海角社区官网

A big part of the problem lies in the Education Act itself. Trustees are explicitly prohibited from getting involved in the 鈥渄ay-to-day operations鈥� of a school board. On paper, this division of labour makes sense: professional administrators manage the system, while trustees provide governance and oversight.

In practice, however, the line between governance and operations is so rigid that trustees have almost no ability to intervene when parents raise concerns. Whether the issue is systemic inequities, student safety, or access to special education, trustees are barred from taking any meaningful action. At best, they can pass motions or send letters 鈥� symbolic gestures that rarely change outcomes.

And yet, trustees are elected officials. That creates a false narrative that they hold real power to shape schools and deliver meaningful change. Parents who turn to their trustee for help expect advocacy, not excuses. When the law boxes trustees in, it erodes public trust and leaves families feeling abandoned. It also leaves trustees themselves disillusioned, aware that their title implies influence that doesn鈥檛 really exist.

Compounding this problem is chronic voter disengagement. Turnout in trustee elections is notoriously low, with many candidates winning with a tiny fraction of the electorate. Most electors don鈥檛 know who their trustee is or what the role entails. With so little scrutiny, accountability evaporates. Some trustees coast through multiple terms without being challenged, while others fall into controversy. We鈥檝e seen many instances where trustee expenses have come under public criticism, raising questions about whether the office itself attracts the right people.

This vacuum of accountability is one reason boards across Ontario have repeatedly ended up under provincial supervision. In my experience, the province does not look forward to stepping in. It is politically costly and resource intensive.

But time and again, from Peel to York and beyond, because trustees either failed in their duties or lacked the authority to prevent dysfunction. In effect, Queen鈥檚 Park has become the babysitter of local school boards, not necessarily because the ministry wants control, but because the democratic mechanisms meant to ensure accountability simply aren鈥檛 working.

If we are serious about fixing this broken model, the solution is to professionalize school board governance. Instead of electing trustees into powerless positions, the province should follow the model used for hospital and police boards: appoint qualified community members with expertise in governance, finance, education, and equity.

This would eliminate the false promise of electoral power, centre the focus on student success by depoliticizing the role, ensure higher standards of accountability and provide boards with the competence and authority they need to oversee complex public institutions. Parents would still have avenues to raise concerns, but governance would be rooted in skill, not popularity contests with low voter turnout.

Professionalizing school boards doesn鈥檛 mean handing them over to government loyalists. An open, public application process, reviewed by an independent panel of experts, would ensure that trustees are chosen for expertise and commitment, not political connections.聽

Unless we embrace reform, trustees will remain more illusion than influence. The ministry should act now to replace the illusion of trustee power with a model that delivers real accountability and meaningful change. Parents and students deserve no less.