As diagnoses of autism and ADHD continue to rise—now affecting 1 in 31 children and millions more with special education needs—the landscape for families seeking support is rapidly evolving. While early identification has improved, many parents find themselves stuck between receiving a diagnosis and securing the accommodations their children need in school. This gap is not just a matter of paperwork or wait times; it reflects a deepening crisis in the availability of qualified professionals to provide essential services.

Dr. Jaime Sowers, Director of Advisory Services at BlazerWorks and a seasoned special education leader, sheds light on this quiet crisis. Drawing on over 27 years of experience, Dr. Sowers explains why the surge in diagnoses is partly due to better recognition rather than a sudden spike in conditions, and why the real challenge lies in translating diagnosis into meaningful support. He offers practical advice for parents navigating long waitlists and understaffed schools, and outlines what systemic changes are needed to ensure every neurodivergent student can thrive.

Below is the full interview with Dr. Sowers, providing an expert perspective on the current state of neurodiversity support in education.

Opening question: What has actually changed in how we identify neurodivergent children compared with a decade ago?

The biggest change is that we are getting better at recognizing needs that were not always understood or identified in the past. Screening itself is not new, but there has been a stronger emphasis on using standardized tools, listening to family concerns, and connecting children with evaluations earlier. We also have a better understanding that children with the same diagnosis can have very different strengths and support needs.

Autism provides a useful example. Identification has increased in communities that historically had less access to evaluations. We also see greater recognition among girls, who have often been identified later than boys. That suggests part of what has changed is our ability to see children we previously missed, not simply a sudden change in children themselves.

At the same time, I would be careful about treating every diagnosis or learning difference as the same trend. Improved identification is an important part of the explanation, but it is not a complete explanation for every condition. From an education perspective, the priority is clear: once we recognize a child’s needs, we must be prepared to respond.

1. What does the “brick wall” between diagnosis and actual support look like, and which families are hit hardest?

A diagnosis can give a family an explanation without giving them a clear next step. A parent may finally understand why their child is struggling, but still must navigate separate healthcare, early intervention, and school systems to put support in place. That coordination gap is one reason family navigation and better connections between services matter so much.

There is also an important distinction between a medical diagnosis and eligibility for school-based special education. They are related, but they are not interchangeable. Schools evaluate how a disability affects the child’s educational needs and whether the child needs special education and related services. A diagnosis alone does not automatically determine an individualized education program, or IEP.

The families I worry most about are those with the fewest alternatives: parents who cannot pay privately, take time away from work, travel long distances, or easily navigate unfamiliar systems. Language barriers can make an already complicated process even harder. Those obstacles can accumulate quickly.

Families should not need to become full-time service coordinators simply to get their child appropriate support.

2. How severe is the “quiet crisis”? Is it weeks-long delays or something more systemic?

It is more systemic than waiting a few extra weeks for an appointment. There is not one wait time that captures the problem. In its special education review, the Government Accountability Office documented vacancies lasting an entire school year, delays in evaluations, and situations where students were not receiving needed services. Those are problems with the capacity of the system, not just scheduling problems.

School psychology offers another perspective. National staffing is roughly one school psychologist for more than 1,000 students, compared with the profession’s recommended ratio of one for every 500. That is a schoolwide staffing ratio, not an individual caseload, but it illustrates how thinly expertise is spread.

The word “quiet” should not suggest that the impact is small. A vacancy can be relatively invisible outside a district, while being very visible to a child, a family, and the educators trying to provide support. We need to look beyond whether a position is posted and ask whether students are consistently receiving what they need.

3. Which specialized roles are hardest to fill, and why can’t districts hire despite the demand?

Special education teachers, speech-language pathologists, and school psychologists are central pressure points. The needs vary by district, but occupational therapists and paraprofessionals can also be difficult to secure. These positions are not interchangeable; filling one vacancy does not necessarily address the expertise missing somewhere else on the team.

The challenge is that demand does not produce a qualified professional overnight. Many of these careers require advanced education, supervised experience, and specific credentials. Speech-language pathologists, for example, typically need a master’s degree, and schools are recruiting from a profession that also works in hospitals, clinics, and private practice.

Compensation matters, but so does the job people are being asked to do. Candidates are considering workload, leadership support, professional development, and whether they will have the resources to be effective. Those same conditions affect whether existing staff stay.

My view is that districts must make two commitments: recruit qualified people and create an environment where those people can succeed. Hiring is the beginning of the work, not the end. Recruitment becomes much less important when you have strong retention efforts.

4. What can parents do while waiting for an evaluation or dealing with an understaffed support team?

My first message is that a private evaluation waitlist does not have to put every other step on hold. Parents can contact their school district to request an evaluation when they suspect a disability. For children younger than three, the starting point is the state’s early intervention program. Families do not need to wait for a medical diagnosis to make those requests.

I would encourage parents to put their concerns in writing and include specific examples: what is difficult, when it happens, and how it affects learning or participation. Ask who will coordinate the process, what consent is needed, and which evaluation timeline applies. Under IDEA, the federal default is 60 days after parental consent, unless the state has established its own evaluation timeframe, with limited exceptions.

While that process moves forward, ask the school what instructional or classroom supports can begin now and how progress will be monitored. Those supports should happen alongside an appropriate evaluation—not become a reason to postpone one.

For a child who already has an IEP, I would ask for a team meeting and a clear explanation of what is being delivered, what has been missed, and how the team will address the child’s needs. Parents can also contact their state’s Parent Training and Information Center for help navigating the process.

You can be collaborative and still be persistent. Asking clear questions and expecting clear answers is not being difficult. The University of Vermont has some great resources for this: https://www.uvm.edu/uvmnews/news/program-empowers-parents-special-needs-kids

5. How does this differ across rural and urban areas or from state to state?

Geography matters, but I would avoid the assumption that this is only a rural problem. Federal research has identified teacher shortages in both rural and urban communities, particularly in high-poverty schools.

In rural communities, the challenge can be finding specialized expertise within a reasonable distance. In an urban district, being surrounded by more providers does not automatically translate into adequate school staffing. Access to a professional and the ability to recruit that professional into a particular school are different things. Rural recruitment challenges and competition for specialists both need to be part of the workforce conversation.

There are meaningful regional differences as well. NASP’s latest analysis found lower student-to-school-psychologist ratios in the Northeast than in the Southeast, although regional averages cannot describe every district.

That is why I favor solutions built around local conditions rather than one national prescription. A district may need university partnerships, a shared-service arrangement, stronger compensation, or a different delivery model. The goal should be that a child’s address does not determine whether appropriate support is available.

6. How are schools coping, and are there stopgap measures that work?

Schools are using approaches such as contracted professionals and shared regional resources to address gaps. Those approaches can help, but their value depends on how they are implemented and whether students receive appropriate services.

I would look for measures that add capacity rather than simply redistribute an unreasonable workload. For example, a district might bring in a qualified temporary evaluation team to address a backlog or share a hard-to-find specialist with neighboring districts. In either case, there needs to be clear responsibility for communication, follow-through, and student progress.

I would also protect time for special educators, general educators, and related-service providers to plan together. Federal guidance identifies collaboration, workload management, and knowledgeable school leadership as important conditions for retaining special education personnel.

What I would not support is treating a thinner version of a child’s program as the solution. Paraprofessionals should be supported in their roles, not expected to stand in for an entire professional team.

A stopgap should bridge a service gap—not become a permanent lowering of expectations.

7. Beyond hiring, how do funding, preparation programs, and burnout contribute?

We cannot recruit our way out of this without addressing preparation and retention. The system needs enough people entering these professions, but it also needs experienced people to stay. Research discussions with special educators have identified concerns about compensation, paperwork, unclear responsibilities, limited mentoring, and insufficient administrative support.

Burnout is not an abstract concern. In ASHA’s 2024 school survey, 27 percent of responding speech-language pathologists said they were considering leaving the profession because of burnout. That measures consideration, not actual departures, but it is a warning we should take seriously.

My priorities would be predictable funding, manageable workloads, strong mentoring, and preparation pathways that people can realistically afford to complete. We also need enough supervised training opportunities to prepare new professionals well—not simply move them through a program faster.

When we talk about workload, we should count more than the number of students assigned. Evaluations, meetings, documentation, travel, and collaboration all take time. We should be asking whether the job is designed so a professional can do it well, not whether someone is willing to keep stretching.

8. What role should telehealth or remote services play?

Telehealth should be a legitimate part of the service-delivery conversation—not automatically the last resort and not automatically the answer for every child. For appropriate students and services, it can connect families and schools with qualified professionals who are not available locally and reduce geographic barriers.

The decision should start with the child’s needs and goals. Effective school-based teletherapy requires more than a video connection: it requires a qualified provider, suitable technology, a private and appropriate space, coordination with the school team, and on-site support when needed. Schools should not shift those responsibilities onto families simply because the provider is remote.

Evaluations deserve particular care. Not every assessment can be moved online without affecting how results should be interpreted. The professional needs to determine whether the tools, setting, and child’s circumstances support a valid evaluation, and when an in-person component is necessary.

My standard is the same regardless of the format: Is the student receiving appropriate support, participating meaningfully, and making progress? Technology should expand access to expertise, not lower the standard of care or instruction.

9. What needs to change to keep this from becoming a permanent crisis?

We need to treat the special education workforce as a long-term investment in student achievement, not a recurring emergency that gets attention when school starts.

That means building affordable pathways into the profession, supporting paid preparation and supervised practice, and creating stronger partnerships among districts, universities, and service providers. I started my career as a paraprofessional, so I think there is real value in helping people who already know our students and schools grow into additional professional roles.

We also need to make retention part of the plan from the beginning. I would prioritize competitive compensation, manageable workloads, ongoing coaching, and principals who understand how to support their special education teams. Those priorities align with the preparation and retention strategies emphasized in federal personnel guidance.

At the institutional level, special education leaders should have a voice in academic planning, budgeting, and workforce decisions—not be brought in after those decisions are made. Families and students should help shape those decisions, too.

Finally, we should measure more than vacancies filled or evaluations completed. We should ask whether support is consistent and whether students are gaining skills, accessing instruction, and making meaningful progress.

The goal is not simply to identify more children. It is to make sure that being identified leads to a better educational experience.

Conclusion

The challenges facing families of neurodivergent children are complex and multifaceted. As Dr. Sowers emphasizes, identifying a child’s needs is only the first step—ensuring those needs are met requires a coordinated, well-staffed, and well-supported system. The shortage of specialized educators and therapists is not a temporary glitch but a systemic issue demanding long-term investment and innovative solutions.

For parents, persistence and advocacy remain crucial, but so does collaboration with schools and access to resources that can help navigate the system. For policymakers and education leaders, the call is clear: invest in recruitment, retention, and preparation of special education professionals, and involve families and educators in shaping sustainable support models.

Only by bridging the gap between diagnosis and support can we ensure that the growing number of neurodivergent students receive the education and services they deserve—turning early identification into meaningful progress and opportunity.

About Jaime Sowers, Ed. D.

Jaime brings more than 27 years of education leadership experience to his role as Director of Advisory Services at BlazerWorks. He leads the Clinical Advisory Team, partnering with school districts nationwide to strengthen special education programs through strategic guidance, operational support, and sustainable workforce practices.

Throughout his career, Jaime has served as a special education teacher, coordinator, principal, and special education director—experience that gives him a comprehensive understanding of the operational and instructional challenges districts face. He works closely with district leaders on budget planning, program design and implementation, staffing strategy, and emerging priorities, helping build systems that empower educators and improve outcomes for students.

Jaime is particularly passionate about ensuring that the most vulnerable students receive the services they need to succeed. His expertise in staff recruitment and retention, combined with a collaborative, solutions-focused approach, enables districts to create stronger, more resilient special education departments.

He holds a Doctor of Education from Wilmington University and remains dedicated to advancing educational environments where every student has access to the support necessary to thrive.