The New Westminster submission to the Ombudsperson 

Kudos to New West for being the first district I’ve identified to have released their report to the Ombudsperson.

The New Westminster submission provides ~three years of exclusion data incidents organised by school, grade, and duration. The tables show concentrated exclusion activity in middle-years grades, consistent reliance on Code of Conduct language, and notable variation between schools, with Fraser River Middle, Glenbrook Middle, and Queensborough Middle generating the majority of recorded incidents.

Summary

• The New Westminster submission provides three years of exclusion data organised by school, grade, and duration. The highest activity appears in middle-years grades, with significant variation between schools.
• The format supports system-level visibility and heightens re-identification risk in smaller schools where limited enrolment reduces anonymity.
• The dataset reveals heavy use of broad behavioural categories, uneven documentation of educational supports, and absence of informal or undocumented exclusions.

What the report reveals

The report spans three school years and compiles exclusion events across New Westminster schools, offering structured counts by school, grade, and exclusion duration. Middle-years grades show the highest concentration of documented removals, with Fraser River Middle, Glenbrook Middle, and Queensborough Middle producing the largest totals. The repeated use of short-term suspensions across these sites illustrates consistent reliance on exclusion as a behaviour response, especially in grades six through eight. The data quantity varies across schools.

How the structure shapes interpretation

The format presents exclusions in clear tables sorted by grade, school, and length, which enables cross-school comparison and reveals the distribution of incidents with precision. This structure highlights differences in exclusion practice, yet it captures only formally recorded events.

The absence of contextual detail limits insight into the conditions that produce these removals, and the format cannot account for informal adjustments, caregiver-managed absences, or partial days arranged outside official channels. The structure therefore provides a reliable baseline while leaving significant portions of the exclusion landscape outside the frame.

Privacy considerations

The tables list exclusion events at the level of school and grade, creating analytic value while reducing anonymity in small schools with limited enrolment. Single incidents in a narrow cohort create re-identification risk, especially when local communities already hold knowledge about student behaviour or support needs. Grade-specific detail amplifies this risk, and schools with only one or two divisions face greater exposure. The format therefore delivers transparency and privacy vulnerability in parallel.

Parallels to the Room Clear Tracker debate

The privacy tension parallels a subset of the concerns raised during discussions about the Room Clear Tracker, where granular reporting illuminated crisis patterns and simultaneously narrowed anonymity for disabled students.

Language patterns and their implications

The dataset relies on recurring behavioural labels such as “Not adhering to Code of Conduct,” producing uniform explanations across a wide range of incidents. This phrasing compresses complex behavioural, emotional, and environmental factors into a single administrative category. Educational program notes range from detailed descriptions of alternative work to minimal statements indicating that work was “provided,” revealing inconsistent documentation practices. These language patterns limit interpretive clarity and emphasise behaviour over support conditions.

Missing categories and invisible exclusions

The report includes only formal suspensions and documented schedule modifications. It excludes common forms of exclusion such as informal send-homes, many partial-day adjustments arranged through conversation rather than paperwork, and caregiver withdrawals motivated by distress or safety concerns. These omissions limit understanding of the full scale of exclusion within the district. The dataset therefore represents only a portion of actual removal practices.

Systemic forces expressed through the data

Middle-years grades show consistently elevated exclusion counts, reflecting developmental transitions that often widen the gap between student needs and available support. As children grow, dysregulation may be interpreted as a conduct or safety concern, which increases reliance on suspensions rather than proactive intervention. Alternative programs also show elevated incident counts, suggesting that these sites serve students who carry school-based trauma or previous exclusion histories. Concentrated need within these programs, combined with current staffing levels, likely contributes to higher recorded incidents. These patterns may reflect system-level strain and resource distribution rather than individual student behaviour.

Why the province must lead ethical counting

The province holds the necessary data infrastructure to produce consistent, anonymised reporting across all districts, including attendance, designation, and program information. A centralised framework would reduce re-identification risk, improve accuracy, and support province-wide analysis. District-level reporting shifts privacy responsibility onto families and exposes students in small communities. Province-led counting would offer protection and strengthen policy development.