Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules  
Administrative Rules Division (ARD)  
MOAHR-Rules@michigan.gov  
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT  
and COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS (RIS)  
AGENCY INFORMATION:  
Department name:  
Education  
Bureau name:  
Superintendent of Public Instruction  
Name of person filling out RIS:  
Jennifer Cook  
Phone number of person filling out RIS:  
517-241-6986  
Email of person filling out RIS:  
CookJ9@michigan.gov  
RULE SET INFORMATION:  
ARD assigned rule set number:  
2025-37 ED  
Title of proposed rule set:  
School Administrator Certification Code  
COMPARISON OF RULE(S) TO FEDERAL/STATE/ASSOCIATION STANDARDS  
1. Compare the proposed rules to parallel federal rules or standards set by a state or national licensing agency  
or accreditation association, if any exist.  
There are no parallel federal rules or standards set by a state or national licensing agency or accreditation  
association.  
A. Are these rules required by state law or federal mandate?  
These rules are required by MCL 380.1246 and 380.1536.  
B. If these rules exceed a federal standard, please identify the federal standard or citation, describe why it  
is necessary that the proposed rules exceed the federal standard or law, and specify the costs and  
benefits arising out of the deviation.  
There is no applicable federal standard.  
2. Compare the proposed rules to standards in similarly situated states, based on geographic location,  
topography, natural resources, commonalities, or economic similarities.  
The proposed rules are unique to Michigan, but Michigan requirements for school administrator certification are  
similar in many respects to those in some similarly situated Midwest states. For example, in Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois,  
school administrator certification requirements are similar to those in Michigan. See  
https://www.in.gov/doe/educators/educator-licensing/administrative-licenses/, https://sboe.ohio.gov/educator-  
licensure/licensure-pathways/administrator-licenses, and https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Professional-Educator-License-  
Administrative-Endorsements.aspx. As in Michigan, those states differentiate between K-12 building and central office  
school administrator credentials.  
The most significant change in school administrator certification in Michigan under the proposed rules is the  
introduction of a requirement that applicants pass a school administrator examination. Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois all  
have this requirement. On the other hand, Minnesota and Wisconsin do not require an examination. See  
https://bosa.mn.gov/BOSA/LicInfo/index.html and https://dpi.wi.gov/licensing/pathways-licensure/administrators.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 2  
A. If the rules exceed standards in those states, please explain why and specify the costs and benefits  
arising out of the deviation.  
The proposed rules are similar in many respects to those in the similarly situated Midwest states of Indiana,  
Ohio, and Illinois.  
Although Minnesota and Wisconsin do not require a licensure test for school administrators, there are  
differences between the licensure contexts in those states and in Michigan. The core benefit of introducing a  
school administrator licensure examination is to ensure that candidates, regardless of preparation pathway, are  
able to demonstrate appropriate proficiency in State Board of Education-approved preparation standards. The  
Revised School Code and the School Administrator Certification Code allow for both degree-based pathways  
through traditional universities and alternative routes offered by professional associations. The differences in  
preparation experiences between the two pathways are significant enough that a common metric is needed to  
determine consistent outcomes between the pathways. Wisconsin does not allow for alternative pathways to  
school administrator licensure, lessening the need for an assessment to ensure common outcomes across  
pathways. While Minnesota does allow for alternative pathways to school administrator licensure, the state is  
phasing out testing requirements for in-state program completers across educator credentials. Adding a school  
administrator test in Michigan will bring this area of licensure in line with other Michigan educator credentials,  
including teachers and school counselors. Thirty-five states currently require licensure testing for school  
administrators. Neither Minnesota nor Wisconsin is a significant provider of out-of-state preparation for Michigan  
educators.  
3. Identify any laws, rules, and other legal requirements that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the  
proposed rules.  
There are no laws, rules, or other legal requirements that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rules.  
A. Explain how the rules have been coordinated, to the extent practicable, with other federal, state, and  
local laws applicable to the same activity or subject matter. This section should include a discussion of  
the efforts undertaken by the agency to avoid or minimize duplication.  
There are no federal, state, or local laws applicable to the certification of Michigan school administrators.  
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE RULE(S)  
4. Identify the behavior and frequency of behavior that the proposed rules are designed to alter.  
One of the purposes of the proposed rules is to add the requirement that applicants for school administrator  
certification and endorsement pass the applicable examination. Another purpose is to offer benefits to members of the  
military, veterans, and their dependents. A definition of “out-of-state” is added and includes federally recognized  
Native American tribes and all political subdivisions of foreign countries. The proposed rules clarify the validity period  
of school administrator permits. Another purpose is to discontinue the expectation of a hearing in the event of denial  
of an application for an initial school administrator certificate because there is no statutory or constitutional right to a  
hearing under those circumstances. The proposed rules establish procedures for the reinstatement of school  
administrator certificates following suspension or revocation and for removal of suspension following expungement of  
convictions upon which suspensions were based. Other amendments provide for action against a school administrator  
certificate or permit based on action taken by an out-of-state authority and clarify procedures for rescission of a school  
administrator certificate endorsement for which the holder is not eligible. Renewal of a school administrator permit is  
expanded to provide for alternative route program enrollment.  
In the 2022-2023 academic year, the Department of Education issued 869 initial school administrator certificates and  
406 school administrator permits. In that year, there were 15,094 valid school administrator certificates and 11,810  
individual administrators in Michigan. The performance of 9,376 administrators was evaluated that year, with 43.4%  
rated highly effective and 55.3% rated effective.  
In the 2022-2023 academic year, approximately 1,500 individuals reported to the Department of Education that they  
had military backgrounds and were employed in a Michigan school district.  
A. Estimate the change in the frequency of the targeted behavior expected from the proposed rules.  
The Department of Education issued 869 initial school administrator certificates and 406 school administrator  
permits in 2022-2023. With the possible exception of an increase in the number of out-of-state individuals who  
will be eligible for school administrator certification due to the rules’ clarification of applicable requirements for  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 3  
them, it is anticipated that approximately the same number of school administrator certificates and permits will  
be issued annually under the proposed rules. It is anticipated that school administrators who are members of  
the military, veterans, and their dependents will apply for the benefits newly available under the proposed rules.  
All applicants for school administrator certification and endorsements submitted on or after the effective date of  
the applicable rule will take the school administrator examination.  
B. Describe the difference between current behavior/practice and desired behavior/practice.  
In contrast to current practice, members of the military and veterans will be able to request that periods of active  
duty satisfy certificate renewal requirements. In addition, those individuals and their dependents will be able to  
request refunds of evaluation fees and vouchers to cover the cost of newly required examinations. In addition,  
individuals applying for initial school administrator certification will no longer expect a hearing if their  
applications are denied, and there will, for the first time, be prescribed processes for hearings in the event of  
requests for reinstatement of suspended school administrator certificates and for removal of suspensions in the  
event of expungement of criminal convictions. Further, the rules will expressly provide for rescission of school  
administrator endorsements for which individuals are not eligible.  
C. What is the desired outcome?  
Desired outcomes include decreased financial burdens on members of the military, veterans, and their  
dependents; additional assurance of competence as evidenced by passing newly available examinations; the  
discontinuation of the expectation of a hearing in the event of denial of an initial school administrator certificate;  
added clarity about revocation of endorsements on school administrator certificates for which the holder is not  
entitled; and the elimination of confusion about procedures surrounding requests for reinstatement of  
suspended school administrator certificates and for removal of suspensions of certificates based on conviction  
expungements.  
5. Identify the harm resulting from the behavior that the proposed rules are designed to alter and the likelihood  
that the harm will occur in the absence of the rule.  
The School Administrator Certification Code was last amended in substantive ways in 2017. The amendments at that  
time aligned, as appropriate, with the contemporaneous amendments of the Teacher Certification Code. The Teacher  
Certification Code was again amended in substantive ways in 2024, resulting in lack of alignment between the two  
certification codes. The reasons for which alignment of all educator certification codes administered by the  
Department of Education is necessary include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: 1) In the interest of  
stakeholders and for ease of administration, common terminology must be used throughout all certification rules. 2) All  
educator certification codes are administered by the same system (i.e., the Michigan Online Education Certification  
System (MOECS)). 3) The Department of Education is committed to extending the same benefits to members of the  
military, veterans, and their dependents for all credentials issued by the department. 4) The procedures for taking  
action against the various educator credentials issued by the Department of Education must be uniform for purposes  
of administrative hearings held by administrative law judges of the Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and  
Rules and for purposes of final action against credentials by the superintendent of public instruction. In addition,  
adding an examination requirement for school administrators brings these rules in alignment with other professional  
educator rules.  
A. What is the rationale for changing the rules instead of leaving them as currently written?  
Leaving the rules as currently written would continue the expectation of a hearing in the event of denial of an  
application for an initial school administrator certificate. A hearing is not required under 1976 PA 451, the  
revised school code. Leaving the rules as currently written would prolong confusion about the processes for  
addressing requests for reinstatement of suspended school administrator certificates and requests for removal  
of suspensions based on the expungement of criminal convictions. In addition, leaving the rules as currently  
written would provide no specific benefits to members of the military, veterans, and their dependents. Further,  
leaving the rules as currently written would prolong the lack of alignment between the rules and the Teacher  
Certification Code and would preserve the current system that does not require school administrators to pass  
available applicable examinations.  
6. Describe how the proposed rules protect the health, safety, and welfare of Michigan citizens while promoting  
a regulatory environment in Michigan that is the least burdensome alternative for those required to comply.  
The proposed rules protect the health, safety, and welfare of Michigan citizens by prescribing requirements for school  
administrator certification, including requirements for continuing education and testing, thus helping to ensure high  
quality school administration for the benefit of teachers, students, and all members of the school community. The  
proposed rules protect the public welfare by providing a process for addressing requests for reinstatement of school  
administrator certificates that have been suspended based on convictions of crimes enumerated in the revised school  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 4  
code, and for revoking school administrator certificate endorsements for which holders are not eligible. There is no  
alternative that is less burdensome to Michigan citizens.  
7. Describe any rules in the affected rule set that are obsolete or unnecessary and can be rescinded.  
There are no rules in the School Administrator Certification Code that are obsolete or unnecessary and can be  
rescinded.  
FISCAL IMPACT ON THE AGENCY  
Fiscal impact is an increase or decrease in expenditures from the current level of expenditures, i.e., hiring  
additional staff, higher contract costs, programming costs, changes in reimbursements rates, etc. over and  
above what is currently expended for that function. It does not include more intangible costs for benefits, such  
as opportunity costs, the value of time saved or lost, etc., unless those issues result in a measurable impact on  
expenditures.  
8. Please provide the fiscal impact on the agency (an estimate of the cost of rule imposition or potential savings  
for the agency promulgating the rule).  
Promulgation of the proposed rules will require changes to the Michigan Online Educator Certification System  
(MOECS) to accommodate changes related to school administrator certification, including new examination  
requirements. It is estimated that the cost to the Department of Education for implementation of these changes will be  
$350,000.  
Under the proposed rules, there will be an increase in revenue to the Department of Education in the amount of  
$15.00 per school administrator examination taken. These remittances fund a full-time equivalency to oversee the  
Michigan Test for Teacher Certification (MTTC) program, which will include the school administrator examination, and  
additional related administrative expenses.  
9. Describe whether or not an agency appropriation has been made or a funding source provided for any  
expenditures associated with the proposed rules.  
No appropriation has been made and no funding source has been provided for costs associated with the proposed  
rules. The Office of Educator Excellence of the Department of Education, which oversees educator certification, is  
partially funded by revenues from statutory fees.  
10. Describe how the proposed rules are necessary and suitable to accomplish their purpose, in relationship to  
the burden(s) the rules place on individuals. Burdens may include fiscal or administrative burdens, or  
duplicative acts.  
The proposed rules add an examination requirement like the testing requirement in place in other states and for other  
Michigan educator credentials. The benefits of the examinations include providing additional confidence in the quality  
of Michigan’s school administration workforce. There will be an examination fee of either $150 (for a school  
administrator certificate with PK12 endorsement) or $160 (for a school administrator certificate with central office  
endorsement). Some individuals may be eligible for reimbursement of examination fees under article 3, part 2, section  
1104 of 2024 PA 121. Members of the military, veterans, and their dependents will be eligible for refunds of evaluation  
fees and vouchers to cover the examination fees.  
A. Despite the identified burden(s), identify how the requirements in the rules are still needed and  
reasonable compared to the burdens.  
Test development and maintenance costs are necessary components of the institution of the new school  
administrator certification examinations. The fee for the examination is reasonable and is required to offset the  
cost of this work.  
IMPACT ON OTHER STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNITS  
11. Estimate any increase or decrease in revenues to other state or local governmental units (i.e., cities,  
counties, school districts) as a result of the rule. Estimate the cost increases or reductions for other state or  
local governmental units (i.e., cities, counties, school districts) as a result of the rule. Include the cost of  
equipment, supplies, labor, and increased administrative costs in both the initial imposition of the rule and  
any ongoing monitoring.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 5  
There will be an increase in revenue to the Department of Education in the amount of $15.00 per school administrator  
examination taken. These remittances fund a full-time equivalency to oversee the Michigan Test for Teacher  
Certification (MTTC) program, which will include the school administrator examination, and additional related  
administrative expenses. No cost increases or reductions for other state or local governmental units as a result of the  
proposed rules are anticipated.  
12. Discuss any program, service, duty, or responsibility imposed upon any city, county, town, village, or school  
district by the rules.  
The proposed rules do not impose programs, services, duties, or responsibilities on cities, counties, towns, or villages.  
The proposed rules do not impose new programs, services, duties, or responsibilities on school districts.  
A. Describe any actions that governmental units must take to be in compliance with the rules. This section  
should include items such as record keeping and reporting requirements or changing operational  
practices.  
The proposed rules do not impose additional responsibilities on school districts or any other governmental units.  
13. Describe whether or not an appropriation to state or local governmental units has been made or a funding  
source provided for any additional expenditures associated with the proposed rules.  
No appropriation to state or local governmental units has been made and no funding source has been provided. No  
additional expenditures are anticipated.  
RURAL IMPACT  
14. In general, what impact will the rules have on rural areas?  
The proposed rules will have no disproportionate impact on rural areas. The same requirements related to school  
administrator certification apply throughout Michigan.  
A. Describe the types of public or private interests in rural areas that will be affected by the rules.  
Rural areas will be affected by the proposed rules to the same extent that other areas will be affected.  
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT  
15. Do the proposed rules have any impact on the environment? If yes, please explain.  
It is not anticipated that the proposed rules will have any impact on the environment.  
SMALL BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT  
16. Describe whether and how the agency considered exempting small businesses from the proposed rules.  
The proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
17. If small businesses are not exempt, describe (a) the manner in which the agency reduced the economic  
impact of the proposed rules on small businesses, including a detailed recitation of the efforts of the agency  
to comply with the mandate to reduce the disproportionate impact of the rules upon small businesses as  
described below (in accordance with MCL 24.240(1)(a-d)), or (b) the reasons such a reduction was not lawful  
or feasible.  
The proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
A. Identify and estimate the number of small businesses affected by the proposed rules and the probable  
effect on small businesses.  
The proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
B. Describe how the agency established differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables for  
small businesses under the rules after projecting the required reporting, record-keeping, and other  
administrative costs.  
The proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
C. Describe how the agency consolidated or simplified the compliance and reporting requirements for  
small businesses and identify the skills necessary to comply with the reporting requirements.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 6  
The proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
D. Describe how the agency established performance standards to replace design or operation standards  
required by the proposed rules.  
The proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
18. Identify any disproportionate impact the proposed rules may have on small businesses because of their size  
or geographic location.  
The proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
19. Identify the nature of any report and the estimated cost of its preparation by small businesses required to  
comply with the proposed rules.  
The proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
20. Analyze the costs of compliance for all small businesses affected by the proposed rules, including costs of  
equipment, supplies, labor, and increased administrative costs.  
The proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
21. Identify the nature and estimated cost of any legal, consulting, or accounting services that small businesses  
would incur in complying with the proposed rules.  
The proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
22. Estimate the ability of small businesses to absorb the costs without suffering economic harm and without  
adversely affecting competition in the marketplace.  
The proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
23. Estimate the cost, if any, to the agency of administering or enforcing a rule that exempts or sets lesser  
standards for compliance by small businesses.  
The proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
24. Identify the impact on the public interest of exempting or setting lesser standards of compliance for small  
businesses.  
The proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
25. Describe whether and how the agency has involved small businesses in the development of the proposed  
rules.  
The Department of Education did not involve small businesses in the development of the proposed rules. The  
proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
A. If small businesses were involved in the development of the rules, please identify the business(es).  
No small businesses were involved in the development of the proposed rules, which do not apply to small  
businesses.  
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF RULES (INDEPENDENT OF STATUTORY IMPACT)  
26. Estimate the actual statewide compliance costs of the rule amendments on businesses or groups.  
The proposed rules do not impose actual statewide compliance costs on businesses or groups. Application evaluation  
fees for school administrator certification and substitute permits are established by the legislature in MCL 380.1538.  
A. Identify the businesses or groups who will be directly affected by, bear the cost of, or directly benefit  
from the proposed rules.  
School districts and educator preparation institutions will be directly affected by the proposed rules. In general,  
applicants for school administrator certification and endorsement will bear the cost of required examinations.  
B. What additional costs will be imposed on businesses and other groups as a result of these proposed  
rules (i.e., new equipment, supplies, labor, accounting, or recordkeeping)? Please identify the types and  
number of businesses and groups. Be sure to quantify how each entity will be affected.  
No additional costs for equipment, supplies, labor, accounting, or recordkeeping are anticipated as a result of  
the proposed rules. Applicants for school administrator certification will incur the additional cost of a required  
examination. Some individuals may be eligible for reimbursement of examination fees under article 3, part 2,  
section 1104 of 2024 PA 121. Members of the military, veterans, and their dependents will be eligible for  
vouchers to cover the examination fees.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 7  
27. Estimate the actual statewide compliance costs of the proposed rules on individuals (regulated individuals or  
the public). Include the costs of education, training, application fees, examination fees, license fees, new  
equipment, supplies, labor, accounting, or recordkeeping.  
Individuals applying for initial school administrator certification or additional endorsement will be required to pass  
newly developed examinations. Examination fees are expected to be between $150 and $160. It is anticipated that  
approximately 869 individuals will apply for initial school administrator certification and that approximately 78  
individuals will apply for additional endorsements under the new rules, the same numbers that applied in the 2022-  
2023 academic year. The statewide cost for the new examination is therefore anticipated to be approximately  
$146,785 ((869 + 78) x $155).  
A. How many and what category of individuals will be affected by the rules?  
The rules will primarily affect individuals seeking initial school administrator certification and additional  
endorsement. In 2022-2023, the Department of Education issued 869 initial school administrator certificates.  
B. What qualitative and quantitative impact do the proposed changes in rules have on these individuals?  
Individuals applying for initial school administrator certification or additional endorsement will be required to  
pass newly developed examinations. Examination fees are expected to be between $150 and $160. A  
reasonable estimate of the number of individuals who will apply for  
Out-of-state individuals seeking school administrator certification in Michigan will benefit from added clarity  
under the proposed changes in the rules, which will align with the practice of accepting completion of an out-of-  
state school administrator preparation program without having obtained out-of-state school administrator  
certification.  
Under the proposed rules, there will be no expectation of a hearing when the superintendent of public  
instruction denies an application for an initial school administrator certificate. The proposed rules establish  
procedures for the reinstatement of suspended school administrator certificates, for the revocation of  
endorsements for which certificate holders are not eligible, and for the removal of suspensions following  
expungement of convictions upon which suspensions were based.  
The proposed rules provide financial benefits to members of the military, veterans, and their dependents. In  
particular, the proposed rules allow members of the military and veterans to request that all or part of a period of  
active duty satisfy school administrator certificate renewal requirements and allow those individuals and their  
dependents to request refunds of evaluation fees and vouchers for examination fees.  
28. Quantify any cost reductions to businesses, individuals, groups of individuals, or governmental units as a  
result of the proposed rules.  
The proposed rules do not result in cost reductions to businesses or governmental units. The proposed rules allow  
members of the military, veterans, and their dependents to request refunds of application evaluation fees (which,  
under MCL 380.1538, are currently $160 for Michigan applicants for school administrator certification and $240 for  
out-of-state applicants), and to request vouchers to cover the cost of examinations required by the proposed rules.  
Members of the military and veterans may also request that periods of active duty satisfy certificate renewal  
requirements, potentially reducing the cost of education-related professional learning required by the rules.  
29. Estimate the primary and direct benefits and any secondary or indirect benefits of the proposed rules. Please  
provide both quantitative and qualitative information, as well as any assumptions.  
The proposed rules provide financial benefits to members of the military, veterans, and their dependents. There are  
approximately 900 public school districts in Michigan, and the Department of Education issued 869 initial school  
administrator certificates in 2022-2023 and 429 school administrator permits. All members of school communities,  
including administrative staff, teachers, students, and students’ families, will benefit from the added confidence in the  
competence of school administrators demonstrated by passing required examinations.  
30. Explain how the proposed rules will impact business growth and job creation (or elimination) in Michigan.  
The proposed rules may positively impact job creation in Michigan by adding clarity regarding school administrator  
certification for out-of-state individuals, aligning with the practice of accepting completion of an out-of-state school  
administrator preparation program without having earned out-of-state school administrator certification.  
31. Identify any individuals or businesses who will be disproportionately affected by the rules as a result of their  
industrial sector, segment of the public, business size, or geographic location.  
It is not expected that individuals or businesses will be disproportionately affected by the proposed rules as a result of  
their industrial sector, business size, or geographic location. To the extent that Michigan school district  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 8  
superintendents, principals, and assistant principals, and individuals employed in positions with primary responsibility  
for administering instructional programs are considered a segment of the public, they will be disproportionately  
affected by the proposed rules, which address credential requirements for those school administrators and  
procedures related to action taken against their school administrator certificates. If school administrators who are  
members of the military, veterans, and their dependents are considered a segment of the public, they will be  
disproportionately affected by the rules, which make various benefits available to them.  
32. Identify the sources the agency relied upon in compiling the regulatory impact statement, including the  
methodology utilized in determining the existence and extent of the impact of the proposed rules and a cost-  
benefit analysis of the proposed rules.  
The regulatory impact statement was compiled in reliance on the Department of Education’s Office of Educator  
Excellence Educator Workforce Data Report available at:  
http://www.michigan.gov/mde/services/ed-serv/educator-workforce-research/educator-workforce-data-report  
The information about school administrator certification in other states was obtained from the following websites:  
https://www.in.gov/doe/educators/educator-licensing/administrative-licenses/  
https://sboe.ohio.gov/educator-licensure/licensure-pathways/administrator-licenses  
https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Professional-Educator-License-Administrative-Endorsements.aspx  
https://bosa.mn.gov/BOSA/LicInfo/index.html  
https://dpi.wi.gov/licensing/pathways-licensure/administrators  
A. How were estimates made, and what assumptions were made? Include internal and external sources,  
published reports, information provided by associations or organizations, etc., that demonstrate a need  
for the proposed rules.  
The estimation of the cost of implementation of changes required by the proposed rules to the Michigan Online  
Educator Certification System (MOECS) was done in consultation with the manager of MOECS based on an  
examination of the cost of MOECS implementation projects of similar scale.  
ALTERNATIVE TO REGULATION  
33. Identify any reasonable alternatives to the proposed rules that would achieve the same or similar goals.  
There are no reasonable alternatives to the proposed rules that would achieve the same or similar goals. The  
proposed rules comply with and, in some instances, are required by, 1976 PA 451, the revised school code.  
A. Please include any statutory amendments that may be necessary to achieve such alternatives.  
There are no reasonable alternatives to the proposed rules.  
34. Discuss the feasibility of establishing a regulatory program similar to that proposed in the rules that would  
operate through private market-based mechanisms. Please include a discussion of private market-based  
systems utilized by other states.  
Educator certification is a state function. It would not be feasible to establish a uniform and effective system for  
regulation of school administrator certification, including as it relates to school safety, through private-based  
mechanisms.  
35. Discuss all significant alternatives the agency considered during rule development and why they were not  
incorporated into the rules. This section should include ideas considered both during internal discussions  
and discussions with stakeholders, affected parties, or advisory groups.  
No significant alternatives were considered during development of the proposed rules, which are primarily intended to  
align with amendments of the Teacher Certification Code (R 390.1101 to R 390.1216) that took effect on June 27,  
2024.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 9  
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION  
36. As required by MCL 24.245b(1)(c), please describe any instructions regarding the method of complying with  
the rules, if applicable.  
Compliance with the School Administrator Certification Code is generally managed by the Michigan Online Educator  
Certification System (MOECS).  
MCL 24.245(3)  
;