Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Resource Officers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public comment pushes district to clarify school‑resource officer role; student reps voice mixed views
Summary
A member of the public urged Lake Oswego School District 7J to clarify school‑resource officer policies and consider suspending SROs temporarily amid immigration enforcement concerns; student representatives told the board some students feel safer with officers while others, especially students of color, may feel differently.
A resident urged the Lake Oswego School District 7J board on Jan. 27 to review the district’s policies on school‑resource officers and to consider temporarily removing SROs while officials evaluate how officers interact with immigration authorities.
Levi Barnes, speaking during the meeting’s public‑comment period, said academic research shows “negative effects of school resource officers” even though he acknowledged they “do a lot of positive things.” Barnes asked the district to clarify whether school staff and officers would inform students that reporting safety concerns would not lead to contact with Immigration and Customs Enforcement or U.S. Customs and Border Protection. He proposed removing SROs “for a time while we see how what the immigration landscape is gonna look like, maybe till the end of the school year.”
Barnes also urged clearer written guidelines “so that staff and teachers…clarify how we're gonna interact with those kinds of agencies,” noting that SROs are not district employees and therefore may not be trained under district procedures.
Student representatives at the meeting offered differing perspectives. One student speaker, representing Oswego High School, said the school’s SRO, Ryan Sheldon, is widely seen by students there as making them feel safer: “When any anytime you ask a student about does Sheldon make you feel safer in this building, they say yes.” That representative added that removing SROs could change student perceptions of safety.
Another speaker emphasized that perceptions may differ by race: “Students of color might think differently,” a remark delivered during the public discussion.
Board members did not take immediate action on the comment but acknowledged the concerns. The transcript shows district leaders accepted written testimony from middle‑school students on multiple issues and indicated staff would respond to those letters; board members did not say they would take immediate steps to remove or suspend SROs.
The public comment and the student responses lay out a central tension for the district: some students and families perceive SROs as increasing safety, while others worry about the potential for SRO involvement with immigration enforcement and uneven impacts on students of color. The board did not adopt new policy at this meeting; any policy changes would require future agenda placement and formal board action.
