Cariboo-Chilcotin is one of the most geographically dispersed and demographically complex districts in British Columbia. Spanning small rural towns and remote Indigenous communities—including sites of historic and intergenerational trauma—SD27 faces significant challenges in providing consistent, inclusive, and safe environments for all learners.
In June 2024, the Board adopted Policy 390: Safe and Caring School Communities, replacing earlier conduct policies with a streamlined directive focused on local implementation.
The policy affirms core principles: the importance of school connectedness, the obligation to support inclusion, and the need for coordinated threat assessment and bullying prevention. It delegates operational responsibility to schools, requiring each to establish its own Code of Conduct in alignment with provincial standards. But in doing so, it omits the safeguards that would protect the most vulnerable students—those with disabilities, histories of trauma, and unmet support needs.
SD27 Conduct Framework (Policy 390)
- District-Level Policy
- Emphasises “positive and inclusive school cultures”
- Appoints a District Safe School Coordinator and supports site-level teams
- Requires all schools to implement their own Codes of Conduct, aligned with the Provincial Standards for Codes of Conduct Order (M276/07)
- Mandates school-based expectations for digital technology and acceptable behaviour
- References the BC Human Rights Code as the foundation for non-discrimination
- School-Level Implementation
- Schools are responsible for developing and enforcing conduct codes
- Staff must apply both school and district expectations consistently
- Students are expected to take responsibility for their social and academic behaviour
- Parents, volunteers, and other adults are expected to know and support the code
- Prevention and Threat Management
- A community violence threat risk assessment protocol is in place
- An online reporting tool is made available for bullying and “worrisome behaviour”
- No mention is made of tracking disciplinary equity, neurodivergence, or trauma-related responses
Structural gaps through a neurodiversity lens
1. Disability accommodation is absent
Nowhere in Policy 390 is there language mandating that behavioural expectations or disciplinary responses be adapted for students with disabilities. There is no mention of executive function, trauma, regulation, or sensory processing. There is no obligation to assess whether a behaviour reflects unmet support needs. And although schools may include accommodations in their own codes, there is no district requirement to do so—no system-level protection.
This silence is dangerous. It allows compliance-based discipline to take precedence over understanding, and places the burden of proof on students who may already be struggling to communicate.
2. No structural guardrails against collective punishment
Policy 390 does not prohibit collective punishment. It does not define it. It does not offer guidance on ensuring that discipline is individualized and fair. Instead, it delegates full responsibility to schools, without requiring transparency or public review. In rural communities with tight social dynamics and under-resourced staffing, this creates enormous risk—especially for neurodivergent or Indigenous children who may already be misunderstood or blamed.
When entire groups lose privileges because of the actions of one or two students, the lesson is not accountability. The lesson is fear, surveillance, and shame.
3. Inconsistent trauma-informed practice
The policy references “school connectedness” and “positive school culture,” but provides no definition of trauma-informed or restorative practice. There is no requirement for training. No expectations for staff de-escalation protocols. No accountability mechanisms for ensuring that harm is prevented—or that repair is possible. And while the policy requires threat assessment teams, it treats safety primarily as a risk management issue, not a relationship-building one.
In a district where many students live with intergenerational trauma, this omission is not merely a gap—it is a form of abandonment.
4. Absence of a neurocognitive framework
Policy 390 treats behaviour as a matter of choice and responsibility. It uses the language of dignity and inclusion but fails to distinguish between misbehaviour and dysregulation, between wilful defiance and communication breakdown. Without a neurocognitive lens, discipline remains a blunt tool. And without clear direction, the students most likely to be misunderstood are also the most likely to be punished.
Neurocognitive considerations: common behaviours, misunderstood causes
| Behavioural Event | Possible Neurodivergent or Trauma-Linked Causes |
|---|---|
| “Non-compliance” | Executive dysfunction, anxiety, sensory overload, lack of clarity or trust |
| “Disruption” | Movement needs, scripting, overload, unrecognised triggers |
| “Privacy violation” | Literal thinking, delayed social learning, trauma-based boundaries |
| “Refusal to clean up” | Fatigue, shutdown, pain, interoceptive or motor planning differences |
| “Disrespectful tone/language” | Echolalia, distress, scripting, dysregulation, impulsivity |
| “Out of bounds” | Flight response, disorientation, desire for regulation or escape |
| “Failure to report” | Fear of retaliation, fawning response, difficulty interpreting social expectations |
Preliminary assessment: SD27 Policy 390 (2024)
| Category | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Clarity and scope | ✅ Clear delegation to schools; consistent with provincial standards |
| Individualisation & procedural safeguards | ❌ No policy requirement to assess, accommodate, or adapt disciplinary responses |
| Protections against collective punishment | ❌ Not mentioned; high risk due to full delegation to school-level discretion |
| Equity and neurodiversity lens | ❌ Does not name or account for cognitive, sensory, or emotional differences |
| Trauma-informed or restorative practice | ⚠️ Values hinted at (connectedness, prevention) but not defined or operationalised |
Overall rating: ★★☆☆☆
Policy 390 presents itself as a modern, relationship-focused discipline policy. But without definition, structure, or accountability, it leaves the hard questions unanswered. It does not tell staff how to respond to distress. It does not protect students from misinterpretation. It does not recognise that behaviour is communication—and that safety, for disabled and traumatised students, must begin with being seen.
Recommendations for improvement
- Mandate accommodation in discipline
Require that all schools assess and document whether student behaviour reflects a disability-related need before discipline is applied. - Prohibit collective punishment
Add clear language forbidding group-based consequences for individual actions. - Define and train for restorative practice
Provide district-wide training in restorative justice and trauma-informed practice; define core terms in policy. - Adopt a neurocognitive lens
Include examples of how sensory, cognitive, and emotional differences may influence behaviour. Encourage support before consequence. - Ensure public transparency
Require that all school-level codes of conduct be published online in full, reviewed annually, and evaluated through an equity lens.
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.
