Cutting Disabled Students’ Allowance software risks a postcode lottery for students

The Department for Education (DfE) said it would publish its response to the consultation on proposed cuts to assistive software funded through the Disabled Students’ Allowance (DSA), in favour of free AI tools, in the autumn.

When the outcome arrives, it will decide whether most specialist software ceases to be a crucial part of the DSA support for new students.

The public argument thus far has rightly focused on what these proposals mean for students, with disability charities, the National Union of Students (NUS), and Disabled Students UK raising concerns, including through a public petition.

However a second argument, that has received less attention but is no less important, is the simple economics angle that these proposals do not take account of – the potential shifting of financial responsibility for essential disability support onto universities already under considerable financial pressure. This is something institutional leaders should be acknowledging, alongside the wider implications for the Treasury and ultimately UK taxpayers. Any increase in disabled student withdrawal rates could reduce future graduate earnings and associated tax revenues.

Campaigners have warned that the policy systematically destroys years of public investment in special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) support and increases the risk of disabled young people becoming not in education, employment, or training. It also appears to be a departure from Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s flagship agenda on job creation, equality, and SEND reform for disabled people.

Voices from students’ unions, NUS, and disability charities have comprised much of the public backlash, all flagging the knock-on effects in the context of a higher education system that is already under immense financial pressures, varying by region. Some groups have looked into case studies, like the effect on a dyslexic student losing vital text-to-speech tools, or a student with ADHD losing tools for planning and structuring work.

Postcode lottery

In September, we joined students and MPs to hand a petition to Downing Street, demanding that the government pause proposals to remove this technology. Over 18,000 have already signed and continue to do so.

To the less familiar, nine categories of disability-specific software would be recommended in only “exceptional circumstances” under these proposals. Moreover, the department holds no clear definition of what these circumstances entail, having no criteria, monitoring data, and no estimate of how many students would qualify.

The DfE’s case is that free and built-in tools now do most of the work of specialist products and that universities increasingly supply learning technology to every student. The problem we see is that both of these claims need testing, and internal reviews that inform these proposals contain zero assessment methodology, scoring framework or testing protocol. A recent freedom of information request highlighted that the department holds no record of any independent assistive technology specialist, clinician or disability-led organisation being consulted, nor has it commissioned any studies into the possible effects on attainment, health or future employment.

The duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled students sits with universities under the Equality Act, but by pulling central DSA software funding, DfE abdicates its national responsibility and dumps a greater financial, legal, and operational strain onto individual higher education institutions than they are likely anticipating. This creates an aggressive regional “postcode lottery” where a disabled student’s support depends entirely on their university’s individual financial resilience and priorities. If free tools fail a student, the obligation to put something better in place falls on the university, not on DfE.

Show your working

As well as the lack of clear definitions, there are no minimum standards for what a free alternative must deliver.

Microsoft Office, for example, would be treated as free because students can access it with an “ac.uk” address – that they pay for as part of their fees – leaving OneNote to stand in for specialist note-taking tools. But tools like OneNote were built for general productivity, not live lectures or support when you have a disability. When a free tool falls short, the fallback is often human support, such as note-takers, which costs far more per hour than the software it replaced.

In truth, it’s not a new change of direction. In February 2025 DfE stopped funding non-specialist spelling and grammar software without consultation, overriding the judgement of the expert assessors that would generally make such calls. The recent software proposals apply the same judgement, although it’s worth noting there has been cross-party support for DSA safeguarding and publishing a proper impact assessment, most recently from Liberal Democrat MP Ian Sollom.

The reality is that technology is moving at a rapid pace and some products might have cheaper, or even free options that have entered mainstream markets. What would be of great use in this instance is an updated review of the free products on offer and their condition and efficacy to disabled students. Disabled students must make up a core part of the consultation process, with findings made available on the DSA recipient survey that the DfE has referenced.

We would also welcome clearer definitions on the aforementioned “exceptional circumstances” as a logical next step, including criteria and a follow-up consultation on them before any entitlements are withdrawn from students. Universities have a direct stake here, in terms of duty of care, legal duty, staff capacity, and outcomes data – the costs moved onto them must have clear modelling. DfE has acknowledged that some groups of disabled students would be hit harder than others, and universities need to know what they’re up against.

The education sector, campaign groups, and most importantly students are all in a waiting game, with no strong indication of when we expect to see a resolution. This limbo period is the time for the parties affected to have an aligned viewpoint on next steps, with proposals looking increasingly like a kicking of the can towards universities, where resources are becoming increasingly strained.