Massachusetts Part B
Annual Performance Report for
FFY 2006
Submitted to the
Office of Special Education Programs:
February 1, 2008
Revised April 14, 2008
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148
Phone 781-338-3000 TTY: N.E.T. Relay 800-439-2370
www.doe.mass.edu
Part B Massachusetts Annual Performance Report (MA APR)
for FFY 2006
Table of Contents
Cover Letter / Overview of MA APR Development
3
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

Indicator #1: Graduation Rates
4

Indicator #2: Drop-Out Rates
6

Indicator #3: Assessment
11

Indicator #4: Suspension/Expulsion
16

Indicator #5: School Age LRE
19

Indicator #8: Parent Involvement
24
Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality

Indicator #9: Disproportionality – Child with a Disability
27

Indicator #10: Disproportionality – Eligibility Category
31
Effective General Supervision / Child Find
 Indicator #11: Initial Evaluation Timelines
34
Effective General Supervision / Effective Transition
 Indicator #12: Early Childhood Transition
36

Indicator #13: Secondary Transition
Effective General Supervision / General Supervision
 Indicator #15: Identification and Correction of Noncompliance
40
43

Indicator #16: Complaint Timelines
48

Indicator #17: Due Process Timelines
51

Indicator #18: Hearing Requests Resolved by Resolution Sessions
53

Indicator #19: Mediation Agreements
55

Indicator #20: State Reported Data
57
Appendices
 Appendix A: MA Parent Survey for Indicator #8
59

Appendix B: Indicator #15 Worksheet
61

Appendix C: Web-Based Monitoring System
65

Appendix D: Table 7 - Report of Dispute Resolution for FFY 2006
66

Appendix E: Indicator #20 Scoring Rubric
67
Note: Further information on the Indicators listed above and complete information for Indicators 6, 7, and
14 can be found in the Massachusetts State Performance Plan (MA SPP) found at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/.
2
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008; Revised April 14, 2008
U.S. Department of Education
ATTN: Janet Scire / Mail Stop 2600
7100 Old Landover Road
Landover, MD, 20785-1506
Dear Ms. Scire:
Enclosed is the Massachusetts Annual Performance Report for FFY 2006 (MA APR). The MA APR
responds directly to the indicators identified by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in
Information Collection 1820-0624, Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance
Report (APR). The MA APR provides information on Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4a, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16,
17, 18, 19, and 20, and addresses any areas identified in OSEP’s letter responding to the MA SPP/APR
submitted February 1, 2007.
The Massachusetts Department of Education (MASSDE) has engaged in a variety of activities to obtain
broad input from stakeholders on the development of the MA APR. MASSDE convened the
Massachusetts Statewide Special Education Steering Committee – which consists of state special
education advisory council members, key MASSDE personnel, local education officials, parents,
advocates, and representatives from higher education, charter schools, approved private special
education schools, and adult service agencies – to review data, measure progress against the targets,
examine methodologies, and identify key activities as appropriate for each of these indicators.
Additionally, MASSDE has formed targeted interest groups focused on each indicator. These workgroups
incorporate a wide variety of stakeholders who communicate throughout the year to help guide
Massachusetts’ work in each area.
Regarding public dissemination, the completed MA APR will be made widely available for public
discussion. This will be accomplished by broad discussion in interest groups (as previously mentioned)
and at the Statewide Advisory Council meeting and other conference and group discussion
opportunities. MASSDE will post the MA APR on the MASSDE website at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/, and distribute hard copies of the report to key constituents and the
media.
MASSDE has developed a resource titled “Special Education Results” that has been added to each
district’s profile on the MASSDE website to meet the requirement that district indicator data be publicly
reported (http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/special_ed.aspx). Data are currently presented in table format for
Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4a, 5, and 12, and are presented through thematic maps for Indicators 1, 2, and 5.
MASSDE is currently working to determine the best way to publicly report data for Indicators 8, 9, 10, 11,
13, and 14, and anticipates that data for these indicators will be available on the MASSDE website by
the February 1, 2009 submission of the MA APR.
If questions or additional clarification is needed regarding the MA APR, please contact me at
781.338.3388 or mmmittnacht@doe.mass.edu.
Sincerely,
Marcia Mittnacht
State Director of Special Education
Special Education Planning and Policy Development Office
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Cc: Jeffrey Nellhaus, Acting Commissioner of Education, Massachusetts Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 1: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma compared to
percent of all youth in the State graduating with a regular diploma.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
Measurement: The statewide Graduation Rate is the number of students in a cohort who graduate
in four years or less, divided by the number of first-time entering 9th graders in that cohort. The
denominator is adjusted so that students who transfer into Massachusetts’ public schools are added
to the original cohort and students who transfer out, or who are now deceased, are subtracted from
the original cohort. The quotient is multiplied by 100 to express the Graduation Rate as a
percentage. The measurement for youth with an IEP is the same as the measurement for youth
without an IEP.
FFY
2006
(2006-2007)
Measurable and Rigorous Target
Students with IEPs Graduation Rate: 61.7%
Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
IEP
Non-IEP
All Students
# of Students
in 2006-07
cohort
# of Students in 2006-07 cohort
who graduated in four years or
less.
2006-07 Graduation
Rate
13,594
62,318
75,912
8,538
52,880
61,418
62.8%
84.9%
80.9%
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
From FFY 2005 to FFY 2006, the Graduation Rate for students with disabilities in Massachusetts
increased by 1.1 percentage points, from 61.7% to 62.8%. Likewise, the Graduation Rate for students
without disabilities increased from 83.9% to 84.9%, and the overall state Graduation Rate increased from
79.9% to 80.9%. The improvement in the Graduation Rate of students with disabilities in Massachusetts
may be related in part to a number of improvement activities that were completed in FFY 2006. These
include further development of public reporting of Special Education data, a variety of professional
development initiatives for educators, and certain targeted academic support programs and grants.
Over this past year, MASSDE further developed its public reporting of Graduation Rates and other
Special Education data. MASSDE worked with stakeholder groups and staff from a number of school
districts to determine the best way to publicly report graduation data at an LEA level. As a result of these
efforts, MASSDE has developed a resource titled “Special Education Results” that has been added to
each district’s profile on the MASSDE website to meet the requirement that district indicator data be
publicly reported. Data for Indicator 1 are reported through tables, and thematic maps have been
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
developed to display the graduation rate for students with disabilities for each district:
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/special_ed.aspx.
MASSDE also provided a number of professional development activities in FFY 2006 to support
educators and administrators in helping students with disabilities reach graduation and attain positive
post-secondary outcomes, including:
 Graduation Rate Summit - March 5, 2007: MASSDE co-sponsored this statewide conference for
decision-makers and leaders in education, which included a variety of presentations and breakout
sessions around issues related to graduation and dropout.
 Special Education Summer Institutes – Summers 2006 and 2007: MASSDE sponsored a variety of
Institutes with topics such as “Effective Evaluation of Special Education Programs”, “Assistive
Technology and Universal Design in the Classroom”, “Managing Behavior in an Inclusive Classroom”,
“Assessing English Language Learners with Disabilities”, and the “Special Education Administrative
Leadership Academy”. Individuals in each Institute participated in at least 45 contact hours and
created a final product related to the topic of the institute.
 Project FOCUS Academy (PFA) – 2005-2008: This pilot distance-learning program, funded through a
federal State Improvement Grant, included courses for educators in Universal Design for Learning,
Transition/Post-School Outcomes, and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Participating
schools then received grants to fund school-improvement initiatives and systems reform that benefit
students with disabilities.
 Massachusetts FOCUS Academy (MFA) – 2007-2012: MASSDE is developing this online
professional development tool based on the PFA pilot model. MFA, which is funded through a federal
State Personnel Development Grant, will ultimately increase professional development opportunities
for educators across the state.
 Special Education Program Improvement Grants – yearly: MASSDE administers non-competitive
grants to school districts to support professional development around special education-related topics
and induction/mentoring programs for new special educators.
Finally, MASSDE administers several academic support programs each year that can help districts
increase the percentage of students with disabilities who graduate from high school, including:
 Academic Support Services Grants: A number of grants fund school- and district-level programs that
provide additional instruction and tutoring for students who have not met the Competency
Determination requirement for graduation.
 Alternative Education: These programs are offered by districts for “at-risk” students, often in nontraditional settings.
 Secondary School Improvement initiatives: These MASSDE programs promote college- and careerreadiness, and include grants and conferences for high schools.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
Since the FFY 2005 APR submission, Massachusetts has revised the SPP baseline data and targets for
the statewide Graduation Rate of students with disabilities. Due to data corrections in the state’s Student
Information Management System (SIMS) since February 2007, the baseline Graduation Rate for the
2005-06 cohort was revised from 61.6% to 61.7% for students with disabilities, from 83.8% to 83.9% for
non-disabled students, and from 79.8% to 79.9% for all students. Additionally, Five-Year Graduation
Rates for the 2005-06 cohort were calculated in the fall of 2007, and so these rates were recently added
to Massachusetts’ baseline data. The targets have been revised to align with MASSDE’s goal of closing
the gap between the Graduation Rate of student with disabilities and the Graduation Rate of students
without disabilities over the next ten years. As such, our Measurable and Rigorous Targets now reflect
MASSDE’s goal of bringing the Graduation Rate for students with disabilities to 83.9% or higher by FFY
2015, with targets increasing by 4.5% every two years between FFY2005 and FFY 2015.
5
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 2: Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school compared to the percent of all youth
in the State dropping out of high school.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
Measurement:
The dropout rate is the number of students in grades 9-12 who drop out over a one-year period,
from July 1 to June 30, who do not return to school by October 1 st of the next school year, divided by
the total enrollment of students, times 100. The measurement for youth with an IEP is the same as
the measurement for youth without an IEP.
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2005
(2005-2006)
Students with IEPs Dropout Rate: 5.6%
2006
(2006-2007)
Maintain Students with IEPs Dropout Rate of 5.6%
Actual Target Data for FFY 2005 (2005-2006) and FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
Because MASSDE was unable to report dropout rate data for FFY 2005 in last year’s report, OSEP has
required that MASSDE report it this year. Those data are included in this section along with the FFY
2006 Dropout Rates as required by OSEP.
FFY 2005
(2005-2006)
# of Students Enrolled
(Grades 9-12)
# of Dropouts
(Grades 9-12)
FFY 2005
Dropout Rate
IEP
43,508
2,237
5.1%
Non-IEP
253,003
7,673
3.0%
All Students
296,511
9,910
3.3%
FFY 2006
(2006-2007)
# of Students Enrolled
(Grades 9-12)
# of Dropouts
(Grades 9-12)
FFY 2006
Dropout Rate
IEP
44,257
2,550
5.8%
Non-IEP
253,776
8,891
3.5%
All Students
298,033
11,441
3.8%
6
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
Discussion of Dropout Rates:
Dropout Rates in Massachusetts decreased between FFY 2004 and FFY 2005, and then increased
between FFY 2005 and FFY 2006. From FFY 2004 (Baseline Year) to FFY 2005, statewide Dropout
Rates declined by half of one percentage point for students with IEPs and students without IEPs. The
Dropout Rate declined from 5.6% in FFY 2004 to 5.1% in FFY 2005 for students with IEPs. In that same
period, Dropout Rates declined from 3.5% to 3.0% for non-IEP students, and from 3.8% to 3.3% for all
students. From FFY 2005 to FFY 2006, statewide Dropout Rates increased from 5.1% to 5.8% for
students with IEPs, from 3.0% to 3.5% for non-IEP students, and from 3.3% to 3.8% for all students.
The fluctuation in Dropout Rates over the past two years may reflect two significant modifications to
Massachusetts’ data collection and coding procedures in the Student Information Management System
(SIMS):

Starting in FFY 2005, the state now cross-references SIMS data with the General Educational
Development (GED) Testing Service database. Previously, MASSDE relied on districts to report
students who had earned a GED. This previous method was somewhat unreliable because districts
rarely have any way to track former students and determine when those students earn a GED. As a
result of this new cross-referencing databases capacity, MASSDE can more accurately track students
who drop out of high school and then earn a GED, decreasing the number of students who had
previously been counted as dropouts. This change is probably part of the reason Dropout Rates
decreased between FFY 2004 and FFY 2005.

Starting in FFY 2006, MASSDE has implemented a wider range of SIMS codes and data verification
procedures for reporting of students’ enrollment status. In the past, students who dropped out without
notifying their district were often incorrectly coded by districts as transfer students. Districts must now
indicate the enrollment status of transfer students as “Transferred – In state public”, “Transferred – In
state private”, “Transferred – Out-of-State (public or private)”, “Transferred – Home-school”, or
“Transferred – Adult diploma program, leading to MA diploma”. Based on these new codes,
MASSDE can confirm whether or not students who were coded as transfers to other in-state districts
actually showed up elsewhere in SIMS. This change probably contributed to the increase in Dropout
Rates from FFY 2005 to FFY 2006 because fewer dropouts were incorrectly identified as having
transferred to a different district.
Given that the data collection and verification procedures used in calculating Dropout Rates have
changed slightly each of the last two years, it is not possible to make meaningful year-to-year
comparisons over this period of time. It should also be noted that the FFY 2006 Dropout Rates were
completed only a few days prior to the February 1 APR submission deadline, and may be adjusted as
MASSDE makes further corrections to the data set. However, it is clear that the gap between the
Dropout Rates of students with IEPs and general education students appears to be relatively stable.
Evidence of this persistent disparity in Dropout between students with disabilities and their non-disabled
peers is a major factor in MASSDE’s decision to change the way in which Measurable and Rigorous
Targets are set, as described in the Revisions section below. The following chart illustrates the gap over
time:
7
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
Annual Dropout Rate (Percent of
Students Grades 9-12)
Annual Dropout Rates for IEP
and Non-IEP Students Over Time
7.0%
6.0%
5.8%
5.6%
5.1%
5.0%
4.0%
3.5%
3.5%
3.0%
IEP
Non-IEP
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
Academic Year
Discussion of Improvement Activities:
In an effort to reduce the Dropout Rate in Massachusetts, and to close the gap between students with
disabilities and students without disabilities, a number of improvement activities were completed in FFY
2006. These include further development of public reporting of Special Education data, a variety of
professional development initiatives for educators, and certain targeted academic support programs and
grants.
Over this past year, MASSDE further developed its public reporting of Dropout Rates and other Special
Education data. Two major improvements in public reporting are:
 Special Education Data and Mapping: MASSDE worked with stakeholder groups and staff from a
number of school districts to determine the best way to publicly report graduation data at an LEA
level. As a result of these efforts, MASSDE has developed a resource titled “Special Education
Results” that has been added to each district’s profile on the MASSDE website to meet the
requirement that district indicator data be publicly reported. Data for Indicator 2 are reported through
tables, and thematic maps have been developed to display the dropout rate for students with
disabilities for each district: http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/special_ed.aspx.
 Public Reporting of “Cohort” Dropout Rates: MASSDE’s yearly Graduation Reports include the
percentage of non-graduates in each cohort who dropped out of high school. In the 2005-2006
cohort, 19.5% of students with IEPs and 11.7% of all students dropped out. In the 2006-2007 cohort,
16.1% of students with IEPs and 9.4% of all students dropped out of high school. The availability of
“cohort” Dropout Rates on the MASSDE website gives the public a more complete understanding of
attainment and outcomes for a given group of students and further illustrates the gap between
students with disabilities and the general population.
8
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
MASSDE also provided a number of professional development activities in FFY 2006 that may help
reduce dropout by enhancing educators’ and administrators’ understanding of factors leading to dropout,
and by promoting policies and practices that support students with disabilities in high school, including:
 Graduation Rate Summit - March 5, 2007: MASSDE co-sponsored this statewide conference for
decision-makers and leaders in education, which included a variety of presentations and breakout
sessions around issues related to graduation and dropout.
 Special Education Summer Institutes – Summers 2006 and 2007: MASSDE sponsored a variety of
Institutes with topics such as “Effective Evaluation of Special Education Programs”, “Assistive
Technology and Universal Design in the Classroom” and “Managing Behavior in an Inclusive
Classroom”. Individuals in each Institute participated in at least 45 contact hours and created a final
product related to the topic of the institute.
 Project FOCUS Academy (PFA) – 2005-2008: This pilot distance-learning program, funded through a
federal State Improvement Grant, included courses for educators in Universal Design for Learning,
Transition/Post-School Outcomes, and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Participating
schools then received grants to fund school-improvement initiatives and systems reform that benefit
students with disabilities.
 Massachusetts FOCUS Academy (MFA) – 2007-2012: MASSDE is developing this online
professional development tool based on the PFA pilot model. MFA, which is funded through a federal
State Personnel Development Grant, will ultimately increase professional development opportunities
for educators across the state.
 Special Education Program Improvement Grants – yearly: MASSDE administers non-competitive
grants to school districts to support professional development opportunities that increase educators
competencies in Meeting the Behavioral and Social Needs of a Diverse Student Population, and in
Curriculum Development, Instruction and Classroom Assessment.
 Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports Grant Program – 2006-2012: This competitive grant
program provides selected districts with training, resources and technical assistance to support the
implementation of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.
Finally, MASSDE administers several academic support programs each year that can help districts
reduce dropout of students with disabilities, including:
 Academic Support Services Grants: A number of grants fund school- and district-level programs that
provide additional instruction and tutoring for students who have not met the Competency
Determination requirement for graduation.
 Alternative Education: These programs are offered by districts for “at-risk” students, often in nontraditional settings. MASSDE actively promotes alternative education programs as a method of
reducing dropout, and hosted a statewide conference on Alternative Education in October of 2007.
 Dropout Prevention Liaisons: Starting this year, MASSDE is requiring all school districts to designate
a person at the district level to serve as the Dropout Prevention Liaison. This person is responsible
for communicating with MASSDE on issues regarding dropout prevention and recovery, and for
coordinating district-level initiatives.
 Secondary School Improvement initiatives: These MASSDE programs promote college- and careerreadiness, and include grants and conferences for high schools.
 Trauma-Sensitive Schools Program: MASSDE provides grants and resources to districts to support
comprehensive staff trainings and school-based initiatives that help schools meet the needs of at-risk
students and victims of trauma.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
Since the FFY 2005 APR submission, Massachusetts has revised the SPP targets for the statewide
Dropout Rate of students with disabilities. The targets have been revised to align with MASSDE’s goal of
closing the gap between the Dropout Rate of student with disabilities and the Dropout Rate of students
without disabilities over the next ten years. As such, our Measurable and Rigorous Targets now reflect
9
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
MASSDE’s goal of reducing the Dropout Rate for students with disabilities to 3.5% or lower by FFY 2015,
with targets decreasing in increments of approximately half of one percentage point every two years
between FFY 2005 and FFY 2015.
10
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 3: Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments:
A. Percent of districts meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for disability subgroup.
B. Participation rate for children with IEPs in a regular assessment with no accommodations; regular
assessment with accommodations; alternate assessment against grade level standards; alternate
assessment against alternate achievement standards.
C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level standards and alternate achievement
standards.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
Measurement:
A. Percent = # of districts meeting the State’s AYP objectives for progress for the disability
subgroup (children with IEPs) divided by the total # of districts in the State times 100.
B. Participation rate =
a. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed;
b. # of children with IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations (percent = b
divided by a times 100);
c. # of children with IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations (percent = c
divided by a times 100);
d. # of children with IEPs in alternate assessment against grade level standards (percent
= d divided by a times 100); and
e. # of children with IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate achievement
standards (percent = e divided by a times 100).
Account for any children included in a but not included in b, c, d, or e above
Overall Percent = b + c + d + e divided by a.
C. Proficiency rate =
a. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed;
b. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed who are proficient or above as measured by
the regular assessment with no accommodations (percent = b divided by a times 100);
c. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed who are proficient or above as measured by
the regular assessment with accommodations (percent = c divided by a times 100);
d. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed who are proficient or above as measured by
the alternate assessment against grade level standards (percent = d divided by a times
100); and
e. # of children with IEPs in grades assessed who are proficient or above as measured
against alternate achievement standards (percent = e divided by a times 100).
Overall Percent = b + c + d + e divided by a.
11
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
FFY
Submitted February 1, 2008
Measurable and Rigorous Targets
% Districts Meeting AYP for
Disability Subgroup (3A)
Participation Rate for
Students with IEPs (3B)
Proficiency Rate (CPI) for
Students with IEPs (3C)
ELA
MATH
ELA
MATH
ELA
MATH
Targets for
FFY 2006
(2006-2007)
45%
37%
99%
99%
85.4%
76.5%
Actual Target
Data for
FFY 2006
(2006-2007)
41.4%
43.6%
97.9%
97.6%
66.7%
54.0%
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
In order to meet the goal of students with disabilities achieving academic success, MASSDE works with
districts and schools to analyze student assessment data and implement effective improvement plans as
outlined in the MA SPP submitted in December 1, 2005.
During the FFY 2006, several improvement activities were completed:










School districts were provided with their AYP results detailing the outcomes for each subgroup.
Detailed MCAS files were provided to the districts so that schools can create item-analysis charts
to assist educators in identifying weakness and relevant relationships across student subgroups
and subject areas, and to inform staff professional development.
The Massachusetts Statewide Special Education Steering Committee met in December 2007 to
review current data and activities and give input on methods of data analysis.
The Student Achievement Interest Group focused on this indicator was given the opportunity to
review the data collected and gave input on the analysis, the possible reasons for slippage and
progress.
Superintendents and principals previewed preliminary 2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
data for schools and reported discrepancies.
Districts and schools making substantial gains in students’ achievement were identified
(Compass awards) and best practices were disseminated.
Analysis of the assessment data for students with disabilities, including testing accommodations
and the impact of key factors (e.g. disability type, educational environment, level of need) on
student performance is ongoing
School Panel reviews were conducted in order to determine districts that could be identified as
under-performing and in need of assistance.
Training and technical assistance, including analysis of student assessment data and
development of school improvement plans, were provided to districts and schools identified as
under-performing or in need of improvement.
Targeted workgroups focused on this indicator met to review improvement activities and results,
to revise TA as needed and to consider dissemination activities.
12
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
Analysis for Indicator 3A:
Change in Distrcts Making AYP
Percentage
Points
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Baseline-Target 2005 & 2006
ELA
MATH
45%
37%
Actual FFY 2005
25%
19%
Actual FFY 2006
41.4%
43.6%
The targets set for FFY 2006 maintained the baseline level of performance obtained for FFY 2004. The
data for FFY 2006 shows a slight slippage from the baseline data for English Language Arts (ELA).
However, there is a significant increase in the percentage of districts making AYP for special education
subgroups in ELA and Mathematics from the FFY 2005 data:
 In ELA the percentage increased from 25% to 41.4%; and
 For Mathematics, the percentage increased from 19% to 43.6%. This increase exceeded the
37%, the target set for FFY 2006.
Massachusetts is proud to report the increase in the percentage of districts making AYP for students with
disabilities in both ELA and Mathematics. MASSDE will continue to work with the focused indicator
workgroup to identify the performance gaps in our schools and districts that require attention so that we
will continue to meet the AYP targets. We will continue to work with educators to take the information from
the accountability reporting and use it to improve the performance of students with disabilities overall.
Analysis for Indicator 3B:
Participation Rate for Students with IEPs
Percentage
Points
100%
95%
90%
ELA
MATH
99%
99%
Actual FFY 2005
97.6%
97.7%
Actual FFY 2006
97.9%
97.7%
Baseline-Target 2005 & 2006
The baseline data (FFY 2004) indicated the participation rate for students with IEPs on statewide
assessments was better than 99%, which MASSDE characterized as full participation. The data for FFY
2006 reflects a minor slippage in the participation rate for students with IEPs on statewide assessment.
13
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
The participation rate was 97.9% and 97.7% on the ELA and Mathematics assessment respectively.
However, although MASSDE acknowledges that numerically this does represent minor slippage in
comparison to the targets set, MASSDE is satisfied that the participation rate continues to be excellent for
students with disabilities in state assessment programs.
Analysis for Indicator 3C:
The FFY 2006 Composite Performance Index (CPI) for students with disabilities is 66.7 in ELA and 54.0
in Math, which are below the targets of 85.4 for ELA and 76.5 for Mathematics set for this year. However,
as presented in the charts below, the data reflect an improvement in both ELA and Math from the
previous two years. The CPI in ELA was 65.0 in the baseline year of FFY 2004, was 64.8 in FFY 2005,
and has now risen to 66.7 in FFY 2006. In Mathematics, the CPI was 49.5 in the baseline year of FFY
2004, and increased to 51.5 in FFY 2005 and on to 54.0 in FFY 2006. This demonstrates that the state is
moving towards the targets set for FFY 2010.
MCAS Proficiency Rates CPI: English Language Arts
100
80
60
40
20
0
80.5
65
FFY 2004
85.4
66.7
80.5
64.8
FFY 2005
ELA-Target
ELA-Actual
FFY 2006
MCAS Proficiency Rates CPI: Mathematics
100
80
60
68.7
68.7
49.5
51.5
76.5
54
Math-Target
Math-Actual
40
20
0
FFY 2004
FFY 2005
FFY 2006
14
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
Public Reporting:
MASSDE has developed a resource titled “Special Education Results” that has been added to each
district’s profile on the MASSDE website to meet the requirement that district indicator data be publicly
reported. While data for Indicator 3 continue to be reported through tables, thematic maps have been
developed for some of the indicators and will be developed for more as Massachusetts continues its
implementation of activities for the MA SPP: http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/special_ed.aspx.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
Massachusetts has revised its data and targets for Indicator 3C to reflect the state performance targets
identified in No Child Left Behind (NCLB) because we are committed to having the same high
expectations for students with disabilities as we have for all students. Our methods of calculating our
performance are fully articulated in the SPP. Massachusetts has submitted a revised State Performance
Plan with the new baseline data and targets for Indicator 3C.
15
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 4: Rates of suspension and expulsion:
A. Percent of districts identified by the State as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of
suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year;
and
B. RMASSDERVED.
((20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A); 1412(a)(22))
Measurement:
A. Percent = [(# of districts identified by the State as having significant discrepancies in the
rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities for greater than 10 days in a
school year) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100.
B. RMASSDERVED.
Include State’s definition of “significant discrepancy.”
Indicator 4A
FFY
2006
(2006-2007)
Measurable and Rigorous Target
The % of districts with a significant discrepancy finding will be 0%
Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
2006-07
Special Education
Enrollment
2006-07
State Suspension/
Expulsion Rate
% of districts with
suspension/ expulsion
rate that is five times
State Rate*
% of districts with a
finding of “significant
discrepancy”**
1.1%
0.29%
(4 districts)
(1 district)
*Districts with fewer than 30 students in special education were removed from this part of the
analysis. The total number of districts included in the analysis was 347.
**The calculation is (1/347)*100.
163,396
1.0%
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
Explanation of Progress or Slippage:
The data presented in the table above is based on the state’s definition of ‘significant discrepancy’ -- a
district having a suspension rate of five times the state rate for two consecutive years. One district (0.29%
of all districts) met the threshold of exceeding the state rate by five times for two years in a row and was
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
found to have a ‘significant discrepancy’ in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of children with
disabilities for greater than 10 days in a school year. This exceeds our rigorous target of 0% for each
year. MASSDE will review the district’s policies and procedures relating to the development and
implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural
safeguards, and will require the LEA to revise it’s policies, practices, and procedures as appropriate.
The data presented above also indicate the emergence of two trends in our rates of suspension and
expulsion for students with disabilities. The first trend is a potential cause for concern – over the past
three years, the state suspension/expulsion rate for students with disabilities has increased. The FFY
2004 rate was 0.514%, the FFY 2005 rate was 0.916%, and the FFY 2006 rate is 1.0%. As an initial step
in investigating this increase, MASSDE continues to upgrade our activities in regards to ensuring that the
data is appropriately reported. MASSDE continues to consider the main effort in this area to rest with
appropriate procedures to ensure good reporting and an effective review of policies and procedures.
The second trend identified is more positive. Despite the increase in the suspension/expulsion rate of
students with disabilities, the number of districts found each year to have five times the state
suspension/expulsion rate has decreased. In FFY 2004, 6 districts exceeded this threshold. The number
of districts has since decreased to 4 districts in both FFY 2005 and FFY 2006.
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed:
In order to meet the goal of students with disabilities achieving academic success, MASSDE continued its
work with districts and schools to analyze School Safety and Discipline Report (SSDR) data and
implement effective improvement plans outlined in the State Performance Plan submitted in December 1,
2005.
During the FFY 2006, several improvement activities were completed:
 Met with Massachusetts Statewide Special Education Steering Committee to review current data
and identify potential improvement activities.
 Identified the districts that have a suspension/expulsion rate for students with an IEP that is five
times greater than the state rate.
 Reviewed the flagged districts’ policies, practices, and data reporting procedures for a finding of
significant discrepancy.
 Met with the targeted workgroup focused on this indicator. Discussion included how to best
ensure that districts are using the same definition of “suspension” when reporting their data.
 Met with Massachusetts Statewide Special Education Steering Committee to review current data
disaggregated by number of suspensions. Discussion included determining a threshold for a
district.
 Reviewed and revised the procedures used for policy and practice review and data verification
review.
 Provided technical assistance to district data coordinators on calculating “suspensions” and
correct reporting through the SSDR.
 Pulled a sample of districts with a low or no suspension and some with a high suspension rate,
Invited these districts to be part of this forum. Met with selected districts to begin development of
a ‘School District Self-Review Monitoring Protocol’ for suspension of students with disabilities
Additionally, over this past year, MASSDE further developed its public reporting of suspension/expulsion
data and other Special Education data. The department worked with stakeholder groups and staff from a
number of school districts to determine the best way to publicly report these data at an LEA level. As a
result of these efforts, MASSDE has developed a resource titled “Special Education Results” that has
been added to each district’s profile on the MASSDE website to meet the requirement that district
indicator data be publicly reported. Data for Indicator 4a are reported through tables, and thematic maps
have been developed to display data for some of the other indicators:
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/special_ed.aspx.
17
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
In the Part B FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table, OSEP stated that the state was not complying with 34
CFR § 300.170 in its definition of ‘significant discrepancy’. Massachusetts has revised its definition of
‘significant discrepancy’ to be consistent with Federal requirements. Significant discrepancy is defined as
having a suspension rate of five times the state rate for two consecutive years. MASSDE is submitting a
revised State Performance Plan submission for this indicator to reflect this change.
Additionally, in past years, Massachusetts reported that it identified several districts for a review of
policies and procedures for having a suspension/expulsion rate five times the state rate: (1) five districts
in FFY 2003; (2) six districts in FFY 2004; and (3) four districts in FFY 2005. In the Part B FFY 2005
SPP/APR Response Table, OSEP requested that the state report on our review of these districts.
MASSDE has reviewed all of the districts’ policies, practices and procedures relating to the development
and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural
safeguards. Based on the reviews, MASSDE did not find cause to require any of the districts to revise
their policies or procedures.
18
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 5: Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21:
A. Removed from regular class less than 21% of the day;
B. Removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day; or
C. Served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital
placements.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))
Measurement:
A. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs removed from regular class less than 21% of the day) divided
by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.
B. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day)
divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.
C. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served in public or private separate schools, residential
placements, or homebound or hospital placements) divided by the (total # of students aged 6
through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.
Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY
% of children with IEPs
aged 6 through 21 in
full inclusion
(Indicator 5A)
% of children with IEPs
aged 6 through 21 in
substantially separate
placements
(Indicator 5B)
% of children with IEPs
aged 6 through 21 in outof-district placements
(Indicator 5C)
43.4%
16.2%
6.8%
2006
(2006-2007)
Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
% of children with IEPs
aged 6 through 21 in full
inclusion
(Indicator 5A)
% of children with IEPs
aged 6 through 21 in
substantially separate
placements
(Indicator 5B)
% of children with IEPs
aged 6 through 21 in outof-district placements
(Indicator 5C)
53.0%
15.3%
6.7%
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
In FFY 2005, the total number of students with disabilities ages 6-21 was 146,807. In FFY 2006, the total
number of students with disabilities ages 6-21 was 149,211. This constitutes a 1.6% increase in students
receiving special education services in the state.
Despite this increase in the number of special education students, in FFY 2006 Massachusetts has
exceeded its target for full inclusion. MASSDE is very pleased with the progress that has been made in
this area. One reason for the increase in full inclusion could be due to the fact that districts are doing a
better job in reporting data, since a change was made in 2002 in the definition of full inclusion. In
addition, it is believed that districts are implementing practices that promote full inclusion of all students.
The data support this by showing an increase in full inclusion close in size to the decrease in partial
inclusion.
As a state, the three disability categories that have increased the most in full inclusion from 2003-04 to
2006-07 are:
 Physical (49.2% in 2003-04; 71.9% in 2006-07);
 Health (45.9% in 2003-04; 67.5% in 2006-07); and
 SLD (38.9% in 2003-04; 60.3% in 2006-07).
The chart below shows the change in full inclusion from 2003-04 (baseline data) to 2006-07 for all
disability categories.
Change in Full Inclusion from 2003-2007
percentage point change
25
22.7
21.6
20
16.5
21.4
17.2
14.8
15
11.3
10
7.4
16.0
13.3
6.4
4.1
5
2.1
ie
s
is
ab
i lit
H
ea
om
l th
m
un
ic
Se
at
io
ns
n
or
y
V
is
io
n
Em
ot
io
Se
na
ns
l
or
Ph
y
Sp
ys
H
ec
ic
ar
al
d
i fi
c
of
Le
H
ar
ea
ni
rin
ng
g
Di
sa
bi
l it
ie
s
D
ea
fb
D
l in
ev
d
el
op
m
en
ta
N
l
eu
ro
lo
gi
ca
l
In
te
l le
ct
ua
l
C
M
ul
tip
le
D
Au
t is
m
0
Substantially separate and out-of-district placements stayed virtually the same from one year to the next
and continued efforts need to be made to move these settings closer to the long-term goals that have
been set. There have, however, been some changes in the use of substantially separate settings by
students with different disability types. All but two disability types decreased their use of substantially
separate placements between 2003 and 2007. Students with intellectual disabilities and neurological
disabilities increased their use of substantially separate placements, although the change in substantially
separate placements for students with neurological disabilities is nominal (.03 percentage points).
20
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006

For students with intellectual disabilities, partial inclusion is decreasing, but those
students are relatively evenly split between full inclusion placements and substantially
separate placements.
Difference
from
2003-2007

Submitted February 1, 2008
Full Inclusion
Partial
Inclusion
+4.1%
-8.4%
Substantially
Separate Out of District
+4.2%
0.1%
For students with neurological disabilities, the increase in substantially separate settings
is nominal (increase of .03 percentage points). However, there is a significant movement
from partial inclusion to full inclusion (16 percentage points).
Difference
from
2003-2007
Full Inclusion
Partial
Inclusion
+16.0%
-16.5%
Substantially
Separate Out of District
+0.03%
+0.4%
In the category of out-of-district placements, students who are Deaf/Blind have increased the most in their
use with 6.6 percentage points from 2003-2007. Students with autism have also increased use of out-ofdistricts placements over the past three years by 0.6 percentage points. There are also students in other
disability categories that have decreased use of out-of-district placements. These include:



Emotional Disabilities (decrease of 2.5 percentage points);
Health (decrease of 1.1 percentage points); and
Multiple Disabilities (decrease of 0.5 percentage points).
Changes in Out of District Placements from 2003-2007
Autism
8
Multiple Disabilites
6.61
Health
Percentage Points
6
Communication
Sensory Vision
4
Emotional
2
Pyhsical
0.59
0.27
0.04 0
0
-2
-0.52
-1.05
-0.3
0.09
0.42
0.14
Sensory Hard of Hearing
Specific Learning Disabilities
Deafblind
Developmental
-2.49
-4
0.14
Neurological
Intellectual
These changes indicate that while students who are Deafblind or with autism are increasing in out-ofdistrict placements, students in most disability categories are holding steady or increasing their inclusive
practices.
21
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
Several activities have occurred around LRE that have contributed to the state’s increase in full inclusion.
The Special Education Planning and Policy Development office holds Special Education Summer
Institutes each year, which include topics such as:
 Managing Behavior in an Inclusive Classroom;
 Teaching Strategies for Students with Vision Impairments, Blindness or Deafblindness;
and
 Teaching Strategies for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders in the General
Education Classroom.
In addition, MASSDE offers annual Content Institutes over the summer that are designed to support
teacher learning and development of skills for standards-based instruction. In 2006-07, institutes were
offered in Science and Technology, Math, Reading and Writing, and the Arts. In addition to these
institutes, the Special Education Planning and Policy Development office funded over 400 Program
Improvement grants to districts across the state. This grant includes five priority areas:
 Enhancing Induction and Mentoring Programs;
 Serving Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders in Inclusive Settings;
 Curriculum Development, Instruction and Classroom Assessment;
 Meeting the Behavioral and Social Needs of a Diverse Student Population; and
 Recruitment and/or Additional Professional Development Needs as Identified by the
District or Educational Collaborative.
Over this past year, MASSDE further developed its public reporting of LRE data and other Special
Education data. The department worked with stakeholder groups and staff from a number of school
districts to determine the best way to publicly report these data at an LEA level. As a result of these
efforts, MASSDE has developed a resource titled “Special Education Results” that has been added to
each district’s profile on the MASSDE website to meet the requirement that district indicator data be
publicly reported. Data for Indicator 5 are reported through tables, and thematic maps have been
developed to display the full inclusion rate for students with disabilities for each district:
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/special_ed.aspx.
Finally, MASSDE staff is working to analyze data both at the district and student level to determine
appropriate technical assistance to ensure students are educated in the most appropriate, least restrictive
environment for their educational needs.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
Based on the progress that has been made in all three placement areas, MASSDE considers that it has
met or exceeded its FFY 2006 targets. As a result, MASSDE is submitting a revised State Performance
Plan to revise the targets for this indicator. Technical assistance activities will continue to ensure
accurate placements are made for students and there is an increase in full inclusion. In the original SPP,
MASSDE anticipated that with the decrease in out-of-district placements, there would be an increase in
substantially separate placements. However, based on the past two years of data as noted above, most
of the substantially separate placements have decreased as well. Therefore, new targets are being set to
decrease the percentage of students in substantially separate settings. MASSDE enjoys a strong
relationship with the 144 Special Education Approved Private Schools (APS) across the state. Each of
these schools self identify the population they serve by disability, age, and gender and the MASSDE
Program Quality Assurance office monitors their compliance. Because there are such varied and rich
options available to students with disabilities within the state, MASSDE is hesitant to reduce the targets
for out-of-district placements at this time.
Based on the progress that has been made in all three target areas, the improvement activities, timelines
and resources for FFY 2006 remain appropriate.
22
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
Revised targets:
Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY
% of children with
IEPs aged 6 through
21 in full inclusion
(Indicator 5A)
% of children with IEPs
aged 6 through 21 in
substantially separate
placements (Indicator 5B)
% of children with IEPs
aged 6 through 21 in outof-district placements
(Indicator 5C)
2005
(2005-2006)
43.4%
16.2%
6.8%
2006
(2006-2007)
43.4%
16.2%
6.8%
2007
(2007-2008)
54.3%
15.1%
6.2%
2008
(2008-2009)
55.5%
14.9%
6.2%
2009
(2009-2010)
56.8%
14.7%
5.9%
2010
(2010-2011)
58%
14.5%
5.5%
23
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 8: Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools
facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))
Measurement: Percent = [(# of respondent parents who report schools facilitated parent
involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities) divided by
the (total # of respondent parents of children with disabilities)] times 100.
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2006
(2006-2007)
76%
Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007): 77%
[Calculation: (5,282 surveys that met the standard / 6,872 returned surveys) * 100]
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
In order to collect data for this indicator, MASSDE uses the “School’s Efforts to Partner with Parent scale
from the Part B survey instrument developed by the National Center for Special Education Accountability
Monitoring (NCSEAM). This 25-item scale (survey) addresses Indicator # 8 (see Appendix A for the
survey). Massachusetts’ Indicator # 8 stakeholder group adapted the survey via the “Item Bank” provided
by NCSEAM. Additional technical information on this survey instrument is available on the NCSEAM
website (http://www.monitoringcenter.lsuhsc.edu/parent_family_involvement.htm).
To ease the data collection activity burden for districts, MASSDE divided its 387 LEAs into four cohorts
that are representative of the state as a whole, and is collecting and reporting data on this indicator based
on a four-year cycle (2005-06 through 2008-09). This cohort model and plan for data collection was
approved by OSEP. Over a four-year period, every district in the state will have participated in the data
collection activities for this indicator. Because it has an average daily membership of over 50,000
students, Boston participates in all activities every year. Further information on the cohort model can be
found at: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/2006/0522idea.html.
To date, one half of Massachusetts’ districts (or two of four cohorts – 194 LEAs) have participated in the
parent survey activity. Survey rounds were conducted in fall 2006 and spring 2007, each with a different
group of districts. Surveys and cover letters were distributed to parents in three languages: English,
Spanish, and Portuguese.
In order to calculate the percentage to report on this indicator, MASSDE considered the responses of
parents for each survey item where “very strongly agree”, “strongly agree”, or “agree” was the response.
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
The measure adopted for Massachusetts’ SPP to show “that schools facilitated parent involvement as a
means of improving services and results for children with disabilities” requires agreement on at least 50%
of the survey items (13 of 25).
The percentage for FFY 2005 (survey conducted in fall 2006) as initially reported was 76%. This was
reported in the FFY 2005 SPP submission in February 2007. Late submissions of surveys increased the
positive results (77.2%). However, MASSDE will continue to base our reporting on the 76% achieved at
the time of the required FFY 2005 APR submission.
The FFY 2006 percentage (survey conducted in spring 2007) is as listed above: 77%. These results
include an all-online pilot that was conducted in three districts. 40,476 parents were surveyed and 6,872
responded, resulting in an overall return rate of 17%. The language breakdown is as follows:
 English: 37,746 sent and 6,664 returned. Return rate: 17.7%.
 Spanish: 2,408 sent and 195 returned. Return rate: 8.1%.
 Portuguese: 322 sent and 13 returned. Return rate: 4.0%.
Both the FFY 2005 and FFY 2006 results (76% and 77% respectively) are statistically consistent with one
another. In both of the survey administrations conducted, the item reliability has met or exceeded
NCSEAM’s standard of .90 (.93 for both administrations of the survey).
This indicator is an area around which there has been a great deal of activity. The stakeholder interest
group has met several times, both in-person and virtually, via conference call. Calls were conducted in
April 2007 to review the fall 2006 parent survey results. Later, feedback was solicited from particular
districts on how to best format and present them with their individual district results. This feedback was
incorporated into the final report template, impacting the way in which those results were presented to
districts. When they were mailed the results for their particular district, LEAs also received an
accompanying technical assistance letter. This letter offered suggestions on how to read and understand
their report, as well as how to work with their results in their community. Once all 194 districts were
mailed their results (from fall 2006 and spring 2007 survey rounds) and technical assistance letter, they
were invited to participate in conference calls to discuss their district’s results.
There are several projects related to parent involvement in which MASSDE is currently engaged. Our
Parent Advisory Council (PAC) Guidance Document is under revision and soon to be re-issued/updated.
This document will offer suggestions to special education parent advisory councils across Massachusetts
on how to succeed in achieving their mission. In addition, each year, MASSDE offers Special Education
Summer Professional Development institutes. These are offered at no cost to the participating educator,
where he/she is provided with 67.5 hours toward re-licensure and the option of taking the course(s) for
graduate credit. Two of the institutes are particularly relevant to the topic of parent involvement: the
Special Education Administrative Leadership Academy and IEP Team Facilitation Skills. For detailed
information on the institutes, please see http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/2007/institutes.pdf.
Finally, MASSDE is fortunate to have been funded for both a State Improvement Grant (SIG) and a State
Personnel Development Grant (SPDG). These grants have provided Massachusetts with funding for
Project FOCUS Academy and Massachusetts FOCUS Academy, respectively. Project FOCUS Academy
is in nine high schools across Massachusetts, where educators and other interested parties, including
parents, were offered online courses in three areas: Universal Design for Learning, Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports, and Secondary Transition. Massachusetts FOCUS Academy’s goal is to
spread such opportunities statewide, creating an “online university”, including courses that are designed
to improve and facilitate parental involvement. Among our partners on these grants has been the
Federation for Children with Special Needs (FCSN), our statewide parent organization in Massachusetts.
FCSN has conducted parent presentations on the three course topics in Project FOCUS Academy, and
has created FAQ sheets and PowerPoint presentations on each area as well. These materials will be
made available to parents in hard copy form, and will be posted online, along with course materials.
In the coming months, we will continue to work with our stakeholder interest group around matters such
as increasing survey return rates, raising the overall percentage that is reported to OSEP, and public
25
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
reporting. We are also working on the compilation of a technical assistance document / resource list for
districts, containing information on best practices around parent involvement and partnership with
families. We look forward to continuing and expanding upon our collaboration/partnership with the
Federation for Children with Special Needs.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
MASSDE believes that the proposed targets in this indicator area remain appropriate at this time.
Massachusetts will consider revising targets once all districts have been surveyed and the entire
Massachusetts data set has been obtained and analyzed.
MASSDE recently renewed its contract with Macro International and Ashton Associates for project
completion of survey mailings and data collection/processing/analysis.
Improvement activities, timelines, and resources as previously outlined remain appropriate at this time.
26
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality
Indicator 9: Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special
education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C))
Measurement: Percent = [(# of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic
groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification)
divided by (# of districts in the State)] times 100.
State’s definition of “disproportionate representation”:
Massachusetts defines “disproportionate representation” using a calculation of weighted or alternate
risk ratio and a review of the appropriateness of a district’s policies and procedures for identifying
students as disabled.
MASSDE calculates a weighted or alternate risk ratio for each school district using the techniques
described in detail in Westat’s “Methods for Assessing Racial/Ethnic Disproportionality in Special
Education” (http://www.nichcy.org/training/B-resources.pdf). The state uses a minimum cell size of
20 for each race/ethnic group in every district. Cells less than 20 are individually reviewed to see if
data irregularities for specific racial and ethnic groups in these districts would suggest
disproportionate representation due to inappropriate identification. Once the calculation is made for
each district, the weighted risk ratios are compared to the two previous years’ weighted risk ratios.
Districts are flagged if for 3 consecutive years, they exhibit a weighted risk ratio of 3.0 or greater for
possible over-representation, and of .25 or less for possible under-representation.
All districts identified by way of quantitative analysis are then subject to a review of the
appropriateness of their policies, practices, and procedures (PPPs) for special education eligibility
determination and disability identification.
Description of determination that disproportionate representation is due to inappropriate
identification:
Any district identified using the measurement techniques described above submitted their current
PPPs to MASSDE where they were reviewed by a committee of policy analysts and compliance
specialists. If the committee concluded that the PPPs were inappropriate or otherwise inconsistent
with federal and state regulations, and concluded that the PPPs likely caused the disproportionate
representation at least to some degree, then a district was identified as having disproportionate
representation due to inappropriate identification.
Regarding the FFY 2005 measurement:
In the FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table, MASSDE was cited for not having provided FFY 2005
baseline data. As a result, OSEP required that MASSDE “must provide, in its FFY 2006 APR,
baseline data from FFY 2005 on the percent of districts identified with disproportionate
representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that was the
result of inappropriate identification, and describe how the State made that determination…”
MASSDE used the same numerical definition for the FFY 2005 and FFY 2006 definitions of
disproportionate representation. However, in determining that the disproportionate representation is
due to inappropriate identification practices, the process differed slightly: rather than asking districts
what their PPPs were 2 years ago, MASSDE used existing PPP information from recent
27
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
Coordinated Program Reviews and Mid-Cycle Coordinated Program Reviews.
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2005
(2005-2006)
0%
2006
(2006-2007)
0%
Actual Target Data for FFY 2005 (2005-2006) and FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
Because MASSDE did not report the baseline data for FFY 2005 in last year’s report, OSEP has required
that MASSDE report it this year. Calculating the weighted risk ratios for FFY 2005 over-representation
produced zero districts that met the criteria of three consecutive years of a WRR of 3.0 or higher. In
terms of FFY 2005 under-representation, the calculation yielded zero districts with a WRR of .25 or lower
for three consecutive years. Because zero districts met the criteria for the determination of overrepresentation and under-representation in FFY 2005, MASSDE met its measurable and rigorous target
of 0%.
In the FFY 2006 analysis, the calculations yielded similar results. For over-representation, the calculation
produced zero districts that met the criteria of three consecutive years of a WRR of 3.0 or higher. For
under-representation, the calculation yielded zero districts with a WRR of .25 or lower for three
consecutive years. Because zero districts met the criteria for the determination of over-representation
and under-representation in FFY 2006, MASSDE met its measurable and rigorous target of 0%.
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
As noted in the MA SPP, MASSDE planned to improve its disproportionality monitoring process by
shifting oversight from the Coordinated Program Review process, which only targeted approximately one
sixth of the districts in the state each year, to the Office of Strategic Planning, Research, and Evaluation
(OSPRE). This shift in responsibilities constitutes a new improvement in MASSDE’s capacity to address
disproportionality in all districts. OSPRE conducts the data analysis using various statistical packages,
uses that data to determine the “cut points,” and then reviews policies, practices and procedures in those
districts.
In another new improvement, OSPRE conducts intervention procedures for all districts in the state that
were identified as having disproportionate representation, and does so on a yearly basis. MASSDE’s
annual review of district policies, practices, and procedures is a new and important step toward verifying
that districts are identifying special education students in an appropriate manner.
Additionally, MASSDE has made progress in its calculation and definition of “significant disproportionality”
based on race and ethnicity. Prior to this year and as noted in OSEP’s response to the MA SPP
submitted for this indicator in FFY 2005, MASSDE had not fully accounted for the difference between
“disproportionate representation” and “significant disproportionality.” As of this year and annually
hereafter, MASSDE is defining “significant disproportionality” as “any district with a weighted risk ratio or
alternate risk ratio for special education identification, placement, and disciplinary actions, exceeding 5.0
for four consecutive years, and whose weighted risk ratio or alternate risk ratio is growing more
disproportionate (i.e., becoming more and more over-represented) in each of those four years.” MASSDE
28
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
has made its determination of districts this year based on this definition. If MASSDE identifies a district
with “significant disproportionality,” it (1) directs the district to review (and, if appropriate) revision of
policies, procedures, and practices; (2) requires the district to reserve the maximum amount of funds to
be used for early intervening services; and (3) requires the district to publicly report on the revision of
policies, procedures, and practices.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
Massachusetts has met the rigorous, proposed target of 0% districts with disproportionate representation
of racial and ethnic groups receiving special education or related services due to inappropriate
identification. In addition to this accomplishment, MASSDE has identified a number of improvement
activities that will strengthen the disproportionality monitoring process.
Improvement Activity: ”Develop a self-assessment tool for districts that are ‘flagged’ for potential
disproportionality. Districts use the self-assessment tool to examine their own policies and procedures
regarding special education eligibility and disability definition.”
The disproportionality self-assessment has been a success in many other states, and it is MASSDE’s
plan to have a similar self-assessment tool prepared for use in districts next year. The tool will
supplement the existing intervention procedure (the desk review of a district’s policies, practices and
procedures).
Timelines: Winter/Spring 2008 for its development; Summer 2008 for its use.
Resources: State of New Jersey self-assessment, State of New York self-assessment, NCCRESt
Improvement Activity: ”Develop broader and more robust communications with state disproportionality
stakeholders, and create more discrete responsibilities, more frequent opportunities for interaction, and
specific annual goals for the SPP disproportionality workgroup.”
To this point, the SPP disproportionality workgroup has maintained sporadic membership, communicated
infrequently, and at least to some extent has not been utilized to its potential. MASSDE depends on
these stakeholders to provide guidance and external accountability, and in its current state, the
workgroup has not been used adequately to those ends. It is MASSDE’s goal to increase
communications, improve the quality of those communications, increase stakeholder accountability, and
regularly consult with the workgroup regarding formulae, thresholds, and district intervention practices.
Timelines: Ongoing.
Resources: Institutions of Higher Education (Harvard University, etc.), OSPRE Research and Evaluation
Advisory Group, District Administration, MASSDE website
Improvement Activity: ”Broaden public awareness of disproportionality by way of an online resource for all
things relating to disproportionality in Massachusetts.”
A web-based resource devoted to providing the latest data and research on the topic of disproportionality
would increase the profile and the transparency of this issue. Included in this online resource will be a
research report that MASSDE will soon publish on the state of disproportionality in the commonwealth.
The research report will examine national trends, examine Massachusetts’ trends, and provide the
MASSDE with a contextual framework through which it can improve its assistance to districts and
students.
29
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
Timelines: Spring/Summer 2008.
Resources: Research organizations (Westat, NCCRESt, RAND, etc.), Institutions of Higher Education,
MASSDE website
30
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality
Indicator 10: Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in
specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C))
Measurement: Percent = [(# of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic
groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification) divided by (#
of districts in the State)] times 100.
State’s definition of “disproportionate representation”:
Massachusetts defines “disproportionate representation” using a calculation of weighted or alternate
risk ratio and a review of the appropriateness of a district’s policies and procedures for identifying
students as disabled.
MASSDE calculates a weighted or alternate risk ratio for every school district in each of the six
required disability categories (intellectual impairment, specific learning disabilities, emotional
disturbance, speech/language impairments, other health impairments, autism) using the techniques
described in detail in Westat’s “Methods for Assessing Racial/Ethnic Disproportionality in Special
Education” (http://www.nichcy.org/training/B-resources.pdf). The state uses a minimum cell size of
10 for each racial/ethnic disability group in every district. Cells less than 10 are individually reviewed
to see if data irregularities for specific racial and ethnic groups in these districts would suggest
disproportionate representation due to inappropriate identification. Once the calculation is made for
each district, the weighted risk ratios are compared to the two previous years’ weighted risk ratios.
Districts are flagged if for 3 consecutive years, they exhibit a weighted risk ratio of 4.0 or greater for
possible over-representation, and of .20 or less for possible under-representation.
All districts identified by way of this quantitative analysis are then subject to a review of the
appropriateness of their policies, practices, and procedures (PPPs) for special education eligibility
determination and disability identification.
Description of determination that disproportionate representation is due to inappropriate
identification:
Districts identified using the measurement techniques described above submitted their current PPPs
to the MASSDE (or MASSDE verified recent compliance information/reviews) where the PPPs were
reviewed by a committee of policy analysts and compliance specialists. If the committee concluded
that the PPPs were inappropriate or otherwise inconsistent with federal and state regulations, and
concluded that the PPPs likely caused the disproportionate representation at least to some degree,
then a district was identified as having disproportionate representation due to inappropriate
identification.
Regarding the FFY 2005 measurement:
In the FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table, MASSDE was cited for not having provided FFY 2005
baseline data. As a result, OSEP required that MASSDE “must provide, in its FFY 2006 APR,
baseline data from FFY 2005 on the percent of districts identified with disproportionate
representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that was the
result of inappropriate identification, and describe how the State made that determination…”
MASSDE used the same numerical definition for the FFY 2005 and FFY 2006 definitions of
31
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
disproportionate representation. However, in determining that the disproportionate representation is
due to inappropriate identification practices, the process differed slightly: rather than asking districts
what their PPPs were 2 years ago, MASSDE used existing PPP information from recent
Coordinated Program Reviews and Mid-Cycle Coordinated Program Reviews.
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2005
(2005-2006)
0%
2006
(2006-2007)
0%
Actual Target Data for FFY 2005 (2005-2006) and FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
Because MASSDE did not report the baseline data for FFY 2005 in last year’s report, OSEP has required
that MASSDE report it this year. Calculating the weighted risk ratios for FFY 2005 over-representation
produced seven districts that met the criteria of three consecutive years of a WRR of 4.0 or higher. Using
the existing PPP information from recent Coordinated Program Reviews and Mid-Cycle Coordinated
Program Reviews, MASSDE determined that none of these districts had inappropriate special education
identification procedures.
In terms of FFY 2005 under-representation, the calculation yielded 11 districts with a WRR of .20 or lower
for three consecutive years. Using the existing PPP information from recent Coordinated Program
Reviews and Mid-Cycle Coordinated Program Reviews, MASSDE determined that none of these districts
had inappropriate special education identification procedures. Because zero districts met the criteria for
the determination of over-representation and under-representation in FFY 2005, MASSDE met its
measurable and rigorous target of 0%.
In the FFY 2006 analysis, the calculations yielded similar results. For over-representation, the calculation
produced eleven districts that met the criteria of three consecutive years of a WRR of 4.0 or higher.
MASSDE then conducted a review of these two districts’ policies, practices, and procedures, and found
that the PPPs were sound, and that the disproportionality was not due to inappropriate PPPs.
For under-representation in FFY 2006, the calculation yielded 12 districts with a WRR of .20 or lower for
three consecutive years. MASSDE then conducted a review of these districts’ policies, practices, and
procedures, and found that the PPPs were sound, and that the disproportionality was not due to
inappropriate PPPs. Because zero districts met the criteria for the determination of over-representation
and under-representation in FFY 2006, MASSDE met its measurable and rigorous target of 0%.
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
MASSDE’s improvement activities and explanation of progress for this indicator are the same as for
Indicator 9.
32
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
MASSDE revisions and improvement activities for this indicator are the same as for Indicator 9.
33
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Child Find
Indicator 11: Percent of children with parental consent to evaluate, who were evaluated within 60 days
(or State established timeline).
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Measurement:
a. # of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received.
b. # determined not eligible whose evaluations were completed within State established
timeline.
c. # determined eligible whose evaluations were completed within State established timeline.
Account for children included in a but not included in b or c. Indicate the range of days beyond the
timeline when the evaluation was completed and any reasons for the delays.
Percent = [(b + c) divided by (a)] times 100.
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2007
(2007-2008)
100%
Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
Based on 85 districts reporting on initial evaluations conducted in the months of October, November, and
December of 2006:
a. 2,825 children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received
b. 1,015 children whose initial evaluations were completed within the State established timeline and
found not eligible for special education services
c. 1,636 children whose initial evaluations were completed within the State established timeline and
found eligible for special education services
% of children with parental consent to evaluate, who were evaluated within the State
established timeline: 93.8% (1015+1636)/2825
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
The current figure of 93.8% includes cases where the evaluation was completed within the State
established timeline, and also includes cases in which the district had an acceptable reason for not
meeting the timeline. These are reasons that were beyond the district’s control, including school
cancellation due to weather, parent scheduling needs, and significant student absenteeism.
In order to obtain student level data, MASSDE required each district selected for this monitoring activity to
collect information and report data on all initial evaluations conducted during October, November, and
34
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
December of 2006. For additional information on the data collection process as approved by OSEP,
please refer to Indicator 11 of the MA SPP.
In examining the 174 cases in which a district did not meet the timeline and did not have an acceptable
reason, the most common reason was due to district scheduling conflicts (16.9% of the missed timelines).
Insufficient staff availability and/or availability of outside evaluators was the second most common reason
(10.0%), and “lack of qualified staff to complete the evaluation on time” was the other most common
reason (5.3%). Of the cases that missed the timeline, the average number of days beyond the 45-day
timeline for evaluation and eligibility determination was 15 school working days. This is an improvement
of 2.5 working days from the previous data collection effort that was 17.5 working days.
Compared with the first cohort’s data collection effort (88.5% in compliance) reported in FFY 2005,
MASSDE has seen a rise of 5.3 percentage points in the number of students for whom initial evaluations
are conducted within the State established timeline.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
In the FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table, OSEP noted that “data demonstrating correction of
noncompliance identified in FFY 2005” must be provided in the FFY 2006 APR submission. Through the
data collection and analysis process described above, 14 districts were identified as not in compliance
with this indicator in FFY 2005. These districts were notified and completed corrective action reports that
were submitted to MASSDE within one year of the date of the finding. The corrective action report
required identified districts to detail the steps taken to remedy any noncompliance by describing the
policies and procedures that have been implemented to ensure that the district is able to meet the
required evaluation timelines. All 14 identified districts (100%) completed their corrective actions and
have successfully remedied any noncompliance within one year of the date of the finding.
The next cohort of districts will participate in data collection for this indicator in Spring 2008. MASSDE will
refine it’s data collection instrument to collect more detailed information from districts regarding barriers to
meeting State established timelines, and will use this information to assist districts in their efforts to
achieve 100% compliance.
All improvement activities, timelines and resources for FFY 2006 remain appropriate.
35
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition
Indicator 12: Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, and
who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Measurement:
a. # of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for eligibility determination.
b. # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibilities were determined prior
to their third birthdays.
c. # of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays.
d. # of children for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial
services.
Account for children included in a) but not included in b, c or d. Indicate the range of days beyond
the third birthday when eligibility was determined and the IEP developed and the reasons for the
delays.
Percent = [(c) divided by (a – b – d)] times 100.
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2006
(2006-2007)
100%
Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
a. 5,515 children served in Part C and referred to Part B for eligibility determination.
b. 866 of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibilities were determined prior to
their third birthdays.
c. 3099 of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays.
d. 789 children for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial
services.
[(3099) divided by (5515 – 866 – 789) x 100] = 80.3%
This shows an increase of 1% from the FFY 2004 baseline (77%) and a 6% increase from the FFY 2005
APR submission (72% OSEP revised).
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
In FFY 2006, the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care (EEC) revised its data
collection to align with the Measurement Criteria in Indicator 12 so we can more accurately report on
LEAs’ compliance performance. This year, we asked LEAs to report on the number of children whose
36
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
eligibility could not be determined due to parent refusal to provide consent, continue through the eligibility
determination, or return a signed IEP. Districts reported 789 (14%) of parents refused consent, refused to
follow through with the eligibility determination or to return a proposed IEP. In addition, this year we asked
districts to report on the number of eligible children served after they turned three, and how many had
proposed IEPs prior to turning three. Districts originally reported of the 705, and with revised data
corrections yielded 697, children served after age 3, 439 (62%) of them had an IEP proposed to the
family by the child’s third birthday. While we can only speculate why these proposed IEPs were not
implemented, we know that districts are not consistently allowing 30 calendar days for parents to review,
sign and return an IEP. Of the 697, 62 were served one to two days following their third birthdays; 140
were served 3-5 days following their third birthdays; and 100 were served 6-10 days after turning three;
136 were served 2-4 weeks after turning three; and finally 259 were served 1 month or more after turning
three. We also collected data on the reasons for delays in serving eligible children by age three. Of the
705 children served after three, districts reported reasons on 265 children who did not have an IEP
proposed and presented to the parent prior to the child’s third birthday. Unfortunately, we can put little
faith in the reliability of these data. For example, Indicator 12 speaks specifically to children coming from
Part C, found eligible and served. Many of the reasons for delays speak to children referred from Head
Start after turning three; parents who refused to attend meetings or changed appointments; late referrals
that did not allow sufficient time to complete the process. All of these reasons fall outside the scope of
what is being evaluated as part of Indicator 12 Part C to Part B transitions. In addition, many districts
misinterpreted the definition of an implemented IEP. Districts applied a very literal interpretation of served
by age three and counted those children with summer birthdays, or birthdays on weekends or school
vacations as served after turning three, but they had signed IEPs from the families prior to the child’s third
birthday. Next year, EEC intends to provide districts with an online data collection tool as part of the early
childhood special education grant, with cell protections and drop down menus with reasons. The districts
will select from a standard menu so that one district’s parent refusal is not another district’s parent who
postpones meetings; or allow reports of Head Start referrals. In other words, this online system will create
consistency in data reporting across all of our LEAs. In addition, all data will automatically transfer into a
database, eliminating data entry errors that can exist under our current reporting system.
We also asked districts to report of the number of referrals from Part C/Early Intervention, how many were
received at least 45 school working days prior to the child’s third birthday (the state’s eligibility timeline
from consent to IEP). Districts reported of the 6,368 children referred, 5,515 (86.6%) referrals were
received at least 45 school working days prior to age three. EEC was interested in knowing whether
referral timing would affect data so we analyzed districts in substantial compliance (95% and above).
Forty-eight and a half percent (48.5%) of districts are in substantial compliance (118 of the 243 reporting)
Data show that in cases where the district is in substantial compliance (95% to 100%), 91.3% of the
referrals from Part C were received at least 45 working days in advance of the child’s third birthday. In
contrast, for those districts not in substantial compliance, 84% of the referrals from Part C were received
within 45 working days in advance of the child’s 3rd birthday. In theory, this demonstrates that the ability to
complete a child’s eligibility determination and smoothly transition him or her from Part C to Part B
depends largely on the collaboration between EI programs and LEAs in making referrals, communicating
and exchanging information in a timely manner.
EEC has addressed these transition issues with several initiatives. In April 2007, EEC, DPH (Part C) and
DOE collaborated to conduct two statewide trainings with both LEA Early Childhood staff/administrators
and EI program staff/directors to review each entity’s requirements/regulations, our common SPP
Indicator on transition, and brainstorm how to improve referrals, eligibility determination and ultimately
reach compliance. Attendance was encouraging, with the majority of LEAs and EI programs present. We
reiterated in the training that districts have to allow 30 calendar days for parents to return an IEP so
services can commence. As a result, we expect a significant decrease next year in the number of
children whose IEP was not in place by their 3rd birthday as a result of the district not allowing 30 days for
the parents to sign and return the IEP. A copy of the Power Point is available at
http://www.eec.state.ma.us/docs/Transition%20Workshop%204-07.pdf
In addition, EEC is collaborating with DPH as they adapt an online training module developed by the
Central Regional Resource Center. It will be a required training to meet EI competencies. EEC is currently
37
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
in discussion on how we will disseminate the training information beyond making it available to LEAs on
our website. From a Part C perspective, the objective of the training is to improve transition practices. Part
C’s SPP/APR from FFY04 demonstrates only 61.5% of children discharged from EI and potentially
eligible for Part B had a “yes” answer to “was the LEA invited?” on the Transition Survey on the Annual
Report/Self-Assessment. And 85.2% of children discharged from EI and potentially eligible for Part B had
a “yes” answer to “Did a transition conference occur for this child?” In working together across agencies,
we expect improvement to be inevitable.
As articulated in the FFY 2005 APR, DPH and EEC completed and distributed the Best Practices in Early
Childhood Transition: Guide for Families. Every EI program received five hard copies; each LEA received
a hard copy. The guide is available on our website at
http://www.eec.state.ma.us/docs/EECTransitionGuideForWeb(3).pdf
EEC and MASSDE are currently updating an advisory of frequently asked questions relative to young
children, ages 3 to 5, with disabilities. We expect to disseminate that document to all EI, LEA, Head Start
and community child care programs. While OSEP is collecting data on only those children served by Part
C and referred and found (in)eligible by age 3, we know that not all preschool children served in early
childhood special education were served in Part C. We collect referral numbers from child care, Head
Start, parents and other. In FFY 2006 (the 2006-07 school year), 8,231 children were referred from
entities other than EI. EEC is hiring a Transition Specialist who will work with districts/programs and
oversee all aspects of transition for young children and their families. It is our goal to improve transition
practices from wherever children are coming from.
Massachusetts was selected by OSEP as one of three states this year involved in Expanding
Opportunities, a multi-agency team whose mission it is that all children and families have universal
access to child-centered, family-friendly, inclusive settings and a seamless system of coordinated
supports and services. As a team we decided to also apply to become a Special Quest Birth-Five State
Leadership Team to assist us in developing a statewide plan for professional development to improve
inclusive practices, including seamless transitions at age three and at age five. Our Special Quest team
members are from EI, DOE, EEC, Center for Excellence, higher ed, child care, Head Start and parents.
The application was submitted January 14, 2008 and the award was received in February.
EEC and MASSDE have developed a consistent approach to work with districts not in substantial
compliance on each of the compliance indicators. For Indicator 12, letters were sent to districts below
substantial compliance for FFY 2005 (96 districts) and FFY 2006 (91 districts) and included the transition
data that they reported on their early childhood special education grants. LEAs are required to verify their
data and submit corrections, and review and, if applicable, modify the district’s policies and procedures
around transition in order to bring the district into substantial compliance. Each district must submit a
Corrective Action Report to detail the steps taken to remedy any noncompliance by describing the
policies and procedures that have been implemented to ensure compliance. New policies and procedures
will be shared with districts as samples. Of the 96 districts in FFY2005 in non-compliance, 13 LEAs
submitted revised/corrected existing data and came into compliance, and 26 corrected the
noncompliance within one year of identification through a Corrective Action Plan for an overall timely
correction rate of 41%. The remaining 57 LEAs are currently engaged in completing their corrective
actions and the Department will continue to work with them until the corrective actions are completed.
In addition, EEC is working with DOE’s Program Quality Assurance Unit (Indicator 15: General
supervision system, including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) to identify and correct
noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification. Of the districts
scheduled for a CPR review that operate preschool programs (some are regional or vocational schools
and K-12 charter schools), the districts found not in substantial compliance with their early childhood
transition practices from Part C to Part B, will submit their corrective action report to PQA on SE 17 (see
table below) as part of the compliance monitoring process.
38
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Criterion
Number
SE 17
Revised April 14, 2008
Initiation of services at age three and Early Intervention
transition procedures
Student
Records
SPED
Administrator
1.
Special
Education
Program
Plan
Statement
Early
Childhood
Coordinator
2.
The school district encourages referrals from the
Department of Public Health, other agencies, and
individuals for young children when or before the child
turns two-and-one-half years old in order to ensure
continuity of services and to ensure the development
and implementation of an IEP for eligible children by
the date of the child's third birthday in accordance
with federal requirements.
The district implements procedures to ensure the
effective transition of young children with disabilities
from Early Intervention Programs through
participation in transition planning conferences
arranged by such programs.
Team
Chairperson
Parents
State and Federal Requirements
603 CMR 28.06(7)(b)
34 CFR 300.101(b); 300.124; 300.323(b)
Part 1 of SE 17 is related to State Performance Plan Indicator
12.
(See http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/.)
Source: http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/cpr/instrument/sped.doc
EEC participates with MASSDE/PQA on CPR reviews and will look closely at the district’s practices,
interview early childhood staff and provide the necessary technical assistance.
EEC will also look at districts in substantial compliance consecutive years to learn best practices to
disseminate to other districts. EEC’s Inclusion Specialist will host a series of regional meetings to
convene early childhood special education personnel from LEAs to share best practices in “Communities
of Practice”. Topics will include transitions at age three.
As reported in the FFY 2005 APR, the cross agency team convened by the Head Start Quality Initiative
continues to work together on a transition MOU. We have had several drafts that have been under
multiple revisions. We expect to complete it this school year.
Each district’s compliance for each of the compliance indicators is publicly reported on DOE’s website at
https://profiles.doe.mass.edu/special_ed.aspx
Massachusetts has exceeded its activities planned for this year and will continue to collaborate with its
partners DPH and DOE to strive for 100% substantial compliance across all Part C programs and LEAs.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
The targets, improvement activities, timelines and resources for FFY 2006 remain appropriate.
39
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition
Indicator 13: Percent of youth aged 16 and above with transition planning that includes coordinated
annual goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet his/her postsecondary goals in the identified areas.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Measurement: Percent = [(# of youth with disabilities aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes
coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the
student to meet the post-secondary goals) divided by the (# of youth with an IEP age 16 and above)]
times 100.
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2006
(2006-2007)
100%
Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
# of Student
Records
reviewed
2,111
# of Student Records with
transition planning that
included coordinated annual
goals and transition services
2,085
Percentage of student
records in compliance
98.8%
Of the 2,111 student records reviewed during 2006-07, almost 99% include transition planning that
includes coordinated annual goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet
his/her post-secondary goals in the identified areas.
In order to obtain student level data, MASSDE required each district selected for this monitoring activity to
collect information on a representative sample of students aged 16-21 with IEPs. The sample student
files were reviewed for evidence of full transition planning discussions. For additional information on the
data collection process as approved by OSEP, please refer to Indicator 13 of the MA SPP.
The data review process as conducted by districts was revised for FFY 2006 with the addition of the
mandated Massachusetts Transition Planning Form (TPF). As was done with the initial data collection, a
review sheet allowed districts to assess a student record for evidence of appropriate transition planning.
Evidence of transition planning that includes coordinated annual goals and transition services that will
reasonably enable the student to meet his/her post-secondary goals in the identified areas resulted in a
finding of appropriate transition planning for the student record being reviewed. This data collection
allowed districts to use the mandated Transition Planning Form (documenting full transition planning
discussion) as appropriate evidence of transition planning or a completed MASSDE Transition Planning
Chart (documenting full transition planning discussion), or a record review (with appropriate IEP
documentation) indicating an appropriate transition planning discussion. If such documentation was not
found in the student record or IEP, then the student was not considered to have received appropriate
40
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
transition planning. Districts were encouraged to provide optional comments detailing any aspect of the
student’s transition plan.
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
The vast improvement over the 83.8% reported in FFY 2005 is in large part due to the implementation of
the Massachusetts Transition Planning Form (TPF), a mandated form maintained with the IEP, issued in
February 2007. Along with information on the MASSDE website that included completed samples,
trainings on the use of the TPF were offered as part of The Comprehensive System of Personnel
Development (CSPD) Training Project as part of a module titled: The Massachusetts Transition Planning
Form and Effective Transition Planning. Other training opportunities included a Summer Content Institute
on “Secondary School IEP Measurable Annual Goals -Objectives/Benchmark and Transition Planning
Workshop” allowing participants to develop the following skills: become familiar with the laws and
regulations that govern transition planning, better understand the components of transition planning, and
facilitate discussions that will help students with disabilities work towards their post-secondary goals.
Additional trainings and workshops have been offered (examples: Massachusetts Association of
Approved Private Schools (MAAPS) conference, Perkins School For The Blind Discover conference)
Additionally, courses and technical assistance were offered as part of MASSDE’s federal State
Improvement Grant, Project FOCUS Academy. These focused on creating professional development
programs to help students with disabilities build sound career goals and learn skills to ensure successful
post-secondary outcomes. The content covered in this program (Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports, Universal Design for Learning, post-secondary planning, and family engagement) could have a
long-term impact on transition planning. Implementation activities are currently underway in participating
districts.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
In the FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table, OSEP noted that “data demonstrating correction of
noncompliance identified in FFY 2005” must be provided in the FFY 2006 APR submission. Through the
data collection and analysis process described above, 19 districts were identified as not in compliance
with this indicator in FFY 2005. These districts were notified and completed corrective action reports that
were submitted to MASSDE within one year of the date of the finding. The corrective action report
required identified districts to detail the steps taken to remedy any noncompliance by describing the
policies and procedures that have been implemented to ensure that appropriate transition planning is
provided to all students with disabilities ages 16 and older. Districts were also required to demonstrate
that steps had been taken to ensure that transition planning has since taken place for any students
reported in FFY 2005 as not having evidence of transition planning. All 19 identified districts (100%)
completed their corrective actions and have successfully remedied any noncompliance within one year of
the date of the finding.
Regarding improvement activities, MASSDE was awarded a federal State Personnel Development Grant
to continue the development of a system of free online professional development for general and special
educators throughout the Commonwealth. This initiative, called Massachusetts FOCUS Academy, builds
on Project FOCUS Academy (described above) and offers online courses in a variety of key areas,
including positive behavioral supports, Universal Design for Learning, family engagement, and postsecondary planning. The first courses will be offered during the 2006-07 schools year, and include the
first two courses in a four-course series on Post-Secondary Transition Planning. The target audience for
the first course, Youth Development and Leadership, is middle and high school educators and guidance
counselors working with students with disabilities. The course provides participants with a framework for
41
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
understanding how youth development - including adult mentoring, leadership, decision-making, problem
solving, self-initiating, citizenship, and community service - prepares youth to meet the challenges of
adolescence and adulthood.
All other improvement activities, timelines and resources for FFY 2006 remain appropriate.
42
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision
Indicator 15: General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) identifies and
corrects noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.
Measurement: Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification:
a.
b.
# of findings of noncompliance.
# of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from
identification.
Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100.
For any noncompliance not corrected within one year of identification, describe what actions,
including technical assistance and enforcement actions that the State has taken.
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2006
(2006-2007)
100%
Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
o
211 findings of special education noncompliance were made through the Problem Resolution
System (PRS) between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2006. 100% of these findings were corrected
within one year of identification.
o
844 findings of special education noncompliance were made through the Coordinated Program
Review (CPR) reports published between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2006. 53% (451) of these
findings were corrected within one year of the date of the final CPR report. 87% (733) of these
findings have been corrected to date.
o
70 new findings of special education noncompliance were made through Mid-Cycle Review (MCR)
reports published between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2006. 64% (45) of these findings were
corrected within one year of the date of the MCR report. 77% (54) of these findings have been
corrected to date.
o
No findings of special education noncompliance were made through MASSDE’s Bureau of Special
Education Appeals (dispute resolution system) between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2006.
a. 1125 findings of noncompliance were made through the PRS, CPR, or MCR system between
July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2006.
b. 707 findings of noncompliance were corrected within one year of the finding, for an overall oneyear rate of correction of 63%.
(To date, 998 of the 1125 findings of noncompliance have been corrected, for a rate of
correction to date of 89%.)
43
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
See the Appendix B: Indicator #15 Worksheet for the disaggregation of findings made from July 1, 2005
to June 30, 2006.
Follow-up on Data for FFY 2005 (2005-2006):
In the FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table, OSEP noted that “data on the correction of outstanding
noncompliance identified in FFY 2004 (2004-2005)” must be provided in the FFY 2006 APR submission.
As reported in the FFY 2005 APR, 62% of the 921 findings of special education noncompliance made in
FFY 2004 through the CPR system had been corrected by the date of that report, February 1, 2007. As
of the date of this report, 82% of the findings of special education noncompliance made in FFY 2004 have
been corrected. (Note: In preparing the data for this report it was discovered that findings in some CPR
reports were counted twice for last year’s report due to a data entry error. The more accurate figure for
the number of findings made in CPR reports between July 1, 2004, and June 30, 2005 is 813, of which
667, or 82%, have been corrected to date.)
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
A. Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed:
Year 2 (FFY 2006: 2006-07):
MASSDE staff from Program Quality Assurance Services (PQA) made changes to PQA’s MCR based
on the implications of the requirement that all corrective action be completed as soon as possible, but
in no case later than one year from identification. Materials for the 2007-08 MCR cycle were revised
to make clear that the purposes of the MCR no longer include checking on the implementation of
corrective action approved or ordered by PQA after the CPR three years before, as that
implementation will have been long before completed. Purposes of the MCR for the current (2007-08)
monitoring year include monitoring special education issues that have been raised by complaints from
a district; at the discretion of PQA staff, monitoring special education standards (“criteria”) with which
noncompliance was found in the previous CPR to ensure the continuing effectiveness of the
corrective action previously completed; and monitoring special education criteria which have been
created or substantially changed, in response to IDEA-2004 and its regulations, since a district’s
CPR.
B. Explanation of Progress or Slippage:
100% of the 211 findings of noncompliance made through the Problem Resolution System for
complaints between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2006 were corrected within one year. This is the third
reporting period for which MASSDE has maintained 100% compliance in this area (as reported in the
MA SPP for 2004-05 and the APR for 2005-06, 100% of noncompliance from complaints was
corrected within one year).
Of the 844 findings of special education noncompliance that were made through the CPR reports
published between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2006, 53% (451) of these were corrected within one
year of the date of the final CPR report. ( 87% (733) of these findings have been corrected to date.)
Massachusetts fell markedly short of its target of 100% correction within one year.
In the FFY 2005 APR for Indicator 15 submitted February 1, 2007, MASSDE reported that 62% of the
findings of special education made through CPR reports published between July 1, 2004 and June
30, 2005, had been corrected “to-date”. MASSDE reported the data in this manner because the
standard of correction within one year was not the standard originally applied to noncompliance found
in 2004-05, and so the standard could not be fully applied to this time period. Thus the 53% reported
for the 2005-06 CPR findings corrected within one year does not constitute slippage from the 62%
reported as corrected to date for the 2004-05 CPR findings; in fact, the percentage of 2005-06 CPR
findings corrected to date is significantly greater, 87%.
44
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
Of the 70 new findings of special education noncompliance that were made through MCR reports
published between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2006, 64% (45) of these findings were corrected within
one year of the date of the MCR report. 77% (54) of these findings have been corrected to date.
Again, Massachusetts fell considerably short of its target of 100% correction within one year. It is
impossible to tell whether 64% constitutes progress or slippage from the year before, as PQA staff
only realized this year that the relatively small number of new findings in MCR reports ought to be
counted for the purposes of Indicator 15. The reason for the greater percentage of MCR findings that
were corrected within a year (64% versus 53% for CPR findings) is presumably largely that PQA staff
orders corrective action itself as part of the MCR report, rather than giving the district a chance to
develop its own corrective action to submit to PQA for approval, as is done with CPR findings. Thus
time within the year is not lost waiting for the district’s corrective action plan and responding to it.
Of the 1125 total findings of noncompliance made (through the PRS, CPR, or MCR system) during
2005-06, 707 findings of noncompliance were corrected within one year of the finding, for an overall
one-year rate of correction of 63%. (89% (998) of these findings have been corrected to date.)
Again, though the overall one-year correction rate for findings made during 2005-06 (63%) is less
than the overall correction rate reported last year for findings made during 2004-05 (69%), the 63%
does not constitute slippage from the 69%, as that figure was for correction to the date of the FFY
2005 APR. (The overall rate of correction to date for the findings made through the PRS, CPR, or
MCR system in 2005-06 (89%) is considerably higher than the overall rate of correction reported last
year for findings made through the PRS or CPR systems (69%).)
C. Further Improvement Steps:
MASSDE is fully aware of how far from 100% correction within one year it is for findings made through
the CPR and MCR systems. Clearly, making the new one-year requirement clear to PQA staff and
revising existing monitoring materials so as to feature prominently a statement of the one-year
requirement have not been enough (see paragraph 2 of “Discussion of Improvement Activities
Completed” for Year 1 (FFY 2005) in the FFY 2005 APR). The following are steps that MASSDE is
taking in order to approach the target of 100% correction of noncompliance within one year.
1. (See paragraph 5 under “Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed” for Year 1 in the
FFY 2005 APR.) In April, 2007, MASSDE hired Kyran Research Associates, Inc., of Rhode
Island to develop a web-based monitoring system for PQA, described in Attachment C. PQA has
begun piloting this new system during FFY 2007, a year ahead of the timeline described in the
FFY 2005 APR. Its implementation will be expanded in FFY 2008 and successive years until the
whole monitoring system has been switched over to the web-based model. This more efficient
system, with its emphasis on self-assessment by the local agencies rather than full onsite visits
by PQA staff, will, it is expected, result in quicker identification and correction of noncompliance.
More responsibility on the part of school districts is expected to result in a certain amount of
noncompliance being corrected immediately without MASSDE even having to notify districts of a
finding. And once the web-based monitoring system is fully implemented, it will be easier for PQA
to tailor its onsite investigations to monitoring priority areas or areas of exceptional need, perhaps
reducing the number of CPR findings of noncompliance from the more than 800 currently made
per year, thus facilitating the correction within one year of those findings. MASSDE has in the
past employed a soup to nuts kind of compliance monitoring, but it is clear that MASSDE’s
monitoring must be better targeted.
It is also expected that the ability of the web-based system to generate compliance profiles of
individual districts and for individual standards and indicators as well as aggregate compliance
reporting (see Attachment C) will aid PQA in making sure that noncompliance is being corrected
within one year. At the current time, PQA has no ongoing system of tracking compliance criterion
by criterion.
2. Furthermore, Remedy’s Action Request software system, used to track the dates of
publication of CPR and MCR reports, receipt of corrective action plans (CAPs), reviews of CAPs,
receipt of progress reports, and reviews of progress reports, is unwieldy, difficult to use, and
45
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
unreliable, particularly in producing reports. It is therefore difficult now to produce a report that will
give PQA administrators an accurate idea of the status of correction of noncompliance either
across the board or district by district. Over the next year or two MASSDE will be phasing in new
software, one of whose functions will the tracking of the correction of noncompliance. It is
expected that the new software, like the web-based monitoring system, will make it easier to
monitor the correction of noncompliance within one year.
3. (See paragraphs 1 and 2 of “Further Improvement Steps” in the FY 2005 APR.) PQA has
begun piloting the electronic CAP/progress reporting system described in the FFY 2005 APR.
The pilot did not begin until the beginning of FFY 2007; however, having been delayed by
technical difficulties. It was discovered that having one electronic document containing all the
relevant forms—the summary of required corrective action, a progress report status sheet, and
one copy of the CAP form, CAP approval section, progress report form, and progress report
approval section for each criterion found in noncompliance—was technically unfeasible. Once
filled in, such a large document would be liable to crash or be impossible to open. New, separate
forms and new instructions for using the forms therefore had to be developed. Because of this
delay use of the electronic CAP/progress report system has not moved beyond the pilot, and
feedback on the pilot has not yet been collected. If the pilot is successful, however, plans remain
in place to use this system more widely until the web-based system described above is fully
instituted. As previously stated, the expectation is that an electronic system will lead to speedier
completion and verification of corrective action, along with generally improved communication
between districts and PQA.
4. As an immediate step toward our target of 100% correction within one year, PQA will
continue and intensify the training given to supervisors and staff with respect to the one-year
correction requirement. It is clear that in spite of efforts over the last two and a half years many
staff are still operating with assumptions and attitudes appropriate for PQA’s former system,
accepted at that time by OSEP, in which the CPR CAP and progress reports were spread over a
three-year period. (See description of this former system in the MA SPP.) PQA must make
greater efforts to change the practice over to the one-year system of correction now required.
Staff will be trained in guiding districts in structuring corrective action activities and progress
reports on a timeline that leaves enough time to complete those activities and to make sure that
they have been effective before the year elapses.
Also, PQA is planning to hire a staff trainer; the position is going through the intra-agency
approval process and is expected to be posted in the near future. The staff trainer hired will work
to make consistent the approaches of the six different public school monitoring teams (for six
different areas of Massachusetts); one of the trainer’s duties will be training staff on all six teams
in managing the timeline issues involved in correcting all noncompliance as soon as possible but
in no case later than a year from identification.
D. Actions taken when CPR and MCR findings of noncompliance were not corrected within one year of
identification (as noted above, all findings of noncompliance stemming from complaints were
corrected within one year):
General description: Under the new one-year correction mandate instituted at the beginning of the
2005-06 school year, corrective action must be completed within a year from the date of the CPR final
report or MCR report. When a progress report from a district shows that corrective action, whether for
a finding made in 2004-05 or a finding made in 2005-06, has not been taken by the time required or in
the manner required or has not been effective in remedying noncompliance, the PQA follow-up liaison
for that district makes a new order of corrective action. When a progress report is overdue from a
district, the liaison will contact district personnel to ask for it. In either of these cases the liaison may
well, in the course of communicating with the district on this matter, offer technical assistance on the
corrective action necessary. Enforcement action is an option that is available when corrective action
has not been completed as required, but it is seldom used unless the failure to complete the
corrective action is egregious.
46
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
Almost every district whose CPR was conducted in 2004-05 will be undergoing an MCR during 200708. During the MCR any noncompliance outstanding from the CPR will, of course, be investigated
thoroughly, technical assistance rendered, and enforcement action taken if necessary.
As described under “Further Improvement Steps” above (see C. 1 (end) and C. 2), PQA does not now
have an adequate data system for tracking the timely correction of noncompliance found during CPRs
and MCRs. Both the acquisition of new software and the institution of a new web-based monitoring
system will remedy this lack, enabling action to be taken earlier when correction of noncompliance is
taking too long and enabling PQA supervisors and administrators easily to identify cases of overdue
correction.
Program-specific follow-up activities related to uncorrected noncompliance:
Findings of special education noncompliance made through CPR and MCR reports published
between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2006: Nineteen school districts have not yet corrected instances
of noncompliance identified through the FFY 2005 (2005-2006) CPR and MCR reports. (One school
district has had the correction of its four instances of noncompliance verified by an onsite visit since
February 1, 2008, the date of the original submission of the FFY 2006 APR.) Of the 19 districts with
outstanding noncompliance identified in FFY 2005, program-specific activities include:

Four districts have had onsite visits conducted.

Seven districts have been scheduled for onsite visits in the last few months of this school
year; the last of these visits will begin on June 4, 2008. Two districts have onsite visits
scheduled for the next school year (2008-2009).

One district is implementing a plan to conduct an evaluation of special education programs
and services, to correct the last issue remaining; the success of this implementation will be
verified during an onsite visit scheduled for the next school year (2008-2009).

Two districts have had overdue letters sent, and additional follow-up has been conducted.

One district has been called by the PQA liaison to that district concerning an issue of FAPE
(making counseling available in a student’s native language), and this one remaining issue
will be followed up during an onsite visit scheduled for the next school year (2008-2009).

One district has been notified concerning overdue progress reports.

One district has been ordered to submit requested documentation (verifying implementation
of a parent advisory council for special education—the last issue remaining) by April 15,
2008.
Findings of special education noncompliance made through CPR reports published between July 1,
2004 and June 30, 2005: All districts with outstanding instances of noncompliance that were identified
through CPR reports published between July 1, 2004 and June 30, 2005, have either received an
onsite visit or are scheduled to receive one by June 2, 2008.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
The targets, improvement activities, timelines and resources for FFY 2006 remain appropriate.
47
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision
Indicator 16: Percent of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60-day
timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Measurement (data from Appendix D: Table 7):
Percent = [(1.1(b) + 1.1(c)) divided by 1.1] times 100.
Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY
2006
(2006-2007)
100%
Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007): [(179 reports within timeline + 36 reports within
extended timeline) / 236 complaints with reports issued] x 100 = 91%
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed:
Status of Improvement Activities Previously Completed:
1. The system of more intensive monitoring developed in FFY 2005 (first improvement activity for
FFY 2005 in the Massachusetts SPP) continues to be implemented, particularly for complaints
where the timelines have been extended. Darlene Lynch, Director of PQA, periodically prints out
logs for every staff person showing complaints assigned and timelines met or missed, then
disseminates these logs to the appropriate supervisor with comments on compliance or on
needed improvement.
2. The modification made to Remedy’s Action Request System software in FFY 2005 (second
improvement activity for FFY 2005) remains in effect, so that PQA staff continue to receive more
frequent reminders from the system that action with respect to a complaint is required.
3. (See fourth improvement activity for FFY 2005 in the Massachusetts SPP.) PQA procedures, as
described in the Problem Resolution System (PRS) Implementation Guide for PQA staff, continue
to provide for an independent DOE investigation of the complaint where the local agency
indicates that it does not intend to provide a local report in response to the complaint. (This kind
of independent investigation is becoming an increasingly useful tool for making sure that
complaints are handled in a timely manner.) Procedures also continue to provide that where the
local agency indicates that it will not respond to the complaint within the required timelines, PQA
staff may, with the approval of a supervisor, issue a letter of finding based on the complainant’s
documentation.
4. (See Explanation of Progress or Slippage in the Massachusetts APR for FFY 2005.) Supervisors
continue to make clear to PQA staff that where timelines are extended for exceptional
circumstances with respect to a particular complaint, the extension should allow not only enough
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
time for the school or district to submit additional information but also enough time for the PQA
staff person to review that information, obtain feedback on that information from the complainant,
consult with the PQA supervisor, and write and issue a letter of finding or letter of closure (taking
into account which days are holidays or weekends and when the staff person will be out of the
office on Coordinated Program Reviews or Mid-cycle Reviews).
5. (See explanation of Progress or Slippage in APR for FFY 2005.) The PRS Implementation Guide
for PQA Staff continues to include guidance on the duration of extensions.
Improvement Activities Recently Completed:
1. (See first and second improvement activities for FFY 2007 in the Massachusetts SPP.) PQA has
prepared a statistical report on complaint resolution in connection with preparing this APR, and
has analyzed the reasons for noncompliance and barriers to timely compliance (see Explanation
of Progress or Slippage below).
2. (See third improvement activity for FFY 2007 in the Massachusetts SPP.) PQA has not yet
implemented any new modifications to the PRS as a result of this analysis, but it is planning one,
as well as working on a modification to another system which impacts the PRS.
a. Over the next year or two MASSDE will be phasing in new software one of whose
functions will be the tracking of complaints and complaint resolution. This software will
replace Remedy’s Action Request System, which has proven unwieldy, difficult to use,
and unreliable. It is unreliable in producing reports and is inadequate when complaints fall
into more than one category, have more than one closure code, or cross programs. (The
same system is used to track special education complaints as is used to track complaints
in a variety of other areas.) Also, this software system's categories do not match the
lines used in Table 7. This year, these deficiencies resulted in a need to submit an
amended Table 7. The amended Table 7 was submitted in January 2008. It is hoped that
the new software will make it easier to monitor PQA staff’s adherence to complaint
timelines more frequently and efficiently.
b. Also, PQA has begun implementation of a web-based system for monitoring school
districts and charter schools. Its implementation will be expanded in FFY 2008 (2008-09)
and successive years until the whole monitoring system has been switched over to the
web-based model. It is hoped that this more efficient system, with its emphasis on selfassessment by the local agencies rather than full onsite visits by PQA staff, will give PQA
staff more time to spend on complaint management, thus making it easier to meet the 60day timeline. An added benefit of the new system’s emphasis on self-assessment may be
that local agencies will be more proactive in identifying their own problems, thus reducing
the need for complaints.
Explanation of Progress or Slippage:
Although MASSDE did not meet its target for FFY 2006 of 100%, it made progress on the target of 100%
compliance. It increased the percent of signed written special education complaints with reports issued
that were resolved within 60 days, or within a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with
respect to a particular complaint, from 81% in FFY 2005 to 91% in FFY 2006. This progress was due both
to the continuing, intensive monitoring of the management of complaints in general (see paragraph 1
under “Status of Improvement Activities Previously Completed” above) and to the special emphasis
placed on complaints where the timelines are extended (see paragraphs 1, 4, and 5 of that same
section).
Where the timeline was not extended, the percent of signed written complaints that were resolved within
60 days was 96% (179 out of 186); where the timeline was extended, the percent of signed written
complaints that were resolved within the extension was 72% (36 out of 50). Though the percent of
complaints resolved in a timely manner increased from 89% to 96% where timelines were not extended,
49
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
an even bigger gain came in the group of complaints where timelines were extended: the percent of
complaints resolved in timely manner increased for this group from 52% in FFY 2005 to 72% in FFY
2006, a gain of 20 points.
It appears that the ongoing improvement activities listed above (see paragraphs 1 – 5 under “Status of
Improvement Activities Previously Completed”) are paying off. PQA will continue to press on with its more
intensive system of monitoring for the management of complaints, as well as with its special emphasis on
complaints where the timelines are extended. PQA is also planning improvements to software and to the
monitoring of districts (described above in paragraph 2 of “Improvement Activities Recently Completed”)
that should help improve the percentage of complaints resolved in a timely manner.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
Given the progress made over the past year, the targets, improvement activities, timelines and resources
for FFY 2006 remain appropriate at this time.
50
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision
Indicator 17: Percent of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests that were fully adjudicated within
the 45 day timeline or a timeline properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Measurement (data from Appendix D: Table 7):
Percent= [3.2(a) and 3.2 (b) divided by 3.2] times 100
Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY
2006
(2006-2007)
100%
Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
# of Hearings (fully adjudicated)
26
Decisions issued within 45-day timeline or a timeline that is
properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either
party.
25
% of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests that were fully
adjudicated within the 45-day timeline or a timeline that is properly
extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party.
96.2%
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
This represents an improvement over the percentage reported in FFY 2005 (88.8%) and is reflective of
only one decision that was not issued within the 45-day timeline or timeline properly extended. The
following explanation addresses the reason said decision was not issued within the timeline.
First, it should be noted that the hearing officer who authored this decision is no longer employed by the
BSEA.
Second, the decision in question was the result of an LEA filed (as opposed to a parent filed) hearing
request. In an effort to ensure uniformity in scheduling parent and LEA hearing requests, initial hearing
dates for both were set by the BSEA 35 calendar days subsequent to receipt of the hearing request. This
was done to accommodate the 30-day resolution period mandated for parental hearing requests (despite
51
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
the fact that such resolution period was not mandated for LEA hearing requests). As a result, hearing
officers had a 40 calendar day period to issue decisions in parent requested hearings (as only five days of
the 45 days allocated post-resolution period had been utilized in scheduling the initial 35 day date);
however, given that in LEA filed hearing requests the 45 day timeline begins to run on the date the
hearing request is filed, the hearing officer in such instance was only left with a period of 10 calendar
days to issue the decision.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
The BSEA is rectifying this scheduling anomaly by revising the BSEA Hearing Rules to reflect an initial
hearing date in LEA filed requests which is 20 calendar days from the date of the filing of the request,
thus allowing the hearing officer 25 calendar days to issue the decision. While the BSEA had hoped to
launch the revised rules during this past fiscal year, promulgation was delayed, and said revised rules will
be issued effective February 1, 2008.
52
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision
Indicator 18: Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through
resolution session settlement agreements.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Measurement (data from Appendix D: Table 7):
Percent= [3.1(a) divided by 3.1] times 100
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2006
(2006-2007)
48%
Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007): (25/400) x 100 = 6.25%
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
The 6.25% reported for FFY 2006 is significantly below the FFY 2005 baseline data of 48%, and reflects
the difficulties encountered when trying to collect data for this indicator. As noted in the MA SPP, the
baseline data submitted for last year were not deemed reliable, and also utilized a different tool for
measurement. Thus, there is no basis for comparison between data reported in FFY 2005 and FFY 2006,
and all data for this indicator should be viewed with caution.

Regarding the number of resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution settlement
agreements, there is a large discrepancy between the number reported in FFY 2006 (25) and the
number reported in FFY 2005 (212). As detailed in the MA SPP, the 212 cases reported in FFY
2005 represented 50% of all cases involving parental requests for hearing that were not resolved
through mediation or substantive hearing officer decision on merits. While MASSDE felt that this
method was appropriate for reporting in FFY 2005, we have since implemented procedures to
improve the reliability of these data.
In FFY 2006, the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) utilized a form that was to be
submitted by a party who is withdrawing a hearing request as the result of a settlement
agreement reached at a resolution session. The 25 settlement agreements reported for FFY
2006 represent the number of such forms the BSEA received during the reporting period.
However, there is no way to ensure that each party whose case was resolved via a settlement
agreement reached at a resolution session in fact submitted such a form. In order to further
improved the reliability of these data, BSEA has launched a system in which parties who had filed
hearing requests but did not proceed to hearing were called by a BSEA staff person to inquire as
to the means by which the matter had been resolved. However, this method has not proven as
successful as anticipated, in that some parties did not respond and of those that did there was
apparent confusion regarding terminology; thus it is not clear that the meetings reported were all
actually resolution sessions nor that the settlements reported were all as result of resolution
53
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
sessions. As a result, the 25 settlement agreements reported for FFY 2006 should be viewed
with caution. MASSDE and BSEA will continue to work toward improving this data collection
system in order to ensure more accurate data.

Regarding the number of resolution sessions held, the 400 reported for FFY 2006 represent a
slight decrease from the 442 reported in FFY 2005. However, as described in the MA SPP, these
data should be interpreted with caution for the following reasons:
o there may be cases in which both a resolution session and a mediation were held;
o there are likely cases in which both parties waived the resolution session and did not opt
for mediation; and
o there are likely cases in which the LEA failed to timely convene a resolution meeting
within the 15 days and therefore it was constructively waived.
As previously noted, MASSDE and the BSEA will continue to work to improve the data collection for this
indicator.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
The targets, improvement activities, timelines and resources for FFY 2006 remain as originally proposed.
MASSDE intends to consider revision only if a good data collection method is available. Until such time,
a comparison of years will continue as a challenge for this indicator.
54
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision
Indicator 19: Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Measurement (data from Appendix D: Table 7):
Percent= [2.1(a)(i) and 2.1(b)(i) divided by 2.1] times 100
Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY
2006
(2006-2007)
86%
Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
# of Mediations
841
# of Mediation Agreements
704
% of Mediations Held that Resulted in Mediation
Agreements
83.7%
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
Improvement Activities Completed:
All improvement activities identified in the MA SPP for FFY 2006 have been completed, and FFY 2007
improvement activities identified to-date in the MA SPP have been completed.
Explanation of Progress or Slippage:
The MASSDE mediation program is managed by the Bureau of Special Education Appeals, Mediation
Office (BSEA-Mediation) and is nationally recognized as providing highly effective mediation services.
The MA SPP identified our target setting for this indicator to be a maintenance target as it was strongly
felt that although tracking mediation agreements was important, it would be inappropriate to suggest that
we seek to “compel” parties in mediation to reach agreement. Therefore, while the 83.7% reported for
FFY 2006 represents only slight improvement over the FFY 2005 percentage (83.4%) and is slightly lower
than our FFY 2004 baseline year of 85.9%, we believe that 83.7% appropriately meets our essential goal
55
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
of maintaining a high level of mediation agreements. It should also be noted that the raw number of
mediations conducted this fiscal year increased by 8.8% over the prior year.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
The targets, improvement activities, timelines and resources for FFY 2006 remain appropriate at this time.
56
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision
Indicator 20: State reported data (618 data and Massachusetts State Performance Plan and Annual
Performance Report) are timely and accurate.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Measurement:
State reported data, including 618 data and annual performance reports, are assessed according to
the following standards:
APR data are scored to ensure that data are:
a. Considered valid and reliable;
b. Analyzed using an OSEP-approved calculation; and
c. Supplied in a manner consistent with the instructions given.
618 data are scored to ensure that data are:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Timely;
Complete;
Able to pass edit check; and
Explained when necessary through data notes.
Please see Appendix E for scoring rubric used to calculate this measurement.
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2006
(2006-2007)
100%
Actual Target Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007): 96.6% on-time submissions, 100% of data submitted
Indicator #20 Calculation
A. APR Grand Total =
63
B. 618 Grand Total =
50
C. APR Grand Total (A) + 618 Grand Total (B) =
113
D. Subtotal (C divided by 119)* =
E. Indicator Score (Subtotal (D) x 100) =
0.950
95.0%
57
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
The target data for FFY 2006 were based on MASSDE’s ability to produce its required data submissions
for FFY 2006 (618 data: Tables 1-7, and the MA SPP/APR submission) in a manner consistent with
OSEP’s data submission requirements. The percent compliance indicates the percentage of data
submissions that were successfully submitted for FFY 2006. For further explanation on how this
calculation was derived please refer to the scoring rubric located in Appendix E.
Discussion of Improvement Activities Completed and Explanation of Progress or Slippage that
occurred for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
In FFY 2005, MASSDE achieved a score of 91.6% on its submission of required state data. For FFY
2006, MASSDE showed improvement with this Indicator by achieving a score of 96.6%. However, due to
unforeseen personnel changes, and the time needed for cleaning and checking of the data, delays
continued to occur this year in some of our data submissions.
This year, in addition to districts reporting their data through our District and School Staff Report (DSSR),
16 pilot districts reported their personnel data through MASSDE’s new Education Personnel Information
Management System (EPIMS). While the DSSR collects data at an aggregate level for each school and
district, EPIMS is designed to collect personnel data at the individual level. It is planned that all districts
will be able to report their personnel data through EPIMS in FFY 2007 so that we may continue to provide
timely and accurate personnel data for Table 2 and through the EDEN system.
The Table 5 Discipline data continues to be on a cycle where we close the data submission window in
October of the following academic year. This allows districts the time to submit accurate and complete
data but makes it difficult for us to submit the data by the November 1 deadline. We anticipate continuing
to work with our data timelines to meet the compliance deadline by FFY 2010.
Revisions, with Justification, to Proposed Targets / Improvement Activities / Timelines /
Resources for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
As evidenced through the measurement description and data provided above, MASSDE began using the
OSEP-recommended Indicator 20 scoring rubric in FFY 2006 (see Appendix E). As a result, data for the
previous years has changed, and MASSDE is submitting a revised State Performance Plan submission
for this indicator. The baseline data (FFY 2004) is now 52.9%, and data for FFY 2005 is 91.6%.
Given the progress made over the past year, the targets, improvement activities, timelines and resources
for FFY 2006 remain appropriate.
58
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
APPENDIX A -- Massachusetts Parent Survey for Special Education for Indicator #8


This is a survey for parents of students receiving special education services. Your responses will help guide efforts to
improve services and results for children and families. (Note: If you have more than one child currently receiving special
education services, you may choose to submit one or more surveys, based upon your experiences as related to your
children.)
For each statement below, please select one of the following response choices: very strongly disagree (VSD), strongly
disagree (SD), disagree (D), agree (A), strongly agree (SA), very strongly agree (VSA). You may skip any item that
you feel does not apply to you or your child.
Schools' Efforts to Partner with Parents
1.
I am considered an equal partner with teachers and other
professionals in planning my child's program.
2.
I was offered special assistance (such as child care) so that I could
participate in the Individualized Educational Program (IEP) meeting.
3.
At the IEP meeting, we discussed how my child would participate in
statewide assessments.
4.
My child’s teachers give me enough time and opportunities to discuss
my child’s needs and progress.
5.
All of my concerns and recommendations were documented on the
IEP.
6.
Teachers and administrators at my child’s school invite me to share
my knowledge and experience with school personnel.
7.
I was given information about organizations that offer support for
parents of students with disabilities.
8.
I have been asked for my opinion about how well special education
services are meeting my child's needs.
9.
10.
12.
Teachers treat me as a team member.
VSA
VSD
A
SA
VSA
I feel I can disagree with my child’s special education program or
services without negative consequences for me or my child.
Teachers and administrators:
15.
Agree
SA
IEP meetings are scheduled at a time and place that are convenient
for me.
Teachers are available to speak with me.
14.
A
My child's evaluation report is written in terms I understand.
11.
13.
Disagree
VSD SD
D
- seek out parent input.
- show sensitivity to the needs of students with disabilities and their
families.
SD
D
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
16.
- encourage me to participate in the decision-making process.
17.
- respect my cultural heritage.
The school:
Submitted February 1, 2008
VSD
SD
D
A
SA
18. - has a person on staff who is available to answer parents' questions.
19. - communicates regularly with me regarding my child's progress on IEP
goals.
20. - gives me choices with regard to services that address my child's needs.
21. - offers parents training about special education issues.
22. - offers parents a variety of ways to communicate with teachers.
23. - gives parents the help they may need to play an active role in their child's
education.
24. - provides information on agencies that can assist my child in the transition
from school.
25. - explains what options parents have if they disagree with a decision of
the school.
Demographic Information
26. Number of years child has received special
education services
 Less than 1 year
 1-3 years
 4-7 years
 More than 7 years
27. Child’s race/ethnicity
 White
 Black or African-American
 Hispanic or Latino
 Asian or Pacific Islander
 American Indian or Alaskan Native
 Multi-racial
28. Language spoken in the home
 English
 Spanish
 Portuguese
 Chinese
 Creole/Haitian
 Vietnamese
Other _________________
29. Child’s school level



Elementary School
Middle School
High School
30. Child’s Primary Disability (check one)













Autism
Communication Impairment
Deaf-Blind Impairment
Developmental Delay
Emotional Impairment
Health Impairment
Hearing Impairment
Intellectual Impairment
Multiple Disabilities
Neurological Impairment
Physical Impairment
Specific Learning Disability
Vision Impairment
60
VSA
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
APPENDIX B -- Indicator #15 Worksheet
(Note: Indicator 4A has been added to this worksheet. Also, the description of what monitoring consists of
has been revised to be appropriate to MASSDE, and the general supervision system categories “Dispute
Resolution” and “Other” have been removed, as there were no findings made in these categories during
this time period.)
Indicator
1. Percent of youth with IEPs
graduating from high school
with a regular diploma.
2.
Percent of youth with IEPs
dropping out of high school.
General
Supervision
System
Components
Monitoring:
Coordinated
Program
Reviews,
Mid-Cycle
Reviews,
complaints
13. Percent of youth aged 16
and above with IEP that
includes coordinated,
measurable, annual IEP
goals and transition services
that will reasonably enable
student to meet the postsecondary goals.
14. Percent of youth who had
IEPs, are no longer in
secondary school and who
have been competitively
employed, enrolled in some
type of postsecondary
school, or both, within one
year of leaving high school.
3. Participation and
performance of children with
disabilities on statewide
assessments.
7. Percent of preschool children
with IEPs who demonstrated
improved outcomes.
4A. Percent of districts with a
significant discrepancy in the
rates of
suspension/expulsion of
students with disabilities
# of
Programs
Monitored
(a) # of Findings
of noncompliance
identified in FFY
2005 (7/1/05 –
6/30/06)
(b) # of Findings from
(a) for which
correction was
verified no later than
one year from
identification
81
47
240
126
57
36
For:
CPRs: 51
MCRs: 31
Complaints: 2
Monitoring:
Coordinated
Program
Reviews,
Mid-Cycle
Reviews,
complaints
For:
CPRs: 51
Monitoring:
Coordinated
Program
Reviews,
Mid-Cycle
Reviews,
complaints
For:
CPRs: 51
MCRs: 31
Complaints: 0
MCRs: 31
Complaints: 3
61
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Indicator
5. Percent of children with IEPs
aged 6 through 21 educational placements.
6. Percent of preschool children
aged 3 through 5 – early
childhood placement.
General
Supervision
System
Components
Monitoring:
Coordinated
Program
Reviews,
Mid-Cycle
Reviews,
complaints
8. Percent of parents with a
child receiving special
education services who
report that schools facilitated
parent involvement as a
means of improving services
and results for children with
disabilities.
Monitoring:
Coordinated
Program
Reviews,
Mid-Cycle
Reviews,
complaints
9. Percent of districts with
disproportionate
representation of racial and
ethnic groups in special
education that is the result of
inappropriate identification.
Monitoring:
Coordinated
Program
Reviews,
Mid-Cycle
Reviews,
complaints
10. Percent of districts with
disproportionate
representation of racial and
ethnic groups in specific
disability categories that is
the result of inappropriate
identification.
11. Percent of children who were
evaluated within 60 days of
receiving parental consent
for initial evaluation or, if the
State establishes a
timeframe within which the
evaluation must be
conducted, within that
timeframe.
Monitoring:
Coordinated
Program
Reviews, MidCycle Reviews,
complaints
# of
Programs
Monitored
Submitted February 1, 2008
(a) # of Findings
of noncompliance
identified in FFY
2005 (7/1/05 –
6/30/06)
(b) # of Findings from
(a) for which
correction was
verified no later than
one year from
identification
123
61
207
117
63
32
77
52
For:
CPRs: 51
MCRs: 31
Complaints: 1
For:
CPRs: 51
MCRs: 31
Complaints: 2
For:
CPRs: 51
MCRs: 31
Complaints: 0
For:
CPRs: 51
MCRs: 31
Complaints: 20
62
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Indicator
General
Supervision
System
Components
12. Percent of children referred
by Part C prior to age 3, who
are found eligible for Part B,
and who have an IEP
developed and implemented
by their third birthdays.
Monitoring:
Coordinated
Program
Reviews, MidCycle Reviews,
complaints
# of
Programs
Monitored
Submitted February 1, 2008
(a) # of Findings
of noncompliance
identified in FFY
2005 (7/1/05 –
6/30/06)
(b) # of Findings from
(a) for which
correction was
verified no later than
one year from
identification
22
12
94
46
9
6
973
535
For:
CPRs: 51
MCRs: 31
Complaints: 1
Other Topical Areas
Faculty, Staff, and Administration
Record Keeping
Monitoring:
Coordinated
Program
Reviews, MidCycle Reviews,
complaints
Monitoring:
Coordinated
Program
Reviews, MidCycle Reviews,
complaints
For:
CPRs: 51
MCRs: 31
Complaints: 1
For:
CPRs: 51
MCRs: 31
Complaints: 1
Sum the numbers down Column a and Column b
Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification =
(column (b) sum divided by column (a) sum) times 100: 535/973 x 100 = 55%
Notes:
1. The numbers of CPR findings of noncompliance counted into the number of findings of noncompliance
for each indicator/indicator group or other topical area, when added up, do not equal the number of
findings of noncompliance made through CPRs reported in the APR for Indicator 15. Likewise, the
numbers of MCR findings of noncompliance counted into the number of findings of noncompliance for
each indicator/indicator group or other topical area, when added up, do not equal the number of
findings of noncompliance made through MCRs reported in the APR for Indicator 15. The reason for
this is that the criteria under which Program Quality Assurance Services makes findings often have
several parts. In disaggregating findings in this worksheet, where a finding was related to two
indicators/indicator groups or other topical areas, it was usually treated as two findings.
2. Because MCR findings are often less detailed than CPR findings, the small number of MCR findings for
criteria that were split for disaggregation purposes between two indicators/indicator groups or other
63
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
topical areas were split between those two indicators/indicator groups or other topical areas in the same
proportions as the CPR findings.
3. The sum of column a, 973, differs from the total number of findings of noncompliance, 1125, reported in
the APR for Indicator 15, and the sum of column b, 535, differs from the total number of findings of
noncompliance corrected within one year, 707, reported in the APR for Indicator 15:
a. for the reason described in Note 1 above, and also
b. because only 35 of the 211 findings of noncompliance made through the PRS (complaint
system) during 2005 -2006 were included in this worksheet. The remainder of the findings did
not fall into any of the indicator/indicator groups or the two other topical areas included in the
worksheet. The bulk of them (101) had to do with non-implementation or partial implementation
of IEPs.
4. The “number of programs monitored” for CPRs is the number of districts for which a CPR final report
was issued between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006. The “number of programs monitored” for MCRs
is the number of districts for which an MCR report was issued between July 1, 2005, and June 30,
2006. The “number of programs monitored” for complaints for each indicator/indicator group or other
topical area is the number of districts about which findings of noncompliance related to that
indicator/indicator group or other topical area were made between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006.
64
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
APPENDIX C -- Web-Based Monitoring System
The goal of the Web-Based Monitoring System is to directly involve school district leadership in a careful
and methodical assessment of their current practices, procedures, and policies and their compliance with
federal and state special education requirements. Once the districts have completed this selfassessment, they will be required to report their findings to PQA staff for evaluation. As part of the selfassessment the district will be expected to complete a variety of activities, including special education
student record review, interviews, and procedure and policy reviews, with additional activities to be later
defined. The districts will have access to a virtual library of forms and guidance documents, as well as a
link to the most recent available data reports resulting from the Student Information Management System
(SIMS) collection, Assessments/MCAS, and staffing information via MASSDE’s new Education Personnel
Information Management System (EPIMS), all designed to facilitate the various self-assessment activities
as specified by PQA.
The district will report the results of its self-assessment by responding through MASSDE’s secure portal
to a series of questions relating to a series of standards and indicators. These responses will be entered
using check boxes and limited text fields for short responses, with the capacity to add word processing
and spreadsheet attachments as necessary. Once MASSDE receives this electronic report, liaisons in
PQA will review and analyze the results of the district’s self-assessment. MASSDE’s analysis will include
a summary report that describes the results of the desk audit for all of the standards and/or indicators
reviewed. The summary report will also use check boxes and limited text fields for short responses, with
the capacity to add word processing and spreadsheet attachments when required.
Beyond special education self-assessment reporting and MASSDE’s evaluation of it as described above,
the Web-Based Monitoring System will allow districts to submit special education corrective action plans
and subsequent special education progress reports in electronic templates. These e-documents will be
substantially narrative in nature. The corrective action plan will describe the problem, the proposed
corrective action, the person(s) responsible for implementation, and the projected date of completion, as
well as explaining how the effectiveness of the corrective action will be measured. The electronic
templates for the corrective action plans and progress reports will also have the capacity to add word
processing and spreadsheet attachments as may be required for MASSDE’s review and approval (format
to be determined). All of the information collected will be stored electronically according to the monitoring
year for on-call retrieval by MASSDE for analysis and the fulfillment of reporting requirements
The following overall project objectives are identified below:





Improve the monitoring and follow-up processes while reducing staffing needs and paperwork,
thereby lowering MASSDE and school districts’ ultimate costs;
Increase district level compliance with federal and state laws and regulations;
Increase process and information access and transparency to PQA and district staff;
Provide an extensible, scalable architecture for monitoring education programs on a platform for
the future that uses industry standards; and
Complete a successful monitoring and follow-up system implementation (defined by project and
functional metrics).
More specifically, it is MASSDE’s expectation that it will have the capacity to generate a variety of special
education reports based on data from the Web-Based Monitoring System from both PQA and the
districts. These special education reports will include, but not be limited to:
 Compliance profiles of each individual district as well as the aggregate compliance reporting of all
of the districts involved;
 Item analysis reports for specific standards and indicators;
 Review of patterns of compliance and comparisons of district compliance to statewide
compliance; and
 The analysis of compliance rates for particular standards and indicators within a particular fiscal
year with the capacity, over time, to look at district and state trend data.
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Submitted February 1, 2008
APPENDIX D -- Table 7: Report of Dispute Resolution for FFY 2006
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
PROGRAMS
TABLE 7
REPORT OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION UNDER PART B, OF THE
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT
2006-07
PAGE 1 OF 1
OMB NO.: 1820-0677
FORM EXPIRES: 08/31/2009
STATE: Massachusetts
SECTION A: Written, signed complaints
383
(1) Written, signed complaints total
(1.1) Complaints with reports issued
236
(a) Reports with findings
170
(b) Reports within timeline
179
(c) Reports within extended timelines
(1.2) Complaints withdrawn or dismissed
36
107
40
(1.3) Complaints pending
(a) Complaint pending a due process hearing
21
SECTION B: Mediation requests
(2) Mediation requests total
841
(2.1) Mediations
841
(a) Mediations related to due process
36
(i) Mediation agreements
27
(b) Mediations not related to due process
(i) Mediation agreements
(2.2) Mediations not held (including pending)
805
677
0
SECTION C: Hearing requests
(3) Hearing requests total
(3.1) Resolution sessions
(a) Settlement agreements
(3.2) Hearings (fully adjudicated)
(a) Decisions within timeline
(b) Decisions within extended timeline
(3.3) Resolved without a hearing
592
400
25
26
3
22
566
SECTION D: Expedited hearing requests (related to disciplinary decision)
(4) Expedited hearing requests total
31
(4.1) Resolution sessions
24
(a) Settlement agreements
1
(4.2) Expedited hearings (fully adjudicated)
2
(a) Change of placement ordered
1
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
APPENDIX E -- Indicator #20 Scoring Rubric
APR Data
APR
Indicator
1
2
3A
3B
3C
4A
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Valid and
Reliable
Data
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APR Score Calculation
Correct Calculation
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Followed
Instructions
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Subtotal
Timely Submission
Points - If the FFY 2006
APR was submitted ontime, place the number 5 in
the cell on the right.
Grand Total (Sum of
subtotal and Timely
Submission Points) =
Total
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
58
5
63
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Table
Table 1–
Child Count
Due Date:
2/1/07
Table 2Personnel
Revised April 14, 2008
618 State-Reported Data
Responded
Passed to Data Note
Complete
Edit
Requests
Timely
Data
Check
Total
1
1
0
1
3
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
0
1
3
0
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
4
Due Date:
11/1/07
Table 3– Ed.
Environments
Due Date:
2/1/07
Table 4–
Exiting
Due Date:
11/1/07
Table 5Discipline
Due Date:
11/1/07
Table 6- State
Assessment
Due Date:
2/1/08
Table 7Dispute
Resolution
Due Date:
11/1/07
Subtotal
618 Score Calculation
Grand Total (Subtotal x
2) =
25
50
68
Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2006
Revised April 14, 2008
Indicator #20 Calculation
A. APR Grand Total =
63
B. 618 Grand Total =
50
C. APR Grand Total (A) + 618 Grand Total (B) =
D. Subtotal (C divided by 119)* =
E. Indicator Score (Subtotal (D) x 100) =
113
0.950
95.0%
* Note: Any cells mark with a N/A will decrease the denominator by 1 for APR and 2 for 618
data.
Definitions
Timely – All data for the APR are submitted on or before February 1, 2008. Data for tables for
618 are submitted on or before each tables’ due date. NO extensions.
Valid and Reliable Data - Data provided are from the correct time period, are consistent with
618 (when appropriate) and the measurement, and are consistent with previous indicator data
(unless explained).
Correct Calculation - Result produced follows the required calculation in the instructions for the
indicator.
Instructions Followed - APR provides information required in the instructions for the indicator.
For example, when required, explanation provided, raw data and/or definitions given, or
response provided to previous OSEP APR analysis.
Complete Data – No missing sections. No placeholder data. Data submitted from all districts or
agencies. For example, when the instructions for an indicator require data broken down into
subparts, data for all subparts are provided.
Passed Edit Check - Tables submitted to Westat do not have missing cells or internal
inconsistencies.
(See https://www.ideadata.org/TAMaterial.asp regarding Westat edit checks.)
Responded to Data Note Requested – Provided written explanation to Westat in response to
data note requests.
69