The Changemaker 4/20/26
Here's What To Do Now.
- What's Happening The FY2027 budget proposes slashing OSEP from 163 to 31 staff and eliminating IDEA Part D, cutting off the training, guidance, and support districts rely on.
- Workforce Pulse Paperwork and administrative burden remain the top drivers of special education teacher turnover, with SpEd attrition running at twice the rate of general education.
- Market Watch 60% of SpEd teachers now use AI for IEP writing, creating real legal exposure under IDEA and FERPA. Districts that build governance now will be far better protected.
- From the Lab Dr. Nikki Harding urges leaders to end the year with a proactive self-audit: identify weak points and build stronger systems before next year begins.
- One Resource Worth Your Time A K-12 Dive breakdown of what Trump's FY27 budget actually means for special education and why advocates say the headline numbers are misleading.
The federal safety net for special education just got a lot thinner.
The Trump administration's FY2027 budget proposal, released April 3, includes a number that should be on every special education director's radar: OSEP staff would be reduced from 163 employees to 31.
That's the office responsible for monitoring state compliance with IDEA, distributing federal grants, and issuing the guidance your district relies on when a compliance question doesn't have a clear answer. At 31 staff, it cannot meaningfully do any of those things at scale.
Equally significant: the budget proposes eliminating IDEA Part D entirely. Part D funds teacher preparation programs, technical assistance centers, parent information centers, and accessible technology resources. These are the programs districts access when they need training, support, or answers and they would be gone.
Congress rejected similar proposals last year. Advocates are pushing back again. But the pattern is clear: federal oversight of special education is being systematically reduced, and districts need to plan as if that continues.
Paperwork is still the number one reason your teachers leave.
A March 2026 report from the Learning Policy Institute found that teachers with high job satisfaction had less than half the turnover rate of those with low satisfaction, and that administrative burden and paperwork load were the primary drivers of dissatisfaction.
This isn't a new finding. But it lands differently when you're staring down a Part D elimination that would cut off access to the training infrastructure that helps new teachers get up to speed faster.
Teachers are reaching for anything that reduces the paperwork load. The question for district leaders isn't whether to let that happen. It's whether it's happening inside guardrails that protect your district legally.
AI and IEPs: the legal exposure is real and growing.
With 60% of special education teachers now using AI tools to develop IEPs, an 18-point jump from the prior school year, the field has moved past "emerging trend." The risk hasn't moved at the same pace.
IDEA requires that every IEP be unique and individually tailored to each student. An AI-generated IEP that isn't substantially reviewed and personalized by a qualified educator may not meet that standard and could expose your district to due process complaints.
FERPA adds a separate and serious layer of risk. When a teacher types a student's name, disability category, evaluation results, or behavioral history into a consumer AI tool like ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini, that information may be stored, processed, or used to train future models. FERPA prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of personally identifiable student information. A teacher using an unvetted platform may not realize they've already violated it by the time they hit submit. If a breach occurs, districts face federal investigation, potential loss of Title IV funding, mandatory family notification, and reputational damage that is very difficult to walk back.
Copy and paste has its own problem. When goals, present levels, or accommodations are copied from one student's IEP into another's, even with light edits, the IEP is no longer individualized in any meaningful sense. That's not just a quality issue. In a due process hearing, a parent's attorney will place both documents side by side. Identical or near-identical language is one of the fastest ways to demonstrate that a district did not provide a free appropriate public education. Districts have lost cases and paid for private placements on exactly this basis.
Districts that establish clear governance now will be in a significantly stronger position than those that address it reactively after a complaint.
We've put together a free AI Governance document your team can work through together, covering approved tool criteria, teacher review requirements, family notification language, and data handling standards. Download it free at inclusiveleadershiplab.org →
We've also built IEP Builder, by The Lab, specifically for this environment: compliance-grounded, district-vetted, and designed so the educator stays the author. It's not a shortcut. It's the infrastructure that makes AI use defensible.
IEP Builder is accepting a limited number of pilot districts right now. If your district is interested in being part of the pilot cohort, reply directly to this email. We'll follow up with details on what participation looks like.
Leaders, with less support at the federal level, the responsibility to ensure FAPE increasingly falls on your shoulders. At the end of this school year, make yourself a checklist. What have been your challenges this year? How have they been resolved? Have they been resolved? Proactively identify your weak points and fix them before someone else brings them to you. Engage multiple voices and ask what is working. Build a stronger support system before next year begins.
Founder, Inclusive Leadership Lab
