|
 |
|
|
Home » Information » State/Federal Correspondence » SEAC SEAC
October 1, 2008 Brief Notes to the State Board of Education Focus On… Continuous Improvement Monitoring System (CIMS-2) presented by Teresita Long of OSE/EIS: Administrative Rule Package with Complaint Rules and Procedures presented by Dr. Joanne Winkelman and Harvalee Saunto of OSE-EIS Rules that are in effect (as of 09/11/08) SEAC year-end reports (2008) Points of Interest: • Interagency Common Calendar Community Room; access the common calendar at http://www.cenmi.org/Events.asp; sign up for the common calendar at www.learnport.org. Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services, OSE-EIS Unit Updates October 16, 2007 From Dianne Easterling: State Aid " All districts, ISDs and PSAs completed the filing of the SE-4096 Special Education Actual Cost Report and the SE-4094 Transportation Expenditure Report in a timely manner. No one's state aid payment is being held. Kudos go to Kevin Magin and Kim Hooper from Wayne RESA who had 100% filing compliance from their ISD (over 100 entities for each report). Thanks Guys. " We are awaiting conference committee action the State School Aid Act for 2007-08. Information will be shared as soon as it is available. From Matt Korolden: Transition " SPP 13 Update o PSC received first round of data back 9/11/07. At this point the data is 90% in. o Projected to have preliminary data by Oct. 25. " SPP 14 Update o Data collection is closed and is now being scanned. Target date is Oct. 25 for preliminary results. " Coordinated Secondary IEP Trainer-of-Trainers Design Project o Transition core team is facilitating the assembly of a workgroup to help design a package of interventions to improve Indicator 13 results. o Project focus: Training modules to improve the performance of SPP 13 by the people who are doing the IEP planning and implementing. o Desired Impact: Build even statewide capacity to consistently implement coordinated IEP and improve performance on SPP Indicator 13 so that students are prepared for post-secondary success. " IEP/EDP Alignment o Transition Core team in conjunction with Public Sector Consultants will be conducting a pilot project to identify alignment between student planning elements. o Four main ideas emerged from preliminary work with volunteer pilot sites: Ã?Â? Many teachers don't know that the EDP exists. Ã?Â? De-duplication Ã?Â? The PLAFFP is a possible location for alignment between EDP and IEP Ã?Â? The EDP can be used to improve the quality/compliance of the IEP (SPP 13) From Harvalee Saunto: Acting Due Process Hearing Coordinator Work continues on verification of data for SPP/APR; and preparation for the OSEP visit in November. From Joanne Winkelman: Policy Coordinator " The Michigan Department of Education (MDE) has been notified by the United States Department of Education (USDOE) that the Michigan Test for Teacher Certification elementary education test would no longer be accepted as an option to demonstrate competence as a highly qualified classroom secondary special education teacher who teaches core academic subjects. The MTTC elementary education test has been deemed inappropriate for use by a secondary level special education teacher to demonstrate competence across the core curriculum. o The USDOE has determined that this test is appropriate for a teacher assigned to an elementary (grades K-5) or a self-contained special education classroom in grades 6-8. o If a special education teacher has a K-8 certificate, they are highly qualified to teach any special education class K-8. They do not need to take the elementary test. o The MTTC elementary education test is not acceptable for grades 6-8 that operate departmentalized programs. o More information will be coming out on this soon including how to meet HQ for a self-contained special education teacher who has students who take MI-Access and MEAP. An official memorandum addressing this development will be issued by the Superintendent's Office shortly. " The Extended School Year Standards are in draft form and will be ready for public input soon. It is anticipated that the hearings will be scheduled in November. From Teresita Long: Acting CIMs Coordinator " Verification review visits continue this month around the state and will include a "Real time" component. A preliminary report will be provided upon conclusion of the visit. The Verification process examines a district's SPSR to determine that it was conducted with fidelity to the established guidelines. Additionally, it verifies that noncompliance items were identified and corrected. This is a required component of OSE/EIS implementation of Part B. " Monthly Monitor conference calls were initiated last month. The October call is scheduled for Thursday, 10/18 at 9:00 a.m. A face-to-face meeting with monitors is scheduled for Monday, December 10 at the Lansing Sheraton. The CIMS Advisory Team will be meeting on Friday, October 26 at Clinton RESA. The agenda will include CIMS Cycle II. " The second round of districts is being identified for site visitations for Disproportionality. A memo from Sally Vaughn, Deputy Superintendent, will be forthcoming. Visitations for districts with disproportionality for 05/06 and 06/07 will conclude by mid-January 2008. Findings need to be included in the APR due to OSEP on February 1, 2008. Technical assistance will be provided to impacted districts. " Thank you for your feedback on the proposed You may contact Teresita Long, Acting CIMS Coordinator, at (517) 335-0474 or by email: Longt1@michigan.gov. Flowthrough Grants " Final Reports and IFERs for all grants were due August 29, 2007. Please submit any Final Reports and IFERs that are outstanding. " Some ISDs still have modifications that need to be completed and submitted before funds can be made available. Â? Disproportionality: In approximately one week, the data verification process for 2006-2007 disproportionate representation will begin with districts. ISD Directors will receive electronic and hard copy notifications and CDs with student level data. Following data verification, there will be an expected orientation for districts (November) required to participate in the site review process (December/January). The process must be completed prior to the February 1 submission of the APR, so that we can identify the number of districts who have disproportionate representation related to inappropriate identification policies/procedures/practices. " CEPI is working to recode special education instructional ancillary facilities as either schools or programs, to the extent this is possible. Many/most special education ancillary facilities are center programs. The recoding decisions will be made in the near future--probably the next 4-6 wks. We have the opportunity to convene a group to meet with representatives of other key MDE offices to provide input to these decisions and discuss any possible impacts of the decisions. If you're willing to assist, please email Fran Loose this week at LooseF@michigan.gov . From Darren Warner: Data coordinator A memorandum will soon be going out to ISD directors of special education and those who submit data from the Registry of Educational Personnel (REP). The purpose of the memo is to assist districts in properly reporting their special education teachers and personnel. The OSE/EIS has been working closely with the Center for Performance and Information (CEPI) to compile the letter. Look for it to be sent out on a variety of listservs next week. From David Smith: State Improvement Grant (SIG) " The SIG's "Michigan Mathematics Program Improvement" (MMPI) continues training in " MMPI "awareness" presentations were done at recent MALDE and the Michigan Council of Teachers of Mathematics conferences. MMPI trainers will also do breakout Administrative Outreach component " No news on backcasting. " Proposed elimination of this program (and transportation reimbursement) via federal regulations is still a hot national issue. Detroit Free Press had story (10-2-07) on impact for Fee-For Service component " Medicaid State Plan amendment was submitted to the CMS on 3-7-07 for LPN and rate-setting changes; the work group continues to meet monthly with next meeting Oct 23rd in o The official response from CMS to o The proposed process for cost reporting to Medicaid will require your business officials to provide more detailed costs of "health services" staff by discipline (i.e., speech, OT, PT, etc). o After CMS approves details, Medicaid will be publishing the new reporting forms, details of changes in policy, conducting training of business officials and your Medicaid coordinators, and other info. o In short, the proposed changes include stricter requirements for reimbursement for speech services, to eliminate services provided by Teachers of Speech Language Impaired kids who do not have CCCs unless they are supervised by someone w/ CCCs. It is possible that granting speech professionals' licensure (SB 493) could help deal with this issue. There is an informal committee studying the various solutions to this. " The process CMS has required Michigan to use for this rate reimbursement project was formally proposed as new federal regs, published 1-18-07 in Fed Register by CMS. Virtually NO Medicaid program in US supported these proposed regs; even Congress opposes. Federal. Federal CMS has issued three sets of proposed regulations to directly or indirectly cut SBS funding or large portions of it (by re-defining what services are covered; eliminating transportation and administrative outreach; re-working reimbursement requirements). Most of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) online course offers up to .3 SBE CEUs. This course is FREE and Dept of Ed is a partner; link here: http://www.mitbitraining.org/ For staff whom you would like to receive periodic emails from me, please have them send me an email with their name, title, phone and fax numbers and email address, and I&ll add them ReaganJ@michigan.gov Stephanie Kujaczynski, Early Childhood Special Education Consultant, will be sitting in for Lindy Buch. Early On: " Please remember that all children birth to three who are eligible for Michigan special education services are ALSO protected by all Part C rules and requirements unless the parents opt out IN WRITING of Part C (this has come up again, although it was in our August update). " Similarly, provision of Early On services is not optional, even for children birth to three who are not eligible for special education, but who do meet " Just a reminder that "the feds are coming" November 13-16. We are very busy preparing for this event. " Preliminary child outcomes data indicate that children are making progress while enrolled in Part C. Early Childhood Special Education " SPP Indicator #12 - Early childhood transition (from C to B: Percentage of children referred from Part C who have IEPs implemented by their third birthdays) o Data in hand indicates that we have "slipped" from 91% compliance to 84% compliance; this will be a huge issue unless we can somehow figure out that the problem is a data issue rather than a real issue. Stefanie is working on it and may be in contact with you as our data system doesn't easily capture the information that would allow us to analyze the problem. o (also applies to SPP #11 - child find) When realizing that the deadlines for these indicators may not be met because of certain circumstances (listed in SRSD), it is critical that you document a mutually-agreed-upon extension (between families and program) to maintain compliance. Where such documentation exists, the situation is treated as if compliant and meeting the deadline. " SPP Indicator #7 - Early childhood outcomes o Early childhood outcomes summary forms are due to High/Scope by November 1 for cohorts 1 and 2 for all children ages 3-5 who have entered early childhood programs or services. " Early childhood special education is busy preparing "for the feds" also.
Proposed Administrative Rules and Proceduresfor Special Education Programs and Services published in the The Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) is The SEAC is in a unique position in its advisory role to the State Board of Education and the Michigan Department of Education. The SEAC has engaged in extensive learning, dialogue and discussion with regard to matters that impact the education of all children, including those with disabilities. The SEAC believes that the leadership at the Department of Education and the State Board of Education is advocating for the high quality education and successful outcomes for all students, including students with disabilities. The SEAC believes that special education is an essential part of the overall educational system, a service designed to assure that children most at risk by the nature of their handicapping condition are supported in achieving high standards and desired life outcomes. The SEAC understands the efforts taken by the Michigan Department of Education to bring the Rules for special education programs and services in line with the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004) as well as to update outdated language. We believe that thoughtful alignment with IDEA 2004, along with careful consideration for successful student outcomes will benefit Lastly and prior to our specific comment, the SEAC would like to express its sincere thanks to the Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services for its investment in our education with regard to the rules and regulations as well as in understanding the process of rules promulgation. The time spent as a SEAC learning about these rules and regulations enabled the SEAC to identify those items on which we felt compelled to comment publicly. That is not to say that these are the only areas within this current package of rules and regulations on which we might comment. Rather, given the package as presented, we determined that these were the areas on which we must comment. Rule 340.1738 Programs for students with severe cognitive impairments and Rule 340.1748 Programs for students with severe multiple impairments propose to eliminate the description of the number of days and clock of hours of instruction. These program specific rules provide for extended school year services for students placed in programs for students with severe cognitive impairments and severe multiple impairments. The SEAC recognizes that the intent of this change is to bring the The intent of an extended school year is to maintain skills such that students with disabilities have equitable opportunity to make progress from where they were in the spring upon return to school in the fall. We believe that if the language describing the number of days and clock hours of instruction is removed, extended school year services will be limited further. Federal Rule 300.106 states that the State must establish standards for the determination of extended school year. At present, The SEAC believes that
SEAC believes that the establishment of standards and procedures for the determination of Extended School Year (ESY) is essential. In many cases, ESY is not currently discussed at IEP meetings and parents must fight for ESY unless their child is identified as eligible under the definition for severe cognitive impairment or severe multiple impairment. Many parents of students with other disabilities are not even aware of the possibility of ESY for their child. In the absence of specific guidance, some school districts may resist ESY unless forced to consider it. Being forced or feeling like one is being forced can do damage to the relationship between parents and the school and set the occasion for adversarial interactions. The SEAC believes that there is need for specific language in the Michigan Rules to provide procedures for determining the need for ESY services. They must clearly outline the process for the determination of need for ESY to provide free, appropriate public education (FAPE) as required in Federal regulations, and they must be a more explicit part of the IEP (e.g., see attached Florida Extended School Year Services form). The consideration of ESY services should not be limited and may include ancillary services. Further, the procedures should encourage districts to be creative in meeting students needs in a variety of ways in addition to the more traditional classroom style, day program. Determination of the need for extended school year needs to consider a variety of factors. At present, circuit law precedent determines the need for ESY based on regression/recoupment. Other states that have adopted standards for determining ESY have identified a number of additional factors to consider in making the determination (e.g., see attached excerpt from Florida Technical Assistance Paper Determining an Individual Students Need for Extended School Year Services). We believe that To support a new rule for the determination of the need for ESY services, the MDE needs to provide technical assistance to districts to implement the rule appropriately and creatively to meet the individual needs of students with disabilities. We believe Rule 340.1713(2) strikes language describing in detail how a severe discrepancy is determined. To maintain continuity of determination across Rule 340.1713 (3) Specific learning disability; determination adds language that allows the public agency to use a process that determines if a student responds to scientific, research-based intervention, popularly referred as response to intervention (RTI). The proposed rule language uses the term may in describing the processes available to determine whether a student has a learning disability. The federal language uses the term must permit and further requires clear guidelines for the use of those procedures. The SEAC believes the use of the term may is confusing and unclear with regard to the specific intent of this change. The SEAC recommends use of the term must permit and the definition of clear guidelines for districts to follow in implementing these procedures. Implementing RTI is currently a decision of the local educational agency (LEA). As such, the utilization of RTI is a K-12 system decision and is used with all children to support their learning and school success as well as to determine eligibility. RTI is not an alternative way to access special education programs and services, rather it is a way to identify and intervene prior to needing special education. The SEAC believes that the Michigan Department of Education must develop guidelines for LEAs as to what RTI should be. These guidelines should include an implementation process describing how a district can move to a RTI model for all students as well as timelines and documentation of interventions for use in determining eligibility for special education programs and services. Further, the SEAC believes that LEAs must have guidelines in place prior to using an RTI model for eligibility determination. Response to scientifically based intervention represents a significant change in practice for Rules 340.1832 addresses content of the ISD Plans. Rule 340.1832(l) describes the role and function of the parent advisory committee (PAC) and strikes language illustrating related matters. While the role described is an illustration of a related matter or role for the PAC, it appears to eliminate this function for the Approval of ISD Plans is addressed in Rule 340.1837 and 340.1837(2), defines the responsibility of the ISD in advising constituents with regard to the receipt of plan approval. The item as written lacks specificity with regard to who is responsible for advising the constituents. The SEAC believes that the rules would be enhanced with consistency in the way language is used and further suggests that the ISD superintendent or his/her designee be identified as the responsible person With regard to Rule 340.1701 Definitions; I to P, b (ii) Definition of Parent, we recognize that these changes do not take rights away from parents, but rather, provide the same rights to those legally authorized to act on behalf of the child. With regard to the process of designating a surrogate, we wonder if all the necessary words to assure that the surrogate can act on behalf of the student with a disability have been included. Given the potential of assignment of rights to a surrogate or foster parent and that these assignees may not necessarily have knowledge of special education, the SEAC has concerns with regard to assuring that these assignees are fully informed. Further, we have the same concerns with regard to the emancipated minors and those individuals with disabilities who act on their own behalf. The SEAC believes it is imperative that emancipated minors and those of age to act on their own behalf be fully informed of their rights including their right of refusal and that responsibility for informing them be assigned to a public agency. With regard to the document, Special Education Considerations: Student Discipline Procedures, the SEAC comment takes the form of questions to consider with regard to this document. Specifically, on page four of the document, is language used not yet referred inconsistent with not yet eligible used in other parts of the document? With regard to the use of this document, how will this information be communicated to the classroom level? We wonder if examples or scenarios might help those implementing these considerations to visualize these procedures in operation. With regard to communication of this information to parents, we wonder if a parent friendly document explaining these procedures including the 10-day rule might be helpful. With regard to the Michigan Special Education Model Due Process Complaint Form, we wonder if given what is stated on these forms, are e-mail and fax still acceptable? If not, that information should be written on the form. In addition, we wonder if statements should be added to the form informing the parent that by completing the form, the Department does not assure that it constitutes a sufficient due process complaint under the law and that the parents seeking to file a due process hearing complaint should consult legal counsel as to how to complete it. As the rules, laws and practices become more complex, we can not forget there is a childs face behind those services we provide. The SEAC welcomes continued dialogue to assure students with disabilities receive the supports they require to become successful within a changing educational framework. In closing, our comment provided here is intended to fulfill SEACs federally defined function to publicly comment on any rules or regulations proposed by the State regarding the education of students with disabilities. It is our hope that this comment will assist the State to effectively bring consistent, quality supports for students with disabilities. SEAC again thanks the MDE-OSE/EIS and the State Board of Education for this opportunity.
The Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC), the IDEA mandated advisory committee to the Department of Education and State Board of Education, is required to develop an annual report. The SEAC is committed to facilitating meaningful dialogue that centers on asking MDE and the State Board of Education broad-based, student-focused questions that helps further systemic integration of practice as opposed to political positioning, and seeks mutual learning rather than using information as currency. As individual members and as a body, we overtly worked to build relationships as a strategy to avoid animosity. This years work of the SEAC included advising on the Federally-mandated Annual Performance Report (APR) and further work on the State Performance Plan (SPP) indicators. The SEAC commented publicly on the proposed changes to the Administrative rules for Special Education Programs and Services. In addition, given our states systemic efforts to implement High School reform, we elected to address topics to illuminate the gap we perceive between changes in our educational system, and the future educational system that may not yet be in place to support all students, including those with disabilities for whom we are most concerned and who will face those changes. Two major reports from the SEAC were the results of that work. The first report, Proactive and Early Intervention for All focuses on the intention of proactive early intervening services that would assure students are successful at an earlier point in their education. SEAC supports the concept of Response to Intervention (RTI) as both a method of assessment of learning disability as well as the structure of proposed supports that are delivered within a general education setting. SEAC supports a cultural shift towards special education as a quality, need-based service; rather than a separate environment for disabled students. The second report, Unintended Consequences of High School Reform promotes proactive identification of the unintended negative impact of High School Reform, and its immediate implementation of higher standards. For students entering ninth grade, this impact can be enormous, given that the critical intended supports may not yet be in place. MDE chose a conceptual model, the Three Rs of High School Reform; Rigor, Relevance and Relationships to explain this effort. To families and students this change is happening within the context of NCLB and IDEA. Some parents and students may understand the intent and the process; while many more do not. SEAC has consistently advocated increasing the quality of communication to students, parents and educators. The communication to all constituent groups must focus on complete understanding. In looking ahead at Michigans efforts for educational reform, I hope that Rigor does not only imply that we must increase the Rigor in our educational standards for students; but rather, we must increase the Rigor for our educational system to provide what each and every student needs to meet those standards. SEAC welcomes the opportunity to engage in the dialogue with the Michigan Department of Education and State Board of Education with regard to these matters in addition to our federally mandated functions. Thank you all for a wonderful year of learning. Chuck Saur, SEAC Chair The Unintended Consequences of High School Reform: A Report to the Michigan Department of Education and Michigan June 2007 On April 20, 2006, Four major areas of risk or unintended consequences were identified: 1. Confusion regarding the Michigan Merit Curriculum, grade level content expectations and personal curriculum 2. Disconnection between the assessment systems and system accountability 3. Gaps between the skills need to implement the new requirements and the skills available for both educational personnel in service as well as pre-service 4. Home-school communication: Potential lost opportunities and resources Each area of risk was analyzed and solutions to overcome the risk were presented. Twelve recommendations were presented as means to overcome the risks identified. These recommendations emphasize activities, innovative ways of thinking, and re-structuring to carry out the work that must be accomplished in the months and years ahead. As such, we believe the recommendations may not necessarily require additional budget allocations, but rethinking.
On April 20, 2006, public education in Achieving high standards is in the best interest of all children. Saying that and doing that, however, are different things. The process of shifting from the system as it has been to the system as it will be is not like flicking a light switch. Rather, change is a process and with that process, adults will discover things that work and things that dont. During the process of learning to do school while achieving high standards, the unfortunate result may be some children finding themselves experiencing unintended consequences of these changes. The Michigan Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) role is to advise the Michigan Department of Education and the State Board of Education of unmet needs with regard to the education of children with disabilities. We applaud the adoption of high standards for all children and welcome an instructional approach built on rigor, relevance and relationships. However, we believe that children with disabilities may be most at risk for experiencing unintended consequences of these changes in expectations. During the 2005-2006 school year, the SEAC devoted time to learning about the high school reform initiative in Confusion - The Michigan Merit Curriculum (MMC) sets rigorous new standards designed to prepare The legislation establishing the Michigan Merit Curriculum (MMC) has a provision for a personal curriculum (PC) modification when requested by the students parent or legal guardian. The personal curriculum may modify the content expectations as long as it includes as much of the MMC subject matter content expectations as practicable, establishes measurable goals, provides a means to evaluate achievement of the goals, and is aligned with the pupils educational development plan. Further, students who successfully complete their personal curriculum may be awarded a diploma. There is considerable confusion about the personal curriculum option in particular as it appears to students with disabilities. How does the personal curriculum interface with the present level of academic achievement and functional performance (PLAAFP) statement, educational development plan (EDP), a students individualized education plan (IEP), and graduation requirements? This confusion may result in the personal curriculum option not being used as effectively as it might be, either being used too often for students who are capable of achieving the high standards of the MMC in an alternate instructional mode, or not often enough, unintentionally frustrating some students resulting in disengagement from the educational process. Further, meeting the grade level content expectations (grades K-8) and the high school course/credit expectations necessitates a higher level of collaboration with and coordination of educators, students and parents than ever before. This need to collaborate and coordinate at a level far greater than ever before is even more acute to assure the success of students with disabilities. A number of unintended barriers or obstacles have arisen in the process of shifting from the Michigan Curriculum Framework aligned with the Michigan High School MEAP test to the new expectations. These barriers further complicate the increased collaboration and coordination required. An example of one such barrier is the mismatch between the K-8 grade level content expectations and the high school course/credit expectations for the current 8th grade students. The revised grade level content expectations were instituted in the 2004-2005 school year. The students who have had the opportunity to learn these grade level content expectations are currently in 2nd grade and not in 8th grade. It is important to note that the high school course/credit expectations and guidelines build upon the grade level content expectations. The 2006-2007 8th grade class has not had the benefit of instruction aligned with expectations For students with disabilities to successfully graduate, they need a seamless, holistic support system to assure that all responsible parties are aligned and work together. This support would 1) look at student performance over time, 2) provide continuous monitoring to pinpoint challenge areas, 3) reallocate instructional resources where necessary, 4) and adopt strategies in a timely manner in order to ensure that students continue to make progress towards meeting the requirements of the MMC. As part of the support system, a case manager should be identified responsible for ensuring that all responsible parties (e.g., Transition Coordinator, EDP team, IEP team, parents, teachers, school principal) work together in considering PLAAFPs, IEPs, EDPs, and, if necessary, PCs, so that each plan complements the other. A formal structure and process for MDE to receive input from the field regarding district concerns and needs as schools attempt to implement the new graduation requirements should be set in place. In addition, an improved prototype data management and tracking system that facilitates shared accountability among MDE, Institutes of Higher Education (IHEs), Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) and community agencies critical for successful transition is needed. Each of these entities must share responsibility for successful student outcomes, rather than the burden falling on LEAs alone. Data should be utilized to inform best practice. A formal mechanism for sharing data to inform best-practice strategies, and time for collaboration should be established through the combined efforts of MDE, school districts, and local bargaining units. Assessment System/Accountability Disconnect Flexibility to meet individual student needs must not be lost in the quest for standardized curriculum and test results. Assessment information should be used to improve teaching and learning and to develop instructional strategies and goals that are responsive to individual student needs. To the extent that assessment results are used to establish adequate yearly progress (AYP) for schools, this data should not be used to punish schools or stereotype sub-groups of students. There is growing evidence that a schools failure to meet AYP because of low test scores in sub-groups can often be attributed to student mobility and other data collection strategies, rather than to lack of progress by individual students within the sub-group. Reports from schools also indicate that special education students, as a sub-group, are often blamed for a schools failure to meet AYP rather than objectively looking at education systems that struggle with knowing how to best reach and teach those who need the help most. Individual students who receive special education services are placed in this sub-group precisely because of the risk of failure to meet content and grade level expectations. Therefore, it is imperative that progress should be measured on an individual basis. A growing number of states have adopted a value-added strategy for measuring student progress. The value-added approach tracks and reports individual student progress on assessment results, rather than aggregate sub-group reports. This method has proven much more reliable and accurate than the current system for reporting AYP, and is also more useful information for improving instruction. Another indicator used to determine a schools adequate yearly progress is high school graduation rate. At present, that rate is 80% and determined by the cohort group. In other words, graduation rate is determined as the comparison between the number of students who begin their freshman year with those who graduate four years later. This method does not appear to align with the concept of content mastery/credit expectations as outlined in the MMC. Rather, it appears to value seat time over content mastery as the more significant measure. This graduation rate measure based on time alone is a particular challenge for There is a considerable amount of misalignment between the Michigan Merit Examination (MME) and the current MEAP Tests. The 2008 MME will include the expectations for Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II. However, these soon-to-be 11th grade students may not have had the opportunity to learn all of the expectations outlined in these courses. The Michigan Merit Curriculum applies to the current 8th graders, not the current 10th graders. This misalignment may appear again in 2009 when the MME will measure expectations for science. These measurements of science mastery may also be premature as students may not have had sufficient opportunity to learn the expectations. Lastly, the current MEAP assessments for grades 3-8 do not include some of the mathematics grade level content expectations. These future core items as they are known will be included in MEAP assessments in the fall of 2009. The high school graduation requirements are based on student learning of the credit/course expectations and guidelines. Given these shared expectations and guidelines, the State is currently developing end-of-the-course assessments for required content of the MMC. As defined by the law authorizing these changes, the assessments must be developed by the spring of 2009. Further, the MDE has plans to develop interim or formative assessments. Called testlets, these assessments will chunk content expectations together and will be analogous to end-of-unit tests. These summative assessments, end-of-the course assessments and the MME will support LEAs in determining what achievement of content credit means. At present, however, there is much confusion in the field as to what a secondary credit assessment system should look like and how to devise one. While clarity is coming, in its absence, the result seems to be confusion and a variety of attempts to fit the current system into the new requirements. It is unclear how this supports the desired shift to a new system. Local districts need this assessment information in a far more timely fashion than is presently proposed. Additionally, there is emergent need for the Universal Design and Universal Education strategies to rollout statewide. Education Personnel: Pre-service Preparation and Staff Development: Closing the gap between skills needed vs. skills available Pre-service education is the integration of higher education coursework and hands-on experiences for future educational personnel. Pre-service education must address the instructional needs of diverse learners in Teachers must be equipped with the knowledge, skills, dispositions and abilities to meet the challenge of educating all students to their highest potential, including preparation to address the instructional needs of diverse learners. A key priority in that preparation of pre-service teachers and related educational personnel is the infusion into higher education coursework and experiences the shared responsibility for meeting the needs of diverse learners. Links for new teachers in providing professional development need to originate from a variety of sources. These sources may come from the mentoring level, the local school district level, through Intermediate School Districts and finally from the Michigan Department of Education and Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services. Professional and staff development is critical to ensure that all current school staff have the knowledge, skills and abilities to meet the challenge of educating all students to high levels and giving clarity to high school reform issues. Research based interventions like Universal Design for Learning and Positive Behavior Supports are examples of topics to assist the educational progress of all students, including students with disabilities. Staff development could take the form of initiatives at the building level including small and personalized learning communities, at the local district level, at the ISD/RESA level, and through MDE/OSE/EIS. To achieve the high standards and desired outcomes of MMC, professional development that provides school staff with information, knowledge and solutions is needed. Specifically, staff development activities should provide information on basic constructs of high school reform such as the development of the EDP, the Personal Curriculum, assessment literacy, the IEP, and transition planning for students with disabilities. Without sufficient professional learning experiences to develop knowledge of these reforms, it may prove difficult for staff to support new policies as well as to build capacity as leaders in meeting the new challenges that arise. It should be the responsibility of all Home-School Communication Potential Resources & Opportunities Lost Close links between schools, home and community have been identified as an essential element of successful school reform. We believe that holds true for the MMC and in particular, for parents of children with disabilities to see their children as part of this reform movement. Parents and students need resources to assist in crucial decision-making and, in some cases, time is of the essence. Parents and students need information regarding the new high school graduation requirements presented in a variety of formats that are easy to access, including workshops. Home-School Communication is a partnership involving the exchange of information, shared problem solving, and decision-making. It is essential that schools communicate to families regarding the new structure and intent of the high school curriculum, credit requirements, and course and assessments outcome expectations. Further, families need information on the individual strengths and weaknesses of their student, appropriate learning strategies to match individual learning styles and needs, and information on resources and options available for student and family support. In turn, families must seek out information, express needs and concerns, and be active participants. Active participation by the family goes beyond decisions regarding their student. Families also need to be engaging in policy discussions and decision making at the school building and district levels. Effective home-school communication provides schools with access to potential resources that can reinforce the importance of these changes. For parents and families to be an effective partner in school reform and in the education of their children, they need to understand the whos, whats, wheres, whys and hows behind these changes and requirements. For parents and families of children with disabilities, they must not only understand these changes, they need to see how these changes will benefit their children. They need to see them as opportunities to stretch and grow rather than as barriers to students reaching their maximum potential. A critical first step is providing easy to access, consumer friendly, multi-mode information to families and students on the new high school requirements, the personal curriculum, and what appropriate assessment(s) do for students and their learning. As with any new reform initiative, mistakes and false steps will occur. It is imperative that we systematically analyze the impact of these changes with an eye toward improving the process and outcomes for graduating students with disabilities. A culture of problem solving and risk-taking must be encouraged and supported. Further, responsible entities must work together as members of a shared learning community to meet the challenge of implementing our new high school requirements. Overall, continuous study, adaptation, collaboration and communication are required. Continuous improvement is the philosophical foundation for all of the concerns, strategies, and recommendations identified in this report. To that end, the SEAC is prepared to help inform and provide advice to the MDE. Recommendations These recommendations emphasize activities, innovative ways of thinking, and re-structuring to carry out the work that must be accomplished in the months and years ahead. As such, the recommendations may not necessarily require additional budget allocations, but rethinking.
Appendix A: Background Information, Michigan Merit Curriculum Requirements Background Information: To prepare § Mathematics 4 credits Algebra I, Algebra II, Geometry, one math course in the final year of high school § English Language Arts 4 credits English Language Arts 9, English Language Arts 10, English Language Arts 11, and English Language Arts 12 § Science 3 credits Biology, Physics or Chemistry, one additional science credit § Social Studies 3 credits - .5 credit in Civics, .5 credit in § Physical Education and Health 1 credit § Visual, Performing and Applied Arts 1 credit § Online Learning Experience Course, Learning or Integrated Learning Experience § Language Other Than English 2 credits This requirement is effective for the Class of 2016 (current 3rd graders) and is to be done in grades 9-12, OR an equivalent learning experience in grades K-12 Credits earned are based on meeting the Course/Credit Content Expectations and Guidelines developed by the Michigan Department of Education. All required courses/credits must be aligned with the Course/Credit Content Expectations and Guidelines. Credits are earned by student demonstration of the learning specified in the course/credit content expectations and guidelines, not by seat time alone. The legislation that established the Michigan Merit Curriculum also provides for the parent or legal guardian of a pupil to request a personal curriculum that modifies certain requirements. The personal curriculum must incorporate as much of the subject matter content expectations of the Michigan Merit Curriculum as practicable, establish measurable goals, provide a means to evaluate achievement of the goals, and be aligned with the pupils educational development plan. Students who successfully complete their personal curriculum, on or before the age of 26, may be awarded a diploma. For specific information about the Michigan Merit Curriculum, please see www.michigan.gov/highschool The Status of MMC Implementation High School Course/Credit Content Expectations and Guidelines High School Course/Credit Content Expectations and Guidelines (what students should know and be able to do) have been developed for the following courses: · Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, Precalculus, Statistics and Probability, Integrated Math · English Language Arts 9, English Language Arts 10, English Language Arts 11, English Language Arts 12 · Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Earth Science · Visual, Performing and Applied Arts · Physical and Health Education · Online Experience The Course/Credit Content Expectations for Social Studies (Civics, Grade Level Content Expectations In Student Assessment Our State Assessment Program includes the following three types of assessment: 1) Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP), 2) Michigan Merit Examination (MME), and 3) MI-Access (Alternate assessment for students with disabilities). MEAP is given annually in the areas of English Language Arts and Mathematics to students in grades 3-8. In addition, students are assessed in grades 5 and 8 in Science and grades 6 and 9 in Social Studies. These assessments have been operational since 2005 and are based on the grade level content expectations for grades 3-8 in English Language Arts and Mathematics and the Michigan Curriculum Framework for science and social studies. Some mathematics grade level content expectations will not assessed until Fall 2009. New assessments in science and social studies are to be developed in the future after the Fall 2007 scheduled adoption of new science and social studies grade level content expectations. The MME is a new assessment in SY 2006-07. It is given to all 11th grade students and assesses English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies. The MME replaced the High School MEAP Test. The MME is comprised of three parts: 1. ACT Plus Writing college entrance exam (English, Mathematics, 2. WorkKeys assessment that connects work skills, training, and testing to improve students education and job opportunities (Reading for Information and Applied Mathematics) 3. The 2008 version of the MME will include assessment of the expectations for Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II. Students who are currently 10th graders or members of the class of 2009 will be assessed on these new content expectations for which they may not have received instruction and/or had the opportunity to learn. Given that the requirements of the MMC came into effect in April 2006 and apply to those students who are currently 8th graders or members of the class of 2011, this may have dire consequences for these students, in particular those with disabilities. The 2009 version of the MME will also include assessment of the science high school content MI-Access is The State is also developing end-of-the-course assessments for the required courses of the Michigan Merit Curriculum. By law, these must be developed by the spring of 2009. They are also developing testlets that will chunk content expectations together on a quarterly basis. School and District Accountability The Michigan School Report Card is the accountability system for schools and districts in the State of Education YES! assigns a grade to each school in 1) Achievement status to measure how well a school is doing in educating its students; 2) Achievement change to measure whether student achievement is improving or declining; and 3) Indicators of School Performance to measure investments that schools are making in improved student achievement based on indicators that come from research and best practice. Achievement status represents 34% of a schools grade. Achievement change represents 33% of a schools grade. The School Performance Indicators represent 33% of a schools grade. A school that does not make AYP (adequate yearly progress) may not be given a grade of A. A school that makes AYP shall not be listed as unaccredited. A schools composite school grade is used to prioritize assistance to underperforming schools and to prioritize interventions to improve student achievement. Special Education Advisory Committee: Report of Subcommittee on Proactive and Early Intervention for All. Executive Summary The Michigan Board of Educations vision of Universal Education was adopted in 2005. This policy is intended to improve the educational outcomes of every Recent Federal and state initiatives have provided additional impetus towards making the goal of improving outcomes for every student a reality. Each of these efforts contributes to the emphasis on high expectations for each After examining these initiatives, SEAC makes the following recommendations to address unmet needs of 1. We recommend that the Michigan Board of Education adopt a policy statement that recognizes that a Response to Intervention approach provides a research based method for implementing its vision of Universal Education for all students and that ALL educators, general education and special education, need to work together to implement the changes needed to make that vision a reality. 2. We recommend that the Michigan Board of Education urge the legislature to provide additional funding to expand the Michigan Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative as a way to implement a Response to Intervention approach in more of 3. We recommend that the Michigan Board of Education adopt a policy encouraging 4. In addition, we note that there are many preschool children in Introduction: The Federal laws known as No Child Left Behind and IDEA 2004 emphasize high expectations, measurable results and outcomes for all students using scientifically based teaching methods, and early intervention to prevent later learning and behavioral difficulties. No Child Left Behind provides a number of grants and funds, particularly for Reading First and Title I activities. IDEA 2004 provides for the use of Federal dollars for early intervening services, that is, services prior to being identified as eligible for special education as well as requiring states to allow a Response to Intervention approach to the identification of students with learning disabilities. In addition to the Federal initiatives, there are a number of state initiatives from the Michigan Board of Education and the Department of Education that further emphasize the importance of high expectations, measurable results, early interventions for each Michigan student. These include the Michigan Board of Educations policies on Universal Education and Positive Behavior Support, the Department of Educations oversight of Reading First and Title I grants in the state. The MDEs Office of Special Education and Early Intervening Services sponsorship of the Michigan Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative (MiBLSi) as well as its current process of special education administrative rules revisions to bring State initiatives for Proactive and Early Intervention: Universal Education Vision and Principles: This is a Michigan Board of Education policy adopted in 2005. This policy is intended to improve the educational outcomes of every The principles of Universal Education include:
Positive Behavior Supports: this is a Michigan Board of Education Policy adopted in 2006 that states that each school district should implement a system of school-wide positive behavior support strategies. A positive behavior support system is defined in the policy statement as a data-based effort that concentrates on adjusting the system that supports the student. Such a system is implemented by collaborative, school-based teams using person-centered planning. School-wide expectations for behavior are clearly stated, widely promoted, and frequently referenced. Both individual and school-wide learning and behavior problems are assessed comprehensively. Functional assessment of learning and behavior challenges is linked to an intervention that focuses on skill building. The effectiveness of the selected intervention is evaluated and reviewed, leading to data-based revisions. Positive interventions that support adaptive and pro-social behavior and build on the strengths of the student lead to an improved learning environment. Students are offered a continuum of methods that help them learn and maintain appropriate behavior and discourage violation of codes of student conduct. In the research literature, positive behavior support systems are usually described as having a continuum of support in a three tiered system similar to the tiered instructional systems of support described in the RTI literature. The first tier is primary prevention strategies implemented for all students in all settings by all school staff. The second tier provides specialized systems of support for students with at-risk behavior, and the third tier provides specialized individual systems of support for students with high risk behaviors. School and district wide universal screening is implemented to provide data for decision making. This policy is explicitly linked to the Board of Educations Universal Education policy. Reading First and Title I: These are Federal programs mandated by NCLB that are administered by the Michigan Department of Education. Reading First (Part B of Title 1 of the No Child Left Behind Law of 2001) provides funding to support improvement of reading instruction (kindergarten through grade 3) in school districts with high levels of poverty and underachievement. Reading First requires schools to select a research based reading curriculum, provide 90 minutes of uninterrupted instruction per day to all kindergarten through 3rd grade students (including those with disabilities), implement universal reading screening using DIBELS, provide additional individualized instruction for students who are not meeting DIBELS benchmarks(along with progress monitoring to determine the effectiveness of the interventions), provide teachers with intensive ongoing professional development in research based reading instruction, and hire a literacy coach who assists in managing all aspects of the Reading First effort, as well as providing training and ongoing individualized assistance to teachers. A recent study that compared Reading First schools with non Reading First schools in the In contrast, studies of the effectiveness of earlier Title I educational initiatives have shown little evidence of significant improvements in academic achievement (Wong & Meyer, 1998). MiBLSi uses a three tiered school-wide support model for reading and behavior that has several key components:
MiBLSi is in effect, a model for introducing a Response to Intervention approach into school improvement planning and implementation for reading and behavior support. Federal Initiatives: Reading First and Title I: These have already been discussed above. Response to Intervention: Although tucked away in the Federal rules for diagnosing learning disabilities, Response to Intervention (RTI) represents a major shift in how educators address the needs of students who are not doing well in school. Two major resources go into significant detail on the rationale and research behind RTI and practical information about implementing RTI in
The following description is taken from these two sources. Response to Intervention is an integrated, research based approach to address the goal of enhanced educational outcomes for all children. RTI involves:
RTI models work in the context of general education and, as such helps ensure that students make adequate yearly progress towards the states learner outcomes. Such a system requires an integrated approach to service delivery that includes leadership, collaborative planning, and implementation by professionals across the educational system. Effective RTI practices share certain core principles:
Summary: All of these initiatives relate back to the Michigan Board of Educations vision of Universal Education. Overall, the Response to Intervention approach provides the research basis for systematically implementing a proactive and early intervening system that will benefit all of Recommendations: We recommend that the Michigan Board of Education adopt a policy statement that recognizes that a Response to Intervention approach provides a research based method for implementing its vision of Universal Education for all students and that ALL educators, general education and special education, need to work together to implement the changes needed to make that vision a reality. We recommend that the Michigan Board of Education urge the legislature to provide additional funding to expand the Michigan Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative as a way to implement a Response to Intervention approach in more of We recommend that the Michigan Board of Education adopt a policy encouraging In addition, we note that there are many preschool children in The Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) February 7, 2007 Quick Notes to the State Board of Education The SEAC is an IDEA mandated body, whose function is to advise the State Board of Education regarding special education issues. The SEAC is composed of 25 consumer and provider organizations and eight (8) members-at-large, all appointed by the State Board of Education. Standing Committee updates: Ã? Unintended Consequences (Group 2) Julie Winkelstern, chair Scope: 1. Student successes and supports as they move through system, 2. Teacher preparation 3. Home-school communication 4. Professional development Ã? Proactive Supports (Group 3) Bob Hove, chair Michigan Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative (MiBLSi) presentation today by Margie McGlinchey Ã?Students Caught in the Middle (Group 1) Jan VanGasse, chair 1. Grade Level Content Expectations 2. Assessment *MEAP *Mi Merit Exam *End of course exams 3. Accountabilty *NCLB *Graduation rates *Education YES! Points of Interest: *March 1, 2007 begins 60 days of public comment on the federal application. *Model High Schools Held in January 2007, presentations by successful high schools from across the country will be repeated with a focus on suburban and rural high schools at Traverse Bay ISD, April 15-17, 2007. * Personal Curriculum update next month. *Looking for nominations for the Executive Committee today, and through Feb. 16, 2007. *Teacher Preparation Policy Study Group meeting scheduled March 23, 2007. Shari Krishnan is part of this group. Interested persons can contact David Osta at ostad@michigan.gov. Current Focus On& Ã? State Performance Plan (SPP) -IDEA requirement -Focused on student outcomes in a mode of continuous improvement -MI moving to a Cohort Model re: graduation rates -Funds support activities to get to the targets -Role of the SEAC: discussions referenced and reported in the SPP, and adjustments made to the targets -Other Indicators will be presented to the SEAC next year (e.g. preschool related) |
