December 17, 2015
Delivered via public_comment@tcole.texas.gov
Mr. Kim Vickers
Texas Commission on Law Enforcement
6330 East Highway 290, Suite 200
Austin, TX 78723
RE:

School-Based Law Enforcement Training Draft, December 2015

Dear Commissioners and Director Vickers:
We write regarding the School-Based Law Enforcement Training Draft released by the
Texas Commission on Law Enforcement (TCOLE) pursuant to the requirements of the 2015
legislative session’s HB 2684.
We commend TCOLE on developing this training, which is critically important to ensure
that officers in schools are adequately prepared to address the unique challenges of schoolbased policing. HB 2684 was passed to ensure that “officers have all of the tools they need to
appropriately and effectively interact with students” and that Texan children have “a healthy
and safe environment for their education.”1 We are happy to see the first iteration of the
training ready for public comment.
However, we have strong concerns that the training does not meet the intentions of HB
2684, in that it has minimal practical application and skill development for the officers who will
receive the training. Because this is the first time that advocates have been permitted to

engage in the curriculum’s development, our comments are wide-ranging. We had hoped to
be involved in the drafting process so that we could offer these points for discussion prior to
the training’s release date. Because the number of people involved in drafting was so limited,
we recommend that TCOLE submit the proposed training to subject-matter experts for
review. We are happy to provide recommendations of experts with whom TCOLE can
collaborate.
In the meantime, we recommend that TCOLE reformulate the training along four
major lines: structuring the training more clearly around the roles and responsibilities of
school-based law enforcement officers; refocusing the training on practical application of the
principles presented; incorporating more structured discussion and role-play opportunities;
and addressing substantive issues and omissions in the training.
1. Training should clearly define the roles and responsibilities of school-based law
enforcement officers in the school community and explain how the principles
articulated intersect with those roles and responsibilities.
The training should more clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the officer in
the school community and connect those roles to each of the topics that the training covers.
As the training stands, the discussion of the role of the officer is limited to two pages (pages

1

Press Release, Rep. Helen Giddings, Giddings Passes School Resource Officer Training Bill out of Texas House (May
20, 2015), http://www.house.state.tx.us/news/member/press-releases/?id=5601.

1

 120–21), which encourage the officer to meet with school administration to discuss “roles and
expectations” and meet with faculty and parents to develop positive working relationships with the whole
school community.
This is inadequate to prepare officers for their work in schools. As recently as October of this year,
the Department of Justice emphasized that “SROs and law enforcement agencies need to ensure that
their responsibilities in the school setting are clearly delineated.”2 There must be limits to officer
involvement in schools—for example, officers should never address minor classroom misbehaviors that
do not threaten the safety of staff or students in the school. While the proposed training covers a range
of substantive information, it is important to also remind school-based law enforcement officers that their
new knowledge and training does not mean that they are expected to intervene in situations that should
be handled by educators, counselors, special education professionals, or mental health providers. By
framing training around the very specific safety role that law enforcement officers should play in schools,3
trainers can structure specific lesson content to clearly connect the officer’s roles and responsibilities with
the five substantive areas covered in the curriculum.
For example, the training provides in-depth information on bullying, its effect on victims, and
appropriate strategies for intervention. However, the training is unclear whether the strategies discussed
are within the officer’s role, or whether those strategies are administration strategies about which the
officer should be aware. Other trainings throughout the country provide models for more precise and
defined training on interventions; for example, the Department of Justice’s guide for law enforcement on
Preventing and Addressing Bullying and Intolerance provides step-by-step instruction on responding to a
child who has been bullied and coaching students on refusal skills.4 The guide also provides explicit
suggestions about ways that officers can support schools in addressing and responding to bullying.5 By
more clearly defining the practical application of interventions and the role of the officer in those
interventions, the training provides more practical value to officers in schools.
2. Training should focus on practical application.
The training should focus more heavily on practical application and provide officers with the skills
and tools they need to interact with youth. The training provides significant detail about general principles
concerning (1) child and adolescent development and psychology; (2) positive behavioral interventions
and supports, conflict resolution techniques, and restorative justice techniques; (3) de-escalation
techniques and techniques for limiting use of force; (4) mental and behavioral health needs of children
with disabilities or special needs; and (5) mental health crisis intervention. However, it provides very little
practical application of those principles to officer-student interactions. In an effort to make the training
more useful for officers in schools, we ask TCOLE to revise the training to focus more on the practical
application of principles and how officers can apply their knowledge appropriately.

2

Statement of Interest of the United States at 14, S.R. v. Kenton Cnty., No. 2:15-CV-143 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 2, 2015).
COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVS., DEP’T JUST., POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION AND JUSTICE
RECENTLY RELEASED SCHOOL DISCIPLINE GUIDANCE PACKAGE ON LAW ENFORCEMENT 3 (2014), http://ric-zaiinc.com/Publications/cops-w0736-pub.pdf (“[S]chools choosing to use school-based law enforcement officers
should carefully ensure that law enforcement’s role is focused on protecting the physical safety of the school or
preventing criminal conduct and not on routine school disciplinary matters.”).
4
BECKI COHN-VARGAS, PREVENTING AND ADDRESSING BULLYING AND INTOLERANCE 11–19 (2015), http://ric-zaiinc.com/Publications/cops-p334-pub.pdf.
5
Id. at 19.
3

2

 3. Training should incorporate more explicit guidance on discussion and role-play.
The training abstract indicates that instruction will be composed of three parts: lecture, group
discussion, and scenarios and role-play. Although the lecture material is substantial, discussion and roleplay are inconsistently incorporated into the training. For example, Sections 1 and 2 offer discussion topics
very sparingly (pages 9, 24, 36, 50, 67, 82–83, and 91). Those discussions are limited to discussions of
videos, and the training provides no outline of the subjects to cover or the goals of those discussions.
Section 3 offers more directed discussion questions integrated into the lecture material, but only offers
two activities/role-play scenarios. By integrating more specific guidance and goals for discussion, as well
as additional activities and role-play scripts into the curriculum, TCOLE can ensure that the curriculum
accomplishes its intended objectives.
4. Training should address substantive issues and omissions, including those concerning
racial/ethnic bias, special education, and mental health.
Finally, TCOLE should address substantive issues and omissions in the training as proposed by
submitting the training to subject-matter experts for review. A few, nonexclusive examples of substantive
issues and omissions include:
 Use of Force: At present, the training’s discussion of use-of-force is limited to the use of restraints and
de-escalation techniques for each phase of a severe behavior cycle. It lacks any specific discussion
about the full range of use of force options in the school context, when those options are appropriate,
and how interacting with a student with a developmental or mental disability affects the use of force
spectrum. The current use of force section is inadequate to train officers effectively about use of force
in schools. The omission is glaring, given that HB 2684 was passed in part to respond to excessive force
incidents in schools in Texas and across the country.6
 Racial/Ethnic Bias Training: As the training stands, it lacks specific instruction on cultural competency
in the context of race and ethnicity, as well as training on racial and ethnic bias. Such training is critical
in light of data demonstrating that minority students are continually overrepresented in court
referrals and arrests on school campuses across the state.7 Officers should receive training on
recognizing and overcoming explicit and implicit racial and ethnic bias in an effort to better inform
their actions with students and address the racial and ethnic disproportionalities in law enforcement
contact.8
 Special Education Training: At present, the training acknowledges that a student’s Individualized
Education Program (IEP) should dictate appropriate discipline (page 120), but it stops there. It also
fails to connect the mental health and disabilities that it discusses to lessons about knowing violations
of school rules (page 120). Both areas of instruction are critical to an officer’s work within the school
community, given that special education students are overrepresented in contact with law
enforcement on school campuses.9 Additional training on how IEPs dictate school discipline and
interactions with law enforcement will help officers avoid violations of the Individuals with Disabilities
6

Press Release, supra note 1.
See, e.g., Hearing: Ending the School to Prison Pipeline Before the S. Judiciary Comm., 2011 Leg., 81st Sess. (Tex.
2012) (statement of Texas Appleseed), https://www.texasappleseed.org/sites/default/files/157-STPPTexasAppleseedTestimony.pdf.
8
COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVS., supra note 3, at 4 (training should include instruction on “bias-free policing
(including implicit or unconscious bias and cultural competence)”).
9
Statement of Interest of the United States, supra note 2 at 12; COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVS., supra note 3,
at 2.
7

3

 



Education Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and other federal and state law. Training on the
intersection between mental health and disabilities and knowing violations of school rules will ensure
that officers approach interactions with students with disabilities successfully. Moreover, these
changes will align the training with the Department of Justice’s October statement on the appropriate
scope of officer training as related to students with disabilities.10
Mental Health Training: The training provides extensive information about a wide array of
developmental disorders and mental health disabilities. To our knowledge, these topics will be taught
by a trainer without a professional background in counseling or therapy. Because of the complexities
of developmental disorders and mental health disabilities, a less clinical approach to addressing
mental health and developmental disorders will avoid risks of misinformation and better equip
officers to understand their role in interacting with students with developmental disorders and mental
health disabilities. So long as the training prepares the officer to distinguish between behaviors that
pose a real risk from behaviors that do not and to identify and use proper de-escalation techniques
for the circumstances, the training will adequately prepare officers for interacting with students with
developmental disorders and mental health disabilities.
Lack of Focus on Middle and High School Students: The training’s sections on child and adolescent
development and psychology focus heavily on infancy and early childhood. For example, the section
on aggression (pages 38 through 40) address aggression only in children ages one to nine. Additional
materials focused on adolescent development are necessary to fully prepare officers for interactions
with middle and high school students.

By addressing these concerns, the proposed training will provide more practical value to officers through
instruction aligning with best practices. We are happy to discuss our recommendations further and to
provide suggestions for subject-matter experts to review the substantive portions of the training. Please
do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
American Civil Liberties Union of Texas   www.aclutx.org
Contact: 512-478-7300 x114
Texas Appleseed   www.texasappleseed.org
Contact: 512-473-2800
Texans Care for Children   www.txchildren.org
Contact: 512-473-2274
Children’s Defense Fund—Texas   www.cdftexas.org
10

Id. at 15 (“It is particularly important that SROs be trained to recognize and respond appropriately to youth
behavior that may be a manifestation of disability. Indeed, appropriate training can help law enforcement agencies
avoid interactions that violate children’s rights under federal and civil rights laws, including the ADA.
Discriminatory treatment, such as arrests for disability-related behavior that law enforcement officers may
perceive as criminal, can be avoided by proper training.’ While law enforcement officers are charged with
addressing risks to safety when they arise, to comply with the ADA, it is critical that officers receive training to
‘distinguish behaviors that pose a real risk from behaviors that do not.’ Appropriate training is often essential to
ensuring that law enforcement officers’ conduct comports with the ADA’s requirement that public agencies make
reasonable modifications to policies, programs, and procedures when necessary to avoid disability-based
discrimination.”).

4

 Coalition of Texans with Disabilities   www.txdisabilities.org
Disability Rights Texas   www.disabilityrightstx.org
Grassroots Leadership   www.grassrootsleadership.org
Mental Health America Texas   www.mhatexas.org
Mexican American Legal Defense Fund   www.maldef.org
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) Texas   www.namitexas.org
National Association of Social Workers – Texas Chapter   www.naswtx.org
Texas Civil Rights Project   www.TexasCivilRightsProject.org
Texas Criminal Justice Coalition   www.texascjc.org
Texas Organizing Project   www.organizetexas.org
The Arc of Texas   www.thearcoftexas.org

5