Associate Professor David Moss, right, and Professor Alan Marcus stand in front of a WWII German bunker on the beaches of Normandy in 2011. (Photo courtesy of Alan Marcus)
Associate Professor David Moss has spent the past six years actively expanding Neag School study abroad programs around the world as the Neag School’s global education director, and the past 20 years coordinating UConn’s long-standing London study abroad program in education.
The London program has brought hundreds of aspiring teachers from the Neag School to London for a semester of living, teaching, researching, and studying. Over the years, as the program started to receive an even greater influx of applicants, Moss saw a need to create a more extensive range of study abroad opportunities for Neag School students.
Richard Schwab, Neag School dean emeritus, appointed Moss as the inaugural director of the School’s Global Education program to oversee the growth and research opportunities involved in study abroad.
“I saw that as an opportunity to work formally with great faculty who already had lots of interest,” says Moss.
Having coordinated the London program for many years, Moss felt he had everything in place to be able to build new international programs from the ground up. He says he acted as a facilitator and critical friend with whom faculty members could share their ideas for such programs.
“I think a lot of faculty have a good sense of why they want to go and set up a program for their students, but creating that vision in detail, that allows us to bring those programs to reality, takes many steps,” says Moss.
“This, to me, was the first time in my career that I felt like I was a part of something that was truly transformative for our students and for our teacher education program.”
— Associate Professor David Moss
Marcus was among the first to work with Moss on launching a program abroad for preservice social studies teachers. (Shawn Kornegay/Neag School)
The first faculty member to jump on the opportunity to expand global education at the Neag School was Professor Alan Marcus. He sought to start a May term program focused on World War II history. The program, which ran from 2011 to 2013, brought preservice social studies teachers on a two-week trip throughout Europe to visit different World War II historical sites.
“We were a great team, in that he handled everything in terms of international travel, and I handled all the trips to museums and the content portion of it,” says Marcus.
The success of the World War II program inspired Marcus to want to start a full-semester program for aspiring social studies teachers at the University of Nottingham in the U.K. The semester-long program, which launched in Fall 2015 and at the time nearly doubled the number of Neag School students studying abroad, connected master’s students who had completed their student teaching with internships at Nottingham-area schools and museums. Again, Moss proved instrumental in formulating the logistics.
“He knew all the right questions to ask in terms of how we partner with a university, how we find housing, how we set up internships and schools,” says Marcus. “His expertise was critical in setting that up.”
Kiana Foster-Mauro ’19 (ED), ’20 works with her students at La Paz Community School in Costa Rica, where she volunteered for six weeks this past summer. (Photo courtesy of Kiana Foster-Mauro)
With a vision to get as many preservice teachers abroad as possible, Moss has since helped establish Neag School study abroad programs in South Africa, Costa Rica, Peru, Australia, and, most recently, Iceland. While each program has its own unique attributes based on the context of the host country, the London program acted as a well-researched and successful model from which to consider all other programs. During the 2018-19 academic year alone, nearly 40 Neag School students studied in four locations around the world, and more than 10 Neag School faculty were actively engaged in Neag School-affiliated Education Abroad programs.
During this same period, the University of Connecticut also became one of three universities in the United States invited to join Universitas 21 (U21), a prestigious network of research institutions involved in global education. U21 has offered UConn faculty opportunities to expand their international network, take part in workshops, and collaborate on research with colleagues at international institutions. At the same time, U21 has afforded UConn students with opportunities to share projects they have led with experts in academia and industry, take part in online competitions, attend research conferences, and, of course, study abroad.
Supporting Students in and Beyond Study Abroad
Neag School students visit Buckingham Palace in London as part of their semester abroad experience last fall. (Photo courtesy of Alan Marcus)
The London program experience is more than just a semester abroad. Prior to studying abroad in the fall semester, students are required to take a graduate course over the summer that involves several intercultural learning components. After their semester abroad, students enroll in a reentry seminar to unpack their cultural learning experience.
The experiences of teaching and interacting with communities in international settings have brought new and valuable perspectives to the education of these aspiring teachers. “Taking them out of their comfort zones,” Moss has shared in the past, “can help them develop the empathy and understanding of what it’s like for students in their own classes.” In addition, the lessons students learn in intercultural competence ensures that students gain “the skill sets to negotiate with parents, communities, and students who have viable cultural norms and systems other than their own.”
Jonathan Simmons ’11 (ED), ’12 MA, now a doctoral student in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, says his relationship with Moss and his study abroad experience in London allowed him to gain a deeper understanding about the complex ways in which students see the world.
“David is really good at getting you to think about yourself and your own lived experiences through a different lens.”
— Jonathan Simmons ’11 (ED), ’12 MA
“David is really good at getting you to think about yourself and your own lived experiences through a different lens,” says Simmons.
After graduating from the Neag School’s Integrated Bachelor’s/Master’s program in 2012, Simmons went on to teach internationally in Morocco and Mexico. He maintained his relationship with Moss over the years and returned to the Neag School in 2019 to pursue a Ph.D.
“Nothing felt familiar to me when I started teaching internationally, and I think I would’ve struggled a lot had I not had that experience with David to learn how to interpret culture,” says Simmons.
Finding Fulfillment in Student Growth
Moss says one of the most rewarding aspects of his role has been seeing the growth in his students over the years. Whether a student was an experienced traveler before studying abroad or was setting foot on an airplane for the first time, Moss says it was rewarding to support them wherever they were and help them immerse in the idea of intercultural learning.
During his time as the director of global education, Moss, with fellow faculty at the Neag School and beyond, has published book chapters and research articles that describe the effectiveness of these study abroad programs and document student growth.
“We have a lot to be proud of,” says Moss. “We’ve been really successful in helping our students grow, and the research data really does support that.”
Moss says it has been an honor and a privilege to see how his students continue their intercultural work in their professional lives.
“This, to me, was the first time in my career that I felt like I was a part of something that was truly transformative for our students and for our teacher education program,” says Moss.
Ray Neag ’56 (CLAS), Professors Joseph Renzulli and Sally Reis, and Carole Neag (l-r) gather after the Letitia Neag Morgan Chair in Educational Psychology Investiture for Reis in 2011. (Thomas Hurlbut/Neag School)
In the early 1990s, UConn alum Raymond Neag ’56 (CLAS) was enjoying a visit from his niece Sally Reis, and her lifetime partner, Joseph Renzulli. This one family gathering almost 25 years ago would ultimately make a tremendous impact on UConn, its education school, and the world of gifted education for years to come.
At the time, Reis remembers her uncle, who passed away in 2018, talking about a Wall Street Journal article he had read on Renzulli’s work in gifted education. “I had no idea how famous and well-known he was,” Reis recalls him saying.
“My uncle was so impressed with his work and was curious about what would be involved with developing an endowed chair so that Joe could expand on his work,” says Reis, today a UConn Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor and the Letitia Neag Morgan Chair in Educational Psychology at the Neag School.
Following the visit, she contacted the School’s development director, Frank Gifford, and Richard Schwab, who was serving as dean, about the possibility of her uncle establishing the School’s first-ever endowed chair. Shortly thereafter, Neag’s 1996 gift of $1.5 million, made in honor of his late wife, Lynn, came to fruition. The state of Connecticut even matched his donation, bringing the total contribution to $3 million. (During a two-year period that began in 1996, all private gifts of $25,000 or more were matched by the state, up to a total of $20 million).
“The area of gifted education and talent development became one of the top programs in the world, as evidenced by the federal government funding our National Research Center for a record five [recurring] five-year terms. No other national educational research center … has come close to that record.”
— Dean Emeritus and Neag Endowed Professor of Educational Leadership Richard Schwab
The gift, focused on supporting research into the teaching of gifted and talented children, was used not only to establish the Raymond and Lynn Neag Chair of Gifted Education and Talent Development, but also to create the Neag Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development at UConn. Renzulli was named the endowed chair and founding director of the newly created Center.
“That initial gift meant a lot to us,” says Renzulli, also a UConn Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor. “It helped us grow to the next level and gave us money to provide scholarships for graduate students, which was something that I think is a lasting legacy of any program.”
Renzulli served as founding director of the Neag Center, the Lynn and Ray Neag Endowed Chair for Talent Development, as well as the first director of the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (NRC/GT – 1990-2013), the only federally funded center on gifted and talented education. Under Renzulli’s guidance, the Neag Center evolved into one of the leading centers in gifted education and talent development in the world.
Setting Records
That initial gift, and the Neag Center’s founding, would become a significant part of the School’s first strategic plan in 1997.
“We had decided we would focus on a few areas of strength, which included the Department of Educational Psychology and our great programs in exceptionality. Our emphasis paid off, and we achieved our dream of having our special education program among the top 20 in the U.S,” recalls Schwab.
“Even more impressive, the area of gifted education and talent development became one of the top programs in the world, as evidenced by the federal government funding our National Research Center for a record five 23 years,” says Schwab. “No other national educational research center … has come close to that record.”
It was just the beginning of a series of historic accomplishments.
In 1999, Neag would donate an additional $23 million to UConn’s School of Education. At the time, it was UConn’s biggest gift ever from an individual donor and the largest gift to a university school of education in the country — not to mention a gift that ultimately led to the School taking on Neag’s name.
Over the course of its history, the Neag Center has garnered a total of more than $100 million in grants. Under Renzulli’s leadership, the Center has also “brought more than 25,000 educators from around the world into tiny Storrs, and inspired hundreds of schools and programs in our country through the Schoolwide Enrichment Model,” says Schwab.
Integral to the Neag Center’s work from 1990 to 2013 was the federally funded NRC/GT. This research arm of the Neag Center focused on making schools better places for developing students’ academic gifts. With Renzulli at the helm, the team conducted national research needs assessments to determine questions important to gifted education and talent development. Answers to these questions continue to influence policy and practice at national and international levels. The Neag Center continued its national research presence in 2014 with a $2 million grant from the Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences.
Now His Namesake
Joseph Renzulli gives opening remarks at 2017’s Confratute, an annual conference he founded for gifted and talented educators in 1978. (Shawn Kornegay/Neag School)
While Renzulli officially retired from UConn, he continued working with the support of federal grant funding on researching and writing about gifted education, advising graduate students, and participating in speaking engagements worldwide.
“Although he’s technically retired, he works all the time,” says Reis. “He loves what he does and believes passionately in his work.”
The reins of leadership were passed this past August to Professor Del Siegle, named Renzulli Center director and the Lynn and Ray Neag Endowed Chair for Talent Development. In addition to directing the Renzulli Center, Siegle directs the National Center for Research on Gifted Education. He also previously served as the head of the Department of Educational Psychology and associate dean for research and faculty affairs.
The pandemic thwarted plans this past summer to honor and celebrate Renzulli’s three-decade leadership of the Center and mark Siegle’s transition into the role of director.
Regardless, says Reis, “leaving the Center Director’s position has given [Joe] the time, energy and opportunity to focus on contiuing his intellectual work.”
“Joe’s work has a lasting legacy because it is responsive to the needs and interests of practitioners by being grounded in the realities of K-12 schools and classrooms.”
— Del Siegle, Lynn and Ray Neag Endowed Chair for Talent Development
UConn Family
“Working with Joe and the other faculty at NRC/GT allowed me to receive the best research training in the world,” says Del Siegle, director of the National Center for Research on Gifted Education, and now director of the Renzulli Center. (Paul Horton/Neag School)
A central emphasis of the Renzulli Center is advocating a broadened conception of giftedness and a focus on the development of potential in groups not ordinarily included in special programs for the gifted and talented. Academically talented or high-potential students with disabilities, academic underachievers, and those who attend schools in high-poverty districts have been at the heart of its work for decades. This focus is integrated into all of the Center’s programs and services, including its affiliation with the Department of Educational Psychology’s graduate programs in giftedness, creativity, and talent development.
“There is an enormous network of people across the globe who have graduated from Neag School’s gifted programs,” says Reis, who earned a Ph.D. fromUConn in 1981. “So many people have completed their degrees from UConn and feel part of this large family of scholars that we’ve created.”
One such graduate was Del Siegle ’95 Ph.D., who studied with Reis and Renzulli. “I was fortunate to be among one of the first groups of Ph.D. students whose graduate study was supported by the first National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented,” says Siegle.
“Working with Joe and the other faculty at NRC/GT allowed me to receive the best research training in the world,” says Siegle “It also provided me opportunities to meet and interact with other eminent and leading scholars in the field. I would not be the professor I am today if I had not had that opportunity at NRC/GT.”
E. Jean Gubbins ’79 6th Year, ’82 Ph.D., too, went on to become one of the School’s first faculty members in gifted and talented education.
When Renzulli and his colleagues wrote the national research center’s first grant, they included the phrase “dream, design, and destination,” which they hoped depicted how the Center’s team explored issues in the field and created a substantial research base responsive to critical issues in gifted education and talent development.
Gubbins notes how Renzulli has always sought assistance from district schools to test his ideas because he wanted to learn what worked best for teachers and their students.
“This professional approach to working with educators is one of the many reasons Dr. Renzulli’s work connects to so many people around the world,” she says.
“Dr. Renzulli’s conception of developing gifted behavior in young people has resonated with educators for decades,” says alum Thomas P. Hébert ’93 Ph.D., a professor of gifted and talented education at the University of South Carolina. (Thomas Hurlbut/Neag School)
According to Thomas P. Hébert ’93 Ph.D., a professor of gifted and talented education at the University of South Carolina and a past Neag School Outstanding Alumnus of the Year, “The work of the Renzulli Center has enabled me to strengthen my scholarship in gifted and talented education by remaining professionally connected to the team of highly respected UConn researchers.”
“Dr. Renzulli’s conception of developing gifted behavior in young people has resonated with educators for decades,” Hébert adds. “His inclusive approach to providing gifted education services and nurturing the development of talents is one that American society can understand, appreciate, and celebrate.”
Next Chapter and Renzulli’s Legacy
“Dr. Renzulli always reminded us that completing research studies was an intermediate goal,” says Gubbins. “Research needed to be accessible and usable by multiple target groups, which is why our website is a primary source for researchers and practitioners around the world.”
“Early in his career, Joe recognized the importance of student interest in promoting enjoyment, engagement, and enthusiasm for learning,” adds Siegle. “Joe’s work has a lasting legacy because it is responsive to the needs and interests of practitioners by being grounded in the realities of K-12 schools and classrooms.”
Schwab notes the impact of the Renzulli Center around the world. “I have had the honor to be a guest lecturer in many countries,” he says. “In every international venue that I have been to, the first thing they bring up to me when they learn I am from UConn, that the Neag School is the international leader in gifted education.”
Since the 1900s, U.S. public schools have employed a growing number of school resource officers (SROs) – defined here as sworn law enforcement officials. In 1975, only 1% of schools reported having police officers on site, but by 2018, approximately 58% of schools had at least one sworn law enforcement official present during the school week.[i] In response to school shootings in the 1990s, federal and state legislation spurred this rapid proliferation of SROs. Since 1998, the federal government has invested over $1 billion to explicitly increase police presence in schools, and over $14 billion to advance community policing, which can include SROs.[ii]
Policies that establish a police presence in schools respond to acute pressure on schools to keep students safe. While SROs are one of the most visible ways to promote students’ safety, research overwhelmingly suggests that SROs have no positive impact on students’ safety and may in fact make students less safe.
In this policy brief, I first outline federal and state policies related to SROs. I subsequently explore the research on the impact of SROs in schools. Finally, I present recommendations for alternative approaches to school safety.
In 1975, only 1% of schools reported having police officers on-site. By 2018, about 58%of schools reported having a police presence.
What are SROs?
The only definition of “school resource officer” (SRO) in current federal law appears under the authorizing legislation for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office), “a component of the U.S. Department of Justice responsible for advancing the practice of community policing” primarily via grant resources.[iii] This statute defines an SRO as “a career law enforcement officer, with sworn authority, deployed in community-oriented policing, and assigned by the employing police department or agency to work in collaboration with schools and community-based organizations.”[iv]
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) removed the definition of “school resource officer” that was present in prior federal education law under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act. ESSA contains no provisions regarding the use of SROs. Due to the lack of a uniform, national definition of the role and responsibilities of school resource officers, definitions vary widely across states and jurisdictions.
Connecticut state policy defines SRO as “a sworn police officer of a local law enforcement agency who has been assigned to a school pursuant to an agreement between the local or regional board of education and the chief of police of a local law enforcement agency.”[v] If boards of education want armed security personnel in their schools, Connecticut state law requires that they hire “a sworn member of an organized local police department or a retired police officer.”[vi]
(Thinkstock Photo)
Increase of SROs: Fueled by Federal Funding
In 1975, only 1% of schools reported having police officers on-site. By 2003-2004, 36% of schools reported having a police presence.[vii]The most recent data indicate that 58% of schools had at least one SRO or other sworn law enforcement officer present at least one day a week.[viii]We may expect this growth to continue as National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO) argues that “[s]chool-based policing is the fastest-growing area of law enforcement.”[ix] Research shows that SRO programs are implemented for two primary reasons: (1) as a response to school violence, specifically, a publicized mass shooting event at a school; and (2) because of available grant funding to create such a program.[x]
The first use of SROs in schools is widely reported to have been in Flint, Michigan, in the early 1950s.[xi] While police have had a presence in schools since then, it has only been over the past 20 years that the practice of assigning police officers to schools on a full-time basis has become more widespread. The number of SROs expanded significantly beginning in the 1990s due to legislative initiatives in response to concerns over a series of school shootings including the Columbine tragedy.
The 1994 reauthorization of ESEA included provisions that established school safety as a core focus for the U.S. Department of Education (U.S. DOE).[xii] It also included the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act, which authorized federal support for police in schools via a grant program wherein local education agencies could use funds to hire and train SROs.[xiii] Between 1994 and 2009, up to 40% of federal funding for this act could be used to hire and train school police and support other security measures.[xiv]Additionally, a 1998 amendment to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 encouraged partnerships between schools and law enforcement. This legislation significantly increased the number of SROs in schools by providing funding through the COPS Office “COPS in Schools” grant program, which remains the largest sustained federal effort to support SROs.[xv]Between 1999 and 2005, it awarded approximately $823 million in grants to districts for hiring SROs, funding 7,242 positions in hundreds of communities across the nation.[xvi]
Funding for the COPS in Schools program ended in 2005. However, law enforcement agencies are encouraged to apply for funds to hire SROs via other COPS Office grants programs.[xvii] This change made it more difficult to track the grants awarded exclusively for SROs.[xviii]Overall, since 1998, the federal government has invested over $1 billion to explicitly increase police presence in schools,[xix]and over $14 billion to advance community policing, which can include SROs.[xx]
In recent years, federal funding and rhetorical support for SROs have increased following tragic school shootings. For example, despite their concerns about the unintended negative consequences of SROs, the Obama Administration renewed funding to increase the number of SROs across the country after the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.[xxi] Following the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, the Trump Administration prioritized school resource officer positions in selecting COPS grants recipients.[xxii]
Federal Policy on SROs
Despite their growth and the substantial federal funding SROs attract, there is very little federal policy delineating the role of SROs. The absence of SROs from federal educational policy is perhaps due to the Obama administration’s concerns over unintended negative consequences of police in schools.[xxiii]In 2014, the Obama administration issued guidance aiming to make school environments more equitable by favoring the social emotional needs of students over exclusionary discipline policies that disproportionately affected students of color and students with disabilities.[xxiv]This guidance included parameters for the appropriate use of law enforcement in schools and put schools on notice that they may be in violation of civil rights laws if they or their SROs engaged in practices that disparately impacted students of color. However, the Trump administration rescinded this guidance and communicated a clear shift back to what some have called “law-and-order” approaches.[xxv]Overall, the vagueness of federal law has led to large variation in the role, expectations, and accountability of police in schools.
Moreover, federal-level data collection on SROs is also severely lacking. SROs are not required to register with any national database, police departments are not required to report how many of their officers work as SROs, and school systems are not required to report how many SROs they employ.[xxvi] Since 2013-2014, the U.S. Department of Education has collected survey data every other year that details the number of student referrals and arrests made by school police (including SROs) in public schools, and which students are most affected. The data also include the number of counselors, social workers, school psychologists, and nurses are in school compared to SROs. The data from the 2015-2016 school year, released in April 2018 is the last data set released to the public. Given this overall lack of most basic descriptive data it is perhaps unsurprising there is also little information on the roles of SROs nationally nor how, if at all, SROs are trained. By failing to collect these data, the federal government effectively makes it extremely difficult to monitor the work of SROs and hold them accountable.
Patchwork of State Policy
Federal policy and accompanied funding initiatives fueled the growth of SROs programs which are now operated in all 50 states.[xxvii]Yet, the lack of federal law on SROs has led to a patchwork of state policy. Out of all 50 states and Washington D.C., only 26 specifically define SRO in state statutes or regulations.[xxviii]These state-level definitions do not specify the role of SROs in schools. Most states encourage schools or districts to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with local law enforcement if they provide an SRO. Connecticut, Massachusetts, Ohio, and South Carolina require MOUs to outline the role of the SRO.[xxix]NASRO asserts that the role of SROs should be defined via a “triad concept” wherein they have three main roles in schools: “educator (i.e., guest lecturer), informal counselor/mentor, and law enforcement officer.”[xxx]
To carry out this role, NASRO suggests SROs receive at least 40 hours of specialized training in school policing prior to being assigned. NASRO’s Basic SRO training is set up as a 5-day, 40-hour block of instruction.[xxxi]Twenty-eight state statutes or regulations include language regarding training requirements for SROs, but these also vary widely and laws in only two states specify a required length of training.[xxxii] In several states, the training is simply what is required of traditional law enforcement, including firearm or active shooter training.[xxxiii]Instruction regarding how to effectively interact with youth averages around four to six hours across all states.[xxxiv] Training in sixteen states includes what is required of traditional law enforcement in addition to school-specific training. However, the majority of these requirements are extremely vague. Few states explicitly require training in de-escalation or conflict resolution, mental health, youth development, or school climate.[xxxv] Only Maryland and Utah explicitly include provisions for training in “implicit bias and disability and diversity awareness with specific attention to racial and ethnic disparities” and “cultural awareness,” respectively.[xxxvi]Thus, across states there is wide variation in expectations regarding SRO training. Additionally, training is primarily standard police training, with little education on working in school settings and with youth.
Overall, police are present in a substantial proportion of Connecticut schools. These police are largely the same police who are on the streets – they come from the same department, receive the same training, and report to the same chief. There is a lack of evidence on whether their attitudes or approaches to the job differ significantly from other law enforcement professionals.
Connecticut Policy
Schools in Connecticut began to hire SROs in the late 1990s.[xxxvii]Between 1998 and 2004, Connecticut received more than $9 million from the U.S. Department of Justice’s COPS in Schools grant program.[xxxviii]Since 2008, Connecticut police have received over $57 million in grants from the COPS Office Hiring Program, although it is unclear whether this funding has supported SROs.[xxxix]There is no central public reporting of and, in turn, very little information on the presence of SROs in Connecticut. Approximately 21% of Connecticut schools reported the presence in their building of a sworn law enforcement officer for the 2013-2014 year. In the 2015-2016 school year[xl], this increased to 30% of Connecticut high schools, 18% of middle schools, and 14% of elementary schools. A 2018 report on survey data collected by the Office of Legislative Research from 113 of 170 districts in Connecticut shows that 70% were using SROs.[xli]
Per state law, SROs are sworn police officers. Required training for SROs in Connecticut consists of traditional law enforcement officer training and is overseen by the Police Officer Standards Training Council. As of 2017, SROs and local police officers were mandated to receive 14 hours on “the handling of juvenile matters.”[xlii] However, the only specifics for SRO training listed in state law related to education and policing indicates that “such training shall include drug detection and gang identification.”[xliii]
Connecticut law also requires that “each local or regional board of education that assigns a school resource officer to any school … shall enter into a memorandum of understanding with local law enforcement agency regarding the role and responsibility of such school resource officer.”[xliv]The MOU must include “provisions addressing daily interactions between students and school personnel with school resource officers.”[xlv]MOUs are widely considered important tools to clarify how SROs should operate in an educational environment.[xlvi] However, most school districts employing SROs do not make MOUs available on their websites. There has not been a public review of MOUs since 2013, and there is currently no requirement that the MOUs be publicly accessible on school district websites or another centralized location.[xlvii]This means that key stakeholders such as students and families lack easy access to information regarding their rights in relation to interacting with police in schools.
Overall, police are present in a substantial proportion of Connecticut schools. These police are largely the same police who are on the streets – they come from the same department, receive the same training, and report to the same chief. There is a lack of evidence on whether their attitudes or approaches to the job differ significantly from other law enforcement professionals.
Chelsea Connery is a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Leadership.
The Impact of SROs in Schools
What is the impact of SROs on students’ safety in schools? SROs are categorically police officers and, as such, their prevalence in schools raises questions regarding the safety of children, especially children of color, children living in poverty, and immigrant children. Decades of evidence demonstrates racial and ethnic disparities in policing. Black and Latine[xlviii]communities (youth and adults) are disproportionately subject to pedestrian and vehicle stops, citations, searches, arrests, and incarceration.[xlix]In addition to the rate of police contact, the nature of police contact harms communities of color. Incidents of police violence disproportionately impact Black individuals, who are 2.3 to 5 times more likely to be killed by police than whites.[l]Native and Latine populations are also at higher risk of being killed by police.[li]
Even if a young person does not personally experience unjust treatment by police, the experiences of others in their community can have vicarious effects.[lii]Such institutional and physical violence has detrimental effects on youth, causing elevated levels of stress, fear, trauma, and anxiety that strain cognitive functions and overall health.[liii]Discriminatory police practices also shape the worldviews of young people of color, fostering distrust of authorities and inducing feelings of powerlessness.[liv]Compared to white peers, Asian, Black, and Latine students are more likely to report feeling less safe with the police in their communities. For example, only 9% of Black youth, and 17% of Latine youth, and 20% of Asian youth in California responded that the statement “the police make me feel safer” was “very much” true – compared to 36% of white youth.[lv]Given these realities, it is imperative to carefully examine the impact of police in schools. Evidence suggests that the presence of SROs in schools does little to improve children’s safety and may in fact reduce it.[lvi]
SROs Do Not Guarantee Physical Safety
There is extremely limited evidence on the effectiveness of SROs in deterring violence. There is no empirical support for the suggestion that SROs prevent school shootings.[lvii]Research on averted school shootings – incidents planned by students and then prevented – suggests that the key is having trusted adults whom other students can inform.[lviii] One study found that students are much more likely to report a planned shooting to school staff members; they tell a police officer only rarely.[lix]There is also little evidence on whether SROs can stop an active shooter or lower deaths or injuries when a school shooting happens. In 197 instances of gun violence at U.S. schools since 1999, SROs intervened successfully in only three instances.[lx] A recent study found that among all schools that experienced a school shooting between 1999 and 2018, the number of injuries and deaths was actually about 2.5 times higher in schools that had an SRO.[lxi] In sum, there is little evidence that SROs reduce the likelihood or mitigate the impact of school shootings.
SROs Can Negatively Impact Safety
In the triad model concept advanced by NASRO, in addition to their law enforcement role, SROs will act as another mentor, educator, or counselor. However, this assumption ignores the fact that Black youth, Latine youth, immigrant youth, indigenous youth, and youth living in poverty often come to school with harmful experiences with police that may perpetuate racial inequalities in educational, health, and social outcomes.[lxii]By putting police in schools, we are exacerbating these issues. SROs are more likely to reproduce broader patterns of police targeting and criminalizing Black, Indigenous, Latine, and students of color while implementing policies supposedly designed to keep society “safe.”[lxiii]
SROs are more likely to work in schools serving high numbers of students of color
SROs are disproportionately placed in schools serving predominantly students of color, as opposed to schools serving predominantly white populations.[lxiv] Among middle and high schools where more than 75% of students were Black, 54.1% had at least one SRO or security officer on campus. By comparison, among middle and high schools where over 75% of students were white, only 32% had these personnel.[lxv]
SROs are associated with higher rates of exclusionary discipline and arrest
Additionally, numerous studies show that the presence of SROs in schools is associated with higher rates of exclusionary discipline – suspensions and expulsions – increased risk of students being pushed into the “school to prison pipeline”[lxvi] Students of color across the nation, and in Connecticut in particular, are disproportionately subject to these exclusionary discipline practices.[lxvii] In Connecticut, suspension and expulsion rates for Black and Latino male students are two to three times that of their white counterparts. The suspension rate for Black female students is around five times that of their white counterparts.[lxviii]The presence of SROs is associated with increased racial disparity in suspension rates.[lxix]
Research consistently demonstrates that racial and ethnic disparities in discipline are not the consequence of “differences in rates or types of misbehavior” by students of color and white students but rather – conscious or unconscious – racial and cultural biases.
SROs also contribute to the criminalization of youth conduct. SROs create the potential to escalate school disciplinary issues – even minor ones – into arrestable offenses.[lxx] In one survey of SROs, 77% percent reported that they had arrested a student simply to calm them down[lxxi] and 55% reported arresting students for minor offenses simply because the teacher wanted the student to be arrested.[lxxii] The majority of school-based arrests are for non-violent offenses, such as disruptive behavior.[lxxiii] Relatedly, studies show that the presence of an SRO increases the number of arrests for “disorderly conduct” – an ambiguous, and thus subjectively applied, characterization of behavior. [lxxiv]This may be unsurprising since police are trained to focus on law and order, not student mental health or social and emotional well-being; SROs are using the tools they have. These tools are often wholly incompatible with schooling. The Advancement Project has documented 61 incidents of police brutality in schools over the past ten years.[lxxv]Overall, research suggests that SROs’ potential to escalate conflicts puts students at risk.
SROs are associated with increased school arrests, and thus may accelerate the school-to-prison pipeline.[lxxvi] For example, schools that employed police had an arrest rate 3.5 times that of schools without police.[lxxvii]As with exclusionary discipline, students of color are disproportionately subject to school arrests.[lxxviii]In Connecticut, Black and Latine students are arrested at 4 times and 2 times the rate of white students.[lxxix]
This pipeline extends further for undocumented students, as contact with SROs can put them at risk of detention and deportation.[lxxx]This risk is heightened in communities where local law enforcement is contracted with Immigration and Customs Enforcement under 287(g) agreements – which allows the Department of Homeland security to deputize selected state and local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law.[lxxxi]Since 2013, COPS Grants have required recipients to sign at 287(g) agreement in order to receive funds.[lxxxii] There are several documented cases of SROs putting immigrant students at risk of “school-to-deportation pipeline.”[lxxxiii] Trump Administration officials have also publicly urged SROs and school administrators to support the administration’s increased efforts to target undocumented individuals for deportation.[lxxxiv]
Research consistently demonstrates that racial and ethnic disparities in discipline are not the consequence of “differences in rates or types of misbehavior” by students of color and white students[lxxxv]but rather – conscious or unconscious – racial and cultural biases.[lxxxvi]Studies show how SROs’ implicit bias criminalizes students of color and students living in poverty. School police in more suburban and homogenously white districts were largely concerned about protecting youth from external dangers. However, for school police in urban districts serving larger populations of students of color, “the students were the danger. Their work seemed to be much more about policing and the behavior management of the students rather than protecting them.”[lxxxvii]
To combat these negative consequences, many states have enacted policies to increase training to police, including SROs – especially implicit bias training. However, most officer training programs have not been rigorously evaluated and there is little evidence that implicit bias or similarly focused training is effective.[lxxxviii] The limited research available shows that increased training is not associated with changes in behavior or reductions in racial disparities.[lxxxix]
SROs’ presence can infringe on students’ rights
With few specific guidelines regarding the role and responsibilities of SROs, individuals in these positions often have wide latitude in how they carry out their job. The discretion SROs have in schools can lead to police overreach.[xc] Because legal standards for searches and interrogations have a much lower standard within schools, SROs may operate with more latitude than other police officers, thus posing a threat to students’ civil rights.[xci]
In addition, SROs’ presence in schools raises concerns regarding information sharing between schools and the legal system. “For example, schools are encouraged to collaborate with law enforcement by assessing student records for potential criminal activity.”[xcii]SROs may also exploit their positions of authority over students – using them as informants.[xciii] According to a recent national survey, 48% of SROs monitor the social media use of the students at their school site.[xciv] The Waterbury CT Police Department website even promotes this information sharing as part of the city’s SRO program – “SRO’s have also played a major role in gathering intelligence and forwarding that to the Criminal Investigations Bureau to assist in juvenile-related crimes.”[xcv]
The presence of police shifts the focus from learning and supporting students to over-disciplining and criminalizing them.
SROs Interfere with Education
In addition to effects on students’ civil rights and safety, the presence of SROs and exclusionary discipline negatively impacts students’ academic achievement and can accelerate future misbehavior, truancy, and drop-out rates.[xcvi] In particular, students who have contact with the criminal legal system through arrests and searches experience worse schooling outcomes than those who do not. Arresting students doubles their risk of dropping out.[xcvii]The consequences of a school arrest extend far beyond youths’ public school outcomes and include the loss of access to higher education and funding, job eligibility, access to public housing, and increasing both the likelihood and consequence of future law enforcement contact.[xcviii]
It is not just arrests that have an impact on students, but more fundamentally, constant police contact in schools – spaces that are supposed to be safe and nurturing. The presence of police shifts the focus from learning and supporting students to over-disciplining and criminalizing them. Regular police contact, even if this contact is in passing, affects how Black and Latine youth perceive themselves, their school, and law enforcement.[xcix] Students of color have reported feeling the police are there to protect the school from them.[c] If schools socialize youth to believe that they are the target of SROs, students no longer perceive schools as welcoming or nurturing places nor educators as caring adults.[ci]Relatedly, other research shows that the presence of SROs reduced students’ feelings of school connectedness – the belief that adults and peers in the school care about them as humans.[cii] School connectedness is an important protective factor – young people who feel connected to their school are less likely to engage in behaviors that are harmful to themselves or others, are more likely to have better academic achievement, attendance, and persistence.[ciii] By alienating students, creating a sense of mistrust, and forming adversarial relationships, policing in schools can decrease, rather than foster, safe school environments where students are able to thrive emotionally, socially, and academically.[civ]
Moreover, trauma and anxiety symptoms can increase with the frequency of police contact, regardless of where that contact occurs.[cv] For many students of color, police presence in schools can cause re-traumatization given their negative experiences with law enforcement in their communities.[cvi]The racialized disproportionalities in discipline and policing can cause what is referred to as racial trauma – the exposure to race-based adversity, discrimination, and stress.[cvii]Increased anxiety and trauma are harmful to youths’ development and learning and can result in decreased academic achievement.[cviii]
Lastly, the focus on SROs has also diverted attention and funds from other areas of education that could support students. Between 1999 and 2015, the percentage of students who reported security guards or assigned police officers in their schools increased from 54% to 70% while the number of school counselors increased by only 5%, after adjusting for the growth in student enrollment.[cix] There are also more sworn law enforcement officers than social workers in our nation’s schools, with many states employing two-to-three times as many police officers in than social workers in schools.[cx] Over 4,800 schools reported employing more school police and security than school-based mental health providers.[cxi]Across the country 1.7 million students are in schools with police but no counselors; 3 million are in schools with police but no nurses; 6 million students are in schools with police but no school psychologists; 10 million students are in schools with police but no social workers.[cxii] Compared to white students, Latine, Asian, and Black students are more likely to attend schools where the districts chose SROs over counselors.[cxiii] “Every dollar spent on [policing in schools] is a dollar that could instead be invested in teachers, guidance counselors, and health professionals that support,” rather than criminalize, youth.[cxiv] A clear picture emerges where schools serving predominantly white students invest in mental health supports for students, while those serving mostly children of color instead prioritize a policy presence.
For many students of color, police presence in schools can cause re-traumatization given their negative experiences with law enforcement in their communities.
Recommendations
The research shows that policing in schools undercuts the development of a healthy, just, nurturing environment, especially for students of color. Evidence-based alternatives to school policing are grounded in child development, relationship-building, and justice that address safety concerns in such a way that protects the well-being, dignity, and human rights of all students, families, and school personnel.[cxv] The following recommendations are based on the calls of youth activists of color and their allies who have been fighting for the disentanglement of policing and schooling for decades.
Remove Police from Schools and Divest from SRO Programs
Schools, districts, and states must remove police from schools and divest from SRO programs. The removal of police from schools should be enshrined in policy at the local, state, and federal level.
An example of federal-level policy that could prompt such change is the Counseling Not Criminalization in Schools Act (S. 4360/H.R. 7848). Introduced in July 2020, this act would prohibit federal funding from being used for law enforcement personnel in schools and instead would award $2.5 billion in grants toward evidence-based and trauma-informed services to address the needs of marginalized youth and improve academic outcomes.[cxvi]
In addition to the removal of SROs, districts must craftclear policies should specify when and how police are allowed on school grounds. Policies and MOUs with police departments should: limit the cases when law enforcement can be called into a school; protect school personnel if they refuse to cooperate or facilitate in the criminalization of a student or their family member on campus by local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies; and establish particular safeguards to ensure students’ human and constitutional rights are protected.[cxvii]
Invest in Student Support Services
Schools, districts, and states must invest in student support services and staff trained to ensure positive and proactively safe school climates, such as counselors, psychologists, social workers, behavior interventionists, and/or other support staff.[cxviii] Unlike police, these professionals undergo years of training, including extensive study of child and developmental psychology, mental health, trauma, and myriad other subjects directly applicable to nurturing youth, including how to safely restrain if someone is a threat to themselves or others.[cxix]Instead of disciplinarians, these professionals can understand what the student’s needs are – whether it be a therapist, a dentist, help with housing or food.[cxx]These individuals are fundamentally more qualified to respond to students’ needs and support them in a humanistic and holistic way that fosters school connectedness and ultimately increases school safety.[cxxi]
State and federal policy should at minimum require that schools employ the number of support staff that meets evidence-based professional to student ratios recommended by professional associations such as the National Association of School Psychologists, School Social Work Association of America, American School Counselor Association, and American Nursing Association.[cxxii] Funds allocated for SROs and police departments should be reinvested via these policies initiatives to ensure all requirements are adequately funded.
Invest in Alternative Approaches to Safety and Discipline
Schools should invest in support staff other than police who can and do prevent and address safety concerns and conflicts.[cxxiii] Successful models include student safety coaches[cxxiv] and intervention workers[cxxv] – roles responsible for proactive needs identification and de-escalation.
Invest in alternative approaches to safety and discipline rooted in holistic anti-racist, anti-oppressive, and liberatory knowledge and values.[cxxvi]Examples of evidence-based alternative approaches include restorative justice, transformative justice, and trauma-sensitive or trauma-informed schooling.[cxxvii] At the center of each of these approaches is the development of: healthy relationships; processes that support the healing of harm and transformation of conflict; and just and equitable learning environments that confront oppressive structures and systems.[cxxviii]
State and federal policy and funding initiatives must incentivize the adoption of alternative approaches and the accompanying ongoing education of all members of a school community – school personnel, students, families, and community members.
Engage in a Deliberate, Effective Process to Transition Away from Policing in Schools
The complete removal of police without the adequate investment in alternative student support services and safety and discipline structures will be detrimental to the success of these alternatives and the overall movement for police-free schools. A lack of robust investment in and development of alternative structures and capacity will leave a vacuum that breeds uncertainty, risking the school community’s perception of safety thus perpetuating the falsehood that police are necessary. Schools and districts must follow best practices for change management which includes allocating the appropriate resources.
To reiterate, complete removal of police is the end goal, but the simultaneous process of divesting and investing must be carried out deliberately.
Decision-making around transition processes must take into consideration power dynamics and ensure that all voices from the school community are meaningfully incorporated – with student voice as the driving force.
A deliberate process, for example, may begin with first establishing a new MOU that limits SROs’ involvement in schools as well as information sharing between schools and police departments. Schools and districts may train staff, students, and community members about the appropriate roles of and their rights relative to SROs. The MOU and explanation of SROs’ roles should be easily accessible on schools’ and districts’ websites. Schools may then begin a participatory initiative to decide which student support service personnel to hire and which alternative approaches to safety and discipline to adopt.[cxxix] Schools may begin the ongoing education process for personnel, students, and families around these alternative approaches while building new organizational structures to support the integration of these approaches into day-to-day school life. As the capacity and structures become more robust, schools may begin removing SROs and limiting police involvement.
Conclusion
The increasing presence of police in schools has been motivated by federal funding initiatives and fears of school shootings. Despite the largely well-intentioned use of SROs to ensure school safety, safety cannot exist amidst a system of policing that criminalizes youth of color and undermines the quality relationships, and just and healthy cultures necessary for students to flourish emotionally, socially, and academically.[cxxx]Instead, the use of SROs in schools reproduces unjust racialized patterns of discipline and state violence that exists outside of schools.[cxxxi] White youth and youth of color are having vastly difference experiences of policing out of school, vastly different perceptions of police in school, and thus vastly different educational opportunities.
We must disentangle the systems of policing and schooling. This removal of police from schools must be carried out in conjunction with new, robustly funded, liberatory policies that ensure all students are socially, psychologically, and physically safe. That is, creating safe schools for all students means avoiding overly simple reactionary solutions and doing the deep work of dismantling oppressive structures and building new structures to proactively address systemic root causes and unmet needs that lead to threats to safety.
Chelsea Connery is a doctoral candidate in the Learning, Leadership, and Education Policy program at the University of Connecticut’s Neag School of Education. A former public high school teacher, Connery uses institutional lenses to explore the relationship between policies, politics, and school-level equity-oriented change efforts. Her dissertation focuses on how macro-level structures shape school leaders’ understandings of immigration, undocumented status, and their role in relation to undocumented students. She may be reached at Chelsea.connery@uconn.edu.
CEPA is a research center based at the Neag School that seeks to inform educational leaders and policymakers on issues related to the development, implementation, and consequences of education policies. Learn more about CEPA at cepa.uconn.edu. Access the original PDF of this issue brief (including all references).
