Do the citizens of Montgomery County want SROs in the public schools here?
Below is an excerpt from an editorial in The New York Times, from April 18th. to read the entire editorial, go here.
The National Rifle Association and President Obama responded to the Newtown , Conn.
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
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
And:
We already know that MCPS will call the police to subdue an autistic teenager who is having a meltdown. The police then handcuff the individual and drive them to the hospital.
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt that tasering kids with developmental disabilities is next. MCPS already locks them in rooms, and restrains them on the floor. Things that hospitals aren't allowed to do. But MCPS does it. And no one cares.
She is not autistic...
ReplyDeleteI saw it happen, and in my opinion our SRO was justified in tasing her. If you assault a police officer, you should know the consequences. I am sure that if there were other trained adults around, the girl (I am not using her name to protect her rights as a minor) would have been restrained. What most people who are taking a stance on this issue don't know are the facts. This girl has a history of violence and rudeness towards authority. It also takes 4 certified adults to restrain a student. At the time, tasing the girl was the only option to prevent her from hurting anyone else.
Well, that's interesting, "Blair Student!" I would think that a large high school like Blair would have at least 4 individuals trained in crisis management. Are you saying that the students were told subsequently that restraint wasn't an option because there weren't 4 "certified" adults? or do you just happen to know the details of the MCPS restraint training manual?
ReplyDeleteGood behavior management looks at the antecedent to the behavior. Did the individual slug the officer out of the blue, or did other adults do something to escalate, rather than de-escalate, the situation?
I still think that individuals with developmental disabilities are the most at risk if we allow students to be tasered at school.
@ "Blair Student" - Now, how on earth would you know whether or not a fellow student had a diagnosis? You wouldn't. And, MCPS staff would be in violation of FERPA if they were to reveal such confidential information.
ReplyDeleteSo we can all ignore your first sentence.
Next, as Lyda Astrove has already noted it is very interesting that you know the details of the MCPS restraint training manual. Now, you wouldn't be MCPS staff pretending to be a student would you? No need to answer. It is obvious.
Very unprofessional of MCPS staff to 1) try to reveal confidential information about a student, and 2) to pretend to be a student.
Let's be real here: not all details have been released publicly. We don't know whether the child was or wasn't autistic (or had any diagnosis), although in many elementary schools, kids know which other students get meds for ADD at lunchtime or who are autistic - and Blair Student hasn't said whether s/he is personally acquainted with the girl and to what degree, so yes, Blair Student may in fact know whether the girl had a diagnosis. And for all anyone knows - again, this isn't likely to be disclosed in the near future either - whether drugs or alcohol may have played a role in the behavior.
ReplyDeleteAlso, just because there may be more than 4 trained adults in the building at any given time, Blair is a HUGE building; if there was the likelihood of a too-long wait for them to arrive, it's incumbent on the SRO to either let the situation escalate or deal with it as it stands.
Tasering students isn't optimal, of course - but if the SRO doesn't know whether an aggressive student has a weapon that could be turned on other students - or herself, Heaven forbid - the SRO is there to protect the students and staff from danger and the job description is to do just that. Can anyone else say, for sure, how they would have reacted in a similar circumstance, let alone someone whose responsibility it is to handle events like this? It's easy to armchair-quarterback, but if we weren't there, how likely are we to really REALLY "get it"?
Training is described in the MOU:
ReplyDelete"MCPS, the police agencies, and the SAO agree to participate in joint training opportunities for administrators, EFOs, and MCPS security staff on matters that are the subject of this MOU and other topics of mutual interest. MCPS and the police agencies will make available, annually, a block of time for training of administrators and other staff by the sigriatory agencies on the MOU and related matters, The SAO will make available, annually, a block of time for training assistant state's 'attorneys and other staff, as appropriate, on the' MOU and related matters."
I think it is a legitimate issue for the public to decide whether we want Police Officers to be using Tasers against students during the school day. Is the purpose of the SRO to maintain order? To de-escalate situations (obviously didn't work out that time)? To protect the adults/students in the building from outside assailants? To break up gang fights?
ReplyDeleteAre minority students more likely to be on the receiving end of a Taser than white students? Students with disabilities? What would a principal do in a situation like this if they did NOT have a taser-equipped SRO in the building?
I think questions like these are ripe for community discussion and input. The fact that the principal didn't mention the "Taser" in her letter to parents implies to me that they were trying to sweep that part under the rug. I think it needs to be brought out into the open.
I agree that this is a valid discussion topic for the community. For example one of the recent budget discussion points was staffing numbers for counselors. According to news reports, this incident started when the officer noticed a child who was likely skipping class. My guess most staff members would start with asking the child to either give a good reason why they were not in class or to return to class. I would also guess that in many cases the child would not immediately comply. As a tax payer, I am not convinced that it is the best use of armed/uniformed officer type resources to be the first line in looking for kids skipping class and for the initial attempts to get them to return to class. I think this might be more effectively accomplished with increased counselor/social worker type resources.
ReplyDeleteAs a parent, I am concerned that when the school says they don't have control/responsibility for when the officer is taking on responsibilities that are shared with other school staff (i.e. noticing the child is skipping class and then taking some action). Is the officer required to be familiar with any special accomodations students might have? I know plenty of young (special needs) kids that will totally freak out if purposefully touched by an unfamiliar person and I would guess that some kids have formal accomodations saying what steps staff members should take to enforce compliance to rules. If it is the case that an officer is not a staff member and so is not expected/required to comply with formal accomodations for enforcing behavior in reasonably expected situations then that is absolutely a concern. (In my mind it is a reasonable expectation that in a large school there will be some students that try to skip class and that the school should have procedures in place for how to handle it.)
Our news media has also reported on the unfortunate case of a young adult with Downs Syndrome whose death might have been avoided if someone had been available to explain to the responding officers that he would likely freak out if purposefully touched by a stranger but and that his caregiver would return shortly and would be able to safely get him to do what the officers wanted.