Nova Scotia’s Provincial School Code of Conduct Policy underwent a significant update in April 2025, marking a substantial revision of the previous 2015 policy. The updated policy, set to take effect in September 2025, introduces clearer definitions of unacceptable behaviours, delineates new responsibilities for all school community members, and emphasises support for those affected by such behaviours. Notably, it explicitly prohibits collective punishment, stating that “attributing collective responsibility, including group punishment” is forbidden.
British Columbia still leaves discipline up to professional autonomy, even as other provinces move decisively toward more explicit, rights-based approaches.
Responses Specifically Forbidden
Nova Scotia, Provincial School Code of Conduct Policy
5.11 The following consequences are prohibited for all students:
• corporal punishment
• attributing collective responsibility, including group punishment
• reducing or not awarding marks or assigning extra schoolwork, projects, or assessments
The Nova Scotia policy, which comes into effect in September 2025, explicitly prohibits “attributing collective responsibility, including group punishment” for individual misbehaviour. This straightforward prohibition marks a significant departure from BC’s more permissive stance, where collective discipline remains a matter of professional judgment, largely insulated from formal oversight.
By banning collective punishment, Nova Scotia has positioned itself as a leader in trauma-informed educational policy. Its new code is built on guiding principles that include equity, restorative and relationship-building practices, and clear, consistent responses to unacceptable behaviour. This approach acknowledges that children have a right to be treated as individuals and to avoid being swept into broad disciplinary measures for the actions of their peers. It also reflects a broader cultural shift towards accountability and transparency in education, recognising that collective punishment not only fails to address the root causes of challenging behaviour but can also reinforce feelings of alienation and powerlessness among students.
There is still room for improvement in the policy. Its definition of unacceptable behaviour fails to account for neurodivergent behaviours, sensory processing differences, or trauma responses, risking disproportionate punishment for students with disabilities. Despite its commitment to restorative practices, it overemphasises punitive measures like suspension, with no clear mandate for early intervention or positive supports. It also lacks explicit protections for disabled, racialised, and marginalised students, who face higher rates of discipline, and includes no requirements for bias training or cultural competency, increasing the risk of inequitable enforcement. Finally, it places heavy responsibilities on teachers and support staff without corresponding commitments to professional development, support, or workload adjustments, risking burnout and undermining student outcomes.
In contrast, BC’s continued reliance on professional autonomy to justify collective discipline represents a missed opportunity to modernise its approach to student rights. This approach places the burden on families to contest collective punishment through complaints and appeals, often without the explicit policy backing needed to succeed. For neurodivergent students, who are already more likely to face exclusionary discipline, this policy gap can have particularly damaging consequences.
It is time for BC to follow Nova Scotia’s lead and move toward a more explicit, rights-based approach to student discipline – one that respects individual rights, prioritises restorative practices, and reflects the best practices in educational equity. It should not take another decade of parent advocacy and student harm to make this basic reform.
If you believe that BC should join Nova Scotia in banning collective punishment, consider raising this issue with your school district or local representatives. Together, we can push for a more equitable, inclusive, and supportive educational system for all students.
