It was with great disappointment that I read Commissioner Heather O’Loughlin‘s Letter to the Editor regarding the current SRO debate in our school district (“We must make evidence-based decisions to support community safety”, Helena IR, July 15, 2020). The myriad of issues and discrepancies presented during the public meeting on July 9, 2020 and in Ms. O’Loughlin’s letter regarding the SROs and Helena public schools can be broken into three distinct categories: the anecdotal examples that were given bordered on slander of our professionals, there was a massive group of stakeholders missing from the public conversation, and - most egregiously- the data was skewed/misinterpreted/
During the token testimonies of the panelists the ACLU assembled, an individual of the school district was named and misinformation was given out on her role in the anecdote shared by the former student. It was the general understanding of the public present that this meeting was called to discuss the role of SROs in the school not the job performance of individual professionals employed by the district. It can be assumed that since it used the anecdote as part of its argument, the ACLU was fully aware of what the young adult would say and therefore blatantly ignored professional standards of not calling out unrelated individuals just to vent past frustrations. Additionally, several times, classroom teachers were entirely disregarded and SROs were elevated to the level as “first responders in a crisis”. Police officers are trained in first-response but they are not the first encounter a student will have in a time of crisis. The vast - almost exclusive - majority of the time, the first responder to students is the classroom teacher. We are trained to identify telling signs of a student’s current mental state as well as building relationships with students so we can be on alert for any deviations in behavior that may indicate trauma or mental health struggles.
Additionally, through their own ignorance or lack of preparation, the organizers of the meeting made the assumption that all stakeholders had access to the Internet and email necessary to jump into the Zoom meeting in order to participate in the public comment time. They neglected to consider our most impoverished stakeholders and those allegedly most negatively impacted by the presence of SROs. What measures were taken to ensure that everyone who wanted it had access to the meeting? Was there concerted effort by the commission or the ACLU to notify all stakeholders and to provide the easiest access possible to the meeting? Were there community hotspots established to ensure connectivity for those who don’t have Internet at home? Was there access to public computers for those who don’t have computers at home? The city commission and ACLU neglected to involve those parties who were held up as the subject of the meeting in regard to the SROs. Given the circumstances of how we ended our school year, the school district could have been tapped as a resource and partner in how to reach as many stakeholders as possible. But that “oversight” forced a large group of our community to be left out.
Finally, the data cited at the meeting and again in Ms. O’Loughlin’s letter was faulty at best and given through an incredibly biased perspective. In Ms. O’Loughlin’s letter, she states “the [data shows] disproportionate levels of discipline that Black, Indigenous, and other students of color face in the Helena School District...students of color represent 11.5% of total student enrollment, and yet, they face 25% of our-of-school suspensions.” She continues on citing ACLU Montana’s 2019 report “Empty Desks...” staying the aforementioned groups of students “are more likely to be disciplined in school" with the report concluding that this leads to thousands of days missed for those groups of students. This is where the opponents of SROs’s argument breaks down. The police officers present in our schools do not discipline the students according to district discipline policy. They enforce the law and would do so whether physically present in the school or not. If a law has not been broken or if protective custody is not needed, the officers are not involved.
Furthermore, in ACLU’s own report, they recommended various strategies to combat the connection between frequent discipline in school and incarceration rates later in life that range from “banning zero tolerance discipline policies at the state level to arranging classroom desks in a circle, rather than rows” (“Education leaders respond to ACLU Montana report...”, Great Falls Tribune, January 20, 2020). Those recommendations are a far cry from removing SROs with no plan as to what happens next. Concerns have also been raised about the report regarding its scope. The report gathered one year of data, which is not best practice in research, because individual years could have had a myriad of specific issues. For example, in the same article cited above, it was reported that Flathead High School had a senior prank that “went bad” (according to Superintendent Flateau) resulting in 21 students facing two criminal citations each. This was construed in the report as “42 arrests” giving Flathead a total count of 50 arrests instead of a more realistic number of 8. The report also disregarded the fact that the district worked with all 21 of the students to ensure they graduated with their class (low graduation rates was one of the major detriments (according to the ACLU) that suspensions and/or citations can have). The superintendent also stated that the recommended practice of Restorative Justice was being implemented in the district already. Further quotes in the article from various individuals recognize the issue in inconsistency and therefore misreporting of data between the districts and the Office of Civil Rights.
Ms. O’Loughlin seems to disregard the issues with the report and take the data at face value, which is not how “evidence-based decisions” should be responsibly made. The data contained in the report is also becoming quickly outdated since it is from the 2015-2016 school year and many schools have already made efforts towards minimizing the number of suspensions and moving towards Restorative Justice systems and educating teachers to have more trauma-informed classrooms as well as implementing MBI programs and bringing in CSCT counselors (all recommendations by the ACLU).
Another key fact missing from the ACLU's presentation and Ms. O’Loughlin’s reiteration is that the report does not contain a full picture of all schools in Montana and therefore should not be used as a blanket statement for the entire state. As reported in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle on December 6, 2019 (“Bozeman schools prefer a kinder approach...”), “Bozeman isn’t mentioned in the report, which focused more on problems at schools on or near Indian reservations.” In fact, as part of its efforts to help create safer and more equitable school environments, Bozeman is using a 2019 law to raise $418,000 to go toward four new SROs. And most indicative is that in the actual report that serves as the entire foundation for ACLU's argument against SROs in the Helena school system, under the section titled “Schools With Arrests”, Helena does not appear on the map or in the charts.
The arguments being made to remove SROs are not about our officers at all. They are arguments against systemic racism, broken school systems, and generational poverty as well as arguments against current district administration and practices. The former realities are far too big for one group of city commissioners to tackle, and the latter is far beyond the scope and reach of the City Commission’s duties. Change is absolutely necessary on the former and discussions in the appropriate venues occur on the latter. However, stating SROs create a racist environment does detract from a more reasonable and achievable argument to remove them - the city can’t afford to pay for them.
Why isn’t the commission arguing it from that perspective? It’s been reported that the City of Helena is in a budget crunch/crisis with a nearly $18 million shortfall for proposed projects (“Financing slip-up delays $18M in Helena infrastructure projects”, Helena IR, May 11, 2020). The timing of removing SROs and thus not spending $292,000 on them is convenient. But no one is stating that the City can’t pay for it, which would be a logical and reasonable argument. No one in the educational world would argue finding funds is difficult and not everything we want can be paid for. But budget cuts is not the stated reason SROs should be removed. The stated reason most poignantly made by those opponents (including the ACLU) is that the presence of law enforcement officers in a school promotes a school-to-prison mentality and compounds racism. To solve it, they argue, the funds should be reallocated, not cut.
Certain members of the City Commission are promoting a removal of the SROs from our school in hopes it will resolve the incredibly difficult and complex societal issues that plague our schools, community, state, and nation. They are misleading the public as to the role SROs play in our schools and using them as a scapegoat to avoid addressing the real problems of budget issues and inherent impacts poverty has on our schools and community.
The behavior of the City Commission directly contradicts what they argue. For some reason, the commission feels that it has the right to determine who belongs in our schools and who doesn’t. They are also neglecting the viewpoints of the people who put them in their chairs.
Very few, if any, educators would disagree with the nature of the argument that there is racism present in our societal systems including education and that having students arrested from school is heartbreaking and should be minimized, preferably eliminated, but to paint our educators and officers as being racist and disregarding the mental health of our students is insidious. Very few, if any, educators would disagree that schools need more experts in the skilled arena of mental health issues and crisis management, but to remove one of our only tools without any plan to subsidize that created hole is irresponsible.
If the ACLU would like to work with the district to combat the massive problem of chronic absenteeism which contributes a widening achievement gap, worsening health issues, and higher incarceration rates, they are more than happy to have more partners guiding our students. If the City can’t afford to pay for the SROs because too many projects were approved before the budget was balanced, then the commissioners have a responsibility to acknowledge that. As with most other situations, our district professionals will do our best to fill in the gaps and provide the most cohesive, caring, and safe educational environments for our students regardless of the limitations or unforeseen circumstances.
