Coded Inequities: AI’s Ableist Glitch in Education
Contributor Piece
Welcome back to Curious Constructs, where I explore and challenge the barriers that prevent us from bringing our full, authentic selves forward—whether those barriers are personal or systemic.
From time to time, Curious Constructs will feature guest contributors, leaders, thinkers, and practitioners whose perspectives challenge and expand our own. These voices may come from different sectors, geographies, and lived experiences, but they share a commitment to interrogating systems, questioning assumptions, and imagining our collective future.
Today’s piece is one such contribution.
Written by: Dr. D'Annette Mullen
The rapid push for AI integration in our schools is predicated on a dangerous assumption: that educators will somehow inherently know when to deploy it, how to balance AI-generated content with student imagination, what constitutes the optimal level of human-to-human interaction, and whether the already biased structures of our classrooms will be uplifted or further undermine students with disabilities. It’s crucial to remember that Artificial Intelligence is a creation of human beings, born from systems that have yet to disrupt their own deeply embedded progressions of exclusion.
What does AI integration mean for educators?
For the sake of all students, best practices demand that educators not only continue to learn but also consistently practice foundational inclusive pedagogies and Universal Design for Learning in their classrooms. This isn’t just a directive for special educators, but it encompasses every teacher, regardless of their self-identification. In fact, that very divide between “special” and “general” education speaks volumes about how the speedy delegation of tasks to AI in classrooms will only exacerbate student segregation, all under the false pretense of uniting them through online platforms. But I digress…
What does AI Integration mean for students?
Beyond the fundamental digital fluency this generation already possesses, the rapid infusion of AI means an alarming acceleration of screen dependence, compounded by a lack of agreed-upon regulatory policy to mitigate its potentially deleterious effects. What happens when students instinctively turn to AI for comfort or answers rather than to the other humans in the room? How will students cultivate essential social skills and build robust communities when the foundational lessons of cause-and-effect, and the nuanced consequences for every action, are primarily practiced through isolated apps—if at all? The amplification of stereotypes for students with disabilities will further intensify when authentic, cross-cultural interactions become more infrequent. Ultimately, what does “inclusion” even mean if every student is glued to a screen, “included” in a different program with minimal genuine engagement components or opportunities for imagining beyond digital confines? Frankly, that sounds less like inclusion and a lot more like automated exclusion.
Accessibility Antics
The COVID-19 pandemic starkly illuminated a devastating truth: that not every student had access to an electronic device at home, and even fewer had reliable internet. This digital divide was detrimental to countless students’ ability to access education content then, and that population would be further exacerbated with the integration of AI, especially when this society considers the intersectional realities of disability, socioeconomic status, religion, and the pervasive biases amplified by computer-generated responses. AI is, quite literally, coded with inequities. So, how can a society that champions itself as “leading the way” simultaneously perpetuate leaving marginalized swaths of its population behind? Can the U.S. actually correct itself?
Collective Reflection
Let’s be clear, the U.S. systems of exclusion are functioning precisely as they were designed to. So, while these solutions may seem far from implementation, one can certainly strategize. One critical step toward a more genuinely inclusive AI rollout in education would be to engage a diverse array of education stakeholders—from school administrators and educators to related service providers, parents, students, and community leaders—as “checkpoints” for new policies. Before any policy is passed, understanding each group’s recommendations for successful, equitable implementation is vital. Furthermore, a public negotiation, a transparent forum where representatives from all diverse groups, should have a seat at the table.
Another powerful solution would be to conduct a comprehensive study. Recruit a diverse group of adults and immerse them in AI-driven educational engagement for seven hours a day over several months, mirroring the demanding schedule students would face during a full school day. Then, document any observable changes in their personality, their social interactions, and their willingness to engage with other human beings over time. This experiment seems not only necessary but ethically imperative, particularly when the current momentum is pushing to do this exact same thing with students whose prefrontal cortices are not yet fully developed.
Overall, the rushed promise of AI in education risks becoming another instrument of systemic ableism if we fail to critically examine its foundations and proactively dismantle its inherent biases. True progress isn’t about how quickly we adopt new technology, but how thoughtfully and justly we apply it to serve all members of our learning community. We must commit to designing an educational future where technology acts as a bridge, not another barrier, ensuring that inclusion is not just an aspiration, but a deeply embedded, human-centered reality.
-Dr. D’Annette Mullen
Dr. D’Annette Mullen is a lecturer in Special Education at Boston University who specializes in race, ethnicity, and culture in special education. With a Ph.D. from the University of Florida, she focuses on disproportionate discipline, sustaining Special Education teachers, and restorative practices in schools. D’Annette’s career spans teaching high school, middle school administration, and school consulting while advocating for inclusive education and contributing to teacher education through research, community building, and professional development. Through community engagement and advocacy, she promotes equitable and inclusive education, inspiring positive change in educational practices and policies.
Contact information: dmullen@bu.edu
Substack: @dannettemullen
Other: https://www.bu.edu/wheelock/profile/dannette-mullen/
Until next week—let’s stay curious about ourselves, each other, and the systems that shape our world.
Warmly,
Sara