Family & Community Special Communities
Special Education

Recommendations for Action Based on Disability Work Group Discussions

The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE) has begun a new era in its collection and analysis of data pertaining to students with disabilities receiving special education services in Massachusetts schools.

In December 2003, ESE's Special Education Planning & Policy Development (SEPP) Office, convened a number of work groups to discuss the most recent data collection using the agency's new Student Information Management System (SIMS), which is an individualized, more comprehensive, and sophisticated means for tracking every publicly funded student in Massachusetts.

Participants from the twelve special education disability focus groups came together to review the data collected in the 2002 and 2003 school years for students in grades K - 12. The twelve disability areas with focus groups are: autism, developmental delay, intellectual impairment, sensory impairment/hearing, sensory impairment/vision, sensory impairment/deafblind, neurological impairment, emotional impairment, communication impairment, physical impairment, health impairment, and specific learning disabilities. Participants included teachers, special education administrators, parents, doctors and others "experts" in the disability area. Participants reviewed two sets of data - data on all students with disabilities with comparisons where possible with students without disabilities, and another set of data of students with the primary disability in the participant's area of expertise. The data included charts on students' placement by race and ethnicity, gender, grade and level of need, as well as performance on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) exams during 2002 and 2003.

Attached to this report is the guide entitled: Disability Data Focus Groups (Part 1) showing the range of data considered across all disability groups. The discussion and data guides prepared for each of the individual disability focus groups are also available at our website or upon request.

This report reflects on common, salient themes that emerged from the sessions and proposes a set of action recommendations. No recommendations are presented related to MCAS performance data at this time because the participants viewed the data as an incomplete sample that did not provide a sufficient basis for action at this time.

The following (in bold) are eight identified areas with proposed recommendations for action. The description of each area includes a brief statement of the issue(s) brought forward by participants, a list of key questions regarding this area (where appropriate), and proposed action steps. Finally, the key areas of work are divided into two larger sections: recommendations that apply to all special education students (Special Education Data - Overall) and recommendations that are focussed in specific-disability areas (Special Education Data by Primary Disability).

Special Education Data - Overall

1. Examination of LEA methods for recording, reporting and using disability data:
   Some participants expressed concern that the data reported through SIMS appeared inaccurate.

   Key questions:

   1. How do districts engage in the process of recording and reporting disability data, beginning with the Team meeting and ending with the district-wide data submission through SIMS?
   2. How do financially responsible school districts and approved private schools or public collaboratives exchange data? Can this be done more effectively?
   3. How is the data on students in institutional settings collected and reported?
   4. How valid is the data on "level of need" given the numerous comments indicating confusion about how to make this determination based on the service delivery grid and placement type?

   Proposed action steps:

   1. Convene a focus group of Special Education directors to examine their internal data collection process, including issues such as how data is collected and validated within the district, who records and reports the data, what resources are needed to complete the collection, and which data collection methods are most effective without investing too much time and material resources.
   2. Based on information gathered from Special Education directors, review the PL-2 form (including the level of need calculation), draft guidance on completing the form, and conduct training as necessary.
   3. Meet with data managers from LEAs with high numbers of students in out-of-district placements and/or ESIS sites, and also with representatives from MAAPS to gain additional information on how information is exchanged between these entities.
   4. Check the validity of disability data through a sampling process by conducting a "call for IEPs" in order to compare the nature of disability indicated on the IEP with the primary disability data reported to SIMS. This will serve to identify some districts that are engaging in data collection effectively, and to share "best practices" with other districts.
   5. Re-emphasize the importance of providing accurate disability data through a published statement.
   
   
   

2. Use of the Multiple Disabilities category:
   Participants across disability groups felt that the "multiple disabilities" category impacted the data collected within their disability area of focus.

   Key questions:

   1. Do districts understand this category?
   2. Are there specific disabilities that are disproportionately impacted by this category?

   Proposed action steps:

   1. Draft guidance on which students should be included in this category (i.e., difference between primary and secondary disability), and conduct training as appropriate.
   2. Consider adding an additional element(s) to SIMS in order to capture the primary disabilities for each student in this category.
   
   
   

3. Additional Data Validation:
   Participants felt that it is important to gain a better understanding of how Massachusetts' special education data compares with other states and regions. The analyses would serve the dual-purpose of validating our own data and gaining a better understanding of how Massachusetts' policies and practices compare with other states and regions. These analyses would also include an examination of definitions used by other organizations (e.g., Deafblind registry) as compared to definitions used for state special education data.

   Proposed action steps:

   1. Compare SIMS data with available OSEP data, census data, and where appropriate, registry data.
   2. Examine the differences in definitions and eligibility requirements of the other organizations in our state that collect data on individuals with disabilities to better understand reasons for any discrepancies against SIMS data.
   
   
   

4. Guidance related to eligibility and disability determination:
   Many participants expressed concern relating to the determination of eligibility for special education and the disability type under which a student is found eligible. Particular concern was identified for students found eligible with an "emotional disability." The questions raised included when is a "504 Plan" appropriate?

   Key questions:

   1. Is the ESE guidance provided in "Is Special Education the Right Service?: A Technical Assistance Guide" on Massachusetts special education disability definitions effective in assisting with eligibility determinations?
   2. Do assessors, parents, and schools have common understanding of disability definitions?

   Proposed action steps:

   1. Identify and develop needed training related to increased knowledge and awareness of the twelve special education disability categories.
   2. Continue to develop and distribute guidance that will lead to greater consistency across districts in identifying students with a disability(ies) who are eligible for special education.
   3. Convene a working group that includes PQA staff, parents, Special Education directors, medical professionals, and disability experts to study possible ways to better ensure the quality, effectiveness, thoroughness, and consistency of assessments performed and eligibility determination procedures following assessment.
   
   
   

5. Disproportionality concerns:
   Data indicated that particular groups of students are more likely to be found eligible for special education or receive certain types of placements/services based on their gender, race or ethnicity, income, or English proficiency. The level of detail provided through SIMS allows a preliminary analysis of the extent to which this is happening in Massachusetts.

   Proposed action steps:

   1. Continue existing activities related to monitoring and correcting disproportionality.
   2. Establish consistent schedule for review of data related to disproportionality including race/ethnicity, income status of students, placement information and disaggregation by primary disability.
   
   
   

Special Education Data by Primary Disability

6. Identification of Deafblind and Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing students:
   Participants who reviewed data on Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing and Deafblind special education students expressed concern that some of these students were being misidentified as having an intellectual impairment. Participants also raised the question of how students who communicate using American Sign Language or other modes of communication are regarded when determining Limited English Proficiency status. Finally, participants were concerned that the data on incidence was not accurate and needed to be validated beyond existing data collection and validation activities.

   Proposed action steps:

   1. Develop additional guidance on assessments for students who are Deaf, Hard-of-Hearing, or Deafblind.
   2. Partner with the Massachusetts In-State Deafblind Committee to share ideas and identify resources to improve awareness of the criteria for inclusion in the Deafblind category.
   3. Work with the ESE "Language Acquisition and Academic Achievement" unit to review and disseminate guidance for districts concerning eligibility criteria for LEP/ELL status for students who are Deaf, Hard-of-Hearing, or Deafblind.
   4. Participants in the disability focus group for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing expressed willingness to assist ESE in the development and conduct of a survey of districts and approved private schools to validate data and to gain additional detail on the students (e.g., levels of hearing loss, types of services provided, use of cochlear implants & impact, use of sign language, etc.).
   
   
   

7. Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) eligibility:
   Participants in the disability focus group for SLD were concerned that the data may be over-representative of the actual population of students with this primary disability in Massachusetts.

   Proposed action steps:

   1. Analyze SLD disability data across states and within state by school district to gain additional detail on the percentage of students found eligible under this disability category.
   2. Reconvene original workgroup to share and review data, looking at the impacts of individual districts on the state data, and to explore promising practices for the identification of students with SLD.
   
   
   

8. Early Intervention and students with vision impairments or students who are Deafblind:
   Participants from the disability focus group for Vision Impairments and Deafblindness expressed concern that students who are Deafblind or visually impaired and are in Early Intervention (EI) are not being identified as eligible for special education or are not identified under the appropriate primary disability until several years after exiting EI.

   Proposed action steps:

   1. Meet with representatives from ESE's Early Learning Services unit to determine which vehicles are currently in place (i.e., existing ESE partnerships) for identifying students who are Deafblind or visually impaired and eligible for special education. Consider if/how to promote use of appropriate vision screening for young children.
   2. Participate in partnership meetings for the purpose of finding out what families and providers need to know and how to effectively disseminate information about the characteristics of individuals with Visual Impairments or those who are Deafblind.
   3. Disseminate information to medical professionals, parents, preschools, and other stakeholders for the purposes of increasing awareness about these disabilities.
   
   
   

Issues for Further Consideration

In addition to the recommendations put forward in this document, there are additional areas of work to be monitored and/or undertaken in coming years. In most cases, additional years of data collection are needed to more fully understand these issues. These topics, and their relevant questions, are presented briefly below.

Effective instructional practices in mathematics: Further research should be conducted to better determine the instructional practices of districts where students with disabilities are performing well in mathematics in order to share successful strategies across districts.

Drop-off in student enrollment after grade 9: Data indicated that there is a significant drop-off in student enrollment after grade 9. Where are these students going? Can this be directly attributed to students dropping out of school? If so, then what are the characteristics of students who are dropping out?

Students exiting the Developmental Delay category: Upon turning 10 years old, students can no longer be reported as having a Developmental Delay. Within the data, where do students "go" after turning 9? What information does this tell us regarding instructional practices and also about the disabilities that are commonly placed in the developmental delay category?

Students in special education who are classified as LEP or ELL: There is a need for further analysis concerning the impact of LEP or ELL status on eligibility. Does LEP or ELL status influence one's eligibility for special education? Specifically concerning ELL students with Specific Learning Disabilities, there is a need for analysis of relevant data points in order to better understand this student population.

School anxiety and students with Emotional Impairments: There is concern that students with school anxiety who are at home are not receiving the full benefit of education and that more information is needed about the services and activities taking place for these students at the local level.

Continued monitoring of LRE data: The data presented at these meeting showed that in 2002-03, over 60% of students in special education were placed in the Resource Room, services outside the general education classroom 20% to 60% category. Participants were concerned with this large percentage, and would like a more discreet analysis of this student population. Preliminary 2003-04 data indicates a significant reduction in this placement category (40.6%). Data in this area should continue to be monitored.