On Safety in Seattle Public High Schools (Updated)

Update:

My thoughts on this discussion. 

1) I don't know the right answer but I do know that Superintendent Podesta is right - there will not be 100% buy-in either way for a police officer at any SPS high school.

2) I believe Ted Howard that SPS is doing a different way of training these officers. One that is about calming a situation and not gut-reacting to it. One that is student-centered. And that, unless it's an emergency, police officers will not get involved with discipline. 

3) Maybe Garfield is not the right school to try a pilot program even though that's where a murder occurred. I wonder if people against a police officer there might try to derail it. 

4) This Safety program has multiple layers. To say all the district is offering is a cop at a school is not true. Maybe they should try all the other layers before bringing in an officer. 

I do not see anyone being backed into a corner or that it's a foregone conclusion. The Board can say okay to everything BUT a cop. 

5) The district is drafting an MOU with SPD; that's part of their job in consideration of this idea. It doesn't mean it's a done deal.

6) Rankin said, "It would be worthwhile to revisit the moratorium are there things that need to be resolved noted in that document." 

Where the hell was this thought a year ago? There was NOTHING stopping the Board from revisiting that moratorium in advance of a new safety program. There was nothing stopping Rankin from bringing it up. She did not indicate at this meeting that she ever did.

What's interesting is that the moratorium takes what SOFG would say is a superintendent decision and gives it to the Board. Hmmm 

7) This is the second meeting where Sarju alludes to some decision made in the shadows. She's very good at pot-stirring with no evidence. And "I'm not accusing anyone of doing anything" means little. You are saying things are happening behind the scenes; what is your proof?

She's on the Board! NOTHING will happen if the Board doesn't vote on it. Not for a superintendent, not for a safety program. 

8) Also, if any Board director feels backed into a corner, then quit allowing Intro/Action items on the Board meeting agenda. 

Quit voting for items en masse and pull things off the Consent Agenda to be discussed. 

Quit coming to work sessions unprepared (the number of times that Sarju and Briggs seem confused about what is being discussed is large as compared to the other directors).  

end of update

 

 

A Safety Presentation was presented to the Board last night. The PowerPoint link is in the agenda. Ted Howard appears to be the lead.

Superintendent Podesta noted a new hire (this happened last October. 

Seattle Public Schools (SPS) has selected José Curiel Morelos who will lead the district’s Safety and Security Department as executive director. 

He will oversee efforts to ensure the safety of students, staff, and campuses under Superintendent Brent Jones’ School Safety and Gun Violence Prevention Initiative, coordinating with district departments and working with partners such as Seattle Police and Fire departments.  

“My vision [for Seattle Public Schools] is to create a space where everyone feels protected, respected, and empowered to thrive, regardless of their background or identity,” said Curiel Morelos. “My goal in the first six months [in this role] is to assess the safety and security protocols across all Seattle Public School buildings, implement necessary improvements, and provide training to relevant staff members. This action will ensure we are fully prepared to respond effectively to emergencies.” 

There is a draft MOU between SPD and SPS. 

I will say that I have not seen any majority evidence - either way - that school populations do or don't want SROs. From what I have read, the students were asked but not enough answered to make it valid. I have seen nothing about what teachers and staff want. 

And, will this decision be made for all comprehensive high schools or does each get to decide? 

In the Safety presentation, it looks like the SROs will not be wearing police uniforms. 

Plus 9 schools with have new "Verkada"  visitor management system when schools reopen. An exclusion list of people who are not allowed in SPS buildings will be linked.

There will be a new tipline - 206-222-HELP that will be live on the first day of school. 

Staff will have panic buttons.  

Also "initial exploration of weapons detection pillar systems" aka metal detectors. They are less bulky looking from the photo. No one has to open any bag. 

From the presentation:

Next Steps
• Work with SPD to incorporate feedback into draft
Memorandum of Understanding
• Convene follow-up meeting with Garfield Community On-line Tuesday, September 9th at 6:30pm
• Board discussion and possible vote September 17 

The discussion starts about 1:53:00 into the YouTube video. 

 

Discussion Highlights

Sarju

Are we asking for ID before you get a visitor badge? 

Not facial recognition so you walk in and sign in. If staff doesn't recognize you, you'll be asked for ID. Likely you will need to check out as well so they know who is in the building.

Rankin

What protections for undocumented parents and info not shared?

Not tracking any data so just presenting ID for confirmation, nothing is going into the system.

Seems like a lot happening at once, whatever ever we can do to track what is working and what isn't? Do other districts use metal detectors?

Newer technology is easy to move and it may be random/selective. 

Mizrahi

Also concerned about showing ID.  Asked about data points around safety; weapons, fights, etc.

 

Then Ted Howard spoke about his expertise in leading a high school with an SRO for 12 years (but he was principal for 17 years).

They had a meeting on July 17th to discuss the issue.  

He stressed transparency and "center what is working." 

Still working on the MOU. 

Who picks the officer?  He said that will be a joint decision.  

Officers will not be directly involved in discipline unless life-threatening. 

This pilot is not just about one role at Garfield. It's a test of how SPS defines safety across all schools in alignment with our guardrails. If we can co-create a model where safety means belonging, healing and accountability to students and families then Garfield becomes the blueprint for the district. 

He lamented students feeling that they need to carry something to feel safe. 

 

Discussion

Topp

What is vote on September 17th? A very difficult decision for me.

Podesta 

It's the Board letting the superintendent make decisions about the deployment of school engagement officers. And it's a draft policy that's for a year at a time. Is it a pilot for one school? Probably. Our intent would be to move at this pace with SPD and only works when welcome and accepted.  

Mizrahi

Any engagement beyond Garfield?

Podesta

Policy requires engagement for each school. But especially Garfield which is in a really difficult place now. It's a localized system.

Mizrahi

Changing a policy for whole system while engaging with one school but I hear you saying it's one school at a time for both state law and policy. 

Podesta

Does the Board want to weigh in each time? Won't do policy without you seeing what it looks like that.

Briggs

I'm struggling with, there is unanimous agreement about safety concerns but also we need to be proactive, than reactive.  It feels like the community isn't getting all the options on the table. Feels like solution is predetermined and more like convincing people, compelling people to get onboard with this plan. 

We've heard from groups who will feel safer and those who won't feel safer. Conversations feel "leading."

Podesta

We need to do all of it - mental health, violence interrupters, etc. and have heard community wants all of that. This is just one thing among many. No point in doing over objections but we also know we won't get 100% buy-in. 

Howard

PTSA and Garfield staff brought this forward, not Central Office. No students at Garfield now have ever had an SRO in the building so they don't know what it felt like but staff does. It's alarming to me to hear that because they cannot have had that experience at Garfield. 

He emphasized the deep training that officers will have to take (as well as SPS security officers). 

Hersey 

As one of the two board members who was here when we first implemented this policy, I can say with like full confidence that we moved very quickly. Do I regret what we did? Absolutely not. 

He mentioned a sense of urgency but there were Black parents who said, please don't do this, removing SEOs at Garfield. He said from conversations he has had from parents, staff and students at Garfield, there is a desire for some type of support specifically from SPD. 

Process needs to be walked as slowly as possible. We need to do something at Garfield but that does NOT mean it is something for every building. He said many families and students don't seem to know what SROs do.

Clark

Appreciated Hersey's remarks. As Garfield alum, it really resonates with me. Our safety policy has to move forward being responsive to community. 

I am so torn myself. 

Sarju

I agree wholeheartedly with everything that Director Briggs said. But also Hersey (if I could remember everything he said.)

I'm not conflicted by this and what this feels like and I'm saying I'm not accusing anybody of anything.  Talked about process "developed and baked" that may or may not be true but "it feels like it."

Feels like the well-resource schools argument where it was a total setup of backing into the corner and because of that we did a disservice to the students. 

It seems like Dr. Hart decided he needed a police officer in the school but I support this pilot. But I won't be backed into a corner to overturn the moratorium. She emphasized that it FELT like that.  Said Dr. Hart could do the pilot. She doesn't seem to know why they are engaging unless "it's to open the floodgates." She said they haven't done the work and should hire a professional to do the research.

Hersey

Said a police officer cannot NOT carry a weapon. On-duty officers must carry firearms. 

Podesta

But we are talking about School Resource Officers and the policy would need to be changed.  It's worth trying.

Rankin

Plus one for Hersey as second board director who took this vote. She said she asked Jones about a moratorium on police officers in SPS. 

She said it looks like a solution in search of a problem. But it would be just a year at Garfield to try.  

You are now superintendent number three and when we made moratorium and no one was in buildings at this time. It would be worthwhile to revisit the moratorium are there things that need to be resolved noted in that document.  

Briggs 

I'm confused where the moratorium resides; it's not a resolution.  

Podesta

That reference in the policy has made it part of the policy. We are trying to get to yes, SROs are a thing but happy to narrow the scope of that.  

Mizrahi 

If we are asked to take action, will we see the MOU before the vote on September 17th? 

Podesta

I can foresee limiting that vote to a single circumstance with flexibility. He said they shared the draft MOU with the Garfield community.