Report Says Enrollment, Gen Ed Placement Up
The GAO also analyzed district characteristics and found associations between general education placement rates and factors including district resources, the presence or absence of a standalone special education school and per-pupil revenue.
In interviews, school and district officials repeatedly identified resource availability, parent involvement and school environment or culture as influences on placement decisions.
This is particularly timely in Texas because the pending Chapter 89 amendments discussed below would require more explicit IEP documentation of time spent inside and outside general education settings.
________________________________________________________________________
TEA Lowers High Cost Fund Carryover Threshold
That is lower than the threshold identified in TEA’s 2025-26 High Cost Fund materials. Those materials said an LEA must not have carried forward 60% or more of its prior-year IDEA-B Formula funds. TEA also said at the time that the carryover criterion, which had been on hold for several years, was being reinstated for 2025-26.
TEA’s APEX user manual describes the carryover screen as a process that took effect in 2025-26 and says the percentage applicable to each year’s High Cost Fund application will be posted annually in the state plan. The system checks an LEA’s carryover percentage when the application is started and prevents an LEA from proceeding if it exceeds the applicable limitation.
________________________________________________________________________
Texas Clarifies Who May Provide TEFA Instruction
A lead educator may qualify through current or former employment with an accredited school or higher education institution or through an accepted credential. Examples include a teaching license, Texas school district teaching permit, relevant degree, professional license or certification tied to a particular instructional method. The state specifically identifies credentials in approaches such as Orton-Gillingham as one possible pathway.
Other staff members may assist the lead educator without meeting the same credential requirements, but they must satisfy fingerprint-based background-check requirements. The lead educator must retain primary responsibility for instruction and remain continuously present in the physical or virtual instructional setting.
The new rules do not change IDEA obligations, Child Find requirements, evaluation timelines, ARD committee responsibilities or a district’s duty to provide services required by a student’s IEP. The significance is more likely to emerge at the point where privately purchased services intersect with district evaluation and IEP processes.
Districts may see more families presenting records from private tutors, specialized reading providers or other EFA-funded instructors during evaluations and ARD committee meetings. Staff may need to distinguish carefully between information that should be considered by the district and recommendations that do not independently determine eligibility, services or placement.
The guidance could be particularly relevant in disputes involving dyslexia, reading intervention and other specialized instruction. As families gain access to state-funded private services, districts may face more requests to review outside progress data, consider privately obtained recommendations or explain differences between district programming and services purchased through an EFA.
Special education leaders may also want to prepare staff for questions about provider qualifications. Approval to participate in the EFA program is not the same as district employment, Texas special education certification or qualifications to make decisions on behalf of an ARD committee.
The immediate district takeaway is not a need to revise special education procedures solely because of this guidance. It is a reason to monitor how EFA-funded services begin showing up in evaluations, ARD discussions, parent communications and disputes during the 2026-27 school year.
Districts do not need to revise special education procedures solely because of this guidance. It is a reason to monitor how EFA-funded services begin showing up in evaluations, ARD discussions, parent communications and disputes during the 2026-27 school year.
________________________________________________________________________
Former Officials Speak Out On IDEA Move
The Education Department says the changes are intended to reduce bureaucracy and improve coordination and will not alter students’ rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or other federal laws.
Former officials say the structure could still create practical problems.
Katy Neas, CEO of The Arc of the United States and a former senior official in the Education Department’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), said students with disabilities often need coordinated responses involving special education, discipline, accessibility and civil rights protections.
“Students with disabilities don’t experience school in agency silos,” Neas said in a statement from The Arc.
The Arc has argued that dividing responsibilities among agencies could make it harder to resolve disputes and hold states accountable. It also has questioned whether core duties can be shifted without congressional action because federal law places the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) within the Education Department.
Other former federal employees have raised similar concerns, warning that HHS lacks the school-focused expertise needed to administer an education law.
The administration rejects those concerns. The Education Department says it will retain statutory authority and that services will not be interrupted. HHS is expected to handle significant work involving grant administration, compliance, monitoring and enforcement, while Education Department officials retain legal authority and policy responsibilities.
IDEA itself has not changed, and there is no immediate change for Texas districts in evaluation requirements, ARD committee decisions, IEP implementation or the provision of a free appropriate public education.
The larger issue is whether the restructuring changes how the Texas Education Agency (TEA) works with federal officials on IDEA funding, monitoring, compliance and technical assistance.
The shift also comes as more education civil rights work moves toward the Justice Department. Advocates say separating special education oversight from civil rights enforcement could complicate matters involving both IDEA and Section 504 protections.
Details about how the agencies will divide responsibilities in day-to-day practice remain unresolved.