Ableism is deeply embedded in early childhood education. It appears in our policies, practices, and the casual, everyday language and behaviors of educators and administrators. It shows up in how we pathologize children’s behaviors, dismiss their needs, and treat their differences as disruptions to be managed through compliance. And it shows up in how we define professionalism or decide who qualifies as an expert.

When some of us speak up, we’re often met with dismissal.

We’re told we’re being overly dramatic, that it’s “not that deep,” or that we’re being too critical of our peers or superiors and acting unprofessionally. We hear statements like, “So-and-so is an expert in special education and they’re fine with this,” or “I know someone who is disabled and they disagree with you, so it wouldn’t be fair to change things just because you think they need to be changed.” Anything to silence a valid critique. 

But then, when something as blatant as a teacher pointing to an autistic child and saying, “He needs to be in an institution,” occurs, people are suddenly as upset as I am. Outraged. Shocked. As if the harm came out of nowhere. 

They couldn’t believe it. But the truth is, I could. This kind of thinking doesn’t start with a single horrific comment directed at one child–it begins with all the small instances of ableism that are left unchallenged.

It begins with “He’s just attention-seeking.”

“She’s manipulating you.”

“They should’ve learned to self-soothe by now.”

“He just needs more structure.”

“They’re not ready for this grade level.” 

By treating children like problems that need to be fixed.

It begins with assuming learning and development have only one path. When we praise children for compliance and punish them for divergence. When we demand regulation from children but don’t question the dysregulation of the adults making the rules and expectations.

And it begins with redirection.

With rejection.

With removal.

These everyday moments are where ableism gets normalized; when no one addresses it, it grows.

As a field, we are failing at meaningful inclusion. You often hear ECE professionals say that some kids are a great match for inclusion, and some just aren’t. We decide which children have the potential for inclusion based on how well we think they’ll assimilate to classroom expectations rooted in white supremacy, neuronormativity, and ableism. The children we believe are less capable of conforming are physically excluded. The children we decide are a match are physically included while experiencing exclusion in the form of othering or being told in different ways that they don’t belong. We see this happening all the time. We see people defending this all the time. 

And yet, when someone says a child needs to be institutionalized based solely on the fact that they recently received an autism diagnosis, it’s treated like a rare aberration rather than the logical endpoint of a system built on compliance and conditional belonging. 

If you believe that saying a child belongs in an institution is wrong, then you also have to believe that the practices that feed that mindset are wrong, too. The two cannot be separated. You don’t get to use behaviorist practices, language, and policies rooted in pathology, and exclusion while also acting like you’re outraged when the same system deems a child unworthy of community simply due to a diagnosis. 

You don’t get to clutch your pearls at the destination when you defend the road that leads there.

What happened in that classroom wasn’t an outlier. It was the outcome of beliefs, practices, and norms that have been allowed to thrive in early childhood education. It was the result of dismissing those who raised concerns. 

And this isn’t just a problem in the classroom. It’s a reflection of what’s happening throughout society.

Disabled people, especially those with intersecting marginalized identities, have been ringing the alarm since the beginning of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. We’ve been warning that the systems propped up by ableism and eugenics would double down.

We were told we were being overdramatic. 

And yet, here we are. 

In 2025, we are witnessing the resurgence of policies and rhetoric that echo our history of Ugly Laws, institutionalization, and eugenics, from the recent American Eagle commercial, to the 17 states suing to overturn the 504 Act, to the Executive Order targeting and criminalizing disabled and unhoused people. Minimizing and dismissing ableism helped get us here. 

Now people are beginning to see that our warnings should not have been dismissed. 

So when we see leaders saying, “The overwhelming number of deaths, over 75%, occurred in people who had at least four comorbidities, so really these are people who are unwell to begin with, and yes, really encouraging news in the context of omicron,” or preschool teachers saying, “He needs to be in an institution,” we need to understand that this is what happens when ableism goes unchallenged.

If you’re only outraged when the harm is loud and undeniable, but indifferent or even defensive when disabled people name harm while it’s quieter, you are part of the problem. 

But you can choose to become part of the solution at any time. 

It’s time to listen. 

To unlearn. 

To shift. 

References

ASAN denounces executive order criminalizing disabled & unhoused people. Autistic Self Advocacy Network. (2025, July 31). https://autisticadvocacy.org/2025/07/asan-denounces-executive-order-criminalizing-disabled-unhoused-people/

Barbarin, I. [@crutches_and_spice]. (2025, July 28). #imaniafterdark #sidneysweeney [Video]. TikTok. https://www.tiktok.com/@crutches_and_spice/video/7531980979762679054

Diament, M. (2022, January 18). CDC director apologizes to disability advocates for “hurtful” comments. Disability Scoop. https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2022/01/18/cdc-director-apologizes-to-disability-advocates-for-hurtful-comments/29661/

Diament, M. (2025, May 19). States drop effort to overturn Section 504, but continue to challenge disability protections. Disability Scoop. https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2025/05/19/states-drop-effort-to-overturn-section-504-but-continue-to-challenge-disability-protections/31460/

Newton, J. R., Batz, R., O’Grady, C., Vinh, M., & Blanchard, S. B. (2024). Beyond omission: Analysing the erasure of disability and inclusion in the developmentally appropriate practices. International Journal of Early Years Education, 32(3), 647–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2024.2343075