ADAM PATTERSON, BURNHAM-ON-CROUCH PRIMARY SCHOOL, UK
Introduction
Teachers often encounter a familiar challenge: a student with co-occurring autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) appears relatively settled at home but struggles in school, or manages expectations during the school day but experiences significant emotional or behavioural difficulties afterwards.
These differences can be interpreted in different ways. Behaviour may be viewed as inconsistency, lack of motivation or a response to parenting approaches. However, research suggests that behavioural differences across contexts may be better understood through the interaction between a student’s neurodevelopmental profile and the demands of their environment.
This distinction matters, because how behaviour is interpreted influences how adults respond. If behaviour is viewed primarily as deliberate non-compliance, then responses may focus on correction and consequence. A contextual understanding instead considers whether behaviour may reflect cognitive load, communication differences or difficulty in managing environmental demands.
This article explores why behaviour may vary between home and school for students with co-occurring autism and ADHD. Drawing on research into executive function, social demands and behavioural assessment, it argues that contextual variability is not simply inconsistency, but an important feature of understanding individual differences. A contextual perspective supports more informed teacher decision-making and can help to create environments where students are better able to participate, regulate and succeed.
Co-occurrence: A complex and individual profile
Autism and ADHD frequently co-occur, with research suggesting overlapping genetic and neurodevelopmental influences between the two conditions (Leitner, 2014). Students with both diagnoses often experience interacting differences in attention, behavioural regulation, flexibility and social understanding, rather than simply the combined effects of two separate conditions (Antshel et al., 2016).
Recent research continues to highlight executive function differences as an important feature of both autism and ADHD, while also emphasising considerable individual variation (Kofler et al., 2024; Sadozai et al., 2024). This variability is important for educators: diagnostic labels provide useful information, but they do not predict exactly how a student will respond in a particular context.
A student may find one environment manageable and another overwhelming, depending on factors such as predictability, social expectations, task demands and available support.
Why behaviour can differ between home and school
One useful framework for understanding contextual differences is executive function. Executive function refers to the cognitive processes that support planning, organisation, attention, working memory, emotional regulation and adapting responses when circumstances change.
ADHD is commonly associated with differences in attention regulation and impulse control, while autism is often associated with differences in flexibility, planning and managing uncertainty. When these characteristics co-occur, demands on self-regulation may become more challenging (Craig et al., 2015; Kofler et al., 2024).
Schools place considerable demands on executive function. Students are expected to:
- sustain attention during tasks that may not be intrinsically motivating
- remember and follow multi-step instructions
- move between activities quickly
- manage competing academic, sensory and social demands.
At home, these demands may be structured differently. Routines may be more familiar, adults may adjust expectations more immediately and students may have greater control over aspects of their environment. This does not mean that home is necessarily easier, but that the demands placed upon executive functioning may differ.
A contextual explanation provides one possible reason why a student may appear settled in one setting but struggle in another. When environmental demands exceed available coping resources, behaviours such as avoidance, impulsivity or withdrawal may represent attempts to manage difficulty rather than intentional disruption.
However, this should not become a single explanation for all behaviour. Behaviour is influenced by multiple factors, including relationships, classroom practice and previous experiences.
In practice: Independent work
In a Year 6 lesson, Sam (diagnosed with autism and ADHD) appears settled during whole-class teaching but struggles once independent work begins. The task requires reading instructions, selecting relevant information and producing a multi-step written response. Sam leaves his seat, calls out and does not begin writing.
The teacher considers the executive function demands of the task rather than interpreting this as refusal. She provides a short visual checklist: 1. Read the question. 2. Highlight keywords. 3. Write the first sentence. She models the first step with Sam and reduces the initial demand by asking him to complete one paragraph before extending the activity.
Sam begins the work successfully. Over time, the teacher gradually increases independence by adding further steps. The improvement comes from making expectations clearer and more manageable, rather than from removing challenge.
Social demands and environmental complexity
Executive function is only one part of understanding contextual variability. Social expectations also play an important role, particularly for students with co-occurring autism and ADHD.
Classrooms are socially complex environments. Students are expected to interpret communication, negotiate relationships, participate in group activities and adjust behaviour according to changing expectations. For some students, these demands can be difficult to manage, particularly when combined with attentional or regulatory differences.
Research suggests that autistic characteristics and ADHD symptoms can interact to influence social functioning and behaviour (Taurines et al., 2012). However, these challenges are not experienced uniformly. Some students may manage structured lessons but struggle during less predictable periods, such as transitions, breaktimes or lunchtimes.
Considering not only what behaviour occurs but also when and where it occurs provides valuable information about the demands that a student may be experiencing.
In practice: Unstructured time
During lunchtime, Aisha (diagnosed with autism and ADHD) frequently becomes involved in conflicts with peers. Staff notice that difficulties often occur during the first few minutes of play, particularly when games change quickly and rules are negotiated informally.
Rather than viewing these incidents solely as behavioural problems, staff consider the social demands of the playground: changing expectations, multiple conversations and limited structure. Aisha is supported to join a smaller structured activity, with clearer rules and an adult nearby. She is also taught simple phrases for entering play and resolving disagreements.
Over time, Aisha becomes better able to participate in less structured contexts. The improvement comes from reducing social uncertainty and supporting participation.
Understanding different perspectives on behaviour
Much of the evidence about behavioural differences across contexts comes from parent and teacher reports. These perspectives do not always align, but this should not automatically be interpreted as disagreement or inaccuracy. Instead, differences between informants may reflect genuine variation in how students experience different environments (Antshel et al., 2016).
Teachers may observe difficulties with attention, task completion or classroom regulation because schools involve sustained academic and social demands. Families may observe emotional regulation difficulties, sensory needs or challenges following the school day. Both perspectives provide valuable information.
Considering multiple viewpoints is particularly important because behaviour does not provide direct access to a student’s internal experience. A student who appears compliant in school may be using considerable effort to manage expectations, while a student who appears disruptive may be responding to demands that exceed their current capacity.
However, caution is needed. Much of the existing evidence relies on rating scales and reported observations rather than direct comparisons of behaviour across settings. Therefore, contextual explanations should be viewed as evidence-informed interpretations rather than definitive explanations for every individual student.
A balanced perspective
A contextual understanding of behaviour does not suggest that all difficulties are caused by neurodevelopmental differences. Behaviour emerges through the interaction of many factors, including classroom environment, teaching approaches, relationships and previous experiences.
Recent research continues to improve understanding of autism and ADHD, while also highlighting the complexity and diversity within both conditions (Koirala et al., 2024). There is no single behavioural profile associated with either diagnosis.
The most useful question may therefore not be:
Why is this student behaving this way?
but:
What interaction between this student and this environment may be contributing to this difficulty?
This shift does not reduce expectations. Instead, it encourages educators to consider whether changes to the environment, teaching approach or level of support can enable students to demonstrate their abilities more successfully.
Implications for practice
A contextual understanding of variability suggests several principles for educators.
1. Understand behaviour in context
Behaviour should be considered alongside information about when, where and why difficulties occur. Gathering perspectives from students, families and colleagues can provide a fuller understanding of strengths, needs and successful approaches.
2. Support executive function
Students may benefit from approaches that reduce unnecessary cognitive demands, including:
- breaking complex tasks into smaller steps
- using visual supports such as checklists or timetables
- providing additional processing time
- making expectations explicit.
These approaches do not lower expectations. Instead, they provide scaffolding that enables students to access learning more independently (Craig et al., 2015; Kofler et al., 2024).
3. Build predictable and supportive relationships
Consistency between adults, clear routines and positive relationships can help students to understand expectations and recover from difficulties. Predictability can reduce uncertainty and support emotional regulation.
4. Collaborate with families
Differences between home and school should prompt curiosity rather than judgement. Sharing information about triggers, successful strategies and individual strengths helps adults to develop a more complete understanding of the student.
Conclusion
Differences in behaviour between home and school are a common experience for students with co-occurring autism and ADHD. Research suggests that these differences may reflect the interaction between neurodevelopmental characteristics and environmental demands, rather than inconsistency, lack of motivation or deliberate behaviour.
A contextual perspective provides teachers with a framework for interpreting behaviour more accurately. By recognising how classroom expectations, social demands and executive function requirements influence students’ experiences, educators can make more informed decisions about support. The aim is not to remove challenge, but to ensure that challenge is accessible and achievable.
Ultimately, understanding variability across contexts encourages a move away from asking why a student behaves differently and towards asking what the environment is asking of them. This creates opportunities for more inclusive classrooms in which students are understood, supported and able to succeed.
