05/25/2026
Behind the Ballot: The Motivations of Our SWSD Board Members
Part III: Steven Carr
(As I was researching this piece, I uncovered data I was not able to double-confirm. If you see errors, please reach out — my intent is to inform the community, and I will quickly correct any misinformation.)
Board member Steven Carr was elected in November 2025. Despite being a self-proclaimed MAGA Republican, Carr was neither wanted nor included on the “Real Republican” (Beard, Mooneyhan, and Shoemaker) ticket. The 1776 Project included him on their promotional material, as did the York GOP, although neither formally endorsed him.
Board member Smith campaigned for Carr, citing Carr’s identity as an individual with autism and their work together since 2022 as reasons to support him. During the campaign, however, Smith left a profanity-laced voicemail for Carr, telling him how stupid he was for not listening to him and doing what he was told. This suggests Smith was less interested in an equal partner on the board and more focused on controlling another board member — but that is a topic for another article.
Carr has often shared his personal experience with special education in the South Western School District, citing his time in NI classes as the basis for his concern for special education students. On social media, Carr wrote: “I am a person as well with special needs and graduated highschool through special education department we have in our school district. One of the many reasons why I am running is to give support to the special education teachers and students with special needs. I know what being inside the classrooms is like, what it’s like fitting in and how hard it is to fit in and struggle with homework and what a good IEP.”
For those unfamiliar with special education, here is an overview of the identification process.
When a student is referred for an evaluation, a team of school professionals conducts a series of tests to get a full picture of how the student learns. Depending on the area of concern, this team may include a school psychologist, a special education teacher, a speech-language pathologist, or an occupational therapist. Testing covers how a student thinks, processes information, performs in reading, writing, and math, and communicates. Teachers and parents/guardians also complete rating scales about the student’s behavior, attention, and social and emotional functioning. The evaluation also includes a review of school records, classroom observations, teacher feedback, and a conversation with parents/guardians. Once parents/guardians sign consent for testing, the school has 60 days to finish the evaluation and meet with the family to discuss results.
To qualify for special education services, a student must meet two requirements: first, the student must have a disability that falls into one of 13 categories recognized under IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act):
1. Specific Learning Disability (SLD) — Difficulties in reading, writing, or math not explained by other factors. Includes dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia.
2. Other Health Impairment (OHI) — A health condition that limits a student’s strength, vitality, or alertness. ADHD is the most common example.
3. Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) — Affects social communication, behavior, and sensory processing.
4. Emotional Disturbance (ED) — Ongoing emotional or behavioral challenges that significantly affect a student’s ability to learn.
5. Speech or Language Impairment — Difficulties with articulation, fluency, voice, or language comprehension and expression.
6. Visual Impairment (including blindness) — Vision loss that affects learning even with correction.
7. Deafness — Hearing loss so severe that the student cannot process spoken language.
8. Hearing Impairment — Hearing loss that affects educational performance but does not meet the definition of deafness.
9. Deaf-Blindness — A combination of hearing and vision loss that causes severe communication and educational challenges.
10. Orthopedic Impairment — A physical impairment that affects a student’s ability to participate in school, such as cerebral palsy or a limb difference.
11. Intellectual Disability (ID) — Significantly below-average intellectual functioning combined with deficits in adaptive behavior.
12. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) — An acquired brain injury caused by an external force that affects educational performance.
13. Multiple Disabilities — Two or more simultaneous disabilities that together create educational needs too complex to be addressed by a program designed for just one of them.
Second, that disability must be clearly getting in the way of the student's ability to learn to the point that specially designed instruction or accommodations are needed.
There are no IQ requirements for special education services. A student with a high, average, or low IQ can qualify — what matters is whether a disability is affecting the student’s education. IQ testing may be part of the evaluation, but it is one piece of information among many, not a gatekeeper for services.
Parents and guardians are an essential part of the team throughout this entire process. They have the right to receive a full written copy of the evaluation results, ask questions before any decisions are made, and say no to testing or services at any time — even if the student qualifies. If parents/guardians refuse testing, the school cannot move forward with the evaluation. If they refuse services, the student will not receive an IEP or 504 plan. Either decision can be revisited at any time.
Students who move forward in the process and demonstrate a quantifiable need will receive either a 504 plan or an Individualized Education Program (IEP). A 504 plan provides accommodations — changes to how a student learns or is tested — without changing what is being taught. Common examples include extra time on tests, preferential seating, or printed copies of notes. An IEP goes further by providing specialized instruction designed around the student’s specific needs, along with clear, measurable goals the school team will work toward together. Both are legal documents the school is required to follow. The main difference is that a 504 focuses on equal access, while an IEP provides both access and specialized instruction for students who need more support.
When Carr refers to his experiences in NI classrooms, he is referring to Neurologically Impaired — a special education classification with deep roots in this region.
NI was never an official federal category, but was used at the state level in Pennsylvania to describe students who were struggling in school but didn’t fit neatly into any recognized disability category. In the early 1980s, South Western teachers noticed they had students who were clearly not succeeding, but couldn’t qualify for services because their evaluation scores were diagnostically flat — meaning results didn’t show the highs and lows that typically point to a specific disability. These teachers and administrators worked with LIU 12 and the state to create a pilot NI class to serve this population.
The state of Pennsylvania never officially sanctioned the program at SWHS, but allowed it to continue as an experimental one. It was designed for students who did not have an intellectual disability, but whose learning challenges were too severe for a typical learning disability program. They didn’t fit anywhere else. Some tested flat across the board; others had very scattered results, with scores that varied widely depending on the area being measured. Because the program was experimental, only a small number of students were served at a time. LIU 12 was also permitted to invite students from their service area, making each class a mix of students from neighboring districts. Students were not classified as emotionally disturbed, but many shared common characteristics: they were easily influenced by others, had difficulty regulating their bodies in space, and needed intensive, specialized instruction. Teachers provided extra support in reading and communication, including pulling students out of class for focused one-on-one instruction. The goal was to reach students who, without this program, would have had nowhere else to go.
When IDEA was updated in 1990 and again in 1997, states were required to align their classification systems with the 13 federal disability categories. Two of those categories absorbed many students previously labeled NI: Traumatic Brain Injury, added in 1990, and Other Health Impairment, expanded in 1997 to include conditions like ADHD. The NI label was gradually phased out at the state level through the late 1980s and into the mid-1990s — not because students’ needs had changed, but because the system required a federal category for every student receiving services.
NI continues to be used locally through LIU 12, however, as an umbrella label covering several IDEA categories including Other Health Impairment (OHI), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and Multiple Disabilities. It covers a wide range of conditions — ADHD, learning disabilities, processing disorders, and the effects of traumatic brain injury — and a student in current NI classes could be experiencing challenges with cognition, memory, attention, reasoning, or problem-solving, or some combination of these. The designation does not have a single, specific meaning. To be placed in NI classes today, a student must have a recognized neurological condition that is clearly affecting their ability to learn to the point that they need specially designed instruction beyond the regular classroom. Placement requires a formal evaluation documenting that impact. LIU 12 also recognizes a High-Intensity NI classification (HI-NI), used for neurological conditions expected to last at least 12 months and resulting in significant functional challenges requiring specialized care and support.
Carr has been open about his history in NI classes, and that honesty deserves respect. His autism, however, is not something he has spoken about publicly — that information was introduced into the public conversation by board member Matt Smith, who cited it as a reason voters should support Carr. That framing should give the community pause. Using another person's disability as a campaign talking point is not advocacy — it raises serious questions about what Smith believed he was gaining by making that information part of the conversation. The concern here is not who Carr is, but what the evidence already shows us about how he is being treated by someone he considers an ally. Autism can make it genuinely difficult to recognize when another person's interest in you is about control rather than care. Deep loyalty to trusted relationships — a trait common in many autistic individuals — can become a vulnerability when the wrong person is on the other end of it. Students placed in NI programs also frequently demonstrated susceptibility to outside influence and difficulty asserting independent judgment under pressure. Smith's voicemail, in which he berated Carr for not doing what he was told, confirms what that endorsement may have really been about. Carr was not being recruited as an equal partner. He was being positioned as a compliant vote. There is also documented evidence that Carr has voted incorrectly because he misunderstood the motion before the board — something Carr himself has acknowledged. Good intentions are not always enough when the decisions being made directly affect students, staff, and the community. Carr may genuinely want nothing more than to help students who struggled the way he did. The question the community deserves an honest answer to is whether, given everything we already know, he will ever truly be in a position to.
Steven Carr was the beneficiary of excellent teachers who saw a struggling student and refused to give up on him — educators who fought to create something that didn't yet exist because they believed every child deserved a chance to succeed. That same spirit drives teachers in the South Western School District today as they work with students who face their own daunting challenges: immigrant students navigating an unfamiliar language and culture, transgender and LGBTQ students trying to find their place in a world that doesn't always welcome them, students whose emotional and behavioral struggles make every school day feel like an uphill battle, special education students still fighting for the supports they need and deserve, and students trying to learn in buildings that are crumbling around them. These students, like Carr once was, are counting on the adults in the room to see them, advocate for them, and refuse to leave them behind. Carr knows what it feels like to be the kid who doesn't fit anywhere. He knows what it means to have someone go to bat for you. The community can only hope that those experiences have given him the empathy — and the independence — to do the same for every student in this district, not just the ones whose struggles look like his own.
Send a message to learn more
