Exclusive Interview of Michael Yudin, Assistant Secretary of Education - Part V #Yudin, #interview

This is the fifth and final post of our exclusive interview with Michael Yudin, the Assistant Secretary of Education for special education and rehabilitative services. His biography is available here.

We are grateful to the Secretary and his staff for this interview. This was an honor. Thanks to our readers for all the great comments and attaboys.

The format of the interview will be questions by me signified by (JG), and answers by the Assistant Secretary, signified by (MY).  Here is the fifth segment:

JG:  This interview will be read by lawyers, advocates, parents, teachers, administrators and many other special education stakeholders. Is there anything that you would ask of us- maybe a call to action?

MY:  Yes. A couple things.  One is back to the discipline issue and it involves certain law firms. If you google the term “ten free days,” you’ll find links to law firms and state education agencies and school districts that say you can remove a kid with disabilities for ten free days  without any services or supports. There is nothing free about removing a kid with a disability, or any kid, from the classroom. So yes I would urge those folks to seriously rethink discipline and understand what the consequences of removal are. So that would be number one.

And the second goes back to what I said earlier about making sure that kids with disabilities have the opportunity to be successful. We know that from forty years of research that kids with disabilities do better when they are held to high standards and have access to the general curriculum with the right kinds of supports and services and intensive interventions, research shows that kids, even struggling learners with disabilities can absolutely succeed at grade level work if they are provided with the right kinds of  supports and services and intensive interventions and instruction through the IEP. And the IEP is the vehicle, the opportunity for kids with disabilities to ultimately access and learn grade level content. Research shows that they can do it. We need to make sure that kids with disabilities can do it. Our guidance that we just put out clarified that IEPs must be aligned with the state’s content standards for the grade in which the child is enrolled and in order to make FAPE available, the child’s IEP must be designed to enable the child to advance appropriately in making progress toward his annual goals and to make progress in the general education curriculum based on the state’s content standards for the grade in which the child is enrolled. {ED NOTE: see our previous blog post on the guidance here: http://specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com/2015/11/breaking-feds-issue-new-guidance-ieps.html} That would be takeaway number two.

Second Circuit Affirms TK Bullying Decision #bully #FAPE

On January 20, 2016, the influential Second Circuit court of appeals affirmed the seminal TK bullying decision by the District Court for the eastern District of New York. The TK decision is the leading case on bullying and IDEA. You can read our previous posts on the TK decision here,  and here.

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court decision below. Significantly, however, the appellate court did not decide whether the failure of a school district to consider bullying in the development of an IDEA can constitute a violation of IDEA because the school district in this case conceded the issue. Given that concession, the Second Circuit found a procedural violation by the district not considering the bullying in the IEP development that was a significant impairment of the parent's right to participate and, therefore, a denial of F.APE. Because the parent's private school was appropriate and because the equities did not compel a different result, the court affirmed the award of reimbursement of private school tuition. 

One more important note. Although the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court, it mentioned in footnote 3 that it expressed no opinion concerning the four part test articulated by the district court as to whether bullying violates IDEA. {The test was as follows: (1)  was the student a victim of bullying; (2) did the school have notice of  substantial bullying of the student; (3) was the school “deliberately indifferent” to the bullying, or did it fail to take reasonable steps to prevent  the bullying; and (4) did the bullying “substantially restrict” the student’s  “educational opportunities}

You can read the entire Second Circuit decision here.

Weekly Question!

As we run a series of posts on my interview with Michael Yudin, asst Secretary of Ed for Special Ed, etc, it should be obvious that I didn't get to ask all the questions that I wanted to ask in the limited time available to him. What would you like to ask Michael Yudin?

Sometimes My Job Is Pretty Cool

Exclusive Interview of Michael Yudin, Assistant Secretary of Education - Part IV #Yudin, #interview

This is the fourth post involving our exclusive interview with Michael Yudin, the Assistant Secretary of Education for special education and rehabilitative services. This is a big honor for this blog!

His biography is available in a previous post. We are grateful to the Secretary and his staff for this interview.

The format of the interview will be questions by me signified by (JG), and answers by the Assistant Secretary, signified by (MY).  Here is the fourth segment:

JG:  Bullying is the hot button issue in education law, the problem extends beyond just special education, what should a parent do if she suspects that her child with a disability is being bullied at school?

MY: We issued some guidance in about 2013 that provided a whole packet of resources and guidance around bullying of kids with disabilities. {ED NOTE: see our previous blog post on the guidance here: http://specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com/2013/11/bullying-of-childrern-with-disabilities.html} Essentially what we said is that if bullying of a child with a disability results in the loss of a meaningful educational benefit, then that would be a denial of FAPE. So we laid out a whole set of scenarios where IEP teams should say OK what’s going on here is the kid getting the resources and supports that are necessary and that are not resulting in the loss of a meaningful educational benefit as a result of the bullying. The guidance was a pretty clear statement of our policies along with a set of recommendations and resources for parents and educators. OCR has recently issued some bullying guidance as well that talks about §504 and the ADA and when bullying might constitute discrimination, and I urge people to look at that too. {ED NOTE: see our previous blog post on the OCR guidance here: http://specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/breaking-new-guidance-from-ocr-on.html}  Bullying is a really important issue. We need to make sure that our kids have the opportunity to learn in safe and healthy and supportive environments. As a parent myself- that’s what you would expect from your child’s school- an opportunity to thrive and not be intimidated or fearful. Bullying has some really devastating effects. This administration has convened annual bullying summits. Across the administration this is a really concerted effort to get at bullying. Bullying.gov which is run out of DHHS offers a whole set of research and resources about bullying.

OSERS Issues Annual Report To Congress

Last month OSERS issued its annual report to the U. S. Congress. The report contains a wealth of information about special education in America. In addition to numerous charts and graphs, the thirty-seventh annual report to congress of Implementation of IDEA contains information on both Part C and Part B. The data and findings include child count, educational environments, participation in assessments, discipline and dispute resolution. You can review the entire 247 page report here.

Here are some of the key national findings for students age 6 to 21 served under Part B:

 • In 2013, a total of 5,847,624 students ages 6 through 21 were served under IDEA, Part B. Of these students, 5,734,391 were served in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and BIE schools. This number represented 8.5 percent of the resident population ages 6 through 21. The total number of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in 2004 was 6,118,437. In each year between 2004 through 2011, the number of students served was less than in the previous year. However, more students were served under Part B in 2012 than in 2011; and more students were served under Part B in 2013 than in 2012. In 2004, 9.1 percent of the resident population ages 6 through 21 were served under Part B. Between 2004 and 2010, the percentage of the population served decreased to 8.4 percent. The percentage served remained at 8.4 percent until 2013, when it increased to 8.5 percent (Exhibit 18).

 • The percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, was 9.1 percent in 2004. Thereafter, the percentage decreased gradually, reaching a low of 8.4 percent in 2010. The percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in 2004 was 9.1 percent. Thereafter, the percentage decreased gradually, reaching a low of 8.4 percent in 2010. The percentage remained at 8.4 percent until 2013, when it increased to 8.5 percent. Between 2004 and 2011, the percentage of the population ages 6 through 11 served under IDEA, Part B, decreased gradually from 11.4 percent to 10.6 percent. The percentage increased in both 2012 and 2013, when it reached 10.9 percent. The percentage of the population ages 12 through 17 served under Part B decreased gradually from 11.6 percent to 10.8 percent between 2004 and 2013. In contrast, the percentage of the population ages 18 through 21 served under Part B, increased or stayed the same in each successive year from 2004 through 2009, when it peaked at 2 percent. The percentage did not change after 2009 (Exhibit 19). 

• In 2013, the most prevalent disability category of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, was specific learning disabilities (39.5 percent). The next most common disability category was speech or language impairments (17.9 percent), followed by other health impairments (13.8 percent), autism (8.2 percent), intellectual disabilities (7.1 percent), and emotional disturbance (6.0 percent). Students ages 6 through 21 in “Other disabilities xxv combined” accounted for the remaining 7.4 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B (Exhibit 20). 

• The percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported under each of three disability categories changed by more than two-tenths of a percentage point between 2004 and 2013. The percentages of the population reported under autism and other health impairments increased by 0.5 of a percentage point and 0.4 of a percentage point, respectively, while the percentage of the population reported under specific learning disabilities decreased by 0.8 of a percentage point (Exhibit 21). 

• Between 2004 and 2013, the percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that was reported under the category of autism increased steadily from 0.2 percent to 0.7 percent. Between 2004 and 2013, the percentages of the populations ages 6 through 11, 12 through 17, and 18 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that were reported under the category of autism all increased. Specifically, the percentages of these three age groups that were reported under the category of autism were 145 percent, 242 percent, and 258 percent larger in 2013 than in 2004, respectively (Exhibit 22). 

• From 2004 through 2013, the percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that was reported under the category of other health impairments increased from 0.8 percent to 1.2 percent. The percentages of the populations ages 6 through 11, 12 through 17, and 18 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that were reported under the category of other health impairments were 45 percent, 624 percent, and 104 percent larger in 2013 than in 2004, respectively (Exhibit 23). 

• From 2004 through 2013, the percentage of the resident population ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that was reported under the category of specific learning disabilities decreased from 4.2 percent to 3.4 percent. The percentages of the populations ages 6 through 11, 12 through 17, and 18 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, that were reported under the category of specific learning disabilities were 20 percent, 19 percent, and 8 percent smaller in 2013 than in 2004, respectively (Exhibit 24). 

• In 2013, American Indian or Alaska Native, Black or African American, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander children ages 6 through 21 had risk ratios above 1 (i.e., 1.6, 1.4, and 1.6, respectively). This indicates that the children in each group were more likely to be served under Part B than were the children ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined. Asian and White children ages 6 through 21 as well as children ages 6 through 21 associated with two or more racial/ethnic groups, with risk ratios of less than 1.0 (i.e., 0.5, 0.9, and 0.8, respectively), were less likely to be served under Part B than were the children ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined. Hispanic/Latino children ages 6 through 21, with a risk ratio of 1.0, were as likely to be served under Part B as children ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined (Exhibit 25). 

• American Indian or Alaska Native students ages 6 through 21 were 3.8 times more likely to be served under IDEA, Part B, for developmental delay than students ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined. The risk ratio for American Indian or Alaska Native students ages 6 through 21 was larger than the risk ratio for the students ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined for all disability categories except autism (0.88) and orthopedic impairments (0.95). Asian students ages 6 through 21were 1.15 and 1.21 times more likely to be served under IDEA, Part B, for autism and hearing impairments, xxvi respectively, than were students ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined. The risk ratio for Asian students ages 6 through 21 was smaller than the risk ratio for the students ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined for each of the other disability categories. Black or African American students ages 6 through 21 were 2.14 and 2.26 times more likely to be served under IDEA, Part B, for emotional disturbance and intellectual disabilities, respectively, than were the students ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined. The risk ratio for Black or African American students ages 6 through 21 was larger than the risk ratio for the students ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined for every disability category except autism (0.97), deafblindness (0.75), and orthopedic impairments (0.83). Hispanic or Latino students ages 6 through 21 were 1.34, 1.21, and 1.29 times more likely to be served under IDEA, Part B, for hearing impairments, specific learning disabilities, and orthopedic impairments, respectively, than were students ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander students ages 6 through 21 were 4.15, 2.52, and 2.81 times more likely to be served under IDEA, Part B, for deaf-blindness, developmental delay, and hearing impairments, respectively, than were students ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined. The risk ratio for Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander students ages 6 through 21 was larger than the risk ratio for the students ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined for every other disability category as well. White students ages 6 through 21 were 1.21, 1.31, and 1.31 times more likely to be served under IDEA, Part B, for autism, other health impairments, and traumatic brain injury, respectively, than were students ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined. Students ages 6 through 21 associated with two or more races were 1.15 and 1.11 times more likely to be served under IDEA, Part B, for developmental delay and emotional disturbance, respectively, than were students ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined. The risk ratio for students associated with two or more races ages 6 through 21 was smaller than the risk ratio for the students ages 6 through 21 in all other racial/ethnic groups combined for every other disability category (Exhibit 26). 

• For the students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in 2013, specific learning disabilities was the most prevalent disability category for every racial/ethnic group. In particular, this disability category accounted for 45.2 percent of American Indian or Alaska Native students, 26.1 percent of Asian students, 41.5 percent of Black or African American students, 47.9 percent of Hispanic/Latino students, 49.3 percent of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander students, 35.4 percent of White students, and 34.9 percent of the children associated with two or more racial/ethnic groups (Exhibit 27). 

• In 2013, a total of 95 percent of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, were educated in regular classrooms for at least some portion of the school day. More than 60 percent of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, (62.1 percent) were educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day. A total of 19.2 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, were educated inside the regular class no more than 79% of the day and no less than 40% of the day, and 13.7 percent were educated inside the regular class less than 40% of the day. Only 5 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, were educated outside of the regular classroom in “Other environments” (Exhibit 28). 

• From 2004 through 2013, the percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day increased from 51.8 percent to 62.1 percent. The percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, educated inside the regular class no more than 79% of the day and no less than 40% of the day decreased from 26.4 percent in 2004 to 19.2 percent in 2013. Similarly, the percentage of xxvii these students educated inside the regular class less than 40% of the day decreased from 17.8 percent to 13.7 percent between these years. The percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, educated in “Other environments” increased from 4 percent in 2004 to 5 percent in 2013. However, it had accounted for as much as 5.3 percent in 2007 and 2009 (Exhibit 29). 

• In 2013, the percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, in each educational environment varied by disability category. More than 8 in 10 students reported under the category of speech or language impairments (87.1 percent) were educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day. Only 16.7 percent of students reported under the category of intellectual disabilities and 13.4 percent of students reported under the category of multiple disabilities were educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day. Almost one-half of students reported under the category of intellectual disabilities (49.1 percent) and students reported under the category of multiple disabilities (46.2 percent) were educated inside the regular class less than 40% of the day. In 2013, larger percentages of students reported under the categories of deaf-blindness (29.5 percent) and multiple disabilities (24.1 percent) than students reported under other disability categories were educated in “Other environments” (Exhibit 30). 

• In 2013, for each racial/ethnic group, the largest percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, was educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day. The students who were educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day accounted for at least 49 percent of the students in each of the racial/ethnic groups. The percentages of students in the racial/ethnic groups who were educated inside the regular class 80% or more of the day ranged from 49.7 percent to 65.1 percent. The category inside the regular class no more than 79% of the day and no less than 40% of the day accounted for between 16.8 and 30.3 percent of the students within each racial/ethnic group. In contrast, less than 20 percent of the students within each racial/ethnic group, except for Asian students (21.1 percent), were educated inside the regular class less than 40% of the day. “Other environments” accounted for less than 5.9 percent of the students within each racial/ethnic group (Exhibit 31). 

• In school year 2012–13, between 38.3 and 51.2 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school participated in a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards with accommodations in math. Between 24.8 and 38.4 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school participated in a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards without accommodations in math. Of all students who participated in some type of alternate assessment in math in school year 2012–13, larger percentages of these students in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school took an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards than the other two types of alternate tests. (Exhibit 32). 

• In school year 2012–13, between 39.3 and 46.4 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school participated in a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards with accommodations in reading. Between 29.3 and 37.7 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school participated in a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards without accommodations in reading. Of the students in each of grades 3 through 8 who participated in some type of alternate assessment in reading in school year 2012–13, a larger percentage took an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards. In contrast, a larger percentage of the students in high xxviii school who participated in some type of alternate assessment in reading took an alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards (Exhibit 32). 

• No more than 2.23 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, who were expected to take a math assessment in each of grades 3 through 8 in school year 2012–13 were classified as nonparticipants. Similarly, no more than 2.07 percent of students served under IDEA, Part B, who were expected to take a reading assessment in each of grades 3 through 8 in school year 2012–13 were classified as nonparticipants. Larger percentages of the students served under IDEA, Part B, in high school in school year 2012–13 were classified as nonparticipants for both the math assessment (5.43 percent) and the reading assessment (5.38 percent). Of the three nonparticipant categories, students who did not take any assessment accounted for more of the nonparticipants in each grade in both math and reading. However, the percentage only exceeded 2 percent for high school students expected to be assessed in math (4.54 percent) and high school students expected to be assessed in reading (4.16 percent) (Exhibit 33). 

• In school year 2012–13, between 49 and 52 of the 59 jurisdictions (i.e., the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states) for which data were available administered a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards in math to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school and had non-suppressed data. The median percentage of students served under IDEA, Part B, in grade 3 and in grade 4 who were found to be proficient with these math tests was 39.9 percent and 40.2 percent, respectively. The median percentage of students in grade 5 through high school who were found to be proficient with these tests was in a range from 19 percent to 31.3 percent. An alternate assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards for math was administered by one jurisdiction to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school. An alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards for math was administered to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school by 12 or 13 jurisdictions. The median percentage of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 6 who were found to be proficient with these math tests was in a range from 49.9 percent to 58.5 percent. The median percentage of students in each of grades 7 through high school who were found to be proficient with these tests was in a range from 31.5 percent to 43.9 percent. Non-suppressed data were available for 51 to 53 jurisdictions that administered an alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards for math to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school. The median percentage of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each grade who were found to be proficient with these math tests was in a range from 70.9 percent to 73.4 percent (Exhibit 34). 

• In school year 2012–13, between 50 and 52 of the 59 jurisdictions (i.e., the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the four outlying areas, and the three freely associated states) for which data were available administered a regular assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards in reading to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school and had non-suppressed data. The median percentages of these students who were found to be proficient with these reading tests ranged from 25.4 percent to 37.3 percent. An alternate assessment based on grade-level academic achievement standards for reading was administered to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school by three states. The median percentages of students served under IDEA, Part B, in grade 5 who were found to be proficient with this type of reading tests was 85.8 percent. The median percentage of students in each of grades 3, 4, and 6 through 8 who were found to be proficient was in a range from 20.6 percent to 45.8 xxix percent. Zero percent of the students who were in high school were found to be proficient with this type of test. An alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards for reading was administered by 12 or 13 jurisdictions to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school. The median percentage of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each grade who were found to be proficient with these reading tests was in a range from 43.8 percent to 59.8 percent. Non-suppressed data were available for 52 or 53 jurisdictions that administered an alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards for reading to some students served under IDEA, Part B, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school. The median percentage of students served under IDEA, Part B, in each grade who were found to be proficient with these reading tests was in a range from 70.6 percent to 74 percent (Exhibit 34). 

• Of the seven exit reason categories, graduated with a regular high school diploma accounted for the largest percentage of students ages 14 through 21 who exited special education in 2012–13 (41.8 percent), followed by moved, known to be continuing in education (26.4 percent) and dropped out (12.1 percent) (Exhibit 35). 

• In 2012–13, a total of 65.1 percent of the students ages 14 through 21 who exited IDEA, Part B, and school graduated with a regular high school diploma; an additional 18.8 percent dropped out. From 2003–04 through 2012–13, the percentage of students who exited special education and school by having graduated with a regular high school diploma increased from 54.5 percent to 65.1 percent. From 2003–04 through 2012–13, the percentage of students who exited special education and school by having dropped out decreased from 31.1 percent to 18.8 percent (Exhibit 36). 

• From 2003–04 through 2012–13, the graduation percentage increased for students who exited IDEA, Part B, and school in all disability categories. Increases larger than 10 percent were associated with the following four disability categories: emotional disturbance (15.4 percentage point increase), speech or language impairments (14.9 percentage point increase), other health impairments (10.6 percent point increase), and specific learning disabilities (10.5 percentage point increase). In every year from 2003–04 through 2012–13, except 2006– 07, the disability category of visual impairments was associated with the largest graduation percentage. Moreover, while the students who exited special education and school reported under the category of emotional disturbance had the smallest graduation percentages in 2003–04, the students reported under the category of intellectual disabilities had the smallest graduation percentages from 2004–05 through 2012–13 (Exhibit 37). • From 2003–04 through 2012–13, the dropout percentage decreased for students in each disability category who exited IDEA, Part B, and school. The decreases were most notable for students reported under the categories of emotional disturbance (-16.9 percentage point decrease) and speech or language impairments (-14.9 percentage point decrease). In each year from 2003–04 through 2012–13, a larger percentage of the students reported under the category of emotional disturbance exited special education and school by dropping out. In fact in each year, the dropout percentage was no less than 35 percent, which was substantially larger than the dropout percentage for any other disability category (Exhibit 38). 

• In 2012, a total of 336,656, or 95.2 percent, of the 353,655 FTE special education teachers who provided special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 under IDEA, Part B, were highly qualified (Exhibit 39). xxx • In 2012, a total of 407,978, or 97.1 percent, of the 420,016 FTE special education paraprofessionals who provided special education and related services for students ages 6 through 21 under IDEA, Part B, were qualified (Exhibit 40). 

Weekly Question!

As we run a series of posts on my interview with Michael Yudin, asst Secretary of Ed for Special Ed, etc, it should be obvious that I didn't get to ask all the questions that I wanted to ask in the limited time available to him. What would you like to ask Michael Yudin?

Exclusive Interview of Michael Yudin, Assistant Secretary of Education - Part III #Yudin, #interview

This is the third post involving our exclusive interview with Michael Yudin, the Assistant Secretary of Education for special education and rehabilitative services. Pretty cool, eh?

His biography is available in a previous post. We are grateful to the Secretary and his staff for this interview.

The format of the interview will be questions by me signified by (JG), and answers by the Assistant Secretary, signified by (MY).  Here is the third segment:

JG: Restorative justice seems to be generating substantial national interest.  At the outstanding CADRE conference in October, there were many sessions on this topic. Is restorative justice something that the Department is following and working on?

MY: I think that there is a lot of great energy and buzz and data around restorative justice and if there are local communities and school districts that are looking at alternatives to suspension that are in fact alternatives to suspension and that are reducing the rates of suspension- those are two thumbs up. Those are great conversations to be having. One of the things that I think is really interesting is that one of the convenings and one of our Google Hangouts featured the Superintendent from a local district in California (Vallejo City School District) who talked about using the tiered framework from PBIS (positive behavior interventions and supports) which is a multi-tiered framework for behaviors and emotional issues, and this particular district has built restorative justice into the framework. It is innovative and exciting and they are getting really, really positive results from that. 

Senator Lankford Questions Federal Education Department's Authority to Issue Guidance on Bullying, Harassment and Sexual Violence #bully #harrassment

Last week Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma sent a letter to the Acting Secretary of Education questioning the Department's authority to issue regulatory guidance such as OCR's guidance on bullying and harassment (2010) and sexual violence (2011). The Senator contends that the guidance letters avoid the proper rule making regulatory procedures. Here is his press release. A pdf of the entire letter is available here.

Here is an excerpt from the letter:

"Dear Mr. King: 

I write today to express my continued alarm regarding the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) Dear Colleague letters on harassment and bullying (issued October 23, 2010) and sexual violence (issued April 4, 2011).  As guidance, both letters purport to merely interpret statements of existing law; however, while both broadly cite to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), the letters fail to point to precise governing statutory or regulatory language that support their sweeping policy changes. 

Based on a robust record of congressional testimony I have heard as Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management (RAFM), I condemn all types of sex-based discrimination, including sexual violence and harassment, in the strongest possible terms, but believe that the Dear Colleague letters advance substantive and binding regulatory policies that are effectively regulations.  As such, the letters should have been promulgated subject to notice-and-comment procedures—procedures that ensure that agencies hear from affected parties to create the best possible regulatory outcomes for all stakeholders.  Accordingly, I ask that you provide a thorough justification as to the interpretive nature of the letters by providing the precise statutory and/or regulatory authority under Title IX for each policy that the letters purport to interpret.  For those policies that cannot be reasonably said to merely construe statutory or regulatory language, and are therefore not mere interpretations of existing law, please clarify, in no uncertain terms, that failure to adhere to the policies will not be grounds for inquiry, investigation, adverse finding, or rescission of federal funding."

What are your thoughts?

Exclusive Interview of Michael Yudin, Assistant Secretary of Education - Part II #Yudin, #interview

This is the second post involving our exclusive interview with Michael Yudin, the Assistant Secretary of Education for special education and rehabilitative services.He is the top guy at the agency that enforces the special education laws!

His biography is available in a previous post. We are grateful to the Assistant Secretary and his staff for this interview.

The format of the interview will be questions by me signified by (JG), and answers by the Assistant Secretary, signified by (MY).  Here is the second segment:

JG: What are the key priorities for OSERS in the remaining time of this Administration- what does your to do list look like?

MY: They have been and remain until they kick me out of here, three priorities: 1 Ensuring that kids with disabilities have meaningful access and an opportunity to learn college and career ready standards 2. Improving post-secondary education and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities with a particular focus around transition and transition-age youth. 3. Addressing inequities in special education- particularly those based on race and ethnicity

                  

JG: Could you talk a little bit more about those three priorities of OSERS?

MY: Sure, The first is ensuring that kids with disabilities have meaningful access to learn college and career ready standards and if you look across a number of our initiatives, for example results driven accountability which is a laser focus on how kids are doing and outcomes and everything that we have built around RDA and state systemic improvement plans and the whole TA effort to support that focuses upon outcomes and how kids are doing. Our recently issued guidance on IEPs and how IEPS must be designed to allow a child to access and make progress in the general curriculum which is the same general curriculum that applies to non-disabled kids based upon state content standards for the grade in which the child is enrolled. I’m really proud of the teams’ effort in the resource that we just released- a web based resource that provides to schools and families the research-based interventions and strategies both on the academic side as well as the behavioral side, what we know actually works to help kids meet those standards.

In the second priority- improving postsecondary education and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities with a particular focus on transition, first and foremost is the reauthorization of the VR (vocational rehabilitation) program through the Workforce Investment Opportunity Act and there’s some incredible opportunities for individuals with disabilities served by the VR program. There are thirty million individuals with disabilities in this country and the labor participation rate is around twenty percent, if that. VR serves those with significant disabilities with a focus on those with the most severe disabilities- so VR is not designed to support the millions and millions of people with disabilities that need training, support, skill development and so part of the Workforce Opportunity Act is the vision and creation of this seamless, coordinated high-quality accessible workforce development system that assists individuals with barriers to employment whether they are disabilities or other barriers. The other thing about WIOA is that there is a particular emphasis on serving youth with disabilities and coordinating services across IDEA and VR. Both statutes require transition, and we’re really looking forward to supporting educators and VR providers while ultimately focusing on our consumers who are the young people themselves and their families to get the transition services that are necessary to be successful. We have invested resources around youth with disabilities. Last year for the first time OSEP and RSA put up money together to support and fund a new technical assistance center on transition- literally designed to coordinate the services between VR agencies and education agencies. So we’re excited about that, but even this year in VR we focused technical assistance dollars as well as some discretionary dollars around helping VR agencies support harder to serve young people: disconnected youth, kids who may have dropped out of school, kids that are in foster care, kids that are in correctional institutions and supporting VR agencies in reaching kids that are disconnected. I’m also really excited about our career pathways demonstration project trying to link up education and employment and stackable credentials that are necessary to achieve that success.

The third priority is addressing the inequities. Kids with disabilities are disproportionately suspended and removed from the classroom for disciplinary reasons – that’s a major, major concern for many of us here at the Department, across the administration and frankly in the field. We know that removing a kid from a classroom is not an intervention. The research shows that it does not improve behavior, it doesn’t address classroom management. On the contrary the consequences of removing a kid are significant. Kids who are removed from the classroom become disengaged, they suffer academically, they have poor attendance, they are more likely to enter the juvenile justice system, drop out of school. The school to prison pipeline data show that kids that are suspended are at great risk for entering the correctional system. So we launched earlier this year our Rethink Discipline Initiative ed.gov/rethinkdiscipline We had a convening at the White House with a number of districts to discuss how to rethink discipline and come up with some stronger policies to support behavior and we got some great conversations there. We launched our Twitter account and got literally eight million views in the first twenty-four hours of our #RethinkDiscipline. We’ve done a number of Google Hangouts. We’ve had thousands of views on those. You can go on those and look at data of how kids with disabilities have been suspended, how kids with disabilities of color are suspended, males, females. You can click on a map on our website and see, for a particular district, how kids with disabilities (or subgroups) are suspended, and it is really an incredibly helpful tool. It utilizes our civil rights data collection; so it takes the data and puts it into a format that is useful to stakeholders. We also talk about in one of the Google Hangouts –Early Childhood Suspensions and we know that a crazy number of kids as young as babies are being suspended and expelled- removed from the classroom. For example black kids make up about eight percent of preschoolers in this country, but they make up 48 percent of preschoolers that are suspended or expelled so we did a Google Hangout around that and what some state and local providers are doing to address that. The third Google Hangout concerned what districts can do to address behavior and we recently released a fantastic toolkit for teachers that presents evidence-based alternatives to suspension: how do you address behavioral problems in the classroom with specific research-based examples at both the secondary and elementary levels. How do you prevent bad behavior. How do you respond to and address bad behavior. A lot of effort in the discipline space and a lot of energy in that regard. We have also committed to addressing significant disproportionality in special education in identification and placement and discipline based on race and ethnicity and we are working on those as well.

New Weekly Question!

As we run a series of posts on my interview with Michael Yudin, asst Secretary of Ed for Special Ed, etc, it should be obvious that I didn't get to ask all the questions that I wanted to ask in the limited time available to him. What would you like to ask Michael Yudin?

Exclusive Interview of Michael Yudin, Assistant Secretary of Education - Part I #Yudin, #interview

This is the first post involving our exclusive interview with Michael Yudin, the Assistant Secretary of Education for special education and rehabilitative services. His biography is available in a previous post. We are grateful to the Assistant Secretary and his staff for this interview. This is a big deal!

The format of the interview will be questions by me signified by (JG), and answers by the Assistant Secretary, signified by (MY).  Here is the first segment; please enjoy:

JG: What qualities should the Assistant Secretary of OSERS possess?

MY: First the ability to actually listen to folks that know more than he or she does. I am actually very fortunate to have a staff that has dedicated their careers to improving outcomes for toddlers, preschoolers, kids and adults with disabilities. The ability to listen to your staff is critical.  Part B to that is that one of the best things about my job is that I get to meet with and listen to parents, educators, and kids and adults and stakeholders across the spectrum, and I try to get out as often as I can when I don’t have to be working in the office and listen to folks. So the ability to listen, to really meaningfully listen to folks who know better than I do is one. Another set of skills is the ability to understand how to administer the law and implement the law in a way that is designed to improve outcomes. It is critical to consistently focus on who we are trying to serve through our programs and never lose sight that this is about kids and about the individual stakeholders who are served through our programs. So being mindful of who our consumers are is absolutely critical as well. My experience coming into this job has been a mix of general education as well as special education and I have got twenty some odd years in civil service in a variety of venues so understanding how laws are written obviously and how laws are implemented and the various levers that are available and that I can take advantage of based on the experiences that I’ve had.

JG: What is the mission and role of OSERS?

MY: The mission of the office is to ensure access to and excellence in education and employment for individuals with disabilities. Always being mindful of that mission is actually critical to our success. We’ve employed a set of values to guide our work across all of our programs. Those values are inclusion, equity and opportunity. I probably talk about them every single day; I certainly think about them every single day. How are we promoting inclusion? How are we ensuring equity? And how are creating better opportunities for individuals cradle through career? We have a variety of programs to support individuals with disabilities cradle through career. Keeping mindful of our mission is critical as we administer those programs.

Breaking: This Blog Gets Exclusive Interview With Michael Yudin, Assistant Secretary of Education

We are proud to announce that Michael Yudin, the Assistant Seretary of Education for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, granted this blog an exclusive interview. This is a big honor for our blog. Michael Yudin is the top guy in the federal agency that regulates special education, so what he thinks and says is of importance to our readers. This is a big deal!

In the coming weeks we will provide a series of posts that reflect my interview. We thank the Assistant Secretary and his staff for their generosity in giving us this interview. His views on many topics of interest to special education stakeholders will be illuminating and thought provoking.

To provide some background on Mr. Yudin, the following is his official biography information form the Department of Education website:

Michael K. Yudin is the assistant secretary for special education and rehabilitative services and in that capacity leads the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) at the U.S. Department of Education. The president nominated Yudin for that position in July 2013, and the U.S. Senate confirmed his nomination on June 2, 2015.

Yudin has been with the Department of Education since 2010, serving the secretary of education in a number of capacities dedicated to improving opportunities for all students. Yudin served as acting assistant secretary of OSERS from August 2012 to February 2015, leading the office in its mission to support full integration and participation in society of people with disabilities by promoting inclusion, ensuring equity, and creating opportunities for them from cradle through career.

He also served as acting assistant secretary and principal deputy assistant secretary of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) from June 2010 to July 2012. There he helped lead the formulation and development of policy designed to promote academic excellence and ensure equitable opportunities for educationally disadvantaged students in K-12 education. Yudin also served as senior advisor to the secretary of education. In this capacity, Yudin worked across the Department to improve opportunities and outcomes for individuals with disabilities, assisted the Department in implementing Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) flexibility, and helped develop and implement the recommendations to the president's My Brother's Keeper initiative.

Prior to joining the Department, Yudin served nine years as a U.S. Senate staffer. He was the legislative director for Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, senior counsel to Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, and HELP Committee counsel to Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont. In these roles, he assisted in developing, promoting, and advancing a comprehensive legislative agenda related to education, children and families, disabilities, and poverty. Working for senior members of the HELP Committee, Yudin helped draft, negotiate, and pass various pieces of legislation, including the No Child Left Behind Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2004, the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, and reauthorization of the Head Start Act.

Before joining the Senate, Yudin served as an attorney at the Social Security Administration and at the U.S. Department of Labor for nearly 10 years. In these positions, he provided legal advice on various policy initiatives, including social security, disability, employment, and welfare reform. He also served as director of employment policy for two leading national disability organizations, the ARC of the United States and United Cerebral Palsy (UCP).

The interview will follow in a series of subsequent posts.

Weekly Question!

According to Howard Zehr, "Restorative justice is a process to involve, to the extent possible, those who have a stake in the specific offense, and to collectively identify and address harms, needs, and obligations, in order to heal and put things as right as possible." Does restorative justice have a place in special education: re bullying, student discipline, remedies. etc? What do you think?

Sometimes My Job is Pretty Cool