The panel discussion will explore the increasing diagnoses of special educational needs (SEN) in Germany since the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) (Steinmetz et al., 2021). This trend highlights a paradox: rather than fostering greater inclusion in schools, as intended by the UN CRPD (United Nations, 2006), the rise in SEN diagnoses suggests an expansion of what Tomlinson (2012) describes as a "SEN industry”, leading to further exclusion. Our discussion will critically engage with the construction of the SEN category within the German school assessment procedure, examining how it functions within a broader dispositive (Foucault, 1980) that powerfully constitutes and normalizes dis*abilities in educational settings.

Our primary research question asks: How is the category of SEN constructed within the assessment process in Germany, and how does this construction contribute to processes of exclusion? To address this question, we employ Foucault’s (1980) concept of the dispositive, which helps to reveal how power structures shape the discourse surrounding SEN. Additionally, we draw upon discourse theory (Foucault, 1972) to examine how knowledge and power practices operate in educational settings to define and regulate dis*abilities. The combination of dispositive analysis (Foucault, 1980) and discourse theory (Foucault, 1972) allows us to capture the intricate network of knowledge, practices, and institutional mechanisms that produce and sustain the category of SEN in schools. Through a critical examination of policy documents, assessment guidelines, and diagnostic practices, we aim to uncover the implicit norms and assumptions that shape the identification and classification of students as requiring special educational support.

The discussion aims to shed light on the paradoxical effects of the commitment to inclusion within the German school system, which often results in exclusionary mechanisms. By analyzing the processing of SEN diagnoses, we highlight the urgency schools face—torn between systemic overload and the obligation to implement inclusive education. Our analysis will critically interrogate how pedagogical institutions construct normative orders that, under the guise of inclusion, reinforce segregation. In this context, we argue that SEN function similarly to the dispositive of inclusion, operating as an ‘apparatus for solving social problems’ (Peter & Waldschmidt, 2017, p. 38).

The findings of this discussion are not confined to Germany but have broader implications for European and international educational policies. The increasing categorization of students under SEN frameworks is a phenomenon observable in various European education systems, often linked to policy shifts following the UN CRPD ratification (Foteini et al., 2024). By situating our discussion within a wider European and international discourse on inclusive education, we provide a comparative perspective that can inform policy and practice beyond the German context. The discussion will offer valuable insights into how different educational systems navigate the challenges of inclusive education and the unintended consequences of SEN classification processes.

In accordance with Foucault’s (1980) concept of dispositives as structurally produced and regulated power relations, this study explores the interplay between education, society, and power in the context of SEN and inclusion. Dispositives, understood as historically contingent networks of discourses, practices, and institutions (Peter & Waldschmidt, 2017), serve as a framework for addressing social urgencies. Within our research, we explore how the urgency of implementing inclusive education in an overburdened school system shapes a specific government of dis*ability (Tremain, 2005). Methodologically, our study employs dispositive analysis as a ‘research perspective’ (Bührmann & Schneider, 2008), focusing on the construction and processing of SEN as a core selection mechanism in the education system. Our approach aligns with recent studies examining the dispositive nature of dis*ability in inclusive settings (Dovigo, 2024; Peruzzo, 2023), with a particular emphasis on how the category of SEN is addressed in schools. Drawing from findings in two BMBF-funded research projects, FePrax (Haas et al., 2025) and InDiVers (Gasterstädt et al., 2023; 2025), we reconstruct power relations within the dispositive of dis*ability in the school system by analyzing 1) the discursive construction of SEN in school systems, 2) the diagnostic practices shaping the subject of diagnosis (Blasse & Haas, 2024; Gasterstädt et al., 2024a/b) and 3) the subject positions assigned to schools, pupils, and families within the discourse. By examining these dimensions, we reveal the interconnections between the making, doing, and being dis*abled (Karim & Waldschmidt, 2019) and their implications for the educational science discourse on SEN and diagnostics. To this end, we compile the results of the two research projects, which are based on analyses of school laws and regulations, school statistics, interviews with various stakeholders (school administration, teachers, pupils, parents), participant observations of and documents from the assessment procedures (counselling interviews, test situations, school files, support plans, diagnostic statements). This research contributes to a deeper understanding of the power dynamics embedded in educational institutions and practices, highlighting how inclusion policies shape and are shaped by prevailing structures of government and discourse.

The findings underscore the paradoxical effects of inclusive education policies within the still highly segregated school system in Germany. Our analysis reveals how the construction of SEN is deeply embedded within power structures that normalize dis*abilities through institutional practices. Thereby the increasing categorization of students under the label of SEN perpetuates exclusionary mechanisms. The dispositive analysis shed light on the interrelations between discourse, practices and institutions. In Germany the SEN assessment is discursively framed as relief for the child of the curricular performance standards (Gasterstädt et al., 2024a). In the assessment a medical model of dis*ability is applied which – by law – asks to determine SEN by providing evidence for the individual need of special education. This redundant definition frames assessment procedures and individualises complex situations of impeded learning and social emotional development of children (Gasterstädt et al., 2024b). This demonstrates how administrative regulations, diagnostic practices, and subject positioning contribute to the government of dis*ability, often reinforcing systemic inequalities rather than dismantling them. Our study highlights the ways in which schools, caught between systemic overload and the obligation to implement inclusive education, navigate these tensions by resorting to diagnostic classifications that ultimately reinforce segregation. Furthermore, our findings have broader implications beyond the German context. Similar patterns of increasing SEN diagnoses and their unintended exclusionary effects can be observed across various European education systems following the ratification of the UN CRPD (Foteini et al., 2024). Therefore, the expansion of the SEN category is not merely a national issue, but a structural phenomenon tied to global shifts in educational governance. Our research thus provides a comparative perspective that informs both policy and practice in international educational contexts. Ultimately, this study contributes to a critical understanding of the power dynamics embedded in educational institutions and their role in shaping the discourse on dis*ability.

Blasse, N. & Haas, B. (2024). Intersektionale Inklusionsforschung: Zum Verhältnis von race, class, gender mit der Differenzkategorie dis*ability. Empirische Pädagogik, 38. Jahrgang, Heft 2, 251-266. Bührmann, A. D. & Schneider, W. (2006). Mehr als nur diskursive Praxis? – Konzeptionelle Grundlagen und methodische Aspekte der Dispositivanalyse. Forum: Qualitative Sozialforschung, 2(8). Dovigo, F. (2024). Towards a zombie theory of inclusive education: A discourse analysis of special educational needs policies in five European countries. European Journal of Inclusive Education, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.7146/ejie.v3i2.143767 Foteini Tseliou, Chris Taylor & Sally Power (2024) Recent Trends in Formal School Exclusions in Wales, British Journal of Educational Studies, 72:3, 269-293, DOI: 10.1080/00071005.2023.2276404 Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. Pantheon Books. Gasterstädt, J. Adl-Amini, K., Klenk F. C., Kistner A. & Kadel, J. (2024a). Zur Individualisierung komplexer Problemkonstellationen im Kontext der Feststellung sonderpädagogischen Förderbedarfs. In K. Bräu, J. Budde, M. Hummrich & F. C. Klenk (Eds.), Vielfaltsorientierung und Diskriminierungskritik. Ansprüche und Widersprüche schulischer Bildung (pp.137-150). Budrich. https://doi.org/10.3224/84743037 Gasterstädt, J., Kistner, A. & Adl-Amini, K. (2024b). „Einfach, um den Druck auch rauszunehmen“ – Entlastung von der Leistungsnorm als Aspekt zur Erklärung der Persistenz der Feststellung sonderpädagogischen Förderbedarfs. In S. Schuppener, A. Langner, A. Goldbach, K. Mannewitz & N. Leonhardt (Eds.), Machtkontexte - Kritische Reflexionen von Wissensordnungen, Wissensproduktion und Wissensvermittlung (pp.151-161). Klinkhardt. Haas, B., Brodesser, E., Aissa, R., Galeano Weber, E. M., Althaus, N., Rettschlag, M., Uhlemann, N., Landgraf, S., Moser, V., & Hasselhorn, M. (2025). Diagnostische Praxis zur Feststellung sonderpädagogischer Förderbedarfe in ausgewählten Förderschwerpunkten. In K. Beck, R. Ferdigg, D. Katzenbach, J. Kett-Hauser, S. Laux, & M. Urban (Eds.), Förderbezogene Diagnostik in der inklusiven Bildung. Professionalisierung – Spezifische Unterstützungsangebote – Übergänge in die berufliche Bildung (pp. 25-41). Waxmann. Karim, S., & Waldschmidt, A. (2019). Ungeahnte Fähigkeiten? Behinderte Menschen zwischen Zuschreibung von Unfähigkeit und Doing Ability. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 3(44), 269-288. DOI:10.1007/s11614-019-00362-3. Peruzzo, F. (2023). A certain kind of freedom, a certain subject of right: The disability dispositif of inclusion and the government of the disabled child in the Italian education system. In A. R. Brown & E. Jarrett (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Children’s Rights and Disability (pp. 520-536). Routledge. Peter, T. & Waldschmidt, A. (2017). Inklusion. Genealogie und Dispositivanalyse eines Leitbegriffs der Gegenwart. Sport Und Gesellschaft, 14(1), 29-52. Tremain, S. (2005). Foucault and the government of disability. University of Michigan Press.