Beyond reasonable adjustments: a blueprint for neuro-inclusive assessment in UK higher education

This blog was kindly authored by Imran Mir, Campus Head and Programme Lead at Apex College

Over the past decade, UK universities have made major progress in recognising neurodiversity within their student populations. Disability disclosure data have been increasing steadily, with data from the Office for Students clearly showing thatin 2023–24 one in five (19.9 per cent) of full-time undergraduates  are now reporting a disability. Cognitive and learning differences, which include specific learning differences and can include neurodevelopmental conditions, form a substantial proportion of these disclosures, as clearly highlighted in these HESA student characteristics data.

Alongside this, disability services have expanded and institutional awareness has improved. However despite these developments, concerns still remain about differential experiences, assessment-related appeals, and student burnout among neurodivergent learners. Analysis carried out by the Office for Students highlights persistent differences occurring between disabled and non-disabled students, even though entry qualifications are the same.

The issue is not a lack of commitment or intent. Rather, it is a system-level problem. Higher education continues to rely heavily on an adjustment-based model of inclusion that was never designed for the scale or diversity of today’s student body.

Reasonable adjustments matter. But they are not enough.

The limits of reasonable adjustments

The reasonable adjustment framework rests on the assumption that a ‘neutral’ academic system exists, and that fairness can be achieved by modifying it for individuals who struggle within it. In practice, this approach places significant responsibility on students themselves.

To access support, students are often required to:

• recognise that they are struggling;
• interpret that difficulty as disability-related rather than academic;
• obtain diagnostic evidence, frequently at personal cost; and
• disclose their needs repeatedly across multiple institutional systems.

Evidence from Disabled Students UK’s Access Insights report suggests that many disabled students experience support systems as complex, inconsistent, and emotionally demanding, even after disclosure. Only around 38 per cent of disabled students report having the support and adjustments they need. Some students delay disclosing, while others choose not to disclose at all. Those who do not engage successfully with these systems are left on their own to navigate assessments which place them at a disadvantage by design, particularly under time-pressured examinations, rigid attendance expectations, and narrowly defined academic outputs.

In effect, current systems risk rewarding masking and penalising difference.

Assessment as a structural barrier

Many assessment practices in higher education privilege speed, sustained concentration under pressure, and familiarity with implicit academic conventions. These characteristics are rarely explicit learning outcomes, yet they are often treated as indicators of academic ability.

For neurodivergent students, this can result in predictable patterns:

• strong conceptual understanding undermined by exam conditions;
• high-quality work offset by inconsistent performance;
• repeated reassessment or appeals framed as individual shortcomings rather than design mismatch.

Sector guidance from the Quality Assurance Agency and analysis by Advance HE have regularly continued to highlight assessment design as a major contributor to differential outcomes.

These challenges are not unique to neurodivergent learners. International students, mature learners, carers, and students from widening participation backgrounds report similar issues. This suggests that the problem lies less with individual ability and more with how assessment is being designed.

From adjustment to inclusion by design

A neuro-inclusive method does not mean that academic standards have to be lowered. Rather, it starts by asking a more important question: what is it we are trying to assess?

Quality assurance guidance clearly shows that inclusive assessment should expect learner diversity from the outset, instead of relying solely on post-hoc adjustments. There is growing interest in having authentic assessments which has reinforced the value of aligning assessments more closely with the real-world academic and professional practices to help these learners to navigate their academic and professional careers.

Practical approaches can include:

• offering varied but equivalent assessment formats aligned to the same learning outcomes;
• reducing unnecessary time pressure where speed is not the skill being assessed;
• embedding formative assessment and feedback earlier in programmes;
• designing tasks that prioritise application, analysis, and synthesis over performance under constraint.

Evidence suggests these approaches can improve engagement and attainment across entire cohorts, while also reducing the administrative burden associated with individual adjustment requests and appeals.

Why this matters now

With participation widening across age, background, and prior qualification routes, and with modular and flexible provision set to expand under the Lifelong Learning Entitlement, the number of neurodivergent learners in higher education is likely to increase.

At the same time, Office for Students data clearly shows that the increasing demand for support services, and the concern for student wellbeing is rising. Systems that rely mainly on individual disclosure, resilience narratives, and self-management are unlikely to be sustainable at scale.

Universities face a choice. They can continue to retrofit support onto assessment models which are designed for a much narrower student population, or they can redesign assessments to show the diversity of contemporary learners.

Moving beyond reasonable adjustments is not about reducing rigour. It is more about ensuring that the assessment measures in place are about learning rather than endurance, and that all the students can demonstrate what they know and can do.

If higher education is serious about being inclusive, fair, and committed to student success, assessment reform must be at the centre of that discussion.