Here's what's being said on a similar forum in our sister paper, the Prior Lake American....

NO. As a senior at PriorSubmitted by Callie Chamberlain on February 16, 2007 - 12:07am.

NO. As a senior at Prior Lake High School, I can honestly tell you that there is no need for an in-house cop. School administrators conduct drug searches in our cars and lockers. Teachers break up lunchroom fights and supervisors write out parking warnings. I feel that having an officer in the school blows small issues into much larger ones. A two second brawl in the hallway results in a trip to visit Mr. Officer. Oh, and an assult charge. Is that reasonable? Is this the sort of punishment that would have been received at a school without a cop? Or are school officials handing off these instances to the officer just to give him something to do? Prior Lake has little gang activity. Almost no issues that include violence or weapons. Very small amounts of drug activity. I don't understand the purpose for funding an officer when my German Four class was almost cut this year.

» login or register to post commentsRead the story in the SavageSubmitted by Nancy Huddleston on February 16, 2007 - 11:31am.

Read the story in the Savage Pacer before you pass judgment so quickly! The city of Savage is suggesting a partnership arrangement whereby the school districts pay one-third and the city pays two-thirds!

Let me ask this -- do you feel safe in your German Four class? Safety isn't something that can be seen as you walk around your school, rather it is something that is there like an invisible layer of protection. Or maybe you would prefer the type of protection you can see -- such as metal detectors at the doorways? Officer Klapperick and members of the Savage Police Department do more than you think. What you are seeing from a student's perspective is a very small part of the SRO role in your school.

» login or register to post commentsWhen asking an opinion ISubmitted by Blastomy on February 18, 2007 - 10:59pm.

When asking an opinion I believe it's ok to give your gut feeling there nanc. Did you have police presence when you were in highschool? I didn't and I can tell you it didn't make our school any more at risk for violence and filled with drugs.

Prior Lake, Savage, Lakeville and all the other surrounding city's are pretty small now, but growing quickly. There may not be a huge drug problem now; give it 5 more years, the whole south is booming. I do believe we should start looking into these kind of things and start getting the plan together. Police presence right now? No we don't need it, In the future perhaps, depends on if parents wake up and start parenting themselves or if they continue on this track of letting the government do it for them.

» login or register to post commentsDuring my first two years ofSubmitted by Shawn Hogendorf on February 19, 2007 - 2:56pm.

During my first two years of high school at Henry Sibley High School we didn’t have a SRO on duty. The last two years I was there we did.

As Callie mentioned, as a student you don’t see a lot of need for an in-house officer. It can be intimidating and seem unnecessary, but I have to agree with Nancy, the SRO does a lot of things students don’t see.

I know Sibley’s SRO, Officer Weber, related to a lot of trouble makers on different levels than counselors and teachers could.

He didn’t put them in detention; he got to the source of their problems and issues.

He didn’t punish them; he educated them about the impacts their decisions could have on their future, if they continued down that path.

He wasn’t always there to “bust” them. He gave them perspective, insight and guidance. He helped them make better decisions.

He could give real life experience.

He could speak frankly with students about things that teachers and counselors don’t have time to talk about.

He was the eyes and ears of the hallways. He knew the family backgrounds of some of the troubled kids, so he knew why they were acting out.

If students saw things they didn’t like, many of them felt comfortable talking with him about it. He didn’t give grades, he helped people out. He talked with kids about rehab and where drug use and abuse could lead.

He was trustworthy to students who were scared, and scary to students who caused problems. Trouble makers may have disrespected teachers, but they always showed the SRO respect.

We had some gang activity when I was at school. On several occasions, Weber talked kids from neighboring high schools who came to start a huge fight down. If the violence started, the police were already there to document it. I never saw violence in the lunchroom when Weber was around. But it was frequent when he wasn’t there.

These things may not be big issues at PLHS yet, but as a community grows, so does the potential for problems. It is important to have the SRO in place before things get out of control. Prevention is always better than reaction.

I didn’t see nearly as much drug trafficking when Weber would have his K-9 in the school building and parking lot as we had before he was there.

A funding partnership between the school district and the city is important. If a school would rather have an officer on duty than metal detectors at the doorway, they should help pay for police presence.

On the other hand, it is a duty of the city to provide protection for students at school, so they should financially help the school provide security for students.

I wouldn’t want to see academic opportunities compromised for protection.

It is important to feel safe at school, but it is equally important to receive the best education possible. Securing the entrances, checking visitors at the doors and monitoring the hallways are all important safety measures. Having an on-duty officer reinforces these procedures.

I disagree with Blastomy’s statement about not needing police presence now. I think drugs and violence are big issues in schools. If the SRO deters one fight, keeps drugs out of the classrooms and provides insight into larger problems in the community to students and staff, the presence of a SRO is worthwhile. The SRO may not be necessary for security right now, but it is necessary for drug and violence education among the other things the SRO is responsible for doing.  

The SRO helps build a healthy relationship between students and police. Should a small lunchroom fight be charged as an assault? Probably not, but teachers shouldn’t be put in the position to break-up a fight either. Yes parents should parent, but there are a lot of students at PLHS, with a lot of different backgrounds, therefore as much as it is on parents to teach their kids, many things are out of their control when they send their child to a school of about 2,200 students.  

» login or register to post commentsWell, Blastomy, I graduatedSubmitted by Nancy Huddleston on February 20, 2007 - 6:47am.

Well, Blastomy, I graduated HS in 1977 -- so 30 years ago there was no need. It was a whole different world. Nowadays, its a different story. Drugs and fights are only a small part of the problem -- the bigger ones manifest themselves in things such as Columbine. Could an SRO have prevented Columbine -- no way! However, having the police presence likely helped. As well, since then, schools have been mandated to have 5 safety drills per year that deal with a hostile situation occuring. The SRO plans and coordinates all of that, as well as giving teachers and staff instruction on what to do.

Like I said in my first entry -- I hope all the kids at PLHS feel safe -- they deserve to. However, safety has a price and paying the salary of an SRO to have a presence in the school is a small one to pay -- especially in this day and age.