top of page
Search

Neurodiversity in K-12 Education

Authors: Armando Delgado, Aleister Jones

Editors: Flora Hu, Sariah Burdett


Neurodiversity in K-12 Education


The experiences of neurodivergent students in K-12 education vary widely. Many neurodivergent students are placed in segregated ‘special education’ programs. Others stay in general education and may receive accommodations while in a general education classroom. Segregated ‘gifted’ programs also tend to have a disproportionate number of neurodivergent students, who may excel in some areas and struggle in others. Each situation comes with distinct benefits and challenges, which are only compounded by the wider education system.


Experiences of Neurodivergent Students in Segregated K-12 Education


Many neurodivergent students, particularly those with intellectual disabilities, are placed in segregated “special education” programs for some or all of their time in K-12 education. The amount of time an individual student might spend in a segregated classroom can vary a lot. Some students are in general education classes most of the day but spend some of their time receiving individualized support, while others are in fully separate programs, often housed within a larger public school.

The intent behind such programs is obvious: they provide more individualized support to students struggling in the general education system, including smaller class sizes and teachers who have been trained to work with/accommodate disabled students. These positives do often carry through to student experiences. General education programs are often not prepared to adequately assist disabled students, leaving them struggling and frustrated. In comparison, a segregated environment where some effort is going into meeting their education needs is a big improvement and can lead to both improved school performance and increased enjoyment of learning (Jahnukainen, 2001). In a set of interviews with former special education students in Finland, many cited teachers as one of the biggest impacts on their education. A really good, thoughtful teacher can have a huge impact on a student’s life (Jahnukainen, 2001).

While many students have positive experiences in segregated education, many experience downsides as well. One of the biggest downsides to segregated education programs is labeling/othering. Special education programs are often within larger schools, and the separation of special education students from their peers in general education can lead to exclusion from those in general education when they do interact (Jahnukainen, 2001). This can be particularly pronounced for students that spend some time in a general education classroom and can lead to social isolation from their peers.

On a broader scale, it enforces the construction of disability as something ‘bad’ to be hidden or fixed (Gabel, Cohen, Kotel, & Pearson, 2013). The problem of labeling is present in students’ interactions with adults as well. School faculty may be more likely to assume that problems were caused by students in segregated education, or have lower expectations for students who have been labeled as disabled (Jahnukainen, 2001). It is reasonable to think that being labeled as disabled in a society where disability is seen as a bad thing can have a negative impact on someone’s self-confidence and performance in school, with quantitative studies backing up this idea (Shifrer, 2013).

Some students in segregated education programs also find that classes are less academically rigorous than in general education, to the point of being frustratingly slow. Many students in segregated education need to learn/communicate differently from their peers in general education, but not necessarily at a slower pace. Students may find segregated education more enjoyable/less stressful than general education, but be left unsatisfied with how much they feel they actually learn (Jahnukainen, 2001).

Students in special education programs are also more likely to be subject to abusive practices like restraint and seclusion. In theory, restraint and seclusion are only supposed to be used when a student poses a direct risk to themself or others, but in practice, disabled students are restrained and secluded at alarming rates in situations where no one’s physical safety is at risk. Restraint and seclusion are established to lead to psychological distress, physical injury, and even death, but they continue to be used. Disabled students (or students labeled as disabled) are much more likely than non-disabled students to be restrained or secluded overall, but the risk is highest in segregated special education programs, where almost all students are restrained or secluded at some point during their education (Gage, Pico, & Evanovich, 2020).

There are pros and cons to segregated special education environments, and the experiences of individual students often come down to the specifics of the programs they attend and the educators working with them. Neurodivergent students in segregated programs are more likely to receive individualized support and understanding that can help them succeed in and enjoy school, but they may also face more disability-based discrimination than their peers in general education, including social isolation, decreased expectations, and even physical violence.


Experiences of Neurodivergent Students in Mainstream K-12 Education


The K-12 educational curriculum in the United States encompasses learning standards that differ at each grade level with a concentration on reading, writing, mathematics, and the sciences. Students are evaluated based on their academic progress and the schools, themselves, are evaluated based on meeting expected state and federal targeted assessment scores (U.S. Department of Education, 2021). However, these K-12 educational systems in the United States consist of a general educational curriculum that is designed for neurotypical students. As a result, there is a large disconnect between what K-12 educators know about educating neurodivergent students in general education and what teaching methodologies should be incorporated into practice. This demonstrates that the U.S. educational system favors a curriculum that often overlooks the needs, talents, and qualities of neurodivergent students and rather focuses on a response to the clusters of neurodiverse conditions.

The K-12 educational curriculum categorizes neurodiverse students as having some form of disability or special needs, which in turn depicts human differences as abnormal or misunderstood. This creates social constructs in which the K-12 educational institution separates disabilities and giftedness into separate spheres (Parekh & et al, 2018). Evidently, the school systems implicitly or unconsciously show bias in the classroom setting—a deficit view is shown toward neurodiverse conditions. For instance, Black and Latinx students with disabilities at Morning Sun High School in California were hesitant to ask for accommodations in general education classes; they did not want their disabilities exposed to other students and stand out. (Tefera, 2019). A disability in the educational setting is looked at as an inability. This also demonstrates how K-12 educators show a lack of understanding of the learning experiences for neurodivergent students and their individual strengths. The K-12 educational system in the United States is largely resistant to change and the one-size-fits-all educational approach undermines the multiple identities that neurodiverse students have.

In the realm of K-12 education, the gifted education curriculum is also made up of neurodivergent students. The U.S. educational system classifies a particular group of neurodivergent students as “twice-exceptional learners,” a term used to denote students who have high achievement capability, but also disabilities (Barnard-Brak & et al., 2015). However, this classification for neurodivergent students shows how educators fail to acknowledge both the giftedness and the neurodiversity of the student. It is either that the disability or giftedness is only recognized while the other is overlooked, or both are not recognized (Gierczyk & et al., 2021). These three categorizations show a failure of how the current teaching curriculum fails to focus on the diverse ways in which all students-including neurodivergent students-absorb, process, comprehend, and retain information. It fails to consider the diversity, both physical and neurological, of each student.

Perhaps one solution to the K-12 educational system of the United States is to develop a universal design of learning framework that promotes equity in learning. Neurodivergent students can have multiple access points for accessing the educational information, engaging with the curriculum, and demonstrating the knowledge they have learned. This type of learning framework also expands to all students.


Disability Laws in the K-12 Education System


In the late 1900s and early 2000s, the United States government passed a series of federal laws to ensure neurodivergent students would have equal access to public education and provide a discrimination-free environment in the public, work, and educational areas. These federal laws--Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973--do protect the educational rights of neurodivergent students; however, equity in education has yet to be reached. The laws do not work in unison with one another in the K-12 educational system.

IDEA was constructed to ensure neurodivergent students, specifically those with disabilities, have a right to a free appropriate public education. For a student to receive services under IDEA they must be “…identified by a team of professionals as having a disability that adversely affects academic performance and as being in need of special education and related services.” (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021) This federal mandate ensures that students with disabilities have their educational needs met in a “special education” environment: the student’s educational goals, accommodations, progression, and specialized instruction are described in an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP). IDEA ensures that the rights of disabled students are protected and met. However, University of South Carolina Associate Professor of Law Claire Raj, who specializes in special education law, denotes, in her article The Lost Promise of Disability Rights, that IDEA only extends to a category of neurodivergent students and a controversial factor that surrounds IDEA is the categorization of disabilities used to evaluate the student in need of services and the quality of education. The way in which “disabilities” are measured and evaluated is subjected to biases and the education quality in special education may not be up to par. Also, if the “disability” does not meet one of the categorizations, the student is not eligible for services under IDEA.

If neurodivergent students cannot receive services under IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the American with Disabilities Act of (ADA), ensures that neurodivergent students can receive equal access to public education. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973” “prohibits discrimination based on disability [(physical or mental)] in any program or activity operated by recipients of federal funds, and Title II of the American Disabilities Act “prohibits discrimination based on disability by public entities, regardless of whether they receive federal financial assistance.” (U.S. Department of Education, 2021). Section 504 expands the definition of a “disability.” This ensures students with a physical or mental impairment that limits one or more major life activities, receive the support services, academic adjustments, adaptations, and accommodations they need in the educational environment if they do not meet IDEA’s criteria. However, Section 504 has failed “…to provide a definition of reasonable accommodation…” for schools (Raj, 2021). Schools may fail to properly accommodate students with 504 plans in all areas of life in which the “impairment” limits the students. Academic needs are addressed, but the emotional and behavioral needs are often overlooked. Henceforth, Section 504 and ADA emphasize the equal treatment of neurodivergent students to receive the same quality of education as their able-bodied peers in K-12 education, but not equity.

IDEA, Section 504, and ADA are disability laws that work together to prevent discrimination of neurodivergent students in the K-12 educational setting, but do not work in unison with one another. IDEA does have its legal limits in the educational sector, specifically with addressing the “needs” of neurodivergent students. Section 504 and ADA aimed to remedy this by the promise of equality and prohibiting disclination in the K-12 educational setting but fell short in ensuring an educational experience for neurodivergent students that encompasses equity.


References


Barnard-Brak, Lucy, et al. “The Incidence of Potentially Gifted Students Within a Special Education Population.” Roeper Review, vol. 37, no. 2, Apr. 2015, pp. 74–83. Taylor & Francis Online, doi: 10.1080/02783193.2015.1008661

Gabel, Susan L., et al. "Intellectual Disability and Space: Critical Narratives of Exclusion." Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, vol. 51, no. 1, 2013, pp. 74-80. AAIDD, doi: 10.1352/1934-9556-51.01.074.


Gage, Nicholas A., et al. “National Trends and School-Level Predictors of Restraint and Seclusion for Students with Disabilities.” Exceptionality, 2020, pp. 1–13., https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2020.1727327.


Gierczyk, Marcin, et al. “Twice-Exceptional Students: Review of Implications for Special and Inclusive Education." Education Sciences, vol. 11, no. 2, 2021, pp. 85. ProQuest, doi:http://dx.doi.org.library.lavc.edu:2048/10.3390/educsci11020085.


Jahnukainen, Markku. "Experiencing special education: Former students of classes for the emotionally and behaviorally disordered talk about their schooling." Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 6.3, 2001, pp. 150-166, Taylor & Francis Online, doi: 10.1080/13632750100507665.


Parekh, Gillian, et al. “The Social Construction of Giftedness: The Intersectional Relationship Between Whiteness, Economic Privilege, and the Identification of Gifted”. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, July 2018, pp. 1-32,

doi:10.15353/cjds.v7i2.421.


Shifrer, Dara. “Stigma of a Label: Educational Expectations for High School Students Labeled with Learning Disabilities.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, vol.

54, no. 4, [American Sociological Association, Sage Publications, Inc.], 2013, pp. 462–80. Sage Journals, doi:10.1177/0022146513503346.


Raj, Claire. "THE LOST PROMISE OF DISABILITY RIGHTS." Michigan Law Review, vol. 119, no. 5, Mar. 2021, pp. 933+. Gale Academic OneFile,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/A658474112/AONE?u=lavc_main&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid= 20c80b0b.


Tefera, Adai. "Listening to and Learning from the Perspectives and Experiences of Black and Latinx Students with Disabilities: Examining the Challenges and Contradictions of High-Stakes Testing Policies." The Urban Review, vol. 51, no. 3, 2019, pp. 457-476. Springer Link, doi: 10.1007/s11256-019-00496-4.


United States, Department of Education. “Disability Discrimination: Overview of the Laws.” Laws, February 2022.

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/guid/ocr/disabilityoverview.html


United States, National Center for Educational Studies. “Students with Disabilities.” Preprimary, Elementary, and Secondary Education, May 2021,

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg





Comments


bottom of page