The rhetoric of the social model of disability is presented, and its basic claims are critiqued. Proponents of the social model use the distinction between impairment and disability to reduce disabilities to a single social dimension—social oppression. They downplay the role of biological and mental conditions in the lives of disabled people. Consequences of denying biological and mental realities involving disabilities are discussed. People will benefit most by recognizing both the biological and the social dimensions of disabilities.

Proponents of a social model of disability derive their arguments from social constructionism. They combine different disabling conditions under one term: disability. Subsequently, they apply the specific viewpoint of the disability rights social movement of people with physical disabilities to other conditions such as intellectual disabilities, autism, sensory disabilities, and emotional and behavioral disorders. Based on flawed premises and a romantic concept of social inclusion, special education is condemned as segregationist. The result is an unjust and uniform educational policy toward people whose disabilities are not physical.

Special education is losing its identity—its visibility, distinctiveness, budget, and basic functions are all at risk. Special education functions include (a) sorting, categorizing, and labeling students who need it; (b) making the right comparisons; (c) honoring diversity but changing particular differences; (d) managing stigma; (e) making subjective judgments and risking errors; (f) dealing with students’ failures; and (g) adequate financing in addition to maintaining visibility and status and having its own budget and personnel. It cannot exist without these functions, all of which are criticized or on the decline. Special education must also be reconstructed on the basis of sound science, not alternative narratives or nonscientific ways of knowing that do not help students with disabilities learn all they can. The need for a scientific reconstruction and implications for special education’s future are discussed.