The unfairness of Ontario’s educational funding policies has long been noted by educational and social planning scholars. So too has the head-scratching, self-defeating aspect of those policies. Many experts observe that educational outcomes are better in provinces that increase educational offerings for families by providing some funding to independent schools.
Last month, the subjects were raised once again in The Hub, in an op-ed written by Ginny Roth and Brian Dijkema, entitled, Why Ontario should allow independent schools and unlock true choice in education.
Roth is a Partner at Crestview Strategy and former Director of Communications on Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative leadership campaign. Dijkema is the President, Canada at Cardus.
The authors point out that even if they are not wealthy or if their school of choice does not offer financial support, parents in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec have wide educational options for their children that may align better with their personal preferences and/or family needs. But if parents live in Ontario, they have no such choice. Though the province fully funds the education of children of one religion, it provides no funding at all to parents wishing or needing to send their children to independent schools.
Roth and Dijkema note that many parents are now saying “no” to the province’s refusal to reform educational funding. For the sake of their children, they feel they have no choice. Despite the often-staggering tuition costs for families, and without even a penny from Queen’s Park to independent schools, as of two years ago, nearly seven percent of all Ontario school-age children attend independent schools.
There are 1,445 independent schools in the province. The vast majority of them serve special needs, or special purposes, or are religiously based. Only four percent of the schools are what are commonly thought to be elite, private schools. The status quo in Ontario, tied to a problem-riddled public school system, is not working for increasing numbers of families.
In response, the authors do not offer merely theoretical solutions. They actually point to educational funding approaches of other provinces as possible models for Ontario.
Rather significantly, Roth and Dijkema also urge the remediation of a glaring injustice within the injustice of unfair educational funding. “Double discrimination”, so to speak.
“Students with disabilities and other learning needs who attend independent schools are eligible for funding from the Ministry of Health, but are ineligible for supports from the Ministry of Education. In practice, this means that a child with a hearing impairment, for example, who attends an independent school will not receive the supports that the same child would receive in a public school. Limiting this support to the public system clearly discriminates against these students and fails to recognize the complex reasons why parents choose to send them to independent schools. Students with special needs should be supported regardless of the school they attend. This injustice should be corrected to help the most vulnerable students in Ontario achieve their full potential.”
This additional unfairness against children with disabilities cannot be justified. It is without conscience in the Ontario of 2025.
We leave the last word on the subject of Ontario’s outdated, unfair educational funding to Roth and Dijkema. “It’s time for Ontario to support all forms of education that parents choose. This would make Ontario as competitive as its provincial peers. It would also put Ontario in a position to compete with global leaders like the Netherlands, Singapore, and Finland. If Ontario truly wants to be the best place in Canada to live, work, and raise a family, a great “retention bonus” it could offer to families is funding for independent education. This shift in education policy would help ensure that every child in Ontario receives the best education for their needs, setting them up for a meaningful and productive life in the province they call home.”
GAJE agrees.
The Roth/Dijkema article is available at: https://thehub.ca/2025/07/15/ginny-roth-and-brian-dijkema-why-ontario-should-allow-independent-schools-and-unlock-true-choice-in-education/
•••
GAJE’s legal team will appear before the Court of Appeal at 10:00 on November 21, 2025 to argue that the Divisional Court was wrong to reverse Judge Papageorgiou’s decision and to then dismiss our application. As we noted last week, “it is shameful that GAJE must plead for the right to a hearing on the merits of our application for fair educational funding in the year 2025, some 30 years after the Supreme Court’s decision in 1996 that enabled the province’s approach to educational funding.
If you wish to contribute to GAJE’s lawsuit, please click here. Charitable receipts for donations for income tax purposes will be issued by Mizrachi Canada. Your donations will be used for the sole purpose of helping to underwrite the costs of the lawsuit. For further information, please contact Israel Mida at: imida1818@gmail.com
•••
Shabbat shalom. Am Yisrael Chai
Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education (GAJE)
August 15, 2025
Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education 