AJE Features | Why and When do School Resource Officers Engage in School Discipline? by F. Chris Curran, Benjamin W. Fisher, Samantha Viano and Aaron Kupchik

Following a number of tragic high-profile school shootings last year, several states passed laws that are set to increase the presence of law enforcement in schools (Maryland Safe to Learn Act 2018; Winn 2018).  Many of these officers will be implemented under the school resource officer (SRO) model. 

SROs are generally sworn law enforcement who are most commonly employees of local law enforcement agencies.  They are increasingly becoming a common fixture of schools nationwide.  Between 2005 and 2015, the percentage of American schools with law enforcement (including SROs) increased by 31% such that almost half of schools nationwide now have law enforcement present (Musu-Gillette et al., 2018).

While SROs have the potential to effectively respond to acts of school violence, critics have pointed out that their day to day presence in schools may also have negative unintended consequences (Kupchik 2010). Among these is the potential for SROs to become involved with routine school discipline, potentially increasing the likelihood that students will receive a consequence like suspension (Fisher & Hennessey, 2016; Weisburst, 2019).  

In our recently published article in the American Journal of Education, we explored how contextual factors can shape SRO involvement in discipline.  We drew on data from a large-scale qualitative study of SROs funded by the National Institute of Justice.  In all, we interviewed, conducted focus groups with, or observed SROs, principals, teachers, students, and parents across nearly fifty schools.  What we found may help explain why SROs’ impacts on discipline vary. 

Our findings point to wide differences in how particular SROs engage with discipline.  The findings also suggest that the very concept of “discipline” may be at least partially in the eye of the beholder and that involvement can be greatly influenced by the contexts in which SROs are embedded.

SRO Involvement in and Conceptualization of “Discipline” Varied

We found that SROs were generally responsive at a surface level to the districts’ official policy that they not be involved in discipline. Of those we spoke to, 79% were quick to say that they are not involved in discipline.  

That said, their described actions told a different story.  While some SROs noted that they hesitated to even verbally reprimand a student for breaking a school rule, most were comfortable with and regularly engaged in verbally correcting students, using their physical proximity to deter misbehavior, and talking to misbehaving students or classes.

Often, SROs viewed such activities as something other than discipline.  Verbally correcting a student was seen as acting as a responsible adult. Discussing the implications of misbehavior was often viewed as a form of counseling or teaching, and reporting misconduct to school personnel was sometimes discussed as just supporting the school community.  In contrast, many of these SROs viewed discipline as the act of administering formal sanctions, such as suspending a student or giving out a detention. Consequently, SROs could take on these lesser disciplinary roles without viewing their actions as a violation of the official policy.

In other cases, SROs pushed the disciplinary envelope more, helping administrators interrogate students who were accused of misbehavior or even going as far as being the lead enforcer responsible for removing a non-compliant student from a classroom. In these cases, SROs sometimes discussed how their actions were responsive to the desires of school personnel or were meant to be a benefit to other adults in the school environment.  

Contextual Factors Contributed to SRO Involvement in Discipline

We found that SROs’ involvement in discipline was frequently shaped by school leadership and teachers.  In some cases, principals attempted to proactively bring SROs into disciplinary situations.  One SRO noted how she had to explicitly tell the principal that this was not her role, but many SROs did not push back in this way.  Other principals approached SRO involvement quite differently, with some explicitly telling their teachers that SROs were not to be used for discipline. In short then, SROs were often pulled in different directions with regard to discipline involvement based on the preferences expressed by school personnel.

We also found that SROs’ approaches to discipline varied based on their perception of threats.  In districts we examined, views of threats were largely linked to the level (elementary, middle, or high) of the school.  SROs in elementary settings viewed students as being in need of protection rather than as potential criminals.  Some SROs also pointed out how a police response would be developmentally inappropriate for an elementary student.  In contrast, SROs in high schools were more likely to see student misconduct as warranting police involvement.

In addition to being influenced by school personnel and student characteristics, we also saw evidence that SROs were responsive to the historical context that led to their placement in schools.  In our setting, the SRO program was greatly expanded in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, with the explicit purpose of preventing a school shooting.  Consequently, SROs often conceptualized their job as protecting students from external threats rather than policing the behavior of students.  This likely shaped their approaches to involvement with school discipline in ways that may differ in settings where SROs were brought to schools to address student misconduct.

What Do Our Findings Mean for Policy and Practice?

In summary, our study demonstrated how SRO involvement in discipline can vary considerably based on a number of contextual factors.  These factors range from official written policy, to relationships with school personnel, to the perception of students served, and the broader social context.

To the extent that SROs continue to be a feature of American public schools, we suggest that schools and local law enforcement agencies consider doing the following:

• Develop clear guidelines that define “discipline” and the appropriate roles of SROs.
• Communicate expectations for SRO involvement in discipline to all school personnel.
• Provide support and oversight to ensure that individual SROs adhere to agreed upon roles in discipline.

All students deserve a safe learning environment free from unnecessarily harsh school discipline.  It is our hope that our study provides the groundwork for helping practitioners and policymakers balance the potential benefits of SROs while minimizing negative unintended effects on school discipline.  To learn more, please check out our recent publication in AJE.

The full-length article published by the American Journal of Education can be found here.

References

Fisher, Benjamin W., and Emily A. Hennessy. 2016. “School resource officers and exclusionary discipline in US high schools: A systematic review and meta-analysis.” Adolescent Research Review1(3): 217-233.

Kupchik, Aaron. 2010. Homeroom security: School discipline in an age of fear. New York: NYU Press.

Maryland Safe to Learn Act. 2018. Maryland Safe to Learn Act of 2018. http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&stab=01&id=sb1265&tab=subject3&ys=2018RS

Musu-Gillette, L., Zhang, A., Wang, K., Zhang, J., Kemp, J., Diliberti, M., & Oudekerk, B. A. (2018). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2017. US. Department of Education. Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018036.pdf

Weisburst, Emily. K. 2019. “Patrolling Public Schools: The Impact of Funding for School Police on Student Discipline and Long-term Education Outcomes”. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management38(2), 338–365.

Winn, Zach. 2018. “Explaining Florida’s New School Safety Law.”  Campus Safety. https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/safety/explaining-floridas-new-school-safety-law/