Shifting the Policy Debate to Challenging the Ableism in Special Education Policy and Practice

• In Event: Fifty Years of Push and Pull: Challenging Assumptions about Inclusion Within Traditional Special Education Discourse

Abstract

Purpose
The greatest challenge to the field of special education is not where and what to teach students with disabilities (SWD), as advanced by Fuchs et al. (2025), but is instead how to achieve the premise of federal special education law - ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency (IDEA 2004). To achieve these, pervasive ableism must be addressed and dismantled. In this response to Fuchs et al. (2025), we outline flaws of their arguments and counter that as special education researchers and advocates, we must fully consider the where, how, why, who, and what of special education supports and services in anti-ableist ways by:

1. Reframing the “greatest debate” in special education from where and how, to dismantling pervasive ableism;
2. Countering arguments that center disability labels and misrepresent research in special education to focus on human rights and dignity; and
3. Stressing the need for special education research done by and with disabled scholars.

Perspectives/Theoretical Framework
Our analysis draws on Disability Studies in Education and the socio-pollical model of disability (Baglieri et al., 2011) to emphasize structural barriers and ableist ideologies that maintain segregation. We use the concept of ableism (Hehir, 2002) to critique the normalization of segregation, low expectations, and the use of diagnostic labels to gatekeep access to general education. We adopt a stance aligned with scholars of inclusive education and frame inclusion as a civil and human right.

Methods and Data Sources
Although not an empirical study, our response is grounded in a rigorous review of literature in inclusive education. To substantiate our claims, we draw on scholarship demonstrating that SWD achieve comparable or better outcomes in general education settings (Cole et al., 2023; Oh-Young & Filler, 2015) and that segregated placements result in decreased access to the general education curriculum (Causton-Theoharis et al., 2011; Author).

Substantiated Conclusions and Scholarly Significance
We refute Fuchs et al.’s (2025) argument that the primary debate in special education is "how" to teach SWD versus "where.” We argue that this is an artificial and dangerous dichotomy and contend that ableism prevents SWD from achieving the core premises of federal special education law. We further assert that the civil and human right to inclusion as the starting point for special education supports and services.
In alignment with federal law, the general education setting should be the default placement, with removal only under specific circumstances. Ableist assumptions lead to the overuse of labeling and segregating students, often without improved outcomes. Furthermore, we reject the use of disability labels to define special education supports and services, emphasizing that educational support needs should drive services and challenge the assumption that intensive instruction can only be provided in segregated spaces. We call for participatory research approaches that include the preferences, priorities, and experiences of disabled people to inform research, policy, and practice in education. Dismantling ableism—not debating location or labels—is essential to fulfill the mandate of IDEA and ensure the right of all SWD to be free from segregation.

Authors

• Jennifer A. Kurth, University of Kansas

• Karrie A. Shogren, University of Kansas