The attached report contains the results of the first two steps (Validation Planning and Validation Data Collection) in the Office of Special Education Program’s (OSEP) Continuous Improvement Monitoring of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Parts B and C, in the State of Massachusetts during the weeks of November 30 and February 22, 1999 and April 6-8,1999. The process is designed to focus resources on improving results for infants, toddlers and children with disabilities and their families through enhanced partnerships between the State agencies, OSEP, parents and advocates. The Validation Planning phase of the monitoring process included a series of public input meetings with guided discussions around core areas of IDEA and the organization of the Steering Committees that provided further comments on the status of implementation of IDEA. As part of the public input process, OSEP and the State made efforts to include multi-cultural and underrepresented populations. The Validation Data Collection phase included interviews with parents, agency administrators, local program and school administrators, service providers, teachers and service coordinators, and reviews of children’s records. Information obtained from these data sources was shared in a meeting attended by staff from the Massachusetts Department of Education, The Massachusetts Department of Public Health, members of the State Interagency Coordinating Council and members of the Steering Committees.

The Report includes a detailed description of the process utilized to collect data, and to determine strengths, areas of non-compliance with IDEA, and suggestions for improved results for children. During the time OSEP conducted the Validation Planning and Data Collection phases of the monitoring process, the regulations implementing the 1997 statute had not been finalized. Therefore, in the Report and where appropriate, the phrase "in effect at the time" is used to show, for Part B, the section(s) cited from the IDEA 1992 regulation that the State was mandated to meet for Federal compliance standards.

Strengths

OSEP observed the following strengths:

• Effective use of funding to provide expanded services to infants and toddlers who are at-risk for developmental disabilities.
• Early identification and linkage of infants and toddlers and their families to services and a client-based referral data system.
• Leadership by DPH to affect system change so that all early intervention services are provided in natural environments.
• Parent participation in service delivery at the local and State level.
• Interagency collaboration to ensure continuous services and community supports.

OSEP provides the following suggestions for improved results for infants and toddlers with disabilities:

• Monitoring to ensure consistent implementation of Part C requirements across the State.
• Identification of child’s and family’s typical routines and daily schedules to support decision-making on service location within neighborhoods and communities.
• Training activities to support and build upon service delivery models that use family and community life as sources of learning opportunities for infants and toddlers with developmental disabilities and their families.
• For transition activities, staff training and guidance in community options for children at age three who do not qualify for special education services.
• Parent training in differences between Part C and Part B system requirements and procedures.

OSEP observed the following area of non-compliance:

• Lack of justification for the provision of some early intervention services in settings other than natural environments.

Strengths

OSEP observed the following strengths:

• MASSDE's linkage with the Federation for Children with Special Needs to facilitate improved parent involvement in special education.

OSEP provides the following suggestions for improved results for children with disabilities:

• A renewed emphasis on building partnerships and cooperation between parents and the educational community.
• Heightened efforts to facilitate the participation of non-English speaking parents in special education.
• Consideration for providing continuity in children's programs in districts that utilize "school choice."
• Addressing challenges to ensure that children with disabilities are given appropriate supports in the State-wide assessment.

OSEP observed the following areas of non-compliance:

• Denial of right for parents to participate in the decision-making process regarding their children.
• An IEP development process that results in delays in services and in children with disabilities not receiving services agreed to in IEP meetings.
• Psychological counseling was not always provided as a part of a free appropriate public education when needed to enable children with disabilities to benefit from special education.
• Extended school year services were not always available.
• Children with disabilities placed in substantially separate educational environments did not have opportunities for participation with nondisabled children in nonacademic and extracurricular and to be involved and progress in the general education program.
• The lack of opportunity for children with disabilities to be involved and progress in the general curriculum.
• The lack of opportunity for involvement of children with disabilities in regular vocational education programs with appropriate supports as determined by an IEP team.
• Outcome oriented statements of transition services for students with disabilities who are 16 or older were missing.
• Districts did not have a method for ensuring that outside agencies, likely to be providing or paying for post-school activities, are invited to the IEP meeting and that there is a method for obtaining their input if they do not attend.
• Students with disabilities were not always invited to meetings if transition planning is a purpose of the meeting.
• IEPs did not always include a statement of transition service course of study for students with disabilities beginning at age 14.
• MASSDE did not have effective methods for identifying and correcting deficiencies in programs providing services to children with disabilities.
• MASSDE did not have an effective system for resolving complaints regarding violations of Part B.
• MASSDE did not ensure that children with disabilities, receiving services through charter schools, receive a free appropriate public education.