Rethinking Penalties for Late Work: The Case for Flexibility,Equity,and Support

Abstract

Reactions vary to the idea of allowing students to have flexible deadlines or to turn in assignments late without a penalty, from cautioning about an avalanche of work to grade at the end of the semester to student exploitation of this policy. Others warn about how this proposal lacks an emphasis on personal responsibility, a skill that students will need in future careers. None of these concerns are supported by empirical evidence. Assignment due dates are standard in most higher education settings. Often instructors have policies related to late assignments, which could include not allowing students to turn in assignments late unless there is a university-approved excuse or deducting points from late work.

There is no universal best practice for creating or implementing policies around late work. Previous papers have supported the notion of flexible deadlines supporting a caring classroom environment (Barnett & Cho, 2023; Kruger et al., 2022; Robinson et al., 2023). It is important to note that when discussing flexible deadlines, it does not mean “no deadlines,” or a lack of consequences for not handing work in by the end of the semester. Policies around flexible deadlines must maintain enough structure to support student learning but relinquish enough power to respect students as capable, self-regulated learners. Policies must consider various limits such as faculty workloads and academic schedules but move away from inflexible policies that prioritize faculty control over learning. Policies should be transparent and equally accessible to all students and avoid requiring that students make requests and disclose personal and private information (Hills & Peacock, 2022).

This paper will outline several key arguments in support of flexible deadlines. First, grades should reflect actual learning outcomes and not the behavior of turning in assignments. Second, flexible grading creates a supportive learning environment that supports all students’ achievement. Third, flexibility can support student success. Finally, this paper will provide an overview of how this policy change impacted an undergraduate public health course.

Assessing Learning Outcomes, not Behavior

As instructors in public health, it is our job to teach students about theory, problem-solving, and how to apply principles of public health to issues complicated by current socio-political environments. Our job is not to penalize students for a behavior, such as turning in an assignment late. We should not grade behavior, but rather knowledge. In fact, by deducting points for late work, we could be penalizing them for the environment in which they may be living, an environment that could be impacted by a variety of social determinants of health, the very thing we work to reduce. This penalty dramatically decreases motivation for learning (Feldman, 2018). Lack of motivation can disproportionally impact students of color and first-generation college students (Patton, 2000; Soria et al., 2021), which is precisely the population of students we want to retain and train to be the next generation of public health professionals.

Supportive Learning Environment for All

Students face unequal barriers; flexible deadlines help to mitigate the effects of this inequity. There is a plethora of work supporting the implementation of flexible deadlines, all of which demonstrate how this supports students. Not only does it provide a way to reduce students’ perceived stress levels (Kumar & Wideman, 2014; Schroeder et al., 2019), but it also creates a more equitable environment for learners. Flexible deadlines remove a potential learning barrier for students who are neurodivergent or students with a variety of disabilities. Building flexibility into a course’s structure is essential when we consider that many students who qualify for accessibility services do not utilize them while in college. It has been reported that 19% of students have a disability, with only 8% registering as having a disability (Raue & Lewis, 2011). Students may not always access the accommodations they are entitled to or even share their granted accommodations with instructors. Although accommodations for deadline flexibility are allowable accommodation, there are mixed attitudes around this in higher education (Hills & Peacock, 2022).

As we seek to create a more diverse public health workforce, we must implement strategies that support these learners. Flexible deadlines support students who may have external obligations, such as caring for a family member(s) or needing to work while in school due to financial constraints. With traditional due dates, instructors may provide some flexibility if they are notified ahead of the due date and with an “allowable” excuse. Allowing students to turn work in after the deadline without penalty allows students in these situations to not have to disclose to an instructor what may be going on in their life. Oftentimes students in these circumstances may feel uncomfortable disclosing this information to an instructor in which they may not have an established relationship. Flexible deadlines remove the need for this disclosure and give students the ability to choose when they turn in assignments due to competing demands.

Student Success

Flexible deadlines have shown to be a promising tool to support student’s success in a course. Miller et al. (2019) noted that flexible deadlines increased students’ achievement in a course and improved participation. Other research demonstrates that flexible deadlines can increase the number of students passing a course, which could ultimately impact overall retention at a university (Withington & Schroeder, 2017). The case for supporting flexible deadlines emphasizes student success and student-centeredness.

Reflection on Implementing Flexible Deadlines

After reading about the positives of adopting flexible deadlines, I was curious how I could implement a policy that would not penalize students for late work. Although I already had a policy of a 2-day grace period for all assignments in my course, I decided to take this a step further. In the Fall of 2022, I tested flexible deadlines in my large enrollment (n = 82) undergraduate 200-level public health course, Stress and Population Health. Though this course did have assignments such as quizzes, short writing assignments, and group projects, many of which were scaffolded, I found this flexibility to work well for my students and my schedule. If a student turned in a draft late, I was still able to provide feedback to them before the next section, which created a slight delay in scaffolded assignments. Weekly quizzes were already open book and open notes, although I did have to set the release of the correct answers to be after everyone turned in the quiz.

From a faculty standpoint, I observed a few differences in my students and the quality of work they turned in. However, several benefits were evident. First, this practice reduced the stress of my already stressed-out students. For a class focused on the negative impacts that stress has on health, it only seemed appropriate to implement such a policy. Second, I did not have any issues with academic integrity in students’ work. I attribute this to students not feeling like they had to do “whatever it takes” to get an assignment completed on time. Previous studies have shown that students can panic and then turn to cheating as a way to get a paper done to meet a deadline (Boucher, 2016; Roig & Caso, 2005). Third, although my colleagues warned me about students turning in everything at the end of the class, this was not the case. Most students turned in assignments on time; work that was turned in late was mostly submitted within a week of the due date. During this limited delay, I was still grading assignments that were turned in on time. Just a handful of students turned in work beyond that timeframe.

I have continued incorporating flexible deadlines in my courses during the Spring 2023 semester and have had very similar results to the Fall semester. One finding that has been striking to me is how open students have been with me about what is going on in their lives. This has allowed me to provide support and institutional resources to them. I attribute this increased openness and communication to my willingness to be accommodating regarding deadlines. This flexibility reflects the tenets in my teaching philosophy, and who I strive to be as an educator.

Although removing penalties for late work may not work in every class, or for every faculty member, incorporating more flexibility in teaching ultimately supports students’ success. Perhaps it is time to rethink rigid deadlines that are often thought of to “prepare students for the real world,” and begin to shift into the world in which we want our students to work in. This world would promote positive mental health, support those with different abilities, and encourage those who may come from underserved or first-generation families. Incorporating a more flexible approach may help to create a more diverse workforce ready to tackle the next public health challenge that lies ahead.

Footnotes

Correction (October 2023):

Article updated; please see for more details.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Jessica S. Kruger

References

Barnett

E. A.

Cho

(2023). Caring campus: Faculty leadership in student success. Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Boucher

(2016). It’s time to ditch our deadlines. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 22 August.

Feldman

(2018). Grading for equity: What it is, why it matters, and how it can transform schools and classrooms. Corwin Press.

Hills

Peacock

(2022). Replacing power with flexible structure: Implementing flexible deadlines to improve student learning experiences. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 10, 34–35.

Kruger

J. S.

Godley

Heavey

S. C.

(2022). Developing a culture of caring in classrooms: Best practices during a global pandemic and beyond. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 8(2), 99–103.

Kumar

K. L.

Wideman

(2014). Accessible by design: Applying UDL principles in a first year undergraduate course. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 44(1), 125–147.

Miller

L. A.

Asarta

C. J.

Schmidt

J. R.

(2019). Completion deadlines, adaptive learning assignments, and student performance. Journal of Education for Business, 94(3), 185–194.

Patton

M. A.

(2000). The importance of being flexible with assignment deadlines. Higher Education in Europe, 25(3), 417–423.

Raue

Lewis

(2011). Students with disabilities at degree-granting postsecondary institutions. First Look. NCES 2011-018, National Center for Education Statistics.

10.

Robinson

Al-Freih

Kilgore

T. A.

Kilgore

(2023). Critical pedagogy and care ethics. In Köseoğlu

Veletsianos

Rowell

(Eds.), Critical Digital Pedagogy in Higher Education. Athabasca University Press.

11.

Roig

Caso

(2005). Lying and cheating: Fraudulent excuse making, cheating, and plagiarism. The Journal of Psychology, 139(6), 485–494. https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.139.6.485-494

12.

Schroeder

Makarenko

Warren

(2019). Introducing a late bank in online graduate courses: The response of students. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 8200. https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.2.8200

13.

Soria

K. M.

Horgos

Roberts

B. J.

(2021). The COVID-19 pandemic and students’ mental health. New Directions for Student Services, 2021(176), 37–45.

14.

Withington

Schroeder

H. L.

(2017). Rolling with the semester: An assignment deadline system for improving student outcomes and regaining control of the workflow. Journal of Student Success and Retention, 4(1).