Alice Cogswell and Anne Sullivan Macy Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 3, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to strengthen the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to ensure specialized, language-appropriate, and comprehensive services for students with sensory disabilities from early intervention through school, addressing systemic gaps in identification and service delivery.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to enhance the identification, evaluation, and provision of specialized education and related services for children and youth who are blind or visually impaired, deaf, hard of hearing, deafdisabled, or deafblind. It mandates specific language and learning needs be addressed in state plans and Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), strengthens personnel development for specialized educators, and establishes a new national center for visual disability research and enrichment.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill addresses critical systemic failures in identifying and serving children with sensory disabilities, preventing language deprivation and ensuring access to essential specialized instruction like American Sign Language and Braille. They contend it will enhance accountability, provide necessary resources for personnel development, and establish a vital national center to advance educational excellence for visually impaired students.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might argue that the bill creates overly prescriptive federal mandates that could increase administrative burdens and costs for states and local educational agencies, potentially diverting resources from other disability categories. Concerns could also be raised about the financial implications of establishing a new federal center and the practical challenges of recruiting sufficient specialized personnel to meet the bill's requirements.
The bill is moderately lengthy and complex, requiring careful reading to understand its detailed amendments to existing law and the implications for various disability services.
Sec. 101(a), (b), (c)
Enhanced Identification and Data Collection for Deaf, Hard of Hearing, or Deafdisabled Children
This provision requires states to identify, locate, and evaluate children who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deafdisabled, even if they are classified under other disability categories, and to provide them with appropriate specialized services. It mandates specific data collection on these children, regardless of their primary classification, and prohibits the use of vague terminology like 'hearing impaired.' It also explicitly includes these children in the definition of 'child with a disability' under IDEA.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision addresses the systemic undercounting and misclassification of sensory disabilities, ensuring these children receive the specialized services they need instead of being overlooked due to broader disability labels, thereby preventing language deprivation.
Critics contend
Some might argue that requiring states to reclassify or specifically track children already identified under other disability categories adds unnecessary administrative burden without guaranteeing better outcomes, or that it could lead to 'labeling' children more specifically than necessary.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for accurate identification and specialized services for specific populations against potential administrative complexity for states and local educational agencies.
Sec. 102
State Plan Addendum for Deaf, Hard of Hearing, or Deafdisabled Children
This section requires states to submit a written addendum to their IDEA plans within two years. This addendum must describe how the state ensures qualified evaluations, sufficient personnel, and instruction in American Sign Language (unless expressly waived by parents) for deaf, hard of hearing, or deafdisabled children. It also specifies that the addendum must address language development goals, direct language access opportunities, and consultation with experts and advocacy organizations.
Sec. 105
Mandated IEP Consideration of Linguistic Needs for Deaf, Hard of Hearing, or Deafdisabled Children
This section amends IDEA to require Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams to specifically consider the linguistic needs of children who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deafdisabled. This includes ensuring direct communication opportunities with peers and professional personnel in the child's primary language (including American Sign Language), direct instruction in that language, and specialized instruction in areas such as assistive technology, self-determination, and age-appropriate career education.
Sec. 107(a), (b)
Safeguarding Specialized Schools and Continuum of Placements
This provision amends IDEA to explicitly require states to ensure a full continuum of alternative placements, including specialized schools, to meet the needs of children with disabilities. Crucially, it specifies that the closure or consolidation of a specialized school serving blind or deaf children will be considered a reduction in the state's financial support for special education, which could result in a failure to meet conditions for receiving federal IDEA assistance.
Sec. 112
Clarifying "Natural Environment" for Infants and Toddlers with Sensory Disabilities
This section amends IDEA's definition of 'natural environment' for early intervention services. For infants and toddlers with sensory disabilities (deafness, blindness, or deafblindness), it explicitly includes specialized schools, centers, and other programs where the child's primary language and mode of communication (e.g., American Sign Language) are used, or where services meeting their unique needs are available. This clarifies that 'natural environment' is not exclusively limited to settings with non-disabled peers for these specific populations.
Sec. 121(a), (b)
Enhancing Personnel Development for Educational Interpreters and Teachers of the Deaf
This section amends IDEA to prioritize personnel development for qualified educational interpreters, requiring them to be licensed by appropriate bodies and clarifying their role as assisting rather than teaching language. It also prioritizes preparing qualified teachers of the deaf and early intervention specialists to assist deaf, hard of hearing, and deafdisabled children in developing age-appropriate language (including American Sign Language) and literacy skills in various educational settings.
Sec. 201(a), (b), (c)
Enhanced Identification and Data Collection for Blind or Visually Impaired Children
Similar to the provisions for deaf children, this section requires states to identify, locate, and evaluate children who are blind or visually impaired, even if they are classified under other disability categories, and to provide them with appropriate specialized services. It mandates specific data collection on these children, regardless of their primary classification, and explicitly includes 'low vision' in the definition of 'child with a disability' under IDEA.
Sec. 202
State Plan Addendum for Blind or Visually Impaired Children
This section requires states to submit a written addendum to their IDEA plans within two years, detailing how they ensure qualified evaluations (including Learning Media Assessments and Functional Vision Evaluations), sufficient personnel, and instruction in Braille, proficient use of assistive technologies, orientation and mobility, self-determination, and other expanded core curriculum areas for blind or visually impaired children. It also specifies consultation with experts and advocacy organizations.
Sec. 204
Mandated IEP Consideration of Braille and Expanded Core Curriculum for Blind or Visually Impaired Children
This section amends IDEA to require Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams to provide instruction in Braille and its use for blind or visually impaired children, unless specific, properly administered assessments (Learning Media Assessment, Functional Vision Evaluation) determine it's not appropriate and parents provide specific written informed consent. It also mandates instruction in the expanded core curriculum, including proficient use of assistive technologies, orientation and mobility, self-determination, sensory efficiency, socialization, recreation and fitness, independent living skills, and age-appropriate career education.
Title II, Subtitle C (Sec. 211-215)
Establishment of the Anne Sullivan Macy Center on Visual Disability and Educational Excellence
This subtitle establishes a new national program within the Department of Education, the Anne Sullivan Macy Center on Visual Disability and Educational Excellence. Its mission is to support students with visual disabilities through developing curricula, supporting higher education programs for teachers of the visually impaired, creating student enrichment projects, and conducting research on assessments and interventions. The Center will be administered by a consortium of non-profit professional associations, national non-profit organizations, and institutions of higher education, with oversight from an advisory board. It authorizes appropriations for the Center and specifies coordination with other related programs.
Sec. 301(a), (b), (c)
Enhanced Identification and Data Collection for Deafblind Children
Similar to the provisions for deaf and blind children, this section requires states to identify, locate, and evaluate children who are deafblind, even if they are classified under other disability categories, and to provide them with appropriate specialized services. It mandates specific data collection on these children, regardless of their primary classification, and explicitly includes 'deafblindness' in the definition of 'child with a disability' under IDEA.
Sec. 302
Inclusion of Intervener Services as a Related Service
This section amends IDEA's definition of 'related services' to explicitly include 'intervener services,' which are defined as services provided to children who are deafblind by a qualified intervener. This formal recognition ensures that states must consider and provide intervener services as part of a deafblind child's individualized education program if determined appropriate.
Sec. 303
State Plan Addendum for Deafblind Children
This section requires states to submit a written addendum to their IDEA plans within two years, detailing how they ensure qualified evaluations (by teachers of the deafblind), sufficient personnel (including teachers of the deafblind and interveners), and instruction in language, communication (including tactile sign language), literacy, and functional skills for deafblind children. It also specifies that the addendum must address ongoing progress in communication development, direct communication opportunities, and consultation with experts and advocacy organizations.
Sec. 321
Enhancing Personnel Development for Teachers of the Deafblind and Interveners
This section amends IDEA to prioritize personnel development for qualified teachers of children who are deafblind, interveners, and early intervention specialists. The goal is to assist deafblind children in schools and early intervention programs to develop communication and literacy skills, access and organize environmental information, and acquire concepts essential for learning, directly addressing critical shortages in these highly specialized fields.
This provision states that if a student is placed at a school for the deaf, the school may provide documentation of how its teachers are specifically trained to educate deaf and hard of hearing students, and as a result, will not be required to provide individualized education plans (IEPs) unless the student is deafdisabled.
Sec. 103(b)(iii)
Why it matters:This is likely a specific concession to schools for the deaf, recognizing their specialized environment and potentially streamlining administrative processes, rather than an attempt to hide it. It acknowledges that the entire school environment is designed to meet the needs of deaf students.
Case for: Proponents argue this recognizes the inherent specialization of schools for the deaf, where the entire environment is designed for deaf students, making individual IEPs for every deaf student potentially redundant if the school's general program already meets their needs. It reduces administrative burden on these specialized institutions.
Case against: Critics might argue that even in specialized schools, individual needs vary, and waiving IEPs could reduce individualized attention or accountability for specific student progress, especially for those with unique learning profiles or co-occurring needs not explicitly covered by the 'deafdisabled' classification.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant administrative relief for schools for the deaf, affecting thousands of students nationally who are deaf or hard of hearing but not deafdisabled.
This provision amends the definition of 'blind or other persons with print disabilities' to explicitly include children served under IDEA, or children served by elementary and secondary schools pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, who may qualify under the Act to provide books for the adult blind. This effectively broadens eligibility for accessible instructional materials.
Sec. 208
Why it matters:This is a technical clarification intended to align eligibility for accessible materials with broader disability law, ensuring that all eligible students, regardless of their specific legal classification under IDEA or Section 504, receive the necessary accessible instructional materials. It's a corrective measure rather than an evasive one.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures that all students with print disabilities, regardless of their specific classification under IDEA or Section 504, have equitable access to necessary accessible instructional materials, promoting educational equity and compliance with existing disability laws.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against expanding access to accessible materials, as it is generally seen as a fundamental right and a necessary accommodation for students with print disabilities.
Estimated impact: Broadens access to accessible instructional materials for potentially thousands of students with print disabilities, including those served under Section 504, ensuring they receive materials in specialized formats.
This section mandates that the Secretary of Education, not later than one year after the date of enactment, shall publish regulations, after notice and comment, that provide definitions for 'deafblindness' and 'intervener services.'
Sec. 307
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to delegate the development of specific definitions to the implementing agency through the regulatory process, allowing for expert input and public comment. It is not intended to be evasive.
Case for: Proponents argue that clear, consistent federal definitions for 'deafblindness' and 'intervener services' are essential for effective and uniform implementation of the Act across states, ensuring clarity in service provision, personnel qualifications, and eligibility.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against clarifying definitions, but stakeholders may engage vigorously during the notice and comment period to influence the specific content of these definitions, potentially leading to debates over scope or criteria.
Estimated impact: Provides legal clarity and consistency for the implementation of services for deafblind children and the professional role of interveners nationwide.