The erosion of academic accessibility measures from the pandemic
Disclaimer—Daisy Smith is an executive of the Arts and Science Student Union (ASSU). Their views, while influenced by the student concerns they are privy to in their position, are their own and do not reflect the views of the ASSU.
In March 2020, the University of Toronto, along with higher learning institutions across the globe, was fundamentally changed by the growing presence of the COVID-19 virus, which eventually took the form of a global pandemic. Initially facing a two-week shutdown, the university was later forced to fundamentally reimagine how it could function under new federal and provincial guidelines and in keeping with scientific and public health advice.
There has been much discussion about the negative effects the pandemic and the university’s responses had on campus life, class engagement, and other aspects of the student experience. However, there has been a lack of discussion of how the pandemic forced the university to update archaic, out-of-date, and harmful policies into practices which better served the student body. Without this discussion, most students were unaware as UofT’s administration rolled back these positive changes without meaningful input from students and sometimes without properly informing students at all.
Perhaps the most memorable of these changes was the widespread implementation of hybrid/online schooling options. As many readers will remember, the University of Toronto remained almost completely online until the Fall 2021 semester, when it began reintroducing in-person classes and in-person exams. This change was not without its hiccups, which included controversies over vaccination policies and the Omicron variant leading to a last-minute shutdown. This time came with increased pressure to return to in-person learning due to the negative effects online classes were having on students. However, online learning was also a key factor in limiting the spread of the virus in Canada. Some aspects of online learning were also specifically helpful to students, such as the “flexibilities and convenience” of the experience praised in some circumstances, especially by instructors who found themselves able to adapt well to the new teaching methods.
The university saw a broader return to some forms of in-person learning on Monday, February 7, 2022, but UofT and many individual professors retained a number of accommodations. These included online synchronous or asynchronous courses, courses offered in-person and online simultaneously, and lecture recordings posted after classes. Offering students more options was important for both high-risk students who could not return to campus and for students who caught the coronavirus or other illnesses to still be able to access and engage with course material.
Another notable change was the introduction of the Absence Declaration tool on Acorn for students. Prior to the pandemic, students who were ill or otherwise indisposed had to go to a health practitioner to fill out a Verification of Illness (VOI) form, a huge practical (and financial, for students without full health coverage) burden to students who were already sick. Absence Declaration was originally introduced as a temporary measure during the pandemic to allow students to get academic accommodations or considerations for classes or assignments missed due to “a health condition or injury,” a personal or family emergency,” or “bereavement.” While the policy has changed since then, it could originally be applied for periods of up to two weeks (including declaring previous absences), could be used multiple times during a semester, and applied from the beginning of classes to the end of the exam period.
I myself had to use the tool twice, including once during the 2022 Winter exam period, when I tested positive for COVID-19 and had to miss an in-person final exam. I can personally attest, then, to how important this change was to the broader health of the student population and the well-being of individual students. People who are symptomatic or have tested positive are recommended to isolate at home, and going out to get an additional test places an unnecessary burden and places others at risk. Making absence declarations simple also reduces the chances of students going to campus sick, as there are fewer hurdles to manage than with a VOI. This policy was also profoundly impactful for students dealing with mental health crises or family emergencies, where students who need proof face administrative barriers and emotional tolls.
Overall, these and other changes (including broader credit/no credit allowances and more mental health resources) reflected the University actually committing to its stated goal of “providing a safe and healthy environment.” These policy changes reflected that prioritising the public and personal health of its students necessitated making changes to academic requirements, ones which meant students didn’t have to choose between the health of themselves or their families and their dedication to their courses. It also had broader positive impacts, giving students more options and flexibility in their preferred learning environment or when they needed short-term leaves for any number of reasons, broadly reducing stress on students who are already in difficult situations.
This is not to say that these policies were not without issue or that they were a complete or wholly effective means of accommodating struggling students. The drawbacks of online classes on student mental health have been discussed at length by other UofT groups, with faculty also facing particular difficulties over hybrid and online models requiring additional resources and a greater workload. Online learning options have also been widely criticised for accessibility issues, both in online resources not having accessibility features and increased negative impacts on students with mental illnesses or learning disabilities. On the other hand, much of this can be ascribed to the way resources were implemented, the lack of choice in completely remote learning, and the overall lack of socialisation during the pandemic. In fact, when online courses are well-implemented, they can remove barriers for students with disabilities, such as physical accessibility of commutes and classrooms, or allowing students to be more in control of their learning environment. Equally importantly, students and student unions have expressed a clear interest in online and hybrid options, showing the desire for these alternatives and for choice in how students are taught is strong.
In other cases, I would argue the changes the University made did not go far enough. In Fall 2021, classes which were delivered online or in a hybrid fashion had in-person exam requirements. This posed a significant danger for high-risk students or those with vulnerable households, especially as the Omicron variant rapidly spread across campus. This eventually required the university to shut down in-person exams in the middle of the exam period, though still almost a week later than Queen’s and Western. The Absence Declaration form, while a great tool, also didn’t fully remove barriers for students who had to miss exams for health or personal reasons. Deferred exams cost up to $140 per term depending on how many exams a student misses, which adds a significant financial burden for students and adds to the existing complication of rescheduling and preparing for exams months later than intended. The answer to these problems was not, however, to remove or restrict these measures with little to no warning or open discussion with the student body.
It is important, at this point, to note that even as the WHO has declared the “global emergency” of the pandemic is over, the coronavirus is ever-present in the daily lives of Canadian citizens. As COVID-19 infections surge across the province, removing the changes meant to accommodate the virus shows a disinterest in adhering to advice from the medical community and a lack of empathy for students. While individuals can do their part in reducing the number of cases, the university also holds a responsibility to implement practices which make it easier for students to stay off campus when they are sick.
The slow rollback of online classes will come as no surprise to students who have attended UofT for the past few years. During the pandemic, university faculty members expressed their desire to “have a choice between in-person and online delivery.” For the past year, it seems professors have largely chosen in-person delivery, with even lecture recordings or posted lecture slides/notes dwindling in comparison to earlier terms. I am not one to argue that teachers should have no say in how they deliver their courses or that hybrid and online learning alternatives don’t add to their workload. However, faculties and the university itself could make a commitment to providing the resources and additional support to make it easier for teachers to provide these hybrid alternatives rather than letting these options almost entirely disappear.
The changes to the Absence Declaration Tool are also a serious step backwards in the university’s health and wellness policies. While faculties were told of this change over the summer, students were not told this change had occurred until a week into classes when the university emailed the student body describing the new limits of absence declarations. The broader student body and student groups were not consulted or informed of this decision but instead left to scramble to consider how this would impact their term.
Students can now only make one absence declaration per term, to a maximum of six days. This declaration cannot be made during the exam period or on make-up days for holidays, nor can it be extended even if the person’s illness or personal situation requiring leave persists. If you get sick twice per term—something the university seems to believe is an exceptional circumstance even with frat parties, dorm flu, and COVID-19 cases on the rise—then you will be forced to take additional measures.
Specifically, the university has returned to the requirement to fill out a VOI. The removal of requirements for a VOI brought the University in line with existing medical advice. The Canadian Medical Association, in response to Ontario’s Bill 47, came out against the requirement of a doctor’s note for most illnesses, explaining the practice “could cause public health issues” by sending people either into doctor’s offices or if they can’t obtain a verification for some reason, back into a crowded environment of work or school. It can also be difficult to get an appointment in the short term or find a walk-in clinic on short notice, which is only made more difficult when you are suffering from an illness. Further, out-of-province or international students may have to consider coverage issues, which only make it less accessible.
This is not even to mention students who need the Absence Declaration Tool for circumstances other than a physical illness. Faculty of Arts and Science students are given two vague options with little explanation: a College Registrar’s letter or a Letter of Academic Accommodation from Accessibility Services. The latter is more self-explanatory but applies only to students with a disability who are already registered under Accessibility Services. Other students, whether undiagnosed, facing a new mental health barrier, or facing a personal or family emergency, are left with the vague notion to contact their college registrar or if in a different faculty, their divisional registrar’s office.
The University Registrar’s Office webpage on Absence Declaration offers little information on what is and is not considered a valid reason for absence, nor what a letter from your registrar will do, exactly. Instead, students—in enough distress to need time off courses—are asked to navigate this system on their own and hope that an administrator agrees their personal crisis warrants missing a quiz.
Allow me to digress into my own personal experience for a moment. When I had COVID-19 during my final exam period, it absolutely crossed my mind to simply attend my exam while sick. The $70 cost, the stress of rescheduling the exam, losing my ability to go home during the Winter reading week, and the addition of studying for a sixth exam during the midterm season were all compelling reasons against deferring. The decision was easy: I would not risk the health of all the other students, even if I might have been willing to risk a grade by writing an exam while feverish. However, every hurdle makes it harder for students to choose in favour of public health. This equally applies to the use of absence declaration only once per term and the lack of online alternatives; students who are sick throughout the term, especially with something less easily diagnosable than the coronavirus, are more and more likely to choose to go into class over the stress of losing their one absence declaration, getting a VOI, or risking a grade. This is not a choice any student should be forced to make, and UofT is ensuring hundreds of students will have to do so this term.
These policies will not only have a tangible negative impact on individual students and on the overall health of the university and its surrounding community but also paint a negative picture of what UofT actually values. These changes point to a lack of concern for public health and a willingness to go against clear policy advice from medical organisations. They also point to a willingness to dismiss student wants and needs without actually consulting with those who could give them input and advice and bring into question the university’s “commitment to mental health [and] wellbeing.”
It is impossible to separate the policies discussed in this article from the negative impacts the pandemic had on UofT’s student community. But, for all the harm the global pandemic brought, why are we letting the few positive changes that came out of the COVID-19 years erode away? Why is the university choosing to take a step backwards to policies that value attendance over health, academic success over personal well-being, and going back to the past instead of pushing for a better future?
