For much of American history, people with disabilities were treated as patients to be managed, children to be separated or citizens whose exclusion was accepted as ordinary public policy. That began to change only after decades of organizing by disabled people, families and advocates who argued that access to schools, workplaces, transportation and public life was not charity, but a civil right.
The modern disability rights movement grew alongside other civil rights struggles of the 1960s and 1970s, pushing Congress and federal agencies to recognize discrimination against disabled people as a matter of law. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 each marked a shift away from institutional exclusion and toward enforceable rights in education, employment and public services.
Now, as the Trump administration moves more of the Education Department’s work on special education and civil rights into partnerships with other federal agencies, advocates say that history is newly relevant. Federal officials describe the agreements with HHS and the Department of Justice as a way to reduce bureaucracy and improve coordination. But disability rights advocates warn the shift raises an older question at the center of the movement: whether disability should be treated primarily as a health issue or as a civil rights and education issue.
“These are not just bureaucratic moves,” said Andrew Marcum, academic director of Disability Studies Programs at the CUNY School of Professional Studies, in an interview. “There are reasons why we have special education within a department of education, and it has to do with many decades of organizing and activism.”
Public pressure
For Marcum, the current debate cannot be separated from the history that produced federal disability protections in the first place. The laws governing special education and access were not created as acts of charity, he said, but as the result of pressure from disabled people, families and advocates who fought to be included in schools, public spaces and civic life.
That fight transformed American education. Before Congress passed the law now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1975, many children with disabilities were excluded from public schools or placed in settings with little meaningful instruction. IDEA established the right to a free appropriate public education and created safeguards families could use when schools failed to provide services.
Those guarantees placed disability squarely in the realm of education policy. Marcum said that distinction matters today because shifting special education oversight toward a health-focused agency risks reviving assumptions advocates worked for decades to undo.
“The reason that we stopped having the health department oversee education for disabled students is because of the recognition that it’s not a health issue, it’s an educational issue,” Marcum said. “It’s how do we make our classrooms accessible? How do we make our curriculum accessible? How do we make the teaching accessible?”
The concern is not only symbolic. The Education Department’s special education office monitors state compliance with IDEA and helps guide how schools serve students with disabilities. Its civil rights office handles discrimination complaints, including those involving disability access. Moving or splitting that work, advocates say, could make an already difficult system harder for families to navigate.
Marcum said the key questions are practical: who will have the expertise to oversee schools, how states will be held accountable and what happens to families seeking help when services are denied.
“Who is qualified to oversee the states to see that they’re doing their jobs well?” he asked. “What is the plan for making sure that this transition is smooth and that people’s rights are protected?”
The administration has said the partnerships will not change the federal government’s obligation to enforce disability laws. Supporters of restructuring have argued that agencies with expertise in health, employment and justice can help deliver services more efficiently. But disability organizations have warned that dispersing responsibility across agencies could slow enforcement, blur accountability lines and leave families unsure where to turn.
The 50th anniversary
For advocates, the dispute lands at a significant moment. The nation is marking 50 years since the passage of the federal special education law. That anniversary has become a reminder of how recently students with disabilities were legally excluded from classrooms — and how dependent their rights remain on oversight, enforcement and public commitment.
Other disability rights milestones followed a similar pattern. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibited disability discrimination in federally funded programs, but activists had to occupy federal offices in 1977 to force the government to implement it. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 extended protections into employment, transportation, public accommodations and government services.
Marcum said that history shows why advocates are wary of treating rights as administrative details. “People fought for these protections and rights over a period of decades,” he said. “Congress itself enacted these measures, and the courts ratified these measures.”
The shift also reflects a broader tension in how disability is understood. Disability rights advocates have long pushed against a purely medical model, arguing that barriers often come from inaccessible systems rather than from a person’s body or diagnosis alone. A classroom without appropriate supports, they say, can exclude a student just as surely as a staircase excludes a wheelchair user.
That view underlies the demand that schools adapt to students, not simply that students fit existing systems. It is why advocates have fought for individualized education programs, accessible materials, interpreters, assistive technology and protections against discriminatory discipline.
Marcum described the current moment as one of “retrenchment,” but said it has also pushed disability organizations, parents and self-advocates to mobilize again. The response, he said, reflects a movement that has always had to defend gains after winning them.
For families, the stakes are immediate. A child’s legal right to services depends on schools identifying needs, providing supports and responding when parents challenge decisions. If federal enforcement becomes slower or less clear, advocates say students can lose months or years of instruction and support.
That is why the present debate has become more than a fight over agency structure. To Marcum and other advocates, it is a test of whether the country remembers why disability rights were placed within civil rights and education systems in the first place.
“It has to do with seeing disabled people as full citizens,” Marcum said. “It has to do with understanding that access is not a favor. It is a right.”
The history is shorter than many Americans may realize. The right to attend public school, live outside institutions and participate in public life was secured within living memory. Advocates say that is exactly why the architecture of enforcement matters now.
As federal officials promise coordination and advocates warn of fragmentation, the future of disability rights may depend on whether those protections are treated as technical responsibilities to be reassigned — or as civil rights obligations that require expertise, accountability and vigilance.
Opinions expressed by SmartBrief contributors are their own.
Subscribe to SmartBrief’s FREE email newsletter to see the latest hot topics on special education. It’s among SmartBrief’s more than 250 industry-focused newsletters.