In the article, “Understanding Neurodiversity, Unlearning Neuronormativity,” the author suggests replacing "accommodations" with "adaptive measures" or "inclusive measures." This review will explore the difference between accommodating a student and creating inclusive conditions. And, reframing the language we use as educators can have a profound impact on supporting students.
The distinction between accommodating a student and creating inclusive conditions reflects a fundamental difference in philosophy and approach. Accommodations typically involve retrofitting existing environments or practices to meet a student’s needs. For example, providing extra time on tests or preferential seating. While necessary, this framing implicitly centers neuronormative standards, positioning the student as the one who must adapt to a system not designed for them. In contrast, inclusive measures (or adaptive measures) proactively design environments, instruction, and assessments with diverse neurocognitive profiles in mind from the outset. For instance, offering flexible deadlines, multimodal instruction, or sensory-friendly spaces as universal options – not exceptions – shifts the responsibility from the student to the systems that have historically excluded them.
This reframing transforms how we view equity in education. Accommodations often carry an unspoken assumption that the “default” way of learning is neutral or ideal, while inclusive measures acknowledge that no single approach works for all. For example, instead of labeling a student’s need for movement breaks as a “special accommodation,” an inclusive classroom might embed regular movement opportunities for everyone, recognizing that all learners benefit from varied engagement styles. This approach aligns with the neurodiversity movement’s call to dismantle neuronormativity by rejecting hierarchies of “typical” versus “atypical” cognition and instead valuing diverse ways of thinking, processing, and interacting.
Ultimately, adopting language like adaptive or inclusive measures does more than change terminology – it challenges educators to rethink power dynamics in learning spaces. It emphasizes that barriers are not inherent to students but are created by inflexible systems. By designing for neurodiversity from the start, we reduce the need for reactive accommodations and foster environments where all students can thrive without stigma. This shift mirrors broader social justice movements, centering the idea that inclusion is not charity but justice – a right, not a privilege granted by those in power.