This phrase frames harm as an unfortunate necessity, suggesting that children’s needs must be rationed according to institutional capacity. But funding constraints do not dissolve legal obligations. When a plan is written to match dollars instead of a student’s disability-related needs, the result is structural discrimination. Resource limits may shape logistics, but they cannot be used to justify exclusion.
-
The moral cost of leaving children in fight-or-flight
Robin was eleven the day he fell and came up swinging. It was recess, and something had happened—a misstep, a bump, a collision on uneven ground. His…
This entry is part of The budget is the behaviour—a series of graded rebuttals that translate common institutional justifications into the language of consequence. Each response challenges euphemism, clarifies impact, and holds decision-makers accountable. Read the full series.
