June 2026
As readers of Wheeler Education will know, I have recently published the Sustainability Model of Educational Participation in Frontiers in Education. The full open-access article, Sustaining participation in inclusive education: a conceptual model for recognising hidden vulnerability, can be read here:
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10.3389/feduc.2026.1830274/full
The article sets out a conceptual model for understanding why some pupils appear to participate successfully in school while remaining vulnerable beneath the surface. It argues that schools need to look beyond whether a pupil is physically present, completing work, behaving calmly or appearing engaged. Instead, we need to ask whether that participation is sustainable. In other words, can the pupil continue to access learning, relationships and school life without excessive effort, fragile dependence on particular conditions, or cumulative emotional, sensory or cognitive cost?
This practitioner guide introduces the model for teachers, SENDCos, pastoral leads, senior leaders, specialist teachers, educational psychologists and other professionals working with children and young people whose needs may not be immediately visible. It is not intended to replace existing SEND assessment, pastoral judgement or professional knowledge of the child. Rather, it offers a practical way to organise the evidence that schools already collect and to ask more precise questions about participation, access and provision.
The guide is particularly relevant when evidence appears mixed. A pupil may appear calm in school but become distressed at home. Another may make progress when a familiar adult is nearby but struggle when that adult is absent. A child may manage structured lessons but become overwhelmed during transitions, unstructured times or changes in routine. A young person may be described as academically able and compliant, while parents report exhaustion, shutdown or increasing reluctance to attend. In these situations, the key professional task is not to decide too quickly which account is “right”. The task is to formulate what each account is showing us about the conditions under which participation is possible.
The Sustainability Model of Educational Participation begins from a simple but important distinction. Visible participation is not always the same as secure access. A pupil can be in the room, following instructions and completing work, while relying on a level of effort or environmental support that cannot be sustained over time. Participation may therefore be present and fragile at the same time.
This distinction matters because inclusive education has never simply been about physical placement. Research on inclusion and participation has repeatedly shown that being present in a mainstream setting does not automatically mean that a pupil is meaningfully included, socially connected or able to access learning securely (Booth and Ainscow, 2002; Koster et al., 2010; Bossaert et al., 2013; Imms et al., 2017; Maciver et al., 2019). Participation is relational and contextual. It is shaped by the interaction between the learner, the task, the adults, the peer group, the sensory environment, the routines and the wider school system.
The model also draws on research into masking, camouflaging, school distress and autistic burnout. Studies of camouflaging show that some autistic people consciously or unconsciously suppress distress, imitate social behaviours or regulate their presentation in order to meet expectations (Hull et al., 2017; Cook et al., 2021). This can allow a pupil to appear settled, sociable or successful, but it may also involve significant cognitive and emotional effort. Research on autistic burnout suggests that prolonged effort to manage demands can contribute to exhaustion, reduced functioning and withdrawal (Raymaker et al., 2020; Mantzalas et al., 2022; Mantzalas et al., 2024). Recent work on school distress and attendance difficulties similarly highlights that reduced attendance may reflect cumulative unmet need rather than sudden refusal or simple non-compliance (Heyne et al., 2019; Connolly et al., 2023; Gray et al., 2023; Fielding et al., 2025).
For practitioners, the value of the model is that it gives language to patterns that are often recognised but not always easy to evidence. Many teachers and SENDCos know the pupil who is “holding it together”. They know the child who can manage only with a trusted adult. They know the young person who appears fine until the timetable changes, the room changes, the adult changes or the social demand increases. They know the pupil whose attendance is technically good but whose emotional resources are being steadily depleted. The Sustainability Model helps professionals describe these patterns more precisely and plan provision in a way that protects access rather than simply responding to crisis.
The five domains of sustainable participation
The Sustainability Model proposes five interrelated domains: effort intensity, environmental dependence, contextual consistency, transition response and temporal durability (Wheeler, 2026). These are not intended to form a checklist, score or diagnostic category. They are formulation prompts. They help practitioners think about how participation is being achieved, what it depends on and whether it is likely to remain stable over time.
Effort intensity
Effort intensity asks what the pupil has to manage internally in order to appear settled, compliant, engaged or successful. Some pupils are working much harder than their outward presentation suggests. They may be tolerating sensory overload, suppressing distress, monitoring their social behaviour, managing anxiety, holding instructions in working memory, copying peers, trying not to draw attention to themselves, or using all of their available energy to appear “fine”.
In the classroom, this means that quiet compliance should not automatically be interpreted as wellbeing. A pupil who rarely asks for help may not be independent; they may be unable to ask safely. A pupil who completes work may not be accessing learning easily; they may be masking confusion, relying heavily on memory, copying from peers or using an unsustainable level of emotional control. When teachers consider effort intensity, they move beyond asking whether the pupil completed the task and begin asking what it took for the pupil to do so.
This has direct implications for classroom provision. If participation requires high internal effort, the aim should be to reduce unnecessary load. This may involve clearer instructions, reduced ambiguity, predictable routines, sensory adjustments, written prompts, alternative ways to communicate difficulty, planned recovery time or adult support that notices early signs of overload. The aim is not to remove challenge. The aim is to make sure that the pupil’s energy is available for learning rather than being consumed by avoidable regulatory demands.
Environmental dependence
Environmental dependence asks which adults, routines, structures, spaces, sensory conditions or scaffolds make participation possible. Some pupils appear to manage well, but only when particular conditions are in place. They may cope with a familiar adult, a known seating position, a predictable start to the lesson, visual prompts, reduced noise, written instructions, a quiet place to regulate or a carefully managed transition. When these conditions are removed, participation may quickly become less secure.
This domain is especially important in SEND provision planning because it challenges a common misunderstanding. Supported participation should not be mistaken for independence. If a pupil participates because a trusted adult, familiar routine, scaffold or sensory adjustment is in place, that support is part of the access arrangement. Removing it does not necessarily test independence. It may simply remove the condition that made participation possible.
For practitioners, the key task is to name the function of support. A trusted adult may provide emotional safety, co-regulation, help with interpreting instructions, support during transitions or a safe route for communication. A visual timetable may reduce uncertainty, lower working memory demand and support emotional regulation. A calm space may not be an escape from learning; it may be the condition that allows the pupil to return to learning. Once the function of support is clear, provision becomes more precise, more defensible and easier to review.
Contextual consistency
Contextual consistency asks where participation is secure and where it breaks down. Many pupils do not show the same level of access across the whole school day. They may manage in one subject but not another, with one adult but not another, in structured lessons but not during unstructured time, in small groups but not in whole-class discussion, or in familiar routines but not when expectations change.
This variation is sometimes misread as choice, manipulation or motivation. However, multi-informant assessment research has long shown that differences across accounts and contexts can be meaningful rather than simply unreliable (Achenbach et al., 1987; De Los Reyes and Kazdin, 2005; De Los Reyes et al., 2015). A pupil who copes in one context and struggles in another may be showing us something important about the demands of those contexts.
In classroom practice, contextual consistency encourages professionals to compare the conditions around success and difficulty. What is different about the lesson where the pupil participates well? Is the language load lower? Is the routine clearer? Is the adult more predictable? Is the peer group safer? Is there less sensory demand? Is the task more concrete? Is the pupil given more time to process? These questions move the discussion away from “they can do it when they want to” and towards a more useful analysis of environmental fit.
Transition response
Transition response asks how the pupil manages changes in activity, adult, room, routine, expectation or social demand. Transitions are often underestimated in school because they can look like short organisational moments. For some pupils, however, transitions are among the most demanding parts of the day. They require the pupil to stop one activity, predict what is coming next, manage movement, tolerate noise, interpret new expectations, regulate uncertainty and re-engage in a different context.
A pupil may appear settled once they are in the lesson, but the journey into that lesson may have required considerable effort. Another may manage the transition outwardly but become less regulated afterwards. A pupil may cope with a planned change but become distressed when an adult is absent, a seating plan changes or a task is introduced differently from usual.
Using the model in the classroom means treating transition support as access support. This may involve previewing, visual structure, now-and-next prompts, consistent routines, staff handover, quiet entry, additional processing time or planned re-entry after dysregulation. The key point is that transition difficulty should not be viewed only as behaviour around movement. It may be evidence that participation is less stable when predictability and relational continuity reduce.
Temporal durability
Temporal durability asks whether participation can be sustained across the lesson, day, week, term or school year. This is often the missing question in SEND and pastoral planning. A pupil may manage a single lesson but not a full day. They may attend successfully for two days but be exhausted by the third. They may cope during the first term because routines are new and adults are attentive, but deteriorate later when expectations increase or support fades. They may appear to manage a reintegration plan initially, but the pattern may not last.
Temporal durability matters because breakdown is often interpreted too late. When a pupil stops attending, refuses to enter the building, shuts down, becomes dysregulated or appears to regress, it can look sudden. In reality, there may have been earlier signs that participation was becoming unsustainable. These might include fatigue, emotional collapse after school, increased anxiety before school, greater dependence on specific adults, reduced tolerance of change, more frequent visits to pastoral staff, or avoidance of particular contexts.
For practitioners, temporal durability encourages a more careful interpretation of success. A successful day is encouraging, but it does not necessarily mean that the plan is sustainable. A successful return to school is positive, but it needs to be judged by whether the pupil can continue without escalating distress. This is particularly important in attendance planning. The aim should not be short-term compliance with attendance expectations at any cost. The aim should be sustainable re-engagement.
Using the model in everyday classroom practice
The Sustainability Model of Educational Participation is not intended to create another layer of paperwork. Its practical value lies in changing the quality of professional questioning. It helps teachers and SENDCos think more carefully about the conditions under which participation is possible.
In classroom practice, the model can be used whenever a pupil appears inconsistent, when home and school evidence do not seem to match, when a pupil is high attaining but distressed, when attendance is beginning to decline, when a pupil depends heavily on one adult or routine, or when support appears to be working only in a narrow set of conditions.
A teacher might use the model after noticing that a pupil completes work in class but rarely starts independently. Rather than simply recording that the pupil can complete the task, the teacher might ask what scaffolding made completion possible. Was the task broken down? Were instructions repeated? Did the pupil rely on a peer? Did they need reassurance before every step? Did they begin only when an adult stood nearby? The provision implication might not be that the pupil “can do it”, but that they can do it when the executive demand is reduced and the sequence is made explicit.
A SENDCo might use the model in a review meeting where parents describe severe distress at home but school staff report calm behaviour. Rather than treating this as contradictory evidence, the SENDCo might ask whether school is seeing the period of maintained participation while home is seeing the recovery cost. The provision implication might be to reduce effort during the day, introduce a way for the pupil to signal overload, build in recovery, and monitor whether after-school distress reduces.
A pastoral lead might use the model when a pupil’s attendance begins to decline after a long period of apparent coping. Rather than assuming that the pupil has suddenly become avoidant, the pastoral lead might review whether the pupil’s participation had already become fragile. Were transitions becoming harder? Was the pupil increasingly dependent on a particular adult? Were there signs of fatigue? Were certain lessons avoided? Was the pupil managing the school day but losing capacity afterwards? The provision implication might be a carefully paced plan that changes the conditions of attendance, rather than simply increasing pressure to attend.
A class teacher might use the model when a pupil appears to cope with one adult but not another. The question becomes not “Why are they choosing to behave differently?” but “What is different about the relational, instructional or environmental conditions?” This can lead to practical adjustments such as shared routines, consistent language, clearer task structure, explicit transition cues, predictable regulation strategies or a more carefully planned handover between adults.
The model is particularly helpful because it allows professionals to describe need without reducing the child to a deficit. It does not ask, “What is wrong with this pupil?” It asks, “What does this pupil’s participation depend on, and how can we make access more secure?” That is a more useful starting point for inclusive practice.
Using the model in SEND provision planning
Provision planning is strongest when it explains not only what support will be provided, but why that support is needed. Too often, provision is written as a list of strategies without a clear explanation of function. For example, a plan might state that a pupil will have access to visual supports, adult check-ins, movement breaks or a calm space. These may all be appropriate, but the plan becomes more powerful when it explains what each strategy is intended to make possible.
The Sustainability Model helps with this because it links strategies to access. If the issue is effort intensity, provision may need to reduce cognitive, sensory or emotional load. If the issue is environmental dependence, the plan may need to protect key enabling conditions and avoid removing them prematurely. If the issue is contextual inconsistency, provision may need to be adapted in the least reliable parts of the day. If the issue is transition response, support may need to focus on predictability, preparation and re-entry. If the issue is temporal durability, the plan may need to include pacing, recovery and monitoring over time.
This changes how progress is reviewed. Instead of asking only whether the pupil is doing better, we can ask whether participation is becoming more sustainable. Is the pupil using less effort to access learning? Are they able to manage across more contexts? Are transitions less disruptive? Is distress reducing before and after school? Is attendance becoming more stable without increased exhaustion? Is the pupil less dependent on one fragile arrangement? Are supports being transferred carefully rather than removed abruptly?
These questions are especially important in annual reviews, EHCP evidence, specialist assessments and graduated response cycles. They help schools move beyond general statements such as “the pupil is coping”, “the pupil needs adult support” or “the pupil struggles with change”. Instead, they support more precise descriptions of the relationship between need, environment and provision.
For example, rather than writing “adult support for transitions”, a plan might state that the pupil requires a known adult to preview changes, support movement between settings, reduce uncertainty and help re-engage after transition because changes in adult, room or routine currently reduce access to learning. Rather than writing “access to a calm space”, a plan might state that the pupil requires planned access to a low-arousal space to reduce cumulative sensory and emotional load so that they can return to learning before distress escalates. This level of specificity makes provision more meaningful and easier to evaluate.
Using the model when home and school evidence differ
One of the most useful applications of the model is where home and school accounts appear different. In SEND practice, this is common. School may see a pupil who is settled, polite and compliant. Parents may describe a child who is tearful, exhausted, unable to speak, distressed before school or dysregulated afterwards. It is easy for these accounts to become positioned against each other. However, the model encourages a more constructive interpretation.
Different adults may be seeing different parts of the same participation cycle. School may be seeing the period when the pupil is using effort to maintain participation. Home may be seeing the recovery cost once that effort is no longer sustainable. The pupil may not be able to describe either experience clearly, particularly if they have normalised the effort involved, feel ashamed, or can only make sense of it after the demand has passed.
This does not mean that one account should automatically override another. It means that evidence should be held together long enough to understand the pattern. Multi-informant assessment research supports this approach, showing that differences between informants can reflect meaningful variation across contexts rather than simple error (Achenbach et al., 1987; De Los Reyes and Kazdin, 2005; De Los Reyes et al., 2015). For schools, this means that parent evidence about distress before or after school should not be dismissed simply because it is not directly observed in class. It may be essential evidence about temporal durability and effort intensity.
A useful review question is therefore not “Why do we not see this in school?” but “What might the pupil be doing in school to prevent us seeing it?” That question can open up a very different conversation.
Using the model in attendance and reintegration planning
The model is also highly relevant to attendance. Attendance is important, but attendance should not be interpreted in isolation from sustainability. A pupil may be physically present while participation is becoming increasingly fragile. Conversely, a pupil returning after absence may attend for a short period but be unable to sustain the same pattern without significant distress.
When using the model in attendance planning, the key question is not only “How do we get the pupil back into school?” It is “What needs to change so that attendance becomes sustainable?” For some pupils, this may involve a carefully paced timetable, predictable adult contact, quiet entry, reduced transition demand, a safe base, sensory adjustments, changes to task expectations, alternative communication or planned recovery. The aim is not to reduce ambition. The aim is to build the conditions under which the pupil can remain engaged over time.
This distinction matters because a rapid return that recreates the same unsustainable conditions may lead to further breakdown. A slower, more carefully formulated return may ultimately be more successful because it addresses the underlying pattern rather than only the visible absence.
Case examples: applying the model in practice
The following anonymised examples illustrate how the model can be applied in real educational contexts. They are drawn from professional assessment and consultation work and are included to show how participation sustainability can change the interpretation of evidence and lead to more useful planning.
Case example 1: high ability but conditionally maintained access
One pupil was academically able and, on the surface, appeared to be managing school successfully. Her attainment suggested that she could access the curriculum, and she was often described as polite, capable and conscientious. However, difficulties became more visible following transition to a more complex school environment. Multiple teachers, movement between rooms, online platforms, homework demands, social complexity and increased sensory load all placed additional pressure on her ability to function independently.
Without a sustainability formulation, the pupil might have been understood simply as high attaining but anxious. The risk in that interpretation is that her academic ability could be used as evidence that her access was secure. The model prompted a more precise question: under what conditions was her ability available?
It became clear that she could participate when routines were predictable, sensory load was reduced, instructions were clear and adults understood her communication needs. When these conditions were absent, she masked distress, struggled to ask for help and became increasingly depleted. Provision therefore focused on protecting the conditions that made learning accessible. This included written scaffolds, predictable routines, supported transitions, reduced ambiguity and a non-verbal route for seeking help.
The important shift was that provision was not framed as reassurance for an anxious pupil. It was framed as access support for a pupil whose high ability was conditionally available.
Case example 2: compliant participation ending in burnout
Another pupil appeared compliant and settled in school. Staff saw attendance, some work completion and very few overt behaviour concerns. At home, however, parents described crying, withdrawal, loss of speech and long recovery periods after school. Over time, attendance deteriorated.
A surface interpretation might have viewed the later non-attendance as sudden refusal or a new anxiety problem. The sustainability formulation suggested something different. The pupil had been participating, but participation had depended on prolonged effort intensity. They were using compliance, suppression and emotional control to get through the day. By the time school saw the breakdown, the pattern had already become unsustainable.
Provision therefore needed to prioritise stabilisation rather than immediate full reintegration. The plan included low-demand relational contact, predictable routines, sensory adjustment, alternative communication during shutdown and carefully paced re-engagement. The aim was to rebuild access without recreating the same conditions that had led to burnout.
The model helped the adults around the pupil understand that the issue was not a sudden failure to cope. It was the delayed visibility of a participation pattern that had been too costly for too long.
Case example 3: learning potential hidden by disrupted access
A further pupil had experienced prolonged negative school experiences, including bullying and trauma. She was educated outside ordinary classroom routines and was working below age-related expectations. Without careful formulation, this could easily have been interpreted as limited ability, disengagement or long-term educational failure.
Assessment evidence suggested a more hopeful and more accurate interpretation. The pupil engaged better with structured, low-pressure tasks that did not depend heavily on accumulated school knowledge. Her current attainment did not fully represent her learning potential. Instead, her access to learning had been disrupted by emotional threat, damaged confidence and gaps that had developed over time.
Using the model, the key question became not simply “What can she do now?” but “What conditions are needed for her to access her potential again?” Provision focused on emotional safety, predictable relationships, assistive technology, structured literacy support, short learning sessions and success-based re-engagement. The model helped prevent reduced current performance from being mistaken for fixed capacity.
Case example 4: fluctuating access under sensory, executive and literacy demand
Another pupil showed an uneven profile. She could engage in familiar classroom routines and demonstrate understanding in some situations, but her participation reduced quickly when verbal demand, noise, working memory load, copying, transitions or unpredictability increased. At times, this inconsistency could have been misread as variable motivation.
A sustainability formulation showed that the inconsistency was patterned. Her access reduced when processing, literacy and regulatory demands exceeded capacity. This meant that provision needed to be proactive rather than reactive. Visual structure, task breakdown, reduced copying, multisensory literacy support, sensory breaks, calm adult responses and preparation for change were not simply helpful strategies. They were the conditions that enabled participation.
The model helped staff connect learning, regulation and emotional wellbeing. The pupil was not presenting with separate academic and pastoral issues. Her distress increased when the demands of participation exceeded her available capacity.
Case example 5: participation becoming unsafe to sustain
In one case, a pupil’s participation had become increasingly unsafe. He experienced intense anxiety, separation-related distress, panic-like episodes and severe dysregulation. Some incidents appeared sudden when viewed in isolation, but the broader pattern suggested accumulated cognitive, sensory and emotional effort. The pupil also showed self-directed and high-risk behaviours.
In this situation, the model helped shift the discussion away from attendance as the primary measure of success. The key question became whether participation under existing conditions was safe enough to continue. The answer was that it was not. Provision needed to include specialist mental health input, risk assessment, predictable relationships, co-regulation, sensory reduction, careful communication with home and clear safety planning.
The model was useful because it prevented adults from treating participation as automatically positive. Participation is not successful if it is unsafe to sustain. Sometimes the first task is not to increase demand, but to stabilise the conditions around the pupil so that access can become safe again.
Case example 6: apparent regression as reduced access to skills
A younger pupil had previously been described as happy, engaged and motivated by structured learning. Following staff and classroom changes, he became distressed about attending school, refused entry and showed reduced engagement. At first glance, this appeared to be regression.
The sustainability formulation asked whether skills had been lost, or whether access to those skills had reduced under stress. Parent evidence suggested that when calmer and away from school pressure, previous interests and emotional responsiveness re-emerged. This indicated that the pupil’s skills had not simply disappeared. Rather, the school context no longer provided the conditions under which he could access them.
Provision therefore focused on rebuilding access through familiarisation, relationship-building, predictable routines, sensory regulation, visual structure, transition scaffolding and interest-led re-engagement. The model helped adults understand that the task was not simply to restore previous expectations, but to reconstruct the conditions that made those expectations achievable.
Conclusion
The Sustainability Model of Educational Participation is intended to help practitioners look beneath the surface of visible participation. It asks us to be curious about the pupils who appear to cope, the pupils who participate only in certain contexts, the pupils whose needs are visible at home but not school, and the pupils whose attendance or engagement deteriorates after a period of apparent success.
Its central message is simple: participation is not just about whether a pupil is present or engaged today. It is about how participation is being achieved, what it depends on, what it costs and whether it can be sustained over time.
For schools, this has practical consequences. We should not assume that calm presentation means emotional security. We should not assume that task completion means independent access. We should not assume that high attainment means low need. We should not assume that supported participation means support is no longer required. Instead, we should ask whether participation is becoming more secure, more transferable and more durable.
When used well, the model supports earlier recognition of hidden vulnerability. It helps practitioners describe why a pupil may appear to cope in one context and struggle in another. It strengthens provision planning by identifying the conditions that make access possible. Most importantly, it reminds us that inclusion is not achieved simply when pupils are present. Inclusion is achieved when pupils can participate meaningfully, safely and sustainably.
References
Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Child/adolescent behavioural and emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.213
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.
Bossaert, G., Colpin, H., Pijl, S. J., & Petry, K. (2013). Truly included? A literature study focusing on the social dimension of inclusion in education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(1), 60–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2011.580464
Bradley, L., Shaw, R., Baron-Cohen, S., & Cassidy, S. (2021). Autistic adults’ experiences of camouflaging and its perceived impact on mental health. Autism in Adulthood, 3(4), 320–329. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2020.0071
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
Connolly, S. E., Constable, H. L., & Mullally, S. L. (2023). School distress and the school attendance crisis: A story dominated by neurodivergence and unmet need. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14, 1237052. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1237052
Cook, J., Hull, L., Crane, L., & Mandy, W. (2021). Camouflaging in autism: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 89, 102080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102080
De Los Reyes, A., & Kazdin, A. E. (2005). Informant discrepancies in the assessment of childhood psychopathology: A critical review, theoretical framework, and recommendations for further study. Psychological Bulletin, 131(4), 483–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.483
De Los Reyes, A., Augenstein, T. M., Wang, M., Thomas, S. A., Drabick, D. A. G., Burgers, D. E., & Rabinowitz, J. (2015). The validity of the multi-informant approach to assessing child and adolescent mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 141(4), 858–900. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038498
Fielding, C., Streeter, A., Riby, D. M., & Hanley, M. (2025). Neurodivergent pupils’ experiences of school distress and attendance difficulties. Neurodiversity, 3, 27546330251327056. https://doi.org/10.1177/27546330251327056
Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 813–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.501096
Gray, L., Hill, V., & Pellicano, E. (2023). “He’s shouting so loud but nobody’s hearing him”: A multi-informant study of autistic pupils’ experiences of school non-attendance and exclusion. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments, 8, 23969415231207816. https://doi.org/10.1177/23969415231207816
Heyne, D., Gren-Landell, M., Melvin, G., & Gentle-Genitty, C. (2019). Differentiation between school attendance problems: Why and how? Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 26(1), 8–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2018.03.006
Hull, L., Petrides, K. V., Allison, C., Smith, P., Baron-Cohen, S., Lai, M.-C., & Mandy, W. (2017). “Putting on my best normal”: Social camouflaging in adults with autism spectrum conditions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47(8), 2519–2534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3166-5
Imms, C., Granlund, M., Wilson, P. H., Steenbergen, B., Rosenbaum, P. L., & Gordon, A. M. (2017). Participation, both a means and an end: A conceptual analysis of processes and outcomes in childhood disability. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 59(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.13237
Koster, M., Nakken, H., Pijl, S. J., & Van Houten, E. (2010). Social participation of students with special needs in regular primary education in the Netherlands. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 57(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10349120903537905
Maciver, D., Rutherford, M., Arakelyan, S., Kramer, J. M., Richmond, J., Todorova, L., Romero-Ayuso, D., Nakamura-Thomas, H., ten Velden, M., Finlayson, I., O’Hare, A., & Forsyth, K. (2019). Participation of children with disabilities in school: A realist systematic review of psychosocial and environmental factors. PLOS ONE, 14(1), e0210511. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210511
Mantzalas, J., Richdale, A. L., Adikari, A., Lowe, J., & Dissanayake, C. (2022). What is autistic burnout? A thematic analysis of posts on two online platforms. Autism in Adulthood, 4(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2021.0021
Mantzalas, J., Richdale, A. L., Li, X., & Dissanayake, C. (2024). Measuring and validating autistic burnout. Autism Research, 17(7), 1417–1449. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.3129
Raymaker, D. M., Teo, A. R., Steckler, N. A., Lentz, B., Scharer, M., Delos Santos, A., Kapp, S. K., Hunter, M., Joyce, A., & Nicolaidis, C. (2020). “Having all of your internal resources exhausted beyond measure and being left with no clean-up crew”: Defining autistic burnout. Autism in Adulthood, 2(2), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2019.0079
Wheeler, M. (2026). Sustaining participation in inclusive education: A conceptual model for recognising hidden vulnerability. Frontiers in Education, 11, 1830274. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.1830274