Swedish law is clear that schools must give neurodivergent students the support they need. But do schools have the means to deliver it? In 2025, Skolverket asked the people who would know, and the answer was blunt. In its report on grundskolors arbete för en tillgänglig lärmiljö för elever med NPF (Rapport 2025:1), two out of three principals said they do not receive enough resources to do it.
What the report found
The report quotes principals directly: “Två av tre rektorer i grundskolan uppger att de inte får tillräckliga ekonomiska resurser tilldelade från sin huvudman för att möta stödbehoven hos elever med NPF-diagnoser eller liknande utmaningar.” Two out of three principals in compulsory school report that they do not receive sufficient financial resources from their school operator to meet the support needs of students with NPF diagnoses or similar challenges.
The report is not one-sided. It also found that a majority of school operators have offered staff competence development, and that over half have a central student-health team with specialists in NPF. Schools are doing real work. But when two in three of the people running those schools say the resources do not reach the classroom, that is not a story about effort. It is a story about capacity.
That capacity gap is partly baked into how schools are funded. The everyday support most neurodivergent students need is meant to come out of a school’s ordinary per-student grant, not the narrow tilläggsbelopp a school can claim only for extraordinary, individually costed needs. When the ordinary grant runs short, the support has nowhere left to come from.
Why this is the whole problem, in one number
The right to support already exists in law. Sweden’s own Parliament has documented how far short of it the outcomes fall. What the Skolverket report adds is the reason, stated by the people closest to it: the support the law promises depends on resources that, two times out of three, are not there.
This is the same wall from a different angle as the special-education teacher shortage, sharpened by the fact that Sweden’s two special-education roles are not interchangeable. Whether the missing resource is a specialist, an hour, or a line in a budget, the effect on the student is identical. The adapted support they are entitled to does not arrive.
What closes a resource gap
You cannot legislate a budget into existence, and Nuro does not pretend to. What Nuro does is change what a fixed amount of teacher time can produce.
A large part of adapted support is work that has to be redone for every student: reworking a task so a student with ADHD can start it, breaking a text down for a student with dyslexia, turning a wall of instructions into a structure a student can actually follow. That is exactly the work that does not scale when the resources are not there, so it is the first thing that gets dropped. Nuro does that work, per student, at the moment it is needed, so that the support the law requires does not depend on a school having resources it has just told Skolverket it does not have.
Two out of three principals have named the gap. Closing it is the entire point of what we are building.