In an ongoing effort to dismantle the Department of Education (DOE), the Trump administration appointed Linda McMahon, former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, as Secretary of Education. She was confirmed on February 14th. Following her appointment, Trump stated that her primary goal would be to “put herself out of a job”, reflecting the administration's attempt to eliminate the DOE as we know it.

This is deeply concerning for several reasons, particularly due to the essential protections and supports the DOE provides to all students. One of the DOE’s key responsibilities is overseeing the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), ensuring that PK-12 students with disabilities receive the necessary services to access free and appropriate public education (FAPE). McMahon has expressed that the DOE should not be responsible for enforcement, suggesting instead that other agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, take over oversight of IDEA.

Meanwhile, current investigations by the DOE and the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) have been paused. Christine Smith Olsey, for example, was in the process of filing a complaint when she received an email stating that further discussions of her son's case would be “put on hold” until further notice. Her son continues to lack the special education services he is entitled to under IDEA. Having the ability to ensure oversight and the proper implementation of services is a crucial right for parents seeking equal educational access for students with disabilities. However, the Trump administration, in addition to halting ongoing investigations, has fired over 130 employees from the DOE, including many from the OCR. This has led to a backlog of cases, leaving vulnerable students and their families in a pernicious limbo.

During his first week in office, one of Trump’s major executive orders called for an end to DEI initiatives, which included firing at least 55 Department of Education (DOE) employees. Titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” the executive order claims that institutions have “adopted and actively use dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI) or ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ (DEIA).”

Following this order, Craig Trainor, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Office for Civil Rights, issued a Dear Colleague Letter on February 14th. The letter explicitly warns that any educational institution implementing DEI practices will lose all federal funding, stating that these institutions have engaged in “pervasive and repugnant race-based preferences and other forms of racial discrimination… But under any banner, discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin is, has been, and will continue to be illegal.”

However, a district court judge in Maryland halted the Trump administration’s effortsto withhold federal funding. The judge, in his decision, stated that the definitions of what counted as equity-related programming and initiatives were too vague and that this ambiguity would lead to subjective and unfair enforcement. 

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is a federal law that protects the rights of people with disabilities to have equity of access and participation in all federally funded programs, including schools. Judy Heumann, who was known as “the mother of disabilities rights movement” fought for this law. In her memoir she talked about the Section 504 sit in and protests that “if we didn’t fight as one voice we’d never win.” Not only is Section 504 responsible for what are often called “504 Plans” in schools, as written so well in this article, “A Lawsuit Threatens the Disability Protections I’ve Known My Whole Life,” there is so much more:

• “Not only was this law written to make sure that students with disabilities, from cerebral palsy to ADHD to a temporarily broken leg, are provided the reasonable accommodations they need to participate meaningfully in their school community, but it prevents a landlord from turning someone away just because they have low vision, an employer from refusing to hire a qualified applicant solely because that person uses a wheelchair, and hospitals from declining to provide interpreters for deaf patients.”

Seventeen states have recently filed a lawsuit challenging Section 504. The suit is based on questioning the Biden administration's inclusion of gender dysphoria as a condition needing protection under the law. The suit, Texas v. Becerra, instead of focusing on debating that one area of contention, calls for the complete elimination of Section 504, deeming it unconstitutional. To be sure, without this law, it will be much easier to discriminate against people with disabilities without challenge.

For more information that you can share with families, read Understood’s article, “Does the Section 504 Lawsuit Put My Child’s 504 Plan At Risk?” One way to help protect Section 504 is to reach out to your attorney general. The bottom of this DREDF webpage provides clear and helpful instructions for how to do so.

The Department of Education (DOE) has cut over $600 million in teacher training grants, with two major programs affected: the Teacher Quality Partnership Grants and Supporting Effective Educator Development.

The Teacher Quality Partnership Grants support teacher candidates and new teachers in their school placements. At the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the Special Education Teacher Residency Program was funded by this grant. Participants took coursework toward a master’s degree in special education while working full-time alongside veteran special education teachers in Milwaukee. On February 12th, notice was given that this Teacher Residency Program would no longer receive funding.

In addition to slashing critical funding for grant programs, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), in collaboration with the DOE, also cut funding for transition programs aimed at high school-aged youth. Programs like Charting My Path for Future Success provide vital information to students and families about opportunities for students with disabilities after graduation. Many students depend on these services to navigate the end of special education supports, making them crucial to ensuring equal access to post-high school career and life opportunities for students with disabilities.

This month, Florida lawmakers introduced a bill (Senate Bill 508 and House Bill 423) aimed at increasing transparency around special education services in private schools for students with disabilities. Florida's voucher system allows parents and guardians to use public funding to pay for private schooling. The bill requires all private schools receiving these school choice vouchers to inform parents in writing about the special education services they offer.

Historically, private schools have not been required to provide specialized or related services for students with disabilities, nor are they required to inform families about the services they do offer. As a result, some parents enroll their children with disabilities only to discover that the services they received in public school are not available at the new private school.

Students with disabilities attending private schools can still receive special education services through their local public district. However, navigating this process can be complicated and burdensome for families. The bill’s authors posit that it will help create a more transparent system, making it easier for families to make informed decisions when choosing private schools for their children with disabilities.

The world of AI continues to grow, and schools are experimenting with various tools that seem to be enhancing the working and learning environments for both students and teachers. For example, teachers have found that certain AI tools, such as those for generating quiz questions, lesson planning, and providing personalized feedback, can save a lot of time.

However, there remains a lack of clarity around schools’ AI policies, especially regarding the use of these tools for schoolwork. The line between AI “doing” the work and AI “enhancing” the work is often blurry and not well-defined. This uncertainty about what constitutes appropriate AI use continues to be a challenge in K-12 schools and universities. While some level of policy implementation seems necessary, it remains unclear how many districts have established policies and what those policies actually entail.