Jonathan Eley

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly part of everyday school life. For pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), AI-enabled tools may offer new ways of accessing learning, participating in assessment and reducing barriers that would otherwise place them at a disadvantage. At the same time, AI gives rise to difficult questions for schools about reasonable adjustments, fairness, exam regulation and parental expectations. This article considers those questions from a legal perspective. The focus is not on what AI can do educationally, but on how existing legal duties – particularly under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) – apply to emerging technologies, and where schools need to exercise careful judgment. Reasonable adjustments in schools: the law has not changed, even if the tools have The duty on schools to make reasonable adjustments for disabled pupils is well established. Importantly, however, the legal framework itself has not changed, notwithstanding the rapid development of AI tools. Only pupils who meet the statutory definition of disability under the EqA 2010 are entitled to the disability protections in the Act. A disability is defined as a physical or mental impairment which has a long-term and substantial adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. This threshold is not met by all pupils with special educational needs (SEN). Schools are required to take such steps as are reasonable to avoid disabled pupils being placed at a substantial disadvantage, compared with non-disabled pupils, due to a provision, criterion or practice or the absence of an auxiliary aid or service. What is reasonable is highly fact-specific and must be assessed in the round, taking into account factors such as practicality, effectiveness, cost and impact on others. In practice, this means the key legal questions remain: Is the pupil disabled for the purposes of the Act? What is the specific disadvantage arising from that disability and is the disadvantage substantial? Would the proposed step avoid that disadvantage? Is it reasonable to expect the school to take it in the circumstances? The duty is an anticipatory one, owed to disabled pupils generally. In other words, schools need to anticipate substantial disadvantage that disabled pupils might face from the provisions, criterions and practices they apply and what reasonable steps might be taken to remove that disadvantage. It is important to bear in mind that prospective pupils with disabilities are protected too, in relation to admissions arrangements. AI tools as reasonable adjustments for pupils with disabilities AI-tools may be useful auxiliary aids for certain pupils with particular needs, and in some cases could amount to a reasonable adjustment. AI-enabled tools can, in principle, fall within the category of auxiliary aids and services contemplated by the EqA 2010. For some pupils, tools such as text-to-speech, speech-to-text, accessibility features embedded within mainstream software, or adaptive learning platforms, may help remove barriers linked to dyslexia, autism or attention-related difficulties. Whether any particular AI tool amounts to a reasonable adjustment will depend on the facts. The legal question is whether use of the tool is an adjustment that alleviates a substantial disadvantage arising from the pupil’s disability, and whether it is reasonable for the school to provide it. Schools should therefore be cautious about assuming that the availability of an AI tool automatically gives rise to a legal obligation to offer it. Exam access arrangements and reasonable adjustments There may be a disparity between what exam boards are willing to allow and what might be considered by parents and possibly by schools to be reasonable adjustments. A potential area of tension arises around regulated exams and assessments. Many pupils with SEND now use digital tools as part of their everyday learning, yet exam boards’ access arrangements remain relatively limited and tightly controlled. From a legal perspective, schools must tread carefully. While parents may argue that a tool used in class functions as a reasonable adjustment, schools of course remain bound by exam board regulations. It is not difficult to foresee a situation in which pupils (and their parents) might feel disadvantaged by the absence of AI tools in exams on which they may have come to rely in other contexts. How AI tools may reshape reasonable adjustments in schools As AI-tools become more widespread and accessible, they may further reshape the reasonable adjustments landscape. As AI tools become cheaper and more routinely available, it is possible that they will become part of the standard educational environment for a wide range of pupils. If that happens, arguments about what constitutes a reasonable adjustment may evolve further. Schools will need to assess and re-assess over a rolling period whether disabled pupils are at a substantial disadvantage by the provisions, criteria and practices of the school. If an AI tool initially functions as an adjustment for certain disabled pupils, but later becomes available to all pupils, does that change the analysis? When AI tools risk creating an unfair advantage It is arguable that some AI provision may go beyond removing substantial disadvantage by creating an advantage. Do certain AI tools risk crossing the line from mitigating disadvantage to conferring an advantage? The law does not require schools to maximise outcomes for disabled pupils, only to remove barriers that place them at a substantial disadvantage. Where a proposed measure significantly enhances performance or outcomes beyond levelling the playing field, schools are entitled – and required – to question whether it remains a reasonable adjustment. This is particularly sensitive where the negative impact on other pupils is difficult to justify or where fairness in assessment is engaged. What schools should do when faced with a request for an AI tool as a 'reasonable adjustment' From a legal risk perspective, schools should: Distinguish carefully between SEN and disability, and avoid conceding disability under the EqA 2010 without appropriate evidence. Parents may quickly adopt the language of 'reasonable adjustments.' However, schools might want to use alternative phrases such as 'support measures' rather than mirror-imaging terminology used by parents, particularly where schools are uncertain as to whether the reasonable adjustments duty does apply. Assess whether proposed measures of an AI nature remove a substantial disadvantage for pupils and prospective pupils arising from disability, rather than function as enhancements that may create unfair advantage. Review SEND and assessment policies to see if changes need to be made in light of the advance and development of AI tools. Consider how decisions about reasonable adjustments and the use of AI will be recorded and communicated. Doing so will help ensure that decisions around access to such tools are consistent, defensible and capable of withstanding challenge. Apply decisions consistently and maintain clear records. Where a requested adjustment is refused, the rationale should be documented, including why it was not considered reasonable. Monitoring and review mechanisms are also important to assess whether an adjustment does alleviate the identified disadvantage. Bear in mind that the reasonable adjustments duty is anticipatory, so look and plan ahead, anticipating what aspects of school life might put disabled pupils at a substantial disadvantage and what adjustments in the form of AI provision might remove that disadvantage. Key takeaways for schools AI is developing more quickly than the regulatory and assessment frameworks within which schools operate. For pupils with SEND, it may offer opportunities to reduce barriers to learning, but it also presents schools with legally complex and unsettled questions. Existing principles around reasonable adjustments remain the starting point. Schools that ground their decisions in careful legal analysis, clear documentation and proportionate judgment will be best placed to navigate parental challenges and ensure that AI supports inclusion without creating new inequities. This publication is a general summary of the law. It should not replace legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances. © Farrer & Co LLP, May 2026