Unjustifiable Hardship: The Only Legal Defense Schools Can Use to Refuse Disability Adjustments

Your child's school has just told you they "can't" provide the support your child needs. Maybe they said the classroom aide isn't in the budget. Maybe they said modifying the curriculum is too much work. Maybe they invoked the phrase "unjustifiable hardship" without explaining what it actually means legally.

Here's what parents in the ACT need to know: unjustifiable hardship is the only legal defense a school can use to refuse a reasonable adjustment under the Disability Standards for Education 2005 (DSE 2005). It is a high bar. It is not a general-purpose excuse. And if a school is using it to deny your child support, they need to prove it — not just claim it.

What "Unjustifiable Hardship" Actually Means

The DSE 2005 is the federal law that translates the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) into specific obligations for schools. Under the DSE, all education providers — including every ACT public school — are legally required to provide reasonable adjustments so that students with disability can participate in education on the same basis as their peers.

The law explicitly acknowledges that some adjustments might impose genuine hardship. But the threshold is high. For a hardship to be "unjustifiable," it must be so severe that it would fundamentally compromise the financial viability of the whole educational institution — not just an inconvenient budget line at a single school.

Relevant factors the law directs decision-makers to weigh include:

• The nature of the benefit or detriment to the student and others
• The effect of the disability on the student
• The financial circumstances of the school or institution
• Whether the adjustment disrupts or prevents other students from accessing education
• Whether the adjustment fundamentally alters the nature of the activity or course

A government-funded public school in the ACT, backed by the ACT Education Directorate budget, faces an extraordinarily difficult task in meeting this threshold. For reference, the NCCD (Nationally Consistent Collection of Data) recorded that nationally, 25.7% of students — over one million — received educational adjustments in 2024. Schools routinely provide adjustments at Supplementary, Substantial, and even Extensive levels. The system, by design, is built to accommodate this.

What Schools Cannot Legally Claim

Several things schools often say are not a legitimate unjustifiable hardship defense:

"We don't have the funding right now." Budget constraints at the school level do not constitute unjustifiable hardship. The legal test looks at the financial position of the education provider as a whole, not the discretionary spending capacity of a single principal. In the ACT, the Directorate — not the school — controls resourcing allocations for Disability Education Programs and Learning Support Assistants (LSAs).

"It would disrupt other students." Some disruption is expected and lawful. Adjustments that support one student may involve some trade-offs, and this is factored into the legal balancing test — but generalized claims that a student's needs are "too disruptive" for a mainstream classroom do not automatically constitute unjustifiable hardship.

"We don't have the trained staff." Under the DSE, providing necessary support services is a positive legal obligation. If a school lacks capacity, it has an obligation to source that capacity — not to deny the adjustment. The ACT Education Directorate maintains specialists, Inclusion Coaches, and Network Student Engagement Teams (NSETs) precisely to support schools with complex needs.

"This isn't how we do things here." Institutional inertia is not a legal defense.

How to Respond When a School Claims Unjustifiable Hardship

If a school tells you verbally that a requested adjustment is "too hard" or "not possible," your first step is to make the conversation formal.

Send an email to the principal and the designated ILP Case Coordinator stating clearly that you understand the school is declining the requested adjustment, and that you would like the school to document in writing:

1. Exactly which adjustment is being refused
2. The specific grounds for refusal
3. Whether the school is formally invoking the unjustifiable hardship defense under the DSE 2005
4. What evidence the school has assessed to reach that conclusion

This request does two things. First, it forces the school to confront the legal standard explicitly, rather than hiding behind vague operational language. Second, it creates a paper trail — essential if you need to escalate to the ACT Human Rights Commission or ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) later.

In many cases, when schools realize a parent is familiar with the legal framework, the refusal quietly reverses itself.

When Schools Cannot Even Claim Unjustifiable Hardship

There are specific areas where the unjustifiable hardship defense is excluded entirely. Schools cannot use it to justify:

• Refusing to enroll a student with disability
• Refusing to consult with a student and their family about required adjustments
• Refusing to make adjustments that have already been documented and agreed in an ILP

If any of these have occurred, this is straightforward non-compliance with the DSE 2005, not a gray area about hardship. The pathway in that case runs through the ACT Education Directorate's complaints process first, then the ACT Human Rights Commission if needed.

The Practical Reality in ACT Schools

The ACT Education Directorate's Complaints Management Policy requires schools to take complaints seriously and respond within defined timeframes. The ACT's 2024–2034 Inclusive Education Strategy explicitly commits to moving toward transparent, needs-based resourcing — which means students' documented needs should drive funding allocation, not the other way around.

Despite this, parents regularly encounter situations where schools invoke hardship informally, without any formal analysis. The ACT Auditor-General's 2023 report specifically noted that the burden of advocacy falls unfairly on families, and that schools frequently fail to provide accessible planning tools and information.

When a school tells you a support is "too hard," the burden of proof is on them. Your role is to ask them to prove it.

If you want a full breakdown of how to navigate ILP meetings, document refusals, and escalate through ACT-specific channels, the Australian Capital Territory Disability Support Blueprint covers the complete process — including the email templates needed to force schools to put their refusals on paper.

Key Points to Remember

Unjustifiable hardship is a narrow, formal legal test — not a general escape clause. To successfully invoke it, a school must demonstrate that the burden of providing an adjustment would fundamentally threaten the viability of the institution. ACT public schools, backed by Directorate resources and the federal school funding model, will rarely meet that threshold.

When a school refuses support, ask them to document it formally, reference the DSE 2005 specifically, and state whether they are claiming unjustifiable hardship. The act of asking that question changes the dynamic of the conversation.

Your child's right to an education on the same basis as their peers is not contingent on the school having a convenient budget surplus. It is law.

See more Australia guides →