Download MS WORD Document size: 1.79 MB

Massachusetts Part B State Performance

Plan (MA SPP): FFY2005 – FFY2012

Submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs

February 3, 2014

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

75 Pleasant Street, Malden, MA 02148-4906

Phone 781-338-3000 TTY: N.E.T. Relay 800-439-2370 www.doe.mass.edu

This document was prepared by the

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D.

Commissioner

The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, an affirmative action employer, is committed to ensuring that all of its programs and facilities are accessible to all members of the public.

We do not discriminate on the basis of age, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation.

Inquiries regarding the Department’s compliance with Title IX and other civil rights laws may be directed to the

Human Resources Director, 75 Pleasant St., Malden, MA 02148-4906. Phone: 781-338-6105.

© 2013 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Permission is hereby granted to copy any or all parts of this document for non-commercial educational purposes. Please credit the “Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.”

This document printed on recycled paper


75 Pleasant Street, Malden, MA 02148-4906

Phone 781-338-3000 TTY: N.E.T. Relay 800-439-2370 www.doe.mass.edu

Massachusetts

Submitted December 1, 2005; Revised January 3, 2006; February 1, 2007; May 21, 2007; February 1,

2008; April 14, 2008; February 2, 2009; January 29, 2010; February 2, 2011; April 19, 2011; February 1,

2012; February 15, 2013; May 17, 2013; and February 3, 2014

U.S Department of Education

Office of Special Education Programs

Potomac Center Plaza

Mail Stop 2600, Room 4166

550 12 th

Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20202

Re: Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan for FFY 2005-FFY2012

Dear Sir or Madam:

Enclosed is the Massachusetts State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2012, update for the

FFY2012 reporting period. The MA SPP was developed in accordance with 20 U.S.C. 1416(b)(1), which states that “not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Improvement Act of 2004, each State must have in place a performance plan that evaluates the State’s efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of Part B and describes how the State will improve such implementation.” The MA SPP responds directly to the 20 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 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (MASSDE) has engaged in a variety of activities to obtain broad input from stakeholders on the development of the Massachusetts

State Performance Plan (MA SPP). An overview of the MA SPP was first presented to the Special

Education Advisory Council (SAC), and was also presented to key stakeholders within MASSDE. As a next step, the Massachusetts Statewide Special Education Steering Committee – which consists of SAC 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 – met to identify targets, methodologies, and key activities as appropriate for each of the 20 MA

SPP indicators. Additionally, I have met with a number of other groups as we have been preparing and revising the MA SPP and Annual Performance Report (APR), and have solicited input and described the activities to date to stakeholders broadly across the state.

The continued input and feedback from the Steering Committee and the State Advisory Councils and interest groups have been key to the development and implementation of the MA SPP. In addition to discussing targets, methodologies, and improvement activities, Steering Committee members have also discussed dissemination of information about the MA SPP within their respective organizations.

Additionally, members signed up to participate in targeted interest groups focused on each indicator.

These interest groups incorporate additional members and have me throughout the SPP period to help guide Massachusetts’ work in each area.

Regarding public dissemination, the completed MA SPP is 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.

Additionally, MASSDE posts the MA SPP on the MASSDE website at http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/maspp.html

, and distributes hard copies of the report to key constituencies and the media.

In the MA SPP, MASSDE has provided detail and commentary that addresses concerns raised in previous correspondence from OSEP regarding the MA SPP. Where concerns were raised, the response is incorporated fully into the actions that MASSDE describes for the present or future in various sections throughout the MA SPP, as applicable.

MA Part B State Performance Plan For FFY2005-2012

Submitted February 3, 2014

Massachusetts

Since the beginning of the SPP period, MASSDE has made formatting changes annually that include table formats and margin alignment. Other changes made each year include revision or, or updates and additions to improvement activities to reflect new or update existing initiatives. These changes are also recorded in Appendix A, as appropriate.

The following additional revisions have been made since the initial submission on December 1, 2005:

1. Indicator 4A was revised on January 3, 2006;

2. Indicators 1, 2, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 18 were revised on February 1, 2007;

3. Indicators 9 and 10 were revised on May 21, 2007 at the request of OSEP;

4. Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4A, 5, 7, 9, 10, 14, and 20 were revised on February 1, 2008;

5. Indicators 7, 9 and 10 were revised on April 14, 2008 at the request of OSEP;

6. Indicator 7 was revised according to the SPP submission instructions, the baseline data for

Indicator 1 were revised, and improvement activities for Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4A, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11,

13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 20 were revised on February 2, 2009;

7. Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 16, 17 and 18 were revised, and improvement activities were revised for Indicators 1, 2, 4, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18 and 19 on February 1, 2010; and

8. Indicators 1-20 were revised to include targets and new or updated improvement activities for the extended SPP period (FFY 2011 and FFY 2012); Indicators 4B, 13, and 14 have been amended to include new baseline data, targets, and improvement activities; and targets have been amended for Indicators 8, 18, and 19 on February 1, 2011.

9. Revisions were made to data and/or targets in Indicators 4B; and the calculation methodology was changed in the FFY2010 SPP.

10. The Indicator 13 plan was revised to include the text of the measurement in the baseline data box, and additional information describing MASSDE’s data verification activities in the February 1,

2011 submission.

11. Indicator 14 was revised for the FFY2010 submission to include correction of an erroneously reported response rate for the FFY2009 baseline year.

12. New baselines data and targets for Indicator 3 were reported in FFY2011, aligned with changes made pursuant to the accountability waiver granted to Massachusetts.

13. Hyperlinks have been updated as appropriate.

For the FFY2012 reporting year, MASSDE has corrected an error in the Indicator 9 definition of

“disproportionate representation,” which uses an “n” size of 10, rather than 20 as originally reported; the state has been using the smaller “n” size every year. Also, all indicator plans have been updated to include improvement activities for FFY2012. Formatting changes have shortened the length of the report, but have not altered its content.

If you have questions or need additional clarification regarding the MA SPP, 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


C: Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D., Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary

Education



Table of Contents

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

Indicator 1: Graduation Rates

Indicator 2: Drop-Out Rates

Indicator 3: Assessment

Indicator 4: Suspension / Expulsion

Indicator 5: School-age LRE

Indicator 6: Preschool LRE

Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes

Indicator 8: Parent Involvement

Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality

Indicator 9: Disproportionality – Child with a Disability

Indicator 10: Disproportionality – Eligibility Category

Effective General Supervision / Child Find

Indicator 11: Initial Evaluation Timelines

Effective General Supervision / Effective Transition

Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition

Indicator 13: Secondary Transition

Indicator 14: Post-School Outcomes

Effective General Supervision / General Supervision

Indicator 15: Identification and Correction of Noncompliance

Indicator 16: Complaint Timelines

Indicator 17: Due Process Timelines

Indicator 18: Hearing Requests Resolved by Resolution Sessions

Indicator 19: Mediation Agreements

Indicator 20: State Reported Data

Appendices

Appendix A: Selected Cross-Cutting Improvement Activities

Appendix B: Massachusetts Parent Survey for Special Education (FFY2005)

Appendix C: Massachusetts Parent Involvement Survey (FFY2010)

Appendix D: Postsecondary Transition Planning Checklist

Appendix E: Form 28M/9

Appendix F: Massachusetts Postsecondary Outcomes Survey (FFY2006)

Appendix G: Massachusetts Postsecondary Outcomes Survey (FFY2009)

Appendix H: Massachusetts Postsecondary Outcomes Survey (FFY2010)

Appendix I: Correction of Noncompliance Data Chart

Appendix J: Table 7 – Report of Dispute Resolution (FFY2004)

Appendix K: Indicator 20 Scoring Rubric (FFY2006)

Massachusetts

94

101

110

146

171

173

180

181

183

185

186

187

189

191

120

126

131

134

138

142

79

84

89

1

9

16

29

40

49

57

70



Massachusetts

Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012

Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:


Indicator 1: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma.

Indicator #1: Graduation Rates

(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

Measurement: States must report using the graduation rate calculation and timeline established by the

Department under the ESEA.

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:

In Massachusetts the measurement for 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 studen ts 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 all youth, regardless of IEP status, is the same.

For students in the 2005-2006 school year cohort, Massachusetts is calculating and reporting a statewide graduation rate for the first time. This cohort includes all students who entered 9th grade in

Massachusetts’ public schools for the first time in the fall of 2002, plus all students who transferred into the cohort during the four years, minus all students who transferred out of the cohort or who were deceased during the four years. Students who earned their Competency Determination, met all local graduation requirements, and received a diploma from a Massachusetts public high school in four years or less were counted as graduates. Summer graduates were included as if they graduated in the June preceding the summer.

The data used to calculate the graduation rate are obtained through the Student Information Management

System (SIMS) scheduled reports that are submitted by school districts throughout the year. Because this is the first time MASSDE has calculated the graduation rate, and because the data come from the initial years of SIMS when districts were still becoming familiar with the system, MASSDE has allowed for the possibility of a limited number of corrections. Initial student-level data for the 2005-2006 cohort were released to districts in November of 2006, and district staff had one month to review the data and request corrections. MASSDE then reviewed all requests and made appropriate corrections. For subsequent years, it is anticipated that the number and type of corrections allowed will decrease.

MASSDE’s calculation method is based on the formula set forth in the National Governors’ Association

(NGA) Compact, and meets the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) definition of graduation rate for use in determining Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for secondary schools. However, MASSDE acknowledges that a significant number of students require more than four years to graduate, so a five-year graduation rate has also been calculated. Although Massachusetts’ formal SPP targets are based on the four-year graduation rate, Massachusetts will continue to generate both rates for the entire student population of each cohort and for individual student subgroups at the state, district, and school level. Additional information on the calculation of graduation rates is available on MASSDE’s website at the following link: http://www.doe.mass.edu/infoservices/reports/gradrates/ .



1

Massachusetts

Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005-2006):

# of Students in

2005-2006 cohort

# of Students who graduated in four years or less

2005-2006

Graduation Rate

IEP

Non-IEP

13,814

60,934

8,440

51,149

61.1%

83.9%

All Students 74,380 59,440 79.9%

Discussion of Baseline Data:

The data provided in the above table show that students with disabilities in Massachusetts ’ public schools are graduating from high school in four years at a lower rate than their non-disabled peers. Based on the cohort formula for calculating graduation rate, 61.1% of students with disabilities in the 2005-2006 cohort graduated from high school in four years or less while the graduation rate is 83.9% for non-disabled students in the same cohort, and is 79.9% for all students in the cohort.

The five-year graduation rate for students in the 2005-2006 cohort is 67.0% for students with disabilities,

86.2% for non-disabled students, and 82.7% overall. This means that 5.9% of students with disabilities in the cohort, and 2.3% of students without disabilities, graduated in five years instead of four. MASSDE recognizes that it is appropriate for some students to take longer than four years to complete high school, and so Massachusetts will continue to calculate and publicly report the five-year rate for subsequent cohorts as an additional measure of year-to-year progress.

This disparity between the graduation rates for disabled and for non-disabled students in Massachusetts reflects a national trend. The report on SPP Indicator 1 prepared by the National Dropout Prevention

Center for Students with Disabilities (NDPC-SD) for the Regional Resource and Feder al Center Network’s

Part B SPP/APR Indicator Analysis shows that of 36 states that reported graduation rates for both student with disabilities and all students, 35 states had a positive gap between the all-student rate and the rate for students with disabilities. One state actually had a negative gap between the all-student rate and the rate for students with disabilities, and the gaps for the other 35 states ranged from approximately one percentage point to approximately 45 percentage points. Massachusetts, with a gap of 18.2 percentage points, appears to be on par with many of the states reporting graduation rates for both students with disabilities and all students, although it should be noted that many states used an “event” calculation which cannot be directly compared to Massachusetts’ “cohort” calculation.

Massachusetts is committed to closing the gap between the graduation rate of students with disabilities and the graduation rate of students without disabilities over a ten-year period. Our SPP targets set in

December 2009 reflect a graduation rate for all students at or above 95% by FFY 2018. The plan is to increase the Graduation Rate of all students with disabilities by approximately 5% every two years, as indicated below.

For the extended SPP period (FFY2011 and FFY2012), targets and activities were reviewed with the

Statewide Special Education Steering Committee.



2

Massachusetts

FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target

2005

(2005-2006)

2006

(2006-2007)

2007

(2007-2008)

2008

(2008-2009)

2009

(2009-2010)

2010

(2010-2011)

2011

(2011-2012)

2012

(2012-2013)

61.1%

61.7%

65.0% 1

70.0%

72.5%

75.0%

77.5%

80.0%

Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:

Please note that many of the activities presented below affect multiple indicator areas. For these activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.

Improvement Activity Resources Timelines

(FFY)

2005 - 2012 Data Collection and Analysis Activities – Review and Revision

(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

2005 - 2010 Secondary School Reading Grant

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14 )

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

1 For more information about the revised targets for FFY2007 through FFY2010, see the Massachusetts Part B

Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY2008, available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/maspp.html

.



3

Timelines

(FFY)

2005 - 2007

Improvement Activity

Project FOCUS Academy

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

Massachusetts

Resources

MASSDE staff time, grant partners (Federation for

Children with Special

Needs, Center for Applied

Special Technologies,

Institute for Community

Inclusion at UMass-

Boston, Education

Development Center), district staff time

MASSDE staff time 2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2007 - 2008

2007 - 2008

2007 - 2012

Collaboration with Stakeholders

(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.

Special Education Professional Development

Summer Institutes

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

Special Education Website

(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.

Massachusetts Online Resource Library

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

SPecial EDition Online Newsletter

(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.

Massachusetts FOCUS Academy

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time, district staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

2007 - 2010 Central Massachusetts Communities of Care

Positive Behavioral Interventions (PBIS) Grant

(Fund Code 250)

(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.






Inclusion at UMass-

Boston), district staff time

MASSDE staff time, grant partners (Central

Massachusetts

Communities of Care,

National Center for

Positive Behavioral

Intervention and Supports trainers), district staff time



4

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2011

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2010

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2007 - 2011

Improvement Activity Resources

Trauma Sensitive Schools Initiative

(Indicators 1, 2, 4 )

See Appendix A.

Federal School Turnaround Grants

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 14 )

See Appendix A.

Secondary Transition – Transition Works:

Innovative Strategies for Transitioning Youth with

Disabilities from School to Work

(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

National Association of State Directors of Special

Education (NASDSE) Professional Development

Series

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

Graduation and Dropout Prevention and Recovery

Commission


See Appendix A.

Dropout Prevention and Recovery Work Group

(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

Dropout Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery

Website

(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

Educational Proficiency Plans (EPPs)

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

ARRA Title II-D Technology Competitive Grants

Program

(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 14 )

See Appendix A.


MASSDE staff time, district staff time, stakeholder groups

MASSDE staff time,

Massachusetts

Rehabilitation Commission staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time


MASSDE staff time





5

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2008 - 2010


2008 - 2010

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2009 - 2010

2009 - 2012

2009 - 2012

2009 - 2012

2010

2010 - 2012

Interagency Regional Summit Meetings

Funded in part from an America's Promise grant and are co-organized by MASSDE, MA Executive Office of

Education, MA Executive Office of Labor and Workforce

Development, MA Executive Office of Health and

Human Services, and Commonwealth Corporation.

These summits are intended to support regional teams in understanding and using youth-related data including student graduation, dropout, youth employment, and state and regional labor market information to promote timely graduation and college and career readiness.

MASSDE, MA Executive

Office of Education, MA

Executive Office of Labor and Workforce

Development, MA

Executive Office of Health and Human Services, and

Commonwealth

Corporation staff time

ARRA Entitlement Grants

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Summit

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8)

See Appendix A.

Massachusetts Work Based Learning Plan

(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

Early Warning Indicator Index (EWII) and Early

Warning Indicator System (EWIS)

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time, district staff time,

Workforce Development staff time

Massachusetts Task Force on Behavioral Health and

Public Schools

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.



MASSDE staff time District and School Assistance Centers (DSACs)

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13)

See Appendix A.

Closing the Achievement Gap Legislation

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14)

See Appendix A.


An Act Relative to Bullying in Schools

(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

Massachusetts High School Graduation Initiative

(MassGrad)

(Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.





6

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2010 - 2012

2010 - 2012

2010 - 2012

2011

2011 - 2012

2011 - 2012

2011 - 2012

2011 - 2012

2011 - 2012


Massachusetts Licensure Academy (MLA)

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

Massachusetts Tiered System of Support (MTSS)

Grants

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

Massachusetts 21 st Century Community Learning

Centers (CCLC)

(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


Conference

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

Secondary Transition Strategic Planning

(Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Academy

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14)

See Appendix A.

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Summer

Training Series

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14)

See Appendix A.

Transition Endorsement

(Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

Resources

MASSDE staff time, district staff time, grant partners (Fitchburg State

University)


MASSDE staff time, CCLC staff time


MASSDE staff time, stakeholder groups, district staff time

MASSDE staff time, district staff time, CAST


MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time, district staff time, stakeholders



7

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2012

2012


The Partnership Project

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

Integration of College and Career Readiness (ICCR)

Task Force

(Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


Department of Public

Health/Early Intervention,

Department of Early

Education and Care,

Massachusetts

Rehabilitation

Commission, Institutes of

Higher Education

MASSDE staff time, stakeholders



8

Massachusetts




Indicator #2: Dropout Rates

Indicator 2: Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school.

Indicator #2: Dropout Rates

(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

Measurement: States must report using the dropout data used in the ESEA graduation rate calculation and follow the timeline established by the Department under the ESEA.


A dropout is defined as a student in grades 9-12 in Massachusetts public schools who leaves school prior to graduation for reasons other than to transfer to another school, and does not re-enroll before the following October 1. The data used to calculate the dropout rate are obtained through the Student

Information Management System (SIMS) scheduled reports that are submitted by school districts throughout the year. The end-of-year collection period includes a count of students who dropped out. This figure is then amended after districts submit their first SIMS report for the following school year (the

October 1 st collection). Students who were reported as a “dropout” at the end of the year and then were enrolled in a district at the subsequent October 1 st count (i.e., “returned dropouts”) are removed from the data set. Students who drop out of high school but earn a GED are also removed from this data set.

Students who were reported as enrolled at the end of the year but were not reported in the next October

1 st SIMS collection (i.e., “summer dropouts”) are added back in to the count and are applied towards the grade in which they failed to enroll. The remaining figure is then divided by the total enrollment of students that were reported in the October 1 st data collection during the July 1 st to June 30 th twelve-month period for which the dropout count is being calculated.

For additional information on the dropout calculation, see the flowchart available at the following link:

Reporting Guidelines - Information Services/Data Collection,

(http://www.doe.mass.edu/infoservices/data/guides/dropouts.html).

Baseline Data for FFY2004 (2004-2005):

# of Students Enrolled

(Grades 9-12)

# of Dropouts (Grades 9-

12)

2004-2005 Dropout

Rate

IEP

Non-IEP

All Students

42,647

250,752

293,399

2,369

8,776

11,145

5.6%

3.5%

3.8%


The data provided in the above table show that students with IEPs in Massachusetts’ public schools are dropping out of high school at a higher rate than their peers without IEPs. Based on this formula for calculating dropout rate, which is an “event” or “annual” rate calculation, MASSDE determined that 5.6% of students with IEPs dropped out of high school in 2004-2005. The dropout rate was 3.5% for students without IEPs, and was 3.8% for all students, in 2004-2005.



9

Massachusetts

This disparity between the dropout rates for students with and without IEPs in Massachusetts reflects a national trend. The report on SPP Indicator 2 prepared by the National Dropout Prevention Center for

Students with Disabilities (NDPCSD) for the Regional Resource and Federal Center Network’s Part B

SPP/APR Indicator Analysis shows that of 37 states that reported dropout rates for both student with IEPs and all students, the majority of states had a positive gap between the all-student rate and the rate for students with IEPs, with gaps ranging between a fraction of one percentage point and approximately 18 percentage points. Massachusetts, with a gap of 1.8 percentage points, appears to be on par with many of the states reporting dropout rates for both students with IEPs and all students, although it should be noted that many states used a “cohort” calculation which cannot be directly compared to Massachusetts’

“event” calculation.

Massachusetts is committed to closing the gap between the dropout rate of students with IEPs and the dropout rate of students without IEPs over a ten-year period. Our SPP targets reflect a ten-year goal for

FFY2015 of a dropout rate for students with IEPs at or below 3.5%. Our ten-year plan is to decrease the

Dropout Rate of students with IEPs by approximately half of one percentage point every two years as follows:

● FFY2005 & FFY2006: 5.6%

● FFY2009 & FFY2010: 4.7%

● FFY2013 & FFY2014: 3.9%

● FFY2007 & FFY2008: 5.1%

● FFY2011 & FFY2012: 4.3%

● FFY2015: 3.5%

Targets and activities for the extended SPP reporting period, FFY2011 and FFY2012, were reviewed in consultation with the Massachusetts Statewide Special Education Steering Committee.


2005

(2005-2006)

2006

(2006-2007)

2007

(2007-2008)

Students with IEPs Dropout Rate: 5.6%

2008

(2008-2009)

2009

(2009-2010)

2010

(2010-2011)

2011

(2011-2012)

2012

(2012-2013)



5.6%

5.1%

5.1%

4.7%

4.7%

4.3%

4.3%

10

Massachusetts



Timelines

(FFY)

2005 - 2012


2005 - 2007

2005 - 2010

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 – 2012

2007 - 2011

2007 - 2008

2007 - 2008

Data Collection and Analysis Activities – Review and

Revision

(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time






Inclusion at UMass-Boston,

Education Development

Center), district staff time

MASSDE staff time Secondary School Reading Grant

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14 )

See Appendix A.



(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.



(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time


Program


See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

SPecial EDition Newsletter

(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.


MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time



11

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2007 - 2010

2007 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2010

2008 - 2010

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012


Central Massachusetts Communities of Care Positive

Behavioral Interventions (PBIS) Grant

(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

Massachusetts FOCUS Academy (MFA)

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


Massachusetts


National Center for Positive

Behavioral Intervention and

Supports trainers), district staff time






Inclusion at UMass-


MASSDE staff time National Association of State Directors of Special


Series

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


Commission


See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time


MASSDE staff time, New

England Comprehensive

Center staff time, district staff time

MASSDE staff time Dropout Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery

Website

(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 )

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time



12

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2008 - 2011

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2009 - 2012

2009 - 2012

2009 - 2012

2009 - 2010

2010

2010 - 2012

2010 - 2012


Secondary Transition – Transition Works: Innovative

Strategies for Transitioning Youth with Disabilities from School to Work

(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.



See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 14 )

See Appendix A.

District and School Assistance Centers (DSACs)

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13 )

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14 )

See Appendix A.



(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


Public Schools

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(MassGrad)

(Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time,

Massachusetts



MASSDE staff time, district staff time, Workforce

Development staff time


MASSDE staff time






MASSDE staff time, district staff time, grant partners

(Fitchburg State University)



13

Timelines

(FFY)

2010 - 2012

2010 - 2012

2011

2011 - 2012

2011 - 2012

2011 - 2012

2011 - 2012

2011 - 2012

2012



Centers (CCLC)

(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


Grants

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


Conference

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14)

See Appendix A.


Training Series

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

Massachusetts

Resources

MASSDE staff time, CCLC staff time






MASSDE staff time


MASSDE staff time, district staff time, Department of

Public Health/Early

Intervention, Department of

Early Education and Care,

Massachusetts

Rehabilitation Commission,

Institutes of Higher

Education



14

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2012



Task Force

(Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.




15

Massachusetts




Indicator 3: Participation and performance of children with IEPs on statewide assessments:

A. Percent of the districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s AYP/AMO targets for the disability subgroup.

B. Participation rate for children with IEPs.

C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified and alternate academic achievement standards.

(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

Measurement:

A.

2 (choose either A.1 or A.2) 3

A.1 AYP percent = [(# of districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s AYP targets for the disability subgroup) divided by the (total # of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size)] times 100.

A.2 AMO percent = [(# of districts with a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s AMO targets for the disability subgroup) divided by the (total # of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size)] times 100.

B. Participation rate = [(# of children with IEPs participating in the assessment) divided by the (total # of children with IEPs enrolled during the testing window, calculated separately for reading and math)].

The participation rate is based on all children with IEPs, including both children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year and those not enrolled for a full academic year.

C. Proficiency rate = [(# of children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year scoring at or above proficient) divided by the (total # of children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year, calculated separately for reading and math)].


ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP)

MASSDE requires that each district receive a positive Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determination each year. AYP calculations were designed by MASSDE to monitor the progress of the public schools toward meeting the goal of high achievement for all students. AYP measures elements of participation, performance, improvement, and attendance to determine if schools are meeting the yearly target that aligns with the overarching goal of the No Child Left Behind Act that all students attain academic

2 Prior to the change in measurement for Indicator 3.A in FFY2011 and the addition of Annual Measurable

Objectives (AMOs), the Adequate Yearly Progress measurement for Indicator 3A was:

AYP Percent = [(# of districts with a disability subgroup that meets the state’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s AYP targets for the disability subgroup) divided by the (total # of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size)] times 100.

3 Consistent with the waiver of certain requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act granted to

Massachusetts by the U.S. Department of Education in FFY2011, Massachusetts no longer reports Adequate Yearly

Progress (AYP). Rather, Massachusetts reports district and school progress toward narrowing proficiency gaps using a new 100-point Progress and Performance Index (PPI).



16

Massachusetts proficiency by school year 2014.

The targets for all student subgroups are the same in Massachusetts in that each subgroup is held to the same level of expectation and the same participation and achievement standards. In order to achieve

AYP in school year 2004-2005, a student subgroup must have met a student participation requirement of

95% or greater and an attendance target (92% or greater attendance rate or 1% improvement over previous year). Next, the subgroup had to either meet the State’s Mid-Cycle IV performance target, a

Composite Performance Index (CPI) score of 80.5 for MCAS English Language Arts (ELA) and 68.7 for

Mathematics, or the subgroup had to meet their Mid-Cycle IV improvement target.

MASSACHUSETTS COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (MCAS)

MASSDE requires that all publicly funded students, including those students with disabilities, participate in the grade level Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests. Although the participation requirement is the same for general education students, students with disabilities can participate in either the standard MCAS or the MCAS Alternate Assessment (MCAS-Alt), depending on the nature and complexity of their disability. The MCAS-Alt is a portfolio-based assessment that measures the same learning standards of the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks as are measured in the standard MCAS tests. For additional information on MCAS participation requirements, please refer to the

Requirements for the Participation of Students with Disabilities in MCAS: Update http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/participation/?section=sped . This resource is updated annually.

In school year 2004-2005 and in previous years, students were required to take the English Language

Arts (ELA) exam in grades 3, 4, 7, and 10. The Mathematics test was administered to students in grades

4, 6, 8, and 10. In order to fulfill the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), beginning in the

2005-2006 school year, both the MCAS ELA and Mathematics tests will be administered annually in grades 3-8 and grade 10.

Accountability Waiver

On February 9, 2012, MASSDE was granted flexibility from certain NCLB requirements. Some of the key changes to the state’s accountability system as a result of the waiver include:

 Massachusetts’ goal of reducing proficiency gaps by half by the end of the 2016-2017 school year has replaced the NCLB requirement of 100 percent of students reaching proficiency by the 2013-

2014 school year. The 100-point Composite Performance Index (CPI), a measure of the extent to which all students in a district, school, or subgroup are progressing toward proficiency, will gauge school districts’ progress toward this goal.



Massachusetts now reports school and district progress toward narrowing proficiency gaps using a new 100-point Progress and Performance Index (PPI), rather than reporting Adequate Yearly

Progress (AYP). For a school to be considered to be making progress toward narrowing proficiency gaps and thereby meeting accountability targets, the cumulative PPI for all students and high needs students must be 75 or higher.



Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs); Science, and graduation and dropout rates (for high schools) are now incorporated into accountability determinations.



Massachusetts has reduced the minimum group size for accountability determinations from 40 to

30 students. In addition, Massachusetts will base the progress of districts and schools on all stud ents and “high needs” students - an unduplicated count of students belonging to at least one of the following individual subgroups: students with disabilities, English language learners (ELL) and Former ELL students, or low income students (students eligible for free/reduced price school lunch).

Complete information about the state system of accountability is available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/apa/accountability/default.html?section=2012 .

MASSDE is required to report new baseline data for Indicator 3A, and to set new targets, based on the accountability waiver. Baseline data for Indicators 3B and 3C, described below, remains the same.



17

Massachusetts

Indicator 3A.2 Baseline Data for FFY2011 (2011-2012):

% Districts Meeting Accountability Target for Disability Subgroup (Indicator 3A.2)

Total number of districts meeting accountability targets for disability subgroup

Total number of districts that have a disability subgroup

Percent of districts meeting accountability targets for disability subgroup

307 23% 71


% Districts Meeting AYP for Disability Subgroup (Indicator 3A)

ELA Mathematics

# Districts with Special Education Subgroup

# Districts Making AYP for Special Education Subgroup

222

99

225

83

37% % Districts Making AYP for Special Education Subgroup 45%

Participation Rate for Students with IEPs (Indicator 3B)

ELA

# of students with IEPs participating in regular assessment* 46,697

# of students with IEPs participating in alternate assessment

Total # of Students with IEPs Assessed (sum of above lines)

Total # of Students with IEPs Enrolled in Assessed Grades

% of Students with IEPs Participating in Statewide

Assessment

3,354

50,051

50,394

99.3%

Mathematics

47,782

3,385

51,167

51,495

99.4%

*Note: At the time of reporting, the MCAS accommodation file is not yet available. MASSDE will submit detailed information on student participation by accommodation status through the February 2006 submission of Table 6.

Since the inception of the MCAS, Massachusetts has held a high standard for all students seeking to demonstrate proficiency. To demonstrate proficiency on the MCAS, students must demonstrate a solid understanding of cha llenging subject matter and solve a wide variety of problems. A “proficient” score on the MCAS indicates that a student has demonstrated appreciably more than the basic skills needed to



18

Massachusetts succeed in a subject area. By setting the bar high, MASSDE expects all students to achieve high levels of academic success.

Proficiency Rate for Students with IEPs (Indicator 3C)

English/

Language Arts

# of students with IEPs scoring Proficient or above on regular assessment*

# of students with IEPs scoring Proficient or above on alternate assessment

Total # of Students with IEPs scoring Proficient or above

(sum of above lines)

Total # of Students with IEPs Assessed

11,984

2

11,986

50,051

% of Students with IEPs Scoring Proficient or Above on

Statewide Assessment

23.9%

Mathematics

7,299

2

7,301

51,167

14.3%

Actual data for baseline year CPI (see below for description) 65 49.5


Indicator 3A.2 (FFY2011) - Percentage of districts meeting accountability targets for disability subgroup

In FFY2011, the percentage of school districts meeting their accountability targets for the disability subgroup was 23% .

In FFY2011, there were 307 districts with a disability subgroup. Of the 307 districts,

71 districts met the accountability targets for the disability subgroup.

Indicator 3A (FFY2004-FFY2010)) - Percentage of Districts Meeting AYP for Disability Subgroup

The baseline data for English Language Arts indicates that of the 222 districts with a special education subgroup, 99 districts (45%) made AYP for that subgroup in English Language Arts (ELA). In

Mathematics, there were 225 districts with a special education subgroup, and 83 (37%) made AYP (the

“n” size for a subgroup is 40 students).

Since the “n” size for subgroups has changed over the past three years (from 20 in 2002-2003 to 40 for the following two years), it is difficult to identify trends. However, it should be noted that the percentage of districts making AYP for the special education subgroup has decreased over the past three years as the targets in each of the subject areas have increased. In ELA, the percentage has dropped from 69% in

2002-2003, to 56% in 2003-2004, to 45% in 2004-2005. For Mathematics, the percentage decreased from 54% in 2002-2003, to 36% in 2003-2004, and remained stable at 37% for 2004-2005.

Massachusetts has not yet developed a methodology to incorporate the additional 2% flexibility provided by the USDOE and anticipates that some of these findings will be revised once the 2% flexibility methodology is designed and approved. MASSDE’s AYP results are also influenced by our high standards and our alternate assessment that is scored against those same standards.



19

Massachusetts

Indicator 3B - Participation Rate for Children with IEPs

As indicated by the baseline data, the participation rate for students with IEPs on statewide assessments is almost 100%. The participation rate on the ELA assessment was 99.3%, and was 99.4% on the

Mathematics assessment. These rates are consistent with past years, as Massachusetts has had a 99% participation rate for students with IEPs on both the ELA and Mathematics assessments in each of the past three years (beginning in 2002-2003).

If a student did not participate in the statewide assessments, it was due to one of three reasons: 1) the student was absent during testing opportunities; 2) the student received a medical exemption; or 3) the student first enrolled in a U.S. school after October 1 and could not engage meaningfully in the assessment process due to limited English proficiency.

Indicator 3C - Proficiency Rate - CPI for Children with IEPs

Massachusetts’s data and targets for Indicator 3C are based on the state performance targets identified in No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the Composite Performance Index (CPI) calculation for each year. CPI is a 100-point index that assigns 100, 75, 50, 25, or 0 points to each student participating in MCAS/MCAS-

Alt tests based on their performance. A school or district’s CPI is calculated by combining points generated by students who take the standard MCAS tests (the “proficiency index”) with points generated by students who take the MCASAlt (“MCAS-Alt Index”). The total points assigned to each student are added together and the sum is divided by the total number of students assessed. The state performance targets are outlined in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1:

State Performance Targets, 2001-2014

ELA Math

100

100

95.1

92.2

90.2

90

85.4

84.3

80.5

80

76.5

75.6

CPI

70.7

70 68.7

60.8

60

53.0

50

40

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Years

The figures included below provide a detailed breakdown of the actual Composite Performance Index

(CPI) for students on an IEP, over the past five years. As evident in these charts, students with IEPs have consistently improved, but did not meet the state performance targets.



20

Massachusetts

100

80

60

40

20

0

70,7

58,5

FFY 2000

Figure 2: MCAS Proficiency Rates CPI: English Language Arts

75,6

70,7

75,6

80,5

59,7

FFY 2001

63,4

FFY 2002

64,9

FFY 2003

65

ELA-Target

ELA-Actual

FFY 2004

100

80

60

40

20

0

53

42,5

Figure 3: MCAS Proficiency Rates CPI: Mathematics

53

41,2

60,8

45,7

60,8

48,2

Math-Target

Math-Actual

68,7

49,5

FFY 2000 FFY 2001 FFY 2002 FFY 2003 FFY 2004

The Massachusetts Steering Committee unanimously recommended that our initial target setting be modest, however, in any area where the state has set targets for students as a whole those same targets are adopted for students with disabilities. The Steering Committee intends to allow our interest groups to review the data and consider local performance as well as state performance to effectively close the gap in this performance indicator. The following targets have been set for this first six-year period. The

Proficiency rate (CPI) targets are the state performance targets identified in No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the Composite Performance Index (CPI).

The following figure shows the new state performance targets for FFY2011 and FFY2012 that represents the goal of reducing proficiency gaps by half by the end of the 2016-2017 school year for the students with IEPs subgroup.



21

Massachusetts

Figure 4: State Performance Targets

FFY2011 - FFY 2016

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

68,3

57,7

70,9

61,2

73,6

64,8

76,2

68,3

78,9

71,8

81,5

75,3

84,2

78,9

ELA

Math

20

10

0

2011

Baseline

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Target Setting for FFY2011 and FFY2012

In order to extend the SPP and set targets for FFY2011 and FFY2012, MASSDE held interest group meetings for Indicator 3 in order to obtain broad stakeholder input. In addition, the Massachusetts

Steering Committee met to vote on the target for Indicator 3A (% of districts making AYP for the Disability

Subgroup) and set targets based on the average increase in targets for the previous 5 years.

Furthermore, the Steering Committee recommended keeping the Proficiency rate (CPI) targets the same as the state performance targets identified in No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Those recommendations are reflected in the targets for the extended SPP reporting period.

MASSDE revisited target setting for this period with the implementation of the ESEA accountability waiver. With stakeholder input, MASSDE has established, beginning with the FFY2011 reporting period, new targets for Indicator 3A.2 and revised targets for Indicator 3C. In recommending new targets for

Indicator 3A.2 based on the flexibility waiver, the Steering Committee applied the same logic of reducing proficiency gaps by half by 2017 to this SPP Indicator, and set the target based on reducing the percentage of districts meeting the accountability targets gap by half by 2017. Those recommendations are reflected in the targets listed below for FFY2011 and FFY2012.

The Steering Committee also recommended keeping the Proficiency rate (CPI) targets the same as the state performance targets with the goal of reducing proficiency gaps by half by the end of the 2016-2017 school year as identified in the ESEA waiver. Those recommendations are also reflected in the table below.



22

Massachusetts

FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets

2005

(2005-2006)

2006

(2006-2007)

2007

(2007-2008)

2008

(2008-2009)

2009

(2009-2010)

2010

(2010-2011)

% Districts Meeting AYP for Disability Subgroup

(3A)

ELA

45%

45%

46%

50%

52%

MATH

37%

37%

38%

40%

42%

Participation Rate for

Students with IEPs for Students with IEPs

(3B)

Proficiency Rate (CPI)

(3C)

MASSDE considers that its current participation rate of better than 99% is synonymous with full participation. Therefore,

MASSDE seeks to maintain this full participation level.

ELA

80.5

85.4

85.4

90.2

90.2

MATH

68.7

76.5

76.5

84.3

84.3

52% 45% 95.1 92.2

% Districts Meeting

Accountability Target for

Disability Subgroup (3A.2)

Proficiency Rate (CPI) for Students with IEPs

(3C)

2011

(2011-2012)

Baseline - 23% 68.3 57.7

2012

(2012-2013)

30.7% 70.9 61.2


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. In addition, best practices from schools winning the Compass Awards (provided to recognize and reward districts for improvements in academic achievement) are disseminated and shared with all low performing districts. Each district and school in Massachusetts is provided annually with its AYP results detailing outcomes for each subgroup and assistance is provided by MASSDE to assist districts in determining



23

Massachusetts areas of needed improvement and how that improvement could be achieved. In addition to the AYP results, districts and schools also receive detailed MCAS item-analysis charts to facilitate in determining patterns, identify weakness and relevant relationships across student subgroups, performance levels, and subject areas and inform staff professional development.

The activities listed above and additional activities are provided in the chart below and affect Indicator 3.

Please note that many of the activities presented below affect multiple indicator areas. For these activities, a full description is available in Appendix A.

Timelines

(FFY)

2005 - 2006



2005 - 2012

2005 - 2007

2005 - 2007

Emergent Literacy Grant


See Appendix A.

Data Collection and Analysis Activities – Revision and Revision

(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time









MASSDE staff time

2005 - 2009

2011 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2010

2005 - 2012

Special Education Program Improvement Grants

(Fund Code 274)


See Appendix A.


(Fund Code 274)

(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13)

See Appendix A.

Collaboration with Federation for Children with

Special Needs

(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

Secondary School Reading Grant

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14 )

See Appendix A.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time,

Federation for Children with

Special Needs

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time



24

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2005 - 2012


2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.

Special Education Leadership Academies and

Seminars

(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 )

See Appendix A.



(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time



Comprehensive System of Personnel Development

Training Project (CSPD)

(Indicators 3, 5, 11, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.



Series

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

Data Analysis

MASSDE will analyze data both at the district and school level to determine appropriate technical assistance, and provide resources for increasing participation and improving performance of students with disabilities on statewide assessments.

Web-based Resources on the Participation of

Students with Disabilities in MCAS

MASSDE will provide an annually updated guide for educators and parents/guardian on MCAS participation, and maintains web based resources for professionals including MCAS-Alt Newsletters, the Resource Guide,

Educator's Manual, MCAS-Alt Forms and Graphs, and order forms.

Ongoing Technical Assistance from the Office of

Accountability and Targeted Assistance

MASSDE will provide ongoing technical assistance related to school and district accountability processes and school improvement initiatives. The supports include creating and issuing data files, providing guidance to districts, assisting identified districts in school improvement planning and identifying exemplary schools and best practices.

MASSDE staff time, CSPD trainer time, CSPD district staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time



25

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2007 - 2010

2007 - 2012

2007 - 2008

2007 - 2008

2007 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012


Partnership for Online Professional Development

(POPD)

This pilot program will offer online professional development courses to educators across the state in content areas such as instructional design, Mathematics, and reading comprehension strategies.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time






Inclusion at UMass-


MASSDE staff time SPecial EDition Online Newsletter

(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

Preschool to Grade 3 Curriculum, Instruction, and

Assessment Alignment Project (Fund Code 264A &

264B)

(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12)

See Appendix A.


Sign Language Web-Based Resource Library

(Indicators 3, 5 )

See Appendix A.

Revision of “Ten Step Guide for Comprehensive

Educational System of Students with Visual

Impairments

(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 )

See Appendix A.

Revision of “Is Special Education the Right Service?”

(ISERS)

(Indicators 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 )

See Appendix A.

Collaboration between MASSDE’s Curriculum and

Instruction Math Office and Special Education

Planning and Policy Development Office (SEPP)

( Indicators 3, 5 )

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time, stakeholder groups


MASSDE staff time



26

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2008 - 2010

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2009 - 2012

2009 - 2012

2009 - 2012

2009 - 2010

2010 - 2012

2010 - 2012

2011



(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 14 )

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 )

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13 )

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14 )

See Appendix A.



(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


Public Schools

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

Massachusetts Licensure Academy

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


Grant

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


Conference

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.



MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time










27

Timelines

(FFY)

2011 - 2012

2011 - 2012

2012



(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14)

See Appendix A.


Training Series

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

Massachusetts

Resources




Public Health/Early



Massachusetts



Education



28

Massachusetts




Indicator 4: Rates of suspension and expulsion:

A. Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and

B. Percent of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and

(b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards.

Indicator #4: Suspension/Expulsion

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A); 1412(a)(22))

Measurement:

A. Percent = [(# of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions for greater than 10 days in a school year of children with IEPs) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100.

Massachusetts’ definition of “significant discrepancy” in the rate of suspension and expulsion is a suspension/expulsion rate of five times the state rate for two consecutive years.

B. Percent = [(# of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with IEPs; and

(b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100.

Massachusetts’ definition of “significant discrepancy”, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions is a suspension/expulsion rate in a particular race of five times the state rate for students with disabilities overall, for three consecutive years.


Indicator 4A:

A comparison of the district’s rate of students with an IEP who were expelled or suspended for > 10 school days in a school year versus the state rate of students with IEPs who were expelled or suspended for > 10 school days in a school year was used for the purpose of determining the existence of a numeric discrepancy. Districts with fewer than 30 students in special education were removed from this part of the analysis since small numbers of students with IEPs may distort percentages. A comparison of suspensions and expulsions rates for students with IEPs to rates for students without IEPs is not possible, since comparable data, such as suspensions or expulsions for greater than 10 days, is not an analysis that is used for students without IEPs. Data is gathered through a discrete incident reporting procedure used by each district in reporting to the state through a web-based system. This report is called the School Safety and Discipline Report (SSDR). The SSDR is coordinated with the Student Information

Management System (SIMS) through use of the individual student identification number. All SSDRs for the school year must be submitted by July 28.



29

Massachusetts

A district is cited as having a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions for students with IEPs if its rate of suspensions and expulsions is five times the state rate for two consecutive years. MASSDE continues to feel strongly that a district should be cited after consecutive years of having a suspension and expulsion rate that is five times the state rate because the data obtained for this indicator appears to have significant data collection variation; initial activities for this indicator will also include significant data verification activity.

Indicator 4B:

For FFY2010, MASSDE was required to change its method of calculation from a weighted and alternative risk ratio, which it had used in FFY2009. MASSDE now uses a comparison of a district’s rate of students in a particular race with an IEP who are expelled or suspended for greater than 10 school days in a school year versus the state rate of students with IEPs who are expelled or suspended for greater than 10 school days in a school year to determining the existence of a numeric discrepancy. Data for 4B is gathered in the same manner and time as described in 4A above, using an incident reporting procedure through a web-based data reporting system. MASSDE uses a minimum cell size of 20 students with IEPs for each racial/ethnicity group. In FFY2010, 370 districts had more than 20 students with IEPs in at least one racial/ethnic group, and 22 districts did not. Therefore, 22 districts were excluded from the calculations.

For each district with a rate of suspension/expulsion of students in a particular race, five times the state rate for three consecutive years, MASSDE reviews the appropriateness of the district’s policies, practices, and procedures relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards.

MASSDE identifies a district as having a significant discrepancy in rates of long-term suspensions and expulsions for students with IEPs in any racial or ethnic category if its rate is five times the state rate for students with disabilities for three consecutive years and there is an issue with the district’s policies, practices, or procedures relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, or procedural safeguards.

4A: Baseline Data for FFY2004 (2004-2005):

Indicator 4A: Districts with significant discrepancy in rates of suspension and expulsion.

2004-2005

Special Education

Enrollment

157,111

2004-2005

State Suspension/

Expulsion Rate

0.514%

% of districts with suspension/ expulsion rate that is five times State Rate*

1.8%

(6 districts)

% of districts with

“significant discrepancy” in the rate of suspensions and expulsions

0%

(0 districts)

*Districts with 30 or fewer students in special education were removed from this part of the analysis.

4B: Baseline Data for FFY2009 (using data from 2008-2009 based on the instructions for a data lag):

Indicator 4B: Districts with (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards.



30

Massachusetts

Year Total Number of Districts*

Number of districts that have (a) a significant discrepancies by race or ethnicity, in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than

10 days in a school year of children with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards

% of Districts

2008-2009 366 0 0.0%

*25 Districts with 20 or fewer students from a single race or ethnicity were removed from this part of the analysis.


Indicator 4A:

The SSDR reports individual level data on the disciplinary action received by a student for a drug or violence related incident, the disciplinary action received by a student with an IEP for any infraction, and an expulsion or suspension of more than 10 consecutive school days of a student without an IEP for nondrug or violence related activities. In-school suspensions, out-of-school suspensions, and removals to alternative educational settings are all counted. If the same student is disciplined on more than one occasion, he/she is counted separately for each infraction. MASSDE has noted significant variation anecdotally in how or if suspensions are reported across school districts, therefore, we present this baseline data with caution.

Although 1.8% (6) of the districts in Massachusetts had a suspension/expulsion rate five times the state rate for students with an IEP for greater than 10 days in FFY2004, none of these districts exceeded the

“five times the state rate” threshold for two consecutive years (none of these districts had exceeded the threshold in FFY2003). Therefore, 0 districts (0%) were identified as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions for students with IEPs in FFY2004.

MASSDE is concerned that districts may under-report or mis-report suspension activities because of public perception issues, inconsistency in reporting procedures at the local level, and confusion over the use of the term “in-school suspension.” Therefore, MASSDE is developing improvement activities aimed at improving the quality and accuracy of the data collected.

Targets are set at 0% for all years.

Indicator 4B:

As with Indicator 4A, the SSDR reports individual level data on the disciplinary action received by a student for a drug or violence related incident, the disciplinary action received by a student with an IEP for any infraction, and an expulsion or suspension of more than 10 consecutive school days of a student without an IEP for non-drug or violence related activities. In-school suspensions, out-of-school suspensions, and removals to alternative educational settings are all counted. If the same student is disciplined on more than one occasion, he/she is counted separately for each infraction. MASSDE has noted significant anecdotal variation in how or if suspensions are reported across school districts, regardless of race or ethnicity. Therefore, as with Indicator 4A, we present this baseline data with caution.

Beginning with the FFY2009 reporting year, MASSDE was required to use the data results from the year before the reporting year (2008-2009) to account for the data lag. In FFY2009, MASSDE used a weighted and alternative risk ratio to determine significant discrepancies among its special education students.

Four districts, or 1.1%, were identified as having risk ratio rates of 3.0 or greater in their rates of suspension and expulsion by race or ethnicity. However, none of these districts exceeded the “risk ratio



31

Massachusetts metric of 3.0 or greater” threshold for three consecutive years; therefore, 0 districts (0.0%) were identified by MASSDE as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions by race or ethnicity for students with IEPs in reporting year FFY2009, and the second level of analysis was not required. MASSDE did not review districts’ policies, procedures and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards.

OSEP did not approve this methodology because MASSDE was not able to compare the rate of suspension among students with disabilities to general education students. In the FFY2010 reporting period, pursuant to guidance from OSEP, MASSDE changed its calculation method to a single state bar that compares suspension and expulsion rates only among students with disabilities.

Under the new calculation, MASSDE identifies a district as having a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with IEPs rates if, for three consecutive years, the district’s suspension and expulsion rate for students with disabilities in a particular race or ethnicity has been five times the state suspension and expulsion rate for students with disabilities overall. MASSDE uses a minimum cell size of 20 students with IEPs for each racial/ethnicity group.

MASSDE’s new method of calculation identified 7 districts that, for three consecutive years, had five times the state suspension and expulsion rate for students with disabilities overall. Using data from MASSDE’s

Program Quality Assurance Office’s monitoring activities, MASSDE will examine each districts’ policies, procedures and practices reviewing for those that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards.

Similar to Indicator 4A, MASSDE is concerned that districts may under-report or mis-report suspension activities because of public perception issues, inconsistency in reporting procedures at the local level, and varied understanding of the definition of the term “in-school suspension.” MASSDE will develop improvement activities aimed at improving the quality and accuracy of the data collected for students with

IEPs by race or ethnicity.

Targets must be 0% for all years.



32

Massachusetts

FFY

2005

(2005-2006)

2006

(2006-2007)

2007

(2007-2008)

2008

(2008-2009)

2009

(2009-2010)

2010

(2010-2011)

2011

(2011-2012)

2012

(2012-2013)

Measurable and Rigorous Targets

4A : % of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions for greater than 10 days in a school year of children with IEPs

4B : % of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards

0% N/A

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

N/A

N/A

N/A

0%

0%

0%

0%



33

Massachusetts


Please note that many of the activities presented below affect multiple indicator areas. For these activities, a complete description is available in Appendix A.


(FFY)

2005 - 2007

2005 - 2009

2011 - 2012


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


Children with Special Needs,

Center for Applied Special

Technologies, Institute for

Community Inclusion at

UMass-Boston, Education


MASSDE staff time

2005 - 2012


(Fund Code 274)

(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13)

See Appendix A.

Data Collection and Analysis Activities – Review and Revision

(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

2005 - 2009

2011 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2010


(Fund Code 249)

(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13 )

See Appendix A.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14 )

See Appendix A.



(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


MASSDE staff time Special Education Website

(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.



34

Massachusetts

2007 - 2008

2007 - 2008

2007 - 2010

2007 - 2011

Timelines

(FFY)

2006 - 2010

2007 - 2012


Suspension/Expulsion Forum

MASSDE will host a forum for districts identified with suspension rates above the state average as well as districts identified with rates below state average. The group will work to a) identify current definitions of suspension among the districts in attendance and the differences among them; b) review and analyze data from the most recent data collections; c) identify practices among districts regarding services provided to students with disabilities during suspension; d) identify current reporting practices through SIMS and the SSDR; and e) review resources for district-wide improvement activities.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.







UMass-Boston), district staff time

MASSDE staff time Massachusetts Online Resource Library

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.

Central Massachusetts Communities of Care


(Fund Code 250)

(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


Program


See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time


Massachusetts Communities of Care, National Center for

Positive Behavioral





35

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2008 - 2010

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012


Suspension/Expulsion Technical Assistance

Seminar

Participants will include staff of districts that have either been identified as significantly discrepant or that are at risk for being identified. The objectives of the

Suspension/Expulsion Technical Assistance Seminar are to: clarify the appropriate definition of suspension; increase awareness of current district data collection systems; analyze disaggregated data provided by

MASSDE to identify trends within each district; and identify programmatic services that may be provided rather than having a student experience in-school suspension (ISS).



Series

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

Data Collection and Practice Improvement Self

Assessment

MASSDE will develop a guidance document to provide technical assistance around the programmatic and determination requirements of in-school-suspension as well as logistical guidance and training on the differences between the Student Information

Management System (SIMS) and the School Safety

Discipline Report (SSDR). Aspects of this initiative will focus on effective review policies and procedures, and timely verification of correction of noncompliance by

MASSDE.

Collaboration with PQA

The special education unit meets with members of the

Program Quality Assurance (PQA) unit to identify district trends in findings of non-compliance regarding documentation and tracking of suspensions and expulsions.

Dropout Prevention and Recovery Workgroup

(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


Website

(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time



36

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2008 - 2010

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2011

2008 - 2010

2008 - 2012

2009 - 2012


Disability Workgroups

The disability-specific workgroups are comprised of a variety of experts for each disability, including: district personnel, family members, related services disciplines, higher education, and staff from MASSDE’s

SEPP unit. The workgroups provide consultation and technical assistance to SEPP, collaborate on special projects, and assist in the creation of professional documents and advisories. Central to the groups’ discussions were issues related to the suspension of students with specific disabilities.


(Indicators 1, 2, 4)

See Appendix A.


( Indicators 1 ,2, 3, 4, 5, 8 )

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.




(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 14 )

See Appendix A for a complete description.



(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.



MASSDE staff time


MASSDE staff time, district staff time, Workforce


MASSDE staff time,

Massachusetts

Rehabilitation commission staff time






37

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2009 - 2010

2009 - 2012

2009 - 2012

2009 - 2012

2009 - 2012

2009 - 2012


Massachusetts Task Force on Behavioral Health and Public Schools

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14 )

See Appendix A.

Suspensions/Expulsions Disproportionality Focus

Group

Facilitated by members of the special education unit, this focus group is intended for those districts identified as at-risk for significant discrepancy in their rates of suspensions and expulsions, by race or ethnicity, of students with IEPs. he format of the group is to discuss policies, procedures and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, policies relating to the use of positive behavior interventions and supports, policies relating to procedural safeguards, and any local trends or issues that may contribute to rates of suspensions and expulsions.

Training of Trainers (TOT)


The Training of Trainers model is used for English

Language Learners (ELL) Category Trainings, but also addresses issues related to language and cultural differences affecting behavior and discipline.

ELL Technical Assistance to Districts


The ELL Technical Assistance available to districts focuses on language and cultural diversity and understanding how these differences affect student and family relationships with authority figures, including teachers and school personnel. Also included are discussions of trauma-related concerns, especially among the refugee population, among other limited

English students and their families who have experienced or witnessed trauma.

MASSDE staff time, EOHHS staff time, community agencies’ staff time








38

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2009 - 2012


2010 - 2012

2010 - 2012

2010

2011

2011 - 2012

2011 - 2012

2012

Online Resources Relating to Disproportionality


MASSDE will develop web-based resources devoted to providing the latest data and research on the topic of disproportionality. Included in this online resource will be MASSDE’s research report examining national trends and Massachusetts’ trends. It will provide a contextual framework through which MASSDE can improve its assistance to districts and students.


Centers (CLCC) - Enhanced Programs for Students with Disabilities

(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


Grants

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


Conference

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14)

See Appendix A.


Training Series

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time, district and community staff time







Public Health/Early



Massachusetts



Education



39

Massachusetts




Indicator 5: Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 served:

A. Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day;

B. Inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; and

C. In separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements.

Indicator #5: School Age LRE

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))

Measurement:

A. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served inside the regular class 80% or more of the day) divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.

B. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served inside the regular class less than 40% 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 separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements) divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.


MASSDE made changes to its regulations and placement descriptors to align with federal definitions in

2000. MASSDE’s former descriptions were most divergent in the full inclusion category and practice changes at the local level have slowly, but surely, begun to reflect more appropriately actual placements consistent with the federal definitions. MASSDE has provided technical assistance to implement the data collection changes built into the Student Information Management System (SIMS), and professional development has been provided to Special Education Administrators since the realignment activity began.

However, there remains a difference between the Massachusetts data and National Baseline Data in the separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements category. The data below indicates that 6.2% of Massachusetts students with disabilities are in separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements, with the vast majority in public and private day schools,

2.3% and 3.0% respectively. National baseline information indicates that only 2.9% of students are in separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements. Massachusetts has attempted to review the use of separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements along with the other states in the Northeast region, as this region of the U.S. has many more day and residential school options available to students, so we are somewhat unclear as to whether the national data is the most representative when reviewing practice in states with many separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital alternatives. This is somewhat on the principle of “if you build them they will come,” so part of our interest at this time is to review our data in detail and determine the extent to which states most comparable to Massachusetts look in relation to our performance.



40

Massachusetts

SETTING

Breakdown of Separate Schools, Residential Facilities, or

Homebound/Hospital Placements Data

Public Day Private Day Residential

Facilities

Home/Hospital

3,677 4,635 1,294 207 # of students

Rate 2.3% 3.0% 0.8% 0.1%

Massachusetts has a long history with Special Education Approved Private Schools (APS). Program

Quality Assurance oversees compliance with education requirements in private day and residential special education schools through the Massachusetts Private Special Education School Program Review

System. There are presently 144 APS; each self identifies the population they serve by disability, age, and gender. Most are members of the Massachusetts Association of Chapter 766 Approved Private

Schools (MAAPS) whose mission is to represent private, special-education schools in their goal of providing the highest-quality education to students with special needs.

At the November 2005 Massachusetts Special Education Steering Committee meeting, when participants reviewed the data related to LRE, the following questions surfaced:

 To what extent are students being educated in settings that provide the needed services;

 What does it look like when districts provide FAPE in the LRE; and

 Is there a danger in assuming that higher or lower percentages are meaningful?

Others noted that research shows the closer students are to the general education classroom, with supports, there are more positive outcomes. While all agreed that we are provided with an opportunity to problem solve, there was a definite tension and decision not to seek change without careful consideration of what change represents.


Indicator 5 : % of students with IEPs aged 6 through 21 in

A) full inclusion;

B) substantially separate placements; and

C) in separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements

Ages 6-21 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

A) Full Inclusion

Partial Inclusion

B) Substantially Separate

C) Separate Schools,

Residential Facilities, or

Homebound/Hospital

13%

66%

15%

6.7%

33.7%

43%

16.4%

5.5%

43.4%

33.6%

16.2%

6.8%

National Baseline

2002-2003

48%

29%

19%

2.9%

Source of Data: 2004-2005 Annual Report of Students Served Student Information Management System (SIMS).



41

Massachusetts


As noted in MASSDE’s response to the OSEP October 2003 Data Verification Visit letter, MASSDE has made changes to its definitions related to full inclusion and its data collection for section 618 that has resulted in more reliable and accurate data. Ongoing technical assistance is provided to districts on the data elements of SIMS, including the special education data elements. As districts continue to work with the new definitions and become even more familiar with the data elements related to LRE, it is anticipated that we will continue to move closer to the national baseline for ‘Full Inclusion’, ‘Partial Inclusion’, and

‘Substantially Separate’ placements. As noted above, there remain many issues related to separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements.

MASSDE has, in the past, relied on its monitoring system to collect district level data on LRE practices.

To date, CPR teams have reviewed SE20: Least Restrictive Program Selected, which measures compliance on:

1. The program selected is the least restrictive environment for students, with consideration given to any potential harmful effect on the student or on the quality of services that he or she needs.

2. If the student is removed from the general education classroom at any time, the Team states why the removal is considered critical to the student’s program and the basis for its conclusion that education of the student in a less restrictive environment, with the use of supplementary aids and services, could not be achieved satisfactorily.

3. The district does not remove an eligible child from the general education classroom solely because of needed modification in the curriculum.

4. If a student’s IEP necessitates special education services in a day or residential facility or an outof-district educational collaborative program, the IEP Team considers whether the student requires special education services and support to promote the student’s transition to placement in a less restrictive environment.

MASSDE continues procedural compliance activities through an ongoing Coordinated Program Review

(CPR) schedule. CPR team members utilize comprehensive data reports for each district being monitored through the CPR system in 2004-2005.These reports include detailed placement data. With the greater availability of individual student level data, the lens on LRE may shift from district level policies and procedures to district level performance in relation to child placement outcomes.

The Massachusetts Steering Committee unanimously recommended that our initial target setting be modest for Indicator 5B and 5C, in order to allow our interest groups to more deeply review the data and consider local performance as well as state performance to effectively close the gap in this performance indicator, as well as to carefully consider the effect of such targets. It is thought that the improvement activities focused on increasing full inclusion will create a meaningful effect and thus target setting is more substantial. Therefore, the following targets have been set for this first six-year period.

Target Setting for FFY2011 and FFY2012

In order to extend the SPP and set targets for FFY2011 and FFY2012, MASSDE convened the

Massachusetts Steering Committee to discuss the target for Indicator 5. The targets for FFY2011 and

FFY2012 are based on a review of MASSDE’s LRE data over a five year period, input from the Steering

Committee, and the review of State data from the FFY2008 Annual Performance Reports, which includes data from 50 states and 10 territories.

The Steering Committee provided valuable input but did not reach a consensus for target setting. Half of the members of the Steering Committee recommended extending MASSDE’s current targets, while the other half recommended increasing/decreasing the targets based on the average change in the target since FFY2005 (an increase for Indicator 5A and a decrease for Indicators 5b and 5c to reflect positive changes). MASSDE has incorporated both of these options into the target setting for Indicator 5.

The target for Indicator 5A reflects an increase in the percentage of students with IEPs served inside the regular class 80% or more of the day. MASSDE reports a similar rate of students served inside the



42

Massachusetts regular class 80% or more of the day (5A), compared to the FFY2008 mean for all states, and continues to increase the target for this indicator. Of note, MASSDE’s data bears a higher percent of students inside the regular class less than 40% of the day (5B) and in separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements (5C), however has a similar rate of students served inside the regular class 80% or more of the day (5A) compared to the FFY 2008 mean for all states. The FFY2012 target for

Indicator 5a is equal to the FFY 2008 mean for all States (59.7%).

The targets for Indicator 5B and 5C will be extended until FFY2012 as the trend in MASSDE’s data of educational environments demonstrates an increase over time in full inclusion environments, with a commensurate decrease in partial inclusion, and relative stability of placement in separate environments.

FFY

Measurable and Rigorous Target

% of students with IEPs aged 6 through 21 in full inclusion

(5A)

% of students with IEPs aged 6 through 21 in substantially separate placements

(5B)

% of students with IEPs aged 6 through 21 in separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements

(5C)

2005

(2005-2006)

2006

(2006-2007)

2007

(2007-2008)

2008

(2008-2009)

2009

(2009-2010)

2010

(2010-2011)

43.4%

43.4%

58%

54.3%

55.5%

56.8%

2011

(2011-2012)

2012

(2012-2013)

58.8%

59.7%

16.2%

16.2%

15.1%

14.9%

14.7%

14.5%

14.5%

14.5%

6.8%

6.8%

6.2%

6.2%

5.9%

5.5%

5.5%

5.5%



43

Massachusetts



Timelines

(FFY)

2005 - 2006



2005 - 2007

2005 - 2010



See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.






UMass-Boston, Education


MASSDE staff time

2005 - 2009

2011 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14 )

See Appendix A.


(Fund Code 274)

(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13)

See Appendix A.


Seminars

(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 )

See Appendix A.



(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time



MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time



44

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2009

2011 - 2012


Student Information Reporting and Management

MASSDE will analyze data trends at the student, district and state level. The resulting analyses will be presented to LRE stakeholders and used to inform technical assistance and professional development activities.

MASSDE Grants that Foster Responsive

Educational Environments

SEPP staff will participate in program development and connect with offices across MASSDE to offer improvement activities that positively affect LRE.

Numerous grant programs are funded for this purpose.

LRE related programs will include: Exploring the

Options for Children with Autism; Mental Health Project for Preschool through Grade Three; Safe and

Supportive Learning Environments; and Even Start

Family Literacy Program.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.



(Indicators 3, 5, 11, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

Inclusive Schools Week

To promote awareness of this initiative, MASSDE will encourage districts to highlight the accomplishments of students, families, school personnel, and community members in promoting inclusive education for all students.


Special Needs

(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

Inclusive Concurrent Enrollment Partnership

Program for Students with Disabilities


See Appendix A.


(Fund Code 249)

(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13 )

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time, technical assistance and professional development providers

MASSDE staff time, MEEC staff time



MASSDE staff time,


Special Needs

MASSDE staff time, district staff time, technical assistance providers

MASSDE staff time



45

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2007 - 2010

2007 - 2012

2007 - 2010

2007 - 2008

2007 - 2008

2007 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012




(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14

See Appendix A.

)


Massachusetts Communities of Care, National Center for

Positive Behavioral



(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14

See Appendix A.

)






UMass-Boston), district staff time

Least Restrictive Environment Self-Assessment

Tool

MASSDE will develop a district and school level Least

Restrictive Environment self-assessment tool. This tool is intended to create continuous improvement in educational options for students with disabilities in the

LRE.

MASSDE staff time, district staff time, OSEP funded

Technical Assistance and

Dissemination Resources


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time


Assessment Alignment Project

(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 )

See Appendix A.


Educational Assessment of Students with Visual

Impairments”

(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 )

See Appendix A.

Collaboration Between MASSDE’s Curriculum and

Instruction Math Office and Special Education


(Indicators 3, 5 )

See Appendix A.



MASSDE staff time



46

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2010

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2009

2009 - 2012




Series

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

Community/Residential Education Project


See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time


MASSDE staff time,

Massachusetts Department of Developmental Services

(MDSS)

MASSDE staff time District and School Accountability and Assistance

Office – Center for School and District

Accountability

The District and School Accountability and Assistance

Office within the Center for School and District

Accountability reviews districts, focusing on how district systems and practices affect each of four groups of students: students with disabilities, English language learners, low-income students, and students who are members of racial minorities. In FFY2008, the focus of the district reviews related to students with disabilities.


(Indicators 3, 5 )

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 14 )

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 )

See Appendix A.

Revision of “Is Special Education the Right

Service?” (ISERS)

(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 )

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13 )

See Appendix A.


MASSDE staff time


MASSDE staff time



47

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2009 - 2010

2009 - 2012

2010 - 2012

2010 - 2012

2010 - 2012

2011

2011 - 2012

2011 - 2012

2012



(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14 )

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

An Act Relative to Bullying In Schools

(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


Grants

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


Conference

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14)

See Appendix A.


Training Series

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.











Public Health/Early



Massachusetts



Education



48

Massachusetts




Indicator 6: Percent of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a:

A. Regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program; and

B. Separate special education class, separate school or residential facility.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))

Measurement:

A. Percent = [(# of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program) divided by the (total # of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs)] times 100.

B. Percent = [(# of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a separate special education class, separate school or residential facility) divided by the (total # of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs)] times

100.


There are two different methods in which MASSDE has collected data to determine the placement of students with disabilities at the preschool level. The first method was collected by the Massachusetts

Department of Early Education and Care (MEEC) through the Fund Code 262 Early Childhood Special

Education Allocation grant. The second collection method is based on the MASSDE Student Information

Management System (SIMS) data collection system. The 618 data provided to the U.S. Department of

Education comes from the second method, the SIMS data collection, and is used here in the provision of baseline data.

For the collection of FFY 2011 Baseline Data, MASSDE used information available in the SIMS data collection system. In FFY2010, MASSDE updated its Educational Environment/Placement decision tree

(also known as the PL2) to realign the SIMS reporting codes with Indicator 6 reporting requirements.

Districts were provided technical assistance through webinars in the spring of 2012 and the fall of 2012 on how to properly code preschool student educational environments and placement to help ensure that student placement is reported accurately in this dataset.


FFY2011

(2011-2012)

Percent of preschool students with

IEPs receiving the majority of services in the early childhood program

(Indicator 6A)

23.9%

3,873 / 16,491

Percent of preschool students attending a separate special education class, separate school, or residential facility

(Indicator 6B)

14.0%

2,310 / 16,491



49

Massachusetts

Discussion of Baseline Data for FFY2011 (2011-2012):

A review of the baseline data indicates that of the 16,491 Massachusetts preschool students with IEPs, a majority of them attend an inclusive early childhood program, approximately77,3% (12,745). However, only 23,9% of Massachusetts children ages 3-5 with IEPs are receiving a majority of their special education services in an inclusive early childhood program.

In addition to analyzing the data to report on Indicators 6A and 6B, MASSDE also conducted initial analysis of placement data for children ages 3-5 disaggregated by a number of different factors including disability type, race, gender, and discrete age; and placement data on a district by district basis to see if there were any noteworthy trends or concerns about the quality of data reporting from any districts.

MASSDE plans to continue to analyze data for this indicator in this manner over time and will describe any significant findings in future reports. This information will also be used to inform technical assistance and improvement activities in FFY2012.

By way of background, data reporting analysis for the first baseline period, beginning in FFY2004, for the

Indicator 6 SPP was as follows:


Total # of preschool students with IEPs 13,384

Total # of preschool students with IEPs in inclusive settings

Percent of preschool students with IEPs in inclusive settings

10,498

78.4%


In considering the baseline data, we additionally reviewed the data collected through the Early Childhood

Special Education Allocation grant. The grant application includes a statistical information gathering section. Recipients are asked to identify the number of preschool-aged students in the community with

IEPs, the number of students who received special education services (not only in the context of a preschool program) for either less than five hours of special education services per week or more than five hours of special education services per week, the number of students who participated in a program in a substantially separate setting, and the number of students who participated in inclusive program.

The following is information provided by the 2004-2005 Early Childhood Special Education Allocation grant:



Data is for 246 out of a potential 273 grants (90%).



13,971 preschool students have an IEP.



13,205 (95%) of the students with IEPs are being served in an inclusive setting.



Of the students being served in an inclusive setting:

 462 (3%) are being served in a Head Start program.

 745 (6%) are being served in a child care center.

 315 (2%) are being served in a family child care.

 9410 (71%) are being served in a public school preschool.

 3,231 of the 13, 205 (24%) students are being served in inclusive settings are receiving related services only for less than 5 hours per week.

The data from the MEEC collection provided above differs from the data collected from the MASSDE

SIMS collection. Future activities in this area would include aligning the systems of the two departments to gather information in a consistent manner such that the comparison does not raise questions – as this comparison currently does.



50

Massachusetts

The data collected by the Early Childhood Special Education Allocation Grant indicates that 95% of preschool students with disabilities are being served in inclusive settings and identifies the types of inclusive settings in which they are served.

The data collected through SIMS indicates that in the 2004-2005 school year, 70.1% of preschool students with disabilities were served in inclusive settings, and 8.3% of students were served in partial inclusion settings, for a total of 78.4%.

The below targets through FFY2010 were set based on the baseline data of 78.4%, which is the percentage students with disabilities that spend the majority of their day receiving special education and related services in settings with typically developing peers, and acquired through the MASSDE SIMS data. The Massachusetts Steering Committee unanimously recommended that our initial target setting be modest in order to allow our interest groups to more deeply review the data and consider local performance as well as state performance to effectively identify appropriate improvement for this performance indicator, and therefore the following targets have been set for this first six-year period.

Additionally, the targets were chosen to allow time for early childhood programs to implement effective inclusive practices.

FFY2011 Indicator 6 results were discussed at the December 2012 meeting of the Massachusetts Special

Education Steering Committee, at which time the Steering Committee discuss setting targets for FFY2012 and planning improvement activities. After reviewing the data, the following areas of discussion surfaced:



Cases in which students benefit from being placed in a substantially separate setting such as students with low-incidence disabilities.



A concern about lack of reporting for students receiving services at home, a natural setting for this age group.



Setting targets for FFY2012 when data collection is taking place prior to the implementation of proposed improvement activities.

Based on feedback received from the Massachusetts Special Education Steering Committee and a review of MASSDE LRE data and ongoing improvement activities, MASSDE chose conservative targets for FFY2012. While MASSDE has several ongoing improvement activities to support early childhood programs and has planned a number of new improvement activities, given that they will not be fully implemented prior to FFY2012 Indicator 6 data collection the selected targets reflect only incremental change. Therefore, we selected targets that reflect an increase of 0.1% for Indicator 6A and a 0.1% decrease in Indicator 6B.



51

Massachusetts


2005

(2005-2006)

2006

(2006-2007)

2007

(2007-2008)

2008

(2008-2009)

2009

(2009-2010)

2010

(2010-2011)

78.4%

79%

79%

80%

80%

81%

A - Percent of preschool students with IEPs receiving the majority of services in the early childhood program

B - Percent of preschool students attending a separate special education class, separate school, or residential facility

2011

(2011-2012)

Baseline

2012

(2012-2013)

23.9%

24.0%

14.0%

13.9%



52

Massachusetts



Timelines

(FFY)


2005 - 2006 MASSDE staff time, district staff time

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012


( Indicators 3, 5, 6 )

See Appendix A.


( All Indicators )

See Appendix A.


MASSDE staff time

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.



( Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


Seminars

(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11)

See Appendix A.



2005 - 2012 MASSDE staff time, FCSN staff time

2005 - 2009

2011 - 2012

2005 - 2009

2011 - 2012

2005 - 2012

Collaboration with Federation for Children with Special Needs

(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

Special Education Program Improvement

Grants (Fund Code 249)

(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13 )

See Appendix A.



(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13)

See Appendix A.

Data Collection and Analysis Activities –

Review and Revision

(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time



53

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2006 - 2012

2007 - 2008

2007 - 2008

2007 - 2010

2008 - 2009

2008 - 2009

2008 - 2009


Training and Technical Assistance to LEAs

MASSDE and MEEC will provide ongoing training and technical assistance to districts on data reporting requirements and on how to communicate with families and communities in order to develop a cohesive service delivery model for preschoolers with disabilities.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

Preschool to Grade 3 Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Alignment Project (Fund

Code 264A & 264B)

(Indicators 5, 6, 7, 8, 12)

See Appendix A.

Assessment Institute

Districts, along with community-based providers, will be invited to participate in an assessment institute that will focus on ongoing, formative assessment of young children, including students with disabilities and how programs can use assessment data to guide program improvement and instructional practices.

Data Analysis and Verification Visits

MASSDE and MEEC will analyze data on preschool environments and will conduct site visits to a sample of districts that report lower than targeted inclusion rates to further determine why preschool students with IEPs are place in certain educational environments. Visits will also include verification that districts are collecting and reporting data accurately.

Statewide Birth-Five Leadership Team

MEEC will participate in a SpecialQuest grant designed to develop a Statewide Birth-Five

Leadership Team to improve the inclusive opportunities for students with disabilities birth to five.


MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time, MEEC staff time, district staff time





54

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2008 - 2009

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2010

2009 - 2010

2008 - 2010

2009 - 2012

2010 - 2012

2010 - 2012

2011


Revision of “Is Special Education the Right

Service?” (ISERS)

(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 )

See Appendix A.

National Association of State Directors of

Special Education (NASDSE) Professional

Development Series

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

Revision of “Ten Step Guide for

Comprehensive Educational Assessment of

Students with Visual Impairments”

(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

Closing the Early Literacy Gap for Students with Disabilities (Fund Code 297)

(Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12)

See Appendix A.

Massachusetts Task Force on Behavioral

Health and Public Schools

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

Early Childhood Special Education

Professional Development

(Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

Massachusetts Tiered System of Support

(MTSS) Grants

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

Massachusetts Tiered System of Support

(MTSS) Conference

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.



Resources


MASSDE staff time


MASSDE staff time, district staff time.




MASSDE staff time, district staff time, grant partners (Fitchburg

State University)



55

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2011 - 2012

2011 - 2012

2011 - 2012

2011 - 2012

2012

2012

2012


Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge

Fund Award


See Appendix A.



(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14)

See Appendix A.


Training Series

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time, district staff time CAST


Early Childhood Interagency Memorandum of

Understanding: Early Childhood Special

Education Transition

(Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12)

See Appendix A.

Early Childhood Special Education Program

Improvement Grant (Grant Fund 298)

(Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time, district staff time, Department of Public


Department of Early Education and Care, Massachusetts


Institutes of Higher Education

MASSDE staff time, Department of Early Education and Care,

Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services,

Department of Public Health, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

Administration for Children and

Families, Office of Head Start,

Region 1 and XII




56

Massachusetts




Indicator 7: Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs who demonstrate improved:

A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);

B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication and early literacy); and

C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

Measurement:

Outcomes:

A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships):

B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy); and

C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

Progress categories for A, B and C: a. Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning = [(# of preschool children who did not improve functioning) divided by the (# of preschool children with

IEPs assessed)] times 100. b. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times

100. c. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. d. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. e. Percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.



57

Massachusetts

Summary Statements for Each of the Three Outcomes (use for FFY2008-2009 reporting):

Summary Statement 1: Of those preschool children who entered the preschool program below age expectation in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.

Measurement for Summary Statement 1:

Percent = # of preschool children reported in progress category (c) plus # of preschool children reported in category (d) divided by [# of preschool children reported in progress category (a) plus # of preschool children reported in progress category (b) plus # of preschool children reported in progress category (c) plus # of preschool children reported in progress category (d)] times 100.

Summary Statement 2: The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.

Measurement for Summary Statement 2: Percent = # of preschool children reported in progress category (d) plus [# of preschool children reported in progress category (e) divided by the total # of preschool children reported in progress categories (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) + (e)] times 100.


The Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care (MEEC) and MASSDE collaboratively selected a cohort model for the purposes of this indicator’s activities. In Cycle I Year 1, 74 districts participated. In Year 2, 69 districts participated, and an additional 117 districts participated in Year 3. In

Cycle II (Year 1 (FFY2009)), 72 districts participated. The 387 districts were divided into four cohorts that are representative of the state as a whole. This cohort model plan for data collection was approved by

OSEP. Over a three-year period, every district in the state with preschool-aged students will have started 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/spp/datacollection.html

.

Data collection and reporting for the participating districts will continue for approximately three years until all the students who were originally assessed at baseline have exited from or terminated early childhood special education services. Once all the children from the local cohort have exited from early childhood special education, the districts will participate in the Cycle II data collection efforts with a new cohort of children.

In each cohort year, the districts are trained by staff from the Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Center in collaboration with staff from MEEC and MASSDE on how to use the Child Outcomes Summary Form .

In December 2006, districts reported entry data based on local observation and on formal and informal assessment information for a maximum of 40 preschool students with disabilities. In selecting students at the local level, priority was given to preschool students who initially started their early childhood special education services between July 1 and September 30, 2006.

Districts in the Year 1 cohort (n=74) reported entry data for 1,651 preschool students with disabilities.



58

Massachusetts

Baseline Data Collection for FFY2006 (2006-2007) – Year 1 Cohort

Entry Data

OUTCOME % AGE APPROPRIATE % NOT AGE

APPROPRIATE

80% A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)

B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills

(including early language/communication and early literacy)

C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet needs

20%

21% 79%

33% 67%

In the spring of 2007, MEEC and MASSDE trained the Year 1 cohort of districts to conduct progress assessments 4 . Districts reported assessment data in June 2007. MASSDE analyzed the data and extracted information on those students who exited early childhood special education prior to the submission of this report. The following table summarizes the exit data for the Year 1 cohort:

Exit Data 5

The categories in the table below are defined as follows:

Progress category (a): The percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning.

Progress category (b): The percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers.

Progress category (c): The percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it.

Progress category (d): The percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers.

Progress category (e): The percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers.

4 MASSDE and MEEC strongly believe that ongoing assessment of preschool children, including students with disabilities, is important in order for the assessment data to be used properly to inform instruction and improve service delivery for children in a timely and responsive way. For that reason, Massachusetts has designed its progress data collections to be conducted for all students on an annual basis, whether or not the child is officially terminating early childhood special education services.

5 Of the 1,651 students sampled in Year 1, 54% exited early childhood special education (i.e., moved out of the district, moved on to kindergarten, or met their IEP goals). The exit data are reflective of the preschool children who received at least 6 months of early childhood special education services between baseline and exit assessments.

These preschool children represent nearly 93% of the exiting subset. MASSDE and MEEC have progress data, based on the same five reporting categories, for the remaining children who continue to receive early childhood special education services.



59

Massachusetts

OUTCOME

A. Positive socialemotional skills (including social relationships)



Progress category (a)

No imp.

Progress category (b)

Some imp.

Progress category (c)

Near peers

Progress category (d)

Comparable to peers

Progress category

(e)

Maintain

4%

(27/724)

25%

(183/724)

33%

(242/724)

18%

(129/724)

20%

(143/724)

4%

(30/727)

25%

(180/727)

32%

(232/727)

19%

(139/727)

20%

(146/727)


4%

(26/728)

18%

(133/728)

29%

(211/728)

17%

(128/728)

32%

(230/728)

In the fall of 2007, MEEC and MASSDE trained its Year 2 cohort of districts (n=69) on the activities related to Indicator 7. The training followed the same format as that of the Year 1 cohort. The districts were trained on how to use the Child Outcomes Summary Form by staff from the two agencies. Districts reported entry data based on local observation and on formal and informal assessment information for a maximum of 40 preschool students with disabilities. In selecting students at the local level, priority was given to preschool students who initially started their early childhood special education services between

July 1 and September 30, 2007.

Districts in the Year 2 cohort reported entry data for 1,624 preschool students with disabilities.

Baseline Data Collection for FFY2007 (2007-2008) – Year 2 Cohort

Entry Data

OUTCOME % AGE

APPROPRIATE

% NOT AGE

APPROPRIATE

20% 80% A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)




21%

32%

79%

68%



60

Massachusetts

Exit Data 6

The categories in the table on the following page are defined as follows:

Progress category (a): The preschool percent of children who did not improve functioning.





OUTCOME





No imp.


Some imp.


Near peers



Progress category

(e)

Maintain

1%

(12/1169)

17%

(199/1169)

33%

(385/1169)

29%

(339/1169)

20%

(234/1169)

2%

(23/1169)

17%

(199/1169)

31%

(362/1169)

27%

(316/1169)

23%

(269/1169)


1%

(12/1169)

15%

(175/1169)

23%

(269/1169)

30%

(351/1169)

31%

(362/1169)

In the fall of 2008, MEEC and MASSDE trained its Year 3 cohort of districts (n=117) on the activities related to Indicator 7. The training followed the same format as that of the Year 1and 2 cohorts. Staff from the two agencies trained the districts on how to use the Child Outcomes Summary Form . Districts reported entry data based on local observation, and formal and informal assessment information on a maximum of 40 preschool students with disabilities. In selecting students at the local level, priority was given to preschool students who initially started their early childhood special education services between

July 1 and September 30, 2008.

Districts in the Year 3 cohort reported entry data for 2,940 preschool students with disabilities.

6 Of the 2,758 preschool students sampled in Year 1 and Year 2, 42% exited early childhood special education (i.e., moved out of the district, moved on to kindergarten, or met their IEP goals) during FFY2007. The exit data are reflective of the children who received at least 6 months of early childhood special education services between baseline and exit assessments. MASSDE and MEEC have progress data, based on the same five reporting categories, for the remaining children who continue to receive early childhood special education services.



61

Massachusetts

Baseline Data Collection for FFY2008 (2008-2009)

Entry Data

OUTCOME

A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)



% AGE APPROPRIATE

22%

(647/2940)

25%

(735/2940)

% NOT AGE

APPROPRIATE

78%

(2293/2940)

75%

(2205/2940)

C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet needs 33%

(970/2940)

67%

(1970/2940)

Exit Data 7

The categories in the table on the following page are defined as follows:

Progress category (a): The percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning.





OUTCOME


B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills and




No imp.


Some imp.


Near peers



Progress category (e)

Maintain

2%

(32/1798)

23%

(423/1798)

24%

(425/1798)

25%

(457/1798)

26%

(461/1798)

2%

(32/1700)

2%

(25/1700)

21%

(407/1800)

18%

(298/1700)

23%

(399/1800)

17%

(311/1700)

26%

(453/1800)

26%

(439/1700)

28%

(509/1800)

37%

(627/1700)

7 Of the 4,584 students sampled in Years 1 and 2, 40% exited early childhood special education (i.e., moved out of the district, moved on to kindergarten or met their IEP goals) during FFY2008. The exit data are reflective of the children, who received at least 6 months of early childhood special education services between baseline and exit assessments. MASSDE and MEEC have progress data, based on the same five reporting categories, for the remaining children who continue to receive early childhood special education services.



62

Massachusetts

In the fall of 2009, MASSDE and MEEC began the second cycle of data collection for Indicator 7.

Seventy-two districts that participated in prior cohorts were notified that they would participate in data collection activities for a second time. MASSDE and MEEC initiated conference calls with participating districts to revisit the required data collection activities, and to provide new district staff with the foundational understanding of measuring outcomes in preschool children with disabilities necessary.

These efforts will assist with ensuring the reporting of valid and reliable data.

Districts in the Cycle II – Year 1 cohort reported entry data on 1,362 preschool children with disabilities.

Baseline Data Collection for FFY2009 (2009-2010)

Entry Data

OUTCOME % AGE APPROPRIATE % NOT AGE

APPROPRIATE

83% A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships)

17%




19% 81%

30% 70%

Exit Data

Exit data for FFY2009 are reported in the FFY2009 MA APR for Indicator 7. The FFY2009 MA APR also includes a discussion of the data and its effect on revised targets set for FFY2009 and FFY2010.

Discussion of Baseline Data for FFY2006 – FFY2008:

Entry Data

The data reported at entry between Cycle I - Year 1 cohort districts and Cycle I - Year 2 cohort districts are consistent, with the exception of the third outcome (C): Use of appropriate behaviors to meet needs .

In this outcome, the percentages changed by 1%. That data reported by the Cycle II - Year 3 cohort again mirrors that of the Cycle I cohorts. The percentage points between the outcomes across Cycle I range from 0-4%. With the submission of Cycle II – Year I data, the analysis continues to demonstrate consistency across the years. MASSDE and MEEC consider the duplication of the entry data across the three years as confirmation of the success of the cohort model and the within-district sampling model in producing valid and reliable data each year for a representative sample of preschool students with disabilities.

Exit Data

Given the commitment of the two agencies to make the assessment data useful to the local agencies,

MASSDE collected progress assessment data on the entire Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3 cohorts of children in the spring of 2009. For the purposes of the MA SPP, only data for those children who exited early childhood special education and had at least 6 months of early childhood special education services between entry and exit assessments are reported in this SPP.

Cycle I – Year 2 data reveal a shift from OSEP Progress category (a) (the percent of children who did not improve functioning) and Progress category (b) (the percent of children who did improve functioning but not sufficient to move closer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers) to Progress categories (c)

(the percent of children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it), (d) (the percent of children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers), and (e) (the percent of children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged



63

Massachusetts peers). We believe that this is a result of children having received early childhood special education services for a longer period of time between entry and exit assessments.

There are shifts in data between the year 2 and year 3 collections where the percentages of children in

OSEP Progress categories (b) and (c) are higher than those children in OSEP Progress categories (d) and (e). In cases where percentages of OSEP Progress categories (b) and (c) increased between year 2 and 3 data, our analysis indicates that this may be the result of bringing two cohorts of districts into year 3 activities; thus, generating data for many more children that may have only had 6 months of services between entry and exit assessments.

While data in the Year 3 cohort reveal a shift in OSEP Progress categories (b), (c), (d), and (e), in general, the percentages of children who made some progress [Progress categories (b) + (c)] and those that made significant progress and/or exited demonstrating age appropriate skills and behaviors

[Progress categories (d) + (e)] are fairly consistent. The consistency in these categories is believed to be a result of having significant numbers of children from our Year 1 and Year 2 cohorts who received early childhood special education services for a longer period of time between entry and exit.

MEEC, in collaboration with MASSDE, randomly sampled from the Year 1 and Year 2 cohorts 15% of those preschool children with disabilities who exited early childhood special education to ensure appropriate use of the Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF) and accuracy of data reporting to

MASSDE. MEEC notified 94 districts of their selection to provide randomly selected COSFs for 246 children who exited their preschool program between June 2008 and August 2008. At the time of this writing, 72 districts have responded to this notice and have submitted 163 records for review.

Agency review of the COSFs has yielded information to be used in future training for LEAs on Indicator 7.

For example, MEEC will remind school districts about the need to include detailed information in the

COSF, to access and refer to multiple sources of data to obtain complete and accurate information, and the importance of parent involvement in the process of data collection. MEEC, in collaboration with

MASSDE, will conduct an additional review of at least 10% of the COSFs for children who exited early childhood special education between June 2009 and August 2009, prior to spring 2010 district training.

The agencies anticipate that the results of these reviews and the refinement of training topics will increase the effectiveness of upcoming trainings of districts on Indicator 7 and related data collections.

Discussion of Baseline and Measurable and Rigorous Targets

MASSDE has established what may be perceived to be conservative targets for FFY2009 8 . As discussed above, in this selected cohort model school districts with more than 40 preschool children with disabilities identify from their population 40 children to be included in the local cohort. Districts with fewer than 40 children must report entry and progress/exit data on all preschool children with disabilities who receive services in the year in which the school district participates in the data collection activities. This model provides MEEC and MASSDE with a representative sample of data on preschool children with disabilities each year; and it also results in data for age diversity within the population of children represented in the selected cohort. While districts that sample must prioritize children who are as close to age 3 or entry to early childhood special education, many children in the cohort are 4, and others whose birthdays fall later than the locally established cut-off date for kindergarten enrollment age are 5 years old. As a result, the period of time children receive services prior to exit may be from 6 months to nearly 3 years. This variance in ages and duration of services is accounted for in the data collection and in the established targets. One identified improvement activity is to review entry, progress, and exit data for children of various ages. Absent this data analysis, MASSDE has determined that conservative targets in this shortened SPP period are appropriate until the effect of age on the Indicator 7 results is known.

In establishing these targets, MASSDE considered the results of its review of data for children who exited early childhood special education in 2008. In this review process, MEEC and MASSDE identified the need to continue to reinforce for school districts the principles behind Indicator 7, namely, having a clear

8 MASSDE revised the targets for FFY2010, first reported in the MA SPP for Indicator 7 submitted on February 1,

2010, in this report to reflect the recommendation of the Statewide Special Education Steering Committee to establish more aggressive targets during the remainder of the SPP period. Please see the measurable and rigorous targets below for more information.



64

Massachusetts understanding of age expected skills and behaviors for each of the outcome areas; involving parents in the discussion of the assessment information; using multiple data sources to understand the consistency of skills and behaviors across settings; and the critical need for clear administrative record-keeping by school districts. MASSDE recognizes the need for improvements in the data collection process, and this is the focus of the second improvement activity listed below. In the spring and the fall of 2010, MASSDE, in collaboration with MEEC, will conduct training on progress/exit data collection activities and entry data collection activities. Results of the continued supplemental data review of COSFs will inform future trainings. MASSDE will also alert school districts to the schedule of the random supplemental file review.

All of these efforts will help MASSDE ensure the validity and reliability of data submitted by school districts.

MASSDE will be focusing its efforts during this short SPP period on conducting more in-depth analysis of the data. Agency staff participated in the one-day Indicator 7 training prior to the 2009 OSEP Early

Childhood Leadership Conference. With the learning from this training and the use of new tools for high quality data analysis designed by the Early Childhood Outcomes Center, MASSDE intends to analyze the data using additional data variables. For example, MASSDE will conduct more analyses on the entry and exit data sets using differences across variables including disability category, educational setting, and intensity of services. MASSDE is planning to review the data in light of other demographic variables that can be linked with the Student Information Management System (SIMS), such as gender, ethnicity, income, and English language learner status. Another possible area of study is examining data in the context of children’s growth and progress over a period of time. Because of the unique model of collecting data for Indicator 7 using multiple data points (entry, progress, exit), MASSDE has the opportunity to consider the growth that young children with disabilities make over a year, two years, and/or three years, and how those data can be used to enhance the child’s development and inform service delivery and program quality. These more in-depth analyses will provide MASSDE with important information that will be used to determine how best to progress with target setting in the next SPP cycle.

MASSDE looks forward to working with MEEC and local school districts to further develop data analyses under Indicator 7 to understand better the extent to which preschool children with disabilities make progress in early childhood special education programs and to use that information to inform programs and services.

The following targets, including amended targets for FFY 2010 and targets for the extended SPP period

(FFY2011 and FFY2012), were established in consultation with the Massachusetts Statewide Special

Education Steering Committee. The Steering Committee and MASSDE recommend aggressive targets to demonstrate our commitment to increasing our expectations and efforts for these young children to receive the best possible early childhood programs and services and to improve as much as possible in these early years of service.



65

Massachusetts

FFY

2006

(2006-2007)

2007

(2007-2008)


N/A

N/A

Outcome A Outcome B Outcome C

(2008-2009)

Baseline

Summary Statement 2 51%





2009


(2009-2010) Summary Statement 2 51.5%

Summary Statement 1 65.5% Summary Statement 1 68.25%

Summary Statement 2 53.5% Summary Statement 2 62.25%

(2010-2011) Summary Statement 2 75%

Summary Statement 1 83% Summary Statement 1 84.5%

Summary Statement 2 75% Summary Statement 2 75%










The MA SPP includes new or revised improvement activities, timelines, and resources to reflect new initiatives or to update existing initiatives. Consistent with instructions from the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, MASSDE is reporting one set of improvement activities in Appendix A of this report. Each activity references the relevant indicators, and is also listed in the Massachusetts State

Performance Plan (MA SPP) for those indicators.


(FFY)

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012


(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.


Special Needs

(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


MASSDE staff time,


Special Needs



66

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2009

2011 - 2012

2005 – 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2009

2011 - 2012

2006 - 2012

2006 - 2012

2007 - 2008

2007 - 2012

2008 - 2010


Special Education Professional Development Summer

Institutes

( Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.



(Fund Code 249)

(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13)

See Appendix A.


(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.


Revision

(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.


(Fund Code 274)

(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13)

See Appendix A.

Training on Data Collection Activities

Districts in each cohort will receive training on data collection activities related to entry and progress/exit data for Indicator 7, as well as on the use of the Child

Outcomes Summary Form.

Technical Assistance and Support

Districts in each cohort will receive ongoing technical assistance and support related to entry and progress/exit data collection activities.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.



264B)

(Indicators 5, 6, 7, 8, 12)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time



MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time




67

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2008 - 2012

2009 - 2010

2009 - 2012

2009 - 2010

2009 - 2012

2010 - 2012

2010 - 2012

2011 - 2012




Impairments”

(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

Assessment Institute

Districts along with community-based providers will be invited to participate in an assessment institute that will focus on ongoing, formative assessment of young children, including children with disabilities and how programs can use assessment data to guide program improvement and instructional practices.

Data Analysis – Introduction of Variables

MASSDE, with MEEC, will review and refine data analysis with special emphasis on conducting additional analyses on the entry and exit data sets using differences across variables (e.g., disability category, educational setting, and intensity of services); using additional demographic variables (e.g., gender, ethnicity, income, and English language learner status); and/or examining data in the context of children’s growth and progress over a period of time.

MEEC staff time, district staff time



Closing the Early Literacy Gap for Students with

Disabilities (Fund Code 297)

(Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12)

See Appendix A.

Early Childhood Special Education Professional

Development

(Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.




Massachusetts FOCUS Academy (MLA)

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


Conference

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.






68

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2011 - 2012


2011 - 2012

2011 - 2012

2011 - 2012

2012

2012

2012

Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge Fund Award

( Indicators 6, 7, 12)

See Appendix A.


Review of Special Education in the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts

(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.

Universal Design for Learning Academy

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time


Universal Design for Learning Summer Training

Series

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.



Public Health/Early



Massachusetts



Education


Understanding: Early Childhood Special Education

Transition

(Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time,

Department of Early

Education and Care,

Massachusetts Executive

Office of Health and Human

Services, Department of

Public Health, and the U.S.

Department of Health and

Human Services,

Administration for Children and Families, Office of

Head Start, Region 1 and

XII



(Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12)

See Appendix A.




69

Massachusetts




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.

Indicator #8: Parent Involvement

(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.


In order to collect data for this indicator, MASSDE selected the Part B Parent Survey – Special Education, created by the National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM) as its survey tool. In its development, the survey items proved to be statistically valid with high correlations across outcome areas. The NCSEAM survey was validated for students’ aged birth to three, and five to 21.

MASSDE used the survey with parents of school age students.

The first scale of the survey, containing 25 questions on “Schools’ Efforts to Partner with Parents”, was used. These survey items showed high correlation between schools’ efforts to partner with parents and the quality of services. Upon meeting with stakeholders and reviewing the survey questions, some items were changed (or “swapped”) for others. This was done in accordance with the rules set forth by

NCSEAM for use of their “Item Bank” (See Appendix B for the Massachusetts Parent Survey for Special

Education).

Once the survey was finalized, three districts were solicited to pilot the process. During the pilot phase, the cover letter and survey were provided to parents in English only. The cover letter included a link to an online version of the English survey, if parents preferred to respond in that manner. The results from the survey pilot were deemed acceptable and were folded into the overall results from the “official” survey round in the fall.

To ease the data collection activity burden for districts, MASSDE divided its 387 school districts into four cohorts that are representative of the state as a whole, and will collect and report data on this indicator using a four-year cycle (2005-2006 through 2008-2009). This cohort model and plan for data collection was approved by OSEP on April 20, 2006. 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. Additional information on the cohort model can be found at: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/datacollection.html

.

At least initially, MASSDE contracted with two external organizations for all phases of the process. This includes: survey distribution, data collection/input/processing/cleaning, data analysis, producing a report based on the data at both the district and state levels, and returning the clean data files to MASSDE.

MASSDE currently contracts with OCR Macro and Ashton Associates as the provider of these services.

For the full distribution of the survey in fall 2006, MASSDE issued the parent cover letter and survey in the two languages of highest prevalence in Massachusetts: Spanish and Portuguese. MASSDE contracted with JTG Inc. to provide these translations. Additionally, in the fall survey round, the online version of the survey was discontinued, as there was a very low response rate from the pilot districts in



70

Massachusetts using this tool. As in the survey pilot, the fall mailing was done for all parents of students ages five and above (kindergarten and above) who currently receive special education services.

Baseline Data for FFY2005 (2005-2006): 76% of parents with a child receiving special education services reported that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for students with disabilities


In combining the pilot and fall survey rounds, parents in a total of 97 school districts were surveyed. A total of 37,086 surveys were sent out across the three languages (English, Spanish, and Portuguese). A total of 6,076 surveys were returned across the three languages (English, Spanish, and Portuguese). This made for an overall return rate of 16.9% which is deemed sufficient to constitute a representative response for the state as a whole. The breakdown by language is as follows:



English: 34,951 surveys were sent out and 5,966 were returned. Return rate: 17.1%.



Spanish: 1,893 surveys were sent out and 99 were returned. Return rate: 5.2%.



Portuguese: 242 surveys were sent out and 11 were returned. Return rate: 4.5%.

To calculate our baseline data for 2005-2006, we conducted an item analysis of the 25 selected questions of the NCSEAM survey. We considered the responses of parents for each item where “very strongly agree,” “strongly agree,” or “agree” was the response. We determined that the measure at which

MASSDE considered that the parent “felt that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for students with disabilities” was with agreement to at least 50% of the survey items (13 of 25). For this baseline year, the level of agreement was reached by 75% of the parents who responded to the survey.

Although all items are critically important to consider, our Massachusetts stakeholder group identified the three most important survey statements that stakeholders felt were most critical to the establishment of good parent partnership. The three items were the following (in order of importance):

1. My child’s teachers give me enough time and opportunities to discuss my child’s needs and progress . (Survey question #4). 85% of all surveyed parents agreed with this item.

2. Teachers and administrators encourage me to participate in the decision-making process.

(Survey question #16.) 80% of all surveyed parents agreed with this item.

3. Teachers are available to speak with me . (Survey question #11.) 89% of all surveyed parents agreed with this item.

MASSDE believes that this high level of agreement with these three key statements is a very positive statement for parent partnership in Massachusetts. Additionally, more than half of all parents surveyed agreed with 21 of the 25 survey items.

Survey Redesign and Implementation in FFY2010

In FFY2009, MASSDE took the opportunity to improve its work in Indicator 8 based on its review of the longitudinal statewide results.

9 Given the expressed concerns from stakeholders and school districts the administrative burden of data collection and the lack of usability of the Indicator 8 results to improve parent involvement, MASSDE contracted with ICF/Macro to rewrite the survey instrument and develop an online survey tool to increase the reliability of data and the district return rates. MASSDE reviewed feedback from parents who participated in the survey in 2008. Among other feedback, parents stated that they perceived that the intent of the survey was to measure a school district’s compliance with special education regulations and/or the parent’s satisfaction with the district. Although a written notice and instructions explained the survey’s purpose and intent, the language of several questions was equivocal, and resulted in parents having the impression that the survey was a tool for measuring their satisfaction with the distr ict’s practice. The redesign work continued in FFY2010. The project involved, among other

1 Although this plan was initially supported by OSEP in written correspondence with MASSDE, shortly before the

FFY2009 MA APR was required to be submitted OSEP informed all states that data collection is required for all years during the SPP. MASSDE was unable to report data for FFY2009.



71

Massachusetts things, gathering and triangulating transition, parent partnership, and family training questions from three parent surveys: the NCSEAM Indicator 8 Parent Survey, the Tripod Parent Survey, and the TeLLS

Survey. The new survey instrument (see Appendix C) designed to collect qualitative data from parents of students with IEPs and parents of general education students, was thoroughly vetted by state and local stakeholders in special and general education over a four month period. As part of this process,

MASSDE provided technical assistance to districts in order to increase parents’ opportunities to respond to the survey online.

This redesign and refocus on the survey participation of all parents, including parents of students without disabilities, allows for whole school and district participation, thereby strengthening the districts’ connection to the survey and its results. Also, the new survey content is aligned with several MASSDE initiatives related to family engagement, and promotes additional inter-agency collaboration to improve districts’ efforts to facilitate parent involvement and family engagement as a means of improving outcomes for students. MASSDE expects that all of these efforts will result in an increased return rate, and more valid and reliable data for use in statewide and local programming for families and students with disabilities. While this was a very efficient way to involve the school districts in facilitating parent participation, thereby increasing their ownership in the survey results, FFY2010 return rates reported in the MA APR suggest that the new online survey model has its own challenges with regard to distribution and response rates that will be addressed in future reporting years.

The new online parent survey instrument includes 17 questions for all parents; nine questions for parents of students with disabilities in preschool through grade 6; 12 questions for parents of students with disabilities in middle school, high school, and post high school; and nine demographic questions answered by all respondents. The parents of general education students responding to the survey complete only the first 17 questions, which are primarily about staffing, communication, and interactions.

The parents of special education students complete the general education questions, which include the three focused questions 10 selected by the Massachusetts Statewide Steering Committee, and then respond to additi onal questions about their child’s special education needs. The special education questions focus on transition, parent partnership, and family training.

MASSDE, with stakeholder input, also made significant revisions to the data collection methodology.

Using the same cohortbased data collection model that divides the Commonwealth’s districts into four cohorts of approximately 100 each, including onefourth of Boston’s students in each year, in FFY2010

MASSDE conducted on-line data collection, rather than hard copy survey distribution, collection, and review. (More information on the MASSDE cohort model approved by OSEP is available at: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/datacollection.html

.)

Survey development has been an inter-agency and intra-agency initiative within MASSDE. Staff from the

Special Education Planning and Policy (SEPP) office within MASSDE collaborated with external stakeholders and internal offices, including MASSDE’s Office of Student Support Services, the Office of

English Language Acquisition and Academic Achievement, Title 1, and Learning Support Services, to discuss potential barriers for various populations in accessing the survey and plans to help facilitate districts working with community partners to create access to computer terminals where parents can access the survey. Additionally, because the survey results are applicable to various populations, in creating the survey instrument the contractor triangulated the NCSEAM questions for use with questions from the Teaching, Learning and Leading Survey (TeLLS) from the New Teacher Center at the University of California at Santa Cruz, and with the Tripod Project Survey at Harvard University. The survey was reviewed by MASSDE’s Office of Strategic Planning, Research, and Evaluation before being disseminated.

The survey instrument, in English and now translated into the five most comment languages spoken by students and families in Massachusetts schools -- Spanish, Portuguese, Haitian Creole, and Vietnamese

– is made available to schools and districts on the Internet.

10 (1)

My child’s teachers give me enough time and opportunities to discuss my child’s needs and progress.

(2) Teachers and administrators encourage me to participate in the decision-making process.

(3) Teachers are available to speak with me.



72

Massachusetts

To access the survey online, parents receive a letter with a confidential password and directions to complete one survey for each child in their family; the letters are written in the appropriate language for that particular family. The initial survey items focus on demographic information, e.g., school of attendance, grade level, race/ethnicity (aligned with the federal race/ethnicity categories), and primary language spoken in the home. Other items are rated according to a six-point Likert scale, ranging from

Very Strongly Agree to Very Strongly Disagree . Some items are appropriate for parents of students with and without disabilities, and focus on schools’ efforts regarding parent participation, and teacher and administrator interaction with parents. Parents of students with disabilities whose children receive services through an IEP are directed to another part of the survey that focuses on issues such as transition practices, and family training and engagement practices. Other questions are designed to focus on issues relevant to different age groups. For example, parents of children in preschool and elementary school are directed to questions about Early Childhood transitions, including from Part C to B (preschool to kindergarten), and questions related to training and services offered to families of students with disabilities. Additional questions about postsecondary transition practices and preparation, and questions about trainings and services for families, are directed to parents of students in middle school and high school.

Data collected in a statewide database is disaggregated in multiple ways. This allows for more direct data analysis based on factors such as grade level, ethnicity, gender, age, grade, language spoken at home and disability category, and allows MASSDE and districts to refine and target improvement activities focused on engaging parents as a means for improving outcomes for students with disabilities. Although the survey is made available to all parents in the districts (special education and general education), only responses from parents with children in special education are included in the reporting of data for the MA

SPP and MA APR. Analysis of data collected in FFY2010 using the new survey instrument and methodology is reported in the MA APR for FFY2010.

The Massachusetts Statewide Special Education Steering Committee and the stakeholder group were unanimous in recommending modest targets as we introduced the survey to Massachusetts parents. In preparation for the survey redesign begun in FFY2009, the Steering Committee and stakeholders set extended targets for the SPP period that reflect MASSDE’s expectation of improved response rates.



73

Massachusetts

FFY

2006

(2006-2007)

2007

(2007-2008)

2008

(2008-2009)

2009

(2009-2010)

2010

(2010-2011)

2011

(2011-2012)

2012

(2012-2013)


76% (of parents agree with more than half of the survey items)

76%

76%

Survey Re-Design

80%

83%

85%


Please note that some of the activities presented below affect multiple indicator areas. For these activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.


(FFY)

2005 - 2007

2005 - 2012


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.






Inclusion at UMass-

Boston, Education


MASSDE staff time

2005 - 2012


Revision

(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time



74

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2006 - 2012

2007 - 2012

2007 - 2012

2007 - 2008

2007 - 2008



(All Indicators )



Seminars

(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 )

See Appendix A.



(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


Special Needs

(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

Technical Assistance to LEAs

MASSDE will provide technical assistance to districts regarding survey results, including guidance documents and teleconference to assist districts in interpreting and utilizing their results.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time



MASSDE staff time,

Federation for Children with Special Needs

MASSDE staff time






Inclusion at UMass-


MASSDE staff time Preschool to Grade 3 Curriculum, Instruction, and


264B)

(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12)

See Appendix A.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time



75

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2008 - 2012

2008

2008 - 2010

2008 - 2012

2009 - 2012

2009 - 2010

2009 - 2010

2009 - 2010

2010 - 2012



(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 )

See Appendix A.

National Center for Special Education Accountability

Monitoring (NCSEAM) Training for LEAs

MASSDE will host trainers from NCSEAM to provide technical assistance on the use of NCSEAM training modules to districts from across the state.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 14 )

See Appendix A.


Development

(Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12)

See Appendix A.



(Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12)

See Appendix A.

Revision of Data Collection Tool (Parent Survey)

MASSDE analyzed statewide results for Indicator 8, and reviewed and redesigned the data collection tool and survey instrument. MASSDE and vendor launched the new survey in the spring of 2011 to collect and analyze the data to report back to districts.


Public Schools

(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


Grants

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time,

NCSEAM trainers



MASSDE staff time,

MEEC staff time

MASSDE staff time,

MEEC staff time

MASSDE staff time, stakeholders’ time, use of outside vendor for survey production





76

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2010 - 2012

2010 - 2012

2010 - 2012

2010 - 2012

2010 - 2012

2011

2005 - 2009

2011 - 2012

2011 - 2012


Resource Toolkit on Parent Involvement

This resource, to be disseminated to school districts, will contain resources; promising practices; and current research about parent involvement and its effect on student achievement, how to engage with parents of different cultures and languages, and barriers to parent involvement.

Targeted Support and Technical Assistance

MASSDE will focus efforts on increasing parents’ access to and completion of the survey instrument, with special attention to cultural and language barriers to access and response.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

Facilitating Family Engagement Grant

The purpose of this grant program is to provide funds to support school districts’ efforts to use data obtained from the Parent Involvement Survey to improve services and results for students with disabilities. Grants will focus on supporting high quality parent involvement activities, professional development, and parent leadership training.

Parent Involvement Interest Group

The interest grou p will support MASSDE’s work in designing and delivering training needed to support parent involvement efforts at the state and local levels, and design and dissemination of best practices in this area.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time



University)



Conference

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Fund Code 274)

(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time




77

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2011 - 2012

2012

2012



Training Series

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14)

See Appendix A.



(Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

2012

Resources





Transition

(Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12)

See Appendix A.




Department of Early

Education and Care,

Massachusetts

Rehabilitation


Higher Education

MASSDE staff time,

Department of Early

Education and Care,


Office of Health and

Human Services,


Health, and the U.S.


Human Services,



XII



78

Massachusetts





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.

Indicator #9: Disproportionality – Child with a Disability

(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 the (# of districts in the State)] times 100.

State’s definition of “disproportionate representation”:

Massac husetts defines “disproportionate representation” using a calculation of weighted or alternate risk ratio and a review of the appropriateness of a district’s policies, practices, and procedures for identifying students as disabled.

MASSDE calculates a weighted or alternate risk ratio for each school district using the techniques described in Westat’s Methods for Assessing Racial/Ethnic Disproportionality in Special Education

( http://www.ideadata.org/docs/Disproportionality%20Technical%20Assistance%20Guide.pdf

). The state uses a minimum cell size of 10 for each race/ethnic group in every district. A cell of less than 10, though removed from the calculation, is reviewed individually to see if data irregularities for specific racial and ethnic groups in the district would suggest disproportionate representation due to inappropriate identification. All cells of greater than 10 are retained in the data set and are used to calculate disproportionate representation. 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 three consecutive years, they exhibit a weighted risk ratio of 3.0 or greater for possible over-representation.

11

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:

A district identified using the measurement techniques described above submits its current PPPs to

MASSDE and they are reviewed by a single policy analyst and compliance specialist. If the single analyst concludes that the PPPs were inappropriate or otherwise inconsistent with federal and state regulations, and concludes that the PPPs likely caused the disproportionate representation at least to some degree, then a district is identified as having disproportionate representation due to inappropriate identification.


Past Monitoring for Disproportionality Through the CPR System

Program Quality Assurance (PQA) in MASSDE has used Coordinated Program Reviews (CPRs) to monitor for disproportionality in the representation of racial/ethnic minority students in special education

11 Beginning in FFY2011, the measurement no longer includes under-representation. Prior to FFY2011, school districts were flagged if, for three consecutive years, they exhibited a weighted risk ration of 3.0 or greater for possible over-representation, or of .25 or less for possible under-representation .



79

Massachusetts since at least 1998. Originally, this monitoring was done through interview questions and the examination of lists of special education students provided by the district or charter school, with race and ethnicity (as well as gender and linguistic minority status) designated. Gradually, MASSDE has developed a more data-oriented approach. In 2004, for the first time, the MASSDE Data Collection, Processing, and

Reporting unit developed the ability to use student-level data collected through the Student Information

Management System (SIMS) to report on disproportionality on a number of bases (including race/ethnicity as well as gender, primary language, LEP status, and IEP status) in a variety of categories (including special education enrollment, disability categories, and special education educational environments).

Through FFY2005, this data-oriented approach to monitoring disproportionality has continued to be used in the context of the CPR system. In the CPR system, PQA monitors more than 350 public school districts and charter schools in the Commonwealth for compliance with laws and regulations in the areas of special education, English learner education, civil rights, and some other areas of general education, as well as, in certain districts, career/vocational technical education. It has a six-year cycle for this monitoring, meaning that it monitors each of those districts and charter schools in all those areas once during that six-year cycle. During every CPR, PQA sends a team to spend from several days to over a week in the district or charter school being reviewed, interviewing its personnel and observing classes.

Before the onsite visit, the team surveys parents and scrutinizes selected student records and extensive documentation provided by the school or district. In addition, PQA sends a team midway through the sixyear cycle to complete an onsite special education follow-up Mid-cycle Review (MCR), again consisting of onsite interviews and observations as well as examination of documentation and records. After both

CPR s and MCRs PQA issues a public report of the team’s findings in the school or district. The CPR process is described in more detail in the Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for

FFY2008 - FFY2012 for Indicator 15.

Future Monitoring for Disproportionality

MASSDE has recently made the decision to take the monitoring of disproportionality out of the CPR/MCR system. Since under this system only onesixth of the Commonwealth’s districts and charter schools are monitored de novo each year, it does not allow MASSDE to calculate each year the “percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification.” Instead, MASSDE will examine disproportionality data for every school district and charter school every year starting with the FFY2005 submission.

Starting in FFY2005, MASSDE will examine the data on the distribution of racial/ethnic groups in special education for every district and charter school in the Commonwealth, not just those slated for review under the CPR system. It will use the definition of “disproportionate representation” given above, and a multi-tiered approach to determine whether disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services is the result of inappropriate identification.

Target Setting and Improvement Activity Development

Although Indicator 10 is a compliance indicator and targets are therefore set by OSEP for all states,

MASSDE reviewed with the Statewide Special Education Steering Committee and Advisory Group, and other interested parties, its Indicator 9 targets for the extended State Performance Plan (MA SPP) period and proposed revisions to the MA SPP to obtain broad input from stakeholders. The MA SPP is available to the public at http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/maspp.html

, and upon request.


Because zero districts met the criteria for the determination of over-representation and underrepresentation in FFY2005, MASSDE met its measurable and rigorous target of 0%.


Calculating the weighted risk ratios (WRR) for FFY2005 over-representation produced zero districts that met the criteria of three consecutive years of a WRR of 3.0 or higher. In terms of FFY2005 underrepresentation, the calculation yielded zero districts with a WRR of .25 or lower for three consecutive years.



80

Massachusetts


2005

(2005-2006)

2006

(2006-2007)

2007

(2007-2008)

0%

0%

0%

2008

(2008-2009)

2009

(2009-2010)

2010

(2010-2011)

2011

(2011-2012)

0%

0%

0%

0%

2012

(2012-2013)

0%




(FFY)

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012


(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.


Revision

(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time



81

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2007 - 2008

2007 - 2012

2007 - 2008

2008

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2009

2008 - 2009

2009 - 2012



(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.



MASSDE will develop web-based resources devoted to providing the latest data and research on the topic of disproportionality. Included in this online resource will be

MASSDE’s research report examining national trends and Massachusetts’ trends. It will provide a contextual framework through which MASSDE can improve its assistance to districts and students.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.

Technical Assistance Summer Institute Research

(Indicators 9, 10)

MASSDE held a summer institute for Massachusetts charter schools and districts on the subject of disproportionality and understanding data relevant to it.

Procedures for Timely Verification of Correction of

Noncompliance

(Indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time, national technical assistance providers

MASSDE staff time


MASSDE staff time

Self-Assessment Disproportionality Tool for Districts


See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time, national technical assistance providers, district staff time

Revision of “Is Special Education the Right Service?”

(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 9, 10)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time



The ELL Technical Assistance available to districts focuses on language and cultural diversity and understanding how these differences affect student and family relationships with authority figures, including teachers and school personnel. Also included are discussions of trauma-related concerns, especially among the refugee population, but also among other limited English students and their families who have experienced or witnessed trauma.




82

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2009 - 2012

2010 - 2012

2011

2011 - 2012

2011 - 2012






Input from Stakeholders


MASSDE will hold annual conference calls with a variety of stakeholders to discuss the current disproportionality data and gain outside input.


Conference

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14)

See Appendix A.


Training Series

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14)

See Appendix A.


MASSDE staff time






83

Massachusetts



Indicator #10: Disproportionality –

Eligibility Category


Indicator 10: Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.

Indicator #10: Disproportionality – Eligibility Category

(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 the (# 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, practices, 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 impairments, specific learning disabilities, emotional disturbance, speech/language impairments, other health impairments, autism) using the techniques described in

Westat’s Methods for Assessing Racial/Ethnic Disproportionality in Special Education

( http://www.ideadata.org/docs/Disproportionality%20Technical%20Assistance%20Guide.pdf

). The state uses a minimum cell size of 10 for each racial/ethnic disability group in every district. Cells less than 10, though removed from the calculation, are reviewed individually to see if data irregularities for specific racial and ethnic groups in these districts would suggest disproportionate representation due to inappropriate identification. All cells of greater than 10 are retained in the data set and are used to calculate disproportionate representation. 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 three consecutive years, they exhibit a weighted risk ratio of 4.0 or greater for possible over-representation.

12

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 submit their current PPPs to the

MASSDE (or MASSDE verifies recent compliance information/reviews) and the PPPs are reviewed by a single analyst. If the analyst concludes that the PPPs were inappropriate or otherwise inconsistent with federal and state regulations, and concludes that the PPPs likely caused the disproportionate representation at least to some degree, then a district is identified as having disproportionate representation due to inappropriate identification.

12 Beginning in FFY2011, the measurement no longer includes under-representation. Prior to FFY2011, school districts were flagged if, for three consecutive years, they exhibited a weighted risk ration of 4.0 or greater for possible over-representation, or of 0.20 or less for possible under-representation .



84

Massachusetts


The descriptions and processes described in Indicator 9 are applicable to Indicator 10. The only difference between these two indicators is that Indicator 10 measures the number of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in six specific disability categories (intellectual impairments, specific learning disabilities, emotional disturbance, speech/language impairments, other health impairments, and autism) that is the result of inappropriate identification, whereas as Indicator 9 measures the number of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification. Please see the

Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for Indicator 9 for a more complete description of this process.


Because zero districts met the criteria for the determination of over-representation and underrepresentation in FFY 2005, MASSDE met its measurable and rigorous target of 0%.


Calculating the weighted risk ratios (WRR) for FFY2005 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 (CPR) and Mid-Cycle Coordinated Program Reviews (MCR),

MASSDE determined that none of these districts had inappropriate special education identification procedures.

In terms of FFY2005 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 CPRs and MCRs, MASSDE determined that none of these districts had inappropriate special education identification procedures.

Stakeholder Input and Public Reporting

Although Indicator 10 is a compliance indicator and targets are therefore set by OSEP for all states,

MASSDE reviewed with the Statewide Special Education Steering Committee and Advisory Group, and other interested parties, its Indicator 10 targets for the extended State Performance Plan (MA SPP) period and proposed revisions to the MA SPP to obtain broad input from stakeholders. The MA SPP is available to the public at http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/maspp.html

, and upon request.



85

Massachusetts


2005

(2005-2006)

2006

(2006-2007)

2007

(2007-2008)

0%

0%

0%

2008

(2008-2009)

2009

(2009-2010)

2010

(2010-2011)

2011

(2011-2012)

2012

(2012-2013)

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%




(FFY)

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012


(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.


Revision

(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time



86

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2007 - 2008

2007 - 2012

2007 - 2008

2008

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2009

2008 - 2009

2009 - 2012



(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.



MASSDE will develop web-based resources devoted to providing the latest data and research on the topic of disproportionality. Included in this online resource will be

MASSDE’s research report examining national trends and

Massachusetts’ trends. It will provide a contextual framework through which MASSDE can improve its assistance to districts and students.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.

Technical Assistance Summer Institute Research


MASSDE held a summer institute for Massachusetts charter schools and districts on the subject of disproportionality and understanding data relevant to it.


Noncompliance

(Indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16)

See Appendix A.



See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time


MASSDE staff time


MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time, national technical assistance providers, district staff time

MASSDE staff time Revision of “Is Special Education the Right Service?”

(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 9, 10)

See Appendix A.



The ELL Technical Assistance available to districts focuses on language and cultural diversity and understanding how these differences affect student and family relationships with authority figures, including teachers and school personnel. Also included are discussions of trauma-related concerns, especially among the refugee population, but also among other limited

English students and their families who have experienced or witnessed trauma.




87

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2009 - 2012

2010 - 2012

2011

2011 - 2012

2011 - 2012






Input from Stakeholders


MASSDE will hold annual conference calls with a variety of stakeholders to discuss the current disproportionality data and gain outside input.


Conference

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14)

See Appendix A.

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Summer Training

Series

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14)

See Appendix A.


MASSDE staff time






88

Massachusetts



Effective General Supervision / Child Find

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Child Find

Indicator 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.

Indicator #11: Initial Evaluation Timelines

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

Measurement: a. # of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received. b. # of children whose evaluations were completed within 60 days (or State-established timeline).

Account for children included in (a) but not included in (b). Indicate the range of days beyond the timeline when the evaluation was completed and any reasons for the delays.

Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100.


For the SPP submitted in February 2006, OSEP defined this indicator as being “percent of children with parental consent to evaluate, who were evaluated and eligibility determined within 60 days (or State established timeline).” MASSDE’s state established timeline is inclusive of both evaluation and eligibility determination and our data collection efforts for this indicator include both of those activities. As such,

Massachusetts does not have the capacity to collect and report data on the evaluation timeline separately from the eligibility determina tion timeline. While some districts’ tracking systems are able to report the date that the evaluation was completed, many of the systems are designed to track the 45-day timeline for evaluation and eligibility as a single element. Therefore, the data reported for this indicator is reflective of districts’ ability to meet the state established timeline of 45 school working days after receipt of parental consent to conduct an initial evaluation and make an eligibility determination.

To ease the data collection activity burden for districts, MASSDE divided its 387 districts into four cohorts that are representative of the state as a whole, and will collect and report data on this indicator based on a four-year cycle (2005-2006 through 2008-2009). This cohort model and plan for data collection was approved by OSEP on April 20, 2006. 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/spp/datacollection.html

.

This data collection effort focused on obtaining data from 98 districts, including 10 districts that participated in a pilot program during Summer 2006. All districts were required to submit data from the months of October, November, and December of 2005.

On October 17, 2006, both hard and electronic copies were mailed to 88 districts in the first cohort (10 districts had previously completed the activity during the pilot data collection) informing them of the data collection effort, and providing them with a spreadsheet and code sheet, as well as instructions on how districts can upload their data (once compiled) into the MASSDE’s Security Portal. Districts were given six weeks to respond to the data collection effort. On November 14, 2006, a follow-up letter of correspondence was sent to the participating districts reminding them of the data collection effort. Upon successful completion of the data collection and uploading into the Security Portal, districts were notified



89

Massachusetts that they had met all of the requirements through electronic mail. 97 out of 98 districts have provided the data to-date. MASSDE is continuing efforts to get the full cohort response as soon as possible.

Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005-2006):

Based on 97 districts reporting on initial evaluations begun in the months of October, November, and

December of 2005: a. 2768 initial evaluations were conducted following parental consent to evaluate b. 952 students had initial evaluations completed within the State established timeline and were found not eligible for special education services c. 1498 students had initial evaluations completed within the State established timeline and were found eligible for special education services

Initial Evaluations

Conducted

Timeline Initial

Evaluations –

Students Found Not

Eligible

Timely Initial

Evaluations –

Students Found

Eligible

Percent of Students

Evaluated Within State

Established Timeline

2768 952 1498 88.5%


The figure of 88.5% 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 distric t’s control, including school cancellation due to weather, parent scheduling needs, and significant student absenteeism.

In examining the 318 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 (33.6% of the missed timelines).

Insufficient staff availability and/or availability of outside evaluators was the second most common reason

(30.8%), and “excessive caseload” was the other most common reason (13.8%). Of these cases that missed the timeline, the average number of days beyond the 45-day timeline for evaluation and eligibility determination was 17.5 school working days.

A second cohort of districts will participate in data collection for this indicator in the spring of 2007.

MASSDE will refine its 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. Because this is a “compliance” indicator, the targets are not within MASSDE’s capacity to set and are automatically set at 100%. Targets and activities for the extended SPP period (FFY2011 and FFY2012), were reviewed with the Massachusetts Statewide Special

Education Steering Committee.



90

Massachusetts


2006

(2006-2007)

2007

(2007-2008)

2008

(2008-2009)

2009

(2009-2010)

100%

100%

100%

100%

2010

(2010-2011)

2011

(2011-2012)

2012

(2012-2013)

100%

100%

100%



Timelines

(FFY)

2005 - 2009

2011 - 2012


MASSDE staff time

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012


(Fund Code 274)

(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13)

See Appendix A.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.


Seminars

(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 )

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time




91

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2007 - 2010

2007 - 2010

2007 - 2008

2008 - 2010

2008 - 2012




(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.



(CSPD) Training Project

(Indicators 3, 5, 11, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.


Revision

(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.

Specific Learning Disability Training Module

MASSDE will develop a training module related to determining eligibility under specific learning disability.

The module will address evaluation timelines when determining eligibility for special education under specific learning disability. The module will be posted and online and districts will be able to access training on the topic.

Self-Assessment Tool for Districts

MASSDE completed the final revisions to the selfassessment tool for districts to self-identify barriers impeding their capacity to meet State established timelines.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


Noncompliance

(Indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16)

See Appendix A.


MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time



MASSDE staff time


MASSDE staff time,

MEEC staff time



92

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2008 - 2012

2010 - 2012

2010 - 2012




Impairments”

(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 )

See Appendix A.


SMARTFORM Development

The new SMARTFORM data collection tool will be used by cohort school districts to better identify barriers to meeting state established timelines for initial evaluation and to improve data collection to ensure better accuracy.



(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


University)



93

Massachusetts



Effective General Supervision / Effective Transition

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.*

Indicator #12: Early Childhood Transition

(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 Part B 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. e. # of children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays.

Account for children included in a but not included in b, c, d, or e. Indicate the range of days beyond the third birthday when eligibility was determined and reasons for the delays.

Percent = [(c) divided by (a – b – d- e)] times 100.

* MASSDE notes that the measurement for this indicator, as currently described, does not take into account the need for the referral to occur with sufficient time for the district to conduct the eligibility determination. Thus, a referral for a child served under Part C that occurs on or after the child’s third birthday will inevitably not be found eligible prior to the third birthday. MASSDE will incorporate into its data system the ability to determine if the referral is received within 45 days (the State established timeline) of the 3 rd birthday.


The Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care (MEEC), through an Interagency Services

Agreement (ISA) with MASSDE, distributes 619 funds to all districts through a grant process. In FFY2009,

MASSDE and MEEC revised the ISA and implemented a change in the data collection procedures for

Indicator 12. MASSDE is now responsible for collecting data directly from districts for this indicator, and is now collecting information based on a 4 year cohort model. The cohort model and plan for data collection, approved by OSEP on April 20, 2006, was designed so that over a four-year period, every district in the state will have participated in the data collection activities for Indicator 12. (Boston participates in all activities each year because it has an average daily membership of over 50,000 students.) For additional information on MASSDE’s cohort model, see http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/datacollection.html

. A cohort of 102 districts reported data for Indicator 12 to MASSDE in FFY2009.

Beginning in FFY2009, data collection activities include written notification to cohort districts of the data collection requirements, distribution of a spreadsheet and code sheet, and instructions on data submission through MASSDE’s Security Portal. Additional technical assistance, including webinars, is available to participating districts during the data collection period. Prior to FFY2009, data for Indicator 12 was collected by MEEC in the following manner. In 2004-2005, the grant application asked districts to provide statistical information by asking the following questions:



94

Massachusetts

1. Number of children referred from Early Intervention (EI) during FFY2005.

2. Of the number provided in question 1, indicate the number of children who were subsequently found eligible for special education services.

3. Of the number provided in question 2, indicate the number of children who received services from the public school: a. prior to their 3 rd birthday _____ b. on their 3 rd birthday* _____ c. after their 3 rd birthday _____

*Children with summer birthdays and birthdays that fall on days different than the program schedule should be counted here if services began on the first scheduled day of the program after the child’s third birthday.

In the narrative section of the grant, districts were asked to describe their referral and eligibility determination process and to explain their transition activities and practices for children transitioning from

EI to preschool and preschool to Kindergarten. In addition, MASSDE asked for brief commentary and/or reasons why a child eligible for special education services would not receive services on or before their third birthday. MASSDE did not ask how many days after a child turned three that services started. Since the baseline year, the data collection instrument has been modified to include a request for the number of days after the third birthday the IEP was implemented, if not implemented by the third birthday.


Based on 249 grants (out of 273 possible applicants, or 91%) received and processed as of November, 8,

2005:



5,938 children were referred from EI in 2004-2005



4,311 of the 5,938 (73%) referred were found eligible for services



Of those found eligible to receive services: o 216 (5%) received services prior to their 3 rd birthday o 3,141 (72%) received services on their 3 rd birthday o

991 (23%) received services after their 3 rd birthday

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

77%


While the current figures show that 77% of children eligible for special education receive services on or before their third birthdays, these data may not be accurate. When asked to provide narrative reasons for why services were not initiated by a c hild’s third birthday, school districts gave reasons described within the definition of “on their third birthday” under the asterisk, implying that districts may not have read the question fully. For example, of the 249 referrals received, 124 reported at least one child served after their third birthday. A random sample of one-third of the 124 listed the following reasons a child would not have received services on or before their third birthday (41% districts listed multiple reasons):



34% listed birthday related delays (during school vacation, summers)



49% reported parent related delays (parent refused services, was late returning required forms, postponed Team meeting)



7% were attributed to district related delays (staffing, caseload)



17% listed EI or other agency delays



24% reported other reasons (medical condition of child, inclement weather, new coordinator, lack of capacity)



22% did not respond to question

In 29 districts, only one student failed to receive services on or before turning three. Sixty-three districts reported between two and nine eligible children receiving services after they turned three. Of these,



95

Massachusetts eighteen districts reported between 10-20 eligible children; seven districts reported between 21-29; the remaining seven reported between 30-93 eligible children received services after their third birthdays.

Across the sample, the percentage of students within a district that did not receive services on or before turning three ranged from 2% (1 out of 66 eligible children) to 100% (15 districts reported all students started services after turning three).

Proposed targets and improvement activities for the extended State Performance Plan (SPP) reporting period (FFY2011 to FFY2012) were developed in consultation with the Massachusetts Statewide Special



100% 2005

(2005-2006)

2006

(2006-2007)

2007

(2007-2008)

2008

(2008-2009)

2009

(2009-2010)

2010

(2010-2011)

2011

(2011-2012)

2012

(2012-2013)

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%



96

Massachusetts


Please note that many of the activities presented below affect multiple indicator areas. For these activities, a full description is available in Appendix A.

Timelines

(FFY)

2005


2005, 2009

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2009

2011 - 2012

2005 - 2012

GSEG Application to Develop Data Sharing System

Massachusetts will submit a GSEG application to develop a data sharing system between the three agencies that serve young children with disabilities: DPH,

MEEC and MASSDE. This will allow the State to better track referrals from EI, the districts’ responses within timelines, and ultimately provide for smoother transition for young children and their families.

Update Interagency Transition Agreement

MEEC and MASSDE will update interagency agreement around early childhood transition requirements under

IDEA. Responsibility for data collection and verification of correction of noncompliance reverted to MASSDE in

FFY2009.


(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time,

MEEC staff time,

Massachusetts


Health (DPH) staff time

MASSDE staff time,

MEEC staff time, MDPH staff time, HeadStart/Early

HeadStart/Migrant

HeadStart staff time

MASSDE staff time,

MEEC staff time


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.


Revision

(All Indicators)

For Indicator 12, MEEC and MASSDE will review and refine data collection instruments on an ongoing basis to collect more detailed information from districts. MEEC will analyze reasons for any non-compliance and barriers to timely compliance on an ongoing basis. Starting in

FFY2009, MASSDE will align data collection practices with the cohort model used by MASSDE to collect data for other early childhood indicators.


(Fund Code 274)

(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13)

See Appendix A.

Technical Assistance and Support

MEEC and MASSDE will provide ongoing technical assistance and support to poor performing districts to identify and overcome barriers that currently prevent them from serving children on or before turning three.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time,

MEEC staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time,




97

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2005 - 2012


2005 - 2009

2011 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2007 - 2008

2007 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2010

2009 - 2012

2009 - 2010


Special Needs

(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


(Fund Code 249)

(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13 )

See Appendix A.

District Compliance Monitoring

MEEC and MASSDE will monitor district compliance through the Coordinated Program Review (CPR) system

(see Indicator 15 for additional information on monitoring policies and procedures).



(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.



264B)

(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12)

See Appendix A.


Noncompliance

(Indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

Regional Consultative Programs (RCPs)

RCPs were developed by MEEC and MDPH to provide technical assistance and support on special education transition from Part C to Part B and to support inclusion of 3-5 year olds in pre-school settings.



(Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time,


MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time,


MASSDE staff time, district staff time, partner staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time


MEEC staff time, MDPH staff time

MASSDE staff time,

MEEC staff time



98

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2009 - 2012

2010 - 2012

2011 - 2012

2011 - 2012

2012

2012



Development

(Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.



(Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12)

See Appendix A.

Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge Fund

Award

(Indicactors 6, 7, 12)

See Appendix A.

Special Education Program Improvement Grant Fund

(Fund Code 249)

(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13)

See Appendix A.



Transition

(Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time,

MEEC staff time


University)

MASSDE staff time,

MEED staff time, district staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time,

Department of Early

Education and Care,


Office of Health and

Human Services,


Health, and the U.S.


Human Services,



XII




99

Timelines

(FFY)

2012



(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

Massachusetts

Resources




Department of Early

Education and Care,

Massachusetts

Rehabilitation


Higher Education



100

Massachusetts

Part B State Performance Plan for 2005-2012



Indicator 13: Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs.

There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

Measurement: Percent = [(# of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs.

There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority) divided by the (# of youth with an IEP age 16 and above)] times 100.


In order to obtain student-level data, MASSDE requires 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 are reviewed by the districts for evidence of full transition planning discussions.

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 collected and reported data on this indicator based on a four-year cycle (2005-2006 through 2008-2009). For the FFY2009 reporting year, the measurement for

Indicator 13 changed, and the cohort four-year reporting cycle began anew. Over a four-year period, every district in the state participates 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. This cohort model and plan for data collection was approved by OSEP on April 20, 2006. Further information on the cohort model can be found at: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/datacollection.html

Districts with 30 or fewer students aged 16-21 with IEPs are required to review all transition records, and districts with 30 to 150 students with IEPs aged 16-21 select and review 30 records that the district considers to be reasonably representative across disabilities, ages, and special education placements. In order to ensure a representative selection of students, MASSDE provides districts that have 150 students or more with IEPs aged 16-21 with a pre-selected list of 30 students generated by the Student Information

Management System (SIMS) for the record review process. Districts with only elementary school aged students do not collect data for Indicator 13.

Following a pilot in the spring of 2006, the first cohort of districts was informed of the data collection requirements and protocol. While there have been some minor adjustments, this protocol has been repeated in each reporting period for the additional three cohorts. MASSDE reminds participating districts in June and in October of the requirements for data collection. Districts are encouraged to review and use the Massachusetts Transition Planning Form to inform and document the details of each transition discussion. MASSDE provides participating districts with a record review form and informational letters



101

Massachusetts about data collection methods. Districts can access a spreadsheet for recording and submitting data through the MASSDE Security Portal. Members of each district’s Special Education department assess selected student records for evidence of transition planning that meets the requirements of Indicator 13.

Districts submit this collected data to MASSDE via the Security Portal, and MASSDE reviews the data. In cases where data does not initially indicate 100% compliance, MASSDE contacts each district’s

Administrator of Special Education via telephone and discusses each student record to determine whether data was collected properly and accurately. If data is deemed accurate, MASSDE requires districts to take prompt corrective action on an individual student and district-wide basis.


# of Student

Records reviewed

# of Student Records with appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment; transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals; annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs; evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to be discussed; and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP

Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority.

2009-2010

Percentage of student records in compliance

1,455 1,412 97.0%


Beginning in FFY2009, the measurement for Indicator 13 changed. The data above represent a new baseline for FFY2009 and the extended SPP reporting period. Of the 1,455 records for youth with IEPs aged 16 and above reviewed from the 2009-2010 school year, 97.0% included an IEP with appropriate measureable postsecondary goals that were updated annually, and were based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that would reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs. MASSDE reviewed data for evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services were to be discussed, and if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority.

During FFY2009, MASSDE revised the data collection and reporting processes to reflect the new language and measurement. Also, MASSDE developed a more comprehensive data collection tool that informs districts of their individual needs and allows MASSDE to evaluate state-wide technical assistance needs related to appropriate transition planning (See Appendix D - Postsecondary Transition Planning

Checklist.). MASSDE provided participating districts with an updated Postsecondary Transition Planning

Checklist, to be used by districts to assess student records for evidence of appropriate transition planning. Appropriate evidence of effective transition planning also includes the completion of MASSDE’s mandated Transition Planning Form (Form 28M/9, which has replaced the Transition Planning Chart used in previous years) documenting full transition planning discussion (see Appendix E) or a record review

(with appropriate IEP documentation) indicating an appropriate transition planning discussion. If such documentation is not found in the student record or IEP, then the student is not considered to have received appropriate transition planning. Districts are encouraged to provide optional comments detailing any aspect of the student’s transition plan.

Although the figure of 97.0% of compliant records is a reasonably high percentage, especially given the new, more rigorous measurement language, this is a compliance indicator and Massachusetts takes seriously the importance of appropriate transition planning. We will continue to use and refine the



102

Massachusetts

Transition Planning Checklist as a tool to help school districts understand the rigor of the requirement of

Secondary Transition Planning as well as a tool for data analysis and future technical assistance to districts.

In past years (FFY2005 - FFY2008) school districts were asked to report only whether or not transition planning that included coordinated annual goals and transition services had occurred, yielding a yes or no response and a less qualitative indicator of secondary transition. The new Transition Planning Checklist, by isolating out components of transition planning required in the new language of this Indicator, also allows for deeper and broader data analysis. MASSDE can analyze which aspects of transition planning are areas of strength across the state, and which are areas that need improvement. For example, analysis of FFY 2009 data revealed that 55% of non-compliance occurred in the area of having appropriate measureable postsecondary goals based on age-appropriate transition assessment. Another identified area of significant deficiency for districts was in not completing transition planning forms in a timely manner. Such issues accounted for 37% of noncompliance findings. The data also showed that not having appropriate measureable postsecondary vision/goals that were updated annually only occurred in 6.9% of records. Targeted decisions by MASSDE regarding the need for and type of technical assistance and training will be made based on such analysis of the data in each reporting year.

By way of background, data reporting and analysis for the first baseline period (FFY2005 - FFY2008) for the Indicator 13 MA SPP was as follows.


Number of student records reviewed

Number of student records with transition planning that included coordinated annual goals and transition services

Percentage of student records in compliance

1,901 1,592 83.8%

Discussion of Baseline Data FFY2005 (2005-2006):

Until FFY2008, the measurement for Indicator 13 was: 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 postsecondary goals) divided by the (# of youth with an

IEP age 16 and above)] times 100.

The data from FFY2005 indicated that of the 1,901 student records reviewed, almost 84% demonstrated transition planning that included coordinated annual goals and transition services that would reasonably enable the student to meet his/her postsecondary goals in the identified areas. Although this was a reasonably high percentage, MASSDE focused its improvement activities on reaching full compliance with transition planning requirements. Improvement activities included requiring districts to use a

Transition Planning Chart for each student eligible for transition planning in Massachusetts.

The Annual Performance Report for FFY2008 saw the conclusion of the 4-year cycle with all LEAs in the

State having reported data on this indicator. For FFY2009 (2009-2010), the cohort cycle began anew using a new measurement for Indicator 13.

For the new baseline year (FFY2009) and the extended SPP period (FFY2011 and FFY2012), MASSDE reviewed targets and activities with the Statewide Special Education Steering Committee.



103

Massachusetts

FFY

2006

(2006-2007)

2007

(2007-2008)

2008

(2008-2009)

2009

(2009-2010)

2010

(2010-2011)

2011

(2011-2012)

2012

(2012-2013)


100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%




(FFY)

2005 - 2012 MASSDE staff time,


2005 - 2007


Special Needs

(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13 )

See Appendix A.


( Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.






Inclusion at UMass-

Boston, Education




104

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2009

2011 - 2012

2005 - 2009

2011 - 2012

2006 - 2012

2006 - 2012



Revision

(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.



(Indicators 3, 5, 11, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.



(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.


(Fund Code 274)

(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13)

See Appendix A.


(Fund Code 249)

(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12,13 )

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time



MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

Massachusetts Transition Planning Form (TPF 28M/9)

MASSDE will revise the Transition Planning Chart in order to develop the mandated Massachusetts Transition

Planning Form (TPF 28M/9). Ongoing training and technical assistance is available to districts on the use of the TPF.

MASSDE staff time, CSPD trainers, district staff time




See Appendix A.




105

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2007 - 2012

2007 - 2008

2007 - 2008

2007 - 2010

2008

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012



(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14

See Appendix A.

)






Inclusion at UMass-



(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

Central Massachusetts Communities of Care Positive

Behavioral Interventions (PBIS) Grant

(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 15)

See Appendix A.


Massachusetts


National Center for

Positive Behavioral


Passage of Chapter 285 of the Acts of 2008 – Change in Transition Planning Age to 14 Years Old

With the passage of Chapter 285, transition planning for students with disabilities in Massachusetts will begin when the student is 14 years of age. Therefore, MASSDE will require that beginning when the eligible student is 14, the school district must plan for the student's need for transition services and the school district must document this discussion annually using the Massachusetts

Transition Planning Form (TPF 28M/9).


MASSDE staff time National Association of State Directors of Special


Series

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.



See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time, DDS staff time, district staff time

Educational Proficiency Plans

Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time



106

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2011

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2010

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012



Noncompliance

(Indicators 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16)

See Appendix A.

Secondary Transition – Transition Works: Innovative

Strategies for Transitioning Youth with Disabilities from School to Work

(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

Massachusetts Work-Based Learning Plan

(Indicators 2, 4, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time,

Massachusetts


MASSDE staff time, district staff time, staff time

Workforce Development

MASSDE staff time District and School Assistance Centers (DSACs)

(Indicators 2, 3, 4, 5, 13 )

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

Dropout Prevention and Recovery Workgroup -

MASSDE Urban & Commissioner’s Districts Unit and

Secondary Support Services Unit

(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


Website-MASSDE Student Support and Secondary

School Services Unit

(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.



Impairments”

(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 11,13 )

See Appendix A.



MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time, Vision

Impairment Disability

Workgroup time



107

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2009 - 2012

2009 - 2012

2009 - 2012

2009 - 2012

2009 - 2012

2010 - 2012

2010 - 2012

2010 - 2012

2011 - 2012


Postsecondary Transition Planning Checklist

MASSDE developed and has implemented a checklist to be used by cohort districts in gathering data for Indicator

13. The checklist identifies components of transition planning as required by the new measurement language, effective FFY 2009. In addition to informing districts about the new requirements, the checklist will allow for more detailed data analysis by MASSDE in order to target technical assistance to districts. The checklist was revised and new instructions created in 2012.

Massachusetts 21st Century Community Learning

Centers (CCLC) – Enhanced Programs for Students with Disabilities

(Indicators Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.



(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


Public Schools

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time





University)



(MassGrad)

(Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


Grants

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.



MASSDE staff time



108

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2011 - 2012

2012

2012



(Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


Task Force

(Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.





Department of Early

Education and Care,

Massachusetts

Rehabilitation


Higher Education




109

Massachusetts




Indicator 14: Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were:

A. Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school.

B. Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school.

C. Enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leaving high school.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

Measurement:

A. Percent enrolled in higher education = [(# of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school and were enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school) divided by the (# of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school)] times 100.

B. Percent enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school

= [(# of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school and were enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school) divided by the (# of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school)] times 100.

C. Percent enrolled in higher education, or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment = [(# of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school and were enrolled in higher education, or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment) divided by the (# of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school)] times 100.


Generally, students with disabilities access postsecondary education and gain employment in the competitive job market at lower rates than their non-disabled peers. In the spring of 2007, during the first collection of baseline data, students with disabilities who exited high school in the 2005-2006 school year were surveyed regarding their postsecondary activities within one year of leaving high school.

Respondents reported whether they enrolled in postsecondary education and/or were employed in the competitive job market. MASSDE analyzed the results of this initial data to establish a baseline percentage of students with disabilities participating in postsecondary education and/or competitive employment within one year of leaving high school. Using this baseline data, MASSDE developed targets and improvement activities for Indicator 14. The process of collecting baseline data was repeated in

FFY2009, using a new measurement and survey instrument based on new definitions established by

OSEP for Indicator 14.

Cohort Model

To ease the data collection activity burden for districts, in the first baseline year, MASSDE divided its 387 districts into four cohorts that are representative of the state as a whole. Beginning in FFY2006, MASSDE collected and reported data based on this four-year cycle using a cohort model and plan for data



110

Massachusetts collection that was approved by OSEP. Under this plan, over a four-year period, every district in the state participates in 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. Additional information on the cohort model is available at: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/datacollection.html.

Data Collection Protocol

MASSDE uses a two-step data collection protocol. In the first year, districts collect contact information to use during the survey process. The second step is districts’ distribution of the “Postsecondary Outcomes

Survey” instrument to students with disabilities that exited high school in the prior year. Each year

MASSDE notifies participating districts of their responsibilities to collect student contact information and data, and provides them with necessary technical assistance about data collection activities and responsibilities. Beginning in FFY2009 with the implementation of a new survey instrument based on the revised measurement and definitions, MASSDE provided additional guidance including recommended timelines; definitions of key terms; steps for mail, email, and phone data collection; and sample scripts for phone contact. MASSDE instructed districts to make a minimum of three attempts to contact students to complete the survey. Increasing the number of respondents will improve the response rate and increase the participation of all exiter subgroups in the data collection activity.

MASSDE coordinates additional data collection with data collection activities for Career/Vocational

Technical Education (CVTE) programs. MASSDE’s CVTE unit annually conducts a follow-up survey for each graduating class, responding to the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 requirement that each state receiving a federal grant establish a performance accountability system to assess the effectiveness of career and technical education. The students surveyed are part of a district state-approved vocational technical education program, known as Chapter 74, and/or other career/vocational technical education programs known as non-Chapter 74 career & technical education

(CTE) programs.

For Indicator 14 data collection, district personnel administer the “Postsecondary Outcomes Survey” instrument between April and July, using one or more data collection methods (e.g., mailings, telephone surveys), and uplo ad respondents’ answers directly to MASSDE. Data is submitted to MASSDE on a spreadsheet that is accessible to districts through the MASSDE Security Portal. MASSDE then completes an aggregate data collection and analysis.

Survey Instrument

MASSDE cre ated the “Postsecondary Outcomes Survey” instrument, in collaboration with the statewide

Transition Task Force Workgroup and through participation in the Post-School Outcomes Community of

Practice, to collect and record data for Indicator 14. The original survey consisted of six multiple-choice questions pertaining to the students’ educational and employment status since leaving high school. The survey instrument asks respondents to provide details about their educational status, such as postsecondary program setting and enrollment level. Respondents can also provide a short written description of a postsecondary program not listed on the instrument. Respondents are also asked to provide details about their employment status, such as employment setting and hours per week of employment. In response to the revised monitoring priorities and measurement implemented in FFY

2009, MASSDE revised the survey instrument to include new definitions established by OSEP. (See

Appendix F for the original survey instrument; Appendix G for a copy of the instrument implemented in

FFY2009; and Appendix H for the FFY2010 survey instrument.)


Beginning in FFY2009, the measurement and definitions for Indicator 14 are as follows:

Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were:

A. Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school. (Definition I)

B. Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school.

(Definition I + II)



111

Massachusetts

C. Enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leaving high school.

(Definition I + II + III + IV)

I. Enrolled in higher education means youth have been enrolled on a full- or part-time basis in a community college (two year program) or college/university (four or more year program) for at least one complete term, at any time in the year since leaving high school = 440

II. Competitive employment means youth have worked for pay at or above the minimum wage in a setting with others who are nondisabled for a period of 20 hours a week for at least 90 days at any time in the year since leaving high school. This includes military service = 308

III. Enrolled in other postsecondary education or training means youth have been enrolled on a full- or part-time basis for at least one complete term at any time in the year since leaving high school in an education or training program (e.g., Job Corps, adult education, workforce development program, vocational technical school which is less than a two year program) = 35

IV. Some Other Employment means youth have worked for pay or been self-employed for a period of at least 90 days at any time in the year since leaving high school. This includes working in a family business (e.g., farm, store, fishing, ranching, catering services, etc.) = 62

Using this new measurement and definitions, MASSDE reports the following new baseline data for

FFY2009:

Number of

Students with

Disabilities in the cohort who exited high school (2008-

2009 school year)

Number of

Students

Contacted

Percentage of

Students

Contacted

Number of

Respondents

Percentage of

Respondents

Response Rate

2220 1,532 69%

A.

Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school.

% of student respondents

B.

Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school.

1,039

% of student respondents

67.8% 46.8%

C.

Enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leaving high school.

Percentage of students engaged in postgraduate activities

440 42.3% 748 72.0 % 845 81.3%


In FFY2009, of the 1,039 respondents to the survey instrument, 42.3% were enrolled in higher education;

29.6% were competitively employed; 3.4% were in some other postsecondary education or training program (but not competitively enrolled or in higher education); and 6.0% were in some other employment within one year of leaving high school (but not enrolled in higher education, some other



112

Massachusetts postsecondary education or training program, or competitively employed). This accounts for an overall engagement rate of 81.3% for students in this cohort.

MASSDE recognizes that the baseline measurement appears lower than previous years under the former measurement for Indicator 14, but attributes the decrease to the following factors:

1. The FFY2009 changes to the definitions in the measurement no longer allow for deviations from the norm. For example, in the past, for definition II, a respondent may have reported being employed while in a job for 15 hours per week and may have only been in the job for 45 days. The new, clearly defined requirement includes in the measurement only respondents that are employed 20 hours per week or more who have been employed at least 90 days. This new threshold excludes a number of respondents from meeting the criteria for definition II.

This baseline data is consistent with MASSDE’s expectation that there would be a drop in actual data for

Indicator 14 using the new measurements. In the FFY2008 reporting year, MASSDE piloted in its survey new questions based on the revised definitions. As described in the FFY2008 MA APR for Indicator 14,

92.9% were reported as engaged after exiting from high school, but only 74.3% of those same respondents would be counted as engaged under the new definitions.

2. The downturn in the economy has had a significant effect on exiters’ ability to access employment because of increased competition for limited job openings. In addition, some students with disabilities are limited in their ability to self-advocate when pursuing job opportunities, thereby further limiting their access to employment opportunities.

3. New measurements require new data collection methods. This in turn requires a new learning period as school personnel adapt to the new methodology and survey instrument.

Beginning in FFY2009, MASSDE provided additional guidance regarding data collection including recommended timelines, definitions of key terms, steps for mail, email, and phone data collection as well as sample scripts for phone contact. Districts were asked to make a minimum of three attempts to complete the “Postsecondary Outcomes Survey.” An increase in the number of students with disabilities who exited high school that districts contact to complete the “Postsecondary Outcomes Survey” will increase the number of respondents to the “Postsecondary Outcomes Survey” and, thus, improve the response rate and the participation of all leaver subgroups in the data collection activity. While the response rate increased 7.7 percent in FFY2009, MASSDE will continue to review and refine data collection protocols as well as provide technical assistance in order to improve the response rate of cohort districts.

By way of background, data reporting and analysis for the first baseline period (FFY2006 - FFY2008) for the Indicator 14 MA SPP was as follows.


Until FFY2008, the measurement for Indicator 14 was: 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) divided by the (# of youth assessed who had IEPs and are no longer in secondary school)} times 100. Reported baseline data were as follows:

Number of

Respondents who have been competitively employed

Number of

Respondents who have been enrolled in postsecondary education

Number of

Respondents who have been enrolled in postsecondary education and competitively employed

Percentage of Respondents who have been competitively employed and/or enrolled in postsecondary education

316 177 461 93%



113

Massachusetts

The FFY2006 baseline data (students with disabilities who exited high school during the 2005-2006 school year) indicated that of the 1,028 respondents to the survey instrument, 93% were competitively employed (31%), enrolled in postsecondary education (17%), or both (45%), within one year of leaving high school. Of the 77% of the students with disabilities in this first cohort surveyed, more than half completed the “Postsecondary Outcomes Survey” instrument. The response rate was 39%, and the responses appeared to be representative of the exiting students with disabilities with regard to factors such as race and ethnicity, gender, disability, level of need, and program placement. MASSDE made this determination based on a comparison of the data to student data in the Student Information Management

System (SIMS) database.

MASSDE recognized some exiter subgroups may not have been as well represented as others in the first data collection and that the validity of the respondent group may have been affected somewhat. For example, exiters who were not satisfied with their postsecondary activities may have been less likely to participate in the survey, and some dropouts may not have been represented adequately if contact information for the students had changed. Also, the FFY2005 baseline data did not include four districts in the cohort that did not complete data collection. Those districts participated in a later cohort data collection cycle.

To addresses these issues, MASSDE reviewed and revised the data collection protocol to assist districts in contacting a higher percentage of students with disabilities who exited high school. MASSDE provided additional guidelines to districts about data collection responsibilities and protocols, which in turn helped to improve the response rate and the participation of all exiter subgroups in the data collection activity.

Please see the MA APR for Indicator 14 for more information about MASSDE’s improvement activities.

Also, more information about the FFY2005 baseline data is included in the prior years’ MA SPP for

Indicator 14, available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/maspp.html

.

The early targets listed below were developed using the FFY2006 baseline data of 93%, which was the percentage of students with disabilities who were engaged in postsecondary activities within one year of leaving high school. Targets for the FFY2009 baseline year, FFY2010, and for the extended SPP reporting period (FFY2011 and FFY2012) were established in consultation with the Massachusetts

Statewide Special Education Steering Committee.


2007

(2007-2008)

2008

(2008-2009)

2009

(2009-2010) baseline

2010

(2010-2011)

2011

(2011-2012)

2012

(2012-2013)

A

42.3%

43%

44%

45%



93%

93%

B

72.0%

74%

77%

80%

C

81.3%

82%

84%

87%

114

Massachusetts



Timelines

(FFY)

2005 - 2007


2005 - 2010

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3 4, 5, 14 )

See Appendix A.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.



(Indicators 3, 5, 11, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.



(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.


Special Needs

(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.



( Indicators 5, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.









MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time



MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time,


Special Needs




115

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2006 - 2012

2006 - 2012

2007 - 2008

2007 - 2012

2007 - 2008

2007 - 2010

2008 - 2012


Data Analysis

MASSDE will analyze data trends at the student, district and state level. Data will be drawn from sources such as the Post-School Outcomes Survey, Student Information

Management System (SIMS) and the Chapter 74

Vocational Technical Education Postsecondary and

Postgraduate data collection. The resulting analyses will be presented to stakeholders and used to inform technical assistance and professional development activities.

Survey Protocol Evaluation and

Data Collection Technical Assistance

MASSDE will evaluate the Indicator 14 survey protocol annually and revise it as necessary as well as provide technical assistance, including guidance documents and teleconferences, to LEAs to help district personnel become familiar with the Postsecondary Outcomes

Survey and to establish a plan to complete the postsecondary outcomes data collection activity and reporting.

MASSDE staff time



(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.






Inclusion at UMass-



(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.



(Fund Code 250)

(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.



See Appendix A.


Massachusetts


National Center for Positive

Behavioral Intervention and

Supports trainers), district staff time

MASSDE staff time, DDS staff time, district staff time



116

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2011

2007 - 2011

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2010

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2010



(Indicators 1, 2 ,3, 4, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 14)

See Appendix A.



Series

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.




(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


Program


See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14 )



Commission


See Appendix A.


Website

(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14 )

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.



MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time, MRC staff time, grant partners

(Federation for Children with Special Needs,


Inclusion at UMass-




MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time



Workforce




117

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2009 - 2012


2009 - 2012

2009 - 2010

2010 - 2012

2010 - 2012

2010 - 2012

2010 - 2012

2010 - 2012

2011 - 2013

2011-2013

2011 - 2012


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14 )

See Appendix A.




(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.



Public Schools

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.





(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


Grants

(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.





(MassGrad)

(Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

Massachusetts 21st Century Community Learning

Centers (CCLC) – Enhanced Programs for Students with Disabilities

(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.

Secondary Transition Endorsement

(Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.




MASSDE staff time



118

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2011 - 2012

2012

2012



(Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.


Task Force

(Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14)

See Appendix A.



Public Health/Early



Massachusetts



Education




119



Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision

Massachusetts

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. dicator #15: Identification and Correction of Noncompliance

(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(B))

Measurement:

Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification: a. # of findings of noncompliance b. # of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.

Percent = [(b) divided by (a) times 100.


Monitoring by Program Quality Assurance Services:

For further information, see the Coordinated Program Review Procedures: School District Information

Package: Special Education at http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/cpr/instrument/sped.doc

. The most recent information about the Mid-Cycle Review process is available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/midcycle.html

, and http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/cpr/midcycle_announce.html

. These documents are updated annually. The most recent are linked to this report.

Monitoring is carried out by MASSDE’s Program Quality Assurance Services unit (PQA). PQA is the

MASSDE unit charged with monitoring all public school districts and charter schools in the

Commonwealth for compliance with laws and regulations in a number of areas. It has a six-year cycle for this monitoring, meaning that it monitors each of those districts and charter schools in multiple areas once during that sixyear cycle (the “Coordinated Program Review” or CPR). During every CPR, PQA sends a team to spend from several days to over a week in the district or charter school being reviewed, interviewing its personnel and observing classes. Before the onsite visit, the team surveys parents and scrutinizes selected student records and extensive documentation provided by the district or charter school. The areas monitored in a CPR always include special education and civil rights.

With respect to the monitoring of special education, PQA sends a team midway through the six-year cycle to complete an onsite special education “Mid-Cycle Review” (MCR). Again, the review consists of onsite interviews and observations as well as examination of documentation and records. Thus, each public school district and charter school in Massachusetts is monitored once every three years for compliance with special education laws and regulations.

After the Coordinated Program Review, the CPR team issues a draft and then a final Coordinated

Program Review Report rating the district or charter sc hool on multiple compliance standards (“criteria”) in the areas reviewed, including over 60 13 special education criteria based on federal and state special education law and multiple civil rights criteria. Where a criterion is found to be “Partially Implemented” or

“Not Implemented,” the CPR Report includes a finding under that criterion, and the school or district must create a corrective action plan (CAP) to address the deficiencies described in the finding. MASSDE staff

13 Alt hough for 2005-2006 the last c riterion number is 59, there are a “9A” and “49A” in addition to a “9” and “49,” and an “18A” and “18B” and “25A” and “25B” instead of an “18” and “25”; on the other hand, “SE 3” and “SE 28” have been reserved.



120

Massachusetts review the CAP, requiring revisions to be made where the CAP appears inadequate. Once that Corrective

Action Plan is in a form acceptable to MASSDE, it issues a Review of Action Plan in which it requires progress reports from the school or district to show that the corrective action described in the Corrective

Action Plan has been implemented. As of the beginning of the 2005-2006 school year and in response to national guidance on the development of the SPP, corrective action must be completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year after the provision to the school or district of the final CPR

Report.

When progress reports are received from the district, MASSDE issues a Review of Progress Report in which it indicates, with the basis for its decision, whether the progress report has adequately shown that the corrective action for a particular criterion has been implemented. If the progress report has not adequately shown the implementation of the corrective action, MASSDE requires a further progress report and indicates what that progress report must show.

Three years after the CPR, unless unique circumstances dictate either acceleration of the timetable or postponement, PQA conducts the special education Mid-Cycle Review mentioned above to review again areas that were presen t on the charter school or district’s previous CAP. PQA publishes a Coordinated

Program Review MCR Monitoring Report, and, if the school or district is again found non-compliant, in whole or in part, with any of the areas previously corrected following the CPR, then PQA issues its own

Corrective Action Plan, which must be implemented by the school or district without delay. Failure to implement MASSDE’s Corrective Action Plan within the required time may result in the loss of funds to the school or district and/or other enforcement action by MASSDE . During the Mid-Cycle Review, the

PQA team also monitors the implementation of any special education requirements that have been newly created or substantially changed since the CPR, as well as reviewing any issues raised by recent complaints about special education. It may also opt to monitor areas other than special education.

MASSDE further notes that during OSEP’s verification visit in Massachusetts in July 2003, OSEP found that PQA’s monitoring system, including its six-year cycle of Coordinated Program Reviews and Mid-

Cycle Reviews, constitutes “a reasonable approach to the identification and correction of noncompliance…” ( Letter of October 29, 2003 to Massachusetts Commissioner of Education David

Driscoll from Stephanie Smith Lee, Director, Office of Special Education Programs ).

For a description of PQA’s Problem Resolution System, please see http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/prs/ .


When MASSDE staff learned, at OSEP’s summer institute on the SPP in August 2005, that one of the

SPP’s indicators - Indicator 15 - includes the correction within a year from identification of noncompliance in special education identified throu gh a state’s monitoring system, discussion began immediately among

PQA staff as to how to modify PQA’s monitoring system (described above under Overview of

Issue/Description of System or Process ) so as to be able to fulfill this new requirement and track compliance with it. As this requirement was not included in IDEA 2004 or the proposed regulations implementing it, PQA had not previously considered how to modify its monitoring system in this way.

Please see below, in the section entitled Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources , for PQA’s planning and activities in this area.

In the meantime, MASSDE does not have any data, for FFY2004 (school year 2004-2005) or any other year, on the percentage of special education noncompliance corrected within one year from identification, either related to monitoring priority areas or not so related. PQA. As described above under Overview of

Issue/Description of System or Process, PQA’s monitoring involves a thorough review - through

Coordinated Program Reviews (CPRs) and Mid-Cycle Reviews (MCRs) - of compliance with dozens of special education compliance standards or criteria, most of which contain multiple parts. MASSDE’s emphasis has been on thorough correction of all of the areas of special education where noncompliance is found, rather than correction within a particular time (though, as described above, if noncompliance found in a CPR is found again at the MCR, PQA issues its own Corrective Action Plan, which must be implemented by the school or district without delay if it is to avoid escalated enforcement action by

MASSDE). PQA has never before required the correction of special education noncompliance within one year, nor has it tracked the number of findings of special education noncompliance corrected within one



121

Massachusetts year. Typically, the majority of issues identified at the CPR are corrected before the MCR, but not always and the MCR has allowed MASSDE to ensure that the corrections have been maintained as well as provided an opportunity to review activity for corrective actions that extended for a longer period (as, typically, some physical plant corrective actions often do).

To date, instead of a tracking system that is “time-based,” PQA has used its system of progress reporting and its MCR procedures to ensure correction of noncompliance. Appendix I is an Excel table showing the percentage of correction of noncompliance with each special education criterion for the 32 charter schools and districts that received a CPR in 2001-2002 and had an MCR in 2004-2005 that had been published as of November 3, 2005. It bears repeating that if noncompliance with any criterion found in a

CPR is found again at the MCR, PQA issues its own Corrective Action Plan, which must be implemented by the school or district without delay if it is to avoid escalated enforcement action by MASSDE.

Indicator 15A and Indicator 15B*: a. b.

# of findings of noncompliance made in the 2001-2002 CPR: 560 of the 560 findings from the 2001-2002 CPR, 380 were no longer present at the 2004-

2005 MCR; therefore, we consider the findings corrected and sustained: 380

Percent of noncompliance corrected and sustained 68%

*Note: See Appendix G: Correction of Noncompliance Data for additional detail.

Indicator 15C: a. b. c.

# of agencies in which noncompliance was identified through other mechanisms: 95

# of findings of noncompliance made: 206

# of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification: 206

Percent of noncompliance identified through other mechanisms

(complaints, due process hearings, mediations, etc.) corrected within one year of identification

100%


Indicator 15A and Indicator 15B:

See description provided above in the “Baseline Data” section. MASSDE notes that this baseline is not completely responsive to the required measurement of this Indicator, but it is not possible to respond to this Indicator exactly as written at this time. MASSDE notes that although re-identification of noncompliance at the MCR does result in a PQA-initiated CAP, rather than a district or charter schoolinitiated CAP, in the majority of cases it is our perception that the original finding had been corrected, but the correction did not sustain over the three year period. One recurring theme explaining that inability to sustain corrective action is the constant turnover in the field of special education and special education administrators and the constant need to look and re-look at areas of special education compliance.

MASSDE anticipates further that the contemplated changes in accountability measures must also be accompanied by a consideration of how certain changes can be systematized such that corrective actions are sustainable over long periods of time and through changes in personnel.

Indicator 15C:

100% of noncompliance identified though complaints received during 2004-2005 was corrected within one year of identification.

Targets, activities, and timelines for the extended State Performance Plan period, FFY2011 and

FFY2012, were reviewed with the Massachusetts Statewide Special Education Steering Committee.



122

Massachusetts

FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets

2005

(2005-2006)

% of noncompliance related to monitoring priority areas and indicators corrected within one year of identification

(Indicator 15A)

% of noncompliance related to areas not included in

Indicator 15A corrected within one year of identification

(Indicator 15B)

% of noncompliance identified through other mechanisms corrected within one year of identification

(Indicator 15C)

100% 100% 100%

100% 100% 100% 2006

(2006-2007)

2007

(2007-2008)

2008

(2008-2009)

2009

(2009-2010)

2010

(2010-2011)

2011

(2011-2012)

2012

(2012-2013)

100% 100%

Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%



123

Massachusetts



Timelines

(FFY)

2005


2005 - 2009

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2006 - 2012

2007

Study of Reorganization

MASSDE will study the possibility of reorganizing PQA staff into two parts, each with its own function: one that conducts Coordinated Program Reviews (CPRs) and

Mid-Cycle Reviews (MCRs), and one that manages the

Problem Resolution System (PRS) (complaint resolution system).

Electronic CAP/Progress Report System (ECAP)

Plan, pilot and implement an electronic system of corrective action plans and progress reports.


(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.

Communication About Required One-Year

Correction

MASSDE will inform districts and train PQA staff regarding this requirement.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

Improvement of Procedures

MASSDE will revise and develop monitoring, tracking, and reporting procedures based on data and systems analyses, and input from OSEP and stakeholders.


(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time, OSEP technical assistance, stakeholders

MASSDE staff time

Web-based Monitoring System (CPR and MCR)

MASSDE will plan and implement web-based monitoring system emphasizing self-assessment by districts.

MASSDE staff time, contracted providers

Reorganization

MASSDE will reorganize PQA public school staff into four CPR/MCR teams and two PRS teams, each team having a supervisor and each function having an assistant PQA director in charge.

MASSDE staff time



124

Massachusetts

2007

Timelines

(FFY)

2007

2007 - 2008

2007 - 2008

2008 - 2012


Purchase and Use of Additional Software

MASSDE will purchase and implement software (Crystal

Reports) to produce reports on complaints.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time Hiring of Staff Trainer

MASSDE will hire a staff trainer to train monitoring teams.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.

Software Upgrade

MASSDE will plan upgrade from current software used for tracking complaints and complaint resolution.


Noncompliance

(Indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time



125

Massachusetts




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, or because the parent (or individual or organization) and the public agency agree to extend the time to engage in mediation or other alternative means of dispute resolution, if available in the State.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

Measurement: Percent = [(1.1(b) + 1.1(c)) divided by 1.1] times 100.


For a description of the Problem Resolution System (PRS) operated by the Program Quality Assurance

Services unit of MASSDE, please see http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/prs/ .


Total Number of

Complaints with

Reports Issued

Reports Issued Within

Timeline

Reports Issued Within

Extended Timelines

Percentage Issued

Within Timeline or

Timeline Appropriate

Extended

258 162 16 69%


The percentage of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within the 60-day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances fell to 69% in 2004-2005 from 82%

(252/308) in 2003-2004. Although MASSDE is concerned about the drop, analysis of the data shows that in the majority of cases where the 60-day timeline was exceeded, the complaint was resolved with just a few extra days.



78% of signed written complaints with reports issued were resolved within the timeline or extended timeline or within 1-3 days after it.







PQA gives the district or charter school about which it receives a complaint 15 calendar days to investigate the complaint and provide PQA with an investigation report. In some cases, the district or charter school delays or resists carrying out this investigation and submitting the report. (Often, the same district or charter school delays in or resists carrying out its responsibilities with respect to more than one complaint.) Where the school or district fails to investigate and submit its report, PQA staff makes multiple attempts to obtain compliance. Eventually, MASSDE staff, often including a MASSDE lawyer, meets with the superintendent and special education administrator to explain to them the sanctions that MASSDE will impose unless the district carries out its responsibilities immediately. No matter how scrupulous PQA staff



126

Massachusetts members are in adhering to timelines, almost every case of such unresponsiveness by schools and districts results in noncompliance with timeline requirements.

MASSDE’s plan for ensuring that it complies with timeline requirements in 2005-2006 and beyond is described under Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources below.


2005

(2005-2006)

2006

(2006-2007)

100%

100%

2007

(2007-2008)

2008

(2008-2009)

2009

(2009-2010)

2010

(2010-2011)

100%

100%

100%

100%

2011

(2011-2012)

100%

2012

(2012-2013)

100%


MASSDE provides the following plan in the MA SPP including strategies, proposed evidence of change, targets and timelines for ensuring full compliance with the required timeline, as soon as possible. Please see the chart located below for improvement activities, timelines, and resources.

Proposed evidence of change

MASSDE proposes to request monthly reports for the first quarter and then quarterly reports thereafter from Remedy’s Action Request System showing the percentage of compliance with timelines for the current year’s complaints in order to have a more frequent review and revision of any identified causes of delay.

Targets

The target for 2005-2006 and every year hereafter will be 100% compliance with the timeline requirements of 34 CFR §300.661. For the extended SPP period (FFY2011 and FFY2012), targets and activities were reviewed with the Statewide Special Education Steering Committee.



127

Massachusetts


Timelines

(FFY)


2005 MASSDE staff time

2005

Software Modification

MASSDE will modify Remedy’s Action Request System software, the software PQA uses to track the resolution of complaints.

Study of Reorganization

MASSDE will study the possibility of reorganizing PQA staff into two parts, each with its own function: one that conducts Coordinated Program Reviews (CPRs) and Mid-

Cycle Reviews (MCRs), and one that manages the

Problem Resolution System (PRS) (complaint resolution system).

MASSDE staff time

Internal Monitoring

MASSDE will review and revise internal monitoring procedures to ensure the timely complaint resolution.

MASSDE staff time 2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012


(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

2005 - 2012


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.


Revision

(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

2006 - 2012

2006 - 2012

2006 - 2012

Analysis of Data

MASSDE will prepare statistical reports on PRS, analyze any reasons for noncompliance or barriers to timely compliance, and implement any needed modifications to

PRS (including Remedy’s Action Request System).

Web-based Monitoring System

MASSDE will plan and implement web-based monitoring system.

Guidance on Extensions

MASSDE will provide consistent guidance to PQA complaint investigators on acceptable reasons for extensions and proper duration of extensions.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time, contracted providers

MASSDE staff time



128

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2007

2007

2007 - 2008

2007 - 2008

2008

2008 - 2012

2008 - 2012

2009


Reorganization

MASSDE will reorganize PQA public school staff into four

CPR/MCR teams and two PRS teams, each team having a supervisor and each function having an assistant PQA director in charge.

Purchase and Use of Additional Software

MASSDE will purchase and implement software (Crystal

Reports) to produce reports on complaints.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

Software Upgrade Planned

MASSDE will plan upgrade from current software used for tracking complaints and complaint resolution.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.

Relocation of Complaint Investigators

MASSDE will relocate all complaint investigation staff together in the office to promote exchange of ideas and enhance communication between them for better consistency.

Procedures for Verification of Correction of

Noncompliance

(Indicators 11, 12, 13, 15, 16)

See Appendix A.

Consultation among Complaint Investigators

MASSDE will institute regular meetings of complaint investigation staff to discuss issues.

Software Upgrade Implementation

MASSDE implemented a software upgrade that included: the four permissible reasons for issuing an extension; data fields to record the extension date, extension period, reason for the extension, and due date for receiving materials related to the extension; and alerts being provided to the assistant director whenever an extension is issued.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time



129

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2009


Listserv hosted by Mountain Plains Regional

Resource Center

MASSDE added the use of a listserv hosted by Mountain

Plains Regional Resource Center Complaint Investigator's

Work Group (MPRRC-CI) to provide complaint investigators with a vehicle for discussing and sharing ideas for improving skills, and to improve understanding and clarification of special education law, consistent with

OSEP interpretation, on matters that may be the subject of a complaint. Complaint investigators can also network and collaborate through this listserv.

MASSDE staff time



130

Massachusetts




Indicator 17: Percent of adjudicated due process hearing requests that were adjudicated within the 45day timeline or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party or in the case of an expedited hearing, within the required timelines.

Indicator #17: Due Process Timelines

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

Measurement: Percent = [(3.2(a) + 3.2(b)) divided by 3.2] times 100.


With the full implementation of revised internal procedures and Rule changes, both geared toward accomplishing full compliance with timelines, the data reflects significant improvement in meeting the timelines for hearings. Internal administrative changes included tightening up on postponements; limiting closing arguments, i.e., period for submission and length; rotation of hearing officer assignments so that decision writing is more evenly divided; and monitoring and managing caseloads so that a given hearing officer, ideally, is not writing more than one decision at a time.


Number of hearings fully adjudicated

Decisions issued within 45-day timeline or timeline properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party

Percent 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

12 11 * 91.6%

*Note: The one decision that was outside the timeline was three days past the timeline.


The data reveal that of the 2004-2005 hearing requests that were fully adjudicated during 2004-2005 by the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA), almost 92% resulted in full adjudication (i.e., decision) within the 45-day timeline or a timeline properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party. Note further that the one decision that was not timely issued was only 3 days outside of the prescribed timelines. This represents a significant improvement from 2003-2004 data, which reflected that

67% of the hearings were fully adjudicated within the timelines as defined above.

Proposed targets and improvement activities for the extended State Performance Plan (SPP) reporting period (FFY2011 to FFY2012) were developed in consultation with the Massachusetts Statewide Special




131

Massachusetts

FFY

2005

(2005-2006)

2006

(2006-2007)

2007

(2007-2008)

2008

(2008-2009)

2009

(2009-2010)

2010

(2010-2011)

2011

(2011-2012)


100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

2012

(2012-2013)

100%



Timelines

(FFY)

2005

2005 - 2012

(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.


Fill Staffing Vacancies

Fill existing BSEA staffing vacancies (the director of

BSEA left in March 2005 and the Coordinator of

Mediation left soon after); the hiring of a new director will allow for additional supervisory and managerial resources to be dedicated to ensuring that hearing officers comply with federally mandated timelines for issuing decisions.




Resources

BSEA staff time

BSEA staff time

132

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2007 - 2008

2010 - 2012



(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.

Revise Internal Procedures

The BSEA will revise internal procedures and implement these revisions, including an increase in supervision/monitoring to ensure that Hearing Officers who are assigned multiple cases that have similar decision deadlines will have such cases reassigned to other hearing officers who are more available to conduct the hearing and write the decision in a timely manner.


Revision

(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.

Consolidation with the Massachusetts Division of

Administrative Law Appeals

Effective July 1, 2010, the BSEA is transferred from the administrative oversight of MASSDE to the

Massachusetts Division of Administrative Law Appeals

(MA DALA). As part of this consolidation, the BSEA will be evaluating the feasibility of amending administrative protocols, updating computer and recordkeeping/tracking resources, and revising paperwork and forms in an effort to better consolidate and manage administrative resources, timelines, and data collection.

Changes to policies, protocols, and procedures will be made accordingly.

MASSDE staff time

BSEA staff time

MASSDE staff time, BSEA staff time

MASSDE staff time

BSEA staff time



133

Massachusetts




Indicator 18: Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements.

Indicator #18: Hearing Requests Resolved by Resolution Sessions

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3(B))

Measurement: Percent = (3.1(a) divided by 3.1) times 100.


The Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) has devised and implemented the use of a form to be filed with the BSEA by the moving party (parent) in the event a case is settled through the resolution process prior to the hearing date. Said form constitutes a withdrawal of the hearing request and closure of the case.

Baseline Data for FFY2005 (2005-2006): 48% (212/442)


The 48% baseline data figure (212/442) is calculated based on:

(1) 212 : represents 50% of all cases (424) involving parental requests for hearing which were not resolved through mediation or substantive hearing officer decision on the merits.

Only thirteen (of the 212 cases reported in Table 7, Appendix J) were cases in which parents filed a written form with the BSEA, per BSEA procedure, withdrawing a hearing request and citing settlement at resolution session as basis for the withdrawal. We believe that the number 424 is likely highly inflated

(and hence not deemed reliable) as it includes situations in which private settlements may have resulted outside the resolution session process; cases which were withdrawn without settlements having occurred; cases in which a settlement conference was conducted by the BSEA resulting in withdrawal of the hearing request; cases in which a pre-hearing conference resulted in a settlement and/or withdrawal of the hearing; and cases in which a dispositive ruling was issued by a hearing officer; and we, therefore, reduced it by half. While we admit this is arbitrary, we believe it is closer to reality than to suggest either that all of the 424 cases were settled as a result of a resolution session or that only 13 were settled as a result of a resolution session. As you will see in our improvement activities, we will be focusing on how we may be able to obtain more accurate data in the future.

(2) 442 : the total number of hearing requests, minus the number of hearings requested by LEAs

(resolution session not required), minus the number of mediations related to due process (notion being that parties may opt for mediation in lieu of resolution session).

This number similarly is not deemed reliable at this time for the following reasons: a) there may be cases in which both a resolution session and a mediation were held; b) there are likely cases in which both parties waived the resolution session and did not opt for mediation; and c) 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.

None of these situations is accounted for in the above number.



134

Massachusetts

The Massachusetts Steering Committee, mindful of the quality of the data in this Indicator recommended setting very modest targets.

Proposed targets and improvement activities for the extended State Performance Plan (SPP) reporting period (FFY2011 to FFY2012), and a revised target for FFY2010, were developed in consultation with the

Massachusetts Statewide Special Education Steering Committee. In setting targets for this period,

MASSDE recommends setting a range of targets that is consistent with its average success rate data for resolution sessions. Although tracking resolution sessions and their outcomes is important, doing so does not suggest that parties should be compelled to reach agreements in order to meet state identified targets. That outcome is contrary to the value of dispute resolution strategies as a tool to facilitate communication and foster positive relationships between the parties that are underscored by a willingness to work together cooperatively. Therefore, reporting targets within a range is a more realistic measurement for Indicator 18.


48%

FFY

2005

(2005-2006)

2006

(2006-2007)

2007

(2007-2008)

2008

(2008-2009)

2009

(2009-2010)

2010

(2010-2011)

2011

(2011-2012)

2012

(2011-2012)

48%

48%

49%

50%

48% - 58%

48% - 58%

48% - 58%



135

Massachusetts



Timelines

(FFY)

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012


2006 - 2009

2005 - 2012

2006 - 2009

2006 - 2007

2006 - 2012

2007 - 2008


(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.


Revision

(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.

Review Procedures

The BSEA will review procedures for closing hearing requests and determine points at which data might be gathered that is more reliable and complete.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.

Implement New Data Collection Procedures

The BSEA will refine data procedures to more effectively gather data for this indicator.

BSEA staff time


BSEA staff time

MASSDE staff time

BSEA staff time

Summer Institute on Resolution Sessions

The BSEA will offer a Summer Professional Development

Institute related to effective Resolution Sessions.

BSEA staff time, contracted trainer

Facilitated IEP Team Meeting (FIEP)

BSEA offers facilitators, available at no cost to the parties, to help with difficult IEP Team meetings. The trained, impartial facilitator is present at the meeting to assist Team members to develop and follow an agenda; stay focused on the goal of developing an acceptable

IEP; resolve conflicts that arise during the meeting; and maintain open communication.

BSEA staff time, facilitators


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.



136

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2009 - 2012

2010 - 2012


Annual Training for Special Education Leadership

BSEA staff presents at training programs throughout the year that are sponsored by organizations including, the

Federation for Children with Special Needs, Educational

Collaboratives, and the Special Education Leadership

Academy, on issues related to due process rights and procedures. Each session focuses, in part, on a discussion of the requirements for conducting and reporting on resolution sessions. Attendees include special education personnel, school administrators, advocates, parents, and attorneys.







BSEA staff time

BSEA staff time



137

Massachusetts




Indicator 19: Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.

Indicator #19: Mediation Agreements

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

Measurement: Percent = [(2.1(a)(i) + 2.1(b)(i)) divided by 2.1] times 100.


Mediation is a voluntary and confidential process. Each mediator will conduct mediation slightly differently, but mediations usually follow this structure: The mediator will give an overview of the process in a joint session with the parties. In this session the mediator asks each participant to present the issues and explain the situation from his or her point of view. From there the mediator may move into separate sessions with each party. These sessions might be used to clarify the issues and/or generate options for resolution. These separate sessions might go back and forth a few times but what happens in the end is that the parties are brought back together. What usually unfolds during this process is an agreement and it is drafted at the mediation.


Number of Mediations Number of Mediation

Agreements

Percent of Mediations Held that Resulted in Mediation

Agreements

660 567 85.9%


The data reveal that of the 660 mediations held during 2004-2005, almost 86% resulted in a mediation agreement. This is a continuation of the consistently high level of mediation agreements reached in

Massachusetts over the past two years. In 2002-2003, 79% of mediations resulted in mediation agreements, as did 74% of the mediations in 2003-2004.

The Massachusetts Steering Committee unanimously recommended that our initial target setting be modest and with this Indicator in particular we believe a maintenance target is more appropriate than an increase. Massachusetts has a very high level of mediation agreements reached, and it may be the highest level in the nation. While it is important to continue to track mediation agreements, we believe it is inappropriate to set a target higher than the current level we have reached in Massachusetts, as mediation is a voluntary activity and we do not want to suggest in writing or in target setting that we are seeking to compel parties in mediation to reach agreement. Therefore the targets set for this first six-year period are essentially maintenance targets.

Proposed targets and improvement activities for the extended State Performance Plan (SPP) reporting period (FFY2011 to FFY2012) were developed with the Statewide Special Education Steering Committee.

In setting targets for the expanded SPP period, MASSDE recommends expressing targets in a range that is slightly higher than the national mediation success rate data, and is consistent with its results for

Indicator 19 during the prior SPP period. Although tracking mediation agreements and their outcomes is important, doing so does not suggest that parties should be compelled to reach agreements in order to meet state identified targets. That outcome is contrary to the value of mediation as a tool to facilitate



138

Massachusetts communication and foster positive relationships between the parties that are underscored by a willingness to work together cooperatively, which are integral aspects of successful problem resolution strategies. These targets are consistent with this priority.

FFY

2005

(2005-2006)

2006

(2006-2007)

2007

(2007-2008)

2008

(2008-2009)

2009

(2009-2010)

2010

(2010-2011)

2011

(2011-2012)

2012

(2011-2012)


85.9%

86%

86%

75% - 86%

75% - 86%

75% - 86%

77% - 87%

77% - 87%



139

Massachusetts



Timelines

(FFY)

2005


2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012

2007 - 2008

2009 - 2012

Fill Staffing Vacancies

Fill existing BSEA staffing vacancies (the director of

BSEA left in March 2005 and the Coordinator of

Mediation left soon after); the hiring of a new director will allow for additional supervisory and managerial resources to be dedicated to ensuring that hearing officers comply with federally mandated timelines for issuing decisions.

BSEA staff time


(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.

BSEA staff time

MASSDE staff time Special Education Website

(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.

Training and Technical Assistance in Special

Education Mediations

The BSEA will receive training in special education mediations on an ongoing basis from national and regional technical assistance providers.


(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.

Annual Training for Special Education Leadership

BSEA staff presents at training programs throughout the year that are sponsored by organizations including, the

Federation for Children with Special Needs, Educational

Collaboratives, and the Special Education Leadership

Academy, on issues related to due process rights and procedures. Each session focuses, in part, on a discussion of dispute resolution, including mediation.

Attendees at the training sessions include special education personnel, school administrators, advocates, parents, and attorneys.

BSEA staff time, national technical assistance providers


MASSDE staff time

BSEA staff time



140

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2010 - 2012

2011 - 2012








Mediation Training for Stakeholders

BSEA mediators provide training on mediation and best practices for families, school districts, advocates, and attorneys in a variety of settings. Included in these sessions is information facilitated IEP meetings and other resources for early dispute resolution.

BSEA staff time

BSEA staff time, mediator staff time, district staff time, stakeholders



141

Massachusetts




Indicator 20: State reported data (618 and Massachusetts State Performance Plan and Annual

Performance Report) are timely and accurate.

Indicator #20: State Reported Data

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

Measurement:

State reported data, including 618 data, State Performance Plan, and Annual Performance Reports, are: a. Submitted on or before due dates (February 1 for child count, including race and ethnicity; placement;

November 1 for exiting, discipline, personnel and dispute resolution; and February 1 for Annual

Performance Reports and assessment); and b. Accurate, including covering the correct year and following the correct measurement.

States are required to use the “Indicator 20 Scoring Rubric” for reporting data for this indicator.


There are two reporting periods per year for the 618 data. Table 1 (Child Count), Table 3 (Educational

Environments) and Table 6 (Assessment) data are due on February 1. Table 2 (Personnel), Table 4

(Exiting), and Table 5 (Discipline) data are due on November 1.

MASSDE reports its 618 and SPP/APR data from more than one data source. All student-level databases used to report the 618 data also utilize the same state assigned student identifier (SASID) used in our

Student Information Management System (SIMS) database for consistency in reporting. Table 1 (Child

Count) and Table 3 (Educational Environments) report student information from the October 1 collection of our SIMS database. Until this year, MASSDE collected student-level data in SIMS four times a year,

October 1, December 1, March 1 and at the end of the school year. With additional flexibility provided by the IDEA Reauthorization, MASSDE has removed the December 1 collection, previously used to collect student level data for special education students only.

MASSDE uses information collected through the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System

(MCAS) to provide student information for Table 6 (Assessment). This information is not collected in our

SIMS database but is collected in a separate database specific to MCAS. In the MCAS database, the data is collected at the student-level and identifies each student according to SASID.

Currently collected through our District and School Staff Report (DSSR) are the Table 2 (Personnel) data.

These data are collected on an aggregate level for each school and district. Through the ongoing development of our teacher database we hope to continue providing timely and accurate data for Table 2 and plan on scheduling the data collection for this database to meet the needs of OSEP.

MASSDE continues to use the end of year SIMS submission to establish initial data for Table 4 (Exit data). However, in order to submit accurate numbers for the dropout category in Table 4, MASSDE uses the data submitted through SIMS in the following October 1 submission to identify any returned dropouts, summer graduates and certificates of attainment. Students who return to school after being coded as a dropout during the previous end of year submission will not be counted in the dropout count.

Table 5 (Discipline) data are collected through MASSDE’s School Safety & Discipline Report (SSDR).

This is a student-level collection that is open for submissions all year from July to July. The system accepts late submissions until October of the following academic year.



142

Massachusetts


In order to align with OSEP’s assessment method for this Indicator, MASSDE is implementing the OSEPrecommended scoring rubric to display its baseline data performance on this indicator (see Appendix K).

According to the rubric, the baseline data shows MASSDE to have performed at 52.9% on the timely and accurate submission of its state reported data.

Indicator 20 Calculation

A. APR Grand Total =

B. 618 Grand Total =

63

0

C. APR Grand Total (A) + 618 Grand Total (B) =

D. Subtotal (C divided by 119)* =

63

0.529

E. Indicator Score (Subtotal (D) x 100) = 52.9%


Due to the timing of our previous data collection schedules and the time needed for cleaning and checking of the data, delays have occurred in most of the OSEP collections. MASSDE believes its compliance with Table 1 and Table 3 will dramatically increase with our move from the December 1 to the

October 1 collection. MASSDE also is hopeful the developing teacher database will help us provide timely and accurate data for Table 2. MASSDE plans to time the data collection for this database to meet the needs of OSEP’s data collection. Our intention is to meet the Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 deadlines in

2006.

MASSDE will continue to work on our compliance for Table 4 and Table 5. Our system requires us to collect the October data after collecting end of year data in the previous year in order to complete these data. Currently, our October data is ready for analysis in January or February after thorough cleaning and checks of the data. For this reason, the Table 4, exiting data has been submitted after the November 1 deadline. We anticipate submitting the 2004-2005 Table 4, Exit data by March 1, 2006 and will work with the data to meet the compliance deadline by 2010.

The Table 5, Discipline data is on a similar 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 submitting the

2004-2005 Table 5, Discipline data by December 1, 2005, and will work with the data to meet the compliance deadline by 2010.

The Annual Performance Report (MA APR) has been submitted by the deadline each year with as accurate data as we have available at the time of reporting. For example, we have submitted our discipline data in the previous APRs but know there has been room for improvement in the reporting of this data. We are working to improve the reporting of the data by districts each year through adjustments made to our collection tool. We currently do not compute a graduation rate in Massachusetts and therefore could not provide percent of graduates in the previous APRs. Instead, we have provided the percent of students receiving a competency determination by passing the statewide MCAS test in Math and English/Language Arts and completing all required academic coursework. As we determine a graduation rate calculation and begin implementing it among our districts, we will be able to more accurately report graduation data.

Proposed targets and improvement activities for the extended State Performance Plan (SPP) reporting period (FFY2011 and FFY2012) were developed in consultation with the Massachusetts Statewide

Special Education Steering Committee.



143

Massachusetts


2005

(2005-2006)

2006

(2006-2007)

2007

(2007-2008)

2008

(2008-2009)

2009

(2009-2010)

2010

(2010-2011)

2011

(2011-2012)

2012

(2012-2013)

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%




(FFY)

2005 - 2012

2005 - 2012


(All Indicators)

See Appendix A.


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time



144

Massachusetts

Timelines

(FFY)

2005 - 2012

2006 - 2010

2007 - 2008

2010 - 2012

2010 - 2012


Student Information Management System (SIMS)

MASSDE will continue to implement student-level data collection procedures through SIMS. MASSDE will review and revise components of SIMS on an ongoing basis in order to ensure that data collected are valid, reliable, and timely.

Education Personnel Information Management

System

MASSDE will design, pilot and implement a statewide educator database. The database will collect data at the individual-level and include data on position, certification/ specialization and subject areas of instruction. This data will be used for future reporting of the 618 personnel data

(Table 2).


(All Indicators )

See Appendix A.

Review and Revision of Validation Rules and

Reporting Categories

As part of its processes for verifying the validity, reliability, and timeliness of reported data, MASSDE will annually review and revise validation rules and reporting categories as needed.

Technical Assistance Resources

MASSDE consults on a regular basis with national and regional technical assistance providers, including the

Data Accountability Center (DAC), and the Council of

Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), among others, on data collection and reporting. Technical assistance received informs MASSDE’s practice, as well as support provided to school districts.

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time

MASSDE staff time



145

Massachusetts

APPENDIX A: Cross-Cutting Improvement Activities, FFY2005-2012 (Highlighting FFY2012)


Indicators 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14 – FFY2010

This bullying prevention and intervention law ( Chapter 92 of the Acts of 2010 ) enacted on May 3, 2010, required all Massachusetts districts and schools to develop and adopt bullying prevention plans by December

31, 2010. In response to this new requirement, MASSDE created the Model Bullying Prevention and

Intervention Plan, which schools and districts were encouraged to use as they developed their own plans.

The law included special provisions focused on students with disabilities who the Individualized Education

Program (IEP) Team determined to be at risk for bullying on the basis of the students’ disability. MASSDSE provided best practice guidance to school districts on the requirement to incorporate social and emotional learning as part of the general curriculum of every school, and the significant effect that these whole-school initiatives have in creating positive school climates and giving all students – including students with disabilities

– the skills and abilities to prevent and respond to bullying behaviors. Schools were required to have social and emotional learning curricula in place for school year 2011-2012.

The Model Bullying Prevention and Intervention Plan , Guidelines for the Implementation of Social and

Emotional Learning Curricula K-12 , and other technical assistance documents, are available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/bullying/ . This information is updated regularly.


Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 – FFY2008-2010

In 2009-2010, year two of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), Massachusetts school districts allocated funds to a variety of activities designed to improve outcomes for students with disabilities.

Many of the districts’ initiatives were continuation activities from the first year of ARRA. Examples included:

 developing new and/or expanded programs designed for special populations such as students on the

Autism Spectrum, dropout prevention and recovery, reading disabilities, transition to school and career, etc.;

 integrating a pilot program from the first year of ARRA into a sustainable district program;

 integrating technology purchased for students with IEPs with consultation and technical assistance to instruction across all settings and curricula, progress monitoring, and reporting data;

 analyzing the results of program/district needs assessments and developing activities to address identified priorities, including professional development for teachers, administrators, paraprofessional/assistant teachers, related service providers, and other personnel relevant to the education of students with disabilities and their families;

 creating and sustaining positive learning environments;

 collaborating with other districts to develop and implement new programs, especially for high school students, to provide transitional services including career and college preparation;

 hiring support staff including guidance counselors, school social workers, school adjustment counselors, etc., with particular therapeutic and counseling skills for this population; and

 other innovative initiatives specific to characteristics and needs of the districts.



146

Massachusetts

ARRA Title II-D Technology Competitive Grants Program

Indicators 1, 2, 4, 14 – FFY2008-2011

The purpose of this initiative was to support projects to work collaboratively with MASSDE to create, implement, and evaluate online courses/modules for underserved high school students in alternative education, credit recovery, or credit acceleration programs.

The grantees included a variety of educational settings: alternative programs and schools, vocationaltechnical high schools, comprehensive high schools, and education collaboratives. Grantees specifically targeted students that are most at-risk for not graduating. Courses/modules were developed to align with the

Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and the Massachusetts High School Program of Studies (MassCore).

Grantees were required to spend at least 25% of the funds on professional development. Professional development strategies reflected a wide range of approaches in terms of the amount of training provided, topics covered, methodology, and provider expertise.

Central Massachusetts Communities of Care Positive Behavioral Interventions (PBIS) Grant

Indicators 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14 – FFY2007-2010

This grant program was designed to support the partnership of select school districts in Worcester County with the Central Massachusetts Communities of Care Project (CMCC) to develop and implement Positive

Behavioral Intervention Systems (PBIS), a tiered system for improving school climate by supporting positive behaviors throughout the school. Participating schools received PBIS training, associated technical assistance, and other resources from the CMCC. CMCC is a provider of care management services for youth with serious emotional disturbance, with community-based family centers in Worcester County.

The priorities of the grant program were to: 1. increase the capacity of school districts in Worcester County to foster positive school climates, support positive behaviors throughout participating schools, and to reduce disruptive behaviors; and 2. increase participating schools' ability to identify students, grades 4-8, in need of mental health services, and respond to the need for intensive support through internal capacity and community-based mental health providers.

By identifying at-risk students in need of mental health services and providing them with such service, partnerships worked to reduce and/or prevent court involvement among students with emotional impairments.

Participating districts receive professional development and onsite assistance in developing and implementing the principles of PBIS. The training also focused on ensuring sustainable implementation and long-term success of this initiative in the participating schools. More information on the FFY2010 grant program is available at http://finance1.doe.mass.edu/grants/grants11/rfp/250.html

.


Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14 – FFY2009-2012

On January 18, 2010, Massachusetts enacted An Act Relative to the Achievement Gap , Chapter 12 of the

Acts of 2012, comprehensive education reform legislation, which, among other things, required MASSDE to intervene in underperforming (Level 4) schools. The schools identified are targeted for aggressive interventions by MASSDE and its partners that are focused on a plan developed in collaboration with the superintendent, the school committee, the local teachers’ union, administrators, teachers, community representatives, and parents. A copy of the Act is available at http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2010/Chapter12 . For more information about accountability, partnership, and assistance initiatives, see http://www.doe.mass.edu/apa/general/ .



147

Massachusetts

Closing the Early Literacy Gap for Students with Disabilities (Fund Code 297)

Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12 – FFY2009-2010

The purpose of this competitive grant opportunity was to support the development of strategic literacy action plans to enhance and align educational systems, curriculum, and instructional practices across public preschool and/or kindergarten programs, Head Start, and community-based early childhood education programs. The strategic action plans help to ensure that all programs serving students with disabilities, ages

3-5, are effective, engaging, developmentally appropriate, and designed to create seamless transitions across environments and into the next phase of the students’ education. District study teams assess current language and literacy strategies and practices, literacy intervention and differentiated strategies, and ways to use information from students’ IEPs to support language and literacy across the curriculum and in the school environment. The study teams design and implement community-based activities to support early literacy development.

Collaboration between MASSDE’s Curriculum and Instruction Math Office and Special Education


Indicators 3, 5 – FFY2008-2012

Through a three-year collaboration between urban mathematics and special educators from across the state, a set of leadership team protocols were developed that focus on students with disabilities when planning mathematics instruction. These protocols guide leadership teams, consisting of district and school administrators and teacher-leaders, building collaboration, promoting an understanding of both mathematics and the variability of learners, and modeling rigorous core instruction in mathematics (Tier 1) using multiple accessibility strategies. The five protocols explore the following topics: 1. Shared Beliefs about Mathematics

Instruction for Students with Disabilities; 2. Essential Understandings About Students with Disabilities; 3.

Essential Understandings About Rigorous Mathematics Instruction; 4. Aligning Barriers and Strategies; and 5.

Using an Accessibility Framework to Support a Group of Students. These protocols were presented to the field at MASSDE’s FFY2011 Curriculum and Instruction Summit. In addition, MASSDE supported the piloting a Universal Design for Learning Mathematics course associated with Massachusetts FOCUS Academy in the spring 2011 to available to MFA applicants in September 2011.



148

Massachusetts

Collaboration with the Federation for Children with Special Needs

Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 – FFY2005-2012

MASSDE has a long-standing c ollaboration with the Federation for Children with Special Needs (FCSN)

( http://fcsn.org/index.php

) , the federallyfunded Parent Training and Information Center. This year’s jointly sponsored workshops for parents included sessions on Basic Rights in Special Education, Celebrate

Yourself! Self-Determination and Successful Students, Creating a Vision; Effective Communication and the

IEP; An IEP for My Child; MCAS – Access and Achievement for Students with Disabilities; Suspension &

Discipline in Special Education; Transition 101 – High School to Adulthood; Turning Three Essentials;

Understanding My Child’s Learning Style; and 504 Plans .

In addition, the APPLE (Advancing Parent-

Professional Leadership in Education) Institute provides leadership training for district teams of PAC members and special education administrators . FCSN provides individualized practical information related to education law, advocacy, workshops, community resources, school programs, disability information, and other areas of concern as well as a variety of workshops in local communities on educational rights and issues, advocacy and collaboration. A comprehensive advocacy training program is available for those who wish to assist parents with special education issues. All resources are provided in Spanish or Portuguese and are free.

FCSN is a key partner of MASSDE in writing and implementing the State Personnel Development Grants.

Responsibilities of FCSN include the developing and providing instruction for 3-credit graduate level courses for Massachusetts educators on ways to work with parents. Additional responsibilities include the creating self-guided modules for parents and families on successful transition for middle and high school students, and developing alternate version of these modules for special populations such as Spanish speakers. Also, FCSN participates in the state stakeholder input opportunities, assists in developing MASSDE technical assistance documents, and has included MASSDE staff as presenters in the annual Visions of Community conference.

MassPAC at FCSN is the statewide organization providing information, training, and networking opportunities to Massachusetts special education parent advisory councils (PACs) and the professionals who collaborate with them. After almost eleven years as a private non-profit, MassPAC became part of FCSN in July 2009.


All Indicators – FFY2005-2012

Special Education Advisory Council (SAC) – The SAC is a group of parents and professionals charged under federal and state special education laws to provide policy guidance to MASSDE on issues affecting special education and related services for students with disabilities within the Commonwealth. Responsibilities of this council include: advising MASSDE on unmet needs within the state in the education of students with disabilities; providing public comment on proposed rules and regulations for special education; advising

MASSDE on developing evaluations and corrective action plans; and assisting in coordinating services to students with disabilities. Information about the SAC is available at: http://www.doe.mass.edu/boe/sac/sped/default.html

.

Statewide Special Education Steering Committee – Stakeholders from across disciplines, including parent, educators, administrators, advocates, and agency representatives, meet annually as members of the Steering

Committee to: review baseline and current data (618 data and monitoring data); provide input about state established targets for SPP indicators; identify areas in need of attention; and provide input on improvement activities .



149

Massachusetts

Community/Residential Education Project – Massachusetts Department of Developmental Services

(MDDS)

Indicators 5, 13, 14 – FFY2008-2012

The goal of the Community/ Residential Education Project, which developed through an interagency agreement between MASSDE and the Massachusetts Department of Developmental Services (MDDS), is to facilitate effective transitions from school life to more independent life within the community of students receiving publicly funded special education services who also meet the MDDS eligibility criteria for services.

This goal is accomplished by supporting less restrictive, more cost effective residential options, special education services, and community based supports.

The project provides greater flexibility in service delivery based on individual support needs. Supports are provided to participants and their families to increase the families’ capacity to care for their eligible children in the home, and/or increase the participants’ and families’ capacity for effective interactions within the home and with the community. Students participating in this project may return home from residential education placements, or utilize the project to obtain a diverse array of supports in their home communities as an alternative to a residential special education school placement.

Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) Training Project

Indicators 3, 5, 11, 13, 14 – FFY2005-2012

The CSPD Training Project was developed as a response to requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities

Education (IDEA) 97 that required states to develop a multifaceted approach to personnel development under regulations for CSPD. To fulfill this obligation, MASSDE’s Special Education Planning and Policy

Development Office (SEPP) instituted a series of training activities to supplement ongoing personnel preparation activities that are provided within school districts and other agencies.

The CSPD Training Project continues to provide training opportunities to districts through:



Training modules: SEPP offers training units to assist school districts and other agencies in providing high quality professional development on special education related topics. The units consist of annotated PowerPoint Presentations, and in some cases, supplemental handouts.

Topics include: The Massachusetts IEP Process; A Principal's Role and Special Education in

Massachusetts; Is Special Education the Right Service?; Transition From Adolescence Into

Adulthood in Massachusetts; The Massachusetts Transition Planning Chart and Effective

Transition Planning; and Specific Learning Disabilities: Eligibility Determination under IDEA 2004.



CSPD trainers: SEPP has contracted with a limited number of trainers who receive ongoing training on the CSPD Training Modules. CSPD Trainers work with groups of 50+ individuals in public schools, and approved special education schools. Requests for training for groups larger than 50 people serving multiple districts and/or agencies are given priority.



CSPD districts: The 40 largest districts i n Massachusetts may send the districts’ professional development provider to training sessions on the modules. It is an opportunity for participants to affect MASSDE work (including the development of new modules) and network with colleagues.

During FFY2011, the CSPD training module The Transition Planning Process Massachusetts was amended to include revised tools and related activities to reflect current best practices in secondary transition. More information about the CSPD Training Project is available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/boe/sac/sped/default.html

.



150

Massachusetts


Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 – FFY2008-2012

MASSDE holds an annual Curriculum and Instruction Summit to: share MASSDE resources for strengthening curriculum, instruction, and assessment; identify needs for future development of curriculum resources and technical assistance; and build capacity of the MASSDE, districts, and schools through regional partnerships.

A major focus of the Summit held in November 2012 was on implementing the Massachusetts Curriculum

Frameworks across disciplines. Attendees previewed model curriculum units (MCUs) currently in piloting and development. Race To The Top (RTTT) districts have begun piloting 32 model units; another 60 are currently in development. In our initial RTTT application, ESE committed to creating 100 units, aligned to the.

Ultimately, all model units aligned with the frameworks in English language arts, mathematics, history and social sciences, and science will be available to every district across the Commonwealth beginning in 2014.

Four prototype units are available for review and use at http://www.doe.mass.edu/candi/commoncore/ .



Since the beginning of the SPP period, MASSDE has annually in reviewed and revised, as appropriate, its data collection tools, and created technical assistance tools and resources for use by school districts participating in annual data collection activities. Information relevant to data collection and analysis activities for specific indicators is described in the APRs.

District and School Assistance Centers (DSACs) – MASSDE Center for School & District

Accountability

Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13 – FFY2009-2012

In FFY2009, MASSDE opened six regionally based District and School Accountability Centers (DSACs) to help identified districts and their schools use professional development and targeted assistance to improve instruction and raise achievement for all stude nts. DSACs, which are part of MASSDE’s State System of

Support, use a regional approach that leverages the knowledge, skills, and expertise of local educators to address shared needs through an emphasis on expanding district and school capacity for sustained improvement. Focused professional development offerings are directed at building essential knowledge and skills of educational leaders and teachers in major content areas and for key student groups.

More information about the DSAC Teams and the districts they serve is available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/apa/sss/support/teams.html

.

Dropout Prevention and Recovery Workgroup – MASSDE Urban & Commissioner’s Districts Unit and

Secondary Support Services Unit

Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14 – FFY2008-2012

The Dropout Prevention and Recovery Workgroup, supported by both the Urban and Commissioner’s Districts unit and the Secondary Support Services unit of MASSDE, is made up of 18 urban districts whose combined number of student dropouts represents almost half of the total number of students in the Commonwealth who drop out of school. The Workgroup focuses on facilitating the sharing of promising practices among districts, and supporting districts’ team activities through face-to-face meetings and webinars. Participating school districts host the meetings, which usually include a short, formal presentation of the host district’s initiatives and opportunities to observe the activities described, brainstorm ideas and resources, and provide support and technical assistance to each other. The awarding of the High School Graduation Initiative in 2010 (see description below) allowed MASSDE the opportunity to expand the Workgroup to include the 133 targeted high schools. The variety and frequency of opportunities for networking and sharing of promising practices increased and included the addition of a monthly enewsletter. More information about the Workgroup’s activities is available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/ccr/massgrad/workgroup.html

.



151

Massachusetts

Dropout Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery Website

Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14 – FFY2008-2012

In the fall of 2011, MASSDE created the College and Career Readiness Unit which now houses all Dropout

Prevention, Intervention and Recovery activities along with other high school graduation initiatives.

Information specific to these initiatives can be found at http://www.doe.mass.edu/ccr/ . An extensive collection of dropout reduction related articles/reports, dropout data overview information, and descriptions of the myriad state activities related to reducing dropout rates and improving graduation rates are available at this website.

New promising practices are added as they are developed and evaluated.

Early Childhood Interagency Memorandum of Understanding: Early Childhood Special Education

Transition

Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12 – FFY2012

In FFY2012, MASSDE, with the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care (EEC), Executive

Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS), Department of Public Health (DPH), and U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Head Start, Region 1 and XII

(ACF) entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to promote coordination and collaboration in the provision of services to eligible infants, toddlers, and preschool children with disabilities and their families through Early Intervention and early education and care programs including Head Start, Early Head Start,

Migrant and Seasonal Head Start, and public school preschools for children with disabilities in the

Commonwealth. The MOU: recognizes the multiple facets of transition activities and opportunities for families and children of all abilities; provides a framework for state-level coordination, development of regional and local agreements, and strengthening of relationships among agencies and programs involved with young children and their families; meets the requirements of IDEA Parts B and C for documentation of service coordination among lead agencies and Office of Head Start requirements for interagency agreements between individual programs and their local LEAs and/or EI programs; and guides local collaboration activities for cross-systems coordination of child-find; intake, screening, referral, assessment/evaluation, development and implementation of individual child and family plans, training, and technical assistance. The MOU was distributed to key early childhood stakeholders including public preschool programs.



152

Massachusetts

Early Childhood Special Education Professional Development

Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12 – FFY2009-2012

In FFY2012, MASSDE, in partnership with MEEC, provided the following professional development opportunities for public preschool and kindergarten staff and other early childhood professionals working in programs that serve young students with disabilities:



STEM 2-Day Summer Institute - The training engaged participants in understanding the core concepts in STEM education (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). The training focused on how to make these concepts accessible to students with and without disabilities using universal design for learning (UDL).

 Communities of Practice: “Engaging families through social emotional development resources: Using the CSEFEL family tools and materials” - Four meetings throughout the state to support cross-systems collaboration on inclusive learning environments and early childhood transitions. This two and a halfhour presentation focused on the family tools and parent materials created by the Center on the Social

Emotional Foundations of Early Learning (CSEFEL). There were a total of 216 participants statewide.



Early Childhood Special Education Transition Professional Development - Four one-day trainings were held across Massachusetts for 120 participants from early intervention programs and public school districts. The trainings included an overview of the state performance plan and annual performance report, the new IDEA Part C regulations, and provided participants opportunity to discuss coordination of local transition practices and protocols to support timely implementation of transition planning activities. These trainings will be offered again in FFY2013.



Social Emotional Management: Supporting Children with Challenging Behaviors - Six two-day trainings on social/emotional management scheduled were held in the winter and spring of FFY2012 in three regions of the state. These trainings focused on strategies for embedding the three Indicator7 early childhood outcomes into practice.



The Early Educators Fellowship Initiative (EEFI ) - A series of three learning experiences during the

2012-2013 academic year for principals and community-based providers to form a professional learning community and develop a sense of shared purpose, identity, and responsibility.

 Communities of Practice “Helping All Parents Be Successful in Early Childhood Transitions” This two and a half-hour presentation served as a capacity building opportunity to help increase educators awareness and use of strategies to effectively supporting families in their child’s successful early education transitions.

 “It’s Not Just the Numbers: Making the Child Outcomes Summary (COS) Process a Meaningful Part of

Your Practi ce & Program” Trainers from the Early Childhood Outcomes Center hosted two one-day trainings in June 2013 on the Child Outcomes Summary Process. Special Education Directors, Early

Childhood Coordinators, and teachers participating in the Child Outcomes Summary Process (Indicator

7) were invited to attend.



Communities of Practice: “Understanding Services & Benefits for Children & Youth with Special Health

Care Needs” - The five sessions held in May 2013 provided an opportunity for 163 participants to learn from the Department of Public Health (DPH) and Regional Consultation Program Coordinators (RCPS) about state and local resources and benefits available to support children and youth with special health care needs.



Public Preschool Site Visits - From January through June 2013, EEC Family Community Quality

Specialists and Department of Public Health (DPH) Regional Consultation Program Specialists visited the early childhood special education programs in 150 public school districts. On these visits, staff members provided guidance on technical assistance opportunities that are available to LEAs for the implementation of activities related to Indicators 6, 7, and 12.



153

Massachusetts

Early Childhood Special Education Program Improvement Grant (Fund Code 298)

Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12 – FFY2012

The purpose of this federal grant program was to support school district activities to ensure that eligible children with disabilities, ages 3-5, receive a free and appropriate public education that includes special education and related services designed to meet their individual needs, and is provided in natural/least restrictive environments. Applicants were asked to submit proposals focused on one or more of following activities to improve school district processes and support performance of children with IEPs in early childhood settings:



Policies, practices and procedures to support systemic use of data analysis and progress monitoring to support instruction and continuous improvement to improve early childhood outcomes.



Targeted training and technical assistance for staff as it relates to effective program planning for Early

Childhood Special Education.



Systematic practices to promote family engagement in Early Childhood Special Education, with specific attention to support cultural and linguistic diversity.



Systematic support for collaboration among Early Childhood Special Education professionals across all domains to develop individualized IEPs based on assessments and effective practices (collaborative teaming, progress monitoring, effective interventions that are culturally and linguistically appropriate).



Improvement of data collection processes and supports for improved data quality in order to analyze district, school, and classroom trends.

In FFY2012, MASSDE app roved grant applications from 224 districts and charter schools. While districts’ use of the funds varied greatly, there were several common themes in how LEAs decided to use the funds. Some of the most frequently referenced programmatic activities and goals included alignment of existing curriculum with the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks (Common Core), using iPads and other assistive technology in the classroom, aligning pre-K assessments with kindergarten assessments, and purchasing new assessment materials.

Early Warning Indicator Index (EWII) and Early Warning Indicator System (EWIS)

Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14 – FFY2009-2012

Using a statistical regression model, in 2008 MASSDE developed the Early Warning Indicator Index (EWII), a predictive tool designed to identify students at risk for not graduating in four years or less of high school.

Originally based on middle school data (grade 7 and 8), ninth graders from several urban districts were grouped according to five at-risk categories designated by degrees of risk: 1. spring 2010 grade 8 MCAS

Mathematics scores; 2. spring 2010 grade 8 English language arts (ELA) scores; 3. 2009-2010 attendance rate; 4. number of 2009-2010 grade 8 in-school or out-of –school suspensions; and 5. age as of September 1,

2010. The findings were then distributed to the appropriate districts to allow them to develop and implement targeted, student-centered interventions.

In October of 2012 MASSDE presented The Early Warning Indicator System (EWIS) to replace the EWII.

This is a comprehensive, data-driven system designed to identify students kindergarten through high school that are potentially "off-track" for grade-level or developmental age, including those students that are off-track for high school graduation (potential dropouts). This project is funded through the federal Longitudinal Data

System Grant Program (LDS) and is part of a larger effort to develop an integrated suite of tools for

Massachusetts educators. Future iterations of the model hope to expand its scope and include children from birth through college. The American Institutes for Research (AIR) is the contracted research group developing and validating the EWIS statistical model for the Commonwealth. Information about EWIS is available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/edwin/analytics/ewis.html

.



154

Massachusetts

Educational Proficiency Plans (EPPs) – MASSDE Student Support and Secondary School Services

Unit

Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14 – FFY2008-2012

An Educational Proficiency Plan (EPP) is an educational planning tool to be developed for the subject area(s) in which a student does not score at least 240 or above on the grade 10 English Language Arts (ELA) and

Mathematics Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS). An EPP includes: a review of the student's strengths and weaknesses based on MCAS and other assessment results, coursework, grades, and teacher input; the courses the student will be required to take and successfully complete in grades 11 and 12 in the relevant content area(s); and a description of the assessments the school will administer to the student annually to determine whether s/he is making progress toward proficiency.

The EPP requirement is intended to increase the likelihood that students graduating from high school have the requisite skills needed for postsecondary success. Students are encouraged to and supported in taking challenging courses that will better prepare them for postsecondary educational or career opportunities. For students with disabilities, MASSDE recommends that students’ IEPs are used to assist in identifying their strengths and weaknesses in the learning environment as the EPP is developed. More information about

EPPs is available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/ccr/epp/ .


Indicators 3, 5, 6 – FFY2005-2006

In order to increase districts’ capacity to support all learners in emergent literacy, the Center for Applied

Special Technology (CAST) provided training to educators and parents in the use of research-based, universally-designed technology for developing literacy skills in early learners, especially those with cognitive disabilities, in an inclusive environment. During the three years of the project (2004-2006), seventeen school districts that were involved in the Massachusetts Comprehensive System of Personnel Development participated in the "Universally-Designed Technology for Literacy" project. For more information, see http://madoe.cast.org/ .


Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 14 – FFY2008-2012

These U.S. Department of Education competitive grants are for states to use to assist the lowest performing schools. Districts with one or more Level 4 (underperforming) schools are eligible to apply. MASSDE awards grants based on the plans districts develop under the Closing the Achievement Gap legislation. Districts applying for the grants are required to choose one of four prescribed intervention models and demonstrate capacity to implement that model effectively over three years. The four models for reform are: 1. Turnaround;

2. Transformation; 3. Close/Consolidate; and 4. Restart. More information about these school turnaround grants is available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/apa/sss/turnaround/grants/default.html

.

Graduation and Dropout Prevention and Recovery Commission – MASSDE Student Support and

Secondary School Services Unit

Indicators 1, 2, 14 – FFY2008-2010

In August 2008, the Massachusetts State Legislature passed An Act to Improve Dropout Prevention and

Reporting of Graduation Rates , which established a Commission to make recommendations in 10 topic areas.

The Massachusetts Executive Office of Education (MEOE) released the final Commission report, Making the

Connection , in October 2009. The report includes findings and recommendations in four main areas: 1) new statewide expectations; 2) early identification; 3) effective prevention, interventions, and recovery; and 4) responsive reforms and budget priorities. A copy of this report is available at http://www.mass.gov/edu/dropout-report.html

.



155

Massachusetts

Inclusive Concurrent Enrollment Partnership Programs for Students with Disabilities

Indicators 5, 13, 14 – FFY2005-2012

This state-funded grant program is designed to build and expand partnerships between high schools in public school districts and state public institutions of higher education to offer inclusive concurrent enrollment opportunities for students with severe disabilities between the ages of 18 and 22, in credit and non-credit courses that include non-disabled students. These partnerships will result in improved systems that better serve students with severe disabilities and support their college and career success.

Inclusive Concurrent Enrollment programs are designed to pr omote and enhance students’ self-determination and self-advocacy skills; offer students opportunities to participate in the student life of the college community, as well as in career planning, vocational skill-building activities, and community-based competitive employment opportunities; and to improve students’ academic, social, functional, and other transition-related skills.

As part of the improvement and expansion of these programs, partnerships continue to develop their programs to include individualized, community-based, competitive employment opportunities that align with students’ career goals and course selection. A summary of 2012-2013 activities related to this grant program is available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/research/reports/2013-05ConcurrentEnrollment.pdf.

Integration of College and Career Readiness (ICCR) Task Force

Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14 – FFY2012

In January 2012, MASSDE convened a task force to study the integration of college and career readiness in K-

12 education.) In June 2012 the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (“the Board”) voted to adopt the recommendations of the Task Force, identified in the ICCR Task Force Report , and charged MASSDE with the task of implementing the following recommendations:

I. Incorporate Career Readiness into Massachusetts Recommended Course of Study

II. Strengthen School, Employer, Higher Education, and Community Partnerships

III. Improve the Utilization of School Counselors in Deployment of Career Readiness Education

IV. Incentivize Schools to Create and Demonstrate Comprehensive Career Readiness Strategies

V. Promote the Importance of College and Career Readiness for All Students

VI. Explicitly Identify Personnel Responsible for Effectively Executing the Task Force Recommendations

The work of the Task Force and of MASSDE brings a renewed focus on career readiness and the need for both college and career readiness as essential components of preparation for postsecondary success for all students. Career readiness has been defined to mean “an individual has the requisite knowledge, skills and experiences in the academic, workplace readiness and personal/social domains to successfully navigate to completion an economically viable career pathway in a 21st century economy.” MASSDE created subcommittees to begin the work of implementing the recommendations.

In March of 2013, the Board and the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education (BHE) agreed on a common definition of College and Career Readiness which says, in part: “Massachusetts students who are college and career ready will demonstrate the knowledge, skills and abilities that are necessary to successfully complete entry-level, credit-bearing college courses, participate in certificate or workplace training programs, and enter economically viable career pathways. In order to meet this goal, the Commonwealth has defined a set of learning competencies, intellectual capacities and experiences essential for all students to become lifelong learners; positive contributors to their families, workplaces and communities; and successfully engaged citizens of a global 21 st century .”



156

Massachusetts

Massachusetts 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) – Enhanced Programs for Students with Disabilities

Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14 – FFY2008-2012

Funded under Title IVB of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) , 21 st Century Community Learning

Center (CCLC) grants are designed to establish or expand community learning centers that operate during out-of-school hours and provide students with academic enrichment opportunities that complement the students' regular school day. Over the past nine years, MASSDE has funded more than 180 sites in more than 50 communities across the Commonwealth.

During the 2009-2010 school year, ESE developed the Pilot SPED Enhancement Grants to increase the capacity of existing CCLC sites to include students with more severe disabilities into an array of activities that advanced student achievement and provided opportunities for socializing and participating with peers without disabilities. Funds are used to stipend specially trained instructional staff, stipend health care, instructional assistants and/or other support staff, support additional planning time, and provide professional development, technical assistance and/or consultation services(e.g. proper use of adaptive equipment, language of instruction for students with disabilities, creating an inclusive environment, etc.).

Thirteen sites offered pilot programs in 2010-2011. Based on their success, the SPED Enhancement Grant opportunity continues to be offered to CCLC sites. Current information about this grant program is available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/21cclc/ .

Massachusetts FOCUS Academy (MFA)

Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14 – FFY2007-2012

MFA builds upon the previous successes of Project FOCUS and Project FOCUS Academy (PFA). The grant program provides online professional development opportunities and leadership institutes to educators, families, and other stakeholders on a variety of topics related to instructing students with disabilities. The courses are research-based, have rigor and expectations of three or four credit graduate level courses, and target areas that increase educator effectiveness and student outcomes. More information about current MFA offerings is available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/mtss/ta/mfa/ .



157

Massachusetts

Massachusetts High School Graduation Initiative (MassGrad)

Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14 – FFY2010-2012

In fall 2010, the U.S. Department of Education selected Massachusetts as just one of two states and one of

29 projects out of 184 total applicants to receive funding through federal High School Graduation Initiative award. The purpose of the award is to support statewide and local efforts for high school dropout prevention, intervention, and recovery. The focus is on the high schools (MassGrad cohort) that exceeded the statewide annual dropout rate of 2.9% in school year 2008-2009.

This award identifies 133 targeted high schools with dropout rates higher than the state average. MASSDE provides technical assistance, training, and opportunities for schools to exchange promising practices through face-to-face gatherings as well as webinars and an e-newsletter. The following are the key activities for this grant:



Creation of a state high school graduation coalition: MASSDE will create an inter-agency, cross-sector coalition to facilitate statewide sharing of promising programs and practices.



Expansion of the Dropout Prevention and Recovery Workgroup: MASSDE will considerably expand the existing Workgroup to increase the number of participating schools and districts and broaden the variety and frequency of opportunities for networking and sharing promising approaches among the

133 schools in the HSGI cohort.



Implementation of Research-based Practices in HSGI Cohort: through a competitive grant process,

MASSDE will help support targeted schools in implementing a select menu of research and evidencebased practices and strategies through technical assistance, state guidance, and learning exchanges.



Establishment of Three New Gateway to College Sites: MASSDE will create a new partnership with the Gateway to College National Network to establish the Gateway to College program – an early college model to support at-risk students.

The project has also established a Leadership Council that will support and inform the key activities as well as connect the project services with new and ongoing efforts across the state. A broad range of state agencies and community, statewide, and national organizations are represented on this council. More information about

MassGrad activities is available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/ccr/massgrad/ .


Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 – FFY2010-2012

Increasing the number of licensed educators teaching students with moderate disabilities grades PreK-12 and students who are English language learners is aligned with MASSDE’s goals of having qualified educators for every public school classroom as a means of improving student outcomes and reducing the achievement gaps. The Massachusetts Licensure Academy (MLA) was created to meet the significant shortage of educators who are qualified to teach these student populations. MLA courses are delivered through the

Massachusetts Online Network for Education (MassONE) and have at least one face-to-face session. Begun in the spring of 2009, the MLA, when completed, will include five , three-credit, graduate level courses that will provide: content to address the seven special education competencies required for the moderate special education license, including the new competency of information regarding Assistive and Augmentative

Communication and Other Assistive Technologies (2 courses); content information included on the

ESL/MTEL (4 courses); the knowledge and skills required for ELA and math instruction and covered in the

Foundations of Reading and General Curriculum MTELs (2 courses); and evidence-based strategies for creating and maintaining positive learning environments for all students (1 course).

The first courses, taught in FFY2011 were: Federal and State Laws, Educational Terminology and the Role of

Other Agencies Pertaining to the Education of Students with IEPs; and Assessment for Determination of

Education Needs, Curriculum, Services and Programs, Including Augmentative and Alternative Communication and Other Assistive Technologies . Additional courses are presently being developed in the content areas, the first of which is Mathematics for Special Educators – Content and Pedagogy. More information about current

MLA offerings is available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/mla/ .



158

Massachusetts


Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 – FFY2009-2010

The Behavioral Health and Public Schools (BHPS) Framework and Assessment Tool was created by the

BHPS Task Force and Department between 2009 and 2011. Both resources are designed to provide guidance as well as help schools assess and set goals regarding activities and strategies that staff and programs engage in to create supportive school environments. The Final BHPS Task Force Report, available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/research/reports/0811behavioralhealth.pdf

, outlines recommendations to state policy makers related to this work.


Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 – FFY2007-2008

MASSDE/SEPP is developing an online Resource Library to highlight OSEP Funded Technical Assistance and Dissemination Resources and other online resources. This resource is designed to provide evidencebased practices in professional development. The library will include information on the IRIS Center; Access

Center: Improving Outcomes for Students K-8; Center for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

(PBIS); National Center on Response to Intervention; and the NASDSE Professional Development Series.

Topics will include, but are not limited to: Co-Teaching Model; Differentiated Instruction; Transition Planning;

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports; Response to Intervention; Accommodations; Role of the

Paraprofessional; Supervising the Paraprofessional; and Disproportionality in Special Education.

Massachusetts Tiered System of Support (MTSS) Conference

Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 – FFY2011

MASSDE hosted a conference on the Massachusetts Tiered System of Support in March 2012 for teams of

District and School leaders throughout the Commonwealth. Topics included: Tiered System of Support: Linking

Academic and Behavior Supports; The new learning sciences: How variability in learning informs teaching in the 21st century; School-wide Positive Behavior Supports: Tiered System of Support-Non-academic; Working memory: From concept to classroom; Tiered instruction with Mathematics, K- Algebra; and Challenging every learner: Approaches to mediating difficult text during Tier 1 Instruction, K-8. Districts with teams of educators attending the MTSS conference were eligible to apply for an MTSS grant to support the development of their action plans focused on establishing, enhancing, and aligning an academic and non-academic tiered system of support.

Massachusetts Tiered System of Support (MTSS) Grants

Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14 – FFY2010-2011

Massachusetts has developed a blueprint outlining a single system of supports that is responsive to the academic and non-academic needs of all students. This blueprint, the Massachusetts Tiered System of

Support (MTSS), provides a framework for school improvement that focuses on system level change across the classroom, school, and district to meet the academic and non-academic needs of all students, including students with disabilities, English language learners, and students who are academically advanced. It guides both the provision of high-quality core educational experiences in a safe and supportive learning environment for all students and academic and/or non-academic targeted interventions/supports for students who experience difficulties and for students who have already demonstrated mastery of the concept and skills being taught. The purpose of the MTSS grants is to support the development of district and school strategic action plans focused on establishing, enhancing, and aligning an academic and non-academic tiered system of support.



159

Massachusetts

Massachusetts Work-Based Learning Plan (WBLP) – MASSDE Student Support, Career & Education

Services

Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14 – FFY2008-2012

The Massachusetts Work-Based Learning Plan (WBLP) is a diagnostic, goal-setting and assessment tool designed within the school-to-career system to drive student learning and productivity on the job. It was developed by the MASSDE through an interagency collaboration of employers, educators, and workforce development professionals. Through work-based learning experiences, students have an opportunity to learn about various career areas and try different work styles, find out what type of work they enjoy, find out how they learn best in a workplace setting, and find out what natural supports are available. Students learn and practice basic foundation skills and begin to develop life-long career skills. More information is available at http://www.skillslibrary.com/wbl.htm

.

Beginning in March 2009, SEPP collaborated with the MASSDE Connecting Activities Office (see http://www.doe.mass.edu/connect/ ) to develop a guidance document called Using the Massachusetts Work-

Based Learning Plan in Transition Planning Activities for Students with Disabilities (available at http://www.skillslibrary.com/wbl/wblp_transition.pdf

) and to enhance the WBLP Scoring Rubric (see http://www.skillslibrary.com/wbl/WBLP_Rubric_Summer2009.pdf

). The document is intended to: encourage the inclusion of students with disabilities in WBLP programs; be used as an option for individual student transition planning; and support educators, employers, Connecting Activities field staff, Workforce Investment

Boards, One Stop Career Centers, and Local School-to-Career Partnerships in the implementation of quality work-based learning for students with disabilities.

Through this collaboration, MASSDE also created the Work Experience and Transition Activities resource webpages, available at http://resources21.org/transitionworkexp/index.asp

. This resource lists resources, including websites, articles, and program materials, to assist in planning the work experiences and developing

WBLPs for students with disabilities.

National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) Professional Development

Series

Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14 – FFY2008-2012

MASSDE provides the districts and all educators in the Commonwealth with the National Association of State

Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) Professional Development Series. NASDSE facilitates this series with support from the Pennsylvania Department of Education and the Pennsylvania Training and Technical

Assistance Network (PaTTAN). These conferences bring nationally recognized experts to the states using technology, providing an affordable and accessible means of quality personnel development for a variety of stakeholders. Experts provide important information on high-interest topics to audiences that include state directors of special education, state agency staff, local administrators, teachers, related service providers, higher education faculty, families, and other stakeholders.

Conference topics that are made available via satellite, streaming video, and/or DVD, have included: Online

Learning for Students with Disabilities: What We Know and What We Need to Know; Educating Students With

Hearing and Vision Challenges- Innovations for Success ; Autism Today: Evidence-Based Practices and Tools for Implementing Successful Programs ; and Improving Social Emotional Health In Schools: Evidence-Based

Intervention Strategies for Young Children . The most current information about this series is available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/2012/nasdse.html

.



160

Massachusetts

Preschool to Grade 3 Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Alignment Project (Fund Code 264A &

264B)

Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 – FFY2007-2010

The purpose of this three-year grant program was to identify and support strategies and resources to increase districts’ capacity to improve the quality of education and inclusion of children with disabilities by aligning and coordinating curriculum, instruction, and assessment from Preschool to Grade 3.

Planning grantees (264A) researched, discussed, and documented their strategies, training, and progress within and/or across the age span, with a focus on how students with disabilities access the general curriculum. The teams brought together early childhood educators, elementary school staff, special education professionals, administrators, and parents to explore the alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment in inclusive classrooms; identify best practices to support all students along the pre-K to grade 3 continuum; and prioritize areas of strength and needed improvement.

Teams in the continuation year (264B) implemented two to three strategies that were identified during the planning year as a means of strengthening inclusion practices and building a continuum in the early elementary grades. FFY2010 was the final year of funding for Fund Code 264B; best practices and outcomes will be reported and disseminated statewide. Forty-seven districts participated in the program.

Procedures for Timely Verification of Correction of Noncompliance

Indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 – FFY2008-2012

Using updated guidance from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and other technical assistance sources, MASSDE is engaged in continuous review and revision of its procedures for verifying correction of noncompliance for the above-referenced indicators in accordance with OSEP Memorandum 09-

02 from October 17, 2008. Verification activities have included:

(1) if needed, changing, or requiring each district to change, policies, procedures and/or practices that contributed to or resulted in noncompliance based on root cause analyses;

(2) for noncompliance concerning a child-specific requirement, requiring each district to submit updated data demonstrating that each district has corrected each individual case of noncompliance or completed the required action, although late, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the district; and

(3) requiring each district to submit updated data for review to demonstrate that each district is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e., achieved 100% compliance); and

(4) engaging in continuous improvement of state and local data collection systems, definitions, and technical assistance sources to ensure correct implementation of relevant regulatory requirements.

When data reflects that each instance of child-specific noncompliance has been remedied, and that the district is 100% compliant with the specific regulatory requirements, MASSDE notifies the district in writing that it has verified correction of identified noncompliance.


Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14 – FFY2005-2007

In the fall of 2004, MASSDE was awarded a three-year U.S. Department of Education funded State

Improvement Grant (SIG) - Project FOCUS Academy (PFA). Project FOCUS Academy was designed to develop professional development programs to help students with disabilities build sound career goals and learn skills to ensure successful postsecondary outcomes. As part of the SIG, MASSDE worked with educators fro m selected high schools. The project’s design required study groups from high schools to participate in face-to-face and distance-learning professional development opportunities in the areas of:

Transition/Postsecondary Outcomes; School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports; Universal

Design for Learning; and Family Participation. The distance-learning model was offered through MASSDE's

Massachusetts Online Network for Education (MassONE).



161

Massachusetts

Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge Fund Award

Indicators 6, 7, 12 – FFY2011-2012

In FFY2011, Massachusetts applied for and received a Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge Fund award of $50 million for its proposal: From Birth to School Readiness: Massachusetts Early Learning Plan, 2012-1015.

This initiative, coordinated by the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care (MEEC), will advance goal of ensuring that all children, particularly high-needs children, have access to quality pre-K education.

Key strategies of the plan include: aligning early education and grades K-3 to promote healthy child development; implementing standards for early learning and development, including English language development standards for children from birth to age 5; creation of the Massachusetts Early Learning and

Development Assessment System (MELD) for birth to grade three, including expanding screening for children and the development of a common tool for kindergarten entry assessment; providing targeted technical assistance and professional development opportunities to early educators to enhance their effectiveness; and increased engagement with parents, families, and community members that is culturally and linguistically appropriate. A copy of Massachusetts’ successful application is available at http://www.eec.state.ma.us/docs1/board_materials/20111017-rttt-elc.pdf

.

Revision of “Is Special Education the Right Service?” (ISERS)

Indicators 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 – FFY2008-2009

The ISERS document offers guidance for practitioners and parents on how to: identify students with disabilities; be knowledgeable of updated regulations and characteristics of disabilities; define appropriate services and interventions; and ensure a responsive general education environment for all students. Revision began in March, 2009 with the convening of Disability Workgroups composed of experts in each of the areas of disability to review the current document for accuracy and relevance in light of new research and current practices.

Revision of “Ten Step Guide for Comprehensive Educational Assessment of Students with Visual

Impairments”

Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 – FFY2008-2012

The Guide was revised by a comprehensive group of stakeholders and reissued in July 2012 as The Guidelines for the Specialized Assessment of Students with Visual Impairments ( http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/visionguidelines/ ) . Members of the Vision Impairment Disability Workgroup, working with other experts in the fields of diagnosis, treatment, education, and training of students with visual impairments, collaborated on the revisions to reflect updated regulatory information and include best practices. The Guidelines include a new section describing the “hidden” characteristics of a vision loss that affect academic and social factors, detailed job descriptions for the various professionals that provide specialized services for students with visual impairments, and recommendations on gathering information from all team members to enhance decision-making.

The Guidelines also introduce the Expanded Core Curriculum (ECC), the body of knowledge and skills that are needed by students with visual impairments due to their unique disability-specific needs. The ECC should be used as a framework for assessing students, planning individual goals, and providing instruction.

Understanding these characteristics will enable non-vision specialists to facilitate meaningful inclusion and participation of students with visual impairments throughout the school day. Among other things, the

Guidelines: review types of assessments and provide sample assessment forms for an initial evaluation or three-year reevaluation to support the eligibility determination of special education services for students with visual impairments; help ensure a common understanding of the purpose and complexity of conducting specialized assessments of students with visual impairments; and assist Teams in designing instruction and supports for students with visual impairments to ensure access to the general curriculum and life of the school; and provide resources to help general and special educators and related service providers meet the unique needs of students with visual impairments and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living.



162

Massachusetts


Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14 – FFY2005-2011

The Massachusetts Middle and High School Reading Initiative project began in 2002 with the development of the Massachusetts Secondary Literacy Framework. This framework included three key components: reading instruction for all students, additional intervention programs for struggling readers, and a comprehensive reading assessment system. The model's school-wide approach was based on eight fundamental principles:

1. involvement of all staff in literacy instruction; 2. a focus on reading across the content areas; 3. multiple interventions for struggling readers; 4. professional development for all staff; 5. adequate time for reading and writing in the school schedule; 6. flexible grouping patterns; 7. assessment that drives instruction; and 8. leadership support and guidance.

Recipient schools received small planning grants to form reading leadership teams and to develop a school profile of current practices and a related school action plan. For three succeeding years, schools then received small grants to implement one or more elements of their action plans. In addition to receiving a small grant, schools came together in network meetings three times a year to discuss current research on adolescent literacy and share their efforts to improve adolescent literacy achievement. Members of the

Reading Leadership Team at each school (which consists of a cross-section of staff, including representatives from all content areas and special programs) attended these meetings.

Topics discussed included: Creating a School-wide Approach to Improving Reading; Assessing Literacy

Needs; Vocabulary Development; Improving Comprehension; Motivation; Helping the Struggling Adolescent

Reader; Content Area Literacy; and Effective Writing Instruction. Participants have had an opportunity to hear from a number of national literacy experts, including Cathy Collins Block, Dorothy Strickland, Tim Shanahan,

Donald Deshler, Steve Graham, Donald Leu, and John Guthrie. Staff from project schools and other

Massachusetts schools led breakout sessions at each network meeting. These breakout sessions provided an opportunity for other project schools to learn about the promising practices that are being tried by other schools. At each meeting, school teams had a chance to meet with each other to reflect on the day's learning and to discuss implications for their schools.



163

Massachusetts


Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14 – FFY2011-2012

In May 2012, staff from MASSDE’s special education and college/career readiness units attended NSTTAC’s

Capacity Building Institute in Charlotte, NC, along with Massachusetts stakeholders from districts, higher education, the Parent Training and Information Center, and the advocacy community, for the purpose of developing a statewide strategic plan. As a result of this meeting, staff from MASSDE’s special education, college/career readiness, and career/vocational technical education offices continue to meet regularly with a widening group of stakeholders around secondary transition.

Several other activities have been especially focused on supporting state and local efforts to achieve 100% compliance with Indicator 13. MASSDE continues to provide districts with high quality technical assistance and professional development that is both broad-based and individualized to areas of need identified through data collection and analysis. In September 2012, MASSDE issued a new technical assistance advisory,

Postsecondary Goals and Annual IEP Goals in the Transition Planning Process , which is now widely used across the state to inform educator training in secondary transition.

Additionally, in consultation with a broad cross-section of stakeholders and with graphics expertise donated by the Institute for Community Inclusion at UMass Boston, MASSDE created the Massachusetts Student-Driven

Secondary Transition Model to visually represent the movement from school to post-school life for students with

IEPs aged 14-22. This visual model was unveiled at the April 2013 Massachusetts Secondary Transition

Capacity-Building Conference , an event which drew 120 four-person teams of educators from districts, special education collaboratives, vocational-technical schools, and approved special education private schools. During the course of the day, these educators heard from noted speakers such as Dr. Michael Wehmeyer, from the

University of Kansas; Dr. Thomas Hehir, from Harvard University; and Dr. Joseph Madaus, from the University of Connecticut. Attendees also heard from self advocates and from their colleagues across the state who are exemplars of best practice. This conference was held with a twofold purpose: 1. to provide district leadership teams with essential knowledge about the transition planning process, both as a cohesive, integrated system and from the perspective of evidence-based practices in Self Determination; Transition Assessment; Career

Development; Postsecondary Education and Training; and Family Engagement and Community Collaboration, and 2. to engage district leadership teams in a data-based planning process designed to improve postsecondary outcomes for all students with disabilities. In order to attend the conference, all teams were required to complete the new Massachusetts District/School Secondary Transition Needs Assessment and to engage in planning during the conference itself, using the new District/School Strategic Planning Tool . To extend strategic planning begun at the conference, MASSDE has subsequently offered a targeted grant opportunity in the areas of transition assessment and student self determination to conference attendees.



164

Massachusetts

Secondary Transition – Transition Works: Innovative Strategies for Transitioning Youth with Disabilities from School to Work

– Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission (MRC) 5 Year Federal Grant

Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14 – FFY2008-2011

Transition Works : Innovative Strategies for Transitioning Youth with Disabilities from School to Work, was a five-year grant from USED awarded to MRC to support transitioning youth with disabilities from school to work. The program focused on aligning existing services and developing innovative practices. As part of this initiative, vocational rehabilitation counselors partnered with local school districts to support youth with disabilities in their transitions from school to work, postsecondary education, and independent living. In addition, MRC and the Federation for Children with Special Needs wrote a parent guide to transition, and the

Institute for Community Inclusion developed a new transition website, Youth on the Move, www.youthmove.org

. MASSDE, the Federation for Children with Special Needs, Urban Pride, Commonwealth

Corporation, and the Institute for Community Inclusion partnered with MRC to implement grant activities.

Additional information about this partnership is available at http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/consumer/familyservices/youth-services/youth-with-disabilities/transition-works-grant.html

.


Indicators 9, 10 – FFY2008-2009

Incorporated into technical assistance for flagged districts with disproportionate representation in special education, this self-assessment tool encouraged districts to examine their own policies and procedures regarding special education eligibility and disability definitions.

Review of Special Education in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts


Dr. Thomas Hehir and Associates was retained by MASSDE to conduct comprehensive reviews of special education in the Commonwealth using available data and resources. The research focused on issues of identification, placement, and performance of students with disabilities in Massachusetts, and yielded interesting and useful results. The work was informed by conversations with key stakeholders. Each report identified ways to promote stronger outcomes for students with disabilities. The reports and recommendations are informing MASSDE’s work with districts, families, and other partners, on behalf of students with disabilities.

Copies of the reports are available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/2012/0412sped.html



Review of Special Education in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (April 2012)



Students with Disabilities in Massachusetts Career and Technical Education Programs (July 2013)



Use of Out-of-District Programs by Massachusetts Students with Disabilities (October 2013)


Indicators 3, 5 – FFY2008-2012

The Sign Language Video Resource Library project is to develop STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) vocabulary reference tools that educational interpreters and teachers of students who are deaf or hard-of-hearing may incorporate into instruction. Available technical assistance will include written guides and a web based library, searchable by ASL and English. The design of the tool will be user-friendly, and promote ready access for end users. In addition, under this project, MASSDE provides a cost-free institute for educational interpreters to improve participants’ sign vocabulary in the STEM framework.



165

Massachusetts

SPecial EDition Online Newsletter


The purpose of this newsletter was to provide school districts with ongoing technical assistance and to prompt dialogue within, among, and between districts and MASSDE, organized around the SPP indicators.

Special Education Leadership Academies and Seminars

Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 – FFY2005-2012

Beginning in FFY2005, as part of the Special Education Summer Institutes, MASSDE has annually provided two Special Education Leadership Academies. The academies provide school district special education administrators opportunities to improve current skills and develop new leadership skills. Academy I is open to administrators who have less than five years of experience; Academy II is for administrators with more than five years of experience. Both Academies provide professional development to administrators in the following areas: effective leadership in the areas of state and federal laws and regulations; fiscal administration; data collection and analysis; staff recruitment and retention; instructional program design and improvement; and access to the general curriculum based on the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks.

MASSDE also sponsors ongoing leadership seminars for former participants of the Leadership Academies for participants to reconnect and network with their Academy colleagues and share effective practices, policies, strategies, and products.

In FFY2010 MASSDE designed, developed and implemented a team-based Special Education Leadership

Academy for the District and School Assistance Centers (DSACs) that included, in addition to the Special

Education Administrator, school and district leaders such as Principals/Vice Principals, Curriculum Directors, and Guidance Directors. in collaboration with the MASSDE/Career/Vocational Technical Education unit, designed and developed a Special Education Leadership Academy in FFY2011 that followed the design of the

DSAC team-based leadership academy. Information about the 2012-2013 offerings is available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/leadership-academies/2012/default.html

.



166

Massachusetts

Special Education Professional Development Summer Institutes

Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 – FFY2005-2012

The Special Education Summer Institutes are statewide professional development opportunities provided without cost to special education professionals. Sponsored by MASSDE in partnership with school districts, educational collaboratives, institutions of higher education, and professional associations, the Institutes are designed to support efforts by approved private special education schools, educational collaboratives, and local school districts to increase the quality of programs and services provided to students with disabilities.

Additionally, SEPP collaborates with the MASSDE Office of Curriculum and Instruction to provide professional development institutes in specific curriculum content areas such as Mathematics, Science, and Literacy.

Special Education Institutes offered in the Summer of 2012 included:



Accessing Communication & Curriculum through Technology



Assessing English Language Learners (ELL) With Disabilities



Collaborative Evaluation Led By Local Educators



Current Issues in School-Based Occupational Therapy & Physical Therapy



Effective Evaluation of Special Education Programs



Improving Spoken and Written Language: From Research to Practice



Literacy for Students who are Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing



Making Assistive Technology Happen: Assistive Technology for Teaching and Learning



Managing Behavior in an Inclusive Classroom



Meeting the Academic and Non-Academic Needs of Students with Asperger Syndrome



Occupational Therapy & Physical Therapy in Educational Settings



Paraprofessionals in Inclusive Settings



Strategies for Students with Sensory Processing Disorders in Inclusive School Settings



Emerging Technology for Students with Low Vision

Additional information about the Institutes listed above is available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/candi/institutes/12/sped.html

.

Special Education Program Improvement Grants (Fund Code 274)

All Indicators – FFY2005-2008, 2011-2012

The purpose of this grant program is to fund professional development activities that will advance the knowledge, skills, and capacity of educators to meet the diverse needs of students with disabilities and to promote inclusive practices across all settings through high-quality, job-embedded, and sustained professional development activities. Grant priorities for FFY2012 were aligned with the Indicators identified by the federal Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in the State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual

Performance Report (APR).

Fund Code 274 was available to all public school districts, public charter schools and educational collaboratives. Almost every school district in the state utilizes these funds. Additional information about current grant priorities is available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/grants/grants14/rfp/274.html

.



167

Massachusetts

Special Education Program Improvement Grants (Fund Code 249)

Indicators 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13 – FFY2005-2009, 2011-2012

The purpose of this grant program is to fund professional development activities that will help to improve the skills and capacity of educators to meet the diverse needs of students with disabilities. Its priorities are to enhance program-based induction, mentoring, and retention programs and to advance the skills of educators through professional development activities. Fund Code 249 is available to all approved private special education schools. All funded programs must be effective, sustained, and intensive in order to have a positive and lasting positive influence on classroom instruction and outcomes for students with disabilities.

Priorities for FFY2006 and FFY2007 were: Induction/Mentoring; and Curriculum Development, Instruction, and Classroom Assessment. FFY2008 and FFY2009 priorities were: Educator Quality and Effectiveness:

Induction, Mentoring, and Retention; Supporting Schools and Students: Curriculum Development,

Instructional Practices, and Classroom Assessment; and College and Career Readiness: Secondary

Transition Planning. Priorities for FFY2011 were: Educator Effectiveness, Content Skill Development, Non-

Academic Supports, and Secondary Transition. Priorities for FFY 2012 were: Strengthening Curriculum

Instruction, Non-Academic Supports, Early Childhood Inclusive Practices for Students with Disabilities and

Secondary Transition.



The Special Education section of MASSDE’s website provides a variety of tools, news items, and resources to districts, parents, and other stakeholders: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/ . Some of the most visited sections of the website are:



Headlines: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/



Contact Us – Opportunity for external customers to request information/ask questions: specialeducation@doe.mass.edu



Grants: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/grants.html



Training: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/training.html



Forms and Notices: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/iep/



Special Education Program Plan: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/programplan/



Special Education Data: http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/special_ed.aspx



Massachusetts Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS): http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/mtss.html

and http://www.doe.mass.edu/mtss/default.html

Trauma Sensitive Schools Initiative – MASSDE Student Support Services Unit

Indicators 1, 2, 4 – FFY2008-2012

This MASSDE initiative focuses on the needs of students who have experienced or witnessed trauma by assisting with reducing the barriers that may affect academic performance, classroom behavior, and relationships that result from trauma. MASSDE is working to bring “trauma sensitive” practices to schools across the state through annual trainings and technical assistance that incorporate best practices and strategies for creating a safe supportive school environment where all students can learn, and where students are held to high expectations. Information about these activities is available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/tss/ .



168

Massachusetts

The Partnership Project (TPP)

Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 – FFY2012

In the fall of 2012, MASSDE was awarded $5.5 over 5 years million under the federal State Personnel

Development Grant (SPDG) program. MASSDE’s Office of Tiered Systems of Support (OTSS) is the managing office for this iteration of the SPDG, The Partnership Project (TPP). The goal of TPP is to expand the statewide system of professional development by creating model sites in each of the Commonwealth’s six regions to demonstrate the implementation of evidence-based practices within a tiered system of supports. These model sites will provide opportunities for educators and families from around the Commonwealth to observe the different stages of implementing a tiered system of supports in each region. To support the model sites,

MASSDE is partnering with the Department of Public Health/Early Intervention (DPH/EI), EEC, the Federation for Children with Special Needs (FCSN), MRC, and the Massachusetts Readiness Centers with their affiliated

Institutes of Higher Education (IHEs).

The TPP districts were chosen through a competitive grant program, and represent a diverse group of highneeds districts that demonstrated a high level of interest and readiness for implementing and sustaining the components of a tiered system of supports. These districts will benefit from grant activities that include developing and delivering new evidence-based face-to-face and online training and technical assistance, products, web-based tools, services, and activities, and creating opportunities for educators to apply newly acquired skills and knowledge with fidelity to classrooms, schools and districts. The content areas for the newly developed professional development will include Universal Design for Learning (UDL), Positive Behavioral

Interventions and Supports (PBIS), developing district-level structures and supports, academic content areas including literacy and mathematics, secondary transition and post secondary planning, family engagement, and evidence-based professional development methods, including instructional rounds, coaching and mentoring, and professional learning communities (PLCs).


Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14 – FFY2011-2012

With the passage of Chapter 51 of the Acts of 2012, An Act to Promote the Successful Transition of Students with Disabilities to Post-Secondary Education, Employment and Independent Living in March 2012, a specialist teacher endorsement in transition services has been created to facilitate provision of a coordinated set of activities to adequately prepare students with disabilities to achieve successful transition to post-school activities. The Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education adopted new regulations regarding this endorsement in Fall 2012. See 603 CMR 7.14

. As a follow-up to this state legislation, MASSDE developed the new Guidelines for the Transition Specialist Endorsement to inform the development of university educator preparation programs.



169

Massachusetts

Universal Design for Learning Academy

Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 – FFY2011-2012

MASSDE collaborated with CAST to offer, in the 20120-2013 school year, year-long professional development and technical assistance to 15 high-needs districts, chosen through a competitive RFP process, through The

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Academy. The Academy supported the chosen districts' efforts to plan for and implement UDL as part of a tiered system of support. The goal of Academy was to establish a team of school and district leaders to ensure that their schools’ learning environments addressed the variability of all learners, including students with disabilities, English language learners, and students who have already demonstrated mastery of the concepts and skills being taught. The work of the Academy was designed to move districts who participated in MASSDE sponsored professional development around UDL in the summer of 2012 into the implementation phase.

Over the course of the Academy, leadership teams gained the knowledge, skills and resources necessary to apply UDL at the classroom, school, and district levels. Academy activities included a series of one and twoday workshops that 1) deepened teams’ understanding of the UDL framework, 2) facilitated the application of

UDL principles to lesson plans and resource maps, and 3) supported the development of action plans for teams to bring UDL back to the staff in their schools and districts. Additional information about the FFY2012 UDL

Academy is available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/grants/grants13/rfp/324.html

. MASSDE plans to offer a another UDL Academy in the spring of 2014 that will have a similar structure and range of content but incorporate two additional elements: the training of school-based UDL coaches and job-embedded technical assistance for participating educators.

Universal Design for Learning Summer Training Series

Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 – FFY2011-2012

In the summer of 2012, in collaboration with CAST, MASSDE offered two 2-day institutes for teams of

Massachusetts educators entitled, Universal Design for Learning (UDL): Addressing the Variability of All

Learners . Thirty-five district teams were chosen through a competitive process to attend one of the summer institutes. During these institutes, educator teams tackled challenging questions, including: how to minimize learning barriers and maximize learning opportunities for all students, how to design lessons and curriculum units to address the wide range of learners in today’s classrooms, and what steps needed to be taken to integrate UDL into their schools and districts.

As part of the UDL Summer Training Series, MASSDE also sponsored a team of 40 Massachusetts educators and ESE personnel to attend the Harvard Graduate School of Education’s professional development institute,

Universal Design for Learning: Reaching All Learners . This week-long training provided participants with a deep understanding of the UDL approach, which “considers the needs of the greatest number and range of possible learners and offers educational methods and materials that eliminate costly, cumbersome and after-the-fact adaptations.” The institute also fostered collaboration between experts in teaching, educational administration, policymaking, and technology, and provided “a blueprint for creating flexible goals, methods, materials and assessments that enable all students to succeed in the classroom.”



170

Massachusetts

APPENDIX B: Massachusetts Parent Survey for Special Education (FFY2006)



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.

Disagree

VSD SD D

Agree

A SA VSA

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. My child's evaluation report is written in terms I understand.

10. IEP meetings are scheduled at a time and place that are convenient for me.

11. Teachers are available to speak with me.

12. Teachers treat me as a team member.

13. 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: VSD SD D

14. - seek out parent input.

15. - show sensitivity to the needs of students with disabilities and their families.

16. - encourage me to participate in the decision-making process.

A SA VSA



171

Massachusetts

17. - respect my cultural heritage.

The school:

18. - has a person on staff that 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.

VSD SD D A SA VSA

Demographic Information

26. Number of years child has received special education services

29. Child’s school level









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 _________________

High School

30. Child’s Primary Disability (check one)

































Elementary School

Middle School

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

Thank you for participating.



172

APPENDIX C: Massachusetts Parent Involvement Survey (FFY2010)

Massachusetts



173

Massachusetts



174

Massachusetts



175

Massachusetts



176

Massachusetts



177

Massachusetts



178

Massachusetts



179

Massachusetts

APPENDIX D: Postsecondary Transition Planning Checklist

Student Name _______________________________________ SASID _______________________________ Age ________

District _____________________________________________LEA Code ____________________________ Date ________

Primary Disability ______________________________________________________ Level of Need ____________________

Transition Planning Form (28M/9)

_________ Is there evidence that the student has a completed Transition Planning Form (28M/9)?

Date Form Last Completed ______________________________________________

_________

_________

_________

_________

Postsecondary Requirements in the IEP and/or TPF

[34 CFR 300.320(b) and (c)] [20 U.S.C. 1414 (d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII)]

Beginning at age 14, does the student's IEP and/or Transition Planning Form include:

Appropriate measurable postsecondary vision/goal(s) that are based on an age-appropriate transition assessment?

Evidence such as: IEP 1 - Key Evaluation Results Summary, Assessment Info, TPF pg 1 assessment info as described

Appropriate measurable postsecondary vision/goal(s) that are updated annually?

Evidence such as: Dated IEP 1 - Vision Statement, TPF, Assessment Info

Transition services*, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals?

Evidence such as: Transition Planning Form, page 2; Transcript, IEP 5 - Service Delivery Grid, IEP 8 – Additional Information

Measurable annual skill-based IEP goals related to the studen t’s transition services* needs?

Evidence such as: IEP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and/or 8

__________

__________

IEP Team Meeting Student Invitation

[34 CFR 300.321(b)] [20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(1)(B)]

Is there evidence that:

The student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services* are to be discussed?

Evidence such as: N-3A

If appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the agreement of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority?

Evidence such as: N-3A

Notes

_____________________________________________________________

Type Name

____________________________________________________________________

Authorized Signature (not required unless a hard copy is requested by ESE)

____________________________________________

Role

____________________________________



180

Massachusetts

APPENDIX E: Form 28M/9

TRANSITION PLANNING FORM (TPF)

Massachusetts requires that beginning when the eligible student is 14 for the IEP developed that year, the school district must plan for the student’s need for transition services and the school district must document this discussion annually. This form is to be maintained with the IEP and revisited each year.

Student: SASID: Age:

Date form completed:

Anticipated date of graduation:

Anticipated date of 688 referral, if applicable:

Current IEP dates from: _______ to: _______

POST-SECONDARY VISION

Write the student’s POST-SECONDARY VISION in the box below. In collaboration with the family, consider the student’s preferences and interests, and the desired outcomes for post-secondary education/ training, employment, and adult living. This section should correspond with the vision statement on IEP 1.

DISABILITY RELATED NEEDS

Write the skills (disability related) that require IEP goals and/or related services in the box below. Consider all skills

(disability related) necessary for the student to achieve his/her post-secondary vision.

MA Part B State Performance Plan for FFY2005-2012


181

Massachusetts

Student: __________________ Date form completed: ___________________

ACTION PLAN

The ACTION PLAN should outline how the student can develop self-determination skills and be prepared both academically and functionally to transition to post-school activities in order to achieve his/her postsecondary vision. Indicate how Special Education/General Education, family members, adult service providers or others in the community will help the student develop the necessary skills. Disability related needs must also be stated on page 1.

Develop the ACTION PLAN needed to achieve the POST-SECONDARY VISION by outlining the skills the student needs to develop and the courses, training, and activities in which the student will participate.

Include information on who will help the student implement specific steps listed below in the Action Plan.



Instruction: Is there a course of study or specific courses needed that will help the student

reach his/her post-secondary vision? Consider the learning opportunities or skills that the student may need. This could include specific general education courses and/or special education instruction, career and technical education, and/or preparation for post-secondary outcomes such as vocational training or community college.



Employment: Are there employment opportunities and/or specific skills that will help the

student reach his/her post-secondary vision? Consider options such as part-time employment, supported job placement, service learning projects, participation in work experience program, job shadowing, internships, practice in resume writing/ interviewing skills, the use of a one-stop resource center and job specific skills in areas such as customer service, technology, etc.



Community Experiences/ Post School Adult Living: Are there certain types of community and/or adult living experiences that will help the student reach his/her post-secondary vision?

Consider options such as participation in community based experiences, learning how to independently access community resources, building social relationships, managing money, understanding health care needs, utilizing transportation options and organizational skills.



182

Massachusetts

APPENDIX F: Massachusetts Postsecondary Outcomes Survey (FFY2006)

School District:

Student Name:

SASID:

Gender: - Male

Date of Exit from School (mm/yyyy):

- Female

Method of Response: - Email - Mail - Telephone - Other - Non-Responder

Question 1:

What is your educational status since leaving high school?

- CURRENTLY enrolled or attending classes

- NOT CURRENTLY enrolled or attending, but have enrolled or attended classes

- HAVE NOT enrolled or attended classes

Question 2:

If you have enrolled or attended classes at any time since leaving high school, what type of program did you attend?

- 4-year college or university

- 2-year college or university

- Technical or vocational school

- GED program

- Adult education in the community

- Job Corp, Work Force Development program, etc.

- Other Describe:_______________________

- Not applicable - Have not enrolled or attended classes

Question 3:

If you have enrolled or attended classes at any time since leaving high school, what was your enrollment status?

- Full-time student enrolled in a degree program

- Part-time student enrolled in a degree program

- Not enrolled in a degree program, but taking classes


Question 4:

If you have enrolled or attended classes at any time since leaving high school, how long does the program require to finish?

- Less than 1 academic year

- 1 academic year or more


Question 5:

If you have enrolled or attended classes at any time since leaving high school, have you completed one class or more?

- Yes

- No




183

Massachusetts

Question 6:

What is your employment status since leaving high school? (This includes current and previous employment.)

- Employed – in the competitive job market

- Full-Time Military Service

- Self-employed – including working for a family business

- Supported Employment – job placement with ongoing support from a job coach or agency

- Unemployed – not employed but looking for employment

- Not in the Labor Force – not employed and not looking for employment

Question 7:

If you have been employed at any time since leaving high school, what is the longest amount of time you worked at the same job?

- Less than 3 months

- 3 months or more

- Not applicable - Not employed since leaving high school

Question 8:

If you have been employed at any time since leaving high school, how many hours did you work in a typical week? (This includes summer employment.)

- 20 hours or more per week

- Less than 20 hours per week


Question 9*:

If you have been employed at any time since leaving high school, what is the highest wage you were paid per hour? (This includes tips if you earn them.)

- Less than $8.00 per hour

- $8.00 per hour

- More than $8.00 per hour


*Massachusetts’ minimum wage is $8.00/ hour as of January 1, 2008.

Thank you for participating in this survey. If you have any questions, please call:

If you are returning this survey by mail, please send it to:



184

Massachusetts

APPENDIX G: Massachusetts Postsecondary Outcomes Survey (FFY2009)

Massachusetts After High School Survey

Student Name

SASID Date of Exit (mm/yyyy)

District

LEA Code

Primary Disability Level of Need Gender

Method of Contact

Yes or No?

1st Attempt 2nd Attempt

Working?

1.

At any time since leaving high school have you had a job?

Yes or No?

3rd Attempt

2.

If you count all the days you have had a job would it equal 90 days? (About 3 months)

3.

Did you work about 20 hours per week or more?

Yes or No?

Yes or No? 4.

5.

Did you earn $8.00 per hour or more? (Include tips)

What kind of job did you have?

(if the student did not have a job, select "Other" and type "no job" in the "Other" field)

Select Job ►►►

• In a company, business, or service (without a job coach)

• In the military

• In supported employment (with a job coach)

• Self-employed (e.g., baby-sitting, dog grooming, lawn care, etc.)

• In your family’s business (e.g., farm, store, fishing, ranching, catering, etc.)

• In sheltered employment (where most workers have disabilities)

• Other (if another kind of job was selected, type "N/A")

Yes or No? 6.

Are you looking for a job?

Yes or No?

Training or Education?

7.

At any time since leaving high school have you taken an academic or job training course?

Yes or No? 8.

9.

Did you finish one course or more?

What kind of school did you go to?

Select School ►►►

• 4 year College or University or Technical College

• 2 year College or University or Technical College

• Less than 2 year College or University or Technical College

• N/A

10. What kind of program did you go to?

Select Program ►►►

• GED

• Adult Education

• Continuing Education

• Rehabilitation Services

•

Job Training (Apprenticeship, Career Development, One-Stop Career Centers, City Year,

Service Learning – AmeriCorps, Job Corp, Peace Corp, etc.)



185

APPENDIX H: Postsecondary Outcomes Survey (FFY2010)

Massachusetts after High School Survey

(Student Survey)

Student Name:

Massachusetts

Working?

Yes No 1.

At any time since leaving high school have you had a job?

(

If you answered "NO" to this question, skip to question 6.)

2.

What kind of job did you have?

In a company, business, or service (without a job coach)

In the military

In supported employment (with a job coach)

Self-employed (e.g., baby-sitting, dog grooming, lawn care, etc.)

In your family’s business (e.g., farm, store, fishing, ranching, catering, etc.)

In sheltered employment (where most workers have disabilities)

Other (Fill out the box below if this is selected.)

Yes No 3. If you count all the days you have had a job would it equal 90 days? (About 3 months)

Yes No 4. Did you work about 20 hours per week or more?

Yes No 5. Did you earn $8.00 per hour or more? (Include tips)

Yes No 6. Are you looking for a job?

Training or Education?

Yes No 7. Since leaving high school, have you been enrolled on a full- or part-time basis for

at least one complete term in a: Community college (2 year program)

College/university (4 year program)

(

If you answered "YES" to this question, skip questions 8 and 9 and sumbit your form.)

Yes No 8. Did you attend education or training in another setting?

9.

What kind of program did you go to?

GED

Adult Education

Continuing Education

Rehabilitation Services

Job Training (Apprenticeship, Career Development, One-Stop Career Centers, City Year,

Service Learning – AmeriCorps, Job Corp, Peace Corp, etc.)

Other (Fill out the box below if this is selected.)



186

Massachusetts

APPENDIX I: Correction of Noncompliance Data Chart

SE

Criteria #

SE Criteria Topic 2001-2002 CPR findings of noncompliance

1

2

3

4

5

Assessment selection

Req/opt. Assessment

SLD

Assessment Reports

6

7

8

9

10

30

31

32

33

34

35

Participation State/local assessments

Determination of

Transition

Age of Majority

Team composition

Eligibility deter. Timelines

End of school year

Evaluations

Independent Evaluations

Frequency Re-evaluations

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18A IEP dev/content

18B Placement determination

19 Extended Evaluation

20

21

22

23

LRE

SD/SY req.

IEP implemented/available

24

25

26

Confidentiality of student records

Notice to parent

Parent consent

Parent participation.

27

28

29

Progress Reports

Annual meeting

Child find

Screening

Services at 3

Team notice

IEP or nsn to parents

Communication in home lang.

Parents rights

Educational Surrogate parents

PAC

Involvement in the general curriculum

Continuum of placement/services

Specialized materials

13

2

1

19

3

5

17

14

6

9

11

11

9

18

21

4

21

16

6

12

5

11

7

12

23

9

3

0

3

11

16

15

4

4

12

2

Findings of noncompliance identified at the CPR and no longer present at the 2004-2005 MCR

5

8

9

3

4

8

2

7

2

0

11

3

4

11

8

5

8

7

6

7

16

14

4

9

1

8

7

8

6

6

10

9

8

3

0

0



Percent of

Noncompliance

Corrected and

Sustained

45%

50%

60%

75%

100%

80%

65%

57%

83%

89%

64%

54%

100%

0%

58%

100%

55%

78%

89%

67%

100%

86%

83%

39%

89%

100%

N/A

0%

33%

50%

100%

75%

20%

73%

67%

100%

187

Massachusetts

SE

Criteria #

SE Criteria Topic

Assistive Technology

36

37

38

39

IEP implemented, accepted, financial responsibility

Out of district policies/procedures

ESIS

Private school at private expense

40

41

42

43

44

45

53

54

Grouping req.

Age span

Programs for 3 & 4 year olds

Behavioral interventions.

Record suspensions

46

47

48

Suspension up to and greater than 10

Suspension greater than

10

Discipline not yet sped

FAPE

49 Related services

49A Transportation

50

51

Responsibility principal/special education director

Teacher cert.

52

55

Related service providers credentials

Paraprofessionals

Professional development

SPED

Facilities

56

57

58

Program evaluation

Child count

Entitlement grant

TOTALS

2001-2002 CPR findings of noncompliance

Findings of noncompliance identified at the CPR and no longer present at the 2004-2005 MCR

8

20

3

2

11

23

14

23

7

0

560

2

8

9

5

8

2

12

9

6

9

3

7

12

2

8

3

2

11

16

9

14

7

0

380

1

6

6

4

8

2

7

6

6

8

3

5

6

2

13

Percent of

Noncompliance

Corrected and

Sustained

100%

100%

100%

50%

75%

67%

80%

58%

67%

100%

89%

100%

71%

50%

100%

65%

100%

100%

100%

70%

64%

61%

100%

N/A

68%



188

Massachusetts

APPENDIX J: Table 7 – Report of Dispute Resolution (FFY2004)

Report of Dispute Resolution Under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Complaints, Mediations, Resolution Sessions, and Due Process Hearings

SECTION A: Signed, written complaints

(1) Signed, written complaints total

(1.1) Complaints with reports issued

(a) Reports with findings

(b) Reports within timeline

(c) Reports within extended timelines

(1.2) Complaints withdrawn or dismissed

(1.3) Complaints pending

(a) Complaint pending a due process hearing

412

258

206

162

16

71

83

52

SECTION B: Mediation requests

(2) Mediation requests total

(2.1) Mediations

(a) Mediations related to due process

(i) Mediation agreements

(b) Mediations not related to due process

(i) Mediation agreements

(2.2) Mediations not held (including pending)

660

58

48

602

519

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

768

NA*

NA*

12

1

10

738

SECTION D: Expedited hearing requests (related to disciplinary decision)

(4) Expedited hearing requests total

69

(4.1) Resolution sessions NA

NA

(a) Settlement agreements

(4.2) Expedited hearings (fully adjudicated)

1

(a) Change of placement ordered

0

*NA=Reporting period does not cover 7/1/05, effective date of IDEA 2004, which initiated requirement of resolution session.



189

Massachusetts

APPENDIX K: Indicator 20 Scoring Rubric (FFY2006)

APR Data

APR

Indicator

1

2

3A

3B

3C

9

10

11

12

4A

5

7

8

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Valid and

Reliable Data Correct Calculation

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

APR Score Calculation

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Followed

Instructions

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1

Subtotal

Timely Submission Points

- If the FFY 2006 APR was submitted on-time, place the number 5 in the cell on the right.

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Grand Total (Sum of subtotal and Timely

Submission Points) =

Total

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

58

3

3

3

5

63



190