Students can expect changes to academic accommodations at the University.
A report from the Academic Accommodations Interim Working Group was released on May 23, outlines recommendations on five main areas. While these recommendations aren’t yet binding in policy, the University will establish a new Special Advisor for Student Academic Accommodations and Considerations role within the Office of the Provost to lead policy implementation, although a timeline for the advisor’s appointment has not been publicly disclosed.
The report was made by the Academic Accommodations Interim Working Group, established by Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic) Matthew Evans in Sept. 2024, to review accommodation policies at the University. The working group brought together faculty, staff, students, and senior leaders to discuss the future of academic accommodations at Queen’s and provide a report with recommendations for future implementation.
On course requirements, the group called for the development of clear guidelines on essential learning outcomes, paired with a formal dispute resolution process. Under the proposal, Queen’s Student Accessibility Services (QSAS) would continue to determine student accommodations, while instructors would decide how they could be applied without compromising essential course elements.
If conflicts can’t be resolved informally, final decisions would be made by Associate or Assistant Deans in consultation with University Counsel, QSAS, and the Human Rights and Equity Office.
Retroactive accommodations were another area of focus. The group confirmed that QSAS has the authority to determine when they’re necessary. If a course has already ended, students would seek relief through a petition process, which the report recommended streamlining for consistency across faculties.
On the seven-day extension accommodation, the group recommended a scoping review to assess best practices, including whether extensions are always appropriate and “evaluate if there are certain disabilities where time extensions may be contraindicated.” It also proposed simplifying the extension process, potentially by integrating it into existing platforms like Ventus—an accommodation management system—to reduce administrative burdens.
Recommendations also addressed how responsibilities for accommodations should be distributed. The group emphasized that instructors should concentrate on academic tasks, such as designing assessments, while logistical work—like exam scheduling, technology support, and room bookings—should be handled by trained staff.
It further recommended improving accessibility training for teaching assistants, extending some TA contracts beyond course terms, and setting clear thresholds for when instructors require additional support.
The report also examined confidentiality and intellectual property concerns linked to lecture recording tools such as Glean, now known as Genio, and the noteQ portal, a note-sharing website.
While the group concluded that current tools provide sufficient safeguards, it recommended a review of other options and the development of guidelines for adopting new educational technologies.
Tags
accomodations, Special Advisor, working group
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.