How Race and Disability Shape Inclusive Education ~ 921

Tim Villegas:
Happy Friday, Inclusionists! Today we have a special pop-up podcast interview with some folks I met at the CEC Conference in Orlando this week. I’m going to let them introduce themselves in a minute, but they presented a session called, “The Intersection of Race and Disability: Where Do We Go from Here?” I think it is an important reminder for us that inclusion and equity go together, and that when we are talking about inclusive education, we really mean all students. So, without further ado, here is a special bonus interview from the Council for Exceptional Children Conference in Orlando, Florida.

Tim Villegas:
So first of all, I want to welcome Dena Slanda, Zerek Mayes, Eric Wells, and Lindsey Pike to the Think Inclusive podcast. How are you doing today? We are actually recording this in Orlando in some random boardroom we’ve commandeered. And we want to just talk about their amazing presentation called “The Intersection of Race and Disability: Where do we go from here?” I had the pleasure of attending it yesterday. It was a great conversation about equity. So why don’t we first have each of you introduce yourselves—who you are and where you’re from?

Zerek Mayes:
Hi, I’m Dr. Zerek Mayes. I am from Jacksonville, Florida, but I’m now living in Chicago, Illinois, serving as a director of diversity, equity, and inclusion at a private school in the Chicago area.

Dena Slanda:
I’m Dena Slanda and I am from the University of Central Florida. I am currently working on several teacher preparation grants through the Office of Special Education Programs.

Lindsey Pike:
My name’s Lindsey Pike. I’m a doctoral candidate at the University of Central Florida in exceptional education, and fingers crossed I’ll have my dissertation done this year. I’m just excited to be here. My focus is diversity, equity, and inclusion, specifically at the intersection of disability and other markers of difference.

Eric Wells:
My name is Eric Wells and I am at the Oregon Department of Education where I serve as the director of IDEA Programs.

Tim Villegas:
Fantastic. We didn’t have a lot of time to prep, but I did share with you a question to think about to get us started. With your presentation, what was the big idea that you wanted educators to take away? What did you want educators to get out of what we talked about yesterday?

Dena Slanda:
That’s a really loaded question. There were a lot of things we wanted educators to get out of our presentation, but the overarching idea was for educators to reflect on how their actions and interactions with students impact outcomes. And when we talk about outcomes, we’re not just talking about student achievement, but also eligibility, placement, and how students are valued and seen in their classrooms and schools.

We wanted educators to consider how current legislation, litigation, and policies are meant to reduce overrepresentation but may not be leading to those outcomes. We wanted them to leave with action plans for addressing and reducing disproportionality. Even if they feel overwhelmed or powerless to impact policy, we wanted them to realize they can make changes at their level—grassroots movements matter.

Tim Villegas:
I think that’s really important. I do want to hear what you have to say about that, but just a quick aside—I think your goal was met. We had so many questions at the end like, “What can I do? How can I help?” So, Zerek, do you want to jump in?

Zerek Mayes:
Yes, I love that Dena emphasized thinking. It’s not just what or how we think, but also asking ourselves, “Why am I thinking what I think?” If I can deepen my understanding of my why, then I can better understand what’s next and let that inform where I go.

Tim Villegas:
Absolutely. Thank you for that.

Eric Wells:
I think I would add to what Dena and Zerek were saying. For me, walking away from it, I really wanted to emphasize that equity work has many possible entry points. There is no one right way to start. The best thing folks can do is ask: What is personal, local, and immediate to my context? How do I show up in the context I serve, in the skin that I’m in, and the role that I play to make a change for students and improve outcomes?

Lindsey Pike:
Ditto to all of that. This is why we work so well together. I totally agree. It’s about encouraging people to think about what they can do—either as their first step or their next step. As Eric said in our presentation, we’re all in different places on this equity journey. So it’s about asking, “What’s my first step?” if you’re just starting, or “What’s my next step?” if you’ve been in the game. How can I really make an impact?

Tim Villegas:
Part of your presentation focused on the systems that aren’t working. For people who might hear this and think, “I thought special ed was working, I thought education was working,” could you talk about why it’s not working?

Dena Slanda:
Sure, absolutely. That’s a great question. Sometimes we feel that there are frameworks within education and special education that appear to be working. And in some schools, maybe they are—for some children. But the big question is: Who are they working for? Who are they designed to work for?

Our focus was on racially, culturally, and linguistically diverse students. The current systems are not designed for students from diverse backgrounds. These students are placed at disproportionately high rates in special education. Since 1968, the Office of Civil Rights has had data showing this trend. Despite policies and legislation aimed at mitigating it, the problem persists.

Frameworks like Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS), which came out of IDEA and were meant to reduce disproportionality, have instead replicated previous systems. MTSS was also included in the Every Student Succeeds Act, a general education law, but it hasn’t led to reduced disproportionality, especially among English language learners.

Dena Slanda:
So we’re not doing a good job of reducing the number of students from diverse backgrounds placed in special education. We’re replicating previous systems. That’s why we need to address this at multiple levels—teacher preparation, general education, school psychology, speech-language pathology, administration.

When 90% of school psychologists and 80% of teachers are white, but 52% of students are from diverse backgrounds, we have a mismatch. We need to attract a diverse cadre of teachers and ensure community voices are at the table. We need to create school cultures that support diverse communities.

Lindsey Pike:
Everything you just said, Dena, makes me think of how systems are made up of people. That’s really the issue. On paper, systems may look like they could work, but if the people involved haven’t done the individual equity work—examining their own biases, understanding how they show up in the world—then those systems become subjective and influenced by bias.

If people don’t understand racialization in education and disability, they’ll use the system in ways that perpetuate disproportionality. So we need to look at the people implementing the systems.

Eric Wells:
It’s critical to remember that systems are people. One thing I often think about in this work is that we can change systems overnight if we want to. I referenced in the presentation yesterday that my first equity training was Courageous Conversations About Race. They talked about 9/11 and how we fundamentally shifted our entire transportation system overnight because we had the political will to do it. We could make changes to our education system to make it better and more equitable.

I would also say that our system is not “not working”—it’s working exactly as it was designed and intended to work. There’s a popular phrase that systems lead to the intended outcomes of their design. We designed a system that serves white, cisgender, male, able-bodied, wealthy students very well. Those students are doing incredibly well in our education system. The question is: How do we make it work for every student, especially those who have been marginalized?

One of my favorite champions of inclusion is Dr. Paula Kluth. I heard her speak a few years ago, and she talked about kids not being outliers. If you’ve met a kid whose demographics suggest they shouldn’t be successful, but they are—it’s because we changed the conditions for that kid. That kid is not an outlier. They’re successful because we made the system work for them. We can do that for all kids. We can find a way—over, under, around, or through—to make it happen. But we need the political will to say these kids matter and we will give them the outcomes they deserve.

Zerek Mayes:
Ultimately, what we’re saying is that change is constant. We need to constantly assess how change is happening right under our noses. Adam Grant says, “In the face of change, the routines that have often moved us forward can become the ruts that hold us back.” What worked today may not serve the students of tomorrow. As long as I’m living today and crossing into tomorrow, I need to consider my practices, how I view things, and why. I need to be more aware.

Tim Villegas:
There’s a lot to unpack there. I wanted to talk about the equity gaps that exist in policy. You highlighted four in your presentation: restraint and seclusion, exclusionary discipline, white-norm standardized assessments, and continuum of alternate placements. That’s a lot. So when we’re thinking about policy, where do we start with closing those gaps? Or is it more like what Eric is talking about—there’s no single entry point?

Dena Slanda:
That’s a great question. I’m going to hand that over to Eric.

Eric Wells:
Yes, I think it’s exactly that—there is no single entry point. It’s about what’s personal, local, and immediate to your work. Those four areas we highlighted are guided by significant federal and state policies. There are conditions under which we can choose to apply or not apply things like exclusionary discipline, and they get applied disproportionately against Black and Brown youth.

So we need to ask: How is that policy showing up in practice in my context? Are we using it appropriately? How can I change it? I may not be able to change state-level policy about restraint and seclusion, but I can decide in my heart that I won’t restrain or seclude a child.

I may not be able to change policy about alternative placements, but I can believe that the general education setting is better for students. The purpose of IDEA is to improve outcomes for kids, and research over the last 50 years shows that educating students in general education settings with appropriate supports leads to better outcomes than segregated settings.

Tim Villegas:
Real quick, I wanted to follow up on the idea of outliers. You referenced Paula Kluth—she’s a friend, so I think she’ll be okay with it. What I was getting at is that when a student is successful, sometimes we say, “Oh, well, they’re just an exception to the rule.” But what you and Paula are saying is that we actually changed the environment for that student so it could work. It’s the same idea for students with more significant disabilities who are being included all over the country and the world. All we have to do is change the system for those students to be successful. It’s not that those individual students are so exceptional.

Eric Wells:
There are really good models to follow for that. One of our former assistant secretaries for education, Tom, wrote a book with Lauren about effective inclusive schools. They highlighted case studies out of the Boston area where students with significant support needs were successfully included as fully belonging, valued members of their school communities.

Closer to home in Oregon, we have districts doing great work. I’ll highlight West Linn-Wilsonville and the leadership of Dr. Jennifer Spencer Iams. They moved their system to a fully inclusive model and worked incredibly hard to make it happen. One of my best days at the department was visiting and experiencing that firsthand. Despite having been in classrooms for much of my life, it was not easy to identify which students were being served through individualized education programs.

When you change the conditions under which learning happens, use principles of universal design, and build structures for all learners, disability disappears. That’s the strongest evidence that disability is a social construct. It occurs because we build barriers. Students show up as they are, and we can unbuild those barriers.

Tim Villegas:
Thank you for that. I actually interviewed Jennifer a little over a year ago—fantastic.

Lindsey Pike:
Just to add to what Eric was saying, people often say, “We haven’t fully funded IDEA,” which is true. We could do so much more if we did. But the examples Eric pointed out show that even at the local and state levels, it’s possible to do this work within current parameters.

Even in places like Florida, where funding is allocated differently and people point to the federal government as the reason they can’t do things—it’s simply not true. We have counterexamples. Not being able to do something fully is not a good excuse to avoid making strides toward that goal. We have to get out of this black-and-white, all-or-nothing mindset. That mindset is often used as a crutch to avoid taking steps toward inclusion. There’s always room for improvement. If your heart is committed to inclusion, you’ll find a way—or you’ll find an excuse.

Tim Villegas:
I like that.

Zerek Mayes:
I’ll add briefly. It speaks to our courage to take risks in the face of change. I love what Eric said about there not being one entry point. One thought I’ve had during this conversation is: I am the entry point. Each of us is the entry point. Whether it’s my classroom, my school, or my sphere of influence, I become the entry point. If my desire is to include all, I begin to ask, “If that door is too small for someone to enter, what do I do to remove that barrier?” How can I take action to create a space that is fully inclusive for all?

Dena Slanda:
That’s exactly the point you just made, and it’s the point we were trying to make yesterday—and will continue to make. At the implementation level, we often think we need to make a difference at the policy level, that we need to go big or go home. But that’s not what we need to do. We need to start at the door. We need to start in our classrooms. That ground-level implementation is where the impact is.

When you start to think like that, it’s contagious. The person next to you will start thinking that way too. And then the person next to them. That mindset spreads through the school. If people don’t like it or feel uncomfortable, over time they’ll leave. They’ll say, “Maybe this isn’t the right place for me.” And then you’ll attract the right people to your school and leadership. That’s the best way to enact change. I’m so glad you said that—the right entry point starts with just one person.

Tim Villegas:
Let me follow up on that—where change happens. I’ll share my personal story. You all don’t know this, but I was a self-contained special ed teacher for 13 years, and then three years at the district level. The whole time I was trying to do this work. My teaching credential was for working with students with the most significant support needs, so I couldn’t even get a job in a general ed class because of my credential.

As I tried to do this work—sending kids out, making change, preaching inclusion—I got burned out. When I moved to the district level, my supervisors didn’t want to hear what I had to say. They weren’t interested in my advocacy work. It wasn’t important to them. The system didn’t want to change. So I kept asking myself, “What do I do? Where do I go?” Fortunately, I had an outlet—this podcast, my writing. But if it starts with us, where is the top-down part?

Dena Slanda:
That’s such a great question because change can happen in many ways. For example, we talked about identification, evaluation, and placement. If I’m a general education teacher, maybe I don’t have to advocate loudly because people push back. But I can refer fewer students. I can educate myself more about MTSS. I can learn how to intervene and diversify my teaching strategies to reach more students. That way, fewer students get pushed to Tier 2 or Tier 3, and fewer referrals go to special education. That’s improving outcomes at the identification level.

If I’m a school psychologist working at the evaluation level, I can consider my own biases and assumptions. I can think about judgment calls and assessments. I can flip the narrative to be strength-based instead of deficit-driven. That’s how I make a difference.

If I’m a special education teacher working at the placement level, I can commit to inclusive settings. I don’t have to convince anyone else. I can ask, “How do I get this child into the general education setting with access to the curriculum?” I can focus on supports, strengths, and resources. That’s how I make an impact—without burning out. My voice can only carry so far before I feel the pushback. But these actions bring inner peace and a huge impact for students over time.

Eric Wells:
The other thing I would add is that I don’t think it’s either a top-down or bottom-up approach—it’s both. It goes back to knowing the context you serve in. A significant amount of my work, because I’m at the state level, is policy work. My context is about establishing statewide conditions that lead to more equitable outcomes. That’s the work of a state education agency.

At the local level, there are policy options at the board level. We had a question yesterday after our session about how to advocate with the federal government and make change. It’s a great question because we often think the federal level is the tip-top of the pyramid, making the decisions that allow things to happen. There’s definitely good advocacy that needs to happen there.

We shared ideas about connecting with CEC and others who do strong advocacy work. But the real question is: Is that your best next step? My assistant superintendent has a sign that says, “What is my best next step?” It’s a reminder that no matter your role, there’s meaningful work to be done. And to avoid burnout, you need to think through what you do next to move toward the values and vision you hold.

Lindsey Pike:
For me, my focus continues to be teacher preparation—building that new cadre of teachers. In-service professional learning is also important, especially during induction. We know that if teachers don’t make it past the first five years, they’re less likely to stay in the profession.

When we talk about teacher preparation, we often emphasize knowledge, skills, and dispositions. I think we don’t always leverage the disposition piece enough. One quote that drives me is from Maya Angelou: “Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.” I’m committed to helping people know better because I believe most people will try to do better once they know better.

We need to infuse teacher preparation with the sociopolitical history of disability and special education, and with policy and legislation that impacts all students. We also need to emphasize collaboration—between general and special education professionals, related service providers, parents, and administrators. Creating a collaborative culture is key.

We want to diversify the teaching workforce, but we also want to ensure that new teachers have the right dispositions—an equity-minded, inclusion-focused commitment to serving all students.

Dena Slanda:
I want to bring us back to why we gathered today. While we’re focused on inclusion, we also came to discuss racially, culturally, and linguistically diverse students. I feel like we’ve strayed from that a bit.

The current systems were meant to segregate students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Self-contained settings were a way to continue segregation. Placing students in subjective categories—like the outdated “MMR” (mildly mentally retarded)—was a way to keep students of color out of general education classrooms and regular schools. That’s why this history continues.

We need to remember that this is history repeating itself. If we want to change systems, we have to look at why they exist in the first place. We can’t commit to equity without understanding our past. That’s why we see resistance today—because many educators, even upcoming ones, don’t understand that special education is not a place. It’s a set of services.

Special education teachers have learned this, but not all educators have. Until everyone understands that, MTSS will continue to replicate previous frameworks. That’s the biggest issue. We’ll keep seeing segregated settings, self-contained classrooms, and students placed in more restrictive environments and punished more harshly. It all stems from our history.

Tim Villegas:
Is there anyone else who’d like to add to that?

Okay, so we’ve kind of embedded throughout this whole conversation things that we can do. But as we’re closing, and we have listeners who want concrete steps—what’s your advice to them? Where can they learn more about equity work?

Eric Wells:
Find a critical friend and start the conversation. Equity work starts with internal work—it’s inside-out. It begins with knowing who you are, how you show up in the world, and how your actions may perpetuate inequity or lead to equity. You only know that when you have good friends who are willing to call you out when your actions are causing harm.

In anti-racist work, we hold things deeply as part of our identity. If someone says, “You’re a racist,” in white dominant culture, we take that to mean we’re a bad person. We need to shift that mindset. In equity trainings I’ve attended, they frame it differently—like telling a friend they have spinach in their teeth. If I’m a good friend, I’ll tell them. Likewise, if I see you doing something that harms children and families, I’ll tell you—not because you’re a bad person, but because it’s causing harm.

Equity work isn’t about shame, blame, or judgment. It’s about recognizing that we’ve built systems designed to benefit some and oppress others. We need to rebuild those systems. That’s not a moral failing—it’s a structural decision we need to unmake.

Lindsey Pike:
I love that you mentioned it’s not a blame game. We have to move past the idea of “if” you have bias—it’s “where” is your bias and how does it show up in your actions? How does it manifest in education and in your work with students who are different from you?

That’s central to the conversation. People have to decide that their feelings being hurt is less important than the common goal: equitable and inclusive education for all students.

Another suggestion: look for resources that offer guiding questions. There won’t be one answer for every circumstance—we’re all different. One resource I recommend is the book Antiracism and UDL by Andrew Fitzgerald, through CAST. It’s a fantastic read with guiding questions and practical steps.

I’m always looking for the “so what?” and “what do I do on Monday?” kind of answers. Resources like that help. Start with a critical friend—they may have great resources. I’m lucky to have three critical friends with me right now.

Dena Slanda:
I absolutely agree. I like resources that ask me questions and get me to think. Cultivating Genius is another great place to start. It’s an equity framework for developing equity-minded schools. It focuses on literacy but can be applied to other subjects like math. Schools are using it across content areas.

Zerek Mayes:
I’ll add one more resource. I’m a mental health fanatic, so I lean in that direction. One thing that’s helped me is studying case studies. I recommend Case Studies on Diversity and Social Justice Education by Paul Gorski and Seema Pothini. It’s full of case studies with follow-up questions like, “How would you have reacted?” or “How could you respond differently?” It helps us process these ideas.

Tim Villegas:
Fantastic. We’re about 45, 46 minutes in. Before we wrap up, is there anything else on your mind that you want to share with our audience of educators?

Zerek Mayes:
Give yourself grace. Give yourself room to make mistakes. Anything worth doing will involve mistakes. Be gentle and kind to yourself along the way.

Dena Slanda:
Ditto to that. Every day we learn something new. The work is never done—it’s a continual learning process.

Lindsey Pike:
To those doing this work—educators, parents, whoever you are—thank you. You’re doing it. We always think we need to do more, but you’re already doing it. Thank you for being part of this journey. I can’t do what I want to do without you, and vice versa.

Eric Wells:
I echo Lindsey. Education is really hard, especially over the last few years. We still have teachers, educational assistants, related service providers—people who care deeply about kids and communities—showing up every day. It would be easy to walk away, but thank you for continuing to show up and stand in the gap for equity.

Even though it’s hard, we still need to do the work. It’s easy to say, “Let’s put equity off until next year.” But I challenge anyone listening: What is one concrete step you can take right now? We can’t finish the work, and we’re all struggling, but our kids need us to move toward a more equitable system.

Tim Villegas:
Zerek, Dena, Lindsey, and Eric—thank you so much for your time and for being on the Think Inclusive Podcast. We really appreciate it.