Massachusetts Part B State
Performance Plan (MA SPP) for
FFY2005 – FFY2012
Submitted to the Office of Special Education Programs February 1, 2012
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. Beverly Holmes, Vice Chair, Springfield
Dr. Vanessa Calderón-Rosado, Milton
Ms. Harneen Chernow, Jamaica Plain
Mr. Gerald Chertavian, Cambridge
Mr. Matthew Gifford, Chair, Student Advisory Council, Brookline
Dr. Jeff Howard, Reading
Ms. Ruth Kaplan, Brookline
Dr. Dana Mohler-Faria, Bridgewater
Mr. Paul Reville, Secretary of Education, Worcester
Mr. David Roach, Sutton
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 02148-4906. Phone: 781-338-6105.
© 2012 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 2005-2012
Revised February 1, 2012
Table of Contents
Cover letter / Overview of MA SPP Development……………………………………………………..…..….1
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
 Indicator 1: Graduation Rates………………………………………………………………………………....3
 Indicator 2: Drop-Out Rates…………………………………………………………………………….........10
 Indicator 3: Assessment………………………………………………………………………………………16
 Indicator 4: Suspension / Expulsion…………………………………………………………………………28
 Indicator 5: School-age LRE………………………………………………………………………..............40
 Indicator 6: Preschool LRE…………………………………………………………………………………...50
 Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes…………………………………………………………………………….56
 Indicator 8: Parent Involvement……………………………………………………………………..............68
Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality
 Indicator 9: Disproportionality – Child with a Disability…………………………………………...............76
 Indicator 10: Disproportionality – Eligibility Category……………………………………………..............81
Effective General Supervision / Child Find
 Indicator 11: Initial Evaluation Timelines……………………………………………………………………85
Effective General Supervision / Effective Transition
 Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition…………………………………………………………………….90
 Indicator 13: Secondary Transition…………………………………………………………………............96
 Indicator 14: Post-School Outcomes……………………………………………………………………….105
Effective General Supervision / General Supervision
 Indicator 15: Identification and Correction of Noncompliance……………………………………...…...115
 Indicator 16: Complaint Timelines………………………………………………………………………….121
 Indicator 17: Due Process Timelines………………………………………………………………...........126
 Indicator 18: Hearing Requests Resolved by Resolution Sessions…………………………………….129
 Indicator 19: Mediation Agreements……………………………………………………………………….133
 Indicator 20: State Reported Data………………………………………………………………………….137
Appendices
 Appendix A: Selected Cross-Cutting Improvement Activities……………………………………………141
 Appendix B: Massachusetts Parent Survey for Special Education (FFY2005)………………………..157
 Appendix C: Massachusetts Parent Involvement Survey (FFY2010)…………………………………..159
 Appendix D: Postsecondary Transition Planning Checklist ……………………................................167
 Appendix E: Form 28M/9 …………………………………………………………………………………...168
 Appendix F: Massachusetts Postsecondary Outcomes Survey (FFY2006)………………………...…170
 Appendix G: Massachusetts Postsecondary Outcomes Survey (FFY2009)…………………………..172
 Appendix H: Correction of Noncompliance Data Chart…………………………………………………..173
 Appendix I: Table 7 – Report of Dispute Resolution (FFY2004)………………………………………..175
 Appendix J: Indicator 20 Scoring Rubric (FFY2006)……………………………………………………..176
Massachusetts
Submitted December 1, 2005.
Revised January 3, 2006; February 1, 2007; May 21, 2007; February 1, 2008; April 14, 2008; February 2,
2009; January 29, 2010; February 2, 2011; April 19, 2011; and February 1, 2012
U.S Department of Education
Office of Special Education Programs
Potomac Center Plaza
Mail Stop 2600, Room 4166
550 12th Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20202
Re: Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan for FFY 2005-2012
Dear Sir or Madam:
Enclosed is the Massachusetts State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2012.The MA SPP was
developed in accordance with 20 U.S.C. 1416(b)(1), which states that “not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, each State must
have in place a performance plan that evaluates the State’s efforts to implement the requirements and
purposes of Part B and describes how the State will improve such implementation.” The MA SPP
responds directly to the 20 indicators identified by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in
Information Collection 1820-0624, Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report
(APR).
The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (MASSDE) has engaged in a
variety of activities to obtain broad input from stakeholders on the development of the Massachusetts
State Performance Plan (MA SPP). An overview of the MA SPP was first presented to the Special
Education Advisory Council (SAC), and was also presented to key stakeholders within MASSDE. As a
next step, the Massachusetts Statewide Special Education Steering Committee – which consists of SAC
members, key MASSDE personnel, local education officials, parents, advocates, and representatives
from higher education, charter schools, approved private special education schools, and adult service
agencies – met to identify targets, methodologies, and key activities as appropriate for each of the 20 MA
SPP indicators. Additionally, I have met with a number of other groups as we have been preparing and
revising the MA SPP and Annual Performance Report (APR), and have solicited input and described the
activities to date to stakeholders broadly across the state.
The continued input and feedback from the Steering Committee and the State Advisory Councils and
interest groups have been key to the development and implementation of the MA SPP. In addition to
discussing targets, methodologies, and improvement activities, Steering Committee members have also
discussed dissemination of information about the MA SPP within their respective organizations.
Additionally, members signed up to participate in targeted interest groups focused on each indicator.
These interest groups incorporate additional members and have me throughout the SPP period to help
guide Massachusetts’ work in each area.
Regarding public dissemination, the completed MA SPP is made widely available for public discussion.
This will be accomplished by broad discussion in interest groups (as previously mentioned) and at the
Statewide Advisory Council meeting and other conference and group discussion opportunities.
Additionally, MASSDE posts the MA SPP on the MASSDE website at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/maspp.html, and distributes hard copies of the report to key
constituencies and the media.
In the MA SPP, MASSDE has provided detail and commentary that addresses concerns raised in
previous correspondence from OSEP regarding the MA SPP. Where concerns were raised, the response
is incorporated fully into the actions that MASSDE describes for the present or future in various sections
throughout the MA SPP, as applicable. Please note that the following revisions have been made since the
initial submission on December 1, 2005:
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
1
Massachusetts
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Indicator 4A was revised on January 3, 2006;
Indicators 1, 2, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 18 were revised on February 1, 2007;
Indicators 9 and 10 were revised on May 21, 2007 at the request of OSEP;
Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4A, 5, 7, 9, 10, 14, and 20 were revised on February 1, 2008;
Indicators 7, 9 and 10 were revised on April 14, 2008 at the request of OSEP;
Indicator 7 was revised according to the SPP submission instructions, the baseline data for
Indicator 1 were revised, and improvement activities for Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4A, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11,
13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 20 were revised on February 2, 2009;
7) Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 16, 17 and 18 were revised, and improvement activities were
revised for Indicators 1, 2, 4, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18 and 19 on February 1, 2010; and
8) Indicators 1-20 were revised to include targets and new or updated improvement activities for the
extended SPP period (FFY 2011 and FFY 2012); Indicators 4B, 13, and 14 have been amended
to include new baseline data, targets, and improvement activities; and targets have been
amended for Indicators 8, 18, and 19 on February 1, 2011.
9) Revisions were made to data and/or targets in Indicators 4B, 13, and 14, and other typographical
errors or non-substantive corrections were made to indicator reports and appendices on April 29,
2011.
For the FFY2010 reporting period, MASSDE made the following changes to the MA SPP:






Improvement activities have been revised, updated, or added to reflect new or update existing
initiatives. These changes are reflected in Appendix A, as appropriate.
MASSDE has changed the calculation methodology for Indicator 4B, per OSEP’s instruction;
The Indicator 8 plan includes updated descriptions of MASSDE’s work in FFY2009 and FFY2010
with regard to redesign and implementation of a new parent involvement survey instrument.
The Indicator 13 plan has been revised to include the text of the measurement in the baseline
data box, and additional information describing MASSDE’s data verification activities.
In the Indicator 14 plan, MASSDE corrected the erroneously reported response rate for the
FFY2009 baseline year.
Appendices have been renumbered.
MASSDE appreciates the opportunity to make a correction to the report submitted on February 1, 2012.
In its revised FFY2010 SPP, MASSDE has clarified the method of review of identified districts’ policies,
procedures and practices for Indicator 4B (page 31).
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
C: Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D., Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
2
Massachusetts
Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:
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 school year cohort, Massachusetts is calculating and reporting a statewide
graduation rate for the first time. This cohort includes all students who entered 9th grade in
Massachusetts’ public schools for the first time in the fall of 2002, plus all students who transferred into
the cohort during the four years, minus all students who transferred out of the cohort or who were
deceased during the four years. Students who earned their Competency Determination, met all local
graduation requirements, and received a diploma from a Massachusetts public high school in four years
or less were counted as graduates. Summer graduates were included as if they graduated in the June
preceding the summer.
The data used to calculate the graduation rate are obtained through the Student Information Management
System (SIMS) scheduled reports that are submitted by school districts throughout the year. Because this
is the first time MASSDE has calculated the graduation rate, and because the data come from the initial
years of SIMS when districts were still becoming familiar with the system, MASSDE has allowed for the
possibility of a limited number of corrections. Initial student-level data for the 2005-2006 cohort were
released to districts in November of 2006, and district staff had one month to review the data and request
corrections. MASSDE then reviewed all requests and made appropriate corrections. For subsequent
years, it is anticipated that the number and type of corrections allowed will decrease.
MASSDE’s calculation method is based on the formula set forth in the National Governors’ Association
(NGA) Compact, and meets the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) definition of graduation rate for use in
determining Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for secondary schools. However, MASSDE acknowledges
that a significant number of students require more than four years to graduate, so a five-year graduation
rate has also been calculated. Although Massachusetts’ formal SPP targets are based on the four-year
graduation rate, Massachusetts will continue to generate both rates for the entire student population of
each cohort and for individual student subgroups at the state, district, and school level. Additional
information on the calculation of graduation rates is available on MASSDE’s website at the following link:
http://www.doe.mass.edu/infoservices/reports/gradrates/.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
3
Massachusetts
Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005-2006):
# of Students in
2005-2006
cohort
# of Students who
graduated in four years or
less
2005-2006
Graduation Rate
IEP
13,814
8,440
61.1%
Non-IEP
60,934
51,149
83.9%
All Students
74,380
59,440
79.9%
Discussion of Baseline Data:
The data provided in the above table show that students with disabilities in Massachusetts’ public schools
are graduating from high school in four years at a lower rate than their non-disabled peers. Based on the
cohort formula for calculating graduation rate, 61.1% of students with disabilities in the 2005-2006 cohort
graduated from high school in four years or less while the graduation rate is 83.9% for non-disabled
students in the same cohort, and is 79.9% for all students in the cohort.
The five-year graduation rate for students in the 2005-2006 cohort is 67.0% for students with disabilities,
86.2% for non-disabled students, and 82.7% overall. This means that 5.9% of students with disabilities in
the cohort, and 2.3% of students without disabilities, graduated in five years instead of four. MASSDE
recognizes that it is appropriate for some students to take longer than four years to complete high school,
and so Massachusetts will continue to calculate and publicly report the five-year rate for subsequent
cohorts as an additional measure of year-to-year progress.
This disparity between the graduation rates for disabled and for non-disabled students in Massachusetts
reflects a national trend. The report on SPP Indicator 1 prepared by the National Dropout Prevention
Center for Students with Disabilities (NDPC-SD) for the Regional Resource and 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
indicated below.
For the extended SPP period (FFY2011 and FFY2012), targets and activities were reviewed with the
Statewide Special Education Steering Committee.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
4
Massachusetts
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%
2011
(2011-2012)
77.5%
2012
(2012-2013)
80.0%
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Please note that many of the activities presented below affect multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2010
Improvement Activity
Secondary School Reading Grant
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14)
Resources
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
1
For more information about the revised targets for FFY2007 through FFY2010, see the Massachusetts Part B
Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY2008, available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/maspp.html.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
5
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2007
Improvement Activity
Project FOCUS Academy
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14)
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(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), district
staff time
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Professional
Development Summer Institutes
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Website
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2008
Massachusetts Online Resource Library
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2008
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2012
Massachusetts FOCUS Academy
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14)
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2012
Central Massachusetts Communities of
Care Positive Behavioral Interventions
PBIS) Grant (Fund Code 250)
(Indicators 1 , 2, 4, 5, 13)
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
MASSDE staff time, grant
partners (Federation for Children
with Special Needs, Center for
Applied Special Technologies,
Institute for Community Inclusion
at UMass-Boston), district staff
time
MASSDE staff time, grant
partners (Central Massachusetts
Communities of Care, National
Center for Positive Behavioral
Intervention and Supports
trainers), district staff time
6
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Trauma Sensitive Schools Initiative
(Indicators 1, 2, 4)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Federal School Turnaround Grants
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time, stakeholder groups
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Secondary Transition – Transition Works:
Innovative Strategies for Transitioning Youth
with Disabilities from School to Work
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time,
Massachusetts Rehabilitation
Commission staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
National Association of State Directors of
Special Education (NASDSE) Professional
Development Series
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14 )
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2010
Graduation and Dropout Prevention and
Recovery Commission
(Indicators 1, 2, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Dropout Prevention and Recovery Work
Group
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Dropout Prevention, Intervention, and
Recovery Website
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Educational Proficiency Plans (EPPs)
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
7
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 - 2012
Improvement Activity
ARRA Title II-D Technology Competitive
Grants Program
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 14)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
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
ARRA Entitlement Grants
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14)
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, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
Summit
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 8)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Work-Based Learning Plans (WBLP) for
Students with Disabilities
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time, Workforce Development
staff time
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2010
Massachusetts Task Force on Behavioral
Health and Public Schools
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2012
Early Warning Indicator Index (EWII)
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
8
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2009 - 2012
Improvement Activity
District and School Assistance Centers
(DSACs)
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13)
Resources
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2012
Closing the Achievement Gap Legislation
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time, stakeholder groups
See Appendix A.
2010
An Act Relative to Bullying in Schools
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2010 - 2012
Massachusetts High School Graduation
Initiative (MassGrad)
(Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2010 - 2012
Massachusetts Licensure Academy (MLA)
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time, grant partners (Fitchburg
State University)
See Appendix A.
2010 - 2012
Massachusetts Tiered System of Support
(MTSS) Grants
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2010 - 2012
Massachusetts 21st Century Community
Learning Centers (CCLC)
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, CCLC staff
time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
9
Massachusetts
Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012
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:
Reporting Guidelines - Information Services/Data Collection
(http://www.doe.mass.edu/infoservices/data/guides/dropouts.html).
Baseline Data for FFY2004 (2004-2005):
# of Students Enrolled
(Grades 9-12)
# of Dropouts (Grades
9-12)
2004-2005
Dropout Rate
IEP
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 IEPs in Massachusetts’ public schools are
dropping out of high school at a higher rate than their peers without IEPs. Based on this formula for
calculating dropout rate, which is an “event” or “annual” rate calculation, MASSDE determined that 5.6%
of students with IEPs dropped out of high school in 2004-2005. The dropout rate was 3.5% for students
without IEPs, and was 3.8% for all students, in 2004-2005.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
10
Massachusetts
This disparity between the dropout rates for students with and without IEPs in Massachusetts reflects a
national trend. The report on SPP Indicator 2 prepared by the National Dropout Prevention Center for
Students with Disabilities (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 IEPs
and all students, the majority of states had a positive gap between the all-student rate and the rate for
students with IEPs, with gaps ranging between a fraction of one percentage point and approximately 18
percentage points. Massachusetts, with a gap of 1.8 percentage points, appears to be on par with many
of the states reporting dropout rates for both students with IEPs and all students, although it should be
noted that many states used a “cohort” calculation which cannot be directly compared to Massachusetts’
“event” calculation.
Massachusetts is committed to closing the gap between the dropout rate of students with IEPs and the
dropout rate of students without IEPs over a ten-year period. Our SPP targets reflect a ten-year goal for
FFY2015 of a dropout rate for students with IEPs at or below 3.5%. Our ten-year plan is to decrease the
Dropout Rate of students with IEPs by approximately half of one percentage point every two years as
follows:






FFY2005 & FFY2006: 5.6%
FFY2007 & FFY2008: 5.1%
FFY2009 & FFY2010: 4.7%
FFY2011 & FFY2012: 4.3%
FFY2013 & FFY2014: 3.9%
FFY2015: 3.5%
Targets and activities for the extended SPP reporting period, FFY2011 and FFY2012, were reviewed in
consultation with the Massachusetts Statewide Special Education Steering Committee.
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%
2011
(2011-2012)
4.3%
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
11
Massachusetts
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2012
(2012-2013)
4.3%
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Please note that many of the activities presented below affect multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2007
Improvement Activity
Project FOCUS Academy
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14)
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2010
Secondary School Reading Grant
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, grant
partners (Federation for
Children with Special Needs,
Center for Applied Special
Technologies, Institute for
Community Inclusion at
UMass-Boston, Education
Development Center), district
staff time
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Professional Development
Summer Institutes
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Website
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2008
Massachusetts Online Resource Library
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
12
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2007 - 2008
Improvement Activity
SPecial EDition Newsletter
(All Indicators)
Resources
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2012
Central Massachusetts Communities of Care
Positive Behavioral Interventions (PBIS) Grant
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 5, 13)
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2012
Massachusetts FOCUS Academy (MFA)
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14)
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
National Association of State Directors of
Special Education (NASDSE) Professional
Development Series
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, grant
partners (Central
Massachusetts Communities
of Care, National Center for
Positive Behavioral
Intervention and Supports
trainers), district staff time
MASSDE staff time, grant
partners (Federation for
Children with Special Needs,
Center for Applied Special
Technologies, Institute for
Community Inclusion at
UMass-Boston), district staff
time
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2010
Graduation and Dropout Prevention and
Recovery Commission
(Indicators 1, 2, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2010
ARRA Entitlement Grants
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Dropout Prevention and Recovery Work Group
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Dropout Prevention, Intervention, and
Recovery Website
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, New
England Comprehensive
Center staff time, district staff
time
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
13
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 - 2012
Improvement Activity
ARRA Title II-D Technology Competitive
Grants Program
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 14)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
Summit
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 8)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Educational Proficiency Plans (EPPs)
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Secondary Transition – Transition Works:
Innovative Strategies for Transitioning Youth
with Disabilities from School to Work
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time,
Massachusetts Rehabilitation
Commission staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Trauma Sensitive Schools Initiative
(Indicators 1, 2, 4)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Work-Based Learning Plans for Students with
Disabilities
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time, Workforce
Development staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Federal School Turnaround Grants
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time, stakeholder groups
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2012
District and School Assistance Centers
(DSACs)
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
14
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2009 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Closing the Achievement Gap Legislation
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time, stakeholder groups
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2012
Early Warning Indicator Index (EWII)
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2010
Massachusetts Task Force on Behavioral
Health and Public Schools
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2010
An Act Relative to Bullying in Schools
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2010 - 2012
Massachusetts High School Graduation
Initiative (MassGrad)
(Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2010 - 2012
Massachusetts Licensure Academy (MLA)
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time, grant partners
(Fitchburg State University)
See Appendix A.
2010 - 2012
Massachusetts Tiered System of Support
(MTSS) Grants
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2010 - 2012
Massachusetts 21st Century Community
Learning Centers (CCLC)
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, CCLC
staff time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
15
Massachusetts
Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012
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).
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
16
Massachusetts
MASSACHUSETTS COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (MCAS)
MASSDE requires that all publicly funded students, including those students with disabilities, participate
in the grade level Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests. Although the
participation requirement is the same for general education students, students with disabilities can
participate in either the standard MCAS or the MCAS Alternate Assessment (MCAS-Alt), depending on
the nature and complexity of their disability. The MCAS-Alt is a portfolio-based assessment that measures
the same learning standards of the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks as are measured in the
standard MCAS tests. For additional information on MCAS participation requirements, please refer to the
Requirements for the Participation of Students with Disabilities in MCAS: Update
http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/participation/sped.doc. This resource is updated annually.
In school year 2004-2005 and in previous years, students were required to take the English Language
Arts (ELA) exam in grades 3, 4, 7, and 10. The Mathematics test was administered to students in grades
4, 6, 8, and 10. In order to fulfill the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, 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 FFY2004 (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%
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
17
Massachusetts
Participation Rate for Students with IEPs (Indicator 3B)
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.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
18
Massachusetts
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
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
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
19
Massachusetts
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 0 points to each student participating in MCAS/MCASAlt 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.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
20
Massachusetts
ELA-Target
MCAS Proficiency Rates CPI: English Language Arts
100
70.7
80
70.7
75.6
75.6
63.4
64.9
ELA-Actual
80.5
60
58.5
40
59.7
65
20
0
FFY 2000
FFY 2001
FFY 2002
FFY 2003
MCAS Proficiency Rates CPI: Mathematics
FFY 2004
Math-Target
Math-Actual
100
80
53
53
42.5
41.2
FFY 2000
FFY 2001
60
40
20
60.8
45.7
60.8
68.7
48.2
49.5
FFY 2003
FFY 2004
0
FFY 2002
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).
Target Setting for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012
In order to extend the SPP and set targets for FFY2011 and FFY2012, MASSDE held interest group
meetings for Indicator 3 in order to obtain broad stakeholder input. In addition, the Massachusetts
Steering Committee met to vote on the target for Indicator 3A (% of districts making AYP for the Disability
Subgroup) and set targets based on the average increase in targets for the previous 5 years.
Furthermore, the Steering Committee recommended keeping the Proficiency rate (CPI) targets the same
as the state performance targets identified in No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Those recommendations are
reflected in the targets for the extended SPP reporting period.
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Targets
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
21
Massachusetts
% Districts Meeting
AYP for Disability
Subgroup (3A)
Participation Rate for
Students with IEPs (3B)
Proficiency Rate (CPI)
for Students with IEPs
(3C)
ELA
MATH
ELA
MATH
2005
(2005-2006)
45%
37%
80.5
68.7
2006
(2006-2007)
45%
37%
85.4
76.5
2007
(2007-2008)
46%
38%
85.4
76.5
2008
(2008-2009)
50%
40%
90.2
84.3
2009
(2009-2010)
52%
42%
90.2
84.3
2010
(2010-2011)
52%
45%
95.1
92.2
2011
(2011-2012)
57%
49%
95.1
92.2
2012
(2012-2013)
62%
53%
100
100
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.
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 its 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 itemanalysis charts to facilitate in determining patterns, identify weakness and relevant relationships across
student subgroups, performance levels, and subject areas and inform staff professional development.
The activities listed above and additional activities are provided in the chart below and affect Indicator 3.
Please note that many of the activities presented below affect multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a full description is available in Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
22
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2006
Improvement Activity
Emergent Literacy Grant
(Indicators 3, 5, 6)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2007
Project FOCUS Academy
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14)
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2007
Special Education Program Improvement
Grants (Fund Code 274)
(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 11)
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), district staff time
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Program Improvement
Grants (Fund Code 249)
(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Collaboration with Federation for Children
with Special Needs
(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, Federation for
Children with Special Needs
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2010
Secondary School Reading Grant
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Website
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
23
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Special Education Leadership Academies
and Seminars
(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 8, 11)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Professional
Development Summer Institutes
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Comprehensive System of Personnel
Development Training Project (CSPD)
(Indicators 3, 5, 11, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, CSPD trainer
time, CSPD district staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
National Association of State Directors of
Special Education (NASDSE) Professional
Development Series
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14 )
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
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 - 2012
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 maintains web based
resources for professionals including MCAS-Alt
Newsletters, the Resource Guide, Educator's
Manual, MCAS-Alt Forms and Graphs, and
order forms.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
24
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Ongoing Technical Assistance from the
Office of Accountability and Targeted
Assistance
Resources
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will provide ongoing technical
assistance related to school and district
accountability processes and school
improvement initiatives. The supports include
creating and issuing data files, providing
guidance to districts, assisting identified districts
in school improvement planning and identifying
exemplary schools and best practices.
2007 - 2010
Partnership for Online Professional
Development (POPD)
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 - 2012
Massachusetts FOCUS Academy
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14)
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2008
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time, grant partners
(Federation for Children with
Special Needs, Center for Applied
Special Technologies, Institute for
Community Inclusion at UMassBoston), district staff time
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2008
Massachusetts Online Resource Library
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2012
Preschool to Grade 3 Curriculum,
Instruction, and Assessment Alignment
Project (Fund Code 264A & 264B)
(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Sign Language Web-Based Resource Library
(Indicators 3, 5)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
25
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Revision of “Ten Step Guide for
Comprehensive Educational System of
Students with Visual Impairments
(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 11, 13)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, stakeholder
groups
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2009
Revision of “Is Special Education the Right
Service?” (ISERS)
(Indicators 3, 6, 8, 9, 10)
MASSDE staff time, stakeholder
groups
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Collaboration between MASSDE’s
Curriculum and Instruction Math Office and
Special Education Planning and Policy
Development Office (SEPP)
(Indicators 3, 5)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2010
ARRA Entitlement Grants
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Federal School Turnaround Grants
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time, stakeholder groups
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
Summit
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 8)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Educational Proficiency Plans (EPPs)
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2012
District and School Assistance Centers
(DSACs)
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
26
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2009 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Closing the Achievement Gap Legislation
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time, stakeholder groups
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2012
Early Warning Indicator Index (EWII)
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2010
Massachusetts Task Force on Behavioral
Health and Public Schools
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2010 - 2012
Massachusetts Licensure Academy
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time, grant partners (Fitchburg
State University)
See Appendix A.
2010 - 2012
Massachusetts Tiered System of Support
(MTSS) Grant
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
27
Massachusetts
Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012
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.
Massachusetts’ definition of “significant discrepancy” in the rate of suspension and expulsion is a
suspension/expulsion rate of five times the state rate for two consecutive years.
B. Percent = [(# of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rates
of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with IEPs;
and (b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not
comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of
positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards) divided by the (# of
districts in the State)] times 100.
Massachusetts’ definition of “significant discrepancy”, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions
and expulsions is a suspension/expulsion rate in a particular race of five times the state rate for
students with disabilities overall, for three consecutive years.
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:
Indicator 4A:
A comparison of the district’s rate of students with an IEP who were expelled or suspended for > 10
school days in a school year versus the state rate of students with IEPs who were expelled or suspended
for > 10 school days in a school year was used for the purpose of determining the existence of a numeric
discrepancy. Districts with fewer than 30 students in special education were removed from this part of the
analysis since small numbers of students with IEPs may distort percentages. A comparison of
suspensions and expulsions rates for students with IEPs to rates for students without IEPs is not
possible, since comparable data, such as suspensions or expulsions for greater than 10 days, is not an
analysis that is used for students without IEPs. Data is gathered through a discrete incident reporting
procedure used by each district in reporting to the state through a web-based system. This report is called
the School Safety and Discipline Report (SSDR). The SSDR is coordinated with the Student Information
Management System (SIMS) through use of the individual student identification number. All SSDRs for
the school year must be submitted by July 28.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
28
Massachusetts
A district is cited as having a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions for
students with IEPs if its rate of suspensions and expulsions is five times the state rate for two consecutive
years. MASSDE continues to feel strongly that a district should be cited after consecutive years of having
a suspension and expulsion rate that is five times the state rate because the data obtained for this
indicator appears to have significant data collection variation; initial activities for this indicator will also
include significant data verification activity.
Indicator 4B:
For FFY2010, MASSDE was required to change its method of calculation from a weighted and alternative
risk ratio, which it had used in FFY2009. MASSDE now uses a comparison of a district’s rate of students
in a particular race with an IEP who are expelled or suspended for greater than 10 school days in a
school year versus the state rate of students with IEPs who are expelled or suspended for greater than 10
school days in a school year to determining the existence of a numeric discrepancy. Data for 4B is
gathered in the same manner and time as described in 4A above, using an incident reporting procedure
through a web-based data reporting system. MASSDE uses a minimum cell size of 20 students with IEPs
for each racial/ethnicity group. In FFY2010, 370 districts had more than 20 students with IEPs in at least
one racial/ethnic group, and 22 districts did not. Therefore, 22 districts were excluded from the
calculations.
For each district with a rate of suspension/expulsion of students in a particular race, five times the state
rate for three consecutive years, MASSDE reviews the appropriateness of the district’s policies, practices,
and procedures relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral
interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards.
MASSDE identifies a district as having a significant discrepancy in rates of long-term suspensions and
expulsions for students with IEPs in any racial or ethnic category if its rate is five times the state rate for
students with disabilities for three consecutive years and there is an issue with the district’s policies,
practices, or procedures relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive
behavioral interventions and supports, or procedural safeguards.
4A: Baseline Data for FFY2004 (2004-2005):
Indicator 4A: Districts with significant discrepancy in rates of suspension and expulsion.
2004-2005
2004-2005
Special Education
Enrollment
State Suspension/
Expulsion Rate
157,111
0.514%
% of districts with
suspension/
expulsion rate that is
five times State Rate*
% of districts with a
finding of “significant
discrepancy” in the
rate of suspensions
and expulsions
1.8%
(6 districts)
0%
(0 districts)
*Districts with 30 or fewer students in special education were removed from this part of the analysis.
4B: Baseline Data for FFY2009 (using data from 2008-2009 based on the instructions for a data
lag):
Indicator 4B: Districts with (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rates of suspensions
and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures
or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to
the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports,
and procedural safeguards.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
29
Massachusetts
Year
Total Number of
Districts*
Number of districts that have (a) a significant
discrepancies by race or ethnicity, in the rates
of suspensions and expulsions of greater than
10 days in a school year of children with IEPs;
and (b) policies, procedures or practices that
contribute to the significant discrepancy and
do not comply with requirements relating to
the development and implementation of IEPs,
the use of positive behavioral interventions
and supports, and procedural safeguards
% of Districts
2008-2009
366
0
0.0%
*25 Districts with 20 or fewer students from a single race or ethnicity were removed from this part of the
analysis.
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 FFY2004, none of these districts exceeded the
“five times the state rate” threshold for two consecutive years (none of these districts had exceeded the
threshold in FFY2003). Therefore, 0 districts (0%) were identified as having a significant discrepancy in
the rates of suspensions and expulsions for students with IEPs in FFY2004.
MASSDE is concerned that districts may under-report or mis-report suspension activities because of
public perception issues, inconsistency in reporting procedures at the local level, and confusion over the
use of the term “in-school suspension.” Therefore, MASSDE is developing improvement activities aimed
at improving the quality and accuracy of the data collected.
Targets are set at 0% for all years.
Indicator 4B:
As with Indicator 4A, the SSDR reports individual level data on the disciplinary action received by a
student for a drug or violence related incident, the disciplinary action received by a student with an IEP for
any infraction, and an expulsion or suspension of more than 10 consecutive school days of a student
without an IEP for non-drug or violence related activities. In-school suspensions, out-of-school
suspensions, and removals to alternative educational settings are all counted. If the same student is
disciplined on more than one occasion, he/she is counted separately for each infraction. MASSDE has
noted significant anecdotal variation in how or if suspensions are reported across school districts,
regardless of race or ethnicity. Therefore, as with Indicator 4A, we present this baseline data with caution.
Beginning with the FFY2009 reporting year, MASSDE was required to use the data results from the year
before the reporting year (2008-2009) to account for the data lag. In FFY2009, MASSDE used a weighted
and alternative risk ratio to determine significant discrepancies among its special education students.
Four districts, or 1.1%, were identified as having risk ratio rates of 3.0 or greater in their rates of
suspension and expulsion by race or ethnicity. However, none of these districts exceeded the “risk ratio
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
30
Massachusetts
metric of 3.0 or greater” threshold for three consecutive years; therefore, 0 districts (0.0%) were identified
by MASSDE as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions by race or
ethnicity for students with IEPs in reporting year FFY2009, and the second level of analysis was not
required. MASSDE did not review districts’ policies, procedures and practices relating to the development
and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural
safeguards.
OSEP did not approve this methodology because MASSDE was not able to compare the rate of
suspension among students with disabilities to general education students. In the FFY2010 reporting
period, pursuant to guidance from OSEP, MASSDE changed its calculation method to a single state bar
that compares suspension and expulsion rates only among students with disabilities.
Under the new calculation, MASSDE identifies a district as having a significant discrepancy, by race or
ethnicity, in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children
with IEPs rates if, for three consecutive years, the district’s suspension and expulsion rate for students
with disabilities in a particular race or ethnicity has been five times the state suspension and expulsion
rate for students with disabilities overall. MASSDE uses a minimum cell size of 20 students with IEPs for
each racial/ethnicity group.
MASSDE’s new method of calculation identified 7 districts that, for three consecutive year, has been five
times the state suspension and expulsion rate for students with disabilities overall. Using data from
MASSDE’s Program Quality Assurance Office’s monitoring activities, MASSDE will examine begin the
process of reviewing these each districts’ policies, procedures and practices reviewing for those that
contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development
and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural
safeguards. At that time, MASSDE will identify which of these seven districts had policies, procedures
and practices that contributed to their significant discrepancy.
Similar to Indicator 4A, MASSDE is concerned that districts may under-report or mis-report suspension
activities because of public perception issues, inconsistency in reporting procedures at the local level, and
varied understanding of the definition of the term “in-school suspension.” MASSDE will develop
improvement activities aimed at improving the quality and accuracy of the data collected for students with
IEPs by race or ethnicity.
Targets must be 0% for all years.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
31
Massachusetts
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
Measurable and Rigorous Target
4A: % of districts that have a significant
discrepancy in the rates of suspensions
and expulsions for greater than 10 days
in a school year of children with IEPs
4B: % of districts that have: (a) a
significant discrepancy, by race or
ethnicity, in the rates of suspensions
and expulsions of greater than 10
days in a school year of children
with IEPs; and (b) policies,
procedures or practices that
contribute to the significant
discrepancy and do not comply with
requirements relating to the
development and implementation of
IEPs, the use of positive behavioral
interventions and supports, and
procedural safeguards
2005
(2005-2006)
0%
N/A
2006
(2006-2007)
0%
N/A
2007
(2007-2008)
0%
N/A
2008
(2008-2009)
0%
N/A
2009
(2009-2010)
0%
0%
2010
(2010-2011)
0%
0%
2011
(2011-2012)
0%
0%
2012
(2012-2013)
0%
0%
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
32
Massachusetts
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Please note that many of the activities presented below affect multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a complete description is available in Appendix A.
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2007
Improvement Activity
Project FOCUS Academy
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14)
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2007
Special Education Program Improvement Grants
(Fund Code 274)
(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 11)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, grant
partners (Federation for
Children with Special
Needs, Center for Applied
Special Technologies,
Institute for Community
Inclusion at UMass-Boston,
Education Development
Center), district staff time
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Program Improvement Grants
(Fund Code 249)
(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2010
Secondary School Reading Grant
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Professional Development
Summer Institutes
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Website
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
33
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2006 - 2010
Improvement Activity
Suspension/Expulsion Forum
Resources
MASSDE staff time, district
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 districts in attendance and the
differences among them; b) review and analyze data
from the most recent data collections; c) identify
practices among districts regarding services provided
to students with disabilities during suspension; d)
identify current reporting practices through SIMS and
the SSDR; and e) review resources for district-wide
improvement activities.
2007 - 2012
Massachusetts FOCUS Academy
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14)
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2008
Massachusetts Online Resource Library
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, grant
partners (Federation for
Children with Special
Needs, Center for Applied
Special Technologies,
Institute for Community
Inclusion at UMassBoston), district staff time
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2008
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2012
Central Massachusetts Communities of Care
Positive Behavioral Interventions (PBIS) Grant
(Fund Code 250)
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 5, 13)
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
MASSDE staff time, grant
partners (Central
Massachusetts
Communities of Care,
National Center for Positive
Behavioral Intervention and
Supports trainers), district
staff time
34
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 - 2010
Improvement Activity
Suspension/Expulsion Technical Assistance
Seminar
Resources
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
Participants will include staff of districts that have
either been identified as significantly discrepant or
that are at risk for being identified. The objectives of
the Suspension/Expulsion Technical Assistance
Seminar are to: clarify the appropriate definition of
suspension; increase awareness of current district
data collection systems; analyze disaggregated data
provided by MASSDE to identify trends within each
district; and identify programmatic services that may
be provided rather than having a student experience
in-school suspension (ISS).
2008 - 2012
National Association of State Directors of
Special Education (NASDSE) Professional
Development Series
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14 )
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Data Collection and Practice Improvement Self
Assessment
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). Aspects of
this initiative will focus on effective review policies
and procedures, and timely verification of correction
of noncompliance by MASSDE.
2008 - 2012
Collaboration with PQA
MASSDE staff time
The special education unit meets with members of
the Program Quality Assurance (PQA) unit to identify
district trends in findings of non-compliance
regarding documentation and tracking of
suspensions and expulsions.
2008 - 2012
Dropout Prevention and Recovery Workgroup
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
35
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Dropout Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery
Website
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)
Resources
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
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.
2008 - 2012
Trauma Sensitive Schools Initiative
(Indicators 1, 2, 4)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Summit
(Indicators 1 ,2, 3, 4, 8)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Educational Proficiency Plans (EPPs)
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Work-Based Learning Plans (WBLP) for Students
with Disabilities
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time, Workforce
Development staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Secondary Transition – Transition Works:
Innovative Strategies for Transitioning Youth with
Disabilities from School to Work
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time,
Massachusetts
Rehabilitation commission
staff time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
36
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 - 2010
Improvement Activity
ARRA Entitlement Grants
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
ARRA Title II-D Technology Competitive Grants
Program
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Federal School Turnaround Grants
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time, stakeholder
groups
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2009 - 2012
Early Warning Indicator Index (EWII)
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2010
Massachusetts Task Force on Behavioral Health
and Public Schools
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time,
EOHHS staff time,
community agencies’ staff
time
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2012
District and School Assistance Centers (DSACs)
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2012
Closing the Achievement Gap Legislation
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time, stakeholder
groups
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
37
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2009 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Suspensions/Expulsions Disproportionality
Focus Group
Resources
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
Facilitated by members of the special education unit,
this focus group is intended for those districts
identified as at-risk for significant discrepancy in their
rates of suspensions and expulsions, by race or
ethnicity, of students with IEPs. he format of the
group is to discuss policies, procedures and
practices relating to the development and
implementation of IEPs, policies relating to the use of
positive behavior interventions and supports, policies
relating to procedural safeguards, and any local
trends or issues that may contribute to rates of
suspensions and expulsions.
2009 - 2012
Training of Trainers (TOT)
(Indicators 4, 9, 10)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
The Training of Trainers model is used for English
Language Learners (ELL) Category Trainings, but
also addresses issues related to language and
cultural differences affecting behavior and discipline.
2009 - 2012
ELL Technical Assistance to Districts
(Indicators 4, 9, 10)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
The ELL Technical Assistance available to districts
focuses on language and cultural diversity and
understanding how these differences affect student
and family relationships with authority figures,
including teachers and school personnel. Also
included are discussions of trauma-related concerns,
especially among the refugee population, among
other limited English students and their families who
have experienced or witnessed trauma.
2009 - 2012
Online Resources Relating to Disproportionality
(Indicators 4, 9, 10)
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will develop web-based resources devoted
to providing the latest data and research on the topic
of disproportionality. Included in this online resource
will be MASSDE’s research report examining
national trends and Massachusetts’ trends. It will
provide a contextual framework through which
MASSDE can improve its assistance to districts and
students.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
38
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2010 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Resources
Massachusetts 21st Century Community Learning
Centers (CLCC) - Enhanced Programs for
Students with Disabilities
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time,
district and community staff
time
See Appendix A.
2010 - 2012
Massachusetts Tiered System of Support (MTSS)
Grants
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2010
An Act Relative to Bullying in Schools
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time, stakeholder
groups
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
39
Massachusetts
Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012
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
separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements category. The data below
indicates that 6.2% of Massachusetts students with disabilities are in separate schools, residential
facilities, or homebound/hospital placements, with the vast majority in public and private day schools,
2.3% and 3.0% respectively. National baseline information indicates that only 2.9% of students are in
separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements. Massachusetts has attempted
to review the use of separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements along with
the other states in the Northeast region, as this region of the U.S. has many more day and residential
school options available to students, so we are somewhat unclear as to whether the national data is the
most representative when reviewing practice in states with many separate schools, residential facilities, or
homebound/hospital alternatives. This is somewhat on the principle of “if you build them they will come,”
so part of our interest at this time is to review our data in detail and determine the extent to which states
most comparable to Massachusetts look in relation to our performance.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
40
Massachusetts
Breakdown of Separate Schools, Residential Facilities, or
Homebound/Hospital Placements 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,
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 FFY2004 (2004-2005):
Indicator 5: % of students with IEPs aged 6 through 21 in
A) full inclusion;
B) substantially separate placements; and
C) in separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
National Baseline
2002-2003
A) Full Inclusion
13%
33.7%
43.4%
48%
Partial Inclusion
66%
43%
33.6%
29%
B) Substantially Separate
15%
16.4%
16.2%
19%
C) Separate Schools,
Residential Facilities, or
Homebound/Hospital
6.7%
5.5%
6.8%
2.9%
Ages 6-21
Source of Data: 2004-2005 Annual Report of Students Served Student Information Management System
(SIMS).
Discussion of Baseline Data:
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
41
Massachusetts
As noted in MASSDE’s response to the OSEP October 2003 Data Verification Visit letter, MASSDE has
made changes to its definitions related to full inclusion and its data collection for section 618 that has
resulted in more reliable and accurate data. Ongoing technical assistance is provided to districts on the
data elements of SIMS, including the special education data elements. As districts continue to work with
the new definitions and become even more familiar with the data elements related to LRE, it is anticipated
that we will continue to move closer to the national baseline for ‘Full Inclusion’, ‘Partial Inclusion’, and
‘Substantially Separate’ placements. As noted above, there remain many issues related to separate
schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements.
MASSDE has, in the past, relied on its monitoring system to collect district level data on LRE practices.
To date, CPR teams have reviewed SE20: Least Restrictive Program Selected, which measures
compliance on:
1. The program selected is the least restrictive environment for students, with consideration
given to any potential harmful effect on the student or on the quality of services that he or she
needs.
2. If the student is removed from the general education classroom at any time, the Team states
why the removal is considered critical to the student’s program and the basis for its
conclusion that education of the student in a less restrictive environment, with the use of
supplementary aids and services, could not be achieved satisfactorily.
3. The district does not remove an eligible child from the general education classroom solely
because of needed modification in the curriculum.
4. If a student’s IEP necessitates special education services in a day or residential facility or an
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 2004-2005.These reports include detailed placement data. With the greater
availability of individual student level data, the lens on LRE may shift from district level policies and
procedures to district level performance in relation to child placement outcomes.
The Massachusetts Steering Committee unanimously recommended that our initial target setting be
modest for Indicator 5B and 5C, in order to allow our interest groups to more deeply review the data and
consider local performance as well as state performance to effectively close the gap in this performance
indicator, as well as to carefully consider the effect of such targets. It is thought that the improvement
activities focused on increasing full inclusion will create a meaningful effect and thus target setting is more
substantial. Therefore, the following targets have been set for this first six-year period.
Target Setting for FFY2011 and FFY2012
In order to extend the SPP and set targets for FFY2011 and FFY2012, MASSDE convened the
Massachusetts Steering Committee to discuss the target for Indicator 5. The targets for FFY2011 and
FFY2012 are based on a review of MASSDE’s LRE data over a five year period, input from the Steering
Committee, and the review of State data from the FFY2008 Annual Performance Reports, which includes
data from 50 states and 10 territories.
The Steering Committee provided valuable input but did not reach a consensus for target setting. Half of
the members of the Steering Committee recommended extending MASSDE’s current targets, while the
other half recommended increasing/decreasing the targets based on the average change in the target
since FFY2005 (an increase for Indicator 5A and a decrease for Indicators 5b and 5c to reflect positive
changes). MASSDE has incorporated both of these options into the target setting for Indicator 5.
The target for Indicator 5A reflects an increase in the percentage of students with IEPs served inside the
regular class 80% or more of the day. MASSDE reports a similar rate of students served inside the
regular class 80% or more of the day (5A), compared to the FFY2008 mean for all states, and continues
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
42
Massachusetts
to increase the target for this indicator. Of note, MASSDE’s data bears a higher percent of students inside
the regular class less than 40% of the day (5B) and in separate schools, residential facilities, or
homebound/hospital placements (5C), however has a similar rate of students served inside the regular
class 80% or more of the day (5A) compared to the FFY 2008 mean for all states. The FFY2012 target for
Indicator 5a is equal to the FFY 2008 mean for all States (59.7%).
The targets for Indicator 5A and 5C will be extended until FFY2012 as the trend in MASSDE’s data of
educational environments demonstrates an increase over time in full inclusion environments, with a
commensurate decrease in partial inclusion, and relative stability of placement in separate environments.
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
% of students with
IEPs aged 6 through
21 in full inclusion
(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
separate schools,
residential facilities, or
homebound/hospital
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%
2011
(2011-2012)
58.8%
14.5%
5.5%
2012
(2012-2013)
59.7%
14.5%
5.5%
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Please note that many of the activities presented below affect multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
43
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2006
Improvement Activity
Emergent Literacy Grant
(Indicators 3, 5, 6)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2007
Project FOCUS Academy
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14)
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2010
Secondary School Reading Grant
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 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), district
staff time
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2007
Special Education Program Improvement
Grants (Fund Code 274)
(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 11)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Program Improvement
Grants (Fund Code 249)
(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Leadership Academies
and Seminars
(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 8, 11)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Professional
Development Summer Institutes
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Website
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
44
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Student Information Reporting and
Management
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 - 2012
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 - 2012
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Comprehensive System of Personnel
Development Training Project (CSPD)
(Indicators 3, 5, 11, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, CSPD
trainer time, CSPD district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Inclusive Schools Week
MASSDE staff time, district
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 - 2012
Collaboration with Federation for Children
with Special Needs
(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time,
Federation for Children with
Special Needs
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
45
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Inclusive Concurrent Enrollment Partnership
Program for Students with Disabilities
(Indicators 5, 13, 14)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time, technical
assistance providers
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2012
Central Massachusetts Communities of Care
Positive Behavioral Interventions (PBIS)
Grant
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 5, 13)
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2012
Massachusetts FOCUS Academy
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14)
See Appendix A.
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
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, grant
partners (Central
Massachusetts Communities
of Care, National Center for
Positive Behavioral
Intervention and Supports
trainers), district staff time
MASSDE staff time, grant
partners (Federation for
Children with Special Needs,
Center for Applied Special
Technologies, Institute for
Community Inclusion at
UMass-Boston), district staff
time
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time, OSEP funded
Technical Assistance and
Dissemination Resources
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2008
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2012
Preschool to Grade 3 Curriculum,
Instruction, and Assessment Alignment
Project
(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
46
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Revision of “Ten Step Guide for
Comprehensive Educational Assessment of
Students with Visual Impairments”
(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 11, 13)
Resources
MASSDE staff time,
stakeholder groups
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Collaboration Between MASSDE’s
Curriculum and Instruction Math Office and
Special Education Planning and Policy
Development Office (SEPP)
(Indicators 3, 5)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
National Association of State Directors of
Special Education (NASDSE) Professional
Development Series
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14 )
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2010
ARRA Entitlement Grants
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Community/Residential Education Project
(Indicators 5, 13, 14)
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
District and School Accountability and
Assistance Office – Center for School and
District Accountability
MASSDE staff time,
Massachusetts Department of
Developmental Services
(MDSS)
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 FFY2008, the
focus of the district reviews related to students
with disabilities.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
47
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Sign Language Web-Based Resource Library
(Indicators 3, 5)
Resources
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Federal School Turnaround Grants
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time, stakeholder groups
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2009
Revision of “Is Special Education the Right
Service?” (ISERS)
(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 9, 10)
MASSDE staff time,
stakeholder groups
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2012
District and School Assistance Centers
(DSACs)
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2010
Massachusetts Task Force on Behavioral
Health and Public Schools
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time, stakeholder groups
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2012
Closing the Achievement Gap Legislation
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time, stakeholder groups
See Appendix A.
2010 – 2012
Massachusetts Licensure Academy (MLA)
(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time, grant partners
(Fitchburg State University)
See Appendix A.
2010 - 2012
An Act Relative to Bullying In Schools
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time, stakeholder groups
See Appendix A.
2010 - 2012
Massachusetts Tiered System of Support
(MTSS) Grants
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time, stakeholder groups
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
48
Massachusetts
Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012
Overview of the State Performance Plan 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 FFY2004 (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 2004-2005 Early Childhood Special Education Allocation
grant:

Data is for 246 out of a potential 273 grants (90%).
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
49
Massachusetts

13,971 preschool students have an IEP.

13,205 (95%) of the students with IEPs are being served in an inclusive setting.

Of the students being served in an inclusive setting:
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 2004-2005 school year, 70.1% of preschool
students with disabilities were served in inclusive settings, and 8.3% of students were served in partial
inclusion settings, for a total of 78.4%.
The below targets 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%
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
50
Massachusetts
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2010
(2010-2011)
81%
2011
(2011-2012)
TBD
2012
(2012-2013)
TBD
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Please note that many of the activities presented below affect multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2006
Improvement Activity
Emergent Literacy Grant
(Indicators 3, 5, 6)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time, MEEC staff
time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Website
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Professional
Development Summer Institutes
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Leadership Academies
and Seminars
(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 8, 11)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
51
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Collaboration with Federation for Children
with Special Needs
(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, FCSN staff
time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Program Improvement
Grants (Fund Code 249)
(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2006 - 2010
Training and Technical Assistance to LEAs
MASSDE staff time, MEEC staff
time
MASSDE and MEEC will provide ongoing
training and technical assistance to districts on
data reporting requirements and on how to
communicate with families and communities in
order to develop a cohesive service delivery
model for preschoolers with disabilities.
2007 - 2008
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2008
Massachusetts Online Resource Library
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2012
Preschool to Grade 3 Curriculum,
Instruction, and Assessment Alignment
Project (Fund Code 264A & 264B)
(Indicators 5, 6, 7, 8, 12)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2009
Assessment Institute
MASSDE staff time, MEEC staff
time, district 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 students with disabilities and how
programs can use assessment data to guide
program improvement and instructional
practices.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
52
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 - 2009
Improvement Activity
Data Analysis and Verification Visits
Resources
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)
(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 9, 10)
MASSDE staff time,
stakeholder groups
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
National Association of State Directors of
Special Education (NASDSE) Professional
Development Series
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14 )
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Revision of “Ten Step Guide for
Comprehensive Educational Assessment of
Students with Visual Impairments”
(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 11, 13)
MASSDE staff time,
stakeholder groups
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2010
ARRA Entitlement Grants
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time.
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2012
Closing the Early Literacy Gap for Students
with Disabilities (Fund Code 297)
(Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12)
MASSDE staff time, MEEC staff
time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
53
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 - 2010
Improvement Activity
Massachusetts Task Force on Behavioral
Health and Public Schools
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time, stakeholder groups
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2012
Early Childhood Special Education
Professional Development
(Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12)
MASSDE staff time, MEEC staff
time
See Appendix A.
2010 - 2012
Massachusetts Licensure Academy (MLA)
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time, grant partners (Fitchburg
State University)
See Appendix A.
2010 - 2012
Massachusetts Tiered System of Support
(MTSS) Grants
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
54
Massachusetts
Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012
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.
(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.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
55
Massachusetts
Summary Statements for Each of the Three Outcomes (use for FFY2008-2009
reporting):
Summary Statement 1: Of those preschool children who entered the preschool program
below age expectation in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate
of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.
Measurement for Summary Statement 1:
Percent = # of preschool children reported in progress category (c) plus # of preschool
children reported in category (d) divided by [# of preschool children reported in progress
category (a) plus # of preschool children reported in progress category (b) plus # of
preschool children reported in progress category (c) plus # of preschool children reported in
progress category (d)] times 100.
Summary Statement 2: The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age
expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.
Measurement for Summary Statement 2: Percent = # of preschool children reported in
progress category (d) plus [# of preschool children reported in progress category (e) divided
by the total # of preschool children reported in progress categories (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) + (e)]
times 100.
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 (FFY2009)), 72 districts participated. The 387 districts were divided into four cohorts that
are representative of the state as a whole. This cohort model plan for data collection was approved by
OSEP. Over a three-year period, every district in the state with preschool-aged students will have started
the data collection activities for this indicator. Because it has an average daily membership of over 50,000
students, Boston participates in all activities every year. Further information on the cohort model can be
found at http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/datacollection.html.
Data collection and reporting for the participating districts will continue for approximately three years until
all the students who were originally assessed at baseline have exited from or terminated early childhood
special education services. Once all the children from the local cohort have exited from early childhood
special education, the districts will participate in the Cycle II data collection efforts with a new cohort of
children.
In each cohort year, the districts are trained by staff from the Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Center in
collaboration with staff from MEEC and MASSDE on how to use the Child Outcomes Summary Form.
In December 2006, districts reported entry data based on local observation and on formal and informal
assessment information for a maximum of 40 preschool students with disabilities. In selecting students at
the local level, priority was given to preschool students who initially started their early childhood special
education services between July 1 and September 30, 2006.
Districts in the Year 1 cohort (n=74) reported entry data for 1,651 preschool students with disabilities.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
56
Massachusetts
Baseline Data Collection for FFY2006 (2006-2007) – Year 1 Cohort
Entry Data
OUTCOME
% AGE APPROPRIATE
% NOT AGE
APPROPRIATE
20%
80%
21%
79%
33%
67%
A. Positive social-emotional skills (including
social relationships)
B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills
(including early language/communication and
early literacy)
C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet needs
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.
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.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
57
Massachusetts
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)
C. Use of appropriate
behaviors to meet needs
4%
(26/728)
18%
(133/728)
29%
(211/728)
17%
(128/728)
32%
(230/728)
In the fall of 2007, MEEC and MASSDE trained its Year 2 cohort of districts (n=69) on the activities
related to Indicator 7. The training followed the same format as that of the Year 1 cohort. The districts
were trained on how to use the Child Outcomes Summary Form by staff from the two agencies. Districts
reported entry data based on local observation and on formal and informal assessment information for a
maximum of 40 preschool students with disabilities. In selecting students at the local level, priority was
given to preschool students who initially started their early childhood special education services between
July 1 and September 30, 2007.
Districts in the Year 2 cohort reported entry data for 1,624 preschool students with disabilities.
Baseline Data Collection for FFY2007 (2007-2008) – Year 2 Cohort
Entry Data
OUTCOME
% AGE
APPROPRIATE
% NOT AGE APPROPRIATE
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%
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
58
Massachusetts
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.
OUTCOME
A. Positive socialemotional skills (including
social relationships)
B. Acquisition and use of
knowledge and skills
(including early
language/communication
and early literacy)
C. Use of appropriate
behaviors to meet needs
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
1%
17%
33%
29%
20%
(12/1169)
(199/1169)
(385/1169)
(339/1169)
(234/1169)
2%
17%
31%
27%
23%
(23/1169)
(199/1169)
(362/1169)
(316/1169)
(269/1169)
1%
15%
23%
30%
31%
(12/1169)
(175/1169)
(269/1169)
(351/1169)
(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.
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 FFY2007. The exit data are
reflective of the children who received at least 6 months of early childhood special education services between
baseline and exit assessments. MASSDE and MEEC have progress data, based on the same five reporting
categories, for the remaining children who continue to receive early childhood special education services.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
59
Massachusetts
Baseline Data Collection for FFY2008 (2008-2009)
Entry Data
OUTCOME
A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social
relationships)
B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills
(including early language/communication and early
literacy)
% AGE
APPROPRIATE
% NOT AGE
APPROPRIATE
22%
78%
(647/2940)
(2293/2940)
25%
75%
(735/2940)
(2205/2940)
33%
67%
(970/2940)
(1970/2940)
C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet needs
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.
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
A. Positive socialemotional skills (including
social relationships)
B. Acquisition and use of
knowledge and skills and
(including early
language/communication
and early literacy)
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
2%
23%
24%
25%
26%
(32/1798)
(423/1798)
(425/1798)
(457/1798)
(461/1798)
2%
21%
23%
26%
28%
(32/1700)
(407/1800)
(399/1800)
(453/1800)
(509/1800)
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 FFY2008. The exit data are reflective of the
children, who received at least 6 months of early childhood special education services between baseline and exit
assessments. MASSDE and MEEC have progress data, based on the same five reporting categories, for the
remaining children who continue to receive early childhood special education services.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
60
Massachusetts
OUTCOME
C. Use of appropriate
behaviors to meet needs
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
2%
18%
17%
26%
37%
(25/1700)
(298/1700)
(311/1700)
(439/1700)
(627/1700)
In the fall of 2009, MASSDE and MEEC began the second cycle of data collection for Indicator 7.
Seventy-two districts that participated in prior cohorts were notified that they would participate in data
collection activities for a second time. MASSDE and MEEC initiated conference calls with participating
districts to revisit the required data collection activities, and to provide new district staff with the
foundational understanding of measuring outcomes in preschool children with disabilities necessary.
These efforts will assist with ensuring the reporting of valid and reliable data.
Districts in the Cycle II – Year 1 cohort reported entry data on 1,362 preschool children with disabilities.
Baseline Data Collection for FFY2009 (2009-2010)
Entry Data
OUTCOME
% AGE
APPROPRIATE
% NOT AGE
APPROPRIATE
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%
Exit Data
Exit data for FFY2009 are reported in the FFY2009 MA APR for Indicator 7. The FFY2009 MA APR also
includes a discussion of the data and its effect on revised targets set for FFY2009 and FFY2010.
Discussion of Baseline Data for FFY2006 – FFY2008:
Entry Data
The data reported at entry between Cycle I - Year 1 cohort districts and Cycle I - Year 2 cohort districts
are consistent, with the exception of the third outcome (C): Use of appropriate behaviors to meet needs.
In this outcome, the percentages changed by 1%. That data reported by the Cycle II - Year 3 cohort again
mirrors that of the Cycle I cohorts. The percentage points between the outcomes across Cycle I range
from 0-4%. With the submission of Cycle II – Year I data, the analysis continues to demonstrate
consistency across the years. MASSDE and MEEC consider the duplication of the entry data across the
three years as confirmation of the success of the cohort model and the within-district sampling model in
producing valid and reliable data each year for a representative sample of preschool students with
disabilities.
Exit Data
Given the commitment of the two agencies to make the assessment data useful to the local agencies,
MASSDE collected progress assessment data on the entire Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3 cohorts of
children in the spring of 2009. For the purposes of the MA SPP, only data for those children who exited
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
61
Massachusetts
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 district training.
The agencies anticipate that the results of these reviews and the refinement of training topics will
increase the effectiveness of upcoming trainings of districts on Indicator 7 and related data collections.
Discussion of Baseline and Measurable and Rigorous Targets
MASSDE has established what may be perceived to be conservative targets for FFY20096. 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
6
MASSDE revised the targets for FFY2010, first reported in the MA SPP for Indicator 7 submitted on February 1,
2010, in this report to reflect the recommendation of the Statewide Special Education Steering Committee to establish
more aggressive targets during the remainder of the SPP period. Please see the measurable and rigorous targets
below for more information.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
62
Massachusetts
early childhood special education, many children in the cohort are 4, and others whose birthdays fall later
than the locally established cut-off date for kindergarten enrollment age are 5 years old. As a result, the
period of time children receive services prior to exit may be from 6 months to nearly 3 years. This
variance in ages and duration of services is accounted for in the data collection and in the established
targets. One identified improvement activity is to review entry, progress, and exit data for children of
various ages. Absent this data analysis, MASSDE has determined that conservative targets in this
shortened SPP period are appropriate until the effect of age on the Indicator 7 results is known.
In establishing these targets, MASSDE considered the results of its review of data for children who exited
early childhood special education in 2008. In this review process, MEEC and MASSDE identified the
need to continue to reinforce for school districts the principles behind Indicator 7, namely, having a clear
understanding of age expected skills and behaviors for each of the outcome areas; involving parents in
the discussion of the assessment information; using multiple data sources to understand the consistency
of skills and behaviors across settings; and the critical need for clear administrative record-keeping by
school districts. MASSDE recognizes the need for improvements in the data collection process, and this
is the focus of the second improvement activity listed below. In the spring and the fall of 2010, MASSDE,
in collaboration with MEEC, will conduct training on progress/exit data collection activities and entry data
collection activities. Results of the continued supplemental data review of COSFs will inform future
trainings. MASSDE will also alert school districts to the schedule of the random supplemental file review.
All of these efforts will help MASSDE ensure the validity and reliability of data submitted by school
districts.
MASSDE will be focusing its efforts during this short SPP period on conducting more in-depth analysis of
the data. Agency staff participated in the one-day Indicator 7 training prior to the 2009 OSEP Early
Childhood Leadership Conference. With the learning from this training and the use of new tools for high
quality data analysis designed by the Early Childhood Outcomes Center, MASSDE intends to analyze the
data using additional data variables. For example, MASSDE will conduct more analyses on the entry and
exit data sets using differences across variables including disability category, educational setting, and
intensity of services. MASSDE is planning to review the data in light of other demographic variables that
can be linked with the Student Information Management System (SIMS), such as gender, ethnicity,
income, and English language learner status. Another possible area of study is examining data in the
context of children’s growth and progress over a period of time. Because of the unique model of collecting
data for Indicator 7 using multiple data points (entry, progress, exit), MASSDE has the opportunity to
consider the growth that young children with disabilities make over a year, two years, and/or three years,
and how those data can be used to enhance the child’s development and inform service delivery and
program quality. These more in-depth analyses will provide MASSDE with important information that will
be used to determine how best to progress with target setting in the next SPP cycle.
MASSDE looks forward to working with MEEC and local school districts to further develop data analyses
under Indicator 7 to understand better the extent to which preschool children with disabilities make
progress in early childhood special education programs and to use that information to inform programs
and services.
The following targets, including amended targets for FFY 2010 and targets for the extended SPP period
(FFY2011 and FFY2012), were established in consultation with the Massachusetts Statewide Special
Education Steering Committee. The Steering Committee and MASSDE recommend aggressive targets to
demonstrate our commitment to increasing our expectations and efforts for these young children to
receive the best possible early childhood programs and services and to improve as much as possible in
these early years of service.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
63
Massachusetts
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
82%
75%
Outcome A
2011
(2011-2011)
65%
53%
83%
75%
Outcome B
Summary Statement 1
Summary Statement 2
87%
80%
Outcome A
2012
(2012-2013)
Summary Statement 1
Summary Statement 2
Outcome C
Summary Statement 1
Summary Statement 2
92%
88%
Summary Statement 1
Summary Statement 2
Summary Statement 1
Summary Statement 2
68%
62%
68.25%
62.25%
84.5%
75%
Outcome C
88%
80%
Outcome B
Summary Statement 1
Summary Statement 2
Summary Statement 1
Summary Statement 2
Summary Statement 1
Summary Statement 2
90%
80%
Outcome C
92%
88%
Summary Statement 1
Summary Statement 2
92%
88%
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Please note that many of the activities presented below affect multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(All Indicators)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, MEEC staff
time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
64
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Collaboration with Federation for Children
with Special Needs
(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, Federation for
Children with Special Needs
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Professional
Development Summer Institutes
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Program Improvement
Grants (Fund Code 249)
(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Website
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2006 - 2012
Training on Data Collection Activities
MASSDE staff time, MEEC staff
time, district 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 - 2012
Technical Assistance and Support
MASSDE staff time, MEEC staff
time, district staff time
Districts in each cohort will receive ongoing
technical assistance and support related to
entry and progress/exit data collection activities.
2007 - 2008
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2012
Preschool to Grade 3 Curriculum,
Instruction, and Assessment Alignment
Project (Fund Code 264A & 264B)
(Indicators 5, 6, 7, 8, 12)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
65
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 - 2010
Improvement Activity
ARRA Entitlement Grants
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time.
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2010
Assessment Institute
MEEC staff time, district 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 - 2012
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.
2009 - 2012
Closing the Early Literacy Gap for Students
with Disabilities (Fund Code 297)
(Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12)
MASSDE staff time, MEEC staff
time
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2012
Early Childhood Special Education
Professional Development
(Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12)
MASSDE staff time, MEEC staff
time
See Appendix A.
2010 - 2012
Massachusetts Licensure Academy (MLA)
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time, grant partners (Fitchburg
State University)
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
66
Massachusetts
Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012
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’ aged birth to three, and five to 21.
MASSDE used the survey with parents of school age students.
The first scale of the survey, containing 25 questions on “Schools’ Efforts to Partner with Parents”, was
used. These survey items showed high correlation between schools’ efforts to partner with parents and
the quality of services. Upon meeting with stakeholders and reviewing the survey questions, some items
were changed (or “swapped”) for others. This was done in accordance with the rules set forth by
NCSEAM for use of their “Item Bank” (See Appendix B for the Massachusetts Parent Survey for Special
Education).
Once the survey was finalized, three districts were solicited to pilot the process. During the pilot phase,
the cover letter and survey were provided to parents in English only. The cover letter included a link to an
online version of the English survey, if parents preferred to respond in that manner. The results from the
survey pilot were deemed acceptable and were folded into the overall results from the “official” survey
round in the fall.
To ease the data collection activity burden for districts, MASSDE divided its 387 school districts into four
cohorts that are representative of the state as a whole, and will collect and report data on this indicator
using a four-year cycle (2005-2006 through 2008-2009). This cohort model and plan for data collection
was approved by OSEP on April 20, 2006. Over a four-year period, every district in the state will have
participated in the data collection activities for this indicator. Because it has an average daily membership
of over 50,000 students, Boston participates in all activities every year. Additional information on the
cohort model can be found at: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/datacollection.html.
At least initially, MASSDE contracted with two external organizations for all phases of the process. This
includes: survey distribution, data collection/input/processing/cleaning, data analysis, producing a report
based on the data at both the district and state levels, and returning the clean data files to MASSDE.
MASSDE currently contracts with OCR Macro and Ashton Associates as the provider of these services.
For the full distribution of the survey in fall 2006, MASSDE issued the parent cover letter and survey in
the two languages of highest prevalence in Massachusetts: Spanish and Portuguese. MASSDE
contracted with JTG Inc. to provide these translations. Additionally, in the fall survey round, the online
version of the survey was discontinued, as there was a very low response rate from the pilot districts in
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.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
67
Massachusetts
Baseline Data for FFY2005 (2005-2006): 76% of parents with a child receiving special education
services reported that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and
results for students with disabilities
Discussion of Baseline Data:
In combining the pilot and fall survey rounds, parents in a total of 97 school districts were surveyed. A
total of 37,086 surveys were sent out across the three languages (English, Spanish, and Portuguese). A
total of 6,076 surveys were returned across the three languages (English, Spanish, and Portuguese). This
made for an overall return rate of 16.9% which is deemed sufficient to constitute a representative
response for the state as a whole. The breakdown by language is as follows:

English: 34,951 surveys were sent out and 5,966 were returned. Return rate: 17.1%.

Spanish: 1,893 surveys were sent out and 99 were returned. Return rate: 5.2%.

Portuguese: 242 surveys were sent out and 11 were returned. Return rate: 4.5%.
To calculate our baseline data for 2005-2006, we conducted an item analysis of the 25 selected questions
of the NCSEAM survey. We considered the responses of parents for each item where “very strongly
agree,” “strongly agree,” or “agree” was the response. We determined that the measure at which
MASSDE considered that the parent “felt that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of
improving services and results for students with disabilities” was with agreement to at least 50% of the
survey items (13 of 25). For this baseline year, the level of agreement was reached by 75% of the parents
who responded to the survey.
Although all items are critically important to consider, our Massachusetts stakeholder group identified the
three most important survey statements that stakeholders felt were most critical to the establishment of
good parent partnership. The three items were the following (in order of importance):
1. My child’s teachers give me enough time and opportunities to discuss my child’s needs and
progress. (Survey question #4). 85% of all surveyed parents agreed with this item.
2. Teachers and administrators encourage me to participate in the decision-making process.
(Survey question #16.) 80% of all surveyed parents agreed with this item.
3. Teachers are available to speak with me. (Survey question #11.) 89% of all surveyed parents
agreed with this item.
MASSDE believes that this high level of agreement with these three key statements is a very positive
statement for parent partnership in Massachusetts. Additionally, more than half of all parents surveyed
agreed with 21 of the 25 survey items.
Survey Redesign and Implementation in FFY2010
In FFY2009, MASSDE took the opportunity to improve its work in Indicator 8 based on its review of the
longitudinal statewide results.7 Given the expressed concerns from stakeholders and school districts the
administrative burden of data collection and the lack of usability of the Indicator 8 results to improve
parent involvement, MASSDE contracted with ICF/Macro to rewrite the survey instrument and develop an
online survey tool to increase the reliability of data and the district return rates. MASSDE reviewed
feedback from parents who participated in the survey in 2008. Among other feedback, parents stated that
they perceived that the intent of the survey was to measure a school district’s compliance with special
education regulations and/or the parent’s satisfaction with the district. Although a written notice and
instructions explained the survey’s purpose and intent, the language of several questions was equivocal,
and resulted in parents having the impression that the survey was a tool for measuring their satisfaction
1 Although this plan was initially supported by OSEP in written correspondence with MASSDE, shortly before the
FFY2009 MA APR was required to be submitted OSEP informed all states that data collection is required for all years
during the SPP. MASSDE was unable to report data for FFY2009.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
68
Massachusetts
with the district’s practice. The redesign work continued in FFY2010. The project involved, among other
things, gathering and triangulating transition, parent partnership, and family training questions from three
parent surveys: the NCSEAM Indicator 8 Parent Survey, the Tripod Parent Survey, and the TeLLS
Survey. The new survey instrument (see Appendix C) designed to collect qualitative data from parents of
students with IEPs and parents of general education students, was thoroughly vetted by state and local
stakeholders in special and general education over a four month period. As part of this process,
MASSDE provided technical assistance to districts in order to increase parents’ opportunities to respond
to the survey online.
This redesign and refocus on the survey participation of all parents, including parents of students without
disabilities, allows for whole school and district participation, thereby strengthening the districts’
connection to the survey and its results. Also, the new survey content is aligned with several MASSDE
initiatives related to family engagement, and promotes additional inter-agency collaboration to improve
districts’ efforts to facilitate parent involvement and family engagement as a means of improving
outcomes for students. MASSDE expects that all of these efforts will result in an increased return rate,
and more valid and reliable data for use in statewide and local programming for families and students with
disabilities. While this was a very efficient way to involve the school districts in facilitating parent
participation, thereby increasing their ownership in the survey results, FFY2010 return rates reported in
the MA APR suggest that the new online survey model has its own challenges with regard to distribution
and response rates that will be addressed in future reporting years.
The new online parent survey instrument includes 17 questions for all parents; nine questions for parents
of students with disabilities in preschool through grade 6; 12 questions for parents of students with
disabilities in middle school, high school, and post high school; and nine demographic questions
answered by all respondents. The parents of general education students responding to the survey
complete only the first 17 questions, which are primarily about staffing, communication, and interactions.
The parents of special education students complete the general education questions, which include the
three focused questions8 selected by the Massachusetts Statewide Steering Committee, and then
respond to additional questions about their child’s special education needs. The special education
questions focus on transition, parent partnership, and family training.
MASSDE, with stakeholder input, also made significant revisions to the data collection methodology.
Using the same cohort-based data collection model that divides the Commonwealth’s districts into four
cohorts of approximately 100 each, including one-fourth of Boston’s students in each year, in FFY2010
MASSDE conducted on-line data collection, rather than hard copy survey distribution, collection, and
review. (More information on the MASSDE cohort model approved by OSEP is available at:
http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/datacollection.html.)
Survey development has been an inter-agency and intra-agency initiative within MASSDE. Staff from the
Special Education Planning and Policy (SEPP) office within MASSDE collaborated with external
stakeholders and internal offices, including MASSDE’s Office of Student Support Services, the Office of
English Language Acquisition and Academic Achievement, Title 1, and Learning Support Services, to
discuss potential barriers for various populations in accessing the survey and plans to help facilitate
districts working with community partners to create access to computer terminals where parents can
access the survey. Additionally, because the survey results are applicable to various populations, in
creating the survey instrument the contractor triangulated the NCSEAM questions for use with questions
from the Teaching, Learning and Leading Survey (TeLS) from the New Teacher Center at the University
of California at Santa Cruz, and with the Tripod Project Survey at Harvard University. The survey was
reviewed by MASSDE’s Office of Strategic Planning, Research, and Evaluation before being
disseminated.
8
(1) My child’s teachers give me enough time and opportunities to discuss my child’s needs and progress.
(2) Teachers and administrators encourage me to participate in the decision-making process.
(3) Teachers are available to speak with me.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
69
Massachusetts
The survey instrument, in English and now translated into the five most comment languages spoken by
students and families in Massachusetts schools -- Spanish, Portuguese, Haitian Creole, and Vietnamese
– is made available to schools and districts on the Internet.
To access the survey online, parents receive a letter with a confidential password and directions to
complete one survey for each child in their family; the letters are written in the appropriate language for
that particular family. The initial survey items focus on demographic information, e.g., school of
attendance, grade level, race/ethnicity (aligned with the federal race/ethnicity categories), and primary
language spoken in the home. Other items are rated according to a six-point Likert scale, ranging from
Very Strongly Agree to Very Strongly Disagree. Some items are appropriate for parents of students with
and without disabilities, and focus on schools’ efforts regarding parent participation, and teacher and
administrator interaction with parents. Parents of students with disabilities whose children receive
services through an IEP are directed to another part of the survey that focuses on issues such as
transition practices, and family training and engagement practices. Other questions are designed to focus
on issues relevant to different age groups. For example, parents of children in preschool and elementary
school are directed to questions about Early Childhood transitions, including from Part C to B (preschool
to kindergarten), and questions related to training and services offered to families of students with
disabilities. Additional questions about postsecondary transition practices and preparation, and questions
about trainings and services for families, are directed to parents of students in middle school and high
school.
Data collected in a statewide database is disaggregated in multiple ways. This allows for more direct data
analysis based on factors such as grade level, ethnicity, gender, age, grade, language spoken at home
and disability category, and allows MASSDE and districts to refine and target improvement activities
focused on engaging parents as a means for improving outcomes for students with disabilities. Although
the survey is made available to all parents in the districts (special education and general education), only
responses from parents with children in special education are included in the reporting of data for the MA
SPP and MA APR.
Analysis of data collected in FFY2010 using the new survey instrument and methodology is reported in
the MA APR for FFY2010.
The Massachusetts Statewide Special Education Steering Committee and the stakeholder group were
unanimous in recommending modest targets as we introduced the survey to Massachusetts parents. In
preparation for the survey redesign begun in FFY2009, the Steering Committee and stakeholders set
extended targets for the SPP period that reflect MASSDE’s expectation of improved response rates.
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)
Survey Re-Design
2010
(2010-2011)
80%
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
70
Massachusetts
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2011
(2011-2012)
83%
2012
(2012-2013)
85%
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Please note that some of the activities presented below affect multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2007
Improvement Activity
Project FOCUS Academy
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14)
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(All Indicators)
Resources
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), district staff time
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Website
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Leadership Academies
and Seminars
(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 8, 11)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Professional
Development Summer Institutes
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Collaboration with Federation for Children
with Special Needs
(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, Federation for
Children with Special Needs
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
71
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2006 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Technical Assistance to LEAs
Resources
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will provide technical assistance to
districts regarding survey results, including
guidance documents and teleconference to
assist districts in interpreting and utilizing their
results.
2007 - 2012
Massachusetts FOCUS Academy
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14)
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2012
Preschool to Grade 3 Curriculum,
Instruction, and Assessment Alignment
Project (Fund Code 264A & 264B)
(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12)
MASSDE staff time, grant partners
(Federation for Children with
Special Needs, Center for Applied
Special Technologies, Institute for
Community Inclusion at UMassBoston), district staff time
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2008
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2008
Massachusetts Online Resource Library
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
Summit
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 8)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008
National Center for Special Education
Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM)
Training for LEAs
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.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
72
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 - 2010
Improvement Activity
ARRA Entitlement Grants
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Federal School Turnaround Grants
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time, stakeholder groups
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2012
Early Childhood Special Education
Professional Development
(Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12)
MASSDE staff time, MEEC staff
time
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2012
Closing the Early Literacy Gap for Students
with Disabilities (Fund Code 297)
(Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12)
MASSDE staff time, MEEC staff
time
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2010
Revision of Data Collection Tool (Parent
Survey)
MASSDE staff time, stakeholders’
time, use of outside vendor for
survey production
MASSDE analyzed statewide results for
Indicator 8, and reviewed and redesigned the
data collection tool and survey instrument.
MASSDE and vendor launched the new survey
in the spring of 2011 to collect and analyze the
data to report back to districts.
2009 - 2010
Massachusetts Task Force on Behavioral
Health and Public Schools
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time, stakeholder groups
See Appendix A.
2010 - 2012
Massachusetts Tiered System of Support
(MTSS) Grants
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time, stakeholder groups
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
73
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2010 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Resource Toolkit on Parent Involvement
Resources
MASSDE staff time
This resource, to be disseminated to school
districts, will contain resources; promising
practices; and current research about parent
involvement and its effect on student
achievement, how to engage with parents of
different cultures and languages, and barriers to
parent involvement.
2010 - 2012
Facilitating Family Engagement Grant
MASSDE staff time
The purpose of this grant program is to provide
funds to support school districts’ efforts to use
data obtained from the Parent Involvement
Survey to improve services and results for
students with disabilities. Grants will focus on
supporting high quality parent involvement
activities, professional development, and parent
leadership training.
2010 - 2012
Parent Involvement Interest Group
MASSDE staff time
The interest group will support MASSDE’s work
in designing and delivering training needed to
support parent involvement efforts at the state
and local levels, and design and dissemination
of best practices in this area.
2010 - 2012
Targeted Support and Technical Assistance
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
MASSDE will focus efforts on increasing
parents’ access to and completion of the survey
instrument, with special attention to cultural and
language barriers to access and response.
2010 - 2012
Massachusetts Licensure Academy
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time, grant partners (Fitchburg
State University)
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
74
Massachusetts
Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012
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, practices, and procedures for
identifying students as disabled.
MASSDE calculates a weighted or alternate risk ratio for each school district using the techniques
described in Westat’s Methods for Assessing Racial/Ethnic Disproportionality in Special Education
(http://www.ideadata.org/docs/Disproportionality%20Technical%20Assistance%20Guide.pdf). The
state uses a minimum cell size of 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, or 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:
A district identified using the measurement techniques described above submits its current PPPs to
MASSDE and they are reviewed by a single policy analyst and compliance specialist. If the single
analyst concludes that the PPPs were inappropriate or otherwise inconsistent with federal and state
regulations, and concludes that the PPPs likely caused the disproportionate representation at least
to some degree, then a district is identified as having disproportionate representation due to
inappropriate identification.
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:
Past Monitoring for Disproportionality Through the CPR System
Program Quality Assurance (PQA) in MASSDE has used Coordinated Program Reviews (CPRs) to
monitor for disproportionality in the representation of racial/ethnic minority students in special education
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
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
75
Massachusetts
Reporting unit developed the ability to use student-level data collected through the Student Information
Management System (SIMS) to report on disproportionality on a number of bases (including race/ethnicity
as well as gender, primary language, LEP status, and IEP status) in a variety of categories (including
special education enrollment, disability categories, and special education educational environments).
Through FFY2005, this data-oriented approach to monitoring disproportionality has continued to be used
in the context of the CPR system. In the CPR system, PQA monitors more than 350 public school districts
and charter schools in the Commonwealth for compliance with laws and regulations in the areas of
special education, English learner education, civil rights, and some other areas of general education, as
well as, in certain districts, career/vocational technical education. It has a six-year cycle for this
monitoring, meaning that it monitors each of those districts and charter schools in all those areas once
during that six-year cycle. During every CPR, PQA sends a team to spend from several days to over a
week in the district or charter school being reviewed, interviewing its personnel and observing classes.
Before the onsite visit, the team surveys parents and scrutinizes selected student records and extensive
documentation provided by the school or district. In addition, PQA sends a team midway through the sixyear cycle to complete an onsite special education follow-up Mid-cycle Review (MCR), again consisting of
onsite interviews and observations as well as examination of documentation and records. After both
CPRs and MCRs PQA issues a public report of the team’s findings in the school or district. The CPR
process is described in more detail in the Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for
FFY2008 - FFY2012 for Indicator 15.
Future Monitoring for Disproportionality
MASSDE has recently made the decision to take the monitoring of disproportionality out of the CPR/MCR
system. Since under this system only 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 FFY2005 submission.
Starting in FFY2005, MASSDE will examine the data on the distribution of racial/ethnic groups in special
education for every district and charter school in the Commonwealth, not just those slated for review
under the CPR system. It will use the definition of “disproportionate representation” given above, and a
multi-tiered approach to determine whether disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in
special education and related services is the result of inappropriate identification.
Target Setting and Improvement Activity Development
Although Indicator 10 is a compliance indicator and targets are therefore set by OSEP for all states,
MASSDE reviewed with the Statewide Special Education Steering Committee and Advisory Group, and
other interested parties, its Indicator 9 targets for the extended State Performance Plan (MA SPP) period
and proposed revisions to the MA SPP to obtain broad input from stakeholders. The MA SPP is available
to the public at http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/maspp.html, and upon request.
Baseline Data for FFY2005 (2005-2006):
Because zero districts met the criteria for the determination of over-representation and underrepresentation in FFY2005, MASSDE met its measurable and rigorous target of 0%.
Discussion of Baseline Data:
Calculating the weighted risk ratios (WRR) for FFY2005 over-representation produced zero districts that
met the criteria of three consecutive years of a WRR of 3.0 or higher. In terms of FFY2005 underrepresentation, the calculation yielded zero districts with a WRR of .25 or lower for three consecutive
years.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
76
Massachusetts
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%
2011
(2011-2012)
0%
2012
(2012-2013)
0%
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Please note that many of the activities presented below affect multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(All Indicators)
Resources
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Website
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
77
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2007 - 2008
Improvement Activity
Massachusetts Online Resource Library
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14)
Resources
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2012
Online Resources Relating to
Disproportionality
(Indicators 4, 9, 10)
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
MASSDE’s research report examining national
trends and Massachusetts’ trends. It will
provide a contextual framework through which
MASSDE can improve its assistance to districts
and students.
2007 - 2008
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008
Technical Assistance Summer Institute
Research
(Indicators 9, 10)
MASSDE staff time, national
technical assistance providers
MASSDE held a summer institute for
Massachusetts charter schools and districts on
the subject of disproportionality and
understanding data relevant to it.
2008 - 2012
Procedures for Timely Verification of
Correction of Noncompliance
(Indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2009
Self-Assessment Disproportionality Tool for
Districts
(Indicators 9, 10)
MASSDE staff time, national
technical assistance providers,
district staff time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
78
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 - 2009
Improvement Activity
Revision of “Is Special Education the Right
Service?”
(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 9, 10)
Resources
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2012
ELL Technical Assistance to Districts
(Indicators 4, 9, 10)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
The ELL Technical Assistance available to
districts focuses on language and cultural
diversity and understanding how these
differences affect student and family
relationships with authority figures, including
teachers and school personnel. Also included
are discussions of trauma-related concerns,
especially among the refugee population, but
also among other limited English students and
their families who have experienced or
witnessed trauma.
2009 - 2012
Training of Trainers (TOT)
(Indicators 4, 9, 10)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
The Training of Trainers model is used for
English Language Learners (ELL) Category
Trainings, but also addresses issues related to
language and cultural differences affecting
behavior and discipline.
2010 - 2012
Input from Stakeholders
(Indicators 9, 10)
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will hold annual conference calls with
a variety of stakeholders to discuss the current
disproportionality data and gain outside input.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
79
Massachusetts
Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development: 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, practices, and procedures for
identifying students as disabled.
MASSDE calculates a weighted or alternate risk ratio for every school district in each of the six
required disability categories (intellectual impairments, specific learning disabilities, emotional
disturbance, speech/language impairments, other health impairments, autism) using the techniques
described in Westat’s Methods for Assessing Racial/Ethnic Disproportionality in Special Education
(http://www.ideadata.org/docs/Disproportionality%20Technical%20Assistance%20Guide.pdf). The
state uses a minimum cell size of 10 for each racial/ethnic disability group in every district. Cells less
than 10 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, or 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 submit their current PPPs to
the MASSDE (or MASSDE verifies recent compliance information/reviews) and the PPPs are
reviewed by a single analyst. If the analyst concludes that the PPPs were inappropriate or otherwise
inconsistent with federal and state regulations, and concludes that the PPPs likely caused the
disproportionate representation at least to some degree, then a district is identified as having
disproportionate representation due to inappropriate identification.
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, and autism) that is the result of inappropriate identification, whereas as Indicator 9
measures the number of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in
special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification. Please see the
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
80
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for Indicator 9 for a more complete description
of this process.
Baseline Data for FFY2005 (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 (WRR) for FFY2005 over-representation produced seven districts that
met the criteria of three consecutive years of a WRR of 4.0 or higher. Using the existing PPP information
from recent Coordinated Program Reviews (CPR) and Mid-Cycle Coordinated Program Reviews (MCR),
MASSDE determined that none of these districts had inappropriate special education identification
procedures.
In terms of FFY2005 under-representation, the calculation yielded 11 districts with a WRR of .20 or lower
for three consecutive years. Using the existing PPP information from recent CPRs and MCRs, MASSDE
determined that none of these districts had inappropriate special education identification procedures.
Stakeholder Input and Public Reporting
Although Indicator 10 is a compliance indicator and targets are therefore set by OSEP for all states,
MASSDE reviewed with the Statewide Special Education Steering Committee and Advisory Group, and
other interested parties, its Indicator 10 targets for the extended State Performance Plan (MA SPP)
period and proposed revisions to the MA SPP to obtain broad input from stakeholders. The MA SPP is
available to the public at http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/maspp.html, and upon request.
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%
2011
(2011-2012)
0%
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
81
Massachusetts
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2012
(2012-2013)
0%
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Please note that many of the activities presented below affect multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.
Timelines
(FFY)
2007 - 2008
Improvement Activity
Massachusetts Online Resource Library
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14)
Resources
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2012
Online Resources Relating to
Disproportionality
(Indicators 4, 9, 10)
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
MASSDE’s research report examining national
trends and Massachusetts’ trends. It will
provide a contextual framework through which
MASSDE can improve its assistance to districts
and students.
2007 - 2008
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008
Technical Assistance Summer Institute
Research
(Indicators 9, 10)
MASSDE staff time, national
technical assistance providers
MASSDE held a summer institute for
Massachusetts charter schools and districts on
the subject of disproportionality and
understanding data relevant to it.
2008 - 2012
Procedures for Timely Verification of
Correction of Noncompliance
(Indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
82
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 - 2009
Improvement Activity
Resources
Self-Assessment Disproportionality Tool for
Districts
(Indicators 9, 10)
MASSDE staff time, national
technical assistance providers,
district staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2009
Revision of “Is Special Education the Right
Service?”
(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 9, 10)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2012
ELL Technical Assistance to Districts
(Indicators 4, 9, 10)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
The ELL Technical Assistance available to
districts focuses on language and cultural
diversity and understanding how these
differences affect student and family
relationships with authority figures, including
teachers and school personnel. Also included
are discussions of trauma-related concerns,
especially among the refugee population, but
also among other limited English students and
their families who have experienced or
witnessed trauma.
2009 - 2012
Training of Trainers (TOT)
(Indicators 4, 9, 10)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
The Training of Trainers model is used for
English Language Learners (ELL) Category
Trainings, but also addresses issues related to
language and cultural differences affecting
behavior and discipline.
2010 - 2012
Input from Stakeholders
(Indicators 9, 10)
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will hold annual conference calls with
a variety of stakeholders to discuss the current
disproportionality data and gain outside input.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
83
Massachusetts
Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012
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 include both of those activities. As such,
Massachusetts does not have the capacity to collect and report data on the evaluation timeline separately
from the eligibility 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 districts into four cohorts
that are representative of the state as a whole, and will collect and report data on this indicator based on
a four-year cycle (2005-2006 through 2008-2009). This cohort model and plan for data collection was
approved by OSEP on April 20, 2006. Over a four-year period, every district in the state will have
participated in the data collection activities for this indicator. Because it has an average daily membership
of over 50,000 students, Boston participates in all activities every year. Further information on the cohort
model can be found at: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/datacollection.html.
This data collection effort focused on obtaining data from 98 districts, including 10 districts that
participated in a pilot program during Summer 2006. All districts were required to submit data from the
months of October, November, and December of 2005.
On October 17, 2006, both hard and electronic copies were mailed to 88 districts in the first cohort (10
districts had previously completed the activity during the pilot data collection) informing them of the data
collection effort, and providing them with a spreadsheet and code sheet, as well as instructions on how
districts can upload their data (once compiled) into the MASSDE’s Security Portal. Districts were given six
weeks to respond to the data collection effort. On November 14, 2006, a follow-up letter of
correspondence was sent to the participating districts reminding them of the data collection effort. Upon
successful completion of the data collection and uploading into the Security Portal, districts were notified
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.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
84
Massachusetts
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. Because this is a “compliance” indicator, the targets are not
within MASSDE’s capacity to set and are automatically set at 100%. Targets and activities for the
extended SPP period (FFY2011 and FFY2012), were reviewed with the Massachusetts Statewide Special
Education Steering Committee.
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2006
(2006-2007)
100%
2007
(2007-2008)
100%
2008
(2008-2009)
100%
2009
(2009-2010)
100%
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
85
Massachusetts
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2010
(2010-2011)
100%
2011
(2011-2012)
100%
2012
(2012-2013)
100%
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Please note that many of the activities presented below affect multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2007
Improvement Activity
Special Education Program Improvement
Grants (Fund Code 274)
(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 11)
Resources
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Leadership Academies
and Seminars
(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 8, 11)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Professional
Development Summer Institutes
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Comprehensive System of Personnel
Development (CSPD) Training Project
(Indicators 3, 5, 11, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, CSPD
trainer time, CSPD district
staff time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
86
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Special Education Website
(All Indicators)
Resources
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2006 - 2012
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 ongoing
basis.
2007 - 2010
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 Districts
MASSDE staff time, CSPD
trainer time, CSPD district
staff time
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
MASSDE completed the final revisions to the
self-assessment tool for districts to self-identify
barriers impeding their capacity to meet State
established timelines.
2007 - 2008
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2010
ARRA Entitlement Grants
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Procedures for Timely Verification of
Correction of Noncompliance
(Indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16)
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
87
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Revision of “Ten Step Guide for
Comprehensive Educational Assessment of
Students with Visual Impairments”
(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 11, 13)
Resources
MASSDE staff time,
stakeholder groups
See Appendix A.
2010 - 2012
SMARTFORM Development
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
The new SMARTFORM data collection tool will
be used by cohort school districts to better
identify barriers to meeting state established
timelines for initial evaluation and to improve
data collection to ensure better accuracy.
2010 - 2012
Massachusetts Licensure Academy (MLA)
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time, grant partners
(Fitchburg State University)
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
88
Massachusetts
Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012
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.
* 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.
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:
The Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care (MEEC), through an Interagency Services
Agreement (ISA) with MASSDE, distributes 619 funds to all districts through a grant process. In FFY2009,
MASSDE and MEEC revised the ISA and implemented a change in the data collection procedures for
Indicator 12. MASSDE is now responsible for collecting data directly from districts for this indicator, and is
now collecting information based on a 4 year cohort model. The cohort model and plan for data collection,
approved by OSEP on April 20, 2006, was designed so that over a four-year period, every district in the
state will have participated in the data collection activities for Indicator 12. (Boston participates in all
activities each year because it has an average daily membership of over 50,000 students.) For additional
information on MASSDE’s cohort model, see http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/datacollection.html. A
cohort of 102 districts reported data for Indicator 12 to MASSDE in FFY2009.
Beginning in FFY2009, data collection activities include written notification to cohort districts of the data
collection requirements, distribution of a spreadsheet and code sheet, and instructions on data
submission through MASSDE’s Security Portal. Additional technical assistance, including webinars, is
available to participating districts during the data collection period. Prior to FFY2009, data for Indicator 12
was collected by MEEC in the following manner. In 2004-2005, the grant application asked districts to
provide statistical information by asking the following questions:
1. Number of children referred from Early Intervention (EI) during FFY2005.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
89
Massachusetts
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*
after their 3rd birthday
c.
_____
_____
* children with summer birthdays and birthdays that fall on days different than the program
schedule should be counted here if services began on the first scheduled day of the program
after the child’s third birthday.
In the narrative section of the grant, districts were asked to describe their referral and eligibility
determination process and to explain their transition activities and practices for children transitioning from
EI to preschool and preschool to Kindergarten. In addition, MASSDE asked for brief commentary and/or
reasons why a child eligible for special education services would not receive services on or before their
third birthday. MASSDE did not ask how many days after a child turned three that services started. Since
the baseline year, the data collection instrument has been modified to include a request for the number of
days after the third birthday the IEP was implemented, if not implemented by the third birthday.
Baseline Data for FFY2004 (2004-2005):
Based on 249 grants (out of 273 possible applicants, or 91%) received and processed as of November, 8,
2005:



5,938 children were referred from EI in 2004-2005
4,311 of the 5,938 (73%) referred were found eligible for services
Of those found eligible to receive services:
o 216 (5%) received services prior to their 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 that districts may not have read the
question fully. For example, of the 249 referrals received, 124 reported at least one child served after their
third birthday. A random sample of one-third of the 124 listed the following reasons a child would not have
received services on or before their third birthday (41% districts listed multiple reasons):






34% listed birthday related delays (during school vacation, summers)
49% reported parent related delays (parent refused services, was late returning required forms,
postponed Team meeting)
7% were attributed to district related delays (staffing, caseload)
17% listed EI or other agency delays
24% reported other reasons (medical condition of child, inclement weather, new coordinator, lack
of capacity)
22% did not respond to question
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
90
Massachusetts
In 29 districts, only one student failed to receive services on or before turning three. Sixty-three districts
reported between two and nine eligible children receiving services after they turned three. Of these,
eighteen districts reported between 10-20 eligible children; seven districts reported between 21-29; the
remaining seven reported between 30-93 eligible children received services after their third birthdays.
Across the sample, the percentage of students within a district that did not receive services on or before
turning three ranged from 2% (1 out of 66 eligible children) to 100% (15 districts reported all students
started services after turning three).
Proposed targets and improvement activities for the extended State Performance Plan (SPP) reporting
period (FFY2011 to FFY2012) were developed in consultation with the Massachusetts Statewide Special
Education Steering Committee.
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%
2011
(2011-2012)
100%
2012
(2012-2013)
100%
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
91
Massachusetts
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Please note that many of the activities presented below affect multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.
Timelines
(FFY)
2005
Improvement Activity
GSEG Application to Develop Data Sharing
System
Massachusetts will submit a GSEG application
to develop a data sharing system between the
three agencies that serve young children with
disabilities: DPH, MEEC and MASSDE. This will
allow the State to better track referrals from EI,
the districts’ responses within timelines, and
ultimately provide for smoother transition for
young children and their families.
2005, 2009
Update Interagency Transition Agreement
MEEC and MASSDE will update interagency
agreement around early childhood transition
requirements under IDEA. Responsibility for
data collection and verification of correction of
noncompliance reverted to MASSDE in
FFY2009.
2005 - 2012
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(All Indicators)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time, Massachusetts
Department of Public Health
(DPH) staff time
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time, MDPH staff time,
HeadStart/Early
HeadStart/Migrant HeadStart
staff time
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Website
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Data Collection and Analysis
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time
MEEC and MASSDE will review and refine data
collection instruments on an ongoing basis to
collect more detailed information from districts.
MEEC will analyze reasons for any noncompliance and barriers to timely compliance
on an ongoing basis. Starting in FFY2009,
MASSDE will align data collection practices with
the cohort model used by MASSDE to collect
data for other early childhood indicators.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
92
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Technical Assistance and Support
Resources
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time, district staff time
MEEC and MASSDE will provide ongoing
technical assistance and support to poor
performing districts to identify and overcome
barriers that currently prevent them from serving
children on or before turning three.
2005 - 2012
Collaboration with Federation for Children
with Special Needs
(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time,
Federation for Children with
Special Needs
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Program Improvement
Grants (Fund Code 249)
(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
District Compliance Monitoring
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time, district 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).
2005 - 2012
Special Education Professional
Development Summer Institutes
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time, partner staff time
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2008
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2012
Preschool to Grade 3 Curriculum,
Instruction, and Assessment Alignment
Project (Fund Code 264A & 264B)
(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
93
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Procedures for Timely Verification of
Correction of Noncompliance
(Indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16)
Resources
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2010
ARRA Entitlement Grants
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2012
Regional Consultative Programs (RCPs)
MEEC staff time, MDPH staff
time
RCPs were developed by MEEC and MDPH to
provide technical assistance and support on
special education transition from Part C to Part
B and to support inclusion of 3-5 year olds in
pre-school settings.
2009 - 2012
Closing the Early Literacy Gap for Students
with Disabilities (Fund Code 297)
(Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12)
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2012
Early Childhood Special Education
Professional Development
(Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12)
MASSDE staff time, MEEC
staff time
See Appendix A.
2010 - 2012
Massachusetts Licensure Academy
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time, grant partners
(Fitchburg State University)
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
94
Massachusetts
Part B State Performance Plan for 2005-2012
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition
Indicator 13: Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate
measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition
assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to
meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs.
There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition
services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating
agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has
reached the age of majority.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Measurement: Percent = [(# of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes
appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age
appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will
reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to
the student’s transition services needs. There also must be evidence that the student was invited to
the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if
appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with
the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority) divided by the (# of
youth with an IEP age 16 and above)] times 100.
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:
In order to obtain student-level data, MASSDE requires each district selected for this monitoring activity to
collect information on a representative sample of students aged 16-21 with IEPs. The sample student files
are reviewed by the districts for evidence of full transition planning discussions.
To ease the data collection activity burden for districts, MASSDE divided its 387 LEAs into four cohorts
that are representative of the state as a whole and collected and reported data on this indicator based on
a four-year cycle (2005-2006 through 2008-2009). For the FFY2009 reporting year, the measurement for
Indicator 13 changed, and the cohort four-year reporting cycle began anew. Over a four-year period,
every district in the state participates in the data collection activities for this indicator. Because it has an
average daily membership of over 50,000 students, Boston participates in all activities every year. This
cohort model and plan for data collection was approved by OSEP on April 20, 2006. Further information
on the cohort model can be found at: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/datacollection.html
Districts with 30 or fewer students aged 16-21 with IEPs are required to review all transition records, and
districts with 30 to 150 students with IEPs aged 16-21 select and review 30 records that the district
considers to be reasonably representative across disabilities, ages, and special education placements. In
order to ensure a representative selection of students, MASSDE provides districts that have 150 students
or more with IEPs aged 16-21 with a pre-selected list of 30 students generated by the Student Information
Management System (SIMS) for the record review process. Districts with only elementary school aged
students do not collect data for Indicator 13.
Following a pilot in the spring of 2006, the first cohort of districts was informed of the data collection
requirements and protocol. While there have been some minor adjustments, this protocol has been
repeated in each reporting period for the additional three cohorts. MASSDE reminds participating districts
in June and in October of the requirements for data collection. Districts are encouraged to review and use
the Massachusetts Transition Planning Form to inform and document the details of each transition
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
95
Massachusetts
discussion. MASSDE provides participating districts with a record review form and informational letters
about data collection methods. Districts can access a spreadsheet for recording and submitting data
through the MASSDE Security Portal. Members of each district’s Special Education department assess
selected student records for evidence of transition planning that meets the requirements of Indicator 13.
Districts submit this collected data to MASSDE via the Security Portal, and MASSDE reviews the data. In
cases where data does not initially indicate 100% compliance, MASSDE contacts each district’s
Administrator of Special Education via telephone and discusses each student record to determine
whether data was collected properly and accurately. If data is deemed accurate, MASSDE requires
districts to take prompt corrective action on an individual student and district-wide basis.
Baseline Data for FFY2009 (2009-2010):
# of
Student
Records
reviewed
# of Student Records with appropriate measurable postsecondary
goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate
transition assessment; transition services, including courses of study,
that will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary
goals; annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services
needs; evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting
where transition services are to be discussed; and evidence that, if
appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited
to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or
student who has reached the age of majority.
2009-2010
Percentage
of student
records in
compliance
1,455
1,412
97.0%
Discussion of Baseline Data FFY2009 (2009-2010):
Beginning in FFY2009, the measurement for Indicator 13 changed. The data above represent a new
baseline for FFY2009 and the extended SPP reporting period. Of the 1,455 records for youth with IEPs
aged 16 and above reviewed from the 2009-2010 school year, 97.0% included an IEP with appropriate
measureable postsecondary goals that were updated annually, and were based upon an age appropriate
transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that would reasonably enable the
student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition
services needs. MASSDE reviewed data for evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team
meeting where transition services were to be discussed, and if appropriate, a representative of any
participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student
who has reached the age of majority.
During FFY2009, MASSDE revised the data collection and reporting processes to reflect the new
language and measurement. Also, MASSDE developed a more comprehensive data collection tool that
informs districts of their individual needs and allows MASSDE to evaluate state-wide technical assistance
needs related to appropriate transition planning (See Appendix D - Postsecondary Transition Planning
Checklist.). MASSDE provided participating districts with an updated Postsecondary Transition Planning
Checklist, to be used by districts to assess student records for evidence of appropriate transition
planning. Appropriate evidence of effective transition planning also includes the completion of MASSDE’s
mandated Transition Planning Form (Form 28M/9, which has replaced the Transition Planning Chart used
in previous years) documenting full transition planning discussion (see Appendix E) or a record review
(with appropriate IEP documentation) indicating an appropriate transition planning discussion. If such
documentation is not found in the student record or IEP, then the student is not considered to have
received appropriate transition planning. Districts are encouraged to provide optional comments detailing
any aspect of the student’s transition plan.
Although the figure of 97.0% of compliant records is a reasonably high percentage, especially given the
new, more rigorous measurement language, this is a compliance indicator and Massachusetts takes
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
96
Massachusetts
seriously the importance of appropriate transition planning. We will continue to use and refine the
Transition Planning Checklist as a tool to help school districts understand the rigor of the requirement of
Secondary Transition Planning as well as a tool for data analysis and future technical assistance to
districts.
In past years (FFY2005 - FFY2008) school districts were asked to report only whether or not transition
planning that included coordinated annual goals and transition services had occurred, yielding a yes or no
response and a less qualitative indicator of secondary transition. The new Transition Planning Checklist,
by isolating out components of transition planning required in the new language of this Indicator, also
allows for deeper and broader data analysis. MASSDE can analyze which aspects of transition planning
are areas of strength across the state, and which are areas that need improvement. For example,
analysis of FFY 2009 data revealed that 55% of non-compliance occurred in the area of having
appropriate measureable postsecondary goals based on age-appropriate transition assessment. Another
identified area of significant deficiency for districts was in not completing transition planning forms in a
timely manner. Such issues accounted for 37% of noncompliance findings. The data also showed that
not having appropriate measureable postsecondary vision/goals that were updated annually only
occurred in 6.9% of records. Targeted decisions by MASSDE regarding the need for and type of technical
assistance and training will be made based on such analysis of the data in each reporting year.
By way of background, data reporting and analysis for the first baseline period (FFY2005 - FFY2008) for
the Indicator 13 MA SPP was as follows.
Baseline Data for FFY2005 (2005-2006):
# of Student
Records reviewed
# of Student Records with
transition planning that included
coordinated annual goals and
transition services
2005-2006 Percentage of
student records in compliance
1,901
1,592
83.8%
Discussion of Baseline Data FFY2005 (2005-2006):
Until FFY2008, the measurement for Indicator 13 was: Percent = [(# of youth with disabilities aged 16 and
above with an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that
will reasonably enable the student to meet the postsecondary goals) divided by the (# of youth with an
IEP age 16 and above)] times 100.
The data from FFY2005 indicated that of the 1,901 student records reviewed, almost 84% demonstrated
transition planning that included coordinated annual goals and transition services that would reasonably
enable the student to meet his/her postsecondary goals in the identified areas. Although this was a
reasonably high percentage, MASSDE focused its improvement activities on reaching full compliance
with transition planning requirements. Improvement activities included requiring districts to use a
Transition Planning Chart for each student eligible for transition planning in Massachusetts.
The Annual Performance Report for FFY2008 saw the conclusion of the 4-year cycle with all LEAs in the
State having reported data on this indicator. For FFY2009 (2009-2010), the cohort cycle began anew
using a new measurement for Indicator 13.
For the new baseline year (FFY2009) and the extended SPP period (FFY2011 and FFY2012), MASSDE
reviewed targets and activities with the Statewide Special Education Steering Committee.
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
97
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%
2011
(2011-2012)
100%
2012
(2012-2013)
100%
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Please note that many of the activities presented below affect multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2007
Improvement Activity
Project FOCUS Academy
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14)
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(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), district
staff time
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Comprehensive System of Personnel
Development Training Project (CSPD)
(Indicators 3, 5, 11, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, CSPD
trainer time, CSPD district staff
time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
98
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Special Education Professional
Development Summer Institutes
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Website
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
National Association of State Directors of
Special Education (NASDSE) Professional
Development Series
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14 )
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2006 - 2012
Massachusetts Transition Planning Form
(TPF 28M/9)
MASSDE staff time, CSPD
trainers, district staff time
MASSDE will revise the Transition Planning
Chart in order to develop the mandated
Massachusetts Transition Planning Form (TPF
28M/9). Ongoing training and technical
assistance is available to districts on the use of
the TPF.
2006 - 2012
Inclusive Concurrent Enrollment
Partnership Program for Students with
Disabilities
(Indicators 5, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time, technical assistance
providers
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2012
Massachusetts FOCUS Academy
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14)
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2008
Massachusetts Online Resource Library
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 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), district staff
time
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
99
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2007 - 2008
Improvement Activity
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
(All Indicators)
Resources
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008
Passage of Chapter 285 of the Acts of 2008
– Change in Transition Planning Age to 14
Years Old
MASSDE staff time, district
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, MASSDE will
require that beginning when the eligible student
is 14, the school district must plan for the
student's need for transition services and the
school district must document this discussion
annually using the Massachusetts Transition
Planning Form (TPF 28M/9).
2005 - 2012
Collaboration with Federation for Children
with Special Needs
(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13)
MASSDE staff time,
Federation for Children with
Special Needs
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Community/Residential Education Project –
(Indicators 5, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, DDS staff
time, district staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Educational Proficiency Plans
Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Procedures for Timely Verification of
Correction of Noncompliance
(Indicators 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Secondary Transition – Transition Works:
Innovative Strategies for Transitioning
Youth with Disabilities from School to Work
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14 )
MASSDE staff time,
Massachusetts Rehabilitation
Commission staff time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
100
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Work-Based Learning Plans for Students
with Disabilities,
(Indicators 2, 4, 13, 14)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time, Workforce
Development staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
District and School Assistance Centers
(DSACs)
(Indicators 2, 3, 4, 5, 13)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Program Improvement
Grants (Fund Code 249)
(Indicators 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12,13)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Revision of “Ten Step Guide for
Comprehensive Educational Assessment of
Students with Visual Impairments”
(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 11,13)
MASSDE staff time, Vision
Impairment Disability
Workgroup time
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2012
Postsecondary Transition Planning
Checklist
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will develop and implement a
checklist to be used by cohort districts in
gathering data for Indicator 13. The checklist
identifies six components of transition planning
as required by the new measurement language,
effective FFY 2009. In addition to informing
districts about the new requirements, the
checklist will allow for more detailed data
analysis by MASSDE in order to target
technical assistance to districts.
2008 - 2010
ARRA Entitlement Grants
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time.
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2012
Massachusetts 21st Century Community
Learning Centers (CCLC) – Enhanced
Programs for Students with Disabilities
(Indicators Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time,
district and community staff
time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
101
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2010 - 2012
Improvement Activity
An Act Relative to Bullying In Schools
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time, stakeholder groups
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2012
Central Massachusetts Communities of
Care Positive Behavioral Interventions
(PBIS) Grant (Fund Code 250)
(Indicators 2, 4, 5, 13)
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Dropout Prevention and Recovery
Workgroup-MASSDE Urban &
Commissioner’s Districts Unit and
Secondary Support Services Unit
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, grant
partners (Central
Massachusetts Communities
of Care, National Center for
Positive Behavioral
Intervention and Supports
trainers), district staff time
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Dropout Prevention, Intervention, and
Recovery Website-MASSDE Student
Support and Secondary School Services
Unit
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2012
Early Warning Indicator Index
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2010 - 2012
Massachusetts High School Graduation
Initiative (MassGrad)
(Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2012
Massachusetts Task Force on Behavioral
Health and Public Schools
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
102
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2010 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Massachusetts Tiered System of Support
(MTSS) Grants
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time, stakeholder groups
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2012
Massachusetts Licensure Academy (MLA)
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time, district
staff time, grant partners
(Fitchburg State University)
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
103
Massachusetts
Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition
Indicator 14: Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time
they left school, and were:
A. Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school.
B. Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school.
C. Enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or
competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leaving high school.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Measurement:
A. Percent enrolled in higher education = [(# of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had
IEPs in effect at the time they left school and were enrolled in higher education within one year of
leaving high school) divided by the (# of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school
and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school)] times 100.
B. Percent enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high
school = [(# of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left
school and were enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving
high school) divided by the (# of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had
IEPs in effect at the time they left school)] times 100.
C. Percent enrolled in higher education, or in some other postsecondary education or training
program; or competitively employed or in some other employment = [(# of youth who are no longer
in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school and were enrolled in higher
education, or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed
or in some other employment) divided by the (# of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary
school and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school)] times 100.
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, during the first
collection of baseline data, students with disabilities who exited high school in the 2005-2006 school year
were surveyed regarding their postsecondary activities within one year of leaving high school.
Respondents reported whether they enrolled in postsecondary education and/or were employed in the
competitive job market. MASSDE analyzed the results of this initial data to establish a baseline
percentage of students with disabilities participating in postsecondary education and/or competitive
employment within one year of leaving high school. Using this baseline data, MASSDE developed targets
and improvement activities for Indicator 14. The process of collecting baseline data was repeated in
FFY2009, using a new measurement and survey instrument based on new definitions established by
OSEP for Indicator 14.
Cohort Model
To ease the data collection activity burden for districts, in the first baseline year, MASSDE divided its 387
districts into four cohorts that are representative of the state as a whole. Beginning in FFY2006, MASSDE
collected and reported data based on this four-year cycle using a cohort model and plan for data
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
104
Massachusetts
collection that was approved by OSEP. Under this plan, over a four-year period, every district in the state
participates in data collection activities for this indicator. Because it has an average daily membership of
over 50,000 students, Boston participates in all activities every year. Additional information on the cohort
model is available at: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/datacollection.html.
Data Collection Protocol
MASSDE uses a two-step data collection protocol. In the first year, districts collect contact information to
use during the survey process. The second step is districts’ distribution of the “Postsecondary Outcomes
Survey” instrument to students with disabilities that exited high school in the prior year. Each year
MASSDE notifies participating districts of their responsibilities to collect student contact information and
data, and provides them with necessary technical assistance about data collection activities and
responsibilities. Beginning in FFY2009 with the implementation of a new survey instrument based on the
revised measurement and definitions, MASSDE provided additional guidance including recommended
timelines; definitions of key terms; steps for mail, email, and phone data collection; and sample scripts for
phone contact. MASSDE instructed districts to make a minimum of three attempts to contact students to
complete the survey. Increasing the number of respondents will improve the response rate and increase
the participation of all exiter subgroups in the data collection activity.
MASSDE coordinates additional data collection with data collection activities for Career/Vocational
Technical Education (CVTE) programs. MASSDE’s CVTE unit annually conducts a follow-up survey for
each graduating class, responding to the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998
requirement that each state receiving a federal grant establish a performance accountability system to
assess the effectiveness of career and technical education. The students surveyed are part of a district
state-approved vocational technical education program, known as Chapter 74, and/or other
career/vocational technical education programs known as non-Chapter 74 career & technical education
(CTE) programs.
For Indicator 14 data collection, district personnel administer the “Postsecondary Outcomes Survey”
instrument between April and July, using one or more data collection methods (e.g., mailings, telephone
surveys), and upload respondents’ answers directly to MASSDE. Data is submitted to MASSDE on a
spreadsheet that is accessible to districts through the MASSDE Security Portal. MASSDE then
completes an aggregate data collection and analysis.
Survey Instrument
MASSDE created the “Postsecondary Outcomes Survey” instrument, in collaboration with the statewide
Transition Task Force Workgroup and through participation in the Post-School Outcomes Community of
Practice, to collect and record data for Indicator 14. The original survey consisted of six multiple-choice
questions pertaining to the students’ educational and employment status since leaving high school. The
survey instrument asks respondents to provide details about their educational status, such as
postsecondary program setting and enrollment level. Respondents can also provide a short written
description of a postsecondary program not listed on the instrument. Respondents are also asked to
provide details about their employment status, such as employment setting and hours per week of
employment. In response to the revised monitoring priorities and measurement implemented in FFY
2009, MASSDE revised the survey instrument to include new definitions established by OSEP. (See
Appendix F for the original survey instrument and Appendix G for a copy of the instrument implemented in
FFY2009.)
Baseline Data for FFY2009 (2009-2010):
Beginning in FFY2009, the measurement and definitions for Indicator 14 are as follows:
Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school,
and were:
A. Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school. (Definition I)
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
105
Massachusetts
B. Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school.
(Definition I + II)
C. Enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or
competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leaving high school. (Definition I
+ II + III + IV)
I.
Enrolled in higher education means youth have been enrolled on a full- or part-time basis in a
community college (two year program) or college/university (four or more year program) for at
least one complete term, at any time in the year since leaving high school = 440
II. Competitive employment means youth have worked for pay at or above the minimum wage in a
setting with others who are nondisabled for a period of 20 hours a week for at least 90 days at
any time in the year since leaving high school. This includes military service = 308
III. Enrolled in other postsecondary education or training means youth have been enrolled on a fullor part-time basis for at least one complete term at any time in the year since leaving high school
in an education or training program (e.g., Job Corps, adult education, workforce development
program, vocational technical school which is less than a two year program) = 35
IV. Some Other Employment means youth have worked for pay or been self-employed for a period of
at least 90 days at any time in the year since leaving high school. This includes working in a
family business (e.g., farm, store, fishing, ranching, catering services, etc.) = 62
Using this new measurement and definitions, MASSDE reports the following new baseline data for
FFY2009:
Number of
Students with
Disabilities in
the cohort who
exited high
school (20082009 school
year)
Number of
Students
Contacted
Percentage of
Students
Contacted
Number of
Respondents
Percentage of
Respondents
Response Rate
2220
1,532
69%
1,039
67.8%
46.8%
A.
B.
C.
Enrolled in
higher
education within
one year of
leaving high
school.
% of student
respondents
Enrolled in
higher
education or
competitively
employed
within one year
of leaving high
school.
% of student
respondents
Enrolled in higher
education or in
some other
postsecondary
education or
training program;
or competitively
employed or in
some other
employment
within one year
of leaving high
school.
Percentage of
students
engaged in postgraduate
activities
440
42.3%
748
72.0 %
845
81.3%
Discussion of Baseline Data from FFY2009 (2009-2010)
In FFY2009, of the 1,039 respondents to the survey instrument, 42.3% were enrolled in higher education;
29.6% were competitively employed; 3.4% were in some other postsecondary education or training
program (but not competitively enrolled or in higher education); and 6.0% were in some other
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
106
Massachusetts
employment within one year of leaving high school (but not enrolled in higher education, some other
postsecondary education or training program, or competitively employed). This accounts for an overall
engagement rate of 81.3% for students in this cohort.
MASSDE recognizes that the baseline measurement appears lower than previous years under the former
measurement for Indicator 14, but attributes the decrease to the following factors:
1. The FFY2009 changes to the definitions in the measurement no longer allow for deviations from the
norm. For example, in the past, for definition II, a respondent may have reported being employed while in
a job for 15 hours per week and may have only been in the job for 45 days. The new, clearly defined
requirement includes in the measurement only respondents that are employed 20 hours per week or
more who have been employed at least 90 days. This new threshold excludes a number of respondents
from meeting the criteria for definition II.
This baseline data is consistent with MASSDE’s expectation that there would be a drop in actual data for
Indicator 14 using the new measurements. In the FFY2008 reporting year, MASSDE piloted in its survey
new questions based on the revised definitions. As described in the FFY2008 MA APR for Indicator 14,
92.9% were reported as engaged after exiting from high school, but only 74.3% of those same
respondents would be counted as engaged under the new definitions.
2. The downturn in the economy has had a significant effect on exiters’ ability to access employment
because of increased competition for limited job openings. In addition, some students with disabilities are
limited in their ability to self-advocate when pursuing job opportunities, thereby further limiting their
access to employment opportunities.
3. New measurements require new data collection methods. This in turn requires a new learning period
as school personnel adapt to the new methodology and survey instrument.
Beginning in FFY2009, MASSDE provided additional guidance regarding data collection including
recommended timelines, definitions of key terms, steps for mail, email, and phone data collection as well
as sample scripts for phone contact. Districts were asked to make a minimum of three attempts to
complete the “Postsecondary Outcomes Survey.” An increase in the number of students with disabilities
who exited high school that districts contact to complete the “Postsecondary Outcomes Survey” will
increase the number of respondents to the “Postsecondary Outcomes Survey” and, thus, improve the
response rate and the participation of all leaver subgroups in the data collection activity. While the
response rate increased 7.7 percent in FFY2009, MASSDE will continue to review and refine data
collection protocols as well as provide technical assistance in order to improve the response rate of
cohort districts.
By way of background, data reporting and analysis for the first baseline period (FFY2006 - FFY2008) for
the Indicator 14 MA SPP was as follows.
Baseline Data for FFY2006 (2006-2007):
Until FFY2008, the measurement for Indicator 14 was: Percent = [(# of youth who had IEPs, are no longer
in secondary school and who have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary
school, or both, within one year of leaving high school) divided by the (# of youth assessed who had IEPs
and are no longer in secondary school)} times 100. Reported baseline data were as follows:
Number of
Respondents
who have been
competitively
Number of
Respondents who
have been
enrolled in
Number of
Respondents who
have been enrolled
in postsecondary
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
Percentage of Respondents
who have been competitively
employed and/or enrolled in
postsecondary education
107
Massachusetts
employed
postsecondary
education
education and
competitively
employed
316
177
461
93%
The FFY2006 baseline data (students with disabilities who exited high school during the 2005-2006
school year) indicated that of the 1,028 respondents to the survey instrument, 93% were competitively
employed (31%), enrolled in postsecondary education (17%), or both (45%), within one year of leaving
high school. Of the 77% of the students with disabilities in this first cohort surveyed, more than half
completed the “Postsecondary Outcomes Survey” instrument. The response rate was 39%, and the
responses appeared to be representative of the exiting students with disabilities with regard to factors
such as race and ethnicity, gender, disability, level of need, and program placement. MASSDE made this
determination based on a comparison of the data to student data in the Student Information Management
System (SIMS) database.
MASSDE recognized some exiter subgroups may not have been as well represented as others in the first
data collection and that the validity of the respondent group may have been affected somewhat. For
example, exiters who were not satisfied with their postsecondary activities may have been less likely to
participate in the survey, and some dropouts may not have been represented adequately if contact
information for the students had changed. Also, the FFY2005 baseline data did not include four districts in
the cohort that did not complete data collection. Those districts participated in a later cohort data
collection cycle.
To addresses these issues, MASSDE reviewed and revised the data collection protocol to assist districts
in contacting a higher percentage of students with disabilities who exited high school. MASSDE provided
additional guidelines to districts about data collection responsibilities and protocols, which in turn helped
to improve the response rate and the participation of all exiter subgroups in the data collection activity.
Please see the MA APR for Indicator 14 for more information about MASSDE’s improvement activities.
Also, more information about the FFY2005 baseline data is included in the prior years’ MA SPP for
Indicator 14, available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/maspp.html.
The early targets listed below were developed using the FFY2006 baseline data of 93%, which was the
percentage of students with disabilities who were engaged in postsecondary activities within one year of
leaving high school. Targets for the FFY2009 baseline year, FFY2010, and for the extended SPP
reporting period (FFY2011 and FFY2012) were established in consultation with the Massachusetts
Statewide Special Education Steering Committee.
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2007
(2007-2008)
93%
2008
(2008-2009)
93%
2009
(2009-2010)
baseline
A = 42.3%
B = 72.0%
C = 81.3%
2010
(2010-2011)
A = 43%
B = 74%
C = 82%
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
108
Massachusetts
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2011
(2011-2012)
A = 44%
B = 77%
C = 84%
2012
(2012-2013)
A = 45%
B = 80%
C = 87%
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Please note that many of the activities presented below affect multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2007
Improvement Activity
Project FOCUS Academy
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14)
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2010
Secondary School Reading Grant
(Indicators 1, 2, 3 4, 5, 14)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, grant
partners (Federation for Children
with Special Needs, Center for
Applied Special Technologies,
Institute for Community Inclusion
at UMass-Boston, Education
Development Center), district
staff time
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Comprehensive System of Personnel
Development Training Project (CSPD)
(Indicators 3, 5, 11, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, CSPD
trainer time, CSPD district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Professional
Development Summer Institutes
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Website
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
109
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Collaboration with Federation for Children
with Special Needs
(Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, Federation
for Children with Special Needs
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Inclusive Concurrent Enrollment Partnership
Program for Students with Disabilities
(Indicators 5, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time, technical assistance
providers
See Appendix A.
2006 - 2012
Data Analysis
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 - 2012
Survey Protocol Evaluation and
Data Collection Technical Assistance
MASSDE staff time, district 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 Postsecondary Outcomes Survey and
to establish a plan to complete the
postsecondary outcomes data collection activity
and reporting.
2007 - 2008
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2012
Massachusetts FOCUS Academy
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14)
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
MASSDE staff time, grant
partners (Federation for Children
with Special Needs, Center for
Applied Special Technologies,
Institute for Community Inclusion
at UMass-Boston), district staff
time
110
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2007 - 2008
Improvement Activity
Massachusetts Online Resource Library
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14)
Resources
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2012
Central Massachusetts Communities of Care
Positive Behavioral Interventions (PBIS)
Grant (Fund Code 250)
(Indicators 2, 4, 5, 13, 14)
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Community/Residential Education Project
(Indicators 5, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, grant
partners (Central Massachusetts
Communities of Care, National
Center for Positive Behavioral
Intervention and Supports
trainers), district staff time
MASSDE staff time, DDS staff
time, district staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Educational Proficiency Plans (EPPs)
(Indicators 1, 2 ,3, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Federal School Turnaround Grants
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time, stakeholder groups
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
National Association of State Directors of
Special Education (NASDSE) Professional
Development Series
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14 )
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Secondary Transition – Transition Works:
Innovative Strategies for Transitioning Youth
with Disabilities from School to Work
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
ARRA Title II-D Technology Competitive
Grants Program
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 14)
MASSDE staff time, MRC staff
time, grant partners (Federation
for Children with Special Needs,
Institute for Community Inclusion
at UMass-Boston), district staff
time
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
111
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2008 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Dropout Prevention and Recovery Work
Group
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A for a complete description.
2008 - 2010
Graduation and Dropout Prevention and
Recovery Commission
(Indicators 1, 2, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Dropout Prevention, Intervention, and
Recovery Website
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Work-Based Learning Plans (WBLP) for
Students with Disabilities
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time, Workforce Development
staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2010
ARRA Entitlement Grants
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2012
Closing the Achievement Gap Legislation
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time, stakeholder groups
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2012
Early Warning Indicator Index (EWII)
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2010
Massachusetts Task Force on Behavioral
Health and Public Schools
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2010 - 2012
Massachusetts Licensure Academy
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time, grant partners (Fitchburg
State University)
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
112
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2010 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Massachusetts Tiered System of Support
(MTSS) Grants
(Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)
Resources
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time, stakeholder groups
See Appendix A.
2010 - 2012
An Act Relative to Bullying In Schools
(Indicators 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time, stakeholder groups
See Appendix A.
2010 - 2012
Massachusetts High School Graduation
Initiative (MassGrad)
(Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time, district staff
time
See Appendix A.
2010 - 2012
Massachusetts 21st Century Community
Learning Centers (CCLC) – Enhanced
Programs for Students with Disabilities
(Indicators Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14)
MASSDE staff time,
district and community staff time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
113
Massachusetts
Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012
Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:
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.
dicator #15: Identification and Correction of Noncompliance
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(B))
Measurement:
Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification:
a.
# of findings of noncompliance
b.
# of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from
identification.
Percent = [(b) divided by (a) times 100.
Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:
Monitoring by Program Quality Assurance Services:
For further information, see the Coordinated Program Review Procedures: School District Information
Package: Special Education at http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/cpr/instrument/sped.doc. The most
recent information about the Mid-Cycle Review process is available at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/midcycle.html, and
http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/cpr/midcycle_announce.html. These documents are updated
annually. The most recent are linked to this report.
Monitoring is carried out by MASSDE’s Program Quality Assurance Services unit (PQA). PQA is the
MASSDE unit charged with monitoring all public school districts and charter schools in the
Commonwealth for compliance with laws and regulations in a number of areas. It has a six-year cycle for
this monitoring, meaning that it monitors each of those districts and charter schools in multiple areas once
during that 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 609 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
9
Though for 2005-2006 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.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
114
Massachusetts
review the CAP, requiring revisions to be made where the CAP appears inadequate. Once that Corrective
Action Plan is in a form acceptable to MASSDE, it issues a Review of Action Plan in which it requires
progress reports from the school or district to show that the corrective action described in the Corrective
Action Plan has been implemented. As of the beginning of the 2005-2006 school year and in response to
national guidance on the development of the SPP, corrective action must be completed as soon as
possible but in no case later than one year after the provision to the school or district of the final CPR
Report.
When progress reports are received from the district, MASSDE issues a Review of Progress Report in
which it indicates, with the basis for its decision, whether the progress report has adequately shown that
the corrective action for a particular criterion has been implemented. If the progress report has not
adequately shown the implementation of the corrective action, MASSDE requires a further progress
report and indicates what that progress report must show.
Three years after the CPR, unless unique circumstances dictate either acceleration of the timetable or
postponement, PQA conducts the special education Mid-Cycle Review mentioned above to review again
areas that were 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).
For a description of PQA’s Problem Resolution System, please see http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/prs/.
Baseline Data for FFY2004 (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 FFY2004 (school year 2004-2005) or any other
year, on the percentage of special education noncompliance corrected within one year from identification,
either related to monitoring priority areas or not so related. PQA. As described above under Overview of
Issue/Description of System or Process, PQA’s monitoring involves a thorough review - through
Coordinated Program Reviews (CPRs) and Mid-Cycle Reviews (MCRs) - of compliance with dozens of
special education compliance standards or criteria, most of which contain multiple parts. MASSDE’s
emphasis has been on thorough correction of all of the areas of special education where noncompliance
is found, rather than correction within a particular time (though, as described above, if noncompliance
found in a CPR is found again at the MCR, PQA issues its own Corrective Action Plan, which must be
implemented by the school or district without delay if it is to avoid escalated enforcement action by
MASSDE). PQA has never before required the correction of special education noncompliance within one
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
115
Massachusetts
year, nor has it tracked the number of findings of special education noncompliance corrected within one
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 H is an Excel table showing
the percentage of correction of noncompliance with each special education criterion for the 32 charter
schools and districts that received a CPR in 2001-2002 and had an MCR in 2004-2005 that had been
published as of November 3, 2005. It bears repeating that if noncompliance with any criterion found in a
CPR is found again at the MCR, PQA issues its own Corrective Action Plan, which must be implemented
by the school or district without delay if it is to avoid escalated enforcement action by MASSDE.
Indicator 15A and Indicator 15B*:
a.
b.
# of findings of noncompliance made in the 2001-2002 CPR: 560
of the 560 findings from the 2001-2002 CPR, 380 were no longer present at the 20042005 MCR; therefore, we consider the findings corrected and sustained: 380
% of noncompliance corrected and sustained: 68%
*Note: See Appendix G: Correction of Noncompliance Data for additional detail.
Indicator 15C:
a.
b.
c.
# of agencies in which noncompliance was identified through other mechanisms: 95
# of findings of noncompliance made: 206
# of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from
identification: 206
% 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 2004-2005 was corrected within
one year of identification.
Targets, activities, and timelines for the extended State Performance Plan period, FFY2011 and
FFY2012, were reviewed with the Massachusetts Statewide Special Education Steering Committee.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
116
Massachusetts
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Targets
% 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)
2005
(2005-2006)
100%
100%
100%
2006
(2006-2007)
100%
100%
100%
2007
(2007-2008)
100%
100%
100%
Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification
2008
(2008-2009)
100%
2009
(2009-2010)
100%
2010
(2010-2011)
100%
2011
(2011-2012)
100%
2012
(2012-2013)
100%
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
117
Massachusetts
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Please note that some of the activities presented below affect multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.
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
(ECAP)
MASSDE staff time
Plan, pilot and implement an electronic system
of corrective action plans and progress reports.
2005 - 2012
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Communication About Required One-Year
Correction
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will inform districts and train PQA staff
regarding this requirement.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Website
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
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 - 2012
Web-based Monitoring System (CPR and
MCR)
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.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
118
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2007
Improvement Activity
Reorganization
Resources
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 staff time
MASSDE will hire a staff trainer to train
monitoring teams.
2007 - 2008
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2007 - 2008
Software Upgrade
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will plan upgrade from current
software used for tracking complaints and
complaint resolution.
2008 - 2012
Procedures for Timely Verification of
Correction of Noncompliance
(Indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
119
Massachusetts
Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012
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 FFY2004 (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 2004-2005 from 82%
(252/308) in 2003-2004. Although MASSDE is concerned about the drop, analysis of the data shows that
in the majority of cases where the 60-day timeline was exceeded, the complaint was resolved with just a
few extra days.

78% of signed written complaints with reports issued were resolved within the timeline or
extended timeline or within 1-3 days after it.

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.
PQA gives the district or charter school about which it receives a complaint 15 calendar days to
investigate the complaint and provide PQA with an investigation report. In some cases, the district or
charter school delays or resists carrying out this investigation and submitting the report. (Often, the same
district or charter school delays in or resists carrying out its responsibilities with respect to more than one
complaint.) Where the school or district fails to investigate and submit its report, PQA staff makes multiple
attempts to obtain compliance. Eventually, MASSDE staff, often including a MASSDE lawyer, meets with
the superintendent and special education administrator to explain to them the sanctions that MASSDE will
impose unless the district carries out its responsibilities immediately. No matter how scrupulous PQA staff
members are in adhering to timelines, almost every case of such unresponsiveness by schools and
districts results in noncompliance with timeline requirements.
MASSDE’s plan for ensuring that it complies with timeline requirements in 2005-2006 and beyond is
described under Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources below.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
120
Massachusetts
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%
2011
(2011-2012)
100%
2012
(2012-2013)
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 2005-2006 and every year hereafter will be 100% compliance with the timeline
requirements of 34 CFR §300.661. For the extended SPP period (FFY2011 and FFY2012), targets and
activities were reviewed with the Statewide Special Education Steering Committee.
Please note that some of the activities presented below affect multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
121
Massachusetts
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).
2005 - 2012
Internal Monitoring
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will review and revise internal
monitoring procedures to ensure the timely
complaint resolution.
2005 - 2012
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Website
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2006 - 2012
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 - 2012
Web-based Monitoring System
MASSDE staff time,
contracted providers
MASSDE will plan and implement web-based
monitoring system.
2006 - 2012
Guidance on Extensions
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will provide consistent guidance to PQA
complaint investigators on acceptable reasons for
extensions and proper duration of extensions.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
122
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2007
Improvement Activity
Reorganization
Resources
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 Planned
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will plan upgrade from current software
used for tracking complaints and complaint
resolution.
2007 - 2008
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008
Relocation of Complaint Investigators
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will relocate all complaint investigation
staff together in the office to promote exchange of
ideas and enhance communication between them
for better consistency.
2008 - 2012
Procedures for Verification of Correction of
Noncompliance
(Indicators 11, 12, 13, 15, 16)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2008 - 2012
Consultation among Complaint Investigators
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will institute regular meetings of
complaint investigation staff to discuss issues.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
123
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2009
Improvement Activity
Software Upgrade Implementation
Resources
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE implemented a software upgrade that
included: the four permissible reasons for issuing
an extension; data fields to record the extension
date, extension period, reason for the extension,
and due date for receiving materials related to the
extension; and alerts being provided to the
assistant director whenever an extension is
issued.
2009
Listserv hosted by Mountain Plains Regional
Resource Center
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE added the use of a listserv hosted by
Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center
Complaint Investigator's Work Group (MPRRC-CI)
to provide complaint investigators with a vehicle
for discussing and sharing ideas for improving
skills, and to improve understanding and
clarification of special education law, consistent
with OSEP interpretation, on matters that may be
the subject of a complaint. Complaint investigators
can also network and collaborate through this
listserv.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
124
Massachusetts
Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012
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 FFY2004 (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 45-day 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 by
the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA), almost 92% resulted in full adjudication (i.e., decision)
within the 45-day timeline or a timeline properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either
party. Note further that the one decision that was not timely issued was only 3 days outside of the
prescribed timelines. This represents a significant improvement from 2003-2004 data, which reflected that
67% of the hearings were fully adjudicated within the timelines as defined above.
Proposed targets and improvement activities for the extended State Performance Plan (SPP) reporting
period (FFY2011 to FFY2012) were developed in consultation with the Massachusetts Statewide Special
Education Steering Committee.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
125
Massachusetts
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%
2011
(2011-2012)
100%
2012
(2012-2013)
100%
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Please note that some of the activities presented below affect multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.
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.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
126
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(All Indicators)
Resources
BSEA staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Website
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
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.
2007 - 2008
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2010 - 2012
Consolidation with the Massachusetts Division
of Administrative Law Appeals
BSEA staff time
Effective July 1, 2010, the BSEA is transferred
from the administrative oversight of MASSDE to
the Massachusetts Division of Administrative Law
Appeals (MA DALA). As part of this consolidation,
the BSEA will be evaluating the feasibility of
amending administrative protocols, updating
computer and record-keeping/tracking resources,
and revising paperwork and forms in an effort to
better consolidate and manage administrative
resources, timelines, and data collection. Changes
to policies, protocols, and procedures will be made
accordingly.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
127
Massachusetts
Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012
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 Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) has devised and implemented the use of a form to be
filed with the BSEA by the moving party (parent) in the event a case is settled through the resolution
process prior to the hearing date. Said form constitutes a withdrawal of the hearing request and closure of
the case.
Baseline Data for FFY2005 (2005-2006): 48% (212/442)
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, Appendix I) 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.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
128
Massachusetts
The Massachusetts Steering Committee, mindful of the quality of the data in this Indicator recommended
setting very modest targets.
Proposed targets and improvement activities for the extended State Performance Plan (SPP) reporting
period (FFY2011 to FFY2012), and a revised target for FFY2010, were developed in consultation with the
Massachusetts Statewide Special Education Steering Committee. In setting targets for this period,
MASSDE recommends setting a range of targets that is consistent with its average success rate data for
resolution sessions. Although tracking resolution sessions and their outcomes is important, doing so does
not suggest that parties should be compelled to reach agreements in order to meet state identified
targets. That outcome is contrary to the value of dispute resolution strategies as a tool to facilitate
communication and foster positive relationships between the parties that are underscored by a
willingness to work together cooperatively. Therefore, reporting targets within a range is a more realistic
measurement for Indicator 18.
FFY
Measurable and Rigorous Target
2005
(2005-2006)
48% (baseline)
2006
(2006-2007)
48%
2007
(2007-2008)
48%
2008
(2008-2009)
49%
2009
(2009-2010)
50%
2010
(2010-2011)
48% - 58%
2011
(2011-2012)
48% - 58%
2012
(2011-2012)
48% - 58%
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
129
Massachusetts
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Please note that some of the activities presented below affect multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(All Indicators)
Resources
BSEA staff time
See Appendix A.
2006 - 2009
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.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Website
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2006 - 2009
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
BSEA staff time, contracted trainer
The BSEA will offer a Summer Professional
Development Institute related to effective
Resolution Sessions.
2007 - 2008
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
130
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2009 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Annual Training for Special Education
Leadership
Resources
BSEA staff time
BSEA staff presents at training programs
throughout the year that are sponsored by
organizations including, the Federation for
Children with Special Needs, Educational
Collaboratives, and the Special Education
Leadership Academy, on issues related to
due process rights and procedures. Each
session focuses, in part, on a discussion of
the requirements for conducting and
reporting on resolution sessions. Attendees
include special education personnel, school
administrators, advocates, parents, and
attorneys.
2010 - 2012
Consolidation with the Massachusetts
Division of Administrative Law Appeals
BSEA staff time
Effective July 1, 2010, the BSEA is
transferred from the administrative oversight
of MASSDE to the Massachusetts Division of
Administrative Law Appeals (MA DALA). As
part of this consolidation, the BSEA will be
evaluating the feasibility of amending
administrative protocols, updating computer
and record-keeping/tracking resources, and
revising paperwork and forms in an effort to
better consolidate and manage
administrative resources, timelines, and data
collection. Changes to policies, protocols,
and procedures will be made accordingly.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
131
Massachusetts
Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012
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 FFY2004 (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 2004-2005, almost 86% resulted in a mediation
agreement. This is a continuation of the consistently high level of mediation agreements reached in
Massachusetts over the past two years. In 2002-2003, 79% of mediations resulted in mediation
agreements, as did 74% of the mediations in 2003-2004.
The Massachusetts Steering Committee unanimously recommended that our initial target setting be
modest and with this Indicator in particular we believe a maintenance target is more appropriate than an
increase. Massachusetts has a very high level of mediation agreements reached, and it may be the
highest level in the nation. While it is important to continue to track mediation agreements, we believe it is
inappropriate to set a target higher than the current level we have reached in Massachusetts, as
mediation is a voluntary activity and we do not want to suggest in writing or in target setting that we are
seeking to compel parties in mediation to reach agreement. Therefore the targets set for this first six-year
period are essentially maintenance targets.
Proposed targets and improvement activities for the extended State Performance Plan (SPP) reporting
period (FFY2011 to FFY2012) were developed with the Statewide Special Education Steering Committee.
In setting targets for the expanded SPP period, MASSDE recommends expressing targets in a range that
is slightly higher than the national mediation success rate data, and is consistent with its results for
Indicator 19 during the prior SPP period. Although tracking mediation agreements and their outcomes is
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
132
Massachusetts
important, doing so does not suggest that parties should be compelled to reach agreements in order to
meet state identified targets. That outcome is contrary to the value of mediation as a tool to facilitate
communication and foster positive relationships between the parties that are underscored by a
willingness to work together cooperatively, which are integral aspects of successful problem resolution
strategies. These targets are consistent with this priority.
FFY
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%
2011
(2011-2012)
77% - 87%
2012
(2011-2012)
77% - 87%
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
133
Massachusetts
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Please note that many of the activities presented below affect multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.
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 - 2012
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(All Indicators)
BSEA staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Website
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Training and Technical Assistance in Special
Education Mediations
BSEA staff time, national
technical assistance providers
The BSEA will receive training in special education
mediations on an ongoing basis from national and
regional technical assistance providers.
2007 - 2008
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2009 - 2012
Annual Training for Special Education
Leadership
BSEA staff time
BSEA staff presents at training programs
throughout the year that are sponsored by
organizations including, the Federation for Children
with Special Needs, Educational Collaboratives,
and the Special Education Leadership Academy,
on issues related to due process rights and
procedures. Each session focuses, in part, on a
discussion of dispute resolution, including
mediation. Attendees at the training sessions
include special education personnel, school
administrators, advocates, parents, and attorneys.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
134
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2010 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Consolidation with the Massachusetts Division
of Administrative Law Appeals
Resources
BSEA staff time
Effective July 1, 2010, the BSEA is transferred
from the administrative oversight of MASSDE to
the Massachusetts Division of Administrative Law
Appeals (MA DALA). As part of this consolidation,
the BSEA will be evaluating the feasibility of
amending administrative protocols, updating
computer and record-keeping/tracking resources,
and revising paperwork and forms in an effort to
better consolidate and manage administrative
resources, timelines, and data collection. Changes
to policies, protocols, and procedures will be made
accordingly.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
135
Massachusetts
Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) for 2005-2012
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.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
136
Massachusetts
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.
Baseline Data for FFY2004 (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 J).
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
E. Indicator Score (Subtotal (D) x 100) =
52.9%
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. MASSDE believes its
compliance with Table 1 and Table 3 will dramatically increase with our move from the December 1 to the
October 1 collection. MASSDE also is hopeful the developing teacher database will help us provide timely
and accurate data for Table 2. MASSDE plans to time the data collection for this database to meet the
needs of OSEP’s data collection. Our intention is to meet the Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 deadlines in
2006.
MASSDE will continue to work on our compliance for Table 4 and Table 5. Our system requires us to
collect the October data after collecting end of year data in the previous year in order to complete these
data. Currently, our October data is ready for analysis in January or February after thorough cleaning and
checks of the data. For this reason, the Table 4, exiting data has been submitted after the November 1
deadline. We anticipate submitting the 2004-2005 Table 4, Exit data by March 1, 2006 and will work with
the data to meet the compliance deadline by 2010.
The Table 5, Discipline data is on a similar cycle where we close the data submission window in October
of the following academic year. This allows districts the time to submit accurate and complete data but
makes it difficult for us to submit the data by the November 1 deadline. We anticipate submitting the
2004-2005 Table 5, Discipline data by December 1, 2005, and will work with the data to meet the
compliance deadline by 2010.
The Annual Performance Report (MA APR) has been submitted by the deadline each year with as
accurate data as we have available at the time of reporting. For example, we have submitted our
discipline data in the previous APRs but know there has been room for improvement in the reporting of
this data. We are working to improve the reporting of the data by districts each year through adjustments
made to our collection tool. We currently do not compute a graduation rate in Massachusetts and
therefore could not provide percent of graduates in the previous APRs. Instead, we have provided the
percent of students receiving a competency determination by passing the statewide MCAS test in Math
and English/Language Arts and completing all required academic coursework. As we determine a
graduation rate calculation and begin implementing it among our districts, we will be able to more
accurately report graduation data.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
137
Massachusetts
Proposed targets and improvement activities for the extended State Performance Plan (SPP) reporting
period (FFY2011 and FFY2012) were developed in consultation with the Massachusetts Statewide
Special Education Steering Committee.
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%
2011
(2011-2012)
100%
2012
(2012-2013)
100%
Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:
Please note that many of the activities presented below affect multiple indicator areas. For these
activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Collaboration with Stakeholders
(All Indicators)
Resources
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2005 - 2012
Special Education Website
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
138
Massachusetts
Timelines
(FFY)
2005 - 2012
Improvement Activity
Student Information Management System
(SIMS)
Resources
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE will continue to implement studentlevel data collection procedures through SIMS.
MASSDE will review and revise components of
SIMS on an ongoing basis in order to ensure
that data collected are valid, reliable, and timely.
2006 - 2010
Education Personnel Information
Management System
MASSDE staff time
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).
2007 - 2008
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
(All Indicators)
MASSDE staff time
See Appendix A.
2010 - 2012
Review and Revision of Validation Rules and
Reporting Categories
MASSDE staff time
As part of its processes for verifying the validity,
reliability, and timeliness of reported data,
MASSDE will annually review and revise
validation rules and reporting categories as
needed.
2010 - 2012
Technical Assistance Resources
MASSDE staff time
MASSDE consults on a regular basis with
national and regional technical assistance
providers, including the Data Accountability
Center (DAC), and the Council of Chief State
School Officers (CCSSO), among others, on
data collection and reporting. Technical
assistance received informs MASSDE’s
practice, as well as support provided to school
districts.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
139
Massachusetts
APPENDIX A: Selected Cross-Cutting Improvement Activities
An Act Relative to Bullying In Schools
Indicators 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14 – FFY2010
This bullying prevention and intervention law, Chapter 92 of the Acts of 2010), was enacted on May 3, 2010
and required all Massachusetts districts and schools to develop and adopt bullying prevention plans by
December 31, 2010. In response to this new requirement, MASSDE created the Model Bullying Prevention
and Intervention Plan, which schools and districts were encouraged to use as they developed their own plans.
In addition to requiring these plans, the law included special provisions focused on students with disabilities
that the Individualized Education Program (IEP) Team determined to be at risk for bullying on the basis of
their disability. MASSDSE provided best practice guidance to school districts that highlighted the importance
of the requirement to incorporate social and emotional learning as part of the general curriculum of every
school, and the significant effect that these whole-school initiatives have in creating positive school climates
and giving all students, including students with disabilities, the skills and abilities to prevent and respond to
bullying behaviors. Schools were required to have social and emotional learning curricula in place for the fall
of school year 2011-2012.
The Model Bullying Prevention and Intervention Plan and Guidelines for the Implementation of Social and
Emotional Learning Curricula K-12, as well as other technical assistance documents, are available on
MASSDE’s website at http://www.doe.mass.edu/bullying/.
ARRA Entitlement Grants
Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 – FFY2008-2010
In year two (2009-2010) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), Massachusetts school
districts allocated funds to a variety of activities designed to improve outcomes for students with disabilities.
Many of the districts’ initiatives were continuation activities from the first year of ARRA. Examples include:
 developing new and/or expanded programs designed for special populations such as students on the
Autism Spectrum, dropout prevention and recovery, reading disabilities, transition to school and
career, etc.;
 integrating a pilot program from the first year of ARRA into a sustainable district program;
 integrating technology purchased for students with IEPs with consultation and technical assistance to
instruction across all settings and curricula, progress monitoring, and reporting data;
 analyzing the results of program/district needs assessments and developing activities to address
identified priorities, including professional development for teachers, administrators,
paraprofessional/assistant teachers, related service providers, and other personnel relevant to the
education of students with disabilities and their families;
 creating and sustaining positive learning environments;
 collaborating with other districts to develop and implement new programs, especially for high school
students, to provide transitional services including career and college preparation;
 hiring support staff including guidance counselors, school social workers, school adjustment
counselors, etc., with particular therapeutic and counseling skills for this population; and
 other innovative initiatives specific to characteristics and needs of the districts.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
140
Massachusetts
ARRA Title II-D Technology Competitive Grants Program – MASSDE Student Support
Services Unit
Indicators 1, 2, 4, 14 – FFY2008-2012
The purpose of this initiative is to support projects to work collaboratively with MASSDE to create, implement,
and evaluate online courses/modules for underserved high school students in alternative education, credit
recovery, or credit acceleration programs.





Fourteen grantees received funding under this grant, in two rounds. The grantees include a variety of
educational settings: alternative programs and schools, vocational-technical high schools,
comprehensive high schools, and education collaboratives.
Grant recipients specifically targeted students that are most at-risk for not graduating.
Courses/modules were developed to align with the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and the
Massachusetts High School Program of Studies (MassCore).
All grant recipients were required to spend at least 25% of their funds on professional development.
Grantee professional development strategies reflect a wide range of approaches in terms of the
amount of training provided, topics covered, methodology, and provider expertise. To date, 280
teachers and other staff have participated in professional development activities. Approximately 15%
of the staff had taught an online course before, and only 13% had developed an online course
previously.
Courses, modules, and other products are co-owned by MASSDE and will be in available for use by
other districts – free-of-cost – at the end of the project period (October 2011). Expected final products
created by grantees: 46 courses (e.g., algebra I, biology, and American literature), 63 modules (e.g.,
human anatomy, the Cold War, poetry, and renewable energy), and five other products (e.g.,
professional development courses and a guide for administrators).
Central Massachusetts Communities of Care Positive Behavioral Interventions (PBIS)
Grant (Fund Code 250)
Indicators 2, 4, 5, 13 – FFY2007-2012
The purpose of this grant program is to support the partnership of select school districts in Worcester County
with the Central Massachusetts Communities of Care Project (CMCC) to develop and implement PBIS, a
tiered system for improving school climate by supporting positive behaviors throughout the school. Schools
participating in the grant program receive PBIS training, associated technical assistance, and other resources
from the CMCC. CMCC is a provider of care management services for youth with serious emotional
disturbance, with community-based family centers in Worcester County. The priorities of the grant program
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 mental health providers.
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 and onsite assistance in the development and
implementation of the principles of PBIS. The training from this grant is designed to ensure sustainable
implementation and long-term success of this initiative in participating schools.
Closing the Achievement Gap Legislation
Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14 – FFY2009-2012
On January 18, 2010, Massachusetts enacted this education reform legislation to intervene in
underperforming (Level 4) schools. The schools identified are targeted for aggressive intervention that is
focused on a plan developed in collaboration with the superintendent, the school committee, the local
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
141
Massachusetts
teachers’ union, administrators, teachers, community representatives, and parents.
Closing the Early Literacy Gap for Students with Disabilities (Fund Code 297)
Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12 – FFY2009-2012
The purpose of this competitive grant opportunity is to support the development of strategic literacy action
plans to enhance and align educational systems, curriculum, and instructional practices across public
preschool and/or kindergarten programs, Head Start, and community-based early childhood education
programs. The strategic action plans help to ensure that all programs serving students with disabilities, ages
3-5, are effective, engaging, developmentally appropriate, and designed to create seamless transitions across
environments and into the next phase of the students’ education. District study teams assess current
language and literacy strategies and practices, literacy intervention and differentiated strategies, and ways to
use information from students’ IEPs to support language and literacy across the curriculum and in the school
environment. The study teams design and implement community-based activities to support early literacy
development.
Collaboration Between MASSDE’s Curriculum and Instruction Math Office and Special
Education Planning and Policy Development Office (SEPP)
Indicators 3, 5 – FFY2008-2012
With input and guidance from the urban superintendents, the Massachusetts Urban Math Liaisons network
(Mathematics directors providing guidance and support in Mathematics in Massachusetts public
schools) identified the supporting students with disabilities in Mathematics as a critical priority in the urban
districts. In response to this need, the Math Specialist Support group dedicated its meetings to developing a
district level collaboration between special educators and math specialists. The second year of this
collaborative group was devoted to:




Understanding the characteristics of struggling math learners with disabilities;
Using the IEP as an instructional tool;
Making mathematics Instruction accessible in the classroom; and
Establishing protocols for collaborative planning and collaborative teaching (general and special
educators).
In addition, in the spring of 2011 this group was instrumental in piloting a Universal Design for Learning
Mathematics course associated with Massachusetts FOCUS Academy in the spring 2011 to available to MFA
applicants in September 2011.
Collaboration with Federation for Children with Special Needs
Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 – FFY2005-2012
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:










Parent’s Rights,
IEPs
Understanding My Child’s Learning Style
The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS)
Turning 14 – embedding Transition Planning Form into training
504 Plans
Discipline and Suspension
Creating a Vision
Celebrate Yourself
Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS)
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
142
Massachusetts
FCSN is a key partner of MASSDE in writing and implementing the State Personnel Development Grants.
Responsibilities of FCSN include the developing and providing instruction for 3-credit graduate level courses
for Massachusetts educators on ways to work with parents. Additional responsibilities include the creating
self-guided modules for parents and families on successful transition for middle and high school students, and
developing alternate version of these modules for special populations such as Spanish speakers. Staff from
FCSN facilitates collaboration between district staff and parents through the A.P.P.L.E. model. Also, FCSN
participates in the state stakeholder input opportunities, assists in developing MASSDE technical assistance
documents, and has included MASSDE staff as presenters in the annual Visions of Community conference.
MassPAC at the Federation for Children with Special Needs is the statewide organization providing
information, training, and networking opportunities to Massachusetts special education parent advisory
councils (PACs) and the professionals who collaborate with them. After almost eleven years as a private nonprofit, MassPAC became part of the Federation in July 2009.
Collaboration with Stakeholders
All Indicators – FFY2005-2012
Special Education Advisory Council (SAC) – The SAC is a group of parents and professionals charged under
federal and state special education laws to provide policy guidance to MASSDE on issues affecting special
education and related services for students with disabilities within the Commonwealth. The SAC’s
responsibilities include:
 advising MASSDE on unmet needs within the state in the education of students with disabilities;
 providing public comment on proposed rules and regulations for special education;
 advising MASSDE on developing evaluations and corrective action plans; and
 assisting in coordinating services to students with disabilities.
Statewide Special Education Steering Committee – Stakeholders from across disciplines, including parent,
educators, administrators, advocates, and agency representatives, meet annually as members of the Steering
Committee to:
 review baseline and current data (618 data and monitoring data);
 identify areas in need of attention; and
 plan for improvement activities.
Community/Residential Education Project – Massachusetts Department of Developmental
Services (MDDS)
Indicators 5, 13, 14 – FFY2008-2012
The Community/ Residential Education Project was developed through an interagency agreement between
MASSDE and MDDS. The project’s goal is to facilitate effective transitions from school life to more
independent life within the community of students receiving publicly funded special education services who
also meet the MDDS eligibility criteria for services. This goal is accomplished by supporting less restrictive,
more cost effective residential options, special education services, and community based supports.
The project provides greater flexibility in service delivery based on individual support needs. Supports are
provided to participants and their families to increase the 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.
Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) Training Project
Indicators 3, 5, 11, 13, 14 – FFY2005-2012
The CSPD Training Project was developed as a response to requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education (IDEA) 97 that required states to develop a multifaceted approach to personnel development under
regulations for CSPD. To fulfill this obligation, MASSDE’s Special Education Planning and Policy
Development Office (SEPP) instituted a series of training activities to supplement ongoing personnel
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
143
Massachusetts
preparation activities that are provided within school districts and other agencies.
The CSPD Training Project continues to provide training opportunities to districts through:
1. Training Modules: SEPP offers training units to assist school districts and other agencies in providing high
quality professional development on special education related topics. The units consist of annotated
PowerPoint Presentations, and in some cases, supplemental handouts. Topics include:
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 work with groups of 50+ individuals in public schools, and
approved special education schools. Requests for training for groups larger than 50 people serving
multiple districts and/or agencies are given priority.
3. CSPD Districts: The 40 largest districts in Massachusetts may send the districts’ professional
development provider to training sessions on the modules. It is an opportunity for participants to affect
MASSDE work (including the development of new modules) and network with colleagues.
Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Summit
Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 - FFY2008-2012
MASSDE holds an annual Curriculum and Instruction Summit to:
 share MASSDE resources for strengthening curriculum, instruction, and assessment;
 identify needs for future development of curriculum resources and technical assistance; and
 build capacity of the MASSDE, districts, and schools through regional partnerships.
Topics at the Summit include:
 Adventures in Text Analysis: Reading and Writing Elementary Science
 Following Fractions: Exploring a Common Core Math Learning Progression
 The Mystery of Sheltering Content
 Teaching Vocabulary to Support Content-Area Learning
 Beating the Odds with Low-Income High School Students – Research & Tools
 The Massachusetts System of Tiered Instruction – Overview
 Ready or Not Writing and Step Write Up: Online Writing Support Programs for College Readiness
 Preparing Students for the 21st Century with New Literacies
 College and Career Readiness For All: A Case Study of a Successful District-Wide Strategy
 Where the Rubber Meets the Road: Implementing the Common Core
 Mathematics Learning Communities - An ESE Resource for School-Based Professional Learning
 The Massachusetts System of Tiered Instruction – Implementation
 An Overview of the Massachusetts Common Core Standards Initiative: Focus on Mathematics
 An Overview of the Massachusetts Common Core Standards Initiative: Focus on English Language
Arts and Literacy In History/Social Studies, Science, And Technical Subjects
 Common Core State Standards and Arts Education
 Library of Congress Resources for Common Core State Standards & History/Social Studies
 Massachusetts/WGBH Partnership – Massachusetts Teachers’ Domain
 The Achievement Gap: Recognizing Giftedness and Talent in All of our Students
 Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS): A Tiered System for Improving School Climate
 Creating Formative Assessments for Mathematics Using Released MCAS Items
 Literacy, Workplace Readiness, 21st Century Skills: Their Overlaps and Assessment
 Family Engagement: An Instructional Strategy that Works
District and School Assistance Centers (DSACs) – MASSDE Center for School & District
Accountability
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
144
Massachusetts
Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13 – FFY2009-2012
During FFY2009. MASSDE opened six regionally based DSACs to help identified districts and their schools
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 are directed at building essential
knowledge and skills of educational leaders and teachers in major content areas and for key student groups.
During FFY2010, the professional development offerings for the DSAC districts included:






Creating Positive Learning Environments,
Universal Design for Learning,
Pilot Universal Design for Learning/Mathematics
Partnering with Families of Middle and High School Students with Disabilities to Achieve Success
Youth Development and Self-Determination, and
Transition Planning.
Dropout Prevention and Recovery Workgroup – MASSDE Urban & Commissioner’s Districts
Unit and Secondary Support Services Unit
Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14 – FFY2008-2012
The Workgroup is supported by both the Urban and Commissioner’s Districts unit and the Secondary Support
Services unit of MASSDE. The Workgroup is made up of 18 urban districts whose combined number of
student dropouts represents almost half of the total number of students in the Commonwealth who drop out of
school. Last year, the group expanded its outreach to 77 urban districts that had at least one school with a
dropout rate that exceeded the state’s rate. One hundred and thirty-three high schools met this criterion. The
Workgroup’s focus is on facilitating the sharing of promising practices among districts, and supporting
districts’ team activities through face-to-face meetings and webinars Districts host the meetings, which usually
include a short, formal presentation of the host districts’ initiatives and opportunities to observe the activities
described, brainstorm ideas and resources, and provide support and technical assistance to each other.
Integral to the design of the proposal (and subsequent award) for the MassGrad award described below, is an
expansion of the Workgroup to increase the number of participating schools and districts and broaden the
variety and frequency of opportunities for networking and sharing promising approaches among the 133
schools in the high school graduation initiative cohort.
Dropout Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery Website – MASSDE Student Support and
Secondary School Services Unit
Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14 – FFY2008-2012
The 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 are added as they are developed and evaluated.
Early Childhood Special Education Professional Development
Indicators 6, 7, 8, 12 – FFY2009-2012
In FFY2010, MASSDE and the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care (MEEC) cosponsored two training series and a Special Education Professional Development Summer Institute for public
preschool and kindergarten staff and other early childhood professionals working in programs that serve
young students with disabilities. The series’ offered two training days focused on strengthening knowledge
and skills of administrators, teachers, and paraprofessionals. The first series addressed inclusion of young
children with a diagnosis on the Autism Spectrum. The second focused on issues related to behavioral health
and ways to address challenging behaviors in order to create meaningful inclusive opportunities for children
with disabilities.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
145
Massachusetts
Early Warning Indicator Index (EWII)
Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14 – FFY2009-2012
Using a statistical regression model, in 2008 MASSDE developed the EWII as a predictive tool designed to
identify students at risk for not graduating in four years or less of high school. Originally based on middle
school data (grade 7 and 8), ninth graders from several urban districts were grouped according to five at-risk
categories designated by degrees of risk:





spring 2010 grade 8 MCAS mathematics scores;
spring 2010 grade 8 English language arts (ELA) scores;
2009-2010 attendance rate;
number of 2009-2010 grade 8 in-school or out-of –school suspensions;
age as of September 1, 2010.
The findings were then distributed to the appropriate districts to allow them to develop and implement
targeted, student-centered interventions. This past year, the EWII was made available to all districts.
Educational Proficiency Plans (EPPs) – MASSDE Student Support and Secondary School
Services Unit
Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14 – FFY2008-2012
An EPP is an educational planning tool to be developed for the subject area(s) in which a student does not
score at least 240 or above on the grade 10 English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics Massachusetts
Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS). An EPP includes:
 a review of the student's strengths and weaknesses based on MCAS and other assessment results,
coursework, grades, and teacher input;
 the courses the student will be required to take and successfully complete in grades 11 and 12 in the
relevant content area(s); and
 a description of the assessments the school will administer to the student annually to determine
whether s/he is making progress toward proficiency.
The EPP requirement is intended to increase the likelihood that students graduating from high school have
the requisite skills needed for postsecondary success. Students are encouraged to and supported in taking
challenging courses that will better prepare them for postsecondary educational or career opportunities. For
students with disabilities, MASSDE recommends that students’ IEPs are used to assist in identifying students’
strengths and weaknesses in the learning environment as the EPP is developed.
Emergent Literacy Grant
Indicators 3, 5, 6 – FFY2005-2006
In order to increase districts’ capacity to support all learners in emergent literacy, the Center for Applied
Special Technology (CAST) provided training to educators and parents in the use of research-based,
universally-designed technology for developing literacy skills in early learners, especially those with cognitive
disabilities, in an inclusive environment. During the three years of the project (2004-2006), seventeen school
districts that were involved in the Massachusetts Comprehensive System of Personnel Development
participated in the "Universally-Designed Technology for Literacy" project. For more information, see
http://madoe.cast.org/.
Federal School Turnaround Grants
Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 14 – FFY2008-2012
These USED competitive grants are for states to use to assist the lowest performing schools. Districts with
one or more Level 4 (underperforming) schools are eligible to apply. MASSDE awards grants based on the
plans districts develop under the Closing the Achievement Gap legislation. Districts applying for the grants are
required to choose one of four prescribed intervention models and demonstrate capacity to implement that
model effectively over three years. The four models or reform are:
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
146
Massachusetts
1.
2.
3.
4.
Turnaround
Transformation
Close/Consolidate
Restart
To date, MASSDE has identified forty schools in ten districts as Level 4; and one district in Level 5 –
receivership.
Graduation and Dropout Prevention and Recovery Commission – MASSDE Student Support
and Secondary School Services Unit
Indicators 1, 2, 14 – FFY2008-2010
In August 2008, the Massachusetts State Legislature passed An Act to Improve Dropout Prevention and
Reporting of Graduation Rates, which established a Commission to make recommendations in 10 topic areas.
The Massachusetts Executive Office of Education (MEOE) released the final Commission report, Making the
Connection, in October 2009. The report includes findings and recommendations in four main areas: 1) new
statewide expectations; 2) early identification; 3) effective prevention, interventions, and recovery; and 4)
responsive reforms and budget priorities.
Inclusive Concurrent Enrollment Partnership Programs for Students with Disabilities
Indicators 5, 13, 14 – FFY2005-2012
This state-funded grant program is designed to build and expand partnerships between high schools in public
school districts and state public institutions of higher education to offer inclusive concurrent enrollment
opportunities for students with severe disabilities between the ages of 18 and 22, in credit and non-credit
courses that include non-disabled students. These partnerships will result in improved systems that better
serve students with severe disabilities and support their college and career success.
Inclusive Concurrent Enrollment programs are designed to promote and enhance students’ self-determination
and self-advocacy skills; offer students opportunities to participate in the student life of the college community,
as well as in career planning, vocational skill-building activities, and community-based competitive
employment opportunities; and to improve students’ academic, social, functional, and other transition-related
skills.
As part of the improvement and expansion of these programs, partnerships continue to develop their
programs to include individualized, community-based, competitive employment opportunities that align with
students’ career goals and course selection.
Massachusetts 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) – Enhanced Programs for
Students with Disabilities
Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14 – FFY2008-2012
Funded under Title IVB of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), CCLC grants are designed to establish
or expand community learning centers that operate during out-of-school hours and provide students with
academic enrichment opportunities that complement the students' regular school day. Over the past nine
years, MASSDE has funded more than 180 sites in more than 50 communities across the Commonwealth.
During the 2009-2010 school year, MASSDE developed the Pilot SPED Enhancement Grants to increase the
capacity of existing CCLC sites to include students with more severe disabilities into an array of activities that
advanced student achievement and provided opportunities for socializing and participating with peers without
disabilities. Sites applying for these grants were required to include special education personnel with
knowledge and skills to ensure safe access to the program’s activities, settings (indoor and outside) and the
appropriateness of the activities for their particular students with disabilities. Awarded at the end of the
reporting year, thirteen (13) sites offered pilot programs during the summer of 2010. Based on the success of
these pilot programs, the SPED Enhancement Grants are being offered for the 2010-2011 school year and
summer of 2012.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
147
Massachusetts
Massachusetts FOCUS Academy (MFA)
Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14 – FFY2007-2012
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. MFA
courses offered this year include:
 Universal Design for Learning, Levels I and II
 Universal Design for Learning – Meeting the Needs of Diverse Learners in Mathematics
 Creating Positive Learning Environments, Levels I and II
 Differentiated Instruction
 Implementing Collaborative Teaching
 Generalist Transition Planning, Levels I and II
 Youth Development and Self-Determination
 Partnering with Families of Middle and High School Students with Disabilities to Achieve Success
 Parent and Professional Partnerships: Transition Planning for Students with Disabilities in Middle and
High School
 Topics in Transition
A new course, Teacher-Leadership, designed to prepare participants to assume leadership roles in their
schools as demonstrated by their design, implementation, and evaluation of professional development
activities that increase the capacity of the district in one of the focused content areas was offered this year.
Candidates were invited to participate based on their completion of all of the courses offered in one of the
content areas, and a recommendation from the course instructor(s). All MFA courses are research-based,
have rigor and expectations of three or four credit graduate level courses, and target areas that increase
educator effectiveness and student outcomes.
Massachusetts High School Graduation Initiative (MassGrad)
Indicators 1, 2, 13, 14 – FFY2010-2012
The U.S. Dept of Education awarded a High School Graduation Initiative (MassGrad) grant to MASSDE. Only
29 projects were awarded out of 184 applicants and MASSDE was only one of two states to receive the grant.
The purpose of the grant is to support statewide and local efforts for high school dropout prevention,
intervention, and recovery. The focus is on the 133 high schools (MassGrad cohort) that exceeded the
statewide annual dropout rate of 2.9% in the 2008-2009 school year. This award identifies 133 targeted high
schools with dropout rates higher than the state average. MASSDE provides technical assistance, training,
and opportunities for schools to exchange promising practices The following are the key activities for this
grant:




Creation of a state high school graduation coalition: MASSDE will create an inter-agency, cross-sector
coalition to facilitate statewide sharing of promising programs and practices.
Expansion of the Dropout Prevention and Recovery Workgroup: MASSDE will considerably expand
the existing Workgroup to increase the number of participating schools and districts and broaden the
variety and frequency of opportunities for networking and sharing promising approaches among the
133 schools in the HSGI cohort.
Implementation of Research-based Practices in HSGI Cohort: MASSDE will help support target
schools in implementing a select menu of research and evidence-based practices and strategies
through a competitive grant process, technical assistance, state guidance, and learning exchanges.
Establishment of Three New Gateway to College Sites: MASSDE will create a new partnership with
the Gateway to College National Network to establish the Gateway to College program – an early
college model to support at-risk students.
The project has also established a Leadership Council that will support and inform the key activities as well as
connect the project services with new and ongoing efforts across the state. A broad range of state agencies
and community, statewide, and national organizations are represented on this council.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
148
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Licensure Academy (MLA)
Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 – FFY2010-2012
The Massachusetts Licensure Academy (MLA) was created to meet the significant shortage of educators who
are qualified to teach students with moderate disabilities or students who are English language learners by
assisting teachers with waivers earn licensure. MLA course are delivered through the Massachusetts Online
Network for Education (MassONE) and have at least one face-to-face session. Begun in the spring of 2009,
the MLA, when completed, will include nine, three-credit, graduate level courses that will provide:




content to address the special education competencies required for the moderate special needs
preliminary license (2 courses);
content information included on the ESL/MTEL (4 courses);
the knowledge and skills required for ELA and math instruction and covered in the Foundations of
Reading and General Curriculum MTELs (2 courses);
a course designed to create and maintain positive learning environments for all students (1 course).
Increasing the number of licensed educators teaching students with moderate disabilities grades PreK-12 and
students who are English language learners is aligned with MASSDE’s goal of having qualified educators for
every public school classroom and thereby improve student outcomes and reduce the achievement gaps.
Massachusetts Task Force on Behavioral Health and Public Schools
Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 – FFY2009-2010
The Behavioral Health and Public Schools (BHPS) Framework and Assessment Tool was created by the
BHPS Task Force and Department between 2009-2011. Both resources are designed to provide guidance as
well as help schools assess and set goals regarding activities and strategies that staff and programs engage
in to create supportive school environments. The Final BHPS Task Force Report, available at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/research/reports/0811behavioralhealth.pdf, outlines recommendations to state
policy makers related to this work.
Massachusetts Tiered System of Support (MTSS) Grants
Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 – FFY2010-2012
Massachusetts has developed a blueprint outlining a single system of supports that is responsive to the
academic and non-academic needs of all students. This blueprint, the Massachusetts Tiered System of
Support (MTSS), provides a framework for school improvement that focuses on system level change across
the classroom, school, and district to meet the academic and non-academic needs of all students, including
students with disabilities, English language learners, and students who are academically advanced. It guides
both the provision of high-quality core educational experiences in a safe and supportive learning environment
for all students and academic and/or non-academic targeted interventions/supports for students who
experience difficulties and for students who have already demonstrated mastery of the concept and skills
being taught. The purpose of the Tiered System of Support grants was to support the planning and designing
and the development of demonstration sites of a tiered system of support.
Massachusetts Online Resource Library
Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 – FFY2007-2008
MASSDE/SEPP is developing an online Resource Library to highlight OSEP Funded Technical Assistance
and Dissemination Resources and other online resources. This resource is designed to provide evidencebased practices in professional development. The library will include information on the IRIS Center; Access
Center: Improving Outcomes for Students K-8; Center for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
(PBIS); National Center on Response to Intervention; and the NASDSE Professional Development Series.
Topics will include, but are not limited to:
 Co-Teaching Model
 Differentiated Instruction
 Transition Planning
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
149
Massachusetts






Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
Response to Intervention
Accommodations
Role of the Paraprofessional
Supervising the Paraprofessional
Disproportionality in Special Education
National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) Professional
Development Series
Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14 – FFY2008-2012
NASDSE, with support from the Pennsylvania Department of Education and the Pennsylvania Training and
Technical Assistance Network (PaTTAN), offers the NASDSE Professional Development Series. These
conferences bring nationally recognized experts to the states using technology, providing an affordable
means of quality personnel development for a variety of stakeholders. Experts provide important information
on high-interest topics to audiences that include state directors of special education, state agency staff, local
administrators, teachers, related service providers, higher education faculty, families, and other stakeholders.
Conference topics that are made available via satellite, streaming video, and/or DVD, have included:
 Common Core Standards: What They Mean for States and Schools
 Using Technology to Support Teaching and Learning
 Special Education Teacher Evaluation: Issues and Answers
 Virtual Special Education: Issues and Answers
Preschool to Grade 3 Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Alignment Project (Fund
Code 264A & 264B)
Indicators 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 – FFY2007-2012
The purpose of this three-year grant program is to identify and support strategies and resources to increase
districts’ capacity to improve the quality of education and inclusion of children with disabilities by aligning and
coordinating curriculum, instruction, and assessment from Preschool to Grade 3.
Planning grantees (264A) research, discuss and document their strategies, training, and progress within
and/or across the age span, with a focus on how students with disabilities access the general curriculum. The
teams bring together early childhood educators, elementary school staff, special education professionals,
administrators, and parents to explore the alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment in inclusive
classrooms; identify best practices to support all students along the pre-K to grade 3 continuum; and prioritize
areas of strength and needed improvement.
Teams in the continuation year (264B) implement 2-3 strategies that have been identified during the planning
year as a means of strengthening inclusion practices and building a continuum in the early elementary
grades. FF 2010 will be the final year of funding for Fund Code 264B; best practices and outcomes will be
reported and disseminated statewide. Fort- seven districts participated in the program.
Procedures for Timely Verification of Correction of Noncompliance
Indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 – FFY2008-2012
Using updated guidance from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and other technical
assistance sources, MASSDE reviewed and revised procedures for verifying correction of noncompliance for
the above-referenced indicators in accordance with OSEP Memorandum 09-02 from October 17, 2008.
Verification activities include:
(1) if needed, changing, or requiring each district to change, policies, procedures and/or practices that
contributed to or resulted in noncompliance;
(2) for noncompliance concerning a child-specific requirement, requiring each district to submit updated
data demonstrating that each district has corrected each individual case of noncompliance or completed
the required action, although late, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the district; and
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
150
Massachusetts
(3) requiring each district to submit updated data for review to demonstrate that each district is correctly
implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e., achieved 100% compliance).
When data reflects that each instance of child-specific noncompliance has been remedied, and that the
district is 100% compliant with the specific regulatory requirements, MASSDE notifies the district in writing
that it has verified correction of identified noncompliance.
Project FOCUS Academy
Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14 – FFY2005-2007
In the fall of 2004, MASSDE was awarded a three-year U.S. Department of Education (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 postsecondary outcomes. As part of the SIG, MASSDE worked with
educators from selected high schools. The project’s design required study groups from high schools to
participate in face-to-face and distance-learning professional development opportunities in the areas of:




Transition/Postsecondary Outcomes;
School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports;
Universal Design for Learning; and
Family Participation.
The distance-learning model was offered through MASSDE's Massachusetts Online Network for Education
(MassONE).
Revision of “Is Special Education the Right Service?” (ISERS)
Indicators 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 – FFY2008-2009
The ISERS document offers guidance for practitioners and parents on how to:
 identify students with disabilities;
 be knowledgeable of updated regulations and characteristics of disabilities;
 define appropriate services and interventions; and
 ensure a responsive general education environment for all students.
Revision began in March, 2009 with the convening of Disability Workgroups composed of experts in each of
the areas of disability to review the current document for accuracy and relevance in light of new research and
current practices.
Revision of “Ten Step Guide for Comprehensive Educational Assessment of Students with
Visual Impairments”
Indicators 3, 5, 6, 11, 13 – FFY2008-2012
The “Ten Step Guide”: 1) recommends types of assessments that are 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 revised guide 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 revised document has been
re-formatted for use as a web-based resource and is about to be released.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
151
Massachusetts
Secondary School Reading Grant
Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14 – FFY2005-2012
The Massachusetts Middle and High School Reading Initiative project began in 2002 with the development of
the Massachusetts Secondary Literacy Framework. This framework includes three key components: reading
instruction for all students, additional intervention programs for struggling readers, and a comprehensive
reading assessment system. The model's school-wide approach is based on eight fundamental principles: (1)
involvement of all staff in literacy instruction; (2) a focus on reading across the content areas; (3) multiple
interventions for struggling readers; (4) professional development for all staff; (5) adequate time for reading
and writing in the school schedule; (6) flexible grouping patterns; (7) assessment that drives instruction; and
(8) leadership support and guidance.
Recipient schools receive small planning grants to form reading leadership teams and to develop a school
profile of current practices and a related school action plan. For three succeeding years, schools then receive
small grants to implement one or more elements of their action plans. In addition to receiving a small grant,
schools come together in network meetings three times a year to discuss current research on adolescent
literacy and share their efforts to improve adolescent literacy achievement. Members of the Reading
Leadership Team at each school (which consists of a cross-section of staff, including representatives from all
content areas and special programs) attend these meetings.
Topics discussed include: Creating a School-wide Approach to Improving Reading; Assessing Literacy
Needs; Vocabulary Development; Improving Comprehension; Motivation; Helping the Struggling Adolescent
Reader; Content Area Literacy; and Effective Writing Instruction. Participants have had an opportunity to hear
from a number of national literacy experts, including Cathy Collins Block, Dorothy Strickland, Tim Shanahan,
Donald Deshler, Steve Graham, Donald Leu, and John Guthrie. Staff from project schools and other
Massachusetts schools leads breakout sessions at each network meeting. These breakout sessions provide
an opportunity for other project schools to learn about the promising practices that are being tried by other
schools. At each meeting, school teams have a chance to meet with each other to reflect on the day's
learning and to discuss implications for their schools.
Secondary Transition – Transition Works: Innovative Strategies for Transitioning Youth with
Disabilities from School to Work – Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission (MRC) 5 Year
Federal Grant
Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14 – FFY2008-2012
Transition Works: Innovative Strategies for Transitioning Youth with Disabilities from School to Work, is a fiveyear grant from USED awarded to MRC to support transitioning youth with disabilities from school to work.
The program focuses on aligning existing services and developing innovative practices. 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, postsecondary 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.
Self-Assessment Disproportionality Tool for Districts
Indicators 9, 10 – FFY2008-2009
Incorporated into technical assistance for flagged districts with disproportionate representation in special
education, this self-assessment tool encourages districts to examine their own policies and procedures
regarding special education eligibility and disability definition.
Sign Language Web-Based Resource Library
Indicators 3, 5 – FFY2008-2012
Significant progress has been made on the Sign Language Video Resource Library. The purpose of this
project is to develop STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) vocabulary reference tools
that educational interpreters and teachers of students who are deaf or hard-of-hearing may incorporate into
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
152
Massachusetts
instruction. Available technical assistance will include written guides and a web based library, searchable by
ASL and English. The design of the tool will be user-friendly, and promote ready access for end users. In
addition, under this project, MASSDE provides a cost-free institute for educational interpreters to improve
participants’ sign vocabulary in the STEM framework.
SPecial EDition Online Newsletter
All Indicators – FFY2007-2008
The purpose of this newsletter is to provide school districts with ongoing technical assistance and to prompt
dialogue within, among, and between districts and MASSDE, organized around the State Performance Plan
(SPP) indicators.
Special Education Leadership Academies and Seminars
Indicators 3, 5, 6, 8, 11 – FFY2005-2012
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 one to five years of experience; Academy II is for administrators with more than five
years of experience. Both Academies provide professional development to administrators in the following
areas:






effective leadership in the areas of state and federal laws and regulations;
fiscal administration;
data collection and analysis;
staff recruitment and retention;
instructional program design and improvement; and
access to the general curriculum based on the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks.
MASSDE sponsors ongoing leadership seminars for former participants of the Leadership Academies for
participants to reconnect and network with their Academy colleagues and share effective practices, policies,
strategies, and products. In FFY2010 MASSDE designed, developed and implemented a team-based Special
Education Leadership Academy for the District and School Assistance Centers (DSACs) that included, in
addition to the Special Education Administrator, school and district leaders such as Principals/Vice Principals,
Curriculum Directors, and Guidance Directors. During the spring/summer of FFY2010, the MASSDE/Special
Education Planning and Policy office collaborated with the MASSDE/Career/Vocational Technical Education
unit to design and develop a Special Education Leadership Academy that followed the DSAC team-based
leadership academy. This course is being implemented in FFY2011.
Special Education Professional Development Summer Institutes
Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 – FFY2005-2012
The Special Education Summer Institutes are statewide professional development opportunities provided free
of charge 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 such as Mathematics, Science, and Literacy. Some of the
Special Education Institutes topics include:





Accessible Learning Through Technology
Assessing English Language Learners (ELL) With Disabilities
Collaborative Evaluation Led By Local Educators
Current Issues in School-Based Occupational Therapy & Physical Therapy
Improving Spoken and Written Language: From Research to Practice
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
153
Massachusetts






Literacy for Students who are Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing
Making Assistive Technology Happen: Assistive Technology for Teaching and Learning
Managing Behavior in an Inclusive Classroom
Meeting the Academic and Non-Academic Needs of Students with Asperger Syndrome
Strategies for Students with Sensory Processing Disorders in Inclusive School Settings
Technology for Children with Visual Impairments and Multiple Disabilities.
Special Education Program Improvement Grants (Fund Code 274)
Indicators 3, 4, 5, 11 – FFY2005-2007
The purpose of this grant program was 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 was available to
all public school districts and educational collaboratives (during FFY2005 – FFY2007). For FFY 2006 and
FFY2007, the priorities for Fund Code 274 were:
 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 utilized Fund Code 274 funds, and participated in regional
professional development conferences designed to support the priorities of the grant.
These grants were not issued in FFY2010, but will resume in FFY201. Priorities for FFY2011 will be: Educator
Effectiveness, Content Knowledge, Non-Academic Supports, and Secondary Transition.
Special Education Program Improvement Grants (Fund Code 249)
Indicators 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13 – FFY2005-2012
The purpose of this grant program is to fund professional development activities that will help to improve the
skills and capacity of educators to meet the diverse needs of students with disabilities. Its priorities are to
enhance program-based induction, mentoring, and retention programs and to advance the skills of educators
through professional development activities. Fund Code 249 is available to all approved private special
education schools
.
Priorities for FFY2006 and FFY2007 were: Induction/Mentoring; and Curriculum Development, Instruction,
and Classroom Assessment. FFY2008 and FFY2009 priorities were: Educator Quality and Effectiveness:
Induction, Mentoring, and Retention; Supporting Schools and Students: Curriculum Development,
Instructional Practices, and Classroom Assessment; and College and Career Readiness: Secondary
Transition Planning.
These grants were not issued in FFY2010, but will resume in FFY2011. Priorities for FFY2011 will be:
Educator Effectiveness, Content Knowledge, Non-Academic Supports, and Secondary Transition.
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.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
154
Massachusetts
Special Education Website
All Indicators – FFY2005-2012
The Special Education section of MASSDE’s website provides a variety of tools, news items, and resources to
districts, parents, and other stakeholders: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/. Some of the most visited sections
of the website are:
 Headlines: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/
 Contact Us – Opportunity for external customers to request information/ask questions:
specialeducation@doe.mass.edu
 Grants: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/grants.html
 Training: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/training.html
 Forms and Notices: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/iep/
 Special Education Program Plan: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/programplan/
 Special Education Data: http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/special_ed.aspx
 Massachusetts Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS): http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/mtss.html and
http://www.doe.mass.edu/mtss/default.html
Trauma Sensitive Schools Initiative – MASSDE Student Support Services Unit
Indicators 1, 2, 4 – FFY2008-2012
This MASSDE initiative focuses on the needs of students who have experienced or witnessed trauma by
assisting with reducing the barriers that may affect academic performance, classroom behavior, and
relationships that result from trauma. MASSDE is working to bring “trauma sensitive” practices to schools
across the state through annual trainings and technical assistance that incorporate best practices and
strategies for creating a safe supportive school environment where all students can learn, and where students
are held to high expectations.
Work-Based Learning Plans (WBLP) for Students with Disabilities – MASSDE Student
Support, Career & Education Services
Indicators 1, 2, 4, 13, 14 – FFY2008-2012
The Massachusetts WBLP is a diagnostic, goal-setting and assessment tool designed within the school-tocareer system to drive student learning and productivity on the job. It was developed by the MASSDE through
an interagency collaboration of employers, educators, and workforce development professionals. Through
work-based learning experiences, students have an opportunity to learn about various career areas and try
different work styles, find out what type of work they enjoy, find out how they learn best in a workplace setting,
and find out what natural supports are available. Students learn and practice basic foundation skills and
begin to develop life-long career skills.
Beginning in March 2009, SEPP collaborated with the MASSDE Connecting Activities Office to develop a
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. 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.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
155
Massachusetts
APPENDIX B: Massachusetts Parent Survey for Special Education (FFY2006)
 This is a survey for parents of students receiving special education services. Your responses will help guide
efforts to improve services and results for children and families. (Note: If you have more than one child
currently receiving special education services, you may choose to submit one or more surveys, based upon
your experiences as related to your children.)
 For each statement below, please select one of the following response choices: very strongly disagree (VSD),
strongly disagree (SD), disagree (D), agree (A), strongly agree (SA), very strongly agree (VSA). You may
skip any item that you feel does not apply to you or your child.
Disagree
Agree
VSD
SD
D
A
SA
VSA
VSD
SD
D
A
SA
VSA
Schools' Efforts to Partner with Parents
1.
I am considered an equal partner with teachers and other professionals in
planning my child's program.
2.
I was offered special assistance (such as child care) so that I could participate in
the Individualized Educational Program (IEP) meeting.
3.
At the IEP meeting, we discussed how my child would participate in statewide
assessments.
4.
My child’s teachers give me enough time and opportunities to discuss my child’s
needs and progress.
5.
All of my concerns and recommendations were documented on the IEP.
6.
Teachers and administrators at my child’s school invite me to share my
knowledge and experience with school personnel.
7.
I was given information about organizations that offer support for parents of
students with disabilities.
8.
I have been asked for my opinion about how well special education services are
meeting my child's needs.
9.
My child's evaluation report is written in terms I understand.
10. IEP meetings are scheduled at a time and place that are convenient for me.
11. Teachers are available to speak with me.
12. Teachers treat me as a team member.
13. I feel I can disagree with my child’s special education program or services without
negative consequences for me or my child.
Teachers and administrators:
14. - seek out parent input.
15. - show sensitivity to the needs of students with disabilities and their families.
16. - encourage me to participate in the decision-making process.
17. - respect my cultural heritage.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
156
Massachusetts
The school:
VSD
SD
D
A
SA
18. - has a person on staff that is available to answer parents' questions.
19. - communicates regularly with me regarding my child's progress on IEP goals.
20. - gives me choices with regard to services that address my child's needs.
21. - offers parents training about special education issues.
22. - offers parents a variety of ways to communicate with teachers.
23. - gives parents the help they may need to play an active role in their child's
education.
24. - provides information on agencies that can assist my child in the transition from
school.
25. - explains what options parents have if they disagree with a decision of the school.
Demographic Information
26. Number of years child has received special
education services




Less than 1 year
1-3 years
4-7 years
More than 7 years
27. Child’s race/ethnicity
 White
 Black or African-American
 Hispanic or Latino
 Asian or Pacific Islander
 American Indian or Alaskan Native
 Multi-racial
28. Language spoken in the home
 English
 Spanish
 Portuguese
 Chinese
 Creole/Haitian
 Vietnamese
 Other _________________
29. Child’s school level



Elementary School
Middle School
High School
30. Child’s Primary Disability (check one)













Autism
Communication Impairment
Deaf-Blind Impairment
Developmental Delay
Emotional Impairment
Health Impairment
Hearing Impairment
Intellectual Impairment
Multiple Disabilities
Neurological Impairment
Physical Impairment
Specific Learning Disability
Vision Impairment
Thank you for participating.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
157
VSA
Massachusetts
APPENDIX C: Massachusetts Parent Involvement Survey (FFY2010)
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
158
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
159
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
160
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
161
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
162
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
163
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
164
Massachusetts
APPENDIX D: Postsecondary Transition Planning Checklist
Student Name _______________________________________ SASID _______________________________
Age ________
District _____________________________________________LEA Code ____________________________ Date ________
Primary Disability ______________________________________________________ Level of Need ____________________
Transition Planning Form (28M/9)
_________
Is there evidence that the student has a completed Transition Planning Form (28M/9)?
Date Form Last Completed ______________________________________________
Postsecondary Requirements in the IEP and/or TPF
[34 CFR 300.320(b) and (c)] [20 U.S.C. 1414 (d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII)]
Beginning at age 14, does the student's IEP and/or Transition Planning Form include:
_________
Appropriate measurable postsecondary vision/goal(s) that are based on an age-appropriate transition assessment?
Evidence such as: IEP 1 - Key Evaluation Results Summary, Assessment Info, TPF pg 1 assessment info as described
_________
Appropriate measurable postsecondary vision/goal(s) that are updated annually?
Evidence such as: Dated IEP 1 - Vision Statement, TPF, Assessment Info
_________
Transition services*, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals?
Evidence such as: Transition Planning Form, page 2; Transcript, IEP 5 - Service Delivery Grid, IEP 8 – Additional Information
Measurable annual skill-based IEP goals related to the student’s transition services* needs?
Evidence such as: IEP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and/or 8
_________
IEP Team Meeting Student Invitation
[34 CFR 300.321(b)] [20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(1)(B)]
Is there evidence that:
__________
The student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services* are to be discussed?
Evidence such as: N-3A
__________
If appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the agreement of the
parent or student who has reached the age of majority?
Evidence such as: N-3A
Notes
_____________________________________________________________
Type Name
____________________________________________
Role
____________________________________________________________________
Authorized Signature (not required unless a hard copy is requested by ESE)
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
____________________________________
165
Massachusetts
APPENDIX E: Form 28M/9
TRANSITION PLANNING FORM (TPF)
Massachusetts requires that beginning when the eligible student is 14 for the IEP developed that year, the school
district must plan for the student’s need for transition services and the school district must document this discussion
annually. This form is to be maintained with the IEP and revisited each year.
Student:
Date form completed:
Anticipated date of graduation:
Anticipated date of 688 referral, if applicable:
SASID:
Age:
Current IEP dates from: _______ to: _______
POST-SECONDARY VISION
Write the student’s POST-SECONDARY VISION in the box below. In collaboration with the family, consider the
student’s preferences and interests, and the desired outcomes for post-secondary education/ training,
employment, and adult living. This section should correspond with the vision statement on IEP 1.
DISABILITY RELATED NEEDS
Write the skills (disability related) that require IEP goals and/or related services in the box below. Consider all skills
(disability related) necessary for the student to achieve his/her post-secondary vision.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
166
Massachusetts
Student: __________________
Date form completed: ___________________
ACTION PLAN
The ACTION PLAN should outline how the student can develop self-determination skills and be prepared
both academically and functionally to transition to post-school activities in order to achieve his/her postsecondary vision. Indicate how Special Education/General Education, family members, adult service
providers or others in the community will help the student develop the necessary skills. Disability related
needs must also be stated on page 1.
Develop the ACTION PLAN needed to achieve the POST-SECONDARY VISION by outlining the skills the
student needs to develop and the courses, training, and activities in which the student will participate.
Include information on who will help the student implement specific steps listed below in the Action Plan.



Instruction: Is there a course of study or specific courses needed that will help the student
reach his/her post-secondary vision? Consider the learning opportunities or skills that the
student may need. This could include specific general education courses and/or special education
instruction, career and technical education, and/or preparation for post-secondary outcomes such
as vocational training or community college.
Employment: Are there employment opportunities and/or specific skills that will help the
student reach his/her post-secondary vision? Consider options such as part-time employment,
supported job placement, service learning projects, participation in work experience program, job
shadowing, internships, practice in resume writing/ interviewing skills, the use of a one-stop
resource center and job specific skills in areas such as customer service, technology, etc.
Community Experiences/ Post School Adult Living: Are there certain types of community
and/or adult living experiences that will help the student reach his/her post-secondary
vision? Consider options such as participation in community based experiences, learning how to
independently access community resources, building social relationships, managing money,
understanding health care needs, utilizing transportation options and organizational skills.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
167
Massachusetts
APPENDIX F: Massachusetts Postsecondary Outcomes Survey (FFY2006)
School District:
Student Name:
SASID:
Gender:
Date of Exit from School (mm/yyyy):
- Male
Method of Response:
- Female
- Email
- Mail
- Telephone
- Other
- Non-Responder
Question 1: What is your educational status since leaving high school?
- CURRENTLY enrolled or attending classes
- NOT CURRENTLY enrolled or attending, but have enrolled or attended classes
- HAVE NOT enrolled or attended classes
Question 2: If you have enrolled or attended classes at any time since leaving high school, what
type of program did you attend?
- 4-year college or university
- 2-year college or university
- Technical or vocational school
- GED program
- Adult education in the community
- Job Corp, Work Force Development program, etc.
- Other Describe:_______________________
- Not applicable - Have not enrolled or attended classes
Question 3: If you have enrolled or attended classes at any time since leaving high school, what
was your enrollment status?
- Full-time student enrolled in a degree program
- Part-time student enrolled in a degree program
- Not enrolled in a degree program, but taking classes
- Not applicable - Have not enrolled or attended classes
Question 4: If you have enrolled or attended classes at any time since leaving high school, how
long does the program require to finish?
- Less than 1 academic year
- 1 academic year or more
- Not applicable - Have not enrolled or attended classes
Question 5: If you have enrolled or attended classes at any time since leaving high school, have
you completed one class or more?
- Yes
- No
- Not applicable - Have not enrolled or attended classes
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
168
Massachusetts
Question 6: What is your employment status since leaving high school? (This includes current
and previous employment.)
- Employed – in the competitive job market
- Full-Time Military Service
- Self-employed – including working for a family business
- Supported Employment – job placement with ongoing support from a job coach or agency
- Unemployed – not employed but looking for employment
- Not in the Labor Force – not employed and not looking for employment
Question 7: If you have been employed at any time since leaving high school, what is the
longest amount of time you worked at the same job?
- Less than 3 months
- 3 months or more
- Not applicable - Not employed since leaving high school
Question 8: If you have been employed at any time since leaving high school, how many hours
did you work in a typical week? (This includes summer employment.)
- 20 hours or more per week
- Less than 20 hours per week
- Not applicable - Not employed since leaving high school
Question 9*: If you have been employed at any time since leaving high school, what is the
highest wage you were paid per hour? (This includes tips if you earn them.)
- Less than $8.00 per hour
- $8.00 per hour
- More than $8.00 per hour
- Not applicable - Not employed since leaving high school
*Massachusetts’ minimum wage is $8.00/ hour as of January 1, 2008.
Thank you for participating in this survey. If you have any questions, please call:
If you are returning this survey by mail, please send it to:
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
169
Massachusetts
APPENDIX G: Massachusetts Postsecondary Outcomes Survey (FFY2009)
Massachusetts After High School Survey
Student Name
SASID
District
Date of Exit (mm/yyyy)
LEA Code
Primary Disability
Level of Need
Method of Contact
1st Attempt
2nd Attempt
Gender
3rd Attempt
Working?
Yes or No?
Yes or No?
Yes or No?
Yes or No?
1. At any time since leaving high school have you had a job?
2. If you count all the days you have had a job would it equal 90 days? (About 3 months)
3. Did you work about 20 hours per week or more?
4. Did you earn $8.00 per hour or more? (Include tips)
5. What kind of job did you have?
(if the student did not have a job, select "Other" and type "no job" in the "Other" field)
Select Job ►►►
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Yes or No?
In a company, business, or service (without a job coach)
In the military
In supported employment (with a job coach)
Self-employed (e.g., baby-sitting, dog grooming, lawn care, etc.)
In your family’s business (e.g., farm, store, fishing, ranching, catering, etc.)
In sheltered employment (where most workers have disabilities)
Other (if another kind of job was selected, type "N/A")
6. Are you looking for a job?
Training or Education?
Yes or No?
7. At any time since leaving high school have you taken an academic or job training course?
Yes or No?
8. Did you finish one course or more?
9. What kind of school did you go to?
Select School ►►►
•
•
•
•
10.
4 year College or University or Technical College
2 year College or University or Technical College
Less than 2 year College or University or Technical College
N/A
What kind of program did you go to?
Select Program ►►►
• GED
• Adult Education
• Continuing Education
• Rehabilitation Services
• Job Training (Apprenticeship, Career Development, One-Stop Career Centers, City Year,
Service Learning – AmeriCorps, Job Corp, Peace Corp, etc.)
• N/A
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
170
Massachusetts
APPENDIX H: Correction of Noncompliance Data Chart
SE
Criteria #
SE Criteria Topic
2001-2002 CPR
findings of
noncompliance
Findings of
noncompliance
identified at the CPR
and no longer present
at the 2004-2005 MCR
Percent of
Noncompliance
Corrected and
Sustained
1
2
3
4
5
Assessment selection
Req/opt. Assessment
SLD
Assessment Reports
Participation State/local
assessments
Determination of
Transition
Age of Majority
Team composition
Eligibility deter. Timelines
End of school year
Evaluations
Independent Evaluations
Frequency Re-evaluations
Progress Reports
Annual meeting
Child find
Screening
Services at 3
IEP dev/content
Placement determination
Extended Evaluation
LRE
SD/SY req.
IEP implemented/available
Confidentiality of student
records
Notice to parent
Parent consent
Parent participation.
Team notice
IEP or nsn to parents
Communication in home
lang.
Parents rights
Educational Surrogate
parents
PAC
Involvement in the general
curriculum
Continuum of
placement/services
Specialized materials
Assistive Technology
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
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
171
Massachusetts
SE
Criteria #
SE Criteria Topic
36
IEP implemented,
accepted, financial
responsibility
Out of district
policies/procedures
ESIS
Private school at private
expense
Grouping req.
Age span
Programs for 3 & 4 year
olds
Behavioral interventions.
Record suspensions
Suspension up to and
greater than 10
Suspension greater than
10
Discipline not yet sped
FAPE
Related services
Transportation
Responsibility
principal/special education
director
Teacher cert.
Related service providers
credentials
Paraprofessionals
Professional development
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
2001-2002 CPR
findings of
noncompliance
Findings of
noncompliance
identified at the CPR
and no longer present
at the 2004-2005 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
8
89%
3
7
12
2
3
5
6
2
100%
71%
50%
100%
20
13
65%
3
3
100%
2
2
100%
11
11
100%
23
16
70%
14
23
7
0
9
14
7
0
64%
61%
100%
N/A
560
380
68%
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
172
Massachusetts
APPENDIX I: Table 7 – Report of Dispute Resolution (FFY2004)
Report of Dispute Resolution Under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Complaints, Mediations, Resolution Sessions, and Due Process Hearings
SECTION A: Signed, written complaints
(1) Signed, written complaints total
(1.1) Complaints with reports issued
412
258
(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
(i) Mediation agreements
(b) Mediations not related to due process
(i) Mediation agreements
(2.2) Mediations not held (including pending)
58
48
602
519
0
SECTION C: Hearing requests
(3) Hearing requests total
(3.1) Resolution sessions
(a) Settlement agreements
(3.2) Hearings (fully adjudicated)
768
NA*
NA*
12
(a) Decisions within timeline
1
(b) Decisions within extended timeline
10
(3.3) Resolved without a hearing
738
SECTION D: Expedited hearing requests (related to disciplinary decision)
(4) Expedited hearing requests total
69
(4.1) Resolution sessions
NA
(a) Settlement agreements
NA
(4.2) Expedited hearings (fully adjudicated)
1
(a) Change of placement ordered
0
*NA=Reporting period does not cover 7/1/05, effective date of IDEA 2004, which initiated requirement of
resolution session.
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
173
Massachusetts
APPENDIX J: Indicator 20 Scoring Rubric (FFY2006)
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
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Correct Calculation
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) =
Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY2005-FFY2012
Submitted February 2, 2012, revised April 17, 2012
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
58
5
63
174