Reasonable adjustments for disabled students

Short answer

Yes, in principle. Studying part-time, taking a reduced module load, or being given longer to complete a course can all be reasonable adjustments for a disabled student under the Equality Act 2010. Whether any particular adjustment is required in your case depends on whether you meet the legal definition of disability, whether a provision, criterion or practice of the institution puts you at a substantial disadvantage, and whether the specific adjustment is “reasonable” and does not undermine a genuine competence standard. None of these three options is guaranteed automatically, but each is a recognised and commonly used adjustment.

The legal framework

Under section 91 of the Equality Act 2010, universities, colleges and other post-16 education providers in England and Wales are “responsible bodies” that must not discriminate against disabled students, and they owe an anticipatory and continuing duty to make reasonable adjustments.

A person is “disabled” for this purpose if they have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. This can include long-term physical illness, mental health conditions, and specific learning differences such as dyslexia. You do not need a formal diagnosis label as such, but you will usually need medical or specialist evidence to establish the impairment and its effects.

The reasonable adjustments duty is triggered where a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) puts a disabled student at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled students. A full-time study requirement, a fixed number of modules per year, or a fixed maximum registration period are all examples of a PCP. If those requirements disadvantage you because of your disability, the institution must take reasonable steps to avoid that disadvantage.

How the three specific options fit in

Reduced module load or a lighter timetable. Reducing the number of modules taken in a given period, spreading modules differently, or changing the sequence of study are frequently agreed adjustments, particularly for students whose condition fluctuates or who need more recovery time. This is often documented in a support plan or learning support agreement.

Switching to or towards part-time study. Moving from full-time to part-time, or to a modified reduced-intensity mode, can be a reasonable adjustment. In practice its availability depends on whether the course exists in a part-time form or can be delivered flexibly, and on any external constraints such as professional body accreditation, visa conditions for international students, and student finance rules, which differ for part-time study. The existence of these constraints does not remove the duty, but they are relevant to what is reasonable.

Extra time to complete the course. Extending deadlines, allowing an interruption or leave of absence, or extending the maximum permitted registration period are all recognised adjustments. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator’s good practice framework expressly recognises that some students will need additional time to complete assessed work as part of their agreed adjustments, and that further extensions may be needed where there is a breakdown in support or an acute worsening of the condition. Equally, the framework notes that where appropriate support is already in place, routine deadline extensions may not always be necessary, and providers can consider the knock-on effect of an extension on the student’s overall workload.

The key limit: competence standards

There is an important boundary. A “competence standard” is an academic, medical or other standard applied to determine whether a person has a particular level of competence or ability. Institutions are not required to lower or adjust competence standards themselves. However, they must make reasonable adjustments to the way a competence standard is assessed, so that a disabled student is not disadvantaged in demonstrating the required competence.

This distinction matters for your three options. Giving you longer to complete the course, spreading assessments over more time, or reducing the number of modules taken at once will usually be about the manner and pace of study and assessment rather than lowering the standard, so they are generally capable of being reasonable adjustments. What the institution does not have to do is remove a core academic requirement, pass you without meeting the genuine learning outcomes, or exempt you from a skill that is an essential part of the qualification. Whether something is a genuine competence standard or merely a general PCP about timing and workload is often the crux of a dispute.

What makes an adjustment “reasonable”

There is no fixed checklist, but relevant factors include the extent to which the step would overcome your disadvantage, how practicable it is, the cost and disruption, the size and resources of the institution, and the effect on academic standards and on other students. Because the duty is anticipatory, an institution is expected to have thought in advance about how flexible study patterns can be accommodated, not simply to react once you ask.

The duty is also continuing. If your condition changes, or an adjustment that seemed sufficient turns out not to be, you can ask for it to be reviewed, and the institution should reconsider.

Facts that will affect the answer

The outcome in your situation depends on several things that are not yet clear:

Whether you meet the disability definition and have evidence of it, for example a diagnosis, a needs assessment, or medical or educational psychologist reports.

The exact PCP causing the problem, for example a full-time-only requirement, a rigid maximum completion period, or a fixed modules-per-year rule.

Whether the course can be delivered part-time or at reduced intensity at all, and any professional accreditation, placement, funding or visa constraints.

Whether the requirement you want changed is a genuine competence standard or just a matter of pace and structure.

What adjustments, if any, you have already requested and what the institution has said.

Practical next steps

1. Gather your evidence. Assemble medical or specialist evidence of your condition and its effects on studying, and note concretely how the current study pattern disadvantages you.

2. Engage the disability support service. Ask for a needs assessment and a written support plan or learning support agreement that records the agreed adjustments, including any reduced load, mode change, or extended timescale. Put requests in writing so there is a clear record.

3. Frame the request clearly. Explain the disadvantage, the adjustment you want, and why it addresses the disadvantage without affecting the academic standard. This makes it harder for the institution to treat the request as merely a request to lower the bar.

4. Explore related support. Consider Disabled Students’ Allowance, and check the effect of any change on student finance, tuition fee arrangements, and, for international students, visa conditions, since part-time or extended study can affect these.

5. If the request is refused. Ask for the reasons in writing, including whether they are relying on a competence standard or on unreasonableness, and use the institution’s internal complaint or appeal procedure.

6. Escalate if needed. Once internal procedures are exhausted you can usually take the matter to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, which can review whether the institution acted reasonably and in line with good practice. Separately, a disability discrimination claim under the Equality Act can be brought in the County Court, subject to time limits, though that is a more formal and adversarial route and is usually a last resort.

Bottom line

Part-time study, a reduced module load and extra time to complete are all legitimate and common reasonable adjustments, and an institution cannot simply refuse them by pointing to its standard full-time structure. The main things that can lawfully limit them are genuine competence standards and the overall reasonableness of the step in your particular circumstances. The strength of your position will depend heavily on your evidence, the precise requirement you are asking to change, and whether that requirement is truly essential to the qualification.