U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said an attempt by President Donald Trump to shut down the Department of Education will not cut off funds “for those who depend on them,” namely children protected by the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and other “essential programs.”

She issued the statement Thursday following Trump’s signing of the executive order to make make good on his campaign promise to dismantle the Department of Education, which Congress created in 1979. Trump’s order would need congressional approval to move forward.

It directs McMahon and her staff “to take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return education authority to the States, while continuing to ensure the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs and benefits on which Americans rely.”

“Closing the Department does not mean cutting off funds from those who depend on them— we will continue to support K-12 students, students with special needs, college student borrowers, and others who rely on essential programs,” McMahon said in a statement Thursday. “We’re going to follow the law and eliminate the bureaucracy responsibly by working through Congress to ensure a lawful and orderly transition.”

The Education Department oversees programs and funding enacted by Congress. If the House and Senate eventually approved its closing, these programs would need to be moved to another cabinet-level department. McMahon suggested during her Senate confirmation hearing that IDEA could reside in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Prior to the Education Department’s creation by Congress in 1979, IDEA and other education law resided in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Other programs that would require continued oversight are Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, Title IX of the 1972 education amendments, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Trump’s executive order also prohibits Education Department programs or activities that receive federal education funds from advancing DEI or gender ideology.

“I can’t react to a non-concrete plan, so first I want to wait and see how transparent is Secretary McMahon going to be about the process that she’s going to use,” commented Noelle Edgerson Ng, associate executive director of policy and advocacy for AASA: The Superintendents Association. “As she’s cutting and gutting, is she using a mallet or a scalpel? What data is she using to inform what changes she makes? The approach they take informs the pushback or the response. And we don’t know that yet, so we’re going to take a breath.”

The National Association for Pupil Transportation issued a statement Friday afternoon.

“During this transition to a reduced department, we are eager to learn how IDEA funding and programs will be administered,” NAPT wrote. “IDEA funding is important to the ability of our members to safely transport children with disabilities.”

The statement also said NAPT looks forward to collaborating with the Education Department “to ensure safe and efficient transportation of America’s students.”

NAPT added it believes the Trump administration’s attempt at “examining and ending bureaucratic excess in all areas of the federal government” will extend to other NAPT partners such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and the National Transportation Safety Board.

Meanwhile, Trump’s executive order also targets “Dear Colleague Letters” that are issued by the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights and Office of Special Education Programs. Several have addressed transportation of students with disabilities and preschoolers. Trump’s order states these letters “have forced schools to redirect resources complying with ideological initiatives, which diverts staff time and attention away from schools’ primary role of teaching.”

AASA’s Edgerson Ng added the executive order makes any work being done by the Office of Civil Rights without a statutory mandate easier to be rescinded.

“That doesn’t mean that the Trump administration might not try to cut and gut programs that have a statutory base, but those will face a much more solid challenge because many of these programs existed before the Department of Ed, and so they’ll continue to exist after whatever [the executive order] is. They exist in law, so they have to exist in implementation,” she said.

Related: Transportation Professionals: A Critical Link in the Education of Students with Disabilities
Related: Setting Realistic Expectations for School Bus Drivers of Students with Special Needs
Related: Recommended Do’s and Don’ts for Meeting the Challenges of Transporting Children with Disabilities

Earlier this month, the Education Department announced layoffs affecting half the workforce, another attempt to dismantle the agency. A coalition of 20 Democratic-led states responded with a lawsuit last week against the Trump administration seeking an injunction. A U.S. district court issued a temporary restraining order to stop the firings and reinstate thousands of probationary employees.

“I think it’s feasible to anticipate that the Department of Ed, under Secretary McMahon’s cut and gut, do they over-cut and then find that they’re not able to meet the intent of Congress? And then, somehow, they set a middle ground where some people are brought back? Sure,” Edgerson Ng said. “But what that looks like again depends on the approach they take to cutting people and cutting programs.”

McMahon, the former executive for WWE and wife of founder Vince McMahon, drew the ire of many educators nationwide—including several student transporters spoken to on background for this article—when she was unable to say what the IDEA acronym stands for during a March 11 interview with Fox News commentator Laura Ingraham.

“This is my fifth day on the job. I’m trying to learn very quickly,” McMahon said.

This is a developing story.

The post Dismantling Education Department, Mandated Programs Would Need Congressional Approval appeared first on School Transportation News.

Meeting the daily challenges of transporting children with disabilities is real and
complex. These challenges are not new, but they are increasingly multifaceted. On top of the challenge list in many school districts is driver shortages, followed by the cost of transportation services. What can be overwhelming is the increase in competing priorities to safely transport children with disabilities.

The pressure resulting from how to accomplish safe transportation for these children can result in inadequate decision-making. Guided by the principles of safety, responsibility and entitlement under federal and state law it is imperative to aspire to respond to challenges for safe transportation of children with disabilities by timely addressing the “Do’s and Don’ts” under pressure. I am realizing more and more about the importance of knowing what is and is not required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

In addition to federal law, it is critical to be well-versed about state law pertaining to the related service of transportation for eligible children under the IDEA. Under the
IDEA Part B regulations, transportation is defined as a related service that includes: “(i) Travel to and from school and between schools; (ii) Travel in and around school buildings; and (iii) Specialized equipment (such as special or adapted buses, lifts, and ramps), if required to provide special transportation for a child with a disability.” (34 CFR §300.34(c)(16).

At first glance, this IDEA definition appears clear. In reality, unique individual child transportation requirements necessitate extensive knowledge about the related service of transportation and its explicit requirements.

Understanding the role of the individualized education program (IEP) team’s responsibility under the IDEA to develop, approve and implement the related service transportation is essential. Approved transportation services should always be documented in the IEP to avoid misunderstandings and potential IDEA compliance violations. The IEP team meeting should always include all the qualified personnel necessary to make an informed decision, including the parent.

Don’t make unilateral transportation decisions without the attendance of all stakeholders that are required for implementing an IEP. The following is an example of a costly mistake that happened multiple times during my career. The IEP team, under pressure from a single parent, required that a child be picked up first and dropped off last.

This was solely based upon the parent’s work schedule and not the needs of her child, based upon their disability. Unknown to transportation, the IEP team approved the request. It was not feasible to implement but still approved and written into the child’s IEP. The parent emphatically stated her request was “required under the IDEA.” The IEP team was intimidated and believed her.

This IEP decision resulted in a hearing officers’ requirement for the school district to add a new route to implement the approved IEP service. Can you imagine the unintentional effect of this IEP team’s unilateral decision? Make sure that the IEP team is fully knowledgeable about the IDEA transportation related service requirements, and do not make a decision based upon false information.

Another example of a costly mistake is when a parent at an IEP meeting claims, citing IDEA, their child is required to be transported to after-school care 17 miles away from
their home address. The IEP team unwisely believes the parent and approves their request.

The lesson to be learned is don’t believe everything that a person says without knowing how the IDEA addresses a specific issue. Be knowledgeable about what state law says on a specific topic and how the school district’s policies and procedures address the issue. In the previous example, it is likely that if the school district transports children without disabilities to requested after-school care or daycare, the school district will also be required to do so for children with disabilities as a matter of equity. These are just two examples of challenges whereby poor decision-making resulted in an avoidable costly error.

It is essential to know federal and state laws pertaining to transportation service eligibility requirements for children with disabilities. It is wise to rethink in advance
how to best provide these transportation services for children with disabilities. Utilizing school transportation data can improve decision-making. Accessing all funding sources helps to offset costly transportation services. One example is billing Medicaid when it is an allowable transportation expense.

Communication and coordination between multiple school district departments is key to problem-solving. It is key to be knowledgeable and current about best practices and school transportation literature concerning safe transportation of children with disabilities.

Editor’s Note: As reprinted in the November  2024 issue of School Transportation News.

Linda F. Bluth, Ed.D. is a national compliance and regulatory expert on IDEA transportation law and provisions. She is a tenured faculty member of the TSD Conference, a regular STN contributor, and a Hall of Fame member of the National Association for Pupil Transportation.

Related: California ‘Rising Star’ Supports Students with Disabilities Through Driver Training, Education
Related: TSD Foundation Class Provides Basics to Transporting Students with Special Needs
Related:(STN Podcast E236) TSD 2024 Recap: Supporting Students with Special Needs as Unique People
Related: Sexual Abuse Prevention Expert Provides Strategies When Transporting Students with Disabilities

The post Recommended Do’s and Don’ts for Meeting the Challenges of Transporting Children with Disabilities appeared first on School Transportation News.