The Vancouver School Board’s District Student Code of Conduct (AP 350) is an expansive and methodically constructed document. It commits to fostering safe, inclusive, and nurturing schools; it recognises systemic discrimination, promotes restorative practices, and articulates a detailed suspension framework with multiple levels of review. The document outlines procedural guidance for school leaders, provides template letters, defines reportable incidents, and maps coordination across district and community agencies.
Yet for all its procedural sophistication, it fails in one vital domain: it does not meaningfully account for the needs of neurodivergent students.
Vancouver School Board (SD39) – current conduct decision flow
Behaviour observed
→ Determine if behaviour breaches the code of conduct
• If not: no action
• If yes: proceed
→ Assess severity and context
• Consider: seriousness, frequency, age, maturity, intent, disability status, impact
→ If minor infraction
• Apply classroom-level responses (e.g. cues, structured choices, restorative conversations)
• Assess whether supports have been implemented and allowed time to take effect
→ If not: continue or adapt interventions
→ If yes: refer to administration
→ If major infraction
• Initiate documentation (e.g. statements, parent notification, evidence)
• Consult district staff (e.g. Director of Instruction, VTRA, police if required)
→ Administrator determines response level
• In-school suspension (informal, remains on site)
• Out-of-school suspension (Level 1, up to 5 days)
• Suspension over 5 days (Level 2, requires Director of Instruction review)
• Indeterminate suspension (Level 3, reviewed by Student Suspension Review Committee)
→ Re-entry planning
• Optional at Level 1; encouraged at Levels 2–3; may involve restorative planning or program changes
Where neurodivergence disappears
AP 350 acknowledges that “special considerations may apply” to students with disabilities, particularly before issuing a suspension. However, those considerations are neither defined nor operationalised. Nowhere does the policy name executive function, sensory regulation, communication processing, or trauma response as relevant to student conduct. It does not distinguish dysregulation from intent. It does not require adaptive scaffolding, nor mandate that inclusive alternatives be attempted before exclusion is imposed.
The framework treats misconduct as personal failing. The escalation ladder—clearly mapped and legally anchored—presumes capacity, comprehension, and volition. It presumes that students who do not comply are choosing not to. For many neurodivergent students—autistic students, those with ADHD, anxiety, intellectual disability, or expressive language delays—this presumption is dangerously wrong. Their actions may reflect unmet needs, not a refusal to follow rules.
Conduct as precondition, not developmental goal
The policy begins with student responsibilities. Learners are expected to arrive prepared, manage themselves, demonstrate respect, and report wrongdoing. These are not framed as growth trajectories or learning goals. They are framed as prerequisites for participation—social competencies that must be shown before belonging is secured.
This orientation is not neutral. It assumes regulation and self-awareness are equally accessible to all students. It treats adaptation as a student obligation, not a shared task. When schools withhold accommodation but expect conformity, neurodivergent children are set up to fail—then punished for it.
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 |
|---|---|
| Disruptive behaviour | May result from sensory overload, attention regulation difficulties, or need for movement |
| Defiance | Often reflects anxiety, unclear communication, or overwhelmed executive function |
| Tardiness | Linked to slow transitions, time blindness, or processing delays |
| Cheating | Can stem from rigid thinking, support gaps, or distress around performance expectations |
| Inappropriate dress | May involve sensory aversion, fine-motor barriers, or interoceptive challenges |
| Obscenity or profanity | Often linked to impulsivity, delayed expressive language, or emotional flooding |
| Lying | Can reflect memory issues, avoidance of shame, or masking for self-protection |
| Property misuse | Frequently tied to impulsivity, sensory exploration, or misunderstanding spatial boundaries |
| Truancy | May indicate escape from an overwhelming environment or anxiety-triggering context |
| Vandalism | Can emerge from dysregulation, sensory seeking, or difficulties with emotional expression |
| Verbal abuse | Often escalates when students lack regulated outlets for need expression |
| Littering | May reflect executive delay, interoceptive disconnection, or social cue misreading |
| Non-performance | Frequently driven by overwhelm, initiation paralysis, or trauma-related shutdown |
Progressive discipline without progressive supports
The VSB behaviour rubric offers a structured range of responses—from restorative options to suspension—with flexibility for administrator discretion. It instructs school leaders to consider age, severity, and possible disability. But it fails to define what disability-aware practice entails. There is no description of what an adapted response might include—no mandate to document attempted accommodations, no requirement to consult learning plans, no clear obligation to involve support staff or families before escalation.
This absence perpetuates a deficit model. Students are judged by what they fail to do, not by what they need. Restorative approaches are allowed but not mandated. Inclusive responses are optional, not required.
Suspension as a final step—without a beginning
VSB policy outlines three levels of suspension, each with escalating procedural formality. Educational programming must be provided during exclusion. Meetings with parents are encouraged. Re-entry may include planning. But these are not enforceable safeguards. The language of the policy permits discretion at every stage—and fails to ensure that students with known disabilities have tailored supports, continuity of learning, or representation in planning decisions.
There is no assurance that behaviour support plans are in place. No requirement to review IEPs before excluding a student. No clear process for repairing harm in a neuroinclusive way. The system tracks data—but fails to guarantee equity in how that data is generated or acted upon.
Where collective punishment fits
The VSB code of conduct does not authorise collective punishment. Its detailed procedural logic—focused on individual documentation, privacy compliance, and behaviour-specific consequences—renders group sanctions structurally incompatible. Educators may not disclose the behaviour of one student to another’s family.
The Vancouver School Board has stated that it does not maintain a formal policy of collective punishment. It describes its approach as applying identical consequences when students’ “actions and individual circumstances are the same or similar,” and asserts that decisions about how to implement this standard fall under the professional autonomy of individual teachers.
This framing raises significant concern. In our experience, it has enabled disciplinary practices that fail to account for disability, trauma, or developmental differences. When sameness is equated with fairness, equity is lost. We believe this is not the result of isolated error, but the expression of a systemic pattern—one that permits group-based sanctions under the guise of consistency, and leaves disabled students especially vulnerable to harm.
Preliminary assessment: VSB District Code of Conduct
| Category | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Clarity and scope | ✅ Comprehensive, legally anchored, and procedurally coherent |
| Individualisation and procedural safeguards | ✅ Emphasises discretion and documentation, but lacks required inclusive practices |
| Protections against collective punishment | ❌ Not named or prohibited; inferred only from privacy and documentation principles |
| Equity and neurodiversity lens | ❌ Neurocognitive needs not acknowledged; no obligation to accommodate regulatory differences |
| Trauma-informed practice | ⚠️ Restorative language appears, but without consistency or mandatory application |
Overall rating: ★★☆☆☆
The VSB Code of Conduct offers a comprehensive procedural framework and speaks the language of inclusion, safety, and restoration. But its commitments often feel more aspirational than operational—reflecting a polished public narrative rather than enforceable protections. Key terms are undefined, core safeguards are discretionary, and critical differences in student needs remain unacknowledged. What appears equitable in structure falters in practice, leaving many disabled students exposed to harm without recourse.
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.
