The provincial government’s move to apply a three-strikes attendance rule for school board trustees has sparked concern among education governance veterans, raising questions about democracy in local education.
Under recent amendments to Ontario’s Education Act, trustees who miss three consecutive meetings without board approval face automatic removal from office – a change Education Minister Stephen Lecce champions as ensuring elected officials remain accountable to voters.
“Parents expect trustees to show up for work and represent their children’s interests at the board table,” Lecce said during a press conference last month in Mississauga. “These measures ensure elected representatives fulfill their basic responsibility to be present.”
But trustees across the province are pushing back, arguing the rule fails to recognize the complex realities of their roles and creates unnecessary barriers, especially for those balancing family responsibilities or health challenges.
Linda Stone, who has served on the Simcoe County District School Board for 12 years, calls the requirement “shortsighted” and potentially discriminatory.
“This isn’t about dodging responsibility,” Stone told me during a community meeting in Barrie. “Most trustees are deeply committed, but life happens. A parent caring for a sick child or someone managing their own health crisis shouldn’t lose their elected position because of circumstances beyond their control.”
The attendance requirement forms part of broader Education Act reforms the Ford government implemented through Bill 98, the Working for Workers Four Act. While the bill primarily focused on labor regulations, the education governance changes received less public scrutiny before passing.
Ontario School Boards’ Association (OSBA) data shows trustee attendance averages above 90% provincewide, raising questions about whether the solution addresses an actual problem. The OSBA has formally requested the government reconsider the provision, noting it creates uncertainty even for engaged representatives.
At the Toronto District School Board, Canada’s largest school board, trustee Rachel Chen points out the rule creates particular challenges for trustees with young families or disabilities.
“We’ve spent years trying to diversify school governance, to bring in parents and community voices that represent today’s students,” Chen explained. “Then we create rigid rules that make it harder for working parents, particularly mothers, to serve. That’s a step backward for representation.”
The controversy highlights tensions between provincial oversight and local governance autonomy that have intensified during Premier Ford’s tenure. Municipal leaders and school boards have frequently criticized what they view as provincial overreach on decisions traditionally left to local authorities.
Legal experts note that while attendance requirements exist in some jurisdictions, Ontario’s version lacks flexibility. Michael Barrett, education law specialist at Ryerson University, suggests the provision could face challenges under human rights legislation.
“The provision makes no distinction between a trustee who’s absent due to medical treatment versus one who’s simply disengaged,” Barrett said. “That one-size-fits-all approach creates potential legal vulnerability under accessibility and accommodation standards.”
Meanwhile, school boards are scrambling to update their bylaws to comply with the new rules while building in whatever protections they can for trustees with legitimate absences.
For Marlene Jackson, who has served as a trustee in northern Ontario for over a decade, the rule represents a fundamental misunderstanding of local democracy.
“Voters elect us. Voters should decide if we’re meeting their expectations,” Jackson told me by phone from Thunder Bay. “Creating a situation where three absences – even for good reason – can override an entire community’s electoral choice feels deeply undemocratic.”
The Ministry of Education defends the change as consistent with municipal council requirements, though municipal governance experts note that city councils typically have more flexibility in how they implement such provisions.
Trustee advocacy groups are gathering examples of scenarios where the rule could create problems – from trustees undergoing cancer treatment to those serving in military reserves – to present to the ministry for reconsideration.
As board meetings resume this fall, trustees face this new reality while continuing to navigate post-pandemic challenges, including addressing learning gaps and mental health concerns among students.
Whether the province will consider amendments to introduce more flexibility remains unclear, but trustees warn that without changes, school boards may lose valuable voices precisely when educational governance needs diverse perspectives most.
“The job is already demanding, often thankless, and certainly not done for the modest stipend,” concluded Stone. “Adding this kind of punitive pressure doesn’t improve governance – it just makes it harder to recruit the community-minded people our students need advocating for them.”
