As the country reels from another school shooting, Arizona looks to expand controversial program

One criticism is that SROs may escalate conflicts rather than de-escalate them.

PUBLISHED SEP 6, 2024

Some students and parents feel that the presence of armed officers contributes to a climate of fear and intimidation.

Phoenix, Arizona: The tragic fatal shooting at Apalachee High School in Georgia has reignited the debate over what security measures schools should take to protect students and staff.

The 14-year-old Apalachee High School shooter surrendered to School Resource Officers (SROs) after the incident, which occurred just one day before Arizona State Superintendent of Education, Tom Horne, made a public statement advocating for an expansion of the SRO program in schools.

Horne emphasized the critical role SROs play in preventing further violence, noting that their swift action in Georgia potentially prevented additional casualties.

Senior Aisha Jackson (left) consoles her friend and classmate, Brooklyn Townsend, near a makeshift memorial at Apalachee High School on September 5, 2024 in Winder, Georgia. Two students and two teachers were shot and killed at the school on September 4, and a 14-year-old suspect, who is a student at the school, is in custody. (Photo by Jessica McGowan/Getty Images)

"This could have been much worse," Horne stated, underscoring the importance of having armed and trained officers on school campuses to handle such emergencies.

But the use of SROs is controversial. When it comes to the initiatives effectiveness in preventing violence, proponents argue that having armed, trained officers on campus enhances school safety by responding quickly to emergencies like shootings. However, critics question the effectiveness of SROs in actually stopping school violence. Studies suggest that while SROs may help manage incidents, they do not necessarily prevent them from occurring. There is also concern that SROs focus too much on law enforcement and not enough on building relationships with students to address the root causes of violence, such as mental health issues.

One of the most significant criticisms of SROs is their involvement in routine disciplinary actions. Critics argue that the presence of law enforcement in schools has resulted in increased arrests for minor infractions, such as disruptive behavior, that would normally be handled by school administrators. This disproportionate criminalization of student behavior, particularly among Black and Latino students, has raised concerns about racial profiling and discrimination.

Horne defended the program, noting that every school requesting an SRO would receive one.

Some educators and advocacy groups believe that resources spent on SROs would be better allocated toward mental health services, such as hiring more counselors and social workers. They argue that addressing students' mental health needs can prevent violence before it escalates to the point where law enforcement intervention is necessary. Critics of SRO programs point out that officers often lack the training to deal with students' emotional and psychological challenges, which counselors are more equipped to handle.

Another criticism is that SROs may escalate conflicts rather than de-escalate them. This is particularly concerning when SROs are not trained in conflict resolution or understanding the unique challenges faced by students in educational environments. Some students and parents feel that the presence of armed officers contributes to a climate of fear and intimidation, rather than safety.

The debate comes as Arizona expands its own SRO program, which will place officers in over 60 districts and charter schools across the state.

Horne defended the program, noting that every school requesting an SRO would receive one. His push for increased security comes amid growing concerns about school shootings nationwide, and the need for proactive measures to prevent tragedies like the one in Georgia.