Family & Community Special Communities
Special Education

OSEP’s Report on the Monitoring of Massachusetts

Introduction

The Massachusetts State Legislature provided the impetus for education reform by passing the Education Reform Act of 1993. Among the major improvements are greater and more equitable funding to schools, accountability for student learning and Statewide standards for students, educators, schools and districts. As a part of educational reform, the State will have contributed more than $2 billion in new State funding by the year 2000. Major changes in accountability brought about by the Act include a school council in every school, continuing education for educators, more authority for every principal, a better-defined role for school committees, and clear, concise, measurable Statewide standards for students and schools. The capstone of these accountability changes will be a "high-stakes" test (the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System) based on the new curriculum standards. Students from the graduating class of 2003, including children with disabilities, will need to pass the test in order to receive a regular diploma.

The Commonwealth has maintained one of the broadest eligibility definitions for Part C in the nation through inclusion of children at environmental and biological risk in the entitlement to early intervention services. The State has continuously sought out strategies to ensure reimbursement by appropriate payers, taking full advantage of the available diversity of funding resources for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. DPH and State Part C staffs are responsible for monitoring activities to ensure fiscal efficiency and program accountability.

The Early Intervention Program in the Division for Children with Special Health Care Needs, Bureau of Family and Community Health, is the administrative unit within the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) that has been appointed as lead agency for early intervention services in accordance with state and federal legislation. Early intervention staff work closely with the State Interagency Coordinating Council in developing and implementing policy and procedures for the statewide system, and in collaborating with other programs and agencies within and outside of DPH.

DPH administers the early intervention system through contracts with 65 certified providers. Providers are required to participate in the State's program certification process which includes an extensive three-to-four day compliance evaluation based on the Massachusetts Early Intervention Operational Standards. Early intervention services are provided directly by certified early intervention providers or purchased by them from providers of highly specialized services on behalf of individual children and their families.

As reported in the December 1, 1997 child count, Massachusetts provided early intervention services to 9,645 children, of which 1,841 children were under the age of one, 2,883 were between one and two and 4,921 were between two and three years old. Thus, DPH found 4.09% of the birth-to-three population in the State who are eligible for and receiving Part C services.

Massachusetts' December 1, 1997 annual count of children served was 159,023 for children three through 21. Based upon the total number of children of public school age, this represents a rate of 14.4 percent of students served in special education. This is the second highest identification rate in the country. Massachusetts' child count generated $64 million in Part B funds for fiscal year 1996. State aid is distributed to school districts to subsidize the total cost of education without distinguishing special education costs. In Fiscal Year 1999, state aid represented an average of 40 percent of the total school operating expenditures, although this varied from 4 to 96 percent depending upon the local district's ability to pay.

For Fiscal Year 1999 there were 357 operating school districts, 351 cities and towns, 34 educational collaboratives, 41 vocational or Voc-Tech high schools, and 54 regional academic school districts.

The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE) employs an executive director of special education. Since the reorganization in 1993, many of the activities necessary to administer special education are incorporated into similar activities throughout ESE. For example, Program Quality Assurance is responsible for the resolution of complaints and monitoring activities, whether for special or general education students. Other "clusters" within ESE are responsible for activities which may include certain aspects of special education. The executive director for special education is responsible for coordinating special education activities between the clusters.

The Massachusetts Coordinated Program Review System addresses selected IDEA and State monitoring requirements for special education, as well as six other Federal programs. Depending upon the size of a district and the number of program areas to be reviewed, a team of three to eight ESE staff conduct a coordinated program review which includes interviews with parents, administrators, and school staff, classroom and facilities observations, and student record reviews. Following ESE's report of findings, districts must provide for ESE's approval, corrective actions for areas found to be either "partially implemented" or "not implemented." Districts are encouraged to incorporate the corrective action activities in their District and School Improvement Plans, including the District Professional Development Plan.

An important addition to the authorization of IDEA 1997 was to include children with disabilities in statewide assessments since educational reform that promotes accountability has been tied to these assessment programs. The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) is the new statewide assessment program for public schools in Massachusetts. MCAS measures the performance of students, schools, and districts on the academic learning standards contained in the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks; and is designed to promote uniformly high academic standards for all public school students. In May 1998, students in grades 4, 8, and 10 participated in the first administration of the MCAS. Further discussion of the MCAS can be found on Page 42 of this Report.

Validation Planning and Data Collection

In preparation for the Part B Validation Planning visit, OSEP reviewed previous Part B monitoring reports for Massachusetts. OSEP conducted an on-site monitoring review was conducted during the week of October 31, 1994 and the final report was issued on September 26, 1995. Issues identified as noncompliant included general supervision in monitoring, approval of funds for local education agency applications, investigating and resolving complaints and conducting due process hearings within timelines, ensuring public agencies made placement decisions consistent with the least restrictive environment requirements and reviewed and revised IEPs annually, as appropriate.

A follow-up monitoring review was conducted during the week of May 12, 1997 and the written report was issued September 4, 1997. Results of this review indicated that ESE had taken steps to correct many of the issues identified in OSEP's 1994 visit. Additional corrective actions were instituted by OSEP for ESE to strengthen its procedures for monitoring and complaint resolution.

In preparation for the Validation Planning visit, OSEP reviewed the data from the 20th Annual Report to Congress; correspondence from parents, advocates and other interested parties; Part C annual reports; ESE's and DOH's Self-Study, DPH's monitoring reports, and Federal and State child count and services data.

Prior to OSEP's Validation Planning visit, ESE conducted a self-assessment and established a Part B Steering Committee comprised mostly of members for Massachusetts's State Advisory Panel. DPH also conducted a self-assessment and established a Part C Steering Committee which included members of the State Interagency Coordinating Council and other representatives of provider, advocacy and interagency groups. Throughout the monitoring process, the Part B and Part C Steering Committees met separately.

During the week of November 30, 1998, OSEP and the Steering Committees conducted four public input meetings for Parts B and C across the State to obtain information about issues and concerns regarding IDEA service delivery. Meetings consisted of 20 to 50 participants in each of the following locations: Boston, Waltham, Springfield, and Westport. Discussions addressed, for Part C: child find and public awareness, family-centered systems of services, early intervention services in natural environments, transition from Part C to other appropriate services, and general supervision by DPH. For Part B, discussion centered on: the provision of a free appropriate public education to children with disabilities from ages three through 21 in the least restrictive environment; parent involvement in special education decision-making; secondary transition for youth with disabilities from school to post-school activities; and general supervision of special education by ESE. At the end of the week, this information, along with self-assessment information and information from the public input meetings was discussed with the Part B and C Steering Committees to identify specific issues which could be investigated by OSEP, monitoring strategies, and sites that might be visited during OSEP's Validation Data Collection visit in February 1999.

OSEP returned to Massachusetts during the week of February 22, 1999 to collect data to validate information provided through the planning process, including new requirements under the IDEA Amendments of 1997 and the Government Performance Results Act. The following sites were visited for Part C: Northampton, Cambridge, Somerville and New Bedford. OSEP Part B sites included collaborative, elementary, middle, and secondary schools, and one charter school. The following sites were visited for Part B: Boston, Boston Renaissance Charter School, Nahant, North Shore Collaborative, Cambridge, Watertown, Worchester, Holyoke, Sandwich, and Falmouth. Preliminary results were presented to ESE and the Part B Steering Committee and next steps were discussed to begin the process of improvement planning.

As part of the data collection process, OSEP reviewed children's records, including individualized family service plans (IFSPs) and individualized education programs (IEPs), and State and local policies and procedures. OSEP conducted interviews with personnel responsible for the implementation of both Parts B and C of IDEA, including local service providers, service coordinators, teachers, interagency collaborators, and administrators. Part C also interviewed small groups of parents at each site. General education teachers interviewed were those who serve children with disabilities in their classrooms, and special education teachers were those responsible for developing and/or implementing IEPs. OSEP also interviewed advocates and personnel from State agencies involved in the provision of services to infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities. The individuals interviewed were selected by OSEP, in cooperation and consultation with State and local officials.

Improvement Planning

In response to this report, ESE and DPH will develop a plan addressing areas requiring improvement as identified in the Report. OSEP will work with ESE and DPH to finalize the improvement plan and will provide assistance to the Steering Committees in the identification of strategies for implementation, sources of technical assistance, time lines for completing strategies and methods for evaluating the effectiveness of the improvement plan.