Beyond the Neoliberal Parenting Manual: Rethinking Systemic Barriers for Neurodiverse Kids
A recent article at The Conversation discusses parent training as an intervention for families with children who have ADHD. It notes that ADHD ‘affects’ around 7.6% of children aged 3-12 years and 5.6% of teens, and can impact family dynamics as well as a child’s learning and social interactions. They claim that medication is most effective at ‘reducing core ADHD symptoms,’ but non-drug interventions like parenting training can also help reduce ‘the daily impacts.’
According to the article, parent training involves teaching parents skills like positive praise, effective limit-setting, planned ignoring of minor misbehaviours, and having positive parent-child interactions. The aim is to equip parents with skills to meet the ‘above-average parenting needs’ of kids with ADHD. The authors claim that evidence shows parent training is effective, especially for young children and those with ‘oppositional behaviours,’ but more research is still needed on optimal duration and delivery methods.
The article recommends accessing training through a psychologist or online programmes. Other tips include setting clear expectations, breaking down instructions, celebrating small achievements, trying to understand the child’s perspective, and looking after your own wellbeing as a parent. The key, they say, is to have compassion for the child’s struggles with ADHD symptoms.
Ok. Sorry about that. Let’s unpack …
Let’s critically examine some of the assumptions in the article from a disability justice perspective. A few issues that stood out to me:
ADHD “symptoms:” The neurodiversity movement views ADHD as a natural variation in the human experience, rather than as an inherent deficiency or disorder. Framing ADHD traits merely as “problems” or symptoms fails to recognise the unique strengths, passions, and insights that often accompany these neurocognitive differences.
Rather than locating responsibility solely within the child, a neurodiversity lens takes a more systemic perspective. We question whether societal attitudes, educational systems, and behavioural expectations truly accommodate the diverse range of neurotypes within our communities. Do we place unreasonable demands for prolonged concentration and restrictive impulsivity? Do we create barriers to participation for those who process information and relate to the world differently?
The neurodiversity paradigm resists the medicalisation of natural human differences. It shifts the focus toward fostering environments where people of all neurotypes can thrive in their own right, not just “pass” as part of the neuro-majority. This means adopting a more inclusive culture that appreciates varied minds and diverse ways of learning, relating and contributing.
We advocate for ADHD (and AuDHD) to be understood as an integral part of identity - not an inferior defect or disorder to be minimised, controlled or cured. The goal is to empower everyone to achieve well-being, purpose, and belonging as their fully integrated selves -welcoming their spiritedness, creativity, and unique abilities into our schools, workplaces, and society more broadly (… sorry for the rant).
Positioning parenting training as teaching parents to meet the “above-average parenting needs” of ADHD kids. This causes further stigma by implying something is inherently wrong or abnormal with these children compared to neurotypical kids.
Focusing a lot on changing behaviours and environments to fit societal expectations of concentration, impulse control, etc. Rather than questioning whether some of those expectations are reasonable or accepting ADHD traits.
Assuming the goal should be to “minimise symptoms” rather than helping kids thrive as their whole, authentic selves. This ties into the medical model of disability vs. the social model.
Not covering accommodations / inclusion for kids at a societal level - policies, attitudes, universal design, etc. The focus stays narrowly at an individual / family level.
I think it’s important we expand the discourse to challenge deficit-based assumptions and advocate for the rights and dignity of neurodiverse people. There are opportunities here for more socially just, accepting and empowering perspectives. What are your thoughts?
Blaming individuals for the problems created by society
This article's tight focus on ADHD interventions at the individual and family level reflects the broader neoliberal mindset prevalent in American society today. By continually directing solutions back towards personal responsibility, self-optimisation, and the nuclear home, it fails to zoom out and recognise how many of the challenges around neurodiversity are rooted in systemic barriers and cultural attitudes.
The subtext here is that if your ‘ADHD child’ is still struggling after medication and family training programs, the fault and duty to solve it lies squarely within your household. This perspective aligns closely with neoliberalism’s emphasis on meritocracy, productivity, self-reliance, and personal grit over any consideration of external conditions or the need for societal change.
Insidiously, the article pads this narrow prescription with sponsored links for companies aiming to profit off families’ anxiety around ADHD behavioural challenges. This amiably-presented, “life hack” style content that leads families to purchase more apps, training tools, and pharmaceutical products to get their child ‘back on track.’ It's a sort of Neurolinguistic Programming approach that subtly preys on parents’ desires for fast fixes and their fears of being judged for their child’s condition.
By medicalizing differences without questioning whether systemic expectations should shift, then conveniently providing consumer solutions, such articles further the neoliberal agenda that absorbs societal responsibilities into private households. Rather than advocating to improve ADA policies, school inclusion, or awareness around neurodiversity, it keeps the onus on parents to optimise themselves and their children.
The narrow solutions therefore betray the narrow underlying story - one where societal augmentation is no longer viewed as necessary or viable to support human diversity. The imperative stays firmly with families and individuals expected to purchase, upgrade, and bootstrap themselves in order to fit unchanged structures and standards. We must challenge this complacent narrative and shift policy to lift demands off everyday people struggling to freshly adapt themselves amidst unbudging systems.