EC editors on IDEA at 50
What do they see as the benefits of The Law at thisjuncture and the needs for the future?
Writing in Exceptional Children for 25 August 2025, Endia J. Lindo, Ph.D., Patricia Martínez-Álvarez, Ph.D., Amanda L. Sullivan, Ph.D., and Kathleen King Thorius, Ph,D. published an article entitled, “IDEA at 50—Progress, Equity, and the Work Ahead: The Editors.” In their editorial, they reported about how Public Law 94-142—called the “Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975” in the US Senate’s version at that time and now known as the “Individuals with Disabilities Education Act” after the 2004 revisions—described the basis for meritorious progress toward the inclusion of children and youths with disabilities in the US public education system. They then provided their analysis of impediments to achieving the promises of IDEA, including recommendations for how to overcome those stumbling blocks.
Here is an outline of the argument that Professor Lindo and her co-editors make, using their headings (boldfaced here) for structure. (I encourage readers to read the full editorial, which is available for free, courtesy of the Council for Exceptional Children and Sage Publications, at https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029251367473).
The Persistent Fault Lines
Inadequate funding has restricted the implementation of IDEA
Disparities and inequities by racial, gender, linguistic, and socioeconomic factors have hampered inclusion of children both in eligibility for special education and in the services they receive.
Current Threats to IDEA Protections, including cuts in funding, termination of federal staff positions, and reorganization of federal offices threaten to make US special education fragmented, ill-coordinated, and unaccountable.
IDEA's Next 50 Years: Calling for an Equity-Rooted Transformation (recommendations)
Close the Funding Gap: The US legislature should fulfill its promise of full funding.
Reimagine Accountability: State and local education systems should be accountable for equity-based outcomes in identification, placement, and achievement.
Center Intersectionality and Response-Ability: Educators must approach special education as an endeavor that lies at the intersection of communities of disability, race, and poverty.
Advance Inclusion Through Support, Not Just Placement: Inclusion should be seen as a product of co-teaching and Universal Design for Learning, not physical placement.
Strengthen Transitions: Special education should pursue partnerships with other service agencies and organizations to promote better post-secondary outcomes for students with disabilities.
Ensuring Equity and Oversight: Policy makers and scholars should maintain efforts to monitor and advance mechanisms for administering and directing special education in equitable ways.
A Civil Rights Law at a Crossroads:
IDEA is more than a statute—it is a living promise. Its passage reflected a national reckoning with the marginalization of children with disabilities, and its future will reflect how deeply we commit to dismantling ableism, racism, and educational inequity. As we look ahead, we must not settle for procedural adequacy. We must strive for liberatory education that recognizes students with disabilities as full members of our learning communities—valued not for their proximity to normative benchmarks, but for the brilliance and diversity they bring and contribute. The next 50 years of IDEA should not merely repeat or refine the past, but must boldly reimagine what is possible.
Following this statement, the editors provided summaries of other articles in the issue of EC. Readers may well be interested in those articles and I encourage you review them, too, but (again) I urge you to review the observations of Professors Lindo, Martínez-Álvarez, Sullivan, and Thorius on the anniversary of IDEA’s inception.
