Federal Legislation & News
in Special Education
Trump declares change to federal oversight for students with disabilities
Chalkbeat
A big change for kids with disabilities is underway, Trump says. Critics say it’s against the law. President Donald Trump made a brief announcement Friday morning of a policy that could upend how the nation serves its 7.5 million students with disabilities. Offering virtually no details, Trump said he’d decided that the Department of Health and Human Services would handle students’ “special needs” instead of the Education Department. “Rather complex,” Trump said in the Oval Office. “I think that will work out very well.” But many legal experts and advocates for children with disabilities say the president does not have the authority to move funding or oversight of special education to another agency. That would require an act of Congress, they say.
Denise Marshall, the CEO of the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, said that her members oppose moving special education to Health and Human Services. “That department does not have the expertise or the knowledge, not only about what the law requires but about best practices, about what works, and about ensuring that students with disabilities learn to read and write and do math and graduate at higher percentages,” she said.
What to know about the future of special education without the Education Department
Here & Now
A special education leader under the George W. Bush administration says the dismantling of the Department of Education will impact students with disabilities. Stephanie Smith Lee now serves as policy and advocacy co-director at the National Down Syndrome Congress, a nonprofit organization that helps families understand what’s at stake for a federal law that Congress established in 1975. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act has helped people like Lee’s late daughter, Laura, go to college. “I and other parents have experienced challenges with the schools and other things, but we went from a situation where, when Laura was born, we were encouraged to institutionalize her – to her going to college,” Lee said. “So, in 50 years, we’ve gone from institutionalization to an institute of higher education.”
Trump-voting states have more to lose if Education Department dismantled
Axios
President Trump’s campaign promise to dismantle the Department of Education could prove more costly for red states than blue. Why it matters: Funding for public schools primarily falls to local and state governments, but federal funds work to fill the gaps. States that voted for Trump last November, on average, use more federal funding in their education apportions than states that voted for former Vice President Harris. “That dependence is, in large part, because they’re just lower wealth states, and they don’t have the same capacity to step in and make up that difference,” Kevin Welner, the director of the National Education Policy Center, told Axios. State of play: Average federal spending in the 2021-22 school year was 17% in Trump-voting states compared to 11% in states that voted for Harris.
NCYL and COPAA File Federal Lawsuit Against ED for Failing to Investigate Civil Rights Complaints
The National Center for Youth Law (NCYL) and the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA) filed a federal lawsuit yesterday on behalf of students and families across the country that seeks to reverse the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights’ (OCR) recent decision to effectively stop investigating civil rights complaints.
“Failing to investigate civil rights complaints is a betrayal of students and families across the country, all of whom deserve justice,” said Shakti Belway, NCYL’s Executive Director. “To abandon thousands of claims, while our schools are seeing increased bullying, harassment, and discrimination, not only goes against the very mission of the Department of Education, it sends a chilling message that schools don’t need to foster an environment in which every student is safe and welcome. This only undermines student safety, while emboldening those who may not have students’ best interests at heart.”
The lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Washington, D.C., on behalf of two parents who have pending claims with the OCR as well as the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA). It asks the judge to order OCR to continue conducting civil rights investigations, as required by law, and for OCR to provide periodic updates to the court about its efforts to process and investigate civil rights complaints.
“Secretary McMahon and the Department must be held accountable for harmful actions taken to obstruct families’ access to OCR’s complaint investigation process when discrimination is alleged on the basis of race, sex and the intersection with disability,” stated COPAA’s legal director and co-counsel, Selene Almazan. “It is intolerable that the Administration has taken actions against a backdrop of unveiled hostility towards students of color, LGBTQI+ students and whose race and gender intersect with disability. These nefarious moves jeopardize student safety and may block their access to education programs in schools where they have a right to learn and thrive.”
The lawsuit details how OCR is perverting its core function of supporting all students who face discrimination and/or harassment by pausing investigations into discrimination on the basis of race and sex and intersectional discrimination; incapacitating OCR by gutting its staff; and obstructing families’ access to OCR’s complaint and investigation process. The suit comes in the same week Secretary McMahon laid off hundreds of OCR staff, and provided no information or apparent plan for how student and family rights will be protected. The combination of these actions affect children and disrupt the entire ecosystem designed to provide the evidence base, technical assistance and enforcement needed to assure every child learns. As explained in the lawsuit, OCR’s actions violate the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and the federal Administrative Procedure Act.
As a result of OCR’s actions, students and families are now denied the basic opportunity to have their discrimination claims heard and investigated. Families with pending complaints have been left in the dark as requests for information or status updates about their cases aren’t answered. OCR has barred its employees from communicating with students, families and schools, meaning that all currently scheduled meetings and mediations have been canceled. This is happening at a time when OCR is receiving an unprecedented number of discrimination complaints each year. Students and families rely on OCR when their local schools or districts are unhelpful or are the perpetrators of discrimination.
COPAA opposes the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (ED)
COPAA opposes the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Doing so poses a serious threat to public education. As advocates, we know that these unprecedented actions will result in devastating and irreversible harm to our students, communities, and country, both in the short and long term. Without federal safeguards, students with disabilities, students of color, students from low-income backgrounds, and other underserved student populations will face increased disparities in access to a high-quality education. The following resources are from our colleagues at EdTrust.
ED provides $85 billion in crucial education investments, serving over 50 million K-12 students and more than 15 million college students nationwide. It also administers more than $100 billion annually in Pell Grants and student loans to support postsecondary access and success. Draconian cuts to federal funding and staff put all students at risk.
EdTrust has developed an advocacy toolkit with a series of resources, including:
- The #SaveOurStudents landing page – This advocacy hub has example actions, sample messaging, social media posts, and guidance on publicly discussing this issue and links out to other resources.
- The #SaveOurStudents media toolkit – This toolkit includes guides for writing press releases, letters to the editor, blogs, and op-eds and engaging media effectively.
- A series of state 1 pagers outlining the specific impact of federal funding on your state’s education system and what’s at stake for your state by losing federal education aid. The webpage also includes an interactive data tool with state-level funding data.
ED RIFs Half Its Workforce, Lawsuits Filed, Democratic Appropriators Demand Answers
On March 11th, U.S. Department of Education (ED) Secretary Linda McMahon announced a reduction of force (RIF) that affects half of the Department’s workforce, moving from 4,133 workers to 2,183. Those impacted will be placed on administrative leave beginning on March 21st. Significant cuts have been made to most of ED’s offices, including staff who oversee student loan and lending and/or who provide legal or technical support throughout ED. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) was directly impacted as regional offices in Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, New York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco were permanently closed. Challenging the legality of the move, the National Center for Youth Law and parents led by COPAA have filed a class action lawsuit claiming that decimating OCR will leave it unable to address issues of discrimination at school which is unlawful under the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment. Also, 21 Attorneys General (AG) joined in a lawsuit arguing that the Administration cannot dismantle Congressionally created departments, and that the ED cannot adequately perform statutory requirements with drastic reduction in workforce; and this week, Sens. Murray (D-WA) and Baldwin (D-WI) and Rep. DeLauro – leading Democratic appropriators wrote to Secretary McMahon and the acting director of Institute of Education Sciences about the RIF and their ability to implement the laws, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
President Trump Signs Federal Funding Bill, Details for IDEA Programs Left Blank
After an agonizing week in Congress, on Friday, President Trump signed a Fiscal Year 2025 (FY 2025) continuing resolution (CR) into law that funds the government at essentially FY 2024 levels through September 30, 2025. Missing from the CR –and what kept most House and Senate Democrats from supporting it- are spending details (known as line-item spending) for the budget’s largest federally funded programs, including education programs such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Specifically for IDEA, while the CR includes a total of $15.467 billion (which is the same overall total provided in FY 2024), what is missing are the detailed line items indicating how much of that overall total Congress is including for Part B (grants to states, school-age children); Part B 619 (preschool), Part C (infants and toddlers); and Part D (technical assistance, state personnel, parent training, personnel preparation, media and technology etc.). Also missing are details for other education programs and offices such as for the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). The crucial issues with this CR -both politically and practically- are the precedent this sets in appropriations, and that without line-item spending details, the Trump Administration is now free to maneuver funds as they wish.
Within the Department of Education, this flexibility gives the Secretary the ability to level fund, to cut, or [even possibly] to eliminate funds. While technically, it would require an act of Congress to eliminate funding for any of IDEA’s parts, and it would be politically very risky to touch Part B or Part C given that states and agencies rely upon funding to provide services and supports to millions of children and youth with disabilities, the Part D programs are vulnerable. Despite having bipartisan support from Congress for decades, Part D focuses on providing resources and investments in students that this Administration does not seem keen to support including: special education personnel preparation and training by states; special education research to practice initiatives -to support making classrooms, books, materials and technology accessible, inclusive of, and available to students with disabilities-; and, providing training to parents on accessing equitable education programs through IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. In fact, every state has at least one federally funded parent training and information center that is funded out of Part D. Given the heightened need for all of IDEA’s resources, COPAA is monitoring this very closely especially due to the recent decisions made by the Administration to ignore statutory requirements, cancel grants and contracts, fire personnel, close regional offices, and eliminate supports essential to protecting student civil rights and preserving the education ecosystem
House Committee Holds School Choice Hearing
On Tuesday, March 12, the House Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education convened a hearing titled “Education Without Limits: Exploring the Benefits of School Choice.” Subcommittee Chairman Kevin Kiley (R-CA) expressed concern over the declining math and reading scores highlighted in the National Assessment of Educational Progress “despite increased spending.” He advocated for school choice as a means to enhance the education system, emphasizing charter schools and private school vouchers as viable options for federal support. Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) supported public school choice (e.g., charter schools) but opposed the use of federal funds for private mechanisms such as vouchers, arguing that public schools cater to all children regardless of their background or income. She stressed the importance of safeguarding public education funding from “voucher scams” that divert taxpayer money to private institutions. The hearing featured witnesses who primarily discussed private school vouchers, leading to a contentious partisan debate that heavily featured a back-and-forth regarding how both sides view educational access as it relates to students with disabilities and low-income children. COPAA is closely monitoring the school choice debate and does not support the use of public federal education funds for federal school choice programs.
Parents sue Ed. Dept. over Civil Rights Office layoffs and delays
Education Week
Parents whose discrimination complaints have gone unresolved and have been further delayed are suing the U.S. Department of Education over its mass layoffs, which cut deeply into the agency’s civil rights investigation arm. The lawsuit—filed in federal court in Washington on Friday by two parents and The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, which advocates for students with disabilities—argues that the dismissal of nearly half of the agency’s staff has “decimated” the Education Department’s office for civil rights, “leaving students and families with little chance of their complaints being processed and investigated and sabotaging OCR’s ability to fulfill its statutory and regulatory mandate to enforce civil rights laws in schools.” The parents are asking a judge to find the Education Department’s actions unlawful, and for the department to “restore the investigation and processing capacity of OCR” and process complaints quickly and equitably.
Will U.S. Education Department staff cuts limit options for kids with disabilities?
The Dallas Morning News
For parents of kids with disabilities, advocating for their child can be complicated, time-consuming — and expensive. Changes at the U.S. Education Department are likely to make the process even more difficult, advocates for kids with disabilities say. When a parent believes their child is not receiving proper services or school accommodations for a disability, they can seek remedies from their district. They can file complaints with their state, arguing the child’s rights have been taken away without due process of law, or even pursue litigation in state or federal courts. Those processes often involve multiple sessions with hearing officers who are not required to be experts in disability law. Legal fees can cost tens of thousands of dollars for a single case. Legal aid and other advocacy organizations that can provide free assistance often have more demand for their services than they can meet. Filing a complaint with the Education Department has long been an option for families who can’t afford a lawyer.
States sue over 504 plan law protecting disabled students: What to know
USA Today
In a recent joint status report, the Republican state attorneys general, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. clarified they don’t want to see the law entirely overturned or declared unconstitutional “on its face” – but they are concerned about the way the law is enforced. Despite the new development in the case, some disability experts say the lawsuit poses a serious threat to the federal disabilities law and the outcome of the case could still lead to the law getting overturned. Shira Wakschlag, a senior director of legal advocacy and general counsel of a national nonprofit organization that serves people with intellectual and developmental disabilities called The Arc, says the lawsuit is “still very much alive” because it has not been amended or withdrawn. The original lawsuit stating Section 504 is “unconstitutional” is what’s before the judge in the case – sparking worry, she said.
Students with disabilities struggle to get an education that meets their needs
NPR
Students with disabilities have a legal right to a public education that meets their needs. It’s an issue so important to families that U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon vowed at her confirmation hearings to preserve that right and the funding that comes with it even as she works to close the Education Department. And as Nebraska Public Media’s Jolie Peal reports, even with that funding, making certain their child gets the right schooling takes hard work for many parents. PEAL: Selene Almazan is the legal director for the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, an organization that works to protect the legal rights of students with disabilities. She points to one part of the process that can be especially intimidating for families – the meetings where families and school staff map out what services a student is entitled to. ALMAZAN: Parent education is crucial for parents to understand that they are an equal member of the team, even though the dynamics and the way that it’s set up, it doesn’t necessarily make you feel like you’re a member of the team.
Department of Education cuts expected to have ‘huge impacts’ on teachers
KNEB-AM 960 AM
Following the Department of Education’s gutting of nearly 50% of its workforce Tuesday evening, educators have expressed deep concern — not only for students’ futures but for their own as well. Tara Kini, chief of policy and programs at the Learning Policy Institute, told ABC News on Friday the job cuts will have “huge impacts” on teachers. She pointed to the loss of federal money that previously funded teacher training programs as particularly devastating, especially for programs for teachers of special needs, marginalized, and multilingual students. “The fact that those grants will be able to go out the door means that we’re going to have fewer teachers trained, particularly for high-need subject areas where there are shortages all over the country,” she said. “We will lose counselors, social workers, behavior specialists — people who ensure safety and stability for students who need it most,” Robert Castleberry, a fifth-grade teacher in Kansas and the American Federation of Teachers’ Kansas secretary, said in a statement to ABC News.
COPAA Files Amicus Brief in U.S. Supreme Court Urging the End of the Uniquely High Intent Standard in Disability Discrimination Claims Brought by Schoolchildren
Last week, COPAA and 11 other advocacy groups filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in the case A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, arguing that the Court should reverse the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in this case and end the imposition of a uniquely high and burdensome standard that schoolchildren must meet to prove disability discrimination. You can read the amicus brief here.
At the center of this case is the “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard applied by several circuit courts of appeals to claims brought under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by families of students with disabilities. This very high standard appears nowhere in the actual text of either the ADA or Section 504. However, since its decision in the 1982 case Monahan v. Nebraska, the Eighth Circuit has required families to prove that school districts acted with intent—specifically, bad faith or gross misjudgment—in discriminating against IDEA-eligible students. This very high standard does not apply to claims brought by plaintiffs alleging disability discrimination in any other context; it applies only to schoolchildren.
COPAA and its fellow amici establish in the amicus brief that “under the appropriate standard—the standard applicable to everyone outside the K-12 school setting,” countless schoolchildren alleging disability discrimination “would have been compensated for the harms caused by the discrimination that Section 504 and the ADA seek to remedy.”
Joining COPAA on the brief are The Arc of the United States, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Children’s Law Center, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Education Law Center, Learning Rights Law Center, Minnesota Legal Aid, National Center for Youth Law, National Disability Rights Network, National Health Law Project, and the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.
The amicus brief was written by Brian Wolfman (Counsel of Record) and Regina Wang of the Georgetown Law Appellate Courts Immersion Clinic and COPAA Legal Director Selene Almazan. COPAA member Amy J. Goetz, founder of the School Law Center in Minnesota, represents the family in this case, which will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court by Roman Martinez of Latham & Watkins, LLP.
COPAA Files Amicus Brief in the Ninth Circuit Highlighting the Importance of the “Knew or Should Have Known” Standard in the IDEA’s Statute of Limitations
Last week, COPAA submitted an amicus brief to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit supporting the family of a child with dyslexia in T.M.J. v. Vallejo City Unified School District. COPAA’s brief urged the Ninth Circuit to reverse the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, which applied a rigid view of the statute of limitations for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) cases. You can read the amicus brief here.
The IDEA’s statute of limitations requires that a party request a due process hearing within two years of the date when the party “knew or should have known about the alleged action that forms the basis of the complaint….” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(C).
COPAA emphasized in its brief that the IDEA’s child find obligation applies to school districts, not to parents, and that the district court improperly shifted the obligation to parents, “who often have no knowledge of IDEA procedures or their accompanying rights.” This approach is particularly inappropriate with respect to T.M.J., who has dyslexia, which has complex diagnostic criteria that can be difficult for parents to understand. COPAA noted that the district court’s restrictive interpretation of the “Knew or Should Have Known” standard for the IDEA’s statute of limitations will lead to well-resourced students being granted IDEA protections, while lower income students—particularly those with disabilities that are difficult to detect—will not have those same protections.
The amicus brief was written by Jacob T. Randolph (Counsel of Record), Eric D. Vandevelde, Kiernan Panish, Swathi Sreerangarajan, and Kamia Williams of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP; and by COPAA Legal Director Selene Almazan.