Education Policy: Does Special Education “Do No Harm”?

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

Abstract

Purpose
This paper examines the marginalization of people with disabilities embedded in current education policy, particularly the restriction of “disability, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) through an analysis of Project 2025, federal education policy/ law, and public rhetoric. We interrogate the impact of eugenics, class, race, disability, and capitalism on educational discourse; illuminate the material consequences of federal policy shifts for students with disabilities; and offer theoretical insights and practical understandings of how current reforms seek to dismantle inclusive education and erode civil rights protections.

Perspective
Project 2025, a blueprint for restructuring federal education policy, is based on three core premises: a) minimal federal oversight (Friedman, 1955); b) denial that discrimination is based on racial, gender, and other identities (Berry, 2023); and c) rejection of disproportionality as evidence of systemic failures (Burke, 2023). The recommendation of moving special education oversight to Health and Human Services reflects a misunderstanding of special education supports and services, disability rights, and legal protections, reframing disability as a medical issue, undermining safeguards provided by IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA.

Methods/ Data Sources:
We conducted a thematic text analysis (Kuckartz, 2014) of Project 2025’s education chapter (Burke, 2023) and related policy texts (e.g., Fuchs et. al., 2025; Morgan et. al., 2015; Sheppley & Waddington, 2024). Leveraging artificial intelligence, we split our research team into two groups: AI-assisted coders and human coders. We conducted a parallel thematic text analysis of executive orders, news articles, publicly released federal videos, documents, policy, and news stories. The AI team trained the AI model using relevant literature and iterative prompts (e.g., “identify disability bias in these sources”) to extract thematic patterns (Naeem et al., 2025). Human coders independently analyzed the same data/ sources. The teams compared their findings to test for convergence. Although AI provided iinnovative analytical support, we emphasize that humans need to be fully engaged, monitor the AI, and use the AI analysis as a supplemental, not primary analytic tool.

Results
Initial AI-assisted analysis identified themes such as ideological motivations, prioritizing political messaging over evidence, and erosion of civil rights norms (ChatGPT, accessed July 31, 2025). Human coders identified victim-blaming narratives, a medicalized view of disability, “othering” of marginalized people, and the use of false dilemma fallacies. Both analyses found that policy rhetoric often dismisses scientific evidence and undermines established special education practices. We challenge Burke’s (2023) assertion that special education “does not harm” students with disabilities (p.336) and argue for a more nuanced, rights-based understanding of inclusive education.

Scholarly Significance
This paper highlights how current education policies, shaped by outdated, prejudiced assumptions, threaten disability rights and inclusive practices. We call on researchers, educators, families, and students to critique and confront policymakers to demand a more equitable system. Our work contributes to ongoing efforts to expose systemic bias in policy and defend the hard won rights of IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA. Methodologically, we offer an example of using AI with human-led thematic text analysis, a process that has promise and significant drawbacks.

Authors

• Deborah Taub, OTL Education Solutons

• Diane L Ryndak, University of North Carolina - Greensboro

• Julia M. White, Syracuse University

• Christine Elaine Ashby, Syracuse University

• Rebekah Wallis, Syracuse University

• Cam MIchael Powell, Syracuse University

• Ethan W Jackson, Syracuse University