Grappling with SEND in Education

Teachers often spend significant time considering curriculum content, pedagogy, assessment, and intervention. However, one of the most powerful yet overlooked adjustments for supporting pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) can be found in something far simpler: the design of classroom presentations and interactive whiteboards. The colour of a slide background, the size of a font, and the typeface selected can substantially influence how effectively pupils access, process, and retain information.

For many SEND learners—including pupils with dyslexia, autism spectrum condition (ASC), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), speech, language and communication needs (SLCN), visual processing difficulties, and working memory deficits—the classroom board acts as a primary gateway to learning. When information is presented in inaccessible ways, cognitive resources are diverted away from learning and towards decoding the presentation itself.

Beyond Aesthetics: Why Board Design Matters

The concept of cognitive load, developed by John Sweller (1988), provides an important framework for understanding why board design matters.

Cognitive Load Theory suggests that working memory has limited capacity. When pupils must expend effort deciphering poorly presented information, less cognitive capacity remains available for learning.

For SEND pupils, who may already experience difficulties with:

• Processing speed
• Attention regulation
• Working memory
• Visual discrimination
• Reading fluency

poor presentation choices can create significant barriers to learning.

A cluttered board, small font, low colour contrast, or difficult-to-read typeface increases what Sweller terms extraneous cognitive load—mental effort that contributes nothing to learning.

In practical terms, a pupil may appear inattentive, distracted, or disengaged when the real issue is that the information itself is inaccessible.

The Impact of Font Size

One of the simplest adjustments teachers can make is increasing font size.

Many classroom presentations continue to use fonts between 12 and 18 points because they appear adequate on a teacher’s laptop screen. However, classroom visibility requirements differ substantially.

Research on visual accessibility suggests that larger text improves reading speed, accuracy, and comprehension, particularly among learners with literacy difficulties (British Dyslexia Association, 2023).

For SEND learners, larger fonts reduce:

• Visual strain
• Tracking difficulties
• Misreading of letters
• Attention fatigue

Recommended minimum sizes include:

Purpose	Recommended Size
Main text	24–32 pt
Headings	36–44 pt
Key vocabulary	36+ pt
Instructions	28–36 pt

Teachers frequently underestimate the distance from the board to the back of the classroom.

A useful test is simple:

“Can the smallest pupil in the room read the text comfortably from the furthest seat?”

If not, the font is too small.

Why Font Choice Matters

Not all fonts are equally accessible.

Many commonly used fonts create unnecessary barriers for SEND learners.

Problematic examples include:

• Times New Roman
• Brush Script
• Decorative fonts
• Handwriting fonts
• 0Comic or novelty fonts

These fonts often feature:

• Similar-looking letters
• Crowded spacing
• Decorative elements
• Variable character shapes

For pupils with dyslexia, visual stress, or processing difficulties, this can significantly increase reading effort.

The British Dyslexia Association recommends sans-serif fonts because they provide cleaner letter formation and improved readability.

Examples include:

• Arial
• Verdana
• Tahoma
• Calibri
• Century Gothic
• Aptos

These fonts:

• Have clear letter shapes
• Maintain consistent spacing
• Reduce visual crowding
• Improve readability

Particular difficulties arise with letters such as:

• b/d
• p/q
• m/n
• i/l/1

Clear sans-serif fonts help reduce confusion.

Why Arial Remains One of the Best Choices

Although newer fonts continue to emerge, Arial remains one of the most accessible classroom fonts because it offers:

• High clarity
• Consistent spacing
• Strong contrast
• Familiarity

For many SEND pupils, familiarity itself reduces cognitive load.

Teachers often assume more visually attractive fonts improve engagement.

In reality, accessible fonts improve engagement because pupils can read them more easily.

Colour Matters More Than Most Teachers Realise

Many classrooms continue to use:

• White background
• Black text

While this combination appears logical, research suggests it is not always optimal for pupils with visual stress and dyslexia.

Pure white backgrounds can create excessive glare.

This can lead to:

• Eye strain
• Visual discomfort
• Reduced concentration
• Headaches
• Distorted text perception

Some pupils report:

• Words moving
• Letters blurring
• Text appearing to shimmer

These experiences are particularly common among learners with visual stress and some dyslexic readers.

Recommended Background Colours

Research and dyslexia guidance organisations frequently recommend softer background colours.

Effective alternatives include:

• Cream
• Pale yellow
• Light blue
• Light grey
• Pastel green

These colours reduce brightness without reducing readability.

Examples:

✓ Dark navy text on cream background

✓ Black text on pale yellow

✓ Dark blue text on light grey

✓ Dark grey text on pale blue

Avoid:

✗ Bright red backgrounds

✗ Neon colours

✗ High-saturation colours

✗ Patterned backgrounds

✗ Busy images behind text

The Importance of Contrast

Accessibility depends upon contrast.

Low contrast combinations reduce readability for all learners.

Problematic examples include:

• Yellow text on white
• Grey text on white
• Red text on green
• Blue text on purple

Effective combinations include:

• Black on cream
• Navy on pale yellow
• Dark grey on white
• Black on light blue

Contrast should support reading rather than decoration.

Autism and Visual Processing

Many autistic pupils experience differences in sensory processing.

Research suggests that visual clutter can increase cognitive demands and anxiety among autistic learners (Ashburner et al., 2008).

Busy slides containing:

• Multiple colours
• Excessive animations
• Numerous images
• Dense text

can become overwhelming.

Simple slide design supports:

• Predictability
• Reduced sensory overload
• Improved attention
• Better information processing

For autistic learners, consistency across lessons is particularly beneficial.

Using the same:

• Font
• Colour scheme
• Layout structure

helps reduce uncertainty and supports executive functioning.

ADHD and Attention Regulation

For pupils with ADHD, board design can either support or undermine attention.

Learners with ADHD often struggle to filter irrelevant information (Barkley, 2015).

Slides that contain:

• Excessive text
• Multiple colours
• Decorative graphics
• Crowded layouts

increase attentional competition.

Effective practice includes:

• Minimal text
• Clear headings
• Large fonts
• Consistent formatting
• Chunked information

This helps direct attention towards the most important content.

Supporting Working Memory

Many SEND learners experience working memory difficulties.

According to Susan Gathercole and colleagues (2008), pupils with weak working memory frequently lose information before they can process it.

Poorly designed boards contribute to this challenge.

When pupils must:

1. Find the information.
2. Decode the font.
3. Interpret the layout.
4. Remember the content.

working memory becomes overloaded.

Accessible board design removes unnecessary processing demands.

The Role of White Space

White space is not wasted space.

Research on readability consistently shows that spacing improves comprehension.

Teachers should:

• Leave gaps between sections.
• Avoid overcrowding slides.
• Limit text per slide.
• Use bullet points.
• Present information incrementally.

This reduces visual overload and improves processing efficiency.

Universal Design for Learning

The principles of CAST’s Universal Design for Learning (UDL) suggest that learning environments should be designed to be accessible from the outset rather than adapted retrospectively.

Board accessibility exemplifies this principle.

When presentations are designed with SEND pupils in mind:

• Dyslexic pupils benefit.
• Autistic pupils benefit.
• ADHD pupils benefit.
• Pupils with SLCN benefit.
• Pupils with EAL benefit.
• Lower-attaining pupils benefit.
• Most non-SEND pupils benefit as well.

What supports accessibility often improves learning for everyone.

Practical Classroom Recommendations

Teachers should consider adopting the following evidence-informed standards:

Font

• Arial, Verdana, Calibri, Aptos or Tahoma.
• Avoid decorative fonts.
• Use bold sparingly.
• Avoid italics where possible.

Font Size

• Minimum 24–28 pt.
• Headings 36–44 pt.
• Key vocabulary 36+ pt.

Colours

• Cream or pale-yellow background.
• Dark blue or black text.
• Avoid bright white where possible.

Layout

• One key concept per slide.
• Consistent structure.
• Limited text.
• Clear headings.
• Generous spacing.

Images

• Relevant only.
• Avoid decorative clutter.
• Use images to support understanding rather than decoration.

Conclusion

Teachers frequently seek complex solutions to SEND barriers. Yet some of the most powerful adjustments require no additional funding, specialist intervention, or extensive training. Something as simple as changing a font, increasing text size, or replacing a white background with a softer colour can significantly improve accessibility for pupils with dyslexia, autism, ADHD, visual processing difficulties, and working memory challenges.

These changes reduce extraneous cognitive load, improve readability, minimise sensory overload, and increase the likelihood that pupils can focus their attention on learning rather than merely accessing information. Importantly, accessible board design is not a SEND strategy alone; it represents excellent teaching practice. What benefits the most vulnerable learners frequently improves outcomes for all pupils.

In an era where schools are increasingly expected to remove barriers to learning and demonstrate inclusive practice, the design of classroom presentations should be viewed not as an aesthetic choice but as a pedagogical decision. Every slide, every font choice, and every colour scheme either increases or decreases accessibility. The question for teachers is therefore not whether board design matters, but whether their current design choices are helping every pupil access the curriculum successfully.

References

• Ashburner, J., Ziviani, J. and Rodger, S. (2008) ‘Sensory processing and classroom emotional, behavioural, and educational outcomes in children with autism spectrum disorder’, American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62(5), pp. 564–573.
• Barkley, R.A. (2015) Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Handbook for Diagnosis and Treatment. 4th edn. New York: Guilford Press.
• British Dyslexia Association (2023). Dyslexia Style Guide. Available at: British Dyslexia Association Dyslexia Style Guide
• CAST (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines Version 2.2. Wakefield, MA: CAST.
• Gathercole, S.E. and Alloway, T.P. (2008). Working Memory and Learning: A Practical Guide for Teachers. London: Sage.
• Mayer, R.E. (2021). Multimedia Learning. 3rd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sweller, J. (1988). ‘Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning’, Cognitive Science, 12(2), pp. 257–285.
• Sweller, J., Ayres, P. and Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory. New York: Springer.
• Rose, J. (2009). Identifying and Teaching Children and Young People with Dyslexia and Literacy Difficulties. Nottingham: Department for Children, Schools and Families.
• Education Endowment Foundation (2021). Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Schools Guidance Report. London: EEF.