No one is tying themselves in knots. What she is saying seems pretty clear.
It's just that you, and some others, seem to read her criticism of the way the system is (not) working as saying that kids with autism etc shouldn't get help, or be in school.
This seems to be a very typical way some people who are on the political progressive side interpret any kind of critical comment about a policy. It can be about education, the environment, women's rights, health policy - as soon as someone criticizes a policy as being unlikely to work, or creating unfairness, or having other problems - they are interpreted as not caring about education, the environment, or whatever else the good cause is.
That's not the only or even the most obvious reason, in a lot of cases it seems to be quite a stretch to make that interpretation. There seems to be a really strong disinclination to actually work through the criticisms or observations being made.
I suppose this is why so much of politics is about easily digestible sound bites, and why there is so little work done around the nitty gritty of producing good, practical, workable policies.
As to your other point - If you set up a regulatory hierarchy, that does imply the things that come first in the hierarchy are more value or more important. But if you don't want to allow for that interpretation, we can say it materially advantages them.
The idea that by giving advantages to a child we can balance out some other disadvantage they have, in a setting like school, is a problem. Especially when other kids may have as much or more financial need.