The traditional model of formal education — its curriculum, delivery style, assessment methods — remains grounded in the industrial-era ideal of efficiency, uniformity and standardisation. That model has barely changed, even as population needs, workforce demands and our understanding of human development have transformed.

For the rapidly growing population of neurodiverse children — including those with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and other neurodevelopmental differences — this outdated structure does more than fail to support them; it actively creates barriers.

The time for minor adjustments is long past. Australia urgently needs a full-scale reimagining of curriculum, learning design, teacher training, assessment frameworks and therapeutic integration across primary, secondary and tertiary education.

The Case for Review and Reform

Neurodiversity is not marginal. It is demographic reality.

• In 2022, the Australian Bureau of Statistics recorded 290,900 autistic Australians, a 41.8% increase since 2018.
• ADHD affects an estimated one in 20 children, with some estimates placing prevalence even higher.
• Disability-related learning needs have grown to the point where nearly one in four Australian students now require additional support.

Despite this, the school system continues to operate as though every child thinks, learns, processes and performs in one authorised way — and any deviation from that template is a “problem” rather than a difference.

A genuinely modern education system would acknowledge that diversity in cognition, executive functioning, communication and sensory processing requires diversity of curriculum, assessment, pacing, instructional methods and supports.

What Must Change: Curriculum, Assessment, Delivery and Teacher Training

To meet the needs of neurodiverse learners, reform must be structural, not cosmetic. This includes:

1. A Curriculum Framework Rebuilt Around Flexibility

The curriculum should allow multiple pathways to demonstrate understanding — not just written exams or rigid tasks. Neurodiverse students often excel in visual thinking, pattern recognition, creative problem-solving and hands-on learning. The system should leverage, not suppress, those strengths.

2. Assessment Designed to Measure Ability, Not Compliance

Standardised tests privilege speed, memory recall and conformity — traits not aligned with many neurodiverse profiles. Alternative assessments (project-based, oral, practical, iterative, multimodal) are essential.

3. Delivery Models that Integrate Therapeutic Support

School-based access to occupational therapists, educational psychologists, speech-language pathologists, executive-function coaches and social-skills specialists should be standard practice, not an optional extra.

4. A Complete Overhaul of Education Degrees

Future teachers must graduate with deep competence in neurodiversity-aware pedagogy, sensory-informed classroom management, trauma-informed practice, and executive-function–supportive teaching. The content of teaching degrees should reflect modern cognitive science — not 19th-century industrial schooling.

Why Therapeutic-Integrated Education Works

Research consistently shows that integrated therapeutic support improves academic and life outcomes for neurodiverse students.

Occupational therapy enhances attention, planning, sensory regulation and emotional stability.
Executive-function training improves memory, organisation, problem-solving and task initiation.
Educational psychology supports learning design, behaviour, social cognition and engagement.
Social-skills programs and cognitive behavioural strategies can reduce anxiety and improve peer relationships.

These interventions do more than help children “cope” in school — they help them thrive academically, socially and emotionally.

When funded properly, these supports help neurodiverse children bridge learning gaps, build confidence and develop independence. The success stories prove that poor outcomes are not inevitable — they are the result of under-resourced systems.

The Problem With Thriving Kids: Too Narrow, Too Late, Too Short-Term

The federal government’s upcoming Thriving Kids program — aimed at children under 8 with developmental delay or autism — is pitched as a major reform. While it offers earlier access to allied health supports, it is fundamentally not a systemic education reform.

Its primary design appears to be reducing pressure on the NDIS, not building a lifelong, multi-stage therapeutic and educational pathway for neurodiverse Australians.

Most critically, Thriving Kids offers no clarity on supports past early primary school, despite the fact that challenges often intensify in upper primary, secondary school and tertiary settings. Neurodiverse young people do not “grow out” of their needs; academic, social and organisational demands only increase.

Australia risks creating a model where children receive a burst of early support — then are left to fend for themselves just as schooling becomes more complex.

A Brief Comparison: What Government Funding Priorities Reveal

When we compare government funding allocated to different population groups, a stark pattern emerges. For example, the federal government invests over $5.3 billion annually in Indigenous-specific programs for a population representing around 3.8% of Australians. This demonstrates that when a group is recognised as needing systemic, long-term support, the government can — and does — commit substantial, multi-year resources. In contrast, neurodiverse Australians — a population of similar or greater size when considering autism, ADHD and other developmental conditions combined — receive far less dedicated, education-specific funding, with most disability-related expenditure tied to the NDIS and not to systemic educational reform or therapeutic integration in schools. Even recent measures such as the Thriving Kids program focus narrowly on early childhood rather than providing the long-term, curriculum-integrated, school-based support that neurodiverse young people require through primary, secondary and tertiary education. This comparison highlights a critical point: the issue is not the government’s inability to fund complex needs, but its failure to prioritise neurodiversity with the same seriousness, consistency and long-term planning afforded to other disadvantaged groups. Until neurodiverse children and young people receive the same level of structural investment, the inequities they face will persist — not because of their differences, but because of the system’s choices.

A Call for Real, System-Wide Change

If Australia is serious about equity and inclusion, then it must:

• Conduct a full review of the national curriculum, embedding flexibility and universal design for learning.
• Redesign assessment to reflect real human diversity in cognition and ability.
• Integrate therapeutic professionals into schools as core staff, not “extras.”
• Overhaul Education degrees to align teaching practice with neurodiversity science.
• Provide consistent support across secondary and tertiary education, not just early childhood.
• Commit to long-term, multi-billion-dollar investment — because inclusion cannot be built on shallow, short-cycle grants.

Final Word — Education Must Change, Not the Children

The truth is simple: neurodiverse children are not failing school — school is failing them.

They do not need to be “fixed” to fit into outdated systems.
The systems need to evolve to recognise the full range of human minds.

Reimagining education for neurodiversity is not a luxury or a niche reform.
It is a social, economic and moral imperative — and a test of whether Australia is willing to build an education system for the world we live in, not the world of two centuries ago.