Genesee Special Education Mandatory Plan

STATE OF MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND RULES
IN THE MATTER OF: Docket No.: 20-003550
In Re: Genesee Special Education Case No.: ISDPL 20-1

Mandatory Plan,
Agency: Education
Case Type: Ed Sp Ed ISD Plan
Filing Type: Appeal

___________________________________/
Issued and entered

this 9th day of October 2020
by: Michael J. St. John
Administrative Law Judge
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
This case involves the yearly allocation of $3,800,000 of Act 18 funds1 from Genesee
Intermediate School District (GISD) to their constituent school districts. Currently the
funds are distributed based upon a blended student count which uses the following
formula:
FTE is the full time equivalent number of students (special and general education).
SEHC is the total number of special education students (head count).
SEFTE is the special education full time equivalent number of students.
All full time students, general and special education, are included in the FTE. A student
who attends school 40% of the time would be included as 0.4 in the FTE, regardless of
whether that student is a special education student or receives special education
services.
1Act18 funds are derived from the millage levied and collected pursuant to MCL 380.1722 to
MCL 380.1729.
20-003550
Page 2
All special education students, regardless of what degree of services they are receiving,
are included in the SEHC. If the above example student attending school 40% of the
time is a special education student, the district’s SEHC is increased by one, regardless
of whether the student receives any in class special education services.
SEFTE measures the full time equivalency of special education students. A student
who is in special education classes throughout the day (for example in a severely
impaired classroom) is a 1.0 SEFTE. Most special education students receive some
general education instruction (often in art, gym, and other non-core subjects) and
therefore are a less than 1.0 SEFTE. If the above example student attending school
40% of the time attended one resource room class and one general education class that
student would be considered a 0.2 SEFTE.
The formula is constructed this way to capture the four needs of special education
funding:
1. to discover special education students not in school (child find for primarily pre-
kindergarten students2);
2. to discover general education students enrolled in school that should receive
special education services (child find);
3. to provide services to special education students not in special education
programs (students receiving push in/pull out special education services); and
4. to provide services to special education students in resource rooms.
FTE is used to offset districts’ child find obligations (#1 above and roughly half of #2).
SEHC is used to offset districts’ special education services provided outside of resource
rooms (half of #2 above and #3). SEFTE is used to offset districts’ special education
resource classroom services (#4 above).
Specific percentage allocations of these three costs were not provided at the hearing.
GISD Superintendent Dr. Hagel testified that all three factors are of equal importance.
However, the funding formula does not provide equal funding for the three factors.
Because the three numbers are simply averaged together, the larger number of FTE
students dwarfs the smaller SEHC number and substantially dwarfs the much smaller
SEFTE number. Rather than using relative percentages of each factor, they are simply
added together and then divided. FTE therefore dominates both the numerator and the
denominator in the current formula resulting in a skewed distribution of funds.
2 A public school district’s child find obligations are primarily related to children too young to attend school
(pre-kindergarten) but also include homeschooled students and students attending private schools.
Charter schools do not have this obligation since they have no base district.
20-003550
Page 3
For the 2019-2020 school year, there were 1423.93 SE FTE, 8436 SEHC, and
62,949.77 FTE (Exhibit 17). SE FTE makes up just under 2% of the total funding
formula3, SEHC makes up about 11.5% of the total funding formula4, and FTE makes
up the remaining about 86.5% of the formula5.
It is this unequal distribution of Act 18 funds that Petitioner Flint objects to: that
substantially more money is distributed to defray districts’ child find obligations than is
distributed to provide services to students with disabilities. Put another way, districts
(like Flint) that have high percentages of special education students receive less money
per special education student than do districts that have lower percentages of special
education students.
In 2019-2020, each Flint special education student received $320.07 in Act 18 money.
Each Flint special education full time equivalent student received $965.86 in Act 18
money.
In 2019-2020, each Grand Blanc Community Schools special education student

received $506.02 in Act 18 money. Each Grand Blanc special education full time
equivalent student received $3,477.50 in Act 18 money.
In 2019-2020, each Eagle’s Nest Academy special education student received $579.95
in Act 18 money. Each Eagle’s Next Academy special education full time equivalent
student received $20,034.556 in Act 18 money.
Although Grand Blanc has only about 9% more special education students than Flint,
and less than 50% of the special education full time equivalent students, Grand Blanc
received over 70% more Act 18 money than did Flint in 2019-2020.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 4, 2020, Petitioner Flint Community Schools (Flint or FCS) filed an

objection to the Genesee Intermediate School District Mandatory Plan (Plan). On
February 11, 2020, the Michigan Department of Education forwarded the Plan
objections to the Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules (MOAHR). A
telephone prehearing conference was held on February 20, 2020. Pursuant to the
3 1426.93 SEFTE / 72,812.7 total = 1.96%.

4 8436 SEHC / 72,812.7 total = 11.59%
5 62,949.77 FTE / 72,812.7 total = 86.45%. There is some level of double counting built into the formula
since every SEFTE student is included in the SEHC and every SEHC is included, to at least some
degree, in the FTE. Our above example 40% FTE student attending 1 general ed and one special ed
class would result in a 0.2 SEFTE, a 1.0 SEHC, and a 0.4 FTE adding 1.6 to both the numerator and the
denominator in the current formula.
6 Eagle’s Next Academy had less than one full time equivalent special education student.
20-003550
Page 4
agreement of the parties, the hearing was commenced on February 20, 2020 although
no substantive evidence was accepted on that date.
A February 24, 2020 Order required potential parties to file an appearance to participate
in the hearing. Although several school districts filed timely appearances, none (other
than Flint) opted to participate in the hearing.
Respondent Genesee Intermediate School District (GISD) filed three motions for
summary disposition and a motion to take judicial notice. Petitioner Flint filed responses
to all motions requesting that the relief requested be denied and GISD filed replies.
Oral arguments were held as re-scheduled via videoconference. A June 30, 2020
Order denied the motions for summary disposition and judicial notice and clarified the
standard of review for the hearing. The standard was subsequently further clarified to
include the language from the most recent version of the applicable statute as
addressed below.
The hearing was held as rescheduled via videoconference on July 13, 14, and 15, 2020.
The hearing was held open to allow the parties to brief the relevant issues to be
decided. Due to the unavailability of the hearing transcripts, the parties jointly
requested adjournment of the briefing schedule, which was granted in an
August 5, 2020 Order. Both parties submitted timely briefs and replies on
September 1 and 9, 2020 respectively. The record was closed on September 9, 2020.
Attorney at law Kendall Williams represented the Petitioner Flint. Attorneys at law Lorie
Steinhauer and Jeremy Chisolm represented the Respondent GISD.
ISSUES
Has there been a violation of federal or state statute, rule, or regulation? Yes,
MCL 380.1711(1)(a).
Specifically, is the current GISD Plan for special education designed to provide for the
delivery of special education programs and services to meet the individual needs of
each student with a disability? No.
EXHIBITS
Petitioner (numbers) offered the following exhibits which were admitted without
objection unless otherwise noted:
1. Genesee Intermediate School District (“GISD”) Special Education Mandatory Plan

2. GISD Report on Financial Statements, June 30, 2019
20-003550
Page 5
3. FCS Report on Financial Statements, June 30, 2019

4. GISD Budget Profile 2020-2021
5. GISD Budget Profile 2019-2020
6. FCS Special Education Fund – Revenue, Expenses Accounts Summary 2017-2019
7. GISD Historical Property Taxes Information, including cumulative projected loss in
Property Tax Revenue
8. Michigan School Finance at the Crossroads: A Quarter Century of State Control,
Michigan State University Education Policy Report, Dr. David Arsen et al, January 19,
2019
9. Guidance for the Development of Intermediate School District (ISD) Plan for the
Delivery of Special Education Programs and Services, Michigan Department of
Education, Office of Special Education, May 10, 2017
10. GISD Act 18 Payments with Blended Student Count Figures 2013-2020
11. GISD Draft 2019-2020 Proposed Increase with Infusion of $600,000 based on Spec.
Ed. FTE
12. Center for Educational Performance and Information – Michigan School Data Systems
– Special Education Counts by District – Fall 2019
– Special Education Counts by District – Fall 2018
–Special Education Counts by District – Fall 2017
– Audited FTE Pupil Count – Special Education Student Trend – Fall 2009 – Fall 2019
– Audited FTE Pupil Count – Total Students FTE Trend – Fall 2009 – Fall 2019
17. Demonstrative Exhibit – Application of Current GISD Act 18 Distribution Formula –
2013-20207
18. Demonstrative Exhibit – Hypothetical Application of Proposed Act 18 Distribution
Formula – 2013-20208
19. Demonstrative Exhibit – Difference between Act 18 Distribution Formulas – 2013-
20209
20. Demonstrative Exhibit – Act 18 Distribution Formulas on Per Special Education FTE
Basis10
21. Demonstrative Exhibit – Proportional Share of Special Education FTEs vs Act 18
Distribution Amounts11
22. Demonstrative Exhibit – Comparison of Disability Populations within GISD Schools –
Fall 201912
7 Exhibit 17 was admitted over the Respondent’s relevance objection.

20-003550
Page 6
23. Demonstrative Exhibit – Proportional Share of Special Education FTEs Line Graph,
2014-202013
24. Demonstrative Exhibit – Proportional Share of Total Act 18 Distributions Line Graph,
2014-202014
25. Demonstrative Exhibit – Lapeer ISD - Fall 2019 CEPI Student Population Analysis15
26. GISD Act 18 Payments with Blended Student Count Figures 2004-2013
27. Demonstrative Exhibit – Application of GISD Distribution Formula - 2012-201316
28. January 6, 2020 email from Dr. Lopez to GISD and area Superintendents17
29. Genesee ISD and Flint Community Schools Numbers of METs and IEPs18
30. Flint Community Schools – Special Education Evaluation Costs19
Respondent (letters) offered the following exhibits which were admitted without
objection unless otherwise noted:
A. Genesee Intermediate School District Special Education Mandatory Plan, (adopted

7/20/2004; modified August 2009, August 2011, and July 2013)
B. Act 18 Distributions to GISD Constituent Districts with Blended Formula
Components (2019-20) (table)
C. Act 18 Distributions to GISD Constituent Districts (2004-05 to 2019-20) (table)
D. Comparison Table of Total Student Population (FTE) in GISD Constituent Districts
(2019-20) (table)
E. Comparison Table of Students with Disabilities (FTE) in GISD Constituent Districts
(2019-20) (table)
F. Flint Community Schools Full-Time Equated (FTE) Count (1999-2019) (table)
G. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Funding: A Primer, prepared
by the Congressional Research Service (last updated 8/29/2019) 20
H. FCS Resident-Students Attending FCS v. FCS Resident-Students Attending Non-
FCS Schools (2013-14 to 2018-19) (table)
I. FCS Resident-Students Attending Non-FCS Schools, by Type of Entity Attended
(2013-14 to 2018-19) (table)
J. FCS Resident-Students Attending Non-FCS School Districts in GISD, by District
(2013-14 to 2018-19) (table)
K. FCS Resident-Students Attending Public School Academies in GISD, by Academy
(2013-14 to 2018-19) (table)

17 Exhibit 28 was admitted over the Respondent’s foundation objection.
18 Exhibit 29 was admitted over the Respondent’s procedural objection.
19 Exhibit 20 was admitted over the Respondent’s procedural and relevance objections.
20 Exhibit G was admitted over the Petitioner’s relevance and hearsay objections.
20-003550
Page 7
L. FCS Special Education Resident-Students Attending Non-FCS Schools, by Entity

Type (2013-14 to 2018-19) (table)
M. FCS Special Education Resident-Students Attending Non-FCS School Districts in
GISD, by Local District (2013-14 to 2018-19) (table)
N. FCS Special Education Resident-Students Attending Public School Academies in
GISD, by Public School Academy (2013-14 to 2018-19) (table)
O. Number of Students with Disabilities Enrolled in GISD Programs, by Resident
District (2018-2019) (table)
P. General Education FTEs (1999-2018) for All GISD School Districts and Public
School Academies (table)
Q. Special Education Expenses for GISD Constituent Districts and Public School
Academies (2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19) (table)
R. Special Education Millage Revenue and Revenue Per Pupil by Michigan ISD (2018)
(table)
S. Genesee County Section 25e Transfer Report Summary (2013-2019) (table)
T. (Not offered)
U. (Not offered)
V. Curriculum Vitae of GISD Superintendent Lisa Hagel (updated May 2020)
W. (Not offered)
X. GISD Plan Side-by-Side Fiscal Modifications (2004, 2011, and 2013 language)
Y. Comparison Table – Michigan ISD Plans for the Delivery of Special Education
Services Act 18 Millage Distribution Formulas (alphabetical)
Z. (Not offered)
AA. (Not offered)
BB. Special Education Mandatory Plans for the Following Michigan Intermediate
School Districts:
1. Allegan Area Educational Service Agency
2. Barry Intermediate School District
3. Bay-Arenac Intermediate School District
4. Berrien Regional Education Service Agency
5. C.O.O.R. Intermediate School District
6. Calhoun Intermediate School District
7. Charlevoix-Emmet Intermediate School District
8. Cheboygan-Otsego-Presque Isle Educational Service District
9. Clare-Gladwin Regional Educational Service District
10. Clinton County Regional Education Service Agency
11. Eaton Regional Education Service Agency
12. Gratiot-Isabella Regional Educational Service District
13. Kent Intermediate School District
14. Lapeer Intermediate School District
15. Lenawee Intermediate School District
16. Livingston Educational Service Agency
20-003550
Page 8
17. Manistee Intermediate School District

18. Mecosta-Osceola Intermediate School District
19. Macomb Intermediate School District
20. Monroe Intermediate School District
21. Montcalm Area Intermediate School District
22. Muskegon Intermediate School District
23. Newaygo County Regional Education Service Agency
24. Oakland Intermediate School District
25. Ottawa Area Intermediate School District
26. Saginaw Intermediate School District
27. Shiawassee Regional Educational Service District
28. St. Clair County Regional Education Service Agency
29. St. Joseph County Intermediate School District
30. Traverse Bay Area Intermediate School District
31. Van Buren Intermediate School District
32. Washtenaw Intermediate School District
33. Wayne Regional Education Service Agency
34. West Shore Educational Service District
35. Wexford-Missaukee Intermediate School District
CC. (Not offered)
DD. (Not offered)
EE. 2019-2020 Significant Disproportionality – Identification (ages 3 to 21)
FF. 2020 Part B Results – Driven Accountability Matrix, Michigan Department of
Education
GG. (Not offered)
HH. Flint Board of Education Regular Board Meeting, Budget Resolution, May 15,
2019
II. Flint Board of Education Regular Board Meeting, GISD Budget Review and
Approval 2020-2021, May 20, 2020
JJ. GISD Budget Profile, 2018-2019
KK. GISD Budget Profile, 2019-2020
LL. GISD Budget Profile, 2020-2021
MM. SAIPE School District Estimates for 2018-2019. United States Census Bureau
NN. SAIPE School District Estimates for 2017-2018, United States Census Bureau
OO. GISD Act 18 Distribution (1994-2020)
PP. Superintendent’s Report, Genesee County Superintendents Association, June 5,
2019
QQ. Attendance Sheets for 2018-2019 Genesee County Superintendents Association
Meeting Schedule
RR. Flint Community Schools 2019-2020 Final Budget and 2020-2021 Initial Budget
SS. Act 18 Distributions Under Current and Other Proposed Formulas (2015-2016 to
present)
20-003550
Page 9
TT. ISD Superintendent’s Report, May 31, 2019

UU. Attendance Sheets for 2019-2020 Genesee County Superintendents Association
Meeting Schedule
VV. (Not offered)
WW. Executive Summary, Compliance Updates, Supports, and Technical Assistance,
Flint Community School District, Prepared for Dr. Lisa Hagel
XX. Flint Students Attending Genesee ISD Programs – Fall 2019 Special Education
Pupil Count
YY. (Not offered)
ZZ. Poverty Percentage (Ages 5-17) 2018, 2017, 2016
AAA. (Not offered)
BBB. Genesee County Superintendents Association Special Education Committee
Meeting Agendas (2020-2018)
CCC. Genesee County Superintendents Association of Special Education
Administrators Meeting Agenda, June 7, 2019
DDD. Superintendent’s Report, Genesee County Superintendents Association,
December 11, 2019
EEE. Special Education Administrative Services Contract between Genesee
Intermediate School District and Flint Community Schools for Provision of
Special Education Administrative Services
FFF. (Not offered)
GGG. January 8, 2020 Superintendent’s Report
Exhibits T, U, W, Z, AA, CC, DD, GG, VV, YY, AAA, and FFF were not offered and are
therefore not part of the record.
No exhibits were offered but not admitted.
APPLICABLE LAW
The Revised School Code at MCL 380.1711(1)(a) provides:
(1) The intermediate school board shall do all of the following:
(a) Develop, establish, and continually evaluate and modify in cooperation

with its constituent districts, a plan for special education that provides
for the delivery of special education programs and services designed
to meet the individual needs of each student with a disability of whom
the intermediate school board is required to maintain a record under
subdivision (f). The plan shall coordinate the special education
programs and services operated or contracted for by the constituent
20-003550
Page 10
districts and shall be submitted to the superintendent of public

instruction for approval.
The Michigan Administrative Rules provide provisions regarding objections to a plan.

Michigan Administrative Rule 340.1836 provides:
(1) Any constituent local school district, public school academy, or the
parent advisory committee may file objections with the intermediate
school district, in whole or in part, to an approved intermediate school
district plan or a plan modification that has been submitted to the
superintendent of public instruction for approval. Copies of an objection
to the plan shall, within 7 calendar days, be directed to the department
by the intermediate school district board of education and to all
constituent local school districts, public school academies, and the
parent advisory committee by certified mail, return receipt requested.
Objections filed shall specify the portions of the intermediate school
district plan objected to, contain a specific statement of the reasons for
objection, and shall propose alternative provisions.
…
(4) Within 30 calendar days after the closing of the hearing, the
administrative law judge shall submit to the department findings of fact
and conclusions of law and shall recommend to the superintendent of
public instruction whether the superintendent of public instruction
should approve the intermediate school district plan or modification to
the plan as submitted, approve the intermediate school district plan or
modification to the plan with other modifications deemed appropriate
by the administrative law judge, or grant the objections as submitted.
The Michigan Administrative Rules provide provisions regarding the minimum

requirements of a plan. Michigan Administrative Rule 340.1832 provides:
An intermediate school district plan for special education, or any

modification thereof, shall be an operational plan that sets forth the special
education programs and related services to be delivered. The plan shall
comply with 1976 PA 451, MCL 380.1 et seq. and these rules. The plan
shall also comply with the following format and include, at a minimum, all
of the following:
(a) A description of the procedures used by the intermediate school

district to advise and inform students with disabilities, their parents, and
other members of the community of the special education opportunities
required under the law; the obligations of the local school districts, public
20-003550
Page 11
school academies, and intermediate school district; and the title,

address, and telephone number of representatives of those agencies
who can provide information about the special education opportunities.
(b) A description of activities and outreach methods which are used to
ensure that all citizens are aware of the availability of special education
programs and services.
(c) A description of the type of diagnostic and related services that are
available, either directly or as a purchased service, within the
intermediate school district or its constituent local school districts or
public school academies.
(d) A description of the special education programs designed to meet the
educational needs of students with disabilities.
(e) The intermediate school district plan shall either describe special
education programs and services under part 3 of these rules or shall
propose alternative special education programs and services.
(f) Provide an assurance statement that any personally identifiable data,
information, and records of students with disabilities are collected, used,
or maintained in compliance with 34 C.F.R. §§300.610 through 300.626.
(g) The identity of the full- or part-time constituent local school district or
public school academy administrator who, by position, is responsible for
the implementation of special education programs and services.
(h) A description of the qualifications of paraprofessional personnel.
(i) A description of the transportation necessary to provide the special
education programs and services described in subdivisions (c), (d), and
(e) of this subrule.
(j) A description of the method of distribution of funds under R
340.1811(5).
(k) A description of how the intermediate school district will appoint the
parent advisory committee members under R 340.1838(1) and (2).
(l) A description of the role and responsibilities of the parent advisory
committee, including how it shall participate in the cooperative
development of the intermediate school district plan, formulate objections
thereto, if any and other related matters.
(m) A description of the role and relationship of administrative and other
school personnel, as well as representatives of other agencies, in
assisting the parent advisory committee in its responsibilities.
(n) A description of the fiscal and staff resources that shall be secured or
allocated to the parent advisory committee by the intermediate school
district to make it efficient and effective in operation.
(o) The plan shall be approved by the superintendent of public instruction
before implementation under R 340.1831(1). The plan is developed and
approved under R 340.1833 and R 340.1835 to R 340.1837.
20-003550
Page 12
The Michigan Administrative Rules address compliance with various statutes, rules, and
regulations. Michigan Administrative Rule 340.1837(1) provides:
Intermediate school district plans, or modification thereof, or any changes

to the intermediate school district plan based on an objection to the plan,
shall be approved by the superintendent of public instruction under
R 340.1836. The intermediate school district plans or modifications shall
be in compliance with all of the following:
(a) The provisions of sections 1701 to 1766 of 1976 PA 451, MCL
380.1701 to 380.1766.
(b) Michigan rules promulgated to implement statutory provisions for
special education programs and services.
(c) The individuals with disabilities education act, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et
seq., and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. §300.1 et seq.,
adopted by reference in R 340.1701.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The current Plan (Exhibits 1 and A) formula for distribution of special education
millage payments (Act 18 funds) is based on a “blended student count” which is
calculated by adding together the special education full time equivalency
(SEFTE), special education head count (SEHC), and total FTE divided by three.
2. The blended student count is used by GISD to reimburse districts for three
different types of special education services:
FTE: child find obligations
SEHC push in/pull out services
SEFTE: educating students in special ed classrooms
3. Child find obligations include two components: community outreach and
evaluation/assessment. The evaluation/assessment component is further
subdivided into work done leading up to evaluation/assessment and the
evaluation/assessment itself.
4. Community outreach is required for all families residing in a school district,
regardless of whether they attend school within the district. Community outreach
child find special education costs are not reimbursed by student head counts.
The number of students in a school has no relation to the number of families in a
school district’s boundaries. Charter schools, necessarily, have no community
outreach expenditures since they have no set area they are responsible for.
5. To appropriately compensate school districts for community outreach child find
obligations, an additional element of the formula would be required: each
district’s percentage of families of school aged children in Genesee County. With
20-003550
Page 13
schools of choice, overall student enrollment does not accurately compensate

students for their community outreach child find obligated expenses.
6. Work with general education students leading up to evaluation is largely done by
the GISD for pre-kindergarten students; this is when most of this work is done.
There is additional pre-evaluation intervention done by the school district the
student is attending and this cost is appropriately reflected in the FTE component
of the formula.
7. The evaluation/assessment cost for students who do not ultimately end up
receiving an Individual Education Plan (IEP) is also appropriately reflected in the
FTE component of the formula.
8. The evaluation/assessment child find cost for students who do end up with an
IEP is most appropriately reimbursed using special education head count.
9. Although likely to vary somewhat by district, the cost of child find is a relatively
small percentage of a school’s special education budget. For Flint Community
Schools, child find is approximately 5% of their special education budget
(Exhibit 30). Less than 10% of Westwood Heights’ special education budget is
used to satisfy their child find obligations.
10. The percentage of students evaluated for special education who end up with an
IEP varies by district. In Westwood Heights, approximately half of evaluated
students end up receiving special education services. In Flint Community
Schools, approximately 85% of evaluated students receive special education
services (Exhibit 29).
11. GISD’s current plan is intended to weight each of the three elements of the plan
equally. However, the current formula is weighted toward reimbursement at the
rate of approximately 86.5% for FTE, 11.5% for special education headcount,
and 2% for special education FTE (Exhibit 17).
The following represents a summary of the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing.
Any opinions contained therein are those of the witness.
Marc Morse, Associate Attorney for Williams Firm

12. Mr. Morse has been a Michigan licensed attorney for three years. He prepared
the demonstrative exhibits.
13. Exhibits 17 and 27 are compiled from the GISD data to establish the Special
Education FTE, Special Education Head Count, and total FTE. The Blended
Student Count was calculated and matches the GISD’s publications within a
rounding error. The Distribution Amount is the amount received by each school
district.
14. Exhibit 18 shows the distribution amount if the Petitioner’s formula were to be
utilized.
20-003550
Page 14
15. Exhibit 19 summarizes exhibits 17 and 18 and puts them side by side. The total
columns add up the amounts from each year and include the difference in
amounts that would have been awarded.
16. Exhibit 20 similarly pulls information from Exhibits 17 and 18; it shows the current
amount per special education student under the current formula (which varies by
district) versus the proposed formula (which is constant).
17. Exhibit 20 shows that Flint receives $957 per special education student under the
current formula but would receive $2663 per special education student under the
proposed formula.
18. Exhibit 21 shows the current percent of funds received by each district compared
with the percentage of special education students in the district.
19. Exhibit 22 shows a summary of the distribution of students with specific
disabilities. Because the underlying data notes only a category of less than 5,
the number 1 was used for those schools. This data is from the fall of 2019.
20. Exhibit 23 shows the proportional share of total special education students for the
largest five school districts. In 2013-2014, approximately 21% of special
education FTE students were enrolled in Petitioner Flint’s schools, whereas in
2019-2020, approximately 18% of special education FTE students were enrolled
in Petitioner Flint’s schools
21. Exhibit 24 shows the proportional share of the Act 18 distribution of funds.
22. Exhibit 25 shows the special education FTEs, head counts, and total FTE
showing the percentage of special education FTE to total FTE.
Anita Steward, Superintendent of Petitioner Flint Community Schools
23. Superintendent Steward was appointed Interim Superintendent on April 15, 2020
and Superintendent on July 1, 2020. She has been employed by Petitioner Flint
for 22 years as a teacher, curriculum coach, assistant principal, principal,
assistant superintendent, and now as superintendent.
24. Superintendent Steward has a B.A. in education and two master’s degrees in the
art of teaching and educational leadership.
25. Petitioner Flint has had a decline in enrollment and has had to close and
consolidate schools. Superintendent Steward has seen an increase in
behavioral issues, an increase in the number of special education students, and
increased needs by families of students receiving special education services.
26. Superintendent Steward also noted the high level of poverty in Flint which results
in increased needs for special education students.
27. Students enter Flint schools with a lower baseline level of vocabulary than
students from surrounding school districts.
28. Genesee Health Services obtained grant funding to provide mental health
services to Flint students.
20-003550
Page 15
29. Freeman Elementary School, where she was principal, had a high lead level
when tested. Many parents and students left the school district because of those
high lead levels. The school shut down their water fountains and used bottled
water. That school still does not use their water fountains.
30. Flint received a Musk grant to implement water stations in their schools, but the
new water stations are still being tested.
31. Beecher School District and Westwood School District have similar but smaller
poverty levels for their students. School districts that have high poverty levels
would also see increased levels of behavioral issues. Flint has approximately
7000 students at or below the poverty level while Beecher has about 1000 and
Westwood has less than 500.
32. Starting with the 2020-2021 school year, the GISD intends to provide OT and PT
services to Flint Community Schools which would save Flint over $500,000.
Melinda Carroll, Director of Learning Support Services for Petitioner
33. Ms. Carroll has a B.A. in elementary education with a certificate to teach CI
students, and a master’s degree in special education administration. She was
previously Director of Special Education for Saginaw Public Schools and Royal
Oak Schools. She has been employed with Petitioner Flint for the last six years
in her current capacity which is essentially as the director for special education
services.
34. Flint presents unique needs for special education students because so many
students live in poverty. Students living in poverty arrive at school with an
average of 20,000 less words than students in suburban districts. Flint students
are also subjected to higher incidences of trauma which leads to higher levels of
behavioral incidents.
35. Flint has about 22% of their students with IEPs, about 10% higher than the state
average. Flint’s rate of special education students is the highest in Genesee
County.
36. Ms. Carroll has seen an increase in the number and percentage of special
education students over the last six years. The behaviors have also become
more extreme, particularly students with sensory issues. There are more
students who run out of classrooms and buildings and have become aggressive
and violent with staff members. The ability of students to filter and self-regulate
has decreased over the last six years Ms. Carroll has been employed with
Petitioner Flint.
37. Staff need to spend additional time keeping students safe and in the classroom;
this often requires one-on-one paraprofessionals.
38. Flint runs two different types of self-contained classrooms: for students with
emotional impairments (EI) and mild cognitive impairments (MiCI). These
20-003550
Page 16
classrooms require more staff than either general education or resource room
special education classrooms.
39. GISD provides physical and occupational therapy services to other school
districts in the county but does not currently provide those services to Petitioner
Flint. Discussions about GISD providing those services to Petitioner Flint for the
2020-2021 school year are ongoing.
40. Students with CI usually need additional services (speech and language and
social work) as well as additional staffing. Flint had 163 students with mild CI
housed in Flint CI self-contained classrooms.
41. Students with EI often have difficulty self-regulating and require considerable
additional staffing. All Flint EI classrooms have a teacher and two
paraprofessionals in each classroom of 8 to 10 students. There are currently
four EI classrooms: one each at the high school and middle school levels and
two at the elementary school level.
42. There are 238 FTE Flint students with speech and language impairment. The
number of students receiving speech and language assistance is much higher
than 238 students: at least 700 students.
43. A speech pathologist’s caseload cannot be higher than 60 students.
44. Flint has had extreme difficulty filling special education service provider positions.
Flint is the lowest or near the lowest-paying school district for special education
staff.
45. Students with a specific learning disability (SLD) typically have trouble learning
either math or reading or both.
46. School districts have an obligation to determine which students need and require
special education services: child find. Flint gets approximately 20 referrals a
week from community groups (primarily pre-schools).
47. Flint is finding IQs dropping as students age; she believes that it is the result of
lead contamination.
48. Students with moderate cognitive impairment (MoCI), severe cognitive
impairment (SCI), severe multiple impairment (SXI), and with severe behavioral
issues attend center-based programs at the GISD. Flint sends 228 students
(212.18 FTE) to the GISD which represents 21.86% of the GISD’s student
enrollment. Exhibit O. Other than transportation costs, the costs of educating
those students is borne by the ISD. The students’ educational allowances also
go to the ISD.
49. Students do not receive FTE special education funding for speech and language
services. Students receiving only speech and language therapy would not
receive funding from the ISD under Flint’s proposed special education formula
(because they would not increase Flint’s SEFTE).
20-003550
Page 17
50. From April 12, 2018 to September 30, 2019, Flint performed 571 Multidisciplinary
Evaluation Team (MET) evaluations of students suspected of having disabilities
which resulted in 519 IEPS.
51. Each evaluation takes on average three to four hours per student and costs on
average $1,230 per evaluation. This equates to about 4.89% of Flint’s special
education budget for 2018-2019.
Carrie Sekelsky, Executive Director of Finance for Petitioner Flint
52. Ms. Sekelsky has been with Petitioner Flint for a year. She had similar roles with
other school districts (Montrose, Saginaw Community, and a charter school) in
previous years. She has a B.B.A. and a M.B.A. each with an emphasis in
finance. She has been in the field of accounting for the last 13 years.
Ms. Sekelsky is an elected school board member for Clio Schools.
53. In her current role, Ms. Sekelsky manages the finance office and oversees all
finances for Flint Community Schools.
54. The Act 18 (county) funds do not provide the entirety of the special education
funding for students. The remainder of the funds come from the State of
Michigan and the federal government. Flint received approximately $9.4 million
under the CARES Act; that money is to be used to offset costs associated with
the COVID-19 virus; Flint needs to share approximately $1.7 million of those
funds with three non-public schools inside the city limits.
55. The current formula is based on a “blended student count” of special education:
FTE, special education head count, and total FTE divided by three. The amount
of money to be distributed is capped at $3.8 million. Medicaid funds are also
distributed based on the “blended student count.” (Exhibit 1 page 19).
56. Flint has an approximately $10 million Medicaid budget for Medicaid expenses.
Flint received an approximately $100,000 reimbursement from GISD.
57. Exhibit 10 shows the three elements of the formula, the “blended student count”
and then the percentage of the $3.8 million for each district as well as the total
amount each district received.
58. For 2019-2020, Flint had 264.78 FTE special education students, the highest of
any district in Genesee County. Grand Blanc had the next most at 153.05. Flint
received 6.67% of the Act 18 funds while Grand Blanc received 12.89% of the
funds. Flushing had approximately 158 less FTE special education students but
received approximately the same amount of money as Flint. (Exhibit 10).
59. In 2013-2014, Flint had 20.72% of their students with special education FTE and
received 10.76% of the Act 18 funding. In 2019-2020, Flint had 18.56% of their
students with special education FTE and received 6.67% of the Act 18 funding.
In 2019-2020, Grand Blanc had 10.73% of their students with FTE special
education but received 12.89% of the Act 18 funding.
20-003550
Page 18
60. Districts with more students receive more Act 18 funding than smaller districts,
essentially regardless of the number of special education students.
61. Under Flint’s proposed formula, all districts would have received $2,663 per
special education FTE student for the 2019-2020 school year. Flint received
$957 per special education FTE student for 2019-2020.
62. For 2020-2021, Flint does not expect to receive several one-time payments that
the district received in the 2019-2020 school year. This is the reason for the
substantial decrease in revenue for the 2020-2021 school year. There are also
decreased expenses because several debts were paid.
63. Flint expects to receive $5.5 million in special education revenues for 2020-2021
and expects to spend $13.75 million on special education services for a net loss
of roughly $8.25 million. That diversion or shortfall comes from the general
education fund.
64. Flint spent a little over $380,000 transporting Flint students that are educated in
GISD classrooms; Flint receives no funding for these students.
65. Flint receives Title I and Title II grant funding from the federal government; this
money cannot be used for special education programs. Some of those Title I
and Title II funds must be shared with non-public schools within the district and
some of the Title II funds must be additionally shared with schools within 30 miles
of the Flint district.
66. For the 2018-2019 school year, Flint spent approximately $42,000 per special
education FTE student. Grand Blanc, Davison, and Flushing spent
approximately $66,000, 36,000, and $50,000+ per special education FTE student
respectively. Swartz Creek Community Schools spent over $148,000 per special
education FTE student in 2018-2019.
67. The costs of educating a special education student far outweigh the costs of
identifying special education students.
68. Special education costs are often subsidized from general education funds.
69. The 4096 costs on Exhibit Q are special education costs. The 4094 costs are for
both special education and general education transportation costs. Special
education transportation for Flint for 2018-2019 was a little more than $1.4
million.
David Arsen, Ph.D., School Finance Expert
70. Dr. Arsen is a professor at education policy at Michigan State University with an
area of specialization in school finance and particularly Michigan school finance.
Dr. Arsen is an expert in school finance.
71. Dr. Arsen is one of the co-authors of the Michigan School Finance at the
Crossroads document (Exhibit 8).
20-003550
Page 19
72. Special education students cost more to educate that general education
students. The federal contribution for special education students is about 10%.
Most states weight special education students’ funding. Michigan is one of five
states that uses a percentage reimbursement approach where the state
reimburses local districts for a percentage of their approved special education
costs. Michigan’s reimbursement rate is the lowest of the five states using this
system: 28% of costs and 70% of transportation. Dr. Arsen believes that
Michigan is the stingiest state for special education funding at about 30% of
costs.
73. The remaining 60% of special education costs are borne by local school districts.
Under Proposal A, local school districts cannot appropriate local mileages.
74. Michigan ISDs vary dramatically in their special education per pupil. Genesee
ISD has the lowest special education spending per pupil of any ISD. Other ISDs
have up to four times per pupil special education funding.
75. There is a small revenue sharing equalization measure, but it has little impact.
76. On average, state-wide, special education students’ education cost takes away
$500 from each general education student; in some districts that per pupil
amount is much greater. In Flint, the figure was approximately $2400 per FTE
general education student for the 2019-2020 school year21.
77. No Michigan school district has an incentive to over-identify a special education
student; every school district loses money on educating special education
students.
78. ISDs use several approaches to distributing Act 18 monies to school districts.
Dr. Arsen believes that ISDs could use additional guidance from the state as to
how to distribute this money.
79. Dr. Arsen questions the appropriateness of GISD’s “blended student count”
formula.
80. Dr. Arsen believes that special education FTE comes the closest to actual
special education costs of educating a student. A head count of students with
disabilities does not consider the severity of a student’s disability.
81. About 25% of all Michigan students are schools of choice students.
82. Charter schools have heavily impacted large city school districts.
83. Inter-district schools of choice students move from large city school districts to
suburban districts that are whiter and have better test scores.
84. Dr. Arsen believes that only a state overhaul of funding will solve the Flint
Community Schools’ crisis.
21 $8,236.770 shortfall (Exhibit RR) divided by 3452.98 general education FTE students (Exhibit 10).
20-003550
Page 20
Steven Tunnicliff, Associate Superintendent for GISD

85. As the Associate Superintendent, Dr. Tunnicliff deals with all communications for
the ISD and is the executive director for several Flint area groups. He was a
previous school district superintendent.
86. The GISD Plan (Exhibits 1 and A) meet the requirements of Rule 340.1832.
87. Federal special education funds are distributed 85% based on student headcount
and 15% based on poverty levels.
88. For the 2018-2019 school year, the Act 18 mileage generated roughly $23.5
million. Only $3.8 million was distributed to local districts. The remainder goes
to cover the costs of running center-based programs for severely impaired
students.
89. Under IDEA, school districts are required to identify students with a disability
under child find. For students who are evaluated and tested who do not require
special education, there is no special education funding available for that testing
process.
90. Speech and language services are the most common requirement for students in
Genesee County. Students who need speech and language services only would
not receive special education funding.
91. Dr. Tunnicliff does not believe that Flint’s plan for using FTE exclusively is
appropriate because it ignores child find obligations and students who need
special education services but receive no funding.
92. Dr. Tunnicliff is also concerned that using an FTE only formula provides a
financial incentive to place students in a more restrictive rather than the least
restrictive environment.
93. There is considerable variability of needs, services, and costs for students based
on FTE.
94. The current formula heavily weights the general education population; the larger
the school district, the larger the portion of the Act 18 funding.
95. Dr. Tunnicliff believes that meeting the needs of each special education student
in Genesee county is best based on special education head count. (TR II p. 243).
96. It is very expensive to provide special education services in self-contained
classrooms. Because of the lack of federal and state funding, there is a financial
disincentive to over-identify special education students.
97. The ISD is required to monitor potential over-identification of special education
students by local school districts.
98. Each student with an IEP is included in the special education headcount.
99. Time spent in special education classrooms (either resource rooms or self-
contained classrooms) is used to calculate a student’s special education FTE. A
student who spends 100% of their time in special education classrooms would be
20-003550
Page 21
a 1.0 special education FTE. A student who spends 50% of their time in special
education classrooms would be a 0.5 special education FTE. A student who
does not have any special education classes, but receives special education
services outside of the classroom (such as speech and language services of
physical or occupational therapy) would be a 0.0 special education FTE.
Cherie Wager, Assistant Superintendent for Special Education Services for GISD
100. Ms. Wager has been in education for 29 years as a special education
teacher, special education director, assistant principal, and director of special
education for the GISD. In her current role she provides leadership and
oversight of the GISD’s programs and the local school district’s special education
programs. She also oversees the GISD’s grants.
101. There are 21 local public school districts and 14 charter schools in the
GISD. All school districts in GISD participate in schools of choice.
102. GISD offers four center-based programs: pre-school, school-aged
children, SCI and SXI students, and a transition center. Approximately 940
students participate in those programs. Center-based programs are the most
restrictive placements. GISD pays for center-based programs’ expenses except
for transportation. Approximately 22% of center-based students come from Flint
Community Schools.
103. There are approximately 9400 students that qualify for special education
services in the GISD.
104. GISD will be providing OT and PT to students in Flint starting in the
2020-2021 school year which will save Flint Community Schools approximately
$500,000 per year.
105. About 70% of students who reside in Flint attend other school districts of
charter schools. Of those 70% of students who attend other districts, 40% of
those students receive special education services.
106. Districts have child find obligations under IDEA; students who are tested
incur costs depending on the needs of the student. The larger the school district,
the more the child find costs.
107. The current GISD plan was created in 2004. At that time MDE provided a
guidance tool to establish what elements were needed in the plan. Once the
plan was drafted, the LEAs signed off on the plan (including Flint) and the State
Superintendent approved the plan.
108. There were modifications to the plan in 2011 and 2013 (but not to the
funding formula). These modifications were signed off by Flint and approved by
the State Superintendent.
109. Ms. Wager believes that the current formula best meets the needs of all
special education students in the county.
20-003550
Page 22
110. GISD aids Flint Community Schools in the form of services by providing
GISD staff members to provide services directly to Flint’s students.
111. GISD has provided services to children up through age five who have
been affected by the Flint lead-in-the-water crisis. GISD provided services to
22,000 children living in the City of Flint in the 2019-2020 school year.
112. Flint never raised any issues concerning the Act 18 funding formula during
any GISD superintendent meetings.
113. During presentations in 2019, the special education county mandatory
plan was discussed and there were no objections to the plan raised by directors
of special education or superintendents. (Exhibits TT and CCC).
114. Ms. Wager believes that using an FTE-only formula would incentivize
districts to place students in special education and more restrictive special
education settings.
115. Flint Community Schools does not receive funding for any students who
attend center-based programs.
Steven Polega, Director of Compliance and Special Services Administration for GISD
116. Mr. Polega oversees special education compliance for GISD and the local
school districts within Genesee County. He has been employed with GISD for
the last seven years.
117. Special education FTE is the amount of time students spend receiving
special education services. Special education head count is only the number of
students receiving special education services.
118. There are costs associated with special education head counts that may
not necessarily be encompassed in the FTE; the major cost is for speech and
language therapies but there are others such as nursing, PT, and OT.
119. The number of general education students in the formula is for suspected
child find for general education students.
120. The head count component of special education services is for services
provided to special education services not in a special education program (i.e.
speech and language services) and reevaluation/child find obligations for special
education students.
121. The special education FTE is used for the costs of providing special
education services to students in resource and self-contained classrooms.
122. Mr. Polega believes that changing the formula defunds child find
obligations of school districts.
123. Flint’s percentage of special education students has decreased in Flint
Community Schools over the last several years.
124. Mr. Polega does not believe that moving to an FTE model would defund
special education students that do not generate a special education FTE.
20-003550
Page 23
Peter Toal, Superintendent for Westwood Heights School District

125. Mr. Toal has been Superintendent for Westwood Heights for several years
and previously served as Principal in an alternative high school. Prior to that he
was an investment banker.
126. There are approximately 1600 students in Westwood Heights School
District. The demographics, including income levels, are like Flint Community
Schools. Approximately 850 of the students at Westwood live in the Flint district.
Approximately 90% of the students in the district qualify for free lunch, but all
students receive free lunch. Approximately 85% of the students are African
American.
127. Approximately 50 of the 850 Flint resident students receive special
education services.
128. About half of speech pathology and social worker costs are associated
with child find. The Director of Special Education’s office is also involved in child
find. Westwood has between 12 and 15 special education staff: a Special
Education Director, a secretary, a social worker, a contracted speech pathologist,
and teachers and paraprofessionals.
129. Of the students tested for special education under child find, about 50%
qualify for special education.
130. Westwood would lose about 50% of their funding under Flint’s plan.
131. Superintendent Toal believes that the current plan is the fairest approach
because there are costs associated with child find.
132. Superintendent Toal attends monthly superintendent meetings; Flint’s
superintendent has only raised the issue of plan funding at one meeting:
December 2019.
133. At the June 5, 2019 and December 11, 2019 superintendent meetings,
there was a presentation on the GISD Plan and there was consensus amongst
those in attendance that the plan was appropriate.
134. In 2013-2014, Westwood had about 2% of their students as special
education FTE. In 2019-2020, about 1.25% of their students were special
education FTE.
135. When outside services (psychologist, OT, PT, etc.) are required both
GISD and outside providers provide the services. When GISD provides the
services, there is no charge to Westwood.
136. Westwood received $92,866.81 in Act 18 money in 2019-2020.
Westwood would have received $52,116 under Flint’s proposed plan, a loss of
approximately $40,750.
137. Beecher schools have the highest level of poverty, Flint is second, and
Westwood has the third most students in poverty.
20-003550
Page 24
Clarence Garner, Superintendent for Grand Blanc Community Schools

138. Superintendent Garner has been superintendent for four years. He has
been with the district for over 30 years starting as a student teacher, principal,
personnel director, and assistant superintendent.
139. Grand Blanc has just under 500 students of choice from Flint Community
Schools including special education students. There are approximately 8200
students in Grand Blanc Community Schools.
140. Under Flint’s program, Grand Blanc would lose funding compared with the
current formula: $83,640 if the formula had been applied for the 2019-2020
school year (Exhibit SS).
141. The larger the student population, the larger the child find cost to a school
district. Superintendent Garner is unsure what that child find cost is for Grand
Blanc.
142. Superintendent Garner does not recall anyone ever addressing any
concerns about the current GISD Plan. The consensus of the group after a
presentation about the plan was to keep the plan as is.
143. At a December 2019 meeting there was a discussion about the plan but
the Flint superintendent at that time did not want to engage in discussion about
the plan. Flint’s then-superintendent distributed Flint’s proposed plan in the form
of a memorandum.
144. Grand Blanc gains between 200 and 400 students from schools of choice
and loses between 200 and 300 students each year.
145. Grand Blanc had $10,122,188 in special education costs for 2018-2019
compared to $11,324,278 for Flint that year. Exhibit Q.
Eddie Kindle, Superintendent for Carman-Ainsworth Community Schools
146. Superintendent Kindle has been Superintendent for the last four years.
Prior to that he was an Assistant Superintendent and previously worked as a
teacher and administrator in another school district.
147. Carman-Ainsworth enrolled approximately 819 students from Flint
Community Schools of an approximately 4011 total student population.
148. Prior to the 2019-2020 school year, Flint never raised concerns about the
GISD Plan amongst the Genesee County public school superintendents. When
the plan was discussed, the consensus of the superintendents was to keep the
plan the same.
149. At the December 2019 superintendents meeting, Flint’s proposed plan
was presented to the group. At the January 8, 2020 meeting, the
superintendents asked questions, but Flint’s then-superintendent, Dr. Lopez,
referred only to the document. The group consensus was the keep the plan the
same.
20-003550
Page 25
150. Under Flint’s plan, Carman-Ainsworth would receive an increase in

funding, but he does not believe that the Flint plan should be adopted.
Superintendent Kindle believes that the current plan is meant to support all their
special education students.
151. Superintendent Kindle received Dr. Lopez’s January 6, 2020 email
regarding Flint Community Schools’ objections to the GISD Plan.
152. Carman-Ainsworth is directly west of the Flint Community Schools
boundary. The students living in the Carman-Ainsworth district were not
connected to Flint water; the students who live in Flint obviously were. The
school buildings in Carman-Ainsworth had and have working water fountains and
showers.
153. Carman-Ainsworth loses as many students to schools of choice (mostly to
Grand Blanc, Swartz Creek, and Flushing) as they gain from the program (mostly
from Flint).
Lisa Hagel, Ed.D., Superintendent for Respondent GISD
154. Dr. Hagel is in her 10th year as Superintendent of GISD. She was
previously Superintendent for Mt. Morris Schools for 6 years, and an
administrator in that and other districts and previously an elementary school
teacher. She has been an educator for 35 years.
155. GISD serves almost 9,000 students internally for pre-school students,
early on, and four center-based programs (which educate approximately
1000 students). GISD also provides shared services to local school districts.
156. Child find is an outreach and identification program that is a continuing
obligation for each school district (and the ISD). There are considerable child
find obligations prior to evaluation and outreach, particularly to young children.
157. The larger the district, the more families and children and therefore more
costs for child find in larger districts compared to smaller districts.
158. Outreach is done based on the community where the school is located.
159. Act 18 funds are intended to pay for GISD’s center-based programs
primarily and secondarily to help local districts offset unreimbursed special
education costs. GISD’s Act 18 funds do not fully cover the costs of GISD’s
center-based programs.
160. The GISD Plan was in effect when Dr. Hagel started with GISD although
she was the Superintendent for the two plan modifications.
161. When modifications are made to a county mandatory plan, the constituent
districts come together to discuss the plan and each district signs off on the plan.
Flint Community Schools signed off on the GISD Plan and the two modifications.
162. If a local school district superintendent had an objection to the GISD Plan,
that could be placed on the monthly meeting agenda or any subcommittee of the
20-003550
Page 26
group. The topic could also be addressed during one of the twice-yearly day-
long meetings.
163. In November 2019, Dr. Hagel read two newspaper editorials from
Dr. Lopez regarding the GISD Plan. Dr. Hagel called Dr. Lopez and asked him
why he hadn’t brought his concerns to the GISD and other superintendents.
Dr. Hagel told Dr. Lopez that she was going to put Flint Community School’s
proposal on the December 2019 meeting.
164. Dr. Lopez was the only superintendent absent at the December 11, 2019
superintendents meeting.
165. At the January 2020 meeting, the consensus of the superintendents was
to keep the GISD Plan the same.
166. At the June 5, 2019 meeting there was a presentation about the GISD
Plan. No superintendent raised any concerns and the consensus of the
superintendents was to keep the GISD Plan the same.
167. In 2014, Fenton desired to discuss the concept of distributing the Act 18
funding based on property taxes. Dr. Hagel and the GISD Assistant
Superintendent for Finance discussed that proposal with Fenton’s board and
subsequently with the county superintendents. The superintendents
unanimously decided not to change the formula.
168. All school districts in Genesee County participate in schools of choice.
About 70 to 75% of students living in Flint attend public schools elsewhere; about
40% of those students receive special education students.
169. The racial and financial makeup of Flint has not changed significantly over
the last 10 years.
170. Although Beecher has a higher level of poverty than Flint Community
Schools, Beecher would receive less Act 18 funds under the Flint proposed plan.
171. The public school academies in Genesee County raised concerns about
Flint’s proposed plan.
172. Dr. Hagel believes that the current formula best meets the needs of the
special education students.
173. Dr. Hagel agrees that FTE and special education headcount are all
important components of allocating Act 18 funding.
174. About 70% of the public districts would lose funding under the Flint plan.
175. Dr. Hagel believes that adopting the Flint plan would not be best practice.
She believes that it would segregate students because it incentivizes placing
students in special education programs.
176. The GISD Plan indicates that Medicaid monies are “distributed on a
percentage basis utilizing the ‘blended student count.’” (Exhibit A page 19).
20-003550
Page 27
177. GISD’s Act 18 funding was approximately $23.5 million for 2018-2019, the
last year for which data available. The GISD received $29.3 million totally in
local money, mostly from Medicaid. The GISD also received $31.9 million in
state funding and $18.3 million in federal funds.
178. Students in center-based programs do not generate foundation
allowances from the state for either the ISD or the local school district.
179. Dr. Hagel believes that the 4094 Costs include both special and general
education costs and therefore the total special education costs include some
general education transportation costs. Exhibit Q.
180. Dr. Hagel and Ms. McCain created Exhibit 11 which is a draft formula to
distribute an additional $600,000 based on special education FTE. This solution
would provide additional funds to each LEA.
181. Act 18 funds are for the education of special education students; they are
not focused on poverty.
182. It is more expensive to provide special education services than to provide
general education services to students.
183. Every school district in Genesee County supplements their special
education funds with general education dollars. There are not enough special
education funds to cover the costs of educating special education students.
184. Each of the three pillars of the GISD plan (child find, push in/pull out, and
special education classroom services) are equally important. (TR III p 534-535).
185. Although the three components are equally important, they are set up
85.5%/11.5%/2% rather than 33.3%/33.3%/33.3% because that is the way the
superintendents want the formula set up.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent’s motion for reconsideration of summary disposition is denied.
In their post-hearing briefs, Respondent re-argues their motions for summary disposition
that there is a lack of jurisdiction because the plan was approved. These issues were
previously decided and ruled upon. The rationale and reasoning contained in the Order
denying those motions remains sound. The Respondent has a continuing obligation to
review and modify their plan and any constituent district or the parent group can object if
they believe that the plan does not comply with a rule or statute as Flint contends here.
Respondent is correct that the Administrative Law Judge mis-cited the primary statute
that forms the basis for review: MCL 380.1711(1)(a) by citing a previous version that
has since been amended. The primary difference is that under the previous statute the
ISD had an obligation to design a plan that developed the “maximum potential” of each
student with a disability whereas the current statute requires only “meeting the individual
20-003550
Page 28
needs” of each student with a disability. Although the standard is slightly different, this
has no effect on whether Flint’s hearing request was timely: it was.
Respondent’s argument that only a plan that has been submitted to (but not yet
approved by) the superintendent of public instruction as required by Rule 340.1836(1) is
unpersuasive. Respondent’s reading of the rule requires reading into the rule that only
a pending application can be the subject of an objection. Necessarily a plan that has
been approved cannot be pending.
Flint, by previously agreeing to the plan, did not waive their right to subsequently object
to the plan. Although no doubt very frustrating for GISD to first hear of Flint’s objections
in a newspaper article, Flint’s former superintendent’s refusal to engage in discussions
about the plan other than offering a new plan, and Flint’s subsequent filing of these
objections, there is nothing procedurally improper about Flint’s objections.
To grant the Respondent’s motion(s) would be to say that, although the current plan is
clearly inappropriate and not in line with even the Respondent’s witnesses’ testimony
about the goals of the plan, no Petitioner can object because the plan was previously
approved several years ago. As with any ruling at any point before, during, or after the
hearing, the parties may file objections with the Superintendent of Public Instruction on
any issue.
Standard of Review
Rule 340.1836 sets forth the role of the Administrative Law Judge and therefore the
scope of the hearing. The Administrative Law Judge may recommend to the
Superintendent: 1) approval of the Plan as submitted, 2) approval of the Plan with other
modifications deemed appropriate by the Administrative Law Judge, or 3) granting the
objections as submitted. This necessarily goes beyond merely finding whether the Plan
was arbitrary and capricious or allowed for participation by all the parties and
necessitates a finding whether the Plan violated state or federal law or rule or
regulation.
Rule 340.1837 allows the Superintendent of Public Instruction to determine the

appropriateness of the Plan under MCL 380.1701 to 1766, the MARSE, IDEA starting at
20 USC 1400, and the IDEA CFRs starting at 34 CFR 300.1. Compliance with each
and any of those statutes and rules may be used to guide the Superintendent’s decision
and therefore the Administrative Law Judge’s recommendation to the Superintendent.
The current Plan does not meet GISD’s stated goals and therefore does not
appropriately provide for the delivery of special education programs and services
designed to meet the individual needs of each student with a disability.
20-003550
Page 29
The Revised School Code at MCL 380.1711(1)(a) requires the intermediate school
district to:
Develop, establish, and continually evaluate and modify in cooperation

with its constituent districts, a plan for special education that provides for
the delivery of special education programs and services designed to meet
the individual needs of each student with a disability …
The current Act 18 formula attempts to reimburse school districts for child find, push
in/pull out special education services, and resource room (in class) special education.
However, the current formula grossly overpays for child find obligations, including for
districts that have relatively few obligations and costs for child find: notably charter
schools.
Districts’ child find costs are considerably less than 1/3 of districts’ special education
budgets.
Child find costs make up a very small percentage of districts’ special education budgets.
In Flint, their child find expenses are less than 5% of their total cost of special education
(TR III p 546). This is true even though Flint has a disproportionately large geographic
area and high number of families with children that must be evaluated. If Flint’s child
find obligations are less than 5% of their total special education budget, it stands to
reason that other districts would have similar or smaller expenditures to fulfil their child
find obligations. Charter schools, with no geographic area and no non-enrolled children
to evaluate, would have an even smaller still percentage of expenditures to satisfy their
child find obligations. Charter schools need only monitor and evaluate their enrolled
general education students if there is a suspicion that a student needs to have an IEP.
FTE does not accurately or appropriately measure and compensate for districts’ child
find obligations.
FTE can be an accurate measure of a district’s costs of child find obligations amongst
their enrolled students. The more general education students a district has, the more
evaluations that the district is likely to need to conduct. However, this is only part of a
district’s child find obligations.
A district’s obligations to find special education students within the district’s community
boundaries has no relationship to the number of students in that district because of
schools of choice. In a district like Flint where many students leave for other schools,
FTE inadequately compensates for community-based child find obligations. In a district
that receives more students than they lose, FTE overcompensates for community-
20-003550
Page 30
based child find obligations. As noted elsewhere, charter schools have no community
special education search obligation and so allocating monies to charter schools based
on FTE compensates those charter schools for a child find expense that they do not
have.
Given the testimony that roughly between 50 and 85% of students evaluated for special
education services ultimately end up receiving those services, special education
headcount is a better method of reimbursing child find costs for enrolled students than
FTE. Except for Flint22 and their extraordinary circumstances, every other district’s FTE
and SEHC percentages are within 2% of each other.
To adequately measure districts’ community-based child find obligations it would be

necessary to include a formula component that measures the number of families with
young (and private school-enrolled) children. That information was not presented at the
hearing. Further, this is such a small component of districts’ child find obligations that
even if this data were available, it would be a very minor component of any final
formula: approximately 2%.
Because of underfunding special education, the use of FTE in the formula is inversely
correlated to special education funding needs.
Education in Michigan is underfunded; special education in Michigan is especially

underfunded (Exhibit 18). Because special education is even more underfunded than
general education, each special education student requires more money than allotted
and that money must come from general education students’ allotments (TR I 152-158).
General education students must subsidize special education students’ education. The
greater the percentage of special education students a district has, the greater the
amount of each general education student’s shortfall.
When a general education student leaves a district for another district or charter school,
the amount of each remaining general education student’s shortfall increases for the
leaving district and decreases for the gaining district. The current formula, however,
decreases the losing district’s Act 18 distribution, further exacerbating the shortfall to
both the general and special education students in the leaving district.
One of the many concerns with the school of choice program is that impoverished
districts will lose their most affluent students to other districts and charter schools
leaving only those who cannot afford to leave. This phenomenon then gains
momentum because as time passes the remaining students have further incentive to
leave. Each general education student who leaves Flint for another district increases
the amount that the remaining general education students need to subsidize the
22 Flint has 5.91% of the Genesee county students but 10.36% of the special education students.
20-003550
Page 31
remaining students. This is exactly what has happened in Flint. GISD’s current Act 18
formula further punishes districts that lose students to other districts.
Special education students, particularly those with more severe needs, are less likely to
utilize schools of choice programs. General education students are more likely to leave
their home district searching for a better opportunity. Special education students,
particularly those with more severe needs, are more likely to remain in their home
district. This creates a situation, like in Flint, where a district has an ever-increasing
number of special education students with ever-increasing educational needs. The
GISD Act 18 plan, with its outsized emphasis on general education student numbers,
not only does not help address this situation, it makes it worse.
Just because the GISD Plan is applied equally does not mean that it meets the needs of
each student with a disability.
Respondent argues that because the formula is applied to every constituent school
district, it meets the needs of each student with a disability. However, an improper
formula (which the GISD Plan is) applied equally across districts is still an unequal and
inappropriate formula. A formula based entirely on FTE, without any account of special
education students, would be inappropriate and not designed to meet the needs of
special education students even if applied to every district equally. Such a plan relying
100% on FTE would be inappropriate. GISD’s current plan, relying on more than 85%
FTE, is also inappropriate and does not meet the needs of each student with a
disability.
Changing the funding formula is unlikely to result in more restrictive environments for
disabled students.
Respondent argues that changing the funding plan to one more focused on numbers of
special education students or special education FTE will result in districts having a
greater incentive to (mis-)classify students as disabled or (mis-)classify them as more
disabled to receive additional act 18 monies. This argument is not supported by the
evidence presented at the hearing. Special education students are not fully funded at
any level: federal, state, or county. Increasing the amount of Act 18 money a district
receives will not make special education students profitable.
Any Act 18 economic incentive for a school district to misclassify a student as special
education or needing a more restrictive environment is more than offset by the overall
cost of providing special education services. It does not make financial sense for a
district to over-classify a student’s need for special education, spending considerably
more money to educate that special education student in order to receive a partial
rebate from the county in the form of Act 18 monies. Further, there are many other
20-003550
Page 32
safeties built into the system to prevent over-identification of students including but not
limited to actions that the ISD can take and parents filing state complaints and requests
for due process hearings.
The concern about over-including students in more restrictive environments is a

legitimate concern, but it is not likely to occur given the underfunding of special
education. Equally concerning to over-including students is under-including students in
special education: that is providing fewer services than students truly need. This is a
concern when special education is underfunded, and this concern is exacerbated by the
GISD’s current Act 18 funding plan.
The current formula does not meet even an arbitrary and capricious standard.
Respondent argues that GISD should be afforded deference in their funding plan, which
they should23. There are limits, however, to the amount of deference to be provided.
Because GISD cannot articulate a reason why their formula so heavily weighs towards
districts’ minimal child find obligations, there is no rationale to give deference to.
Government, at the absolute bare minimum, must provide services in a non-arbitrary
and capricious manner.
The current GISD plan does not meet even a lesser arbitrary and capricious standard.
“Arbitrary means fixed or arrived at through an exercise of will or by caprice, without
consideration or adjustment with reference to principles, circumstances or significance,
and capricious means apt to change suddenly, freakish or whimsical.” Mich. Farm
Bureau v. Dep't. of Environmental Quality, 292 Mich App 106; (2011), quoting Nolan v.
Dep't. of Licensing & Regulation, 151 Mich App 652; (1986). A reason is arbitrary and
capricious if it is based on prejudice, animus, or improper motives. Id. "A ruling is
arbitrary and capricious when it lacks an adequate determining principle, when it reflects
an absence of consideration or adjustment with reference to principles, circumstances
or significance, or when it is freakish or whimsical " Wescott v Civil Serv Comm'n, 298
Mich App. 158 (2012).
Respondent’s use of a formula to allocate special education funds that is more than
85% based on general education student numbers is arbitrary and capricious. When
asked to explain the rationale for the formula, Dr. Hagel could not other than to note that
this was the agreed upon formula (TR III p. 536). That a decision is agreed upon, even
unanimously, does not make the decision not arbitrary and capricious. The current
Act 18 formula is both in violation of MCL 380.1711(1)(a) and is arbitrary and capricious.
23 Indeed, deference was awarded to GISD’s witnesses that special education head count should be
included in the formula (instead of only special education FTE as Flint requests).
20-003550
Page 33
The most appropriate formula requires consideration of both special education head
count and special education FTE.
Having determined that the current GISD Act 18 Plan is inappropriate, it falls on the
Superintendent of Public Instruction to modify that plan. Rule 340.1836 requires the
Administrative Law Judge to recommend to the Superintendent: 1) approval of the Plan
as submitted, 2) approval of the Plan with other modifications deemed appropriate by
the Administrative Law Judge, or 3) granting the objections as submitted. The GISD
Plan, as it currently stands, is inappropriate and should not continue.
Flint Community Schools proposes using only special education FTEs to allocate the
monies. However, this approach does not address GISD’s very legitimate concerns
about students receiving less than full time special education services. Although, in
general, the higher the full time equivalency, the more expensive the student is to
educate, this correlation is far from perfect. There are students receiving relatively few
special education services that would qualify them for special education equivalency
that are nonetheless very expensive to provide. Aides, nurses, therapists, and other
service providers that are providing their services to special education students are
expensive regardless of whether they are providing those services in general education
classrooms or special education classrooms. If these providers are providing services
in general education classrooms, those costs are not covered in a special education
FTE only formula.
Several witnesses testified that all three components (FTE, SEHC, and SEFTE) should
count equally. GISD’s current formula of adding the three together and dividing by three
does not accomplish this: FTE dominates both the numerator and the denominator in
the current formula. Instead, a formula advocating for all three to count equally would
add and divide each category separately:
The D stands for each district’s component while the C stands for the county-wide
component. District FTE divided by County FTE, District SEHC divided by County
SEHC, and District SEFTE divided by County SEFTE all added together and then
divided by three. It is this formula that would have each column weighted equally:
20-003550
Page 34
33.3%/33.3%/33.3% versus 86.5%/11.5%/2% respectively. This is the formula that

most of GISD’s witnesses advocated for at the hearing.24
Using the above equalized formula including all three components equally would have
resulted in the following distributions for the 2019-2020 school year.
District SEFTE SEFTE% SEHC SEHC% FTE FTE% Equal Old +/-
Beecher 14.78 1.04% 91 1.08% 701.84 1.11% 40,906 42,149 -2.95%
Bentley 12.37 0.87% 103 1.22% 828.31 1.32% 43,113 49,249 -12.46%
Carman-
Ainsworth 124.78 8.74% 617 7.31% 4294.46 6.82% 289,821 262,835 10.27%
Eagle's Nest 0.42 0.03% 19 0.23% 183.24 0.29% 6,913 10,577 -34.64%
Flint 264.78 18.56% 874 10.36% 3717.76 5.91% 441,081 253,456 74.03%
Flushing 106.02 7.43% 544 6.45% 4215.82 6.70% 260,624 253,942 2.63%
Grand Blanc 153.05 10.73% 956 11.33% 8278.26 13.15% 445,978 489,911 -8.97%
Swartz Creek 31.79 2.23% 491 5.82% 3628.12 5.76% 174,948 216,631 -19.24%
Westwood
Heights 19.57 1.37% 180 2.13% 1592.25 2.53% 76,438 93,513 -18.26%
Total 1426.93 8436 62949.77 3,800,000
In other words, the current formula which is supposed to represent equal funding of all
three components currently overfunds FTE by 260%, underfunds SEHC by 290%, and
underfunds SEFTE by a whopping 1665%. Under a truly equal formula, treating all
three components equally, Flint would have received $441,081 in Act 18 funds for the
2019-2020 school year, a roughly 74% increase. If the goal was to treat all three pillars
of the formula (child find, services outside of the special education classroom, and
services inside the special education classroom), the current formula missed its goal by
74% for Flint and 10% for Carman-Ainsworth while overcompensating 19% and 18% in
Swartz Creek and Westwood Heights respectively.
Treating all three components of the current formula equally results in a much more
appropriate distribution because the number of students no longer dominates the
formula. However, the above formula, while far superior to the current formula, is still
not the most appropriate formula to use.
As noted elsewhere, much of a district’s child find obligations can be addressed by the
special education head count; this figure must be considered in the final formula. Given
Dr. Hagel’s entirely reasonable testimony that push in/pull out services and in class
services are equally important, it makes sense to weight these two considerations
equally. To do so requires treating the two numbers equally rather than simply adding
the two numbers together and dividing by two. The most appropriate formula for a
24 Dr. Tunnicliff advocated for a plan based solely on special education head count (TR II p. 243).
20-003550
Page 35
district’s receipt of Act 18 funds is ((District SEHC/County SEHC) +

(District SEFTE/County SEFTE)) / 2.
For the 2019-2020 school year, this would have resulted in the following allocations:
District SEFTE SEFTE% SEHC SEHC% SEHC&SEFTE Old +/-

Beecher 14.78 1.04% 91 1.08% 40,176 42,149 -4.68%
Bentley 12.37 0.87% 103 1.22% 39,669 49,249 -19.45%
Carman-
Ainsworth 124.78 8.74% 617 7.31% 305,112 262,835 16.09%
Eagle's Nest 0.42 0.03% 19 0.23% 4,839 10,577 -54.25%
Flint 264.78 18.56% 874 10.36% 549,409 253,456 116.77%
Flushing 106.02 7.43% 544 6.45% 263,691 253,942 3.84%
Grand Blanc 153.05 10.73% 956 11.33% 419,106 489,911 -14.45%
Swartz Creek 31.79 2.23% 491 5.82% 152,915 216,631 -29.41%
Westwood
Heights 19.57 1.37% 180 2.13% 66,599 93,513 -28.78%
Total 1426.93 8436 3,800,000
As expected, some districts receive more money under this formula, and some receive
less. The more special education students and the more severely disabled those
students are, the more money is received under this proposed formula, regardless of
the school district’s size. Flint, not surprisingly, is the biggest recipient of the formula
change, receiving just under $300,000 more per year. Also, not surprisingly, charter
schools stand to lose the most money from this new formula given the relatively low
numbers of special education students enrolled in charter schools compared to their
traditional public school counterparts. Schools that have fewer special education
students and less severely disabled students should receive less money.
While the differences are sometimes stark, they are less stark when compared to the
difference between the new proposed formula and the formula that GISD was really
advocating for of each pillar being equal:
District SEHC&SEFTE Equal Difference %

20-003550
Page 36
Beecher 40,176 40,906 -730 -1.79%
Bentley 39,669 43,113 -3,444 -7.99%
Carman-
Ainsworth 305,112 289,821 15,292 5.28%
Eagle's Nest 4,839 6,913 -2,074 -30.01%
Flint 549,409 441,081 108,328 24.56%
Flushing 263,691 260,624 3,067 1.18%
Grand Blanc 419,106 445,978 -26,872 -6.03%
Swartz Creek 152,915 174,948 -22,033 -12.59%
Westwood
Heights 66,599 76,438 -9,840 -12.87%
Eliminating FTE entirely causes Flint’s share of funding to increase by about 25% over
what it should have been if FTE was included equally with the other two components.
The school district change that is the most concerning is Westwood Heights. As their
superintendent Mr. Toal noted, this is an impoverished district with a significant number
of Flint students; roughly half of their students come from Flint. However, of their 850
students from Flint, only 50 are special education students – roughly 6% versus the
more than 20% of students who remain in Flint that are special education students.
This accounts for the reduction in Act 18 funding. Although Westwood Heights students
have a similar socioeconomic background to Flint students, they are much less likely to
require special education services and therefore require less Act 18 funding to make up
for those special education funding shortages.
Although a plausible argument can be made for a formula that equally uses all three
components of GISD’s current formula, a formula that equally weights only special ed
FTE and special ed head counts best accomplishes the relevant statute’s goal of
designing a plan that provides for the delivery of special education programs and
services designed to meet the individual needs of each student with a disability.
No argument can reasonably be made that GISD’s current plan which allows the
general education head count to dominate the allocation of funds provides for the
20-003550
Page 37
delivery of special education programs and services designed to meet the individual
needs of each student with a disability.
Conclusion
The current GISD Act 18 Plan is unfair to the students enrolled in the Flint Community
Schools. Respondent is correct that fairness is not the standard for review. However,
under any standard of review the current plan is inappropriate and must be modified.
The current GISD plan is in violation of MCL 380.1711(1)(a) because it does not meet
the individual needs of each student with a disability, particularly those special
education students attending Flint Community Schools. Because the plan’s funding is
not correlated to the plan’s goal because it vastly overrepresents FTE, the plan is also
arbitrary and capricious.
Dr. Hagel’s concern that altering the plan would result in less money for some special
education students in some districts was heartfelt and entirely legitimate. However, that
concern must be weighed against the reduction that Flint’s special education students
receive because they are enrolled in the Flint Community Schools. The GISD Act 18
Plan simply cannot remain in effect just because some students would receive less
money given that Flint students receive substantially less money under an inequitable
plan that does not accomplish the goals of the plan (equitable funding for child find,
push in/pull out services, and resource room services) and therefore does not provide
for special education students’ individual needs.
The Administrative Law Judge offers a sincere thank you to all who participated in the
hearing. This case was well presented and argued by all the attorneys for all parties.
Each witness who testified did so credibly. Each of the witnesses’ passion for their
respective students and their education, and particularly the education of students with
disabilities was evident and laudable. It is the sincere hope of the Administrative Law
Judge that the parties can come together to work through their differences toward their
common goal of educating all students in Genesee County.
____________________________________
Michael J. St. John
Administrative Law Judge
20-003550
Page 38
EXCEPTIONS
Pursuant to Rule 340.1836(4), if a party chooses to file Exceptions to this Proposal for
Decision, the exceptions must be filed within twenty (20) calendar days after the
Proposal for Decision is issued and entered: October 29, 2020. Exceptions must be
filed with the Superintendent of Public Education before the close of business on the
last day of this time limit. Exceptions should be sent to the Office of Administrative Law,
608 West Allegan Street, P.O. Box 30008, Lansing, Michigan 48909 and
MDE-AdminLaw@michigan.gov and MOAHR-GA@michigan.gov and to all parties at
the address and email address listed in the proof of service.
20-003550
Page 39
PROOF OF SERVICE
I certify that I served a copy of the foregoing document upon all parties and/or attorneys,
to their last-known addresses in the manner specified below, this 9th day of
October 2020.
/s/ J. Delaney____________________
J. Delaney
Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings
and Rules
Via Electronic Mail

Genesee ISD Kendall Williams
Dr. Lisa Hagel, Superintendent Mark Morse
2413 W. Maple Ave. Sean M. Siebigteroth
Flint, MI 48507 The Williams Firm
lhagel@geneseeisd.org 8263 South Saginaw St., Ste 6
Grand Blanc, MI 48439
Lorie E. Steinhauer kwilliams@thewilliamsfirm.com
Jeremy Chisolm mmorse@thewilliamsfirm.com
Collins & Blaha ssiebig@thewilliamsfirm.com
31440 Northwestern Highway.,
Suite 170 Michigan Department of Education -
Farmington Hills, MI 48334-2374 Office of Special Education
lsteinhauer@collinsblaha.com Teri Rink, Director
jchisholm@collinsblaha.com 608 W. Allegan Street
Lansing, MI 48909
School District of the City of Flint RinkT1@michigan.gov
Anita Steward, Superintendent
923 E. Kearsley St. Robert Taylor
Flint, MI 48503 Michigan Department of Education
superintendent@flintschools.org Office of Administrative Law
mwood@flintschools.org PO Box 30008
Lansing, MI 48909
TaylorB1@michigan.gov
CookJ9@michigan.gov
Via First Class Mail
Mr. John Ploof Superintendent

Atherton Community Schools Dr. Melody Strang Superintendent
3354 S Genesee Rd Genesee Schools
Burton MI 48519 7347 N Genesee Rd
Genesee MI 48437
Dr. Marcus Davenport Superintendent
Beecher Community Schools Dr. Lisa Hagel Superintendent
1020 W Coldwater Rd Genesee Intermediate School District
Flint MI 48505 2413 West Maple Avenue
Flint, MI 48507
Mr. John Krolewski Superintendent
Bendle Public Schools Mr. Wayne Wright Superintendent
3420 Columbine Ave Goodrich Area Schools
Burton MI 48529 8029 S Gale Rd
Goodrich MI 48438
Ms. Kristy Spann Superintendent
Bentley Community Schools Mr. Clarence Garner Superintendent
1170 N Belsay Rd Grand Blanc Community Schools
Burton MI 48509 G-11920 S Saginaw St
Grand Blanc MI 48439
Mr. Eddie Kindle Superintendent
Carman-Ainsworth Community Mr. Kevin Walworth Superintendent
Schools Kearsley Community Schools
G-3475 W Court St 4396 Underhill Drive
Flint MI 48532 Flint MI 48506
Mr. Fletcher Spears Superintendent Ms. Julie Williams Superintendent

Clio Area Schools Lake Fenton Community Schools
430 N Mill St 11425 Torrey Rd
Clio MI 48420 Fenton MI 48430
Mr. Kevin Brown Superintendent Mr. Mike Lytle Superintendent

Davison Community Schools Lakeville Community Schools
1490 N Oak Rd 11107 Washburn Rd
Davison MI 48423 Otisville MI 48463
Dr. Adam Hartley Superintendent Mr. Russ Ciesielski Superintendent

Fenton Area Public Schools Linden Community Schools
3100 Owen Rd 7205 Silver Lake Rd
Fenton MI 48430 Linden MI 48451
Mr. Tim Stein Superintendent Dr. Bo Moore Superintendent

Flushing Community Schools Montrose Community Schools
522 N McKinley Rd 301 Nanita Dr
Flushing MI 48433 Montrose MI 48457
40
Ms. Renae Galsterer Superintendent Ms. Deonna Washington
Mt. Morris Consolidated Schools Linden Charter Academy
12356 Walter St 3244 N Linden Rd
Mt Morris MI 48458 Flint MI 48504
Mr. Ben Mainka Superintendent Ms. Jenna Badgley

Swartz Creek Community Schools Madison Academy
8354 Cappy Lane 3266 S Genesee Rd
Swartz Creek MI 48473 Burton MI 48519
Mr. Peter Toal Superintendent Ms. Patty Wood

Westwood Heights Schools Grand Blanc Academy
3400 N Jennings Rd 5135 E Hill Rd
Flint MI 48504 Grand Blanc MI 48439
Ms. Traci Cormier Mr. Michael Springs

International Academy of Flint Flex High School of Mich
2820 S Saginaw St 4121 Martin Luther King Ave
Ms. Pamela Haldy Ms. Madeline Black

Richfield Public School Academy Way Academy
3807 N Center Rd 817 E Kearsley St
Mr. Jeremy Brown Ms. Megan Strauchman

Woodland Park Academy Morningstar
2083 E Grand Blanc Rd 2094 S Washburn Rd
Grand Blanc MI 48439 Davison MI 48423
Ms. Kimberly Coulter Mr. Aaron Williams

Genesee Stem Academy Burton Glen Charter Academy
5240 Calkins Rd 4171 E Atherton Rd
Flint MI 48532 Burton MI 48519
Mr. Eric Lieske Ms. Latricia Brown-Coates

Flint Cultural Center Academy Northridge Academy
1200 Robert T Longway Blvd 4100 Coldwater Rd
Star Eaton Ms. Jenna Badgley

2881 Yale Street The New Standard Academy
Flint MI 48503 2040 W Carpenter Rd
Flint MI 48505
41
Ms. Jenny Hammill
Ms. Denesha Rawls-Smith 13011 Tamerois Path
Eagle’s Nest Academy Linden MI 48451
5005 Cloverlawn Dr
Flint MI 48504 Ms. Lori Smith
2041 Wigging Rd
Ms. Tia Doyle Fenton MI 48430
Greater Heights Academy
3196 W Pasadena Ave Ms. Vicky Vancura
Flint MI 48504 7413 W Vienna Rd
Clio MI 48420
Ms. Sherry Kenworthy
8435 Jordan Rd Ms. Roshaunda Scott
Grand Blanc MI 48439 11204 Shore Ln
Flint MI 48504
42

Genesee Special Education Mandatory Plan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Genesee Special Education Mandatory Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STATE OF MICHIGAN

MICHIGAN OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND RULES

IN THE MATTER OF: Docket No.: 20-003550

In Re: Genesee Special Education Case No.: ISDPL 20-1

Case Type: Ed Sp Ed ISD Plan

Filing Type: Appeal

Issued and entered

PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

In 2019-2020, each Grand Blanc Community Schools special education student

On February 4, 2020, Petitioner Flint Community Schools (Flint or FCS) filed an

3 1426.93 SEFTE / 72,812.7 total = 1.96%.

1. Genesee Intermediate School District (“GISD”) Special Education Mandatory Plan

3. FCS Report on Financial Statements, June 30, 2019

7 Exhibit 17 was admitted over the Respondent’s relevance objection.

A. Genesee Intermediate School District Special Education Mandatory Plan, (adopted

12 Exhibit 22 was admitted over the Respondent’s relevance objection.

L. FCS Special Education Resident-Students Attending Non-FCS Schools, by Entity

17. Manistee Intermediate School District

TT. ISD Superintendent’s Report, May 31, 2019

No exhibits were offered but not admitted.

The Revised School Code at MCL 380.1711(1)(a) provides:

(1) The intermediate school board shall do all of the following:

(a) Develop, establish, and continually evaluate and modify in cooperation

districts and shall be submitted to the superintendent of public

The Michigan Administrative Rules provide provisions regarding objections to a plan.

The Michigan Administrative Rules provide provisions regarding the minimum

An intermediate school district plan for special education, or any

(a) A description of the procedures used by the intermediate school

school academies, and intermediate school district; and the title,

Intermediate school district plans, or modification thereof, or any changes

schools of choice, overall student enrollment does not accurately compensate

Marc Morse, Associate Attorney for Williams Firm

Steven Tunnicliff, Associate Superintendent for GISD

Peter Toal, Superintendent for Westwood Heights School District

Clarence Garner, Superintendent for Grand Blanc Community Schools

150. Under Flint’s plan, Carman-Ainsworth would receive an increase in

Respondent’s motion for reconsideration of summary disposition is denied.

Rule 340.1837 allows the Superintendent of Public Instruction to determine the

Develop, establish, and continually evaluate and modify in cooperation

To adequately measure districts’ community-based child find obligations it would be

Education in Michigan is underfunded; special education in Michigan is especially

The concern about over-including students in more restrictive environments is a

33.3%/33.3%/33.3% versus 86.5%/11.5%/2% respectively. This is the formula that

district’s receipt of Act 18 funds is ((District SEHC/County SEHC) +

District SEFTE SEFTE% SEHC SEHC% SEHC&SEFTE Old +/-

District SEHC&SEFTE Equal Difference %

Beecher 40,176 40,906 -730 -1.79%

Bentley 39,669 43,113 -3,444 -7.99%

Eagle's Nest 4,839 6,913 -2,074 -30.01%

Flint 549,409 441,081 108,328 24.56%

Flushing 263,691 260,624 3,067 1.18%

Grand Blanc 419,106 445,978 -26,872 -6.03%

Swartz Creek 152,915 174,948 -22,033 -12.59%

Via Electronic Mail

Mr. John Ploof Superintendent

Mr. Fletcher Spears Superintendent Ms. Julie Williams Superintendent

Mr. Kevin Brown Superintendent Mr. Mike Lytle Superintendent

Dr. Adam Hartley Superintendent Mr. Russ Ciesielski Superintendent

Mr. Tim Stein Superintendent Dr. Bo Moore Superintendent

Mr. Ben Mainka Superintendent Ms. Jenna Badgley

Mr. Peter Toal Superintendent Ms. Patty Wood

Ms. Traci Cormier Mr. Michael Springs

Ms. Pamela Haldy Ms. Madeline Black