DRAFT SPECIAL EDUCATION PROPOSAL
Michigan Association of Intermediate School Administrators (MAISA)
(February 11, 1999)

MAISA
1001 Centennial Way,Suite 300
Lansing, Ml 48917-9279
Telephone: 517/327-5910
Fax: 517/327-0772

EXECUTIVE BOARD
Executive Director: Raymond S. Telman
President: Michael Bozym Muskegon Area ISD
President-elect: Michael McIntyre Traverse Bay Area ISD
Past President: Jerry Reimann Berrien County ISD
Director 1998-99: Jon Tomlanovich Eaton ISD
Director 1999-2000: Dennis Stanek Delta-Schoolcraft ISD
Director 2000-2001: Roland Marmion Newaygo County ISD

Michigan mandatory special education legislation was passed in the early 1970s to help address the, lack of access to education for students with disabilities. This was followed by federal mandatory legislation with the same intent. These legislative initiatives have significantly supported efforts to provide equal educational opportunity for students with disabilities.

Almost from its inception Michigan's special education delivery system has grown dramatically. During a 20 year period from 1975 to 1995, the special education population increased from approximately 147,000 to 189,000 or about 28%. Even more dramatically the special education instructional personnel (which does not include paraprofessional and some select professional staff) increased from approximately 9,000 to over 14,000 or about 28%. While significant start-up costs can be anticipated when serving a previously unserved population, the continuation of dramatic cost increases over a 20-year period necessitates review.

Based on projections provided by the Senate Fiscal Agency, the cost of providing special education programs and services will grow at the rate of about 9% compounded annually. At this rate the current cost of this system (i.e. $1.7 billion) will increase to $3.5 billion in eight years. At this rate of growth will exceed anticipated inflation, and given the limited ability to increase revenues such as local operation millage, will likely result in a shifting of funds from general education to special education programs. This potential tension between general and special education works against recent efforts at collaboration to serve the needs of all students, disabled and non-disabled, within the context of a seamless unified school system. It also makes timely fiscal and programmatic review even more imperative. The unique educational needs of students with disabilities should be addressed at the local and intermediate school district level in a collaborative effort between regular and special education through the school improvement process.

Innovation and Leadership for Schools and Communities

The costs and growth in special education in Michigan have generally been attributed to two basic factors:

1. An increase in the relative size of the special education population and related personnel as well as

2. The highly prescriptive nature of Michigan's special education rules and related mandates.

1. THE GROWTH IN THE SPECIAL EDUCATION POPULATION

To start, it is important to note that over the. years the number of disabled students in the severe categories of impairment have remained relatively stable, while the number of learning disabled students has risen dramatically. An article published in the November/December 1997 edition of CEC Today entitled "Reading Difficulties- vs Learning Disabilities" notes the following:

A. Fifty percent of all students with disabilities are categorized as learning disabled.
B. Eighty percent of all students with learning disabilities have reading problems.
C. All but a small percentage of these students are essentially early reading failure students who received little or no pre-special education assistance for their reading problems.

In a complementary finding, a 1998 comprehensive study commissioned by the National Research Council on Education (Snow, Burns and Geiffen, Preventing! Reading Difficulties in Young Children, Washington, D.C., 1998) found that "...most reading difficulties can be prevented.'

Furthermore, the authors of the report concluded that ""Children having difficulty learning to read do not, as a rule, require qualitatively different instructions from children who are 'getting it.' Instead, they more often need application of the same principles by someone who can apply them expertly to individual children who are having difficulty.'

This preventative approach to early reading intervention, without waiting for failure and the resulting special education referral and label, makes infinite sense. Too often the primary alternative available for school personnel to utilize to address student educational difficulties is special education intervention.

In yet another complementary finding, the growth and the related costs of the special education population has significantly differed from school district to school district, within a limited geographic region. In a recent survey conducted by Washtenaw ISD of its ten constituent districts, the top three districts in percentage of students classified Learning Disabled averaged 26.6% free and reduced lunch and 24.1% minority. By contrast, the district with the highest free and reduced lunch percentage (52.4%) and also the highest minority population (47.1%) ranked 8th in percentage of students classified learning
disabled.

In addition, this survey found the district with the highest rate of special education identification (17.0%) had a foundation grant of approximately $5,400. Conversely, the district with the lowest rate of special education identification (10.3%) had a foundation grant of approximately $8,200. This data suggests that the availability of funding for general education alternative programs and services may be the significant determinant of the number of children placed in special education for reasons of educational deficit.

Finally, a point to consider as strategies are developed to moderate the costs associated with increasing numbers of students in special education is that the likelihood of exiting special education is small, only a 6% chance of returning full-time to general education (Michigan Department of Education, Special Education Follow Up Study, 1996). Research suggests that general education programs and services designed to deal with learning deficits at the preschool and elementary level hold more promise in this regard. These points are underscored by the Michigan State Board of Education 1997-98 priority goal to "reduce the number of students in need of special education due to academic failure.'

II. THE PRESCRIPTIVE NATURE OF MICHIGAN'S RULES AND MANDATES

Regardless of the availability of pre-referral general education programs and services, it is undisputed that the cost of special education can be very expensive. As examples, in the greater Detroit tri-county area, the annual cost of educating students in certain center programs for autistic students exceeds $44,000. Other disability center programs such as SMI and SXI approach $4,0.000 per year. Others such as day treatment for the severely emotionally impaired, TMI, HI and VI range from approximately $20,ooo to $35,000.

As a consequence of certain disabilities, the provision of a free and appropriate public education to select students will be relatively expensive. In addition, it is recognized that federal laws also contribute to the cost of providing special education programs and services in Michigan. On the other hand, there is a strong argument that Michigan's rules and mandates create additional expense by their prescriptive nature, particularly the requirements for age range, caseloads, and procedures that exceed federal requirements.

This current system was set into place over a quarter of a century ago to guarantee access -
literally before schools knew how to effectively service this special population. It was a system that sorted, selected and segregated. Since that time, schools have gained considerable knowledge about providing programs and services to this special population. In fact, school districts are now focusing on inclusion and mainstreaming the special education population - concepts which seem much different than what was proposed in the early 1970's. And yet, the system has not been changed. New requirements have been added to old and the related costs have increased dramatically.

The litigious nature of special education administrative hearings, lawsuits and related legal costs for school districts and parents have only underscored the seemingly never-ending escalation of costs to provide special education programs and services to students with disabilities.

There are options and possible modifications to the current special education rules and mandates which would still appropriately address the unique educational needs of students with disabilities while providing greater cost efficiency. The list of possible modifications is limited only by our degree of creativity and willingness to consider new paradigms. Some examples are noted below. This list is for the purposes of providing examples in the area of "separate programs' as identified under Section III (Recommendation) of this paper. It is not intended to be exhaustive.

A. Currently classroom programs for the Autistic impaired (AI), are limited to five students for one teacher and one aide. When this program rule was first developed, severe AI students were being released from institutions and placed in public school settings. In addition, at that time about 80% of AI students were also. Severely mentally impaired- Over the years the type of AI student served in the public school setting has changed to include higher functioning students with increased regular education placements, but the teacher/student ratios have remained the same. AI class size requirements should be changed to that of emotionally impaired and learning disabled students (I.E., 10:1).

B. Classrooms for the severely multiply impaired (SXI) are limited to nine students for one teacher and two aides. In addition, SXI students may require the services of a teacher of the speech and language impaired, occupational therapist, physical therapist, school nurse, etc. Since this rule was written, the definition of SXI has been changed (i.e., the eligibility requirement of accompanying severe mental impairment has been eliminated.) In addition, some districts serve SXI and severely mentally impaired students (SMI) in the same programs. SXI class size requirements should be changed to that of SMI students (i.e., 1:2:12 or 1:3:15).

C. Adopt the eligibility determination identified in IDEA-97 which would eliminate Michigan's required three-year reevaluations.

D. Mandate other human service agencies to collaboratively address the transition needs of all students with disabilities, and specifically the 22 to 26 year old population of students with disabilities. Programs, services and staffing requirements should be revised to reflect the non-educational and transitional nature of these services.

E. Waivers granted by the state department should have state-wide applicability.

F. The requirement for 230 days of instruction per year for SMI/SXI programs should be reduced to that of regular education and other disabilities areas. In concert with federal requirements, consideration for instructions beyond the traditional school year should be based on individual student educational needs for an "extended school year' (ESY) as determined via the IEP process. Consideration for ESY should be based on the concept of regression and recoupment. For example, operating school districts could give consideration to operating these programs on a non-traditional calendar similar to the 45/15 concept of year-round school which would avoid long scheduled breaks in instruction and resultant regression/recoupment problems with this student population.

G. Michigan mandates for those meetings required by law and rule should not exceed federal standards established by IDEA 97.

III. RECOMMENDATION

The problem of rapid growth in special education and Michigan's very specific rules and mandates must and can be addressed simultaneously with proper respect and attention to the unique educational needs of students with disabilities.

There are a significant number of general education programs available which when implemented have reduced the need for special education referrals (please see Appendix A). These programs generally offer specific reading help to students at the elementary level. These programs can be very effective and very costly.

The revenues needed to offer these programs could be provided at least in part by increased flexibility in funding (currently the School Aid Act limits special education expenditures to "special education allowable costs,' effectively limiting the use of special education staff to provide services to at-risk, non-special education students.) In addition, school districts should be allowed the option to modify current special education mandates as noted in Section 11 above and further discussed below. A district which elects to modify its special education mandates would be required to provide a prescribed general education prevention program (such as those provided in Appendix A) sufficient to address its students' needs. Any savings available to the district from the modification of special education mandates would be used as needed to help fund these prevention programs. The corresponding state share of reduced special education costs should also be utilized to support these new programs.

If a district elects to modify its special education mandates and has already implemented a prescribed prevention program to the extent required, any consequent savings for the district could then be utilized for general operations or debt purposes.

Currently Michigan rules provide for 12 special education eligibility categories. The programs and services that serve these categories vary in their relationship to general education programs. That is, the students in some categories are served primarily or exclusively in general education programs with special education support while the students in other categories are served primarily or exclusively in special education programs with limited interaction with the regular education student population. While there are exceptions to any categorization, these programs are, primarily. as noted below. The option for modifying special education mandates should recognize these significant differences in the manner in which programs and services are delivered.

A. Inclusive Programs

* Specific Learning Disabilities (LD) Programs
* Emotionally Impaired (El) Programs
* Speech And Language Impaired (SLI) Instructional Services
* Educable Mentally Impaired (EMI) Programs
* Pre Primary Impaired (PPI, Classroom And Non-classroom) Programs
* Visually Impaired (VI) Programs
* Hearing Impaired (HI) Programs
* Physically And Otherwise Health Impaired (POHI), Programs
* Elementary And Secondary Resource Room Programs
* Teacher Consultant Services
* Curriculum Resource Consultant Services

ISDs on behalf of and in concert with constituent districts as envisioned by current rule and law should develop criteria for these inclusive programs and services via the county plan. The students served by these programs and services represent the majority of Michigan's special education program costs and provide the greatest opportunity for diversity in the delivery of special education programs and related services. Program and service options can vary significantly from district to district based on local and regional needs and resources.

B. Separate Programs

* Trainable Mentally Impaired (TMI) Programs
* Severely Mentally Impaired (SMI) Programs
* Severely Multiply Impaired (SXI) Programs
* Autistic impaired (Al) Programs

The option to modify mandates for these separate programs and services would be specifically limited at this time to modifications such as those articulated in Section 11 of this document.

While this recommendation in essence exchanges the possibility of reduced special education costs for increased general education costs, it also offers the promise over time to slow, stop and possibly even reverse the ever-increasing costs of Michigan's special education system. To illustrate this point the following example is provided. Assuming that the majority of learning disabled students are served in either an LD basic classroom or a resource room, and that 50% of the students served in resource rooms are students with learning disabilities, the cost of educating these students in the state of Michigan, using MDE actual costs for 1996-97, was $172,055,568. Projecting these costs to the current 1998-99 school year using the previously referenced 9.0% annual compounded rate of increase, these costs are now $204,419,220. Assuming that 50% of students currently identified as learning disabled are early reading failures (a conservative estimate by standards of the article referenced above) special education costs could be reduced by an annual amount of $102,209,610. This is, by all indications, a very conservative estimate of potential special education cost reductions related to the provision of pre-special education regular education services to early reading failure students. Additional special education cost reductions not estimated are those related to transportation, due process, and procedural paperwork which are substantial.

These potential cost reductions could be available to be used in prevention efforts in addition to any savings realized by modifying special education mandates as noted above. While these figures are certainly tentative and estimated, they do indicate the potential of providing early intervention prevention services to students at risk of school failure. Research indicates that funds spent on prevention produce better results than those spent on remediation, yet most of our funds are spent for remediation.

Our current system has at times required a student to fail before assistance is available. This further complicates the remediation process with associated emotional difficulties related to the experience of failure. Preventing failure and special education placement when possible makes funds available to serve all students with learning problems not just the selected few, avoids labeling when not required and reduces overall special education costs.

APPENDIX A
General education's programs and services which help prevent special education placement include:

* Reading Plan for Michigan (RPM) A plan which provides for a preschool initiative centered around reading readiness, a school program component, a literacy program profile and a reading and writing portfolio. The school component of the RPM is designed to:

* continuously monitor the literacy progress in preschool- grade 3 children
* provide diagnostic information about possible learning difficulties
* report learning progress to parents and educators
* provide intervention strategies to parents and teachers
* create a summer school reading program based on identified "best practice" for children needing additional learning opportunities during the early elementary years.

* Success for All, which was developed by Slavin and others at Johns Hopkins University in 1987, is currently in place in more than 700 schools as of 1998.

* Reading Recovery program. This is a research-based program that has demonstrated success in reducing special education referrals at the elementary level. An excellent place to highlight would be the Livonia Public Schools where Mary Ann Marks and Geri Stone, Reading Recovery Teacher Leaders, have reported at various professional gatherings on the success of their program.

* Building Level Child Studv Teams. composed of general and special education staff, which meet to evaluate at-risk students, develop general education classroom accommodations and follow up.

* In the Northville Public Schools (Wayne County), Silver Springs Elementary has been using an Instructional Support Team (IST) for two years. In 1996-97, 20 students were referred to the IST. Of those 20, only four students were finally referred for " I education services. In 1997-98, 24 students were referred to the IST. Of the 24 students, only five students were referred for special education. Special education teacher caseloads in the building have steadily decreased over the last two years.

* Staff development for regular education teachers in early reading intervention.

* In the Grosse lie Township Schools (Wayne County), regular elementary level staff have been trained in the Orton-Gillingham reading method. This has resulted in the successful remediation of a majority of reading disabilities. There are fewer referrals at the middle school level: 1996-97 - 3 referrals and 0 eligible for special education. During the 1997-98 school year, there were no referrals for special education at the middle school level.

* Co-teaching - uses special education teachers within a general education classroom to work with groups of students, including special education eligible students as well as at-risk populations.

* Prevention Initiatives at the early elementary level, designed to identify those students at risk of later academic failure and provide them with intensive support (specifically in pre-reading and reading skills). Wayne County RESA recently solicited Prevention Initiative in Special Education applications from LEAs-20 of 34 local districts responded with grant requests totaling over $750,000. Six grants were funded (total of $260,000) using general fund and IDEA Capacity Building funds.

* Multiage concept, growing at the elementary level across our state. The Bessie Hoffman multiage elementary school in the Lincoln Consolidated School District provides a model program that has put an emphasis on the early prevention of reading failure. As a result, during the 1997-98 school year at this 250-student school, only five students were referred for special education (non-speech), a rate far below district, state, and national averages.

Let the MAISA Executive Board know what you think

STATE OF MICHIGAN SENATE MAJORITY LEADER
DeGrow Asks Committee to Study Education Issues
Stille Chairs Committee That Will Examine School Infrastructure,
Special Education Issues

State Capitol Lansing, Michigan 48913
(517) 373-7708,FAX (517) 373-1450, TDD (517) 373-0543

Senator Dan L. DeGrow, 27th District

February 16, 1999 Senate Majority Leader Dan L. DeGrow (R-Port Huron) has asked Senator Leon Stille (R-Spring Lake), as chair of the Senate School Aid (K-12) Appropriations Subcommittee, to examine school infrastructure and special education issues in Michigan.
"I am pleased with the challenge I've been asked to address," said Stille. "Our children are our greatest resource, and it's imperative we do everything we can to provide them with a quality education in a safe, sound environment. I am anxious to start work on these issues and look forward to arriving at real Solutions to some serious problems."
Citing concerns raised by parents, school administrators and legislators over special education services, DeGrow said the committee will look at ways to provide better services to special education students more efficiently, and address the rising costs of special education.
"Through more effective management of our existing resources, we can provide special education students with improved services," said DeGrow.
In addition to examining special education issues, the committee's study will provide an opportunity for the Legislature to take inventory of school facilities and more accurately assess the needs of the state's public schools.
"We've heard stories about district's with 50-year-old school buildings that are in poor condition," said DeGrow. "We need to address this issue on a statewide basis and determine the infrastructure needs of our public schools. Only after we have a full understanding of the situation can we determine a practical solution."

Let Senator Stille know what you think

Considerations Regarding Changes in the Delivery of
Special Education Programs and Services in Michigan

A Commentary on the Michigan Association of Intermediate School
Administrators Ad Hoc Committee Special Education Proposal

The Michigan Association of Administrators of Special Education supports the need to eview and consider modifications to the current special education support system. The time and consideration the MAISA AD Hoc Committee gave to drafting the special education proposal is recognized and appreciated. After a thorough review of the draft document, the following comments and suggestions are offered. These thoughts are based on the ongoing and direct experience of MAASE members with special education programs, parents, students, and staff.

The major premise of the MAISA document is that: The spiraling costs and growth in special education in Michigan have been attributed to two basic factors:

1. An increase in the relative size of the special education and related personnel as well as
2. The highly prescriptive nature of Michigan's special education rules and related mandates

While the above statements have merit, it seems important to elaborate on some of the reasons for the increase in the size and cost of special education. Consider the following factors impacting the continuing increase in number of special education students:

*Insufficient funding to provide options within the general education system for children at risk of reading failure
*Higher expectations in general education, i.e.MEAP,HSPT, curriculum standards
*Increased public awareness/participation in Early On/early intervention services
*An increase in the number of students at-risk resulting in school failure and need for specialized instruction
*A lockstep curriculum that expects the same outcome from every child who happens to be the same age
*The closing of state and regional facilities for developmentally disabled and severely emotionally impaired students

It is true that students referred for special education often have reading problems. "The preventative approach to early reading intervention without waiting for failure and the resulting special education label" makes infinite sense and should be used as a focal
point to encourage a closer partnership among ALL educators working to meet the needs of ALL students. More emphasis on building-based collaborative problem solving between general and special education staff can increase learning for all students.

It is important to recognize that there will be additional costs attached to the implementation of prevention/intervention services. Flexibility in the area of special education funding would be helpful. More opportunities are needed for collaboration among general and special educators in the utilization of state and federal funding sources for prevention/intervention initiatives.

Additionally, we support the following conceptual changes in the special education delivery system:
*Implement state regulations that allow flexibility in the delivery of special education services and in pupil accounting
*Change Michigan's required three-year evaluation process in accordance with IDEA 97
*Allow waivers granted by the State Board of Education to have statewide application
*Consider the utilization of non-traditional calendars for all students
*Implement systems changes to facilitate a unified or integrated education system

Special education must continue to change in the new millennium. It can no longer be thought of as a place or as an alternative educational program, but as specialized support to meet the unique needs of the individual child. It is imperative to provide education for ALL children by ALL staff. It is time to move to the next level of data gathering program evaluation, quality assurance, and the implementation of effective practices for All students.

The MAASE organization encourages a strong partnership with superintendents, parents, and other colleagues, as well as other agencies to provide quality supports for students with disabilities within the educational system. Special education administrators across
the state embrace the concept of early intervention/prevention, flexibility, less stringent rules, and quality instructional practices for all students.

Novi Novi Community School District
A tradition of excellence ...a vision for the 21st century
A Nationally Recognized Exemplary School District
25345 Taft Road, Novi, MI 48374
May 13,1999