Policy Review 2024-25

For a long time, we’ve had Bylaw #3 in place—though the community may not be aware of it. An excerpt states:

"No person shall allow, suffer or permit any animal to enter into or upon any school site or to run at large on any school site, except in accordance with the Animals in Schools procedure."

Keeping our students and staff SAFE is our priority.

On April 15, 2025, after extensive Committee of the Whole review, discussion, and feedback from the Siwal Si'wes Policy Review Committee, the Board approved a new Animals in Schools Policy in principle. The Animals in Schools policy has a corresponding Animals in Schools Administrative Procedure.

We are currently asking for your feedback, before final approval of the policy. This survey will be open until May 20, 2025.

We thank those who took the time to respond so far. Responses we have received so far are summarized below:

Major Themes Identified in Qualitative Feedback

1. Support for Service and Therapy Animals

• Many respondents expressed strong support for the inclusion of certified service and therapy animals, especially those that assist students with anxiety, autism, PTSD, and other conditions.
• Several cited positive benefits to mental health and learning environments when therapy animals are involved.

2. Concerns About Distraction and Safety

• Concerns were raised regarding disruptions in classrooms and potential safety risks, especially for children who may have allergies, fears, or traumatic experiences with animals.
• Some respondents questioned the feasibility of keeping animals focused in a stimulating school environment.

3. Clear Definitions and Training Standards

• Multiple comments urged alignment with provincial terminology and legislation for service animals.
• Suggestions included:
  • Use of consistent terms like “Certified Therapy Dog” instead of “Medical Therapy Dog”.
  • Inclusion of “service dogs in training”, “OSI-PTSD dogs”, and “Accredited Facility Dogs”.
  • Clear criteria for certification and recertification of therapy animals.

4. Equity for Staff and Visitors

• Some respondents felt the policy was too student-centric and suggested it should include provisions for staff and visitors who also rely on service animals.

5. Access After School Hours

• Many advocated for allowing leashed dogs on school grounds after hours, with emphasis on responsible behavior such as leash usage and cleaning up after pets.

6. Ethical and Welfare Considerations for Animals

• Several comments highlighted the importance of animal well-being, asking how schools would ensure therapy animals receive breaks, are not overwhelmed, and are treated humanely.

7. Clarity for Special Programs

• A few rural respondents expressed concern that the policy may inhibit agricultural and enrichment programs, such as hatching chicks or maintaining school gardens.

Board Policy Development & Review policy and steps taken when policies are developed, reviewed, and implemented.