By: Analisa Flores, Claudia Giunta, Madalaine Mayes
Middle School-age children have proved to be the most vulnerable to use of force by a School Resource Officer. For children ages 11-14 enduring 53.4% of forceful encounters with Resource Officers.
The School Resource Officer (SRO) Program began in the early to mid-1950s to decrease criminal activity on school grounds. In the 1990s, the SRO program became more prominent within middle schools as school shooting incidents increased. Coinciding with the widespread adoption of SRO’s was the Gun-Free Act of 1994, which allowed schools to have a “zero tolerance” policy towards weapons. This policy soon broadened into illegal drugs and alcohol.
These programs and new laws were constructed to help eliminate the use of violence, however, they have failed to recognize the emotional challenges pre-teens face. In consideration of how teenager’s brains and hormones develop during their middle school years, they should be learning proper coping mechanisms to handle their emotions, as opposed to being met with armed officers who criminalize their behavior and heavily influence the student’s chances of slipping into the school-to-prison pipeline.
SRO’s can be defined as law enforcement officers responsible for safety and crime prevention in schools. The issue with this type of law enforcement is their lack of mental health education training, specifically for young adults. In recent years, SRO’s have only received four hours of De-Escalation, Adolescent-Development, Mental Illness, and Crisis Intervention, Mental Health, Behavioral and Health Needs, and Restorative Justice training to respond to the emotional behavior of children accordingly. Additionally, they only receive forty hours of Mental Health and Crisis Intervention training.
Middle school students have the highest rate of negative interaction/use of force incidents with the AISD Police department or officers who are AISD SRO’s. With consideration to how the mental health of teens is influenced by puberty, new developments in brain neurotransmitters, and other outside stressors, young adolescents should be met with mental health professionals on their campus as opposed to armed forces.
Heavily influenced by peer pressure, teenagers are more likely to make risky decisions that make them feel independent. Additionally, the presence of armed forces can criminalize teenagers’ actions, further contributing to their inclination to act out. Rather than being confronted with armed officers, educators should implement mental health programs onto their campuses with the tools and resources necessary to improve behavioral and social skills.
This year, the Public Education House Committee filed a report on March 25 relating to providing mental health services and mental health education to public school students at school-based health centers. The district or school is responsible for ensuring that local community values are reflected and provides health education and mental health education. If this bill receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, it will become law and go into effect immediately.
School Mental Health Centers (SMHCs) are an appropriate solution to the use of armed forces on school grounds because they help students respond to behavioral, social, or violent issues and teach students healthier ways to combat their emotions. SMHCs are currently used in 17 schools in Central Texas. Each school has one full-time licensed therapist who the students are encouraged to confide in. The confidential, evidence-based mental health services the therapists provide help students to analyze their feelings, prioritize their mental health, and refocus their goals. Implementing mental health programs, instead of SROs, on middle school campuses helped increase the academic success of students. Specifically, evidence has shown that these mental health facilitators have proven to increase attendance and participation while decreasing dropout rates and the use of violence among students.
A limitation of adding mental health professionals and services to schools is the cost. While these program additions may be costly for the school board, it is cost-effective in helping the long-term quality of life for students. The Seattle Social Development Project has gathered that the presence of mental health professionals in middle schools is estimated to provide net benefits of $9,837 per student in long-term social challenges.
References
https://txssc.txstate.edu/topics/law-enforcement/articles/brief-history
