WRAPSC Trustee Survey

Teachers and families increasingly talk about classroom safety. What specific changes would you advocate for at WRDSB and to the provincial government?

There are at least two considerations with respect to classroom safety: physical safety and child safeguarding.

On physical safety and disruptions, I'd first want to learn more about the root causes before I'd advocate for specific solutions. Evaluating school-resolution data of class evacuations would help identify issues. We need to set clear behavioural expectations and consistently enforce them without regard for “equity”. Standards should be colour-blind. Some classrooms may require additional support workers, but we should prioritize creating a learning environment conducive to focused minds. Disruptive students should be removed.

On child safeguarding, children should not be used as a captive audience for contested adult ideologies. Schools should focus on math, reading, writing, science, and history. They should not present contested theories of gender as factual, nor should classrooms include political symbols (other than our official government flags) or sexually explicit material.

I don’t pretend to have complete answers to these problems, but I think we need to start with a full and honest accounting of the facts and make sure that the public is fully informed.

Class sizes are a growing concern. What solutions would you advocate for at the WRDSB and to the provincial government?

Class sizes are important when a room is chronically overcrowded or when the mix of needs makes teaching impossible. But from my understanding of the research, teacher quality and curriculum matter more for improving student learning.

I don’t think reducing average class size by a couple of students is an effective strategy. I’d far prefer emphasizing what works: explicit instruction, phonics, fewer devices, and less progressive ideology.

Where class size is a problem, that should be evident in publicly-available data. Special resources for students with particular behavioural issues might be a solution. But overall I think class size is mostly a union talking point for their benefit.

Recent independent academic reviews and aggregated data for math and literacy rate the WRDSB as a middle tier, average performing school board in Ontario. While some individual WRDSB schools rank in the top 5 percent, a vast majority score at or below the provincial average. What specific WRDSB policies would you like to see reviewed to improve our ranking?

I think there are three major barriers to math and literacy achievement.

First, we’ve been turning away from knowledge-rich, teacher-led instruction. ‘Inquiry-based’ and ‘student-centred’ learning sound nice, but in practice they let students avoid the hard, repetitive work that produces skill. A coach doesn’t let an athlete decide what drills they feel like doing. Memorization, homework, and repetitive drills have a place; we should not forget that.

Second, Chromebooks and screens shouldn’t be the default instructional tool. Screens are multitasking tools for productivity, not learning. They are distracting and diminish focus and deep thought. We should review device policies and require a justification when a screen is used instead of paper.

Third, equity-of-outcomes ideology like destreaming results in lowering the bar so gaps look smaller. Making a struggling student feel included is not the same as teaching them. I would review destreamed Grade 9 and 10 courses against actual achievement, not political rationale.

WRDSB has identified accountability and public reporting of measurable outcomes as areas for improvement. What specific metric would you use to judge whether the Board is succeeding, and what results would cause you to change course?

I agree that accountability and public reporting by WRDSB have been opaque at best, obstructionist at worst. Citizens shouldn’t have to file FOIs to understand how the Board spends nearly one billion dollars, or why former director Chanicka was hired and then mysteriously ousted.

Before evaluating performance indicators, we need transparency and granular spending detail, including politicized positions like equity and indigenous staffing and contracts. We need public transparency about Chanicka, including the key decision-makers and their reasons for his hiring and departure. We also need accountability regarding the Carolyn Burjoski case: the Board used public resources to silence her and then to fight her in court. No one has been held accountable and the taxpayer has not been made whole.

Once we have information at hand, we can evaluate standard metrics like EQAO, violent-incident rates, alumni placement, and whether we are actually firing people who abuse power.

WRDSB's 2026-27 budget is approximately $970 million, while the Board is also using accumulated surplus to address a $6.65 million deficit. Can you identify one area where the Board should reduce spending and one where it should increase spending?

Cut roles that sort children by identity—equity consultants, affinity-program staff, and programs that teach students they are victims or oppressors because of race. Those positions don’t improve literacy or math proficiency. They generate conflict and salaries for activists. I don’t know dollar figures without Board financial transparency, which is itself the first problem.

If there is a place to increase spending that would be in classrooms. Early literacy specialists, math support that drills fundamentals, and behaviour support so that one student in crisis doesn’t derail learning for twenty-five others.

I won’t pretend to know what I don’t, or can’t, know about finances. But I will not support budgets that hide political staffing inside “well-being” and “belonging.”

When it comes to the study of Indigenous history, residential schools, treaties and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action, are our public schools doing too much, too little, or enough? What, if anything, would you change?

Studying Canadian history is important, which includes these topics. But the current treatment is unbalanced and often lacks evidence.

While there’s nothing wrong with learning about residential schools, they should also learn that extraordinary claims about mass graves and genocide are still disputed by serious historians, and that the Kamloops mass grave claim remains unverified after five years. It’s improper to indoctrinate students by presenting only the official government narrative while condemning dissent as moral failure. It’s particularly irresponsible given the mass vandalism and arson of churches that followed this claim.

I would advocate for a simple change: these topics should be treated as any other contested history. We should evaluate primary sources, present competing interpretations, and engage in debate with people who actually disagree. This is the minimum expectation for preparing students for productive discourse as citizens in a free society.

As a trustee, how would you respond when a student reports racial discrimination or racial abuse in their school community?

Take the report seriously, investigate the facts, and apply the same rules as would apply to any other targeted bullying.

I would also stop Board practices that teach students to see race as one of the most important aspects of identity. Segregationist programs that tell students they “belong” when surrounded by people who look like them are harmful. Teaching that Canada is a white supremacist culture, or that some students are born oppressors, are inflammatory assertions that pit students against one another by race. It primes students to see ordinary disagreements as racial conflict and it justifies a growing equity bureaucracy.

We should deal with incidents as they arise and stop teaching shaky theories that produce more such incidents.

What should a trustee do in a situation where they disagree with a board policy that complies with provincial law?

State so in public with reasons and evidence. Vote no to the policy if it comes up. Use PIC, WRAPSC, and parent/school councils and delegations to ensure the public hears the arguments and is informed before treating the policy as settled. Advocate for changes to the provincial law if it’s the problem. A trustee can comply while criticizing a law or policy.

Are there any board policies regarding equity, inclusion or anti-racism that you would refuse to support? If yes, explain why.

Yes. I oppose the entire philosophical framework, not just a specific policy.

Equity as practiced by the Board doesn’t mean equal treatment. It sorts students into (mostly racial) groups and explains disparities by invisible systems of oppression. For example, Anti-Racism policy 1018 blames systemic racism for disproportionately impacting black and indigenous students “due to the ongoing impacts of colonization and enslavement.” This critical race theory policy passed with little public knowledge or consultation. I was involved as a PIC member, where parent consultation amounted to six parents split into Zoom rooms so we could not even hear each other. At least half of that small group opposed it. That’s not consent of the governed.

I won’t support policies that assign to children historical guilt or victimhood, that justify racial affinity grouping, or that lower academic standards in the name of inclusion. If elected I will work to have these topics discussed openly instead of quietly passing policies based in controversial theories imported from American law schools.

WRDSB is planning more investments into cyber awareness education, including AI, social media, privacy and screen time. What are your views on the use of AI in classrooms?

AI is a tool to help experts become more productive; it is not for learning. AI should not be in classrooms unless there is a very specific use that doesn’t replace basic learning tasks. I would advocate for a return to traditional textbooks and pen-and-paper assignments as much as possible.

I think the WRDSB can save money and not bother investing in these specific technological issues of the day. If students are prepared with timeless skills of deep learning, they will best manage a future that we can’t possibly predict. Just focus on educating students well in the basics.

Regarding the use of cellphones, do you believe WRDSB should take a stricter approach than the provincial minimum? If you were to design a cellphone policy from scratch, what would it look like?

I think cellphones are a distraction from learning and teachers should make sure students put them away during class. However, I can also see the value in students having them in certain situations. I’d need to give more thought and hear both sides.

Do you believe Ontario's approach to de-streaming is ultimately beneficial or detrimental to students? Please explain your position, including how you believe it affects students with different learning needs, academic abilities, and aspirations, as well as teachers' ability to meet those needs in the classroom.

Destreaming doesn’t make sense to me. We have kids with different skill levels and natural aptitudes in math. If they are grouped into different streams then we can better ensure that each group ascends to their highest reasonable level of proficiency. If we group them together, the teacher cannot push the advanced students towards excellence but also will probably drown the weaker students. As far as I can tell it is just a political tick-box exercise to eliminate gaps on paper. But these gaps resurface with a vengeance in Grade 11 when students who’ve been misled to believe they are good at math are hit with reality.