• Michigan Alliance for Families provides information, support, and education to families of children and adults with disabilities from birth through age 25 who are in the educational system. The following link contains information for creating individualized education programs (IEPs) for students in grades 7-12 with a focus on transition. www.michiganallianceforfamilies.org/inf/iep.tra.htm

• The Superintendent’s Dropout Challenge asks all Michigan schools to identify 10-15 students (who are nearing or are in a transition year) with multiple dropout risk factors and provide research-based supports and interventions. Visit www.surveymonkey.com/s/2011-12DropoutChallengeSignupSurvey as a first step to joining the challenge. The following link contains information for the National High School Center’s Middle School Early Warning Sign Tool which can identify students at risk for dropout. Early intervention will help these middle-schoolers enter ninth grade more likely to graduate on time. www.betterhighschools.org/EWS_middle.asp

• The Michigan Department of Education Low Incidence Outreach (MDE-LIO) provides programs and services to support students with visual impairments and children who are deaf or hard of hearing, their families, and school personnel. The following link contains best practices for teaching and enhancing literacy skills for students of all ages. Many of the suggested activities are geared toward younger students with visual impairments but are applicable for all students. http://mde-lio.cenmi.org/Services/StudentsWithaVisualImpairment/OtherVIResources/LiteracyResources.aspx

• The STatewide Autism Resources and Training (START) initiative serves as a coordinating and supporting entity for schools to better serve students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). The following link contains information about the Universal Supports Assessment and Planning Tool (USAPT) for students with ASD. The USAPT is designed to measure foundational supports (effective team processes, guiding principles, and a commitment to working with families) and specific strategies to help students with ASD function independently and develop appropriate social behavior across school settings (e.g., peer to peer support, visual supports). www.gvsu.edu/autismcenter/usapt-288.htm

• The Michigan Transition Outcomes Project (MI-TOP) supports the implementation of effective transition practices to ensure that all students are prepared for postsecondary education, employment, and independent living. The following link contains information about an online course “Transition Planning Made Easier” designed by MI-TOP and offered through the Michigan Virtual University (MVU). www.learnport.org/FeaturedCourses/TransitionPlanning/tabid/697/Default.aspx

• Michigan’s Integrated Technology Supports (MITS) provides technical assistance and training for assistive technology and the universal design for learning (UDL) framework. To access the MITS Freedom Stick, a tool to make any Windows computer highly accessible, go to the MITS website and locate the information under the Resources tab. http://mits.cenmi.org/Resources/MITSFreedomStick.aspx

• The MITS Lending Library contains equipment and software that is available for short-term loan (up to 8 weeks) to Michigan’s public schools. This trial period allows districts to use various technologies to support students with disabilities to determine effectiveness prior to purchase. Use the following link to register for the MITS Lending Library and browse the available assistive technology. http://mits.cenmi.org/LendingLibrary.aspx

In the state of Michigan during the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years, there was a 76 percent increase in the number of new local educational agencies (LEAs) identified for significant disproportionality for discipline. Significant disproportionality occurs when students with individualized education programs (IEPs) of a particular racial/ethnic group are suspended or expelled at a disproportionate rate compared to the overall student population.

When a district is identified for significant disproportionality – discipline, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires three courses of action:

State Review—The state must review (and, if appropriate, direct the district to revise) the policies, procedures, and/or practices used in some or all of the four areas monitored for significant disproportionality (discipline, educational environments, identification for eligibility, and identification for a specific area of disability).

Public Reporting—The IDEA requires districts to publicly report on the results of its revision of policies, procedures, and/or practices used in some or all of the four areas monitored for significant disproportionality (discipline, educational environments, identification for eligibility, and identification for a specific area of disability).

Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS)—The district is obligated to initiate coordinated early intervening services. For those districts who receive IDEA funds, the district is required to reserve 15 percent of the Section 619 (preschool) and Section 611 (flowthrough) funds for early intervening services. To reserve the funds means the funds may only be used for approved early intervening services.

Michigan Is Accountable

The data indicate that Black students with IEPs ages 3-21 years old are suspended and/or expelled at a significantly disproportionate rate relative to other racial ethnic groups. Because of the increasing awareness of this issue, the Michigan Department of Education (MDE), Office of Special Education (OSE) has chosen the topic of significant disproportionality for discipline as the focus for improvement over the next five years.

Investigative Question

Will providing support and targeted technical assistance around best practice to identified districts reduce the risk to Black students with IEPs ages 3-21 being disciplined at a significantly higher rate?

Targeted Technical Assistance and Next Steps

Within five years, Michigan aims to eliminate the risk of Black students with IEPs ages 3-21 being disciplined at a significantly higher rate. To achieve this goal, Michigan will develop a plan to educate both general and special education administrators and staff regarding the content and implementation of the IDEA standards and regulations around suspensions and expulsions. Additional work will be forthcoming through the OSE Mandated Activities Projects (MAPs).

Collection of this information is required by federal law under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to help Michigan improve programs and services for students and families across the state. WSU helps the MDE and the OSE by conducting these surveys and by providing analysis of the information.

School districts across the state are divided into three cohorts. Cohorts are surveyed on a rotating basis. This means parents in each district are surveyed once every three years. Parents of preschool children (ages 3-5) are surveyed yearly. Deployment of this year’s survey is scheduled to take place this spring/summer for cohort 2.

It is important for parents to take the time to complete and return the survey. Parents have the option of completing and mailing the paper version of the survey, completing the survey online, or completing the survey over the telephone. All information is kept confidential, and the final survey report will contain district and state level summaries that do not contain any information about individual parent responses.

School districts can help to make the parent survey process a success by sending out a general letter to all parents of children receiving special education services to inform them of the upcoming survey being mailed from WSU. They can also send out a follow-up letter to all parents encouraging them to return their survey, if they received one.

In order to align the parent survey with best research practices, there are certain aspects of the survey process that school officials cannot do. View the related resource document titled Information on School Involvement to learn about the appropriate ways in which school districts can participate in this process.

Pre-survey notifications for the parent survey were sent out by WSU’s research team in late February. Administration of the survey follows from mid-March through August.

Access the related resources for a parent survey timeline, a survey cohort list, and additional information from WSU regarding how school districts can engage in the survey process.

The dropout issue is also the focus of a project called American Graduate, under the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). A recent video report highlights dropout prevention and the efforts of Romeo High School in Detroit.

Romeo is one of several schools engaged with the Dropout Challenge and Reaching and Teaching Struggling Learners (RTSL). RTSL is a Dropout Prevention Initiative funded through the Office of Special Education. RTSL Director Leisa Gallagher also serves as the MDE Dropout Prevention Coordinator.

“The simple idea of identifying the warning signs for student dropout is the key, and the challenge is making a difference,” Gallagher says.

Three early warning signs—referred to as the A-B-C’s (Attendance, Behavior, and Course performance)—can predict a student’s dropout risk with 80 percent accuracy and predict four-year graduation rates with 90 percent accuracy. These early warning signs are reliable for all students—including students with individualized education programs (IEPs).

Superintendent’s Dropout Challenge

The Superintendent’s Dropout Challenge was launched in 2009. The Dropout Challenge encourages districts to take a proactive approach in reducing dropout rates for at-risk students. So far, 1,100 schools—including all of the schools in 142 districts—have signed up for the Dropout Challenge. Participating schools identify 10-15 students with multiple early warning dropout signs (A-B-C’s) who are in transitional years and provide those students with research-based supports and interventions to engage them in the curriculum and prevent them from dropping out of school.

Participating Dropout Challenge schools show positive results using the recommended targeted supports and interventions. “There is an overall nine percent decrease in dropout and a ten percent increase in graduation rates for 300 participating schools compared to nonparticipating high schools,” Gallagher says.

Call to Action

The Dropout Challenge has been renewed for the 2011-2012 year. All schools in Michigan are encouraged to join in the efforts to reduce dropout rates. Sign up for the Superintendent’s Dropout Challenge by filling out a short electronic survey on the Michigan Department of Education’s website at www.michigan.gov.dropoutchallenge.

The resource is based on Joyce Epstein’s framework of the six types of family involvement—parenting, communication, volunteering, learning at home, decision making, and collaborating with communities. Epstein is the founder and director of the National Network of Partnership Schools at Johns Hopkins University.

Parent involvement in schools is seen as an important factor in a child’s success in school. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) requires schools to develop ways to get parents more involved in their child’s education and in improving the school. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) focuses on  “meaningful parent involvement” with regard to students with disabilities.

In 2005, the State Performance Plan (SPP) was implemented nationwide by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). The OSEP identified various aspects of special education to monitor in the SPP, called indicators. Indicator 8, Facilitated Parent Involvement, asks the question, “What is the percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for students with disabilities?”

To measure the extent to which school districts are facilitating parent involvement, the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) partnered with Wayne State University to conduct an annual survey. A set of questions developed by the National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM) is sent out each spring to families whose children are supported by special education supports and services.

The survey asks parents about the extent to which they agree or disagree with statements on a school’s efforts to facilitate their involvement. Parent responses are then condensed into a score. The higher the score, the more the parents see the school as doing a better job of facilitating parent involvement.

In addition to defining Epstein’s six types of family involvement, the Improving Family Involvement resources document lists example practices and tools. It also contains a list of expected results for students, parents, and teachers as well as related research findings.

The MDE-LIO is funded through the Michigan Department of Education (MDE), Office of Special Education (OSE).

The project provides technical assistance and resources to serve and improve the quality of education for students with visual impairments and those who are deaf and hard of hearing, including those with multiple impairments.

The MDE-LIO previously operated as the Michigan School for the Blind (MSB) on a campus in Lansing. Low student enrollment eventually ended the need for a physical school for the MSB; however, students with visual impairments in the state still needed services. In 1997, the MSB moved to Flint to share the MSD campus. At its new location, the MSB continued as a services outreach project with the new name MDE-LIO.

MDE-LIO director, Collette Bauman, notes that the project is able to operate successfully from anywhere in the state; however, she is excited about being centrally located in Lansing.

The new location brings the MDE-LIO main office closer to many of the other state projects who collaborate to provide services for the benefit of students. The proximity to the MDE, OSE also eases the MDE-LIO’s ability to work closely with the state.

Vital materials, including equipment for producing Brailled text, were moved to the new location. Great effort was made to complete the moving process quickly, avoiding a negative impact on the MDE-LIO’s ability to provide services.

The new office space is housed in the same building as the Michigan Historical Museum. As a result, the MDE-LIO is reunited with one of its prized possessions from its days as the MSB—a piano used by Stevie Wonder during his time as a student at the MSB. The piano is on display at the Michigan Historical Museum.

The following decade brought, of course, change. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990 first mandated transition services, but it was the reauthorization of the IDEA in 1997 that truly broadened the definition of transition to include such outcomes as postsecondary education, independent living, and community participation, in addition to employment.

With a new century came still more adjustments to the rules governing transition. The most recent version of the law, IDEA 2004, mandates that transition planning must be in effect and documented in the individualized education program (IEP) by age 16, taking into account the student’s strengths and interests. To meet this requirement, transition planning must begin at an earlier age. The IEP should include appropriate, measurable postsecondary goals and a description of the transition services needed to reach those goals (see Glossary at right).

When transition plans are discussed, transition-aged students must be specifically invited to attend their IEP meetings; an invitation must also be extended to any public agency likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition services. IDEA 2004 also required states to develop a six-year State Performance Plan (SPP) followed by an Annual Performance Report (APR) to evaluate the state’s progress toward implementing the IDEA mandates. The federal government’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) identified various aspects of special education to monitor in the SPP and the APR, called indicators. There are 20 indicators in Part B of IDEA that cover K-12 education.

Michigan’s transition-related indicators require school districts to collect data on the percent of youth with IEPs that meet specific requirements and on the percent of youth with IEPs who are employed and/or enrolled in postsecondary education within one year of leaving high school.

Coordinate: “To Harmonize in a Common Action or Effort”

As stated in the IDEA 2004, the basis of the transition process is planning for and providing “a coordinated set of activities,” leading to postsecondary outcomes appropriate for and desired by the student and his or her family. This set of activities may require an extensive array of processes and programs over a course of years involving the student, parents, school staff, and a variety of agencies. Transition coordinators are instrumental in helping these activities work in harmony, both at the district level and on a personal level for each individual student.

Each intermediate school district (ISD) in Michigan has a designated transition coordinator.
These ISD transition coordinators are supported, in part, by funds designated by the Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education (MDE, OSE) to support transition under the secondary Transition Coordination Grant.

All ISD transition coordinators must have approval as required by the Michigan Administrative Rules for Special Education (MARSE). They must have a degree in special education or a field related to transition of youth with disabilities. He or she has also been involved in transition-related services or teaching for at least three years prior to taking the job. Download the MARSE from www.cenmi.org for more information about approval requirements.

The START project has been in place for ten years through the support of the Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education and has connections with all of Michigan’s intermediate school districts.

Over the past several years, the project has evolved, and currently includes four key components:

1. Regional Collaborative Networks (RCN) provide the infrastructure for collaboration and coordination across school districts and intermediate school districts, allowing shared training and resources and systemic planning on a broad scale.
2. The activities of the START project are governed by effective practices in the delivery of professional development, implementation of evidence-based practices with students, and statewide collaboration. START has created a building level assessment tool, the Universal Supports Assessment and Planning Tool (USAPT), built on ensuring the implementation of effective practices for supporting students with ASD.
3. The START model provides year-long intensive training and technical assistance to school districts using a team-based approach at both the K-12 and preschool levels. Additionally, professionals may participate in the Effective Practices Leadership Initiative (EPLI), a program designed to build local capacity by increasing the training and coaching skills of local professionals.
4. The final aspect of this model is increased access to resources and information through the project website and annual conference.

Key Project Goals:

• Establish sustainable collaborative networks in all counties in Michigan.
• Establish a training model based on effective practice that includes intensive instruction with application and follow up.
• Establish effective practice guidelines for school and community settings using regular evaluation and methods for improvement.
• Serve as a coordinating entity in the state of Michigan for educators and parents to offer training, support, networking, and effective practices.

Future Goals:

• Expand coaching model in all local school buildings serving students with ASD.
• Create better methods to evaluate student outcomes.
• Create a clearinghouse of information on ASD for Michigan.
• Establish model sites of evidence-based practice throughout the state.

Delaine is the mother of two children at Elm Street Elementary School—Toby, a fifth-grader, and Jack, who is in the third grade. Jack, who has Down syndrome, has been receiving special education supports and services for the past three years.

Delaine, a stay-at-home mom, is highly involved in her sons’ school. She is vice-president of the Parent Teacher Organization (PTO), volunteers weekly for playground duty, and runs the after-school cooking club. Her sons’ teachers know they can count on her for any kind of assistance. When Toby’s class needed a parent to help with a gardening project, Delaine was the first to volunteer. Whenever Jack’s teacher requests help with a field trip, Delaine steps up.

However, Delaine is not always pleased with the school’s receptiveness to her inquiries about Jack’s education. She is often frustrated with the school. There is a lack of communication from the special education teacher. When Delaine asks for a report on Jack’s progress, sometimes she does not hear back for days. Because she has the time and energy, Delaine persists in getting the information she needs, but it is hard work, and she sometimes feels like a pest. The Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings are often rushed, and Delaine feels the team is unreceptive to new ideas. When she suggests that Jack spend more time in the general education classroom, the team presents a wall of resistance that essentially shuts her down.

“There’s so much more I want to do for Jack, but the school seems set in its ways, and they don’t really want to work with me,” says Delaine. “In spite of all I do for the school, I don’t feel like a partner in my son’s education.”

A Single Father’s Story

Charles is a single father who works two jobs to support his three children, ages 10, 8, and 2. His ten year-old daughter, Grace, has autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and receives support from a paraprofessional in the general education classroom.

Unlike Delaine, Charles has virtually no time to volunteer at school. When he gets home at the end of the day, it’s all he can do to prepare a simple meal, supervise homework, and get the children to bed. Although Charles is not able to participate as he would like to, he does feel involved in his children’s education—due largely to the school’s efforts to partner with parents.

Grace has been identified for special education services due to Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Her teacher sends him weekly email reports on his daughter’s progress in the classroom. Grace’s aide often requests Charles’s input about behavior issues.

The school has been extremely accommodating in scheduling IEP team meetings at Charles’s convenience, once even meeting at 7 p.m. and providing supervision for his children. Discussion has already begun about Grace’s transition to middle school next year. In addition to the school’s efforts, the special education director has organized a district-wide support group for parents of students with ASD. Although Charles cannot attend most of the meetings, he has access to this supportive network of parents. Charles knows he is fortunate.

“I can’t say enough about the caring environment at my child’s school,” he says. “I really feel that we’re a team, working to give my kids the best.”

So which child has the advantage—Jack, whose mother is a tireless volunteer, or Grace, whose school facilitates her father’s indirect involvement?

Parent Involvement Defined in Legislation

Parent involvement in schools can take many forms and is universally seen as an important factor in a child’s success in school. In 1987, Joyce Epstein of Johns Hopkins University identified six types of parent involvement as “keys” to successful school/family/community partnerships.

According to Dr. Suzanne Carter, “three decades of research have demonstrated that parent/family involvement significantly contributes to improved student outcomes related to learning and school success.” In response to this conclusion, and recognizing that schools play a crucial role in fostering this involvement, the No Child Left Behind Act requires schools to develop ways to get parents more involved in their child’s education and in improving the school.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004 specifies what “meaningful parent involvement” means in special education terms. Important components include: timely notice of meetings and changes in the IEP; the opportunity to participate in the student’s evaluation and IEP meetings; the opportunity to understand the family’s legal rights; and receiving regular progress reports, training in special education issues, and information on agencies that can assist in the child’s transition from school.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) identifies two separate sets of requirements to address disproportionality:

• Disproportionate representation as a monitoring priority area.
• Significant disproportionality.

Data collection changed relative to race/ethnicity in the 2010-2011 school year per federal requirements. Data are now collected for seven racial/ethnic categories (American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; Black or African American; Hispanic; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; White; and two or more races). Previously, the data only considered five racial/ethnic categories.

Disproportionate Representation as a Monitoring Priority Area

20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C); 34 CFR §§300.173 and 300.600(d)(3)

The U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) required each state to create a six-year State Performance Plan (SPP) in response to the IDEA 2004 reauthorization and to establish goals and strategies for 20 performance indicators. Two indicators highlight disproportionate representation:

• Indicator 9 (disproportionate representation of racial/ethnic groups in special education and related services due to inappropriate identification policies, procedures, and/or practices).
• Indicator 10 (disproportionate representation of racial/ethnic groups in a specific area of disability due to inappropriate identification policies, procedures, and/or practices).

All areas of disability are considered for Indicator 9 (disproportionate representation of students receiving special education programs and related services).

Six areas of disability are considered for Indicator 10 (disproportionate representation in a specific area of disability). The disability areas considered include: autism spectrum disorder, cognitive impairment, emotional impairment, other health impairment, specific learning disability, and speech and language impairment.

States are required to monitor over- and under-representation in their districts and report findings to the OSEP for Indicators 9 and 10 in their Annual Performance Report (APR). The IDEA expectation for all states is that no district shall have disproportionate representation due to inappropriate identification policies, procedures, and/or practices.

Ratios are calculated to determine over- and under-representation (see page 5 for details). Districts with a ratio of greater than 2.5 (over-representation) or less than 0.4 (under-representation) for a particular racial/ethnic group for two consecutive years are selected for a focused monitoring activity.

Districts identified as having disproportionate representation have an opportunity to verify their data. Upon completion of the verification process, the results are reviewed in conjunction with data from multiple sources to determine appropriate focused monitoring activities.