Mandatory exams, and attendance rules reshape classrooms

The provincial government’s June 25th, 2026, announcement that it will update Ontario’s framework for assessing, evaluating, and reporting student achievement has triggered widespread response across the education sector. The revisions to Growing Success: Assessment, Evaluation, and Reporting in Ontario Schools (Kindergarten to Grade 12), posted to the provincial website, marks the first major overhaul since the policy’s introduction in 2010.

Beginning in the 2026–2027 school year, most secondary courses will require written final exams as a component of students’ final evaluations. All written exams for Grades 9 through 12 are to be administered during designated exam periods, with the exception of the Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) Grade 9 mathematics assessment. The policy also introduces a notable shift: attendance and participation will now directly affect final grades, rather than being reported solely as learning skills.

Under the updated framework, Grades 9 and 10 students will have final marks calculated as 65% coursework, 20% mandatory final evaluations, and 15% attendance and participation. For Grades 11 and 12, the breakdown is 65% coursework, 25% final evaluations, and 10% attendance and participation. The policy specifies that excused absences will not negatively affect grades.

Certain courses are exempt. These include locally developed compulsory credit courses in Grades 9 and 11, workplace preparation courses in Grades 11 and 12, and open courses at the senior level. Additionally, mandatory written exams will not apply to subjects such as: Guidance and Career Education (with the exception of Grade 10 Career Studies), Cooperative Education, Interdisciplinary Studies, and American Sign Language as a Second Language.

Education Minister Paul Calandra has framed the changes as a response to concerns raised by educators. In reporting by the Toronto Star, he stated that teachers have asked for improved classroom management tools, noting that attendance policies can support that goal. He also argued that formal exams help verify student understanding, particularly in an era where artificial intelligence tools may obscure authentic learning.

However, reaction from educators and advocates has been mixed. Colin Matthew, Vice-President of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF/FEESO), raised concerns about a standardized approach. He noted that while exam-taking may benefit students pursuing post-secondary pathways, it may not serve those in other streams, questioning whether uniform expectations reflect diverse student needs.

Similarly, Ontario NDP Education Critic Chandra Pasma warned that the policy risks exacerbating existing inequities. She argued that without parallel investments in mental health services and special education supports, the changes could create additional barriers for vulnerable students, including those at risk of disengagement or dropout.

Rene Jansen in de Wal, President of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (OECTA), acknowledged shared concerns about student attendance, but suggested that the proposed measures may not address root causes. She indicated that while the intent may be aligned, the approach differs from what educators on the ground would recommend.

Outside formal institutions, criticism has also emerged from child advocacy voices. Irwin Elman, a former Ontario Child and Youth Advocate, characterized the policy as ideological in a public Facebook post, arguing that it raises broader questions about student rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The reputational stakes for the provincial government are significant. For policymakers, the credibility of education reform depends on balancing academic rigor with equity and inclusion. For educators and unions, the policy tests their influence on classroom realities. For families and students (the primary audience) the changes may directly affect academic outcomes, mental health, and future opportunities. Secondary audiences, including journalists, researchers, and advocacy groups, will likely scrutinize both implementation and impact.

Non-negotiables in this discussion include political sensitivities around public education funding, legal exposure tied to rights-based critiques, and the need to maintain working relationships between government and teachers’ unions. Missteps in communication or rollout could deepen existing tensions.

While the government positions the reforms as a return to standardized rigor, the debate underscores a familiar tension in education policy: how to measure achievement without narrowing opportunity. The effectiveness of these changes will ultimately depend on whether adequate supports are in place to ensure that all students (not just those already positioned to succeed) can meet the new expectations.

Parents, guardians, and concerned community members can review the full policy on the Government of Ontario’s official website.