"The only way to ensure that our promise to provide every opportunity for students with disabilities, and help them achieve their full potential, is to give our schools the dollars they need"
About this Quote
The line wears the moral language of inclusion while quietly doing the harder work of budgeting politics. Gordon Smith frames disability rights as a “promise,” a word that drags obligation behind it: this isn’t charity, it’s a commitment the state has already made and must now honor. By pairing “every opportunity” with “full potential,” he borrows the uplifting vocabulary of civil rights and self-actualization, then pivots to the blunt instrument of governance: dollars. The sentence is engineered to make funding feel like the only ethical option.
The key move is the phrase “the only way to ensure.” That’s not persuasion; it’s foreclosing debate. If you accept the premise that schools are responsible for enabling disabled students to thrive, you’re pushed toward Smith’s conclusion that resources are the non-negotiable mechanism. It’s a rhetorical shortcut that turns an argument about priorities into an argument about credibility: oppose the money, and you’re not merely “fiscally cautious,” you’re undermining a public promise.
The subtext is also about shifting the frame from abstract policy to practical capacity. Special education is legally mandated and notoriously expensive; “opportunity” depends on staffing ratios, aides, accessible materials, therapists, transportation, and compliant facilities. Smith’s wording implies that without adequate funding, inclusion becomes performative - rights on paper, scarcity in practice. In a political context where school budgets are perpetual battlegrounds, he’s recruiting disability justice as the unimpeachable rationale for broader school funding, daring opponents to explain why they’d shortchange the students least able to absorb the cuts.
The key move is the phrase “the only way to ensure.” That’s not persuasion; it’s foreclosing debate. If you accept the premise that schools are responsible for enabling disabled students to thrive, you’re pushed toward Smith’s conclusion that resources are the non-negotiable mechanism. It’s a rhetorical shortcut that turns an argument about priorities into an argument about credibility: oppose the money, and you’re not merely “fiscally cautious,” you’re undermining a public promise.
The subtext is also about shifting the frame from abstract policy to practical capacity. Special education is legally mandated and notoriously expensive; “opportunity” depends on staffing ratios, aides, accessible materials, therapists, transportation, and compliant facilities. Smith’s wording implies that without adequate funding, inclusion becomes performative - rights on paper, scarcity in practice. In a political context where school budgets are perpetual battlegrounds, he’s recruiting disability justice as the unimpeachable rationale for broader school funding, daring opponents to explain why they’d shortchange the students least able to absorb the cuts.
Quote Details
| Topic | Student |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Gordon
Add to List