A petition has been launched to prevent the government from removing vital funding for specialist Disabled Students’ Allowance (DSA) support, following a freedom of information request which revealed that the government has no data to justify the decision.
The DSA is a government grant supporting more than 88,000 disabled students in England each year with specialist technology, non-medical help and equipment, enabling them a level playing field to study on equal terms with their peers. According to the Higher Education Statistics Agency, around one in five UK students now reports a disability.
The Department for Education (DfE) is now proposing to replace the specialist software element of this support with free, untested consumer tools that are not tailored to the specific needs of disabled users.
A recent Freedom of Information (FOI) request revealed that the DfE has no data comparing the accuracy of free tools against specialist software, nor has it tested if free software functions effectively within university environments which typically restrict access to some tools and technology. In the FOI, the department could not name a single assistive technology (AT) specialist, clinician or disability-led organisation consulted before concluding that free tools offer ‘comparable functionality’.
In response to these proposals, a petition has rapidly drawn nearly 9,000 signatures from disabled students and supporters demanding the plans be halted. This surge reflects widespread consensus; Randstad's Student Support Report 2025 found that 90% of the 1,233 disabled students surveyed agreed that their DSA support was important for their academic progress.
The DfE is proposing to withdraw and severely restrict funding for clinically designed, specialist AT and replace it with free mass-market tools, except in undefined ‘exceptional circumstances’. With no definition of what qualifies as exceptional, thousands of vulnerable students are at risk of losing the support they need to participate in higher education and successfully enter the workforce. A second FOI response has further confirmed that no studies have been undertaken to evaluate the educational, health or labour market effects of the proposed changes.
Campaigners warn that relying on generic, free software will set a generation of disabled students up for failure. For example, free transcription features suggested for note-taking are capped at around 300 minutes a month on standard education packages, which typically covers only three to five days of lectures.
Dr. Christopher Hand, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, University of Glasgow, said: “As a psychologist who studies learning and assessment, I am deeply concerned by any move that replaces academically validated assistive technology with generic free tools. Students will be pushed into systems that are less accurate, poorly supported and sometimes incompatible with secure exam environments. That raises the likelihood of error, distress and withdrawal. If the aim is equity and attainment, the policy must be evidence‑led and it must guarantee timely, specialist support. Anything less could compromise students’ degrees and deprive the country the skills we urgently need.”
Ian Sollom MP, Lib Dem Spokesperson for Universities and Skills said: "From SEND in schools to support at university, the principle should be consistent: meet needs early and properly. Swapping proven assistive technology for generic apps risks students losing access to the technology they need, with serious consequences for attainment, mental health, and completion rates. The Government must safeguard Disabled Students' Allowances, publish a proper impact assessment, and ensure compatibility in exams and technical subjects where accuracy is critical."
The campaigners are urging for the government to maintain and strengthen DSA and university‑based support so disabled students can access, participate and achieve on equal terms.
It must provide clarity and certainty ahead of the next academic year so that students and universities can plan and engage meaningfully with advocates and sector experts before any changes are made. Given the total lack of published evidence, campaigners urge the DfE to commission and publish a full impact assessment covering educational outcomes, mental health, completion rates, graduate employment, and the wider fiscal effects.
