Extenuation at UEL – what you need to know
Most universities and examination boards have a set of policies and procedures to deal with extenuation or, as it sometimes called, mitigation. These cover circumstances where the performance/attendance of a student at an examination, or the performance/submission of coursework by a student is adversely affected by circumstances which are deemed as extenuating.
The University of East London has such a policy and set of procedures. These are outlined in the
Manual of General Regulations Part 6 at http://www.uel.ac.uk/qa/manual . UEL has approximately
20,000 on campus students delivering in excess of 200,000 examination attendances and coursework submissions each year. It is statistically inevitable that with such large numbers there will be many students undergoing extenuating circumstances. Our policy and procedures are set up and operated to ensure that students are treated fairly and consistently across the university and that our extenuation procedures provide a safety net for students adversely affected by serious circumstances.
We expect our collaborative partner organisations will incorporate appropriate procedures to deal with extenuation at their own institutions. These should follow the same principles as the UEL extenuation policy though it is recognised that different procedures may be appropriate for different institutions depending on size and number of students.
Below are outlined the key principles of the UEL system which should be followed together with points of advice.
1. Extenuating circumstances are circumstances which could be expected to adversely affect examination performance, or which prevent examination attendance or coursework submission
Typically these circumstances could not have been foreseen or prevented and could be expected to have had a serious impact on performance, attendance or submission. [Comment: It is important that students manage their own lives. For instance there is a difference between a student who misses an examination through severe unpredictable transport disruption (extenuation granted) and one who misses a submission deadline for the same reason (extenuation not granted since the prudent student would have ensured that they had attempted to submit well in advance of the deadline e.g. several hours]
2. Extenuation for performance at an examination, if granted, does not turn a fail into a pass, or increase marks. Rather it ‘wipes the record’ of the performance of the student, however strong or weak, and requires the student to repeat the exam at reassessment without any capping penalty.
This is sufficient to dissuade students from applying for extenuation as an insurance policy.
Successful extenuation for non attendance at an examination has the same effect – repeat without a mark capping penalty.
3. Extenuating circumstances governing late or non submission of coursework should be rare – the student has considerable ability to manage their own time in meeting a deadline which may be many weeks in advance. However cases do occur and the effect of granting extenuation is to allow the coursework to be received up to a week late without penalty or, if not submitted within a week, then the student undertakes the resubmission work without penalty.
4. Extenua tion is not granted for ongoing ‘life problems’ e.g. financial problems, pressures of work if employed, housing problems etc. These should be managed by the student and, if they are seriously impeding performance over a long period, the student should be taking time off from studies (intermitting) until they are able to devote sufficient focus to their academic work.

The extenuation process does not apply to students with a recognised disability. It is the responsibility of the organisation to accommodate these in the teaching and assessment process – it is not within the scope of extenuation.
5. A key feature of the UEL extenuation principles is that extenuation is applied for by the student in writing (on predesigned documentation) and is supported by the student with independent documentation e.g. medical certificates. The granting of extenuation is based solely on what the student states in their submission and the extent to which the independent documentation supports this . It is an evidential system based entirely on the student submission and is not based on knowledge staff may, or may not have, of the individual student’s circumstances.
6. The judgement as to whether a student is to be granted extenuation should be made by a small panel of senior academic/administrative staff in the institution. This panel oversees all extenuation claims and can ensure consistency of approach. For some advice on this panel see the accompanying webcast. The panel makes a decision on each claim based purely on the student ’s written statement and the supporting documentation. Where possible the identity of the student should not be available to the panel (use of student number) and ideally panel members should not have knowledge of the student independently. The aim is to reinforce the independence of the decision based on documentation. The information provided by the student and the discussions within the panel are confidential.
7. It is helpful if there is a designated person(s) within the organisation who can provide advice to the student on how best to present their claim and what sorts of evidence would be needed. This advice service usually ensures that ‘frivolous’ claims are not made and that ‘serious’ claims are properly expressed with appropriate documentation. This person is not part of the process which judges whether claims are accepted or rejected. At UEL this service is provided very effectively by the student union advice service with trained advisors. It could equally well be provided by a trained member of administrative staff.
8. The entire process is designed to ensure that claims for extenuation are evidentially based, are consistently approached by a standing panel which develops experience and its own ‘case law’, and is as subject to as much anonymity as possible.
It is a key feature of the process that academic and other staff known to the student are not involved in the processes. For instance students will not be approaching their tutors with
‘special pleading ’ for extensions to deadlines, a chance to repeat examinations etc. Individual tutors will not have authority to grant these. This stops emotional pressure being placed on academic staff.
It also prevents staff being categorised as ‘soft’ or ‘hard’ depending on whether they will or will not accept the legitimacy of the special pleading.
The process encourages a mature attitude in students, recognition of the importance of evidence, and a nonreliance on an ‘extenuation mentality’, yet provides a safety net for those encountering serious, unpredictable circumstances.