There’s a problem in our schools.
You’ll see it on a child’s face when they come home. You’ll hear it in the way they describe something that left them feeling humiliated, angry, or confused—and often, all three at once.
It happens when school staff use discipline strategies that completely contradict the values a student has been raised with: fairness, consent, emotional safety, autonomy. Regressive disciplinary strategies, such as collective punishment, humiliation, or isolation don’t result in this kind of student feeling justice was served. They feel disgusted. They see the adult as inferior—a bully.
They feel disgusted. They see the adult as inferior—a bully.
They stop seeing the adult in the room as someone worth learning from. They see someone trying to compensate for a lack of intelligence or resources by throwing power around. And once a student loses respect for an educator, no amount of punishment will restore it. What’s been broken is relational, not behavioural.
This is the fallout when schools ignore the values children carry with them. It doesn’t just fail—it erodes trust, damages connection, and alienates the very students who most need to feel safe in order to learn.
And make no mistake: these kids are paying attention. They can tell the difference between a boundary and a threat. Between leadership and control. Between an adult who invites collaboration and one who demands compliance.
When discipline becomes performative, or worse—when it’s weaponized to provoke shame or enforce conformity—the teacher loses credibility. Not just with the student who’s been targeted, but with every student who witnesses it and the families who should create a sense of alignment and cohesion from home, but cannot.
BC’s public education system is built on several core commitments that should, in theory, protect students from the kind of punitive, misaligned discipline described above:
- Diversity and Inclusion
Schools are expected to be inclusive learning environments that reflect and respect the diversity of students’ backgrounds, neurotypes, cultures, and family values. This includes recognizing that a “one-size-fits-all” approach to discipline can disproportionately harm marginalised or neurodivergent students. - Positive Discipline
Ministry of Education guidelines emphasize positive reinforcement, restorative practices, and least-restrictive approaches. Discipline is supposed to be supportive, not coercive—and designed to help students learn, not control or punish them into compliance. - Collaboration with Families
Schools are expected to work in partnership with families to support student success. This includes responding to behavioural concerns in ways that are trauma-informed, relationship-centered, and reflective of the student’s lived experience—not dismissive of it. - Legal Framework
The BC School Act does give school officials authority to manage student behaviour, including suspension and expulsion—but this authority is supposed to be exercised in ways that are consistent with the student’s rights and with overall education policy, not in opposition to them. - Physical Restraint and Seclusion
Provincial guidelines outline strict limitations on the use of restraint or seclusion, with an emphasis on ethical application, documentation, and de-escalation. These are meant to be emergency interventions—not tools for everyday behavioural management. - Parental Concerns and Limits
While schools must strive to foster a safe, caring, and orderly environment, they are not legally required to accommodate every parental request—particularly if a request conflicts with law or official policy. However, that does not absolve schools of the responsibility to engage in respectful, transparent, and collaborative problem-solving with families.
These frameworks are a starting point. But like any policy, they are only as good as their implementation—and too often, the gap between theory and practice is vast.
In Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36, the Supreme Court of Canada held that public schools must reflect the diversity of family values—not impose a single vision of morality or order. Education is not a tool for overriding the principles that families are raising their children with. It’s a shared responsibility grounded in respect, pluralism, and dignity of the learner.
Education should not be about obedience. It should be about growth and mutual understanding. The kind of learning that sticks because it’s built on real relationships—not fear, shame, or power games.
If we want to raise thoughtful, principled, critically-minded young people, we need to build schools that reflect and respect those same principles. Not systems that punish challenges, but communities that are strong enough to allow debate.
Also see:
