1.1 As part of its commitment to enabling a lifelong journey of growth and development, the University of York offers a series of 100% online programmes, known as York Online, aimed primarily at mid-career professionals seeking to enhance their careers or transition into new ones. Students on these programmes represent a distinct population within the University, with the majority being mature learners with full-time work and family commitments that may need to take precedence over their studies from time to time. The University recognises the diversity of experience and barriers to attainment that our York Online students may encounter. In response, the University aims to provide a supportive environment that enables students to respond flexibly to changes in their circumstances and manage their learning and progression on the programme.

1.2 The University expects that all students who have registered for a module in the current online learning period will be actively studying and engaging with all scheduled assessments. Students are responsible for managing their time, identifying issues that may prevent engagement with their studies and planning accordingly. The York Online programmes operate a Fit to Sit / Submit principle for summative assessments. This means that if a student attempts an assessment, and does not subsequently submit a Disruptions affecting Assessment claim, they are declaring themselves fit to take that assessment and the mark achieved should stand. “Fit” means that the student is well and unaware of any circumstances that would prevent them from undertaking or being able to prepare for an assessment. Students who are not capable of taking the assessment should not attempt to do so and should request an adjustment under this policy.

1.3 Where a student anticipates that their ability to complete an assessment will be disrupted, it is their responsibility to request an adjustment by submitting a Disruptions affecting Assessment claim. Students who do not attempt the assessment and do not request an adjustment under this policy will receive a mark of zero for non-submission and fail the assessment, in accordance with University assessment policies and procedures.

1.4 This policy supports students responding to short-term disruptions to their studies in two ways:

• Where students anticipate short-term disruptions before an assignment deadline or an exam availability period begins, this policy operates as a time-management tool. Students can extend an assignment deadline or defer an exam without providing an explanation or supporting evidence.
• Where students encounter disruptions during an exam or the capstone project module, or are unable to submit a Disruptions affecting Assessment claim until after the assessment deadline, this policy provides students with an opportunity to request mitigation for the affected assessments. Students must demonstrate that the circumstances were both unexpected and significant enough to impact their ability to complete the assessed work to their usual standard. 

2.1 This policy applies to all students who are studying on the York Online programmes. It covers assessment adjustments for summative assessments for both taught modules and capstone project modules (CPMs). Formative assessments are not in scope. 

2.2 The adjustments and procedures laid out in this policy apply to situations where a student has encountered temporary and short-term circumstances that have had a significant impact on the student’s ability to complete a summative assessment by the deadline or to their usual standard. 

2.3 This policy is not intended to replace other support available for learning. Students who have conditions or circumstances of a lasting nature are strongly encouraged to contact the University of York’s Disability Services to discuss putting a Student Support Plan (SSP) in place. Having an SSP does not prevent students from using and benefitting from this policy.

2.4 This policy is not designed to support students who have experienced more than two weeks of disruption during teaching (ie weeks 1 - 7) of a taught module. Where a student’s ability to engage with taught module content and associated activities has been severely disrupted, or their circumstances are ongoing and likely to last for more than two weeks, they should request to take a break in their studies (called a Leave of Absence) before the end of week 7. 

3.1 Assessment - a discrete assessment activity, identified as a distinct assessment task in the module catalogue; examples include exams, reports, group work, dissertations. For the purposes of this policy, 'assessment' will refer to summative assessments only. Any references to formative assessments will use the term 'formative assessment'.

3.2 Assignment - the practice of assessing students through means other than exams, eg essays, reports, presentations or practical work. Students are required to submit work on or before a published deadline. Assignments are subject to a five-day late submission window. Assignments may also be referred to as ‘open assessments’ outside this policy.

3.3 Capstone project - substantial pieces of independent work, such as dissertations, performances, reports, or equivalent that are the sole or primary method of summatively assessing a capstone project module (CPM). Capstone projects act as the culmination of a programme and allow students to showcase the knowledge and skills they have gained throughout their academic programme. Adjustments for capstone projects are covered in section 5 of this policy.

3.4 Capstone project module (CPM) - a module where students conduct an independent piece of research. CPMs have different assessment rules around compensation and reassessment, compared with taught modules (see below), and a specific contribution to the calculation of merits and distinctions. See the Rules for Progression and Award for further details. 

3.5 Deferral - delaying an assessment that has not been attempted to the next available opportunity. A deferral is only possible in cases where a student submits a Disruptions affecting Assessment claim before the start of the exam availability period or assignment deadline. A deferred assessment will be an unseen assignment task or exam paper.

3.6 Deadline - in relation to assignments, this is the deadline for the submission of the assessment task. In relation to an exam, this is the date and time by which the student is expected to have completed their examination attempt.

3.7 Exam - a summative assessment task taken by way of online examination; students are permitted one attempt to sit a previously unseen assessment or question set within a tightly controlled time period. York Online exams are usually Limited Duration examinations; this assessment format is defined in the Policy on Assessment Types and Formats. 

3.8 Exam availability period - the two-day window when a Limited Duration examination becomes available for students to attempt the exam paper. Students must start and complete their exam attempt within this period. 

3.9 Extension - an extension to the submission deadline for an assignment.

3.10 Fit to Sit / Fit to Submit - a student’s judgement that they are well and capable of sitting an exam or completing an assignment.

3.11 Formative work - see definition in the Policy on Assessment Types and Formats. Formative assessments are not covered by this policy.

3.12 Group work project - see definition in the Policy on Assessment Types and Formats.  

3.13 Late penalty removal or late penalty waiver - in cases where a student has submitted an assignment or completed an exam after the deadline and has subsequently made a successful claim that they were affected by a disruption, the lateness penalty as defined in the Penalties for Summative Assessments Policy may be waived. Late penalty waivers may only be granted in cases where the student has submitted work within the late submission window.

3.14 Late submission window - the period after an original cohort deadline or deadline extension when a student is still able to submit their work. Work submitted during this window is subject to the University’s rules regarding multiple submissions and lateness penalties.

3.15 Module Board - a meeting at which anonymised assessment and module marks are presented for scrutiny by the Board of Examiners and the External Examiner(s). The Board of Examiners may recommend interventions to the assessment, or ratify provisional marks. 

3.16 Online learning period - each online learning period lasts eight weeks and students study a single module in that time. The online learning periods are numbered OL1 (the September start) to OL6 (the June start).

3.17 Project proposal - a type of assignment where students design and plan a project or other independent work that may be undertaken during their capstone project module (CPM). Adjustments for project proposals are covered in section 4.5 of this policy.

3.18 Project proposal module - a module that supports students’ development of research skills and/or skills for independent study and that is typically a pre-requisite for the CPM (1). The primary method of assessment for this type of module is a project proposal. Whilst project proposal modules are a type of taught module (see below), the individual nature of the project proposal assessment means that tailored mitigation outcomes are required.

3.19 Reassessment - also referred to as a resit, reassessment is an opportunity for students to redeem failure for the award of credit to meet progression or award requirements by passing a module at the second attempt. Reassessments may be exams or assignments. Reassessments are summative assessments and thus covered by this policy. 

3.20 Refund period - the 14-day period after the registration deadline in which students studying on the capstone project module can take a Leave of Absence for any reason. See also the York Online Registration, Absence and Engagement Policy.

3.21 Sit ‘as if for the first time’ (SAIFFT) - in cases where a student has submitted a Disruptions affecting Assessment claim after an exam availability period has started or an assignment deadline, they may be permitted a second opportunity to attempt the affected assessment. If the student accepts this opportunity, the new mark will replace the student’s previous result. A ‘sit as if for the first time’ assessment will be an unseen assignment task or exam paper.

3.22 Summative assessment - summative assessment is used to indicate the extent of a learner’s success in meeting the assessment criteria used to gauge the intended learning outcomes of a module or programme. Marks for summative assessments make up the mark for the module. Summative assessments are covered by this policy.

3.23 Taught module - a module where the content has been defined and structured by the module author, even where study might be self-directed. This is distinct from modules where students are expected to identify a research topic and carry out their own research (see capstone project modules). Taught modules have specific assessment rules around compensation and reassessment, and a specific contribution to the calculation of merits and distinctions. See the Rules for Progression and Award for further details.

3.24 Working days - standard working days for the University are Monday to Friday, 9.00 - 17.00 UK time, excluding Bank Holidays and University closure days. 

Note 1:  For 2025/6, modules that fall under this definition are as follows: COM00150M Research Proposal, MAN00101M Research Proposal, MAN00128M Consultancy Proposal and Pitch, and SPY00154M Project Proposal.

4.1 Scope

4.1.1 This section applies to summative assessments for all taught modules, including project proposals. This may be a first attempt at the assessment, a deferred or ‘sit as if for the first time’ assessment, or a reassessment. This section also applies where a student has previously received a deadline extension for an assignment, and wishes to submit a new claim requesting additional mitigation. 

4.2 Grounds for submitting a claim

4.2.1 A student’s eligibility to receive adjustments under this policy for their taught module assessments depends on when a student submits their claim relative to the original assignment deadline or the start of the exam availability period. The later a student submits a claim, the more information and evidence regarding the disruption will be required.

4.2.2 Where a student anticipates that their ability to complete an assessment will be disrupted, they should submit a claim before their original assignment deadline or the exam availability period. Students may request an adjustment for any reason and no evidence of the disruption or its impact will be required.

4.2.3 If a student encounters an unforeseen disruption during the exam availability period, or believes after an assessment deadline that they experienced circumstances that negatively affected their performance or ability to complete the assessed work, they may submit a Disruptions affecting Assessment claim. This may be for any reason except for those listed in section 6. However, the student will be required to provide:

• a description of the circumstances they encountered;
• a clear statement about the impact of the circumstances on their ability to complete the assessment; and
• independent supporting evidence of the circumstances.

Requests will only be approved in cases where the student demonstrates that the disruption could not have been foreseen and is likely to have had a significant impact on their performance. Information about acceptable forms of evidence is provided in section 8 of this policy.

4.2.4 Where a student submits multiple claims for the same assessment, the grounds for the new claims are dependent on when the claim was submitted relative to the exam availability period or the original assignment deadline, and sections 4.2.1 to 4.2.3 above apply. Likewise, where a student has previously received a deadline extension and submits a further claim for the same assignment, the grounds for submitting that claim will depend on whether the original assessment deadline has passed. The date of the extended deadline will not affect grounds for the new claim. In addition to the requirements in section 4.2.3, students who submit a further claim after the exam availability period has begun or the original assignment deadline has passed are expected to:

• demonstrate that they have encountered continued disruption over and above what they had expected when the first claim was submitted; and
• provide a clear statement about why the adjustment that had previously been granted is insufficient. 

4.2.5 Where a student submits a claim more than one week after the assessment deadline, the requirements specified in section 10 of this policy regarding ‘good reason’ for submitting late claims also apply.  

4.3 Available adjustments for exams 

4.3.1 Where a student submits a Disruptions affecting Assessment claim before the exam availability period starts, the only available outcome is a deferral.

4.3.2 Where a student submits a Disruptions affecting Assessment claim during the exam availability period or after the exam deadline they may choose between a 'sit as if for the first time' (SAIFFT) and a late penalty waiver.

4.4 Available adjustments for assignments (excepting project proposals) 

4.4.1 Where a student submits a Disruptions affecting Assessment claim before the original assignment deadline, they may choose between a two-week extension and a deferral. Where a student submits their assignment early but is subsequently granted a deferral, the previously submitted work will be treated as voided and will not be marked.

4.4.2 Where a student submits a Disruptions affecting Assessment claim (including supporting evidence) up to one week after the original assignment deadline, the student may choose between a two-week extension, a late penalty waiver, or a ‘sit as if for the first time’ (SAIFFT). 

4.4.3 Where a student submits a Disruptions affecting Assessment claim more than one week after the original assignment deadline or cannot immediately supply evidence, the student may choose between a late penalty waiver or a ‘sit as if for the first time’ (SAIFFT).

4.4.4 A student may only receive one outcome per assessment per claim. However, in cases where a student’s circumstances mean that they are unable to benefit from the mitigation they were originally granted, they may submit a new claim to request further mitigation. The adjustments available in response to multiple claims are as follows:

• Where a student anticipates they will be unable to benefit from their existing adjustment and submits a new claim before the original submission deadline, the student may replace an extension with a deferral, or vice versa.
• Where a student was previously granted a two-week extension but has been unable to benefit from the adjustment and submits a new claim after the original submission deadline, the student may request a late penalty waiver or a ‘sit as if for the first time’ (SAIFFT).  
• The only permitted extension length is two weeks after the original assignment deadline. Requests for multiple extensions for the same assignment will never be approved. 

4.4.5 Where a student is initially granted a ‘sit as if for the first time’ (SAIFFT) but is then able to submit their assignment in the late submission window, the student may request to change their claim outcome from a SAIFFT to a late penalty waiver. The student must make this request within one week of receiving their claim outcome. Retrospective requests to change the claim outcome after the student has received their marks will not be approved. 

4.5 Available adjustments for project proposals 

4.5.1 Where a student submits a Disruptions affecting Assessment claim before the original assignment deadline, the only available outcome is a two-week extension.

4.5.2 Where a student submits a Disruptions affecting Assessment claim after the original assignment deadline, they may choose between a late penalty waiver or a deadline extension of between two and eight weeks. Deadline extensions must always be rounded to the nearest week (ie, students cannot request a deadline that is part of a week). Students who request a deadline extension after the original assignment deadline are required to demonstrate why the length of extension they have requested is necessary and appropriate mitigation for their individual circumstances.

4.5.3 A student may only receive one outcome per assessment per claim. However, in cases where a student’s circumstances mean that they are unable to benefit from the mitigation they were originally granted, they may submit a new claim to request further mitigation. The adjustments available in response to multiple claims are a late penalty waiver or a further deadline extension.  

4.5.4 The maximum permitted length of extension across all claims is eight weeks.

4.5.5 In cases where the maximum deadline extension of eight weeks is insufficient, the York Online Support Team will consider whether one of the alternative adjustments in section 11 would be appropriate for the student in question. In order to be recommended for repeat study, the student must demonstrate why they were unable to anticipate the scale of the disruption on their project proposal earlier and why they have been unable to benefit from any prior mitigation. 

4.6 Approval 

4.6.1 When a student submits a claim for a taught module assessment before the exam availability period starts or the original assignment deadline, their request will usually be automatically approved and not reviewed by University staff.

4.6.2 Claims that are submitted during the exam availability period or after the assessment deadline will be considered and resolved by the York Online Support Team where no academic judgement is required.

4.6.3 Where a student has requested an extension for a project proposal that requires manual approval, a member of the York Online Support Team will assess whether the requested deadline extension is appropriate based on the information and evidence submitted in the student’s claim. The length of the extension granted will directly correlate with the amount of time that the student can demonstrate the exceptional circumstances have affected their ability to engage with the project proposal assignment. The York Online Support Team will determine whether the student has grounds for mitigation but consult the departmental Assessment Disruptions Officer if academic judgement regarding the appropriate length of extension is required.

4.6.4 Where the student is being considered for a non-standard outcome, additional approval may be required and this is specified in section 11. 

5.1 Scope

5.1.1 This section applies to capstone projects. This may be a first attempt, module reassessment, or where a student has previously received a deadline extension for the capstone project and wishes to submit a new claim requesting additional mitigation. 

5.2 Grounds for submitting a claim 

5.2.1 Where a student who has registered for the CPM anticipates or encounters a disruption that could affect their engagement with the module before the end of the refund period, they should request to take a break in their studies in the manner outlined in the York Online Registration, Absence and Engagement Policy. Students who submit a break request before or within eight days of the module start date can defer studying the CPM for any reason. No evidence of the disruption or its impact will be required.

5.2.2 Where a student studying on the CPM after the refund period encounters circumstances that prevent them from engaging with the module, negatively affect their performance, or affect their ability to complete the assessed work, they should submit a Disruptions affecting Assessment claim. Most unforeseen and exceptional personal circumstances may be accepted as grounds for mitigation except for those listed in section 6. However, the student will be required to provide:

• a description of the circumstances they encountered;
• a clear statement about the impact of the circumstances on their ability to complete the assessment;  
• an explanation about why the mitigation they have requested is an appropriate and proportionate adjustment for their circumstances; and
• independent supporting evidence of the circumstances.

Requests will only be approved in cases where the student demonstrates that the disruption could not have been foreseen and is likely to have had a significant impact on their performance. Information about acceptable forms of evidence is provided in section 8 of this policy. 

5.2.3 A student may only be granted a Leave of Absence with repeat study from the CPM if they meet one of the following grounds:

• They can evidence that they have been unable to engage with the CPM since the beginning of the module because a serious disruption took place during the refund period. The student also needs to demonstrate that there has been an ongoing impact on their studies, and provide a good reason why they did not take action within the first eight days of the module.
• They have been unable to engage with the CPM since the beginning of the module due to ongoing mitigation (ie a deadline extension) for their project proposal. The student must have already provided information and evidence about the disruption affecting their studies in their claim for the project proposal. To be accepted, the student must request to take a break from the CPM before the extended deadline for the project proposal has passed.

5.2.4 Any overlap between studying on the CPM and preparation for other outstanding assessments is not usually grounds for mitigation on the CPM. The exceptions to this are:

• where a student has received an evidence-based deadline extension for the project proposal (see section 5.2.5); or
• where a student is invited to an outstanding assessment that will take place at the same time as the CPM after the refund window for the CPM has passed. For the mitigation options permitted on these grounds, see section 5.3.3.

5.2.5 Where a student who has received mitigation for the project proposal is concurrently studying on the CPM, the following principles apply:

• Receiving an automatically-approved (ie non-evidenced-based) two-week extension for the project proposal will not result in automatic mitigation of, or provide the student with grounds for mitigation in, the CPM.
• Receiving a late penalty waiver or an evidence-based extension for the project proposal will not result in automatic mitigation for the CPM. However, the circumstances and evidence submitted in the claim for the project proposal may be accepted as grounds for a deadline extension to the capstone project if the disruption has affected the CPM too.
• Where a student is granted an evidence-based extension for the project proposal and wishes to stop studying the CPM in order to complete the outstanding assessment, the project proposal outcome may be accepted as grounds to approve a Leave of Absence with repeat study from the CPM (see section 5.2.3).

5.2.6 Where a student is registered on an outstanding taught module that overlaps with an approved deadline extension for the capstone project they may submit a new claim for the capstone project on the grounds that their existing mitigation overlaps with module teaching. In these cases, the student should be granted a further deadline extension of up to eight weeks in order to permit them to pause the capstone project and focus on completing their remaining taught module. No evidence of the disruption or its impact will be required. 

5.2.7 Where the student has previously submitted a claim for the same capstone project, they will be required to demonstrate that they have encountered continued disruption over and above what they had expected when the earlier claim was submitted, and provide a clear statement about why the adjustment that had previously been granted is insufficient, in addition to the requirements listed in section 5.2.2 above.

5.2.8 Where a student submits a claim more than one week after the assessment deadline, the requirements specified in section 10 of this policy regarding ‘good reason’ for submitting late claims also apply. 

5.3 Available adjustments for capstone projects 

5.3.1 Where a student submits a Disruptions affecting Assessment claim for a capstone project, they may choose between a late penalty waiver, a deadline extension, or a formal Leave of Absence with repeat study of the module. A student may only receive one outcome for the capstone project per claim. However, if a student’s circumstances mean that they are unable to benefit from a previous adjustment, they may submit a new claim to request further mitigation.

5.3.2 Students may request a deadline extension of any length for their capstone project except where section 5.3.3 applies. Deadline extensions must always be rounded to the nearest week (ie, students cannot request an extension that is part of a week). Where a student is currently unable to study at all but does not have grounds to repeat the CPM, deadline extensions may include an informal break.

5.3.3 Where a student has grounds for mitigation for their capstone project under section 5.2.4 (an outstanding assessment was scheduled during the CPM for which the student was given insufficient notice to delay module registration), then the permitted outcomes are a late penalty waiver or a two-week deadline extension. No other length of extension is permitted on these grounds.

5.3.4 Students who are granted a Leave of Absence with repeat study will rejoin a new iteration of the module with a new cohort of students. The student will be expected to engage with the new iteration of the module from week 1, including submitting a new ethics form if this activity is part of the CPM. The student’s academic department or school reserves the right to give the student a different project supervisor when they rejoin the module, based on staff workload and availability.

5.4 Approval 

5.4.1 Where a student has requested an adjustment on grounds that do not require academic judgement, their request will be considered and resolved by the York Online Support Team.

5.4.2 Where a student has requested an adjustment on grounds that require academic judgement, their request will be considered and resolved by the departmental Assessment Disruptions Officer.

5.4.3 In cases where a student is being considered for a Leave of Absence with repeat study, approval will be required from the Chair of Board of Studies (or equivalent role). Where the period of repeat study is greater than 10 weeks, approval will also be required from Special Cases.

5.4.4 Where the student is being considered for a non-standard outcome, additional approval may be required and this is specified in section 11. 

6.1 Where a student submits a Disruptions affecting Assessment claim after the assignment deadline has passed or the exam availability period has started, or for their capstone project, they will need to demonstrate that the disruption could not have been foreseen and that the impact on their assessment performance was significant. Circumstances that are deemed to have been reasonably within the student’s control will not be accepted as grounds.

6.2 Where a student notifies the University of a disruption after the exam availability period has begun, after the assessment deadline or for their capstone project, the following grounds will never be accepted:

• claims of failure/technical issues of the Canvas Learning Management System, Gradescope, or other necessary IT systems beyond the student’s reasonable control that cannot be evidenced;
• submission of the wrong file, the wrong file type or a corrupted file;
• failure to upload all required elements of an assessment or to do so within the allotted time;
• technical issues within the student’s control such as loss of work not backed up, with the exception of hardware failure during an exam where evidence is provided;
• misreading of the deadlines or the assessment instructions;
• failure to manage their own time or to plan adequately;
• deadlines for assignments or exams being set close together;
• lack of awareness of this policy;
• assessment errors or procedural issues that affect the whole cohort or whole groups of students (2).

In addition, for capstone projects:

• loss of motivation;
• failure to recognise the scale of the research topic or to engage appropriately.

6.3 Where a student submits a claim after the exam availability period has begun, after the assessment deadline, or for the capstone project, the following will usually lead to a rejection:

• The student has not provided full information about the disruption and its effect on their studies, or has not provided evidence, by the requested deadline. Where a student has not provided all of the information or evidence required, they will be prompted to provide the necessary information before any decision to reject the claim is made. Deadlines for providing evidence are specified in section 9.
• The student submitted the claim more than one week after the deadline, and has not provided or evidenced good reason for the delay in accordance with section 10. There may be occasions, however, where the student’s circumstances are so serious and exceptional that it would be reasonable to consider their request regardless of the reasons for the late submission. 
• The timing of the disruption cited would not have adversely affected the assessment or CPM.
• The student has not sufficiently demonstrated that the circumstances impacted their ability to engage with the assessment or CPM.
• The student has not sufficiently demonstrated that the circumstances were unforeseen and therefore could not have been managed in advance. For the CPM, this means that claims may be rejected if the circumstances began before the end of the refund period and the student has not provided a good reason why they were unable to manage the disruption by taking a break using the York Online Registration, Absence and Engagement Policy.
• The circumstances in question relate to a disability for which reasonable adjustments have been made but which the student has not engaged with to a reasonable extent.  
• The claim is submitted after the final decision deadline (see section 9) and cannot realistically be resolved in advance of the Module Board where the assessment marks are due to be ratified by the Board of Examiners. Such claims must be considered as formal University appeals. 

6.4 If a claim is rejected due to lack of evidence, the student may seek further evidence and submit a new claim for consideration so long as the claim, evidence and explanation regarding the delay are all submitted before the final decision deadline specified under section 9. 

Note 2: Claims of this nature are not student-specific and are therefore not appropriate to be considered under this policy. Any such claims would be investigated by the Chair of Board of Examiners and, where appropriate, cohort-wide mitigation put in place in consultation with the Standing Committee on Assessment.

7.1 Students with a Student Support Plan (SSP) are expected to use the Disruptions affecting Assessment claim form to defer assessments or request occasional extensions. The available adjustments (for example, the maximum permitted deadline extension) are those set out in this policy, unless alternative arrangements are permitted in the student’s SSP or have been recommended by a University Disability Practitioner.  

7.2 Students may use their SSP as supporting evidence for claims where evidence is required (see section 8.2.5 for more details).

7.3 Students with disabilities can use this policy to request mitigation in cases where the Reasonable Adjustments in Assessment for Taught Students Policy does not apply. Claims may be because the student does not yet have an SSP in place, or because they have encountered an unforeseeable temporary change or increase in severity of the disability that means previously agreed adjustments are no longer sufficient. 

8.1 When evidence is required

8.1.1 Where a student submits a claim after an assignment deadline or the start of an exam availability period for a taught module assessment, or requests adjustments at any time for a capstone project module, they will be expected to provide evidence in support of their claim. Supporting evidence must indicate the nature of the disruption and demonstrate that its timing would have had an impact on the assessment. The student’s own statement about their circumstances will be considered as evidence but in most cases independent corroborating evidence will also be required. Evidence should be submitted with the claim, or at the latest by the deadlines outlined in section 9.

8.1.2 Students will not be expected to provide independent evidence confirming the death of another person. Impact on the student’s ability to prepare for or complete an assessment can be inferred where the death is of a close relative or of anyone with whom the student was living at the time. The following are considered close family members: parents (including step-parents and parents-in-law), siblings (including step-siblings or siblings-in-law), spouse or long-term partner, children, grandparents, grandchildren, uncles and aunts, nieces and nephews. Where the death is of someone other than a close family member or cohabitant, the student will be expected to explain the relationship and the impact of the bereavement on their ability to complete the assessment.

8.1.3 Students will not be expected to provide independent evidence confirming sexual violence or domestic or intimate partner abuse.

8.1.4 Students will not be expected to provide evidence of a miscarriage or of an abortion, or of complications arising from a miscarriage or abortion, or of health conditions related to pregnancy. 

8.1.5 Where the student has been impacted by the serious illness or accident of a close family member (as defined in section 8.1.2), they will not be expected to provide independent evidence confirming that illness. They will be expected to describe the situation and its impact on their ability to complete the assessment. A serious illness is defined as anything involving inpatient hospital treatment, surgery, or several weeks outpatient treatment; an accident includes anything that requires emergency treatment. Acute incidents in chronic conditions will be considered in the same way.

8.1.6 The University recognises that students may not always be able to get independent evidence. In such cases, the student’s statement, along with an explanation of why independent evidence cannot be obtained, may be sufficient. Claims without evidence are subject to the following limits:

• Student statements that are not supported by corroborating evidence will never be accepted for claims of failure/technical issues of the learning management system or of other necessary IT systems beyond the student’s reasonable control. 
• Students making more than two claims that cannot be supported by independent evidence may be required to provide additional information to help the York Online Support Team assess whether repeated explanations as to why evidence cannot be obtained are plausible. 

8.2 Acceptable forms of evidence 

8.2.1 All evidence must be in English or be accompanied by an English translation; translations should preferably be provided by an independent third party. It is the student’s responsibility to source the translation.

8.2.2 Where evidence is required, the following types of evidence are more likely to be accepted:

• a recent letter or certificate from a medical professional, dated and on headed paper; this includes GPs, consultants, midwives and nurses as well as psychiatrists and other mental health practitioners;  
• an appointment letter, hospital discharge letter or other medical documentation, dated and on headed paper, or a screenshot from a patient app that confirms a medical diagnosis, clinical investigation or referral and the date this took place; 
• a letter from the student’s employer, dated and on headed paper or an email from the student's employer, sent from the employer's email address; 
• for students running their own business, a letter, dated and on headed paper, from a business partner, solicitor or accountant or other independent evidence such as financial statements; 
• a police crime report; 
• a letter or other evidence from another professional service, such as the local council, a charity or independent advisory service, a family solicitor, etc; 
• a supporting letter from another University of York service such as the Open Door Team, Disability Services or Student Hub; 
• a written account from an independent third party from outside the University who directly witnessed the circumstances. 

8.2.3 The following types of evidence are less likely to be accepted:

• a letter or certificate from a medical professional that simply repeats the student’s own description of events and does not provide an independent assessment;
• a medical appointment confirmation (for example email, or screenshot from a patient app) where the student has requested the appointment in question (ie the student requesting the appointment may not in itself be taken as evidence of a diagnosis);
• a letter or certificate from a complementary therapist;  
• a written account from the student’s family or friends who have directly witnessed the circumstances, or their impact on the student’s wellbeing or ability to perform in assessment; 
• for students running their own business, their own statement about the situation. 

8.2.4 The following types of evidence are unlikely to be accepted:

• a letter from the student’s academic supervisor, module tutor or another academic contact regarding the student’s circumstances;
•  a written account from the student’s family or friends, if they have not directly witnessed the submitted circumstances or their impact upon the student.

8.2.5 Where a student in possession of a Student Support Plan (SSP) submits a claim that does not fall under the reasonable adjustments permitted in their SSP, the existence of the SSP can be accepted as independent supporting evidence providing:

• the reason the student was unable to prepare for or complete the assessment is clearly connected to a health condition or disability specified in their SSP;
• the student provides an explanation of why they were unable to take action before the exam availability period started or assessment deadline that demonstrates they encountered relevant circumstances (for example, an escalation of their health condition) that could not have been foreseen. 

8.2.6 Where a student provides evidence that does not clearly fall under the examples above, the following principles apply:

• The evidence should be reasonably contemporaneous to the circumstances the student described. This means that the evidence would be expected to demonstrate that the student’s studies were disrupted shortly before the exam availability period or assessment deadline, or during the exam availability period or CPM. Where a student’s statement is supported by non-contemporaneous evidence, this may still be accepted if the decision-maker is satisfied that the student was unable to secure evidence at a more appropriate time.
• The evidence should be independent of the student’s account. Evidence should normally be provided by a third party who/which may be reasonably concluded to be independent of the student’s own account. 
• The evidence should corroborate the student’s account. It is important that the evidence allows the decision-maker to confirm the nature and impact of the circumstances beyond the student’s statement. This means that the evidence should support the student’s account, including the nature and duration of its impact. This is to permit the decision-maker to come to a conclusion that is objective, appropriate and fair.

8.2.7 The York Online Support Team may work with other University teams, Canvas Support or Gradescope Support as appropriate to verify the impact that a reported disruption had on a student’s exam attempt. However, the student is still expected to provide their own evidence of the disruption unless their statement provides good reason why this is not possible. 

8.2.8 The University reserves the right to check the authenticity of all information and supporting evidence provided by the student. This includes verifying a student’s claim that they were given misleading advice or incorrect information by staff acting on behalf of the University or the University of York Students’ Union. Where it is suspected that a student has submitted evidence that is not genuine or has otherwise fabricated information regarding their claim, they may be referred for consideration under the University’s Regulation 7: student discipline procedure. 

9.1 Students should submit Disruptions affecting Assessment claims as soon as a disruption affects their assessment if they are able to do so.

9.2 Where a student anticipates the impact of a disruption on their assessment, they should submit a claim before the exam availability period starts, or before the assignment, project proposal or capstone project deadline. Students should try to submit claims, where possible, at least two working days before the deadline / examination to allow time for their claim to be processed and any adjustments applied.

9.3 Students should submit claims no later than one week after the deadline.

9.4 Students who submit a claim more than one week after the assessment deadline will be required to provide an explanation and evidence a good reason for not doing so earlier (see section 10).

9.5 Students should include evidence (where required) when submitting their claim. If this is not possible, the student will be set a deadline to submit evidence and/or further information. The deadline will be the earlier of:

• three weeks after the claim was submitted; or,
• the final decision deadline (see section 9.6 below).

Where a student cannot meet a three-week deadline, an extension of the evidence deadline will be allowed as long as the student informs the York Online Support Team that there will be a delay in obtaining evidence and the reason for the delay before the evidence deadline has passed. Extensions to evidence deadlines will only be permitted after the final decision deadline in cases where section 9.7 applies.

9.6 The final decision deadline for resolving open claims is ten working days before the Module Board where marks for the assessment in question are due to be ratified by the Board of Examiners. If a student submits a claim between the final decision deadline and the Module Board, the claim will only be considered if it is realistically possible for an outcome to be confirmed and results updated in time for ratification of results. Otherwise, the claim should be rejected and the student advised to appeal the outcome. 

9.7 Where a claim was submitted before the final decision deadline but it is not possible to resolve the claim before the Module Board due to circumstances beyond the student’s reasonable control, the outcome may be resolved through Chair of Board of Examiner’s action.

9.8 Claims submitted after assessment marks have been ratified by a Module Board can never be considered. Such claims must be considered as formal University appeals. 

10.1 Where a student submits a Disruptions affecting Assessment claim more than one week after the assessment deadline but before the assessment marks are ratified at Module Board, the claim can still be considered, as long as the student demonstrates that they had good reason as to why they could not submit the claim earlier and provides evidence of that reason. If they cannot do so, the claim may be rejected regardless of the strength of the claim. 

10.2 The following are examples of ‘good reasons’ for submitting a claim late:

• a genuine medical emergency which would have clearly prevented the student from notifying the University, such as hospitalisation;
• severe issues outside the student’s control that meant they were unavoidably prevented from notifying the University;
• where the student was given misleading advice or incorrect information regarding this policy by an employee of the University, or an employee of the University of York Students’ Union (including full-time officers), or an individual or company employed or contracted to act on the University’s behalf. 

10.3 The following are not considered to be ‘good reasons’:

• retrospective consideration of module results, including arguments that the student’s performance in a specific assessment was surprising, disappointing, or out of character;
• a belief that the University would not take the issue seriously;
• ignorance, or misreading, of this policy, unless the student can evidence that they were misadvised;
• where the student was given misleading advice or incorrect information regarding this policy by another student;
• believing or hoping that they would do well enough in the assessments despite their situation;
• deciding not to disclose their circumstances because they wanted to demonstrate that they could succeed without help;
• general embarrassment / a reluctance to disclose their circumstances, including that the student belongs to or grew up in a culture in which problems are not openly discussed or disclosed to others. This is not accepted as a good reason for non-disclosure of disruptions because it would be unjust to accept claims from some students but not others on the basis of assumptions about cultural norms based on a student’s nationality, ethnicity or religious faith. The University does not discriminate against students on the basis of nationality, ethnicity, faith or any other protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. 

10.4 The evidence a student submits to demonstrate good reason for submitting a claim late may also be used to demonstrate the disruption that affected the student’s assessment, if the grounds for the disruption and for the delay in submitting the claim are the same. If the reason that the claim was submitted late is different to the reason why the assessment was disrupted, then the student will be required to submit separate evidence for each. 

11.1 Alternative adjustments for rare cases

11.1.1 Rarely circumstances may arise where the adjustments outlined in sections 4 or 5 do not provide a student with adequate mitigation. Where a member of the York Online Support Team identifies that a student requires non-standard mitigation, they should discuss the case with the departmental Assessment Disruptions Officer. One of the following remedies may be applied:

• The opportunity to take a different form of assessment than the original assessment ‘as if for the first time’. The alternative assessment must assess the same learning outcomes and be the same weighting as the original assessment. Offering alternative forms of assessment will usually be for practical reasons, eg to permit a student to complete their studies in cases where waiting for an appropriate assessment will considerably extend their programme. Alternative assessments cannot be in a format that the student has never previously encountered. Alternative assessments should be discussed with and approved by the department or school’s Chair of Board of Examiners before being offered to the student.
• Additional work to complete the original learning outcomes of the module, eg where practical work has been only partially completed.
• Waiver of assessment components. If a single module mark is created from a number of marks from assessments testing the same learning outcomes, assessments amounting to no more than 20% of the overall module mark may be waived. This is permitted only where the learning outcomes for the module have been measured by the remaining assessments for that module. Where the various elements of a module are intended to test different learning outcomes, such waiving of marks is not permissible. This procedure may be followed for up to a maximum of 30 credits of non-CPM modules, provided that the learning outcomes for the module(s) have been achieved. 
  • Where an assessment has been waived in this way, the module mark will be calculated using the remaining assessments’ marks, which will form 100% of the module mark in proportion to their relative weighting before waiver. For example, where a module has two assessments each amounting to 20% of the module and another assessment worth 60% and one of the 20% assessments is waived, the remaining modules will form the module mark in the ratio 20:60 (that is 1:3 or 25%:75%). Waiver of assessment components should be discussed with and approved by the department or school’s Chair of Board of Examiners before being offered to the student. 
• A revised submission (referral) of work already submitted may be permitted. The academic department/school must apply due consideration to ensuring the student is not unduly advantaged before this outcome is offered.
• Recommendation to Special Cases for the award of a taught aegrotat degree where the conditions of the Policy on Exceptional Awards are met.
• Repeat study of the module. York Online Support Team members may recommend a student for repeat study in the first instance where a student’s claim indicates that the student was unable to engage with more than two weeks’ of module teaching due to a significant disruption which could not have been foreseen, and which prevented the student from being able to engage with appropriate University processes at the time (ie by taking a Leave of Absence). In these cases, students will also be subject to the procedures outlined in the York Online Repeat Study Policy. 

11.1.2 Occasionally a student may be offered a deferral or ‘sit as if for the first time’ (SAIFFT) assessment at the time of their assessment which in retrospect is no longer an appropriate way to support the student’s academic success. In these cases, the previously offered deferral or SAIFFT may be retrospectively converted into an offer of repeat study. The change in outcome may be triggered by the following circumstances:

• Where the module and/or assessment for which the student is owed a delayed assessment has since been substantially modified. Where the changes to the module or assessment will prevent the student from being able to sit their previously encountered assessment format in a timely manner or achieve currency of learning, then the student’s original outcome should be converted to an opportunity to repeat the module teaching and assessment with a new cohort. In such cases, the student will not be offered the choice between repeat study and waiting for the outstanding assessment. Students who are unhappy with this outcome may seek a resolution with their department/school by submitting an informal complaint. Approval of retrospective repeat study on the grounds of module changes is required from the Chair of Board of Studies (or equivalent role) and Special Cases.
• Where a student is owed a deferral or SAIFFT and the associated module teaching was completed more than 24 months in the past. A delay of this kind would usually indicate that the student has been unfit to sit the assessment for a considerable period of time, and therefore has either been on Leave of Absence for multiple online learning periods, and/or deferred the assessment multiple times. In such cases, the student should be offered the choice between repeat study of the module or continuing to prepare for the assessment in their original version of the module. Approval of retrospective repeat study on the grounds of time elapsed since teaching is required from Special Cases.
• Where a member of the York Online Support Team identifies that a student is progressing at considerable risk and raises concerns about whether the student is likely to complete their programme of study. In order to convert a deferral or SAIFFT to an offer of repeat study on these grounds, the following criteria must be met:
  • The York Online Support Team must review the student’s academic record and case history and conclude that the student has most likely been unable to benefit from previous mitigation opportunities. This may be either because the impact of the original circumstances on the student’s ability to engage with the module teaching was unusually severe, or due to serious ongoing circumstances.
  • The York Online Support Team must establish that the student would most likely have been granted repeat study for the module in question if they had originally made use of the York Online Repeat Study Policy rather than the Disruptions affecting Assessment Policy when they first submitted a claim.
  • Special Cases must approve the proposal to offer retrospective repeat study on the grounds of progression at risk. 

11.1.3 The following outcomes will never be offered:

• Substitution or changing of marks.
• Zero-weighting of a module. 

11.2 Summative group work projects

11.2.1 Where a student’s circumstances impact their ability to complete or contribute to a group assessment, the University must provide mitigation whilst ensuring that other students in the group are not disadvantaged and are able to complete the assessment.

11.2.2 It is the responsibility of the department/school, when designing group activities that are summatively assessed or affect a summative assessment, to take reasonable measures to ensure that non-participation by one or more members of the student group will not affect the ability of other students to engage with the assessment. These measures should be designed to prevent the student group from being required to delay their assessment or take an alternative assessment, in all but the most severe circumstances.

11.2.3 In no case may circumstances that have affected an individual student ever be disclosed to the group, even where this has directly impacted the group assessment.

11.2.4 Where an individual student experiences a disruption during group work that requires mitigation, that student may be granted one of the standard outcomes in section 4 where this outcome will not impact the ability of other students to complete the assessment. In cases where a standard outcome will impact on other students, an alternative individual assessment must be defined for the module. This should be offered as an adjustment for any student experiencing a disruption, with a deadline appropriate to the circumstances and in line with the standard practice of a two-week extension or a deferral/SAIFFT.

11.2.5 Where an entire group encounters a disruption, the group may be granted an extension to the submission deadline, provided that due consideration of each student’s individual circumstances is taken before the extension is granted. Where a deadline extension would disproportionately negatively affect one or more members of the group (for example, due to conflicting commitments), then an alternative individual assessment should be provided. Students will not be permitted to defer a group assignment due to the inequitable impact on individual student trajectories.

11.2.6 Where a student notifies the University of a disruption after the deadline for a group assessment has passed and their claim is approved, the only permissible outcome is a ‘sit as if for the first time’ where the student is individually assessed.

11.2.7 Where exceptions are defined for particular modules, this will be set out in the assessment information for that module within the Learning Management System.

12.1 Accepting or declining a deferral

12.1.1 To accept a deferral, the student must not attempt the assessment for which the deferral has been granted. This means that they must not submit any work to the assignment or start the exam. A student will be considered to have started the exam if they open the exam and access the exam paper in Canvas or Gradescope, even if they do not answer any of the questions.

12.1.2 Where a student defers an assessment but then sits / submits it by the deadline, their decision to attempt the work will be treated as a declaration that they are fit to sit / submit. This means that the previous deferral will be voided and the mark achieved for the submitted work will stand. The student will not be permitted to take the assessment again unless they submit a new Disruptions affecting Assessment claim and are offered a ‘sit as if for the first time’.

12.1.3 Where a student defers an assignment but then submits the assignment after the deadline and within the late submission period, it will be treated as an extension and the late penalties waived.

12.2 Accepting or declining a ‘sit as if for the first time’ (SAIFFT)

12.2.1 Students who are granted a SAIFFT may choose to submit the assessment for which the SAIFFT was granted if they are able to do so. This will not void the SAIFFT opportunity.

12.2.2 To accept a SAIFFT, students should sit / submit the assessment at the first opportunity that they are offered. If a student is invited to a SAIFFT opportunity which they are unable to accept, they must make use of this policy to defer the assessment again. Failure to sit / submit the SAIFFT assessment will be treated as declining the opportunity. Accepting the SAIFFT opportunity means that the student’s new mark will stand, even if it is lower than their previous mark for the assessment.  

12.2.3 To decline a SAIFFT, the student must not attempt the SAIFFT opportunity when it is offered. This means that they must not submit any work to the assignment or start the exam. A student will be considered to have started the exam if they open the exam and access the exam paper in Canvas or Gradescope, even if they do not answer any of the questions. Declining a SAIFFT opportunity means that the student’s original mark will stand.  

12.2.4 Where an assessment is marked on a pass/fail marking scheme, SAIFFT opportunities are conditional on failing the assessment. Where a student has been granted a SAIFFT but passes the assessment at the first opportunity, their SAIFFT opportunity will be voided and the student will not be offered a further attempt. This is because the student has already achieved the best possible outcome for that assessment. 

13.1 Students have the right to appeal within 28 days of receiving a claim outcome in any circumstance where their request is rejected, ie:

• where the submitted claim is rejected or partially rejected, including where the “good reason” for not notifying the University earlier is rejected;
• where students submit a claim or supporting evidence/information after the final decision deadline (see section 9) and their claim is rejected because York Online Support Team determines it will not be possible to resolve and process the claim in time for the Module Board at which the assessment marks are due to be ratified.

13.2 Students are unable to submit Disruptions affecting Assessment claims for assessments for which the marks have already been agreed in e:vision. This marks agreement process takes place shortly after the marks have been ratified by the Module Board. Where a student is unable to submit a claim for an assessment because the marks have already been agreed, they have the right to appeal the agreed outcome on the basis of exceptional circumstances within 28 days of the Module Board. 

14.1 Information and documents provided by students under this policy will be treated confidentially in line with the University of York Data Protection Policy and the University’s privacy notice for students.

14.2 The York Online Support Team typically obtains personal information directly from students eg when they contact the team by email, telephone or video call, or when they submit a Disruptions affecting Assessment claim form, request a Leave of Absence or submit a Repeat Study request in e:vision. The York Online Support Team may also receive information or data from the student’s academic department/school, their Student Success Coordinator or Disability Services.

14.3 Students’ personal information is used to prepare and process claims; to inform claim outcomes (ie to establish whether the student’s claim has grounds); to process claim outcomes (eg to ensure students are able to submit to a new submission point); and to establish whether they may benefit from additional support or signposting to other University services. Anonymised collated data on claim outcomes may also be used to analyse the impact and efficacy of this policy and associated processes.

14.4 Personal information will be available to the York Online Support Team, and may be discussed within the team and with the Student Success Coordinators in order to support the student journey and provide services to students. Special category data may be discussed within the team when one student case falls under multiple different processes (eg the Disruptions affecting Assessment process; the Leave of Absence process; the Repeat Study process; or the appeals process). Evidence, which may include special category data, provided under one process may be used in support of a claim submitted through a different process, where applicable, with the student’s permission (eg evidence submitted in support of a Repeat Study request may be used if a student submits a Disruptions affecting Assessment claim on the same grounds but provides no evidence).

14.5 Where a York Online Support Team member believes a student may benefit from, or requires, additional information or support, personal information, including special category data, will be shared within the team in order to facilitate the provision of appropriate support (eg advising a student about other policies that help them in their circumstances or checking in on a student’s welfare).

14.6 Outcomes from claims made under this policy may be shared with a student’s academic supervisor, their Student Success Coordinator and/or, where appropriate, their project supervisor for the CPM, to enable them to provide advice about progress and trajectory through the programme. Outcomes may be shared with other relevant members of academic staff where a student needs an alternative assessment in order to sit a deferred or SAIFFT assessment. Details of the claim itself (ie the reason for it and evidence submitted) will not be shared. 

14.7 Personal information will be shared with the departmental Assessment Disruptions Officer, or their deputy, if a claim requires consultation. Claims may also need to be shared with the Chair of Board of Studies (or equivalent role) where an outcome potentially affects achievement of the Programme Learning Outcomes or where a recommendation needs to be made to Special Cases (eg where a student might be eligible for an aegrotat award). This may include special category data. In rare cases, an anonymised summary of the claim may be shared with the Chair of the Standing Committee on Assessment, or with support staff supporting Special Cases processes, for advice on the application of this policy and to inform outcomes.

14.8 In the event that an appeal is submitted regarding a Disruptions affecting Assessment claim outcome, personal information will be shared with Special Cases for consideration of the appeal; the Chair of the Board of Studies (or equivalent role) to approve recommendations about the appeal; and occasionally members of the Standing Committee on Assessment, in order to respond to an appeal. To investigate an appeal, the York Online Support Team may need to request relevant information from module tutors, academic supervisors, project supervisors, or Student Success Coordinators; in such cases, the staff concerned will be aware that an appeal has been submitted but will not be provided with personal information.

14.9 In the event that a student submits a complaint about their experience of this policy, the claim form, evidence and outcome will be reviewed as needed by the Head of Online Partnerships, or their deputy, in order to investigate the complaint and provide a response.

14.10 Where the York Online Support Team has a concern regarding the welfare of a student they may seek advice from the Open Door Team or Disability Services, and may share personal information where it is deemed necessary. Where students have a Student Support Plan in place, personal information may also be shared with the departmental disability contact to ensure that the Student Support Plan is supporting the student adequately.

14.11 Where the York Online Support Team has a concern regarding the welfare of a child or vulnerable adult they will seek advice from a Safeguarding Designated Contact, and may submit a safeguarding report containing a student’s personal information. Please see the University’s Safeguarding Framework on the University website. 

If a student’s Disruptions affecting Assessment claim is approved, the adjustment they are offered will
depend on the timing of the claim and the type of assessment. The following table provides a quick
reference guide to what outcome is permitted under sections 4 and 5 of this policy.

Assessment type	Timing of when claim is submitted	Mitigation offered	Evidence required	Policy section(s)
Exam	Before the exam period	Deferral	No	4.3.1
Exam	After the exam availability period has begun	Late penalty waiver OR ‘sit as if for the first time’ (SAIFFT)	Yes	4.3.2
Assignment	Before the original cohort deadline	Deferral OR two-week extension	No	4.4.1, 4.4.4
Assignment	Up to one week after the original cohort deadline	Two-week extension	Yes	4.4.2
Assignment	After student’s affected deadline	Late penalty waiver OR ‘sit as if for the first time’ (SAIFFT)	Yes	4.4.2, 4.4.3, 4.4.4
Project proposal	Before the original cohort deadline	Two-week extension	No	4.5.1
Project proposal	After student’s affected deadline	Late penalty waiver OR deadline extension (max. eight weeks)	Yes	4.5.2, 4.5.3
Capstone project	After refund period	Late penalty waiver OR deadline extension OR Leave of Absence with repeat study	Yes	5.3
Any summative assessment	After the assessment marks have been approved by the Board of Examiners	No outcome permitted under this policy. Student must submit an Academic Appeal	Yes (for Appeal)	13.2

Each department/school will identify an academic member of staff responsible for consulting on Disruptions affecting Assessment claims where academic judgement is required. For the purposes of this policy, such a person is referred to as an Assessment Disruptions Officer (‘ADO’).

The ADO (in consultation with other relevant members of staff) has the following responsibilities:

• To determine whether a student has exceptional circumstances in cases where the cited grounds for the claim requires academic judgement. This includes cases where the student:
  • reports concerns regarding the quality of project supervision on the CPM;  
  • cites unforeseen issues with the project proposal or capstone project (for example, problems completing data collection);  
  • claims procedural irregularities regarding necessary approvals (such as obtaining ethical approval for research); or  
  • requests an extension for the capstone project on the basis that they and the department/ school have agreed that a late topic change is necessary (for example, due to unforeseen circumstances that affected the student’s original project, or poor academic advice).
• To recommend appropriate adjustments where academic judgement is required. For example, an ADO would be consulted in the following cases:
  • To assess whether a Leave of Absence with repeat study of the CPM is an appropriate and proportionate resolution in cases where a procedural error occurs regarding the academic supervision process.
  • In cases where the student cites grounds for exceptional circumstances that require academic judgement and requests a deadline extension for the project proposal or capstone project. In these cases the length of the extension offered should be determined by how much the circumstances have impacted the student’s ability to proceed with the assessment, and how long the student is likely to need in order to successfully complete their assessment once the academic issues with their proposal or project have been resolved.
• To be available for consultation in cases where the York Online Support Team believes a student has grounds to be considered for one of the non-standard outcomes listed in section 11 of this policy.

The ADO will not be responsible for making decisions about Disruptions affecting Assessment claims except for the circumstances listed above.

Academic judgement is not required in the following scenarios:

• To determine exceptional circumstances and approve any appropriate adjustments in cases where the student cites acute or long-term health concerns (mental or physical), bereavement, challenges with work/employment or any other personal circumstance that is not related to undertaking independent study.
• To assess whether a Leave of Absence with repeat study of the CPM is an appropriate and proportionate resolution in cases where the student encountered personal circumstances that prevented them from engaging with the CPM from the beginning of the module, or where a procedural error occurred regarding the student’s payment, registration, support staff advice, or other administrative procedure.