State Performance Plan s1

Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan for FFY 2005 - 2010

Submitted to the Office of Special Education Programs December 1, 2005 Revised February 1, 2010 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 75 Pleasant Street, Malden, MA 02148-4906 Phone 781-338-3000 TTY: N.E.T. Relay 800-439-2370 www.doe.mass.edu This document was prepared by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D. Commissioner

Board of Elementary and Secondary Education Members Ms. Maura Banta, Chair, Melrose Ms. Harneen Chernow, Jamaica Plain Mr. Gerald Chertavian, Cambridge Mr. Michael D’Ortenzio, Jr., Chair, Student Advisory Council, Wellesley Dr. Thomas E. Fortmann, Lexington Ms. Beverly Holmes, Springfield Dr. Jeff Howard, Reading Ms. Ruth Kaplan, Brookline Dr. Dana Mohler-Faria, Bridgewater Mr. Paul Reville, Secretary of Education, Worcester Dr. Sandra L. Stotsky, Brookline

Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D., Commissioner and Secretary to the Board

The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, an affirmative action employer, is committed to ensuring that all of its programs and facilities are accessible to all members of the public. We do not discriminate on the basis of age, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. Inquiries regarding the Department’s compliance with Title IX and other civil rights laws may be directed to the Human Resources Director, 75 Pleasant St., Malden, MA 02148 781-338-6105.

© 2010 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Permission is hereby granted to copy any or all parts of this document for non-commercial educational purposes. Please credit the “Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.”

This document printed on recycled paper

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 75 Pleasant Street, Malden, MA 02148-4906 Phone 781-338-3000 TTY: N.E.T. Relay 800-439-2370 www.doe.mass.edu Part B Massachusetts State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010 Table of Contents

Cover Letter / Overview of MA SPP Development...... 1

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE...... 3

● Indicator #1: Graduation Rates...... 3 ● Indicator #2: Dropout Rates...... 8 ● Indicator #3: Assessment...... 13 ● Indicator #4: Suspension/Expulsion...... 24 ● Indicator #5: School Age LRE...... 30 ● Indicator #6: Preschool LRE...... 37 ● Indicator #7: Preschool Outcomes...... 41 ● Indicator #8: Parent Involvement...... 51

Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality...... 55

● Indicator #9: Disproportionality – Child with a Disability...... 55 ● Indicator #10: Disproportionality – Eligibility Category...... 59

Effective General Supervision / Child Find...... 62

● Indicator #11: Initial Evaluation Timelines...... 62

Effective General Supervision / Effective Transition...... 66

● Indicator #12: Early Childhood Transition...... 66 ● Indicator #13: Secondary Transition...... 70 ● Indicator #14: Post-School Outcomes...... 75

Effective General Supervision / General Supervision...... 82

● Indicator #15: Identification and Correction of Noncompliance...... 82 ● Indicator #16: Complaint Timelines...... 87 ● Indicator #17: Due Process Timelines...... 90 ● Indicator #18: Hearing Requests Resolved by Resolution Sessions...... 92 ● Indicator #19: Mediation Agreements...... 94 ● Indicator #20: State Reported Data...... 96

Appendices...... 99

● Appendix A: Description of Selected Cross-Cutting Improvement Activities...... 99 ● Appendix B: MA Parent Survey for Indicator #8...... 110 ● Appendix C: MA Post-School Outcomes Survey for Indicator #14...... 112 ● Appendix D: Correction of Noncompliance Data...... 113 ● Appendix E: Attachment 1 – Report of Dispute Resolution for FFY 2004...... 115 ● Appendix F: Indicator #20 Scoring Rubric...... 116 Cover Letter / Overview of MA SPP Development Submitted December 1, 2005; Revised January 3, 2006, February 1, 2007, May 21, 2007, February 1, 2008, April 14, 2008, February 2, 2009, and January 29, 2010

ATTN: Janet Scire U.S Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Potomac Center Plaza Mail Stop 2600, Room 4129 550 12th Street S.W. Washington, DC 20202

Dear Ms. Scire:

Enclosed is the Massachusetts State Performance Plan (MA SPP). The MA SPP was developed in accordance with 20 U.S.C. 1416(b)(1), which states that “not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, each State must have in place a performance plan that evaluates the State’s efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of Part B and describes how the State will improve such implementation.” The MA SPP responds directly to the 20 indicators identified by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in Information Collection 1820-0624, Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR).

The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (MASSDE) has engaged in a variety of activities to obtain broad input from stakeholders on the development of the Massachusetts State Performance Plan (MA SPP). An overview of the MA SPP was first presented to the Special Education Advisory Council (SAC), and was also presented to key stakeholders within MASSDE. As a next step, the Massachusetts Statewide Special Education Steering Committee – which consists of SAC members, key MASSDE personnel, local education officials, parents, advocates, and representatives from higher education, charter schools, approved private special education schools, and adult service agencies – met to identify targets, methodologies, and key activities as appropriate for each of the 20 MA SPP indicators. Additionally, I have met with a number of other groups as we have been preparing and revising the MA SPP and Annual Performance Report (APR), and have solicited input and described the activities to date to stakeholders broadly across the state.

The continued input and feedback from the Steering Committee and other groups have been keys in the development of the MA SPP. In addition to discussing targets, methodologies, and improvement activities, Steering Committee members have also discussed dissemination of information about the MA SPP within their respective organizations. Additionally, Steering Committee members signed up to participate in targeted interest groups focused on each indicator. These interest groups incorporate additional members and will meet throughout the upcoming years to help guide Massachusetts’ work in each area.

Regarding public dissemination, the completed MA SPP will be made widely available for public discussion. This will be accomplished by broad discussion in interest groups (as previously mentioned) and at the Statewide Advisory Council meeting and other conference and group discussion opportunities. Additionally, MASSDE will post the MA SPP on the MASSDE website at http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/, and distribute hard copies of the report to key constituents and the media.

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

1 throughout the MA SPP, as applicable. Please note that the following revisions have been made since the initial submission on December 1, 2005 – 1) Indicator 4a was revised on January 3, 2006; 2) Indicators 1, 2, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 18 were revised on February 1, 2007; 3) Indicators 9 and 10 were revised on May 21, 2007 at the request of OSEP; 4) Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4A, 5, 7, 9, 10, 14, and 20 were revised on February 1, 2008; 5) Indicators 7, 9 and 10 were revised on April 14, 2008 at the request of OSEP; 6) Indicator 7 was revised according to the SPP submission instructions, the baseline data for Indicator 1 were revised, and improvement activities for Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4A, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 20 were revised on February 2, 2009; 7) Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 16, 17 and 18 were revised, and improvement activities were revised for Indicators 1, 2, 4, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18 and 19 on February 1, 2010. If you have questions or need additional clarification regarding the MA SPP, please contact me at 781.338.3388 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Marcia Mittnacht State Director of Special Education Special Education Planning and Policy Development Office Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

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

2 Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010 Revised February 1, 2010

Overview of the State Performance Plan Development: Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE

Indicator 1: Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma. Indicator #1: Graduation Rates (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

Measurement: States must report using the graduation rate calculation and timeline established by the Department under the ESEA.

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process: In Massachusetts the measurement for the statewide graduation rate is the number of students in a cohort who graduate in four years or less, divided by the number of first-time entering 9th graders in that cohort. The denominator is adjusted so that students who transfer into Massachusetts’ public schools are added to the original cohort, and students who transfer out or who are now deceased, are subtracted from the original cohort. The quotient is multiplied by 100 to express the graduation rate as a percentage. The measurement for all youth, regardless of IEP status, is the same.

For students in the 2005-2006 cohort, Massachusetts is calculating and reporting a statewide Graduation Rate for the first time. This cohort includes all students who entered 9th grade in Massachusetts’ public schools for the first time in the fall of 2002, plus all students who transferred into the cohort during the four years, minus all students who transferred out of the cohort or who were deceased during the four years. Students who earned their Competency Determination, met all local graduation requirements, and received a diploma from a Massachusetts public high school in four years or less were counted as graduates. Summer graduates were included as if they graduated in the June preceding the summer.

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

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

Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005-2006):

# of Students in # of Students who 2005-2006 2005-06 cohort graduated in four years or Graduation Rate less 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 2005-06 cohort graduated from high school in four years or less while the Graduation Rate is 83.9% for non-disabled students in the same cohort, and is 79.9% for all students in the cohort.

The Five-Year Graduation Rate for students in the 2005-06 cohort is 67.0% for students with disabilities, 86.2% for non-disabled students, and 82.7% overall. This means that 5.9% of students with disabilities in the cohort, and 2.3% of students without disabilities, graduated in five years instead of four. MASSDE recognizes that it is appropriate for some students to take longer than four years to complete high school, and so Massachusetts will continue to calculate and publicly report the Five-Year Rate for subsequent cohorts as an additional measure of year-to-year progress.

This disparity between the Graduation Rates for disabled and for non-disabled students in Massachusetts reflects a national trend. The report on SPP Indicator 1 prepared by the National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities (NDPC-SD) for the Regional Resource and Federal Center Network’s Part B SPP/APR Indicator Analysis shows that of 36 states that reported Graduation Rates for both student with disabilities and all students, 35 states had a positive gap between the all-student rate and the rate for students with disabilities. One state actually had a negative gap between the all-student rate and the rate for students with disabilities, and the gaps for the other 35 states ranged from approximately one percentage point to approximately 45 percentage points. Massachusetts, with a gap of 18.2 percentage points, appears to be on par with many of the states reporting Graduation Rates for both students with disabilities and all students, although it should be noted that many states used an “event” calculation which cannot be directly compared to Massachusetts’ “cohort” calculation.

Massachusetts is committed to closing the gap between the graduation rate of students with disabilities and the graduation rate of students without disabilities over a ten-year period. Our SPP targets set in December 2009 reflect a graduation rate for all students at or above 95% by FFY 2018. The plan is to increase the Graduation Rate of all students with disabilities by approximately 5% every two years as follows:

FFY Measurable and Rigorous Target

2005 Baseline Year- 61.1% (2005-2006)

2006 61.7% (2006-2007)

2007 65.0%1 (2007-2008)

2008 70.0% (2008-2009)

2009 72.5% (2009-2010)

2010 75.0% (2010-2011)

Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources: Please note that many of the activities presented below impact across multiple indicator areas. For these activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.

Timelines Improvement Activity Resources (FFY)

2005 - 2007 Project FOCUS Academy MASSDE staff time, grant (Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, partners (Federation for 13, 14) Children with Special Needs, Center for Applied Special See Appendix A for a complete description. Technologies, Institute for Community Inclusion at UMass-Boston, Education Development Center), LEA staff time

2005 - 2010 Collaboration with Stakeholders MASSDE staff time (Impacts all Indicators)

See Appendix A for a complete description.

2005 - 2010 Special Education Summer Institutes MASSDE staff time, LEA staff (Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, time 11, 13, 14)

1 For more information about the revised targets for FFY 2007 through FFY 2010, see the Massachusetts Part B Annual Performance Report (MA APR) for FFY 2008 5 Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010 Revised February 1, 2010

2005 - 2010 Special Education Website MASSDE staff time (Impacts All Indicators)

2008 - 2010 Trauma Sensitive Schools Initiative MASSDE staff time, LEA staff (Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 4) time

2007 - 2010 Massachusetts FOCUS Academy MASSDE staff time, grant (Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, partners (Federation for 13, 14) Children with Special Needs, Center for Applied Special See Appendix A for a complete description. Technologies, Institute for Community Inclusion at UMass-Boston), LEA staff time

2008 - 2010 Secondary Transition – Transition Works: MASSDE staff time, Innovative Strategies for Transitioning Youth Massachusetts Rehabilitation with Disabilities from School to Work Commission staff time (Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 13, 14)

2008 - 2010 Graduation and Dropout Prevention and MASSDE staff time Recovery Commission (Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 14)

2008 - 2010 Dropout Prevention and Recovery Work MASSDE staff time, LEA staff Group time (Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 4, 14)

2008 - 2010 Dropout Prevention, Intervention, and MASSDE staff time Recovery Website (Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 14)

2007 - 2008 Massachusetts Online Resource Library MASSDE staff time (Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)

2007 - 2008 SPecial EDition Newsletter MASSDE staff time (Impacts All Indicators)

2008 - 2010 Educational Proficiency Plan (EPP) MASSDE staff time, LEA staff (Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 3, 13, 14) time

See Appendix A for a complete description

2008-2010 ARRA Title II-D Technology Competitive MASSDE staff time, LEA staff Grants time (Additional Indicators Impacted: 2)

2008-2010 Interagency Regional Summit Meetings MASSDE, MA Executive Office of Education, MA Funded in part from an America's Promise grant Executive Office of Labor and and are co-organized by MASSDE, MA Workforce Development, MA Executive Office of Education, MA Executive Executive Office of Health Office of Labor and Workforce Development, and Human Services, and MA Executive Office of Health and Human Commonwealth Corporation Services, and Commonwealth Corporation. staff time These summits are intended to support regional teams in understanding and using youth-related data including student graduation, dropout, youth employment, and state and regional labor market information to promote timely graduation and college and career readiness.

2008 - 2010 Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment MASSDE staff time Summit (Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 3, 8)

2008 - 2010 Secondary School Reading Grant MASSDE staff time (Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 3, 5, 14)

Overview of the State Performance Plan Development:

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE Indicator #2: Dropout Rates

Indicator 2: Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school. Indicator #2: Dropout Rates (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

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

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process: A dropout is defined as a student in grades 9-12 in Massachusetts public schools who leaves school prior to graduation for reasons other than to transfer to another school, and does not re-enroll before the following October 1. The data used to calculate the dropout rate are obtained through the Student Information Management System (SIMS) scheduled reports that are submitted by school districts throughout the year. The end-of-year collection period includes a count of students who dropped out. This figure is then amended after districts submit their first SIMS report for the following school year (the October 1st collection). Students who were reported as a “dropout” at the end of the year and then were enrolled in a district at the subsequent October 1st count (i.e., “returned dropouts”), are removed from the data set. Students who drop out of high school but earn a GED are also removed from this data set. Students who were reported as enrolled at the end of the year but were not reported in the next October 1st SIMS collection (i.e., “summer dropouts”) are added back in to the count and are applied towards the grade in which they failed to enroll. The remaining figure is then divided by the total enrollment of students that were reported in the October 1st data collection during the July 1st to June 30th twelve-month period for which the dropout count is being calculated. For additional information on the dropout calculation, see the flowchart available at the following link: http://www.doe.mass.edu/infoservices/data/guides/dropouts.html

# of Students Enrolled # of Dropouts 2004-2005 (Grades 9-12) (Grades 9-12) Dropout Rate

IEP 42,647 2,369 5.6%

Non-IEP 250,752 8,776 3.5%

All Students 293,399 11,145 3.8%

Discussion of Baseline Data: The data provided in the above table show that students with disabilities in Massachusetts’ public schools are dropping out of high school at a higher rate than their non-disabled peers. Based on this formula for calculating Dropout Rate, which is an “event” or “annual” rate calculation, 5.6% of students with disabilities dropped out of high school in 2004-2005. The Dropout Rate was 3.5% for non-disabled students, and was 3.8% for all students, in 2004-2005.

This disparity between the Dropout Rates for disabled and for non-disabled students in Massachusetts reflects a national trend. The report on SPP Indicator 2 prepared by the National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities (NDPC-SD) for the Regional Resource and Federal Center Network’s Part B SPP/APR Indicator Analysis shows that of 37 states that reported Dropout Rates for both student with disabilities and all students, the majority of states had a positive gap between the all-student rate and 8 Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010 Revised February 1, 2010 the rate for students with disabilities, with gaps ranging between a fraction of one percentage point and approximately 18 percentage points. Massachusetts, with a gap of 1.8 percentage points, appears to be on par with many of the states reporting Dropout Rates for both students with disabilities and all students, although it should be noted that many states used a “cohort” calculation which cannot be directly compared to Massachusetts’ “event” calculation.

Massachusetts is committed to closing the gap between the dropout rate of students with disabilities and the dropout rate of students without disabilities over a ten-year period. Our SPP targets reflect a ten-year goal for FFY 2015 of a dropout rate for students with disabilities at or below 3.5%. Our ten-year plan is to decrease the Dropout Rate of students with disabilities by approximately half of one percentage point every two years as follows:

 FFY 2005 & FFY 2006: 5.6%  FFY 2007 & FFY 2008: 5.1%  FFY 2009 & FFY 2010: 4.7%  FFY 2011 & FFY 2012: 4.3%  FFY 2013 & FFY 2014: 3.9%  FFY 2015: 3.5%

2005 Students with IEPs Dropout Rate: 5.6% (2005-2006)

2006 5.6% (2006-2007)

2007 5.1% (2007-2008)

2008 5.1% (2008-2009)

2009 4.7% (2009-2010)

2010 4.7% (2010-2011)

2005 - 2007 Project FOCUS Academy MASSDE staff time, grant (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, partners (Federation for 14) Children with Special Needs, Center for Applied See Appendix A for a complete description. Special Technologies, Institute for Community Inclusion at UMass-Boston, Education Development Center), LEA staff time

2005 - 2010 Special Education Summer Institutes MASSDE staff time, LEA (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, staff time 11, 13, 14)

2005 - 2010 Collaboration with Stakeholders MASSDE staff time (Impacts All Indicators)

2008 - 2010 National Association of State Directors of MASSDE staff time Special Education (NASDSE) Professional Development Series (Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 13, 14 )

2007 - 2010 Massachusetts FOCUS Academy MASSDE staff time, grant (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, partners (Federation for 14) Children with Special Needs, Center for Applied See Appendix A for a complete description. Special Technologies, Institute for Community Inclusion at UMass- Boston), LEA staff time

2007 - 2010 Communities of Care Positive Behavioral MASSDE staff time, grant Interventions (PBIS) Grant partners (Central (Additional Indicators Impacted: 4, 5) Massachusetts Communities of care, See Appendix A for complete description national center for positive behavioral intervention and supports trainers), LEA staff time

2008 - 2010 Graduation and Dropout Prevention and MASSDE staff time Recovery Commission (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 14)

2008 - 2010 Dropout Prevention and Recovery Work Group MASSDE staff time, New (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 4, 14) England Comprehensive Center staff time, LEA staff See Appendix A for a complete description. time

2007-2008 Massachusetts Online Resource Library MASSDE staff time (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)

2007 - 2008 SPecial EDition Newsletter MASSDE staff time (Impacts All Indicators)

2008 - 2010 ARRA Title II-D Technology Competitive MASSDE staff time, LEA Grants staff time (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1)

2008 - 2010 Curriculum and Instruction and Assessment MASSDE staff time Summit (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 3, 8)

2008 - 2010 District and School Assistance Centers MASSDE staff time (DSAC) (Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 13)

2008 - 2010 Educational Proficiency Plans MASSDE staff time (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 3, 13, 14)

2008 - 2010 Secondary Transition – Transition Works: MASSDE staff time, Innovative Strategies for Transitioning Youth Massachusetts with Disabilities from School to Work Rehabilitation Commission (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 13, 14) staff time

2008 - 2010 Trauma Sensitive Schools Initiative MASSDE staff time (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 4)

2008 - 2010 Work-Based Learning Plans for Students with MASSDE staff time, LEA Disabilities, staff time, Workforce Development staff time (Additional Indicators Impacted: 13, 14)

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 COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (MCAS) MASSDE requires that all publicly funded students, including those students with disabilities, participate in the grade level Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests. Although the participation requirement is the same for general education students, students with disabilities can participate in either the standard MCAS or the MCAS Alternate Assessment (MCAS-Alt), depending on the nature and complexity of their disability. The MCAS-Alt is a portfolio-based assessment that measures the same learning standards of the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks as are measured in the standard MCAS tests. For additional information on MCAS participation requirements, please refer to the Requirements for the Participation of Students with Disabilities in MCAS: Spring 2006 Update http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/alt/spedreq.pdf.

In school year 2004-2005 and in previous years, students were required to take the English Language Arts (ELA) exam in grades 3, 4, 7, and 10. The Mathematics test was administered to students in grades 4, 6, 8, and 10. In order to fulfill the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, beginning in the 2005- 2006 school year, both the MCAS ELA and Mathematics tests will be administered annually in grades 3-8 and grade 10.

% DistrictsParticipation Meeting Rate AYP for for Students Disability with Subgroup IEPs (Indicator (Indicator 3B) 3A)

English/English/ Mathematics LanguageLanguag Mathematics Arts e Arts

# #Districts of students with withSpecial IEPs Education participating Subgroup in regular 222 46,697 22547,782 assessment*

# Districts Making AYP for Special Education 99 83 # of studentsSubgroup with IEPs participating in alternate 3,354 3,385 assessment

% Districts Making AYP for Special Education 45% 37% Total #Subgroup of Students with IEPs Assessed (sum of above 50,051 51,167 three lines)

Total # of Students with IEPs Enrolled in Assessed 50,394 51,495 Grades

% of Students with IEPs Participating in Statewide 99.3% 99.4% Assessment

*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.

Proficiency Rate for Students with IEPs (Indicator 3C)

English/ Mathematics Langua ge Arts

# of students with IEPs scoring Proficient or above on 11,984 7,299 regular assessment*

# of students with IEPs scoring Proficient or above on 2 2 alternate assessment

Total # of Students with IEPs scoring Proficient or 11,986 7,301 above (sum of above three lines)

Total # of Students with IEPs Assessed 50,051 51,167

% of Students with IEPs Scoring Proficient or Above on 23.9% 14.3% Statewide Assessment

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

15 Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010 Revised February 1, 2010 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 student first enrolled in a U.S. school after October 1 and could not engage meaningfully in the assessment process due to limited English proficiency.

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

Massachusetts’s data and targets for Indicator 3C are based on the state performance targets identified in No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the Composite Performance Index (CPI) calculation for each year. CPI is a 100-point index that assigns 100, 75, 50, 25, or a 0 points to each student participating in MCAS/MCAS- Alt tests based on their performance. A school or district’s CPI is calculated by combining points generated by students who take the standard MCAS tests (the “proficiency index”) with points generated by students who take the MCAS-Alt (“MCAS-Alt Index”). The total points assigned to each student are added together and the sum is divided by the total number of students assessed. The state performance targets are outlined in the graph below:

State Performance Targets, 2001-2014

ELA Math 100 100

95.1 92.2 90.2 90 85.4 84.3

80.5 80 76.5 75.6 CPI 70.7 70 68.7

60.8 60

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.

MCAS Proficiency Rates CPI: English Language Arts

100 70.7 75.6 75.6 80.5 80 70.7

60 ELA-Target 63.4 64.9 65 40 58.5 59.7 ELA-Actual 20 0 FFY 2000 FFY 2001 FFY 2002 FFY 2003 FFY 2004

MCAS Proficiency Rates CPI: Mathem atics

100 68.7 80 60.8 60.8 53 53 60 Math-Target Math-Actual 40 49.5 41.2 45.7 48.2 20 42.5 0 FFY 2000 FFY 2001 FFY 2002 FFY 2003 FFY 2004

The Massachusetts Steering Committee unanimously recommended that our initial target setting be modest, however, in any area where the state has set targets for students as a whole those same targets are adopted for students with disabilities. The Steering Committee intends to allow our interest groups to review the data and consider local performance as well as state performance to effectively close the gap in this performance indicator. The following targets have been set for this first six-year period. The Proficiency rate (CPI) targets are the state performance targets identified in No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the Composite Performance Index (CPI).

FFY Measurable and Rigorous Targets

% Districts Meeting Participation Rate for Proficiency Rate (CPI) AYP for Disability Students with IEPs (3B) for Students with IEPs Subgroup (3A) (3C)

ELA MATH ELA MATH

MASSDE considers that its 2005 45% 37% current participation rate of 80.5 68.7 (2005-2006) better than 99% is synonymous with full participation. Therefore 2006 45% 37% MASSDE seeks to maintain 85.4 76.5 (2006-2007) this full participation level.

2007 46% 38% 85.4 76.5 (2007-2008)

MASSDE considers that its 2008 50% 40% 90.2 84.3 current participation rate of (2008-2009) better than 99% is synonymous with full 2009 52% 42% participation. Therefore 90.2 84.3 (2009-2010) MASSDE seeks to maintain this full participation level. 2010 52% 45% 95.1 92.2 (2010-2011)

Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources:

In order to meet the goal of students with disabilities achieving academic success, MASSDE works with districts and schools to analyze student assessment data and implement effective improvement plans. In addition, best practices from schools winning the Compass awards (provided to recognize and reward districts for improvements in academic achievement; see also http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/compass) are disseminated and shared with all low performing districts. Each district and school in Massachusetts is provided annually with their AYP results detailing outcomes for each subgroup and assistance is provided by MASSDE to assist districts in determining areas of needed improvement and how that improvement could be achieved. In addition to the AYP results, districts and schools also receive detailed MCAS item-analysis charts to facilitate in determining patterns, identify weakness and relevant relationships across student subgroups, performance levels, and subject areas and inform staff professional development. The activities listed above and additional activities are provided in the chart below and encompass Indicator 3 (A-C). Please note that many of the activities presented below impact across multiple indicator areas. For these activities, a full description is available in Appendix A.

2005 - 2006 Emergent Literacy Grant MASSDE staff time, LEA staff (Additional Indicators Impacted: 5, 6) time

2005 - 2007 Project FOCUS Academy MASSDE staff time, grant (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 13, partners (Federation for 14) Children with Special Needs, Center for Applied Special See Appendix A for a complete description. Technologies, Institute for Community Inclusion at UMass-Boston, Education Development Center), LEA staff time

2005 - 2008 Special Education Program Improvement MASSDE staff time Grants – Fund Code 274 (Additional Indicators Impacted: 4, 5, 11)

2005 - 2010 Special Education Leadership Academies MASSDE staff time, LEA staff and Seminars time (Additional Indicators Impacted: 5, 8, 11)

2005 - 2010 Comprehensive System of Personnel MASSDE staff time, CSPD Development Training Project (CSPD) trainer time, CSPD district (Additional Indicators Impacted: 5, 11, 13, 14) staff time

2005 - 2010 National Association of State Directors of MASSDE staff time Special Education (NASDSE) Satellite Series (Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 5, 6, 13, 14)

2005 - 2010 Data Analysis MASSDE staff time

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

2005 - 2010 Web-based Resources on the Participation MASSDE staff time of Students with Disabilities in MCAS

MASSDE will provide an annually updated guide for educators and parents/guardian on MCAS participation, and continues to MASSDE maintains web based resources for professionals including MCAS-Alt Newsletters, the Resource Guide, Educator's Manual, MCAS-Alt Forms and Graphs, and order forms.

2005 - 2010 On-going Technical Assistance from the MASSDE staff time Office of Accountability and Targeted Assistance

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

2007 - 2009 Sign Language Video Resource Library MASSDE staff time (Additional Indicator Impacted: 5)

2007 - 2010 Partnership for Online Professional MASSDE staff time Development (POPD)

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

2007 - 2010 Massachusetts FOCUS Academy MASSDE staff time, grant (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 13, partners (Federation for 14) Children with Special Needs, Center for Applied Special See Appendix A for a complete description. Technologies, Institute for Community Inclusion at UMass-Boston), LEA staff time

2008 - 2010 Revision of “Ten Step Guide for MASSDE staff time, Comprehensive Educational System of stakeholder groups Students with Visual Impairments (Additional Indicators Impacted: 5, 6, 11, 13)

2008 Revision of “Is Special Education the Right MASSDE staff time, Service?” (ISERS) stakeholder groups (Additional Indicators Impacted: 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)

2007 - 2008 SPecial EDition Online Newsletter MASSDE staff time (Impacts All Indicators)

2008 – 2010 Collaboration between MASSDE Curriculum MASSDE staff time and Instruction Math Office and Special Education Planning and Policy Development Office (SEPP) (Additional Indicators Impacted: 5)

2008 – 2010 Collaboration with Federation for Children MASSDE staff time; with Special Needs Federation for Children with (Additional Indicators Impacted: 5, 8, 13) Special Needs

See Appendix A for a complete description 2008 – 2010 District and School Assistance Centers MASSDE staff time (DSACs) (Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 5, 13)

2008 - 2010 Educational Proficiency Plans (EPP) MASSDE staff time (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 13, 14)

Indicator 4: Rates of suspension and expulsion: A. Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and B. Percent of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards. Indicator #4: Suspension/Expulsion (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A); 1412(a)(22))

Measurement: A. Percent = [(# of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions for greater than 10 days in a school year of children with IEPs) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100. B. Percent = [(# of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year of children with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100. Massachusetts’ definition of “significant discrepancy” is suspension/expulsion rate of five times the state rate for two consecutive years.

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process: Indicator 4A:

A comparison of the district rate of students with an IEP who were expelled or suspended for > 10 school days in a school year versus the state rate of students with an IEP who were expelled or suspended for > 10 school days in a school year was used for the purpose of determining the existence of a numeric discrepancy. Districts with fewer than 30 students in special education were removed from this part of the analysis since small numbers of students with disabilities may distort percentages. A comparison of suspensions and expulsions rates for students with disabilities to rates for students without disabilities is not possible, since comparable data, such as suspensions or expulsions for greater than 10 days, is not an analysis that is used for students without disabilities. Data is gathered through a discrete incident reporting procedure used by each district in reporting to the state through a web-based system. This report is called the School Safety and Discipline Report (SSDR). The SSDR is coordinated with the Student Information Management System (SIMS) through use of the individual student identification number. All SSDR reports for the school year must be submitted by July 28th. A district is cited as having a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspension and expulsion for students with an IEP if their rate of suspension and expulsion is five times the state rate for two consecutive years. MASSDE feels strongly that districts should be cited after two consecutive years of having a suspension and expulsion rate that is five times the state rate because the data obtained for this indicator appears to have significant data collection variation and, therefore, initial activities for this indicator will also include significant data verification activity.

Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005): Indicator 4A:

2004-05 2004-05 % of districts with % of districts with a Special Education State Suspension/ suspension/ finding of “significant Enrollment Expulsion Rate expulsion rate that is discrepancy” five times State Rate*

1.8% 0% 157,111 0.514% (6 districts) (0 districts) *Districts with fewer than 30 students in special education 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 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 variation anecdotally in how or if suspensions are reported across school districts, therefore, we present this baseline data with caution. Although 1.8% (6) of the districts in Massachusetts had a suspension/expulsion rate five times the state rate for students with an IEP for greater than 10 days in FFY 2004, none of these districts exceeded the “five times the state rate” threshold for two consecutive years (none of these districts had exceeded the threshold in FFY 2003). Therefore, 0 districts (0%) were identified as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions for students with disabilities in FFY 2004. MASSDE is concerned that districts may under-report or mis-report suspension activities because of public perception issues, inconsistency in reporting procedures at the local level, and confusion over the use of the term “in-school suspension.” Therefore, MASSDE will develop improvement activities aimed at improving the quality and accuracy of the data collected. Since no findings of significant discrepancy were made in this baseline year, our targets are 0% for all years.

2005 The % of districts with a significant discrepancy finding will be 0% (2005-2006)

2006 The %of districts with a significant discrepancy finding will be 0% (2006-2007)

Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources: Indicator 4A:

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

2005 - 2007 Project FOCUS Academy MASSDE staff time, grant (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 14) partners (Federation for Children with Special See Appendix A for a complete description. Needs, Center for Applied Special Technologies, Institute for Community Inclusion at UMass- Boston, Education Development Center), LEA staff time

2005 - 2008 Special Education Program Improvement Grants MASSDE staff time – Fund Code 274 (Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 11)

2005 - 2010 Special Education Program Improvement Grants MASSDE staff time – Fund Code 249 (Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 13 )

2005 - 2010 Special Education Summer Institutes MASSDE staff time, LEA (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, staff time 13, 14)

2006-2010 Suspension/Expulsion Forum MASSDE staff time, LEA staff time MASSDE will host a forum for districts identified with suspension rates above the state average as well as districts identified with rates below state average. The group will work to a) identify current definitions of suspension among the LEAs in attendance and the differences among them; b) review and analyze data from the most recent data collections; c) identify practices among LEAs regarding services provided to students with disabilities during suspension; and d) identify current reporting practices through SIMS and the SSDR.

2007 - 2010 Massachusetts FOCUS Academy MASSDE staff time, grant (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 14) partners (Federation for Children with Special See Appendix A for a complete description. Needs, Center for Applied Special Technologies, Institute for Community Inclusion at UMass- Boston), LEA staff time

2007 - 2010 Central Massachusetts Communities of Care MASSDE staff time, grant Positive Behavioral Interventions (PBIS) Grant partners (Central (Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 5) Massachusetts Communities of care, See Appendix A for complete description. national center for positive behavioral intervention and supports trainers), LEA staff time

2008-2010 Suspension/Expulsion Technical Assistance MASSDE staff time, LEA Seminar staff time

Participants will include staff of LEAs that have either been identified as significantly discrepant or that are at risk for being identified as significantly discrepant in the next data collection. The objectives of the Suspension/Expulsion Technical Assistance Seminar are to: clarify appropriate definition of suspension; increase awareness of current district data collection systems; analyze disaggregated data provided by MASSDE to identify trends within each district; and identify programmatic services that may be provided rather than having a student experience in-school suspension (ISS).

2008 - 2010 Data Collection and Practice Improvement Self MASSDE staff time Assessment

MASSDE will develop a guidance document to provide technical assistance around the programmatic and determination requirements of in- school-suspension as well as logistical guidance and training on the differences between the Student Information Management System (SIMS) and the School Safety Discipline Report (SSDR) will be included. Aspects of this initiative will focus on effective review policies and procedures, and timely verification of correction of noncompliance by MASSDE.

2007 - 2008 Massachusetts Online Resource Library MASSDE staff time (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14)

2008 - 2010 Collaboration with PQA MASSDE staff time

The special education unit will meet with members of the Program Quality Assurance (PQA) unit to identify district trends in findings of non-compliance regarding documentation and tracking of suspensions and expulsions.

2008 - 2010 Dropout Prevention and Recovery Workgroup MASSDE staff time (Additional indicators impacted: 1, 2, 14)

See Appendix A for a complete description. 2008 - 2010 Secondary School Reading Grant MASSDE staff time (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 5, 14)

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 - 2010 Trauma Sensitive Schools Initiative MASSDE staff time (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1 ,2)

Indicator 5: Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 served: A. Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day; B. Inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; and C. In separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements. Indicator #5: School Age LRE (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))

Measurement: A. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served inside the regular class 80% or more of the day) divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100. B. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served inside the regular class less than 40% of the day) divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100. C. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served in separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements) divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process: MASSDE made changes to its regulations and placement descriptors to align with federal definitions in 2000. MASSDE’s former descriptions were most divergent in the full inclusion category and practice changes at the local level have slowly, but surely, begun to reflect more appropriately actual placements consistent with the federal definitions. MASSDE has provided technical assistance to implement the data collection changes built into the Student Information Management System (SIMS), and professional development has been provided to Special Education Administrators since the realignment activity began. However, there remains a difference between the Massachusetts data and National Baseline Data in the Out-of-District placement category. The data below indicates that 6.2% of Massachusetts students with disabilities are in out-of-district settings, with the vast majority in public and private day schools, 2.3% and 3.0% respectively. National baseline information indicates that only 2.9% of students are in out-of-district settings. Massachusetts has attempted to review the use of out-of-district placements along with the other states in the Northeast region, as this region of the U.S. has many more day and residential school options available to students, so we are somewhat unclear as to whether the national data is the most representative when reviewing practice in states with many out-of-district alternatives. This is somewhat on the principle of “if you build them they will come,” so part of our interest at this time is to review our data in detail and determine the extent to which states most comparable to Massachusetts look in relation to our performance.

Breakdown of ‘Out-of-District’ Setting Data Setting Public Day Private Day Residential Facilities Home/Hospital

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

Rate 2.3% 3.0% 0.8% 0.1%

Massachusetts has a long history with Special Education Approved Private Schools (APS). Program Quality Assurance oversees compliance with education requirements in private day and residential special education schools through the Massachusetts Private Special Education School Program Review

System. There are presently 144 APS; each self identifies the population they serve by disability, age, and gender. Most are members of the Massachusetts Association of Chapter 766 Approved Private Schools (MAAPS) whose mission is to represent private, special-education schools in their goal of providing the highest-quality education to students with special needs.

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

. To what extent are students being educated in settings that provide the needed services; . What does it look like when districts provide FAPE in the LRE; and . Is there a danger in assuming that higher or lower percentages are meaningful?

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

Indicator 5: % of students with IEPs aged 6 through 21 in a) full inclusion; b) substantially separate placements; and c) in out-of-district placements

Ages 6-21 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 National Baseline 2002-03 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) Out-of District 6.7% 5.5% 6.8% 2.9%

Source of Data: 2004-05 Annual Report of Students Served Student Information Management System (SIMS)

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

MASSDE has, in the past, relied on its monitoring system to collect district level data on LRE practices. To date, CPR teams have reviewed SE20: Least Restrictive Program Selected, which measures compliance on:

1. The program selected is the least restrictive environment for students, with consideration given to any potential harmful effect on the student or on the quality of services that he or she needs. 2. If the student is removed from the general education classroom at any time, the Team states why the removal is considered critical to the student’s program and the basis for its conclusion that education of the student in a less restrictive environment, with the use of supplementary aids and services, could not be achieved satisfactorily. 3. The district does not remove an eligible child from the general education classroom solely because of needed modification in the curriculum. 4. If a student’s IEP necessitates special education services in a day or residential facility or an out-of-district educational collaborative program, the IEP Team considers whether the student requires special education services and support to promote the student’s transition to placement in a less restrictive environment. MASSDE continues procedural compliance activities through an ongoing Coordinated Program Review (CPR) schedule. CPR team members utilize comprehensive data reports for each district being monitored through the CPR system in 2004-05. These reports include detailed placement data. With the greater availability of individual student level data, the lens on LRE may shift from district level policies and procedures to district level performance in relation to child placement outcomes. The Massachusetts Steering Committee unanimously recommended that our initial target setting be modest for Indicator 5B and 5C, in order to allow our interest groups to more deeply review the data and consider local performance as well as state performance to effectively close the gap in this performance indicator, as well as to carefully consider the impact of such targets. It is thought that the improvement activities focused on increasing full inclusion will create a meaningful impact and thus target setting is more substantial. Therefore the following targets have been set for this first six-year period.

% of students with IEPs % of students with IEPs % of students with IEPs aged 6 through 21 in full aged 6 through 21 in aged 6 through 21 in out- inclusion (Indicator 5A) substantially separate of-district placements placements (Indicator 5B) (Indicator 5C)

2005 43.4% 16.2% 6.8% (2005-2006)

2006 43.4% 16.2% 6.8% (2006-2007)

2007 54.3% 15.1% 6.2% (2007-2008)

2008 55.5% 14.9% 6.2% (2008-2009)

2009 56.8% 14.7% 5.9%

(2009-2010)

2010 58% 14.5% 5.5% (2010-2011)

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

2005 - 2007 Project FOCUS Academy MASSDE staff time, grant (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 4, 8, 13, partners (Federation for 14) Children with Special Needs, Center for Applied Special See Appendix A for a complete description. Technologies, Institute for Community Inclusion at UMass-Boston, Education Development Center), LEA staff time

2005 - 2010 Student Information Reporting and MASSDE staff time Management

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

2005 - 2010 MASSDE Grants that Foster Responsive MASSDE staff time, technical Educational Environments assistance and professional development providers SEPP staff will participate in program development and connect with offices across MASSDE to offer improvement activities that positively affect LRE. Numerous grant programs are funded for this purpose. LRE related programs will include: Exploring the Options for Children with Autism; Mental Health Project for Preschool through Grade Three; Safe and Supportive Learning Environments; and Even Start Family Literacy Program.

2005 - 2010 Collaboration with Stakeholders MASSDE staff time, MEEC (Impacts All Indicators) staff time

2005 - 2010 Comprehensive System of Personnel MASSDE staff time, CSPD Development Training Project trainer time, CSPD district (Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 11, 13, 14) staff time

2005 - 2010 Inclusive Schools Week MASSDE staff time, LEA staff time To promote awareness of this initiative, MASSDE will encourage districts to highlight the accomplishments of students, families, school personnel, and community members in promoting inclusive education for all students.

2006 - 2010 Inclusive Concurrent Enrollment Partnership MASSDE staff time, LEA staff Program for Students with Disabilities time, technical assistance (Additional Indicators Impacted: 13, 14) providers

2007 - 2010 Central Massachusetts Communities of Care MASSDE staff time, grant Positive Behavioral Interventions (PBIS) partners (Central Grant Massachusetts Communities (Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 4) of care, national center for positive behavioral See Appendix A for complete description. intervention and supports trainers), LEA staff time

2008 - 2010 Revision of “Ten Step Guide for MASSDE staff time, Comprehensive Educational Assessment of stakeholder groups Students with Visual Impairments” (Additional Indicators Impacted:3, 6, 11, 13)

2007 - 2010 Least Restrictive Environment Self- MASSDE staff time, LEA staff Assessment Tool time, OSEP funded Technical Assistance and Dissemination MASSDE will develop a district and school level Resources 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 MASSDE staff time (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 13, 14)

2007-2008 SPecial EDition Online Newsletter MASSDE staff time (Impacts All Indicators)

2008 – 2010 Collaboration between MASSDE Curriculum MASSDE staff time and Instruction Math Office and Special Education Planning and Policy Development Office (SEPP) (Additional Indicators Impacted: 3)

2008 – 2010 Collaboration with Federation for Children MASSDE staff time; with Special Needs Federation for Children with (Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 8, 13) Special Needs

2008 – 2010 Community/Residential Education Project – MASSDE staff time; (Additional Indicators Impacted: 13, 14) Department of Developmental Services See Appendix A for a complete description

2008 – 2010 District and School Assistance Centers MASSDE staff time (DSACs) (Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 3, 13)

2008 – 2010 District and School Accountability and MASSDE staff time Assistance Office – Center for School and District Accountability – ESE

The District and School Accountability and Assistance Office within the Center for School and District Accountability reviews districts, focusing on how district systems and practices affect each of four groups of students: students with disabilities, English language learners, low- income students, and students who are members of racial minorities. In FFY 2008, the focus of the district reviews related to students with disabilities.

2008 – 2010 Sign Language Video Resource Library MASSDE staff time (Additional Indicators Impacted: 3)

Overview of the Annual Performance Report Development:

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.

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 78.4% settings

Discussion of Baseline Data: In considering the baseline data, we additionally reviewed the data collected through the Early Childhood Special Education Allocation grant. The grant application includes a statistical information gathering section. Recipients are asked to identify the number of preschool-aged students in the community with IEPs, the number of students who received special education services (not only in the context of a preschool program) for either less than five hours of special education services per week or more than five hours of special education services per week, the number of students who participated in a program in a substantially separate setting, and the number of students who participated in inclusive program. The following is information provided by the 2004-05 Early Childhood Special Education Allocation grant:  Data is for 246 out of a potential 273 grants (90%).  13,971 preschool students have an IEP.  13,205 (95%) of the students with IEPs are being served in an inclusive setting.

 Of the students being served in an inclusive setting: o 462 (3%) are being served in a Head Start program. o 745 (6%) are being served in a child care center. o 315 (2%) are being served in a family child care. o 9410 (71%) are being served in a public school preschool. o 3,231 of the 13, 205 (24%) students are being served in inclusive settings are receiving related services only for less than 5 hours per week.

The data from the MEEC collection provided above differs from the data collected from the MASSDE SIMS collection. Future activities in this area would include aligning the systems of the two departments to gather information in a consistent manner such that the comparison does not raise questions – as this comparison currently does. The data collected by the Early Childhood Special Education Allocation Grant indicates that 95% of preschool students with disabilities are being served in inclusive settings and identifies the types of inclusive settings in which they are served. The data collected through SIMS indicates that in the 2004-05 school year, 70.1% of preschool students with disabilities were served in inclusive settings, and 8.3% of students were served in partial inclusion settings, for a total of 78.4%. The below targets were set based on the baseline data of 78.4%, which is the percentage students with disabilities that spend the majority of their day receiving special education and related services in settings with typically developing peers, and acquired through the MASSDE SIMS data. The Massachusetts Steering Committee unanimously recommended that our initial target setting be modest in order to allow our interest groups to more deeply review the data and consider local performance as well as state performance to effectively identify appropriate improvement for this performance indicator, and therefore the following targets have been set for this first six-year period. Additionally, the targets were chosen to allow time for early childhood programs to implement effective inclusive practices.

2005 78.4% (2005-2006)

2006 79% (2006-2007)

2007 79% (2007-2008)

2008 80% (2008-2009)

2009 80% (2009-2010)

2010 81% (2010-2011)

2005 - 2010 Special Education Summer Institutes MASSDE staff time, LEA staff (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, time 13, 14)

2005 - 2010 National Association of State Directors of MASSDE staff time Special Education (NASDSE) Satellite Series (Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 13, 14)

2006 - 2007 Revisions to SIMS Data Collection MASSDE staff time, MEEC staff time MASSDE and MEEC will review and revise SIMS data collection and forms to more accurately collect data on preschool placements, including creating standard definitions for preschool settings and codes to meet new OSEP requirements.

2006 - 2010 Training and Technical Assistance to LEAs MASSDE staff time, MEEC staff time MASSDE and MEEC will provide on-going training and technical assistance to districts on data reporting requirements and on how to communicate with families and communities in order to develop a cohesive service delivery model for preschoolers with disabilities.

2008 Revision of “Ten Step Guide for MASSDE staff time, Comprehensive Educational Assessment of stakeholder groups Students with Visual Impairments” (Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5)

2008 - 2009 Assessment Institute MASSDE staff time, MEEC staff time, LEA staff time Districts along with community-based providers will be invited to participate in an assessment institute that will focus on on-going, formative assessment of young children, including students with disabilities and how programs can use assessment data to guide program improvement and instructional practices.

2008 - 2009 Data Analysis and Verification Visits MASSDE staff time, MEEC staff time MASSDE and MEEC will analyze data on preschool environments and will conduct site visits to a sample of districts that report lower than targeted inclusion rates to further determine why preschool students with IEPs are place in certain educational environments. Visits will also include verification that districts are collecting and reporting data accurately.

2008 - 2009 Statewide Birth-Five Leadership Team MASSDE staff time, MEEC staff time MEEC will participate in a SpecialQuest grant designed to develop a Statewide Birth-Five Leadership Team to improve the inclusive opportunities for students with disabilities birth to five.

2008 - 2009 Revision of “Is Special Education the Right MASSDE staff time, Service?” (ISERS) stakeholder groups (Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5)

2008 - 2010 SPecial EDition Online Newsletter MASSDE staff time (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1-5, 7-14)

2008 - 2010 PreK-Grade 3 Curriculum, Instruction and MASSDE staff time, MEEC Assessment Alignment Pilot Project staff time, LEA staff time

Through this project, MASSDE and MEEC will work closely with 18 LEAs on service delivery models, differentiated instruction, developmentally appropriate practice, and continuity through the early grades.

Indicator 7: Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs who demonstrate improved: A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships); B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/ communication and early literacy); and C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs. Indicator #7: Preschool Outcomes (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

Measurement: Outcomes: A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships): B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy); and C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs. Progress categories for A, B and C: a. Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning = [(# of preschool children who did not improve functioning) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. b. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. c. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. d. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100. e. Percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level

comparable to same-aged peers) divided by the (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.

Summary Statements for Each of the Three Outcomes (use for FFY 2008-2009 reporting): Summary Statement 1: Of those preschool children who entered the preschool program below age expectation in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. Measurement for Summary Statement 1: Percent = # of preschool children reported in progress category (c) plus # of preschool children reported in category (d) divided by [# of preschool children reported in progress category (a) plus # of preschool children reported in progress category (b) plus # of preschool children reported in progress category (c) plus # of preschool children reported in progress category (d)] times 100. Summary Statement 2: The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program. Measurement for Summary Statement 2: Percent = # of preschool children reported in progress category (d) plus [# of preschool children reported in progress category (e) divided by the total # of preschool children reported in progress categories (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) + (e)] times 100.

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process: The Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care (MEEC) and MASSDE collaboratively selected a cohort model for the purposes of this indicator’s activities. In Cycle I Year 1, 74 districts participated. In Year 2, 69 districts participated, and an additional 117 districts participated in Year 3. In Cycle II (Year 1 (FFY 2009)), 72 districts participated. The 387 LEAs were divided into four cohorts that are representative of the state as a whole. This cohort model plan for data collection was approved by OSEP. Over a three-year period, every district in the state with preschool-aged students will have started the data collection activities for this indicator. Because it has an average daily membership of over 50,000 students, Boston participates in all activities every year. Further information on the cohort model can be found at http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/2006/0522idea.html.

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

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

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

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

Baseline Data Collection for FFY 2006 (2006-2007) – Year 1 Cohort Entry Data % AGE APPROPRIATE % NOT AGE OUTCOME APPROPRIATE

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

B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills 21% 79% (including early language/communication and early literacy)

C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet needs 33% 67%

In the spring of 2007, MEEC and MASSDE trained the Year 1 cohort of districts to conduct progress assessments2. Districts reported assessment data in June 2007. MASSDE analyzed the data and extracted information on those students who exited early childhood special education prior to the submission of this report. The following table summarizes the exit data for the Year 1 cohort: Exit Data3 The categories in the table below are defined as follows: Progress category (a): The percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning. Progress category (b): The percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers. Progress category (c): The percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it. Progress category (d): The percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers. Progress category (e): The percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers.

OUTCOME Progress Progress Progress Progress Progress category (a) category (b) category (c) category (d) category (e) No imp. Some imp. Near peers Comparable Maintain to peers

A. Positive social- 4% 25% 33% 18% 20% emotional skills (including (27/724) (183/724) (242/724) (129/724) (143/724) social relationships)

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. 42 Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010 Revised February 1, 2010

OUTCOME Progress Progress Progress Progress Progress category (a) category (b) category (c) category (d) category (e) No imp. Some imp. Near peers Comparable Maintain to peers B. Acquisition and use of 4% 25% 32% 19% 20% knowledge and skills (30/727) (180/727) (232/727) (139/727) (146/727) (including early language/communication and early literacy)

C. Use of appropriate 4% 18% 29% 17% 32% behaviors to meet needs (26/728) (133/728) (211/728) (128/728) (230/728)

In the fall of 2007, MEEC and MASSDE trained its Year 2 cohort of districts (n=69) on the activities related to Indicator 7. The training followed the same format as that of the Year 1 cohort. The districts were trained on how to use the Child Outcomes Summary Form by staff from the two agencies. Districts reported entry data based on local observation and on formal and informal assessment information for a maximum of 40 preschool students with disabilities. In selecting students at the local level, priority was given to preschool students who initially started their early childhood special education services between July 1 and September 30, 2007.

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

Baseline Data Collection for FFY 2007 (2007-2008) – Year 2 Cohort Entry Data % AGE % NOT AGE APPROPRIATE OUTCOME APPROPRIATE

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

Exit Data4 The categories in the table on the following page are defined as follows: Progress category (a): The preschool percent of children who did not improve functioning. Progress category (b): The percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers. Progress category (c): The percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it. Progress category (d): The percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers. Progress category (e): The percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers.

4 Of the 2,758 preschool students sampled in Year 1 and Year 2, 42% exited early childhood special education (i.e., moved out of the district, moved on to kindergarten, or met their IEP goals) during FFY 2007. The exit data are reflective of the children who received at least 6 months of early childhood special education services between baseline and exit assessments. MASSDE and MEEC have progress data, based on the same five reporting categories, for the remaining children who continue to receive early childhood special education services. 43 Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010 Revised February 1, 2010

OUTCOME Progress Progress Progress Progress Progress category (a) category (b) category (c) category (d) category (e) No imp. Some imp. Near peers Comparable to Maintain peers

B. Acquisition and use of 2% 17% 31% 27% 23% knowledge and skills (23/1169) (199/1169) (362/1169) (316/1169) (269/1169) (including early language/communication and early literacy)

In the fall of 2008, MEEC and MASSDE trained its Year 3 cohort of districts (n=117) on the activities related to Indicator 7. The training followed the same format as that of the Year 1and 2 cohorts. Staff from the two agencies trained the districts on how to use the Child Outcomes Summary Form. Districts reported entry data based on local observation, and formal and informal assessment information on a maximum of 40 preschool students with disabilities. In selecting students at the local level, priority was given to preschool students who initially started their early childhood special education services between July 1 and September 30, 2008.

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

Baseline Data Collection for FFY 2008 (2008-2009) Entry Data % AGE % NOT AGE OUTCOME APPROPRIATE APPROPRIATE

A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social 22% 78% relationships) (647/2940) (2293/2940)

B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills 25% 75% (including early language/communication and early (735/2940) (2205/2940) literacy)

C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet needs 33% 67% (970/2940) (1970/2940) Exit Data5 The categories in the table on the following page are defined as follows: Progress category (a): The percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning. Progress category (b): The percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers.

5 Of the 4,584 students sampled in Years 1 and 2, 40% exited early childhood special education (i.e., moved out of the district, moved on to kindergarten or met their IEP goals) during FFY 2008. The exit data are reflective of the children, who received at least 6 months of early childhood special education services between baseline and exit assessments. MASSDE and MEEC have progress data, based on the same five reporting categories, for the remaining children who continue to receive early childhood special education services. 45 Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010 Revised February 1, 2010

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

Progress Progress Progress Progress Progress category (a) category (b) category (c) category (d) category (e) OUTCOME No imp. Some imp. Near peers Comparable Maintain to peers

B. Acquisition and use of 2% 21% 23% 26% 28% knowledge and skills and (32/1700) (407/1800) (399/1800) (453/1800) (509/1800) (including early language/communication and early literacy)

In the fall of 2009, MASSDE and MEEC began the second cycle of data collection for Indicator 7. Seventy-two districts that participated in prior cohorts were notified that they would participate in data collection activities for a second time. MASSDE and MEEC initiated conference calls with participating districts to revisit the required data collection activities, and to provide new district staff with the foundational understanding of measuring outcomes in preschool children with disabilities necessary. These efforts will assist with ensuring the reporting of valid and reliable data. Districts in the Cycle II – Year 1 cohort reported entry data on 1,362 preschool children with disabilities.

Baseline Data Collection for FFY 2009 (2009-2010) Entry Data % AGE % NOT AGE OUTCOME APPROPRIATE APPROPRIATE

A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social 17% 83% relationships)

Discussion of Baseline Data for FFY 2006 – FFY 2008: Entry Data

The data reported at entry between Cycle I - Year 1 cohort districts and Cycle I - Year 2 cohort districts are consistent, with the exception of the third outcome (C): Use of appropriate behaviors to meet needs. In this outcome, the percentages changed by 1%. That data reported by the Cycle II - Year 3 cohort again mirrors that of the Cycle I cohorts. The percentage points between the outcomes across Cycle I range from 0-4%. With the submission of Cycle II – Year I data, the analysis continues to demonstrate consistency across the years. MASSDE and MEEC consider the duplication of the entry data across the three years as confirmation of the success of the cohort model and the within-district sampling model in producing valid and reliable data each year for a representative sample of preschool students with disabilities. Exit Data

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

Cycle I – Year 2 data reveal a shift from OSEP Progress category (a) (the percent of children who did not improve functioning) and Progress category (b) (the percent of children who did improve functioning but not sufficient to move closer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers) to Progress categories (c) (the percent of children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it), (d) (the percent of children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers), and (e) (the percent of children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers). We believe that this is a result of children having received early childhood special education services for a longer period of time between entry and exit assessments.

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

While data in the Year 3 cohort reveal a shift in OSEP Progress categories (b), (c), (d), and (e), in general, the percentages of children who made some progress [Progress categories (b) + (c)] and those that made significant progress and/or exited demonstrating age appropriate skills and behaviors [Progress categories (d) + (e)] are fairly consistent. The consistency in these categories is believed to be a result of having significant numbers of children from our Year 1 and Year 2 cohorts who received early childhood special education services for a longer period of time between entry and exit.

MEEC, in collaboration with MASSDE, randomly sampled from the Year 1 and Year 2 cohorts 15% of those preschool children with disabilities who exited early childhood special education to ensure appropriate use of the Child Outcomes Summary Form (COSF) and accuracy of data reporting to MASSDE. MEEC notified 94 districts of their selection to provide randomly selected COSFs for 246 children who exited their preschool program between June 2008 and August 2008. At the time of this writing, 72 districts have responded to this notice and have submitted 163 records for review.

Agency review of the COSFs has yielded information to be used in future training for LEAs on Indicator 7. For example, MEEC will remind school districts about the need to include detailed information in the COSF, to access and refer to multiple sources of data to obtain complete and accurate information, and the importance of parent involvement in the process of data collection. MEEC, in collaboration with MASSDE, will conduct an additional review of at least 10% of the COSFs for children who exited early childhood special education between June 2009 and August 2009, prior to spring 2010 LEA training. The

47 Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010 Revised February 1, 2010 agencies anticipate that the results of these reviews and the refinement of training topics will increase the effectiveness of upcoming trainings of LEAs on Indicator 7 and related data collections.

Discussion of Baseline and Measurable and Rigorous Targets MASSDE has established what may be perceived to be conservative targets for FFY 2009 and FFY 2010. This has to do, in part, with the cohort model used and the method of sampling within local school districts. As discussed above, in this selected cohort model school districts with more than 40 preschool children with disabilities identify from their population 40 children to be included in the local cohort. Districts with fewer than 40 children must report entry and progress/exit data on all preschool children with disabilities who receive services in the year in which the school district participates in the data collection activities. This model provides MEEC and MASSDE with a representative sample of data on preschool children with disabilities each year; and it also results in data for age diversity within the population of children represented in the selected cohort. While districts that sample must prioritize children who are as close to age 3 or entry to early childhood special education, many children in the cohort are 4, and others whose birthdays fall later than the locally established cut-off date for kindergarten enrollment age are 5 years old. As a result, the period of time children receive services prior to exit may be from 6 months to nearly 3 years. This variance in ages and duration of services is accounted for in the data collection and in the established targets. One identified improvement activity is to review entry, progress, and exit data for children of various ages. Absent this data analysis, MASSDE has determined that conservative targets in this shortened SPP period are appropriate until the impact of age on the Indicator 7 results is known.

In establishing these targets, MASSDE considered the results of its review of data for children who exited early childhood special education in 2008. In this review process, MEEC and MASSDE identified the need to continue to reinforce for school districts the principles behind Indicator 7, namely, having a clear understanding of age expected skills and behaviors for each of the outcome areas; involving parents in the discussion of the assessment information; using multiple data sources to understand the consistency of skills and behaviors across settings; and the critical need for clear administrative record-keeping by school districts. MASSDE recognizes the need for improvements in the data collection process, and this is the focus of the second improvement activity listed below. In the spring and the fall of 2010, MASSDE, in collaboration with MEEC, will conduct training on progress/exit data collection activities and entry data collection activities. Results of the continued supplemental data review of COSFs will inform future trainings. MASSDE will also alert school districts to the schedule of the random supplemental file review. All of these efforts will help MASSDE ensure the validity and reliability of data submitted by school districts.

MASSDE will be focusing its efforts during this short SPP period on conducting more in-depth analysis of the data. Agency staff participated in the one-day Indicator 7 training prior to the 2009 OSEP Early Childhood Leadership Conference. With the learnings from this training and the use of new tools for high quality data analysis designed by the Early Childhood Outcomes Center, MASSDE intends to analyze the data using additional data variables. For example, MASSDE will conduct more analyses on the entry and exit data sets using differences across variables including disability category, educational setting, and intensity of services. In collaboration with MEEC, MASSDE is planning to review the data in light of other demographic variables that can be linked with the Student Information Management System (SIMS), such as gender, ethnicity, income, and English language learner status. Another possible area of study is examining data in the context of children’s growth and progress over a period of time. Because of the unique model of collecting data for Indicator 7 using multiple data points (entry, progress, exit), MASSDE has the opportunity to consider the growth that young children with disabilities make over a year, two years, and/or three years, and how those data can be used to enhance the child’s development and inform service delivery and program quality. These more in-depth analyses will provide MASSDE with important information that will be used to determine how best to progress with target setting in the next SPP cycle.

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

2006 N/A (2006-2007)

2007 N/A (2007-2008)

2008 Outcome A Outcome B Outcome C (2008-2009) Summary Statement 1 66% Baseline Summary Statement 1 65% Summary Statement 1 68% Summary Statement 2 51% Summary Statement 2 53% Summary Statement 2 62%

Outcome A Outcome B Outcome C 2009 (2009-2010) Summary Statement 1 67% Summary Statement 1 65.5% Summary Statement 1 68.25% Summary Statement 2 51.5% Summary Statement 2 53.5% Summary Statement 2 62.25%

Outcome A Outcome B Outcome C 2010 (2010-2011) Summary Statement 1 67% Summary Statement 1 66% Summary Statement 1 68.5% Summary Statement 2 52% Summary Statement 2 54% Summary Statement 2 62.5%

Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources: Timelines Improvement Activity Resources (FFY)

2006 - 2010 Training on Data Collection Activities MASSDE staff time, MEEC staff time, LEA staff time Districts in each cohort will receive training on data collection activities related to entry and progress/exit data for Indicator 7, as well as on the use of the Child Outcomes Summary Form.

2006 - 2010 Technical Assistance and Support MASSDE staff time, MEEC staff time, LEA staff time Districts in each cohort will receive ongoing technical assistance and support related to entry and progress/exit data collection activities.

2009-2010 Assessment Institute MEEC staff time, LEA staff time Districts along with community-based providers will be invited to participate in an assessment institute that will focus on ongoing, formative assessment of young children, including children with disabilities and how programs can use assessment data to guide program improvement and instructional practices.

2009-2010 Data Analysis – Introduction of Variables MASSDE staff time, MEEC staff time MASSDE, with MEEC, will review and refine data analysis with special emphasis on conducting additional analyses on the entry and exit data sets using differences across variables (e.g., disability category, educational setting, and intensity of services); using additional demographic variables (e.g., gender, ethnicity, income, and English language learner status); and/or examining data in the context of children’s growth and progress over a period of time.

Note: States are not required to report on Indicator 7 in the FFY 2008 Annual Performance Report (MA APR).

Indicator 8: Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities. Indicator #8: Parent Involvement (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))

Measurement: Percent = [(# of respondent parents who report schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities) divided by the (total # of respondent parents of children with disabilities)] times 100.

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process: In order to collect data for this indicator, MASSDE selected the Part B Parent Survey – Special Education, created by the National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM) as its survey tool. In its development, the survey items proved to be statistically valid with high correlations across outcome areas. The NCSEAM survey was validated for students’ ages birth to three, and five to 21. MASSDE used the survey with parents of school age students. The first scale of the survey, containing 25 questions on “Schools’ Efforts to Partner with Parents”, was used. These survey items showed high correlation between schools’ efforts to partner with parents and the quality of services. Upon meeting with stakeholders and reviewing the survey questions, some items were changed (or “swapped”) for others. This was done in accordance with the rules set forth by NCSEAM for use of their “Item Bank” (See Appendix B for the Massachusetts Parent Survey for Special Education). Once the survey was finalized, three districts were solicited to pilot the process. During the pilot phase, the cover letter and survey were provided to parents in English only. The cover letter included a link to an online version of the English survey, if parents preferred to respond in that manner. The results from the survey pilot were deemed acceptable and were folded into the overall results from the “official” survey round in the fall. To ease the data collection activity burden for districts, MASSDE divided its 387 LEAs into four cohorts that are representative of the state as a whole, and will collect and report data on this indicator based on a four-year cycle (2005-2006 through 2008-2009). This cohort model and plan for data collection was approved by OSEP on April 20, 2006. Over a four-year period, every district in the state will have participated in the data collection activities for this indicator. Because it has an average daily membership of over 50,000 students, Boston participates in all activities every year. Further information on the cohort model can be found at: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/2006/0522idea.html. At least initially, MASSDE contracts with an external organization for all phases of the process. This includes: survey distribution, data collection/input/processing/cleaning, data analysis, producing a report based on the data at both the district and state levels, and returning the clean data files to MASSDE. We currently contract with ORC Macro and Ashton Associates as the provider of these services. For the full distribution of the survey in fall 2006, MASSDE issued the parent cover letter and survey in the two languages of highest prevalence in Massachusetts: Spanish and Portuguese. MASSDE contracted with JTG Inc. to provide these translations. Additionally, in the fall survey round, the online version of the survey was discontinued, as there was a very low response rate from the pilot districts in using this tool. As in the survey pilot, the fall mailing was done for all parents of students ages five and above (kindergarten and above) who currently receive special education services.

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

Discussion of Baseline Data: In combining the pilot and fall survey rounds, parents in a total of 97 LEAs were surveyed. A total of 37,086 surveys were sent out across the three languages (English, Spanish, and Portuguese). A total of 6,076 surveys were returned across the three languages (English, Spanish, and Portuguese). This made for an overall return rate of 16.9% which is deemed sufficient to constitute a representative response for the state as a whole. The breakdown by language is as follows:  English: 34,951 surveys were sent out and 5,966 were returned. Return rate: 17.1%.  Spanish: 1,893 surveys were sent out and 99 were returned. Return rate: 5.2%.  Portuguese: 242 surveys were sent out and 11 were returned. Return rate: 4.5%.

To calculate our baseline data for 2005-2006, we conducted an item analysis of the 25 selected questions of the NCSEAM survey. We considered the responses of parents for each item where “very strongly agree,” “strongly agree,” or “agree” was the response. We determined that the measure at which MASSDE considered that the parent “felt that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for students with disabilities” was with agreement to at least 50% of the survey items (13 of 25). For this baseline year, the level of agreement was reached by 75% of the parents who responded to the survey.

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

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

2. Teachers and administrators encourage me to participate in the decision-making process (question #16 on our survey). 80% of all surveyed parents agreed with this item.

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

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

The MASSDE Steering Committee and the stakeholder group for this Indicator were unanimous in recommending modest targets as we introduce this survey to Massachusetts parents.

2006 76% (of parents agree with more than half of the survey items) (2006-2007)

2007 76% (2007-2008)

2008 76% (2008-2009)

2009 78% (2009-2010)

2010 80% (2010-2011)

Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources: Please note that some of the activities presented below impact across multiple indicator areas. For these activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A.

2005 - 2007 Project FOCUS Academy MASSDE staff time, grant (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, partners (Federation for 13, 14) Children with Special Needs, Center for Applied Special See Appendix A for a complete description. Technologies, Institute for Community Inclusion at UMass-Boston, Education Development Center), LEA staff time

2008 - 2010 Collaboration with Federation for Children MASSDE staff time, FCSN with Special Needs staff time (Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5,13)

See Appendix A for complete description.

2006 - 2010 Technical Assistance to LEAs MASSDE staff time

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

2007 - 2010 Massachusetts FOCUS Academy MASSDE staff time, grant (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, partners (Federation for 13, 14) Children with Special Needs, Center for Applied Special See Appendix A for a complete description. Technologies, Institute for Community Inclusion at UMass-Boston), LEA staff time

2008 National Center for Special Education MASSDE staff time, Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM) NCSEAM trainers Training for LEAs

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

2007-2008 SPecial EDition Online Newsletter MASSDE staff time (Impacts All Indicators)

2007-2008 Massachusetts Online Resource Library MASSDE staff time (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14)

Overview of the State Performance Plan Development: Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality

Monitoring Priority: Disproportionality

Indicator 9: Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification. Indicator #9: Disproportionality – Child with a Disability (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C))

Measurement: Percent = [(# of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification) divided by the (# of districts in the State)] times 100. State’s definition of “disproportionate representation”: Massachusetts defines “disproportionate representation” using a calculation of weighted or alternate risk ratio and a review of the appropriateness of a district’s policies and procedures for identifying students as disabled. MASSDE calculates a weighted or alternate risk ratio for each school district using the techniques described in detail in Westat’s “Methods for Assessing Racial/Ethnic Disproportionality in Special Education” (http://www.nichcy.org/training/B-resources.pdf). The state uses a minimum cell size of 20 for each race/ethnic group in every district. Cells less than 20 are individually reviewed to see if data irregularities for specific racial and ethnic groups in these districts would suggest disproportionate representation due to inappropriate identification. Once the calculation is made for each district, the weighted risk ratios are compared to the two previous years’ weighted risk ratios. Districts are flagged if for 3 consecutive years, they exhibit a weighted risk ratio of 3.0 or greater for possible over-representation, and of 25 or less for possible under-representation. All districts identified by way of this quantitative analysis are then subject to a review of the appropriateness of their policies, practices, and procedures (PPPs) for special education eligibility determination and disability identification. Description of determination that disproportionate representation is due to inappropriate identification: Any district identified using the measurement techniques described above submitted their current PPPs to MASSDE where they were reviewed by a committee of policy analysts and compliance specialists. If the committee concluded that the PPPs were inappropriate or otherwise inconsistent with federal and state regulations, and concluded that the PPPs likely caused the disproportionate representation at least to some degree, then a district was identified as having disproportionate representation due to inappropriate identification.

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process: Past monitoring for disproportionality through the CPR system: PQA has used Coordinated Program Reviews (CPRs) to monitor for disproportionality in the representation of racial/ethnic minority students in special education since at least 1998. Originally, this monitoring was done through interview questions and the examination of lists of special education students provided by the district or charter school, with race and ethnicity (as well as gender and linguistic minority status) designated. Gradually, MASSDE has developed a more data-oriented approach. In 2004, for the first time, the MASSDE Data Collection, Processing, and Reporting unit developed the ability to use student-level data collected through Student Information Management System (SIMS) to report on disproportionality on a number of bases (including race/ethnicity as well as gender, primary language, LEP status, and IEP status) in a variety of categories (including special education enrollment, disability categories, and special education educational environments, among others).

Up through FFY 2005, this data-oriented approach to monitoring disproportionality has continued to be used in the context of the CPR system. In the CPR system PQA monitors more than 350 public school districts and charter schools in the Commonwealth for compliance with laws and regulations in the areas of special education, English learner education, civil rights, and some other areas of general education, as well as, in certain districts, career/vocational technical education. It has a six-year cycle for this monitoring, meaning that it monitors each of those districts and charter schools in all those areas once during that six-year cycle. During every CPR, PQA sends a team to spend from several days to over a week in the district or charter school being reviewed, interviewing its personnel and observing classes. Before the onsite visit, the team surveys parents and scrutinizes selected student records and extensive documentation provided by the school or district. In addition, PQA sends a team midway through the six- year cycle to complete an onsite special education follow-up Mid-cycle Review (MCR), again consisting of onsite interviews and observations as well as examination of documentation and records. After both CPRs and MCRs PQA issues a public report of the team’s findings in the school or district.

Future monitoring for disproportionality: MASSDE has recently made the decision to take the monitoring of disproportionality out of the CPR/MCR system. Since under this system only one-sixth of the Commonwealth’s districts and charter schools are monitored de novo each year, it does not allow MASSDE to calculate each year the “percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification.” Instead, MASSDE will examine disproportionality data for every school district and charter school every year starting with the FFY 2005 submission.

Starting in FFY 2005, MASSDE will examine the data on the distribution of racial/ethnic groups in special education for every district and charter school in the Commonwealth, not just those slated for review under the CPR system. It will use the definition of “disproportionate representation” given above and it will use a multi-tiered approach to determine whether disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services is the result of inappropriate identification.

Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005-2006): Because zero districts met the criteria for the determination of over-representation and under- representation in FFY 2005, MASSDE met its measurable and rigorous target of 0%.

Discussion of Baseline Data: Calculating the weighted risk ratios for FFY 2005 over-representation produced zero districts that met the criteria of three consecutive years of a WRR of 3.0 or higher. In terms of FFY 2005 under-representation, the calculation yielded zero districts with a WRR of .25 or lower for three consecutive years.

2005 0% (2005-2006)

2006 0% (2006-2007)

2007 0% (2007-2008)

2008 0% (2008-2009)

2009 0% (2009-2010)

2010 0% (2010-2011)

2007 - 2010 Online Resources Relating to MASSDE staff time, national Disproportionality technical assistance providers

MASSDE will develop web-based resources devoted to providing the latest data and research on the topic of disproportionality. Included in this online resource will be a research report that MASSDE will publish on the state of disproportionality in Massachusetts. The research report will examine national trends, examine Massachusetts’ trends, and provide the MASSDE with a contextual framework through which it can improve its assistance to districts and students.

2008 Technical Assistance Summer Institute MASSDE staff time, national Research technical assistance providers

MASSDE will explore possibility of a technical assistance summer institute for Massachusetts charter schools and districts on the subject of disproportionality and understanding data relevant to it.

2008 - 2010 Self-Assessment Tool for LEAs MASSDE staff time, national technical assistance MASSDE will develop a self-assessment tool for providers, LEA staff time districts that are ‘flagged’ for potential disproportionality. Districts will use the self- assessment tool to examine their own policies and procedures regarding special education eligibility and disability definition.

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 and procedures for identifying students as disabled. MASSDE calculates a weighted or alternate risk ratio for every school district in each of the six required disability categories (intellectual impairments, specific learning disabilities, emotional disturbance, speech/language impairments, other health impairments, autism) using the techniques described in detail in Westat’s “Methods for Assessing Racial/Ethnic Disproportionality in Special Education” (http://www.nichcy.org/training/B-resources.pdf). The state uses a minimum cell size of 10 for each racial/ethnic disability group in every district. Cells less than 10 are individually reviewed to see if data irregularities for specific racial and ethnic groups in these districts would suggest disproportionate representation due to inappropriate identification. Once the calculation is made for each district, the weighted risk ratios are compared to the two previous years’ weighted risk ratios. Districts are flagged if for 3 consecutive years, they exhibit a weighted risk ratio of 4.0 or greater for possible over-representation, and of .20 or less for possible under-representation. All districts identified by way of this quantitative analysis are then subject to a review of the appropriateness of their policies, practices, and procedures (PPPs) for special education eligibility determination and disability identification. Description of determination that disproportionate representation is due to inappropriate identification: Districts identified using the measurement techniques described above submitted their current PPPs to the MASSDE (or MASSDE verified recent compliance information/reviews) where the PPPs were reviewed by a committee of policy analysts and compliance specialists. If the committee concluded that the PPPs were inappropriate or otherwise inconsistent with federal and state regulations, and concluded that the PPPs likely caused the disproportionate representation at least to some degree, then a district was identified as having disproportionate representation due to inappropriate identification.

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process:

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

Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005-2006): Because zero districts met the criteria for the determination of over-representation and under- representation in FFY 2005, MASSDE met its measurable and rigorous target of 0%.

Discussion of Baseline Data: Calculating the weighted risk ratios for FFY 2005 over-representation produced seven districts that met the criteria of three consecutive years of a WRR of 4.0 or higher. Using the existing PPP information from recent Coordinated Program Reviews and Mid-Cycle Coordinated Program Reviews, MASSDE determined that none of these districts had inappropriate special education identification procedures.

In terms of FFY 2005 under-representation, the calculation yielded 11 districts with a WRR of .20 or lower for three consecutive years. Using the existing PPP information from recent Coordinated Program Reviews and Mid-Cycle Coordinated Program Reviews, MASSDE determined that none of these districts had inappropriate special education identification procedures.

2005 0% (2005-2006)

2006 0% (2006-2007)

2007 0% (2007-2008)

2008 0% (2008-2009)

2009 0% (2009-2010)

2010 0% (2010-2011)

2007 - 2010 Online Resources Relating to MASSDE staff time, national Disproportionality technical assistance providers

MASSDE will develop web-based resources devoted to providing the latest data and research on the topic of disproportionality. Included in this online resource will be a research report that MASSDE will publish on the state of disproportionality in Massachusetts. The research report will examine national trends, examine Massachusetts’ trends, and provide the MASSDE with a contextual framework through which it can improve its assistance to districts and students.

2008 Technical Assistance Summer Institute MASSDE staff time, national Research technical assistance providers

MASSDE will explore possibility of a technical assistance summer institute for Massachusetts charter schools and districts on the subject of disproportionality and understanding data relevant to it.

2008 - 2010 Self-Assessment Tool for LEAs MASSDE staff time, national technical assistance MASSDE will develop a self-assessment tool for providers, LEA staff time districts that are ‘flagged’ for potential disproportionality. Districts will use the self- assessment tool to examine their own policies and procedures regarding special education eligibility and disability definition.

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.

For the SPP submitted in February 2006, OSEP defined this indicator as being “percent of children with parental consent to evaluate, who were evaluated and eligibility determined within 60 days (or State established timeline).” MASSDE’s state established timeline is inclusive of both evaluation and eligibility determination and our data collection efforts for this indicator includes both of those activities. As such, Massachusetts does not have the capacity to collect and report data on the evaluation timeline separately from the eligibility determination timeline. While some districts’ tracking systems are able to report the date that the evaluation was completed, many of the systems are designed to track the 45-day timeline for evaluation and eligibility as a single element. Therefore, the data reported for this indicator is reflective of districts’ ability to meet the state established timeline of 45 school working days after receipt of parental consent to conduct an initial evaluation and make an eligibility determination.

To ease the data collection activity burden for districts, MASSDE divided its 387 LEAs into four cohorts that are representative of the state as a whole, and will collect and report data on this indicator based on a four-year cycle (2005-06 through 2008-09). This cohort model and plan for data collection was approved by OSEP on April 20, 2006. Over a four-year period, every district in the state will have participated in the data collection activities for this indicator. Because it has an average daily membership of over 50,000 students, Boston participates in all activities every year. Further information on the cohort model can be found at:

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.

Based on 97 districts reporting on initial evaluations begun in the months of October, November, and December of 2005: a. 2768 initial evaluations were conducted following parental consent to evaluate b. 952 students had initial evaluations completed within the State established timeline and were found not eligible for special education services c. 1498 students had initial evaluations completed within the State established timeline and were found eligible for special education services

% of students with parental consent to evaluate, who were evaluated within the State established timeline: 88.5% =(952+1498)/2768 * 100

Discussion of Baseline Data:

The figure of 88.5% includes cases where the evaluation was completed within the State established timeline, and also includes cases in which the district had an acceptable reason for not meeting the timeline. These are reasons that were beyond the district’s control, including school cancellation due to weather, parent scheduling needs, and significant student absenteeism.

In examining the 318 cases in which a district did not meet the timeline and did not have an acceptable reason, the most common reason was due to district scheduling conflicts (33.6% of the missed timelines). Insufficient staff availability and/or availability of outside evaluators was the second most common reason (30.8%), and “excessive caseload” was the other most common reason (13.8%). Of these cases that missed the timeline, the average number of days beyond the 45-day timeline for evaluation and eligibility determination was 17.5 school working days.

A second cohort of districts will participate in data collection for this indicator in the Spring of 2007. MASSDE will refine its data collection instrument to collect more detailed information from districts regarding barriers to meeting State established timelines, and will use this information to assist districts in their efforts to achieve 100% compliance. As this is a “compliance” indicator, the targets are not within MASSDE’s capacity to set and are automatically set at 100%.

2006 100% (2006-2007)

2007 100% (2007-2008)

2008 100% (2008-2009)

2009 100% (2009-2010)

2010 100% (2010-2011)

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

2005 - 2010 Comprehensive System of Personnel MASSDE staff time, CSPD Development Training Project trainer time, CSPD district (Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 13, 14) staff time

2006 - 2010 Data Collection and Analysis MASSDE staff time

MASSDE will continue to review and refine data collection instruments to collect more detailed information from districts including barriers to meeting State established timelines. MASSDE will analyze reasons for any non-compliance and barriers to timely correction on an on-going basis.

2007 - 2010 Specific Learning Disability Training Module MASSDE staff time, CSPD trainer time, CSPD district MASSDE will develop a training module related staff time to determining eligibility under specific learning disability. The module will address evaluation timelines when determining eligibility for special education under specific learning disability. The module will be posted and online and districts will be able to access training on the topic.

2007 - 2010 Self-Assessment Tool for LEAs MASSDE staff time, LEA staff time MASSDE will develop a self-assessment tool for LEAs to self-identify barriers impeding their capacity to meet State established timelines.

2008 - 2010 Revision of “Ten Step Guide for MASSDE staff time, Comprehensive Educational Assessment of stakeholder groups Students with Visual Impairments” (Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 6, 13)

Overview of the State Performance Plan Development: Effective General Supervision / Effective Transition

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition

Indicator 12: Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays. Indicator #12: Early Childhood Transition (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

Measurement: a. # of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for Part B eligibility determination. b. # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibilities were determined prior to their third birthdays. c. # of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays. d. # of children for whom parent refusal to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services. e. # of children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays. Account for children included in a but not included in b, c, d, or e. Indicate the range of days beyond the third birthday when eligibility was determined and reasons for the delays. Percent = [(c) divided by (a – b – d- e)] times 100.

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process: MASSDE notes that the measurement for this indicator, as currently described, does not take into account the need for the referral to occur with sufficient time for the district to conduct the eligibility determination. Thus, a referral for a child served under Part C that occurs on or after the child’s third birthday will inevitably not be found eligible prior to the third birthday. MASSDE will incorporate into its data system the ability to determine if the referral is received within 45 days (the State established timeline) of the 3rd birthday. The Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care (MEEC), through an ISA with MASSDE, distributes its 619 funds to all LEAs through a grant process. In 2004-05, the grant application asked districts to provide statistical information by asking the following questions: 1.Number of children referred from Early Intervention (EI) during FY2005. 2.Of the number provided in question 1, indicate the number of children who were subsequently found eligible for special education services. 3.Of the number provided in question 2, indicate the number of children who received services from the public school: a. prior to their 3rd birthday _____ b. on their 3rd birthday* _____ c. after their 3rd birthday _____ * children with summer birthdays and birthdays that fall on days different than the program schedule should be counted here if services began on the first scheduled day of the program after the child’s third birthday. In the narrative section of the grant, districts were asked to describe their referral and eligibility determination process and to explain their transition activities and practices for children transitioning from EI to preschool and preschool to Kindergarten. In addition we asked for brief commentary and/or reasons

66 Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010 Revised February 1, 2010 why a child eligible for special education services would not receive services on or before their third birthday. We did not ask how many days after they turn three did services start.

Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005): Based on 249 grants (out of 273 possible applicants -- 91%) received and processed to date (as of 11/08/05):  5,938 children were referred from EI in 2004-05  4,311 of the 5,938 (73%) referred were found eligible for services  Of those found eligible to receive services: o 216 (5%) received services prior to their 3rd birthday o 3,141 (72%) received services on their 3rd birthday o 991 (23%) received services after their 3rd birthday

% of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays: 77%

Discussion of Baseline Data: While the current figures show that 77% of children eligible for special education receive services on or before their third birthdays, these data may not be accurate. When asked to provide narrative reasons for why services were not initiated by a child’s third birthday, school districts gave reasons described within the definition of “on their third birthday” under the asterisk implying districts may not have read the question fully. For example, of the 249 grants received, 124 reported at least one child served after their third birthday. A random sample of one-third of the 124 grants listed the following reasons a child would not have received services on or before their third birthday (41% districts listed multiple reasons):  34% listed birthday related delays (during school vacation, summers)  49% parent related delays (parent refused services, was late returning required forms, postponed Team meeting)  7% district related delays (staffing, caseload)  17% EI or other agency delays  24% other reasons (medical condition of child, inclement weather, new coordinator, lack of capacity)  22% did not respond to question

In 29 districts, it was one student that failed to receive services on or before turning three. 63 districts reported between two and nine eligible children receiving services after they turned three. 18 districts reported between 10-20 eligible children; and seven districts reported between 21-29; the remaining seven reported between 30-93 eligible children receive services after their third birthdays.

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

2005 100% (2005-2006)

2006 100% (2006-2007)

2007 100% (2007-2008)

2008 100% (2008-2009)

2009 100% (2009-2010)

2010 100% (2010-2011)

2005 GSEG Application to Develop Data Sharing MASSDE staff time, MEEC System staff time, DPH staff time

Massachusetts will submit a GSEG application to develop a data sharing system between the three agencies that serve young children with disabilities: DPH, MEEC and MASSDE. This will allow the State to better track referrals from EI, the districts’ responses within timelines, and ultimately provide for smoother transition for young children and their families.

2005 Update Interagency Agreement MASSDE staff time, MEEC staff time MEEC and MASSDE will update interagency agreement around early childhood transition requirements under IDEA.

2005 - 2010 Data Collection and Analysis MASSDE staff time, MEEC staff time MEEC and MASSDE will review and refine data collection instruments on an on-going basis to collect more detailed information from districts. MEEC will analyze reasons for any noncompliance and barriers to timely compliance on an on-going basis. Starting in FFY 2009, MEEC and MASSDE will align data collection practices with the cohort model used by MASSDE to collect data for other early childhood indicators.

2005 - 2010 Technical Assistance and Support MASSDE staff time, MEEC staff time, LEA staff time MEEC and MASSDE will provide on-going technical assistance and support to poor performing districts to identify and overcome barriers that currently prevent them from serving children on or before turning three.

2005 - 2010 District Compliance Monitoring MASSDE staff time, MEEC staff time, LEA staff time MEEC and MASSDE will monitor district compliance through the Coordinated Program Review (CPR) system (see Indicator 15 for additional information on monitoring policies and procedures).

2008-2010 Procedures for Verification of Correction of MASSDE staff time, MEEC Noncompliance staff time

MEEC and MASSDE will review and revise procedures for notifying districts of noncompliance and verifying correction of noncompliance, in accordance with OSEP Memorandum 09-02.

Indicator 13: Percent of youth aged 16 and above with transition planning that includes coordinated goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student meet his/her post-secondary goals in the identified areas. Indicator #13: Secondary Transition (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

Measurement: Percent = [(# of youth with disabilities aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student meet the post-secondary goals) divided by the (# of youth with an IEP age 16 and above)] times 100.

In order to obtain student-level data, MASSDE required each district selected for this monitoring activity to collect information on a representative sample of students aged 16-21 with IEPs. The sample student files were reviewed for evidence of full transition planning discussions.

A review sheet allowed districts to assess a student record for evidence of appropriate transition planning. Evidence of transition planning that includes coordinated annual goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet his/her post-secondary goals in the identified areas resulted in a finding of appropriate transition planning for the student record being reviewed. Appropriate evidence included the completion of a MASSDE Transition Planning Chart (documenting full transition planning discussion), or a record review (with appropriate IEP documentation) indicating an appropriate transition planning discussion. If such documentation was not found in the student record or IEP, then the student was not considered to have received appropriate transition planning. Districts were encouraged to provide optional comments detailing any aspect of the student’s transition plan.

To ease the data collection activity burden for districts, MASSDE divided its 387 LEAs into four cohorts that are representative of the state as a whole, and will collect and report data on this indicator based on a four-year cycle (2005-06 through 2008-09). This cohort model and plan for data collection was approved by OSEP on April 20, 2006. Over a four-year period, every district in the state will have participated in the data collection activities for this indicator. Because it has an average daily membership of over 50,000 students, Boston participates in all activities every year. Further information on the cohort model can be found at: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/2006/0522idea.html.

Districts with 30 or fewer students with IEPs aged 16-21 reviewed all records, and districts with 30 to 150 students with IEPs aged 16-21 selected and reviewed 30 records that the district considered reasonably representative across disabilities, ages and special education placements. In order to ensure a representative selection of students, districts with 150 students or more with IEPs aged 16-21 received a pre-selected list of 30 students generated by the Student Information Management Systems (SIMS) for the record review process. Districts with only elementary school aged students did not collect data.

Following a pilot in the spring, districts were informed of the data collection process in June and again in October via mailed and electronic correspondence. Districts were encouraged to review and use the Massachusetts Transition Planning Chart to inform and document the discussion in detail. A record review form was developed along with informational letters detailing how to collect data. A spreadsheet for the recording of information was created and accessible to districts through the MASSDE Security Portal and uploaded to MASSDE via the Security Portal once completed. Members of a district’s Special Education department assessed student records for transition planning for evidence of coordinated annual goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet his/her postsecondary goals in the identified areas and completed review sheets. Information from these sheets was transferred to the spreadsheet and submitted to MASSDE via the Security Portal. The MASSDE data group analyzed spreadsheet data.

# of Student # of Student Records with 2005-06 Percentage of Records transition planning that student records in reviewed included coordinated annual compliance goals and transition services 1,901 1,592 83.8%

Discussion of Baseline Data: The data indicate that of the 1,901 student records reviewed from 2005-06, almost 84% include transition planning that includes coordinated annual goals and transition services that will reasonably enable the student to meet his/her post-secondary goals in the identified areas. Although this is a reasonably high percentage, this is a compliance indicator and Massachusetts takes seriously the importance of appropriate transition planning. To that end, you will see in our improvement activities the decision to issue a Transition Planning Chart that will be used as a mandated form and will be required for each student eligible for transition planning in Massachusetts.

2006 100% (2006-2007)

2007 100% (2007-2008)

2008 100% (2008-2009)

2009 100% (2009-2010)

2010 100% (2010-2011)

See Appendix A for a complete description . 2005 - 2010 Special Education Summer Institutes MASSDE staff time, LEA staff (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, time 8, 11, 14)

2006 - 2010 Massachusetts Transition Planning Form MASSDE staff time, CSPD (TPF 28M/9) trainers, LEA staff time

MASSDE will revise existing Transition Planning Chart in order to develop the mandated Massachusetts Transition Planning Form (TPF 28M/9). On-going training and technical assistance will be available to districts on the use of the TPF.

2008 Passage of Chapter 285 of the Acts of 2008 – MASSDE staff time, LEA staff Change in Transition Planning Age to 14 time Years Old

With the passage of Chapter 285, transition planning for students with disabilities in Massachusetts will begin when the student is 14 years of age. Therefore, Massachusetts will require that beginning when the eligible student is 14, the school district must plan for the student's need for transition services and the school district must document this discussion annually using the Massachusetts Transition Planning Form (TPF 28M/9). To support LEAs in the implementation of the new age requirement, MASSDE will develop a training module on the transition planning process that schools may use to assist staff in understanding this process.

2008 - 2010 Collaboration with Federation for Children MASSDE staff time with Special Needs (Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 8 )

2008 - 2010 Community/Residential Education Project – MASSDE staff time, DDS (Additional Indicators Impacted: 5, 14) staff time, LEA staff time

2008 - 2010 Educational Proficiency Plans MASSDE staff time (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 14 )

2008 - 2010 Secondary Transition – TransitionWorks: MASSDE staff time, Innovative Strategies for Transitioning Youth Massachusetts Rehabilitation with Disabilities from School to Work Commission staff time (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 14 )

2008 - 2010 Work-Based Learning Plans for Students MASSDE staff time, LEA staff with Disabilities, time, Workforce Development (Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 14) staff time

2008 - 2010 District and School Assistance Centers MASSDE staff time (DSAC) (Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 3, 5)

2008 - 2010 Revision of “Ten Step Guide for MASSDE staff time, Vision Comprehensive Educational Assessment of Impairment Disability Students with Visual Impairments” Workgroup time (Additional Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 6, 11)

Indicator 14: Percent of youth who had IEPs, are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school. Indicator #14: Post-School Outcomes (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

Measurement: Percent = [(# of youth who had IEPs, are no longer in secondary school and who have been competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within one year of leaving high school) divided by the (# of youth assessed who had IEPs and are no longer in secondary school)] times 100.

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process: Generally, students with disabilities access postsecondary education and gain employment in the competitive job market at lower rates than their non-disabled peers. In the spring of 2007, students with disabilities who exited high school within the 2005-06 school year were surveyed regarding the students’ postsecondary activities within one year of leaving high school. Respondents reported whether they enrolled in postsecondary education and/or were employed in the competitive job market. MASSDE analyzed the results of this initial data to establish a baseline percentage of students with disabilities who participate in postsecondary education and/or competitive employment within one year of leaving high school. Using this baseline data, MASSDE developed targets and improvement activities for this indicator.

Definitions MASSDE defines exiters as students with disabilities who graduated high school with a diploma or a certificate of attainment, aged out of special education, or dropped out of high school.

MASSDE adopts the competitive employment definition stated under the Rehabilitation Act: “Competitive employment means work- (i) In the competitive labor market that is performed on a full-time or part-time basis in an integrated setting; and (ii) For which an individual is compensated at or above the minimum wage, but not less than the customary wage and level of benefits paid by the employer for the same or similar work performed by individuals who are not disabled”. (Authority: Sections 7(11) and 12(c) of the Act; 29 U.S.C. 705(11) and 709(c)) MASSDE recognizes full-time military service and supported employment positions as competitive employment. MASSDE defines part-time employment as employment that is less than thirty-five hours per week, and defines full-time employment as employment that is thirty-five or more hours per week.

MASSDE defines postsecondary school enrollment as full-time or part-time enrollment in the following types of programs: a technical school, a vocational school, a two-year college or university, and a four- year college or university. MASSDE allows the definition of full-time and part-time enrollment to be dictated by postsecondary school program descriptions.

Cohort Model To ease the data collection activity burden for districts, MASSDE divided its 387 LEAs into four cohorts that are representative of the state as a whole, and will collect and report data on this indicator based on a four-year cycle (2005-06 through 2008-09). This cohort model and plan for data collection was approved by OSEP. Over a four-year period, every district in the state will have participated in the data collection activities for this indicator. Because it has an average daily membership of over 50,000 students, Boston participates in all activities every year. Further information on the cohort model can be found at: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/spp/datacollection.html.

Over this four-year period, every district in the state will collect contact information for exiting students with disabilities and survey the students in the following spring. The first cohort of districts collected contact information for exiting students with disabilities in the spring of 2006, and surveyed the students in

75 Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010 Revised February 1, 2010 the spring of 2007. This cohort consists of 71 districts with a total of 2,610 exited students with disabilities. The second cohort of districts collected contact information for exiting students with disabilities in the spring of 2007 and will survey the students in 2008. The final two cohorts will collect contact information for exiting students with disabilities in the spring of 2008 and survey the students in 2009.

Data Collection Protocol MASSDE created a two-step data collection protocol to assist districts with data collection for this indicator. The year before districts survey exiting students with disabilities, districts collect student contact information for use during the survey process. MASSDE notifies districts of their responsibility to collect student contact information via mailed and electronic correspondence. MASSDE provides an optional Student Contact Information Form for districts’ use and provides technical assistance regarding the districts’ responsibility to collect student contact information.

The following year, the same districts utilize the “Post-Secondary Outcomes Survey” instrument to collect data on the postsecondary activities students with disabilities participate in within one year of leaving high school. MASSDE notifies districts of their responsibility to conduct the survey via mailed and electronic correspondence. MASSDE provides the “Post-Secondary Outcomes Survey” instrument for districts’ use and provides technical assistance regarding the districts’ responsibility to complete the data collection activity.

District personnel administer the “Post-Secondary Outcomes Survey” instrument. Districts choose the data collection method utilized (i.e.) mailings, telephone surveys and the personnel responsible for completing the data collection activity. MASSDE asks districts to complete the data collection activity between April and mid-July. Districts upload the respondents’ answers to the survey questions directly to the MASSDE, using a spreadsheet accessible to districts through the MASSDE Security Portal. MASSDE then completes an aggregate data collection and analysis. This year, MASSDE utilized the results from the data analysis to calculate the baseline percentage and to establish the targets and improvement activities listed below.

In addition to the use of the “Postsecondary Outcomes Survey” instrument, MASSDE coordinated data collection for this indicator with the existing data collection activities for Career/Vocational Technical Education (CVTE) programs. MASSDE’s CVTE unit annually conducts a follow-up survey for each graduating class, responding to the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 requirement that each state receiving a federal grant establish a performance accountability system to assess the effectiveness of career and technical education. The students surveyed are part of a district state-approved vocational technical education program, known as Chapter 74, and/or other career/vocational technical education programs known as non-Chapter 74 career & technical education (CTE) program. This year, MASSDE captured the data from the CVTE follow-up survey for students with disabilities who exited from CVTE programs within the 2005-2006 school year.

Survey Instrument MASSDE created the “Post-Secondary Outcomes Survey” instrument, in collaboration with the statewide Transition Taskforce Workgroup and through participation in the Post-School Outcomes Community of Practice, to collect and record data on the activities students with disabilities participate in within one year of leaving high school. The survey consists of six multiple-choice questions pertaining to the students’ educational and employment status since leaving high school. The survey instrument asks respondents to provide details about their educational status, such as postsecondary program setting and enrollment level. The survey allows respondents to provide a short written description of a postsecondary program not listed on the survey instrument. Additionally, the survey instrument asks respondents to provide details about their employment status, such as employment setting and hours per week of employment. Please see Appendix C for the Massachusetts Post-School Outcomes Survey.

Baseline Data for FFY 2006 (2006-2007): Number of Number of Percentage Number of Percentage Response Students Students of Students Respondents of Rate with Contacted Contacted Respondents Disabilities in the cohort who exited high school (2005-06 school year) 2,610 2,015 77% 1,028 51% 39%

Number of Number of Number of Percentage of Respondents Respondents Respondents who Respondents who who have been competitively who have have been have been enrolled employed and/or enrolled in been enrolled in in postsecondary postsecondary education competitively postsecondary education and employed education competitively employed 316 177 461 93%

Discussion of Baseline Data: The data indicate that of the 1,028 respondents to the “Post-Secondary Outcomes Survey” instrument, 93% of the respondents have been competitively employed, enrolled in postsecondary education, or both competitively employed and enrolled in postsecondary education within one year of leaving high school. 31% of the respondents have been competitively employed within one year of leaving high school. 17% of the respondents have been enrolled in postsecondary education within one year of leaving high school. 45% of the respondents have been competitively employed and enrolled in postsecondary education within one year of leaving high school. Overall, districts in this first cohort contacted 77% of the students with disabilities who exited high school within the 2005-2006 school year. Over 50% of the students contacted completed the “Post-Secondary Outcomes Survey” instrument. The response rate of all exiting students with disabilities was 39%. While the response rate was 39%, respondents to the “Post-Secondary Outcomes Survey” appear to be representative of the students with disabilities who exited high school within the 2005-2006 school year. MASSDE compared the validity of the respondents reported by districts to the SIMS database. The respondents reported by districts are an appropriate representation of students with disabilities who exited high school within the 2005-2006 school year with regards to various factors such as race and ethnicity, gender, disability, level of need, and program placement. Therefore, the respondents appear to represent the target population of students with disabilities who exited high school within the 2005-2006 school year. Nonetheless, MASSDE recognizes some exiter subgroups may not be as well represented as others in this first data collection and, thus, the validity of the respondent group may be affected somewhat. For example, exiters who are not satisfied with their postsecondary activities may have been less likely to participate in a survey about postsecondary activities because of their dissatisfaction. In another example, students with disabilities who dropped out of high school may not be adequately represented in this first data collection because districts may have had difficulty contacting these students if districts did not have updated student contact information upon the students’ departures. Therefore, the representativeness of the respondents may be affected somewhat.

Additionally, four districts in the cohort did not administer the “Post-Secondary Outcomes Survey” instrument. The missing data also affects the representativeness of the respondents somewhat. The four districts have been reassigned to the cohorts completing the student contact information activity in spring 2008 and will survey these students in spring 2009.

MASSDE intends to review and revise the data collection protocol as necessary to assist districts in contacting a higher percentage of students with disabilities who exited high school to ensure the validity of the respondent group. For example, MASSDE will evaluate whether we should provide additional 77 Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010 Revised February 1, 2010 guidelines to districts regarding the choice of a data collection method in order to increase the number of students with disabilities who exited high school districts contact to complete the “Post-Secondary Outcomes Survey.”. An increase in the number of students with disabilities who exited high school that districts contact to complete the “Post-Secondary Outcomes Survey” will increase the number of respondents to the “Post-Secondary Outcomes Survey” and, thus, improve the response rate and the participation of all exiter subgroups in the data collection activity.

Review of Data Collection Protocol Currently, MASSDE is reviewing carefully this first data collection to determine whether changes to the data collection protocol are necessary to increase the overall response rate and to increase the participation of all exiter subgroups in the data collection activity. For example, the CVTE follow-up survey only collects data from students who graduated from high school. The survey audience does not include students with disabilities involved in vocational/technical programs who aged out of their special education programs or who dropped out of high school. Therefore, MASSDE will evaluate how better to capture data from students with disabilities involved in vocational/technical programs in order to increase the participation of all exiter subgroups in the survey process.

Additionally, the CVTE follow-up survey only collects data on the activities students are completing at the time of the survey. The CVTE follow-up survey does not account for any previous competitive employment and/or postsecondary education students completed earlier in the year. Therefore, MASSDE will evaluate how better to capture data from students with disabilities involved in vocational/technical programs in order to illustrate the students’ postsecondary activities more comprehensively, accounting for present and previous student involvement in competitive employment and postsecondary education within one year of leaving high school.

MASSDE will also evaluate the data collection protocol to determine its ease of use for districts completing the data collection activity. MASSDE received feedback from the first cohort of districts to complete the data collection activity for this indicator and will review the data collection protocol for any necessary changes. For example, MASSDE will clarify for districts which district is responsible for completing the data collection activity in a situation where one district sends its students to a high school in another district. Furthermore, MASSDE will evaluate whether MASSDE should provide additional guidelines to districts regarding the choice of a data collection method in order to improve ease of use, to increase the overall response rate, and to increase the participation of all exiter subgroups in the data collection activity.

The targets listed below were developed using the FFY 2006 baseline data of 93%, which is the percentage of students with disabilities who have been competitively employed, enrolled in postsecondary education, or both competitively employed and enrolled in postsecondary education within one year of leaving high school.

2007 93% (2007-2008)

2008 93% (2008-2009)

2009 94% (2009-2010)

2010 95% (2010-2011)

Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources: Please note that many of the activities presented below impact across multiple indicator areas. For these activities, a full description of the activity is available in Appendix A. 78 Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010 Revised February 1, 2010

2005 - 2010 Secondary School Reading Grant MASSDE staff time (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3 5)

2005 - 2010 Community/Residential Education Project – MASSDE staff time, DDS (Additional Indicators Impacted: 5, 13) staff time, LEA staff time

2006 - 2010 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 - 2010 Survey Protocol Evaluation and MASSDE staff time, LEA staff Data Collection Technical Assistance time

MASSDE will evaluate the Indicator 14 survey protocol annually and revise it as necessary as well as provide technical assistance, including guidance documents and teleconferences, to LEAs to help district personnel become familiar with the Post-Secondary Outcomes Survey and to establish a plan to complete the postsecondary outcomes data collection activity and reporting.

2008 - 2010 Educational Proficiency Plans (EPP) – MASSDE staff time, LEA staff (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2 ,3, 13) time

2008 - 2010 Secondary Transition - Transition Works: MASSDE staff time, MRC Innovative Strategies for Transitioning Youth staff time, grant partners with Disabilities from School to Work – (Federation for Children with (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 13) Special Needs, Institute for Community Inclusion at See Appendix A for a complete description. UMass-Boston), LEA staff time

2008 - 2010 Graduation and Dropout Prevention and MASSDE staff time, LEA staff Recovery Commission time (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2)

2008 - 2010 Dropout Prevention and Recovery Work MASSDE staff time, LEA staff Group time (Additional Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 4)

2008 - 2010 Work-Based Learning Plans for Students MASSDE staff time, LEA staff with Disabilities, time, Workforce Development (Additional Indicators Impacted: 2, 13) staff time

Overview of the State Performance Plan Development: Effective General Supervision / General Supervision

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision

Indicator 15: General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.) identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification. Indicator #15: Identification and Correction of Noncompliance (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(B))

Measurement: Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification: a. # of findings of noncompliance b. # of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification. Percent = [(b) divided by (a) times 100.

Monitoring by Program Quality Assurance Services:

(For further information, see: 1. Coordinated Program Review Procedures: School District Information Package: Special Education: School Year 2005-2006 at http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/cpr/instrument/sped.doc; and 2. Coordinated Program Review: Mid-Cycle Review: Information Package on Corrective Action Plan Verification Procedures: School Year 2005-2006 at http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/cpr/midcycle_infopk.doc.)

Monitoring is carried out by MASSDE’s Program Quality Assurance Services unit (PQA). PQA is the MASSDE unit charged with monitoring all public school districts and charter schools in the Commonwealth for compliance with laws and regulations in a number of areas. It has a six-year cycle for this monitoring, meaning that it monitors each of those districts and charter schools in multiple areas once during that six-year cycle (the “Coordinated Program Review” or CPR). During every CPR, PQA sends a team to spend from several days to over a week in the district or charter school being reviewed, interviewing its personnel and observing classes. Before the onsite visit, the team surveys parents and scrutinizes selected student records and extensive documentation provided by the district or charter school. The areas monitored in a CPR always include special education and civil rights.

With respect to the monitoring of special education, PQA sends a team midway through the six-year cycle to complete an onsite special education “Mid-Cycle Review” (MCR). Again, the review consists of onsite interviews and observations as well as examination of documentation and records. Thus each public school district and charter school in Massachusetts is monitored once every three years for compliance with special education laws and regulations.

After the Coordinated Program Review, the CPR team issues a draft and then a final Coordinated Program Review Report rating the district or charter school on multiple compliance standards (“criteria”) in the areas reviewed, including over 606 special education criteria based on federal and state special education law and multiple civil rights criteria. Where a criterion is found to be “Partially Implemented” or “Not Implemented,” the CPR Report includes a finding under that criterion, and the school or district must create a corrective action plan (CAP) to address the deficiencies described in the finding. MASSDE staff review the CAP, requiring revisions to be made where the CAP appears inadequate. Once that Corrective

6 Though for 2005-06 the last criterion number is 59, there are a 9A and 49A in addition to a 9 and 49, and an 18A and 18B and 25A and 25B instead of an 18 and 25; on the other hand, SE 3 and SE 28 have been reserved. 82 Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010 Revised February 1, 2010

Action Plan is in a form acceptable to MASSDE, it issues a Review of Action Plan in which it requires progress reports from the school or district to show that the corrective action described in the Corrective Action Plan has been implemented. As of the beginning of the 2005-06 school year and in response to national guidance on the development of the SPP, corrective action must be completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year after the provision to the school or district of the final CPR Report.

When progress reports are received from the district, MASSDE issues a Review of Progress Report in which it indicates, with the basis for its decision, whether the progress report has adequately shown that the corrective action for a particular criterion has been implemented. If the progress report has not adequately shown the implementation of the corrective action, MASSDE requires a further progress report and indicates what that progress report must show.

Three years after the CPR, unless unique circumstances dictate either acceleration of the timetable or postponement, PQA conducts the special education Mid-Cycle Review mentioned above to review again areas that were present on the charter school or district’s previous CAP. PQA publishes a Coordinated Program Review MCR Monitoring Report, and, if the school or district is again found non-compliant, in whole or in part, with any of the areas previously corrected following the CPR, then PQA issues its own Corrective Action Plan, which must be implemented by the school or district without delay. Failure to implement MASSDE’s Corrective Action Plan within the required time may result in the loss of funds to the school or district and/or other enforcement action by MASSDE. During the Mid-Cycle Review, the PQA team also monitors the implementation of any special education requirements that have been newly created or substantially changed since the CPR, as well as reviewing any issues raised by recent complaints about special education. It may also opt to monitor areas other than special education.

MASSDE further notes that during OSEP’s verification visit in Massachusetts in July 2003, OSEP found that PQA’s monitoring system, including its six-year cycle of Coordinated Program Reviews and Mid- Cycle Reviews, constitutes “a reasonable approach to the identification and correction of noncompliance…” (Letter of October 29, 2003 to Massachusetts Commissioner of Education David Driscoll from Stephanie Smith Lee, Director, Office of Special Education Programs).

Program Quality Assurance Services’ Problem Resolution System (complaint resolution system):

For a description of PQA’s Problem Resolution System, please see http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/prs/.

When MASSDE staff learned, at OSEP’s summer institute on the SPP in August 2005, that one of the SPP’s indicators - Indicator 15 - includes the correction within a year from identification of noncompliance in special education identified through a state’s monitoring system, discussion began immediately among PQA staff as to how to modify PQA’s monitoring system (described above under Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process) so as to be able to fulfill this new requirement and track compliance with it. As this requirement was not included in IDEA 2004 or the proposed regulations implementing it, PQA had not previously considered how to modify its monitoring system in this way. Please see below, in the section entitled Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources, for PQA’s planning and activities in this area.

In the meantime, MASSDE does not have any data, for FFY 2004 (School Year 2004-05) or any other year, on the percentage of special education noncompliance corrected within one year from identification, either related to monitoring priority areas or not so related. PQA. As described above under Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process, PQA’s monitoring involves a thorough review - through Coordinated Program Reviews (CPRs) and Mid-Cycle Reviews (MCRs) - of compliance with dozens of special education compliance standards or criteria, most of which contain multiple parts. MASSDE’s emphasis has been on thorough correction of all of the areas of special education where noncompliance is found, rather than correction within a particular time (though, as described above, if noncompliance found in a CPR is found again at the MCR, PQA issues its own Corrective Action Plan, which must be implemented by the school or district without delay if it is to avoid escalated enforcement action by MASSDE). PQA has never before required the correction of special education noncompliance within one year, nor has it tracked the number of findings of special education noncompliance corrected within one year. Typically, the majority of issues identified at the CPR are corrected before the MCR, but not always 83 Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010 Revised February 1, 2010 and the MCR has allowed MASSDE to ensure that the corrections have been maintained as well as provided an opportunity to review activity for corrective actions that extended for a longer period (as, typically, some physical plant corrective actions often do).

To date, instead of a tracking system that is “time-based,” PQA has used its system of progress reporting and its MCR procedures to ensure correction of noncompliance. Appendix D is an Excel table showing the percentage of correction of noncompliance with each special education criterion for the 32 charter schools and districts that received a CPR in 2001-02 and had an MCR in 2004-05 that had been published as of November 3, 2005. It bears repeating that if noncompliance with any criterion found in a CPR is found again at the MCR , PQA issues its own Corrective Action Plan, which must be implemented by the school or district without delay if it is to avoid escalated enforcement action by MASSDE.

Indicator 15A and Indicator 15B*: a. # of findings of noncompliance made in the 2001-02 CPR: 560 b. of the 560 findings from the 2001-02 CPR, 380 were no longer present at the 2004-05 MCR; therefore, we consider the findings corrected and sustained: 380

% of noncompliance corrected and sustained: 68%

*Note: See Appendix D: Correction of Noncompliance Data for additional detail.

Indicator 15C: a. # of agencies in which noncompliance was identified through other mechanisms: 95 b. # of findings of noncompliance made: 206 c. # of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no case later than one year from identification: 206

% of noncompliance identified through other mechanisms (complaints, due process hearings, mediations, etc.) corrected within one year of identification: 100%

Discussion of Baseline Data: Indicator 15A and Indicator 15B:

See description provided above in the “Baseline Data” section. MASSDE notes that this baseline is not completely responsive to the required measurement of this Indicator, but it is not possible to respond to this Indicator exactly as written at this time. MASSDE notes that although re-identification of noncompliance at the MCR does result in a PQA-initiated CAP, rather than a district or charter school- initiated CAP, in the majority of cases it is our perception that the original finding had been corrected, but the correction did not sustain over the three year period. One recurring theme explaining that inability to sustain corrective action is the constant turnover in the field of special education and special education administrators and the constant need to look and re-look at areas of special education compliance. MASSDE anticipates further that the contemplated changes in accountability measures must also be accompanied by a consideration of how certain changes can be systematized such that corrective actions are sustainable over long periods of time and through changes in personnel.

Indicator 15C: 100% of noncompliance identified though complaints received during 2004-05 was corrected within one year of identification.

% of noncompliance % of noncompliance related % of noncompliance related to monitoring to areas not included in identified through other priority areas and Indicator 15A corrected mechanisms corrected indicators corrected within one year of within one year of within one year of identification identification identification (Indicator 15B) (Indicator 15C) (Indicator 15A)

2005 100% 100% 100% (2005-2006)

2006 100% 100% 100% (2006-2007)

2007 100% 100% 100% (2007-2008)

2008 100% 100% 100% (2008-2009)

2009 100% 100% 100% (2009-2010)

2010 100% 100% 100% (2010-2011)

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 - 2009 Electronic CAP/Progress Report System MASSDE staff time Plan, pilot and implement an electronic system of corrective action plans and progress reports

2005 - 2010 Communication About Required One-Year MASSDE staff time Correction

MASSDE will inform districts and train PQA staff regarding this requirement.

2005 - 2010 Improvement of Procedures MASSDE staff time, OSEP technical assistance, MASSDE will revise and develop monitoring, stakeholders tracking, and reporting procedures based on data and systems analyses, and input from OSEP and stakeholders

2006 - 2010 Web-based Monitoring System MASSDE staff time, contracted providers MASSDE will plan and implement web-based monitoring system emphasizing self- assessment by districts.

2007 Reorganization MASSDE staff time

MASSDE will reorganize PQA public school staff into four CPR/MCR teams and two PRS teams, each team having a supervisor and each function having an assistant PQA director in charge.

2007 Purchase and Use of Additional Software MASSDE staff time

MASSDE will purchase and implement software (Crystal Reports) to produce reports on complaints.

2007 Hiring of Staff Trainer MASSDE staff time MASSDE will hire staff trainer to train monitoring teams.

2007 - 2008 Software Upgrade MASSDE staff time

MASSDE will plan upgrade from current software used for tracking complaints and complaint resolution.

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/.

(162 reports within timeline + 16 reports within extended timelines)/258 complaints with reports issued x 100 = 69%

Discussion of Baseline Data: The percentage of signed written complaints with reports issued that were resolved within the 60-day timeline or a timeline extended for exceptional circumstances fell to 69% in 2004-05 from 82% (252/308) in 2003-04. Although MASSDE is concerned about the drop, analysis of the data shows that in the majority of cases where the 60-day timeline was exceeded, the complaint was resolved with just a few extra days.  78% of signed written complaints with reports issued were resolved within the timeline or extended timeline or within 1-3 days after it.  83% of signed written complaints with reports issued were resolved within the timeline or extended timeline or within 1-6 days after it.  88% of signed written complaints with reports issued were resolved within the timeline or extended timeline or within 1-10 days after it. As indicated in the second paragraph of the section How Will the Department Address a Concern? in the description of the Problem Resolution System located at http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/prs/, PQA gives the district or charter school about which it receives a complaint 15 calendar days to investigate the complaint and provide PQA with an investigation report. In some cases, the district or charter school delays or resists carrying out this investigation and submitting the report. (Oftentimes, the same district or charter school delays or resists carrying out its responsibilities with respect to more than one complaint.) Where the school or district fails to investigate and submit its report, PQA staff makes multiple attempts to obtain compliance. Eventually, MASSDE staff, often including a MASSDE lawyer, meets with the superintendent and special education administrator to explain to them the sanctions that MASSDE will impose unless the LEA carries out its responsibilities immediately. No matter how scrupulous PQA staff members are in adhering to timelines, almost every case of such unresponsiveness by schools and districts results in noncompliance with timeline requirements.

MASSDE’s plan for ensuring that it complies with timeline requirements in 2005-06 and beyond is described under Improvement Activities/Timelines/Resources below.

2005 100% (2005-2006)

2006 100% (2006-2007)

2007 100% (2007-2008)

2008 100% (2008-2009)

2009 100% (2009-2010)

2010 100% (2010-2011)

MASSDE provides the following plan in the MA SPP including strategies, proposed evidence of change, targets and timelines for ensuring full compliance with the required timeline, as soon as possible. Please see the chart located below for improvement activities, timelines, and resources.

Proposed evidence of change MASSDE proposes to request monthly reports for the first quarter and then quarterly reports thereafter from Remedy’s Action Request System showing the percentage of compliance with timelines for the current year’s complaints in order to have a more frequent review and revision of any identified causes of delay.

Targets The target for 2005-06 and every year hereafter will be 100% compliance with the timeline requirements of 34 CFR § 300.661.

2005 Software Modification MASSDE staff time

MASSDE will modify Remedy’s Action Request System software, the software PQA uses to track the resolution of complaints.

2005 Study of Reorganization MASSDE staff time

MASSDE will study the possibility of reorganizing PQA staff into two parts, each with its own function: one that conducts Coordinated Program Reviews (CPRs) and Mid-Cycle Reviews (MCRs), and one that manages the Problem Resolution System (PRS) (complaint resolution system). 88 Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010 Revised February 1, 2010

2005 - 2010 Internal Monitoring MASSDE staff time

MASSDE will review and revise internal monitoring procedures to ensure the timely complaint resolution.

2006 - 2010 Analysis of Data MASSDE staff time

MASSDE will prepare statistical reports on PRS, analyze any reasons for noncompliance or barriers to timely compliance, and implement any needed modifications to PRS (including Remedy’s Action Request System).

2006 - 2010 Web-based Monitoring System MASSDE staff time, contracted providers MASSDE will plan and implement web-based monitoring system.

2006 - 2010 Guidance on Extensions MASSDE staff time

MASSDE will provide guidance to PQA complaint investigators on acceptable reasons for extensions and proper duration of extensions.

2007 Reorganization MASSDE staff time

MASSDE will reorganize PQA public school staff into four CPR/MCR teams and two PRS teams, each team having a supervisor and each function having an assistant PQA director in charge.

2007 Purchase and Use of Additional Software MASSDE staff time

MASSDE will purchase and implement software (Crystal Reports) to produce reports on complaints.

2007 - 2008 Software Upgrade MASSDE staff time

MASSDE will plan upgrade from current software used for tracking complaints and complaint resolution.

2008 Consultation among Complaint Investigators MASSDE staff time

MASSDE will institute regular meetings of complaint investigation staff to discuss issues and will relocate all complaint investigators together.

Indicator 17: Percent of adjudicated due process hearing requests that were adjudicated within the 45- day 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.

# of Hearings (fully adjudicated) 12

Decisions issued within 45-day timeline or a 11* timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party.

% of fully adjudicated due process hearing 91.6% 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.

*Note: The one decision that was outside the timeline was three days past the timeline.

The data reveal that of the 2004-2005 hearing requests that were fully adjudicated during 2004-2005, 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.

2005 100% (2005-2006)

2006 100% (2006-2007)

2007 100% (2007-2008)

2008 100% (2008-2009)

2009 100% (2009-2010)

2010 100% (2010-2011)

2005 Fill Staffing Vacancies BSEA staff time

Fill existing BSEA staffing vacancies (the director of BSEA left in March 2005 and the Coordinator of Mediation left soon after); the hiring of a new director will allow for additional supervisory and managerial resources to be dedicated to ensuring that hearing officers comply with federally mandated timelines for issuing decisions.

2005 - 2010 Collaboration with Stakeholders BSEA staff time (Impacts All Indicators)

2005 - 2010 Revise Internal Procedures BSEA staff time

The BSEA will revise internal procedures and implement these revisions, including an increase in supervision/monitoring to ensure that Hearing Officers who are assigned multiple cases that have similar decision deadlines will have such cases reassigned to other hearing officers who are more available to conduct the hearing and write the decision in a timely manner.

Indicator 18: Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements. Indicator #18: Hearing Requests Resolved by Resolution Sessions (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3(B))

Measurement : Percent = (3.1(a) divided by 3.1) times 100.

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process: The BSEA has devised and implemented the use of a form to be filed with the BSEA by the moving party (parent) in the event a case is settled through the resolution process prior to the hearing date. Said form constitutes a withdrawal of the hearing request and closure of the case.

Baseline Data for FFY 2005 (2005-2006): 48% (212/442)

Discussion of Baseline Data: The 48% baseline data figure (212/442) is calculated based on:

(1) 212: represents 50% of all cases (424) involving parental requests for hearing which were not resolved through mediation or substantive hearing officer decision on the merits.

Only thirteen (of the 212 cases reported in Table 7) were cases in which parents filed a written form with the BSEA, per BSEA procedure, withdrawing a hearing request and citing settlement at resolution session as basis for the withdrawal. We believe that the number 424 is likely highly inflated (and hence not deemed reliable) as it includes situations in which private settlements may have resulted outside the resolution session process; cases which were withdrawn without settlements having occurred; cases in which a settlement conference was conducted by the BSEA resulting in withdrawal of the hearing request; cases in which a pre-hearing conference resulted in a settlement and/or withdrawal of the hearing; and cases in which a dispositive ruling was issued by a hearing officer; and we, therefore, reduced it by half. While we admit this is arbitrary, we believe it is closer to reality than to suggest either that all of the 424 cases were settled as a result of a resolution session or that only 13 were settled as a result of a resolution session. As you will see in our improvement activities, we will be focusing on how we may be able to obtain more accurate data in the future.

(2) 442: the total number of hearing requests, minus the number of hearings requested by LEAs (resolution session not required), minus the number of mediations related to due process (notion being that parties may opt for mediation in lieu of resolution session).

This number similarly is not deemed reliable at this time for the following reasons: a) there may be cases in which both a resolution session and a mediation were held; b) there are likely cases in which both parties waived the resolution session and did not opt for mediation; and c) there are likely cases in which the LEA failed to timely convene a resolution meeting within the 15 days and therefore it was constructively waived. None of these situations is accounted for in the above-noted number. The Massachusetts Steering Committee, mindful of the quality of the data in this Indicator recommended setting very modest targets.

2005 48% (our baseline) (2005-2006)

2006 48% (2006-2007)

2007 48% (2007-2008)

2008 49% (2008-2009)

2009 50% (2009-2010)

2010 50% (2010-2011)

2005 - 2010 Collaboration with Stakeholders BSEA staff time (Impacts all Indicators)

2006 - 2010 Review Procedures BSEA staff time

The BSEA will review procedures for closing hearing requests and determine points at which data might be gathered that is more reliable and complete.

2006 - 2010 Implement New Data Collection Procedures BSEA staff time

The BSEA will refine data procedures to more effectively gather data for this indicator.

2006 - 2007 Summer Institute on Resolution Sessions BSEA staff time, contracted trainer The BSEA will off a Summer Professional Development Institute related to effective Resolution Sessions.

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.

# of Mediations 660

# of Mediation Agreements 567

% of Mediations Held that Resulted in Mediation 85.9% Agreements

The data reveal that of the 660 mediations held during 2004-05, almost 86% resulted in a mediation agreement. This is a continuation of the consistently high level of mediation agreements reached in Massachusetts over the past two years. In 2002-03, 79% of mediations resulted in mediation agreements, as did 74% of the mediations in 2003-04.

The Massachusetts Steering Committee unanimously recommended that our initial target setting be modest and with this Indicator in particular we believe a maintenance target is more appropriate than an increase. Massachusetts has a very high level of mediation agreements reached, and it may be the highest level in the nation. While it is important to continue to track mediation agreements, we believe it is inappropriate to set a target higher than the current level we have reached in Massachusetts, as mediation is a voluntary activity and we do not want to suggest in writing or in target setting that we are seeking to compel parties in mediation to reach agreement. Therefore the targets set for this first six-year period are essentially maintenance targets.

2005 85.9% (2005-2006)

2006 86% (2006-2007)

2007 86% (2007-2008)

2008 75% - 86% (2008-2009)

2009 75% - 86% (2009-2010)

2010 75% - 86% (2010-2011)

2005 Fill Staffing Vacancies BSEA staff time

Fill existing BSEA staffing vacancies (the director of BSEA left in March 2005 and the Coordinator of Mediation left soon after); the hiring of a new director will allow for additional supervisory and managerial resources to be dedicated to ensuring that hearing officers comply with federally mandated timelines for issuing decisions.

2005 - 2010 Collaboration with Stakeholders BSEA staff time (Impacts All Indicators)

2005 - 2010 Training and Technical Assistance in Special BSEA staff time, national Education Mediations technical assistance providers

The BSEA will receive training in special education mediations on an on-going basis from national and regional technical assistance providers.

Indicator 20: State reported data (618 and Massachusetts State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report) are timely and accurate. Indicator #20: State Reported Data (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

Measurement: State reported data, including 618 data, State Performance Plan, and Annual Performance Reports, are: a. Submitted on or before due dates (February 1 for child count, including race and ethnicity; placement; November 1 for exiting, discipline, personnel and dispute resolution; and February 1 for Annual Performance Reports and assessment); and b. Accurate, including covering the correct year and following the correct measurement. States are required to use the “Indicator 20 Scoring Rubric” for reporting data for this indicator.

Overview of Issue/Description of System or Process: There are two reporting periods per year for the 618 data. Table 1 (Child Count), Table 3 (Educational Environments) and Table 6 (Assessment) data are due on February 1. Table 2 (Personnel), Table 4 (Exiting), and Table 5 (Discipline) data are due on November 1. MASSDE reports its 618 and SPP/APR data from more than one data source. All student-level databases used to report the 618 data also utilize the same state assigned student identifier (SASID) used in our Student Information Management System (SIMS) database for consistency in reporting. Table 1 (Child Count) and Table 3 (Educational Environments) report student information from the October 1 collection of our SIMS database. Until this year, MASSDE collected student-level data in SIMS four times a year, October 1, December 1, March 1 and at the end of the school year. With additional flexibility provided by the IDEA Reauthorization, MASSDE has removed the December 1 collection, previously used to collect student level data for special education students only. MASSDE uses information collected through the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) to provide student information for Table 6 (Assessment). This information is not collected in our SIMS database but is collected in a separate database specific to MCAS. In the MCAS database, the data is collected at the student-level and identifies each student according to SASID. Currently collected through our District and School Staff Report (DSSR) are the Table 2 (Personnel) data. These data are collected on an aggregate level for each school and district. Through the ongoing development of our teacher database we hope to continue providing timely and accurate data for Table 2 and plan on scheduling the data collection for this database to meet the needs of OSEP. MASSDE continues to use the end of year SIMS submission to establish initial data for Table 4 (Exit data). However, in order to submit accurate numbers for the dropout category in Table 4, MASSDE uses the data submitted through SIMS in the following October 1 submission to identify any returned dropouts, summer graduates and certificates of attainment. Students who return to school after being coded as a dropout during the previous end of year submission will not be counted in the dropout count. Table 5 (Discipline) data are collected through MASSDE’s School Safety & Discipline Report (SSDR). This is a student-level collection that is open for submissions all year from July to July. The system accepts late submissions until October of the following academic year.

Baseline Data for FFY 2004 (2004-2005): In order to align with OSEP’s assessment method for this Indicator, MASSDE is implementing the OSEP- recommended scoring rubric to display its baseline data performance on this indicator (see Appendix F). According to the rubric, the baseline data shows MASSDE to have performed at 52.9% on the timely and accurate submission of its state reported data.

Indicator #20 Calculation

A. APR Grand Total = 63

B. 618 Grand Total = 0

C. APR Grand Total (A) + 618 Grand Total (B) = 63

D. Subtotal (C divided by 119)* = 0.529

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. We believe our compliance with Table 1 and Table 3 will dramatically increase with our move from the December 1 to the October 1 collection. We also are hopeful the developing teacher database will help us provide timely and accurate data for Table 2. We plan to time the data collection for this database to meet the needs of OSEP’s data collection. Our intention is to meet the Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 deadlines in 2006. We will continue to work on our compliance for Table 4 and Table 5. Our system requires us to collect the October data after collecting end of year data in the previous year in order to complete these data. Currently, our October data is ready for analysis in January or February after thorough cleaning and checks of the data. For this reason, the Table 4, exiting data has been submitted after the November 1 deadline. We anticipate submitting the 2004-05 Table 4, Exit data by March 1, 2006 and will work with the data to meet the compliance deadline by 2010. The Table 5, Discipline data is on a similar cycle where we close the data submission window in October of the following academic year. This allows districts the time to submit accurate and complete data but makes it difficult for us to submit the data by the November 1 deadline. We anticipate submitting the 2004-05 Table 5, Discipline data by December 1, 2005 and will work with the data to meet the compliance deadline by 2010. The Annual Performance Report has been submitted by the deadline each year with as accurate data as we have available at the time of reporting. For example, we have submitted our discipline data in the previous APRs but know there has been room for improvement in the reporting of this data. We are working to improve the reporting of the data by districts each year through adjustments made to our collection tool. We currently do not compute a graduation rate in Massachusetts and therefore could not provide percent of graduates in the previous APRs. Instead, we have provided the percent of students receiving a competency determination by passing the statewide MCAS test in Math and English/Language Arts and completing all required academic coursework. As we determine a graduation rate calculation and begin implementing it among our districts, we will be able to more accurately report graduation data.

2005 100% (2005-2006)

2006 100% (2006-2007)

2007 100% (2007-2008)

2008 100% (2008-2009)

2009 100% (2009-2010)

2010 100% (2010-2011)

2005 – 2010 Student Information Management System MASSDE staff time (SIMS)

MASSDE will continue to implement student- level data collection procedures through SIMS. MASSDE will review and revise components of SIMS on an on-going basis in order to ensure that data collected are valid, reliable, and timely.

2006 - 2010 Education Personnel Information MASSDE staff time Management System

MASSDE will design, pilot and implement a statewide educator database. The database will collect data at the individual-level and include data on position, certification/ specialization and subject areas of instruction. This data will be used for future reporting of the 618 personnel data (Table 2).

Appendices Appendix A: Description of Selected Cross-Cutting Improvement Activities Many of the MASSDE improvement activities are cross-cutting; they have an impact on multiple indicator areas. The MA SPP Improvement Activity charts for each indicator list the activities that relate to that particular indicator. Below is a more complete description of the cross-cutting activities.

Contents of Appendix A:

 ARRA Title II-D Technology Competitive Grants  Central Massachusetts Communities of Care Positive Behavioral Interventions (PBIS) Grant  Collaboration between MASSDE Curriculum and Instruction Math Office and Special Education Planning and Policy Development Office (SEPP)  Collaboration with Federation for Children with Special Needs  Collaboration with Stakeholders  Community/Residential Education Project  Comprehensive System of Personnel Development Training Project (CSPD)  Curriculum and Instruction Summit  District and School Assistance Centers (DSAC)  Dropout Prevention and Recovery Workgroup  Dropout Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery Website  Educational Proficiency Plans (EPP)  Emergent Literacy Grant  Graduation and Dropout Prevention and Recovery Commission  Inclusive Concurrent Enrollment Partnership Programs for Students with Disabilities  Massachusetts FOCUS Academy  Massachusetts Online Resource Library  National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) Satellite Series  Project FOCUS Academy  Revision of “Is Special Education the Right Service?” (ISERS)  Revision of “Ten Step Guide for Comprehensive Educational Assessment of Students with Visual Impairments”  Secondary School Reading Grant  Secondary Transition - TransitionWorks: Innovative Strategies for Transitioning Youth with Disabilities from School to Work  Sign Language Video Resource Library  SPecial EDition Online Newsletter  Special Education Leadership Academies and Seminars  Special Education Professional Development Summer Institutes  Special Education Program Improvement Grants – Fund Code 274  Special Education Program Improvement Grants – Fund Code 249  Special Education Website  Trauma Sensitive Schools Initiative  Work-Based Learning Plans for Students with Disabilities

ARRA Title II-D Technology Competitive Grants – MASSDE Student Support Services Unit Indicators Impacted: 1, 2

The purpose of this two-year federal grant program is to improve student achievement through the effective use of technology in elementary and secondary schools. This program will support proposals that create robust, technology-infused environments that sustain the following four priority areas.

1. Projects that work collaboratively with MASSDE to create, implement, and evaluate online courses/modules for underserved high school students in alternative education, credit recovery, or credit acceleration programs. Grant recipients may adapt an online course/module or partner with an 100 Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010 Revised February 1, 2010

organization to design and develop the online courses/modules that align with the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks or the Massachusetts High School Program of Studies (MassCore). Products created must be in a format that can be shared with MASSDE, and successful models will be disseminated and used by other districts. 2. Projects that create effective technology-rich environments that support existing tiered-instruction in English language arts and mathematics. The tiered-instruction may include all three levels: core instruction, supplemental instruction, and intensive intervention on any one level. 3. Projects in which the grant recipients will work collaboratively with MASSDE’s partners (e.g., WGBH Teachers' Domain, Verizon Thinkfinity) or other research-based successful models, to: a. design, develop, and implement online professional development; b. mentor participating teachers who are teaching in technology-rich classrooms; c. support participating teachers to reflect and refine their teaching; and d. select promising practices that integrate technology into curriculum and instruction.

4. Projects that use appropriate technology effectively to implement formative, benchmark, and summative (MEPA) assessments, particularly in schools that have high number of English language learners (ELL) students. Central Massachusetts Communities of Care Positive Behavioral Interventions (PBIS) Grant Indicators Impacted: 2, 4, 5

The purpose of this federal grant program is to support the partnership of select school districts in Worcester County with the Central Massachusetts Communities of Care Project (CMCC) for the purpose of developing and implementing PBIS, a tiered system for improving school climate by supporting positive behaviors throughout the school. Schools participating in the grant program will receive PBIS training and associated technical assistance and other resources from the CMCC. CMCC is a provider of care management services for youth with serious emotional disturbance and has two community-based family centers in Worcester County. The priorities of the grant program are to:

 Increase the capacity of school districts in Worcester County to foster positive school climates, support positive behaviors throughout participating schools, and to reduce disruptive behaviors; and  Increase participating schools' ability to identify students, grades 4-8, in need of mental health services, and to respond to the need for intensive support via both internal capacity and community- based specialty providers of coordinated wraparound services.

The goal of the school district-CMCC partnership is to identify at-risk students who are in need of mental health services and to reduce and/or prevent court involvement among students with emotional impairments. Participating districts receive professional development as well as onsite assistance in the development and implementation of the principles of PBIS.

Collaboration between MASSDE Curriculum and Instruction Math Office and Special Education Planning and Policy Development Office (SEPP) Indicators Impacted: 3, 5

With input and guidance from the urban superintendents, the Massachusetts Urban Math Liaisons network (math directors who provide guidance and support around mathematics in Massachusetts public schools) identified the need to better support students with disabilities in Mathematics as a critical priority in the urban districts. In response to this need, the Math Specialist Support meetings will be dedicated to developing a district level collaboration between special educators and math specialist. The learning objectives for this collaboration include:

1. Creating sense-making opportunities regarding the necessity of – and resources for – promoting the belief that students with disabilities can learn rigorous mathematics and deserve a chance to learn high quality and higher order mathematics; 2. Developing an understanding of what contributes to the reasons students with disabilities have difficulties learning mathematics by exploring research findings and listening to experts on the subject; 3. Articulating necessary practices and strategies to support students with mathematics difficulties, and identifying strategic customization of instructional practices; and 101 Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010 Revised February 1, 2010

Identifying district and school structures and supports for students with disabilities learning mathematics, including professional development, coaching, curriculum needs, policy, and time for collaboration.

Collaboration with Federation for Children with Special Needs Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 8, 13

MASSDE has a longstanding relationship with the Federation for Children with Special Needs (FCSN), the Parent Training and Information Center federally funded to provide free information, support, technical assistance and workshops to Massachusetts’ families who have children with disabilities. FCSN provides training, and technical assistance to families throughout Massachusetts on behalf of MASSDE. Training topics include:  Transition from Early Intervention to Special Education  Parent’s Rights  IEPs  The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS)  Transition 101  Understanding My Child’s Learning Style

The FCSN has partnered with MASSDE in the writing and implementation of the State Personnel Development Grant. Through this collaboration, FCSN has provided 3-credit graduate level courses to Massachusetts educators on working with parents, worked on self-guided modules for parents and families on the Successful Transition for Middle and High School Students, is designing alternate version of these modules for special populations such as Spanish speakers, and has provided the opportunity for parent/district collaboration through the A.P.P.L.E. model. Additionally, the FCSN has participated in the state stakeholder input opportunities, in the development of MASSDE technical assistance documents, and has included MASSDE as presenters in the annual Visions of Community conference.

Collaboration with Stakeholders Indicators Impacted: 1-20

Special Education Advisory Council (SAC) – The SAC is a group of parents and professionals charged by federal special education law and the state to provide policy guidance to MASSDE on issues affecting special education and related services for students with disabilities within the Commonwealth. SAC’s responsibilities include:  Advising MASSDE on unmet needs within the state in the education of students with disabilities;  Commenting publicly on proposed rules and regulations involving special education;  Advising MASSDE on the development of evaluations and corrective action plans; and  Assisting in the coordination of services to students with disabilities.

State Special Education Steering Committee – Stakeholders from across disciplines, including parent, educators, administrators, advocates, agency representatives, meet annually as members of the Steering Committee to:  Review baseline and current data (618 data and monitoring data);  Identify areas in need of attention; and  Plan for improvement activities.

Community/Residential Education Project – Massachusetts Department of Developmental Services (MDDS) Indicators Impacted: 5, 13, 14

The Community/ Residential Education Project was developed through an interagency agreement between MASSDE and MDDS. The goal of the project is to facilitate effective transitions from school life to more independent life within the community for students receiving publicly funded special education services who also meet the MDDS eligibility criteria for services. This goal is accomplished by supporting less restrictive, more cost effective residential options, special education services, and community based supports.

The project provides greater flexibility in service delivery based on individual support needs. Supports are provided to participants and their families that are designed to increase the family’s capacity to care for their

102 Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010 Revised February 1, 2010 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 Impacted: 3, 5, 11, 13, 14

The CSPD Training Project was developed as a response to requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education (IDEA) 97. The Act required states to develop a multifaceted approach to personnel development under regulations for CSPD. To fulfill this obligation, the MASSDE’s Special Education Planning and Policy Development Office (SEPP) instituted a series of training activities to supplement ongoing personnel preparation activities provided within school districts and other agencies. The CSPD Training Project consists of three components:

1. Training Modules: SEPP is providing training units to assist school districts and other agencies in providing high quality professional development on special education related topics. The units consist of annotated PowerPoint Presentations and, in some cases, supplemental handouts. Topics presently available include: a. The Massachusetts IEP Process b. A Principal's Role and Special Education in Massachusetts c. Is Special Education the Right Service? d. Transition From Adolescence Into Adulthood in Massachusetts e. The Massachusetts Transition Planning Chart and Effective Transition Planning f. Specific Learning Disabilities: Eligibility Determination under IDEA 2004 2. CSPD Trainers: SEPP has contracted with a limited number of trainers who receive ongoing training on the CSPD Training Modules. CSPD Trainers are made available as much as possible to groups of 50+ individuals in public schools, and approved special education schools. Requests for training for groups larger than 50 people serving multiple districts and/or agencies are given priority. 3. CSPD Districts: The 40 largest districts are invited to send their district's professional development provider to training sessions on the modules. It is an opportunity for participants to impact MASSDE work (including the development of new modules) and network with colleagues.

Curriculum and Instruction Summit Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 8

MASSDE holds annual Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Summits, the purposes of which are to:  share MASSDE resources for strengthening curriculum, instruction and assessment;  identify needs for future development of curriculum resources and technical assistance; and  build capacity of the department, districts and schools through regional partnerships.

Topics from the FFY 2008 Summits include:  Starting Out Right: Preventing and Closing the Achievement Gap  Curriculum Alignment  Online Courses and Resources for Standards-Based Teaching and Learning  Narrowing Achievement Gaps in Reading and Writing  Addressing the Achievement Gap: Parents as Teachers and Partners  Effective Math Instruction for English Language Learners  The Integration of Science and Literacy  The Role of the Arts in Raising Academic Achievement  Tools for Differentiated Curriculum and Instruction  Tiered Instructional Models – Overview (Session I) to Application (Session II)  Implementing a Balanced Assessment System  Supporting Student Achievement in Science and Technology/Engineering  Math Learning Communities in Practice

District and School Assistance Centers (DSAC) – MASSDE Center for School & District Accountability Indicators Impacted: 2, 3, 5, 13

During FFY 2010 MASSDE opened six regionally based DSACs to help identified districts and their schools strategically access and use professional development and targeted assistance to improve instruction and raise achievement for all students. DSACs use a regional approach that leverages the knowledge, skills, and expertise of local educators to address shared needs through an emphasis on expanding district and school capacity for sustained improvement. Focused professional development offerings will be directed at building essential knowledge and skills of educational leaders and teachers in major content areas and for key student groups. The professional development offerings designed to help educators improve the outcomes for students with disabilities include graduate level courses on Universal Design for Learning, Creating Positive Learning Environments, Youth Development and Self-Determination and Transition Planning. Additionally, Math Specialists will focus on helping general and special educators develop the necessary skills to help improve the math skills of students with disabilities.

Dropout Prevention and Recovery Workgroup – MASSDE Urban & Commissioner’s Districts Unit and Secondary Support Services Unit Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 4, 14

This workgroup was created in summer 2008 and is supported by both the Urban and Commissioner’s Districts unit and the Secondary Support Services unit of MASSDE. The workgroup is comprised of 18 urban districts whose combined number of student dropouts represents almost half of the total number of students in the Commonwealth who drop out of school. The group’s focus is to facilitate sharing of promising practices in their districts, and to support district team action planning activities through face-to-face meetings and webinars.

Dropout Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery Website – MASSDE Student Support and Secondary School Services Unit Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 14

Launched in July 2009, this website describes information and resources including an extensive collection of dropout reduction related articles/reports, other websites, dropout data overview information, and descriptions of state activities. New promising practices will be added as they are developed and evaluated.

Educational Proficiency Plans (EPP) – MASSDE Student Support and Secondary School Services Unit Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 13, 14

School districts must develop an EPP for any student in the class of 2010 who does not score at 240 or above on the grade 10 English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests. The EPP identifies the student's strengths and weaknesses, based on MCAS and other assessment results; coursework; grades; and teacher, student, and counselor input; and includes the courses in those subject areas the student is required to take in grades 11 and 12. The EPP requirement is intended to increase the likelihood that students graduating from high school have the requisite skills needed for success in college and a career. The EPP is not intended to promote test preparation or remedial courses for the junior and senior years of high school. Students are encouraged to and supported in taking challenging courses that will better prepare them for postsecondary opportunities. For students with disabilities, MASSDE recommends that the current IEP is reviewed prior to developing the student’s EPP to assist in identifying their strengths and weaknesses in the learning environment.

Emergent Literacy Grant Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 6

The Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) is providing training to educators and parents in the use of research-based, universally-designed technology for developing literacy skills in early learners, especially those with cognitive disabilities, in an inclusive environment. Seventeen school districts that are involved in the Massachusetts Comprehensive System of Personnel Development are currently participating in the "Universally-Designed Technology for Literacy" project. During the three years of the project (2004-2006), it is expected that district capacity for supporting all learners in emergent literacy will be increased through the "trainer-the-trainer" professional development strategies used. For more information, see http://madoe.cast.org/.

Graduation and Dropout Prevention and Recovery Commission – MASSDE Student Support and Secondary School Services Unit Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 14

In August 2008 the Massachusetts State Legislature passed An Act to Improve Dropout Prevention and Reporting of Graduation Rates, which established a Commission to make recommendations in 10 topic areas. The Commission included representatives from a variety of youth-serving state agencies, the state legislature, and community organizations. The Commission’s work was shaped by testimony at three public hearings. The Massachusetts Executive Office of Education (MEOE) released the final Commission report Making the Connection, in October 2009. It includes findings and recommendations in four main areas: 1) new statewide expectations; 2) early identification; 3) effective prevention, interventions, and recovery; and 4) responsive reforms and budget priorities.

Inclusive Concurrent Enrollment Partnership Programs for Students with Disabilities Indicators Impacted: 5, 13, 14

This state-funded pilot grant program is designed to build and expand partnerships between high schools in public school districts and partnering state public institutions of higher education to offer inclusive concurrent enrollment opportunities for students with significant disabilities, ages 18-22, in credit or non-credit courses that include non-disabled students. These partnerships will result in improved systems that better serve students with disabilities and support their college and work success.

The partnership programs are designed to: 1) promote and enhance academic, social, functional, and employment skills and outcomes; 2) provide opportunities for students with severe disabilities to participate with their non-disabled peers in inclusive credit or non-credit courses; and 3) promote participation in the student life of the college community.

As part of the improvement and expansion of these programs, partnerships continue to develop their programs to include individualized community-based integrated employment opportunities that align with participating student career goals and course selection.

Massachusetts FOCUS Academy (MFA) Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14

MFA is a federally funded five-year grant (SPDG) that builds upon the previous successes of Project FOCUS and Project FOCUS Academy (PFA). The grant program provides online professional development opportunities and leadership institutes to educators, families, and other stakeholders on a variety of topics related to instructing students with disabilities, with a particular focus on middle and high schools. Course offerings include Universal Design for Learning, Positive Behavioral Supports, Family Engagement, and Post- Secondary Transition. New courses for FFY2009 include: Differentiated Instruction, Collaborative Teaching Model, and Generalist Transition Courses I and II. The MFA programmatic offerings are research-based, and target areas that impact student outcomes.

Massachusetts Online Resource Library Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14

Designed to provide evidence based practices in professional development, MASSDE/SEPP is developing an online Resource Library to highlight OSEP Funded Technical Assistance and Dissemination Resources and other online resources. The library will include information on the IRIS Center, Access Center: Improving Outcomes for Students K-8, Center for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), National Center on Response to Intervention, the NASDSE Satellite Series. Topics will include, but are not limited to:  Co-Teaching Model  Differentiated Instruction  Transition Planning  Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports  Response to Intervention  Accommodations  Role of the paraprofessional  Supervising the paraprofessional

National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) Satellite Series Indicators Impacted: 2, 3, 5, 6, 13, 14

NASDSE, with support from the Pennsylvania Department of Education and the Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network (PaTTAN), provides the NASDSE Satellite Series. These telecasts bring nationally recognized experts to the state using technology, providing an affordable means of quality personnel development for a variety of stakeholders. Experts provide important information on high-interest topics to an audience that includes state directors of special education, state agency staff, local administrators, teachers, related service providers, higher education faculty, families and other stakeholders. The number of entities participating increased from 43 in 2008-2009 to 100 in 2009-2010.

Topics of telecasts, made available in three ways (satellite signal, computer media stream, recorded video) have included:  News You Can Use: Resources and Supports for Students with Autism and their Families;  Partners in Progress: Youth/Young Adult Leaders for Systems Change;  From Computers to Classrooms: Tackling Bullying in Today’s Schools;  Understanding the Big Picture: Federal Policy and its Impact on the Classroom;  Seclusion and Restraint: The Impact of Federal and State Policy on the Classroom; and  Healthy, Physically Fit and Ready for Action: Addressing the Physical Education and Activity Needs of Individuals with Disabilities

Project FOCUS Academy Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14

In the fall of 2004, MASSDE was awarded a three-year U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) funded State Improvement Grant (SIG) - Project FOCUS Academy (PFA). Project FOCUS Academy was designed to develop professional development programs to help students with disabilities build sound career goals and learn skills to ensure successful post-secondary outcomes. As part of the SIG, MASSDE works with educators from selected high schools. The design of the project requires study groups from high schools to participate in face-to-face and distance-learning professional development opportunities in the areas of:  Transition/Post-Secondary Outcomes;  School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports;  Universal Design for Learning; and  Family Participation.

The distance-learning model is provided through MASSDE's Massachusetts Online Network for Education (MassONE). Three courses in each content area are offered over a two year period. Building on this coursework, participants from the nine participating high schools are involved in Implementation Year activities in FFY 2007 ranging from using new techniques in classrooms to teaching other high school staff about each of the three content areas. 106 Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010 Revised February 1, 2010

Revision of “Is Special Education the Right Service?” (ISERS) Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 6, 10

The ISERS document offers guidance for practitioners and parents on how to:  Identify students with disabilities;  Be knowledgeable of updated regulations and characteristics of disabilities;  Define appropriate services and interventions; and  Ensure a responsive general education environment for all students.

The first stage of the revision began in March, 2009 with the reconvening of the Disability Workgroups composed of experts in each of the areas of disability to review the current document for accuracy and relevance in light of new research and current practices. The revision process will continue in FFY 2009.

Revision of “Ten Step Guide for Comprehensive Educational Assessment of Students with Visual Impairments” Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 6, 11, 13

The “Ten Step Guide” 1) recommends types of assessments that will be useful in making a determination of eligibility for a student with a visual impairment for the initial eligibility determination or three-year reevaluation; 2) helps to ensure a common understanding of the purpose and complexity of conducting the specialized educational assessment of students with visual impairments; and 3) provides resources to help educators meet the unique needs of students with visual impairments and to prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living.

Members of the Vision Impairment Disability Workgroup, working with other experts in the fields of diagnosis, treatment, education and training of students with visual impairments, have collaborated to revise the “Ten Step Guide” to reflect updated regulatory information and include best practices. The revision includes a new section describing the “hidden” characteristics of a vision loss that affect academic and social factors. Understanding these characteristics will enable non-vision specialists to facilitate meaningful inclusion and participation of students with visual impairments throughout the school day. The Workgroup also recommended a name change for the next edition of the document to, “Guidelines for the Specialized Assessment of Students with Visual Impairments.” The revised document will include updated information, and will be re-formatted for use as a web-based resource.

Secondary School Reading Grant Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 5, 14 The Secondary School Reading grant program selects middle schools, high schools and vocational schools to receive four years of funding to develop and implement a school wide approach to improving reading achievement. Generally, each school receives between $8,000 and $10,000 per year. The first year of the grant is focused on self-assessment and program planning. The remaining three years are for action planning and implementation. The program has been in place for six years and has provided funding for more than 100 schools in four cohorts. For the first four years, all schools were eligible to compete for the grant. In the past two years, eligibility has been limited to schools that are considered high-need based on poor MCAS performance or unusually large special education populations. School wide approaches must include:  involvement of and training for all professional and paraprofessional staff;  reading across content areas;  multiple targeted intervention programs for struggling readers;  adequate time for reading instruction;  assessment that drives instruction;  a variety of flexible grouping patterns; and  leadership structures that provide ongoing support and guidance. Funded districts must have an identified district coordinator and develop a cross-sectional Reading Leadership Team in each participating school. Members of the leadership teams attend MASSDE-sponsored professional development events about three times per year to discuss current research on adolescent literacy and share their efforts to improve adolescent literacy achievement. Members of each school’s Leadership Team, which consists of a cross-section of staff, including representatives from all content areas and special programs, attends these meetings.

Secondary Transition - TransitionWorks: Innovative Strategies for Transitioning Youth with Disabilities from School to Work – Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission (MRC) 5 Year Federal Grant Indicators Impacted: – 1, 2, 13,14

TransitionWorks: Innovative Strategies for Transitioning Youth with Disabilities from School to Work is a five- year grant from the U.S. Department of Education awarded to MRC to support transitioning youth with disabilities from school to work. The program focuses on aligning existing services and developing innovative practices in Boston, Springfield and Worcester. As part of this initiative vocational rehabilitation counselors are partnering with local school districts to support youth with disabilities in their transitions from school to work, post-secondary education, and independent living. MASSDE, the Federation for Children with Special Needs, Urban Pride, Commonwealth Corporation, and the Institute for Community Inclusion are partnering with MRC to implement the grant activities.

Sign Language Video Resource Library Indicators Impacted: 3, 5

The purpose of this library project is to develop mathematics and science/technology vocabulary reference tools that educational interpreters and teachers of students who are deaf or hard-of-hearing may incorporate into their instruction. Available technical assistance will include written guides and DVDs. The design of the tool will be user-friendly and promote ready access for end users. In addition, under this project, MASSDE continues to provide a cost-free institute for educational interpreters to improve participants’ sign vocabulary in mathematics and science/technology content areas for grades 7-12.

SPecial EDition Online Newsletter Indicators Impacted: 1-20

The purpose of this newsletter is to provide school districts with on-going technical assistance and to prompt dialogue within, among, and between districts and MASSDE. Each issue of SPecial EDition will be organized around a State Performance Plan (SPP) indicator, and will spotlight particular strategies and best practices districts can use to meet and exceed indicator targets. The newsletter will also incorporate information from National Technical Assistance and Dissemination Centers (NTADC) and other resources to support strategy implementation.

Special Education Leadership Academies and Seminars Indicators Impacted: 3, 5, 8, 11

As part of the Special Education Summer Institute, MASSDE annually provides two Special Education Leadership Academies. The academies provide opportunities for school district special education administrators to develop new leadership skills and to improve current skills. Academy I is open to administrators who have 1-5 years of experience, and Academy II is for administrators with more than 5 years of experience. Both Academies provide professional development to administrators on the following areas:  Effective Leadership in the areas of state and federal laws and regulations;  Fiscal Administration;  Data Collection and Analysis;  Staff Recruitment and Retention;  Instructional Program Design and Improvement; and  Access to the general curriculum based on the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks.

MASSDE sponsored ongoing leadership seminars for former participants of the Leadership Academies where participants reconnect and network with their Academy colleagues and share effective practices, policies, strategies, or products with one another.

Special Education Professional Development Summer Institutes Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14

The Special Education Summer Institutes are statewide professional development opportunities provided free of change to special education professionals. Sponsored by MASSDE in partnership with school districts, educational collaboratives, institutions of higher education, and professional associations, the institutes are designed to support approved private special education schools, educational collaboratives, and local school districts’ efforts to increase the quality of programs and services provided to students with disabilities and increase the number of highly qualified educators working in the field of special education. Additionally, SEPP collaborates with the MASSDE office of Curriculum and Instruction to provide professional development institutes in specific curriculum content areas.

Current and future topics in Special Education Institutes include:  Access to Print: A Framework for All Learners  Assessing English Language Learners (ELL) with Disabilities  Effective Evaluation of Special Education Programs  Language and Expository Discourse  Managing Behavior in an Inclusive Classroom  Mathematics and/or Science and Technology: American Sign Language (ASL) and Other Signed Systems  Occupational Therapy Services in Educational Settings  Strategies for Students with Sensory Integration Dysfunction in an Inclusive Classroom  Sustaining Braille Proficiency of Licensed Teachers of Students with Visual Impairments  Topics in Teaching Literacy to Students who are Deaf of Hard-of-hearing  Special Education Professional Development Seminar for Educators of Students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing

Special Education Program Improvement Grants – Fund Code 274 Indicators Impacted: 3, 4, 5, 11

The purpose of this grant program is to fund professional development activities to improve the skills and capacity of educators to meet the diverse needs of students with disabilities. Fund Code 274 is available to all public school districts and educational collaboratives (during FFY 2005 – FFY 2007). For FFY 2006 and FFY 2007, the priorities for Fund Code 274 are:  Priority 1 - Enhancing Induction and Mentoring Programs (required)  Priority 2a - Serving Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders in Inclusive Settings  Priority 2b - Curriculum Development, Instruction, and Classroom Assessment  Priority 2c - Meeting the Behavioral and Social Needs of a Diverse Student Population  Priority 3 - Recruitment and/or Additional Professional Development Needs as Identified by the District or Educational Collaborative (10% max could be used for this priority)

Almost every school district in the state will utilize Fund Code 274 funds, and participate in regional professional development conferences designed to support the priorities of the grant.

Special Education Program Improvement Grants – Fund Code 249 Indicators Impacted: 3, 4, 5, 13

The purpose of this grant program is to fund professional development activities that will help to improve the skills and capacity of educators to meet the diverse needs of students with disabilities. Its priorities are to enhance program-based induction, mentoring, and retention programs and to advance the skills of educators through professional development activities. Fund Code 249 is available to all approved private special education schools. Priorities for FFY 2006 and FFY 2007 are:  Induction/Mentoring; and  Curriculum Development, Instruction, and Classroom Assessment.

FFY 2008 priorities are:

 Educator Quality and Effectiveness: Induction, Mentoring, and Retention;  Supporting Schools and Students: Curriculum Development, Instructional Practices, and Classroom Assessment; and  College and Career Readiness: Secondary Transition Planning.

All funded programs must be effective, sustained, and intensive in order to have a positive and lasting positive influence on classroom instruction and outcomes for students with disabilities.

Special Education Website Indicators Impacted: 1-20

The Special Education section of MASSDE’s website provides a variety of tools, news items, and resources to districts, parents, and other stakeholders: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/. Some of the most visited sections of the website are:  Headlines: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/  Contact Us – Opportunity for external customers to request information/ask questions: [email protected]  Grants: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/grants.html  Training: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/training.html  Forms and Notices: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/iep/  Special Education Program Plan: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/programplan/  Special Education Data: http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/special_ed.aspx

Trauma Sensitive Schools Initiative – MASSDE Student Support Services Unit Indicators Impacted: 1, 2, 4

This MASSDE initiative focuses on the needs of students who have experienced or witnessed trauma by assisting with reducing the barriers that may affect academic performance, classroom behavior, and relationships that result from trauma. MASSDE is working to bring “trauma sensitive” practices to schools across the state through annual trainings and technical assistance that incorporate best practices and strategies for creating a safe supportive school environment where all students can learn and where students are held to high expectations.

Work-Based Learning Plans (WBLP) for Students with Disabilities – MASSDE Student Support, Career & Education Services Indicators Impacted: 2, 13, 14

The Massachusetts WBLP is a diagnostic, goal-setting and assessment tool designed to drive student learning and productivity on the job. It was developed by the MASSDE through an interagency collaboration of employers, educators, and workforce development professionals. Through work-based learning experiences, students have an opportunity to learn about various career areas and try different work styles, find out what type of work they enjoy, find out how they learn best in a workplace setting, and find out what natural supports are available. Students learn and practice basic foundation skills and begin to develop life- long career skills.

Beginning in March 2009, SEPP collaborated with the MASSDE Connecting Activities Office to develop a one page guidance document called Using the Massachusetts Work-Based Learning Plan In Transition Planning Activities for Students with Disabilities and to enhance the WBLP Scoring Rubric. The document is intended to: encourage the inclusion of students with disabilities in WBLP programs; be used as an option for individual student transition planning; and support educators, employers, Connecting Activities field staff, Workforce Investment Boards, One Stop Career Centers and Local School-to-Career Partnerships in the implementation of quality work-based learning for students with disabilities. The WBLP scoring rubric is a student performance evaluation guide that facilitates employer assessment of participating students’ WBLP Foundation Skills.

Through this collaboration, MASSDE also created the Work Experience and Transition Activities resource webpage. This resource lists resources, including websites, articles, and program materials, to assist in planning the work experiences and developing WBLPs for students with disabilities.

110 Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010 Revised February 1, 2007 Appendix B: Massachusetts Parent Survey for Special Education for Indicator #8  This is a survey for parents of students receiving special education services. Your responses will help guide efforts to improve services and results for children and families. (Note: If you have more than one child currently receiving special education services, you may choose to submit one or more surveys, based upon your experiences as related to your children.)  For each statement below, please select one of the following response choices: very strongly disagree (VSD), strongly disagree (SD), disagree (D), agree (A), strongly agree (SA), very strongly agree (VSA). You may skip any item that you feel does not apply to you or your child.

Appendix B: MA Parent Survey for Indicator #8 Disagree Agree Schools' Efforts to Partner with Parents VSD SD D A SA VSA 1. I am considered an equal partner with teachers and other professionals in planning my child's program.

2. I was offered special assistance (such as child care) so that I could participate in the Individualized Educational Program (IEP) meeting.

3. At the IEP meeting, we discussed how my child would participate in statewide assessments.

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

5. All of my concerns and recommendations were documented on the IEP.

6. Teachers and administrators at my child’s school invite me to share my knowledge and experience with school personnel.

7. I was given information about organizations that offer support for parents of students with disabilities.

8. I have been asked for my opinion about how well special education services are meeting my child's needs.

9. My child's evaluation report is written in terms I understand.

10. IEP meetings are scheduled at a time and place that are convenient for me.

11. Teachers are available to speak with me.

12. Teachers treat me as a team member.

13. I feel I can disagree with my child’s special education program or services without negative consequences for me or my child. Teachers and administrators: VSD SD D A SA VSA 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.

The school: VSD SD D A SA VSA 18. - has a person on staff who is available to answer parents' questions.

19. - communicates regularly with me regarding my child's progress on IEP goals.

20. - gives me choices with regard to services that address my child's needs.

21. - offers parents training about special education issues.

22. - offers parents a variety of ways to communicate with teachers.

23. - gives parents the help they may need to play an active role in their child's education.

24. - provides information on agencies that can assist my child in the transition from school.

25. - explains what options parents have if they disagree with a decision of the school.

Demographic Information

26. Number of years child has received special 29. Child’s school level education services  Elementary School  Less than 1 year  Middle School  1-3 years  High School  4-7 years  More than 7 years 30. Child’s Primary Disability (check one)

27. Child’s race/ethnicity  Autism  White  Communication Impairment  Black or African-American  Deaf-Blind Impairment  Hispanic or Latino  Developmental Delay  Asian or Pacific Islander  Emotional Impairment  American Indian or Alaskan Native  Health Impairment  Multi-racial  Hearing Impairment  Intellectual Impairment 28. Language spoken in the home  Multiple Disabilities  English  Neurological Impairment  Spanish  Physical Impairment  Portuguese  Specific Learning Disability  Chinese  Vision Impairment  Creole/Haitian  Vietnamese  Other ______

Thank you for participating.

Appendix C: Massachusetts Post-School Outcomes Survey for Indicator #14

Appendix C: MA Post-School Outcomes Survey for Indicator #14 School District: Student Name: SASID: Date of Exit from School (mm/yyyy): Gender: - Male - Female

Question 1: What is your educational status since leaving high school? - CURRENTLY ATTENDING college, community college, or a technical school - NOT CURRENTLY ATTENDING, but have attended college, community college, or a technical school at some time since leaving high school - HAVE NOT ATTENDED college, community college, or a technical school at any time since leaving high school (Skip Questions 2 and 3. Go to Question 4.)

Question 2: If you have attended college, community college, or a technical school at any time since leaving high school, check your enrollment status. - Full-time student enrolled in a degree program - Part-time student enrolled in a degree program - Not enrolled in a degree program, but taking college-level courses

Question 3: If you have attended college, community college, or a technical school at any time since leaving high school, check the type of program. - 4-year college or university - 2- year college or university - Technical or vocational school - Other. Please describe:

Question 4: What is your current employment status? - Employed – in the competitive job market, including self-employment - Full-Time Military Service - Supported Employment – job placement with ongoing support from a job coach or agency - Unemployed - not employed but looking for employment - Not in the Labor Force - not employed and not looking for employment

Question 5: If you are NOT CURRENTLY employed, have you been employed at any time since leaving high school? - Yes - No

Question 6: If you have been employed at any time since leaving high school, check whether you were working full-time or part-time in your most recent job. - Full-time – 35 or more hours per week, including summer employment - Part-time – less than 35 hours per week, including summer employment - Not employed since leaving high school

Thank you for participating in this survey. If you have any questions, please call ______. If you are returning this survey by mail, send it to: ______.

113 Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010 Submitted December 1, 2005

Appendix D: Correction of Noncompliance Data

SE SE Criteria Topic 2001-02 CPR Findings of Percent of Criteria # findings of noncompliance Noncompliance noncompliance identified at the CPR Corrected and and no longer present Sustained at the 2004-05 MCR

1 Assessment selection 11 5 45% 2 Req/opt. Assmt. 16 8 50% 3 SLD 15 9 60% 4 Assessment Reports 4 3 75% 5 Participation State/local 4 4 100% assessments 6 Determination of 11 6 55% Transition 7 Age of Majority 9 7 78% 8 Team composition 18 16 89% 9 Eligibility deter. Timelines 21 14 67% 10 End of school year 4 4 100% evals 11 Independent Evals 7 6 86% 12 Frequency Re-evals 12 10 83% 13 Progress Rpts. 23 9 39% 14 Annual meeting 9 8 89% 15 Child find 3 3 100% 16 Screening 0 0 N/A 17 Services at 3 3 0 0% 18A IEP dev/content 21 7 33% 18B Placement deter. 16 8 50% 19 Extended Eval 6 6 100% 20 LRE 12 9 75% 21 SD/SY req. 5 1 20% 22 IEP implem/avail 11 8 73% 23 Confidentiality of student 5 4 80% records 24 Notice to parent 17 11 65% 25 Parent consent 14 8 57% 26 Parent partic. 6 5 83% 27 Team notice 9 8 89% 28 IEP or nsn to parents 11 7 64% 29 Communication in home 13 7 54% lang. 30 Parents rights 2 2 100% 31 Educational Surrogate 1 0 0% parents 32 PAC 19 11 58% 33 Involvement in the gen 3 3 100% curric. 34 Continuum of 12 8 67% placement/services 35 Specialized mater. Assit. 2 2 100% Tech

114 Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010 Submitted December 1, 2005

SE SE Criteria Topic 2001-02 CPR Findings of Percent of Criteria # findings of noncompliance Noncompliance noncompliance identified at the CPR Corrected and and no longer present Sustained at the 2004-05 MCR

36 IEP implem, acct, finan 8 8 100% respon 37 Out of district 8 8 100% policies/procedures 38 ESIS 2 2 100% 39 Private school at private 2 1 50% expen. 40 Grouping req. 8 6 75% 41 Age span 9 6 67% 42 Programs for 3 & 4 year 5 4 80% olds 43 Behavioral interventions. 12 7 58% 44 Record suspensions 9 6 67% 45 Suspen upto and greater 6 6 100% than 10 46 Suspen greater than 10 9 8 89% 47 Disci[pline not yet sped 3 3 100% 48 FAPE 7 5 71% 49 Related services 12 6 50% 49A Transportation 2 2 100% 50 Responsibilityprincipal/spe 20 13 65% d dir 51 Teacher cert. 3 3 100% 52 Related service providers 2 2 100% credentials 53 Paraprofessionals 11 11 100% 54 Professional devel SPED 23 16 70% 55 Facilities 14 9 64% 56 Program evaluation 23 14 61% 57 Child count 7 7 100% 58 Entitlement grant 0 0 N/A TOTALS 560 380 68%

115 Massachusetts Part B State Performance Plan (MA SPP) for FFY 2005-2010 Revised April 11, 2006

Appendix E: Attachment 1 – Report of Dispute Resolution for FFY 2004

Report of Dispute Resolution Under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Complaints, Mediations, Resolution Sessions, and Due Process Hearings

SECTION A: Signed, written complaints

(1) Signed, written complaints total 412

(1.1) Complaints with reports issued 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

(2) Mediation requests total 660

(2.1) Mediations

(a) Mediations related to due process 58

(i) Mediation agreements 48

(b) Mediations not related to due process 602

(i) Mediation agreements 519

(2.2) Mediations not held (including pending) 0

SECTION C: Hearing requests

(3) Hearing requests total 768

(3.1) Resolution sessions NA*

(a) Settlement agreements NA*

(3.2) Hearings (fully adjudicated) 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.

Appendix F: Indicator #20 Scoring Rubric

APR Data APR Valid and Followed Indicator Reliable Data Correct Calculation Instructions Total 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 3A 1 1 1 3 3B 1 1 1 3 3C 1 1 1 3 4A 1 1 1 3 5 1 1 1 3 7 1 1 1 3 8 1 1 1 3 9 1 1 1 3 10 1 1 1 3 11 1 1 1 3 12 1 1 1 3 13 1 1 1 3 14 1 1 1 3 15 1 1 1 3 16 1 1 1 3 17 1 1 1 3 18 1 1 1 3 19 1 1 1 3 Subtotal 58 APR Score Calculation Timely Submission Points - If the FFY 2006 APR was submitted on-time, place the number 5 in the cell on the right. 5 Grand Total (Sum of subtotal and Timely Submission Points) = 63

618 State-Reported Data

Responded to Passed Data Note Complete Edit Requests Table Timely Data Check Total Table 1– 0 0 0 0 0 Child Count Due Date: 2/1/07 Table 2- 0 0 0 0 0 Personnel Due Date: 11/1/07 Table 3– Ed. 0 0 0 0 0 Environments Due Date: 2/1/07 Table 4– 0 0 0 0 0 Exiting Due Date: 11/1/07 Table 5- 0 0 0 0 0 Discipline Due Date: 11/1/07 Table 6- State 0 0 0 0 0 Assessment Due Date: 2/1/08 Subtotal 0 618 Score Calculation Grand Total (Subtotal x 2) 0 =

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%

* Note: Any cells mark with a N/A will decrease the denominator by 1 for APR and 2 for 618 data.

Definitions

Timely – All data for the APR are submitted on or before February 1, 2008. Data for tables for 618 are submitted on or before each tables’ due date. NO extensions.

Valid and Reliable Data - Data provided are from the correct time period, are consistent with 618 (when appropriate) and the measurement, and are consistent with previous indicator data (unless explained).

Correct Calculation - Result produced follows the required calculation in the instructions for the indicator.

Instructions Followed - APR provides information required in the instructions for the indicator. For example, when required, explanation provided, raw data and/or definitions given, or response provided to previous OSEP APR analysis.

Complete Data – No missing sections. No placeholder data. Data submitted from all districts or agencies. For example, when the instructions for an indicator require data broken down into subparts, data for all subparts are provided.

Passed Edit Check - Tables submitted to Westat do not have missing cells or internal inconsistencies. (See https://www.ideadata.org/TAMaterial.asp regarding Westat edit checks.)

Responded to Data Note Requested - Provided written explanation to Westat in response to data note requests.