IEPs and 504s and the Potential Impact of Dismantling the Department of Education: Separating Fact from Fear

With recent discussions about potential changes to the U.S. Department of Education, many parents and educators are questioning what could happen to Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and special education services. Here’s a deep dive into what you need to know about the possible impact on funding, oversight, and civil rights protections.

Historical Funding and Oversight: Before and After the Department of Education

How Education Was Managed Pre-1979

Before 1979, education funding and oversight were primarily managed at the state and local levels, with minimal direct federal involvement. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) directed federal funding to specific programs, like Title I. HEW administered funds and set guidelines, but states were largely responsible for program implementation and daily oversight, allowing them to adapt federal resources to local needs. 

Federal Standards and Local Administration

Even though states administered programs like Title I and later IDEA, they were—and still are—bound by federal law, meaning that states must follow certain guidelines and accountability measures set by federal legislation. These laws were created to ensure basic standards and protections across all states, regardless of local variations.

Takeaway: In a scenario where the Department of Education was dismantled, states might return to a similar model, where they manage more aspects of funding distribution and compliance independently but still under the structure of federal laws like Title I and IDEA. This would give states more flexibility in administration while maintaining a federal baseline for equity and access across the country. 

Ed Funding in North Carolina 2016-2017.

Federal Education Funding Today

Currently, the federal share of K-12 school funding has fluctuated in recent years. In the 2022 fiscal year, approximately 14% of school funding came from federal sources. However, in 2019-20, federal contributions were closer to 7.6%. These variations reflect how federal funding levels can shift due to policy changes, economic conditions, and legislation.

It’s also important to note that IDEA has never been fully funded by Congress. The federal government originally promised to cover 40% of special education costs but typically provides less than 15%. Even if the Department of Education were abolished, Congress would still need to allocate IDEA funding, and how those funds are distributed would depend on new policies.

Federal funds support essential programs like:

• Title I: For low-income students, funded under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
• IDEA: For special education services

What Would Dismantling the Department of Education Do? Research on historical precedents suggests funding pathways would likely adapt rather than disappear.

Takeaway: Funding would likely remain but could be managed differently. Schools and parents might experience changes in funding pathways rather than a reduction in funds.

The Role of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR)

Civil Rights Protections in Education

The OCR within the Department of Education enforces laws that protect students under Title IX, and Section 504.

• OCR’s Role: OCR investigates complaints, conducts compliance reviews, and works with schools to address issues when rights are not upheld.
• State Involvement: States already play a significant role in enforcing civil rights standards through local agencies and laws, often handling investigations and audits at the local level.

What Could Change if We Dismantle the Department of Education? If OCR responsibilities were transferred to another federal agency, such as the Department of Justice, federal oversight of civil rights protections would remain. However, states might assume a more prominent role in day-to-day compliance, increasing the reliance on state-level protections to address specific cases. 

Even with federal oversight shifting, a major concern is how states would be held accountable for protecting students’ rights. Historically, when states had more control before IDEA was passed, many failed to provide equal access to education for students with disabilities. That’s why federal oversight has been necessary in enforcing civil rights laws like Section 504 and IDEA.

If enforcement moves to another agency, such as the Department of Justice, complaint processes might change, and enforcement could become slower or more inconsistent across states. Parents and advocates may need to rely more on state-level processes or legal action if states fail to comply with federal mandates.

Takeaway: While federal oversight would likely continue, state-level protections and enforcement efforts would become even more critical, as states may independently manage more aspects of civil rights compliance.

Program Consistency and Access to Funding

Key Programs That Could Be Affected

Programs like Title I and IDEA, which support low-income students and students with disabilities, could shift if more responsibility is returned to the states. Historically, these programs were state-managed, and federal oversight helped establish a consistent baseline of support across states.

State Flexibility
A more state-directed approach would allow states to tailor programs to their local communities’ unique needs. This flexibility could lead to program specifics and resource allocation variations based on each state’s priorities and educational needs.

Federal Standards and Protections in Place
Federal laws like IDEA and Title I have built-in guidelines, reporting requirements, and compliance standards to promote fair and equitable use of funds. These protections would remain intact even without a central Department of Education, meaning the laws continue requiring states to meet essential standards.

What Might Change?
Without a centralized Department of Education, the role of enforcing these laws could be more state-driven, allowing for diverse approaches. While the legal protections would still be upheld, the methods and specific applications could vary from state to state, based on local priorities and resources.

One of the biggest concerns with shifting more control to states is ensuring accountability if a state fails to provide adequate special education services.

Currently, states must report compliance data to the U.S. Department of Education, and noncompliance can result in funding cuts or federal intervention. If the Department is dismantled, enforcement might depend more on parents filing lawsuits, working with state education agencies, or pushing for legislative action at the state level. This could lead to greater variations in services, depending on a state’s funding priorities and enforcement efforts.

However, one potential benefit of increased state control is that parents may have more direct access to state officials and legislators who influence education policies. Unlike federal agencies, which can feel distant or slow-moving, state education departments and lawmakers are often more responsive to local advocacy efforts. Parents who are informed and organized could have a stronger voice in shaping education policy, holding their state accountable, and ensuring funding is directed where it’s needed most.

Takeaway: Decentralized funding would empower states with greater control over educational resources, resulting in programs more reflective of local needs and priorities. While federal laws continue to guarantee protections for low-income students and students with disabilities, the application may differ by state, offering a range of customized solutions aligned with state goals and resources.

Historical Issues Leading to the Department’s Creation

• Inconsistent Support for Students with Disabilities: Before the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (now IDEA), many states had limited support systems for students with disabilities, with some children unable to attend public schools. IDEA established a national standard, ensuring that all states met certain support levels. 
• Civil Rights and Racial Equality: Key decisions like Brown v. Board of Education (1954) sought to eliminate segregation and discrimination. Federal oversight became more prominent as enforcing civil rights in education proved complex under primarily state-managed systems, leading to the creation of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). 
• Funding Inequities and Title I: The 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), including Title I funding, aimed to address disparities by directing resources to low-income schools. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) reauthorized ESEA, continuing this support with added flexibility for states but maintaining federal oversight for equitable fund distribution.

Takeaway: The Department of Education was established to address these disparities and set a consistent baseline in support of students with diverse needs. Without centralized oversight, states might adopt approaches that reflect local priorities, potentially leading to more customized but varied educational support. 

While the Department of Education was created over 40 years ago, it’s important to consider both historical context and modern protections. Unlike in the 1970s, today’s education system operates under stronger legal frameworks, including the most recent IDEA reauthorization (2004), which expanded transition services and accountability measures.

Although states may take on more responsibility in a decentralized system, they are still required to follow these modernized legal protections. However, the challenge would be ensuring states maintain adequate funding and oversight without a central federal agency managing compliance.

Changes in Today’s Educational Landscape

• Technological Advances and Expanded Educational Choices: With technological advancements, today’s educational landscape offers a variety of choices that weren’t as accessible in the past. Online learning, school choice initiatives, homeschooling, and artificial intelligence tools allow families to pursue alternatives to traditional public education. These resources can be tailored to meet specific educational needs and learning styles, offering a level of customization that was more challenging to achieve in past decades. 
• Increased Access to Data and Resources: Compared to when the Department of Education was established, states and local districts now have far greater access to data and resources, allowing them to track student progress, share best practices, and independently implement improvements. Modern technology enables real-time data sharing and communication between states, fostering a collaborative network that supports consistent educational standards and responsive program adjustments. This interconnected system means that even without federal coordination, states today are equipped to monitor and improve educational quality based on accessible and reliable information. 
• Increased State Capacity for Direct Funding and Program Management: With improvements in state budgetary practices and local revenue sources, states today have more resources and infrastructure to manage educational programs without relying as heavily on federal oversight. Local and state governments have built capacity to directly fund public schools and special programs, allowing for flexible responses to regional educational needs. This increased state capacity might reduce the necessity for federal involvement in funding distribution and program management, as states are now better equipped to address specific priorities and allocate resources based on local student populations.

Takeaway: The Department of Education initially provided a foundation for consistent standards across states. However, advancements in technology, expanded educational options, and strengthened state resources now allow for more tailored educational approaches that can directly address regional needs. Although this increased flexibility benefits diverse learning paths, a shift to state-managed oversight may lead to variations in consistency and access across different states.

Why the Department of Education Has Not Been Abolished 

Abolishing the U.S. Department of Education would require not only legislative approval but also a strategic reallocation of its responsibilities, which presents significant logistical and legal challenges. For such a move, Congress would need to pass a law through both the House and the Senate. In the Senate, a supermajority of 60 votes is generally required to overcome any filibuster and proceed to a final vote. This level of bipartisan support can be challenging to achieve, especially for a department with wide-reaching impacts on students and schools nationwide. 

Additionally, even if the Department were abolished, there would be a need for careful planning to transition its current roles and functions, such as distributing federal education funds, enforcing civil rights protections, and administering special education programs under IDEA. Typically, a transition of this scale would take multiple years to ensure that states and other federal agencies, like the Department of Justice, are prepared to take over various functions. This structured transition period would help prevent disruptions in educational services and maintain the continuity of federal protections and funding. The complex process and the need for extensive coordination are among the reasons past efforts to eliminate the Department have not succeeded. 

Historical Efforts to Abolish the U.S. Department of Education 

Since its establishment in 1979, several notable attempts have been made to dismantle the Department of Education. These efforts often emerged during periods of political and ideological shifts regarding the federal government’s role in education. Key instances include: 

• 1980s: Shortly after the Department was established, President Ronald Reagan advocated for its elimination, viewing education as primarily a state responsibility. However, despite his administration’s support, Congress did not move forward with legislation to abolish the Department.  
• 1995: With the Republican-led “Contract with America,” some members of Congress sought to reduce federal control over education, proposing to eliminate the Department. The House passed a budget that reduced funding, but it did not lead to the Department’s abolition.  
• 2010: Representative Michele Bachmann and several other conservative legislators introduced legislation to abolish the Department. While it drew media attention, the bill did not advance. 
• 2017: During the early months of the Trump administration, discussions resurfaced about reducing or eliminating the Department. Although the administration expressed interest in downsizing the federal role in education, no formal proposal to abolish the Department gained traction in Congress.  
• 2024: President-elect Donald Trump recently expressed interest in dismantling the Department of Education, aiming to transfer educational authority back to individual states. This proposal aligns with longstanding goals within some policy circles to decentralize education governance, a perspective reaching back to President Reagan’s administration. 

Historically, attempts to abolish the Department have encountered legislative and procedural challenges. Even if a proposal were to pass, a transition plan would likely be implemented to reallocate federal responsibilities to other agencies or state governments. Such a process would aim to ensure continuity in services and funding for critical education programs, potentially taking several years to complete, with adjustments to safeguard federal protections and compliance with existing laws like Title 1 and IDEA.

What Parents and Educators Need to Know

The Department of Education currently supports consistent funding, compliance, and civil rights protections across states. If responsibilities shift back to the States, here’s what to consider:

• Funding May Look Different: Programs like Title I and IDEA, established by federal law, would continue to provide support. However, states might take on greater responsibility for distributing and overseeing these funds. This may alter how resources are allocated at the local level. 
• Foundational Federal Laws Remain Binding:

  It’s important to note that foundational federal laws—such as IDEA, Title I, and Section 504—will remain intact, ensuring that core protections and access to services continue. These laws provide a legal baseline that states must uphold, regardless of federal oversight shifts. However, without direct federal enforcement, parents may need to be more proactive in holding their state accountable for compliance. State education agencies and legislators play a critical role in how these laws are implemented, making local advocacy efforts essential to maintaining strong protections and funding for students with disabilities.

• Increased State Control: Without the Department of Education, states would likely take on greater responsibility for setting and managing education standards, with agencies like the Department of Justice potentially overseeing civil rights protections under Title IX and Section 504. This model resembles pre-1979 oversight, where states guided educational policies and federal agencies focused on protecting civil rights. One potential benefit of increased state control is that local officials are often more accessible to parents and community groups, allowing for more direct influence on education policy and greater flexibility in addressing local needs. 
• Local Variability: A state-led approach could allow for more flexibility in addressing local priorities and needs, but it may also result in differences in program quality and access based on regional resources and policies.

Key Actions for Parents and Teachers

• Stay Informed: Follow changes in education policy at both the federal and state levels. 
• Know Your Rights: Familiarize yourself with federal civil rights laws like Title IX and IDEA, as they’ll still apply, though enforcement might vary. 
• Connect Locally: Engage with state and local education officials to ensure your school maintains high standards. 
• Advocate When Needed: Understanding shifting roles can help you advocate effectively for consistent funding and services. 

Stay tuned to PASEN.org and our newsletter, The Aspiring Advocate, for updates that may impact your child’s education.

Bottom Line

IEPs and 504 plans are protected rights that won’t disappear, even if administrative oversight changes. These protections are embedded in longstanding federal laws, but how they are enforced and funded could shift with changes in the Department of Education. As a parent or educator, staying informed, documenting changes, and advocating for your child will help ensure continued support.

FAQs

Q1: What would happen to my child’s IEP or 504 plan if the Department of Education is dismantled?

A1: IEPs and 504 plans are protected by federal law under IDEA and Section 504, independent of the Department of Education’s structure. Even if the Department changes, these protections remain intact.

Q2: Will special education funding be affected if states take on more control?

A2: Federal funding, such as for IDEA, is likely to continue since it’s tied to laws that would still apply. However, states might have more influence over how funds are distributed, possibly leading to variations in resource allocation.

Q3: Without a central Department of Education, who will enforce my child’s rights?

A3: Civil rights enforcement could shift to other federal agencies like the Department of Justice, and states would play a larger role in day-to-day compliance. Federal laws, such as IDEA and Section 504, still ensure protections.

Q4: How could dismantling the Department affect funding for low-income students or Title I services?

A4: Title I funds, which support low-income students, are part of federal law and would continue. However, the management of these funds might vary more by state, which could change local distribution and access.

Q5: If states have more control, could there be differences in educational support and services by region?

A5: Yes, states with increased control may adapt programs based on local needs and priorities, potentially leading to variations in services and support levels across states.

Q6: Would state oversight impact accountability and transparency in special education?

A6: While accountability would still be legally required, state-led oversight might result in different approaches and standards. Parents would need to stay informed about local policies and accountability measures.

Q7: Will dismantling the Department mean fewer protections for students with disabilities?

A7: Protections are part of federal law and remain regardless of the Department’s structure. Enforcement practices might look different, but the core rights under IDEA and Section 504 would still apply nationwide.

Q8: Could states reduce their support for special education if federal oversight decreases?

A8: States are still obligated by federal law to provide appropriate special education services. However, the absence of central oversight might mean that compliance and service quality vary more based on state resources and priorities.

Q9: How will parents have a voice in education if states take on more control?

A9: State and local officials may be more accessible for direct input, offering parents an opportunity to advocate for their children’s needs and shape policies within their community.

Q10: What can parents do now to prepare for any changes that may come?

A10: Stay informed about federal and state policies, connect with local education officials, understand your child’s rights, and maintain open communication with your child’s educational team to help ensure continuity and advocacy.

Resources

• https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/the-u-s-department-of-education-explained/2024/10 
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/yassprize/2024/11/12/so-you-want-to-abolish-the-department-of-education-heres-what-you-need-to-know/ 
• https://www.findlaw.com/education/curriculum-standards-school-funding/the-roles-of-federal-and-state-governments-in-education.html 
• https://www.britannica.com/topic/US-Department-of-Education 
• https://www.pgpf.org/budget-basics/how-is-k-12-education-funded#:~:text=Federal%20Funding%20Programs%20for%20K,on%20elementary%20and%20secondary%20schools 
• https://usafacts.org/articles/how-are-public-schools-funded/ 
• https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=158 
• https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/laws-preschool-grade-12-education/every-student-succeeds-act-essa 
• https://sites.ed.gov/idea/ 
• https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-offices/ocr 
• https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/civil-rights-laws/sex-discrimination/Title-IX-and-Sex-Discrimination 
• https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/individuals-disabilities/section-504 
• https://www.gao.gov/products/113316 
• https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/brown-v-board-of-education-of-topeka 
• https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/laws-preschool-grade-12-education/esea 
• https://www.everystudentsucceedsact.org/