Guest Blogger: Andy Kwiecien
Something is shifting in education, and if you are working inside the system, it is hard to ignore. I have spent years across classrooms, system-level consultant and coordinator roles, and school leadership, and while change is nothing new in education, what we are seeing right now feels different. This is not about curriculum updates or post-pandemic recovery. It is about a growing gap between what schools are expected to do and what they are realistically able to deliver, and families are beginning to notice.
At the same time, staffing shortages are becoming part of the daily reality in many schools. In Ontario, more than one quarter of schools report daily teacher shortages, and nearly half report daily shortages of educational assistants. Special education supports, which are essential for many students, are also becoming less consistently available across classrooms. These are not small operational challenges. They directly affect the level of support students receive, the consistency of instruction, and the ability of schools to respond effectively to increasingly complex needs (People for Education).
To keep schools functioning, administrators and educators are constantly adapting. Classes are combined, staff are reassigned, and schools increasingly rely on occasional or emergency coverage. In some cases, this means individuals are stepping into classrooms without full teaching qualifications. This is not a reflection of those individuals, many of whom are doing their best under challenging circumstances, but it does represent a shift in the consistency and stability that parents have historically expected from the system.
Parents may not see the internal staffing reports or funding formulas, but they are noticing the outcomes. They see larger class sizes, reduced support, and less consistency in instruction. More importantly, they notice when their child is not progressing in the way they expect. The question I hear more frequently now is not whether school is good, but whether it is enough. That shift in mindset matters, because once families begin to question whether the system is meeting their child’s needs, they start looking for additional support.
This is where we are beginning to see a quiet but important shift. While the majority of students remain in public education, families are increasingly supplementing learning through tutoring, learning centres, online platforms, and hybrid models. Private school enrolment in Canada has also risen for consecutive years, reflecting a broader trend toward exploring alternatives (Statistics Canada). What is most notable is not a mass exit from public education, but a gradual change in behaviour. Families are no longer relying on a single system to meet all of their child’s needs. They are building additional layers of support.
At first glance, Ontario’s projected $30.3 billion in education funding for 2025–26 sounds substantial, and to the average person, it likely does sound like a lot. But the more important question is whether it is enough to meet the realities schools are facing every day. Based on what boards are reporting, the answer appears to be no. Ontario’s own funding model is largely driven by enrolment, with the province projecting average funding of $14,561 per student, but that broad number can mask the strain being felt at the school level. At the same time, more than one quarter of Ontario schools report daily teacher shortages and nearly half report daily shortages of educational assistants, suggesting that the money is not translating into stable staffing or consistent student support across the system (Ministry of Education).
The pressure becomes even more visible when boards begin cutting people, not just programs. In Toronto, for example, the TDSB has said it will eliminate 40 vice-principal positions for the 2026–27 school year, with some schools expected to share administrators, and reporting has also pointed to more than 600 teaching positions being cut. Other boards are also signalling reductions: Halton’s 2025–26 budget included the elimination of 90 staff positions, while Kawartha Pine Ridge said potential staffing cuts were on the table for all employee groups, including teachers, principals, school support staff, and board administration. When vice-principals are not replaced, when teachers are lost, and especially when support staff are reduced, schools do not simply become leaner. They become less responsive, less safe, and less able to meet student needs in real time (CBC News).
That is why the funding figure, on its own, is not enough evidence that the system is healthy. A headline number can sound reassuring, but if boards are cutting administrators, reducing teachers, and losing the very support staff students rely on most, then the concern is real. And once families begin to feel that erosion in day-to-day school life, confidence drops, alternatives become more appealing, and the downward cycle only becomes harder to stop (People for Education).
One of the most challenging aspects of this situation is that public education systems are not designed to respond quickly to these kinds of shifts. They operate within structures that prioritize accountability, equity, and governance. These structures are essential, but they also introduce layers of approval, budget cycles, and policy alignment that slow the pace of change. Even when school and system leaders recognize what needs to be done, they cannot immediately hire additional staff, reallocate funding, or redesign programming. At the same time, smaller and more flexible education models can adapt quickly, offering personalized learning, targeted supports, and direct communication with families. The difference in speed is becoming increasingly visible.
Despite these challenges, I do not believe the answer is to replace public education. It remains one of the most important institutions we have for ensuring access and equity. However, it is clear that the system cannot continue to absorb increasing pressure without additional support. This is where new approaches can play a meaningful role. Rather than waiting for districts to provide support, educators are taking the lead and helping one another directly. This shift has become even more important as many districts have significantly reduced, or nearly eliminated, professional development opportunities due to funding constraints. As an example, teachers are increasingly coming together on global platforms such as Cube For Teachers, sharing free teaching resources to directly support each other to improve student outcomes.
What concerns me most is not the idea of change itself, but the pace at which confidence can shift once it begins. Public education does not typically fail all at once. It weakens gradually as trust erodes. Families begin to supplement, then question, and eventually, in some cases, leave. The longer the gap remains between expectation and reality, the more difficult it becomes to rebuild that trust.
Public education still matters deeply, and it continues to serve the vast majority of students. But the pressures it is facing are real, and the signals we are seeing should not be ignored. If we want to preserve the strength of the system, we need to acknowledge where it is struggling and find ways to support it more effectively. Because once confidence begins to shift, even slightly, it rarely returns on its own.