An Informative and Lively Meeting

A Report on the Oct. 25th Meeting on “The Intersection of Education and Juvenile Justice System” at First Church

From Elizabeth Bobrick

A panel discussion before an audience of about 50 sparked some heated responses last night at a meeting organized by Betsy Morgan of The Middlesex Coaltion for Children. The panel consisted of Abby Anderson, Executive Director of the Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance, Hannah Benton, Esq., of the Center for Children’s Advocacy, Annie Hillman of Connecticut Voices for Children, Marta Koonz of One Caring Adult, and South Windsor Police Ofc. Caleb Lopez, representing the Connecticut School Resource Officer Association. Ofc. Lopez is an SRO in the South Windsor district.

Ms. Anderson said that the number of referrals of children into the system has “drastically increased” in the past decade although there was little to no data kept on the reasons for referral, which include “truism, absenteeism, and school-based arrests.”

Ms. Koonz spoke of the need for a change in “school climate,” which she defined as the atmosphere created by the way in which every member of the school community perceives and relates to one another. Changing school climate, she said, is more cost- and time effective than procedures for suspension or expulsion, and allows teachers to focus more on teaching rather than discipline.

Ms. Betton cited a Yale University study of prevention measures applied in the Bridgeport school system that showed significant academic gains in 6^th to 8^th graders when the school focused on prevention rather than suspension as a means of behavior modification. Children with learning disabilities require particular help with learning appropriate behavior in order not to be suspended, as many of them are.

Ms. Hillman said that more and more kindergartners were being suspended for behavior issues. Suspension, she said, prevents students from learning how to improve their behavior, especially at such a young age.

South Windsor Police Officer Lopez was the last to speak, and remarks were largely the focus of the evening’s discussion. He was asked to explain the role of a Security Resource Officer. He replied that an SRO was “a uniformed, sworn police officer whose task is to serve a school or group of schools.” SROs, he continued, ideally employ a “triad philosophy,” in which they are “one-third law enforcement officer, one-third teacher, and one-third counselor.” He said that he mediates disputes between students, counsels them individually, consults with parents, and gives them advice about keeping their kids safe. He does home visits and works with social service providers working with families. He added that “sometimes we have to put on our police hat only when everything else has been tried.” Nonetheless, he said that a police officer should not be the first responder to a disciplinary situation. When asked if SROs increase arrests because they are present in schools, he said that “some problems were there all along” and that police officers, “because of their training,” recognize when behavior has reached the point where police intervention is necessary. Ofc. Lopez acknowledged that SROs do not always function in the ideal way he described. He emphasized that his organization has trained officers who volunteer for unpaid, 48 hour training sessions in order to work as SROs. The number of officers who want to participate exceeds the number of programs available.

Ms. Betton noted that she had seldom seen the “ideal situation” that Ofc. Lopez presented. She sees a lack of communication between the schools and the police, and little training, guidance, and “unclear expectations” for SROs.

When the question and answer session opened, Maria Masden Holzberg asked for details about SRO training, and asked if Ofc. Lopez wore his gun to school. Ofc. Lopez, answered in detail about the training, and said that as a uniformed police officer, he was required to carry “the tools of my trade.” She noted that he was not allowed to carry his gun to every courtroom, but was still allowed to carry it in school.

Audience member Anthony Glenn asked if there were SROs in every community, and if not, why not. Ofc. Lopez replied that the town’s budget limitations could be a reason, as well as “perception that an armed officer does not belong in school.” Mr. Glenn then asked if Rocky Hill (a system without SROs) had different results in school suspensions and arrests. All panelists agreed that there was not enough data kept by schools to do comparative studies, and that what data there is was of dubious accuracy.

An audience member who left before this reporter could get her name was openly scornful of Ofc. Lopez’s ability to function with what she said was no training as an educator. “Do [SROs] even have a college degree?” she asked. Ofc. Lopez replied with information about his training and certification and requirements for recertification. Ms. Anderson had noted at the beginning of the meeting that there is “no requirement in Connecticut that teachers have training in classroom management,” although such training would reduce behavior problems.

Middletown child psychiatrist Paul Sadowitz asked Ofc. Lopez, “How have these three jobs of teacher, counselor, and law enforcement officer fallen on your shoulders? Why is the SRO doing all this work?” He said that the schools were “abdicating responsibility” by turning this work over to “the man in blue.”

Some audience members who spoke declined to give their names when asked. One spoke of statistics that showed most arrested and expelled students were minorities, and said that having more minority teachers and staff would improve school conditions for minority students. Another asked the panel for details about the nature of the interventions prescribed, but was answered mostly with generalities about the importance of intervention. One who left before this reporter could get her name said, “We need laws about parental involvement,” because unless parents hold responsibility, “the schools are some kind of shadow government.”

Larry Owen noted that the panel of “white women and a police officer” reflected what students see in school. Schools need to “stop all the programming,” he said, and hire more minority teachers. At the same time, however, he said he discouraged minority teachers of his acquaintance who lived in southern states from moving to Connecticut because “they don’t want you here.”

MHS principal Robert Fontaine was present, and stayed well after the meeting, talking with audience members, as did MHS Dean of Students Sheryl Gonzales, Justin Carbonella of Middletown Youth Services and BOE member Sheila Daniels. She was the sole member of the BOE present. None of the four spoke publicly.

When I contacted Ms. Daniels later, she told me that the BOE was working with various members of the school system’s administration to implement the kinds of changes recommended at the meeting. They had initiatives in place to recruit minority faculty and to reduce school suspension. The BOE had made “a concerted effort” that resulted in ongoing professional development with the goal of school climate change and training in classroom discipline methods. She agreed with the need for parental involvement, but noted that parents must join the process voluntarily. The BOE felt that the SRO should be the last responder to student behavior problems, not the first.

An earlier draft of this article said that it was the principal's decision whether or not to have an SRO in the building. That is the case in Hartford, but not in Middletown.