'Reasonable adjustments': what is reasonable, what is not

That the Department for Education is producing guidance for schools on what may be considered to be ‘reasonable’ or ‘unreasonable’ adjustments under the Equality Act is to be welcomed.  

As education lawyers, too often we see ‘wish lists’ of ‘reasonable adjustments’. To my mind, there is a presumption of reasonableness in that phrase, but what is ‘reasonable’ always depends upon context. So, what may be reasonable in one school, may not actually be reasonable in another.

It is helpful to go back to the actual wording of the Equality Act, which does not contain that presumption. Moreover, it is essential to read those words as they should be amended by the schedule of the Equality Act that applies to schools (and other educational settings). That is, where (to paraphrase) ‘some practice’ at school, or lack of some support, substantially disadvantages particular groups of disabled pupils (e.g. those who have bladder complaints) in comparison with their non-disabled classmates, schools are obliged to take steps that are reasonable to take to avoid that disadvantage. So, in addition to context being important, what is reasonable is also to be determined by what would be considered reasonable for the school to take for that particular group of disabled pupils (e.g. those who have bladder complaints).

Accordingly, any ‘wish list’ can only be judged in relation to what would be reasonable for the school to take for the whole group of disabled pupils, not the individual. And again, if certain steps were considered reasonable at one school (e.g. a child's primary school), does not necessarily mean that they will automatically be reasonable at another. Finally, it goes without saying that if a school considers such a step to be ‘unreasonable’, continuing to refer to it as a ‘reasonable adjustment’ is not helpful.