Counting Presence, Not Learning
This school year, an Ontario student can understand every lesson in a course and still lose marks for being absent. Attendance and participation now count for 15 percent of the final mark in Grades 9 and 10 and 10 percent in Grades 11 and 12 (Jones, “Ontario to make”). This essay critiques that policy by examining its accuracy, fairness, and impact on students. It argues that the government is right to be concerned about absenteeism, but that counting attendance inside the final mark makes the mark less accurate and less fair to students facing barriers. Attendance should be supported and reported separately instead.
Background and Criteria
Ontario assesses student work using an achievement chart with four categories: Knowledge and Understanding, Thinking, Communication, and Application, with Level 3 (70 to 79 percent) as the provincial standard (Simcoe Muskoka). Until now, attendance did not factor into grades, because a student’s mark was based entirely on coursework (Van Wonderen). The change responds to a real problem: only 40 percent of Ontario high school students regularly attended school in 2024–2025, according to CTV News (Van Wonderen). Students with more than two unexcused absences cannot earn the full attendance portion of their mark (Jones, “Ontario to make”). This critique judges the policy by three criteria: accuracy (does the mark still show what a student knows?), fairness (are all students treated equitably?), and impact (how does it change why students show up?).
Accuracy
On accuracy, the policy changes what a mark means. The achievement chart was built to measure knowledge, thinking, communication, and application. Attendance measures none of these. A student who misses class but masters the material can now receive a lower mark than the learning deserves, while a student who attends every day but understands less can gain points for presence.
Fairness
On fairness, the policy treats absences as a choice when they often are not. The Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation warns that absenteeism often stems from mental health struggles, housing instability, and food insecurity. The policy also creates inconsistency. The Ontario Student Trustees’ Association has said “grey areas” remain and wants clear rules on when absences can be excused (Jones, “Ontario education minister”), so two students in the same circumstances could be treated differently depending on the school board.
Impact
On impact, the policy gives students a new reason to show up, but not necessarily a better one. Some students will attend to protect points rather than to learn, and students who are already struggling may face added pressure at the worst time.
The Government’s Position
The government’s position deserves a fair hearing. Education Minister Paul Calandra has said the policy targets chronic skippers, not students with legitimate excuses, and that the attendance numbers are serious: only about a quarter of Grade 12 students and under 34 percent of Grade 11 students meet the 90 percent attendance threshold. This is a strong argument for acting. However, it does not show that attendance belongs inside the academic mark, as opposed to being tracked and supported separately.
Evaluation
Judged against the criteria, the policy has a reasonable goal but a flawed method. It weakens accuracy by mixing presence with learning, it risks fairness by penalizing students for circumstances they cannot control, and its impact on motivation is uncertain. The ethical conflict is between two real values: the school’s responsibility to get students into class and its responsibility to report what students have actually learned. Because university admission depends on these marks, even small distortions can affect real opportunities. The policy is also new, so there is no data yet on whether it improves attendance, which is a limit on any conclusion, including this one.
A Better Approach
A mark should show what a student has learned.
Absenteeism is a real problem that deserves a serious response. Ontario already reports learning skills and work habits separately from academic marks, and attendance could be tracked the same way: visible to students, parents, and universities, but not mixed into the percentage. Paired with the supports the teachers’ federation is asking for, such as resources that help students feel able to attend, this would address the cause instead of penalizing the symptom. Critics might say that grades are the only consequence students take seriously, and that may be true for some (Whitley). Still, if the consequence changes what the mark means, the cost to accuracy and fairness outweighs the benefit.
Conclusion
Ontario is right that students cannot learn if they are not in class. But by counting attendance inside the final mark, the new policy makes a grade measure presence as well as learning, and it risks penalizing students with the hardest circumstances. A better approach would track attendance openly, support the students who struggle to attend, and keep the mark focused on what it was designed to show. If we want grades to mean something, we should be careful about what we let them measure.