Social Policy in Ontario

Doing more with less: 10 facts about school funding in Ontario

Posted on September 1, 2026 in Education Delivery System

Source: PolicyAlternatives.ca — Authors: Ricardo Tranjan

PolicyAlternatives.ca – Education/Funding
September 1, 2026.   By Ricardo Tranjan

Lire En Français

The numbers show that schools and educators in Ontario are being asked to do more with less, and students are paying the price

In recent years, Ontarians have heard two very different stories about public schools. On the one hand, the provincial government claims to be making historic investments in education, injecting more money than ever into everyday programs, infrastructure, and targeted initiatives. On the other hand, education advocates and researchers point to larger class sizes, deteriorating buildings, rising school violence, and dwindling resources for students who require additional supports due to disability, low socio-economic status, or other circumstances. Over the past year, the Ministry of Education has admitted to some shortcomings in the public education system but has blamed them on school boards and trustees. For anyone concerned with public education in Ontario, it’s hard to tell what’s really going on.

To separate the wheat from the chaff, facts from political spin, we must look at the numbers. Ontario’s public school system serves two million students, employs 227,000 workers, and has a budget of more than $30 billion. In such a large system, it is easy for governments to point fingers, sweep dirt under the rug, or move funding around to disguise cuts. And that’s exactly what the Ontario government has done over the past eight years. In the 11 figures below, we present clear cases of funding failing to keep pace with needs and some examples of what that means on the ground. The pattern that emerges is clear: schools and educators are being asked to do more with less, and students are paying the price.

Figure 1: Accounting for inflation and enrolment, schools receive less funding today than eight years ago

Annual, per-student funding, 2018-19 to 2026-27 school years

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/doing-more-with-less-10-facts-about-school-funding-in-ontario/#:~:text=Doing%20more%C2%A0with,is%20too%20high.

The primary funding envelope for public schools is Core Education Funding, formerly called Grants for Student Needs. Per-student funding, adjusted for inflation, has declined since 2018-19. It reached its lowest point in 2022-23 and has recovered since then, but it remains $220 lower than it was when the Progressive Conservative government came into power in 2018. In a school system with more than two million students, a $220-per-student cut adds to an estimated $453 million budget shortfall for the 2026-27 school year alone.

Figure 2: Cumulative school funding gap since 2018 reaches $6.5 billion 

Gap between allocations and amount needed to meet inflation and enrolment growth

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/doing-more-with-less-10-facts-about-school-funding-in-ontario/#:~:text=Doing%20more%C2%A0with,is%20too%20high.

While some funding cuts mean that students miss opportunities they will never get back, like learning to play an instrument, other cuts create financial pressures on future years: wait lists for special education supports continue to grow, in-class resources are never restocked, leaks in the roof are never fixed, anti-racism programs are delayed, etc. The accumulated shortfall for Ontario schools since 2018-19 is now at a whopping $6.5 billion. This is the total amount that Ontario’s school boards have lost compared to what they would have received if their funding had kept pace with enrolment and inflation over the past eight years.

Figure 3: Between 2020 and 2024, the share of schools in disrepair rose from 29% to 37%

The number of schools in need of major repairs increased by 423

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/doing-more-with-less-10-facts-about-school-funding-in-ontario/#:~:text=Doing%20more%C2%A0with,is%20too%20high

In 2024, 37 per cent of Ontario schools were in a state of disrepair, up from 29 per cent in 2020. Over this four-year period alone, the number of schools in need of major repairs increased by 423, and that does not include the estimated 7,000 portable classrooms for which data is unavailable. Conditions vary significantly by school board. In 17 boards, 50 per cent or more of schools are in a state of disrepair. In four boards, 75 per cent or more of schools are in a state of disrepair, namely: Toronto DSB (84 per cent), Renfrew County Catholic DSB (77 per cent), Limestone DSB (76 per cent), DSB Ontario North East (75 per cent).

The fix is not in. The Financial Accountability Office of Ontario estimates that the Ontario government needs to spend $21.7 billion over 10 years to address the repair backlog and maintain schools in good repair. The current plan is to spend $12.5 billion, or 58 per cent of what is needed. Repairs will continue to pile up and become more expensive to fix.

Figure 4: Since 2018, boards redirected $2.3 billion of general funding to special education

Chronic underfunding of special education creates financial pressures across the system.

In 2025-26 school boards spent $367 million more on special education than they received in funding.  $2.3 billion has been redirected to special education funding since 2018.

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/doing-more-with-less-10-facts-about-school-funding-in-ontario/#:~:text=Doing%20more%C2%A0with,is%20too%20high.

In Ontario, special education funding is not based on the assessed needs of current students. Instead, almost 90 per cent of funding is based on general enrolment and a statistical model that produces poor estimates of needs. As a result, school boards receive largely arbitrary amounts, which they ration among schools. Within schools, funds are further rationed among students with special education needs. Operational factors, such as class sizes and physical infrastructure, also affect the level of funding allocated to a student, widening the gap between actual needs and supports. It’s an atrocious funding model that fails students with special education needs, their educators and families.

One of the many indicators of this failed funding model is that, every year, school boards spend more on special education than they receive in funding. In the 2025-26 school year, nearly 10 per cent of the amount spent on special education came from other funding envelopes. This reallocation doesn’t mean students with special education needs received the supports they need. Far from it. The recent Auditor General report shows unacceptable levels of unmet needs. Recurring reallocations simply show that needs are so dire that boards and schools have to sacrifice other aspects of the education program.

Figure 5: Only half of Grade 4 to 8 classes have fewer than 25 students

During the 2025-26 school year, 1,054 Grade 4 to 8 classes had 30 or more students

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/doing-more-with-less-10-facts-about-school-funding-in-ontario/#:~:text=Doing%20more%C2%A0with,is%20too%20high.

Parents hear that class sizes are limited to 24.5 students for Grade 4 to 8, yet their children are often in much larger classes. So are half of the students in the province. That’s because there are no hard caps for Grade 4 to 8. The limit of 24.5 is simply the required average at the board level. This means that if some classes are smaller than the target average, other classes can be larger. In the 2025-26 school year, 3.4 per cent—or 1,054—Grade 4 to 8 classes had 30 students or more. This is the provincial average; some school boards have a larger proportion of crowded classes. For example, in the same year, the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) had 7.8 per cent of Grade 4 to 8 classes with 30 or more students—that’s 256 classes.

These numbers don’t account for class complexity. In a weighted analysis, students without special education needs would be assigned a weight of one, while other students would be assigned higher weights (e.g., 1.2, 1.5). If the education ministry made the necessary data available for this type of assessment, the numbers above would be considerably higher and better reflect the classroom experience.

Figure 6: Enrolment in online courses in secondary schools grew fivefold over 10 years

Online courses are funded at a 30-to-1 student-to-teacher ratio, compared with a 23-to-1 ratio for in-person courses

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/doing-more-with-less-10-facts-about-school-funding-in-ontario/#:~:text=Doing%20more%C2%A0with,is%20too%20high.

While enrolment in online classes had been slowly growing since 2014-15, it began a fast upward trend in 2019-20. In the 2024-25 school year, enrolment reached 288,330, more than five times the 53,520 of 10 years earlier. For comparison, total enrolment in this period grew by only four per cent.

In 2019, the Ontario government approved a measure requiring students to take two online courses to graduate. At the time, the government argued that this measure would give students more course options. Recent data shows that compulsory online learning has not led to new learning opportunities; students take standard courses online. What has changed is the amount of classroom funding. The Ministry of Education funds online courses at a 30:1 student-to-teacher ratio, compared to a 23:1 ratio in in-person courses. Online courses save money.

While elementary schools squeeze more students into the same classroom to make up for cuts to classroom funding, secondary schools force students into online courses because funding is no longer available for 30 in-person class credits per student.

Figure 7: Staffing is not keeping pace with enrolment, meaning fewer adults in the building

Enrolment grew by three per cent between 2018-19 and 2025-26, but staffing is growing at a slower pace

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/doing-more-with-less-10-facts-about-school-funding-in-ontario/#:~:text=Doing%20more%C2%A0with,is%20too%20high.

Less funding inevitably means fewer adults in the building. Between 2018-19 and 2025-26, total enrolment in Ontario’s public education system grew by three per cent. In contrast, the number of classroom teachers grew by only 0.8 percent. In a system as large as Ontario’s, that discrepancy amounts to 2,545 fewer teachers on the ground today than we would have had if the number of classroom teachers had also increased by three per cent.

Classroom teachers are not the only ones ensuring that students learn and develop in healthy, safe environments. It takes a village, and that village is shrinking. A number of other categories of workers have increased at a slower pace than total enrolment, including library and guidance staff; the monitors who supervise lunchrooms, lunch hours, buses, and yards; custodians who keep buildings clean and safe; and the maintenance personnel who keep schools operational.

Neither the education funding formula nor school operations require staffing to increase at the exact same pace as the number of students. In some cases, growth can be accommodated within existing capacity, and operations sometimes depend more on the number and characteristics of buildings. Still, the pattern is widespread and clear: there are fewer adults in the building, in a variety of vital jobs.

Figure 8.1: The teaching workforce is rapidly aging

70% of teachers are now over 40 years of age

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/doing-more-with-less-10-facts-about-school-funding-in-ontario/#:~:text=Doing%20more%C2%A0with,is%20too%20high.

Figure 8.2: The share of early-career teachers has dropped dramatically between 2003 and 2023

57% of teachers have taught for 15 years or more

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/doing-more-with-less-10-facts-about-school-funding-in-ontario/#:~:text=Doing%20more%C2%A0with,is%20too%20high.

In the 20 years between 2002-03 and 2022-23, the share of young and early-career teachers has dropped dramatically. Workers under 40 years of age make up 30 per cent of the current teaching workforce, compared to 45 per cent in 2002-03. Workers who have entered the career in the past five years make up 13 per cent of the current teaching workforce, compared to 23 per cent in 2002-03.

In teaching, where internships and mentorship are key parts of training, experienced educators play a crucial role in helping new entrants reach their potential. Yet, an aging workforce presents risks. If too many workers retire at once, it could drastically reduce on-the-ground experience and lead to a teacher shortage. In 2026, the Ontario government reduced the duration of teacher training programs from two years to one year, hoping to attract more workers to the profession. This measure may not yield the desired results. Ontario has an estimated 48,000 certified teachers who completed their training but are not currently working in the province’s education system. Chronic underfunding of schools, specialized programs, and infrastructure may weigh more on the decisions of current and prospective teachers than one additional year of training.

Figure 9: Number of school boards posting deficits soared, and reserves shrank in recent years

41 of 72 boards projected budget deficits in 2025-26, compared with eight in 2018-19

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/doing-more-with-less-10-facts-about-school-funding-in-ontario/#:~:text=Doing%20more%C2%A0with,is%20too%20high.

In any given year, school boards may have a budget surplus because not all funds from every funding envelope were spent, because schools generated extra revenue through fundraising, or because of atypical inflows from financial activities, such as the sale of assets. The Ministry of Education allows boards to transfer surplus funds to reserves and use them gradually, as needed. Between the 2018-19 and 2025-26 school years, the surplus and deficit patterns visibly changed for Ontario’s 72 school boards. At the beginning of the period, around 10 per cent of boards ended the year in the red, but in subsequent years, that share tripled. For 2025-26, 57 per cent of boards expected to spend more than their allocated revenues.

The amount of reserves that boards hold has also shrunk over the years. In 2021-22, the combined accumulated surplus for all boards was $6.6 billion, while the projected amount for the end of the 2025-26 school year is $5.9 billion. In inflation-adjusted terms, reserves decreased by 19 per cent. As a share of total annual revenue, reserves fell from 23 to 17 per cent over this period. This is yet another clear sign of the chronic underfunding of public education in the province.

Figure 10: Administrative expenses have remained stable over eight years

Administrative expenses ranged between 2.7% and 2.8% of total expenses since 2018

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/doing-more-with-less-10-facts-about-school-funding-in-ontario/?utm_source=CCPA+Master+List&utm_campaign=c4ba9edc37-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2022_01_07_02_51_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_243d98559a-c4ba9edc37-51935605&mc_cid=c4ba9edc37&mc_eid=26a8b9335a

Ricardo Tranjan directs the research program for the CCPA-Ontario. Ricardo’s expertise centres on Ontario public finances and the political economy of social policy, especially public education funding, income support programs, and rental housing. He is the author of multiple books, including The Tenant Class (2023).

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/doing-more-with-less-10-facts-about-school-funding-in-ontario/

Tags: budget, Education, featured, ideology, jurisdiction, standard of living, youth

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 1st, 2026 at 1:25 pm and is filed under Education Delivery System. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.