SJ Burnside Education Centre is an Alternative Education program serving youth aged 13–18 in a small-group, flexible setting. Its published Code of Conduct emphasises high standards of conduct, honesty, integrity, and cooperation during all school-sponsored activities. It explicitly promotes peaceful problem-solving, community engagement, and maintains a personal device policy (e.g., cell phones may be removed if abused). Student Code of Conduct
SJ Burnside conduct decision flow (inferred)
- Behaviour observed: Expectations include respect, integrity, and peaceful restoration.
- Intervention: Staff model and address inappropriate behavior during community meetings, class, or intervention sessions.
- Device misuse: If phones are used inappropriately, staff may confiscate or restrict access.
- Repeated or serious incidents: Likely lead to documentation, restorative conversation, or escalation within district referral processes (consistent with SD61 secondary policy structure)alted.sd61.bc.casd61.bc.ca+3sd61.bc.ca+3alted.sd61.bc.ca+3.
⚠️ Critical analysis
✅ Strengths
- Personalized, trauma-sensitive environment: Small-group classes and counsellor involvement support students’ social–emotional needssd61.bc.ca+4alted.sd61.bc.ca+4esquimaltnation.ca+4.
- Peaceful conflict resolution: Emphasizes prevention and community repair over punitive discipline.
- Device policy reflects lived experience: Acknowledges modern challenges and sets boundaries for device use.
❌ Gaps
- No explicit disability or neurodiversity lens: The Code does not define accommodations, executive functioning strategies, or sensory regulation supports.
- Unclear decision flow for escalated behaviour: While small-group context is implied, there’s no detailed procedure for documenting, reviewing, or appealing more serious conduct incidents.
- Lacks explicit restorative scaffolding: Peaceful resolution is encouraged, but no system (like mediators or agreements) is described.
- No protections against exclusionary discipline: No mention of what happens if a student repeatedly breaches expectations—no clarity on suspension, withdrawal, or re-engagement strategies.
Neurodiversity considerations
| Dimension | Assessment | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Disability justice | ⚠️ Partial | How are IEPs, executive function challenges, or mental health needs supported? |
| Neurodivergent alignment | ❌ Weak | No mention of sensory, processing, attention, or impulse-related accommodations |
| Supportive alternatives to exclusion | ❌ Absent | No protocol before exclusion; device policy may inadvertently become punitive |
| Structured restorative process | ⚠️ Partial | Value-based, but no formal structure or student voice mandate |
| Clear escalation path | ❌ Absent | No published procedures for documentation, appeals, or parent/family involvement |
Overall assessment: ★★☆☆☆
SJ Burnside Education Centre’s Code of Conduct reflects a well-intended, community-focused ethos aligned with trauma-responsive care and flexible learning. But like many AltEd programs, it lacks operational detail to safeguard neurodivergent and disabled students. Without explicit guidance on accommodations, behaviour supports, or accessible restorative processes, the policy risks informal or inconsistent application.
Recommendations
- Explicitly embed disability accommodations: Require IEP or case-manager consultation before any discipline.
- Define escalation procedures: Detail steps for documentation, review, and family/staff involvement.
- Implement structured restorative practices: Commit to peer or staff mediations, reflection agreements, and follow-up support.
- Clarify device policy: Include access reinstatement processes and consideration of students needing phones for regulation or communication.
- Ensure appealability: Offer a transparent process for parents/students to challenge conduct-related decisions through district channels.
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.
