Consolidated SQA Band Expectations

Consolidated SQA Band Expectations – NeuroCoach Handbook

Consolidated SQA Band Expectations (Modules 1–9)

Lesson 1.1 – Understanding Neurodiversity

Indicative SQA Band Expectations for Lesson 1.1

Band	Performance Indicators
A — Excellent	Shows a clear, nuanced grasp of the neurodiversity paradigm and its implications for practice. Identifies multiple, specific personal assumptions and analyses how these shaped bias, blind spots, or practice. Uses consistently neuro-affirming language and references key ideas (e.g. social model, double empathy) accurately. Demonstrates genuine willingness to reframe beliefs and links this to their future stance as a Neurocoach.
B — Strong	Demonstrates a solid understanding of the neurodiversity paradigm with minor gaps or simplifications. Identifies some personal assumptions and offers reasonable reflection on their impact. Mostly neuro-affirming language, with only occasional slips or unexamined phrases. Shows intention to change practice, though links to future coaching may be briefly stated.
C — Satisfactory	Basic awareness of neurodiversity but understanding is surface-level or largely descriptive. Limited exploration of personal bias; may rely on generic statements (“we all have biases”). Mix of affirming and deficit-framed language, sometimes uncritically used. Little explicit connection between reflection and future coaching stance.
D — Limited	Limited or inaccurate understanding of the neurodiversity paradigm; may re-centre diagnostic/deficit models. Few or no genuine reflections on personal assumptions; may be defensive or minimising. Frequent use of pathologising or “fit in/fix” language with little evidence of critique. No clear indication of how beliefs or practice will change as a result of learning.

Lesson 1.2 – Historical and Cultural Context

Indicative SQA Band Expectations – 1.2 Historical & Cultural Context

Band	Performance Indicators
A — Excellent	Provides a thoughtful, well-structured account of how historical, cultural, and political factors shaped ND experience. Critically analyses specific examples (e.g. institutionalisation, diagnostic history, language shifts) and links them to present-day realities. Demonstrates strong awareness of systemic injustice and connects this explicitly to coaching ethics and responsibility. Uses clear, neuro-affirming language and avoids nostalgia for harmful historical practices.
B — Strong	Shows good understanding of key historical themes and how they influence current practice, with minor gaps. Some critique of harmful narratives is present, though not always explored in depth. References ethical responsibilities, even if links to specific coaching decisions could be clearer. Mostly consistent, respectful language about ND people and histories.
C — Satisfactory	Provides a basic summary of history but remains largely descriptive or timeline-focused. Limited critique of stigma or systemic injustice; may reference them only in general terms. Mentions ethics but with weak or vague connections to concrete coaching practice. Some inconsistent or unexamined language; hints of deficit framing may appear.
D — Limited	Minimal or inaccurate understanding of historical factors; may ignore power and oppression. Little or no critique of harmful narratives; may imply that discrimination was reasonable, inevitable, or irrelevant. No meaningful link to coaching ethics or responsibility. Frequent use of deficit, medicalised, or pathologising language without reflection.

Lesson 2.1 – Neuroscience Basics

Indicative SQA Band Expectations for Lesson 2.1

Band	Performance Indicators
A — Excellent	Demonstrates clear, accurate explanation of relevant neuroscience using accessible language. Applies concepts to coaching scenarios with strong awareness of limits of neuroscience and avoids deterministic framing.
B — Strong	Explains key concepts correctly with good links to client experience. Connections are clear though occasionally underdeveloped.
C — Satisfactory	Shows basic understanding but may be descriptive or imprecise. Links to coaching present but lacking depth.
D — Limited	Partial or confused understanding; occasional misuse of terms. May slip into pathologising explanations.
Fail — Unsatisfactory	Major inaccuracies, reliance on stereotypes, or no meaningful link to coaching.

Lesson 2.2 – Psychological & Behavioural Aspects

Indicative SQA Band Expectations for Lesson 2.2

Band	Performance Indicators
A — Excellent	Offers sophisticated reframes considering sensory load, trauma, context, and unmet needs. Explicitly critiques compliance-based approaches and uses autonomy-supportive framing.
B — Strong	Provides solid reframes and clear links to neuro-affirming practice. Some areas could be more fully analysed.
C — Satisfactory	Recognises behaviour as communication but reflections are more descriptive than analytical. Occasional deficit language.
D — Limited	Interprets behaviour at face value with minimal attention to context or ND principles.
Fail — Unsatisfactory	Reinforces punitive or behaviourist framings with no meaningful attempt to reframe.

Lesson 3.1 – Effective Communication Techniques

Indicative SQA Band Expectations for Lesson 3.1

Band	Performance Indicators
A – Excellent	Demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of double empathy and shared responsibility in communication. Clearly critiques non-affirming examples and redesigns them using concrete, ND-sensitive strategies (clarity, pacing, modality). Reflection shows strong self-awareness of the coach’s role in building or eroding safety.
B – Strong	Accurately identifies communication issues and proposes appropriate improvements with mostly clear reasoning. Shows good awareness of ND needs and avoids overt deficit language, though some opportunities for deeper reflection or nuance may be missed.
C – Satisfactory	Demonstrates a basic grasp of ND-friendly communication. Can identify some issues and improvements but tends to stay descriptive (“say it more clearly”) rather than fully analytical. Limited exploration of the coach’s own communication habits.
D – Limited	Shows partial or inconsistent understanding of neuro-affirming communication. May focus primarily on changing the client, overlook processing needs, or offer generic advice without ND-informed reasoning.
NYC – Unsatisfactory	Reinforces “fix the ND person” narratives or frames miscommunication as individual failing. Little or no evidence of double empathy, and no workable ND-affirming strategies are proposed.

Lesson 3.2 – Social Skills Development

Indicative SQA Band Expectations for Lesson 3.2

Band	Performance Indicators
A – Excellent	Presents a clearly ND-affirming, agency-based view of social development. Designs or critiques strategies that honour consent, boundaries, and sensory needs. Explicitly rejects masking-based approaches and shows nuanced understanding of context, power, and reciprocity.
B – Strong	Offers well-reasoned, mostly agency-focused strategies with good awareness of ND needs. May not fully explore all contextual or power dynamics, but avoids overt compliance-based thinking. Shows solid understanding of social navigation as shared work.
C – Satisfactory	Demonstrates generally respectful attitudes and some use of agency-based language, but may drift into generic social advice. Under-explores environmental factors. Reflection tends to remain at the level of “helping them cope” rather than reshaping context.
D – Limited	Focuses heavily on the ND person changing to fit existing norms, with limited attention to consent or environment. Strategies may feel implicitly compliance-driven even if well intentioned.
NYC – Unsatisfactory	Explicitly promotes masking, imitation, or suppressing traits as the primary goal of “social skills”. Little or no evidence of agency, safety, or ND-affirming values.

Lesson 4.1 – Coaching Principles and Ethics

Indicative SQA Band Expectations for Lesson 4.1

Band	Performance Indicators
A – Excellent	Demonstrates a sophisticated grasp of ND-relevant ethics, identifies dilemmas clearly. Applies structured reasoning with strong power-awareness and consent-led analysis. Uses neuro-affirming language throughout.
B – Strong	Accurately identifies ethical issues and applies coaching principles well. Shows good understanding of ND-informed boundaries, though depth or nuance may be slightly uneven.
C – Satisfactory	Addresses ethical issues in a general way but lacks specificity. Shows some awareness of ND considerations but may rely on general empathy rather than structured ethical reasoning.
D – Limited	Partial or inconsistent understanding. Ethical concerns may be misidentified or oversimplified. ND context is minimally considered.
NYC – Unsatisfactory	Misses or misinterprets ethical issues. Reinforces deficit narratives or violates core principles around consent, autonomy, and boundaries.

Lesson 4.2 – Goal-Setting and Accountability

Indicative SQA Band Expectations for Lesson 4.2

Band	Performance Indicators
A – Excellent	Produces a clear, well-structured, values-led goal framework tightly linked to the client’s Why. Demonstrates strong understanding of ND needs and embeds supportive structures effectively.
B – Strong	Presents logical, appropriate goals with good ND awareness. Some elements may lack depth, but structure and clarity are solid.
C – Satisfactory	Goals are reasonable but may be generic or insufficiently connected to the client’s Why. Limited detail on environmental supports or flexibility.
D – Limited	Goals lack clear justification, connection to values, or ND-informed planning. Overly coach-led or impractical.
NYC – Unsatisfactory	Goals reinforce compliance or productivity pressure. No client voice or ND-aware reasoning. No structural support included.

Lesson 5.1 – Developing the Individual Coaching Plan

Indicative SQA Band Expectations for Lesson 5.1

Band	Performance Indicators
A – Excellent	Produces a clear, fully integrated DDP plan with strong client voice, meaningful goals, and ND-aware supports. Demonstrates nuanced understanding of context and co-production.
B – Strong	Well-structured and coherent plan with appropriate goals and supports. Some elements may need deepening, but overall thinking is strong.
C – Satisfactory	Functional plan with basic structure. Client voice and ND reasoning present, but goals may be generic or insufficiently contextualised.
D – Limited	Plan lacks coherence, ND framing, or clear rationale. Goals are vague, imposed, or disconnected from the client’s Why.
NYC – Unsatisfactory	Plan is non-affirming, deficit-based, or harmful. No evidence of co-production, ND awareness, or appropriate supports.

Lesson 5.2 – Adaptive Coaching Techniques

Indicative SQA Band Expectations for Lesson 5.2

Band	Performance Indicators
A – Excellent	Provides well-justified adaptations linked to sensory, EF, and contextual factors. Shows full consent-led reasoning and strong alignment with DDP practice.
B – Strong	Adaptations are appropriate and mostly well-reasoned. ND principles evident, though some areas need deeper justification.
C – Satisfactory	Adaptations are sensible but generic. Reasoning may be basic, with limited linkage to DDP or sensory/executive functioning.
D – Limited	Adaptations are unclear, coach-led, or poorly justified. Little understanding of ND factors or consent.
NYC – Unsatisfactory	Adaptations are inappropriate, non-affirming, unconsented, or harmful. Shows no understanding of ND-informed practice.

Lesson 6.1 – Technology and Aids

Indicative SQA Band Expectations for Lesson 6.1

Band	Performance Indicators
A – Excellent	Selects highly appropriate, precisely reasoned tools with strong ND-informed justification. Demonstrates deep understanding of cognitive load, sensory factors, consent, and sustainability.
B – Strong	Chooses strong tools with relevant reasoning. Some justifications may need deeper linkage to sensory or EF theory, but selections are sound and neuro-affirming.
C – Satisfactory	Provides sensible but generic choices. Basic reasoning with limited contextual or ND-specific explanation. Useful but underdeveloped.
D – Limited	Tools poorly matched to client profile, or chosen without adequate justification. Limited understanding of sensory or EF implications.
NYC – Unsatisfactory	Selections inappropriate or harmful; may encourage masking, over-notification, or unsustainable pressure. No evidence of ND-informed reasoning.

Lesson 6.2 – Resource Networks

Indicative SQA Band Expectations for Lesson 6.2

Band	Performance Indicators
A – Excellent	Detailed, accurate network map and reflective commentary. Shows strong systemic awareness and proposes realistic, ethical ways to strengthen the ecosystem.
B – Strong	Clear and thoughtful map with appropriate insights. Good suggestions with some areas that could be deepened or more contextualised.
C – Satisfactory	Basic map identifying key people and contexts. Limited analysis or generic improvement suggestions.
D – Limited	Map incomplete or superficial. Lacks awareness of ecosystem dynamics or relies on assumptions rather than analysis.
NYC – Unsatisfactory	Lacks meaningful engagement with the task. Reinforces unsafe assumptions or demonstrates misunderstanding of networks and ND experience.

Lesson 7.1 – Real-World Scenarios

Indicative SQA Band Expectations – Lesson 7.1

Band	Performance Indicators
A – Excellent	Demonstrates deep, ND-affirming analysis integrating sensory, emotional, contextual, and relational factors. Shows structured reasoning linked to Modules 1–6. Recommendations are ethical, nuanced, and protect autonomy.
B – Strong	Provides clear and accurate analysis with a solid understanding of ND needs. Some complexity addressed, though not fully developed. Recommendations are appropriate and ethical.
C – Satisfactory	Basic but accurate interpretation of the scenario. Focuses on surface-level factors and offers generic strategies. Safe but limited insight; inconsistent linkage to earlier modules.
D – Limited	Misses important ND-related factors or uses partial/inaccurate reasoning. Some compliance-based or deficit assumptions present. Ethical reasoning is weak or unclear.
E – Insufficient	Uses harmful or pathologising interpretations. Recommends non-affirming or unsafe actions. Shows major misunderstanding of ND experience or ethical coaching practice.

Lesson 7.2 – Role-Playing Exercises

Indicative SQA Band Expectations – Lesson 7.2

Band	Performance Indicators
A – Excellent	Provides a rich, self-aware reflection with concrete examples. Shows deep understanding of ND-affirming communication, pacing, and emotional attunement. Demonstrates ethical awareness and strong integration of all prior modules.
B – Strong	Clear, thoughtful reflection with relevant examples. Demonstrates solid grasp of core skills and offers appropriate development goals. Integration of ND principles is present but may be less comprehensive.
C – Satisfactory	Reflection accurately describes events but is mostly surface-level. Limited analysis of communication or relational dynamics. Strategies and learning points are generic rather than specific.
D – Limited	Minimal reflection with insufficient detail. Overfocuses on performance rather than learning. Shows limited awareness of ND communication or ethical considerations.
E – Insufficient	No meaningful reflection submitted, or writing contains harmful, pathologising interpretations. Demonstrates major misunderstanding of ND-affirming practice or unsafe coaching behaviours.

Lesson 8.1 – The Final Paper: Structure and Expectations

Indicative SQA Band Expectations – Lesson 8.1

Band	Performance Indicators
A – Excellent	Presents a sophisticated, clearly structured argument supported by strong analysis and critical engagement. Integrates concepts from all modules seamlessly and uses the DDP with depth and precision. Writing is highly coherent, academically mature, and fully referenced.
B – Strong	Presents a clear, well-organised argument with strong evidence. Integrates course concepts and DDP application effectively, but some areas may lack depth or balance. Writing is clear and appropriately referenced with only minor inconsistencies.
C – Satisfactory	Meets basic expectations for structure and clarity. Shows understanding of course concepts but leans towards summarising rather than critical analysis. DDP may be referenced without fully shaping the argument. Referencing is acceptable but uneven.
D – Limited	Weak structure or unclear argument. Integration of course concepts is superficial or inconsistent. DDP understanding is partial or inaccurate. Multiple referencing and clarity issues.
E – Insufficient	Fails to meet the required standard. Major misunderstandings of key module content. Absence of critical analysis, or significant structural weaknesses. May contain pathologising language or unsafe practice interpretations.

Lesson 8.2 – Building Your Case Study: From Reflection to Application

Indicative SQA Band Expectations – Lesson 8.2

Band	Performance Indicators
A – Excellent	Presents a deeply contextualized case study with rich analysis of strengths, challenges, and ND factors. DDP application is flawless, demonstrating co-production and ethical decision-making throughout. Critical reflection on coach stance and limitations is sophisticated and insightful.
B – Strong	Clear and comprehensive case study with accurate DDP application. Shows good integration of ND principles, though some areas of analysis may be slightly underdeveloped. Reflection is honest and appropriate.
C – Satisfactory	Meets basic expectations; case study is generally clear but lacks contextual depth. DDP structure is present, but application may be generic or inconsistent. Reflection is basic, focusing mainly on description rather than critical insight.
D – Limited	Case study lacks core elements** or relies heavily on assumption/deficit-framing. DDP application is weak or shows misunderstanding of co-production and ND principles. Limited or absent ethical reflection**.
E – Insufficient	Fails to meet essential criteria. Reinforces harmful or pathologising language. No meaningful DDP application or significant ethical concerns.

Lesson 9.1 – Ongoing Learning Opportunities

Indicative SQA Band Expectations – Lesson 9.1

Band	Performance Indicators
A – Excellent	Produces a well-structured, thoughtful, and coherent CPD plan rooted in clear professional aims and ND-affirming values. Demonstrates accurate self-assessment, strong reflective insight**, and well-reasoned selection of CPD activities. Activities are achievable, purposeful, and integrated into a realistic long-term development strategy**.
B – Strong	Provides a solid, meaningful CPD plan with relevant goals and appropriate activities. Shows good reflective awareness, though some analysis may lack depth or coherence. Activities are mostly realistic and suitably linked to professional aims.
C – Satisfactory	CPD plan is clear but somewhat generic or descriptive. Links between activities and goals may be surface-level. Activities may feel disconnected or insufficiently justified.
D – Limited	CPD plan is vague, unrealistic, or weakly connected to professional aims. Minimal self-reflection and limited evidence of ND-affirming considerations. Shows insufficient understanding of CPD as an ethical, ongoing responsibility.
E – Insufficient	Submission is extremely brief, unclear, or inappropriate. No meaningful CPD strategy or major misunderstandings about professional development. Does not demonstrate readiness for long-term professional practice.

Lesson 9.2 – Community Engagement

Indicative SQA Band Expectations – Lesson 9.2

Band	Performance Indicators
A – Excellent	Demonstrates strong insight** into the purpose and value of community engagement. Identifies relevant ND-affirming and lived-experience-led communities, showing a clear understanding of power, inclusion, and ethical participation. Provides a realistic, meaningful plan for sustained engagement that supports professional growth and ethics**.
B – Strong	Clear and thoughtful reflection on community engagement with relevant examples. Good awareness of inclusion and reflective practice, with a sensible plan for engagement. Minor gaps in critical depth or long-term strategy, but overall coherent and appropriate.
C – Satisfactory	Basic understanding of community engagement, but reflection may be descriptive or generic. Identifies some relevant groups but shows limited analysis of why they matter. Engagement plan is present but underdeveloped.
D – Limited	Vague or unclear understanding of community of practice. Identifies unsuitable or generic communities without rationale. Engagement plan is unrealistic, superficial, or missing.
E – Insufficient	Fundamental misunderstanding of community engagement or its ethical importance. Reflection absent or inappropriate. Serious concerns about readiness to practise safely or in alignment with ND-affirming principles.