The SD22 progressive discipline and suspension guidelines begin with a clear statement of intent: to maintain a safe, caring, and healthy environment for all members of the school community. They emphasise functional assessment, procedural safeguards, privacy protections under FIPPA, and the possibility of restorative or reparative responses. Formal consequences are structured to follow only when individualised interventions have been documented and found insufficient to protect the learning or safety of others.
This is, in many ways, a strong foundation. The guidelines are unusually transparent and structurally robust. They distinguish between minor and major infractions, delineate clear escalation protocols, define suspension categories, and cite legal frameworks that guide implementation. Disciplinary responses must be evidence-based, proportionate, and student-specific. No group sanctions are described—and, under the privacy provisions outlined in FIPPA, they are functionally precluded.
Yet while the document avoids endorsing collective punishment, it also fails to name it. This omission matters—especially for families whose children have been subjected to public shaming, withheld privileges, or exclusionary consequences applied to entire groups. Without explicit prohibitions, harmful practices often persist beneath the surface, misrepresented as neutral discipline or routine classroom management.
Vernon School District (SD22) – current conduct decision flow
Behaviour observed
→ Determine whether the infraction is minor or major
→ If minor:
• Teacher applies Tier 1 classroom interventions
• Evaluate: have multiple strategies been implemented and monitored over time?
→ If not: continue and document supports
→ If yes: refer to administration for further action
• Admin may consult Director of Inclusion; consider suspension if appropriate
→ If major:
• Admin initiates formal documentation
• Consult Director of Inclusion (and/or VTRA, police, or other agencies as required)
• Admin may recommend suspension; follow-up procedures begin
Neurodivergence is invisible here
Throughout the document, there is no mention of neurodivergent students, nor any recognition of the structural barriers they navigate. The section on minor infractions outlines a progressive system for addressing behaviours like defiance, disruption, or tardiness—but offers no guidance on how those behaviours might arise from cognitive, sensory, or regulatory differences, rather than from wilful misconduct.
The listed interventions—such as structured choices, role-play, and behaviour-specific praise—may be effective for some students. But there is no provision for what should occur when these tools fail, not because the student refuses to comply, but because the strategy is misaligned with their neuropsychological profile. No mention is made of sensory accommodations, regulation supports, visual scaffolds, or differentiated instruction.
This silence creates the illusion of neutrality. In practice, it imposes a one-size-fits-all approach that may feel inclusive, but ultimately excludes many disabled learners.
Neurocognitive considerations
Discipline policies often treat student events as deliberate misbehaviour. But many are not choices—they are responses to stress, confusion, or unmet needs. Reframing these moments through a neurocognitive lens helps us see the difference between defiance and distress, and shifts the question from “What rule was broken?” to “What support is needed?”
| Event | Neurodivergent interpretation |
|---|---|
| Disruption | May stem from sensory overload, motor restlessness, or difficulty filtering stimuli |
| Defiance | Often triggered by unclear expectations, anxiety, or need for autonomy |
| Non-compliance | May reflect auditory processing issues, generalisation difficulties, or executive dysfunction |
| Property misuse | Linked to impulsivity, sensory seeking, or misunderstandings of boundaries |
| Dress code | May involve sensory aversion, interoception challenges, or fine-motor barriers |
| Mild physical contact | Could arise from social miscuing, sensory defensiveness, or attempts at connection |
| Inappropriate language | Sometimes the result of echolalia, impulsivity, or expressive language delay |
| Tardiness | Common with executive dysfunction, transitions without support, or time blindness |
| Lying | May reflect memory lapses, dissociation, or masking to avoid perceived danger or shame |
| Cheating | Tied to rigid thinking, anxiety, or support gaps—not malicious intent |
| Out of bounds | Can stem from spatial disorientation, escape-seeking, or confusion |
| Littering | Often linked to motor planning issues, low interoceptive awareness, or social cue misreading |
| Refusal to comply | May signal unmet needs, burnout from masking, or invalidated autonomy |
The language of threat
Major infractions—including violent acts, hate-based threats, or weapons possession—trigger formal documentation, administrative oversight, and, potentially, RCMP involvement. These are high-stakes interventions. Yet the policy offers no guidance on how to differentiate between deliberate threats and dysregulated behaviour. There is no recognition of how trauma, communication differences, or processing delays may affect student conduct in moments of crisis.
Without trauma-informed adaptations, administrators are left to interpret dysregulation through a punitive lens. The absence of nuance invites misdiagnosis of intent—and increases the likelihood that distressed students will be treated as dangerous, rather than supported.
What the suspension section leaves out
The suspension section outlines three types of exclusion (in-school, out-of-school, and Board-level), with consistent follow-up requirements: parent meetings, incident documentation, behaviour plans. These procedural elements are valuable. But nowhere does the policy explain how behaviour plans should be constructed—or whether they are designed to accommodate cognitive, sensory, or communication differences.
There is no reference to student or family participation in re-entry planning. No assurance that new accommodations will be provided. No recognition that exclusion itself may deepen vulnerability unless followed by targeted, neuroinclusive repair.
The gap between documentation and reintegration remains unaddressed.
Where collective punishment fits
Although the policy never uses the term “collective punishment,” its procedural logic leaves little room for it. All responses must be individualised, clearly documented, and grounded in behaviour-specific evidence. Infractions are tied to particular students. Privacy restrictions under FIPPA prohibit staff from discussing one student’s behaviour with another’s family—making group-based sanctions both inappropriate and potentially unlawful.
This is not a bureaucratic oversight. It reflects a fundamental principle: students must never be punished for the actions of others. The entire SD22 framework—its progressive discipline ladder, its function-based analysis, its trauma-reduction goals—implicitly affirms this position. Teachers are instructed to understand behaviour as communication. Responses must be proportional, evidence-informed, and student-specific.
Group sanctions violate both the letter and the spirit of this approach.
Preliminary assessment: SD22 progressive discipline and suspension guidelines
| Category | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Clarity and scope | ✅ Well-organised, transparent, and legally anchored |
| Individualisation and procedural safeguards | ✅ Requires student-specific documentation, escalating supports, and administrative review |
| Protections against collective punishment | ✅ No authorisation of group-level sanctions; structure enforces individual responses |
| Equity and neurodiversity lens | ❌ No reference to executive function, sensory needs, or neurocognitive diversity |
| Trauma-informed adaptations | ⚠️ Invokes restorative justice, but offers no systemic response to disability or trauma |
Overall rating: ★★★☆☆
This policy provides a clear procedural framework and implicitly rejects collective punishment. However, it fails to account for the cognitive, sensory, and regulatory needs of neurodivergent students—limiting its relevance for those most at risk of exclusion.
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.
