What “Sending Education Back to the States” Looks Like for Disabled Students
Linda McMahon, the new Secretary of Education, supports Project 2025's proposal to transfer education policy control from the federal government to the states. The President is expected to shortly sign an executive order authorizing Secretary McMahon to close the department. The argument is that local decision-making would enhance school systems and better meet community needs. The reality is far more detrimental than that.
Shifting education control entirely to the states will have massive negative consequences for disabled students. While states already play a significant role in education, federal oversight ensures a baseline of protections through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Removing federal involvement would create a patchwork of state laws, where a child's access to an education would depend entirely on where they live.
For disabled students and their families, this shift means fewer legal protections, services, and options for recourse when schools fail to meet their needs. It would also throw out existing legal precedents, forcing families to re-litigate cases already decided under federal law.
1. All Disability Education Cases Would Have to Be Re-Litigated, Forcing Parents into More Legal Battles
If education laws are no longer federally mandated and become state-level laws, every previous court ruling based on IDEA, Section 504, or the ADA (as it pertains to education) would be invalidated. This means that families who fought and won cases to secure services for their disabled children would have to start over.
The burden of proof would shift back to parents, forcing them to spend unreimbursable time and money re-litigating rights they had already secured under federal law.
Decades of legal precedent that clarified how schools must serve disabled students would be wiped away, leading to confusion and inconsistency.
This will increase the burden on families, especially those lacking financial resources or legal knowledge. It will make special education a privilege for those who can afford lawyers or supplement with private services, rather than a right for all disabled students. Wealthier families may choose to relocate to states with stronger disability protections. Lower-income families would have no choice but to accept underfunded, inadequate services.
2. Weaker Enforcement of IDEA and Section 504 Protections
IDEA and Section 504 currently ensure that students with disabilities receive a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and require schools to provide necessary services. If education is left to the states:
Some states may maintain strong special education laws, while others may eliminate key protections.
There would be no national standard, meaning that the level of support a child receives could depend entirely on what side of a state border they live on.
Schools could more easily deny accommodations without fear of losing federal funding.
3. Widening Gaps in Special Education Services
Currently, federal funding helps states cover special education costs. Without federal oversight:
Some states may cut funding for special education, forcing parents to fight harder for essential services.
Schools may push more disabled students into general education settings without proper accommodations, leading to worse educational outcomes.
Low-income school districts could struggle to afford services like speech therapy, occupational therapy, and one-on-one aides.
4. Charter Schools and Private Schools Could Continue to Reject Disabled Students
Louisiana’s charter school lawsuit highlights the danger of leaving education rights to the states. In P.B., et al. v. John White, et al., disability advocates filed a federal class action lawsuit against the Louisiana Department of Education, arguing that the state failed to ensure that charter schools provided legally required special education services. The lawsuit revealed that many charter schools in Louisiana routinely rejected students with disabilities, refused to provide necessary accommodations, and pushed disabled students out of the school system altogether (Notice of Settlement Agreement, Louisiana Department of Education).
If education laws become state-controlled:
Cases like the Louisiana lawsuit would have to be re-litigated in state courts, delaying justice for affected families.
More states could follow Louisiana’s model, where charter and private schools can legally exclude disabled students while still receiving state funding.
Voucher programs would expand without oversight, sending disabled students to private schools that aren’t required to follow IDEA or Section 504. Parents may unknowingly waive their children’s rights when accepting a voucher.
5. Increased Disparities Between Urban and Rural Areas
Rural school districts already struggle to provide disability services due to fewer resources and specialists. If federal funding and oversight decrease:
Students in rural areas may lack access to essential services such as physical therapy, behavioral support, and accessible transportation.
Disabled students may be forced to travel long distances to find an accessible school or not receive services.
6. Less Data Collection and Accountability
The federal government currently tracks disability-related education data, including graduation rates, disciplinary actions, and access to accommodations. That’s how we know, for example, that Massachussets has double the graduation rate of children with IEPs than Nevada does. Through this data, we also know that BIPOC students with IEPs are suspended or expelled at much higher rates than white students. If education is returned to the states:
States may not be required to report disability-related education data, making it harder to track discrimination and inequities.
Schools could discipline or remove disabled students at higher rates without consequences.
Policymakers would have less information to improve accessibility and inclusion in education.
7. Accessibility and Inclusion Would Depend on Political Leadership, Not Law
Current Federal oversight guarantees that disabled students maintain legal protections regardless of who holds office. However, if education laws shift to state control, those protections may vary with each election cycle.
Some governors or state legislators may prioritize accessibility, while others could gut special education funding and roll back disability protections.
The ability of disabled students to receive an education could depend on which party is in power rather than on legal guarantees.
Federal oversight currently acts as a safety net, preventing states from completely abandoning disabled students. Without it, special education could become a political bargaining chip.
8. Many students, including students with disabilities or disabled parents, will go hungry if the Department of Education closes
The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is a federally assisted meal program that provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to millions of students in public and nonprofit private schools. While the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers the program, the Department of Education supports its implementation by promoting student access to healthy meals as part of broader educational and wellness initiatives. A quick dismantling of the Department of Education without transitioning these programs will lead to hungry students.
Conclusion
If education is entirely controlled at the state level without federal protections, disabled students would experience fewer rights, weaker services, and more legal obstacles in securing an appropriate education. All previous court decisions would be invalidated, forcing parents to re-litigate every legal fight from scratch.
The Louisiana lawsuit against charter schools denying disabled students (P.B., et al. v. John White, et al.) is just one example of what could happen nationwide. The quality of disability education would depend entirely on where a student lives, rather than being a guaranteed right. States with leaders who deprioritize special education could slash services, push students out of public schools, and leave families with no options.
Without federal safeguards, disabled students would lose access to the education they need to succeed. This is especially true for students with disabilities in underfunded or politically hostile states, as well as for those who hold multiple marginalized identities. "Sending education back to the states" isn’t just about decentralization. For disabled students, it will erase decades of progress and make their right to an education a matter of geography, not law.
When K-12 education fails disabled students, the consequences extend far beyond the classroom. Inadequate education leads to lower high school graduation rates, which reduces the likelihood of attending college or accessing higher-paying jobs. This cycle results in lower lifetime earnings, increased reliance on social services, and reduced tax contributions. When schools provide the right support, disabled students have better opportunities to achieve financial independence, decreasing the need for public assistance and increasing overall economic participation. Investing in accessible education pays for itself by creating a workforce that contributes more in wages and taxes while reducing long-term government spending.