Practice underpinned by the understanding that everyone is different and acceptance of difference ensures equity for all.
There is growing evidence indicating that neurodivergent young people are more likely to experience barriers to education at a significantly earlier age, and for longer durations. In a survey of 947 parents/carers of young people experiencing difficulties with school attendance, 92% shared that their child was neurodivergent and more specifically 83% were autistic (Connelly et al., 2023).
For all young people, feeling a sense of belonging and inclusion in school is strongly linked with positive outcomes across education and wellbeing. Recent meta-analyses have shown that belonging is associated with higher motivation, stronger academic engagement, and better social-emotional development (Allen et al., 2018; Korpershoek et al., 2020). A systematic review and meta-analysis also found belonging to be a significant predictor of both academic achievement and psychological wellbeing, with particularly strong effects on wellbeing (Van Kessel et al., 2025). Conversely, low belonging has been associated with emotional distress, disengagement, and increased risk of dropout, particularly at key transition points such as moving from primary to secondary school (RCELI, 2025).
The impact is universal but becomes more obvious in young people who have a bigger mismatch between their needs, the environment and the support they receive.
In essence, the needs of the most vulnerable young people can be an early indicator of what is not working more broadly.
The following is written by Jo Symes and is available on the Progressive Education website. It is the prologue from the book, Square Pegs: Inclusivity, compassion and fitting in – a guide for schools.
What if our ‘square pegs’ aren’t the problem?
What if they are actually the canaries in the mine, alerting us to the mounting problems in our education system?
In her book, Troublemakers: Lessons in Freedom from Young Children at School, Carla Shalaby (2017) discusses ‘animal sentinels’, animals which are purposefully used to provide advanced warning of disease, toxins and other environmental threats to humans. She explains that these species are selected based on their heightened susceptibility to particular hazards. They are often sacrificed to save us.
The most famous example is the canary, used in coal mines in the early 20th century to give advanced warning of deadly gases, such as carbon monoxide. Because these birds were small and had particularly sensitive respiratory systems, the poison killed them quickly, leaving the miners with enough time to get out and save themselves. What if, suggests the author, we saw our square pegs as such canaries?
Spectrum Gaming (one of the partners in the Barriers to Education project) supports over 1,700 autistic young people, the majority of whom experience barriers to education. These barriers are not due to a lack of motivation, intelligence, or ability, but instead stem from environments that are not suited to their needs.
Neurodivergent school staff also experience challenges. Many fear disclosing their identities due to stigma, report experiencing burnout, and masking their difficulties to maintain professionalism. Opportunities are missed for these staff to offer valuable lived insight that could promote belonging and inclusion in schools (Wood and Happe, 2021).
Sensory difficulties, rigid routines and inflexible rules can be huge barriers for young people and impact on neurodivergent young people disproportionately. Students are often expected to adapt, and when they can’t, they can be considered as problematic/misbehaving. Some examples include:
Noisy, bright, crowded classrooms as standard learning environments: Mainstream classrooms are often full of visual displays, 30+ students, background noise, and harsh lighting. These environments are considered standard, but they can be highly stressful.
Many students say they are overwhelmed before learning even begins.
Uniform rules with no sensory flexibility: Rigid dress codes are frequently shared as a common barrier by young people. Sensory discomfort from tight collars, scratchy fabrics, or restrictive shoes is often dismissed. Whilst most young people are able to filter out these sensations after a short period of time, many neurodivergent young people who experience the sensory world in a different way will either:
“They said I had to wear the same as everyone else, even though it made me panic.”
Lack of access to self-regulation strategies like headphones, breaks, or fidget tools: When young people ask to use tools that help them to cope (ear defenders, movement breaks, time out, fidget tools), these can be denied or access can be restricted. Some young people may not use them as needed for fear of negative judgement or of being picked on by peers. Despite such tools commonly being helpful for young people to access in classrooms, there remains a lack of understanding and stigma surrounding them.
A common belief shared by school staff is that it wouldn’t be fair for people to use these e.g. “If Fred is allowed one, everyone will want one”.
Instead of being seen as valid coping strategies that can aid young people’s concentration and/or regulation, they are often viewed as disruptions.
Since 2014 there have been significant changes to the curriculum, especially in secondary schools, placing a greater emphasis on knowledge acquisition (Social Market Foundation, 2024) and the need for didactic teaching methods, a teacher-centred method of instruction where the teacher shares structured information to students through presentations. Students are expected to listen and record, which often involves sitting still for an extended time, not questioning or challenging the information presented, and using eye contact as a way to demonstrate ‘good listening’. These expectations are increasingly expected of children at younger ages, as the curriculum has become more formalised in Key Stage 1, at a time when not all children at developmentally ready to learn in this way (Wales for example has a greater emphasis on play based learning for ages 3-7 years, and some countries do not introduce formal education until 7 years of age, such as Demark, Finland and Sweden).
These things may appear to be easier for some young people, but much more difficult for others and when these expectations aren’t met, students can be seen as disruptive and met with compliance based approaches.
This encourages masking, where young people hide their true selves and learn to ignore their own needs just to survive the school day. Masking has been strongly associated with mental health difficulties including anxiety, depression, burnout, and identity confusion (Hull et al., 2019).
In direct correlation to this, there has also been research through which autistic teachers have shared difficulties in relation to other staff’s negative perceptions of Autism or having to engage in outdated and non-affirming autism training. Many reported experiencing fear around revealing their autistic identities to colleagues and masking when they were at work. For these reasons many autistic school staff can experience mental health issues and burnout which can have longer term negative impacts on their careers (Wood and Happe, 2021).
It is important to consider the wider context in terms of increasingly longer waiting times for formal neurodevelopmental assessment and the potential impact that this can have on the support that young people receive. A report by the Children’s Commissioner (Waiting times for assessment and support for autism, ADHD and neurodevelopmental conditions, 2024) states that ‘In community health services, the median wait for a diagnosis for a neurodevelopmental condition was 2 years and 3 months. Almost half of children (41%) waited over 2 years for their diagnosis, of which 17% waited over 4 years.’ Furthermore this report found that young people who were diagnosed with ADHD or Autism were subjected to particularly long waits; ‘ Almost a quarter (23%) of children waited over 4 years (208 weeks) between being referred to community health services and being diagnosed with ADHD, and almost a sixth (15%) of children waited over 4 years to be diagnosed as autistic.’
The report (Children’s Commissioner, Waiting times for assessment and support for autism, ADHD and neurodevelopmental conditions, 2024) found a number of disparities amongst different groups of young people who are waiting for assessment:
This is a major barrier because access to support is often conditional on having a formal diagnosis despite years-long waiting lists. The SEND Code of Practice (2015) is clear that identification and support for special educational needs should be driven by the needs of the child or young person, not by the presence or absence of a formal diagnosis. Despite this, there are currently young people with unmet needs that are left without help simply because they haven’t yet been formally diagnosed.
The SEND system has historically operated under a medical model lens; when a young person is developing in ways which diverge from the majority, they are considered to be ‘delayed’, ‘impaired’ or ‘disordered’. Young people are assessed against ‘age related expectations’ which are used to assess how close a young person is to reaching average or more typical development and/or academic expectations.
As a result of this, interventions can also be adopted from a medical model perspective which can unintentionally make things harder for young people rather than easier. The focus becomes on fixing perceived deficits, with the intention to help young people to thrive.
There are two core issues with this approach:
The medical model of disability often centres around what young people can’t do. While recognising needs is important, this default focus on deficits can have a damaging impact on how young people view themselves.
Rather than being supported to explore their interests, talents or passions, support for neurodivergent young people is often focused on programmes designed to “fix” difficulties. For example, a child who struggles with handwriting might be kept on low-level literacy work—despite having advanced ideas or a passion for storytelling.
This messaging—explicit or implied—tells young people that their worth is defined by how well they meet neurotypical standards. When their strengths are not recognised, they may stop seeing them too. Over time, this leads to low self-esteem, disengagement, and a sense of failure, even in children with exceptional potential.
At Spectrum Gaming, a significant number of young people have shared that their struggles with self-worth began or worsened when their needs were formally identified due to the deficit lens it placed them under. When the primary message is “this is what’s wrong with you,” even support can feel like a form of rejection.
Many deficit-based interventions are built on the belief that neurodivergent traits are undesirable and need to be corrected. Strategies such as discouraging stimming, enforcing eye contact, or encouraging conformity in communication and behaviour all imply that there is a ‘right’ way to be—and that neurodivergent ways of being fall outside of this.
These approaches may be well-intentioned, but they are often experienced by young people as shaming or invalidating. They send a message that they must hide or suppress their natural instincts and ways of coping in order to be accepted.
There are often areas in which neurodivergent young people need support, as a result of their individual profile of strengths and needs. However, it is really important to recognise that some of their differences are an innate part of their neurodivergent profile that can’t be “changed” or “fixed”. For example, research shows that autistic communication styles, sensory processing differences, and cognitive preferences are not deficits to be eliminated, but core aspects of identity that reflect different—but equally valid—ways of being in the world.
Studies such as those by Milton (2012) have emphasised the ‘double empathy problem’, which describes how communication breakdowns between autistic and non-autistic people are not due to deficits in autistic people, but a mutual lack of understanding. This challenges the assumption that autistic people need to be trained to behave more like non-autistic people to be understood.
Similarly, Pellicano and Burr (2012) argue for a shift in research and practice toward a strengths-based understanding of autism, recognising that difficulties often arise from a poor fit between the individual and their environment, rather than something being inherently wrong with the person themselves.
Neuroscientific studies (e.g. Kana et al., 2016) have also demonstrated that brain connectivity and processing in autistic people follow different—but not inferior—pathways, especially in areas relating to perception, attention, and information integration. These findings suggest that attempts to normalise neurodivergent traits may suppress important aspects of how these young people understand and navigate the world.
Many educators are already familiar with the term neurodiversity, yet there is often uncertainty about its exact meaning and the potential it has for transforming educational inclusion; how we ensure all children and young people are meaningfully included, supported, and able to thrive.
According to Wise (2023), neurodiversity refers to the infinite and natural variability of human bodies and minds and all the unique ways people can exist, think, act, process, feel and function.
Reference: Murphy, K. (2023). A guide to neurodiversity in the early years. Anna Freud Centre.
Some people find it helpful to think about neurodiversity like we might think of biodiversity. People, just like plants need different things in order to thrive.
Reference: Autism Understood
Neurodiverse is a term that can be used to describe a group of diverse minds (a variety of minds). Some may mistakenly think of it as describing an individual, such as ‘a neurodiverse child’ but only a group can be considered as ‘diverse’.
e.g. ‘I have a neurodiverse class’
Neurodivergent refers to an individual; those children and young people whose cognitive, social, physical, and emotional development diverges from what is generally expected or considered expected.
e.g. ‘X is neurodivergent
Neurodiversity is simply another form of wider human differences and a natural part of life in the same way as ethnicity, gender, sexuality and so on. Neurodiversity encourages us to rethink a medical model perspective, recognising that innate differences should be understood, affirmed, and supported, rather than rejected, reduced, or eliminated. A neurodiversity affirming perspective allows for a primary focus on changing the environment to meet the needs of all young people and the creation of a positive and accepting whole school culture. When young people experience challenges this approach advocates for working collaboratively with the young person to create more tailored support.
There is a growing evidence base which overwhelmingly supports neurodiversity-affirming approaches in education; below we will outline 3 key messages:
From a neurodiversity affirming perspective we are able to provide opportunities to affirm and build young people’s self-esteem and identity through a recognition of their strengths, differences, traits and needs (Bortha, Dibb & Frost, 2020).
A recognition and emphasis upon young people’s unique strengths, rather than their ‘deficits’, has been found to increase levels of motivation, engagement and academic achievement (Doyle and McDowall, 2019). Adopting a strengths based approach, doesn’t mean that young people’s needs are denied, rather, it recognises that some of the needs that young people have can be met through developing their areas of strength and drawing on their intrinsic motivation.
Rather than a focus only on external forms of motivation (such as rewards and consequences) which yield compliance, utilising young people’s intrinsic motivation through adopting more interest-based approaches to learning leads to increased and longer term levels of engagement, success, persistence and self regulation (Renninger and Hidi, 2016; Harackiewicz et al, 2008). Opportunities to access dedicated interests have been found to bring a range of advantages to neurodivergent young people. These benefits include the development of expertise, opportunities for personal growth, wellbeing and inclusion (Wood, 2018). Examples of how dedicated interests can be built into the school day include incorporating interests into the learning/curriculum, running lunch clubs around shared interests and providing opportunities for young people to teach others about their interests.
When educators provide multiple means of engagement, representation and expression, recognising the evident diversity in how young people learn, we can see increased performance and engagement in both neurodivergent young people and neurotypical young people (Burgstahler, 2015; Meyer, Rose and Gordon, 2014; Ralabate, 2011) Through providing multiple options in this way, we can ensure that learning becomes more equitable (Kieran & Anderson, 2019).
Young people’s comments on the education system:
“They expect us to learn all these things whilst we are still trying to learn about ourselves. They also teach everyone the same way and everyone is different so nobody is going to learn the same way.”
What would young people change about school?
Neurodivergent young people are often very aware of their own differences; this can be internalised in negative ways or in more positive ways depending upon our environment. When young people are in environments where differences are normalised and valued, they are more likely to feel positive about who they are and their peers are more likely to be accepting of differences, which is incredibly important for their wellbeing. Cooper et al. (2021) showed that feeling “safe to be themselves” at school was associated with lower anxiety and higher school engagement for neurodivergent students and Cage et al. (2018) found that autistic people who felt accepted by others had higher self-esteem and better mental health outcomes.
When schools adopt a neurodiversity-affirming approach at a universal level, young people are more likely to have their needs met proactively, which is essential to consider due to waiting times for diagnosis and the importance of needs-led support. Neurodivergent students are often the “canaries in the coal mine,” showing us first that an environment isn’t set up in a way that enables wellbeing. So a focus on proactive affirming practice is likely to result in all young people feeling these benefits.
Studies have shown that all young people who are able to advocate for their needs experience lower stress, less social anxiety, greater peer acceptance and improved mental health (Mattanah et al, 2011; Shrogren et al, 2015). In addition, young people are more likely to experience an environment that allows for their sensory comfort and regulation, enabling focus and optimal learning. As a result young people are less likely to struggle with attending school. Studies have shown that neurodivergent young people who attended schools that had adopted neurodiversity affirming approaches had lower levels of anxiety, depression and burnout (Hull et al, 2017; Beck et al, 2020)
There is often a concern that neuro-affirming approaches are not able to prepare young people for the ‘real world’. This concern is based on the idea that young people need to learn to become independent rather than relying on particular support or adjustments that may not always be made accessible to them.
This belief is based on the assumption that the best way to prepare young people for adulthood is by gradually removing support. In reality, this approach often does more harm than good. Research shows that when young people are expected to cope without the support they need, it increases stress, anxiety, and masking – all of which can lead to long-term mental health difficulties (Cage et al., 2018; Raymaker et al., 2020).
Rather than building resilience, withdrawing support can actually undermine it. Chronic stress in adolescence has been linked to poorer physical and mental health outcomes in adulthood, including increased risk of depression and PTSD (Lupien et al., 2009). For neurodivergent young people, being placed in environments that don’t meet their needs can lead to burnout, disengagement, and a loss of self-esteem – outcomes that make thriving in adult life harder, not easier.
In contrast, when young people are given the right support – tailored, affirming, and based on trust – they’re more likely to develop autonomy, confidence, and a stronger sense of identity. Shattuck et al. (2012) found that autistic students who received individualised support had significantly better post-school outcomes in employment and higher education. Creating conditions where young people can succeed with support provides a safe foundation for young people to grow and learn from – enabling them to develop the skills they need for adult life.
Secondly, the support and adjustments that young people need in school or college, may continue to be helpful in further education and employment. When young people are given opportunities to develop self knowledge and understand for themselves what they need to thrive, they can begin to develop the skills necessary for self-advocacy. Treweek et al. (2019) found that teaching neurodivergent students self-advocacy skills in affirming educational environments significantly improved their chances of employment and independent living. Furthermore, within the workplace, neurodivergent people who have been empowered to self advocate are able to thrive in their careers (when these adjustments are afforded as a result). For example, Test et al. (2009) showed that self-advocacy improves workplace success by helping individuals request accommodations and navigate professional challenges.
Young people have been clear about what makes a difference for them in school:
These experiences show that when young people feel safe to be themselves, they can start to thrive. The right environment creates trust, reduces anxiety and allows learning to happen.
From young people’s voices and research, several common themes stand out:
When differences are accepted without judgement, young people feel safe. Safety is the foundation for connection, wellbeing and learning.
Respecting sensory needs, communication styles and individual learning approaches makes education possible. These are not extras—they are essentials.
Having choice in how to learn, when to take breaks, or how to regulate gives young people ownership of their education and reduces anxiety.
Authenticity is the opposite of masking. Supporting young people to be themselves helps build confidence, resilience and identity.
Designing schools to be inclusive from the start avoids the need for reactive “interventions.” Flexibility benefits everyone, not just those with identified needs.
Training and practice are strongest when shaped by neurodivergent voices. Staff and young people with lived experience bring invaluable insight.
Help should be based on need, not on waiting for a label. Early, flexible adjustments should be routine.
True inclusion requires more than a single classroom approach. It should run through corridors, leadership, policies and staff culture
Affirming practice calls for a cultural shift in education. Instead of asking young people to change who they are, schools can change how they respond.
This means moving away from one-size-fits-all rules, being curious about individual experiences, and treating adaptations as part of everyday good practice. It also means recognising the value of neurodivergent staff and giving space for their voices.
As one young person put it:
Allen, K., Kern, M. L., Vella-Brodrick, D., Hattie, J., & Waters, L. (2018). What schools need to know about fostering school belonging: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9389-8
Beck, J. S., Lundwall, R. A., Gabrielsen, T. P., Cox, J. C., & South, M. (2020). Looking good but feeling bad: “Camouflaging” behaviors and mental health in women with autistic traits. Autism, 24(4), 931–942. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320912147
Burgstahler, S. (2015). Universal design of instruction: From principles to practice. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 28(3), 277–285.
Cage, E., Di Monaco, J., & Newell, V. (2018). Experiences of autism acceptance and mental health in autistic adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(2), 473–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3342-7
Children’s Commissioner. (2024). Waiting times for assessment and support for autism, ADHD and neurodevelopmental conditions. UK Government. https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk
Hull, L., Mandy, W., & Petrides, K. V. (2017). Behavioural camouflaging in autism: Impact on mental health and relationships. Autism, 21(5), 574–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361316671012
Hull, L., Petrides, K. V., Allison, C., et al. (2019). “Putting on my best normal”: Social camouflaging in adults with autism spectrum conditions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(2), 704–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3795-3
Kana, R. K., Keller, T. A., Cherkassky, V. L., Minshew, N. J., & Just, M. A. (2016). Atypical brain connectivity in autism during tasks of perception and attention. Brain Research, 1648, 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2016.07.003
Kieran, L., & Anderson, C. (2019). Universal design for learning: A promising framework for inclusive teaching. Canadian Journal of Education, 42(3), 791–815.
Korpershoek, H., Canrinus, E. T., Fokkens-Bruinsma, M., & de Boer, H. (2020). The relationships between school belonging and students’ motivational, social-emotional, behavioural, and academic outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Educational Research Review, 29, 100307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100307
Lupien, S. J., McEwen, B. S., Gunnar, M. R., & Heim, C. (2009). Effects of stress throughout the lifespan on the brain, behaviour, and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(6), 434–445. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2639
Mattanah, J. F., Hancock, G. R., & Brand, B. L. (2011). Parental attachment, peer connectedness, and self-esteem: Links to social anxiety in college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(2), 272–278. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023041
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing.
Milton, D. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: The ‘double empathy problem’. Disability & Society, 27(6), 883–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.710008
Murphy, K. (2023). A guide to neurodiversity in the early years. Anna Freud Centre.
Ralabate, P. K. (2011). Universal design for learning: Meeting the needs of all students. ASHA Leader, 16(10), 14–17. https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR2.16102011.14
Raymaker, D. M., Teo, A. R., Steckler, N. A., & Nicolaidis, C. (2020). “Having all of your internal resources exhausted beyond measure and being left with no clean-up crew”: Defining autistic burnout. Autism in Adulthood, 2(2), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2019.0079
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2016). The power of interest for motivation and engagement. Routledge.
Research Commission on Engagement and Lead Indicators (RCELI). (2025). One in four pupils in England “disengage” when they move to secondary school. RCELI; ImpactEd; Association of School and College Leaders; Confederation of School Trusts. Findings from survey of 100,000 pupils in the 2024–25 academic year.
SEND Code of Practice. (2015). Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years. Department for Education & Department of Health. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-code-of-practice-0-to-25
Shalaby, C. (2017). Troublemakers: Lessons in Freedom from Young Children at School. The New Press.
Shattuck, P. T., Narendorf, S. C., Cooper, B., Sterzing, P. R., Wagner, M., & Taylor, J. L. (2012). Postsecondary education and employment among youth with an autism spectrum disorder. Pediatrics, 129(6), 1042–1049. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-2864
Social Market Foundation. (2025, August 12). We used to have it all: Is there a trade-off between wellbeing and attainment in schools? Social Market Foundation. https://www.smf.co.uk/publications/
Test, D. W., Fowler, C. H., Wood, W. M., Brewer, D. M., & Eddy, S. (2009). A conceptual framework of self-advocacy for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 30(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508315054
Treweek, C., Wood, R., & Milton, D. (2019). Teaching self-advocacy to neurodivergent young people in affirming educational contexts. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(12), 4792–4805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-04142-6
van Kessel, G., Ryan, C., Paras, L., Johnson, N., Zari, R. Z., & Stallman, H. M. (2025). Relationship between university belonging and student outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Australian Educational Researcher. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-025-00822-8
Wise, J. (2023). Understanding neurodiversity in education. Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 215–230.
Wood, R., & Happé, F. (2021). Autistic teachers’ experiences of inclusion, burnout, and identity in education settings. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12345
Share your idea, experience or resource to help inspire change, support others and show what really works in breaking down barriers to education.
Unfortunately we are unable to give advice/support on individual cases.