Kenneth R. Warlick, Director
Office of Special Education Programs
U.S. Department of Education
600 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C.  20202

Dear Dr. Warlick:

I write to acknowledge receipt of the recent monitoring report (“the OSEP report”), received in this office on June 21, 2000, reflecting OSEP’s findings on Massachusetts’ practices in special education during 1998-99.  I am pleased with the positive report on the activities in relation to Part C of the Act.  However, I am concerned at the negative tone of the report in relation to Part B of the Act.

While I realize there is no formal response required and I recognize this document is your final report, I am providing the Massachusetts Department of Education’s (MASSDE’s) response in the interests of future reports and to set the record straight.  Further, I request that OSEP post MASSDE’s response on its website along with the OSEP report, and provide a copy of MASSDE’s response to all constituents requesting the OSEP report.

We do not use this response to dispute the majority of the specific examples in the OSEP report; nor do we dispute that the areas the report identifies are areas that need “attention.”  We do, however, dispute that the “attention” needed constitutes “systemic non-compliance.”

Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process
We strongly support the concept of a “continuous improvement monitoring process.”  In this regard, an effective approach is to identify areas where the state is engaged in “systemic and sustained improvement,” acknowledge sustained improvement action remains necessary, and recommend continued effort in these areas.  This approach would more accurately reflect a true partnership of working together in an ongoing manner to achieve positive results for students and their families.

I do not believe it is helpful or in the spirit of partnership to provide verbal commendations at an exit conference and then to not include these commendations in the final written report.  For example, in a closing interview on February 26, 1999, OSEP staff verbally commended MASSDE for a number of key activities.  However, the OSEP report issued on June 21, 2000, while acknowledging systemic and sustained improvement, continues to cite “non-compliance” in these same areas.

On February 26, 1999, OSEP staff verbally commended MASSDE at the closing interview for bringing its complaint management system to acceptable compliance levels, and also for the detail and comprehensiveness of the computerized tracking system that we have developed. OSEP staff indicated that MASSDE would receive commendations for our improvements in monitoring frequency, formalization of a follow-up monitoring system, clear procedures, evidence of enforcement action taken in public and private schools serving disabled students, for the increase in the number of our monitoring staff, and the supervision and training that staff received.  We were told that we would receive commendations as well for our appeals and mediation processes.  All of these comments were made publicly to our Steering Committee and Department staff.  The final report, however, makes only one finding of “commendable” activity in Part B, mentions our monitoring activities only within the context of finding us non-compliant, and does not mention our appeals or mediation program at all.

Issuance of Report/Interim Activities
It is important to note that well over a full year passed from the onsite monitoring activity to the issuance of this report.  Given that long period, I believe that OSEP should acknowledge in the final report activities that have taken place in the interim, rather than simply acknowledging these activities later through the development of an Improvement Plan.  I believe the public impact of the OSEP report completely overshadows the positive results
that have occurred and will occur in the future.

For instance, in this past year, MASSDE significantly revised its state regulations for special education.  This was an historic effort that represents comprehensive reform in special education for the first time in 25 years.  Also, we have developed an IEP form and process that strongly engages Team members in discussion on access to the general curriculum.  Our activities are based on our state-level commitment and ongoing initiation of improvement activities, and not as a result of findings of non-compliance.  Massachusetts takes pride in being among the first in the nation to pass a comprehensive special education law and we value our leadership in this area.

Corrections
There are two specific corrections to make to the contents of the report.  First, we dispute your finding that MASSDE does not have an effective complaint management system. (p.39) and your assertion that 14% of complaints are not closed within the 60 day timeline.  On February 24, 1999, MASSDE provided OSEP with the most recent data on complaint investigations. Data were provided to OSEP for all complaints received between July 1, 1998 and February 24, 1999.  The data provided showed that of the 140 special education complaints received during that period, all but 8 received a letter of closure within 60 days indicating resolution of the complaint, a letter of finding, or a letter extending the investigation beyond 60 days due to exceptional circumstances.  The eight that did not meet the federal standard as of the end of the 60-day period represents only 5.6% of the 140 complaints we received and processed during this period.  We note that 5.6% is in direct contrast to the OSEP report finding that 14% of complaints were not closed within 60 days.

Second, we dispute the finding on p.37 of the report asserting that MASSDE does not have effective methods for identifying and correcting deficiencies in programs providing services to children with disabilities. MASSDE consistently demonstrated that it pursues districts in areas where non-compliance is present and ensures follow through.  We annually receive and resolve hundreds of concerns through our Problem Resolution System.  We developed a new grant program to assist districts to implement their corrective action plans, and in the few instances where it became necessary, we have withheld special education funds to force corrective actions.

Summary Comments
MASSDE has deliberately, carefully, and systemically built its capacity to ensure appropriate services for students with disabilities and I stand by my conviction that we remain in substantial compliance with the requirements of the law.  We have an effective system that is constantly improving.  For the record:
(1) In the past year we have completed historic improvements to our special education state regulations;
(2) over the past two years we have completely revised our IEP form and process;
(3) we have developed an ongoing, massive training effort on the requirements of the law and, last year alone, we conducted or sponsored five conference or training opportunities, each one replicated in multiple settings across the Commonwealth in order to ensure full access and information dissemination; and
(4) we have invested substantial resources in coordinating both a compliance review and a quality assurance review that looks carefully at student outcomes and ensures that we look at every district at least every three years.
Our accountability activities have taken place in an inclusive public process involving our state Board of Education, state Legislature, and public constituents at every step. We are disappointed that the OSEP report does not reflect our efforts.

MASSDE was pleased to welcome OSEP staff members during their visit. Our commitment to involvement and understanding at every level was exemplified during the OSEP on-site review, for which we assembled an exemplary steering committee (including staff members of our state Legislature).  We seriously reviewed and considered our responsibility to improve services.  We did this because we believed that we could and did demonstrate that we have the capacity and the will to engage in ongoing systemic improvement across all areas of special education.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to the OSEP report and I want to acknowledge the courteous and professional manner in which your staff has interacted with us throughout this process.  Additionally, we appreciate OSEP’s policy to maintain the confidentiality of the school districts that participated in the review.  We will work with OSEP in good faith to complete an Improvement Plan for Massachusetts.

                                                                                                               Sincerely,
 
 

                                                                                                               David P. Driscoll
                                                                                                               Commissioner of Education
 
 

Cc:      Marcia Mittnacht, State Director of Special Education