Columneetza Junior Secondary School 2024-2025 Code of Conduct affirms a mission of fostering respect, individual growth, and a sense of belonging within both school and community. It names safety, caring, and order as essential conditions for “purposeful learning.” The document outlines rights, responsibilities, and behavioural expectations for students and broader school actors, including parents and coaches. It affirms the BC Human Rights Code, makes space for accommodations based on disability, and describes a progressive discipline model extending from redirection to indefinite suspension and referral to the RCMP.
Columneetza – current conduct decision flow
Behaviour observed
→ Staff evaluate against expectations of safety, order, and respect
→ If minor or first-time: verbal correction, discussion, redirection
→ If persistent or moderate: documented; parents contacted; support staff involved
→ If serious: referral to admin, district, or RCMP; suspension process begins
→ If disability prevents full compliance: administrators may adjust consequence
→ If incident is extreme or repeated: indefinite suspension hearing initiated
The language of care and the structure of exclusion
Columneetza’s Code affirms a strong cultural aspiration: students should feel safe, valued, trusted, and supported. Staff are encouraged to foster connection and co-responsibility. Yet embedded within this tone of belonging is a disciplinary logic that frames safety as the absence of disruption, and order as the containment of emotional expression. Though the Code affirms accommodations for students who “cannot fully comply” due to disability, it places the burden of proof and interpretation on administrators without mandating supportive review, offering no process to determine whether a behaviour reflects dysregulation, distress, or unmet needs.
The result is a model where expectations increase with age, but supports are not clearly scaffolded; where terms like respect and responsibility are given operational force but never neurocognitively defined; and where safety is imagined as behavioural conformity, not as co-regulated trust.
Strengths
- Affirms the BC Human Rights Code and outlines prohibited grounds of discrimination including Indigenous identity, gender identity, and disability.
- Explicitly includes parents and community as co-responsible for the conduct culture.
- Details digital device boundaries in alignment with new provincial standards, including disability-related exceptions for students with IEPs.
- Defines bullying, harassment, and intimidation using detailed behavioural criteria.
- Commits to progressive discipline, restorative options, and recognition of student maturity.
- Encourages self-referral for substance support, treating dependency as a health issue.
Gaps
- No explicit neurodevelopmental lens: The Code does not mention sensory regulation, masking, executive function, or trauma-based behaviours—creating risk of misinterpreting distress as misconduct.
- No mandated disability-informed review: Staff may adjust discipline for students with disabilities, but there is no process requiring IEP team involvement or functional behaviour analysis.
- Restorative practices are listed, not required: Terms like mediation and restitution appear in consequence lists, but no protocols, facilitation models, or student safeguards are described.
- No prohibition on collective discipline: The Code does not ban group consequences or withdrawal of privileges based on classwide behaviour.
- Escalation mechanisms but no appeals process: While consequences are detailed, there is no recourse described for families to challenge disciplinary decisions or initiate harm review.
Neurodiversity lens: summary table
| Dimension | Assessment | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Disability justice | ⚠️ Partial | Makes space for discretion; lacks mandated process or team review |
| Neurodivergent-aware | ❌ Weak | No references to cognitive, sensory, or emotional regulation needs |
| Restorative scaffolding | ⚠️ Partial | Restorative options named but unstructured and non-compulsory |
| Collective discipline protections | ❌ Absent | Group consequences not addressed or prohibited |
| Appeal and review mechanisms | ❌ Absent | No described path for student/family-initiated review or challenge |
Overall assessment: ★★☆☆☆
Columneetza’s Code of Conduct contains compassionate intentions and community-focused framing, and reflects recent provincial shifts on personal digital device use and equity mandates. But the document’s heart—a model of progressive discipline without mandatory disability-informed checks—relies too heavily on staff discretion and too little on transparent, accessible safeguards. In the absence of a neurodiversity-informed framework, students whose bodies or brains diverge from the expected remain vulnerable to misinterpretation, escalating discipline, and exclusion framed as accountability.
Recommendations
- Create an appeal and harm review process allowing students and families to request review of disciplinary actions, especially in cases involving identity-based harm, escalation, or exclusion.
- Require IEP team consultation before discipline involving students with known or suspected disabilities.
- Operationalize restorative approaches with protocols, facilitator training, and opt-in rights for impacted students.
- Prohibit collective punishment by explicitly banning group consequences or withheld privileges based on the behaviour of others.
- Name neurodevelopmental differences such as executive function, sensory needs, and trauma response in behavioural interpretation.
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.
