School Inspections and Stigma
School Inspections and Stigma
Embedded Files
STAND is concerned about some of the language we have seen in school inspection reports published by Education Scotland. We have seen recurring patterns in recent inspection reports that:
frame distress as behaviour,
emphasise conformity ("appropriate eye contact," "good listening"),
contradict national guidance, such as that from the National Autism Implementation Team (NAIT),
risk identifying individual children in small schools.
Stenton Primary School
Stenton Primary School
This issue first caught our attention when we read the inspection report of the school of one of our key volunteers - Stenton Primary School.
We read the following paragraph in the report:
"Most children work well in groups or pairs however, a minority of children require support to work independently. This minority of children find engaging in class discussion and staying focussed during teaching inputs and independent tasks challenging. Consequently, this is impacting negatively on the learning of their peers. Most children feel staff encourage them to do the best they can, however, staff need to now raise their expectations of all children’s behaviour. This should result in a calmer, quieter classroom with increased levels of engagement and less low-level behaviours being seen."
The behaviour, communication style or “challenges” of individual children should never be presented as the reason other children are not receiving an adequate education. It is for the school to raise their expectations of themselves to ensure that they are providing all children with the education they deserve in accordance with the principles of GIRFEC.
The Report then goes on to say:
"Most younger children listen to others well and use eye contact appropriately."
The idea that a child’s eye contact could be “appropriate” or “inappropriate” is prejudicial towards children with communication differences, and contributes to the stigma and misunderstanding around neurodivergent children. This is exacerbated by the following comment:
"Most older children read fluently using appropriate expression and pace."
The use of language such as this demonstrates a lack of commitment to neuro-affirming practice, and is inconsistent with a “needs-based approach” to the care of neurodivergent children.
After reading this report, we starting checking other reports and found that, unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident.
Correspondence
Correspondence
See below for some of the correspondence we have sent and received in relation to school inspections.
Letter to Cabinet Secretary for Education, Ms Jenny Gilruth
Letter to Cabinet Secretary for Education, Ms Jenny Gilruth
(13 November 2025)
STAND to Cab Sec for Ed - Education Scotland - Prejuducial Language - 5085537564 (2).pdfResponse on behalf of Cabinet Secretary for Education, Ms Jenny Gilruth
Response on behalf of Cabinet Secretary for Education, Ms Jenny Gilruth
(15 December 2025)
Response-202500493967 (1).pdfConsultation Response to Education Scoltland (abbreviated version)
Consultation Response to Education Scoltland (abbreviated version)
Education Scotland Consultation Response - Website Version.docx.pdfConsultation Response to Education Scotland (full version)
Consultation Response to Education Scotland (full version)
STAND Response - Education Scotland Consultation questions_WIDER PUBLIC.docx - Google Docs (1).pdfOther Examples
Other Examples
See below for a selection of examples. More can be found in the Consultation Response to Education Scotland.
Problematic quotations
Problematic quotations
“Staff strive to… support the majority of children to regulate and manage their behaviour.”
“A minority of children display dysregulated behaviour. This has a significantly negative impact on their learning and that of their peers.”
“Senior leaders… need to continue to work… to raise expectations of behaviour and ensure these shared expectations and boundaries are consistently applied.”
“Staff… encourage a majority of children to behave well and engage in their learning.”
Why this is harmful
Why this is harmful
Distress is labelled as behaviour, rather than understood as communication of unmet need (contradicts NAIT).
Responsibility is placed on the child to “regulate and manage” behaviour instead of focusing on environmental, sensory or relational support.
“Raising expectations of behaviour” encourages behaviourist responses and masking.
No mention of sensory needs, co-regulation, predictability, or autism-specific communication.
Problematic quotations
Problematic quotations
“A few children display low-level or dysregulated behaviour that impacts negatively on the learning of others.”
“Staff need to increase their expectations of all children’s behaviour so that they are respectful and ready to learn.”
“This results in children becoming passive or disengaged in their learning as their needs are not being met well.”
“Older children… identify that they would benefit from further opportunities to express their opinions.”
“Staff issue house points as rewards.”
Why this is harmful
Why this is harmful
The inspection language reinforces behaviourist expectations, treats distress as a behaviour problem, and benchmarks children against neurotypical norms. This contradicts multiple national frameworks and statutory duties.
Problematic quotations
Problematic quotations
“A few children need regular reminders to listen, stay on task and to not distract others.”
“A few children talk while others are talking and do not listen to adult instructions.”
“The headteacher needs to work with all staff to develop a shared and consistent understanding of high expectations regarding behaviour.”
“She recognises the need to develop nurturing approaches across the school to support children further to regulate their behaviour and manage their emotions.”
“A minority of children require greater challenge in their learning.”
“This data is not yet robust and does not provide a reliable picture of children’s attainment over time.”
Why this is harmful
Why this is harmful
The NAIT “Key Messages for Primary School Staff” emphasise that:
Behaviour is a communication of need, not defiance.
Staff should prioritise low-arousal, relationship-based approaches.
Reminders, corrections and expectations must avoid public calling-out, compliance-based language, or wording that frames a child’s neurological profile as a behavioural problem.
Schools must understand that children “may not be able, not may not be willing” to meet expectations.
Staff should avoid attributing challenges to motivation, listening, or choice.
Emotional regulation requires co-regulation, predictability, safety, and support, not increased pressure.
Given these principles, phrases such as:
“regular reminders to listen,”
“do not listen to adult instructions,”
“increase the pace of learning,”
“need greater challenge,”
risk pathologising neurodivergent traits, misunderstand sensory or cognitive processing differences, and place responsibility for communication/regulation onto the child rather than the environment.
This is not aligned with NAIT’s position that schools must adapt the environment, curriculum and relational practice before expecting behavioural changes from children.
Page updated
Report abuse