PART III: The Recommendations and the Ministry’s Response
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 looks at 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.
Auditor’s Recommendations and Ministry Responses
While the recommendations call for structural reform, the Ministry’s responses often stop at guidance updates, partial agreement, or deflect to the school boards as responsible for implementing rules and regulations.
This paired list shows exactly where progress is possible and where Ontario risks repeating the same patterns that led to the audit in the first place. IAO is not optimistic the Ministry will take on the required role and provide the support it needs to, given its responses.
1. Improve clarity and accessibility of special education information for families. Response: While the Ministry agreed to improve communication, it did not offer any timelines or province‑wide standards.
2. Strengthen oversight of IPRC practices across boards.
Response: The Ministry partially agreed, promising to “review guidance” however did not commit to enforce documentation requirements.
3. Improve IEP quality through updated guidance and measurable expectations. Response: The Ministry agreed to update IEP guidelines but did not commit to monitor compliance.
4. Monitor board compliance with IEP standards.
Response: The Ministry did not agree to formal monitoring, stating boards are responsible for quality assurance.
5. Address EA shortages through coordinated provincial strategies.
Response: The Ministry agreed staffing is an issue however framed it as a board responsibility, offering only general support.
6. Provide clearer guidance on exclusions and suspensions.
Response: The Ministry partially agreed, committing to clarify expectations but refusing to require tracking of informal exclusions.
7. Improve teacher and EA training in special education.
Response: The Ministry agreed training is important but stated that boards control professional development.
8. Strengthen provincial data collection on special education indicators.
Response: The Ministry agreed to consider expanding data collection however did not commit to new mandatory indicators.
9. Increase Ministry oversight of board special education programs.
Response: The Ministry partially agreed, acknowledging gaps but declining to implement regular provincial reviews.
10. Improve transparency in special education funding.
Response: The Ministry agreed to review reporting requirements but did not address unspent special education funds. (Twenty-six boards have underspent special education funding allocated to them.)
Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) Recommendations
11. Improve documentation of IPRC decisions and placement rationales.
Response: The Ministry stated this is a board responsibility and offered general support without oversight commitments.
12. Strengthen IEP development and measurable goal‑setting.
Response: The Ministry reiterated that boards manage IEP quality and did not propose provincial monitoring.
13. Reduce assessment wait times through better tracking and prioritization.
Response: The Ministry noted boards oversee assessments and did not commit to provincial intervention.
14. Improve EA deployment and absence coverage.
Response: The Ministry acknowledged staffing challenges but maintained that boards must address them.
15. Track and reduce informal exclusions.
Response: The Ministry declined to require tracking, stating boards already have exclusion policies.
Peel District School Board (PDSB) Recommendations
16. Improve consistency and transparency in IPRC documentation.
Response: The Ministry said boards are responsible for IPRC practices and offered no oversight plan.
17. Strengthen IEP quality and compliance.
Response: The Ministry emphasized board autonomy and did not commit to provincial quality reviews.
18. Reduce long assessment wait times.
Response: The Ministry stated assessment management is a board‑level duty.
19. Address EA shortages and improve training.
Response: The Ministry agreed training matters but placed responsibility entirely on boards.
20. Monitor exclusions and ensure safe, inclusive environments.
Response: The Ministry declined to require tracking of informal exclusions.
Upper Canada District School Board (UCDSB) Recommendations
21. Improve IPRC documentation and placement reasoning.
Response: The Ministry stated boards must manage IPRC quality and did not commit to oversight.
22. Strengthen IEP development and measurable expectations.
Response: The Ministry reiterated that boards oversee IEP development.
23. Reduce assessment delays through centralized tracking.
Response: The Ministry noted assessments fall under board jurisdiction.
24. Improve EA staffing and reduce unfilled absences.
Response: The Ministry acknowledged EA shortages but offered no provincial strategy.
25. Track and reduce informal exclusions.
Response: The Ministry declined to require tracking, maintaining that boards already have exclusion policies.
Conclusion
The audit makes one thing clear: Ontario’s special education system will not improve through partial agreements, vague commitments, or guidance updates alone. The system, and the people in it, are expected to manage complex obligations with little support and even less training. While IAO recommends fundamental change of that system, that will not help if the Ministry does not provide the resources and oversight necessary to keep pace with today’s complex classrooms.
Families, educators, and advocates must continue pushing for adequate funding, transparent data, enforceable accountability, and meaningful oversight so that every board can deliver the support students deserve.
