The updated 2024 Code of Conduct for SD78 arrives in the context of a newly adopted Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policy that promises proactive protection for students across multiple identity dimensions. At first glance, the Code carries forward much of the language from its 2017 predecessor—including commitments to prevention, fairness, and restorative practice—and now adds a new section on personal electronic device use. However, a close reading reveals that while the district’s equity rhetoric has expanded, the operational safeguards for disabled and neurodivergent students have barely shifted.
Language continuity, not substantive reform
The “Statement of Purpose” still draws heavily from the Diversity in BC Schools: A Framework, with bullet points promoting respect, problem-solving, and human rights. These aspirations remain important, yet the provisions for “special consideration” when disability affects conduct are unchanged from 2017, offering no clearer definition, process, or obligation to consult supports. Without specificity, these clauses risk functioning as discretionary courtesy rather than enforceable protection.
The absence of a disability lens
The Code repeats the phrase “unable to comply with a code of conduct due to having a disability of an intellectual, physical, sensory, emotional, or behavioural nature,” but offers no explanation of how this is determined, what documentation is required, or whether educators must explore unmet needs before framing behaviour as non-compliance. There is no guidance on how trauma, executive functioning differences, or sensory overload may shape a student’s conduct. This leaves the door open for subjective interpretation, with outcomes heavily dependent on individual staff attitudes.
Restorative language without structural scaffolding
The Code continues to prioritise “processes that are restorative rather than punitive,” yet—like its predecessor—it does not outline how disabled students will be supported to participate meaningfully in such processes. There is no mention of augmentative communication, plain language, visual aids, sensory accommodations, or the presence of a support person. Without these, “restoration” risks becoming performative: a symbolic gesture that may unintentionally retraumatise those most affected.
Collective punishment: unmentioned and unchallenged
The Code does not explicitly prohibit collective punishment, nor does it outline safeguards to ensure disciplinary responses are individualised. In group-oriented cultures—especially where “orderly” environments are prized—this silence leaves disabled students vulnerable to both formal group sanctions and the informal peer backlash that follows when one child’s distress disrupts the whole class.
Neurodivergence, device bans, and access
The new section on personal electronic device use imposes a blanket ban during elementary school hours, with limited exceptions at the discretion of instructors or administrators, and some exemptions for students with “recognised adaptations or modifications.” While the explicit acknowledgment of disability-related device use is welcome, the process for securing and enforcing such exemptions is undefined. Without clear rights-based language, students may face inconsistent application, stigma, or delayed access to tools they need for regulation, communication, or learning.
Equity promises, procedural gaps
The district’s new Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policy emphasises a “safe and respectful environment to work, learn, and prosper,” yet these values have not been operationalised within the Code of Conduct. The link between the DEI policy and disciplinary practice remains aspirational. There is no requirement that staff receive neurodiversity-informed training, nor that disciplinary incidents involving disabled students be reviewed for unmet support needs before consequences are assigned.
Preliminary assessment: Fraser Cascade District Student Code of Conduct (2024)
| Category | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Clarity and scope | ❌ Largely inherited from 2017; expectations broad but non-specific to disability |
| Individualisation and procedural safeguards | ❌ No defined process for assessing disability-related behaviour or required supports |
| Protections against collective punishment | ❌ Not addressed; potential for group sanctions remains |
| Equity and neurodiversity lens | ❌ Disability acknowledged in generic terms; no guidance on cognitive, emotional, or sensory differences |
| Trauma-informed or restorative practice | ❌ States restorative preference; lacks access scaffolding |
Overall rating: ★☆☆☆☆
We’re giving this one star, since the district reviewed it recently and still failed to implement safeguards for disabled students. The 2024 Code maintains a tone of care and fairness, now paired with a district-wide DEI commitment. Yet tone without structure cannot ensure equity. Without explicit definitions, procedural requirements, and access supports, neurodivergent students remain at the mercy of discretionary decision-making. True alignment with disability justice would require the Code to embed the district’s DEI promises into enforceable, measurable practice—ensuring that inclusion is not just a value, but a lived guarantee.
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.
