On Advancing Equity, Diversity, and Inclusive Education: A Response to

Abstract

This article critiques Fuchs et al. (2023) , arguing that their conclusions about time in general education classrooms for students with disabilities rest on a narrow conception of inclusive education and on evidence that does not support the practice claims they advance. We address three issues surfaced in their article: (a) what contemporary research on learning outcomes for students with disabilities in general education settings actually shows; (b) whether the evidence Fuchs et al. marshal is adequate to support broad claims about school practice; and (c) how the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) should be understood in relation to federal policy leadership focused on educational outcomes for students with disabilities. Together, these issues matter because research reviews do not merely summarize knowledge—they shape which questions appear legitimate, which forms of evidence appear authoritative, and which educational possibilities are treated as viable. When inclusive education is reduced to unsupported placement and when federal institutional roles are mischaracterized, the result is a narrowed account of what democratic public education can and should require. Because federal leadership remains central to special education policy, accurate characterization of OSERS's role matters. This is a critical time for researchers, practitioners, and the general public to engage. For 46 years, federally funded research and technical assistance infrastructure has shaped special education policy and practice. The DOE's influence and leadership on education has built a legacy of educational services in local, state, and national contexts.