---

Reference: Legislative Assembly of Ontario Status of Legislation has a complete list

Bill 52, Education Amendment Act (Learning to Age 18), 2006

Received Royal Assent Dec 20, 2006

“An Act to amend the Education Act respecting pupil learning to the age of 18 and equivalent learning”

The preamble literally is full of hypocritical bunk about how these social engineers ”recognize” and “believe” and “understand” how school should be interesting and how pupils should be motivated and have a “real choice” before it proceeds to sharply reduce real choice for 16-18 yrs old:

5.  Compulsory attendance

(1)  Unless excused under this section,

(a) every person who attains the age of six years on or before the first school day in September in any year shall attend an elementary or secondary school on every school day from the first school day in September in that year until the person attains the age of 18 years; and

(b) every person who attains the age of six years after the first school day in September in any year shall attend an elementary or secondary school on every school day from the first school day in September in the next succeeding year until the last school day in June in the year in which the person attains the age of 18 years.

So students of Ontario have been formally sentenced by this law to be imprisoned against their will in some kind of school until they are 18, regardless of the fact and reality that many of them would be happier finding work and making money.   Public schools aren’t all bad, but not every teenager can make lemonade out of lemons.  This reduction in choice is destructive and the choices offered are different kinds of “equivalent learning.”   Whatever is equivalent to regimentation.  Better for some to pretend we have choices than believe we’re under someone’s thumb.

The philosophy of libertarianism advocates self-ownership (with recognition of parental rights as a limited temporary stewardship).  Libertarians don’t advocate state control of children.  This shocking libertarian concept of separation of school and state is a problem for people for different reasons.   They might believe the teens  will run around holding up convenience stores.  And they may also be terrified of the idea that everyone learns at their own pace and that true learning and education is not forced, but it comes through necessity and desire, and by the pressures of life and by the interests people develop on their own.   And not every child is going to care about the same things.

There are also establishment efforts to increase productivity to boost the economy.  All the time the political class repeats this utilitarian stuff in the media.  So from their point of view, education is literally just their form of social engineering to make sure their economy keeps humming along as if economic life comes from the top down rather than based on the choices and instincts of many individuals who own their own lives.

The parasitical class need workers to pay the taxes that support them.   Educational policy is where their desperation shows.

So the social engineers – everyone who supports the concept – think they know better than us what we need to learn.

Why they think they are more expert on the future than each individual – or why they take on the role of assuming responsibility for us  – is the great mystery of human submission. Or just a bad habit people need to be slapped out of.

Evil is really creative, so let’s get back to the meat of the legislation.  You might wonder how they intend to make kids stay in school until they’re 18 – seems like such an impossible trick  – and maybe it won’t succeed the way they want it to.

First of all, just the regular stuff for the duty of parents to force their kids to attend school if they are under 16 – which is bad enough and which should be condemned:

A parent or guardian of a person required to attend school under section 21 who neglects or refuses to cause that person to attend school is, unless the person is 16 years old or older, guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $1000.

The court may, in addition to or instead of imposing a fine, require a parent or guardian convicted of an offence under subsection (1) to submit to the Minister of Finance a personal bond, in a form prescribed by the court, in the penal sum of $1000 with one or more sureties as required, conditioned that the parent or guardian shall cause the person to attend school as required under section 21 and, upon breach of the condition, the bond is forfeit to the Crown.

Anyone who employs during school hours a person required to attend school under section 21 is, unless the person is 16 years old or older, guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $1000.

Habitually absent from school

A person who is required by law to attend school and who refuses to attend or who is habitually absent from school is, unless the person is 16 years old or older, guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to the penalties under Part VI of the Provincial Offences Act and subsection 266 (2) of this Act applies in any proceeding under this section.

So here, we’re starting to see changes to see the 16-18 yr old changes:

A person who is required to attend school under section 21 and who refuses to attend or is habitually absent is guilty of an offence and for that purpose the following apply:

1. Subsection 266 (2) of this Act applies in a proceeding under this subsection.

2. A proceeding under this subsection shall be conducted in accordance with Part VI of the Provincial Offences Act.

3. Every reference to “sixteen years” in the definition of “young person” in section 93 of the Provincial Offences Act shall be read as a reference to “18 years”.

4. A court may, on convicting a person of an offence under this subsection, impose any penalty under Part VI of the Provincial Offences Act

And here is where it gets creative for 16-18 year-olds:

Additional penalty: driver’s licence suspension

(5.1)  In addition to any other penalty it imposes on convicting a person of an offence under subsection (5), a court may order that the person’s driver’s licence be suspended and for that purpose the following apply:

1. The order shall specify a date on which the suspension ends, which shall be no later than the date on which the person is no longer required to attend school under section 21.

2. Once the suspension ends, the person may apply for the reinstatement of his or her licence to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles appointed under the Highway Traffic Act.

Explanatory Note:

This Explanatory Note was written as a reader’s aid to Bill 52 and does not form part of the law. Bill 52 has been enacted as Chapter 28 of the Statutes of Ontario, 2006.The Education Act is amended to raise the compulsory school attendance age from 16 to 18 and to enable the development of learning opportunities for pupils that fall outside the instruction traditionally provided by a board, termed “equivalent learning” in the Act.Certain other amendments are made to the Education Act that relate generally to the changes described above, such as the following: 1. Regulations may be made prescribing circumstances in which a right or obligation that normally rests with the parent or guardian of a pupil who is under 18 will instead rest with a pupil if he or she is at least 16 years old. 2. The Minister may establish policies, guidelines and standards with respect to equivalent learning and require boards to develop and offer equivalent learning opportunities to their pupils. The Minister may designate groups, organizations and entities and programs, courses of study or other activities that are approved for the purposes of equivalent learning. The Minister and boards may both enter into agreements with other parties regarding the provision of equivalent learning to board pupils.

3. The fines for offences related to non-attendance at school set out in section 30 are raised from $200 to $1,000.

4. When a person of compulsory school age is charged with being habitually absent from school, the proceeding is conducted in accordance with Part VI (Young Persons) of the Provincial Offences Act and, for that purpose, Part VI of that Act shall be read as if it applies to persons under 18 years old (it normally applies to persons under 16 years old).

5. A court is empowered to order the suspension of a driver’s licence of a person who is convicted of being habitually absent from school. The person’s licence would be reinstated no later than the date on which the person is no longer required to attend school under section 21 of the Act.

6. The right to become qualified as a resident pupil is extended in section 36 to persons who are 16 or 17 years old and have withdrawn from parental control and to persons who are at least 18 years old.

So this deals with the most basic libertarian issue when it comes to education – not so much state-funded education – but just the existence of mandatory education.

It has led to the most dangerous situation of our times – that of the obedient state-worshipping and indoctrinated child who grows up to become the submissive tax-paying servant of the system we serve – fake pseudo-”free-market”, corporatist, war-making, neo-imperialist system – a subservient hierarchy of nations bound together by common “democratic values” and mandatory education – that pays lip-service to “freedom” while it destroys freedom.

The Act was passed by the Liberal govt of Ontario.  I’d like to find out how many Tories opposed this legislation.

Authorized by the Alan Mercer Campaign

September 10th, 2007

14 comments to Ontario Legislation – Making Kids Stay in School until 18

• Chuck

December 4th, 2008 at 2:14 am

I am unfortunately greatly affected by this new legislation. I am 16 year old who is being robbed of six hours of my life on an almost daily basis and so far there does not seem to be anything that I can do to change this. I think that we, as a country and as people with any sort of morality, should be appalled at this blatant act of oppression and I’m relieved to see that there are like-minded individuals out there who are adults. It seems that authority figures, parents most certainly included, do nothing about this because in many ways they are not directly affected nor do they have the perspective of a young person. I am sure that a law requiring adults to spend large portions of their daily lives performing tedious tasks without any real benefit would be met with public uproar, but for some reason when it only applies to kids not a whole lot seems to be done about it.

• Anthony

February 18th, 2009 at 4:07 pm

I am unfortunately greatly affected by this new legislation too. I am a teacher who, on daily basis, has to deal with 60+ individuals who feel that they are being robbed of their lives at school, see me as a prison guard and try hard to make my existence as miserable as possible. The tedious tasks I am trying to make them to perform do not produce much benefit because most of them consider it just the tedious tasks and nothing more. You can make students come to school against their will (under threat of fine, license suspension, whatever) but you cannot make them learn!! This is pretty obvious idea but people upstairs just do not get it. They live in their pretend world, make ridiculous claims (for example that Canadian students perform well at math olympics etc.(http://www.imo-official.org/year_country_r.aspx?year=2007&column=total&order=desc)).
and waste taxpayers money. They are the only ones who benefit from the situation.

• Laurie

March 5th, 2009 at 3:24 pm

I have a 16 year old son who refuses to attend school. Although we are working very closely with the school board, there is very little I can do to force him to attend. (He is 6’3″, I am 50 years old and 5’4″). Criminal charges and hefty fines have been threatened as well. We have also had physiological testing done through the school board which recommended a full psychiatric evaluation. Today the evaluation was completed and the psychiatrist highly recommends a long term in-house treatment program. I agree. It is obvious that my son’s refusal to attend school is part of a much larger issue. However, because of his age, the law also says that my son cannot be forced into treatment and would have to consent, which he will not do. Can you say ‘BRICK WALL’!! I am so mad I could spit!!!! In this case are these two laws not in direct contradiction to each other???? Wher do I go from here?????????

• Alan Mercer

March 6th, 2009 at 11:35 am

Just some thoughts. It’s an impossible situation because government is force and force puts us in these situations especially if we have the idea that it’s somehow legitimate.

Respecting your son’s wishes is key. This idea of forcing someone to do something is the fundamental problem – that’s what the law is for – to coerce people against their will – we don’t want to identify ourselves with the system that oppresses us.

And try to negotiate with your son to respect your concerns and recognize your dilemma – because of the dangers he faces and how you would like him to respect your wishes as he lives with you etc. Maybe you can work out a solution that makes sense to both of you.

Some people choose to be involved in civil disobedience or try to fight the system peacefully by conscientious objection or in court. This is a hard road that a some choose, but people may benefit from it and learn from it eventually. It sounds like he is already learning a lot about how the system works for example. It should open his eyes and the eyes of his friends and family.

The whole idea of treating it as a psychiatric problem is totalitarian. You should watch 1984 where Big Brother forces the man to believe in a simple lies. So trying to make your son to believe he is sick because he dissents is the ultimate wrongdoing. In the Soviet Union – a totalitarian society – which we’re already heading towards – they incarcerated dissenters in psychiatric hospitals. The real establishment find it convenient to treat dissenters as mentally ill. They have all the drugs for that which some corporations profit from. It’s a fascist structure, that’s technically what fascism means – “public private partnership”.

• CM

March 7th, 2009 at 1:52 pm

It’s correct that just because someone refuses to go school they are not necessarily mentally ill, but the previous poster did not say her son is sick because he won’t go, rather that he won’t go because he’s sick. I find myself in the exact same situation. I have a 16 year old daughter who is struggling with mental illness (anxiety and depression), and as a result will not go to school (just one of many symptoms). I can not force her to accept treatment, yet I am somehow capable of forcing her to go to school every day?? – I don’t understand how this makes any sense. My daughter is bigger than me, she would beat me up if I tried to physically remove her from her bed and drag her into school. My stress level is almost as high as her’s now and to add to the already unbearable family situation, I am now receiving threatening letters from the school.

Luckily, my child is willing to accept the medical help that I can not force on her, I don’t know what I would do if she wasn’t. Unfortunately, that help is excruciatingly slow in coming. Perhaps if they wanted kids like mine to finish school, they would invest the necessary resources into adolescent mental health services instead of continuing with this ridiculous notion that all children have the exact same educational requirements and all it takes is laws to force them into realizing it.

At least if she was allowed to leave school, we could concentrate on her health and trying to find a way for her to acquire some skills that will allow her to at least survive as an independent adult.

I fought against this legislation when the bill came up, my MP contacted me several times during the discussion and at one point asked permission to quote me on the floor. Ironic that at the time I was only opposed as a matter of principle, and now that it’s been passed am one of the many who have been personally damaged by it.

• Laurie

March 17th, 2009 at 5:13 pm

Thank you for your input and CM, I m so happy that your daughter is willing to accept help with her emotional issues!!! I wish you both the best of everything! You are so right to say that the calls and threatening letters from the school add to an already high level of stress and I know my son feels bad that he is putting me (and himself) in this situation, which only makes his depression deeper. School is not the be all and end all of things and this law does not recognize that each person is an individual and there are unique circumstance in each case. It assumes that all teenagers are alike and lumps them all together. This is so unfair. It has taken along time to get to the point where the right kind of help was being offered and now because my son is a few days older than her was on our last visit, treatment requires his consent. How can the school hold me accountable for my son not attending school, which is, as CM stated, only one of many symptoms of a much more serious issue, when the medical won’t allow me the right to decide on my son’s medical treatment because he had a birthday? I am still discussing issues with my son and hope that eventually he sees that it would be in his own best interests to accept the treatment offered now, whether he decides to return to school or not. just wish the school would back off in the meantime! It’s not making our situation any easier!!

• shammy rahman

March 23rd, 2009 at 2:13 pm

Hi my daughter is 16 and has managed to get herself into the wrong crowd. she now refuses to go to school and her attitude towards us, her parents, has degraded to such an extent that she now resorts to swear words at us i.e f*%k you, that it is causing a major rift in our personal lives so much so that i am seriously thinking of divorce. Facs wont get involved becuase of her age and now i feel the only avenue left to me is to file a complaint with the police with the view that if it is an enforceable law then the police would have to take action and escort her to school if needed. Frustrated would be an understatement

• mrG

March 27th, 2009 at 8:56 am

This is so totally insane it is beyond description. I have it on good authority (an Ontario Principal) that the two-thirds drop out rate of Ontario males was “the lowest rate ever”, which means the rate must have been much higher in the past, which means when _I_ attended school, and in those days there were plenty of kids who did not want to be there and left (to take jobs usually), were today’s law in force, it would be only a very tiny minority of students in each class who’d be there actually interested and engaged in education! The rest would be “contained” and therefore “trouble”.

I guess this explains the recent rise in lockdowns for INTERNAL issues such as students with knives, probably explains the increased incidence of school violence, police in the hallways and the general depressed and frustrated mood of not only the kids who would be drop-outs, but also among those who would be graduates.

The only future scenario that makes sense is for those kids who want an education to abandon the schools and move into private schools (another curiously recently-popular trend) or religious schools, or home-schooling, thereby leaving the institution to those who do not have the economic or social resources to ‘escape’.

• Tony

March 30th, 2009 at 7:48 pm

Hi, I am 16. I would like to drop out of high school in order to start working. The reason for this is so that I will have money to be able to afford aviation schooling. I plan to go and get my high school diploma online at age 18 after 2 years of working and saving. After that I plan on going into aviation. The main problem with this is that my parents do not support me dropping out. I have only positive intentions in dropping out that could really only benefit my life in terms of my career. Whether they have a right to their claim to want me in school or not, it should still be my decision. This is why I am curious as to what New York laws say about students at the ages of 16-17 who refuse to go to school. This obviously would be without the parents consenting to dropping out. I guess what I’m really trying to ask is; Can police force you to attend school at the age of 16-17 if one refuses to go school without parent consent of dropping out? Please help me out if any of you know or feel like looking for an answer to this question. I have looked moderately hard, but I found that the best way to know would be to ask someone who has had to deal with the situation themselves. Thank you, and please help me out.

• John

May 8th, 2009 at 1:19 am

One thing that I’m confused about and would like an answer for is can a student who is 17 years old in Ontario leave high school with the parents knowing and consent my child is many credIts behind and he is interested in leaving now and pursuing other possibilities and when he is 18 take his GED I really need an answer for this.

• Alan Mercer

May 8th, 2009 at 2:04 am

All I know is that the law is meant to narrow his choices and keep him in school until 18. These laws (there are more like it all the time) are for chaining us up so that we follow along with their agenda. Usually these things are not written to be clear at all but try scanning some of it. To me, it might as well be written by the Devil, and maybe some people would be better off not even having heard of it. Try asking your M.P.P. or the Premier what excuse they have for creating these shackles. There are email addresses at the Ontario Government’s website. It’s really something how much anguish this law is causing. Teens are naturally the way they are and this law is totally unnatural, so maybe it’s impossible to keep for some people. Good.

• Matt

June 14th, 2009 at 6:21 pm

I fully understand your concerns about the government implementing even more rules for parents to follow. However, in my case, this may be different.
I have joint custody of a 10 year old, where he stays at his mothers except for every other weekend. He missed 41 days of school in the 2008-09 school year and was late 36. The teachers can not even write a report card as he just missed too much school. with Bill 52, what rights do I have in making sure that my child can get an education?

• Alan Mercer

June 14th, 2009 at 9:25 pm

Seriously I would look at homeschooling as a desirable option – it’s legal so far – and I would not look to government to force education on my child. He’s better off not going to school. It’s normal for children to not want to go to school. School is a confining indoctrination center where they train children to obey government and conform – which is what people are doing now as they bring in totalitarian measures worldwide. I would also complain to the local M.P.P. and the Premier about all the laws and ask them specific questions so they are put on the spot. If the politicians actually have any control of the laws (that’s the theory – not the reality), they should be held to account directly by as many people as possible. Everyone should complain loudly. The website for the Ontario legislature has contact info.