Federal Special Education Law Reaches 50-Year Mark Amid Administrative Changes
Fifty years ago, in November 1975, President Gerald Ford signed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. This legislation established special education as it currently exists, guaranteeing all children with disabilities the right to a free appropriate public education.
A recent letter to Congress, signed by hundreds of disability, civil rights, and education groups, stated, "rather than celebrating progress, we face a crisis." The letter further described this situation as "the dismantling of the very infrastructure Congress created to ensure children with disabilities could reach their full potential."
The Trump administration has initiated personnel reductions within the U.S. Department of Education, affecting federal staff responsible for managing and enforcing federal disability law. Education Secretary Linda McMahon has stated that federal funding for special education is not at risk. In a November op-ed for USA Today, McMahon wrote, "returning education to the states does not mean the end of federal support for education. It simply means the end of a centralized bureaucracy micromanaging what should be a state-led responsibility."
Interviews with 40 parents, educators, disability-rights advocates, subject matter experts, and Education Department staffers indicate concerns that the administration's efforts to reduce federal staff and oversight of special education could lead to a return to conditions pre-1975, when access or services for children with disabilities were sometimes denied by schools.
Impact on Families: A Case Study
Maggie Heilman's 14-year-old daughter, Brooklynn, who has Down syndrome, attends eighth grade and has an individualized special education plan under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Heilman reported a difficult period during Brooklynn's sixth grade year. In October 2023, following Brooklynn's refusal to go to a classroom reading table, the school secluded her for 20 minutes in a padded room. Heilman stated that Brooklynn's behavior and communication changed significantly after this incident.
School seclusion is permissible in many states if a student poses an immediate danger. Heilman communicated her view that Brooklynn's seclusion was excessive. Throughout the winter, the school reportedly used informal seclusion methods, leading Brooklynn to miss some traditional classes. Heilman observed a decline in her daughter's physical, mental, and emotional health.
Heilman requested Brooklynn's transfer to a different middle school, where staff confirmed they do not use seclusion. Brooklynn's situation improved. Heilman subsequently requested a state-level investigation into the prior seclusion, which did not find the district at fault. She also filed a complaint with the U.S. Education Department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
Federal System and Administrative Changes
OCR is designed to review and investigate discrimination complaints from families regarding civil rights violations based on disability in schools, without requiring families to hire legal representation. OCR has previously investigated cases involving student restraint, bullying of disabled students, and unequal school day lengths for students with disabilities.
Department records indicate OCR began investigating Heilman's complaint in October 2024. Heilman stated that her initial assigned attorney was removed due to a broad reduction-in-force by the Trump administration, and the case was reassigned. Heilman reported no updates on the investigation since June, when a second OCR attorney affirmed the case was "currently still in investigation."
Several OCR attorneys, who spoke anonymously, indicated that Heilman's second attorney worked in an OCR office that experienced significant staff reductions in October during a second round of layoffs. These employees have since been reinstated, but Heilman has not received further communication regarding her complaint. Heilman stated that the administration's actions regarding attorneys who address students' civil rights convey to families that their experiences are not prioritized.
Historical Context of Special Education
Before 1975, public school access was often denied to children with disabilities. Ed Martin, a contributor to the 1975 law, stated that these children were "invisible" and kept at home. In 1970, only 1 in 5 children with a disability were educated in U.S. public schools, with nearly 1.8 million children excluded.
Martin organized hearings for parents to share their experiences with lawmakers. The 1975 law established the principle that students with disabilities have a right to an individualized public education, with federal financial support.
Margaret Spellings, former Education Department head under President George W. Bush, stated that special education serves a public good by enabling students with abilities and disabilities to become productive citizens. In fiscal year 2024, IDEA provided nearly $15 billion for specialized instruction, speech, and physical therapy, assisting over 8 million children with disabilities in the U.S., including early intervention programs.
Two offices within the Department of Education manage and enforce federal disability laws:
- Office for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS): Includes the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), overseeing special education under IDEA.
- Office for Civil Rights (OCR): Investigates allegations of disability discrimination, often overlapping with IDEA violation complaints.
Support for these offices' missions has historically transcended political divides for 50 years, according to Spellings.
Department Staffing Reductions and Funding Outlook
Court records indicate that the Trump administration terminated 121 of 135 employees at OSERS during a government shutdown. Denise Marshall, head of the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA), questioned how the Secretary could fulfill obligations with such reduced staff. The 121 staffers have since been reinstated, though their retention beyond January 30 remains unconfirmed.
The Education Department's press office stated, "The Department has brought back staff that were impacted by the Schumer Shutdown. The Department will follow all applicable laws."
Jonathan Butcher, acting director for the Center for Education Policy at the Heritage Foundation, characterized these actions as part of a process to reduce federal involvement and transfer responsibilities to states. Heritage's Project 2025, a policy blueprint for a potential second Trump administration, proposes converting IDEA funding into a "no-strings formula block grant" directly to districts. Lindsey Burke, the author of this section, now works at the Education Department.
Secretary McMahon has assured families that funding for students with disabilities "will continue indefinitely" while federal oversight is being reduced or reallocated. An anonymous OSERS staffer expressed concern that states may lack the systems or staffing to manage these responsibilities without federal support. Ed Martin expressed concern that without sufficient staff, there is no guarantee funds will be allocated to children most in need, stating, "The administration has decided that nobody needs to watch [the money]."
Office for Civil Rights Staffing and Case Resolutions
The Trump administration also implemented significant staff reductions at the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). In March, seven of OCR's 12 regional offices were slated for closure, and 299 workers were targeted for termination, reducing the office's staff by approximately half. In October, an attempt was made to terminate an additional 137 staffers, which included significant reductions in the office investigating Heilman's complaint. This left approximately 10% of the office's January headcount.
Prior to some reversals, R. Shep Melnick, a professor of American politics at Boston College, expressed shock at the prospect of an entire statutory unit being dismantled. Employees terminated in October have since been reinstated, with their tenure beyond January 30 remaining unconfirmed. Julie Hartman, the department's press secretary for legal affairs, stated, "We are rebuilding and refocusing OCR to enable the office to protect students and enforce the law."
Even as the administration initiated staff reductions impacting OCR's enforcement attorneys, it shifted the office's enforcement focus to new priorities, including investigations into districts and colleges supporting transgender students or implementing diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Data indicates a shift in OCR's investigative focus. Since the Trump administration took office, OCR has reached resolution agreements in 73 cases involving alleged disability discrimination. This compares to 390 such resolutions in 2024 and over 1,000 in 2017. These agreements often involve districts committing to systemic improvements. Secretary McMahon's op-ed stated, "protecting students' civil rights is work that will never go away." Marshall of COPAA responded by characterizing this statement as "bullcrap" and "hollow."
Kenneth Marcus, who previously led OCR during the first Trump administration, suggested that some OCR responsibilities could potentially be transferred to other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Justice. As of now, this shift has not occurred. Marcus noted that such a shift could potentially strengthen civil rights enforcement, pending details.
Margaret Spellings stated that if the administration prioritizes high-profile political issues with diminished resources, it risks failing parents of disabled children, despite general advocacy for parents' rights.
Future Outlook
The Trump administration's stated objective is to close the U.S. Department of Education and transfer essential federal jobs and funding streams to other agencies. Secretary McMahon has made public statements critical of the department, characterizing it as "mostly a pass-through for funds that are best managed by the states."
Jacqueline Rodriguez of the National Center for Learning Disabilities stated that states often require federal support for special education, which comes from federal staff currently targeted for reduction. Rodriguez expressed concern that without this support, special education may cease to exist.
An anonymous state director of special education expressed concern regarding the concept of state-led special education without federal oversight, stating that accountability mechanisms could be lost and different state interpretations of the law could emerge. Ed Martin, a co-author of the 1975 law, emphasized that the legislation was an "affirmation of the values of the country," expressing hope that these values persist.