Dear Minister Calandra,

As you are aware, on February 27, 2025, your government won its third straight majority government under Premier Doug Ford, and you were named as Education Minister on March 19, 2025, replacing Education Minister Jill Dunlop who was the Education Minister for seven months.

After being sworn in as Education Minister, you announced that you would be “relentless in ensuring school boards stay focused on what matters most: equipping students with the tools they need to succeed,” in a video you released on April 23, 2025.

You also held a press conference announcing that your government was increasing school board accountability to protect students, families and taxpayer funds to ensure school boards are supporting student success and skills development, in response to a number of cases of financial mismanagement by school boards.

You also stated that your government was taking immediate measures to increase oversight at “several school boards of particular concern,” stating that your government had recently appointed third-party reviewers and investigators to examine several school boards’ use of finances and resources as follows:  

Thames Valley District School Board

In response to reports of a three-day retreat by the Thames Valley District School Board in downtown Toronto in August 2024 — where senior board officials used board funds to stay at the former SkyDome hotel — the province appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP to investigate the board’s finances and executive pay practices. The board has been running a significant deficit for a number of years and has had to cut back on services to students, making this expenditure more concerning.

The investigator’s report revealed instances of non-compliance with the Broader Public Sector Executive Compensation Act, 2014 and with the board’s own policies and procedures as they pertain to compensation frameworks. In addition, the board is projecting an accumulated deficit in the 2024-25 school year which, the report found, will likely continue into the 2025-26 school year. Moreover, there are indications of potential financial mismanagement.

Based on these findings, the investigator recommended control of the board be vested in the ministry. This will allow the board to get back on track and undertake the necessary steps to improve its financial position.

Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board

In response to an incident in which four trustees incurred nearly $190,000 in expenses ($63,000 of which were in legal fees to manage the fallout) related to the Italy trip in July 2024 to purchase religious art for two new schools, the Minister of Education appointed Aaron Shull to conduct a governance review of the Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board. Mr. Shull’s report found mismanagement of public funds, a disregard for transparent decision-making and non-compliance with their own procurement policy.

The report clearly outlines governance dysfunction with the board and significant shortcomings in their financial oversight and purchasing processes. Following the report, the board is expected to consider the 18 recommendations that will strengthen fiscal responsibility, improve transparency and address executive compensation and governance issues, along with four additional action items from the Minister:

•    repay the amounts owing for trustee travel expenses within 30 days;
•    recoup the total funds spent on the art and artifacts purchased in Italy within 30 days;
•    attest to conduct its business only in meetings compliant with regulations and legislation;
•    submit a learning plan for trustees’ professional development highlighting governance responsibilities.

The ministry has sent the full list of recommendations and comments to the board and the board is required to submit an implementation report on the steps they are taking to address each of the recommendations by May 23.

Toronto Catholic District School Board

In August 2024, after the board forecasted a significant accumulated deficit, the ministry engaged Deloitte LLP to identify the reasons for their deteriorating financial position and recommend savings measures to help the board return to a balanced position. This work revealed that the board could have done more to avoid their deteriorated financial position.

The ministry is now appointing a financial investigator to validate the school board’s current financial position and recommend whether control and charge of the board should be vested in the ministry. The investigator will present a report of their findings to the Minister of Education by May 30.

Toronto District School Board

In December 2024, the Auditor General of Ontario issues an extensive report on the board’s school safety, financial management and capital planning. It echoed many of the serious concerns the ministry has voiced to the school board on numerous occasions over the past few years, including a letter issued to them last year outlining the board’s inability to meet its financial responsibilities under the Education Act.

The board was directed to submit a multi-year financial recovery plan to address major ongoing financial issues such as recurring deficits, failure to manage senior leadership staffing costs and millions of dollars in historical underspending to address school building age and conditions. To date, the board has not produced a trustee-approved recovery plan to ensure fiscal management requirements are met, resulting in significant financial concerns over the school board’s financial health and their ability to address their structural deficit.

The ministry is now appointing a financial investigator to validate the school board’s current financial position and recommend whether control and charge of the board should be vested in the ministry. The investigator will present a report of their findings to the Minister of Education by May 30.

Furthermore, in October 2024, the Minister of Education appointed Patrick Case to review the Toronto District School Board’s field trip policies and procedures after students attended a rally in September 2024. The final report shows a lack of judgment and poor planning for student emotional safety.

Ottawa-Carleton District School Board

Since 2021-22, the school board has been reporting in-year deficits, and it is reporting another shortfall this year. At the end of the 2023-24 school year, the board had completely depleted its reserves. The ministry is now appointing a financial investigator to validate the school board’s current financial position and recommend whether control and charge of the board should be vested in the ministry. The investigator will present a report of their findings to the Minister of Education by May 30.

(Ministry of Education, Ontario Taking Action to Protect Students, Families and Taxpayer Funds, April 23, 2025, Retrieved at https://news.ontario.ca/en/backgrounder/1005816/ontario-taking-action-to-protect-students-families-and-taxpayer-funds.)

These reviews and investigations are a crucial part of the government’s continuous efforts to uphold trust in the province’s publicly funded education system.

How did we get here?

It is crucial you understand the history of education governance and education governance reform within Ontario’s education system, Minister Calandra, before making any decisions about how to move forward.

Education policy in Ontario has undergone significant change since the 1990s and the early years of the 21st century. Changes have occurred in many areas of education policy influence, including curriculum, program structure, provisions for student diversity, accountability, governance, funding, teacher professionalism, teacher working conditions, school safety, and school choice.

(Anderson, S., & S. Ben Jaafar, Policy Trends in Ontario Education, 1990-2003, Working Paper Sub-Project 2 of “The Evolution of Teaching Personnel in Canada,” SSHRC Major Collaborative Research Initiatives Project 2002-2006, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, September 2003, p. 3.)

Moreover, since the 1990s, political control over the provincial government has shifted from David Peterson’s Liberal Party (1986-1990) to the New Democratic Party led by Bob Rae (1990-1995) to the Conservative Party and Mike Harris (1995-2002) and his successor Ernie Eves (2002-2003) back to the Liberal Party led by Dalton McGuinty (2003-2013) and his successor Kathleen Wynne (2013-2018) and back again to the Conservative Party with Doug Ford (2018-present) again.

You are the 17th education minister Ontario has had since 1993. Ontario has had 6 education ministers since 2018 alone, with 5 being in the role less than one year. I am deeply concerned that a great deal of information has been lost in the transition between various different ministers of education and various different governments.   

Furthermore, we are currently living in very unsettled times and our education system is suffering. In 2015, Margaret Wilson, an educator with over 40 years experience and the first Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers, conducted a Review of the Toronto District School Board and noted “a consistent and persistent call from within for help.” Wilson wrote that she was “deeply disturbed by the acute level of distress” which was apparent in the board.  

(Wilson, M. Review of the Toronto District School Board, Executive Summary, Submitted to the Honourable Liz Sandals, Minister of Education, January 15, 2015, p.4, Retrieved at https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/31488/province-directs-tdsb-to-change-board-policy-practice-and-governance-structure.)

The December 2024 Auditor General’s extensive Report of the Toronto District School Board’s (TDSB’s) school safety, financial management and capital planning also shows a rate of violent incidents that is currently at the highest level recorded for the TDSB, financial and capital resources that are not consistently being allocated in the most cost-effective or efficient way, mental health and wellness staffing that has not increased at the same rate as the demand for services, and that Principals and Vice-Principals are frequently being placed on lengthy paid leaves while under investigation.  

(According to the Auditor General’s 2014 report, TDSB policy states that in an investigation of an incident or complaint, the practice of placing an employee on paid leave should be rarely used. However, between 2018/19 and 2022/23, the TDSB placed 53 (80%) of the 66 principals and vice-principals being investigated for allegations, such as discrimination and workplace harassment, on paid leave (ranging from one to 1,218 days), costing approximately $4.3 million. For the sample of 15 investigation files the Auditor General reviewed, the TDSB could not provide documentation to show that placing the principals or vice-principals on paid leave was the necessary course of action instead of finding alternative work arrangements or temporarily relocating them without compromising student or staff safety. For the 51 investigations that were started and completed between 2018/19 and 2022/23, 19 (37%) took longer than the 150 days TDSB’s internal policy says investigations should be completed by, and 10 of these took more than a year to complete.)

Those consistent and persistent calls for help from within the TDSB, that began with Wilson’s review 10 years ago, are now coming from within and without the TDSB – from employees and some trustees in other school boards, from unions, parent groups, religious groups, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Ontario’s Ombudsman and even Ontario’s Auditor General.

It is clear that something needs to be done. School Board Governance in Ontario is long overdue for a complete government overhaul. The current governance model is 218 years old, and there has been an evolution of flaws through to 2025, some dating from the 1990s, which need significant repair. Some of the flaws have developed because times have changed, and the structures and systems that once worked well for us, no longer serve their intended purpose.  

Enclosed you will find an overview and narrative of education policies, policy trends, reviews, reports, commissions, consultations, investigations, and audits extending from 1990 to 2025. I believe this overview and narrative will help you understand the complex challenges with which Ontario’s education system is now faced.  

It is critical that you have an understanding of the past and how Ontario’s education system arrived at this point in order to face the challenges head on in your role as Education Minister and in order to determine how to move forward. As Winston Churchill famously said, if we don’t learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.

I offer this overview and narrative – a Review of the Governance Structure of Ontario’s Education System, if you will – via this open letter, to you, your provincial government, and to Ontario’s education system at large, as a gift to you, your government, and Ontario’s two million students and their parents.

For the period 1990-2003, I draw heavily on a Working Paper called Policy Trends in Ontario Education written by Stephen E. Anderson and Sonia Ben Jaafar from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto. This was a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Major Collaborative Research Initiatives Project from 2002-2006, which draws heavily on R. D. Gidney’s landmark history of Ontario from the 1950s onward through the first three years of the Harris government’s “Common Sense Revolution” (Gidney1999).

For the period 2003 to 2010, I draw heavily on a paper called Education Governance Reform in Ontario: Neoliberalism in Context, written by Peggy Sattler in 2012 when she was a student at the University of Western Ontario, prior to Sattler’s election as NDP Member of Provincial Parliament for London West in 2013. (Sattler also served as Trustee on the Thames Valley District School Board for 13 years, including 2 terms as Board Chair.)

For the period 2010 to present, I draw on my own personal experiences working within Ontario’s education system as Principal Assistant to the Superintendent for Special Education and Acting Executive Superintendent for Curriculum and Special Education at the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board, and also at the Ministry of Education as Student Achievement Officer.

In this review, I refer to key policy and reports such as the 1995 Royal Commission on Learning, Bill 160, the Education Amendment Act, Bill 177, the Student Achievement and School Board Governance Act, Bill 98, and the Better Schools and Student Outcomes Act as well as various consultations, governance advisory panels, investigations, audits and school board reviews that were completed beginning in 2015 with the Review of the TDSB.

I believe it is necessary to consider all of these key policies, reviews, consultations and reports – not just the financial ones – for a complete understanding of the evolution of Ontario’s education system since 1990 and prior. I also believe this is the only review of its kind in Ontario beginning in 1990 and stemming to present day.

It is my firm belief that if your government were to implement the vision outlined in this review, system change would occur faster than most people realize. These changes would also give hope to the many educators, trustees, parents, religious groups, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Ontario’s Ombudsman, and Ontario’s Attorney General who have grown deeply concerned about the capacity of Ontario schools to deal with the complex challenges with which your government and Ontario’s education system are currently facing.

This vision will also help you and your government rise to the challenge of preparing Ontario’s two million students, along with their parents, with what will no doubt be a promising – but very intimidating – future.

Respectfully submitted,

Debbie L. Kasman     
Education Re-imagined | Analyst & Researcher | Author & Speaker | M. Ed. Policy Studies | OISE/University of Toronto

To read the Review, click:

School Board Governance in Ontario: Long Overdue for a Complete Government Overhaul

Hello Ontario educators,

I’m hoping this post will provide some much needed clarity around Richard Bilkszto’s tragic death as it relates to DEI training.

First and foremost, let me say that I support DEI training, but it needs to be done by people who are “awake,” not by people who are “woke.”

This next part is going to be hard for some of you to hear.

Being “woke” is not the same thing as being “awake” or “enlightened.”

“Wokeism” is on the rise and it is a backslide away from healthy pluralism and diversity. It is a developmental trap that many well-meaning and intelligent people, including some Ontario educators and DEI trainers, get stuck in.

Bear with me and I’ll explain through a developmental psychological lens.

As humans, we all grow up through different developmental stages called structures of consciousness no matter our race, culture, creed, gender, gender identity, gender expression or religion. Different developmental psychologists have different names for the structures of consciousness we all grow up through.

Robert Kegan, an American psychologist from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, has an excellent model, but it’s hard to understand. I like his colleague, Ken Wilber’s model the best, because it’s the easiest to understand. Ken Wilber is an American philosopher and writer who is credited with creating Integral Theory.

On page 242 of their book An Everyone Culture: Becoming a Deliberately Developmental Organization, Robert Kegan and his writing partner Lisa Laskow Lahey, also from Harvard University, write, “Our colleague Ken Wilber has created a four-box model, which has been a valuable heuristic for a more comprehensive view of any complicated psychosocial phenomenon.”

The situation in the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) is definitely a complicated psychosocial phenomenon so Wilber’s model is extremely helpful in trying to determine a way forward. It (Wilber’s model) reminds us that people have a tendency to look at psychosocial phenomenon through too few lenses. That’s exactly what many people who are weighing in on Richard Bilkszto’s death are currently doing.

Kegan and Laskow Lahey write, “We have seen many efforts, such as those to reform the U.S. public education system, flounder on change designs that reflect a sophisticated understanding of the dynamics of organizational change and resistance to change, but a naive understanding of those same dynamics in the individual psychologies of administrators and teachers who must change the ways they think and act, and vice versa.”

Wilber’s four-box model reminds us that there are four perspectives to consider: the exterior of the organization, the interior of the organization, the exterior of the individual, and the interior of the individual.

The organization, in this case, is the TDSB and the Kojo Institute, and unless we look at Richard Bilkszto’s death through all four of these lenses, we’ll never be able to figure out how to make sure a tragedy like this never happens again.

We need to start with Wilber’s structures of consciousness before we can learn to apply his four-box model. This will help everyone reading this better understand their own level of psychological development. (Self-assessment is surprisingly accurate.)

At the first developmental level, survival is our basic priority. Wilber calls this the Infrared or Crimson level. At this level, we can’t easily distinguish where our body starts and our bed stops, for example. We believe that our self is one with the environment. We cannot distinguish our emotions from the emotions of the people around us, particularly our mother. (Emotional distinction happens around 16 months of age. This is when an infant develops a sense of itself as a separate self, and it’s called the psychological birth of the infant.)

Some adults remain at this Infrared level throughout their entire lives. It’s generally because there is some sort of developmental disability, brain damage or difficulty that keeps them at this lower level of development. The elderly who are senile revert to this developmental level as do late-stage Alzheimer’s patients. People who are mentally ill and living on the street sometimes revert to this developmental level, too.

The next level of development is Magenta. This stage begins around the age of two, and this is when we begin to have emotional-feeling capacity. We become in touch with our feelings, but we also become impulsive. A healthy sex drive begins here (yes it’s true) as well as a healthy fantasy life. Instinctual emotions also develop here like anger, lust, and jealousy. If there is a psychological trauma at this stage, it can result in very serious narcissistic and borderline personality disorders because the self’s boundary is so fragile at this stage. Some people remain at this developmental level throughout their entire life.     

The next developmental level is Red and it begins around the age of four. At this level we have an emerging attitude or belief that says, “I am distinct from you.” The self at this stage is dominant, impulsive, and egotistical. We enjoy ourselves to the fullest without showing any regret or remorse (think aging rock star) and we learn to be conceptual thinkers at this stage. (This is the ability to understand a situation or a problem by identifying patterns or connections.) But mostly we are overly concerned with ourselves, with power, and with our own safety. Our prisons today are full of individuals who are at this egocentric self-protective stage. Gang members are typically at this level as well. They see the world as a very dangerous place full of powerful people, and they want to be powerful, too.

The Amber developmental level is next. It typically begins between the ages of seven and twelve. At this level we can take the role of other (a second-person perspective). We can understand and follow rules. We fit into a group and feel a sense of belonging. We follow a code of conduct based on unwavering absolutes of right and wrong. We believe what our religion tells us absolutely and fundamentally (if we are religious).

People at this level believe the Bible, the Quran, or the Talmud literally, not metaphorically. They believe Moses really did part the Red Sea, Elijah really did go to heaven in a chariot, Christ really was born of a biological virgin, and there is no questioning these things.

Overall, this is the level of traditional family values and conformist, conventional ethics. This stage is extremely common in adults today. About forty percent of the population of the U.S. and Canada is at this developmental level, and about fifty to sixty percent of the world’s population. Rural communities are often at this level, too.  The agrarian Midwest in the U.S. and Canada’s rural communities have a very high percentage of fundamentalist believers.

The Orange developmental level is next. It begins in adolescence (if we keep growing up) and now we have the capacity for introspection, self-expression, and self-discovery. We have the ability to step back and view ourselves, and the world objectively. We escape from “herd mentality” in our thinking, and we seek truth and meaning in individualistic terms. We begin to identify with the human race as a whole. We become highly achievement oriented, and we begin to see the world as a rational and well-oiled machine with natural laws that can be learned, mastered, and even manipulated. At this level, we can take a third-person perspective and be objective in our thinking.

The Green level of development is next. It begins in adulthood (for those who develop this far) and it brings a great sensitivity to marginalized humans with it. Individuals at this level see every situation has multiple perspectives, and inclusivity becomes important. People become ecologically considerate, more communitarian, and they nurture human bonding.

At this stage, people have the capacity to rise above third person perspectives, reflect on them, review them, and criticize them. They believe the human spirit must be freed from greed, dogma and divisiveness. They believe feeling is more important than being rational, they cherish the earth, and all life on it, and they emphasize dialogue and relationships.

But here’s the thing - the American psychologist Abraham Maslow called this level of development the beginning of self-actualization. (Note the word “beginning,” my italics.) About thirty percent of the adult population in Western cultures has reached this developmental level. The industrial northeast of the U.S. has a high percentage of people at this level. That’s why a majority of the colleges and university like MIT and Harvard are in the northeast. Silicon Valley in California is at this level, too. So are most Ontario educators.

This is also where “wokeism” resides, and it’s an unhealthy aspect of this developmental level.

Many adults today are stuck at the Green level of psychological development, they can’t move forward, and we can’t move forward as a society as a result. Those at the Green level of development are completely unaware of the interior stages of human development (which is why I’m explaining these to you), they cannot grasp the big picture (although they think they can), and they aren’t very inclusive (although they think they are). Individuals at this level have not figured out that in order for each of us to be healthy, all of society needs to be healthy. They haven’t figure out that you don’t discriminate in order to eliminate discrimination.

As a result, our culture (and our entire education system) is completely confused - and here’s what everyone working in the system needs to understand:

Fully “awake” or enlightened is actually “post-woke.”

If we are truly “awake,” not “woke,” we are pluralistic in our attitudes, empathetic, and tolerant. We understand that we have to confront discrimination, fight systems that don’t work, and go against our sense of who we’re most comfortable being within structures that perpetuate inequality – but we also understand that we do this by being tolerant of conflicting perspectives, not by yelling and screaming at each other, not trying to bang people over the head with our giant hammers if they disagree with us, and not trying to cancel white men, call them “resistors” or “white supremacists” if they question something we said, and above all, we don’t cancel free speech.

People who are awake let people question things because that’s how people learn - and they stand up for their colleagues who question things just as you would stand up for racialized individuals or members of the LGBTQ2+ community when they are being bullied, discriminated against or being oppressed.

The developmental levels from Infrared/Crimson to Green are considered first tier levels, and 95% of the world’s population is in this first tier. Most people are at the Amber level of development (traditional, religious), the Orange level of development (modern, rational, scientific) or the Green level of development (postmodern, pluralistic, multicultural). Only 5% of the world’s population are self-actualized, “fully” grown, or “awake,” which is “post-woke.” When we get to 10% of the population, the world will change rapidly in ways currently beyond our imagination. But we need to teach more people about these developmental levels in order to help us all get there.

Every level of development carries its own sets of values and its own way of seeing the world so Amber, Orange, Green (the most common levels) are at the core of the “culture wars” we are currently seeing now within the education system.

All politicians are at different levels of psychological development, too, and some are a lot lower than others. The Republican far right in the U.S. and the Conservative far right in Canada are Amber in their development. Trump, when he denigrates other cultures and women is actually operating from the Red level of development. 

Our education systems are stuck at the Amber level of development, too. Those at the top expect total conformity from everyone beneath them. They expect people to follow codes of conduct based on unwavering absolutes of right and wrong, and people must do exactly what they are told with no wavering from the rules whatsoever - even when the rules don’t make sense.

We are seeing this happen a lot now with school board trustees constantly filing codes of conduct complaints against each other and constantly trying to cancel each other out - at a huge expense to taxpayers who have to foot the bill for all these complaints.

We are also seeing this a lot now with the numbers of principals and vice-principals who are under “investigation.” School boards are paying huge amounts of money to have people investigated for the smallest of complaints…and some of these people are innocent.

Are some of these complaints valid? Yes, of course, but not all of the complaints are valid.

Developmental psychology explains why parents (often Amber or Orange) clash so strongly with their teen-aged children (often Red) and why hippies during the 60s and 70s (Red) clashed with the authorities trying to send them off to the Vietnam War (Amber). 

This also explains why there is so much conflict and strife in the world today. 

Ninety-five percent of the world's population is at the first tier level of development. And as long as we have 95% of the world’s population at this first tier level, all we’re ever going to get is disharmony and war - as well as chaos and confusion in our education system. We need leaders at the top and DEI trainers who are “awake,” psychologically “aware” or at high developmental levels, and not “woke.”

Starting about 30 or 40 years ago, developmental psychologists started spotting the emergence of a new level of development that Wilber calls Turquoise. People at this level make a very big leap in the way they live their lives. They suddenly want to live a life of wholeness, meaning, purpose, and value. They undergo a revolutionary shift in the way they see the world. They no longer operate from the first tier, which is a partial, fragmented, broken, and torn way of seeing the world. They begin to operate from a unified, integrated, and whole perspective, which developmental psychologists call the second tier.   

At the second tier, people realize that each of the developmental levels is a necessary ingredient of all subsequent levels (if they know about developmental levels) and they realize that when they transcend one level and move to the next, they transcend and include the old level. They realize there is partial truth at every level, and every level needs to be welcomed, valued, listened to, even celebrated because it’s an important step along the developmental continuum. (You can’t skip a developmental level like you can a grade at school. Everyone has to pass through all of these developmental levels. That’s why we need to celebrate every level.)

It helps if you realize that everybody is right. More specifically, everybody has some important pieces of truth, and all of these pieces need to be honoured, listened to, and included as much as possible.

Another way to think of this is that there is partial truth in everything.

So we need to listen to others. A lot. Nothing is 100% right or wrong. No one is 100% good or evil. All knowledge is a work in progress.

We cannot be too quick to tell someone they’re wrong or “racist” or a white supremacist or a “resistor” just because their perspective is different than ours. That’s “woke.”

We need to recognize that two people can both be right at the same time. That’s “awake” or “post woke.”

People at this level (the turquoise level or second tier) can turn each level or wave “on” as they need it. For example, in emergency situations, they can tap into their Red power drives. During chaotic times, they can activate Amber order. If they are interviewing for a job, they can connect with Orange achievement drives. When they connect with family and friends, they can draw on Green bonding urges.

That’s why I sometimes clarify that I’m neither far Left nor far Right, and that I’m actually on the political Left, but not far Left. I stand up for anyone who is being oppressed or bullied, no matter the colour of their skin, their religion, their gender identity, their gender expression, or their religion. This isn’t me “flip-flopping.” It’s me doing what everyone should be doing.

Second tier (turquoise) thinkers are fully aware of the interior stages of development, they are able to step back and grasp the bigger picture, and they are totally inclusive and integrated in their thinking.

Second tier thinkers also begin to “show up” in the world. This means they stand up for what they believe in and they work to enact change.

It is quite possible, folks, that this is the level Richard Bilkszto was at.

This means it is quite possible that Richard Bilkszto was more psychologically aware than the DEI trainers and his own superiors - and look how he was treated by those at a lower psychological level than him.

What’s the lesson here?

White men who question things are not all white supremacists or resistors.

And not all DEI trainers are at high levels of psychological development.

What do we do about this situation?

An investigation into what happened and options to reform professional training and strengthen accountability on school boards so something like this never happens again is an appropriate response.

And if discrimination has occurred, then judgments and behaviours must be addressed as soon as possible, by making all means of growth available to the DEI trainers and to the TDSB superiors who allowed this to happen as soon as possible. Legal penalties must be imposed so this doesn’t happen again.

Then, after the judgments and behaviours have been addressed, legal penalties paid, professional DEI training and accountability on school boards reformed, we all must follow up with a mighty dose of compassion.

Compassion is the only judgmental attitude we’re allowed to have for those who are living with such restricting worldviews – the only judgmental attitude.

Fully “awake” or enlightened is “post-woke,” folks.

We have to get past this unhealthy aspect of the Green level of psychological development.

This is the only way Ontario’s education system can move beyond this horrific tragedy.

[Update: In July 2023, Education Minister Stephen Lecce ordered a Review into what happened and to bring him "options to reform professional training and strengthen accountability on school boards so this never happens again."

The TDSB ordered a Review into the situation as well.

In May 2024, Minister Lecce wrote in a memo to school boards and administrators:

“School boards must ... ensure they respect intellectual diversity and open dialogue of staff, designed to create school environments that advance freedom of expression, respect for our differences, and the safety of every child from every walk of life.” These moves "will put some controls in place." Minister Lecce even told school boards to ensure diversity of opinion.

A few weeks later, the Director of Education for the TDSB, Colleen Russell-Rawlins, announced her sudden retirement during a Special Board Meeting at noon on May 28, 2024.

On June 6, Education Minister Stephen Lecce was shuffled from education to energy, with former energy minister Todd Smith taking Lecce’s old job as education minister.]

According to documents obtained by the Bay Observer under the Freedom of Information Act, just days after Lecce had ordered the ministerial probe, the TDSB hired the consultant, King International Advisory Group, and Minister Lecce decided to allow the TDSB to take the lead.

When asked about the optics of the TDSB investigating itself, a ministry spokesperson suggested it had to do with the need to examine confidential personal records that were the property of the TDSB.

Around the same time, the provincial government was getting pressure from individuals and organizations supporting anti-racism training, who feared a backlash might threaten DEI training in school boards.

Minister Lecce also received a letter from one of the DEI trainers, Kike Ojo-Thompson, defending her conduct and alleging “defamatory statements about our work and conduct of our staff.” In her letter, Ojo-Thompson revealed that the TDSB had filed a lawsuit against her company, but the law suit had been discontinued. She also wrote that she favoured a ministry probe as opposed to allowing the TDSB to do the work.

A memo that was marked “approved by Patrick Case, Assistant Deputy Minister, Education Equity Secretariat” was prepared that strongly supported the Ministry’s emphasis on DEI training in school boards. But the Ministry was being warned that the TDSB should not be trusted to conduct the investigation. OPC warned of a “perceived bias” if the TDSB were in charge, adding, ”there is a significant distrust of board staff regarding the extent to which the TDSB will share the full results of its investigation.”

Lecce received a letter from within the TDSB as well, from trustee Weidong Pei who called for a provincial review of the TDSB and the Director of Education Colleen Russell-Rawlins as well. (This was before Russell-Rawlins announced her retirement). Dr. Pei claimed the TDSB had been marred by numerous scandals, in addition to the Bilkszto death. He described a “culture of fear,” stating numerous teachers and administrators had been placed on home assignment due to alleged accusations for extended periods, causing undue stress, humiliation and adding a significant financial burden to the school board.”

The Bay Observer alleged that it was clear the Ministry did not want anybody to know about the change in plans, not even other government agencies. According to the newspaper, in September 2023, Ontario’s Ombudsman became interested in the proposed investigation and made repeated attempts to learn about the progress of the investigation, requesting meetings to discuss the matter. The Ombudsman’s Office was told “the ministry is exploring options for a review of school board training policies and practices.”

A month later, in response to a request for a phone conference, the Ombudsman was told, “At this time I have no further information that can be shared. Thanks for understanding.”

The Ombudsman tried again in January and received the response, “Thanks for your email and for following up! I have no new information to share with you. Once I do, I’ll make sure to reach out.”

The Bay Observer wrote that the Auditor-General of Ontario fared no better, asking for an update on the review with apparently no success. The journalist wrote that “the correspondence sheds interesting light on the interplay between various government departments, where the ministry apparently stonewalled two agencies that possess investigative powers; not only declining to share information but arguably allowing the Ombudsman to continue to be under the impression a probe was underway when it was not.”

Debbie L. Kasman

M. Ed, Policy Studies, OISE/University of Toronto

Education Re-imagined

Analyst & Researcher, Author & Speaker

Follow Debbie on Twitter: @debbiekasman and on Facebook: DebbieLKasman

• Female Leadership
  • Jan 29, 2017 Eight Powerful Reasons You Should Wear a Pink Hat (and do other things to confront gender and racial discrimination) Jan 29, 2017
  • Jan 28, 2014 The Power Paradox Jan 28, 2014
• For Women
  • Jan 29, 2017 Eight Powerful Reasons You Should Wear a Pink Hat (and do other things to confront gender and racial discrimination) Jan 29, 2017
  • Jan 28, 2014 The Power Paradox Jan 28, 2014
• Spirituality
  • Aug 11, 2023 What Those Working in Ontario's Education System Need To Understand Aug 11, 2023
  • Jan 29, 2017 Eight Powerful Reasons You Should Wear a Pink Hat (and do other things to confront gender and racial discrimination) Jan 29, 2017
  • Oct 31, 2016 How to Grow Up and Wake Up Between 20 and 60 Years Old Oct 31, 2016
  • Apr 1, 2014 The Role of Spirituality in Public Education Apr 1, 2014
  • May 30, 2013 Spiral of Existence May 30, 2013
• Transforming Education
  • May 18, 2025 An Open letter to Hon. Paul Calandra, Minister of Education, School Board Governance in Ontario: Long Overdue for a Complete Government Overhaul May 18, 2025
  • Aug 11, 2023 What Those Working in Ontario's Education System Need To Understand Aug 11, 2023
  • Nov 18, 2022 An Open Letter to Doug Downey Regarding Kayla Lemieux, the Trans Teacher in Oakville, Ontario Nov 18, 2022
  • Apr 28, 2022 Chaos at the Thames Valley District School Board - An Open Letter Apr 28, 2022
  • Jun 25, 2021 An Open Letter to Dr. Derek Haime, Registrar, Ontario College of Teachers Jun 25, 2021
  • Jun 4, 2021 Washington Post issues scathing criticism of Karen Falconer for handling of the Javier Davila situation Jun 4, 2021
  • May 3, 2021 Dear Ms. Naylor: Damage control, internal emails, two prominent, stalwart Black community members resign, and what education experts have to say May 3, 2021
  • Apr 30, 2021 It's About the Situation in the York Region District School Board Again Apr 30, 2021
  • Apr 22, 2021 The York Catholic District School Board is in violation of an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal Order Apr 22, 2021
  • Apr 14, 2021 An Open Letter to Nancy Naylor and Patrick Case, Deputy Ministry of Education and Chief Equity Officer, Ministry of Education, Ontario Apr 14, 2021
  • Mar 5, 2021 Former superintendent files human rights complaint, alleging “constructive discrimination," after Lecce approves Hofstatter as director of education Mar 5, 2021
  • Nov 23, 2020 Education Minister Stephen Lecce is ignoring the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and here’s why Nov 23, 2020
  • Sep 24, 2020 An Open Letter to All School Board Trustees in Ontario Sep 24, 2020
  • Jul 24, 2020 Ontario government's response to discrimination in education is ineffective and discriminatory Jul 24, 2020
  • Jun 21, 2020 Letter to the Ontario Human Rights Commission Jun 21, 2020
  • Jun 4, 2020 Dear Director Leclerc - It's About the Hiring You Are About To Do in Light of Peel DSB Directions Jun 4, 2020
  • May 28, 2020 Response to 'Ding dong, the witch is gone': Black parents aghast over racist letter to vice-principal force changes at TDSB May 28, 2020
  • May 15, 2020 Dear Durham District School Board Teaching Community May 15, 2020
  • Apr 28, 2020 An Open Letter to Durham District School Board Trustees Apr 28, 2020
  • Sep 6, 2019 An Open Letter to the Canadian School Boards Association Sep 6, 2019
  • Nov 15, 2018 Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board announces first-ever student census while ignoring equity issues Nov 15, 2018
  • Nov 12, 2018 Counterpoint: Ontario experience provides ample rationale for axing school boards in Nova Scotia Nov 12, 2018
  • Nov 1, 2018 Education Crisis in Ontario: Trustees stay on boards even after issues arise Nov 1, 2018
  • Mar 4, 2017 An Open Letter to Premier Kathleen Wynne and Education Minister Mitzie Hunter Mar 4, 2017
  • Feb 6, 2017 Three Hidden Ways Education Contributes to Discrimination Feb 6, 2017
  • Oct 31, 2016 How to Grow Up and Wake Up Between 20 and 60 Years Old Oct 31, 2016
  • Apr 1, 2014 The Role of Spirituality in Public Education Apr 1, 2014

July 24, 2023

Dear Premier Ford,

While this is an open letter to you, it's also a letter of condolence to Richard Bilkszto's family, a call to action to the provincial government and the Ontario Human Rights Commission, as well as an offer to assist Ms. Bildy, Richard Bilkszto’s lawyer, with the family’s lawsuit as well as an offer to assist the colleagues of Richard Bilkszto with their lawsuit against the provincial government.

I’ve written this as an open letter to you, sir, so Mr. Bilkszto’s family, his lawyer, the education system, and members of the public can read it because there’s a lot going on that they need to understand.

I highly recommend you read, Premier Ford, and govern yourself accordingly.

I am deeply and profoundly saddened – and disturbed – by the death of Richard Bilkszto, a retired principal with the Toronto District School Board (TDSB).

Truthfully, Mr. Ford, I am gutted.

You’ve known for quite some time that what happened to Richard Bilkszto also happened to me – slightly differently, mind you, but with many similarities.

Ontario’s education system is in a deep state of crisis and you’ve known that for quite some time, too.

In fact, it’s your government that is creating the crisis - or, at the very least, allowing the crisis to occur.

We first spoke about the crisis in education on the telephone on Sunday, June 2, 2019, sir, when you called me by accident. You were looking for a teacher named Peter, and found me on the other end of the telephone instead. I told you Ontario’s education system was in a deep state of crisis then and you needed to do a review of the governance structure of the education system in Ontario. You told me you would “love” to do that, but you didn’t think you could “get away with it.”

Your government has known about the extreme state of chaos and crisis within Ontario’s education system since the 1990’s, sir, when Premier Mike Harris was elected and launched the “Common Sense Revolution.”

At that time, Harris said he believed schools, school districts, and teaching staff were ineffective and inefficient, and he was seeking to bring a degree of restraint to a system that he deemed was out of control and in chaos.

In September 1995, Harris’ education minister, John Snobelen, was even caught on tape announcing his government’s mandate to create a crisis in education intentionally in order to gain public support for reform. The tape became public and efforts to control the damage began. Snobelen later said he had made the case for greater accountability in education sound more critical than it actually was as a way of back-paddling.  

Well, sir, the education system really is in an extreme state of chaos and crisis now.

Mr. Bilkszto is dead.

Some people are saying that you want more chaos, sir, so the public education system will fall apart – a public education system that was called an education “superpower” by the BBC in 2017 because Canada’s international test scores were so high – because then you can create charter schools, force more students to learn online, and save a lot of money.

We are descending into the final levels of chaos now – and you are letting it happen –which makes you a large part of the problem.

“Wokeism” is on the rise within Ontario’s education system, sir, and you appear to be letting that happen, too. The extremism that we are now seeing on the political Left – performative, virtue signalling, intolerance for conflicting perspectives and free speech, and bullying to get one’s point across, is a backslide away from healthy pluralism and diversity.

I’m on the political “Left,” sir, just not “far” Left, and I can tell you that “wokeism” is not a good thing. “Wokeism” is not the same thing as “awake” or “enlightened.”

People who are truly “awake,”  not “woke,” are pluralistic in their attitudes, empathetic, and tolerant. They aren’t intolerant of conflicting perspectives, they don’t try to cancel free speech, and they don’t bully people into submission in order to get their point across.

Those who are “woke,” just think they are “awake,” but if they were truly “awake” or “enlightened,” they would understand that it’s okay for people to question things, and they would let people question things – because that’s how people learn, and that’s how we improve things. People who are “awake,” not “woke,” try to understand what it is others are saying. They don’t bully them into submission.

“Post woke” is the land of “awake,” sir, and it’s the land of profound common sense.

Everybody is right, sir, and this is what you and those who work at upper levels in the education system need to understand. More specifically, everybody has some important pieces of truth, and all of those pieces need to be honoured and included as much as possible.

Another way to think of this is that there is partial truth in everything. So we need to listen to others. A lot. Nothing is 100% right or wrong. No one is 100% good or evil. All knowledge is a work in progress.

We cannot be too quick to tell someone they’re wrong just because their perspective is different than ours. That’s “woke.”

Two people can both be right at the same time. That’s “awake” or “post woke.”

We need to put really smart people at the top of our education organizations, sir, – people who have a “more enlightened sense,” (not a “woke” sense) of the “bigger picture,” and a better understanding of what it means to be truly inclusive.  

You may not have personally created this problem, sir, but it’s your problem to fix. In addition to speaking to you about the crisis in education on Sunday, June 2, 2019, I wrote to MPP Lorne Coe about the problem and he hand delivered my letter to Education Minister Lisa Thompson in the Legislature. Kathy Beattie, Mr. Coe’s Constituency Office Manager, emailed to tell me on November 1, 2018, that Mr. Coe had hand delivered my letter to Ms. Thompson in the Legislature the previous week.

Here’s a copy of that letter, sir, which was also published as a Letter to the Editor in The Peterborough Examiner on November 7, 2018:

https://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/peterborough-letter-education-crisis-in-ontario-trustees-stay-on-boards-even-after-issues-arise/article_f7fd71ee-5ab3-5e4f-8ea4-bc4f73bd892a.html.

You’ve also known about this problem for a long time, sir, because I took it upon myself to write to all 122 Members of your Provincial Parliament in 2018 – and I know my letter made it through because:

• MPP Marit Stiles (Davenport) gave me a fulsome response;

• MPP Tibollo's office (Vaughan – Woodbridge) forwarded my letter to Minister Thompson's office;

• MPP Dunlop’s office (Simcoe – North) replied to say that MPP Dunlop would hand deliver my letter to Minister Thompson at a caucus meeting;

• MPP Monteith-Farrell's office (Thunder Bay – Atikokan) sent my letter to Minister Thompson's office with a covering letter requesting that Minister Thompson respond directly to me;

• MPP Thanigasalam’s office (Scarborough – Rouge Park) forwarded my letter to Minister Thompson's office;

• MPP Kernaghan's office (London – North Centre) delivered my letter to Minister Thompson's office;

• MPP Lalonde's office (Orléans Liberal) emailed my letter to Minister Thompson;

• MPP Crawford's office (Oakville) forwarded my letter to Minister Thompson's office, and followed up on February 15, 2019 saying that the Ministry of Education acknowledged receipt of my correspondence and would be responding to me directly.

The Ministry of Education, under Lisa Thompson, never followed up.

You also knew about this problem when I filed two complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, one on October 1, 2019 and another on February 16, 2021. Education Minister Stephen Lecce received copies of both of these because I sent them to him.  

I also filed a Request to Expedite the second Application on the same day, and a Declaration to support the request to expedite as well as an Order During Proceedings on September 8, 2020. Minister Lecce received copies of all of these as well.  

Furthermore, I wrote to Nancy Naylor, Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Education, and Patrick Case, Assistant Deputy Minister of Education, numerous times. You can read some of those letters here:

https://debbielkasman.com/blog/2022/4/28/yfcpwbc1o4jbvas3ej8pn90iekjq25

https://debbielkasman.com/blog/2021/5/3/dear-ms-naylor-damage-control-internal-emails-two-prominent-stalwart-black-community-members-resign-and-what-education-experts-have-to-say

https://debbielkasman.com/blog/2021/4/30/z3jpged1bcxydsvhy1v9jx8s8ynz6d

https://debbielkasman.com/blog/2021/4/22/rb7s4tbrm4bc2dng2r82n12kgftrv7

https://debbielkasman.com/blog/2021/4/14/an-open-letter-to-nancy-naylor-and-patrick-case-deputy-ministry-of-education-and-chief-equity-officer-ministry-of-education-ontario

I also wrote an Open Letter to the Registrar at the Ontario College of Teachers on June 21, 2021, which I sent to the Ministry of Education, and which you can read here:

https://debbielkasman.com/blog/2021/6/25/nbqdpi3vbdegvikz7pb8ph073dr7gt

Moreover, I explained to the public why Minister Lecce was ignoring the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) here:

https://debbielkasman.com/blog/2020/11/23/education-minister-stephen-lecce-is-ignoring-the-ontario-human-rights-commission-and-heres-why

Furthermore, I wrote an Open Letter to Ontario’s Attorney-General, Doug Downey, your Attorney-General, sir, on November 18, 2022, and sent it to you, MPP Coe, your parliamentary assistant, and to the Ministry of Education, which you can read here:

https://debbielkasman.com/blog/2022/11/18/an-open-letter-to-doug-downey-regarding-the-trans-teacher-in-oakville-ontario-1

I also emailed you directly, with a solution, and gave copies of that email to MPP Coe and Mr. Downey. Those emails were on June 6, 2022, October 13, 2022, October 24, 2022, and November 15, 2022.

Furthermore, I emailed you on April 3, 2023 giving you a detailed and robust plan for solving the problem. I even told you which education experts to hire to assist with implementing the solution and solving the problem.

On June 8, you passed the Better Schools and Student Outcomes Act (“Bill 98”), saying the Bill and future regulations would have the potential to create a strong foundation for government, school boards, and duty-holders in the education system to help meet their human rights obligations, and that it was critical that those appointed to these positions be adequately supported to carry out their roles.

Your government called the Bill “significant and transformative.”

You rushed this Bill through, sir, with very little consultation even though Ontario’s Ombudsman, Paul Dubé, told the Submission to the Standing Committee on Social Policy that important aspects of his previous proposals were missing and even though Annie Kidder, director of the advocacy group People for Education, said, “This is a big piece of legislation and it appears to have been crafted with no previous consultation. It seems to be a surprise to everybody working in the system.”

I wrote to you again, sir, and told you that a Toronto law firm was paying the alcohol bill on the opening night of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association’s (OPSBA’s) Annual General Meeting and Program. This is the association that represents public school boards of all sizes from all regions across the province of Ontario. I also told you this was the same law firm that had been telling school board trustees that they didn’t need to remove themselves from hiring panels for all positions – except for director of education – even though it was leading to significant discrimination in school boards across the entire province.

Why is a law firm paying the alcohol bill for school board trustees?

Because it’s a “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” relationship, sir. The law firm stated when it paid for the alcohol bill that it was looking forward to “embracing the future” with Ontario school board trustees, the people who “run” Ontario’s school boards. This is how Ontario’s education system works, sir, and it’s been running that way for a very long time. There’s no oversight – just a bunch of self-governed systems that do whatever they want with complaint mechanisms that don’t actually lead anywhere, except loop back and forth amongst each other, with no one taking responsibility for anything.

You don’t appear to understand, Mr. Ford.

The constant failure of educational reform is because of existing power relationships and any effort to reform the education system must deal with the nature and allocation of power.

It’s not just me who’s saying this, sir. Seymour Sarason, a professor of psychology at Yale University, said this in 1990 just before Mike Harris launched his “Common Sense Revolution.”

It was a revolution all right – there was an Ontario-wide teacher strike affecting more than two millions student, and it was the largest education strike in North American history – but there was no “common sense” to the changes. You don’t solve problems by creating chaos, sir. You just fix the problems. 

Tinkering at the edges of Ontario’s 200-year old governance structure – as governments of all political stripes have been doing for a very long time (and this includes your Better Schools and Student Outcomes Act Bill 98) will only create more chaos.

Einstein was right, sir, when he said you cannot solve a problem from the same level of consciousness that created the problem in the first place.

Do you understand, sir, that our education system won't be healthy until every last student and educator are healthy, that the education system is about more than economics, that it's our job to "grow” healthy, happy and productive kids, and not just produce widgets in a factory, while banging staff over the head with giant hammers?

It’s an out of control ego, sir, that values money more than it values life.

It’s the same out of control ego that sent five people to their deaths in the OceanGate Expeditions underwater tour of the Titanic, sir.

The CEO of that company was clearly told the diving vessel wasn’t safe by a lot of different people. He even died himself.

If you were to completely redesign the education governance structure in Ontario, sir, by eliminating school board trustees in favour of some other governance model, it would solve the bullying, harassment and discrimination problem.

 It would still be a democratic model because the Ontario government – elected officials – would still be in charge, just not school board trustees.

You could increase power at the school level by encouraging more parents to join school councils – they are also elected officials, just not municipally elected – and these parents wouldn’t be caught between a rock and a hard place like school board trustees currently are. Parents would do a much better job of advocating for their children, which is exactly what school board trustees should be doing.

Every school should have a student council, too. Then students would have a voice at the table and a say in their own education.

So what’s the problem, sir?

You don’t really want to do this, do you, sir, because your government would lose its education “whipping posts.” In other words, your government can currently pass whatever education laws its wants, and take money away from school boards and kids, while blaming it all on school board trustees – who are predominantly female - which, by the way, is a form of gender discrimination.

If chaos, confusion, and more death isn’t what you want, sir, then you need to prove it.

Because Richard Bilkszto is dead.

School boards are political and organizational inventions, sir, not natural and inevitable ones, as Stephen Anderson, a professor at OISE wrote in a 2003 paper. “It is therefore quite reasonable to question and critique the role that districts can play in promoting and sustaining quality education,” he wrote.  

Think about it, sir.

Chris Selley pointed out in the National Post in 2017, we don’t directly elect people to provide health care, justice or social services. So why do we do it in education? As it currently stands, barely anyone bothers voting for school board trustee anymore. The curriculum is provincial, funding is provincial, and most problems get created and solved at the school level, not at the board.

Furthermore, study upon study shows that the closer you are to the classroom, the more impact you have. This means it’s the teachers, vice-principals, and principals like Richard Bikszto, sir, who make the most difference. Volunteers and parents matter a lot, too. Not school board trustees.

While you’re giving this some thought, sir, I will be contacting Mr. Bilkszto’s family and his lawyer, Lisa Bildy, and Mr. Bilkszto’s colleagues, offering to give them all the evidence I’ve collected over the past 10 years, and walking them through it - for free - which will prove that they have a prima facie case of discrimination on their hands. That means proveable, sir.

Your government has known about this problem for a very long time.

I’ll even testify if the family and Mr. Bilkszto’s colleagues would like me to.

If this isn’t the case, sir, if you really do want to solve the problem, then I suggest you govern yourself accordingly.

Should the TDSB apologize?

Yes.

Should the Kojo Institute apologize?

Yes.

Should there be a lawsuit?

Yes – and the Bilkszto family and Mr. Bilkszto’s  colleagues who are launching a lawsuit should also name Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Education in its lawsuit – because your government is not fixing the problem – and it’s your government that created the problem in the first place.  

Does all of the blame for this fall on your shoulders, sir? 

No, it does not. I wrote to Premier Kathleen Wynne about the bullying and harassment problem in Ontario’s education system, and she didn’t fix the problem, either. I can prove that, too. But for now the problem is yours to solve, sir, because you are the current Premier and Richard Bilkszto is dead.

Were there other factors in Mr. Bilkszto’s death?

Probably. Experts say suicide is rarely caused by a single circumstance or event, and there are usually many contributing factors that have developed over a period of time, as the Toronto Star reported.

Should Minister Lecce investigate the matter?

There was already an investigation, conducted by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, and that decision awarded Mr. Bilkszto compensation in 2021, saying the TDSB failed to protect Mr. Bilkszto from bullying and harassment. According to the National Post, who obtained copies, TDSB didn’t dispute Bilkszto’s recollection of events to the compensation board, nor did it appeal the compensation board’s award, and the deadline for disputing the claim has passed.

Should there be an Inquiry?

As you know, sir, public inquiries examine the facts underlying an issue or event, including any factors that may have caused or contributed to it, and provide recommendations to the government to improve public policy. Most inquiries involve an investigative stage and some form of public hearing. The inquiry ends with the publication of a final report. But the recommendations in the report aren’t binding on the government. So why would taxpayer’s or Mr. Bilkszto’s family support an Inquiry?

Public inquiries are often lengthy, expensive and complex and may involve thousands (or millions) of documents and dozens of witnesses. Public inquiries do not give rise to criminal or civil liability. They serve a broader purpose – to promote transparency and accountability and improve policy in areas of real importance to the public.

You already know how to solve this problem, sir.

The culture of fear was first detected in a December 2007 Falconer Report of the TDSB, after a Black student named Jordan Manners was killed in the hallway of C. W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute in May of that same year. In response to the shooting, the TDSB convened a School Community Safety Advisory Panel, and schools across the city were investigated. Julian Falconer, one of Canada’s top constitutional and human rights lawyers, steered the investigation, and he and his team produced a 1000-page report with 126 recommendations.

Falconer concluded that the culture of fear at C. W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute was “endemic,” that there were violence and sexual assaults happening in the hallways of the school, and staff and students were afraid to speak out, which contributed to the tragic death of young Jordan Manners. Falconer’s report also identified numerous problems within TDSB high schools, including the under-reporting of violent incidents, a culture of silence that reprimanded whistleblowers, and a shortfall of necessary support staff such as social workers and youth counsellors.

TDSB implemented some, but not all, of Falconer’s recommendations, and one year later, Falconer told the Toronto Star that TDSB schools were no safer because the province had not provided enough money to implement the most crucial recommendations, such as additional support staff.

Doug Jolliffe, president of the secondary school teachers’ union at the time, said he was frustrated with the board’s inaction on the report’s recommendations. “We don’t feel like the board has listened, really, to anything Falconer recommended,” he told the Toronto Star. “Things have stayed pretty much the same.”

Six years later, an Ernst and Young Forensic Audit of the TDSB, detected the culture of fear in the TDSB again, this time saying it was “permeating” the school board.

Then in 2015, Margaret Wilson concluded in her Review of the TDSB, because of massive dysfunction, that there was a culture of fear, silence, and retribution in the board, and it was becoming noticeably worse and threatening public confidence in the education system. She noted that trustees were sitting on hiring panels for positions other than the director of education, even though the Ministry of Education told trustees to remove themselves, and this, according to Wilson, was a major contributor to the culture of fear, silence, and retribution in that board.

Wilson actually wrote, “Co-operation between trustees is too often focused on making deals for mutual support. The level of trust between the senior administration and the trustees is low…there has, to date, been no attempt to review the Board’s governance model to remove the trustees from day-to-day operational decision making and to prevent interference on the part of many trustees, in the operation of ‘their schools in their wards.’ ”

Wilson wrote in 2015 that she was “deeply disturbed by the acute level of distress” which was apparent in the TDSB. She said she did not include all the evidence she found of the culture of fear in her report because it would be too easy to identify some of the individuals. Many staff members feared they would be fired if they could be identified.

The Liberal government set up a panel of civic leaders and former trustees to examine whether the problems at TDSB were rooted in its size. Barbara Hall led this panel, and in her letter to Education Minister Liz Sandals, Hall wrote that the panel heard serious concerns about the board's capacity to maintain achievements and create real opportunities for all children, unless significant changes in governance were made.

The panel also heard a very strong message that change was urgent, and children and their communities were vulnerable. In the Executive Summary, Hall wrote, “One of the most frequent messages we heard was that people know that there are many positive experiences for children in schools across the TDSB but, at the same time, all they hear about is bad, unacceptable behaviour throughout the organization with no apparent consequences. They want this to stop.”

Hall confirmed for a third time that a culture of fear existed in TDSB and it was having substantial and detrimental consequences for those working at the board. The panel discovered that the culture of fear was also trickling down into classrooms.

The panel concluded that governance dysfunction was perpetuating inequities of opportunity and success across the board, and it was the panel’s view that the culture had developed over many years and under the watch of several different directors, board chairs, and senior administrators, and could not be allowed to continue.

The panel made it clear to the provincial government that a comprehensive cultural shift was required.

An Inquiry will be a waste of money, sir. You already have the answer.

You need to change the governance structure. Otherwise, there will be more chaos, death, and destruction in Ontario’s public education system.

Ideally, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) should step in and request that the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal order your government to comply, sir, – or the OHRC will assign a Supervisor for Minister Lecce stripping him of his powers.

But I doubt the OHRC will do that because it’s stacked with Conservative “players,” and those players won’t step in unless you tell them to.

How do I know this?

Because the OHRC supported the Better Schools and Student Outcomes Act (Bill 98) saying the bill had the potential to create a strong foundation for government, school boards, and duty-holders in the education system to help meet their human rights obligations, which is the message you wanted the OHRC to give.

https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/news_centre/submission-ontario-human-rights-commission-standing-committee-social-policy-bill-98-better-schools

Raj Dhir, was named Executive Director and Chief Legal Officer of the OHRC in October 2018, four months after you were elected Premier, sir, and he is now the Assistant Deputy Attorney General of the Policy Division as of April 2023.

Were these patronage appointments, sir?

In fairness to the OHRC, the OHRC did say in its Submission to the Standing Committee on Social Policy on Bill 98, that Bill 98 needs to account for the experiences that education officials are currently facing while doing human rights work, that it is critical that those appointed to these positions be adequately supported to carry out their roles.

On February 16, 2023, the OHRC also issued a statement called “Code Obligations of Education Officials,” writing that it is concerned about the increasing violence targeted at education officials for doing human rights work, and that the Code requires that the people engaged in this work be able to do so without being subjected to discrimination and harassment and without fear for their safety and security.

These are your own people, sir - the OHRC - telling you this.

And discrimination cuts both ways.

Discrimination is not about the colour of your skin.

It’s about the level of your psychological development.

If you, Mr. Dhir, the OHRC and the current government are truly serious about fixing the bullying, discrimination and harassment problem in Ontario’s education system, you will commission a Review of the governance structure – and Doug Downey, Ontario’s Attorney-General, Patrick Case, Ontario’s Chief Equity Officer at the Ministry of Education, Lorne Coe, your parliamentary assistant, and Raj Dhir, Assistant Deputy Attorney General of the Policy Division will help you implement the recommendations.

Richard Bilkszto was an advocate, a member of the Toronto chapter of the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR), an advocacy organization dedicated to civil rights and anti-discrimination, which he took the lead in establishing.

Richard Bilkszto wasn’t “racist,” he was a wonderful human being, and ultimately, he wasn’t afforded his legal right to work in an environment free from discrimination and harassment without fear for his own safety and security.

Not only would a Review of Ontario’s governance structure fix the problem, sir, it would be an appropriate response to Richard Bilkszto’s death – and to the death of young Jordan Manners, and would deliver a very clear message to the entire education system:

Stop the bullying, harassment, and discrimination in Ontario’s education system!

Once and for all!

I would think this sort of deep change would bring a measure of peace to Mr. Bilkszto’s family and his colleagues who are about to sue you – and perhaps even a measure of compassion toward your government, sir – if they knew the problem was being properly dealt with.

It might help Jordan Manners’ family – and the entire Black community – heal, too.

[Update: The Toronto School Administrators’ Association, representing over 1,000 principals and vice-principals, issued a statement supporting Richard Bilkszto as well. So did the Ontario Principals’ Council, which represents all vice-principals and principals in Ontario.

Within hours of these statements - and mine - Minister Lecce announced, “I have tasked my officials to review what happened in this instance in the TDSB and bring me options to reform professional training and strengthen accountability on school boards so this never happens again” (my italics).

The TDSB ordered a review into the situation as well.

In May 2024, Minister Lecce wrote in a memo to school boards and administrators:

“School boards must ... ensure they respect intellectual diversity and open dialogue of staff, designed to create school environments that advance freedom of expression, respect for our differences, and the safety of every child from every walk of life.” These moves "will put some controls in place." Minister Lecce even told school boards to ensure diversity of opinion.

A few weeks later, the Director of Education for the TDSB, Colleen Russell-Rawlins, announced her sudden retirement during a Special Board Meeting at noon on May 28, 2024.

On June 6, Education Minister Stephen Lecce was shuffled from education to energy, with former energy minister Todd Smith taking Lecce’s old job as education minister.]

Debbie L. Kasman, M. Ed, Policy Studies, OISE/University of Toronto
Education Re-imagined
Analyst & Researcher, Author & Speaker
www.debbielkasman.com

Dear education friends and Attorney-General of Ontario, Doug Downey,

I’m writing today with a significant update about the current “lay of the land” of the education system in Ontario, Canada.  

As it currently stands:

When a man – who is transitioning to a woman – shows up to class wearing oversized prosthetic breasts with protruding nipples (as is the case in Oakville, Ontario, Canada with teacher Kayla Lemieux), it’s an expression of gender identity.

According to the Halton District School Board, implementing a dress code for teachers would expose the board to “considerable liability” for violating the Ontario Human Rights Code. Further, they say, new rules can’t even be considered at this moment because of ongoing collective bargaining with teacher unions.

Yet:

When an education executive – who is female and not transitioning – speaks up about gender and race discrimination at the school board where she works as a function of her job, as an expression of her gender identity, and when professionally dressed, the female executive is publicly walked off the job, called “subversive” and “loony,” and promptly demoted – as was the case in the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board in Peterborough, Ontario a few years ago.

Yes, that is indeed the current “lay of the land” in the education system in Ontario, Canada.

This is not fake news.

It’s real news – and legally, it’s a profound case of differential treatment, which is a violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

I’m not a lawyer, but I understand Ontario’s education system extremely well, I have a decent understanding of the human rights code, I have detailed knowledge of the situation, and I’ve seen all the evidence.

Let’s take a look at this from a legal perspective.

If there are any lawyers out there with a different perspective, they are welcome to let me know. 

First, I should tell you that this differential treatment is even more profound when you realize that the female executive who spoke out about race and gender discrimination did so after seven men and two women were promoted to the senior leadership team in the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board at a time when the hiring pool (principals) consisted of approximately 70% women…

…after school board Trustee Gordon Gilchrist had espoused racist viewpoints toward all immigrants in the local newspaper…

…after the Ministry of Education told trustees to remove themselves from hiring panels for all positions except for director of education (because it was leading to discrimination)…

…and after school board trustees in that school board refused to remove themselves from hiring panels for all positions except for director of education because the trustees did not want to “readily give in to having their authority removed.”

The differential treatment is even more profound when I tell you that the female executive spoke out just before Trustee Gilchrist made racial slurs toward First Nations students, and just before Trustee Gilchrist said he was thinking of taking the matter into his own hands after a female Muslim student was appointed as student trustee.

Okay, let’s get to the analysis.

The purpose of anti-discrimination laws in Ontario is to prevent the violation of human dignity and freedom through the imposition of disadvantage, stereotyping, or political or social prejudice.

In the context of equality claims under s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”), the Supreme Court of Canada has offered the following three broad inquiries as a tool for determining whether discrimination has occurred.

Let’s take a look at these in relation to the above comparative scenario:

1. Differential treatment

Was there substantively differential treatment, either because of a distinction, exclusion or preference, or because of a failure to take into account the individual’s already disadvantaged position within Canadian society?

Yes. When a man – who is transitioning to a woman – shows up to class wearing oversized prosthetic breasts with protruding nipples, it’s an expression of her gender identity – and is allowed – as is the case with Ms. Lemieux at the Halton District School Board in Oakville.

When a woman who isn’t transitioning speaks up about gender and race discrimination as a function of her job, as an expression of her gender identity, and while professionally dressed, the woman is publicly walked off the job, called “subversive” and “loony,” and promptly demoted – as is the case with the female executive in the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board in Peterborough, Ontario.

It is substantively differential treatment – and it appears to be based on the fact that Ms. Lemieux is transitioning (from a man to a woman) and is therefore allowed to express her gender identity wearing whatever she would like.

But the female executive, who is not transitioning, isn’t allowed to express her gender identity – even when it’s a requirement of her job, after watching and experiencing significant issues with discrimination in her place of work, and even when she’s dressed professionally.    

This is because of a distinction, exclusion or preference, or because of a failure to take into account the individual’s already disadvantaged position within Canadian society.

In Ms. Lemieux’s case, gender identity and expression were taken into consideration. She is a man who is transitioning to a woman.

In the case of the female senior executive, gender identity and expression were not taken into consideration. The senior executive is a woman who is not transitioning.

Both Ms. Lemieux and the female education executive occupy a disadvantaged position within Canadian society.

2. Is the differential treatment based on an enumerated ground?

Yes. Both individuals identify as women. One individual is a man who is transitioning to a woman. The other individual is a woman who does not wish to transition or change her gender. Gender, gender identity and gender expression are enumerated grounds.

3. Discrimination in a substantive sense

Does the differential treatment discriminate by imposing a burden upon, or withholding a benefit from, an individual?

Yes, the female senior executive was walked off the job, demoted and called “loony.” That’s an extraordinary burden with lasting implications.

However, Ms. Lemieux can continue to work and wear oversized prosthetic breasts with protruding nipples to class – amidst increased security and police presence, bomb threats, intense media scrutiny, protests and student walk-outs.

That’s an extraordinary burden for the board to uphold to protect Ms. Lemieux and her rights – and no burden for Ms. Lemieux at all.  

Additionally, Ms. Lemieux is being given a benefit (the ability to keep her job), and this benefit was withheld from the senior executive, making it constructive dismissal as well.

Is the discrimination based on stereotypes of a presumed group or personal characteristics, or perpetuate or promote the view that an individual is less capable or worthy of recognition or value as a human being or as a member of Canadian society who is equally deserving of concern, respect and consideration?

Yes. This comparison situation suggests that a man – who is transitioning to a woman – and who wears oversized prosthetic breasts with protruding nipples to class as an expression of her gender identity – is more worthy of recognition and value as a human being than a woman who dresses professionally, and expresses significant and valid concerns with race and gender discrimination as an expression of her own gender and as a function of her job. 

Does the differential treatment amount to discrimination because it makes distinctions that are offensive to human dignity?

Yes. It’s offensive to the female executive’s human dignity – and to the human dignity of most women – that a man who is transitioning to a woman can wear oversized prosthetic breasts with protruding nipples to class as an expression of her identity, but a woman who speaks out with valid concerns about race and gender discrimination as an expression of her own gender, and as a function of her job is walked off the job, demoted, and called “loony.”

It’s extraordinarily offensive when that women is professionally dressed.

Discrimination has definitely occurred to the female executive under all three broad inquiries of the Supreme Court of Canada in the context of equality claims under s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Now what?

The Supreme Court of Canada has set out a framework for examining whether the person responsible for accommodation (Minister Lecce, Ontario’s Education Minister, in this case) has met the duty to accommodate the individual (both Ms. Lemieux and the female executive).

Where it is established that a standard, factor, requirement or rule results in discrimination, the person responsible for accommodation must show that the standard, factor, requirement or rule:

1.    was adopted for a purpose that is rationally connected to the function being performed;

2.    was adopted in good faith;

3.    is reasonably necessary to accomplish its goal or purpose, in the sense that it is impossible to accommodate the claimant without undue hardship.

Now let’s analyze the above comparative scenario in relation to the Supreme Court of Canada’s framework for Education Minister Lecce’s duty to accommodate.

1. Was the standard, factor, requirement or rule that resulted in discrimination adopted for a purpose that is rationally connected to the function being performed?

In other words, is it necessary for Ms. Lemieux to wear oversized prosthetics with protruding nipples to do her job as an industrial arts teacher?

No. In fact, these “articles of clothing” hinder Ms. Lemieux’s ability to do her job safely.

Was it necessary for the female executive to speak out about gender and race discrimination at work?

Yes, it’s a function of her job as an education leader, a critical task of all educators, and a requirement of the Ontario Human Rights Code to speak out about discrimination. Not only are educators tasked with speaking out about discrimination, they are tasked with addressing discrimination in the education system as well.

2. Was the standard, factor, requirement or rule adopted in good faith?

The Halton District School Board is attempting to follow the Ontario Human Rights Code and believes that allowing Ms. Lemieux to wear oversized prosthetics breasts with protruding nipples to class is an expression of Ms. Lemieux’s gender identity,

The school board also believes they cannot implement a staff “dress code” during contract negotiations and without considerable “legal liability,” because removing the right for Ms. Lemieux to express her gender identity however she likes could violate the Ontario Human Rights Code.

So the standard, factor, requirement or rule was adopted in good faith in Ms. Lemieux’s situation (if the school board believes there is no dress code for staff in effect).

However, the standard, factor, requirement or rule was not adopted in good faith in the case of the female executive.

The female executive was walked off the job, demoted and called “loony” when she spoke out about gender and race discrimination as an expression of her gender identity, as a function of her job, and while dressed professionally.  

School board trustees hire and supervise directors of education (who run the day-to-day operations of school boards in Ontario) so instead of removing trustees from hiring panels (which might have cost the director his job), the director demoted the female executive who was speaking out instead of removing trustees from hiring panels.

Then the local school board trustee (a former school board Chair and current President of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association) called the female executive “loony.”

This discredited the female executive’s allegations – which were entirely true. And that allowed trustees to remain on hiring panels against Ministry of Education direction – including a trustee who had espoused racist viewpoints toward all immigrants, and would go on to disparage First Nations students and a female Muslim student trustee. It also allowed the director of education to keep his job.

Therefore, these standards, factors, requirements or rules were not adopted in good faith in the instance of the senior executive. They were actually a form of reprisal against the female executive who had spoken the truth.

3. Was the standard, factor, requirement or rule reasonably necessary to accomplish its goal or purpose, in the sense that it is impossible to accommodate the claimant without undue hardship?

The Halton District School Board appears to be accommodating Ms. Lemieux without undue hardship.

The Board has hired extra security and increased police presence, implemented a safely plan for Ms. Lemieux, all staff and all students, tolerated lost production and hundreds of complaints, protests, student walk-outs, horn honking, and intense media scrutiny.

The board has even navigated two violent bomb threats appearing to reference the situation, which included direct threats against two Halton District School Board staff members and the city of Oakville as a whole.

The Halton District School Board chose to bear these hardships in order to defend Ms. Lemieux’s right to express her gender identity in any way she would like – even though it is undue hardship for the school board to do so and it does pose a threat to the “business” of educating students and a threat to the health and safety of everyone involved.

In the case of the female executive, the school board could easily have ignored her comments when she spoke out about gender and race discrimination.

The school board could also have easily rectified the situation. The director of education could have removed trustees from hiring panels with assistance from the Ministry of Education – the Ministry of Education told him he needed to do so, in writing, three times – and the director could easily have promoted more women to the senior leadership team. The hiring pool (principals) was comprised of nearly 70% women.

Most school boards across Ontario had already removed trustees from hiring panels and promoted more women successfully. In fact, many school boards in Ontario already had gender balanced leadership teams.

Additionally, if Ms. Lemieux’s rights can be accommodated with an extraordinary amount of hardship to the board, the senior administrator’s rights could have been accommodated with no undue hardship to the school board at all.  

This establishes that the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board (and Education Minister Stephen Lecce) did not meet the duty to accommodate the senior executive because the standard, factor, requirement or rule they used to walk the senior executive off the job, to demote her and call her “loony” resulted in discrimination, and the standard, factor, requirement or rule was not adopted for a purpose that is rationally connected to the function being performed, was not adopted in good faith, and was not reasonably necessary to accomplish its goal or purpose.

In comparison, the Halton District School Board (and Education Minister Lecce) did meet the duty to accommodate Ms. Lemieux. In fact, the school board bent over backward to accommodate Ms. Lemieux – even though the school board had to endure a great deal of undue hardship. 

Let’s dig deeper:

Are Ms. Lemieux’s human dignity and freedom through the imposition of disadvantage, stereotyping, or political or social prejudice being violated?

No, they are not. Ms. Lemieux’s human dignity and freedom are being upheld by the school board where she works.

Were the female senior executive’s human dignity and freedom violated when she was walked off the job, demoted, and called “loony?”

Yes, and the female executive’s human dignity and freedom were further violated when the Ontario Principal’s Council told the senior executive it was her job to accept the decisions of the school board even if she disagreed with those decisions (which meant it was the job of the female executive to accept gender and race discrimination in her workplace).

The Ontario Principal’s Council also told the female executive she should apologize for her “bad behaviour.”

The Ontario College of Teachers told the female executive that she wasn’t allowed to say anything that reflected poorly on her school board or the teaching profession in general (which meant she couldn’t speak out about race or gender discrimination, the fact that trustees were refusing to remove themselves from hiring panels, or the fact that a trustee who had espoused racist viewpoints toward all immigrants was allowed to sit on hiring panels.)

The Ontario College of Teachers also told the female executive that any public interest in the matter had been addressed by her demotion (but this didn’t address any public interest at all).

Premier Wynne told the female executive to contact the Ombudsman saying Premier Wynne couldn’t get involved because school boards were “self governing” systems (which meant Premier Wynne was ignoring race and gender discrimination at the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board).

Ontario’s Ombudsman told the female executive there was nothing the Ombudsman could do and his office was “monitoring” the situation, (which meant the Ombudsman was allowing gender and race discrimination to occur and was “monitoring” it).

Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner said it wasn’t within his jurisdiction and he couldn’t get involved. 

The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal said it wasn’t within their jurisdiction – twice.  

The Ontario Human Rights Commission said their work is guided by their Strategic Plan and informed by ongoing engagement with their Education Advisory Group, with final decision being made by their appointed commissioners” (who are heavily slanted intentionally toward the Conservative government).  

When the female executive wrote to Education Minister Lecce, Minister Lecce directed Ontario’s Chief Equity Officer, Patrick Case, to respond to the woman, even though Mr. Case had already responded to this woman several times, saying there was nothing he could do. Then Mr. Case suggested the female executive read the Huggins’ Report (which she had already read three times).

When the female executive had letters hand delivered by MPPs in the Legislature to the Education Minister, her letters were ignored – even though MPP staffers told female executive the Education Minister would respond (which meant many MPPs and the Education Minister were ignoring race and gender discrimination in the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board).

When the female executive filed a complaint with the Ontario College of Teachers, her complaint sat in a pile for 15 months. (It’s still sitting in that pile.)

The female executive’s rights were not only violated over and over again, they continue to be violated because a man – who is transitioning to a woman – can wear oversized prosthetic breasts with protruding nipples to class as an expression of her gender – while the female executive is not allowed to speak out about gender and race discrimination at all – even as a necessary function of her job, even when she’s professionally dressed, and even as an expression of her gender identity.  

Does this comparison situation meet the thresholds for differential treatment and reprisal toward the female executive?

Yes. Being walked off the job and demoted was reprisal for speaking out about racist trustees sitting on hiring panels, trustees refusing to remove themselves from hiring panels, and a severely imbalanced senior leadership team slanted against women.

The Chair of the Board at the time and the current President of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association even issued the female executive with a legal cease-and-desist letter on behalf of the school board.

And the legal cease-and-desist letter was written by a prestigious law firm telling the female executive to stop speaking out about the situation or she would be sued by the school board.

The school board has a multi-million dollar budget based on taxpayers’ dollars.

This is a significant threat.

In conclusion, discrimination and reprisal have occurred (to the female executive, but not to Ms. Lemieux) under all three broad inquiries of the Supreme Court of Canada in the context of equality claims under s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

And the person responsible for accommodation (the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board and Education Minister Lecce) cannot show that the standard, factor, requirement or rule that resulted in this discrimination to the senior executive was adopted for a purpose that is rationally connected to the function being performed, was adopted in good faith, and is reasonably necessary to accomplish its goal or purpose – because it wasn’t.

This suggests that a man – who is transitioning to a woman and who wears oversized prosthetic breasts with protruding nipples to class as an expression of her gender identity – is more worthy of recognition and value as a human being than a woman who dresses professionally, expresses significant and valid concerns with race and gender discrimination as a function of her job, and as an expression of her gender.

What should happen next?

Mr. Downey is Ontario’s Attorney General, and is responsible for the administration of Ontario's courts and the contact between the government and the judiciary.

He is the Chief Law Officer of the Government and responsible for criminal and provincial prosecutions, legislative drafting, civil litigation involving the government, administration of the courts and services delivered by the Ministry of the Attorney General.

As the Chief Law Officer of the Government, it’s Mr. Downey’s job to provide independent legal advice to the Government and to advise Cabinet to ensure the rule of law is maintained and that government actions are legally and constitutionally valid.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission is also supposed to be an arm’s length agency of the government accountable to the legislature through the Ministry of the Attorney General.

One of the Commission's missions is to expose, challenge and end entrenched and widespread structures and systems of discrimination through education, policy development, public inquiries and litigation.

The Commission has the ability to initiate reviews and enquiries and can question people on matters that are relevant to the inquiry, and request documents for examination, and no person shall obstruct or interfere with the Commission's inquiry.  

Under Section 35 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Commission may also apply to the Tribunal for an order if the Commission believes it is in the public interest to do so and if an order could provide an appropriate remedy. 

The Commission can also order any party to do anything that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the party ought to do to promote compliance with the Code.

The Commission can also direct a person to do anything with respect to future practices and order a party to pay monetary compensation to a person whose rights were infringed.

The Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario is supposed to be an independent office of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as well. Its jurisdiction includes more than 500 provincial government ministries, agencies, corporations, tribunals, boards and commissions.

In addition to the oversight of governmental bodies, the Ombudsman’s office is also responsible for the intake of public complaints, which indicate the possibility of maladministration within the Government of Ontario, and in appropriate cases conducts an investigation.

It's the Ombudsman's job to look at how a policy or program functions in the public sector once it's been set up. That would be the way the education system applies the Ontario Human Rights Code in this case. Is the Code consistently applied across the entire education system or not?  

It's also the Ombudsman's job to reach an opinion about a public sector body's conduct including whether it appears to have been contrary to the law, unreasonable, unjust, oppressive, or improperly discriminatory.

That’s exactly what this is.

Let’s put this to the final test:

Will Mr. Downey find the Kawartha Pine Ridge DSB, the Ontario Principals’ Council, the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, the Ontario College of Teachers, and Minister Lecce guilty of differential treatment and reprisal (in the case of the female executive) - and will the Ombudsman and the Ontario Human Rights Commission (who have all the evidence) assist?

OR

Will Minister Lecce order the Halton District School Board to walk Kayla Lemieux off the job, demote her, and call her “loony?”

Anything else is differential treatment.

We all know Ms. Lemieux can’t be walked off the job, demoted and called “loony” because it would be a violation of Ms. Lemieux’s rights under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Silence from Mr. Downey on this matter is also a violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

So now, with the Ombudsman, the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the entire world watching, let’s see what Mr. Downey does.  

Sincerely,

Debbie L. Kasman, M. Ed, Policy Studies, OISE/University of Toronto
Education Re-imagined
Analyst & Researcher, Author & Speaker
www.debbielkasman.com

P. S. According to the latest media reports, Ms. Lemieux hasn’t been in class for the past few days because she has hurt her foot. Ms. Lemieux, (if you are reading this), I hope your foot heals quickly (if that is indeed the reason you are off) and I hope you are doing okay.

I also hope you are extraordinarily grateful for the respect, consideration, and support Ontario’s education system has afforded you on your transitioning journey.

It’s a lot more respect, consideration and support than the education system afforded the female executive from the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board who was walked off the job, demoted and called “loony” for speaking out about legitimate race and gender discrimination concerns as a function of her job, as an expression of her gender, and while dressed professionally.

I hope you don’t mind me saying that the way you are dressing in the classroom is considered unprofessional by many women. Women have been wearing professional attire in the workplace for many years. It’s not that big of a deal, and it’s not discriminatory as long as the rules apply to everyone, no matter their gender or gender identity.  

Additionally, your expression of gender identity is placing an extraordinarily unfair burden on your school board in order to protect you and all the staff and students involved.

This is posing an extreme threat to the “business” of educating students – as well as the health and safety of everyone involved.

As such, the school board really can’t support the rights of one individual – your rights – over the rights of all staff and students in the school.

This may not seem fair, but it is fair.

I think we can agree that if you can wear oversized prosthetics breasts with protruding nipples as a teacher in a classroom as a way of expressing your gender identity, then male teachers who are transitioning can show up naked to class as well – including into kindergarten classrooms – and this makes no sense.

It would also mean, I think, that all male teachers, vice-principals, principals, superintendents and directors of education who are transitioning (male to female) can hang pinups of their favourite Playboy bunnies in their classrooms and offices as an expression of their gender identity - and most women would find that offensive in a professional setting.

I’m pretty sure this was not the intent of Bill C-16 when it was passed in June 2017 - and I think it would be discriminatory.

So I’m sure you’ll understand when I say that the education system in Ontario isn’t quite ready for men who are transitioning to women and who wear oversized prosthetic breasts with protruding nipples to class just yet.

The education system in Ontario doesn’t even know how to treat women who aren’t transitioning, who dress professionally, and who speak out in favour of equity yet.

Oh, and Ms. Lemieux, if you’ve ever paid (or donated) to “dress down” on Fridays or other “dress down” days, that would be legal evidence proving you are aware there is a professional dress code in effect in Ontario’s classrooms – and considering the extraordinary lengths your school board has gone to in order to protect you, you might be liable for some of those expenses if you knowingly violated the dress code. So you might want to wear professional attire when you return to work.

I stand proud in the belief that Ontario is ready to welcome you, Ms. Lemieux, (as a man who is transitioning to a woman), and will welcome you - without protests, extra security, protests, student walk-outs and bomb threats – as long as you wear professional attire in the classroom.

I thank you for helping to bring this issue to a head, Ms. Lemieux. You are the reason I am able to offer this legal analysis, which I am hopeful will force the Ontario government to deal with the discrimination of all people – staff, students and parents, regardless of their race, culture, religion, sex, gender or gender identity – within the education system.

For that I am extremely grateful. 

I wish you all the best on your transitioning journey, Ms. Lemieux.

I hope it brings you all the health, happiness, love, kindness, success and respect you deserve.

Debbie

1. Ask Chair Lori-Ann Pizzolato and Parliamentarian Lori Lukinuk to apologize to Mayor Ryan and the entire TVDSB rural community for their treatment of Mayor Ryan at its April 26, 2022 Board meeting, and allow the RETF to proceed as previously planned before the dissolution of the Ontario Legislature on May 4, 2022.

2. Clear up any confusion around mask-wearing in Ontario schools before the dissolution of the Ontario Legislature on May 4, 2022.

Jacob Shelley, an Associate Professor and Director of Health Ethics, Law and Policy at the Faculty of Law and School of Health Studies at Western University pointed out yesterday in an article called “Making schools safe spaces: The legal authority for school boards to enact masking policies” that school boards are permitted to enact mask mandates, and he outlined the legal reasons why.

Shelley says that what appears to be happening “is that the Ministry of Education is attempting to govern by fiat – in short, telling local, autonomous boards that they are not permitted to exercise their lawful authority because, well, we say so.”

Shelley says that this is “an affront to the rule of law and undermines the democratic principles our dominion is founded upon.”

Shelley also says that “it is not only permissible that a board enact policies to promote the health of its students, it has a legal duty to do so,” and “the next step that may be needed is to initiate legal actions to hold these boards to account.”

So here I am – showing up again – and alerting you to the fact that my concerns about discrimination within the education system and the role the education governance model plays in contributing to this discrimination as well as the government’s potential “overreach” in the mask-wearing debate continue to be ongoing with no remedy in sight.

Professor Shelley’s full legal argument can be found here:

https://healthydebate.ca/2022/04/topic/making-schools-safe-spaces-masks/

If Minister Lecce does not ask Chair Lori-Ann Pizzolato and Parliamentarian Lori Lukinuk to apologize to Mayor Ryan and the entire TVDSB rural community for its treatment of Mayor Ryan at its April 26, 2022 Board meeting, and allow the RETF to proceed as previously planned, and clear up any confusion around mask-wearing in Ontario schools before the Ontario Legislature is dissolved on May 4, 2022, I respectfully request that the OHRC use its statutory powers to appoint a Supervisor who is qualified and experienced to oversee the Ministry of Education to immediately address this matter.

I remain optimistic that my other significant requests – including that major changes be made to the education governance structure, which might mean eliminating the role of school board trustee entirely – will be addressed through my official complaint to the College and my Application to the OHRT when the Legislature resumes after the election on June 2, 2022.

I look forward to an immediate response.

Sincerely,

Debbie L. Kasman, M. Ed, Policy Studies, OISE/University of Toronto
Education Re-imagined
Analyst & Researcher, Author & Speaker
www.debbielkasman.com

CC:      Mayor Marcus Ryan, Zorra Township

            Deputy Mayor Kelly Elliott, Thames Centre

            Deputy Mayor Adrian Cornelissen, North Middlesex,

            Mayor Sally Martyn, Central Elgin

            Suzanne McCullough, OSSTF

            Larisa Grant, OPC

            Jennifer Nuyens, TVCHSA

            Ernie Hardeman, MPP for Oxford

            Heather Rivers, London Free Press

            Kate Dubinski, CBC

            Rebecca Zandbergen, CBC London, Morning Show

            Jonathan Sher, CBC

            Craig Needles, London News Today, Classic Rock 98.1

Friday, June 25, 2021

Dr. Derek Haime, Registrar, Ontario College of Teachers

Dear Dr. Haime,

Last Friday, the Toronto Star published an article called “One hundred years apart, they fought for Indigenous children. He lost. She keeps winning.”

In case you haven’t seen it, here’s a segment from the article:

Last week, Cindy Blackstock stood beside the grave of a man who, more than a century ago, sounded the alarm about children dying in Canada’s residential schools.

Dr. Peter Henderson Bryce, a non-Indigenous medical doctor and civil servant, warned the federal government in 1907 that poor ventilation and overcrowding was fuelling the spread of tuberculosis in residential schools across Western Canada, and that children were dying at alarming rates. His report demanded an “immediate remedy,” but the government did not act.

Blackstock, a child welfare activist and McGill University professor, had come to his grave at a pivotal moment in her own battle. She was about to take on the federal government in court — again — over systemic discrimination against First Nations children.

“I feel a kinship with him in many ways, even though we’re 100 years apart,” said Blackstock, executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, and a member of the Gitxsan First Nation. “I always think he must have felt like he was screaming into silence. And sometimes I feel that way, too.”

I feel like I’m screaming into silence, too. Although for me, it feels more like I’m screaming into the wind.

Dr. Peter Henderson Bryce faced career repercussions for speaking out. The government suspended funding for his research, prevented him from speaking at academic conferences and blocked him from positions within the federal civil service. Forced into retirement in the early 1920s, he wrote a tell-all book lamenting that “this trail of disease and death has gone on almost unchecked.”

I’ve written a tell-all book, too.

I just haven’t released it yet.

As you are aware, Dr. Haime, I’ve filed a complaint with the OCT against:

• W. R. (Rusty) Hick (former Director of Education, Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board and current Executive Director of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association)

• Shelly Roy (former Superintendent, Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board)

• Jennifer Leclerc (former Director of Education, Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board)

• Rob Whetter (former legal advisor Ontario Principals’ Council);

• Laura Hodgins (current legal advisor Ontario Principals’ Council); and

• Michael Salvatori (former Registrar Ontario College of Teachers).

I filed the complaint because it is unethical and immoral to:

• Practice retribution against someone when they speak out against systemic discrimination;

• Punish someone when they speak out against systemic discrimination;

• Offer to buy someone’s silence through mediation and confidentiality agreements when they speak out against systemic discrimination;

• Issue a cease-and-desist order to someone who is speaking out against systemic discrimination;

• Refuse to investigate when someone raises a concern about systemic discrimination;

• Tell someone to apologize when they speak out against systemic discrimination;

• Publicly walk someone off the job when they speak out against systemic discrimination;

• Allow racist and misogynistic trustees to sit on hiring panels;

• Not investigate properly.

I asked the OCT for a complete independent 3rd party investigation with an experienced, skilled and qualified investigator who has demonstrated experience in systemic discrimination.

Yesterday, I spoke with a member of your intake team: Ms. Evelyn Liu.

Ms. Liu has a lovely telephone manner, a Bachelor of Arts and Sciences with a double major in French and Criminology, and just graduated from university in 2015.

So basically, the most important complaint the OCT will ever receive…

• Do teachers have a duty of loyalty to the school boards they serve or do teachers have a duty of loyalty to the public and the students they serve?

• Is it professional misconduct for teachers to speak out against discrimination?

• Is it professional misconduct for school boards to punish teachers when they speak out against discrimination?

• Do teachers have a moral, ethical and legal obligation to speak out about discrimination?

… is currently being handled by someone 6 years out of university. 

Me to Ms. Liu on the telephone yesterday: What happens to my complaint now that it’s in your hands?

Ms. Liu: Well, I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but it appears to be about hiring and firing, and that’s not within the College’s jurisdiction.

In case you haven’t noticed, my complaint isn’t about “hiring and firing," Dr. Haime.

Perhaps I haven't made myself perfectly clear.

(Perhaps I truly am screaming into the wind.)

My complaint is about:

• Whether teachers have a duty of loyalty to the school boards they serve or a duty of loyalty to the public and the students they serve;

• Whether it is professional misconduct for teachers to speak out against discrimination;

• Whether it is professional misconduct for teachers to punish other teachers when they speak out against discrimination;

• Whether teachers have a moral, ethical and legal obligation to speak out about discrimination. 

Apparently my complaint will also pass through Mr. Patrick Winter's hands.

Mr. Winter is the Manager and Senior Intake Officer of your Hearings and Investigations Department. Mr. Winter graduated from Dalhousie University with a Bachelor’s Degree in Classics.

I’m quite certain that’s not going to help.

Then there’s Ms. Linda Lacroix.

As you know, Ms. Lacroix is the Director of your Investigations and Hearings Department, and the third set of hands my complaint will pass through. Ms. Lacroix has been with the OCT for one year and was a Superintendent of Education for the Conseil scolaire public du Nord-Est de l’Ontario. Ms. Lacroix also worked as Director of the French Language Teaching and Learning Branch at the Ministry of Education for three years.

I majored in French at university, too. I’m quite certain Ms. Lacroix’s French language skills, while valuable, will not come in handy for this complaint.

On June 17, I wrote to you, Dr. Haime, to alert you that I had filed a complaint with the OCT.

Me to you: Because of the seriousness of this complaint and the complexity, I suggest you speak with the Intake Unit to make sure this is handled appropriately. There is no room for error on this one.

You to me 6 days later:  Thank you for notifying me of this. The Intake Unit is proceeding as they have outlined to you and will respond to any questions you may have in the meantime.

This is precisely what I’m afraid of, Dr. Haime. 

This, while another estimated 751 bodies have been discovered at another Residential “School” in Saskatchewan.

This, while Javier Dávila continues to be on home assignment under a Jewish Acting Director of Education who may have a bias against Palestinians.

This, while a group of about 50 principals from the Toronto District School Board told the board in an open letter that they signed as “anonymous for fear of reprisal,” that: “We are increasingly disturbed by the policing, criticism and silencing that some of us are experiencing when we name and create space to discuss such human rights violations.”

This, while Trustee Carole Paikin Miller lodged complaints against two teachers – Anthony Marco and Alice Smith – for calling Ms. Paikin Miller out for racist comments and behaviours, and neither investigation conducted by a third-party lawyer resulted in findings of any board violations.

This, at a cost of nearly $25,000 to Ontario taxpayers for those two investigations alone!

Galileo was punished for saying the earth wasn’t the centre of the universe over 400 years ago, and he was placed on house arrest for the rest of his life.

Have we learned nothing since Galileo’s time??!!

Are we still living under the Catholic Roman Inquisition??!!

While dead bodies keep piling up in unmarked graves at former Residential “Schools”??!!

That’s what this is about.

Is the Ontario College of Teachers still going to cling to a 400-year old belief that says teachers are not allowed to speak truth to power - even now??!!

That’s ludicrous!

This is the same belief Dr. Bryce was up against when he spoke out against the conditions at Residential Schools over 100 years ago!

It’s the same belief that allowed Hitler to kill 6 million Jews!

How many millions of bodies it is going to take for the OCT to actually respond appropriately??!!

Murray Sinclair believes education is the key to reconciliation: “Education got us into this mess, and education will get us out of this mess,” Mr. Sinclair said.

As long as the OCT tells teachers they do not have a moral, ethical and legal obligation to speak out against discrimination, education will continue to perpetuate this mess.

What side of history do you want to land on, Dr. Haime?

You served on the Waterloo Regional Crime Prevention Council – First Nation, Métis and Inuit Representative, Truth and Reconciliation Sub Committee Chair!

For. The. Love. Of. God. Do. Something!

In support of all Residential “School” survivors and their families,

Debbie L. Kasman

M. Ed, Policy Studies, OISE/University of Toronto

Education Re-imagined

Analyst & Researcher, Author & Speaker

{Note: Javier Dávila was reinstated to his position without penalty on July 16, 2021, three weeks after I published this letter and sent a copy to Karen Falconer and all Toronto District School Board Superintendents and Trustees. Javier wrote about his re-instatement here.

However, Dávila is under investigation again — this time for professional misconduct by the Ontario College of Teachers because a complaint was lodged against him by a lawyer named Michael Teper. The College’s Intake Team allowed the complaint to proceed — even though the matter was investigated through a formal investigation process that included TDSB's Employee Services, legal department, and Human Rights Office, and a letter concluding there was no wrongdoing and that no disciplinary action was warranted was sent to Dávila’s union president and to Dávila himself on July 14, 2021.

On November 17, 2021 Dávila’s lawyers Dimitri Lascaris and Stephen Ellis served B’nai Brith Canada and its CEO, Michael Mostyn, a Libel notice under the Ontario Libel and Slander Act.

On March 21, 2023, the Ontario College of Teachers announced College Council had received a report from the Standards of Practice and Education Committee highlighting the development of a new Professional Advisory to inform members of the College of their professional responsibilities to uphold human rights and combat hate and intolerance.

The Professional Advisory will include rigorous consultation with stakeholders and experts in the field, the Standards of Practice and Education Committee will be provided with regular updates on the advisory development process and an opportunity for interim reviews of the advisory document, College Council will be kept apprised of developments of the Professional Advisory via the Registrar’s Report, a final version will be tabled as information at the appropriate Council meeting, the Professional Advisory will be published on the College website and distributed to members electronically, and the Professional Advisory will require Standards of Practice and Education Committee approval prior to publication.

On April 17, 2023, Minister Lecce tabled the Better Schools and Student Outcomes Act in the Legislature, saying its goal is to modernize the province’s education system. The proposed Bill has five key focus areas that will be supported by education policy reforms, and those reforms will:

1. Ensure that all school boards across the province are focused on delivering on the government's key priorities for student achievement and improving accountability and transparency on board performance and funding.

2. Implement standardized processes, a fair and impartial framework to support the integrity of trustee conduct, and expectations for boards of trustees, Directors of Education and supervisory officers.

3. Maximize capital assets of boards to support building modern schools faster and better utilize school capacity so that students can attend school as close to home as possible. The proposed Bill will better leverage surplus property for public education and other provincial priorities, address accommodation needs in urban/high growth areas, ensure better planning for schools and associated child care facilities, maximize school capacity, where appropriate and improve consistency at the design phase to help reduce planning time and expedite the approvals process.

4. Strengthen teacher training and oversight to ensure teachers are trained for the needs of today's and tomorrow's classrooms and support student safety through fair and effective disciplinary processes for teachers and registered early childhood educators. The proposed Bill will ensure that fair and efficient disciplinary processes and other measures are in place for educators to build on progress made in previous reforms that enable the Ontario College of Teachers and the College of Early Childhood Educators to discharge their roles more effectively.

5. Encourage consistent information and approaches to student learning through more accessible information and opportunities for parents to get involved, and greater consistency in student mental health and well-being supports. This includes providing the information and tools necessary to ensure consistent information and approaches to student learning, including a greater role for parents and student learning about mental health and well-being.

The amendments proposed in Schedule 2 of the Bill will, if passed, amend the Education Act to drive provincial priorities to enhance accountability and transparency and to enable more effective governance through reforms for the education sector, boards of trustees and Directors of Education.

On May 16, 2023, the College decided to allow the complaints against former Director of Education, Rusty Hick, and former Superintendent, Shelly Roy, to move forward. The College will be investigating 11 different allegations.

In July 2023, retired Principal Richard Bilkszto took his own life after he was bullied at a DEI training session. Education Minister Stephen Lecce ordered his staff to Review what happened and to bring him "options to reform professional training and strengthen accountability on school boards so this never happens again."

The TDSB ordered a Review into the situation as well.

In May 2024, Minister Lecce wrote in a memo to school boards and administrators:

“School boards must ... ensure they respect intellectual diversity and open dialogue of staff, designed to create school environments that advance freedom of expression, respect for our differences, and the safety of every child from every walk of life.” These moves "will put some controls in place." Minister Lecce even told school boards to ensure diversity of opinion.

A few weeks later, the Director of Education for the TDSB, Colleen Russell-Rawlins, announced her sudden retirement during a Special Board Meeting at noon on May 28, 2024.

The OCT decision into my complaint is due soon.]

Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/DebbieKasman.

 Moscrop outlined the situation that is occurring in the Toronto District School Board (TDSB):

A Toronto educator is on home assignment and under investigation in Ontario after sharing anti-hate, decolonial and anti-oppression materials with teachers through an opt-in mailing list. Javier Dávila is one of eight student equity program advisers for the Toronto District School Board (TDSB). He has, for years, shared equity and diversity materials with teachers through his mailing list.

On May 16 and 19, he shared resources about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its history. These were the 26th and 27th mailouts of the school year. Leading with “Understanding Antisemitism at its Nexus with Israel and Zionism,” the guide explained what antisemitism is and the difference between criticizing a people and a state. Other materials include a critique of Canada for supporting Israel and a Washington Post opinion column on Israel’s colonialist project. The guide is filled with work from experts, journalists and critics of Israeli state policy.

Moscrop pointed out that Dávila’s work provides a “counterbalance to persistent narratives and fears that have prevented many from speaking out in support of Palestine or providing anti-oppression and anti-colonial training.” He said that schools “often pretend to adopt missions that include critical education. However, when faced with controversy, even in the face of facts and expertise, some schools and boards retreat into themselves and cower.”

But Moscrop didn’t stop there.

“When we look back at this moment,” he wrote, “we will be ashamed of the attacks against Dávila and ashamed of those who targeted him and those who support him. History will not be kind to bullies.”

In response to Moscrop’s questions about the case, the TDSB issued a statement which reads: “The resources in question were not reviewed or approved by the TDSB. Staff, including the Board’s Employee Services Dept, are currently investigating this matter. During this time, the staff member will be on home assignment. We are also in the process of removing this staff member’s current and previous group mailings/newsletters from TDSB email inboxes.”

Moscrop also shared that on May 28, interim director of education Karen Falconer circulated an email to staff in which she brought up “countless staff members” who are "coming forward and sharing their experiences of anti-Israeli racism, antisemitism, anti-Palestinian racism and Islamophobia here at home.”

“Setting aside the fact that ‘anti-Israeli racism’ doesn’t exist,” Moscrop wrote, “given that Israel is a state, not a race, Falconer’s email goes on to say ‘it is critical that you are cognizant of the impact of your comments when expressing your opinions. When comments create harm, are racist in nature, or are discriminatory, they cannot be condoned. Before expressing an opinion — online or otherwise — please ask yourself: Does this lead to productive dialogue? Will this cause harm to any of my students or colleagues?’

Moscrop wrote, “On its face, the message seems appropriate. But in the context of the investigation into Davila and his home assignment, the undertone is clear and chilling.”

It’s worth noting that the Peel District School Board (PDSB) recently apologized for launching a lawsuit against six Black community advocacy groups who spoke out about anti-Black racism in that board, and the director of education lost his job. Even though some people viewed some of the comments that the advocacy groups made to be discriminatory, PDSB apologized anyway, recognizing that PDSB was indeed guilty of discrimination.

It appears the TDSB hasn’t learned any lessons. Falconer seems hell-bent on travelling down the same punitive road, without learning anything from the apology issued by PDSB. 

Moscrop says Falconer “has caved to a column from a newspaper and moral panic, throwing Davila under the bus and sending a disconcerting message to its educators. Some of those folks, administrators in particular, have spoken out through an anonymous letter pointing out that ‘speaking in support of Palestinian lives does not equate with antisemitism’ and noting the ‘TDSB must be committed to working for ALL students and addressing ALL forms of oppression.’”

I said the exact same thing the anonymous administrators said to Ms. Falconer, in two different letters, one to Colleen Russell-Rawlins, Director of Education for PDSB, on February 5, 2021, and the other to Ms. Falconer, on February 3, 2021.  

“Congratulations on all the exciting changes you are making in the PDSB!” I wrote to Ms. Russell-Rawlins and Bruce Rodrigues, the Supervisor of PDSB. “The ‘very senior leadership team’ in Peel now appears to consist of 3 Black persons, 2 Brown persons, and a white person – 4 women and 2 men. Well done! Are there any plans to add a Muslim person to the ‘very senior leadership’ team?”

I also asked Ms. Falconer similar questions: “How many of the current superintendents in TDSB are Muslim?” Has there ever been a Muslim superintendent in TDSB? When will TDSB be hiring more Muslim superintendents?

I asked these questions because I don’t believe there are currently any Muslim superintendents in TDSB. (In the past, I believe there’s only been one even though TDSB's census data shows that 19% of students in grades 7 to 12 in TDSB are Muslim. If TDSB’s data included K-6 students, its actual percentage of Muslim students would be significantly higher. I don't believe there have been any Muslim associate directors or directors in PDSB either, and I don’t believe there are any superintendents who self-identify as Muslim even though Peel’s census data for students in grades 9 – 12 shows that 22.5% of students are Muslim. If Peel’s data included K - 8 students, its actual percentage of Muslim students would be significantly higher.)

I became an activist after encountering a glass ceiling while working in education (7 men and only 2 women were on the senior leadership team, one of the trustees doing the hiring had espoused racist viewpoints toward Muslims and Indigenous peoples, and the trustees and the director of education didn’t even think to remove the racist trustee from hiring panels). Now I advocate for women and racialized individuals.

I asked these questions of PDSB and TDSB because I wanted to know if there were any plans to correct the disparity in PDSB and TDSB, any plans to hire and retain more South Asian teachers and administrators while also hiring and retaining more Black teachers and administrators. As educators, we are responsible for identifying and eliminating persistent inequities in the education system so the education system will be fairer and more inclusive for all students, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or any other factor related to individual identity - while educators working within the system are punished for speaking out.

Asking questions like these doesn’t equate with being anti-Black or being anti-Semitic. It equates to the fact that we live in a xenophobic, homophobic and misogynistic world, and we have to shine a spotlight on any issues we see in order to bring about meaningful change.

Black lives matter. Jewish lives matter. Palestinian lives matter. Asian lives matter. South Asian lives matter. Indigenous lives matter. LGBTQ2+ lives matter. Women matter. As an education system, we must be committed to advocating for all students, all genders, all races etc. and to addressing all forms of oppression. (We even need to advocate for young male students who are trapped in female-centric classrooms.)

This means we have to allow equity advisors like Javier Dávila, for example, to counterbalance persistent narratives and fears that prevent many from speaking out. School boards cannot pretend to adopt missions that include critical education without, in this case, presenting a variety of Jewish and Palestinian viewpoints.

In “Young People Have a Desire to Save Their World. How Can We Help?” written by education experts Michael Fullan and Joanne Quinn (published on May 2, 2021 in EducationWeek), Fullan and Quinn wrote:

If the pandemic has revealed anything, it is the absence of leadership. You can almost see society crumbling. At the same time, we can sense the possibility of a radical new solution built around the fact that young people—some very young—have an interest in learning, their personal growth, and have an innate desire to be part of saving society.

We find that the young seem to be a bundle of 50 percent anxiety and 50 percent wanting to change the world. They need a focus and a way to mobilize that consists of both short-term success and a clear, moving path to fundamental changes in how and what we learn and its impact on creating a better planet.

The present education system lacks purpose, failing to capture the interests and needs of the vast majority of students. It does not generate individual and collective engagement essential for breakthrough learning. It does not operate as a force for equity and equality. It is a fault of the system, not the students and teachers in it.

It is a fault of the system, indeed.

Fullan and Quinn also wrote:

A new conception of leadership is emerging from the pandemic. We would call this the democratization of leadership in which participation, voice, inclusion, innovation, and influence is on the rise. It will require coordination, and something even tougher—integration—leaders at different levels who can forge unity of purpose around the new agenda. Equity of participation and greater equality of outcomes are core to this mission serving simultaneously social justice and societal prosperity—a win-win proposition.

There’s a lesson here for Ms. Falconer, Ms. Russell-Rawlins, and other school board directors of education: This is what the democratization of leadership looks like. We cannot suppress it. Leaders at all levels of every educational organization must forge a unity of purpose around this new agenda of equity of participation and greater equality of outcomes. We can simultaneously serve social justice and societal prosperity, while supporting our Jewish and Palestinian students all at the same time. It’s a win-win situation, just as Fullan and Quinn said.  

There’s another way to look at this, which might bring more clarity. Carol Gilligan, an American ethicist and psychologist who is best known for her work on ethical community and ethical relationships, says all humans grow through four major moral stages – a selfish stage where we care only about ourselves, a care stage where we extend care to a chosen group, a universal care stage where we care for all groups, and an integrated stage where we find marginalization and oppression of all groups truly objectionable.

Educators like Dávila are operating from a higher level of psychological development. Dávila likely finds the marginalization and oppression of all groups truly objectionable. This does not make Dávila anti-Semitic. He, like most of us, want to see peace in the middle east, the end of hate toward all cultures, the end of trauma to Indigenous families, and the end of pain and suffering from both terrorism and war.

Education leaders who punish employees who speak out about oppression, colonialist projects, terrorism, war etc. are not coming from this higher stage of development. They are operating from the universal care stage of development or lower. These education leaders don’t find marginalization and oppression of all groups truly objectionable. This proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that greater equality of outcomes and equity of participation are not truly the core mission of the education system within the TDSB.  

If PDSB truly cared about anti-Black racism and other forms of discrimination and oppression, it never would have launched a lawsuit against six Black community activist groups, Supervisor Rodrigues would not have needed to fire the director of education and apologize on behalf of the board. And Ms. Falconer would not have placed Javier Dávila on home assignment and put him under investigation for doing his job.

We need to speak out against school boards who suppress the emergence of the democratization of leadership - especially when they punish people for speaking out.

As Moscrop wrote: 

Today we are in the midst of a shift in discourse as more and more of us recognize oppression and settler colonial violence, and as we mainstream the need to remedy historical injustice and prevent future transgressions. Educators are on the front lines of this moral awakening, and they ought not only to impart critical thinking skills to those they educate but also a commitment to justice and solidarity.

That imperative requires them to set aside any pretense of neutrality — which is undesirable in theory and impossible in practice — and to teach the truth. Each of us should join them as we stand in solidarity with Javier Davila and those who speak up for Palestinians.

We should also stand in solidarity with our Jewish families, students and trustees when we see and hear antisemitic comments and behaviour - but not by punishing those who present critical alternative viewpoints.

Debbie L. Kasman

M. Ed, Policy Studies, OISE/University of Toronto

Education Re-imagined

Analyst & Researcher, Author & Speaker

www.debbielkasman.com

Follow Debbie on Twitter: @debbiekasman and on Facebook: DebbieLKasman

{Update: Javier Dávila was reinstated to his position of Student Equity Program Advisor at the Toronto District School Board - without discipline - on July 16, 2021, three weeks after I wrote this scathing letter to the Ontario College of Teachers and sent a copy to Karen Falconer, all Toronto District School Board Superintendents and Trustees. Dávila wrote about his reinstatement here.

However, Dávila is under investigation again — this time for professional misconduct by the Ontario College of Teachers because a complaint was lodged against him by a lawyer named Michael Teper. The College’s Intake Team allowed the complaint to proceed — even though the matter was investigated through a formal investigation process that included TDSB's Employee Services, legal department, and Human Rights Office, and a letter concluding there was no wrongdoing and that no disciplinary action was warranted was sent to Dávila’s union president and to Dávila himself on July 14, 2021.

On November 17, 2021 Dávila’s lawyers Dimitri Lascaris and Stephen Ellis served B’nai Brith Canada and its CEO, Michael Mostyn, a Libel notice under the Ontario Libel and Slander Act.

On November 30, 2021, a TDSB Integrity Commissioner, with findings by an independent human rights expert, found Trustee Alexandra Lulka guilty of anti-Palestinian/anti-Muslim discrimination, but cleared her of two out of the three complaints brought against her after she tweeted about the situation. The Integrity Commissioner recommended censure for the finding of discrimination for having characterized the whole package of materials in a negative way.

The Integrity Commissioner also found that Trustee Lulka’s tweet did not influence Karen Falconer’s decision to investigate Dávila.

The Integrity Commissioner’s full report can be found here. The report was supposed to be tabled at the November 10th TDSB Board meeting, but the Board skipped over it without explanation. At the December 8th Board meeting, trustees voted 10 to 7 to reject the Integrity Commissioner’s finding that Trustee Lulka breached the Code of Conduct. Therefore a vote about censure was not required and Trustee Lulka will not be censured.

There is a Go Fund Me to support Dávila’s legal costs: https://www.gofundme.com/f/justiceforjavier-legal-costs-for-human-rights?qid=d449a9e14667cc2d0ae011d110a5036b.]

Nancy Naylor, Deputy Minister, Ontario Ministry of Education

Dear Ms. Naylor,

Yes…another letter.  

I just finished reading “‘Damage control’: Internal emails show how Ontario officials reacted when class sizes were criticized by teacher” by Rachel Mendleson and Andrew Bailey in the Toronto Star.

Wow. Just wow.

So much for educators and leaders who are aware of their own place in the world and who will bring a higher consciousness and personal commitment to the work they are doing. So much for a new style of leadership (Peel District School Board Review, February 28, 2020).

In case you haven’t read the Star article yet, last September, shortly before Ontario schools reopened, Kingston teacher James Griffith posted a photo of his packed high school classroom on Twitter.

“I managed to squeeze in 34 desks. There’s no distancing,” Griffith tweeted. “But (Premier Doug Ford and Education Minister Stephen Lecce) say we have the ‘best plan in the country’ and the ‘lowest class sizes’. Uh huh.”

Within hours, the tweet, which included the hashtag #FireLecce, came to the attention of your office, and your executive assistant, Vanessa Bennett, asked staff to contact the director of education of the local school board to find out more about Griffith’s claims. The ministry “wanted to get ahead of possible news coverage.”

“Apparently educator will be on media later today so we will need to hear back ASAP on this one,” Bennett wrote in an email obtained by the Star through freedom-of-information legislation.

Griffith, when shown, said the emails demonstrate that ministry officials “were trying to implement damage control.”

“It wasn’t, ‘Hey, we need to find solutions,’” he said. “It was, ‘How do we control the message.’ ”

Harvey Bischof, when shown, said it appears ministry officials “did not engage in a health and safety response.”

“They engaged in a pure political optics type of response,” he said. “The focus was entirely on, ‘How can we blunt the news of this one particular large class?’ instead of, ‘How can we reduce the number of students in classes like this all across the province?’”

Shortly after Griffith’s tweet, a "ministry official" sent a “media scan” to Lecce, summarizing and describing the “tone” of more than a dozen news broadcasts on radio and television related to the labour board challenge and the back-to-school plan. The list included a “negative” story about a petition for smaller class sizes that had attracted 300,000 signatures.

When your assistant flagged Griffith’s tweet to colleagues in the ministry, she acknowledged in her email, “We may start to see more of these.”

“We have the standard messaging that we’ve been using about adjustments to class size,” Bennett said, “but did you hear anything about this possibility when you met with the board?”

I’m also hearing, Ms. Naylor, that you may be the reason Minister Lecce changed the Education Act to allow for the hiring of directors of education who are not teachers qualified as supervisory officers. This, in case you aren't aware, played a large role in the Hofstatter hiring fiasco in the York Catholic District School Board.

School boards could already hire directors of education who were not teachers qualified as supervisory officers with approval from the Ministry, and school boards didn’t need to hire directors who are not teachers qualified as supervisory officers in order to eliminate systemic discrimination in education. School boards needed to remove school board trustees from hiring panels in order to eliminate systemic discrimination instead. So Minister Lecce is guilty of systemic discrimination (and you may be as well, depending upon your role in the situation).

Two prominent, stalwart Black community members resigned recently from the Toronto Catholic District School Board citing personal differences and the slow pace of efforts to combat anti-Black racism, affecting Black students and staff, among other matters.

Kirk Mark, a retiree of the Toronto Catholic, where he worked for almost 30 years, and a recipient of an African Canadian Achievement Award for Excellence in Education, and Ken Jeffers, a former manager of access and diversity at the City of Toronto, and this year’s recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award, at the recently-held BBPA Harry Jerome Awards, left their positions on the African Canadian Advisory Committee last month.

Mark says his resignation was triggered by the disrespectful way, in which he was addressed at a meeting in November 2020. He says he also felt that the current leadership of the equity department did not seem interested in seeking information, in order to make informed decisions, from those “who have been there, done that”.

“Forty years ago, approximately 40 percent of our children were failing in the system, 40 years later, 40-plus percent are failing in the system, which means the system has been negligent,” argues Jeffers, who has been involved in various sectors of the community, including education, for over 40 years.

I pointed out in my Application to the Tribunal that Minister Lecce is being negligent when it comes to eliminating systemic discrimination across the entire province. This is yet another piece of evidence to add to the already long list.

Yesterday, education experts Michael Fullan and Joanne Quinn published an excellent article called "Young People Have a Desire to Save Their World. How Can We Help?" {EducationWeek, May 2, 2021).

The first line in the article is: “If the pandemic has revealed anything, it is the absence of leadership.”

Fullan and Quinn also wrote that the present education system “does not operate as a force for equity and equality.”

They believe we need to create a “new learning system” that is based on “four interrelated foundational pillars: well-being and learning, social intelligence, monetary investment, and a well-run system.”

“When people complain about bad leadership, they are usually talking about corrupt and/or incompetent leaders…Good old-fashioned competence to get things done seems to have gone out the window. The solution must include establishing well-run systems devoted to the first three drivers of mission learning,” Fullan and Quinn wrote.

"The most powerful potential forces for transformation are inversely related to the hierarchy. That is, the main energies for radical change seem to reside at the bottom: students, teachers, principals, and parents. Coming in second is the middle (school boards, communities, nonprofit agencies, businesses). A distant last is the policy level, where we find a dearth of ideas.”

Fullan and Quinn argue that we need a policy breakthrough and a “few system leaders who are willing to step forward..."

They also wrote, "In this respect, ‘new leadership’ consists of partnerships and co-determination across the levels. People at all levels must be cultivated and seen as ‘experts’ and ‘apprentice’ because both their ideas and ownership are essential for success.”

That’s why people like me keep writing to you, and that's why it's wise for leaders like you to listen.

Fullan and Quinn also wrote "A new conception of leadership is emerging from the pandemic. We would call this the democratization of leadership in which participation, voice, inclusion, innovation, and influence is on the rise. It will require coordination, and something even tougher—integration—leaders at different levels who can forge unity of purpose around the new agenda. Equity of participation and greater equality of outcomes are core to this mission serving simultaneously social justice and societal prosperity—a win-win proposition."

"...when the conditions are right, namely a weak and ineffective status quo combined with desirable alternative solutions such as the four foundational pillars, deep change can happen in relatively short periods—a few years, not a few decades. We need leadership at all levels, including the top, to make this happen."

When you add to this the fact that we need educators and leaders who are aware of their own place in the world and who will bring a higher consciousness and personal commitment to the work they are doing, like the Peel Reviewers wrote, we will have "a new purpose and a new public education system as an instrument of societal transformation," just as Fullan and Quinn wrote.

Are you this type of leader, Ms. Naylor?

Will you help establish a well-run system devoted to the first three drivers of mission learning: well-being and learning, social intelligence, and monetary investment to help create a new purpose and a new public education system as an instrument of societal transformation?

Or are you, and your team, going to continue to defend Minister Lecce, the ineffective learning system, and the ineffective status quo?

Yours truly,  

Debbie L. Kasman

M. Ed, Policy Studies, OISE/University of Toronto

Education Re-imagined

Analyst & Researcher, Author & Speaker

www.debbielkasman.com

[Editor’s note: On May 5, 2021 Patrick Case, Chief Equity Officer and Assistant Deputy Minister at Ontario’s Ministry of Education reached out for a telephone conversation. He was hopeful some big changes would be announced in the next few months.

On September 7, 2021 the Ministry of Education announced it was seeking input from the public on how to strengthen accountability for school board trustees.

On June 8, 2023, the Provincial government passed Bill 98, Better Schools and Student Outcomes Act, outlining major education policy reforms including the following:

• School board trustees and senior education officials, including superintendents and directors of education, are now required to undergo provincially mandated training to make sure they have the skills and competencies to deliver on the government’s priorities.

• Performance assessments for directors of education will be standardized and there will be a new “impartial integrity commissioner-led process” for Code of Conduct complaints about school board trustees.

This means school boards are now required to refer alleged breaches to an integrity commissioner for determination, and the Minister of Education will create a roster of integrity commissioners for that purpose, set out a more detailed process for determination, expand the sanctions available, and set out an appeal process.

This will give authority for the Minister to issue guidelines describing knowledge and practices that a person conducting a performance review must look for in conducting performance appraisals, and subject to certain limits, allow a board to take into consideration additional factors in conducting these performance appraisals, such as parental input.

This means the Minister of Education can now intervene in the performance assessment of local directors of education and the conduct of school board trustees.

These changes will also allow the minister to establish policies and guidelines respecting student mental health and communications with parents.

BUT THEY AREN’T ENOUGH.

You can read more about Bill 98 and changes the government is making around when a school board may or must sell, lease or otherwise dispose of a school site, which is sort of “buried” in the Bill here.

On June 16, 2023, six business days later, Nancy Naylor retired, eight days before the school year was over.

There was no public announcement about Ms. Naylor’s “sudden” retirement.]

Nancy Naylor

Deputy Minister

Ontario Ministry of Education

Patrick Case

Chief Equity Officer

Ontario Ministry of Education

Dear Ms. Naylor and Mr. Case,

Here is the first Open Letter I wrote to you stating that the York Catholic District School Board was found guilty of racial discrimination and reprisal in 2011.

Here is the second Open Letter I wrote to you stating that the York Catholic District School Board is in violation of an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal Order.

On April 28, 2021 I wrote to you a third time to say we had just reached a point in Ontario where schools have to defy school board trustees in order not to discriminate against students and in order to do the right thing for kids.

David Harvey, a retired lawyer, had pointed out that "after a majority of the Halton Catholic District School Board trustees voted against flying the Pride flag at schools, every single high school in the board took to Twitter to make it clear where they stand. Note that for many, even the school logos were changed."

I asked you to speak with the Lieutenant Governor in Council and ask her to place the Ministry of Education under Supervision. I also asked you to file a Disclosure of Wrongdoing for gross mismanagement in the work of the Public Service with Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner as it pertains to Minister Lecce for his contravention of the Ontario Human Rights Code in education. And I urged you to contact Ontario’s Ombudsman and request that Mr. Dubé’s Office immediately conduct an investigation into the systemic discrimination that is happening in education in school boards across the province, and Minister Lecce’s refusal to address it properly.

You replied (after my third Open Letter), Mr. Case, that you would call me, but you didn’t call. An Administrative Coordinator did, however, contact me to set up a conference call for this coming Wednesday instead.

Now today I’m writing to alert you that we've also now reached a point where disgraced York Region District School Board Trustee Elizabeth Terrell-Tracey (disgraced for previously posting racist and defamatory social media posts) is being accused (by Louis Busch of the Bear Clan Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation and others) of being the handler of a Twitter troll account (@Swag_song) that has been harassing parents of children with autism for more than 2 years.

This prompted the Chair of the York Region District School Board to issue a statement assuring families, students, staff and community members that the comments shared by this account do not represent the views or values of the Board of Trustees or the York Region District School Board and that the Board has referred the information to the Integrity Commissioner for review and consideration, which will, most likely, lead to yet another extremely expensive investigation into Trustee Terrell-Tracey's conduct, which, if based on the results of previous investigations, will lead to no change, which is further evidence that Minister Lecce is both guilty of discrimination and wrongdoing for gross mismanagement in the work of the public service.

Today, I’m asking you both again, Ms. Naylor and Mr. Case:

Have you spoken with the Lieutenant Governor in Council about the situation and Minister Lecce's refusal to deal with the problem?

Have you filed a Disclosure of Wrongdoing with Ontario's Integrity Commissioner?

Have you contacted Ontario's Ombudsman?

The evidence for discrimination and wrongdoing just keep piling up.

I look forward to hearing everything you are doing to eliminate this horrific trustee problem when we speak during our scheduled teleconference on Wednesday.

Sincerely,

Debbie L. Kasman

M. Ed, Policy Studies, OISE/University of Toronto

Education Re-imagined

Analyst & Researcher, Author & Speaker

www.debbielkasman.com

Follow Debbie on Twitter: @debbiekasman and on Facebook: DebbieLKasman

[Editor’s note: On May 5, 2021 Patrick Case, Chief Equity Officer and Assistant Deputy Minister at Ontario’s Ministry of Education reached out for a telephone conversation. He was hopeful some big changes would be announced in the next few months.

On September 7, 2021 the Ministry of Education announced it was seeking input from the public on how to strengthen accountability for school board trustees.]

Dear Ms. Naylor and Mr. Case,

I wrote an Open Letter to you on April 14, 2021 alerting you to the fact that an Adjudicator with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (OHRT) found the York Catholic District School Board (YCDSB) guilty of discrimination and reprisal on September 21, 2011 (Correia v. YCDSB, File Number: TR-0823-09, Citation: 2011 HRTO 1733).

I also alerted you to the fact that on December 21, 2011, the Adjudicator ordered YCSDB to retain an individual with expertise in anti-racism and bias-free interviewing practices to develop and deliver training on these topics to the Board’s director of education, senior management, and trustees. This training was to be developed and conducted within six months of the date of the Decision (Citation: 2011 HRTO 2289).

I also alerted you to the fact that the OHRT ordered the YCDSB to provide to the applicant, and file with the Tribunal, the following: the curriculum vitae of the expert retained to develop and provide this training; the materials developed for this training; and confirmation that this training was provided as required (Citation: 2011 HRTO 2289).

Finally, I alerted you to the fact that the OHRT ordered that this training be provided on an ongoing basis to any new appointees to senior management positions at the Board or to newly elected trustees who are involved in interviews for positions of responsibility at the Board, and that a short refresher be provided every two years for continuing senior management members and trustees who are involved in interviews for positions of responsibility at the Board (Citation: 2011 HRTO 2289).

The director of education at the time submitted a letter to the OHRT on June 14, 2012 confirming that the training was held on June 11, 2012, and that Susan Joanis and Estella Muyinda developed and provided the training. She also submitted a copy of the agenda, and the materials developed and used for the training, and a list of the attendees at the training session, along with their signatures.

Based on this information, I am confirming that the director of education, the associate directors of education, and all superintendents and senior managers attended the initial training session on June 11, 2012, but only the Chair and the Vice-Chair of the Board attended the training session. This was Elizabeth Crowe and Teresa Ciaravella, who were Chair and Vice-Chair respectively at the time. No other trustees attended this initial training session.

I have a copy of the signature page of those who attended the initial training session and the director’s letter. The director, the associate directors, all superintendents and senior managers, and the Chair and Vice-Chair attended the initial training session. The Order states that the Board’s director of education, senior management, and trustees were to attend the training session, not just the Chair and Vice-Chair.

Additionally, the director’s letter to the OHRT states: “Subsequent training for new administrative staff and trustees (Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board) has been embodied in our operating procedures.”

What about the other trustees and the operating procedures for hiring directors of education? All trustees are responsible for hiring directors of education.

I’m now alerting you to the fact that the YCDSB is in violation of the OHRT’s Order.

Based on this information, we can assume that the current Chair (Dominic Mazzotta), the current Vice-Chair (Carol Cotton), past Chair (Elizabeth Crowe), past Chair and Vice-Chair (Maria Marchese), and past Vice-Chair (Dino Giuliani) have all received training in anti-racism and bias-free interviewing practices. So these five individuals knew, or ought to have known, that they needed to appoint a racialized director of education when they appointed Robert Hofstatter. These five individuals were defiant of the OHRT’s mandated training.

We can also assume, unless the Board of Trustees can provide evidence to prove otherwise, that all trustees did not receive anti-racism and bias-free interviewing practices training before appointing Ab Falconi and Robert Hofstatter as directors of education. Therefore, the YCDSB is in violation of the OHRT’s Order a second and third time.

Section 230 of the Education Act states that the Minister of Education may direct an investigation of a board’s affairs if the Minister has concerns that the board may have done or omitted to do something, and the act or omission:

(a) contravenes, indicates an intention to contravene or might result in a contravention of paragraph 2 or 3 of subsection 8 (1) or of a regulation made under section 11.1, clause 13 (7) (d.1) or section 170.1.

Section 170 (1) 18 states that every board shall do anything that a board is required to do under any other provision of this Act or under any other Act. Therefore, the YCDSB is required to follow an Order given by the OHRT; it has not.

The Education Act also states that the investigator the Minister of Education hires may be an employee in the Ministry or any other person. Since Minister Lecce governs the appointments of directors of education (Education Act 8 (11) 26.0.1) and approved Robert Hofstatter’s appointment, Minister Lecce cannot be asked to direct an investigation into this matter. So I’m bringing this matter to your attention, Ms. Naylor and Mr. Case. Since an employee of the Ministry or “any other person” can be hired to investigate, please investigate.

(Since I’ve already done an investigation for you, it’ll take you five minutes. Either the Board of Trustees can provide a signature page showing all trustees received anti-racism and bias-free interviewing practices training before appointing Ab Falconi and Robert Hofstatter as directors of education, and Mary Battista as interim director of education, or they can’t. I’ve already proven that the Board of Trustees violated the OHRT’s Order initially. This will confirm how many more times the YCDSB trustees violated the Order.)

Subsection (2) of Section 230 of the Education Act states that the Minister shall specify in writing which legal requirements referred to in section 230 are in issue. So please investigate the YCDSB’s compliance with the OHRT’s Order to provide anti-racism and bias-free interviewing practices training to all trustees – initially, every two years, and prior to the appointment of any positions of responsibility as it pertains to the appointments of Ab Falconi and Robert Hofstatter and Mary Battista as acting director of education.

Section 230.3 (2) of the Education Act states that if the Minister advises the Lieutenant Governor in Council that he or she is of the opinion that the board has failed to comply with a direction given under subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make any order that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary or advisable to vest in the Ministry control and charge over the administration of the affairs of the board. So please advise the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the YCDSB’s failure to comply with the OHRT’s Order, how many times the YCDSB failed to comply, and ask the Lieutenant Governor in Council to immediately put the YCDSB under Supervision.

Please also advise the Lieutenant Governor that Minister Lecce clearly knows having trustees sit on hiring panels is leading to discrimination in school boards across the province, but Minister Lecce is not removing trustees from hiring panels in school boards across the province, even though the Ontario Human Rights Commission has urged Minister Lecce, in writing, to do so. So Minister Lecce needs to be replaced and the Ministry of Education put under Supervision, too.

Section 230.7 (3) of the Education Act gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council exclusive jurisdiction as to the making of an Order under subsection 230.3 (2), and this jurisdiction is not open to question or review in any proceeding or by any court, so this shouldn’t be a problem.

The Honourable Elizabeth Dowdeswell holds 11 honorary doctorates including a teaching certificate from the University of Saskatchewan and has the word honourable in her title, so I expect she will understand the urgency of this situation and comply forthwith.

Next, I’m asking you to file a Disclosure of Wrongdoing with Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner – J. David Wake – as it pertains to Minister Lecce for his contravention of the Ontario Human Rights Code in education. It’s leading to gross mismanagement in the work of the Public Service of Ontario as outlined in the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006. These issues are of significant importance, the errors are not debatable, and there is a systemic component to this wrongdoing, which poses a serious threat to public confidence in the integrity of the public service.

Finally, I urge you to contact Ontario’s Ombudsman – Paul Dubé – and request that Mr. Dubé’s Office immediately conduct an investigation into the systemic discrimination that is happening in education in school boards across the province, and Minister Lecce’s refusal to address it properly.

Please show the same awareness of your place in the world, the same higher consciousness and personal commitment to the work you are doing, and the same new style of leadership that the Peel District School Board (PDSB) Reviewers urged all educators and leaders, including elected leaders, to demonstrate – a new style of leadership that has “through rigorous assessment of its own strengths and weaknesses, demonstrated the capacity to face the evidence of systemic inequity and to grasp the complexity of the issues facing those less able to advocate for themselves.”

Please leave no stone unturned when it comes to changing the culture of an entire education system that has victimized many racialized young people.

The time for action is now. Please act swiftly and boldly to ensure that the Ministry of Education counters the very real issue of discrimination that has manifested within schools and within our society here in Ontario.

The hurt and trauma, often intergenerational, is very real – and it’s alarming.

(These were Minister Lecce’s words to the people of Ontario after the PDSB Review was released.)

One final comment - the poem written by Robert Fulghum called All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten sums this situation up perfectly.

For Premier Ford and Minister Lecce:

Play fair. Clean up your own mess. Say you’re sorry when you hurt somebody. Everything you need to know is in there somewhere like politics and equality and sane living.

The poem also sums the situation up for the two of you:

Hold hands together. Take any of those items and extrapolate it into sophisticated adult terms and apply it to your work and your government and it holds true and clear and firm.

I look forward to hearing about your chosen next steps in short order.

Yours truly,

Debbie L. Kasman

M. Ed, Policy Studies, OISE/University of Toronto

Education Re-imagined

Analyst & Researcher, Author & Speaker

www.debbielkasman.com

Follow Debbie on Twitter: @debbiekasman and on Facebook: DebbieLKasman

[Editor’s note: During a special board meeting later that evening, Trustees lafrate and Marchese put forth the following motion:

Whereas York Catholic District School Board (YCDSB) Policy 404 Teacher Recruitment and Selection (Purpose) states: “The teacher recruitment and selection processes shall be guided by, and advance, the Board’s Mission Statement and core values of equity, diversity and inclusion and shall be conducted in a fair and transparent manner, free from any bias, discrimination, nepotism and cronyism;”

Whereas these principles apply to all YCDSB hiring practices;

Whereas the YCDSB has hiring practices in place and must be committed to continuously reviewing/revising these practices, guidelines and policies, for permanent and contract positions, on a regular basis to ensure fairness, equity and transparency;

Whereas retirements have resulted in numerous senior staff vacancies;

Whereas it is imperative that the filling of these senior staff vacancies be done in accordance with updated hiring process, practices and guidelines;

LET IT BE RESOLVED:

THAT the Board immediately update its policies, processes and guidelines for all hiring of non-unionized staff, contract and permanent, from posting to offer of employment, to ensure that they reflect up to date equitable, inclusive and transparent process, guidelines and procedures.

THAT these processes be endorsed by the Board of Trustees and implemented by May 18, 2021.

THAT additional external resources be made available if needed to meet the May 18, 2021 Board implementation date.

THAT these revised processes be reviewed by the Human Rights and Equity Advisor to ensure they are free from bias and discrimination and reflect Human Rights and Equity Principles.

THAT effective April 22, 2021 a hiring freeze be imposed for all non-unionized vacancies.

THAT the hiring freeze be lifted once the updated hiring process is implemented effective May 18, 2021, or earlier.

On May 5, 2021 Patrick Case, Chief Equity Officer and Assistant Deputy Minister at Ontario’s Ministry of Education reached out to me for a telephone conversation. Mr. Case was hopeful some big changes would be announced within the next few months.

On September 7, 2021 the Ministry of Education announced it was seeking input from the public on how to strengthen accountability for school board trustees.]

Dear Ms. Naylor and Mr. Case,

On April 9, 2021, Bruce Rodrigues, the Supervisor of the Peel District School Board (PDSB), issued a public statement of apology to Kola Iluyomade and six different community advocacy groups on behalf of the PDSB.

As you are aware, PDSB had initiated a legal application against community advocates engaged in anti-discrimination advocacy subsequent to the Ministry of Education’s Review released on March 13, 2020. The notice stated that several Twitter accounts engaged in disrespectful and defamatory communication towards the Board of Trustees and staff members.

Rodrigues called the initiating of this Application discriminatory, anti-Black and a deliberate attempt to silence community members’ public participation.

When I was advocating for gender and race equality in the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board (KPRDSB), one of the trustees called my comments defamatory, and another trustee called my email disrespectful. The Chair of the Board and the Senior Manager of Human Resources also issued a legal cease-and-desist letter threatening me with a lawsuit if I continued to speak out. These are just three of the many discriminatory responses I received from KPRDSB that were deliberate attempts to silence me when I was advocating for gender and race equality.  

Another way school boards silence people who advocate for gender and race equity is by buying their silence when they file Applications with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (OHRT) and then requiring they sign a confidentiality agreement, which means the applicant cannot talk about what happened or the settlement.

This means the public never finds out what happened, which allows school boards to continue to discriminate against students, employees and activists “in plain sight” without getting caught. This is how sex offenders like Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby were able to continue to abuse women for years “in plain sight.”

School boards also offer mediation outside of any OHRT application if they believe the media is going to pick up on a story. They even tell people it would be “more fruitful” if they mediate with the board rather than talk to the media. On the flip side, school boards also withdraw offers to mediate if the media doesn’t pick up on the story. Then school boards issue legal cease-and-desist letters threatening to sue people if they continue to speak out about the issues.  

School boards also use aggressive retribution tactics, like demoting and firing people who speak out, in order to keep employees quiet. School boards are sophisticated employers who use many aggressive approaches to silence victims, and they use taxpayers’ dollars to do it, which is money that should be going into classrooms to support teachers and students.

Additionally, victims typically don’t have the financial resources that are necessary to engage with powerhouse Toronto law firms like school boards do. School boards have large financial resources at their disposal – taxpayers’ dollars that were intended to support teachers and students in the classroom.

Several years ago, I conducted a CanLii search, which provides access to court judgments from all Canadian courts and tribunals, and I found a total of 17,552 cases of alleged discrimination, just for hiring and promotion alone, in Ontario during a ten-year period.

Then I did a search of alleged discrimination for hiring and promotion in Ontario over one week, and I found 21 cases. Of the 21 cases, the tribunal had reported nine final decisions. None of the nine applicants were successful in proving discrimination. The cases had been deemed abandoned and/or they were dismissed.

That’s a success rate of zero out of 9 in the space of one week!

In February, the York Catholic District School Board (YCDSB) announced it was appointing Robert Hofstatter as director of education calling it a “bold, new era of leadership.” The YCDSB hired Mr. Hofstatter with only three years teaching experience using a change Minister Lecce made to the Education Act allowing them to do so. When Minister Lecce made this change, he said it was to allow school boards to hire more diverse directors of education.

Then, on April 7, 2021, the YCDSB suddenly announced that Mr. Hofstatter was no longer its director of education.

The Toronto Star learned that during Mr. Hofstatter’s first week on the job, he took part in a virtual workshop on equity where his behaviour “so upset a York University professor and a colleague leading the session that a letter was sent to the board, cancelling all upcoming training.”

Vidya Shah, one of the presenters, said Mr. Hofstatter “thought it was appropriate to interrupt me and tell me his thoughts on anti-racism, which were clearly different to mine. This is an example of what whiteness in educational leadership looks like,” she said.  

Mr. Hofstatter also sent an email to parents of all 54,600 students incorrectly suggesting the province would issue a “four-week shutdown of schools across Ontario starting Tuesday, April 6” as part of a broader lockdown. He then issued a retraction the next day saying the board “apologizes for any confusion with regards to potential school closures.”

In an interview with the Toronto Star, Minister Lecce placed the blame for Mr. Hofstatter’s appointment squarely on the shoulders of the YCDSB trustees. This is another way that school boards, and even the Minister of Education, respond to incidents of discrimination. These education leaders often deflect the blame from themselves and onto school board trustees, who are predominantly female. When you factor in that Minister Lecce is male and the YCDSB trustees are predominantly female, Minister Lecce’s comments are an indicator of gender discrimination.   

Section 285 (2) of the Education Act states: 

No person shall be appointed as a supervisory officer by a board until notice in writing of the proposed appointment and the area of responsibility to be assigned has been given to the Minister and the Minister has confirmed that the person to be appointed is eligible for the position.

This applies to directors of education as well.

This means Minister Lecce gave his permission for the YCDSB to appoint Mr. Hofstatter, and he gave his permission on January 19, 2021. (I have an email from the Chair of the Board to prove it.) Clearly, based on what has happened, Mr. Hofstatter was not eligible for the position of director of education, particularly when it comes to equity.

In an attempt to distance Minister Lecce from this hiring appointment, Caitlin Clark, Deputy Director of Communications for Minister Lecce, told people that Minister Lecce didn’t have anything to do with Mr. Hofstatter’s appointment, but she refused to make a written statement saying so. This means Ms. Clark may also be guilty of discrimination because she’s attempting to cover up Minister Lecce’s part in the appointment of Minister Hofstatter which was discriminatory. This appointment was discriminatory because this appointment infringed the rights of racialized students, and it was not reasonable or bona fide considering the current education circumstances.

Minister Lecce didn’t need to make changes to the Education Act to allow school boards to hire more diverse directors of education. School boards could already hire more diverse directors of education who were not supervisory officers qualified as teachers with permission from Minister Lecce.

It’s obvious Minister Lecce is not interested in stamping out systemic discrimination in education provincially or he would have changed the Education Act to remove trustees from hiring panels for superintendents, which is leading to discrimination. Minister Lecce knows this is leading to discrimination because that’s why he ordered the trustees in the PDSB to immediately remove themselves from hiring panels for superintendents and to create a policy restricting trustees from hiring panels for all positions except director of education. Clearly, Minister Lecce is not interested in stamping out systemic discrimination in school boards across the province, and Minister Lecce and school board trustees aren’t capable of hiring directors of education, either.

On February 16, 2021, I filed an expedited Application with the OHRT alleging adverse effect discrimination because Mr. Hofstatter’s appointment was infringing the rights of racialized students, and it was not reasonable or bona fide considering the current education climate, and I connected this Application to a previous Application I had filed with the Tribunal where my rights, and the rights of other women, were infringed because KPRDSB appointed a male superintendent instead of a female superintendent at a time when they clearly needed more women on their senior leadership team. They created a gender imbalance of 7 men and only 2 women, which was not reasonable or bona fide under the circumstances because they had a very qualified and highly experienced female candidate on their hands – me. This clearly demonstrates that I was discriminated against, and this discrimination is ongoing.

In my second Application to the Tribunal, I asked the Tribunal to order the YCDSB to explain why their hiring appointment of Mr. Hofstatter was reasonable and bona fide under the current education circumstances.

I also asked the OHRT to order Minster Lecce to explain why he allowed the YCDSB to use changes he made to the Education Act to hire more diverse directors of education to better represent the diversity of the student populations they serve, without actually hiring a more diverse director of education, and why Minister Lecce removed the requirement that directors of education must be supervisory officers that are qualified as teachers, but didn't change the Education Act to restrict trustees from hiring panels in school boards across the province when he knows it’s leading to discrimination.

I also requested that the YCDSB return to the hiring table to hire a racialized director of education, and that Minister Lecce immediately be replaced as Education Minister with someone who is more qualified to deal with systemic discrimination in education as well as other educational matters.

And if there are no MPPs who fit the bill, I asked the OHRT to appoint a Supervisor who is qualified and experienced, to oversee the Ministry of Education without government interference until the issues are resolved.

I asked for other remedies as well including generous damages to be paid for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect – not for me – but to Parents of Black Children, an advocacy group formed to support and advocate on behalf of Black students and their parents, to be paid by the York Catholic District School Board.

Since I filed this Application, Mr. Hofstatter has taken part in a virtual workshop on equity where his behaviour so upset a York University professor and a colleague leading the session that a letter was sent to the board cancelling all upcoming training.

Now Mr. Hofstatter is no longer director of education for the YCDSD, and Minister Lecce is blaming the mostly female trustees for this appointment, without taking any responsibility for approving this hiring decision, which is also discriminatory.

And Caitlin Clark is attempting to cover Minister Lecce’s involvement up, which is also discriminatory.

Then, Dr. Oscar Correia, a South Asian educator who took the YCDSB to the OHRT in 2011 for racial discrimination and reprisal – and won – reached out to me when he heard about my Application to the OHRT, and offered his help. I already knew about Dr. Correia’s case, because I had quoted it in my Application to the Tribunal, but it was amazing to speak with him on the phone.

In his Application against the YCDSB, Dr. Correia alleged that he was not appointed a Superintendent position in the YCDSB because of discrimination and reprisal. (Dr. Carreia had previously made allegations of discrimination.) 

The OHRT determined that the YCDSB did indeed discriminate and reprise against Dr. Correia. The director of education had used the stereotype of South Asian men as having an authoritarian or “top down” management style, and this was a factor for why she didn’t hire him as superintendent.  

The director of education had also regarded Dr. Correia’s allegations of racial discrimination as a “card” that he would play whenever he didn’t get his way or when things didn’t turn out as he had hoped. By doing so, the OHRT noted, the director of education was effectively discrediting Dr. Correia’s allegations as “manipulative ploys to gain a collateral benefit.”

This not only “de-legitimized” Dr. Correia’s experiences, but also suggested Dr. Correia was being manipulative and untruthful, and the OHRT found this was directly related or linked to Dr. Correia’s race, and was also a factor in denying Dr. Correia a superintendent position.

The Tribunal also concluded that no investigation had ever been conducted into Dr. Correia’s allegations.

The Adjudicator ordered the YCDSB to pay compensation for injury to Dr. Correia’s dignity, feelings and self-respect, but the YCDSB was not required to pay Dr. Correia the salary he would have earned as superintendent or any impact to his pension because the Tribunal determined that while Dr. Correia was indeed discriminated and reprised against, there were additional reasons why Dr. Correia was not promoted. 

Those additional reasons why Dr. Correia was not promoted were directly linked to other discriminatory acts, but Dr. Correia was not allowed to use that evidence. So that part of his Application was not addressed.

Because the Adjudicator found YCDSB guilty of discrimination and reprisal, the Adjudicator ordered YCSDB to retain an individual with expertise in anti-racism and bias-free interviewing practices and to develop and deliver training on these topics to the Board’s director of education, senior management, and trustees.

This training was to be provided on an ongoing basis to any new appointees to senior management positions at the Board or to newly elected trustees who were involved in interviews for positions of responsibility at the Board, and a short refresher was to be provided every two years for continuing senior management members and trustees who are involved in interviews for positions of responsibility at the Board.

Dr. Correia has the signatures of all the people from the YCDSB who attended the initial equity training in 2012 because the sharing of this information was ordered by the Tribunal. Dr. Correia kept it along with everything else from his Application. 

Dr. Correia also shared with me that you, Mr. Case, presented a workshop to the YCDSB in or around 1996, and Dr. Correia attended that workshop. This means the YCDSB has been receiving equity training for the past 25 years, and the YCDSB is still practising discrimination!

This is also why Mr. Hofstatter was participating in Ms. Shah’s and Mr. Saver’s equity training during his first week on the job, and this is the same training where Mr. Hofstatter thought it was appropriate to interrupt the racialized female presenter and tell her his thoughts on anti-racism, which were clearly different than hers, without interrupting the male presenter who was also presenting his thoughts on anti-racism.

This is also the same training that the OHRT ordered new appointees to senior management positions to complete. 

Mr. Mazzotta, Chair of the YCDSB, has been a trustee for 10 years. Since the training ordered by the OHRT was to be completed in 2012 and repeated every 2 years, this means Mr. Mazzotta has completed this training 5 times!

It also means Carol Cotton, Vice-Chair of the Board, who has been a trustee for 24 years, has completed this training 5 times!

This means the YCDSB trustees knew what they were doing when they appointed Robert Hofstatter as director of education.

This means the Mr. Hofstatter’s appointment as director of education was not the result of incompetence!

This means Mr. Hofstatter’s appointment as director of education was the result of trustee defiance!  

This is the same trustee defiance that Arleen Huggins noted in her Review of the PDSB, and it’s the same trustee defiance noted in the minutes of a Chairpersons’ Committee meeting in the KPRDSB where trustees stated they didn’t want to “readily give in to having their authority removed.” (I gave a copy of these minutes to the OHRT as evidence.)

Furthermore, as elected representatives, boards of trustees are expected to develop policies in an open and accountable way. All of the YRDSB policies and procedures are listed on the Board’s website for the public to see, but not the Board’s hiring policy for directors of education! Why not?

In an email to a constituent obtained by the Toronto Star, York Catholic trustee Elizabeth Crowe said the selection of the director of education is done in private by secret ballot!

Ms. Crowe said it’s to “protect the confidentiality of all the candidates and the process. There is no record of the vote,” she added, saying she couldn’t comment on the race, sex or qualifications of candidates who apply to the position because they are protected by confidentiality.

This secrecy isn’t about confidentiality of all the candidates and the process! This secrecy is about protecting the trustees so no one knows how each individual trustee votes! And this allows systemic discrimination to flourish!

This is the same secrecy school boards operate under when they make victims sign confidentiality agreements, when they issue legal cease-and-desist letters, and make legal applications to silence people!

What’s extraordinary about this story is that the YCDSB offered Dr. Correia $30,000 to settle his case, and Dr. Correia refused the offer because he thought it would be better to be on the record so someone else could cite his case at a later date to strengthen their case!

And it cost Dr. Correia $26,000 in legal fees to ignore the Board’s offer!

What incredible foresight and generosity!

Toward a complete stranger in an unknown future!

When I explained to Dr. Correia that his foresight and generosity are now allowing me to strengthen my case – and I’m bring thousands of Black students from the YCDSB community to the OHRT with me because of the compensation I requested for Parents of Black Children – Dr. Correia was delighted saying when you fight for justice, you aren’t fighting for yourself. You’re fighting for all the other people who will benefit! And he was fighting for his own 3 children who were standing behind him.

Dr. Correia also said there can be no peace without justice, which is absolutely true, and which is why the OHRT needs to order huge financial penalties for any school board that is found guilty of discrimination. This is the only way school boards will stop discriminating against people!  

The PDSB Reviewers called for “educators and leaders – including elected leaders – who are aware of their own place in the world and who will bring a higher consciousness and personal commitment” to the work they are doing, and for “a new style of leadership” that has, “through rigorous assessment of its own strengths and weaknesses, demonstrated the capacity to face the evidence of systemic inequity and to grasp the complexity of the issues facing those less able to advocate for themselves.”

Dr. Correia has 7 degrees including a doctorate in education in Multicultural Education from the Department of Applied Psychology from OISE/University of Toronto and is Catholic. He is clearly qualified and experienced, is clearly aware of his own place in the world, has clearly demonstrated a higher consciousness. He is also racialized and is a qualified teacher with supervisory officers qualifications and is in good standing with the Ontario College of Teachers. Dr. Correia should be the Director of Education for the YCDSB!

Now that Mr. Rodrigues has apologized to Kola Iluyomade and the six different community advocacy groups on behalf of the PDSB, when can staff, students and parents in the YCDSB expect an apology from the YCDSB trustees and from Minister Lecce?

When can I expect an apology from KPRDSB, the Ontario College of Teachers, the Ontario Principals’ Council, the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, and Minister Lecce?

I’ve convinced Dr. Correia to apply for the director of education position in the YCDSB. Here are his credentials:

https://www.oct.ca/findateacher/memberinfo?memberid=254771

When can Dr. Correia expect an interview?

I will not be charging the YCDSB with a finders’ fee for recruiting Dr. Correia. (Head hunters charge phenomenal fees for recruiting and finding directors of education, so I should, but this is tax payers’ money, which needs to go directly into classrooms to support teachers and students.)   

We (myself and the thousands of Black students that I am “informally” representing) will not sign any confidentiality agreements, we will not be scared off with legal cease-and-desist letters, and we expect full financial restitution as well as the fulfillment of all the other remedies I requested including that the Ministry of Education hire a qualified third-party to review the effectiveness of Ontario’s school board governance model as it pertains to systemic discrimination, and the Ministry of Education immediately put a halt to all meetings, activities and functions of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association and the Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association until the third-party review is complete and decisions about a new governance model can be made.

I’ve lined up a team of education experts (who shall remain anonymous for now) who are extremely well qualified and able to assist Minister Lecce (or any assigned Supervisor for that matter) with ensuring Ontario’s education system is indeed a world-class education system for many, many years to come.

An associate professor of law at an American University just reached out inviting me to take their master of science in law program because “I’d be a great fit.”

I declined the offer.

So if you need a Supervisor for Minister Lecce… 

I look forward to a prompt response.    

Yours truly,

Debbie L. Kasman, M. Ed, Policy Studies, OISE/University of Toronto,

Education Re-imagined,

Analyst & Researcher, Author & Speaker

Follow Debbie on Twitter: @debbiekasman and on Facebook: DebbieLKasman

[Editor’s note: Eight days after I posted this letter and sent a copy to York Catholic Trustees, during a special board meeting, Trustees lafrate and Marchese put forth the following motion:

Whereas York Catholic District School Board (YCDSB) Policy 404 Teacher Recruitment and Selection (Purpose) states: “The teacher recruitment and selection processes shall be guided by, and advance, the Board’s Mission Statement and core values of equity, diversity and inclusion and shall be conducted in a fair and transparent manner, free from any bias, discrimination, nepotism and cronyism;”

Whereas these principles apply to all YCDSB hiring practices;

Whereas the YCDSB has hiring practices in place and must be committed to continuously reviewing/revising these practices, guidelines and policies, for permanent and contract positions, on a regular basis to ensure fairness, equity and transparency;

Whereas retirements have resulted in numerous senior staff vacancies;

Whereas it is imperative that the filling of these senior staff vacancies be done in accordance with updated hiring process, practices and guidelines;

LET IT BE RESOLVED:

THAT the Board immediately update its policies, processes and guidelines for all hiring of non-unionized staff, contract and permanent, from posting to offer of employment, to ensure that they reflect up to date equitable, inclusive and transparent process, guidelines and procedures.

THAT these processes be endorsed by the Board of Trustees and implemented by May 18, 2021.

THAT additional external resources be made available if needed to meet the May 18, 2021 Board implementation date.

THAT these revised processes be reviewed by the Human Rights and Equity Advisor to ensure they are free from bias and discrimination and reflect Human Rights and Equity Principles.

THAT effective April 22, 2021 a hiring freeze be imposed for all non-unionized vacancies.

THAT the hiring freeze be lifted once the updated hiring process is implemented effective May 18, 2021, or earlier.

On May 5, 2021 Patrick Case, Chief Equity Officer and Assistant Deputy Minister at Ontario’s Ministry of Education reached out to me for a telephone conversation. Mr. Case was hopeful some big changes would be announced within the next few months.

On Friday, June 25, trustees announced that Domenic Scuglia, another white man, would be director of education for York Catholic DSB beginning August 1.

The York Catholic Trustees violated the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal Order when hiring previous directors of education. Click here for details.

On September 7, 2021 the Ministry of Education announced it was seeking input from the public on how to strengthen accountability for school board trustees.]

Debbie Kasman, who also worked as a student achievement officer at Ontario’s ministry of education, says, “Given the current educational climate, the York Catholic school board should have hired a director of education with a strong background in academic instruction, equity and anti-oppression, not a director with a background in business and technology with limited teaching experience in a private all boys school only.”

Kasman believes the decision to approve the York Catholic DSB’s hiring decision will have an adverse effect on the racialized students and employees in the YCDSB and in other school boards across the province. 

In November, York Catholic high school students walked out of classes to protest what they say is persistent, often unchecked racism in their schools, and called for a hiring process that will see better representation among school board staff, mandatory anti-Black and anti-Indigenous racism training, and mandatory teacher evaluation audits.

“Minister Lecce knew, or ought to have known,” Kasman added, “that his approval of Hofstatter’s appointment would have an adverse affect on racialized students in the board.”

Minister Lecce approved Hofstatter’s appointment on January 19, 2021, six months after he amended the Education Act to allow for the hiring of more diverse directors of education.

"Our aim is to expand the hiring pool so that school boards can better identify and recruit qualified and diverse directors of education" that possess the leadership, and experience to "ably run complex multi-million dollar organizations, responsible for tens of thousands of staff," Lecce said in an emailed statement to the Toronto Star at the time.

The approval also comes on the heels of a letter the human rights commission wrote to Minister Lecce in June saying the commission was very troubled by the Peel school board review and the significant human rights issues that were raised, and calling on Minister Lecce for decisive action to ensure schools boards across the province learned from and implemented elements of his Directions to Peel.

Kearie Daniel, a founding member of Parents of Black Children, and a parent with children in the York Catholic board, told the Toronto Star that Robert Hofstatter’s appointment “speaks to white privilege, it speaks to male privilege, and it’s an indication that the trustees are not equipped to do their jobs. It’s downright dangerous, extremely frustrating and heart-wrenching to know our children are in the hands of people who are not capable of making the right decisions for them."

In a previous human rights filing, Kasman alleged that she, too, encountered constructive discrimination, when the Kawartha Pine Ridge DSB failed to appoint a female superintendent to its senior leadership team at a time when the leadership team was significantly gender imbalanced. “That had an adverse effect on the female students and employees in that board,” Kasman said.

Kasman has asked the Tribunal to expedite her Application. She says a great deal of harm will result from Hofstatter’s appointment if her Application is not expedited because other school boards will see this as an opportunity to hire white male directors of education with no supervisory officer qualifications, no principals’ qualifications, no demonstrated knowledge and experience with equity, and no teaching qualifications.

“This will impact Black, Muslim and Indigenous students, including the approximately one million female students in Ontario schools, and this will erode and eventually destroy the public education system in Ontario as we know it.”

Kasman does not wish to go through mediation or a lengthy trial. She wants the Tribunal to immediately make a summary judgment based on the evidence as presented.

Both Applications are currently before the Tribunal.

If Minister Lecce and the York Catholic board are found guilty of constructive (adverse effect) discrimination, Kasman has asked the Tribunal to order the YCDSB to rescind its appointment of Robert Hofstatter and return to the hiring table to find a racialized director of education with a strong background in academic instruction, equity and anti-oppression, preferably female.

Kasman also asked the Tribunal to order the Ontario government to immediately replace Minister Lecce as Education Minister with someone who is more qualified to deal with systemic discrimination and other pertinent educational matters.

“If there are no MPPs who fit the bill, then I’ve asked the Tribunal to immediately appoint a Supervisor who is qualified and experienced, to oversee the Ministry of Education, without government interference,” Kasman added.  

“I have nothing against Minister Lecce or Premier Ford, but our students deserve to have experts who know what they are doing at the helm of our education system.”

Kasman believes the current trustee model of governance is also a critical factor. She has also asked the Tribunal to order the ministry of education to hire a qualified third-party to review the effectiveness of Ontario’s school board governance model as it pertains to systemic discrimination, constructive discrimination, anti-Black racism, human resources practices, board leadership, and governance issues in school boards across Ontario.

“Race and gender discrimination are a historical and institutional problem,” Kasman says. “There can be no tinkering around the edges. Any effort to reform schools must deal with the nature and allocation of power,” she added.

“It’s time for a seismic shift, an atmospheric pressure drop within the education chamber. This will create a vacuum, which will hopefully allow a Supervisor and a team of advisors to step in,” Kasman said.

Kasman gave Minister Lecce and the Chair of the YCDSB a courtesy email alerting them to her Application. Neither have responded or acknowledged receipt of the email.   

Dr. Derek Haime, Registrar and Chief Executive Officer of the Ontario College of Teachers, which was also named as a respondent, replied on Monday, March 1, 2021 acknowledging receipt of Kasman’s email.

The other respondents – the Ontario Principals’ Council, the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board, and the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association – have not responded.

[Update: On April 7, 2021, the York Catholic DSB issued the following statement:

“On behalf of the Board of Trustees, please be advised that Mr. Robert Hofstatter is no longer serving as the Director of Education for the York Catholic District School Board.”

On May 5, 2021 Patrick Case, Chief Equity Officer and Assistant Deputy Minister at Ontario’s Ministry of Education reached out for a telephone conversation. He said he was hopeful some big changes would be announced within the next few months.

There were no big changes announced — unless you count the fact that on June 25, 2021, the York Catholic DSB trustees appointed another white male director of education. (Minister Lecce approved that appointment, too.)

Then on September 7, 2021 the Ministry of Education announced it was seeking input from the public on how to strengthen accountability for school board trustees.

On November 1, 2021, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) wrote to Minister Lecce in response to the consultation on strengthening accountability for school board trustees, noting the Commission was particularly interested in measures to ensure trustees are held accountable if they fail to fulfill their legal obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code).

The OHRC noted it is concerned about reports of trustees engaging in discriminatory conduct including making homophobic, Islamophobic and racist comments, stating it is “particularly troubling when such behaviour is exhibited by education leaders entrusted with the responsibility to ensure school systems uphold and champion human rights.”

The new Chief Commissioner, Patricia DeGuire, wrote:

The minimum standards for codes of conduct should require school board trustees to respect, protect and promote human rights at the board and throughout the education system they govern. They should state that school boards and their trustees have a legal duty under the Code to maintain an inclusive environment, free from discrimination and harassment for trustees, student trustees, board staff, students, parents and guardians and members of the public. Boards and their trustees must take steps to prevent and respond appropriately to violations of the Code or they may be held “liable” and face monetary penalties or other orders from a tribunal or court.

To support these minimum standards and Code obligations, all board members should be required to successfully complete Ministry-approved education and training on human rights. Required training should include anti-racism, as well as content on Indigenous (First Nations, Métis and Inuit) cultural sensitivity and cultural safety that is developed and delivered by the Indigenous communities served by their board.

The OHRC calls on the Ontario government to undertake any legislative, regulatory and/or policy changes necessary to implement these recommendations.

You can read the Commission's full letter to Minister Lecce here:

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/news_centre/ohrc-submission-ministry-education-consultation-strengthening-accountability-school-board-trustees]

Related video: The Trouble with School Board Trustees

Related stories:

An Open Letter to Nancy Naylor and Patrick Case, Deputy Minister of Education and Chief Equity Officer, Ministry of Education, Ontario

The York Catholic District School Board is in violation of an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal Order

Education Minister Stephen Lecce is ignoring the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and here’s why

Debbie L. Kasman, M. Ed, Policy Studies, OISE/University of Toronto, Education Re-imagined , Analyst & Researcher, Author & Speaker

Follow her on Twitter: @debbiekasman and on Facebook: DebbieLKasman

On June 5, 2020, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) wrote to Education Minister Stephen Lecce requesting, among other things, that Minister Lecce advise the OHRC on whether he had any plans to expand the implementation of his Directions to the Peel District School Board (PDSB) beyond Peel region.

In an email dated Friday, November 13, 2020, Director of Policy, Education, Monitoring and Outreach for the OHRC Shaheen Azmi wrote, “…the OHRC has not received a response from the Ministry to our June 5th letter. The OHRC continues to reach out to the Ministry on this and various other issues and will again raise the matters identified in our June 5th letter at the first opportunity.”

In other words, Minister Lecce is ignoring the human rights commission.

Why is Minister Lecce ignoring the human rights commission?

Here’s why:

In her email, Ms. Azmi wrote, “Our work is guided by our Strategic Plan and informed by ongoing engagement with our Education Advisory Group, with final decision being made by our appointed commissioners.” (The italics are mine.) “We simply don’t have the resources to take on all human rights issues and concerns.”

Doug Ford’s Conservatives have slowly and deliberately starved human rights protections to death during their time in office. Premier Ford has also left positions at the human rights commission vacant, cut or eliminated, and he ignored a short list put forward by the human rights commissioner to fill vacant positions, choosing instead to appoint commissioners with ties to the Progressive Conservative party.

The OHRC was established in 1961 as an arm’s length agency of government to prevent discrimination and to promote and advance human rights in Ontario. Under Doug Ford’s government, the OHRC isn’t arms length.

Minister Lecce also ignored a request to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (HRTO) to produce his response to the commission’s June 5th letter. Minister Lecce didn’t produce the letter because there was no letter to produce. So Minister Lecce is ignoring both the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.

Premier Ford and Minister Lecce are also ignoring elected MPPs. Nine different MPPs hand-delivered a letter to the education minister in the Legislature, during a caucus meeting, or to the minister’s office. The letter pointed out that discriminatory practices are happening in school boards across the province. There was no response to the letter.

Premier Ford and Minister Lecce are also ignoring legal advise by the Ontario Ombudsman. Legal counsel at the Ombudsman’s Office told senior advisors at the Ministry of Education that the Education Act needs to change in order to address inconsistent applications of trustee conduct across the province, which is leading to systemic discrimination. Premier Ford and Minister Lecce have only changed the Education Act to water down qualifications for director of education.

Premier Ford also cancelled the ministry of education’s planned professional development sessions to school boards on equity within a few months of taking office. He also cancelled curriculum re-writes to boost Indigenous education, the previous Liberal government’s pledge to make Indigenous courses mandatory in high school, slashed millions of dollars from the Indigenous Culture Fund, repealed the Far North Act, and cut 15% in overall funding for Indigenous affairs with no new money to deal with claim settlements.

The Conservative Party of Ontario never has the political will to deal with systemic discrimination. When the Ministry of Education released its Antiracism and Ethnocultural Equity in School Boards Guidelines for Policy Development and Implementation document in 1993, Premier Mike Harris scrapped the entire initiative within a month of taking office, and fired Deputy Minister Charles Pascal because of the advice Dr. Pascal was giving.

Minister Lecce (or the Conservative party for that matter) is not “expeditiously” working toward eliminating systemic discrimination in education because of its “rapid” response to issues at the Peel District School Board. Minister Lecce is ignoring the human rights commission, the human rights tribunal, nine different MPPs, and the Ontario Ombudsman.

Minister Lecce is also using a “limited checkbox approach,” and complying “without context,” terms used by Huggins in her Review of the Peel District School Board, just before trustees were “depowered” and the Board taken over by Supervisor Rodrigues.

Minister Lecce does what Dr. Charles Pascal, a Professor of Applied Psychology and Human Development at OISE/University of Toronto calls “virtue signalling.” Minister Lecce publicly expresses opinions and sentiments that are intended to demonstrate his good character and moral correctness, but does so while ignoring systemic discrimination across the province.

Minister Lecce also consistently ignores school board trustees, while school board trustees ignore him. For example, in the Ottawa-Carlton District School Board (OCDSB), Minister Lecce asked Trustee Donna Blackburn to resign after she made racially insensitive remarks to a Black teen, but she refused to resign.

Minister Lecce also asked trustees in the Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) to censure Trustee Del Grande and to make an investigative report public after Del Grande made homophobic comments during a public meeting, but the trustees refused to censure Del Grande or release a copy of the report. The trustees only censured Del Grande and released a redacted version of the report after former Premier Kathleen Wynne weighed in, and the media highlighted the story.

A similar situation is also playing out in the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (HWDSB). Rather than address the situation provincially, Minister Lecce asked “his officials” to “watch closely to ensure a fulsome investigation is completed and actions are taken,” instead of intervening. (The HWDSB is being investigated after an outgoing student trustee raised deeply disturbing allegations of racism. Former student trustee, Ahona Mehdi, called HWDSB a “disgustingly racist and oppressive institution.”)

Current and former Hamilton-Wentworth students are also calling for Minister Lecce to conduct a province-wide investigation into school board racism. The students are saying the HWDSB’s investigation is “not genuine,” and are questioning how the ministry is going to ensure the investigation is “fulsome.” The students are even calling the provincial government’s actions “reactive,” saying the issues are pervasive in other school boards, too. (You are onto something here, kids! Keep speaking out!)

In the York Catholic District School Board (YCDSB), high school students walked out of class on November 19, 2020, to protest what they say is persistent, often unchecked racism in their schools. The strike was organized by Students Speak Up YCDSB to demand meaningful action from school administrators.

What’s happening in Ontario is that systemic discrimination is running rampant in our education system, while Premier Ford and Minister Lecce pay lip service to the issue. These leaders say all the right things (virtue signalling) – if we ignore Premier Ford’s June 2020 comments that there is no systemic discrimination in Canada – but these same leaders are actually ignoring the human rights commission, the human rights tribunal, Ontario’s Ombudsman, various MPPs, wayward trustees who refuse to resign or deal appropriately with breaches of codes of conduct, and students.

What’s really going on with trustees is that school board trustees don’t want to readily give in to having their authority removed. They even said so in a Chairpersons’ committee meeting at the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board (KPRDSB). These comments were accidentally recorded in the meeting minutes and made public. This runs parallel to what’s currently happening in the U. S. with President Donald Trump refusing to concede his power to President-elect Joe Biden.

The situation in education in Ontario is an absurd, dysfunctional, catastrophic, discriminatory mess.

The Toronto District School Board Office of the Integrity Commissioner’s Annual Report for April 2019 to September 2020, which was just released, shows that the extensive work that has been done in the TDSB is still “overshadowed” by allegations of “unequal treatment of motions” and that “the motions of certain trustees were ‘shut down’ because of the communities they represented and not because procedural rules were not followed.”

Suzanne Craig, the Integrity Commissioner who submitted the report, noted that she has observed trustees conducting themselves with a lack of decorum and respect for other Members of the Board, with some trustees sending tweets to shame other trustees into voting a particular way.

There is also a perception, Craig wrote, that the “referees’ are biased as seen in other school boards. “In other words, those parts of the institution that are created to act in an arms-length objective way, do not and as a result, the processes at the Board are viewed from within or externally as, ‘rigged’ to benefit one group over another, the louder voice over the more subdued, the oppressors over the oppressed.”

This is exactly what’s happening with our current human rights system in Ontario under Doug Ford’s leadership, and it, too, is running parallel to what is currently happening in the U. S. with President Donald Trump. He stacked the Supreme Court with his own political allies.

In her book, Policing Black Lives, Robyn Maynard cites the persistent anti-Blackness in schools across Canada, explaining the degradation, harm and psychological violence many Black students face.

In 2015, it was exposed that in the Halifax Regional School Board, nearly half of the students placed on Individual Program Plans were Black.

In Mississauga, Ontario, a six-year old Black girl was placed in handcuffs after misbehaving at school. The OHRT ruled it was discriminatory.

A 2017 report called Towards Race Equity in Education found that Black children face hyper-surveillance of their behaviour in schools. They are excluded from class from often, disciplined more frequently, suspended and expelled from schools at higher rates, pushed into non-academic streams in school.

Black boys in particular are disengaging from school as early as age seven. The report’s main author, Carl James, a professor of Education at York University, says this means not wanting to go to school, not feeling safe, and not feeling welcomed in classrooms that are not designed for them.

The Peel Review shows factional violence amongst South Asian communities, escalating alcohol and drug abuse amongst South Asian students, blatant hostility to the Muslim community, anti-Semitic language and displays, high suicide rates amongst 2SLGBTQ+ students, stigma toward Indigenous members of the community, gross underrepresentation of Latin American students and Black students in regional choice learning programs, Black students being grossly overrepresented in suspensions, Black students being streamed into non-academic courses, and a prima facie case of race based discrimination, particularly anti-Black discrimination.

Additionally, some school boards continue to operate with male dominant leadership teams. For example, in 2014 the KPRDSB trustees created a senior leadership team of 7 men and only 2 women, nearly all white, and the white male director of education allowed this to happen.

We need to expose, challenge and dismantle these practices, behaviours, and procedures.

It’s time to name people, organizations and political parties again.

(Since I started naming people, the KPRDSB has hired 2 female directors of education and 4 female superintendents, one Black, and one Brown, and they’ve made changes to the Human Resources department. The previous director of education “retired,” the current director is retiring early, and Michael Salvatori, Registrar with the Ontario College of Teachers, suddenly resigned. The Ontario Principals’ Council also started to protect its members who speak out about systemic discrimination.)

In order to properly eliminate systemic discrimination in education in Ontario:

1.     School board employees must speak out about discriminatory practices (Cecil Roach in the YRDSB and Poleen Grewal in the PDSB, for example).

2.     School board employees must speak out without terrorizing, bullying, and harassing each other. (I say this because the PDSB is currently struggling with this issue.)

3.     The Ontario College of Teachers must change its current messaging from telling teachers they do not have freedom of expression if the content reflects poorly on their school, their school board, or the teaching profession, to telling teachers that speaking out about systemic discrimination is mandatory.

4.     The Council of Ontario Directors of Education (CODE) must stop ignoring systemic discrimination and actively speak out.

5.     The Ontario Public Supervisory Officers’ Association must do the same.

6.     Educational unions must protect their members who speak out while helping them learn how to do so without terrorizing, bullying, and harassing each other.

7.     The Ontario Ombudsman (Paul Dubé) must stop “monitoring” the situation and intervene.

8.     Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner (J. David Wake) must stop saying he can’t do anything about the situation and intervene.

9.     The Conservative party must come to terms with the fact that the school board governance model must change. (Trustees are dysfunctional and irrelevant. It’s no wonder. The current model is 300 years old. The Ontario government should replace school board trustees with race and gender balanced advisory councils.)

10.  All political and education leaders must operate from a higher level of consciousness. (Thank you to former TVDSB Director of Education Laura Elliott for spending valuable time on the telephone with me. Thank you to former TDSB Director of Education John Malloy who responded to several of my letters, saying my perspective was “much appreciated,” while thanking me for writing. Thank you to Robin Pilkey, former Chair of the TDSB, who said I “raised many excellent points” in response to one of my letters. Thank you to all the school board directors who responded to my July 2019 survey. Thank you to Valerie Dugale, Media Relations with the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario (ETFO), who thanked me for sharing my perspective with the elementary teachers’ union saying, “We had a lot of discussion about [your letter] among staff and it prompted EFTO to release a broader statement today on anti-Black racism.” Thank you to Juanita Nathan, Chair of the York Region District School Board (YRDSB), who wrote, “You raise many excellent points that require consideration by the Board in its ongoing work. I appreciate your interest in public education and governance matters.” Trustee Nathan was responding to my letter to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Thank you to Louise Sirisko, the Director of Education for YRDSB, who also wrote, “Thank you for reaching out to me. You raise important points for consideration and reflection for staff.”)

11.  Educational leaders must speak the truth.

12.  Educational leaders must respond intelligently to the complex challenges they face.

13.  Educational leaders must have foresight to engage their school boards in likely futures and consequences for action and inaction.

14.  Educational leaders must stimulate and effectively manage change on a large scale under complex circumstances.

15.  Educational leaders must show initiative and perseverance in bringing about meaningful change.

16.  Trustees must stop calling employees who speak out against systemic discrimination “loony” (like Trustee Cathy Abraham did to me. She is now President of the Ontario Public School Board Association).

17.  School boards must stop saying “allegations” of systemic discrimination are “inflammatory rhetoric” that are “meritless” and “defy belief” (like the Peel DSB did to Poleen Grewal).

18.  School boards must stop threatening community activists with trespass letters (like the Peel DSB did toward Idris Oroghu).

19.  School boards must stop threatening community activists groups with defamation lawsuits (like Peter Joshua, David Green, Mark Haarmann, Gale Solomon-Henry (who later withdrew her name) did toward (@HomeisPeel, @AdvocacyPeel, @PeelBlackParent, @WeRiseTogether1, @peelblackyouth1 and @MinistryPeel who were speaking out about systemic discrimination).

20.  Trustees must stop saying there is no systemic discrimination in education.  

21.  Trustees must stop laughing when they are told the Ontario Ombudsman won’t do anything.

22.  Trustees must stop saying, “Trustees decide who to interview, whom to hire, and who will get the job. Enough already!” (Trustees are only supposed to sit on hiring panels for directors of education.)

23.  School boards must stop issuing legal cease-and-desist letters when employees speak out against systemic discrimination.

24.  Female directors must stop saying they were promoted based on merit so there can’t be any gender discrimination in education.

25.  Male directors must stop saying the case is “closed” when they haven’t done an investigation.

26.  The Ontario College of Teachers must stop telling teachers their school board has “addressed any public interest there may be regarding this matter” when school boards haven’t addressed public interest at all,

27.  The human resources departments of school boards must begin to handle complaints of systemic discrimination appropriately and in an arm’s length fashion (unlike the PDSB, the KPRDSB, and many others school boards are doing).

We must expose, challenge and dismantle every single layer of the entire education system.

School board employees have a duty of loyalty to the school board where they work, but a school board’s duty of loyalty to the students and the public they serve supercedes their duty of loyalty to the school board when it comes to serious issues like systemic discrimination. This is a new way of thinking - a paradigm shift, if you will - and it’s what those working in positions of power in education must understand.

Those working in positions of power in education must also understand that it’s not an employee’s duty to remain silent about discrimination, in order to make the school board look good. It’s an employee’s responsibility to speak out about discrimination in order to help the school board improve.

The current situation – where the Progressive Conservative party is paying lip service to systemic discrimination, while ignoring the issue provincially, and while Premier Ford and Minister Lecce are deliberately ignoring the human rights commission, the human rights tribunal, and the Ombudsman, while the Ombudsman does nothing but “monitor” the situation, and while Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner refuses to do anything, and while school board trustees deliberately ignore Minister Lecce, and while employees and activists are penalized and punished, and while Premier Ford and Minister Lecce ignore dysfunctional trustees and systemic discrimination in education – is untenable.

Things must change!

I filed an Application with the human rights tribunal in October 2019 against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Education, the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board, the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, the Ontario Principals’ Council, and the Ontario College of Teachers in order to affect meaningful change.

While the success rate for cases such as mine is rare to never (another reason why the Conservative Party is ignoring the human rights commission and the human rights tribunal), I remain hopeful that things will change.

I told the Tribunal they won’t find any quick, clean, obvious acts of discrimination because systemic discrimination doesn’t work that way, that systemic discrimination involves attitudes, patterns of behavior, policies and practices that appear to be neutral on the surface, but aren’t, which is exactly what’s happening in the education system in Ontario.

I’m not a lawyer and I don’t have any legal training, but I have a deep love and passion for the pubic education system and a decent knowledge of how the education system works. (I’m also extremely fed up with the lack of leadership I’m seeing in politics and education so I took this issue on.)

I asked the Tribunal to assign an adjudicator with specific expertise and training in systemic discrimination because many adjudicators don’t have this kind of training, and most adjudicators look for quick, clean, obvious acts of discrimination, which means they won’t find any.

I’m waiting for the Tribunal to decide if they are going to allow my Application to proceed or if the Tribunal is going to allow systemic discrimination in education to flourish. I’ve written a book about my entire experience. It’s called Shattering My Internal Glass Ceiling: One Woman’s Struggle For Change. I’ll be releasing the book after the Tribunal weighs in.  

There are a few other people and organizations I’d like to thank.

Thank you to Parents of Black Children, the Vaughan African Canadian Association and YRDSB Kids Deserve Better for their support. Thank you specifically to Charline Grant, Kearie Daniel, Alex Battick, and Todd Silverman for their support.

Thank you to former trustees Larry Killens, Tom Mahoney and Ashley Noble who have been in close contact to share their stories, to assist, and to let me know they are deeply concerned about the state of affairs in education, too.

Thank you to the few school board trustees who have reached out to thank me for sending along my work. (I don’t wish to name these individuals as it might lead to repercussions from their colleagues.)

Thank you to the educational leaders and researchers who have called my writing powerful, accurate, well researched, and even brilliant, and to those who have privately let me know they agree with my assessment. (I don’t wish to name these individuals as I don’t wish to jeopardize their careers, either.)

Thank you to the Integrity Commissioner who took the time to tell me he/she loves my “Trouble with School Board Trustees” video and that some of his/her Integrity Commissioner colleagues love the video, too.

Thank you to the small handful of former colleagues who have been supporting me and who continue to support me. (I won’t name these individuals as I don’t wish to jeopardize their careers, either.)

Thank you to Dr. Emily Carasco and Dr. Pamela Milne – Professors Emeriti from the University of Windsor – for generously sharing their time and expertise with me, and for sharing details of Dr. Carasco’s journey with me when Dr. Carasco attempted to hold the University of Windsor Faculty of Law to account after she was discriminated against there.

Thank you to MPP Marit Stiles (Davenport and Official Opposition Eduction Critic) who responded to one of my letters, MPP Tibollo (Vaughan – Woodbridge) who forwarded my letter to Minister Thompson's office, MPP Dunlop (Simcoe – North) who hand delivered my letter to Minister Thompson at a caucus meeting, MPP Monteith-Farrell (Thunder Bay – Atikokan) who sent my letter to Minister Thompson's office with a covering letter requesting that Minister Thompson respond directly to me, MPP Thanigasalam (Scarborough – Rouge Park) who forwarded my letter to Minister Thompson's office, MPP Kernaghan (London – North Centre) who delivered my letter to Minister Thompson's office; MPP Lalonde (Orléans) who emailed my letter to Minister Thompson, MPP Crawford (Oakville) who forwarded my letter to Minister Thompson's office and for following up with me saying that the Ministry of Education had acknowledged receipt of my correspondence and would be responding to me directly (even though they never did), and to MPP Lorne Coe (Whitby) for hand delivering my letter to Minister Thompson in the Legislature.

Thank you to the women who publicly joined the women’s coalition I created in the KPRDSB when the Board created a senior leadership team of 7 men and only 2 women under Director of Education Rusty Hick’s leadership: Janis Leone, Susan Cawker, Lynn Holley, Vicki Delahaye, Norma Vatcher, Sherry-Lee Boyd, Kim Kennedy, Frances Ivy, Shawna MacKellar, Wendy Goodes, Carol Peterson, Tara Arnold, Jeanette Sage, Daria Gimon, Robin Helgesen, Brad MacMaster, Jeanette Morrison, Heather Hedges, Beverly Wright, Margaret Lobb, Leona Davidson, Leslie Schroeder, Marcie Steele, Mavis Chinamora-Stapleton and Mary Jane Dalton.

Thank you also to the women and men who joined the women’s coalition privately. (You know who you are.) Shortly after we formed, the women’s coalition began to support women and racialized individuals. It’s not enough that white women support their own gender only. Women (and men) need to support all genders, all races, all colours, all cultures, and all creeds.

Thank you to the teachers on staff who supported me before I retired. (You know who you are, too.)

Thank you to Assistant Deputy Minister Patrick Case and Supervisor Bruce Rodrigues for working hard to turn the PDSB around under a Conservative government that refuses to properly address systemic discrimination, and for always listening politely and respectfully to me.

Last, but not least, thank you to you - the reader - for reading my work, many of whom are in high level positions in education in Ontario. (Thanks also to those who have responded on occasion.) It’s been one hell of a journey. Your support means a lot.

Debbie L. Kasman

M. Ed, Policy Studies, OISE/University of Toronto, Education Re-imagined, Analyst & Researcher, Author & Speaker

[Editor’s note: Minister Lecce met with Ena Chadha, Chief Commissioner for the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and Raj Dhir, Executive Director and Chief Legal Counsel for the Ontario Human Rights Commission, on December 2, 2020, seven business days after I published this post. Now Minister Lecce can say he met with the Commission. In fact, as soon as he did, Minister Lecce made sure the public knew he met with the Commission by posting about the meeting on Twitter. Apparently, Minister Lecce is reading my posts, too.

On September 7, 2021, the Ministry of Education announced it was seeking input from the public on how to strengthen accountability for school board trustees.

On November 1, 2021, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) wrote to Minister Lecce in response to the consultation on strengthening accountability for school board trustees, noting the Commission was particularly interested in measures to ensure trustees are held accountable if they fail to fulfill their legal obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code).

The OHRC noted it is concerned about reports of trustees engaging in discriminatory conduct including making homophobic, Islamophobic and racist comments, stating it is “particularly troubling when such behaviour is exhibited by education leaders entrusted with the responsibility to ensure school systems uphold and champion human rights.”

The new Chief Commissioner, Patricia DeGuire, wrote:

The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that school boards must foster an atmosphere of tolerance and respect and cannot rely on the personal views of some individuals to deny equal recognition for the human rights of other members of the school community.

The minimum standards for codes of conduct should require school board trustees to respect, protect and promote human rights at the board and throughout the education system they govern. They should state that school boards and their trustees have a legal duty under the Code to maintain an inclusive environment, free from discrimination and harassment for trustees, student trustees, board staff, students, parents and guardians and members of the public. Boards and their trustees must take steps to prevent and respond appropriately to violations of the Code or they may be held “liable” and face monetary penalties or other orders from a tribunal or court.

To support these minimum standards and Code obligations, all board members should be required to successfully complete Ministry-approved education and training on human rights. Required training should include anti-racism, as well as content on Indigenous (First Nations, Métis and Inuit) cultural sensitivity and cultural safety that is developed and delivered by the Indigenous communities served by their board.

The OHRC strongly recommends that boards be required to establish a complaint process that ensures all allegations of discrimination by a trustee, including complaints made by student trustees, board staff, students, parents and guardians and other members of the public, are brought to the board’s attention. The process should make clear that, in accordance with the Code no person shall be negatively treated for raising a complaint, providing information related to a complaint or helping to resolve a complaint. Moreover, information about the availability of a complaint process should be easily accessible and widely publicized.

School boards have a duty to take complaints alleging a breach of the Code seriously and to act upon them promptly. Human rights jurisprudence has established that a duty holder’s failure to investigate and address allegations of discrimination and harassment in a timely and effective manner can cause and/or exacerbate the harm of discrimination.

School boards have a Code duty to take action when a trustee is found to have engaged in discrimination. Since the goal of human rights legislation is preventative and remedial rather than punitive, steps must be taken to both remedy the effects of the discrimination and prevent future occurrences.

The Education Act sets out potential sanctions for a trustee’s breach of the code of conduct, including censure and barring a trustee’s participation in board meetings and committees (s.218.3(3). The OHRC submits that, in certain circumstances, other measures may be necessary and appropriate to meet the remedial and preventative goals of human rights law. For example, mandating participation in additional human rights training could serve to prevent further Code breaches. Stronger sanctions, such as removal from office where the law permits, may be necessary in the case of a very serious breach. The OHRC recommends that school boards have all of the authority necessary to remedy human rights violations.

The Education Act requires school boards to vote publicly on determinations of code of conduct breaches and the imposition of sanctions. The OHRC recommends that boards be required to publicly report aggregate data on all complaints and their outcomes, on an annual basis.

The OHRC calls on the Ontario government to undertake any legislative, regulatory and/or policy changes necessary to implement these recommendations.

On March 21, 2023, the Ontario College of Teachers announced College Council had received a report from the Standards of Practice and Education Committee highlighting the development of a new Professional Advisory to inform members of the College of their professional responsibilities to uphold human rights and combat hate and intolerance.

The Professional Advisory will include rigorous consultation with stakeholders and experts in the field, the Standards of Practice and Education Committee will be provided with regular updates on the advisory development process and an opportunity for interim reviews of the advisory document, College Council will be kept apprised of developments of the Professional Advisory via the Registrar’s Report, a final version will be tabled as information at the appropriate Council meeting, the Professional Advisory will be published on the College website and distributed to members electronically, and the Professional Advisory will require Standards of Practice and Education Committee approval prior to publication.

On April 17, 2023, Minister Lecce tabled the Better Schools and Student Outcomes Act in the Legislature, saying its goal is to modernize the province’s education system. The proposed Bill has five key focus areas that will be supported by education policy reforms, and those reforms will:

1. Ensure that all school boards across the province are focused on delivering on the government's key priorities for student achievement and improving accountability and transparency on board performance and funding.

2. Implement standardized processes, a fair and impartial framework to support the integrity of trustee conduct, and expectations for boards of trustees, Directors of Education and supervisory officers.

3. Maximize capital assets of boards to support building modern schools faster and better utilize school capacity so that students can attend school as close to home as possible. The proposed Bill will better leverage surplus property for public education and other provincial priorities, address accommodation needs in urban/high growth areas, ensure better planning for schools and associated child care facilities, maximize school capacity, where appropriate and improve consistency at the design phase to help reduce planning time and expedite the approvals process.

4. Strengthen teacher training and oversight to ensure teachers are trained for the needs of today's and tomorrow's classrooms and support student safety through fair and effective disciplinary processes for teachers and registered early childhood educators. The proposed Bill will ensure that fair and efficient disciplinary processes and other measures are in place for educators to build on progress made in previous reforms that enable the Ontario College of Teachers and the College of Early Childhood Educators to discharge their roles more effectively.

5. Encourage consistent information and approaches to student learning through more accessible information and opportunities for parents to get involved, and greater consistency in student mental health and well-being supports. This includes providing the information and tools necessary to ensure consistent information and approaches to student learning, including a greater role for parents and student learning about mental health and well-being.

The amendments proposed in Schedule 2 of the Bill will, if passed, amend the Education Act to drive provincial priorities to enhance accountability and transparency and to enable more effective governance through reforms for the education sector, boards of trustees and Directors of Education.

THESE CHANGES AREN’T ENOUGH.

On May 16, 2023, the College allowed the complaints against former Director of Education, Rusty Hick, and former Superintendent, Shelly Roy, to move forward by proceeding with investigating 11 allegations. Details of those complaints can be found here.

THIS ISN’T ENOUGH, EITHER.

Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/DebbieKasman.

• May 2025
  • May 18, 2025 An Open letter to Hon. Paul Calandra, Minister of Education, School Board Governance in Ontario: Long Overdue for a Complete Government Overhaul May 18, 2025
• August 2023
  • Aug 11, 2023 What Those Working in Ontario's Education System Need To Understand Aug 11, 2023
• July 2023
  • Jul 24, 2023 An Open Letter to Premier Doug Ford On the Death of TDSB Principal Richard Bilkszto Jul 24, 2023
• November 2022
  • Nov 18, 2022 An Open Letter to Doug Downey Regarding Kayla Lemieux, the Trans Teacher in Oakville, Ontario Nov 18, 2022
• April 2022
  • Apr 28, 2022 Chaos at the Thames Valley District School Board - An Open Letter Apr 28, 2022
• June 2021
  • Jun 25, 2021 An Open Letter to Dr. Derek Haime, Registrar, Ontario College of Teachers Jun 25, 2021
  • Jun 4, 2021 Washington Post issues scathing criticism of Karen Falconer for handling of the Javier Davila situation Jun 4, 2021
• May 2021
  • May 3, 2021 Dear Ms. Naylor: Damage control, internal emails, two prominent, stalwart Black community members resign, and what education experts have to say May 3, 2021
• April 2021
  • Apr 30, 2021 It's About the Situation in the York Region District School Board Again Apr 30, 2021
  • Apr 22, 2021 The York Catholic District School Board is in violation of an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal Order Apr 22, 2021
  • Apr 14, 2021 An Open Letter to Nancy Naylor and Patrick Case, Deputy Ministry of Education and Chief Equity Officer, Ministry of Education, Ontario Apr 14, 2021
• March 2021
  • Mar 5, 2021 Former superintendent files human rights complaint, alleging “constructive discrimination," after Lecce approves Hofstatter as director of education Mar 5, 2021
• February 2021
  • Feb 5, 2021 An Open Letter to the Peel District School Board Feb 5, 2021
• November 2020
  • Nov 23, 2020 Education Minister Stephen Lecce is ignoring the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and here’s why Nov 23, 2020
• September 2020
  • Sep 24, 2020 An Open Letter to All School Board Trustees in Ontario Sep 24, 2020
• July 2020
  • Jul 24, 2020 Ontario government's response to discrimination in education is ineffective and discriminatory Jul 24, 2020
• June 2020
  • Jun 21, 2020 Letter to the Ontario Human Rights Commission Jun 21, 2020
  • Jun 4, 2020 Dear Director Leclerc - It's About the Hiring You Are About To Do in Light of Peel DSB Directions Jun 4, 2020
• May 2020
  • May 28, 2020 Response to 'Ding dong, the witch is gone': Black parents aghast over racist letter to vice-principal force changes at TDSB May 28, 2020
  • May 15, 2020 Dear Durham District School Board Teaching Community May 15, 2020
• April 2020
  • Apr 28, 2020 An Open Letter to Durham District School Board Trustees Apr 28, 2020
• September 2019
  • Sep 6, 2019 An Open Letter to the Canadian School Boards Association Sep 6, 2019
• November 2018
  • Nov 15, 2018 Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board announces first-ever student census while ignoring equity issues Nov 15, 2018
  • Nov 12, 2018 Counterpoint: Ontario experience provides ample rationale for axing school boards in Nova Scotia Nov 12, 2018
  • Nov 1, 2018 Education Crisis in Ontario: Trustees stay on boards even after issues arise Nov 1, 2018
• March 2017
  • Mar 4, 2017 An Open Letter to Premier Kathleen Wynne and Education Minister Mitzie Hunter Mar 4, 2017
• February 2017
  • Feb 6, 2017 Three Hidden Ways Education Contributes to Discrimination Feb 6, 2017
• January 2017
  • Jan 29, 2017 Eight Powerful Reasons You Should Wear a Pink Hat (and do other things to confront gender and racial discrimination) Jan 29, 2017
• October 2016
  • Oct 31, 2016 How to Grow Up and Wake Up Between 20 and 60 Years Old Oct 31, 2016
• April 2014
  • Apr 1, 2014 The Role of Spirituality in Public Education Apr 1, 2014
• January 2014
  • Jan 28, 2014 The Power Paradox Jan 28, 2014
• May 2013
  • May 30, 2013 Spiral of Existence May 30, 2013

Thursday, September 24, 2020

Dear Ontario School Board Trustees,

As you are no doubt aware, in March 2020 the Ministry of Education released the Peel District School Board (PDSB) Review, which shows extreme dysfunction, governance issues, and systemic discrimination in the PDSB. The issues are so severe that the director of education was terminated and the Board placed under Supervision. The Reviewers wrote that the policies and practices that are creating, perpetuating, and reproducing inequities, need to be exposed, challenged, and dismantled.

That’s why I’m writing to you.

Education Minister Lecce issued 27 Directions in response to the PDSB Review. Direction #2 was for the PDSB to immediately remove trustees from hiring, promotion and placement panels for all positions, except director of education, and to create a policy restricting trustees from hiring, promotion and placement panels for all positions, except director of education.

Minister Lecce also ordered an investigation into the PDSB’s willingness to comply with his Directions after further issues arose. Arleen Huggins completed the investigation, and determined that the collective Board and the Director’s Office in the PDSB were lacking both the ability and capacity, and perhaps even more importantly, the will, to address the findings in the Ministry Review.

After immediately removing themselves from hiring panels for all positions, except director of education, and after creating a policy restricting themselves from hiring panels for all positions, except director of education, some of the trustees in the PDSB were still planning on sitting on the hiring panel for the hiring of two new Integrity Commissioners.

On June 5, 2020, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) wrote to Minister Lecce stating, “The OHRC would appreciate the Ministry advising whether there are any plans to expand the implementation of the Directions beyond Peel region.” This was because the discrimination is very severe and is happening in other school boards across the province.

I wrote to the OHRC as well, and on August 14, 2020, I received a response from the OHRC stating that the well-being of Black, Indigenous and racialized students in the province must become a government priority, especially during the pandemic when issues of inequality are exacerbated, and that the Commission is monitoring the implementation of the recommendations of the PDSB Review, and several of the recommendations would address my concerns. The Commission specifically pointed to Directive #2 restricting trustees from participating on hiring, promotion and appointment panels, for positions other than the director of education, as one of the necessary provincial changes.

But Minister Lecce has not yet made this provincial change.

I wrote to Minister Lecce and the Director of Education for the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board (KPRDSB) - my former school board - on September 8, 2020 requesting that Minister Lecce and Director Jennifer Leclerc confirm in writing that trustees will be restricted from hiring panels for all positions, except director of education, in school boards across the province and in the KPRDSB.

I made this formal request through a Form 10 Request for Documentary Disclosure through the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. I had already filed an Application with the Tribunal about the discrimination that is currently happening in education in Ontario, and the fact that trustees in the KPRDSB have been refusing to remove themselves from hiring panels because they do not want “to readily give in to having their authority removed.” This statement was made in a Chairperson’s Committee Meeting by trustees themselves, and documented in Board minutes.

On September 22, 2020, I received a response from KPRDSB’s legal counsel stating that the Board is not required to produce documents until the Tribunal has issued a Notice of Hearing about my Application, and the Board should not be required by the Tribunal to expend resources to respond to my Request. The KPRDSB asked the Tribunal to grant them leave from responding until the Tribunal issues a Notice of Hearing about my Application.

Rather than doing the right thing – removing trustees from hiring panels – trustees in the KPRDSB are playing legal games, and using taxpayers’ dollars to do it, during a pandemic no less, when there isn't enough money to keep kids safe.

This is an excellent example of why policies and practices need to be exposed, challenged, and dismantled.

The KPRDSB’s decision to ask for a leave from responding to my request may be legal, but it’s unethical and immoral because the practice of trustees sitting on hiring panels leads to discrimination.

In February 2020, community activist and parent Idris Orughu was banned from all PDSB board properties because he was advocating for much needed change there. Rather than dealing with the issues Mr. Orughu raised, the PDSB banned Mr. Orughu from all school board properties.

On Wednesday, the Supervisor of the PDSB, Bruce Rodrigues, apologized to Mr. Orughu for acts of discrimination and anti-Black racism saying “the issuing of the notice of trespass and contacting the Peel Regional Police were acts of discrimination and anti-Black racism ... (The board) recognizes and apologizes on behalf of senior leadership for the impact of that trespass letter on Mr. Orughu’s advocacy efforts to change education policies that perpetuate anti-Black racism and oppressive practices.”

When Minister Lecce was contacted about the situation, he said it was “most regrettable” the way the Peel board treated Orughu.

“To be kicked out, to be targeted for opposition … is contrary to the values of democracy, decency, and civility, which we need,” said Lecce.

Minister Lecce has not yet responded to my Request that he confirm all trustees will be restricted from hiring panels in school boards across the province.

A response is due in a few days.

Will Minister Lecce respond appropriately by restricting trustees from hiring panels and thereby demonstrate values of democracy, decency, and civility?

Or will Minister Lecce take the same approach that trustees in the KPRDSB are taking and ask the Tribunal to grant him leave from responding, stating he is not required to produce documents until the Tribunal has issued a Notice of Hearing, and he should not be required to expend resources to confirm he will be restricting trustees from hiring panels in order to help dismantle systemic discrimination in education?

We’ll know what level of consciousness Minister Lecce is operating from when he issues a response.

What level of consciousness are you operating from?

Have you insisted trustees be restricted from hiring panels in your school board yet?

Yours truly,

Debbie L. Kasman

M. Ed, Policy Studies, OISE/University of Toronto, Education Re-imagined, Analyst & Researcher, Author & Speaker

{Update: The deadline for Minister Lecce to respond has come and gone. To date, there has been no response.

On November 13, 2020, the Director of Policy, Education, Monitoring and Outreach for the Ontario Human Rights Commission Shaheen Azmi confirmed in writing that Minister Lecce has not responded to the Commission’s June 5th letter, either.

Watch my latest video: The Trouble With School Board Trustees.]

Raj Dhir

Executive Director and Chief Legal Officer

Ontario Human Rights Commission

July 24, 2020

Dear Mr. Dhir,

I wrote to you on June 9, 2020 and again on June 21, 2020 to express concerns about trustees refusing to remove themselves from hiring panels for all employees, except for directors of education, in school boards across the province. This is concerning because it is leading to systemic discrimination, and the provincial government is refusing to deal with it.   

Since you wrote to Education Minister Lecce on June 5, 2020 asking whether there were any plans to expand the implementation of the Directions to the Peel District School Board (PDSB) beyond Peel Region (and since the second Direction to the PDSB was for trustees to immediately remove themselves from hiring panels for all positions, except for director of education, and to create a policy restricting trustees from sitting on hiring panels for all positions, except for director of education), I am writing again.

Since my last letter to you, the provincial government has passed Bill 197, the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020. Parts of the government’s equity “plans” are buried within this Act. Other parts of the government’s equity “plans” were announced to the Toronto Star. None of the changes to the Act or announced in the media address the trustee situation, some of the changes won’t address systemic discrimination properly, and some of the changes won’t address systemic discrimination at all. I also believe parts of the government’s response are discriminatory.

Here is how I have come to that conclusion.

First, the Ontario Educational Communications Authority Act is changing to allow the establishment, administration and coordination of distance education programs. Sections 185 and 188 of the Education Act are being amended to allow prescribed people (distance education providers) to provide written notice to a school board that a student intends to attend a prescribed school (a distance education program) and to collect personal information from school boards about their students (distance education students.) Poor students, who are often racialized, won't have access to these distance education programs. Access and stratification will be more polarized that it already is. This will make systemic discrimination worse.

Second, the Education Act is being changed to remove the requirement that directors of education must be supervisory officers who are qualified as teachers to allow Ontario’s school communities “to choose from a wider pool of candidates with a broader skill set who are representative of Ontario’s diverse population.”

This does nothing to allow school board’s to choose from a wider pool of candidates with a broader skill set who are representative of Ontario’s diverse population. Directors Donna Quan, J. Philip Parappally, and Peter Joshua were already representative of Ontario’s diverse population, and the provincial government blamed them – and fired them! – for the governance and equity problems in the Toronto District School Board, the York Region District School Board, and the Peel District School Board.

At the same time, the government is refusing to remove racist trustees from their role as school board trustee. This is making, and will continue to make, systemic discrimination worse.

Furthermore, the government’s hiring announcement does not address positions other than directors of education. Currently, the Toronto District School Board has 2 associate directors who are black, 7 superintendents who are Black, 2 South Asian superintendents, and 2 Asian superintendents. The rest of the superintendents – 23 others – are white. Ministry Lecce’s announcement does nothing to address hiring at this level. Nor does it do anything to address hiring at the principal, vice-principal or teacher level where employees are also predominantly white.

Even if principals want to hire teachers who will better reflect the diverse population of students at their school, they can’t because Regulation 274 says principals must hire the most senior applicant. The provincial government has done nothing to address this aspect of the problem. This will allow systemic discrimination in hiring and promotions to continue.  

Furthermore, no changes to the Education Act were even necessary for school boards to hire non-teachers as directors of education. The Education Act states in Section 8 (1) (14) that “(t)he Minister of Education may accept equivalent qualification in lieu of any requirement prescribed for a...director of education...experience, scholarship or professional training as the Minister considers equivalent.”

Therefore, a school board could already seek Ministerial approval, under the previous regulations, if the board could make a strong case for an exception to the rule, and non-qualified and racialized directors were already hired before the Education Act changed. Bruce Rodrigues, the Supervisor of the Peel District School Board, named Jaspal Gill as temporary Interim Director of Education – Gill isn’t a qualified teacher. And the Toronto District School Board named Carlene Jackson as Interim Director of Education – Jackson isn’t a qualified teacher, either. The Education Act did not need to change for this hiring to occur.  

Moreover, Minister Lecce stated that education has become increasingly complex. So why is Minister Lecce hiring less qualified directors? We need more qualified directors, not less.

Furthermore, any new racialized directors of education that school boards hire will continue to report to the same old dysfunctional trustees, and nothing will change. Systemic discrimination will continue. Dr. Avis Glaze, a global education expert who recommended the elimination of school board trustees in Nova Scotia, wrote in Raise the Bar: A Coherent and Responsive Education Administrative System for Nova Scotia (January 2018) that over the past two decades, school boards in Canada have undergone several dramatic changes. First, provincial governments have significantly decreased the number of school districts, and these amalgamations have been accompanied by a large reduction in the number of school board members.

The result is that board members are now responsible for a much larger geographic area, with many more schools, students, and parents. This makes it more difficult for trustees to stay in touch with local community issues.

There has also been a general decline in school board autonomy as educational policy and decision-making have become more centralized by provincial governments.

Dr. Glaze says these changes have put school boards in a difficult position. School boards are now expected to be “interest representatives” for their communities, trustees for all children educated by the school district, and implementers of the directives of provincial governments at the same time. These competing objectives are in conflict, which leads to role confusion. This is a major reason why school boards appear dysfunctional.

Dr. Glaze says school board members can also easily become representatives of special interest or other mobilized groups within their communities, instead of working towards the common good of everyone in the district, and without the benefit of political parties to bind members together, research indicates that elected school boards can become “undisciplined, fractious entities that fail to coalesce around common goals.” This phenomenon – school board members representing narrow interests without a sense of common purpose – is another source of school board failure.

Dr. Glaze also pointed out that school boards could easily become “jurisdictional silos.” School boards were initially created because educational issues could no longer be effectively managed alongside other municipal issues. But now school boards can sometimes operate “walled off” from the rest of local political and civic leadership. This can make it difficult to coordinate efforts to tackle complex social problems related to things like health, poverty, crime, and systemic discrimination.

Therefore, Premier Ford and Minister Lecce are creating an education system where racialized directors of education are getting blamed – and fired – for dysfunction and governance issues that were created when the provincial government significantly decreased the number of school districts, reduced the number of school board members, made the geographic areas of school boards much larger, and centralized education policy and decision-making. The Ontario government is blaming racialized directors of education for a problem it created itself. Systemic discrimination will continue, and I believe this is actually a discriminatory response.

Third, the Ontario government has promised to work with the Ontario College of Teachers to toughen the rules to ensure educators who make racist comments or engage in discriminatory actions are held accountable.

This change is necessary, but doesn’t address racist trustees.

On June 29 2020, the Ottawa Carlton District School Board considered an external investigator's report regarding an incident that occurred last March between a board member (Trustee Donna Blackburn) and a student (Styles Lepage), and determined that a breach of the board member code of conduct had occurred. (Trustee Blackburn had admonished Lepage, 17, for playing basketball at a park that had been closed due to Covid-19. She told young Mr. Styles – who is Black – that people who don’t follow the rules go to jail.)

The trustees in the Ottawa Carlton District School Board imposed sanctions in accordance with what they were permitted under the Education Act. (They censured Trustee Blackburn, barred her from attending a meeting and from sitting on committees for six months. These are the only sanctions that are allowed in the Education Act.)

Minister Lecce announced in the Legislature on July 8, 2020, “I…am disturbed by the comments of the trustee in question…I share deep concern related to the comments and the impact those comments have on this young man’s life…As stated by member’s of her community, it was shameful, it was racist, it was abuse of her privilege. It is clear that this trustee must do the right thing and step down.”

Trustee Blackburn is refusing to resign. Now what? Trustee Blackburn will continue in her role as school board trustee, and systemic discrimination will continue.

Legal counsel at the Ombudsman’s Office even told senior officials at the Ministry of Education in December 2018 that the Education Act needed to change so that problematic trustees are dealt with in a consistent and fair manner across the province. The government did not change the Education Act to address trustee conduct. The government changed the Education Act to allow the hiring of non-teachers for director of education positions instead, which doesn’t even need to happen to help eliminate systemic discrimination, and which won’t help eliminate systemic discrimination. The government is ignoring the Ombudsman’s recommendation, which will allow systemic discrimination to continue.

Furthermore, Chris Ellis, a trustee with the Ottawa-Carlton District School Board (OCDSB) tried to make a statement during the OCDSB’s Code of Conduct meeting regarding Trustee Blackburn, but he was not allowed.

Trustee Ellis has since posted his statement publicly, and he stated that the Trustee Code of Conduct in the OCDSB requires a decision by 2/3 of the board to determine racism, and any trustee refusing to be silent and wanting to call out a racist act is precluded from voting, which benefits the perpetrator of the act.

“That this Code of Conduct process was used to stop public delegations to the board is another example of systemic racism embedded in the Code of Conduct,” Trustee Ellis wrote. “I am guilty of perpetuating this systemic racism as I initially kept quiet and went along with the misguided assumption that this process could hold a trustee to account. It cannot. I apologize to Styles Lepage and the black community for not calling out the racist incident immediately.” (I’ve attached a copy of Trustee Ellis’ statement with his permission.)

In response to the issues in the Peel District School Board, Minister Lecce put trustees under supervision, but only after they asked to be put under supervision. (See “Trustees approve motion requesting appointment of Supervisor by the Minister of Education” at https://www.peelschools.org/trustees/boardhighlights/Pages/Article.aspx?art-id=2876).

Minister Lecce will likely say (if asked) that he couldn’t do anything sooner, because the regulations don’t allow for anything to be done sooner. This means those regulations also need to change. They, too, are continuing to contribute to systemic discrimination.  

Furthermore, trustee supervision will only last for a short period of time. When power is returned to the trustees, it will be returned to the same trustees, and if there are continued governance issues or equity concerns – and there will be because the governance structure itself is responsible for the dysfunction – the new racialized director – Colleen Russell-Rawlins – will be blamed for the dysfunction and fired.

Additionally, the trustees are responsible for Ms. Russell-Rawlins’ performance appraisal and whether or not her employment contract gets renewed. So Ms. Russell-Rawlins will be obligated to do as the trustees say. Round and round the discrimination merry-go-round we will go.

Kristin Rushowy reported that “14 of the province’s 72 directors have left or are leaving at some point this year — an unprecedented number that represents about 20 per cent of all public boards.” (“Directors of education don’t need to be teachers, province proposes,” Toronto Star, July 8, 2020.)

Andrew Campbell, a teacher, writer and speaker curated a spreadsheet on Twitter (July 9, 2020) that shows more than one third of Ontario’s directors of education have recently retired or will be retiring in the months ahead.

We are now beginning to see a mass exodus of directors of education across the province. Additionally, two school board Chairs – Corey McBain (York Region) and Robin Pilkey (Toronto) – are stepping down.

It’s no wonder.

Look at the power structure and the government’s ineffective handling of the governance situation, and you’ll see why.

Directors of education report to trustees, who are dysfunctional. This dysfunction was created when the provincial government significantly decreased the number of school districts, reduced the number of school board members, made the geographic areas of school boards much larger, and centralized education policy and decision-making.

Directors can’t say anything about the power structure or trustees will give them poor performance appraisals and won’t renew their employment contracts. Directors are blamed and fired by the provincial government for any dysfunction that occurs – especially if they are racialized. The government is allowing the hiring of less qualified racialized directors. So there will be more dysfunction, not less. The power structure needs to change, not the qualifications of school board directors.  

Superintendents, principals, vice-principals and teachers cannot speak out about the problem, either. They are told they have a duty of loyalty to the school board, which is a cornerstone of any employment relationship, especially those who work in public service. Superintendents, principals, vice-principals and teachers are punished, demoted – even fired – if they speak out.

School boards tell principals and vice-principals who speak out that they are attempting to subvert Board objectives and operational plans, and not modeling the Practices and Competencies as articulated by the Ontario Ministry of Education in its document, Leadership Framework for Principals and Vice-Principals, Leader Practices and Competencies. Lawyers, human resource departments, and professional associations like the Ontario Principals’ Council support this position.

The Ontario College of Teachers (OCT), another professional association, tells the public that the OCT supports the provincial government’s initiatives to eradicate racism and discrimination in the province’s education system, even though their leadership team is all white. They also tell teachers that teachers do not have freedom of expression if the content reflects poorly on their school, their school board, or the teaching profession. The OCT recently made a statement about this (July 21, 2020) where you can see both statements – side by side – on the following email communication:

Unions tell teachers to say nothing, or teachers will be subjected to retribution and harassment by their employer. This is reflected in an opinion piece written by a retired teacher, Ken Durkacz, who wrote, “Teachers are…warned by their boards and by their federations not to take issues to the media, even for a civilized debate. It is seen as criticism, and will be met with threats, bullying and harassment from board human resources.” (See “Teacher input is what’s missing from school-board’s top down approach,” the Hamilton Spectator, November 15, 2018.) These comments also apply to making comments on social media or to anyone in general.

This aspect of the problem was confirmed in the Peel District School Board (PDSB) review when the reviewers wrote, “To be an effective part of the organization, human resources management requires strong ethical leadership, and the ability to coordinate and align organizations functions, roles and accountabilities…For some of its functions, human resources must play a watchdog role with respect to identifying and addressing inappropriate practices and changing norms. This last role should be embraced by the entire system, but often is not.”

The reviewers also called on teachers “to stand up for their students and their colleagues, and to relentlessly challenge anti-Black racism and other human rights violations,” but teachers can’t because of the above reasons. Teachers, principals, vice-principals, superintendents, even directors, are caught between a rock and a hard place.

Most people don’t realize that school board trustees approve promotions, demotions and firings. Page 30 of Educating Together, A Handbook for Trustees, School Boards, and Communities, Ontario Public School Boards’Association (OPSBA), 2003 states that a “school board’s mandate to operate the school system includes hiring and evaluating the performance of the director of education. It also involves approving the hiring, transfer, promotion, and termination of other staff...In all these situations, the school board is the employer.”

Most people also don’t understand that trustees act as their own gatekeepers. There is no oversight – none whatsoever – except for the provincial government, and Premier Ford and Minister Lecce are not acting as proper gatekeepers.

The Ontario Public School Boards’ Association (OPSBA) represents all English public district school boards and public school authorities across Ontario, and serves more than 1.3 million public elementary and secondary students, and is silent on the racist trustee issue. OPSBA is seen as the credible voice of public education in Ontario and is routinely called on by the provincial government for input and advice on legislation and the impact of government policy directions. OPSBA is supposed to advocate on behalf of the best interests and needs of the public school system in Ontario.

Is it not in the best interests and needs of Ontario’s students to eliminate racist trustees? 

Instead of helping to stamp out systemic discrimination in education, OPSBA is protecting it own interests, which is discriminatory, and Premier Ford’s government is protecting racist school board trustees, which is also discriminatory.  

Fourth, the Ontario government has promised to end streaming in Grade 9. This is a welcome change, but it requires a great deal of support and accountability measures, which haven’t been provided. The former director of education for the Toronto District School Board, Dr. John Malloy, tweeted (July 7, 2020), “‘De-streaming’ is a great first step, however, this change is necessary & complex, & will need much support & accountability so that students are successful.”

Annie Kidder, of People for Education, said, “There is quite a lot of agreement that streaming is problematic. I think at the same time, people are saying, ‘Just a minute, how is this going to be supported? How is this going to be implemented, especially in the middle of COVID?’ Those questions are really important questions.” (“Yes to destreaming grade 9, say experts, but smaller classes and more supports are needed,” Kristin Rushowy, Toronto Star, July 7, 2020.)

Liz Stuart, president of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association said, “…once again, we see the Ford government charging ahead with a policy announcement before any genuine consultation or planning has been carried out. Research and experience suggests that to have the intended effect, destreaming should be accompanied by reduced class sizes, strict guidelines around class composition.” (“Yes to destreaming grade 9, say experts, but smaller classes and more supports are needed,” Kristin Rushowy, Toronto Star, July 7, 2020.)

Dr. Ann Lopez, who teaches educational leadership and policy at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto, said she worries because this provincial government “does not have a track record of engaging in anti-racist education, anti-oppressive work,” nor has it put the resources in schools to do so. (“Yes to destreaming grade 9, say experts, but smaller classes and more supports are needed,” Kristin Rushowy, Toronto Star, July 7, 2020.)

Dr. Charles Pascal, a former Deputy Minister of Education and Professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto, tweeted (July 9, 2020), “Starting with one subject??? Clueless. Systemic barriers to destreaming success r deep and cross-cutting.”

Dr. Pascal called this “another message of superficial messaging,” (July 9 2020). He wrote (July 12, 2020), “They are sending two messages at the same time. Math is important. Racism is bad...Phoney, insidious, shameful, superficial. The very worst kind of virtue signalling.”

Dr. Pascal told The Pointer that the destreaming announcement is superficial unless there are major changes to how teachers teach, to the curriculum, and to the recruitment of teachers. (“Details scarce as PDSB directive to end streaming in grade 9 is rolled out across the province,” July 8, 2020.)

Dr. Pascal also tweeted (July 9, 2020), “I do not believe that this minister has any moral authority or ideas or knowledge worthy to offer a single public ed teacher in Ontario. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Period.”

Dr. Andy Hargreaves, professor at Boston College and the University of Ottawa tweeted (July 10, 2020), “Ending grade 9 streaming in Ontario, is a good 1st step. Building a better alternative is the next big one.”

Dr. Michael Fullan, professor emeritus and whole system reform expert, tweeted (July 10 2020), “Now we need a solid, complete, education policy that encompasses this piece. Ad hoc policy is a cherry pickers paradise.”

The government did not listen to these education experts. The government did not allow for any constructive or bold dialogue. The government motored ahead and pushed its plans through under the guise of “COVID-19 Economic Recovery,” with a majority government (76 of the 124 seats until they kicked MPP Karahalios out of caucus for voting against her own party’s legislation).

Majoritarianism,” which is a term used by Arleen Huggins in the Peel Review, is contributing to systemic discrimination.

Moreover, the government appointed Jamil Jivani as Special Advisor to the Premier. Mr. Jivani is a lawyer with a background in community safety issues and expertise in helping unemployed teachers transfer their skills to non-school employment opportunities. This is not the type of educational expertise the provincial government needs.

Mr. Jivani’s appointment is even more worrisome when you consider what Akwasi Owusu-Bempah, an assistant professor at the University of Toronto who studies race and policing, said. Mr. Jivani has “made his way into more and more offices and rooms and positions based on…work that in many ways certainly wouldn’t pass the academic peer-review process.” (See “Ontario’s opportunities advocate accused of anti-Blackness,” Globe and Mail, July 17, 2020.)

Rinaldo Walcott, a Black studies scholar and former director of University of Toronto’s Women and Gender Studies Institute, also said it’s dangerous to have Mr. Jivani in this role because “significant, important policy positions will be obscured.” (See “Ontario’s opportunities advocate accused of anti-Blackness” Globe and Mail, July 17, 2020.)

Arleen Huggins even questioned why a lawyer was assigned anti-black racism tasks in her review of the PDSB.

Therefore, the Ontario Human Rights Commission needs to question the provincial government’s decision to hire a lawyer instead of education experts, too.

We will never eliminate systemic discrimination in education until we deal with the governance structure. And the only way to deal with the governance structure is to take away trustee control over the hiring, promotion and firing of school board employees.

If the government takes away hiring, promotion and firing of school board employees, then what is there left for trustees to do? Not much. So why have them?

Here’s the bottom line: If parents have issues or concerns, they don’t need to contact a school board trustee. They can:

1. Talk to their child’s teacher. If not satisfied…

2. Talk to their child’s vice-principal or principal. If not satisfied…

3. Contact the superintendent. If not satisfied…

4. Contact the director of education. If not satisfied…

5. Contact a local advocacy group like the Ontario Learning Disabilities Association or Autism Ontario. If not satisfied…

6. Contact the Office of the Ontario Ombudsman. If not satisfied…

7. Contact the local MPP.

The local MPP is the only person who can make a difference. The trustees cannot make one ounce of difference. So why are we deluding ourselves into thinking they can? They can’t, and they don’t.

Anyone who understands our complex education system will tell you that school board trustees are irrelevant. They have no useful purpose, except to protect the government, which allows systemic discrimination to flourish.

And of course school board trustees are irrelevant. Dr. Glaze pointed out in her review of the Nova Scotia education system that the first local school board was established in Boston in 1721. That’s nearly 200 years ago!

We live in a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world – the VUCA world – not a world where there are a few families living in isolated communities who need a teacher for their children.  

We’ll never solve pressing and complex issues like systemic discrimination if we don’t change the governance structure!  

The provincial government is calling out teachers – and firing racialized directors! – without addressing the root cause of the problem or understanding that the government itself caused the problem when the government significantly decreased the number of school districts, reduced the number of school board members, and took away local autonomy.

The government’s hastily cobbled together equity “strategy,” partially buried in Bill 197, the Covid-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020, and partly announced to the Toronto Star, will not solve systemic discrimination. It will make systemic discrimination worse!

The government’s response to systemic discrimination is a form of “virtue signalling,” nothing more than compliance without context,” a term used by Investigator Arleen Huggins in her Review of the Peel District School Board.

The Ontario government is using a “limited checkbox approach,” another term used by Huggins in the PDSB Review. (The government had to do something because there were dozens of protests and marches, media frenzy, social media storms, applications to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, and your letter to Minister Lecce, Mr. Dhir, asking about a provincial plan.)

The current governance structure is so broken that even Black activist groups are advocating to keep racist trustees.

How do I know this?

When I tweeted, “The government is blaming and firing racialized directors for systemic discrimination, but leaving racist trustees intact,” (July 18, 2020), Black Lives Matter – Peel, a group formed to dismantle anti-Black racism in the Peel District School Board, tweeted, “You need to let it go. You are a privileged white woman centring herself in a conversation that doesn't concern you.”

Black Lives Matters – Peel is advocating to keep racist trustees!

There in lies the brokenness – and the complexity – of the education system. 

We need a new style of leadership, not less qualified directors. The PDSB Reviewers wrote:

Clearly what the recommendations call for is educators and leaders - including elected leaders - who are aware of their own place in the world and who will bring a higher consciousness and personal commitment to the work of ensuring that every effort has been made to achieve success for all of the children for whom they are responsible. Our recommendations call not only on the PDSB but on the principal organizations within the education sector and within the Ministry of Education to step forward and to redouble their efforts toward ensuring equality in outcomes in education.

In making our recommendations, we call for a new style of leadership in the PDSB and other boards facing similar circumstances; leadership that has, through rigorous assessment of its own strengths and weaknesses, demonstrated the capacity to face the evidence of systemic inequity and to grasp the complexity of the issues facing those less able to advocate for themselves. The task for those leaders is to bend best efforts of our education systems into effective service for all (page 39).

How do we get this new style of governance/leadership?

1. By eliminating elected school board trustees in favour of regionally appointed advisory councils.

2. Through consciousness training for everyone involved, including Premier Ford, Minister Lecce and every MPP in the province.

Eliminating streaming and the voluntary suspension of students in JK – 3 make perfect sense as long as there are proper supports and accountability measures in place.

The rest of the education changes the provincial government is making are nothing more than political propaganda, designed to further the government’s agenda of online education, which will worsen systemic discrimination.

Distance education programs will not solve the problem. Neither will hiring non-teachers as directors of education nor blaming and firing racialized directors for a problem the government created itself.  

The government must address the broken governance structure or nothing will change.

The Ontario government is doing the exact same thing that Arleen Huggins determined the Peel District School Board (PDSB) director and trustees were doing when Minister Lecce put the PDSB under supervision and terminated the contract of Director of Education Peter Joshua.

Therefore, Premier Ford and Minister Lecce need to be put under supervision, too.

Sincerely,

Debbie L. Kasman

M. Ed, Policy Studies, OISE/University of Toronto, Education Re-imagined, Analyst & Researcher, Author & Speaker

CC:      Premier Doug Ford

            Education Minister Stephen Lecce

            Doug Downey, Attorney General

            Elizabeth Dowdeswell, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario

            Ena Chadha, Interim Chief Commissioner, OHRC

            Violetta Igneski, Commissioner, OHRC

            Randall Arsenault, Commissioner, OHRC

Patrick Case, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ministry of Education

Nancy Naylor, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Education

Dr. Michael Fullan, Professor Emeritus, OISE/UT

Dr. Charles Pascal, Professor, OISE/UT

Dr. Andy Hargreaves, Professor Boston College and University of Ottawa

Dr. Ann Lopez, Professor, OISE/UT

Dr. Avis Glaze, education thought leader

Annie Kidder, People for Education

Liz Stuart, president of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association

Sam Hammond, President, Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario

Harvey Bischof, President, Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation

Rusty Hick, Executive Director, Ontario Public School Boards’ Association

Cathy Abraham, President, Ontario Public School Boards’ Association

Tony Pontes, Executive Director, Council of Ontario Directors of Education

Joy Badder, Executive Director, Ontario Public Supervisory Officials Association

Jim Costello, Executive Director, Public Council of Ontario Directors of Education

Allyson Otten, Executive Director, Ontario Principals’ Council

Nancy Brady, President, Ontario Principals’ Council

Brian Jamieson, Ontario College of Teachers

Raj Dhir

Executive Director and Chief Legal Officer, Ontario Human Rights Commission

June 21, 2020

Dear Mr. Dhir,

I wrote to you on June 9, 2020, after reading the letter you wrote on behalf of the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) to Education Minister Stephen Lecce on June 5, 2020 about the Peel District School Board (PDSB) Review.

I wrote to you to express my concerns about trustees refusing to remove themselves from hiring panels for all employees, except for directors of education, in the PDSB, the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board (KPRDSB), and in other school boards across the province.

Today, I am writing with other significant concerns including the PDSB’s decision to launch a Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation (SLAPP) suit against the community agencies that have been speaking out in support of Black students.

This letter is rather lengthy. Please bear with me while I explain. 

In June/July of 2019, I conducted a survey of English-speaking school boards in the province, and the survey shows that trustees sit on hiring panels for vice-principals and principals in 23% of the school boards in Ontario that responded, and on hiring panels for superintendents in 77% of the school boards in Ontario that responded. (The response rate was 53% so the number is likely much higher.)

It was not enough that Minister Lecce removed trustees from hiring panels for all employees, except for Director of Education in the PDSB. Trustees should have been removed from hiring panels for all positions, except Director of Education in all school boards across the province.

In fact, trustees should have been removed from hiring panels for Directors of Education as well. School board trustees rarely hire racialized people into these positions. The vast majority of Directors of Education in Ontario are white.

There is a gender imbalance on many senior leadership teams in school boards across the province as well, with some senior leadership teams heavily skewed toward men. The vast majority of superintendents in the province are white as well.

In 2012, I contacted the Ontario Public Supervisory Officials’ Association (OPSOA) to gather data. According to the OPSOA database, there were 299 superintendent members of OPSOA at the time. (This number represents those who had chosen to renew or become OPSOA members. Some superintendents were not members.)   

According to OPSOA, 158 of those 299 superintendents were female and 141 were male. This appears to be good news, from a gender perspective, until you look at the next set of data.

Local school board data collected from individual board websites showed that gender imbalances (slanted toward men) existed in 21 of the 60 English school boards across Ontario. This meant that 35% of the English Public and Catholic boards – or over one-third of Ontario’s English school boards – had senior administrative teams that were gender imbalanced, favouring men over women.

There were even 4 boards that had an alarming gender imbalance – heavily slanted toward men with no ability to balance gender in one or two hires. The Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board (KPRDSB) was one of those boards. The other three boards were the District School Board of Niagara (DSBN), the Grand Erie District School (GEDSB) Board, and the Halton District School Board (HDSB). There is no way to determine the ethnic make-up of superintendents because that data is not collected.

There is also an inconsistent application of trustee sanctions across the province, which contributes to systemic race and gender discrimination.

For example, some trustees are barred from school board meetings indefinitely, while other trustees aren’t barred from school board meetings at all, even if they espouse xenophobic or racist views.

Former Trustee Larry Killens was barred from all school board meetings in the Rainbow District School Board (RDSB) until the end of his term for attempting to help parents, while the York Region District School Board (YRDSB) did not bar Trustee Elizabeth Terrell-Tracey from school board meetings even though Trustee Terrell-Tracey had made xenophobic comments.

The YRDSB’S Integrity Commissioner was asked to intervene, and the YRDSB eventually put a slew of sanctions on Trustee Terrell-Tracey, including barring her from private, public and advisory meeting, even though it was evident that there was no mechanism in the Education Act that allowed this type of sanction.

I know this because Trustee Larry Killens from the RDSB filed a complaint with Ontario’s Ombudsman. In a letter dated February 11, 2019, Jean –Frédéric Hübsch, Counsel at the Ombudsman’s Office, wrote to Mr. Killens:

“Our Office spoke with the School Board and the Ministry of Education about this concern and their interpretation of the relevant legislative provisions. Both [the RDSB and the Ministry of Education] provided our Office with different rationales for why the board of trustees was entitled to impose this ongoing sanction.

“After reviewing these responses, our Office escalated our concerns about this sanction to senior officials within the Ministry of Education. During our December 2018 meeting with the Ministry, we noted that the Education Act did not plainly state that trustees could be barred from meetings indefinitely, and that the legislation should clearly provide for this outcome if that is the intention. We noted that the apparent lack of clarity could lead to inconsistent application of sanctions. We also noted that recent case law in the municipal sector indicates that sanction provisions are generally narrowly construed.

“When asked about the status of consultations on trustee conduct matters that had been announced in March 2018, the Ministry stated that it intended on pursuing this avenue but declined to provide a timeline.

“We explained that our Office is committed to monitoring the Ministry’s response to our concerns and that we may follow up with the Ministry if the concerns are not addressed.

“…we have spoken with senior officials at the Ministry of Education about the interpretation of the Education Act’s penalty provisions for trustees. We will closely monitor this issue going forward and may follow up with the Ministry if required.”

Trustee Killens appealed the Ombudsman’s decision, and on March 6, 2019, Wendy Ray, General Counsel at the Office of the Ontario Ombudsman wrote to Mr. Killens again:

“As you are aware, our Office has found room for improvement in the School Board’s conduct processes, as set out in past letters to you and to the School Board. More recently, we have suggested to the School Board that it engage an independent third party, such as an integrity commissioner, for future formal conduct matters. It is up to trustees to decide to implement my suggestions...

“…Our review did identify concerns with the sanction imposed on you by the board of trustees following the conduct process. The relevant provisions of the Act may be open to different interpretations. The inconsistent interpretations we received with respect to the sanctions set out in the Education Act resulted in our meeting with senior officials at the Ministry of Education. As explained to you in our earlier correspondence, the Ministry has said it intends to pursue consultations on trustee matters. We intend to monitor this closely and continue our efforts to promote consistent and accountable school board governance across Ontario through engagement with the Ministry.

“We will continue to pursue concerns arising from our review at the provincial level…”

This response is significant because it demonstrates that:

• trustees can refuse to act on the Ombudsman’s recommendations;

• trustees are not following Bill 177 and the Education Act;

• senior officials at the Ministry of Education were told by legal counsel at the Ombudsman’s Office that the Education Act needs to change, and it hasn’t been changed;

• to date, there have been no Ministry consultations on this matter.

This leads to my third reason for writing.

The Ontario Ombudsman can’t force the Ministry of Education to change the Education Act and there is no political will to solve this problem. Ministry Lecce tells the public that he and his government are determined to confront all forms of racism, discrimination, and hate all the time. For example, Minister Lecce issued this statement on June 8, 2020, after he released the Huggins’ report:

“We are determined to confront all forms of racism, discrimination, and hate, against all minority communities in our province. For too long, too many kids have been left behind due to systemic frameworks that perpetuate racism. This is unacceptable and must change…

“…We cannot and will not sit idle, while families and students continue to feel isolated, victimized, and targeted. It is clear that we must continue our work to confront racism - specifically anti-Black racism - within our schools across the province. Our Government will continue to drive change, demand improvement, and stand-up for students who face hate and racism."

Minister Lecce and his Government aren’t confronting all forms of racism, discrimination, and hate, against all minority communities in the province. They aren’t confronting racism – specifically anti-Black racism – within schools across the province. Minister Lecce isn’t driving change, demanding improvement, and standing up for students who face hate and racism. Minister Lecce is only addressing the issues in the PDSB, and he isn’t addressing those concerns properly.

A review of Minister Lecce’s Twitter account shows he mostly tweets out information about other Government portfolios or “fluffy” stuff. For example, Minister Lecce recently tweeted about talking to Normal Powell about last year’s basketball victory, “planting” ‘stay inspired’ signs, restarting family visits in long-term care and seniors homes, birthday wishes to Caroline Mulroney, supporting the human shirt campaign, re-opening childcare, taking action to protect commercial tenants from being locked out or having their assets seized by their landlords during Covid-19, the night he won the election, and accidental outfit matching.

Charles Pascal, former assistant deputy minister at the Ministry of Education, called Minister Lecce’s behaviour “stage craft.” Mr. Pascal is currently a professor of human development and applied psychology at OISE/University of Toronto. He ought to know!

Minister Lecce is a communications expert and nothing more. Yet Minister Lecce is in charge of one of the Government’s most important portfolios!

Shree Paradkar, a journalist with the Toronto Star, pointed out that the situation in the PDSB is “a train wreck sliding on it own debris.” That was before the Huggins’ report, before major demonstrations at the Board Office involving thousands of people, before Director Joshua announced the hiring of Dr. Avis Glaze as a Special Consultant and then walked it back, before the trustees asked the Ministry of Education to appoint a Supervisor, and before the media revealed that Director Peter Joshua, Vice-Chair David Green, Associate Director Mark Haarmann and Superintendent Gayle Solomon-Henry have taken legal action on behalf of the PDSB.

On October 29 and 30, 2018, four months after Premier Ford was elected and Minister Lisa Thompson was named Minister of Education, I wrote to MPP Lorne Coe (Whitby). Mr. Coe replaced Patrick Brown as the Conservative party’s education critic in January 2018. Mr. Coe is the current Chief Government Whip for the Conservative party.  

Over the course of several emails, I told MPP Coe that a crisis was brewing in education in Ontario, and the Ontario government needed to intervene. I explained that two different high profile school board reviews (TDSB and YRDSB) had pointed to a culture of fear, silence and retribution in the education system as well as a dysfunction and deficit of leadership capacity on both the administrative and elected sides of the organizations and systemic discrimination.

I also explained that Elizabeth Terrell-Tracey had made comments perceived to be discriminatory and xenophobic during her election campaign for trustee in the YRDSB. Ms. Terrell-Tracey was elected anyway, and in spite of mounting public concerns and after exploring several options, the YRDSB announced there was nothing the school board could do to remove Terrell-Tracey from office because no such mechanism exists in the Education Act. (This was before YRDSB decided to bar Ms. Terrell-Tracey from private, public and advisory meetings.)

Mr. Coe replied to me on October 29, 2018 saying he would forward my email to Education Minister Lisa Thompson for her review and response.  

Minister Thompson did not respond.

On November 1, 2018, I wrote to MPP Coe again. Kathy Beattie, Mr. Coe’s Constituency Office Manager, responded to me on November 19, 2018 saying that MPP Coe had hand delivered my correspondence to Education Minister Lisa Thompson in the Legislature the previous week.

Minister Thompson still didn’t respond.

I filed a complaint with the Office of the Ontario Ombudsman on March 25, 2018. After 10 months of telephone calls and evidence submissions, an Investigator with the Ombudsman’s Office wrote to me to say that the Ombudsman’s Office had completed its review of the concerns I had raised and would not be taking any further action regarding my complaints.

In her letter, the Investigator cited the reasons given not to proceed with my complaint: the Ombudsman’s Office does not have the authority to reverse school board decisions, or substitute their views or decisions for those of a school board.

On January 11, 2019, I responded to the Investigator, and copied Premier Doug Ford, Education Minister Lisa Thompson, Deputy Minister of Education Nancy Naylor, and Assistant Deputy Minister Patrick Case and others on my letter. I also sent a copy of the letter to every MPP in the province asking them to hand deliver the letter to Minister Thompson in the Legislature.

In this letter, I pointed out that:

• Trustee Gordon Gilchrist from the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board had written a letter to the editor of his local newspaper in 2008 that many deemed to be racist.

• The Board of Trustees had removed Trustee Gilchrist from the board’s Program Committee, but they had allowed him to continue to sit on other committees and to continue to be involved in the hiring panel for dozens of superintendents and directors.

• In 2016, Trustee Gordon Gilchrist made disparaging comments again, this time against members of the Alderville First Nation youth band.

• The Board of Trustees censured Trustee Gilchrist again and removed him from the board’s Expulsions Committee, but they continued to allow him to sit on the Board’s Program Committee and to be involved in the hiring of superintendents (even though they were about to hire a superintendent to oversee the Ontario First Nation, Métis, and Inuit Education Policy Framework).

• Trustee Gilchrist had sent me an email expressing “an attitude of disdain for the Islamic cult and all it stands for,” after a Muslim girl was appointed as Student Trustee.

• Trustee Gilchrist said her appointment was causing him “some grief,” and he was considering his own “course of action.”

• Trustee-elect Elizabeth Terrell-Tracey had made comments perceived to be xenophobic, racist and hurtful prior to being elected as trustee, and the York Region District School Board said they were powerless to force her to resign.

• The Superintendent of Equity at the York Region District School Board, Cecil Roach, had written a scathing letter to senior staff, blasting the York Region District School Board for refusing to properly deal with complaints of racism and expressing concerns about speaking out for fear of reprisal when Trustee Nancy Elgie had used the “n” word to refer to a Charline Grant after a public meeting, and the Board of Trustees didn’t invoke the Code of Conduct against Trustee Elgie, and when a principal had posted anti-Muslim comments to her Facebook page and the Director of Education mismanaged the situation.

 I also pointed out to the Ombudsman that:

• The Ministry of Education's Operational Review Guide for Ontario District School Boards 2010 explicitly states that trustees are not to sit on the hiring panels of vice-principals, principals and superintendents because it’s contrary to Bill 177, the Student Achievement and School Board Governance Act, Bill 177.

• Trustees are to sit on the hiring panels for directors of education only.

• Margaret Wilson, a former Registrar with the Ontario College of Teachers and former Deputy Minister at the Ministry of Education, had pointed out in her 2015 review of the Toronto District School Board that:

o   Many of the Toronto District School Board trustees “interfered” in operational decisions on a regular basis.

o   One area in particular in which trustees interfered was in the promotion, appointment and transfer of vice-principals, principals and superintendents.

o   Trustees had final say in who was promoted and transferred during these deliberations, and this resulted in trustees having substantial control over the professional careers of applications.

o   A special assistance team and an Ernst and Young audit had already told the Toronto District School Board trustees that this was not “best practice.”

o   These comments were based on the Ministry Operational Review Guide for Ontario District School Boards, 4th Edition (September 2010), which states: “Trustees do not sit on hiring panels (exception: hiring the director of education) but provide policies to govern staffing and recruitment.”

I received the following responses to my January 11, 2019 letter:

• MPP Tibollo's office forwarded my letter to Minister Thompson's office;

•  MPP Dunlop hand delivered my letter to Minister Thompson at a caucus meeting;

• MPP Monteith-Farrell's office sent my letter to Minister Thompson's office with a covering letter requesting that Minister Thompson respond directly to me;

• MPP Thanigasalam’s office forwarded my letter to Minister Thompson's office;

• MPP Kernaghan's office delivered my letter to Minister Thompson's office;

• MPP Lalonde's office emailed my letter to Minister Thompson;

• MPP Crawford's office forwarded my letter to Minister Thompson's office and followed up with me on February 15, 2019 saying that the Ministry of Education had acknowledged receipt of my correspondence and would be responding to me directly.

Minister Thompson still did not reply.

No one from the Ministry of Education replied, either.  

On February 15, 2019 (the same day MPP Crawford’s Office confirmed that the Ministry of Education had acknowledged receipt of my correspondence and would be responding to me directly), Education Minister Lisa Thompson told Global News, in an article called ‘Ontario government looking to merge certain regional school boards: sources’ that ”there has been “more than a decade of mismanagement and lack of oversight in the education system.”

Minister Thompson obviously knew there was a problem, and she still didn’t respond to my letter.

On February 21, 2019, the Investigator from the Ombudsman’s Office contacted me again.

In this letter, the Investigator stated that:

• The Ombudsman is an impartial officer of the Ontario Legislature, independent of the government and all parties;

• The Ombudsman does not advocate for complaints or represent the interests of public sector bodies;

• The role of the Ombudsman is to enhance governance by promoting transparency, accountability, and fairness in government and the public sector.

The Investigator concluded her letter by saying that I might wish to share my concerns with my local Member of Provincial Parliament, that as my political representative, my MPP would be the appropriate avenue of contact.

The Investigator wrote this even though she knew I had already written to every MPP in the province!  

In another letter to the Ombudsman, this one dated February 24, 2019, I explained to the Ombudsman’s Office (with a copy to Premier Ford, Minister Thompson and others) that:

• Boards of Trustees are responsible for conducting the performance appraisals of Directors of Education and renegotiating their employment contracts;

• Therefore, Directors of Education would not go against the wishes of the trustees and remove them from hiring panels, and this was a huge part of the discrimination problem.

The Investigator from the Ombudsman’s Office replied that her office was reviewing my letter.

I wrote to the Ombudsman’s Office again because they were taking so long to reply, and on June 25, 2019, I received a letter from Judy Wong, Manager of Investigations with the Ombudsman’s Office, stating, “Further communications received from you will be placed on file but not acknowledged.”

I wrote to Indira Naidoo-Harris about the systemic issues I was seeing (when Ms. Naidoo-Harris was Education Minister), and I received a response from Assistant Deputy Minister Patrick Case on April 11, 2018. (Note: this was under Premier Kathleen Wynne’s Liberal Government.)

In the email, Mr. Case wrote that he was writing on behalf of Minister Naidoo-Harris and he stated, “I hope that this letter gives you some confidence that the Ministry and indeed, in general, the leadership in publicly funded education have no interest in maintaining present day imbalances and that we are working assiduously to end and correct the process that lead to those imbalances.”

I mention this because, less than two months later, Premier Ford was elected and Education Minister Lisa Thompson cancelled the Ministry of Education’s planned professional development sessions to school boards on equity. Minister Thompson also cancelled curriculum re-writes to boost Indigenous education and the previous Liberal government’s pledge to make Indigenous courses mandatory in high school.

Premier Ford then slashed millions of dollars from the Indigenous Culture Fund, repealed the Far North Act, cut 15% in overall funding for Indigenous affairs with no new money to deal with claim settlements, and did not attend Saskatchewan’s summit with Indigenous leaders, even though all other provincial premiers were there.  

On July 15, 2019, I filed a “disclosure of wrongdoing” with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner against Education Minister Thompson for gross mismanagement in the work of the Public Service and for contravention of the Education Act, the Student Achievement and School Board Governance Act, and the Ontario Human Rights Code.

In my disclosure, I told the Integrity Commissioner that I had repeatedly written to Minister Thompson and other Education Ministers about systemic discrimination in education, and I knew Minister Thompson was aware of the problem because I had written to every MPP in the province, and seven of them had hand delivered my letter to her in the Legislature, forwarded my letter via email, or hand delivered my letter in a Caucus meeting.

I explained that Minister Thompson was also aware of the problem because of her comment to Global News.

On August 26, 2019, the Honourable J. David Wake wrote to me to say that he had carefully reviewed the information I had provided about discrimination and governance issues at school boards in Ontario, but he did not have authority under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006 to accept my information as a disclosure of wrongdoing.

Mr. Wake said he could not find a connection between my former role at the Ministry of Education in and around 2012 to 2015 and the alleged wrongdoing between 2018 and 2019.

This wrongdoing has been happening for a very long time. There was a connection. I believe Mr. Wake did not take the time to see the connection. (Or those who act as gatekeepers in his Office didn’t recognize the connection, the urgency, or the enormity of the situation.)

I contacted the Inquiries Officer at the Integrity Commissioner’s Office who had handled my file and asked what steps I should take next. The Inquiries Officer said that she was unable to suggest alternative courses of action, but I might wish to consider seeking legal advice on this matter.

I had already sought legal advice and was told by both my professional association – the Ontario Principals’ Council – and my own lawyer that nothing could be done.  

We are dealing with systemic discrimination in school boards across the province, and nothing can be done?

I asked the Inquiries Officer if the Integrity Commissioner was able to write to the OHRC and suggest the OHRC become involved, and the Inquiries Officer said the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006 does not provide a mechanism for Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner to share concerns with the OHRC.

Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner can’t approach the OHRC unless the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006 allows him to do so?

The OHRC’s website says that stakeholders or other partners are able to identify opportunities to help the OHRC identify potential matters for litigation or inquiry.

Is Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner not a stakeholder or a partner of the OHRC?

Commission initiated-applications, inquiries or interventions can even come from the public. Is Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner not a member of the public?

Minister Lecce and the entire Conservative Government are lacking the ability, the capacity, the experience and the political will to address systemic discrimination in education.

To further prove my point, on February 7, 2020 the Board of Trustees in the Durham District School Board (DDSB) reached out to Minister Lecce asking for the assistance of an external advisor/facilitator, because they are struggling with a serious harassment situation as well as other related and serious human rights issues at the senior management level. Minister Lecce promised to “expeditiously” review their request. This was nearly five months ago. Robert Cerjanec, Executive Officer, Communications and Public Relations with the DDSB confirmed via email on June 11, 2020 that a facilitator still hasn’t been assigned.

This is not responding “expeditiously” to the problem. This is not responding at all.

On June 9, 2020, I received a letter from Assistant Deputy Minister Patrick Case, who was responding on behalf of Minister Lecce, to a letter I had sent to Minister Lecce on May 19, 2020.

This is the first time Minister Lecce responded to any of my letters since he was first elected. I had asked Minister Lecce what he was going to do about the situation in the PDSB, in the DDSB and across the province.

In his letter, Mr. Case explained that following the Review of the PDSB, Minister Lecce had issued 27 binding Directions on March 13, 2020, and Minister Lecce’s concern about the PDSB’s ability to comply with those Directions had led to the appointment of investigator Arleen Huggins on April 28, 2020. Mr. Case also explained that Ms. Huggins submitted her report to Minister Lecce on May 18, and Mr. Case kindly offered a link where I could access the full report.

I had already read both the PDSB Review and the Huggins’ Report by the time Minister Lecce got around to directing Mr. Case to respond to my letter!

In fact, I had already written my previous letter to you, Mr. Dhir, letting the Ontario Human Rights Commission know that the PDSB trustees were deliberately defying Minister Lecce’s direction to remove themselves from hiring panels for all employees, expect for the director of education, and that trustees in the KPRDSB were taking the same defiant stance! I even gave you evidence of this defiant stance; it was recorded in the minutes of a Chairpersons’ Committee meeting.

Minister Lecce completely ignored my question about his plans for the province. He also ignored my question about when he would be assigning an external adviser/facilitator to assist the DDSB.

On June 14, 2020, Liberal Leader Steven Del Duca told Robert Benzie, Queen’s Park Bureau Chief for the Toronto Star (see “Doug Ford’s Conservatives are starving the human-rights system, says Del Duca,”) that Premier Doug Ford’s Conservatives have “slowly and deliberately starved to death” human rights protections, that “the equality and human rights fought for by Black Ontarians are being eroded by the Ford government,” and that Premier Ford has “left positions at the human rights commission vacant, cut or eliminated, resulting in unacceptable delays for those seeking justice.”

Premier Ford also named Randall Arsenault, an active-duty Toronto, officer, as a part-time commissioner on the human rights commission in January, while ignoring a short list put forward by the human rights commissioner to fill vacant positions, and instead chose to appoint commissioners with ties to the Progressive Conservative party.

Additionally, in 1993 when the Ministry of Education released its Antiracism and Ethnocultural Equity in School Boards Guidelines for Policy Development and Implementation document, within a month of taking office, Premier Mike Harris scrapped the entire initiative. He also fired Deputy Minister Charles Pascal because of the advice Dr. Pascal was giving.

The Conservative Party of Ontario never has the political will to deal with these types of problems.

This begs the following questions:

1. Why do we put elected officials in charge of our complicated and complex education system anyway?

2. And shouldn’t anti-racism initiatives be hands off when it comes to the chopping block?

In her book, Policing Black Lives, Robyn Maynard cites the persistent anti-Blackness in schools across Canada, explaining the degradation, harm and psychological violence many Black students face.

In 2015, it was exposed that in the Halifax Regional School Board, nearly half of the students placed on Individual Program Plans were Black.

In Mississauga, Ontario, a six-year old Black girl was placed in handcuffs after misbehaving at school, and the OHRT ruled it was discriminatory.

A 2017 report called Towards Race Equity in Education found that Black children face hyper-surveillance of their behaviour in schools. They are excluded from class from often, disciplined more frequently, suspended and expelled from schools at higher rates, pushed into non-academic streams in school, and Black boys in particular are disengaging from school as early as age seven. The report’s main author, Carl James, a professor of Education at York University, says this means not wanting to go to school, not feeling safe, and not feeling welcomed in classrooms that are not designed for them.

The PDSB Review shows that information gleaned from the Board’s own data discloses a prima facie case of race based anti-Black discrimination.

Arleen Huggins’ report shows that, “the collective Board and the Director’s Office is lacking both the ability and capacity, and perhaps even more importantly, the will, to address the findings in the Report, and therefore future non-compliance with the Minister’s binding Directions is probable.”

The DDSB is struggling

The YRDSB is struggling.

The KPRDSB is struggling.

Many school boards are struggling.

On June 19, 20202, the Ministry of Education announced, in a News Release called ‘Ontario Makes Historic Investment in Public Education,’ that it is investing $736 million more in public education for the 2020-21 school year, increasing the total to more than $25.5 billion, and this represents the largest investment in public education in Ontario’s history.

This new investment will support:

• special education,

• mental health and well-being,

• language instruction,

• Indigenous education, and

• STEM programming.

There was no mention of Anti-Black Racism.

In 1991, leadership professors Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal outlined a Four-Frame model for leadership saying that all stakeholders have access to various forms of power and all compete for their share of scarce resources in a limited “organizational pie.” Bolman and Deal also said conflict is central to organizational dynamics and power is the most important resource.

In 1990, Seymour Bernard Sarason, a Professor of Psychology at Yale University, blamed the constant failure of educational reform on existing power relationships in schools. Sarason firmly believed that any effort to reform schools must deal with the nature and allocation of power.

Therefore, I am officially requesting that the OHRC apply to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, under section 35 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, and ask for the following Orders:

1. That the Ontario Government dissolve local school Boards, eliminating the role of trustee, in favour of regionally appointed race and gender balanced advisory councils. Dr. Avis Glaze made a similar recommendation to the Ministry of Education in Nova Scotia in January 2018 through her Raise the Bar: A Coherent and Responsive Education Administrative System for Nova System report.

2.    That the Ontario Government strengthen Ontario’s Education Equity Action Plan by giving Ontario’s Chief Equity Officer the right to intervene on discriminatory matters that are brought to the attention of the Chief Equity Officer.

3.    That the Ontario Government strengthen the Ombudsman Act, giving Ontario’s Ombudsman the power to ensure boards of education comply with any recommendations the Ombudsman may make, and ensure the Ombudsman refers discriminatory matters to the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

4.    That the Ontario Government strengthen the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006 by ensuring that Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner refers discriminatory matters to the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

5.    That the Ontario Government ensure all English and French Public and Catholic professional educational associations and unions undertake equity training to better understand and fulfill their responsibility to provide leadership in accordance with the Ontario Human Rights Code and other relevant legislation.

6.    That the Ontario Government ensure all education leaders in Ontario undertake equity and consciousness training. The PDSB Review called for “educators and leaders – including elected leaders – who are aware of their own place in the world and who will bring a higher consciousness and personal commitment to the work of ensuring that every effort has been made to achieve success for all of the children for whom they are responsible.”

In order to survive the trials and challenges up ahead, we need leadership – actual leadership – to help us find our way forward, not leaders who play politics, practice “stage craft,” show themselves to their best advantage, hide their inadequacies and their limitations, and ignore complex problems.  

I’d be pleased to assist the Ministry of Education with introducing consciousness training and an integral vision to Ontario’s education system. I trained with Ken Wilber – a scholar of the Integral stage of human development. Wilber also taught and influenced Marianne Williamson, Deepak Chopra, Bill Clinton, and John Mackey. Wilber is a colleague of Robert Kegan, and Kegan was the William and Miriam Meehan Professor in Adult Learning and Professional Development at Harvard Graduate School of Education, where he taught for forty years until his retirement in 2016.

Consciousness curriculum would help address the systemic discrimination we are currently facing. It would also help school boards address other pressing and complicated psychosocial phenomenon such as the mental health and emotional wellbeing of staff and students.

It would complement the Ministry of Education’s Ontario Leadership Strategy and the Ontario Leadership Framework, which are designed to assist school boards with responding intelligently to the complex challenges they face.

It would enhance the Systems Thinking section of the Ontario Leadership Framework in particular, which states that leaders must be able “to understand the dense, complex, and reciprocal connections among different elements of the organization,” and have “foresight to engage the organization in likely futures and consequences for action.”

Additionally, consciousness curriculum would enhance the Proactivity section of the Ontario Leadership Framework, which states that leaders must be able “to stimulate and effectively manage change on a large scale under complex circumstances,” and show “initiative and perseverance in bringing about meaningful change.”

I have faith in the Ministry of Education’s Chief Equity Officer, Patrick Case, to bring about meaningful change. He is a former Human Rights Commissioner after all. But Mr. Case takes direction from Minister Lecce, who takes direction from Premier Ford, neither of whom have the expertise, wisdom, experience, capacity or political will to solve this problem.

Not only is the systemic discrimination we are currently facing in education a gross violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code, it also constitutes gross mismanagement in the work of the Public Service of Ontario as outlined in the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

In his book A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science and Spirituality, Wilber wrote that our governing bodies stand in dire need of a more integral approach. “It is our educational institutions...that are desperate for a more integral vision. It is our business practices, saturated with fragmented gains, that cry out for a more balanced approach. It is our health-care facilities that could greatly benefit from the tender mercies of an integral touch. It is the leadership of the nations that might appreciate a more comprehensive vision of their own possibilities. In all these ways and more, we could indeed use an integral vision for a world gone slightly mad.”

The ORHC can access all evidence referred to in this letter by accessing HRTO FILE: 2019 – 38872 – I.

Please intervene.

Yours truly,

Debbie L. Kasman

M. Ed, Policy Studies, OISE/University of Toronto, Education Re-imagined, Analyst & Researcher, Author & Speaker

[Editor’s note: On June 22, the Ministry of Education announced the appointment of former Deputy Minister of Education Bruce Rodrigues as Supervisor to the Peel DSB. Minister Lecce wrote in the News Release, “We know there is more to do - provincewide - which is why we will continue to work to confront racism, including anti-Black racism, in all Ontario schools across our province.”

On June 23, Mr. Rodrigues informed Director of Education Peter Joshua that he was terminating Mr. Joshua’s employment as the Board’s Director, effective immediately.

On June 25, Bruce Rodrigues appointed Jaspal Gill as temporary Interim Director of Education.

On July 16, Mr. Rodrigues appointed Colleen Russell-Rawlins as the permanent Interim Director of Education.

On November 18, 2020, Interim Director Russell-Rawlins announced that Associate Director Mark Haarmann was no longer a member of the Peel DSB’s senior leadership team.

On July 22, 2020, Ena Chadha was appointed as the interim Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Chadha was the 2019 recipient of the Indo-Canada Chamber of Commerce's Female Professional of the Year Award. She was also one of the Peel District School Board Reviewers.

As it currently stands, racist trustees are allowed to remain in their role as school board trustee.

On August 14, 2020, the Ontario Human Rights Commission responded to my letter stating that the well-being of Black, Indigenous and racialized students in the province must become a government priority, especially during the pandemic when issues of inequality are exacerbated, and that the Commission is monitoring the implementation of the recommendations of the PDSB Review, and several of the recommendations would address my concerns. The Commission specifically pointed to Directive #2 restricting trustees from participating on hiring, promotion and appointment panels, for positions other than the director of education, as one of the necessary provincial changes.

Minister Lecce still has not made this provincial change.

On September 8, 2020, I made a formal request through the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal that Minister Lecce confirm in writing that trustees will be restricted from hiring panels for all positions, except director of education, in school boards across the province.

Minister Lecce did not respond. Rather than doing the right thing – removing trustees from hiring panels – Minister Lecce ignored my request, thereby ignoring the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal as well.

On November 13, 2020, I received a letter from Shaheen Azmi, Director of Policy, Education, Monitoring and Outreach at the Ontario Human Rights Commission, confirming that the Commission did not receive a response from Minister Lecce to its June 5th letter.

This means Minister Lecce is ignoring the Ontario Human Rights Commission as well. When I pointed this out publicly on November 23, 2020, Minister Lecce met with the Ontario Human Rights Commission - 7 business days later.

On September 7, 2021, the Ministry of Education announced it was seeking input from the public on how to strengthen accountability for school board trustees.

On November 1, 2021, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) wrote to Minister Lecce in response to the consultation on strengthening accountability for school board trustees, noting the Commission was particularly interested in measures to ensure trustees are held accountable if they fail to fulfill their legal obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code).

The OHRC noted it is concerned about reports of trustees engaging in discriminatory conduct including making homophobic, Islamophobic and racist comments, stating it is “particularly troubling when such behaviour is exhibited by education leaders entrusted with the responsibility to ensure school systems uphold and champion human rights.”

The new Chief Commissioner, Patricia DeGuire, wrote:

The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that school boards must foster an atmosphere of tolerance and respect and cannot rely on the personal views of some individuals to deny equal recognition for the human rights of other members of the school community.

The minimum standards for codes of conduct should require school board trustees to respect, protect and promote human rights at the board and throughout the education system they govern. They should state that school boards and their trustees have a legal duty under the Code to maintain an inclusive environment, free from discrimination and harassment for trustees, student trustees, board staff, students, parents and guardians and members of the public. Boards and their trustees must take steps to prevent and respond appropriately to violations of the Code or they may be held “liable” and face monetary penalties or other orders from a tribunal or court.

To support these minimum standards and Code obligations, all board members should be required to successfully complete Ministry-approved education and training on human rights. Required training should include anti-racism, as well as content on Indigenous (First Nations, Métis and Inuit) cultural sensitivity and cultural safety that is developed and delivered by the Indigenous communities served by their board.

The OHRC strongly recommends that boards be required to establish a complaint process that ensures all allegations of discrimination by a trustee, including complaints made by student trustees, board staff, students, parents and guardians and other members of the public, are brought to the board’s attention. The process should make clear that, in accordance with the Code no person shall be negatively treated for raising a complaint, providing information related to a complaint or helping to resolve a complaint. Moreover, information about the availability of a complaint process should be easily accessible and widely publicized.

School boards have a duty to take complaints alleging a breach of the Code seriously and to act upon them promptly. Human rights jurisprudence has established that a duty holder’s failure to investigate and address allegations of discrimination and harassment in a timely and effective manner can cause and/or exacerbate the harm of discrimination.

School boards have a Code duty to take action when a trustee is found to have engaged in discrimination. Since the goal of human rights legislation is preventative and remedial rather than punitive, steps must be taken to both remedy the effects of the discrimination and prevent future occurrences.

The Education Act sets out potential sanctions for a trustee’s breach of the code of conduct, including censure and barring a trustee’s participation in board meetings and committees (s.218.3(3). The OHRC submits that, in certain circumstances, other measures may be necessary and appropriate to meet the remedial and preventative goals of human rights law. For example, mandating participation in additional human rights training could serve to prevent further Code breaches. Stronger sanctions, such as removal from office where the law permits, may be necessary in the case of a very serious breach. The OHRC recommends that school boards have all of the authority necessary to remedy human rights violations.

The Education Act requires school boards to vote publicly on determinations of code of conduct breaches and the imposition of sanctions. The OHRC recommends that boards be required to publicly report aggregate data on all complaints and their outcomes, on an annual basis.

The OHRC calls on the Ontario government to undertake any legislative, regulatory and/or policy changes necessary to implement these recommendations.

You can read the Commission's full letter to Minister Lecce here:

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/news_centre/ohrc-submission-ministry-education-consultation-strengthening-accountability-school-board-trustees]

To receive updates directly to your inbox, click here: https://bit.ly/DebbieLKasmanupdates]

CC: Premier Doug Ford

     Education Minister Stephen Lecce

         Doug Downey, Attorney General

          Violetta Igneski, OHRC Commissioner

          Randall Arsenault, OHRC Commissioner

Patrick Case, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ministry of Education

Nancy Naylor, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Education

J. David Wake, Integrity Commissioner

Paul Dubé, Ombudsman

Peter Joshua, Director of Education, PDSB

Louise Sirisko, Director of Education, YRDSB

Norah Marsh, Acting Director of Education, DDSB

Jennifer Leclerc, Director of Education, KPRDSB

Tony Pontes, Executive Director, CODE

Ontario Public School Boards’ Association

Ontario Public Supervisory Officials’ Association

Dr. Charles Pascal, OISE/U of T

Dr. Avis Glaze, Edu-quest International Inc.

Annie Kidder, People for Education

**      I will be making this letter public on my website at www.debbielkasman.com.

The Globe and Mail wrote about the situation here.

The Board of Trustees censured Trustee Gilchrist and removed him from the Board’s Program Review Committee, but the Board of Trustees allowed Trustee Gilchrist to continue to sit on hiring panels. Trustee Gilchrist was involved in the hiring of many superintendents after that.

It didn’t even occur to the Board of Trustees or the Director of Education at the time to remove Trustee Gilchrist from hiring panels for superintendents and directors.

In 2016, Trustee Gilchrist made xenophobic comments again, this time about members of the Alderville First Nations Youth Band. The youth band was playing in the foyer at the Grand Opening of the Cobourg Collegiate Institute, Education Minister Liz Sandals was in attendance and Premier Wynne had just released the government’s Action Plan for Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. Premier Wynne had also just publicly apologized for the brutalities committed for generations at residential schools and the continued harm this abuse caused to indigenous cultures, communities, families and individuals.

The Toronto Star wrote about that situation here.

The Director of Education hired a third party investigator to investigate the allegations made by the students. The investigator concluded that given the balance of probability the assertions the students made about Trustee Gilchrist were substantiated.

At a Board meeting, the Board of Trustees censured Trustee Gilchrist in a unanimous and recorded vote. The Board of Trustees also voted to remove Trustee Gilchrist from the Board’s Expulsion Committee for the remainder of that committee’s term. But a motion to remove Trustee Gilchrist from the Board’s Program Review Committee was struck down in a tie vote. Therefore, Trustee Gilchrist was allowed to continue to chair the committee responsible for implementing the First Nation, Métis, and Inuit Education Policy Framework.

The Board of Trustees also allowed Trustee Gilchrist to continue to sit on hiring panels, even though they were about to hire a new superintendent to support the implementation of the First Nation, Métis, and Inuit Education Policy Framework.

The director of education did not veto or even caution the Board of Trustees’ about their decisions.

Trustee Gilchrist also sent me an email after a female Muslim student was appointed to Student Trustee saying the appointment was causing him some “grief,” and he was considering his own “course of action.” In the email, Trustee Gilchrist wrote that he had “an attitude of disdain for the Islamic cult and all it stands for.”

I forwarded the board a copy of that email on June 6, 2016.

No one responded.

However, Trustee Gilchrist did resign a few days later.

The Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board’s hiring policy continues to state that the Board is responsible for the appointment of directors and superintendents in spite of these gross violations. This means the same trustees who mismanaged the Trustee Gilchrist situation will be involved in the hiring of the new superintendent.

Bill 177 states that trustees are to be involved in the hiring panels of directors of education only.

The previous director recommended the Kawartha Pine Ridge DSB’s hiring policy be changed to better align with Bill 177.

But in a Chairpersons’ committee meeting, at which Trustee Gordon Gilchrist was present, the trustees refused to remove themselves from hiring panels for superintendents. The minutes of the Chairpersons’ meeting show the trustees “felt they should not readily give in to having their authority removed.”

Trustee Cathy Abraham chaired the meeting. She was the Committee Chairperson and Chair of the Board at the time. Ms. Abraham is now the President of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association. Trustee Sarah Bobka, the Vice-Chair of the Board at the time, was also at the meeting. Trustee Diane Lloyd was present, as well as Trustee Jaine Klassen Jeninga and Trustee Angela Lloyd. This group comprised the Chairpersons’ Committee, and all of these trustees are still trustees in the Kawartha Pine Ridge DSB today.

In fact, Diane Lloyd, Angela Lloyd, Sarah Bobka, and Cathy Abraham continue to sit on the Chairpersons’ Committee today. As a result, they will be directly involved in the hiring of the new superintendent based on Board policy. Their current senior leadership team is entirely white and consists of six men and only three women. These are the same trustees who “felt they should not readily give in to having their authority removed,” the same trustees who allowed Trustee Gilchrist to continue to sit on hiring panels after espousing xenophobic comments twice.

In March 2020, Minister Lecce issued 27 Directions to the Peel DSB to address systemic discrimination and other governance issues in the board. Direction #2 was for members of the Board to immediately cease to participate on hiring, promotion and appointment panels, including temporary or acting positions, except for the position of Director of Education because governance dysfunction is perpetuating inequities of opportunity and success across that board.

As part of that directive, the Board was also to establish a policy restricting members of the Board from participating on hiring, promotion and appointment panels for positions other than the Director of Education.

The Peel Board of Trustees passed a motion on March 24, 2020 ceasing the participation of trustees in the hiring and promotion processes of all Board employees except for the Director of Education, and on March 26, the Board submitted a letter to Minister Lecce confirming the agreement.

On April 17, 2020 the Superintendent of Human Resources was assigned to develop Board Policy on restricting the Board of Trustees in the hiring and promotions process, and on May 19, 2020 the policy was presented to the Trustee Review Committee. On May 26 the policy was presented to the Board of Trustees at the Regular Meeting of the Board with a recommendation for approval, and on May 27 the Board submitted a letter to Minister Lecce confirming the policy had been approved.

A copy of the Peel DSB’s new policy can be found here.

Please confirm, within nine business days, that trustees in the Kawartha Pine Ridge DSB will NOT be participating on the hiring, promotion and appointment panel for the hiring of the next superintendent. (I chose nine business days because that’s how long Education Minister Lecce gave the Peel DSB Trustees to remove themselves from participating on hiring, promotion and appointment panels for positions other than the Director of Education.)

Please confirm, within nine business days, that trustees in the Kawartha Pine Ridge DSB will NOT be participating on the hiring, promotion and appointment panel for ANY employee on a go forward basis.

Please confirm the Board’s hiring policy has been changed restricting members of the Board from participating on hiring, promotion and appointment panels for positions other than the Director of Education by June 19. (I chose this date because the next Regular Board Meeting, where the new policy will need to be approved, is June 18.)

Please confirm receipt of this letter within 48 hours.

Also, please confirm that you’ll be supporting the Ministry of Education’s Equity Action Plan by hiring a racialized female for the next position of superintendent.

If you do not respond to my letter within 48 hours and confirm the above changes within the timelines given, I’ll be escalating the situation to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal through a Request for an Order During Proceedings – Rule 19 Form 10 and naming the individuals responsible for the hiring of this superintendent and others in my complaint.

Yours very truly,

Debbie L. Kasman

M. Ed, Policy Studies, OISE/University of Toronto, Education Re-imagined, Analyst & Researcher, Author & Speaker

[Editor’s Note: On June 9, 2020 Jordene Lyttle, Parnter with Promeus Inc. replied, “Dear Ms. Kasman: This is to acknowledge that Marilyn Gouthro and our Partners are in receipt of copies of your communication dated June 4, 2020 and June 8, 2020. Promeus Inc. is committed to ensuring and supporting equity, diversity and inclusion in our work with clients and candidates across all sectors.” Neither the director or the chair of the board has responded.

On June 9, 2020, I wrote to Raj Dhir, Executive Director of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, asking the Commission to intervene.

On June 10, 2020, the Chair of the York Region DSB Juanita Nathan wrote, “Thank you for  sharing your correspondence with the Board of Trustees in regards to hiring matters. You raise many excellent points that require consideration by the Board in its ongoing work. I appreciate your interest in public education and governance matters. Thank you.” Ms. Nathan was referring to my letter to Mr. Dhir, Executive Director of the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

On June 15, 2020, the Director of Education for the York Region DSB Louise Sirisko wrote, “Thank you for reaching out to me. You raise important points for consideration and reflection for staff.” She was also responding to my letter to Mr. Dhir, Executive Director of the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

On June 19, 2020 Director Leclerc announced her early retirement.

On September 7, 2021, the Ministry of Education announced it was seeking input from the public on how to strengthen accountability for school board trustees.

On October 31, 2021, Ontario’s Ombudsman Paul Dubé made a submission in response to the Ministry’s consultation on school board governance. Dubé made 14 recommendations to address the trustee situation including that:

• School boards should be required to have a process whereby stakeholders other than trustees may make complaints under a trustee code of conduct, and should be required to publicize this process.

•  School boards should be prohibited from charging fees for the public to make trustee conduct complaints.

• Trustee codes of conduct should specify that school board members should not engage in any reprisal or threat of reprisal against anyone for filing a complaint under the code of conduct, or co-operating with an integrity commissioner during a review or investigation. Members should also be prohibited from obstructing or attempting to obstruct investigations.

You can read the Ombudsman’s full report here.

On November 1, 2021, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) wrote to Minister Lecce in response to the consultation on strengthening accountability for school board trustees, noting the Commission was particularly interested in measures to ensure trustees are held accountable if they fail to fulfill their legal obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code).

The OHRC noted it is concerned about reports of trustees engaging in discriminatory conduct including making homophobic, Islamophobic and racist comments, stating it is “particularly troubling when such behaviour is exhibited by education leaders entrusted with the responsibility to ensure school systems uphold and champion human rights.”

The new Chief Commissioner, Patricia DeGuire, wrote:

The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that school boards must foster an atmosphere of tolerance and respect and cannot rely on the personal views of some individuals to deny equal recognition for the human rights of other members of the school community.

The minimum standards for codes of conduct should require school board trustees to respect, protect and promote human rights at the board and throughout the education system they govern. They should state that school boards and their trustees have a legal duty under the Code to maintain an inclusive environment, free from discrimination and harassment for trustees, student trustees, board staff, students, parents and guardians and members of the public. Boards and their trustees must take steps to prevent and respond appropriately to violations of the Code or they may be held “liable” and face monetary penalties or other orders from a tribunal or court.

To support these minimum standards and Code obligations, all board members should be required to successfully complete Ministry-approved education and training on human rights. Required training should include anti-racism, as well as content on Indigenous (First Nations, Métis and Inuit) cultural sensitivity and cultural safety that is developed and delivered by the Indigenous communities served by their board.

The OHRC strongly recommends that boards be required to establish a complaint process that ensures all allegations of discrimination by a trustee, including complaints made by student trustees, board staff, students, parents and guardians and other members of the public, are brought to the board’s attention. The process should make clear that, in accordance with the Code no person shall be negatively treated for raising a complaint, providing information related to a complaint or helping to resolve a complaint. Moreover, information about the availability of a complaint process should be easily accessible and widely publicized.

School boards have a duty to take complaints alleging a breach of the Code seriously and to act upon them promptly. Human rights jurisprudence has established that a duty holder’s failure to investigate and address allegations of discrimination and harassment in a timely and effective manner can cause and/or exacerbate the harm of discrimination.

School boards have a Code duty to take action when a trustee is found to have engaged in discrimination. Since the goal of human rights legislation is preventative and remedial rather than punitive, steps must be taken to both remedy the effects of the discrimination and prevent future occurrences.

The Education Act sets out potential sanctions for a trustee’s breach of the code of conduct, including censure and barring a trustee’s participation in board meetings and committees (s.218.3(3). The OHRC submits that, in certain circumstances, other measures may be necessary and appropriate to meet the remedial and preventative goals of human rights law. For example, mandating participation in additional human rights training could serve to prevent further Code breaches. Stronger sanctions, such as removal from office where the law permits, may be necessary in the case of a very serious breach. The OHRC recommends that school boards have all of the authority necessary to remedy human rights violations.

The Education Act requires school boards to vote publicly on determinations of code of conduct breaches and the imposition of sanctions. The OHRC recommends that boards be required to publicly report aggregate data on all complaints and their outcomes, on an annual basis.

The OHRC calls on the Ontario government to undertake any legislative, regulatory and/or policy changes necessary to implement these recommendations.

You can read the Commission's full letter to Minister Lecce here.

For updates, click here: https://bit.ly/DebbieLKasmanupdates.

To read my letter to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, click here.]

CC: Premier Doug Ford,
MPP Merit Styles
MPP Mitzie Hunter
MPP Kathleen Wynne
MPP Lorne Coe
MPP Michael Coteau
MPP Dave Smith
MPP Lindsey Park
MPP David Piccini
Federal MP Maryam Monsef
Patrick Case, Education Equity Secretariat
Nancy Naylor, Ministry of Education
Marilyn Gouthro, Promeus
Toronto DSB Trustees/Senior Administrators
Durham DSB Trustees/Senior Administrators
York Region DSB Trustees/Senior Administrators
Peel DSB Trustees/Senior Administrators
Kawartha Pine Ridge DSB Trustees/Senior Administrators
Thames Valley DSB Trustees/Senior Administrators
Ontario College of Teachers
Ontario Principals’ Council
Council of Ontario Directors of Education
Ontario Public Supervisory Officials’ Association
Ontario Public School Boards’ Association
Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario
Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation
Mustafa Ali, National Council of Canadian Muslims
Muhammad Akthar Skaikh, Kawartha Muslim Religious Association
Nouman Ashraf, Rotman School of Management
Chief Dave Mowat, Alderville First Nation
Deputy Grand Council Chief James R. Marsden, Anishinabek Nation
Charline Grant, parent York Region DSB
Charles Pascal, OISE/U of T
Annie Kidder, People for Education
Kristin Rushowy, Toronto Star
Shree Paradkar, Toronto Star
Travis Dhanraj, Global News
Mike Crawley, CBC
Caroline Alphonso, Globe and Mail
Jillian Follert, DurhamRegion.com
Kennedy Gordon, Peterborough Examiner

** Most of the copies will be sent under separate cover.

With all due respect, though, Dr. Malloy, sometimes school boards use confidentiality as a secret weapon.

We need to talk about that.

I pointed out to the Durham DSB Trustees, in an email dated May 3, 2020, with a copy to Patrick Case and Nancy Naylor at the Ministry of Education, that accountability, honesty and transparency are the only things that matter right now. Everything else is secondary. The Durham DSB Trustees are currently dealing with very serious harassment issues at senior levels as well as discrimination.

As the parents of Queen Victoria Public School pointed out in their letter to the Toronto DSB, “Privacy and confidentiality cannot be prioritized over school and public safety.”

School boards have been using confidentiality as a way to hide egregious behaviours for a very long time. Whether it’s intentional or not, it needs to stop.

As Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow Lahey from the Harvard Graduate School of Education pointed out in their book, An Everyone Culture: Becoming a Deliberately Developmental Organization, “In an ordinary organization, most people are doing a second job no one is paying them for. In businesses large and small; in government agencies, school, and hospitals; in for-profits and nonprofits, and in any country in the world, most people are spending time and energy covering up their weaknesses, managing other people’s impressions of them, showing themselves to their best advantage, playing politics, hiding their inadequacies, hiding their uncertainties, hiding their limitations. Hiding.”

In addition to figuring out new ways to deal with confidentiality during investigations, school boards must also stop issuing trespass letters to individuals who speak truth to power. School boards also need to stop issuing cease-and-desist letters to employees who attempt to inform the public of what’s going on behind closed doors.

The Peel DSB recently issued a trespass letter to parent and activist Idris Orughu. Mr. Orughu told City News that he was banned for absolutely no reason. He said the board has not demonstrated that he was violent or uttered a threat at any point. This situation is eerily similar to what happened to Christian Cooper earlier this week in New York’s Central Park when Amy Cooper (no relation) threatened to call (and did call) the police on Mr. Cooper after he asked her to put her dog back on its leash.

When City News reached out to the Peel DSB asking how many trespassing notices had been issued to members of the public, a spokesperson would only say “a trespass notice” was issued, but no further details were provided due to “privacy” considerations.

When Shree Paradkar asked for the reason, the board’s director of education, Peter Joshua, responded by saying, “The board is bound by privacy obligations to all involved so I am unable to comment.” As Ms. Paradkar pointed out, either say why Mr. Orughu was banned or lift the ban.

Privacy considerations, cease-and- desist letters, and the culture of fear, silence and retribution breed complicity.

Silence acts as a mighty gatekeeper and allows systemic discrimination to perpetuate itself.

When Bhumika Munroe, a teacher with the Peel DSB, wrote a Letter To The Editor (Professionally Speaking, June 2020) bravely calling out the Ontario College of Teachers for their lack of representation of visible minorities, their lack of representation of teachers representing any cities with populations larger than 120,000, and for painting a false picture in their March 2020 article, "Teaching Through the Decades,” the Editor responded to Ms. Munroe’s letter by stating, "…we recognize there is a cultural diversity that we did not include. We endeavour to ensure the publication is inclusive and will be more conscious in our consideration of representational criteria going forward."

Yet when I wrote to the Ontario Principal’s Council pointing out a video they had released in May, 2020 for National Principals’ Day depicted 16 men and only 9 women, and the vast majority of the people who appeared in the video were white, the Ontario Principals’ Council removed the video a few days later, but no statement was given nor any apologies made to the women and racialized people who were impacted.

It’s time to call silence like this what it is - bad behaviour by people and organizations who know better.

It’s bad behaviour by people and organizations who spend time and energy “covering up their weaknesses, managing other people’s impressions of them, showing themselves to their best advantage, playing politics, hiding their inadequacies, hiding their uncertainties, hiding their limitations. Hiding,” as Kegan and Laskow Lahey said.

It’s an educational superpower that’s being used for all the wrong reasons.

I’ve been in touch with Charline Grant, parent and activist from the York Region DSB. Ms. Grant made headlines in 2017 and again in 2019 for her activism in York Region, and she filed an Application with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal against the York Region DSB. Ms. Grant has kindly given me permission to copy her on my communications on a go forward basis.

I’ve also been in touch with trustees and senior administrators from the York Region DSB, the Kawartha Pine Ridge DSB, the Durham DSB, the Peel DSB and the Thames Valley DSB.

I’ve written to Assistant Deputy Minister Patrick Case and Deputy Minister Nancy Naylor at the Ministry of Education.

I’ve written to Premier Doug Ford, Kathleen Wynne when she was Premier, four different education ministers including Minister Lecce and every MPP in the province.

I’ve also written to the Ontario Ombudsman and Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner.

No one will deal with this problem. [Edit May 29, 2020: Mr. Case is doing his best, but he works for the educational behemoth. Without proper backing from the Minister of Education, there’s not a lot Mr. Case can do.]

If Minister Lecce doesn’t deal with this problem soon – appropriately, properly, responsibly and fully – the education system will implode on itself. This is what’s currently happening in Ontario’s long-term care system.

There was no political will to solve the long-term care crisis until the military stepped in. There’s no political will to solve systemic discrimination in education, either, and that’s a huge part of the problem.

You’ve pointed the boat in the right direction, Dr. Malloy. We need to celebrate that; hence, my letter. (In my opinion, you are one of the best educational leaders Ontario has ever had. [Edit May 29, 2020: Mr. Case is doing a mighty fine job, too.] But your leadership alone is not enough. Besides, you are leaving the province in five months.)

Racialized students are being traumatized by the education system. There are high suicide rates amongst 2SLGBTQ+ students. Indigenous students are underreported because of the stigma associated with self-identifying as being Indigenous. Latin American students are grossly underrepresented in regional choice learning programs. There is factional violence amongst South Asian communities, and this youth violence is exacerbated by the use of drugs and alcohol amongst South Asian students. There are serious concerns about Islamophobia, French curriculum materials that convey blatant hostility to the Muslim community, an ignorance of the basic tenets of Islam, and concerns about how these concerns are being handled. Women have to work twice as hard as men in order to be promoted, even harder if they are racialized. Black men are being killed in the United States in alarming numbers. George Floyd is the latest. The video of his death at the hands of police is horrific. The Black community in the U. S. feels as if the police put a knee on their collective necks. I suspect that’s how the Black community in Canada feels right now, too.

It’s our job as educators to help eliminate systemic discrimination in society instead of perpetuating it.

In a recent Opinion piece, Shree Paradkar pointed out that “even leaderless movements need a shepherd, someone who will be there come blizzard or high water, who can be relied upon to agitate, to represent, to hold feet to fire.”

Let’s agitate. Let’s be there come blizzard or high water. Let’s represent all cultures, all genders, all creeds and all races, and collectively hold Minister Lecce’s feet to the fire.

Ms. King and Ms. Zuberi, please forward this letter to Minister Lecce and your local MPPs and ask when the Ontario government is going to resolve systemic discrimination and the culture of fear, silence and retribution that exists in education once and for all. Also, please forward this letter to any individuals or organizations who are concerned about this growing crisis and ask them to forward it to Minister Lecce and their local MPPs.

Ms. King, please forward this letter to the parents who assisted you at Queen Victoria Public School and ask them to forward it to parents who are concerned and ask them to do the same.

Peel DSB trustees, please forward this letter to the Peel advocacy group who sent you the online petition, the 18 organizations who sent you the letter asking for the termination of individuals, to Mr. Orughu, to Stephen Lecce and to your local MPP, and ask these individuals and organizations to send it to Minister Lecce and their local MPPs.

Ms. Grant, please forward this letter to individuals in the York Region DSB community who wish to help make a difference and ask them to forward it to Minister Lecce, to their MPPs, and to others who are concerned and ask them to do the same.

Durham DSB superintendents and teaching community, please do the same.

Please also share it widely on social media.

Let’s work together to help stamp out systemic discrimination and the culture of fear, silence and retribution in education in Ontario forever.

Yours in education,

Debbie L. Kasman

M. Ed, Policy Studies, OISE/University of Toronto, Education Re-imagined, Analyst & Researcher, Author & Speaker

[Editor’s Note: Dr. John Malloy responded publicly within a few hours: “Thank you Debbie for sharing your perspective.... We have to keep moving forward. Much appreciated, John.”

On May 29, 2020 at 9:23 a.m. Robin Pilkey, Chair of the Toronto DSB responded: “Hello Ms. Kasman, On behalf of the Board, thank you for copying us on your letter. You have raised many excellent points and there is no doubt as a board we still have work to do. This work cannot stop, regardless of who our director is, and as Chair I am committed to ensuring that this will be at the forefront of trustee’s minds as we search for a new director. The events at Queen Victoria PS, and any others like it elsewhere, are unacceptable. Again, thank you for sharing your perspective. Regards, Robin Pilkey.”

Dr. Malloy and Ms. Pilkey issued the following statement on May 29, 2020 in the evening:

“Subject: Statement from TDSB Chair Robin Pilkey and Director John Malloy

"Racism in all forms is deeply rooted in our history. This week reminds us of the ongoing impact of anti-Black racism on individuals and communities. Through the media, we have witnessed violence and harassment against members of the Black community. We are acutely aware of the devastating impacts of anti-Black racism in our world, in our community and in the Toronto District School Board.

“These events are felt personally, and in different ways by our students, staff and community at the TDSB. We recognize that there are a myriad of feelings being experienced by Black staff and students in the TDSB. There is a heightened sense of vulnerability and reactions of sadness, insecurity, anger, and grief – to name a few. It is incumbent upon all of us to stand up and do whatever it takes to end racism, hate and oppression of all kinds. Silence is not acceptable. The profound harm it causes to individuals, families and communities can no longer be debated or tolerated and must be stopped.

“The Toronto District School Board continues to be committed to equity and inclusion, and we acknowledge the importance of addressing anti-Black racism. As we continue to serve students and communities, these acts of violence are critical reminders that we need to remain focused and committed to the changes that need to happen for our students and families. We need to continuously examine our commitment on how we make schools safe places for all students, staff, parents and communities.  

“In the TDSB, we do not always get things right, but we will maintain an unwavering focus on ending anti-Black racism and all forms of oppression. We know we need to hear the voices of our students, community and staff, and make sure our equity efforts are informed by these voices. In our sadness, let us work towards change and hold each other accountable for taking a stand against individual and systemic acts of anti-Black racism. Let us work together to make a difference and fight against all forms of racism and hate as we strive to change the future in the lives of our TDSB community and beyond.”

I forwarded a copy of the letter to the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario and asked them to consider sharing it with their membership. On June 1, 2020, I received the following response: “Hi Debbie and thank you so much for sharing your letter. We had a lot of discussion about it among staff and it prompted ETFO to release a broader statement today on anti-Black racism in view of the current protests happening around the world. I’ve attached the statement. Thanks again. “ Valerie Dugale, ETFO Media Relations. ETFO’s statement can be found here.

On June 5, 2020 Black parents at Queen Victoria P. S. launched a petition asking for further change. You can sign/view the petition here.

On June 17, the TDSB unanimously voted to approve funding to create a new TDSB Centre for Black Student Achievement, the first of its kind in Canada.

For updates, click here: https://bit.ly/DebbieLKasmanupdates]

CC:    Premier Doug Ford,
MPP Merit Styles
MPP Mitzie Hunter
MPP Lorne Coe
Patrick Case, Education Equity Secretariat
Nancy Naylor, Ministry of Education
Toronto DSB Trustees/Senior Administrators
Durham DSB Trustees/Senior Administrators
York Region DSB Trustees/Senior Administrators
Peel DSB Trustees/Senior Administrators
Kawartha Pine Ridge DSB Trustees/Senior Administrators

Thames Valley DSB Trustees/Senior Administrators

Ontario College of Teachers
Ontario Principals’ Council
Council of Ontario Directors of Education
Ontario Public Supervisory Officials’ Association
Ontario Public School Boards’ Association
Charline Grant, parent York Region DSB
Kristin Rushowy, Toronto Star
Shree Paradkar, Toronto Star
Jillian Follert, DurhamRegion.com
Travis Dhanraj, Global News
Mike Crawley, CBC
Caroline Alphonso, Globe and Mail

** Most of the copies will be sent under separate cover.

May 15, 2020

Dear Durham District School Board Teaching Community,

I’m writing to thank you for reading and sharing my Open Letter to Durham DSB trustees. Nearly 10,000 people have read the Open Letter!
In the letter, I criticized the Durham DSB’s decision to accept Lisa Millar’s retirement for August 1, 2020 instead of demanding that Ms. Millar retire immediately. The trustees’ decision to allow Ms. Millar to remain in her role was a big fat institutional failure.
I also wrote to the Durham DSB trustees before writing the Open Letter, criticizing the trustees’ decision to not terminate Ms. Millar, period. Later that day, trustees voted to write to Minister Lecce to request the assistance of an external facilitator/advisor. Alexandra Adamo, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Education, said the matter was being reviewed "expeditiously.”
That was three months ago, and an external facilitator/advisor still hasn’t been assigned.
Major black community organizations in Peel are demanding the firing of the director of education and the chair and vice-chair of the Peel DSB. One of the demands came through an online petition by a Peel advocacy group. The other came in a letter to the board written by 18 different organizations. Minister Lecce hired Arleen Huggins to review the Peel DSB’s compliance with his binding directions in response.
But today, Minister Lecce participated in a “direct” live learning session and tweeted out a photo of the session with elementary students and their teacher without blocking out the students’ faces or names!
Anyone who works in education knows this is a major faux pas because it puts children at risk!
Charles Pascal, a former Deputy Minister at the Ministry of Education and professor of human development at U of T/OISE tweeted, “This is what happens when the real purpose is stage craft. ‘What can I do today that shows I am cool and smart?’”

Ministry Lecce isn’t concerned about Ontario’s children.

It’s now painfully obvious Ministry Lecce doesn’t know what he’s doing, either!

And Minister Lecce is running our education system!

To quote Shree Paradkar, Race and Gender Columnist for the Toronto Star, this is “a train wreck sliding on its own debris.” (To be fair, Ms. Paradkar was referring to the situation in the Peel DSB, but I think we can now safely attach the same label to the provincial situation.)

In their 2020 Review of the Peel DSB, the Reviewers called on teachers “to stand up for their students and their colleagues, and to relentlessly challenge anti-Black racism and other human rights violations.” The Reviewers also called on”educators and leaders – including elected leaders – who are aware of their own place in the world and who will bring a higher consciousness and personal commitment to the work of ensuring that every effort has been made to achieve success for all of the children for whom they are responsible. “

Thanks again for reading and sharing my letters, for standing up for your students and your colleagues, and for being a guiding source of calm and inspiration to our children. You are truly helping to bring a higher consciousness and personal commitment to the education system amidst incredible turmoil!

Keep doing what you are doing and stay safe!

Yours in education,

Debbie L. Kasman

M. Ed, Policy Studies, OISE/University of Toronto, Education Re-imagined, Analyst & Researcher, Author & Speaker

To read the Open Letter and related updates, click here.

CC: Premier Doug Ford
Minister of Education Stephen Lecce
MPP Merit Styles, Official Opposition Education Critic
MPP Mitzie Hunter, Scarborough – Guildwood
MPP Lorne Coe, Chief Government Whip
Nancy Naylor, Deputy Minister of Education
Patrick Case, Assistant Deputy Minister, Education Equity Secretariat
Durham DSB Trustees
Durham DSB Acting Director and Superintendents
Caroline Alphonso, Globe and Mail
Kristin Rushowy, Toronto Star
Jillian Follert, DurhamRegion.com
Shree Paradkar, Toronto Star