RULE PROMULGATION PROCESS AND UPCOMING CHANGES SEAC September 11, 2013
Introductions SHERYL DIAMOND SUPERVISOR OF PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILITY NANCY ROTARIUS STATE POLICY COORDINATOR
RULE PROMULGATION
RULE PROMULGATION Public Department Joint Draft Request for Hearing Draft Rules Adopts Committee on Rules Rulemaking Rules Administrative Rules
OVERVIEW OF 2013-2014 RULE PACKAGE • System of Evaluation, Eligibility and IEP Development • Due Process • Qualifications of Teachers and Other Personnel • Intermediate School District Plans for Delivery of Special Education Programs and Services
IMPROVING THE MICHIGAN SYSTEM OF EVALUATION AND ELIGIBILITY
Michigan’s Current Evaluation System Consent I nitiation of Services Evaluation and Report Eligibility Determ ination WRITTEN REQUEST or REFERRAL Develop I EP Notice of FAPE Request Consent for Provision of Special Education 15 School Days 30 School Days
Who Determines Eligibility? “STUDENT WITH A DISABILITY MEANS A PERSON WHO IS DETERMINED BY AN IEP TEAM OR HEARING OFFICER TO HAVE 1 OR MORE OF THE IMPAIRMENTS SPECIFIED IN THIS PART THAT NECESSITATES SPECIAL EDUCATION OR RELATED SERVICES, OR BOTH, WHO IS NOT MORE THAN 25 YEARS OF AGE AS OF SEPT. 1 OF THE SCHOOL YEAR AND WHO HAS NOT GRADUATED HIGH SCHOOL. R 340.1702 “STUDENT WITH A DISABILITY”
Who Determines Eligibility? “EACH STUDENT SUSPECTED OF HAVING A DISABILITY SHALL BE EVALUATED BY A MET TEAM. IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN R 340.1705 TO R 340.1717, THE MET SHALL DO ALL OF THE FOLLOWING: (A) COMPLETE A FULL AND INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION (B) MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF ELIGIBILITY AND (C) PREPARE A WRITTEN REPORT TO BE PRESENTED TO THE IEP TEAM BY THE MET MEMBER WHO CAN EXPLAIN THE INSTRUCTIONAL IMPLICATION OF EVALUATION RESULTS. R 340.1721A: INITIAL EVALUATIONS
Michigan: The MET MULTIDISCIPLINARY EVALUATION TEAM MEANS A MINIMUM OF 2 PERSONS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVALUATING A STUDENT SUSPECTED OF HAVING A DISABILITY. THE TEAM SHALL INCLUDE AT LEAST ONE PERSON WHO HAS KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUSPECTED DISABILITY. R 340.1701B(B): DEFINITIONS; I TO P
ELIGIBILITY CATEGORIES
ELIGIBILITY CATEGORIES
Why are we Changing? • Alignment with evaluation process in the IDEA • Separation of the Activities : • Evaluation • Determination of Eligibility • Development of an IEP
The Evaluation System according to the IDEA WRITTEN REQUEST or Parental Develop IEP Consent for § 300.323(c) Initial REFERRAL Determine Notice Evaluation Or Provision of Initiation Eligibility and (Eligibility and needs) Services Plan Services of § 300.306(a) Consent § 300.301(c) § 300.137(c) § 300.300(b) Services 30 Calendar Days 60 Calendar days ASAP
R 340.1721b: PROPOSED EVALAUATION SYSTEM
Changes to R 340.1702: “Student with a disability” defined. • Who determines eligibility? • Defining a group of qualified professionals • Clarifies eligibility and completion of a high school diploma
Changes to R 340.1705 through R 340.1717 • Eligibility Categories • Clarifying who completes the evaluation • Updating Language
Additional Changes • R 340.1721: Request for initial evaluation • R 340.1721a: Initial evaluation • R 340.1722: District Responsibilities
How Does This Impact Reevaluations ?
Changes to Due Process Procedures • R 340.1701a: Definitions A to D. • R 340.1724d: Mediation • R 340.1724f: Due process complaints; procedures • R 340.1724i: Reimbursement
Qualifications of Teachers and Other Personnel
New Specialist Positions • R 340.1784: Education Specialist Deaf or Hard of Hearing • R 340.1785: Vision Education Specialist Changes to Language R 340.1799c: Teachers of students with hearing impairments
Intermediate School District Plan for Delivery of Special Education Programs and Services
Importance of Plans • Required by State and Federal Law • Documents how special education is delivered within the districts within each ISD • Basis for compliance
Why Change? • Changing landscape of Education • Work toward Results Driven Accountability • Compliance Issues • Limited staff capacity • Better use of technology
Collaboration with ISD Directors
The Proposed Plan: Assurance Statem ents Compliance with state and federal requirements: • Programs and Services • Child Find Activities • Staffing needs • Service Agreements • Confidentiality • Paraprofessionals • Parent Advisory Committee
Description of Delivery System of Programs and Services • Programs, diagnostic services, and related services • Delivery system of programs and services
Current Status and Next Steps • Projecting January 2014 • Online Public Comment
QUESTIONS
Recommend
More recommend
