I have been asked a few times whether I support bringing back the School Police Liaison Officer program to SD61. I can't really answer that question because there really wasn't ever a program, as such.

When I was VCPAC president I served on SD61's School Police Liaison Officer Program Review Ad Hoc Committee for the last part of its work, through its conclusion. VCPAC never took a position on the issue because parents were fairly polarized on the topic. Here's what I learned.

SD61 crosses several policing jurisdictions, served by Saanich Police, Oak Bay Police, Victoria Police and the RCMP. Their involvement in schools at that time differed significantly. Some police services had designated liaison officers and others had not funded those positions for years. Much of the relationship between individual schools and police was informal and their involvement in schools varied widely across many different activities.

The committee did not reach consensus on a single way forward. Our final report presented the Board with the different options and the information we had gathered. It is available in the Board minutes package from the May 27, 2024 meeting, here.

Police have an important role in community safety, and sometimes that role will bring them into schools. Schools need to be able to call police when something happens that requires a police response. Police and the district need to communicate about safety risks that could affect schools. There can also be appropriate opportunities for police to contribute their expertise to safety education, presentations or particular events.

Because police services are not a part of the school district budget, in an underfunded education system, that can lead to the use of police to fill staff roles. If a student needs mental-health support, disability-related support, help regulating, conflict resolution or a trusted adult, the answer is to provide those supports through appropriate staffing. For a trustee, this means a harder push to the province for adequate funding. The purpose of having an officer in a school should be connected to a clearly defined educational, community or public-safety purpose.

Whatever interaction exists between police and schools needs clear parameters. One of the issues exposed through the SPLO review was the lack of a consistent district-wide framework governing those relationships. There should be formal agreements between SD61 and the police services operating within the district. Those agreements should establish when and why police may be in schools, who authorizes their involvement, what their role is, how student privacy and information are protected, what happens when police want to speak with a student, how interactions are documented, and how concerns are reviewed.

This also can't be reduced to one rule applied without regard for the communities involved.

Songhees and Esquimalt Nations are Rights Holders. They have specifically expressed the importance of their relationship with the RCMP Indigenous Liaison Officer and his work with their students. Their authority and their wishes regarding services for their children need to be respected.

The experiences we heard from others were not uniform either. Some students, families and staff had strong relationships with individual officers and felt safer and better supported because of them. Others raised serious concerns about surveillance, discrimination, criminalization and whether police presence made school feel less safe. Those experiences all need to be taken seriously.

When a situation requires police, schools should be able to call police and get an appropriate response. But not every safety issue is a policing issue. Keeping students and staff safe also means having enough staff, responding early when students are struggling, providing appropriate supports, and making sure staff have the training and resources they need. For me, the question to explore is what will actually make students and staff safer, who is best equipped to provide that support, and what role police appropriately have within that.

The next Board will be different from any SD61 Board before it. For the first time, Songhees Nation and Esquimalt (Kosapsum) Nation will each elect a trustee to the Board. That creates important direct representation.

I want to build strong working relationships with those new trustees, listen to the knowledge and perspectives they bring, and learn from them. Importantly though, we will need to remain careful to not put the responsibility for the work of reconciliation on these trustees. It remains a responsibility of the whole Board.

The Board also needs to continue strengthening its relationships with the Four Houses: Songhees Nation, Esquimalt (Kosapsum) Nation, Métis Nation of Greater Victoria, and the Urban Peoples' House Indigenous Advisory. Those relationships are not all the same. A distinctions-based approach means understanding and respecting the different relationships, rights and responsibilities involved.

Years ago, I made a deliberate decision to broaden who I was listening to and learning from, and whose voices I made space for. Since then, I've been fortunate to learn from Indigenous speakers, Elders and Knowledge Keepers, and to build relationships with Indigenous people across BC. Those relationships and experiences continue to challenge me, educate me and change my practice. I don't expect that learning to end if I'm elected. Reconciliation requires me to keep listening, learning, building relationships, and being willing to change how I understand and approach the work.

Ultimately, the work of reconciliation has to make a difference in the everyday experiences of Indigenous students and families in our schools.

The next Board will be different from any SD61 Board before it. For the first time, Songhees Nation and Esquimalt (Kosapsum) Nation will each elect a trustee to the Board. That creates important direct representation.

I want to build strong working relationships with those new trustees, listen to the knowledge and perspectives they bring, and learn from them. Importantly though, we will need to remain careful to not put the responsibility for the work of reconciliation on these trustees. It remains a responsibility of the whole Board.

The Board also needs to continue strengthening its relationships with the Four Houses: Songhees Nation, Esquimalt (Kosapsum) Nation, Métis Nation of Greater Victoria, and the Urban Peoples' House Indigenous Advisory. Those relationships are not all the same. A distinctions-based approach means understanding and respecting the different relationships, rights and responsibilities involved.

Years ago, I made a deliberate decision to broaden who I was listening to and learning from, and whose voices I made space for. Since then, I've been fortunate to learn from Indigenous speakers, Elders and Knowledge Keepers, and to build relationships with Indigenous people across BC. Those relationships and experiences continue to challenge me, educate me and change my practice. I don't expect that learning to end if I'm elected. Reconciliation requires me to keep listening, learning, building relationships, and being willing to change how I understand and approach the work.

Ultimately, the work of reconciliation has to make a difference in the everyday experiences of Indigenous students and families in our schools.

A student can be sitting in every class, every day, and still not have meaningful access to their education.

Neurodivergent students can encounter barriers in the school environment, curriculum, communication, transitions, sensory demands and the ways learning is delivered or assessed. Behaviour can also be communication. When a student is struggling, we need to explore things like what changes in the environment could support better self-regulation, whether there are other factors affecting the student, and what combination of changes and supports might help.

This isn't something individual educators can solve on their own. Teachers, educational assistants, administrators, families and students are often trying to solve the same problems from different places. They need adequate staffing, time for planning and collaboration, training and specialist support, as well as flexible and accessible learning environments.

Many neurodivergent students find it difficult to attend school generally, and some eventually move to other forms of schooling. We need to know when that's happening because their needs could not be met at school, too.

At the Board level, I want us looking beyond attendance and asking better questions: Can neurodivergent students access learning? Are they participating alongside their peers? What are students, families and staff telling us about the barriers they encounter? Where are support gaps showing up, and what does the evidence tell us needs to change?

Students, families and school staff should not be positioned on opposite sides of these challenges. We're on the same side: the student's. The Board's job is to help create the conditions that make successful inclusion possible.

I have been asked a few times whether I support bringing back the School Police Liaison Officer program to SD61. I can't really answer that question because there really wasn't ever a program, as such.

When I was VCPAC president I served on SD61's School Police Liaison Officer Program Review Ad Hoc Committee for the last part of its work, through its conclusion. VCPAC never took a position on the issue because parents were fairly polarized on the topic. Here's what I learned.

SD61 crosses several policing jurisdictions, served by Saanich Police, Oak Bay Police, Victoria Police and the RCMP. Their involvement in schools at that time differed significantly. Some police services had designated liaison officers and others had not funded those positions for years. Much of the relationship between individual schools and police was informal and their involvement in schools varied widely across many different activities.

The committee did not reach consensus on a single way forward. Our final report presented the Board with the different options and the information we had gathered. It is available in the Board minutes package from the May 27, 2024 meeting, here.

Police have an important role in community safety, and sometimes that role will bring them into schools. Schools need to be able to call police when something happens that requires a police response. Police and the district need to communicate about safety risks that could affect schools. There can also be appropriate opportunities for police to contribute their expertise to safety education, presentations or particular events.

Because police services are not a part of the school district budget, in an underfunded education system, that can lead to the use of police to fill staff roles. If a student needs mental-health support, disability-related support, help regulating, conflict resolution or a trusted adult, the answer is to provide those supports through appropriate staffing. For a trustee, this means a harder push to the province for adequate funding. The purpose of having an officer in a school should be connected to a clearly defined educational, community or public-safety purpose.

Whatever interaction exists between police and schools needs clear parameters. One of the issues exposed through the SPLO review was the lack of a consistent district-wide framework governing those relationships. There should be formal agreements between SD61 and the police services operating within the district. Those agreements should establish when and why police may be in schools, who authorizes their involvement, what their role is, how student privacy and information are protected, what happens when police want to speak with a student, how interactions are documented, and how concerns are reviewed.

This also can't be reduced to one rule applied without regard for the communities involved.

Songhees and Esquimalt Nations are Rights Holders. They have specifically expressed the importance of their relationship with the RCMP Indigenous Liaison Officer and his work with their students. Their authority and their wishes regarding services for their children need to be respected.

The experiences we heard from others were not uniform either. Some students, families and staff had strong relationships with individual officers and felt safer and better supported because of them. Others raised serious concerns about surveillance, discrimination, criminalization and whether police presence made school feel less safe. Those experiences all need to be taken seriously.

When a situation requires police, schools should be able to call police and get an appropriate response. But not every safety issue is a policing issue. Keeping students and staff safe also means having enough staff, responding early when students are struggling, providing appropriate supports, and making sure staff have the training and resources they need. For me, the question to explore is what will actually make students and staff safer, who is best equipped to provide that support, and what role police appropriately have within that.

Students should have meaningful opportunities to influence decisions that affect their education, and the Board should hear from them directly.

SD61 already has structures for student voice, including the Representative Advisory Council of Students and student representatives at Board meetings. I would like us to look at how we can strengthen those connections, including more direct relationships with student councils, leadership groups, clubs, GSAs and other student-led spaces.

I also want us to pay attention to whose voices are missing. Disabled and neurodivergent students, Indigenous students, racialized students, 2SLGBTQIA+ students and others who experience systemic barriers may not always be represented through traditional student leadership structures. Meaningful engagement means finding accessible ways for those students to participate too, and building the capacity for students to represent themselves rather than relying on adults to speak for them.

There are good reasons for schools to help facilitate student participation, including privacy, safety and accessibility. But student voice should not be filtered so heavily through adults that the Board loses the opportunity to hear directly from students themselves.

I would like to explore with students what stronger representation could look like, rather than deciding for them what their participation should be.

Music and arts education should not have to be rescued from the budget chopping block year after year. I've supported families advocating to protect music programs in SD61 for years, including during my time as VCPAC President and again in the most recent budget process.

As a trustee, I will work with the full Board to create policy and budget principles that recognize music and arts education as an essential part of public education. I will also ask to include in the process a clear assessment of the educational and equity impacts, alternatives considered, and effects on students before an established educational program is recommended for significant reduction or elimination.

No Board can guarantee that a program will never face a difficult budget decision. But we can create a governance framework that stops treating music and the arts as optional extras.

For more than two decades, provincial funding hasn't kept pace with what we're asking public education to do. The result is that students, families and school district employees end up carrying pressures that belong in the provincial budget, not on their shoulders.

We need sufficient, sustained investment in the people and resources that make schools work — teachers, educational assistants, custodial and support staff, inclusive education, technology, music and the arts, facilities, and more.

School boards also need to be strong, persistent advocates for the funding public education needs. As a trustee, I will keep making that case to the provincial government, alongside rights holders, education partners and communities, and bring the evidence of what underfunding looks like in our schools to that advocacy.

I've spent more than 20 years advocating in support of inclusive education, and I've learned that saying every child belongs isn't enough. We have to create the conditions that make belonging possible.

I want the Board to keep asking: What is the evidence telling us? What are students, families, school district employees and Indigenous rights holders telling us? Are we making progress? If not, what needs to change?

That means looking beyond whether a student is technically enrolled or physically present in a school. Are students able to participate and learn alongside their peers? Are they receiving the supports they need? Are they missing instructional time, being sent home, placed on shortened days, or excluded from classes, activities and opportunities?

The Board needs enough information to see where the gaps are and whether its direction is actually being carried out. Then we need the planning, accountability, resources and provincial investment to act on what we learn.

Inclusion isn't something we accomplish by just writing it into a policy. It has to be experienced by students in classrooms and school communities, and that means measuring outcomes and adjusting as we go.