Reasonable Adjustments are a feature of assessment delivery whereby candidates may be granted exceptions to normal exam regulations, in response to their personal requirements.  RAs (as they are commonly referred to in the industry), are intended to ensure that individuals with disabilities or specific needs are not unfairly disadvantaged in comparison to their peers.  These adjustments help to ensure fairness in assessment, levelling the playing field without altering the fundamental nature of the exam – or compromising its integrity.

In recent years, almost all awarding organisations and qualifying bodies have reported increasing volumes of requests for RAs in their exam programmes.  In today’s world, personalisation of service has changed from an exception to the norm.  From streaming services that tailor recommendations, top-end shoemakers offering individually tattooed shoes, to tech that adapts to user behaviour, the consumer-first mindset has begun to influence how people interact with institutions, including educational and examination bodies.

No longer are assessments simply a case of sit down and get what you are given.  Candidates understand that they are individuals and that when it comes to the strangely human experience of going through a high-pressure exam, there is no reason why their individual preferences should not be catered for.

Or is there???

Whilst RAs are undoubtedly a well-motivated and very beneficial aspect of exam delivery, a growing number of candidates are now pushing the boundaries of RA requests and demanding what can only really be described as Unreasonable Adjustments.

Whilst there is no definitive list of Unreasonable Adjustments, useful examples include:

• RA requests compromising assessment integrity. For example, if a candidate requests to skip an essential component of the exam that tests a core skill (like asking to avoid timed responses in an exam that assesses the ability to perform under pressure due to anxiety), this will obviously undermine what the exam is designed to evaluate.
• RA requests place undue burden on the service provider. This includes logistical, financial, or operational strain that are disproportionate to the benefit gained.  For instance, requesting one-on-one supervision or a single candidate exam space in a test centre where capacity and staffing levels are finite.
• The request creates an unfair advantage. The adjustment is meant to remove a disadvantage, not provide a competitive edge.  If a candidate asks for extra time without a clearly justifiable need, it risks giving them an unfair advantage over others.
• The request alters the nature or standards of the qualification. For instance, asking for content to be simplified or excluded due to personal beliefs would cross the line, as it changes the expected outcomes or skills being assessed.

Is this cheating?

One interesting question is whether adapting an assessment to an individual’s requirements simply because they have requested it, is giving an unfair advantage to this candidate over another who may not be aware of any right to request an RA.  Many RA requests require supporting evidence – for example, a candidate requesting extra time in an exam due to SEN such as Dyslexia, will be asked to provide proof of their requirements.  However, a candidate requesting extra time due to anxiety, might not be required to provide the same level of evidence.  The anxiety might be due to the exam, and assessment administrators may feel uncomfortable challenging such instances due to current awareness of mental health issues in the workplace.

From an assessment security perspective, any vagaries in exam regulations create an opportunity for cheating.  If other candidates are being granted extra time in an exam for conditions that do not require proof, why would I not request extra time for myself?  This can quickly turn into something of an arms race where RAs accidentally become an extra element of competition in an exam.

The Role of Changing Consumer Expectations in Increasing RA Requests

As mentioned above, demands for RAs are increasing in almost every assessment context.  Young people from school age are conditioned to personalised content, encouraged to assert their personal identity and requirements, and consequently do not consider standardised delivery to be normal.

Other reasons behind the increasing demand for RAs include:

• People expect flexibility. Candidates may believe that exams should adapt to their preferences, not just their needs.  This can blur the lines between accommodating a disability and catering to personal comfort.
• Greater awareness and advocacy. Greater awareness of mental health, neurodiversity (e.g., ADHD, autism), and hidden disabilities is positive, but it also means more candidates are empowered to request adjustments, sometimes without understanding the limits of what is reasonable.
• Increased focus on fairness and inclusion. Institutions are under pressure to demonstrate that they are inclusive and non-discriminatory, which can result in more lenient or broad interpretations of “reasonable” – particularly when staff at these institutions are liable to professional penalties if perceived to be discriminatory in any way.
• Digitalisation and on-demand culture. In a world where services are instantly tailored (e.g., Netflix, Spotify, Amazon), candidates approach exams with similar expectations — that the system should cater to them, rather than the other way around.

This changing landscape creates tension.  Exam owners must balance fairness and accessibility with standardisation and integrity.

Whilst it is vital to support candidates with genuine need for reasonable adjustments, it equally important to maintain the credibility and challenge of the assessment for everyone.

Exam administration staff at awarding organisations and exam delivery specialists, must be supported in denying unreasonable requests and must be given a clear framework of response to refer to.  Continual monitoring and analysis of RA request data can help exam owners to identify any changes that are occurring.  The same applies to social media and open-source monitoring that can help awarding organisations to identify online discussion of their specific exam processes and any perceived weaknesses or security vulnerabilities relating to RAs.

Simply put, Reasonable Adjustments are intended to remove barriers, not standards.  Current trends and conditions create the risks of exploitation by those looking to gain an advantage over others, undermining of assessment integrity, and hugely increasing the cost of exam delivery.

Let us know what you think.  If you have a view, question or idea relating to this topic, please contribute to the discussion by leaving a comment below.  We read every comment we receive – even the spam, and we are very grateful to the members of our community who participate.

To find out how VICTVS can help awarding organisations and exam owners respond to this and all other challenges relating to global assessment delivery, contact us here or call our head office on +44 (0) 113 539 7056.