Stoughton school board hears wide-ranging debate on reinstating school resource officer

The Stoughton Area School District Board of Education held an extended discussion about whether to reinstate a school resource officer (SRO), hearing multiple in-person and written public comments both for and against the position and receiving presentations from district administrators on how an SRO would be used.

The discussion matters because supporters said an on-site, dedicated SRO improves response times, builds relationships, and frees administrators to focus on instruction, while opponents warned about the disproportionate impact on students of color and urged investment in counselors and mental-health staff instead. The board did not take a formal vote on creating an SRO contract at this meeting.

At the start of public comment, parent Jessica Reucop urged the board to restore the SRO position, saying the district’s SRO post “still sits empty” four years after it was discontinued and recounting the 2021 Alice alert at the high school: “As somebody who worked in the attendance office at the time, I am absolutely certain that an SRO in the building would have provided better communication with the Stoughton Police before, during, and after the event.” Several other parents voiced similar views in-person and in emailed comments, arguing the SRO provides mentorship, rapid emergency response and partnership with counselors.

Other members of the public urged caution. In-person commenter Amanda Bridal said SROs “cost money, and statistics show they don't always prevent more deaths,” and multiple written commenters asked the board to prioritize counselors, social workers and restorative approaches rather than armed officers. Board member Mia Coyle described personal concerns and family experiences she said made her worry about the presence of uniformed officers in schools and the effect on some students’ sense of safety.

District administrators framed the practical differences between a dedicated SRO and ad hoc police responses. Cassie Gemlow, Stoughton High School principal, described SRO duties she has seen in other districts: partnering with counselors, leading prevention lessons, running anti-bullying and digital-wellness sessions, doing attendance outreach and building mentoring relationships. “They were so highly trained in verbal de-escalation techniques as well as adolescent mental-health first aid,” Gemlow said, adding administrators have felt the loss of an on-site SRO in days following incidents when community officers were occupied elsewhere.

Krista Huntley Rogers, Fox Prairie principal, and Kyle Smith, buildings-and-grounds manager and district safety coordinator, outlined how a restored SRO could be scheduled and integrated. They suggested models such as assigning an officer to different buildings on set days so staff and students know when the officer is on site, using the SRO for safety drills and tabletop exercises, and tapping the officer as a liaison to community resources for families.

District Administrator Dan (last name not specified in the record) framed the legal and contracting context: he said the SRO is a contracted position (not a payroll staff position) and historically has been a shared-cost arrangement with the police department. He told the board that developing a new SRO agreement would be a two-step process: the board could authorize him to work with the Stoughton Police Department and other stakeholders to draft a contract that would later be presented to the board for approval. Dan summarized the question before the board as “Does this board want me to engage in developing an agreement with the Stoughton Police Department on a school resource officer to be brought forward to the board for consideration?”

Board members asked for specifics before any approval. Questions included whether the district or police would select the officer, what the training and qualifications would be, how frequently the officer would be available for school duties (board members recalled past arrangements in which the officer was pulled to other police calls), what the cost-sharing arrangement would be, how the SRO would work with students with disabilities, and how the district would track and report interactions to monitor equity and impact. Board members repeatedly requested a detailed job description, a clear chain-of-command specifying that school administration control day‑to‑day SRO activities in the building, and data collection and oversight provisions.

Several board members referenced research showing mixed outcomes. Board member Lisa Pugh cited studies associating school policing with reduced graduation rates and higher discipline for Black students and noted Disability Rights Wisconsin’s caution about disproportionate referrals for students with disabilities. Administrators and some board members urged that any contract include training requirements, specified roles (emphasis on mentoring, prevention and partnership with pupil services), and agreement language that preserves restorative practices and carefully limits SRO involvement in discipline unless legally required.

There was no formal vote to reinstate an SRO or to approve a contract at this meeting. Dan said that if the board directs him to proceed, he would work with the police department and other stakeholders to develop a draft agreement and return it to the board for review and possible approval, with the board’s next regular meeting scheduled for Jan. 20.

The exchange underscored the tradeoffs trustees said they face: some board members and many parents seek the perceived immediate protective benefits and relationship-building of an on-site SRO, while other parents, board members and advocacy groups worry about criminalization, disproportionate effects on students of color and students with disabilities, and these officers’ academic and social impacts. Trustees asked for explicit contract language on training, data collection, student‑services coordination, and parent/student engagement before taking a final decision.