Schools Chief Pleased by Security Upgrades
Gloucester Township's interim schools superintendent applauds police plan, predicts more security upgrades.
Photos
Gloucester Township Police Department announced last week it has bolstered security in and around the township's 11 kindergarten through eighth-grade schools.
The Police Department's Juvenile Unit has been expanded from four officers to eight, including a sergeant who will serve as unit commander and direct all school- and juvenile-related activities, in order to implement the school security enhancement, according to Police Chief W. Harry Earle.
John Bilodeau, interim superintendent of Gloucester Township Public Schools (GTPS), this week applauded the plan, which will not put an armed officer in each of the district's 11 school buildings—eight K-5 schools and three middle schools—at all times, but nonetheless brings an increased police presence.
"I think it's a significant commitment by all parties here in town. Obviously, we are one of them," he said. "I really want to compliment the chief and the mayor (David Mayer) and really the board. I think some of the events this year—Superstorm Sandy, certainly the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy—have gotten these entities that may have been in the past a bit more separate speaking a little bit more. I think security is really now a community issue."
In addition to the four new officers added to the Juvenile Unit, Earle noted the Police Department already had two full-time D.A.R.E. officers dedicated to the three middle schools and a school resource officer assigned full-time to both Black Horse Pike Regional School District high schools in the township—Highland and Timber Creek.
"This is not the end of school security. Obviously, I think this is just a beginning, or certainly a rekindling," Bilodeau said.
The superintendent has asked GTPS Board of Education President Bill Collins to create a board committee dedicated specific to security.
Read Bilodeau's letter to GTPS parents addressing school security here.
Paul J. DiBartolo
6:52 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
Okay, the way I read this is that we have eleven schools and we increased the school security detail from four to eight officers but one is a sergeant who will direct the others. I wonder if the sergeant is thus exempted from the detail thus reducing it to seven? The main problem I have with this response is it still doesn't answer the need for a full time security detail. It increases the time an officer is present in each of the schools but it still leaves gaps in the coverage which means at times there will be no officer present; that is the time they are needed most. If someone is intent in going into a school he or she would wait until that school were unprotected.
I wonder if our leaders are interested in what we the people of Gloucester Township think is a reasonable response or are they intent on moving ahead on the premise that they know best? If security is really a "community issue" as Mr. Bilodeau was quoted as saying, why was the community not brought into the conversation? I can't seem to get an answer to that question from the mayor, anybody on township council, or our police chief...is there anybody that can answer that question?
I would like to end here but I read the letter to GTPS parents and I would feel remiss if I passed it over.
"This comprehensive plan provides for a holistic approach towards reducing crime and increasing security throughout our community."
That, my friends, is pure new age gibberish and means nothing. Get real, Bilodeau.
Head
7:31 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
You're right, Paul.
Just below, I took the liberty of copying all of Bilodeau's quotes from this article, and from Paul's comment above. It all comes off as empty government-speak.
"I think it's a significant commitment by all parties here in town. Obviously, we are one of them."
"I really want to compliment the chief and the mayor and really the board. I think some of the events this year—Superstorm Sandy, certainly the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy—have gotten these entities that may have been in the past a bit more separate speaking a little bit more. I think security is really now a community issue."
"This is not the end of school security. Obviously, I think this is just a beginning, or certainly a rekindling,"
"This comprehensive plan provides for a holistic approach towards reducing crime and increasing security throughout our community."
Dawn Briggs
10:38 am on Sunday, January 27, 2013
I agree with Paul. This sounds as ridiculous as the gun ban. They (the school board, Mayor's office, the police department, and Council) are simply trying to look as if they are doing more to ensure the safety of our children without really doing anything and using Sandy Hook as their excuse to spend more. Those wanting to harm are simply going to wait until the police presence is gone, especially since they now know the police will not be there the whole time. Saying this is going to make the children safer is like saying the gun ban is going to control crime. Word to the wise: criminals do NOT follow the rules and regulations, that is why they are CRIMINALS. Also, why are the high schools exempt from this "police presence"? Are they not as important? The Columbine massacre was in a high school.
Paul J. DiBartolo
12:10 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
Dawn, the three BHP Regional High Schools already had a police presence. My guess is that this was more to control what was going on inside the school than any threat from outside the school. So, this will just give them a little more to do. Let's hope that the one officer in the high school can act like a deterrent but it should be noted that Sidwell Friends, the school of choice for the Obama's and all the other rich and famous in the D.C. area, has eleven armed-to-the-teeth guards. When I say "armed-to-the-teeth", I mean that they are sporting more than a 9-mil or .45-cal semi-auto handgun with a 15-round clip.
I get that these are special kids but is anybody willing to step up here and state that they are more special than the twenty 6-and-7 year-old children that lost their lives at Sandy Hook without one iota of protection other than a locked door. Hey, aren't locks for honest people? So, what do our children in GT need and deserve for protection?
The dialog on this situation stinks both nationally and locally. This is all reaction and there's not one hint of a pro-active response nor was there any dialog with the citizens of Gloucester Township. Who will answer as to why not?
Darren Gladden
1:45 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
Hey Paul understand but JUST look at our council meeting , The people are out number in the room .Hey roll the tape or hit the BLUE it is okay . http://youtu.be/Fp2fN3At_48 ;-) .and where WERE U last MEETING sir deleting Patch emails
Paul J. DiBartolo
2:25 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
Spying on you via the "high speed" (wink-wink) video link. That allows me to see what's going on without everybody knowing I'm there.
Dawn Briggs
2:37 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
Thank you for the information, Paul. I do not yet have High School age children nor have I lived in Gloucester Township very long so I would not know that. I believe you must be right in your assessment of why they have a police presence since it was not reported or talked about in this article. You would think that those who are constantly patting themselves on the back (while digging in taxpayer's pockets) would have mentioned this to bolster their reasoning for how well this has worked for the high schools.
Sam Stinson
3:38 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
There were police officers in Columbine. No police presence is going to stop someone with an automatic weapon. Get serious. Also, this additional security is going to cost the district hundreds of thousands of dollars. Where are they getting this money from? They are either going to be well protected and poorly educated or your taxes are going up. If you want additional security, be willing to pay for it. We need gun reform, not guns in elementary schools. The lockdown drills the schools do are scary enough - having a bunch of guns in the school isn't going to facilitate learning.
Paul J. DiBartolo
7:35 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
One well-placed shot will stop anybody. But you're right, in one sense, Sam, without knowing someone's mind it is very hard to stop what they will do until you figure out what they are about. A well-planned offensive will always keep the defensive guessing and one step behind. So, at this point, the object would be to mitigate any situation that arises as quickly as possible to minimize the damage. That's the bottom line...mitigate the carnage. An armed guard on site could in most cases end any situation much quicker than having to wait for response from an off-site emergency team.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, hoping not to bore you, I am convinced that I can reduce traffic accidents and the resulting death and injury by about 90%... Reduce all traffic speeds to 5-MPH. Is anybody up for that and willing to pay the cost of doing so? No need to answer for that question is strictly rhetorical.
Charles
5:55 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
Perhaps less "talk" would help. I suggest authorities consider constructing a secure foyer,with people buzzed into that area. AFTER their ID and purpose have been confirmed, they could then be admitted into the building. Cost would be far less than a paid, armed person on duty, and, if constructed of proper materials, they and the entrance would be quite secure.