We have created a system that has you submit yourself, or your child, to patient hood to access the right to learn differently.
The Gift: Learning Disabilities Reframed
The right to learn differently should be a universal human right that’s not mediated by a diagnosis.
Learning is a human right. Learning differently is not a medical privilege.
Everyone has a right to learn in ways that make sense for their bodymind.
Not because someone gave permission.
Not because a diagnosis unlocked a category.
Not because a test said you qualify.
The right to learn differently is a universal human right — one that belongs to everyone, regardless of labels, paperwork, or institutional gatekeeping.
Too often education systems treat difference as disorder, deviation, or deficit. They punish variation with shame, compliance, and normalization. That harms people instead of helping them thrive.
Stimpunks believes learning should adapt to learners — not the other way around. This means honoring diverse attention patterns, sensory experience, communication styles, pacing rhythms, and cognitive profiles as expected human variation, not exceptions to the norm.
In this page you’ll find the rationale, the lived evidence, and the practical reframes that show why the right to learn differently is not negotiable — it is a foundation of justice, dignity, and real access.
The Core Claim
The right to learn in ways that fit your bodymind should not depend on a diagnosis.
Not on paperwork.
Not on gatekeeping.
Not on proving you are “impaired enough.”
Human variation does not require medical certification before it deserves accommodation.
The Problem: Diagnosis as Gatekeeper
Modern education systems ration support through diagnosis.
- Fail first
- Struggle visibly
- Accumulate documentation
- Access specialists
- Prove impairment
- Perform deficit
Only then might you qualify for flexibility.
Diagnosis becomes a permission slip for dignity — and dignity should not require permission.
What This Does to People
- Late-identified people go unsupported.
- Poor and marginalized students go undiagnosed.
- Girls and gender-diverse students get missed.
- Adults are excluded entirely.
- Students internalize failure.
- Masking becomes survival.
- Burnout becomes normalized.
We create systems that reward access to bureaucracy, not access to learning.
The Reframe
Learning differently is not a disorder category. It is human variation.
- Attention patterns
- Processing speed
- Sensory thresholds
- Communication style
- Movement needs
- Executive function
- Emotional regulation
The right to respond to that variation should be universal.
What Universal Learning Rights Would Look Like
- Breaks are normal.
- Movement is normal.
- Written communication is equally valued.
- Quiet spaces exist by default.
- Flexible pacing does not require justification.
- Multi-modal instruction is expected.
- Testing is not the sole measure of competence.
- Regulation precedes instruction.
- Access does not require diagnosis.
Human needs, not special needs.
The Medical Model Trap
When support is mediated by diagnosis, we reinforce a deficit model:
You are broken.
We will adjust for your brokenness.
But only if you prove it.
A better question:
What if the system is poorly designed for human diversity?
Universal Design Is Cheaper Than Gatekeeping
It costs less — socially, emotionally, economically — to design for diversity upfront than to triage breakdown later.
- Burnout decreases.
- Dropout pipelines shrink.
- Anxiety reduces.
- Behavioral escalations decline.
- Moral injury lessens.
Access by default prevents crisis.
Nothing About Us Without Us
Disabled and neurodivergent people have been saying this for decades: we do not need more compliance plans. We need environments built with us.
When disabled people design learning spaces:
- Sensory load drops.
- Flexibility increases.
- Shame decreases.
- Creativity increases.
- Participation expands.
The Equity Argument
Diagnosis access correlates with wealth, race, geography, insurance, and parental advocacy.
When rights depend on diagnosis, rights depend on privilege.
A universal right to learn differently disrupts that pipeline.
The Justice Frame
- Cognitive liberty
- Bodily autonomy
- Epistemic justice
- Disability justice
- Psychological safety
Practical Implications
If you are an educator: Offer flexibility without requiring disclosure. Normalize regulation.
If you are an administrator: Reduce documentation burdens. Measure safety before performance.
If you are a learner: Your way of learning is not invalid because it is uncommon.
Universal Learning Bill of Rights
Learning is a human right. These rights do not require diagnosis, documentation, or deficit.
- The Right to Regulation — to move, stim, rest, or step away without punishment.
- The Right to Sensory Safety — to environments that do not overload or harm.
- The Right to Multiple Modalities — to read, listen, write, speak, draw, build, or demonstrate learning in different ways.
- The Right to Processing Time — to think without being rushed or penalized.
- The Right to Written Communication — to access and use text-based interaction when speech is harder.
- The Right to Flexible Pacing — to accelerate, slow down, or revisit material as needed.
- The Right to Refuse Harm — to decline practices that produce shame, humiliation, or trauma.
- The Right to Access Without Disclosure — to receive support without proving impairment.
- The Right to Dignity — to be treated as competent, worthy, and whole.
- The Right to Co-Design — to participate in shaping the environments where learning happens.
These rights belong to everyone. Not because of diagnosis. Because of humanity.
International Human Rights Framework
The right to learn differently is not a new invention. It is grounded in international human rights law.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
Article 26: “Everyone has the right to education.”
This right is universal — not conditional on diagnosis, productivity, or conformity.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966)
Article 13: Recognizes “the right of everyone to education” directed toward the full development of the human personality and dignity.
Full development requires environments responsive to human variation.
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD, 2006)
Article 24: Affirms the right of persons with disabilities to inclusive education without discrimination and on the basis of equal opportunity.
- Education systems must provide “reasonable accommodation.”
- States must ensure support required to facilitate effective education.
- Persons with disabilities must not be excluded from general education systems.
Access is not charity. It is a legal obligation.
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC, 1989)
Article 23: Children with disabilities have the right to special care and assistance designed to ensure dignity and participation.
Article 29: Education must develop the child’s personality, talents, and abilities to their fullest potential.
Education that suppresses difference undermines this mandate.
Diagnosis-gated access contradicts the spirit of these frameworks.
If education is a universal human right, then the right to access education in ways compatible with one’s bodymind is inseparable from that right.
When access depends on documentation, delay, and proof of deficit, systems shift from rights-based frameworks to eligibility-based rationing. Human rights are not eligibility programs.
United States Legal Framework
In the United States, the right to access education without discrimination is not just philosophical. It is statutory law.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990)
Title II requires public entities, including public schools and universities, to provide equal access and reasonable modifications to avoid discrimination based on disability.
- Public institutions must provide reasonable modifications when necessary to avoid discrimination.
- Policies and practices must not exclude individuals with disabilities.
- Access cannot be denied because accommodations are inconvenient.
The ADA frames accommodation as a civil rights obligation — not a favor.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (1973)
Section 504 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in any program receiving federal funding, including nearly all public schools.
Schools must provide accommodations and modifications that ensure equal access to education.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
IDEA guarantees eligible students a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE).
- Education must be tailored to the student’s unique needs.
- Supports and services must enable meaningful progress.
- Students should not be unnecessarily segregated.
However, IDEA is eligibility-based. Access depends on classification and documentation.
This creates a structural tension: civil rights law affirms access, but implementation often routes that access through diagnostic gatekeeping.
When support depends on proving impairment, rights become conditional.
A universal right to learn differently aligns with the spirit of ADA, Section 504, IDEA, and international human rights law — while challenging the bureaucratic systems that ration access through diagnosis.
For Educators: What This Means in Practice
You do not have to wait for paperwork to reduce harm.
ADA and Section 504 require reasonable modifications to prevent discrimination. IDEA requires education tailored to individual needs. None of these laws require you to withhold common-sense flexibility until a student proves impairment.
What You Can Do Now (Without an IEP Meeting)
- Allow movement and regulation without penalty.
- Provide written instructions alongside verbal ones.
- Offer flexible deadlines when overload is visible.
- Build in processing time before calling on students.
- Permit alternative ways to demonstrate mastery.
- Reduce sensory load where possible (lighting, noise, transitions).
- Normalize breaks for everyone, not just documented students.
These are not “special favors.” They are inclusive design practices that reduce discrimination risk and improve learning for all students.
What to Avoid
- Requiring disclosure before offering flexibility.
- Equating compliance with learning.
- Using discipline to manage regulation differences.
- Framing accommodations as rewards.
- Publicly singling out students who need support.
If a change reduces harm and does not fundamentally alter essential curriculum, it is usually both legally defensible and ethically sound.
Universal flexibility reduces liability, prevents burnout, and builds trust.
For Administrators: What This Means Systemically
Diagnosis-gated flexibility increases institutional risk.
When access depends entirely on documentation, schools create bottlenecks, inequities, and potential discrimination exposure under ADA and Section 504.
Risk Reality
- Delayed evaluations create access gaps.
- Unequal diagnosis access produces inequitable outcomes.
- Behavioral discipline tied to disability can trigger OCR complaints.
- Rigid policies increase burnout and dropout rates.
- Inconsistent accommodation practices create liability.
Universal flexibility reduces these risks.
Policy Shifts That Align With Civil Rights Law
- Normalize regulation breaks in all classrooms.
- Embed multi-modal instruction into standard practice.
- Reduce documentation burdens for low-cost accommodations.
- Separate behavior management from disability-related regulation.
- Shift from compliance metrics to safety and engagement metrics.
- Provide staff training on neurodiversity-affirming practice.
These are not radical interventions. They are preventative infrastructure.
Budget Perspective
- Universal design costs less than reactive crisis management.
- Preventing burnout reduces turnover.
- Reducing disciplinary escalation lowers administrative overhead.
- Accessible environments decrease formal complaint frequency.
Access-by-default is financially pragmatic.
Culture Shift
Moving from “prove impairment to receive support” toward “design for human variation”:
- Reduces stigma.
- Improves psychological safety.
- Increases family trust.
- Improves staff morale.
- Aligns with disability justice principles.
Rights-based design strengthens institutions.
If education is a civil right, then access cannot be rationed through bureaucracy alone.
Common Administrative Myths (And the Reality)
Universal access is often resisted because of persistent misunderstandings. Here are some of the most common — and what the law and research actually support.
Myth 1: “We can’t provide flexibility without documentation.”
Reality: ADA and Section 504 require reasonable modifications to prevent discrimination. Nothing in the law prohibits offering common-sense flexibility to all students. Universal design reduces the need for individual documentation.
Myth 2: “If we allow this for one student, we have to allow it for everyone.”
Reality: That is not a legal problem — it is often a design improvement. If a support benefits many students, that is evidence it should be normalized, not restricted.
Myth 3: “Flexibility lowers standards.”
Reality: Standards measure outcomes, not methods. Changing how students access material or demonstrate knowledge does not reduce rigor. It removes barriers unrelated to mastery.
Myth 4: “Accommodations are unfair to other students.”
Reality: Equity is not sameness. Civil rights law recognizes that equal treatment sometimes requires different supports to ensure meaningful access.
Myth 5: “We’ll be overwhelmed if we open this up.”
Reality: Universal flexibility reduces administrative burden by decreasing formal accommodation requests, behavioral escalations, and crisis interventions.
Myth 6: “Behavior is a discipline issue, not an access issue.”
Reality: Many behavioral escalations stem from sensory overload, regulation differences, or inaccessible environments. Addressing access reduces disciplinary incidents.
Myth 7: “This is just ideology.”
Reality: International human rights frameworks, ADA, Section 504, IDEA, and decades of disability scholarship all support inclusive, non-discriminatory access to education.
Universal learning rights are not radical. They are consistent with existing civil rights law.
From Principle to Practice: What This Looks Like
If the right to learn differently is universal, then flexibility cannot be rare, stigmatized, or diagnosis-gated. It must be built into everyday practice.
For Classroom Educators
- Offer multiple ways to access content (text, audio, visual, hands-on).
- Offer multiple ways to demonstrate understanding (written, spoken, visual, project-based).
- Normalize regulation supports (movement, fidgets, headphones, breaks).
- Separate behavior from moral judgment; ask what environment shift is needed.
- Provide predictable structure without rigid control.
- Build in processing time.
- Allow written communication when verbal performance is unreliable.
None of these require a diagnosis. They require thoughtful design.
For School Leaders
- Reduce documentation barriers for low-cost accommodations.
- Normalize flexible deadlines in policy language.
- Embed universal design expectations in evaluation frameworks.
- Train staff in neurodiversity-affirming practice.
- Track disciplinary referrals for disability-based disparities.
- Shift from compliance metrics to engagement and safety metrics.
Access-by-default reduces crisis intervention and complaint escalation.
For Districts and Systems
- Adopt Universal Design for Learning principles as baseline practice.
- Ensure evaluation delays do not delay informal supports.
- Provide alternative pathways to graduation and assessment.
- Build sensory-safe spaces into school infrastructure.
- Include disabled and neurodivergent stakeholders in policy design.
- Audit policies for diagnosis-gated access barriers.
Designing for human variation is preventative, cost-effective, and civil-rights aligned.
The question is not “Who qualifies?”
The Universal Flexibility Ladder
Where is your institution on the ladder?
- Level 1 — Rigid Compliance
Same rules for everyone. Diagnosis required for flexibility. Access is exceptional. - Level 2 — Documentation-Gated Flexibility
Supports exist but require paperwork, evaluation, and delays. - Level 3 — Structured Flexibility
Some universal design practices. Informal supports tolerated. - Level 4 — Universal Flexibility
Multi-modal learning and regulation supports are standard practice. - Level 5 — Rights-Based Design
Access is built into the system. Diagnosis is never required for dignity.
The goal is not perfection. The goal is movement.
The Regulation Before Instruction Ladder
When students are dysregulated, learning can’t “power through.” This ladder shows common institutional responses — from harmful to helpful.
- Level 1 — Punish Dysregulation
Meltdowns, shutdowns, and overwhelm are treated as misbehavior. Discipline escalates stress. - Level 2 — Demand Compliance
Adults prioritize quiet, eye contact, sitting still, and “following directions” over nervous system stability. - Level 3 — Remove the Student
Dysregulation is managed by exclusion: sent out, suspended, isolated, or “handled elsewhere.” - Level 4 — Support Regulation (Reactive)
Adults respond with co-regulation tools when things break: breaks, quiet space, sensory supports, reduced demands. - Level 5 — Design for Regulation (Proactive)
The environment is built to prevent overload: predictable routines, sensory options, flexible pacing, low-shame supports, and permission to regulate before crisis.
Instruction works best after regulation. The fastest way to learning is often slowing down enough for safety.
Goal: move up the ladder — from managing “behavior” to designing conditions where regulation is normal.
Quick Self-Check
- Do we punish stimming, movement, or sensory supports?
- Do we equate quiet compliance with readiness to learn?
- Do we remove students when overwhelmed instead of adapting environments?
- Do we wait for crisis before offering regulation supports?
- Do we build regulation options into every classroom by default?
If the last question is consistently “yes,” you’re near the top of the ladder.
The Bottom Line
Learning differently is not a disorder category. It is a human condition.
Support should not require proof of brokenness.
The right to learn differently belongs to everyone.
Our Story
People with differences get services in school, their struggles are recognized, but only if they are willing to pathologize themselves, emphasize their problems, downplay their strengths, and claim differences as deficiencies.
Normal Sucks: How to Live, Learn, and Thrive, Outside the Lines
What you can’t know unless you have #disability is how all the paperwork chips away at your soul.
@GillLoomesQuinn
Every box you tick, every sentence about your “impairment” and “needs” becomes part of the narrative of your identity in a way that doesn’t happen with temporary, one-off injuries.
Our community lives this system, which is why we really appreciate Albemarle County Public Schools’ Seven Pathways, which states:
No child within the Albemarle County Public Schools should need a label or prescription in order to access the tools of learning or environments they need. Within the constraints of other laws (in particular, copyright) we will offer alternative representations of information, multiple tools, and a variety of instructional strategies to provide access for all learners to acquire lifelong learning competencies and the knowledge and skills specified in curricular standards. We will create classroom cultures that fully embrace differentiation of instruction, student work, and assessment based upon individual learners’ needs and capabilities. We will apply contemporary learning science to create accessible entry points for all students in our learning environments; and which support students in learning how to make technology choices to overcome disabilities and inabilities, and to leverage preferences and capabilities.
Seven Pathways
Yes to all of that.
We like Albemarle’s approach to education technology. We write about them in “Classroom UX: Designing for Pluralism” and “Our Technology: Open Source Collaboration and Indie Ed-tech.“
They recognize the structural, institutional, and framing problems Jonathan Mooney describes in this great talk on reframing LD and ADHD (which is the source of the title and opening quote in this page you’re reading).
We transcribed our favorite moments from the talk in “The Gift: Learning Disabilities Reframed”. We’ll conclude with selections making the case for two of our rules of thumb for inclusion.
- agent > patient
- identity > diagnosis
“The right to learn differently should be a universal human right that’s not mediated by a diagnosis.” We are agents with identity.
An essential component of my journey was an identity transformation from being a patient to being an agent.
Disability industrial complex is all about what people can’t do. We spend most of our time trying to fix what they can’t do. When all we do is fix people the message we give to them is that they are broken.
We’ve built an entire edifice of intervention that’s about fixing people.
We’ve built this whole infrastructure about fixing folks, about turning people into passive recipients of treatment and service, of turning people into patients. But being a patient is the most disempowered place a human being can be.
You gotta fight against this, you gotta be an advocate, you gotta have a voice in your education.
We need to cultivate a sense of agency in people which is the opposite of patient hood.
The most meaningful interventions, the most meaningful people in my life were people who cultivated a sense of agency.
We have a medical community that’s found a sickness for every single human difference. DSM keeps growing every single year with new ways to be defective, with new ways to be lessened.
When all we do is fix people, the message we give to them is that they are broken. Nobody lives a meaningful life feeling broken.
It’s that narrow definition of intelligence, behavior, and motivation that is really my disability. Not dyslexia, not ADHD.
In many learning environments we think good kids sit still. The good kid is the compliant kid.
Young folks like me are given the identity of being bad.
“What is your problem?” If I had a nickel for every time I heard that word in my life.
I was given this identity that I was a problem because of a norm in the environment that good kids sit still.
We’ve built learning environments based on the myth that appropriate and valuable human behavior is about compliance.
I had overcome not ADHD, but I had overcome the feeling of being the defective person morally because I didn’t comply to the myth that good kids are compliant.
That’s agency. That’s somebody who refuses to negate somebody’s humanity because of a label.
Source: The Gift: Learning Disabilities Reframed
Everybody has that right to an education that’s not about what’s wrong with them but what’s right.
And every single human being has something good that they can build a life around.
Find the good and share it with the children in your life.
And every child deserves that.
Every Child Has The Right To THIS Kind Of Education | Jonathan Mooney Inspirational Video | Goalcast – YouTube
Read Next
- Human Needs, Not Special Needs
- Broken Systems, Not Broken People
- Autism Is a Neurotype, Not a Disorder
- Learning Spaces
