Reasonable Adjustments at School: The Duty That Does Not Wait for a Diagnosis

A school’s duty to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled child does not wait for a diagnosis, and it does not wait for an EHC plan. It is live now, and it is owed to your child whether or not anyone has written anything down.

This guide covers England. It explains where the duty comes from, why waiting lists do not pause it, what “anticipatory” means in practice, and where a claim goes if a school gets it wrong.

Where the duty comes from

The Equality Act 2010 sets out a duty to make reasonable adjustments in section 20, and section 21 makes a failure to comply with it a form of discrimination. Section 85(6) then applies it directly to schools: “A duty to make reasonable adjustments applies to the responsible body of such a school.”

The responsible body is the Local Authority or governing body for a maintained school, and the proprietor for an academy or independent school. In practice you deal with the school, though for a maintained school the Local Authority can also be the responsible body (section 85(9)(a)), which matters when you come to name who a claim is against.

Section 20 contains three requirements. Schedule 13 to the Act tells us which apply to schools:

That third requirement is the one most parents have never heard of, and it is often the most useful. Auxiliary aids and services can cover things like a laptop for a child who cannot write at speed, coloured overlays, ear defenders, a visual timetable, a scribe, or adult support at a specific point in the day.

No diagnosis needed. No plan needed.

The duty is owed to a “disabled person”. Section 6 of the Act defines that as someone with a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

Two thresholds sit inside that definition, and both are worth knowing because parents are rarely told either. “Substantial” means no more than “more than minor or trivial” (section 212(1)). “Long-term” means the effect has lasted at least 12 months, or is likely to last at least 12 months, or is likely to last for the rest of the person’s life (Schedule 1, paragraph 2). That second limb is more generous than it sounds: an effect that has only just started can still be long-term if it is likely to run on.

Now read the definition again and notice what is not in it. There is no mention of a diagnosis. No mention of a waiting list. No mention of special educational needs, an EHC needs assessment, or a plan. It is a description of how life actually is for the child.

So a child who has been waiting two years for an assessment, with nothing on paper and no label, can meet the section 6 test on the day you read this. And if they meet it, the school’s duty is already running.

Two things to hold alongside that, because we would rather you walked in accurate than confident.

First, “disabled” under the Equality Act and “special educational needs” under the Children and Families Act 2014 are two different legal tests, with different consequences. A child can be one and not the other. They overlap often, but they are not the same door.

Second, no diagnosis is needed, but if it is ever disputed you still have to be able to show the section 6 test is met. That is not a medical exercise. It is a description of impact: what your child cannot do, or can only do at great cost, that other children of that age do without thinking. Keep a record of it.

“Anticipatory” is the word that changes the conversation

Here is the part schools sometimes get wrong in good faith.

Schedule 13 changes who the duty is owed to. For education and for access to benefits, facilities and services, the duty is owed to “disabled pupils generally”. For admissions, it is owed to “disabled persons generally”.

That plural is the whole point. The duty is not triggered by your child arriving and struggling. A school is expected to think ahead about the barriers disabled pupils will meet, and deal with them before a particular child runs into them.

The practical translation for a parent: “we did not know” is a weak answer, and “we will look at it now you have raised it” is only half an answer. The question is what the school anticipated.

One honest limit. Schools comply with the first and third requirements only. Physical features of the building sit outside this duty and are dealt with through accessibility planning instead. So a reasonable adjustments claim cannot require a school to install a lift. It can require a great deal about how the school runs.

If the problem genuinely is the building, the route is different rather than absent. Every school must prepare a written accessibility plan covering the curriculum, the physical environment and access to information, must keep it under review, and must implement it (Schedule 10, paragraph 3). Every Local Authority must prepare, review and implement an accessibility strategy doing the same across the schools it is responsible for (Schedule 10, paragraph 1). Ask to see both. They are rarely refused, and they are often thinner than they should be.

What “reasonable” actually means

Start with what triggers the duty at all. It bites where a disabled pupil is put at a substantial disadvantage compared with pupils who are not disabled, whether that comes from a rule or practice or from the absence of an auxiliary aid (section 20(3) and (5)). Given that “substantial” only means more than minor or trivial, that is a lower bar than most parents assume.

The Act does not define “reasonable”, which is frustrating and also useful. The Equality and Human Rights Commission sets out the factors likely to be weighed: how effective the step would be at overcoming the disadvantage, how practical it is, the cost, the school’s resources and any financial or other assistance available to it, the effect of the disability on the child, health and safety, the need to maintain academic and other standards, the interests of other pupils, and the extent to which special educational provision is already being provided under Part 3 of the Children and Families Act 2014.

That last factor cuts both ways, so it is worth being straight about it. An EHC plan does not remove the duty. But where the support delivered through the SEN framework already overcomes the substantial disadvantage, the Commission’s guidance is that there will be no obligation to make a reasonable adjustment on top of it. The duty fills gaps; it is not a second, parallel entitlement.

What all of this means in a meeting is that “we cannot do that” is the start of a conversation. The useful follow up is: what makes it unreasonable, and what would be reasonable instead.

One point here is widely misunderstood, including by schools. A school cannot justify a failure to make a reasonable adjustment. As the Commission puts it, “the question is only whether or not the adjustment is reasonable”. So a carefully argued refusal of an adjustment that was in fact reasonable is still a breach, on the same terms as never having thought about it at all. Reasons are still worth asking for, because they show you what the school weighed and the school has to stand behind them later, but a good explanation is not a defence.

It also means small things count. Most of the adjustments that change a child’s school life are small: a five minute early exit to avoid the corridor crush, a printed copy of instructions, a named adult to check in with, permission to leave the room without asking, a seat by the door.

How to ask, so it lands

Ask in writing, and ask for the answer in writing. Not because you expect a fight, but because a written trail is what makes everything after this possible.

A request that works usually has four parts:

• The barrier, described concretely. Not “he struggles at lunchtime” but “the hall is too loud for him, so he does not eat and by two o’clock he cannot work”.
• The adjustment you are asking for, specifically.
• The link: why this adjustment removes that barrier.
• The ask: please confirm in writing whether this will be put in place, and if not, the reasons.

You do not have to cite the Act to be taken seriously. But if it helps to know: you are asking the responsible body to comply with the first and third requirements of section 20, applied to schools by section 85(6) and Schedule 13.

If the school will not adjust

Start with the school’s own complaints procedure, then the governing body. Most of this resolves there.

Two things to hold at the same time, because getting this wrong is the one mistake here that cannot be undone. Complaining first is not a legal requirement, and it does not pause anything. A school stage plus a governing body stage can take months, while the Tribunal clock keeps running from the conduct itself. Diarise the deadline the day the problem starts, and lodge in time even if the complaint is still open.

If the complaint does not resolve it, a disability discrimination claim about a school goes to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Four things to know:

• It is free, but it cannot award you money. As GOV.UK puts it: “It’s free to make a complaint to the SEND tribunal.” The Tribunal’s power to make an order “does not include power to order the payment of compensation” (Schedule 17, paragraph 5(3)(b)). What it can order is a remedy: staff training, a change to a policy or practice, a written apology, tuition, the adjustment itself, or reinstatement after a permanent exclusion. If a payout is the point, this is not the forum.
• The time limit is six months from the date the conduct you are complaining about happened (Schedule 17, paragraph 4(1)). The Tribunal can consider an out of time claim, but do not rely on that.
• Where conduct runs over a period, it is treated as happening at the end of that period. So a pattern that continued through the year is not automatically out of time because it started in September.
• Where the problem is a failure to act rather than something the school did, the clock starts when the school decided not to act, or, if nothing shows that decision, when the school acted inconsistently with doing it or when it might reasonably have been expected to have done it (Schedule 17, paragraph 4(5)(c) and 4(6)). A refusal to adjust usually falls here, so do not assume an unanswered request leaves the clock stopped.

Two exceptions are worth knowing because they are widely reported wrongly:

Admissions. Where a statutory admission appeal exists, a disability discrimination claim about an admission decision goes through that independent admission appeal panel rather than the Tribunal (Schedule 17, paragraph 13). Those arrangements exist for maintained schools under section 94 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, and for academies under their Academy arrangements. The exception only applies where such an appeal exists, so for a school with no statutory admission appeal, an independent school for example, the Tribunal route stands.

Permanent exclusions. In England, a disability discrimination claim about a permanent exclusion does go to the First-tier Tribunal. You will still find advice online saying it goes to an appeal panel instead. That was the position before 1 September 2012, and it now applies only in Wales. The DfE’s exclusions guidance confirms the English route, and says the claim should be lodged within six months.

Your week one plan

• Write down the barriers, one line each, as they actually show up in the day. This list is worth more than any letter.
• Pick the two or three adjustments that would change the most, and ask for those first in writing. A long list gets triaged; a short one gets answered.
• Ask for the answer in writing, including reasons if the answer is no.
• Ask what the school already has in place for disabled pupils generally, and ask for the accessibility plan. The answers tell you how anticipatory this school actually is.
• Diarise: if you ever need the Tribunal, the clock is six months from the conduct, and a complaint to the school does not pause it.

Where to get free help

Every Local Authority must arrange for children, young people and parents to be given advice and information about special educational needs and about disability (Children and Families Act 2014, section 32). That is what your local SENDIASS delivers, and the SEND Code of Practice says the service should be free, impartial and confidential (paragraph 2.8). In practice they are free.

IPSEA runs free legal advice lines, and publishes free guides and template letters. The Equality and Human Rights Commission publishes technical guidance for schools in England, and a shorter technical guidance dedicated to reasonable adjustments for disabled pupils, which is the more practical of the two at 23 pages. Our own free course, SCOPE, walks the school conversations lesson by lesson.

Not sure which of these fits your situation? Our two-minute quiz reads where you are and points you at the right next step.

Sources: Equality Act 2010 sections 6, 20, 21, 85 and 212, Schedule 1, Schedule 10, Schedule 13 and Schedule 17 (legislation.gov.uk); Equality Act 2010 (Commencement No. 10) Order 2012, SI 2012/2184; Children and Families Act 2014 section 32; SEND Code of Practice, January 2015, paragraph 2.8; Equality and Human Rights Commission, Technical Guidance for Schools in England, and Technical Guidance: Reasonable Adjustments for Disabled Pupils, Guidance for Schools in England (2015); GOV.UK, “Complain about a school: disability discrimination” and SEND4, “A guide for how to claim for disability discrimination”; Department for Education, suspension and permanent exclusion statutory guidance, effective 26 July 2026.