Legislative Action Committee

Legislative Action Committee / October 2017

Focus Areas: Skilled Staff

We are currently exploring improved systems around dispute resolution. We are reviewing content from a variety of sources with the idea of developing a position paper on ways to improve the dispute resolution process in Michigan.

We are also working on developing a quarterly reporting format that will go out to the general membership relative to legislative activity.

Stay tuned for more information.

E-Rate – The FCC is considering a policy change which would deeply cut–if not eliminate– IT support for Category 2 (internal connections) within the E-Rate program. Adopted as part of the 2014 modernization, this is a premature policy considering that it would undermine the intent of the 2014 vote and threaten the ability of schools and libraries to access and afford high speed connectivity in their classrooms.

E-Rate provides $3.9 billion in discounts annually to ensure that all public libraries and K- 12 public and private schools gain access to broadband connectivity and robust internal Wi-Fi. As of December 31, 2015, schools and libraries have received over $31 billion in E-Rate funds. In fact, E-Rate is the third largest stream of federal resources in the country, after Title I and IDEA. In fiscal year 2017, Michigan’s schools and libraries received over $36.1 million to support expanding connectivity in the classroom.

Call to Action:The FCC has asked for the public to submit initial Comments on this Public Notice by October 23rd and Reply Comments by November 7th. Schools, districts, educators and parents are asked to file comments telling the FCC to leave E-Rate Category 2 funds alone. A strong response might prevent the FCC from taking action to transfer E-Rate funds. For guidance and tools on how to file comments, go to the resource page on the AASA website: http://aasa.org/content.aspx?id=634.

Legislative Action Committee / April 2016

Focus Areas: Skilled Staff

Type: Board Appointed

The House Education Committee began testimony on a package of bills (House Bills 5409, 5410, 5411, 5412, 5413, 5414, 5415, 5416, 5417, and 5418) designed to end seclusion and restraint policies for students outside of emergency situations.

As of now, MAASE has taken a neutral position on the legislation and has outlined several changes that we feel are still necessary before we can support the bill.  Those changes can be found here on our wiki: http://maase.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/107153454/MAASE-April2016-Seclusion-Restraint-LG.pdf.

We want to thank the members who have reached out to us and provided feedback or expressed concerns about these bills.  To this end, we feel it is important to remind the membership that legislation is a situation when less is more.  This is counter-intuitive for those of us who have made our living in the special education world, where the more detailed we can be, the more likely we will be compliant, ensure FAPE, and/or stay out of trouble in general!  But when it comes to legislative language, omissions are usually a blessing.  It is imperative that we help our fellow special education colleagues, our principals, and our superintendents take a step back from this legislation for a moment and distinguish the things that we would still be permitted to do because of omissions in the bill language (e.g. student-level BIPs, which are mandated under IDEA and the MARSE).

The thing we have to keep in mind about legislation is that the legislators can tell us what districts can or cannot do, but they cannot make districts do them well.  Our goal as we collaborate with legislators and the LG’s Office is to support language that reiterates the importance of PBIS and also supports the 2006 State Board Standards for the Emergency Use of Seclusion and Restraint, since the majority of districts are following those practices already.  At the end of the day, we believe that this legislation will give districts another reason to critically examine current district practices and to reiterate to their staff that seclusion and/or restraint are ONLY to be used in emergency situations- both positive outcomes in our opinion.

To date, we have met with Senators and Representatives, and have met on three occasions with the LG’s Chief of Staff and/or the LG himself around the S&R bills.  Last week, we met with MASA and MAISA lobbyists to ensure we were all on the same page.

Moving forward, we will continue to meet with legislators, the LG’s Office, and our association colleagues at MASA/MAISA.  Many of our members will engage their legislators around this topic through our Michigan Legislative Action Seminar (MLAS) on April 19-20th.  We are also working with members on coordinated testimony in the House Education Committee in the short run as the bill moves through the House.  We will engage in similar activities when and if the bill passes the House and heads to the Senate.

We appreciate your attempts to share this information with your superintendents. Remember that other associations are looking to MAASE for guidance in this area, given our expertise.  Please continue to be proactive with your representatives and superintendents in this regard.

Seclusion and Restraint!  For the latest MAASE input on these bills, please refer to our wiki here: http://maase.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/107153454/MAASE-April2016-Seclusion-Restraint-LG.pdf.  We appreciate your attempts to share this information with your superintendents.  Remember that other associations are looking to MAASE for guidance in this area, given our expertise.  Please continue to be proactive with your representatives and superintendents in this regard.

Join us for MLAS on April 19th and 20th, when we will hear from the LG and take to the Capitol to have conversation with our representatives!

Legislative Action Committee / February 2016

Focus Areas: Skilled Staff

Type: Board Appointed

The Legislative Action Committee (LAC) has continued to hone the MAASE position and input on draft legislation on seclusion and restraint.  With help from MAASE’s input and concerns we raised, the drafters removed the term ‘separation’ that appeared in early versions, and reinstated ‘seclusion,’ a term with which the field is familiar.  With the most recent draft, we continue to be most concerned about the proposed language and definition around ‘usual teaching environment.’

The most recent MAASE memo and redlined versions of draft legislation can be found on our wiki here:

http://maase.pbworks.com/w/page/70597734/MAASE%20Position%20and%20Input%20Statements

Some Seclusion & Restraint Talking Points:

• We commend the Lieutenant Governor for taking time to gather input and recommendations from parents, students, and stakeholders statewide focused on ensuring all students with disabilities receive quality services that recognize and respect their unique potential, and we look forward to working together in the future.
• We agree that seclusion and restraint should only be utilized in emergencies when all other avenues are exhausted, but proposed definitions of “emergency situation” and “usual teaching environment” must be developed with care.
• The proposed creation of local “Human Rights Commissions” is unnecessary. Additionally, the concept raises concerns with respect to student privacy and the role of local Parent Advisory Committees (PACs).