Latest / DiveIn: Diving into Special Education's Most Complex and Pressing Debates / What does a Trump Administration Mean for Special Education? A Conversation with Mitchell Yell and David Bateman

Transcript

What does a Trump Administration Mean for Special Education? A Conversation with Mitchell Yell and David Bateman · DiveIn: Diving into Special Education's Most Complex and Pressing Debates

0:06
From the Division of Research of the Council for Exceptional Children,
0:10
this is Diabet, a podcast about equity,
0:13
diversity and inclusion in special education. I am
0:17
your host, Federico Beitoller, professor at the University of
0:21
Illinois, Chicago.
0:36
Welcome, welcome, welcome, welcome to our fourth episode of
0:40
our second season of Dive In. As you could
0:44
probably figure it out by the song, this is our winter holiday episode.
0:48
And as you probably could figure it out by the song, this is
0:51
the lowest budget production podcast in the history of
0:55
podcasts, I think. I mean this is me in my
0:58
pajamas in my mother in law arts and crafts room playing
1:02
a Christmas song, sing by a squirrel from my phone.
1:05
So it doesn't get lower than that. So that's the
1:09
good news. Now, thankfully, the interview from
1:13
today will pick us up and take us all the way to
1:16
the top. Many of you, like myself, have been
1:19
wondering what's going to happen to special education the
1:23
next four years with the Trump administration? Will IDEA or
1:27
the Department of Special Education be dismantled? Will special
1:31
education experience huge budget cuts
1:34
or will special education services will be replaced by voucher programs?
1:39
Our program today will address these concerns and much more.
1:43
And to do so, I invited two special guests.
1:46
Two special guests that have been around the special education
1:49
field for many decades and are the experts on policies
1:53
affecting students with disabilities.
1:56
Today we will feature a conversation with Mitch Yell
2:00
and David Bateman. Mitch Yell is the Fred and Francis
2:04
Lester Parmeto Chair in Teacher Education and a professor
2:08
in Special education at the University of South Carolina. And David
2:12
Bateman is a principal researcher at the American Institute for Research.
2:16
Both of them bring tremendous amount of expertise. So stay
2:20
with us, stick with us and enjoy the
2:24
interview.
2:29
Well, thank you so much, Mitch and David, for being here with us.
2:33
We're going to discuss a very important topic. I think you've been
2:36
thinking about this, so I'm extremely thankful to have you on
2:39
the show today. Glad to be here.
2:45
Likewise. I appreciate the opportunity and
2:50
more than happy to talk about this and if there's additional questions, people can contact
2:53
us for follow up. Well, thank you. I must say, I mean this
2:57
was a particular sacrifice for Mitch because he's in
3:01
the middle of the cruise. So we took him off the happy hour margarita
3:06
and the Pacific Gulf to be able to be with us. So special.
3:09
Thank you to you and to sacrificing your, your,
3:12
your fun for, for our, the enriching of our understanding
3:17
about this issue. Well, I'm sure this will be fun too.
3:21
Yeah. And I must say he's not drinking a margarita now.
3:25
He's, he's, he's he's fine.
3:28
So, so, you know, I, like many
3:32
of you, are many of the people concerned with special
3:35
ed. You know, there have been a lot of social posts, videos,
3:38
comments about what's going to happen the next four years with the new Trump administration.
3:42
There are many fears. So, you know, I want to get us started right on
3:45
the back, you know, with a, with a big question. Maybe, maybe it's maybe an
3:49
apocalyptic question and maybe to exaggerate it, but, you know,
3:52
let's start and just clean it up right
3:56
away. So do you think that this new Trump administration
4:00
will get rid of IDA or IPs or
4:04
modify them to lessen
4:08
the protection for children with disabilities?
4:12
Did you want to take this first, Dave, or do you want me? Yeah,
4:14
I'll take the first one and then how about chime in
4:19
things like this. What a great question.
4:22
Thank you for asking this and
4:27
I'll try to synthesize this because I could go for a long time on this
4:30
one. But let's just talk about the legal and historical precedent of
4:33
this one. IDEA is a federal law passed
4:37
with bipartisan support and repealing it would
4:40
require an act of Congress pretty much making it difficult to
4:44
dismantle. That's the first thing. The second
4:47
thing is that disability rights organizations and families would
4:51
fiercely oppose such efforts using
4:54
advocacy and litigation to protect students rights.
4:59
And I'll get to more on this one, but I think this would be for
5:03
many of these families that have a child with a disability. They are
5:06
single issue voters for this topic because they're leading
5:10
a life that is very different from some others. And we need to
5:14
realize this. The interesting thing about this
5:17
is many states also have
5:21
their own laws mirroring idea, which would
5:24
remain even if federal protections were weakened so
5:29
that state legislators would then have to follow through, which I'm not putting it
5:33
past some of these state legislatures. But any move to eliminate
5:37
IDEA would face significant backlash from families,
5:40
from educators and bipartisan stakeholders.
5:43
Because this does talk about this is that every single school district
5:47
in the United States receives money to help provide services for
5:51
these kids. So there would be pushback from every district,
5:55
not just a few. Every district would be part of this.
5:58
And while IDA itself may be remain, enforcement through funding and federal
6:02
oversight could be weakened. But you also have to remember school
6:06
districts, any institution receiving federal funds
6:10
still has to provide an appropriate education under section 504.
6:14
New Mexico tried this out back in the 70s, not accepting or not
6:18
agreeing to what it was the original eahca,
6:22
and then they were sued. I might as well do this and get some money
6:25
as a part of this. So I don't see this because
6:29
kids with disabilities are protected class. There's very reasons for this
6:33
and the political power. I worked as a lobbyist
6:37
before and if there were ever some cuts to education,
6:42
we can bring out individuals that would make it look like really
6:46
draconian what they're proposing.
6:50
It's very difficult. Yeah. And I would also just
6:54
echo what David said and also mention that because it
6:58
takes an act of Congress to get rid of or the
7:02
idea or ieps, it makes very unlikely
7:06
because the idea is a very popular law.
7:10
For that matter, the Department of Education is very popular to get it through the
7:13
House. Assuming every Democrat voted against
7:17
the measure to get rid of it, they could only lose two Republicans.
7:21
And could you imagine Republicans being excited
7:25
about having a lot of ads on tv?
7:28
They're against education, they're against educating kids with
7:32
disabilities. I don't think that happened. And even if it did happen in the
7:36
House, it'd go to the Senate where there's still a filibuster
7:39
and they'd have to get 60 votes. So I don't think it,
7:43
I don't see it as happening anything. All right,
7:47
so we can say probably IDA and ips,
7:50
any of those protections, legal protections, will likely will remain
7:55
in peace. That's kind of good. But you know, we're going to talk because there
7:57
are other ways that, you know, you can go around weakening
8:03
these, these procedures. Right. And we have, I think we have seen some
8:06
through the years, but it may become more acute in the upcoming
8:10
four years. So for instance, another recommendation,
8:14
for example, for Project 2020, which is the.
8:17
2025. 2025. Sorry.
8:20
Thank you, Dave. Which is arguable. Some of the basis for the reforms
8:24
that they're going to do is to dismantle the Department of Education.
8:27
Right. So if this plan
8:31
succeeds, let's say they are able to eliminate
8:35
or dismantle the Department of Education and do an
8:38
office under the Health Department with
8:42
that. We can. The IDA
8:46
or ADA or 544.
8:49
Probably not. For one thing, the Department of Education
8:53
is going to be. It's. It's like David and I said about idea,
8:56
it'd be very difficult to get rid of it. They could
9:00
do funding things and make it a lot more difficult, but I don't think they
9:04
can get rid of it. And I think currently there's
9:08
some thought in, in Washington that even if they
9:12
did, they're going to spin some stuff off,
9:15
like for instance, the office for Civil rights and
9:19
the Department of Education would go to the Department of Justice.
9:22
The idea might go to Department of Health
9:26
and Human Services. But I don't think it, I don't think they're going
9:29
to get rid of the Department of Education. I don't think same
9:33
problem. They can't lose that many votes in the House and they'd
9:37
have to have to overcome a filibuster. Assuming all Democrats
9:41
vote for it, which I think they they will.
9:45
I don't think it'll happen. Also actually,
9:48
the Department of Education's only been around since 1986,
9:51
11 years after I idea was passed and Ronald
9:55
Reagan wanted to get rid of it in 1990. They tried
9:59
and tried and ran. That was part of their platform of the republicans
10:03
till about 96 and then they gave up on it because there was
10:07
just no chance and because it was very popular
10:10
and does a lot of real popular things.
10:14
So I don't think that's going anywhere either.
10:17
That nicely stated, Mitch. I'm just going to tag on to what you'd very eloquently
10:20
stated is yeah, I can't say that the Department of Education in
10:24
Washington right now is perfect.
10:27
But what it does is it provides oversight
10:31
to help many of these states understand what their roles and responsibilities are relating
10:35
to the services of kids. And I can tell you that the
10:39
individuals that I've worked with in the Department of Education truly are
10:43
trying to do their the best and provide appropriate
10:47
and meeting the needs of these kids. Most of these individuals
10:50
are very well situated,
10:54
very eloquent and very knowledgeable about what's
10:57
going on. So it's not like we're placing individuals there who don't know
11:01
how to work with kids or know what to go with kids. But just the
11:04
Mitch, as Mitch said, the practical barriers are impossible. The historical context,
11:09
it's not been done. But I think if there is,
11:12
even if it's parsed out, what we will see is we'll see more
11:16
greater disparities from states.
11:20
States with fewer resources may struggle to meet IDEA requirements
11:24
without federal oversight or funding, which would lead to greater inequities
11:28
as a part of this. And I mean if
11:31
you look at the map of which states receive more federal funds right now,
11:35
it's not the ones you would think of. It's really
11:39
interesting. And not just special ed funds, but just
11:43
federal funds in general. You look at where they are, the federal government
11:46
is propping up some of these states.
11:50
Can you mention some? A lot of the states in the South,
11:54
Wyoming and Alaska also, as just as
11:58
red, what we typically referred to as red states.
12:01
I mean they receive a lot more funds from the federal government
12:05
than some of the other states per capita. And we have to realize that
12:10
some of these states would really struggle without the support that the federal government
12:14
provides. Not just an idea, but highway funding, but other things.
12:18
There's a lot of money that goes to these localities as a part of
12:21
this. So it would be really interesting. It would
12:24
disproportionately hurt some of the poorer states. Yeah,
12:28
it would. And I think one of the things David mentioned before,
12:31
the parental advocacy and the advocacy organizations,
12:35
we have to remember that disability touches everyone,
12:39
including very conservative Republicans. I was
12:43
at a special education legislative summit two
12:48
years ago. Well, I've been there for about six years, but every year we have
12:52
a meeting with our congressional staff. It's a CC case sponsored
12:56
event. And I had a meeting with a,
12:59
with a very conservative, very conservative
13:05
congressman from South Carolina. Turns out his daughter
13:09
taught, teaches at a school for youngsters
13:13
with visual impairments in South Carolina.
13:15
Very, I mean he's very conservative, but he's very connected,
13:19
you know. And funding would hurt a lot of states,
13:22
especially those red states. Cutting funding, I think.
13:27
Well, now that we're in the, in the topic of funding,
13:33
you know, as you say, like some of these proposals are to not just
13:36
dismantle Department of Fed. But try to cut
13:40
the budget. Right. Cut the budget of the Department of Education even remains.
13:44
Can you give us a little bit of an idea how much money on average
13:47
or some example from state IDA provides to states.
13:51
So we have kind of an idea of how much of their state budget this
13:54
may be part of.
13:57
Sure. Total budget's about special education.
14:02
It's about $15 billion that goes to
14:06
the end. Like 96% of that goes to the states.
14:09
Most all of it goes to the states for the state
14:13
improvement grants and things like that.
14:17
And when the original law was passed in the 1970s, it was
14:20
supposed to pay up to 40% of the extra costs for kids with disabilities,
14:25
I'm sorry, kids in special education. Right now it's covering about
14:29
15%. That's still a sizable chunk for many of
14:33
these school districts. And when we saw during the economic stimulus
14:37
package that came about in 2009 as
14:41
part of the first Obama term is that there was a bump
14:45
in this. And a lot of the school districts were able to provide
14:49
a better assistive technology for kids. They were able to provide
14:54
more aids and paraprofessionals for classrooms. They were able to provide
14:58
more professional development for some of the teachers to help them as a part of
15:01
what they were doing. That only lasted about two years.
15:05
But we saw the impact of the funds on this because what
15:08
we would see is basically budget cuts if
15:12
we got rid of this, which would really hinder early intervention,
15:16
assistive technology, specialized instruction. That's all crucial
15:20
but it really I think disproportionately impacts students from low income backgrounds
15:24
who because of most a lot of schools are funded
15:28
based on property taxes. Even if
15:31
you were to raise the property tax significantly in some of these low income areas,
15:35
you would still not get as much money as if you just barely raise
15:39
it in some of the higher priced areas.
15:42
And so it's really information about this.
15:45
But just let's talk about this. Lower income,
15:49
fewer resources would lead to, there would be a ripple effect. It would lead to
15:52
things such as teacher burnout, increased litigation,
15:56
this send more money to lawyers and diminished educational outcomes as
16:00
a part of this. So I think the significance of
16:04
IDF funding and dramatic cuts of this is
16:08
because again it goes to every single school district.
16:12
It's not just a few, every single school district gets money
16:15
from this. Yeah.
16:19
An interesting thing is. Go ahead.
16:22
That I think even
16:26
we have not seen cuts. We've seen proposals to level
16:30
fund idea which is in a sense a cut because, because it's
16:34
not growing. But there have been no real proposals
16:38
for draconian cuts to the, to the Department of Education.
16:43
That's, that's interesting. That doesn't, that doesn't mean there won't,
16:46
won't be proposals because they, there's a committee
16:50
that has been put where they have Elon
16:53
Musk and Vivek Warmy in order going at budget
16:57
excesses and they said that nothing is
17:00
sacred. And so I'm sure what's going to happen as a result of that.
17:04
So that's up to see. I mean and for what you're saying the
17:08
poorest states and poor school districts may be more disproportionate. In fact, I mean
17:12
there's also a correlation between socioeconomic standard and race.
17:15
So we know probably some racial minorities will be mostly
17:19
impacted in this case. But also thinking about disability types.
17:22
Right. If students with more extensive support needs maybe
17:25
more. Let's see if I'm right on this. Maybe more affected
17:29
by these because those are the ones that are going to need more funding to
17:32
assist the technologies more one on one supports, et cetera.
17:35
Right. And one David
17:38
did mention about the full funding, which really doesn't mean full
17:42
funding. It meant that Congress meet
17:45
their original promise of 40%.
17:48
Of course, that's never happened. There's a bill almost introduced, I think
17:52
every year to put the
17:55
funding, funding on a glide path to reach that 40%.
17:59
I mean, there's no way that's going to happen now.
18:03
Yeah. So. But you know, there are other ways. Right? They maybe know kind of
18:06
a lot of stuff, but there are different ways to move that money,
18:10
different ways that also affect students. So for example, I know there's
18:13
some proposals there about converting most of these funds
18:18
in like no string formula block grants to distribute
18:21
to state departments.
18:24
Do you think that can happen and what would be the implications of that?
18:29
I think it could happen. I don't think. I mean,
18:32
Republicans have really been talking about that since Reagan
18:36
in 1990 about the block grants. And I
18:40
don't think it's really taken off. It may still. But then again,
18:43
you have some possibilities of stopping
18:47
it because a lot of congressmen would have to vote for it,
18:51
which, you know, I don't know if they'd be that excited to vote for cuts
18:55
in funding to kids with disabilities.
19:00
And just block grants. With block grants, there would be,
19:06
there would be lack of federal oversight and
19:09
probably reducing it would increase inequities between various states as
19:13
a part of this. I would be concerned though, that states
19:17
would divert funds to non special education programs leading to increased
19:21
disparities. But if I saw that that happened, I would probably
19:24
expect to see more litigation to bring some of these things in line as
19:28
a part of this.
19:32
And one of the proposals is potentially do have Department of HHS
19:37
provide the services or have money sent through there.
19:40
I potentially I'd be concerned they would deprioritize educational goals
19:45
in favor of health care metrics.
19:48
And so that we would. There'd be a shift in focus because of the focus
19:51
of that agency. But it was,
19:54
it sounds easy. Just give the money to the states because they know what to
19:57
do. Mitch and I have been involved in a number of lawsuits where states
20:01
have not known what to do. So it's, it's really. Are they or they
20:05
least have to have their feet held to the fire to make sure that they're
20:08
doing what they're supposed to be doing. And one
20:11
area that does worry me, and I know we're going to talk about that a
20:14
little bit later, but if there were the block grants, I'd be worried about what
20:18
happens with part D of the idea, and that's the support
20:21
programs, the research. And I mean it's a
20:24
very small or maybe 2% of
20:27
all the IDEA funds go into part D personal preparation,
20:32
state personnel development grants. But I'd be worried about
20:35
that if we went block grants. What happens to the
20:39
support programs, the. Money that, for example. Nixer.
20:42
How do you find nixer? Specialization, research training grants.
20:47
Yes. Yeah, yeah. Supposedly that would, you would
20:50
think would be spun off to different agencies, but are they
20:54
going to have an interest in the Institute for Education
20:57
Sciences or NCSER or any of those? Who knows?
21:01
So that's one area that I find a little worrisome in
21:05
terms of funding. I appreciate because what
21:09
we have is, I mean the individuals I've
21:12
worked with in the Department of Education are very knowledgeable about what
21:16
needs to be done. They listen to constituents, their background
21:19
and experience and I applaud them for what they're trying to do.
21:24
If they were still in charge. Yeah. But I'm not sure I would trust others
21:28
right now. That's a fair point. You know, and here,
21:31
here's another way that, that funds can be like moved
21:36
to other areas that I think may be detrimental for students with disabilities.
21:41
So this is, you know, an ongoing, this is not new to the Trump
21:44
administration, but they are planning to expand voucher programs.
21:48
I would expect that administration to put a lot of emphasis on voucher programs
21:52
and redirect funds to, for example, private schools. Voucher systems across
21:56
states that can go also through, can be done through block
22:00
grants. Probably motivate states to
22:04
do more vouchers through different block grants.
22:07
At the same time, I've been doing research also in this area and there's a
22:10
constant concern about parents having to waive IDEA rights
22:14
because of IDEA parents
22:18
not receiving services. Just for our audience.
22:21
When you move to a private school, you're not covered by Nueva School Disability Education
22:24
act, you are not covered by 504,
22:28
you are covered by ADA and only if
22:32
you are non religious organizations because even religious organizations have an
22:35
exempt from ada. So how do you think if we expand,
22:39
like if we do more, okay, we're not going to get ready at ada,
22:42
we're not going to get financed. But you know what, we're going to dedicate a
22:46
larger percentage to block grants to incentivate states to
22:50
provide voucher programs for students with disabilities. What would you think? What would impact that
22:54
be. You want to do that one, David? Yeah, let me, let me just talk,
22:57
let's just talk about the economics of this. All right. Yeah.
23:00
In order to provide appropriate services for a kid who's eligible for
23:04
special education, typically cost anywhere from 35
23:07
to $40,000. All right. Just depends
23:11
on the state depends on the disability. Some kids are more expensive, some kids are
23:15
less expensive. We just talk about this one. There are
23:18
no voucher programs for sending kids that are weight,
23:22
that are providing 35 or, or $40,000.
23:26
All right, so this is basically. Vouchers is just a
23:29
gift to rich families. Okay?
23:33
The, the only person who can afford a $30,000 tuition is
23:38
a, is a rich family. So if we give them a $5,000 voucher, all we're
23:42
basically doing is we're taking $5,000 off of their $30,000
23:46
cost. Most families can't afford to spend $30,000
23:49
on this. $5,000 is just, is just,
23:52
it's all but an insult is not allowing them to really make
23:56
a choice about what's going, sounds great, but it really doesn't allow them to make
24:00
a choice about the services that they're going to be providing. Most parents can't
24:03
afford any most money to spend on what's going on. If you look at
24:07
the amount of savings that many of these young families have, they can't afford these.
24:10
So the first, so you articulated this beautifully, loss of rights.
24:15
If they went to these, these, these services, the limited oversight,
24:19
the equity concerns about this are, are palpable.
24:23
And we need to make sure that we're addressing those things. And I applaud how
24:26
you phrase that question because your awareness is much better than, I think the
24:30
vast majority of people out there. All they think of is school.
24:33
Public schools are public, are monopolies. And we need to, we need to
24:38
get rid of that monopoly. Most parents can't afford something else.
24:42
So even if they get a 5,000, even a $10,000 voucher, it's not going
24:46
to do enough for them. No. And there's also the practicality
24:50
of it. I mean, I'm from South Carolina. We have so many rural,
24:55
very poor areas. They don't have private schools.
24:58
So if they have public, that's about it. And if they're losing
25:02
the public school money to private school vouchers
25:06
for the kids who have a private school and whose parents can
25:10
afford it, what happens to them? Their education suffers.
25:15
There are voucher programs specific for low income families. Now I'm thinking about
25:19
this. But those who are specific about students with disabilities,
25:22
they are not specific about income.
25:25
So when you have a voucher specific just because of
25:29
disability, as David was saying, most of the wealthy
25:33
families with disabilities may be able to benefit from that because
25:37
the other families may not be able to afford the
25:40
remaining cost of what really educates their children.
25:45
Any other concerns you have about voucher programs
25:49
or where do you see this feasible? This seems to be like the most
25:53
feasible things that they can do on their agenda to me. But.
25:56
Yeah. And Linda McMahon has made it clear
25:59
that she's a fan of vouchers. Let's talk
26:03
about. Most school districts across the United states have about 1,000 students.
26:09
There are some that are clearly larger than that, no dispute on this. And there's
26:12
some that are smaller, but most are about a thousand students. And what these schools
26:15
are, they're the heart of the community.
26:19
And if you, if we're taken away from the heart of the community,
26:23
I'm not sure what's going to happen. I mean, it's, it's,
26:26
it's, it's. It's where people meet. It's where people spend time. It's where we have,
26:30
we have this common, common thing. It's like the weather. We talk about the
26:33
local sports scores. And so it's because they're, they're the heart
26:37
of our community. And I want to make sure that we talk about that.
26:40
They don't, they don't just provide a place for kids to go
26:44
from eight to four, five days a week during the school year, but they also
26:48
serve as the, the blood of what? Blood that flows through all of
26:51
us when we talk about what's going on there. So.
26:55
Yeah, absolutely. That kind of reminds me of, you know, it's a beautiful book by
26:58
Ewins about goes in the school year. It's about the school's closest in Chicago.
27:02
And one of the many arguments she made is exactly what you're saying,
27:05
David. It's like there were a lot of bureaucrats, administrative rationale, that we
27:09
should close the schools because there were not enough students and there was like a
27:12
more economic rationale. But truly, those schools, as you say,
27:15
they were anchors for communities. Right. People for generations have
27:19
been going to those. There was a place of gathering, a place of sense making,
27:22
a place where people got together. And it was a very important
27:26
aspect of the community. So that's, I think that that's key too,
27:29
that with voucher programs, you may be able to
27:33
weaken it. Yeah.
27:37
So the other aspect of school choices, not voucher programs. Right. But it's charter
27:41
schools. Do you see also expanding, like using broad grants
27:45
to expand charter schools access, for example, for students with disabilities?
27:51
I think it's a possibility. In my state, we're seeing
27:54
a lot more of the charter schools, but they are still a part
27:58
of the, of a public. They're part of the public school
28:01
system. And so they still have to follow the laws. They have
28:04
to follow ADA Title 2. They have to follow 504.
28:08
They have to follow the idea and they have to follow the. All states
28:11
have their own kind of mini version of idea.
28:15
They all have their state laws and they still
28:19
have to follow those. The best special education program
28:23
I've ever seen was a charter school. But I'm also willing to
28:26
say that the worst special education program I've seen was a charter school.
28:30
Just because it's a charter school doesn't mean it's inherently better.
28:34
And so. But we have to, we have to wear
28:37
this. I mean I was I on a call yesterday, was a person, a friend
28:41
of mine from Indianapolis yesterday. Great charter school.
28:44
But however, it's.
28:48
There's, there's not, not all of them are. Not all of them are, can we
28:51
say are uniformly good. And the,
28:55
and many of them lack the infrastructure
29:00
to provide appropriate services that a broader school district
29:04
would have to provide the needs for these kids eligible for
29:07
special education related services. Yeah.
29:11
And I mean, just to add, there've been a lot of concerns about chartered schools.
29:14
I think you're right. It's a very pluralistic and
29:17
heterogeneous group. Right. It's very difficult to say at least or that
29:21
there is also more concerns about access
29:24
with the issues like enrollments. I know they first widely across
29:28
states, but in some states there is a huge difference between the enrollment of
29:32
students with disabilities in charter schools and traditional public schools.
29:35
There have been a lot of concerns about that and some means
29:40
that they may use to steer away or push out
29:43
students with disabilities because they don't have the infrastructure.
29:47
So I think that's another concern. They cannot
29:51
benefit from economies of scale, some of them. Right. Because there are standalones
29:56
that the district may be able to do, but it seems like
30:00
another area, a possible area in the four years that may grow.
30:04
I probably have to keep one eye. On, and I
30:09
appreciate how you answer that this is interesting is if money goes
30:13
from a public school, maybe 5% of the kids
30:17
from a local public school go to a charter school.
30:20
All right. They still have to heat the 100%
30:24
of the public school building. They still have to provide lights for 100% of the
30:28
public school building. They still have to provide transportation for
30:33
many of these kids. And so it's not like there's a clean
30:36
5% cut across everything. There's still the expenditures
30:40
that are necessary to provide appropriate services for these kids.
30:44
That's a great point, Dave, because even with vouchers, Too right. It's like the
30:47
money's not going to come extra. Probably it's going to come from the
30:51
same bag. So whatever they're going to redistribute to vouchers or
30:55
charter schools will come also at the expense of a lot
30:58
of public schools that serve a lot of students with disabilities.
31:02
Another area that I'm concerned with is
31:06
having to do with policies and yeah, I mean
31:10
it's, there's going to be, you know, like in
31:13
terms of Title 9, you know, the Biden administration came out with
31:17
their executive orders and their policies.
31:20
You know, the Trump administration is going to change that,
31:23
change those things. So they kind of play ping pong with
31:27
the, the policies and regulations and that
31:31
that could cause some, some harm too, I think.
31:35
I don't, you know, I don't think I, I don't think the Department of Education
31:38
is going away. I don ideas going away. But the regulations,
31:43
policies could be changed.
31:46
Can you expand a little bit, Mitch, and tell us what's Title IX for
31:50
those who don't know? Well, the Title 9
31:53
is from the Education Amendments to 1972
31:57
and essentially it's a civil rights non
32:01
discrimination on the basis of sex. And of course the
32:05
Biden and I think David has talked
32:08
about this before too. The Biden administration really expanded that
32:12
now that, you know, especially in terms of LGPT
32:17
plus Q. You know, that's not going to happen that that's
32:20
going to be rescinded in the Trump administration.
32:24
Yeah, it's important because I think. Yeah. No, Mitch, I like your point because
32:28
like we know also that many of students with disabilities, particular adolescents,
32:32
one of them are also gtbq. Right. So it's not just they are
32:36
students with disability. No, they, they will experience also and they
32:39
will be affected by other legislations like Title
32:42
9, like other legislations that may affect them because
32:46
other aspects of their identity. Yeah, well it's admit
32:50
Mitch, thank you so much for raising the issues related to Title ix. And it's
32:54
not just, it's not just students, it's teachers,
32:58
it's staff, it's parents. And what we have to think about this is
33:02
typically Title IX is thrown around as the boogeyman for why
33:05
we sometimes have issues with sports.
33:09
But that is just making sure because historically there were not sports
33:12
for individuals who are female or there
33:16
were serious inequities that existed between what's going on.
33:19
So we needed regulations because districts
33:22
on the whole were just being terrible about what
33:26
the services for kids who are female to provide services.
33:30
But Title IX has been the boogeyman now that we hold up for a
33:33
lot of things. And the Biden administration recently released, I think this just
33:37
this past summer, right, Mitch, they released their guidance and
33:41
I can see them working to rescind that because
33:45
in result of the, the Supreme Court case last June, the Loper
33:49
decision, where unless it's specifically codified
33:53
by or statute put up by Congress,
33:56
they give more deference to less, they give less deference
34:01
in the courts now to the administrative body than they do the
34:04
judicial, the legislative body as a part of the, part of any rules.
34:08
And if there's a disparity, then they're going to pay more attention to the,
34:11
to the legislative body than the executive body, despite the fact that they're
34:15
the ones who have the knowledge and are closer to the ground on the specific
34:19
services that these individuals require.
34:23
One follow up question I have, and it's related to budget cuts
34:26
and maybe not exactly
34:30
about cutting budgets for idea, but there are some organismal institutions
34:35
that take care of the follow up or keeps accountability
34:39
for students. Like I'm thinking about the Office of Civil Rights, for example,
34:42
right. That has done a lot of work like with claims about bullying or
34:46
different discriminatory practices towards students
34:50
with disabilities. Do you think, like, for example,
34:54
funding for those kind of offices may be lessened
34:59
and therefore they have less power than or less capacity
35:03
to follow up on those kinds of claims?
35:08
Well, there might be certainly funding.
35:12
There could be a problem there. I do have a kind of an interesting story
35:16
about this. I was served as a special ed
35:20
expert for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.
35:23
And one of the attorneys, a young
35:27
lady from, from Washington, we had a long drive
35:31
to a school one day and we were talking about, about the work she did.
35:35
And when she came into the department, she worked on LGPT
35:39
plus Q issues. And as soon
35:43
as she came in, it was the first Trump administration and
35:47
they said, no, no, no, you don't want to do this. They still wound
35:50
up doing a lot of it, but they had to be kind of secretive about
35:54
it and crouch in different terms.
35:58
But the work still got done because like David said, there's good people
36:01
there. They're not the deep state. There's people who have devoted their
36:05
lives and make a lot less money trying to make things better for
36:09
kids and you know,
36:12
they're still going to be there. So.
36:16
Mitch well, the other thing is, yeah, I'm really concerned
36:20
about this too is we underfund the investigative
36:24
arms of the executive branch to do
36:27
these things. It would pose significant problems.
36:30
Most notable under section 504 for most states.
36:35
That's how disputes are adjudicated. Because most states don't have
36:38
an adjudication system within
36:43
their state. Because why is this important is the
36:46
timelines for a due process hearing matter.
36:51
Each date has 45 days from the initiation of the due process hearing due
36:54
to the result. The states that have appeals process, such as
36:57
where Mitch is From, they have 30 days for the appeal.
37:00
Once it then goes into federal or state
37:04
court or investigation, there are no timelines for these things.
37:08
And some of these things that it will take a long time
37:12
for some of the young kids to actually potentially receive appropriate
37:16
services based on investigations, based on needs, based on what's going on.
37:21
So I'm truly concerned about this issue because it
37:25
could affect. Because many of these kids, the developmental period for some of these kids
37:28
is short and five years means a big
37:32
deal for some of these kids. And so it potentially could pose
37:36
significant problems. Yeah. And you could make a case
37:40
those are probably underfunded now, so will
37:44
happen under a Trump administration. There'll be less funding
37:48
and less rights for kids.
37:54
That'd be definitely one of the concerns.
37:57
Another concern that I have, and maybe this is another
38:01
fear that nothing may happen. But okay,
38:05
they would not dismantle idea. I don't have the power to do that. Or they
38:08
were very difficult to do dismantle idea. But we know that
38:11
IDA has been due to reauthorization for many, many years now.
38:16
So do you think that one possible way to restructure IDEA
38:20
or get their ideas and their recommendation
38:24
to IDEA would be to try to reauthorize in these four years
38:28
with new kind of classes? I would
38:32
hope not. I wouldn't want to see them mucking
38:35
around in the idea now. I think,
38:40
you know, the CEC and CASE put together a committee probably
38:44
now 12 years ago to work on reauthorization when
38:48
we thought it might happen. And then things
38:51
started turning. We said, oh, my goodness, we don't want them mucking about an
38:55
idea now. And we sure don't want them now that
38:58
both the Senate and the House are
39:02
in Republican hands. They have not tended. I mean,
39:05
IDEA has been pretty nonpartisan, but the
39:09
funding issues are, are really a problem.
39:11
And so I, I don't think it's going to happen.
39:15
I would hope not. Yeah. Yeah. And Mitch, I appreciate that.
39:19
And there's that famous phase from the, the Gulf War where Donald
39:22
Rumsfeld said that the known known is better than the known unknown.
39:27
And I think what we now there are a lot of problems
39:31
with idea there, there and there, there are a lot of
39:34
things that need to be changed but we're all,
39:37
we've been living under this, this rule for over a little actually
39:41
over 20 years now and we all know kind of what's going
39:45
on. Reauthorizing IDA would
39:49
take an act of Congress. I'm not, I don't, I mean I just right
39:53
before we, we joined this I just was reading
39:56
an article about the Repo. The House Republicans majority is
40:00
in peril because there are some individuals who are saying that they might not
40:04
caucus with the Republicans who
40:07
are labeled as Republicans. There's also a number of individuals who have been pulled from
40:11
the House to be members of either
40:14
the cabinet or sub cabinet positions by the Trump administration.
40:18
So they are sitting on a two seat majority right now and there's many.
40:22
I'm not sure if they're going to agree on anything. I mean they
40:25
just watch what they go back to what in the previous
40:29
administration when it took them 30 years multiple
40:33
tries to get just a Speaker of the House and
40:37
when and it posed a significant problem. So I'm
40:41
not seeing, I mean the, the crux of this is go back to why we
40:44
originally started talking about this was that the,
40:49
the document was written Project 2025 because there's some individuals
40:52
who are unhappy with the, the first Trump administration that they didn't do
40:56
enough and they felt that some of the time was
40:59
wasted so they wanted to have a blueprint. So when they hit, so when the,
41:03
the everything but everything was the Congress was sworn in January,
41:07
early January and the President was sworn on January 20 that they understood
41:10
what they needed to do. Executive order wise, department wise kinds of
41:14
things like this. Many of these things
41:18
will, can be done through executive order, but much of this requires legislative
41:21
approval. And I think Mitch,
41:24
Mitch, when we were together last month you and I were talking about this is
41:28
that typically the majority party loses seats
41:32
in the midterm elections. And so we're
41:35
not yes, the Republicans will control the
41:40
executive branch,
41:43
Trump or if he stays around or if
41:46
he doesn't advance. But, but if it's interesting about this is they might not be
41:50
controlling the legislative branch in two years. They have a very limited
41:54
window to do this and I'm not sure if they can agree on how to
41:57
do things. So I think we're going to see potentially more infighting
42:01
on this than we thought. Yeah, I think that's a real good point. And then
42:04
we also have to consider the Senate. I mean people are saying oh My
42:08
gosh, you know, we've got to get rid of the filibuster a couple of years
42:11
ago. Now everybody's saying thank God for the filibuster
42:15
because they, there's no way they could pass some of these draconian
42:19
things through with, with a majority of 60,
42:22
which they'd need in the Senate. So, and I, I mean,
42:25
they could always try and get, they could always get rid of the filibuster,
42:29
but I think there's probably the Republicans who would even
42:33
fight that. So I'm not sure that'll happen either.
42:37
And, and we, and as much articulated earlier before about
42:40
things like this is mean. Mitch McConnell, who wields
42:44
an enormous amount of power in the Senate, is an
42:48
individual who had polio when he was young and he's a
42:52
staunch supporter of polio vaccines. And the proposed
42:56
director of the Health and Human Services is opposed to this. And so
43:00
you're going to see some personal things that it will affect in ways that you
43:03
would be surprised as a part of this. Much of the reason why we got
43:07
much of the dyslexia legislation in many of the states is because there were individuals
43:11
who were upset with what was happening to their family member. So disabilities
43:15
is very personal. And you mess around with someone's family member,
43:18
you're messing around with something that you've crossed a
43:22
line. And that really matters to
43:25
House members who are essentially always running for office.
43:29
They have to be voted on every two years.
43:32
And if they do these, start attacking
43:35
these things that are real popular among the public, like the
43:38
Department of Education, like the idea that's
43:42
not going to bode well for midterm elections for them. I don't think.
43:47
That'S fascinating. Thank you for all your insights to that. I have a couple of
43:51
questions to end it up that are more outside, that are more about your experience.
43:54
But just to summarize some of the things you say, I think if I need
43:58
to get my mind around what we've been discussing
44:01
is probably this major apocalyptic dismantling
44:06
of policies, not most likely, it's not going to happen.
44:11
The biggest concerns are about how if there's going to be some
44:14
kind of more flexibility on block grants with incentives,
44:18
for example, to expand charters or mostly vouchers
44:22
that may provide may decrease the
44:26
funding for students with disabilities in public schools. Is that
44:30
kind of like a summary of our conversation, would you say?
44:33
Yeah, I think it's a very good summary. Yes.
44:37
Yes. Well done. Well done. I have a few questions
44:41
left that is more about your experience and also Looking
44:44
back and also looking at the future. So I wanted to take advantage to have
44:47
you here and you know, you've been around for a while and
44:53
you are senior experts on the field that
44:57
have spent decades doing this work.
45:00
So can you like maybe not take it too much but say,
45:04
how have you seen like conversations changing over time?
45:06
Right from where we started back in like the 70s or 60s to
45:11
now that we're having these kind of conversations that we're having today,
45:15
what changes have you seen over time? Well,
45:18
I think from the 60s and up into
45:22
the 70s, I think the issue is really about access. It's about getting
45:26
kids with disabilities into the public schoolhouse because
45:30
they could be routinely excluded. Now I think the conversations
45:33
have turned more to quality and accountability.
45:36
But I think that that is somewhat threatened
45:43
by the current events. And I think
45:47
what people really need to do is they need to be involved on the
45:51
local and state level as much as they can.
45:55
I know Jane west, who a lot of folks know always had
45:59
her little epigram was if you're not on not at
46:02
the table, you're probably on the menu. And what she
46:06
meant by that is really is, you know, I mean every
46:09
two years we, we elect our representatives. We need to
46:13
let them know where we stand. You know,
46:16
CEC for example, in the case they both have,
46:19
you can go on their website not even, not you don't
46:23
even have to be a member. And you can write a letter or
46:27
approval letter and have it sent to your congressman just by putting
46:31
in your address. I think we really have to get involved not
46:34
only on the federal level, but the state and local level to
46:39
make the worst doesn't occur.
46:44
Yeah. I did a workshop last week and I asked this when I
46:47
was doing the workshop attendees, are you less likely to have
46:51
litigation this year than next year?
46:55
And no one was able to say that they're less likely because this
46:59
and this is, this has evolved over time. And if you look
47:03
at like the Handicapped Children's Protection act in the 1980s, we saw a dramatic spike
47:06
in litigation because there's attorneys fees,
47:09
there's money in special education and increasingly now we're seeing,
47:13
Mitch and I are seeing litigation writing to section 504 because there's
47:18
monetary damages that can be there that you could not. You can't get under idea.
47:23
So have things changed? We are a field defined by
47:26
a law. Just remind ourselves this.
47:30
Yes. Do we have kids with disabilities before the law? Yes. But most states
47:33
were not providing services. And so like my brother in
47:36
law was legally prevented from attending school for most of his
47:39
educational career because of this. And so we have to think about as a
47:43
field defined by a law, we are litigious.
47:47
We have these rules because kids with disabilities are a protected
47:51
class, and they need special help to make sure that they get the services they
47:55
do, because without that, people will choose not
47:58
to do things for them. And so has it evolved over
48:01
time? It's become much more litigious. You see,
48:05
just the length of the IEPs is because they're writing IEPs,
48:08
and they're writing IEPs because they're concerned about being sued.
48:13
Mitch and I are doing all sorts of workshops on how to prevent litigation,
48:16
and I increasingly am doing program reviews with districts on
48:20
how to recover from litigation. And so it's. It's an interesting
48:24
part of this process. So we have to think about what we're doing as a
48:26
part of this, is that I don't see the threat of litigation going
48:30
away, because where there's rights,
48:33
there's potentially revenue. That could be fun people to focus on
48:37
this. And I say this about lawyers. Some of my best friends are lawyers.
48:41
They're crafty, so they will find a different way to sue just
48:44
to ensure what's going on. But just get back to the families.
48:48
The families are doing the best that they can,
48:51
and most of these families are just trying to make it through the day.
48:56
And for some of these families, it becomes a very single issue focus for
48:59
them about the services that are there. And if
49:04
you cross their family, you may agree with them on everything else,
49:07
but if you do something that potentially harms their child who has a disability,
49:11
the protective influence will be there. They'll come out against you.
49:15
And so I see, as a political arm, as a political momentum,
49:20
a bunch of kids with wheelchairs going up on Capitol Hill,
49:23
that's not going to look pretty for legislators. They're going to run the opposite direction
49:27
from that. And so the odds will be there
49:30
would be just brutal. So, again, it's a
49:34
field defined by a law, but we have to remind ourselves that it's
49:39
because kids with disabilities did not get what they were supposed
49:42
to get in the first place. Yeah, I mean, the only
49:45
problem that being, I think, being a field defined by the law. And I agree
49:48
what you were saying, David, but I mean, the only challenge to that is like,
49:51
it puts the burden on the parents many times, right? Yes, it absolutely does.
49:55
Absolutely does. And it depends, you know,
49:59
other aspects of your life, and it depends your socioeconomic status,
50:03
your racial background, the knowledge. Do you have idea you could have different
50:06
leverage and different capacity. So by
50:10
putting being such a legislative field and putting the burden
50:14
on the parents, we create also huge inequities within the
50:18
group of students. Yeah,
50:21
Mitch and I have talked about this extensively. Right now that the litigation system
50:25
is set up for wealthy parents because
50:30
who has the money to put down a $20,000 retainer for a lawsuit?
50:33
Who has the money to take time to go to multiple
50:37
law days of testimony? Who has the
50:41
time to spend talking about these things? A lot of parents don't have that.
50:44
And so only the people who are really participating are the wealthy ones.
50:48
And I wish that was not the case.
50:52
I would also say and just to echo what I said before, I think
50:56
we really need to become involved as much as possible.
51:01
Calling our legislators at the state and the federal level,
51:04
sending emails. When we think about back in the 90s,
51:08
Reagan wanted to block grant the money and Congress
51:12
was just inundated by letters from parents of students with
51:16
disabilities. Now it won't be letters anymore, but emails
51:20
and calls. Because one thing we have to understand
51:23
is Congress especially they pay attention to
51:28
things that are going on among their constituents.
51:32
So we still have a lot of power. We just have to use it.
51:36
Thank you. Thank you for that, Mitch. So my last question
51:39
I'll let you go. Mitch can go back to his funnel his cruise and
51:43
Dave, do whatever you are doing is something also ask
51:47
many of our interviewees is what would you
51:50
like to see in the next five years regarding equity and inclusion in special
51:54
education? We have to continue
51:58
to be involved. I think that's just the bottom line.
52:02
Are you. You're giving us a magic wand? Yeah, I'm giving
52:05
you a magic wand to, to do something in five years.
52:08
So I would focus on some, some, some real basic things. And I,
52:12
I love this question by the way. No one really ever asked me this so
52:15
but I, I would focus on intersectionality to explore
52:18
how race, class, disability intersect to influence educational
52:22
outcomes. I would then also think about technology integration.
52:26
AI is exploding and we need to think
52:31
I've started using it for spellcheck and so interesting about this is
52:34
but the kinds of things like this. But we also need to think more about
52:38
family engagement and just what can we do to support families as a
52:42
part of this process because.
52:46
And talk about how to involve the families better in the IEP process and
52:50
work with the families as a part of what's going on. They are often the
52:54
ultimate caregivers that we need to pay attention to and make sure that they're truly
52:57
addressed as members of the team and part of.
53:00
But think about how we can also include kids
53:03
better. I can't stand in front of you and say full inclusion of all kids
53:06
all the time, but we need do a better job of including kids with disabilities.
53:11
Those are super important, I think. And definitely all the AI
53:16
wave that's going to come and how that's going to affect teaching and learning and
53:19
preparing teaching, etc. So important. And yeah,
53:23
those are on the spot.
53:27
Thank you for that, David. Well, thank you so much Bean, for the show.
53:30
We're going to let you go and I'm so grateful and
53:34
and I'm sure our audience is much more
53:38
knowledgeable and insightful or have sparks many thoughts
53:42
on what is to come. Thank you both of you to to be in the
53:45
show. Thank you for asking. Thank you
53:49
for what you do.
53:52
Thank you for listening to Dive in, the podcast
53:55
about equity diversity and inclusion in special education research.
54:00
This episode was produced by me, Federico Vitolar,
54:03
with contributions of Tasia Gonzalez, Kelly Carrero and
54:07
Haya Abdelativ. I hope you enjoyed the episode and
54:10
learned as much as I did. Take care and I see you next time.