On a 3-2 vote, the board also took back its authority to negotiate contracts for these services, rather than allowing the sheriff to hammer out deals directly with local school districts.
Supervisors Janice Hahn and Kathryn Barger voted against the move to control negotiations, reacting to school district representatives demanding local autonomy. Supervisors Holly Mitchell and Sheila Kuehl were the co-authors of the motion proposing additional oversight of these contracts.
“Law enforcement presence on school campuses can have a negative impact on students,” Mitchell said, pointing to research showing higher rates of fear and anxiety among students and a disproportionate negative impact on students of color.
Kuehl said alternative programs, such as counseling and mental health services, would better serve schools.
“Enforcement does not prioritize the well-being of students,” Kuehl said.
Mitchell and Kuehl cited a survey by the National Center for Education Statistics, among other research.
“Researchers … find that schools with high security not only have more suspensions, but also a greater Black-white disparity in these suspensions,” according to the motion. [Read the motion here.]
In a May letter to the board seeking renewal of current contracts, Sheriff Alex Villanueva and Undersheriff Timothy Murakami wrote, “Deputies assist the schools with the implementation of programs designed to help prevent school violence, provide a safe learning environment, and provide public safety,” including helping with emergency preparedness.
Laura Coholan shared her experience as a middle-school teacher in Los Angeles County, where she said she had seen many young students removed from campus in handcuffs.
“This criminalization would not have happened in a predominantly white school district,” Coholan said, adding that incidents like this traumatized other students and urging the board to “completely remove any sort of law enforcement from school campuses.”
Despite such concerns, a number of school board members or trustees told the board they didn’t want their interference, arguing for local control and citing a productive partnership with the LASD.
Mitchell and Kuehl insisted that the intent of the motion was not to take power away from school districts, but to offer more services to all students.
“This motion does not seek to second guess or disrupt the role of local school districts,” Kuehl said.
However, Hahn said many school representatives had raised concerns. She said she wanted to ensure that local school districts could decide on their own whether or not to employ school resource officers.
“That should be their local choice,” Hahn said of districts that want to keep officers on campus. “That doesn’t preclude them from contracting with us for other resources … more school counselors, more mental health professionals.”
Despite insistence by Kuehl and Mitchell that school districts could still make their own choices, the board ultimately chose to split the motion into two parts before voting.
The board also directed the Office of Diversion and Reentry to collaborate with school districts and community members on a plan that could “eliminate or reduce the need for law enforcement intervention” at schools.
The Sheriff’s Department has provided these services to some schools for roughly 23 years. Seventeen districts currently participate, paying the county nearly $8 million in total, according to the May LASD letter.
–
Worker in education says
I work in the office at a local elementary school. We have a SRO assigned to our site that we share with 4-5 other schools but he isn’t housed at our site and we could go weeks without seeing him. We have never called him for help with a student however we have had to call to help with angry parents who are threatening harm against staff members. We have also had families fighting over child custody in our office and have needed assistance. SROs have also assisted when DCFS comes to remove a student from school and the parent shows up. We use SROs for adults creating an unsafe environment for our schools, not students.
Anna says
Back in the day kids respected authority and we had bouncers who watched the kids and corrected them. A few were bad and expelled. When I noticed many years later that Sheriffs were permanently on campus I figured it was to save gas since they were being called all the time. Basically for schools fights, weapons, drugs etc.
So now the teachers and principals can take care of all this and let the officers get back on the streets. Let the kids beat each other up, cuss out the teachers, threaten the meek and mild kids. Oh and if a school shooting occurs (let’s pray not) then they can handle it as well. Good luck!!
Magnetlady says
Unfortunately, the ”DISRESPECT”’ kids are showing towards anyone in AUTHORITY, we NEED ”S.R.O.’s” IN OUR SCHOOLS.. Where does all this ”disrespect” start? AT HOME!! Parent’s need to take back their power to RAISE their kids without fear of having their children removed from their home if they DISCIPLINE their child. My daughter had to SPANK her child, but told her child to NOT SAY ANYTHING to the TEACHER’S about it. MY GOD, Parents need to be PARENTS, children need to have ”Rules & Consquences” for bad behavior, NOT REWARDED!! Our children are born into an ”Adult World”, teach them to behave properly when they’re young & to be ”Responsible & Accountable” for their actions & decisions they make, for 1 day we will be ”gone” forever!!
AV Resident says
Most people should not birth , in the first place. That’s my take on the situation.
GrammaSB says
I’m being sarcastic; so why bother teaching kids to respect authority, rules laws etc…….
Poonyasso Adams says
I think a better idea is to arm the children. Esp white children in public schools as they are now on the endangered species list. It’s open season on Whitey…
Bob says
Maybe they should spend some time at middle schools and high schools in LA County.
Beware of spin! LA County schools are about/average 90% BIPOC, so, by definition, they will be getting more suspensions, etc.
I know a teacher in a school that is 99% Hispanic in San Fernando area. According to him, there are very few instances of students being handcuffed. He said it’s typically kids who are completely out of control and attacking others, kind of like the guy at the gas station. He gave an example of a large SDC student, with two aides, who had attacked numerous staff including the principal. Counseling is not going to help. He has spoke of female teachers getting harassed and physically pushed, even some older male teachers.
If the police are removed, there will be no stopping some of these out of control students. They will run the school, which is exactly why the police were brought in in the first place. I remember a few years ago the video of the punk at Eastside High verbally and physically assaulting the teacher, who sadly couldn’t defend himself. That kid deserved to be arrested. If they are not stopped now, then what? They’ll just grow out of it? What about the quality of education for everyone else?
Security Expert says
Just hire a bunch of Karens and social workers. Everything will be fine.
Marsden says
… let the democrats protect you, applying social pressure and peer-pressure on perpetrators, de-funding police as a passive, alternative deterrent –
Baldwinder says
I have an idea! How about nationalizing ANTIFA, to protect our college campuses from crime, to promote reverse-racism, and to suppress free speech?
Beecee says
Less policing = increased crime rates.
Who would have though.
Gonna be a lovely summer.
George T says
Lancaster has the largest law enforcement contract in the county because these contracts are included in the total they report to their residents. It does not seem to promote a safer community as you only have to look at the city crime rate. Yikes!!
Luke says
“Law enforcement presence on school campuses can have a negative impact on students,”
Totally not true. That comment only pertains to students who are studying to be career criminals
AV Resident says
So true !!