With the peculiar disregard for children that characterizes the current state government of Michigan, the state hopes to reduce legal protections for children with disabilities.
According to Marcie Lipsett, the time to speak up and organize is NOW.
She writes:
“The Michigan Department of Education is proposing catastrophic changes to the rules that govern how students with disabilities and “Individualized Education Programs” (“IEP”S) are educated in our state’s public schools. The public comment period is SHORT and WAYS TO COMMENT ARE LIMITED. If these rule revisions become reality in Michigan they will lead to a landside of similar revisions in states across the U.S. Public Comment will only be accepted through three methods:
Online Submission Form: http://ose.marse-public-comment.sgizmo.com/s3/
Two Public Hearings, both on March 10th:
1:00 p.m.–3:00 p.m.
Detroit School of Arts
123 Selden Street
Detroit, Michigan 48201
4:00 p.m.–6:00 p.m.
Lansing Community College West Campus
5708 Cornerstone Drive
Lansing, Michigan 48917
U.S. Mail To:
Public Comment
Office of Special Education
Michigan Department of Education
P.O. Box 30008
Lansing, MI 48909
***Public Comment will only be open until March 13, 2014 at 5:00 pm, and will not be accepted via email or fax: Those who wish to comment via email can send comments to MarcieLipsitt@outlook.com. Marcie Lipsitt will print and mail every public comment emailed to her by March 11, 2014. Please include name and contact information.”
Her post identifies the objectionable changes.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
They have and probably still are trying to chip away at the regulations protecting special education students in Illinois. Until an outpouring of objections, eliminating state class size restrictions was recently being considered. The state wanted to give freedom to districts to make their own decisions based on district needs, which was a backdoor way of letting districts control costs by ill-advised mainstreaming and increases in caseloads and class sizes. They tried to bill it as a students’ rights issue; allowing more students who were being denied general ed classes because of limitations on number of special ed students. They will try again… Good luck, Michigan!
Illinois and now Michigan are trying to chip away with a sledge hammer. States are now attacking special education because the reauthorization of the ESEA and IDEA have all but stalled. States destroying special education is a national issue and must be treated as such. Everyone has a stake when a state like IL or MI willfully works to eliminate “state-imposed” rules that exceed the federal minimum and especially as the federal does not guide nor govern special education programs and teacher caseloads.
This is just a terrible situation. I taught in a special education classroom when PL -94142, the original special education law to protect special needs children, was signed into law by President Ford. There was much confusion about how to complete the I.E.Ps but the other special education teachers and myself were excited that maybe we would have the resources and support that we knew our students needed. To read about what is happening in the states to do away with what our special needs students need and deserve is very disheartening. Charter schools don’t want these students because many of their teachers cannot effectively teach these students because 5 weeks of training is not enough and they do not want to pay trained experienced special education teachers many which even in my time had masters degrees. It is sad that we have to fight a battle they we already won once again. In the meantime, students needing special help are losing out. I hope that we can stop Michigan and other states from taking these crazy actions that help no one except the “education reformers” who appear to be concerned only about profit. Money is not saved by throwing these children in a classroom with a large number of other students and at times teachers who are not trained to work with special needs children. We will pay for these actions in the long run.
I, too, remember the passage of PL94-142 well. I was responsible for designing an IEP form for a private school. We were working with children the public schools had rejected. Anyway, there was no direction from the state, so I was tasked with developing the form. Fortunately, I was able to draw on work done by surrounding districts. (We served everyone from Chicago north.) No one ever thinks about what these mandates mean on the ground and there is never time allowed for careful roll out, designed to either enhance or mitigate the effects of their decisions.
I myself had to attend CEC sessions on I.E.Ps back then. There was confusion but we were optimistic that in the long run things would be better for our special needs children. What Michigan wants to do is terrible and they do not care about how the special needs students will be affected negatively by their actions.
2old2teach, I disagree that legislators and bureaucrats don’t think about what their mandates look like at the ground level. I think most know exactly how they will look.
I agree to a certain extent. It depends on what they intend to accomplish. When it was popular to support special education, they were mandating all sorts of things with no clue what it would look like in the classroom. Now, they are trying to save every dime that they can. They don’t understand necessarily but they choose not to examine the repercussions. It all depends on their agenda. Legislatures have always been good at passing bills that lead to unintended consequences. Their actions are not always nefarious; some of them are pretty clueless. The change in the atmosphere in state legislatures is not only because our reps are interested in saving their own skins. Some of them who are now making noises about education policy were oblivious. Not everyone eats, sleeps, and thinks education policy. If you can figure out my argument, you are a better woman than I am. Perhaps you can understand what I am trying to say not very well.
DonnaJoy- Thank you for your decades of dedicated service and concern. I tend to believe that special education is an abject failure and for many good but bad reasons. Most don’t like to hear that. They fear that the IDEA will be taken away. I am more afraid that by not talking about the dismal state of un-special education we will never address the sick-elephant in the schoolroom and children with special learning needs will be left to suffer and be denied an education that prepares each and almost every single one for post secondary education and the global economy. Keep using your voice!
There was a class action suit brought against the PA dept of Ed on behalf of special education students. The suit was brought so that the state would follow federal law. Here is the link
http://www.kidstogether.org/gaskin.htm
Gaskin vs PA dept of Ed.
Thank you for posting this link! I will read it. There was a big complaint filed by the parents of Darien County that was very, very successful.
In 2011, the Federal Dept of Ed. under Duncan essentially ended efforts to make states comply with IDEA regulations and school systems to comply with IEPs. This shift in focus on compliance to mere monitoring ( e.g., test scores) was the beginning of Duncan’s systematic dismantling of the federal govt.’s role in protecting the rights of kids with disabilities. States that enacted RttT and moved to privatize were some of the first to ignore IDEA regs and the IEPs requirements.
IDEA puts all decision making power at the school level in the IEP & in the IEP team. Disputes between parents and the schools for IEPs are handled by the courts. Corporate reformers dislike individualized programs and expensive services. They don’t want to pay for SPED children to have small classes, support therapies, or individualized IEP goals. They want standard goals, standard testing data, and larger class sizes. TN Dept of education, under Kevin Huffman is telling schools what teachers can & cannot write in IEP’s. Huffman is telling schools what accommodations can and cannot be included in the IEP. Huffman is making all teacher write goals from the Common Core. This is not legal. But who will stop him? Not Arne or his cabal of privatizers in DoEd.
For 50 years parents, teachers, and schools have worked toward inclusion for children with disabilities into their neighborhood schools; all well aware that the IEP was their contract that guaranteed an inclusive education. Segregation and exclusion by disability could become the new norm if child centered decision making is circumvented.
Your comments are spot on. Public education and the education of children with disabilities is a 50-year old bipartisan failure in America. The privatizing and corporatizing of our public schools has left them in ruin and is nothing short of an educational-apocalypse. That being said, We the People have allowed this to happen and We the People must fix this mess by fighting for the creation of globally enviable public education for “all” of America’s children.
Jcgrim: you are preaching to the choir. I had 440 words in the Washington Times Newspaper back in December 2007, criticizing President-elect Obama for nominating Arne Duncan. While I have supported this President, I have not and do not support one iota of his education policies. Americans have to fight for globally enviable public education and elect presidents, state and federal legislators and bureaucrats who will commit to focusing on “public” education that meets the educational needs of every child.
Have any of you who are commenting read the actual rule revisions? Have you watched the videos? You should. You will learn that there are NO rights being removed. We need to stop trying to operate a system in this century based on 1970 rules. Revisions should be continuing until we remove barriers to doing what we know is best for getting results.
Kathy- I have read every word of these revisions. I have emailed the rules to thousands across MI. The rights of countless students and parents are being removed from these proposed revisions. These rule revisions put up new barriers to educational opportunities. The way the MDE has explained these proposed revisions is nothing short of a reminder of McCarthyism. and Nazi Germany. The explanations provided by the MDE have left stakeholders (and that includes parents and teachers) in the dark. These are the most substantive revisions proposed since 2001 and yet the MDE has been making a sales pitch that these are just “verbiage changes to align with the IDEA.” It is disingenuous and has nothing to do with the educational outcomes of the students.
Interesting. May I offer some perspective for readers of this BLOG to consider?
Let’s start with the headline. To be absolutely clear: Michigan does not have the authority and is not attempting to seize the authority to change the regulations that address special education in this country. The implementing regulations of the IDEA are the purview of the federal government and states are powerless to change, alter or evade them. No “skunk works” efforts here.
MI has proposed changes to what we call the Michigan Administrative Rules for Special Education (MARSE) and the proposed changes are intended further the alignment of our MI specific requirements for Special Education with the last re-authorization of IDEA in 2004. I’m curious as to how greater alignment with federal law is a “gutting of Special Education.”
The effort to align MI rules with IDEA is being led by the policy experts within the MDE – Office of Special Education, not the MI legislature. To equate the legislature’s questionable intentions in diverting funding from public schools, expanding profit driven charter options and eliminating locally controlled/elected school boards/systems with the effort of the Office of Special Education to align our rules with federal law is disingenuous at best. They have absolutely nothing to do with one another.
The public comment period is the same allotted time the MDE has used in the rule change process for many years. 30 days is generally considered the standard time that is acceptable for all forms of public comment. There is nothing unusual here.
The opportunity to comment is also pretty standard. With the exception that online comment provides and expanded way to provide comment quickly and efficiently. In addition, comments can be mailed the department. There will also be two open, public comment meetings. To get the facts, go to the MDE webpage. Read the proposed rules, view the explanatory videos. You can do that here: http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-6530_6598-321773–,00.html The MDE-OSE has done an outstanding job of making the proposed rule changes understandable. Get the facts and make you own informed decision.
Matt- I know you from Oakland Schools. I am disturbed but not surprised by your comments. The MDE’s “alignment” with the IDEA is nothing more than bringing down our MI Admin Rules for Special Education to the “federal minimum”. Yes, this is gutting our state-imposed rules. Further, the public comment includes two hearings for the entire state. On March 10 both hearing will be held. The first in downtown Detroit from 1;00-3:00 and the second at Lansing Community College from 4:00-6:00.Public comments must be mailed to the MDE and to a Post Office box which negates registered letters. This is far different than the hearings held in 2008 and even in 2010. This is far different than the email and fax comments that were accepted in 2008 and 2010. Further, this rule-revision package has nothing to do with the IDEA 2004. The MDE had a substantive rule-revision package in 2008. This rule revision is about nothing more than Governor Snyder keeping his promise to eliminate all state-imposed rules that exceed federal law. Finally, giving local authority to school districts and ISDs is balancing the budget on the backs of kids with disabilities. MI has done nothing since Engler’s executive orders of 1996 but erode special education. ISDs like Oakland Schools are not serving students and are serving school districts. We are in dark and hideous times for special education in MI.
Mrs. Lipsitt – thank you for your thoughtful response. I again offer some polite perspective. Let’s start with where we seem to agree.
Public hearings will indeed be held. These events will give the public an opportunity to not just provide comment but to obtain first hand learning about the proposed rules and engage in meaningful dialogue with representatives from the MDE. It’s a good opportunity for productive conversation, the kind that moves systems and practice forward. In addition, for further learning, the MDE has provided videos on the public comment webpage that are quite thorough.
We also agree that the MDE is adding some new strategies for engaging input from the public and has eliminated others. As we are 13 years into the 21st century, the MDE is appropriately engaging the broad availability of technology and has created a very simple to access, online survey. It takes 5-10 minutes to complete. This survey supports quick and efficient feedback while facilitating input from interested parties. It targets the kind of feedback that is meaningful and useful to the MDE and the rules process. There is nothing nefarious about this. Interested stakeholders are encouraged to go to the MDE webpage (http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-6530_6598-321773–,00.html) and explore for themselves the nature and extent of the rules and then provide fully informed comment. Interested stakeholders are also free to call the MDE, their local district special education office, or their ISD special education offices with questions. Oakland Schools will be happy to help any stakeholder understand changes in language. For our part, we will refrain from influencing people in one direction or the other.
I was employed with the MDE–OSE during the 2008 rules process. To be clear, the rules process is not part of the legislative process in MI. To equate the two is simply inaccurate. It is a very tightly controlled. Proposed rules go through several rounds of drafting and input and sharing with groups that include key community stakeholders (such as the statewide Special Education Advisory Committee – SEAC https://seac.cenmi.org/ ) before they are put into final draft and released for public comment. In other words, they are not the invention of a conspiratorial group intent on propagating a dark agenda away from the light of day and without proper transparency.
There are some points where we respectfully disagree.
This rule package has everything to do with continued alignment with the reauthorization of IDEA 2004 and its implementing regulations of 2006 and the supplemental regulations in 2010. The MDE-OSE has a responsibility and obligation to the children of this state as a regulatory agency to continually monitor the implementation of the IDEA and our state rules and make changes to rules when indicated. Here’s a simple example: The IDEA requires annual goals be written into each eligible child’s IEP. It further requires that objectives/benchmarks be written if a student will be taking an alternate state assessment. The MDE-OSE is proposing in this rule package that MI come into alignment with federal law by removing the MI specific requirement that every goal in a child’s IEP be accompanied by objectives. Nothing more, nothing less. You can agree with this proposed change or disagree with it. Either way, the public has several options for making its preference known.
The MDE is also proposing changes that are intended to keep the rules current with the state of practice among professionals in the community. There is a proposed rule that the team responsible for evaluating a child for eligibility as a child with an “Other Health Impairment” be expanded to allow the participation of a licensed and accredited physician’s assistant. It is the medical community and the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs that decides who is qualified to make a diagnosis. Here’s the existing language:
A determination of disability shall be based upon a full and individual evaluation by a multidisciplinary evaluation team, which shall include 1 of the following persons:
(a) An orthopedic surgeon.
(b) An internist.
(c) A neurologist.
(d) A pediatrician.
(e) A family physician, or any other approved physician of as defined in 1978 PA 368, MCL 333. 1101 et seq.
Here’s the proposed language:
A full and individual evaluation shall include an assessment by at least 1 of the following persons:
(a) An orthopedic surgeon.
(b) An internist.
(c) A neurologist.
(d) A pediatrician.
(e) A physician, or physician’s, assistant licensed under article 15 of 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.16101 to 333.18838.
Here’s the substance: The health care system has undergone tremendous changes in the 10 years since the reauthorization of the IDEA 2004. It is the medical community and the state of MI that recognizes the professionalism and expertise a physician’s assistant holds. It would be grossly presumptuous of the education system to fail to acknowledge this and would represent an extraordinary failing on the part of public schools to hold the eligibility determination process hostage to a standard that exceeds the expectations of experts in the profession.
To assert, as you have in other forums, that this rule change now allows a physician’s assistant to independently determine eligibility is simply not factual. Eligibility has been and will continue to be (regardless of the passing of the rules package) determined by a team of qualified professionals and the parents of the child.
Unless I missed something, MI has a long and proud tradition of local control. This very issue is at the heart of the debate about the existence of the EAA, the dissolution of local school districts and the presence of state appointed emergency financial managers. The citizens in this state have consistently rejected efforts to consolidate centralized control. Local control is precious to our communities. I’m not sure how maintaining local control equates to balancing budgets on the backs of kids.
Lastly, I find your ad hominem attack on the employees of the MDE-OSE grotesque and uncalled for in polite, civilized discourse. To equate the dedicated civil servants at the MDE with McCarthyism and the fascists of Nazi Germany (see Mrs. Lipsitt’s reply to kbarker in this thread – “The way the MDE has explained these proposed revisions is nothing short of a reminder of McCarthyism and Nazi Germany) is despicable. What makes it worse is that those individuals, because of the role they hold, are prohibited from defending themselves against these attacks. Keep in mind educational professionals entered college and applied for positions in our schools because they love children and want to be a part of helping them learn and grow into successful adults. Many special educators enter this specialty area because they know and love someone with a disability who has inspired them. They are called to help and inspire others. Further, many of the staff at the MDE-OSE were once school employees and educators. Shame on you.
In closing, I will again encourage interested parties to access the MDE webpage referenced above. Do your own learning by watching the videos that fully explain the proposed rule changes so you can make your own fully informed comment.
Mrs. Lipsitt – thank you for your thoughtful response. I again offer some polite perspective. Let’s start with where we seem to agree.
Public hearings will indeed be held. These events will give the public an opportunity to not just provide comment but to obtain first hand learning about the proposed rules and engage in meaningful dialogue with representatives from the MDE. It’s a good opportunity for productive conversation, the kind that moves systems and practice forward. In addition, for further learning, the MDE has provided videos on the public comment webpage that are quite thorough.
We also agree that the MDE is adding some new strategies for engaging input from the public and has eliminated others. As we are 13 years into the 21st century, the MDE is appropriately engaging the broad availability of technology and has created a very simple to access, online survey. It takes 5-10 minutes to complete. This survey supports quick and efficient feedback while facilitating input from interested parties. It targets the kind of feedback that is meaningful and useful to the MDE and the rules process. There is nothing nefarious about this. Interested stakeholders are encouraged to go to the MDE webpage (http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-6530_6598-321773–,00.html) and explore for themselves the nature and extent of the rules and then provide fully informed comment. Interested stakeholders are also free to call the MDE, their local district special education office, or their ISD special education offices with questions. Oakland Schools will be happy to help any stakeholder understand changes in language. For our part, we will refrain from influencing people in one direction or the other.
I was employed with the MDE–OSE during the 2008 rules process. To be clear, the rules process is not part of the legislative process in MI. To equate the two is simply inaccurate. It is a very tightly controlled. Proposed rules go through several rounds of drafting and input and sharing with groups that include key community stakeholders (such as the statewide Special Education Advisory Committee – SEAC https://seac.cenmi.org/ ) before they are put into final draft and released for public comment. In other words, they are not the invention of a conspiratorial group intent on propagating a dark agenda away from the light of day and without proper transparency.
There are some points where we respectfully disagree.
This rule package has everything to do with continued alignment with the reauthorization of IDEA 2004 and its implementing regulations of 2006 and the supplemental regulations in 2010. The MDE-OSE has a responsibility and obligation to the children of this state as a regulatory agency to continually monitor the implementation of the IDEA and our state rules and make changes to rules when indicated. Here’s a simple example: The IDEA requires annual goals be written into each eligible child’s IEP. It further requires that objectives/benchmarks be written if a student will be taking an alternate state assessment. The MDE-OSE is proposing in this rule package that MI come into alignment with federal law by removing the MI specific requirement that every goal in a child’s IEP be accompanied by objectives. Nothing more, nothing less. You can agree with this proposed change or disagree with it. Either way, the public has several options for making its preference known.
The MDE is also proposing changes that are intended to keep the rules current with the state of practice among professionals in the community. There is a proposed rule that the team responsible for evaluating a child for eligibility as a child with an “Other Health Impairment” be expanded to allow the participation of a licensed and accredited physician’s assistant. It is the medical community and the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs that decides who is qualified to make a diagnosis. Here’s the existing language:
A determination of disability shall be based upon a full and individual evaluation by a multidisciplinary evaluation team, which shall include 1 of the following persons:
(a) An orthopedic surgeon.
(b) An internist.
(c) A neurologist.
(d) A pediatrician.
(e) A family physician, or any other approved physician of as defined in 1978 PA 368, MCL 333. 1101 et seq.
Here’s the proposed language:
A full and individual evaluation shall include an assessment by at least 1 of the following persons:
(a) An orthopedic surgeon.
(b) An internist.
(c) A neurologist.
(d) A pediatrician.
(e) A physician, or physician’s, assistant licensed under article 15 of 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.16101 to 333.18838.
Here’s the substance: The health care system has undergone tremendous changes in the 10 years since the reauthorization of the IDEA 2004. It is the medical community and the state of MI that recognizes the professionalism and expertise a physician’s assistant holds. It would be grossly presumptuous of the education system to fail to acknowledge this and would represent an extraordinary failing on the part of public schools to hold the eligibility determination process hostage to a standard that exceeds the expectations of experts in the profession.
To assert, as you have in other forums, that this rule change now allows a physician’s assistant to independently determine eligibility is simply not factual. Eligibility has been and will continue to be (regardless of the passing of the rules package) determined by a team of qualified professionals and the parents of the child.
Unless I missed something, MI has a long and proud tradition of local control. This very issue is at the heart of the debate about the existence of the EAA, the dissolution of local school districts and the presence of state appointed emergency financial managers. The citizens in this state have consistently rejected efforts to consolidate centralized control. Local control is precious to our communities. I’m not sure how maintaining local control equates to balancing budgets on the backs of kids.
Lastly, I find your ad hominem attack on the employees of the MDE-OSE grotesque and uncalled for in polite, civilized discourse. To equate the dedicated civil servants at the MDE with McCarthyism and the fascists of Nazi Germany (see Mrs. Lipsitt’s reply to kbarker in this thread – “The way the MDE has explained these proposed revisions is nothing short of a reminder of McCarthyism and Nazi Germany) is despicable. What makes it worse is that those individuals, because of the role they hold, are prohibited from defending themselves against these attacks. If you disagree with the rules, provide your comment. Keep in mind educational professionals entered college and applied for positions in our schools because they love children and want to be a part of helping them learn and grow into successful adults. Many special educators enter this specialty area because they know and love someone with a disability who has inspired them. They are called to help and inspire others. Further, many of the staff at the MDE-OSE were once school employees and educators. Shame on you.
In closing, I will again encourage interested parties to access the MDE webpage referenced above. Do your own learning by watching the videos that fully explain the proposed rule changes so you can make your own fully informed comment.
Matt- The MDE has done an outstanding job of misleading parents on PACs and SEAC. You can write, let alone say out loud that the MDE’s “two” public hearings on March 10 at the Detroit School for the Arts from 1:00-3:00 and Lansing Community College from 4:00-6:00 is allowing public input? How is that when not one teacher can attend? Is Oakland Schools Superintendent Vicki Markavitch giving everyone the afternoon off to attend the public hearing in Detroit? I think not. A small victory today….Superintendent Mike Flanagan announced that the MDE will effective immediately accept public comment through email at MDE-OSE-EIS-Public-Comment@michigan.gov. This will allow some of our populace to provide public input. The online submission system is not user friendly and has no fidelity. Any name can be entered including Mickey Mouse, Barack Obama, Horace Mann and Martin Luther King.
The proposed revisions are nothing more than Governor Snyder keeping his promise to go department by department and eliminate any state rule that exceeds a federal law. This is about money. This is about balancing the budgets on the backs of students with IEPs. For the record, I never said this was legislative. I have been clear as day that the rule revisions are administrative and can only be rejected by JCAR. For the record, I know longer understand why MDE and ISD administrators and employees are in the business of educating children with disabilities and sadly because the majority of you have lost your way and your focus on the kids. You are in the business of watching the backs of school districts and this has nothing to do with improving student outcomes. We are in hideous times for students with disabilities. We are in hideous times for public education. You can continue to sell the MDE’s devastating revisions to the MARSE and I and others will provide the unvarnished truth. I only hope I live to see a day when children needing specialized instruction are valued and provided with a free appropriate public education.
Matt- #1 The face-to-face public comment opportunities are happening in Detroit and Lansing on Monday, March 10. While you and the MDE may not believe that anyone lives north of Clare in this state, it is my understanding that the Michigan Constitution requires that face-to-face public comment formats MUST be offered to those of us who live in the Northern LP and the UP. #2 The fact that the public comment forum in Detroit is being held from 1-3, DURING SCHOOL HOURS almost guarantees that one group of stake-holders will not be able to attend. The Lansing forum, from 4-6 will allow those from close by to make it on time, but does not help those who work 9-5 jobs. #3 The MDE OSE spoke at the UP Special Ed conference. One of the sessions was meant to cover the rule changes. They spent 45 minutes answering questions about the first rule change and never moved beyond that one. #4 The attitude at the conference was that the MDE OSE are the experts and the rest of us just need to “trust” them because we don’t know what we are doing anyways. #5 When the MDE was questioned about their longitudinal data about kids who are dismissed from special education prior to graduation (and therefore lose their label) – the reply was that disabled adults have lower home ownership and higher unemployment than the non-disabled. In other words, they have NO data about those students who actually do learn enough compensation skills to be dismissed from special ed and they seem unwilling to learn from the true experts what made those students succeed. Home ownership and employment issues are a societal problem, not a programmatic issue. #6 At the conference, we were told that the online comment form would be easy to find and use. While most of us had our I-Pads or laptops with us so that we could access the MDE’s comment form right away, we were amazed at how difficult it was to find this form on the MDE website. When I opened the form, I found there was no “general comment” option. You had to know each rule by its number, comment on each on individually, and if you are not a lawyer, the unintended consequences of a few word changes here and there are not easy for the average person with a master’s degree to understand! #7 The MDE told us that it doesn’t really matter what people say in the forums or on the online submission forms anyways because usually they do not have many people make comments or attend the forums. Therefore, they anticipate the rules to pass through with only a minor word change here or there anyways.
Matt- I neglected to challenge your assertion that my opposition to the MDE’s proposed revision to “add” a Physician’s Assistant to the list of evaluators for an OHI, PI, TBI and Deaf-Blind eligibility is inaccurate. The proposed revisions have clearly “added” a Physician’s Assistant. Yes, I oppose adding a Physician’s Assistant to any area of eligibility and most definitely those that require a licensed physician. The Deaf-Blind is particularly concerning and incongruent with those allowed to evaluate for a Hearing Impairment and Visual Impairment. Physician’s Assistants have anything from a Bachelor’s to a Master’s. They are not trained to evaluate and most certainly not over a licensed physician. Had the MDE wanted to improve evaluations for students the natural “addition” to OHI would have been a PhD psychologist. PhD psychologists conduct evaluations every day of the week for students with suspected ADHD. These revisions have nothing to do with improving student outcomes and everything to do with furthering Governor Snyder’s agenda to eliminate all state rules that exceed federal law. These revisions are intended to strip special education to the bare bones minimum required by the IDEA and worse giving school districts and ISDs authority to determine special ed staffing annually. Why would parents trust districts to determine staffing when many reduced their special education budgets through the ARRA IDEA appropriation?
Diane- Thank “you” for highlighting the “lowlights” and death spiral of special education in MI. I am so very appreciative of your efforts and everything that you do, each and every day to fight for globally enviable public education for all children in America. We are in desperate times in MI. I just don’t know what it is going to take to light a fire under our populace and stakeholders.
Marcie Lipsitt, please read and respond to other comments on this post.
Diane- I will respond to every comment this evening
It has been my experience that it is very hard for stakeholders to get anywhere when policies and procedures are not accessible. Questions are ignored and/or evaded. Legislation from nearly a decade ago has not been implemented. Nobody is responsible for compliance. I don’t understand how they can say they have implemented programs which obviously have not been due to the number of compliance issues is my child’s IEP. I couldn’t even managed to get spelling words on Friday last year. Based on comments on the recent report card General Education teachers do not understand the difference between an accommodation and modification. I cannot get someone to explain to me how assurance of FAPE under IDEA happen. However I don’t think it is special education alone that is suffering. I found a memo on MDE website on public comment on the revisions to the School and District improvement framework and 2 days after I tried to get the word out to so stakeholder could take the on line survey the memo was no longer on their website. How is the public supposed provide comment if we are not provide with the information. As I looked at the survey it is my opinion that the memo wasn’t shared because many part related to family and public involvement were never implemented.
Melanie- You are preaching to the choir, so help me get the word out. Email me at MarcieLipsitt@outlook.com. The MDE is not transparent. This Department is opaque and hiding the truth behind these proposed revisions.
Diane- Today, MI State Superintendent Mike Flanagan announced that effective immediately the MDE will accept public comments througn an email address, MDE-OSE-EIS-Public-Comment@michigan.gov. This is a small victory and will hopefully drive thousands of public comments to stop the MDE from their “technical alignment with federal law” that is nothing but eliminating our state-imposed rules in an effort to save time and money at the expense of the students’ learning.
How can they defy Federal ADA law?
Good question. I have submitted a formal complaint to the U.S. Dept of Ed Office of Civil Rights (February 17, 2013) and pursuant to allegations that the MDE’s public comment period, public hearings and online submission system violate Section 504, ADA and Title VI. Not one teacher can attend a public hearing due to the 1:00-3:00 and 4:00-6:00 time-frames.
They are working very hard in California to get rid of Special Education. This is scary. The reason class sizes are small in Special Education is because most learning disabled studies are overwhelmed by the 40 and 50 students for class. Besides, general education teachers don’t want to be bothered. Then they put one of us in there with no desk, no respect, and no place to move. Who cares about our specialized training. No one really cares about IEP’s being implemented, as long as they look good on paper.
Yes, there is a return of segregation. Children are either being segregated or thrown into general education like a new swimmer is thrown into the deep end without floaties or water wings. We are throwing away students who want to one day be whining tax payers and have access to the 14th Amendment.
Too many times an IEP is just a stack of papers with little meaning. When a third of your class is on an IEP, how many can have preferential seating? As they moved students out of self contained classrooms, they did little to prepare classroom teachers to help the special ed students much less follow all the dictates in an IEP. Too often it was impossible to meet the requirements of all the IEPs not to mention teach to the whole class and their needs. Benchmarking and pretesting and post testing became a way to pretend you had a handle on it all. Hah!
Sadly, you are correct. President Ford predicted that the EHA (renamed the IDEA) would fail because Congress was promising more than it could deliver. I call the IDEA our nation’s most expensive piece of Swiss cheese. It is full of holes and is purposely gray and murky. It is the stuff that lawsuits are made of and lawyers have benefited plenty from the IDEA. That being said, we need accountable and measurable federal education law for children with disabilities and one that is written to produce outcomes that give the kids the access to the 14th Amendment that they deserve.
States are already in violation with requirements of IDEA. Students with IEPs are not receiving individual education plan (IEP) when we are tying them to the common core standards and high-stakes testing.
Jon- Yes, states and local school districts are more out of compliance with the IDEA than ever before and it will get worse if parents and teachers don’t unite to stop this insanity and destruction of the kids’ educational rights.
Teachers prefer students with IEPs to be pulled out of the classroom for their services vs. inclusion. They also find it difficult to differentiate for these students. So the deal is that teachers need to think about what is right for sped students and what they are willing to do for them in the classroom which will determine if they will become their advocates. Also, more parents must be informed how CCSS/high stakes testing are violating IDEA to act on their due process provided in the procedural safeguards.
Jon- There is much more to be done in our teacher preparation programs if teachers are to be fully equipped to meet the needs of students with diverse learning needs.
It has been my experience that schools pull my child out of Gen Ed instead of providing simple accommodations. I don’t understand why there is such a huge resistance to collaborate with families and accommodate students. What helps kids with different learning styles helps all kids so why not. I think that schools, ISD, and MDE spend twice the effort on not helping then they would if they just did the right thing in the first place
Melanie- It is all about the money for the MDE, ISDs and many school districts. It is cheaper to segregate than to do what is right for the child and provide adult support and accommodations in the general education classroom. So shortsighted and takes away a child’s ability to one day be a taxpayer.
Special education cost money is why they want to remove these programs. Ironically, CCSS is only going to grow the number of special education students, especially from low SES schools.
If special education goes away, can you imagine the impact on classroom teachers and students? This is another reason why charters are springing up.
Jon- I am not certain that I follow your thinking on the reasons behind charters. I do agree that more students will struggle as states make it more difficult for students to be found eligible. Further, response to intervention is only as good as the fidelity of delivery and with so many districts in a cash-crunch, RTI is falling by the wayside.
Charters exclude the bottom of the cream. Won’t matter if we have sped programs or not. These students will remain segregated.
The problem is that fidelity of delivery is based on the philosophy of the school is why RTI falls by the wayside no matter how much reading/writing/math intervention a school has to offer. It is easier said than done from the get go. The end result is if intervention won’t work they either go to sped or fall btw the cracks.
I also argue the eligibility process to special ed. is partly at fault. Why are so many kids of color and kids in poverty in special ed? Is school politics driving this?
I also believe that the affects of poverty, dyfunctional families, emotionally/pyschologically disturbed, neglect/abuse, autism, learning disabilities, and acquiring English as a second language are discounted when we look at a model such as RTI to provide education for students. If we are going to talk about the whole child, we can’t leave well-being out of readiness.
Additionally, are there any schools who are addressing bullying, school violence, and agressive behaviors successfully? Substitudes refuse to sub in some of our schools.
This is beyond meeting the needs of students with diverse learning needs.
THANK YOU Diane, Marcie Lipsitt and others who see through this garbage and are helping to enlighten us with the true facts.
As the co-founder of Parents for Positive Change (www.ParentsForPositiveChange.com), and the parent of a child with special needs in Michigan, the comments from Kathy Barker, Oakland Schools Executive Director of Special Education and Matt Korolden, a compliance monitor are deceitful and mendacious at best.
Neither are working on behalf of the students; nor are the so-called policy experts at the MDE that they have referenced. The fact is that special education in MI has been eroding since Governor Engler issued his Executive Orders and stripped the State Board of Ed of its elected authority and gave it all to our non-elected State Superintendent.
Thank you for all you do to help children with special needs- they rely on you to voice their needs and take appropriate action when needed. Keep shining the light on the truth and keep up the great work!
Then you should have no difficulty stating the principles of democratic citizenship. What are they?
Harlan- I am not sure who you are referring to when you say that “you should have no difficulty stating the principals of democratic citizenship….” I believe in democratic citizenship. I believe in fighting for the common good. I believe that democracy is not easy. It is both an obligation and an opportunity. I believe in reading and understanding laws, policies and rules before taking a position. I believe that education is the foundation and fabric of our nation. I also believe it is in tatters and need of loving attention and repair.
Dear Ms. Ravitch – following is my reply to Mrs. Lipsitt. Thought you might be interested
Mrs. Lipsitt – thank you for your thoughtful response. I again offer some polite perspective. Let’s start with where we seem to agree.
Public hearings will indeed be held. These events will give the public an opportunity to not just provide comment but to obtain first hand learning about the proposed rules and engage in meaningful dialogue with representatives from the MDE. It’s a good opportunity for productive conversation, the kind that moves systems and practice forward. In addition, for further learning, the MDE has provided videos on the public comment webpage that are quite thorough.
We also agree that the MDE is adding some new strategies for engaging input from the public and has eliminated others. As we are 13 years into the 21st century, the MDE is appropriately engaging the broad availability of technology and has created a very simple to access, online survey. It takes 5-10 minutes to complete. This survey supports quick and efficient feedback while facilitating input from interested parties. It targets the kind of feedback that is meaningful and useful to the MDE and the rules process. There is nothing nefarious about this. Interested stakeholders are encouraged to go to the MDE webpage (http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-6530_6598-321773–,00.html) and explore for themselves the nature and extent of the rules and then provide fully informed comment. Interested stakeholders are also free to call the MDE, their local district special education office, or their ISD special education offices with questions. Oakland Schools will be happy to help any stakeholder understand changes in language. For our part, we will refrain from influencing people in one direction or the other.
I was employed with the MDE–OSE during the 2008 rules process. To be clear, the rules process is not part of the legislative process in MI. To equate the two is simply inaccurate. It is a very tightly controlled. Proposed rules go through several rounds of drafting and input and sharing with groups that include key community stakeholders (such as the statewide Special Education Advisory Committee – SEAC https://seac.cenmi.org/ ) before they are put into final draft and released for public comment. In other words, they are not the invention of a conspiratorial group intent on propagating a dark agenda away from the light of day and without proper transparency.
There are some points where we respectfully disagree.
This rule package has everything to do with continued alignment with the reauthorization of IDEA 2004 and its implementing regulations of 2006 and the supplemental regulations in 2010. The MDE-OSE has a responsibility and obligation to the children of this state as a regulatory agency to continually monitor the implementation of the IDEA and our state rules and make changes to rules when indicated. Here’s a simple example: The IDEA requires annual goals be written into each eligible child’s IEP. It further requires that objectives/benchmarks be written if a student will be taking an alternate state assessment. The MDE-OSE is proposing in this rule package that MI come into alignment with federal law by removing the MI specific requirement that every goal in a child’s IEP be accompanied by objectives. Nothing more, nothing less. You can agree with this proposed change or disagree with it. Either way, the public has several options for making its preference known.
The MDE is also proposing changes that are intended to keep the rules current with the state of practice among professionals in the community. There is a proposed rule that the team responsible for evaluating a child for eligibility as a child with an “Other Health Impairment” be expanded to allow the participation of a licensed and accredited physician’s assistant. It is the medical community and the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs that decides who is qualified to make a diagnosis. Here’s the existing language:
A determination of disability shall be based upon a full and individual evaluation by a multidisciplinary evaluation team, which shall include 1 of the following persons:
(a) An orthopedic surgeon.
(b) An internist.
(c) A neurologist.
(d) A pediatrician.
(e) A family physician, or any other approved physician of as defined in 1978 PA 368, MCL 333. 1101 et seq.
Here’s the proposed language:
A full and individual evaluation shall include an assessment by at least 1 of the following persons:
(a) An orthopedic surgeon.
(b) An internist.
(c) A neurologist.
(d) A pediatrician.
(e) A physician, or physician’s, assistant licensed under article 15 of 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.16101 to 333.18838.
Here’s the substance: The health care system has undergone tremendous changes in the 10 years since the reauthorization of the IDEA 2004. It is the medical community and the state of MI that recognizes the professionalism and expertise a physician’s assistant holds. It would be grossly presumptuous of the education system to fail to acknowledge this and would represent an extraordinary failing on the part of public schools to hold the eligibility determination process hostage to a standard that exceeds the expectations of experts in the profession.
To assert, as you have in other forums, that this rule change now allows a physician’s assistant to independently determine eligibility is simply not factual. Eligibility has been and will continue to be (regardless of the passing of the rules package) determined by a team of qualified professionals and the parents of the child.
Unless I missed something, MI has a long and proud tradition of local control. This very issue is at the heart of the debate about the existence of the EAA, the dissolution of local school districts and the presence of state appointed emergency financial managers. The citizens in this state have consistently rejected efforts to consolidate centralized control. Local control is precious to our communities. I’m not sure how maintaining local control equates to balancing budgets on the backs of kids.
Lastly, I find your ad hominem attack on the employees of the MDE-OSE grotesque and uncalled for in polite, civilized discourse. To equate the dedicated civil servants at the MDE with McCarthyism and the fascists of Nazi Germany (see Mrs. Lipsitt’s reply to kbarker in this thread – “The way the MDE has explained these proposed revisions is nothing short of a reminder of McCarthyism and Nazi Germany) is despicable. What makes it worse is that those individuals, because of the role they hold, are prohibited from defending themselves against these attacks. If you disagree with the rules, provide your comment. Keep in mind educational professionals entered college and applied for positions in our schools because they love children and want to be a part of helping them learn and grow into successful adults. Many special educators enter this specialty area because they know and love someone with a disability who has inspired them. They are called to help and inspire others. Further, many of the staff at the MDE-OSE were once school employees and educators. Shame on you.
In closing, I will again encourage interested parties to access the MDE webpage referenced above. Do your own learning by watching the videos that fully explain the proposed rule changes so you can make your own fully informed comment.
Capturing the current state of public education in a single word is impossible. The education of children is complex enough before considering risk factors like poverty, homelessness, and disabilities. In the totality of what public education has become in the 21st century there are success, crises and opportunities everywhere. A current crisis in the world of Special Education is misunderstanding and confusion about changes to our MI Special Education Rules; it is not what the MDE is doing.
A true aspect of this crisis is that, while student performance and post-school success continue to improve, it isn’t happening quickly enough for every child. And sometimes the very systems and structures we create for their benefit are the barriers that hold kids back. When we discover this, we have a duty and obligation to make meaningful and impactful changes.
Special Education is not a destination, a place we have students arrive at. Special Education is, and has always been, intended to be highly specialized instruction delivered by highly trained and skilled professionals. Special Education should be about the business of providing to those who are truly in need of specialized services and supports those strategies that remediate and habilitating, not the “way we help students struggling”. All students deserve the supports they need and should consistently benefit in measurable and meaningful ways from their educational experiences but we have to refocus our efforts for the unique population we represent, and have chosen to serve, those students with disabilities.
The number of children referred for and found eligible for Special Education has varies from region to region but has essentially remained steady (approximately 12-14% statewide) for many decades. Some mention this may rise with the implementation of CCSS. If it does it means systems are not doing their due diligence in the eligibility arena. Why these children are finding themselves in Special Education programs and services is a topic of much debate. There is another aspect; however, that has bothered me in a growing way for many years now: the extremely low number of children who exit Special Education.
I support changing our MI rules when changes in those rules mean eliminating barriers to serving the extremely complex needs of students with disabilities. Educating these students so that real outcomes are achieved will not be getting cheaper any time soon. We will need great minds from every walk of life working together to figure out how to use the resources provided to us to the best benefit of these children. This is our duty and obligation. This is our calling as public educators. Bringing efforts into alignment for this purpose is a valuable use of emotion and intelligence.
Kathy- As has become all too typical, we will have to agree to disagree. As an advocate I am not seeing special education administrators in our ISDs work for the students. They are working for the districts. There is no longer an attempt to follow the IDEA and MARSE and there is no accountability within the ISDs or the MDE. The MDE’s proposed revisions are about nothing more than saving time and money, and have nothing to do with improving the outcomes of the students. We are in hideous times in MI for students with disabilities. And sadly, special education is absolute a “destination and place.” More and more MI students with IEPs are being warehoused in 1832e cross-categorical programs and the individual learning needs of students are not being met.
“As an advocate I am not seeing special education administrators in our ISDs work for students.”
“The way the MDE has explained these proposed revisions is nothing short of a reminder of McCarthyism. and Nazi Germany.”
This black and white thinking, cognitive distortion, and the practice of publicly regarding people and situations as completely good or bad is unhealthy at best, self-serving absolutely, and definitely contributes to the ongoing unproductive way in which we support the very people we say we are advocates for. The students are not always at the forefront of all that we do when individual personal agendas drive the conversation.
Michigan is attacking children with disabilities and their right to a free appropriate public education.
Conditions in MI have worsened since 2002 when ISDs were given the authority to override our state-imploded special education programs and create their own. This “rule” has been used for budgetary purposes.
In 2009. The MDE was one of three states (Il and MIssouri) to monkey around with the ARRA IDEA Appropriation. The MDE removed an indicator used to monitor school districts’ compliance and students’ performance. They did this to allow districts to use 50% Percent of this “one time single largest increase in federal special education funding” to reduce their special education budgets and move those dollars to their general fund. The MDE did this wifully.
Moving on to 2010, the MDE unleashed the most regressive-restrictive criteria across the entire U.S. to determine if a student has a Specific Learning Disability. They did this without transparency as they lowered and further restricted the eligibility criteria AFTER the public comment period ended.
Now, here we are in March 2014. Conditions at the MDE are more opaque than ever. The MDE has been violating written complaint timeline rules to a degree that I have never before witnessed. This has been corroborated by MI Protectiom & Advocacy. The MDE has an “agenda” that has nothing to do with servicing the educational needs of children or being respectable to parents.
We are in hideous times, plain and simple. The rollout of the proposed revisions to the MI Admin Rules for Special Education has been shrouded in secrececy and duplicity. The MDE’s explanation of the proposed revisions has been disingenuous to the point of misleading the public and that includes members of our SEAC and ISD PACs.
Yes, I have an agenda. Shane on me for fighting for children, special education and public education. The reality is that brutal and unvarnished truth is hard to hear. It is hard to believe that educators and especially administrators are not in the business of servicing their clients, the children. Disturbingly this is the truth and in MI this applies to the MDE and to many of our ISDs.
What is my agenda? It is simple. I will continue to fight unapologetically hard for children and each and every child’s right to a globally enviable public education. Michigan is not even offering a regionally or nationally enviable public education, and students with disabilities and their special education teachers are on the bottom deck of the Titanic.
There have and will continue to be those working to thwart my efforts and subvert my information. I won’t stop and everyday more parents, teachers, concerned citizens and legislators are joining my efforts to expose the MDE and fight for the children, special education and public education.
When a person who runs a for-profit advocacy business and simultaneously presents herself as an advocate, there is a serious potential for a conflict of interest.
Not everything presented is as it would seem. Be careful folks. Ask questions. And don’t ever assume any one person has all the answers.
I don’t know who you are, nor do you know me. You don’t know what my advocacy practice consists of and those who do are well aware of the endless work that I do for families and systemically for children that is all on my time. The MDE’s proposed revisions are deplorable. The good news is that the populace is being educated and given links to the proposed revisions and can make informed decisions. I have driven this dialogue. The MDE and ISDs have worked to keep our populace in the dark.
Try the Arc of Michigan. They also disagree with these changes. How about COPAA? They also have come out against many of the changes? How about MPAS? They also came out against the changes.
This is not a one sided debate. Many people who are professionals, are troubled by the changes.
Point about your implications on a for profit business: My non education related for profit business pays the salaries of you pubic employees, so please, spare me this disingenuous swipes at people who pay into the government coffers.
An equal and potentially larger conflict of interest also exists with special education administrators who are under budget constraints and rule makers who have budget pressures from their bosses. They want to keep their jobs. They want to meet their targets. Do you suppose anyone with half a brain believes that the cost pressures are not what is driving the proposed rules changes? Seriously?
I see where the government side wins with these changes, but I don’t see a win for the paid advocate side financially – if they want to make more money, they should shut up and let these changes go into place. That will create a bonanza of business for them.
Your moniker of Honest Counts should be equally applied when you look in the mirror.
You are misinformed and out of line. The majority of my work is volunteer and that includes all of my systemic, state and federal. Further, I fight harder for “public education” than virtually any advocate in MI. Keep attacking me. I can take it. My efforts on behalf of the kids and to make public education accountable to them will not stop. MI Protection & Advocacy, the ARC of MI, Autism Society of MI, all agree with my concerns.
Unfortunately, my experience with a child who has an IEP in Oakland County is exactly how Marcie describes our special education services in Michigan. Her strong language is absolutely needed in order to WAKE UP parents, educators, administrators and policy makers because sadly, all of these groups appear to be asleep at the wheel. It’s sad that her name is being attacked when she, nearly single-handedly, has been the driving force to make positive changes in the educational system- whether it’s helping a child who has been forced into isolation rooms because a proper behavioral plan wasn’t in place or implemented- or helping a group of parents frustrated by an administrator who has no clue how to educate a child with a hearing impairment.
I know Marcie well. Her voice is the voice of the children who cannot advocate for themselves. She has been in more IEPs, helping children get the services they need, than probably most people who have posted here…often without receiving a dime for her efforts…because as a true advocate, her interests are helping children.
Thank god for people like Marcie- keep up the great work. You are being heard.
It’s highly ironic that the above post states, “It’s sad that her name is being attacked…” The post then goes on to state that Ms. Lipsitt has “nearly single-handedly” been the driving force to make positive changes in the educational system.
Ms. Lipsitt has repeatedly attacked people in public forums who work day in and day out with children, on the front lines, and they too make positive changes. They are in fact the people who actually do the hard work, every minute of every day. To insinuate that Ms. Lipsitt, her opinions and her work outstrip the actual people working in classrooms with children every single day is an affront to every hard working educator out there. And there are many of us. And no, we do not all feel supported and/or agree with what she says. Sadly, there’s no room for discourse because to question may mean public humiliation and shaming. There is no room for collaboration. No ability to learn from each other. Talk about your McCarthyism!
I don’t know who you are, nor do you know of the years that I have spent attempting to work with administrators at ISDs and the MI DOE. I will no longer apologize for fighting for children with disabilities and their right to an education. I will also not apologize for being brutally honest about the eroding conditions in MI since Engler’s executive orders in 1996 that gave autocratic authority to a non-elected state superintendent and has allowed the MDE to operate under a shroud of secrecy. There are parents and teachers across MI who are angry at the MDE and its administrators and especially those in the Office of Special Education. Nothing about these proposed revisions to the rules has anything to do with improving the outcomes of students. These revisions are nothing more than carrying out Governor Snyder’s agenda to eliminate every state rule that exceeds a federal law. The MDE needs an Oversight Hearing, and special education administrators who are not truly and transparently focusing on improving the outcomes of students with disabilities need to be replaced. Finally, none of this is about me or my efforts. My efforts are on behalf of the children. Unlike MDE and ISD administrators I do this as a volunteer. The children unfortunately are not the focus of the MDE or Governor Rick Snyder.
To WeDoCare- why is your name not displayed? I cannot give much or any weight to your comments if you are unwilling or too afraid to expose who you really are.
I wouldn’t dare leave my name for the reasons I have outlined above. Needless to say, I am quite familiar with Ms. Lipsitt from a first person perspective. And if one is willing to investigate, it is easy to discover that Ms. Lipsitt does work as a for-profit advocate, charging $150+ per hour to parents who are able to purchase her services.
You have no idea what you are talking about. You know nothing of my fees or how I bill. I will not justify all of the families that I assist pro bono or for a low fee; nor will I allow you to misrepresent my service. Why don’t you focus on your job, whatever that may be and I will focus on mine. I do not ask you or anyone to agree with my advocacy on behalf of children. I care only about seeing that children are educated. I will not respond to another one of your posts. There is too much to do simply stopping the MDE and ISDs from pushing through deplorable rule revisions.
As a parent of two children with IEPs, I am appalled at the number of other parents of children with IEPs mindlessly following this uninformed opinion to which will be the detriment of their child. The allegations made against the proposed rule changes on this blog are flat out wrong. I will not bullet for bullet list each of the erroneous issues. Instead I would ask you to become informed yourselves. Go to the public comment website http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-6530_6598-321773–,00.html and watch the videos that detail the proposed changes and the implications. If you have questions, ask your child’s teacher, local parent advisory representative, special education director, or ISD. Make informed and knowledgeable comment.
Before you turn your nose up at this plea, keep in mind that those people went to college to become educators because they care about kids. Moreover, countless numbers of teachers, paraprofessionals and administrators go into the field of special education because someone with a disability touched their lives and they want to be a part of making a positive change in the lives of others who have disabilities. To reach and touch others as they have been touched. That is precisely the reason why I went in to the field. Little did I know that ten years later, I’d have children of my own with disabilities who would need the support of an IEP. Did you know that many of the staff in the policy unit at Michigan Department of Education are former special educators? They went to the MDE with hopes to make positive changes on a larger scale. Unfortunately for them (and for you?) because of their position, they are prohibited from responding to these political blogs. They are unable to dispel the ignorant rantings that threaten the hard work they have spent countless hours on to make the Michigan Administrative Rules for Special Education (MARSE) clearer for our children with IEPs. Hours that included educators and parents on the front end.
Having been a special education teacher, an administrator, and now a special education compliance consultant has not insulated me from struggles with the school regarding my own children with IEPs, as I’m sure many of you have experienced. But more often than not, my children have experienced success due to the paraprofessionals, teachers and administrators who genuinely care for my children. Don’t let the anger you may harbor for a few mediocre educators ruin it for the majority of good, great and awesome educators who are out there.
Again, I am not writing to ask you to comment a certain way, but I am asking that you read the proposed changes for yourself and watch the videos posted in the public comment site. If you are uncertain, call your local or county parent advisory committee representatives, your local special education director, your ISD special education office, or the MDE helpline (888-320-8384). Make informed comment for the sake of your child.
Get informed. Help to make good changes for our kids. Don’t follow the angry and bitter mindlessly. They are the ones who truly bring us all down.
It is clear from your post that you work in an ISD, or school district. I am not uninformed. I am educating the populace on rule revisions that the MDE and ISDs have tried to push through with no transparency and restricted public input. These rule revisions are deplorable and no one concerned about the outcomes of the children should be silent. Parents don’t have to agree with me. All that I ask is that they read the revisions and make informed decisions.
Marcie, If you truly want to educate the public, provide them with the facts and actual Rule or Regulation language. The bullet point assertations you have provided on numeorus blogs are simply sentences with absolutely no data, quotes, or documentation to verify your negative claims. It saddens me to think how incorrect the claims are.
Less time should be spent on figuring out who people are, bashing the MDE, and stirring up resentment, and more time on supporting claims with facts.
Michelle- I have provided the specific rule changes in a number of posts and blogs. The reality is that these proposed revisions are so substantive that many parents have emailed that they are not lawyers and don’t know how to interpret the changes. I have been asked by many to provide key points on the revisions. I am happy to go line by line with you, Matt, Kathy or any ISD/LEA employee in a public forum and review these revisions. Name the date and I will be there.
Dear Readers,
Since this string of responses began as a simple effort to engage dialogue and bring clarity and understanding to a very important issue, I am pleased to see the growing amount of shared understanding we are achieving. We now understand that the proposed rules have been shared broadly, in multiple forums, involving important stakeholders from across the educational landscape – free democracy at its finest!
It is in this spirit that I offer this additional clarification regarding a number of assertions that have been made regarding Michigan’s proposed rules. It is my hope that people will continue to access multiple sources of information and make up their own minds a fully informed citizens. Remember that you can go to the MDE-OSE webpage to see the actual proposed rule language and learn how the rules will impact special education in MI. http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-140-6530_6598-321773–,00.html
Assertion: Proposing to give local control to school districts to determine special education staffing annually. This will be used to explode special education teacher caseloads and class-sizes. History lesson? The MDE monkeyed around with Pres. Obama’s big stimulus bill (ARRA) and allowed school districts to reduce their special education budgets by 50% of this onetime increase and shift the dollars to their general fund. Many districts did this and it has dramatically reduced the kids services.
Fact: The Michigan Rules that are in part 3 specify the required caseloads/class sizes for programs and some services. The language added to the ISD Plan 1832 language requires that ISDs review with districts that their staffing does indeed meet the needs of the students. It is in addition to, not a replacement of, and effectively adds an additional layer of oversight and accountability. R 340.1832
Assertion: Requiring a child to “be unable to make eye contact” to be eligible for special education as a student with Autism. This will make MI the state with the most restrictive criteria in the nation and leave out countless children.
Fact: This assertion has no basis in fact. Neither the proposed rule nor the current rule explicitly require eye contact as a single indicator that either rules in or rules out eligibility. The purposed language reads as follows:
(3)(2) A Determination that a student has autism spectrum disorder is based on documentation of all of the following:
(a) Qualitative impairments in reciprocal social interactions including at least 2 of the following areas:
(i) Marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors including eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction.
(ii) Failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level.
(iii) Marked impairment in spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people, for example, by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest.
(iv) Marked impairment in the areas of social or emotional reciprocity.
R 340.1715
Assertion: Remove “short term objectives” in a student’s IEP and have nothing but an annual goal. MDE pushed this one in 2008 and we stopped this change.
Fact: The proposed Rule language creates alignment with IDEA. The removal of this obligation in Michigan rule does not negate district obligations to follow IDEA which requires regular reporting of progress on goals (at least as often as progress is reported for every students) and further requires that a lack of progress on goals and in the general education curriculum be addressed. 300.324(b)(1)(ii)(A) & 300.320(a)(2) R 340.1721e
Assertion: Eliminate the Multidisciplinary Evaluation Team” in favor of a more generic group of experts. This is being pushed to save districts time and money and completely marginalize school psychologists.
Fact: The Multidisciplinary Team has always been a generic group of professionals. Removing the Multidisciplinary Evaluation Team language does not change the requirement that a group of professionals including, the parent’s input, evaluate and identify the need(s) of a child. The specificity around which professionals form the membership of a specific evaluation team has always been found in the definition of each eligibility area. The removal of this language merely removes an out of sequence step in the process.
Under the Current MARSE process, the MET conducts evaluations and recommends eligibility to the IEP team. Then an IEP team is convened to determine eligibility. The proposed Rule language will allow the group of qualified professionals (which requires inclusion of the parent) to complete the evaluation, identify the child’s needs, determine eligibility, and secure parental consent for the provision of services in a single step. This clearly supports greater participation by parents in the entire process.
Look at the evaluation rules for the 13 specific areas of eligibility. The inclusion of those individuals required to participate in the evaluation is still specified, school psychologists continue to be included and no deletion of potential evaluation team members has been suggested. MI has Rules that identify who is required to be part of the evaluation team depending on the focus of the evaluation. This change in language will remove an unnecessary procedural step only. R 340.1701b
Assertion: Require parents to give written consent for special education prior to the IEPT determining eligibility. IDEA 300.306 recognizes parents are members of the team that determines their child’s eligibility. This revision is virtually the equivalent of writing a contract blind.
Fact: In the proposed Rules, evaluation, eligibility and identification of need are linked in a single process. Once this is completed, the IEP team can then construct an IEP based on identified needs and recommendations from the evaluators and parents. IDEA is very clear: at 300.300(b)(3)(iii) If the parent refuses or does not provide consent for initial services, the school is not obligated to convene an IEP. Here’s the exact language from the IDEA:
(3)If the parent of a child fails to respond to a request for, or refuses to consent to, the initial provision of special education and related services, the public agency–
(i) May not use the procedures in subpart E of this part (including the mediation procedures under Sec.300.506 or the due process procedures under Sec.Sec.300.507 through 300.516) in order to obtain agreement or a ruling that the services may be provided to the child;
(ii) Will not be considered to be in violation of the requirement to make FAPE available to the child because of the failure to provide the child with the special education and related services for which the parent refuses to or fails to provide consent; and
(iii) Is not required to convene an IEP Team meeting or develop an IEP under Sec.Sec.300.320 and 300.324 for the child.
This procedural requirement of the IDEA mandates that schools ask for and obtain initial consent to provide services prior to convening the initial IEP. This is a change from current practice in Michigan and it is an example of how the intent of this revision to MI’s rules will create enhanced alignment with the IDEA.
Procedurally, it is not yet clear how districts will address this change but it is hard to imagine that a discussion about evaluation results, eligibility and educational needs will not include conversation about the resources available to support the student’s access to and support for achievement in school. Following such a discussion, the parents are in a position to make an informed decision if they want to further pursue this option or not. Parents make that choice. Once consent for services is provided, the IEP team (which includes the parent) can get to work on designing the individualized program of supports the student will need.
R 340.1721b
Assertion: Removing all transparency from ISD Alternate Special Education Plans. A “Plan” that overrides the state rule. Since 2002, ISDs have used this rule (R 340.1832e) to create cross categorical mish mosh programs and explode special education program sizes. This is all budgetary.
*****The brutal reality is that the outcomes for students with IEPs are egregiously poor. Only 52.8 percent graduated last year with a diploma and many earning D’s in every content class. This is a counterfeit diploma.
Fact: ISD plans will continue to be the vehicle for creating unique alternate services for students. Results of graduation of students with IEPs are lower than the state target. Might there be a different way to get better results? We still have program rules from the 1980s yet we have learned so much about specialized instruction for students with disabilities. R 340.1832
Assertion: It is wrong to lower the requirements for VI and HI teachers and simply because there is a shortage.
Fact: Nevertheless, there is a shortage and students need services. Much like the medical community has turned to physician assistants and nurse practitioners to meet health care demands, schools would be remiss in their FAPE obligation to students if they let needed services go unfulfilled simply because state rule artificially constrains their ability to access the services the student needs.
R 340.1784 & 1785
Assertion: It is wrong to set the lowest bar of expectations and only require paraprofessionals to have a high school diploma.
Fact: Paraprofessionals are intended to support the educational professional in delivering special education services to a student, not supplant them in their instructional role. A high school diploma is a typical bar of expectation for many jobs that require similar skill levels. This is a minimal educational requirement which has to date been established through each ISD Plan.
R 340.1832
Assertion: It is wrong to change the definition of a student with a Disability to give school Districts permission to ram them through the high school credits. Those who need a 5th and 6th year of high school deserve that opportunity and additional years in school to earn a MEANINGFUL diploma.
Fact: There is no proposed change to the definition of a student with a disability. In statue and regulations of the IDEA, the following conditions end a student’s eligibility for special education: 1) Student graduates with a regular high school diploma, 2) Student is evaluated and determined to no longer be eligible, 3) Student exceeds the age of eligibility, 4) the student’s death, and 5) when the parent revokes consent for special education.
The IDEA has, at least since its last reauthorization in 2004, been explicit – a purpose of special education is to support a student’s access to and progress in the general curriculum towards the achievement of a regular high school diploma. A student in Michigan with an IEP has extended opportunities to earn that diploma and districts have been able to account for this since 2006.
From the IDEA’s statutory language:
601(c)(5) Findings of Congress
(5) Almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by—
(A) having high expectations for such children and ensuring their access to the general education curriculum in the regular classroom, to the maximum extent possible, in order to—
(i) meet developmental goals and, to the maximum extent possible, the challenging expectations that have been established for all children; and
(ii) be prepared to lead productive and independent adult lives, to the maximum extent possible;
What is being made explicit in the proposed rule language is that students, who have attained a high school diploma by successfully completing the rigorous requirements of the Michigan Merit Curriculum, have effectively completed their public education. It does nothing to stipulate a mandatory time frame for doing so.
R 340.1702
Assertion: It is wrong to allow Physician’s Assistant to determine a child’s eligibility for an OHI, PI, TBI and. Hearing-Vision Impairment. Not enough training and further eliminates school psychologists.
Fact: These are organic impairments that require a medical diagnosis from a medical professional. The medical community determines which medical professional is certified to provide a diagnosis.
District staff are required to establish the need for special education services, of which psychologists may be a part. The determination of eligibility remains with the group of qualified professionals and the parent, one of the potential qualified professionals may be a PA’s input/documentation. The determination of eligibility by a single person is not compliant. School psychologists have never been a required member of the evaluation teams addressing VI, HI, PI, OHI or TBI. Their participation remains open to who will be needed to determine the needs of the child.
R 340.1709 & 1709a
Folks- Listen clearly. Each and every one of you should be outraged by the time being spent by Oakland Schools employees and administrators to minimize and neutralize my information on the deplorable revisions proposed to the MI Admin Rules for Special Ed. In every post I have attacked direct links to the MDE”s public comment page and proposed revisions. I have worked tirelessly to shine a light on these proposed revisions and provide MI parents, teachers and concerned citizens with the information to be informed. And while I take Oakland Schools’ efforts as a compliment, I am sickened by what they are doing. This ISD and the many ISDs working to push through these revisions with little to no transparency are hurting the kids. Pure and painfully simple. The proposed revisions are nothing more than Gov Rick Snyder keeping his promise to eliminate any state rule that exceeds a federal law but what the MDE and Gov Snyder are doing is hurting children. Get involved.
Although not surprised by Marci’s comments, I am truly appalled! It is clear that Marci is confused and clueless. I do not work for Oakland ISD but I am a special education administrator in the state of Michigan. I care first and foremost for students with disabilities. My job is to make sure students with disabilities are provided with the supports and services they need to be successful regardless if they have a special education label or not. There is absolutely nothing in the proposed rules that takes away anything from students with disabilities.
I know the staff at MDE, I know special education administrators across the state, I know general & special education teachers, and support staff. I can honestly say that the only person I know that cares more about making a buck than supporting students with special needs is Marci!
I have witnessed Marci’s inappropriate “advocating” techniques and parents have shared their horror stories with me time and time again. Marci charges an outrageous amount of money to “advocate” for children. Her viewpoints are from the 70’s and are not based on current research.
Folks, please be cautious. There are advocacy groups that are of no costs to parents. You do not have to pay money to obtain a special education advocate.
Do you own homework and do not be strayed by those who do not have a good understanding of special education law, policies, and best practices.
My name is Laura Jones and I am a parent of a current student in 7th grade who has an active IEP. I am not an educator and make no money from special education in any way shape or form. I am skilled at reading standards which become legal documents. I read the entire proposed changes to the MARSE.
I find your anonymous attack on someone to be cowardice, pure and simple. If you want to have a point by point debate, please do so, but leave your childish and cowardly behavior at home. It’s really tiresome and unprofessional.
My reading of the changes indicates many problems with them. Since the document will become a legal guide to what can and cannot happen in Special Education, it is unwise to simple leave them be and hope. For parents with children in the system, your fairytale story of everything being wonderful and all authorities being dedicated and wonderful is simply too much to believe. My own district is wonderful, but even I have had moments of severe problems with eligibility. In all cases, it comes back to the law and the rules.
Marcie’s opinions are not alone nor are they some wild attempt to make money as you suggest. The Arc of Michigan has voiced similar concerns. You can see their concerns listed on their web site. MPAS has also voiced similar concerns. You can see them here: http://mpas.org/sites/default/files/mpas_revised_comments_to_mde_rulemaking_3-14.pdf
I also encourage people to do their homework. Ask why these changes are necessary. Ask who benefits from each change? Ask what will be different? Ask yourself why these are presented as minor language changes when many authorities are calling them major? Ask yourself why it is when people are making objections to the standards, others are replying with personal attacks?
I hope people will look at these changes clearly. I hope you Advocate for SWD find your courage and at least a little bit of honor.
For the record, while it is none of your business, I do a tremendous amount of pro bono and low cost work for families. I have now given you more information than you deserve. Fight for the rights of the kids to become productive citizens. Your attacks on me are only an indication that the proposed rule revisions cannot be defended.
This is old information too.
Click to access Marcie_Lipsitt_Resume.pdf
This is not old information. I don’t know who you are from your post; nor am I confused or clueless. You and other administrators don’t like that I have shined a light on revisions that are not “technical” and are the most substantive in our 37 year history of the MI Mandatory Special Education Act. You and other administrators can say what you want to say. You have to live with yourself. I work with a number of caring and dedicated special ed administrators. They are willing to engage in uncomfortable dialogue about the crisis in special education. They are willing to talk about these proposed rule revisions for what they are. Those that are not can continue trying to assert that I don’t know what I am talking about. You will not be successful. I will fight for the educational rights of the kids and fight for accountable public education and special education. Further, all of my efforts to educate people across MI are on my volunteer time. You and the ISD staff taking time to refute my assertions are being paid to do so. I will not engage further in this dialogue. It is not productive.
To the special ed administrators and personnel that continue to attack me and suggest that my efforts are not focused on the students, and that I am clueless, I am posting links to the strong oppostion from our MI Protection & Advocacy, ARC of MI, NCLD, COPAA, and Advocacy Institute, along with the names of the leading education attorneys in MI who represent families and children with disabilities.
The ARC of MI, MI Protection & Advocacy, National Center for Learning Disabilities, Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA), Advocacy Institute and MI attorneys representing children with disabilities, Laura Athens, John Brower, Kristen Totten and Sid Kraisman, ALL share my concerns on the MDE’s proposed revisions to the MI Admin Rules for Special Education.
Special Ed administrators and staff can attack me all they want but they can’t refute the deplorable reality of the proposed revisions or the fact that all of these local, state and federal advocacy groups are in strong opposition. Let’s focus on the kids and their right to a free appropriate public education. If any of these ISD and LEA administrators want to meet and engage in the dialogue on how to rebuild public education in MI for ALL children, you know how to reach me. Until then, I will fight for the kids as I deem necessary.
Click to access Arc%20Comments%20MDE%202014.pdf
Click to access mpas_revised_comments_to_mde_rulemaking_3-14.pdf
http://www.copaa.org/news/161968/Action-Alert-Say-NO-to-MI-Administrative-Rule-Changes.htm
http://www.ncld.org/ld-insights/blogs/help-us-stop-changes-to-michigan-special-education-rules?utm_source=actionalert_mar_3_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_content=text&utm_campaign=policy
http://www.advocacyinstitute.org/blog/?p=485
Marcie,
Thank you for posting those links and naming highly knowledgable, respected professionals who also disagree with these revisions. It is not surprising at all to see your name and reputation publicly attacked in forums such as this. You have pretty much single handedly uncovered many, many horrific practices throughout the state of Michigan- in how students with disabilities have (or have not) been legally or ethically treated. You have stood up for them and fought for them. You have written countless letters and attended hundreds of meetings to stand up those whose rights have been trampled on. You have spoken out on policies that will hurt our most vulnerable.
I know that you have helped many, many families who are unable to pay for legal or advocacy support- on your own dime- spending hundreds and hundreds of hours doing so.
To see people employed by the state of Michigan blast you out of the water here for trying to help children is unconscionable. Shame on all of you.
Thank you for all you have done to help my daughter succeed as best she can in this awful system. Thank you for guiding me in how to stand up for her rights, since she’s unable to do so herself. Thank you for insisting that our district teach my child to read and for the joy you’ve given us as we watched her improve her skills- going from a 5th grade to a 7th grade reader when the school had all but given up and tried to force her into a vocational track. Now, as she (thank god) exits the educational system, she will have reading skills that make her employable. This never would have happened without your support.
** And you never asked for a DIME from us. Your desire has always been to help children, period. People do not always understand your tactics because you are a force to be reckoned with. Your courage, your ability to analyze and assess the problem, then work towards change, frightens many people, as can be seen in the dialogue right here.
I’ve seen you go to bat for many children in many districts and all I can say is, thank god for you.
Thank you, Terry. You, your daughter and family make my world a kinder and gentler place, and remind me why I do what I do. I too have enjoyed watching your daughter grow to reach her potential and set new bars of expectations for learning to read and understand truly everyday math.