Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The UK education system is failing to meet needs, leading to an attendance and school anxiety crisis. However, the system faults those disproportionately and most visibly struggling – namely Neurodivergent and SEND learners – as outliers instead of warning signs. Only through acknowledgement of systemic internal mechanisms can the complexity and scope of the education crisis be addressed. In this commentary, we explore school anxiety through the underlying systemic mechanisms within neuro-normativity, epistemic injustice, and consequent affordances, or opportunities for action. Specifically, we argue that the rigid adherence to neuro-normative academic standards inherently fosters a loss of inclusivity and poor teacher knowledge and attitudes. Student camouflaging, or behavioural changes aimed at minimising overt Neurodivergent characteristics, may, thus, arise to navigate neuro-normativity, exacerbating school anxiety. Ultimately, this piece advocates for a paradigm shift away from pathologizing a context-driven problem as inherent to neurodivergence and instead calls for recognising ‘school anxiety’, and other educational consequences, as signals of a deeper systemic issue.

Lay Abstract

Many Neurodivergent children experience high levels of anxiety related to school. While this is becoming more recognised, school anxiety is still often seen as a problem within the child – something to be fixed – rather than something that may be caused by school itself. Even when research identifies school-based causes, it often overlooks the wider systems and policies that shape these environments. Without that context, there is a risk of suggesting surface-level or even unhelpful solutions. In this commentary, we challenge the common view of school anxiety. We suggest that school systems – their rules, routines, and expectations – are based on narrow ideas of what is ‘normal’. These ideas often exclude Neurodivergent students, whose needs and ways of thinking are rarely reflected in how schools are designed. We also explore how strict academic standards, curriculum demands, and exams can limit teachers’ ability to be inclusive. These pressures shape what is seen as ‘valid’ knowledge and behaviour, which can feed into bullying and social exclusion. As a result, many students feel they need to hide who they are in order to fit in. This ‘camouflaging’ can add to anxiety and make school even more distressing. We offer a new way of thinking about school anxiety – not as a flaw in the child, but as a sign that the system itself needs to change. By listening to those most affected, we can better understand the causes of distress and build a more inclusive education system.

Keywords

epistemic injustice neurodivergence neuro-normativity school distress school anxiety SEND autism standards agenda neurodiversity camouflaging

Introduction

The United Kingdom (UK) education system is in crisis, with persistent absenteeism among learners without identified special educational needs and disability (SEND) rising from 0.45% to 1% between 2019/20 and 2023/24 (Gov.UK, 2024a). Certain groups, however, serve as ‘canaries in a coalmine’, signalling systemic failings in identifying and meeting needs. Between 2012 and 2022, there was a 91% increase in children identified as having SEND (Marsh, 2023). Parents are increasingly dissatisfied with identification and support, reflected in a 250% increase in SEND first-tier tribunals – legal disputes regarding educational provision – between 2015 and 2022 (Gov.UK, 2022; Marsh, 2023). Consequently, the rate of SEND learners persistently absent at least 50% of the time has risen from 3.5% to 6.2% between 2019/20 and 2023/24, with nearly 1 in 10 in some SEND groups persistently absent (Gov.UK, 2024a).

These figures reveal systemic reliance on SEND identification through Education, Health, and Care Plans (EHCPs) – akin to individualised education plans – rather than addressing underlying causes of issues like non-attendance. Consequentially, interventions become fragmented and reactive. Key components of the system – parents, education staff, local authorities, and legislators – operate as misaligned ‘cogs’, with the harshest impact occurring on the most vulnerable cog: children (Stanbridge, 2024). Instead of reform, the system shifts an essentialist burden onto Neurodivergent children with overt challenges. They are labelled as ‘outliers’, or with an ‘SEND’ or diagnosis, to justify intervention (Fisher, 2023). These reactive interventions often target behaviour, including forcing attendance through physically restraining children and withholding support when they do not attend (Bodycote, 2022). Such tactics are legitimised by policy, with parental fines for non-attendance increasing by 396% from 2009 to 2024 (Gov.UK, 2025; Mullally & Connolly, 2025).

Education and absenteeism crises are not unique to the UK. Similar patterns appear in the United States (U.S. Department of Education, 2025) and Australia (ACARA, 2024), alongside a global decline in academic performance (OECD, 2022). The consequences of a systemic crisis extend beyond absenteeism to poor self-esteem (Wilmot et al., 2023), social isolation (Ambrose et al., 2024), and even self-harm and suicidality (Fielding et al., 2025).

It is, therefore, unsurprising that Neurodivergent children are more likely to exhibit school distress and, consequently, anxiety – a future-oriented mood state associated with anticipation of upcoming negative events in school – which leads to academic underperformance and absenteeism (Adams et al., 2022; Adams, Young et al., 2019; Ambrose et al., 2021; Connolly et al., 2023; García-Fernández et al., 2008). Social, academic, and environmental factors make various school types and provisions more anxiety-evoking for Neurodivergent children than other contexts (Adams et al., 2020; Billington et al., 2024; Mullally et al., 2024). Neurodivergent children often experience exclusion, bullying, and negative attitudes within the school (Costley et al., 2021; Wadman et al., 2016), as well as inappropriate educational demands that foster fear of evaluation, low self-esteem, and learned helplessness (Novita, 2016; Ozsivadjian et al., 2012; Sorrenti et al., 2019). The school environment exacerbates anxiety through sensory distress, uncertainty, and information overload (Goodall, 2018; Keville et al., 2023; McDougal et al., 2020).

Akin to wider mental health research, such contributors are seldom conceptualised together as a wider constellation of a deeper systemic issue (Boyle, 2011). While policy and research can name and even replace specific issues, a fundamental shift in internal mechanisms is necessary for different outcomes (Stanbridge, 2024). If these internal mechanisms are neglected, so is complexity and scope, leading to superficial solutions and resistance in practice (Omodan, 2023; Williams-Brown & Jopling, 2021). We present the UK as a case study of systemic educational failure. We explore internal mechanisms as neuro-normative epistemic injustices which create the conditions for school anxiety. We bring together holistic insight grounded in diverse lived experiences, including Neurodivergent team members with experience as teachers, pupils, and parents of Neurodivergent children within the UK.

Neuro-Normative Epistemic Injustice and Neurodivergence

Neurodivergence is a complex and debated term (Chown et al., 2023; Dwyer, 2022). Broadly, neurodiversity embodies the neurocognitive variation present throughout the population, including differences in information processing and learning (Chapman, 2021; Shah et al., 2022). Neurodivergence is, therefore, partially a quantitative deviation from a Neurotypical ‘norm’ (Goldberg, 2023). These profiles may be subsequently labelled with a SEND or a neurodevelopmental condition, like Autism (Doyle, 2020). However, the identification of such profiles is also shaped by cultural value judgements regarding which neurocognitive traits and thresholds to select (Bueter, 2019; Legault et al., 2021). For example, while UK culture pathologises low eye contact, this is less common in Nigerian and Navajo cultures, and some indigenous cultures value neurodiversity without a labelling process (Bruno et al., 2025; Jaswal & Akhtar, 2019; Perepa, 2014).

Some traits may be more essentialist, such as a universal need for support (Anderson-Chavarria, 2022). While we assert an objective ontology to the neurocognitive traits of Neurodivergent individuals, the meanings assigned to them are culturally constructed (Botha, 2021). In the UK, neuro-normativity upholds certain neurocognitive functions – those labelled ‘Neurotypical’ – as superior and healthy (Catala et al., 2021; Legault et al., 2019), reinforcing rigid distinctions between ‘normal’ and ‘defective’ (Bodfield & Culshaw, 2023). Notably, the Department for Education's guidance for 0–5 years, Development Matters, presents a singular neuro-normative trajectory of ‘how children develop and learn’, disregarding alternative developmental paths as ‘falling behind’ (DfE, 2023).

Neuro-normativity shapes epistemic injustice, a systemic bias which prevents Neurodivergent individuals from full participation in knowledge construction and transmission (Legault et al., 2021). One form involves testimonial injustice, where the experiences and knowledge of Neurodivergent individuals are unjustly dismissed, including within research (Dinishak, 2021; Fricker, 2007). Consequentially, society lacks the concepts and language to value and understand non-neuro-normative contributions, known as hermeneutical injustice (Hacking, 2009; Scully, 2018). One example drawn from Neurodivergent lived experience – the double empathy problem – illustrates how mutual misunderstandings between Neurodivergent and neuro-normative communication styles are solely attributed to Neurodivergent social ‘deficits’ (Kourti, 2021; Milton, 2012; Milton et al., 2022). Neuro-normative epistemic injustice leads to misunderstandings by those who rely on neuro-normative conventions, such as eye contact and speech (Aube et al., 2021; Jaswal & Akhtar, 2019). As a result, difficulties in being understood exacerbate the pathologisation of Neurodivergence (Krueger & Maiese, 2018; Milton, 2014; see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The Process of Identification and School Anxiety Through an Asymmetry Between Neuro-Normative Affordances and Neurocognitive Abilities: Illustrated by Two Examples.

Difficulties accessing resources or affordances – opportunities for social, physical, and cultural action and interaction – often define SEND or diagnoses (Gov.UK, 2014; see Figure 1; Legault et al., 2019; Rietveld et al., 2018). Neuro-normative epistemic injustice has resulted in a landscape of affordances designed for, and more easily accessed by, Neurotypical individuals (Legault et al., 2024; Nešić, 2023). For example, classroom sensory environments tailored to neuro-normative processing misalign with many Neurodivergent children's sensory processing, fostering sensory overload and, thus, school anxiety (Humphrey & Lewis, 2008; Jones et al., 2020; see Figure 1). This misalignment reinforces perceived ‘deficits’ and the deviation from the sensory processing ‘norm’, compounding Neurodivergence and often leading to SEND identification (Nešić, 2023).

Epistemic injustice extends neuro-normative affordances across various layers of society, from policy and culture to individual experience (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). Within education, this includes the micro-level contributors to school anxiety and their underpinning systemic mechanisms, such as curriculum, pedagogy, and institutional attitudes (Connolly et al., 2023; Goldberg, 2023; Omodan, 2023). Epistemic injustice can also manifest within everyday transactional interactions, contributing to minority stress – a chronic burden experienced by marginalised groups due to stigma and discrimination – and school anxiety (Botha & Frost, 2018; Dunne, 2023). The interactionist model of disability concurs that Neurodivergent individuals require a different affordance landscape – one grounded in epistemic justice and decentralised neuro-normativity (Krueger & Maiese, 2018; Tøssebro, 2004).

Yet epistemic injustice in relation to neurodiversity remains under-researched, particularly regarding it impacts on neurocognitive development. Existing theories often carry their own neuro-normative biases – for example, the implicit assumption that only those who use reason and verbal language qualify as knowers (Catala, 2020). Most research also centres on Autistic populations, leaving significant gaps in understanding how other neurocognitive profiles are affected. This framework, therefore, remains nascent and demands further empirical, theoretical, and participatory development.

Navigating Neuro-Normative Affordances Within Education

Neuro-Normative Standards, Knowledge, and Attitudes

Only recently have researchers begun to question how the structures that shape mainstream thinking and behaviour – including schooling – disproportionately limit Neurodivergent individuals’ access to cognitive and psychological benefits (Krueger & Maiese, 2018 ). These limitations arise from a clash between the affordance landscape imposed by the education system and what Neurodivergent learners can meaningfully engage with (Nešić, 2023). This mismatch often results in disaffordances: barriers that block success in tasks could otherwise be achieved, including those that draw on unique strengths such as hyperfocus and attention to detail (Bury et al., 2020; Howell et al., 2022; Legault et al., 2021; Nešić, 2023).

A key example of a UK-embedded neuro-normative affordance is the academic standards agenda, which includes standardised curricula and assessments. While inclusive schools decentralise neuro-normativity to create access and reduce school anxiety (Goodall, 2019; Rodríguez & Sánchez, 2022), the standards agenda incentivises educators to raise standards based on neuro-normative rates of progression, abilities, and expression (Crane et al., 2023; Hutton & Cappellini, 2022). Consequently, national curricula and standardised assessments overlook alternative achievements and place disproportionately high demands on Neurodivergent learners (Poed & Fox, 2023; Williams-Brown et al., 2023; Wood & Happé, 2023). This elevated effort can be likened to providing colour-based tasks to children with non-typical colour vision, who require significantly more effort to achieve the same outcome (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

A Visual Representation of How Neuro-Normative Assumptions in Education Burden Neurodivergent Learners, Engendering Negative Peer Comparisons, Feelings of Inadequacy, Exhaustion, Disengagement, and Frustration.

Such a system restricts what, how and when children learn, corresponding to neuro-normative trajectories and making the flexibility necessary for inclusion practically impossible (Williams-Brown & Jopling, 2021). For example, standards surrounding letter-to-sound correspondence, or phonics, reduces educators’ flexibility in reading instruction (Gov.UK, 2024d). Many learners, particularly those with phonological difficulties, require flexibility in what, how and when they are taught to read, such as meaning-based approaches (Bowers, 2020; Spector, 2011). Children who cannot conform to neuro-normative standards, including within phonics development, are subsequently labelled as ‘SEND’ (Gov.UK, 2014). A non-neuro-normative curriculum would instead enable responsiveness to diverse needs through the incorporation of child voice (Zilli et al., 2020).

Compounding this problem is a high-stakes accountability culture which places immense pressure on educators to raise neuro-normative standards, reinforced through the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) school inspections (Williams-Brown & Hodkinson, 2020). Notably, Ofsted ratings publicly influence student intake, resources, and potential special measures for underperforming schools (Mortimore, 2023; Rolfe, 2019; Williams-Brown & Hodkinson, 2020). The intensity of this pressure – driven by inspections, grades, and data accountability – is greater than in other countries (Tian & Rautiainen, 2024; You, 2017). Poor Ofsted ratings have led to headteacher resignations and, sometimes, tragic outcomes, including suicides (Waters & Palmer, 2023 ). This culture creates increasing workloads and poor teacher wellbeing and retention, subsequently compounding educator prioritisation of Ofsted and pupil performance to avoid fears of ‘failing’ (Brady & Wilson, 2021; Education Support, 2022; Gov.UK, 2024b; Hutchings & Kazmi, 2015; Page, 2015; Ravet, 2018).

This agenda cultivates a pedagogy of adult-led teaching focused on evidencing standards, often at the expense of flexibility to meet individual needs (Goodall, 2018; Wyse & Torrance, 2009). Such pedagogy is reinforced by strict behaviour policies that disproportionately impact Neurodivergent children's capacity to conform and succeed (Fisher, 2023; Poed & Fox, 2023). Teachers often report significant pressure to ‘teach to the test’, sometimes even prioritising teaching those most likely to achieve neuro-normative standards (Crowson & Brandes, 2010; Williams-Brown & Jopling, 2021). Ultimately, this contributes to disproportionately higher exclusions of SEND children, pupil referral unit requests, and schools – particularly academies – declining to enrol SEND students, citing an inability to meet specialist needs (Lehane, 2017; Lilley, 2013; Norwich & Black, 2015). For example, challenges in meeting rigid standards have resulted in a doubling of SEND students disapplied from phonics assessments between 2011 and 2023 (Gov.UK, 2023).

This dissonance between standards and inclusion limits educators’ time, knowledge, and incentives to implement inclusivity and decentralise neuro-normativity (Boujut et al., 2017; Busby et al., 2012; Williams-Brown & Jopling, 2021). Within a neuro-normative standards-driven context, this dissonance is rational – successful inclusion can harm attainment metrics (Glazzard, 2014; Williams-Brown & Hodkinson, 2020). This context has tangible consequences: absenteeism spikes in secondary schools, a trend attributed, at least in part, to the intensified pressure to meet academic standards, which deprioritises time, resources, and support for Neurodivergent children (Goodall, 2018; Gov.UK, 2024a; Gray et al., 2023).

Exacerbating the issue, epistemic injustice has led many educators to display poor knowledge on neurodiversity, while the standards agenda disincentivises accessing inclusion training (Bodfield & Culshaw, 2023; Chideridou-Mandari et al., 2016; Cook & Ogden, 2022; Gómez-Marí et al., 2021; Paisley et al., 2023). Most concerningly, Neurodivergence can be seen as threatening resources from those who can achieve neuro-normative standards and, thus, can threaten teachers’ control, self-efficacy, and career progression (Boyle et al., 2020; Cappe et al., 2021; Chan et al., 2018; Crowson & Brandes, 2010). These threats foster negative attitudes towards neurodivergence, especially toward those least understood and included (Jury et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2020; Mulholland et al., 2015). Additionally, this system socialises Neurotypical children to adopt similarly exclusionary views, increasing bullying, social exclusion and, thus, school anxiety (Aubé et al., 2021; Penney, 2013; Sarwono et al., 2020), reinforced by Neurotypical parents who lack the knowledge to model inclusive attitudes (Wilson et al., 2025).

School distress, anxiety and non-attendance are by-products of a system predisposed to failure for certain children, creating negative self-identities through misaligned standards, inaccessible pedagogy, and poor knowledge and attitudes (Adams, MacDonald et al., 2019; Sorrenti et al., 2016; Sorrenti et al., 2019; Williams et al., 2019; Williams-Brown & Jopling, 2021). Without systemic reform, policy tweaks – including mandating support through EHCPS – do little to transform inclusion, which remains contingent on how well children meet neuro-normative standards (Crane et al., 2023; Williams-Brown & Jopling, 2021). Accordingly, many become subject to deficit-oriented monitoring and tokenistic interventions designed to ‘catch up’ to delayed norms (Done & Andrews, 2020). Subsequent labelling of children as ‘SEND’, or ‘other’, becomes a side effect of this rigid system, absolving schools’ responsibility through pathologizing difficulties as unique to a ‘minority’ (Fisher, 2024; Goodall, 2015; Hodkinson, 2012). These narrative faces increasing cognitive dissonance as the rates of SEND increase and such needs become less ‘specialist’ (Marsh, 2023).

In contrast, Finland's decentralised educational model – marked by teacher autonomy and minimal standardised testing and accountability pressures – integrates SEND support as part of inclusive policy, addressing needs early to avoid escalation and reactive labelling (Gilbert et al., 2016; Morgan, 2014; Müller & Hernandez, 2010; van Kessel et al., 2019). Unsurprisingly, this model has been associated with greater academic outcomes, systemic resilience, and educational equity (Hadjar & Uusitalo, 2016; OECD, 2022; Üstün & Eryilmaz, 2018).

Camouflaging – Intersectional Epistemic Injustice

Within a neuro-normative system, camouflaging – minimising differences from neuro-normative expectations (compensation), concealing traits (masking), and blending in despite discomfort (assimilation) – becomes a survival mechanism for many Neurodivergent learners (Hull et al., 2019; Leong & Graichen, 2024). Although conceptualisations of camouflaging require greater refinement within Neurodivergent research, it can be broadly understood as a discrepancy between internal neurocognitive experience and outward behaviour (Lai et al., 2021).

Crucially, camouflaging arises from the need to navigate unsafe or invalidating environments shaped by epistemic injustice, stigma, and minority stress (Ai et al., 2024; Atkinson et al., 2025; Botha & Frost, 2018). For Neurodivergent children, these efforts are intensified by the implicit and inconsistent nature of neuro-normative social expectations, typically revealed only through exclusion, correction, or bullying (Ai et al., 2022). Unsurprisingly, children camouflage less at home, where neuro-normative demands are often reduced (Mullally et al., 2024). In school, however, camouflaging demands significant effort to conform or risk punishment, judgement, and social isolation (Cage & Troxell-Whitman, 2019; Howe et al., 2023; Hull et al., 2017; Kidwell et al., 2023; Poed & Fox, 2023).

Concerningly, camouflaging is often encouraged through school-based interventions which promote neuro-normative conformity, such as social ‘skills’ training (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2017). Yet, it carries significant consequences for school anxiety, self-harm, and suicidality (Atkinson et al., 2025; Cassidy et al., 2018; Chapman et al., 2022). The pressure to maintain a neuro-normative persona leads to anxiety about being discovered (Kidwell et al., 2023). Camouflaging depletes psychological resources necessary to prevent exhaustion and anxiety, while also limiting access to self-regulation strategies that could otherwise reduce anxiety (Hull et al., 2017; Miller et al., 2021). Notably, camouflaging often leads educators to neglect hidden difficulties, resulting in missed diagnoses, unmet needs and, thus, school anxiety (Cook et al., 2018; Crane et al., 2023; Milner et al., 2024).

This ‘slipping through the net’ effect is particularly pertinent for Neurodivergent girls, with a nearly 2:1 disparity in SEND labels compared to boys (Daniel & Wang, 2023). Although camouflaging can emerge across genders, girls often do so more frequently to meet intersecting gender-normative expectations, including emotional sensitivity in relationships (Kreiser & White, 2014; Lai et al., 2016). Notably, identification disparities are greater for needs that are most easily camouflaged, including social, emotional, and mental health, compared to those more visible, including hearing loss (Daniel & Wang, 2023). These effects permeate adulthood, where prolonged camouflaging contributes to delayed diagnosis for many Neurodivergent women (Milner et al., 2024). Camouflaging is compounded by intersectional epistemic injustices, or to evade stigma tied to other marginalised identities, including among non-binary and transgender learners (McQuaid et al., 2022; White et al., 2024). Considering gender is, therefore, crucial to understanding school anxiety and related issues, like identification.

A model of neuro-normative epistemic injustice allows for a holistic exploration of compounding intersectional marginalisation. The education system is shaped by additional epistemic affordances and injustices, including a predominantly white, British, and middle-class curriculum (Omodan, 2023). These curricular biases are underpinned by deeper structural issues in the knowledge base on which education is built. Psychological and educational research remains disproportionately centred on participants from Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies (Krys et al., 2024). Consequently, Neurodivergence research has historically marginalised perspectives from non-Western societies (Bruno et al., 2025) and people of colour (Lovelace et al., 2021), compounding intersecting structural exclusion within education.

Applying an epistemic injustice lens allows for a more nuanced exploration of how intersecting marginalised identities deepen educational disadvantage, particularly through camouflaging and school anxiety (Botha & Gillespie-Lynch, 2022). For instance, intersectional invisibility can arise when individuals are not recognised as representative of either marginalised group, leaving their needs unacknowledged and unmet (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). This often creates a unique burden, such as navigating the tension between conflicting gendered and neuro-normative expectations (Tierney et al., 2016). Without explicit consideration of intersectionality, there is a risk of reproducing historical epistemic harms by flattening the diversity that exists within the umbrella of ‘neurodivergence’ (Botha & Gillespie-Lynch, 2022).

Conclusion – Implications

School anxiety and distress are pervasive and growing issues for many Neurodivergent children (Connolly et al., 2023), yet their systemic roots have been underexplored. Neuro-normative epistemic injustice pervades every aspect of neurodivergence, creating neuro-normative affordances, unmet needs, and school anxiety (Connolly et al., 2023; Legault et al., 2021). Addressing this requires epistemic justice – amplifying Neurodivergent voices in policy, research, and practice while acknowledging intersectionality (Nešić, 2023; Omodan, 2023; Russell & Wilkinson, 2023). This demands a collective openness to reimagining education beyond neuro-normative assumptions, constructed by those with lived experience. Epistemic justice may also help reframe non-attendance as systemic and anxiety-based, thus reducing child blame. In 2024, labour-led initiatives reflected this shift, including a ‘support-first’ approach to non-attendance (Fazackerley, 2024; Gov.UK, 2024c).

However, small policy tweaks alone are insufficient. In 2025, the same proposed initiatives will materialise in tighter home education regulations, adding bureaucratic burdens while continuing to overlook school distress as system-induced (UK Parliament, 2025). The problem lies less in the how to implement inclusivity – an area evidenced by international models like Finland and extensive lived experiences – but rather in the lack of political and institutional will to centre inclusion and decentralised neuro-normativity at its structural roots (Stanbridge, 2024). This resistance is upheld by a system which places immense pressure on meeting neuro-normative standards, restricting teacher knowledge and attitudes, and rendering camouflaging a survival response (Chapman et al., 2022; Gidlund, 2017; Williams-Brown & Jopling, 2021). Even as evidence grows for microsystem interventions that can meaningfully reduce school anxiety for Neurodivergent learners – such as trauma-informed, relational, and flexible curricula (Day, 2025; Zilli et al., 2020) – structural limitations significantly curtail agency to implement these approaches (Botha, 2021; Williams-Brown & Jopling, 2021).

Meaningful reform, therefore, requires a fundamental shift is required in how we value and conceptualise education, neurodiversity, and inclusivity – one that views struggling children not as pathological outliers, but as indicators of systemic dysfunction. This requires significant commitment and pressure placed from all stakeholders for system reform. Researchers play a crucial role in catalysing this reconceptualization, by challenging fragmented insights and acknowledging the intersectional network of neuro-normative epistemic injustice within the education system (Fricker, 2007; Omodan, 2023). Without attention to these systemic dynamics, research risks creating shallow or, even, harmful ‘evidence-based’ practices, such as behavioural interventions to non-attendance deemed as ‘refusal’ (Adams et al., 2022).

Only through this paradigm shift and coordinated pressure can we begin the reform of educational systems towards true inclusivity. While our focus has been on the UK, we urge international researchers to examine how neuro-normativity and systemic injustice shape school anxiety in their own contexts.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

With thanks to the Neurodivergent individuals, parents, and teachers whose voices and feedback informed this commentary.

ORCID iDs

Emmie Fisher

Keren MacLennan

Sinéad Mullally

Jacqui Rodgers

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

ACARA. (2024). School attendance. ACARA National Student Attendance Data Collection. https://www.acara.edu.au/reporting/national-report-on-schooling-in-australia/student-attendance

Adams

MacDonald

Keen

(2019). Teacher responses to anxiety-related behaviours in students on the autism spectrum. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 86, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.12.009

Adams

McLucas

Mitchelson

Simpson

Dargue

(2022). Form, function and feedback on the school refusal assessment scale-revised in children on the autism spectrum. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 52(5), 2156–2167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-05107-4

Adams

Simpson

Keen

(2020). Exploring anxiety at home, school, and in the students community through self-report from children on the autism spectrum. Autism Research, 13(4), 603–614. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2246

Adams

Young

Keen

(2019). Anxiety in children with autism at school: A systematic review. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 6, 274–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-019-00172-z

Cunningham

W. A.

Lai

M. C.

(2022). Reconsidering autistic ‘camouflaging’ as transactional impression management. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(8), 631–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.05.002

Cunningham

W. A.

Lai

M. C.

(2024). Camouflaging, internalized stigma, and mental health in the general population. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 70(7), 1239–1253. https://doi.org/10.1177/00207640241260020

Ambrose

Simpson

Adams

(2021). The relationship between social and academic outcomes and anxiety for children and adolescents on the autism spectrum: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 90, 102086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102086

Ambrose

Simpson

Adams

(2024). Using Q-sort method to explore autistic students’ views of the impacts of their anxiety at school. Autism, 28(10), 2462–2477. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613241231607

10.

Anderson-Chavarria

(2022). The autism predicament: Models of autism and their impact on autistic identity. Disability & Society, 37(8), 1321–1341. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2021.1877117

11.

Atkinson

Wright

Wood-Downie

(2025). “Do my friends only like the school me or the true me?”: School belonging, camouflaging, and anxiety in autistic students. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-024-06668-w

12.

Aubé

Follenfant

Goudeau

Derguy

(2021). Public stigma of autism spectrum disorder at school: Implicit attitudes matter. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 51, 1584–1597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04635-9

13.

Billington

Loucas

Knott

(2024). “I liked school, but school didn’t like me”: Autistic young adults’ reflections on their mainstream primary school experiences. Neurodiversity, 2. https://doi.org/10.1177/27546330241310174

14.

Bodfield

K. S.

Culshaw

(2023). The place for diagnosis in the UK education system? Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 28(4), 316–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2024.2316398

15.

Bodycote

(2022). An exploration of the experiences of parents who seek to resolve school attendance problems and barriers [Doctoral dissertation]. De Montfort University, Publication No. 365099014. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Beth-Bodycote/publication/365099014_An_Exploration_of_the_Experiences_of_Parents_Who_Seek_to_Resolve_School_Attendance_Problems_and_Barriers/links/6364fc712f4bca7fd0301b5d/An-Exploration-of-the-Experiences-of-Parents-Who-Seek-to-Resolve-School-Attendance-Problems-and-Barriers.pdf

16.

Botha

(2021). Critical realism, community psychology, and the curious case of autism: A philosophy and practice of science with social justice in mind. Journal of Community Psychology, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.2276

17.

Botha

Frost

D. M.

(2018). Extending the minority stress model to understand mental health problems experienced by the autistic population. Society and Mental Health, 10(1), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156869318804297

18.

Botha

Gillespie-Lynch

(2022). Come as you are: Examining autistic identity development and the neurodiversity movement through an intersectional lens. Human Development, 66(2), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1159/000524123

19.

Bottema-Beutel

Park

Kim

S. Y.

(2017). Commentary on social skills training curricula for individuals with ASD: Social interaction, authenticity, and stigma. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48, 953–964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3400-1

20.

Boujut

Popa-Roch

Palomares

E. A.

Dean

Cappe

(2017). Self-efficacy and burnout in teachers of students with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 36, 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2017.01.002

21.

Bowers

J. S.

(2020). Reconsidering the evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative methods of reading instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 32(3), 681–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09515-y

22.

Boyle

(2011). Making the world go away, and how psychology and psychiatry benefit. In Rapley

Moncrieff

Dillon

(Eds.), De-medicalizing misery: Psychiatry, psychology and the human condition (pp. 27–43). Palgrave Macmillan UK.

23.

Boyle

Anderson

Allen

K. A.

(2020). The importance of teacher attitudes to inclusive education. In Boyle

Anderson

Page

Mavropoulou

(Eds.), Studies in inclusive education (1st ed., pp. 127–146). Brill.

24.

Brady

Wilson

(2021). Teacher wellbeing in England: Teacher responses to school-level initiatives. Cambridge Journal of Education, 51(1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2020.1775789

25.

Brettel

Viénot

Mollon

J. D.

(1997). Computerized simulation of color appearance for dichromats. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 14(10), 2647–2655. https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.14.002647

26.

Bronfenbrenner

(1994). Ecological models of human development. In Husen

T. T.

Postlethwaite

T. N.

(Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp. 37–43). Elsevier.

27.

Bruno

Lindblom

Masternes

J. A.

Tupou

Waisman

T. C.

Toby

Vining

Magiati

(2025). Global Indigenous perspectives on autism and autism research: Colonialism, cultural insights and ways forward. Autism, 29(2), 275–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613251318399

28.

Bueter

(2019). Epistemic injustice and psychiatric classification. Philosophy of Science, 86(5), 1064–1074. https://doi.org/10.1086/705443

29.

Bury

S. M.

Hedley

Uljarević

Gal

(2020). The autism advantage at work: A critical and systematic review of current evidence. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 105, 103750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103750

30.

Busby

Ingram

Bowron

Oliver

Lyons

(2012). Teaching elementary children with autism: Addressing teacher challenges and preparation needs. The Rural Educator, 33(2), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v33i2.416

31.

Cage

Troxell-Whitman

(2019). Understanding the reasons, contexts and costs of camouflaging for autistic adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(5), 1899–1911. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-03878-x

32.

Cappe

Poirier

Engelberg

Boujut

(2021). Comparison of teachers in France and in Quebec working with autistic students: Self-efficacy, stress, social support, coping, and burnout. Teaching and Teacher Education, 98, 103244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103244

33.

Cassidy

Bradley

Shaw

Baron-Cohen

(2018). Risk markers for suicidality in autistic adults. Molecular Autism, 9, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-018-0226-4

34.

Catala

(2020). Metaepistemic injustice and intellectual disability: A pluralist account of epistemic agency. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 23(5), 755–776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-020-10120-0

35.

Catala

Faucher

Poirier

(2021). Autism, epistemic injustice, and epistemic disablement: A relational account of epistemic agency. Synthese, 199(3), 9013–9039. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03192-7

36.

Chan

K. L.

C. K.

(2018). Associating disabilities, school environments, and child victimization. Child Abuse & Neglect, 83, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.07.001

37.

Chapman

(2021). Neurodiversity and the social ecology of mental functions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1360–1372. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620959833

38.

Chapman

Rose

Hull

Mandy

(2022). “I want to fit in…but I don’t want to change myself fundamentally”: A qualitative exploration of the relationship between masking and mental health for autistic teenagers. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 99, 102069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2022.102069

39.

Chideridou-Mandari

Padeliadu

Karamatsouki

Sandravelis

Karagiannidis

(2016). Secondary mathematics teachers: What they know and don't know about dyscalculia. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 15(9), 84–98. http://www.ijlter.myres.net/index.php/ijlter/article/view/896

40.

Chown

Annable

J. L.

Beardon

Howard

(2023). A response to the terms in Shah et al.'s ‘neurodevelopmental disorders and neurodiversity: Definition of terms from Scotland's National Autism Implementation Team’. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 222(4), 157–159. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2022.153

41.

Connolly

S. E.

Constable

H. L.

Mullally

S. L.

(2023). School distress and the school attendance crisis: A story dominated by neurodivergence and unmet need. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14, 1237052. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1237052

42.

Cook

Ogden

(2022). Challenges, strategies and self-efficacy of teachers supporting autistic pupils in contrasting school settings: A qualitative study. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 37(3), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2021.1878659

43.

Cook

Ogden

Winstone

(2018). Friendship motivations, challenges and the role of masking for girls with autism in contrasting school settings. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 33(3), 302–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2017.1312797

44.

Costley

Emerson

Ropar

Sheppard

(2021). The anxiety caused by secondary schools for autistic adolescents: In their own words. Education Sciences, 11(11), 726. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110726

45.

Crane

Davies

Fritz

Portman

O’brien

Worsley

Remington

(2023). ‘I can’t say that anything has changed’: Parents of autistic young people (16–25 years) discuss the impact of the Children and Families Act in England and Wales. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1250018. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1250018

46.

Crowson

H. M.

Brandes

J. A.

(2010). Predicting community opposition to inclusion in schools: The role of social dominance, contact, intergroup anxiety, and economic conservatism. The Journal of Psychology, 144(2), 121–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980903472151

47.

Daniel

Wang

(2023). Gender differences in special educational needs identification. Review of Education, 11(3), e3437. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3437

48.

Day

A. M.

(2025). Kids ‘at risk’ of school exclusion and youth justice involvement? Or neurodivergent children and families in need of trauma-informed support? Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2025.2499788

49.

Department for Education. (2023, September). Development matters. Gov.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/development-matters–2

50.

Dinishak

(2021). Autistic autobiography and hermeneutical injustice. Metaphilosophy, 52(5), 556–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/meta.12514

51.

Done

E. J.

Andrews

M. J.

(2020). How inclusion became exclusion: Policy, teachers and inclusive education. Journal of Education Policy, 35(4), 447–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2018.1552763

52.

Doyle

(2020). Neurodiversity at work: A biopsychosocial model and the impact on working adults. British Medical Bulletin, 135(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldaa021

53.

Dunne

(2023). Epistemic injustice in education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 55(3), 285–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2022.2139238

54.

Dwyer

(2022). The neurodiversity approach (es): What are they and what do they mean for researchers? Human Development, 66(2), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1159/000523723

55.

Education Support. (2022). Teacher wellbeing index. https://www.educationsupport.org.uk/media/zoga2r13/teacher-wellbeing-index-2022.pdf

56.

Fazackerley

(2024, July 20). English schools to phase out ‘cruel’ behaviour rules as Labour plans major education changes. The Observer. https://www.theguardian.com/education/article/2024/jul/20/english-schools-to-phase-out-cruel-behaviour-rules-as-labour-plans-major-education-changes

57.

Fielding

Streeter

Riby

D. M.

Hanley

(2025). Neurodivergent Pupils’ experiences of school distress and attendance difficulties. Neurodiversity, 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/27546330251327056

58.

Fisher

(2023). The side effects of school. The Buckingham Journal of Education, 4(1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.5750/tbje.v4i1.2139

59.

Fisher

(2024). What does neurodiversity really imply for education? The Psychologist. https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/what-does-neurodiversity-really-imply-education

60.

Fricker

(2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.

61.

García-Fernández

J. M.

Inglés

C. J.

Martínez-Monteagudo

M. C.

Redondo

(2008). Assessment and treatment of school anxiety in childhood and adolescence. Conductual, 16, 413–437. https://doi.org/10.5093/ed2013a5

62.

Gidlund

(2017). Why teachers find it difficult to include students with EBD in mainstream classes. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(4), 441–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1370739

63.

Gilbert

Moilanen

Saukkonen

(2016). Perspectives on accountability in education: Local democracy versus national regulation. In Raiker

Rautiainen

(Eds.), Educating for democracy in England and Finland (pp. 103–118). Routledge.

64.

Glazzard

(2014). Paying the price for being inclusive: The story of marshlands. Support for Learning, 29(1), 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12043

65.

Goldberg

(2023). Unraveling neurodiversity: Insights from neuroscientific perspectives. Encyclopedia, 3(3), 972–980. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia3030070

66.

Gómez-Marí

Sanz-Cervera

Tárraga-Mínguez

(2021). Teachers’ knowledge regarding autism spectrum disorder (ASD): A systematic review. Sustainability, 13(9), 5097. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095097

67.

Goodall

(2015). How do we create ASD-friendly schools? A dilemma of placement. Support for Learning, 30(4), 305–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12104

68.

Goodall

(2018). ‘I felt closed in and like I couldn’t breathe’: A qualitative study exploring the mainstream educational experiences of autistic young people. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments, 3, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2396941518804407

69.

Goodall

(2019). ‘There is more flexibility to meet my needs’: Educational experiences of autistic young people in Mainstream and Alternative Education Provision. Support for Learning, 34(1), 4–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12236

70.

Gov.UK. (2014, June). SEND code of practice: 0 to 25 years. Department for Education. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-code-of-practice-0-to-25

71.

Gov.UK. (2022, December). Tribunal statistics quarterly: July to September 2022. Ministry of Justice. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/tribunal-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2022/tribunal-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2022

72.

Gov.UK. (2023, October). Key stage 1 and phonics screening check attainment. Department for Education. https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/key-stage-1-and-phonics-screening-check-attainment

73.

Gov.UK. (2024a, August). Pupil absence in schools in England: Autumn term 2023/24. Department for Education. https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/pupil-absence-in-schools-in-england

74.

Gov.UK. (2024b, February). Working lives of teachers and leaders: wave 2 summary report. Department for Education. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/working-lives-of-teachers-and-leaders-wave-2/working-lives-of-teachers-and-leaders-wave-2-summary-report

75.

Gov.UK. (2024c, July). The King’s Speech 2024: What does it mean for education? Department for Education. https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2024/07/18/the-kings-speech-2024-what-does-it-mean-for-education/

76.

Gov.UK. (2024d, March). 2024 phonics screening check: administration guidance. Standards and Testing Agency. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/key-stage-1-phonics-screening-check-administration-guidance/2024-phonics-screening-check-administration-guidance#participating-pupils

77.

Gov.UK. (2025, January). Parental responsibility measures. Department for Education. https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/parental-responsibility-measures/2023-24

78.

Gray

Hill

Pellicano

(2023). “He’s shouting so loud but nobody’s hearing him”: A multi-informant study of autistic pupils’ experiences of school non-attendance and exclusion. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments, 8. https://doi.org/10.1177/23969415231207816

79.

Hacking

(2009). Autistic autobiography. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1522), 1467–1473. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0329

80.

Hadjar

Uusitalo

(2016). Education systems and the dynamics of educational inequalities in low educational attainment: A closer look at England (UK), Finland, Luxembourg, and German-speaking Switzerland. European Societies, 18(3), 264–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2016.1172719

81.

Hodkinson

(2012). Inclusion “all present and correct?” A critical analysis of New Labour’s inclusive education policy in England. Journal of Critical Education Policy Studies, 11(4), 242–262. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1033335

82.

Howe

S. J.

Hull

Sedgewick

Hannon

McMorris

C. A.

(2023). Understanding camouflaging and identity in autistic children and adolescents using photo- elicitation. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 108, 102232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2023.102232

83.

Howell

Bradshaw

Langdon

P. E.

(2022). ‘There isn’t a checklist in the world that’s got that on it’: Special needs teachers’ opinions on the assessment and teaching priorities of pupils on the autism spectrum. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 26(1), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/174462952097290

84.

Hull

Mandy

Lai

M. C.

Baron-Cohen

Allison

Smith

Petrides

K. V.

(2019). Development and validation of the camouflaging autistic traits questionnaire (CAT-Q). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49, 819–833. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3792-6

85.

Hull

Petrides

K. V.

Allison

Smith

Baron-Cohen

Lai

M. C.

Mandy

(2017). “Putting on my best normal”: Social camouflaging in adults with autism spectrum conditions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47, 2519–2534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3166-5

86.

Humphrey

Lewis

(2008). ‘Make me normal’ the views and experiences of pupils on the autistic spectrum in mainstream secondary schools. Autism, 12(1), 23–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361307085267

87.

Hutchings

Kazmi

(2015). Exam factories? The impact of accountability measures on children and young people. National Union of Teachers. https://schoolsweek.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Exam-factories.pdf

88.

Hutton

Cappellini

(2022). Epistemic in/justice: Towards ‘other’ ways of knowing. Marketing Theory, 22(2), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/14705931221076563

89.

Jaswal

V. K.

Akhtar

(2019). Being versus appearing socially uninterested: Challenging assumptions about social motivation in autism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 42, e82. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X18001826

90.

Jones

K. E.

Hanley

Riby

M. D.

(2020). Distraction, distress and diversity: Exploring the impact of sensory processing differences on learning and school life for pupils with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 72, 101515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2020.101515

91.

Jury

Perrin

A. L.

Desombre

Rohmer

(2021). Teachers’ attitudes toward the inclusion of students with autism spectrum disorder: Impact of students’ difficulties. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 83, 101746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2021.101746

92.

Keville

Zormati

Shahid

Osborne

Ludlow

A. K.

(2023). Parent perspectives of children with selective mutism and co-occurring autism. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 70(7), 1251–1261. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2023.2173835

93.

Kidwell

K. E.

Clancy

R. L.

Fisher

G. G.

(2023). The devil you know versus the devil you don’t: Disclosure versus masking in the workplace. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16(1), 55–60. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.101

94.

Kourti

(2021). A critical realist approach on autism: Ontological and epistemological implications for knowledge production in autism research. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 713423. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.713423

95.

Kreiser

N. L.

White

S. W.

(2014). ASD In females: Are we overstating the gender difference in diagnosis? Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 17, 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-013-0148-9

96.

Krueger

J. W.

Maiese

(2018). Mental institutions, habits of mind, and an extended approach to autism. Psychopathology and Philosophy in Relation to the Existence of Human Being, 6, 10–41. https://doi.org/10.13136/thau.v6i0.90

97.

Krys

de Almeida

Wasiel

Vignoles

V. L.

(2024). WEIRD–Confucian comparisons: Ongoing cultural biases in psychology’s evidence base and some recommendations for improving global representation. American Psychologist, 80(2), 247–263. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001298

98.

Lai

M. C.

Hull

Mandy

Chakrabarti

Nordahl

C. W.

Lombardo

M. V.

Ameis

S. H.

Szatmari

Baron-Cohen

Happé

Livingston

L. A.

(2021). Commentary: ‘Camouflaging’in autistic people–reflection on Fombonne (2020). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 62(8), 1037–1041. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13344

99.

Lai

M. C.

Lombardo

M. V.

Ruigrok

A. N.

Chakrabarti

Auyeung

Szatmari

Happé

Baron-Cohen

, & MRC AIMS Consortium. (2016). Quantifying and exploring camouflaging in men and women with autism. Autism, 21(6), 690–702. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361316671012

100.

Legault

Bourdon

J. N.

Poirier

(2019). Neurocognitive variety in neurotypical environments: The source of “deficit” in autism. Journal of Behavioral and Brain Science, 9(6), 246–272. https://doi.org/10.4236/jbbs.2019.96019

101.

Legault

Bourdon

J. N.

Poirier

(2021). From neurodiversity to neurodivergence: The role of epistemic and cognitive marginalization. Synthese, 199(5), 12843–12868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03356-5

102.

Legault

Catala

Poirier

(2024). Breaking the stigma around autism: Moving away from neuronormativity using epistemic justice and 4E cognition. Synthese, 204(3), 84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-024-04730-9

103.

Lehane

(2017). “SEN’s completely different now”: Critical discourse analysis of three “codes of practice for special educational needs” (1994, 2001, 2015). Educational Review, 69(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2016.1237478

104.

Leong

Graichen

(2024). Decentering neuronormativity: A transactional analysis impasse theory perspective for understanding ADHD masking and authentically honoring the Da Vinci archetype within. Transactional Analysis Journal, 54(1), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/03621537.2024.2286581

105.

Lilley

(2013). It’s an absolute nightmare: Maternal experiences of enrolling children diagnosed with autism in primary school in Sydney, Australia. Disability & Society, 28(4), 514–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.717882

106.

Lovelace

T. S.

Comis

M. P.

Tabb

J. M.

Oshokoya

O. E.

(2021). Missing from the narrative: A seven-decade scoping review of the inclusion of black autistic women and girls in autism research. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 15(4), 1093–1105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00654-9

107.

Zou

Chen

Pang

(2020). Knowledge, attitude and professional self-efficacy of Chinese mainstream primary school teachers regarding children with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 72, 101513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2020.101513

108.

Marsh

A. J.

(2023). Education health and care plans (EHCPs) and statements in England: A 20 year sustainability review. Educational Psychology in Practice, 39(4), 457–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2023.2237879

109.

McDougal

Riby

D. M.

Hanley

(2020). Teacher insights into the barriers and facilitators of learning in autism. Research in Autism spectrum Disorders, 79, 101674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2020.101674

110.

McQuaid

G. A.

Lee

N. R.

Wallace

G. L.

(2022). Camouflaging in autism spectrum disorder: Examining the roles of sex, gender identity, and diagnostic timing. Autism, 26(2), 552–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613211042131

111.

Miller

Rees

Pearson

(2021). “Masking is life”: Experiences of masking in autistic and nonautistic adults. Autism in Adulthood, 3(4), 330–338. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2020.0083

112.

Milner

Colvert

Hull

Cook

Ali

Mandy

Happé

(2024). Does camouflaging predict age at autism diagnosis? A comparison of autistic men and women. Autism Research, 17(3), 626–636. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.3059

113.

Milton

D. E.

(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

114.

Milton

D. E.

(2014). Autistic expertise: A critical reflection on the production of knowledge in autism studies. Autism, 18(7), 794–802. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361314525281

115.

Milton

Gurbuz

López

(2022). The ‘double empathy problem’: Ten years on. Autism, 26(8), 1901–1903. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613221129123

116.

Morgan

(2014). Review of research: The education system in Finland: A success story other countries can emulate. Childhood Education, 90(6), 453–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2014.983013

117.

Mortimore

(2023). Ofsted: The case for reform. FORUM, 65(3), 22–34. https://doi.org/10.3898/forum.2023.65.3.03

118.

Mulholland

S. M.

Cumming

T. M.

Jung

J. Y.

(2015). Teacher attitudes towards students who exhibit ADHD-type behaviours. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 15–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2014.18

119.

Mullally

S. L.

Connolly

S. E.

(2025). “I felt shamed and blamed”: An exploration of the parental lived experience of school distress. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 16, 1489316. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1489316

120.

Mullally

S. L.

Wood

A. E.

Edwards

C. C.

Connolly

S. E.

Constable

Watson

Rodgers

Rose

King

(2024). Autistic voice: Sharing autistic children's experiences and insights. medRxiv.

121.

Müller

Hernández

(2010). On the geography of accountability: Comparative analysis of teachers’ experiences across seven European countries. Journal of Educational Change, 11, 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-009-9126-x

122.

Nešić

(2023). Affording autistic persons epistemic justice. In Cekic

(Ed.), Virtues and vices between ethics and epistemology (1st ed., pp. 343–360). University of Belgrade.

123.

Norwich

Black

(2015). The placement of secondary school students with statements of special educational needs in the more diversified system of English secondary schooling. British Journal of Special Education, 42(2), 128–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12097

124.

Novita

(2016). Secondary symptoms of dyslexia: A comparison of self-esteem and anxiety profiles of children with and without dyslexia. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31(2), 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2015.1125694

125.

OECD. (2022). PISA 2022 results (volume 1). The State of Learning and Equity in Education. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2022-results-volume-i_53f23881-en.html

126.

Omodan

B. I.

(2023). Unveiling epistemic injustice in education: A critical analysis of alternative approaches. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 8(1), 100699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100699

127.

Ozsivadjian

Knott

Magiati

(2012). Parent and child perspectives on the nature of anxiety in children and young people with autism spectrum disorders: A focus group study. Autism, 16(2), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361311431703

128.

Page

T. M.

(2015). Common pressures, same results? Recent reforms in professional standards and competences in teacher education for secondary teachers in England, France and Germany. Journal of Education for Teaching, 41(2), 180–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2015.1011900

129.

Paisley

C. A.

Eldred

S. W.

Cawley

Tomeny

T. S.

(2023). Teacher-reported classroom strategies and techniques for students with autism spectrum disorder. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 38(3), 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357622112548

130.

Penney

S. C.

(2013). Qualitative investigation of school-related issues affecting individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and co-occurring anxiety and/or depression. Autism Insights, 2013(5), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.4137/AUI.S10746

131.

Perepa

(2014). Cultural basis of social ‘deficits’ in autism spectrum disorders. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(3), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2014.908024

132.

Poed

Fox

R. A.

(2023). Identifying and removing ableism from Tier 1 school-wide positive behaviour support practices. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 69(1), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2022.2111969

133.

Purdie-Vaughns

Eibach

R. P.

(2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59, 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4

134.

Ravet

(2018). ‘But how do I teach them?’: Autism & initial teacher education (ITE). International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(7), 714–733. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1412505

135.

Rietveld

Denys

Van Westen

(2018). Ecological-enactive cognition as engaging with a field of relevant affordances. In Newen

De Bruin

Gallagher

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of 4E cognition (1st ed., pp. 41–70). Oxford University Press.

136.

Rodríguez

A. M. R.

Sánchez

J. A.

(2022). Epistemic injustice in the education of people with mental disabilities. Educação and Realidade, 47(1), e116051. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-6236116051vs02

137.

Rolfe

(2019). Models of SEND: The impact of political and economic influences on policy and provision. British Journal of Special Education, 46(4), 423–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12284

138.

Russell

Wilkinson

(2023). Co-opting the “neuro” in neurodiversity and the complexities of epistemic injustice. Cortex, 169, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2023.09.002

139.

Sarwono

A. Y.

Murtono

Widianto

(2020). The teacher's role in developing student social attitudes. International Journal of Elementary Education, 4(3), 384–391. https://doi.org/10.23887/ijee.v4i3.28684

140.

Scully

J. L.

(2018). From “she would say that, wouldn't she?” to “does she take sugar?” epistemic injustice and disability. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 11(1), 106–124. https://doi.org/10.3138/ijfab.11.1.106

141.

Shah

P. J.

Boilson

Rutherford

Prior

Johnston

Maciver

Forsyth

(2022). Neurodevelopmental disorders and neurodiversity: Definition of terms from Scotland's National Autism Implementation Team. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 221(3), 577–579. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2022.43

142.

Sorrenti

Filippello

Orecchio

Buzzai

(2016). Learned helplessness and learning goals: role played in school refusal. a study on Italian students. Mediterranean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.6092/2282-1619/2016.4.1235

143.

Sorrenti

Spadaro

Mafodda

A. V.

Scopelliti

Orecchio

Filippello

(2019). The predicting role of school Learned helplessness in internalizing and externalizing problems - An exploratory study in students with Specific Learning Disorder. Mediterranean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.6092/2282-1619/2019.7.2035

144.

Spector

J. E.

(2011). Sight word instruction for students with autism: An evaluation of the evidence base. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41, 1411–1422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-010-1165-x

145.

Stanbridge

(2024). We don’t need just SEND reform, we need a SEND revolution. Who’s in? EdPsychEd. https://www.edpsyched.co.uk/blog/we-don-t-need-send-reform-we-need-a-send-revolution

146.

Tian

Rautiainen

(2024). Academies in England and independent schools in Finland: A distributed leadership perspective. Education Sciences, 14(12), 1376. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14121376

147.

Tierney

Burns

Kilbey

(2016). Looking behind the mask: Social coping strategies of girls on the autistic spectrum. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 23, 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2015.11.013

148.

Tøssebro

(2004). Introduction to the special issue: Understanding disability. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 2(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/15017410409512635

149.

UK Parliament. (2025, February). Scrutiny of the children’s wellbeing and schools bill. Education Bill. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5901/cmselect/cmeduc/732/report.html#:∼:text=The%20Bill's%20timetable%20has%20been,support%20for%20children%20in%20care

150.

U.S. Department of Education. (2025, January). Chronic absenteeism. Office of Communications and Outreach (OCO). https://www.ed.gov/teaching-and-administration/supporting-students/chronic-absenteeism

151.

Üstün

Eryilmaz

(2018). Analysis of Finnish education system to question the reasons behind Finnish success in PISA. Studies in Educational Research and Development, 2(2), 93–114. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED591431

152.

Van Kessel

Walsh

Ruigrok

A. N.

Holt

Yliherva

Kärnä

Moilanen

Hjörne

Johansson

T. S.

Schendel

Pedersen

Jørgensen

Brayne

Baron-Cohen

Roman-Urrestarazu

(2019). Autism and the right to education in the EU: Policy mapping and scoping review of Nordic countries Denmark, Finland, and Sweden. Molecular Autism, 10, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-019-0290-4

153.

Wadman

Glazebrook

Beer

Jackson

G. M.

(2016). Difficulties experienced by young people with Tourette syndrome in secondary school: A mixed methods description of self, parent and staff perspectives. BMC psychiatry, 16, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-.0717-9

154.

Waters

Palmer

(2023). Ofsted suicides: Who is responsible for suicide prevention? Journal of Public Mental Health, 22(4), 194–201. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPMH-06-2023-0051

155.

White

L. C.

Ixqe

K. V.

Goodall

Gillespie-Smith

(2024). Minority stress, camouflaging, and mental health outcomes in transgender and/or non-binary autistic adults. Autism in Adulthood. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2023.0151

156.

Williams-Brown

Hodkinson

(2020). Development of inclusive education in England: Impact on children with special educational needs and disabilities. In Papa

(Ed.), Handbook on promoting social justice in education (pp. 1561–1583). Springer.

157.

Williams-Brown

Hodkinson

Jopling

(2023). Mission impossible: Inclusive teaching in a standards-driven system. Education 3-13, 52(8), 1464–1476. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2022.2155066

158.

Williams-Brown

Jopling

(2021). Measuring a plant doesn’t help it to grow’: Teacher’s perspectives on the standards agenda in England. Education 3-13, 49(2), 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2020.1717573

159.

Williams

E. I.

Gleeson

Jones

B. E.

(2019). How pupils on the autism spectrum make sense of themselves in the context of their experiences in a mainstream school setting: A qualitative metasynthesis. Autism, 23(1), 8–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361317723836

160.

Wilmot

Pizzey

Leitão

Hasking

Boyes

(2023). Growing up with dyslexia: Child and parent perspectives on school struggles, self-esteem, and mental health. Dyslexia, 29(1), 40–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1729

161.

Wilson

McKinlay

Ballantyne

Toye

M. K.

(2025). Parental beliefs towards the inclusion of autistic children in mainstream schools. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 72(1), 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2024.2337164

162.

Wood

Happé

(2023). Barriers to tests and exams for autistic pupils: Improving access and longer-term outcomes. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 27(5), 603–619. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1866685

163.

Wyse

Torrance

(2009). The development and consequences of national curriculum assessment for primary education in England. Educational Research, 51(2), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880902891479

164.

You

(2017). Comparing school accountability in England and its East Asian sources of ‘borrowing’. Comparative Education, 53(2), 224–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2017.1294652

165.

Zilli

Parsons

Kovshoff

(2020). Keys to engagement: A case study exploring the participation of autistic pupils in educational decision-making at school. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 770–789. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12331

Neuro-Normative Epistemic Injustice – Consequences for the UK Education Crisis and School Anxiety

Abstract

Lay Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Neuro-Normative Epistemic Injustice and Neurodivergence

Navigating Neuro-Normative Affordances Within Education

Neuro-Normative Standards, Knowledge, and Attitudes

Camouflaging – Intersectional Epistemic Injustice

Conclusion – Implications

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

ORCID iDs

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

References