Introduction

The observed community consists of autistic students within the charter school system–particularly those who are minimally verbal or experience difficulty with expressive communication. Observations were made directly across several classrooms over a four-week period. This community is unique in that it exists within a mainstream educational setting but continues to experience marginalization, often due to misunderstandings about neurodiversity.

This community frequently encounters academic, social, and emotional challenges that go unrecognized or unsupported. Paraprofessionals often become key figures in interpreting behaviors, supporting communication, and maintaining consistency throughout the day. In moments of stress or confusion, interventions can de-escalate situations and help students navigate their environment more comfortably. Despite their presence in inclusive classrooms, autistic students are often misperceived as disruptive or uncooperative. This marginalization reflects how educational and societal systems continue to fall short in supporting neurodivergent individuals.

 

Body #1: Background Information and Sources

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental condition that can affect behavior, communication, and social interaction. Early psychological frameworks often misrepresented autism as a form of withdrawal or neglect from the mother. “There are also misconceptions and inadequate knowledge about autism among health care professionals. UK general practitioners displayed good knowledge of autism but only modest confidence in their ability to work with autistic people…” (Turnock et al., 2022). There would be many inferences on what would cause autism but nothing factual. As a result of this, autistic individuals were historically isolated from the communal and educational community.

Rather than seeing autism as something to fix, there is a growing movement to understand it as a natural and important form of human diversity. “Neurodiversity refers to the natural variation in how people think, process information and experience the world. Neurodivergent individuals, such as those with autism, ADHD, dyslexia or Tourette’s syndrome, bring unique strengths to the workplace, but their inclusion remains limited.” (Heron, 2024). Schools that adopt this mindset can begin to reshape support systems to reshape support systems to reflect the full spectrum of human communication and cognitive processing. Despite this progress, there are outdated support models that still exist in many schools. Although students are included in the classroom, most likely than not they lack the support and resources needed to truly feel included.

Many schools claim to have a strong inclusive education, but their system often lacks in many aspects—for example, there may be limited training on neurodiversity, overreliance on paraprofessionals without proper coordination, and stagnant progress on IEP’s are common issues. “Mismanagement of students’ transition into higher education institutions, coupled with a general lack of knowledge regarding their unique needs, can lead to anxiety, stigmatisation, bullying, and poor performance” (Evans et al., 2023). Difficulties in expressive communication are often misinterpreted as behavioral problems, resulting in further marginalization of students. True inclusion goes beyond merely having policies in place. Educators, administrators, and parents play vital roles by creating a cohesive network that supports an environment where every student feels valued and included.

 

Body #2: Observation and Analysis 

My observations took place between late March and mid-April across multiple classrooms in charter elementary schools. As a paraprofessional, I work directly with minimally verbal students and those who occasionally exhibit physically aggressive behaviors. I’ve observed how these students navigate a school system not fully designed for them.

This is undeniably a community—one shaped by shared experiences, a need for support, and common challenges. What sets these students apart is not their diagnosis, but their daily reality of being in environments that often fail to understand their communication styles, sensory sensitivities, or behavioral expressions. What helps them thrive is the structure of routine, the comfort of proximity, and the reliability of trusted adults.

In many cases, leadership in this community doesn’t come from the classroom teacher but from the paraprofessionals and aides like myself. We are often the ones interpreting body language, noticing changes in mood or behavior, and stepping in when distress signals are missed. Communication in this community isn’t always spoken. Instead, it happens through visual and rhythmic cues—like rubbing their face when anxious or engaging in repetitive movements when happy.

These students may not speak much, but they still build social connections. One student, for example, often slides a favorite fidget toy across the table to another as a way to share comfort. In another case, a neurotypical student handed an autistic peer their lunchbox during a stressful transition—an act of unspoken solidarity. Later, the autistic student reciprocated by holding the door open for the same peer. These are subtle but meaningful forms of social bonding that often go unnoticed by untrained observers.

The rules of interaction are rarely written but understood by those within the community. However, behavioral expectations are not always fairly applied. I’ve witnessed moments where neurotypical students yelling in frustration or throwing objects without consequence, while autistic students expressing distress nonverbally were immediately corrected or removed from the classroom. One student I work with—let’s call him Tony—became frustrated after learning there would be no gym class, which disrupted his routine. His disengagement was clear: head down, refusing to interact. After being dismissed without support by a teacher, he became overwhelmed and pushed over trash bins. Had his frustration been acknowledged and options offered, the outburst might have been avoided. His reaction was not defiance—it was a breakdown in communication and unmet sensory expectations.

Despite being in inclusive classrooms, many autistic students remain socially excluded. I observed that during recess or free time, I’ve noticed neurotypical students formed groups while autistic students often played alone. Teachers tend to focus more on academic completion than fostering social connection. The lack of intentional inclusion leaves a noticeable gap in emotional and community support. Students on the spectrum don’t need to be “changed”—they need to be understood. Schools must adapt their approaches to support different communication and emotional needs.

Conclusion:

Communication often occurred without speech—through movement, shared rhythms, and quiet companionship. Many autistic students displayed notable emotional intelligence and sensitivity, frequently recognizing distress in others and responding with quiet acts of support that often went unnoticed by adults. Despite this, social isolation remained a consistent reality, even within environments labeled as “inclusive.” This gap between physical presence and emotional integration highlights the ongoing need for truly inclusive practices. Inclusion should not end with shared physical space; it must extend to being genuinely seen, understood, and valued.

 

References

Evans, D., Granson, M., Langford, D., & Hirsch, S. (2023). Autism spectrum disorder: reconceptualising support for neurodiverse students in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 45(2), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2023.2180168

Heron, R. J. L. (2024, October 8). How Neurodiversity in The Workplace Can Drive Business Success. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/10/neurodiversity-neuroinclusion-workplace-business/

Turnock, A., Langley, K., & Jones, C. R. G. (2022). Understanding Stigma in Autism: A Narrative Review and Theoretical Model. Autism in adulthood : Challenges and Management, 4(1), 76–91. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2021.0005