Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules  
AGENCY REPORT TO THE  
JOINT COMMITEE ON ADMNINISTRATIVE RULES (JCAR)  
1. Agency Information  
Agency name:  
Education  
Division/Bureau/Office:  
Superintendent of Public Instruction  
Name of person completing this form:  
Mary Fielding  
Phone number of person completing this form:  
517-241-6986  
E-mail of person completing this form:  
Name of Department Regulatory Affairs Officer reviewing this form:  
Mary Fielding  
2. Rule Set Information  
MOAHR assigned rule set number:  
2023-76 ED  
Title of proposed rule set:  
Special Education Programs and Services  
3. Purpose for the proposed rules and background:  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 2  
The primary purpose of the proposed rules is to align them with controlling federal requirements  
related to special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 USC  
1400 et seq, and its implementing regulations, 34 CFR 300.1 et seq. As amended, the rules will  
support Michigan’s assurance, which is required in its annual application for federal funds under Part  
B of the IDEA, that its policies and procedures are compliant with IDEA requirements or that  
Michigan has committed to make changes to support such assurances.  
The amendments of R 340.1721b will bring the rule into compliance with controlling federal  
requirements regarding students who are parentally-placed in private schools. Currently, under R  
340.1721b, a school district shall provide an offer of free appropriate public education (FAPE) to all  
students determined to be eligible for special education programs and services. This conflicts with the  
IDEA and its implementing regulations, 34 CFR 300.130 to 300.144. 34 CFR 300.137(a) provides:  
“[N]o parentally-placed private school child with a disability has an individual right to receive some  
or all of the special education and related services that the child would receive if enrolled in a public  
school.” This regulation has been addressed by the United States Education Department, Office of  
Special Education Programs (USED OSEP), which has advised that, under the IDEA, if a parent  
makes clear their intention to maintain the enrollment of their child with a disability in a private  
school where the parent has placed the child, the school district where the child resides is not  
obligated to make FAPE available to the child or to develop an individualized education program  
(IEP) for the child. See question A-6, pages 8-9 of “Questions and Answers on Serving Children with  
Disabilities Placed by Their Parents in Private Schools” (OSEP QA 22-01, revised February 2022) at:  
The proposed amendments of R 340.1721b align the rule with the federal law that the offer of FAPE  
does not apply to students parentally-placed in private schools.  
The proposed amendments of R 340.1723c will align the rule with federal requirements related to a  
parent’s request for an independent education evaluation of their child at public expense when they  
disagree with an evaluation obtained by a public agency. Currently, R 340.1723c requires that such a  
request be in writing. This conflicts with the controlling federal regulation, 34 CFR 300.502. Under  
34 CFR 300.502(e)(2), a public agency may only impose certain conditions related to obtaining an  
independent evaluation; those conditions do not include that the request be in writing. The proposed  
amendment of R 340.1723c removes the writing requirement.  
The proposed amendment of R 340.1733(d) will support the requirement for students with disabilities  
to be educated in the least restrictive environment along with their nondisabled peers to the maximum  
extent appropriate in accordance with 34 CFR 300.114. As the rule is currently written (“The age  
span for students who are assigned to special education programs...operated in elementary buildings  
attended by children who are nondisabled, shall not exceed, at any 1 time, a 6-year age span or the  
age span of the students who are nondisabled in the building, whichever is less”), it limits the access  
of a student with a disability to their general education peers. Age span should be the same for  
disabled and non-disabled peers.  
Other changes align the rules with current standards of drafting, including proper use of “must” and  
“shall,” and “that” and “which,” and make other non-substantive changes.  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 3  
4. Summary of proposed rules:  
R 340.1721b, R 340.1723c, and R 340.1733 are proposed to be amended. The general purpose of the  
proposed R 340.1721b is to align the rule with the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities  
Education Act (IDEA), 42 US 1400 to 1482, regarding students who are parentally-placed in  
nonpublic schools. The general purpose of the proposed R 340.1723c is to remove the requirement  
that a parent’s request for an independent educational evaluation of their child be in writing. The  
general purpose of the proposed R 340.1733 is to revise the age span of preschool programs located  
in elementary school buildings.  
5. List names of newspapers in which the notice of public hearing was published and  
publication dates:  
Detroit Free Press – March 22, 2024  
Grand Rapids Press – March 26, 2024  
Marquette Mining Journal – March 22, 2024  
6. Date of publication of rules and notice of public hearing in Michigan Register:  
4/1/2024  
7. Date, time, and location of public hearing:  
5:00 p.m. Mich Library & Hist Ctr, 1st Floor Forum 702 W. Kalamazoo St., Lansing, MI 48915 or  
8. Provide the link the agency used to post the regulatory impact statement and cost-benefit  
analysis on its website:  
9. List of the name and title of agency representative(s) who attended the public hearing:  
Michigan Department of Education Office of Special Education:  
Nancy Rotarius, Special Education Consultant, Policy, Accountability Unit  
Chantel Mozden, Education Consultant, Accountability Unit  
Deborah Schultz, Secretary, Performance Reporting Unit  
10. Persons submitting comments of support:  
Shelley Dickerson  
Julie Gordon, Northwest Education Services  
Beth Longshore  
Matthew Smith  
Janet Timbs  
Anonymous #1  
Anonymous #3  
11. Persons submitting comments of opposition:  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 4  
Kris Keranen, Disability Rights Michigan  
Sherri Boyd, The Arc Michigan  
Michelle Driscoll, The Arc Michigan  
Julie Gordon  
Beth Longshore  
Shelley Dickerson  
Anonymous #1  
Anonymous #2  
Anonymous #3  
12. Persons submitting other comments:  
None.  
13. Identify any changes made to the proposed rules based on comments received during the  
public comment period:  
Name &  
Organization public hearing  
Comments made at Written  
Agency Rationale Rule number  
for Rule Change & citation  
and Description changed  
of Change(s)  
Comments  
Made  
1
Kris Keranen  
Disability  
Rights  
Michigan  
(DRM)  
Comments  
DRM notes the  
language change (OSE) recognizes  
appears to have the conflict with  
changed the  
The Office of  
Special Education (1)(b)  
R 340.1721b  
federal regulations  
and the proposed  
change will not be  
meaning of the  
rule. The new  
language states, made to R  
"The parent shall 340.1721b(1)(b).  
provide the  
public agency  
with written  
OSE will consider  
guidance and  
parental consent potential future  
to provide initial rule changes to  
special education clarify the  
programs and  
services within  
voluntary nature  
of parent consent  
10 school days of that is required  
the receipt of  
notice of an  
under the  
Individuals with  
initial offer of a Disabilities  
free appropriate Education Act.  
public  
education." This  
appears to  
suggest that the  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 5  
parent must give  
their consent to  
the initial IEP  
[individualized  
education  
program].  
That contradicts  
the federal law,  
which explicitly  
states that a  
parent may delay  
or withhold  
consent for an  
initial IEP, in  
order to prevent  
its  
implementation,  
and the district  
may not use  
procedures for  
due process nor  
mediation to  
obtain a ruling or  
agreement that  
the initial IEP  
services may be  
provided. 34 CFR  
300.300(b)  
DRM suggests  
adding clarifying  
language that  
explains the  
initial IEP cannot  
be implemented  
without parental  
consent, but  
makes it clear the  
parental consent  
must be informed  
and voluntary, as  
required by  
federal law. 34  
CFR 300.9  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 6  
14.Date report completed:  
6/17/2024  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
;