Why relying on ‘reasonable adjustments’ shouldn’t be your neuroinclusion strategy

A trainer I worked with recently told me she'd been asked to make her session ‘more inclusive.’ When she asked what that meant in practice, she was told: ‘Just let people know they can request adjustments.’

That was the whole plan.

She didn't know what adjustments she could offer. She didn't know what to do if someone asked for something she couldn't deliver. She left the conversation feeling panicked, feeling as if the burden of responsibility was entirely on here and still no clearer on how to actually make her session work for the people in it.

If this sounds familiar, you're not alone

The reasonable adjustments model is the default response to neurodivergence in most UK workplaces, and by extension, in most training rooms. It's well-intentioned. It's also the reason so much training still fails the people it's meant to serve.

I want to unpack why -  and what to do instead.

What reasonable adjustments actually are

Reasonable adjustments are a legal duty under the Equality Act 2010. If someone discloses a disability (including many forms of neurodivergence), employers are required to make changes that remove the disadvantage they'd otherwise face.

That matters. It's not going away. And for some people, individual adjustments are exactly right  -  they need something specific that only applies to them.

But somewhere along the way, reasonable adjustments stopped being the legal minimum and started being treated as the whole strategy. As if the job of inclusion is done once you've added "let us know if you need any adjustments" to the joining instructions.

It isn't.

Three reasons the default fails

One: most people don't disclose. Zurich UK (2024) found that 42% of neurodivergent adults weren't offered reasonable adjustments at interview, even though the law requires it. And if this is happening in the recruitment process, it will definitely be happening in training.  People without a formal diagnosis don't always know what to ask for. People with a diagnosis have often learned that disclosure doesn't always help. And plenty of people are still working out whether they're neurodivergent at all.

If your inclusion strategy depends on people raising their hand, your inclusion strategy depends on the most exposing moment possible. In front of colleagues. Before the session has started. With no clear sense of how it will land.

Two: people don't always know what helps. Even when someone is willing to disclose, they might not know what adjustment to request.

The City & Guilds Neurodiversity Index (2025) found that 59% of managers don't know what adjustments their neurodivergent colleagues need. If the managers who work with these people every day don't know - a trainer meeting a group for the first time has no chance.

Three: it creates a two-tier experience. There's the training everyone gets, and then there's the modified version for people who spoke up. That framing places neurodivergent learners outside the default, as an exception being accommodated, rather than inside the design from the start.

It's the difference between a building with a step and a ramp bolted on at the side, and a building with a level entrance that everyone can use. Both are technically accessible. Only one treats everyone the same.

What anticipatory design looks like instead

The shift is from reactive to anticipatory. Instead of waiting for someone to flag a need, you design the session so that the most common needs are already met - before anyone has to ask.

That doesn't mean predicting every individual's preferences. It means recognising that the default training design makes assumptions (everyone processes at the same speed, everyone is comfortable speaking in groups, everyone can follow verbal instructions given once) and loosening those assumptions on purpose.

When you do that, reasonable adjustments become what they were meant to be: a safety net for the small number of people who need something specific, rather than the mechanism by which most people are supposed to get through the session.

When individual adjustments still matter

I want to be clear. Anticipatory design doesn't replace reasonable adjustments. Some people will still need something individual - a specific accommodation, a different format, extra time, a one-to-one follow-up. That duty doesn't disappear.

What changes is the proportion. In a well-designed session, far fewer people need to request adjustments, because the common barriers have already been removed. The ones who do ask are asking for something genuinely specific, not for the basics the design should have handled.

That's a better experience for them, and it's a better use of your time as a trainer.

Where this leaves you

If you run training and you've been relying on the "let me know if you need adjustments" model, you're not doing anything wrong by the standard most organisations set. You're doing what's expected.

But the standard most organisations set isn't working. The evidence on disclosure rates, manager confidence, and learner experience makes that clear. And the gap between awareness and practice is where most of the damage gets done.

Neuroinclusive design closes that gap. Not by replacing reasonable adjustments, but by stopping them from doing a job they were never designed for.

That's what Neurocolours exists for — a training design ecosystem for trainers and L&D teams who want to move from reactive to anticipatory. If you want to see what that looks like in practice, the free Neuroinclusive Training 101 Masterclass is the place to start.

Yours neuroinclusively, Sascha