Neoliberal Propaganda at Play: How Private Firms and Biased Reporting Undermine Disabled Students' Access to College Readiness
In yet another attempt to paint public schools as incompetent and private corporate charter schools as the ultimate solution, a recent article from The 74 Million titled “Almost All Disabled Students Lack Access to College Readiness Programs” skews data to promote its neoliberal agenda. The article presents a shallow overview of the issue, leaving out key information that distorts the real factors contributing to the so-called “lack of access” for disabled students.
The piece sets the tone early on with a sweeping assertion: “Less than 7 percent of students with disabilities attend schools that offer key programs like Advanced Placement (AP), dual enrollment, or International Baccalaureate (IB).” On the surface, this statistic is alarming. However, it fails to interrogate why this is the case or what barriers are in place for these students. Instead of examining the structural failures that prevent disabled students from accessing these programs, the article pivots to blaming public schools for their supposed ineptitude. The real culprit here, which the article conveniently ignores, is the role of private, capitalist testing firms that control the assessment and college readiness landscape.
These private firms are notorious for failing to honour students’ Individualised Education Programs (IEPs) with full fidelity. Legally mandated accommodations such as extended time, alternate formats, or breaks during testing are often denied or inadequately implemented. Yet, the article makes no mention of how these corporate testing giants—like the College Board—are complicit in perpetuating this inequity. Instead, it directs the focus entirely on public schools, using them as a scapegoat while private entities quietly profit from this broken system.
The report also cites findings from the National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD), stating that “97 percent of students with disabilities have postsecondary aspirations, but they face significant barriers to achieving those goals.” Once again, the article stops short of exploring those barriers in any meaningful way. The piece highlights the programs that are supposedly lacking but never delves into the reasons why students are either excluded or opt out of these programs. One glaring omission is that many disabled students skip these college readiness tests because they know their accommodations won’t be respected. When faced with the reality that their IEPs won’t be implemented properly, students rightfully ask themselves: What’s the point?
The article’s omission of this vital context allows it to further a narrative that places all the blame squarely on the shoulders of public schools, whilst the private firms administering these tests escape scrutiny. The article states: “Students with disabilities are half as likely to attend a school that offers Advanced Placement programs, further limiting their ability to be prepared for college.” Whilst this fact is true, it ignores the underlying reasons for this disparity. If disabled students aren’t enrolling in these programs, it’s often because the accommodations they need aren’t provided. The reality is that private testing firms like the College Board and ACT are far more focused on profit than on equitable access, routinely cutting corners when it comes to ensuring IEPs are honoured during testing.
This neoliberal framing is part of a broader agenda by outlets like The 74 Million, which are funded by corporate interests that champion privatisation at the expense of public education. Throughout the piece, the focus remains on the supposed failures of public schools, whilst promoting corporate charter schools and other privatised education models as “the solution.” The article goes so far as to state, “Charter schools, which operate with more flexibility than traditional public schools, are often seen as a lifeline for students with disabilities.” The implication here is clear: public schools are painted as rigid, bureaucratic failures, whilst private entities are cast as the solution to these problems. This narrative fits squarely within the neoliberal agenda that seeks to dismantle public education in favour of privatisation, all whilst ignoring the profit motives that drive these so-called “lifelines.”
The report doesn’t stop at framing charter schools as the answer to all problems. It also pushes a convenient narrative about “innovation” in education, a buzzword often used to mask the true intentions of these corporate-backed schools. “Innovative models like dual enrollment and career-focused academies are being pioneered by charter networks,” the article claims. What it fails to mention is how these schools often cherry-pick their student body, ensuring they serve fewer disabled learners whilst benefiting from public funding that could be used to improve traditional public schools.
What’s particularly insidious about this type of reporting is that it diverts attention away from the broader structural issues at play. The privatisation of education, spearheaded by neoliberal think tanks and corporations, has done little to address the needs of disabled students, who continue to be marginalised. Instead of critiquing the capitalist interests driving this agenda, the article uses data in a way that shifts blame toward public schools and promotes privatisation as the only viable alternative. In doing so, it completely ignores the fact that these privatised solutions often fail to serve disabled students in any meaningful way.
The article’s biased framing leaves no room for a discussion on the capitalist interests at play in the college readiness landscape. These private firms—testing giants like the College Board, ACT, and Pearson—profit from a system that disadvantages disabled students. Their focus on profit maximisation leads to the continual erosion of equity and access, particularly for students with disabilities. But the article doesn’t mention this at all. Instead, it perpetuates the myth that public schools are to blame for the lack of access, ignoring the fact that the tests themselves, administered by these private firms, are fundamentally inequitable.
As a result, disabled students are left behind, not because of a lack of “access” in public schools, but because they are stuck in a system that refuses to acknowledge their needs. Students with disabilities are constantly being asked to navigate a system where their legally mandated accommodations are seen as an inconvenience. This is not a failure of public schools but of the broader capitalist education machine that treats these students as afterthoughts.
By focusing its blame on public schools and completely sidestepping the role of private testing firms, The 74 Million once again shows its neoliberal agenda. The omission of these crucial details is not accidental; it is a deliberate attempt to reinforce the narrative that public education is failing and that privatisation is the answer. But the reality is that disabled students are struggling because the corporate interests that control their access to higher education are more invested in profit than in providing a level playing field.
Until we address this systemic issue—one driven by private capitalist interests—no amount of “innovation” from corporate charter schools or tweaks to public school policies is going to make a difference. What disabled students need isn’t more privatisation; they need a system that honours their IEPs with fidelity, provides real accommodations, and values their right to access education on an equitable basis. But that’s not something the neoliberal agenda is interested in discussing.