It can be excruciating to admit error. Especially when certainty is habitual.

This is a character flaw acute in pedagogues and pedants.

The Toronto District School Board, as an example, is awash in moral certitude. What I would call OISE-itis, with that fanatic’s glint in the eye.

We saw the trouble that zealous conviction caused in the past week after the board was complicit in pushing forward an 11-year-old student who claimed her hijab had been cut off by a stranger-assailant wielding a pair of scissors.

The incident, which garnered worldwide attention, never happened.

But the board was so palpably eager to make a statement of its own that it ignored the ethical implications of putting an 11-year-old in the media spotlight, at a press conference with police held at the girl’s school.

And you can see why: A distressing incident, reeking of Islamophobia, is right in the progressive board’s wheelhouse, to righteously (and rightly) condemn.

Schools — although in this instance the figment snipping occurred off-school premises — should of course be, as a board spokesperson commented after-the-fall, places of safety and respectful relations where any type of racism and bullying must not be tolerated. The school and the board, reacting to what appeared a deplorable event, had been motivated by “compassion, care, concern and support.”

I don’t dispute that.

They will argue that their instincts were right even if the facts turned out to be wrong.

I might dispute that but won’t.

Here’s the thing: They’re making a habit of it. Getting it wrong before all the facts are in.

What’s worse, facts can be ignored when the board doesn’t much like what the data is telling them; when the facts present a picture which belies the message they choose to promote or the unquantified theory they’ve embraced.

If the board had an ounce of integrity, it would admit wrong-headed, non-evidence-based thinking in its regrettable decision last year to ditch the School Resource Officer program.

That thumbs-down rushed verdict was disproportionately influenced by muscle-flexing Black Lives Matter — an activist organization that has much to commend itself for (though far more in the U.S. than up here) — and the concerns of minority parents that their kids were being unduly targeted, over-scrutinized and prematurely criminalized.

In its haste to be seen as kids-first empathetic and diversity-vigilant, the board accepted a staff report recommending elimination of the suddenly controversial program, even though that very report — a survey of 15,000 students slapped together in six weeks — shows that a majority of students had a “generally positive impression of the program.”

That cut off at the pass a separate independent SRO evaluation, to have been conducted by Ryerson University at the request of police Chief Mark Saunders. The review has been cancelled. And honestly, what would be the point since the board bossy-boots had already made up their mind, obviously not to be dissuaded by a potentially conflicting assessment.

Yet now we have the results of yet another longitudinal probe — three years in the making — “multi-method (quantitative, qualitative, and ethnographic analysis), along with a Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis case study — that throws dark shade on the TDSB dug-in posture.

This comprehensive research project — a deep-probe on the value of having a police officer school presence — was undertaken by two Carleton University professors, Linda Duxbury (a professor in the Sprott School of Business) and Craig Bennell (psychology professor at the university) and their PhD students, with funding from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council.

Their in-depth lens was pointed not at Toronto but at Peel. Though Peel Region had 60 SROs working in its school catchment area, the researchers focused on five specific schools in different neighbourhoods: two in a “socio-economically challenged area,” two from “middle-class communities” and one from an affluent area. All but one school had student populations described as ethnically diverse.

To keep the “indicator data” consistent, researchers surveyed 1,300 Grade 9 students as they entered the high schools and again at the end of the first semester. Researchers also interviewed staff and shadowed SRO officers, for eyes-on appraisal

The report is an utter refutation of everything the Toronto board swallowed hook-line-and-sinker, although admittedly for the TDSB it was a self-administered purge.

Herewith some of the key put-to-shame findings from the 258-page analysis:

“All students . . . indicated that they felt significantly safer at school and less stressed and anxious” with an SRO in their midst.

Those who had been victims of bullying and/or violence (16 per cent of students surveyed) reported feeling significantly safer after experiencing the SRO program for five months, both at school and in their commute to school, with fewer students skipping classes because they’d been bullied or feared they would be bullied.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Both students and staff expressed feeling safer because the SROs could defuse problematic situations or stop them before they escalated.

Staff benefited from police support because they spent less time on disciplinary matters and property damage.

Because SROs are more likely to recommend diversion when appropriate, students were more likely to avoid criminal charges.

The program reduced pressure on front line police services with school administrators making fewer 911 calls when trouble arose and, consequently, faster response times by cops for the region in general.

Proactive rather than reactive policing allowed the SROs to more effectively prevent crimes and avert victimization of students, making for a safer learning environment.

The presence of SROs increased the chances that students, particularly those with mental health issues, could access the help they needed from social services and health-care systems.

Because of escalating police costs and budget scrutiny by governing municipalities, a core reason for undertaking the project was to quantify the dollar cost of the SRO program relative to its community value. In Peel, 60 SROs covering all 66 Region high schools amounts to $9 million.

Applying SROI analysis, the researchers determined that the social and economic return on the total investment of $660,289 in the five schools surveyed yielded a value of $7,349,301. “This means that, for every dollar invested in the Peel SRO program, a minimum of $11.13 of social and economic value was created.”

If the numbers are blinding, let some of the students (anonymously) speak for themselves:

“They make me feel safer walking home . . . because the kids see them around and it stops them from bullying me.”

“Students take the rules more seriously because the police can enforce them . . . it really does give me a feeling of safety when I see them . . . and nervous when I can’t.”

“I feel like their presence affects other students’ choices . . . They think twice about trying to sell some marijuana or steal so-and-so’s phone.”

“I was bullied throughout last year and that was a big issue for me. Like, all of Grade 8 . . . this school is a lot safer compared to all the other schools.”

“I can focus on my studying and long-term goals without worrying . . . ’cause I know they are there.”

Which, at Toronto public high schools, they aren’t anymore.

Rosie DiManno usually appears Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.