Lightyear Foundation: Making STEM more accessible
Divergent Thinking helped turn accessibility goals into practical training for educators, partners and STEM organisations.
The brief
Lightyear Foundation’s mission is clear: create a world where disabled and neurodivergent people thrive, and remove barriers to STEM through direct work with young people, partnership work, training and systems change.
That means training is a core part of the organisation’s impact model.
But to be useful, this training needed to do more than communicate values. It needed to help people understand barriers, recognise recurring accessibility patterns, and make practical changes in how STEM activities, environments and communication were designed.
Lightyear did not need generic disability awareness slides.
The challenge was to help shape training that would:
make accessible STEM feel practical rather than theoretical
Why this matters
Inclusive defaults reduce the number of people who must disclose a diagnosis before ordinary work becomes usable. Clear emails, accessible slides, purposeful meetings and predictable routes to help can benefit a wide workforce while leaving individual adjustments available where needed.
The gap remains substantial: the CIPD employer survey found that only 39% ensured clear access to reasonable adjustments. Better default design does not replace adjustments; it gives them a stronger foundation.
What Divergent Thinking delivered
Divergent Thinking supported the development and delivery of Making STEM Accessible training content built around practical accessibility and inclusion.
Across the programme, the training consistently drew on:
the social model of disability
practical barrier-spotting
The delivery model reflected Divergent Thinking’s own practice: start with the real audience and context; combine evidence with neurodivergent lived experience; make participation accessible; and finish with actions people can use after the session. That helps the learning feel relevant without presenting one person’s experience as universal.
How the learning itself was made neuroinclusive
The session was designed to model the approach it described. Important concepts were introduced in a clear sequence, abstract points were connected to recognisable examples, and interaction was used as a route into thinking rather than a test of speed or confidence. Where follow-up materials were part of the brief, they gave participants another opportunity to process the content after the live session.
The facilitator also kept a deliberate distinction between common patterns and individual experience. Neurodivergent people are not interchangeable. Useful support begins with the person, the task and the environment, then asks what would make the work clearer or more workable. That is more responsible than turning a list of traits into assumptions about a colleague, student or client.
What this case demonstrates
The work focused on practical, accessible ways to widen participation in STEM learning and engagement.
“Your style is engaging and relaxed, and you come across with real confidence and clarity. The interactive tools were brilliant – really engaging and very well managed.”
Client or participant feedback
What the result means — and what it does not
This case is a strong example of how Divergent Thinking can support organisations that already have a powerful mission but need help turning that mission into practical, high-quality training.
It shows how good training can help organisations move:
from values to implementation
Evidence boundary: the available draft does not state the feedback response count or verify long-term behaviour change, STEM participation or organisational outcomes.
How to measure value beyond the session
Immediate ratings and quotations show whether the content was relevant and usable on the day. If an organisation needs stronger evidence for a strategy, procurement exercise or future investment decision, it should agree a short follow-up before delivery and collect only measures that connect to the intended behaviour.
Ask after 30–90 days which tools or changes people actually used.
Collect examples of clearer communication, meetings, feedback or support conversations.
Track use of agreed resources or adjustment routes without monitoring individual diagnoses.
Record process changes separately from awareness or satisfaction.
State the response count and denominator beside every percentage.
Practical ideas other organisations can use
The most transferable value is in the design choices behind the engagement. Organisations facing a similar challenge can begin with the following actions:
Put the action, owner and deadline where the reader can find them.
Use headings, whitespace and plain language in important documents.
State the purpose of a meeting and who needs to attend.
Build pauses and processing time into dense work.
Test products and processes with neurodivergent users.
Planning something similar?
Divergent Thinking designs evidence-informed neurodiversity training and practical workplace programmes for employers, education providers, charities and professional communities. The work combines lived experience, applied neuroscience and accessible facilitation. Contact nat@divergentthinking.uk to discuss the audience, the real behaviour you want to change and the evidence worth collecting.
Comments