James walked into our school on his first day in awe of the colorful materials in his new classroom, flapping his hands and jumping up and down. Though the first-grader was still learning letter names and how to count to 10, he eagerly raised his hand to answer challenging questions and join class demonstrations.
James, who we are identifying by his first name to protect his privacy, has autism and relies heavily on predictable routines and strong adult support. Yet just three weeks later, he stopped raising his hand. He told his teachers he didn’t want to go to school because everything felt too hard. A child who initially cheered at the chance to read short words now collapsed into tears over a simple letter‑tracing activity.
Prior to coming to our school, James was spending 95% of his time in a special day class (SDC), which is a specialized, separate classroom with 10 children and five teachers focused on their intensive developmental needs. But at the end of the 2024–25 school year, the district, Campbell Union, closed the special day class program as part of California’s inclusion initiative, part of a rapidly spreading national movement. This state mandate aims for “full inclusion,” the practice of placing students with special needs into mainstream, general education classrooms. James now spends all his time in a general‑education classroom with one teacher and 25 classmates, receiving only occasional help from a visiting specialist.
Our students need ongoing monitoring so that sweeping changes like inclusion actually work for them rather than set them back.
Inclusion is a worthy goal, but school districts fail our students when they treat it as a mere change in physical placement rather than a comprehensive system that requires preparation and funding. State guidelines and academic research show that students’ successful integration depends on careful planning, coordinated staffing and structured transitions. Unfortunately, as a first grade specialist teacher, I have seen firsthand that our classroom received none of these resources.
There is a way that we can change this reality for our students. The governance change embedded in Assembly Bill 181 creates an opportunity to strengthen the oversight role of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and the Commissioner of Education by clarifying responsibilities for monitoring the implementation of major statewide education initiatives like inclusion. It could support school districts through planned transitions, monitor compliance with applicable legal requirements, and ensure that education policies are implemented consistently across California.
Children like James require gradual, planned transitions. Yet the district provided him with no visits to his new classroom before the first day, no “social stories” (visual tools to help children with autism anticipate changes) to visually prepare him for the change, and no step-by-step easing into the routine of a drastically different environment. As the implementation of AB 181 broadens the superintendent’s oversight role and establishes greater coherence under the commissioner, an independent monitor could detect real-time failures, expose gaps in statewide efforts such as the inclusion initiative, and hold schools accountable for delivering required student services.
Students like James also need individualized instructional support, not rigid scheduling. In our school, with no time set aside for teachers to customize student plans, schedules were simply copied and pasted, even though federal law guarantees tailored support. AB 181 should evolve the management of the California Department of Education under the commissioner to ensure districts have the system, staffing, time and oversight to uphold that legal obligation.
Our students need ongoing monitoring so that sweeping changes like inclusion actually work for them rather than set them back. James lost a whole year of meaningful education because the state looked the other way.
AB 181 paves the way to directly address these gaps. The law builds the safety net students like James deserved: a system that checks whether students are actually learning, verifies that supports are in place, and forces districts to keep their promises.
If we utilize AB 181 to ensure more coherence, transparency and oversight, James’s next transition would be monitored and corrected, rather than permitted to drift into quiet neglect. Leveraging this new law to transform how the California Department of Education operates would turn initiatives like California’s inclusion mandate into tangible results backed by thorough oversight, adequate resources and a deep commitment to meeting every student’s needs. This bill restores the supportive classroom environment that teachers like me want to provide, and that James needs to love school and confidently raise his hand.
•••
Caroline Deck is a 2025-26 Teach Plus California Policy Fellow and former TK–5 resource specialist in California public schools who now researches the philosophy and ethics of K–12 public education as a master’s student.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us at commentary@edsource.org.
This story was originally published by EdSource.