Bill 895 establishes a single “common school network” that groups pre‑school, primary and secondary public schools together with private schools that enter into an agreement with the Minister (called “institutions under agreement”). The bill prohibits selective admissions in the network, forbids tuition and fee collection beyond what the law allows, requires equal funding conditions for network schools, and directs the Minister to set school maps and compensatory measures to reduce socio‑economic disparities.
The measure also phases out public subsidies for private institutions that do not join the network, imposes new transparency and auditing obligations on institutions that do join, and gives the Minister enhanced oversight powers (including temporary suspension of an institution’s powers and appointment of a provisional administrator). The bill’s mechanisms aim to prioritize socio‑economic mixing, proximity to home, and uniform access; they shift how private schools are funded and regulated and transfer enrollment responsibility to school service centres and the Minister’s regulatory framework.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates a statutory common school network that includes public schools and private schools that sign agreements with the Minister. It requires exclusive catchment areas for enrollment, bans selective admission practices inside the network, and aligns funding and free‑access rules across participating schools.
Who It Affects
Public school boards, school service centres, non‑profit private institutions that exist at the date of assent, parents and students (through assigned catchment areas), and the Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport, which gains new mapping, funding and oversight duties.
Why It Matters
If enacted, the bill rewrites the relationship between the provincial government and private schools by conditioning continued public support on joining the network and complying with admission and transparency rules. That restructures choice and funding incentives and centralizes tools (maps, compensatory funding, audits) to reduce school‑level inequality.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill defines a “common school network” composed of pre‑school, primary and secondary public schools plus private schools that enter into a ministerial agreement. Once a private institution becomes an “institution under agreement,” it must operate as a mixed, lay school, follow the same conditions of free access and funding methodology as public institutions, and submit annual audited financial statements that the Minister may publish.
Admission is governed by exclusive catchment areas: each address is associated with one school (or two connected schools) for each level, and school service centres must supervise enrollment to ensure compliance. The Minister is required to establish school maps that balance proximity, capacity and socio‑economic composition; maps must be reviewed at least annually and may be adjusted upon request.
Specialized schools for students with particular needs remain able to serve larger areas and retain regulated access criteria.To address persistent disparities, the bill compels school service centres and the Minister to implement compensatory measures where a catchment area is significantly disadvantaged relative to others in the same territory or to Québec as a whole. For private institutions that choose not to join, public subsidies are phased out: from the network’s first school year, newly enrolled students at non‑joining institutions no longer generate subsidies (with a sibling exception), while subsidies for currently enrolled students continue until the end of their current educational level.The bill also tightens oversight: the Minister will set funding terms (with Conseil du trésor approval), may impose directives applicable to public institutions on institutions under agreement, can require annual audits and reports, and—after verification—may suspend an institution’s powers for up to six months and appoint a provisional administrator (with limited extensions).
Transitional provisions set deadlines for private institutions to declare whether they will join and preserve continuity for current students.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Minister must review and publish school maps at least once per year and may prescribe the detailed criteria and exceptional cases by regulation.
Each address is assigned exclusively to one school (or two connected schools) for pre‑school, elementary and secondary enrollment; the Government can regulate when two schools may jointly serve the same catchment.
All secondary schools in the network must offer special school projects that are open to everyone, with admissions that cannot consider academic or disciplinary records and that are free of charge.
Only non‑profit private institutions that exist on the date of assent may enter into an agreement to join the network; the Minister determines the funding terms for institutions under agreement with Conseil du trésor approval.
Institutions under agreement must appoint an independent auditor annually, submit audited financial statements and a ministerially‑prescribed annual report, and those financial statements will be posted on the Ministry’s website.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definition, admission and cost rules for the common network
This part gives statutory form to the common school network, defines “schools under agreement,” and sets baseline operational rules: mixed, secular schools; prohibition on selective admissions; and a general prohibition on charging tuition or other unauthorized fees. Practically, that means any private institution that joins must adopt non‑selective enrollment practices and stop charging any parental fees beyond what Québec law allows for public institutions.
Catchment areas and the Minister’s school maps
The bill requires exclusive catchment areas so each address is linked to a particular local school (or two closely connected schools). The Minister must prepare school maps to balance socio‑economic similarity, student proximity, and school capacity, prioritizing short and safe travel distances for younger students. The Minister’s regulation will set the factors to consider and the exceptional circumstances allowing out‑of‑area enrollment; maps must be reviewed annually or upon justified request.
Compensatory measures to reduce inequalities
Where a catchment area is significantly disadvantaged relative to other areas in the same board/centre — or relative to Québec as a whole — the bill requires implementation of compensatory measures. The text does not prescribe precise interventions; it establishes an obligation to act and leaves the design of compensatory policies to regulations and administrative practice, signaling fiscal and programmatic redistribution targeted at higher‑need catchments.
Enrollment responsibility, continuity and transitional protections
Multiple amendments reassign duties and clarify that many Education Act provisions now apply to the common network. School service centres are explicitly responsible for admitting persons and supervising enrollment against school maps, and provisions protect students already attending a school (including sibling exceptions) through their current education level. Transitional clauses set deadlines for institutions to declare joining and create a phased subsidy withdrawal for non‑joining accredited institutions.
Terms for institutions under agreement and funding parity
This new chapter creates the legal category “institution under agreement,” limits eligibility to private non‑profits existing at assent, and requires the Minister (with Conseil du trésor approval) to set funding terms. Funding methods must be identical to those of public institutions “to promote equity,” and institutions under agreement face new administrative obligations: fiscal year end date, mandatory independent audit, annual reporting, publication of financial statements and possible directives mirroring public institution rules.
Verification powers and provisional administration
The bill extends existing oversight measures to institutions under agreement and gives the Minister power to suspend some or all powers of an institution after verification or investigation for up to six months, appoint a provisional administrator, and extend that period by increments not exceeding 120 days. The provisional administrator may cancel prior decisions subject to third‑party rights and must report findings and recommendations to the Minister.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Low‑income and disadvantaged students — the bill’s goal is to reduce school‑level socio‑economic segregation through catchment design and compensatory funding, which should increase access to better‑resourced local schools and integrated classrooms.
- Students and families who prioritize local access and reduced travel — exclusive catchment assignments and prioritization of proximity aim to make local schools the default option, improving daily travel and local cohesion.
- Parents seeking transparent public oversight — institutions under agreement must publish audited financial statements and annual reports, creating more visibility into how publicly funded resources are used.
Who Bears the Cost
- Non‑profit private institutions that decline to join the network — they lose the ability to receive subsidies for newly enrolled students starting from the first network year and may face budget pressure or closure over time.
- Institutions that join — they must conform to non‑selection rules, align funding formulas with public schools, adopt new financial reporting and auditing practices, and accept possible ministerial directives and temporary administrative takeover.
- School service centres and the Ministère de l’Éducation — they assume year‑to‑year map creation, enrollment supervision, implementation of compensatory measures and additional oversight tasks, which will require administrative capacity and possibly new funding.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is equity versus institutional autonomy and parental choice: the bill advances equal opportunity by centralizing admission, funding and oversight to reduce socio‑economic segregation, but it does so by constraining private school autonomy, limiting choice for families who prefer selective or fee‑based options, and concentrating authority in ministerial regulations whose content will determine whether equity is achieved in practice.
The bill sets ambitious structural rules but leaves many crucial implementation details to regulation and administrative practice. Key program and funding parameters — what counts as a “significant” disparity, the precise design and cost of compensatory measures, the ministerial formulas for matching public funding, and the criteria for connecting two schools to a single catchment — are undefined in the text and will determine whether the law reduces inequality or simply shifts where the pressures accumulate.
Operationally, creating socio‑economically balanced catchment areas in highly segregated housing markets is technically and politically difficult: minimizing travel time and equalizing socio‑economic composition can be competing priorities. The fiscal implications are also unsettled: matching funding methods to public schools and maintaining services during transitional years will likely increase short‑term costs, and the bill does not specify new appropriations.
Finally, enhanced oversight tools (audits, publication of financials, provisional administration) improve transparency but raise legal and governance questions about autonomy, especially for institutions with distinct missions or ties to communities that value independent governance.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.