A commentary by the chair of the Greater Victoria School Board.
I write to correct certain misinformed commentary regarding the Greater Victoria School Board’s recent submission of draft safety plans to the Minister of Education and Child Care, and the issue of school police liaison officers generally.
Police have always worked with Victoria schools, including since the SPLO program ended, and the board values their expertise and input. The decision to end funding for the SPLO program in 2018 was that of the police, not the board.
When the board recently concluded a multi-year assessment of the SPLO program, we found an unmonitored initiative that lacked any defined purpose, terms of reference, roles, or responsibilities, with no accountability. Further information about the SPLO program, and the board’s concerns, can be found at https://www.sd61.bc.ca/splo-faq/.
Just as police have their own duties and responsibilities, so does the board, under the School Act. Those include to exercise oversight and responsibility for all educational programs delivered in district schools, as well as the provision of health, social and other support services.
This oversight role applies to all initiatives delivered with community partners. It is the fundamental role the board was elected to perform.
The board has effectively been asked to cede oversight of one program — SPLOs — to police. The proposal would see the board potentially have no insight or control over which officer(s) are attending schools, when, or what they do while they are there.
Suggestions by the board that the police should, for example, document the frequency and nature of their interactions with students, protect students’ personal privacy rights, refrain from involvement in managing student behaviour and discipline or even participate in the co-development of a communications protocol to ensure timely and accurate information is shared, have all been met with resistance.
And we have been threatened with summary dismissal if we do not comply.
For that reason, the board submitted multiple safety plans for the minister’s approval. Our preferred approach would guarantee the possibility of all of the initiatives the police seek, but subject to the review, approval and oversight of the board guaranteed in the law.
It would deepen the relationship between the district, police services, Indigenous rightsholders, and other educational partners. In the alternative, under threat of termination, the board has agreed to submit other versions of the plan, while making our misgivings about them known.
Finally, in an increasingly polarized, aggressive social environment, it is deeply concerning when government or other commentators incite antagonism against democratically elected officials who are simply trying to carry out their statutory duties, including calling for the board’s immediate termination.
The board is making a sincere attempt to act in the best interests of students and staff, and will continue to do so. This is an important debate, and should be conducted without threats or coercion.
>>> To comment on this article, write a letter to the editor: [email protected]
