NOTES

Reading, Writing, and Rethinking

Discipline: Evaluation of the Memoranda
of Understanding Between Law
Enforcement and School Districts in
Massachusetts

DARA YAFFE*

ABSTRACT

School Resource Officers (SROs) are trained law enforcement officials who
are assigned to work in schools and with community-based organizations
to educate students in crime prevention and guarantee a safe school
environment.1 In the last sixteen years, SRO presence in schools has

* Candidate for Juris Doctor, New England Law | Boston (2017). B.A. magna cum laude,
International Global Studies and French and Francophone Studies, Brandeis University (2010).
Alumna, Teach for America Corps Member (2010). Thank you to my parents, Alan and
Sharon, for always believing in me and never limiting my educational pursuits. Deepest
thanks to Joan Meschino and Massachusetts Appleseed Center for enabling me to explore the
topic of SROs and school discipline during my summer 2015 internship. Interminable thanks
to the Associates and Editors of the New England Journal of Criminal and Civil Confinement,
Volume 42, and of the New England Law Review, Volume 51, for their hard work and critical
feedback. Lastly, thank you to my students, especially Byron, whose mistreatment by an SRO
inspired me to compose this Note. This Note is dedicated to all of you; more than anything, I
am beyond honored to have worked with each of you, and am so proud to know the young
people you have become. I cannot wait to see the mark you will make on the world.
1 See NATHAN JAMES & GAIL MCCALLION, SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS: LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS IN SCHOOLS 12 (Cong. Research Serv. ed., 2013), http://fas.org/
sgp/crs/misc/R43126.pdf [https://perma.cc/SR3T-VBZR]. The Federal Code provides one
definition of school resource officer, see 42 U.S.C. 3796dd-8 (2015) (defining a school resource
officer as a career law enforcement officer, with sworn authority, deployed in community
oriented policing and assigned by the local police department to work with schools and
community-based organizations to identify crime and disorder problems and to educate

131
132 New England Law Review Vol. 51|1

steadily increased; however, politicians and policy makers recently began

to reexamine the need for law enforcement in the learning environment.2
Current research suggests that students who receive criminal punishment
for very minor offenses are forced into the school-to-prison-pipeline,
causing them to be more likely to drop out of school and never escape the
criminal justice system.3 There has been a growth in recommendations that
school policies focused on understanding child and adolescent behaviors
are a viable alternative to police authority and student criminalization.4 As
a result, states are beginning to craft legislation that limits the scope of
police protection in schools.5 In Massachusetts, the 2014 Act Relative to the
Reduction of Gun Violence requires every chief of police to hire at least one
SRO to serve the city, town, commonwealth charter school, regional
school district, or county agricultural school.6 Working in collaboration
with the school superintendent, the chief of police must create a

students about school and community safety practices).

2 See generally Ben Brown, Understanding and Assessing School Police Officers: A Conceptual and
Methodological Comment, 34 J. CRIM. JUST. 591 (2006) (highlighting that the rise in the number of
mass school shootings in the 1990s led educational and criminal justice officials to turn away
from supporting school-based discipline and consider the use of police officers in schools);
COUNCIL OF STATE GOVTS, THE SCHOOL DISCIPLINE CONSENSUS REPORT (The Council of State
Govts Justice Ctr. eds., 2014), https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/
uploads/2014/06/The_School_Discipline_Consensus_Report.pdf [https://perma.cc/TW89-
LDVS] (reporting that the national arrest rates of students in schools has increased holistically
and particularly for minority students and students with disabilities); ROBIN L. DAHLBERG ET
AL., ARRESTED FUTURES: THE CRIMINALIZATION OF SCHOOL DISCIPLINE IN MASSACHUSETTS
THREE LARGEST SCHOOL DISTRICTS (Am. Civil Liberties Union ed., 2012),
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/maarrest_reportweb.pdf
[https://perma.cc/U8Z6-HEFA] (analyzing the arrest rates for public order offenses in
Massachusetts three largest school districts and considering what impact SROs and in-school
policing policies have on these arrest rates); JAMIE DYCUS ET AL., HARD LESSONS: SCHOOL
RESOURCE OFFICER PROGRAMS AND SCHOOL-BASED ARRESTS IN THREE CONNECTICUT TOWNS
(Am. Civil Liberties Union ed., 2008), https://www.aclu.org/sites/default
/%20files/field_document/maarrest_reportweb.pdf [https://perma.cc/NFL5-GB7H] (analyzing
the arrest rates for public order offenses in three Connecticut school districts within the
greater Hartford area and considering what impact school-structural problems have on
limiting or altering SRO performance).
3 See DAHLBERG ET AL., supra note 2, at 5.
4 See, e.g., id. at 37 (Districts should develop policies and programs to improve school
climate, including . . . . in-school programs to address student misbehavior.); see RUSSELL
SKIBA ET AL., ARE ZERO TOLERANCE POLICIES EFFECTIVE IN SCHOOLS? AN EVIDENTIARY REVIEW
AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1214 (Am. Psychological Assn ed., 2006),
https://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/zero-tolerance-report.pdf [https://perma.cc/RT74-
TU9R] (discussing the effects of zero tolerance policies on the school-to-prison pipeline and
suggesting broader adoption of school management policies).
5 See COUNCIL OF STATE GOVTS, supra note 2, at 1315.
6 MASS. GEN. LAWS, ch. 284, Sec. 11 (West 2014).
2017 Reading, Writing, and Rethinking Discipline 133

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to clearly define the role and

duties of the school resource officer.7 Despite this language, there is
nothing further in the Act that specifies the roles and responsibilities of the
SRO. Potential ambiguities exist as to how a school may use an SRO to
ensure a safe learning environment while remaining in compliance with
the statute. This Note will recommend changes to the Commonwealths
legislative language regarding SRO responsibilities. Specifically, the
changes will focus on providing mandatory training for SROs regarding
child and adolescent development; and advocating for the adoption of a
tiered response system to allow students, school administrations, and SROs
to consider alternatives to arrests and court-sanctioned discipline.

INTRODUCTION

S
tudent discipline in public education is not an easy formula to craft; it
requires administrators and teachers to find the right balance between
allowing students to test the boundaries of authority while providing
structured guidance to help students develop into independent and self-
reliant young adults.8 The struggle to find this balance is not new.9 In
October 2015, the violent arrest of a sixteen-year-old high school student in
Columbia, South Carolina once again brought this challenge to national
attention.10 The arrest was prompted by the students refusal to participate
in class.11 Following the teacher and an administrators attempts to cajole
the student, the other students were removed from the classroom and a
school resource officer, Deputy Sheriff Ben Fields, entered the room.12
According to another student who filmed the incident, Deputy Fields
yelled at the student to put her hands behind her back, flipped her desk

7 Id.
8See Christina L. Anderson, Double Jeopardy: The Modern Dilemma for Juvenile Justice, 152 U.
PA. L. REV. 1181, 1188, 1195 (2004).
9 See Id.
10 Richard Prez-Pea, Christine Hauser & Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Rough Student Arrest Puts
Spotlight on School Police, N.Y. TIMES (Oct. 28, 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/
2015/10/29/us/police-officers-in-schools.html?mwrsm=Email&_r=0 [https://perma.cc/L769-
W9PC]. On October 28, 2015, Deputy Sheriff Ben Fields of the Richland County Police
Department was fired from his position for violating department policy based on his conduct
when interacting with the high school student. Id.
11 Justin Wm. Moyer, Witness to Rough South Carolina High School Arrest: I Couldnt Believe

This Was Happening, WASH. POST (Oct. 27, 2015), https://www.washingtonpost.com/

news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/27/witness-to-spring-valley-high-arrest-i-couldnt-believe-this-
was-happening/?utm_term=.2bb9d6a348b4 [https://perma.cc/RK7J-F2FV].
12 Id.
134 New England Law Review Vol. 51|1

over, and dragged her across the room.13 Following the online publication
of the classroom video, advocacy groups from local community
organizations to the United States Department of Justice called for
investigations into police conduct relating to in-school student
misbehavior.14
Interest in the effect of SROs on student discipline has its roots in the
zero-tolerance movement of the 1980s.15 Congressional legislation, an
outgrowth of the anti-drug policies made popular during the Reagan
Administration, pushed for local school districts to adopt zero-tolerance
measures to have a more direct impact on school safety.16 Following
passage of the Gun-Free School Act of 1994,17 states implemented a
minimum one-year expulsion policy for any student in possession of a
firearm at school in exchange for federal funding for education.18 These
policies grew to include punishments for alcohol possession, threats or acts
of violence, and utterances of certain aggressive or hateful speech.19
While zero-tolerance policy advocates supported these measures as a
way for school administrators to have greater localized control over school
safety, critics shunned these policies for creating strict liability offenses for
which a student is disciplined regardless of the students intent.20
Following fifteen mass school shootings between 1993 and 1999, schools
with zero-tolerance policies began to rely on the authority of local police to
criminalize particular student behaviors and increase school safety.21

13 Id. The student who reported these events vocally protested the deputy sheriffs actions,

and was subsequently arrested for disrupting schools. Id.

14 See Richard Fausset, Richard Prez-Pea & Alan Blinderfoot, Race and Discipline in

Spotlight After South Carolina Officer Drags Student, N.Y. TIMES (Oct. 27, 2015),
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/28/us/spring-valley-high-school-sc-officer-
arrest.html?mwrsm=Email [https://perma.cc/9N9J-QASZ]; Prez-Pea, Hauser, & Stolberg,
supra note 10.
15 Chongmin Na & Denise C. Gottfredson, Police Officers in Schools: Effects on Schools Crime

and the Processing of Offending Behaviors, 30 JUST. Q. 619, 622 (2013); see also Matthew T. Theriot,
School Resource Officers and the Criminalization of Student Behavior, 37 J. CRIM. JUST. 280, 281
(2009).
16 Rebecca Morton, Note, Returning Decision to School Discipline Decisions: An Analysis of

Recent, Anti-Zero Tolerance Legislation, 91 WASH. U. L. REV. 757, 757 (2014).

17 Gun Free School Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(1)(a) (1994) invalidated by Keyes v. Lynch,

No. 1:15-CV-457, 2016 U.S. Dist. WL 3670852 (Pa. July 11, 2016).
18 DAVID M. PEDERSEN, Zero Tolerance Policies, in SCHOOL VIOLENCE: FROM DISCIPLINE TO

DUE PROCESS 48 (James C. Hanks ed., 2004).

19Id.
20Morton, supra note 16, at 75758; see also PEDERSEN, supra note 18, at 48 (discussing how
the Gun-Free School Act of 1994 required state laws to provide for school administrators to
modify zero-tolerance expulsion requirements for every student on a case-by-case basis).
21 MAURICE MO CANADY ET AL., NATL ASSN OF SCHOOL RES. OFFICERS, TO PROTECT AND
2017 Reading, Writing, and Rethinking Discipline 135

Consistent with earlier trends, critics have argued that the presence of
SROs on campuses has the negative effect of criminalizing minor student
misbehaviors that, in turn, have particularly deleterious consequences for
students of color and students with special needs; most importantly, there
is no data that conclusively shows that SROs make schools safer.22
In 2014, Massachusetts adopted legislation that encourages school
administrators to consider the students intent and the circumstances
surrounding the students misbehavior before deciding to suspend or expel
the student.23 As a result of this pro-student discipline method,
Massachusetts is one of several states that applies a permissive approach
to zero-tolerance reform.24 Despite this label, Massachusetts discipline
strategies continue to severely punish a majority of students for conduct
that cannot be considered as dangerous or severe as criminal activity.25
Massachusetts should look to further refine its policy regarding SRO
regulation in order to delineate between school-regulated misconduct and
criminal offenses. Specifically, Massachusetts should focus on making
school-operation training mandatory for SROs, which should include
providing a curriculum that focuses on child and adolescent development
and working with students with special needs.

EDUCATE: THE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER AND THE PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS 9
(NASRO ed., 2012), https://nasro.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/NASRO-To-Protect-
and-Educate-nosecurity.pdf [https://perma.cc/WR2G-ZFX6].
22 CATHERINE Y. KIM ET AL., THE SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE: STRUCTURING LEGAL REFORM
113 (2010); see infra Part II (discussing the literature supporting and critiquing SRO
performance in reducing school violence).
23 MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 71 37H 3/4 (West 2014) (requiring [a]ny principal, headmaster,

superintendent or other person acting as a decision-maker at a student meeting or hearing,

when deciding the consequences for the student, shall exercise discretion; consider ways to re-
engage the student in the learning process; and avoid using expulsion as a consequence until
other remedies and consequences have been employed); Memorandum from Mitchell D.
Chester, Commr. of the Dept of Elementary and Secondary Educ., to Mass. Schools
Superintendents, Principals, and Charter School Leaders regarding An Act Relative to Student
Access to Educ. Services and Exclusion from School (Nov. 28, 2012), http://www.doe.mass.
edu/news/news.aspx?id=7127 [https://perma.cc/3ASL-G5FZ] (encouraging school districts to
[i]dentify models that incorporate intermediary steps before suspension and exclusion that
districts with significant numbers of suspensions and exclusion can adopt.).
24 Morton, supra note 16, at 76971.

25 See MATT CREGOR, PRIYA LANE & JOANNA TAYLOR, NOT MEASURING UP: THE STATE OF

SCHOOL DISCIPLINE IN MASSACHUSETTS 2 (Lawyers Comm. for Civil Rights and Econ. Justice
ed. 2014), http://lawyerscom.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Not-Measuring-up_-The-State-
of-School-Discipline-in-Massachusetts.pdf [https://perma.cc/K7WY-Q9CG] (Massachusetts
public schools issued 85,462 out-of-school suspensions in the 2012-2013 school year, most of
which were not used to address serious misconduct, such as possession of drugs or weapons.
Nearly two-thirds (sixty-four percent) of these out-of-school suspensions were issued for
incidents categorized as non-violent, non-criminal, non-drug offenses.).
136 New England Law Review Vol. 51|1

This Note is presented in six parts. Part I provides, as an overview, the

SRO performance and effectiveness in reducing school violence. Part II
explains the purpose of an MOU between police departments and school
districts, and the benefit of an MOU in creating accountability for SROs.
Part III considers how the absence of specific language regarding
mandatory SRO training in the current Massachusetts legislation unequally
disciplines students, specifically the discipline of minority and special
education students. Part IV discusses the benefits of adopting the current
MOU language in Connecticut, a state that has recently undergone
widespread reform to improve adjudication of, and access to, juvenile
justice. Part V addresses gaps in Massachusetts and Connecticuts MOU
legislation regarding the role of weapons in school-based SRO discipline
and the role of parents in monitoring SRO discipline. Part VI offers current
state and national resources that align with the recommendations proposed
in Parts IV and V.

I. Critique of SROs and Their Effectiveness in Reducing School

Violence

There is widespread debate regarding whether schools should employ

SROs.26 To answer that question, researchers have sought to determine
whether SROs actually make schools safer.27 However, within this select
pool of research, it is still unclear whether SROs are successful at reducing
school violence.28

A. SRO Training and Pro-Student Policing

SROs should serve a multifunctional purpose in schools.29 Scholars

view SROs who serve this multifunctional purpose as better equipped to
practice safe, consistent school discipline as part of a strong school
culture.30 However, in Massachusetts, SROs are not required to receive
training specifically tailored to their work with students in schools.31 In

26 See, e.g., JAMES & MCCALLION, supra note 1, at 12 (discussing the renewed interest in

SRO efficacy following the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown,
Connecticut in December 2012); Prez-Pea, Hauser & Stolberg, supra note 10.
See generally JAMES & MCCALLION, supra note 1, at 811.
27

See id. at 10 (The body of research on the effectiveness of SRO programs is . . . limited,
28

both in terms of the number of studies published and the methodological rigor of the studies
conducted.).
See CANADY ET AL., supra note 21, at 21.
29

See id. at 2324.

30

31 See An Act Relative to the Reduction of Gun Violence, MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 284, 11

(West 2014). In fact, out of the four Massachusetts school districts whose MOUs were
accessible online, only one included explicit language requiring agency-wide training for
the staffs of the schools and the police department pertaining to their duties detailed in the
2017 Reading, Writing, and Rethinking Discipline 137

their study, crime and social policy analysts Nathan James and Gail
McCallion suggest that SROs who receive training in child development
address student misbehavior from a proactive rather than a reactive
perspective; and are perceived to work better with students, parents, and
administrators than SROs who do not receive any supplementary
training.32 Similarly, public policy researchers Johanna Wald and Lisa
Thurau published a study that revealed many Massachusetts SROs
preferred to implement diversion programs to address problematic student
behaviors rather than using arrests or court referrals.33 The majority of
SROs who were interviewed for the study expressed further frustration
with their lack of training to execute these alternative strategies, noting that
school leaders preferred to use law enforcement tactics over traditional
school-discipline approaches to handle even the simplest infractions.34 The
authors concluded that the decision to arrest or order court summonses is
often a subjective one, determined by an officers personality, a youths
demeanor and attitude [and] the extent of pressure put on the SRO by
school officials.35
Both studies reveal how gaps in SRO training reinforce a stop and
control response to student misbehavior that is most consistent with the
zero-tolerance approach popularized in the 1990s.36 At the same time, this

Memorandum. Compare Memorandum of Understanding, Between Natick Pub. Sch. and

Natick Police Dept., http://www.natickps.org/NatickHigh/Documents/Memorandum%
20of%20Understanding(2).pdf [https://perma.cc/EY3Z-JLWV] (The NATICK PUBLIC
SCHOOLS and the NATICK POLICE DEPARTMENT agree to provide agency-wide training
to their respective staffs to inform them of their roles and responsibilities under this
agreement. . . . On an on-going basis, the same training will be provided to new staff
members.) with Memorandum of Understanding, between Needham Pub. Sch. and
Needham Police Dept., http://rwd1.needham.k12.ma.us/superintendent/
documents/School-Police_MOU.pdf [https://perma.cc/L79L-5KDE], Memorandum of
Understanding Between the Salem Pub. Sch. and the Salem Police Dept.,
http://www.salem.k12.ma.us/pages/SPS_DistStaffRes/EmpHndbk/Appendix/MU_SPS_SPD.p
df [https://perma.cc/J6YR-HNM2], and WALPOLE PUB. SCHS., CODE OF CONDUCT FOR
STUDENTS, http://www.walpole.k12.ma.us/UserFiles/Servers/Server_3008510/File/Migration/
whs_code_of_conduct.pdf [https://perma.cc/TTT7-H7NV].
32 JAMES & MCCALLION, supra note 1, at 1112. See also JOHANNA WALD & LISA THURAU,
FIRST, DO NO HARM: HOW EDUCATORS AND POLICE CAN WORK TOGETHER MORE EFFECTIVELY
TO PRESERVE SCHOOL SAFETY AND PROTECT VULNERABLE STUDENTS 4 (Charles Hamilton
Houston Inst. for Race and Justice ed., 2010), http://www.charleshamiltonhouston.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/11/FINAL-Do-No-Harm.pdf [https://perma.cc/K9JC-A6PA] (describing
one of the major findings of their study of Massachusetts school resource officers as the
problematic lack of training).
33 See WALD & THURAU, supra note 32, at 8.
34 See id. at 89.
35 Id. at 6.

36 Id.
138 New England Law Review Vol. 51|1

research also suggests that SROs who operate under an MOU or similar
agreement are better prepared to execute their roles because these rules are
more clearly defined.37 In turn, this prevents school administrators from
relying on SROs to handle all forms of school discipline, which has the
effect of criminalizing more student behaviors and artificially inflating
arrest rates on campus.38

B. Fair Discipline Means Equal Discipline

Many scholars also raise concerns that SRO programs without detailed
or well-enforced accountability measures run the risk of enforcing school
policies unequally.39 Indeed, data tracking SRO arrests reveal that minority
students are being arrested at disproportionate rates relative to their
populations in schools.40 In its study Hard Lessons, the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) analyzed the role of SROs and the use of arrest in
East Hartford, West Hartford, and Hartford, Connecticut.41 Results showed
that during the 20052006 and 20062007 school years, African-American
students were disciplined more frequently than their peers in schools with
SROs.42 This finding is remarkable since two of the communities surveyed
(East and West Hartford) contained roughly equal populations of African-
American, Caucasian, and Hispanic students, showing that minority
students were more susceptible to victimization under police-led discipline
strategies in schools.43

37 See id. at 10.

38 See DAHLBERG ET AL., supra note 2, at 3031.
39 See JAMES & MCCALLION, supra note 1, at 9 (Despite the popularity of SRO programs,

there are few studies that have reliably evaluated their effectiveness.); see also PETER FINN ET
AL., CASE STUDIES OF 19 SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER (SRO) PROGRAMS 3 (U.S. Dept of Justice
ed., 2005), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/209271.pdf [https://perma.cc/TA87-
CTBM] (noting that the nineteen SRO programs surveyed represent better operated, better
staffed, and more effective SRO programs than most in the country); LAWRENCE F. TRAVIS III
& JULIE KIERNAN COON, THE ROLE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IN PUBLIC SCHOOL SAFETY: A
NATIONAL SURVEY 5 (Natl Inst. of Justice ed., 2005), https://www.ncjrs.gov/
pdffiles1/nij/grants/211676.pdf [https://perma.cc/6T2E-8APW] (describing the origination of
the survey sample of schools as contingent upon factors including schools that allowed site
visits and schools for whom police departments in the same district had completed surveys);
Arrick Jackson, Police-School Resource Officers and Students Perception of the Police and
Offending, 25 POLICING: AN INTL J. POLICE STRATEGIES & MGMT., 631, 643 (2002) (discussing the
limitations on a study analyzing the impact of SROs on young peoples opinion of police
officers in southeastern Missouri).
40 See CREGOR, LANE & TAYLOR, supra note 25, at 1113; DAHLBERG ET AL., supra note 2, at 26

28; DYCUS ET AL., supra note 2, at 910; WALD & THURAU, supra note 32, at 8.
41 DYCUS ET AL., supra note 2, at 5.
42 Id. at 3435.
43 Id. at 35.
2017 Reading, Writing, and Rethinking Discipline 139

Another study by the ACLU, Arrested Futures, serves as an even

more relevant tool to understand the importance of regulatory language in
MOUs that will ensure that SRO conduct is fair and consistent.44 In this
study, the ACLU focused on student arrest rates for public order offenses
in Massachusetts three largest school districts of Boston, Worcester, and
Springfield from 2007 to 2010.45 In discussing its results, the ACLU showed
that in the 2009-2010 school year, African-American students had the
highest arrest rates in all three school districts even though they
represented the second or third smallest minority group in their respective
school populations.46 This information is particularly important because
since the study was conducted in 2012 (two years before the passage of the
SRO-MOU required legislation), it can be argued that in districts where
MOUs could be legally enforced, SROs can operate as regular police
officers and arrest any student whose behavior or conduct is criminal or
dangerous to others in the school environment.47 However, as each district
had an MOU in place when the study was conducted,48 the next step is to
consider whether these MOUs contained language that would encourage
arbitrary enforcement of arrest procedures.49 For example, prior to 2011,
there was no language in Springfields MOU prohibiting school
administrators from using SROs to discipline students and enforce codes
of conduct.50 Although the head of the Springfield schools QUEBEC (in-
school police) unit made sure that the 20112012 MOU contained language
that prevented schools from relying on SROs to enforce traditional school-
discipline policies, the unit still struggled with responding to staff concerns
about student behavior, including [not refusing] to arrest students who
allegedly commit an arrestable offense when explicitly asked to do so.51 In
Worcester, the MOU encouraged school administrators to contact the
police department when immediate assistance was required, as opposed to
seeking out the in-school Community Impact Officers whose MOU-defined
role was more preventative of, rather than reactive toward, students
criminal activity.52

44 See DAHLBERG ET AL., supra note 2, at 2728.

45 Id.
46 Id. (stating that, in the 20092010 school year, African-Americans represented between

14% (Worcester), 23% (Springfield) and 33% (Boston) of the student populations surveyed, yet
made up 25%, 29%, and 63% of all arrestees, respectively).
47See id. at 3233.

48 See id. at 1518 (providing a full description of MOU provisions).

49 See DAHLBERG ET AL., supra note 2, at 1417.
50 Id.
51 Id.
52 Id. at 1617.
140 New England Law Review Vol. 51|1

As a result of this structuring, decisions regarding the placement of a

student into the juvenile system are first made by school officials, not
police officers.53 Since educators do not have the same level of knowledge
about arrestable offenses as the police,54 these decisions are more likely
based on a schools inability to redirect student behavior using traditional
methods and failing to consider alternative methods that would still allow
students to remain in the classroom.55

C. Disciplining Students with Special Needs

Similar concerns regarding uneven arrest rates have been raised in

discussions of SRO treatment of students with special needs.56 Recent
studies have linked children with learning and behavioral disabilities to
higher entrance rates into the school-to-prison pipeline, where their needs
are often not met and they are more susceptible to longer periods of
incarceration for insubordinate behavior.57 Indeed, the Arrested Futures
data on Special Education student arrest rates demonstrates that schools in
both Boston and Springfield with significantly higher arrest rates during

53 DAHLBERG ET AL, supra note 2, at 17.

54 The United States Supreme Court has alluded to the limited capacity of teachers and
school administrators to establish probable cause for alleged student criminal activity. See
New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 343 (1985). As a result, the Court has held that the conduct
of school administrators and teachers must be evaluated under a reasonable suspicion
standard that balances the privacy interests and due process rights of students with the
schools concern for safety and maintaining order. See id. (By focusing attention on the
question of reasonableness, the [reasonable suspicion] standard will spare teachers and school
administrators the necessity of schooling themselves in the niceties of probable cause and
permit them to regulate their conduct according to the dictates of reason and common sense.
At the same time, the reasonableness standard should ensure that the interests of students will
be invaded no more than is necessary to achieve the legitimate end of preserving order in the
schools.).
55 WALD & THURAU, supra note 32, at 10.
56 See Mark Keierleber, Why So Few School Cops are Trained to Work with Kids,
THE ATLANTIC (Nov. 5, 2015), http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/11/why-do-
most-school-cops-have-no-student-training-requirements/414286/ [https://perma.cc/9UEZ-
SA4Q] (noting that U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights data for the 20112012
school year showed that students with disabilities made up about twelve percent of the total
student population but represented about a quarter of the total student population that was
arrested and referred to law enforcement); Massachusetts School-to-Prison Pipeline, Explained,
WBUR: LEARNING LAB (April 21, 2015), http://learninglab.wbur.org/topics/massachusetts-
school-to-prison-pipeline-explained/ [https://perma.cc/P437-J983] (Nationally, discipline
differences across race lines for students with disabilities are vast: one in four black children
with disabilities are suspended, compared to one in eleven white students.).
57 David May, Corrie Rice & Kevin I. Minor, An Examination of School Resource Officers
Attitudes Regarding Behavioral Issues among Students Receiving Special Education Services, 15
CURRENT ISSUES EDUC. 1, 4 (2012).
2017 Reading, Writing, and Rethinking Discipline 141

the period studied were the ones that only served students with
behavioral, emotional, and learning challenges.58 The Springfield Academy
for Excellence (S.A.F.E.) schools were found to have arrests for all offenses,
including public order offenses, which were ten times higher than the rates
at all other Springfield schools.59 In Boston, data showed that students at
the McKinley schools made up one percent of the Boston Public Schools
population but accounted for between five and seventeen percent of
student arrests during the three-year period.60
Youth-criminalization expert David May argues that a major reason for
this phenomenon is that SRO attitudes towards students with special needs
are often ill-informed and consequently negative.61 In the process of
interviewing 132 SROs about the presence and behaviors of students
receiving Special Education services at their schools, May discovered that
the majority of the SROs felt that these students had a negative impact on
the school environment.62 Mays explanation of these results reflects the
trend cited in the Wald and Thurau study that extra training is essential for
SROs to make decisions about student behavior that are in the best interest
of the child.63 According to Mays results, more than one-half of the
surveyed SROs had not received either academic or in-service training on
special education issues; at the same time, over half of the SROs also
believed that special needs students should not be allowed to learn in
inclusion settings, nor should these students receive less punitive treatment
for problem behaviors identified as part of their disability.64 The
relationship between these two percentages once again highlights the fact
that, without specific training in education and child development, SROs
may not be able to appropriately handle particular frustrations of working
with this population and may consequently adopt the negative biases of
other school staff members towards these students without considering the
students unique needs.65 Indeed, May concludes that SROs who spent
more time in law-related education as part of their roles at schools were
less likely to feel that students receiving Special Education services were
responsible for a disproportionate amount of problem behaviors in the
classroom.66

58 DAHLBERG ET AL., supra note 2, at 3132.

59 Id. at 32.
60 Id. at 30.

61 May, Rice & Minor, supra note 57, at 1, 8.

62 DAHLBERG ET AL., supra note 2, at 5.

63 WALD & THURAU, supra note 32, at 7.

64 May, Rice & Minor, supra note 57, at 1, 7.

65 Id. at 1, 8.

66 Id. at 1, 7.
142 New England Law Review Vol. 51|1

II. A Measured Response: Memorandum of Understanding and

Measuring SRO Accountability

Scholars that promote the discussion of alternatives to SROs often

recommend that school districts and police departments increase their
levels of accountability to one another.67 In most literature, scholars argue
that the roles and responsibilities of educators and police forces must be
clearly delineated to ensure that school staff remain responsible for all
school discipline issues, and . . . emphasize that arrest is not an acceptable
method for dealing with disruptive students.68 At the same time, school
districts at the local and state levels must substantially increase the scope
and accessibility to statistical data about school-based arrests.69
The National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO)
support the MOU as a necessary component of the interagency model
because it identifies the specific roles and responsibilities of the SRO vis--
vis all other team members at school whose focus is to promote school
safety.70 MOUs allow all involved parties to analyze what structures work,
which do not, and to amend and pass on those policies that have yielded
positive results for school climate and student well-being.71 Sources that
have pushed for MOUs to contain language that limits SRO authority to
arrestable offenses or emergency situations also argue that restricting SRO
involvement in student discipline reduces school administrators reliance
on law enforcement tactics to redirect student behavior.72 In turn, students
are able to separate SRO-based actions from traditional school discipline,
which can help them feel more comfortable with reporting misbehaviors
and working with adults to create a stable and protected school
environment.73
Peter Finns study supports this analysis, concluding that schools that
have an MOU are more likely to have an SRO program that successfully

67 See Chongmin Na & Denise C. Gottfredson, Police Officers in Schools: Effects on Schools
Crime and the Processing of Offending Behaviors, 30 JUST. Q. 619, 64647 (2013) (describing the
manner in which increased police presence in schools has had the unintended effect of
increasing criminalization of student behavior when responsibility for maintaining order is
shifted from teachers to police.); Michael Yudin & Eve Hill, #RethinkDiscipline: What
Communities Should Know about School Resource Officers, YOUTUBE (Dec. 17, 2015),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X97fIaNt8T8 [https://perma.cc/D6LW-YPGA].
68 DAHLBERG ET AL., supra note 2, at 37.
69 Id.
70 CANADY ET AL., supra note 21, at 4748.

71 Id.

72 WALD & THURAU, supra note 32, at 8, 12.

73 See CANADY ET AL., supra note 21, at 5051.

2017 Reading, Writing, and Rethinking Discipline 143

reduces school violence.74 Although the applicability of the study is limited

because the pool of SRO programs analyzed was small, geographically
specific, and already deemed well-functioning, results from Finns analysis
of large school districts with relatively young SRO programs revealed a
clear pattern of best practices for creating and enforcing MOUs.75 In a
majority of the large new programs studied, the parties affected by the
MOU agreed that MOUs that were developed on an ad-hoc basis or did not
provide details about the day-to-day responsibilities of SROs made the
early implementation of the SRO program difficult and strained
communication between law enforcement and school administrators
regarding school safety.76 Nevertheless, once these inconsistencies and
ambiguities were addressed, SROs presence in these schools was found to
be positive as indicated by student surveys that measured their attitudes
toward school safety and level of comfort around their schools SROs.77

III. School Resource Officer Legislation in Massachusetts

A. The 2014 Act Relative to the Reduction of Gun Violence

On May 24, 2014, Elliot Rodger perpetrated a mass shooting in Isla

Vista, California, killing seven people, including himself, and wounding at
least thirteen others.78 Rodgers widespread carnage near the campus of the
University of California at Santa Barbara was decried as the work of a
mad man and once again raised national concern for the pervasiveness of
guns and violence in American society.79 In Massachusetts, House Speaker
Robert DeLeo put forth a bill four days after the Isla Vista shootings that
sought to toughen Massachusetts already strict gun laws.80 The proposed
law, An Act Relative to the Reduction of Gun Violence, toughened
prohibitions on gun ownership and qualifications for obtaining a firearms
identification card (FID).81 More importantly, in light of the school settings

74 PETER FINN ET AL., CASE STUDIES OF 19 SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER (SRO) PROGRAMS 3

(U.S. Dept of Justice ed., 2005), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/209271.pdf

[https://perma.cc/KK4G-Y9FA].
75 Id.
76 Id. at 199200, 203.
77 Id. at 90.

78 Isla Vista Massacre: 7 Killed, 13 Injured, ABC 7 EYEWITNESS NEWS (May 25, 2014),

http://abc7.com/news/isla-vista-massacre-7-killed-13-injured/76145/ [https://perma.cc/D8D8-
NMLW].
79 Id.
80 H.B. 4376, 2014 Leg., 188th Gen. Ct. (Mass. 2014). See Shira Schoenberg, Gov. Deval Patrick
signs gun bill into law saying, 'It's a good bill, an important bill', MASSLIVE (Aug. 13, 2014, 2:32
PM), http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/08/gov_deval_patrick_signs_gun_
bi.html [https://perma.cc/VM86-9NCG].
81 Mass. H.B. 4376.
144 New England Law Review Vol. 51|1

in which Elliot Rodgers and Newtown shooter Adam Lanza82 committed

their crimes, Speaker DeLeos bill included provisions that targeted school
safety.83 These provisions were the product of a policy interest committee
organized by Speaker DeLeo prior to the bills introduction.84 The
Committee to Reduce Firearm Violence met with school superintendents
on July 30, 2013, to review these provisions related to improving school
safety.85 Topics discussed at the meeting included the collaboration
between police departments and school administrators to create school
safety plansincreasing internal and external support for students with
mental health issuesand the need for school resource officers.86
The Committee emphasized the need for the SROs role in schools to be
integrative through participat[ing] in professional development activities
and other relevant educational trainings.87 The Committee also laid out
expectations of the SROs to embrace the concept that schools are learning
communities where mistakes are made and behaviors are modified with
the understanding that the degree to which traditional policing powers are
applied is done in consultation with the Superintendent or his designee.88
The Committee recognized that not all police officers could subscribe to
this flexible discipline strategy, and consequently recommended a careful
selection and training of the officers to be considered.89 However, in
comparing these recommendations to the text of the adopted legislation, it
is clear that although school resource officers were a mandatory priority,
their training and responsibilities, delineated through an MOU or through
other means, were not.90

82Schoenberg, supra note 80; Report reveals new details about Newtown shooters history, CBS
NEWS (Nov. 22, 2014, 6:27 AM), http://www.cbsnews.com/news/adam-lanza-newtown-school-
shooter-report-reveals-new-details-about-lanzas-history/ [https://perma.cc/3Y3A-WLVQ].
83 Schoenberg, supra note 80.
84 Id. See generally COMM. TO REDUCE FIREARM VIOLENCE, STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING GUN
VIOLENCE IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASS. (Mar. 28, 2013), http://www.northeastern.edu/
cssh/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Strategies-for-Reducing-Gun-Violence-in-the-
Commonwealth-of-Massachusetts.pdf [https://perma.cc/E94C-MCNV] (discussing the policy
interest committees recommendation to Speaker DeLeo regarding gun legislation).
85 COMM. TO REDUCE FIREARM VIOLENCE, STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING GUN VIOLENCE IN THE

COMMONWEALTH OF MASS. 21 (Mar. 28, 2013), http://www.northeastern.edu/cssh/wp-

content/uploads/2014/02/Strategies-for-Reducing-Gun-Violence-in-the-Commonwealth-of-
Massachusetts.pdf [https://perma.cc/7VBZ-W5KA].
86 Id.

87 Id. at 11.

88 Id. at 1112.

89 Id.

90 See generally MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 71, 37P (West 2014) (outlining the requirements for

SROs in Massachusetts schools).

2017 Reading, Writing, and Rethinking Discipline 145

B. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 71, Section 37P

The Act Relative to the Reduction of Gun Violence created three

amendments to the Massachusetts General Laws pertaining to school
safety and SROs.91 The amendments focused on the hiring and
maintenance of SROs, which adopted the recommendations of Speaker
DeLeos investigatory committee.92 This required chiefs of police to
consider an SRO candidates ability to develop strong relationships with
teachers and students in the learning community along with the specific
needs of the school environment when evaluating potential placements.93
Although the statute recommends preferential treatment for SROs that
have specialized training in child and adolescent development and conflict
de-escalation, the language does not suggest that such hiring policies be
weighted more heavily than officer seniority.94 Further, the statutes
language providing for the creation of the MOU between chiefs of police
and school superintendents is open-ended, suggesting that state statutory
recommendations do not carry much weight when being enforced by
school districts.95

C. Critiques of the Current Legislation as it Relates to the Impact on

School Safety and Discipline in Massachusetts Schools

The current Massachusetts legislation creates inconsistencies in how

SROs employ discipline to regulate student behavior.96 Wald and Thurau
focused on these discrepancies as part of their research on SROs in
Massachusetts schools.97 In one portion of their case study, SROs from
sixteen Massachusetts school districts were asked to describe their
response to a fight between two girls in the hallway.98 Generally, officers
responses fell into one of two categories. First, the holistic response was
where the officer tried to contextualize the situation in terms of severity of
the injury, students educational disabilities (if any), students home life,
and the students frequency of misbehaving to the extent that they were
given less opportunity to learn from their actions without receiving some

91 Id.
92 Id.
93 See MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 71, 37P(b) (West 2014).
94 Id.
95 Id. (The superintendent and the chief of police shall enter into a written memorandum
of understanding to clearly define the role and duties of the school resource officer which
shall be placed on file in the office of the school superintendent.).
96 See supra Part I. B.
97 WALD & THURAU, supra note 32, at 6.
98 Id. at 5.
146 New England Law Review Vol. 51|1

type of measureable punishment.99 Second, the zero tolerance response

where the officers main goal is to stop and control the incident by
identifying what rule the students had broken (no fighting in school), what
record the students had for violating this rule (if not first-time offenders, it
would be arrest), and whether the extent of the injury could lead to
charging students with crimes that carried a greater punitive response (e.g.,
assault and battery possibly with a dangerous weapon or aggravated
assault with bodily injury).100 Wald and Thurau concluded that the
variation in SRO response was dependent upon whether the school had an
established policy for responding to escalation of student misbehavior.101
An MOU can reduce the variation in response by describing the specific
role of an SRO relative to a schools campus safety plan, thereby allowing
for police intervention as an alternative strategy to traditional, school-
managed discipline.102

IV. MOU Legislation in Connecticut: The Graduated Response Model

A. Background: Connecticuts Juvenile Justice Reform

In considering improvements to the Massachusetts legislation

governing SRO MOUs, the Connecticut model is remarkable for its
emphasis on the graduated response to student discipline.
Connecticuts reformed approach to student discipline is one of the
many by-products of its juvenile justice system reforms in the last twenty
years.103 When the reform movement began to take shape in the early
1990s, Connecticut lacked data on school suspension and expulsion rates,
and there were no SROs in any public school in the state.104 Within a
decade, schools began to track school suspensions, and generated

99 Id.
100 Id. at 6.
101 Id. (We also found that officers turned to law enforcement responses in the absence of

other strategies or mechanisms in place in schools for dealing with student misbehaviors. For
example, one officer described arresting a 10-year-old boy for opening the front door to the
school after he had been told repeatedly not to do so by the assistant principal. What else was
there for me to do. . . . I had to arrest him. He was driving the A.P. berserk and not listening to
any of us.).
102 See DAHLBERG ET AL., supra note 2, at 36 (To the extent that police officers are involved

in schools, responsibilities between school staff and police departments should be clearly
delineated to ensure that school staff remain responsible for all school discipline issues, and to
emphasize that arrest is not an acceptable method for dealing with disruptive students.).
103 RICHARD MENDEL, JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM IN CONNECTICUT: HOW COLLABORATION
AND COMMITMENT HAVE IMPROVED PUBLIC SAFETY AND OUTCOMES FOR YOUTH 3 (Justice Policy
Inst. ed., 2013), http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/
jpi_juvenile_justice_reform_in_ct.pdf [https://perma.cc/CC5S-H6N2].
104 Id. at 31.
2017 Reading, Writing, and Rethinking Discipline 147

surprising results: in the 20062007 school year, 41,227 students were

suspended at least once.105 Of these suspensions, 61% were for violations of
school rules; less than 1% of the suspensions were for violent crimes.106
These results have a two-pronged effect as it relates to the presence of
SROs in the realm of school discipline.107 First, the Connecticut legislature
passed a law prohibiting schools from exacting out of school suspensions
for minor offenses.108 Secondly, in 2012 nine school districts piloted the
creation of MOUs for regulating SRO conduct.109
In June 2015, the Connecticut legislature passed laws that mandated
MOUs for every school district and encouraged schools to adopt graduated
responses to student discipline.110 This model emphasizes reliance on
strong classroom management and in-school support, such as special
education and behavioral health services, before asking the police to
intervene.111 Supporters of the graduated response model praise the
approach for its effect of lessening the burden on SROs to handle school
discipline, thereby decreasing the criminalization of relatively harmless,
easily remedied behaviors.112 Furthermore, this scaled approach to

105 Id.
106 Id.
107 See id.

108 Id. at 31.

109 MENDEL, supra note 103, at 3, 31. In one of the pilot districts (Manchester) in 2012, arrests

and expulsions fell by more than 60% from the prior school year following the
implementation of the MOU. Id. at 3.
110 H.B. 6834, 2015 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Conn. 2015) (introducing An Act Concerning

Collaboration between Boards of Education and School Resource Officers); H.B. 6837, 2015
Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Conn. 2015) (introducing An Act Encouraging a Graduated
Response Model For Student Discipline). Both bills became law on July 1, 2015. See H.B. 6834;
H.B. 6837.
111 CONN. PUB. ACT NO. 15168. See generally MARY SULLIVAN & TIMOTHY BLEASDALE,

MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING AND SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS, (Office of Legislative

Research, ed., 2014), https://www.cga.ct.gov/2014/rpt/pdf/2014-R-0103.pdf [https://perma.
cc/G36T-NFV9] (noting that out of the six Connecticut MOUs considered in the study, three
currently use language that gives schools the option of adopting the graduated response
model, and highlighting that all school districts emphasize using SROs as a last resort
measure to handling in-school discipline).
112 EDIE JOSEPH, TESTIMONY SUPPORTING H.B. 6834: AN ACT CONCERNING COLLABORATION
BETWEEN BOARDS OF EDUCATION AND SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS AND H.B. 6837: AN ACT
ENCOURAGING A GRADUATED RESPONSE MODEL FOR STUDENT DISCIPLINE, before the Education
Committee, 2015 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Conn. 2015), https://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/eddata/
tmy/2015HB-06837-R000225-Edie%20Joseph,%20Connecticut%20Voices%20For%20Children-
TMY.PDF [https://perma.cc/N3SG-SZ5T]; Leon Smith, In Connecticut, There is No Achievement
Gap, CTVIEWPOINTS (May 20, 2015), http://ctviewpoints.org/2015/05/20/in-connecticut-there-is-
no-achievement-gap/ [https://perma.cc/CF3R-2ZHS] (Connecticut has taken some steps to
correct this, and 6834 would go further. The bill supports a graduated response model to
148 New England Law Review Vol. 51|1

correcting student conduct may prevent students from escalating their

behavior if they know they will have the opportunity to learn from their
actions with police intervention.113

V. Other Factors that Must be Addressed in Massachusetts MOU

Legislation

A. Gun Use in Schools

Following the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the Obama

Administration proposed the Comprehensive School Safety Program, a
$150 million grant to school districts and law enforcement agencies to hire
more psychologists, social workers, and SROs to serve in the nations
schools.114 With this announcement came a renewed debate about whether
armed police officers were the correct response to mitigate the presence of
gun violence in schools.115 In Massachusetts, current legislation does not
restrict officers from carrying or using weapons in the school setting, but
does require them to report any instance of illegal gun possession on or
around school premises.116 Nevertheless, the current research challenging
the benefit of SROs in reducing school violence is also unclear as to
whether SROs make students feel safer, particularly if they are armed.117

student misbehavior. In other words, arrest should be the last resort for dealing with non-
dangerous behavior. Educators would first try more rational and restorative responses, such
as a parent-teacher conference or mediating disputes between students. The graduated
response model would be part of a written agreement between police departments and school
districts specifying what role officers stationed in public schools should play. Experience tells
us that the measures laid out in this bill can make a difference because districts that already
use these practices are keeping more kids where they belong, in school.).
113 Smith, supra note 112.

114 PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, NOW IS THE TIME: THE PRESIDENTS PLAN TO PROTECT OUR

CHILDREN AND OUR COMMUNITIES BY REDUCING GUN VIOLENCE 11 (White House Office of the
Press Secy, 2013), https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_
time_full.pdf [https://perma.cc/VFW9-BAKS]; Colleen Curtis, President Obama Announces New
Measures to Prevent Gun Violence, WHITE HOUSE BLOG (Jan. 16 2013, 1:57 PM),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/01/16/
president-obama-announces-new-measures-prevent-gun-violence [https://perma.cc/2QB4-
UAGJ].
115See Erin Cox & Erica L. Green, City Delegation Rejects Guns in Schools for Police,
BALTIMORE SUN (Mar. 6, 2015, 8:28 PM), http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-
md-guns-school-20150306-story.html [https://perma.cc/H6XS-B3UN] (describing the various
arguments considered by Baltimores House of Delegates in a decision to restrict the arming
of police officers in schools, including that such weaponry is necessary to prevent another
mass shooting and that arming officers makes students think they are in a prison-like
environment).
116 See MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 280, 10(j) (West 2016).
117 See COUNCIL OF STATE GOVTS, supra note 2, at 191. See also Arrick Jackson, Police-School
2017 Reading, Writing, and Rethinking Discipline 149

The language of Massachusetts SRO-MOU legislation implicates the

need to consider whether it should be mandatory for police officers to
carry weapons in schools.118 Police departments are only required to
designate one officer to serve as the SRO for the entire municipality;119 in
the case of regional school districts, one SRO may be required to serve all
of the schools in that region.120 Therefore, in circumstances where an SROs
responsibilities are widespread, it is arguable that all individuals at the
school need to know that the SRO is a trained police officer.121 On the other
hand, critics of the armed officer policy in Massachusetts and elsewhere
urge that school districts consider the impact of weaponized officers on
students and their capacity to feel safe in the school environment.122

B. Managing the Role of Parents in the Student Discipline Process

Current Massachusetts law entitles students to receive notice of a

principals decision regarding punishment for an offense committed in
school, for which the student may receive counsel and present evidence or
witness testimony.123 Although these school discipline policies are designed
to protect students and limit their removal from the school,124 many
students do not know their rights and consequently may not take

Resource Officers and Students Perception of the Police and Offending, 25 POLICING: AN INTL J.
POLICE STRATEGIES & MGMT., 631, 64748 (2002) (reporting that high schools that had SROs did
not experience a decline in more serious offenses like assaults with or without a weapon,
suggesting that students apprehension about interacting with the police outside of the school
environment makes them more inclined to continue hiding their commissions of arrestable
offenses).
118 See MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 284, 11 (West 2014); MASS. GEN. LAWS ANN. ch. 71 37P (West

2015); MASS. GEN. LAWS ANN. Ch. 269, 10j (West 2015).
119 MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 71, 37P(b) (West 2014).

120 Id.

121 See David Gura, Men With Guns in Schools: Resource Officers, WESTWOOD POLICE DEPT

(Mar. 14, 2013), http://www.westwoodpd.org/index.cfm?cdid=11670&pid=12087 [https://

perma.cc/9VX7-2NLB] (discussing how the Westwood Public Schools in Westwood,
Massachusetts employs one SRO, who feels that he needs to make [himself] visible at the
town high school because he does not have an office and needs to actively monitor school
safety throughout the district).
122 See Cox & Green, supra note 115 (reporting that, in evaluating the decision to prohibit
school resource officers in Baltimore from carrying guns, some legislators argued that the
police need to be prepared for another Newtown . . . Others contended that weapons would
make the students feel like criminals in a city where many need a reprieve from the presence
of guns.); Gura, supra note 121 (Several groups, including the National PTA, say no one
should have a gun at schooleven a trained police officer. Other groups argue there is no
evidence armed security at schools makes a difference.).
123 MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 71, 37H(c) (West 2014).
124 MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 71, 37H 3/4 (West 2014).
150 New England Law Review Vol. 51|1

advantage of these protections.125 These concerns are heightened due to the

fact that SRO presence in schools increases the criminalization of student
conduct.126 To prevent the escalation of adversarial relationships between
SROs and students, many educators and student advocacy groups have
encouraged parents to become more involved in the student discipline
process.127 Indeed, by including language in the SRO-MOU legislation that
requires SROs to present their roles and responsibilities at public forums
like school committee meetings,128 policy makers will strengthen the multi-
personal approach that ensures that students feel supported by and
accountable to the policies and procedures of their learning environment.129

VI. Current Resources to Inform Proposed Changes to the Massachusetts

MOU Legislation

A. The Model MOU Drafted by the Juvenile Advancement Project for

Issues Related to Parental and Student Complaints against SROs

The Juvenile Advancement Projects model MOU includes punishment

125 Massachusetts requires that every superintendent provide a student handbook to all

students in grades nine through twelve that details the school districts code of conduct,
which includes the procedures for handling disciplinary proceedings. See MASS. GEN LAWS ch.
71 37H (West 2014); KEEP KIDS IN CLASS: NEW APPROACHES TO SCHOOL DISCIPLINE 15 (Mass.
Appleseed Ctr. for Law and Justice ed., 2012), http://www.massappleseed.org/
pdfs/kkic_newapproaches.pdf [https://perma.cc/5L8E-3MCG]. Nevertheless, a student may
not feel like he or she has an autonomous role in the disciplinary process if the school
environment is unwelcoming or unclear about expectations for student behavior. See 37H,
supra; KEEP KIDS IN CLASS: NEW APPROACHES TO SCHOOL DISCIPLINE, supra (Disciplinary
practices are a strong indicator of school climate. Student perceptions of school rules and
enforcement contribute to a students assessment of the structure and predictability of the
school environment . . . . A supportive school culture also has been linked to lower incidents
of ostracized students lashing out either physically or through more passive ways and thus
becoming subject to disciplinary proceedings.).
126 See supra note 2 and accompanying text.

127 See COUNCIL OF STATE GOVTS, supra note 2, at 61; CANADY ET. AL., supra note 21, at 2930.

See generally WHEN MY CHILD IS DISCIPLINED AT SCHOOL: A GUIDE FOR MASSACHUSETTS

FAMILIES (Mass. Appleseed Ctr. for Law and Justice ed., 2d ed. 2015),
http://www.massappleseed.org/pdfs/parent_guide_school_discipline.pdf
[https://perma.cc/6JFP-DF78] (providing a procedural guide for parents to use if their children
are disciplined at school).
128 CTR. FOR THE STUDY AND PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE, IMPLEMENTING AN EFFECTIVE

SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER PROGRAM 2 (Inst. of Behavioral Scis. at Univ. of Colo. at Boulder
ed., 2009), http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/publications/factsheets/safeschools/FS-SC11.pdf
[https://perma.cc/A6X3-JMTY] (Parents are key players in the school community and should
also be the focus of relationship building by the SRO. The SRO should attend PTA meetings,
parent nights and conferences.).
129 COUNCIL OF STATE GOVTS, supra note 2, at 61.
2017 Reading, Writing, and Rethinking Discipline 151

for school employees who fail to follow protocol and unnecessarily involve
the police department in carrying out discipline.130 Corrective action for
school employees and police is carried out by a [s]takeholder group of
students, teachers, administrators, parents, and community leaders who
have access to school discipline data and can make recommendations to
the district superintendent and local chief of police about the language and
implementation of the MOU.131 Stakeholder groups will provide students,
the group most affected by how MOUs are put into practice, with an
opportunity to observe and comment on how SROs impact the learning
environment.132 For parents, this position may help to assuage concerns
about placing their children in a learning environment where law
enforcement is allowed to carry weapons.133
The Advancement Projects MOU also requires the police department
to provide a system by which parents and students can bring complaints
against SROs and will allow for independent investigation into the officers
conduct in a thorough and efficient manner.134 This provision gives parents
and students the opportunity to express their concerns about how schools
provide for a safe environment.135 The use of the term complaint system
suggests that individuals may use a mechanism other than the legal system
to demand fair treatment by police and educators in the schools.136 This
may be less frightening for parents who do not have experience with the
legal system due to linguistic or financial barriers and to students who may
have had previous experiences inside the school-to-prison pipeline. 137

B. Monitor the Development of Massachusetts Senate Bill 297

In January 2015, the Massachusetts Legislature put forth An Act

Further Defining the Role of School Resource Officers.138 The Act proposes
an amendment to Section 37P of Chapter 71, in Chapter 284 of the Acts of
2014 that would specify the following types of training that SRO

130 See generally Model Memorandum of Understanding between a School District and a Police of

Sheriffs Department, ADVANCEMENT PROJECT (June 8, 2015), https://juvjustice.org/sites/

default/files/ckfinder/files/Advancement%20Project%20Model%20MOU%20Between%20a%20
School%20District%20and%20Police%20Dept.pdf [https://perma.cc/3268-QWPH].
131 Id. at 2.
132 Id.
133 See id.

134 Id at 3.
135 Model Memorandum of Understanding between a School District and a Police of Sheriffs
Department, supra note 130.
136 Id. at 3.

137 See id. at 3 (requiring police departments to create complaint systems that allow parents

to anonymously lodge complaints in their native language).

138 S. 297, 189th Gen. Court (Mass. 2015).
152 New England Law Review Vol. 51|1

candidates can undertake in order to be given preferential selection

including: [in] child and adolescent development, de-escalation and
conflict resolution techniques with children and adolescents, behavioral
health disorders in children and adolescents, alternatives to arrest and
other juvenile justice diversion strategies and other behavioral threat
assessment methods.139 Additionally, the amendment requires that MOUs
have provisions detailing SRO responsibilities in four broad categories: (1)
the practice of traditional law enforcement, including arrest, citation, and
court referral when the school is faced with immediate threat of serious
harm; (2) the execution of the protocol for relying on mental health
professionals to address students emotional needs in emergency and non-
emergency situations; (3) the engagement in professional development
directly tied to child development and non-violent alternatives to behavior
modification, and (4) the facilitation of communication between the police
department and the superintendent concerning the collection and
reporting of discipline data.140 By considering how these responsibilities
complement those issues previously identified, the new statutory language
will provide greater clarity concerning the roles and responsibilities of
SROs in the school setting.141

CONCLUSION

By including more explicit language in state legislation regulating SRO

activities, students and staff will benefit from a more positive, learning-
centered school climate.142 This will require making SRO training
mandatory, which will in turn provide officers with alternative strategies
for de-escalating student behavior, and will most likely enable officers to
build trusting relationships with the students they serve.143 SROs should
also be the last resort for student discipline as this will encourage school
administrators to strengthen their in-school discipline policies. This may
require more professional development devoted to educating teachers
about creating stronger classroom culture and will ultimately force school
administrators to handle their own discipline policies.144 This policy is
consistent with a graduated discipline system that puts greater emphasis
on using school-based resources to make sure students are safe.145 Each

139 Id.
140 See id.
141 See generally Model Memorandum of Understanding between a School District and a Police of

Sheriffs Department, supra note 130.

142 See KEEP KIDS IN CLASS: NEW APPROACHES TO SCHOOL DISCIPLINE, supra note 125, at 4.
143 JOSEPH, supra note 112.
144 DAHLBERG ET AL., supra note 2, at 38.

145 See supra Part IV.

2017 Reading, Writing, and Rethinking Discipline 153

school may have a unique approach to using these resources, thereby

challenging the argument that a mandatory adoption of this system would
prevent municipalities from freely crafting their own education policy.146
Lastly, parental involvement in the discipline process complements these
changes to in-school discipline.147 MOUs can help SROs to bridge this gap
by requiring SROs to meet with parents as part of the discipline process.
This would increase transparency and student accountability by making
more adults involved in the discipline process and creating more trust
between police officers and the communities they serve.148 A revised
statute with these included provisions would create a policy that
extinguishes many of the barriers that have prevented students from
receiving consistent and safe access to education, which is unquestionably
what they deserve.

146 See supra Part V.

147 See supra Part V.
148 See supra Part V.B.