Written Comments  
Submitted via Online Survey  
Submitted via Email  
Public Comment: Proposed Amendments to the Michigan Administrative  
Rules for Special Education  
Response ID:51 Data  
2. Demographics  
1. Demographics  
First Name  
Last Name  
School District or Organization (if applicable)  
Email Address  
County of Residence  
What role best describes you as it relates to this survey?  
School administration and support  
Are you providing feedback as an individual or on behalf of an organization?  
Individual  
Name of organization  
3. Feedback  
2. Do you support the proposed amendment to the title of R 340.1708?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
3. Additional comments about R 340.1708.  
4. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(1)?  
No  
If no, explain why not.  
The proposed rule submission for expanded VI eligibility will result in added costs for special education. It is expected that  
there will be an increase in eligibility numbers as a result of the proposed rule change; thus it will amount to increased costs.  
Legislature should be aware that the proposed rule change would result in increased costs to school for special education  
and therefore additional funding should be considered for these added costs.  
5. Additional comments about R 340.1708(1).  
6. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(2)?  
No  
If no, explain why not.  
The proposed rule submission for expanded VI eligibility will result in added costs for special education. It is expected that  
there will be an increase in eligibility numbers as a result of the proposed rule change; thus it will amount to increased costs.  
Legislature should be aware that the proposed rule change would result in increased costs to school for special education  
and therefore additional funding should be considered for these added costs.  
7. Additional comments about R 340.1708(2).  
8. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(3)?  
No  
If no, explain why not.  
The proposed rule submission for expanded VI eligibility will result in added costs for special education. It is expected that  
there will be an increase in eligibility numbers as a result of the proposed rule change; thus it will amount to increased costs.  
Legislature should be aware that the proposed rule change would result in increased costs to school for special education  
and therefore additional funding should be considered for these added costs.  
9. Additional comments about R 340.1708(3).  
10. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(4)?  
No  
If no, explain why not.  
The proposed rule submission for expanded VI eligibility will result in added costs for special education. It is expected that  
there will be an increase in eligibility numbers as a result of the proposed rule change; thus it will amount to increased costs.  
Legislature should be aware that the proposed rule change would result in increased costs to school for special education  
and therefore additional funding should be considered for these added costs.  
11. Additional comments about R 340.1708(4).  
12. Do you support the proposed amendment to R 340.1721e(7)?  
No  
If no, explain why not.  
13. Additional comments about R 340.1721e(7).  
14. General comments about any of the proposed amendments.  
Public Comment: Proposed Amendments to the Michigan Administrative  
Rules for Special Education  
Response ID:52 Data  
2. Demographics  
1. Demographics  
First Name  
Greg  
Last Name  
Morris  
School District or Organization (if applicable)  
BLA  
Email Address  
County of Residence  
Kent  
What role best describes you as it relates to this survey?  
Parent/guardian  
Are you providing feedback as an individual or on behalf of an organization?  
Individual  
Name of organization  
3. Feedback  
2. Do you support the proposed amendment to the title of R 340.1708?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
3. Additional comments about R 340.1708.  
4. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(1)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
5. Additional comments about R 340.1708(1).  
6. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(2)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
7. Additional comments about R 340.1708(2).  
8. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(3)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
9. Additional comments about R 340.1708(3).  
10. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(4)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
11. Additional comments about R 340.1708(4).  
12. Do you support the proposed amendment to R 340.1721e(7)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
13. Additional comments about R 340.1721e(7).  
14. General comments about any of the proposed amendments.  
Public Comment: Proposed Amendments to the Michigan Administrative  
Rules for Special Education  
Response ID:57 Data  
2. Demographics  
1. Demographics  
First Name  
Renee  
Last Name  
Thelen  
School District or Organization (if applicable)  
Ionia County Intermediate School District  
Email Address  
County of Residence  
Clinton  
What role best describes you as it relates to this survey?  
School administration and support  
Are you providing feedback as an individual or on behalf of an organization?  
Individual  
Name of organization  
3. Feedback  
2. Do you support the proposed amendment to the title of R 340.1708?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
3. Additional comments about R 340.1708.  
4. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(1)?  
No  
If no, explain why not.  
Striking of "determined through the manifestation of both of the following" significantly alters who will be found eligible under  
this rule. I'm concerned with unintended consequences that this rule change may lead to. This is an area in which there are  
already significant staffing shortages. Is there data to support that we're currently under-serving students in this area such as  
VI identification rates from one state to the next, etc.? I realize the proposed language more closely aligns with IDEA but there  
are many other places in eligibility criteria where MARSE rules are more detailed than IDEA. I'm uncertain why this one is  
being singled out at this time.  
5. Additional comments about R 340.1708(1).  
6. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(2)?  
No  
If no, explain why not.  
I do not support replacing involvement on the MET from an opthalmologist or optometrist with merely accepting a report from  
the opthalmologist or optometrist. Again this is very discrepant from other MARSE rules where medical professionals are  
required as MET member. Participation as a MET member is important because it gives the opthalmologist or optometrist the  
opportunity to not only provide a report but also interact with the MET team and speak specifically to how the student's visual  
condition relates to VI criteria. Without this direct interface, school teams will be left to interpret visual reports and make these  
decisions without the true involvement of the vision experts.  
7. Additional comments about R 340.1708(2).  
8. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(3)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
9. Additional comments about R 340.1708(3).  
10. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(4)?  
No  
If no, explain why not.  
I would support that the evaluation shall take into consideration the individual needs of the student. However the first part of  
this addition makes assumptions about the individual needs of the student and also gets specific about some things but may  
be omitting other things that could be relevant for a particular student. It would be best to only require that it take into  
consideration the individual needs of the student.  
11. Additional comments about R 340.1708(4).  
12. Do you support the proposed amendment to R 340.1721e(7)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
13. Additional comments about R 340.1721e(7).  
Full support, this is long overdue. It is easy for resident districts to "check out" of their student's needs if they are being served  
in an operating district.  
14. General comments about any of the proposed amendments.  
Public Comment: Proposed Amendments to the Michigan Administrative  
Rules for Special Education  
Response ID:59 Data  
2. Demographics  
1. Demographics  
First Name  
Last Name  
School District or Organization (if applicable)  
Email Address  
County of Residence  
Outside of Michigan  
What role best describes you as it relates to this survey?  
Community member  
Are you providing feedback as an individual or on behalf of an organization?  
Individual  
Name of organization  
3. Feedback  
2. Do you support the proposed amendment to the title of R 340.1708?  
No  
If no, explain why not.  
The existing language calls for a complete range of bases for assessment and determination of the necessity of special  
education services for the visually impaired.  
3. Additional comments about R 340.1708.  
The details on the definition and assessment of visual impairment are needed for the sake of promoting proper delivery of  
special education services. Besides, removing the article "A" from the definition of visual impairment shifts focus away from  
individual cases of visual impairment and the impact it has on people in favor of a focus on visual impairment as a state of  
being and constructed generalizations about what blindness is is held to mean or even should mean for everyone directly  
affected by it.  
4. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(1)?  
No  
If no, explain why not.  
Too much detail removed.  
5. Additional comments about R 340.1708(1).  
Too much detail removed  
6. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(2)?  
No  
If no, explain why not.  
Too much detail removed  
7. Additional comments about R 340.1708(2).  
Too much detail removed  
8. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(3)?  
No  
If no, explain why not.  
Too much detail removed  
9. Additional comments about R 340.1708(3).  
10. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(4)?  
No  
If no, explain why not.  
Too much detail removed  
11. Additional comments about R 340.1708(4).  
I don't know Is such a change really necessary at this point?  
12. Do you support the proposed amendment to R 340.1721e(7)?  
No  
If no, explain why not.  
The residential district MUST be involved in the provision of services to its students  
13. Additional comments about R 340.1721e(7).  
14. General comments about any of the proposed amendments.  
Don't change anything!  
Public Comment: Proposed Amendments to the Michigan Administrative  
Rules for Special Education  
Response ID:63 Data  
2. Demographics  
1. Demographics  
First Name  
Sarah  
Last Name  
Stargardt  
School District or Organization (if applicable)  
Oakland Schools  
Email Address  
County of Residence  
Oakland  
What role best describes you as it relates to this survey?  
Teacher  
Are you providing feedback as an individual or on behalf of an organization?  
Individual  
Name of organization  
3. Feedback  
2. Do you support the proposed amendment to the title of R 340.1708?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
3. Additional comments about R 340.1708.  
4. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(1)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
5. Additional comments about R 340.1708(1).  
6. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(2)?  
No  
If no, explain why not.  
There are times when it is not possible to get an eye report for a student, but a functional vision evaluation conducted by a TVI  
shows educational impact/need. These students would be unable to get service from a TVI if the family cannot produce an eye  
report. I do not think an eye report should be mandatory in order to receive service.  
7. Additional comments about R 340.1708(2).  
8. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(3)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
9. Additional comments about R 340.1708(3).  
10. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(4)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
11. Additional comments about R 340.1708(4).  
12. Do you support the proposed amendment to R 340.1721e(7)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
13. Additional comments about R 340.1721e(7).  
14. General comments about any of the proposed amendments.  
Public Comment: Proposed Amendments to the Michigan Administrative  
Rules for Special Education  
Response ID:64 Data  
2. Demographics  
1. Demographics  
First Name  
Sarah  
Last Name  
Stargardt  
School District or Organization (if applicable)  
Oakland Schools  
Email Address  
County of Residence  
Outside of Michigan  
What role best describes you as it relates to this survey?  
Teacher  
Are you providing feedback as an individual or on behalf of an organization?  
Individual  
Name of organization  
3. Feedback  
2. Do you support the proposed amendment to the title of R 340.1708?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
3. Additional comments about R 340.1708.  
4. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(1)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
5. Additional comments about R 340.1708(1).  
6. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(2)?  
No  
If no, explain why not.  
I made a comment earlier about this (I do not feel an eye report should be required because sometimes we can't get one and  
then a student goes without service), but need to add an additional comment below that I forgot.  
7. Additional comments about R 340.1708(2).  
8. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(3)?  
No  
If no, explain why not.  
There should be a another tier added to include a progressive vision condition. Many students have conditions where they  
see well now, but their vision will deteriorate. Under the above criteria, they would not qualify for service. In these cases,  
several things should be considered: 1. We need to teach them braille and assistive technology in advance so they have a  
reading medium when their vision deteriorates. 2. If they could not qualify until their vision deteriorated to the above criteria,  
the family & school would have to continually request a functional vision evaluation every year to see if the vision had  
deteriorated enough to qualify. That puts undue strain on the family and school district/ISD resources.  
9. Additional comments about R 340.1708(3).  
10. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(4)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
11. Additional comments about R 340.1708(4).  
12. Do you support the proposed amendment to R 340.1721e(7)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
13. Additional comments about R 340.1721e(7).  
14. General comments about any of the proposed amendments.  
Public Comment: Proposed Amendments to the Michigan Administrative  
Rules for Special Education  
Response ID:66 Data  
2. Demographics  
1. Demographics  
First Name  
Jennifer  
Last Name  
Barley  
School District or Organization (if applicable)  
Oakland Schools  
Email Address  
County of Residence  
Oakland  
What role best describes you as it relates to this survey?  
Teacher  
Are you providing feedback as an individual or on behalf of an organization?  
Individual  
Name of organization  
3. Feedback  
2. Do you support the proposed amendment to the title of R 340.1708?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
3. Additional comments about R 340.1708.  
4. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(1)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
5. Additional comments about R 340.1708(1).  
6. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(2)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
7. Additional comments about R 340.1708(2).  
8. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(3)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
9. Additional comments about R 340.1708(3).  
10. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(4)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
11. Additional comments about R 340.1708(4).  
12. Do you support the proposed amendment to R 340.1721e(7)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
13. Additional comments about R 340.1721e(7).  
14. General comments about any of the proposed amendments.  
Public Comment: Proposed Amendments to the Michigan Administrative  
Rules for Special Education  
Response ID:67 Data  
2. Demographics  
1. Demographics  
First Name  
Lori  
Last Name  
Morningstar  
School District or Organization (if applicable)  
Flushing Community Schools  
Email Address  
County of Residence  
Genesee  
What role best describes you as it relates to this survey?  
School administration and support  
Are you providing feedback as an individual or on behalf of an organization?  
Organization  
Name of organization  
Flushing Community Schools  
3. Feedback  
2. Do you support the proposed amendment to the title of R 340.1708?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
The unintended consequences of this proposed rule change regarding the inclusion of the impairment in vision, even with  
correction, will require more evaluation components for eligibility that may included added costs to LEAs and ISDs to hire  
additional highly qualified staff. At this time, there are scarce staff across the state in which to hire to conduct these  
evaluations.  
3. Additional comments about R 340.1708.  
4. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(1)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
The unintended consequences of this proposed rule change regarding the inclusion of the impairment in vision, even with  
correction, will require more evaluation components for eligibility that may included added costs to LEAs and ISDs to hire  
additional highly qualified staff. At this time, there are scarce staff across the state in which to hire to conduct these  
evaluations.  
5. Additional comments about R 340.1708(1).  
6. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(2)?  
No  
If no, explain why not.  
The unintended consequences of this proposed rule change regarding the inclusion of the impairment in vision, even with  
correction, will require more evaluation components for eligibility that may included added costs to LEAs and ISDs to hire  
additional highly qualified staff. At this time, there are scarce staff across the state in which to hire to conduct these  
evaluations.  
7. Additional comments about R 340.1708(2).  
8. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(3)?  
No  
If no, explain why not.  
The unintended consequences of this proposed rule change regarding the inclusion of the impairment in vision, even with  
correction, will require more evaluation components for eligibility that may included added costs to LEAs and ISDs to hire  
additional highly qualified staff. At this time, there are scarce staff across the state in which to hire to conduct these  
evaluations.  
9. Additional comments about R 340.1708(3).  
10. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(4)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
11. Additional comments about R 340.1708(4).  
12. Do you support the proposed amendment to R 340.1721e(7)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
13. Additional comments about R 340.1721e(7).  
14. General comments about any of the proposed amendments.  
Public Comment: Proposed Amendments to the Michigan Administrative  
Rules for Special Education  
Response ID:68 Data  
2. Demographics  
1. Demographics  
First Name  
Victoria  
Last Name  
Haber  
School District or Organization (if applicable)  
Oakland Schools  
Email Address  
County of Residence  
Wayne  
What role best describes you as it relates to this survey?  
Teacher  
Are you providing feedback as an individual or on behalf of an organization?  
Individual  
Name of organization  
3. Feedback  
2. Do you support the proposed amendment to the title of R 340.1708?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
3. Additional comments about R 340.1708.  
4. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(1)?  
No  
If no, explain why not.  
I feel that children with progressive eye conditions should be eligible for VI services. A child may have 20/20 vision but a  
diagnosis of Retinitis Pigmentosa (RP). With RP, the vision may decrease gradually or rapidly but it will eventually lead to  
blindness. If a child can learn blindness skills prior to losing his/her vision, that child will be significantly more prepared. Just  
because the child loses sight in high school, doesn't mean high school curricular expectations and experiences pause. With  
early intervention and exposure to blindness training, these children (and their families) will have developed skills and  
knowledge of resources when the progressive condition worsens.  
5. Additional comments about R 340.1708(1).  
6. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(2)?  
No  
If no, explain why not.  
I feel that having a medical eye report is best practice. However, requiring the child to have an eye report from an  
ophthalmologist or optometrist is limiting. Some families do not have the means to take their child to see a doctor. If a child is  
struggling with vision, but does not have a medical eye report, under this amendment, that child cannot receive any support. If  
the child's vision adversely impacts his/her vision, a functional vision and learning media assessment will indicate that and  
should be sufficient to provide support.  
7. Additional comments about R 340.1708(2).  
8. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(3)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
9. Additional comments about R 340.1708(3).  
10. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(4)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
11. Additional comments about R 340.1708(4).  
12. Do you support the proposed amendment to R 340.1721e(7)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
13. Additional comments about R 340.1721e(7).  
14. General comments about any of the proposed amendments.  
Public Comment: Proposed Amendments to the Michigan Administrative  
Rules for Special Education  
Response ID:71 Data  
2. Demographics  
1. Demographics  
First Name  
Anonymous  
Last Name  
School District or Organization (if applicable)  
Email Address  
County of Residence  
Kalamazoo  
What role best describes you as it relates to this survey?  
Parent/guardian  
Are you providing feedback as an individual or on behalf of an organization?  
Individual  
Name of organization  
3. Feedback  
2. Do you support the proposed amendment to the title of R 340.1708?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
3. Additional comments about R 340.1708.  
4. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(1)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
5. Additional comments about R 340.1708(1).  
6. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(2)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
7. Additional comments about R 340.1708(2).  
8. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(3)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
9. Additional comments about R 340.1708(3).  
10. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(4)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
11. Additional comments about R 340.1708(4).  
12. Do you support the proposed amendment to R 340.1721e(7)?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
13. Additional comments about R 340.1721e(7).  
14. General comments about any of the proposed amendments.  
I commend this effort as it is long overdue. But I really don't see how this will help children with vision impairments. ISDs will  
still do everything in their power to ensure non-visual literacy skills are not received using their "data", which is always riddled  
with errors and omissions. Furthermore, they often don't even follow the rules for administering their "assessments."  
Public Comment: Proposed Amendments to the Michigan Administrative  
Rules for Special Education  
Response ID:72 Data  
2. Demographics  
1. Demographics  
First Name  
Sherry  
Last Name  
Rye  
School District or Organization (if applicable)  
Oakland Schools  
Email Address  
County of Residence  
Washtenaw  
What role best describes you as it relates to this survey?  
Teacher  
Are you providing feedback as an individual or on behalf of an organization?  
Individual  
Name of organization  
3. Feedback  
2. Do you support the proposed amendment to the title of R 340.1708?  
Yes  
If no, explain why not.  
3. Additional comments about R 340.1708.  
4. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(1)?  
No  
If no, explain why not.  
This definition is too broad. Ocular motor issues (convergence insufficiency) are brain based and not ocular based.  
5. Additional comments about R 340.1708(1).  
This takes away the progressive conditions which is very impacting. A child with RP who does not have impaired vision yet,  
needs the training while they have their vision to learn the skills they will need when they loose their vision. This is a critical  
time for them to develop future skills and the supports they need emotionally and socially as they progress through this loss.  
6. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(2)?  
No  
If no, explain why not.  
At times, it is not possible to get an eye report with an acuity or diagnosis for a a child under 5 without them undergoing  
anesthesia for an exam. Many of these severely impaired little ones are medically fragile and undergoing anesthesia is not an  
option. Not being able to begin Early On services for VI should not hinge on this report if the TCVI does a Functional Vision  
Eval and determines that the child functions as though visually impaired and would benefit from service.  
7. Additional comments about R 340.1708(2).  
8. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(3)?  
If no, explain why not.  
9. Additional comments about R 340.1708(3).  
10. Do you support the proposed amendments of R 340.1708(4)?  
If no, explain why not.  
11. Additional comments about R 340.1708(4).  
12. Do you support the proposed amendment to R 340.1721e(7)?  
If no, explain why not.  
13. Additional comments about R 340.1721e(7).  
14. General comments about any of the proposed amendments.  
From:  
To:  
Cc:  
Subject:  
Date:  
Rule set 2020-89 ED  
Friday, March 19, 2021 10:41:45 AM  
CAUTION: This is an External email. Please send suspicious emails to abuse@michigan.gov  
This email is sent on behalf of the Michigan Association of Administrators of  
Special Education, an organization representing more than 600 professionals  
who administer programs for students with disabilities in traditional local school  
districts, public school academies, and intermediate school districts across the  
state of Michigan. The mission of MAASE is to provide its members with  
knowledge and skills to provide leadership for the development and  
implementation of quality programs and services for students with disabilities  
within the total education community. Given that the Michigan Administrative  
Rules for Special Education have a direct impact on the work of our members,  
we appreciate this opportunity to provide input on the proposed changes. Our  
comments are as follows:  
R340.1708  
We understand that this rule change is required because current MARSE  
language is more restrictive than the language of IDEA. We support the  
proposed changes for that reason and note the following strengths in the  
proposed changes:  
The revised format of the eligibility criteria is clear and more easily  
understood.  
Requiring a report from an ophthalmologist or optometrist rather than  
including that person as a required member of the multidisciplinary team  
is a positive change, reflecting the reality of how the process typically  
plays out in districts. We also would support similar revisions to the rules  
for PI, OHI, and SXI eligibility which currently include medical  
professionals as required members of the multidisciplinary team.  
We offer the following concerns/suggestions related to the revised VI eligibility  
rule:  
1. Written guidance and technical assistance from MDE/OSE likely will be  
necessary to clarify how teams might define “adverse educational impact”  
in the absence of other qualifying criteria.  
2. While we generally support the concept of including a physician’s report in  
the comprehensive evaluation, we encourage MDE/OSE to provide  
guidance or standards for the content of such a report. Will a one-line  
diagnosis written on a prescription pad suffice, or does the propose rule  
envision something more in-depth?  
Should the physician’s report  
specifically address evaluation results, eligibility criteria, or anticipated  
needs? The field will need guidance regarding acceptable practice that can  
be shared with participating physicians. We also hope MDE/OSE will  
provide guidance that encourages districts to continue current practices  
around involving physicians in evaluations and eligibility decisions more  
directly via conference call or meeting.  
3. Guidance/technical assistance may be necessary regarding how a more  
general definition of VI eligibility relates to ocular motor issues that tend  
to impact visual perception/processing but not visual acuity.  
4. If this rule change has the effect of increasing the number of students who  
are found eligible under the category of VI, existing staffing shortages in  
this area will become even more problematic. We believe it will be  
important for MDE/OSE to take a leadership role with institutions of higher  
education to a) project future eligibility rates and related staffing needs,  
and b) ensure that there are adequate teacher preparation programs in  
our state to serve this area of exceptionality. We also suggest that  
MDE/OSE should explore alternate routes to certification in this specialty  
area, as well as flexibilities that ISDs would be permitted to incorporate  
into ISD plans to address staffing shortages.  
R340.1721e  
We are aware that this proposed rule change was originally intended to relieve  
parents of the burden of inviting the resident district to the IEP meeting and  
that it also corrects more stringent language that was not intended in the  
February 2020 rule revision. We believe it is appropriate for the resident  
district to continue to be involved with programming decisions for students who  
are placed in center programs outside the district, and the requirement to invite  
a representative of the resident district will promote meaningful consideration  
of the full continuum of placement options on an annual basis.  
While we support this proposed change, we believe it will be important for  
MDE/OSE to provide written guidance to clarify how the invitation process will  
work. Some areas of potential confusion that we have identified include:  
1. What constitutes acceptable documentation of an “invitation” to the  
resident district representative in the case of a monitoring visit or state  
complaint.  
2. Whether/how the written excusal process in IDEA applies if the resident  
district does not attend the IEP meeting.  
3. Qualifications of the person who represents the resident district at the  
IEP meeting; specifically, whether this person must meet all the criteria  
for serving as “representative of the public agency”.  
We appreciate this opportunity to provide input on the proposed rule changes  
and stand ready to assist in future rule change considerations should the need  
arise. Please do not hesitate to contact MAASE if our Board of Directors or our  
Legislative Action Committee can be of any assistance going forward. You may  
reach  
us  
via  
our  
Executive  
Director,  
Abby  
Cypher,  
at  
Sent from Mail for Windows 10  
From:  
To:  
Subject:  
Date:  
MARSE 2289  
Sunday, March 21, 2021 10:23:05 PM  
CAUTION: This is an External email. Please send suspicious emails to  
Greetings,  
I work in the field of Special Education. I recently had the opportunity to hear that you are  
reviewing the Rule as it relates to VI students. I am so excited that the rule will be reviewed.  
I have had occasions where a student was eliminated as being a student with a VI disability  
due to the percentage of vision loss. By revisiting this rule in MARSE and making it mirror  
the Federal Regulations more students will benefit from the services for students with a  
disability.  
Kind Regards,  
Vanessa Cheatham  
SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE  
Advisory Panel to the Michigan State Board of Education and the Michigan Department of Education  
Office of Special Education  
P.O. Box 30008 • Lansing, Michigan 48909  
Telephone (517) 373-9433 • Facsimile (517) 373-7504  
Representation:  
11 Members At-Large  
American Federation of Teachers  
Michigan  
Public Comment  
Michigan Department of Education  
Office of Special Education  
608 West Allegan  
P.O. Box 30008  
Lansing, MI 48909  
Autism Society of Michigan  
Learning Disabilities  
Association of Michigan  
Downs Syndrome Association of  
West Michigan  
Michigan Alliance for Families  
Michigan Association of  
Administrators of Special  
Education  
March 25, 2021  
To Whom It May Concern,  
Michigan Association of  
Computer Users in Learning  
Michigan Association of  
Intermediate School  
Administrators  
A quorum of the Executive Committee of the Special Education Advisory Committee  
(SEAC) is writing in support of the two proposed changes to the Michigan  
Administrative Rules for Special Education (MARSE) rule set, R340.1708 and  
R340.1721e.  
Michigan Association of  
Nonpublic Schools  
Michigan Association of Public  
School Academies  
We unanimously support each of the changes, additions, and deletions to R340.1708,  
(Visual Impairment), as proposed.  
Michigan Association of School  
Administrators  
Michigan Association of School  
Boards  
We unanimously support each of the changes, additions, and deletions to R340.1721e,  
(Individualized Education Program), as proposed.  
Michigan Association of School  
Psychologists  
Michigan Association of School  
Social Workers  
Thank you for allowing our participation in this matter,  
SEAC Executive Committee  
Michigan Association of  
Secondary School Principals  
Michigan Association for  
Supervision and Curriculum  
Development  
Dr. Donna Case, Chairperson  
LaKeya Martin – Co-chair  
Justin Caine  
Michigan Council for Exceptional  
Children  
Charlie Hollerith  
Michigan Education Association  
Michigan Elementary and Middle  
School Principals Association  
Michigan Occupational Therapy  
Association  
Sarah Vander Baan  
Submitted electronically to MDE-OSE-Public-Comment@michigan.gov by Teri Pettit  
(SEAC Facilitator) on this 25th day of March, 2021.  
Michigan Speech-Language-  
Hearing Association  
Michigan Transition Services  
Association  
Student Advocacy Center of  
Michigan  
The Arc Michigan  
From:  
To:  
Cc:  
Subject:  
Date:  
Comments by Disability Rights Michigan (DRM) on Proposed MARSE Rule Revision 2020-89  
Friday, March 26, 2021 9:59:55 AM  
Attachments:  
image001.png  
CAUTION: This is an External email. Please send suspicious emails to abuse@michigan.gov  
Greetings friends!  
Disability Rights Michigan (DRM) is the private, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization  
mandated to advocate for people with disabilities in Michigan. DRM is pleased to comment on  
the proposed MARSE revision 2020-89 affecting the definition of visual impairment and  
resident district responsibilities.  
Proposed R 340.1708: The proposed language removes the additional state eligibility  
requirements on acuity, peripheral vision or deteriorating eye condition. This change aligns the  
language with federal law (34 CFR 300.8(c)(13)). DRM supports this change.  
The proposed language also broadens the scope and availability of orientation and mobility  
evaluations and clarifies that an optometry or ophthalmology report may be included in the  
multidisciplinary team review in lieu of actual team participation. To the extent the rule does  
not shift financial responsibility for these educational evaluations to the parent, DRM supports  
these changes.  
Proposed R 340.1721e(7): For students attending school in an operating district other than the  
district where they live, the proposed language makes resident district IEP participation  
optional. DRM does not object to this change.  
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me if you have any questions.  
Mark  
Mark McWilliams, Attorney  
Director, Public Policy and Media Relations  
(he/him/his)  
Disability Rights Michigan  
4095 Legacy Parkway  
Lansing, MI 48911  
(517) 487-1755/(800) 288-5923  
Fax: (517) 487-0827  
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The transmitted material is intended only for the use of the  
addressee. It may contain confidential, proprietary and / or legally privileged information. If  
you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any review, use, dissemination,  
distribution, or copying of this communication, in whole or in part, is prohibited. If you  
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail reply or by  
phone (517-487-1755), delete the communication and destroy any copies.  
AVISO DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD: El material transmitido está destinado únicamente para  
el uso del destinatario. Puede contener información confidencial, patentada y/o legalmente  
privilegiada. Si usted no es el destinatario previsto, tenga en cuenta que cualquier revisión,  
uso, difusión, distribución o copia de esta comunicación, total o parcial, está prohibida. Si  
recibió esta comunicación por error, notifíquenos inmediatamente por correo electrónico de  
respuesta o por teléfono (517-487-1755), elimine la comunicación y destruya cualquier copia.  
Michigan Department of Education  
Office of Special Education  
608 West Allegan Street  
P.O. Box 30008  
Lansing, MI 48909  
March 30, 2021  
RE: Rule Set 2020-89 ED  
This letter is written on behalf of the Michigan Council for Exceptional Children, an  
organization representing more than 550 special educators and families of students  
with exceptionalities. The core purpose of Michigan CEC is to strengthen the field of  
education to impact success for individuals with exceptionalities, and to that end we  
appreciate this opportunity to provide input on the proposed changes to the Michigan  
Administrative Rules for Special Education which directly impact the lives of our  
students, families, and service providers. Our comments are as follows:  
R340.1708  
We recognize that this language change is necessary because the current Michigan  
criteria for VI eligibility are more restrictive than the language in IDEA. We support  
the rule change because we understand it is mandatory.  
We are pleased to see that MDE/OSE also has taken this opportunity to clarify the  
role of the ophthalmologist or optometrist relative to the multidisciplinary team.  
Districts typically struggle with how to include a medical professional as part of the  
evaluation team when they rarely participate in the same manner that local district  
team members participate. We believe it is very appropriate to require that the full  
and individual evaluation include a report from an ophthalmologist or optometrist  
rather than requiring that person to be a member of the team. This is consistent  
with how—of necessity---the practice often plays out in districts, and we would  
advocate for similar changes to the rules for PI, OHI, and SXI eligibility which  
currently require medical professionals to be part of the multidisciplinary team.  
While we support the proposed changes generally, we have the following related  
concerns/suggestions:  
1. The less restrictive eligibility language likely will cause some confusion in the  
field as special educators struggle to define “adverse impact” in the absence  
of other qualifying criteria. Written guidance and technical assistance from  
MDE/OSE likely will be necessary in this area.  
2. While we generally support the concept of having a physician submit a report  
rather than being a required member of the multidisciplinary evaluation team,  
we believe that the field may require additional guidance regarding what  
constitutes an acceptable report. Is it a one-line diagnosis on a prescription  
pad or a multi-page report of findings? The field will need guidance regarding  
what is acceptable practice.  
3. Guidance/technical assistance may be necessary regarding how the more  
general definition of VI eligibility relates to ocular motor issues that tend to  
impact visual perception/processing but not visual acuity. These issues  
historically have been considered more of an underlying factor contributing to  
a specific learning disability, as opposed to being considered a visual  
impairment. Does the new definition go beyond acuity to include ocular motor  
issues under the VI eligibility category?  
4. As you are no doubt aware, staffing shortages in the area of visual impairment  
are an ongoing issue for districts across the state. If this rule change has the  
effect of increasing the number of students who are found eligible under the  
category of VI (as we believe it may), these staffing shortages will become  
even more problematic. We believe it will be important for MDE/OSE to take  
a leadership role with institutions of higher education to a) project future  
eligibility rates and related staffing needs, and b) ensure that there are  
adequate teacher preparation programs in our state to serve this area of  
exceptionality. MDE/OSE also might explore alternate routes to certification  
in this specialty area, as well as permitted flexibilities that ISDs might  
incorporate into ISD plans to address shortages.  
R340.1721e  
We are aware that this proposed rule change was originally intended to relieve  
parents of the burden of inviting the resident district to the IEP meeting, and we  
strongly agree that the parent should not have this burden. We also appreciate that  
this proposed change corrects more stringent language that was not intended in the  
February 2020 rule revision. We believe it is appropriate for the resident district to  
continue to be involved with programming decisions for students who are placed in  
center programs outside the district, and we agree that meaningful consideration of  
the full continuum of placement options on an annual basis is not possible without  
the involvement of the resident district.  
While we support this proposed change, we believe it will be important for  
MDE/OSE to provide written guidance regarding how the process will work. Some  
areas of potential confusion that we have identified include:  
1. For purposes of monitoring or state complaints, what constitutes acceptable  
documentation of an “invitation” to the resident district representative?  
2. If the resident district does not attend the IEP meeting, will a written  
excusal be necessary? May the meeting proceed without the resident  
district representative if the parent does not agree to an excusal, or must  
the meeting be rescheduled?  
3. Are there specific qualifications for the person who represents the resident  
district at the IEP meeting? Must this person meet all the criteria for serving  
as “representative of the public agency”?  
Again, we appreciate this opportunity to provide input on matters that impact our  
members and the students we serve. Please do not hesitate to contact Michigan CEC  
if our Board of Directors or our Legislative Action and Advocacy Committee can be of  
any assistance going forward. You may reach us via our Executive Director, Ann  
Respectfully,  
Ann Walton, Executive Director of Michigan CEC  
;