As reported by K-12 Dive, as the number of special education complaints increases, some experts in the field and educators are wondering if artificial intelligence is playing a role in helping more families express their dissatisfaction with the services provided by their child’s school. Though the evidence is more anecdotal than empirical, this concern has led one technical assistance center to issue guides on ethical and practical ways AI can help parents advocate for their children with disabilities.

In July, the Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE) published a parents’ guide, available in multiple languages, for using AI in special education advocacy. CADRE is a technical assistance center funded by the U.S. Department of Education (USDE).

State dispute resolution agencies said that not only have written state complaints and due process complaints increased, but AI has affected both the quality and complexity of those filings. In addition, a number of complaints contain hundreds of pages that have inaccurate interpretations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and may have due process filings with fabricated case law cited. Some reports also have inaccurate requirements for how to file complaints and what issues can be resolved under IDEA dispute resolution options.

CADRE’s guide emphasizes to parents that AI can make mistakes, has affirmation biases and won’t know a child’s specific circumstances. It also cautions that a child’s personal data is exposed if parents provide an AI tool with identifying information, unredacted documents or reports, or confidential case details.

For more from K-12 Dive, click here.

The U.S. Department of Education (USDE) quietly released results of the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) for the 2023-24 school year, but redacted data collected on nonbinary students’ experiences. A tranche of federal data related to some LGBTQ+ students and their experiences in schools was withheld, even though the remaining data from the CRDC for the 2023-24 school year was released.

The redacted data covers nonbinary students’ experiences related to enrollment, discipline, bullying and harassment, and whether districts have policies prohibiting discriminatory harassment or bullying of students on the basis of their gender identity. Breakdowns of nonbinary students’ experiences by racial demographics, English learner status, and disability were also withheld.

The civil rights collection for the 2023-24 school year began under the Biden administration and concluded under the second Trump administration.

On August 31, 2026, the USDE quietly released the data, which had hundreds of entries involving nonbinary students redacted. It also lacked any in-depth accompanying report or analysis tools, which had been part of previous releases to help the public better understand the trends. 

Collected by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the CRDC is meant to capture data on equal access to education for various student subgroups and give the government a picture on schools’ compliance with civil rights laws. OCR has typically administered the data collection biennially for more than five decades.

For more from K-12 Dive, click here.

On September 2, 2026, a bipartisan bill was introduced in the U.S. House that seeks to prevent the transfer of four U.S. Department of Education (USDE) offices to other federal agencies. Those USDE offices lead activities for special education, postsecondary education, Native American education, and elementary and secondary education.

According to K-12 Dive, the bill — introduced by Reps. John Mannion, D-N.Y., Bobby Scott, D-Va., and Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa. — is companion legislation to a Senate bill that currently awaits a full vote.

Thus far, the USDE under the Trump administration has a total of 14 interagency agreements with six other federal agencies to offload many K-12 and higher education responsibilities. The administration has said the agreements will break up federal bureaucracy, but critics say they add confusion and prevent cohesion among the offices being outsourced. In addition, a joint statement issued on September 3 by Mannion, Scott, and Fitzpatrick said their bill seeks to prevent the four offices’ transfers to agencies that “lack the staff, experience, and expertise needed to administer them.” Fitzpatrick also stated that, “The families I represent should never have to wonder whether a federal reorganization will cost their child a service, a protection, or an opportunity.” Fitzpatrick added that when constituents raised concerns about moving the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) out of the USDE, he “took those concerns directly to the Administration and demanded answers about how it would protect IDEA [the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act], preserve critical resources, and prevent disruption for students.”
The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), praised the House bill in a September 3 statement saying, “Transferring special education to the Department of Health and Human Services is misguided — it segregates special education from other education programs and jeopardizes the rights of students with disabilities.”

The House bill was referred to the Education and Workforce Committee for consideration. The companion bipartisan Senate bill passed that chamber’s Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions in July. 

For more from K-12 Dive, click here.

As reported by K-12 Dive, an August 26, 2026 social media litigation settlement between Meta and 52 states and territories looks to make sweeping changes to how youth interact with these platforms in efforts to reduce harm to youth mental health. 

The lawsuit was originally filed in 2023 and claimed Meta illegally collected and used data from children under the age of 13 who used its platforms. The suit also averred that Meta made platform design decisions that drove excessive use and lied to users, their families, and the public about the safety of Facebook and Instagram. The suit alleged that such actions violated federal and state laws, including the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).

Under the agreement, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. on weekdays during the school year, Meta apps will mute push notifications except for direct messages and alerts about account security or safety. There will also be a default two-hour daily time limit for access across Facebook and Instagram that teens can only turn off with a parent’s permission. Other promised changes Meta is making include youth receiving prompts every 15 minutes of continuous screen time on Facebook or Instagram and a block for teens using extreme makeup filters. Meta has also agreed to have a default block from its apps between midnight and 6 a.m.

For more from K-12 Dive, click here.

On August 26, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) disseminated a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) informing school districts it will consider all mental health screenings and other student surveys, such as those related to sex behavior or attitudes, to be “required” by a school district even when presented as optional, and thus subject to parental notification and consent procedures. Thus, such surveys are automatically considered “required” because students may feel influenced to fill them out.

According to the DCL, “When an educator, counselor, or other school official administers a survey, evaluation, or analysis, students commonly feel obligated to participate” and “Because an authority figure is on the other side of the survey, evaluation, or analysis, students also rarely feel the need to ask a parent to review or approve it beforehand.”

The DCL also said that students’ decisions to fill out surveys on sensitive topics can be influenced by peer pressure, fear of not participating, or wanting to please a teacher or authority figure. Thus, school districts will be required to provide parents a chance to review the survey and provide written consent for student participation. Opt-outs would not fulfill the requirement of securing parental consent.

This would also apply to mental health screenings on emotional well-being, internalized distress, social interactions or other questionnaires indicating psychological well-being. In addition,  the DCL says “gender plans” for students must be accessible to parents even if they are not classified by the district as “education records.”

For more from K-12 Dive, click here.