Police & School

[Citizen-6103]

A few years ago, there was some discussion on this board about posting a police officer at the school. This idea was dismissed at the time as extreme and unnecessary. Sadly, in light of recent events, this idea may not seem so extreme or unnecessary anymore.

The goal of this post is not to offer an answer, but rather to re-kindle the conversation. So what do you think, Cranbury? Is it worth it to add about 1,000 hours of police coverage to post an officer at the school while the students are in class? Why or why not?

[anon-8670]

You would need to hire two officers would be my guess. The staffing is not sufficient to use a current officer so one for the school would need to be hired. Then if they take off you need to cover their shift which means another officer.

Perhaps the school hiring a retired officer and creating a substitute list for them would be better. Then you don't need to pay for the person during the summer.

That said, I am not sure we need an officer in our school.

[Guestview-op0q]

I am not sure. I understand current police staffing is probably not enough to cover this type of duty, meaning a new officer(s) would be hired (not likely to be supported) or, as the earlier poster suggests, a retired officer or some other type of security person is hired.

I see this discussion going along the lines of how many people see insurance. It is an expense you don't want to incur until it is needed, at which time you wish you'd purchased even more. As a parent, I want every assurance that our kids are as safe as possible - in school and elsewhere. At one level, I'd be reassured having someone assigned to/working in the school to help safeguard the kids. Perhaps this person would be able to be justified if providing security was part of a broader set of responsibilities they would have in the school. Not sure what those would be...just thinking out loud. I'd imagine there are other mandates coming from the state that we need to meet at our local expense (for ex., are there antibullying and other security-related programs the state requires?)

Clearly I hope that we'd never need a security response in the school...but this is a hope that I am sure people affected in CT, CO and other places shared. My reaction to the original poster is that something along these lines would likely only work if security functions were merged with other duties in the school. But I have little familiarity with how the school functions. Maybe a school board member could share whether this discussion has been had at their level?

Thanks for initiating the discussion.

[anon-8q9r]

Who pays for it?

[anon-0n08]

If it could be demonstrated that this materially increased the safety of kids and staff from a material risk, it would of course be worth it. But sensational stories aside, strangers coming into a school to shoot people is incredibly rare. Most school shootings, which themselves are relatively rare, involve students or people who are authorized to be on campus. A guard wouldn't prevent their entry. Metal detectors might, but that's a different question. So then the issue becomes is there any evidence that armed people on campus would prevent or more quickly end a mass shooting. And there is no such evidence. Some of the most notorious school and campus shootings were at places that already had armed security. And a school like Cranbury has at least a dozen points of entry spread out all over the school, all of which could be instantly breached by anyone with a weapon, most far from the logical positioning of a police or guard at the main entrance.

I have three kids at the school and would spare no expense for their well-being. But I don't see how this does anything to make them safer, beyond merely the perception of it. And all other things being equal, if it doesn't make them safer I'd rather not have anyone with a gun on campus. Bad guys with guns are rarely stopped by good guys with guns in the real world. In the real world, accidents with guns happen far more than bad guys with guns.

[anon-ppq3]

Cranbury School has good safety procedures. One place that they do not follow their own procedures is in the library. Yes, we have a safe town and yes our library is safe. But each and every day the public is allowed into the school in this area....they are not buzzed in nor do they need an appointment. They just walk in and students are in there as well. I think we need to look at this situation seriously.

[anon-q7sn]

[interesting point-8p94]

maybe instead of cutting Sunday hours the library could have cut back daytime hours. I am sure the 3 or 4 people who use the library a day could wait until the school was done.[/quote]

The school suggested this very thing 5 years ago, the library and it's patrons went absolutely ape. Some publicly advocated voting down the school budget because of insensitivity to the library. Prior to the 1997 addition, the library was not open during the hours that students used the library. After the addition the library expanded its hours unilaterally.

[publius-24ps]

[anon-8670]

If I remember correctly until the 90's no one complained when the library did not open until 3pm. No one wanted to be there with the kids running around.

[Citizen-6103]

thank you for posting your thoughts on this topic. to recap so far, the key points of debate on the question of posting a police officer at the school seem to be...

How effective could we expect this strategy to be?
How much would it cost?

So, based on the tragic events of the past, in what ways might this strategy be effective and what are the gaps?

What would it actually cost to post a police officer at the school for 1,000 hours per year?

What are your thoughts...

[anon-97on]

[anon-0o99]

*To sum up, placing a police officer in the school with or without a gun, will not increase safety.
*To maintain a safe school, we need to enforce the existing school safety standards.
*We need to look existing lapses in the safety standards, such as the public library inside the school library.

[anon-6103]

It seems that some of you dismiss the idea of police presence as a deterrent. I can't say I understand the basis of this opinion since that seems to go against the commonly accepted view of security.

It also seems some of you dismiss the idea that a police presence would save lives in the event of an incident. From what I have read about these tragic events, the presence of armed authorities has brought about resolution more quickly and saved lives.

Supporting arguments?

[anon-97on]

[anon-pp4o]

Is the question: how to have a safer school?
OR
Is this really a thinly veiled pro-gun stance?