Family & Community Special Communities
Special Education

OSEP’s Report on the Monitoring of Massachusetts

VII. Part B: Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment

The provision of a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment is the foundation of IDEA. The provisions of the statute and regulations (evaluation, IEP, parent and student involvement, transition, participation in large-scale assessment, eligibility and placement decisions, service provision, etc.) exist to achieve this single purpose. It means that children with disabilities receive educational services at no cost to their parents, and that the services provided meet their unique learning needs. These services are provided, to the maximum extent appropriate, with children who do not have disabilities and, unless their IEP requires some other arrangement, in the school they would attend if they did not have a disability. Any removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

The IDEA '97 Committee Reports of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources and the House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce emphasized that too many students with disabilities are failing courses and dropping out of school. Those Reports noted that almost twice as many children with disabilities drop out as compared to children without disabilities. They expressed a further concern about the continued inappropriate placement of children from minority backgrounds and children with limited English proficiency in special education. The Committees stated their intention that "once a child has been identified as being eligible for special education, the connection between special education and related services and the child's opportunity to experience and benefit from the general education curriculum should be strengthened. The majority of children identified as eligible for special education and related services are capable of participating in the general education curriculum to varying degrees with some adaptations and modifications. This provision is intended to ensure that children's special education and related services are in addition to and are affected by the general education curriculum, not separate from it."

As documented in the 1995 monitoring report, OSEP found that ESE did not meet its responsibility to ensure that:

1. each student with a disability was provided with related services in accordance with his/her IEP;

2. removal from the regular education environment occurred only when the nature and severity of the student's disability was such that education in the regular education environment with the use of supplementary aids and services could not be achieved satisfactorily;

3. educational placement decisions were based on the students' IEP; and (4) students with disabilities were educated with nondisabled peers and participate in nonacademic and extracurricular activities to the maximum extent appropriate. Three of these deficiencies (numbers 2, 3, and

4. were also identified as areas of non-compliance in OSEP's 1991 monitoring report.

The Massachusetts Part B Self-Assessment and discussions held with the Steering Committee reflected the following areas of concern:

1. current funding for placements in residential schools may create a fiscal incentive for separate placements;

2. students who have been removed from the regular education setting need improved access to the general education curriculum;

3. training for all personnel is needed to enable students to access the general curriculum;

4. appropriate schoolwide services for students with behavioral difficulties provided by qualified staff, as well as funding and support for alternative programs; and

5. State rates of payment that have been set for evaluations may affect the ability to obtain highly qualified evaluators.

One of the focus questions asked during the public input meetings was:

"Do students with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment that promotes a high quality education and prepares them for employment and independent living after they exit school?" Responses to this question reflected general agreement that quality varies across Massachusetts and that some systems do well while others do not. Low expectations were seen to play a role in the quality of services provided and, in many cases, low expectations were seen as the norm. A number of examples were given where specific disability needs were not met and concerns were expressed that staff was not knowledgeable about low-incidence disabilities. Commenters cited delay in the provision of needed services, or services not being provided. Participants reported a concern that behavioral issues in schools are not well addressed, that students in behavior classes do not receive academics and that students with behavioral problems were pushed out of school. In all public input sessions, parents expressed their opinion that decisions about IEP services are based solely on what the school is willing to do, rather than what the student needs, and that funding plays a fundamental role.

There was overall agreement on the part of participants that students with disabilities get a "watered down" curriculum. Participants expressed concerns that IEP teams were not considering appropriate supplementary aids and services for students with disabilities to be successful in general education environments. A need for training for general education teachers and for better training and supervision for teacher aides was also expressed. There were multiple comments about collaborative programs not getting equal access to space in public schools, and about the "Resource Room Model" where the students do not have access to the general curriculum. It was generally thought that elementary schools do a much better job with inclusion and that students get "dumped" into substantially separate programs in middle and high schools. Concern was expressed about the lack of extended school year programs and the unwillingness to consider such programs for children who may need them.

The Federation for Children with Special Needs provided a report based on the survey responses of 400 parents representing 82 of the 355 LEAs in the State regarding the implementation of IEPs under the IDEA Amendments of 1997, and assessment results. Data from this report indicated that parents report that:

1. children are not receiving all the services deemed necessary by their IEP team;

2. school systems have unilaterally discontinued services to special education students due to inadequate funding; and

3. eligible children are not receiving services by their third birthdays. In addition, the Federation data indicated that students with disabilities do not have access to the full range of support services and accommodations necessary to participate in regular education classes and non-academic activities with children that do not have special needs.

To investigate the concerns identified during the Validation Planning process, OSEP collected information from the review of children's records and State and local policies and procedures, reviewed monitoring reports and interviewed State personnel, local program administrators, teachers and parents. OSEP analyzed the data and identified the following strengths, areas of noncompliance, areas needing further review by the State, and suggestions for improved results.

A. Areas of Noncompliance

34 CFR §300.343 requires that the public agency initiates and conducts meetings at least annually to develop, review, and, if appropriate, revise IEPs for a child with a disability. The IEP should be implemented as soon as possible following the meeting. The 1997 IDEA amendments at 20 U.S.C 1414(d)(1)(B) require that the IEP team be composed of a group that includes the parents of a child with a disability; at least one regular education teacher of the child (if the child is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment); at least one special education teacher; a representative of the public agency; at the discretion of the parent or the agency, other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child; and whenever appropriate, the child.

In OSEP's 1991 and 1995 monitoring reports, OSEP found that ESE did not meet its responsibility under §300.341 to ensure that public agencies initiated and conducted meetings in accordance with §300.343(a) and (d). Specifically, OSEP found in both of these visits that annual goals and short-term objectives were not developed during a meeting with the required participants.

ESE's Chapter 766 regulations state at §333.6 that a parent shall be sent two copies of the new or amended IEP within "ten school working" days after the IEP meeting, and at §324.0, that "no later than thirty days after the school committee sends the parents the IEP. . ., the parent shall accept, partially accept or reject the IEP." In practice this means that the parent typically receives a written copy of the IEP up to 10 days after the actual meeting and that the program on the IEP can't be initiated until the agency receives a signed IEP. Staff in all ten sites visited by OSEP confirmed this.

In nine of the ten districts visited OSEP found through interviews with parents, special education teachers, related service providers, school based administrators, and directors of special education that this IEP process results in the failure or delay of the public agency to provide a free appropriate public education to children with disabilities since new or amended IEPs do not always reflect the decisions made by the IEP team, and because IEP services are not provided until the parent signs the IEP. Decisions that change from the IEP meeting to the IEP document regard:

1. the child's agreed upon goals and objectives;

2. the extent to which the child will be involved in and participate in the regular education environment and State and District-wide assessments; and

3. the services needed to support that involvement and participation.

OSEP found that in two school districts, IEP teams were unable to commit to needed services for children with disabilities because services are reviewed and approved by a higher authority. In one district, three separate administrators did not know that they could commit resources at the IEP meeting even though they were acting as the LEA representative responsible for this function. They all told OSEP that the decision to provide an aide or an expensive assistive technology device, for example, would not be made by the IEP team without authorization from a higher level. For example, one administrator told OSEP that she would not even think of asking for an aide, even if it was necessary to provide a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment, because she knew it would not be approved. Another administrator told OSEP that even if the team agrees on a needed service, the team decision can be overturned at a higher level and the "IEP would be sent back." Three administrators and a special education teacher reported that since the IEP is not written at the IEP meeting, commitment of resources are only considered points of discussion that can be over-turned by a higher authority.

The director in another district reported that the "principal serves as gatekeeper for services." The director explained that any child who requires an intensive service, such as a one-to-one aide, must wait to have the request from the team reviewed for approval by a higher authority. A high school principal in this district reported that a one-to-one aide could be recommended but "of course" it would be reviewed by a higher authority because the district has to pay, and since funds may not be available, they would steer IEP teams away from making this recommendation.

OSEP also found IEPs were not being implemented as decided in an IEP meeting if a parent did not sign the IEP, either because the parent disagreed with contents of the IEP or because the school district failed to obtain a signature. Many parents told OSEP staff at public input meetings and focus groups that the IEP process results in IEPs that do not always reflect the services that were determined necessary by the IEP team. For example, in one district two special education teachers reported, and an administrator confirmed, that a child's progress and plans for a new or revised IEP are discussed at the IEP meeting with the parent and other team members in attendance but, the IEP document is developed/generated after the meeting, and sent to the principal and special education director for approval. The IEP is then sent home to the parents to be signed which may not necessarily reflect decisions made in the IEP meeting.

2. Psychological Counseling Provided When Needed to Benefit From Special Education

If the IEP team determines that the service is required to enable the child to benefit from special education, then this service must be included in the student's IEP and provided as a component of a free appropriate public education. As discussed below, OSEP found, based on interviews with administrators and staff as well as file reviews in 10 public agencies, significant limitations in the provision of counseling and mental health services as part of a free appropriate public education for children with disabilities.

In one district, the psychologist, a special education teacher and occupational therapist agreed that psychological counseling is not placed in the IEP even if they need it to benefit from special education because "then they have to do it." A psychologist in another district stated that even though students may receive psychological counseling it is only reflected in an IEP if the parent or an attorney pushes for it.

In two districts, psychological counseling services are provided within specific programs for students with behavioral disabilities. These services are not provided to students with disabilities placed outside of these programs that are exhibiting behaviors that interfere with their learning and the learning of others, even if they need this service to benefit from special education. Parents of these students are referred to private therapists at their own expense.

A special education teacher and the principal from another district gave an example of services not being provided as a part of a free appropriate public education. One student with a disability who needed counseling was without an IEP for two years. This was confirmed through file review. The student was suspended for alcohol use and for assaulting a teacher. He did not receive the counseling he required and eventually required hospitalization for psychiatric treatment.

In a fourth district, parents are typically expected to seek psychological counseling services through private providers at their own expense or through private insurance even if the child needs psychological counseling to benefit from special education. The psychologists, special education teacher, and the occupational therapists in this district stated that if families do not provide the needed counseling then the school district will provide it through group counseling, but not as a service listed in the IEP. In a fifth district, the director and a special education teacher stated that psychological counseling services might be funded through various sources, including private insurance, Medicaid, Department of Social Services and the District but not provided as a service in the IEP, regardless of student needs.

3. Availability of Extended School Year

As discussed below, OSEP found that in nine out of ten districts visited, extended school year services were either not available or only considered for a limited number of children with disabilities based upon their type of disability.

OSEP found that in all districts visited, with the exception of one collaborative program, the IEP team does not consider the need for extended school year services, even if necessary to meet a child's needs. Various types of summer programs are available to students, including students with disabilities, in all districts visited, however, these programs are not based on individual student need and are not driven by the IEP process. Staff who were members of IEP teams in some districts visited were unfamiliar with the term or concept of "extended school year."

In four districts, OSEP found that extended school year services were not made available, regardless of need. Several special education teachers and two special education directors reported that extended school year services are not made available because transportation is not available in the summer, and/or there is no extended school year procedure available to qualify children with disabilities for extended school year services. In two other districts special education teachers reported that extended school year services are only available to students with severe disabilities, even if other students need them.

In a seventh district, the children who are served in self-contained programs automatically get a "summer program," but it is not individualized or provided in accordance with an IEP. Students can pay to take academic summer school classes, if they wish.

An administrator from an eighth district stated that even though some students may get a summer program, the IEP teams are discouraged by this director from writing extended school year services into an IEP because the director does not want the "stay put" provision to be applicable. Therefore, the administrator explained, the district is not obligated to provide extended school year services, as per the IEP. Another administrator from this district stated that the district pays for extended school year services for individual students only when a hearing officer has ruled that the school district must do so, even if other students need them.

In an ninth district, the special education teacher, director, and 5 supervisors stated that the IEP team does not consider extended school year services for students with disabilities who may need them. The director reported that extended school year services are only available for preschoolers and more severely disabled students, and that there is summer camp with related services staff available on a sliding scale for other students with disabilities.

4. Least Restrictive Environment: Lack of Integration Opportunities for Children with Disabilities Placed in Separate Educational Environments

Each public agency is required to ensure that to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities are educated with children who are nondisabled, and that special classes, separate school or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. (See 34 CFR §300.550(b)).

In OSEP's 1991 monitoring report, OSEP found that ESE did not ensure that all public agencies had available and considered placement options to the extent necessary to implement the IEP for each child with a disability consistent with 34 C.F.R. §§300.551(a) and 300.552(b). In its 1995 monitoring report, OSEP found that ESE did not ensure that public agencies remove a student from the regular education environment only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in the regular education environment with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily as required by 34 CFR §300.550(b)(2). OSEP continues to find areas of non-compliance consistent with previous monitoring findings as documented in five of the ten districts visited.

In one district, OSEP found at the middle school and high school, that children with disabilities, especially those receiving services in separate classes, were not educated to the maximum extent appropriate with their nondisabled peers and were not provided the necessary supplementary supports and services to permit their education in the least restrictive environment. Team teaching and "inclusion-level" supports are made available to children receiving services in a resource room setting for less than sixty percent of the school day. However, children in separate classes for more than sixty percent of the day at the middle school are included in general education classes with their peers only for "specials," such as art and music with no individual determination of the portions of the day for which they could be educated with nondisabled children. OSEP was informed by school staff that placement in other regular education classes was not considered. The children at the elementary and high schools with moderate learning disabilities and mild mental retardation are in separate placements and are only "included" into whichever level of special education class is one level less restrictive on the continuum, even though there are no nondisabled peers in these classes. In three out of the seven IEPs OSEP reviewed at the middle school, the explanation of the extent, if any, to which a child with disabilities will participate with non-disabled children was "steps to increase his/her participation in regular education are: achievement to within two years of grade level functioning."

In another district, as reported by the director, the perception is that children with disabilities are not part of the general education community. This director stated that "there is very little understanding of regular education's responsibility for special education children; they (general education staff) will say this child really doesn't belong." This director also stated that "the problem is that quite a few don't want or welcome special education and set them [children with disabilities] up for failure. We try to find as many supportive environments as we can." Additionally, the director reported that any child with a problem is considered a special education student and not the responsibility of general educators. A principal at one of the high schools reported to OSEP staff that the reason more children had not been brought back from out-of-district placements in separate centers was because he did not know if there was "a corner to put them in where they could be easily supervised/taught." A parent reported to OSEP staff that "there is no continuum of placements." Additionally, the director reported that high school-aged children with disabilities in this district are being denied access to the general science program due to the fact that "the science coordinator (for the district) won't let special education students come to class unless special education pays for one full time general education science teacher."

In a third district, the students identified with behavioral disabilities or severe disabilities are not included into any activities with their peers in general education without an individualized decision. These decisions are not based on individual needs. When students with behavior disabilities are identified they must attend the segregated program, and are not included with nondisabled peers for any part of their day. School staff informed OSEP that once they are placed in the separate program they remain there and do not return to the general education environment. For example, a special education teacher reported that there were high school students who had been in this program since first grade. The students with severe disabilities have no opportunity for integration in the middle school and the public agency does not make individualized decisions about the maximum extent to which the child can be educated with nondisabled students; they are housed in a separate wing and go to lunch after all of the other students are finished. The director reported that their location was convenient for the special buses to pick them up and drop them off.

In a fourth district, if students are identified with a behavior disorder they are placed in a separate school that provides no opportunities for integration with their nondisabled peers. In addition, a special education teacher and building administrator in one school OSEP visited reported that students in self-contained programs had no opportunities for integration regardless of individual need.

Public input and survey data from the Federation survey referenced at the beginning of this section regarding the lack of equality in programs for students with disabilities in collaboratives were validated by OSEP in its on-site visit. In the collaborative visited, OSEP found that all of the classes were self-contained in a separate building except for five classrooms that are housed in a regular school. There used to be more classroom space in regular school buildings, but all seven of the collaborative staff members that OSEP interviewed report that they have been slowly squeezed out of classrooms in the local districts, by the local districts. The result is that children with disabilities do not have the opportunity for integration, regardless of individual need.

The 40 local districts that constitute the collaborative no longer lease classroom space to the collaborative because they need the space for nondisabled children. For example, in a written response to a parent inquiry about the space issue, the superintendent of a participating public school stated in a letter that, "I am responsible first for the education of the children who reside in [school district indicated] and who attend the [town indicated] public schools." The parent who received this letter resides in the district, but her child must receive services made available to the collaborative placement. The director of the collaborative program reported to OSEP staff that the local school districts apply for building improvement money through the State building fund and will write in their applications that they are planning to use some of the newly built space for children receiving services in the collaborative program, but when the classrooms are built they do not lease them to the collaborative. Two administrators reported that there is no obligation for the local districts to use the space as they have indicated in their application.

All staff and all seven of the parents at a parent focus group, at the collaborative, agreed that being forced out of regular school buildings is the biggest problem at this collaborative because the impact is that children with disabilities are not able to get any services in an integrated environment. The parents reported that many of the superintendents do not take responsibility for the children with disabilities that they send to the collaborative program. At the parent meeting OSEP conducted in the collaborative program, all seven parents stated that they had only two placement options: 1) self-contained classroom with no opportunity for integration at the collaborative; or 2) the full inclusion program, with no pull-out option in their local school.

5. Opportunity for Children with Disabilities to be Involved and Progress in the General Curriculum

The 1997 IDEA amendments at 20 U.S.C. 1414(c)(1)(B)(iv) & (d)(1)(A) require that in evaluating a child with a disability, a public agency determine the child's ability to participate in the general curriculum; and that the IEP include a statement of the special education and related services including supplementary aids and services to be provided for the child to be involved and progress in the general curriculum. In order to ensure that a child with a disability receives appropriate special education and related services, the statute makes clear that the child's ability to progress in the general education curriculum is an important consideration in evaluating and formulating an appropriate special education program in the least restrictive environment.

OSEP found through interviews with parents, special education teachers, related service providers, school based administrators, and directors of special education that children with disabilities, especially those in substantially separate placements, did not have access to the general curriculum. OSEP found in eight of the ten districts visited, that removal of children with disabilities from the general education environment impacts children with disabilities by limiting their ability to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum, and potentially to function in a less restrictive setting.

In one district, the principal and special education director stated in an interview with OSEP that students with learning disabilities do not have assistive technology devices and services available to them, regardless of need. For example, computers are not available to students who need them to take notes in order to benefit from special education and related services. In another district a special education teacher stated that students are not allowed to use computers unless there is a medical need. In a third district there is no policy on assistive technology, though the director reported that one is being developed; therefore the IEP teams did not recommend assistive technology because they did not know how to do it. A principal in this district also reported that he would discourage an IEP team from deciding to provide a one-to-one aide, because of cost. Because of the lack of supports in these districts, children with disabilities are limited in their ability to participate in general education classes with their nondisabled peers and progress in the general education curriculum.

In a separate collaborative program, teachers and administrators stated that there is no access to the general curriculum because there are no general education teachers or curriculum materials. The alternative high school for children with behavior needs reports that they follow a curriculum based on the Massachusetts State Framework for all students. However, the director stated that he could not hire teachers with general education content knowledge unless they also have special education certification, since the State requires that all teachers who work with children with disabilities have special education certification. The director reported that he has been unable to find, for example, "a science teacher with dual certification including special education." An impact of not having general education staff is that no general education certified teachers are available to train the special education teachers and others on general education curriculum (methods, materials, etc.). A teacher in the collaborative program reported that when her class was located in a regular elementary school she borrowed materials from the general education teachers. Now that her class is segregated, she uses the materials that she locates on her own and they are not aligned with the general education curriculum.

In a fifth district, the director, a principal, and a special education teacher reported that children with severe disabilities have no access to general education because their curriculum is separate and unrelated to the general curriculum.

In a sixth district, a general education teacher and a special education teacher reported that there is no effective mechanism to share the IEP goals and objectives with general education staff and that general education teachers are left to determine the accommodations on their own. An example was a computer teacher who was not made aware of a students' vision problem, and it was six months before she noticed that the student was using his peer buddy to read the screen, and began to use large font for the student.

The 1997 IDEA amendments at 20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(3)(C) require that the public agency ensure that the IEP team for each child with a disability who is, or may be in regular education, includes the regular education teacher to the extent appropriate to participate in the development of the IEP for the child. The intent of this provision is to ensure that children with disabilities are educated in the least restrictive environment appropriate and that they are included in general school programs to the extent necessary to meet their needs.

OSEP found in four of the ten districts visited through interviews with parents, special education teachers, related service providers, school-based administrators, and directors of special education that a general education teacher did not consistently participate on the IEP team for children who received at least a portion of their education in the general education classroom within the general education curriculum. General education teachers in three of these districts report lack of understanding, training, and responsibilities of general education staff regarding their participation in IEP meetings.

In one district, the general education teachers, who serve children with disabilities, did not have access to the locked special education files that contained the IEPs. As a result, they did not know the goals and objectives of students with disabilities included into their class or what modifications and accommodations to provide. In another district, services were not being implemented as stated in IEPs because the general education teachers reported that they do not have access to IEPs or contents of the IEP relative to the general education environment. The director confirmed that there is no formalized policy on participation of general education teachers to ensure that IEPs are being implemented. Thirteen of eighteen files reviewed in this district demonstrated no participation of general education teachers.

In a third district, a high school general education teacher, who serves children with disabilities, reports that she gives no input into the IEP and was unaware that she could. She also reported that no one shares any information from the IEPs with her. The director reported that at the high school, the only one in this district, that general education teachers never attend IEP meetings. Six of six files reviewed by OSEP staff did not indicate any participation by the general education teacher.

In a collaborative, general education staff from the school district of residence did not participate in IEP meetings for children with disabilities in the student records OSEP reviewed. Collaborative staff informed OSEP that participation of general education staff was never considered, because it is already assumed that the child would not be participating in the general education environment.

6. Lack of opportunity for involvement of children with disabilities in regular vocational education programs with appropriate supports as determined by the IEP team

Each public agency must take steps to ensure that its children with disabilities have available to them the variety of educational programs and services available to nondisabled children in the area served by the agency including art, music, industrial arts, consumer and homemaking education, and vocational education. (See 34 CFR §300.305.)

The IEP must include a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services to be provided to the child, or on behalf of the child, and a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided for the child to be educated and participate with other children with disabilities and nondisabled children. (See 20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(A)(iii)).

In five of the districts visited, interviews with staff from special education, regular education, and vocational education provided information that certain students with disabilities either did not have access to the same vocational education options available to nondisabled students, or received vocational education services that were not based upon deliberations of the IEP team. Most vocational programs provided by these districts were located in regional vocational technical centers. Limited regular vocational offerings were available to students in those regions at any other locations except the regional center. Students who were in need of vocational education and who were denied admission to these centers were essentially denied the opportunity for vocational programming appropriate to their interests and preferences. Determination of placement in these programs was most frequently made while the student was in the eighth grade, as most vocational offerings were four-year programs, although students could be accepted through the eleventh grade. The IEP team was not involved in the determination of services and supports that could enable a student with disabilities to access and progress in these programs. Vocational directors and other staff members explained that a point system was used for entrance requirements, and that this system was supported by ESE. The system included the following elements:

1. grades,
2. attendance,
3. behavior, AND
4. suspension/detention records.

The middle school counselor and the principal recommended students. Schools participating in the regional centers each had a quota of students that could be admitted. Students were prioritized for available slots by adding up the points. Teachers and administrators reported that the point system, which emphasized academic achievement and good behavior, in combination with the quota system with a predetermined number of student slots for each school in the region, often resulted in limited admission opportunities for students whose disabilities resulted in behavior problems or below average academic skills. In none of these districts did the IEP team consider services and supports that would have enabled these students to participate and progress in regular vocational programs, a part of the process for considering admission to regular vocational education programs.

In two of the districts visited by OSEP, middle school special education staff members told OSEP that they were unaware of the supports available to students with disabilities in the vocational centers. In one district, the vocational director reported that special education supports were provided at the vocational center, however middle school special education staff reported to OSEP that they believed that students who needed academic support would not be admitted, and were unlikely to encourage these students to apply. In two districts served by another regional vocational center, teachers and administrators informed OSEP that special education students, especially those with academic and behavioral needs, stood a low chance of admittance. In one of the districts, administrators and teachers reported to OSEP that parents sometimes removed their children from special education, believing that the special education designation would limit their children's opportunity for access to the vocational center. However, the director of the regional vocational center reported that a higher percentage of the population with disabilities, largely students with learning disabilities, was admitted than the percentage of nondisabled students, and that some behavioral support was provided at the vocational center.

In a third district, an administrator reported to OSEP that the vocational school that was part of the high school received Federal Carl Perkins vocational education funding, but did not have anything to do with special education students. In a fourth district, the special education director told OSEP that there were no aides in the shops, and, therefore, only students who could function independently were included. The director reported that the only other alternative for vocational programming for these students was to access the segregated special education vocational programming at the collaborative; and that setting did not include the array of programs that was available in the vocational center.

In a fifth district, students with disabilities are generally excluded from fifteen of the seventeen vocational programs available. The only programs that children with disabilities have access to are food services, grounds keeping, and maintenance. There is an application process for the other fifteen programs, but students lose points if they have a behavior disorder. OSEP staff found through an interview with the special education teacher that one deaf student, whose file was reviewed, was denied access to a workshop program because the district did not provide interpreting accommodations to enable him to participate.

B. Suggestion for Improved Results for Children with Disabilities

Lack of Continuity for Children with Disabilities

In two "school choice" districts that OSEP visited, parents, teachers and administrators reported that children with disabilities may attend five or six different schools by the time they get to high school. Children with disabilities attend the school that contains the program placement for which they have been found eligible. If a child with a disability needs to change to a more or less restrictive setting, or if their program is moved, then the child is transferred to a new school. These multiple transitions result in a lack of continuity for families and children and emotional disruption for the children. Multiple transitions may adversely affect the teaching and learning of students with disabilities. Since the frequency of these movements is greater than those experienced by nondisabled children, this pattern suggests movement is based on administrative convenience rather than the needs of the child. This constitutes a possible violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. OSEP is referring this issue to the Office for Civil Rights for further investigation of whether discrimination against children with disabilities is occurring due to failure to insure that their education is not unduly disrupted through frequent changes in program locale.