The idea of a full package of support made up of free alternatives to DSA-funded software has always interested me. Mainly as options for students to explore while waiting for funding to be approved, or to test a strategy before deciding whether the DSA-funded option was the right recommendation.
It definitely wasn’t something I considered could be a like-for-like replacement. But given that now forms the basis of the government's consultation into the funding of assistive software through the DSA, it's an idea worth examining more carefully.
So, could free software provide the solutions needed by disabled and neurodivergent students?
What is free?
On the surface, free means no financial payment. But free comes with hidden costs. It's in those costs that the case against free-tool-only support becomes clear.
Data and attention
Advertising and data collection are the most obvious revenue models for free platforms. Whether that means ads in the user interface, or algorithms sending personalised commercial content, what you are not paying for financially, you are paying for in attention.
For neurodivergent learners, where energy and attention can come at a premium, that is a high price to pay.
Restricted functionality
Software with a free tier gives you an opportunity to try before committing. It provides access to core features, or limits usage in some way. You get enough to decide if the product fits, and then pay if it does.
Trying to use that model permanently means hitting walls at the precise moment help is needed. Energy and attention shift from completing work to switching product or strategy. Then the limits of that option kick in too.
More time, more energy, less actually getting things done. That's the cost.
Reliability and accountability
Free tools often rely on a single developer to build, maintain and support. Sometimes these are dedicated people who want to provide something of genuine value.
That's commendable.
We've all got mouths to feed and rent to pay, though. If a product isn't generating income, chances are it's a side project, or something that can become de-prioritised when another opportunity arrives. Either way, it's unlikely the developer has sufficient time to provide technical support, maintain the product, or help users get started.
DSA-funded software provides all of that as standard. That's part of what the funding pays for.
The true cost of free
A dyslexic student with a deadline approaching hits a usage limit and loses access to the text-to-speech support they rely on.
A student with ADHD tries to organise their workload while a stream of ads competes for their attention.
A student with autism encounters a product that isn't functioning as expected, with no documentation and no support option.
Each one is a cost paid by the student, just not in money.
The consultation closing on 18th June proposes, at its core, that we no longer need to fund software for disabled and neurodivergent students. The hidden costs above don't disappear if that proposal goes through. They transfer. From the funding system to the students it was designed to support.
If you disagree with that, act now. Your voice matters.