Is it true or false that cutting a child’s sugar intake is effective in reducing the symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)? Or that autistic children do not have empathy? Or that dyslexic children can be helped by giving them coloured overlays to read through?

These are all questions posed to teachers and members of the public in a research project that aims to tackle “neuromyths” around special educational needs and disabilities in schools - and, in case you were wondering, all three are termed by the researchers as neuromyths.

The prevalence of neuromyths - commonly held misconceptions about the brain that persist despite being debunked in research - in education has been discussed by researchers before. Examples sometimes cited as educational neuromyths include the idea that people use only 10 per cent of their brains, or that students have visual, auditory or kinaesthetic “learning styles” (even the Department for Education is still going with that one).

But much less attention has been devoted to the prevalence of neuromyths about SEND, “which have the potential to exacerbate stigma”, according to two of the researchers behind the new project: Michael Thomas, professor of cognitive neuroscience at Birkbeck, University of London, and Jo Van Herwegen, associate professor in developmental psychology at UCL Institute of Education.

This lack of attention is problematic, say the pair, who are part of the Centre for Educational Neuroscience, which brings together researchers in neuroscience, child development, psychology and education from Birkbeck, UCL and the IoE in an attempt to “establish a dialogue between researchers and educationalists to further translations of research into practice to improve education and wellbeing”.

Thomas says that “miscommunication in the shape of neuromyths” around SEND can sometimes “lead to practices going on in the classroom where there isn’t really any evidence base”.

Van Herwegen gives the example of failing to understand the nature of ADHD, which might lead a school to conclude that a child who doesn’t show “what people perceive to be the classic deficits”, such as hyperactivity, does not have ADHD. This, in turn, could lead to that child simply being viewed as “naughty” and not receiving the right support.

So, what does the new study tell us are the biggest SEND neuromyths that are still being peddled in education? And what can schools do about them?

The survey focused on the most common “neurodevelopmental” needs in the UK - dyslexia, autism spectrum disorder (ASD) ADHD - and the most common learning disability with a genetic cause, Down syndrome. Thomas and Van Herwegen did not focus on language and speech needs “because there’s a lot of debate [there], it’s a wider category and different people have different labels and names” for those needs, says Van Herwegen.

Their paper, published with colleagues from the IoE, Newcastle University and Ulster University in the journal Mind, Brain, and Education, set out to test two hypotheses: that neuromyths around SEND would be more common than other neuromyths; and that “teachers would hold fewer incorrect beliefs than the general public”, based on their “exposure to educational training and/or direct experience”.

To test these, 569 participants (203 of whom worked in education and 366 of whom were members of the public) completed a survey, which presented them with 30 statements (including the three at the start of this article) on ASD, ADHD, dyslexia and Down syndrome. They were asked to rate each statement on a four-point Likert scale (“true”, “probably true”, “probably false”, “false” ).

Some of the statements included in the survey were true, while the researchers consider others to be neuromyths.

For example, one neuromyth included in the survey is that “dyslexia is caused by problems with vision”. This likely “evolved from the original description of this condition as ‘word blindness’,” says Van Herwegen. But “this explanation has long since been dispelled as behavioural, and neuroimaging studies have presented evidence of phonological (ie, sound-based) deficits and anatomical differences in the brains of children with dyslexia compared with typically developing children,” she adds.

The myths that threaten SEND support in schools

Another dyslexia myth included in the survey - which was also the “top” myth (ie, the statement that people were least likely to recognise as a neuromyth) - was that “dyslexia can be helped by using coloured lenses and/or coloured overlays”.

That stems from the fact that “visual stress” - the sensation of distortions and discomfort when reading - was once thought to be a cause of dyslexia. Coloured overlays, Van Herwegen points out, were believed to alleviate this stress.

“However, this approach has since been shown to be ineffective,” she says, citing a study by researchers at the University of York that deployed overlays for groups of undergraduate students with and without dyslexia, finding that while both groups read jumbled text faster with overlays, the dyslexic group “did not show greater gains” and overlays “did not improve reading rate or comprehension”.

Elsewhere, one of the myths around ADHD included in the survey was the idea that “reducing dietary intake of sugar or food additives is generally effective in reducing the symptoms of ADHD”.

Van Herwegen describes the evidence here as “currently weak and inconclusive”. She highlights a study of nearly 3,000 children in Brazil, which found that sucrose consumption was associated with ADHD - although only in boys at age 6. In a follow-up study with the same children at age 11, “change in sucrose consumption was not associated with change in ADHD prevalence, as would have been expected if sucrose was a contributing cause of ADHD,” she explains.

Also a neuromyth is that “prolonged use of stimulant medications for ADHD leads to increased addiction in adulthood”.

“While ADHD is associated with higher rates of drug misuse”, it may be that “ADHD traits such as impulsivity and emotional dysregulation may themselves contribute” to that association - and “there is no evidence to suggest that stimulant medication increases the risk of drug misuse”, says Van Herwegen.

And when it comes to ASD, the list of neuromyths included the notion that “children with autism do not like to be touched”.

Research shows that “unusual sensory experiences are a key feature in individuals with ASD and many autistic people have sensitive sensory experiences, especially related to touch”, says Van Herwegen. But one study based on interviews with parents of autistic people “showed large individual differences with some autistic individuals liking to touch everything and others responding negatively to touch”.

“However,” she adds, “tactile sensitivity in autism is currently not well understood and further research in this domain is required.”

The above are just a few examples of the misconceptions that the researchers looked at; there may be many more neuromyths being perpetuated around SEND. But just how common is belief in these myths in schools?

The researchers found that “more erroneous beliefs” were held for SEND neuromyths than general neuromyths - confirming their hypothesis that belief in neuromyths is more prevalent around SEND.

But on their second hypothesis - that teachers would be more able to spot SEND neuromyths than the general public - the paper says that participants’ “involvement in education … did not influence beliefs in neuromyths, or modulate the respective beliefs in different types of neuromyth”.

Those working in education identified 75 per cent of SEND neuromyths correctly, compared with 74 per cent for the general public. In other words, being a teacher didn’t seem to have much of an impact on a person’s ability to spot a misconception about SEND.

On the surface, this seems troubling. But there are some important caveats here: at 569 participants, with 203 of them working in education, the survey isn’t huge. And with participants “recruited through opportunity sampling by circulating a link to the survey to databases from different research centres, as well as on social media such as Twitter and Facebook”, it wasn’t a random sample of teachers and the public.

It’s also worth noting that the researchers were not able to gain enough Sendco participants to look at their knowledge.

That might be an important point, says Margaret Mulholland, SEND and inclusion policy specialist for the Association of School and College Leaders, because much of the SEND knowledge in schools lies with Sendcos.

“Certainly, Sendcos can and do support the development of quality teaching through highlighting myths and challenging the limitations of labelling,” she says.

Mulholland also urges caution around presenting some of these ideas as outright myths. For example, she points to the fact that some schools make “strong arguments” for the use of coloured overlays, having seen an “impact on outcomes” for some students.

“I think we need to recognise that the research is limited,” she says.

However, Mulholland continues that while Sendco knowledge is good, “being given time and credibility within school” to share that knowledge and prioritise training for staff “can sometimes be an issue”.

Liz Hawker, a SEND specialist and assessor based in Kent, agrees. “There are plenty of myths - most come from a one-size-fits-all approach to SEND categories, which seems efficient but ignores the huge variation among learners, particularly those with cognitive-processing difficulties,” she says.

Open conversations

So, what can be done to tackle these myths? Training is one obvious solution, according to Thomas and Van Herwegen. The fact that teachers and the public fared the same on their ability to identity developmental neuromyths “suggests that current training approaches for those entering work in education are insufficient”, their paper concludes.

Hawker, likewise, believes that “SEND should feature as early as possible within teacher training and should not be bolted on as extra information at a late stage”.

“If all teaching is to be inclusive, insights into neurodivergence and sensory/physical needs should pervade teacher development from early on,” she points out.

Van Herwegen agrees, adding that if greater weight was placed on SEND in initial teacher training then that could have welcome knock-on effects on school priorities.

In focus groups conducted alongside the survey, Van Herwegen heard teachers say that SEND is seen as “important, but in the list of all the things in a mainstream school that need to be discussed, that’s the one that often falls down the bottom of the list and maybe off the list”, especially given the extra strains of the pandemic. “That’s the struggle,” she continues. “If, within initial teacher training, there’s more focus on it, then the stepping stone is not so high any more. You can start with a really good knowledge.”

Training in this area needs to be expanded well beyond ITT, though. Thomas and Van Herwegen argue that their research shows that an awareness campaign to address SEND myths is needed - and could be successful. (Their project will result in an awareness campaign launching next month, using explainer videos and a leaflet detailing five tips to avoid neuromyths around SEND in schools.)

The research shows that “the only significant predictor of neuromyth [identification] accuracy was how often respondents accessed information about the brain”. Survey participants were asked how often they accessed information about the brain: weekly, monthly, every three to six months, once per year, hardly ever or never.

“One of the encouraging aspects of our study was to show that dissemination seems to work,” says Thomas.

Their paper reveals that teachers “were more likely to accurately identify neuromyths on ASD rather than ADHD, Down syndrome and dyslexia”, noting that “much campaigning has taken place over recent years to improve awareness surrounding ASD, including the Autism Awareness Campaign UK in 2000, which aimed to improve services in health and education”. Plus, on autism, advocacy groups have also “designed continuous professional development (CPD) programmes to support teachers in adopting good practices in the classroom”, they add.

Regarding the potential effectiveness of awareness campaigns, they also cite separate research by Bath Spa University researchers that shows that for a group of university-based trainee teachers, a short workshop had a positive impact in reducing trainees’ beliefs in neuromyths, including those on left brain/right brain thinking and learning styles.

“Part of the awareness campaign is just making people aware that sometimes we endorse knowledge that might not necessarily be entirely true,” says Van Herwegen. The aim is to encourage people to reflect on that, “when they are having lunch in the common room or wherever, where they can have these more open conversations which might help in addressing some of these neuromyths”.

Of course, there are “massive pressures on time” in schools, says Thomas. “We can’t expect teachers to be spending a huge amount of time training up on all the neuroscience … But we can try to crystallise that to give advice on things to look out for, things that might work, and then encourage them to work in their own classrooms to see what actually works for them.”

There’s a lack of “translation [of research] around special educational needs and disabilities” into classrooms “and yet there’s 20 years of research” on the topic, he adds.

When it comes to dissemination and translation of this research, schools shouldn’t have to rely on external campaigns, however. As mentioned earlier, the expertise that schools need is often already there, in the form of their Sendco - the problem is being able to tap into that knowledge effectively.

According to the National Senco Workforce Survey, run by Bath Spa University and the National Association for Special Educational Needs, Sendcos don’t have the influence they should within schools.

The 2020 edition of the survey revealed that the proportion of primary Sendcos represented on their school’s senior leadership team had decreased to 68 per cent. In secondary schools, the proportion on senior leadership teams had increased, but stood at just 34 per cent. The survey report called for Sendcos to be given “more time, resources and support” as well as to “routinely have the opportunity to influence strategic decision making”, such as by being a member of their school’s senior leadership team.

Mulholland agrees that there needs to be “a whole-school endeavour” on SEND, adding that it should not be “the Sendco who should deliver all things SEND”.

The bigger picture on SEND is, of course, the funding crisis, with schools left unable to cope with the volume of need.

Hopes that this situation would improve as a result of the government’s promised SEND review have so far come to little: the review has been repeatedly delayed since being launched more than two years ago by Gavin Williamson, then education secretary.

SEND has not been prioritised in recent years, but will that change? Speaking earlier this month at the NAHT school leaders’ union conference, the new education secretary, Nadhim Zahawi, told headteachers that the ongoing review is a “high priority”.

Funding for SEND is also set to get a boost, with chancellor Rishi Sunak this week announcing a £2.6 billion investment to create more special school places and support for pupils with SEND in mainstream schools.

In the current context, though, is it really surprising that neuromyths around SEND have arisen? The answer, most would agree, is “no”. But let’s hope that SEND is indeed about to become much more of a priority.

John Morgan is a freelance journalist

This article originally appeared in the 29 October 2021 issue