The Arrow Lakes School District’s Policy 310, “Expectations for Student Conduct,” presents a succinct framework grounded in the language of safety, mutual respect, and orderly environments. It affirms the importance of rights-based protection against discrimination and sets the expectation that all schools will maintain up-to-date, locally developed codes of conduct. It allows for discretion, acknowledges “special needs,” and encourages restorative and preventative interventions. Yet this brevity comes at a cost. The policy does not meaningfully engage with the structural realities of disability, nor does it define the safeguards necessary to protect neurodivergent students from disproportionate harm.
Arrow Lakes School District (SD10) – current conduct decision flow
Behaviour observed
→ Determine whether the behaviour meets district or school-level expectations
• If yes: no action required
• If no: assess seriousness of the offence
→ If serious (e.g. drugs, weapons, threats, assault, retribution):
• Principal may suspend student for up to five days
• Parents are notified; incident is documented
• Restorative and preventative interventions may be considered
• Student is informed of right to appeal under Bylaw 4
→ If not serious:
• Apply school-level disciplinary responses
• Consider student’s age, maturity, and “special needs” before determining consequences
• Parents are notified; incident is documented
• Appeal rights apply if consequences significantly affect education or well-being
Absent a cognitive and sensory lens
Policy 310 uses the term “special needs” in reference to discipline decisions (Section 3.1.4), but offers no guidance on what those needs might include. It fails to name executive dysfunction, trauma-related distress, slow processing, language-based disabilities, or sensory integration challenges. It does not distinguish between dysregulation and defiance. It does not require that educators examine whether the student’s conduct reflects unmet cognitive, emotional, or communication needs.
There is no mandate to assess, adapt, or accommodate. There is no requirement to involve support staff. There is no structural assurance that disciplinary responses will be neuroinclusive. The result is a policy that signals compassion while quietly deferring to the status quo.
Neurocognitive considerations
Discipline policies often treat student events as deliberate misbehaviour. But many are not choices—they are responses to stress, confusion, or unmet needs. Reframing these moments through a neurocognitive lens helps us see the difference between defiance and distress, and shifts the question from “What rule was broken?” to “What support is needed?”
| Event | Neurocognitive considerations |
|---|---|
| Disruption | May stem from sensory overload, movement needs, or difficulty filtering distractions |
| Defiance | Often reflects need for clarity, autonomy, or unrecognised anxiety |
| Non-compliance | Can result from executive dysfunction or difficulty generalising expectations |
| Dress code violations | May involve sensory aversions, interoceptive confusion, or distress linked to texture |
| Mild physical contact | Could reflect social miscuing, sensory seeking, or efforts to connect without language |
| Inappropriate language | May be linked to impulsivity, language delay, or dysregulation under stress |
| Tardiness | Often associated with transitions, time blindness, or overwhelmed working memory |
| Lying | Can reflect fear, masking, memory gaps, or dissociative avoidance |
| Cheating | Sometimes driven by anxiety, rigid thinking, or unmet academic scaffolding |
| Out of bounds | May stem from disorientation, sensory overwhelm, or escape behaviours |
| Littering or mess | Often linked to motor planning challenges or reduced interoceptive awareness |
| Refusal to comply | May result from unmet regulation needs or incompatible communication expectations |
Restorative language, punitive mechanisms
Section 4.0 encourages administrators to use “preventative and restorative” approaches. This is promising in rhetoric but unmoored in application. There is no definition of what restorative practice entails. No obligation to implement it. No system for accountability. Instead, the default remains suspension—justified either as a way to protect others or as a means of teaching respect.
But exclusion cannot teach what has never been modelled. Many neurodivergent students do not lack empathy or morality—they lack access to the environments, relationships, and tools that make self-regulation possible. A suspension may serve administrative efficiency. It does not build skill, trust, or safety.
No structural guardrails against collective punishment
Policy 310 is silent on the issue of collective punishment. It does not explicitly authorise it—but neither does it forbid it. The requirement that school-level codes of conduct outline consequences for unacceptable behaviour is not accompanied by any mandate for those consequences to be individualised.
This omission creates vulnerability. When field trips are cancelled, recess revoked, or privileges withdrawn from entire classes, students are taught to fear each other. They are taught that belonging is conditional, and that proximity to difference is dangerous. For disabled children—already navigating stigma, isolation, and misunderstanding—this dynamic is devastating.
Preliminary assessment: SD10 Arrow Lakes Policy 310
| Category | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Clarity and scope | ✅ Brief and clearly structured; relies on local policy to fill in gaps |
| Individualisation and procedural safeguards | ❌ No mechanism for evaluating disability-related needs before discipline is imposed |
| Protections against collective punishment | ❌ Not mentioned; not prohibited; no safeguards established |
| Equity and neurodiversity lens | ❌ Fails to name cognitive or sensory differences; offers no guidance on accommodation |
| Trauma-informed or restorative practice | ⚠️ Encouraging language; no obligation, definition, or accountability mechanism |
Overall rating: ★★☆☆☆
Policy 310 uses the vocabulary of care—prevention, restoration, respect—but fails to embed those values in practice. It delegates authority to administrators without equipping them to respond ethically to neurodivergent learners. In doing so, it leaves children with the greatest needs most exposed to punishment—and least protected by policy.
Interpretive note and invitation for feedback
This analysis reflects the perspective of one parent, grounded in lived experience, trauma-informed principles, and a neurodiversity-affirming framework. It is not legal advice. If SD27 leadership believes this reading misrepresents the intent or implementation of its Code of Conduct, I welcome clarification—and the opportunity to revise my understanding.
- To educators: These critiques are not intended to shame or condemn. They are written to illuminate the structural patterns that shape how school policies are experienced by disabled students and their families. If you feel your school’s Code of Conduct has been mischaracterised, or if important context or corrections are missing, your insight is welcome. Thoughtful disagreement and collaborative improvement are always invited.
- To families: If you recognise your child—or yourself—in these patterns, or if your experience has been different, I want to hear from you. Whether a policy has caused harm, offered support, or raised questions, your perspective matters. Stories, corrections, and clarifications all help us understand how these codes function in real schools, for real people. Honest dialogue is how we build something better.
