RULE PROMULGATION PROCESS AND UPCOMING CHANGES SEAC September 11, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

RULE PROMULGATION PROCESS AND UPCOMING CHANGES

SEAC September 11, 2013

SHERYL DIAMOND SUPERVISOR OF PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILITY NANCY ROTARIUS STATE POLICY COORDINATOR

Introductions

RULE PROMULGATION

RULE PROMULGATION

Request for Rulemaking Draft Rules Public Hearing Draft Rules Joint Committee on Administrative Rules Department Adopts 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 Request Consent for Provision of Special Education I nitiation of Services Evaluation and Report Eligibility Determ ination Develop I EP Notice of FAPE

WRITTEN REQUEST

• r REFERRAL

30 School Days 15 School Days

“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

Who Determines Eligibility?

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

Michigan: The MET

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

Notice and Consent Evaluation (Eligibility and needs) § 300.301(c) Determine Eligibility § 300.306(a) Parental Consent for Initial Provision of Services § 300.300(b) Develop IEP § 300.323(c) Or Services Plan § 300.137(c) Initiation

• f

Services

60 Calendar days

30 Calendar Days

ASAP

WRITTEN REQUEST or REFERRAL

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