Education: special education; Michigan special education accountability act; establish. Amends secs. 1310d, 1311, 1526, 1527, 1531 & 1711 of 1976 PA 451 (MCL 380.1310d et seq.) & adds secs. 1531k, 1537, 1712 & 1810.
SB 952 would make broad changes to Michigan’s Revised School Code focused on special education accountability, school discipline, and educator preparation. The bill creates a new framework requiring school districts, intermediate school districts, and public school academies to consider specified factors before suspending or expelling a student, with heightened procedural protections for students with disabilities. For longer suspensions and expulsions, the bill creates a rebuttable presumption against discipline unless the school can show it considered the required factors. It also requires functional behavioral assessments, behavior intervention plans, parent involvement, and legal/compliance review before expelling or suspending a student with a disability for more than 10 days, while preserving an exception for firearm possession in a weapon-free school zone.
The bill also revises permanent expulsion rules for serious offenses such as dangerous weapons, arson, and criminal sexual conduct, and it changes the reinstatement process for expelled students by setting timelines, creating review committees, and allowing conditional reinstatement with behavior contracts, counseling, and other conditions. In addition, it requires annual reporting on suspensions and expulsions of students with disabilities, creates a statewide complaint process for special education violations, and establishes escalating disciplinary consequences for district representatives who repeatedly violate special education law. The bill further adds training and certification requirements for teachers and administrators, including special education law, behavioral interventions, and scenario-based competency assessments, and it requires teacher preparation programs to include instruction on identifying and serving students with disabilities.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant for school discipline and special education compliance. It would amend multiple sections of the Revised School Code and add new sections that expand procedural safeguards, reporting obligations, and state oversight of special education practices. School districts and public school academies would face new documentation, training, and reporting duties, while teachers, administrators, and district representatives would be subject to additional certification and accountability requirements. The bill also creates new duties for the Department of Education, including compiling alternative education options, maintaining a public dashboard, and investigating complaints of special education law violations.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is strongly supportive of student rights, disability protections, and greater accountability for schools. The structure of the bill suggests a policy preference for limiting exclusionary discipline, requiring schools to use restorative practices and lesser interventions where possible, and ensuring that discipline decisions for students with disabilities are legally reviewed and educationally justified. At the same time, the bill preserves strong responses for serious safety-related conduct, especially weapons and violent offenses, indicating an attempt to balance student protections with school safety.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s increased procedural burden on schools, the expanded role of legal counsel and compliance officers, and the limits it places on local discretion in discipline decisions. School districts may view the new requirements as costly and administratively complex, especially the mandated assessments, documentation, reporting, and staff training. Supporters are likely to emphasize civil rights, disability accommodations, and reducing discriminatory discipline, while opponents may focus on implementation costs, potential delays in removing dangerous students, and the risk that the bill constrains school administrators’ ability to respond quickly to misconduct.
SB 952 would substantially amend the Revised School Code by adding new discipline standards, special education safeguards, reporting requirements, and educator training mandates. It would affect school districts, intermediate school districts, public school academies, teachers, administrators, and district representatives by imposing new obligations related to suspensions, expulsions, reinstatement, special education complaints, and professional preparation. The bill also expands state oversight through the Department of Education and creates new public reporting and accountability mechanisms.
The bill appears to be driven by a pro-accountability, pro-special-education sentiment, with a strong emphasis on protecting students with disabilities from inappropriate discipline and ensuring schools comply with federal and state special education law. Its provisions favor more careful review before exclusionary discipline and more transparency about district practices. The bill also preserves exceptions for serious safety threats, suggesting an effort to present the measure as balanced rather than purely restrictive.
Likely points of contention include whether the bill unduly limits local school discipline authority, whether the required legal review and documentation are too burdensome, and whether the new procedures could slow responses to disruptive or dangerous behavior. Schools and administrators may object to the added compliance costs and staffing demands, while supporters are likely to argue that the bill is necessary to prevent discriminatory discipline and improve special education enforcement. The firearm and violent-offense exceptions may reduce but not eliminate concerns about school safety and administrative flexibility.