The Department of Education approved a grant to help students with disabilities into adulthood. Then Trump came along
Educators, researchers and employees at the Department of Education say that the Trump administration's slashing of federal bureaucracies and workforces has significantly weakened special education enforcement and killed programs meant to help students with disabilities.
Last week, Tamara Linkow, the senior director of the American Institutes for Research's education evaluation studies program, told The Independent that she learned that the federal government canceled funding for Charting my Path for Future Success. The program was meant to help students with disabilities learn about programs to transition to adulthood.
'It consists of two different support programs for students at the end of high school to help them identify to set goals, plan their goals, and take action towards their goals for life after high school,' Linkow told The Independent. Linkow said that the program had just started working with instructors across 13 different school districts across the country that hired about 60 different special educators this semester.
Trump campaigned explicitly on slashing the U.S. Department of Education. He nominated former WWE executive Linda McMahon to serve as his secretary of Education. As late as last week, he said that he wanted the department 'shuttered immediately.' Efforts to slash the Department of Education have begun in earnest.
The study began in 2019. Catherine Fowler – a professor at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte and director at the National Technical Assistance Center on Transition: The Collaborative – said she had been working on the program from the beginning and had worked as a district liaison during the last spring and early summer, identifying districts to participate in the program.
'And so just as everything was really getting started, there would be three semesters of intervention, and that's where we would really learn what was effective and how to how to do this in schools and do it well, and then be able to track students after high school and see what the long term outcomes are,' she told The Independent.
Students with disabilities have their rights enforced through the Department of Education under laws such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which stipulates that any entity that received federal dollars cannot discriminate against people with disabilities.
Students with disabilities have '504 meetings' to outline the accommodations for students with disabilities, as well as 'individualized education plans,' which provide instruction for students with disabilities.
'The instructors had just started working with students,' Linkow said. 'They were about a month and a half in depending upon the district, working with their students, and they had to stop overnight.'
The program was funded as part of a $45 million grant entitled 'Evaluation of Transition Supports for Youth with Disabilities,' which was meant to evaluate the best programs for students with disabilities based on 'strengthening students' goal setting, planning, and self-advocacy skills and helping them apply these self-determination skills to their transition objectives,' according to the grant's website.
'This project was so powerful because it was both getting students access to services, getting school districts access to trained instructors to deliver effective services, and we were going to learn a lot about effective services as well so that we could inform the future of what schools and teachers are doing,' Karrie Shogren, a professor of special education at the University of Kansas, said.
At the Canyon Schools District in Utah, the program served 88 students in 11th grade at five high schools.
'The whole point, right, obviously, is to sort of study what works best in preparing students for life after high school,' Kirsten Stewart, the director of communications for the district, told The Independent.
In response, the district sent an email informing families that students would continue to receive supports they received before starting Charting My Path and it would not affect other services students receive from the district or other agencies.
'What I can say is that we, whenever possible, our practices to absorb staff cuts through resignments, and we have several current job openings in special education,' she said.
Numerous federal bureaucracies such onto the chopping block under the guise of Elon Musk 's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Ironically, Shogren, the University of Kansas professor, told The Independent, the program would have evaluated the most effective ways to help students with disabilities transition into adulthood.
'This was going to be a chance to figure out what is the most efficient way to support schools, teachers, students, to implement things that are going to lead to the outcomes we want for all students with disabilities, to have jobs, to have careers, to transition effectively into adulthood,' she said.
The Department of Education did not respond immediately for requests for comment.
Linkow said that school districts are hopefully coming close to learning what they will do without the money.
'So districts are having to make a decision, very tough decision, whether they need to let the instructors go, or whether some districts are not,' she said. Some districts will need to find out if there is a way to keep educators on staff despite the money being pulled.
Linkow said she has no idea why this contract was pulled. 'This contract, like all others, was terminated for convenience,' she said. 'And this program, as I'm sure you saw it, was developed to be effective for students of all types of disabilities, so ADHD, dyslexia, autism, all the way to non-verbal and physically handicapped students.'
Shogren said as a researcher, she is no longer able to conduct her work.
'All of the supports that were going into schools as well were stopped as a part of this, you know,' she said. 'So I think the question now is, how do we continue to support students, teachers in schools to provide these transition services?'
Fowler said cutting off the program means much of the work will not see any results.
'So on the bottom line there's money that won't be spent, but there's definitely a lot of money that has already been spent, and there won't be any outcomes from that,' she said. 'That is where it doesn't seem to match, you know, the goal of efficiency and the goal of saving money. That doesn't seem like a cost savings to me.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
Blow for Rachel Reeves after UK economy shrinks by more than expected
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
Times
31 minutes ago
- Times
US withdraws embassy staff as Israel ‘prepares strikes on Iran'
The United States is scaling down embassy staff in the Middle East amid reports that Israel is preparing an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. The partial withdrawal was announced by President Trump, who said he was less confident now that negotiations with Iran would succeed. Non-essential staff at the American embassy in Iraq, which has come under attack by pro-Iranian militia in the past, have been ordered home, and military dependents in several neighbouring countries will be allowed to leave. 'They are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place, and we'll see what happens,' Trump told reporters. 'We've given notice to move out.' Pro-Iran militia in Iraq attacked the American embassy in Baghdad after a US drone strike killed the leading Iranian military commander, Qasem Soleimani, alongside an Iraqi militia leader as they left the Baghdad airport in January 2020.
Spectator
43 minutes ago
- Spectator
Could Donald Trump scrap Aukus?
America's policy undersecretary of defence, Elbridge Colby, is one of the brightest brains in Donald Trump's administration. Having served in the first Trump presidency, Colby has an outstanding reputation as a defence and strategic thinker. He is also, however, very much aligned with Trump's America First thinking in respect of foreign policy, and the United States' relationship with her allies. That would be a strategic disaster for Australia and Britain In tasking Colby on Wednesday with reviewing the Aukus nuclear submarine-centred strategic partnership between the US, the UK and Australia, the president sends a clear message to Britain and Australia: Aukus is part of his inheritance from Joe Biden, and its future therefore is far from assured. In a media statement, the Pentagon said: 'The department is reviewing Aukus as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the president's America First agenda. As (Defense) Secretary (Pete) Hegseth has made clear, this means ensuring the highest readiness of our service members, that allies step up fully to do their part for collective defence, and that the defence industrial base is meeting our needs. This review will ensure the initiative meets these common sense, America First criteria.' Colby himself has been ambivalent about Aukus ever since it was established by Biden, and then Australian and British prime ministers, Scott Morrison and Rishi Sunak, in 2021. Addressing a Policy Exchange forum last year, Colby said he was 'quite sceptical' about the Aukus pact, and questioned its viability and ultimate benefits. In a more recent interview with the Australian newspaper, Colby said Aukus's Pillar 1 – the nuclear submarine programme under which Australia would purchase several Virginia-class boats, pending the acquisition of new generation UK-Australian Acute-class submarines – is 'very problematic'. He did say, however, that Pillar 2 – the sharing of military intelligence and technical know-how between the partners – 'is great, no problem'. Colby's long-standing concern is the US's ability to take on China if it ever comes to conflict in the Asia-Pacific, especially over Taiwan. 'How are we supposed to give away nuclear attack submarines in the years of the window of potential conflict with China?' he told the Australian. 'A nuclear attack submarine is the most important asset for a western Pacific fight, for Taiwan, conventionally. But we don't have enough, and we're not going to have enough.' If this is the starting position for Colby's review, its scepticism contradicts the steadfast commitment to Aukus from the current Australian and British Labour governments. Indeed, Britain's latest Strategic Defence Review places high priority on the Aukus partnership as an integral element of British strategic and force planning. Given Colby's previous form on Aukus, the review may well recommend scaling back or discontinuing the nuclear submarine Aukus pillar. But that would be a strategic disaster for Australia and Britain, let alone for Colby's own strategic vision, outlined in his 2021 book, of an 'anti-hegemonic coalition to contain the military ambitions of China', in which he specifically envisioned Australia. Arguably, it doesn't matter which country mans the attack nuclear submarines assigned to the Asia-Pacific theatre, as long as the boats are there. But will Colby see it that way? In Australia, however, the administration's announcement immediately set a cat amongst the pigeons. Currently, Australia spends just over two per cent of GDP on defence, and the Trump administration, including Colby, is pressuring on Australia to do far more. This month, Hegseth, told his Australian counterpart that Australia should be committing at least 3.5 per cent of GDP to ensure not just Aukus, but that her fighting personnel and ageing military hardware are fit for purpose and contributing commensurately to the Western alliance. After his face-to-face meeting with Hegseth, Australian defence minister Richard Marles seemed open to the suggestion. His prime minister, Anthony Albanese, is not. In his first major media appearance since his thumping election win a month ago, Albanese was asked whether the US could renege on supplying nuclear submarines to Australia if spending is deemed inadequate. 'Well, I think Australia should decide on what we spend on Australia's defence. Simple as that', Albanese replied. It hasn't escaped notice here that the Pentagon announced its Aukus review less than 48 hours after Albanese made his declaration, and just days before the Australian prime minister is expected to have his first personal meeting with Trump at the G7 Leaders' Summit in Canada. That meeting, carrying the risk of a public Trump rebuke, surely will be dreaded by Albanese. Dealing with the Americans' insistence on a near-doubling of Australia's defence investment is politically diabolical for Albanese. He has just won re-election on a manifesto promising huge additional social investments, especially in Australia's version of the NHS and a fiscally ravenous National Disability Insurance Scheme. Albanese must keep his left-wing support base onside by expanding already huge public investments and subsidies in pursuing his government's ideological Net Zero and 100 per cent renewable energy goals. All that on top of a burgeoning national debt. To achieve Nato's GDP defence spending target of 3 per cent, let alone Hegseth's 3.5, something has to give. Albanese cannot deliver both massive social spending and vast defence outlays: to keep the Americans happy, and justify the continuation of both Aukus pillars, he will need to either prove himself a Bismarck-calibre statesman, or risk electoral wrath if he retreats on his domestic spending promises, and cuts existing programmes across his government, to afford adequate defence spending headroom. Australia needs America to be a strong ally in our troubled region, but the United States needs steadfast allies like Australia and Britain. Now the administration's scepticism about Aukus's value to the US is officially on the table, with a review entrusted to its biggest Aukus sceptic in Elbridge Colby, Australia and Britain must justify why all aspects of the partnership are a worthwhile investment with them, as America's partners, committed to playing their part in full. How well they do it will be a measure of their political and diplomatic competence.
