Many parents of neurodivergent children will have experienced the heartbreaking challenge
of leaving a weeping, dysregulated, frightened child at school. They face conflicts and
pressures from school with easily-cited adages “they’re fine once they’re in,” and “they settle
once you’re gone,” and it’s not uncommon to see small children physically manipulated
through school gates/doors, which can be incredibly distressing for all involved, not least of
all the children themselves. The repercussions for their adults cannot be underplayed either
– many of us will have hidden tears from colleagues, sick to our stomachs, having gone to
work on such a disconnect.
We know that independence is fostered not by enforced action, but by secure attachment, so
physically or verbally manipulating a child into an environment where they do not feel safe,
and do not hold secure attachment to, is a devastating betrayal of trust, and doesn’t, as we
might hope, teach resilience and coping strategies.
EBSA = Emotionally-Based School Avoidance / Non-Attendance
A lot of schools and Local Authorities have adopted the above terminology over previous
labels of school refusal, school distress, anxiety-driven absence etc. However, the blame
associated with refusal or avoidance, and the stigma of emotion, placed both on the families
and children themselves, has moved advocacy groups and some educators to shift the
within-child or child-focused terminology, to take the onus away from children and families to
solve the problem. Quite rightly. It is not up to the child to ‘not’ refuse, not be distressed, not
be anxious, or to avoid. Schools have to face the responsibility of alleviating anxiety, and
creating secure, safe, welcoming, neuro-affirming environments. This isn’t happening across
the board.
In a 2025 study of Local Authority ESBA guidance, 56% of guidance suggested
“exposure/habituation” as a methodology for getting children into school, while only 27%
suggested relational and person-centred, solution-focused approaches.
Things to consider
Exposure / Habituation:
Sounds a lot like force. They’re not fine after twenty minutes, they’re shut down. They have
given up hope of understanding. That is not the same as acceptance.
Resilience-Building:
Neurodivergent children are already amongst the most resilient, in facing life and education
in a neurotypically-designed world. Resilience is defined against neurotypical expectations of
behaviours, communication and acceptability. Preaching resilience to the already resilient
can feel a lot like gaslighting.
Buddy Systems:
Some schools will take the seemingly positive approach of buddying up those experiencing
difficult transitions with a classmate or friend. This again puts the onus on children to solve
adult/institutional problems. It is unfair on fledgling interpersonal relationships between
children to make one answerable to another in that way.
Safety / Consent
It is not unusual for neurodivergent people to have a very strong sense of ‘safe’ people and
places. These are individually-defined havens that are comfortable in terms of sensory
triggers, freedom of expression, nervous system regulation, and trust. Schools, sadly, often
do not meet those expectations. What does leaving a child in an ‘unsafe’ (to them)
environment teach them about consent? What does it teach them about adult safety? We
cannot emphasise effective safeguarding of children, while forced attendance practices are
in place.
What’s really important here?
Is it that children are through the gates by a certain time, or is it readiness to learn?
Is it that children perform active listening and learning, or that their nervous-systems are
regulated enough to actually learn without masking?
Is it attendance and punctuality over consent?
--
If you’re an education provider and want to work through strategies to foster secure and safe
school environments, or if you’re a parent/guardian and want support for a child experiencing barriers to accessing their education, get in touch Ciara to discuss your needs.
