We are heartbroken by the terrible tragedy that took place at the Lapu Lapu festival in Vancouver last night. We understand that the horror, shock and grief of this catastrophic incident must be incredibly hard to bear. Our hearts go out to the families, loved ones, children, and the whole of the Filipino community. We offer our deepest condolences to each and every one affected and our assurances that the community can count on our understanding, sympathy and caring support for all of the adults, youth, and children dealing with the unimaginable grief and trauma.
We know that children, in particular, will be confused and frightened, and we appreciate that the teachers at their schools will be doing everything they can in the coming weeks to provide caring support to all of the students affected.
Our heartfelt sympathy,
The Institute for Public Education BC
The Ministry of Education and Child Care’s policy manual for the provision of inclusive education services outlines a “continuous and flexible” process for identifying students with disabilities and diverse needs and then providing the necessary supports.
least the past 17 years. In 2023-24, for example, provincial government funding only covered 72.3% of what BC school districts spent to provide inclusive education services. In dollar terms, this was a $340 million dollar funding shortfall that districts were forced to cover with their core operational funding. Besides creating pressure for districts to redirect funding from other operational areas, the lack of funding forces districts to ration inclusive education staff and services. Research with teachers has found that this can be seen as having to “triage the system,” including trying to fit in supports through creative scheduling, shifting support intended for one student to multiple students, and cobbling multiple small supports together.
Increased funding alone will not “fix” inclusive education. However, it is the necessary condition for moving BC along the path of more inclusive school communities.
This isn’t to say that excessive cell phone use or social media isn’t negatively impacting youth; rather, it suggests that banning phones in schools isn’t the solution politicians often claim it to be.
shortchanging them by opting for simplistic (and often hard-to-enforce) bans instead of more comprehensive, nuanced approaches? Wouldn’t it be better to help them develop healthy tech habits and the ability to set boundaries for themselves, enabling them to use technology constructively?
phone use. Schools and the education system are well-positioned to play a central role in this, but it will take much more than the “headline-grabbing gimmicks” of cellphone bans.
their children with disabilities and/or diverse needs. These parents and many others know it’s a system under stress; they and their children regularly and directly experience the impact of teacher and support staff shortages and chronic underfunding. They also know how difficult it is to access the education decision-makers and be heard. And they speak to the fact that placing students with disabilities and/or diverse needs in classrooms without the necessary supports or, as is sometimes the case, in segregated classrooms, serves to stigmatize their children and seriously undermines their ability to succeed.
Looking back, inclusion first became a government initiative in the 1980s. The Royal Commission on Education report in 1988 and subsequent education School Act revisions mandated the closing of segregated schools and established the requirement that neighbourhood schools were to provide for the success of all children. There was the expectation of significant positive change and, for a time, there were meaningful steps in that direction. But, years of underfunding and the lack of adequate staffing and supports has us seeing inadequate supports as the “norm” and exclusionary practices coming back- reduced time at school, exclusion from certain activities, and, in some cases, even segregated programs and classes.
We’d add one more step. We’d encourage everyone to call on each school district and the Ministry of Education and Child Care to hold similar forums with parents/caregivers, support staff, educators and students to learn from their experiences and recommit to fully supported inclusion in all of our public schools.
In schools, staff work diligently to ensure that programs are effective. Measurable goals are created, data is gathered, and results are reviewed regularly. Reports regarding student progress are generated at prescribed intervals. These reports are shared with parents and relevant school staff, covering everything from classroom achievements to individualized programs such as speech-language therapy. The information is securely, confidentially stored for future reference as needed. The rationale behind this process is clear: if we do not measure our efforts, we cannot determine whether our interventions are truly making a difference.
Schools operate with a great deal of transparency. Classroom teachers provide daily plans that are utilized by themselves or a teacher-on-call. Support staff, such as English Language Learning teachers and contracted specialists like occupational therapists, follow universal referral systems, administer standardized assessments, document observations and provide reports . Caseload information is readily available to school administrators, and priorities are confidentially discussed during school-based team meetings.
As schools work hard to maintain a safe and supportive environment for students, the question remains: Does the presence of School Police Liaison Officers truly contribute to the safety of our schools, or is it simply an unproven assumption? Without clear data and transparent reporting on the program’s effectiveness, it’s difficult to justify its widespread adoption. Perhaps it’s time for a deeper, more data-driven conversation about how best to ensure the safety and well-being of students without relying on programs that lack measurable evidence of success. It’s crucial that we continue to explore alternative solutions that prioritize student welfare while addressing the complexities of modern school safety.
election issue, this particular race was dominated by harmful and hateful rhetoric that sought to control and further privatize education. This included:
support for the Conservatives in many parts of the province. Their ideas for education are reflected in the ongoing advocacy of right-wing Think Tanks, such as the Fraser Institute, that champion education reforms “to achieve better value for money and improved results for both students and taxpayers.”
As illustrated in the case of the BC election, these conservative political parties are linked to the rise of the “parental rights” movement in Canada – a movement that embodies the many links between far-right ideologies and interest in education privatization. In BC, for example, the attacks have been focused on a program called SOGI 123, which supports teachers to make schools safer and more inclusive for students of all sexual orientations and gender identities. Contrary to the arguments of the new Rights, research illustrates the positive impact of this program. A recent evaluation of SOGI 123, done by researchers at the University of British Columbia, found that the program decreased bullying and sexual orientation discrimination for both LGBT+ and also for heterosexual students.