MDE's Response to Secretary Spellings on HQT

Dear Ms. xxx:
On May 20, 2008, you corresponded with Superintendent of Public Instruction Michael P. Flanagan, and Governor Jennifer M. Granholm’s Special Advisor for Education and Communication Charles Wilbur regarding your displeasure with the Governor’s and Mr. Flanagan’s joint request of U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings for a limited variance on Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) provisions for secondary special education teachers in self-contained classrooms. As the federal liaison for the Michigan Department of Education (MDE), I have been asked to respond to your communication.
As you are well aware, the State of Michigan enacted mandatory special education legislation before the federal government put into place the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. As a result, our teachers and administrators are generally recognized throughout the country as leaders in this field, and our colleges of teacher education have distinguished themselves in producing classroom teachers and administrators that are sought out by every state in the nation. The HQT provisions in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) added a new dimension of credentialing for all states, including Michigan. Like other states, we analyzed our system and our education workforce, conscientiously trying to determine how best to apply the new law to the existing Michigan delivery system.
From our perspective, special education teachers are specifically trained and state certified to teach students with disabilities who are working at different academic grade levels, with different textbooks and different curricula. Many take the MI-ACCESS test designed for alternative achievement standards, while others take one or more sections of the Michigan Merit Exam. For clarity purposes, it is important to note that there is only one curriculum framework and set of grade level content standards. Special education does not use a different curriculum; rather, the MI-Access assessments are based on “extended” grade level content expectations. Many of the special education teachers have majors in one or more core content areas, while others frequently team with a teacher who possesses an endorsement in another core content area. As an MDE team, we believed we were addressing the HQT provisions appropriately.
In the context of secondary education, because Michigan school districts are currently implementing the new rigorous high school curriculum, they are reallocating general and special education staffs, classrooms, textbooks and equipment, negotiating new teacher contracts, realigning curricula and establishing additional support systems for struggling students. This also is occurring during a period of challenging state economic conditions, and a severe shortage of highly qualified math, science and special education teachers. Given my experience with many local and intermediate school districts in the state, I think it is an overreach to suggest there is no push whatsoever for teachers to enroll in master’s level courses or specially designed professional development aimed at building on content endorsements. Further, you should be aware that USED’s enforcement and monitoring of Title II was not as prompt in the initial implementation years of NCLB, nor were the ongoing consultations with states as definitive as they might have been. It is my understanding that the MDE staff worked conscientiously within the guidelines of their discussions with USED Title II consultants.
Most recently, the MDE has completed the modification of documents and procedures to ensure future HQT compliance, and currently is working under Mr. Flanagan’s direction in tandem with the State Board of Education in a thorough and focused approach with all of the Michigan teacher preparation institutions to increase the core content knowledge of future teachers. At the same time, we also continue to support greater cooperation between special and general education teachers in the delivery of instruction. For schools not making Adequate Yearly Progress, we recently have revamped our entire system of support for high priority schools to provide for a more efficient, effective and focused response to the needs of students and schools.
Regardless of who is elected President in the November general election, I believe the Congress is dedicated to further reviewing the data produced from NCLB and completing a thorough reauthorization process. How NCLB and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act intersect will be a prominent issue in the Congressional deliberations.
Roberta
Roberta E. Stanley
Director, Office of Admin. Law & Fed. Relations
Michigan Department of Education