Here is a summary of the recent DPAC Roundtable Evening Event held at AES. This event was hosted by SD83 DPAC. Registration had been required in advance, and participation was limited to 5 parents per school.
Date: Wednesday, April 1
Time: 5:30 PM
Location: Armstrong Elementary School Library
Presenters & Facilitators
Donna Kriger, Superintendent of Schools
Chelsea Prince, Assistant Superintendent, Indigenous Education and Student Support
Megan Weir, Principal, Armstrong Elementary School
Morgan Turland, DPAC President
Larissa, DPAC Vice President
Serena Caner, DPAC Member at Large
Michelle Kalke, DPAC Secretary
Melissa Parmenter, DPAC Treasurer
Meeting purpose
The DPAC Roundtable Evening brought together district staff and parent advisory council leaders for discussion about communication, inclusive education, advocacy, and the role of PACs in supporting students and school communities.
The organizers said they wanted parents, school staff, and district staff to understand that they are on the same team. The shared goal was described as creating learning environments where children can thrive. The evening was framed as a way to build relationships, improve understanding, and help everyone work together more effectively over the full span of a child’s school career.
Agenda topics
Dinner
Intentions and introductions
Communication
Inclusive education
PAC 101
Door prizes
Summary of discussion
The meeting began at 5:30 PM at the Armstrong Elementary School Library. Participants gathered for dinner and informal connection before the formal program.
Communication
Donna Kriger shared that the District’s Communication Guide is nearly complete and is now in final stages. The guide is expected to be released within the next month. Donna advised that she will send the link to the Armstrong Elementary School PAC once it is published.
This new administrative procedure is on respectful communication between parents, community members, and school staff. She said the district is seeing more cases where individual teachers, CEAs, principals, and vice principals are being targeted directly in disrespectful ways. She explained that, while she expects to receive difficult feedback in her role, front-line staff should not have to deal with harassment or abusive communication as part of their daily work.
Donna said the district developed this procedure in collaboration with CUPE and the North Okanagan Shuswap Teachers’ Association. The goal is to create clear expectations for respectful communication, problem solving, and preserving dignity, even when people disagree.
She also made an important point that the standard must go both ways. She said the district cannot ask parents and community members to communicate respectfully unless district staff are also held to the same standard. She explained that a second piece of work is now underway to set expectations for how district staff communicate with one another and with the public.
Donna acknowledged that some parents had recently been upset about district matters and said receiving hard feedback is part of her job. She said negative feedback still contains lessons the district can learn from.
Donna said the new administrative procedure on respectful communication had not yet gone live. It still needed to go through a three-week public feedback cycle. She said it would appear on the district website with an opportunity for public comment. She noted that she would make sure PAC got the draft when it entered the feedback cycle. She also promised that AES PAC would receive the link to the final document. She also said a second communication document, focused on expectations for district staff communication, was in development.
Inclusive education
Chelsea Prince gave a presentation on inclusive education. The presentation addressed inclusive education in practice, current approaches to safe school protocols and behavior management, district funding and budgeting, available community supports, and practical ways families can advocate for supports their children need.
Chelsea Prince introduced herself by sharing her background as an educator, school leader, parent, and advocate for inclusion, Indigenous communities, and social justice. She explained that she had recently taken on a broader leadership role in Student Support Services. She grounded her work in a core belief that every child should leave school knowing they have something valuable to offer the world, that they matter, and that they live in a diverse and meaningful world.
Ministry framework and goals of inclusive education
Chelsea explained that inclusive education in British Columbia is based on ministry expectations about creating and maintaining conditions for success for all students. She described the general intent of the framework as creating welcoming school environments, promoting understanding of others, and supporting fair and equitable treatment.
She then outlined the main topics she had been asked to cover. These included how parents can advocate for their children, how IEPs are developed, how funding works, and how school safety procedures work. She noted that in a previous session in Salmon Arm she had not had enough time to cover the safety procedures in detail, and said she intended to leave more time for that section because it seemed especially important to parents.
Advocating for children
Chelsea described parents as the district’s best partners. She placed parent advocacy in a historical context, noting that earlier generations of parents fought for the rights of children with disabilities to be included in public schools rather than institutionalized. She said parent advocacy has been a major driver of educational change in British Columbia and continues to be necessary.
She encouraged parents to speak up when they see something that does not feel right. At the same time, she gave practical advice on how to advocate effectively. She said advocacy tends to work better when parents remember that educators also care about children and want to help. She cautioned that entering meetings in an adversarial way is often less effective than approaching staff as partners and allies.
She also advised parents to communicate clearly and briefly, rather than sending overwhelming volumes of email. She said in-person meetings can often work better because they allow several issues to be covered more efficiently and make tone easier to understand. She encouraged parents to follow up those meetings with a short written record of what was discussed and any agreed next steps.
Chelsea also said parents are experts on their own children, and that schools are working to better recognize that expertise. She acknowledged that some parents feel uncomfortable in school meetings because of their own past experiences in school. She said families are welcome to bring support people or advocates to meetings, even if that person is only there to help take notes.
A parent asked whether it is acceptable to request a meeting with a teacher outside formal parent-teacher interview periods, especially at the high school level where teachers may have over 100 students. Chelsea said yes, parents can request those meetings, and that schools should try to make them work, often during prep time or after school, while keeping them reasonably brief.
Chelsea promised that parents would be welcome to bring an advocate or support person to school meetings, including IEP meetings. She also confirmed that parents can request meetings with teachers outside regular interview times.
Inclusive education designations and ministry funding
Chelsea then explained the ministry’s designation system. She said the province uses letter categories and divides them into low-incidence and high-incidence designations. She explained that “low incidence” simply means the category occurs less often, while “high incidence” means it is more common. The key issue is that the province only provides supplemental funding for low-incidence categories.
She outlined the funded categories. Level 1 includes the most complex designations, such as physically dependent students and students who are deafblind. She noted that the district has only four students in Level 1. Level 2 includes categories such as moderate to profound intellectual disability, physical disability or chronic health impairment, visual impairment, deaf or hard of hearing, and autism spectrum disorder. Level 3 includes serious mental health and behavior support categories. The unfunded categories include mild intellectual disability, giftedness, learning disabilities, and moderate behavior or mental health support.
Chelsea said the philosophy behind the model is that students in funded categories need extensive additional support, while students in unfunded categories are assumed to be best supported mainly in regular classrooms with high-quality inclusive teaching and accommodations. She then said this is one of the major problems with the current system. The funding model itself has not changed since 2006, even though research, philosophy, and student needs have changed.
She gave the current supplemental funding amounts attached to each level, which are additional to base per-student funding. She explained that Level 1 students generate about $51,300, Level 2 students generate about $24,340, and Level 3 students generate about $12,000.
A parent asked about type 1 diabetes. Chelsea explained that a student with type 1 diabetes may fall under chronic health impairment only if the child requires school support to manage the condition. Once the student becomes independent and no longer requires that level of support, the designation no longer applies.
How district funding is actually used
Chelsea explained that the supplemental funding generated by individual students does not follow each child directly as a separate pot of money. Instead, the money goes to the district, and the district then allocates supports across schools. She stressed that the district also spends more than the supplemental amount by adding money from general operating funds.
She gave a district-level example for the current year. She said the district generated about $13.6 million through supplemental student support funding, and then added about $2.26 million more from operating funds to support students with diverse abilities. She used this to show that the district is not simply spending the exact amount generated by designated students. It is supplementing that funding from its broader budget. Chelsea promised that the data shown would be included in the slide deck. She also made an implicit commitment to continue using both supplemental and operating funds to support students with diverse abilities.
Chelsea also explained that student support is not just CEAs. She said CEAs are valuable, but they work as part of a larger system of support directed by professional staff. She listed learning resource teachers, counselors, speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing, teachers of the visually impaired, inclusion support teachers, and district vice-principal support as part of that system.
She said that CEAs are almost never assigned one-to-one to a particular student, except in highly specialized cases such as a child who requires sign language or Braille access.
Questions about external autism funding changes
A parent asked whether the changes being made by the Ministry of Children and Family Development to autism-related funding (BC AFU) would affect the school system as well. Chelsea said that, as far as the district knew at that point, those changes were not directly affecting district school funding. She explained that community services and school services are separate systems.
At the same time, the discussion made clear that families were deeply worried about the ripple effects of those changes. Parents described how shifting or removing autism funding could affect whether families pursue private assessments, access OT or behavior supports, or secure designations that lead to school-based funding. One parent argued that the changes could result in fewer children being assessed, which could indirectly reduce the resources schools receive. Parents also described the uncertainty and stress created by the province’s plan to shift funding toward hubs and new service structures.
Chelsea and Donna both acknowledged the seriousness of that concern. Donna said that when the changes were first presented to superintendents, they “landed like a bomb” in the room. Chelsea added that the district was paying close attention, was connected with other districts, and was trying to learn from others rather than navigating the issue alone.
Chelsea promised the district was actively watching the changes closely. Donna confirmed the same. Chelsea also promised the district was staying connected with colleagues in similar roles in other districts to respond as well as possible. No concrete local solution was promised, but both clearly committed to monitoring and responding.
IEPs, eligibility, and support without designation
Chelsea then turned to IEPs. She described the IEP process as cyclical, beginning in the fall, continuing through review and consultation, and being revised over time. Morgan noted that IEPs are often described as living documents, and Chelsea agreed, saying goals shift as students develop or meet targets.
Chelsea also said the district has moved away from deficit-based language and is now trying to use strength-based language, focusing on what students know, what they can do, and what their next steps are.
A parent asked a key question about how families know whether a child should have an IEP, and who initiates that process. Chelsea clarified that in this system, a child must have a ministry designation in order to have an IEP. If a child does not have a designation, they do not have an IEP, even if they benefit from support strategies.
That led to a longer discussion. Parents expressed frustration that the system feels mysterious. One parent described paying privately for assessments and wondering whether the cost is worth it when access to concrete school supports seems uncertain. Another parent said the absence of an IEP does not mean a child receives nothing, because some schools and teachers are already trying to accommodate student needs through inclusive practices.
Chelsea agreed with that point and explained that any student can receive what are called universal supports. She gave examples such as talk-to-text, extra time, and separate settings for assessments. She said those supports can be provided without an IEP as long as schools have the space and staff to make them happen.
She also agreed that one of the problems with the current system is that it remains tied to a medical model, where diagnosis or designation is often needed in order to trigger entitlement to more formal support. She clearly promised that universal supports can be available even without an IEP, depending on school capacity.
Questions about belonging, resources, and local school needs
The discussion then turned to student belonging and the limits of available resources. A parent referred to district survey data published in the SD83 2024-2025 report showing concerning low sense-of-belonging levels among designated students and said that, as the parent of one of those children, the issue felt deeply real. The parent described a child who repeatedly says they do not want to go to school because they do not feel they belong. The parent connected this directly to inclusive education and student outcomes.
That led to a broader discussion about how resource decisions are made and why schools often feel under-supported even when funding is being spent. Morgan summarized that the system is complex, designation-based, and tied to resource distribution, while many children without designations still need meaningful support. She said parents are trying to understand how decisions are made about resource allocation across schools.
Chelsea responded that it never feels like there is enough, because there is always more that could be done. She said the district is spending what it has to support students and is trying to use resources as efficiently and fairly as possible. She said the district believes its staff are doing their best. She also said it is useful to compare BC with other jurisdictions, but there is no perfect funding model anywhere.
One parent specifically raised the work of LRT’s Heather and Ashley at AES and said that they were doing an extraordinary job and needed whatever support the district could provide. Chelsea responded that an earlier email from an AES parent had pushed her to start thinking more seriously about pulling school-level numbers and getting the secretary-treasurer involved in that work. She said she was also curious about what those numbers looked like and wanted to make sure the district was making fair and informed decisions for schools.
Chelsea promised that the AES parent’s earlier email had already prompted deeper investigation into school-level numbers. She said Jeremy Hunt, the acting secretary-treasurer, had begun looking into the data. She did not promise a finished school-by-school breakdown and release of the funding formula to parents that night, but she did commit to digging into it and thinking more seriously about how resource decisions can be better understood. Later, Chelsea committed to releasing the funding formula that governs how supplemental funding for designations is allocated per school, including for CEA positions. Chelsea will also designate SD83 staff contacts at each school (typically LRT) who have additional information on the funding side than they do currently.
School safety procedures, drills, and common misunderstandings
Chelsea then moved into the school safety section, which she said DPAC had particularly wanted parents to hear. She explained that children often use terms like lockdown loosely, which can frighten families when the actual event was something else. She defined the main terms the district uses.
A lockdown is used when there is a potential danger inside the school. During a lockdown, doors are closed and locked, lights are turned off, and students and staff hide silently out of sight. These drills are practised twice each year. Chelsea said real lockdowns are rare, but schools still prepare for them because they must.
A room clear is used when students need to be removed from a room to protect safety or preserve dignity. Chelsea gave examples such as a student in crisis, a spill, or a seizure where classmates need to leave so the student can have privacy and support.
A hold and secure is used when the danger is outside the school. In that case, normal activity continues inside the building while the school secures the perimeter. Examples included police activity nearby or wildlife such as a bear or cougar near the school.
Chelsea emphasized that younger children often report all of these as “lockdowns,” which can cause unnecessary alarm at home.
Threat assessment, police involvement, and what happens behind the scenes
Donna asked Chelsea to explain what happens in the background when there is a possible threat to a school, especially because parents may not see much public communication and assume little is being done.
Chelsea explained that the district uses a behavioral and digital threat assessment process, which evolved from earlier violence threat risk assessment practices. She said all principals and vice principals in the district are trained in threat assessment, along with secondary counselors and many community partners such as RCMP, social workers, and child mental health practitioners. She noted that refresher training happens every three to four years, and that more training was already scheduled.
She described the process as involving structured investigation when a threat is identified. This can include locker searches, keeping students at home until a situation is judged safe, transitions to different schools, involvement of psychiatric services in serious cases, and home searches by RCMP if there is reason to believe weapons may be present. She said the protocol allows information-sharing within the threat assessment team that would not otherwise be possible, while still protecting confidentiality outside that group.
Chelsea stressed that parents often feel more information would help them feel safer, but the district cannot share everything because of privacy laws, youth offender protections, and active police investigations.
Donna added that the district, RCMP, and Safer Schools Together all have different roles. She noted that even when the district or police want a certain outcome, an independent judge may make the final decision. She also explained that the district can use Section 177 of the School Act to prohibit people from school property when they are a potential risk. She said this has been used in the past, including with protesters. She also pointed out that a local incident in the district had helped prompt the province to create school protective zones.
Donna said that before spring break, the amount of late-night coordination, data gathering, and communication happening behind the scenes had been intense, often continuing until 10:30 or 11:00 at night.
Chelsea promised that DPAC could consider a future education session focused specifically on threat assessment, including the research and step-by-step process. Donna promised parents that even when there is not a large public announcement, substantial work is happening in the background. She also promised that the district would continue to use its legal authority, including Section 177, where necessary to protect schools.
Follow-up commitments before the break
As the first half of the evening wrapped up, Morgan asked for confirmation about follow-up materials. Donna confirmed that the respectful communication administrative procedure was still in draft and still needed union and committee review before going live. She promised PAC would get it once it entered the feedback cycle. Chelsea confirmed that she had the slides ready to send, and Morgan said she would distribute them.
Donna also mentioned that another communication-related piece was nearing completion, but said it likely would not be ready until the new school year rather than later that spring.
What was promised
PAC would receive the respectful communication procedure during the feedback cycle. Parents would receive Chelsea’s slide deck. The broader communication work for district staff was expected later, likely for the next school year.
PAC 101
Morgan Turland gave a presentation on PAC roles and responsibilities. Topics included what PACs can and cannot do, what concerns are appropriate for PAC meetings, and how PACs can work well with school administration by understanding constraints, building trust, and reducing conflict. The role of trustees in school governance was also discussed.
Morgan addressed a common question she receives, which is whether PACs have to invite principals to PAC meetings. She said that while there may not be a rule that says a principal must attend every PAC meeting, it makes little sense to hold PAC meetings without administration present. She said PACs exist in part to advise principals and understand what is happening in the school, and that this is hard to do well if the principal is absent.
She also reminded parents that administrators operate within ministry rules, district policy, collective agreements, budget limits, and staffing formulas. She said when principals say they cannot do something, that does not necessarily mean they do not want to do it. Often they are constrained by legal and contractual realities. She noted that both local schools currently seem to have good relationships with administration, but said those relationships can change quickly when leadership changes.
PAC purpose beyond fundraising
Morgan said PACs are often reduced to fundraising groups, especially in elementary schools, but that this is too narrow. She reminded parents that PACs exist for more than raising money. They are also about culture, advocacy, communication, and parent leadership. She stressed that PACs have an important role in collective advocacy and that district and provincial advocacy are both needed because many of the recurring problems in education could be solved more efficiently at the ministry level.
She argued that there is too much duplicated work across districts and that more issues should be addressed province-wide through structured ministry action. She linked this to the importance of election-year advocacy and said parent voices matter politically. Morgan described advocacy tools and collective action as priorities going forward.
Morgan said DPAC had already been advocating to the ministry on several issues and wanted more parents involved in that work. She mentioned that there is a toolkit available to help parents advocate. The toolkit is meant to help parents understand what is right, who to contact, and how to write effective letters. She said the most powerful advocacy often comes from personal stories shared respectfully and directly.
She also said that change is unlikely unless advocacy continues and grows, especially in an election year when public pressure may matter more.
Closing
The evening concluded with door prizes.
Action items
Donna Kriger to send the District Communication Guide (Respectful Communication Procedure) to AES PAC during the feedback process, and also send the finalized version to AES PAC once released. Another communication-related piece related to staff-to-staff communication is also nearing completion, but it will not be ready until the new school year (2026-2027).
Chelsea Prince will release to the AES PAC Advocacy Director the funding formula that governs how supplemental inclusive education funding for designations is allocated per school, including for CEA positions. Chelsea will also designate SD83 staff contacts at each school (typically LRT) who have additional information on the funding side than they do currently.