Submitted by Suzanne Nash, the OCDSB trustee for Kitchissippi
I want to sincerely thank you, my constituents, for your patience, engagement, and respectful participation throughout this significant process that culminated in the Board’s decision on May 13th. The Ottawa-Carleton District School Board (OCDSB) has undertaken its most substantial structural change since the amalgamation of two boards in 1998. For many years the district has discussed the need for program review and amendments. While some adjustments have been made over the years, our system has continued to operate with inefficiencies, hindering our ability to best utilize available funding and ensure equitable access and quality programming for all students in our community.
At the heart of this review is a difficult truth: our publicly funded board has, in effect, presented a two-tiered education system. English-only schools have disproportionately been located in lower-income neighbourhoods. Simultaneously, French Immersion programs have often drawn students away from their local community schools, leading to under-enrolment in some English-track schools. For instance, Cambridge Public School currently has fewer than 100 students. Overall, nearly half of our schools face challenges with either being overcapacity or significantly underutilized. Addressing this imbalance will ultimately lead to a stronger and more equitable public education system for all children in our community.
Some have understandably asked why the Board does not simply close these under-enrolled schools. Since 2017, however, there has been a provincial moratorium on school closures.
With the implementation of the changes approved by the board on May 13th, as of September 2026, 110 schools will offer both English and French Immersion, with only five remaining English-only and six French Immersion-only sites, with two special education centres (Crystal Bay and Clifford Bowey). This change aims to address the significant imbalances in school utilization. French Immersion will now be accessible starting in Grades 1, 2, and 3, while the Middle French Immersion and Alternative programs will be gradually phased out—allowing current students to complete their programs. Each additional program the OCDSB offers brings added complexity and inefficiencies, from staffing to transportation.
It’s difficult to talk about “efficiency” when we discuss our children’s education and well-being—but this is the Board’s operational reality. For the past four years, the OCDSB has posted annual deficits. We are not alone: 31 of Ontario’s 72 boards (about 50%) are currently operating with in-year deficits. The Ontario government has appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers to review OCDSB’s financial operations.
Understandably, the review process has been frustrating and disappointing for many families, and I acknowledge the anxiety and uncertainty these changes may cause. While a number of the most controversial boundary proposals were amended, there is still deep concern. Zone 4 (Bay–Kitchissippi) is among the most significantly impacted areas. Ten schools will experience boundary changes to ensure that schools like Cambridge, Hilson, Churchill, and D. Roy Kennedy can offer French Immersion.
The three alternative schools in this zone—Churchill, Regina, and Summit—will be gradually phased out, with the last cohort of Grade 8 students graduating in the 2034–35 school year. I know that the phasing out of the alternative schools is deeply concerning for many of you, and I want you to know that these concerns were taken very seriously.
An exemption process is being developed and will be communicated in the fall of 2025 to allow students to remain at their current schools if space allows and if doing so does not compromise the viability of programs at either the sending or receiving school. We will share more details about the criteria for this exemption process as they become available.
I have heard the passionate advocacy to preserve the five alternative schools, and I deeply respect the experiences shared by families whose children thrive in those environments. When parents say their children feel included, valued, heard, and seen, I believe them. These are crucial aspects of any positive learning experience. The decision to phase out these programs was not taken lightly. It stems from a need to address systemic inequities and the evolving reality of these schools, where a significant portion of students have complex needs without the dedicated resources this level of support often requires. Our aim is to foster these same feelings of inclusion and value for all students within a more integrated and equitably resourced system. We are also looking at how successful practices from the alternative model can be incorporated more broadly.
The alternative model envisioned in the 1980s is no longer what we see today. Originally intended to foster innovative learning, these schools now often serve students whose needs are not being met in the mainstream system. Over 37% of students in the Alternative Program have Individual Education Plans (IEPs). Yet educators in these schools are not given specialized training or additional resources commensurate with this level of need. They work with high-needs students with care and professionalism—but often at great personal cost, contributing to staff burnout.
At the same time, enrolment in the Alternative Program has declined. Together, the five alternative schools serve roughly 800 students—a population that could fit into a single school. By contrast, Broadview Public School alone enrolls over 900 students. Churchill Alternative once served over 450 students; it now has less than half that number. Lady Evelyn, once the flagship of the program, has only around 100 students. Regina Alternative took over after Grant Alternative closed due to low enrolment. Its staff transitioned successfully, highlighting how many of the best practices from the Alternative model have now become part of the mainstream.
Geographically, Regina serves students in the district’s far southwest, and Riverview serves those in the southeast—both relying on board-provided van transportation. At Summit Alternative (Grades 7–8), located within Fisher Park School, fewer than 25% of families whose children attended Grades 1–6 in the four other alternative schools choose to continue in the alternative stream. The Board spends approximately $1.2 million annually to transport students to these five schools.
Many have shared compelling visions for revitalizing the Alternative Program. Perhaps partnerships beyond the OCDSB could be explored. CHEO, for instance, operates a specialized education program for students with special needs. Alternative schools also reflect values aligned with Indigenous ways of knowing.
As a trustee, my responsibilities are twofold: (1) to represent the interests of my constituents, and (2) to maintain a system-wide focus on student achievement, well-being, and equity.
Moving forward, it’s important to consider how we can collectively support the implementation of these changes to ensure the best outcomes for all students. This is not a perfect plan, and undoubtedly, there will be challenges to address. However, for the long-term viability of our board and for a more coherent, equitable system that better serves all students, this decision was necessary. I encourage you to stay informed about the transition process, and I remain open to further dialogue as we move forward.