When the term inclusive classroom began circulating in mainstream teacher education in the late 80s & early 90s, it was almost entirely learner-focused. Inclusion meant adapting materials, differentiating tasks, scaffolding reading, supporting SEN, later reframed as SEND, learners & removing barriers to participation. Over time, it became a core value in ELT -a shorthand for classrooms where every learner feels seen, capable & supported.
But somehow people forgot that inclusion became a one-way promise. We built systems to support learners, not the people teaching them.
That’s the gap this new global white paper by Boelo van der Pool steps into. Drawing on a global dataset of 221 neurodivergent language teachers, it asks a question our field has largely avoided: What about the teachers? As one respondent put it, “I loved your presentation about neurodivergent students … but what about me?”
The study
The project is based on a global survey (Google Forms, Nov 2025–Feb 2026) completed by 221 self‑reported neurodivergent language teachers across sectors: private language schools, universities, NGOs, public schools, corporate training & freelance contexts. Participation was voluntary & anonymous unless respondents opted into follow-up interviews.
The survey explored three areas:
- Context: roles, sectors, delivery modes, experience
- Work reality: strengths, friction points, task demands
- Support & culture: disclosure, adjustments, CPD access
Respondents could select multiple neurotypes, & many reported mixed profiles (e.g. ADHD + dyslexia). Diagnosis timing showed a strong pattern of late identification – many teachers had been navigating their careers for years without understanding their neurotype.
The findings
One of the first things that jumps out is how strongly ADHD appears in this self‑reported dataset: around 70% selected it, far ahead of dyslexia, which appears third. Autism was selected at roughly double the rate of dyslexia. This doesn’t tell us anything about prevalence in the profession, but it does hint at a natural fit between ELT work & certain neurotypes.
It’s also worth noting that many dyslexic adults don’t necessarily identify with the term neurodivergent [ND], so dyslexia may be under‑reported here simply because the label doesn’t resonate with everyone. Even so, many respondents described the classroom as the one place where their energy, improvisation, rapid switching & relational instincts feel like strengths rather than liabilities.
Those strengths came through clearly. Teachers talked about creative lesson design, a strong radar for learner struggle, hyperfocus when engaged, pattern spotting, problem-solving & the kind of authenticity that builds rapport quickly. These qualities shape the emotional climate of a classroom in ways that are hard to measure but easy to recognise.
The friction points, however, were mostly structural. Sensory load in classrooms — noise, lights, busy rooms -had a net impact of –56%. Outside the classroom, long meetings & CPD sessions were the biggest drain (–62%), followed by reading-heavy prep & admin.
In short: the teaching often works; the systems around it often don’t.
Disclosure patterns underline this. Forty-two percent have not disclosed at work, & only 19% have disclosed widely. The reasons are predictably familiar, echoing what we see in wider ND research: fear of stigma, uncertainty about how to disclose, or a sense that it’s “not relevant”. Even when reactions are supportive, practical change is rare -only 16% of disclosers received adjustments. And the adjustments teachers say would help most (quiet workspace, noise management, reduced admin load) are not the ones they typically receive.
The CPD gap completes the picture. Eighty-nine percent want ND-focused professional development; only 8% receive it. That gap keeps workplaces dependent on goodwill rather than systems -& goodwill, as the report notes, is not the same as support.
Teacher Takeaways? A word of caution, I’m no expert on ND, but the patterns in the data point to a few simple, sensible places to begin:
- If friction shows up in sensory load, admin & meetings, that’s where support needs to show up too -not in “fixing” the teacher. In other words, the problem isn’t the person; it’s the conditions we ask them to work in.
- Clarity is key: predictable agendas, clear expectations & written follow-ups cut down the mental load for everyone, not just ND colleagues. It’s often the simplest clarity that makes the biggest difference.
- Treat ‘adjustments’ as ordinary workplace design -especially around noise, workspace & admin- so teachers don’t need confidence, seniority or disclosure to access them. If the barrier is predictable, the support should be too.
If inclusion is truly a value in ELT, it can’t stop at the classroom door. As the report argues, “Supportive reactions are not the same as supportive workplaces.”
A big thank you to Boelo van der Pool for putting this study together. Research like this matters because it finally gives shape to experiences many teachers have been carrying quietly for years.
How do you approach ND in your workplace- is it even on your radar?
Leave a Reply