Ontario to give education minister power to more easily take over school boards

Article content

Ontario is set to give the minister of education power to more easily put school boards under supervision and require more boards to put police officers in schools, moves decried by boards and teachers’ unions as masking the true crisis of underfunding.

Education Minister Paul Calandra introduced broad legislation Thursday, following weeks of warnings to boards that he would implement tougher oversight.

“We have some boards that are working very well … they’re focused on the main mission, and other boards where I have trustees who think that they’re supposed to be writing curriculum, trustees who think that it is their job to mediate global conflicts,” he said before tabling the legislation.

“What I want trustees to do is to focus on putting the resources that we provide them … into educating our kids. Teachers shouldn’t have to be going to Dollarama to buy pencil cases or crayons for their classes, and when boards take trips and waste money and do things that is not in their mandate, I think parents rightfully get upset.

“Teachers get even more upset, and it’s time for the Ministry of Education to step up to the challenge and take its responsibility a bit more seriously.”

Calandra announced in April that the province had taken control of one school board by appointing a supervisor due to financial “mismanagement” and was launching financial investigations of three others, describing his actions as putting all boards “on notice.”

Even with one board where four trustees racked up $190,000 of the public’s money for a trip to Italy to buy art for schools, Calandra said under the current rules he relies on third-party investigations and recommendations and could not yet step in.

The legislation is set to expand the reasons for initiating an investigation or putting a board under supervision beyond just financial ones, to include matters of public interest and allow Ministry of Education staff to conduct school board audits.

The Ontario Public School Boards’ Association said there indeed must be appropriate processes in place to address inappropriate board activity, but the fundamental reason for many challenges right now is underfunding.

“We’re always willing to engage in conversations about accountability,” the association wrote in a statement.

“It would be helpful if these conversations included a discussion about the funding necessary to support students in Ontario in 2025-26. Let us be clear: The real issue here is that the system is under financial strain.”

This year’s core education funding announced last week was $30.7 billion, an increase of 3.3% over the previous year, but boards and advocates say that years of below-inflation increases have left schools struggling to stretch their dollars.

The Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario suggested the bill is a power grab.

“This is not education reform; it’s authoritarianism cloaked in the language of accountability, designed to deflect blame, suppress dissenting voices and tighten political control over a public education system this government has failed to adequately fund,” the union wrote in a statement.

The bill would also give the minister power to direct school boards to publicly post expenses of trustees, the director of education and others, and would give the minister power over school names when boards open new schools or want to change an existing name.

Calandra said he does not want boards using a lot of time and money to debate school names.

“We’ve seen specifically in the city of Toronto, in the Toronto District School Board, they have wasted thousands of dollars trying to ascertain whether they should change the name of three schools, whereas at the exact same time they’re telling me that they have to maybe close school pools down, or they have to fire teachers,” he said.

RECOMMENDED VIDEO

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

Try refreshing your browser, or
tap here to see other videos from our team.

Play Video

As well, Ontario would require school boards to implement a school resource officer program if the local police service offers one.

Some school boards have such programs on a voluntary basis, while others ended their programs several years ago, after some students reported feeling uncomfortable or intimidated and some racialized communities raised concerns.

Calandra said it is a valuable service and boards should not have withdrawn those programs.

“I firmly believe that having school resource officers in the classroom is extraordinarily important,” he said.

“I disagree with those who suggest that it’s not. … I think it builds not only safety and security in a school, but also mutual respect.”

The Ontario Human Rights Commission said in a recent report that police presence and surveillance inside schools has a disproportionate impact on Indigenous, Black and other racialized students.

“Police in schools may subject Black and other racialized children, and particularly Black boys, to a higher level of surveillance that could ultimately significantly impact their mental health and education,” the commission said in its report.

Andrea Vasquez Jimenez, director and principal consultant of the group Policing-Free Schools, called the move a “blatant overreach” and a “lawsuit in the making.

“There is no evidence to support the notion that police in schools make educational spaces safer,” Jimenez wrote in a statement.

“There is, however, ample evidence of the detrimental negative impacts of police in schools on students and particularly impacts Black, Indigenous, racialized, 2SLGBTQQIA+, disabled, neurodivergent, students with precarious immigration status and including intersecting identities.”

Thursday’s legislation also contains measures directed at the post-secondary system, including requiring post-secondary admissions policies to be merit-based and requiring colleges and universities to provide detailed breakdowns of how tuition fee revenue is used.

As well, the bill would allow the government to “require transparency and increased oversight of ancillary fees at post-secondary institutions,” reminiscent of a court battle from the early days of the Doug Ford government.

Ford’s government enacted its “Student Choice Initiative” in 2019, which made some post-secondary fees optional, such as for student unions, but the province’s top court struck it down.

Colleges and Universities Minister Nolan Quinn said this legislation is different from the Student Choice Initiative because it builds in collaboration with those involved.

“We’re going to consult thoroughly with the sector, understanding that they’re going through challenging times right now,” he said.

“So we’re going to take our time and ensure that we get this right and interact with all post-secondary institutions so that we understand which ancillary fees are critical for the student education, as well as ones that can be opted out of.”

Children’s aid societies have also been under the Ford government microscope, with the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services launching a review of them in the fall. They, too, are subject to increased scrutiny in this bill.

The legislation would increase the government’s oversight of certain financial decisions, to be “outlined in future regulations.”