- Published on
I recently signed a petition to make neurodiversity training mandatory for all education staff which gained over 25,000 signatures. The government response was to highlight the fact that SEND training is already mandatory in initial teacher training.
To say initial teacher training is brutal at times would be an understatement. There’s very little time to settle in before you’re thrown in at the deep end. One minute you’ve signed up for a PGCE, the next you’re standing in front of a truculent class of mardy 14 year olds teaching Shakespeare. The stress, the pace, and the level of expectations are dizzying. Then, within a few short months, from September to June, you’re out, qualified, and busy hunting for a full time teaching position.
This is why continued training once teachers are in schools is so important, and why the culture around CPD needs to be right. Once you’re in the job - the marking, planning, parents’ evenings, reports, detentions, and meetings all take their toll. According to the petition, only 14% of secondary school teachers have received minimal training in neurodiversity and those that have received it may be receiving a mixed diet with patchy results. So how can schools and colleges ensure training is truly high quality?
To answer that, we need to look at what training is already in place. It varies from school to school and depends on how valued training is by senior leadership and the workforce, the budget available, and the time set aside. Research shows that high quality CPD can improve teacher effectiveness by up to 21%, leading to better student outcomes. Regular, sustained CPD that goes beyond one off sessions is linked to lasting improvements in teaching practice and school culture. The timing and delivery of training, however, make a huge difference.
For example, if CPD is scheduled last thing on a Thursday towards the end of term, I can guarantee no one really wants to be there and everyone is clock watching. Similarly, if training is crammed into the first two days before a busy term starts, staff will be more concerned about their enormous to do lists than learning about neurodiversity.
Similarly, it’s not just about when training is delivered; it’s about how.
Forty minutes of information followed by a rushed 15 minutes on strategies won’t create unified action. Instead, we need a steady drip feed of knowledge, followed by a session focused on practical strategies, and finally a forum where staff report back and discuss the results of their implementation.
This might sound ambitious, but it is what’s needed for continuity, accountability, and a permanent cultural shift. We expect high standards from our teachers and students alike, delivering the curriculum to build skills and knowledge gradually for deep, long term learning. Yet for staff, we expect them to listen to an hour of training and then miraculously change their classroom management and adapt resources immediately and without reflection.
So, should training on neurodiversity be compulsory? The answer is yes, but the bigger question might be whether we need a unified, carefully delivered programme of training across education.This can ensure consistency and the right kind of support will lead to embedded understanding. It is hopeful that further research into the effectiveness of training around SEND is being carried out (due to be published in 2026) but as numbers of EHCPs rise and more and more become educated at home, can we really afford to wait this long?
What currently takes place in your school? What’s the starting point? Understanding current practice shapes future practice and helps ensure training is welcomed and effective.
I offer training on ADHD and neurodiversity grounded in lived experience, leadership of CPD in schools, a master’s degree in psychology, and certification as an ADHD coach. Whether you’re a teacher, school leader, parent, or governor interested in bringing meaningful, practical neurodiversity training to your school or community, let’s talk. You can book a free 30-minute chat with me here: https://calendly.com/belshawlouise29/30min
To say initial teacher training is brutal at times would be an understatement. There’s very little time to settle in before you’re thrown in at the deep end. One minute you’ve signed up for a PGCE, the next you’re standing in front of a truculent class of mardy 14 year olds teaching Shakespeare. The stress, the pace, and the level of expectations are dizzying. Then, within a few short months, from September to June, you’re out, qualified, and busy hunting for a full time teaching position.
This is why continued training once teachers are in schools is so important, and why the culture around CPD needs to be right. Once you’re in the job - the marking, planning, parents’ evenings, reports, detentions, and meetings all take their toll. According to the petition, only 14% of secondary school teachers have received minimal training in neurodiversity and those that have received it may be receiving a mixed diet with patchy results. So how can schools and colleges ensure training is truly high quality?
To answer that, we need to look at what training is already in place. It varies from school to school and depends on how valued training is by senior leadership and the workforce, the budget available, and the time set aside. Research shows that high quality CPD can improve teacher effectiveness by up to 21%, leading to better student outcomes. Regular, sustained CPD that goes beyond one off sessions is linked to lasting improvements in teaching practice and school culture. The timing and delivery of training, however, make a huge difference.
For example, if CPD is scheduled last thing on a Thursday towards the end of term, I can guarantee no one really wants to be there and everyone is clock watching. Similarly, if training is crammed into the first two days before a busy term starts, staff will be more concerned about their enormous to do lists than learning about neurodiversity.
Similarly, it’s not just about when training is delivered; it’s about how.
Forty minutes of information followed by a rushed 15 minutes on strategies won’t create unified action. Instead, we need a steady drip feed of knowledge, followed by a session focused on practical strategies, and finally a forum where staff report back and discuss the results of their implementation.
This might sound ambitious, but it is what’s needed for continuity, accountability, and a permanent cultural shift. We expect high standards from our teachers and students alike, delivering the curriculum to build skills and knowledge gradually for deep, long term learning. Yet for staff, we expect them to listen to an hour of training and then miraculously change their classroom management and adapt resources immediately and without reflection.
So, should training on neurodiversity be compulsory? The answer is yes, but the bigger question might be whether we need a unified, carefully delivered programme of training across education.This can ensure consistency and the right kind of support will lead to embedded understanding. It is hopeful that further research into the effectiveness of training around SEND is being carried out (due to be published in 2026) but as numbers of EHCPs rise and more and more become educated at home, can we really afford to wait this long?
What currently takes place in your school? What’s the starting point? Understanding current practice shapes future practice and helps ensure training is welcomed and effective.
I offer training on ADHD and neurodiversity grounded in lived experience, leadership of CPD in schools, a master’s degree in psychology, and certification as an ADHD coach. Whether you’re a teacher, school leader, parent, or governor interested in bringing meaningful, practical neurodiversity training to your school or community, let’s talk. You can book a free 30-minute chat with me here: https://calendly.com/belshawlouise29/30min