Policy Analysis: Attendance-Based Grading in Ontario Schools

Relevant Documents

  • Bill 101: Putting Student Achievement First Act (2026)
  • Growing Success: Assessment, Evaluation, and Reporting in Ontario Schools (2010)
  • OHRC Policy: Policy on accessible education for students with disabilities (2018)
  • PPM 119: Equity and Inclusive Education in Ontario Schools (2013)
  • PPM 145: Progressive Discipline and Promoting Positive Student Behaviour (2018)
  • Ontario Human Rights Code (R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19)

This document analyzes the impacts, concerns, and policy contradictions related to the Ministry’s announcement (via Bill 101 [1]) that student attendance and participation will now account for 15% (Grades 9-10) and 10% (Grades 11-12) of final grades.

1. Policy Intersections and Contradictions

Growing Success (The Primary Conflict)

  • Fundamental Principle: Growing Success [2] (p. 10) explicitly states: “The evaluation of student learning is the responsibility of the teacher and must be based on the student’s achievement of the curriculum expectations.”
  • Separation of Learning Skills: Currently, attendance and “Learning Skills and Work Habits” (Responsibility, Independent Work, etc.) are reported separately from the percentage grade.
  • Direct Contradiction: By making attendance a part of the numerical grade, the Ministry is reversing a decade of policy designed to ensure grades represent competency rather than compliance.

The Education Act (Bill 101)

  • Ministerial Power: Bill 101 [1] amends Section 8(1) to give the Minister direct authority over assessment policies. This allows the Ministry to override the principles in Growing Success [2] without a full pedagogical review.

Human Rights and Equity (OHRC & PPM 119)

  • Duty to Accommodate: Under the Ontario Human Rights Code [6], school boards have a legal duty to accommodate students with disabilities to the point of undue hardship. The OHRC Policy on Accessible Education (2018) [3] notes that “attendance requirements” can be a significant barrier for students with disabilities (mental health, chronic illness, etc.).
  • Discriminatory Impact: Penalizing attendance may be found discriminatory if it negatively impacts students based on protected grounds (disability, family status, race, or socio-economic status).
  • Equity and Inclusion (PPM 119): This memorandum [4] requires boards to identify and remove systemic barriers. Attendance-based grading may be viewed as creating a new systemic barrier that contravenes the goals of PPM 119.

Progressive Discipline (PPM 145)

  • Shift in Approach: PPM 145 [5] emphasizes “Progressive Discipline” as a non-punitive, educational approach to behavior issues (including absenteeism). Tying attendance to grades shifts absenteeism from a behavioral issue to an academic penalty, which bypasses the restorative goals of PPM 145.

2. Concerns for Educators and Associations

Pedagogical Integrity

  • “Diluted” Grades: If a student masters 100% of the curriculum but loses 15% for being absent due to family issues, their grade no longer reflects their actual knowledge. Conversely, a student with perfect attendance but weak skills might be “passed” through attendance padding.
  • Credit Integrity: Universities and colleges rely on Ontario grades as a measure of academic readiness. Attendance-based grading may lead to “grade inflation” or “grade distortion,” devaluing the Ontario Secondary School Diploma (OSSD).

Systemic Issues vs. Classroom Symptoms

  • This policy addresses the symptom (absenteeism) without addressing the cause (lack of engagement, mental health, systemic barriers).

3. Government Rationale (The Case for the Policy)

The Ministry of Education has framed the introduction of attendance-based grading as a key component of its “Back to Basics” and “Student Achievement First” agenda. The government’s position centers on several key pillars:

Combatting the Post-Pandemic Attendance Crisis

  • Restoring Norms: Since the return to in-person learning, school boards have reported a significant increase in chronic absenteeism. The Ministry views this policy as a necessary lever to restore the pre-pandemic norm of daily physical attendance.
  • Direct Incentive: By giving attendance “teeth” in the gradebook, the government aims to provide a clear, tangible incentive for students to prioritize being in the classroom.

Valuing In-Person Learning as a Social Process

  • Classroom Synergy: The Ministry maintains that learning is not just about completing worksheets or submitting digital files; it is a collaborative, social process that requires physical presence and peer interaction.
  • Skills for the Future: Regular attendance is framed as an essential “life skill” that prepares students for the workplace, where being present and reliable is a fundamental requirement of employment.

Enhancing Parental Accountability and Transparency

  • Clear Expectations: Tying attendance to grades is intended to send a clear message to parents about the Ministry’s expectations. It provides parents with a visible indicator of how their child’s presence (or absence) is impacting their overall academic performance.
  • Consistency: The policy creates a province-wide standard for how attendance is valued, preventing inconsistencies between different school boards or individual schools.

4. Stakeholder Perspectives (Teacher Unions)

The major teacher federations (OSSTF, ETFO, OECTA, AEFO) have raised significant concerns regarding Bill 101: ### Punishing the Vulnerable OSSTF [8] has argued that tying marks to attendance punishes vulnerable students rather than addressing the root causes of absenteeism (mental health, poverty, school violence).

“Smoke and Mirrors”

OECTA [9] and AEFO have characterized these mandates as “smoke and mirrors” designed to distract from systemic underfunding and the teacher recruitment crisis.

Lack of Consultation

Unions have criticized the government for a lack of meaningful consultation with educators before introducing these high-stakes changes.

Centralization of Power

There is widespread concern that Bill 101 removes local accountability and further erodes teacher professional judgment by mandating rigid grading formulas.

5. Summary Table

Issue Area Policy Contradiction Concern Potential Benefit
Curriculum Growing Success [2] Grades reflect attendance, not achievement. Recognizes “being present” as part of learning.
Equity Human Rights Code [6] Penalizes marginalized and vulnerable students. May identify students needing early intervention.
Integrity OSSD Standards Devalues the meaning of an Ontario grade. Increases student accountability.
Workload Board Policies Massive increase in grade appeals/legalism. Consistent rule for all schools.

6. Sources and Citations

  1. Bill 101: Legislative Assembly of Ontario (Date Added: 2026-05-07)
  2. Growing Success: Ontario Ministry of Education (Date Added: 2026-05-07)
  3. OHRC Policy on Accessible Education: Official Policy (Date Added: 2026-05-07)
  4. PPM 119 (Equity): Ontario.ca (Date Added: 2026-05-07)
  5. PPM 145 (Discipline): Ontario.ca (Date Added: 2026-05-07)
  6. Ontario Human Rights Code: Official Text (Date Added: 2026-05-07)
  7. PPM 128 (Code of Conduct): Ontario.ca (Date Added: 2026-05-07)
  8. OSSTF Statement: Fix the Funding. Get to the Table. (Date Added: 2026-05-07)
  9. OECTA Statement: Ford Government’s Ineffective Cellphone Policy is More Smoke and Mirrors (Date Added: 2026-05-07)

7. Provide Feedback

Your insights are valuable. This analysis is an ongoing effort to document and understand Ontario’s changing education landscape. If you have feedback, documents to share, or suggest a new policy area—including additional resource materials to contribute or specific citations to be included in our research—please use our Feedback Form.

Last Updated: 2026-05-13