- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Sen. Nancy Cassis (R) on July 21, 2010, to require a school psychologist to participate in the “educational development plan” of each special education student.
- Referred to the Senate Education Committee on July 21, 2010.
- Reported in the Senate on September 28, 2010, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on November 4, 2010, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance as previously described. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on November 4, 2010.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Gretchen Whitmer (D) on November 9, 2010, to establish that a psychologist "may" be be involved in creating these plans rather than "should" be involved. The amendment failed by voice vote in the Senate on November 9, 2010.
- Referred to the Senate Education Committee on July 21, 2010.
- Passed 27 to 11 in the Senate on November 9, 2010, .
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on November 9, 2010.
- Referred to the House Education Committee on November 9, 2010.
Most Recent Comments
1) Re: 2010 Senate Bill 1421 (Require psychologist participate in special education student lesson planning ) by Judy on November 9, 2010
Senators Whitmer, Cherry, Clark-Coleman, Jacobs, Scott and Brater, under their constitutional right of protest
(Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 1421.
Senator Whitmer's statement, in which Senators Cherry, Clark-Coleman, Jacobs, Scott and Brater concurred, is as
follows:
I agree that it could be valuable to have a school psychologist participate in the development of educational
development plans for students who receive special education services. I mean it would be valuable to have a school
psychologist involved in all decisions for all the children. Unfortunately, not every school has a school psychologist.
I understand the sponsor's argument that this is language that was inadvertently repealed earlier this session.
Nonetheless, it was repealed, and inserting it now represents a new unfunded mandate, even if you want to call it
"may lite."
The Legislative Commission on Statutory Mandates specifically pointed to statutory increases in services to
special education students as a violation of the Headlee Amendment. The state has already lost two court cases, the
Durant case and the Adair case, pertaining to unfunded mandates on school districts. I don't believe it's prudent to
go down that path again, and thus, I voted "no" on Senate Bill No. 1421.
Reply
This is a classic example of an unfunded mandate. The intent, misguided or not, may be good, but there is no provision to actually pay for this expense. In the long run it would only create another avenue for argument. It might just as well mandate that an attorney must be present for each special education student lesson planning session.
Reply
What, exactly, will a psychologist have to add to a lesson plan for a child who is blind or deaf or paraplegic? Additionally, how many psychologists would be necessary for lesson planning for special education students? Seems like a significant cost to the schools and eventually the retirement system.
Reply
View Full Conversation
