More Media Attention on the Sweeping and Arbitrary Power of Ontario’s School Principals to Exclude Students from School

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Ontario for All People with Disabilities

Website: www.aodaalliance.org

Email: aodafeedback@gmail.com

Twitter: @aodaalliance

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/aodaalliance

 

More Media Attention on the Sweeping and Arbitrary Power of Ontario’s School Principals to Exclude Students from School

 

April 14, 2025

 

SUMMARY

 

Has an Ontario school told your family not to send your child with a disability to school? Have they told you that you must pick up your child with a disability from school and keep them home? Consider telling your local media about this. The news media is always looking for stories about these instances when a school has refused to allow a student with disabilities to be at school, whether for a day, part of a day, or longer stretches of time.

 

The Ontario Legislature re-opens today with a new session after this winter’s snap election. We will be watching to see if the Ford Government will give more attention to disability issues, like the need to substantially improve education for students with disabilities in Ontario schools, colleges and universities.

 

On April 1, 2025, there was a very disturbing report in The Trillium, a respected news source that reports on Queen’s Park. It revealed hitherto-secret Ford Government internal data from the Ministry of Education about the numbers of school days that students have lost because their principal has refused to allow them to come to school. The AODA Alliance, the Ontario Autism Coalition, Autism Ontario, Community Living Ontario, and other disability advocates have been sounding the alarm for years that this arbitrary power, which the Education Act gives school principals in Ontario, has disproportionately been used on students with disabilities. It is unfair, overbroad, and in desperate need of reform. The Trillium article is set out below.

 

Over three years ago, on January 28, 2022, the Ford Government received the comprehensive final report of the Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee. It provided the most comprehensive review of Ontario’s K-12 school system in our lifetimes from the perspective of students with disabilities. Among other things, it found serious problems with the current power of principals to refuse to admit a student to school. It called for major reforms to rein in that arbitrary power. After The Trillium article, we set out the 5-page extract from the K-12 final report that addresses this issue.

 

The Ford Government told the K-12 Standards Development Committee that it does not track data from school boards on the numbers of these exclusions from school and does not require school boards to track these data. That final report states:

 

“The Ministry of Education does not track data on exclusions and does not require school boards to track data on them, in contrast to suspensions and expulsions.”

 

In the more than three years since the Government received that report, the Ford Government has never disputed this statement. Yet this new article in The Trillium reveals that the Ford Government does in fact track at least some of these data. The Trillium commendably used the Freedom of Information legislation to force the Government to reveal it. As the article also shows, there is good reason to believe that the actual number of exclusions is higher than these data reveal. Even then, the data are severely worrisome. It cries out for immediate Government action, not a third of a decade of Government foot-dragging.

 

Five years ago, on July 23, 2020, the AODA Alliance made public a comprehensive survey of all 72 school boards in Ontario. It documented the policies on exclusions at each school board we could unearth. It showed that a number of boards had no policy at all on how principals should use this power. Other boards had policies, but they varied wildly from one board to the next. We concluded that in Ontario, each principal is too often a law unto themselves.

 

This is horribly unfair to students with disabilities and their families. Every student has the fundamental right to be in school and to receive an education. Excluding a student from school under this unfair power violates that right.

 

It is also unfair to school boards and school principals. The Ontario Government leaves them floundering as they try to figure out what they can and should do with this arbitrary power when operating their schools.

 

Last year, the December 4, 2024 AODA Alliance Update revealed that we had heard through the grapevine that the Ford Government had been planning some sort of a closed consultation session on possible reforms. The AODA Alliance was not invited. We wrote to ask to be included. We then heard through the grapevine that the webinar was postponed. We have not heard anything since.

 

During the February 2025 snap Ontario election, we asked all parties to make a series of commitments to people with disabilities. Among other things, we asked the parties to commit to substantially reform Ontario’s education system as it relates to students with disabilities. Premier Ford’s Conservatives were the only party that declined to answer our request for accessibility commitments.

 

Every school board is required to have a Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC). AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky is the current chair of the SEAC for the Toronto District School Board, Canada’s largest school board. TDSB’s SEAC has recently encountered difficulty in getting TDSB to reveal the total number of exclusions at that board. At two SEAC meetings this year, TDSB told its SEAC that it cannot reveal the total number of exclusions. TDSB said that the number is “small” and that to reveal that total number of exclusions would reveal the identity of individual students whom TDSB had excluded from school, violating their privacy.

 

SEAC members responded that TDSB’s excuse for not revealing the total number of students whom TDSB had excluded from school is absurd. If TDSB said that 5 or 10 or 20 or 500 or 1,000 students had been subjected to an exclusion from school, it would not reveal to anyone the names of the excluded students. You can watch the TDSB’s presentations to the TDSB SEAC on the topic of excluding students from school and the responses of SEAC members at these pinpoint links for the January 13, 2025 TDSB SEAC meeting and the March 17, 2025 TDSB SEAC meeting.

 

How You Can Help

 

• Write or call your Ontario MPP. Tell them to pressure the Ministry of Education to rein in the sweeping and unfair power of school principals to refuse to admit a student from school.
• Insist that the Ministry of Education hold an open, inclusive public consultation now, with no secrecy about it, and which is not invitation-only.

 

For More Background

 

Visit the AODA Alliance website’s education page to see what we have been doing for the past 16 years to advocate for equal educational opportunities for students with disabilities.

 

MORE DETAILS

 

The Trillium April 1, 2025

 

Originally posted at https://www.sootoday.com/local-news/ontario-kids-missing-more-school-due-to-exclusions-education-ministry-data-10465047

 

Ontario kids missing more school due to exclusions: Education Ministry data

Advocates believe the data, obtained by The Trillium, showing students were excluded for 11,776 days in 2022-23 is the ‘tip of the iceberg’

 

By Sneh Duggal

 

 

Each time Danica Ainger receives a call from her son Kylo’s school, her “heart drops.”

 

“When I pick up the phone, they go, ‘Don’t worry, everything’s okay,’ or they go, ‘Hey,’ and then I know I have to come pick him up,” said Ainger, whose son is in Grade 3 at the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. “It’s traumatic having the school call you often because your child is in distress.”

 

Kylo was diagnosed with ADHD and autism.

 

For Ainger, calls from her son’s school have been occasional this year. She received one a couple of weeks ago. In past years, like when Kylo was in senior kindergarten or Grade 2, she received them up to three times a week.

 

Kylo experienced “sensory overload” and ended up on a modified schedule, just going to school for half-days “because of his being dysregulated and them not knowing how to handle it.”

 

“When I pick him up, there’d be like four or five adults in a room staring at him, and he’d be under a desk crying, or like spitting at them or something, because he obviously feels overwhelmed,” she said.

 

Things were better for Kylo in Grade 1, Ainger said. He had a “phenomenal” teacher who even made a “safe cave” in the classroom for him, she explained.

 

Although Kylo has tested above his grade level in many areas, Ainger said he’s “disconnected” because he “knows he’s behind” after missing so much school.

 

The Ottawa mom who runs a home daycare has hit hurdles even outside of the classroom.

 

“For a field trip, unless I can go, he can’t go,” she said.

 

Ainger said she thinks having a dedicated educational assistant (EA) for Kylo who could provide him one-on-one support “would have made a massive difference.”

 

“I’ve had calls where it’s been like, ‘Hey, can you pick him up? We don’t have an EA this afternoon, so we’re not going to be able to support him if anything happens,’” she said.

 

Ainger said all this has been “extremely hard on my mental health.”

 

“As a parent with a special needs kid, you’re already feeling like a lot of time like you’re failing, because you want to just make things easier for them and help them and you’re trying the best you can, but you can only reach a certain limit,” she said. “But then to also have the people who are supposed to know what to do, who are supposed to be there … then almost be like, ‘Okay, well we give up, we can’t do it, so here you deal with it.’”

 

Ainger’s experience is not unique, according to advocates for children with disabilities, who have been raising the alarm for years about kids being excluded from school. They believe that the Ministry of Education data showing an increase in the amount of time Ontario students are excluded from classrooms in recent years only scratch the surface of the problem.

 

The Education Act gives principals the power to “refuse to admit to the school or classroom a person whose presence in the school or classroom would in the principal’s judgment be detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of the pupils.”

 

But while boards refer to this section of the act as part of the formal process for barring students from attending school, advocates say informal or “soft exclusions” are happening regularly, including due to a lack of supports.

 

They’re calling on the province to require boards to track all types of exclusions, including the informal kind they say many families experience in the form of a phone call from the school asking them to pick up their child early, and to take steps to address the issue.

 

In 2022-23, 499 elementary and high school students were excluded for 11,776 days, according to ministry data obtained by The Trillium through the freedom of information process. Around 58 per cent, or 289 students, were receiving special education services.

 

This was up from the previous two years. In 2021-22, 410 students — 210 of whom were getting special education supports — were excluded for 8,427 days.

 

In 2020-21,160 students missed a total of 5,695 days of school. About 67 per cent, or 107 students, were receiving special education services.

 

The data, which were broken down by school board, were incomplete for 2023-24 as only 49 boards and school authorities had submitted data to the ministry as of October 2024.

 

For 2022-23, the boards reporting the highest number of total days students were excluded included the Greater Essex County District School Board (2,235 days), Grand Erie District School Board (1,671 days), Ottawa-Carleton District School Board (1,433 days) and Toronto District School Board (1,328 days).

 

The data were also broken down by the reason for the exclusion: behavioural concern, medical concern, mental health concern and others.

 

Several boards, including the Durham District School Board, the District School Board of Niagara, the Halton Catholic District School Board had no exclusions listed, according to the ministry data.

 

 

When asked about this, the DDSB, for example, said it has “a number of reporting pathways.”

 

‘Tip of the iceberg’

“There’s no way that those are the full amount of exclusions,” Kate Dudley-Logue, vice-president of community outreach for the Ontario Autism Coalition (OAC), said.

 

She said the data likely represents “hard exclusions,” where as a result of an incident a student is “put on what they call a ‘pause for safety’ and told to stay home for an extended period while supports and a safety plan are put in place.”

 

Dudley-Logue said what she hears about most often are “soft exclusions” — calls made to parents saying something like, “You’re going to have to come pick up your child, we don’t have the supports in place, and they’re having a hard time.”

 

“Those are happening daily and in very large numbers,” she said. “There are literally families who just sit and wait by the phone because they know it’s going to happen multiple times a week. “

 

An OAC survey on families’ experiences with special education in public schools — which included 429 responses covering children in 60 school boards for the 2023-24 school year — found six per cent of families said their children were “fully excluded” from school, so they didn’t attend. More than a third said their children were “partially excluded,” which could include the school asking the family to pick up their child early or the child not being able to participate in activities such as field trips.

Dudley-Logue said she’s heard from school boards that they “don’t have a great tracking mechanism in order to explain these occurrences to the ministry.”

 

The Durham District School Board outlined a process it had for making formal exclusions. When asked about “soft exclusions,” it said, “When a student poses a significant risk of harm to themselves or others, we may ask the family to pick up their kids early to ensure their safety and well-being, or the safety of those around them.”

 

“Currently, DDSB does not provide a specific report to the Ministry of Education regarding these types of situations,” the board said, adding that students aren’t sent home due to staffing issues.

 

The Near North District School Board (NNDSB) said it doesn’t support the use of “soft exclusions.”

 

According to the 2023-24 data, students in the NNDSB missed more than 1,000 days of school that year. The previous year, it was 561 days.

 

“‘Soft’ exclusions are misleading; they generate issues with accurately capturing attendance on the register. All school boards in Ontario must account for a student when they are absent from school,” the board’s Safe Schools Team said in a statement.

 

As for why the board has higher exclusion data than some others, the NNDSB said, “It may be a result of other boards utilizing these ‘soft’ exclusions” and not completing the paperwork needed for formal exclusions.

 

The board added that in most exclusion cases, “the student has engaged in multiple situations that present great risk to themselves, their classmates and the staff” and are “not issued quickly.”

 

“They are taken very seriously and only utilized when the safety risk is so high that we are unable to mitigate it,” the board said.

 

Noting the use of “soft exclusions” by some boards, Dudley-Logue said, “It shouldn’t be rocket science.” Schools should have a way to indicate on their attendance systems when a student is sent home due to insufficient supports, for example, she said.

 

David Lepofsky, chair of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, agreed. He has also been advocating for boards to use such a system, saying that the current code to indicate an absence could cover several reasons.

 

Like Dudley-Logue, Lepofsky also said the overall data is the “tip of the iceberg” and that families experiencing “soft exclusions” is a real issue.

 

“This isn’t imaginary. This is a serious problem,” he said.

 

“It’s a legitimate worry that refusals to admit are being used in some instances because of a belief there isn’t enough funding for staff,” Lepofsky said. “If a principal were to say to parents of a student with a disability, ‘Your (education assistant) is sick today, so don’t come in,’ I argue that’s illegal, just illegal. They have a duty to accommodate students with disabilities.”

 

Gabriel Reznick, a staff lawyer at the ARCH Disability Law Centre, echoed the sentiment.

 

“The numbers themselves, even as low as they are, are so concerning,” said Reznick, noting the centre has dealt with cases of kids being excluded from school for more than a year. “(I) strongly believe that they’re not accurately reflecting the picture of students not being in school.”

 

He said they constantly hear from parents “telling us that they have to, almost on a daily basis, pick their student with a disability up from school.”

 

Reznick said the centre’s efforts on exclusions have focused on supporting individual student cases and trying to encourage law reforms.

 

He said he doesn’t think the section of the Education Act used to exclude students was “intended to be used for the purpose that it’s currently being used — that being to exclude students, specifically now to exclude students with disabilities.”

 

This is one thing, he said, that needs to change — “just the idea of using exclusions for students and more specifically … students with disabilities.”

 

The other issue, he said, is that the act doesn’t specifically outline what the appeals process for an exclusion is, making it the “wild west” amongst school boards.

 

In addition to addressing these issues, he questioned what the government is doing with the data it’s collecting on exclusions.

 

“The government has shown no willingness to ever deal with these issues, so what are they going to do with this information?” Reznick said. “Are they going to be willing to take some of this information, see that it’s concerning, see that a lot of students are not in school and actually do something about it?”

 

Dudley-Logue agreed.

 

“It’s pretty unconscionable to us that government has continued to not really care to find a solution,” she said. “There’s really no bigger indication of the lack of support for students with disabilities in our schools than what’s happening with these exclusions.”

 

The Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board saw students miss more than 1,100 school days in 2023-24 due to exclusions. In 2022-23, it was 264 days. The board said there is a “shortage of intensive support programs and Education and Community Partnership Program (ECPP) classes in the community for students with treatment needs.”

 

“Waiting lists are extremely long and students with multiple areas of need can be disqualified for access by virtue of their diagnoses. Investment in this area would reduce the number of student exclusions,” the board said in a statement.

 

Joe Bell, superintendent of student well-being for the Greater Essex County District School Board, said an increase in mental health support in schools and in communities could help reduce exclusions, which he said are a “last resort.” He also called for more supports for “social-emotional and well-being supports in schools.”

 

Education Minister Paul Calandra’s office did not respond to questions before publication.

 

Kirsten Marcelin, whose 5-year-old son Régis has been diagnosed with autism, called for more transparency when it comes to exclusions.

 

“I think that some of these things are really swept under the carpet,” she said, adding that people get defensive when the term “exclusion” is used.

 

“If we were really transparent about it, parents would also be able to look at it and see what’s happening and know … it’s not just me,” she said, adding that having measures in place to properly report on exclusions and then address them is key.

 

“How are we going to move past this sort of institutionalized exclusion where it is okay to do this to kids? Like I think everybody needs to be able to learn regardless of the diagnosis,” she said.

 

Marcelin said Régis started junior kindergarten at the Durham District School Board in the fall of 2023, but had his first full day of school only in April 2024.

 

Until then, he was attending school for “bits and parts of the day,” sometimes staying for lunch.

 

She said they decided to keep Régis home since November, following a “classroom-clearing incident” and frequent calls from the school to pick him up.

 

“With the adequate support, he could have started full-day from Day 1, as opposed to all of these scenarios that he just couldn’t navigate,” said Marcelin, adding that while the school really tried to “make it work,” they noticed several “micro-exclusions built into the day” where he wouldn’t participate in certain activities because his educational assistant was busy.

 

“And as a kid, by then, he sees that everybody stays at school, and he wanted to be there,” she said.

 

Explore the full dataset below.

-Data visualizations by Jessica Smith Cross

 

Excerpt from the January 28, 2022 K-12 Education Standards Development Committee Final Report

 

Exclusions/refusals to admit to school/reduced school hours recommendations

 

Barrier: parents/caregivers have concerns with the use of the principal’s power to exclude students from school. (Also called refusal to admit to school) Section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act requires principals to:

 

“Subject to an appeal to the board, to refuse to admit to the school or classroom a person whose presence in the school or classroom would in the principal’s judgment be detrimental to the physical or mental well being of the pupils.”

 

Concerns are expressed that a significant proportion of those excluded from school are students with disabilities. The Ministry of Education does not track data on exclusions and does not require school boards to track data on them, in contrast to suspensions and expulsions.

 

Parents/caregivers identified a lack of due process, such as:

• not being told the reason for the refusal to admit or how to challenge it
• no limit on how long the refusal to admit can continue
• the absence of a plan for the student’s return to school
• no assured provision of alternative education program while the student is excluded
• no consistent and fair process to appeal the refusal to admit

 

There are many stories from parents/caregivers about formal and informal arrangements for a student with disabilities to attend for less than the full school day or school week without the parents’/caregivers’ voluntary consent. The school board places the student on a “modified school day.” There are no consistent practices for when or how this can occur, the documentation to be kept, or plans for return to full time school.

 

Concerns have been raised that in some situations, a student with disabilities is excluded from school directly or indirectly because the school has not effectively accommodated that student, as is required by the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Charter of Rights.

 

A survey of Ontario school boards showed that a majority of boards have no policy on how and when a principal may refuse to admit a student. Of the 33 boards for which a policy was obtained, these policies vary substantially. A student, excluded from school, and their parents/caregivers are treated very differently from one board to the next. Students and parents/caregivers across Ontario deserve the same safeguards. Principals are placed in a difficult position, not knowing what they can and should do.

 

These recommendations seek to reduce or eliminate the number and duration of exclusion of students with disabilities. References to “refusal to admit” includes formal and informal exclusions, and exclusions from school for all or part of the school day. These measures should be set out in the K-12 Education Accessibility Standards.

 

Our recommendations regarding Refusal to Admit are:

69. The K-12 Education Accessibility Standards should require the following of any school board and of the Ministry of Education where it operates schools:

 

69.1 exclusions/refusals to admit should only be imposed in rare cases when it is demonstrably necessary to protect the health and safety of students or others at school, and only after all relevant accommodations for the student up to the point of undue hardship have been explored or attempted.

 

69.2 refusal to admit of a student shall not last more than five consecutive school days, unless formally extended following the due process requirements required for an initial refusal to admit.

 

69.3 refusal to admit a student to school cannot be used, in whole or in part, for purposes of discipline of a student, or as a form of discipline of that student. A student shall not be subjected to a refusal to admit to school for purposes of facilitating a police investigation.

 

69.4 when considering whether to refuse to admit a student to school, the principal and school board should take into account the fact that excluding a student from school is contrary to the student’s right to an education. The principal and school board should also proceed from the starting point that the rights of students with disabilities under the Ontario Human Rights Code, including their right to accommodation of their disability-related needs up to the point of undue hardship, take primacy over all other Ontario laws and policies.

 

69.5 the principal must make a family aware of the possibility of exclusion as early as that option realistically presents itself as being under consideration. The school board shall have a mandatory meeting with the family before a refusal to admit is imposed, or if crisis circumstances arise without any warning, as soon after the refusal to admit as possible (a pre-exclusion meeting). The meeting should advise the student and/or family of the school’s intention to exclude the child, the reasons for the exclusion and underlying events, the process for the family to contest the exclusion, the demonstrated outcomes for which the school board shall be looking, and an explanation that a subsequent meeting day will be set within a reasonable timeframe where the principal and parent/caregiver(s) will review progress and discuss a re-entry plan for the student.

 

69.6 parents and caregivers who themselves have a disability shall be notified that they have a right to have their disability-related needs accommodated where needed to take part in any meetings, appeals or other procedures regarding an actual or contemplated refusal to admit. For example, they should be notified that they have a right to receive any information or documents to be used in any such meeting or process in an accessible format.

 

69.7 any student excluded from attending school shall be provided an equivalent and sufficient educational program while away from school. a written plan for the student’s education should be required, prepared immediately, and shared with the family.

 

69.8 a mandatory fair procedure should be established that the school board must follow when refusing to admit a student. These procedures should ensure accountability of the school board and its employees, including:

1. a student and their families should have all the procedural protections that are required when a school board is going to impose discipline such as a suspension or expulsion.
2. the prior review and written approval of the superintendent should be required before a refusal to admit is imposed. If it is an emergency, then the superintendent should be required to review and approve this decision as quickly afterwards as possible, or else the refusal to admit should be terminated.
3. superintendent should independently assess whether the school board has sufficient grounds to refuse to admit the student and has met all the requirements of the school board’s refusal to admit policy (including ensuring alternative education programming is in place for the student).
4. the principal should be required to immediately notify the student and his or her family in writing, co-signed by the superintendent, of the refusal to admit, the reasons for it, and the duration. The letter should be in plain language, translated if necessary, and include:
   1. what a refusal to admit is and the duration
   2. the permissible reasons

• the school board’s process for reviewing that decision, and

1. the student/family’s right to appeal (including how to use that right of appeal)
2. steps that the school board has taken or will be taking to provide an alternative education and to expedite a student’s return to school
3. the expected timeline for the completion of these steps

1. a refusal to admit a student to school should not be extended for an accumulated total of more than 15 days (within a surrounding 30-day period) without the independent review and written approval of the director of the, school board or their designate.
2. an extension of refusal to admit must first consider excluding the student from a single class, and then the option of excluding the student from that entire school, and only as a last resort, excluding the student from all schools at that school board.
3. the refusal to admit shall be documented, and the record shall include information on:
   1. the reason for the refusal to admit
   2. the duration of the refusal to admit and any extensions

• the plan to provide an educational program to the student for the duration of the refusal to admit

1. the plan for the student to return to full time school attendance

1. while the student is excluded, the school board should undertake ongoing efforts to facilitate the student’s return to school as quickly as possible. The return to school plan shall include meetings with the family and student to plan for the return and review the additional supports that may be needed.

 

69.9 to ensure that appeals to the school board under section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act from a refusal to admit a student to school are prompt and fair, the following should be required:

1. a student excluded from school or their parent/caregiver should be permitted to launch an appeal from a refusal to admit at any time that the refusal to admit continues. no time limit for filing an appeal should be imposed.
2. no school board shall set an arbitrary length of time that an appeal hearing can take. The appeal hearing should take as long as needed for a fair hearing. The excluded student or their family should not have an arbitrary prior time limit imposed on their oral presentation of their appeal. They should be allowed the time they need to present their appeal. They shall be permitted to present relevant evidence to support their appeal if they wish.
3. at an appeal, the school staff should present their reasons first on why the exclusion is justified and should continue. The student or their family shall then be given a chance to present their case on why the student should not have been excluded and why they should be allowed to return to school.
4. an appeal should be held quickly to minimize the time the student is away from school. The board of trustees shall hear and/or determine the appeal within fifteen business days of receiving the notice of intention to appeal (unless the parties agree to an extension).
5. once an appeal is launched, the school board shall prepare for the student, their parents/caregivers, and the trustees, a report on the reasons for the refusal to admit, the factual background, and the efforts to return the student to school since the exclusion began. The board staff shall arrange a meeting (pre-appeal meeting) with the student and their family to try to resolve the case or narrow the issues, explain the process, disclose any information the student and their family need, and canvass and address any other matter that might help ensure a smooth and timely appeal.
6. the appeal should be heard in closed session by the entire board of trustees, not a subcommittee (unless the board can show it has legal authority to delegate this decision to a subcommittee). Any trustee that votes on a decision in an appeal must have been present for the entire argument of the appeal.
7. a board of trustees, hearing an appeal from a refusal to admit, should consider whether the school board has justified the student’s initial exclusion from school and its continuation. The burden should be on the school board to justify the exclusion from school.
8. If the student is not successful on the appeal, they should have a further avenue to appeal to court, with mediation available, or to an expert tribunal established and designated to hear such cases.

 

69.10 the school board shall create an emergency process and fund for accelerating education disability accommodations needed to facilitate a student’s remaining at or promptly returning to school, in connection with an actual or contemplated refusal to admit.

 

69.11 information and data on refusals to admit shall be collected and aggregated data reported publicly by school boards and by the Ministry of Education.

 

69.12 the Ministry of Education should develop a central repository/mechanism for sharing effective practices of alternatives to exclusion/refusal to admits and modified days in order to support school board efforts to reduce the number and duration of refusal to admits and modified days.

 

Timeline: one year for boards; six months for the Ministry of Education