What is reasonable adjustment in assessment?

Reasonable adjustment in assessment is a change to the assessment process, method, environment or resources that enables a VET student to demonstrate their competence without being disadvantaged by a disability or other individual need. The adjustment changes how the student accesses or completes the assessment. It does not remove a requirement of the training product, lower the standard of performance or allow an assessor to infer competence without sufficient evidence.

This can be difficult to apply in practice because fairness does not always mean treating every student in exactly the same way. A standardised assessment process may appear impartial, yet still create an avoidable barrier for a student whose disability affects how they read, write, communicate, move, process information or engage with the assessment environment.

The purpose of reasonable adjustment is to remove that barrier where an appropriate adjustment can be made. The purpose is not to make the assessment easier. Every student must still demonstrate the skills and knowledge described in the training product.

Equal treatment does not always produce equal access

Assessment systems often rely on consistency. Students receive the same instructions, complete the same tasks and are judged against the same requirements. Consistency supports fairness and reliability, but identical treatment can become inequitable when the assessment method creates a disadvantage unrelated to the competency being assessed.

Consider a student with a vision impairment who is required to read printed workplace documents during an assessment. Providing those documents in an accessible digital format may allow the student to use screen-reading software. The workplace skill and knowledge requirements remain unchanged. The adjustment removes a barrier created by the format in which the assessment evidence was expected.

A student with a health condition may need rest breaks during a lengthy assessment. A student with dyslexia may need additional time to read written instructions. A student with a hearing impairment may need captions, an interpreter or written instructions where oral directions are not themselves part of the competency. A student with limited mobility may need a different room layout or adapted equipment.

In each case, the central question is whether the proposed change allows the student to demonstrate the same competency without compromising the training product. Reasonable adjustment is therefore an exercise in assessment design and professional judgement, not an exception to the required standard.

Reasonable adjustment has a specific regulatory meaning

Under Standard 2.4 of the 2025 Standards for RTOs, RTOs must support VET students with disability to access and participate in training and assessment on an equal basis. The performance indicators require RTOs to support students to disclose disability if they choose, make reasonable adjustments where appropriate, and communicate the reasons promptly where an adjustment is not appropriate or possible.

ASQA has clarified that the term reasonable adjustment refers to adjustments made in accordance with the Disability Standards for Education 2005. It is not a general label for changing assessment arrangements whenever a student is absent, prefers another method or finds a task difficult. ASQA also confirms that all students, including students with disability, must still meet the requirements of the training product.

The Disability Standards for Education apply to RTOs and other education and training providers. They define an adjustment as a measure, action, aid, facility or service that assists a student with disability to participate on the same basis as a student without disability. An adjustment is reasonable when it balances the interests of the parties affected, taking account of the student’s circumstances, the effect of the adjustment, its effect on others, and its costs and benefits.

This means reasonableness cannot be determined from a generic list alone. The same adjustment may be appropriate for one student, assessment and delivery context, but unsuitable in another.

The assessment requirement must be identified before it can be adjusted

An RTO cannot decide whether an adjustment is appropriate without first understanding what the assessment is intended to establish.

Suppose a unit requires a student to produce accurate written workplace documentation. Allowing the student to dictate responses to an assessor may remove the need to demonstrate the required writing skill. In that context, the adjustment may compromise the assessment.

The position may be different where a written response is being used only to assess technical knowledge and written communication is not part of the training product. An oral response, assistive technology or a scribe may allow the student to demonstrate the required knowledge without being disadvantaged by the assessment format.

The decision therefore depends on the relationship between the proposed adjustment and the competency being assessed. The assessor needs to distinguish between:

• a feature of the assessment method that can be changed

• a skill or condition that forms part of the training product and must still be demonstrated.

This requires close attention to the elements, performance criteria, foundation skills, performance evidence, knowledge evidence and assessment conditions. Where the assessment relates to a licensed or safety-critical outcome, the RTO may also need to consider requirements imposed by licensing authorities, workplace law or mandated assessment instruments.

A statement that an adjustment would “change the unit” is not enough. The RTO should be able to identify which requirement would be compromised and explain why the proposed arrangement would no longer produce valid evidence.

Reasonable adjustment is connected to fairness and validity

Standard 1.4 requires assessment to be fair, flexible, valid and reliable. Fairness includes accommodating the student’s needs and implementing reasonable adjustments where appropriate. ASQA’s guidance also expects RTOs to consider students’ needs when adapting assessment processes or tools.

Fairness, however, cannot be considered separately from validity. An adjustment may improve access while weakening the relationship between the assessment evidence and the training product. That would create a different problem.

For example, additional time may be reasonable where speed is not part of competent performance. It may be unsuitable where the training product requires the student to respond within a defined timeframe because timing is essential to safety or workplace performance.

Similarly, replacing a written assessment with oral questioning may be suitable where the assessor is testing knowledge. It may not be suitable where the student must demonstrate the ability to prepare a written report, complete records or communicate accurately in writing.

Assessment flexibility permits students to demonstrate competence in different ways. It does not permit an RTO to assess different competence.

A sound adjustment preserves the validity, sufficiency, authenticity and currency of the evidence while reducing the effect of a disability or additional need on the student’s access to the assessment.

Consultation is part of the decision, not an administrative formality

The Disability Standards for Education require the education provider to consult the student, or an associate where appropriate, before making an adjustment. The consultation should consider whether the adjustment is reasonable, whether it will achieve equal participation and whether another adjustment could be less disruptive while remaining equally beneficial.

This consultation matters because students usually understand the practical effect of their disability better than an assessor or administrator can infer from a diagnosis. Two students with the same diagnosis may require different adjustments. Another student may need no adjustment at all.

The conversation should focus on how the disability affects participation in the specific training and assessment activities. It does not require the student to disclose every aspect of their medical history. The information gathered should be relevant to identifying and implementing the adjustment and should be managed in accordance with privacy obligations.

Consultation also means the RTO should not impose an adjustment solely because it is familiar or convenient. Offering additional time will not assist every student. A student may instead need a change to lighting, reduced background noise, accessible technology, modified scheduling or instructions presented in another format.

The student’s preference is important, but it does not determine the outcome by itself. The RTO remains responsible for deciding whether the proposed adjustment is reasonable and whether the resulting assessment will remain valid.

Evidence of disability should be approached proportionately

RTOs need enough information to understand the student’s needs and consider suitable adjustments. This does not mean every request should trigger a demand for extensive medical documentation.

The level of evidence required should be proportionate to the adjustment and the circumstances. A straightforward request for short rest breaks may not require the same evidence as a complex adjustment involving substantial changes to practical assessment arrangements, specialised equipment or a question about whether essential requirements can be met.

An RTO may need professional information where the effect of the disability is unclear, the requested adjustment is complex or expert advice is necessary to identify a safe and effective approach. The Disability Standards recognise that a detailed assessment, including independent expert assessment, may sometimes be required.

The RTO should not make access to adjustment dependent on formal proof of disability. Some students will not have a formal diagnosis, may be unable to obtain supporting documentation, or may choose not to disclose detailed personal information. The RTO should instead focus on the barrier the student is experiencing, the adjustment requested and whether that adjustment can be implemented without compromising the assessment requirements. Any information collected should be limited to what is necessary to make and implement that decision.

Common adjustments can still require individual judgement

ASQA provides examples of adjustments that may support students with disability. These include flexible scheduling, additional time, opportunities to submit drafts for feedback, assistive technology, alternative formats, customised resources, choice of assessment format and physical changes to the learning environment.

These examples are useful, but they should not be converted into automatic entitlements or restrictions. Additional time is not always necessary, and it is not always appropriate. Oral assessment may assist one student while placing another at a greater disadvantage. A draft-feedback arrangement may support access, but the assessor must ensure the feedback does not become so extensive that it supplies the response the student is expected to produce.

An adjustment may also involve several coordinated changes. A student might require accessible instructions, additional time and assistive software. Another may need assessment divided into shorter sessions, with rest breaks and a quieter environment.

The RTO should document the arrangement clearly enough for relevant staff to implement it consistently. The record should identify what will change, what will remain unchanged, any technology or support required, and how the assessor will preserve the integrity of the evidence.

Documentation should support the student and assessor. It should not become a standard form that substitutes generic wording for individual consideration.

An adjustment cannot remove an inherent requirement

The Disability Standards allow education providers to maintain the academic requirements of a course and other requirements that are inherent in or essential to its nature. They also recognise the provider’s responsibility to protect the integrity of assessment so that a qualification continues to represent the required knowledge, experience and expertise.

Within VET, the training product provides the main reference point for identifying those requirements. An RTO cannot decide that a student need not demonstrate a practical skill because the task is difficult to accommodate. Nor can it replace a required workplace interaction with a theoretical explanation where actual performance must be observed.

For example, where a unit requires a student to communicate with team members, an assessment conducted entirely through an individual written exercise would not be valid. Where a student must perform a physical task safely, observation of that performance remains necessary even if aspects of the assessment environment can be adapted.

This does not justify rejecting an adjustment without proper investigation. RTOs should consider whether the essential requirement can be demonstrated through another valid method, whether equipment or the environment can be adapted, and whether another arrangement would provide equal access.

ASQA expects RTOs to document and communicate the reasons where an adjustment would not allow the student to meet the training product requirements. It also identifies failure to consider adjustments adequately, or making changes that compromise the integrity of the training product, as regulatory risks.

Reasonable adjustment is not the same as lowering expectations

One persistent misconception is that an adjustment gives a student an unfair advantage. This assumes the original assessment method is neutral and that any change provides additional assistance.

In practice, an adjustment is intended to remove or reduce a barrier caused by disability. A student who uses screen-reading software to access instructions is not being given the answer. A student who receives additional time where speed is irrelevant is not being assessed against a lower standard. A student who responds orally to knowledge questions still needs to provide answers of the same depth, accuracy and relevance.

The performance standard remains common. The access arrangements may differ.

An adjustment becomes inappropriate when it supplies the skill, knowledge or judgement that the student is required to demonstrate. A support person may clarify an instruction, for example, but should not construct the student’s response. Assistive technology may enable communication, but the assessor must still establish that the resulting evidence reflects the student’s own competence.

This is why assessors need more than a list of approved adjustments. They need the capability to analyse assessment requirements, identify barriers and preserve the evidentiary value of the task.

The RTO must consider adjustment before assessment begins

Reasonable adjustment is harder to implement well when it is considered only after a student has failed.

RTOs should give prospective and enrolled students clear opportunities to disclose disability and request support. ASQA expects RTOs to provide channels for disclosure at enrolment and throughout the period of training. It also expects the RTO to engage with students, trainers and assessors in implementing adjustments.

Early discussion allows the RTO to consider the requirements of the training product, obtain any necessary advice, prepare accessible materials and ensure assessors understand the agreed arrangement. It can also reveal where the RTO’s standard assessment design creates barriers for more than one student.

Disclosure cannot be confined to an enrolment form. A disability may emerge, change or become relevant only when the student encounters a particular training or assessment activity. The Disability Standards require the consultation process to be repeated as necessary to respond to changing needs over time.

An RTO should also avoid making unrealistic promises before the proposed adjustment has been considered. Staff responsible for enrolment may be keen to reassure the student, but the final arrangement may require input from assessors, support personnel or industry specialists.

The student should receive a timely and clear decision. Where the requested adjustment cannot be made, the RTO should explain the reasons and consider whether another valid adjustment or training option is available.

Self-assurance should examine practice, not just policy

A reasonable adjustment policy is necessary, but it does not establish that adjustments are being made appropriately.

An RTO’s self-assurance might examine whether students know how to disclose disability, whether requests are considered promptly, whether staff consult students adequately and whether agreed arrangements reach the trainers and assessors who must implement them.

It should also test the quality of assessment decisions. Are assessors able to explain why an adjustment preserved the requirements of the training product? Are some students being refused adjustments on the basis of assumptions rather than analysis? Are adjustments being applied inconsistently between assessors or campuses? Do records contain unnecessary personal information? Are third parties following the RTO’s requirements?

Validation can provide further insight. A sample involving adjusted assessments should allow validators to consider whether the adjustment preserved fairness and validity, whether the evidence remained sufficient and authentic, and whether the assessor applied the agreed arrangement correctly.

The aim is not to create a separate compliance exercise around students with disability or additional needs. It is to establish whether the RTO’s assessment system can respond to individual needs while continuing to produce accurate and defensible competency judgements.

Reasonable adjustment requires the RTO to hold two responsibilities together. It must remove avoidable barriers for students, and it must protect the integrity of nationally recognised training outcomes. Good assessment practice does not choose between those responsibilities. It designs and implements adjustments that meet both.

If you have found this article helpful, you may wish to check out The Reasonable Adjustment Handbook: https://www.cluedineducation.com.au/product-page/the-reasonable-adjustment-handbook