Education Flashcards
(3 cards)
Special education experts worry about students with disabilities post-Education Department - USA Today; March 2025
President Donald Trump’s executive order to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education has raised significant concerns about the future of special education and the legal rights of students with disabilities. While Trump stated that services for students with disabilities would be “fully preserved” and responsibilities would transfer to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), experts and advocates are alarmed by the lack of clarity. The Department of Education has long overseen implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), ensuring that 7.5 million children with disabilities receive free, appropriate public education through tools like Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).
The Education Department has also been responsible for dispersing over $15 billion annually in federal special education funding and ensuring it is spent appropriately by states. Advocates like Daniel Pearson worry that, under HHS, funding might become block grants with fewer accountability measures. Representative Jahana Hayes warned that local communities may have to raise taxes or cut other services to meet legal obligations if federal oversight weakens. This uncertainty has left families and educators anxious about how—and if—vital services will be maintained.
Civil rights enforcement is another area in jeopardy. The Department’s Office for Civil Rights has handled discrimination complaints on behalf of students with disabilities. That work was paused when Trump took office, briefly resumed, and then was severely undercut by layoffs of 243 staff members. Advocacy groups like the National Center for Youth Law have filed lawsuits, warning that failing to investigate such complaints is a betrayal of students and families who depend on these protections.
Additionally, the administration has dismantled the Institute of Education Sciences, the research arm responsible for collecting data and conducting national studies on special education. This loss of research capacity alarms experts like Carrie Gillispie, who argues that without consistent federal data, inequities between states will worsen. Families may face inconsistent levels of support simply based on where they live. With enforcement, funding, and research all in flux, many fear that dismantling the Department of Education will jeopardize the rights and services that students with disabilities rely on across the nation.
What dismantling the Department of Education could mean for Texas students - Texas Standard; March 2025
President Trump, joined by Republican governors including Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, announced an executive order to effectively dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, describing it as a “failed experiment” and “bloated bureaucracy.” While the department can’t be fully eliminated without congressional approval, the order has already shuttered offices and triggered mass layoffs—cutting thousands of employees who handled civil rights complaints, special education oversight, and federal education data collection. Supporters of the move praised it as a return of control to the states, but educators and advocates warn of major disruptions, especially in states like Texas.
David DeMatthews, an education policy professor at the University of Texas at Austin, emphasized the negative implications for Texas, a state with a history of struggling to implement federal education laws. He said dismantling the department without a clear plan will harm low-income students, students with disabilities, and homeless youth—groups the department historically protected. Although the administration claims programs like Title I and IDEA will remain intact and potentially be transferred to agencies like Health and Human Services, DeMatthews calls that misleading. The department’s recent layoffs have already halted key functions like civil rights enforcement and data collection critical to funding decisions.
He also criticized the administration’s lack of transparency and strategy, noting that the new education secretary, Linda McMahon—a former WWE CEO—has overseen massive cuts within weeks. The department doesn’t run public schools or control most education funding, but it provides essential services and oversight for vulnerable populations. With data collection halted and no replacement systems announced, DeMatthews warned that the country is now “flying blind” on how to allocate federal resources effectively.
While some argue the changes are just administrative, DeMatthews insists they are far more consequential. Federal protections for students with disabilities, civil rights enforcement, and accountability mechanisms are now in limbo. He stresses that the Department of Education has helped enforce critical laws over the decades and that many Americans, if asked directly, would support continuing federal programs for special education and low-income students. What’s most alarming, he says, is not just what’s being cut—but that it’s being done hastily, with no plan to ensure protections and oversight continue.
How conservative and liberal book bans differ amid rise in literary restrictions - ABC News; 2023
This article highlights the recent surge in book bans and challenges across the U.S., particularly those targeting content related to LGBTQ+ identities and race. While efforts to restrict literature have come from both ends of the political spectrum, experts note that the vast majority of recent book bans are driven by conservative groups and Republican-backed legislation. These challenges focus on books featuring LGBTQ+ characters or racial justice themes, such as All Boys Aren’t Blue, The Hate U Give, and Gender Queer. Conservative organizations like Moms for Liberty and No Left Turn in Education, along with state laws in places like Florida, Texas, and New Hampshire, are pushing to limit content that discusses sexual orientation, gender identity, and systemic racism, often under the guise of protecting students from “discomfort.”
Liberal-led book challenges have been far fewer and mostly localized, often targeting older books like Huckleberry Finn or Of Mice and Men due to racist language or depictions. One example is the Burbank Unified School District, which removed certain titles from required reading lists after parent concerns, while still allowing access to the books in libraries and classrooms. Groups like PEN America and the American Library Association have strongly opposed all forms of censorship, warning that these bans threaten intellectual freedom and the role of educators. Critics argue that this new wave of restrictions—particularly when backed by law rather than local complaints—marks a dangerous shift from community discourse to state-enforced censorship.
As of 2025, conservatives continue to lead the majority of book banning efforts in the United States, particularly targeting books that address LGBTQ+ themes, race, and gender identity. This trend has intensified over the past few years and shows no signs of slowing down.
According to PEN America, the 2023–2024 school year saw over 10,000 instances of book bans, affecting more than 4,000 unique titles. These bans predominantly occurred in Republican-led states such as Florida, Iowa, and Texas, and were largely driven by conservative advocacy groups like Moms for Liberty, Citizens Defending Freedom, and Parents’ Rights in Education. The targeted books often feature LGBTQ+ characters, discuss systemic racism, or include content related to sexual health and identity.
Legislative actions have further bolstered these efforts. For instance, Iowa’s Senate File 496, enacted in 2023, bans materials containing descriptions or depictions of sex acts and prohibits instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation in public schools. This law led to thousands of book bans during the 2023–2024 school year . Similarly, North Carolina’s House approved a bill establishing community library advisory committees to review and potentially remove books deemed inappropriate, a move supported mainly by Republican legislators.
While there have been instances of liberal-led book challenges, these are typically localized and focus on books with racist language or outdated stereotypes. However, such efforts are minimal compared to the organized, nationwide campaigns led by conservative groups. The current landscape reflects a significant shift towards increased censorship, with conservative-led initiatives playing a central role in the surge of book bans across the country.
Here’s a breakdown of books commonly challenged or banned by the political right vs. the political left, based on data from PEN America, the American Library Association (ALA), and media reports.
📚 Books Commonly Targeted by the Right (Conservative-Led Challenges)
These are often challenged for including LGBTQ+ content, sexual themes, critical race theory, or perceived “anti-American” or “divisive” ideas:
Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe
All Boys Aren’t Blue by George M. Johnson
Lawn Boy by Jonathan Evison
The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison
The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas
This Book is Gay by Juno Dawson
Out of Darkness by Ashley Hope Pérez
Flamer by Mike Curato
Beyond Magenta by Susan Kuklin
Crank by Ellen Hopkins
Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You by Ibram X. Kendi & Jason Reynolds
The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky
Melissa (formerly George) by Alex Gino
Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson
Two Boys Kissing by David Levithan
These bans typically come from school boards, conservative advocacy groups (e.g., Moms for Liberty), or through legislation (e.g., Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law).
📚 Books Occasionally Challenged by the Left (Liberal-Led Challenges)
These are usually older or classic books challenged for racial slurs, outdated stereotypes, or depictions that may cause trauma or reinforce oppression:
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain – Use of the n-word and stereotypical portrayal of Black characters.
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee – White savior narrative and use of racial slurs.
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck – Use of offensive language, portrayals of disability and race.
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger – Language, sexual references, and misogyny.
Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell – Romanticizes slavery and the Confederacy.
Dr. Seuss titles (e.g., And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street) – Racist caricatures and imagery.
Little House on the Prairie by Laura Ingalls Wilder – Stereotypical and derogatory depictions of Native Americans.
The Diary of Anne Frank (unabridged) – Some versions include mentions of anatomy and sexuality that have caused controversy.
The Color Purple by Alice Walker – Challenged for graphic depictions of rape and abuse (sometimes from liberal parents concerned about trauma).
Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry by Mildred D. Taylor – Racial language and themes sometimes draw complaints.
These challenges tend to be localized and not part of coordinated national movements like those seen on the right. They’re usually about updating curricula or creating safer classroom environments—not formal bans.
