Carol Ann Heath, Ed.D. Uncategorized

Federal Changes to Special Education Funding Under Trump

Yes — there have been a significant number of proposed reductions, terminations, and administrative changes under President Trump that impact special education funding and supports for students with disabilities. Some are formal cuts, others are consolidations or shifts that many fear will amount to reduced support for special education.

  1. Termination of Certain IDEA Part D Grants
    • The U.S. Department of Education (USDE) terminated grants totaling over $14.8 million for special education teacher training, parent resource centers, Braille/interpreter training, deaf-blind supports, etc. napsa.com+1
    • An additional $3.5 million in grants under the Rehabilitation Services Administration were ended. napsa.com
  2. Cuts in Teacher Training Grants in California to punish the state
    • For example, $600 million in federal teacher training grants that include special education teacher training were cut or terminated in California. EdSource
    • Various SELPAs (Special Education Local Plan Areas) projected losses: e.g., $10 million in Tulare County, $4.1 million in San Diego’s South County, etc. EdSource
  3. Budget Proposals for FY 2026
    • The Trump FY 2026 proposes level‐funding for IDEA overall, but also proposes consolidating or collapsing several grant programs (Part D competitive grants, technical assistance, etc.) into the main formula grant (Part B). Learning Forward+3cecpd.exceptionalchildren.org+3K-12 Dive+3
    • Some concern that maintaining funding in name isn’t sufficient when inflation, rising costs, or structural changes reduce the real purchasing power or flexibility of the programs. Education Week+2Brookings+2
  4. Proposals to Shift Oversight or Structure
    • There’s a proposal (and concern) to move special education oversight from the Department of Education to the Department of Health and Human Services. EdSource+1
    • Also, merging or eliminating grant subcomponents under IDEA (like certain competitive grants, parent‐resource centers, etc.) so that states have more discretion but possibly less accountability. K-12 Dive+2cecpd.exceptionalchildren.org+2
  5. Cutting “Supplemental” or Discretionary Programs
    • Some discretionary grants that support special populations (deaf/blind, those needing interpreter training, etc.) have seen cancellation or have been proposed for elimination. opb+3Education Week+3napsa.com+3
    • For instance, in Oregon, some disability support / interpreting centers lost grants citing conflicts with new policy priorities. opb

What’s proposed, and what risks or concerns people have identified

  • “Flat funding” = de facto cuts: Even when the budget proposal claims to “maintain” or “level‐fund” IDEA, inflation, rising costs (e.g. staff salaries, health benefit costs, materials) mean that a fixed dollar amount is worth less over time. This erodes capacity. Education Week+1
  • Loss of oversight/accountability: If programs are consolidated or oversight shifted, there is concern that certain specific protections or supports may no longer be required, or that states may reduce services to save costs. Brookings+1
  • Impact on equity, access: Programs targeting smaller or specific disability populations (e.g. deafblind, braille, interpreter services, parent resource centers) are especially vulnerable under competitive grants. Eliminating or reducing them could disproportionately impact students who depend on them. inewsource+3Education Week+3napsa.com+3

The core IDEA Part B formula grant (for school‐age children) is being proposed to be maintained at current levels in many of the budget documents. Education Week+2cecpd.exceptionalchildren.org+2. While we don’t know what a weakened Congress will ultimately do so far, IDEA funding has remained intact in its recent appropriations . CalMatters

*Information has been obtained from ChatGPT and the web.

 

Carol Ann Heath, Ed.D. Uncategorized

How did Public Law 94-142 Come to Enact Special Education Laws

It is helpful to know how laws are named or referred to. Whenever an Act is passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, it is given a number, such as P.L. 94-142. “P.L.” stands for Public Law. The first set of numbers means the session of Congress during which the law was passed. For example, the 94 means the 94th session of the U.S. Congress. The second set of numbers identifies what number the law was in the sequence of passage and enactment during that session. Thus, the 142 means that this was the 142nd law that Congress passed and the President signed during the 94th session of Congress.

It is also important to understand that federal laws are often changed or amended regularly. Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA), has had several amendments since its passage in 1975. Laws passed by Congress provide a general legal framework of policy related to a particular issue. Once a law is passed, Congress delegates the task of developing detailed regulations to guide the law’s implementation to an administrative agency within the Executive Branch. Federal regulations are detailed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The CFR interprets the law, discusses each point of a law, and further explains it. Copies of most federal regulations are available in the public library. State agencies must comply with federal laws and regulations.

At the federal level, special education is an area in which elaborate sets of regulations exist. The regulations for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), for example, spell out the procedures and programming that must be provided to children and youth with disabilities for states to receive federal funds. States may go beyond what is required in the regulations. For example, some states have broader definitions of which children are entitled to special education and, thus, may include gifted children in their special education programming.

Carol Ann Heath, Ed.D. Children with Disabilities, Early Intervention Services, Special Education, Uncategorized

Changing Special Education

In spite of what many younger educators and parents of children with disabilities may think, special education has formally existed since post the World Wars era. Limb loss and head injury were the initial issues addressed by hospitals and adult services. Schools for the deaf and blind have existed since the 1800s. The first school for the deaf in the United States was founded in 1817 in Hartford, Connecticut. The first school for the blind was the Perkins School for the Blind, founded in 1829 in Massachusetts. Major access by a wider range of children with disabilities occurred in the mid-1900s, with public and private schools available within some communities and institutional settings. By 1960, special schools were the main strategy to provide educational services, particularly for students with significant disabilities.

In the 1970s, several states had begun to enact laws mandating educational services to all students with disabilities, 5-18 years of age. By the mid-1970s, some states had enacted requirements, three to 21 years of age but many of these students were still served in separate classrooms or special schools. Through the 1970s, some states had begun to provide classes in general education settings, with services provided within these settings, including occupational, physical, and speech therapy.

The Education for Handicapped Children Act was a Federal law passed in 1975 and required states to provide special education to all children 5 to 18 years of age nationwide through assessments of their needs and the development of individualized education programs (IEPs). The IEP detailed individual education interventions and therapies for each student with a wide range of disabilities.

In 1990, the law was reauthorized as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990. After 1990, multiple reauthorizations have been enacted by Congress. These authorized many student changes to support children with disabilities and their families, including preschool special education services. In 1986, Part H, now Part C, was enacted, authorizing services for children from birth to 3 and provided funding to states to develop programs.