Reflection 1/20/15

Section 21F of the School Aid Act

In 2013 Section 21F was added to the School Aid Act. This section has been promoted as a
digital learning initiative and allows students in grades six through twelve the opportunity to take
up to two online courses per semester. Online courses are defined as courses in which time,
location, or both separate the students and teacher and in which the teacher has a valid Michigan
teaching certificate in the content area.
If students choose to enroll in online courses, as opposed to traditional courses within our
district, there are financial implications. Districts will pay up to 1/12th of a students foundation
allowance for an online course. For two courses, this would amount to a possible 1/6th of their
foundation allowance. This could total 1/3rd of their foundation allowance for the year. The
advent of such online learning opportunities could have a crippling affect on our finances. We
are presented with several options to address this new online learning initiative.
One option would be to combat the risk of losing funds by the creation of our own online
courses. Acceptable online courses are listed on the Michigan Virtual website. Therefore, for an
online course to be approved, our school district would be required to provide Michigan Virtual
University with a course syllabus and provide a link to the course on the school website. This
approach has several potential benefits. First, we would be able to suggest our own courses to
parents as high quality and as a practical option, given teachers would be available in person as
well. Second, the creation of online courses could allow us to potentially enroll students from
other district and increase funds for the district.
Creating online courses presents a large risk as well. There is a strong possibility of not
recouping the cost required to create such courses. In the high school alone there are nearly one
hundred courses offered. Creating online versions of all of these courses would require large
stipends for the teachers. An alternative would be to place an online course on select teachers
schedules. These teachers would be required within their normal duties to produce the course. It
would be a guessing game as to which course would be in high demand. Also, this would create
the risk that students would not enroll and we therefore we would have empty classes and would
need to restructure the schedule.
Section 21F requires us to notify parents on our website of the opportunity to enroll in online
courses. Rather than provide the information on the website subtly, I suggest we are proactive
with the opportunity to take online courses and warn parents of the potential complication. We
are a district with a large proportion of at-risk students who receive supplemental academic
courses, free tutoring, free summer school, paraprofessional support, and weekend support. If
we contrast our culture of support with the dangers of navigating an online course alone, few
parents will seek courses through Michigan Virtual. We can emphasize our willingness to
provide the same access to technology and tutoring as other students, while also stressing that
our teachers will not be the instructors and may not be familiar with the content of these online
courses. Addressing this at orientation and another parent meeting near the halfway point of the
year would be a great way to inform parents and deter them from taking courses elsewhere.

Dissuading the masses will not halt all students from seeking online courses. We must support
those who do seek courses from other school districts. One of the major concerns about student
opting to enroll in courses elsewhere is the rigor in such courses. Section 21F states that neither
the Michigan Department of Education nor Michigan Virtual University has the authority to
reject courses. Therefore, it is our responsibility to ensure that our students are taking online
courses that contribute to their academic success. Our counselors need to be cognizant of our
ability to deny student requests for online courses. According to the act, school districts are able
to reject requests for courses based upon five reasons. The five approved reasons include 1) the
student has already gained credit in the course; 2) the course will not provide credit; 3) the
course is inconsistent with graduation requirements; 4) the student does not require the
prerequisite knowledge to be successful 5) the online course is insufficient in quality or rigor.
The fourth reason listed provides us with the ability to deny students access to courses that they
may fail due to not taking a prerequisite course, or failing a prerequisite course. This may also
allow us to restrict students from retaking previously failed courses online. Our prerogative
within the district is to have students make-up courses at summer school so that they are still on
pace for graduation. If students seek the opportunity to retake a course online, we are able to
reject their application due to the fact that the lack the prerequisite knowledge to be successful on
their own, as demonstrated by their prior failure. Based upon the fifth reason, we may also
restrict students from taking cake classes, which will not prepare them for future classes in our
district. Counselors and administration must thoroughly examine each application to take
courses online and ensure that our students are challenged and have the potential to be
successful.
One final challenge that section 21F presents is logistics within the building. Students enrolled
in online courses will have no classroom with which to report for either one or two hours per
day. It is essential that these online courses be scheduled the first and last hour of the day. This
may require a few additional teachers to have first and last hour planning periods. Some
students will arrive late and others will leave early. Yet, some students arrive with young
siblings in the adjacent building and will need a place to report. It is imperative that we attempt
to accommodate these students; especially because some will be taking quality courses that our
district is not able to provide. To address this issue, we will have the district media center open
for high school and middle school students before and after school. We will send a letter home
to these parents explaining that we are providing their students with additional computer time
that other students do not possess, but we expect discipline in the media center and throughout
the campus during their off hour(s). We will stress that failure to comply will result in loss of
access to the media center.
Section 21F of the School Aid Act presents new challenges to us as a district. Through being
proactive with parents, diligent with applications, and by providing accommodation for those
eligible, we can limit frivolous online courses and assist those seeking courses that we cannot
offer.

Reflection 1/27/15
Student Discipline
One of the most contentious issues for high schools is student discipline. Students with
disabilities and students without disabilities are both entitled to due process and opportunities to
correct behavior. It is vital that we address the dichotomy of maintaining a safe school with an
environment conducive to learning, and of providing due process and interventions for students
with behavioral issues.
While it is our goal as a school district to nurture students and provide positive interventions,
there are offenses with which a non-negotiable expulsion is required by the Michigan
Department of Education. Michigan law requires districts to expel students permanently if he or
she possesses a dangerous weapon, commits arson, or commits criminal sexual conduct. If a
student physically assaults a school employee, he or she shall also be expelled permanently. A
student does possess the right to petition for reinstatement when expelled permanently. While
these aforementioned offenses are obviously unacceptable, it is still the responsibility of our
district to ensure that the offenses and consequences are outlined in the student handbook and
adopted by the school board. Therefore, we must review our policies and amend them if
necessary on a yearly basis.
Consequences for less severe offenses are dictated by school district, pending approval from the
school boards. Students who are guilty of gross misdemeanor, such as selling drugs or assault, or
persistent disobedience may face long-term suspension or expulsions, depending upon district
policy. To maintain consistency, it is crucial that prohibited behaviors and consequences are
documented in board policy. The more clarity and consistency we offer, the less ambiguity can
be used against our enforcement of policies.
With the advent of social media, disputes between the students often start online and trickle into
the school. Senate Bill No. 74 addresses the severity of bullying online and the ability of school
districts to issue referrals and discipline for cyber bullying. The bottom line with online activity
is that if it disrupts the learning environment, for multiple students or for a single victim of
bullying, the school has the responsibility to impose discipline on the perpetrator. Given that this
is a new issue, we must aim to codify our procedures on this offense and communicate with
parents of the severity of the offense.
Transparency with parents and creating detailed board approved consequences for prohibited
behavior are only part of the battle. We must ensure that students receive proper due process
when accused of an offense. It is vital to understand that discipline procedures are different for
students without a disability and those who possess a physical or learning disability.
Students without a disability are subject to all consequences outlined in the district handbook. If
a student is being suspended for 10 days or less, he or she must receive due process in the forms
of a notice of accusations and an opportunity to respond to the accusations. If a student accrues
multiple suspensions, it is the responsibility of the school to explore why such behavior is
occurring. Two things should be considered. A team should come together and determine if the

student demonstrates characteristics of a disability and if similar behaviors are resulting in

discipline. If the student demonstrates characteristics of a disability, he or she should be tested.
If a student is missing a substantial amount of instruction due to discipline, it should be
considered if this is a pattern of removal. If it is concluded that the student does not possess a
disability but there is a pattern, a functional behavior analysis should be completed and a
behavior intervention plan should be created. This is not required by law, but is an intervention
that provides added support for the student to be successful and documentation that we as the
school are providing interventions. On the other hand, if there is no pattern of removal and the
student does not demonstrate characteristics of a disability, he or she should continue to face
consequences moving forward. This may result in continued suspensions and expulsion for
persistent disobedience. If a student does reach that point and is being expelled from school, the
student and the parent must have sufficient notice to prepare for a board hearing.
Students with disabilities also must be held accountable for their behavior and should be
provided due process. It is good practice to be proactive and conduct a functional behavior
analysis and develop and implement a behavior intervention plan before a student approaches ten
days of suspension. When a student receives ten cumulative days of suspension, a pattern of
removal should be considered. If it is determined that the behavior constitutes a pattern, then the
school must hold a manifestation determination review in order to conclude if the behavior is
caused by the students disability.
It is crucial that we notify parents of a manifestation hearing in a timely manner and conducted it
within 10 school days of a decision to change the placement of a student. At the MDR, two
considerations drive the meeting. First, is the misbehavior a manifestation of the disability?
Second, has the students IEP been implemented with fidelity? If the removal is a manifestation
of the disability, the student must be allowed to return to school and the IEP and behavior plan
should be adjusted and followed. If the behavior is not a manifestation, then the regular
discipline process can be applied. However, in future suspensions special education services
must be provided.
In severe offenses, involving weapons, drugs etc., students with disabilities will be placed in an
alternate education setting for up to 45 days. It is still the responsibility of the school to provide
special education services and modification; as well as to revamp the IEP and behavior plan to
deter such behavior in the future. If we seek to expel a student with a disability for offenses not
considered dangerous, the student should remain in the last agreed upon setting in the IEP until
the hearing is held.
It is crucial that we create an environment conducive to learning and provide due process for our
students. We must ensure that we communicate policies to parents, codify them in the student
handbook, and receive approval from the school board. We cannot tolerate dangerous and
persistent behavior, but we must too ensure that we provide adequate interventions for students
to correct misbehavior.

Reflection 2/3/15
Students Fourth Amendment Rights
As a school district it is essential that we provide a safe learning environment for our students.
At the same time we must ensure that we do not infringe upon students Fourth Amendment
rights. Students have a diminished expectation for privacy within the school setting, yet we must
still perform searches in a reasonable manner and with certain principles intact.
To best protect our students and our school, it is vital that only administrators perform searches.
All searches should be conducted with two staff members present. This may include two
administrators or one administrator and one security officer. Teachers with reasonable suspicion
or information prompting a student search should relay their suspicions to an administrator.
Additionally, all searches should be conducted with the student present, if possible. In certain
cases of absenteeism or in cases presenting danger, it may not be possible to include a student in
a search. With all forms of searches, the guiding principal is that a more invasive search requires
a higher degree of suspicion that a crime or infraction was committed.
The most common form of search that will be conducted is a locker search. Random locker
searches performed without any reasonable suspicion infringe upon students Fourth Amendment
rights and are therefore prohibited. We will only perform locker searches under a couple
circumstances. A random locker search may only be performed if there is reasonable suspicion
that there is a dangerous weapon or device on campus that presents danger. A targeted locker
search may be conducted if there is reasonable suspicion that there are prohibited items in a
students locker, that theft has occurred, or that other infractions have been committed.
A more invasive form of search is a search of personal property. Students have more of an
expectation to privacy with their personal property, such as purses. Therefore, a higher degree of
suspicion is required. Random searching of property is prohibited. An identified students
property may be searched with minimal suspicion if the student gives consent to the search. It is
important that the consent is obtained in manner that is not coercive in nature. Also, an
identified students property may be searched without consent, if there is reasonable individual
suspicion.
Searches of students are even more invasive, yet at times necessary. This requires an even higher
degree of individual suspicion and should be conducted by an administrator or security officer of
the same gender as the student. When performing a body search of students, the student should
first be instructed to empty pockets. If this does not produce the prohibited or stolen item, then a
pat down may be performed. Strip searches should only be performed with a high degree of
certainty and if the situation present potential danger.
It is becoming more common for school districts to require drug testing for extra-curricular
activities. According to the courts, it is permissible to use random drug testing of students to
deter drug use. Given that drugs are not a pervasive problem in our school district, we will not
subject students to such testing under any circumstances.

Reflection 2/10/15
Bullying
One of the most pressing issues for our district at this time is how to deter bullying and how to
address the offense when it occurs. The district policy, as printed in the student handbook,
prohibits all forms of bullying. It also stresses that all students are equally protected from
bullying. The inclusion of our policy was discussed at a board hearing last year and was
adopted. We have been in compliance with Matts School Law, Public Act 451. Public Act 478
amends Matts School Law and requires mandatory disciplinary action for such actions. With
these new requirements and the increase in bullying within out district, we must thoroughly
evaluate our policy, and consider how and when to apply punishments.
Bullying is defined as any written, verbal, or physical act, or any electronic communication, that
is likely to harm one or more pupils. Bullying substantially interferes with educational
opportunities, places a student in fear, prevents an individual from participating or benefits from
programs or activities, has a negative effect on a students health, or causes a disruption in the
learning environment. These characteristics of bullying are essential in gauging when to apply
disciplinary action.
Currently, our tier one intervention with bullying is a anti-bullying week in September. During
this week, students recite an anti-bullying pledge and attend a couple presentations on the
severity of bullying. We also discuss the disciplinary consequences of bullying at grade level
meetings in September. These interventions appear to be beneficial for the students and therefore
should be continued.
We have experienced several incidents this year, in which fights or verbal altercations stemmed
from weeks or days of bullying. We were unable to prevent such situations due to our lack of
knowledge. As a district we need to make our students feel safe in reporting such incidents.
During anti-bullying week we did advertise the Ok 2 Say movement by the State of Michigan.
This proved to be successful in some instances, but the turnaround time on receiving the
information often was too long to prevent fights or verbal altercations. Therefore, we need to
implement a anonymous tip box within our schools, perhaps in the counseling center. This will
enable us to deal with situations in a timely manner. This tip box will inherently encourage
confidentiality, but we also need to stress to students that if a student reports bullying directly to
a staff member, it will be in confidence. We also must stress to students that if a report is false,
due to misunderstanding, there will be no repercussions. Grade level meetings and anti-bullying
week will be beneficial times for the district to advertise an anonymous methods of reporting, as
well as the safeguards in place for reporting directly to staff.
If bullying is reported, we must ask a few questions. First, do the actions indicate a power
imbalance? Second, is the action persistent? While the definition in Matts Law does not deal
with these components, it is essential that we consider these questions. If two students are
threatening one another, we will categorize this as threatening behavior and apply the appropriate
disciplinary action. If one student is threatening another, and the situation demonstrates a power
imbalance, then this is bullying. We also must consider if this is persistent action. If the action is

persistent, then there is a case of bullying. If this is an isolated incident then bullying may not be
present.
Whoever receives wind of an instance of bullying should forward the information to the Dean of
Students at the school. The Dean of Students will conduct a thorough investigation. He or she
will speak to both students, review texts and social media if necessary, and will speak with
witnesses who are identified by the students. The Dean of Students will work with the
corresponding counselor to investigate. If the action is isolated and not a severe threat, then
there will be no disciplinary action rendered. Instead, the Dean of Students will contact each
students parents. He will inform the victims parents that the issue is being addressed and future
concerns should be brought directly to him or the counselors. It will be expressed to the other
students parents that such behavior is not tolerated and future spreading of rumors or making
another student feel uncomfortable will result in suspension. A student, who is making another
uncomfortable and who is provided an opportunity to correct such behavior, will be sent home
with the anti-bullying policy. The investigation will conclude within 24 hours and the parents
will be contacted the same day as the complaint is brought to the attention of the staff.
All paperwork and detailed documentation of the investigation and parent conversations will be
presented to the building administrators. The building administrators will be the school officials
responsible for reporting bullying. They will complete a year-end report to the Michigan
Department of Education and will include instances of bullying on the monthly board reports.

Reflection 2/17/15
Child Find (Homeless and Special Education)
While we must devote recourses to our current student population, we also must meet the call to
provide a free and appropriate education for students within our geographic zone. One such
group of students that we must provide assistance to is homeless students.
According to the Individual with Disabilities Education Act, All children with disabilities
residing in the State, including children with disabilities who are homeless children or are wards
of the State, and children with disabilities attending private schools, regardless of the severity of
their disability, and who are in need of special education and related services, are identified,
located, and evaluated.
It is our duty to make a good faith effort to locate such students and attempt to enroll them if they
are not attending school. Going forward, we will build a relationship with the local shelters in
order to provide services to students who are homeless in the area. Students, who are living in
motels, shelters, or with family due to the loss of a home, are termed homeless. Such students are
entitled to enroll in our school if they were located within our boundaries before becoming
homeless or if they are now in a transitional residence within our district. Such students would
largely benefit academically and socially from attending our school. It is our duty to provide
homeless students with transportation and enroll them even without the proper forms. We must
assist them in obtaining birth certificates, academic records, and immunizations.
We also must be vigilant and ensure that we are assisting our current students who suddenly lose
their homes. In such cases, we need to assist the family with transportation and wherever else
we are able. Additionally, we should attempt to assist the parent with food and employment, if
he or she is willing to accept such help. As a district, it is our role to provide support to families
in need and remove barriers preventing students from receiving an education.
It is our responsibility to ensure that all homeless students are set-up with a Homeless Liaison,
who will spearhead an effort to find them a residence. We must monitor and test homeless
students for special education services, if needed. We must provide free and reduced lunch,
referrals for medical services, and hygiene kits, if needed.
We must guarantee that we are offering assistance to special education students as well. It is our
responsibility to find such students, even if they are not currently enrolled in the school. The
Individual with Disabilities Education Act includes such a Child Find mandate, requiring us to
identify, locate, and evaluate students with disabilities. To meet this calling, we will increase
awareness by publicizing that special education services can be obtained within the district free
of charge. This will be done each year. We also will keep a record of special education students
who reside in the district boundaries, but who no longer attend the district. We will contact them
yearly and offer a re-evaluation and services.
The larger component of identifying special education students comes within the four walls of
our building. We must continue to have a well-defined referral process, in which teachers begin
with anecdotal notes and an RTI approach before immediately referring students to the Impact

Team. It is crucial that teachers receive proper training on how to identify student who may
benefit from special education service and how to properly begin the process. This training will
be conducted at the beginning of each year. Once a teacher progresses through the referral
process, social workers and special education teachers will provide the parents with a notice
and will obtain consent from parents before testing. Once there is consent, there must be a
timely evaluation.
It is vital that we abide by the guidelines within the Child Find component of the Individual with
Disabilities Education Act. As a district, we must identify our own students, support our
recommendation with thorough documentation, obtain consent, and test the student in a timely
manner. Our goal is to identify students and provide them the supports that will benefit them
socially and academically. We also must make efforts to assist students in the community who
do not attend our school and may be homeless or may benefit from special education services.
We are the education hub within the community and must attempt to locate students and provide
assistance through publicizing our services and by offering them at no cost.

Reflection 2/24/15
Special Education Eligibility
It is vital that we appropriately service all students within our school. This includes providing
advanced placement and dual enrollment for students who excel academically. This also
includes providing appropriate supports for our students who present characteristics of learning
disabilities. We must have a clearly defined process for identifying students with potential
disabilities, providing interventions to such students, and recommending formalized testing. We
also must be aware of our obligation to perform testing.
Educators have the role of identifying students who may be eligible for special education
services. Yet, it is also within teachers best interest to refrain from referring large groups of
students who are not successful in courses. It is vital that we understand that performing low in a
course due to lack of foundational knowledge is not equivalent to possessing a learning
disability. It is the role of teachers to keep tabs on students and engage in our Response to
Intervention model. Teachers should be incorporating high quality instruction, and group
screening using data and anecdotal notes. Students not demonstrating growth with such Tier I
interventions should be moved to Tier II, where small group setting interventions occur.
Students who are not responding to these interventions should advance to Tier 3, where students
should receive intensive individualized interventions. If all of these various interventions fail,
then students should be referred to the Impact team for testing along with anecdotal notes and
documentation of interventions within the RTI process. Consent must be obtained from the
parent or guardian prior to testing.
As a Special Education teacher, it is vital to understand when a school is required to perform
testing for special education services. If a student has progressed through the RTI process and
still does not demonstrate academic progress, and the anecdotal notes suggest that the student
may qualify for services, then it is within our best interest to test the student. The situation often
becomes more muddled when individuals from outside of the school request testing. If a parent
requests testing for specials education services, we must honor such a request, so long as there
has not been testing conducted within the last year. As a special education teacher, you do have
the right to express your opinion that the student may not qualify and that other interventions
may be more appropriate. Yet, if the parent still wishes to request testing, we must obtain written
consent and test. This allows us to document the request and ensure that testing occurs in a
timely manner. A parent must request testing for one of the eligibility categories: Autism
Spectrum Disorder, Cognitive Impairment, Deaf-Blindness, Early Childhood Development
Delay, Emotional Impairment, Hearing Impairment, Other Health Impairment, Physical
Impairment, Learning Disability, Speech and Language Impairment, Traumatic Brain Injury,
Visual Impairment. As a school, we are unable to test for dyslexia, bi-polar disorder, and other
disorders outside of the range of the aforementioned categories. If such a request is made, we
are able to refer students to outside clinics and stress the interventions available within the
school.
We are also in a precarious position when interacting with physicians. When students come to
school with a diagnosis from a doctor, we do not necessarily need to honor it. If suspicion exists,
we must test the student for special education services. Yet, if all of our experiences with the

student contradict the diagnosis and it seems frivolous, then we are not required to test the
student so long as the parent does not directly ask us to do so. The key is suspicion. If multiple
doctors diagnose the same student with the same disability, then there is reasonable suspicion.
We also must tread lightly when sending information the other way. If a parent brings a doctors
request for completion of the Conners clinical assessment, it is best to send factual information
and avoid summaries.
It is vital that we provide support for our students who qualify. We must be thorough in our
recommendations and exhaust the RTI process prior to recommendations. We also must honor
most parent request in a timely manner, and carefully consider the opinions of physicians, while
keeping in mind that we ultimately must decide what is best for our students academically.

Reflection 3/10/15
Qualified Immunity
School employees have qualified immunity, which protects them when they act reasonably.
School employees may still be held accountable when acting irresponsibly. Thus, it is important
for us to understand how to ensure student safety and ultimately protect ourselves. Torts are the
legal aftermath that occurs due to a wrongful act that infringe upon a right. A school employee
may be held accountable in such situations, if a tort is found to be intentional. A malicious act
performed by a staff member is certainly intentional and will result in the staff member and
school being liable. Yet, other torts may be considered intentional due to negligence.
In order to avoid being considered negligent, we must take cautions steps to protect the rights of
our students. If a student is hurt and the cause of the injury is failure to instruct or prepare a
student properly, then the responsibility may fall on a staff member. If the accident results due to
students failing to follow directions, then the tort will likely not be considered intentional. This
serves to demonstrate the importance of preparing students for situations that have inherent risks.
Staff members must be sure to provide instruction that is reasonable and at the skill level of the
students.
Still, other factors must be considered when determining if a staff member acted responsible or
negligent. If an injury occurs and supervision would have prevented the injury, then the staff
member should have been present and should have been supervising students. It is important to
keep in mind that supervision is not a cure-all. There are reasonable times for staff to have
momentary lapse in supervision, such as passing time and restroom breaks. It is good practice to
notify another supervisor or staff member during these times to assist in ones absence. It is also
good practice to always remain present in potentially dangerous situations, such as science labs.
When analyzing torts, another factor considered is the assumption of risk. It is vital that students
understand the inherent risks in activities. As a staff member, it is good practice to obtain
permission slips, require physicals for athletic teams, require training prior to risky activities, etc.
Potential risks should be laid out in training to the students, as well as to the parents via
permission slips and parent meeting for out of state trips, overnight trips, and other activities,
which require more liability.
Another strategy to avoid being considered negligent is to ensure that potential risks are
addressed. If you are aware of a threat, potential fight, or bullying, the tip must be reported to
administration so that harm to students can be prevented. The same is true of equipment and
furniture. If there is broken equipment or furniture in your classroom, administration must be
notified for that corrective action may be taken. It is also good practice to remove the furniture
or equipment from the use of students.
Qualified immunity will protect staff members in the vast majority of situations. Yet, if
considered negligent, a staff member and the school could be held liable. Use reasonable
judgment to avoid all potential problems. Students must be trained properly and supervised.
Parents and students must be informed of inherent risks in activities. For legal reasons,
permission slips must be obtained, parent meetings may be warranted, and insurance of facilities

should be collected and sent to administration. Potential problems should be presented to

administration. The ultimate goal is to go above and beyond to ensure the safety of our students.

Reflection 3/24/15
Supports beyond IEPs for Special Education Students
It is vital that we provide all possible assistance to our special education students. Our special
education teachers and resource room teachers must work in conjunction to determine
modifications to assignments, tests, and projects. Similarly, there must be cooperation when
implementing accommodations for students. Content area teachers must be aware of the
specifics of IEPs, and special education teachers must be present in classrooms to ensure
implementation.
This responsibility extends to standardized tests. Special education teachers must collaborate
with administration when applying for accommodation and ensuring that the proper
accommodations, such as extended time, are provided. Parental consent must also be obtained
prior to applying for standardized test accommodations. It is very important that students are
provided these accommodations for high-stakes standardized tests.
In certain cases, accommodations for standardized tests and modification within courses do not
provide enough assistance for students. In such a case, it is vital that we look to alternatives,
such as personal curriculums and online courses. Personal curriculums allow for modifications to
Michigan Merit Curriculum requirements for graduation in Michigan. To inform parents of this
option, the availability of personal curriculums will be mailed home with orientation materials at
the beginning of the year and will be posted on our school website. The first step in obtaining a
personal curriculum is a formal request by a parent or guardian. Once a request has been
submitted, the personal curriculum team meets. The team consists of the parent, student,
counselor, teacher, and possibly an administrator. The team will review student career goals,
student data, supports, and the students IEP. If the career goals of a student are to attend a fouryear university, certain modification to the Michigan Merit Curriculum should be discouraged, as
universities may frown upon diluting academic rigor. If a students goals are trade related, then
the pursuit of a career technical education substitution credit may be a fit. The personal
curriculum team must be thorough in their review of the individual needs of the students and
come to a decision on the modification that will be made. The guardian and Superintendent will
sign off on the personal curriculum. It is then the responsibility of the parent and counselor to
monitor the progress with teachers.
Personal curriculums can affect nearly all contents for students with individual education plans,
yet there are two contents that we will adjust more than others. Personal curriculums can be
instituted to adjust the Algebra II requirement from 1.0 credit to 0.5 credits. These 0.5 credits
can be obtained in an Algebra II class that covers half of the content or in a career and technical
education course that we determine satisfies half of the content. One other credit of mathematics
must be taken in high school as well. House Bill 4465 has also allowed modification to foreign
language. We may substitute one credit of career and technical educator or visual and
performing arts for one of the two credits of foreign language.
The language of the personal curriculum bill also allows schools to incorporate as much of the
subject area content expectations as practicable for the student within the context of MMC
requirements. The vagueness of practicable leaves a lot of leeway for school districts. This is

the complex aspect of personal curriculums. It is our role to carefully balance the need for
students to face obtainable graduation requirements with the need for them to be challenged.
Given that special education students already are granted accommodations and modifications, the
content expectations should not be reduced by more than 25%. Any reduction in content
expectations should be carefully accomplished with the cooperation of a content area teacher,
special education teacher, and department head.
Personal curriculums are not the only options for student with difficulties completing the
Michigan Merit Curriculum. Regardless of substitutions and modifications within a personal
curriculum, certain students have difficulties learning within a traditional high school setting.
Students with social issues, emotional impairment, and other health impairments may be bestsuited taking courses online. Such students should be highly motivated and have strong timemanagement skills. Again, recommending this course of action for students should be done on a
careful case-by-case basis.
If students are enrolled online through an outside learning institution, it is the responsibility of
our school to ensure that their IEPs are implemented appropriately. Therefore, the special
education teacher must stay in communication with the online instructor and agree to
modifications and accommodations. In such situations, it is vital that we support students online
as much as possible. We must offer computer time at the school, and allow students to check out
laptops.
Individual education plans, even when applied adequately, may not offer sufficient support for
students to be successful. It is our role to thoroughly consider options within personal
curriculums and online learning, while ensuring that these options best fit the needs of our
students and provide a more manageable pathway to graduation.

Reflection 3/31/15
Personal Curriculums
As a district, we have already discussed the availability of personal curriculums as a means of
support for students. We have a process in place for their approval and implementation. We also
have been briefed on the two major areas, Algebra II and foreign languages, which prompt a
personal curriculum. We have briefly been notified about the practicable clause for special
education students. Given that Michigan does not offer multiple tiers of diplomas, as many other
states do, it is vital that we gain a deeper understanding of the specifics of personal curriculums.
They are valuable tools for students who are attempting to gradate, but who are struggling
through the process. They also are great tools for students to cater their curriculum to their
specific career goals.
One of the major misconceptions is that personal curriculums are only for students with IEPs. All
students are eligible to replace a visual and performing arts credit with an additional core course
or a career and technical education credit. All students may replace physical education or health
in the same manner. All students may exchange one credit of Social Studies, not including
Civics, for an additional English, Mathematics, Science, World Language, or CTE credit. All of
this can be done with a CTE credit that does or does not relate to the course being replaced. Yet,
we should ensure that such a CTE course does relate to the career goals of the student. In a
similar manner, we should verify that an additional core course, used as a replacement, is aligned
with the career goals of the student. Students who are perusing a vocational career, or who are
devoted to a certain content area may greatly benefit from a personal curriculum. The idea for us
as a district is to service the needs of our students and be flexible on requirements so that
students may enroll in courses that directly align with their goals.
With this charge comes a responsibility for us to encourage students to consider their options
earlier, rather than later. Students with well-defined goals will be able to manipulate their
curriculum and enroll in courses that will better prepare them for the future. Counselors must
encourage students to consider their career options. As a school, we need to expose
underclassmen to a wide range of speakers from multiple careers. Our school-wide plan to
incorporate literacy must also include opportunities to contemplate and write about ambitions
and goals.
While all students are eligible for personal curriculums, special education students do comprise a
large percentage of students seeking personal curriculums. This is in large part due to the
additional modifications allowed for them. Students with an IEP may have the curriculum
standards modified to the amount practicable. Specifically, this means that a student may be
responsible for completing a lower percentage of the standards, may be able to pass the course
with a lower percentage than normal, or may receive both modifications. When making such
changes to the curriculum, it is vital that we thoroughly use data. Personal curriculums should
only be created and implemented after efforts have been made to successfully complete
requirements. This means that there should be data from the course, or from prior courses within
the discipline, to inform our decisions to alter the curriculum. There should be a concerted effort
on our part to differentiate students who are unsuccessful due to missing assignment or not

attending tutoring, from students who are legitimately overwhelmed by the work and rigor of the
curriculum.
It is also our responsibility to be thorough with our monitoring of personal curriculums. If a
special education student is struggling, despite his personal curriculum, then the amount of
content covered may not be practicable. It is incumbent upon us to determine this through an
analysis of his grades and assessments. The same holds true for a student who is excelling with a
personal curriculum. As the student develops, it may be practicable for him to be responsible
for more of the content standards. We also must monitor all students career goals and ensure
that their replacement courses are logical replacements for their career goals.
Personal curriculums offer a great opportunity for us to ensure struggling students have
additional support to graduate, and have the opportunity to select courses that align to their
career goals. Through carefully using data to apply personal curriculums and by monitoring
students with personal curriculums, we have the opportunity to provide students with a tailor fit
educational experience.