Are Our Assessment Systems Failing Neurodiverse Learners?

A sector-wide challenge

Every year many students across FE and HE sit exams in halls across the UK, their future is hanging on an exam which lasts a few hours of timed writing. Is this assessment model really measuring what matters? Or do they reward a particular model of learning while potentially excluding talent that may look different?

Around one in seven people in the UK are neurodiverse. In Higher Education, around one in ten students are dyslexic, one in twenty have dyspraxia, and one in twenty-five have ADHD. Yet outcomes remain unequal. More than one in three autistic undergraduates who enrolled in 2019 did not complete their degree after three years, compared to less than one in three of their peers. Only 9% of students with Education, Health and Care plans go on to progress into university by age 19, in comparison with over 50% of their peers with no identified additional needs.

The message is quite clear: ability is not the problem, the problem lies in the assessment systems.

Why traditional exams don’t fit

High-stakes, timed exams were designed for standardisation, not for inclusion. They are measuring what a learner can remember under pressure more than creativity, analysis or collaboration. For neurodiverse learners this particular format can be very challenging and can limit their growth and success. 

• Autistic learners could struggle with vague essay prompts or changes which happen suddenly in exam conditions.
• Learners with ADHD will find it challenging to keep focus for extended, silent writing.
• Dyslexic learners will be penalised for spelling and writing speed, even if their ideas are strong.

The result is that talented students underperform not because of what they know, but because of how they are tested. Studies have shown that over-reliance on exams amplifies inequalities, hitting disadvantaged and neurodiverse learners hardest.

What employers really want

The irony is that exams do not reflect the skills most valued in the workplace. Few employers care how quickly someone can handwrite an essay in silence. Instead, they value problem-solving, teamwork and adaptability. These are often areas where neurodiverse individuals excel, yet they remain invisible in exam halls.

If FE and HE are supposed to prepare learners for life beyond education, assessment must reflect the realities of work. Otherwise, we risk producing students who are exam ready but not career ready, while side-lining those with real potential.

Rethinking what assessment could look like

The good news is that alternatives exist. Across FE and HE, examples are emerging of more inclusive practice.

Coursework and applied projects. Extended assignments, practical projects and group tasks often give a fuller picture of ability. Reviews of vocational assessment have clearly shown us that applied methods can really enhance learner confidence and retention.

Universal Design for Learning. Offering learners different ways to establish learning, such as presentations in order to demonstrate presentation skills. Further assessment methods can come in the form of digital portfolios or oral exams alongside written tests, this allows learners a fairer chance to succeed.

Smarter use of adjustments. Where exams remain necessary, adjustments like extra time, rest breaks or smaller rooms can reduce anxiety. These should not be seen as special treatment but as part of making assessment fit for purpose.

Co-design with students. Asking learners themselves what works can reveal barriers staff may overlook. One college found that using plain-English instructions in exam papers significantly reduced anxiety for neurodiverse students without changing the content.

Why this matters now

Education is about more than knowledge transfer, it is about opening doors. But if assessment is the lock, too many neurodiverse learners are being handed the wrong key.

This is not just a learner issue, it is a system issue. National teaching standards call on educators to promote inclusion and support progression. That responsibility extends to how we design and deliver assessment. Awarding bodies and policymakers also have a role. Unless they embed flexibility into frameworks, colleges and universities will struggle to move beyond the exam hall.

My perspective

As someone who grew up with autism, I know how defining exams can feel. I often left the hall knowing I had more to give, frustrated that the format itself had limited me. Later, when I worked in leadership roles in HE, I saw students repeating my story. Bright, capable learners were being held back not by knowledge gaps but by the way we chose to measure them.

That experience makes me believe the system must change. Exams will not disappear, nor should they. But they should not be the sole yardstick of ability.

A call to action

It is time for FE and HE leaders, awarding organisations and policymakers to rethink assessment. If we want to unlock the potential of all learners, particularly those who are neurodiverse, we must broaden our approach.

The real test of education is not how well someone can write under timed pressure. It is whether they leave us prepared to thrive in the real world.

By Imran Mir SFHEA, FSET, CMgr MCMI, FRSA