Ontario Human Rights Commission Submission concerning the Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026

May 13, 2026

Introduction

The Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026 | regulatoryregistry.gov.on.ca

The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) welcomes the opportunity to provide this submission on Bill 101, Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026 (the Act). Although Bill 101 received Royal Assent on May 7, 2026, the OHRC is nevertheless providing a submission to inform potential future regulations and implementation.

The Act amends the Education Act and Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 to:

1. Permit the Minister of Education to mandate consistent classroom learning resources
    
2. Permit the Minister of Education to mandate exams and assessment standards for secondary school students (including the requirement of attendance and participation to be included in assessments).
    
3. Abolish school climate survey requirements for school boards.
    
4. Expand the authority to regulate teacher education.

The Ontario Human Rights Code (Code) has primacy over all other laws in Ontario. This means that the amendments made by the Act and any regulations implementing them must be developed, interpreted, and applied in a manner consistent with the Code. The amendments and future regulations should avoid reinforcing, perpetuating, or worsening the disadvantages faced by Indigenous, Black, and other racialized students, 2SLBGTQIA+ students, and students with disabilities. Instead, they should promote supportive and inclusive education environments that enhance substantive equality which may lead to improved educational outcomes for all students.

The Code prohibits discrimination that results from requirements, policies, standards, qualifications, rules, or factors that may appear neutral, but which have a negative effect on persons based on a prohibited ground of discrimination. This is often called adverse effect or constructive discrimination.

Discrimination in education can be systemic or institutionalized. This discrimination consists of attitudes, patterns of behaviour, policies or practices that are part of the social or administrative structures of an institution, sector or system, that create or perpetuate a position of relative disadvantage for groups identifying with a protected ground in the Code, such as students with disabilities. They may appear neutral on the surface but nevertheless have an adverse effect or exclusionary impact.

Substantive equality entails an understanding that identical treatment may often result in significant inequality. In assessing whether conduct is discriminatory, the focus should be the impact of a law or action on the individual or group concerned. Under the Code, all organizations are prohibited from treating people unfairly because of Code grounds, must remove barriers that cause discrimination, and must stop discrimination when it occurs. The promotion of substantive equality sometimes requires positive action, such as the requirement to provide accommodations.

Similarly, public schools are subject to the right to equality guaranteed under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). Section 15 guarantees the right to equal protection under the law and equal benefit of the law, without discrimination based on disability, among other grounds. Governments must not infringe Charter rights unless violations can be justified under section 1, which considers whether the Charter violation is reasonable in the circumstances.

The principles of the Code must be considered and embedded into every stage of regulatory and program development. To make education in Ontario inclusive for all students, the OHRC encourages the government to apply a human rights approach to all aspects of the education system.

The OHRC recommends that a Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA) be adopted when developing any law, policy or program that may implicate rights under the Code. Adopting an HRBA means giving particular attention to people who are most vulnerable or disadvantaged on grounds protected under the Code, such as gender, race, place of origin, ethnic origin, creed, or disability when developing and implementing a law, policy, procedure, program or service. This includes ensuring that people are not subject to discriminatory treatment and that policies and programs account for pre-existing sources of disadvantage and inequitable conditions.

Ensuring integration and full participation means designing the education system for inclusiveness. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is an educational approach that emphasizes designing curriculum and instruction to make them effective and accessible for all students. The goal of UDL is to give all students an equal opportunity to learn and succeed.

Skills and competencies can, and should, be assessed through a variety of evaluation methods such as daily classwork, assignments, presentations, and projects. All students should have equal opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge through assessment methods that are non-discriminatory, inclusive and accommodate student’s Code-related needs.

OHRC’s Work in Education

The OHRC is an independent human rights body established under the Code and is responsible for promoting and advancing human rights and addressing systemic discrimination in Ontario. The OHRC achieves this by developing policies, conducting public inquiries, providing advice to government, and engaging in strategic litigation. Over the years, the OHRC has gathered extensive evidence regarding systemic discrimination, including in education.

Education is critical to an individual’s personal, social and economic development, and vital to their ability to contribute to the well-being of their community. To realize this vision, all students must have access to meaningful education consistent with substantive equality.

The Code guarantees each person the right to equal treatment in education services, without discrimination based on the grounds of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability. This includes meaningful access to and benefit from Ontario’s education system, with necessary accommodations for an individual’s disability, creed, or other Code-related needs. It also includes the right to be free from harassment and a poisoned school environment.

In 2012, the OHRC intervened in Moore v British Columbia (Education)^[1], in which the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that students with special needs have the right to meaningful access to the same level of education as their peers, and established that meaningful access means providing accommodation so that all students have the same opportunity to succeed.

For decades, the OHRC’s key focus has been on advancing the rights and interests of students, particularly those from historically marginalized Code-protected groups. The OHRC works to identify and eliminate systemic barriers within the education system. To support these efforts, the OHRC has created resources^[2] and published reports to assist education duty-holders in identifying, monitoring, and addressing systemic discrimination and harassment in the education system. The OHRC has also made submissions^[3] to government about how to address systemic discrimination and harassment in education.

Feedback Regarding the Act and potential future regulations

Mandating Consistent Learning Resources in Classrooms

The legislative changes authorize the Minister to establish policies and guidelines governing the use of educational materials in schools and require school boards to comply with the Ministry’s direction on approved instructional materials.^[4] They also mandate school boards to adopt and follow prescribed rules for the selection and use of the educational materials. These changes standardize and centralize decision-making regarding the selection and use of educational resources across school boards.

The OHRC is generally supportive of these amendments in principle; however, it is essential that the proposed amendments align with OHRC recommendations set out in key resources including but not limited to the Policy on Accessible Education for Students with Disabilities,^[5] the Right to Read: Public inquiry into human rights issues affecting students with reading disabilities (Right to Read Inquiry Report)^[6]. and Dreams Delayed: Addressing Systemic Anti-Black Racism and Discrimination in Ontario’s Public Education System (Dreams Delayed).^[7]

The OHRC recommends that the Ministry work with external expert(s) to develop a list of approved classroom materials (including programs, kits, books, readers, assessment tools and intervention programs) that are evidence-based, and grounded in culturally responsive pedagogy, and universal design principles.

The OHRC emphasises its view that curriculum and supplementary resources must reflect and address the needs of the full diversity of Ontario’s communities.^[8] The Ministry should also provide access to supplementary materials and tools that educators can use to enhance classroom discussions on intersectionality and diversity. Resources should also include content on the rights and responsibilities under the Code, and on the history and ongoing intergenerational impacts of human rights violations, including the experience of Indigenous peoples, Black and racialized communities in Canada.

The OHRC recommends that the Ministry recognize First Nations, Métis, and Inuit Elders as knowledge keepers and educators, and support their role in sharing cultural knowledge. Curriculum and instructional practices and materials must incorporate Indigenous perspectives, cultures, values, and languages where appropriate, and provide inclusive, evidence-based instruction in foundational reading skills for all students.^[9]

The Ministry must also ensure that all resources meet the duty to accommodate students with disabilities. This includes:

• investigating and approving a standardized list of assistive technology (AT) tools, and funding the procurement of, and training in, these tools.^[10]
   
• mandating that all classroom assignments, handouts and tests must be available electronically (in a format compatible with AT) at or before the time they are distributed to the class.^[11]
   
• creating and make public examples of AT products that are available in Ontario, along with descriptions of how and when each product can be used.
   
• publishing guidelines and protocols for comprehensive, sustained and job-embedded AT training, including who should provide the training, how often, what topics the training should cover, and who should attend the training.^[12]
   
• eliminating the current requirement that Special Equipment Amount (SEA) claims-based funds require a professional assessment.^[13]
   
• simplifying the process for AT accommodations by removing any requirements for psychoeducational assessments and/or an Identification, Placement and Review committee (IPRC), and by minimizing the number of required staff approvals.^[14]
   
• ensuring school boards and schools implement accommodations in a timely manner and regularly meet with student and families to discuss how the accommodation plan might be improved.^[15]
   
• ensuring school boards and schools clearly communicate to students and families how to request disability-related accommodation and maintain local mechanisms to resolve disputes.^[16]
   
• Ensuring school boards communicate effectively to students and parents, through multiple platforms and forums, about the right to receive accommodation including:
   
  • That students with disabilities are entitled to accommodation (including at any grade level and in both French and English-language programs)
     
  • That accommodations for students with reading difficulties should be provided alongside evidence-based interventions.
     
  • How students and parents can be involved in the accommodation process.^[17]
     
• Ensuring teachers and educational assistants proactively identify students who need accommodation, not just when parents or students advocate for it. Students should not be expected to self-advocate to receive accommodations.^[18]

Consistent with the Right to Read Inquiry Report, the Ministry should continue to revise literacy guides and resources to remove unsupported instructional approaches (including cueing systems, balanced literacy, and non-evidence-based assessment methods) and replace them with resources that reflect explicit, systematic, and evidence-based instruction in foundation word-reading skills.^[19]

All students benefit from learning environments where they feel included and can see themselves; their families and their communities reflected in the curriculum and classroom resources. Inclusion has a positive impact on the cognitive and social development of children and youth and the overall school environment. Teachers, principals, and other education workers share and benefit from this vision of inclusion when learning and work environments are representative, inclusive, and supportive. This includes ensuring materials promoting tolerance and acceptance and those depicting diverse identities and family structures, are meaningfully included.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s (SCC) decision in Chamberlain v Surrey School District No 36^[20] affirms this approach. The SCC held that a school board’s decision not to approve three books showing same sex parented families as supplementary resources for use was unreasonable. The decision noted while religious concerns of some parents can be considered, they cannot become the basis of school policy or used to deny equal recognition and respect to other members of the community.

Mandating Exams and Assessment Standards for Secondary School Students

The legislative changes provide Ministerial authority to establish policies and guidelines for the assessment of student achievement. This change enables the introduction of mandatory written exams on official exam days.

The introduction of mandatory written exams could have ramifications for students identifying with protected grounds under the Code, such as students with learning disabilities.

Consistent with human rights principles, education services must be designed to reflect and include all students, as much as possible in a way that promotes integration and full participation. Where individual needs remain, there is a duty to accommodate those needs to the point of undue hardship. Schools must provide accommodations that respect students’ privacy, dignity and individuality.

Accommodation may mean allowing a student to demonstrate their ability to succeed in a course in alternative ways. Depending on a student’s individual needs and the nature of the education service being provided, accommodations may include modification to evaluation methodologies, such as extended time when taking tests, changes in location or alternative evaluation formats.

Accommodation does not alter the academic standards by which success in a course is determined. Once they have received accommodation, a student must be able to meet bona fide academic requirements, such as demonstrating specific skills, mastering the curriculum, and passing the course.

Exams can create significant stress and anxiety, impacting mental health. Mandatory exams may add more stress and thus, acerbates a student’s existing mental health. The Code’s definition of disability includes a mental disorder. As the Policy on Accessible Education for Students with Disabilities states, depending on the nature of a disability, a student may not be able to request accommodation in a timely way. For example, some types of mental health disabilities may leave a student unable to identify that they have a disability or that they have accommodation needs. A student may not have prior warning that they will have accommodation needs, or they may find themselves in a situation where they are experiencing disability-related symptoms for the first time. In these circumstances, if a student has failed to meet performance expectations in a course the institution has an obligation to consider accommodation after the fact.

Consistent with Universal Design for Learning principles, schools and educators should retain flexibility in determining the best way to evaluate their students based on a number of factors, including Code grounds and other forms of disadvantage that may be a barrier to student success.

Education providers must also ensure that testing and evaluation materials and procedures are not selected or implemented in a way that is racially or culturally biased, and do not otherwise infringe the rights protected by the Code.

Requiring Attendance and Participation to be Included in Assessments

The amendments provide Ministerial authority to establish policies and guidelines for the assessment of student achievement. The Ministry has indicated it intends to make participation and attendance worth 15 per cent of the final course mark for Grades 9 to 10 and 10 per cent for Grades 11 to 12. Including attendance and participation as part of final course marks could have detrimental effects and Code implications.

While some students may be disengaged and skipping school, others may miss school due to a wide variety of reasons.

Studies have shown that children and youth who experience mental health challenges are at greater risk of increased school absenteeism.^[21] Students with disabilities are a diverse group, and experience disability, impairment, and societal barriers in many ways. Disabilities are often “invisible” and episodic, such as anxiety and depression, with people sometimes experiencing periods of wellness and periods of disability. All students with disabilities have the same rights under the Code, whether their disabilities are visible or not.

Students may miss school due to caregiving responsibilities^[22] or due to bullying and harassment.^[23] Lower socioeconomic status is also associated with higher levels of school absenteeism.^[24]

Over the years, the OHRC has gathered extensive evidence regarding systemic discrimination. For example, as outlined by the OHRC in Dreams Delayed, numerous published reports have shown that far too many Black students are not receiving the support they need to succeed and are experiencing discrimination and harassment within the education system.^[25] Black students are also disproportionately suspended, reducing their ability to attend school.^[26]

Similarly, in the Right to Read Inquiry Report, the OHRC outlined that, despite Ontario’s complex education framework to address “special needs” of students, students with disabilities continue to encounter significant barriers in their attempts to access educational services in Ontario. They can develop school avoidance behaviours and higher absence rates. They are more likely to have behavioural issues at school and to be suspended, in turn impacting attendance records.^[27]

The Right to Read Inquiry Report also noted that irregular school attendance is a significant barrier to Indigenous student achievement and is often related to historical disadvantage, current systemic barriers, and discrimination. First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples’ experiences with child welfare can intersect with poverty to also have a negative impact on school attendance. The OHRC heard that parents who live in poverty and struggle with food insecurity may not send their children to school if they cannot afford food, fearing that school authorities may view this as parental neglect and alert child welfare.^[28]

Graduation rates for First Nations, Inuit and Métis students are also disproportionately lower.^[29] Having attendance as part of final course marks could mean that more students fail to earn required credits, reducing graduation rates even further.

When developing specific details related to attendance and participation requirements, it is essential to ensure that requirements align with the principles of substantive equality as established in the Code and section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

With attendance as part of final course marks, resulting lower grades would in turn impact graduation rates and access to post-secondary education, reducing employment opportunities and income levels. Any reduction in access to post-secondary education for historically disadvantaged persons will reinforce, perpetuate, and worsen existing disadvantage, ultimately leading to lower socioeconomic success in Ontario.

Under the Code, education providers have a legal duty to accommodate the needs of students with disabilities, or identifying with another Code ground, who are adversely affected by a requirement, rule or standard. Education providers must accommodate students’ individual needs, develop a range of possible accommodation options, and provide the accommodations that best serve students’ needs to the point of undue hardship.

While promoting attendance is an important goal, the measures used to promote attendance must be evidence-based. If measures are not evidence-based and will adversely impact students who are already struggling to attend school, they may not be reasonable and bona fide. The focus should be on understanding the root cause of student absenteeism and responding with evidence-based supportive measures that benefit all students.

It has been stated that students will not be negatively impacted for excused absences, such as illnesses and holy days. However, more clarity is required to understand how this requirement would be implemented in practice and the specific circumstances that would and would not be excused.

This could also place an undue burden on parents who may not be able to excuse absences due to availability, resources or lack of familiarity with school attendance processes. Examples include newcomers facing language barriers, struggling parents working multiple jobs, and the intergenerational trauma caused by residential schools and other experiences of oppression and discrimination affecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis parents who may have a deep mistrust of the education system. It is also important to ensure that parents are not burdened by medical documentation requirements to substantiate absences as they could be costly and/or difficult to obtain.

Requirements related to participation also risk disadvantaging students who struggle to actively participate in a classroom setting for a variety of reasons such as language barriers, anxiety or learning disabilities.^[30] Any participation requirements should incorporate educator discretion and flexibility. Requirements should not mandate a specific form of participation, such as answering questions out loud in front of the class, as this could contribute to school avoidance and absenteeism.

To avoid perpetuating systemic human rights barriers, attendance and participation requirements should be inclusive and designed to consider the circumstances of and impacts on historically disadvantaged groups and all protected grounds under the Code.

Removing School Survey Requirements for School Boards

The legislative amendments repeal provisions that allow the Ministry to establish policies and guidelines for school climate surveys and eliminate the requirement for school boards to administer these surveys to collect information from pupils, staff and parent/guardians. As a result, school boards will no longer be required to use school climate surveys to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of policies intended to build inclusive and welcoming learning environments and to assess students’ experiences, well-being and sense of belonging. Instead, the government proposes new complaints and support mechanisms that will be established by September 1, 2026. Student and families will raise concerns, and access supports through Student and Family Support Offices.

The OHRC has concerns with the amendments eliminating mandatory school climate surveys without a clear, evidence-based replacement that ensures students’ perceptions of well-being and belonging in correlation with demographic data continue to be identified and addressed. A reliance on individual complaints alone fails to provide a comprehensive understanding of student and families’ experiences or of systemic inequalities.

School Climate Survey

School climate surveys have been one of the primary quantitative tools used by boards to:

• Provide important information about student mental health and well-being.
   
• Identify systemic barriers in order to create healthy, inclusive, and equitable learning and working environments.
   
• Create programs, set priorities, and develop resources to continue building inclusive, welcoming, and supportive environments where all feel they matter and belong.

Eliminating school climate surveys represents a significant departure from the Ministry’s previous position on data collection. In the Ministry’s 2014 document, Achieving Excellence: A Renewed Vision for Education in Ontario, the Ministry emphasized the “importance of demographic and perceptual data (for example, from student censuses and school climate surveys) for program service enhancements and to address the specific needs of students who struggle.”^[31]

Similarly in the 2017 Education Equity Action Plan, the Ministry acknowledged that “collecting and analyzing voluntary demographic data and perceptual data can enable our school and system leaders to more precisely address the barriers to student success.”^[32] The Ministry also stated that relevant demographic data includes exceptionalities, immigration status, language first spoken, race, ethnicity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity and indicators of parental socioeconomic status.^[33]

The Education Equity Action Plan further recognized:

A consistent approach to collecting and analyzing voluntarily provided identity-based data will help local school boards identify where systemic barriers exist, and will help determine how to eliminate discriminatory biases in order to support equity and student achievement and well-being through training and targeted programs and supports. This work will support the mandate of Ontario’s Anti-Racism Directorate and will align with data standards developed by the Directorate.^[34]

On April 10, 2007, the OHRC and the Ministry agreed to settle a human rights complaint initiated by the OHRC alleging the Ministry’s and school boards’ approach to discipline was having a disproportionate impact on racial minority students and students with disabilities.^[35]

This comprehensive and binding settlement set up ongoing commitments, which remain relevant today, including data collection and analysis and the use of school climate surveys as a key accountability tool among other things.

Student Census Survey

The OHRC has consistently recommended the collection of demographic student data based on Code grounds and other data, such as socio-economic data, to address systemic issues in education.^[36] The OHRC’s Right to Read Inquiry Report included recommendations to improve data collection practices. In particular, the OHRC recommended that school boards consider including demographic questions on school climate surveys to assess whether students’ school experience differ based on disability and/or other identity characteristics. For example, boards could assess whether students with disabilities, including specific disabilities, are more likely to report bullying, feeling unwelcome or other negative school experiences.^[37]

The OHRC’s Dreams Delayed also emphasized that monitoring, reporting on, and preventing discrimination in the education system are important accountability measures. Dreams Delayed noted that data collection, particularly through climate surveys using disaggregated demographic data, is an effective tool to do so. ^[38]

 Even with the elimination of school climate surveys, school boards are still mandated to collect and combine race-based data with other information to promote student achievement and well-being, to promote a positive school climate, and to promote the prevention of bullying under Ontario’s Anti-Racism Act, 2017 (ARA), and its associated regulation (O. Reg. 267/18).^[39] However, demographic data is most useful when it incorporates questions related to perceptions and experiences of mental health, well-being, and belonging. The elimination of the mandatory school climate survey will create a significant gap in understanding student well-being and belonging and the creation of healthy, inclusive and equitable learning environments. School boards should continue to seek ways to proactively measure school climate and student educational experiences alongside their legal obligation to collect demographic data.

Regulating Teacher Education 

The legislative changes expand and strengthen the regulatory authority of the Ontario College of Teachers (OCT), subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council and with prior review by the Minister, over the accreditation of teacher education programs. The amendments provide the OCT with explicit authority to regulate initial teacher education and ongoing professional education programs for teachers. They also authorize the OCT to establish detailed requirements for professional teacher education programs, including timing duration, required areas of study, methods of delivery, practical experience components, transitional measures, and learning outcomes. These changes give the OCT final authority over the content and structure of accredited teacher education programs.

The OHRC supports the proposed enhancement of accreditation standards and curriculum requirements for all Ontario teacher education programs and additional qualification courses, including in areas such as reading. Strengthening these standards will permit the OCT to use a human rights-based approach and Universal Design for Learning in their design and implementation of programs. This will ensure:

• potential systemic discrimination is identified at the design stage.
   
• all program requirements are accessible, inclusive, and non-discriminatory.
   
• all accreditation requirements are evidence-based, and grounded in culturally responsive pedagogy, and Universal Design principles.
   
• targeted professional development opportunities are provided, focusing on cultural awareness, culturally relevant or culturally responsive teaching, antiracism education, trauma-informed practices, and supporting student well-being and belonging.

Reducing the length of the pre-service teacher education program should not come at the expense of implementing the recommendations regarding pre-service teacher education in the Right to Read Inquiry Report. As highlighted in the Inquiry Report, it is essential that pre-service teacher education includes robust preparation in effective, evidence-based reading instruction. The Inquiry Report further recommended that the Ontario College of Teachers Act regulations be amended to require that all Primary and Junior teacher applicants take a half-course (three credits) that focuses on critical components of word-reading instruction to support all students in becoming proficient readers.^[40]