The 2022–23 Code of Conduct for Galiano Community School is unusually rich in aspirational language. It describes a community of care rooted in mutual respect, emotional development, and responsive teaching. It affirms the BC Human Rights Code, references Positive Behaviour Support, and anchors its behavioural framework in the values of SOLE—Respect and Care for Self, Others, Learning, and Environment. This language signals a genuine commitment to fostering inclusion and responsibility. But a closer read reveals that this promise is not always matched by structural safeguards. The document lacks clear protections for disabled students, omits definitions of disability-related behaviour, and leaves room for exclusionary practices under the guise of accountability.
Galiano School – current conduct decision flow
Behaviour observed
→ Determine whether the behaviour aligns with the SOLE expectations
• If yes: no action required
• If no: assess the severity (mild, moderate, or severe)
→ For mild behaviours (e.g. hurtful comments, mess left behind):
• Review expectations
• Redirect behaviour
• Encourage peer conversation and self-repair
→ For moderate behaviours (e.g. swearing, privacy breaches):
• Document behaviour
• Inform parents if behaviours escalate or recur
• Staff member establishes consequences intended to repair and restore
→ For severe behaviours (e.g. safety risks):
• Document behaviour
• Notify parents
• Consult district staff or police as needed
• Consider suspension (in-school or home)
The absence of a disability lens
Though the code states that “special considerations may apply” for students with disabilities, it does not define how these considerations are to be applied. There is no explicit mention of cognitive disability, neurodivergence, trauma, or executive functioning challenges. The phrase “unable to comply with the Code of Conduct due to having a disability” is presented without criteria or process, leaving students vulnerable to subjective interpretation. Educators are not directed to consult support staff, assess for unmet needs, or consider whether unexpected behaviour may be communicative, adaptive, or stress-based rather than oppositional.
This omission reflects a broader problem: the failure to distinguish between behaviour that requires discipline and behaviour that signals distress.
Neurocognitive considerations: the gap between intent and interpretation
The SOLE framework encourages students to show care in their words and actions. But what happens when a child is too overwhelmed to clean up after themselves, or when the “hurtful comment” is a product of impulsivity, language processing issues, or masking collapse? Without a neurocognitive lens, behaviours are too easily pathologised—or punished—without being understood.
| Event | Neurocognitive considerations |
|---|---|
| Leaving a mess | Could reflect motor planning difficulties, sensory fatigue, or shutdown |
| Hurtful comments | May result from social miscuing, echolalia, or frustration with unmet communication needs |
| Swearing | Often linked to impulsivity, dysregulation, or scripting under stress |
| “Defiance” or refusal | May signal anxiety, interoceptive confusion, or need for autonomy |
| Privacy breaches | Could stem from literal thinking, trauma, or misunderstanding of social norms |
| Disruption | Sometimes arises from sensory overload, movement needs, or difficulty following transitions |
| Safety concerns | May reflect escalating dysregulation due to persistent unmet needs or lack of co-regulation |
Restoration without scaffolding
The Code expresses a preference for restorative and preventative approaches. Students are to be “encouraged to participate in the development of meaningful consequences.” But there is no guarantee of support. No mention of augmentative or visual communication. No protocol for involving a case manager or integration support worker. No requirement to document when a student’s disability has influenced their conduct—or when a proposed consequence would compound existing vulnerability.
This creates a restorative process that may be more performative than protective. Without accessible supports, meaningful participation becomes impossible—and the most impacted students may experience restorative language as yet another vehicle for blame.
Collective language, collective risk
The Code makes no mention of collective punishment. It does not prohibit group consequences, nor does it include guidance on ensuring disciplinary responses are individualised. The language of “SOLE” expectations, though well-intentioned, risks becoming a tool of conformity—particularly when the goal is for everyone to “make informed and appropriate choices” according to a shared standard. In practice, this can translate into pressure to mask, comply, or withdraw. And when one student’s distress disrupts the group, the social consequence—peer resentment, reputational damage—may fall hardest on disabled children.
In the absence of structural protections, the cultural emphasis on shared responsibility can become a form of social discipline. One that frames deviation as disrespect, and difference as disorder.
Preliminary assessment: Galiano Community School Code of Conduct (2022–23)
| Category | Assessment |
| Clarity and scope | ✅ Detailed expectations across domains of behaviour |
| Individualisation and procedural safeguards | ❌ No clear process for evaluating disability-related needs or supports |
| Protections against collective punishment | ❌ Not addressed; group accountability model may lead to peer-based harm |
| Equity and neurodiversity lens | ❌ No definitions of cognitive, emotional, or sensory difference |
| Trauma-informed or restorative practice | ⚠️ Values restoration; lacks accessible scaffolding and accountability |
Overall rating: ★★☆☆☆
The Galiano Community School Code of Conduct reflects a heartfelt commitment to inclusion and learning. Its tone is collaborative, its values sincere. But tone is not protection. A rights-affirming code must include operational safeguards—definitions, processes, and accommodations that prevent harm before it occurs. Without these, even the most thoughtful values can be weaponised against the children least able to meet them.
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.
