Special Education & Inclusion
Special Education & Inclusion focuses on creating classrooms where every student has access, support, and a true sense of belonging. This section explores inclusive practices, individualized instruction, accommodations and modifications, learning differences, collaboration, and strategies for supporting diverse learners. It is a space for educators to reflect, learn, and find practical ideas for meeting students where they are while helping them grow.
More Students With Disabilities Are in General Education Classes. How’s That Working?
by Caitlynn Peetz Stephens
Education Week on July 14, 2026
In “More Students With Disabilities Are in General Education Classes. How’s That Working?”, Caitlynn Peetz Stephens examines the national increase in students with disabilities spending significant amounts of time in general education classrooms. Drawing on a new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the article notes that the number of students spending at least 40% of their school day in general education increased by approximately 25% between 2012–13 and 2023–24. The article emphasizes, however, that increased time in a general education classroom does not automatically mean meaningful inclusion, belonging, or educational success. Effective inclusion requires appropriate supports, trained personnel, resources, and instruction that addresses individual student needs. The article also highlights significant differences among states and concerns from school districts about staffing, funding, and the availability of appropriate programs and supports. Ultimately, it raises an important question for educators: Are we simply placing students in general education classrooms, or are we truly creating environments where students with disabilities can participate, learn, and belong?
Why I recommend this article.
I recommend this article because it encourages educators to look beyond placement and consider what meaningful inclusion actually looks like for students with disabilities. While more students are spending significant portions of their school day in general education classrooms, simply being present does not guarantee that a student is learning, participating, or feeling a sense of belonging. I appreciate that the article raises important questions about whether schools have the staffing, resources, collaboration, and instructional supports necessary to make inclusion successful. It reminds us that inclusion should not mean expecting students with disabilities to simply fit into an existing classroom; rather, schools must provide the individualized supports, and specially designed instruction students need to access the curriculum. Most importantly, the article encourages a more thoughtful conversation about the difference between being included in a classroom and truly being included in the learning community. For educators committed to serving students with disabilities, it is an important reminder that meaningful inclusion requires much more than a seat in a general education classroom.
An Algorithm Can't Know a Child: AI and the Future of the IEP
Authors: Dr. Teri Marx and Dr. David Bateman Published: September 23, 2026 Source: Council for Exceptional Children (CEC)
Read the original article on the Council for Exceptional Children website.
Overview
The article explores the rapidly growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in special education, particularly in developing Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). The authors acknowledge that AI offers opportunities to reduce teachers' administrative responsibilities, but they warn that its increasing use raises serious concerns about individualization, professional judgment, student rights, and legal accountability.
Their central argument is that AI can help educators develop IEPs, but it cannot replace the professional expertise, personal knowledge, and collaborative decision-making necessary to create an educational program that truly meets a child's needs.
The authors are not arguing that schools should prohibit AI. Instead, they call for safeguards that allow schools to benefit from technology while preserving the individualized protections required by federal special education law.
Council for Exceptional Children
1. The Historical and Legal Foundation of Special Education
The article begins by examining the significance of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), originally enacted in 1975 as the Education for All Handicapped Children's Act.
Before this landmark legislation, many children with disabilities were excluded from public schools or placed in educational settings that offered limited meaningful instruction.
IDEA established important legal protections, including the right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE), individualized educational programming, and meaningful parental participation.
The authors emphasize that IDEA is fundamentally a civil rights law. Its purpose is not simply to require schools to complete paperwork but to ensure that students with disabilities receive an education designed around their individual strengths, needs, and circumstances.
This distinction becomes particularly important when considering AI. An IEP is not intended to be a standardized document produced for administrative convenience. It is an individualized educational plan developed through careful assessment, professional collaboration, and ongoing evaluation.
The article also highlights long-standing funding problems. Congress has never met the federal funding target of 40% of the excess costs associated with special education, leaving states and school districts responsible for substantial financial burdens.
These pressures help explain why schools may increasingly turn to AI-based solutions.
Council for Exceptional Children
2. AI Is Already Becoming Part of the IEP Process
One of the most striking parts of the article concerns the growing number of educators using artificial intelligence.
AI adoption figures reported in the article 56% of K–12 education personnel reportedly using AI in 2026
57% of surveyed teachers reporting AI use to help develop IEPs in 2024–25
15% reportedly using AI to generate entire IEPs
20% approximate K–12 education personnel AI usage in 2023
Figures attributed by the authors to Gallup and the Center for Democracy and Technology. These represent different survey populations and should not be treated as directly comparable measures.
Council for Exceptional Children
The authors consider this rapid growth understandable. Special education teachers are managing extensive documentation requirements, staffing shortages, increasing caseloads, and demanding compliance obligations.
AI offers the possibility of generating draft goals, organizing information, reducing repetitive writing, and streamlining administrative tasks.
However, the authors are particularly concerned by the reported use of AI to generate entire IEPs.
Their concern is not merely whether a computer-generated document contains the correct components. It is whether that document truly reflects an individual student's needs and provides an appropriate foundation for instruction.
An IEP could appear professionally written and technically complete while still failing to address essential areas of a student's educational development.
3. The Legal Risks of AI-Generated IEPs
The article distinguishes between two fundamental dimensions of an IEP: procedural compliance and substantive appropriateness.
Procedural requirements
Substantive requirements
Meeting required timelines
Addressing all identified areas of need
Including required IEP team members
Developing appropriately ambitious goals
Providing meaningful parental participation
Designing an educational program that supports appropriate progress
Including required IEP components
Monitoring student progress
Implementing documented services
Revising instruction and goals when progress is insufficient
The authors explain that AI-generated documents could create problems in either category.
For example, an IEP might include measurable goals and appropriate-looking language but fail to address a student's actual academic, behavioral, communication, or functional needs.
Similarly, a document could identify services without establishing an educational plan that meaningfully supports the student's progress.
The legal concern becomes especially significant when parents challenge whether an IEP provides FAPE.
A well-formatted IEP is not necessarily an appropriate IEP.
The article stresses that producing legally defensible documents requires more than following a template. It requires educators who understand the student, can explain educational decisions, and can demonstrate how the IEP supports progress.
Council for Exceptional Children
4. Who Is Responsible When AI Gets It Wrong?
This is one of the article's most important questions.
If an AI-generated IEP contains inappropriate goals, overlooks important needs, or contributes to a failure to provide FAPE, who is legally responsible?
The authors emphasize that responsibility remains with the school district and the professionals responsible for developing and implementing the IEP.
An AI platform cannot assume the legal obligations established under IDEA.
The article points out that some school districts have adopted AI tools faster than they have developed policies governing their use. Consequently, teachers may be using AI to prepare legally significant documents without adequate guidance about privacy, accuracy, professional review, or compliance.
This creates potential risks for students, families, educators, and districts.
The authors argue that the central issue is no longer whether AI belongs in special education. AI is already being used.
The more pressing issue is how educational systems will maintain accountability when AI influences decisions affecting students with disabilities.
5. Three Essential Safeguards for Responsible AI Use
The authors recommend three major actions.
Establish clear district policies
Districts should adopt and enforce policies addressing student privacy, algorithmic bias, approved platforms, accuracy, and legal compliance. AI-generated information should be reviewed by qualified professionals before being incorporated into an IEP.
Invest in ongoing professional learning
Educators and administrators need training not only in AI but also in developing high-quality IEPs. They must understand why specific goals and services are appropriate, how to implement them, and how to monitor progress.
AI must support professional knowledge rather than replace it.
Advocate for full IDEA funding
The authors connect AI adoption with the broader resource shortages affecting special education.
Increasing funding, staffing, and professional support could reduce the pressure to rely on technological shortcuts. AI should enhance educators' capacity rather than serve as a substitute for adequate personnel and services.
Council for Exceptional Children
6. Why Human Judgment Remains Essential
The article concludes by returning to the meaning of individualized education.
AI can analyze information, generate language, and assist with organization. However, the authors argue that it cannot fully understand a child in the way that parents, teachers, specialists, and other members of the IEP team can.
A computer does not observe the subtle signs of frustration that a teacher notices during instruction. It does not develop a relationship with a student or understand the complicated circumstances influencing their progress.
It cannot independently appreciate the importance of a child's family priorities or make the professional judgments required to adapt instruction.
The authors insist that special education must remain a fundamentally human and collaborative process.
They recognize AI's potential to reduce paperwork and increase the time available for meaningful teaching, but reject the idea that efficiency should ever take precedence over student rights or individualized educational planning.
Their conclusion is that AI should remain an educational support tool, not an independent decision-maker.
What makes this article especially significant?
One of the most valuable aspects of this article is that it does not frame the discussion simply as being for or against artificial intelligence.
Instead, it connects technology to three interconnected issues:
Teacher workload: Special education educators face substantial demands that make time-saving tools appealing.
Educational quality: An IEP must reflect an individual student's needs and support meaningful progress, regardless of how the document is produced.
Legal accountability: School districts remain responsible for ensuring students receive the educational rights guaranteed by IDEA.
The authors challenge the assumption that automating more of the IEP process will automatically improve special education.
Their argument suggests that without adequate professional oversight, AI could make it easier to produce documents that appear individualized without necessarily improving the quality of educational decisions.
That is an important distinction for both educators and families.
Considerations for classroom educators
The following is my practical interpretation of the article, rather than a separate set of recommendations made by the authors.
Imagine a third-grade student whose decoding skills are relatively strong but whose reading comprehension and expressive language skills are significantly below grade level.
AI might generate a polished reading comprehension goal based on grade-level standards. But unless the educator carefully examines the student's assessments, language abilities, classroom performance, and individual needs, the goal might not address the most important barriers to learning.
The same concern applies to students with behavioral needs, communication difficulties, executive functioning challenges, or multiple disabilities.
AI-generated goals might sound appropriate while overlooking the reasons a student is struggling.
The important questions for educators remain:
Does this goal address a documented area of need?
Is it appropriately ambitious but attainable?
Can the student make meaningful progress with the proposed services and supports?
Does the IEP reflect what the student actually demonstrates in the classroom?
Can the IEP team explain and defend its decisions?