Imagine this: you’re reading a short description of a new student joining your class.
One description reads: “Poor time management, talks too much, easily distracted.”
Another says: “Spontaneous, enthusiastic, endlessly curious.”
Same child. Different framing.
Which version helps you see their potential?
The words we choose shape how we view our learners, and how they come to see themselves. Within the context of neurodiversity, the language we choose holds significant power. Neuroaffirmative language offers a way of communicating that recognises and celebrates neurological differences rather than casting them as something to fix or cure.
What Do We Mean by Neuroaffirmative Language?
For educators, using neuroaffirmative language in education isn’t just about sensitivity. It’s about building classrooms where every learner feels seen, respected, and able to participate fully. The words teachers use—whether with pupils, parents, or colleagues—can shape inclusion more powerfully than we realise.
Neuroaffirmative language is grounded in the neurodiversity paradigm, which views neurological differences such as autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and Tourette syndrome as natural variations in human neurology (Singer, 1999; Walker, 2021). This is very different from the traditional medical model, which tends to emphasise deficits, disorder, and normalisation. Instead of assuming individuals are broken, neuroaffirmative approaches highlight lived experience and personal strengths. Importantly, many of the difficulties faced by neurodivergent people arise not from their neurology, but from external systems—such as education, employment, and healthcare—that are not designed to include them (Chapman, 2020).
Why Language Choices Matter
Language affects not only how others perceive students, but also how students view themselves. Studies in linguistics demonstrate that word choice can shape social attitudes, institutional practices, and even identity formation (Boroditsky, 2011).
Take autism, for example. Saying that someone “suffers from autism” suggests their neurology is inherently negative or burdensome. In contrast, referring to someone as an “autistic person” acknowledges autism as an integral and valued part of their identity (Brown, 2011; Botha et al., 2021).
This leads to an important distinction:
Identity-first language: places the identity before the person (e.g., “autistic person”).
Person-first language: places the person before the diagnosis (e.g., “person with autism”).
Both forms are valid. The most important principle is to respect the terminology that individuals choose for themselves.
Another key concept is Damian Milton’s double empathy problem (2012), which challenges the notion that autistic people alone have communication difficulties. Instead, it emphasises that communication breakdowns between autistic and non-autistic people are reciprocal. This reframing shifts the focus from deficit to difference—and invites mutual understanding rather than blame.
For teachers, this means that the words used in parent meetings, progress reports, and classroom interactions carry enormous influence. Neuroaffirmative language in education supports not only understanding, but also belonging.
From Awareness to Affirmation
Being “aware” of neurodiversity is only the first step. True affirmation requires deliberate and thoughtful practice.
Examples include:
Respect preferred terminology: Ask whether someone prefers identity-first (“autistic person”) or person-first (“person with autism”) language, and use the terms they are comfortable with (Botha et al., 2021).
Avoid deficit-based labels: Words such as “low-functioning” or “disordered” can be harmful. Instead, describe the specific kinds of support a student may need (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021).
Value lived experience: Academic research is essential, but first-hand perspectives from neurodivergent people provide unique insights that enrich our understanding (Kapp, 2020; Bascom, 2012).
Language in Action
Here are some examples of how simple word choices can transform classroom communication:
| Non-Affirmative | Neuroaffirmative |
|---|---|
| Suffers from ADHD | Is ADHD / Has ADHD (depending on preference) |
| High-functioning autistic | Autistic person with low support needs |
| Normal child vs. autistic child | Neurotypical child vs. autistic child |
| Meltdown | Distress response / sensory overload |
| Disruptive in class | Seeks movement or stimulation to stay engaged |
| Refuses to follow instructions | Needs clarity, options, or sensory regulation |
| Low-functioning student | Student with high support needs |
This isn’t about “political correctness.” It’s about choosing language that is accurate, respectful, and inclusive.
The Bigger Picture
Adopting neuroaffirmative language is part of a wider movement toward equity and inclusion. It challenges stigma, elevates neurodivergent voices, and pushes institutions to rethink how diversity is understood and supported (Dawson, 2022).
In Ireland, this connects strongly with the Department of Education’s commitment to inclusive education and Universal Design for Learning (UDL). UDL promotes learner voice, flexibility, and full participation—principles that align directly with neuroaffirmative practice.
At its core, neuroaffirmation is about listening, adapting, and building environments where every brain can thrive.
As Judy Singer, who introduced the term neurodiversity, put it:
“If we can respect biodiversity, why not neurodiversity?” (Singer, 1999)
This article was written by Professor April Hargreaves, Programme Director of Psychology at ICEP Europe and Director of Research for Neurodiversity Spark in Northern Ireland.
You can learn more about the language of autism in the Understanding Autism modules in our Masters/ Postgraduate Diploma in Inclusive and Special Education with Hibernia College and our Masters in Special and Additional Learning Needs with the University of East London.
References
- Bascom, J. (Ed.). (2012). Loud Hands: Autistic People, Speaking. Autonomous Press.
- Boroditsky L. How language shapes thought. Sci Am. 2011 Feb;304(2):62-5. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0211-62. PMID: 21319543.
- Botha M, Hanlon J, Williams GL. Does Language Matter? Identity-First Versus Person-First Language Use in Autism Research: A Response to Vivanti. J Autism Dev Disord. 2023 Feb;53(2):870-878. doi: 10.1007/s10803-020-04858-w. Epub 2021 Jan 20. PMID: 33474662; PMCID: PMC7817071.
- Bottema-Beutel K, Kapp SK, Lester JN, Sasson NJ, Hand BN. Avoiding Ableist Language: Suggestions for Autism Researchers. Autism Adulthood. 2021 Mar 1;3(1):18-29. doi: 10.1089/aut.2020.0014. Epub 2021 Mar 18. PMID: 36601265; PMCID: PMC8992888.
- Brown, L. X. Z. (2011). Identity-First Language. Autistic Self Advocacy Network.
- Chapman, R. (2020). The reality of autism: On the metaphysics of disorder and diversity. Philosophical Psychology, 33(6), 799–819. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2020.1751103
- Dawson, C. (2022). Neurodiversity is Human Diversity, an Equity Imperative for Education. International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity, 10(1), 217–232
- Kapp, S. K. (Ed.). (2020). Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement: Stories from the Frontline. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Milton, D. E. M. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: the ‘double empathy problem.’ Disability & Society, 27(6), 883–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.710008
- Singer, J. (1999). Why can’t you be normal for once in your life? From a “problem with no name” to the emergence of a new category of difference. In Corker & French (Eds.), Disability Discourse.
- Walker, N. (2021). Neuroqueer Heresies: Notes on the Neurodiversity Paradigm, Autistic Empowerment, and Postnormal Possibilities. Fort Worth, TX: Autonomous Press.