Alice Cogswell and Anne Sullivan Macy Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. McGarvey, Morgan [D-KY-3]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 8, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to significantly strengthen and standardize the educational support system for students with sensory disabilities under IDEA, emphasizing specialized instruction, language access, and accountability.
What it actually does
The Alice Cogswell and Anne Sullivan Macy Act amends the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to enhance the provision of special education and related services for children and youth with sensory disabilities: those who are blind or visually impaired, deaf, hard of hearing, deafdisabled, or deafblind. It mandates specific evaluation procedures, individualized education program (IEP) considerations, and personnel development to address the unique language and learning needs of these populations. The bill also establishes the Anne Sullivan Macy Center on Visual Disability and Educational Excellence to support research, professional development, and student enrichment.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is crucial for ensuring that children with sensory disabilities receive a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) that genuinely meets their unique needs, which are often overlooked or inadequately addressed under current IDEA implementation. They contend it will prevent language deprivation, improve academic and life outcomes, and provide necessary resources for specialized personnel and research.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill imposes overly prescriptive requirements on states and local educational agencies, potentially leading to increased administrative burdens and costs without sufficient federal funding. Concerns could also be raised about the potential for specialized settings to be overemphasized, potentially conflicting with the least restrictive environment (LRE) principle, or that the new center duplicates existing efforts.
The bill is moderately long and amends existing law, requiring careful reading. Given its comprehensive nature, adequate time for review and public input would be essential for stakeholders to fully understand its implications.
Sec. 101-108, Title I, Subtitle A
Enhanced Identification, Evaluation, and IEP Requirements for Deaf, Hard of Hearing, or Deafdisabled Children
This subtitle mandates that states identify, locate, and evaluate children who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deafdisabled, regardless of their primary disability classification, ensuring they receive appropriate specialized services. It requires state plans to detail how unique language, literacy, and academic needs are met, including instruction in American Sign Language (unless waived). Evaluations must assess language proficiency and direct language access. IEP teams must consider linguistic needs and provide opportunities for direct communication with peers and professionals in the child's primary language.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue these provisions are essential to rectify historical under-identification and inadequate services for these students, ensuring they receive the full language access and specialized instruction necessary for academic success and social-emotional development, as affirmed by Department of Education guidance.
Critics contend
Some might argue that these mandates are overly prescriptive, potentially infringing on state and local control over education, and could lead to significant unfunded costs for hiring specialized personnel and developing new programs.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for specialized, explicit language instruction and access for deaf/hard of hearing/deafdisabled children with the principle of individualized education and local control, and the potential for increased costs.
Sec. 111-113, Sec. 121, Title I, Subtitles B & C
Strengthening Early Intervention and Personnel Development for Deaf, Hard of Hearing, or Deafdisabled Infants and Toddlers
This subtitle expands the definition of 'qualified personnel' for early intervention to include teachers of infants and toddlers with sensory disabilities. It clarifies that 'natural environments' for deaf, hard of hearing, or deafdisabled infants and toddlers can include specialized schools or centers where their language is the primary mode of communication. Early intervention plans must include ongoing language assessment and direct language learning opportunities. Additionally, it mandates personnel development programs for educational interpreters and qualified teachers of the deaf and early intervention specialists.
Sec. 201-209, Title II, Subtitles A & B
Comprehensive Support for Blind or Visually Impaired Children, Including Braille and Expanded Core Curriculum
This subtitle mirrors Title I's approach for blind or visually impaired children, requiring states to identify and serve them regardless of other classifications. State plans must detail how unique academic and learning needs are met, including instruction in Braille, assistive technologies, orientation and mobility, and other expanded core curriculum areas. Evaluations must use research-based assessments like Learning Media Assessments and Functional Vision Evaluations. IEPs must provide for Braille instruction unless specifically waived by parents after comprehensive assessment. It also adds 'vision rehabilitation therapy' as a related service and mandates personnel development for teachers of the visually impaired. Early intervention plans for infants and toddlers must include Braille exposure, O&M, and AT.
Sec. 211-215, Title II, Subtitle C
Establishment of the Anne Sullivan Macy Center on Visual Disability and Educational Excellence
This subtitle establishes a national program within the Department of Education, the Anne Sullivan Macy Center, dedicated to supporting students with visual disabilities. Its mission includes developing and disseminating curricula and materials for continuing education of teachers of the visually impaired, supporting higher education programs for training these teachers (especially for those with additional disabilities), creating student enrichment projects, and funding research on effective assessments and interventions for visually impaired children. The Secretary of Education is to contract with a consortium of entities (professional associations, non-profits, higher education institutions) to administer the Center, with an advisory board providing oversight.
Sec. 301-307, Sec. 311, Title III, Subtitles A & B
Specialized Support for Deafblind Children, Including Intervener Services and Communication Access
This subtitle focuses on deafblind children, requiring states to identify and serve them regardless of other classifications. It adds 'intervener services' provided by qualified interveners as a related service, recognizing their critical role in communication access. State plans must detail how unique language, communication, and learning needs are met, including tactile sign language and object/tangible symbol systems. Evaluations must assess language and communication proficiency, with qualified personnel trained in deafblindness actively involved. IEPs must provide for communication needs, including tactile sign language. The Secretary is mandated to develop policy guidance and regulations defining 'deafblindness' and 'intervener services.' Early intervention plans must include ongoing language and communication assessment and access.
Sec. 321, Title III, Subtitle C
Ensuring Sufficient Teachers of the Deafblind, Interveners, and Early Intervention Specialists
This subtitle amends IDEA's personnel development section to specifically include preparing qualified teachers of children who are deafblind and early intervention specialists, as well as qualified interveners. The goal is to assist deafblind children in developing communication and literacy skills, accessing environmental information, and acquiring essential concepts for learning, both in school and early intervention programs.
For infants and toddlers with sensory disabilities (deafness, blindness, deafblindness), the definition of 'natural environments' for early intervention services is expanded to explicitly include 'specialized schools, centers, and other programs where the child's language...is the primary language and mode of communication' or 'any school, center or other program or environment where services meeting the unique needs of infants and toddlers with sensory disabilities are available.'
Sec. 112, amending IDEA 632(4)(G)
Why it matters:This is a substantive policy clarification embedded within a definitional amendment, which is a common legislative drafting technique. It's not necessarily evasive, but it's a significant shift in interpretation.
Case for: Proponents argue this clarifies that for children with severe sensory disabilities, a specialized environment where their unique language and communication needs are met is, in fact, the most 'natural' and effective learning environment, preventing language deprivation and fostering early development.
Case against: Critics might argue this could be interpreted as undermining the 'least restrictive environment' principle by encouraging placement in segregated settings, potentially limiting exposure to children without disabilities.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, as it could shift how early intervention services are delivered and funded for a specific population, allowing for more specialized, language-rich environments from a very young age.
States that if a student is placed at a school for the deaf, the school 'may provide documentation of how its teachers are trained specifically to educate deaf and hard of hearing students, and as a result, will not be required to provide individualized education plans unless the student is deafdisabled.'
Sec. 103(b)(2), amending IDEA 614(d)(1)(A)
Why it matters:This is a significant procedural change for schools for the deaf, potentially streamlining administrative burdens by recognizing their inherent specialization. It's a specific carve-out.
Case for: Proponents argue that schools for the deaf are inherently designed to meet the needs of deaf and hard of hearing students, and requiring individual IEPs for every student, when the entire curriculum and staff are specialized, is redundant and burdensome. This allows them to focus resources on instruction.
Case against: Critics might argue that this provision could reduce individualized accountability for students who are deaf or hard of hearing but do not have additional disabilities, potentially leading to less tailored educational plans or reduced parental oversight, even in specialized settings.
Estimated impact: Could significantly reduce administrative burden for schools for the deaf and potentially alter the nature of educational planning for non-deafdisabled students in those settings.