The Slow Death of Special Education – The Atlantic

Report on Federal Oversight of Special Education and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

Recent administrative actions have significantly reduced federal oversight of special education services in the United States, impacting over 8 million children with disabilities. These developments represent a substantial challenge to the principles of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions). The dismantling of federal monitoring and funding mechanisms threatens to reverse decades of progress and create profound inequities in educational access and quality based on geography.

Erosion of Federal Oversight and Conflict with SDG 4: Quality Education

The federal government’s commitment to ensuring equitable education for children with disabilities is being undermined through a series of administrative changes. These actions directly contravene the objectives of SDG 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all.

• Institutional Weakening: The Department of Education has moved to reduce staffing at the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), the primary body for federal oversight.
• Funding Reductions: Millions of dollars in grants designated for teacher training and parental support for students with disabilities have been canceled.
• Restructuring of Services: Efforts are underway to transfer special education services to other government departments, fragmenting oversight and accountability.

These measures jeopardize the achievement of SDG Target 4.5, which calls for equal access to all levels of education for persons with disabilities, and SDG Target 4.a, which promotes the development of inclusive and effective learning environments.

Historical Context: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

The current framework for special education is rooted in landmark legislation designed to uphold the civil rights of students with disabilities.

1. Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975): This law mandated a free, appropriate public education for all children with disabilities, promoting their inclusion in mainstream classrooms. It was a foundational step toward fulfilling the principles now enshrined in SDG 4.
2. Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA): Reauthorized in 1990, IDEA reaffirmed the nation’s commitment to this goal. It functions as both a declaration of rights and a financial partnership among federal, state, and local governments.
3. Constitutional Basis: While not explicit in the Constitution, the right to an equitable education is supported by the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection of the laws,” aligning with the non-discriminatory principles of the SDGs.

Funding Deficiencies and the Impact on SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

A persistent failure to meet funding commitments has exacerbated inequalities, a direct challenge to SDG 10, which seeks to reduce inequality within and among countries.

• Original Promise vs. Reality: Congress initially authorized federal funding to cover up to 40% of the average per-pupil expenditure for special education.
• Chronic Underfunding: The federal contribution has never approached the authorized maximum. After peaking at 18% from 2004-2006, the federal share fell to 10.9% last year.
• Growing Demand: The number of students served by IDEA has increased by 17% in the last decade, placing greater strain on insufficient resources and widening the gap between the support students need and what they receive.

This funding gap disproportionately affects students with disabilities, undermining SDG Target 10.3, which aims to ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome by eliminating discriminatory policies and practices.

State-Level Disparities and a Challenge to SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The withdrawal of federal oversight weakens the institutional mechanisms necessary for ensuring justice and accountability, a core component of SDG 16. This leads to an inconsistent application of law, where a child’s access to education is determined by their state of residence.

• Inconsistent Compliance: Annual performance reports show that more states are “needing assistance” in complying with IDEA than are “meeting requirements.”
• Case Study: Texas: The state was found to have implemented a policy that illegally capped the identification of students for special education services, denying support to thousands. While the state was required to submit a corrective action plan, the dismantling of OSEP removes the capacity for continued federal monitoring to ensure compliance.
• The Consequence of Weak Institutions: Without effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at the federal level (SDG Target 16.6), there are no “sanctions with teeth” to enforce the law. This leaves parents with little recourse and allows disparities to deepen, as seen in the contrasting educational experiences of children with similar disabilities in Texas versus Ohio.

Conclusion: A Setback for Civil Rights and Sustainable Development

The reduction of federal oversight and funding for special education is not merely an administrative shift but a fundamental challenge to the civil rights of students with disabilities. It directly undermines the global commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals by weakening institutional safeguards (SDG 16), increasing inequality (SDG 10), and compromising the promise of an inclusive and quality education for all (SDG 4). Without a robust federal role, the legal right to an education is replaced by a lottery of geography, abandoning the principle of equal opportunity for the nation’s most vulnerable students.

Analysis of the Article in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

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

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  The article’s central theme is the provision of education for children with disabilities. It discusses the history, funding, and federal oversight of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), which mandates free public education for these children. The challenges to this act, such as funding cuts and reduced oversight, directly impact the quality and accessibility of education for a vulnerable group.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article highlights significant inequalities in educational access and outcomes. It contrasts the situation of children with disabilities with their non-disabled peers and underscores the growing disparity in the quality of special education between different states (e.g., Texas vs. Ohio). The weakening of federal oversight is predicted to worsen this “uneven, state-by-state patchwork,” denying equal opportunity based on disability and geographic location.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article examines the role and effectiveness of government institutions and laws. It details how the legislative branch (Congress) has failed to fully fund the IDEA law and how the executive branch (the Department of Education) is dismantling the oversight body (Office of Special Education Programs). This erosion of institutional capacity and the failure to enforce a non-discriminatory law like IDEA are central to the problems described, relating directly to the goal of having effective, accountable institutions that uphold justice and civil rights.

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

• SDG 4: Quality Education
  • Target 4.5: “By 2030, 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 entire article is focused on the struggle to provide equal access to education for children with disabilities, a key vulnerable group mentioned in this target. The historical context, from a time when only “one in five” children with disabilities were educated to the current challenges, directly relates to this goal.
  • Target 4.a: “Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.” The article implies this target by discussing the need for “well-trained teachers, support staff, and the educational equipment needed” to provide an appropriate education. The debate over inclusive classrooms (like Louisa’s in Ohio) versus segregated ones (like Ellie’s in Texas) is about creating effective and inclusive learning environments.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
  • Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… disability…” The article’s core argument is that providing a proper education through IDEA is essential for the social and future economic inclusion of children with disabilities. Denying them this education, as the article warns, prevents them from having “preparation for a prosperous future.”
  • Target 10.3: “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices…” The article discusses IDEA as a law designed to ensure equal opportunity. It highlights how the lack of funding and oversight leads to practices that create inequalities of outcome, where a child’s education and future are determined by “chance” and the state they live in, rather than by law.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
  • Target 16.6: “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.” The article critiques the weakening of the Department of Education and the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). The firing of staff and cancellation of grants are described as actions that make these institutions less effective and accountable, leaving “no way to continue monitoring compliance in Texas or in any other state.”
  • Target 16.b: “Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.” IDEA is a non-discriminatory law. The article’s main point is that this law is not being properly enforced due to a lack of federal funding and oversight. The story of Texas imposing a limit on identifying students for special education is a clear example of a policy that violates the spirit of this target, which federal institutions are now less equipped to prevent.

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

• For Target 4.5 (Equal access for persons with disabilities):
  • Indicator: Percentage of students with disabilities served by public schools. The article provides data points for this: “In 1970, only one in five children with disabilities were educated in America’s public schools,” compared to today, where “15 percent of public-school students are served by the law.”
  • Indicator: Proportion of students with disabilities educated in inclusive versus segregated classrooms. This is implied through the contrasting stories of Ellie, who is in a segregated “functional academics” classroom, and Louisa, who “has learned beside peers with and without disabilities since preschool.”
• For Target 10.3 (Ensure equal opportunity):
  • Indicator: Federal funding for IDEA as a percentage of the average per-pupil expenditure. The article provides specific figures that can be tracked over time: the original authorization was for up to 40%, the peak contribution was 18% (2004-2006), and the level last year was 10.9%.
• For Target 16.6 (Effective and accountable institutions):
  • Indicator: Number of states meeting federal requirements for IDEA. The article mentions that in the most recent annual performance report, “more states were labeled ‘needing assistance’ in following IDEA… than were ‘meeting requirements.'” This serves as a direct measure of state compliance and federal oversight effectiveness.
  • Indicator: Staffing levels at federal oversight bodies. The article points to the attempt to fire “nearly every staff member left at the Office of Special Education Programs” as a measure of the institution’s declining capacity.

4. SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Table

Source: theatlantic.com