Part II: The Findings
Introduction
Earlier this year, Ontario’s Auditor General released a report on special education in Ontario. Ontario’s special education system can be described as one of the most comprehensive in Canada supported by legislation, guided by policy, and built on a promise that every student has the right to learn in an environment that meets their needs. However behind that promise exists a complex network of processes, funding structures, and placement decisions that families and educators are required to navigate on a daily basis.
With the number of students with special education needs continuing to rise and as their needs become more complex, the Auditor observed a system under increasing strain. While educators report growing caseloads, families also face long waits for assessments, and school boards struggle to balance legal obligations with limited resources.
The Auditor made 25 recommendations and audited three school boards: The Toronto Catholic District School Board, the Peel District School Board, and the Upper Canada District School Board. The findings were significant enough to spark the province‑wide discussion about equity, accountability, and the future of inclusive education.
This three-part series reviews the Auditor’s auditor’s work and findings. Part I provides an overview of Ontario’s special education system, explains why the audit was necessary, and outlines how it was conducted. Part II analyzes the Auditor General’s findings, highlighting the systemic pressures affecting students, families, and educators. Part III reviews the Auditor’s recommendations and the Ministry of Education’s response, and considers what these findings mean for the future of inclusive education in Ontario.
It’s important to remember the Auditor doesn’t make policy recommendations. The role of the Auditor’s office to explain how the systems, as built, are or are not performing. IAO has fundamental concerns about that underlying system, which we addressed in a letter to the Minister and in a meeting with the Minister’s office. This blog series touches on those issues, too, but primarily explores the Auditor’s findings, regarding the system as it is and the Ministry’s responses.
What the Audit Found
The findings of the 2026 audit are extensive and deeply concerning. The results reflected a system that is fragmented, under-resourced and inconsistent with significant implications for students’ rights, safety and educational equity. We will break down the major findings one by one and discuss them.
Families and Educators Struggle to Navigate the System
The audit begins by analyzing how families and educators understand and navigate Ontario’s special education system. The results revealed confusion, inconsistency and significant information gaps. The audit also found that this Ontario policy framework was not clear and accessible for the people who depend on it the most. Families also often gave feedback that they weren’t sure about where to start seeking support for their child, what steps were required or what rights they have at each stage of the process.
Additionally, those new to the system also faced language barriers. Without clear proactive communication from schools these families were more likely to face delays, misunderstandings or missed opportunities for early intervention. The system as the audit presents it relies heavily on parents’ ability to advocate, ask the right questions and persist through bureaucratic hurdles that inherently privilege families with time, resources and familiarity with institutional systems.
Identification and Placement of Students
The audit examined how students are identified and placed within special education and revealed that the process used is far less transparent, individualized and accountable than Ontario’s legislation requires.
While IAO calls for the abolishment of the entire system of “identifying” people, the Identification, Placement, and Review Committee (IPRC) is in theory a person centered mechanism. In fact, it functions as a procedural formality rather than a meaningful decision making tool, while consuming enormous resources away from the classroom.
The auditor found that IPRC documentation frequently lacks the essential information needed to justify decisions. For example many files contained no written rationale explaining why a student was placed in a particular setting. Where rationales were presented they were generic, repetitive or simply rephrased the students’ diagnosis. Instead of describing how the students strengths, needs and learning profile informed the placement, committees relied on templated language that appeared across multiple files. This undermines the requirement that placement decisions be individualized and based on evidence.
Additionally changes to students placements were rarely recorded hence there was no documentation as to why a student was shifted from one setting to another or whether the changes made were in response to evolving needs, staffing pressures or school level constraints.
Due to vague documentation, families can not understand or challenge decisions and boards can not ensure consistency or equity across schools. The audit also observed that IPRC practices varied widely between boards as well as schools within the same boards.
Individualized Education Plans (IEP)
The audit revealed that IEP’s were one of the most significant systemic weaknesses in Ontario’s special education system. An IEP is intended to be a legally required student specific roadmap that guides instruction, accommodations and progress monitoring. However, audit results showed that in reality IEP’s often failed to function as meaningfully or provide effective tools for supporting students.
Across the boards which were reviewed, the audit found that IEPs were inconsistent and non compliant with the provincial standards. They lack measurable annual program goals making it impossible to understand whether the students were progressing or whether the support being provided was helpful. IEP’s also often had vague statements that did not reflect the students actual learning profile or needs. It was not precise or individualized, undermining the purpose of an IEP. There were issues with modified curriculum and alternative curriculum expectations which were often incomplete, missing or unclear. Broad and generic terms were used which did not align with the child’s needs and curriculum standards.
A mandatory component of IEP’s are parent consultations, and the audit revealed that 38-95 percent of the files reviewed did not have any evidence which proved that parents had been consulted in the process: the Ministry requires that families are involved in developing and reviewing the IEP. The absence of collaboration not only violates policy but also excludes the very people who know the child best. For newcomer parents or those navigating language barriers this further compounds inequities.
Just as concerning, educators themselves reported feeling underprepared and undersupported in writing and implementing IEP’s. They shared that as educators they had received limited training on how to develop measurable goals, differentiate instructions or document accommodations. Hence even if IEP’s were well written they were not always implemented consistently. Only 59 percent teachers according to the audit could implement accommodations while 8 percent reported that they rarely or never could do so. Ultimately these results showed that while the IEP system is procedurally present it is functionally weak. IAO strongly recommended to the Ministry that it should draw on the work of Shelley Moore, who has extensively studied how to improve IEPs.
Special Education Teachers and Educational Assistants
The audits findings on special education teachers and educational assistants (EAs) reveal a workforce stretched far beyond its actual capacity, operating under conditions that make it a struggle to deliver individualized support students require. Special education teachers were reported to be dealing with large and often unmanageable case loads with responsibilities that extended far beyond direct instruction.
Special educators are expected to write and update IEPs, coordinate with classroom teachers and parents, support behavioral planning and respond to crises as well as providing specialized instruction to students with diverse and complex needs. Many reported not having received training on administrative and legal components and so were left figuring out a lot on their own with minimal support. IAO also notes that to the extent the classroom teacher is not seen as “the teacher” for special education students, this creates an untenable situation. All teachers today must manage diverse classrooms – in all its diversity, including learning diversity – it cannot be a select few who are responsible for special education learning. All teachers must feel confident and must be supported.
The auditor noted that EAs also faced a significant set of challenges. The audit observed a high rate of EA absenteeism driven by stress, physical injuries and increasing intensity of student needs. Nearly half or in some boards majority EA absences went unfilled which left the classroom without the additional support it required. This resulted in teachers being forced to distribute responsibilities, reduce instructional time or rely on informal exclusions when students could not be safely accommodated.
EAs also reported feeling underprepared for the behavioral and medical needs they were expected to manage and many described a lack of consistent training, mentorship or opportunities for professional development. There was also a structural mismatch between EA assignments and student needs. This also led to burnout as EA’s were placed in situations they had not been trained for.
Teacher and Support Staff Training
The audit found that teachers and support staff are expected to deliver complex special education programming without sufficient training. Fifty-nine percent of regular classroom and special education teachers reported receiving minimal preparation on writing measurable IEP goals, identifying student needs, assessing students and behavior management. Training was often different across boards as well as optional hence educators relied more on informal learning or trial and error. EA’s faced greater gaps; many were assigned to students with significant behavioral, medical or communication needs without formal training which contributed to stress, injuries and the high absenteeism documented in the audit.
Student Exclusion and Suspension
The audits findings on student exclusions and suspensions reveal a troubling pattern: students with disabilities are being removed from school formally and informally at rates that reflect systemic gaps rather than student needs. While formal suspensions are regulated and tracked, the audit found that informal exclusions are widespread, undocumented and largely invisible with no oversight by the board or the Ministry.
Informal exclusions occur when students are sent home early, are asked not to attend school or told to stay home due to absence of support. The audit found that many educators witnessed or participated in these practices often citing safety concerns, behavioral challenges or the absence of necessary staff such as EA’s. Since these exclusions don’t have formal records families do not realize their child’s rights are being violated and boards can not monitor patterns or intervene. This lack of documentation creates a shadow system where students with disabilities lose instructional time without any accountability. IAO notes the impacts of this go far beyond the student: families in general, but most often women, stop working because the school constantly demands children either leave earlier or do not attend at all.
Formal suspension also showed concerning trends where students with disabilities were disproportionately represented among those suspended often for behaviors, directly linked to unmet needs or insufficient support. The audit noted that schools frequently lacked the training, staffing and proactive strategies needed to prevent crises leading to reactive disciplinary measures rather than supportive interventions.
In sum, the audit shows that both formal and informal exclusion has become an automatic response when the system is under-resourced. Instead of providing accommodations they are often simply removed from school.
Ministry Oversight of Programming and Services
The Education Act requires all school boards in Ontario to develop, maintain and make publicly available their special education plans. This plan should outline the board’s special programs and services and be reviewed by the board annually, including by the board’s special education advisory committee.
Every two years each board is required to complete and submit a checklist for the Ministry reviews of special education plans. This is done so the Ministry can ensure that all actions comply with Ministry standards.
The audit found that while 69 percent of the 49 school boards that submitted their checklist in 2023/24 identified they had made changes to their plans, most did not indicate what those changes were. Additionally, there was no evidence that the Ministry had identified and reviewed those changes in order to ensure that it complied with the Ministry standards and expectations.
Similarly, for the 2025-26 school years, 74 percent of plans had been amended, but there was no evidence that the Ministry reviewed any of these changes.
While there is a legislative requirement that the Ministry confirms compliance of each board plan with the legislation and policy, the Ministry informed the Auditor that it collected the plans and checklist submitted by the school boards, but that the school boards are responsible in ensuring that their plans comply with legislation and policy. The Ministry took the position that it was only responsible for establishing policy, not ensuring compliance with it. As a result there are long standing issues which do not have solutions. Without stronger monitoring, clearer expectations and proactive leadership the quality of special education programming depends largely on local capacity rather than provincial standards.
Part III, the final part of the series, will discuss the recommendations of the auditor and how the Ministry responded. IAO is not optimistic the Ministry will take on the required role and provide the support it needs to, given its responses.
