Ontario’s education framework is shifting once again with the passing of Bill 33, The Supporting Children and Students Act (2025). The legislation, which has now received Royal Assent, significantly expands the provincial government’s authority over school boards, raising urgent questions about governance, accountability, and most importantly the future of inclusive education.
Bill 33 amends several acts linked to education such as child welfare and oversight. Most importantly it expands the scope for when the Minister may decide to impose a supervisor. Prior to Bill 33, the Minister could impose a supervisor generally restricted to cases related to financial mismanagement or a total breakdown in board governance. It was regarded as the last resort for administrative setbacks. With the adoption of Bill 33, the Minister’s powers have significantly broadened making it more proactive and focused on provisional priorities. The Minister now can impose a supervisor under the following circumstances:
- The Minister considers it public interest to do so particularly regarding the board’s compliance with provisional priorities.
- A board fails to provide required reports or corporate reports with provisional directions regarding student outcomes.
- If an investigation or audit suggests that the board’s governance or financial practices are not aligned with the Ministers issued guidelines or provisional interest targets.
The government claims these changes are necessary in order to strengthen transparency, accountability and system effectiveness. However, there have been public protests in response, signaling that many educators, parents, and community members feel the Bill was rushed and lacks adequate stakeholder input.
In 2025, the Ministry of Education appointed supervisors to manage five school boards: Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, Ottawa-Carlson District School Board, Thames Valley District School Board, Toronto Catholic District School Board and the Toronto District School Board. The Ministry required these school boards to establish Student and Family Support Offices by January 26, 2026. All other school boards must establish them by September 1, 2026. These offices are promised to “give families clear answers and timely solutions when it comes to their child’s education.” It is unclear how this new office will offer anything more than the “parent concern protocols” that all school boards already have in place.
It is also unclear whether the staff working in these offices have any training in special education needs.
If the province is increasing its oversight and dispute resolution options, then inclusion must be part of the accountability framework. That means tracking not just financial or administrative compliance, but also:
- access to supports and accommodations
- culturally responsive and anti‑oppressive practices
- equitable outcomes for students with disabilities
- meaningful participation of families in decision‑making
How this Bill may or may not impact inclusive education practice is another question. More ministerial direction or involvement could, in theory, create consistent standards for inclusive practice across Ontario. Conversely, it could entrench segregation. The current regulatory model is permissive, not requiring segregated classes for students with disabilities, but allowing for their creation. Most boards, particularly large boards, have adopted segregated models, notwithstanding that they offer no real benefit to outcomes. Inclusive education depends on a human rights focus and robust accommodations for persons with disabilities to be fully included in decisions that affect them, simply as a matter of right. A move towards more centralized decision making may or may not result in a more inclusive environment, and will very much depend on the perspective of the government of the day. The current government has not been a champion of human rights or disability needs.
Frequent policy shifts, uncertainty about governance, and the threat of provincial supervision can destabilize school systems. Inclusive education requires long‑term planning, professional development, and relationship building all of which become harder when governance structures are in flux.
Ontario’s Bill 33 is a significant event which shall shift in how school boards are governed, but as the province moves toward greater centralization, the real question will be whether these changes will strengthen or undermine inclusion. As boards continue to interpret and adapt to Bill 33, the challenge is not simply to follow a new set of rules but to protect the commitments to justice, accessibility, and community‑driven decision‑making that make public education truly inclusive.
