Neurodivergent Students Aren’t Broken — the System Is

A persuasive research essay on the limitations of the traditional education system for neurodivergent students.

Only then will we see a country where there is opportunity to succeed, where potential is met regardless of neurotype.

In a country that increasingly upholds individuality, the American education system continues to offer a “one-size-fits-all” approach, leaving neurodivergent students no option but to adapt to a structure built for them to fail. While technology and society have evolved dramatically, the educational system seems to remain fixated on an outdated formula in a world that has outgrown these traditional teaching methods long since. One unfortunate side effect of ADHD is highlighted in the “H” part of this acronym: Hyperactivity. This is one-third of the three-ingredient recipe for disaster that multiple neurodivergent students endure: A mix of professors not paid enough to care, the psychological diagnosis being a privilege, and neurodivergent students being dismissed and often labeled “disruptive” and “lazy”. These are all key components that take part in a slew of shocking statistics that everyone seems to ignore, many of which you’ll come across reading this paper. Neurodivergent individuals tend to possess different abilities than what is most polished under the current structure, often excelling at entrepreneurial, creative, or other particular skills our education neglects. Given these eye-opening statistics and the challenges these students face, the current educational system is ill-equipped to meet their needs. Many believe it is up to those with these struggles to adapt and view the idea of those needs being met as “special treatment”. Nevertheless, the educational system’s defects apply to anyone whose skills specialize in the unconventional. This is an issue that goes way deeper than academic performance, rather one that sees a broader societal failure to provide opportunities for all types of learners. The educational system needs a catalyst to adapt to change and promote inclusion of neurodivergent individuals, in their teaching approaches. In recent years, the percentage of people diagnosed with ADHD has grown exponentially. On top of this, the short-form content across different platforms has become the standard for entertainment, which has proven to negatively affect children’s attention span. Additionally, the rapid development of AI is already affecting the work environment around the world and is stifling education for young students. It is imperative for these institutions to ensure all students are given the tools and resources to succeed, and most importantly, to stop the sanction of students for their shortcomings in areas outside of their abilities and rather focus on polishing the skills they do possess. Until the system acknowledges these disparities and takes into account the diverse ways of learning, we will continue to witness failure to nurture potential in students. 

The detrimental impacts of the American educational system on the neurodivergent are brought about by a series of elements. Natasha K. Geyer’ seminar paper, "Beyond Accommodations: Considerations for Supporting and Improving Academic Outcomes for Neurodivergent Students in Post-Secondary Education," employs the Ecological Systems Perspective developed by Urie Bronfenbrenner; a theoretical framework used to understand human development according to their environmental context. Geyer categorizes these elements in four different systems, with a contextual emphasis on higher education. The four systems applied are the: Exosystem, Macrosystem, Microsystem, and Mesosystem . The Exo-System consists of general social networks and external environments that indirectly affect one’s life, such as community resources and governmental policies; in higher education, this includes support services, campus environments, and all institutional essentials for neurodivergent students. Going hand in hand with the previous, the Macrosystem encompasses cultural values, societal norms, and laws that shape individual development, this pertains to collective attitudes and policies that influence the inclusivity of higher education environments. Microsystems are defined as academic elements that present barriers without the right adjustments needed, the factors that participate in this include the teachers and immediate academic environments that play an important role in supporting neurodivergent students through accommodations and personalized assistance. Mesosystems are the interaction between various Microsystems, creating a complex dynamic, the interaction between academic departments and support services can stunt the efficacy of accommodations. 

The Exosystem and Macrosystem are responsible for having the largest part in the struggle of neurodivergence with old-school learning. The external environments and societal norms in this regard are the considerably traditional American School system. The American school system is dated, in fact, it is built on the 19th century Prussian model (Christine Clark, Inga Kiderra). The current system is heavily flawed and truthfully not the best fit for anyone let alone neurodivergent students. Multiple studies have shown lower percentages of the younger generation enrolling in college, and higher percentages of high school dropouts. The Prussian model is precisely designed for factory-style efficiency, compliance, and memorization rather than creativity and adaptability. While other countries have gone ahead and begun implementing more progressive ways of teaching, the United States refuses to let go of this 200+ year old prototype. If the system refuses to change, the understanding that an in-depth knowledge of these learning conditions, and their internal impact and difficulties, is required to evaluate the academic work and performance of the neurodivergent. The academic system should facilitate, not obstruct, the extension of tools for the specific needs of the neurodivergent. 

The factors and elements that make up the support system given are provided by the Exosystem and Macrosystem, nevertheless, to receive the support these provide there must be an inevitable exchange that occurs within the Microsystem and Mesosystem. The ignorance of the current educational system is visible by the dramatic shift between high school and higher education, where neurodivergent students are often expected to have learned to manage their struggles by this point, as if these conditions were just illnesses one could cure from. High school students with disabilities are covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which requires schools provide Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). In higher education IDEA does not apply. In addition, the accommodations provided by these acts are insufficient, given that they tend to be a base list of accommodations for all neurodivergent students and different learning disorders require different approaches. This is where the Microsystem and Mesosystem come into play. The interaction with any educational authority is the most influential element, and a misunderstanding of a neurodivergent student's limitations has destructive consequences in their academic performance. Negative experiences with higher education faculty and staff make up a concerningly common thread across student experience, this is confirmed by faculty themselves, which, when surveyed, only 28.6% agreed that their formal education adequately prepared them for teaching students with learning disabilities (Munoz 2024). Most of the time, the prerequisites for accommodations approval require neurodivergent students to comply with a series of steps that, in one dimension, result in a drain of time and money, resulting in a counterintuitive effect to their support. Dr. Ash Lierman advocates strongly for neurodivergent support in “The Struggle You Can’t See: Experiences of Neurodivergent and Invisibly Disabled Students in Higher Education”, where they compile a three-part argument including statistics, interviews, and surveys filled by multiple neurodivergent students. Evaluations of surveys completed by Neurodivergent students detail the specifics of where they tend to fail in ways that are not indicative in any way of their knowledge but rather because of failures within the system. The most relevant elements are assessments such as traditional testing and presentations, which are obstacles for focus. Furthermore, the understanding of nuances, and the general comprehension of what is expected is a common barrier for neurodivergent students, not because they’re incapable of understanding but rather because of the way in which these are transmitted. 

The current system of student support and IEPs isn’t effective, and a substantial structural change is necessary. Needless to say, accommodations fail to accommodate when professors use their authority to pick and choose when to provide them and the ugly truth is, professors aren’t paid enough to care. The tension between students and teachers who refuse to follow accommodations as a result of a misinterpretation of the student’s condition as unwillingness to work is a universal neurodivergent student experience, one that puts them in a very vulnerable position. 85.7% of students reported that professors did not automatically provide accommodations they were entitled to (Munoz 2024). In addition, a missing perspective the American system fails to recognize, is how influential its notably traditional educational system is within its global reach, one that is felt by 3rd world countries that don’t have the psychological awareness of these learning disorders. Countries like Panama, Nigeria, and the Phillipines adopt the American educational system. Needless to say neurodivergent students don’t get “accommodations” in these countries, in fact, they usually don’t even get the time of day. Kids don’t get diagnosed young and youths who suffer these learning disorders have to either be non-verbal or noticeably impaired to get any care or attention, otherwise they’re deemed disruptive or problematic. (Bastian Herre, and Pablo Arriagada) In other words, even if the educational system were to make corrections to its system of support, the general mediocrity around the structure remains. 

As we advance as a society, or regress, across time we change as a people; our work environments, economic systems, morals, media all change. The brains of modern adolescents are different to past generations, therefore our teaching methods should be too, it is not rocket science. The very term “learning disorder” is diminutive and misleading. “Disorder” implies flaw or deficiency, when these conditions at their core only reflect different variations of cognitive function. Autistic children are not “learning disordered”, your learning methods are disordered. The sudden increase in neurodivergence is undeniable, though not coincidental. From 1997 to 2021 the increase of general learning disability among U.S. children rose 8.83%. The percentage of U.S. students diagnosed with autism in 2001 was 1.5%, it was reported to be 12% in 2021 (Pew Research Center 2023). The number of students served under IDEA in the U.S. rose from 6.4 million in 2012 to 7.5 million in 2024 (NCES 2024). There’s a pattern here and to dismiss it by assuming there was less diagnosis in previous years is foolish and dangerous. It is not stressed enough that most learning conditions aren’t strictly something you’re born with. While it may often have genetic components, these conditions are neurodevelopmental, and though there may not be any concrete evidence, it isn’t far-fetched to suggest the unlimited access to internet in developmental years might’ve played a part in these statistics. Reasonable adjustment plans for higher education should include: Necessary adaptations to submission deadlines, extensions and additional time for written tests, and patience on behalf of faculty. There are plenty courses of action to solve this issue, none of which are being taken. We could benefit from changing the educational system into a more progressive structure that fosters success in both the neurotypical and the neurodivergent. We could make it mandatory for schools to hire psychopedagogues in charge of choosing how to approach a personalized method for the neurodivergent. The evidence is overwhelming, not only is the current educational system outdated, but it continues to fail young students who think and learn differently. To continue implementing this rigid mold is to knowingly stifle potential and perpetuate the stigma that today’s children are lazy because they don’t perform well in a structure not built for them. It is time for institutions to accept that a change is imminent and abandon these inflexible learning methods and embrace a different future. Only then will we see a country where there is opportunity to succeed, where potential is met regardless of neurotype.