news-record.com

What a collection of dolts our school board is. Go ahead, take the SROs out of schools, and then when something awful happens, the collection of lackwits can sit around and point fingers and blame one another for what happened.

Remember Columbine.

The SRO's are using good judgement and if anything are TOO careful NOT to use tasers.Only 4 students have been tased since they began carrying tasers.
What about that SRO at Northeast High a few months ago that SHOULD have used a taser but did not and got injured and missed several weeks of work?
School board members should think long and hard about being on record as voting to end the SRO program. One situation that could have been handled by an SRO that goes bad will cost them RE ELECETION.SRO supporters should also post here the school board member's names that vote to remove the SRO program.

“No student should be tased.” Currently, this statement is an absolute for several school board members and some others in the community. However, other absolutes, equally valid, also need consideration as part of the debate: no child should come to school without breakfast; no child should bring a weapon to school; no child should physically assault another student or a faculty member or an administrator or an SRO; no child should be raised in a dysfunctional living situation. And yet . . . and yet GSO students are often examples of all four should nots, and consideration of the entire reality of our schools today has to play a major role in any discussion of SROs in our schools let alone the equipment they should carry and employ. Frankly, I don’t think any school should need an armed guard—SRO or trained security guard—but clearly our schools do. The fact is that probably more than 95% of our students don’t get into any trouble during the school year and maybe 4-5% do get into some trouble. However, every year a tiny number of students do something so over the top that major force is necessary to bring them under control; given that fact, who should be on the scene to both control these students and protect all the other students--a well-trained, sworn officer or a police wannabe? Yet the loudest voices in this debate are consumed with anger and worry about this smallest number of students. Don’t the safety needs of the many heavily outweigh the problems of the few—and the pain they bring upon themselves and others? Maybe if the current expulsion policy were applied fairly and thoughtfully, we could remove those students who are such a menace to themselves and others and do away with the need for any sort of security guard.

While the number of students who have been tased is only too concrete, the number of students our SROs interact with daily and thus probably diffuse 99% of the problems before they escalate to the point that police intervention is necessary can't be easily quantified. I think it significant that in the school climate study done last year, one of the few areas in which parents thought our schools were doing a good job was in safety. I assume that our SROs and their professionalism play a major role in parents' perceptions. To remove them, with or without their tasers, would be a major mistake.

Let's be sure that our SRO's have proper training on how to de-escalate situations, but also let's give them the tools to make our schools safe for teachers and students. Some of these "children" are anything but, and pose a danger to those who come in contact with them, to those who are trying to help them. Let's not make teaching a job where you're putting your life on the line!

At 2 pm today there was a fire intentionally set in a restroom at Page High School.
I predict the SRO at Page can nail the arsonist.

My son was in third grade when his elementary Principal Jane Andrews dealt with a molotov cocktail. A child residing with his grandfather, abandoned by his parents, took a glass bottle full of gasoline to neighborhood school bus stop. I was afraid and asked the principal what happened. I was told it was none of my business the details. And yes it was clearly none of my business why a child could have done this. I support SROs 100%. Today some children have not been loved or cherished. It is not that hard to undertand Tasers are tools used rarely but necessary.

Interesting - somewhat down the middle article. I think I may have missed something though. In the next to last paragraph, it was suggested that some SROs are not well suited for the job they do. I would absolutely agree with that under certain circumstances, but I haven't seen it in print anywhere until now. Did I miss it, or did the N&R create this idea? I'm just curious. Regardless, we can get our answer simply by replacing the SROs with security guards as has been suggested. The only problem is that we would likely get our answer at a price we cannot pay with money.

Looks like the vast majority of comments have been in support of SROs, a good thing even if the sample of comments are not statistically valid.

But an unforgotten point is this . . . .at what point in time did teachers and school administrators (e.g., the smartest people in the room) acknowledge they were not trained well enough to ensure security for our children and needed to have someone else provide it? From the actions and comments of school board members, they are telling us loud and clear they can't handle confrontations, bullying, etc, but still want to control the situation. They're also in a flux because they realize they have no power to force BJ Barnes to change his policies on carrying tasers and BJ is not about to change course. What we need is our elected members to take positive actions and expel those who are disruptive without an eye how that would be viewed at the next election.

To some my lack of a teaching certificate or a PhD in school administration makes me just someone with comments, and not an informed opinion. But often times those with professed informed opinions are seen as unwilling to take actions unless they know the outcome. After all, they wouldn't want their informed opinions to be proven wrong, would they?

Just like there's a growing ground swell of public anger to take our country back this year, this SRO debate will be one of the issues that will shape the next elections for the school board. I trust those who support SROs will remember that and vote out those who do not support them.

We have found that violence sometimes begets more violence. We want to turn bad kids around. Often these kids feel all alone. They have noone that loves them are cares about them. We now have 2,300,000 people in prison now. Locking kids up and throwing away the key is one method to handle crime by teenagers. However, it seems to have not worked very well. I want to explore alternatives in the Middle Schools. If they do not work, we would try something else. The bigest problem with the use of Tazers is they kill people when don't expect the weapon will do so. Noone should die because he mouthed off to a student, teacher or sworn officer. Most of the SROs seem to be able to do their work with out using a tazer. With a little effort, all of them could leave the tazer untouched. Over 30 people have been killed by tazers. They will kill and they do kill. Do you think it is fair to kill a young teenager that has no weapon, has hurt noone and is no threat to anyone's life. Have you heard about the Declaration of Independence that talks about the formation of our country with all people enjoying life, liberty and the pursuit of happeness. Killing is not the answer. The answer is that bad students should be immediately removed from the school and assigned to schools that specialize in incorigible students. Remember Columbine had SROs.