DfE stops funding spelling and grammar software for disabled students

The rationale was that there are now free to access versions available with the required functionality to meet students’ disability-related support needs:

It is therefore not an effective use of public money to continue to fund this type of software through DSA.

Earlier in the month, Calder Valley MP Josh Fenton-Glynn had put down a question for the Secretary of State asking how many assistive technology products for spelling and grammar support are funded under DSA, and what the total cost to the public purse is of each product.

DfE minister Janet Daby answered that the number of students awarded specific assistive software for spelling and grammar support through DSA in the 2023 calendar year was around 36,000 – and that spend on spelling and grammar software was in the region of £4.5 million to £5 million annually:

As an illustration, in the 2023 calendar year, around 80% of total spend was on non-specialist grammar and spelling products, with Grammarly Premium making up 53% of total spend and Global Autocorrect 24% of total spend.

This is the sort of thing that requires an Equalities Impact Assessment – which starts by arguing that Microsoft Office can be accessed for free by “any student” with a “.ac.uk” email address.

In reality, that only covers students at providers which have licensed Office institution-wide through the Microsoft Volume Licensing programme – but I digress.

It argues that Microsoft has significantly improved the accessibility features it offers to include features such as grammar / spelling checkers, and that it is “increasingly the case” that free software products for spelling and grammar are offering similar functionality to the paid-for products.

As far as I know, for example, Grammarly Free offers basic spelling, grammar, and punctuation checks, along with limited conciseness suggestions and tone detection. Grammarly Premium includes all the free features plus advanced grammar, punctuation, and style suggestions, clarity and readability improvements, full-sentence rewrites, tone adjustments, plagiarism detection, and additional genre-specific writing feedback. Premium also appears to offer advanced suggestions for vocabulary enhancement and inclusive language.

DfE says that “specialist spelling and grammar software (e.g. for students studying medicine/science subjects) will continue to be funded where a robust disability-related justification is provided” but there’s a suspicion that needs assessors will be under pressure to push students to free versions.

What it doesn’t say – one might guess because the analysis hasn’t been done – is how much of the current spend is for functionality not currently provided by the free versions of the tools.

Crucially, since the announcement, DFE has now also said that it intends to turn its attention to other areas where free or in-built tools could replace additional specialist assistive technologies.

For the British Assistive Technology Association (BATA), the National Association of Disability Practitioners (NADP), the Association of Non-Medical Help Providers, the Thomas Pocklington Trust, the British Dyslexia Association (BDA), DATEurope and the University Mental Health Advisers Network (UHMAN), the decision sets a dangerous precedent.

They’re worried that DfE has taken it upon itself to decide on what tools are no longer valuable for a disabled user, even though specialist disability needs assessors may deem them to be so – removing the independence of the needs assessment and tying the hands of needs assessors.

One of their major concerns is the removal of student choice. Students often enter assessments with a clear understanding of the assistive interventions that work best for them, and collaborate with needs assessors to create a package that meets their individual learning requirements. The new policy, they argue, undermines the principle of empowering students to manage their own learning and support mechanisms.

Financial barriers are also a concern. Disabled students who rely on advanced spelling and grammar tools may find themselves having to purchase the software independently or rely on higher education providers – and students may not receive the same level of assistance across different institutions or platforms.

The “equivalent functionality” comparison, they say, is misleading. Standard tools provide basic spelling and grammar checks but lack the adaptability and advanced features of dedicated assistive technology. Specialist software often reduces cognitive overload and boosts academic confidence through real-time, context-aware feedback, detailed explanations, and accessibility features tailored to specific learning difficulties.

The decision also complicates the assessment process itself. Needs assessors, whose expertise is supposed to be in identifying the most effective support strategies for students, will face challenges when explaining why certain tools are no longer available under DSA. And while DfE aims to cut costs by reducing software provision, it may inadvertently increase demand for more expensive face-to-face coaching and human support services.

Letters are in to the Secretary of State, the Education Select Committee and Jacqui Smith as minister for skills, calling for a review and (god forbid) an actual consultation.

My sense is that what’s really needed here is a proper review with students and their needs rather than cost-cutting at the heart of decision-making. There’s all sorts of interactions between university policies, the injection of AI into every tool under the sun, free and paid-for versions of products and services and the division of funding responsibilities between DSA, universities and students themselves that need careful unpicking.

You might remember that last April, DfE proposed to rethink DSA, floating the shifting of much more of the responsibility to fund non-medical help onto providers. But that was about staff, and we were told at the time that DfE would consider whether consultation on specific measures or legislative changes was necessary.

Meanwhile minister Stephen Timms said a few weeks ago that Access to Work – the similar grant scheme which supports disabled people in work – used to be a “best kept secret” but increases in demand now mean it’s “unsustainable”.

Oh no! Too many disabled people are now working is quite the conclusion, really.

There are legal obligations on employers to make reasonable adjustments. I’m wondering whether there’s more we can do there.

I sense a pattern.