Focus, June 18, 2026

By Alejandra Tijerina posted 3 hours ago

Recommend

Special Education Moving to HHS, DOJ

In its announcement, the Education Department described the change as an effort to reduce federal bureaucracy and improve service delivery. Secretary Linda McMahon also issued a letter to parents saying IDEA protections, federal funding and civil rights protections for students with disabilities will continue.

The change at this point seems to be administrative at face value - describing where things will be handled and not if or how they are handled. IDEA is still in place, and Section 504, Title II of the ADA, FERPA and federal civil rights requirements also remain in effect. As far as we can tell, the agency is trying to convince the public that nothing is changing based solely on this announcement.

But there are a lot of concerns being raised about the potential problems associated with this shift by organizations like the Council of Administrators of Special Education (CASE), American Association of School Administrators (AASA), The Arc of the United States and the National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD).

Who will districts hear from during federal monitoring? Which agency staff will manage technical assistance? Will OCR complaint resolution feel different if DOJ has a larger role? Will grant systems, data submissions or federal contacts shift during the 2026-27 school year?

AASA flagged some of these district-level concerns publicly. The association said complaint processes might look similar on the surface, but districts could face a different federal posture as DOJ takes on a larger role, including a potentially different tone, process and level of legal exposure in investigations. They also warned that the restructuring could increase administrative complexity for state and local education agencies.

CASE reported that their representatives met with OSERS officials who wanted to “give stakeholders a heads up” about the agreement. They sent stakeholders this letter. CASE Executive Director Phyllis Wolfram is saying OSERS administers IDEA, an education law, not a health care law, and should remain at the Education Department under the leadership of education experts. The organization is asking those opposing this to use their action center to ask members of Congress to use their power to stop this change.

The Associated Press wrote a story including concerns from those inside and outside the government.

What we do not know yet is:

Whether HHS or DOJ will directly manage staff, systems or day-to-day functions previously handled by OSERS or OCR.
Whether pending OCR complaints, monitoring matters or resolution agreements will be reassigned, delayed or handled under new procedures.
Whether IDEA monitoring, state performance reporting, grant oversight or technical assistance will change for TEA or districts.
Whether federal guidance documents, complaint forms, portals, contacts or timelines will be revised.
Whether the actual interagency agreements will be released in full and, if so, what they say about authority, staffing, data sharing, records and accountability.

___________________________________________________________________

TEA to Update Funding Resources

McGuire said students receiving all instruction outside a campus, such as through homebound, hospital or medical facility services, would have special education minutes per day match the campus instructional day. That would result in a 100% regular program offset.

For students transitioning back to campus, districts would use half of the campus instructional day for special education minutes per day if the student receives any on-campus instruction. Once the student fully returns to campus, districts would calculate minutes using the regular campus-based method.

TEA also plans to add off-campus service criteria to service groups 4 and 5:

Students receiving less than four hours per week of special education services outside a campus would be assigned to service group 4.
Students receiving four hours or more per week would be assigned to service group 5.

McGuire said the four-hour threshold generally aligns with current homebound ADA funding rules.

For students who were previously campus-based and move temporarily to homebound through an ARD committee decision, TEA would not require a new tier determination unless the IEP changes affect the tier. Districts would still need to review the student’s service group and special education minutes per day.

If a student never attends campus and is not expected to, districts should complete the tiering process.

McGuire said children ages 3-5 receiving off-campus services would default to tier 1, with service groups applied as appropriate. Infants and toddlers who are deaf or hard of hearing, have a visual impairment or are deafblind also would be assigned tier 1 when served by a district that is not the ECI provider.

Residential Placements

McGuire also clarified how districts should approach students living in residential facilities.

Students who live in residential facilities but were not placed there by an ARD committee would not be assigned to tier 8. Districts would instead apply the regular tiering process. If district staff provide services at the facility, districts would use the same off-campus service group approach.

Students who live in a residential facility but attend a district campus should be treated like other resident students served on campus.

Early Data Submission Due Aug. 14

TEA is requesting early data from districts by Aug. 14 through a secure ShareFile process.

McGuire said the early submission is intended to help TEA produce more accurate estimates for the Legislative Budget Board as the state transitions to the new funding model. The Aug. 14 submission is not the official required submission. Required reporting will occur through TSDS PEIMS.

However, McGuire said the early submission is a condition for districts receiving summer stipend funds tied to the data review work.

Districts were encouraged to submit one consolidated spreadsheet generated from the state tool, although McGuire said TEA would accept what districts are able to provide.

Summer Stipend Grant

McGuire said the summer special education data support grant is open and that more than 120 districts had applied at the time of the webinar.

Grant amounts are based on the number of students receiving special education services from the October 2025 snapshot. The funds are intended to support stipends for staff completing the review and coding work.

McGuire said Region 10 was working to begin issuing the first payments as early as this week.

Vendor Readiness Remains a Concern

Several TCASE members raised concerns about whether student information system vendors will be ready to support the new reporting requirements in 2026-27.

One participant said districts could be forced to hand-enter data if local systems are not prepared.

McGuire said TEA’s data team has met with vendors and is working to determine what vendors need to use spreadsheet data for import into local systems. She said the goal is to avoid manual entry where possible, but TEA has not announced a final process.

Members also raised concerns about vendor-related issues involving SPP indicators 7 and 13. McGuire said she would take those concerns back to the agency.

Use of Profiles, Spreadsheets and AI-Supported Reviews

Asked whether districts could use student profiles, spreadsheets or AI-supported review processes to assign tiers and service groups, McGuire said that approach appeared to be on track.

She said TEA wants to create focus groups with districts using those methods to identify implementation issues and calibration needs.

2026-27 Described as a Learning Year

McGuire described 2026-27 as a learning year for districts, vendors and TEA.

She said TEA will use the year to determine which existing data elements might be sunset in 2027-28 as the new funding system and educational environment reporting come online.

ECSE location codes and speech codes may no longer be needed once the new reporting structure is fully in place, she said. Dyslexia codes likely would remain because dyslexia has a separate allotment.

TEFA Questions Remain Unresolved

TCASE members also raised questions about Texas Education Freedom Account implementation.

Members said families and private schools remain confused about whether private school students receiving services through districts should remain enrolled not in membership, withdraw from the district or remain dual-enrolled for certain services.

Some families have withdrawn students because of concerns that district enrollment status could affect TEFA funding. Others have contacted TEA with complaints or questions even though they do not intend to enroll in a district.

McGuire said she heard the concern and would take it back for additional consideration.

Special Education Performance Diagnostic

McGuire briefly addressed the forthcoming Special Education Performance Diagnostic, saying more information is coming.

She said the diagnostic is expected eventually to replace the current self-assessment process. It should not be a major lift for districts in 2026-27 because it will still be in launch mode.

Why It Matters for Texas Districts

The webinar underscored that districts are being asked to make funding-related coding decisions before all implementation details are final.

For special education leaders, the most immediate operational issues are tied to off-campus students, ARD-driven changes in instructional setting, local data review, staff stipends and vendor capacity.

Districts also should expect continued refinement from TEA as the agency updates its FAQ, framework and tool. McGuire’s comments suggest TEA is trying to give districts workable direction while the new model, reporting structure and vendor systems continue to develop.

What District Leaders Might Want to Review or Monitor

District leaders may want to review:

Procedures for students served through homebound, hospital, medical facility or other off-campus arrangements.
ARD documentation when a student moves temporarily from campus-based services to homebound.
Processes for recalculating service group and special education minutes per day when a student’s setting changes.
How the district will identify students who never attend campus and are not expected to transition to campus.
Coding procedures for children ages 3-5 served off campus.
Treatment of students living in residential facilities, especially when the ARD committee did not place the student there.
Local readiness to submit early data by Aug. 14, especially if the district is receiving summer stipend funds.
Whether one consolidated spreadsheet can be generated from the state tool.
Vendor timelines for importing or reporting new funding elements.
Local quality control for tier and service group assignments, including any use of spreadsheets, profiles or AI-supported review tools.
Parent communication related to TEFA, private school services and enrollment status.
Future TEA guidance on the Special Education Performance Diagnostic.

TEA is continuing to build implementation guidance for the new special education funding system, but several key issues remain in progress.

Districts should treat 2026-27 as a transition year that will require close coordination among special education, PEIMS, finance, campus staff and vendors. The highest-risk areas are likely to be off-campus coding, documentation of ARD committee decisions, early data quality and local system readiness.

___________________________________________________________________

TEA Finalizes Dispute Resolution Rules

One of the most significant changes removes TEA’s state complaint reconsideration process. Under the adopted rule, a special education complaint investigation report is final. TEA said reconsideration is not required under federal or state law.

For districts, that change raises the stakes during the initial complaint investigation. Districts will need to make sure they submit complete records, clear explanations and any relevant corrective documentation before TEA issues its findings.

The rules also expand when state-administered IEP facilitation may be used. Facilitation may now be requested to avoid a potential dispute over a free appropriate public education or after an ARD committee disagreement involving FAPE. Requests must be submitted at least 10 school days before the ARD meeting or within 10 school days after the ARD meeting that ended in disagreement.

The change could make facilitation a more useful early dispute-resolution tool, particularly in complex or high-conflict ARD meetings. It also may require districts to revisit parent communication materials so families and staff understand when facilitation, mediation, complaints, due process and TEA-assisted resolution are available. TEA’s dispute-resolution resources for families and educators describe those options in more detail.

The adopted rules also allow TEA to share student-level information with an outside entity, consistent with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, to support local resolution of special education disputes.

In due process hearings, non-attorney representatives must document knowledge of special education dispute-resolution options. TEA clarified that the requirement is handled through documentation and does not expand hearing officer authority.

Blogs