Autism Alliance submits public comments on Michigan’s Waiver Request to Exceed 1% Cap on Alternate Assessment in 2025-26

Advocacy in Action: holding systems accountable

2025.1128 AAoM Public Comment on Michigan One Percent Alternate Assessment Waiver

• AAoM submitted public comments via the Online Survey link provided on the MDE site (1% Participation Cap on Alternate Assessment: Information and Justification Forms), per its stated process.
• AAoM also submitted our organization’s comments via email (MDE-OSE-Public-Comment@Michigan.gov ) as we find the survey platform to be somewhat limiting for the purposes of this communication.

Interim Superintendent Dr. Sue Carnell

Michigan Department of Education

608 W. Allegan Street

Lansing, MI 48933

Transmitted via email: MDE-OSE-Public-Comment@Michigan.gov

Public Comment on Michigan’s Waiver Request to Exceed the 1% Cap on Alternate Assessment in 2025-26

November 28, 2025

Dear Interim Superintendent Dr. Carnell:

The Autism Alliance of Michigan (AAoM) respectfully submits the following comments regarding Michigan’s notice of Waiver Request to Exceed the 1% Cap on Alternate Assessments for the 2025-26 school year.

AAoM is a statewide nonprofit with a mission to lead efforts to raise expectations and expand opportunities for autistic individuals across the lifespan. Since 2009, we have led statewide systems change efforts, including education reform initiatives that seek to ensure students with disabilities–including those with the most significant support needs–have equitable access to Michigan’s academic standards and the opportunity to earn a regular high school diploma.

As in prior years, our feedback aligns with the public comment prompts posted in Michigan’s online survey at https://www.research.net/r/N5RJ25S.

1. Please share your comments regarding MDE applying again this year for a waiver to the ESSA 1% cap on alternate assessments.

AAoM COMMENTS on Michigan’s plan to request another waiver to exceed the 1% cap: 

While AAoM recognizes that the ESSA 1% cap does not function as a prohibition, Michigan’s persistent and unusually high alternate assessment (AA) participation rates—unchanged for three consecutive years (2021–22 through 2023–24)—indicate systemic failures in ensuring appropriate assessment decision-making.

Despite multiple years of universal and targeted, district-directed activities, Michigan continues to test one of the highest proportions of students via alternate assessments nationally.

Michigan MI-Access Participation Rates by School Year and Subject
School Year	ELA	Math	Science
2017-2018	2.2	2.2	2.0
2018-2019	2.1	2.0	1.9
2020-2021	1.7	1.7	1.8
2021-2022	1.8	1.8	1.8
2022-2023	1.9	1.8	1.8
2023-2024	1.8	1.8	1.8
2024-2025	1.5	1.6	1.6

Source: US Dept. of Education responses to Michigan waiver requests.

Percentages represent the statewide percent of total tested students taking MI-Access.

These persistent rates have significant long-term consequences. Thousands of Michigan students with disabilities—many of whom do not meet the four criteria for having a “most significant cognitive disability”—continue to be diverted into an assessment system that:

• substantially lowers academic expectations,
• reduces access to Michigan’s grade-level academic content standards, and
• limits the opportunity to meet requirements for a regular high school diploma.

Many states were below the 1% cap when the provision took effect in 2017-2018, and several states initially over the cap have since been able to bring their AA rates into compliance. Those states, including some that were significantly above the cap in earlier years, have successfully reduced participation rates through stronger state oversight, clearer tools, and more transparent data reporting. Michigan has the capacity to do the same. We strongly urge MDE to take more decisive action in the coming year to finally meet the requirements of ESSA and improve outcomes for students.

The table below lays out the history of alternate assessment administration (known as the MI-ACCESS) in Michigan since the 1% cap requirement took effect in the 2017-2018 school year.

Historical MI-Access Participation and Waiver Decisions: Michigan
YEAR	ELA		MATH		SCIENCE		Waiver to exceed 1% cap
	# accessed	%	# accessed	%	# accessed	%
2017-2018	16,958	2.2	16,688	2.2	6,746	2.0	Approved
2018-2019	15,661	2.1	15,425	2.0	6,299	1.9	Approved
2020-2021	8,991	1.7	8,711	1.7	3,665	1.8	Approved
2021-2022	12,802	1.8	12,590	1.8	5,421	1.8	Approved
2022-2023	13,082	1.9	12,887	1.8	5,482	1.8	Denied
2023-2024	12,757	1.8	12,616	1.8	5,461	1.8	Denied
2024-2025	10,961	1.5	11,365	1.6	4,753	1.6	Denied
2025-2026	TBD						pending

Source: State Requests for Waivers of ESEA Provisions for SSA-Administered Programs..

Despite slight improvements in overall MI-Access participation rates during the 2024–2025 school year, persistent and troubling disparities remain. Data continue to show that African American students and students who are Economically Disadvantaged are disproportionately assigned to Michigan’s alternate assessment. These patterns—consistently higher participation rates than their white and non-economically disadvantaged peers—raise significant concerns about equity, access to the general education curriculum, and alignment with federal requirements under ESSA and IDEA.

The continued overuse of alternate assessment for these student groups limits exposure to grade-level academic standards and reduces opportunities to earn a regular high school diploma. Even as statewide aggregate participation inches closer to compliance with the federal 1% cap, the distribution of who is taking MI-Access reveals a systemic issue: students with intersecting marginalized identities are more likely to be routed into a more restrictive and less rigorous assessment pathway.

This disparate impact underscores the need for targeted oversight, strengthened eligibility guidance, professional development for IEP teams, and clear public reporting designed to ensure that alternate assessment decisions are truly individualized and not shaped by bias, placement patterns, or resource gaps.

2. Please share your comments regarding MDE’s plan for reducing the use of alternate assessments and balancing high expectations for students with support needs of students with disabilities.

AAoM COMMENTS on MDE’s 2026 plan to reduce alternate assessment use and promote high expectations: 

AAoM appreciates that the 2026 plan lowers Tier 2 and 3 thresholds by 0.5% and adds clearer requirements for student-level case reviews.

However, the current plan again fails to address the primary driver of Michigan’s unusually high AA participation rate: the continued use of three separate MI-Access assessments—Functional Independence (FI), Supported Independence (SI), and Participation (P).

A. Lack of transparency about participation patterns across MI-Access levels (FI, SI, and P)

AAoM has repeatedly urged MDE to publicly report disaggregated data, including:

• Participation rates for MI-Access FI, SI, and P individually
• Participation rates by disability category
• Participation rates by student subgroup (race/ethnicity, EL status, socioeconomic status, gender, etc.)
• Patterns that may reveal disproportionate assignment

No waiver request to date has provided transparency for disaggregated AA participation by disability category, making it impossible for the public to evaluate whether MI-Access FI is being used as a “default” pathway for students with disabilities—including autistic students—whose needs could be met within the general assessment system with accommodations.

Evidence strongly suggests that a substantial portion of students assigned to MI-Access Functional Independence (which accounts for roughly half of all AA participants) should in fact be participating in Michigan’s regular assessments with accommodations.

B. Parent information and consent tools must be standardized statewide

Given the profound impact AA decisions have on diploma access and curriculum pathways, MDE–not local districts–should author and require:

• standardized consent forms,
• clear and accessible parent information, and
• explicit documentation of parent understanding.

C. Decision-making tools remain overly technical and inaccessible for families

Parents continue to report that the new decision-making rubric is overly technical, unclear, and intimidating. Tools intended to support parents’ meaningful participation in decision-making must be:

• co-developed with disability and parent organizations,
• written in plain language, and
• accompanied by modeled examples, videos, and real-world scenarios.

3. Please share any other comments or thoughts regarding the waiver to test more than 1% of students using alternate standards for instruction and assessment.

AAoM COMMENTS related to the waiver and MDE’s systemic responsibilities:

A. Establish an Alternate Assessment Advisory Group

AAoM again urges MDE to convene a statewide Alternate Assessment Advisory Group that includes disability and advocacy organizations (AAoM, The Arc of Michigan), Michigan Alliance for Families, Disability Rights Michigan, ISDs, and local educators. This group should review existing tools, identify weaknesses, and recommendations for improvement.

There is no public evidence that such a group exists. This recommendation has been made repeatedly in AAoM public comments yet remains unaddressed.

MDE’s reliance on the broader Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC), the federally-mandated IDEA advisory body, to provide input on alternate assessments is not an adequate substitute. The scope for SEAC is broad, it operates under an agenda controlled by the Office of Special Education, and is not an advocacy-focused committee. As such, SEAC lacks the stakeholder-driven structure needed to provide meaningful input from parents, advocates, and community organizations.

The absence of a dedicated advisory group represents a significant gap in transparency, stakeholder engagement, and systems-level accountability. Without such a body, parents, advocates, and disability organizations do not have a structured, consistent forum to influence alternate assessment policies, eligibility criteria, data reporting, or resource development.

B. Strengthen MDE’s collaboration and investment in parent-facing organizations

AAoM encourages MDE to enhance its collaboration with Michigan Alliance for Families (MAF) by supporting the development and dissemination of robust, accessible, and parent-focused resources explaining alternate assessments and the process for determining student participation.

Currently MAF primarily provides links to MDE materials. The 2026 MAF calendar of events includes no events specifically focused on assessment participation decisions.

AAoM recommends that MDE invest in resources such as webinars, podcasts, short videos, and modeled decision-making scenarios demonstrating the use of the decision flowchart, “Should My Student Take the Alternate Assessment?,” to promote informed and meaningful parent participation while navigating high-stakes decisions regarding alternate assessments.

C. Incorporate AAoM’s 2024 Blueprint for Alternate Assessment Cap Compliance

The AAoM Blueprint for Alternate Assessment Cap Compliance (submitted November 1, 2024) provides implementable strategies for reducing over-reliance on alternate assessments and ensuring that students with disabilities have access to high-quality, inclusive education aligned with grade-level standards. To date, these recommendations have not been acknowledged or reflected in Michigan’s ESSA 1% Cap Waiver plans.

Integrating the AA Cap Compliance Blueprint into MDE’s planning would represent a meaningful step toward structural reform, federal compliance, and equitable outcomes—particularly for autistic students and others disproportionately impacted by current practices. We hope the MDE will consider including these recommendations in its 2025-2026 waiver request.

Michigan’s continued over-reliance on alternate assessments limits the educational trajectories of thousands of students with disabilities every year. AAoM urges MDE to adopt more ambitious reforms that align with federal law and uphold high expectations and equitable access for all students.

AAoM welcomes the opportunity to collaborate with MDE in advancing meaningful improvements in alternate assessment policy and practice that support both compliance and student outcomes.

Please feel free to contact Colleen Allen, President & CEO of the Autism Alliance of Michigan colleen.allen@aaomi.org and Heather Eckner, Director of Statewide Education heather.eckner@aaomi.org with any questions or concerns.

Cc: Michele Harmala, HarmalaM@michigan.gov

____

About the Autism Alliance of Michigan 

The Autism Alliance of Michigan (AAoM) is a 501(c)(3) organization serving as a trusted ally and partner for thousands of families across the state. AAoM’s mission is to lead efforts to raise expectations and expand opportunities for people connected to autism across their lifespan. The organization’s Education pillar drives initiatives that address systemic barriers to education, focuses on student-centered advocacy, and educates families on related topics – working towards its goal to make Michigan a top 10 state for special education outcomes. For help finding resources, providers, and information contact our MiNavigators at 877-463-2266 (AAOM) or email at navigator@aaomi.org. More information about AAoM’s Education pillar can be found at: https://autismallianceofmichigan.org/education-initiatives/

###