Written by Pia Bobeff
As uni starts back up again, it is fair to say that these past couple of weeks have been stressful. For a lot of us, the teaching break was anything but a break, as we caught up on readings and notes whilst also studying for upcoming mid-sem exams and typing away at our assignments. But for some, this process was made even more stressful due to the current nature of the ANU’s Extenuating Circumstances Application (ECA) and Education Access Plan (EAP).
Under the status quo of ECAs, students are only allowed to apply for one provision per assessment and may only appeal a decision on that provision. If both the initial application and the repeal are rejected, then students are unable to submit a new application advocating for a different provision.
This means that if after submitting an ECA, a student experiences additional difficulties, they are unable to submit a new application. For example, if a student becomes ill and is unable to perform to their usual academic standard, this would render them unable to submit an application for a deferred assessment.
The current EAP framework is intended to provide a more equitable means of partaking in studies for students with chronic illnesses, disabilities, athletic commitments, parent and career responsibilities, and other ongoing health conditions. This is provided through the provision of reasonable adjustments, usually in the form of condition-based adjustments such as extra time or small room.
However, the framework does not provide a reliable method for embedding alternative assessments, such as the modification of the format or mode of assessment, as a recognised form of reasonable adjustment within an EAP. This means that despite being recommended by a health practitioner, such arrangements cannot be formally incorporated into a student’s EAP. Whether or not an alternative assessment can occur is determined by the college associated with the course being undertaken.
However, this process fails to acknowledge the longevity of students’ health conditions. Students are required to submit separate ECAs each time they need adjustments, despite the conditions and the evidence to support these conditions not changing.
A student undertaking a four year degree who requires two alternative assessment provisions per course, per semester would, across the course of their studies, submit 64 EAPs to the ANU Access and Inclusion.
In response to this, in their first SRC meeting of 2026, ANUSA put forward two motions to restructure these frameworks.
Observer spoke to the mover of these motions, Tyne Jones (RAGE for ANUSA). Jones commented that “the passage of these motions reflects a clear and consistent message from students at the ANU: the current assessment accessibility system is not working”.
The ‘Student-Centred Reform to Strengthen Fairness and Flexibility in the ECA Framework’ motion was centred on adopting greater support for reform to the framework. The motion advocated for the retention of the one-provision-at-a-time rule, whilst advocating for students to be able to submit an application for a different provision should the first one fail. The motion also supported that the ECA Working Group and the ANUSA Education Officer should report to the SRC about the objectives’ progress.
The next ANUSA motion, ‘Reforming the EAP Framework to Ensure Consistent and Clinically Guided Assessment Access’, proposed to support reform to the EAP framework and the embedding of alternative assessment provisions within the EAPs.
The motion advocated for health practitioners to provide specifications, and to support the possibility of an EAP working group or equivalent in collaboration with others to achieve reform.
Jones commented that “further planned collaboration with ANU residential and affiliated halls… is underway”. This “will strengthen education accessibility awareness” and help develop “interim support mechanisms to ensure students are not left without accommodations before they formally receive an EAP”.
These motions reflected students’ desire for more proactive and accessible frameworks. Jones stated, “accessibility must be embedded, not discretionary, and a student-centred university cannot rely on fragmented, reactive systems; it must deliver consistent, enforceable support as a baseline, and recognise that students are best placed to advise on the policies that affect them.”
Both motions were unanimously passed in the first SRCmeeting and more information can be found by reading the SRC minutes.
More to come.
Disclaimer: An earlier version of this article misstated that alternative assessments can be included in EAPs and that they were determined by the Exam Office.
Graphics by Laudine Cao
ANU Observer 