need to at least report to shift at police station)
— ceos not allowed to patrol hallways or respond to school incidents (unclear what that means—if a security officer says “there are kids using drugs in the bathroom and they are refusing to disperse” can the CEO assist?)
— unlike SROs, ceos do not have primary response for arson or drug distribution. Unclear to me who does have primary response for that….McPS security? Principals?
Taking the second two things in combination, it appears that MCPD no longer has any role in making sure kids aren’t using or selling drugs in schools. That seems to me not ideal.

#1 SRO’s had no place to sit so they had to wonder the halls or sit in their car to write a report. Now they have an office.

#2 means that if a teacher is dealing with a disciplinary issue a cop can’t get involved. Often SRO’s would escalate a simple disciplinary issue that teachers were able to handle and teachers did not feel like they could tell a cop to butt out. SROs now only respond to crimes.

#3 arsons are investigated by fire Marshall’s not cops. The Bethesda mag article explains the “drug” response.

#4 no it not true that cops are not involved in drug enforcement for distribution and dangerous drugs. Anything that is a non criminal drug charge in Montgomery County (aka possession of a small amount of pot or paraphernalia ) will now be dealt with by MCPS discipline .

#1. Our SROs always were given a place to work. They walked the halls, but they also had a “home” for work.

#2. SROs did not step in when I was dealing with discipline in my classroom. They didn’t do that to my colleagues, either. Why? Because, as you said, that would escalate the issue and the teacher would loose authority. So, clearly, SROs did not do this. Where are you coming up with this? This isn’t how SROs operated at. all.

I’d love to know where you got these beliefs.

#1 not all schools are the same

#2 most complaints came from teachers in ED classrooms. Are you an ED teacher? I’m glad you agree that SRO’s should not get involved with discipline. That change must please you. It’s explained in the Bethesda magazine article.

Yes, I have worked with ED students in all of my classes. Good attempt at twisting my words, but I can handle discipline in my own classroom while simultaneously being supported by the work of an SRO. There are times I am not equipped to handle a situation, like the weapon that was found in my classroom. I should NOT be expected to handle situations like that, and I should absolutely have the support an an SRO in those cases. The current CEO model doesn’t place the officer close to my classroom, nor does that officer know my children. This is a worse situation. You are welcome to spin it any way you like, of course, but it won’t match my reality nor that of many others with actual experience with SROs.

A weapon would be a crime and a CEO would be involved. CEO’s are in the school and if you have not been given instructions on how to ask for a response you need to reach out to your principal.

How did you call for the SRO?

Quietly simply texted the main office and he was at my door in less than 2 minutes. Since a CEO could be anywhere in a cluster, I doubt I’ll get the same response next time. Also, the SRO already had an established relationship with the student, so the student willingly left the classroom and talked to the trusted officer. A CEO won’t have the same type of relationship.

Again: I come from a place of experience and understanding.

The new model will be that you can call the CEO directly but that part has not been implemented yet.

If you can’t text your front office and get the CEO you should report that. Starting Fall 21 CEO’s were back in schools the same way SRO were. Also students can approach CEO’s if they want. CEO’s are just not allowed to create fake relationship with students to purposely narc on them to investigators they have to live by the same privacy rules teachers do unless it’s a criminal investigation.

Again: I have a very novel experience with security in schools as well as cities, events, sports events, and govt buildings.

You say you have experience with “security,” not with SROs. Your language also shows extreme bias (“fake relationships,” “purposefully narc”). The combination of the two demonstrates we have nothing further to discuss.

I’ve worked with too many amazing SROs to entertain this any further.

Please explain to me how the SROs on site at parkland and uvalde helped?

It's well known that SROs do almost nothing for school safety and in many cases have made matters worse.

Again you keep saying this, but post no evidence of how this applies to Montgomery County, or even Maryland. What incidents in Montgomery County can you refer to in which having the SROs have made matters worse?

It was shown that SROs created many false arrests and provided bad information to investigators. They will no longer be used in this capacity.

Source please? The fact is only 3% of incidents that were handled by SROs in MCPS resulted in an arrest.

So 97% of the time SROs got invoked they were not needed because no crime was committed.

That’s not remotely how the data works:
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/Resources/Files/SRO/MCPD-SRO-FAQ.pdf

Take a look at pages 8-10. SROs do more than issue arrests. I posted this above on this thread: they are part of a community and serve a valuable role. Teachers can’t do what they do, nor can administrators.

You want cops delivering food? Really? Ffs!

Way to completely misinterpret everything in that document.

As a supporter of community policing models, it doesn’t bother me at all if police engage in community outreach. Again… they are part of a community.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the taking points posted by a PP—very helpful. Condensing, it sounds like there are three major differences with the old SRO program:
— CEOs have a designated work station at the HS but are not stationed there (unclear what this means in practice but I’d guess it means they need to at least report to shift at police station)
— ceos not allowed to patrol hallways or respond to school incidents (unclear what that means—if a security officer says “there are kids using drugs in the bathroom and they are refusing to disperse” can the CEO assist?)
— unlike SROs, ceos do not have primary response for arson or drug distribution. Unclear to me who does have primary response for that….McPS security? Principals?
Taking the second two things in combination, it appears that MCPD no longer has any role in making sure kids aren’t using or selling drugs in schools. That seems to me not ideal.

#1 SRO’s had no place to sit so they had to wonder the halls or sit in their car to write a report. Now they have an office.

#2 means that if a teacher is dealing with a disciplinary issue a cop can’t get involved. Often SRO’s would escalate a simple disciplinary issue that teachers were able to handle and teachers did not feel like they could tell a cop to butt out. SROs now only respond to crimes.

#3 arsons are investigated by fire Marshall’s not cops. The Bethesda mag article explains the “drug” response.

#4 no it not true that cops are not involved in drug enforcement for distribution and dangerous drugs. Anything that is a non criminal drug charge in Montgomery County (aka possession of a small amount of pot or paraphernalia ) will now be dealt with by MCPS discipline .

#1. Our SROs always were given a place to work. They walked the halls, but they also had a “home” for work.

#2. SROs did not step in when I was dealing with discipline in my classroom. They didn’t do that to my colleagues, either. Why? Because, as you said, that would escalate the issue and the teacher would loose authority. So, clearly, SROs did not do this. Where are you coming up with this? This isn’t how SROs operated at. all.

I’d love to know where you got these beliefs.

#1 not all schools are the same

#2 most complaints came from teachers in ED classrooms. Are you an ED teacher? I’m glad you agree that SRO’s should not get involved with discipline. That change must please you. It’s explained in the Bethesda magazine article.

Yes, I have worked with ED students in all of my classes. Good attempt at twisting my words, but I can handle discipline in my own classroom while simultaneously being supported by the work of an SRO. There are times I am not equipped to handle a situation, like the weapon that was found in my classroom. I should NOT be expected to handle situations like that, and I should absolutely have the support an an SRO in those cases. The current CEO model doesn’t place the officer close to my classroom, nor does that officer know my children. This is a worse situation. You are welcome to spin it any way you like, of course, but it won’t match my reality nor that of many others with actual experience with SROs.

A weapon would be a crime and a CEO would be involved. CEO’s are in the school and if you have not been given instructions on how to ask for a response you need to reach out to your principal.

How did you call for the SRO?

Quietly simply texted the main office and he was at my door in less than 2 minutes. Since a CEO could be anywhere in a cluster, I doubt I’ll get the same response next time. Also, the SRO already had an established relationship with the student, so the student willingly left the classroom and talked to the trusted officer. A CEO won’t have the same type of relationship.

Again: I come from a place of experience and understanding.

The new model will be that you can call the CEO directly but that part has not been implemented yet.

If you can’t text your front office and get the CEO you should report that. Starting Fall 21 CEO’s were back in schools the same way SRO were. Also students can approach CEO’s if they want. CEO’s are just not allowed to create fake relationship with students to purposely narc on them to investigators they have to live by the same privacy rules teachers do unless it’s a criminal investigation.

Again: I have a very novel experience with security in schools as well as cities, events, sports events, and govt buildings.

You say you have experience with “security,” not with SROs. Your language also shows extreme bias (“fake relationships,” “purposefully narc”). The combination of the two demonstrates we have nothing further to discuss.

I’ve worked with too many amazing SROs to entertain this any further.

Please explain to me how the SROs on site at parkland and uvalde helped?

It's well known that SROs do almost nothing for school safety and in many cases have made matters worse.

Again you keep saying this, but post no evidence of how this applies to Montgomery County, or even Maryland. What incidents in Montgomery County can you refer to in which having the SROs have made matters worse?

It was shown that SROs created many false arrests and provided bad information to investigators. They will no longer be used in this capacity.

Source please? The fact is only 3% of incidents that were handled by SROs in MCPS resulted in an arrest.

So 97% of the time SROs got invoked they were not needed because no crime was committed.

That’s not remotely how the data works:
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/Resources/Files/SRO/MCPD-SRO-FAQ.pdf

Take a look at pages 8-10. SROs do more than issue arrests. I posted this above on this thread: they are part of a community and serve a valuable role. Teachers can’t do what they do, nor can administrators.

You want cops delivering food? Really? Ffs!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the taking points posted by a PP—very helpful. Condensing, it sounds like there are three major differences with the old SRO program:
— CEOs have a designated work station at the HS but are not stationed there (unclear what this means in practice but I’d guess it means they need to at least report to shift at police station)
— ceos not allowed to patrol hallways or respond to school incidents (unclear what that means—if a security officer says “there are kids using drugs in the bathroom and they are refusing to disperse” can the CEO assist?)
— unlike SROs, ceos do not have primary response for arson or drug distribution. Unclear to me who does have primary response for that….McPS security? Principals?
Taking the second two things in combination, it appears that MCPD no longer has any role in making sure kids aren’t using or selling drugs in schools. That seems to me not ideal.

#1 SRO’s had no place to sit so they had to wonder the halls or sit in their car to write a report. Now they have an office.

#2 means that if a teacher is dealing with a disciplinary issue a cop can’t get involved. Often SRO’s would escalate a simple disciplinary issue that teachers were able to handle and teachers did not feel like they could tell a cop to butt out. SROs now only respond to crimes.

#3 arsons are investigated by fire Marshall’s not cops. The Bethesda mag article explains the “drug” response.

#4 no it not true that cops are not involved in drug enforcement for distribution and dangerous drugs. Anything that is a non criminal drug charge in Montgomery County (aka possession of a small amount of pot or paraphernalia ) will now be dealt with by MCPS discipline .

#1. Our SROs always were given a place to work. They walked the halls, but they also had a “home” for work.

#2. SROs did not step in when I was dealing with discipline in my classroom. They didn’t do that to my colleagues, either. Why? Because, as you said, that would escalate the issue and the teacher would loose authority. So, clearly, SROs did not do this. Where are you coming up with this? This isn’t how SROs operated at. all.

I’d love to know where you got these beliefs.

#1 not all schools are the same

#2 most complaints came from teachers in ED classrooms. Are you an ED teacher? I’m glad you agree that SRO’s should not get involved with discipline. That change must please you. It’s explained in the Bethesda magazine article.

Yes, I have worked with ED students in all of my classes. Good attempt at twisting my words, but I can handle discipline in my own classroom while simultaneously being supported by the work of an SRO. There are times I am not equipped to handle a situation, like the weapon that was found in my classroom. I should NOT be expected to handle situations like that, and I should absolutely have the support an an SRO in those cases. The current CEO model doesn’t place the officer close to my classroom, nor does that officer know my children. This is a worse situation. You are welcome to spin it any way you like, of course, but it won’t match my reality nor that of many others with actual experience with SROs.

A weapon would be a crime and a CEO would be involved. CEO’s are in the school and if you have not been given instructions on how to ask for a response you need to reach out to your principal.

How did you call for the SRO?

Quietly simply texted the main office and he was at my door in less than 2 minutes. Since a CEO could be anywhere in a cluster, I doubt I’ll get the same response next time. Also, the SRO already had an established relationship with the student, so the student willingly left the classroom and talked to the trusted officer. A CEO won’t have the same type of relationship.

Again: I come from a place of experience and understanding.

The new model will be that you can call the CEO directly but that part has not been implemented yet.

If you can’t text your front office and get the CEO you should report that. Starting Fall 21 CEO’s were back in schools the same way SRO were. Also students can approach CEO’s if they want. CEO’s are just not allowed to create fake relationship with students to purposely narc on them to investigators they have to live by the same privacy rules teachers do unless it’s a criminal investigation.

Again: I have a very novel experience with security in schools as well as cities, events, sports events, and govt buildings.

You say you have experience with “security,” not with SROs. Your language also shows extreme bias (“fake relationships,” “purposefully narc”). The combination of the two demonstrates we have nothing further to discuss.

I’ve worked with too many amazing SROs to entertain this any further.

Please explain to me how the SROs on site at parkland and uvalde helped?

It's well known that SROs do almost nothing for school safety and in many cases have made matters worse.

Again you keep saying this, but post no evidence of how this applies to Montgomery County, or even Maryland. What incidents in Montgomery County can you refer to in which having the SROs have made matters worse?

It was shown that SROs created many false arrests and provided bad information to investigators. They will no longer be used in this capacity.

Source please? The fact is only 3% of incidents that were handled by SROs in MCPS resulted in an arrest.

That doesn’t count the arrests made by investigators with SRO information..

Also why don’t they publicize how many of those arrests were false?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the taking points posted by a PP—very helpful. Condensing, it sounds like there are three major differences with the old SRO program:
— CEOs have a designated work station at the HS but are not stationed there (unclear what this means in practice but I’d guess it means they need to at least report to shift at police station)
— ceos not allowed to patrol hallways or respond to school incidents (unclear what that means—if a security officer says “there are kids using drugs in the bathroom and they are refusing to disperse” can the CEO assist?)
— unlike SROs, ceos do not have primary response for arson or drug distribution. Unclear to me who does have primary response for that….McPS security? Principals?
Taking the second two things in combination, it appears that MCPD no longer has any role in making sure kids aren’t using or selling drugs in schools. That seems to me not ideal.

#1 SRO’s had no place to sit so they had to wonder the halls or sit in their car to write a report. Now they have an office.

#2 means that if a teacher is dealing with a disciplinary issue a cop can’t get involved. Often SRO’s would escalate a simple disciplinary issue that teachers were able to handle and teachers did not feel like they could tell a cop to butt out. SROs now only respond to crimes.

#3 arsons are investigated by fire Marshall’s not cops. The Bethesda mag article explains the “drug” response.

#4 no it not true that cops are not involved in drug enforcement for distribution and dangerous drugs. Anything that is a non criminal drug charge in Montgomery County (aka possession of a small amount of pot or paraphernalia ) will now be dealt with by MCPS discipline .

#1. Our SROs always were given a place to work. They walked the halls, but they also had a “home” for work.

#2. SROs did not step in when I was dealing with discipline in my classroom. They didn’t do that to my colleagues, either. Why? Because, as you said, that would escalate the issue and the teacher would loose authority. So, clearly, SROs did not do this. Where are you coming up with this? This isn’t how SROs operated at. all.

I’d love to know where you got these beliefs.

#1 not all schools are the same

#2 most complaints came from teachers in ED classrooms. Are you an ED teacher? I’m glad you agree that SRO’s should not get involved with discipline. That change must please you. It’s explained in the Bethesda magazine article.

Yes, I have worked with ED students in all of my classes. Good attempt at twisting my words, but I can handle discipline in my own classroom while simultaneously being supported by the work of an SRO. There are times I am not equipped to handle a situation, like the weapon that was found in my classroom. I should NOT be expected to handle situations like that, and I should absolutely have the support an an SRO in those cases. The current CEO model doesn’t place the officer close to my classroom, nor does that officer know my children. This is a worse situation. You are welcome to spin it any way you like, of course, but it won’t match my reality nor that of many others with actual experience with SROs.

A weapon would be a crime and a CEO would be involved. CEO’s are in the school and if you have not been given instructions on how to ask for a response you need to reach out to your principal.

How did you call for the SRO?

Quietly simply texted the main office and he was at my door in less than 2 minutes. Since a CEO could be anywhere in a cluster, I doubt I’ll get the same response next time. Also, the SRO already had an established relationship with the student, so the student willingly left the classroom and talked to the trusted officer. A CEO won’t have the same type of relationship.

Again: I come from a place of experience and understanding.

The new model will be that you can call the CEO directly but that part has not been implemented yet.

If you can’t text your front office and get the CEO you should report that. Starting Fall 21 CEO’s were back in schools the same way SRO were. Also students can approach CEO’s if they want. CEO’s are just not allowed to create fake relationship with students to purposely narc on them to investigators they have to live by the same privacy rules teachers do unless it’s a criminal investigation.

Again: I have a very novel experience with security in schools as well as cities, events, sports events, and govt buildings.

You say you have experience with “security,” not with SROs. Your language also shows extreme bias (“fake relationships,” “purposefully narc”). The combination of the two demonstrates we have nothing further to discuss.

I’ve worked with too many amazing SROs to entertain this any further.

Please explain to me how the SROs on site at parkland and uvalde helped?

It's well known that SROs do almost nothing for school safety and in many cases have made matters worse.

Again you keep saying this, but post no evidence of how this applies to Montgomery County, or even Maryland. What incidents in Montgomery County can you refer to in which having the SROs have made matters worse?

It was shown that SROs created many false arrests and provided bad information to investigators. They will no longer be used in this capacity.

Source please? The fact is only 3% of incidents that were handled by SROs in MCPS resulted in an arrest.

So 97% of the time SROs got invoked they were not needed because no crime was committed.

That’s not remotely how the data works:
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/Resources/Files/SRO/MCPD-SRO-FAQ.pdf

Take a look at pages 8-10. SROs do more than issue arrests. I posted this above on this thread: they are part of a community and serve a valuable role. Teachers can’t do what they do, nor can administrators.

You want cops delivering food? Really? Ffs!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the taking points posted by a PP—very helpful. Condensing, it sounds like there are three major differences with the old SRO program:
— CEOs have a designated work station at the HS but are not stationed there (unclear what this means in practice but I’d guess it means they need to at least report to shift at police station)
— ceos not allowed to patrol hallways or respond to school incidents (unclear what that means—if a security officer says “there are kids using drugs in the bathroom and they are refusing to disperse” can the CEO assist?)
— unlike SROs, ceos do not have primary response for arson or drug distribution. Unclear to me who does have primary response for that….McPS security? Principals?
Taking the second two things in combination, it appears that MCPD no longer has any role in making sure kids aren’t using or selling drugs in schools. That seems to me not ideal.

#1 SRO’s had no place to sit so they had to wonder the halls or sit in their car to write a report. Now they have an office.

#2 means that if a teacher is dealing with a disciplinary issue a cop can’t get involved. Often SRO’s would escalate a simple disciplinary issue that teachers were able to handle and teachers did not feel like they could tell a cop to butt out. SROs now only respond to crimes.

#3 arsons are investigated by fire Marshall’s not cops. The Bethesda mag article explains the “drug” response.

#4 no it not true that cops are not involved in drug enforcement for distribution and dangerous drugs. Anything that is a non criminal drug charge in Montgomery County (aka possession of a small amount of pot or paraphernalia ) will now be dealt with by MCPS discipline .

#1. Our SROs always were given a place to work. They walked the halls, but they also had a “home” for work.

#2. SROs did not step in when I was dealing with discipline in my classroom. They didn’t do that to my colleagues, either. Why? Because, as you said, that would escalate the issue and the teacher would loose authority. So, clearly, SROs did not do this. Where are you coming up with this? This isn’t how SROs operated at. all.

I’d love to know where you got these beliefs.

#1 not all schools are the same

#2 most complaints came from teachers in ED classrooms. Are you an ED teacher? I’m glad you agree that SRO’s should not get involved with discipline. That change must please you. It’s explained in the Bethesda magazine article.

Yes, I have worked with ED students in all of my classes. Good attempt at twisting my words, but I can handle discipline in my own classroom while simultaneously being supported by the work of an SRO. There are times I am not equipped to handle a situation, like the weapon that was found in my classroom. I should NOT be expected to handle situations like that, and I should absolutely have the support an an SRO in those cases. The current CEO model doesn’t place the officer close to my classroom, nor does that officer know my children. This is a worse situation. You are welcome to spin it any way you like, of course, but it won’t match my reality nor that of many others with actual experience with SROs.

A weapon would be a crime and a CEO would be involved. CEO’s are in the school and if you have not been given instructions on how to ask for a response you need to reach out to your principal.

How did you call for the SRO?

Quietly simply texted the main office and he was at my door in less than 2 minutes. Since a CEO could be anywhere in a cluster, I doubt I’ll get the same response next time. Also, the SRO already had an established relationship with the student, so the student willingly left the classroom and talked to the trusted officer. A CEO won’t have the same type of relationship.

Again: I come from a place of experience and understanding.

The new model will be that you can call the CEO directly but that part has not been implemented yet.

If you can’t text your front office and get the CEO you should report that. Starting Fall 21 CEO’s were back in schools the same way SRO were. Also students can approach CEO’s if they want. CEO’s are just not allowed to create fake relationship with students to purposely narc on them to investigators they have to live by the same privacy rules teachers do unless it’s a criminal investigation.

Again: I have a very novel experience with security in schools as well as cities, events, sports events, and govt buildings.

You say you have experience with “security,” not with SROs. Your language also shows extreme bias (“fake relationships,” “purposefully narc”). The combination of the two demonstrates we have nothing further to discuss.

I’ve worked with too many amazing SROs to entertain this any further.

Please explain to me how the SROs on site at parkland and uvalde helped?

It's well known that SROs do almost nothing for school safety and in many cases have made matters worse.

Again you keep saying this, but post no evidence of how this applies to Montgomery County, or even Maryland. What incidents in Montgomery County can you refer to in which having the SROs have made matters worse?

It was shown that SROs created many false arrests and provided bad information to investigators. They will no longer be used in this capacity.

Source please? The fact is only 3% of incidents that were handled by SROs in MCPS resulted in an arrest.

So 97% of the time SROs got invoked they were not needed because no crime was committed.

That’s not remotely how the data works:
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/Resources/Files/SRO/MCPD-SRO-FAQ.pdf

Take a look at pages 8-10. SROs do more than issue arrests. I posted this above on this thread: they are part of a community and serve a valuable role. Teachers can’t do what they do, nor can administrators.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our schools don’t need to look or feel like prisons.

I worked in Baltimore city jail. There’s more violence in our high schools than there was there in open population.

Kids who are violent and assaulting others would be charged with felony assault and jailed so there are serious consequences for these actions.

But in school they are protected. That is the point. Schools do not call police for things that would be called immediately in the open population. Fights, assaults, rapes, theft, drugs, etc…

Administration’s job is to keep the school having the least amount of cases reported against them. It’s pretty scary what goes on that most aren’t aware of. And the police are frustrated when a parent has to be the one to contact them and the school does very little to help the victim or the police due to confidentiality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the taking points posted by a PP—very helpful. Condensing, it sounds like there are three major differences with the old SRO program:
— CEOs have a designated work station at the HS but are not stationed there (unclear what this means in practice but I’d guess it means they need to at least report to shift at police station)
— ceos not allowed to patrol hallways or respond to school incidents (unclear what that means—if a security officer says “there are kids using drugs in the bathroom and they are refusing to disperse” can the CEO assist?)
— unlike SROs, ceos do not have primary response for arson or drug distribution. Unclear to me who does have primary response for that….McPS security? Principals?
Taking the second two things in combination, it appears that MCPD no longer has any role in making sure kids aren’t using or selling drugs in schools. That seems to me not ideal.

#1 SRO’s had no place to sit so they had to wonder the halls or sit in their car to write a report. Now they have an office.

#2 means that if a teacher is dealing with a disciplinary issue a cop can’t get involved. Often SRO’s would escalate a simple disciplinary issue that teachers were able to handle and teachers did not feel like they could tell a cop to butt out. SROs now only respond to crimes.

#3 arsons are investigated by fire Marshall’s not cops. The Bethesda mag article explains the “drug” response.

#4 no it not true that cops are not involved in drug enforcement for distribution and dangerous drugs. Anything that is a non criminal drug charge in Montgomery County (aka possession of a small amount of pot or paraphernalia ) will now be dealt with by MCPS discipline .

#1. Our SROs always were given a place to work. They walked the halls, but they also had a “home” for work.

#2. SROs did not step in when I was dealing with discipline in my classroom. They didn’t do that to my colleagues, either. Why? Because, as you said, that would escalate the issue and the teacher would loose authority. So, clearly, SROs did not do this. Where are you coming up with this? This isn’t how SROs operated at. all.

I’d love to know where you got these beliefs.

#1 not all schools are the same

#2 most complaints came from teachers in ED classrooms. Are you an ED teacher? I’m glad you agree that SRO’s should not get involved with discipline. That change must please you. It’s explained in the Bethesda magazine article.

Yes, I have worked with ED students in all of my classes. Good attempt at twisting my words, but I can handle discipline in my own classroom while simultaneously being supported by the work of an SRO. There are times I am not equipped to handle a situation, like the weapon that was found in my classroom. I should NOT be expected to handle situations like that, and I should absolutely have the support an an SRO in those cases. The current CEO model doesn’t place the officer close to my classroom, nor does that officer know my children. This is a worse situation. You are welcome to spin it any way you like, of course, but it won’t match my reality nor that of many others with actual experience with SROs.

A weapon would be a crime and a CEO would be involved. CEO’s are in the school and if you have not been given instructions on how to ask for a response you need to reach out to your principal.

How did you call for the SRO?

Quietly simply texted the main office and he was at my door in less than 2 minutes. Since a CEO could be anywhere in a cluster, I doubt I’ll get the same response next time. Also, the SRO already had an established relationship with the student, so the student willingly left the classroom and talked to the trusted officer. A CEO won’t have the same type of relationship.

Again: I come from a place of experience and understanding.

The new model will be that you can call the CEO directly but that part has not been implemented yet.

If you can’t text your front office and get the CEO you should report that. Starting Fall 21 CEO’s were back in schools the same way SRO were. Also students can approach CEO’s if they want. CEO’s are just not allowed to create fake relationship with students to purposely narc on them to investigators they have to live by the same privacy rules teachers do unless it’s a criminal investigation.

Again: I have a very novel experience with security in schools as well as cities, events, sports events, and govt buildings.

You say you have experience with “security,” not with SROs. Your language also shows extreme bias (“fake relationships,” “purposefully narc”). The combination of the two demonstrates we have nothing further to discuss.

I’ve worked with too many amazing SROs to entertain this any further.

Please explain to me how the SROs on site at parkland and uvalde helped?

It's well known that SROs do almost nothing for school safety and in many cases have made matters worse.

Again you keep saying this, but post no evidence of how this applies to Montgomery County, or even Maryland. What incidents in Montgomery County can you refer to in which having the SROs have made matters worse?

It was shown that SROs created many false arrests and provided bad information to investigators. They will no longer be used in this capacity.

Source please? The fact is only 3% of incidents that were handled by SROs in MCPS resulted in an arrest.

So 97% of the time SROs got invoked they were not needed because no crime was committed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our schools don’t need to look or feel like prisons.

I worked in Baltimore city jail. There’s more violence in our high schools than there was there in open population.

Kids who are violent and assaulting others would be charged with felony assault and jailed so there are serious consequences for these actions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the taking points posted by a PP—very helpful. Condensing, it sounds like there are three major differences with the old SRO program:
— CEOs have a designated work station at the HS but are not stationed there (unclear what this means in practice but I’d guess it means they need to at least report to shift at police station)
— ceos not allowed to patrol hallways or respond to school incidents (unclear what that means—if a security officer says “there are kids using drugs in the bathroom and they are refusing to disperse” can the CEO assist?)
— unlike SROs, ceos do not have primary response for arson or drug distribution. Unclear to me who does have primary response for that….McPS security? Principals?
Taking the second two things in combination, it appears that MCPD no longer has any role in making sure kids aren’t using or selling drugs in schools. That seems to me not ideal.

#1 SRO’s had no place to sit so they had to wonder the halls or sit in their car to write a report. Now they have an office.

#2 means that if a teacher is dealing with a disciplinary issue a cop can’t get involved. Often SRO’s would escalate a simple disciplinary issue that teachers were able to handle and teachers did not feel like they could tell a cop to butt out. SROs now only respond to crimes.

#3 arsons are investigated by fire Marshall’s not cops. The Bethesda mag article explains the “drug” response.

#4 no it not true that cops are not involved in drug enforcement for distribution and dangerous drugs. Anything that is a non criminal drug charge in Montgomery County (aka possession of a small amount of pot or paraphernalia ) will now be dealt with by MCPS discipline .

#1. Our SROs always were given a place to work. They walked the halls, but they also had a “home” for work.

#2. SROs did not step in when I was dealing with discipline in my classroom. They didn’t do that to my colleagues, either. Why? Because, as you said, that would escalate the issue and the teacher would loose authority. So, clearly, SROs did not do this. Where are you coming up with this? This isn’t how SROs operated at. all.

I’d love to know where you got these beliefs.

#1 not all schools are the same

#2 most complaints came from teachers in ED classrooms. Are you an ED teacher? I’m glad you agree that SRO’s should not get involved with discipline. That change must please you. It’s explained in the Bethesda magazine article.

Yes, I have worked with ED students in all of my classes. Good attempt at twisting my words, but I can handle discipline in my own classroom while simultaneously being supported by the work of an SRO. There are times I am not equipped to handle a situation, like the weapon that was found in my classroom. I should NOT be expected to handle situations like that, and I should absolutely have the support an an SRO in those cases. The current CEO model doesn’t place the officer close to my classroom, nor does that officer know my children. This is a worse situation. You are welcome to spin it any way you like, of course, but it won’t match my reality nor that of many others with actual experience with SROs.

A weapon would be a crime and a CEO would be involved. CEO’s are in the school and if you have not been given instructions on how to ask for a response you need to reach out to your principal.

How did you call for the SRO?

Quietly simply texted the main office and he was at my door in less than 2 minutes. Since a CEO could be anywhere in a cluster, I doubt I’ll get the same response next time. Also, the SRO already had an established relationship with the student, so the student willingly left the classroom and talked to the trusted officer. A CEO won’t have the same type of relationship.

Again: I come from a place of experience and understanding.

The new model will be that you can call the CEO directly but that part has not been implemented yet.

If you can’t text your front office and get the CEO you should report that. Starting Fall 21 CEO’s were back in schools the same way SRO were. Also students can approach CEO’s if they want. CEO’s are just not allowed to create fake relationship with students to purposely narc on them to investigators they have to live by the same privacy rules teachers do unless it’s a criminal investigation.

Again: I have a very novel experience with security in schools as well as cities, events, sports events, and govt buildings.

You say you have experience with “security,” not with SROs. Your language also shows extreme bias (“fake relationships,” “purposefully narc”). The combination of the two demonstrates we have nothing further to discuss.

I’ve worked with too many amazing SROs to entertain this any further.

Please explain to me how the SROs on site at parkland and uvalde helped?

It's well known that SROs do almost nothing for school safety and in many cases have made matters worse.

Again you keep saying this, but post no evidence of how this applies to Montgomery County, or even Maryland. What incidents in Montgomery County can you refer to in which having the SROs have made matters worse?

It was shown that SROs created many false arrests and provided bad information to investigators. They will no longer be used in this capacity.

Source please? The fact is only 3% of incidents that were handled by SROs in MCPS resulted in an arrest.

So 97% of the time SROs got invoked they were not needed because no crime was committed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the taking points posted by a PP—very helpful. Condensing, it sounds like there are three major differences with the old SRO program:
— CEOs have a designated work station at the HS but are not stationed there (unclear what this means in practice but I’d guess it means they need to at least report to shift at police station)
— ceos not allowed to patrol hallways or respond to school incidents (unclear what that means—if a security officer says “there are kids using drugs in the bathroom and they are refusing to disperse” can the CEO assist?)
— unlike SROs, ceos do not have primary response for arson or drug distribution. Unclear to me who does have primary response for that….McPS security? Principals?
Taking the second two things in combination, it appears that MCPD no longer has any role in making sure kids aren’t using or selling drugs in schools. That seems to me not ideal.

#1 SRO’s had no place to sit so they had to wonder the halls or sit in their car to write a report. Now they have an office.

#2 means that if a teacher is dealing with a disciplinary issue a cop can’t get involved. Often SRO’s would escalate a simple disciplinary issue that teachers were able to handle and teachers did not feel like they could tell a cop to butt out. SROs now only respond to crimes.

#3 arsons are investigated by fire Marshall’s not cops. The Bethesda mag article explains the “drug” response.

#4 no it not true that cops are not involved in drug enforcement for distribution and dangerous drugs. Anything that is a non criminal drug charge in Montgomery County (aka possession of a small amount of pot or paraphernalia ) will now be dealt with by MCPS discipline .

#1. Our SROs always were given a place to work. They walked the halls, but they also had a “home” for work.

#2. SROs did not step in when I was dealing with discipline in my classroom. They didn’t do that to my colleagues, either. Why? Because, as you said, that would escalate the issue and the teacher would loose authority. So, clearly, SROs did not do this. Where are you coming up with this? This isn’t how SROs operated at. all.

I’d love to know where you got these beliefs.

#1 not all schools are the same

#2 most complaints came from teachers in ED classrooms. Are you an ED teacher? I’m glad you agree that SRO’s should not get involved with discipline. That change must please you. It’s explained in the Bethesda magazine article.

Yes, I have worked with ED students in all of my classes. Good attempt at twisting my words, but I can handle discipline in my own classroom while simultaneously being supported by the work of an SRO. There are times I am not equipped to handle a situation, like the weapon that was found in my classroom. I should NOT be expected to handle situations like that, and I should absolutely have the support an an SRO in those cases. The current CEO model doesn’t place the officer close to my classroom, nor does that officer know my children. This is a worse situation. You are welcome to spin it any way you like, of course, but it won’t match my reality nor that of many others with actual experience with SROs.

A weapon would be a crime and a CEO would be involved. CEO’s are in the school and if you have not been given instructions on how to ask for a response you need to reach out to your principal.

How did you call for the SRO?

Quietly simply texted the main office and he was at my door in less than 2 minutes. Since a CEO could be anywhere in a cluster, I doubt I’ll get the same response next time. Also, the SRO already had an established relationship with the student, so the student willingly left the classroom and talked to the trusted officer. A CEO won’t have the same type of relationship.

Again: I come from a place of experience and understanding.

The new model will be that you can call the CEO directly but that part has not been implemented yet.

If you can’t text your front office and get the CEO you should report that. Starting Fall 21 CEO’s were back in schools the same way SRO were. Also students can approach CEO’s if they want. CEO’s are just not allowed to create fake relationship with students to purposely narc on them to investigators they have to live by the same privacy rules teachers do unless it’s a criminal investigation.

Again: I have a very novel experience with security in schools as well as cities, events, sports events, and govt buildings.

You say you have experience with “security,” not with SROs. Your language also shows extreme bias (“fake relationships,” “purposefully narc”). The combination of the two demonstrates we have nothing further to discuss.

I’ve worked with too many amazing SROs to entertain this any further.

Please explain to me how the SROs on site at parkland and uvalde helped?

It's well known that SROs do almost nothing for school safety and in many cases have made matters worse.

Again you keep saying this, but post no evidence of how this applies to Montgomery County, or even Maryland. What incidents in Montgomery County can you refer to in which having the SROs have made matters worse?

It was shown that SROs created many false arrests and provided bad information to investigators. They will no longer be used in this capacity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the taking points posted by a PP—very helpful. Condensing, it sounds like there are three major differences with the old SRO program:
— CEOs have a designated work station at the HS but are not stationed there (unclear what this means in practice but I’d guess it means they need to at least report to shift at police station)
— ceos not allowed to patrol hallways or respond to school incidents (unclear what that means—if a security officer says “there are kids using drugs in the bathroom and they are refusing to disperse” can the CEO assist?)
— unlike SROs, ceos do not have primary response for arson or drug distribution. Unclear to me who does have primary response for that….McPS security? Principals?
Taking the second two things in combination, it appears that MCPD no longer has any role in making sure kids aren’t using or selling drugs in schools. That seems to me not ideal.

#1 SRO’s had no place to sit so they had to wonder the halls or sit in their car to write a report. Now they have an office.

#2 means that if a teacher is dealing with a disciplinary issue a cop can’t get involved. Often SRO’s would escalate a simple disciplinary issue that teachers were able to handle and teachers did not feel like they could tell a cop to butt out. SROs now only respond to crimes.

#3 arsons are investigated by fire Marshall’s not cops. The Bethesda mag article explains the “drug” response.

#4 no it not true that cops are not involved in drug enforcement for distribution and dangerous drugs. Anything that is a non criminal drug charge in Montgomery County (aka possession of a small amount of pot or paraphernalia ) will now be dealt with by MCPS discipline .

#1. Our SROs always were given a place to work. They walked the halls, but they also had a “home” for work.

#2. SROs did not step in when I was dealing with discipline in my classroom. They didn’t do that to my colleagues, either. Why? Because, as you said, that would escalate the issue and the teacher would loose authority. So, clearly, SROs did not do this. Where are you coming up with this? This isn’t how SROs operated at. all.

I’d love to know where you got these beliefs.

#1 not all schools are the same

#2 most complaints came from teachers in ED classrooms. Are you an ED teacher? I’m glad you agree that SRO’s should not get involved with discipline. That change must please you. It’s explained in the Bethesda magazine article.

Yes, I have worked with ED students in all of my classes. Good attempt at twisting my words, but I can handle discipline in my own classroom while simultaneously being supported by the work of an SRO. There are times I am not equipped to handle a situation, like the weapon that was found in my classroom. I should NOT be expected to handle situations like that, and I should absolutely have the support an an SRO in those cases. The current CEO model doesn’t place the officer close to my classroom, nor does that officer know my children. This is a worse situation. You are welcome to spin it any way you like, of course, but it won’t match my reality nor that of many others with actual experience with SROs.

A weapon would be a crime and a CEO would be involved. CEO’s are in the school and if you have not been given instructions on how to ask for a response you need to reach out to your principal.

How did you call for the SRO?

Quietly simply texted the main office and he was at my door in less than 2 minutes. Since a CEO could be anywhere in a cluster, I doubt I’ll get the same response next time. Also, the SRO already had an established relationship with the student, so the student willingly left the classroom and talked to the trusted officer. A CEO won’t have the same type of relationship.

Again: I come from a place of experience and understanding.

The new model will be that you can call the CEO directly but that part has not been implemented yet.

If you can’t text your front office and get the CEO you should report that. Starting Fall 21 CEO’s were back in schools the same way SRO were. Also students can approach CEO’s if they want. CEO’s are just not allowed to create fake relationship with students to purposely narc on them to investigators they have to live by the same privacy rules teachers do unless it’s a criminal investigation.

Again: I have a very novel experience with security in schools as well as cities, events, sports events, and govt buildings.

You say you have experience with “security,” not with SROs. Your language also shows extreme bias (“fake relationships,” “purposefully narc”). The combination of the two demonstrates we have nothing further to discuss.

I’ve worked with too many amazing SROs to entertain this any further.

Please explain to me how the SROs on site at parkland and uvalde helped?

It's well known that SROs do almost nothing for school safety and in many cases have made matters worse.

Again you keep saying this, but post no evidence of how this applies to Montgomery County, or even Maryland. What incidents in Montgomery County can you refer to in which having the SROs have made matters worse?

It was shown that SROs created many false arrests and provided bad information to investigators. They will no longer be used in this capacity.

Source please? The fact is only 3% of incidents that were handled by SROs in MCPS resulted in an arrest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the taking points posted by a PP—very helpful. Condensing, it sounds like there are three major differences with the old SRO program:
— CEOs have a designated work station at the HS but are not stationed there (unclear what this means in practice but I’d guess it means they need to at least report to shift at police station)
— ceos not allowed to patrol hallways or respond to school incidents (unclear what that means—if a security officer says “there are kids using drugs in the bathroom and they are refusing to disperse” can the CEO assist?)
— unlike SROs, ceos do not have primary response for arson or drug distribution. Unclear to me who does have primary response for that….McPS security? Principals?
Taking the second two things in combination, it appears that MCPD no longer has any role in making sure kids aren’t using or selling drugs in schools. That seems to me not ideal.

#1 SRO’s had no place to sit so they had to wonder the halls or sit in their car to write a report. Now they have an office.

#2 means that if a teacher is dealing with a disciplinary issue a cop can’t get involved. Often SRO’s would escalate a simple disciplinary issue that teachers were able to handle and teachers did not feel like they could tell a cop to butt out. SROs now only respond to crimes.

#3 arsons are investigated by fire Marshall’s not cops. The Bethesda mag article explains the “drug” response.

#4 no it not true that cops are not involved in drug enforcement for distribution and dangerous drugs. Anything that is a non criminal drug charge in Montgomery County (aka possession of a small amount of pot or paraphernalia ) will now be dealt with by MCPS discipline .

#1. Our SROs always were given a place to work. They walked the halls, but they also had a “home” for work.

#2. SROs did not step in when I was dealing with discipline in my classroom. They didn’t do that to my colleagues, either. Why? Because, as you said, that would escalate the issue and the teacher would loose authority. So, clearly, SROs did not do this. Where are you coming up with this? This isn’t how SROs operated at. all.

I’d love to know where you got these beliefs.

#1 not all schools are the same

#2 most complaints came from teachers in ED classrooms. Are you an ED teacher? I’m glad you agree that SRO’s should not get involved with discipline. That change must please you. It’s explained in the Bethesda magazine article.

Yes, I have worked with ED students in all of my classes. Good attempt at twisting my words, but I can handle discipline in my own classroom while simultaneously being supported by the work of an SRO. There are times I am not equipped to handle a situation, like the weapon that was found in my classroom. I should NOT be expected to handle situations like that, and I should absolutely have the support an an SRO in those cases. The current CEO model doesn’t place the officer close to my classroom, nor does that officer know my children. This is a worse situation. You are welcome to spin it any way you like, of course, but it won’t match my reality nor that of many others with actual experience with SROs.

A weapon would be a crime and a CEO would be involved. CEO’s are in the school and if you have not been given instructions on how to ask for a response you need to reach out to your principal.

How did you call for the SRO?

Quietly simply texted the main office and he was at my door in less than 2 minutes. Since a CEO could be anywhere in a cluster, I doubt I’ll get the same response next time. Also, the SRO already had an established relationship with the student, so the student willingly left the classroom and talked to the trusted officer. A CEO won’t have the same type of relationship.

Again: I come from a place of experience and understanding.

The new model will be that you can call the CEO directly but that part has not been implemented yet.

If you can’t text your front office and get the CEO you should report that. Starting Fall 21 CEO’s were back in schools the same way SRO were. Also students can approach CEO’s if they want. CEO’s are just not allowed to create fake relationship with students to purposely narc on them to investigators they have to live by the same privacy rules teachers do unless it’s a criminal investigation.

Again: I have a very novel experience with security in schools as well as cities, events, sports events, and govt buildings.

You say you have experience with “security,” not with SROs. Your language also shows extreme bias (“fake relationships,” “purposefully narc”). The combination of the two demonstrates we have nothing further to discuss.

I’ve worked with too many amazing SROs to entertain this any further.

Please explain to me how the SROs on site at parkland and uvalde helped?

It's well known that SROs do almost nothing for school safety and in many cases have made matters worse.

Again you keep saying this, but post no evidence of how this applies to Montgomery County, or even Maryland. What incidents in Montgomery County can you refer to in which having the SROs have made matters worse?

It was shown that SROs created many false arrests and provided bad information to investigators. They will no longer be used in this capacity.

Source please? The fact is only 3% of incidents that were handled by SROs in MCPS resulted in an arrest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the taking points posted by a PP—very helpful. Condensing, it sounds like there are three major differences with the old SRO program:
— CEOs have a designated work station at the HS but are not stationed there (unclear what this means in practice but I’d guess it means they need to at least report to shift at police station)
— ceos not allowed to patrol hallways or respond to school incidents (unclear what that means—if a security officer says “there are kids using drugs in the bathroom and they are refusing to disperse” can the CEO assist?)
— unlike SROs, ceos do not have primary response for arson or drug distribution. Unclear to me who does have primary response for that….McPS security? Principals?
Taking the second two things in combination, it appears that MCPD no longer has any role in making sure kids aren’t using or selling drugs in schools. That seems to me not ideal.

#1 SRO’s had no place to sit so they had to wonder the halls or sit in their car to write a report. Now they have an office.

#2 means that if a teacher is dealing with a disciplinary issue a cop can’t get involved. Often SRO’s would escalate a simple disciplinary issue that teachers were able to handle and teachers did not feel like they could tell a cop to butt out. SROs now only respond to crimes.

#3 arsons are investigated by fire Marshall’s not cops. The Bethesda mag article explains the “drug” response.

#4 no it not true that cops are not involved in drug enforcement for distribution and dangerous drugs. Anything that is a non criminal drug charge in Montgomery County (aka possession of a small amount of pot or paraphernalia ) will now be dealt with by MCPS discipline .

#1. Our SROs always were given a place to work. They walked the halls, but they also had a “home” for work.

#2. SROs did not step in when I was dealing with discipline in my classroom. They didn’t do that to my colleagues, either. Why? Because, as you said, that would escalate the issue and the teacher would loose authority. So, clearly, SROs did not do this. Where are you coming up with this? This isn’t how SROs operated at. all.

I’d love to know where you got these beliefs.

#1 not all schools are the same

#2 most complaints came from teachers in ED classrooms. Are you an ED teacher? I’m glad you agree that SRO’s should not get involved with discipline. That change must please you. It’s explained in the Bethesda magazine article.

Yes, I have worked with ED students in all of my classes. Good attempt at twisting my words, but I can handle discipline in my own classroom while simultaneously being supported by the work of an SRO. There are times I am not equipped to handle a situation, like the weapon that was found in my classroom. I should NOT be expected to handle situations like that, and I should absolutely have the support an an SRO in those cases. The current CEO model doesn’t place the officer close to my classroom, nor does that officer know my children. This is a worse situation. You are welcome to spin it any way you like, of course, but it won’t match my reality nor that of many others with actual experience with SROs.

A weapon would be a crime and a CEO would be involved. CEO’s are in the school and if you have not been given instructions on how to ask for a response you need to reach out to your principal.

How did you call for the SRO?

Quietly simply texted the main office and he was at my door in less than 2 minutes. Since a CEO could be anywhere in a cluster, I doubt I’ll get the same response next time. Also, the SRO already had an established relationship with the student, so the student willingly left the classroom and talked to the trusted officer. A CEO won’t have the same type of relationship.

Again: I come from a place of experience and understanding.

The new model will be that you can call the CEO directly but that part has not been implemented yet.

If you can’t text your front office and get the CEO you should report that. Starting Fall 21 CEO’s were back in schools the same way SRO were. Also students can approach CEO’s if they want. CEO’s are just not allowed to create fake relationship with students to purposely narc on them to investigators they have to live by the same privacy rules teachers do unless it’s a criminal investigation.

Again: I have a very novel experience with security in schools as well as cities, events, sports events, and govt buildings.

You say you have experience with “security,” not with SROs. Your language also shows extreme bias (“fake relationships,” “purposefully narc”). The combination of the two demonstrates we have nothing further to discuss.

I’ve worked with too many amazing SROs to entertain this any further.

Please explain to me how the SROs on site at parkland and uvalde helped?

It's well known that SROs do almost nothing for school safety and in many cases have made matters worse.

Again you keep saying this, but post no evidence of how this applies to Montgomery County, or even Maryland. What incidents in Montgomery County can you refer to in which having the SROs have made matters worse?

It was shown that SROs created many false arrests and provided bad information to investigators. They will no longer be used in this capacity.