Why do some autistic students excel in certain areas of school but face setbacks in others? It’s a question many parents, teachers, and policymakers are grappling with as awareness of autism in education grows.
A new review of research suggests that while studies of autistic students’ academic performance have expanded rapidly over the past decade, other key aspects of school life—such as attendance and disciplinary outcomes—remain underexplored.
A new study by Raechel Smart, Dawn Adams, and Kate Simpson, published in the British Journal of Educational Psychology (2025), examines more than a decade of educational outcome research for autistic students. The authors sifted through over 40,000 records and ultimately analyzed 112 studies published between 2012 and 2023.
The most striking finding is that nearly four out of five studies focused on academic achievement, while far fewer looked at school suspensions, exclusions, or attendance.
This imbalance means that much of what we know about autistic students’ education relates to test scores and grades, with less attention paid to the everyday challenges of being present in class or navigating school disciplinary systems.
Autism, a neurodevelopmental condition affecting around 1.5–1.8% of children worldwide, is often linked with poorer long-term outcomes compared to both non-autistic peers and students with other disabilities.
Research has consistently shown lower rates of higher education enrollment and employment among autistic adults, raising concerns about the school experiences that precede these outcomes.
Understanding educational pathways, therefore, is more than an academic question—it has real implications for social participation and future opportunities.
The review found that the 112 studies collectively reported on more than 226,000 participants, the majority based in North America.
Most studies used standardized assessments to measure skills such as reading and math, offering detailed snapshots of academic performance.
By contrast, disciplinary outcomes were usually captured through large government datasets on suspensions and expulsions, while attendance research drew on a mix of parent questionnaires, school records, and specialized checklists.
One consistent limitation across the literature is the lack of demographic detail. Fewer than half of the studies reported participants’ ethnicity, and only a quarter mentioned co-occurring conditions such as ADHD or intellectual disability.
Gender was usually presented as a simple male/female split, despite evidence that autistic people are more likely than the general population to identify as gender diverse.
This lack of representation restricts how well findings can be applied to the full range of autistic students, particularly those from marginalized backgrounds.
The study also highlighted differences in research quality.
More than half of the academic achievement studies were judged to have strong reporting standards, but only about a fifth of disciplinary studies met the same benchmark.
Attendance research fell in between, with around a third rated highly. Government reports, which often formed the basis of disciplinary research, tended to include less detail about participants and methods, making it difficult to understand why disparities exist.
For teachers, families, and policymakers, these findings matter because they point to blind spots in how we currently understand autistic students’ experiences.
Academic test scores may reveal certain strengths and challenges, but they do not capture the broader picture of school life.
Persistent absences or repeated suspensions, for example, can derail learning and contribute to the lower post-school outcomes documented in earlier research.
Without more systematic study of these areas, efforts to improve educational support risk being incomplete.
The review also underscores the importance of considering intersectionality.
Factors such as socioeconomic status, race, and gender identity are known to shape educational outcomes in the general student population, yet they are rarely accounted for in autism-specific research.
This gap makes it difficult to design interventions or policies that address the needs of students who may face multiple, overlapping barriers at school.
Smart and colleagues conclude that future research should expand beyond academics to include attendance and disciplinary outcomes, while also reporting participant characteristics in more detail.
They suggest that large-scale data collection, combined with more inclusive study designs, could help ensure that findings better reflect the diversity of autistic students.
Qualitative research, while excluded from this review, may also provide valuable context for understanding the lived experiences behind the numbers.
Like many systematic reviews, the study has its limitations. It excluded intervention studies and non-English publications, which may have left out relevant findings.
Still, by mapping out the landscape of research to date, it offers a clear message: we know much about how autistic students perform on academic tests, but far less about the day-to-day school factors that influence their success.
For families and educators, this means that while academic progress is important, equal attention should be paid to whether students are supported in attending school consistently and treated fairly within disciplinary systems.
For researchers and policymakers, the challenge ahead is to build a more balanced evidence base—one that captures not only the grades on a report card but the broader conditions that shape autistic students’ educational journeys.
Citation
Smart, R., Adams, D., & Simpson, K. The who, how and what of educational outcome research for autistic students published in the last decade: A systematic quantitative literature review. British Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.70015
