Higher Education (HE) in the UK and internationally has been increasingly accessible which led to larger pool of diverse students from across the world (Higher Education Statistics Agency [HESA] 2022). Similar to this trend, there has been increase in number of neurodiverse students attending universities internationally (Pino & Mortari, 2014). Over the last five years, there has been an increase in the number of students with declared disability by 46% (Disabled Students UK [DSUK] 2023). The term ‘Neurodiversity’ includes both neurotypical and neurodivergent groups of people. Neurodivergence is an umbrella term used for people with variations from ‘normal standard’ of cognition such as autism, dyslexia, attention deficit disorders (ADHD), dyspraxia, dyscalculia, sensory processing disorder (SPD) or developmental learning disorders (DLD). These are naturally occurring variations of human cognition and metaphorically akin to biodiversity in nature (Hamilton and Petty, 2023).
Neurodiversity is a paradigm shift from considering neurocognitive variations as abnormal to adopting and valuing differences in ways our brain works. As editors of NeuroLaunch (2024) describe our brain is as diverse as fingerprints but our society often fails to understand that. Neurodiversity, however, is frequently used synonymously and interchangeably with neurodivergence which is rightly criticised by Hannah Breslin and Neil Currant (2024) (who are autistic academics) as it marginalises people with divergence where diversity is equivalent to minority. It promotes a notion of majority being ‘normal’ and diversity being ‘abnormal.’ Both Hannah and Neil are advocates of using the right language as it impacts the life of people with neurodivergence. Respectful language is the crucial first step towards addressing challenges that neurodivergent people face.
Improving outcomes and experiences of neurodivergent students should be a priority for universities (Hamilton and Petty, 2023). However, it has been seen that along with the challenges that students face in Higher Education (HE) in the current landscape of social, economic and political influences, people with neurodivergence face additional challenges. There is evidence to suggest that poorer employment outcomes and well-being is common in neurodivergent population compared to their peers (Anderson et al., 2017). Therefore, in this post, I will explore challenges that neurodivergent students face in HE, sector wide theories and policies in place to support them and critically discuss potential ways in which those could be incorporated for enhancing engagement, outcomes and well-being of neurodivergent students.
Judy Singer, an Australian Sociologist who is neurodivergent, initiated the neurodiversity movement during the 1990s. This movement advocated social justice and equality for people with neurodivergence (Botha et al., 2024). Singer argues that neurodivergent groups should not be side-lined, instead they should be seen as potentially valuable variations of human mind. Miller (2024) appraises that this movement brought into light the strengths of neurodiversity such as creativity, novel ideas and hyperfocus. However, the learning disabilities in such individuals emerge due to environment-related factors, for instance, a loud classroom, bright workplace or rigid timetable. The clinical director of Autism Centre at Child Mind Institute reports that more adolescents are comfortable with self-identifying themselves as neurodiverse as it explains the way they process things, validate their experiences and provides sense of community (Miller 2024).
Transition to HE is a challenging phase of life for all adolescents. It becomes even more challenging for adolescents who identify as neurodivergents. To support neurodiverse students and promote inclusivity, many policies and initiatives are in place for these students in the UK HEIs. According to the Equality Act (2010) all universities should make reasonable adjustments and provide additional support for neurodiverse students to accommodate their needs, so they are not disadvantaged. UK government provides Disabled Students’ Allowance for students with learning needs and other chronic disabilities to support their studies related cost such as specialised equipment, non-medical helpers or travel support to attend course or placement.
Many universities offer mental health and wellbeing services. Universities also have disability services to provide adjustments for individual needs such as Personal Learning Plan and additional 25% time during examinations. In the post, Karalyte (2024) listed best universities in the UK which are neurodivergent friendly. Some universities offer resources and support such as screening for dyslexia, Early Arrival Programme and internship programme for autistic groups.
Report by DSUK (2023) recommend that changes made in HE during the Covid-19 pandemic should continue and hence there should be focus on staff training, promoting communication between departments, minimising administrative roadblocks to make HE sector more disabled friendly. In words of Mette Westander (founder DSUK) “If there is one thing the Higher Education sector should learn from the pandemic it’s that it has an enormous untapped potential for accessibility.” One of the key takeaways emphasised in this report is ‘student partnership and empowerment’ to progress as a HE sector. Disabled Students’ Commission (DSC) was funded for three years from 2020-2023 by the Office of Students (Advance HE, 2023). It was a strategic group to support the needs of disabled students and influence HE practices. The DSC further launched Disabled Student Commitment in April 2023 with the aim to enhance university experience of disabled students from entering HE to employment (Advance HE, 2023).
As appraised by Breslin and Currant (2024) there is increasing interest to support for neurodiverse students, but universities still have a long way to go. Despite having current policies and legislations to protect neurodivergent groups, these students have been marginalised historically. An example of this was provision of lecture recording during pandemic when neurotypical students needed it which was long requested by disabled students from before pandemic (Crutcher 2023).
Neurodivergent students are ‘unprepared and underserved’ in HE (Gregg, 2007). Students with learning disabilities report lower satisfaction and encountering various barriers to their success in HE (McGregor et al., 2018). Some of the challenges that neurodivergent groups face is lack of adequate support for students due to lack of training of staff. Moreover, there are inconsistencies in the number of resources and support available for such students both within a university and between universities. Some programmes and modules offer quality resources while others do not. The students have to choose their university depending on the availability of varying level of disability support and accessibility such as sensory sensitivities, mental health and social support, as well as academic accommodations instead of academic interests (Mosse, 2024). Due to stigma and prejudices, there could be social isolation in these students which excludes them from engaging in a normal student life activities. Additionally, due to neurotypical bias in our educational practices, it leads to higher dropout rates of neurodivergent students. Around 40% of autistic students complete their university education. Poor mental health being a major contributor for this attrition (Hamilton and Petty, 2023). This also affects their employability as only 41% of neurodivergent students are employed in their graduate roles according to Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services (AGCAS) (Tomlinson et al., 2024).
Crutcher (2023) in the award-winning essay stated, “HE institutions present antiquated pedagogical practices that treat neurodiverse student bodies as neuro-homogenous.” There is a need for student neurodiverse movement in HE. Neurodivergent groups are underrepresented in HE both among students and staff, likely to drop out and socially isolated due to experiencing stigma. HE misinterprets and defines neurodivergence in an incorrect way. Hamilton and Petty (2023) suggest that current HE contexts have conditional view of students where they are acceptable only when they fit into neurotypical standards. Expanding on neurotypical biases prevalent in our HE practices; we see examination systems and support provision for neurodivergents groups are inherently flawed. The purpose of assessments should be to judge students who achieve or do not achieve learning outcomes at a requisite level. However, the current assessment models marginalise neurodivergent students. Assessment design in HE fails to acknowledge varied strengths, attributes, perspectives and lived experiences of such students (Tai et al., 2023). For instance, the written assessments which form the cornerstone of examination method in most of the degree programmes is specifically challenging for dyslexic students (Jacobs et al., 2022). Nieminen (2022) claims that medical model of assessment that is currently practiced in HE requires disabled students to have a medical diagnosis for individual adjustments. Giving 25% extra time and adequate rest breaks are like sticking plasters while the root cause (fundamental educational practices) remains unaffected (Crutcher, 2023).
Besides, requirement of medical diagnosis for accessing policy documents by neurodivergent students leads to delay and long waiting time before they could obtain support (Crutcher, 2023). Moreover, commonly in HEI the neurodivergents are referred to disability services which introduces bias since all forms of neurodivergence is outlined as disability or disorder that requires treatment or adjustments. Their differences are rarely recognised as novel, original or excellent. Such students take higher responsibilities to make their educational journey successful (Hamilton and Petty, 2023). For which they spend additional time to advocate for their needs for activities outside their curriculum such as being eligible for and obtaining institutional accommodations (Lizotte, 2018). These students may be attending university for the first time and must independently manage their daily needs, academic requirements, and procedures for seeking support that could be extremely overwhelming (Cage & Howes, 2020). With excessive time and energy required to balance their academic responsibilities and other activities, they often have to give up their social and personal engagements which leads to decline in their quality of life (Lierman, 2024).
Another neurotypical educational practice is the delivery and designing of curriculum which might be inaccessible for different forms of neurodivergence. Crutcher (2023) argues that “HE is largely designed by neurotypicals, for neurotypicals.” As Lierman (2024) mentions that even with best intentions of staff, faculties and universities, the bureaucratic system in HE is set up to fail such students disproportionately. Lierman states that the amount of effort needed by neurodivergent students to achieve the same outcome as their peers is different. These students often require more time to process, read, write and concentrate. Sleep disturbances and fatigue is also reported in them which further slows their pace (Hughes et al., 2023). Therefore, completing independent academic assignment gets laborious for them compared to neurotypical students. They use additional learning and coping strategies to navigate their education which is not required by their neurotypical peers; hence HE could be fundamentally hostile to such student groups (Lierman, 2024). Due to the academic demands, neurodivergent students have to reduce their expectations of success to progress in HE. They tend to choose modules which have lesser coursework, require less intensive reading/writing or even opt for lesser demanding programme (Anderson et al., 2017; Pirttimaa et al., 2015).
Co-curricular activities also have a direct impact on academic success of students. Financial burden on students’ with ‘invisible disabilities’ is often not factored in disability allowances and funds (Lierman, 2024). Even if financial aids and institutional scholarships are available, it is application-based in which students must showcase their merits and contributions to receive the fund. This poses additional challenge for neurodivergents who struggle with reading/writing and processing information. Similarly, career services in universities are not optimal for supporting neurodivergent students. The staff in career services are unfamiliar with diverse needs of students and specialised services are often lacking (Boeltzig-Brown, 2017). If we consider the social climate, there is prevailing atmosphere of ableism in HE in regards to faculty, staff or peers alike as identified in many students’ narratives (Lierman, 2024). Therefore, in their book ‘Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education’, Dolmage (2017) states that higher education presents itself as a place to demonstrate mental and physical abilities but in many ways has created opposition for disability.
The following section comprises of synthesis of my research for challenges in HE for neurodivergent students and discussion on potential ways in which universities and curriculum can be more inclusive.
Educators have an exceptional role in creating and promoting compassionate learning environment. However, compassion and other ‘intellectual virtues’ are not explicitly acknowledged in HE today (Maxwell, 2017) especially when universities in the UK and abroad are focusing on market-driven targets of ‘value for money’, competition and individual achievement. Compassionate pedagogy (Hao, 2011) is a commitment to criticise and reflect on educational practices and classroom culture that places underserved students at a disadvantage. Firstly, we as educators need to question and critically reflect our assumptions of neurotypical and neurodivergent behaviours. We should attempt to learn and understand the world from their perspective instead of categorising student behaviours into normative or deviate. However, such expectations could be demanding for educators who must balance needs and interests of all students, work within limited time and rigid university structures and processes (Hamilton and Petty, 2023). Nevertheless, if we have the opportunities to rethink our educational practices, we can start by taking smaller steps to promote inclusivity for all students. Simple steps, we as educators can take within our classrooms, that do not require additional processes would be to be aware of feelings of distress among neurodivergent students, actively and empathetically listening to them, and creating a sense of belonging for them. Not only being mindful of their distress, but compassionate educators should also capitalise on their strengths to facilitate learning in them and others (Hamilton and Petty, 2023).
Ron Mace (1985) defined Universal Design “is the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design.” Universal design movement was first advocated for physical disabilities and architectural barriers; however, Dolmage (2017) argues that universities should also consider social and intellectual disabilities into their pedagogy. It is believed that neurodivergent students will fit into the systematic and routine educational system by ‘faking it’ or imitating neurotypical behaviours by suppressing their normal responses. The ‘hidden curriculum’ in universities which is often unintentional and unwritten expects all students to behave, learn and interact in a particular manner which underserves neurodivergent groups (Sulaimani and Gut, 2019). However, it is time to rethinking educational practices for universal accessibility which should not stop at physical access. Ford (2013) in their concept of ‘deep accessibility’ considers five levels of accessibility: movement, sense, architecture, communication and agency. For universal design to be successfully embedded in HE, the neurodivergent groups should be able to access the classroom/content, get a sense of ongoing teaching, communicate effectively and practice autonomy by making their ideas known (Dolmage, 2017). This will then result in a ‘transformative access’ which should be the vision of HEIs.
For transformative access, there should be shift from medical model to neurodiversity approaches for promoting inclusivity (Dwyer et al., 2023). As Dwyer et al., (2023) recommend, neurodiversity training should be provided to everyone on campus and universities to develop Disability Cultural Centres. They recommend having neurodivergent people to be leaders in neurodivergent initiatives and training programme. In my experience, one of neurodivergent students criticised the layout of my lecture slides because it had lot of colours and images. In reflection, one way to address similar concerns could be involving neurodivergent student and staff leaders in content development and structuring of different modules to foster accessibility. Therefore, pedagogical restructuring for contexts which are best suited to neurodivergent students (such as flexible classroom structure, communication preferences, sensory sensitivities) could be initiated in addition to existing support and accommodations.
The founding principles of universal design include equitable use (for all), flexible in use, perceptible information, tolerance for error, low physical effort, and size and space for approach and use. Drawing from these principles, even academia should design pedagogies in broadest sense that is universal and does not require accommodations to make it truly inclusive. Dolmage (2017) in the discussion on redundancy provides an analogy to a door handle which could be opened by turning the handle upwards or downwards or by push button, so that there are fewer ways to make a mistake which means that there are more ways to be right. Similarly, in curriculum designing, we could provide redundancy in which information is provided to students so there could be multiple pathways to understand and process the information and lesser chances to be wrong or inaccessible for neurodivergents. Removing ambiguity at all levels can potentially minimise anxiety in them. Use of anonymous note cards, or digital tools such as ‘VEVOX’ or ‘Mentimeter’ could provide safe space for such students to ask doubts or participate in classroom discussions without facing social fear and anxiety. Additionally, we can consider incorporating a ‘thinking time’ in between sessions for students to approach, process, and partake in ongoing discussions that could promote learning and engagement universally. This also aligns with theory of constructivism (Begg, 2015) according to which learning does not happen with passive transfer of information but is co-created.
Discussions on making assessments in HE more inclusive have been ongoing (Kurth and Mellard, 2006). We need to deeply examine the nature of assessment design for it be genuinely inclusive. According to the social model of disability “disabilities are constructed in their sociocultural and historical contexts” (Gabel and Peters, 2004). Social model of assessment provides diverse assessment options for different learning needs in which students can demonstrate their learning. Diversifying assessment types could provide equitable opportunities for all students. Nieminen (2022) discussed ‘Assessment for Inclusion (AfI)’ as a framework for assessment that places students at the very centre and encourages radical inclusion of marginalised students in assessment. AfI analyses sociocultural, historical and political positioning of neurodiverse students for their roles and responsibilities in HE and assessment. It draws from individual accommodations as well as inclusive design for assessment. The aim of AfI is to ensure that no student is discriminated by the virtue of their diverse abilities (Tai et al., 2023). One way to do this is to assess students authentically and pragmatically, where they are assessed as entire persons by integrating what they know, how they act and who they are in realism context (Tai et al., 2023; Villarroel et al., 2018).
Moving away from requirement of medical diagnosis to access disability services could be another step towards making neurodivergent friendly environment. Potential ways of doing this could be self-identification of neurodivergence (with personal tutors’ endorsements) to avoid long waiting for assessment and medical diagnosis (Crutcher, 2023) or services could be provided based on needs instead of disability (Hamilton and Petty, 2023). If the disability services can accommodate self-identification, it would fast track the process and eliminate undue waiting time in NHS. Furthermore, to support students’ co-curricular activities, it is essential that we circulate information related to financial aid and career services clearly and widely for it to be accessible. Establishing peer support networks, career exploration services and work-based training such as internships, shadowing, volunteering and developing self-advocacy skills could be potential ways to address these concerns (Lierman, 2024).
In conclusion, as a greater number of neurodiverse students are entering HE, we need to evolve to embrace their differences and unique abilities more responsibly. We need to make individual and systemic changes along with existing policies to support neurodivergent people (Friedman and Nash‑Luckenbach, 2023). Even with the initiatives undertaken in HE today, there is still scope to improve our educational practices and social climate to make them student centric and radically inclusive. We can work towards compassionate pedagogy by creating opportunities for warm, non-judgemental, sensitive and tolerant interactions between educators and neurodiverse group of students (Hamilton and Petty, 2023). This could promote sense of welcoming and belonging for neurodivergent students (Lucre, and Clapton, 2020). Critically evaluating the design of our courses/programme and assessments, having neurodivergent student and staff leaders, providing training for all, using digital tools for anonymous participation during and between sessions, using pragmatic assessment methods and self-identification of disability could be few potential ways to enhance learning, engagement and experience for neurodivergent students.
References
Advance HE. (2023). Disabled Student Commitment. [online] Available at: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/disabled-student-commitment [Accessed 6 Jan. 2025].
Anderson, A. H., Stephenson, J., and Carter, M. (2017). ‘A systematic literature review of the experiences and supports of students with autism spectrum disorder in post-secondary education.’ Res. Autism Spectr. Disord. 39, pp. 33–53.
Begg, A. (2015). Constructivism: an overview and some implications. [online] Available at:https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz [Accessed 6 Jan. 2025].
Boeltzig-Brown, H. (2017). ‘Disability and Career Services Provision for Students with Disabilities at Institutions of Higher Education in Japan: An Overview of Key Legislation, Policies, and Practices.’ Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 30(1), pp 61-81.
Breslin, H., & Currant, N. (2024). Higher education needs to get to grips with the language of neurodiversity. Wonkhe. Retrieved from [Higher education needs to get to grips with the language of neurodiversity | Wonkhe] [Accessed on 30 Dec 2024].
Botha, M., et al., 2024. ‘The neurodiversity concept was developed collectively: An overdue correction on the origins of neurodiversity theory’. Autism, 28(6), pp.1591-1594.
Cage, E., & Howes, J. (2020). ‘Dropping out and moving on: A qualitative study of autistic people’s experiences of university.’ Autism, 24(7), pp 1664-1675.
Center for Universal Design (CUD) (n.d.) About universal design. Available at: http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/index.htm %5BAccessed: 6 January 2025].
Crutcher, S. (2023) It’s time universities took neurodiversity seriously. Available at: LSE Blogs [Accessed: 2 January 2025].
Dolmage, J.T. (2017). Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Dwyer, P., et al. (2022). ‘Building neurodiversity-inclusive postsecondary campuses: recommendations for leaders in higher education.’ Autism Adulthood. 5(1), pp 1–14.
Friedman, Z.L., & Nash-Luckenbach, D. (2023). ‘Has the time come for Heutagogy? Supporting neurodivergent learners in higher education.’ Higher Education, pp 1-16.
Ford, I. (2013). Deep Accessibility. [online] Ianology. Available at: https://ianology.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/deep-accessibility/ [Accessed 6 Jan. 2025].
Gabel, Susan, and Susan Peters. (2004). ‘Presage of a Paradigm Shift? Beyond the Social Model of Disability: Toward Resistance Theories of Disability.’ Disability & Society 19 (6): pp 585–600.
Government Equalities Office and Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2015) Equality Act 2010: guidance. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-2010-guidance [Accessed: 3 January 2025]
Gregg, N., (2007). ‘Underserved and unprepared: Postsecondary learning disabilities.’ Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(4), pp.219-228.
Miller, C. (2024) What is neurodiversity? Available at: https://childmind.org/article/what-is-neurodiversity/ %5BAccessed: 2 January 2025].
Hamilton LG and Petty S (2023) ‘Compassionate pedagogy for neurodiversity in higher education: A conceptual analysis.’ Front. Psychol. 14:1093290.
Hao, R. N. (2011). ‘Critical compassionate pedagogy and the teacher’s role in first-generation student success.’ New Dir. Teach. Learn. 2011, pp 91–98
Higher Education Statistics Agency [HESA] (2022). Higher Education Student Statistics: UK, 2020/21. Available at: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/25-01-2022/sb262-higher-education-student-statistics [Accessed: 2 January 2025].
Hughes, L., (2023). ‘Adolescent Sleep: Exploring Experiences of, and Acceptability of, Whole School Early Intervention’ (Doctoral dissertation, University of Sheffield, UK).
Jacobs, L., et al. (2022). ‘Learning at school through to university: the educational experiences of students with dyslexia at one UK higher education institution.’ Disabil. Soc. 37, pp 662–683.
Karalyte, C. (2024) ‘The best universities for disability & neurodiversity’, Student Beans, 15 March. Available at: https://www.studentbeans.com/blog/student-life/the-best-universities-for-disability-neurodiversity/ [Accessed: 3 January 2025].
Kurth, N., & Mellard, D. (2006). ‘Student perceptions of the accommodation process in postse-condary education.’ Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19(1), pp 71–84
Lierman, A. (2024) The Struggle You Can’t See: Experiences of Neurodivergent and Invisibly Disabled Students in Higher Education. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers.
Lizotte, M. (2018). ‘I Am a College Graduate: Postsecondary Experiences as Described by Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders.’ International Journal of Education and Practice, 6(4), pp.179-191.
Maxwell, B. (2017). ‘Pursuing the aim of compassionate empathy in higher education.’ The Pedagogy of Compassion at the Heart of Higher Education. ed. P. Gibbs. New York: Springer, pp 32–48.
Lucre, K., and Clapton, N. (2020). ‘The compassionate kitbag: a creative and integrative approach to compassion-focused therapy.’ Psychol. Psychother. 94, pp 497–516.
McGregor, K. et al. (2016). ‘The University Experiences of Students with Learning Disabilities.’ Learning disabilities research & practice : a publication of the Division for Learning Disabilities, Council for Exceptional Children, 31(2), pp 90–102.
Mosse, T., (2024). Choosing the right university: A checklist for neurodiverse students. Complete University Guide. Available at: https://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/student-advice/choosing-where-to-study/choosing-the-right-university-a-checklist-for-neurodiverse-students [Accessed 6 January 2025].
Neurodiversity, E. and Forward, A.P. (n.d.) Neurodivergent Explained: Exploring Neurodiversity and Its Spectrum.
Nieminen, J. H. (2022). ‘Assessment for Inclusion: rethinking inclusive assessment in higher education.’ Teaching in Higher Education, 29(4), pp 841–859.
Pino, M., and Mortari, L. (2014). ‘The inclusion of students with dyslexia in higher education: a systematic review using narrative synthesis.’ Dyslexia 20, pp 346–369.
Pirttimaa, R., Takala, M., & Ladonlahti, T. (2015). ‘Students in higher education with reading and writing difficulties.’ Education Inquiry, 6(1), 24277.
Sulaimani, M. F., and Gut, D. M. (2019). ‘Hidden curriculum in a special education context: the case of individuals with autism.’ J. Educ. Res. Pract. 9, pp 30–39.
Tomlinson, M., et al. (2024). ‘Enhancing neurodivergent graduates’ access to graduate employment (ENGAGE): A report on neurodivergent graduates’ employment transitions and outcomes.’ The Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services (AGCAS). https://www.agcas.org.uk [Accessed: 3 January 2025].
Villarroel, V., et al. (2018). ‘Authentic assessment: Creating a blueprint for course design.’ Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(5),pp 840–854.
Science IQ 