Parents, educators urge board to repoll SRO decision and invest in mental‑health supports

Dozens of parents, teachers and community members used the board’s public comment period on March 5 to urge Charlottesville City Schools to reopen discussion and vote on returning school resource officers (SROs) to district schools.

Speakers including Laura Goldblatt and Ian Mullins described past harms from policing in schools and asked the board to “hold another vote” before proceeding. "Bringing SROs into our schools makes us vulnerable," Goldblatt said, arguing that policing escalated discipline and retraumatized students in a district where she previously taught. Mullins, a parent and educator, said he wants resources used for more mental‑health supports rather than officers.

The comments reflected several recurring concerns: risk of ICE collaboration, racial disparities in discipline, unclear parent‑notification procedures, and the expected cost of the plan. Alex Heintzman, a parent who has spoken against SROs for two years, told the board the district was asking the city to spend "$800,000 on 2 cops," and said that the community had not had a meaningful role in drafting the memorandum of understanding (MOU).

Others cited local incidents and academic equity. Laura Imony recounted her then‑second grader — who has a documented disability — being interviewed by police at school two years earlier even after officials found no threat, and said that calling police instead of parents or counselors frightened the child. Lena Seville, a member of a local task force on disproportionate minority contact, said research shows Black and Brown youth face harsher treatment in juvenile justice systems and warned police presence would disproportionately harm vulnerable students.

Some speakers suggested alternatives. Karen Little urged the board to "keep curious" and follow indicators showing referrals to law enforcement are down and restorative practices may be reducing harm. Michael Salvatierra, vice president of the Charlottesville Education Association, praised the recently ratified support‑staff contract but asked the board to publicly acknowledge an earlier staff communication that damaged trust and to listen to employees' concerns about SROs.

Board members acknowledged the volume of comments. Several board members said they had heard community concerns and asked staff to bring data and options forward; others noted the prior vote on SROs and expressed reluctance to reopen policy decisions they considered settled. The board did not vote on SROs at the March 5 meeting.

What comes next: multiple community speakers asked the board to place the matter back on a future agenda for a public vote and to ensure parents, teachers and students are included in any MOU drafting or related policy changes.