OPINION: Ontario’s trustee elections just proved the model is broken

Accountability is not optional in a system that spends billions of public dollars and shapes children’s lives. The question is which mechanisms actually provide it.

Published Nov 04, 2026  •  Last updated 9 minutes ago  •  3 minute read

Debbie L. Kasman. Photo by Supplied Photo

See more Toronto Sun on Google — save as a Preferred Source

Article content

On Oct. 26, Ontarians went to the polls for municipal and school-board elections. For hundreds of thousands of families, the trustee race was a formality. Of the 657 seats on Ontario’s 72 district school boards, 272 — 41% — were filled by acclamation. No ballots were cast. At six boards, every seat was decided before nomination day closed. English public boards saw acclamation rates of 28 percent; English Catholic boards 45%; French-language boards roughly two-thirds.

Article content

Article content

Even where voters did have a choice, the margins were often razor-thin, and organized interests dominated. Candidates endorsed by teachers’ and education-workers’ unions, union coalitions, or labour councils won 55 of 80 contested races (69%). Other candidates in those same races won only 35 of 194 (18%). The gap held for new candidates and outside Toronto. In Toronto itself, 17 of 18 labour-endorsed candidates were elected.

These numbers come from School Board Research, an independent project that compiled the first province-wide list of all 1,218 trustee candidates and then tracked every result. Before the election, it asked every candidate a single, straightforward question: Will good governance be your first priority, starting with ensuring your board’s code of conduct, bullying-prevention plan, and accessibility documents meet provincial requirements at the next review in January 2027? Only 92 candidates answered. Just four of those answers came from sitting trustees.

Article content

Article content

I write from inside the system. I served as Principal Assistant to the Superintendent for Special Education and as Acting Executive Superintendent for Curriculum and Special Education at the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board, then as a Student Achievement Officer at the Ministry of Education. In April 2026, I appeared before the Standing Committee on Social Policy in support of Bill 101, the Putting Student Achievement First Act. Those roles showed me how governance decisions are made in practice — and how little the elected trustee model delivers real accountability.

Which mechanisms provide accountability?

Accountability is not optional in a system that spends billions of public dollars and shapes children’s lives. The question is which mechanisms actually provide it. Purely local elections that produce acclamations, low information, and interest-group dominance do not. Provincial elections, by contrast, produce higher turnout, greater scrutiny, and clearer lines of responsibility. A government that fails to improve literacy, numeracy, special-education outcomes, or operational efficiency can be replaced by voters. A parallel elected body whose members are often acclaimed or selected under conditions of low information simply diffuses responsibility without improving oversight.

Article content

Other provinces have already drawn this conclusion. Nova Scotia eliminated its English-language elected boards. Quebec replaced most elected boards with service centres. Ontario’s own reforms under Bill 101 have already moved substantially in the same direction: trustees have lost financial decision-making authority, the number of seats has been standardized and reduced at the largest boards, and professional management has been strengthened under clearer ministerial accountability. Completing the shift would simplify decision-making, focus attention on student achievement and financial control, and channel parent and community input through school-level mechanisms and direct ministry channels — without the pretence that frequently uncontested trustee elections supply meaningful local democracy.

The 2026 results are a clear signal. Many families had no choice at all. A handful of votes decided other seats. Organized interests, particularly unions and labour councils, exerted substantial influence over outcomes. At the same time, the response rate to a basic question about compliance with provincial requirements was extremely low among the very people who already hold the seats. In an environment of high public spending, measurable achievement gaps, and legitimate concern about capture by organized interests, this is not a system that is delivering the accountability Ontarians expect.

Article content

The government has already taken the decisive levers. It is time to align formal responsibility with that reality. Eliminate the elected trustee role. Let provincial elections — with their higher turnout and clearer scrutiny — be the accountability mechanism that matters. The 2026 election results show why the traditional model no longer meets the standard.

Debbie L. Kasman is an education analyst, researcher, and author. She previously served as Principal Assistant and Acting Executive Superintendent at the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board and as a Student Achievement Officer at the Ontario Ministry of Education. She holds an M.Ed. in Policy Studies from OISE/University of Toronto.

Article content