How Trump’s Policies Could Affect Special Education – Education Week

Students with Disabilities and the Potential Impact of Trump Administration’s Education Policies

Students with disabilities and their families could experience significant ripple effects from the incoming Trump administration’s pledges to dramatically scale back the federal government’s role in education policy. However, experts are skeptical about the administration’s coherent and complete vision for overhauling special education.

For the last half-century, federal law has enshrined a right for students with disabilities to receive an education on par with that of their peers without disabilities. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), signed into law by President Gerald Ford in 1975, requires schools to work with staff and parents to craft individualized education programs (IEPs) for all eligible students with disabilities who need additional services and accommodations.

There’s no evidence that IEPs are at risk of being eliminated

The number of students nationwide who are protected under IDEA has doubled since its inception to roughly 7.5 million, or 15 percent of the overall K-12 population. IDEA also supplies billions of dollars for schools nationwide to support those students and establishes procedures for parents to hold schools accountable in court when they fall short of their legal obligations.

Contrary to social media claims, neither Trump nor anyone in his orbit has proposed eliminating IEPs. Lindsey Burke, the education policy director for the conservative Heritage Foundation, stated that the federal policy proposal document called Project 2025 “doesn’t touch IEPs at all” and won’t prevent school districts from maintaining them.

However, Trump and influential conservatives have published education policy proposals that could result in reduced funding for schools to support students with disabilities, fewer opportunities for parents to advocate for their children’s rights, and heightened confusion over how to ensure students with disabilities can access an appropriate education.

If Republican lawmakers execute Trump’s promises to slash the federal budget and cut spending on education, states and districts could be forced to dedicate a larger share of their budgets to the costs of serving students with disabilities, potentially impacting other crucial priorities.

The potential impacts on America’s population of people with disabilities could be far-reaching, including steeper hurdles to accessing affordable healthcare if federal Medicaid funding is slashed.

Educators are awaiting a fully formed education policy from Trump

Trump’s team has expressed a desire to shift control over K-12 schools to states and local districts. However, they also want the federal government to spend up to $10 billion a year on tax credits for a new nationwide school choice program. This could result in reduced funding for public schools to support students with disabilities.

Project 2025 proposes allowing states to divert IDEA funding meant for public schools to parents for spending on private education instead. However, private schools are not required by federal law to admit or adequately serve children with disabilities, potentially limiting the options available to parents who choose to accept that money.

Shifting Education Department functions to other agencies could also have consequences. For example, moving the Education Department’s office for civil rights to the Department of Justice could clash with the Department of Justice’s more punitive approach, potentially impacting efforts to improve special education practices.

The effects of abolishing the Education Department are up for debate

Trump’s intention to “abolish” the U.S. Department of Education has drawn a wide range of reactions. Some argue that eliminating the department wouldn’t have a significant impact, while others believe it would represent an attack on institutions that protect civil rights in education.

Even among Trump’s fellow Republicans in Congress, there may not be unanimous support for abolishing the Education Department. Lawmakers who have personal experiences or represent districts with substantial populations of students who benefit from federal K-12 programs may strongly support funding for students with disabilities.

Shifting Education Department functions to other agencies could be messy and potentially strain relationships between different agencies. It could also lead to less uniformity in interpreting regulations, as states make their own interpretations or take policy matters to the courts.

Some of the department’s lesser-known functions, such as addressing staffing shortages for special education teaching positions and supporting research studies for technologies that serve students with disabilities, could be lost if the department is abolished.

Will education actually become a focus area for Congress?

Education is one of several major areas where Trump has indicated he wants his administration to focus. However, it could easily become overshadowed by debates over tax policy and immigration.

Despite Trump’s past remarks and actions regarding people with disabilities, there is potential for productive work on federal education policy. The Biden administration has been working on updating regulations for Section 504, which protects civil rights for students with disabilities. If the Biden administration doesn’t publish its update, the Trump administration could take on that task.

Updating and revising laws such as IDEA and Section 504 is necessary to address the changing landscape of education and ensure equity for students with disabilities. However, proposals that could widen inequities, such as cutting IDEA spending or rolling back federal programs that prioritize funding and services with equity in mind, are concerning to experts.

Despite the uncertainties, many experts remain optimistic that federal support for services for students with disabilities will persist regardless of the presidential administration. They believe there is common ground in working towards the best system for children with disabilities and their families.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 4: Quality Education

The article discusses the potential impact of the Trump administration’s education policy proposals on students with disabilities and their right to receive an education on par with their peers. This aligns with SDG 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The article highlights the potential reduction in funding for schools to support students with disabilities, which could lead to increased inequalities in accessing education. This relates to SDG 10, which focuses on reducing inequalities and promoting social, economic, and political inclusion for all individuals, including those with disabilities.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The article mentions the importance of maintaining responsive, inclusive, and participatory decision-making processes in education policy. This connects to SDG 16, which aims to ensure effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Target 4.5: Eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities

The article discusses the potential impact of the Trump administration’s education policy proposals on the equal access to education for students with disabilities. This aligns with Target 4.5, which aims to eliminate gender disparities and ensure equal access to education for vulnerable groups, including persons with disabilities.

Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status

The article highlights the potential reduction in funding for schools to support students with disabilities, which could hinder their social and economic inclusion. This relates to Target 10.2, which focuses on promoting the inclusion of all individuals, regardless of their disability status, in various aspects of society.

Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels

The article mentions the importance of maintaining responsive and inclusive decision-making processes in education policy. This aligns with Target 16.7, which aims to ensure inclusive and participatory decision-making at all levels of governance.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article does not explicitly mention specific indicators. However, based on the issues discussed, the following indicators can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets:

Indicator 4.5.1: Parity indices (female/male, rural/urban, bottom/top wealth quintile and others such as disability status, indigenous peoples and conflict-affected, as data become available) for all education indicators on this list that can be disaggregated

This indicator can be used to measure progress towards Target 4.5 by assessing the gender and disability disparities in access to education and vocational training.

Indicator 10.2.1: Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income, by age, sex, and disability status

This indicator can be used to measure progress towards Target 10.2 by assessing the economic inclusion of individuals with disabilities and their access to resources and opportunities.

Indicator 16.7.1: Proportions of positions (by sex, age, disability and population groups) in public institutions (national and local legislatures, public service, and judiciary) compared to national distributions

This indicator can be used to measure progress towards Target 16.7 by assessing the representation of individuals with disabilities in decision-making positions in the education sector.

4. SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: edweek.org