I thought that having a school
resource officer in a school would be a good thing, because a school resource
officer’s job is to help keep students and faculty safe. After
reading an article titled “School Resource Officers: Safety Priority or Part of
the Problem” by Tierney Sneed, I am not so sure that school resource officers
are making a positive impact in schools. In the article, Sneed talks about how
the relationship between law enforcement agencies and communities has changed ever
since the death of many like Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Tamir Rice. In the
past, a school resource officer’s purpose was to help build a better relationship
between law enforcement and citizens with an emphasis on minorities and
lower-income families. According to Sneed, many think that law enforcement agencies
are making the relationship worse with its citizens, because many school
resource officers are introducing children to the criminal justice system by
giving them harsh punishments for their classroom misbehavior.
Sneed
explains that school resource officers are not given clear standards that they
have to follow, and they are not all participating in the same trainings. Since officers are not given clear standards,
school resource officers have become more involved in basic discipline of
children. For example, in 2012, a special-needs high school student was charged
with disorderly conduct over an incident that started with a teacher asking the
student to stop talking. Sneed also explained that out of 3,500 students
who were arrested in 11 Texas School districts in 2006-2007, only 700 of those
arrests involved violence or a weapon. Sneed later argued that an officer should only
be placed in a school if there is a written agreement outlining that officer’s
role at the school. I agree that a written agreement should be in place before
an officer comes to a school. That way the officer would know his or her place
in times of conflict. Even with this being said, I am wondering if the majority
of officers would stick to their agreement if they had one. I am also wondering
if officers would be held accountable if they broke their agreement. What do
you think?
Link to
article: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/30/are-school-resource-officers-part-of-the-school-to-prison-pipeline-problem
This is very interesting. I wonder what the difference is in Chicago that they see positive results. Recently a local news channel did a clip on the resource officer at Central Crossing High School, they defined his role, interviewed him and reported the rates of crime at all major school districts around Columbus, OH. It was surprising how high the rates were but the news highlighted the usefulness of the resource officers being available. There should be criteria, training, and procedures for them to follow outlined in the job description like every other job. It is unfortunate but there are bad employees everywhere, including bad police officers. They should be supervised more closely since they are working with youth.
ReplyDeleteI lived in Chicago for 4 years and school resource officers in chicago are not having a positive result. I'd be interested in knowing where that data actually comes from. How many schools were involved in the program? Did crime fall because the children most engaged in crime were involved in the juvenile system earlier and not on the streets to offend or because of actually changes in relationships? Chicago has some of the worst statistics on school-to-prison pipeline and policing in schools, so I wouldn't put too much weight into a couple sentences with no further explanation or references. I think putting anyone called an "officer" of any kind into an inner city high school is a dangerous move given the relationship of most of the young people in those schools to law enforcement in the streets.Given the history of policing and law enforcement in the U.S. it just doesn't make sense as a solution. If the problem is discipline then invest the funds into interventions and programs that have been proven effective.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jamari's statement that anyone titled "officer" creates a negative environment in a school. I don't have much knowledge of school resource officers or their impact on behavior or crime in the community. If there is research that shows a positive impact, I would, of course, bow, however unwillingly, to it. But as far as I can see, making a school more like a criminal justice institution by placing armed officers (Google told me that they're armed, please correct me if I'm wrong), does not create an environment conducive to learning. By placing armed personnel in a school, we are normalizing violence within schools. It is a public declaration that we, as a society and a culture, have decided that mental health interventions and other programs are either not worth the cost or are worthless, and that instead we must be prepared for the inevitable violence. There is no place for an officer in a school, and there is no place for a weapon, carried by an officer of the law or not, in a school either.
ReplyDeleteI believe that giving the title "officer" carries a lot of weight and a possible a false sense of privilege or power. We had both actual city police officers as well as security guards in our school at all times. The officers were respected and were there for protection. The security guards on the other hand had very vague and less obvious roles. They usually patroled the halls and doors to make sure students weren't doing things they weren't supposed to. I personally saw them on various occasions act inappropriately or out of their job description. Haley, I agree that some type of written document should be made to have clear understanding of their roles and what happens if they act beyond those roles. I do believe they can be beneficial if they're working in an appropriate manner and doing the job they were hired for.
ReplyDelete