Navigating the Storm: Advocating for Special Education in an Era of Anti-DEI
The growing anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) movement has sparked concerns among educators and advocates across the nation, a recent article reports. As efforts to limit DEI programs in K-12 schools gain traction, the potential impact on special education practices cannot be ignored. Critics of DEI initiatives argue that schools should focus on academic basics and shared American values rather than addressing issues related to racial disparities and gender identities. However, for students with disabilities, the consequences of rolling back DEI efforts could be particularly severe.
As an autistic public high school special education teacher who has spoken at DEI events, I have witnessed firsthand the importance of diversity, inclusion, and equity in education. Representing the perspectives of both the autistic and disabled communities, I have seen how DEI initiatives can foster a more welcoming and accommodating learning environment for all students. The intersection of disability with other marginalised identities, such as race and gender, highlights the need for a comprehensive approach to inclusion in our schools.
The anti-DEI movement’s potential impact on special education is a cause for concern among advocates who fear a return to the stigmas and segregation that students with disabilities faced before the enactment of crucial civil rights laws like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). As someone who has navigated the educational system as an autistic individual and now works to support students with diverse needs, I am deeply troubled by the prospect of undoing decades of progress toward inclusive practices.
In my new career in the classroom, I have witnessed the transformative power of inclusive education. When students with disabilities are given the opportunity to learn alongside their peers in general education classrooms, they not only achieve better academic outcomes but also develop essential social and communication skills. Inclusive practices help combat the isolation and marginalisation that students with disabilities often experience, promoting a sense of belonging and empowerment.
As we explore the concerns raised by special education advocates and delve into the current state of inclusion in our schools, it is essential to keep in mind the real-life implications of anti-DEI efforts for students with disabilities. By sharing my own experiences and insights, I hope to shed light on the importance of protecting and promoting inclusive practices in the face of growing opposition. Together, we must work to ensure that all students, regardless of their abilities or backgrounds, have access to an equitable and inclusive education.
Concerns raised by special education advocates
Special education advocates, like myself, have raised significant concerns about the potential consequences of the anti-DEI movement on students with disabilities. One of the primary fears is that rolling back DEI initiatives could lead to a resurgence of the stigmas and segregation that historically plagued special education. Prior to the enactment of laws like IDEA, students with disabilities were often excluded from general education classrooms and relegated to separate, inferior educational settings. The anti-DEI movement’s emphasis on “academic basics” and “shared American values” may inadvertently create a climate in which students with disabilities are once again viewed as a burden or distraction, rather than as valuable members of the school community.
Several examples of anti-DEI efforts have already begun to affect special education practices. One notable concern is the opposition to co-teaching, a practice in which general and special education teachers collaborate to provide instruction and support to a diverse group of students within a single classroom (I co-teach geometry and statistics in an Inclusion setting). Co-teaching has been shown to benefit students with disabilities by providing them with access to the general education curriculum and fostering social inclusion. However, some critics of DEI have questioned the efficacy of co-teaching, arguing that it detracts from the educational experiences of non-disabled students. This opposition fails to recognise the value of inclusive practices and the importance of creating a supportive learning environment for all students.
Another worrying trend is the increased scrutiny of special education teacher preparation materials. As the anti-DEI movement gains traction, some critics have targeted textbooks and syllabi that include the word “inclusion” or discuss strategies for promoting equity in special education. This scrutiny may lead to a chilling effect on the development and dissemination of resources that are essential for preparing special education teachers like me to effectively support students with disabilities. By limiting access to these materials, the anti-DEI movement threatens to undermine the quality and effectiveness of special education teacher training programs.
Perhaps most alarming is the emergence of legislation aimed at separating students with disruptive behaviours from general education classrooms. Whilst it is important to ensure that all students have access to a safe and orderly learning environment, such legislation often fails to consider the complex needs of students with disabilities. Many disabilities, such as autism or emotional and behavioural disorders, can manifest in behaviours that may be perceived as disruptive. However, isolating these students from their peers and denying them access to the general education curriculum is not an appropriate or equitable solution. Instead, schools should focus on providing targeted supports and interventions that address the underlying causes of challenging behaviours whilst preserving students’ right to an inclusive education.
It is important to recognise that the anti-DEI movement’s efforts to undermine inclusive practices in special education may be part of a larger agenda to privatise the public school system. Neo-liberal advocates of school privatisation have long sought to dismantle public education in favour of charter schools and voucher programs. By using the anti-DEI movement as a trojan horse, these advocates may be seeking to capitalise on the current political climate to advance their agenda. The erosion of inclusive practices in special education could be seen as a step toward the creation of a more segregated and stratified education system, in which students with disabilities are once again relegated to the margins.
As special education advocates, it is our responsibility to remain vigilant in the face of these threats and to continue advocating for the rights and needs of students with disabilities. We must push back against efforts to roll back the progress we have made toward creating inclusive and equitable learning environments. By speaking out against the anti-DEI movement's attempts to undermine special education, we can help ensure that all students, regardless of their abilities or backgrounds, have access to the high-quality, inclusive education they deserve.
Counterargument from the Heritage Foundation
The Heritage Foundation, a prominent “conservative” think tank, has put forth a counterargument to the concerns raised by special education advocates regarding the impact of anti-DEI efforts. According to Jay Greene, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Educational Policy, rolling back DEI initiatives would actually benefit special education. Greene asserts that by dismantling DEI programs, special education advocates would be free to focus on their own interests and rights without being subsumed into a broader movement that does not prioritise their concerns. He argues that the DEI movement’s emphasis on group identities and the dichotomy of oppressors and oppressed fails to adequately address the unique needs of students with disabilities.
However, as an autistic special educator, I find the Heritage Foundation’s perspective on this issue to be deeply flawed and misguided. The claim that special education would benefit from the rollback of DEI initiatives fails to recognise the fundamental importance of inclusion and equity in education. Students with disabilities do not exist in a vacuum; they are part of a diverse student body that includes individuals from various racial, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds. By suggesting that special education advocates should focus solely on their own interests (a Randian “rational self-interest” type argument), the Heritage Foundation is promoting a narrow and shortsighted view of education that fails to account for the intersectionality of student identities and experiences.
Moreover, the Heritage Foundation’s argument ignores the critical role that DEI initiatives play in creating a more inclusive and welcoming school environment for all students, including those with disabilities. When schools prioritise diversity, equity, and inclusion, they foster a culture of acceptance and belonging that benefits every student. Special education students, in particular, stand to gain from DEI efforts that promote understanding, empathy, and respect for individual differences. By rolling back these initiatives, the Heritage Foundation is effectively advocating for a return to a more exclusionary and segregated educational system that marginalises students with disabilities.
It is important to consider the Heritage Foundation’s stance on DEI and special education within the broader context of the organization’s neo-liberal austerity policy guidance and its role in the effort to dismantle the free public school system. The Heritage Foundation has long been a proponent of school privatisation, advocating for the expansion of charter schools and voucher programs that divert public funds away from traditional public schools. By undermining DEI initiatives and suggesting that special education should be treated as a separate and isolated concern, the Heritage Foundation may be seeking to weaken the public school system and pave the way for increased privatisation.
To my mind, I firmly believe that the dismantling of DEI programs would have a detrimental impact on the education of students with disabilities. The idea that special education exists in isolation from broader issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion is a dangerous fallacy that threatens to undo decades of progress toward creating more inclusive and equitable schools. We must recognise that the needs of students with disabilities are inextricably linked to the needs of all students, and that the success of special education relies on the creation of a school environment that values and supports every individual.
Instead of rolling back DEI initiatives, we should be working to expand and strengthen these programs, ensuring that they are inclusive of the needs and perspectives of students with disabilities. By promoting a more holistic and intersectional approach to education, we can create schools that truly serve the needs of all students, regardless of their abilities or backgrounds. As educators, it is our responsibility to advocate for the rights and interests of our students whilst also recognising the importance of building a more just and equitable educational system for everyone.
Current state of special education inclusion
The current state of special education inclusion in the United States is a complex and evolving landscape. In recent years, there has been a growing push to increase the participation of students with disabilities in general education classrooms. This shift toward inclusion is driven by a recognition of the benefits that inclusive practices offer, both for students with disabilities and their non-disabled peers, as well as the economic realities of the shortage of special education teachers needed for segregated classrooms. When students with disabilities are included in general education settings, they have access to the same curriculum and educational opportunities as their peers, which can lead to improved academic outcomes and social development. Inclusion also helps to foster a more accepting and empathetic school culture, as students learn to appreciate and value diversity in all its forms.
Despite these positive trends, however, the reality of special education inclusion is far from perfect. One of the most pressing concerns is the growing racial disproportionality in special education identification. Studies have consistently shown that students of colour, particularly Black and Hispanic students, are more likely to be identified as having a disability and placed in special education programs compared to their White peers. This disproportionality is particularly evident in categories such as intellectual disability and emotional disturbance, which are often associated with subjective judgments and biases. The overrepresentation of students of colour in special education raises serious questions about the equity and fairness of the identification process and highlights the need for more culturally responsive and inclusive practices.
As an autistic educator, I have had the opportunity to experience the challenges and rewards of inclusion firsthand. Throughout my time in the classroom, I have witnessed the transformative power of inclusive practices in the lives of my students. When students with disabilities are given the opportunity to learn alongside their peers in a supportive and accommodating environment, they thrive both academically and socially. Inclusion has also been instrumental in my own personal and professional growth, as it has allowed me to connect with a diverse range of students and colleagues and to develop a deeper understanding of the unique strengths and needs of each individual.
However, I have also seen the ways in which the current educational system can fail to adequately support students with disabilities. The growing trend of privatisation and the expansion of charter schools has created a two-tiered system in which students with disabilities are often left behind. Private schools and charter schools are not obligated to accept students with IEPs, which means that the responsibility for educating these students falls disproportionately on public schools. This creates a significant burden for public school systems, which must shoulder the load of providing special education services and accommodations while also facing increasing pressure to compete with private and charter schools.
The anti-DEI movement’s efforts to undermine inclusive practices in special education only serve to exacerbate these challenges. By questioning the value of inclusion and advocating for the separation of students with disabilities from their peers, the anti-DEI movement threatens to undo decades of progress toward creating more equitable and inclusive schools. As public schools struggle to meet the needs of their students amidst a hostile political climate and dwindling resources, the most vulnerable students, including those with disabilities, are at risk of being left behind.
As educators, we must remain committed to advocating for the rights and needs of our students in the face of these challenges. We must continue to push for more inclusive and equitable practices, both in our own classrooms and at a systemic level. This means fighting against the forces of privatisation and segregation, and working to ensure that all students, regardless of their abilities or backgrounds, have access to a high-quality, inclusive education. By sharing our own experiences and perspectives as educators with disabilities, we can help to build a more empathetic and understanding society that values and supports every individual. Together, we can create a future in which inclusion is not just a goal, but a reality for all students.
Impact on special education teacher preparation programs
The impact of the anti-DEI movement on special education teacher preparation programs is also a growing concern, as it threatens to undermine the progress made in training educators to create inclusive and equitable classrooms. One of the most troubling aspects of this trend is the questioning of materials that contain “inclusion” language. As the anti-DEI movement gains traction, some critics have begun to scrutinise textbooks, syllabi, and other resources used in teacher preparation programs, targeting those that emphasise inclusive practices or discuss strategies for promoting equity in special education. This scrutiny can create a chilling effect on the development and use of these essential materials, potentially limiting the exposure of aspiring teachers to important concepts and strategies related to inclusion.
The importance of educating aspiring teachers about inclusion and reducing disproportionality cannot be overstated. Inclusive practices are essential for creating classroom environments that support the needs of all students, including those with disabilities. When teachers are well-versed in strategies for differentiation, accommodation, and collaboration, they are better equipped to meet the diverse needs of their students and to create a more equitable and inclusive learning experience. Similarly, understanding the factors that contribute to the disproportionate representation of students of colour in special education is crucial for developing more culturally responsive and unbiased identification and placement processes.
However, as an autistic educator who has gone through a teacher preparation program at a prominent and prohibitively expensive California teacher college, I can attest to the fact that inclusion and co-teaching models are often given short shrift in these programs. In my own experience, these essential topics were covered in only one class session, in one class, during the entire programme. This limited exposure is simply not enough to prepare aspiring teachers to effectively implement inclusive practices in their classrooms. The lack of emphasis on inclusion and co-teaching is particularly concerning given the increasing diversity of student populations and the growing need for teachers who are skilled in meeting the needs of all learners.
The situation is even more dire in California, where I currently teach. In this state, inclusion and co-teaching instruction is not required of single subject teacher candidates, meaning that many aspiring teachers may enter the classroom with little to no exposure to these critical concepts. This lack of preparation can have serious consequences for students with disabilities, who may not receive the support and accommodations they need to succeed in general education settings.
To address these challenges, it is essential that teacher preparation programs prioritise inclusion and co-teaching as core components of their curricula. This means going beyond a single class session and integrating these concepts throughout the entire program, from foundational courses to clinical experiences. Aspiring teachers should have multiple opportunities to learn about and practice inclusive strategies, to explore the research on disproportionality, and to engage in critical reflection on their own biases and assumptions. Teacher preparation programs must also work to diversify their own faculty and student populations, to ensure that the perspectives and experiences of educators with disabilities and those from diverse cultural backgrounds are represented and valued.
Furthermore, state and national accreditation standards for teacher preparation programs should be revised to require a greater emphasis on inclusion and co-teaching. By making these topics a mandatory part of teacher training, we can ensure that all aspiring educators, regardless of their specialty or subject area, are equipped with the knowledge and skills needed to create inclusive and equitable classrooms. This is particularly important in light of the anti-DEI movement’s efforts to undermine these practices, as it sends a clear message that inclusion is not just a nice-to-have, but a fundamental aspect of effective teaching.
As an autistic educator who has seen firsthand the transformative power of inclusion, I believe that we have a moral and professional obligation to prioritize these practices in our teacher preparation programs. By doing so, we can create a new generation of educators who are committed to building classrooms and schools that support the needs of all students, regardless of their abilities or backgrounds. This is the key to creating a more just and equitable education system, one that truly lives up to the promise of inclusion for all.
Navigating the alignment with DEI efforts
Navigating the alignment of special education with the broader DEI movement is a complex and nuanced issue that requires careful consideration. On one hand, aligning special education with DEI efforts can offer significant benefits, as it recognises the intersectionality of disability with other marginalised identities and the ways in which systemic oppression can impact the educational experiences of students with disabilities. By joining forces with the DEI movement, special education advocates can tap into a larger network of resources, support, and advocacy, potentially amplifying their efforts to create more inclusive and equitable schools.
Moreover, the DEI movement's emphasis on challenging oppressive systems and structures that have long disadvantaged students who are different or disabled is deeply aligned with the goals of special education. Critical Theory, which underpins many DEI efforts, provides a framework for examining the ways in which power, privilege, and oppression operate within educational institutions and society as a whole. By applying this lens to special education, we can better understand the historical and contemporary factors that have contributed to the marginalisation and segregation of students with disabilities, and work to dismantle these barriers to inclusion.
However, there are also potential drawbacks to aligning special education too closely with the broader DEI movement. One concern is that the unique needs and experiences of students with disabilities may be overshadowed or subsumed within the larger DEI agenda. Whilst disability is certainly an important aspect of diversity and inclusion, it is also a distinct identity category with its own set of challenges and considerations. Special education advocates may worry that by aligning themselves too closely with the DEI movement, they risk losing sight of the specific goals and strategies needed to support students with disabilities.
Additionally, the politicisation of the DEI movement and the backlash it has faced from conservative critics may make some special education advocates wary of aligning themselves too closely with these efforts. The anti-DEI movement’s attempts to paint DEI as a radical or divisive agenda could potentially undermine the broader public support for inclusive education and make it more difficult to advocate for the rights of students with disabilities. Some special education advocates may fear that by associating themselves with the DEI movement, they could face similar attacks and challenges to their work.
Given these considerations, it is important for special education advocates to strike a balance in their alignment with DEI efforts. Whilst the DEI movement can offer valuable insights, resources, and support, it is also crucial to emphasize the unique importance of disability inclusion in education. This means highlighting the specific needs and experiences of students with disabilities, and advocating for targeted strategies and supports that address these needs. It also means pushing back against any attempts to minimize or dismiss the importance of disability inclusion within the broader DEI agenda.
One way to navigate this balance is to frame disability inclusion as a fundamental human right, one that is essential for creating a truly equitable and just society. By emphasizing the moral and legal imperative of inclusive education, advocates can build broader public support for their efforts and challenge any attempts to undermine or roll back these protections. At the same time, they can work in solidarity with other marginalised groups and DEI advocates to challenge the oppressive systems and structures that have long disadvantaged students who are different or disabled.
As such, the alignment of special education with DEI efforts is a complex and ongoing process that requires careful thought, dialogue, and action. By recognising both the potential benefits and drawbacks of this alignment, and by emphasising the unique importance of disability inclusion, special education advocates can work to create a more inclusive and equitable education system for all students. This work is not easy, but it is essential if we are to fulfill the promise of a society that truly values and supports every individual, regardless of their abilities or backgrounds.
Wrapping up …
As we reflect on the complex relationship between special education and the anti-DEI movement, it becomes clear that the challenges facing inclusive education are not solely pedagogical or logistical, but deeply rooted in the power structures and cultural assumptions that shape our society. The anti-DEI movement, with its efforts to roll back diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in schools, is not merely a difference of opinion or a debate over educational priorities. Rather, it represents a concerted effort by those in positions of power to maintain and consolidate their dominance, often at the expense of the most vulnerable students, including those with disabilities.
Through the lens of critical theory, we can see how the anti-DEI movement is inextricably linked to broader systems of oppression and marginalisation that have long pervaded our educational institutions and society as a whole. By framing DEI efforts as divisive or unnecessary, anti-DEI advocates seek to preserve the status quo and protect the interests of those who benefit from existing power structures. This includes not only the political and ideological beneficiaries of the movement, but also the corporate interests that stand to profit from the privatisation and dismantling of public education.
For students with disabilities, the consequences of this power struggle are particularly dire. As the weakest of opponents, students with IEPs are often the first to bear the brunt of budget cuts, resource limitations, and the erosion of inclusive practices. When schools are pressured to focus solely on academic achievement and standardised test scores, the needs of students with disabilities are often pushed to the margins, and the progress made toward inclusion and equity is threatened. The anti-DEI movement’s efforts to undermine the legal protections and accommodations afforded to students with disabilities only serve to exacerbate these challenges and further entrench the systemic barriers to inclusion.
In the face of these challenges, it is not enough simply to advocate for the importance of inclusive practices or to highlight the benefits of diversity and equity in education. Rather, we must actively work to dismantle the power structures and cultural assumptions that perpetuate the marginalization and oppression of students with disabilities and other vulnerable populations. This requires a sustained and collective effort from all stakeholders in the educational system, from teachers and administrators to parents and policymakers.
As educators, we have a particularly important role to play in this fight. We must be willing to challenge our own biases and assumptions, to examine the ways in which our practices and policies may contribute to the marginalisation of certain students, and to actively work to create more inclusive and equitable learning environments. This means not only advocating for the resources and supports needed to implement inclusive practices, but also engaging in ongoing professional development and reflection to ensure that we are meeting the needs of all learners.
But the work of inclusion and equity cannot fall solely on the shoulders of educators. It is up to all of us, as members of a democratic society, to support and advocate for inclusive practices in our schools and communities. This means speaking out against the anti-DEI movement and the corporate interests that seek to profit from the dismantling of public education. It means advocating for policies and funding that prioritize the needs of students with disabilities and other marginalised populations. And it means working to build a culture of empathy, understanding, and respect for all individuals, regardless of their abilities or backgrounds.
The fight for inclusive education is not an easy one, but it is a necessary and urgent one. As we face the challenges posed by the anti-DEI movement and the broader systems of oppression that it represents, we must remain committed to the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion. We must be willing to do the hard work of examining our own practices and assumptions, challenging the status quo, and advocating for the rights and needs of all students. Only by working together, in solidarity and with a shared vision of justice and equality, can we hope to create a truly inclusive and equitable education system for all.