As Nova Scotia rolls out its new student code of conduct for the upcoming school year, disability advocates are sounding the alarm over potential unintended consequences for vulnerable students. The policy, intended to create safer learning environments across the province, has inadvertently sparked fears that students with disabilities could face disproportionate disciplinary measures.
The provincial education department introduced the standardized code this spring, aiming to establish clear expectations for approximately 120,000 students across Nova Scotia’s public schools. While the initiative appears well-intentioned on its surface, disability rights organizations have identified concerning gaps in the policy’s framework that could adversely impact students with diverse learning needs.
“What we’re seeing is a policy that doesn’t adequately account for how disability might influence student behavior,” explains Megan Henley, a researcher with Inclusion Nova Scotia. “When schools implement blanket behavioral policies without proper accommodations, we often see students with autism, ADHD, or intellectual disabilities facing suspensions for behaviors directly related to their disability.”
The 17-page document outlines various behavioral expectations and responses to violations, ranging from classroom disruptions to more serious offenses. However, the policy’s application creates a potential minefield for students whose disabilities may affect their behavior management capabilities.
A particularly troubling aspect involves the classification of “ongoing disruptive behavior” as misconduct warranting disciplinary action. For students with certain disabilities, these behaviors may be manifestations of their condition rather than willful disobedience.
Education Minister Becky Druhan has defended the policy, stating that it “prioritizes a proactive approach” and provides “clear expectations” for all students. “This is about creating consistency across the province while giving schools the tools they need to maintain positive learning environments,” Druhan said during a recent press conference.
Yet advocates point to concerning statistics from other jurisdictions with similar policies. Research from the Canadian Human Rights Commission indicates students with disabilities are approximately three times more likely to face suspensions compared to their peers, often for behaviors linked to their conditions.
Cynthia Carroll, executive director of Autism Nova Scotia, expressed particular concern about implementation. “The policy itself isn’t necessarily the problem—it’s how it will be interpreted and applied at the school level,” Carroll noted. “Without proper training for educators and administrators on disability accommodation, we risk seeing discriminatory outcomes.”
The department maintains that the code includes provisions for “individual circumstances” to be considered when applying disciplinary measures. However, disability advocates argue these provisions lack specific guidance on disability accommodations and could leave interpretation too open to individual administrators.
Parents like Michelle Peters, whose 11-year-old son has autism, worry about the real-world implications. “My son sometimes has difficulty regulating emotions when overwhelmed,” Peters explained. “I’m concerned that these normal responses to his environment could now be treated as disciplinary issues rather than accommodated as part of his disability.”
Educational policy experts suggest that effective behavior management frameworks must explicitly incorporate disability perspectives from the outset, rather than treating them as exceptions to standard rules.
The provincial department has indicated willingness to review implementation and make adjustments as needed, but advocates remain skeptical about whether this reactive approach will adequately protect students with disabilities from unfair discipline.
As September approaches and Nova Scotia schools prepare to implement the new code, the question remains: can a standardized approach to student conduct truly accommodate the diverse needs of all learners, or will it inadvertently create new barriers for our most vulnerable students?
