Reasonable adjustments for students and the UK disability discrimination legislation

The provider's duty to make reasonable adjustments

Reasonable adjustments are the changes made in order to remove or reduce a disadvantage faced by an individual due to a disability.

The duty to make reasonable adjustments can require steps to:

Avoid the disadvantage arising from a provision, criterion or practice of the provider.
Avoid the disadvantage arising from a physical feature.
Avoid the disadvantage arising from failure to provide an auxiliary aid.

Under the Act, it is permissible to treat a student with a disability more favourably than a student who does not have a disability in order to minimise these barriers by making reasonable adjustments relating to the disability. This puts the student with the disability on a more level footing.

Anticipating reasonable adjustments

The duty to make reasonable adjustments is an anticipatory duty, which means providers must plan ahead to address the barriers that could potentially impact students with a disability. They should not wait until a disabled person approaches them before they give consideration as to their duty to make reasonable adjustments.

Providers are not expected to anticipate the needs of every individual who may use their service, but they are required to think about and address features which may impede persons with particular kinds of disability.

Whether failure to anticipate and make provision to address a particular disadvantage resulting from a Provision Criterion or Practice (PCP), physical feature or lack of an auxiliary aid results in a breach of duty will depend on all the circumstances of the case. This may include what the provider knew or ought to have known about a particular student or prospective student and their disability. The duty to make reasonable adjustments may arise in relation to a particular student even if there is no formal diagnosis of an impairment or disability assessment, if it is apparent that the student is disabled on the basis of the information that is, or ought to be, available.

The duty to make reasonable adjustments does not apply to the application of a 'competence standard', which is defined as 'an academic, medical or other standard applied for the purpose of determining whether or not a person has a particular level of competence or ability'[1],[2]. This means that a standard which is being applied to measure whether a person has a particular level of competence or ability cannot be required to be adjusted in an individual case, even if the disabled person cannot meet the standard because of their disability. However, methods of assessment of standards of competence are subject to the duty to make reasonable adjustments. We provide some examples of how this works in practice below.

Examples of reasonable adjustments and support

A wide range of technology and equipment relevant to healthcare and clinical practice is available. These can be used along with other support measures.

They include:

Assistive technology, such as voice recognition and dictation software
Adjustable benches and tables
Digital stethoscopes
Visual equipment or aids, such as BSL interpreters, scribes or specialist computer equipment
Audio technology
Receiving notes and lecture sides in advance
Alternative formats of lectures or course material
One-to-one support
Accessible rooms and venues, such as having quiet spaces
Additional time given for completing tasks/work
Access to readers of scribes
Adapted equipment

What is 'reasonable' in reasonable adjustments?

In line with the UK disability discrimination legislation, what could be deemed a reasonable adjustment for one institution may not be reasonable for another. For example, at one institution it may be considered reasonable to provide a student with specially modified equipment such as a stand-up wheelchair, whereas this might be considered untenable for another institution due to the costs involved. It depends on the provider’s circumstances in relation to various factors, including the resources available, cost of the adjustment, practicality of the changes and any potential benefit to other staff, students and visitors.

The individual provider must consider what adjustments it would be reasonable to make having regard to all of the relevant circumstances. This may need to be undertaken in conjunction with everyone involved in the delivery of the qualification, including the Training Practice (TP). It is important to ensure that the reasons why an adjustment is being made, or not being made, are recorded.

Competence standards and assessment

As noted above, reasonable adjustments are not a way to alter a learning objective or competence standard requirement. However, reasonable adjustments may be appropriate in relation to the assessment by which a student can demonstrate that they have met the required competence standard.

The key questions for deciding if part of an assessment is a competence standard are:

What skill, competence, level of knowledge or ability is being measured?
What standards are being applied to decide whether a student has met the required level of that competence or ability?
What parts of the assessment are the method by which the student’s ability to meet the standards at 2. is tested?

A reasonable adjustment can suggest that a different assessment method could be used to assess an individual’s knowledge or skills in a particular area, as long as the learning objective and competence standard is not changed.

Example of a reasonable adjustment to a competence standard

If a competence standard stated that a student must restrain a patient, the student must perform the action required. The provider would not be able to alter the assessment so that the student no longer has to perform the action. For example, it would not be acceptable to allow the student to explain how they would restrain the patient or to write an essay about how they would restrain it, as this would be changing what the competence standard required. However, it might be a reasonable adjustment to give additional time or resources to enable them to perform the task to demonstrate that they meet the standard.

Where it is deemed acceptable for a student to be given a different assessment method (for example, allowing a student to give a verbal report as part of an assessment instead of a written report, or allowing a student to give a presentation in front of only their tutors instead of in front of a whole class), providers must ensure the changed assessment remains valid and reliable. Providing evidence to support this is a requirement within the Standards Framework for Veterinary Nurse Education and Training.

The EHRC guidance

Following the decision of the High Court in Bristol University v Abrahart [3] [2024] EWHC 299, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) published guidance for Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).

Key messages from the EHRC guidance:

The duty to make reasonable adjustments is an anticipatory duty, meaning education providers should have thought about what adjustments they ought to make to matters affecting all students, prior to becoming aware of a specific student’s disability.
Where the evidence of a disability is apparent from the student themselves, for example through their behaviour or language, the education provider has knowledge of the student’s disability. The education provider can therefore be found to have discriminated against the student on the grounds of their disability.
The duty to make reasonable adjustments is made up of three requirements that apply where a disabled person is placed at a substantial disadvantage when compared to a non-disabled person. The three requirements relate to changing how things are done, changing the built environment to avoid such a substantial disadvantage and providing auxiliary aids and services. Only 'reasonable' adjustments have to be made. For example, if an adjustment is highly impractical, prohibitively expensive or an adjustment to a competence standard, it does not have to be made. The duty to make reasonable adjustments is anticipatory.
Methods of assessment, by which we mean the manner or mode in which a student's level of knowledge or understanding or ability to complete a task is tested, will rarely, if ever, amount to a competence standard. They will therefore rarely, if ever, be outside the duty to make reasonable adjustments. A competence standard is an academic, medical or other standard applied for the purpose of determining whether or not a person has a particular level of competence or ability.
The key questions for deciding if part of an assessment is a competence standard are:
• What skill, competence, level of knowledge or ability is being measured?
• What standards are being applied to decide whether a student has met the required level of that competence or ability?
• What parts of the assessment are the method by which the student’s ability to meet the standards at 2. tested?
There will be no discrimination on the grounds of disability under Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 if the education provider did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know that the student was disabled. This is because there is no anticipatory element to discrimination on the grounds of disability.
Ensure that a list of common reasonable adjustments is available to academic staff as well as disability services. This can include common reasonable adjustments by impairment type. It should focus on personalised reasonable adjustments for individual students as well as anticipatory adjustments for groups of students.
Review course criteria to check that competence standards are clearly defined, explained and justified, and that methods of assessment are not wrongly described as competence standards.
Where competence standards are set by Professional and Statutory Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs, for example the Nursing and Midwifery Council), universities should clarify with the PSRBs that the standard of attainment is being examined, not the method of assessment, or that the method of assessment is a key part of the competence standard.
Where competence standards are appropriate, review them to ensure that they are not indirectly discriminatory. For example, a requirement for all car mechanic students to change a tyre in ten minutes may be a competence standard, but it may be indirectly discriminatory towards students with a physical disability related to manual dexterity. The education provider would need to be able to demonstrate that the time limit is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim for the standard not to be indirectly discriminatory.

[1] Equality Act 2010, paragraph 4(2) – (3) of Schedule 13
[2] The Special Educational Needs and Disability (NI) Order 2005, paragraph 29 (11)
[3] The University of Bristol -v- Dr Robert Abrahart

Please note: this general guidance does not purport to be legal advice and is not to be relied upon as legal advice. Students and education providers should take their own advice in the particular circumstances and as required.