Disabled Students' Allowance (DSA) has been helping to level the playing field for disabled students for more than 50 years. Last week we British Dyslexia Association submitted our response to the Department for Education consultation on assistive software funded through DSA.

We recognise that technology is evolving rapidly and that it is right to review how public money is spent. However, we are very concerned that these proposals risk moving away from the principle that support should be based on a student's individual needs and the barriers they face.

For many dyslexic students, specialist assistive technology is not simply a productivity tool. It is a reasonable adjustment that enables them to access higher education on an equal footing with their peers.

The consultation proposes that specialist software should only be funded in "exceptional circumstances", with greater reliance placed on free and built-in tools. We have seen little evidence that these alternatives provide equivalent support for students with dyslexia and other neurodivergent conditions.

Our concerns are clear:

• Access to essential support could become more difficult and inconsistent
• Students may face delays in receiving the technology they need
• Universities could be expected to fill gaps without additional resources
• Increased reliance on multiple free tools may create additional barriers rather than remove them
• Students may be pushed towards unregulated AI tools, creating risks around academic integrity and independent learning

Critically, these proposals seem to be at odds with wider ambitions to improve educational outcomes, increase employment opportunities and strengthen inclusion for disabled people.

The students affected by these proposals are the same young people who have benefited from increased investment in neurodiversity and SEND support throughout their school years. They should not find that support ends at the point they enter higher education.

Our recommendations include retaining specialist assistive software based on individual need, removing the proposed "exceptional circumstances" threshold, developing clear guidance on AI as a reasonable adjustment, and undertaking a more robust Equality Impact Assessment.