My understanding of the concept of neurodiversity has not been stretched, challenged or contradicted. In some regards it has been frustrated. Dr. Jill Bevan-Brown  expresses concern that the New Zealand education system uses the term 'neurodiverse' for all those students who are not neurotypical - essentially as a euphemism for disability. I see this same misconception perpetuated in many articles. Armstrong (2012) for example, in his article 'First, Discover Their Strengths' states that the "basic premise of neurodiversity is that there is no 'typical' mental capacity—no 'normal' brain" but continues to talk about 'them' as if 'they' are in a separate category. This may be a minor detail given that the article is promoting inclusive strategies and yet the language used is subtly reinforcing neurodiversity as 'different from everyone else'. This highlights the cautionary message (O'dell et. al., 2016; Runswick-Cole, 2014) that using a neural based explanation of diversity can lead to "reductionist identity politics" reducing individuation and in doing so, perpetuating this ‘us and them' mindset. I found this to be the case in many of the articles and journals I've read and it has left me feeling that this unintentional message is being reinforced even by the people who are promulgating the opposite. I hope that I will be aware of the power of language and endeavour to talk to colleagues and wider school community about learners as individuals, focusing on strengths and be cautious about using the term 'neurodiverse' in the future.

One of the things I will take away from Elaine Halligan's Tedtalk that will make a difference to my pedagogy is her comment "he's not being a problem, he's having  a problem". I am infinitely aware of the harm that labelling can cause, not only to the child but also to the whānau, as children are an extension of their whānau. If there is a challenging behaviour, investigate and make changes to the environment; not the child. All behaviour is a form of communication.