Here is a definition of the terminology used on this site.

• inclusion: Inclusion refers to the principle that all students, including those with disabilities or diverse learning needs, have the right to participate meaningfully in regular school environments alongside their peers. Inclusive education focuses on adapting teaching methods, supports, and environments so that students can access learning, social interaction, and school life on an equitable basis. This may include accommodations, assistive technology, support staff, flexible instruction, and adjustments to the classroom environment. Inclusion is not simply about physical presence in a classroom; it means that students are supported in ways that allow them to participate, learn, and belong. In British Columbia, inclusive education is supported by human rights protections, including the duty to accommodate under the British Columbia Human Rights Code, which requires schools to remove barriers and provide necessary supports so students can access education equitably. Learn more
• inclusive education: Inclusive education is an approach to schooling that aims to ensure all students—regardless of disability, learning differences, or other needs—can learn and participate together in neighbourhood schools and regular classrooms. The goal of inclusive education is not simply placing students in the same space, but adapting teaching, environments, and supports so every student can access learning, develop relationships, and belong in the school community. This may involve accommodations, assistive technology, flexible instruction, support staff, and changes to the physical or social environment. Inclusive education recognises that barriers often arise from how systems are designed rather than from the student themselves. In British Columbia, inclusive education is supported by the duty to accommodate under the British Columbia Human Rights Code, which requires schools to remove barriers and provide reasonable supports so students with disabilities can access education on an equitable basis. Learn more
• Indigenous pedagogies: Indigenous pedagogies refer to ways of teaching and learning rooted in the knowledge systems, cultural practices, and worldviews of Indigenous peoples. These approaches often emphasise relationships, community responsibility, connection to land, learning through observation and participation, and the sharing of knowledge across generations. Indigenous pedagogies value holistic development, including emotional, spiritual, physical, and intellectual well-being, rather than focusing only on academic outcomes. In Canadian education, incorporating Indigenous pedagogies is part of broader efforts to recognise Indigenous knowledge and address the legacy of colonial education systems, including the harms of the Canadian Indian Residential School System. When implemented respectfully and in partnership with Indigenous communities, Indigenous pedagogies can enrich learning environments and support more relational, culturally responsive approaches to education for all students. Learn more
• Indigenous students: Indigenous students are students who identify as members of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, including First Nations, Inuit, and Métis. Indigenous students attend public schools across the country and bring diverse cultures, languages, histories, and knowledge traditions into the classroom. At the same time, many Indigenous families continue to experience the long-term impacts of colonial policies that disrupted communities and education systems, including the legacy documented by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. In education today, supporting Indigenous students involves recognising these histories while ensuring schools are culturally respectful, inclusive, and responsive to Indigenous identities and knowledge. This can include honouring Indigenous perspectives in curriculum, building relationships with Indigenous communities, and ensuring that Indigenous students experience school as a place of belonging, dignity, and opportunity. Learn more
• informal advocacy: Attempts to resolve issues without formal escalation. Includes emails requesting accommodations, meetings to discuss concerns, verbal advocacy in classrooms or offices, and collaborative problem-solving. Informal advocacy assumes good faith, seeks partnership, and aims to resolve concerns quickly. Most families begin here, reserving formal complaints for situations where informal advocacy fails. Schools sometimes weaponise informal advocacy by demanding indefinite cooperation whilst refusing substantive change, trapping families in unproductive process. Learn more
• informal exclusion: nformal exclusion refers to situations where a student is prevented from meaningfully attending school without a formal suspension or written decision. This can include being repeatedly sent home, placed on shortened days, asked to stay home until certain conditions are met, or otherwise discouraged from attending. Informal exclusion may also occur when school conditions become so unsafe or distressing that families begin keeping their child home in order to avoid harm or allow the child time to recover. Because these situations are often not formally recorded as disciplinary actions, the student may appear absent rather than excluded. This can make the scale of the problem difficult to track and can place responsibility on families rather than the conditions that led to the absence. Informal exclusion can significantly disrupt a child’s access to education and is particularly common among students whose needs are not being adequately supported. Learn more
• informal resolution: Informal resolution refers to attempts to resolve a concern through conversation and problem-solving rather than through a formal complaint or appeal process. This may include discussions with a classroom teacher, meetings with school staff, or collaborative efforts to address an issue before escalating it within the school district. Informal resolution can sometimes lead to quicker solutions when all parties are acting in good faith and have the authority to implement changes. However, informal processes can also become prolonged when concerns are repeatedly discussed without resulting in clear decisions or meaningful action. In these situations, families may need to move from informal resolution to a formal process—such as a district appeal or other complaint pathway—in order to create an official record and obtain a decision that can be reviewed or challenged if necessary. Learn more
• informal supports: Learn more
• information asymmetry: Information asymmetry refers to situations where one party has significantly more information than another, creating an imbalance in understanding and decision-making. In school advocacy, school districts and staff often have greater access to internal policies, documentation, incident reports, and institutional processes than families do. Parents may be asked to make decisions or respond to situations without having access to the same records, context, or procedural knowledge as the school. This imbalance can make it difficult for families to fully understand what has happened, what options are available, or how decisions are being made. Information asymmetry can also affect how quickly families recognise patterns of concern or know when to escalate an issue. Reducing information asymmetry—through transparent communication, clear documentation, and access to records—helps create more equitable and accountable decision-making processes. Learn more
• information withheld: Information withheld refers to situations where a school or school district does not share relevant information with families about events, decisions, or conditions affecting their child. This can include not informing parents about incidents that occurred at school, failing to disclose documentation such as incident reports or internal communications, or providing only partial explanations about decisions that impact a student’s education or safety. Information may be withheld intentionally or through institutional practices that limit what staff share with families. When families do not have access to the same information as the school, it can make it difficult to understand what has happened, advocate effectively, or make informed decisions about their child’s well-being. In some cases, parents only discover missing information later through records requests or formal complaint processes. Transparent communication is an important part of trust and accountability between schools and families. Learn more
• injury to dignity: Injury to dignity refers to harm to a person’s sense of self-worth, respect, or belonging caused by discrimination. In human rights law, it recognises that the impact of discrimination is not only practical or financial but also emotional and psychological. A student may experience injury to dignity when they are treated as less capable, excluded from participation, publicly shamed, or repeatedly denied accommodations related to disability or another protected characteristic. Under the British Columbia Human Rights Code, the BC Human Rights Tribunal can award compensation for injury to dignity when discrimination is found. These awards recognise the real harm caused when a person’s humanity, identity, or rights are not respected within institutions such as schools. Learn more
• institutional accountability: Learn more
• institutional betrayal: Institutional betrayal refers to harm that occurs when an institution a person depends on—such as a school—fails to prevent, respond to, or acknowledge wrongdoing. The term describes situations where an organisation that is expected to provide safety and care instead ignores concerns, minimises harm, protects its reputation, or fails to act when problems are reported. In school settings, institutional betrayal can occur when families raise concerns about bullying, discrimination, unsafe conditions, or staff conduct and the response prioritises managing risk or liability rather than addressing the harm experienced by the child. Because students and families rely on schools for daily care and support, these failures can feel especially damaging and can erode trust in the institution. Recognising institutional betrayal helps highlight that the harm is not only the original incident but also the system’s failure to respond in ways that protect and support those affected. Learn more
• institutional capture: Institutional capture is what happens when parents begin using a school's own framework to understand their child — tracking good days and bad days in the school's terms, accepting its language for their child's distress, staying silent in meetings to protect a relationship — without realising the framework itself is shaping what they can see and say. It is not agreement. It is the slow replacement of your own perception with the institution's. Learn more
• institutional confidentiality: Institutional confidentiality refers to the way schools and other organisations limit what information they share about incidents, staff conduct, or internal decisions, often citing privacy, employment law, or policy requirements. While confidentiality can be important for protecting personal information, it can also create situations where families are told that actions were taken but are given little or no detail about what occurred or what consequences followed. In school contexts, institutional confidentiality is frequently invoked during investigations, disciplinary processes, or safety incidents involving staff or other students. This can leave families feeling that concerns were handled behind closed doors without transparency or accountability. As a result, parents may know that something happened but not understand how it was addressed or whether meaningful change occurred. Balancing privacy with transparency is an ongoing challenge in institutional systems that are responsible for both protecting individuals and maintaining public trust. Learn more
• Institutional gaslighting: Institutional gaslighting refers to situations where an organisation dismisses, minimises, or reframes people’s experiences in ways that cause them to question their own understanding of events. In school contexts, this can occur when families raise concerns about harm, discrimination, or unmet supports and are told that nothing unusual happened, that the situation is being misunderstood, or that the problem lies with the child or family rather than the system. Institutional gaslighting does not always involve deliberate deception; it can also arise from defensive institutional responses that prioritise protecting reputation, liability, or internal narratives. Over time, repeated denial or reframing of events can erode families’ confidence in their own observations and make it harder to advocate effectively. Recognising institutional gaslighting helps explain why some conflicts between families and institutions feel disorienting: the disagreement is not only about what happened, but about whose version of reality is treated as credible. Learn more
• institutional harm: Institutional harm refers to harm that arises from the policies, practices, or decisions of an organisation rather than from the actions of a single individual. In school settings, institutional harm can occur when systems are structured in ways that repeatedly produce negative outcomes for students—for example through inaccessible environments, failure to implement accommodations, exclusionary discipline, delayed responses to safety concerns, or processes that make it difficult for families to obtain support. Even when individual staff members are trying to help, the overall structure of the system may still produce harm if resources, policies, or decision-making processes create persistent barriers. Institutional harm often becomes visible through patterns rather than isolated incidents. Recognising institutional harm shifts the focus from blaming individuals to examining how systems can be redesigned to better protect student safety, dignity, and access to education. Learn more
• Institutional normalisation: Institutional normalisation refers to the process by which harmful or inadequate practices become accepted as ordinary within an organisation. Over time, behaviours or conditions that would once have been considered unacceptable—such as chronic under-support, exclusionary discipline, or delayed responses to safety concerns—may come to be treated as routine. Staff working within the system may not recognise the harm because these practices have become embedded in everyday procedures and expectations. For families encountering the system from the outside, however, these conditions can be deeply concerning. Recognising institutional normalisation helps explain how patterns of harm can persist without any single person intending them. Learn more
• institutional trauma: Institutional trauma refers to the psychological harm that occurs when a person experiences repeated distress, neglect, or betrayal within an institution they depend on, such as a school. Unlike a single traumatic event, institutional trauma often develops through ongoing interactions where concerns are dismissed, supports are denied, or harm is not acknowledged. Because schools are places children attend daily and families rely on for care and learning, negative experiences within these systems can have lasting emotional and developmental effects. Institutional trauma may affect both students and families, shaping how safe they feel engaging with the education system in the future. Learn more
• institutional-capture: Institutional capture describes what happens when processes meant to protect students are shaped around the institution’s comfort, reputation, or risk management instead of the child’s rights and safety. It can make accountability systems appear active while leaving the underlying harm untouched. Learn more