School refusal Footnote 1 among neurodivergent students represents a profound failure of traditional education systems to accommodate neurological diversity. Recent Australian data suggest that over 70% of autistic students had persistent absences from school (Clark, Reference Clark2023). This is a result of neurodivergent students feeling alienated, misunderstood, and unsupported by traditional education systems. In this article, we examine how one Flexible Learning Option (FLO) in South Australia potentially helped to foster student reengagement through its emphasis on autonomy, relational safety, and identity empowerment for neurodivergent students.
A focus on the FLO context is timely given that in South Australia there has been a recent shift away from standalone FLOs and towards what is now called Tailored Learning (TL). TL is now primarily delivered within mainstream schools and involves the provision of timetabling options that better meet the needs of students who struggle to attend classes full time (Government of South Australia, Department for Education, 2024a, 2024b). Although integration likely saves money and increases the options available to students, it nonetheless also likely holds the potential to reiterate the challenges faced by neurodivergent students outlined above. As such, it is useful to explore how FLOs may well continue to hold a role within the South Australian education system, or, at the very least, to explore which aspects of FLOs that meet the needs of neurodivergent students may be usefully applied within mainstream schooling.
Literature Review
FLOs emerged as a response to systemic exclusion, offering trauma-informed alternatives designed to reengage disenfranchised learners (Skuse, Reference Skuse2018). Neuroaffirming practices observed in FLOs are encapsulated by the three key pillars described earlier. First, autonomy as a foundation for reengagement: FLOs prioritise self-directed learning, enabling students to tailor pacing, interests, and environments to their unique needs. This approach counters sensory and cognitive overwhelm reported in mainstream settings (Ashburner et al., Reference Ashburner, Bennett, Rodger and Ziviani2013; Jones et al., Reference Jones, Hanley and Riby2020). For example, fluorescent lighting, crowded classrooms, and rigid uniform policies disproportionately impact neurodivergent learners, exacerbating fatigue and cognitive overwhelm common in neurodivergent populations (Ashburner et al., Reference Ashburner, Bennett, Rodger and Ziviani2013; Jones et al., Reference Jones, Hanley and Riby2020). By contrast, in FLOs the use of relaxed dress codes reduces barriers to attendance for students with sensory sensitivities, and flexible timetabling accommodates energy fluctuations characteristic of ADHD and autistic burnout (Australian Education Research Organisation, 2025).
However, while autonomy proves transformative for many, unstructured flexibility risks perpetuating inequities. Students with high support needs may flounder without scaffolding. For instance, the absence of deadlines — helpful for some in reducing anxiety — can exacerbate procrastination for people with ADHD (Niermann & Scheres, Reference Niermann and Scheres2014). Similarly, earlier FLO models prioritised attendance over academic progression, limiting postschool opportunities. As such, and despite progress, FLOs can, at times, replicate the flaws of mainstream schooling.
In terms of the second pillar — relational safety and trauma-informed support — trust-based relationships are central to FLO success, particularly through case managers who provide consistent, non-punitive support. This is especially important given that suspensions for behaviours associated with emotional dysregulation or task avoidance typically only serve to reinforce cycles of exclusion, leaving already vulnerable students feeling inadequate (Graham et al., Reference Graham, McCarthy, Killingly, Tancredi and Poed2020). These structural failures culminate in what Smith and Freyd (Reference Smith and Freyd2014) term institutional betrayal — systems mandated to support neurodivergent youth but instead perpetuate harm by framing neurological differences as deficits requiring remediation rather than identities deserving accommodation.
Finally, the third pillar of identity empowerment through community ensures that neurodivergent students are not simply accommodated but also recognised as a specific group with a collective identity. FLOs foster environments where neurodivergent identities are affirmed rather than suppressed. Normalising stimming, providing communication alternatives (e.g., text-based interactions), and fostering peer connections help to counteract isolation endemic to mainstream schools (Heasman & Gillespie, Reference Heasman and Gillespie2019). Research shows that inclusive and accepting cultures support neurodivergent people to thrive (Pellicano & Heyworth, Reference Pellicano and Heyworth2023).
Research Question
As summarised above, although the three pillars of autonomy, relational safety, and identity empowerment usefully map over to the needs of many neurodivergent students, this is not the same as educational approaches that are designed for neurodivergent students. FLOs provide a proxy for purposively designed neuroaffirming education. With this point in mind, we sought to answer the question of how a subsample of neurodivergent students enrolled in one FLO experienced the three pillars in terms of being neuroaffirming.
Method
Positionality Statement
As a team of researchers, some of whom are autistic or have ADHD, some of whom are parents of neurodivergent children or have lived experience of school refusal during adolescence, we engaged in reflexive practices to balance our dual roles as both insiders and outsiders to the topic. Our insider role allowed us to view the data through a neurodivergent lens, but as adults no longer undertaking formal education and not having experienced a FLO program as students, we were mindful that we are also outsiders to the experiences of our participants. To balance our insider and outsider perspectives, we engaged in journalling as we engaged with the data in order to document our own responses to the material. This enabled us to apply our own lenses to the data while ensuring that we bracketed our own experiences where necessary. Furthermore, while the first author applied a neuroaffirming lens in their initial analysis of the data, the other authors, with different experiences of neurodivergence, provided counter-readings to ensure that a diversity of voices was reflected in the analysis reported.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical approval was obtained from the Flinders University Human Research Ethics Committee (#2930), with informed consent secured from participants and their guardians. Students enrolled in the FLO program were advised that participation was not mandatory, and that declining to participate would not impact their enrolment in the program. Anonymisation protocols removed identifiable details. Participants with literacy needs received support to understand study materials. Students were provided with options about the location and time of the interviews (inside the FLO, at a venue outside the FLO, on the phone or via videoconferencing, and across a range of time options). Participants were informed they could stop and start the interview as needed, including rescheduling during the interview. Participants were also informed that they could have a support person present (including a parent), but none opted to do this.
Participants
The full sample included 30 students aged 13–19 (M = 16) enrolled in a metropolitan South Australian FLO program operated by a non-government organisation. All students enrolled in the program were eligible to participate, with no exclusion criteria. Information about the project was shared via flyers in the FLO space and by educators working in the program. The research team did not engage in direct recruitment of participants; rather, they relied on students seeing or hearing about the information and indicating to staff that they were willing to receive further details about the project. Once staff reported to the research team that students were interested, the fourth author made time to attend the FLO site and speak with these students and provide information and consent procedures, as outlined earlier.
Although recruitment did not explicitly target neurodivergent demographics, 18 participants self-disclosed diagnoses (e.g., autism, ADHD) or described neurodivergent-associated challenges (e.g., sensory sensitivities, emotional regulation difficulties). This subsample comprised nine male, seven female, and two gender-diverse students, with cultural backgrounds including one Māori, one Aboriginal, and 16 non-Indigenous Australian participants. Pseudonyms replaced all identifiable details to protect anonymity.
Data Collection
Data were collected in 2021 through two rounds of semistructured interviews. Initial interviews explored participants’ mainstream school experiences, hopes for FLO, and perceived barriers to engagement. Follow-up interviews explored students’ perceptions of what they liked about the program and what they found challenging, as well as their hopes for the future. Interviews lasted 12–25 minutes (17 minutes on average) and were audio-recorded and transcribed professionally. Although the interview durations were relatively brief, the interview schedule itself was designed to be brief, so as not to overwhelm students or take up their time during classes (if they opted to undertake an interview during FLO attendance). Further, that participants were interviewed twice meant they had ample opportunities to share their views about the FLO program.
Data Analysis
Reflexive thematic analysis of the dataset (Braun & Clarke, Reference Braun and Clarke2021) was undertaken initially by the first author, focusing on neurodivergence and school refusal. Using NVivo 14 software, combined inductive and deductive coding was utilised. Specifically, we sought to use the three pillars of FLO programs as a guide in our initial coding of the data to identify whether or not the application of the pillars actually met the needs of neurodivergent participants while also inductively coding for the specifics of how the three pillars were experienced. The third author reviewed the codes developed by the first author and worked with them to distil the codes into themes. The second author then reviewed and confirmed the themes developed against the dataset. The first author then selected indicative extracts for each of the themes developed.
Results
The themes reported below map onto the three pillars of FLOs: autonomy, relational safety, and identity empowerment. Although each theme is guided by one of the pillars, each theme also provides further depth to how the pillars were actually experienced in practice by neurodivergent students, including in terms of gaps in neuroaffirming approaches.
‘Very Flexible, Maybe Too Flexible’: Autonomy and Its Limits
Neurodivergent students consistently described autonomy as a cornerstone of their positive experiences in FLOs. Unlike mainstream schools, which often enforce rigid structures that exacerbate sensory overload and cognitive fatigue, FLOs empower students to self-direct their learning. For instance, Calvin noted,
Not having to wear [a] uniform is so much better … to a normal student, [uniforms are] fine, but to a student like me who’s … had sensory issues with clothes, it’s really challenging and I guess that didn’t help with everything in school.
Similarly, relaxed timetables allowed students to manage energy fluctuations characteristic of ADHD and autistic burnout (Clarke, Reference Clarke2025; Toudal & Attwood, Reference Toudal and Attwood2024).
Reduced surveillance further distinguished FLOs from mainstream environments. In the exchange that follows, one student, Danielle, describes how she used flexibility within the program to self-regulate during periods of distress, contrasting this with her experience in mainstream schooling:
Interviewer: What would have happened if you felt really anxious in a class at [mainstream] school?
Danielle: I don’t know. I’d probably ask to go to the bathroom, then call my mum and tell her to pick me up [laughs]. But I don’t know. I used to just do that. I never asked teachers because if I did, they would just tell me to sit back down.
Interviewer: Did that contribute to your attendance dropping?
Danielle: Yes.
The kind of flexibility offered to Danielle and other FLO students fosters a sense of agency, enabling students to navigate stress without fear of judgement. However, unstructured flexibility posed risks for some participants. Several interviewees acknowledged procrastination tendencies exacerbated by the absence of deadlines. One participant admitted they found FLO ‘very flexible, maybe too flexible’, while another noted that they struggled with maintaining motivation and regular attendance at FLO. This tension highlights the need for structured scaffolding, particularly for students requiring additional support.
Furthermore, and despite innovations in educational delivery, certain gaps remain unresolved in the FLO program that was the focus of this study, particularly when it came to the design and implementation of online education tools. Learning platforms such as the Basic Key Skills Builder (BKSB), which are often used to support FLOs and assess students’ literacy and numeracy skills, drew criticism from some students for replicating inaccessible design flaws prevalent in mainstream schools. One student commented that
BKSB sucks, and I mean most kids think that, but it doesn’t work for how my brain works. It doesn’t actually make me learn anything … just staring at a screen doing that, it’s just like me staring at a wall, it doesn’t really get to me.
This feedback underscores the failure of many digital tools to accommodate diverse learning needs, including those of neurodivergent students who may require more tailored, multimodal approaches to engage effectively with content.
‘They Help Talk Things Out’: Relational Safety as Harm Reduction
Also important to participants’ positive perceptions of FLOs was the presence of case managers who provided consistent, non-punitive support. Abbey summarised this shift succinctly: ‘these guys just care more about what’s actually going on with you … they are actually focusing on each student individually, not just every student combined in a group’. Case managers facilitated access to practical resources, such as resume assistance and vocational pathways, while offering emotional validation during crises. Ryan elaborated, ‘You can tell them if you’re going to be in or not … They help talk things out, kind of like a therapist.’ The provision of sensory tools further underscored the value of trauma-informed practices in supporting students’ embodied needs. For instance, one student, Jan, shared her experience with her case manager, highlighting the profound impact of relational safety and personalised support:
Me and [my case manager], we are really close, and she knows about all my stress in life. She got me this pin mat. So, it’s made out of a whole lot of pins connected to like a blow-up mattress, what you can lie down on and stand on, and it puts all the stress away, instead of like self-harming or like hurting yourself, to get out stress. It’s just like a stress relief mat. So she brings it every day for me, just in case I need to use it for something, and she’s really understanding. She’s really nice.
Jan’s reflection illustrates how case managers can play a pivotal role in fostering trust and providing practical, sensory-based tools that help students manage stress and avoid harmful coping mechanisms. This approach contrasts sharply with the frequent dismissal of sensory accommodations in mainstream schools as unnecessary or preferential. By prioritising relationships and understanding the unique needs of students, case managers create a supportive environment that promotes both emotional regulation and academic engagement. These trauma-informed practices prioritise advocacy over discipline and ensure students feel seen, supported, and empowered to succeed.
‘I Feel That’s What They Care About’: Identity Empowerment Through Neuroaffirmation
Perhaps most significantly, the FLO appeared to foster environments where neurodivergent identities were affirmed rather than suppressed. Many respondents described feeling accepted and understood for the first time, highlighting a sense of camaraderie among students that contrasted sharply with their previous experiences of bullying and exclusion in mainstream schools. Jan observed, ‘Everyone here seems happier than when they started off.’ By normalising sensory needs, differences in learning and communication, and encouraging peer connections, FLOs counteracted masking pressures often reported by neurodivergent individuals. This aligns with findings from Cooper et al.’s (Reference Cooper, Cooper, Russell and Smith2021) study, which underscores the importance of creating inclusive cultures that improve self-esteem and mental health outcomes for neurodivergent people.
For late-diagnosed students, who often internalise negative labels such as ‘lazy’ or ‘disruptive’, these affirmations are particularly transformative. Several students reflected on the reduced demands made in FLOs, with one student stating,
You have no time to do your homework [in mainstream schools], and you go to school and you get stressed out by your teachers, because they’re annoyed at you for not doing your work … whereas FLO is very understanding. If you’ve got stuff going on at home, you know, complete your homework when you can, when you feel like you are in a good head space to do that, like do it. As long as you get it done, I feel that’s what they care about, more your mental health versus your grades and how you’re going.
This insight encapsulates the ethos of neuroaffirming and trauma-informed education: meeting students where they are and adapting systems to support their needs rather than expecting them to conform to rigid structures. Such an approach not only validates neurodivergent identities but also fosters a sense of belonging and empowerment, both of which are critical for long-term wellbeing and academic engagement.
Discussion
The findings presented in this paper illuminate the transformative potential of FLOs for neurodivergent students, many of whom experience systemic exclusion in mainstream education. We now explore how our findings connect to previous research, before outlining how insights from the FLO program may be expanded to address drivers of disengagement in mainstream education.
One of the most striking contrasts between experiences of mainstream schools and the FLO was the emphasis on autonomy. This resonates with research showing that sensory accommodations reduce barriers to attendance for neurodivergent students (Petersson-Bloom & Holmqvist, Reference Petersson-Bloom and Holmqvist2022). Although autonomy proved transformative for many participants, unstructured flexibility posed risks for some. Several interviewees acknowledged procrastination tendencies exacerbated by the absence of hard deadlines and strict assessments. For some neurodivergent students, a lack of scaffolding and structure can be counterproductive, potentially leading to disengagement or academic underperformance. A study by Niermann and Scheres (Reference Niermann and Scheres2014) highlights that symptoms of inattention, such as difficulty sustaining focus and organising tasks, are positively correlated with general procrastination. This suggests that unstructured environments may disproportionately challenge students with inattentive traits, who already struggle with task initiation and completion.
Similarly, in terms of relational safety, participants reported that their past sense of institutional betrayal (Smith & Freyd, Reference Smith and Freyd2014) was countered in the FLO space. Reduced surveillance allowed students to navigate stress without fear of judgement. Such practices align with calls to dismantle punitive systems that exacerbate anxiety and alienation among neurodivergent students (Senate Education and Employment References Committee, 2023, p. 89). Especially important was that relational safety as engendered within the FLO did not simply mean that students felt safer. It also appeared that for some students their relationships with staff were a direct counter to the impetus to self-harm in the face of dysregulation. Relational safety within the FLO thus not only helped to repair past education-related traumas but also helped students to better regulate.
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the FLO program was experienced by participants as fostering an environment where neurodivergent identities were affirmed. By supporting diversity, encouraging peer connections, and addressing individual needs, the FLO helped to counteract years of masking pressures, which have been linked to negative mental health outcomes such as anxiety, depression, and diminished self-esteem (Evans et al., Reference Evans, Krumrei-Mancuso and Rouse2024). This aligns with Cage et al.’s (Reference Cage, Di Monaco and Newell2019) findings that neuroinclusive school cultures improve self-esteem and mental health outcomes among neurodivergent young people.
Implications for Schools
For mainstream schools, the findings reported in this paper suggest key principles that could help address the needs of neurodivergent students. First, allow flexible start times or breaks to accommodate fluctuating energy levels. While these form part of the newly implemented TL, students who are not currently accessing TL may also benefit from such flexibility. Second, provide quiet spaces for sensory regulation. Again, mainstream schools increasingly provide sensory spaces; however, these are typically only accessible to specific students and at specific times with supervision when available. This may limit the extent to which neurodivergent students feel comfortable and able to access these spaces. Third, reduce rigid enforcement of policies unrelated to core learning outcomes. This appears to be the greatest barrier to the implementation of neuroaffirming practices within mainstream schools. Students are often expected to undertake all aspects of learning unless they have a TL, meaning that students without a TL, and specifically neurodivergent students, may feel compelled to engage in activities that are beyond core learning. This requires a reorientation of the curriculum to more clearly differentiate core competencies from generalised skill development.
Beyond these aspects of the FLO program that are either already being implemented in mainstream schools through TL or that may be harder to implement in mainstream schools absent a change in curriculum, the presence of case managers who provided consistent, non-punitive support was an important feature of the FLO examined in the present study. Mainstream schools could replicate this model by embedding trained wellbeing staff within classrooms, ensuring that every student has access to a trusted adult who understands their unique needs. Additionally, professional development for all educators should include training on recognising and responding to signs of distress without resorting to punitive measures. While South Australian schools currently provide the Strategies for Managing Abuse Related Trauma program (Australian Childhood Foundation, 2025) to all teachers, it is arguably the case that this training is not inherently neuroaffirming. The specific focus on intentional harms overlooks systemic harms caused to neurodivergent people. Neuroaffirming training that includes a focus on trauma is likely to result in increased safety for neurodivergent students.
In terms of identity empowerment, mainstream schools seeking to emulate success with regard to this in FLOs could usefully consider (a) creating affinity groups or clubs for neurodivergent students, (b) encouraging open discussions about neurodiversity in classrooms, and (c) incorporating neurodivergent perspectives into curriculum design. Such initiatives would signal to neurodivergent students that their identities are valued and respected, fostering a culture of belonging. By reducing the need for masking and promoting authentic self-expression, schools can help mitigate the psychological toll associated with concealing one’s true identity.
Despite innovations in educational delivery, certain gaps remain unresolved in FLOs, perpetuating cycles of exclusion and inequity for vulnerable students. Online platforms used in models such as FLO, including the BKSB program, have drawn criticism from students for replicating design flaws that render them inaccessible to students with disability or diverse learning needs. These issues echo broader systemic failures identified in Graham et al.’s (Reference Graham, McCarthy, Killingly, Tancredi and Poed2020) Inquiry Into Suspension, Exclusion, and Expulsion Processes in South Australian Government Schools, which underscores how entrenched practices in the digital space often fail neurodivergent students. Harrison and colleagues (Reference Harrison, Rowlings, White, Vallence and Potemkin2024) suggest that rather than viewing digital learning as an accommodation, it can instead be seen as endorsing a neuroaffirming approach to education. Platforms and devices that allow students to learn outside of the structured classroom, engage learning styles (such as games) that tap into the skills and interests of neurodivergent students, and offer multiform learning materials that readily respond to student needs (i.e., low text, high graphic), represent the importance of continued development of digital technologies in mainstream education to better meet the needs of neurodivergent students.
Finally, in terms of implications, it is important to address the ultimate barrier to any implementation of neuroaffirming approaches to education: resources. In an already overstretched public education system, any call for inclusion that is likely to increase costs is always sure to be met with resistance. This is especially true for smaller schools, schools in regional and remote areas, and schools located in lower socioeconomic areas. Yet we must ask the broader question of what school disengagement and refusal mean in terms of the economy. The Australian Government has set a goal for 80% or more of the working population holding a tertiary degree. Achieving this goal means investing in children’s education now. Centring neuroaffirming approaches — which are likely to benefit all students — is a clear pathway to success.
Future Research Directions
Longitudinal studies are needed to evaluate post-FLO (or now TL) outcomes — such as autonomy and its translation into employment success, relational safety and its translation into secure and healthy relationships, and identity empowerment and its translation into life success — and to assess the long-term impact of these programs. These studies should aim to track students over extended periods, capturing nuanced data on their transitions into further education, employment, or other pathways, while also examining how participation in FLOs influences mental health and wellbeing over time.
Additionally, participatory methodologies, where neurodivergent stakeholders co-design research and interventions, offer promising avenues for meaningful reform. For instance, the co-design process described in Fotheringham et al.’s (Reference Fotheringham, Cebula, Fletcher-Watson, Foley and Crompton2023) study highlights the importance of embedding the voices and perspectives of neurodivergent young people in developing peer support programs within mainstream schools. This approach ensures that interventions are not only relevant but also empowering, as they prioritise inclusiveness and recognise the expertise of neurodivergent students. By adopting similar participatory frameworks in evaluating FLOs, researchers can create more equitable and effective systems that genuinely address the needs of marginalised students, fostering better long-term outcomes across academic, social, and emotional domains. Central to these frameworks is consultation. Rather than researchers or educators designing projects or programs and only then speaking to neurodivergent students, it is vital that collaboration occurs from the beginning. Such collaboration must centre neuroaffirming approaches as they are elaborated by the students themselves.
Limitations
The study’s reliance on self-disclosed neurodivergence risks underrepresenting students who mask traits or lack formal diagnoses. Further, the interview schedule itself did not specifically ask about neurodivergence, meaning that (a) some students may not have felt safe to disclose, and (b) specific questions were not asked about what neuroaffirming approaches to education could look like. Although we argued in the Method that the interview lengths reflect the interview schedule, it is possible that more tailored questions may have elicited deeper responses, just as offering further adaptations (such as games that facilitated conversation) may have allowed participants other ways to share their views.
Further, and despite the adaptations provided to participants, the project itself was not co-designed with neurodivergent students themselves, meaning that any adaptations may have been partial. Future studies should address these limitations by co-designing methodologies with neurodivergent students. This should involve member checking of findings, which, due to the constraints of the school year and the timing of the project, did not occur in the present project.
Although this paper primarily focuses on neurodivergence, it is important to acknowledge how intersecting identities, such as Indigeneity, gender diversity, or rurality, shape experiences in alternative learning models. For instance, rural students often face additional barriers due to chronic under-resourcing. The Independent Review Into Regional, Rural and Remote Education (Halsey, Reference Halsey2018) highlights the persistent inequities faced by rural students, emphasising that location remains a key determinant of educational outcomes. This includes limited access to specialised staff, such as mental health professionals, who play an essential role in fostering inclusive environments. While our axial coding did not identify any aspects of the themes specific to intersecting identities, it is most certainly the case that this was the product of the brief interview schedule. Although designed not to be taxing for students, it likely also meant that intersectionality was overlooked.
Conclusion
Neurodivergent students participating in FLOs describe these programs as transformative alternatives that address the specific challenges leading to their school refusal, such as anxiety, sensory sensitivities, social difficulties, and a lack of neuroaffirming support. With the transition from FLOs to TL, the findings reported in this paper highlight what works well for neurodivergent students, what could be directly translated from FLOs to TLs, and what needs greater attention going forward.
Our findings call on us to confront the paradox of ‘flexible’ or ‘alternative’ education models. By paradox, we mean that while these models of education are lifelines for many of the students who access them, their existence risks absolving mainstream systems of responsibility for reform. In other words, they are paradoxical in that they seek to promote inclusion, but only by an approach that sees inclusion as additional business rather than core business for education. True inclusion requires treating neuroaffirming inclusion as core business. This requires dismantling the conditions that make alternatives necessary, transforming education into a space that supports rather than harms neurodivergent students. The students in this study, like countless neurodivergent young people, are experts in understanding their own needs. Educators and policymakers must listen to their voices, centring their experiences to create meaningful, inclusive changes. By doing so, we can move towards an education system that values neurodivergence, dismantles ableist infrastructures, and ensures equitable opportunities for all learners.
Acknowledgements
The authors begin by acknowledging that they live on the lands of the Kaurna and Peramangk peoples, as well as the people of the Kulin Nations, and acknowledge their sovereignty as First Nations people. Thanks must go to the staff at the Relationships Australia South Australia SCILS program for their support with this project.
Funding
Funding for the research reported in this paper was received from the Channel 7 Children’s Research Foundation, Project ID: 21-16785884.
Open access
