A panel discussion last week, facilitated by InnovateEDU CEO Erin Mote, focused on the academic and social-emotional consequences that can arise when special education data — particularly from individualized education programs (IEPs) — fails to transfer smoothly from one school to another.
For students with disabilities in military families, the stakes are especially high, according to panelists Lindsay Kubatzky, director of policy and advocacy at the nonprofit National Center for Learning Disabilities, and Jeff Carlson, head of national education partnerships at the ed-tech software company Clever.
According to Kubatzky and Carlson, frequent relocations mean navigating multiple districts and states, each with their own definitions, systems and documentation requirements. They said a robust information exchange is required, and when data doesn’t follow the student, learning progress and access to essential services can be lost in transition.
The conversation at EdTech Week underscored that IEP data interoperability is not simply a technical issue, but one of equity, continuity and trust. As Mote put it, solving the most mobile and complex cases first, like those of transient military families who have a student with a disability, might be the key to transforming how schools serve all students.
THE HUMAN COST OF LOST DATA
Grounding the conversation in real-world experiences of military families, the panelists addressed the immense logistical and emotional toll for those who move frequently.
“Students in military-connected families move between six and nine times throughout their public school career. This is three times more often than a typical student,” Kubatzky said. “IEPs are not standard across states [or] districts. They can be in written format. They can be using technology with other systems.”
The lack of standardization, Kubatzky explained, can delay or prohibit a student’s access to necessary services. For example, if a student with an IEP moved to a new state and lost their documentation, they would need to be re-evaluated, or they might not even be eligible for services in the new state.
Kubatzky called the experience “re-stigmatizing,” describing the emotional impact when students must repeatedly prove their disability status.
“If a parent is thinking about not just where their moving boxes are, but where’s the moving box that has the paper IEP, they’re not operationally running to serve this country [as a member of the military],” Mote said.
CHALLENGES SCHOOLS AND VENDORS FACE
Carlson described the complex technical landscape that schools and vendors encounter when attempting to create systems capable of securely transferring sensitive student data, like that from an IEP.
Namely, he spotlighted the tension between sharing student data to provide disability services as soon as possible and the need to maintain data privacy.
“There are far more data fields that are relevant, important, needed for a student who has been getting [special education] services,” he said, referring to the complex learning profiles of students with disabilities. “It has to be seamlessly and securely transferred, not just across a district, but across states that have different definitions, to a military base in Germany that’s using different vendors, to a school just outside a base in Georgia, to a family that’s maybe just in an Iowa school for a while that doesn’t have a whole lot of military-connected kids. That’s a very difficult data journey.”
Carlson also touched on how the U.S. has a plethora of services for students with disabilities, but the way they identify, categorize and fund support for students with special needs varies significantly.
“There are differences across state lines,” he said. “In one state, there may be four categories with four different funding levels. In another state, there’s 10 with 10 different funding levels. We need to think about how to talk to each other behind the scenes while also maintaining privacy.”
But even with improved data systems, the old-fashioned paper IEP remains the most reliable method in many cases.
“Historically, a family bringing in the paper document has been the best way, the most specific and quickest way for them to actually get services in the education,” Carlson said. “We shouldn’t be placing that burden on those families or that kid … There should be systems behind that.”
POLICY SHIFTS AND FUNDING UNCERTAINTY
Beyond technical barriers, panelists emphasized recent and looming federal-level policy shifts that could reshape how special education services are funded and administered.
Last week, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) announced the consideration of a memorandum to move all Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) data to an entirely different department.
“That’s a big issue for the disability community because we believe it goes back into the medical model of a disability instead of an educational model,” Kubatzky said, expressing concern that such a move would shift the focus from equitable classroom support to medical treatment, which could compromise the ability of states to ensure students receive necessary services.
In addition to the proposed reorganization, layoffs at ED have raised alarms about the continuity of special education oversight and grant management.
“They’ve also laid off all the people, basically, who worked on these programs and funding,” Kubatzky said. “Superintendents are concerned about how this funding is going to go out.”
Moreover, the panelists said that shifting IDEA programs to a new federal agency, paired with the loss of key staff, has created a moment of instability that could make it harder for schools and ed-tech vendors to plan. They said the challenge is compounded by the need for sustained investment in data systems that serve students with disabilities.
SCALING A MODEL
Looking ahead, the session speakers envisioned how data interoperability models being piloted for military families might inform future software tools for other highly mobile or student populations, such as students in foster care, migrant families or people experiencing homelessness.
“If we’re able to prove that we can get all these folks that don’t think it could happen, and we get it to happen, we could make it a lot larger,” Kubatzky said. “We could see where things are happening that are really great for a migrant student with a disability … and have those interventions across the country.”
If data systems can ensure that a child’s learning plan follows them wherever they go, panelists said, the burden shifts from families to the institutions built to support them — a step closer to a truly student-centered education system.
