Conceptualisations of neurodiversity and barriers to inclusive pedagogy in schools: A perspective article
Abstract
Teachers agree on the pivotal role of inclusion for social justice, but reductive conceptualisations of neurodiversity as akin to deficit or impairment inhibit the capacity or willingness of teachers to adapt pedagogical strategies to meet diverse student needs. Existing research underscores the association between positive attitudes towards inclusion and effective inclusive practice. Less research focuses on ideological assumptions held by teachers arising from their own experiential narratives or engagement with theories underpinning social equity and neurodiversity as accepted facets of mainstream education. Several factors may influence teacher conceptualisations. Regulatory frameworks for teacher training and development can foster the internalisation of technicist approaches to teaching that are less personalised and responsive to a broad range of pupil needs. Explicit reflection on beliefs, goals and self-perceptions pertaining to teaching practice can broaden conceptualisations and galvanise change, but these aspects are frequently overlooked within teacher education programmes. Further research is needed to increase our understanding of prevailing conceptions and misconceptions of neurodiversity within the education landscape. By challenging societal assumptions of ‘normalcy’, future research should provide conceptual and pedagogical tools to advance understanding of the barriers to inclusive practice in schools and increase teachers' capacity to embrace a more inclusive pedagogical approach.
Key points
- Neurodiversity is a natural and valuable form of human diversity, but current educational practices often focus on diagnosis and conformity rather than embracing differences in thinking and learning.
- Teachers may face challenges in providing inclusive education due to external pressures and regulatory frameworks. Additionally, attitudes and misconceptions about neurodiversity can further impede inclusive education and prevent the adaptation of teaching methods to cater to diverse student needs.
- Combined with a focus on individualised provision of adaptive learning opportunities, teacher education programmes should enable a broader understanding of neurodiversity and inclusion principles, challenging the myth of the ‘normal’ child and preparing all teachers to respond to neurodiverse learners effectively.
- Future research should explore teachers' conceptualizations of neurodiversity, the development of their understanding and the impact on inclusive pedagogy, while considering the perspectives of neurodiverse communities.
THE MYTH OF THE ‘NORMAL’ CHILD
The term ‘neurodiversity’ describes the natural differences in brain structure and function that determine the way individuals receive, process and respond to information about the world (Chapman, 2021a; Singer, 1998). The majority of people are described as ‘neurotypical’, meaning that they have typical neurological development. This contrasts with people whose neurological development and functioning differ from what is considered typical and are sometimes described as being ‘neurodivergent’. This concept is typically associated with conditions such as autism, ADHD, dyslexia, developmental language disorder, dyspraxia, fragile x syndrome and Tourette syndrome. In the UK, there is an increasingly neurodiverse pupil population (Department for Education, 2021a; Russell et al., 2014), with neurodivergent children accounting for up to 10% of all children in England (NICE, 2019). Groups like Autistic UK and the ADHD Foundation, as well as authors such as Steve Silberman and Nick Walker assert that neurodiversity is a natural and valuable form of human diversity. They argue that it should be accepted and valued just like other forms of human diversity such as race, sexuality, gender and culture (Walker, 2014) and that instead of suppressing different ways of thinking, these should be supported and embraced. While the term ‘neurodiversity’ is often associated with neurodevelopmental conditions such as those mentioned, it reflects the social model of disability (Shakespeare & Watson, 1997; Swain et al., 1993) which incorporates a wider range of special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) such as sensory and physical differences. However, while the neurodiversity paradigm has its roots in the experiences of certain neurodivergent populations, perspectives on its application to other forms of SEND vary among individuals and communities. Importantly, it should be recognised that all forms of diversity should be valued and respected, while acknowledging that different perspectives exist.
A substantial body of literature over previous decades has analysed perspectives in the field of inclusive education. Some studies have sought to question the practice of labelling core deficits (Algraigray & Boyle, 2017; Gillman et al., 2000; Hassall, 2017; Lauchlan & Boyle, 2007). One can examine distinctions between an idealised conceptualisation of labelling and a pragmatic implementation. The ideal model, upon which the introduction of the Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP)—a core component of England's Children and Families Act (2014)—is founded, is predicated on a needs-based approach, whereby labelling should enable the provision of appropriate learning opportunities, additional support and greater awareness. However, the practical application of this approach encounters challenges, notably when a formal diagnosis is absent, thereby precluding the provision of an EHCP. Despite efforts to advocate for the idealised approach, the educational landscape has yet to fully align with this vision, as evidenced by substantial reports of needs going unmet within mainstream educational settings, or only being met after behaviours reach crisis point (Boesley & Crane, 2018) and elevated rates of exclusions (Aitken & Wang, 2019; Brede et al., 2017; Chapman, 2023).
One perspective is that an emphasis on ‘core deficits’ with the associated practice of labelling places restoration to ‘normalcy’ as its goal. Present practices used in the identification of these ‘core deficits’ are fraught with limitations, often resulting in assessments of need that are only partially accurate. This in turn can lead to failure to identify barriers or understand the heterogeneity of the pupil population with multiple overlapping characteristics and can therefore waste time and resources (Baglieri et al., 2011). Co-occurring conditions are common (Joshi et al., 2017) and clustering approaches using neural data demonstrate the futility of diagnostic labels to capture meaningfully homogenous groups (Astle et al., 2022). While some boundaries between categorisations in the DSM-5 (APA, 2013) have been relaxed, diagnostic categories often provide the foundations for research and frame conceptual thinking. The proposal in the recent government green paper ‘SEND review: Right support, Right Place, Right time’ (DfE, 2022) to band levels of need, indicates continued reliance on core elements of diagnostic categories, and a risk of under-recognising heterogeneity.
Translated into practice, guided by the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Code of Practice (2014) in England, schools must implement a graduated approach to support, addressing individual needs and taking a flexible and inclusive approach. However, in many cases, specialist support is often provided only after a specific diagnosis. This is problematic, not only due to socioeconomic inequality in diagnosis (Baird et al., 2006; Kelly et al., 2019) but also the reliance on school-based interventions derived from diagnostic criteria (e.g. social skills training) that impose pupil conformity to normative expectations (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2018) and can sometimes lead to damaging consequences for mental health (Botha & Frost, 2020; Dawson, 2004; Humphrey & Lewis, 2008; Rietveld, 2010). Furthermore, children who do not fit the normative ‘ideal child’ (Monk, 2002), are disproportionately likely to be permanently excluded from school (DfE, 2018; Ferguson, 2021), with neurodivergent young people three to six times more likely to be excluded from school (Aitken & Wang, 2019).
While diagnosis is helpful when it results in the provision of additional support, the inherent heterogeneity of neurodevelopmental conditions and the presence of co-occurring factors often elude recognition within diagnostic assessments and EHCPs. Notwithstanding the need for ongoing diagnosis and individualised provision of adaptive learning opportunities and the recognition of the preference by some individuals to self-define in terms of pathologisation (Chapman, 2021b), rather than a complete reliance on diagnosis and treatment, there are many advantages to the neurodiversity approach (Sonuga-Barke & Thapar, 2021). The current paper underscores the need to reconcile with the inadequacies of current governmental funding for diagnostic evaluations and educational support. Considering these constraints, the education system necessitates a strategic re-evaluation, shifting to a more inclusive approach and prompting a search for methodologies through which schools can proactively address the diverse needs of all students. Individualised provision of adaptive learning opportunities can then be framed within a broader context that appreciates and accommodates neurodiversity, creating learning environments that are responsive to individual needs and foster a sense of belonging for all students, regardless of their neurodiverse profiles.
TEACHER CONCEPTUALISATIONS OF NEURODIVERSITY
The European Union Council recommended that schools deliver inclusive education, convey common values, and promote active citizenship while transmitting a sense of belonging and responding to the diverse needs of learners (European Council 2018). While there is general agreement among teachers that inclusion is important for reasons of social justice (Artiles et al., 2021; Polat, 2011), reductive conceptualisations of neurodiversity as analogous to deficit or impairment, or attributing the cause of difficulties as innate, can lead mainstream teachers to show less capacity or willingness to adapt their teaching to cater for all (Brady & Woolfson, 2008; Gillborn, 2015; Orsati & Causton-Theoharis, 2013; Woolfson et al., 2007). A common misunderstanding is that neurodiversity is a synonym for SEND, and the assignment of discrete diagnostic categories. This misinterpretation compromises the potential of the concept of neurodiversity, fails to support a transformational shift in behaviour and further reinforces stigma applied to difference (Chapman, 2021a). A further misrepresentation of neurodiversity is that it is equivalent to a strengths-based model, where diagnostic groups are reconceptualised solely according to abilities rather than challenges. While several researchers have identified particular strengths such as superior information processing in autistic individuals (Pellicano et al., 2006; Shah & Frith, 1983), and heightened creativity, hyperfocus and energy in individuals with ADHD (Mahdi et al., 2017; Sedgwick et al., 2019; White & Shah, 2011), Fletcher-Watson (2022) argues that focusing exclusively on strengths may undermine the potential for a paradigm shift since it attributes value to functional capacities rather than inherently valuing people irrespective of their level of functioning. Instead, a balanced perspective that recognises both strengths and challenges may provide a more holistic understanding of individuals and enable the fostering of environments that nurture their unique abilities. The real strength of neurodiversity is that it values differences between people and accepts and supports unmet needs without judgement or normalisation (Chapman, 2021b; Fletcher-Watson, 2022). In the field of inclusive pedagogy, it is therefore a priority for research to explore teacher conceptualisations (including misinterpretations) of neurodiversity and its relationship to inclusive practice.
Critical disability studies provide insights into the factors that contribute to marginalisation. In particular, they call for a shift in attitudes, policies and practices related to inclusive education, pointing out that inclusive schooling does not yet reflect this approach (Goodley & Runswick-Cole, 2015; Whitburn, 2017). For example, previous studies show how there is a common misconception that an ‘included’ child should change or adjust to fit within the setting (Armstrong et al., 2011; Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Curcic, 2009; Lalvani, 2013; Rietveld, 2010). However, this is a form of ‘micro-exclusion’ (D'Alessio, 2011). Inclusive practice is achieved when the teacher's focus shifts from ‘most children’ to ‘all children’, extending the range of opportunities available to everyone (Alexander, 2004) and recognising that all people are human beings with rights (Rietveld, 2010). Existing research has discovered associations between positive attitudes to dealing with difference in the classroom and effective inclusive practice (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Copfer & Specht, 2014; de Boer et al., 2011; Lautenbach & Heyder, 2019). However, these studies focused on the inclusion of children with SEND, the emphasis being on categorisation of impairments, rather than neurodiversity—natural variation in neurological function—as an accepted feature of mainstream education.
Teacher attitudes are key to inclusive practice (Carlson et al., 2012). There is therefore a need to advance theoretical understanding of anti-essentialist perspectives (i.e. rejection of the concept of ‘normalcy’) of teachers. Neuro-affirmative conceptualisations of difference are needed to tackle ableism (the belief that neurodivergence is inherently negative). Ableism can be uncritically absorbed through micro-exclusion, often at a subconscious level, but this has the effect of ‘othering’ people who are neurodivergent. This is particularly concerning since children's attitudes are significantly shaped by the attitudes of adults in their community (Cologon, 2012, Diamond & Hong, 2010; Hollingsworth & Buysse, 2009). However, knowledge claims from literature focusing on preparing future teachers for student diversity relate to their knowledge of facts and pedagogical strategies (Broomhead, 2013; Kang & Martin, 2018; Rowan et al., 2021). Less research has explored broader socio-critical perspectives on how teachers understand neurodiversity, that is, their ideological assumptions (conceptualisations) that may have arisen from their own previous experiences of school, media, family/friends or from engagement with theories relating to justice, difference and identity.
REGULATION, ACCOUNTABILITY AND TEACHER AGENCY FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
Following teacher training, new teachers often find themselves in school systems with conflicting priorities, including those that actively inhibit systematic change through perpetuating norms of ability that disadvantage marginalised groups (Baglieri et al., 2011; Dudley-Marling & Gurn, 2010; Naraian, 2014). Pressures to compete with other schools, offer student choice, publish examination results and achieve high academic standards lead to marginalisation of certain student groups to meet neoliberal goals of employment and social status. These increasing emphases on standards, excellence and competencies for teachers have led to heavily regulated frameworks for teacher training and development, which are not always conducive to social justice within education (Gerrard & Farrell, 2014). Biesta (2010) asserted we have lost sight of the values or purpose of education which has led to reliance on performativity (i.e. valuing what we can easily measure rather than measuring what we value). An increasing tendency towards technicism contradicts a more pragmatic approach favouring the whole child/class (Moore, 2004). Teachers who assume the role of what Moore refers to as ‘the competent craftsperson’, at the expense of reflective practice, may become resistant to more personalised and responsive teaching. Similarly, ‘evidence-based practice’ in the form of lists of competencies may prevent judgements on educationally desirable courses of action for individual students at particular stages in their educational trajectory, referred to by Biesta (2012) as ‘concrete situated judgments’. Instead, he states that practical wisdom (i.e. phronesis) should be developed whereby teachers can make judgements about what is educationally desirable within their classroom context.
Even teachers with a commitment to social justice may inadvertently contribute to inequity of outcomes from the assimilation of assumptions embedded in their educational context (Allan, 2006; Cook & Ogden, 2021). This can be particularly disconcerting for early career teachers when they transition from teacher training to their first teaching role. Teachers may enter the profession with pedagogical preferences, orientations and dispositions in the way they understand classroom practice (Moore, 2004) and these assumptions may be challenged when the realities of classroom life interact with those pre-existing positions. Difficulties translating inclusive principles into pedagogical practice within complex school systems, together with lack of confidence in how neurodivergent children might be supported leads to what has been termed ‘reality shock’ (Mintz et al., 2020).
Fundamental to the goal of teaching for neurodiversity is the presumption of teacher agency (Anderson, 2010). Teachers who perceive their roles as an agents of change may see schools as sites for promoting social equality (Villegas & Lucas, 2002) rather than as ‘technicians’, applying rules and accepting standard practices. They may exercise their authority to map individual needs to school support and make adjustments that are accessible to all, rather than rely on clinical diagnostic pathways and limiting access to these provisions. In contrast to diagnostic thinking, Susan Hart (1996) described this process as ‘innovative thinking’, that is, analysing our existing understandings to generate new insight that could benefit all children. Pantić's (Pantić, 2015) model of teacher agency for social justice included four components: sense of purpose, competence, autonomy, and reflexivity. However, teachers' agency is influenced by factors that are often beyond their control, and this is particularly the case for early career teachers (Biesta et al., 2015; Greer, 2020). It is therefore essential to explore the obstacles to agency in the enactment of these principles at the start of their careers.
THE ESSENTIAL ROLE OF REFLECTIVE THINKING
Previous research highlights social and psychological factors associated with teachers' beliefs and goals. Kaplan and Garner's Dynamic Systems Model of Role Identity helps us understand that teachers' beliefs and identities are shaped by cultural and social experiences. It follows that these can result in implicit attitudes and assumptions, which may lead to a fixed mindset and/or inhibit systematic change (Britzman, 1986; Lortie, 2020). This is particularly significant when we consider the relatively narrow demographic represented in cohorts of student teachers (ONS, 2022). Attitudes towards diversity (in the broader sense) are often shaped by previous experiences of school, media, family/friends and some teachers show resistance to adopting attitudes that are important for inclusive teaching (Hick et al., 2019). Explicit reflection on beliefs, goals and self-perceptions in relation to practice can broaden conceptualisations and is a useful means to promote change in complex learning environments (Archer, 2000; Bandura, 2001; Kaplan & Garner, 2017); Lunn Brownlee, Ferguson & Ryan, 2017).
By considering various viewpoints—including their own and broader perspectives such as school policies, curricula and social justice agendas—teachers can critically evaluate and adapt their decision making to accommodate certain policies and challenge others (Stillman & Anderson, 2015). This can ultimately lead to tangible changes to classroom practices (Lunn Brownlee et al., 2017; Pantić & Florian, 2015; Ryan & Bourke, 2013). This reflects conceptual change theory, which involves the process of resolving cognitive conflict about one's beliefs and then exposure to different theoretical perspectives, enabling understanding and enactment (Bendixen, 2002; Lunn Brownlee, Ferguson, & Ryan, 2017). Some recent studies explore teachers' positionality within the socio-cultural context of their work (Corcoran et al., 2023), but these insights are under-developed in terms of inclusive practice with diverse learners in teacher education programmes (Hick et al., 2019). An inquiry into research and teacher education by BERA/RSA in 2014 found that in contrast with the other jurisdictions within the UK, England's emphasis on critical reflection has diminished over time, particularly in QTS-only routes, compared to university-based teaching courses.
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON NEURODIVERSITY IN TEACHER EDUCATION
Teacher education programmes vary widely in how they address theories on neurodiversity, inclusion principles and practices (Hick et al., 2019). There are also debates on what this knowledge should entail and how it should be integrated into these programmes (Florian & Camedda, 2020). Broadening student teachers' understanding of theoretical perspectives on diversity1 is an essential element of their training. But often, little space is allocated to this in teacher education programmes (Aronson & Anderson, 2013; Assaf et al., 2010; Gorski, 2012), leading to a narrow outlook on ways learners engage with the world (Brayboy & Maughan, 2009). Some university-based courses add additional content (e.g. SEND or cultural diversity) to existing courses rather than restructuring courses so that diversity is the expected norm (Cochran-Smith & Dudley-Marling, 2012; Florian, 2017). A focus on pedagogy for specific diagnostic categories reinforces the myth of the ‘normal’ and ‘sub-normal’ child (Baglieri et al., 2011) and furthermore perpetuates the inadequacy felt by teachers in increasingly diverse classrooms since it places limitations on who they feel qualified to teach (Florian & Pantic, 2017; Young, 2008). While addressing individual needs and adapting environments are clearly beneficial, partially accurate diagnoses, missed identification of need, systemic barriers of limited resources, long wait times for assessment and inadequate training can hinder effective implementation. On the other hand, neurodiverse approaches emphasise modifying environments and promoting a cultural shift in attitudes towards neurodiversity. These two approaches are not mutually exclusive but can complement each other (Sonuga-Barke & Thapar, 2021). Student teachers should therefore be given the space to consider neurodiversity from a wider critical and social theory perspective, acknowledging that people have a variety of different processing styles, that neurological diversity is a normal part of human variation and is good for society through enabling learning from people with different perspectives (Singer, 1998; Sonuga-Barke & Thapar, 2021).
Florian & Pantić (2017) and Villegas et al. (2017) argue that teacher education should be guided by a broad vision, preparing all teachers, not just specialists, to respond to human differences. It is a fundamental tenet of the National Association of Special Educational Needs (NASEN) that principles and practice of working with diverse learners should be weaved in through teacher education, rather than being addressed as an afterthought. Florian (2017) stressed that a shift away from the idea of specialised responses to learner difficulties towards a focus on extending what is ordinarily available to everyone, while still acknowledging difference represents ‘a subtle change in focus with profound implications for practice’ (p. 16). Theoretical perspectives on diversity do not develop through simple exposure to knowledge about diversity, nor a desire for social justice. Teachers must be enabled to develop and critically reflect on specialist theoretical resources that allow them to act in theoretically informed ways within complex school systems (Gilham & Tompkins, 2016; Naraian, 2014; Philpott, 2014; Seltzer-Kelly et al., 2011). Consolidating critical reflection, experience of diversity during teacher training is also essential. Findings from a longitudinal study from the ‘Initial Teacher Education for Inclusion’ project (TE4I), conducted from 2015-18 (building on the ‘Profile of Inclusive Teachers’ by the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (EASNIE, 2012)), showed that diversity of student teachers' classroom experience correlated with increased understanding, skills, and attitudes for inclusive teaching (Hick et al., 2019).
THE INFLUENCE OF POLICY FRAMEWORKS ON CRITICAL PEDAGOGY
Teacher education providers are tasked with delivering the multiple and often contradictory aims of government policy. Historically, an emphasis on critical pedagogy and teacher autonomy in the post-war years shifted towards a more technical vision of ‘the good teacher’ near the end of the twentieth century. This signalled a shift away from reflective teaching towards the ‘competent craftsperson’ described by Moore (2004)—a model of ‘the effective teacher’ condoned by government agencies. Strengthened further by the 2010 White Paper ‘The Importance of Teaching’ (DfE, 2010), the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove called for the ‘simplification’ of teaching standards. The resulting standards (DfE, 2011) adopted language from corporate managerialism, listing specific auditable competencies focused on what teachers do, in the absence of social or cultural context or indeed how teachers think or the attitudes they hold, and contradicting the view that both functional development and attitudinal development are critical to driving change and improving practice (Evans, 2011).
Furthermore, this shift has led to the proliferation of school-centred teacher education (over 50% of all initial teacher trainees, DfE, 2021b), capitalising on the technicist approach, as opposed to the more critical and reflective approaches offered in higher education institutions. Teachers should be given the autonomy to discover their own best ways of doing things in relation to the neurodiversity represented within the contexts in which they work. Evans (2011) referred to ‘micro level professional development’ whereby teachers discover better ways of teaching through a ‘mental internalisation process’. In other words, rather than professional development that is imposed on teachers, they develop through consciously or unconsciously replacing previously held knowledge/attitudes/skills and increase their professionalism through enactment of ‘better ways’ (Evans, 2011). Similarly, in contrast to the list of competencies laid out in the teaching standards, Korthagen (2017) suggested that professional development should be the process of working towards coherence of core qualities, including mission, identity, beliefs, competencies, behaviour and the environment. This is a value-based model starting with the elements teachers value in their own work and leads to greater autonomy and self-efficacy. Such a model is more open-ended, enabling flexible approaches in contrast to the auditable competencies listed in the Teachers' Standards, that reward managerialism over authentic, constructive understanding of context-dependent relationships with neurodiverse individuals within the classroom.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
There is a growing need for research to challenge misconceptions about neurodiversity in education. By interrogating the prevailing societal constructs underpinning the notion of ‘normalcy’, future research should deliver both conceptual and pedagogical tools to facilitate enhanced understanding of the barriers to inclusive educational practice within school contexts. It should aim to increase the propensity of teachers to internalise and operationalise a pedagogic paradigm that is inherently inclusive in nature. This paper addresses some of the factors that might influence the conceptualisations of neurodiversity by teachers in relation to their teaching practice. But further questions remain: How do teachers develop their understanding of neurodiversity and social justice? To what extent do teachers view students' difficulties as dilemmas for teaching rather than problems within students? How might variation in these factors impact inclusive pedagogy? Knowledge claims from literature focusing on teaching for diversity relate to teachers' acquisition of factual information and pedagogical strategies (Broomhead, 2013; Kang & Martin, 2018; Rowan et al., 2021). This focus neglects broader cognitive constructs pertaining to diversity, notably their perceptual frameworks driven by ideological underpinnings, and how these developed. Reflecting Blanton and Pugach's (2017) call for research to examine teachers' broader conceptualisations of diversity rather than adopting reductionist perspectives, research should therefore advance theoretical understanding of anti-essentialist perspectives of teachers. It should also explore the influences shaping these conceptualisations and barriers to agency in the enactment of inclusive practice within established school structures. Importantly, future research must reflect the priorities and perspectives of people representing neurodiverse communities and explore approaches with an emphasis on longitudinal and ethnographic studies of how new teachers make sense of inclusive teaching in their own practice.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere thanks to Professor Caroline Daly at UCL, Institute of Education and Professor Laura Crane at the University of Birmingham for their significant support and valuable insights throughout the development of an ESRC-funded project from which the ideas in this article originated.
FUNDING INFORMATION
No external funding was received for the development or writing of this paper.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
None.
ETHICS STATEMENT
This article did not involve the collection of any data and, therefore, did not require formal ethics approval. The content presented is based on existing knowledge, literature review, and analysis of publicly available information.
CONFIRMATION OF ORIGINAL WORK
I confirm this is an original work that is not under consideration or published elsewhere. An accesible summary of this work can be found in the British Psychological Society January/February 2024 edition of The Psychologist.
POSITIONALITY STATEMENT
A research fellow in Psychology at an English university, my research focuses on the improvement of access to education for neurodivergent children and young people and embraces a collaborative approach involving partnership with key stakeholders to ensure the inclusion of diverse perspectives. As a parent of autistic young people who have navigated both specialist and mainstream educational settings, I consider myself an ally to the Autistic community. I have worked for three decades in the education sector, spanning roles such as teacher, regulator, lecturer, and researcher. My professional and personal experiences inform the lens through which I approach this multifaceted topic. This essay presents my perspectives as I embark on an ESRC-funded project exploring early career teachers' conceptualisations of neurodiversity and their impact on inclusive practice.
Endnote
Open Research
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data sharing not applicable as no datasets were generated or analysed for this article.
