Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Northshore board hears SRO evaluation, asks staff for a concept-of-plan before contract vote
Loading...
Summary
Board members reviewed a multi-year evaluation showing generally favorable survey responses to the Bothell High School SRO but raised concerns about nonresponse bias and representation. Directors asked staff to produce a concept-of-plan and additional disaggregated data before voting on the SRO contract.
President Hayes, board president of Northshore School District, opened a study session outlining the district's student wellness and safety work and said the board will be asked to approve or decline the Bothell Police Department school resource officer (SRO) contract under a 2021 state law requiring annual evaluation.
The board heard presentations from district leaders and researchers about the task force and advisory committee that produced goals and recommendations for student safety. Dr. David Wellington, executive director of schools, summarized the 2022'023 task force: 30 community members (11 of them students) developed four priority goals—student-centered diversity, equity and inclusion; mental-health training and adult supports; policy, procedures and accountability; and comprehensive safety, security and supervision. The task force produced 1- and 2-year work plans intended to inform board policy 43 11.
Dr. Craig Foster, executive director of research and evaluation, described how the SRO program has been evaluated. Foster said the 2023'4 evaluation used anonymous surveys of students, parents and staff, a town hall, principal interviews and Panorama climate data. In the most recent student survey 235 student responses were recorded; Foster said responses and parent and staff input were "generally favorable" toward the current SRO but cautioned that nonresponse bias is a substantive concern and that the district adjusted methods to try to broaden participation. "There's evidence that responding students, parents and staff strongly support the SRO program," Foster said, "but we must be mindful of who did not respond."
Carrie Campbell, executive director of communications and the subcommittee lead for Goal 4, outlined implementation steps the district has taken: common training for safety staff, an updated building-designation system (moving from four to five designations), emergency-action templates, principal toolkits, consistent use of the EZalert backend for emergency notifications and promotion of the StudentSquare app (about 1,500 student downloads). On staffing models, Campbell said the subcommittee recommended two primary options for a comprehensive campus: either two campus supervisors or an SRO paired with a campus supervisor, and noted a regional K—'8 model had been discussed.
Board members pressed for more detailed, disaggregated data and for examples of who the survey respondents represent. Director Sanderson asked for the slide-level breakdown of respondents by school and student demographics; staff said that disaggregation is available in the full report and will be included in forthcoming briefings. Director Kelly, joining by phone, asked whether SROs participate in disciplinary actions; Dr. Irish and staff clarified that the Bothell SRO's MOU states the officer does not engage in school disciplinary processes and that the district receives monthly activity reports through Friday briefings.
Directors raised substantive questions about representation and equity. Several board members noted that some student groups report feeling safer with an SRO while others report feeling less safe, and they questioned how to weight opposing student perspectives. Board members and staff discussed response-rate limits (Foster noted prior response rates as high as about 48% in an earlier study and lower in others), the possibility of nonresponse bias, and the value of targeted qualitative outreach to hear from students who are underrepresented in survey responses.
Rather than proceed immediately toward a contract vote, the board coalesced around a procedural request: staff should develop and present a concept-of-plan or multi-year implementation framework that outlines alternatives to police on campus, the resources and timelines required to implement those alternatives, and a schedule for community and student engagement before the contract comes to the board. Staff agreed to meet, reflect on the discussion, and map a set of next steps, including when the contract will return for board consideration.
The board did not take a formal vote in the study session. The next steps staff identified include sharing the finalized survey report prior to the vote, providing the monthly SRO activity reports in Friday briefings for board review, and returning with a concept-of-plan and a proposed engagement/timeline to inform the eventual contract decision.
