1. No category

Monthly Meetings - January
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
STATE SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SEAC)
January 7, 2015
Lansing Community College West Campus Conference Center
5708 Cornerstone Drive, Lansing MI 48917
http://www.lcc.edu/locate/buildings/west_campus/
Member Registration 9:30 am – 9:55 am
SEAC Committee of the Whole Meeting 10:00 am – 12 noon
SEAC Committees on Finance – Policy – Credentials 12:45 pm – 3:00 pm
AGENDA
I.
Call to Order
II.
Roll Call
III.
Introduction of Guests
IV.
Approval of Proposed January Agenda
A.
V.
A motion by a delegate to adopt the agenda is required.
Approval of December 3, 2014 Summary – The meeting summary is found on pages
6 to 11 of the January meeting packet
A. A motion by a delegate to approve the summary is required.
VI.
Public Comment
A.
Opportunity for Public Participation occurs at every SEAC meeting. Members
of the public wishing to address the panel must declare their intent by
completing the Public Comment form1 before the beginning of the meeting.
Presentations are generally limited to five minutes each and may be in person
or in writing. The total time for public comment is limited to one hour, unless
adjusted by the chairperson as the situation warrants. For details on public
participation, visit the SEAC website at http://seac.cenmi.org and go to
Meetings for details.
B.
Panel members listen to public comment. There is no feedback or comments
from the SEAC during the comment period. Panel members consider public
comment in determining unmet needs and in advising the State Educational
Agency.
The Public Comment form is available at the registration desk and at the SEAC website
http://seac.cenmi.org
1
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 1 of 44
Mi Special Education Advisory Committee Agenda
January 7, 2015
VII.
Chairperson's Report
A.
Today’s Focus: Action on SEAC Advice on State Performance Plan (SPP)
Indicator #14 – Post-secondary Outcomes, March 2014 Proposed Changes to
Michigan Administrative Rules for Special Education (MARSE) Joint Committee
on Administrative Rules (JCAR) Follow-up, Nominations for 2015-16 SEAC
Executive Committee, SEAC Committee Meetings (Finance – Policy –
Credentials)
B.
Report from Executive Committee Meeting
1.
2.
3.
4.
C.
Review of Meeting norms
1.
2.
VIII.
SEAC uses three meeting norms
a.
It’s okay to ask
b.
Acronyms need explanations
c.
The point must be clear
Identification of SEAC meeting raters at each table
State Department Reports – Teri Johnson Chapman, Director, Office of Special
Education (OSE)
A.
IX.
January/February Meeting Schedule adjustment: Committee meetings
for half day in January and February in lieu of full day in February.
Request of Teri Johnson Chapman to adjust schedule given January 7
MDE Directors Summit regarding reading and SPP #17.
The SEAC questions regarding SPP #17 are found on page 12 of the
January meeting packet.
Evaluation results from December 3 SEAC meeting - The meeting
evaluation results are found on is found on pages 13 - 21 of the
January meeting packet.
2015-16 SEAC Executive Committee Nominations: Nominations for
2015-16 SEAC Executive Committee: Soliciting nominations for the
seven member Executive Committee.
Information on responsibilities
of the SEAC Executive Committee are found on page 22 in the January
meeting packet.
Updates
Reports from Ex-Officio Members
A.
One of the mandated functions of the SEAC is to advise the SEA in developing
and implementing policies relating to the coordination of services for children
with disabilities. The SEAC relies on its ex-officio members to inform the
SEAC on activities within their units that may involve the coordination of
services for children with disabilities. Opportunities for ex-officio members to
report are provided at each meeting of the SEAC.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Department of Corrections
Institutions of Higher Education
Department of Community Health
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 2 of 44
Mi Special Education Advisory Committee Agenda
January 7, 2015
5.
6.
X.
Department of Human Services
Michigan Rehabilitation Services
SEAC Learning: Proposed Rule Set 2013-116 ED: Information presented to the
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR)
A.
Context: One of the functions of the SEAC is to comment publicly on any
rules or regulations proposed by the State regarding the education of children
with disabilities. During 2013-14, the SEAC engaged in extensive learning
and dialogue with regard to proposed concepts and rule language. That
included the September 11, 2013 SEAC meeting with Sheryl Diamond,
Supervisor of Program Accountability, OSE and Nancy Rotarius, State Policy
Coordinator, OSE presenting information on the process of promulgating rules
and forecasted upcoming changes to be proposed for the MARSE. In October
2013 and November 2013, the SEAC received clarification on its questions.
In December 2013, the SEAC received information on the upcoming period of
public comment and questions and answers generated by the SEAC regarding
the upcoming change concepts were provided. In January 2014, the SEAC
developed preliminary comment on proposed changes. At the February 2014
meeting, preliminary SEAC comment was reviewed and all items polled.
At
the March 5, 2014 meeting, Sheryl Diamond, Supervisor of Program
Accountability, OSE presented information on differences between the draft
approved by the Office of Regulatory Reinvention and the final proposed rule
changes approved by the Legislative Services Bureau and the SEAC developed
its public comment.
That comment was submitted to the Michigan
Department of Education on March 11, 2014.
See pages 23 to 29 for the
SEAC comment.
On December 11, 2014, a hearing on the rules package was held by the Joint
Committee on Administrative Rules. Brian Calley, Lieutenant Governor of the
State of Michigan testified in front of JCAR and requested that the committee
adjourn without action thereby withdrawing the proposed changes.
The
committee honored his request.
B.
The December 11, 2014 JCAR hearing begin with a presentation by Venessa
Kessler, Ph.D., MDE Deputy Superintendent and Teri Johnson Chairman,
Director of the Office of Special Education. Sheryl Diamond will present that
information to the SEAC today. See pages 30 to 40 for the slides from the
presentation.
XI.
Information Items2 - no action items this month
XII.
Action Items – Feedback to the Office of Special Education on Target Resetting for
SPP#14 – post-secondary outcomes
A.
Motion: To approve the Michigan Special Education Advisory Committee
Feedback on Proposed Targets for State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicators:
#14 – Postsecondary Outcomes and forward that feedback to the Office of
Special Education. The document is found on pages 41 to 44 of the January
meeting bundle.
2
Items requiring action by the SEAC are presented first as Information Items and then again as Action Items the
following month.
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 3 of 44
Mi Special Education Advisory Committee Agenda
January 7, 2015
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
Committee Reports
A.
The afternoon of today’s meeting is devoted to committee work. As part of
the information gathering for the committee looking at how the financing of
programs impact equity of access, John Andrejack, Program Finance
Supervisor, MDE – OSE will presentation on the funding of special education
and the considerations with regard to funding.
The presentation will be
available to other committees.
B.
Finance: The focus of this committee is explore how financing of programs
and services for students with IEPs impact equity of access to quality services
at the earliest of age. John Searles (co-chair), Sharon Dusney (co-chair),
Paulette Duggins, Nicole Miller, John Patterson, Sue Pearson, Janis Weckstein.
C.
Policy: The focus of this committee is to explore how current policy and
recent legislation impacts equity of access to quality programs and services
for students with IEPs at the earliest of ages.
Richard Spring (co-chair),
Maggie Kolk (co-chair) Bruce Ferguson, Michele DeJulian, Kim Love, Wendy
Minor, Caryn Pack-Ivey, Jane Shank, Vicki White
D.
Credentials: The focus of this committee is to explore how credentialing of
staff impact equity of access to quality programs and services for students
with IEPs at the earliest of age. Jason Feig (co-chair), Barb Brish (co-chair),
Mary Ann Deschaine, Kristal Erhardt, Latika Fenderson, Dorie France, Patty
Marks, Mark McKulsky, Steve McNutly, Mary Vrantanina
Legislative Information
A.
This item is intended to provide SEAC delegates opportunities to inform other
delegates about legislative activity that may impact the education of children
with IEPs. The intent is to facilitate access to information only as SEAC is not
a lobbying group.
B.
Information
on
current
Michigan
legislation
can
be
found
at
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%2844dcbo22ondo3a45s3v1tr55%29%2
9/mileg.aspx?page=home.
Topics for Future Committee Consideration
A.
One of the federally defined duties of the State Advisory Panel is to advise the
State Educational Agency (SEA) of unmet needs within the state in the
education of children with disabilities. The intent of this item is to provide
opportunity for delegates to articulate issues that may rise to the level of an
unmet need.
SEAC’s definition of an unmet need was included in the
September meeting packet.
XVI.
Member Announcements – Members are invited to share information with the SEAC
regarding upcoming conferences and information of interest to the members as a
whole.
XVII.
Future Agenda Considerations
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 4 of 44
Mi Special Education Advisory Committee Agenda
January 7, 2015
XVIII. Process Check
A.
B.
XIX.
Feedback from meeting raters
A meeting evaluation is sent electronically to all SEAC delegates at
approximately 2:00 pm the day of the meeting. If you are a member of the
SEAC and do not receive the evaluation, please notify Meredith Hines, SEAC
secretary ([email protected]). If you are earning State Board CEUs, you
must also complete the required State Board CEU evaluation as well as sign in
and out of the meeting.
Adjournment
The real beginning of influence comes as others
sense you are being influenced by them -- when
they feel understood by you -- that you have
listened deeply and sincerely, and that you are
open.
Stephen Covey
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 5 of 44
Minutes
Special Education Advisory Committee
Lansing Community College West Campus Conference Center
5708 Cornerstone Drive, Lansing, MI 48917
December 3, 2014, 10:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Delegates Present: Barbara Brish, Michel DeJulian, Mary Ann Deschaine,
Paulette Duggins, Sharon Dusney, Jason Feig, Latika Fenderson, Bruce Ferguson,
Dorie France-Winegard, Magie Kolk, Kimberly Love, Mark McKulsky, Nicole Miller,
Wendy Minor, Caryn Pack-Ivey, John Patterson, Sue Pearson, Jane Shank, Richard
Spring, Lori Torres, Jennifer Trackwell, Mary Vratanina, Janis Weckstein, Vicki White
Alternates Present: Michelle Driscoll, Lois Lofton-Doniver
Ex-Officio Present: Kristal Ehrhardt, Laquita Featherstone, Judith McKenzie,
James Thomas
MDE Staff Present: Jessica Brady, Lydia Calderon, Oren Christmas, Jeff Diedrich,
Meredith Hines, Ashley Kemmer, Sandi Laham, Jennifer Huisken LaPointe, Maria Peak,
Nick Thelen, Julie Trevino, Joanne Winkelman
Guests Present: Tom Greene, Ric Hogerheide, Connie Marks, Sara Park, Holly Sasso,
Marge Stoi
I.
Call to Order
Sharon Dusney called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.
II.
Roll Call
The SEAC Secretary, Meredith Hines, read the roll call. A quorum was present.
III. Introduction of Guests
Guests introduced themselves.
IV. Approval of Proposed Agenda
Mark McKulsky moved, seconded by Dorie France-Winegard that the Special
Education Advisory Committee approve the December 3, 2014 agenda. The vote was
taken on the motion. Motion carried.
V.
Approval of (Month) Meeting Minutes
Barbara Brish moved, seconded by Richard Spring that the Special Education
Advisory Committee approve the November 4, 2014 minutes. The vote was taken on
the motion. Motion carried.
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 6 of 44
VI.
Public Comment
There was no public comment presented.
VII.
Chairperson’s Report
A. Meeting Focus on the development of SEAC advice on State Performance Plan
(SPP) Indicator #14 – Post-Secondary Outcomes, Learning on SPP #17 –
State Systemic Improvement Plan, 2015-2016 SEAC Executive Committee
B. Report from the Executive Committee:
1. Slides from SPP #17 – State Systemic Improvement Plan overview
presentation by Teri Johnson Chapman, Director, Office of Special Education
and Jeff Dietrich, were included on pages 11-17 of the December meeting
packet.
2. SEAC questions re: overview presentation on SPP #17, were included on
page 18 of the December meeting packet
3. November 5 evaluation results were included on pages 19-25 of the
December meeting packet.
4. Nominations for 2015-2016 SEAC Executive Committee were included page
26 in the December meeting packet.
5. Dec. 11 JCAR hearing will be held at the State Capitol. SEAC will not present
however individuals are encouraged to attend and give their testimony.
C. Meeting Norms
1. Norms were reviewed:
a. Okay to ask.
b. Point must be clear.
c. Acronyms need explanation
2. Meeting raters were identified for each table.
VIII. State Department Report
A. The OSE website to access the JCAR report and revised Administrative Rules for
Special Education was shared.
B. As part of the SSIP (State Systemic Improvement Plan) development process,
MDE will be conducting a stakeholder meeting on Dec. 17. This all day process
will engage over 30 individuals in a structured discussion designed to address
the root cause in understanding the reading performance of Michigan students.
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 7 of 44
C. Educator Preparation Institutions (EPI), formerly IHE met on November 21.
The EPIs provided input for the SSIP on their perceptions of the system in
Michigan as well as engaged in an idea writing activity. Four universities,
Northern Michigan University, Grand Valley State University, Siena Heights
University and Western Michigan University will be embarking in a process to
address effective teacher and leader education for general and special educators
and building district leaders. The Collaboration for Effective Education
Development, Accountability and Reform (CEEDAR) Center will facilitate the
process as part of a grant received by the MDE.
D. As of January 5th, Joseph Martineau will no longer be with the department.
Venessa Keesler will move to Deputy Superintendent of the Division of
Accountability and Natasha Baker will assume the Deputy Superintendent role
for the Division of Education Services with specific oversight of the School
Reform Office. The focus of collaboration between the divisions will continue.
E. The Office of the Auditor General (OAG) gave the OSE complaint process a
rating of “effective.” The report noted that OSE was not ensuring districts were
conducting complaint resolution sessions. The administrative rule package
currently with JCAR provides timelines for districts to report the resolution
sessions. The OSE has procedures to collect this information but currently has
no authorization to require districts to report the data. The monitoring system
was also reviewed by the OAG. Measureable goals and caseload issues were
flagged and will be addressed in the monitoring system redesign.
IX.
Ex-Officio Reports
A. Department of Corrections – Laquita Featherstone reported they have been
focusing on transition for teens who are exiting the prison system.
B. EPI – Kristal Ehrhardt reported that EPI met. SPP B-17 indicator stakeholders
met with Jeff Diedrich and Jennifer Huisken LaPointe. USDE put out rules about
looking at results of teacher candidates. Those rules are out for public
comment.
C. Department of Community Health – no report
D. McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act – no report
E. Department of Human Services – James Thomas reported that transition is a
focus in their department. Assistive Technology also is a focus.
F. Michigan Rehabilitation Services – no report.
X.
SEAC Advice and Counsel: Resetting of Indicator Target for SPP #14 –
Post-Secondary Outcomes
A. Context: One of the functions of the SEAC is to advise the SEA in developing
evaluations and reporting on data to the Secretary under section 618 of the Act.
The Office of Special Education is resetting a number of the State Performance
Plan (SPP) indicator targets and will be engaging the SEAC in providing advice
and counsel on those targets. Meeting focus was on SPP Indicator #14 Postsecondary Outcomes with a goal of understanding the proposed target resets
and developing preliminary feedback on those proposals.
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 8 of 44
In September, Oren Christmas ([email protected]) and Julie Trevino
([email protected]) Performance Reporting unit at MDE-OES provided an
overview of the State Performance Plan, its history and its role in improving
opportunities for individuals with IEPs. In December, Oren and members of the
SPP #14 Team presented information on proposed target resets for SPP #14 –
Post-secondary Outcomes. The December 3, 2014 meeting packet included the
following:
-
SPP #14 Proposed Targets & Rationale PowerPoint (pages 27- 36)
Michigan’s Annual Performance Report on SPP #14 (pages 37- 45)
Michigan’s State Performance Plan for SPP #14 (pages 46 - 52)
SPP#14 Post-secondary Outcomes Technical Report (pages 53 – 148)
At the December meeting, the SEAC received information on the proposed
targets and developed preliminary feedback on those proposals. Action on the
SEAC feedback will be taken at the January 2015 meeting.
B. In preparation for the December 3 meeting, members reviewed the SPP #14
Proposed Targets and Rationale slides and Michigan’s Annual Performance
Report on SPP #14 and prepared five key ideas to understand the indicator, five
key ideas to understand the current state of improvement on the indicator and
no more than five key ideas to understand the proposed targets. A work sheet
to record key ideas was included in the December meeting bundle on page 149.
XI. SEAC Learning: SPP #17
A.
The State Performance Plan has added a new indicator – SPP #17 State
Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP). The SSIP is a comprehensive, ambitious
yet achievable multi-year plan for improving results for children with
disabilities. Phase 1 plans are to be submitted to the Office of Special
Education Programs (OSEP) by April 1, 2015.
In November, Teri Johnson and Jeff Dietrich presented an overview of SPP
#17 – State Systemic Improvement Plan. Slides from that presentation are
found on pages 11 to 17 of the December meeting bundle. At the December
meeting, Jeff Diedrich and Jennifer Huisken LaPointe of the Office of Special
Education continued the SEAC learning on SPP #17 and the work being done
by the Office to prepare its plan.
Sandi Laham captured concepts that were discussed and these will be
included in the January meeting packet.
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 9 of 44
XII.
Committee Reports
A. Finance – John Patterson reported that the committee needs data before
focusing on one specific area. MDE staff will be asked to present on data at the
February meeting.
B. Policy – Richard Spring reported that Child Find, Federal policies,
transition/transfer, Early-On and Special Education, professional development
are areas of focus.
C. Credentials – Barbara Brish reported that requirements for programs were
reviewed especially out of state teacher credentialing and ancillary staff.
Limitations and barriers will be examined.
D. Notes from the November meeting were included on pages 150-154 of the
December meeting packet.
E. Consider focus area, identify information needs, identify committee preference
for November, identify co-chair for the committee, report back to the whole
SEAC today.
XIII. Information Items1
Feedback to the Office of Special Education on Target Resetting for SPP #14 –
Post-Secondary Outcomes.
January SPP 14 - January
XIV.
Action Items
There were no action items in December.
XV.
Legislative Information
A. Early warning of financial trouble
B. Dec 11 JCAR testimony on Special Ed Rules Package
C. Information on current Michigan legislation can be found at
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%2844dcbo22ondo3a45s3v1tr55%29%29
/mileg.aspx?page=home
D. EMU withdrawal from EAA, Dec. 5
XVI.
Topics for Future Committee Consideration
A. Nothing mentioned
XVII.
Member Announcements
A. Corey Smith will be presenting on customized employment December 9 - 11,
see the Arc MI website.
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 10 of 44
XVIII. Future Agenda Considerations
A. January as a Committee of the Whole SPP 14, SPP 17 feedback, receipt of
nominations for Exec. Committee
B. February committee work only
XIX.
Process Check
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
XX.
Feedback from meeting raters - Michel DeJulian, on task, great,
Kristal Ehrhardt, participation good
John Patterson, On topic
Tom Greene, safe environment for asking questions, points clear
Dorie – compliant, respectful of others, collaboration
Meeting evaluation was sent electronically to all SEAC delegates at
approximately 2:00 p.m. If you are a member of the SEAC and do not receive
the evaluation, please notify Meredith Hines, SEAC secretary
([email protected]).
Adjournment
Motion made by Dorie France-Winegard, seconded by Richard Spring to adjourn the
meeting. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 11 of 44
What information will help prepare us to continue this dialogue
regarding the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SPP #17) in
January
Comment
I’m excited!!!
results!!!
Great moving away from punitive and towards
Context
Information on the what and how of SSP #17
How broad will the scope of this plan be? The broader the scope, the
lesser the degree of accountability for it.
Process of Analysis
Blurb on the data that has been used in this process
Who has participated in the process to date? Parents? Teachers?
MDE? Insiders? Outsiders?
Potential Impact of SSP 17
We have had many discussions of unmet needs at the SEAC. How will
this SSIP help address unmet needs?
Have you discussed changes in State rules or legislation so no one can
opt out of this ‘miracle plan’? Will this SSIP help people ‘comply’ or
‘agree’ with it?
Process Needs for Effective Advice
Having information ahead of time to prepare for the meeting
No homework for the holidays!!
Unrelated Comments that SEAC Executive Committee will address
Transition outcomes and certificate of completion
List of requirements that general education majors must meet with
regard to working with students with IEPs and/or disabilities
Increase authentic experiences in preparation of teachers to work in
classrooms of today
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 12 of 44
December 3, 2014 SEAC Meeting Evaluation
1. Did you attend the SEAC meeting on Wednesday, December 3, 2014?
No 18.8%
Yes 81.3%
Yes
81.3%
26
No
18.8%
6
Total
32
Comments
Count
Response
1
Only able to be there for first portion of morning due to other commitments
1
Very informative and interesting
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 13 of 44
1
2. What is your SEAC role?
SEAC ex-officio 11.5%
SEAC alternate 7.7%
SEAC delegate 80.8%
SEAC delegate
80.8%
21
SEAC alternate
7.7%
2
SEAC ex-officio
11.5%
3
Total
26
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 14 of 44
2
3. What impact did the meeting have on you?
2 7.7%
10 23.1%
6 7.7%
7 3.9%
8 19.2%
9 38.5%
Statistics
1
0.0%
0
Sum
213.0
2
7.7%
2
Average
8.2
3
0.0%
0
StdDev
2.1
4
0.0%
0
Max
10.0
5
0.0%
0
6
7.7%
2
7
3.9%
1
8
19.2%
5
9
38.5%
10
10
23.1%
6
Total
26
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 15 of 44
3
Comments
Count
Response
1
Although was unable to attend much of meeting, materials in packet are incredibly helpful
1
Anytime there is new learning, the impact is favorable.
1
too drawn out, to legal.
1
Alternates who attend the SEAC Meeting should be allowed to participate in discussions and activities of the SEAC group of
the whole and committees. It is absolutely necessary for alternates to have this information and actively participate in order to
fulfill the role of Alternate.
1
There was a wonderful balance of presented information and rich dialogue. The group activities were very successful.
1
I always learn a lot at these meetings. I'm at my best when I can attend in person, even when that is really difficult to do. The
meetings always seem to go by so quickly. I never feel like I get to interact and talk with as many folks as I should, but I learn
so much from those that I do get to interact with.
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 16 of 44
4
4. Did you obtain any information that you can use?
2 3.9%
4 3.9%
6 3.9%
10 30.8%
7 7.7%
8 23.1%
9 26.9%
Statistics
1
0.0%
0
Sum
217.0
2
3.9%
1
Average
8.3
3
0.0%
0
StdDev
1.9
4
3.9%
1
Max
10.0
5
0.0%
0
6
3.9%
1
7
7.7%
2
8
23.1%
6
9
26.9%
7
10
30.8%
8
Total
26
Comments
Count
Response
1
I left with the need for a lot more information before I could put any to use.
1
not really
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 17 of 44
5
5. Was your participation value added?
1 4.2%
3 4.2%
6 4.2%
7 8.3%
10 41.7%
8 16.7%
9 20.8%
Statistics
1
4.2%
1
Sum
201.0
2
0.0%
0
Average
8.4
3
4.2%
1
StdDev
2.3
4
0.0%
0
Max
10.0
5
0.0%
0
6
4.2%
1
7
8.3%
2
8
16.7%
4
9
20.8%
5
10
41.7%
10
Total
24
Comments
Count
Response
1
don't think so, not sure
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 18 of 44
6
6. What did you like best?
Count
Response
1
Activities and discussion relating to indicator 14
1
B17 activity with Jen and Jeff
1
Breaking up into groups was helpful to gain an alternate perspective.
1
Collaborative work
1
Group Activities
1
I appreciate the ladies roundtable discussion .
1
Lunch was excellent! The discussions went well and I liked the structure for the discussions
1
MDE participation and presentation very helpful in understanding what we are looking at.
1
Moving through things at a quicker pace.
1
Networking and learning new policies and procedures for the locals etc...
1
Presentations ang group work
1
Presentstions to the whole group
1
Respectful environment; can share, question, learn.
1
The group activities! The lunch was also excellent!
1
Very good presentations
1
Working in groups and small group discussion.
1
alot of good work, questions & answers. Very interactive.
1
my groups attitude
1
MDE staff support of the work SEAC is trying to accomplish! The detailed explanation of SSP 17. This was a very good
meeting.
1
I love Jeff and Jenn using the clicker to answer questions. I always enjoy hearing updates and information from all the other
attendees about what is happening where they live.
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 19 of 44
7
7. What did you like least?
Count
Response
1
Discussion groups that do not allow Alternates to participate
1
I wish SEAC would submit testimony in support of the MARSE rules package.
1
N/A
1
NA
1
No hot coffee or tea in the afternoon.
1
Not enough time.
1
Nothing
1
Really nothing
1
Sometimes I feel some of the stuff goes right over my head .
1
The broad survey questions made it hard to rank, but the activity itself was great.
1
The drive!
1
all the legals. It really doesn't seem to make a change if the department has made up their minds
1
Afternoon discussion after 2 pm. It felt as if we were just filling time rather than having meaningful discussion,
1
The big question activity in the afternoon. Not everyone understood the question. In addition, not everyone understands how
the work SEAC does directly benefits students with disabilities. Hindsight - maybe some background information to highlight
what that looked like in the past?
1
I dislike the lengthy drive. I wish I had more flexible child care so that I could participate as an exec committee member. I also
dislike that we seem to have the same central issues presenting themselves repeatedly without any change or
acknowledgement. Graduation rate, personal curriculum were among those identified by my table.
1
Presentation with clickers was very confusing and not easy for those who are not in an administrative or governmental
position to understand.
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 20 of 44
8
8. Comments
Count
Response
1
I think that lunch was good.
1
Sharon you're an excellent chair
1
Since it's winter, maybe LCC can leave the hot water and coffee into the afternoon!
1
Thank you for all the hard work organizing these meetings. I find them to be remarkably informative and inspiring.
1
The executive committee has done and excellent job planning and executing the seac meetings! Thanks for all you do!
1
Joanne did a nice job of filling in for Teri. Lunch was okay but I prefer when we eat upstairs rather than in our meeting room. It
breaks up the day.
1
Thought time was used well and was at a good pace matching what was expected to be done to the time needed to do the
work.
1
The committee is very informative and useful for teachers, administrators, parents, and parents of student(s) with a disability.
1
Alternates should be included in our discussions. If they need to sit in for the delegate they need to know what is happening.
1
I am sorry people complain about the food. It is always delicious and I'm grateful that you feed us ... no matter what is on the
menu :-) I know there is a great deal of planning by the executive board and I appreciate the work that goes into planning for
the day.
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 21 of 44
9
WANTED: Nominations for 2015-16 SEAC Executive Committee
The SEAC bylaws call for the election of a seven member Executive Committee by April of
each year and outlines a process for nominating, voting for the committee, and electing its
officers. Step 1 of that process describes the nomination of members. Nominations can be
made by committees, by members of the SEAC and by the member his/herself.
A minimum of seven nominees are needed.
The standing committees (if any) shall nominate members for the Executive Committee by
considering the following criteria for representation on the Executive Committee:
1.
Term expiration dates for each SEAC member indicated on the current SEAC
Membership list. (Members of the SEAC are appointed by the State Board of
Education for terms of three years, except as provided in PA 240 of 1983.)
2.
SEAC monthly attendance records provided by the OSE-EIS.
3.
Current Executive Committee members who are eligible and willing to serve on the
Executive Committee for the following SEAC year to provide experienced leadership
from one year to the next.
4.
At least one member of each of the SEAC standing committees (if any) who is
eligible and willing to serve on the Executive Committee must also be willing to chair
a standing committee (if any) for the following SEAC year. (SEAC By-laws state that
the Chairperson of the SEAC shall designate members of the Executive Committee to
chair each standing committee (if any).
5.
SEAC Defined Members are indicated by an asterisk on the SEAC membership list.
6.
The SEAC Executive Committee is responsible for providing leadership to the SEAC
by:
•
•
•
•
•
Establishing the preliminary agenda with the advice of the OSE-EIS,
Serving as leaders and spokespersons of the SEAC and its standing
committees (If any),
Directing and participating in discussion at meetings,
Facilitating the work of the SEAC, and
Providing extra support and assistance to new SEAC members.
Each SEAC standing committee (if any) provides a nomination list to the Executive
Committee before the SEAC February meeting date.
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 22 of 44
Michigan Special Education Advisory Committee
Public Comment on
Special Education Programs and Services (2013-116ED)
Regarding Changes to the Michigan Administrative Rules for Special Education
Submitted on March 11, 2014
to the
Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services
Michigan Department of Education
P.O. Box 30008
Lansing, MI 48909
The Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) is Michigan’s Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandated State Advisory Panel to the State
Board of Education and the Michigan Department of Education (MDE). The members
of the SEAC represent a broad diversity of stakeholders – administrators, providers,
advocates and consumers -- concerned with the education of all children, including
students with disabilities. IDEA identifies one of the duties of the State Advisory
Panel to comment publicly on any rules or regulations proposed by the State
regarding the education of children with disabilities. The SEAC welcomes this
opportunity to publicly comment on the proposed changes to the Michigan
Administrative Rules for Special Education as presented in 2013-116ED Special
Education Programs and Services published in the March 1, 2014 Michigan Register.
The SEAC would like to thank the Michigan Department of Education for its
ongoing support and dialogue regarding the proposed rules. The SEAC has had the
benefit of ongoing education on the process of rules promulgation, the concepts
underpinning the proposed timeline changes, ample opportunity to ask questions
for clarification regarding the process of rule promulgation and proposed concepts
and to engage in dialogue with the department regarding these changes in context.
That process of education and engagement has helped us as a diverse body
understand the driving forces behind these changes and appreciate the step
forward that many of these proposed changes potentially mean.
Page 1 of 7 SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 23 of 44
SEAC MARSE Comment
March 11, 2014
We would be remiss if we did not comment about the advantage this ongoing
dialogue and opportunity for supported learning has given the members of the
SEAC in understanding the intent, purpose and context for these changes and in
our support of many of these changes.
The SEAC is supportive of the concepts
behind the proposed changes regarding timelines.
We believe that these
conceptual changes will bring the process of determining initial eligibility closer to
the intent and purpose of the process - a collaborative, data gathering and
evaluation process to not only determine if a need for special education programs
and services exists, but the exact nature of the educational needs.
We whole-
heartedly support the differentiation between the data gathering process of the
initial evaluation and the development of the IEP.
Unfortunately, this intent does
not always seem to match the actual language of the proposed rule and/or is not
clearly articulated. Further, given the nature of rule language, the intent is not fully
described nor explained. As such, the wording of proposed changes leave open the
door to different understandings and meanings when read by a member of the
public in general. We believe that it is imperative to clarify that language. In the
absence of additional clarification, we believe that the good intent of these changes
will be lost in confusion around what they mean as practitioners attempt to put
changed language into current context. As a consequence, we believe that districts
will operate differently based upon their interpretation and the hoped for change in
practice will not materialize.
The public comment of the Michigan Special Education Committee is
organized into four topical areas:
general provisions, timelines, qualifications of
teachers and other personnel, and intermediate district plan.
Within each topical
area, comment is presented by those areas of changes supported and followed by
those areas of change where clarification is required.
Definitions (R340.1701a to R340.1717)
The SEAC is in support of the following changes:
-
R340.1701a – Definitions: A to D
Page 2 of 7 SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 24 of 44
SEAC MARSE Comment
March 11, 2014
-
R340.1701b – Definitions: I to P
-
R340.1705 – Cognitive impairment; determination
-
R340.1706 – Emotional impairment; determination; evaluation report
-
R340.1707 – Hearing impairment explained; determination
-
R340.1708 – Visual impairment explained; determination
-
R340.1709 – “Physical impairment” defined; determination
-
R340.1709a – “Other health impairment” defined; determination
-
R340.1711
–
“Early
childhood
developmental
delay”
defined;
determination
-
R340.1713 – Specific learning disability defined; determination
-
R340.1714 – Severe multiple impairment; determination
-
R340.1716 “Traumatic brain injury” defined; determination
-
R340.1717 – Deaf-blindness defined; determination
We recognize that these changes in definitions result from the proposed changes to
the timelines during the initial evaluation process.
With regard to the four remaining items with the general provisions section,
the SEAC supports with modifications the following:
R340.1702 – “Student with a disability” defined: Item (2) uses the phrase ‘a
group of qualified professionals’.
There are several points where additional
clarification is necessary. First, in item (2)(c), parents are included in the list of
qualified professionals. As presented, it could be interpreted to mean that parents
require some kind of qualifications to participate in the process.
Parents do not
have to be ‘qualified’ to participate in the determination of eligibility.
Rather,
eligibility and the educational needs of a student shall be determined by the
parents and a group of qualified professionals. Further, in item (2)(d), the
proposed change states “…general education teacher qualified to teach a student of
his or her age or, for a child less than school age, an individual qualified by the
department to teach a child or his or her age.”
and is open to a variety of interpretations.
qualified’ in this context?
The term ‘qualified’ is not defined
Does the term ‘qualified’ mean ‘highly
Assuming ‘qualified’ means ‘highly qualified’, it is not
clear how this applies to teachers of students between the ages of birth to three
Page 3 of 7 SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 25 of 44
SEAC MARSE Comment
March 11, 2014
and those teachers working with students over the age of 18.
Specificity is
required: either in defining the term ‘qualified’ or in articulating who is qualified
within these rules.
In its absence, we believe that individuals without the benefit
of clarification available to SEAC members may not understand the meaning of the
statement.
Additionally, with regard to R340.1702 – “Student with a disability” defined:
item (3)(b) states ‘Completed the requirements for a regular high school diploma”
as one of two determinants of the end of the entitlement to special education for a
student who qualifies.
This statement may raise questions with regard to students
who are given a certificate of completion and that with that receipt, their
entitlement to a free, appropriate public education ceases.
We understand that
the ‘awarding’ of a certificate of completion has no meaning with regard to the end
of an eligible student’s entitlement to a free, appropriate, public education. That
being said, as stated, the language does little to end the confusion about a
certification of completion.
We believe that considerable confusion exists with
regard to this and that individuals without the benefit of clarification available to
SEAC members may not understand the meaning of the statement.
R340.1710 “Speech and language impairment” defined; determination:
deletes item (4) that states ‘A student who has a communication disorder, but
whose primary disability is other than speech and language may be eligible for
speech and language services under R340.1745(a).’
Removal of this statement
appears to cloud if students who are eligible under a different eligibility definition
and have needs for speech and language services are eligible for those services
and as such, they may be denied services.
Greater clarification is required and
retaining this statement as part of R340.1710 provides that.
In its absence, we
believe that individuals without the benefit of clarification available to SEAC
members may not understand the meaning of the statement.
R340.1715 Autism spectrum disorder defined; determination: Item (6)(5)
identifies assessments required to make this determination. As stated, it appears
that a psychologist or psychiatrist, authorized provider of speech and language
under R340.1745(d) and a school social worker are part of the process of
determining eligibility.
We have concerns that as stated, it appears to limit others
Page 4 of 7 SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 26 of 44
SEAC MARSE Comment
March 11, 2014
from participating in the evaluation process as opposed to describing who, at a
minimum, must be involved.
Timelines (R340.1721 to R340.1724i)
The SEAC is supportive of the concepts behind the proposed changes
regarding timelines.
We believe that these conceptual changes will bring the
process of determining initial eligibility closer to the intent and purpose of the
process - a collaborative, data gathering and evaluation process to not only
determine if a need for special education programs and services exists, but the
exact nature of the educational needs.
The SEAC is in full support of the following
six proposed section changes with regard to timelines:
-
R340.1721 Request for initial evaluation
-
R340.1721a Initial evaluation
-
R340.1721e Individualized education program
-
R340.1722 District responsibilities
-
R340.1724d Mediation
-
R340.1724i Reimbursement
With regard to the two remaining items with the timelines section, the SEAC
supports with modifications the following:
R340.1721b Time lines: We whole-heartedly support the differentiation
between the data gathering process of the initial evaluation and the development of
the IEP.
That being said, the wording of proposed changes leave open the door to
different understandings and meanings when read by a member of the public in
general. Differentiating the data gathering process of the initial evaluation and the
development of the IEP places the emphasis on figuring out what before focusing
on how to help.
steps.
What is less clear and not explicit is the link between these two
In the absence of this clarity, we wonder if these proposed changes will
address the problem they are meant to solve. We believe that it is imperative to
clarify that language. In the absence of additional clarification, we believe that the
good intent of these changes to the timelines around initial evaluation will be lost in
Page 5 of 7 SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 27 of 44
SEAC MARSE Comment
March 11, 2014
confusion around what they mean as practitioners attempt to put changed language
into current context. As a consequence, we believe that little will change and the
hoped for change in practice behind these changes will not materialize.
R340.1724f Due process complaints; procedures: Throughout this section,
time is referred to as ‘days’ or ‘school days’.
It was explained to the SEAC that
when ‘days’ is used, it refers to calendar days versus when the term ‘school days’ is
used, it refers to days in which school is in session. The members of the SEAC are
appreciative of that explanation and have concern that in the absence of
clarification, the specific meaning of these terms may not be understood.
We
believe that individuals without the benefit of clarification available to SEAC
members may not understand the meaning of the statement and as such,
clarification is necessary.
Qualifications of Teachers and Other Personnel (R340.1784 to R340.1799c)
The SEAC is supportive of updating of the language when referring to
individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and the teachers who support these
individuals. The SEAC is in full support of the change to R340.1799c Teachers of
students who are deaf or hard of hearing, special requirements.
With regard to the two other items with the qualifications of teachers and
other personnel section, the SEAC supports with modifications the following:
R340.1784 Deaf or hard of hearing education specialist: As presented, the
deaf or hard of hearing education specialist appears to be a teacher with an
endorsement in hearing impairment or in deaf or hard of hearing whose job
description may include any or all of the activities listed in item (2). It is unclear to
the SEAC why elements of a job description would appear in the description of
qualifications of other personnel. Given that the specialist is required to have an
endorsement in hearing impairment or deaf or hard of hearing, it is not clear how
the addition of this specialist would address a shortage of teachers prepared to
educate students who are deaf or hard of hearing.
Assuming this is a job
description for a teacher consultant supporting students who are deaf or hard of
hearing, it appears that “identify and coordinate accommodations and modification
of the school environment for a student to obtain access to general education
Page 6 of 7 SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 28 of 44
SEAC MARSE Comment
March 11, 2014
curriculum” is missing.
Second, in item (2)(e), replacing ‘students from birth to
age 26’ with ‘eligible students’ clarifies this job expectation. Last, given that this
appears to be a job description as opposed to qualifications, we wonder if these
individuals would be prepared to complete functional assessments and create
behavior intervention plans.
R340.1785 Vision education specialist:
As presented, the vision education
specialist appears to be a teacher with an endorsement in visual impairment whose
job description may include any or all of the activities listed in item (2).
It is
unclear to the SEAC why elements of a job description would appear in the
description of qualifications of other personnel. Given that the specialist is required
to have an endorsement in visual impairment, it is not clear how the addition of this
specialist would address a shortage of teachers prepared to educate students who
have visual impairments.
Intermediate School District Plans (R340.1832)
The SEAC supports with clarification the proposed changes to R340.1832
Content areas of the intermediate school district plan.
Our dialogue on this item
resulted in many questions with regard to the practicality of these assurances, the
ability of districts to meet these assurances and what an assurance is.
With
regard to proposed item (d), we wonder about the practicality of doing this, in
particular in larger intermediate school districts with a large number of programs
and districts providing programs.
We understand that the elimination of the
description of transportation was deemed necessary as transportation has no legal
basis for being in the intermediate school district plan. That being said, we fear
that in the absence of explanation, individuals reading this will perceive this as a
loss and reject these changes due to lack of understanding.
We believe that
individuals without the benefit of clarification available to SEAC members may not
understand the meaning of these statements and perceive these changes as an
inherent loss of service.
Page 7 of 7 SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 29 of 44
Office of Special Education
Proposed Rule Set
2013-116 ED
December 11, 2014
Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Presenters
Venessa Keesler, PhD
Deputy Superintendent, Michigan Department of Education
Teri Johnson Chapman, EdS
Director, Office of Special Education
Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
December 11, 2014
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 30 of 44
Agenda
  Purpose and Intent of the Rule Set
  Stakeholder Involvement and Public
Comment
  Response to Public Comment
  Commitment to Compliance
Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
December 11, 2014
Purpose and Intent
of the Rule Set
Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
December 11, 2014
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 31 of 44
Improve Compliance for
Improved Student Outcomes
Rule Set 2013-116 ED makes changes to a variety of
existing Rule. The purpose and intent of the changes is to:
  Improve Language —
  Remove confusion, eliminate redundancy, and remove
conflict with state and federal law.
  Improve Evaluations and Clarify the Child Find Process –
  Provide for a longer period of time for districts to conduct
full and comprehensive evaluations.
  Produce deeper data and information about students for
better decision-making.
  Clearly distinguish between processes for public school
students and nonpublic school students.
Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
December 11, 2014
Improve Compliance for
Improved Student Outcomes
Purpose and intent continued…
  Improve and Clarify Processes —
  Streamline the system for developing and
approving Intermediate School District Plans for
the Delivery of Special Education.
  Improve the timely administration of Due Process
Hearings and district payments for Due Process
costs.
Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
December 11, 2014
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 32 of 44
Stakeholder
Involvement and
Public Comment
Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
December 11, 2014
Stakeholder Involvement
  Over a period of a year and a half, the Office of
Special Education presented ideas and concepts
to stakeholder groups across the State and
collected and used feedback to draft the Rule
Set.
  Stakeholder involvement included:
  Parent Advisory Committees
  Leadership and Consumers of Intermediate and
Local School Districts
  Special Education Service Providers
  Advocacy Groups
  Professional Organizations
  The State Special Education Advisory Committee.
Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
December 11, 2014
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 33 of 44
Public Comment
 Rule Set 2013-116 ED was approved on
January 2, 2014.
 Public Comment was accepted between
February 13, 2014 and March 13, 2014.
 A web page was established to provide the
public with access to information about the
Rule Set. This information included a series
of videos that were collectively downloaded
over 3,500 times.
Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
December 11, 2014
Public Comment
  Two public hearings were held.
  Lansing
  Detroit
  Public Comment was accepted through a variety of
methods, including:
  Online
  Public hearing
  U.S. Mail
  Hand delivery
  Email (added at public request)
  1622 individuals and organizations submitted public
comment.
Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
December 11, 2014
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 34 of 44
Response to
Public Comment
Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
December 11, 2014
Process
  After careful review of each individual public
comment
  31 changes were made to the original proposed
rule set.
  Decisions and recommendations regarding
changes to the original proposed rule set were
made in the best interest of students.
  These recommendations were made to
maintain the authority of the Department to
ensure district compliance and accountability.
Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
December 11, 2014
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 35 of 44
Changes made to proposed
original rule set
The following are six of the changes made to the
proposed rule set in response to public comment:
1.  Multidisciplinary Evaluation Team
2.  Initial Determination of Eligibility
3.  Eligibility Criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder
4.  Definition of Student with a Disability
5.  Consent for Initial Provision of Programs and
Services
6.  Extensions to Evaluation Timelines
Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
December 11, 2014
Recommendation
Multidisciplinary Evaluation Team
  Changed the proposed rule.
  The term “Multidisciplinary Evaluation Team”
was retained in the rule.
This change is good for students in that it
maintains an existing and recognizable name for
the initial evaluation team. It will allow for clear
communication between parents and districts on
behalf of the student.
Rule 1701b(b)
Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
December 11, 2014
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 36 of 44
Recommendation
Initial Determination of Eligibility
  Changed the proposed rule.
  The language was changed to identify the
parent as a distinct participant in the process for
determining eligibility.
This change is good for students in that, consistent
with federal law, it emphasizes the primacy of the
parent as a distinct team member in determining
student eligibility.
Rule 1702(2)
Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
December 11, 2014
Recommendation
Eligibility Criteria for Autism Spectrum
Disorder
  Changed the proposed rule.
  The term “including” was changed to “that may include.”
The change removes the confusion that seemed to be
created by the original proposed language.
Nothing was changed in the eligibility criteria for Autism.
Rule 1715(3)(a)(i); 1715(3)(b)(i)
Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
December 11, 2014
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 37 of 44
Recommendation
Definition of Student with a Disability
  Did not change the proposed rule.
  The proposed language does not change the
amount of time a student with an IEP may take
to complete their requirements for a high school
diploma.
This change is good for students in that it creates
consistency with federal law and is intended to
drive districts to improve transition planning and
begin transition planning as early as possible.
Rule 1702(4)(b)
Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
December 11, 2014
Recommendation
Consent for Initial Provision
of Programs and Services
  Did not change the proposed rule.
  The language is consistent with the federal process and
district requirements regarding the initial provision of
programs and services.
This change is good for students because it creates
consistency between Michigan Rule and federal law. This
language makes it easier for districts to understand their
responsibilities for students who are new to the special
education system.
Rule 1721b
Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
December 11, 2014
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 38 of 44
Recommendation
Extensions to Evaluation Timelines
  Did not change the proposed rule.
  The language removes a long-standing option for
districts to extend initial evaluation timelines.
This change is good for students in that it does not
allow for evaluation timelines to be extended.
Compliance with evaluation timelines ensures that there
will be no delay in providing special education programs
and services to students.
Rule 1721b(1)
Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
December 11, 2014
Commitment to Compliance
  The Office of Special Education is committed to
improving educational results for students with
disabilities in the State of Michigan.
  The Office of Special Education is committed to
ensuring special education compliance in
Michigan.
  We embrace the concept of Results Driven
Accountability.
  Ensuring district compliance and accountability
requires a set of rules that is consistent with
federal law and provides clear compliance
language.
Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
December 11, 2014
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 39 of 44
Commitment to Compliance
  Under the authority given to the Department in:
  Michigan Compiled Law
  Federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
  Michigan Administrative Rules for the Special
Education
the OSE has the responsibility to promulgate rules and
continue to improve the rules to move forward in
establishing a solid foundation of compliance for
Michigan school districts.
  With approval of the changes proposed in Rule Set
2013-116 ED, the Department will continue to
fulfill the supervisory responsibility and authority
to clarify requirements for districts and ensure the
the enforcement of compliance.
Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
December 11, 2014
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 40 of 44
Michigan Special Education Advisory Committee
Feedback on Proposed Targets for
State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicators #14 Postsecondary Outcomes
January 7, 2015
One of the duties of the Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAC) is to advise the
SEA in developing evaluations and reporting data to the Secretary under section 618 of the
Act.
On September 10, 2014, the Michigan Department of Education Office of Special
Education (MDE-OSE) presented information on the State Performance Plan and Annual
Performance Report to provide context for the resetting of a number of State Performance
Plan targets. On December 3, 2014, the MDE-OSE presented information on the proposed
targets for State Performance Plan (SPP) Indicator #14 – Postsecondary Outcomes.
The
SEAC then engaged in dialogue with regard to these proposals to assure understanding of
the indicator and the implications of the targets being set.
The
SEAC
welcomes
this
opportunity
to
provide
advice
to
Measurement of performance is essential if we are to improve outcomes.
the
MDE-OSE.
We appreciate
that the indicators and their definitions are from the Secretary through the Office of Special
Education Programs and that the MDE-OSE cannot change the definitions.
In reviewing
these indicators, their definitions and considering these targets, we found ourselves asking
questions with regard to the number of respondents replying to the survey and clarity of the
definitions.
While the reported response rate of 23.4% is statistically significant, we
wonder about the respondents and if those respondents are truly representative of all those
who exit the system.
We wonder if those who reply to the survey and/or are reached have
a different postsecondary experience than those who do not have a current or stable
address and thereby, cannot reply.
We also wonder about the definitions and stakeholder
groups clearly understanding the intent of the indicator.
While we appreciate that these
definitions can not be changed, actions to help stakeholder groups understand this measure
and develop clarity around these definitions might help.
We also wonder if the response
rate would increase if the survey was received in an envelope from the department rather
than from a university that may not have any tie to the exiting student or is not housed in a
geographic location near the exiting student.
SEAC Feedback: State Performance Plan Indicator #14 Postsecondary Outcomes
Defined:
Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had individualized
education programs (IEPs) in effect at the time they left school, and were enrolled in higher
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 41 of 44
education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively
employed or in some other employment within one year of learning high school.
Measure:
Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had individualized
education programs (IEPs) in effect at the time they left school, and were enrolled in higher
education within one year of leaving high school.
Current State (Targets & Actual Data)
FFY
Target
Actual Data
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Baseline
≥34.3%
≥34.3%
≥34.3%
TBD
32.6%
31.7%
33.3%
38.3%
33.58%
Proposed Targets
FFY
Proposal
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
33.00%
33.25%
33.50%
33.75%
34.00%
34.25%
SEAC Feedback on Proposed Target - Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving
high school
Given the information presented to the SEAC with regard to this subset of the
indicator and the unanswered questions we have regarding the data and how it was
collected, we believe that the target as presented is appropriate. Specific to the collection
of the data, we wondered what accounts for the increase in the number of students enrolled
in higher education for the data collected for FFY 2012 (38.3%) and the decrease in that
number for FFY 2013 (33.58%).
We wondered about the diversity and determination of
these cohorts and to what extent that might explain these differences.
We based our conclusion that the target as presented is appropriate on factors other
than the data that was presented to the panel.
Enrollment in higher education is related to
an individual’s ability to fund that education. In the absence of additional information, the
cost of higher education could be a barrier influencing this measure.
factors influence one’s choice to pursue a higher education.
Further, economic
In addition to the cost of
tuition, those factors include sufficient income to support going to school in lieu of working
and the availability of work making work more attractive than going to school.
In the
absence of more specific information about what is influencing enrollment, our advice is to
adopt the proposed targets as presented.
Defined:
Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had individualized
education programs (IEPs) in effect at the time they left school, and were enrolled in higher
education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively
employed or in some other employment within one year of learning high school.
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 42 of 44
Measure:
Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had individualized
education programs (IEPs) in effect at the time they left school, and were enrolled in higher
education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school.
Current State (Targets & Actual Data)
FFY
Target
Actual Data
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Baseline
≥58.4%
≥58.4%
≥58.4%
TBD
55.5%
53.00%
61.00%
62.20%
63.18%
Proposed Targets
FFY
Proposal
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
59.00%
59.50%
60.00%
60.50%
61.00%
61.50%
SEAC Feedback on Proposed Target - Enrolled in higher education or competitively
employed within one year of leaving high school
Given the information presented to the SEAC, the targets as proposed appear to be
too low.
We continue to have concerns with regard to the definition for this measure and
the understanding –or misreading – of the ‘or’ within it.
Looking at the actual data, we
wonder about the differences in the rates reported and what accounts for the differences in
the rates reported.
Given the current actual data, we recommend that the target for the
baseline for this measure be set at 61% for FFY 2013 and that measure increase
incrementally at the rate of 0.5% annually for a FFY 2018 target of 63.5%.
Defined:
Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had individualized
education programs (IEPs) in effect at the time they left school, and were enrolled in higher
education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively
employed or in some other employment within one year of learning high school.
Measure:
Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had individualized
education programs (IEPs) in effect at the time they left school, and were enrolled in higher
education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively
employed or in some other employment within one year of leaving high school.
Current State (Targets & Actual Data)
FFY
Target
Actual Data
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Baseline
≥58.4%
≥58.4%
≥58.4%
TBD
68.0%
67.1%
72.2%
73.5%
77.1%
Proposed Targets
FFY
Proposal
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
71.50%
72.00%
72.50%
73.00%
73.50%
74.00%
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 43 of 44
SEAC Feedback on Proposed Target - Enrolled in higher education or some other
postsecondary education or training program, or competitively employed within one year of
leaving high school
Given the information presented to the SEAC, the targets as proposed appear to be
too low.
The rationale for establishing a baseline less than the actual data for FFY 2011,
2012 and 2013 is unclear as is the establishment of targets that are less than current levels
of performance on this indicator.
What the specific target should be, however, is less clear,
other than to say this appears to be too low. In the absence of additional information (i.e.,
what is available throughout the state), the SEAC does not have sufficient information to
better advise on the target and the current level of performance on it.
Further, the relationship between the establishment of this target and the
consequences for local school districts is not clear.
We do not want local districts to be
‘dinged’ for failing to achieve this target given the variability in local conditions with regard
to access to higher education or some other postsecondary education or training program or
competitive employment. An established state target might not readily translate to a local
level given the variability of communities – and their local economic conditions and
community cultures – throughout our state.
We wonder how local districts would be
impacted by even the slightest of changes in these numbers.
The Michigan Special Education Advisory Committee welcomes the opportunity to
provide feedback to the Michigan Department of Education Office of Special Education.
The
panel finds challenging the feedback timeline on these proposed targets, given the
complexity of the measures, explanations of means to derive proposed targets and the
amount of time required by consider these data and drill down to understand its meaning.
The logic or statistical method for deriving targets over time is not readily apparent in the
information presented to the panel. Further, the meaning of achieving these targets – or
more specifically, failing to meet these targets – for individual school districts is not clear.
Time invested with the panel in dialogue regarding these issues will enhance the feedback
from the panel. Ultimately, the hope of these efforts is to improve outcomes for students
with IEPs and by doing so, impacting the lives and success of these children.
The panel is a
committed partner with the Michigan Department of Education and Office of Special
Education in doing that work and we look forward to offering our advice and counsel as this
work moves forward.
SEAC January 7, 2015 Meeting Bundle
Page 44 of 44