Increased special education funding should be tied to expanding school choice, report says 

Congress should increase federal special education funding while encouraging states to expand school choice programs for students with disabilities, according to a new report published by the American Enterprise Institute. 

“Congress should pursue a political ‘grand bargain’ that increases funding for special education while encouraging states to expand options for parents,” writes Dan Lips, a senior fellow with the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, in “A Grand Bargain to Reform the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Shifting from Due Process to Education Choice.” 

Lips argues that the current system disadvantages low-income families who may lack the financial resources to challenge school districts in legal proceedings when their children are denied necessary educational services.

The report describes how the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found that Washington, D.C., public schools violated federal law by denying students with disabilities access to a free appropriate public education.

“Students and their families have been forced to demand accommodations the law entitles them through an adversarial system that, among other shortcomings, denies students timely evaluations, individualized placements, and reliable transportation that meets students’ needs,” Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey said in a press release.

Originally enacted in 1975 and later renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the federal law requires public schools to provide eligible students with disabilities a free appropriate public education.

Approximately 7.5 million students ages 3 to 21 receive special education services under IDEA, representing roughly 15% of public school enrollment, according to federal education data.

When Congress enacted the original special education law in 1975, it established a federal funding target equal to 40% of the additional costs of educating students with disabilities, but has routinely failed to fund that amount.

In fiscal year 2024, for instance, Congress appropriated approximately $14 billion for IDEA Part B state grants, compared with an estimated $50 billion needed to reach the authorized funding level, according to Lips’ report.

He proposes revising IDEA to provide states with additional federal special education funding in exchange for expanding school choice programs for students with disabilities, including education savings accounts.

“Students living in states with education choice programs may access alternative learning environments without the need to prevail in due process litigation against their school district,” Lips writes.

Heartlander News has reported on the popularity of school choice programs among families of students with disabilities, as well as private schools that specifically serve students with disabilities.

The report also calls for congressional investigations into whether public schools are denying students with disabilities services guaranteed under federal law, citing the Department of Education’s findings against Washington, D.C., public schools.

The report comes as the new federal school choice program, the Education Freedom Tax Credit, is set to launch Jan. 1, 2027. So far, 31 states have indicated they will participate, although several blue states are still considering it.

While all taxpayers can donate to scholarship-granting organizations to claim the tax credit, scholarships can go only to students in participating states. More than 90% of U.S. K-12 students are eligible for scholarships under the program’s income limit of 300% of area median family income, which varies greatly by region.

Lips said school choice would help more families obtain the education and services they need instead of fighting protracted legal battles.

“The challenge for Congress today is to ensure that access to the services that IDEA guarantees does not depend primarily on a family’s ability to navigate an adversarial legal and administrative system,” he writes.

(Image credit: Courtesy of The King’s Table Schoolhouse)