Federal Legislation & News
in Special Education
CT: Special ed lawyers offer critique of Federal Scholarship Tax Credit
CT Mirror
Federal education policy cast a long shadow at the annual Special Education Equity for Kids in Connecticut conference Friday. The event’s two keynote speakers, attorney Matt Cohen of Chicago and University of Connecticut professor Preston Green III, spoke in grave terms to a packed house at Wesleyan University about the danger they believe the Trump administration poses to public education — and, by extension, special education. “As public education goes, guess what? Special education goes, too,” Cohen told the audience. Topping their list of threats: the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit, which turns federal dollars into scholarships for students. Those scholarships can cover a wide range of expenses — private school tuition, for example, or afterschool tutoring — but only if a state’s governor opts in. Gov. Ned Lamont has not yet indicated whether he will. His Republican opponent, Ryan Fazio, has called the program a “win-win.” Proponents of school choice, and particularly of private school voucher programs, tend to support the FSTC, which brings federal dollars into what has until now been a state-by-state effort. Conversely, leaders with the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents and the state’s teachers’ unions have been critical of the program. They argue the scholarships lack oversight, exacerbate inequality and will likely prompt cuts to other federal education programs.
Now, prominent special education advocates — including attorneys parents hire to spar with teachers and school administrators over Individualized Education Programs — are joining the latter in agreement.
Special education disputes continue to rise
K-12 Dive
The number of special education state complaints has continued its year-over-year climb nationwide, jumping 7% between the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years alone, according to an analysis released this month by the Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education, a federally funded technical assistance center. Between 2014 and 2024, the tally skyrocketed by 113%. Formally called “written state complaints,” they often trigger state-led investigations into special education-related concerns brought forward by anyone. Some 10,610 written state complaints were filed during the 2024-25 school year, up from 9,927 the year before. Just three states — Texas, Massachusetts and California — accounted for 26% of the nation’s written state complaints in 2024-25. CADRE’s analysis is based on data collected by the U.S. Department of Education and also from data CADRE collected directly from states.
COPAA urges the Third Circuit to reverse the decision of the federal court
COPAA filed an amicus brief in the Third Circuit in DM v. WATCHUNG HILLS REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION. The brief urges the court to reverse the decision of the United States District Court.
COPAA Amicus Committee Co-chair Catherine Merino Reisman and COPAA Legal Director Selene Almazan wrote the brief. COPAA member, David Giles, represents the family.
D.G.M. is a young man with a mild intellectual disability who, by his senior year of high school, had held two jobs he found and secured on his own, served as an elected officer of a youth leadership organization, managed his school’s basketball team for three years, and set a goal of attending college and working in sports management, physical education, or coaching. For his post-senior year, the District proposed an IEP that placed him in two special classes—a Career Academics Class and a Structured Learning Experience of entry-level work sampling at local retailers—and that contained not a single goal for either one. The District Court held that this omission caused no substantive harm to D.G.M. and did not impede his parents’ participation, because his parents attended the IEP meeting and voiced their concerns.
First, for a student in the last years of IDEA eligibility, transition is not a peripheral component of the IEP. Transition is the point of the document. Congress declared that IDEA exists to prepare children with disabilities “for further education, employment, and independent living,” 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A), defined transition services as a “results-oriented process” built on “the individual child’s needs, taking into account the child’s strengths, preferences, and interests,” id. § 1401(34), and required every IEP from age sixteen forward to contain “appropriate measurable postsecondary goals” and the transition services needed to reach them, id. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII). Measurable annual goals are the mechanism that connects those postsecondary goals to the services the district will actually deliver.
In this case the transition program is the student’s entire educational program, an IEP with no goals for it cannot be “reasonably calculated to enable [the] child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances,” Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 399 (2017), because there is no progress the IEP is calculated toward. Second, IDEA’s guarantee of parental participation is a guarantee of participation in “the decisionmaking process,” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii)(II), not merely of attendance at a meeting. Parents cannot meaningfully decide whether to accept, contest, or supplement a program whose aims and content the IEP does not disclose and that the district’s own staff could not describe. An IEP with no goals for the program leaves parents nothing to monitor for the entire year.
Third, the stakes are concrete. National longitudinal data show that young adults with intellectual disabilities enroll in postsecondary education and obtain employment at rates far below their peers, and that postsecondary education is associated with markedly better employment and earnings outcomes. Congress has responded by emphasizing ambitious, individualized transition planning for exactly these students. A rule that excuses an IEP with no goals for a student’s transition year, so long as district witnesses later testify that the program would have provided some benefit, would undercut that design and the Endrew F. standard alike. The judgment should be reversed.
Special Education Disputes Are Increasing: What CADRE’s Latest Data Tell Us About IDEA Dispute Resolution
SPED LAW BLOG by David Bateman
The Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE) has released its October 2026 report, Trends in Dispute Resolution Under the IDEA: 2024–25 (SY 2024). Drawing on data released by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in September 2026, the report provides an important examination of how parents, school districts, and states are resolving disagreements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The central finding is clear: Special education dispute resolution activity is increasing, although the patterns differ significantly depending on the dispute resolution process being used. CADRE documents substantial increases in written state complaints and mediation requests, while also identifying an important statistical change in New York that dramatically affected national due process complaint totals
Award-Winning Film Documents Resilience After Institutionalization and Harmful Use of Electric Shock Therapy
In early October, the renowned Heartland Film Festival awarded The Fish Don’t Care When It Rains three major prizes including the Documentary Grand Prize, Documentary Audience Choice Award, and the Richard D. Propes Social Impact Documentary Award. Documenting the life of artist Jen Msumba –who spent years inside the Judge Rotenberg Center where painful electric shocks were used for punishment and behavior control– the film is a powerful documentary that highlights how Jen survived, got out, and fought back. Telling her story through testimony, music and art, Jen’s account of institutionalization exposes systemic failures while celebrating resilience, creativity, hope, and justice. COPAA sponsored the film and is pleased to offer members access to the accessible trailer where you can also learn how to view the film. COPAA remains steadfast in our opposition to the use of electrical stimulation devices which the Judge Rotenberg Center continues to use. We also advocate for passage of the Keeping All Students Safe Act (HR 6617/S.3448) which would prohibit the use of aversive behavioral interventions in K-12 schools
Nearly 1 In 5 Public School Students Have IEPs or 504 Plans
Disability Scoop
A growing number of students in the nation’s schools have disabilities, new data shows, and they are more likely to experience restraint, seclusion and other discipline. Students with disabilities account for 19% of the nearly 50 million children in public schools across the country, according to the U.S. Department of Education’s most recent civil rights data collection. Some 15% are served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act while another 4% receive services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Her son has serious disabilities. She believes she’s the best person to teach him
US News
“You can’t hit me, Will. You know that,” Katherine Walter says to her 11-year-old son, deflecting a swat. “Why?” William asks, half-heartedly pushing his chest into his mother’s open hands. “You are in the red zone,” she says. “I need you to take it back to the green. What can I do to help you?” A few hours later, Will is curled up in his favorite chair, listening to his mother read. It takes skill and patience to teach Will, who has autism and a neurological disorder that makes it difficult to speak. The Walters say they no longer trust their school system to educate him without restraining him. Katherine Walter teaches him herself.
America’s public education system offers some of the world’s best services and protections for students with disabilities, guaranteed by federal law. But more parents like the Walters are abandoning their rights to those services. They say public schools are failing their kids and they’re better off teaching them at home
How new federal guidance on disability could impact K-12 special education
Education Week
New federal guidance that deemphasizes ensuring adults with disabilities can live in their communities could have trickle-down effects for public schools, researchers say. The U.S. Department of Justice issued guidance this summer stating it will not rely on the landmark Olmstead v. L.C. case of 1999 when enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act. Olmstead has for decades required that states eliminate unnecessary segregation of people with disabilities and ensure they receive services in “the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.” It also serves as the backbone of students’ individualized education programs by requiring transition plans that teach students with disabilities 16 and older independent living skills—like managing bills or cooking for themselves. Now, researchers and advocates warn the new DOJ guidance could send a signal to schools that transition planning is no longer a priority because independent living is not a long-term goal for adults with disabilities
Data Shows Students with Disabilities Face More Discipline, Less STEM Access
The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Education has released A First Look: The Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) for 2023-2024. In its first summary analysis of the most recent CRDC, OCR reports that for the 2023-2024 school year, 49.7 million school-age children were enrolled in public schools. Fifteen percent of these students qualified for services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and 4 percent qualified under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (504). Although IDEA-eligible students represent 15 percent of the school-age population, the CRDC shows these students account for 23 percent of those mechanically restrained, 68 percent of those secluded, and 73 percent of those physically restrained. High school students with disabilities also remain significantly underrepresented in accessing computer science (6 percent) and advanced mathematics (6 percent); and, just 5 percent are accessing dual enrollment or dual credit programs in high school. The CRDC is conducted biennially to obtain data related to public schools’ requirement to provide equal educational opportunity. The mandatory survey gathers information from all public schools serving students in preschool through 12th grade and includes topics such as enrollment/student characteristics, school climate, teachers, courses and school programs. OCR explains that it uses the data “to enforce civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, and disability.” For the 2023-24 school year, the CRDC includes data from more than 17,000 school districts and 97,000 schools nationwide.
How students are being treated at America’s public schools
NPR
Every couple of years, we learn about how students are being treated across every public school in the country. Now, it comes from a U.S. Department of Education survey called the Civil Rights Data Collection. NPR’s Jonaki Mehta has been in touch with experts who have started wrapping their heads around the latest data about the 2023-24 school year.
Black students and kids with disabilities are some of the most likely to face suspensions, and that has been a pattern for a long time. But in the 2023 to ’24 school year, it got worse.
I talked to Dan Losen of the National Center for Youth Law. He studies school discipline, and he likes to think about suspensions in the number of school days lost. About a decade ago, he says students missed 11 million days of school in a year because of suspensions, and now that’s risen to 14 million days. And Black students lost over four times as many days of school than their white peers, and students with disabilities made up nearly a third of students who were suspended out of school. And Losen works with districts across the country and says he’s found that most kids get kicked out of school for what he calls minor offenses.
Here’s where RFK Jr.’s Head Start deregulation would hit hardest
Education Week
Advocates say the proposed changes to Head Start regulations could result in negative consequences for children with disabilities—both diagnosed and undiagnosed. Currently, Head Start must administer developmental screenings within 45 days of a child enrolling in the program. If the results indicate that a child has a developmental delay or is at risk for one, Head Start staff must connect the family with appropriate resources. The Trump administration’s proposed policy changes would eliminate this requirement. Similarly, the proposed changes would no longer require Head Start programs to reserve 10% of enrollment spots for children with disabilities or to actively seek to fill these spots from children in their respective communities. Head Start’s current standards prohibit expelling children due to their behavior. Proposed federal changes would eliminate that standard. This change would likely be disproportionately harmful to children with disabilities, either diagnosed or undiagnosed
Treasury Proposes Regulations for Federal K-12 Tax Credit Program
Last Thursday, the U.S. Treasury Department (Treasury) issued proposed regulations for the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit that was placed into federal law through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (HR 1) in 2025 and is schedule to take effect in 2027. Since the law’s passage, States have been in the process of determining whether to participate in the new program with 30 States currently opting in. States have until January 1, 2027 to decide and States must opt into the federal education tax credit program each year. The regulations were issued last week in two forms: 1) as an Interim Final Rule (IFR) for 2027; and 2) as a proposed Rule for future years. While the IFR and Rule mirror each other in substance, the IFR -intended to immediately support State planning- takes effect as issued; while the Rule supports longer-term implementation. Treasury could change either in response to public comments which are due on December 1, 2026.
The Federal education tax credit allows individual taxpayers to redirect up to $1,700 of federal tax liability to scholarship-granting organizations (SGOs), which may provide K-12 vouchers to children in families with incomes up to 300 percent of the area median gross income. The IFR and proposed Rule re-establish the purpose of the new tax credit according to the HR 1 and include key definitions and a framework for States to implement the program through approved SGOs. As part of the requirements, the regulation dictates how Governors need to compile the list of SGOs that will be authorized to provide vouchers in their State—and includes prohibitions against States imposing or adding additional oversight, reporting requirements, accountability measures, civil rights protections or other restrictions on SGOs. Additionally, SGOs will not be required to monitor student outcomes, and participating schools will not be held to standards comparable to those that apply to public schools. The regulations include a “safe harbor” for “special needs” students in low-income areas; however, except for household income, no detail is provided regarding how a school would “select” the qualifying child(ren) or the types of services that would qualify for reimbursement. Treasury requested input on the safe harbor provisions. The regulations also explain how taxpayers can get the tax credit, including the clarification that joint taxpayer households may each claim the $1,700 credit, for a total of $3400 per household. COPAA is reviewing the Rule and plans to make informed comments by the December 1 deadline. COPAA also joined civil rights and disability partners last week in a joint letter urging Governors [who have not yet opted in] to reject participation in the Federal tax credit program. To read more about COPAA’s work regarding the impacts of voucher programs on the education and civil rights of students with disabilities, see the 2026 report, Private School Choice Programs: Is There a Seat for Students with Disabilities?
Bipartisan Resolution Reaffirms Olmstead Integration Mandates
On September 30, U.S. Representatives Debbie Dingell (D-MI), and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) introduced a bipartisan resolution (HR 1586) marking the 27th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision, Olmstead v. L.C., which recognized the unjustified institutional isolation of people with disabilities as discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and to reaffirm the right of people with disabilities to live in their homes and communities. Cosponsors also supporting the resolution upon introduction included Representatives Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA), Mike Lawler (R-NY), Lateefah Simon (D-CA), and Tom Kean (R-NJ).
Unions Reach Settlement with Federal Government Over Mass Layoffs
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and other unions have reached a settlement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) over the Administration’s mass firing of federal employees during the 2025 government shutdown. Earlier, a federal judge had blocked the layoffs and ordered the reinstatement of employees, including vast swaths of U.S. Department of Education staff. Under the settlement, the litigation will be paused, federal agencies will be notified that the policy authorizing layoffs during government shutdowns has been withdrawn, and agencies must remove provisions allowing shutdown-related reductions in force (RIFs) from their shutdown plans. An agency seeking to restore such authority for a future shutdown must provide 30 days’ notice
CADRE Releases New Dispute Resolution Annual Data
The Center for Alternative Dispute Resolution in Education (CADRE) has released its annual National DR Data Dashboard, which provides users the ability to access and compare national and state DR data from 2004 to the present. This latest update is based on data released by OSEP in August 2026 for the SY 2024-25 data. COPAA is still in the process of reviewing and analyzing the data and will provide additional interpretation soon. In the interim, you can click here to visit CADRE’s data dashboard.