Ask Neurodivergent Teachers ANTS

https://www.facebook.com/share/18NnmsVNhx/

You don’t train children, you support, teach, and connect with them.
Children aren’t pets. They’re humans with autonomy, emotions, and nervous systems that need understanding, not control.

And yet… so much of what is called “support” still centers compliance.

❌️ Reward charts.
❌️ Forced eye contact.
❌️ Withholding breaks.
❌️ Earning breaks.
❌️ Ignoring communication because it’s not “appropriate.”

That’s not teaching. That’s conditioning.

Especially for neurodivergent children, this approach doesn’t build skills, it builds masking, anxiety, and disconnection from their own needs.

Real support looks like:

✅️ Honoring autonomy
✅️ Supporting regulation
✅️ Teaching communication in all forms
✅️ Adjusting the environment, not forcing the child

Because the goal isn’t obedience.
The goal is access, safety, and connection.

Children don’t need to be controlled to learn. They need to feel safe enough to.

https://www.facebook.com/share/18T78KG9Za/

genre-en-cours.education Qu’est-ce que les militant‧es et théoricien‧nes au croisement de la neurodiversité et des perspectives q***r apportent à la réflexion pédagogique ? Cette notice se propose de mobiliser la perspective de la neurodiversité pour penser une pédagogie neuroq***r. Elle retrace d’abord le d....

https://www.facebook.com/share/18P4aJsU7n/

I am feeling cute in these boots I got at a thrift shop for $8.

Okay, so niceties out of the way, as you read messages from your unions, please realize the most vulnerable students in a budget that doesn't meet everyone's needs will always be students with disabilities. For neurodivergent students, it will threaten their access to education, period.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Rc7hV85kN/

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/175GB3AQzH/

So brilliantly written
And no way I could have said it better myself

“Simply put: this interview is not just scientifically outdated. It is actively harmful. And I can’t decide if Frith was being lazy, ignorant, or purposely incendiary in her interview, claiming as she did that there is no evidence or science for many of our experiences.”

Link 🔗 in comments

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18KU8xJQ1X/

Thank you!

Also selling books and being sensationalist is not acceptable or kind if done on the backs of vulnerable autistics and their hard working families.

Brian

Credit

w

https://www.facebook.com/share/17heGfasdH/

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1GkLBGox7s/

My Response to Dr Naomi Fisher:

Dr Fisher, the issue here is not that Uta Frith expressed a controversial opinion or that people disagreed with her. The issue is that a number of highly contested and increasingly outdated claims were presented on your podcast with very little challenge, and then criticism of those claims was framed as online hysteria rather than legitimate disagreement.
Listening to the full conversation actually reinforces that concern. Frith dismissed masking as essentially unfalsifiable and suggested it may simply be a cultural narrative rather than a real phenomenon. That claim went unchallenged despite the fact that camouflaging and masking are now well studied in autism research. She also suggested that many late-diagnosed autistic people may simply be experiencing anxiety or distress and adopting an autism label through cultural influence, again without any reference to the substantial research explaining why autistic people, particularly women, have historically been overlooked or misdiagnosed.
She further characterised lived experience research as lacking rigour while questioning the value of sensory accommodations such as ear defenders or quiet spaces in classrooms. These are not abstract academic points. Sensory accommodations are widely used in schools and disability frameworks precisely because they help autistic people regulate overwhelming environments. When ideas like this are presented to an audience of clinicians and educators without scrutiny, they do not remain theoretical. They influence how autistic people are treated in classrooms and services.
That is why the reaction from the autistic community has been strong. These are not niche scientific or academic disagreements. They are claims that directly shape whether autistic people are believed and supported, or are talked over and dismissed.
You describe the response as mudslinging and social control, but criticism is not censorship. Autistic people challenging ideas that affect our lives is part of the conversation, not an attempt to shut it down. For decades autism research has largely spoken *about* autistic people rather than *with* autistic people. When we respond critically to ideas we believe are outdated or harmful, that is participation in the discussion.
None of this erases Uta Frith’s historical contribution to autism research. Her early work helped shape the field. But science evolves. When older frameworks are defended while dismissing newer research and autistic lived experience, criticism is inevitable.
What your post ultimately does is frame that criticism as evidence that discussion is impossible. In reality, much of the criticism directed at both Frith and the podcast was specific, reasoned, and focused on the claims that were being platformed. By reducing that response to “online shaming”, the effect is to dismiss those concerns rather than engage with them. And in doing so, it comes across less like a defence of open dialogue and more like a refusal to acknowledge that you could have gotten something wrong. Trying to frame your denial of that criticism as valid because you don’t like it isn’t being intellectually honest, nor does it reflect any respect of academic rigour - and it certainly doesn’t serve to foster meaningful discussion.