Breaking Up Collaboration in Special Ed Programs

In The Politics of Autism, I write about social services, special education, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).  The original name of the legislation was the Education for All Handicapped Children Act.

Project 2025 proposed to turn IDEA into a "no strings" block grant, effectively gutting the law and destroying protections that disability families have long relied upon. During the 2024 race, Trump denied any connection to the project, but now he proclaims it, praising OMB director Russ Vought "of Project 2025 fame."

Trump and Vought are now accomplishing their goal of ravaging the law. Instead of shifting it to a block grant, they have tried firing most of the staff who enforce it. 

Coordination has always been a problem for disability programs.  These changes will make it worse.

 Mackenzie Wilkes at Politico:

Education Secretary Linda McMahon has already launched plans to transfer her department’s elementary, technical and international programs to other agencies. So far, she hasn’t moved to offload the special education programs, which are required by a 50-year-old federal law. But officials have declined to rule out transferring them in the future. That worries advocates who say the move could undermine the federal government’s ability to guarantee children with disabilities get the education they are legally entitled to receive.

“While everything isn’t perfect, and many families still struggle to obtain what their children need, we’ve made huge progress in the last 50 years, and we can’t allow the clock to be turned back,” said Stephanie Smith Lee, who served as director of the Office of Special Education Programs under former President George W. Bush.

...

But states would still be responsible for following the law even if they can’t get as much help from a special education office that moves to another agency that lacks expertise or has to operate with fewer employees.

“Individualized education plans aren’t going away, so the impact on students and local schools is not going to be felt today or tomorrow, but this is going to be a definite eroding of our entire system of special education,” said Smith Lee, policy and advocacy co-director at the National Down Syndrome Congress.

And siloing off the special education office from the Office of Civil Rights, which investigates discrimination complaints, and from the agency’s K-12 offices, whose administration was moved to the Labor Department as part of the new plans, could dampen coordination. Smith Lee said it’s taken years to get the department’s K-12 offices focused on general education and the department’s special education offices to work together.

“This is breaking up the collaboration that has taken decades to achieve,” Smith Lee said.

Suit to Save IDEA

In The Politics of Autism, I write about social services, special education, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 

Project 2025 proposed to turn IDEA into a "no strings" block grant, effectively gutting the law and destroying protections that disability families have long relied upon. During the 2024 race, Trump denied any connection to the project, but now he proclaims it, praising OMB director Russ Vought "of Project 2025 fame."

Trump and Vought are now accomplishing their goal of ravaging the law. Instead of shifting it to a block grant, they have tried firing most of the staff who enforce it. 

A release from the Arc of the United States:

The Arc of the United States has joined a major lawsuit challenging federal actions to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. The case, Somerville Public Schools et al v. Trump et al, argues that because the Department was created by Congress, it cannot be restructured or eliminated without Congressional approval. The lawsuit also asserts that recent mass layoffs and other efforts to stop the Department’s work have stripped away essential protections for students with disabilities.

At the center of the case is a question with national impact: What happens to students with disabilities when the very offices that support them and protect their education rights are gone?

Since early 2025, thousands of Department employees have been laid off, including nearly all staff in the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) and the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). These offices are the backbone of federal enforcement for disability education laws. They:

• Ensure schools follow the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
• Distribute education funding to states and schools
• Investigate discrimination complaints
• Fund research on effective teaching strategies
• Support training and retention of special educators
• Coordinate transition services that help youth with disabilities prepare for employment and independent living

The absence of these offices threatens to unravel decades of progress toward equal educational opportunity.

The Arc joined this lawsuit as a plaintiff to help ensure the Department remains fully functional, open, and accountable to students with disabilities and their families. 

What Is the Somerville v. Trump Case About and Why Did The Arc Join It?

In March 2025, nearly half of the Department of Education’s 4,133 employees were fired, including many responsible for implementing and enforcing federal disability education laws.

A coalition of educators, school districts, and unions filed a lawsuit soon after to stop the mass layoffs and dismantling of the Department. In April 2025, The Arc filed a declaration in support of the lawsuit, explaining how these changes would harm students with disabilities and their families.

In May 2025, a district court judge issued an injunction temporarily stopping the mass firings and dismantling. Two months later, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the firings and efforts to dismantle the Department of Education to continue while the case proceeds in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

In October 2025, the situation worsened when nearly all remaining staff in the OSERS were laid off during the government shutdown, leaving only a few employees to oversee the nation’s special education and vocational rehabilitation systems. These layoffs were reversed in mid-November as part of a deal to end the shutdown.

The Arc joined the lawsuit as a plaintiff on November 25, 2025.

Why Is the U.S. Department of Education So Important for Students with Disabilities?

The Department of Education plays a central role in protecting the rights of students with disabilities and ensuring that schools have the tools and guidance to meet students’ needs.

The Department’s core responsibilities include:

• The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) implements and oversees federal laws like IDEA and Section 504, ensuring that every child receives a free and appropriate public education.
• The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) provides teacher training, technical assistance, and guidance to help schools support students with disabilities.
• The Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) helps youth with disabilities transition from school to work and community life.
• The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) investigates disability discrimination in schools under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504, as well as other statutes, allowing families to resolve legal issues without going to court.

When these offices lose staff and resources, families lose access to the federal safety net that ensures their children can learn, participate, and thrive.

How Could Dismantling the Department of Education Affect Students with Disabilities?

Weakening or eliminating the Department of Education will make it harder for students with disabilities to receive the education they are guaranteed under federal law. These cuts could reduce enforcement of disability rights, slow the distribution of IDEA funding, and limit training and guidance that schools and teachers rely on to support their students.

The impact is deeply personal. It affects whether:

• A child with Down syndrome receives the therapies outlined in their Individualized Education Program (IEP)
• A teenager with autism has access to vocational and transition services
• A parent can challenge a school’s failure to provide necessary accommodations

For many, the Department of Education has been the last line of defense against discrimination and neglect. Without it, families face inconsistent state standards, longer wait times, and fewer options for resolving disputes.
What Is The Arc’s Role in Protecting Special Education and Disability Rights?

The Arc joined this lawsuit to defend the rights of students with disabilities to a free, appropriate public education guaranteed by federal law. The Arc’s involvement ensures that the voices of families and people with disabilities are represented as the case moves forward.

This action builds on The Arc’s long history of advancing educational rights through litigation and advocacy. In 1971, The Arc of Pennsylvania brought PARC v. Pennsylvania, the landmark case that established the constitutional right to a public education for children with intellectual disabilities. That decision paved the way for IDEA and the modern Department of Education.

Today, The Arc continues to advocate through the courts and with partners nationwide to ensure every student with a disability has the opportunity to learn, grow, and belong in their community.

Learn More About the Department of Education Lawsuit and Disability Rights

• Somerville Public Schools et al v. Trump et al
• Declaration of Katy Neas, CEO of The Arc
• Supreme Court Clears Path for Dismantling of Education Department, Putting Students with Disabilities in Harm’s Way
• Education Policy Advocacy

Written by Shira Wakschlag, Senior Executive Officer of Legal Advocacy and General Counsel, and Katy Neas, Chief Executive Officer of The Arc of the United States. Both are available for media interviews.

AI and IEP

In The Politics of Autism, I write about social services, special education, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 

Ariana Aboulafia at the Center for Democracy and Technology:

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools is becoming more commonplace, including the use of generative AI models to develop individualized education programs (IEPs) for disabled students. A recent poll from the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) found that 57% of teachers reported using AI to develop an IEP or 504 plan during the 2024-2025 school year — an 18 point increase from the previous school year. But there are legal concerns with using these tools, including compliance with student privacy laws (like the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)) and disability rights laws (like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)).

This brief provides background information on how AI plays a role in IEP development, highlighting the importance of ensuring that IEPs are properly individualized and accurate for disabled students. It analyzes the benefits and legal risks of using AI in IEP development, and discusses other concerns including accuracy and bias. Finally, it provides recommendations for teachers, school and education administrators, disabled community members, and tool developers, notably:

• Teachers should be mindful of whether their school has an agreement with a particular AI tool vendor — if not, teachers should not input any personally identifiable information into AI tools, and should exercise caution around use in general.
• Schools and school districts should engage in proactive communication to students and parents regarding use of AI tools in IEP development; provide trainings to teachers; create policies for the use of AI tools in IEP development that includes a requirement for human oversight; and consult compliance offices regarding any legal risks of using AI in the IEP development process, including risks under IDEA and FERPA.
• Disability community members should raise awareness to others in the community on the use of AI tools in the IEP development process, educate themselves and others on their rights under statutes like IDEA and FERPA, and take advantage of opportunities to voice concerns over the uses of these tools, including at school board meetings.
• Developers should conduct pre-and-post deployment audits of their tools, prioritize privacy, create policies that prohibit their models from soliciting personally identifiable information from users, ensure disabled people are included in their development process, and be transparent about their data practices.

By incorporating these recommendations, stakeholders can work together to ensure that any use of AI tools in the IEP development process is done in ways that are legally compliant, privacy protective, and respectful of the rights and needs of disabled students.

Read the full report.

IEP Settlements and Inequality

In The Politics of Autism, I write about social services, special education and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.  Inequality is a big part of the story. 

Maddie Hanna at The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that Pennsylvania schools districts have spent millions to settle special education disputes.

To get a settlement with a school district over special education, first a child has to be identified by the district as requiring services — with an individualized education plan spelling out how the school will meet the student’s needs.

If parents disagree with what a district offers, they can take legal action by filing a due process complaint.

That can trigger formal hearings, which result in public decisions issued by hearing officers. But the vast majority of complaints are resolved through privately negotiated settlements.

As a result, most disputes around special education are happening out of the public eye, with little known about parents’ allegations or what districts are paying out.

“It’s something almost no one knows anything systematic, objective, and complete about,” said Perry Zirkel, a professor emeritus of education and law at Lehigh University.

In the Philadelphia collar counties, where special education-focused law firms have proliferated, lawyers say affluent parents, who know their rights and have the means to hire attorneys, are more likely to sue than poor ones.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act — the 1975 federal law entitling students to special education services — has never been fully funded by Congress, leaving schools vulnerable to litigation when they’re strapped to deliver the “free appropriate public education” the law requires, [Attorney Andrew] Faust said.

The IDEA is a “very much a rich-get-richer, poor-get-poorer statute,” Faust said, because unlike other civil rights laws, it relies on parents, not the government, to enforce it. [As my book notes, IDEA is not a civil rights law at all, but a "conditions of aid"law.]

IEPs in the Age of Trump

 In The Politics of Autism, I discuss the issue's role in campaign politics.   In the 2016 campaign, a number of posts discussed Trump's bad record on disability issues more generally.   As his words and actions have shown, he despises Americans with disabilities.   

Project 2025 proposes to turn IDEA into a "no strings" block grant, effectively gutting the law and destroying protections that disability families have long relied upon.

Watch to see if the Trump budget proposes such change.  Meanwhile, it is doing its best to weaken implementation of IDEA.

Kayla Jimenez at  USA TODAY

Special education experts are now warning that families' paths to accessing a working IEP for their children could get worse with the Trump administration's attempts to dismantle the Education Department. That agency has enforced the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a federal law guaranteeing students with disabilities the right to a "free and appropriate public education" for decades.

The Trump administration recently slashed $900 million in education-related research contracts and more than $600 million in educator preparation grants. Both cuts will affect students with disabilities, experts say.

President Donald Trump has said federal protections for the millions of students with disabilities across the United States "will be fully preserved" and transferred to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

...

Rich Weinfeld and his team of consultants at The Weinfeld Education Group work with parents of families with IEPs to help them advocate for their kids at their schools. They often encourage parents to seek data from the Education Department's research arm.

The Institute of Education Sciences has historically researched and collected nationwide data on what interventions work for students with specific disabilities at specific ages and learning levels.

That could range from how a student with dyslexia should be taught to how much homework and what type of social skills instruction a student with autism should be assigned

"In terms of medicine, we would think about which medicine is proven to work with what specific diagnosis and how often and with what dosage should that medication be given," he said. "We look at the data about which interventions are proven to work, and how often and under what circumstances should that intervention be given. We can all agree kids should have an intervention, but without evidence based data, we may not be able to agree which interventions should be used and how often it should be provided."

The Trump administration recently laid off essentially the entire staff at the Institute of Education Sciences, effectively gutting its ability to conduct further research on students with disabilities.

A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools

In The Politics of Autism, I write about social services, special education and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 

 Julia Metraux at Mother Jones:

Minnesota teenager Ava T. lives with seizures that predominate in the morning, preventing her from attending school safely before noon. When her suburban Minneapolis school district refused to update her individualized education plan—a disability accommodation guaranteed by federal law—to allow at-home evening instruction to compensate, Ava and her parents sued in 2021.

A district court sided with Ava and her family—her last name is withheld—ruling in 2022 that the school district had violated her rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. But separate complaints say that the district had breached Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which include extensive disability rights provisions. In five of the 13 federal circuit courts, including the Eighth Circuit, which covers Minnesota, families suing schools under Section 504 and the ADA have to prove “bad faith or gross misjudgment,” a standard the Eighth Circuit said Ava’s case did not meet—despite acknowledging that the family “may have established a genuine dispute about whether the district was negligent or even deliberately indifferent.”

The Supreme Court agreed to hear Ava’s case, A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, in January. Its ruling will decide whether that tougher standard—bad faith is notoriously hard to prove—applies nationwide under Section 504 and the ADA when suing schools. A ruling against Ava and her family could be a major setback for student disability rights enforcement and an equally major boon for the Trump administration’s plan to gut the Department of Education at the expense of disabled kids

New California Laws

In The Politics of Autism, I discuss services for people with disabilities.

A release from the Governor of California:

Governor Gavin Newsom signed a package of legislation today to make California more accessible and inclusive to all people with disabilities and strengthen California’s nation-leading commitment to support people with intellectual and developmental disabilities so they can live and thrive in their communities.

“When we say ‘California for ALL,’ we mean every single person in this state should be able to thrive – and that includes those with physical, intellectual, and developmental disabilities. I’m proud to continue our historic actions to protect vulnerable students, improve statewide supports, and strengthen future opportunities for the disabled community.”

Governor Gavin Newsom

Bigger picture

The bills signed by the Governor build on six years of actions to make the California dream more accessible to people with disabilities. Scores of investments and reforms will improve dyslexia detections, support special education services, and increase access to higher education, housing options, health care affordability, home care and community day services, public safety practices, civil rights protections, and more.

A priority of the Newsom administration has been supporting the 400,000 Californians with intellectual and developmental disabilities, such as Down Syndrome and autism. A Master Plan for Developmental Services was announced in January to engage the public in modernizing the system for better outcomes for all; public meetings continue in October and a framework will be released in March 2025. This week, the first Comprehensive Dashboard on people served and services provided was unveiled by the Department of Developmental Services. On January 1, 2025, rates paid to service providers will increase and the first quality incentive program will begin. This is the culmination of nearly $2 billion invested in provider rates by the Newsom administration and Legislature since 2022 in response to a landmark rate reform study in 2019.

What the new laws do

Create Historic Transparency, Accountability, and Equity in Support Services for People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: The State’s regional centers that provide support services to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities will now be subject to the Public Records Act. This change will increase public transparency, accountability for outcomes, and equity of services in all communities. California’s service system is funded with approximately $15 billion annually to support 400,000 people with Down Syndrome, autism, and other developmental disabilities in their homes, schools, jobs, and communities.

The state will also begin to review and update biannually the provider rate reform study, beginning in 2025. The updated rate model will be posted on the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) website.

Max Benson’s Law to Protect Vulnerable Students’ Safety and Rights: Prone restraint is a technique that physically or mechanically restrains students in a face down position — one of the most dangerous forms of emergency interventions, which has resulted in severe injuries and even fatalities among students. This new law protects students by prohibiting its use in ALL California schools.

Jumpstarts Career Pathways for All: Students with disabilities who have an Individualized Education Program (IEP) will start planning for their post-secondary goals no later than age 16, and possibly as early as they begin high school– up to two years earlier than current law. One in 8 California students have an IEP and will have greater access to higher education and to work opportunities with planning that begins as early in the high school career as deemed appropriate by the student’s IEP team.

Additional legislation signed today to support the disability community and a more inclusive California for All:

SB 445 by Senator Anthony Portantino (D-Glendale) – Special education: standardized individualized education program template: translation.

SB 483 by Senator Dave Cortese (D-Campbell) – Pupil rights: prone restraint.

SB 939 by Senator Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana) – Educational equity: school site and community resources: neurodivergent pupils.

SB 1001 by Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Oakland) – Death penalty: intellectually disabled persons.

SB 1197 by Senator Marie Alvarado-Gil (R-Modesto) – In-home respite services for families caring for children with an intellectual or developmental disability, including foster families.

AB 438 by Assemblymember Blanca Rubio (D-West Covina) – Pupils with exceptional needs: individualized education programs: postsecondary goals and transition services.

AB 1147 by Assemblymember Dawn Addis (D-San Luis Obispo) – Disability Equity, Transparency, and Accountability Act of 2024.

AB 1938 by Assemblymember James Gallagher (R-Chico) – Special education: inclusion and universal design for learning.

AB 2423 by Assemblymember Devon Mathis (R-Visalia) – Developmental services: rates.

AB 2821 by Assemblymember Tim Grayson (D-Concord) – Postsecondary education: students with disabilities.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in IEP Case

In The Politics of Autism, I write about individualized education programs (IEPs):

These meetings can turn nasty, and many autism parents have “IEP horror stories.”  One parent told me that she tried to ease tensions by bringing cookies to the meeting.  The principal then shouted to his staff, “Nobody touch those cookies!”  Another parent writes of asking for a sensory diet, a personalized activity plan that helps the student stay focused (e.g., low noise levels for those with a sensitivity to sound).  “After just proclaiming she is extremely knowledgeable about Asperger’s Syndrome, from the mouth of a school psychologist after we suggested our son needed a sensory diet. `Our cafeteria does not have the ability to provide this.’”

 Lauren Sforza at The Hill:

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from a father about whether he had the right to video record meetings with school officials about his son’s special education program.

The nation’s highest court turned down the appeal from Scott Pitta, a father of a son with special needs, who wanted to video record a meeting between himself and officials in the school district of Bridgewater, Mass., about his son’s Individual Education Program (IEP).

An IEP is a document that details what services a student with disabilities needs to receive to meet their educational goals. The petition notes that schools are required to consult with parents about a student’s IEP under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Pitta informed school officials he would be video recording meetings with them about his son’s IEP after he realized that the minutes taken on previous meetings were “incomplete,” according to the petition.

The issue arose after school officials said that his son no longer required an IEP, which Pitta disagreed with, according to the petition. In a Sept. 20, 2022, meeting with officials, Pitta requested that the session be recorded “because he did not trust that the Respondents’ own minutes would accurately reflect the relevant statements.”

Case on Recording IEPs

In The Politics of Autism, I write about individualized education programs (IEPs):

These meetings can turn nasty, and many autism parents have “IEP horror stories.”  One parent told me that she tried to ease tensions by bringing cookies to the meeting.  The principal then shouted to his staff, “Nobody touch those cookies!”  Another parent writes of asking for a sensory diet, a personalized activity plan that helps the student stay focused (e.g., low noise levels for those with a sensitivity to sound).  “After just proclaiming she is extremely knowledgeable about Asperger’s Syndrome, from the mouth of a school psychologist after we suggested our son needed a sensory diet. `Our cafeteria does not have the ability to provide this.’”

From the Liberty Justice Center:

On May 3, the Liberty Justice Center filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Pitta v. Medeiros, a case about the types of speech and expressive activity protected under the First Amendment.

Beginning in the spring of 2022, parents Scott and Roxanne Pitta attended a series of virtual meetings with employees at their local public school about their child’s individualized educational program (IEP). After multiple meetings where the Pittas alleged that school employees omitted parts of the discussion from the official minutes, the family asked to video record a September meeting to preserve an accurate account of the discussion about their child’s IEP. The school refused their request and ended the meeting. In April 2024, the Pittas sued the district for violating their First Amendment rights, arguing that they have a constitutional right to record government officials performing their duties.

A federal appeals court ruled that the First Amendment only entitles private citizens to record public officials who are performing their duties in an “indisputably public place” and when the recording would serve the public interest. Based on that ruling, the Pittas’ verbal request to record an online-only meeting that they attended in their own home was illegal.

The Pittas are now petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case.

The Liberty Justice Center’s amicus brief urges the Supreme Court to hear the case and reverse the lower court’s decision. The brief argues that recording a public official performing their duties qualifies as expressive activity protected by the First Amendment—and serves the interest of public transparency—regardless of whether it takes place in a public area or on private property.

“This case implicates the First Amendment, government transparency, and parents’ rights in education—three vital reasons for the Court to hear the case,” said James McQuaid, Staff Attorney at the Liberty Justice Center.

The Liberty Justice Center’s amicus brief in Pitta v. Medeiros is available here.

AI and IEPs

In The Politics of Autism, I write about individualized education programs (IEPs):

These meetings can turn nasty, and many autism parents have “IEP horror stories.”  One parent told me that she tried to ease tensions by bringing cookies to the meeting.  The principal then shouted to his staff, “Nobody touch those cookies!”  Another parent writes of asking for a sensory diet, a personalized activity plan that helps the student stay focused (e.g., low noise levels for those with a sensitivity to sound).  “After just proclaiming she is extremely knowledgeable about Asperger’s Syndrome, from the mouth of a school psychologist after we suggested our son needed a sensory diet. `Our cafeteria does not have the ability to provide this.’” 

Maybe AI can help.

Rakap, S., Balikci, S. Enhancing IEP Goal Development for Preschoolers with Autism: A Preliminary Study on ChatGPT Integration. J Autism Dev Disord (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-024-06343-0.  Abstract:

Purpose

The impact of well-crafted IEP goals on student outcomes is well-documented, but creating high-quality goals can be a challenging task for many special education teachers. This study aims to investigate potential effectiveness of using ChatGPT, an AI technology, in supporting development of high-quality, individualized IEP goals for preschool children with autism.

Methods

Thirty special education teachers working with preschool children with autism were randomly assigned to either the ChatGPT or control groups. Both groups received written guidelines on how to write SMART IEP goals, but only the ChatGPT group was given handout on how to use ChatGPT during IEP goal writing process. Quality of IEP goals written by the two groups was compared using a two-sample t-test, and categorization of goals by developmental domains was reported using frequency counts.

Results

Results indicate that using ChatGPT significantly improved the quality of IEP goals developed by special education teachers compared to those who did not use the technology. Teachers in the ChatGPT group had a higher proportion of goals targeting communication, social skills, motor/sensory, and self-care skills, while teachers in the control group had a higher proportion of goals targeting preacademic skills and behaviors.

Conclusion

The potential of ChatGPT as an effective tool for supporting special education teachers in developing high-quality IEP goals suggests promising implications for improving outcomes for preschool children with autism. Its integration may offer valuable assistance in tailoring individualized goals to meet the diverse needs of students in special education settings.

Transition Planning and College

 In The Politics of Autism, I discuss the growing number of college students on the autism spectrum. 

Wei, Xin & Wagner, Mary & Hudson, Laura & Yu, Jennifer & Javitz, Harold. (2015). The Effect of Transition Planning Participation and Goal-Setting on College Enrollment Among Youth With Autism Spectrum Disorders. Remedial and Special Education. 37. 10.1177/0741932515581495. 

This study used propensity score techniques to assess the relationship between transition planning participation and goal-setting and college enrollment among youth with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Using data from Waves 1 through 5 of the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2, this study found that 2- or 4-year college enrollment rates were significantly higher among youth with ASDs who participated in transition planning and those who had a primary transition goal of college enrollment. Educational implications are discussed.

From the article:

Transition planning begun early in high school provides the context within which students with disabilities can articulate their post–high school goals and work with parents, school staff, and others to chart a course toward them. The transition plan itself is required by law to specify the transition services needed to assist students in achieving their goals (IDEA Partnership, 2004). This study suggests that participation in transition planning is a valuable opportunity to intervene to improve postsecondary education outcomes for secondary school students with ASDs. However, there is a marked contrast between the large percentage of youth with ASDs who expect to attend a postsecondary institution (84.40%) and the low percentage who have postsecondary education goals included in the transition plan (24.20%; Bhandari & Wagner, 2006; Wagner et al., 2007). This emphasizes the urgent need to effectively engage youth in the transition planning process so that their interests and desires are reflected in their plans. This study finds that specifying a primary goal related to college attendance in transition plans also can effectively boost the odds of attending college by 564% (OR = 6.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.89, 29.16]) for youth with ASDs in the population as shown in Table 3.

Postsecondary education benefits youth with disabilities by increasing their potential to become self-reliant, tax-paying, and civically engaged citizens. Over the last decade, there has been an expansion of opportunities in higher education for individuals with disabilities and of their full inclusion in the college classroom. There are reports that as many as 200 college and university programs across the country actively support students with disabilities in their academic programs, career development, and campus life (Blalock, 2014; Grigal & Hart, 2010). One of the founding concepts of “inclusive postsecondary education” is to embed individuals with disabilities, particularly those with intellectual disabilities, within normative pathways to the maximum extent possible (Uditsky & Hughson, 2012). Similar to students without disabilities, educators should explore college as a viable option with youth and parents and begin to prepare students with ASDs for college at the start of the transition planning process. Based on a partnership between educators and a youth’s family, studentfocused planning should enable student participation in decision making and goal-setting, particularly if the student expresses goals related to postsecondary education. The process should support high school coursework based on students’ goals and interests, self-evaluation of their progress in meeting their goals, and development of selfdetermination and other skills to achieve goals (Kohler, 1993, 1996, 1998; Kohler & Field, 2003)

 

Think Differently

 In The Politics of Autism, I discuss the congressional role in the issue.

I have an article at The Forum: "Disability Policy in the Contemporary Congress." Abstract:

The politics of disability policy in the contemporary Congress confirms the observation by James Curry and Frances Lee that lawmaking largely remains a process of bipartisan accommodation. Most major disability legislation since the 1970s has passed with bipartisan sponsorship and support. One reason is that the issue affects so many Americans, including members of Congress. There have been some exceptions to this bipartisan pattern, particularly when disability policy intersects with more contentious issues. And bipartisanship does not guarantee outcomes that are satisfactory to people with disabilities.

The latest example of largely-unheraled bipartisan work. 

A September 14 release from Rep. Marc Molinaro:

 U.S. Rep. Marc Molinaro (R-NY-19) today announced the Think DIFFERENTLY About Education Act was voted out of the House Committee on Education & Workforce and will advance to the House Floor. Rep. Molinaro introduced this bipartisan bill alongside U.S. Reps. Tony Cárdenas (D-CA-29), Anthony D’Esposito (R-NY-04), and Mike Lawler (R-NY-17). This bill builds on Rep. Molinaro’s ‘ThinkDIFFERENTLY’ initiative to provide resources to individuals with disabilities and their families.  

In an annual IEP meeting, school staff and parents of a child with a disability meet to develop an educational plan for the student. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, parents have the right to bring a third-party advocate, such as a therapist, lawyer, or knowledgeable family member, to these meetings. However, most parents are not aware of this right. The Think DIFFERENTLY About Education Act requires K-12 schools to inform parents of their right to bring an advocate to individualized education program (IEP) meetings. 

...

Denise Marshall, CEO of The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates said, "The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA) thanks Representative Molinaro for his leadership on behalf of students with disabilities through introduction and mark-up of The Think Differently About Education Act. This bill would require districts to inform parents of their existing right to bring any individual into a child's Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting where key decisions are made that impact the child's education. We look forward to continuing to work with Rep. Molinaro in promoting and protecting the rights of children with disabilities."

IEPs and Transition Planning

 Uncertainty is a major theme of The Politics of Autism.  In the concluding section, I write:

A key question in autism policy evaluation is simple to pose, hard to answer: How do autistic people benefit? How much better off are they as a result of government action? While there are studies of the short-term impact of various therapies, there is surprisingly little research about the long term, which is really what autistic people and their families care about. As we saw in chapter 4, few studies have focused on the educational attainment of autistic youths. For instance, we do not know much about what happens to them in high school, apart from the kinds of classes that they take. One study searched the autism literature from 1950 through 2011 and found just 13 rigorous peer reviewed studies evaluating psychosocial interventions for autistic adults. The effects of were largely positive, though the main finding of the review is that there is a need for further development and evaluation of treatments for adults.

Pediatrics 

JUNE 22 2023

Individualized Education Programs and Transition Planning for Adolescents With Autism 

Michelle M. Hughes, PhD; Anne V. Kirby, PhD; John Davis, PhD; Deborah A. Bilder, MD; Mary Patrick, MPH; Maya Lopez, MD; Leann S. DaWalt, PhD; Elise T. Pas, PhD; Amanda V. Bakian, PhD; Kelly A. Shaw, PhD; Monica DiRienzo, MA; Allison Hudson, BS; Yvette D. Schwenk, MS; Thaer M. Baroud, MHSA; Anita Washington, MPH; Matthew J. Maenner, PhD

OBJECTIVES:

The study objectives were to examine the contents of individualized education programs (IEPs) of adolescents with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), including postsecondary transition goals, services, and changes in special education classification over time.

METHODS:

This study involved a longitudinal population-based surveillance cohort from the Autism Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network from 2002 to 2018 in 3 catchment areas in the United States. The sample included 322 adolescents who were born in 2002, identified with ASD, and had an IEP available for review at ages 15–16 years. 

RESULTS:

We found that 297 (92%) adolescents with ASD had an IEP including a transition plan. Those without intellectual disability (ID) were more likely to have postsecondary education and employment goals and have those goals be to pursue higher education or competitive employment compared with those with ID. Forty-one percent of adolescents with ASD had a postsecondary living arrangement goal. Although 28% of adolescents with ASD received school-based mental health services, none of these adolescents were Black; additionally, 15% of those with ID received mental health services compared with 34% without ID. The percentage of adolescents with ASD served under an autism classification increased from 44% at age 8 years to 62% by age 16.
CONCLUSIONS:

We identified gaps and disparities in school-based postsecondary transition planning. Working with education partners, families, and adolescents will be important to identify what challenges contribute to these findings and what supports are needed to improve the equity and quality of the transition planning process for adolescents with ASD so they are prepared for adulthood.

Special Ed, Head Start, and COVID

In The Politics of Autism, I write about special education and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. II also discuss the day-to-day challenges facing autistic people and their families. Those challenges get far more intense during disasters.  And coronavirus is proving to be the biggest disaster of all. 

A letter from Valerie C. Williams,Director Office of Special Education Programs,U.S. Department of Education, and  Katie Hamm,  Acting Director Office of Head Start U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:

The Departments acknowledge that the pandemic continues to present challenges toimplementing appropriate programs and services for young children. Further, opportunities for some young children with disabilities to participate in inclusive early childhood settings have been more limited. However, OSEP and OHS want to emphasize that, notwithstanding these challenges, children with disabilities retain their rights under IDEA to receive appropriate specialeducation and related services in accordance with their individualized education programs (IEP). No IDEA requirements have been waived. However, particularly since the pandemic, both OSEP and OHS have quantitative data and other information that indicate—  

• Initial evaluations to determine eligibility of children suspected of having a disability are being delayed;
• Special education and related services included in IEPs are not being provided timely, or IEPs are not being fully implemented; and
• Educational placement decisions for children with disabilities are not being made in accordance with IDEA’s LRE requirements.

SEAs, LEAs, and Head Start programs all have responsibilities for implementing IDEA:

• SEAs are responsible for establishing and enforcing policies and procedures to ensure full implementation of child find and other IDEA requirements to ensure that FAPE is made available to all eligible children with disabilities in the State;
• LEAs are responsible for identifying, locating, and evaluating children suspected of having disabilities in a timely fashion and developing and implementing IEPs for eligible children with disabilities in accordance with the applicable IDEA requirements; and
• Head Start programs are responsible for referring children and families for IDEA evaluations as well as supporting implementation of children’s IEPs.

Pandemic and Special Education

 In The Politics of Autism, I discuss the day-to-day challenges facing autistic people and their families. Those challenges get far more intense during disasters.  And coronavirus is proving to be the biggest disaster of all. 

 At the Center for Reinventing Public Education, Lauren Morando-Rhim and  Sumeyra Ekin have a report titled "How Has the Pandemic Affected Students with Disabilities? A Review of the Evidence to Date."

What We Know 

• Many students with disabilities did not receive the same quantity or quality of specialized therapies they received before the pandemic, due to shortened school days and the challenges of remote instruction.  
• Students with disabilities experienced higher rates of absenteeism, incomplete assignments, and course failures compared to their typical peers, and the effect is more significant in mathematics than reading. 
•  Districts struggled most notably when trying to meet the needs of students who require more supports, including students with complex communication and learning disabilities. 
• The negative impacts may be especially large for the youngest and oldest students— preschoolers aged three and up, in the earliest grades, and young adults nearing the age of twenty-one, when they transition out of special education and need new, community-based supports. 
• Not all remote learning experiences were negative. Some students with disabilities, particularly those with emotional and attention issues, thrived in online environments that, when constructed with intentionality, fostered focused, individualized learning experiences. 
• Greater technological connection helped many families become more involved with their children’s schooling. The shift to remote learning prompted districts to arrange virtual and more easily accessible IEP meetings with teachers, staff, and families. It also catalyzed efforts to prepare parents to support student learning at home. 
• Initial challenges fueled the rapid development of positive, meaningful changes in service planning in some states. For example, a new California law requires all IEPs to specify how services will be provided under emergency conditions, such as when a student cannot physically attend school for more than ten consecutive days. 

What We Don’t Know 

• The true scope of the impacts of service interruptions in terms of students’ progress, including regression in basic skills among students with intensive needs, remains unclear. 
• How the pandemic has affected the social and emotional development of students with disabilities is also unknown.

Laura Stelitano, Sumeyra Ekin,  Lauren Morando Rhim, "How has the pandemic affected students with disabilities? An update on the evidence: Fall 2022"

Outcomes

• We know little about how the pandemic has impacted academic, behavioral, socialemotional and post-graduation outcomes for students with disabilities. When theiroutcomes are explored, students with disabilities are often treated as a monolith, whichlikely masks critical variation in outcomes depending on students’ intensity of special education services, race, socioeconomic status, and English learner status.
• Almost all students declined academically, but students with disabilities were especially impacted.

Experiences

• Even as many students returned to in-person learning, educators noted intensified mental health concerns for all students. Families of students with medical conditions or more significant support needs grappled with tradeoffs between in-person learning and their children’s health.
• More students who need special education services may not be getting identified, particularly young children from birth to age two.
• An untold number of families are still waiting for compensatory services to make up for what students lost earlier in the pandemic. Many are not even aware they qualify.
• The pandemic disrupted students’ transition services and progress toward traditional graduation requirements, but the implications of these disruptions for students’ postschool experiences are not yet known.
• Reliance on underqualified teachers – particularly for special education positions – may be increasing from pre-pandemic levels.
• Early analyses of how states and districts spent their Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funding raises concerns for how well-positioned schools will be to make long-term and systemic improvements to benefit students with disabilities

LAUSD Agrees to Address Special Ed Failure

 In The Politics of Autism, I discuss the day-to-day challenges facing autistic people and their families. Those challenges get far more intense during disasters.  And coronavirus is proving to be the biggest disaster of all. 

Paloma Esquivel and Melissa Gomez at LAT:

Los Angeles Unified failed to provide appropriate education to students with disabilities during the pandemic as required under federal law and must provide extra services to help some of the most vulnerable students recover from the significant voids in their learning, the U.S. Department of Education announced Thursday.

The investigation, conducted by the department’s Office for Civil Rights, confirms what many parents have alleged since schools were first closed — that they basically had to fend for themselves during distance learning as their children were left with little if any education and specialized assistance. The district has entered into a voluntary agreement with the federal department to fix its failings.

...

The investigation found that the district failed to provide services identified in students’ legally required education plans, failed to accurately or sufficiently track services, and informed staff that the district was not responsible for providing so-called “compensatory services” aimed at helping students make up for what they lost, because the district was not at fault for the campus closures.

The agreement calls for the district to offer make-up services “to remedy any educational or other deficits that result from a student with a disability not receiving the evaluations or services to which they were entitled.”

...

Attorney Valerie Vanaman, who has been critical of the district’s treatment of students with disabilities throughout the pandemic, said she was happy about the agreement but continues having concerns about the district’s ability to follow through.

“This is a nice outcome to see. It gets us partway there, " she said. “Where the rubber hits the road is ‘how will they actually implement it?’”