It looks like, for now, high schools in Cary and Raleigh will still have police officers assigned to them for the 2011-12 school year
After a lengthy debate, the Wake County school board unanimously agreed tonight to continue their contracts with the Raleigh and Cary police departments for school resource officers for the high schools. As part of the vote, Superintendent Tony Tata was directed to come back in three months with a review of the SRO program.
But before the vote, some board members talked about delaying the vote and what would be necessary should they terminate the deals.
The SRO issue is intertwined with the discussion about the proposed overhaul of the student discipline policies.
Some advocacy groups have urged the school board, while it changes the discipline policies, to also change the use of SROs. They've advocated eliminating them entirely or, if they remain, to restrict what weapons they can carry and to change their training, among other things.
Throughout the discussion of the overhaul, board members have talked about reviewing the memorandum of understanding with the local law enforcement agencies about the SROs.
Tonight's vote was scheduled to be a consent agenda item but was put on the action agenda, meaning it required separate votes, by board member Anne McLaurin.
McLaurin questioned approving the contracts right now when they hadn't yet reviewed the MOU or the SRO program.
School board chairman Ron Margiotta agreed that a review is needed but questioned holding up the contracts at this late date.
School board member Deborah Prickett asked if they could wait on the contracts until they get a better handle on the budget.
Russ Smith, Wake's senior director of school security, said the amount has stayed the same for 13 years. He later said that on average it costs $80,000 per officer per year with Wake paying $37,838 per SRO using state dollars.
School board member John Tedesco complained they had asked about the MOU for months but hadn't seen it yet. He said he "very concerned" about moving forward with the contracts tonight.
McLaurin said before they proceed with a one-year contract that they should talk with the principals first to see what they think about having SROS.
Margiotta said he was concerned that delaying the vote might mean they wouldn't have SROs in place for the start of the new school year.
School board member Kevin Hill said though that they could approve the contracts tonight and, in the worst case scenario, terminate the deals on 30 days notice.
Tedesco said he was concerned that approving the contracts tonight could cause them to lose their sense of urgency on reviewing the SROs. He said he would want to evaluate whether SROs are having a productive impact on schools before approving the contracts.
McLaurin said she could approve the deals if Tata could talk with the principals and complete the review of the SROs within the next three months.
Tata said he could get back to them within that time period and conduct the review. He said can talk with the principals and see whether what they're doing with SROs is consistent with the new discipline policies.
McLaurin said she wants Tata to see if the training that the officers receive is consistent with what's needed to be a SRO.
School board member Keith Sutton said he wants conversations about the use of force and about SROs making referrals of students into the criminal justice system.
School board member Carolyn Morrison said what's often missing from discipline is that it should be to correct mistakes and not just to punish.
After everyone made their speeches, they approved the contracts.
The deals for the high school SROs in the unincorporated areas of the county or the other towns don't go before the school board because they're for less than $100,009 per agency.
Comments
totally wrong direction
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 04:07 — red_balloonI am concerned for the safety of my kid and what Tedesco and Sutton are proposing to do with SROs, long term suspensions, etc. does not engender any confidence in the public school system. I would venture to say that in eliminating SROs the BOE is going down a path that will force some parents to reconsider keeping their wards in the public school system.
If you want the school-to-prison pipeline to dry up and the achievement gap to decrease, increase the number of SROs so that problems are nipped in the bud. Put one SRO in each classroom that has achievement problems due to disciplinary issues.
If you want to mollycoddle wannabe criminals, by all means keep them out of prison. Host them at your house. But please keep them out of schools.
Do they have SROs at private
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 14:14 — woodstockDo they have SROs at private schools, charter schools or faith-based schools?
...
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 19:28 — red_balloonYou think private schools rival public schools in discipline issues?
Not many Bloods and Crips
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 14:36 — CaryCurmudgeonNot many Bloods and Crips hanging out at Cary Academy, last time I checked.
So, are you saying black
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 17:45 — woodstockSo, are you saying black gangs are the reasons we need armed patrols in our schools?
Try not to be so
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 18:45 — CaryCurmudgeonTry not to be so simplistic. I'm saying gangs are one of the reasons why we need SRO's in our schools. As far as I know, the bloods and crips are equal opportunity employers and allow members of all creeds and colors.
You've clearly decided that it is worth the risk of not having SRO's in order to save a few bucks, I won't try to convince you otherwise. I sincerely hope you don't live to regret that opinion.
If you have kids of driving
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 19:58 — woodstockIf you have kids of driving age and you give them the keys to the car, you put them at much, much MUCH greater risk than anything they will ever experience at school. Yet, it is the rare parent who withholds those keys. If risk was the issue, and we used data/risk analysis to determine where funding should go, having SROs would be way down the list.
Exactly. I put my son in a
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 20:18 — CaryCurmudgeonExactly. I put my son in a car and give him the keys. We have a whole police force out there patrolling the roads, ticketing speeders and arresting drunk drivers. Because of that, I know my kid is safer driving that car.
If the Town of Cary had financial trouble, the LAST place I would look for them to save money would be to cut the police force.
Do you understand now?
Hardly. You seem to be
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 22:59 — woodstockHardly. You seem to be saying that high risk is acceptable when a teen is behind the wheel, but imagined risk at school -- one of the safest places on planet earth -- is not acceptable. No, I do not understand that.
I will add again, there is no evidence SROs mitigate the already minimal risk in the slightest.
Putting a kid behind a wheel
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 20:10 — red_balloonPutting a kid behind a wheel is different than putting a kid behind a desk. Quite different.
I agree, one is infinitely
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 20:18 — woodstockI agree, one is infinitely more dangerous... which is my point. But, what is your point?
...
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 21:10 — red_balloonYou answered your question with "one is infinitely more dangerous". Just keep the other safer.
Oh boy... you are still
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 21:58 — woodstockOh boy... you are still missing it. If dealing with minor or nonexistent safety issues in your concern, why wouldn't you want to take the approximately $5,000,000* spent on SROs and find something that would actually provide a larger and provable safety benefit? But since schools are enormously safe places already, and were before SROs, that would be wasteful. I would suggest, especially considering the tight budget, that the money be put to better use in support of an actual in-classroom educational initiative.
But, to your point, prove it is safer and convince me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Based on the report I provided a link to earlier there are 54 SROs and 6 investigators. At $80K a pop, that come to $4,800,000.
Unless teachers are willing
Fri, 06/10/2011 - 08:21 — red_balloonUnless teachers are willing and able to use tasers, you are not going to convince me that SROs are a wasteful expenditure in public schools in the USA. Some other countries, perhaps. But the USA? No.
I would be interested in hearing about what you have by way of an example for a "larger and provable safety benefit".
Are you really asking me to
Fri, 06/10/2011 - 08:48 — woodstockAre you really asking me to prove something that is not currently being done, but refusing to prove the benefits of something that is currently in effect?
But, again, you miss my point. What I was saying is that if safety is your concern, determine where the real dangers are and address that instead of focusing on SROs who provide dubious safety benefits. To answer your question... Driver's Education and associated safety awareness could be significantly improved from what it is. It could literally save lives.
Question: How many times have tasers actually been used in Wake County?
Question: How many times
Fri, 06/10/2011 - 09:38 — danofncQuestion: How many times has not wanting to be tasered made a kid listen to a call to stop fighting? Or made a kid think twice before fighting in school at all?
I don't know, do you? I will
Fri, 06/10/2011 - 10:40 — woodstockI don't know, do you? I will say zero times. Now, prove me wrong.
since schools are enormously
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 22:07 — CaryCurmudgeonsince schools are enormously safe places already, and were before SROs
Interesting opinion, but how do you know that?
the money be put to better use in support of an actual in-classroom educational initiative
Well, thank God you're not making the budget decisions around here.
I think you're just bored and looking to argue, have fun.
"I think you're just bored
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 22:47 — woodstock"I think you're just bored and looking to argue..."
LOLOL Did you really mean to write that?!
Just admit you don't have an argument... or data... or even sound logic.
Those schools would kick out
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 14:33 — danofncThose schools would kick out most kids that would make you think there would need to be an SRO in the building. Where would they be sent? Public schools.
You seem to be making a
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 17:54 — woodstockYou seem to be making a strong argument for private, charter and faith-based school education... apparently they provide much safer environments and manage risk better.
Actually, what I'm making an
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 19:08 — danofncActually, what I'm making an argument for is probably something that is the opposite of the stance that your people are going to put in place re: long term suspensions for violent behaviors.
The schools you mention have it, because you have to apply and/or pay to be in them, and they can kick you out.
If you have a school where tuition is paid and/or no busing or lunch is provided from the school, you have a school full of children with involved parents. Normally, although there are exceptions, those aren't the kids that are going to go nuts and hurt someone in school.
So, poor kids with
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 20:09 — woodstockSo, poor kids with uninvolved parents are violent, "go nuts, and hurt" people? Carycurmudgeon said that the Crips and Bloods are the reasons we need armed patrols at schools... and that their membership is inclusive and all ethnicities and creeds are welcome. I am learning so many interesting things today.
Look, you are either arguing
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 20:16 — danofncLook, you are either arguing just for the sake of arguing, or you're a moron.
Anyone can go nuts. But, the kids who are more likely to get involved in gangs and other bad things are the kids who have less-involved parents. That doesn't mean that some well-off kid from Prestonwood couldn't shoot up a Cary high school, it just means it's less likely.
The point is that there isn't a single kid here that I would want to see harmed more seriously because an SRO wasn't around just so I could tell you "I told you so".
LOL Just because you don't
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 20:25 — woodstockLOL Just because you don't have a valid argument or data to back up your anecdotes does not mean I am a moron.
I am not arguing for aguments sake, I am trying to get you to see the illogic of your arguments.
...
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 20:50 — SideburnsHe likes to claim others argue for the sake of arguing when he loses traction on his statements. It means you're making sense. Keep it up.
In my opinion
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 12:33 — louiselee44SROs should stay. No question in my mind. I'll bet most of the law-abiding students would agree that just their presence is a deterrent. Just need to make sure that they are well-screened for the job.
DITTO for SRO's
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 21:16 — shank56Middle and high schools both included. Should not even be an issue.
Agreed Louise. SROs at the
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 13:32 — DrActualFactualAgreed Louise. SROs at the HS level are a must (for best coverage there should be 2 on campus). Our HS has had bomb threats, murderers (students) arrested on campus, bus accidents, fights, lockdowns, etc. just in the past few years. It is not a place I would even send my kids if there weren't cops on duty. To think that we could, would or should do without them is absurd.
Emotion is great
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 14:01 — woodstockEmotion is great entertainment for a Jerry Springer show, but it does not cut it when formulating public policy (most of the time). Does anyone have even a shred of evidence that the incident rate of students being physically harmed on campus has been reduced by the introduction of SROs. I am willing to change my mind here if someone can provide the data.
I have no idea what the
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 14:29 — danofncI have no idea what the incident rate is, or what it used to be. What I'd love to know is how you'd feel if your kid's school lost their SRO, and then your kid's school was the one that ended up proving that we needed SROs.
In a billion dollar budget, SROs are a drop in the bucket that is worth it.
I have no idea what the
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 15:02 — woodstockI have no idea what the incident rate is, or what it used to be.
So, you just want them and are willing to fund them and don't care if they actually make any real difference at all. That seems to be the consensus here.
What I'd love to know is how you'd feel if your kid's school lost their SRO, and then your kid's school was the one that ended up proving that we needed SROs.
What's the scenario you have in mind? Certainly I do not want anything harmful to happen to my children... or anyone's children for that matter. But, when I worry about those things, it is not school that worries me. It is life away from school that is far more concerning. Maybe we need to hire full-time armed guard for our kids... and professional drivers.
During 2009-2010 school
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 17:15 — DrActualFactualDuring 2009-2010 school year, WCPSS had 19,392 short-term suspensions, 837 long-term suspensions or 13.9 short-term suspensions per 100 students; 0.6 long-term suspensions per 100 students. Over the last three years the rate of suspensions has been declining. Random examples for STS as follows: Non-compliance 4,598; Fighting 4,363; class disturbance 2,326; Intimidation 1,165; Instigation of fighting 1,128; threats 442, weapons 307, possession substancts 395, gang activity 291, sexual harassment 230, harassment 207. Long-term suspension violation stats: Possession to distribute alcohol/drug/paraphenalis 186, Possession/use...116, Fighting/Assault multiple on One 73, Fighting/physical aggression 63, assault on student first violation 57, assault on employee 53, gang activity 46, weapons 37, theft 27, weapons used in a dangerous manner 19. (I didn't list all the categories but you get the idea. These suspensions and reasons were not broken out by campus (HS/MS/ES). Schools with most STS-Knightdale at 1142, Enloe at 937; most LTS is Garner HS at 79, Enloe at 52. Middle School with most STS is Dillard Drive at 485, then Daniels at 458; MS LTS most to North Garner at 24, then FV at 21 and East Garner at 20. These stats are from a March 2011 Issue Brief for the 2009-2010 year review on WCPSS. It was provided by ACS (Advocates for Children's Services a project of Legal Aid of NC. If you think SROs are costly, you should read their last page on recommended improvements and price that out.
New report sheds light on
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 17:54 — woodstockNew report sheds light on law enforcement officers in Wake County School
Link: http://www.legalaidnc.org/public/learn/media_releases/2011_MediaReleases/2011_MediaRel_NewReportShedsLightOnLawEnforcementOfficersInWakeCtySchools_ACS_Feb_03-11.aspx
"The 20-page report, “Law Enforcement Officers in Wake County Schools: The Human, Educational and Financial Costs,” describes current SRO policies and practices as “misguided” and criticizes them as “financially unsound and educationally imprudent.” The report points to a number of successful models in other school districts across the nation where progressive reforms have reduced the school-to-prison pipeline (STPP), while keeping schools safe and saving taxpayer dollars."
The March report I
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 18:50 — DrActualFactualThe March report I referenced calls for increasing the number of school counselors, psychologists and social workers (they will cost more than cops). Provide high-quality alternative schools for suspended students (former Supt. Del Burns closed down alternative schools in budget cuts--stupid move.) Provide alternatives to suspension such as counseling, substance abuse treatment, mediation, community service, restitution, in-school suspension, and Saturday school. Those interventions will also cost a lot more. Implement Mandatory, on-going high-quality training for all teachers, principals, and administrators in dismantling oppression, cultural competency, the school-to-prison pipeline and behavior mgmt. Mr. Sutton and Mr. Tedesco seem to be pushing much of the agenda and changes represented in these reports. Is anyone even questioning the plan or costs as this moves along. Have they asked the public, fellow BOE members if this is how they want to proceed. Are you surprised that the Legal Aid folks would push a "progressive reform" agenda as opposed to You do the crime, you do the time philosophy. They don't want kids to have ruined lives and criminal records, neither do I. I also don't want administrators hands tied to carry out consequences in proper circumstances. I don't want the pendulum to swing to far the other way and allow complete mayhem at school by creating unsafe schools. Neither Sutton or Tedesco have kids in schools, they risk very little if their reforms go sour.
If you don't worry about
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 15:13 — danofncIf you don't worry about your kids at school, you've got problems.
I can honestly say I do not
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 15:22 — woodstockI can honestly say I do not worry about their safety at school. It makes me sad that you do. I worry about lots of other things regarding my children, but not that. If that means I have a problem, then it is one problem I am happy to have.
I worry about my kids
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 15:53 — danofncI worry about my kids whenever I can't see them. At school, there are lots of things that can happen, so I worry. I don't sit home biting my nails or anything, but I do hope that they are OK.
Once they get to high school, and even middle school, it will be worse. No matter what school they go to, they will likely have to go to school with gang members and various other kids.
I hear you, I really do. Our
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 16:38 — woodstockI hear you, I really do. Our children are eveything and with the recent horrific accident in Wake Forest and other tragic examples over the years, I worry far, far more about my kids driving than any potential threat at school... but we let them drive -- eventually -- and trust and pray they, and those they encounter on the roads, will be responsible. But, life can only be so safe as we are too often reminded.
Sutton...
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 08:51 — Bob_SconceWas Sutton saying that SRO's shouldn't be referring students into the criminal justice system? If so, that's really bizarre: "Sorry, we know that you tried to stab somebody, but let's just keep it between us -- the cops don't need to know. After all, you did it in school; it's not like you did it out on the street someplace."
As to their weapons, what's the big deal? How many instances have their been of SROs using their weapons in cases where we'd all agree it was inappropriate? (I don't care what ACS says -- they're the lawyers for the kids who get in trouble; we know where they stand.)
A little common sense, tolerance and compassion.... they're kids
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 10:22 — woodstockAt schools and often in society in general, law enforcement, and especially the judicial system, are way overused. Young men and women getting tagged with a criminal record can experience long-term consequences that impact their future education and employment opportunities. Not everything that happens and is technically against the law needs to rise to the level of criminal prosecution. Some amount of tolerance, benefit of the doubt and compassion should be demonstrated when dealing wiht minors. Schools are supposed to be learning environments and we should take advantage of teachable moments when kids mess up. Parents, teachers, counselors and administrators should be able to find some way to deal with most matters without calling in the calvary. Incidences that involve weapons, of course, are another matter.
As for the SROs, I am not sure how valuable they are, and considering the current budget concerns the $80K per officer could be put to much better use. Schools, for all the noise you hear about them, are about the safest places kids can possibly be... and that includes the time before the paranoia set in and we started putting armed officers in our schools.
Unbelievable. Several
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 10:29 — CaryCurmudgeonUnbelievable. Several times, Wake students have been caught bringing weapons to schools. We know that gangs are a problem here. We keep seeing cases of disturbed young people in this country who bring guns to school and kill their classmates, or of disturbed adults doing the same.
And some see sacrificing our kids' safety as a way to knock $80K off the budget.
I am a fiscal conservative but I totally agree!
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 15:01 — midtownmomSRO's need to be in each middle and high school. No, it cannot be proven, but I am sure they have been a deterent to many possible violent outbreaks.
First, it is $80K a pop, not
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 10:59 — woodstockFirst, it is $80K a pop, not total. And the anecdotal "evidence" you provide regarding "disturbed" people are extremely rare and are not likely to be prevented by a single SRO in a school with 2000 students and and 300,000 sq. ft. Schools -- with or without SRO's -- are some of the safest places you can find, and that includes students' homes.
But, you are more than welcome to disagree.
So...
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 12:13 — Bob_SconceMake the case. It's common practice at high schools, at least, for there to be uniformed officers there -- it's doubtful that this decision was made on a whim. It seems to me that the burden of proof about their effectiveness is now on those who want to remove them, not on those who want to keep them.
It's true that SROs can't be everywhere, but they certainly help. There was an incident at Wakefield High School a few years ago, where a SRO pulled a student/thug off another student. As-was, the victim went to the hospital; it could have been a lot worse without the SRO.
And we will also never know
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 11:01 — CaryCurmudgeonAnd we will also never know how many violent incidents never happened because there was a SRO in the school. Our SRO has broken up many fights, do you think we should count on our teachers to do that?
I don't know of any
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 11:42 — woodstockI don't know of any particularly unmanageable situtations in Wake County before SRO's or after the paranoia that facilitated their use took hold. As for teachers breaking up fights, well that has occured since the first school was built and seems to have worked just fine 99.99% of the time. Are you saying only armed professional police officers can handle that now?
I think WCPSS needs to look at the data to better understand the realities before a final decision is made about the SROs. I know you support SROs, but you really haven't provided the data to support your case. Maybe it exists, but I sure haven't seen it.
I don't know where you're
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 17:24 — Andrew95I don't know where you're getting your anecdotal evidence, but it's pretty obviously false. Of most of the fights I've seen, the students could've beaten up the majority of teachers. Yeah, maybe not the football coach, but what if he's not around? What if the only teachers around aren't willing to intervene, for their own safety? What if it's in the middle of the street ?(yeah, that happened)
In my opinion, a lot of situations at my school have been handled appropriately by the SRO, situations that may have been a lot worse if he wasn't there. And this comes from someone who doesn't even find him that agreeable.
So Enloe is a pretty
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 17:57 — woodstockSo Enloe is a pretty dangerous school, eh?
This county is very diverse,
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 23:04 — duvalThis county is very diverse, as you well know.
Panther Creek is not the same as Enloe, nor Zebulon, Green Hope, Sanderson, Fuquay, Knightdale, Leesville, and on and on.
Just because your kids have not had the experience of problems where an SRO officer was not only needed but welcome does not mean that they should be taken out of all of our schools.