education_policy

Betsy DeVos and Special Education: A Clear, Fact-Based Overview

Betsy DeVos served as U.S. Secretary of Education from 2017 to 2021 and shaped federal special education policy through leadership, regulatory changes, and enforcement choices....

Mara Ellison
Betsy DeVos and Special Education: A Clear, Fact-Based Overview

Betsy DeVos served as U.S. Secretary of Education from 2017 to 2021 and shaped federal special education policy through leadership, regulatory changes, and enforcement choices. This overview explains her role in special education during her tenure, including key initiatives, office actions, and documented outcomes without opinion or speculation. It covers office structure changes, guidance documents, enforcement patterns, and how her term aligned with broader state and federal special education frameworks. The intent is to provide a clear, sourced baseline that remains useful for educators, families, and policymakers seeking factual context.

Role and Authority Over Special Education

The U.S. Department of Education, led by the Secretary, oversees enforcement of federal civil rights and education laws, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Secretary sets policy direction, issues guidance, and manages the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), which houses the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). As Secretary, DeVos held executive responsibility for these areas, including finalizing rules, responding to complaints, and representing the Department in legal and policy matters related to disability rights and special education services.

Key Initiatives and Programs

During DeVos’s tenure, the Department advanced several initiatives affecting special education. These included efforts to promote school choice options in the context of federal special education law, technical assistance to states and districts on discipline and disproportionality under IDEA, and continued monitoring of state performance in Part B and Part C of IDEA. The Department also emphasized compliance with Section 504 and clarified expectations around accessibility and reasonable accommodations. Although many programs continued existing statutory mandates, the Administration signaled a focus on expanding parental options and streamlining processes, while states retained primary responsibility for service delivery under IDEA.

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) Leadership

OSERS, led by the Assistant Secretary for OSERS and Director of OSEP, manages grant programs, data collection, and technical support for special education. During DeVos’s term, leadership at OSERS changed, and the office issued numerous guidance documents, questions-and-answers materials, and policy updates. The structure and mission of OSERS remained consistent with prior administrations, but shifts in leadership and internal priorities affected how information and support were communicated to states and stakeholders.

Section 504 and Civil Rights Enforcement

Section 504 requires schools to provide eligible students with disabilities equal access to educational programs and activities. The Department, under DeVos, issued updated guidance on the application of Section 504, including standards for accommodations, evaluation, and procedural safeguards. Enforcement included compliance reviews, resolution of complaints, and, when warranted, corrective action agreements. The Department also coordinated with the U.S. Department of Justice on matters implicating disability discrimination, highlighting the intersection of civil rights law and special education services.

Documented Changes and Verified Decisions

The DeVos-era Department made notable moves on special education policy and process, including regulatory reviews, guidance issuances, and adjustments to enforcement practices. The following table summarizes verified actions, approximate timing, and contextual notes relevant to understanding outcomes for programs, states, and families.



AttributeVerified DetailSource Type
Tenure as SecretaryFebruary 7, 2017 to January 8, 2021U.S. Department of Education
IDEA Funding LevelDid not reach statutory formula goal (15%) during her term; annual appropriations set levels below the 15% targetCongressional records and Department appropriations reports
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Grant NoticesIssued multiple grant announcements and guidance on monitoring, data collection, and dispute resolution programsFederal Register notices and OSEP communications
Section 504 GuidanceReleased updated guidance on evaluation, placement, and procedural safeguards under Section 504Department guidance documents and press releases
Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. RE–1Department filed amicus curiae brief in support of higher educational benefit standard (2017)U.S. Supreme Court docket filings
Medicaid State Plan AmendmentsOSEP issued guidance and oversight related to Medicaid claims and state plan provisions affecting special education servicesOSEP policy memos and CMS approvals
Disproportionality in Discipline DataContinued publication and enforcement around significant disproportionality regulations and data reporting under IDEAIDEA data collections and Office for Civil Rights data

Regulatory and Guidance Activity

Regulatory and guidance activity during DeVos’s tenure included notices on IDEA implementation, Section 504 accommodations, and dispute resolution options. The Department reviewed existing rules, issued technical assistance documents, and, in some instances, declined to finalize proposed regulations. Guidance often emphasized clarity on evaluation timelines, individualized education programs (IEPs), and the use of response to intervention (RTI) practices. These documents were intended to inform states, districts, and families of expectations and procedures, though their legal weight varies relative to formal regulations.

IDEA and IEP Implementation

IDEA requires states to meet performance targets in areas such as child find, evaluations, and procedural compliance. Under DeVos, the Department continued to publish state performance data, approve or request state plans, and oversee dispute resolution mechanisms including mediation and due process hearings. OSEP-funded technical assistance centers provided resources on IEP development, transition planning, and evidence-based practices, while the Department monitored state use of funds and compliance patterns.

Discipline and Disproportionality

Discipline and disproportionality in identification, placement, and disciplinary actions remained priorities. The Department issued guidance on reducing disparities and using data to target interventions. While long-standing requirements under IDEA and Section 504 continued, leadership signaled expectations that districts analyze data and implement preventative supports. Outcomes varied by state and district, with ongoing public reporting highlighting where disproportionate trends persisted.

Enforcement and Compliance Measures

Enforcement under DeVos included both voluntary corrective actions and formal compliance reviews. When patterns suggested violations of Section 504 or IDEA, the Department could enter resolution agreements, require technical plans, or, in rare cases, pursue litigation. Complaint investigations were handled by the Office for Civil Rights (for Section 504) and state educational agencies (for IDEA). Public lists of resolutions and findings provided transparency but did not comprehensively capture all district-level issues.

Impact on Families, Schools, and Outcomes

For families and schools, the DeVos term meant continued access to IDEA and Section 504 safeguards, along with evolving guidance and varying levels of state capacity. Some stakeholders noted increased clarity on certain accommodations and discipline procedures, while others highlighted gaps in funding and implementation consistency. Research on student outcomes during this period reflects ongoing challenges in graduation rates, assessment participation, and postsecondary pathways, with context-specific improvements tied to state and local practices rather than federal directives alone.

Special education policy sits within state-federal partnerships, with states administering IDEA under federal oversight. DeVos-era decisions influenced how guidance, enforcement, and resources were framed, but long-standing statutes, court cases (such as Endrew F.), and evolving state plans continue to shape practice. Understanding this history helps clarify current options for students with disabilities, dispute resolution processes, and avenues for advocacy at district and state levels.

Key Takeaways

  • The Secretary of Education oversees enforcement of IDEA, Section 504, and related civil rights protections, with OSERS/OSEP administering grants and guidance.
  • DeVos tenure ran from February 2017 through January 2021; IDEA funding did not reach the statutory 15% goal during this period.
  • The Department issued updated Section 504 guidance and continued IDEA monitoring, data collection, and dispute resolution processes.
  • Key verified actions include Endrew F. amicus support, Section 504 guidance updates, and ongoing disproportionality reporting.
  • Impact on families and schools depends on state and local implementation, with ongoing challenges in funding, discipline disparities, and postsecondary outcomes.

Conclusion

Betsy DeVos’s time as Secretary involved notable moves on guidance, enforcement, and program oversight within existing legal frameworks. Fact-based sources show structured, continuous federal roles in special education, with documented decisions and measurable outcomes. This evergreen overview supports clear understanding of roles, policies, and lasting effects, without speculation or short-lived framing.

Related Reading

More pages in this topic cluster.

Inside The Cartel Book: Purpose, Approach, and Key Takeaways

Inside the Cartel investigates how teacher labor markets and professional certification can function like a cartel, shaping who enters teaching, where they work, and under what...

Read next