- Align with the BC Human Rights Code, prohibiting discrimination based on protected characteristics. SD48 Policies and Bylaws, Whistler Secondary School Code of Conduct., Myrtle Phillip Community School Code of Conduct
- Prioritize safe, caring, and restorative approaches over punitive discipline. sd48howesound.org
- Engage in annual consultation with students, families, and staff to update the code. SD48 Policies and Bylaws
- Accommodate disability and Indigenous context—students unable to comply due to disability must receive consideration. Sea to Sky Online Code of Conduct
- Include anti-retaliation measures, protecting those who report misconduct. SD48 Policies and Bylaws
- Require codes to cover school grounds, activities, transit, and online environments. sd48whistlersecondary.org
SD48 conduct decision flow (simplified)
- Behaviour observed
- Assess alignment with code and district values
- Intervene proportionally—prioritizing restorative, preventive, developmentally appropriate responses
- Document serious or repeated incidents
- Escalate only when needed, with administrative involvement, possible suspension (according to AP 504), district staff, or external authorities
- Protect reporters from any form of retaliation
⚠️ Critical analysis
✅ Strengths
- Rights-based foundation: Explicit alignment with BC Human Rights Code ensures legal protection. SD48 Policies and Bylaws, Howe Sound Secondary Student Code of Conduct
- Restorative-first mindset: Emphasizes repair, relationship, and community safety rather than punishment.
- System-wide transparency: Encourages annual review and stakeholder engagement, supporting accountability.
- Attention to equity: Mandates disability and Indigenous-specific accommodations.
- Anti-retaliation clause: Offers crucial protection to those who report wrongdoing.
❌ Gaps
- No prohibition of collective discipline: Without explicit ban, schools may use recess withholding or class-wide consequences under the restorative banner.
- Suspension/vs-alternatives not clearly defined: AP 503 mentions escalation but doesn’t require behavioral planning before suspension—leaving room for arbitrary exclusion.
- Trauma-informed strategies are missing: The framework lacks explicit reference to co-regulation, emotional safety, or trauma-responsive teaching.
- No formal appeal process: Parents or students have no clear pathway to challenge decisions or request independent review.
- Implementation left to schools: Without robust guidance, variance in how codes are enacted may lead to inequitable consequences across the district.
Neurodiversity lens: how the policy holds up
| Dimension | Assessment | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Disability justice | ✅ Partial | Equity and accommodation are mandated, but process and supports unspecified |
| Neurodivergent alignment | ⚠️ Weak | No mention of executive function needs, sensory regulation, impulsivity, masking, or meltdown management |
| Protection from exclusion | ❌ Absent | No guardrails against overuse of suspension, no required alternatives |
| Support over punishment | ⚠️ Mixed | Restorative is prioritized, but must be implemented with intentional scaffolding |
| Clarity re: collective discipline | ❌ Absent | Without explicit prohibition, group punishment remains possible |
Overall assessment: ★★☆☆☆
SD 48’s district code is legally solid and values-driven, embedding rights-based principles and restorative intent. But its vague operational design leaves key protections missing—particularly around neurodivergent needs, restorative scaffolding, appeal mechanisms, and exclusion safeguards. Without more explicit guidance, implementation may leave disabled students vulnerable to misinterpretation and unintended harm.
Recommendations
- Explicitly ban collective punishment in district policy language.
- Define functional behaviour supports required before any exclusions occur (e.g., ABC charts, consults, behaviour plans).
- Add trauma-informed and neurodiversity guidance: co-regulation, visual supports, executive function strategies.
- Create an appeals mechanism enabling families to request review of disciplinary actions at district level.
- Provide implementation guidance or training modules to ensure restorative practices are scaffolded properly at school level.
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.
