The Slippery Slope of Complying with PPM131
Know the Difference: Law vs. Policy
Law (Education Act, s.21(2)(a))
A child’s attendance is excused if they are receiving satisfactory instruction at home or elsewhere.
Parents—not school boards—hold the authority.Policy (PPM131)
Policy/Program Memorandum No. 131 is written for school boards, not for parents. It tells boards how to respond if parents choose to notify them.
It is not law. It is not binding on families.
Why It Matters
Each small step feels harmless—“it’s just a letter,” “it’s just a portfolio.” But together, they set a dangerous precedent. Families risk losing the very freedoms Ontario law guarantees.
Protect Your Rights
You are not required to notify the board annually.
You are not required to submit proof of instruction.
The burden of proof in court is always on the school board—not the parent.
Education Act, s.21(2)(a):
A child is excused from attendance at school if the child is receiving satisfactory instruction at home or elsewhere.
⚖️ DISCLAIMER
The information provided in this blog is intended for general educational purposes only and reflects the experience and perspective of home educators. It is not legal advice and does not come from a lawyer. Families are encouraged to consult qualified legal professionals if they require legal guidance for their specific situation.
The Slippery Slope Explained
Step 1: Voluntary Notice
Parents send a “Letter of Intent” (optional).
Effect: Creates the impression the board has oversight.
Step 2: Requests for Proof
Boards ask for portfolios, plans, or testing.
Effect: Parents may comply, even though boards have no legal authority to require it.
Step 3: Routine Oversight
Annual notice and reviews become expected.
Effect: Families who don’t comply may be treated as “non-compliant,” despite the law saying otherwise.
Step 4: Rights Eroded
Over time, voluntary compliance looks like an obligation. Policymakers and even courts may assume parental rights are conditional on board approval.
Background to the Creation of PPM131
PPM131 was first issued in 2002 by the Ontario Ministry of Education. It wasn’t created because homeschooling was failing—rather, it was a bureaucratic response to specific incidents and tensions between families and school boards.
Here’s what prompted it:
-
Increasing Numbers of Homeschoolers (1990s–2000s)
-
Homeschooling had been growing rapidly in Ontario.
-
Families were withdrawing children and not always informing school boards.
-
Some boards reacted aggressively—sending truancy officers, threatening CAS involvement, or demanding intrusive proof.
-
-
Court Challenges and Parental Pushback
-
In court, judges consistently affirmed: the Education Act only requires “satisfactory instruction,” and the burden of proof rests on school boards—not parents.
-
Cases were being lost by boards when they overstepped. This made the Ministry want “clarity” to avoid unnecessary litigation.
-
-
Board Inconsistency Across Ontario
-
Some boards left homeschoolers alone.
-
Others demanded lesson plans, portfolios, even home visits.
-
This inconsistency led to public complaints and media attention. Parents wanted fairness, while boards wanted guidelines.
-
-
Pressure from School Boards and Trustees
-
Boards were uneasy with the idea that children could simply be withdrawn without their approval.
-
The Ontario Public School Boards’ Association (OPSBA) lobbied for clearer authority.
-
PPM131 gave them a framework—but carefully stopped short of law, because the Ministry knew it couldn’t override parents’ rights under s.21(2)(a).
-
What PPM131 Actually Did
-
Told boards: when parents send a Letter of Intent (voluntary), you should accept it without demanding proof unless there are reasonable grounds to suspect the child is not being educated.
-
Gave boards a sample form letter to respond with. Which asks for more information thatn they are legally
-
Emphasized that investigations should only happen if there’s evidence of concern, not just because a family chooses home education.
In other words:
PPM131 was created because some boards were harassing families, others were ignoring them, and the Ministry wanted uniform practice.
But the slippery slope is that families sometimes treat PPM131 as a legal requirement. It isn’t. It is only an internal directive to boards—a way for the Ministry to keep its employees in line after repeated overreach. Now you may experience overreach and intimidation. You are not asking permission, you are simply withdrawing your child/children from a school you enrolled them in.
Key Insights for Parents
Parents have the legal right to homeschool. Ontario law presumes you provide satisfactory instruction unless proven otherwise.
School boards carry the burden of proof. Courts have ruled that oversight or investigations require evidence justifying them.
Policy is not law. Documents like PPM131 guide board practices—they do not impose legal obligations on families.
Family law matters can override schooling decisions. In custody or consent disputes, courts will prioritize the child’s best interest and existing legal orders.
Pandemic-era rulings emphasized provincial authority. Courts will generally defer to government decisions regarding school safety in public health crises.