Family & Community Special Communities
Special Education

The Massachusetts Continuous Improvement Plan - FY05

Introduction

Following the 1998-1999 school year, the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE) developed its first Continuous Improvement Plan (CIP) for Special Education in cooperation with a Steering Committee composed of multiple stakeholders. The CIP, since initial development, has formed the basis of a number of activities aimed at correcting inappropriate or non-compliant procedures and changing practice in areas identified as priority areas.

Since the original CIP, Massachusetts has begun to change its focus toward using data in a more effective manner to review and identify needed areas of focus. This FY05 plan is the next iteration of our continuous improvement process and includes a review of areas considered by our Steering Committee on June 1, 2004.

1. The Steering Committee reviewed key data initiatives to make determinations on whether the outcomes for students with disabilities are improving. We are seeking to improve data in relation to dropout data, graduation data, suspension/expulsion data, staff data and the separate December one collection of student participation data. Each of these data areas will be addressed in FY05 with the goal of better data for future review.

2. The Steering Committee also reviewed areas with scores indicating low compliance from the most recent complete monitoring cycle of Coordinated Program Reviews in FY2003. For each of the identified areas, the two prior years of data were also reviewed. The Steering Committee identified one area to be added to the CIP and four low compliance areas that will continue to be carefully monitored. The Steering committee recommended some activities for each of the four areas and such activities will take place as resources allow. The SE monitoring areas are as follows: SE 13 - Progress Reports and Content; SE 50 - Responsibilities of the School Principal and Administrator of Special Education; SE 54 - Professional development in special education, and SE 56 - Special Education programs and services are evaluated. The compliance levels for each of these from Coordinated Program Review data are:
   
   

   	2000-2001	2001-2	2002-3
   SE 13	32%	22%	28%
   SE 50	61%	42%	40%
   SE 54	48%	30%	30%
   SE 56	36%	37%	47%

3. The Steering Committee considered key areas of focus related to Massachusetts Annual Performance Report (APR), and will continue to review APR areas in the future.

4. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education presented information on key activities for two initiative areas that follow from previous Steering Committee focus areas. The two initiative areas are Vocational Schools (VS) and Mental Health (MH). The focus actions in VS center around conducting a needs assessment and focus groups during FY05. For MH, the Department continues to be engaged in significant development activity aimed at building capacity in the Commonwealth to better serve students with significant mental health issues. Activities focus on awareness activities, schoolwide prevention models and interagency project for students with serious emotional disturbance.

Section 1. Parent Involvement

1.1 Parent Participation in Meetings Regarding Educational Decisions for Their Child

Evaluation Indicators

Program Quality Assurance (PQA)/Coordinated Program Review (CPR) and Mid-Cycle Review (MCR): The monitoring cycle for special education ensures every district is visited every three years. CPRs and MCRs will be used to identify school district's compliance in this area, and to develop corrective action plans as necessary.

CPR indicators SE 26 (Parent Participation In Meetings) (focus indicator) and SE 32 (Parent Advisory Council for Special Education) will be reviewed each year. Additional data will be collected related to the number of Team meetings taking place during a three month period and the parent participation at those meetings.

Data to date (compliance level)

	2000-2001	2001-2	2002-3	2003-4
SE 26	86%	86%	90%
SE 32	55%	45%	43%

Activities identified by the Steering Committee

1. Recommended activities in this area include more guidance on the formation of parent advisory councils at the local school level, and
2. incentives to districts and parent advisory councils for formation and continued participation.

1.2 Communications are in English and the primary language of the home
PRIORITY AREA

The Steering Committee identified this area as a new focus area for our CIP. Identification followed monitoring of the compliance level and an interest and belief that this area is key to involving parents in the special education of their children.

Evaluation Indicators

Program Quality Assurance (PQA)/Coordinated Program Review (CPR) and Mid-Cycle Review (MCR): The monitoring cycle for special education ensures every district is visited every three years. CPRs and MCRs will be used to identify school district's compliance in this area, and to develop corrective action plans as necessary.

CPR indicator SE 29 (Communications are in English and the primary language of the home) is the focus indicator for this area.

Data to date (compliance level)

	2000-2001	2001-2	2002-3	2003-4
SE 29	57%	53%	63%

Activities identified by the Steering Committee

1. One area of focus for communication was communication on behalf of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. The Steering Committee identified a number of activities related to identifying and developing skilled interpreters: measuring and evaluating quality of interpretation skills was identified, ensuring content information, promoting sense of professionalism for this career focus (both internally and externally) as well as awareness of Deaf culture.
2. Outreach and awareness and training activities focussed on minority organizations, cultural organizations. It was suggested that ESE could assist by setting up a network of school districts working with similar cultural groups so that translation of documents and access to knowledgeable interpreters was not re-invented in each community.
3. The Steering Committee suggested seeking funding to develop a model program that can be expanded.
4. It was suggested that a more careful connection with LEP students might be important to find undiagnosed disabilities.

Section 2. Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)

2.1 Special Education and Related Services are Identified and Provided and IEPs are current
PRIORITY AREA

The requirement in this area focuses on ensuring that school districts conduct IEP meetings at least annually. Massachusetts has included review of service provision and Team participation as part of its review of this focus area. The Steering Committee has identified this area as a continuing priority area for the 2nd year in a row.

Evaluation Indicators

Program Quality Assurance (PQA)/Coordinated Program Review (CPR) and Mid-Cycle Review (MCR): The monitoring cycle for special education ensures every district is visited every three years. CPRs and MCRs will be used to identify school district's compliance in this area, and to develop corrective action plans as necessary.

CPR Indicator SE 22 (2) is our focus indicator and relates to the currency of every student's IEP at the beginning of the school year. Other indicators associated with this area will also be reviewed: SE 18 related to the development of the IEP and the Team participation and SE 22 (1 & 4) related to provision of services without delay. For FY05 the Steering Committee requested additionally consideration of SE 28 - Parent provided IEP or notice along with procedural safeguards and parents rights;

Data to date

	2000-2001	2001-2002	2002-2003	2003-2004
SE 22#1	93%	88%	79%
SE 22#2	93%	89%	81%
SE 22#4	86%	88%	74%
SE 18	18#1 88% 18#6 80% 18#10 70%	18A#1 59% 18A#6 73% 18B#5 55%	18A#1 63% 18A#6 43% 18B#5 37%
SE 28	61%	50%	36%

Activities identified by the Steering Committee

1. The Steering Committee had a spirited discussion on the specifics associated with this area and the sometimes confusing nature of the details (for instance the roles of Team members, and the tight timelines for compliance in providing the IEP immediately following the Team meeting). Training and focussed technical assistance on the roles and spirit of this requirement was highly recommended.
2. The Steering Committee additionally was concerned about the potential for sacrificing quality of IEPs in order to meet timelines. Development of models for writing appropriate and efficient IEP that do not sacrifice individualized focus with specific training for education team liaisons, including training in facilitating an effective IEP discussion (as well as a non-adversarial discussion) were recommended.
3. Finally, the Steering Committee recommended incentives or models for school districts to invest in administrative and technical support to this process so that some of the record keeping, etc. could be diverted from service providers and managed by administrative staff.

2.2 Least Restrictive Environment

The requirement in this area focuses on ensuring that school districts are able to provide a full range of placement options depending on the individual needs of the student. Further, that removal occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in the general education environment with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. This requirement is generally referred to as the Least Restrictive Environment or LRE.

Evaluation Indicators

Beginning in FY04 the Department began to conduct a review of placement data by disability as a means of looking more deeply into factors relating to differential use of more restrictive placement. A USDE ranking of states by placement types (with specific consideration of the most inclusive setting (the general education classroom) and the most restrictive settings (day and residential schools) was used to assess Massachusetts' use of placements for special education in comparison to other states.

SE 20 (1-3) (Least Restrictive Program Selected) has been identified as our focus indicator for the CPR data.

Data to date (compliance level)

	2000-2001	2001-2	2002-3	2003-4
SE 20 (1-3)	80%	61%	71%

Revision of definitions for placement has resulted in upwards movement on the USDE state ranking, but still Massachusetts looks to be in the bottom third of states using separate placements more often and the most inclusive placement less often than the majority of other states.

Activities identified by the Steering Committee

1. The Steering Committee identified the need for incentives to promote higher use of less restrictive placements, with an associated recommendation to provide incentives to the private schools to use their staff for training and consultation to local school staff to prevent the need for more restrictive placement or to promote more effective return to less restrictive placements.
2. An additional recommendation was made to conduct a deeper review of data including a review of outcome data by placement.
3. Development of an LRE guide or self-assessment tool was recommended.
4. One recommendation was made to promote a prioritizing of reimbursement under the Circuit Breaker for less restrictive programs.

2.3 Opportunity forOpportunity for Children with Disabilities to be Involved and Progress in the General Curriculum
PRIORITY AREA

Massachusetts has focussed in this area for a number of years. Procedural compliance has been at very high levels and is no longer the evaluation indicator of choice. Our Steering Committee has identified this area as a priority area for FY05 with specific focus on outcome data.

Evaluation Indicators

Massachusetts stakeholders reviewed preliminary outcome data disaggregated by disability during FY03-04. Although no compelling trends were identified, the review of outcome data clearly points to directions for activities. The Special Ed. Steering Committee reviewed data showing that communities with more low-income students (greater than 11%) typically have lower scores for students with disabilities in Math and English Language Arts than communities with fewer low-income students. However, the outcome data also indicated that smaller communities (less than 2000 students), even with high rates of low-income students, were more likely to have similar outcomes for students with disabilities as those outcomes for communities with fewer low-income students. Massachusetts will continue to use AYP information as our key indicator with the overall goal of reaching 100% proficiency by 2013 for all students with disabilities.

 

Activities identified by the Steering Committee

1. The Steering Committee recommended continued and ongoing analysis of outcome data looking at factors related to performance such as: placement, school district size, income level, professional development, pre-service training, philosophy, performance by disability.
2. One outcome that would be valuable would be a "standard" data analysis that would allow schools to see how they "stand" in comparison with other schools in the effort to provide effective education to students in all environments.
3. The Steering Committee recommended continued and ongoing opportunities for professional development with specific emphasis on special educators and general educators working together. Additionally, special training for medical community members was highly recommended as was training for parents on how LRE can contribute to better outcomes.
4. There was a great desire for identifying good models that support strong achievement of students with disabilities with professional development and training toward more use of those models. One model that was proposed was to create a position at each school for a person focussed solely on involvement and progress in the general curriculum. Such a dedicated position has potential to organize and focus available resources toward the desired outcome.
5. The Steering Committee identified a concern that there should be a special focus in this area related to students in out-of-district placements as well as a focus on resources and trainings to districts with high numbers of low-income students.
6. This area was an area where small grants to higher education might be helpful to prompt fresh perspectives in various research areas.

2.4 Special Requirements for Determination of Specific Learning Disabilities
PRIORITY AREA

The Steering Committee added this area to our CIP for FY05 and identifies this area as a priority because of the large numbers of students identified as Specific Learning Disabled and the clear indication that schools have difficulty meeting the special requirements for eligibility related to this group of students.

Evaluation Indicators

Program Quality Assurance (PQA)/Coordinated Program Review (CPR) and Mid-Cycle Review (MCR): The monitoring cycle for special education ensures every district is visited every three years. CPRs and MCRs will be used to identify school district's compliance in this area, and to develop corrective action plans as necessary.

CPR Indicator SE #3 is our focus indicator and includes a review of Team membership, criteria for making an eligibility determination for SLD, including conducting a required observation and ensuring additional required written documentation is in the student record.

Data to date (compliance level)

	2000-2001	2001-2	2002-3	2003-4
SE 3	79%	38%	34%

Activities identified by the Steering Committee

1. Providing practical guidelines on each of the specific requirements for SLD.
2. Convene a working group to study ways to ensure more consistency of practice in eligibility determinations, including PQA, parents, Special Ed. Administrators, medical professionals and disability experts (possibly with original working group membership).
3. Explore" response to intervention" models, perhaps fund some pilots in this area.
4. Obtain and analyze data related to presenting issues of students coming to building-based support teams or being referred for eligibility evaluations. Consider outcomes in light of developing guidance for training, supervision, educator understanding of issues, impact of race/ethnicity, gender, economic status and so on - to help understand the criteria related to SLD determination not a result of "effects of environment, cultural, or economic disadvantage." Particular emphasis could be placed on examination of evaluations for students ultimately found eligible with SLD.
5. The Steering committee identified that learning to read is often the reason for referral for special education, but only approximately 5% of students should require specially designed instruction in order to learn to read, the remaining 95% should be served through supportive general education models. One activity would be in helping schools to develop tiered intervention capacity so that referrals to special education would be a response made only after escalating supportive services had been attempted. The caution was that such support not be a "wait to fail" method.

Section 3. Secondary Transition

3.1 Outcome Oriented Statements of Transition

Massachusetts is seeking to ensure that, when planning for transition, the IEP Team considers multiple aspects including (a) the coursework the student is currently taking and how well it prepares him/her for the future; (b) the student's preparation and interest in postsecondary education, vocational training, employment, adult services, independent living, and community participation.

Evaluation Indicators

Program Quality Assurance (PQA)/Coordinated Program Review (CPR) and Mid-Cycle Review (MCR): The monitoring cycle for special education ensures every district is visited every three years. CPRs and MCRs will be used to identify school district's compliance in this area, and to develop corrective action plans as necessary.

CPR Indicator SE 6#2 is our focus indicator and includes review of records to ensure that for a student who is 16 years of age, or younger if appropriate, the Team includes in the IEP services that promote movement of the student from school to post-school activities, including post-secondary education, vocational training, integrated employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or community participation. SE 6 #3 - is an additional indicator we review in this area and looks at whether the transition services are based upon the student's needs, taking into account the student's preferences and interests.

Data to date

	2000-2001	2001-2	2002-3	2003-4
SE 6#2	84%	58%	71%
SE 6#3	86%	63%	69%

Activities identified by the Steering Committee

1. The Steering Committee identified the need to look carefully at the transitions from elementary to middle to high and seek to get Teams into the process early of thinking about transition.
2. Continued professional development for teachers and parents was recommended in this area.
3. Looking at the reauthorization as an opportunity to reconceptualize transition and add fresh perspectives was also recommended.

3.2 Statement of Transition Service Course of Study Beginning at Age 14

The IDEA 1997 Amendments require that the IEP of each student beginning at age 14, and updated annually, includes a statement of the transition service needs of the child under the applicable component(s) of the IEP that focuses on the child's course of study. 20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(1)(A)(vii)(I).

The Steering Committee asserted that the same activities identified for CIP Area 3.1 were as readily applicable to CIP Area 3.2.

Concluding note: The Steering Committee identified two priorities relating to all action areas from Section 1 through Section 3 of this CIP.

• The Department should work to ensure that parents are integrally involved in all training and focus group activities, and
• offer practical guidelines to interpret compliance data (e.g. what is the margin of error? How does one year compare to the next? When is a change indicative of a trend?).