Board delays vote on school‑resource‑officer policy; pilot at Garfield to be reconsidered Oct. 8

The Seattle School District board postponed consideration of an amendment to Board Policy 43.11 at its September meeting after lengthy debate over police presence in schools and demands for clearer safeguards, community engagement and independent evaluation.

The amendment presented to the board would have allowed the superintendent to enter into an agreement with the City of Seattle for a limited pilot of school resource officer (SRO) services at Garfield High School. Supporters — including Garfield principal Dr. Hart and some Garfield parents and students — urged the board to permit a pilot to address safety concerns at Garfield, while others, including several directors and many public commenters, pressed for extensive conditions before allowing officers on campus or asked for the moratorium on SRO agreements to remain in place.

Vice President Briggs moved the policy amendment onto the floor and it was seconded. Director Mizrahi later moved to postpone consideration to the regular meeting on October 8; Vice President Briggs seconded the postponement. The motion to postpone passed unanimously.

Key themes in the debate included the scope of the existing moratorium on SRO agreements, whether police officers may enter school buildings for non‑emergency reasons, how any SRO would be supervised and accountable, and how the district would measure impacts on student safety and equity. Superintendent Podesta and staff clarified that the current policy work on 43.11 specifically concerns agreements for SROs as defined by state law and does not, by itself, prevent emergency police response to a 911 call on campus.

Board members and staff asked for a detailed plan to return to the board if the pilot proceeds. Directors repeatedly asked that any agreement include:

- Transparent community engagement, especially with students most affected by policing; - A research design with valid and reliable evaluation metrics (directors asked that independent research partners be used to assess effects on safety and discipline); - Clear reporting and accountability mechanisms, including how the district will measure unintended consequences and disproportionality; and - Explicit limits in the memorandum of understanding (MOU) on officer role, access to students, data sharing and annual review. Staff said state law requires yearly review of such MOUs and that the proposed policy would limit expansion beyond Garfield without board approval.

Public testimony at the meeting was divided. Some Garfield students and parents asked for officer presence outside the building to deter violence; others — including civil‑rights advocates and students from across the district — warned of criminalization of students, especially students of color, and opposed SROs in schools.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved a motion to postpone action on the policy amendment until the Oct. 8 regular meeting. Staff and board members said the delay would allow time for more community engagement and for staff to return with strengthened evaluation plans, equity safeguards and clear MOU terms.