Policy Analysis: Reintroduction of Mandatory Written Exams in Ontario

Relevant Documents

This document analyzes the systemic impacts, pedagogical concerns, and policy contradictions surrounding Ontario’s announced assessment direction, which describes mandatory written final exams on designated exam days for secondary students (Grades 9–12) [11].

[!NOTE] This page keeps the accessibility, equity, and professional-judgment concerns front and center even if the Ministry changes the timing, scope, or wording of the exam requirement.

[!NOTE] For a detailed analysis of the separate attendance-based grading rules and chronic absenteeism policies introduced under the same legislation, please refer to the dedicated Attendance Policy Analysis page.

1. Overview of the 2026 Mandate

As part of the Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026 (Bill 101), which received Royal Assent on May 14, 2026, the Ontario government announced a sweeping series of reforms to secondary school assessment and school board governance starting in the 2026–2027 school year [1, 6]. The updated Growing Success page now reflects those assessment changes in ministry guidance [11]:

  • Mandatory Written Exams: All high school students in Grades 9 through 12 will be required to write formal, invigilated written final exams during newly standardized “official exam days” [1, 7].
  • Standardized Weighting: These formal written exams will account for a mandatory, standardized portion of the student’s final course grade, establishing uniform expectations across all of Ontario’s publicly funded secondary schools [6, 7].
  • Governance Reforms: Beyond classroom assessment, the legislation centralizes school board administration by introducing Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) for school boards and slashing the number of elected local trustees in major urban school boards like the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) [6, 8].

2. Policy Intersections and Contradictions

Growing Success (2010) and the Ministry Update

The reintroduction of mandatory written exams represents a major conflict with the original Growing Success (2010) framework [2], while the Ministry’s 2026 update now embeds the new exam requirement into provincial guidance [11].

  • Erosion of Evaluation Flexibility: Growing Success (2010) (p. 41) states that the final 30% of a secondary grade must be based on a final evaluation that can be “a final exam, a culminating project, an essay, or a combination of these” [2]. It grants teachers the professional flexibility to select an assessment format that best matches the course content and student needs. By mandating a written exam, the Ministry restricts this flexibility and eliminates alternative assessment formats.
  • Updated Provincial Guidance: The Ministry’s 2026 update says most secondary courses will require written exams beginning in 2026-2027, with subject-specific weighting and a common exam period [11].
  • Limitation of Professional Judgment: Growing Success (2010) places significant emphasis on the professional judgment of teachers to evaluate student achievement. Standardizing assessment methods through top-down mandates removes an educator’s ability to select the most appropriate diagnostic tools for their classroom.

The Education Act (Bill 101)

  • Centralization of Assessment Authority: Bill 101 [1] amends Section 8(1) of the Education Act, granting the Minister direct, centralized powers to establish mandatory guidelines for student achievement assessment. The Ministry’s 2026 update to Growing Success (2010) now expresses that authority through province-wide exam requirements [11].

Human Rights and Equity (OHRC & PPM 119)

  • High-Stakes Testing Barriers: The OHRC Policy on Accessible Education for Students with Disabilities [3] emphasizes that rigid, high-stakes assessments (like traditional written exams) can act as systemic barriers for students with learning disabilities, mental health challenges, or ADHD.
  • Equity Gaps (PPM 119): Under PPM 119 [4], school boards are obligated to identify and remove systemic barriers. Traditional, high-stakes written exams may disproportionately impact English language learners (ELL) and lower socio-economic students. Precedents in other mandated testing frameworks (such as the Ontario teacher math proficiency test) show significant racial and language-based disparities in success rates, raising similar systemic equity concerns for high-stakes secondary student exams [10].

3. Government Rationale (The Case for the Policy)

The Ministry of Education has framed these changes as vital components of its “Back to Basics” and “Student Achievement First” agenda [6]. The government’s position centers on three main objectives:

Restoring Academic Rigor and Standards

  • Post-Secondary Readiness: The Ministry asserts that formal written exams prepare secondary students for the rigors of university, college, and the workforce, where high-stakes performance and deadlines are routine.
  • Countering Grade Inflation: In the wake of post-pandemic grading adjustments, concerns about grade inflation have risen. Standardized written exams are intended to provide a uniform, reliable measure of academic achievement that holds currency with post-secondary institutions.

Establishing Provincial Consistency

  • Standardized Expectations: Currently, assessment weights and exam requirements vary significantly across Ontario’s 72 school boards. The Ministry argues that a student’s grade should not depend on their geographic location or school board, making provincial standards necessary for fairness [6].

4. Stakeholder Perspectives (Teacher Unions)

Ontario’s secondary and elementary teacher federations, along with public policy analysts, have expressed strong opposition to these mandates:

Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF) & Analysts

  • Focus on Classroom Symptoms: OSSTF [5] characterized the focus on exams as “tinkering around the edges” of the education system. While they acknowledge that academic rigor is important, they argue that standardized testing does not address the underlying causes of student achievement gaps, such as lack of mental health resources, poverty, and school safety.
  • Underfunding and Class Sizes: The federation and progressive policy analysts (such as the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives) maintain that the Ministry should focus resources on reducing class sizes, hiring professional support staff (such as social workers and guidance counselors), and funding classrooms rather than implementing administrative grading mandates or standardized review structures [9].

Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (ETFO) & OECTA

  • Erosion of Professional Judgment: The unions argue that mandating rigid written exam formats strips educators of their “professional judgment”—a core professional tenet protected under collective agreements. They assert that teachers, not centralized Ministry officials, are best positioned to determine how to assess the diverse needs of students.
  • Centralization Concerns: Unions view the governance and classroom changes within Bill 101 as an unprecedented centralization of power that erodes local democratic accountability. By slashing local trustees in large urban boards like the TDSB, the province is criticized for actively weakening local community advocacy and board oversight [8].

Ontario Principals’ Council (OPC)

  • Assessment Flexibility: The Ontario Principals’ Council says mandatory exams and prescribed grading rules may not fully reflect student understanding or local school contexts, and that students with special education needs or those who benefit from flexible and inclusive assessment practices may be particularly affected [12].

5. Summary Table

Issue Area Policy Contradiction Concern Potential Benefit
Assessment Format Growing Success (2010) [2, 11] Limits alternative culminating formats (essays, portfolios), reducing equitable assessment. Standardizes testing conditions and post-secondary preparation.
Professional Judgment Growing Success (2010) [2, 11] Restricts teachers’ ability to customize final evaluations based on student needs. Creates clear, uniform guidelines for academic scoring.
Equity & Access Human Rights Code & PPM 119 [3, 4] Standardized written exams may penalize students with learning disabilities and English language learners. Standardized exemptions and accommodations remain available under IEP frameworks.
Centralization Board Autonomy Removes local school board input on grading and assessment structures. Establishes a consistent standard across all 72 school boards.

6. Sources and Citations

  1. Bill 101: Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026 (Date Added: 2026-05-26)
  2. Growing Success: Assessment, Evaluation, and Reporting in Ontario Schools (2010) (Date Added: 2026-05-26)
  3. OHRC Policy on Accessible Education for Students with Disabilities (2018): Official Policy Document (Date Added: 2026-05-26)
  4. PPM 119 (Equity and Inclusive Education): Ontario Ministry of Education (Date Added: 2026-05-26)
  5. OSSTF Statement: OSSTF/FEESO Comments to the Ministry of Education Re: Bill 101, Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026 (Date Added: 2026-05-26)
  6. Ontario Newsroom Release: Ontario Introduces Legislation to Hold School Boards Accountable and Support Student Achievement (Date Added: 2026-05-26)
  7. To Do Canada: Ontario Proposes Mandatory Written Exams for High School Students (Date Added: 2026-05-26)
  8. CTV News: Ontario to slash number of trustees at TDSB as part of sweeping education reform bill (Date Added: 2026-05-26)
  9. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA): Ontario students need smaller classes, not another EQAO review (Date Added: 2026-05-26)
  10. CBC News: Ontario teacher math test has racial, language disparities (Date Added: 2026-05-26)
  11. Growing Success 2026 Update Archive: Local archive of the 2026 Ministry update to Growing Success (2010) (Date Added: 2026-06-22)
  12. Ontario Principals’ Council Statement: Concerns Regarding Student Assessment and Digital Learning Changes (Date Added: 2026-06-24)

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: 2026-06-24