Submission to the Standing Committee on Social Policy regarding Bill 101, Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026
April 27, 2026
55 University Avenue, 15th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5J 2H7
Phone: 416-482-8255 or 1-866-482-2724
TTY: 416-482-1254 or 1-866-482-2728
www.archdisabilitylaw.ca

 	@ARCHDisabilityLawCentre
 	@ARCHDisabilityLaw  
 	@archdisabilitylaw.bsky.social

Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Introduction
A.	About ARCH
B.	Submissions
Key Details Deferred to Regulation
Educational Curriculum and Grading Schemes
Changes to Board Leadership
Construction, Alteration, and Improvement of School Buildings
Amendments to Ontario College of Teachers Act
C.	Conclusion
Appendix A

Introduction
ARCH Disability Law Centre makes the following submissions to the Standing Committee on Social Policy regarding Bill 101, Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026. Due to the very short time period afforded for making written submissions, these submissions are limited and do not include all of ARCH’s concerns and recommendations. ARCH wishes to express the importance of a full and fair consultation process on this Bill, given its significant impact on the rights and interests of the affected communities, which includes students with disabilities.
These submissions centre on the following premise: an education system which prioritizes and creates inclusivity and meaningful education for all students will be best positioned to ensure that the goals of the Education Act are met – namely that students become highly skilled, knowledgeable, caring, and contributing citizens. In our experience, it remains a constant that leadership at all levels of school boards continue to prioritize and inform their understanding of rights and obligations predominantly through the Education Act, while failing to appropriately understand the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the primacy of Ontario’s Human Rights Code (Code) , the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), and the guidance offered by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Often, this is at great cost to students with disabilities.	

A.	About ARCH
ARCH Disability Law Centre is a specialty community legal clinic, primarily funded by Legal Aid Ontario, practicing exclusively in disability rights law. For over 40 years, ARCH has been dedicated to advancing and defending the equality rights, entitlements, fundamental freedoms, and the inclusion of persons with disabilities. ARCH provides a range of free legal services directly to persons with disabilities across Ontario, including the provision of legal information and summary legal advice, and the representation of persons with disabilities and disability rights organizations in precedent setting cases at all levels of courts and tribunals, including the Supreme Court of Canada. ARCH conducts an extensive law reform practice, working on a variety of initiatives related to advancing the rights of persons with disabilities. ARCH also offers accessible rights education to disability communities and engages in capacity building and community development initiatives.   
Education and human rights law continue to be longstanding areas of practice and focus for ARCH. Our priorities include the advancement of human rights in education and the realization of a meaningful and inclusive education for all students in Ontario as articulated in the CRPD. ARCH continues its extensive work representing students with disabilities in education related matters. ARCH also is engaged in numerous law reform projects and in the ongoing delivery of rights education that advances inclusive and non-discriminatory education services to persons with disabilities. ARCH strongly supported the calls from our communities for an education standard pursuant to the AODA. In addition, ARCH provided fulsome submissions to standard development committees in the development and review of all the accessibility standards pursuant to the AODA, and participated in the four independent reviews of the AODA. ARCH conducts its work directly with our communities and it is the experiences of this work that informs the content of this submission. 
More information about our work is available on our website: www.archdisabilitylaw.ca
B.	Submissions 
Key Details Deferred to Regulation
The proposed amendments to the Education Act in Bill 101 overwhelmingly refer to regulations for the creation of policies and guidelines to govern various areas of the education system. This includes but is not limited to educational materials, instruction, grading, the role and powers of the director of education/ chief executive officer and chief education officer, as well as the construction, alteration and improvement of school buildings. The over-reliance on regulations is concerning, considering the significant changes that the Ministry has proposed to make through this legislation. 
It is crucial that any regulations, guidelines, directives or orders made under Bill 101 do not increase or create barriers for students with disabilities in accessing accommodations and receiving a meaningful education. Further, it is imperative that there is a consultation period for the regulation(s), guidelines, directives, or orders made under this Bill, ensuring that members of the public, including students with disabilities and the disability community, have the opportunity to provide comments and feedback.
We endorse the AODA Alliance’s recommendations, in particular that: 
1.	The Bill be amended to require that the Minister must consult the public when developing any regulations, guidelines, orders or directions, make public any draft regulations, guidelines, or orders, and must allow sufficient time for the public to provide feedback. 
2.	The Minister be required to consider and publicly account for students with disabilities’ right to equal access to education when creating or amending a regulation, order, direction, or policy, and that no regulation, order, direction or policy create barriers for, or adversely impact, students with disabilities at school. 
Educational Curriculum and Grading Schemes 
Section 2 of Schedule 2 would give the Minister power to enact regulations creating policies and guidelines governing the assessment of student achievement, including with respect to pupils attending school and the use of educational materials in instruction. The Bill does not provide additional information regarding the contents of these regulations or the details of what these policies and guidelines will include.
The Ministry has set out further particulars through a news release and media briefing, as well as during parliamentary debates on the Bill which provide details on the goals of the legislation. The following changes are proposed:
•	Provincially consistent learning resources for all schools. 
•	Province-wide mandatory exam days and assignment standards for secondary students. Province-wide final examinations from grades 9-12 would be weighed up to 20% to 25% of students’ final grades.
•	That attendance and participation would form 15 percent of the final course mark for students in Grades 9 to 10, and 10 percent for Grades 11 to 12. It is noted that teachers would continue to have flexibility to use supplementary materials based on student needs, and that students will not be negatively impacted by excused absences. 
It is unclear what additional policies will be enacted, and how the currently known policies will be implemented. It is also unclear whether these changes will result in the amendment or revocation of existing regulations. The submissions below relate to the expected content of the regulations and all other public facing documents flowing from the passage of this Bill.
The mandatory use of Ministry prescribed learning resources may negatively impact students with disabilities who require accommodation in the form of alternative or modified learning materials. Although the proposed regulations may allow teachers to use supplementary materials, there is no indication that students would not be required to learn primarily from Ministry approved materials. Further, it is unknown whether the requirement for Ministry approved materials will cause students requiring accommodation to face delays and barriers that will undermine their ability to access a meaningful education. As the contents of the regulations are not known, the proposed amendments leave too much uncertainty regarding alternative learning materials. 
ARCH is also concerned with the requirements of mandatory exams and modes of evaluation, without exemptions built into the law or regulation. Such rules and policies may have a disproportionate impact on students whose disabilities may make them unable to attend school or participate in an evaluation on the scheduled day. The proposed changes fail to address these circumstances. Although the Ministry has expressed that students will not be negatively impacted for excused absences, it is unclear to what extent students will need to document their absence. It is also unclear whether an excused absence includes an absence for disability related reasons. These changes may lead to increased scrutiny and burdensome documentation requirements being placed on students who are absent for disability related reasons. 
Moreover, the Bill does not address the longstanding issue of students not being able to attend school, whether that be for a full day or partial day, because of the school and school board’s failure to accommodate the student and understand their disability as a mitigating factor. Students with disabilities are often absent from school as a result of the school dismissing the student early, or excluding the student under the Education Act. In a 2018 survey conducted by ARCH and its partners, approximately 45% of respondents stated that at one time or another they had to keep their child home from school as a result of a lack of accommodations or other services. More than half of parents also reported that their child’s day had been shortened, many of them citing reasons that were not related to the student’s needs (e.g. staffing shortages, transportation scheduling issues). These students lost on average 3.86 hours out of a 6 hour school day. It is unclear how attendance and participation would be accounted for in these circumstances and whether such situations would be considered excused absences. 
It is also unclear how participation will be evaluated, specifically for students who require accommodation in the form of alternative methods of participation, or who require other accommodations to participate. ARCH has been advised of many situations where teachers choose not to request participation from students with communication disabilities, as it may require the teacher to be involved in communication. We are fearful that these students will be penalized, even though their lack of participation is related to the failure of the school to accommodate their disability. 
ARCH recommends that the Bill clearly set parameters for the development of any regulations, guidelines, orders, or directives made under it to:
3.	Require that all changes to learning resources be made in accordance with the Code, which would require students with disabilities to receive accommodations. This includes that accessible and alternative formats of learning materials be available to students who require accommodations to meet disability related needs. It must be ensured that delays in receiving such materials will not pose a barrier to students accessing meaningful education. 
4.	Allow for and require that any form of evaluation, such as mandatory exams or participation grades, take into account human rights obligations under the Code, including by: 
o	allowing for alternative forms of evaluation to be used when it is necessary to meet a student’s disability related needs. This includes providing alternative forms of participation and individualized accommodations that would allow students to participate in any assessment or evaluation. 
o	allowing students who cannot attend school as a result of disability to participate in evaluations on an alternate day without consequences. 
5.	Ensure that absences that occur because of disability or the actions of the school/ board, including the failure to accommodate, are considered excused absences such that they will not negatively impact grades, and that the Bill adopt the broad conceptualization of disability consistent with the Code.
6.	Require that safeguards be implemented to ensure that requirements for documentation do not create barriers for students with disabilities when attempting to validate absences. 
Changes to Board Leadership 
Sections 24-25 of Schedule 2 of this Bill propose major changes to the current school board structure. The director of education of each board will become the chief executive officer (CEO), who in turn will appoint a chief education officer (CEdO). The CEdO must be a member of the Ontario College of Teachers or have equivalent qualifications. The Minister will be able to make regulations prescribing the powers, duties, responsibilities and qualifications of the CEdO. The Bill also allows for regulations to be created that would require the CEO to confirm certain motions or resolutions passed by the board. There is no indication that the requirement of CEO approval would be limited to financial matters. The Ministry has clarified that the CEO may also serve as the CEdO if they are qualified in both areas.  
Although not specified in the Bill, the Ministry has provided that the CEO will have business qualifications and will be responsible for financial and operational oversight, including overseeing school board administration, budget development, and resource allocation. The Ministry has stated that the authority to hire the CEO would be with the Board of Trustees, but that Ministerial approval will be required to terminate the CEO.
This proposed restructuring significantly shifts decision making power away from those with educational backgrounds and expertise, instead prioritizing finances by giving a significant level of decision-making authority to an individual who is not required to have an educational background. This risks adversely impacting all students, as well as students with disabilities, as finances and budgeting may take precedent over vital educational decisions in this new structure. In addition, financial and resource allocation decisions have a direct impact on students’ access to accommodations. 
ARCH recommends that the Bill and any regulations, guidelines, orders, or directives made under it are drafted to:
7.	Require that any individual who serves as CEO receive mandatory education and training on human rights and the rights of students with disabilities.
8.	Require that the CEO consult with the CEdO and other executives before making any decisions about resource allocation to ensure that no resource allocation decision negatively impacts students with disabilities. 
9.	Require that the CEO consider the impact on the rights of students with disabilities before making any decision or taking any action pursuant to a power granted in this Bill or any regulations, guidelines, orders, or directives made under it. 
Construction, Alteration, and Improvement of School Buildings 
The Bill in sections 9-10 shifts responsibility to the Minister for matters related to the construction, renovation, or improvement of school buildings. We endorse the AODA Alliance’s submission that it is essential to ensure that schools are accessible to students, staff, family members and the public with disabilities.
We endorse the AODA Alliance’s recommendations, in particular, that the Bill should be amended to require that all new school construction is accessible to students with disabilities, and to go beyond the accessibility requirements of the Ontario Building Code and Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act accessibility standards by adopting and implementing the recommendations for accessible school built-environment design in the January 28, 2022 final report of the Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee.
Amendments to Ontario College of Teachers Act 
The Bill in Schedule 4, s. 1(2)(1.1) proposes amendments to the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, that allow for regulations to be made requiring areas of study to be included in professional teacher education programs. The Ministry has provided that the Bill would also allow for the exploration of advanced standing and recognition in the form of a 1-year program largely consisting of a practicum requirement, for individuals with specific prior learning and experience. 
ARCH recommends that:
10.	The Bill be amended to ensure that any professional teacher education program, including any new or expedited program that is created, is made in compliance with the final report of the Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee.
C.	Conclusion
As mentioned above, time constraints have prevented ARCH from conducting an in-depth analysis of the Bill and considering at length its possible implications on students with disabilities and its intersection with the Education Act.  However, the above is a brief overview of only some of our current concerns.  It is our hope that as it moves ahead through further stages, the needs of students with disabilities will become part of any continued dialogue regarding Bill 101. 
ARCH would like to bring attention to the fact that despite the aim of advancing student achievement, the Bill fails to address a number of issues in Ontario’s education system that have been of central concern to both ARCH and disability communities for years. Concerns have been raised repeatedly on the use of involuntary seclusions and restraints, the ineffectiveness of Individual Education Plans, and the improper use of exclusions under the Education Act. However, Bill 101 does not respond to or address any of these concerns. These issues significantly impact the rights of students in Ontario, which should be protected and advanced through any proposed amendments to the Education Act. 
Please contact our office if ARCH can be of assistance in addressing some of these important issues affecting students with disabilities. 

Appendix A
Recommendations: 
1.	The Bill be amended to require that the Minister must consult the public when developing any regulations, guidelines, orders or directions, make public any draft regulations, guidelines, or orders, and must allow sufficient time for the public to provide feedback. 
2.	The Minister be required to consider and publicly account for students with disabilities’ right to equal access to education when creating or amending a regulation, order, direction, or policy, and that no regulation, order, direction or policy create barriers for, or adversely impact, students with disabilities at school. 
3.	Require that all changes to learning resources be made in accordance with the Code, which would require students with disabilities to receive accommodations. This includes that accessible and alternative formats of learning materials be available to students who require accommodations to meet disability related needs. It must be ensured that delays in receiving such materials will not pose a barrier to students accessing meaningful education. 
4.	Allow for and require that any form of evaluation, such as mandatory exams or participation grades, take into account human rights obligations under the Code, including by: 
o	allowing for alternative forms of evaluation to be used when it is necessary to meet a student’s disability related needs. This includes providing alternative forms of participation and individualized accommodations that would allow students to participate in any assessment or evaluation. 
o	allowing students who cannot attend school as a result of disability to participate in evaluations on an alternate day without consequences. 
5.	Ensure that absences that occur because of disability or the actions of the school/ board, including the failure to accommodate, are considered excused absences such that they will not negatively impact grades, and that the Bill adopt the broad conceptualization of disability consistent with the Code.
6.	Require that safeguards be implemented to ensure that requirements for documentation do not create barriers for students with disabilities when attempting to validate absences. 
7.	Require that any individual who serves as CEO receive mandatory education and training on human rights and the rights of students with disabilities.
8.	Require that the CEO consult with the CEdO and other executives before making any decisions about resource allocation to ensure that no resource allocation decision negatively impacts students with disabilities. 
9.	Require that the CEO consider the impact on the rights of students with disabilities before making any decision or taking any action pursuant to a power granted in this Bill or any regulations, guidelines, orders, or directives made under it. 
10.	The Bill be amended to ensure that any professional teacher education program, including any new or expedited program that is created, is made in compliance with the final report of the Government-appointed K-12 Education Standards Development Committee.