Individualized Schooling Packages (IEPs) are legally mandated paperwork developed for college kids with disabilities in public faculties. These plans define the precise educational and practical targets for a pupil, in addition to the required providers and lodging to assist them obtain these targets. The query of whether or not the previous president sought to eradicate these packages requires a nuanced understanding of coverage shifts and budgetary priorities throughout his administration.
Entry to specialised training providers for college kids with disabilities is protected below federal regulation, primarily the People with Disabilities Schooling Act (IDEA). Any important alteration to those protections would have profound implications for hundreds of thousands of scholars and their households. The historic context of IDEA demonstrates a long-standing dedication to making sure equal academic alternatives for all youngsters, no matter their studying variations. Adjustments to funding or regulatory oversight might doubtlessly affect the effectiveness of those packages.
This evaluation will study the precise insurance policies, finances proposals, and public statements made through the Trump administration associated to training and incapacity providers. It’s going to assess the extent to which these actions indicated a want to curtail or eradicate IEPs, contemplating each direct legislative efforts and oblique impacts by means of funding changes and regulatory modifications.
1. Funding for IDEA
Federal funding for the People with Disabilities Schooling Act (IDEA) represents a vital part within the implementation of Individualized Schooling Packages (IEPs). IDEA mandates that states present a free and applicable public training (FAPE) to youngsters with disabilities, and the federal authorities is meant to offset a portion of the prices incurred by states in assembly this mandate. Reductions in IDEA funding can immediately affect the power of states and native faculty districts to offer the required providers and helps outlined in IEPs, equivalent to specialised instruction, assistive know-how, and associated therapies. This could result in bigger class sizes in particular training, fewer assets for lecturers, and diminished entry to important providers for college kids with disabilities. For instance, a lower in funding might lead to a college district being unable to rent a speech therapist, thereby denying college students with speech impairments the providers mandated of their IEPs. The sensible significance lies within the direct correlation between funding ranges and the standard of academic providers obtainable to college students with disabilities.
Throughout the Trump administration, proposed finances cuts to the Division of Schooling raised issues amongst advocates for people with disabilities. Whereas Congress in the end maintained and even elevated IDEA funding in some fiscal years, the administration’s preliminary finances proposals typically signaled a want to prioritize different academic initiatives. For example, proposals to consolidate or eradicate sure grant packages might have not directly affected IDEA funding by diverting assets away from particular training. Moreover, a shift in focus in direction of faculty alternative packages, equivalent to vouchers and constitution faculties, might doubtlessly siphon funding from public faculties, that are accountable for offering IEP providers to nearly all of college students with disabilities. The potential affect is a weakening of the general public faculty system’s skill to adequately assist college students with IEPs.
In abstract, though there was no direct try and eradicate IDEA funding completely, the Trump administration’s budgetary priorities and emphasis on deregulation created uncertainty concerning the long-term monetary stability of particular teaching programs. The connection between federal funding ranges and the efficacy of IEP implementation highlights the significance of continued advocacy and oversight to make sure that college students with disabilities obtain the assets and assist crucial to reach their training. Challenges stay in making certain satisfactory funding to fulfill the rising wants of scholars with disabilities, and the potential for future finances cuts necessitates ongoing vigilance.
2. Regulatory Adjustments Proposed
Proposed regulatory modifications through the Trump administration are related to evaluating potential shifts in coverage concerning Individualized Schooling Packages (IEPs) as a result of federal laws considerably affect the implementation and enforcement of the People with Disabilities Schooling Act (IDEA), which mandates IEPs. Alterations to those laws might weaken or strengthen the protections and providers offered to college students with disabilities.
-
Weakening of Procedural Safeguards
Some proposals centered on streamlining or weakening procedural safeguards outlined in IDEA. These safeguards are designed to guard the rights of scholars with disabilities and their mother and father, making certain their involvement within the IEP course of and offering avenues for dispute decision. Examples of such modifications embrace alterations to timelines for IEP conferences or modifications to the method for submitting complaints. If enacted, these modifications might scale back parental involvement, restrict accountability, and doubtlessly lead to insufficient IEPs that don’t totally handle the coed’s wants. The implication for the query of whether or not there was a want to eradicate IEPs is that weakening the method makes it harder to implement, doubtlessly resulting in de facto discount in effectiveness.
-
Adjustments to Definition of Incapacity
Proposed regulatory modifications might have included revisions to the definitions of particular incapacity classes below IDEA. Altering these definitions might have an effect on the variety of college students eligible for particular training providers and, consequently, the appropriate to an IEP. For instance, if the standards for figuring out a pupil with a studying incapacity have been made extra restrictive, fewer college students would qualify for an IEP. This might result in a discount within the variety of college students receiving specialised assist and lodging. The implications for college kids beforehand receiving IEPs could possibly be important and have an effect on their academic outcomes.
-
Modifications to Least Restrictive Atmosphere (LRE) Necessities
The precept of Least Restrictive Atmosphere (LRE) requires that college students with disabilities be educated alongside their non-disabled friends to the utmost extent applicable. Regulatory modifications might have sought to switch the LRE necessities, doubtlessly resulting in elevated segregation of scholars with disabilities in separate school rooms or faculties. Such modifications might diminish alternatives for inclusion and social interplay, and will not directly affect the standard of IEP implementation. A shift away from inclusion might scale back the perceived worth of IEPs as a device to facilitate participation basically training.
-
Alterations to Analysis and Evaluation Procedures
Proposed modifications might have affected the strategies used to guage and assess college students with disabilities for IEP eligibility and progress monitoring. For example, revisions to the kinds of assessments used or the standards for figuring out a pupil’s current ranges of efficiency might affect the event of applicable IEP targets and providers. If analysis procedures are weakened or turn out to be much less complete, it might lead to IEPs that aren’t tailor-made to the coed’s particular wants, in the end undermining the effectiveness of the plan. That is important as a result of the analysis informs the IEP, and altering the analysis course of impacts the inspiration on which the IEP is constructed.
The proposed regulatory modifications underscore the significance of scrutinizing administrative actions associated to particular training. Even with out immediately eliminating IEPs, modifications to laws governing their implementation might considerably alter their effectiveness and the extent of assist offered to college students with disabilities. The cumulative affect of those modifications supplies perception into the broader coverage agenda concerning particular training and the diploma to which the administration prioritized the rights and wishes of scholars with disabilities.
3. Appointments to key positions
Appointments to key positions inside the Division of Schooling and associated companies considerably affect the path of insurance policies and the enforcement of laws pertaining to particular training, together with Individualized Schooling Packages (IEPs). Personnel chosen for these roles form the priorities, interpretations, and implementation of federal legal guidelines affecting college students with disabilities.
-
Secretary of Schooling
The Secretary of Schooling oversees the Division of Schooling and units the general academic agenda for the nation. The person appointed to this place determines the emphasis positioned on particular training, the allocation of assets to assist IEP implementation, and the enforcement of IDEA. For instance, a Secretary who prioritizes deregulation or faculty alternative might allocate assets away from conventional public faculties, doubtlessly impacting the standard of particular training providers. The Secretary’s public statements and coverage directives provide perception into the administration’s strategy to IEPs.
-
Assistant Secretary for Particular Schooling and Rehabilitative Providers (OSERS)
The Assistant Secretary for OSERS immediately oversees the Workplace of Particular Schooling Packages (OSEP), which is accountable for administering IDEA. The priorities and coverage steerage issued by this particular person have a direct affect on how states and native faculty districts implement IEPs. An appointee who favors stricter accountability measures might push for extra rigorous monitoring of IEP compliance, whereas one who emphasizes flexibility might scale back oversight, doubtlessly resulting in inconsistencies in service provision. The OSERS appointee’s views on inclusion, assistive know-how, and trainer coaching are essential indicators of the administration’s stance on IEPs.
-
Basic Counsel of the Division of Schooling
The Basic Counsel supplies authorized recommendation to the Secretary of Schooling and different division officers, shaping the interpretation and enforcement of training legal guidelines and laws. This particular person’s authorized opinions can have an effect on the scope of IDEA’s protections and the rights of scholars with disabilities. For example, the Basic Counsel may situation steerage on the authorized necessities for IEP growth or the procedures for resolving disputes between mother and father and college districts. Their interpretation of case regulation and laws immediately influences the authorized panorama surrounding IEPs.
-
Members of the Nationwide Council on Incapacity (NCD)
The Nationwide Council on Incapacity (NCD) is an impartial federal company that advises the President, Congress, and different federal companies on insurance policies, packages, practices, and procedures regarding incapacity. Appointments to the NCD mirror the administration’s broader perspective on incapacity rights and inclusion. The NCD conducts analysis and makes suggestions on a variety of points, together with particular training. The composition of the NCD and the experience of its members can affect the administration’s understanding of the challenges and alternatives dealing with college students with disabilities.
In conclusion, appointments to key positions present invaluable indicators of the administration’s priorities and intentions concerning particular training. By analyzing the backgrounds, {qualifications}, and coverage positions of those appointees, it’s doable to realize a clearer understanding of whether or not the administration aimed to weaken or undermine the protections and providers offered by means of IEPs, even with out explicitly advocating for his or her elimination.
4. Public statements on training
Public statements made by political leaders on training function indicators of coverage priorities and potential shifts within the allocation of assets. These statements, significantly these made by the president and key administration officers, present insights into the administration’s stance on varied features of the training system, together with particular training and the implementation of Individualized Schooling Packages (IEPs).
-
Emphasis on College Alternative
Public statements selling faculty alternative, together with vouchers and constitution faculties, can not directly affect the supply and high quality of particular training providers. If the administration constantly advocates for diverting public funds to non-public or constitution faculties, it might sign a lowered dedication to supporting conventional public faculties, which serve nearly all of college students with IEPs. These statements recommend a possible shift in assets away from public faculty particular teaching programs.
-
Deregulation Rhetoric
Statements emphasizing deregulation in training can increase issues in regards to the potential weakening of federal protections for college kids with disabilities. If the administration expresses a want to cut back federal oversight and provides states extra autonomy, it might result in inconsistencies within the implementation of IDEA and the enforcement of IEP necessities. Such rhetoric creates uncertainty in regards to the long-term dedication to making sure equitable entry to particular training providers nationwide. Deregulation might decrease the requirements and protections afforded by IEPs.
-
Deal with Accountability
Whereas accountability measures can profit college students with disabilities, public statements that overemphasize standardized testing and outcomes might inadvertently marginalize the wants of scholars with IEPs. If the administration focuses totally on metrics that don’t adequately seize the progress and achievements of scholars with numerous studying wants, it might create strain to slim the curriculum and scale back assist for individualized instruction. This emphasis might overshadow the individualized targets outlined in IEPs.
-
Silence on Particular Schooling
An absence of specific dialogue about particular training in public statements may also be indicative of the administration’s priorities. If the president and key officers hardly ever handle the wants of scholars with disabilities or the significance of IDEA, it might recommend a decrease precedence for particular training in comparison with different academic initiatives. This relative silence can create issues amongst incapacity advocates and oldsters in regards to the administration’s dedication to supporting college students with IEPs. The absence of statements can indicate an absence of significance assigned to IEPs.
Analyzing public statements along side proposed finances cuts, regulatory modifications, and appointments supplies a extra complete understanding of the administration’s stance on particular training. Whereas direct pronouncements about eliminating IEPs could also be absent, constant messaging on associated points can reveal the potential for insurance policies that not directly undermine their effectiveness.
5. Prioritization of College Alternative
The prioritization of faculty alternative initiatives, equivalent to vouchers and constitution faculties, presents a fancy relationship with the query of whether or not the Trump administration sought to eradicate Individualized Schooling Packages (IEPs). Whereas faculty alternative itself doesn’t inherently dismantle IEPs, the mechanisms by which it’s carried out can considerably affect their accessibility and effectiveness.
-
Funding Diversion
Elevated funding for varsity alternative packages can divert assets from conventional public faculties, that are legally obligated to offer IEPs. When funds are redirected to non-public or constitution faculties, public faculties might face budgetary constraints, limiting their skill to offer specialised instruction, assistive know-how, and associated providers mandated by IEPs. For instance, a college district may scale back particular training employees or delay crucial evaluations attributable to decreased funding, thereby affecting the standard of IEP implementation.
-
Diversified Particular Schooling Providers in Personal Faculties
Personal faculties taking part in voucher packages will not be all the time required to offer the identical stage of particular training providers as public faculties. Whereas some might provide complete particular teaching programs, others might have restricted assets or experience to fulfill the wants of scholars with disabilities. Dad and mom utilizing vouchers to enroll their youngsters in non-public faculties might discover that the IEP providers are insufficient or unavailable, successfully diminishing the worth of the IEP. This disparity can create conditions the place college students with disabilities are underserved.
-
Constitution College Accessibility
Constitution faculties, whereas publicly funded, function with higher autonomy than conventional public faculties. This autonomy can have an effect on their willingness or skill to serve college students with important disabilities who require intensive IEP providers. Some constitution faculties might have enrollment caps on college students with disabilities or lack the required experience to assist complicated IEPs. If constitution faculties will not be geared up to fulfill the wants of all college students, faculty alternative can inadvertently restrict choices for college kids with disabilities, concentrating them in conventional public faculties with fewer assets.
-
Accountability and Oversight
The shift in direction of faculty alternative can complicate accountability and oversight mechanisms for particular teaching programs. Personal and constitution faculties could also be topic to completely different accountability requirements than public faculties, making it tough to make sure that IEPs are being carried out successfully and that college students are receiving applicable providers. The shortage of constant oversight can result in inconsistencies within the high quality of particular training throughout completely different faculty settings, doubtlessly disadvantaging college students with disabilities.
In abstract, whereas the prioritization of faculty alternative doesn’t immediately eradicate IEPs, it might probably not directly affect their effectiveness by diverting funds, creating disparities in service provision, and complicating accountability. The extent to which faculty alternative impacts IEPs will depend on the precise insurance policies and laws governing these packages, in addition to the dedication of policymakers to make sure that all college students, together with these with disabilities, have entry to high-quality training.
6. Impression of Finances Cuts
The potential for federal finances cuts to teaching programs below the Trump administration raised important issues concerning the way forward for particular training providers and the implementation of Individualized Schooling Packages (IEPs). Whereas there might not have been an specific objective to eradicate IEPs, reductions in funding might not directly undermine their effectiveness and accessibility.
-
Decreased Funding for IDEA Half B Grants
IDEA Half B grants present essential monetary assist to states and native faculty districts for particular training providers. Cuts to those grants might lead to decreased funding for personnel, assets, and packages essential to implement IEPs successfully. For instance, faculty districts could be compelled to cut back particular training employees, improve class sizes, or restrict entry to assistive know-how, all of which might negatively affect the standard of IEP providers.
-
Diminished Assist for Early Intervention Providers
Finances cuts affecting IDEA Half C, which helps early intervention providers for infants and toddlers with disabilities, might have long-term implications for the necessity for IEPs in later years. Reductions in early intervention packages might result in delayed identification and remedy of disabilities, growing the probability that youngsters would require extra intensive particular training providers in elementary faculty and past. This could pressure assets and doubtlessly compromise the effectiveness of IEPs.
-
Constraints on Instructor Coaching and Skilled Growth
Finances cuts to packages that assist trainer coaching {and professional} growth in particular training might scale back the standard of instruction and IEP implementation. When lecturers lack satisfactory coaching in evidence-based practices and techniques for working with college students with disabilities, they could be much less efficient in creating and implementing IEPs that meet particular person pupil wants. This might lead to IEPs that aren’t aligned with greatest practices or that fail to deal with the coed’s particular studying challenges.
-
Impression on Associated Providers
Finances cuts can restrict the supply of associated providers, equivalent to speech remedy, occupational remedy, and counseling, which are sometimes integral elements of IEPs. When these providers are lowered or eradicated, college students with disabilities might not obtain the excellent assist they should succeed academically and socially. The absence of those providers can hinder the effectiveness of the IEP and forestall college students from reaching their full potential.
In conclusion, whereas direct elimination of IEPs might not have been the said goal, the potential affect of finances cuts on particular teaching programs and providers demonstrates a tangible risk to the efficacy of those packages. Useful resource constraints can systemically erode the standard and scope of particular training, undermining the ensures offered by federal regulation. The sensible results of those finances concerns might lead to a diminished capability to assist college students with disabilities, rendering the IEP course of much less efficient.
7. Deal with accountability
A heightened concentrate on accountability in training, significantly concerning standardized testing and educational outcomes, can create complicated pressures that not directly have an effect on the implementation and perceived worth of Individualized Schooling Packages (IEPs). Whereas accountability measures are usually meant to enhance academic outcomes, their software can inadvertently marginalize or undermine the individualized strategy on the core of particular training. The emphasis on standardized metrics can strain faculties to prioritize methods that increase total scores, doubtlessly diverting assets from the intensive, individualized assist that IEPs present. For example, a college below strain to fulfill particular proficiency targets may scale back funding for specialised instruction or assistive know-how, as an alternative specializing in interventions designed to enhance efficiency on standardized exams. This shift can result in a neglect of the precise, individualized targets outlined in IEPs, thereby diminishing their effectiveness.
For instance, if trainer evaluations are closely primarily based on standardized check scores, educators might really feel compelled to concentrate on instructing to the check, even when it conflicts with the distinctive wants and targets laid out in a pupil’s IEP. This may end up in a scenario the place college students with disabilities are pushed to evolve to a one-size-fits-all curriculum, regardless of their documented want for individualized instruction and lodging. Furthermore, a slim concentrate on accountability metrics can result in an absence of recognition for the progress and achievements of scholars with disabilities, who could also be making important beneficial properties in areas not measured by standardized exams, equivalent to social expertise or adaptive habits. The sensible significance of this understanding is that accountability measures should be rigorously designed and carried out to make sure that they assist, reasonably than undermine, the targets of particular training and the person wants of scholars with IEPs.
In conclusion, whereas a concentrate on accountability will not be inherently against supporting college students with disabilities, an overemphasis on standardized metrics and an absence of consideration to individualized progress can not directly weaken the effectiveness of IEPs. Challenges lie in creating accountability methods that precisely mirror the various wants and achievements of all college students, together with these with disabilities, and in making certain that accountability measures assist, reasonably than detract from, the individualized strategy on the coronary heart of particular training. The design and implementation of accountability measures should steadiness the necessity for common enchancment with the significance of individualized assist for college kids with disabilities.
8. Deregulation efforts
Deregulation efforts inside the training sector can not directly affect the implementation and enforcement of Individualized Schooling Packages (IEPs). Whereas not explicitly concentrating on IEPs for elimination, the loosening of federal oversight and the granting of higher autonomy to states can create situations that undermine the effectiveness and accessibility of those packages. For instance, if federal laws concerning trainer {qualifications} or the availability of associated providers are weakened, states might scale back requirements, resulting in much less certified particular training lecturers and fewer assets for college kids with disabilities. This may end up in IEPs which are poorly carried out or fail to adequately handle pupil wants. The importance is the potential for decreased accountability and consistency in particular training providers throughout states.
Moreover, deregulation can have an effect on the procedural safeguards designed to guard the rights of scholars with disabilities and their mother and father. If federal laws mandating parental involvement within the IEP course of are relaxed, faculty districts could also be much less diligent in looking for parental enter, resulting in IEPs that don’t totally mirror the coed’s wants and preferences. Equally, weakened laws concerning dispute decision could make it harder for folks to problem insufficient IEPs or service denials. An occasion of this might contain a streamlining of the criticism course of, which can appear environment friendly, however it might probably unintentionally scale back the alternatives for folks to voice issues and advocate for his or her youngsters’s rights.
In conclusion, deregulation efforts pose an oblique risk to the efficacy of IEPs by weakening federal oversight, lowering accountability, and doubtlessly compromising the standard of particular training providers. The connection lies within the potential erosion of protections for college kids with disabilities attributable to a decentralized strategy to training. Challenges contain making certain that deregulation doesn’t result in a race to the underside, and that states stay dedicated to offering high-quality particular training providers even within the absence of stringent federal mandates.
Often Requested Questions
This part addresses frequent questions concerning the potential affect of the Trump administration’s insurance policies on Individualized Schooling Packages (IEPs) and particular training.
Query 1: Did the Trump administration explicitly state a want to eradicate IEPs?
No, there was no specific public assertion or coverage directive from the Trump administration calling for the elimination of IEPs. The main focus was on deregulation and college alternative, however no direct elimination of IEPs was formally proposed.
Query 2: How might finances cuts have affected IEPs?
Proposed finances cuts to the Division of Schooling might have not directly impacted the standard and availability of particular training providers by lowering funding for IDEA Half B grants, trainer coaching, and associated providers, thereby undermining the efficient implementation of IEPs.
Query 3: In what methods might deregulation efforts have influenced IEPs?
Deregulation initiatives geared toward granting higher autonomy to states might have weakened federal oversight of particular training, doubtlessly resulting in inconsistencies within the high quality of IEP implementation and a discount in procedural safeguards for college kids with disabilities and their households.
Query 4: How may the prioritization of faculty alternative affect college students with IEPs?
The emphasis on faculty alternative, together with vouchers and constitution faculties, might have diverted assets from conventional public faculties, doubtlessly limiting the supply of complete particular training providers for college kids with IEPs, as non-public faculties might not all the time be geared up to offer equal assist.
Query 5: Did appointments to key positions inside the Division of Schooling affect particular training coverage?
Appointments to positions such because the Secretary of Schooling and the Assistant Secretary for Particular Schooling and Rehabilitative Providers (OSERS) formed the priorities and coverage steerage concerning particular training, influencing the emphasis positioned on IDEA enforcement and the assist for IEP implementation.
Query 6: How does a concentrate on standardized testing and accountability relate to IEPs?
An overemphasis on standardized testing and accountability metrics might have inadvertently marginalized the individualized strategy of IEPs by pressuring faculties to prioritize methods that increase total check scores, doubtlessly on the expense of individualized instruction and lodging for college kids with disabilities.
In abstract, whereas there was no direct try and eradicate IEPs, varied insurance policies and proposals from the Trump administration had the potential to not directly affect the standard, accessibility, and effectiveness of those packages.
This evaluation continues with an examination of potential legislative actions and their implications for college kids with disabilities.
Understanding the Panorama
Navigating the complexities of particular training coverage requires cautious consideration to shifts in federal priorities. This part supplies insights into analyzing coverage modifications associated to Individualized Schooling Packages (IEPs).
Tip 1: Scrutinize Finances Proposals: Analyze proposed federal finances cuts to the Division of Schooling, particularly these affecting IDEA Half B grants, early intervention providers (Half C), and trainer coaching packages. Decreases in funding can not directly undermine the implementation and efficacy of IEPs.
Tip 2: Consider Regulatory Adjustments: Rigorously assess any modifications to federal laws governing particular training. Adjustments to procedural safeguards, incapacity definitions, Least Restrictive Atmosphere (LRE) necessities, and analysis procedures can considerably affect IEP effectiveness.
Tip 3: Look at Key Appointments: Consider the backgrounds and coverage positions of people appointed to key positions, such because the Secretary of Schooling, Assistant Secretary for OSERS, and members of the Nationwide Council on Incapacity (NCD). These appointments form coverage interpretations and enforcement.
Tip 4: Analyze Public Statements: Monitor public statements made by political leaders on training, together with discussions of faculty alternative, deregulation, and accountability measures. These statements provide insights into coverage priorities and potential shifts in useful resource allocation.
Tip 5: Assess College Alternative Impression: Examine how the prioritization of faculty alternative initiatives, equivalent to vouchers and constitution faculties, impacts the accessibility and high quality of particular training providers, contemplating funding diversion, assorted service provision, and accountability mechanisms.
Tip 6: Perceive Accountability Metrics: Decide how accountability measures, significantly these centered on standardized testing, might affect the emphasis positioned on individualized instruction and the distinctive wants of scholars with IEPs. Guarantee accountability measures don’t overshadow IEP targets.
Tip 7: Watch Deregulation Efforts: Take into account how deregulation efforts might weaken federal oversight and doubtlessly compromise the standard of particular training providers. Consider the affect of decentralization on accountability and repair consistency.
An intensive understanding of those elements is essential for assessing the potential affect of coverage modifications on particular training and making certain continued assist for college kids with disabilities.
The following part supplies a abstract of the implications derived from the evaluation offered.
Conclusion
This evaluation reveals that, whereas the Trump administration didn’t explicitly search to eradicate Individualized Schooling Packages (IEPs), a number of insurance policies and proposals had the potential to not directly undermine their effectiveness. Finances cuts, deregulation efforts, a prioritization of faculty alternative, and an emphasis on standardized testing created situations that might compromise the standard and accessibility of particular training providers. Appointments to key positions inside the Division of Schooling additional formed the path of coverage, influencing the implementation of IDEA and the assist for IEPs.
The long-term affect of those insurance policies on college students with disabilities stays to be totally seen. Continued monitoring of federal funding, laws, and coverage choices is crucial to make sure that the rights and wishes of scholars with IEPs are protected. Advocates, educators, and policymakers should stay vigilant of their efforts to uphold the rules of IDEA and to advertise equitable entry to high-quality particular training for all college students.
