Deducting marks for late submission is a common academic practice intended to make students more responsible. In my view, moderate penalties on late work are justified, but such deductions should be applied flexibly rather than rigidly. Learning quality, fairness, and real-life skill development must guide any policy on marks for late students' work.

Firstly, deadlines reflect professional expectations, and a penalty teaches students to manage their time effectively. Without consequences, some learners delay their assignments, reducing engagement and lowering the quality of the work they submit. For example, a firm submission deadline mirrors workplace accountability, where late delivery of work affects whole teams, not just one student. Moreover, a fair deduction also protects those learners who submit their assignments on time and plan their schoolwork carefully, and it clearly rewards their discipline.

However, a strict penalty can be counterproductive when a late submission results from genuine difficulty. Illness, family responsibilities, or unequal access to resources can delay any student and their work. Therefore, allowing extensions or a reduced deduction in justified cases supports equity and keeps the focus on learning rather than punishment. Indeed, this flexible approach still recognises diverse circumstances while holding every learner to clear academic expectations.

In conclusion, deducting marks from late students' work is appropriate when the penalty is applied with moderation and judgement. Furthermore, balanced deduction policies reinforce responsibility among learners while also protecting fairness and the quality of their work. Ultimately, teachers should combine clear submission deadlines with reasonable flexibility so that marks prepare students for professional life.