Board opens discussion on adding a school resource officer; seeks more information and community input

Board member Eric introduced a preliminary discussion on Sept. 22 about exploring a school resource officer (SRO) placed at Beacon High School, saying his goal was to “stay ahead” and offer students a role model and safety presence.

The board did not vote on the item. Instead members asked the superintendent and staff to gather detailed information about cost, management, training, alternatives and community views before a decision. The superintendent committed to follow up and return with answers and recommendations at a later meeting.

Board questions focused on three topics: who would employ and manage an SRO, who would pay for the position, and how an SRO’s role would differ from existing security staff. Several board members said the district typically pays about 10 months of salary for SROs in other localities but asked the superintendent to verify local arrangements and any potential city contributions.

Several trustees emphasized the need to ensure any officer assigned to a school “sets the right tone” and builds relationships with students. Board members asked whether the district or the city would choose the officer and whether the district could or should interview the candidate, and they requested details about required SRO training and about written agreements (a memorandum of understanding) that describe duties and limits.

Multiple members asked staff to report on known downsides of SROs. One board member cited a University at Albany 2023 study finding that SRO presence was associated with reduced some kinds of school violence but also with increased harsh disciplinary actions and arrests, disproportionately affecting students of color, males and students with disabilities. Another board member said federal guidance from the Obama administration previously recommended careful implementation and an MOU.

Students in the audience offered views. Student representatives and other students said an SRO might make some students feel safer but could make others uncomfortable; one student suggested an introduction and relationship‑building process if an SRO were placed in school. Other students said improved supports for reading and math could reduce discipline issues by improving engagement.

Board members also discussed alternatives to an SRO. One trustee suggested weighing the value of a single SRO against other investments, such as additional social workers, counselors or school safety staff. Several trustees emphasized staff input: the director of security, building principals, teachers and students should be consulted and their perspectives be part of any recommendation.

The board concluded without action and directed the superintendent to research and return with answers, including: local cost and budget implications; whether the city can share costs; how the SRO would be selected and supervised; applicable training and MOU templates; the scope of duties (including arrest authority and whether the officer would be armed); comparisons of SRO duties versus existing security staff; and the results and implications of research on SRO impacts. The board also asked that the superintendent solicit input from principals, the director of security, teachers and students and include legal and equity analyses.

The discussion will continue at a future board meeting after staff reports back. No hiring, contract or MOU was approved at the Sept. 22 meeting.