By Kaelin Rapport, Ph.D. and Elyse Shaw

Note: this post originally appeared on Medium.

In mid-June, the Department of Justice (DOJ) released a memo calling for states to ignore the integration mandates embedded in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Olmstead case. These policies and cases are bound together by a desire to end the history of discrimination experienced by individuals with disabilities because of their condition and to provide access to in-home and community-based health services and educational accommodations. However, the crux of the DOJ’s memo is an attempt to undermine the needs of individuals with disabilities by reinterpreting the responsibilities of federal and local governments when administering accessible services in an ‘integrated’ setting.

Wide adoption of the memo’s provisions would be especially devastating for students with disabilities. Elyse Shaw’s experiences accessing and maintaining care for her child demonstrates how the system in place already fails to meet the needs of many students and their families.

The millions of children who qualify for and receive accommodations through section 504, from kindergarten to grade 12, are entitled to a “504 plan,” which includes accommodations such as extra time for testing and assignments, and access to sensory breaks and fidgets. Through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, students may also qualify for anindividual education program, or IEP, which has additional accommodations like one-on-one support or an aide, and comes with more stringent reporting requirements for schools. Both plans are tailored around an individual’s unique needs and ensure integration in the school and curriculum. But 504 and IEP plans are often aspirational. The shortfalls are generally not the fault of the teachers and staff who work tirelessly to provide these services, but the result of administrative obstacles and public school budget cuts that result in staffing shortages and reduced oversight on plan implementation.

When she tried to get an assessment for her child through the public school system, Elyse was told to expect a six- to eight-month wait. She could get a private assessment sooner, but that would cost more than $3,000 out-of-pocket if her health insurance plan didn’t cover the cost. Even with health insurance and private assessments, it still took a year and half to get an accurate diagnosis, which was just the first step in getting a 504 plan.

Even with a 504 plan in place, Elyse still spends countless hours on emails and meetings every year to make certain her child is getting the services she needs.

The accommodations her child receives, even with the system’s flaws, enable her to continue learning and progressing at grade level alongside her peers. The plan ensures that there is at least one paid professional at the school — even though it is understaffed and under-resourced — who works alongside parents to make sure children’s accommodations change and grow with them.

Without the 504 plan and a job with the flexibility to take time to address these care needs, it’s likely that Elyse’s child would be in a specialized school, segregated and isolated, with no accountability measures to make sure she is protected, safe, and given the same rights as her non-disabled peers.

Creating the Conditions for Re-Institutionalization

Many are not so lucky. Almost half of the students with disabilities that require accommodations go without, and a significant portion of those students feel that they need more support.

Without the assistance needed to thrive, they are punished more consistently than their peers. Children with disabilities comprise roughly a quarter of the children given an out-of-school suspension. The consequences of this access gap are further accelerated by race; non-white students, and Black students in particular, suffer harsh disciplinary actions in schools at disproportionate rates and are more likely to have their 504 or IEP accommodations mishandled.

At best, the DOJ’s move to reduce states’ responsibility to facilitate integration for individuals with disabilities could lay the groundwork for school segregation. At worst, the reinterpretation of the integration mandate will channel students with disabilities into the school-to-prison pipeline. The majority of children already swept into the juvenile detention system have disabilities that make them eligible for special education services, and yet only 37 percent received those services while in school.

To understand the Trump Administration’s likely solution to the integration problem, we can look to the proposed plan of building a forced treatment camp in Utah for individuals dealing with mental health challenges. Rather than provide services for individuals with disabilities in a home or community-based setting, they could be forced to go without their accessibility and health care needs met or isolate themselves within a presumably better resourced institution–if they can afford transportation and tuition.

What Is to Be Done?

Weaponizing the ambiguity surrounding state responsibility to accommodate the needs of people with disabilities is the latest in a series of attacks launched by the administration to shrink the federal government’s social safety net. This time, the consequences facilitate the conditions for segregation and mass institutionalization.

To protect children and students with disabilities, we must intentionally reckon with the past in ways that put students with disabilities first and include them in decision-making processes. That will require the commitment of states and education systems to building the infrastructure necessary for resourced, community-based care systems. We also need these systems to holistically define and expand the integration mandate.

Doing this will require states and school districts to hire more specialized staff for all schools, especially staff with the training and expertise to provide assessments, diagnosis, and tailored social, emotional, and academic support. Additional training for all teachers on how to properly adhere to and implement 504s and IEPs is also needed.

Finally, we recommend that codes of conduct and training be developed and disseminated for the implementation of 504 and IEP plans that acknowledge racial stereotypes and their impact on how individual school administrators, teachers, and support staff interact with and discipline students. Without these provisions, the most vulnerable of our students will be shut out or left behind, just like their predecessors.