Collective punishment continues to occur in schools despite being widely recognised as unfair and ineffective. Its persistence is rooted in a combination of legal ambiguity, institutional norms, and structural pressures.
Ambiguity in the School Act
In British Columbia, the School Act requires that student discipline reflect the judgment of a “kind, firm, and judicious parent.” While this standard encourages fairness, it is highly subjective and open to interpretation. The Act does not explicitly ban collective punishment. As a result, practices that affect whole groups of students—regardless of individual behaviour—can be justified under the language of order, consistency, or shared responsibility.
Professional autonomy and inconsistent enforcement
Teachers and administrators are afforded substantial professional autonomy in how they manage behaviour. This flexibility is essential for adapting to diverse learning environments, but without clear restrictions or accountability mechanisms, it also leads to wide variation in disciplinary practices. In the absence of explicit policies against collective punishment, some educators continue to use it as a behavioural tool—despite its ethical and pedagogical shortcomings.
Systemic constraints and institutional pressures
Schools are often under significant strain. Overcrowded classrooms, understaffed support teams, and increasing complexity in student needs create environments where reactive strategies thrive. Collective punishment can appear efficient: one swift consequence applied broadly, saving time and reasserting authority. But this expediency comes at a cost—undermining student dignity, trust, and psychological safety.
To meaningfully address collective punishment, systemic clarity is required. This includes legislative reform, clear district policy, and a shift in cultural norms toward restorative, inclusive, and individualised responses to student behaviour.
