Massachusetts Part B
State Performance Plan for
FFY 2005 - 2010
Submitted to the
Office of Special Education Programs
December 1, 2005
Revised February 1, 2010
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
Board of Elementary and Secondary Education Members
Ms. Maura Banta, Chair, Melrose
Ms. Harneen Chernow, Jamaica Plain
Mr. Gerald Chertavian, Cambridge
Mr. Michael D’Ortenzio, Jr., Chair, Student Advisory Council, Wellesley
Dr. Thomas E. Fortmann, Lexington
Ms. Beverly Holmes, Springfield
Dr. Jeff Howard, Reading
Ms. Ruth Kaplan, Brookline
Dr. Dana Mohler-Faria, Bridgewater
Mr. Paul Reville, Secretary of Education, Worcester
Dr. Sandra L. Stotsky, Brookline
Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D., Commissioner and Secretary to the Board
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 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 781-338-6105.
© 2010 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
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
Part B Massachusetts State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Table of Contents
Cover Letter / Overview of MA SPP Development ................................................................................... 1
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE ....................................................................................................... 3
● Indicator #1: Graduation Rates ............................................................................................................ 3
● Indicator #2: Dropout Rates ................................................................................................................. 8
● Indicator #3: Assessment ................................................................................................................... 13
● Indicator #4: Suspension/Expulsion ................................................................................................... 24
● Indicator #5: School Age LRE ............................................................................................................ 30
● Indicator #6: Preschool LRE ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
● Indicator #7: Preschool Outcomes ..................................................................................................... 41
● Indicator #8: Parent Involvement........................................................................................................ 51
Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality ................................................................................................... 55
● Indicator #9: Disproportionality – Child with a Disability..................................................................... 55
● Indicator #10: Disproportionality – Eligibility Category ....................................................................... 59
Effective General Supervision / Child Find ............................................................................................ 62
● Indicator #11: Initial Evaluation Timelines .......................................................................................... 62
Effective General Supervision / Effective Transition ............................................................................ 66
● Indicator #12: Early Childhood Transition .......................................................................................... 66
● Indicator #13: Secondary Transition................................................................................................... 70
● Indicator #14: Post-School Outcomes ................................................................................................ 75
Effective General Supervision / General Supervision ........................................................................... 82
● Indicator #15: Identification and Correction of Noncompliance .......................................................... 82
● Indicator #16: Complaint Timelines ...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
● Indicator #17: Due Process Timelines................................................................................................ 90
● Indicator #18: Hearing Requests Resolved by Resolution Sessions ................................................. 92
● Indicator #19: Mediation Agreements................................................................................................. 94
● Indicator #20: State Reported Data .................................................................................................... 96
Appendices ................................................................................................................................................ 99
● Appendix A: Description of Selected Cross-Cutting Improvement Activities ..................................... 99
● Appendix B: MA Parent Survey for Indicator #8 ............................................................................... 110
● Appendix C: MA Post-School Outcomes Survey for Indicator #14 .................................................. 112
● Appendix D: Correction of Noncompliance Data .............................................................................. 113
● Appendix E: Attachment 1 – Report of Dispute Resolution for FFY 2004 ....................................... 115
●
Appendix F: Indicator #20 Scoring Rubric ........................................................................................ 116
Cover Letter / Overview of MA SPP Development
Submitted December 1, 2005; Revised January 3, 2006, February 1, 2007, May 21, 2007,
February 1, 2008, April 14, 2008, February 2, 2009, and January 29, 2010
ATTN: Janet Scire
U.S Department of Education
Office of Special Education Programs
Potomac Center Plaza
Mail Stop 2600, Room 4129
550 12th Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20202
Dear Ms. Scire:
Enclosed is the Massachusetts State Performance Plan (MA SPP). 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 other groups have been keys in the
development 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, Steering Committee members signed up to
participate in targeted interest groups focused on each indicator. These interest groups incorporate
additional members and will meet throughout the upcoming years to help guide Massachusetts’ work in
each area.
Regarding public dissemination, the completed MA SPP will be made widely available for public
discussion. This will be accomplished by broad discussion in interest groups (as previously mentioned)
and at the Statewide Advisory Council meeting and other conference and group discussion
opportunities. Additionally, MASSDE will post the MA SPP on the MASSDE website at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/, and distribute hard copies of the report to key constituents and the
media.
MASSDE has 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
1
throughout the MA SPP, as applicable. Please note that the following 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. 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
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Cc: Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D., Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education
2
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
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 students who transfer into Massachusetts’ public schools are
added to the original cohort, and students who transfer out or who are now deceased, are subtracted
from the original cohort. The quotient is multiplied by 100 to express the graduation rate as a percentage.
The measurement for all youth, regardless of IEP status, is the same.
For students in the 2005-2006 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/
3
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005-2006):
IEP
Non-IEP
All Students
# of Students in
2005-06 cohort
# of Students who
graduated in four years or
less
2005-2006
Graduation Rate
13,814
60,934
74,380
8,440
51,149
59,440
61.1%
83.9%
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 2005-06 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 2005-06 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 Federal 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
follows:
4
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2005
(2005-2006)
Baseline Year- 61.1%
2006
(2006-2007)
61.7%
2007
(2007-2008)
65.0%1
2008
(2008-2009)
70.0%
2009
(2009-2010)
72.5%
2010
(2010-2011)
75.0%
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Please note that many of the activities presented below impact across multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2007
Improvement Activity
Project FOCUS Academy
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 3, 4, 5, 8,
13, 14)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(Impacts all Indicators)
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), LEA
staff time
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Special Education Summer Institutes
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8,
11, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
1
For more information about the revised targets for FFY 2007 through FFY 2010, see the Massachusetts Part B
Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2008
5
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2010
Improvement Activity
Special Education Website
(Impacts All Indicators)
Revised February 1, 2010
Resources
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Trauma Sensitive Schools Initiative
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 4)
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2007 - 2010
Massachusetts FOCUS Academy
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 3, 4, 5, 8,
13, 14)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Secondary Transition – Transition Works:
Innovative Strategies for Transitioning Youth
with Disabilities from School to Work
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, grant
partners (Federation for
Children with Special Needs,
Center for Applied Special
Technologies, Institute for
Community Inclusion at
UMass-Boston), LEA staff
time
MASSDE staff time,
Massachusetts Rehabilitation
Commission staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Graduation and Dropout Prevention and
Recovery Commission
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Dropout Prevention and Recovery Work
Group
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 4, 14)
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Dropout Prevention, Intervention, and
Recovery Website
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2007 - 2008
Massachusetts Online Resource Library
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8,
13, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2007 - 2008
SPecial EDition Newsletter
(Impacts All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
6
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 - 2010
Improvement Activity
Educational Proficiency Plan (EPP)
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 3, 13, 14)
Revised February 1, 2010
Resources
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time
See Appendix A for a complete description
2008-2010
ARRA Title II-D Technology Competitive
Grants
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 2)
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008-2010
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.
2008 - 2010
Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
Summit
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 3, 8)
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
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Secondary School Reading Grant
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 3, 5, 14)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
7
MASSDE staff time
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
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.
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:
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 1st 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 1st 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
1st 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 1st data collection during the July 1st to June 30th 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:
http://www.doe.mass.edu/infoservices/data/guides/dropouts.html
Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005):
# of Students Enrolled
(Grades 9-12)
# of Dropouts
(Grades 9-12)
2004-2005
Dropout Rate
IEP
42,647
2,369
5.6%
Non-IEP
250,752
8,776
3.5%
All Students
293,399
11,145
3.8%
Discussion of Baseline Data:
The data provided in the above table show that students with disabilities in Massachusetts’ public schools
are dropping out of high school at a higher rate than their non-disabled peers. Based on this formula for
calculating Dropout Rate, which is an “event” or “annual” rate calculation, 5.6% of students with
disabilities dropped out of high school in 2004-2005. The Dropout Rate was 3.5% for non-disabled
students, and was 3.8% for all students, in 2004-2005.
This disparity between the Dropout Rates for disabled and for non-disabled students in Massachusetts
reflects a national trend. The report on SPP Indicator 2 prepared by the National Dropout Prevention
Center for Students with Disabilities (NDPC-SD) 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 disabilities and all students, the majority of states had a positive gap between the all-student rate and
8
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
the rate for students with disabilities, 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 disabilities 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 disabilities and
the dropout rate of students without disabilities over a ten-year period. Our SPP targets reflect a ten-year
goal for FFY 2015 of a dropout rate for students with disabilities at or below 3.5%. Our ten-year plan is to
decrease the Dropout Rate of students with disabilities by approximately half of one percentage point
every two years as follows:






FFY 2005 & FFY 2006: 5.6%
FFY 2007 & FFY 2008: 5.1%
FFY 2009 & FFY 2010: 4.7%
FFY 2011 & FFY 2012: 4.3%
FFY 2013 & FFY 2014: 3.9%
FFY 2015: 3.5%
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2005
(2005-2006)
Students with IEPs Dropout Rate: 5.6%
2006
(2006-2007)
5.6%
2007
(2007-2008)
5.1%
2008
(2008-2009)
5.1%
2009
(2009-2010)
4.7%
2010
(2010-2011)
4.7%
9
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Please note that many of the activities presented below impact across multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2007
Improvement Activity
Resources
Project FOCUS Academy
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13,
14)
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), LEA staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Special Education Summer Institutes
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8,
11, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, LEA
staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Special Education Website
(Impacts All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(Impacts All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
National Association of State Directors of
Special Education (NASDSE) Professional
Development Series
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 13, 14 )
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2007 - 2010
Massachusetts FOCUS Academy
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13,
14)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2007 - 2010
Communities of Care Positive Behavioral
Interventions (PBIS) Grant
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 4, 5)
See Appendix A for complete description
10
MASSDE staff time, grant
partners (Federation for
Children with Special
Needs, Center for Applied
Special Technologies,
Institute for Community
Inclusion at UMassBoston), LEA staff time
MASSDE staff time, grant
partners (Central
Massachusetts
Communities of care,
national center for positive
behavioral intervention and
supports trainers), LEA staff
time
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 - 2010
Improvement Activity
Graduation and Dropout Prevention and
Recovery Commission
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 14)
Revised February 1, 2010
Resources
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Dropout Prevention and Recovery Work Group
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 4, 14)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2007-2008
Massachusetts Online Resource Library
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8,
13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, New
England Comprehensive
Center staff time, LEA staff
time
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2007 - 2008
SPecial EDition Newsletter
(Impacts All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Dropout Prevention, Intervention, and
Recovery Website
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
ARRA Title II-D Technology Competitive
Grants
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1)
MASSDE staff time, LEA
staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Curriculum and Instruction and Assessment
Summit
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 3, 8)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
District and School Assistance Centers
(DSAC)
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 13)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Educational Proficiency Plans
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 3, 13, 14)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
11
MASSDE staff time
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 - 2010
Improvement Activity
Secondary School Reading Grant
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 3, 5, 14)
Revised February 1, 2010
Resources
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Secondary Transition – Transition Works:
Innovative Strategies for Transitioning Youth
with Disabilities from School to Work
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time,
Massachusetts
Rehabilitation Commission
staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Trauma Sensitive Schools Initiative
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 4)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Work-Based Learning Plans for Students with
Disabilities,
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 13, 14)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
12
MASSDE staff time, LEA
staff time, Workforce
Development staff time
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 3: Participation and performance of children with disabilities 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 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.
Indicator #3: Assessment
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
Measurement:
A. 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.
B. Participation rate percent = [(# 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 percent = ([(# 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)].
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:
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
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. For additional details
on the AYP determination process, refer to the School Leaders’ Guide to the 2005 Mid-Cycle IV Adequate
Yearly Progress Reports (http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/ayp/cycleIVmid/schleadersguide.doc).
13
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
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: Spring 2006 Update
http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/alt/spedreq.pdf.
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, beginning in the 20052006 school year, both the MCAS ELA and Mathematics tests will be administered annually in grades 3-8
and grade 10.
Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005):
% Districts Meeting AYP for Disability Subgroup (Indicator 3A)
English/
Language Arts
Mathematics
# Districts with Special Education Subgroup
222
225
# Districts Making AYP for Special Education
Subgroup
99
83
% Districts Making AYP for Special Education
Subgroup
45%
37%
Participation Rate for Students with IEPs (Indicator 3B)
14
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
English/
Language Arts
Mathematics
# of students with IEPs participating in regular
assessment*
46,697
47,782
# of students with IEPs participating in alternate
assessment
3,354
3,385
Total # of Students with IEPs Assessed (sum of above
three lines)
50,051
51,167
Total # of Students with IEPs Enrolled in Assessed
Grades
50,394
51,495
% of Students with IEPs Participating in Statewide
Assessment
99.3%
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 challenging 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
succeed in a subject area. By setting the bar high, MASSDE expects all students to achieve high levels
of academic success.
15
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Proficiency Rate for Students with IEPs (Indicator 3C)
English/
Language Arts
Mathematics
# of students with IEPs scoring Proficient or above on
regular assessment*
11,984
7,299
# of students with IEPs scoring Proficient or above on
alternate assessment
2
2
Total # of Students with IEPs scoring Proficient or
above (sum of above three lines)
11,986
7,301
Total # of Students with IEPs Assessed
50,051
51,167
% of Students with IEPs Scoring Proficient or Above on
Statewide Assessment
23.9%
14.3%
65
49.5
Actual data for baseline year CPI (see below for
description)
Discussion of Baseline Data:
% Districts Meeting AYP for Disability Subgroup (Indicator 3A)
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.
Participation Rate for Children with IEPs (Indicator 3B)
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
16
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
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.
Proficiency Rate - CPI for Children with IEPs (Indicator 3C)
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 a 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 MCAS-Alt (“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 the graph below:
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
68.7
70
60.8
60
53.0
50
40
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Years
The charts 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.
17
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
MCAS Proficiency Rates CPI: English Language Arts
100
80
70.7
70.7
75.6
75.6
80.5
60
40
ELA-Target
58.5
59.7
63.4
64.9
65
FFY 2000
FFY 2001
FFY 2002
FFY 2003
FFY 2004
ELA-Actual
20
0
MCAS Proficiency Rates CPI: Mathematics
100
80
60
53
Math-Target
Math-Actual
40
20
68.7
60.8
60.8
53
42.5
41.2
45.7
49.5
48.2
0
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).
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Targets
% Districts Meeting
AYP for Disability
Subgroup (3A)
2005
ELA
MATH
45%
37%
45%
37%
(2005-2006)
2006
(2006-2007)
Participation Rate for
Students with IEPs (3B)
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.
18
Proficiency Rate (CPI)
for Students with IEPs
(3C)
ELA
MATH
80.5
68.7
85.4
76.5
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Targets
% Districts Meeting
AYP for Disability
Subgroup (3A)
2007
Revised February 1, 2010
Participation Rate for
Students with IEPs (3B)
Proficiency Rate (CPI)
for Students with IEPs
(3C)
ELA
MATH
ELA
MATH
46%
38%
85.4
76.5
50%
40%
90.2
84.3
52%
42%
90.2
84.3
52%
45%
95.1
92.2
(2007-2008)
2008
(2008-2009)
2009
(2009-2010)
2010
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.
(2010-2011)
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
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; see also http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/compass)
are disseminated and shared with all low performing districts. Each district and school in Massachusetts
is provided annually with their AYP results detailing outcomes for each subgroup and assistance is
provided by MASSDE to assist districts in determining 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 encompass
Indicator 3 (A-C). Please note that many of the activities presented below impact across multiple
indicator areas. For these activities, a full description is available in Appendix A.
19
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2006
Improvement Activity
Emergent Literacy Grant
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 5, 6)
Revised February 1, 2010
Resources
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2007
Project FOCUS Academy
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 13,
14)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2008
Special Education Program Improvement
Grants – Fund Code 274
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 4, 5, 11)
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), LEA
staff time
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Special Education Program Improvement
Grants – Fund Code 249
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 4, 5, 13)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description
2005 - 2010
Secondary School Reading Grant
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 5, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(Impacts All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Special Education Website
(Impacts All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Special Education Leadership Academies
and Seminars
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 5, 8, 11)
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Special Education Summer Institutes
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8,
11, 13, 14)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
20
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2010
Improvement Activity
Comprehensive System of Personnel
Development Training Project (CSPD)
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 5, 11, 13, 14)
Revised February 1, 2010
Resources
MASSDE staff time, CSPD
trainer time, CSPD district
staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
National Association of State Directors of
Special Education (NASDSE) Satellite Series
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 5, 6, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Data Analysis
MASSDE staff time
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.
2005 - 2010
Web-based Resources on the Participation
of Students with Disabilities in MCAS
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will provide an annually updated
guide for educators and parents/guardian on
MCAS participation, and continues to MASSDE
maintains web based resources for
professionals including MCAS-Alt Newsletters,
the Resource Guide, Educator's Manual,
MCAS-Alt Forms and Graphs, and order forms.
2005 - 2010
On-going Technical Assistance from the
Office of Accountability and Targeted
Assistance
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will provide on-going 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.
2007 - 2009
Sign Language Video Resource Library
(Additional Indicator Impacted: 5)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
21
MASSDE staff time
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2007 - 2010
Improvement Activity
Partnership for Online Professional
Development (POPD)
Revised February 1, 2010
Resources
MASSDE staff time
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.
2007 - 2010
Massachusetts FOCUS Academy
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 13,
14)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Revision of “Ten Step Guide for
Comprehensive Educational System of
Students with Visual Impairments
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 5, 6, 11, 13)
MASSDE staff time, grant
partners (Federation for
Children with Special Needs,
Center for Applied Special
Technologies, Institute for
Community Inclusion at
UMass-Boston), LEA staff
time
MASSDE staff time,
stakeholder groups
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008
Revision of “Is Special Education the Right
Service?” (ISERS)
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 6, 8, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14)
MASSDE staff time,
stakeholder groups
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2007 - 2008
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
(Impacts All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2007 - 2008
Massachusetts Online Resource Library
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8,
13, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 – 2010
Collaboration between MASSDE Curriculum
and Instruction Math Office and Special
Education Planning and Policy Development
Office (SEPP)
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 5)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description
2008 – 2010
Collaboration with Federation for Children
with Special Needs
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 5, 8, 13)
See Appendix A for a complete description
22
MASSDE staff time;
Federation for Children with
Special Needs
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 - 2010
2008 – 2010
Improvement Activity
Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
Summit
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 8)
See Appendix A for a complete description
District and School Assistance Centers
(DSACs)
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 5, 13)
Revised February 1, 2010
Resources
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description
2008 - 2010
Educational Proficiency Plans (EPP)
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 13, 14)
See Appendix A for a complete description
23
MASSDE staff time
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
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.
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” is suspension/expulsion rate of five times the
state rate for two consecutive years.
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:
Indicator 4A:
A comparison of the district 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 an IEP 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 disabilities may distort percentages. A comparison of
suspensions and expulsions rates for students with disabilities to rates for students without disabilities 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 disabilities. 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 SSDR reports for the school year must be submitted by July 28 th. A district is cited as having
a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspension and expulsion for students with an IEP if their rate of
suspension and expulsion is five times the state rate for two consecutive years. MASSDE feels strongly
that districts should be cited after two 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 and, therefore, initial activities for this indicator will also include significant data
verification activity.
24
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005):
Indicator 4A:
2004-05
Special Education
Enrollment
2004-05
State Suspension/
Expulsion Rate
% of districts with
suspension/
expulsion rate that is
five times State Rate*
% of districts with a
finding of “significant
discrepancy”
1.8%
0%
(6 districts)
(0 districts)
*Districts with fewer than 30 students in special education were removed from this part of the analysis.
157,111
0.514%
Discussion of Baseline Data:
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 FFY 2004, 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 FFY 2003). Therefore, 0 districts (0%) were identified as having a significant discrepancy in
the rates of suspensions and expulsions for students with disabilities in FFY 2004.
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 will develop improvement activities aimed
at improving the quality and accuracy of the data collected.
Since no findings of significant discrepancy were made in this baseline year, our targets are 0% for all
years.
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2005
(2005-2006)
The % of districts with a significant discrepancy finding will be 0%
2006
(2006-2007)
The %of districts with a significant discrepancy finding will be 0%
2007
(2007-2008)
The % of districts with a significant discrepancy finding will be 0%
2008
(2008-2009)
The % of districts with a significant discrepancy finding will be 0%
25
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2009
(2009-2010)
The % of districts with a significant discrepancy finding will be 0%
2010
(2010-2011)
The % of districts with a significant discrepancy finding will be 0%
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Indicator 4A:
Please note that many of the activities presented below impact across multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a complete description is available in Appendix A.
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2007
Improvement Activity
Resources
Project FOCUS Academy
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, grant
partners (Federation for
Children with Special
Needs, Center for Applied
Special Technologies,
Institute for Community
Inclusion at UMassBoston, Education
Development Center),
LEA staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2008
Special Education Program Improvement Grants
– Fund Code 274
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 11)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Special Education Program Improvement Grants
– Fund Code 249
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 13 )
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(Impacts All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Special Education Summer Institutes
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11,
13, 14)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
26
MASSDE staff time, LEA
staff time
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2010
Improvement Activity
Special Education Website
(Impacts All Indicators)
Revised February 1, 2010
Resources
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2006-2010
Suspension/Expulsion Forum
MASSDE staff time, LEA
staff time
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 LEAs in attendance and
the differences among them; b) review and analyze
data from the most recent data collections; c)
identify practices among LEAs regarding services
provided to students with disabilities during
suspension; and d) identify current reporting
practices through SIMS and the SSDR.
2007 - 2010
Massachusetts FOCUS Academy
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 14)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2007 - 2010
Central Massachusetts Communities of Care
Positive Behavioral Interventions (PBIS) Grant
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 5)
See Appendix A for complete description.
2008-2010
Suspension/Expulsion Technical Assistance
Seminar
Participants will include staff of LEAs that have
either been identified as significantly discrepant or
that are at risk for being identified as significantly
discrepant in the next data collection. The
objectives of the Suspension/Expulsion Technical
Assistance Seminar are to: clarify 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).
27
MASSDE staff time, grant
partners (Federation for
Children with Special
Needs, Center for Applied
Special Technologies,
Institute for Community
Inclusion at UMassBoston), LEA staff time
MASSDE staff time, grant
partners (Central
Massachusetts
Communities of care,
national center for
positive behavioral
intervention and supports
trainers), LEA staff time
MASSDE staff time, LEA
staff time
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 - 2010
Improvement Activity
Data Collection and Practice Improvement Self
Assessment
Revised February 1, 2010
Resources
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will develop a guidance document to
provide technical assistance around the
programmatic and determination requirements of inschool-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) will be
included. Aspects of this initiative will focus on
effective review policies and procedures, and timely
verification of correction of noncompliance by
MASSDE.
2007 - 2008
Massachusetts Online Resource Library
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2007 - 2008
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
(Impacts All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Collaboration with PQA
MASSDE staff time
The special education unit will meet 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.
2008 - 2010
2008 - 2010
Dropout Prevention and Recovery Workgroup
(Additional indicators impacted: 1, 2, 14)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
Secondary School Reading Grant
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 5, 14)
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 – 2010
Disability Workgroups
MASSDE staff time;
stakeholders
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.
28
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Timelines
(FFY)
Improvement Activity
Resources
2008 - 2010
Trauma Sensitive Schools Initiative
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1 ,2)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
29
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
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.
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:
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
Out-of-District placement category. The data below indicates that 6.2% of Massachusetts students with
disabilities are in out-of-district settings, 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 out-of-district
settings. Massachusetts has attempted to review the use of out-of-district 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 out-of-district 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.
Breakdown of ‘Out-of-District’ Setting Data
Setting
Public Day
Private Day
Residential Facilities
Home/Hospital
# of students
3,677
4,635
1,294
207
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,
30
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
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.
Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005):
Indicator 5: % of students with IEPs aged 6 through 21 in a) full inclusion; b) substantially separate
placements; and c) in out-of-district placements
Ages 6-21
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
a) Full Inclusion
13%
33.7%
43.4%
National Baseline
2002-03
48%
Partial Inclusion
66%
43%
33.6%
29%
b) Substantially Separate
15%
16.4%
16.2%
19%
c) Out-of District
6.7%
5.5%
6.8%
2.9%
Source of Data: 2004-05 Annual Report of Students Served
Student Information Management System (SIMS)
Discussion of Baseline Data:
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 ‘Out-of
District’ 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
31
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
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
out-of-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 2004-05. 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 impact of such targets. It is thought that the improvement
activities focused on increasing full inclusion will create a meaningful impact and thus target setting is
more substantial. Therefore the following targets have been set for this first six-year period.
Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY
% of students with IEPs
aged 6 through 21 in full
inclusion (Indicator 5A)
% of students with IEPs
aged 6 through 21 in
substantially separate
placements (Indicator 5B)
% of students with IEPs
aged 6 through 21 in outof-district placements
(Indicator 5C)
2005
(2005-2006)
43.4%
16.2%
6.8%
2006
(2006-2007)
43.4%
16.2%
6.8%
2007
(2007-2008)
54.3%
15.1%
6.2%
2008
(2008-2009)
55.5%
14.9%
6.2%
2009
(2009-2010)
56.8%
14.7%
5.9%
2010
(2010-2011)
58%
14.5%
5.5%
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Please note that many of the activities presented below impact across multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.
32
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2006
Improvement Activity
Emergent Literacy Grant
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 6)
Revised February 1, 2010
Resources
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2007
Project FOCUS Academy
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 4, 8, 13,
14)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Secondary School Reading Grant
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 14)
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), LEA
staff time
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2008
Special Education Program Improvement
Grants – Fund Code 274
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 4, 11)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Special Education Program Improvement
Grants – Fund Code 249
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 4, 13)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Special Education Leadership Academies
and Seminars
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 8, 11)
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Special Education Summer Institutes
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8,
11, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Special Education Website
(Impacts All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
33
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2010
Improvement Activity
Student Information Reporting and
Management
Revised February 1, 2010
Resources
MASSDE staff time
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.
2005 - 2010
MASSDE Grants that Foster Responsive
Educational Environments
MASSDE staff time, technical
assistance and professional
development providers
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.
2005 - 2010
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(Impacts All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Comprehensive System of Personnel
Development Training Project
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 11, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, CSPD
trainer time, CSPD district
staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Inclusive Schools Week
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time
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.
2005 - 2010
National Association of State Directors of
Special Education (NASDSE) Satellite Series
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 5, 6, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2006 - 2010
Inclusive Concurrent Enrollment Partnership
Program for Students with Disabilities
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 13, 14)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
34
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time, technical assistance
providers
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2007 - 2010
Improvement Activity
Resources
Central Massachusetts Communities of Care
Positive Behavioral Interventions (PBIS)
Grant
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 4)
MASSDE staff time, grant
partners (Central
Massachusetts Communities
of care, national center for
positive behavioral
intervention and supports
trainers), LEA staff time
See Appendix A for complete description.
2007 - 2010
Massachusetts FOCUS Academy
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 13,
14)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Revision of “Ten Step Guide for
Comprehensive Educational Assessment of
Students with Visual Impairments”
(Additional Indicators Impacted:3, 6, 11, 13)
MASSDE staff time, grant
partners (Federation for
Children with Special Needs,
Center for Applied Special
Technologies, Institute for
Community Inclusion at
UMass-Boston), LEA staff
time
MASSDE staff time,
stakeholder groups
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2007 - 2010
Least Restrictive Environment SelfAssessment 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.
2007- 2008
Massachusetts Online Resource Library
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8,
13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time, OSEP funded Technical
Assistance and
Dissemination Resources
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2007-2008
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
(Impacts All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 – 2010
Collaboration between MASSDE Curriculum
and Instruction Math Office and Special
Education Planning and Policy Development
Office (SEPP)
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 3)
See Appendix A for a complete description
35
MASSDE staff time
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 – 2010
Improvement Activity
Collaboration with Federation for Children
with Special Needs
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 8, 13)
Revised February 1, 2010
Resources
MASSDE staff time;
Federation for Children with
Special Needs
See Appendix A for a complete description
2008 – 2010
Community/Residential Education Project –
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time;
Department of Developmental
Services
See Appendix A for a complete description
2008 – 2010
District and School Assistance Centers
(DSACs)
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 3, 13)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description
2008 – 2010
District and School Accountability and
Assistance Office – Center for School and
District Accountability – ESE
MASSDE staff time
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, lowincome students, and students who are
members of racial minorities. In FFY 2008, the
focus of the district reviews related to students
with disabilities.
2008 – 2010
Sign Language Video Resource Library
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 3)
See Appendix A for a complete description
36
MASSDE staff time
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
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.
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:
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 is 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 USDOE comes from
the second method, the SIMS data collection, and is used here in the provision of baseline data.
Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005):
Total # of preschool students with IEPs
13,384
Total # of preschool students with IEPs in inclusive settings
10,498
Percent of preschool students with IEPs in inclusive
settings
78.4%
Discussion of Baseline Data:
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 2004-05 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.
37
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010

Revised February 1, 2010
Of the students being served in an inclusive setting:
o
462 (3%) are being served in a Head Start program.
o
745 (6%) are being served in a child care center.
o
315 (2%) are being served in a family child care.
o
9410 (71%) are being served in a public school preschool.
o
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.
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 2004-05 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 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.
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2005
(2005-2006)
78.4%
2006
(2006-2007)
79%
2007
(2007-2008)
79%
2008
(2008-2009)
80%
2009
(2009-2010)
80%
2010
(2010-2011)
81%
38
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Please note that many of the activities presented below impact across multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2006
Improvement Activity
Emergent Literacy Grant
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(Impacts All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Special Education Website
(Impacts All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Special Education Summer Institutes
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11,
13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
National Association of State Directors of
Special Education (NASDSE) Satellite Series
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2006 - 2007
Revisions to SIMS Data Collection
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time
MASSDE and MEEC will review and revise
SIMS data collection and forms to more
accurately collect data on preschool
placements, including creating standard
definitions for preschool settings and codes to
meet new OSEP requirements.
2006 - 2010
Training and Technical Assistance to LEAs
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time
MASSDE and MEEC will provide on-going
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.
2008
Revision of “Ten Step Guide for
Comprehensive Educational Assessment of
Students with Visual Impairments”
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
39
MASSDE staff time,
stakeholder groups
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 - 2009
Improvement Activity
Assessment Institute
Revised February 1, 2010
Resources
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time, LEA staff time
Districts along with community-based providers
will be invited to participate in an assessment
institute that will focus on on-going, formative
assessment of young children, including
students with disabilities and how programs
can use assessment data to guide program
improvement and instructional practices.
2008 - 2009
Data Analysis and Verification Visits
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time
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.
2008 - 2009
Statewide Birth-Five Leadership Team
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time
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.
2008 - 2009
Revision of “Is Special Education the Right
Service?” (ISERS)
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5)
MASSDE staff time,
stakeholder groups
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1-5, 7-14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Massachusetts Online Resource Library
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8,
13, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
PreK-Grade 3 Curriculum, Instruction and
Assessment Alignment Pilot Project
Through this project, MASSDE and MEEC will
work closely with 18 LEAs on service delivery
models, differentiated instruction,
developmentally appropriate practice, and
continuity through the early grades.
40
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time, LEA staff time
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
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.
Indicator #7: Preschool Outcomes
(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.
41
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Summary Statements for Each of the Three Outcomes (use for FFY 2008-2009
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.
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:
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 (FFY 2009)), 72 districts participated. The 387 LEAs 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/2006/0522idea.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.
42
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Baseline Data Collection for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) – Year 1 Cohort
Entry Data
% AGE APPROPRIATE
% NOT AGE
APPROPRIATE
A. Positive social-emotional skills (including
social relationships)
20%
80%
B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills
(including early language/communication and
early literacy)
21%
79%
C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet needs
33%
67%
OUTCOME
In the spring of 2007, MEEC and MASSDE trained the Year 1 cohort of districts to conduct progress
assessments2. 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 Data3
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.
OUTCOME
Progress
category (a)
Progress
category (b)
Progress
category (c)
Progress
category (d)
Progress
category (e)
No imp.
Some imp.
Near peers
Comparable
to peers
Maintain
A. Positive socialemotional skills (including
social relationships)
4%
(27/724)
25%
(183/724)
33%
(242/724)
18%
(129/724)
20%
(143/724)
B. Acquisition and use of
knowledge and skills
(including early
language/communication
and early literacy)
4%
(30/727)
25%
(180/727)
32%
(232/727)
19%
(139/727)
20%
(146/727)
2
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.
3 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.
43
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
OUTCOME
C. Use of appropriate
behaviors to meet needs
Revised February 1, 2010
Progress
category (a)
Progress
category (b)
Progress
category (c)
Progress
category (d)
Progress
category (e)
No imp.
Some imp.
Near peers
Comparable
to peers
Maintain
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 FFY 2007 (2007-2008) – Year 2 Cohort
Entry Data
% AGE
APPROPRIATE
% NOT AGE APPROPRIATE
A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social
relationships)
20%
80%
B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills
(including early language/communication and
early literacy)
21%
79%
C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet needs
32%
68%
OUTCOME
Exit Data4
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.
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
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 FFY 2007. 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.
44
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
OUTCOME
Revised February 1, 2010
Progress
category (a)
Progress
category (b)
Progress
category (c)
Progress
category (d)
Progress
category (e)
No imp.
Some imp.
Near peers
Comparable to
peers
Maintain
A. Positive socialemotional skills (including
social relationships)
1%
(12/1169)
17%
(199/1169)
33%
(385/1169)
29%
(339/1169)
20%
(234/1169)
B. Acquisition and use of
knowledge and skills
(including early
language/communication
and early literacy)
2%
(23/1169)
17%
(199/1169)
31%
(362/1169)
27%
(316/1169)
23%
(269/1169)
C. Use of appropriate
behaviors to meet needs
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.
Baseline Data Collection for FFY 2008 (2008-2009)
Entry Data
% AGE
APPROPRIATE
% NOT AGE
APPROPRIATE
A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social
relationships)
22%
(647/2940)
78%
(2293/2940)
B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills
(including early language/communication and early
literacy)
25%
(735/2940)
75%
(2205/2940)
C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet needs
33%
(970/2940)
67%
(1970/2940)
OUTCOME
Exit Data5
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.
Progress category (b): The percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to
move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers.
5
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 FFY 2008. 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.
45
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
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.
Progress
category (a)
Progress
category (b)
Progress
category (c)
Progress
category (d)
Progress
category (e)
No imp.
Some imp.
Near peers
Comparable
to peers
Maintain
A. Positive socialemotional skills (including
social relationships)
2%
(32/1798)
23%
(423/1798)
24%
(425/1798)
25%
(457/1798)
26%
(461/1798)
B. Acquisition and use of
knowledge and skills and
(including early
language/communication
and early literacy)
2%
(32/1700)
21%
(407/1800)
23%
(399/1800)
26%
(453/1800)
28%
(509/1800)
C. Use of appropriate
behaviors to meet needs
2%
(25/1700)
18%
(298/1700)
17%
(311/1700)
26%
(439/1700)
37%
(627/1700)
OUTCOME
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 FFY 2009 (2009-2010)
Entry Data
% AGE
APPROPRIATE
% NOT AGE
APPROPRIATE
A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social
relationships)
17%
83%
B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills
(including early language/communication and early
literacy)
19%
81%
C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet needs
30%
70%
OUTCOME
46
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Discussion of Baseline Data for FFY 2006 – FFY 2008:
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
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 LEA training. The
47
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
agencies anticipate that the results of these reviews and the refinement of training topics will increase the
effectiveness of upcoming trainings of LEAs 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 FFY 2009 and FFY 2010.
This has to do, in part, with the cohort model used and the method of sampling within local school
districts. 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 impact 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
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 learnings 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. In collaboration with MEEC, 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 analysis
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.
48
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2006
(2006-2007)
N/A
2007
(2007-2008)
N/A
2008
(2008-2009)
Baseline
2009
(2009-2010)
2010
(2010-2011)
Outcome A
Outcome B
Summary Statement 1 66%
Summary Statement 2 51%
Summary Statement 1
Summary Statement 2
Outcome A
Outcome B
Outcome C
Summary Statement 1
67%
Summary Statement 2 51.5%
Summary Statement 1 65.5%
Summary Statement 2 53.5%
Summary Statement 1
Summary Statement 2
Outcome A
Outcome B
Outcome C
Summary Statement 1
Summary Statement 2
67%
52%
Summary Statement 1
Summary Statement 2
Outcome C
65%
53%
66%
54%
Summary Statement 1
Summary Statement 2
Summary Statement 1
Summary Statement 2
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2010
Improvement Activity
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(Impacts All Indicators)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2006 - 2010
Training on Data Collection Activities
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time, LEA staff time
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.
2006 - 2010
Technical Assistance and Support
Districts in each cohort will receive ongoing
technical assistance and support related to
entry and progress/exit data collection activities.
49
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time, LEA staff time
68%
62%
68.25%
62.25%
68.5%
62.5%
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2009-2010
Improvement Activity
Assessment Institute
Revised February 1, 2010
Resources
MEEC staff time, LEA staff
time
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.
2009-2010
Data Analysis – Introduction of Variables
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time
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.
Note: States are not required to report on Indicator 7 in the FFY 2008 Annual Performance Report
(MA APR).
50
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
Indicator 8: Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools
facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities.
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.
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:
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’ ages 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 LEAs 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/2006/0522idea.html.
At least initially, MASSDE contracts with an external organization 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. We
currently contract with ORC 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
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 FFY 2005 (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
51
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Discussion of Baseline Data:
In combining the pilot and fall survey rounds, parents in a total of 97 LEAs 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 (question #4 on our survey). 85% of all surveyed parents agreed with this item.
2. Teachers and administrators encourage me to participate in the decision-making process
(question #16 on our survey). 80% of all surveyed parents agreed with this item.
3. Teachers are available to speak with me (question #11 on our survey). 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.
The MASSDE Steering Committee and the stakeholder group for this Indicator were unanimous in
recommending modest targets as we introduce this survey to Massachusetts parents.
52
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2006
(2006-2007)
76% (of parents agree with more than half of the survey items)
2007
(2007-2008)
76%
2008
(2008-2009)
76%
2009
(2009-2010)
78%
2010
(2010-2011)
80%
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Please note that some of the activities presented below impact across multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2007
Improvement Activity
Project FOCUS Academy
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
13, 14)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(Impacts All Indicators)
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), LEA
staff time
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Special Education Website
(Impacts All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Special Education Leadership Academies
and Seminars
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 11)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
53
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2010
Improvement Activity
Special Education Summer Institutes
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
11, 13, 14)
Revised February 1, 2010
Resources
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Collaboration with Federation for Children
with Special Needs
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5,13)
MASSDE staff time, FCSN
staff time
See Appendix A for complete description.
2006 - 2010
Technical Assistance to LEAs
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will provide technical assistance to
LEAs regarding survey results, including
guidance documents and teleconference to
assist districts in interpreting and utilizing their
results.
2007 - 2010
Massachusetts FOCUS Academy
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
13, 14)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008
National Center for Special Education
Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM)
Training for LEAs
MASSDE staff time, grant
partners (Federation for
Children with Special Needs,
Center for Applied Special
Technologies, Institute for
Community Inclusion at
UMass-Boston), LEA staff
time
MASSDE staff time,
NCSEAM trainers
MASSDE will host trainers from NCSEAM to
provide technical assistance on the use of
NCSEAM training modules to districts from
across the state.
2007-2008
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
(Impacts All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2007-2008
Massachusetts Online Resource Library
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
13, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
Summit
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3)
See Appendix A for a complete description
54
MASSDE staff time
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:
Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality
Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality
Indicator 9: Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special
education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification.
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”:
Massachusetts defines “disproportionate representation” using a calculation of weighted or alternate
risk ratio and a review of the appropriateness of a district’s policies and procedures for identifying
students as disabled.
MASSDE calculates a weighted or alternate risk ratio for each school district using the techniques
described in detail in Westat’s “Methods for Assessing Racial/Ethnic Disproportionality in Special
Education” (http://www.nichcy.org/training/B-resources.pdf). The state uses a minimum cell size of
20 for each race/ethnic group in every district. Cells less than 20 are individually reviewed to see if
data irregularities for specific racial and ethnic groups in these districts would suggest
disproportionate representation due to inappropriate identification. Once the calculation is made for
each district, the weighted risk ratios are compared to the two previous years’ weighted risk ratios.
Districts are flagged if for 3 consecutive years, they exhibit a weighted risk ratio of 3.0 or greater for
possible over-representation, and of 25 or less for possible under-representation.
All districts identified by way of 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:
Any district identified using the measurement techniques described above submitted their current
PPPs to MASSDE where they were reviewed by a committee of policy analysts and compliance
specialists. If the committee concluded that the PPPs were inappropriate or otherwise inconsistent
with federal and state regulations, and concluded that the PPPs likely caused the disproportionate
representation at least to some degree, then a district was identified as having disproportionate
representation due to inappropriate identification.
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:
Past monitoring for disproportionality through the CPR system:
PQA has used Coordinated Program Reviews (CPRs) to monitor for disproportionality in the
representation of racial/ethnic minority students in special education 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 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, among others).
55
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Up through FFY 2005, 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
CPRs and MCRs PQA issues a public report of the team’s findings in the school or district.
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 one-sixth 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 FFY 2005 submission.
Starting in FFY 2005, 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 it will
use 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.
Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005-2006):
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%.
Discussion of Baseline Data:
Calculating the weighted risk ratios for FFY 2005 over-representation produced zero districts that met the
criteria of three consecutive years of a WRR of 3.0 or higher. In terms of FFY 2005 under-representation,
the calculation yielded zero districts with a WRR of .25 or lower for three consecutive years.
56
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2005
(2005-2006)
0%
2006
(2006-2007)
0%
2007
(2007-2008)
0%
2008
(2008-2009)
0%
2009
(2009-2010)
0%
2010
(2010-2011)
0%
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2010
Improvement Activity
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(Impacts All Indicators)
Resources
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2007 - 2010
Online Resources Relating to
Disproportionality
MASSDE staff time, national
technical assistance
providers
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 a
research report that MASSDE will publish on the
state of disproportionality in Massachusetts.
The research report will examine national
trends, examine Massachusetts’ trends, and
provide the MASSDE with a contextual
framework through which it can improve its
assistance to districts and students.
57
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2008
Improvement Activity
Technical Assistance Summer Institute
Research
Revised February 1, 2010
Resources
MASSDE staff time, national
technical assistance
providers
MASSDE will explore possibility of a technical
assistance summer institute for Massachusetts
charter schools and districts on the subject of
disproportionality and understanding data
relevant to it.
2008 - 2010
Self-Assessment Tool for LEAs
MASSDE will develop a self-assessment tool for
districts that are ‘flagged’ for potential
disproportionality. Districts will use the selfassessment tool to examine their own policies
and procedures regarding special education
eligibility and disability definition.
58
MASSDE staff time, national
technical assistance
providers, LEA staff time
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:
Revised February 1, 2010
Indicator #10: Disproportionality –
Eligibility Category
Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality
Indicator 10: Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in
specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.
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 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 detail in Westat’s “Methods for Assessing Racial/Ethnic Disproportionality in Special
Education” (http://www.nichcy.org/training/B-resources.pdf). The state uses a minimum cell size of
10 for each racial/ethnic disability group in every district. Cells less than 10 are individually reviewed
to see if data irregularities for specific racial and ethnic groups in these districts would suggest
disproportionate representation due to inappropriate identification. Once the calculation is made for
each district, the weighted risk ratios are compared to the two previous years’ weighted risk ratios.
Districts are flagged if for 3 consecutive years, they exhibit a weighted risk ratio of 4.0 or greater for
possible over-representation, and of .20 or less for possible under-representation.
All districts identified by way of this quantitative analysis are then subject to a review of the
appropriateness of their policies, practices, and procedures (PPPs) for special education eligibility
determination and disability identification.
Description of determination that disproportionate representation is due to inappropriate
identification:
Districts identified using the measurement techniques described above submitted their current PPPs
to the MASSDE (or MASSDE verified recent compliance information/reviews) where the PPPs were
reviewed by a committee of policy analysts and compliance specialists. If the committee concluded
that the PPPs were inappropriate or otherwise inconsistent with federal and state regulations, and
concluded that the PPPs likely caused the disproportionate representation at least to some degree,
then a district was identified as having disproportionate representation due to inappropriate
identification.
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:
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, 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.
59
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005-2006):
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%.
Discussion of Baseline Data:
Calculating the weighted risk ratios for FFY 2005 over-representation produced seven districts that met
the criteria of three consecutive years of a WRR of 4.0 or higher. Using the existing PPP information from
recent Coordinated Program Reviews and Mid-Cycle Coordinated Program Reviews, MASSDE
determined that none of these districts had inappropriate special education identification procedures.
In terms of FFY 2005 under-representation, the calculation yielded 11 districts with a WRR of .20 or lower
for three consecutive years. Using the existing PPP information from recent Coordinated Program
Reviews and Mid-Cycle Coordinated Program Reviews, MASSDE determined that none of these districts
had inappropriate special education identification procedures.
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2005
(2005-2006)
0%
2006
(2006-2007)
0%
2007
(2007-2008)
0%
2008
(2008-2009)
0%
2009
(2009-2010)
0%
2010
(2010-2011)
0%
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2010
Improvement Activity
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(Impacts All Indicators)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
60
Resources
MASSDE staff time
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2007 - 2010
Improvement Activity
Online Resources Relating to
Disproportionality
Revised February 1, 2010
Resources
MASSDE staff time, national
technical assistance
providers
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 a
research report that MASSDE will publish on the
state of disproportionality in Massachusetts.
The research report will examine national
trends, examine Massachusetts’ trends, and
provide the MASSDE with a contextual
framework through which it can improve its
assistance to districts and students.
2008
Technical Assistance Summer Institute
Research
MASSDE staff time, national
technical assistance
providers
MASSDE will explore possibility of a technical
assistance summer institute for Massachusetts
charter schools and districts on the subject of
disproportionality and understanding data
relevant to it.
2008 - 2010
Self-Assessment Tool for LEAs
MASSDE will develop a self-assessment tool for
districts that are ‘flagged’ for potential
disproportionality. Districts will use the selfassessment tool to examine their own policies
and procedures regarding special education
eligibility and disability definition.
61
MASSDE staff time, national
technical assistance
providers, LEA staff time
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:
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.
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:
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 includes 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 determination 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 LEAs 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 (2005-06 through 2008-09). 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/2006/0522idea.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
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.
62
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
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
% of students with parental consent to evaluate, who were evaluated within the State
established timeline: 88.5% =(952+1498)/2768 * 100
Discussion of Baseline Data:
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 district’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. As this is a “compliance” indicator, the targets are not within
MASSDE’s capacity to set and are automatically set at 100%.
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2006
(2006-2007)
100%
2007
(2007-2008)
100%
2008
(2008-2009)
100%
2009
(2009-2010)
100%
2010
(2010-2011)
100%
63
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Please note that many of the activities presented below impact across multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2008
Improvement Activity
Special Education Program Improvement
Grants – Fund Code 274
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 4, 5)
Resources
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(Impacts All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Special Education Leadership Academies
and Seminars
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 8)
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Special Education Summer Institutes
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
8, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Comprehensive System of Personnel
Development Training Project
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, CSPD
trainer time, CSPD district
staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Special Education Website
(Impacts All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2006 - 2010
Data Collection and Analysis
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will continue to review and refine data
collection instruments to collect more detailed
information from districts including barriers to
meeting State established timelines. MASSDE
will analyze reasons for any non-compliance
and barriers to timely correction on an on-going
basis.
64
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2007 - 2010
Improvement Activity
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.
2007 - 2010
Self-Assessment Tool for LEAs
Revised February 1, 2010
Resources
MASSDE staff time, CSPD
trainer time, CSPD district
staff time
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time
MASSDE will develop a self-assessment tool for
LEAs to self-identify barriers impeding their
capacity to meet State established timelines.
2007 - 2008
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
(Impacts All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Revision of “Ten Step Guide for
Comprehensive Educational Assessment of
Students with Visual Impairments”
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 6, 13)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
65
MASSDE staff time,
stakeholder groups
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:
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.
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:
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 3rd birthday. The Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care (MEEC),
through an ISA with MASSDE, distributes its 619 funds to all LEAs through a grant process. In 2004-05,
the grant application asked districts to provide statistical information by asking the following questions:
1. Number of children referred from Early Intervention (EI) during FY2005.
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 3rd birthday _____
b. on their 3rd birthday*
c.
after their 3rd 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 we 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. We did not ask how many days after they turn three did services start.
66
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005):
Based on 249 grants (out of 273 possible applicants -- 91%) received and processed to date (as of
11/08/05):



5,938 children were referred from EI in 2004-05
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 3rd birthday
o 3,141 (72%) received services on their 3rd birthday
o 991 (23%) received services after their 3rd birthday
% 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: 77%
Discussion of Baseline Data:
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 child’s third birthday, school districts gave reasons described within
the definition of “on their third birthday” under the asterisk implying districts may not have read the
question fully. For example, of the 249 grants received, 124 reported at least one child served after their
third birthday. A random sample of one-third of the 124 grants 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% parent related delays (parent refused services, was late returning required forms, postponed
Team meeting)
 7% district related delays (staffing, caseload)
 17% EI or other agency delays
 24% other reasons (medical condition of child, inclement weather, new coordinator, lack of
capacity)
 22% did not respond to question
In 29 districts, it was one student that failed to receive services on or before turning three. 63 districts
reported between two and nine eligible children receiving services after they turned three. 18 districts
reported between 10-20 eligible children; and seven districts reported between 21-29; the remaining
seven reported between 30-93 eligible children receive 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 after turning three).
67
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2005
(2005-2006)
100%
2006
(2006-2007)
100%
2007
(2007-2008)
100%
2008
(2008-2009)
100%
2009
(2009-2010)
100%
2010
(2010-2011)
100%
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Timelines
(FFY)
2005
Improvement Activity
GSEG Application to Develop Data Sharing
System
Resources
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time, DPH staff time
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.
2005
Update Interagency Agreement
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time
MEEC and MASSDE will update interagency
agreement around early childhood transition
requirements under IDEA.
2005 - 2010
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(Impacts All Indicators)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
68
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2010
Improvement Activity
Data Collection and Analysis
Revised February 1, 2010
Resources
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time
MEEC and MASSDE will review and refine data
collection instruments on an on-going basis to
collect more detailed information from districts.
MEEC will analyze reasons for any noncompliance and barriers to timely compliance
on an on-going basis. Starting in FFY 2009,
MEEC and MASSDE will align data collection
practices with the cohort model used by
MASSDE to collect data for other early
childhood indicators.
2005 - 2010
Technical Assistance and Support
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time, LEA staff time
MEEC and MASSDE will provide on-going
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.
2005 - 2010
District Compliance Monitoring
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time, LEA staff time
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).
2008-2010
Procedures for Verification of Correction of
Noncompliance
MEEC and MASSDE will review and revise
procedures for notifying districts of
noncompliance and verifying correction of
noncompliance, in accordance with OSEP
Memorandum 09-02.
69
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition
Indicator 13: Percent of youth aged 16 and above with transition planning that includes coordinated
goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student meet his/her post-secondary goals in
the identified areas.
Indicator #13: Secondary Transition
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Measurement: Percent = [(# of youth with disabilities aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes
coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the
student meet the post-secondary goals) divided by the (# of youth with an IEP age 16 and above)]
times 100.
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:
In order to obtain student-level data, MASSDE required each district selected for this monitoring activity to
collect information on a representative sample of students aged 16-21 with IEPs. The sample student
files were reviewed for evidence of full transition planning discussions.
A review sheet allowed districts to assess a student record for evidence of appropriate transition planning.
Evidence of transition planning that includes coordinated annual goals and transition services that will
reasonably enable the student to meet his/her post-secondary goals in the identified areas resulted in a
finding of appropriate transition planning for the student record being reviewed. Appropriate evidence
included the completion of a MASSDE Transition Planning Chart (documenting full transition planning
discussion), or a record review (with appropriate IEP documentation) indicating an appropriate transition
planning discussion. If such documentation was not found in the student record or IEP, then the student
was not considered to have received appropriate transition planning. Districts were encouraged to
provide optional comments detailing any aspect of the student’s transition plan.
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 will collect and report data on this indicator based on
a four-year cycle (2005-06 through 2008-09). This cohort model and plan for data collection was
approved by OSEP 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/2006/0522idea.html.
Districts with 30 or fewer students with IEPs aged 16-21 reviewed all records, and districts with 30 to 150
students with IEPs aged 16-21 selected and reviewed 30 records that the district considered reasonably
representative across disabilities, ages and special education placements. In order to ensure a
representative selection of students, districts with 150 students or more with IEPs aged 16-21 received a
pre-selected list of 30 students generated by the Student Information Management Systems (SIMS) for
the record review process. Districts with only elementary school aged students did not collect data.
Following a pilot in the spring, districts were informed of the data collection process in June and again in
October via mailed and electronic correspondence. Districts were encouraged to review and use the
Massachusetts Transition Planning Chart to inform and document the discussion in detail. A record
review form was developed along with informational letters detailing how to collect data. A spreadsheet
for the recording of information was created and accessible to districts through the MASSDE Security
Portal and uploaded to MASSDE via the Security Portal once completed. Members of a district’s Special
Education department assessed student records for transition planning for evidence of coordinated
annual goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet his/her postsecondary goals in the identified areas and completed review sheets. Information from these sheets was
transferred to the spreadsheet and submitted to MASSDE via the Security Portal. The MASSDE data
group analyzed spreadsheet data.
70
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005-2006):
# of Student
Records
reviewed
1,901
# of Student Records with
transition planning that
included coordinated annual
goals and transition services
1,592
2005-06 Percentage of
student records in
compliance
83.8%
Discussion of Baseline Data:
The data indicate that of the 1,901 student records reviewed from 2005-06, almost 84% include transition
planning that includes coordinated annual goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the
student to meet his/her post-secondary goals in the identified areas. Although this is a reasonably high
percentage, this is a compliance indicator and Massachusetts takes seriously the importance of
appropriate transition planning. To that end, you will see in our improvement activities the decision to
issue a Transition Planning Chart that will be used as a mandated form and will be required for each
student eligible for transition planning in Massachusetts.
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2006
(2006-2007)
100%
2007
(2007-2008)
100%
2008
(2008-2009)
100%
2009
(2009-2010)
100%
2010
(2010-2011)
100%
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Please note that many of the activities presented below impact across multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.
71
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2007
Improvement Activity
Project FOCUS Academy
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8,
14)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(Impacts All Indicators)
Revised February 1, 2010
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), LEA
staff time
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
2005 - 2010
Comprehensive System of Personnel
Development Training Project (CSPD)
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 11, 14)
See Appendix A for a complete description
.
Special Education Summer Institutes
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
8, 11, 14)
MASSDE staff time, CSPD
trainer time, CSPD district
staff time
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Special Education Website
(Impacts All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
National Association of State Directors of
Special Education (NASDSE) Satellite Series
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 3, 5, 6, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2006 - 2010
Massachusetts Transition Planning Form
(TPF 28M/9)
MASSDE staff time, CSPD
trainers, LEA staff time
MASSDE will revise existing Transition Planning
Chart in order to develop the mandated
Massachusetts Transition Planning Form (TPF
28M/9). On-going training and technical
assistance will be available to districts on the
use of the TPF.
2006 - 2010
Inclusive Concurrent Enrollment Partnership
Program for Students with Disabilities
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 5, 14)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
72
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time, technical assistance
providers
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2007 - 2010
Improvement Activity
Massachusetts FOCUS Academy
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8,
14)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008
Passage of Chapter 285 of the Acts of 2008 –
Change in Transition Planning Age to 14
Years Old
Revised February 1, 2010
Resources
MASSDE staff time, grant
partners (Federation for
Children with Special Needs,
Center for Applied Special
Technologies, Institute for
Community Inclusion at
UMass-Boston), LEA staff
time
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time
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, Massachusetts 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). To support LEAs
in the implementation of the new age
requirement, MASSDE will develop a training
module on the transition planning process that
schools may use to assist staff in understanding
this process.
2007 - 2008
Massachusetts Online Resource Library
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
8, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description
2007 - 2008
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
(Impacts All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Collaboration with Federation for Children
with Special Needs
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 8 )
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Community/Residential Education Project –
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 5, 14)
MASSDE staff time, DDS
staff time, LEA staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Educational Proficiency Plans
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 14 )
See Appendix A for a complete description.
73
MASSDE staff time
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 - 2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Improvement Activity
Resources
Secondary Transition – TransitionWorks:
Innovative Strategies for Transitioning Youth
with Disabilities from School to Work
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 14 )
MASSDE staff time,
Massachusetts Rehabilitation
Commission staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Work-Based Learning Plans for Students
with Disabilities,
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 14)
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time, Workforce Development
staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
District and School Assistance Centers
(DSAC)
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 3, 5)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Special Education Program Improvement
Grants – Fund Code 249
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 4, 5)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Revision of “Ten Step Guide for
Comprehensive Educational Assessment of
Students with Visual Impairments”
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 6, 11)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
74
MASSDE staff time, Vision
Impairment Disability
Workgroup time
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition
Indicator 14: Percent of youth who had IEPs, are no longer in secondary school and who have been
competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within one year of
leaving high school.
Indicator #14: Post-School Outcomes
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Measurement: 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.
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:
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, students with
disabilities who exited high school within the 2005-06 school year were surveyed regarding the students’
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 who
participate 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 this
indicator.
Definitions
MASSDE defines exiters as students with disabilities who graduated high school with a diploma or a
certificate of attainment, aged out of special education, or dropped out of high school.
MASSDE adopts the competitive employment definition stated under the Rehabilitation Act: “Competitive
employment means work- (i) In the competitive labor market that is performed on a full-time or part-time
basis in an integrated setting; and (ii) For which an individual is compensated at or above the minimum
wage, but not less than the customary wage and level of benefits paid by the employer for the same or
similar work performed by individuals who are not disabled”. (Authority: Sections 7(11) and 12(c) of the
Act; 29 U.S.C. 705(11) and 709(c)) MASSDE recognizes full-time military service and supported
employment positions as competitive employment. MASSDE defines part-time employment as
employment that is less than thirty-five hours per week, and defines full-time employment as employment
that is thirty-five or more hours per week.
MASSDE defines postsecondary school enrollment as full-time or part-time enrollment in the following
types of programs: a technical school, a vocational school, a two-year college or university, and a fouryear college or university. MASSDE allows the definition of full-time and part-time enrollment to be
dictated by postsecondary school program descriptions.
Cohort Model
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 will collect and report data on this indicator based on
a four-year cycle (2005-06 through 2008-09). This cohort model and plan for data collection was
approved by OSEP. Over a four-year period, every district in the state will have participated in the data
collection activities for this indicator. Because it has an average daily membership of over 50,000
students, Boston participates in all activities every year. Further information on the cohort model can be
found at: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/datacollection.html.
Over this four-year period, every district in the state will collect contact information for exiting students
with disabilities and survey the students in the following spring. The first cohort of districts collected
contact information for exiting students with disabilities in the spring of 2006, and surveyed the students in
75
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
the spring of 2007. This cohort consists of 71 districts with a total of 2,610 exited students with
disabilities. The second cohort of districts collected contact information for exiting students with
disabilities in the spring of 2007 and will survey the students in 2008. The final two cohorts will collect
contact information for exiting students with disabilities in the spring of 2008 and survey the students in
2009.
Data Collection Protocol
MASSDE created a two-step data collection protocol to assist districts with data collection for this
indicator. The year before districts survey exiting students with disabilities, districts collect student
contact information for use during the survey process. MASSDE notifies districts of their responsibility to
collect student contact information via mailed and electronic correspondence. MASSDE provides an
optional Student Contact Information Form for districts’ use and provides technical assistance regarding
the districts’ responsibility to collect student contact information.
The following year, the same districts utilize the “Post-Secondary Outcomes Survey” instrument to collect
data on the postsecondary activities students with disabilities participate in within one year of leaving high
school. MASSDE notifies districts of their responsibility to conduct the survey via mailed and electronic
correspondence. MASSDE provides the “Post-Secondary Outcomes Survey” instrument for districts’ use
and provides technical assistance regarding the districts’ responsibility to complete the data collection
activity.
District personnel administer the “Post-Secondary Outcomes Survey” instrument. Districts choose the
data collection method utilized (i.e.) mailings, telephone surveys and the personnel responsible for
completing the data collection activity. MASSDE asks districts to complete the data collection activity
between April and mid-July. Districts upload the respondents’ answers to the survey questions directly to
the MASSDE, using a spreadsheet accessible to districts through the MASSDE Security Portal.
MASSDE then completes an aggregate data collection and analysis. This year, MASSDE utilized the
results from the data analysis to calculate the baseline percentage and to establish the targets and
improvement activities listed below.
In addition to the use of the “Postsecondary Outcomes Survey” instrument, MASSDE coordinated data
collection for this indicator with the existing 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) program. This year, MASSDE captured the data from the CVTE follow-up survey for students with
disabilities who exited from CVTE programs within the 2005-2006 school year.
Survey Instrument
MASSDE created the “Post-Secondary Outcomes Survey” instrument, in collaboration with the statewide
Transition Taskforce Workgroup and through participation in the Post-School Outcomes Community of
Practice, to collect and record data on the activities students with disabilities participate in within one year
of leaving high school. The survey consists 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. The survey allows respondents to provide a short written description of a postsecondary program
not listed on the survey instrument. Additionally, the survey instrument asks respondents to provide
details about their employment status, such as employment setting and hours per week of employment.
Please see Appendix C for the Massachusetts Post-School Outcomes Survey.
76
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Baseline Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007):
Number of
Students
with
Disabilities in
the cohort
who exited
high school
(2005-06
school year)
2,610
Number of
Students
Contacted
Percentage
of Students
Contacted
Number of
Respondents
Percentage
of
Respondents
Response
Rate
2,015
77%
1,028
51%
39%
Number of
Respondents
who have
been
competitively
employed
Number of
Respondents who
have been
enrolled in
postsecondary
education
316
177
Number of
Respondents who
have been enrolled
in postsecondary
education and
competitively
employed
461
Percentage of Respondents
who have been competitively
employed and/or enrolled in
postsecondary education
93%
Discussion of Baseline Data:
The data indicate that of the 1,028 respondents to the “Post-Secondary Outcomes Survey” instrument,
93% of the respondents have been competitively employed, enrolled in postsecondary education, or both
competitively employed and enrolled in postsecondary education within one year of leaving high school.
31% of the respondents have been competitively employed within one year of leaving high school. 17%
of the respondents have been enrolled in postsecondary education within one year of leaving high school.
45% of the respondents have been competitively employed and enrolled in postsecondary education
within one year of leaving high school.
Overall, districts in this first cohort contacted 77% of the students with disabilities who exited high school
within the 2005-2006 school year. Over 50% of the students contacted completed the “Post-Secondary
Outcomes Survey” instrument. The response rate of all exiting students with disabilities was 39%. While
the response rate was 39%, respondents to the “Post-Secondary Outcomes Survey” appear to be
representative of the students with disabilities who exited high school within the 2005-2006 school year.
MASSDE compared the validity of the respondents reported by districts to the SIMS database. The
respondents reported by districts are an appropriate representation of students with disabilities who
exited high school within the 2005-2006 school year with regards to various factors such as race and
ethnicity, gender, disability, level of need, and program placement. Therefore, the respondents appear to
represent the target population of students with disabilities who exited high school within the 2005-2006
school year.
Nonetheless, MASSDE recognizes some exiter subgroups may not be as well represented as others in
this first data collection and, thus, the validity of the respondent group may be affected somewhat. For
example, exiters who are not satisfied with their postsecondary activities may have been less likely to
participate in a survey about postsecondary activities because of their dissatisfaction. In another
example, students with disabilities who dropped out of high school may not be adequately represented in
this first data collection because districts may have had difficulty contacting these students if districts did
not have updated student contact information upon the students’ departures. Therefore, the
representativeness of the respondents may be affected somewhat.
Additionally, four districts in the cohort did not administer the “Post-Secondary Outcomes Survey”
instrument. The missing data also affects the representativeness of the respondents somewhat. The four
districts have been reassigned to the cohorts completing the student contact information activity in spring
2008 and will survey these students in spring 2009.
MASSDE intends to review and revise the data collection protocol as necessary to assist districts in
contacting a higher percentage of students with disabilities who exited high school to ensure the validity
of the respondent group. For example, MASSDE will evaluate whether we should provide additional
77
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
guidelines to districts regarding the choice of a data collection method in order to increase the number of
students with disabilities who exited high school districts contact to complete the “Post-Secondary
Outcomes Survey.”. An increase in the number of students with disabilities who exited high school that
districts contact to complete the “Post-Secondary Outcomes Survey” will increase the number of
respondents to the “Post-Secondary Outcomes Survey” and, thus, improve the response rate and the
participation of all exiter subgroups in the data collection activity.
Review of Data Collection Protocol
Currently, MASSDE is reviewing carefully this first data collection to determine whether changes to the
data collection protocol are necessary to increase the overall response rate and to increase the
participation of all exiter subgroups in the data collection activity. For example, the CVTE follow-up
survey only collects data from students who graduated from high school. The survey audience does not
include students with disabilities involved in vocational/technical programs who aged out of their special
education programs or who dropped out of high school. Therefore, MASSDE will evaluate how better to
capture data from students with disabilities involved in vocational/technical programs in order to increase
the participation of all exiter subgroups in the survey process.
Additionally, the CVTE follow-up survey only collects data on the activities students are completing at the
time of the survey. The CVTE follow-up survey does not account for any previous competitive
employment and/or postsecondary education students completed earlier in the year. Therefore,
MASSDE will evaluate how better to capture data from students with disabilities involved in
vocational/technical programs in order to illustrate the students’ postsecondary activities more
comprehensively, accounting for present and previous student involvement in competitive employment
and postsecondary education within one year of leaving high school.
MASSDE will also evaluate the data collection protocol to determine its ease of use for districts
completing the data collection activity. MASSDE received feedback from the first cohort of districts to
complete the data collection activity for this indicator and will review the data collection protocol for any
necessary changes. For example, MASSDE will clarify for districts which district is responsible for
completing the data collection activity in a situation where one district sends its students to a high school
in another district. Furthermore, MASSDE will evaluate whether MASSDE should provide additional
guidelines to districts regarding the choice of a data collection method in order to improve ease of use, to
increase the overall response rate, and to increase the participation of all exiter subgroups in the data
collection activity.
The targets listed below were developed using the FFY 2006 baseline data of 93%, which is the
percentage of students with disabilities who have been competitively employed, enrolled in
postsecondary education, or both competitively employed and enrolled in postsecondary education within
one year of leaving high school.
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2007
(2007-2008)
93%
2008
(2008-2009)
93%
2009
(2009-2010)
94%
2010
(2010-2011)
95%
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Please note that many of the activities presented below impact across multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.
78
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2007
Improvement Activity
Project FOCUS Academy
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8,
13)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Secondary School Reading Grant
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3 5)
Revised February 1, 2010
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), LEA
staff time
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(Impacts All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Comprehensive System of Personnel
Development Training Project (CSPD)
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 11, 13)
MASSDE staff time, CSPD
trainer time, CSPD district
staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
National Association of State Directors of
Special Education (NASDSE) Satellite Series
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 3, 5, 6, 13)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Special Education Summer Institutes
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
8, 11, 13)
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Special Education Website
(Impacts All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Community/Residential Education Project –
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 5, 13)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
79
MASSDE staff time, DDS
staff time, LEA staff time
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2006 - 2010
Improvement Activity
Data Analysis
Revised February 1, 2010
Resources
MASSDE staff time
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.
2006 - 2010
Survey Protocol Evaluation and
Data Collection Technical Assistance
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time
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 Post-Secondary Outcomes Survey and
to establish a plan to complete the postsecondary outcomes data collection activity and
reporting.
2006 - 2010
Inclusive Concurrent Enrollment Partnership
Program for Students with Disabilities
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 5, 13)
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time, technical assistance
providers
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Educational Proficiency Plans (EPP) –
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2 ,3, 13)
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2007 - 2010
Massachusetts FOCUS Academy
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8,
13)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Secondary Transition - Transition Works:
Innovative Strategies for Transitioning Youth
with Disabilities from School to Work –
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 13)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
80
MASSDE staff time, grant
partners (Federation for
Children with Special Needs,
Center for Applied Special
Technologies, Institute for
Community Inclusion at
UMass-Boston), LEA staff
time
MASSDE staff time, MRC
staff time, grant partners
(Federation for Children with
Special Needs, Institute for
Community Inclusion at
UMass-Boston), LEA staff
time
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 - 2010
Improvement Activity
Graduation and Dropout Prevention and
Recovery Commission
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2)
Revised February 1, 2010
Resources
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Dropout Prevention and Recovery Work
Group
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 4)
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Dropout Prevention, Intervention, and
Recovery Website
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2007 - 2008
Massachusetts Online Resource Library
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
8, 13)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2007 - 2008
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
(Impacts All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Work-Based Learning Plans for Students
with Disabilities,
(Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 13)
See Appendix A for a complete description.
81
MASSDE staff time, LEA staff
time, Workforce Development
staff time
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:
Effective General Supervision / General Supervision
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision
Indicator 15: General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) identifies and
corrects noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification.
Indicator #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.
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:
Monitoring by Program Quality Assurance Services:
(For further information, see:
1. Coordinated Program Review Procedures: School District Information Package: Special
Education: School Year 2005-2006 at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/cpr/instrument/sped.doc; and
2. Coordinated Program Review: Mid-Cycle Review: Information Package on Corrective Action Plan
Verification Procedures: School Year 2005-2006 at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/cpr/midcycle_infopk.doc.)
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 six-year 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 school on multiple compliance standards (“criteria”) in
the areas reviewed, including over 606 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
6
Though for 2005-06 the last criterion 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.
82
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
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 2005-06 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 present 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 MidCycle 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).
Program Quality Assurance Services’ Problem Resolution System (complaint resolution system):
For a description of PQA’s Problem Resolution System, please see http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/prs/.
Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005):
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 through 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 FFY 2004 (School Year 2004-05) 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
83
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
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 D 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 2001-02 and had an MCR in 2004-05 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. # of findings of noncompliance made in the 2001-02 CPR: 560
b. of the 560 findings from the 2001-02 CPR, 380 were no longer present at the 2004-05 MCR;
therefore, we consider the findings corrected and sustained: 380
% of noncompliance corrected and sustained: 68%
*Note: See Appendix D: Correction of Noncompliance Data for additional detail.
Indicator 15C:
a. # of agencies in which noncompliance was identified through other mechanisms: 95
b. # of findings of noncompliance made: 206
c. # of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification:
206
% of noncompliance identified through other mechanisms (complaints, due process
hearings, mediations, etc.) corrected within one year of identification: 100%
Discussion of Baseline Data:
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 2004-05 was corrected within one
year of identification.
84
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Measurable and Rigorous Target
FFY
2005
Revised February 1, 2010
% 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%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
(2005-2006)
2006
(2006-2007)
2007
(2007-2008)
2008
(2008-2009)
2009
(2009-2010)
2010
(2010-2011)
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Timelines
(FFY)
2005
Improvement Activity
Study of Reorganization
Resources
MASSDE staff time
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).
2005 - 2009
Electronic CAP/Progress Report System
Plan, pilot and implement an electronic system
of corrective action plans and progress reports
85
MASSDE staff time
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2010
Improvement Activity
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(Impacts All Indicators)
Revised February 1, 2010
Resources
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Communication About Required One-Year
Correction
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will inform districts and train PQA staff
regarding this requirement.
2005 - 2010
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
2006 - 2010
Web-based Monitoring System
MASSDE staff time, OSEP
technical assistance,
stakeholders
MASSDE staff time,
contracted providers
MASSDE will plan and implement web-based
monitoring system emphasizing selfassessment by districts.
2007
Reorganization
MASSDE staff time
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.
2007
Purchase and Use of Additional Software
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will purchase and implement software
(Crystal Reports) to produce reports on
complaints.
2007
Hiring of Staff Trainer
MASSDE will hire staff trainer to train monitoring
teams.
MASSDE staff time
2007 - 2008
Software Upgrade
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will plan upgrade from current
software used for tracking complaints and
complaint resolution.
86
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision
Indicator 16: Percent of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within 60-day
timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint, 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.
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:
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/.
Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005):
(162 reports within timeline + 16 reports within extended timelines)/258
complaints with reports issued x 100 = 69%
Discussion of Baseline Data:
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 2004-05 from 82% (252/308)
in 2003-04. 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.

83% of signed written complaints with reports issued were resolved within the timeline or
extended timeline or within 1-6 days after it.

88% of signed written complaints with reports issued were resolved within the timeline or
extended timeline or within 1-10 days after it.
As indicated in the second paragraph of the section How Will the Department Address a Concern? in the
description of the Problem Resolution System located at http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/prs/, 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. (Oftentimes, the same district or
charter school delays 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 LEA carries out its responsibilities immediately. No matter how scrupulous PQA staff
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 2005-06 and beyond is
described under Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources below.
87
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2005
(2005-2006)
100%
2006
(2006-2007)
100%
2007
(2007-2008)
100%
2008
(2008-2009)
100%
2009
(2009-2010)
100%
2010
(2010-2011)
100%
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
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 2005-06 and every year hereafter will be 100% compliance with the timeline requirements
of 34 CFR § 300.661.
Timelines
(FFY)
2005
Improvement Activity
Software Modification
Resources
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will modify Remedy’s Action Request
System software, the software PQA uses to
track the resolution of complaints.
2005
Study of Reorganization
MASSDE staff time
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).
88
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2010
Improvement Activity
Internal Monitoring
Revised February 1, 2010
Resources
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will review and revise internal
monitoring procedures to ensure the timely
complaint resolution.
2005 - 2010
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(Impacts All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2006 - 2010
Analysis of Data
MASSDE staff time
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).
2006 - 2010
Web-based Monitoring System
MASSDE staff time,
contracted providers
MASSDE will plan and implement web-based
monitoring system.
2006 - 2010
Guidance on Extensions
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will provide guidance to PQA
complaint investigators on acceptable reasons
for extensions and proper duration of
extensions.
2007
Reorganization
MASSDE staff time
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.
2007
Purchase and Use of Additional Software
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will purchase and implement software
(Crystal Reports) to produce reports on
complaints.
2007 - 2008
Software Upgrade
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will plan upgrade from current
software used for tracking complaints and
complaint resolution.
2008
Consultation among Complaint Investigators
MASSDE will institute regular meetings of
complaint investigation staff to discuss issues
and will relocate all complaint investigators
together.
89
MASSDE staff time
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision
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.
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:
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.
Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005):
# of Hearings (fully adjudicated)
12
Decisions issued within 45-day timeline or a
timeline that is properly extended by the hearing
officer at the request of either party.
11*
% of fully adjudicated due process hearing
requests that were fully adjudicated within the 45day timeline or a timeline that is properly extended
by the hearing officer at the request of either party.
91.6%
*Note: The one decision that was outside the timeline was three days past the timeline.
Discussion of Baseline Data:
The data reveal that of the 2004-2005 hearing requests that were fully adjudicated during 2004-2005,
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.
90
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2005
(2005-2006)
100%
2006
(2006-2007)
100%
2007
(2007-2008)
100%
2008
(2008-2009)
100%
2009
(2009-2010)
100%
2010
(2010-2011)
100%
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Timelines
(FFY)
2005
Improvement Activity
Fill Staffing Vacancies
Resources
BSEA staff time
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.
2005 - 2010
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(Impacts All Indicators)
BSEA staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Revise Internal Procedures
BSEA staff time
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.
91
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision
Indicator 18: Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through
resolution session settlement agreements.
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.
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:
The 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 FFY 2005 (2005-2006): 48% (212/442)
Discussion of Baseline Data:
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) 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-noted number.
The Massachusetts Steering Committee, mindful of the quality of the data in this Indicator recommended
setting very modest targets.
92
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2005
(2005-2006)
48% (our baseline)
2006
(2006-2007)
48%
2007
(2007-2008)
48%
2008
(2008-2009)
49%
2009
(2009-2010)
50%
2010
(2010-2011)
50%
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2010
Improvement Activity
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(Impacts all Indicators)
Resources
BSEA staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2006 - 2010
Review Procedures
BSEA staff time
The BSEA will review procedures for closing
hearing requests and determine points at which
data might be gathered that is more reliable and
complete.
2006 - 2010
Implement New Data Collection Procedures
BSEA staff time
The BSEA will refine data procedures to more
effectively gather data for this indicator.
2006 - 2007
Summer Institute on Resolution Sessions
The BSEA will off a Summer Professional
Development Institute related to effective
Resolution Sessions.
93
BSEA staff time, contracted
trainer
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision
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.
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:
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.
Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005):
# of Mediations
660
# of Mediation Agreements
567
% of Mediations Held that Resulted in Mediation
Agreements
85.9%
Discussion of Baseline Data:
The data reveal that of the 660 mediations held during 2004-05, 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 2002-03, 79% of mediations resulted in mediation
agreements, as did 74% of the mediations in 2003-04.
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.
94
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2005
(2005-2006)
85.9%
2006
(2006-2007)
86%
2007
(2007-2008)
86%
2008
(2008-2009)
75% - 86%
2009
(2009-2010)
75% - 86%
2010
(2010-2011)
75% - 86%
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Timelines
(FFY)
2005
Improvement Activity
Fill Staffing Vacancies
Resources
BSEA staff time
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.
2005 - 2010
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(Impacts All Indicators)
BSEA staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2010
Training and Technical Assistance in Special
Education Mediations
The BSEA will receive training in special
education mediations on an on-going basis from
national and regional technical assistance
providers.
95
BSEA staff time, national
technical assistance
providers
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision
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.
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:
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.
96
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005):
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 F).
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 =
63
B. 618 Grand Total =
0
C. APR Grand Total (A) + 618 Grand Total (B) =
63
D. Subtotal (C divided by 119)* =
0.529
52.9%
E. Indicator Score (Subtotal (D) x 100) =
Discussion of Baseline Data:
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. We believe our compliance
with Table 1 and Table 3 will dramatically increase with our move from the December 1 to the October 1
collection. We also are hopeful the developing teacher database will help us provide timely and accurate
data for Table 2. We plan 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.
We 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 2004-05 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
2004-05 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 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.
97
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
FFY
Revised February 1, 2010
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2005
(2005-2006)
100%
2006
(2006-2007)
100%
2007
(2007-2008)
100%
2008
(2008-2009)
100%
2009
(2009-2010)
100%
2010
(2010-2011)
100%
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2010
Improvement Activity
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(Impacts All Indicators)
Resources
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 – 2010
Student Information Management System
(SIMS)
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will continue to implement studentlevel data collection procedures through SIMS.
MASSDE will review and revise components of
SIMS on an on-going basis in order to ensure
that data collected are valid, reliable, and timely.
2006 - 2010
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).
98
MASSDE staff time
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Appendices
Appendix A: Description of Selected Cross-Cutting Improvement Activities
Many of the MASSDE improvement activities are cross-cutting; they have an impact on multiple indicator
areas. The MA SPP Improvement Activity charts for each indicator list the activities that relate to that
particular indicator. Below is a more complete description of the cross-cutting activities.
Contents of Appendix A:
































ARRA Title II-D Technology Competitive Grants
Central Massachusetts Communities of Care Positive Behavioral Interventions (PBIS) Grant
Collaboration between MASSDE Curriculum and Instruction Math Office and Special Education
Planning and Policy Development Office (SEPP)
Collaboration with Federation for Children with Special Needs
Collaboration with Stakeholders
Community/Residential Education Project
Comprehensive System of Personnel Development Training Project (CSPD)
Curriculum and Instruction Summit
District and School Assistance Centers (DSAC)
Dropout Prevention and Recovery Workgroup
Dropout Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery Website
Educational Proficiency Plans (EPP)
Emergent Literacy Grant
Graduation and Dropout Prevention and Recovery Commission
Inclusive Concurrent Enrollment Partnership Programs for Students with Disabilities
Massachusetts FOCUS Academy
Massachusetts Online Resource Library
National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) Satellite Series
Project FOCUS Academy
Revision of “Is Special Education the Right Service?” (ISERS)
Revision of “Ten Step Guide for Comprehensive Educational Assessment of Students with Visual
Impairments”
Secondary School Reading Grant
Secondary Transition - TransitionWorks: Innovative Strategies for Transitioning Youth with
Disabilities from School to Work
Sign Language Video Resource Library
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
Special Education Leadership Academies and Seminars
Special Education Professional Development Summer Institutes
Special Education Program Improvement Grants – Fund Code 274
Special Education Program Improvement Grants – Fund Code 249
Special Education Website
Trauma Sensitive Schools Initiative
Work-Based Learning Plans for Students with Disabilities
ARRA Title II-D Technology Competitive Grants – MASSDE Student Support Services Unit
Indicators Impacted: 1, 2
The purpose of this two-year federal grant program is to improve student achievement through the effective
use of technology in elementary and secondary schools. This program will support proposals that create
robust, technology-infused environments that sustain the following four priority areas.
1. Projects that 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. Grant recipients may adapt an online course/module or partner with an
organization to design and develop the online courses/modules that align with the Massachusetts
Curriculum Frameworks or the Massachusetts High School Program of Studies (MassCore).
99
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Products created must be in a format that can be shared with MASSDE, and successful models will
be disseminated and used by other districts.
2. Projects that create effective technology-rich environments that support existing tiered-instruction in
English language arts and mathematics. The tiered-instruction may include all three levels: core
instruction, supplemental instruction, and intensive intervention on any one level.
3. Projects in which the grant recipients will work collaboratively with MASSDE’s partners (e.g., WGBH
Teachers' Domain, Verizon Thinkfinity) or other research-based successful models, to:
a. design, develop, and implement online professional development;
b. mentor participating teachers who are teaching in technology-rich classrooms;
c. support participating teachers to reflect and refine their teaching; and
d. select promising practices that integrate technology into curriculum and instruction.
4. Projects that use appropriate technology effectively to implement formative, benchmark, and
summative (MEPA) assessments, particularly in schools that have high number of English language
learners (ELL) students.
Central Massachusetts Communities of Care Positive Behavioral Interventions (PBIS) Grant
Indicators Impacted: 2, 4, 5
The purpose of this federal grant program is to support the partnership of select school districts in Worcester
County with the Central Massachusetts Communities of Care Project (CMCC) for the purpose of developing
and implementing PBIS, a tiered system for improving school climate by supporting positive behaviors
throughout the school. Schools participating in the grant program will receive PBIS training and associated
technical assistance and other resources from the CMCC. CMCC is a provider of care management services
for youth with serious emotional disturbance and has two community-based family centers in Worcester
County. The priorities of the grant program are to:


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
Increase participating schools' ability to identify students, grades 4-8, in need of mental health
services, and to respond to the need for intensive support via both internal capacity and communitybased specialty providers of coordinated wraparound services.
The goal of the school district-CMCC partnership is to identify at-risk students who are in need of mental
health services and to reduce and/or prevent court involvement among students with emotional impairments.
Participating districts receive professional development as well as onsite assistance in the development and
implementation of the principles of PBIS.
Collaboration between MASSDE Curriculum and Instruction Math Office and Special
Education Planning and Policy Development Office (SEPP)
Indicators Impacted: 3, 5
With input and guidance from the urban superintendents, the Massachusetts Urban Math Liaisons network
(math directors who provide guidance and support around mathematics in Massachusetts public
schools) identified the need to better support students with disabilities in Mathematics as a critical priority in
the urban districts. In response to this need, the Math Specialist Support meetings will be dedicated to
developing a district level collaboration between special educators and math specialist. The learning
objectives for this collaboration include:
1. Creating sense-making opportunities regarding the necessity of – and resources for – promoting the
belief that students with disabilities can learn rigorous mathematics and deserve a chance to learn
high quality and higher order mathematics;
2. Developing an understanding of what contributes to the reasons students with disabilities have
difficulties learning mathematics by exploring research findings and listening to experts on the
subject;
3. Articulating necessary practices and strategies to support students with mathematics difficulties, and
identifying strategic customization of instructional practices; and
Identifying district and school structures and supports for students with disabilities learning mathematics,
including professional development, coaching, curriculum needs, policy, and time for collaboration.
100
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Collaboration with Federation for Children with Special Needs
Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 8, 13
MASSDE has a longstanding relationship with the Federation for Children with Special Needs (FCSN), the
Parent Training and Information Center federally funded to provide free information, support, technical
assistance and workshops to Massachusetts’ families who have children with disabilities. FCSN provides
training, and technical assistance to families throughout Massachusetts on behalf of MASSDE. Training
topics include:
 Transition from Early Intervention to Special Education
 Parent’s Rights
 IEPs
 The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS)
 Transition 101
 Understanding My Child’s Learning Style
The FCSN has partnered with MASSDE in the writing and implementation of the State Personnel
Development Grant. Through this collaboration, FCSN has provided 3-credit graduate level courses to
Massachusetts educators on working with parents, worked on self-guided modules for parents and families
on the Successful Transition for Middle and High School Students, is designing alternate version of these
modules for special populations such as Spanish speakers, and has provided the opportunity for
parent/district collaboration through the A.P.P.L.E. model. Additionally, the FCSN has participated in the
state stakeholder input opportunities, in the development of MASSDE technical assistance documents, and
has included MASSDE as presenters in the annual Visions of Community conference.
Collaboration with Stakeholders
Indicators Impacted: 1-20
Special Education Advisory Council (SAC) – The SAC is a group of parents and professionals charged by
federal special education law and the state to provide policy guidance to MASSDE on issues affecting special
education and related services for students with disabilities within the Commonwealth. SAC’s responsibilities
include:
 Advising MASSDE on unmet needs within the state in the education of students with disabilities;
 Commenting publicly on proposed rules and regulations involving special education;
 Advising MASSDE on the development of evaluations and corrective action plans; and
 Assisting in the coordination of services to students with disabilities.
State Special Education Steering Committee – Stakeholders from across disciplines, including parent,
educators, administrators, advocates, agency representatives, meet annually as members of the Steering
Committee to:
 Review baseline and current data (618 data and monitoring data);
 Identify areas in need of attention; and
 Plan for improvement activities.
Community/Residential Education Project – Massachusetts Department of Developmental
Services (MDDS)
Indicators Impacted: 5, 13, 14
The Community/ Residential Education Project was developed through an interagency agreement between
MASSDE and MDDS. The goal of the project is to facilitate effective transitions from school life to more
independent life within the community for 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 that are designed to increase the family’s capacity to care for their
child 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 an initial residential special education school placement.
101
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) Training Project
Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 11, 13, 14
The CSPD Training Project was developed as a response to requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education (IDEA) 97. The Act required states to develop a multifaceted approach to personnel development
under regulations for CSPD. To fulfill this obligation, the MASSDE’s Special Education Planning and Policy
Development Office (SEPP) instituted a series of training activities to supplement ongoing personnel
preparation activities provided within school districts and other agencies. The CSPD Training Project
consists of three components:
1.
Training Modules: SEPP is providing 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
presently available include:
a. The Massachusetts IEP Process
b. A Principal's Role and Special Education in Massachusetts
c. Is Special Education the Right Service?
d. Transition From Adolescence Into Adulthood in Massachusetts
e. The Massachusetts Transition Planning Chart and Effective Transition Planning
f. Specific Learning Disabilities: Eligibility Determination under IDEA 2004
2. CSPD Trainers: SEPP has contracted with a limited number of trainers who receive ongoing training
on the CSPD Training Modules. CSPD Trainers are made available as much as possible to 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.
3. CSPD Districts: The 40 largest districts are invited to send their district's professional development
provider to training sessions on the modules. It is an opportunity for participants to impact MASSDE
work (including the development of new modules) and network with colleagues.
Curriculum and Instruction Summit
Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 8
MASSDE holds annual Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Summits, the purposes of which are 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 department, districts and schools through regional partnerships.
Topics from the FFY 2008 Summits include:
 Starting Out Right: Preventing and Closing the Achievement Gap
 Curriculum Alignment
 Online Courses and Resources for Standards-Based Teaching and Learning
 Narrowing Achievement Gaps in Reading and Writing
 Addressing the Achievement Gap: Parents as Teachers and Partners
 Effective Math Instruction for English Language Learners
 The Integration of Science and Literacy
 The Role of the Arts in Raising Academic Achievement
 Tools for Differentiated Curriculum and Instruction
 Tiered Instructional Models – Overview (Session I) to Application (Session II)
 Implementing a Balanced Assessment System
 Supporting Student Achievement in Science and Technology/Engineering
 Math Learning Communities in Practice
102
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
District and School Assistance Centers (DSAC) – MASSDE Center for School & District
Accountability
Indicators Impacted: 2, 3, 5, 13
During FFY 2010 MASSDE opened six regionally based DSACs to help identified districts and their schools
strategically access and use professional development and targeted assistance to improve instruction and
raise achievement for all students. DSACs 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 will be directed at building
essential knowledge and skills of educational leaders and teachers in major content areas and for key
student groups. The professional development offerings designed to help educators improve the outcomes
for students with disabilities include graduate level courses on Universal Design for Learning, Creating
Positive Learning Environments, Youth Development and Self-Determination and Transition Planning.
Additionally, Math Specialists will focus on helping general and special educators develop the necessary
skills to help improve the math skills of students with disabilities.
Dropout Prevention and Recovery Workgroup – MASSDE Urban & Commissioner’s Districts
Unit and Secondary Support Services Unit
Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 4, 14
This workgroup was created in summer 2008 and is supported by both the Urban and Commissioner’s
Districts unit and the Secondary Support Services unit of MASSDE. The workgroup is comprised 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 group’s focus is to facilitate sharing of promising practices
in their districts, and to support district team action planning activities through face-to-face meetings and
webinars.
Dropout Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery Website – MASSDE Student Support and
Secondary School Services Unit
Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 14
Launched in July 2009, this website describes information and resources including an extensive collection of
dropout reduction related articles/reports, other websites, dropout data overview information, and descriptions
of state activities. New promising practices will be added as they are developed and evaluated.
Educational Proficiency Plans (EPP) – MASSDE Student Support and Secondary School
Services Unit
Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 13, 14
School districts must develop an EPP for any student in the class of 2010 who does not score at 240 or
above on the grade 10 English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics Massachusetts Comprehensive
Assessment System (MCAS) tests. The EPP identifies the student's strengths and weaknesses, based on
MCAS and other assessment results; coursework; grades; and teacher, student, and counselor input; and
includes the courses in those subject areas the student is required to take in grades 11 and 12. The EPP
requirement is intended to increase the likelihood that students graduating from high school have the
requisite skills needed for success in college and a career. The EPP is not intended to promote test
preparation or remedial courses for the junior and senior years of high school. Students are encouraged to
and supported in taking challenging courses that will better prepare them for postsecondary opportunities.
For students with disabilities, MASSDE recommends that the current IEP is reviewed prior to developing the
student’s EPP to assist in identifying their strengths and weaknesses in the learning environment.
103
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Emergent Literacy Grant
Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 6
The Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) is providing 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. Seventeen school districts that are involved in
the Massachusetts Comprehensive System of Personnel Development are currently participating in the
"Universally-Designed Technology for Literacy" project. During the three years of the project (2004-2006), it is
expected that district capacity for supporting all learners in emergent literacy will be increased through the
"trainer-the-trainer" professional development strategies used. For more information, see
http://madoe.cast.org/.
Graduation and Dropout Prevention and Recovery Commission – MASSDE Student Support
and Secondary School Services Unit
Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 14
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 Commission included representatives from a variety of youth-serving state agencies, the state
legislature, and community organizations. The Commission’s work was shaped by testimony at three public
hearings. The Massachusetts Executive Office of Education (MEOE) released the final Commission report
Making the Connection, in October 2009. It 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.
Inclusive Concurrent Enrollment Partnership Programs for Students with Disabilities
Indicators Impacted: 5, 13, 14
This state-funded pilot grant program is designed to build and expand partnerships between high schools in
public school districts and partnering state public institutions of higher education to offer inclusive concurrent
enrollment opportunities for students with significant disabilities, ages 18-22, in credit or non-credit courses
that include non-disabled students. These partnerships will result in improved systems that better serve
students with disabilities and support their college and work success.
The partnership programs are designed to: 1) promote and enhance academic, social, functional, and
employment skills and outcomes; 2) provide opportunities for students with severe disabilities to participate
with their non-disabled peers in inclusive credit or non-credit courses; and 3) promote participation in the
student life of the college community.
As part of the improvement and expansion of these programs, partnerships continue to develop their
programs to include individualized community-based integrated employment opportunities that align with
participating student career goals and course selection.
Massachusetts FOCUS Academy (MFA)
Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14
MFA is a federally funded five-year grant (SPDG) that 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, with a particular focus on middle and high schools. Course
offerings include Universal Design for Learning, Positive Behavioral Supports, Family Engagement, and PostSecondary Transition. New courses for FFY2009 include: Differentiated Instruction, Collaborative Teaching
Model, and Generalist Transition Courses I and II. The MFA programmatic offerings are research-based, and
target areas that impact student outcomes.
104
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Massachusetts Online Resource Library
Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14
Designed to provide evidence based practices in professional development, MASSDE/SEPP is developing an
online Resource Library to highlight OSEP Funded Technical Assistance and Dissemination Resources and
other online resources. 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, the NASDSE Satellite 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
National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) Satellite Series
Indicators Impacted: 2, 3, 5, 6, 13, 14
NASDSE, with support from the Pennsylvania Department of Education and the Pennsylvania Training and
Technical Assistance Network (PaTTAN), provides the NASDSE Satellite Series. These telecasts bring
nationally recognized experts to the state using technology, providing an affordable means of quality
personnel development for a variety of stakeholders. Experts provide important information on high-interest
topics to an audience that includes state directors of special education, state agency staff, local
administrators, teachers, related service providers, higher education faculty, families and other stakeholders.
The number of entities participating increased from 43 in 2008-2009 to 100 in 2009-2010.
Topics of telecasts, made available in three ways (satellite signal, computer media stream, recorded video)
have included:
 News You Can Use: Resources and Supports for Students with Autism and their Families;
 Partners in Progress: Youth/Young Adult Leaders for Systems Change;
 From Computers to Classrooms: Tackling Bullying in Today’s Schools;
 Understanding the Big Picture: Federal Policy and its Impact on the Classroom;
 Seclusion and Restraint: The Impact of Federal and State Policy on the Classroom; and
 Healthy, Physically Fit and Ready for Action: Addressing the Physical Education and Activity Needs
of Individuals with Disabilities
Project FOCUS Academy
Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14
In the fall of 2004, MASSDE was awarded a three-year U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) 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 post-secondary outcomes. As part of the SIG, MASSDE works with
educators from selected high schools. The design of the project requires study groups from high schools to
participate in face-to-face and distance-learning professional development opportunities in the areas of:
 Transition/Post-Secondary Outcomes;
 School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports;
 Universal Design for Learning; and
 Family Participation.
The distance-learning model is provided through MASSDE's Massachusetts Online Network for Education
(MassONE). Three courses in each content area are offered over a two year period. Building on this
coursework, participants from the nine participating high schools are involved in Implementation Year
activities in FFY 2007 ranging from using new techniques in classrooms to teaching other high school staff
about each of the three content areas.
105
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Revision of “Is Special Education the Right Service?” (ISERS)
Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 6, 10
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.
The first stage of the revision began in March, 2009 with the reconvening of the 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. The revision process will continue in FFY 2009.
Revision of “Ten Step Guide for Comprehensive Educational Assessment of Students with
Visual Impairments”
Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 6, 11, 13
The “Ten Step Guide” 1) recommends types of assessments that will be useful in making a determination of
eligibility for a student with a visual impairment for the initial eligibility determination or three-year
reevaluation; 2) helps to ensure a common understanding of the purpose and complexity of conducting the
specialized educational assessment of students with visual impairments; and 3) provides resources to help
educators meet the unique needs of students with visual impairments and to prepare them for further
education, employment, and independent living.
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, have collaborated to revise the “Ten
Step Guide” to reflect updated regulatory information and include best practices. The revision includes a new
section describing the “hidden” characteristics of a vision loss that affect academic and social factors.
Understanding these characteristics will enable non-vision specialists to facilitate meaningful inclusion and
participation of students with visual impairments throughout the school day. The Workgroup also
recommended a name change for the next edition of the document to, “Guidelines for the Specialized
Assessment of Students with Visual Impairments.” The revised document will include updated information,
and will be re-formatted for use as a web-based resource.
Secondary School Reading Grant
Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 5, 14
The Secondary School Reading grant program selects middle schools, high schools and vocational schools
to receive four years of funding to develop and implement a school wide approach to improving reading
achievement. Generally, each school receives between $8,000 and $10,000 per year. The first year of the
grant is focused on self-assessment and program planning. The remaining three years are for action planning
and implementation. The program has been in place for six years and has provided funding for more than
100 schools in four cohorts. For the first four years, all schools were eligible to compete for the grant. In the
past two years, eligibility has been limited to schools that are considered high-need based on poor MCAS
performance or unusually large special education populations.
School wide approaches must include:
 involvement of and training for all professional and paraprofessional staff;
 reading across content areas;
 multiple targeted intervention programs for struggling readers;
 adequate time for reading instruction;
 assessment that drives instruction;
 a variety of flexible grouping patterns; and
 leadership structures that provide ongoing support and guidance.
Funded districts must have an identified district coordinator and develop a cross-sectional Reading
Leadership Team in each participating school. Members of the leadership teams attend MASSDE-sponsored
professional development events about three times per year to discuss current research on adolescent
literacy and share their efforts to improve adolescent literacy achievement. Members of each school’s
Leadership Team, which consists of a cross-section of staff, including representatives from all content areas
and special programs, attends these meetings.
106
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Secondary Transition - TransitionWorks: Innovative Strategies for Transitioning Youth with
Disabilities from School to Work – Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission (MRC) 5 Year
Federal Grant
Indicators Impacted: – 1, 2, 13,14
TransitionWorks: Innovative Strategies for Transitioning Youth with Disabilities from School to Work is a fiveyear grant from the U.S. Department of Education awarded to MRC to support transitioning youth with
disabilities from school to work. The program focuses on aligning existing services and developing innovative
practices in Boston, Springfield and Worcester. As part of this initiative vocational rehabilitation counselors
are partnering with local school districts to support youth with disabilities in their transitions from school to
work, post-secondary education, and independent living. MASSDE, the Federation for Children with Special
Needs, Urban Pride, Commonwealth Corporation, and the Institute for Community Inclusion are partnering
with MRC to implement the grant activities.
Sign Language Video Resource Library
Indicators Impacted: 3, 5
The purpose of this library project is to develop mathematics and science/technology vocabulary reference
tools that educational interpreters and teachers of students who are deaf or hard-of-hearing may incorporate
into their instruction. Available technical assistance will include written guides and DVDs. The design of the
tool will be user-friendly and promote ready access for end users. In addition, under this project, MASSDE
continues to provide a cost-free institute for educational interpreters to improve participants’ sign vocabulary
in mathematics and science/technology content areas for grades 7-12.
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
Indicators Impacted: 1-20
The purpose of this newsletter is to provide school districts with on-going technical assistance and to prompt
dialogue within, among, and between districts and MASSDE. Each issue of SPecial EDition will be organized
around a State Performance Plan (SPP) indicator, and will spotlight particular strategies and best practices
districts can use to meet and exceed indicator targets. The newsletter will also incorporate information from
National Technical Assistance and Dissemination Centers (NTADC) and other resources to support strategy
implementation.
Special Education Leadership Academies and Seminars
Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 8, 11
As part of the Special Education Summer Institute, MASSDE annually provides two Special Education
Leadership Academies. The academies provide opportunities for school district special education
administrators to develop new leadership skills and to improve current skills. Academy I is open to
administrators who have 1-5 years of experience, and Academy II is for administrators with more than 5
years of experience. Both Academies provide professional development to administrators on 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 sponsored ongoing leadership seminars for former participants of the Leadership Academies
where participants reconnect and network with their Academy colleagues and share effective practices,
policies, strategies, or products with one another.
107
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2010
Special Education Professional Development Summer Institutes
Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14
The Special Education Summer Institutes are statewide professional development opportunities provided free
of change 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 approved private special education schools, educational collaboratives, and local school
districts’ efforts to increase the quality of programs and services provided to students with disabilities and
increase the number of highly qualified educators working in the field of special education. Additionally,
SEPP collaborates with the MASSDE office of Curriculum and Instruction to provide professional
development institutes in specific curriculum content areas.
Current and future topics in Special Education Institutes include:
 Access to Print: A Framework for All Learners
 Assessing English Language Learners (ELL) with Disabilities
 Effective Evaluation of Special Education Programs
 Language and Expository Discourse
 Managing Behavior in an Inclusive Classroom
 Mathematics and/or Science and Technology: American Sign Language (ASL) and Other Signed
Systems
 Occupational Therapy Services in Educational Settings
 Strategies for Students with Sensory Integration Dysfunction in an Inclusive Classroom
 Sustaining Braille Proficiency of Licensed Teachers of Students with Visual Impairments
 Topics in Teaching Literacy to Students who are Deaf of Hard-of-hearing
 Special Education Professional Development Seminar for Educators of Students who are Deaf or
Hard of Hearing
Special Education Program Improvement Grants – Fund Code 274
Indicators Impacted: 3, 4, 5, 11
The purpose of this grant program is to fund professional development activities to improve the skills and
capacity of educators to meet the diverse needs of students with disabilities. Fund Code 274 is available to
all public school districts and educational collaboratives (during FFY 2005 – FFY 2007). For FFY 2006 and
FFY 2007, the priorities for Fund Code 274 are:
 Priority 1 - Enhancing Induction and Mentoring Programs (required)
 Priority 2a - Serving Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders in Inclusive Settings
 Priority 2b - Curriculum Development, Instruction, and Classroom Assessment
 Priority 2c - Meeting the Behavioral and Social Needs of a Diverse Student Population
 Priority 3 - Recruitment and/or Additional Professional Development Needs as Identified by the
District or Educational Collaborative (10% max could be used for this priority)
Almost every school district in the state will utilize Fund Code 274 funds, and participate in regional
professional development conferences designed to support the priorities of the grant.
Special Education Program Improvement Grants – Fund Code 249
Indicators Impacted: 3, 4, 5, 13
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.
Priorities for FFY 2006 and FFY 2007 are:
 Induction/Mentoring; and
 Curriculum Development, Instruction, and Classroom Assessment.
FFY 2008 priorities are:
108
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010



Revised February 1, 2010
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.
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.
Special Education Website
Indicators Impacted: 1-20
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
Trauma Sensitive Schools Initiative – MASSDE Student Support Services Unit
Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 4
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.
Work-Based Learning Plans (WBLP) for Students with Disabilities – MASSDE Student
Support, Career & Education Services
Indicators Impacted: 2, 13, 14
The Massachusetts WBLP is a diagnostic, goal-setting and assessment tool designed 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 lifelong career skills.
Beginning in March 2009, SEPP collaborated with the MASSDE Connecting Activities Office to develop a one
page guidance document called Using the Massachusetts Work-Based Learning Plan In Transition Planning
Activities for Students with Disabilities and to enhance the WBLP Scoring Rubric. 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. The WBLP scoring rubric is a
student performance evaluation guide that facilitates employer assessment of participating students’ WBLP
Foundation Skills.
Through this collaboration, MASSDE also created the Work Experience and Transition Activities resource
webpage. This resource lists resources, including websites, articles, and program materials, to assist in
planning the work experiences and developing WBLPs for students with disabilities.
109
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2007
Appendix B: Massachusetts Parent Survey for Special Education for Indicator #8


This is a survey for parents of students receiving special education services. Your responses will help guide
efforts to improve services and results for children and families. (Note: If you have more than one child
currently receiving special education services, you may choose to submit one or more surveys, based upon
your experiences as related to your children.)
For each statement below, please select one of the following response choices: very strongly disagree
(VSD), strongly disagree (SD), disagree (D), agree (A), strongly agree (SA), very strongly agree (VSA). You
may skip any item that you feel does not apply to you or your child.
Appendix B: MA Parent Survey for Indicator #8
Schools' Efforts to Partner with Parents
1.
I am considered an equal partner with teachers and other
professionals in planning my child's program.
2.
I was offered special assistance (such as child care) so that I could
participate in the Individualized Educational Program (IEP) meeting.
3.
At the IEP meeting, we discussed how my child would participate in
statewide assessments.
4.
My child’s teachers give me enough time and opportunities to discuss
my child’s needs and progress.
5.
All of my concerns and recommendations were documented on the
IEP.
6.
Teachers and administrators at my child’s school invite me to share
my knowledge and experience with school personnel.
7.
I was given information about organizations that offer support for
parents of students with disabilities.
8.
I have been asked for my opinion about how well special education
services are meeting my child's needs.
9.
10.
12.
Teachers treat me as a team member.
VSA
VSD
A
SA
VSA
I feel I can disagree with my child’s special education program or
services without negative consequences for me or my child.
Teachers and administrators:
15.
Agree
SA
IEP meetings are scheduled at a time and place that are convenient
for me.
Teachers are available to speak with me.
14.
A
My child's evaluation report is written in terms I understand.
11.
13.
Disagree
VSD SD
D
- seek out parent input.
- show sensitivity to the needs of students with disabilities and their
families.
16.
- encourage me to participate in the decision-making process.
17.
- respect my cultural heritage.
110
SD
D
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
The school:
Revised February 1, 2007
VSD
SD
D
18. - has a person on staff who is available to answer parents' questions.
19. - communicates regularly with me regarding my child's progress on IEP
goals.
20. - gives me choices with regard to services that address my child's needs.
21. - offers parents training about special education issues.
22. - offers parents a variety of ways to communicate with teachers.
23. - gives parents the help they may need to play an active role in their child's
education.
24. - provides information on agencies that can assist my child in the transition
from school.
25. - explains what options parents have if they disagree with a decision of
the school.
Demographic Information
26. Number of years child has received special
education services
 Less than 1 year
 1-3 years
 4-7 years
 More than 7 years
29. Child’s school level



Elementary School
Middle School
High School
30. Child’s Primary Disability (check one)
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 _________________
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.
111
A
SA
VSA
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2008
Appendix C: Massachusetts Post-School Outcomes Survey for Indicator #14
Appendix C: MA Post-School Outcomes Survey for Indicator #14
School District:
Student Name:
SASID:
Gender:
Date of Exit from School (mm/yyyy):
- Male
- Female
Question 1: What is your educational status since leaving high school?
- CURRENTLY ATTENDING college, community college, or a technical school
- NOT CURRENTLY ATTENDING, but have attended college, community college, or a technical
school at some time since leaving high school
- HAVE NOT ATTENDED college, community college, or a technical school at any time since
leaving high school (Skip Questions 2 and 3. Go to Question 4.)
Question 2: If you have attended college, community college, or a technical school at any time since
leaving high school, check 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 college-level courses
Question 3: If you have attended college, community college, or a technical school at any time since
leaving high school, check the type of program.
- 4-year college or university
- 2- year college or university
- Technical or vocational school
- Other. Please describe:
Question 4: What is your current employment status?
- Employed – in the competitive job market, including self-employment
- Full-Time Military Service
- 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 5: If you are NOT CURRENTLY employed, have you been employed at any time since leaving
high school?
- Yes
- No
Question 6: If you have been employed at any time since leaving high school, check whether you were
working full-time or part-time in your most recent job.
- Full-time – 35 or more hours per week, including summer employment
- Part-time – less than 35 hours per week, including summer employment
- Not employed since leaving high school
Thank you for participating in this survey. If you have any questions, please call ______.
If you are returning this survey by mail, send it to: _______.
112
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Submitted December 1, 2005
Appendix D: Correction of Noncompliance Data
SE
Criteria #
SE Criteria Topic
2001-02 CPR
findings of
noncompliance
Findings of
noncompliance
identified at the CPR
and no longer present
at the 2004-05 MCR
Percent of
Noncompliance
Corrected and
Sustained
1
2
3
4
5
Assessment selection
Req/opt. Assmt.
SLD
Assessment Reports
Participation State/local
assessments
Determination of
Transition
Age of Majority
Team composition
Eligibility deter. Timelines
End of school year
evals
Independent Evals
Frequency Re-evals
Progress Rpts.
Annual meeting
Child find
Screening
Services at 3
IEP dev/content
Placement deter.
Extended Eval
LRE
SD/SY req.
IEP implem/avail
Confidentiality of student
records
Notice to parent
Parent consent
Parent partic.
Team notice
IEP or nsn to parents
Communication in home
lang.
Parents rights
Educational Surrogate
parents
PAC
Involvement in the gen
curric.
Continuum of
placement/services
Specialized mater. Assit.
Tech
11
16
15
4
5
8
9
3
45%
50%
60%
75%
4
4
100%
11
6
55%
9
18
21
7
16
14
78%
89%
67%
4
4
100%
7
12
23
9
3
0
3
21
16
6
12
5
11
6
10
9
8
3
0
0
7
8
6
9
1
8
86%
83%
39%
89%
100%
N/A
0%
33%
50%
100%
75%
20%
73%
5
4
80%
17
14
6
9
11
11
8
5
8
7
65%
57%
83%
89%
64%
13
7
54%
2
2
100%
1
0
0%
19
11
58%
3
3
100%
12
8
67%
2
2
100%
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18A
18B
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
113
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
SE
Criteria #
SE Criteria Topic
36
IEP implem, acct, finan
respon
Out of district
policies/procedures
ESIS
Private school at private
expen.
Grouping req.
Age span
Programs for 3 & 4 year
olds
Behavioral interventions.
Record suspensions
Suspen upto and greater
than 10
Suspen greater than 10
Disci[pline not yet sped
FAPE
Related services
Transportation
Responsibilityprincipal/spe
d dir
Teacher cert.
Related service providers
credentials
Paraprofessionals
Professional devel SPED
Facilities
Program evaluation
Child count
Entitlement grant
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
49A
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
TOTALS
Submitted December 1, 2005
2001-02 CPR
findings of
noncompliance
Findings of
noncompliance
identified at the CPR
and no longer present
at the 2004-05 MCR
Percent of
Noncompliance
Corrected and
Sustained
8
8
100%
8
8
100%
2
2
100%
2
1
50%
8
9
6
6
75%
67%
5
4
80%
12
9
7
6
58%
67%
6
6
100%
9
3
7
12
2
8
3
5
6
2
89%
100%
71%
50%
100%
20
13
65%
3
3
100%
2
2
100%
11
23
14
23
7
0
11
16
9
14
7
0
100%
70%
64%
61%
100%
N/A
560
380
68%
114
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised April 11, 2006
Appendix E: Attachment 1 – Report of Dispute Resolution for FFY 2004
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
412
(1) Signed, written complaints total
258
(1.1) Complaints with reports issued
(a) Reports with findings
206
(b) Reports within timeline
162
(c) Reports within extended timelines
16
(1.2) Complaints withdrawn or dismissed
71
(1.3) Complaints pending
83
(a) Complaint pending a due process hearing
52
SECTION B: Mediation requests
660
(2) Mediation requests total
(2.1) Mediations
(a) Mediations related to due process
58
(i) Mediation agreements
48
602
(b) Mediations not related to due process
519
(i) Mediation agreements
0
(2.2) Mediations not held (including pending)
SECTION C: Hearing requests
768
(3) Hearing requests total
(3.1) Resolution sessions
NA*
NA*
(a) Settlement agreements
12
(3.2) Hearings (fully adjudicated)
(a) Decisions within timeline
1
(b) Decisions within extended timeline
10
738
(3.3) Resolved without a hearing
SECTION D: Expedited hearing requests (related to disciplinary decision)
69
(4) Expedited hearing requests total
(4.1) Resolution sessions
NA
NA
(a) Settlement agreements
1
(4.2) Expedited hearings (fully adjudicated)
0
(a) Change of placement ordered
*NA=Reporting period does not cover 7/1/05, effective date of IDEA 2004, which initiated requirement of
resolution session.
115
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2008
Appendix F: Indicator #20 Scoring Rubric
APR Data
APR
Indicator
1
Valid and
Reliable Data
2
3A
3B
3C
4A
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
APR Score Calculation
Correct Calculation
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Followed
Instructions
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Subtotal
Timely Submission Points
- If the FFY 2006 APR was
submitted on-time, place the
number 5 in the cell on the
right.
Grand Total (Sum of
subtotal and Timely
Submission Points) =
116
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
58
5
63
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Table
Table 1–
Child Count
Due Date:
2/1/07
Table 2Personnel
Timely
Revised February 1, 2008
618 State-Reported Data
Responded to
Passed
Data Note
Complete
Edit
Requests
Data
Check
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Due Date:
11/1/07
Table 3– Ed.
Environments
Due Date:
2/1/07
Table 4–
Exiting
Due Date:
11/1/07
Table 5Discipline
Due Date:
11/1/07
Table 6- State
Assessment
Due Date:
2/1/08
Subtotal
618 Score Calculation
Grand Total (Subtotal x 2)
=
117
0
0
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010
Revised February 1, 2008
Indicator #20 Calculation
A. APR Grand Total =
63
B. 618 Grand Total =
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%
* Note: Any cells mark with a N/A will decrease the denominator by 1 for APR and 2
for 618 data.
Definitions
Timely – All data for the APR are submitted on or before February 1, 2008. Data for
tables for 618 are submitted on or before each tables’ due date. NO extensions.
Valid and Reliable Data - Data provided are from the correct time period, are
consistent with 618 (when appropriate) and the measurement, and are consistent with
previous indicator data (unless explained).
Correct Calculation - Result produced follows the required calculation in the
instructions for the indicator.
Instructions Followed - APR provides information required in the instructions for the
indicator. For example, when required, explanation provided, raw data and/or
definitions given, or response provided to previous OSEP APR analysis.
Complete Data – No missing sections. No placeholder data. Data submitted from all
districts or agencies. For example, when the instructions for an indicator require data
broken down into subparts, data for all subparts are provided.
Passed Edit Check - Tables submitted to Westat do not have missing cells or internal
inconsistencies.
(See https://www.ideadata.org/TAMaterial.asp regarding Westat edit checks.)
Responded to Data Note Requested - Provided written explanation to Westat in
response to data note requests.
118