Reasonable adjustments to assessment deadlines

Short answer

Yes, changing a deadline or altering the format of an assessment can be a reasonable adjustment, but not automatically and not without limits. Under the Equality Act 2010 an education provider (a school, college, university or awarding body) has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled students so they are not placed at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled students. Extending a deadline or changing the way an assessment is delivered are common examples. The key limits are that the person must be disabled within the meaning of the Act, the adjustment must be reasonable, and the provider does not have to lower or waive a genuine competence standard.

The legal duty

The duty to make reasonable adjustments comes from the Equality Act 2010, which applies across England and Wales. For education, the duty is owed by the provider to disabled students. A person is disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Some conditions, such as cancer, HIV and multiple sclerosis, are treated as disabilities from diagnosis.

The duty is anticipatory in higher and further education, meaning the provider must think ahead about the adjustments disabled students in general may need, rather than only reacting once an individual asks. It is a positive duty: the provider must take reasonable steps to avoid the disadvantage, and cannot charge the disabled student for the cost of an adjustment.

Deadlines and assessment formats as adjustments

Adjusting a deadline is a well-recognised reasonable adjustment. Official guidance in this area accepts that it may be reasonable to adjust deadlines, and recognises that some disabilities, including some mental health conditions, may impair a student’s ability to engage with processes or meet deadlines. This can extend not only to coursework submission dates but also to the time limits in a provider’s own mitigating (extenuating) circumstances, academic appeals and complaints procedures, where the disability affected the student’s ability to engage in time.

Changing the format of an assessment can also be a reasonable adjustment. Examples that are frequently used include extra time in examinations, rest breaks, use of a computer or assistive software, a scribe or reader, a separate or smaller room, papers in an accessible format such as large print or Braille, and in some cases substituting one assessment method for another (for instance replacing an oral presentation with a written alternative, or vice versa, where the format rather than the underlying skill is the source of the disadvantage).

The competence standard limit

The most important limit is the distinction between the way something is assessed and what is being assessed. A competence standard is defined in the Equality Act 2010 as an academic, medical or other standard applied to determine whether a person has a particular level of competence or ability. The duty to make reasonable adjustments does not require a provider to alter a genuine competence standard itself. So the provider does not have to change the actual knowledge or skill being tested, or the mark or pass threshold required to demonstrate it.

However, the duty does apply fully to the process and manner of assessment surrounding a competence standard. So if a timed examination is only the chosen method of testing knowledge, and the timing is not itself part of what is being assessed, extra time or a different format may be a reasonable adjustment. If, by contrast, the ability to perform a task quickly or in a particular way is itself the competence being tested, then the format may not be adjustable. Guidance encourages providers, where they decide a particular format such as a timed examination, an unseen paper, an oral presentation or a practical demonstration is genuinely required to test a competence standard, to record their reasons. A provider that simply asserts a competence standard without being able to justify it may find that assertion challenged.

When is an adjustment “reasonable”?

Whether a particular change is reasonable is a question of fact and degree, judged objectively. Relevant factors typically include how effective the adjustment would be in removing the disadvantage, its practicability, the cost and resources involved, the size and resources of the provider, the effect on academic and other standards, the interests of other students, and health and safety. There is no fixed list. An adjustment that removes the disadvantage cheaply and easily and does not undermine a genuine standard will usually be reasonable; one that would compromise a genuine competence standard, or give the disabled student an advantage rather than removing a disadvantage, may not be.

Missing facts that would change the answer

The outcome depends heavily on detail that you have not yet set out. In particular:

Whether the student meets the Equality Act definition of disability, and whether there is supporting evidence such as a diagnosis, medical evidence or an educational needs assessment.

The type of provider and the stage of education, since school, further education, higher education and professional awarding bodies operate under different but related parts of the Act.

Exactly what the assessment is designed to test, and whether the deadline or format is genuinely a competence standard or merely the chosen method.

Whether the request is being made in advance or after a deadline has passed, and whether there is an existing agreed support plan or learning support agreement.

Whether the provider has an existing policy on adjustments, extensions and mitigating circumstances, and what it says.

Practical next steps

1. Establish and evidence the disability. Gather medical evidence, any diagnostic reports, and, in higher education, any needs assessment or existing support plan.

2. Identify precisely what disadvantage the current deadline or format causes and what specific change would remove it. A clear, proportionate request is more likely to be accepted than a vague one.

3. Make the request in writing to the disability or student support service and the relevant department, referring to the reasonable adjustments duty under the Equality Act 2010 and asking for adjustments to be recorded in a formal support plan wherever possible.

4. Ask the provider, if it refuses, to explain in writing why the deadline or format is a genuine competence standard that cannot be adjusted, so that the reasoning can be tested.

5. If refused, use the provider’s internal complaints or academic appeals procedure. If a disability affected your ability to meet the procedure’s own deadlines, say so and ask for those time limits to be relaxed as an adjustment in themselves.

6. For higher education in England and Wales, if the internal process is exhausted and you remain dissatisfied, you can normally ask the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education to review the complaint. Its published good practice framework on supporting disabled students sets out the expected approach. For schools and colleges there are separate routes, including in some cases the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) for disability discrimination in schools.

7. Discrimination claims relating to education can also be brought in the courts, but that is usually a last resort given cost, delay and litigation risk, and the internal and ombudsman routes should generally be tried first.

Bottom line

Extending a deadline and changing an assessment format are both capable of being reasonable adjustments, and providers are expected to be flexible where a disability genuinely affects a student’s ability to meet a standard deadline or to be assessed in the usual way. The main things a provider can lawfully refuse to change are genuine competence standards, and only where it can properly justify that the deadline or format really is part of what is being tested rather than simply how it is tested.