Family & Community Special Communities
Special Education

Special Education Annual Report
December 1, 2002

Level of Need/Services for Students with Disabilities

In FY 2001, for the first time, Massachusetts attempted to identify the level of need demonstrated by students with disabilities. This is new information, and is derived from a careful look at the amount of services the student receives, where those services are provided and the characteristics of the service provider. For instance, a student who receives all of his/her special education services in an inclusive general education environment, but receives such services over 75% of the school day by professional, certified special educators, would be characterized as having a high level of need. A student who receives services for only 10 or 20% of the school day, provided in the general education classroom by the general education teacher would be characterized as having a low level of need. Overall levels of need in the chart above are: low 20.6%, medium 55.4% and high 24.0%, respectively. Specific learning disabilities showed a disproportionately high number of students in the in the low and medium categories in the level of need. Time will give us a better indication of how this data may be used, however, we might expect that students with a "low" level of need are the students who will be most likely to benefit from an effective general education environment with good supportive services available. With a responsive general education environment and good supportive services, many of these students may be less likely, over time, to continue to require special education services.

Placement data below also show that 19,296 students with disabilities receive special education services for the majority of their day in the general education classroom. Commonly it has been considered that these students are probably receiving a low level of services. However, now that we gather level of need/service information, we can report that of these students in full

inclusion programs, there is considerable variation in the level of need/service. Of the 19,296 students identified as receiving services in the general education class in FY2002, almost 50% (9,583) do have a "low" level of need/services, approximately 42% (8,192) have a medium level of need/services and 8% (1,519) have a high level of need/services. This means that Massachusetts is actively including students in general education classrooms across the Commonwealth, even students with more complex disabilities and high needs for services.

Progress made by school districts in implementing the federal standard:
The change from the current "maximum possible development" standard to the federal standard of "free and appropriate public education" (FAPE) took effect on January 1, 2002. In preparation, the Department met several times with members of the Joint Committee on Education, Arts and the Humanities and their staff and crafted an administrative advisory that was disseminated in late November 2001 (as noted in the section of this report on Administrative Advisories). The advisory outlines legal background information related to the change in standard. Additionally, the advisory highlights that through the Education Reform Act, all students, including students with disabilities, have access to challenging educational material and benefit from the goal of Education Reform which is to provide a public education system that extends to all students the opportunity to reach their full potential. It is our belief that the impact of the change in standard may not be evident in statewide totals of costs or level of services as previous studies were unable to detect measurable differences in Massachusetts statistics under the former standard as compared to states using a FAPE standard. However, it is our expectation that in individual cases and in the cost or service information of smaller districts, some changes may be seen over time that will be attributable to the change to the FAPE standard.

Educational Collaboratives
Educational Collaboratives in Massachusetts report regular and ongoing development of new programs to meet the needs of their member school districts. Educational collaboratives are also primary providers, along with individual public schools. "Public day programs" in the table above are almost exclusively created by educational collaboratives. The data indicate that approximately 2% of students with disabilities are served in public day schools.

The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education provided initial funds to enable Collaboratives to build in-house capacity to train others on the use of physical restraint. During this past year, Educational Collaboratives have been primary providers of assistance to the public school districts in the training of personnel in the use of physical restraint according to the regulations promulgated in February 2001.

Dispute Resolution:
During Fiscal Year 2002, the Department's Program Quality Assurance unit received, reviewed and resolved 1,428 complaints or inquiries from the public related to allegations of inappropriate or illegal actions regarding educational laws and regulations. This number is consistent with the number of complaints or inquiries in FY 2001. Of the 1,428 complaints, 990 were special education related concerns (representing almost 70% of the total). Not all complaints/inquiries actually require investigation or written findings and of the 990 special education related concerns, only 185 (less than 20% of the total) required investigation and written findings. Of the 185, the majority (66%) resulted in findings of non-compliance as contrasted with 75% resulting in findings of non-compliance in FY 2001.

During Fiscal Year 2002, the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA), received 5,140 rejected IEPs, representing a decrease of 365 from the previous year. Upon receipt, each of the rejected IEPs results in a letter and information on options for dispute resolutions being sent to the parent. Some responses result in mediations, some in hearings, and many are already resolved by the time the BSEA makes contact with the parent.

The BSEA conducted approximately 600 mediations on special education matters in FY 2002. The numbers of mediations increased by approximately 5% over FY 2001. 85% of mediations result in written, binding agreements. Issues resolved through mediation, in descending order of frequency include:

• Educational placement
• Procedural concerns
• Contents of IEP
• Evaluation
• Related services
• Eligibility for special education
• Other issues
• Section 504
• Early intervention

During FY 2002 the BSEA received 566 requests for hearings, of which 46 resulted in decisions and rulings by the BSEA. Of the remaining cases, BSEA involvement continued to be critical to the settlement of the cases, whether or not the case proceeded to a full hearing. Of the 46 full hearings, 17 resulted in findings which benefitted the parents or the student in whole (15) or in part (2). The school district was the prevailing party in 26 hearings and the remaining 3 hearings resulted in decisions substantially different from the relief requested by either party. Issues presented at BSEA hearings are a somewhat different set than those resolved through mediation:

• Appropriateness of IEP or placement
• Entitlement to compensatory services
• Out-of-district placement
• Eligibility for special education services
• Evaluation issues
• Extended year programs
• Language-based curriculum
• Eligibility to participate in graduation ceremony
• Discipline
• Joinder of state agencies and/or private schools

Massachusetts Compliance with Federal Special Education Requirements:
Massachusetts continues to use its Continuous Improvement Plan (CIP) to guide activities related to findings made by the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in FY 99. As previously reported, the CIP was developed in FY 01 and has been reviewed annually by the Special Education Steering Committee. The Steering Committee is a stakeholder group created to ensure that continuous improvement actions have the involvement and awareness of the variety of stakeholders in the special education process. The Steering Committee met in June 2002 to review monitoring and compliance data related to areas of focus in the CIP. The following table outlines the focus areas and the compliance level achieved to date.

During this November, the Department convened discussion groups in three regional meetings to discuss in more detail each of the above focus areas and to solicit additional ideas for improved compliance or data. These groups also provided the Department and the Steering Committee with increased input from stakeholders by involving 220 individuals in total in these meetings.

Previous