Figure 1

R 340.1701a(c)

“Complaint” means a written and signed allegation that includes the facts on which the allegation is based, by an individual or an organization, that there is a violation of any of the following:

(i) Any current provision of these rules.
(ii) 1976 PA 451, MCL 380.1 et seq., as it pertains to special education programs and services.
(iii) The individuals with disabilities education act of 1997, 20 U.S.C., chapter 33, §1400 et seq., and the regulations implementing the act, 34 C.F.R. part 300.
(iv) An intermediate school district plan.
(v) An individualized education program team report, hearing officer decision, or court decision regarding special education programs or services.
(vi) The state application for federal funds under the individuals with disabilities education act.

Source: Revised Administrative Rules for Special Education, June 2002

Return to Text

Figure 2

Initial Investigation Procedures

Any formal complaint filed with a public educational agency shall be immediately forwarded to the ISD or the MDE for investigation. The initial investigating agency shall:

1. Assign a staff person to conduct an independent investigation of the allegation. The investigator cannot have administrative responsibility for the programs and/or services against which the complaint is filed;
2. Send copies of Part 8 of the Rules and a copy of the Complaint Procedures to the complainant;
3. Inform the complainant that s/he has a right to request the MDE to investigate the complaint. If the complainant requests the MDE to investigate it, the ISD shall immediately inform the MDE of the request. The MDE will review the complaint and either investigate it under these procedures or direct the ISD to investigate it;
4. Inform the complainant that s/he can appeal the investigation conclusions with the MDE if s/he disagrees with the conclusions;
5. Inform the complainant about options to mediate the complaint (see FOCUS on Results, GATA 03-01, 03-02, and 03-03 on Mediation).
6. Assist the complainant to identify the concerns and formulate a complaint, which meets the standards contained in the definition of a complaint;
7. Give the complainant an opportunity to raise additional allegations, submit additional information, either orally or in writing, and clarify the allegations; and
8. If a complaint involves a student whose primary responsibility for care rests with the Department of Corrections (DOC), the Family Independence Agency (FIA), or the Department of Community Health (DCH), the MDE will forward the complaint to the
   proper state agency for investigation.

Source: Complaint Procedures for Special Education, February 2003. Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education Services and Early Intervention Services. Section I, C

Return to Text

Figure 3

Time Line for Investigating Complaints

1. The time line for investigating a formal complaint begins on the date that the complaint is filed, that is, the date that the ISD and/or the MDE receives the complaint, whichever date is earlier;
2. If the ISD receives the formal complaint first, the ISD shall forward a copy of the complaint to the MDE within three calendar days of receiving the complaint, including forwarding a copy of the complaint and all attachments to the MDE by U.S. mail and faxing a copy of the letter of complaint itself to the MDE;
3. If the MDE receives the formal complaint first, the MDE shall forward a copy of the complaint to the ISD within three calendar days of receiving the complaint, including forwarding a copy of the complaint and all attachments to the ISD by US mail and faxing a copy of the letter of complaint itself to the ISD;
4. Within 21 calendar days of the filing of a formal complaint, the ISD must submit its investigation report to the complainant, any public educational agency involved, and the MDE. An extension in the time line may be requested, in writing, and granted by the MDE if exceptional circumstances exist with respect to the particular complaint; and
5. Within 60 calendar days of the filing of a formal complaint, the MDE must issue a final written decision to the complainant and any public agencies involved, unless exceptional circumstances exist with respect to the particular complaint.

Source: Complaint Procedures for Special Education, February 2003. Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education Services and Early Intervention Services. Section I, E

Return to Text

Figure 4

Systems Complaints

In the previous three years, a number of “systems complaints” have been filed that have alleged violation(s) related to:

1. All students in one special education program operated by a district [e.g., the students in a program for students with emotional impairment (EI)].
2. All students in one type of special education program operated by a district (e.g., all EI programs).
3. All students in several types of special education programs operated by a district [e.g., all programs for students with EI, Learning Disabilities (LD), and resource room (RR)].
4. All students at a building level operated by a district [e.g., all students with disabilities at middle school(s)].
5. All students with a specific disability in a building operated by a district, or across a district, or across a geogra-phic area encompassing multiple districts [e.g., all students with autism (AI)].
6. All students with disabilities in a specific public school academy (PSA).
7. All new referrals for special education evaluations in a district during a given year.

Managing investigations of “systems complaints” has evolved. Several significant points have emerged:

1. A complaint does not have to identify a specific student in order to be
   investigated.
2. Section 300.661(a)(4)(i) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) final regulations requires that each complaint must be investiga-ted and result in a written report that includes findings of fact.
3. Each complaint must be reviewed based on the facts presented by the complainant; there is no single way to manage systems complaints.
4. Section 300.662(b)(2) requires the complainant to identify the facts on which the complaint is based.
5. The investigator must attempt to discover other relevant facts and document the attempts.
6. The investigator must provide the complainant opportunities to provide additional facts and document the
   opportunities.
7. The review of previous monitoring reports and previous due process hearing decisions can sometimes provide relevant factual information.
8. If the complainant is unable to provide enough facts to prove a violation, and/or the investigator is unable to discover additional facts to prove a violation, the investigator would likely decide there was insufficient evidence to conclude a violation with the information presented.
9. The investigator has the responsibility to decide whether the complainant has provided enough facts.

Return to Text

Example

Independent Investigation Reports
June 9, 2003

The term “independent” in regards to independent investigation reports is not precisely defined in any regulation. However, it arguably means more than simply not having administrative authority over the program against which the complaint is filed. A review of a recent complaint case provides some guidance:

1. The parent filed a complaint with several allegations, one of which related to excluding a student with disabilities from an extracurricular activity.
2. The investigator scheduled a meeting to interview the teacher. The superintendent attended, stating that he wanted to sit in on the interview. The ISD investigator asked the staff if they were comfortable with the superintendent present, and they responded that they were. During the interview, the superintendent clarified some of the answers the staff provided. Based on the information provided by the staff, the ISD investigation report found the allegation invalid (the district did not violate any standards).
3. The parent requested a state investigation. As part of its investigation of the appealed allegation, the MDE interviewed the staff about the student’s participation in the extracurricular event. This time, the staff’s description of the circumstances differed from those provided to the ISD investigator. Based partially on that changed testimony, the MDE reversed the decision and found a violation.
4. At the time of the appeal, the parent also raised a new allegation that the superintendent’s participation influenced the responses of the staff. The MDE contacted the parent, who stated the superintendent had never been directly involved with the student, and his participation influenced the staff.
5. As part of its investigation of the new allegation, the MDE interviewed the ISD investigator, who stated that she was so surprised by the superintendent’s attendance that she was unsure how to proceed. However, she allowed him to attend when the staff said they were comfortable. She also indicated that, with the benefit of hindsight, she would not have allowed the superintendent to participate in the interview. The MDE interviewed the superintendent, who stated he had never been a member of the student’s individualized education program team (IEPT).
6. The MDE concluded there was no violation in the new allegation, with the following rationale:
   1. The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) required that Complaint Procedures provide a clearer articulation that investigations would be independent.
   2. The Revised Complaint Procedures made the ISD investigator responsible for conducting an independent investigation.
   3. With the responsibility to conduct an independent investigation comes the duty and the authority to establish the conditions under which information is gathered, including who is present during interviews.
   4. The ISD investigator allowed the superintendent to participate.
   5. The appropriate process to follow if the complainant disagrees with the ISD investigation is to request a state investigation, which the complainant did do.
   6. The superintendent was not present when the MDE interviewed the teacher. Her testimony changed, and the MDE reversed the ISD conclusion in the appealed allegation.

Source: “Independent Investigation Reports,” by Ron Greiner. June 9, 2003 PowerPoint presentation for the Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services.

Return to Text

GLOSSARY

Allegation—an accusation that a school district or other public educational agency has failed to serve a student with a disability.

Complainant—a person filing a written, signed, special education complaint.

Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process (CIMP)—A process required by the OSEP by which a state continuously reviews its special education services.

Initial investigating agency—Michigan has a two-tier complaint investigation process. The initial investigating agency (usually the ISD) conducts the first level of the investigation.

Mediate/Mediation—a collaborative method to resolve disputes between two parties, in this case most likely districts and parents (or other interested adult) of students with disabilities. Special Education Mediation is a voluntary, confidential process.

Public Educational Agency—A public educational agency is a local school district, a public school academy (PSA), an intermediate school district (ISD), or the Michigan Department of Education (MDE). Public educational agency also includes the Department of Corrections (DOC), the Family Independence Agency (FIA), and the Department of Community Health (DCH).

The Rules—Michigan’s Revised Administrative Rules for Special Education, June 2002.

Return to Text