A Pivotal Moment for Neurodivergent Learners: What the Latest Policy Frameworks Tell Us

Something significant is happening in UK policy. Within the space of a few months, three major documents have landed that together represent the most substantial government attention to neurodivergence in education and health for a generation. The DfE’s Neurodivergence Task and Finish Group, the Education White Paper ‘Every Child Achieving and Thriving’ (published February 2026), and NHS England’s independent ADHD Taskforce Part 2 Report (November 2025) each approach the challenge from a different angle. Read together, they tell a compelling and, at times, urgent story.

In this article I draw out the main themes running through all three documents, highlights where they agree, notes where they differ in emphasis, and suggests what ‘good’ might look like in practice. For those of us working in the neurodiversity and neuroinclusion space, whether as practitioners, parents, advocates, or technology developers, the direction of travel is clear, even if the detail still needs to be worked through. As someone who has worked in this sector for nearly 40 years there are somethings that say ‘hear we go again’ and what goes around comes around and some that are a significant shift in what could be a real and valuable change in service delivery.

What Are These Documents?

Before diving into the themes, it is worth briefly orienting ourselves around what each document is and who produced it. There has a been a lot of reading this week!

The Neurodivergence Task and Finish Group is a DfE-commissioned expert group, chaired by Professor Karen Guldberg, tasked with advising ministers on how mainstream education settings can better meet the needs of neurodivergent children and young people. It included leading academics, SENCOs, NHS clinicians, and charity leaders in the group. Its final report is expected in June 2025.

Every Child Achieving and Thriving is the government’s schools and SEND White Paper, published February 2026. It sets out a vision for reforming both mainstream schooling and the SEND system, with an explicit commitment to inclusion and to reducing the number of children who are sidelined or excluded from a broad education.

The Independent ADHD Taskforce Part 2 Report was commissioned by NHS England and published in November 2025. It builds on the first part of the Taskforce’s work and sets out detailed implementation recommendations across health, education, employment, and the criminal justice system. Its central argument is that ADHD when unsupported  costs the UK economy at least £17 billion annually, yet effective interventions exist and remain largely untapped.

Where Do They Agree? Four Consistent Themes

In reviewing all documents, I wanted to consider what is consistent and what is different.

1. Support should not wait for a diagnosis

Across all three documents, there is a clear and consistent message: children and young people should not have to wait for a formal diagnosis before they receive support. This is arguably the most important shift in thinking that these frameworks represent, and it has profound implications for schools, health services, and families.

The ADHD Taskforce is particularly direct, recommending that ‘support for ADHD and neurodivergence should begin early, be needs-led and not rely on or need to wait for a diagnosis by a clinician.’ The Neurodivergence Task and Finish Group echoes this, specifically scoping work around ‘the types of support that should not depend on a diagnosis.’ And the White Paper’s emphasis on inclusion and SEND reform points in the same direction.

Why does this matter so much? Because in England today, children with ADHD, DCD, DLD or autism often spend months or years on waiting lists before receiving a diagnosis, and many receive no meaningful support in the meantime. The human and financial cost of this gap is enormous. A paper I wrote a while ago (Cleaton and Kirby (2018) highlighted the extensive evidence of neurodevelopmental conditions co-occurring and impacts persisting throughout life, making early, needs-led intervention not just desirable but essential.

2. Whole-School and Whole-System Approaches Are Essential

All three documents argue that supporting neurodivergent children cannot be left to individual teachers or specialist clinicians working in isolation. Change needs to happen at the level of the school culture, the community, and the system.

The ADHD Taskforce champions the Partnerships for Inclusion of Neurodiversity in Schools (PINS) programme, which provides whole-school support through specialist professionals including speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, and educational psychologists. It also advocates for Mental Health Support Teams (MHSTs) to be expanded to cover neurodivergence, not just mental health.

The Task and Finish Group’s scope explicitly includes how ‘classroom practices and wider approaches’ could be improved, and how support should ‘consider long-term ability to be successful and independent in future life.’

The White Paper, though broader in scope, reflects this systems thinking through its commitment to workforce reform, including the recruitment of 6,500 additional teachers, and through its vision of schools as community anchors that engage with families and external services.

3. Early Intervention Saves Money and Improves Lives

The economics of early intervention run through all three documents. The ADHD Taskforce makes the case most forcefully: the estimated annual cost to the UK of not treating ADHD is around £17 billion. It recommends an ‘invest to save’ approach and cites evidence from historical programmes like Sure Start, which showed positive long-term impacts on educational outcomes and NHS use, with the greatest benefits for children from the poorest and ethnic minority backgrounds.

The White Paper’s SEND reform agenda is similarly framed around reducing costly crisis-point interventions by building a more responsive, inclusive system from the start. The Task and Finish Group has been specifically tasked with looking at ‘best practice regarding the commissioning of support services across education and health’, language that signals an intent to make the system more efficient as well as more effective.

4. Co-Production with People with Lived Experience Is Non-Negotiable

Perhaps one of the most welcome consistencies across all three frameworks is the explicit acknowledgement that people with neurodivergent conditions and their families must be involved in designing the solutions, not just consulted after the fact. The ADHD Taskforce states clearly that ‘co-design and co-production of transformation should include people with ADHD and their families/carers.’ Quotes from people with lived experience appear throughout the report and are striking in their directness:

• ‘Getting it wrong in those early years can lead to so many secondary issues that shouldn’t have to be part of ADHD.’
• ‘The hardest part being a parent of a child with ADHD is the fighting. So much money, time, emotional resource goes into trying to get effective support for your child.’

These voices are not decorative. They represent a genuine shift in how policy is being framed and one that those of us working in this field should both welcome and hold decision-makers to account on.

Where do they differ? Tensions and gaps to watch

While the convergence in thinking is encouraging, there are some meaningful differences in approach and emphasis that are worth naming.

Health vs Education as the Primary Driver

The ADHD Taskforce is fundamentally a health document, and its recommendations include digitising ADHD assessments, embedding care in neighbourhood health centres, and reducing wait times to match those for physical health conditions. These are rooted in the NHS system. The Task and Finish Group and the White Paper are, by contrast, education led. Neither set of documents fully resolves the fundamental question of who leads on neurodivergent children’s needs when those needs cross the health/education boundary, which they almost always do.

This is not a new problem. It has bedevilled SEND policy for decades but it is one that these frameworks, despite their collective ambition, have not yet resolved. The ADHD Taskforce explicitly acknowledges that detailed consideration of education will be taken forward by the DfE Taskforce on Neurodivergence, but the risk of fragmented solutions developing in parallel remains real.

Diagnosis as Gateway vs. Needs-Based Entitlement

The ADHD Taskforce is arguably the most progressive of the three documents in explicitly decoupling support from diagnosis. The White Paper’s SEND reform agenda, while aiming to improve the system, still largely operates within a framework where formal identification (through Education, Health and Care Plans) is the gateway to additional resource. There is a risk that needs-led rhetoric is not matched by needs-led funding mechanisms, particularly in an era of constrained local authority budgets.

Breadth vs. Depth: Which Conditions Are in Scope?

The Neurodivergence Task and Finish Group and the White Paper use broad, inclusive language around neurodivergence as a whole recognising that conditions like dyslexia, DCD, ADHD, and autism frequently co-occur and overlap. Interestingly DLD is not discussed as much! The ADHD Taskforce, by its nature, focuses on ADHD specifically. My paper discusses (Cleaton and Kirby (2018) demonstrates precisely why this single-condition framing is problematic: 70% of individuals with autism have at least one co-occurring neurodevelopmental condition, and the pattern of co-occurrence has direct implications for what kind of support is effective.

The good news is that the ADHD Taskforce itself acknowledges this tension and recommends against diagnostic silos. The challenge will be ensuring that implementation reflects transdiagnostic thinking, rather than simply adding ADHD as another separate referral pathway alongside existing ones.

What does ‘Good’ Look Like in Practice?

Policy frameworks matter, but so does practical implementation. Here are three areas where we already have evidence of what works, and which are directly relevant to the recommendations in all three documents.

Tiered, Whole-School Therapy Models: Lessons from Canada

The Partnering for Change (P4C) model, developed by CanChild at McMaster University, offers a compelling example of what the whole-school, needs-led approach can look like in practice. Originally designed for children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD/dyspraxia), P4C embeds occupational therapists directly into school communities rather than using a traditional clinic referral model.

Under P4C, therapists work collaboratively with teachers and families using a tiered approach: universal strategies for the whole class, targeted support for those who need more help, and individualised approaches for children with the most complex needs. Critically, children can access support without needing a formal diagnosis or referral. Teachers develop the skills to identify difficulties earlier and respond more effectively, reducing reliance on specialist appointments and shortening the time between a child struggling and receiving help.

This is directly analogous to what the PINS programme and expanded MHSTs are trying to achieve in England. The P4C evidence base, built over more than fifteen years of research in Ontario and beyond, provides a strong proof of concept and a reminder that we do not need to start from scratch.

Moving beyond diagnostic categories

One of the most persistent barriers to good support is the assumption that a child’s needs can be adequately captured by a single diagnostic label. As our paper discusses, neurodevelopmental conditions are highly heritable, frequently co-occur, and persist throughout life. Children with dyslexia often also have DCD or ADHD. Children with autism frequently have additional language or coordination difficulties. Designing support systems around single diagnostic pathways or worse, treating co-occurring conditions as separate cases requiring separate referrals  is both inefficient and ineffective. Not considering adversity factors in the mix can lead to further inequitable systems.

A transdiagnostic approach, one that considers a child’s profile of strengths and challenges across domains rather than their diagnostic label, is both more efficient and more aligned with how neurodevelopmental conditions actually present. This approach is gaining traction in research and in exemplary services, and it underpins the ADHD Taskforce’s insistence on avoiding ‘diagnostic silos.’

Technology as an Enabler, Not a Substitute

The ADHD Taskforce explicitly identifies digitisation as one of its four strategic priorities, recommending the embedding of ADHD assessment and care within digital neighbourhood health platforms and the use of digital tools to extend the reach of evidence-based parenting interventions.

There is a real opportunity here for technology that genuinely supports neurodivergent individuals, screening tools that capture profile-level information rather than just ticking diagnostic boxes, assistive technology embedded into everyday learning, platforms that help teachers understand and apply universal design for learning principles, and tools that support parental self-efficacy when navigating complex systems. The key word is ‘support.’

Technology can amplify what skilled humans do. They do not replace human relationships, something that the P4C model, with its emphasis on collaboration and coaching, understands well.

So what needs to happen now?

Reading these three documents together, it is difficult not to feel a mixture of encouragement and impatience. The ambition is right. The evidence base is largely in place. The voices of children, young people, and families are  at last  being taken seriously in the framing of policy. And yet the gap between policy aspiration and lived experience for neurodivergent children and their families remains profound.

What would make the difference? A few things stand out:

• Genuine alignment between health and education systems, with shared data, shared responsibility, and shared funding mechanisms. Currently, children and families often fall into the gaps between the two.
• Funding that follows need, not diagnosis. The rhetoric of needs-led support will ring hollow unless it is backed by resource allocation models that do not require families to secure a formal label before their child gets help. This will be the greatest challenge especially as we are going to be running EHCPs children have at present alongside changes being implemented. It could be messy!
• Investment in the workforce. Teachers, teaching assistants, school nurses, and primary care practitioners all need better training in recognising and supporting neurodivergent individuals. This is not a luxury. It is a prerequisite for everything else. However, content needs to be consistent and evidence informed and if different providers deliver this could create a patch work of different training content.
• Implementation that learns from what works. Models like P4C, PINS, and expanded MHSTs are not untested ideas. They are grounded in evidence. The task now is to scale them thoughtfully, evaluate them rigorously, and share learning across systems.
• Sustained co-production. Not a one-off consultation, but ongoing partnership with neurodivergent individuals and their families in the design, delivery, and evaluation of services.
• Design of systems – I think it is valuable to take models such as Universal Design for Learning and look at how we can build inclusive practice at all stages of the educational processes. Myself, Ellis and Osbourne published Neurodiversity and Education and we provide some more practical ways for implementation and the rationale for this.

We are at a pivotal moment. The policy architecture is being laid. The question is whether the building that goes up on top of it will actually work for the children and families who need it most. Even after nearly 40 years I do think that those of us in the neurodiversity and neuroinclusion field have a responsibility and an opportunity  to help ensure that it does.

By Professor Amanda Kirby, MBBS MRCGP PhD, CEO, Do-IT Solutions Ltd

References

• Department for Education (2024–2025). Neurodivergence Task and Finish Group. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/neurodivergence-task-and-finish-group
• Department for Education (2026). Every Child Achieving and Thriving [White Paper]. GOV.UK. Published 23 February 2026. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/every-child-achieving-and-thriving
• NHS England Independent ADHD Taskforce (2025). Report of the Independent ADHD Taskforce: Part 2. NHS England. Published November 2025. https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/report-of-the-independent-adhd-taskforce-part-2/
• Kirby, A., & Cleaton, M. M. (2018). Why do we find it so hard to calculate the burden of neurodevelopmental disorders? Journal of Childhood & Developmental Disorders, 4(3:10). https://doi.org/10.4172/2472-1786.100073
• Missiuna, C. A., Pollock, N. A., Levac, D. E., Campbell, W. N., Sahagian Whalen, S. D., Bennett, S. M., Hecimovich, C. A., Gaines, B. R., Cairney, J., & Russell, D. J. (2012). Partnering for Change: an innovative school-based occupational therapy service delivery model for children with developmental coordination disorder. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 79(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.2182/cjot.2012.79.1.6
• Campbell, W. N., Missiuna, C. A., Rivard, L. M., & Pollock, N. A. (2023). Partnering for Change: collaborating to transform occupational therapy services that support inclusive education. Frontiers in Public Health, 11, 1275920. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1275920
• NHS England Independent ADHD Taskforce (2025). Report of the Independent ADHD Taskforce: Part 1. NHS England. Published June 2025. https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/report-of-the-independent-adhd-taskforce/
• Universal Design for Learning https://www.cast.org/what-we-do/universal-design-for-learning/
• Kirby, Ellis, Osbourne (2023) Neurodiversity and Education – https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/neurodiversity-and-education/book281114