Police in Charlottesville City Schools:
Community Recommendations

On March 27th, 2025, the Charlottesville City School Board voted 4-2 to return armed police officers to our schools–despite assurances from Board members that the decision would be deferred to October in the face of significant community opposition.

When the School Board removed School Resource Officers (SROs) in 2020, they cited evidence that SROs do not lead to better outcomes for day-to-day events or emergencies. School leadership worked with a committee of nearly forty stakeholders for over a year to develop an alternative safety model to replace SROs. No such care was taken on March 27. No data was presented to justify the return of armed police officers to our schools, and no effort was made to address the concerns raised by the teachers, staff, students, and parents who spoke out against SROs at the 2024 board meeting.

The use of SROs is a controversial policy that has been condemned by the ACLU. Studies show that the presence of police in schools results in increased arrests for minor offenses, particularly for students of color and students with disabilities. In Charlottesville, a 2014 study conducted while SROs were in schools found that Black students were almost six times more likely to be referred to the juvenile justice system than white students. Police in schools also increase chronic absenteeism, and contribute to the school-to-prison and school-to-deportation pipelines. 

In an increasingly hostile political environment, when Virginia police have been directed to cooperate with ICE and federal funding is precarious, the Board has chosen to pursue a dangerous, expensive, and ineffective policy without sufficient input from the Charlottesville community.

The Memorandum of Understanding between Charlottesville City Schools (CCS) and the Charlottesville Police Department (CPD) has been presented as a working document. In the spirit of revising this document, we propose that an acceptable MOU between CCS and CPD should address the following concerns expressed by parents:

1. Increase in cost and scale of SRO program: When SROs were discussed by the School Board in March, the proposed plan included two CPD officers. The plans circulated in August now state four officers will be employed as SROs throughout city schools. 
   Why was the number of SROs doubled between March and August? What is the specific logic for expanding the SRO program? What will the impact be on the city budget for doubling the number of SROs in schools? What specific problems necessitate such an increase in staffing? Has the School Board sufficiently explored alternatives to addressing these issues by hiring lower-cost unarmed employees, such as additional Care & Safety Assistants or counselors?
   Demand 1: The School Board should not accept an increase in the number of SROs without presenting compelling evidence justifying the need for this increase and the inadequacy of all available alternatives to meet this need.
   
   
2. Cooperation with ICE/DHS: Any acceptable arrangement between CCS and CPD should explicitly state in writing that SROs are not to participate in immigration enforcement or inquire into immigration status of students and their family members or associates. Beyond an agreement with CPD, Governor Youngkin’s Executive Order 47 deputizes select law enforcement and corrections officers to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on immigration enforcement. This means that students who are referred to the juvenile justice system by SROs will necessarily come into contact with corrections agents who are tasked with immigration enforcement. Thus any contact with SROs that involve students in the juvenile justice system necessarily exposes them to contact with ICE.
   How will CPD formalize its commitment not to enforce immigration laws or cooperate with ICE and DHS in the MOU? How will this commitment affect SROs’ decisions to refer students to the juvenile justice system? 
   Demand 2: Any MOU should explicitly state that CPD will not be involved in immigration enforcement in CCS. CPD should also state in writing how it plans to honor this agreement for juveniles referred to the criminal justice system.
   
   
3. Metrics, data collection, and disclosure: The MOU states that data will be collected and reported quarterly to the CCS Coordinator of Safety & Security regarding “daily SRO attendance, calls for assistance, incident reporting, educational activities with students, and all other activities in support of school safety and security.” Given documented evidence that Charlottesville SROs referred Black students to the justice system at six times the rate of white students when the SRO program was last in place–and district data indicating that 100% of suspensions and expulsions last year involved Black or Hispanic students–it is particularly important that evidence of disproportionate policing by SROs be collected and reported in a timely manner and taken into consideration in program evaluation. Additionally, studies show the presence of SROs can significantly increase chronic absenteeism over baseline, particularly for students with disabilities. CCS already has chronic absenteeism rates above 25%, making any risk of rising absenteeism deeply concerning. CCS should also collect disaggregated data on absences after implementation of the SRO program.
   What are the specific metrics involved in evaluating the success of the program? What performance categories do they address? Do these metrics gauge both positive and negative impacts on students and the community? Have teachers, parents, students, and community members had sufficient opportunity to inform the categories measured and the metrics assigned to evaluate performance?
   Who will collect data to evaluate SRO performance and impact? Will the data be disaggregated by race and ethnicity to enable identification and critical assessment of disproportionate policing affecting vulnerable students? Will data allow us to measure the impact of SROs on absenteeism, graduation rates, and feelings of safety among students? 
   How will the data be disclosed and what role will it play in oversight of the SRO program? Will quarterly data be reported to any parties outside the CCS Coordinator of Safety & Security (e.g., Superintendent, School Board, school principals)? Will teachers, students, parents, and members of the public be able to access data from the quarterly reports?
   Demand 3a: Community members should be given the opportunity to ensure the metrics developed to evaluate SROs enable the collection of sufficiently granular data to demonstrate where SROs are succeeding or failing so the MOU can be modified or cancelled.
   Demand 3b: Data on race and ethnicity should be collected in order to measure whether SROs continue to disproportionately police students. Evidence of disproportionate policing should be considered compelling grounds for discontinuing SROs in CCS.
   Demand 3c: Data collected on SROs should be reported to CCS administrators and School Board members quarterly, and should be made available for public review immediately upon release.
   
   
4. Enforcement and termination of the SRO program: While the MOU states the program may “be terminated or paused if CCS and CPD are not able to identify mutually approved candidates to serve as SROs”, the formal procedure for enacting this termination has not been disclosed. There is also no information on how the district will enforce the MOU–which is not a legally binding document–or respond to inappropriate behavior by SROs.
   What is the exact procedure CCS and CPD will follow to terminate the SRO program? What is the timeline for winding down the SRO program in the event it is terminated? Are there certain events or conditions that will trigger a necessary review or immediate cancellation of the SRO program?
   Demand 4: The exact procedure and conditions for terminating the SRO agreement should be included in the MOU.
   
   
5. Enforcement and oversight: The MOU cedes significant enforcement and oversight powers regarding hiring, training, daily operations, and extraordinary interventions to CPD. Specifically, the MOU states “SROs operate by their own department's policies and state law regarding when to resort to physical intervention and use of force,” and that the “identification, selection, assignment, scheduling, training, supervision, and evaluation of school resource officers (SROs) will be the responsibility of CPD.” There is no specific language describing how and when an SRO should intervene in student behavior. An alternative model for SROs that grants more expansive enforcement powers and greater oversight over SRO conduct has been developed by NYCLU. The guardrails incorporated into this MOU–including language that prevents officers from intervening in normal childhood behaviors and strictly controls the use of force–are more accountable to the concerns parents share over safety and security, and should be considered as an alternative model for the MOU between CCS and CPD.
   Why does CPD oversee all major enforcement and oversight functions, rather than CCS? Were alternative models that impose greater constraints considered? If so, why were they not adopted? 
   How will the MOU be enforced, outside of termination? Is termination of the MOU the only possible response from CCS in the case of inappropriate behavior from an SRO? If an officer acts outside the bounds of the MOU–with inappropriate force, legal action, or escalation of a situation–how can CCS students, staff, or parents respond? Does a principal have the right to request the removal or reassignment of any SRO?
   The MOU gives CPD full power to decide what officers will be selected to be SROs; how will CPD select, train and evaluate these officers? Will there be transparency if the officers have any prior complaints for excessive force or other violations of the general orders of CPD? Why doesn't the MOU allow for CCS to have input into who the SROs will be? Why doesn't it specify when SROs are and are not allowed to intervene in student behavior? Will SROs follow protocol for body-worn camera (BWC) usage, given that the CPD general order states that "Officers shall activate the “record” function of the BWC when engaged in law enforcement activity"? Are SROs involved in law enforcement activity anytime they are in a school? 
   Demand 5a: The MOU between CCS and CPD should be revised to align with best practices articulated in the NYCLU’s model MOU, including more specific strictures on police intervention.
   Demand 5b: The procedures by which CCS will enforce the MOU should be described, including the ability for CCS staff to request the removal of an SRO.
   Demand 5c: The hiring, training, and intervention procedures used by CPD for SROs shall include the input of CCS and will be fully transparent, including disclosures of any internal complaints of excessive force against any involved officers. The procedures governing the use of BWC will be clearly defined and allow time for appropriate community input.
   
   
6. Presence of weapons: Evidence suggests that the presence of armed officers does not effectively prevent or reduce school shootings, and may even increase their likelihood. According to the working group’s (limited) survey of staff and students, 50% of their sample didn’t want guns on campus. If they intend to work collaboratively with the school district in a way that minimizes the potential distress to students, the CPD must be willing to alter their firearms policy for SROs.
   Why do SROs require firearms on campus? What specific events have occurred at CHS or the middle school that would have been improved or prevented through the presence of a firearm? Has the Board and CPD considered assigning officers with less-lethal alternatives to firearms?
   Demand 6: The MOU must specifically prohibit SROs from routinely carrying firearms on our campuses.
   
   
7. Safety for students with special needs: Across every metric, people with disabilities are at the highest risk for police violence and are the likeliest to suffer negative effects from the presence of SROs. A 2018 study found that students with disabilities were four times likelier to be arrested in school, and a 2021 study found higher rates of absenteeism and expulsion. The MOU states that CCS staff will “provide guidance” to SROs regarding appropriate discipline for students with IEPs, but mandates no specific training, protocol, or enforcement measures. 
   How does the current plan ensure safety for students with disabilities? Are there any special trainings mandated by the district, or is this decision solely left to the discretion of CPD? What specific strictures does the MOU place on police behavior with students with disabilities, beyond staff guidance?
   What recourse will students, staff, or parents have in the case of an inappropriate police response? Are there any actual strictures on police behavior toward differently abled students? Will SROs be trained in MANDT, the restraint protocol teachers use throughout CCS?
   Demand 7a: The MOU must mandate specific PBIS training for SROs related to youth with disabilities.
   Demand 7b: The MOU must describe specific strictures on police contact with disabled and neurodivergent students, including limitations on the use of force and legal action. It should specifically mandate use of MANDT protocol for the restraint of students.
   
   
8. Comprehensive and sincere community involvement: Throughout this process, parents, teachers, students, and staff have been asking for our voices to be heard. So far, the district has relied on anecdotal reports of community opinion and limited surveys. There has been no general survey of parents, students, or teachers; there were no parents, students, or teachers on the working group that developed this MOU. The Let’s Talk About It event on August 26th, 2025 is the only public-facing event to discuss this highly controversial policy, and it occurs long after the vote to adopt the model.
   Why has the board failed to involve the school community in this decision? How do they plan to incorporate the feedback received at the August 26th event? Will parents, students, or teachers be involved in the revision of this MOU? Why did the redistricting plan–a far less controversial policy–involve so much more community outreach than the plan to reinstate SROs and develop a MOU?
   Demand 8: The Board should present a clear plan for the collection and inclusion of community feedback, including a school-wide survey about the return of SROs and additional public events. The revised MOU should reflect a good faith effort to address community concerns and should directly address evidence-based criticisms of SROS and alternative models community members have proposed.
   
   
9. Transparency of decision-making: The School Board voted on March 27, 2025 to reinstate SROs despite Board Chair Dooley’s assurances in direct communications with several parents that a vote on the program would be delayed until October. This maneuver by the School Board undermines the legitimacy of the vote on SROs as a transparent and democratically accountable process. Additionally, the vote to reinstate SROs was conducted before a MOU had been drafted, without clarity on the process–for instance, several Board members stated they voted with the assumption that there would be an additional vote to adopt the MOU. A legitimate democratic process would require the Board to request that the MOU be presented to the Board for action, as described in the Board Policy Manual (BFC Policy Adoption and CH Policy Implementation).
   What was the rationale for voting to reinstate SROs before a MOU specifying relations between CCS and CPD had been drafted? Did the School Board’s decision reflect careful consideration of all available data and alternatives? Why were efforts to solicit public feedback through town halls delayed until after the vote?
   Having now sought community feedback, how will the Board incorporate this response? Without the power to vote on the final MOU, the Board cedes its ability to meaningfully respond to community feedback.
   Demand 9: After developing a MOU that incorporates feedback from concerned members of the public, the Board should request the MOU be presented for action, in accordance with Board policy.

Signed,

Natalie Aviles
Alix Heintzman
Sarah Gottlieb
George Adams