The war is raging over the rights of students with disabilities to equal opportunity under the law. Our Massachusetts House of Representatives has passed outside language to the next state budget that will significantly reduce our state's standard of services for students with disabilities. For 25 years, Massachusetts has been guided by our state special education law that requires our schools to "assure the maximum possible development in the least restrictive environment of a child with special needs." Since the David D. vs. Dartmouth case in 1985, the courts have enforced this standard as the legal standard of the Commonwealth for students with disabilities. (It is interesting to note that helping all children achieve their maximum possible development is the very same language used in the preamble to the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993).

Now, after many unsuccessful attempts, the state has taken two significant steps to reduce this standard. First, the Board of Education removed this language from the new special education regulations passed on March 28, 2000. Second, the House, through outside budget language, voted to move to the lesser federal standard known as "free and appropriate education."

This move should not surprise or shock any of us, as it has been the goal of our political leadership for the past several years. In January 1998 (according to the Sharon Advocate), Governor Cellucci declared war on special education following an 18-month legislative commissioned study on this issue. Near the same time, House Speaker Thomas Finneran blamed the "state's special ed law for allowing overly aggressive and pushy parents" to drive up school budgets. He further stated, "The days of riding the gilded Cadillac . . . are over."

The recently released McKinsey Report indicates that changing the standard will save some money, but not very much. The long-term cost of reducing the quality of education for students with disabilities cannot be fully calculated.

Recently a mother wrote and said this: "My own daughter, who is now 32, benefited greatly by the maximum feasible benefit standard and as a result is now employed as a clerk with a prominent accounting firm. When she was 13 years old, the school district took the position that it was a waste of time to continue to teach her how to read and stressed that basic survival skills should be taught in place of academic skills. Their position was based on their belief that a student with an I.Q. of less than 50 would never be able to learn to read. Thanks to our maximum feasible benefit standard, I was able to prevail in this dispute with the school. The school continued to offer reading instruction and today she reads and writes in cursive at a 3rd-grade level. Had I allowed the school to drop the reading from her IEP, she would not be employed today. How much more expensive it would be for the Commonwealth if my daughter had not learned to read!"

Thanks to the high standard, this student's life options have been greatly enhanced by her ability to read. She is now a taxpayer and requires very few services from the State Department of Mental Retardation. It is sad and ironic that, as we celebrate this kind of progress, we must fight desperately to protect the rights of all our students to reach their full potential. As this success story illustrates, we have taken two steps forward. If the threatened changes go through, we'll have taken a huge step back.

We in Massachusetts should be proud of our accomplishments. We were first in the nation to raise these expectations, the rest followed. To move to the lower federal standard is a giant step backwards.

Back to Top
Return to Executive Director Page