Recent Civil Rights Data Collection information shows that the percentage of students identified as “Section 504-only” continues to rise nationally and in Ohio. For the 2021–22 school year, the national rate was 3.93%, up from the prior collection year. Ohio followed the same trend, increasing from 3.42% in 2020–21 to approximately 3.8% in 2021–22. Nationally, Ohio ranks 16th of 50 states for its percentage of Section 504-only students.

For school districts, the question is whether the district’s Section 504 practices are keeping pace with student needs. An increase in Section 504 eligible students may reveal inconsistent referral practices, confusion about the difference between Section 504 and IDEA, staffing issues, or plans that exist on paper but are not consistently implemented.

Section 504 requires districts to provide a free appropriate public education to qualified students with disabilities, and the regulations require appropriate evaluation and placement procedures. Staff and administrators should be able to quickly explain when and how to refer a student and how to best draft and review Section 504 plans.  

What does this mean for your school district? Section 504 is an operational and compliance issue, not just a paperwork issue. District leaders should ensure that building teams are trained, Section 504 coordinators have the authority and time needed to manage the process, Section 504 plans are reviewed periodically, and district Section 504 procedures intersect with discipline, attendance, safety plans, testing, extracurricular activities, and transportation. Because Section 504 does not come with the same dedicated funding structure as IDEA, districts can easily misjudge the amount of staffing and oversight required for compliance. A stronger approach is to build consistent procedures now before a complaint or dispute arises. Please reach out to your Ennis Britton attorney if you need resources, forms, or training for your teams.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal finding on February 26, 2026, concluding that the Special School District of St. Louis County violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act through its use of restraint and seclusion practices. Following a nearly two‑year investigation, the DOJ determined that these practices were routinely used without justification and, in many cases, placed students with disabilities at risk of physical and emotional harm.

The Special School District (SSD) is the largest special education provider in Missouri and is a Local Education Agency with an elected superintendent and a board of education. The SSD is similar to our Educational Service Centers. It partners with twenty-two public school districts, which rely on SSD to provide all special education services. In addition to providing special education services in classrooms in its partner districts’ schools, SSD operates six of its own schools. SSD also operates two technical high schools serving both students with disabilities and general education students.

The investigation found that hundreds of students were subjected to thousands of incidents of restraint and seclusion, often for behaviors that did not pose an imminent safety risk. In some instances, students lost significant instructional time as a result. The DOJ emphasized that restraint and seclusion are intended to be emergency measures only and should never replace appropriate behavioral supports and interventions.

The DOJ has proposed a settlement agreement requiring major reforms, including ending seclusion and supine restraint, improving documentation and oversight, strengthening behavioral supports, ensuring staff training and compliance with the law, and providing compensatory education and counseling services to address physical and mental harm, trauma, and lost educational time. If the SSD and DOJ cannot reach a settlement, the DOJ will likely initiate a lawsuit under Title II.

What does this mean for your district? The DOJ’s findings show how federal civil rights enforcement is actively working on cases in public school districts, something that historically flowed mainly through the Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. Given the recent changes to the Office for Civil Rights, this action by the DOJ is important to consider regarding oversight of restraint and seclusion in schools.

It should serve to bring to the forefront the requirement of a district or ESC to ensure students with disabilities have the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service officer by the district or ESC, and to reasonably modify its educational program for students with disabilities.

The Senate Appropriations Committee (the “Committee”) advanced a funding bill for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 that recommends a slight increase in funding for the United States Department of Education, and maintains or provides slight increases for other educational funding areas, despite calls for cuts by White House officials. The bill proposes to allocate just over $1.7 trillion, including $197 billion in discretionary funding for labor, Health and Human services, and education funding. More specifically, the bill proposes funding of just over $19 billion to the Department of Education with $18.5 billion of that going to Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies. The bill also allocates $5.78 billion to School Improvement Programs and $1.18 billion to Innovation and Improvement in Education.

Most importantly, the bill proposes slight increases in the funding for special education. It proposes to allocate $15.5 billion to special education and $4.6 billion to rehabilitation services, which are both slight increases from 2025. The bill also explicitly names and funds each Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) program within the Department of Education, including $15.2 billion for IDEA State Grants. Also, within this bill is a potential $1.5 billion allocation for Career Technical Education.

The Committee passed the bill by a vote of 26-3, which indicates that there is a good foundation of support and bodes well for the larger vote as the bill advances. Also, while this is a good show in support of special education from the Senate Appropriations Committee, the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee has yet to release their proposed funding for education for FY 2026.

What does this mean for your district? At this point, the this bill is only an indicator of what the final FY 2026 budget might look like. While it is promising to see the Senate Appropriations Committee proposing to maintain or increase Department of Education funding, the result could be quite different from what Congress ultimately passes.

New Fairfield Bd. of Educ., 125 LRP 10684 (SEA CT 03/28/25).

A Connecticut school district did not have to defend its refusal to provide IDEA services in a non-school setting after a preschool student with disabilities was disenrolled based on state vaccination requirements.

The student enrolled at the district during the 2024-2025 school year. Over winter break the student was involuntarily withdrawn from the district based on their noncompliance with Connecticut’s vaccination requirements. The student’s IEP provided for speech therapy, occupational therapy, and physical therapy, but they did not receive IEP services after their withdrawal from school. The parent had requested the IEP be amended to allow for services to be provided outside of the school building during a February team meeting, but the district denied the request. A due process complaint was filed against the district following the denial, alleging that the student was being denied FAPE. 

Ruling for the district, the Hearing Officer determined that the parent’s complaint did not meet the legal requirements for a due process complaint under the IDEA. Parents are entitled to bring a due process complaint when there are disputes relating to a student’s identification, evaluation, education placement, or special education services. 34 CFR 300.507. Acknowledging that the complaint was filed after the district denied the parent’s request to amend the IEP, the Hearing Officer rejected the parent’s argument that this complaint was about the child’s educational placement. The student’s eligibility for services was not in dispute, and both parties agreed that the special education services provided in the student’s IEP were proper. Additionally, the district was able to show that the student received school-based services without incident while the student was enrolled, and the parent did not request a non-school placement until after the student had been withdrawn for noncompliance.

At its core, the Hearing Officer argued, the parent’s complaint was really a challenge of the state’s vaccination requirements. His request for a change of placement was not based on educational concerns – it was based on his own disagreement with state law. Connecticut’s public health law does not allow preschool students to attend or enroll in school if they are not in compliance with the vaccination requirements, and it is undisputed that the student is currently ineligible to attend. These requirements apply equally to all students, regardless of whether they are eligible for special education services, so this was not an IDEA issue. Rather, the only barrier preventing the student from receiving the services in their current IEP was the parent’s continued noncompliance with the State’s vaccination requirements.

What does this mean for your district?

Parents are free to file an IDEA due process complaint whenever they believe their child’s educational placement is not meeting their disability-related needs. But when those complaints are based on challenges or factors that are not related to special education, districts will generally be able to secure a quick dismissal.

On June 12, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools regarding the standard of proof for Section 504 discrimination lawsuits for damages filed against school districts.

In this case, the student is a teenage girl who suffers from serious disabilities caused by a rare form of epilepsy. She has many seizures, mostly in the morning hours. As an accommodation, her previous public school in Kentucky arranged her schedule to be in the afternoon only, including a teacher who gave her instruction at home in the early evening. However, her new school in Minnesota refused to accommodate her late-day schedule, meaning she was receiving only two-thirds of the instructional time in school compared to other students.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the parents’ claims for damages as they failed to prove that the school district acted in “bad faith” or with “gross misjudgment,” which is the standard multiple circuit courts apply to these cases – including Ohio’s Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the United States Supreme Court overruled this decision and determined that the lower courts were using a heightened standard that was not intended by Congress.

The Court did not provide a specific new standard, and different judges proposed (via concurring opinions) different potential standards. However, the decision did allude at multiple points to the standard that is typically followed for 504 and ADA disability discrimination in other contexts. In those cases, the standard for monetary damages is “deliberate indifference.”  Justices Thomas and Cavanaugh issued a concurring opinion that discussed applying a heightened, intent-based standard. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson issued an opposite concurring opinion that discussed applying a no-intent standard for both forms of relief.

The Court further refused to determine if its decision applies across the board, meaning to lawsuits seeking specific relief other than monetary damages, i.e. making the school provide certain accommodations. We will have to wait for future litigation to clarify these remaining open questions.

What does this mean for your school district?

It is possible that this case will bring more awareness to parents that lawsuits for monetary damages can be filed for failure to accommodate under 504 and that parents now have a lower standard to meet in these cases. While we do not know the exact standard any court will apply, if your district is facing one of these lawsuits or is concerned that such a lawsuit may arise, parents will have an easier case to prove than under the previous standard.

If you have any specific questions concerning the Court’s decision and its impact on your school district, please contact an Ennis Britton attorney.