Uncertainty Looms for Students with Disabilities as Trump Era Shifts Education Landscape
President Donald Trump’s executive order to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education has sent shockwaves through the education community, particularly raising concerns about the future of protections and services for students with disabilities. While Trump vowed to fully preserve resources for these students, transferring responsibilities to another federal agency, the lack of clarity surrounding the transition has fueled anxiety among experts, advocates, and families.
Trump clarified that special education oversight would move to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS already oversees Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits discrimination against students with disabilities. However, the Education Department has historically enforced the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a cornerstone law guaranteeing a "free appropriate public education" to approximately 7.5 million children with disabilities nationwide. IDEA protects these students from exclusion from public schools and mandates Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) to support their academic success.
For decades, the Education Department has played a crucial role in administering federal funds to states for special education, conducting national research to analyze data across states, and investigating civil rights complaints related to special education. The potential dismantling of the department raises significant questions about how these vital functions will be maintained and whether students with disabilities will continue to receive the support and protection they are entitled to.
While Congress retains the ultimate authority to decide the fate of the Education Department, the Trump administration has already begun to downsize the agency through workforce reductions. Hundreds of staffers involved in academic research and civil rights investigations were laid off, raising concerns about the capacity to continue these essential activities.
Supporters of Trump’s move argue that it reduces federal overreach and returns control of education to the states. Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo praised the executive order, stating that it "reimagined what education can – and should – look like in our country." However, special education experts caution against the uncertainty that lies ahead.
Carrie Gillispie, a senior policy analyst at New America, a liberal-leaning think tank, highlighted the unanswered questions about funding, research, and accountability for schools in providing adequate services to students with disabilities. The lack of response from the U.S. Department of Education to inquiries from USA TODAY further exacerbates these concerns.
One of the central issues is the federal government’s obligation under IDEA to allocate funds to states for special education services for students aged three to 21. The Education Department currently oversees the distribution of these funds, ensuring that they are used specifically to support students with disabilities. In fiscal year 2024, the agency allocated $15.5 billion to special education programs.
While Trump has not indicated any cuts to special education funding, the uncertainty about how HHS would manage the distribution of funds has ignited concern among education leaders. Many states rely heavily on federal funding to meet the needs of students with disabilities.
Daniel Pearson, executive director of Educators for Excellence, a teacher-led nonprofit, said that even if funding levels remain the same, it is crucial to ensure that the funds are specifically earmarked for students with disabilities. He cautioned against the possibility of block grants that would give states more discretion in how the money is spent, potentially weakening accountability measures.
Representative Jahana Hayes, a Democrat from Connecticut, deemed Trump’s executive order "illegal," emphasizing the federal government’s legal obligation to provide services and funding to students with disabilities. She warned that any threat to this obligation would force local communities to make difficult choices about cutting other resources or raising local taxes to compensate for the loss of federal funding.
Another critical function of the Education Department is the Office for Civil Rights, which investigates complaints of discrimination or abuse against students with disabilities in federally funded schools. The office’s ability to carry out these investigations has been significantly impacted by staff layoffs and uncertainty surrounding its future role.
The National Center for Youth Law has filed a lawsuit challenging the decision to effectively halt investigations of civil rights complaints, arguing that it betrays students and families who deserve justice.
The Education Department has also played a vital role in collecting state-level data on students with disabilities, tracking their educational progress, and identifying underserved populations. The agency’s Office of Special Education has reported annually to Congress on the performance of students with disabilities.
Experts like Gillispie emphasize that this level of accountability is essential for achieving equity across states and enabling states to learn from each other about effective strategies for identifying and serving students with disabilities.
The recent gutting of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), the Education Department’s research arm, is another source of concern. IES staff conducted congressionally mandated research on special education and other educational topics. The layoffs of these staffers raise questions about the future of research on students with disabilities.
Gillispie highlights the disparities in special education services across states, noting that families moving from one state to another may encounter varying levels of support. She fears that the lack of federal research could exacerbate these disparities, leaving students without adequate services. Some states excel at identifying children who require special education services, while others lag behind. The assessment methods used to determine eligibility for services can also differ significantly across states. Without robust federal research to guide and inform best practices, these inconsistencies could worsen.
The potential consequences of these changes are far-reaching, impacting not only the educational experiences of students with disabilities but also the ability of schools and states to effectively meet their needs. As the Trump administration moves forward with its plans to reshape the education landscape, it is crucial to prioritize the protection and support of vulnerable students and ensure that their rights are upheld.
