### Debate Erupts Over Potential Elimination of U.S. Department of Education and Its Impact on Special Education

A recent federal hearing about the chronic shortage of special education teachers shifted focus to a heated debate on the possible abolition of the U.S. Department of Education and its implications for students with disabilities. The discussion took place during a public briefing of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, reflecting the influence of Donald Trump's election on current education policy discourse.

During his campaign, Trump pledged to dismantle the federal Education Department, proposing to shift more educational control to individual states. This has raised questions about the future of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a federal law enacted in 1975 that guarantees free and appropriate public education for students with disabilities. Though IDEA predates the establishment of the Education Department, concerns linger about how its funding and enforcement would be managed without a dedicated federal agency.

Prominent entities have weighed in with proposals. Project 2025, crafted by former Trump administration officials, suggests converting most federal special education funds into "no-strings" grants administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, which Trump has chosen Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead. Moreover, Project 2025 recommends transferring the Office for Civil Rights to the Department of Justice, where enforcement would shift from investigations to lawsuits.

During the briefing, Commissioner Mondaire Jones, a Democrat and former congressman, questioned experts about the potential consequences of abolishing the Education Department on students with disabilities and the special education teacher shortage. Several panelists, including Stanford University's Eric Hanushek, maintained that federal funding remains essential regardless of structural changes. Hanushek, a noted education researcher, suggested that the proposal is more symbolic of limiting federal intervention in state education policies.

William Trachman from the Mountain States Legal Foundation highlighted the importance of the structural replacement, emphasizing that federal involvement in special education would persist under any reorganization. However, the exact impact would hinge on the details of the transition.

Concerns were also raised about the practical ramifications. University of Missouri's Tuan Nguyen expressed fears of a "free-for-all" in teaching standards without federal oversight, while Columbia University's Amanda Levin Mazin warned about potential cuts to programs incentivizing special education careers. Jessica Levin of the Education Law Center underscored the critical role of the Education Department in enforcing students' civil rights.

The debate underscores the high stakes involved in educational policy reforms and how they could affect the vulnerable population of students with disabilities.