SCHOOL COUNSELOR: ‘THIS IS ABSURD’
Connecticut bill that shifts resource officer duties meets opposition from staff
HARTFORD — Connecticut school counselors and social workers on Wednesday were prepared to sound off against a proposal that would allow some trained members of their profession to take on certain duties of law enforcement in schools.
The legislation that was the subject of a public hearing on Wednesday before the Education Committee is part of a broader examination of the use of force — including arrests — by sworn school resource officers, or SROs, which are typically members of law enforcement.
But language in the bill that would allow school counselors, social workers, psychologists, aides or other staff who have received “appropriate training” to take on duties typically reserved for SROs was slated to receive heavy pushback on Wednesday.
“This is absurd,” said Christine Bisceglie, a counselor at Stamford Public Schools, in written testimony submitted ahead of the hearing. “The way out of a violent society is not to throw more violence but to get to the root of the cause. School counselors should and can provide interventions that de-escalate and PREVENT. This bill would be an escalation of the problem.”
The legislation does not specify which SRO duties would be transferred to counselors and other school staff, or for how long. Nor does the bill say whether those staff members would be allowed to carry firearms, as many SROs do.
Support for the legislation comes from advocates, students, families and some teachers that have questioned the need for armed officers in schools, amid a wider national debate over whether SROs should be
allowed to levy discipline against students.
One former student who spoke to the committee, Joshua Brown, recounted an incident during his senior year in a Groton high school in which he said that he and a group of friends were returning to campus. He said the white students were allowed to go on to class, while he and others were confronted by a school resource
officer and “written up.”
Later, as a teacher himself, Brown said that he witnessed incidents involving students escalate as a result of the intervention by SROs.
“Too often our schools rely on policing to keep children in line, rather than funding professionals trained to deliver students necessary development and behavioral health resources,” Brown said.
Others who submitted testimony to the committee pointed to studies showing that schools
with SROs on campus had higher rates of exclusionary discipline and arrests, and could actually result in students feeling less safe.
“First, school security officers have no role within the schoolhouse,” said Andrew Feinstein, the legislative chair of Special Education Equity for Kids of Connecticut, in testimony submitted to the committee. “They are to protect the school from outside attack.”
Addressing those concerns, the legislation proposed by the Education
Committee would require any school district employing SROs to post the policies governing those officer’s duties at a “central location,” as well as on the district’s website. The law would also require that those policies address the use of restraints and firearms by SROs, as well as policies relating to school-based arrests.
While supportive of those transparency initiatives, state Department of Education Commissioner Charlene Russell-Tucker wrote to the committee expressing
her opposition to the bill, saying that counselors, social workers and psychologists were needed in “critical” roles within schools and should not be reassigned for even brief periods of time.
“Especially given the shortage of qualified mental health staff, schools need to utilize these staff members in ways that are consistent with their expertise and experience to ensure students’ emotional wellbeing and mental health are supported,” RussellTucker wrote.
As of Wednesday afternoon,
more than 15 school counselors and social workers had submitted testimony in opposition to the bill to the Education Committee, which was due to hear several hours of public comment on that and other bills.
Support for the legislation came from several advocacy groups and members of the public, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, Radical Advocates for CrossCultural Education and Connecticut Voices for Children.