Never Let the Solution Become Part of the Problem: Rethinking Reasonable Adjustments in Further Education

Reasonable adjustments are designed to level the playing field, enabling individuals to thrive in the workplace. But in Further Education (FE) environments where change, collaboration, and performance pressures coexist, well-intentioned adjustments can become counterproductive if they’re not reviewed, refined, or understood in context.

The principle is simple but often forgotten: if we stop checking whether a solution is still working, we risk letting the solution become part of the problem.

Recent case law, including Mr I. Cox v Essex County Fire and Rescue Service (2013) and Perry v Perrywood Garden Centres Ltd (2025) underscore the complexity of inclusion in practice. Both cases show that even when organisations believe they are acting reasonably, failure to align adjustments with role realities and evolving needs can produce costly and damaging outcomes.

When Inclusion Becomes Inflexible

FE leaders often assume that once an adjustment is made, inclusion has been achieved. Yet inclusion is not a static state; it’s a dynamic process requiring dialogue, reflection, and sometimes recalibration.

Example 1 – The Isolated Tool

A neurodivergent tutor is supported with specialist project-management software to help manage workload and executive function. The software meets the individual’s needs perfectly, but it doesn’t integrate with the college’s wider systems. Colleagues struggle to collaborate easily, updates lag, and communication breaks down. Over time, the very tool designed to foster autonomy creates professional isolation and organisational friction.

Example 2 – The Disconnected Adjustment

An apprenticeship coordinator is granted the ability to work from home when overwhelmed, a compassionate and initially successful accommodation. But their role depends on visible, in-person engagement with learners. The result? Disrupted communication, weakened relationships, and additional strain on colleagues covering face-to-face tasks.

In both scenarios, the problem isn’t empathy, it’s ecosystem design. Adjustments were made for the individual, but not with the organisation. The result: local inclusion, systemic exclusion.

The Cox Case: Knowledge, Process, and Missed Understanding

In Mr I. Cox v Essex County Fire and Rescue Service (2013), a senior finance officer who later received a bipolar disorder diagnosis, claimed disability discrimination after his dismissal. The employer had referred him to Occupational Health several times, requested reports, and sought medical confirmation; however, because his condition remained “under consideration,” the tribunal found that the employer “did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know” that he was disabled at the time.

The legal finding was sound: the organisation had made reasonable efforts to seek clarity. But the case reveals a more profound leadership lesson highly relevant to FE institutions:

• Procedural diligence doesn’t equal inclusion. The employer met formal expectations but failed to recognise relational and psychological cues.
• Awareness is not understanding. They knew the employee was struggling but didn’t comprehend the functional implications of that struggle.
• Systems silence lived experience. Fear, stigma, and legal caution discouraged open dialogue.

In many FE environments, the same dynamics play out quietly: adjustments are made on paper, but cultural readiness and communication often lag.

A Modern Contrast: Perry v Perrywood Garden Centres (2025)

Fast forward to Perry v Perrywood Garden Centres, a 2025 case where the tribunal examined whether an employer’s extensive adjustments for a dyslexic employee met the threshold of “reasonableness.” The employer had made multiple accommodations, including technology support and a reduced workload, but friction arose when communication breakdowns and interpersonal tensions emerged.

The tribunal ultimately sided with the employer, but its commentary was striking: adjustments that are “technically implemented but practically unreviewed” can still create disadvantage. In this instance, the issue wasn’t a failure to act, but rather an inability to align the organisation to make changes. However, it didn’t evaluate how those adjustments interacted with the team’s workflow or with the employee’s evolving capacity.

The case illustrates a shift in judicial and cultural thinking: inclusion is no longer about compliance; it’s about congruence. Adjustments must fit both the person and the system.

From Case Law to College Leadership

The lessons from both Cox and Perrywood resonate deeply in FE contexts. Colleges, training providers, and apprenticeship employers operate in a constantly changing environment, with digital transformation, funding reforms, and hybrid working all reshaping what “reasonable” looks like.

Drawing on evidence from the House of Commons Library report on Disabled People in Employment (2021), we know that while 4.4 million disabled people are in work, almost half remain economically inactive. The report attributes part of this gap to “misaligned or unsustained workplace adjustments,” highlighting the systemic nature of the problem.

Similarly, the 2025 ADHD Coaching Standards White Paper warns of “adjustments without oversight” where interventions designed to support neurodivergent professionals lack consistent review, training, or outcome evaluation.

The pattern is clear: without active monitoring, adjustments often lose their meaning and can sometimes cause harm.

The CARE Framework: Keeping Adjustments Alive

To prevent solutions from becoming new barriers, leaders can apply the CARE model (Clarity, Access, Recognition, Empathy):

• Clarity: Ensure both parties understand the purpose, limits, and review points of each adjustment.
• Access: Consider the ripple effect on others. Does this support maintain equitable access for all affected individuals?
• Recognition: Celebrate the adjustment as a tool for mutual success, not a favour or concession.
• Empathy: Train managers to notice subtle signs that an adjustment may no longer be fit for purpose.

Embedding this approach across performance, wellbeing, and professional development conversations turns compliance into culture.

Moving Beyond “One and Done” Inclusion

FE institutions often pride themselves on having progressive equality policies, but inclusion usually falters in the gap between policy and lived experience. Adjustments made during recruitment or return-to-work phases are rarely revisited as roles evolve or pressures shift.

In the Cox case, the absence of shared understanding led to a breakdown in trust and communication. In Perrywood, the lack of review created structural friction. Both demonstrate that adjustments should not be static interventions; they are living agreements requiring dialogue and adaptation.

Conclusion: Inclusion as an Iterative Practice

Inclusion in Further Education cannot be achieved through single acts of empathy or compliance. It is sustained through curiosity, review, and courage, the willingness to ask,

“Is this still working?”

The law can tell us when a duty arises.

Leadership tells us when to act before it’s too late.

Never let the solution become part of the problem. Inclusion must evolve as people, roles, and workplaces evolve. The most reasonable adjustment of all is a commitment to keep asking and listening.

By Nathan Whitbread, The Neurodivergent Coach