Advocates fear for future of special education programs funded by US government
While the department has sustained cuts in staff and funding, advocates for special education programs are left questioning what this means for Individualized Education Programs, or IEPs, that were funded by the department.
While IEPs are protected under the Individuals with Disabilities Act, the Department of Education was responsible for overseeing, monitoring, and providing funding to schools for them. Knox County Schools told 6 News their commitment to serving students with IEPs remains the same, advocates for the program say they are concerned for its future under the federal government.
End of USDA funding for fresh local produce hits Grainger County Schools
'We have an obligation to make sure that students have IEPs, that their IEPs are being followed, and we also have an obligation to make sure that the state and federal government are funding those programs and providing what they, by law, are required to provide to us,' said Knox County Board of Education member Katherine Bike.
Bike said if federal funding for special education programs were to be reduced or taken away, the school district would not be able to financially support them on their own.
'With student supports and interventions, those cost money,' she said. 'Knox County alone cannot afford to pay those. They are hundreds of thousands of dollars and when you put it all together with students, it's millions of dollars.'
According to Knox County Schools, 9,000 students benefit from some form of special education support each year. As a parent of two of those students, Cortney Piper, who is also a political contributor to WATE, said she is worried for her children's future.
'The uncertainty is almost crippling and it is very scary,' said Piper.
US agency targeted for elimination provided vital funding to Beck Center, Zoo Knoxville
Piper said two of her children benefit from IEPs and may not have gotten to where they are today in the classroom without them.
'I have seen an incredible, incredible progress, particularly with my son from kindergarten to where he is in second grade,' she said. 'Because he is receiving those supports and services, I've been able to see him progress in Knox County Schools. So, in addition to providing those academic support, those individualized education programs also provide support that helps children learn how to learn.'
While the future of IEPs remains uncertain, Piper and board member Bike are urging the community to advocate for the program.
'I think it is important for everyone. Not just saying, 'well, the school will take a take care of it,' or, 'well, a school board member will take care of it.' But we really have to be diligent. Everyone has to be diligent in making sure that the standards are kept where they're at,' said Bike.
▶ See more top stories on WATE.com
In 2023 the Knox County Schools Board of Education passed a resolution to make KCS a model district for excellence in special education. Bikes told 6 News IEPs play a large role in making that happen, and she has prepared another resolution to be heard this April outlining what they are committed to do under state and federal law.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
7 hours ago
- Vox
Trump killed affirmative action. His base might not like what comes next.
Proponents for affirmative action in higher education rally in front of the US Supreme Court on October 31, 2022, in Washington, Donald Trump's administration is scrutinizing higher education. Last week, the White House issued a memorandum requiring all universities receiving federal funds to submit admissions data on all applicants to the Department of Education. The goal is to enforce the 2023 Supreme Court decision that ended race-based affirmative action. Days before the memo was released, Columbia and Brown agreed to share their admissions data with the administration, broken down by race, grade point average, and standardized test scores. The administration suspects that universities are using 'racial proxies' to get around the ban on race-based admissions. The Department of Education is expected to build a database of the admissions data and make it available to parents and students. Amid this increased federal scrutiny, an alternative idea from Richard Kahlenberg, director of the American Identity Project for the Progressive Policy Institute, is gaining attention. Kahlenberg, who testified in the Supreme Court cases against Harvard and UNC, advocates for class-based affirmative action instead of race-based admissions. He argues that this approach will yield more economically and racially equitable results. Today, Explained co-host Noel King spoke with Kahlenberg about how he contends with the consequences of helping gut race-based affirmative action, why he believes class-based affirmative action is the path forward, and if his own argument may come in the crosshairs of a Trump administration eager to stamp out all forms of affirmative action. Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There's much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. You're the director of the American Identity Project at the Progressive Policy Institute. I would take it to mean that you are a progressive. It's complicated these days. I'm left of center. I think of myself more as liberal than progressive. I ask because you testified as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in the case Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. This is the case that essentially gutted race-based affirmative action. It doesn't sound like a progressive, or even a left-of-center, position. What was going on? Explain what you were thinking. I've long been a supporter of racial diversity in colleges. I think that's enormously important, but I've been troubled that elite colleges were racially integrated, but economically segregated. I think there's a better way of creating racial diversity — a more liberal way, if you will — which is to give low-income and economically disadvantaged students of all races a leg up in the admissions process in order to create both racial and economic diversity. What was the data that you looked at that led you to believe that? Were primarily wealthy Black and Hispanic students benefiting from affirmative action? There'd been a number of studies over the years that had come to that conclusion, including from supporters of race-based affirmative action. Then, in the litigation, further evidence came out. At Harvard, 71 percent of the Black and Hispanic students came from the most socioeconomically privileged 20 percent of the Black and Hispanic population nationally. Now, to be clear, the white and Asian students were even richer. But for the most part, this was not a program that was benefiting working-class and low-income students. Alright, so the Supreme Court in 2023 hands down this decision that says, essentially, we're done with race-based affirmative action. Was there a difference in how progressives and conservatives interpreted the Supreme Court ruling? Most mainstream conservatives have always said they were opposed to racial preferences, but of course, they were for economic affirmative action. But now we have some on the extreme, including the Trump administration, saying that economic affirmative action is also illegal if part of the rationale for the policy is seeking to increase racial diversity. What do you make of that? That was your team once upon a time, right? Well, I think it's troubling when people shift the goalposts. In a number of the Supreme Court concurring opinions in the case, conservatives said that economic affirmative action made a lot of sense. Justice [Neil] Gorsuch, for example, said if Harvard got rid of legacy preferences and instead gave economic affirmative action, that would be perfectly legal. And now some extremists are shifting their position and saying they're opposed to any kind of affirmative action. Are you surprised by that shift? I'm not surprised. I'm confident, however, that a majority of the US Supreme Court won't go that far. The Supreme Court, to some degree, looks to public opinion. Racial preferences were always unpopular. But economic affirmative action is broadly supported by the public. The Supreme Court has had two cases come before it, subsequent to the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision. One involved a challenge to class-based affirmative action at Thomas Jefferson High School in Northern Virginia, and the other involved an attack on a similar class-based affirmative action program at the Boston exam schools, like Boston Latin. In both cases, the Supreme Court said we're not gonna hear those cases over the vehement dissent of a couple of extremely conservative justices. So I'm fairly confident that the Supreme Court will not go down the path of striking down economic-based preferences. What do you make of this move by the Trump administration to ask colleges for data? I'm of two minds about it. I do think transparency is good in higher education. These institutions are receiving lots of taxpayer money. We want to make sure they're following the Supreme Court ruling, which said you can't use race. Having said that, I'm quite nervous about how the Trump administration will use the data, because if a college discloses the average SAT scores and grades by race of applicants, of those admitted, and then those enrolled, one of two things can be going on. One is that the university's cheating and they're using racial preferences, and that would be a violation of the law. The other possibility is that they did shift to economic affirmative action, which is perfectly legal. And because Black and Hispanic students are disproportionately low income and working class, they will disproportionately benefit from a class-based affirmative action program. And so the average SAT score is going to look somewhat lower. I'm worried that the Trump administration will go after both race-based and class-based affirmative action. Because class-based affirmative action still might mean a college is admitting more Black and Hispanic students. And what the Trump administration seems to have the issue with is that fact. Yes. Increasingly, that's what it looks like. As long as the Trump administration was focused on counting race and deciding who gets ahead, they had the American public on their side. But Americans also support the idea of racially integrated student bodies, they just don't like racial preferences as the means for getting there. So, if Trump says, no matter how you achieve this racial diversity, I'm just opposed to racial diversity, he'll have lost the public. And I don't think he will be consistent with the legal framework under Students for Fair Admissions, either. Do you think he cares?
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Trump unfroze education funding, but the damage is already done
Summer is when superintendents and principals finalize staffing and allocate resources for the year ahead. Instead, they've spent the past month scrambling to revise budgets and delay decisions after the Trump administration recklessly froze more than $6.8 billion in federal education funds approved by Congress four months ago — a move that unnecessarily threw school planning into chaos with the school year starting in just a few weeks. On June 30, the Education Department abruptly informed states it would not release key fiscal year 2025 education funds as scheduled, affecting programs like teacher training, English learner support and after-school services. After bipartisan backlash — including lawsuits from 24 states and pressure from Republican senators — the administration reversed course on July 25, announcing it would release the remaining funds. But the damage had already been done. The administration claimed the freeze was part of a 'programmatic review' to ensure spending aligned with White House priorities. Yet, the review was conducted without transparency while the funds were only released after intense political pressure. The Education Department stated 'guardrails' would be in place to prevent funds from being used in ways that violate executive orders, which is a vague statement that should raise concerns about future interference. Districts had built their budgets assuming these funds would arrive by July 1, as they do each year. Instead of preparing for the new school year, states and districts were forced to scramble to minimize the damage. In my home state of Texas, nearly 1,200 districts faced a freeze of $660 million, which represented about 16 percent of the state's total K-12 funding. I have spoken to superintendents, chief academic officers and chief financial officers who described how these unanticipated funding deficits undermined strategic investments into high-quality instruction and mental health services. In Tennessee, $106 million was frozen, representing 13.4 percent of the state's K-12 funding. Knox County Schools eliminated 28 central office positions, including staff supporting instruction for English learners. Florida had $400 million frozen. Pinellas County School District alone stood to lose $9 million. The superintendent reported that they would have to make cuts that directly affect student achievement while the school board chair said the freeze 'feels kind of like the straw that broke the camel's back.' Kansas saw $50 million frozen. Kansas City, Kan. Public Schools warned families that $4.9 million in lost funding would affect 'programs that directly support some of our most vulnerable students — including those from low-income families, English language learners and students with disabilities.' Even with the funds now being released, the uncertainty and disruption caused by the freeze will have lasting impacts. In some cases, district leaders were forced to make staffing and programming decisions without knowing whether critical federal support would be unfrozen. All who care about public education must make clear that this kind of reckless disruption is unacceptable and will carry political consequences. Governors from both parties should press their congressional delegations to pass legislation preventing future executive overreach. And Congress must require the Education Department to provide advance notice and justification for any future funding delays. The funding freeze was a reckless policy choice that disrespected educators, destabilized schools and put children at risk. Public education cannot function on the Trump administration's political whims and such unwarranted actions cannot go unchecked without the risk of normalizing executive overreach at the expense of students. Now is the time for all policymakers and educators to stand up for our schools and ensure that no child's education is ever again held hostage to such problematic politics.
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Newsweek
Student Loan Update: Trump Plan Could Cut Off Forgiveness for Some Workers
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Teachers, social workers, nurses and other public employees could lose access to a popular federal student loan cancellation program if the Trump administration determines their employer engages in activities with a "substantial illegal purpose," under a sweeping proposal unveiled Friday. The Education Department's plan would reshape the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program, which cancels federal student debt for government and qualifying nonprofit workers after 10 years of payments. The proposal targets certain nonprofits and government bodies — particularly those working with immigrants and transgender youth — raising fears it could be used as a political weapon. President Donald Trump hugs Education Secretary Linda McMahon after handing her the executive order to dismantle the Department of Education he just signed with during an event in the East Room of the White House... President Donald Trump hugs Education Secretary Linda McMahon after handing her the executive order to dismantle the Department of Education he just signed with during an event in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C. on March 20, 2025. More Associated Press Under the plan, the education secretary would have final authority to decide if an organization should be excluded. Activities deemed "illegal" include trafficking, "chemical castration" of children — defined as hormone therapy or puberty-blocking medication for transgender youth — illegal immigration, and support for foreign terrorist groups. President Donald Trump ordered the changes in March, accusing PSLF of sending taxpayer funds to "activist organizations" he considers a threat to national security. The public will have 30 days to comment before the proposal can be finalized, with implementation slated for July 2026. The Education Department predicts fewer than 10 employers would be barred annually and says it does not expect a "significant reduction" in the share of borrowers receiving forgiveness. Still, the agency acknowledges the impact would not be evenly felt. Schools, universities, health care providers, social work agencies and legal service organizations are among those most likely to face eligibility challenges. In states that ban gender-affirming care for minors, offering such care could be grounds for exclusion. A court ruling against an employer — or even a legal settlement admitting wrongdoing — could also lead to expulsion from PSLF. The secretary could independently determine ineligibility using a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, meaning it is more likely than not that the allegation is true. Once banned, an organization's employees would no longer have their loan payments count toward forgiveness unless they found a new qualifying employer. The ban would last 10 years or until the organization completed a corrective action plan approved by the secretary. Critics denounced the proposal as an attempt to politicize student loan forgiveness. Kristin McGuire, CEO of the nonprofit Young Invincibles, called it "a political stunt designed to confuse borrowers," adding: "By using a distorted and overly broad definition of 'illegal activities,' the Trump administration is exploiting the student loan system to attack political opponents." The plan emerged from a federal rulemaking process that began in June. A panel of experts failed to reach consensus, giving the department freedom to craft its own version. The Education Department says it addressed some concerns, clarifying it will not bar organizations solely for exercising First Amendment rights, such as supporting transgender rights without providing gender-affirming care. This article includes reporting by the Associated Press.
