The Massachusetts legislature has finally succeeded in undoing "Maximum Feasible Benefit." After many years of strong advocacy to keep these key words and their promise of a high quality-education as part of our state special education law, kids with disabilities and their parents have been dealt a huge blow. People are constantly asking, "What difference will this really mean?" One way to begin is to think about the law and the court decisions that originally gave these words their meaning. Our state law has said that we must educate students with disabilities to enable them to reach their maximum potential development. The federal law was interpreted by the courts to say that a school must assist a student with disabilities in making "some measureable progress." In other words, our long-standing reputation in Massachusetts as leaders in special education has been because we have insisted on doing our best--for even the most vulnerable students.

Maximum development is not only for students with disabilities. It is interesting to note that the preamble of the Massachusetts Education Reform Act (MERA) passed in 1993 calls for all students to be educated to reach their greatest potential. MERA has established high expectations and performance standards for all students. In fact, high quality education as described in MERA specifies that all children-and this law does specifically include students with disabilities--should learn and grow to fulfill their maximum potential!

One Example:
As a way to measure progress toward meeting those high expectations and standards, MERA and IDEA now insist that all students--those with disabilities included--participate in the statewide large-scale testing system known as MCAS. In 2001, all students will be required to pass the MCAS test in order to graduate. We know that 96% of the students with disabilities who took MCAS last year scored either in the failing or needs-improvement categories. MERA promises extra help and support to students in danger of failing to pass MCAS.

So, ironically, the repeal of the Maximum Feasible Benefit standard from our state special education law could mean the reduction of the level of services and supports provided to students. At the same time, the implementation of high-stakes testing means more students with disabilities need more supports and services to get over the graduation "bar." These two policies are on a collision course, and vulnerable students with disabilities are truly paying the price.*

No one knows for sure what the long-term impact of this change is going to mean for individual children. Will it save money? Most agree it will save little or none. Will it improve the quality of education? Lowering the standard of services and reducing educational supports in this era of high performance education is completely illogical and counterproductive.

High quality education as described in the education reform law is an obligation our whole society shares for all of our children, even the most vulnerable.

* Ironically, in spite of maximum feasible benefit's promise of a high quality education for children with disabilities in Massachusetts, a recent federal report highlights the tremendous gap between the 25-year old promise and the reality. The U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs visited Massachusetts and found our state to be in non-compliance with the implementation and monitoring of the federal law. That means that Massachusetts has yet to rise even to the level of providing the lower federal standard.

Back to Top
Return to Executive Director Page