Michigan vs. Oklahoma: A Tale of Two Special Education Systems
When it comes to serving students with disabilities, Michigan and Oklahoma could not be further apart. One has the broadest mandate in the nation, the other the boldest incentives. And yet, the results reveal a striking mismatch between obligation and investment.
Michigan: Broad Mandates, Thin Support
Michigan law requires public schools to serve students with disabilities until age 26 — five years beyond the federal mandate of 21. On paper, this positions Michigan as one of the most expansive states in the country when it comes to guaranteeing access to special education.
But look closer, and the cracks show:
Michigan’s state budget approach is largely focused on district reimbursement formulas, with local districts often covering 30–40% of mandated costs out of their general education budgets.
Recruitment and retention of special education teachers remain crisis-level issues. The state has no statewide signing bonus program, and only limited pilot efforts (such as loan forgiveness and "Grow Your Own" pathways).
Districts report flat autism identification rates even as national numbers climb, raising questions about under-identification and service equity.
The result? A system carrying the heaviest service obligation in the U.S., but without the tools to build and sustain the workforce needed to deliver.
Oklahoma: Bold Incentives, Tangible Results
Oklahoma, by contrast, ends its legal obligation at age 21. Yet this year, the state made headlines for tackling its shortage head-on:
Declared a “critical shortage” and set a clear target: hire 110 new special education teachers.
Rolled out a high-visibility signing bonus program:
$20,000 for out-of-state teachers (+$5,000 retention if they stay through 2026–27).
$10,000 for newly certified in-state teachers (+$2,500 retention).
Results: 151 new hires — exceeding the goal by 37%.
Context: About 17% of Oklahoma’s students are served in special education (compared to Michigan’s ~13–14%).
In short, Oklahoma matched urgency with resources — and it worked.
The Equity Gap
This contrast leaves Michigan families asking hard questions:
Why does a state with longer service obligations invest less in recruitment than one with shorter obligations?
Why are families watching their districts scramble to fill positions, while other states are investing directly in the workforce?
How long can Michigan lean on districts to “do more with less” when the stakes are so high for students who depend on consistent, high-quality services?
The ICBZ Position
At It Can’t Be Zero (ICBZ), we believe families shouldn’t have to fight uphill battles because of state-level policy gaps. Michigan’s service mandate through age 26 should be a source of pride — but without matching investment in teachers, it risks becoming an empty promise.
Oklahoma has shown that bold, targeted incentives can work. It’s time for Michigan to step up, fund its mandates, and recruit the workforce our students deserve.
Because inclusion isn’t optional. And incentives matter.