Family & Community Special Communities
Special Education

OSEP’s Report on the Monitoring of Massachusetts

VI. Part B: Parent Involvement

One purpose of the IDEA Amendments of 1997 is to expand and promote opportunities for parents and school personnel to work in new partnerships at the State and local levels. Parents must now have an opportunity to participate in meetings with respect to the identification, evaluation and educational placement of their child, and the provision of a free appropriate public education to their child. Parent involvement has long been recognized as an important indicator of a school's success and parent involvement has positive effects on children's attitudes and social behavior. Partnerships positively impact achievement, improve parents' attitudes towards the school, and benefit school personnel as well.

Validation Planning and Data Collection

In the 1995 Massachusetts monitoring report, OSEP found that annual goals and short-term objectives were developed after the IEP meeting and mailed to parents for their signature. This practice was inconsistent with the requirement that the child's IEP is developed in a meeting including one or both of the child's parents. In addition, OSEP found that parents did not receive written prior notice of proposals or refusals to change the educational placement of the child that included required information regarding the range of placement options that were considered, and the reasons each was rejected. Therefore, parents had not received a full explanation in writing when they decided whether to agree or disagree with the agency's proposal or refusal to change the child's placement. In the 1997 Massachusetts follow-up monitoring report, OSEP found that ESE's revised monitoring and corrective action procedures addressed the district's understanding of policies, but were not effective in changing practices in these areas.

The Federation For Children With Special Needs, an organization that provides information, support and assistance to parents of children with disabilities in Massachusetts, conducted a survey of parents on the implementation of IEPs under IDEA 1997. The Federation received over 400 individual responses to the survey, representing at least 82 of the 355 local educational agencies. One of the questions asked in the survey, was " Are parents involved in the education of their child with a disability?" Almost 40% of the parents surveyed stated that they have no real input into the IEP process and no clear definition of the services their child will receive. The survey and public input data indicated that:

1. parents are not always included in decisions about their child;

2. parents are not always informed or invited to Team meetings;

3. parents' diverse needs are not always met; and,

4. IEPs are not always developed in the IEP Team meeting. Parents reported that often they are either presented with an IEP to sign at the meeting that was developed without their input, or they are sent the IEP after the meeting that does not reflect the decisions made at the meeting.

One of the focus questions asked during the public input meetings was, "How are parents involved in their child's special education process?" Many parents stated that they had no input into their child's goals and objectives on the IEP. Sometimes the IEP was already written when they arrived at the IEP meeting, or the IEP that was sent to them after the meeting did not represent the discussion and decisions made during the IEP meeting. Several parents expressed a need for training in their procedural safeguards and the special education process. Some parents expressed a concern that materials are sent home in English, which they cannot read, since they speak a different language such as Spanish or Portugese in some sites. Parents stated a need for more open communication at the schools between parents and school staff.

At the end of the Validation Planning week, after discussing information obtained through the Self-Assessment and public input process, the Steering Committee requested that OSEP investigate the following issues:

1. parent participation in special education decision-making;

2. explanation and provision of parents' rights;

3. IEP development in meetings with parent participation;

4. parents of children with disabilities must "fight" to get what their children need; and

5. parents of children with disabilities must pay for services for their children.

To investigate the issues identified through the Validation Planning process, OSEP collected data from the review of student records and State and local policies and procedures, and interviewed of State personnel, local program administrators, teachers, and parents during the week of February 22-26, 1999. Analysis of the data collected resulted in identification of the following strengths, areas of noncompliance, and suggestions for improving results for children with disabilities.

A. Strength

ESE and the Federation for Children with Special Needs have a cooperative contract to enhance parent involvement in State education policy and planning. As part of this contract, additional training for parents will be included as a follow-up to the training activities of the five-year systems change grant for the Massachusetts Transition Initiative.

B. Areas of Noncompliance

The 1997 IDEA amendments at 20 U.S.C. 1415(b)(1) require that the parents of a child with disability must be afforded an opportunity to participate in meetings with respect to the identification, evaluation, educational placement and provision of a free appropriate public education to the child. The IDEA 1997 expanded the rights of parents to ensure that they have the opportunity to participate where substantive decisions are made regarding their child's education.

In all of the districts visited, OSEP found that parents were being denied the right to fully participate in the decision-making process involving their children. As documented in student files, OSEP only found parents being invited and attending IEP meetings and asked to sign permission for evaluations. In follow-up interviews, school staff at all levels stated that parental participation in the special education decision-making process is limited, with rare exception, to attendance at the IEP meeting. Parents are not invited to other meeting regarding their child. A principal in one district stated, "School members of teams come up with what is best for the child. Parents can use procedural safeguards if they disagree." A special education teacher stated that, "placement decisions are made by the staff." A principal, two special education administrators, a school counselor and a special education teacher in three other districts stated that parents are not involved in the evaluation process.

In addition, OSEP found that ESE did not make attempts to ensure parental participation in IEP meetings, a requirement that was in place prior to IDEA 1997. As set forth at 34 C.F.R. §300.345(a) and (d), each public agency is required to take steps to ensure that one or both of the parents of a child with a disability are present at each IEP meeting or demonstrate its attempts to arrange a mutually agreed on time and place to convene IEP meetings. As shown in 77 student records across the ten agencies OSEP visited, parents did not attend 17 of the most recent IEP meetings and attempts were not made to ensure their participation. A special education teacher, an IEP coordinator and two education programmers in two districts visited where parents did not always attend IEP meetings reported that parents are notified in writing about a team meeting. This notification is sent only once. No other attempts are made to convince parents that they should attend. If the parent does not respond, the meeting is held anyway.

In addition, parents and local school district personnel also have very different understandings of the purpose and use of "draft" or "pre-organized" IEPs that are brought into IEP meetings by school staff. Local school districts perceive the use of a "draft" document as a time saver and a means to provide information to the parent about what the school is thinking, in advance of the IEP meeting, so that the parent is better prepared to participate in the IEP meeting and to express their opinions/concerns about the school's proposals. Although school staff may bring proposed recommendations regarding IEP content to IEP meetings, some parents who OSEP interviewed stated that it was their belief that the "draft" IEP is a finished product into which they have no input and which does not represent their concerns, ideas and needs for their child.

C. Suggestions for Improved Results for Children With Disabilities

Many parents stated to OSEP that there is lack of communication and cooperation between themselves and the educational community. According to parents, special education staff often sends a message that "they know best" and parental input is not valued or sought. Parents stated that they feel intimidated in the presence of the professional special education staff. As noted above, OSEP found noncompliance in a lack of parental involvement in meetings and participation in educational decisions regarding their children. The problem also appears to be related to attitudes and a lack of trust between parents and schools. In meetings throughout the State, parents provided OSEP with numerous examples of polarization between parents and the educational community. Massachusetts has a high number of complaints and due process hearings. In 1997, ESE received 826 special education complaints and 603 requests for due process hearings. Although there are probably numerous reasons for this phenomenon, certainly one factor appears to be the lack of cooperation and trust between parents and the schools. ESE has taken steps through its State Improvement Grant to include parents through the Federation for Children with Special Needs as a organizational partner. It is suggested that ESE explore further steps to empower parents as stakeholders in the special education process.

Part B clearly intends that public agencies take whatever action is necessary for parents to understand the proceedings of IEP meetings and the content in prior written notices. (See 34 C.F.R. §§300.345(e) & 300.503(c); 20 U.S.C. 1415(b)(4)).

Parents expressed concern about the use of foreign language interpreters that lack knowledge about special education and parents' rights. Parents stated that interpreters are often staff members who speak the language, but are not necessarily trained interpreters. Parents further stated that interpreters had no knowledge of special education and this resulted in their doing a poor job of interpreting.

Parents also stated that there is a concern that IEP notices and progress reports are generally written in English, which is not always the native language of the parent. The State is not providing parents with information written in their native language. Many parents cannot read or write in English, but receive letters and notices in English. When OSEP questioned a special education director regarding the records of a student whose parent spoke only Portugese, they were told, "There are no interpreters provided and there is no alternative printed information." Although OSEP was unable to directly validate systemic noncompliance regarding this issue, OSEP has serious concerns because sufficient comment was received by OSEP during Validation Planning to note it as an issue. It is suggested that ESE review practices across the State, including in charter schools, to accommodate non-English speaking parents regarding notices and letters and the provision of interpreter services.