Accessibility Chronicles

Federal Education Protections Past Present and What Comes Next

Education in the United States has undergone a long and hard-fought journey toward equity and inclusion. Federal protections, particularly for disabled students, were born out of decades of advocacy and legal battles to ensure every child has the right to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE). However, the introduction of H.R. 899—a bill that seeks to abolish the Department of Education by December 31, 2026—raises significant concerns about the future of these hard-won protections.

This blog explores the historical need for these protections, the potential consequences of abolishing the Department of Education, and actionable steps parents and advocates can take to preserve educational equity.

On January 31, 2025, Representative Thomas Massie reintroduced H.R. 899, a bill that seeks to abolish the Department of Education (DOE) by December 31, 2026. While this might sound like just another political maneuver, its implications are staggering—especially for disabled students who depend on federal laws to ensure their right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).

If this bill passes, federal protections could disappear—and the education of millions of students will be left to the discretion of individual states. This means fewer safeguards, more inconsistency, and greater disparities in education quality based on where a child lives.

The Sponsors of H.R. 899

As of February 9, 2025, H.R. 899, introduced by Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY), has garnered support from the following co-sponsors:

Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Josh Brecheen (R-OK), Tim Burchett (R-TN), Eric Burlison (R-MO), Ben Cline (R-VA), Andrew Clyde (R-GA), Mike Collins (R-GA), Eli Crane (R-AZ), Jeff Crank (R-CO), Warren Davidson (R-OH), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Harriet Hageman (R-WY), Andy Harris (R-MD), Rich McCormick (R-GA), Mary Miller (R-IL), Barry Moore (R-AL), Ralph Norman (R-SC), Gary Palmer (R-AL), Matt Rosendale (R-MT), Chip Roy (R-TX), Greg Steube (R-FL), Jefferson Van Drew (R-NJ), Bob Good (R-VA), Keith Self (R-TX), and Diana Harshbarger (R-TN).

This list reflects the co-sponsors as of the current date. For the most up-to-date information, refer to official congressional records.

The State of Special Education in the U.S.

As of the 2022–2023 academic year, a record 7.5 million public school students in the United States, accounting for 15.2% of total enrollment, received special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

This number has seen a significant increase over the past few decades. In the 1976–77 school year, approximately 3.6 million students were receiving special education services. By the 2021–22 school year, this figure had risen to almost 7.3 million, representing 14.7% of all public school students nationwide.

The most common disabilities among these students include specific learning disabilities, speech or language impairments, and other health impairments. The rise in special education enrollment underscores the growing need for resources and support to ensure that all students receive a free and appropriate public education (FAPE).

Why Federal Protections Exist: A History of Exclusion

Not long ago, disabled children were routinely denied education. Schools were not legally required to serve them, and many families were left with only one option—institutionalization.

Landmark Cases That Shaped Education Rights

Several landmark legal cases helped establish the foundation for equal access to education, including for disabled students.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954): This Supreme Court ruling declared that separate but equal schools were unconstitutional, emphasizing that education is a fundamental right that must be provided equally to all students. While it was focused on racial segregation, the ruling laid the groundwork for future disability rights cases by establishing that exclusion from public education was inherently unequal.
Hobson v. Hansen (1967): This case challenged the discriminatory practice of tracking students into separate educational programs based on standardized tests that disproportionately placed low-income and minority students in lower-tiered education settings. The ruling reinforced the idea that educational opportunities must be provided equitably.
PARC v. Pennsylvania (1971): This was the first federal court ruling that explicitly recognized the right of disabled students to receive an education. The court ruled that children with intellectual disabilities could not be denied public education and set the stage for national reforms.
Mills v. Board of Education (1972): The ruling in this case reinforced that public schools could not use financial limitations as an excuse to exclude disabled students. It expanded the legal argument that every child, regardless of ability, deserved access to education.

These legal battles forced the government to recognize that all students had the right to an education, setting the stage for federal protections.

The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975) and IDEA

As a direct response to these landmark cases, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) in 1975, later renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

IDEA guaranteed that disabled students had:

The right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).
The right to be educated in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE).
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) to address their unique needs.

These protections exist only because of federal intervention—without them, disabled students would have no legal guarantee of an education.

The Push for State Control: What It Could Mean

Proponents of H.R. 899 argue that states should have complete control over education, believing that local governments are better equipped to meet the needs of their communities. While this idea may sound appealing on the surface, the implications for disabled students are deeply concerning. Without federal oversight, the quality of education and access to critical services could vary widely depending on where a student lives, creating a system where geography determines opportunity.

What Would State Control Look Like?

Variable Standards

Each state would have the authority to establish its own education policies, standards, and funding priorities. This means the definition of an “appropriate education” for disabled students could look drastically different depending on the state or even the school district. States with strong commitments to inclusive education and disability rights might continue to uphold high standards, but others—particularly those with budget constraints or differing political priorities—could lower expectations, cut essential services, or eliminate specialized programs altogether. This inconsistency would lead to a patchwork system where some students receive a high-quality, fully accessible education while others struggle without the support they need.

Unequal Protections

Currently, federal laws such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) set a minimum standard of protections for disabled students nationwide. If control were shifted entirely to the states, these protections would no longer be guaranteed. Some states may choose to uphold or even strengthen these laws, particularly those with strong advocacy groups and progressive education policies. However, others could weaken or completely remove critical legal safeguards—limiting access to Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), reducing funding for special education, or even shifting to models where families must pay out-of-pocket for certain supports.

The biggest concern is that these changes would not be uniform. Families in well-resourced states with active disability advocacy organizations may still find strong legal and financial support, while those in states with fewer resources or political willpower could see drastic cutbacks in services. This would result in an inequitable system where a disabled student’s rights and educational opportunities depend entirely on where they live.

Widening Funding Gaps

Many states depend heavily on federal funding to support special education programs, especially those with high populations of disabled students. If education were left entirely to state control, disparities in funding would increase dramatically.

Wealthier States: States with strong tax bases—often due to higher property values, thriving industries, or larger urban centers—may be able to sustain or even expand special education services. These states could invest in advanced assistive technology, smaller class sizes, and specialized educators, ensuring that disabled students receive a high level of support. Some may even implement progressive policies that go beyond current federal requirements, offering more inclusive programs and better-funded support systems.
Lower-Income and Rural States: In contrast, states with lower tax revenue, particularly those that already struggle to fund general education, would likely face serious financial constraints. These states might respond to the loss of federal funding by cutting special education programs, reducing the number of specialized staff, or increasing class sizes—making it harder for disabled students to receive individualized support. Rural areas, where resources are already stretched thin, could be hit the hardest, with families having to travel long distances for evaluations, therapy, or appropriate school placements.
Private vs. Public Education Divide: Another potential outcome is that wealthier states—or even certain districts within states—may begin to shift more specialized support into private education settings, making access to high-quality disability services dependent on a family’s ability to pay. This would further divide educational opportunities along socioeconomic lines, leaving lower-income disabled students with fewer options.

Reduced Accountability

Federal oversight ensures that states uphold basic education standards and provide families with legal avenues to challenge discrimination or neglect. If states were given full control, this accountability structure would be dismantled, leaving families with fewer ways to advocate for their child’s rights.

Currently, parents can file complaints under IDEA or Section 504 if their child’s needs are not being met, triggering federal investigations and legal action if necessary. Without these protections, families in states that choose to weaken special education policies may find themselves with limited recourse. While some wealthier states with strong disability advocacy groups may establish their own enforcement mechanisms, others may not—creating a fragmented and unpredictable landscape where disabled students in different states have vastly different levels of protection.

The Bottom Line

The shift to full state control over education would not impact all students equally. Wealthier states with strong advocacy networks may be able to maintain or even improve services, while lower-income states or those with fewer disability rights protections could see drastic cutbacks. The result would be a widening gap between those who have access to quality education and those who do not, leaving many disabled students without the support they need to succeed.

Education should not be a privilege based on geography or income level—it is a fundamental right. The removal of federal protections would only deepen existing inequities, making it even harder for disabled students in underfunded areas to access the resources and opportunities they deserve.

Charter Schools Without the DOE What It Means for Disabled Students

Without the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), oversight of charter schools would fall entirely to individual states. While charter schools already operate with fewer regulations than traditional public schools, removing federal oversight could further limit access, accountability, and support for disabled students.

Why Charter Schools Already Struggle with Inclusion

Charter schools are publicly funded but operate independently, meaning they have more control over their curriculum, staffing, and enrollment processes. While they are legally required to accept disabled students, many:

Lack the resources, specialists, and training needed to support them.
Have admissions policies that discourage families of disabled students.
Operate with less oversight, making enforcement of disability rights difficult.

Currently, the DOE ensures that charter schools follow federal disability laws such as IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA. If the DOE is abolished, these protections would depend entirely on state policies, which may not prioritize disability rights.

The Risks for Disabled Students if the DOE Is Abolished

✔ Less Oversight, More Exclusions

States would decide whether and how to monitor charter schools, leading to inconsistent enforcement of disability rights.
Some charter schools might stop providing special education services, forcing disabled students into fewer options.

✔ Barriers to Enrollment

Without federal enforcement, charter schools could use application processes or enrollment criteria that make it harder for disabled students to attend.

✔ Funding Gaps in Special Education

The DOE distributes federal IDEA grants that help fund special education in both public and charter schools.
Without federal oversight, states could reduce or eliminate funding, leaving disabled students without critical services.

✔ Fewer Legal Protections for Families

Families currently rely on the DOE to investigate discrimination complaints in charter schools.
If the DOE is abolished, parents may have to fight legal battles at the state level, where protections vary widely.

✔ Greater Inequities Across States

Some states may prioritize charter school expansion while cutting funding for special education.
Access to accommodations could depend entirely on where a student lives, leaving many disabled students with fewer educational choices.

Ensuring Equity Without Federal Protections

If the DOE is abolished, families of disabled students will need to advocate at the state level to ensure their rights are protected. Without strong oversight, charter schools could become even less accessible, making it harder for disabled students to receive the education they deserve.

Advocating Against H.R. 899

The results of the recent federal elections may have shaped the current legislative landscape, but the fight for equitable education is far from over. Even with new officials in office, there are still critical steps we can take to oppose H.R. 899 and protect education rights for all students.

Engage with Your Federal Representatives

Elected officials work for their constituents—so make your voice heard. Contact your senators and representatives and urge them to oppose H.R. 899. Share personal stories that highlight the importance of federal education protections in your community. You can find your legislators’ contact information through resources like GovTrack.

Raise Public Awareness

Public pressure matters. Spread the word about H.R. 899 and its potential consequences. Write op-eds or letters to the editor in local newspapers. Use social media to share information, action steps, and personal narratives that highlight the importance of keeping education protections in place. The more people know, the stronger the opposition becomes.

Collaborate with Advocacy Organizations

You don’t have to fight this alone. Organizations like the National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) and the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) are actively working to oppose this bill. Partnering with them strengthens advocacy efforts through petitions, legal challenges, and broader awareness campaigns.

Participate in Public Hearings and Town Halls

Decision-makers need to see and hear from the communities affected by their policies. Attend local meetings where education policies are being discussed, and use these platforms to advocate for disabled students and the protections they need to succeed.

Prepare for Future Elections

While the recent elections have concluded, staying politically engaged is key to long-term change. Support candidates who prioritize public education and disability rights in upcoming state and local elections. Encourage voter registration drives and community discussions to ensure strong turnout in future elections.

Even after the ballots are counted, advocacy doesn’t stop. Now is the time to take action, mobilize communities, and ensure that equitable education remains a protected right for all students.

Why State and Local Advocacy Is Urgent

Even if H.R. 899 does not pass, local and state-level advocacy determines education policy every day. Most funding for public education already comes from state budgets, and school boards decide how those funds are allocated.

If the DOE is abolished, states will set their own education policies. IEPs, accommodations, and supports could be eliminated if a state decides they are not a priority. Some states might refuse to fund special education programs, leaving families scrambling for alternatives.

There will be no federal accountability, meaning schools could legally deny services without fear of federal consequences. Parents would have no federal recourse to challenge violations of students’ rights.

Funding for special education could be cut as states shift priorities. Low-income districts will be most affected, leading to huge disparities between wealthy and underfunded schools.

School boards will have more power over disability protections, setting policies without federal oversight. Local elections will determine whether disabled students have access to necessary services.

With these risks in mind, state and local advocacy is no longer optional—it is essential.

Blueprint for State and Local Advocacy

If the DOE is abolished, the responsibility of enforcing education protections—including special education laws, funding allocation, and accountability measures—will fall entirely on state governments, school boards, and local education agencies.

Without federal oversight, states will have full discretion over how (or if) they support disabled students. Advocacy at the state and local level will be the only safeguard against educational inequity.

How to Advocate at the State and Local Level:

Stay informed on state education policies and monitor proposed legislation that could impact special education funding, charter school expansion, or the elimination of key services.
Build relationships with state legislators, governors, and local school board members to advocate for policies that protect disabled students.
Get involved in school board elections, research candidates’ positions, and vote for those who prioritize disability rights.
Mobilize parents, educators, and advocacy groups to demand education protections. Partner with organizations like the National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) or local advocacy groups.
Use public comment periods to influence policy. Submit written or in-person testimony to school boards and state education departments when education policies are being discussed.
Demand state-level protections for disabled students. Work with advocacy organizations to draft and propose state laws that uphold federal education protections.
Support candidates who prioritize public education. Vote in local and state elections and encourage voter turnout.

If the DOE is abolished, advocacy at the state and local level will be the only thing protecting disabled students.

The Urgency of Action

The fight for educational equity is not a relic of the past—it is unfolding right now. The same battles that parents, advocates, and disabled individuals fought decades ago to secure basic educational rights are being threatened once again. H.R. 899 is not just about dismantling a federal department—it is about dismantling the very foundation of equal access to education.

History has shown us what happens when education is left to state discretion—disabled students are forgotten, underfunded, and denied the opportunities they deserve. The existence of the Department of Education ensures that no matter where a child lives, they are entitled to fundamental protections under federal law. If we allow this safeguard to disappear, we are not just turning back the clock—we are erasing decades of hard-fought progress.

This is not a moment to be silent. This is a moment to act.

Call your representatives. Show up at school board meetings. Educate your community. Vote for leaders who believe in public education. Demand that education remains a right, not a privilege.

The future of millions of students is at stake.

Education is the foundation of an equitable society. Now is the time to protect it.

**Additional Resources

Official Press Release – Thomas Massie

National Archives – Brown v. Board of Education

Disability Justice – The Right to Education

U.S. Department of Education – IDEA Overview

U.S. Department of Education – Mission

The Facts on Charter Schools and Students with Disabilities

Find Your Representatives – USA.gov

GovTrack – H.R. 899

National Disability Rights Network