Final report on the review of the Toronto District School Board’s excursions policy and procedure

Introduction

On October 18, 2024, the Minister of Education appointed me to review the Toronto District School Board’s (TDSB) field trip policies, procedures and practices, including their implementation. This appointment was made after parents and members of the TDSB’s communities raised concerns about an excursion to the 2024 Grassy Narrows River Run on September 18, 2024. The concerns centered around the circumstances under which the excursion was organized and under which students were escorted to the event, about events during the excursion, and about the motivation of teachers organizing the excursion.

Student attendance at the River Run garnered considerable negative media attention and was widely commented on in various social media. Generally speaking, media reported that TDSB parents had been misled and that the rally and march for clean water for the peoples of the Grassy Narrows First Nation was always going to be a pro-Palestinian protest in which students were forced to participate. Much of the narrative in the mainstream media and social media suggested that TDSB teachers had intentionally escorted students to a pro-Palestinian protest under false pretenses.

With student safety and perceived political opinions as primary concerns of the Minister, I was asked to provide my observations and recommendations related to the events preceding, during, and following the TDSB planned field trip to the Grassy Narrows River Run. I was tasked with determining whether the requirements of the TDSB’s policies and procedures had been met, examine where gaps may exist, and make recommendations to ensure that the TDSB policies and practices prioritize the health, safety and inclusion of all students and their learning environments.

Methodology

To fulfil my mandate, I undertook a review of key TDSB and ministry policies, reviewed media and social media coverage, and conducted interviews with a wide range of individuals to construct a fact-based account of what occurred before, during and after the September 18 excursion.

Interviews

Over the course of the Review, I held 146 meetings and interviews with parents of students who attended the Grassy Narrows River Run event and some parents whose children did not attend, parent volunteers and students who attended the field trip, community groups and individuals affected by the event, Indigenous partners, TDSB trustees, senior board leadership^{footnote 1[1]}, principals, teachers and union representatives – see Appendix A for a breakdown of these meetings. I also received 73 written submissions from parents, students and community members, including delegations and submissions forwarded to me by the TDSB.

My approach was first to meet with TDSB senior administrators and with the Acting Chair of the Board. I met with the principal of each of the 19 schools involved in the excursion in order to determine whether their approval of the excursion met the terms of the TDSB Excursions Policy. I then met with the lead teacher responsible for the excursion for each school that had students attend the Grassy Narrows River Run event. In cases where more than one teacher acted as escort, I also interviewed other teachers. In cases where volunteers accompanied teachers and students to the event, and were available to meet with me, I interviewed those individuals.

I identified the teachers by reviewing the board's standard excursion forms submitted before the event (“Request for Excursions Approval” forms), and by reviewing information shared by the principals. The Request for Excursions Approval forms are used in the TDSB’s electronic filing system by teachers and principals to record details related to excursions and to obtain approval for excursions. Until I had contact with the teachers, their identities were not shared with board officials or with the representing union. If a member so wished, union representatives were invited to attend interviews with the individual member.

Interviews with students were arranged through school principals who ensured that parental/guardian permission was obtained. Principals sent an invitation on my behalf to parents of students who attended the excursion as well as parents who chose not to grant permission for their child to attend. In some cases, I met with students in groups and in other cases, at their request, I met with students individually. Parents were invited to contact my team directly to schedule an interview and, if they wished, to attend the interview with their children. I invited community organizations and individuals representing communities most affected by the event to interviews. In this respect, I held meetings with organizations from Toronto’s Jewish communities, members of the Palestinian community and with concerned Indigenous individuals and key members of the Grassy Narrows First Nation.

I interviewed trustees who represented the communities of schools with students who attended the event, and I interviewed trustees who, while they might not represent schools with students who attended the event, nevertheless had a special interest in the issues under consideration.

Media Coverage

I largely relied on the Ministry of Education’s Communications Branch to conduct a media scan of mainstream and social media reports on the event. Through this scan I received over 30 mainstream media articles and op-eds related to the event, as well as video footage of the event. I also reviewed all social media posts that were forwarded to me from the public and from parents I interviewed.

TDSB Communications and Documentation

To understand how this event was discussed at the senior board level and at individual schools, and to understand how this opportunity was presented to parents, I requested, received, and reviewed the following documentation:

• Emails from senior board leaders to trustees, to the public and to principals
• Emails between senior board leaders
• Emails from teachers and principals to parents
• Emails from parents to trustees, principals and teachers
• The board’s statements and media response following the event
• Letters to the board from groups (parents, students and a community group)

I also reviewed all 23 Request for Excursion Approval Forms and a sample of the parent/guardian permission form used by each participating class.

Methodological Shortcomings

I was informed that there were several Jewish TDSB teachers who might have information relevant to the Review but who, fearful of reprisal, were afraid to meet with me. I was, unfortunately, unable to make arrangements for those teachers to speak with me. Furthermore, I have no knowledge of what those teachers would have said to me had I been able to meet them. Several Jewish TDSB employees did speak with me and their information has been considered in drafting this report.

TDSB Excursions Policy and Procedure

Recognizing the educational value of learning experiences outside the classroom, the TDSB’s Excursions Policy PO33 (“Policy”) establishes criteria for safe and inclusive excursions. Excursions are required to have an educational purpose with curricular relevance, and parent or guardian consent is mandatory for students to attend field trips. The Policy was adopted in 2003, revised and reviewed in 2013 and 2019, and is scheduled for review in the 2024-2025 school year.

Operational Procedure PR511 (“Procedure”) is used to implement the Policy. The Procedure was adopted in 2004 and since then has been revised six times, including amendments that were made in 2021 to strengthen student safety following the tragic drowning of Jeremiah Perry on an excursion in 2017.

Since student safety is central to this Review, and given their expertise when it comes to student safety, I asked the Ontario Physical and Health Education Association (OPHEA) to conduct an analysis of the Procedure, given OPHEA’s expertise. OPHEA compared the TDSB’s procedure with the Ontario Physical Activity Safety Standards in Education (OPASSE)^{footnote 2[2]} and found that the two were mostly aligned. OPHEA identified three OPASSE provisions that are not included in the TDSB’s procedure.

First, with respect to safety, the OPASSE is explicit in encouraging students to report facility problems to a teacher and second, ensuring students are instructed on environmental conditions and ways to protect themselves. Through interviews with students, teachers and principals, I heard that teachers do have discussions with students ahead of excursions as part of contingency planning so that students know what to do should they get lost or hurt. However, that is not explicitly included in the Policy or Procedure.

OPHEA noted that two requirements in the TDSB’s Procedure go beyond OPASSE, specifically the requirements that the principal assign a dedicated person to be in charge of an excursion, and that a principal must be accessible during an excursion. These requirements in TDSB’s Excursions Procedure indeed go beyond the OPASSE and may enhance student safety.

Setting aside gaps that expose themselves in light of the Grassy Narrows excursion, the TDSB has conducted a high degree of diligence in keeping its Procedure up to date. It is a comprehensive procedural document that reflects the knowledge and experience of staff over two decades.

Of particular interest to this Review are the school principals’ responsibilities with respect to excursions and the provisions related to risk management. Principals have numerous responsibilities before, during and after excursions. Teachers are required to submit a Request for Excursion Approval form through the board’s online Excursion Management Application (EMA). This form contains information on the proposed excursion, including logistical information, purpose, curriculum connections, arrangements for non-participating students, expected number of students, supervision, and medical and contingency procedures. Principals are responsible for reviewing the form and then either granting or denying approval.

Excursions involving a “high-care activity”^{footnote 3[3]} require additional approval from both the Superintendent of Education and the Executive Superintendent of Education. I note that while the Procedure requires an additional level of review and approval in circumstances where student physical safety necessitates a heightened level of scrutiny, the Procedure does not contemplate facilitating student conversations in relation to excursions where contending or contentious points of view might be expressed or where discriminatory comments or conduct might take place. The excursion to the Grassy Narrows River Run event did not explicitly meet the TDSB’s definition of a high-care activity and therefore did not require Superintendent or Executive Superintendent approval on this basis. That said, one principal did seek advice from their Superintendent due to concerns they had that the excursion was a protest; that principal explained that they sought this advice given their understanding of the board’s response to student walkouts and marches related to the war in the Middle East.^{footnote 4[4]}

However, both the board’s Excursions Policy and Procedure are clear that excursion destinations are generally to be selected from the TDSB’s Excursion and Event Facilities Directory^{footnote 5[5]}. Section 6.9 of the Policy clearly sets out that any activity not listed in the Directory requires Superintendent approval. However, the Procedure does not clearly set out this requirement. Furthermore, the Policy and Procedure are clear that when Superintendent approval is required, that that approval must be requested one month in advance of the proposed excursion. Despite the fact that the excursion was not on the approved Directory, the excursion was approved by the principal of each school involved, without seeking the Superintendent’s approval as required by the Policy. According to two Associate Directors, “a review was made around 2022 of approvals to Superintendents of excursions that were not on the Excursion and Event Facilities Directory. The review found the number of referrals to Superintendents was overwhelming. [A senior staff] decision was made to change this process” and thus allow school principals to exercise final approval over excursions not listed in the Directory, contrary to board policy. This significant staff-initiated change in process was not accompanied by a change in either the Excursions Policy or Procedure. The implication of this change in process is that any excursion to a place or event not found on the Directory since 2022 has not complied with the TDSB’s Excursion Policy and Procedure.

Facts and Findings

There have been many and varying opinions expressed about what happened on September 18, 2024. My role as Reviewer was to uncover the facts and I have done so by interviewing students, teachers and parents who were able to give me first-hand accounts of what transpired at the Grassy Narrows River Run event. The board’s administration was thoroughly cooperative with the Review and provided information as requested. What follows is what I find to be the facts based on information from those involved in the excursion, videos and photos of the event, and my careful review of a variety of relevant documentation about what occurred during the three components of the event: 1) gathering at Grange Park; 2) the march to Queen’s Park, and; 3) the gathering at Queen’s Park.

While addressing geopolitical conflict is clearly beyond the scope of this report, I acknowledge that the backdrop for the controversy surrounding the September 18 excursion is the ongoing war in the Middle East. Community concern expressed in mainstream and social media was that views on the Middle East conflict represented at the Grassy Narrows River Run event were one-sided and had no place in this particular school excursion.

Before the Excursion to the Grassy Narrows River Run Event

The Grassy Narrows River Run excursion was not listed in the TDSB’s Excursion and Event Facilities Directory and though one principal considered doing so, no principal sought Superintendent approval to send students to the Grassy Narrows River Run event. Having had the opportunity to speak with all of the principals involved, I am satisfied that the failure to seek Superintendent approval has not been limited to only the Grassy Narrows event but to at least two other excursions: one in October 2023 and another in November 2024. Both of these events raised questions in the community but were nevertheless attended. In one case, a local principal approved the event and in the second case, though the event was not formally approved, a local school principal and parents accompanied students to a two-day event outside of Toronto.  In a conversation that I held with a board official, I was informed that had the second event come forward for approval, given some of the speakers at the event, approval would have been denied.

Despite the failure to seek Superintendent approval for this excursion, principals and teachers took great care to support student learning of the issues faced by the Grassy Narrows First Nation. In speaking with teachers, I heard passion and dedication toward reconciliation with Indigenous communities. I heard detailed and, in some cases, very deep cross-curricular connections. The Grassy Narrows River Run event was a meaningful and concrete way to respond to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Call to Action 63 (iii)^{footnote 6[6]} and it was expected to be an educational opportunity for students across several subjects to enhance their learning in Social Sciences, English, Art, Science, History and Indigenous Studies. It is clear to me that this excursion was not only directly linked to provincial and board curriculum, but, for many students, it provided enhanced learning in a way that cannot be realized in the classroom.

This particular excursion should have been an example of how field trips can introduce students to world and current events, expose them to the value of civic engagement and voice, and encourage the development of critical thinking skills and empathy. Of equal importance, with few exceptions, I heard almost universal support by parents for the focus that the TDSB brings to bear on teaching about Indigeneity. Many parents compared with approval, their children’s awareness of Indigenous life in Canada with their own. Unfortunately, all of this was overshadowed by the concerns raised following this excursion.

Role of Grassy Narrows First Nation

Every year since 2010, the people of Grassy Narrows First Nation have organized a River Run in their continued quest for clean water. At the time of the 2024 River Run, the Chief of the Grassy Narrows First Nation was Rudy Turtle. Chief Sherry Ackabee, who was elected chief in October, also attended the event. Both she and Rudy Turtle insist that the focus of the event was on clean water and that the River Run was not taken over by any other protest.

Rudy Turtle was involved in the planning of the River Run and was one of the main speakers at Grange Park. He mentioned that while there was an open mic portion of the event, most of the speakers were from Grassy Narrows. He also confirmed that there was a public invitation for anyone who wanted to join the Grassy Narrows First Nation to support their cause. This was a solidarity event and groups supporting many different causes responded to the call to action.

Excursion Approvals

School principals met all but two of their responsibilities as set out in the Policy and Procedure. First, since the Grassy Narrows River Run is not listed as an approved excursion in the TDSB Excursion and Events Facilities Directory, under the Policy, principals were required to seek approval for the trip by their Superintendent. In all cases, they failed to do so. Second, under the Procedure, proposals for excursions requiring Superintendent approval must be submitted to the Superintendent at least one month prior to the excursion; this was not done. No principal in any school that attended the event met these two responsibilities. I note however, that given that the event was to take place within the first month of school, this one-month requirement to secure Superintendent approval might not have been practical.

During the Review, two explanations were offered for the lapse in obtaining the requisite approvals for the Grassy Narrows excursion. First, it was said that the delegation of Superintendent approval to the Urban Indigenous Education Centre amounted to tacit approval of the excursion contemplated by the Policy and Procedure. I do not agree. Second, it was said that the excursion might have been considered to be a “walking excursion” ^{footnote 7[7]} which is permissible even if not listed in the Directory. I do not agree with this second explanation either. Walking excursions are those which are in easy reach of schools. Since many of the schools attending the Grassy Narrow River Run event lie well outside of walking distance, the trip was clearly not contemplated within the “walking excursion” exception. It seems to me that the Directory and requirements associated with it may not even have been contemplated with respect to this excursion.

In early September 2024, 23 Requests for Excursion Approval Forms were submitted and approved by 15 principals across 19 schools. In some cases, schools with multiple participating classes submitted more than one approval form; in addition, some principals have responsibility for more than one school.

No two forms were exactly alike in content, but that is to be expected with curriculum connections to such a wide range of subjects and grade levels. However, the differing curricular connections and intended outcomes across classes and schools was confusing and unclear to some parents.

The parent/guardian permission forms that were generated from the Requests for Excursion Approval Forms did not always clearly articulate the curriculum connections I observed that teachers had identified for this excursion. In many cases, teachers provided parents with a summary of Ministry and board curriculum expectations. There is a gap in the online excursions record-keeping software in that it does not allow for a full explanation in the parent/guardian permission forms of the relevant curriculum connections for excursions.

The extent of the information provided to parents and guardians through permission forms was inconsistent among the 19 schools. While some forms included very few details about the excursion, most gave a more precise itinerary for the day. Most were very clear about which of the three components of the Grassy Narrows River Run students would attend: the gathering at Grange Park, the march from Grange Park to Queen’s Park; and the rally at Queen’s Park. Others lacked that specificity. For example, I found two instances where the forms indicated that students would be going from Grange Park to Queen’s Park but were not explicit about the march. I don’t believe that this was an intentional omission, but rather a simple oversight. Some discrepancies between what was planned for in the permission form and what actually happened occurred when classes did not make it as far in the River Run as they had intended, either as a reaction to what took place, or due to fatigue and time constraints.

Without exception, every teacher responsible for the excursion received parental or guardian consent, through EMA, on paper or, if appropriate, verbally. Every TDSB student under the age of 18 who attended had done so with parental or guardian consent; those students over 18 were able to provide their own verbal consent. No parent or guardian reported to me that their child attended the excursion without their consent. The Grassy Narrows River Run was, in fact, an optional excursion for which permission was given by parents and guardians.

There is some disagreement amongst individuals I interviewed as to whether the Grassy Narrows River Run was a rally, a protest or a march. The general consensus among those who attended is that it was a rally and that a march was a component of the rally. Most permission forms referred to the event as a march. In hindsight, anyone looking at the organizers’ promotional material would have seen that the event was characterized as a rally. There has been some criticism in the media, social media and from some parents that students should not have been at a rally, and while parents and guardians gave permission for students to attend the Grassy Narrows River Run, I don’t believe that some parents and guardians understood, based on the permission forms, that they were granting approval for their child to attend a rally.

Beyond the required permission forms, some schools also communicated with families prior to the excursion. One school communicated that students who did not have permission to attend the excursion would be provided alternative learning opportunities at the school that aligned with the same educational objectives as the excursion. It is in fact the lead teacher’s responsibility, per the Procedure, to arrange an appropriate and related program for all students who do not participate in an excursion. The Request for Excursion Approval Form asks teachers to identify arrangements for non-participating students, and in my review of the 23 forms for this excursion, I found that specificity was lacking in all but three forms. This indicates to me that there was a missed learning opportunity for those students who stayed behind, and that many were not given work tied to the curriculum connections of the excursion. This was corroborated in interviews. In most classes, the intentionality for student learning at the excursion was not equally applied for students who did not attend the Grassy Narrows River Run.

What is also noteworthy in some of the communications to parents was the suggestion for students to wear blue shirts to the event. Some media reported that students were told to wear blue to symbolize that they were “settlers” or “colonizers”. I find as a fact that media information was largely misleading. Some teachers did indeed suggest that their students wear blue, however that colour was intended to represent clean water – nothing else. In only one instance, a teacher communicated to parents that “settlers are asked to wear blue, if possible.” At the request of the Grassy Narrows River Run organizers, the teacher used the word “settler” in asking students to wear blue.

I must note that this terminology raised concern amongst some parents and students who told me that they were confused by that term and felt badly about identifying as settlers. When using such terminology, it is appropriate to build a ramp to understanding the relationship between Indigenous Peoples and the generations of newcomers to Canada after first contact with Europeans. One parent told me that, given the complex origins of his child, the term “settler” is confusing.

In this regard, it must be said that as the relationship between Indigenous Peoples and the rest of the Canadian population changes, new terms arise to describe and perhaps define that relationship. This type of shift in terminology took place during the Civil Rights period, during the rise of the 1970’s women’s movement and more recently in the rise of the gay rights movement. While it should be of little surprise that terms will evolve to define relationships with Indigenous Peoples, as with all things and particularly where children are concerned, prudence is required.

I also note that some schools communicated to parents either on the permission form or directly via email that students would be observing the rally, whereas other permission forms clearly indicated that students would be participating. Despite these inconsistencies, every teacher had engaged in contingency planning prior to the excursion to ensure the physical safety of students. Every contingency plan was appropriate for the grade-level of the students and demonstrated the care and fore-thought with which teachers approach excursions and consider the physical safety of students. During the excursion, none of the contingency plans were formally initiated, though groups from two schools returned to school early due to the chanting they heard at Grange Park.

In one instance, before the excursion, a teacher told their class that the class would leave in the event that an antisemitic or anti-Palestinian sentiment was expressed during the River Run. After a pro-Palestine chant was heard from the Grange Park stage, at least one student told this teacher that they felt discomfort. The class did not leave immediately, and the student did not tell the teacher why they felt discomfort. While physical safety may not have been the concern here, emotional safety should have been considered by the teacher. I believe that the teacher knew why the student was feeling discomfort and that, by not leaving, they broke their agreement with the student.

At the Grassy Narrows River Run Event

In a way, there were 23 field trips that day, run by different teachers, tied to different curricula, but all were there for the same underlying reason: to learn about the Grassy Narrows First Nation’s fight against mercury poisoning in their water. There were approximately 535 TDSB students that attended, ranging from grades three to grade 12.

The Grassy Narrows River Run began in the two-hectare Grange Park in downtown Toronto. Students arrived at the park with their teachers, either by school bus, TTC or on foot. Students ate lunch at the park and noticed people handing out snacks, water and t-shirts.

By the time the event commenced, estimates are that 8,000 people were present. Students from the TDSB’s three Indigenous schools and their teachers were asked to occupy the front ranks, close to the stage, and students from other schools were integrated with others attending and scattered in their separate contingents throughout the park. Notwithstanding their location in the crowd, some teachers were clear with their students about their role as observers, but it is apparent that these expectations were not universally applied. In some classes, the assignment that students were expected to undertake was to interview participants at the rally, which clearly involves more than observation.

This breach in expectation has left some parents with the impression that they were misled by some teachers. This was not borne out by the interviews I conducted and the documentation I received. Rather, I find that in the general atmosphere of goodwill and celebration that surrounded the event at Grange Park, some teachers perceived themselves as ‘just being there’ rather than participating. Arguably by not clearly reading the situation, some teachers failed to ‘stick to the plan’ to attend as observers and mingled their students with the general crowd.

There were speeches at Grange Park, but for most groups of students, it was difficult or not possible to hear. There was “lots of static and muffling” from the audio equipment, background noise from 8,000 people congregated in a relatively small, treed space, and many groups were sitting further back in the park. People representing different social justice groups were present to show solidarity for the peoples of Grassy Narrows. Some of these took to the stage at Grange Park, during a planned open-mic portion of the event.

According to students I interviewed, it was over the course of the open-mic speeches that for 30 seconds to one minute, someone on the stage encouraged the crowd to repeat a pro-Palestinian chant: “From Turtle Island, to Palestine, occupation is a crime.” Out of the 19 schools that had groups attend, five reported hearing this chant at Grange Park. The chanting went unnoticed by most of the students. This observation was corroborated by teachers, students and parent volunteers in attendance.

After the speeches, the crowd organized to march to Queen’s Park with Indigenous youth leading the march and non-Indigenous folk following behind. Groups from five TDSB schools left the event at this point to return to school. Because of the need to return home on time, and because some students were tired, school contingents left the event at different times. Some groups taking the TTC walked along with the march to various TTC stations, including some students whose permission slips indicated that their class would attend the event as observers. I also understand that the police present at the event were encouraging groups walking alongside the march to merge with the march, presumably as a measure for crowd control and safety, but nonetheless further confusing the distinction between observer and participants.

With the exception of concerns raised about the pro-Palestine chants, the march was described as “safe,” “positive,” “enjoyable” and “peaceful”. In terms of formal security, there was a sizable police presence keeping walkers on the road and off the sidewalks, and there was a contingent of marshals organized by the Grassy Narrows First Nation. The celebratory atmosphere continued along the march and at Dundas and Bay, a large circle dance was organized, placing attending students at its center. At one point in the march, a woman who was not associated with the organizers of the rally or a TDSB school, shouted a pro-Palestinian chant on a megaphone at the crowd as they passed by her. Classes from five schools heard her chant “From Turtle Island, to Palestine, occupation is a crime.”^{footnote 8[8]}

The rest of the excursion was described as uneventful. Of the 11 schools that had planned on attending all three components of the River Run, groups from seven schools reached Queen’s Park. Once there, they heard more speeches, including from then-Chief Rudy Turtle of the Grassy Narrows First Nation, before either returning to school or being dismissed from the site.

Within student and teacher earshot, the pro-Palestinian content at the event consisted of two occurrences of the same chant. One student also believed they heard the chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” In addition, several dozen individuals wore keffiyeh, pro-Palestinian watermelon insignia and buttons or stickers with various messages, such as “I’m a proud anti-Zionist” and “Free Palestine”. Students from two schools reported seeing a button that stated, “Zionism Kills”, which they viewed as expressing antisemitism. While it appears to have been the case with only one class, it was nevertheless unethical for students to be urged to repeat the chants. That position holds regardless of whether students were asked to chant for Palestine or Israel.

However, what was noted by many students and parents is the role played by some on social media and in our established media to fan the flames of outrage. Students and teachers almost universally did not recognize the event that they attended from the depictions displayed on social media or in mass market publications. In two major news outlets, photographs atop lengthy articles or opinions were presented as being linked to the Grassy Narrows River Run event but according to a Google images search, these images were taken months earlier at some other venues. Indeed, the photographs in question may have been chosen for maximum ‘dramatic’ effect.

I heard from parents who, despite their efforts to address the situation, have failed in having media outlets remove their children’s images from sites. These parents exhibited anger and a palpable concern that, without reason, their children’s images would remain in public view and associated with accounts of the event constructed largely by people who were not there. Students also expressed discomfort about their images being used in the media, concerned that they had attended for the “right reasons but came out looking like [they] were there for the wrong reasons.” Without parental permission, there are children’s images that will live for an indeterminate time on the internet.

I heard from parents who were deeply concerned that they sent their children to what was billed as an event in support of a clean water supply for the Grassy Narrows First Nation and who heard chants in support of the Palestinian peoples’ struggles. For some, learning that their children heard the chant was highly disturbing. In some cases, while at the event, students texted or phoned their parents confused and concerned that at an Indigenous-led event, support for Palestine was in evidence. In some cases, parents told their children that they should ask escorting teachers to leave the event with their classes. I know of only one case in which a request to leave may have been ignored by a teacher; in other cases, teachers acceded to the requests of students to withdraw from the event.

It is important to remember that requests to leave were far from universal and, from the information that I have gathered, they only occurred in two groups. In the aftermath of the event, in my conversations with parents representing the broad diversity of Toronto, by far the largest majority of parents believed the event to have been of great educational value to their children. One student stated that “the learning value of the field trip cannot be understated. I truly believe that my understanding of social justice concepts has been strengthened through my attendance at the march. The opportunity to see what I learned in class applied in real life gave me an understanding no amount of theoretical knowledge could ever hope to give.” A vast majority of parents, principals, teachers and students pointed to the unassailable truth that, in Toronto, at any given time, it is possible for children to be exposed to pro-Palestinian activism.

An overarching message in the majority of interviews I held was that when students are out in public, the unexpected can happen. Whether they are at a rally, on the street or going into a museum, the reality is that there are things beyond one’s control. For example, one school principal spoke of students witnessing a stabbing as they left a Toronto university, and a teacher spoke of younger students being exposed to obscene language while being escorted on a streetcar. Of course, though troubling, none of these examples compare with a Jewish child being offered an “End Zionism” sticker from a schoolmate who himself received the sticker from an attendee at the event who was not affiliated with the TDSB. 

Most parents I spoke with or received written comments from were overwhelmingly supportive of the excursion to the Grassy Narrows River Run event despite these chants and the response the excursion received in the media. The vast majority of students reported that the media coverage of the event was inaccurate and exaggerated. There is a clear division between parents who were comfortable with their children attending a rally type of event, and parents who were deeply upset by the events that unfolded. These latter parents hold a strong sense that they were lied to about the field trip. While one can understand the distress and confusion of some parents, there is no evidence that they were lied to by staff at the TDSB. With two exceptions, there was no prior indication to teachers or principals that a connection might be made between the fight for clean water in Grassy Narrows and the war in the Middle East. Further, half of the lead teachers did not hear any pro-Palestinian chanting at the event and were genuinely surprised to find out about the controversy in the media the following day. At least five of the 19 schools had attended this event in previous years, without incident.

There is a belief from some members of the public and parents whose children did not attend, that the events that unfolded were orchestrated by a network of teachers who conspired to bring students to a pro-Palestinian protest under false pretenses. I found no evidence of this. Documentation provided to me by the TDSB indicates that some teachers did meet to discuss arrangements for the day with Grassy Narrows leadership. Records of that meeting don’t disclose any evidence of a conspiracy or knowledge that demonstrators would express a message that differed from the purpose of the event. However, at that meeting, it was suggested by a teacher that the event was approved by the highest level of leadership at the TDSB, an assertion for which we could find no evidence. There is also a belief amongst some that Superintendents and Associate Directors at the TDSB knew that there would be pro-Palestinian protest at the Grassy Narrows River Run and that student attendance was approved with this knowledge. Frankly, I wish that the TDSB senior staff had been more involved with organizing and approving student attendance given the expectation that they would have the acuity to anticipate the political complexity of such an event. What in fact occurred was that the senior board leadership followed their Policy and Procedure and acceded to the delegated authority of school principals, who may not have had the requisite political acuity.

After the Excursion

The day after the excursion, mainstream media outlets and people on social media began covering and commenting on pro-Palestinian presence at the event. Much of the coverage alluded to students being forced^{footnote 9[9]} to participate in a rally that turned into an anti-Israel protest^{footnote 10[10]}. There were claims that some students were forced to wear a blue shirt to signify that they are “settlers” or “colonialists,”^{footnote 11[11]} that some were given “Zionism kills” stickers^{footnote 12[12]} and that the protest called for the destruction of Israel.^{footnote 13[13]} An overarching theme of this coverage was that parents did not know the extent of what they had given permission for their children to attend. Overall, the coverage of the event focused almost exclusively on these claims rather than on the people of Grassy Narrows and their quest for clean water. The mainstream media and social media coverage pushed coverage of Grassy Narrows out of the public’s mind.  This caused significant harm to the TDSB’s Indigenous communities. In my conversations with Grassy Narrows First Nations leaders, they evinced surprise at the idea, propagated by the mainstream media and social media, that the rally had been ‘hijacked’. A former chief told me “This is the first I’m hearing about it” another said, “over the course of the day, it was all about Grassy”.

Without minimizing the deleterious effect of the pro-Palestinian chants and anti-Zionist stickers on children, I cannot overstate the importance of context. According to those who attended the event (both Jewish and non-Jewish students and teachers), the pro-Palestinian chants took up a total of approximately five minutes of the eight-hour event. Again, stressing that I do not minimize the deleterious effect on young minds of hearing chants that troubled them, I nonetheless condemn a post-event response that left the world thinking that Toronto children were ‘forced’ to attend an anti-Jewish rally, ‘forced’ to wear T-shirts emblazoned with antisemitic insignia and ‘forced’ to chant Jew-hating slogans in unison. This has resulted in some students feeling confused for having had such a positive experience at an event that has been portrayed so negatively.

At the school-level, in the great majority of cases, principals were highly responsive in the aftermath of the Grassy Narrows event. Principals followed up with teachers to determine what took place at the event and responded to parent concerns appropriately. Of the 19 schools that had students attend, five had parents who expressed concern to the school’s principal following the event.^{footnote 14[14]} Parents from another three schools raised their concerns with me. Principals demonstrated a great deal of care in handling this matter and in communicating their commitment to prioritizing student safety and well-being. For example, one principal held an assembly to check in with the students who attended the excursion, held conversations with parents and families and worked at maintaining the relationship with families.

What is unfortunate is that, rather than seek facts before releasing a statement in response to the media coverage, the TDSB added fuel to the fire by apologizing for behaviours that were either exaggerated in social media or that did not in fact take place. Many parents and students evinced anger that the Board acted in this manner. Trustees and senior leaders relied on media articles and unverified social media posts. They did not do their due diligence and in that regard, failed their students and families, many of whom are upset that the apology contained in the school board’s statement was vague, and others who are upset that the board apologized at all: “By apologizing for the presence of Palestinians and supporters of Palestinian human rights, the Board is giving credibility to the notion that simply being in a space with Palestinians and their supporters is something to be sorry about.”

TDSB’s senior leadership quickly launched an investigation and on September 24^th, 2024, senior leaders instructed principals not to proceed with any possible field trips that could involve an organized protest, march or rally; exceptions were to be considered on a case-by-case basis by senior leaders. In light of what transpired on September 18th, the TDSB senior leaders decided to cancel planned excursions to the Indigenous Legacy Gathering on September 30th which was an event that provided a meaningful opportunity to respond to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action.

The Indigenous Legacy Gathering Event

The Indigenous Legacy Gathering was neither a protest, nor a march, nor a rally; it was billed as a gathering that was of premier significance to Indigenous people and included the opening of a new Spirit Garden at Nathan Phillips Square. The Legacy Gathering project was established in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Call to Action 82 for provincial and territorial governments to commission and install a Residential Schools Monument in each capital city to honour residential school survivors and all the children lost to their families and communities. The event was presented by the Toronto Council Fire Native Cultural Centre in partnership with the City of Toronto, the Government of Canada, the Ontario Government and others. It was described as an event to celebrate “the diversity of Indigenous Peoples’ cultures, traditions and languages through workshops, presentations, stories, teachings, dance, film and music.”^{footnote 15[15]}

Plans were in place for classes across the TDSB to attend. Contingency plans were in place and Indigenous students were to have access to their own tipi at the Gathering. Students were excited to attend this educational and enriching event, which was most importantly an opportunity for Indigenous students and staff to commemorate and honour their relatives and take part in healing among members of their communities.

There are a confusing set of messages between those responsible for the cancellation of the TDSB’s participation in the Legacy Gathering celebration. There is, however, clarity about the fact that TDSB participation was cancelled as a result of public reaction to attendance of students at the Grassy Narrows event. A number of schools, including the Board’s three Indigenous schools, had prepared to attend the Legacy Gathering’s Spirit Garden ceremony.

The TDSB’s decision to cancel excursions to the Indigenous Legacy Gathering on the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation was a consequence of the fear that permeated the board after the Grassy Narrows River Run controversy.

It was not until the morning of September 30^th, that students and parents were informed that the Legacy Gathering excursion had been cancelled. The TDSB allowed students to attend with their parents, if that was an option, and directed an Indigenous staff member to offer tobacco at the Legacy Gathering on behalf of students. As one parent pointed out, “Offering tobacco is a contract. Where’s the contract? Everything was broken.”

Indigenous and non-Indigenous people that I spoke to during this review were outraged by the decision to not participate in the Legacy Gathering and how it was communicated. Indigenous Elders and partners, trustees, members of the board’s senior leadership team, principals, teachers and parents have denounced the board’s action. The excursion cancellation denied students the “right to honour their families and community […] They were not allowed to honour their spirit […] It harms Indigenous people when you can’t go, when you are not permitted to honour [your relatives]. There’s intergenerational trauma, and it’s a trigger.”

It took more than two months after the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation for the TDSB to take steps to address the fall-out from their decision to cancel excursions to the Legacy Gathering. The TDSB caused “a lot of harm […] to students, staff, families, and there doesn’t seem be any recognition of that.”

The TDSB’s decision is perceived as an example of anti-Indigenous racism in the board. I heard from several people I interviewed that it contributed to the ongoing erasure and silencing of Indigenous voices. The TDSB’s senior leadership demonstrated a serious lack of understanding of reconciliation. Notwithstanding the turmoil resulting from the Grassy Narrows event, I have found that the TDSB broke trust with Indigenous communities by not attending the September 30^th Legacy Gathering event.

Analysis

Political Context

At this point as I present facts relating to expressions of pro-Palestinian sentiments and expressions of antisemitism at the event, it is appropriate to provide contextualizing comments on antisemitism and the differential treatment of Palestinians. The devastating assault on Israel and on Jewry on October 7, 2023, and the impact of the resulting war through the death and life-changing injuries of ordinary Palestinians has unleashed a global upsurge in antisemitism and in discrimination against Palestinians.

It is unquestionable that a people that has existed through thousands of years of first anti-religious discrimination and violence, and then race-based attempts at eradication, would not now experience an increase in hate as existential. This historic experience that weighs on Jews cannot be assuaged by claims that “I didn’t mean it that way.” Many Jews feel unsafe in our public school system because of unmistakable evidence of a global and local rise in antisemitism.

I cannot ignore the fact that this Review would not be taking place were it not for concerns that controversial speech was used at the Grassy Narrows event and that that speech lay in support of the aspirations of Palestinian people. In this country, it is an unquestionable right for Palestinian people and their supporters to raise awareness of, and support relief for, the unbearable suffering of the people of Gaza and for the establishing of a homeland for the Palestinian people. All of that advocacy must, of course, occur within limits that preclude hate speech.

Over the course of this Review, I have heard that there is human rights-based erasure of the Palestinians’ existence in and outside of schools. Some even perceive this Review to be an example of such treatment. I have heard that if voices are raised in support of Palestinian human rights, there are attempts to shut them down. There is a culture of fear throughout the TDSB related to this erasure of Palestinian existence. Senior leaders told me that principals and teachers are afraid to say or do the wrong thing for fear of repercussion. Students and parents told me that there has been a notable silence in classrooms with respect to the war in the Middle East. Although this war is far from the classrooms in Toronto, it affects many of TDSB’s students, Jewish and Palestinian alike. Some parents of Palestinian students pointed to the contrast between the TDSB’s support of Ukrainians in the ongoing war with Russia and their resounding silence about Palestine. Being silent on the matter suppresses students' lived experience and causes harm. For the sake of our own communities, we must find ways to converse – to listen to what, to many, are two compelling narratives. 

Many Jewish children, teachers, parents and members of the Jewish community expressed deep fear about being Jewish in today’s social climate and wonder whether there is a place for them in the TDSB. Every Palestinian parent I spoke with is fearful for their children, and many are angry that if their children show their identities at school and express their concerns for their relatives in Gaza, they are silenced or reprimanded as supporters of Hamas. Avoiding conversations does nothing more than fuel this culture of fear, which in turn causes harm, isolates people and deepens divides. Though the TDSB has long conducted admirable work in relation to Holocaust education, more must be done to allow students to build empathy and allow students to hear each other.

Health and Safety of Students and Staff

The Grassy Narrows River Run event was, for most attendees, joyful and educational, and students’ physical safety was not compromised. However as previously noted, as a result of what was said to be an “overwhelming” number of excursion approval requests made to Superintendents, the Board’s requirement for Superintendents to approve unvetted excursion destinations was set aside. This vetting process was put in place by the TDSB principally to ensure student safety.

Though due diligence in the form of adherence to the policy and procedure was not observed, that student safety at the event was not, in fact, in jeopardy, was corroborated by most students who attended the event, and by most parents, one of whom explained, “In the context of our world for the past year, it was hard to see my Jewish son among the sea of keffiyehs and people who staunchly stand against Israel. At no point did I think he was unsafe and the teachers did a wonderful job making sure the kids were safe.” Despite the lack of a threat to students’ physical safety, I acknowledge that some students reported feeling emotionally unsafe, uncomfortable or as though they didn’t belong at the Grassy Narrows River Run.

I also heard first-hand about the impact that the coverage by mainstream and social media and public statements about the alleged events had on teachers. Teachers are concerned about death threats and about bounties offered on social media to identify them. Teachers do not feel safe and do not feel protected. It is unacceptable that, largely due to the dissemination of unverified accounts of the Grassy Narrows River Run event, and unsubstantiated attributions of subterfuge on the part of teachers, educators in the TDSB feel threatened so much so that one teacher required a security detail. While it is not within my remit to comment on the responsibility of social media users or the mainstream media, it is within my mandate to observe that board leadership – elected and administrative – did not exercise enough care nor take responsibility to verify facts before responding to concerns related to the event.

Excursions

Field trips provide rich and relevant opportunities to expand student learning and to make real-life connections to the curriculum. The Ministry of Education is in fact very clear on the importance of experiential learning; “Planned learning experiences in the community […] provide opportunities for students to see the relevance of their classroom learning and its connection to the broader world. They also help them develop transferable and interpersonal skills and work habits that prepare them for their future...”^{footnote 16[16]} There are demonstratable benefits of excursions on student development that have broader effects on our society.

I heard from students, parents and teachers that this particular excursion to the Grassy Narrows River Run had a positive impact on most students. I heard of three students who, only after the excursion, felt comfortable self-identifying as Indigenous openly in class. One teacher also explained that “Students recognized that you can watch the videos and read the articles but it felt so different to be there. It humanized the situation and people. Speaking with people their age with mercury poisoning – this was the most impactful learning, in my 15 years of teaching, with respect to truth and reconciliation, equity and colonial violence… I felt grateful to be there myself, and I feel welcome and honoured that the students learned so much in such a short time through this experiential learning.”

Throughout my interviews, I heard a repeated concern that this Review would lead to a reduction in excursion opportunities for students. That is certainly not a position that I would put forward as I wholeheartedly support rich, age-appropriate learning experiences outside of the classroom. Nonetheless, the TDSB must take steps to ensure the appropriateness of excursions and safety of all students. It is my view that, while taking into account the provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code and other applicable legislation, it is desirable for the board to continue its efforts to engage students through safe and appropriate excursions and content, without avoiding difficult topics altogether. Active citizens must engage with issues they find uncomfortable and know how to handle them. Exposing students to local and global issues in appropriate ways prepares students for this.

Conclusion

Throughout this Review, I heard hurt, anger and fear among teachers and administrators at the TDSB, Jewish families and Palestinian families. It is also clear that significant harm was done by the TDSB to Indigenous students, families, staff and partners, and that the board took far too long to take meaningful steps to repair these damaged relationships.

Despite the fact that the TDSB failed to comply with its own policy and procedure that are intended to ensure student safety, with respect to the planned field trip to the Grassy Narrows River Run event, there was no evidence that “students were forced to participate in a political protest” ^{footnote 17[17]} nor was students’ physical safety compromised. That said, the emotional safety of some Jewish students was compromised. Teachers and principals should be more consciously anticipatory with regard to proposed field trips and clearly communicate with parents.

I wouldn’t advise conflicting views be avoided. As one teacher pointed out, “the TDSB’s Combatting Hate Strategy is about holding space, embracing teachable moments of conflicting views to recognize students’ lived experiences.” Students need to learn about the context to understand local and global issues and historical events.

There is value in engaging students in constructive and critical conversations and content while upholding human rights principles and respecting each student’s identity and lived experience. There is also value in students engaging with Indigenous people in a way that regular schooling doesn’t allow. Excursions are beneficial and, respecting the professionalism of the teachers who lead them, should continue. There is an opportunity to address situations where staff anticipate that there might be risks or potential safety concerns involved for students. It is with these principles in mind that I make my recommendations for a path forward for the TDSB.

Recommendations

The TDSB should undertake, in a timely manner, efforts to implement the following recommendations that are intended to prioritize the physical and emotional safety of students in the board’s excursion policy and procedure:

Excursions

1. The TDSB should not engage in excursions where it is anticipated that one-sided political views might have the effect of denigrating the identity of others. In making the determination whether to engage in excursions where controversial topics might be broached, the opinion of board’s Human Rights Office should be sought.
2. The TDSB should develop a coordinated approach for excursions where five or more schools are attending the same event. This coordinated approach will ensure consistent messaging to parents with respect to the description of the excursion and purpose and maintain appropriate curricular outcomes suitable to each grade and subject. This centralized approach should be overseen by an Associate Director responsible for excursions.
3. In planning for student attendance at future excursions to the Grassy Narrows River Run, the Associate Director responsible for excursions should seek input from the Urban Indigenous Centre, and work with the Grassy Narrows First Nation to put safeguards in place to ensure that students can benefit from attendance in this deeply impactful event without their becoming participants and without being exposed to comment and conduct that has the effect of denigrating others on the grounds of their identities. The board should restrict attendance at the Grassy Narrows River Run to grades six and higher.
4. The Urban Indigenous Centre should assume responsibility for coordinating the attendance of students from the TDSB’s Indigenous and Indigenous-focused schools to all excursions related to the curriculum of those schools and related to implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) Calls to Action.

Excursions Policy (PO33) and Procedure (PR511)

5. The TDSB should develop a clear and accessible Excursions Checklist as part of its Excursions Procedure for use by teachers and administrators based on the amended Excursions Policy and Procedure. The checklist should include all the steps identified in Section E of the Operational Procedure PR511 on Excursions and should include contingency plans. The Excursion Management Application Workflow (Excursions Procedure, Appendix A) should be replaced with the Excursions Checklist.
6. In conjunction with Recommendation 5 above, The TDSB should revisit the Excursions Policy to ensure that its provisions with respect to approving proposed excursions through the Excursion and Event Facilities Directory are fully reflected in the Procedure and implemented or, in the alternative, the TDSB should devise alternative measures that would address the need for Superintendent oversight of proposed excursions.
7. While the principal would retain responsibility for approving most excursions, PR511 should be amended to require the superintendent of the school, subject to the provisions of recommendation one, to grant final approval for excursions where it is anticipated students may be presented with controversial or contending points of view.
8. The TDSB should amend the board’s Excursions Policy and Procedure, and other related board policies and procedures, to align with and promote the board’s commitment to the implementation of the TRC Calls to Action as stated in its Multi-Year Strategic Plan (MYSP) 2024-28.
9. The TDSB should apply the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Human Rights-Based Approach to Policy and Program Development to review and amend the Excursions Policy and Procedure to ensure the application of a human rights approach. The amendment process should include engagement and, where possible, co-creation with Indigenous partners and other communities which reflect the diversity of the board.
10. The TDSB should amend the Excursions Policy and Procedure to update outdated terminology relating to students with disabilities and add the Human Rights Code and TRC Calls to Action to the lists of Reference Documents.
11. To the extent that the current Excursions Procedure does not address excursions during which conflicting views might be expressed or where discriminatory expressions might be voiced, teachers should be required to:
    1. before an excursion, facilitate a conversation with students about the nature of anticipated views;
    2. during the excursion, teachers should ensure that student comfort levels with particular views are addressed up to and including leaving the event;
    3. upon returning to school, teachers should facilitate a conversation with students regarding the perceived challenging behaviour or views. Where appropriate, teachers should seek the support of appropriate staff, such as social workers, in facilitating conversations with students.
12. The TDSB should ensure that non-participating students are engaged in intentional and appropriate alternative learning which is articulated in the request for excursion approval form. The alternative arrangements must be tied to the curricular expectations of the excursion. 
13. The TDSB should amend the Policy and Procedure to allow for exceptions to the one-month notice requirement to seek Superintendent approval in circumstances where it is not operationally feasible.  
14. The TDSB should better align its Excursion Procedure with the Ontario Physical Activity Safety Standards in Education (OPASSE).
15. In conformity with Section 6.3 of the Excursions Policy, the TDSB should work expeditiously to ensure that the relevant curriculum connections identified for excursions in the Request for Excursion Approval Form are also included in parent/guardian permission forms.

Professional Development

16. The TDSB should develop and implement a training plan for teachers, principals and superintendents on the board’s amended Excursions Policy and Procedure and new Excursion Checklist. The training should reinforce the responsibilities of teachers, principals and superintendents and include direction on how to handle unexpected incidents during an excursion and guidance for the planning of an excursion, such as:
    • How will the excursion further student learning on a curriculum theme or topic?
    • Will the excursion encourage students to think critically by examining more than one perspective?
    • Does the excursion offer an opportunity for students to realize the importance of dialogue and expand their understanding of each other’s lived experiences?
17. The Ministry of Education develop a mandatory three-part professional development series for all trustees and senior board leaders on addressing and facilitating conversations on antisemitism in schools. This series must be developed in collaboration with relevant community groups.
18. The Ministry of Education develop a mandatory three-part professional development series for all trustees and senior board leaders on addressing and facilitating conversations on the erasure of Palestinians in school life. This series must be developed in collaboration with relevant community groups.
19. The Director of Education and the senior board leaders meet with all teachers and principals involved with this excursion and bring this report to their attention and set expectations for future excursions.

Appendix A: Meetings and Interviews by Groups