**JULY 26, 2001**

Honorable Nancy S. Grasmick

State Superintendent of Schools

Maryland State Department of Education

200 West Baltimore Street

Baltimore, Maryland 21201

Dear Superintendent Grasmick:

The U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP) conducted a review in Maryland during the week of October 25 --
29, 1999 for the purpose of assessing compliance in the implementation
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and assisting
Maryland in developing strategies to improve results for children with
disabilities. The IDEA Amendments of 1997 focus on access to services as
well as improving results for infants, toddlers, children and youth with
disabilities. In the same way, OSEP's Continuous Improvement Monitoring
Process is designed to focus Federal, State and local resources on
improved results through a working partnership among OSEP, MSDE, and
parents and advocates in Maryland.

A critical aspect of the Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process is
collaboration between MSDE and OSEP and the members of the Steering
Committee who represent broad-based constituencies. The Steering
Committee assessed the effectiveness of State systems for ensuring
improved results for children with disabilities and protection of
individual rights. In addition the Steering Committee will be designing
and coordinating implementation of specific steps for improvement. The
Introduction section of this report provides a more detailed description
of the process used in Maryland.

OSEP's review placed a strong emphasis on those areas that are most
closely associated with positive results for children with disabilities.
In this review, OSEP clustered Part C requirements (regarding services
for children aged birth through two years) into five major areas: Child
Find and Public Awareness, Family Centered Services, Early Intervention
Services in the Natural Environment, Early Childhood Transition, and
General Supervision. OSEP clustered Part B requirements (services for
children aged three through 21 years) into four major areas: Parent
Involvement, Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive
Environment, Secondary Transition, and General Supervision. OSEP
identified components for each major area as a basis to review the
State's performance through examination of State and local indicators.

The enclosed Report addresses strengths noted in Maryland, areas that
require corrective action because they represent noncompliance with the
requirements of IDEA, and technical assistance regarding improvement for
best practice. Enclosed you will find an Executive Summary of the
Report, an Introduction including background information, and a
description of issues and findings.

We understand that this Report will be shared with members of the
Steering Committee, the State Interagency Coordinating Council, the
State Advisory Panel, and members of the public. OSEP will work with
your Steering Committee to develop corrective actions and improvement
strategies to ensure improved results for children with disabilities.

Thank you for the assistance and cooperation provided by your staff
during our review. Throughout the course of the review, Ms. Carol Ann
Baglin, Ms. Deborah Metzger and members of their staff were responsive
to OSEP's request for information. They provided access to necessary
documentation that enabled OSEP staff to work in partnership with the
Steering Committee to better understand the State's system for
implementing IDEA. A significant effort was made by State staff to
arrange the public input process during the validation planning week. As
a result of the State's efforts, OSEP obtained information from a large
number of parents (including underrepresented groups), advocates, school
personnel, school administrators, local and State special education
administrators, and service providers.

Thank you for your continued efforts toward the goal of achieving better
results for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities in
Maryland. Since the enactment of the IDEA and its predecessor, the
Education of All Handicapped Children Act, one of the basic goals of the
law, ensuring that children with disabilities are not excluded from
school, has largely been achieved. Today, families can have a positive
vision for their child's future.

While schools and agencies have made great progress, significant
challenges remain. Now that children with disabilities are receiving
services, the critical issue is to place greater emphasis on attaining
better results. To that end, we look forward to working with you in
partnership to continue to improve the lives of individuals with
disabilities.

Sincerely,

> Patricia J. Guard Acting Director

Office of Special Education Programs

Enclosures

cc: Ms. Carol Ann Baglin

Ms. Deborah Metzger

**[EXECUTIVE SUMMARY]{.underline}**

**[MARYLAND MONITORING 1999]{.underline}**

The attached report contains the results of the first two steps
(Validation Planning and Validation Data Collection) in the Office of
Special Education Programs' (OSEP) Continuous Improvement Monitoring
Process of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Parts
B and C, in the State of Maryland during August 1999 and October 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 State agencies, OSEP, parents and
advocates. The Validation Planning phase of the monitoring process
included a series of public forums with guided discussions around core
ideas of IDEA and the organization of a Steering Committee that provided
further comments on the information. 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. OSEP shared the
information obtained from these data sources in a meeting attended by
staff from the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) and the
Steering Committee.

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.

**[Early Intervention Services for Infants and Toddlers with
Disabilities:]{.underline}**

**[Part C of IDEA]{.underline}**

**Areas of Strength**

OSEP observed the following strengths:

-   Fostering Capacity Building at the State and Local Level

-   Interagency Collaborative Efforts

-   The Family Support Network

-   Parent Involvement in Policy Development

-   Coordination of Financial Resources Between Part C and Part B to
    Promote Transition Activities

-   Transition Process Enhanced Through the Use of Developmental Delay
    Category

**Areas of Noncompliance**

OSEP observed the following noncompliance:

-   Lack of Effective Monitoring Procedures to Ensure Compliance among
    Participating Agencies

-   Failure to Provide Evaluations in all Developmental Areas, and
    Failure to Document Information on IFSPs

-   Lack of Continuous Services, and Failure to Provide Parent Rights
    when Services Change

-   Failure to Comply with Natural Environment Requirements

-   Lack of Effective Strategies to Ensure Opportunity for Family
    Assessment

-   Transition Meeting Not Held within 90 Days

**[Education of Children and Youth with Disabilities]{.underline}**

**[Part B of IDEA]{.underline}**

**Areas of Strength**

OSEP observed the following strengths:

-   Maryland Resource Centers for Families and Schools

-   Technical Assistance and Dissemination of Information

-   Interagency Agreements to Enhance Personnel Development

-   Regional Technical Assistance Network

-   MSDE-Assisted Initiatives -- The Learning Lab Model and Promising
    Local Practice

-   MSDE Task Force on Least Restrictive Environment

-   Maryland Infrastructure for Transition Services

-   Interagency State Plan for Transitioning Youth with Disabilities

-   Maryland Youth Leadership Forum

-   Nationally Recognized Model Transition Programs

**Areas of Noncompliance**

OSEP observed the following areas of noncompliance:

-   Requiring that Students with Disabilities Be Removed from the Least
    Restrictive Environment in Order to Receive Special Education
    Services

-   Failure to Provide All Related Services as a Part of a Free
    Appropriate Public Education

-   Lack of Participation in Statewide Assessments of Students Placed in
    Nonpublic Schools

-   Complaint Management System -- Complaint Timelines Are Not Always
    Met

**[MARYLAND MONITORING REPORT]{.underline}**

**[TABLE OF CONTENTS]{.underline}**

**INTRODUCTION [1](#introduction)**

Background About the State of Maryland System
[1](#background-about-the-state-of-maryland-system)

Validation Planning: Part C and Part B
[2](#validation-planning-part-c-and-part-b)

Validation Data Collection: Part C and Part B
[2](#validation-data-collection-part-c-and-part-b)

Improvement Planning [3](#improvement-planning)

I: PART C: GENERAL SUPERVISION AND ADMINISTRATION
[4](#i-part-c-general-supervision-and-administration)

A. AREA OF STRENGTH [5](#a.-area-of-strength)

B. AREA OF NONCOMPLIANCE [5](#b.-area-of-noncompliance)

C. SUGGESTION FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR INFANTS, TODDLERS, AND

THEIR FAMILIES
[7](#c.-suggestion-for-improved-results-for-infants-toddlers-and-their-families)

II\. PART C: CHILD FIND/PUBLIC AWARENESS
[9](#ii.-part-c-child-findpublic-awareness)

A. AREA OF STRENGTH [10](#a.-area-of-strength-1)

B. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR INFANTS, TODDLERS, AND THEIR
FAMILIES
[10](#b.-suggestions-for-improved-results-for-infants-toddlers-and-their-families)

III\. PART C: EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES IN NATURAL

ENVIRONMENTS
[13](#iii.-part-c-early-intervention-services-in-natural-environments)

A. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE [14](#a.-areas-of-noncompliance)

B. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR INFANTS, TODDLERS, AND

THEIR FAMILIES
[18](#b.-suggestions-for-improved-results-for-infants-toddlers-and-their-families-1)

IV\. PART C: FAMILY-CENTERED SYSTEM OF SERVICES
[21](#iv.-part-c-family-centered-system-of-services)

A. AREAS OF STRENGTH [22](#a.-areas-of-strength)

B. AREA OF NONCOMPLIANCE [22](#b.-area-of-noncompliance-1)

C. SUGGESTION FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR INFANTS, TODDLERS AND

THEIR FAMILIES
[23](#c.-suggestion-for-improved-results-for-infants-toddlers-and-their-families-1)

V. PART C: EARLY CHILDHOOD TRANSITION
[24](#v.-part-c-early-childhood-transition)

A. AREAS OF STRENGTH [25](#a.-areas-of-strength-1)

B. AREA OF NONCOMPLIANCE [25](#b.-area-of-noncompliance-2)

VI\. PART B: PARENT INVOLVEMENT [27](#vi.-part-b-parent-involvement)

A. AREAS OF STRENGTH [28](#a.-areas-of-strength-2)

B. SUGGESTION FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN
[28](#b.-suggestion-for-improved-results-for-children)

VII\. PART B: FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE
ENVIRONMENT
[29](#vii.-part-b-free-appropriate-public-education-in-the-least-restrictive-environment)

A. AREAS OF STRENGTH [30](#a.-areas-of-strength-3)

B. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE [31](#b.-areas-of-noncompliance)

C. SUGGESTION FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN
[35](#c.-suggestion-for-improved-results-for-children)

VIII\. PART B: SECONDARY TRANSITION
[37](#viii.-part-b-secondary-transition)

A. AREAS OF STRENGTH [37](#a.-areas-of-strength-4)

B. SUGGESTION FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN
[38](#b.-suggestion-for-improved-results-for-children-1)

IX\. PART B: GENERAL SUPERVISION [40](#ix.-part-b-general-supervision)

A. AREA OF NONCOMPLIANCE [42](#a.-area-of-noncompliance)

B. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS
[43](#b.-suggestions-for-improved-results)

# INTRODUCTION

## Background About the State of Maryland System

The State of Maryland is located in the Mid-Atlantic region of the
United States. The State has a population of more than 5.1 million with
urban, suburban and rural areas. The U.S. Bureau of the Census reported
in 1998 that 205,540 children, birth to three years of age, reside in
the State*. The Model-Based Income and Poverty Estimate for l996*
indicated that children under the age of five years accounted for the
largest percentage, 14.1%, of persons living in poverty in the State.
*The KIDS Count Special* Report*: the Right Start, 1*997 indicated that
the status of child well-being in Maryland, as demonstrated by maternal
and child risk factors, was consistent with or exceeded the national
averages.

The Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) Division of Special
Education/Early Intervention Services administers both Part C and Part B
State and federal programs for special education and early intervention
services. The Division includes five branches: Maryland Infants and
Toddlers Program/Preschool Services Branch, Program Administration and
Support Services Branch, Program Evaluation and Compliance Branch,
Community and Interagency Services Branch, and Instructional Support and
Program Development Branch. Fifty-two staff members work in the five
branches.

The Early Intervention Program is implemented by MSDE through program
arrangements with public agencies in each of the 24 counties in
Maryland. These public agencies include nine local school districts,
twelve local health departments, a local office for children and youth,
a local department of health and human services, and a local department
of family services. These 24 public agencies provide early intervention
services through local government personnel, contractual arrangements,
or interagency agreements. The State's Part C child count as of December
1, 1998 indicated that the early intervention system served 4,118
children, ages birth to three years.

The local education operating budget for all twenty-four Maryland school
districts from all federal, State and local sources for public education
is \$5.9 billion. The average cost per pupil is \$7,100. Maryland
teachers with a Master's Degree or higher level of education comprise
67% of the teaching profession. The total student population in the Fall
of 1998 was 1,017,293 of which 175,622 students were enrolled in
nonpublic schools and 841,671 were enrolled in public schools. Maryland
has no charter schools. The public agencies with the largest percent of
students with disabilities are Baltimore City, the State's largest urban
area, and Allegany County, a rural county in the western region of the
State. Students with disabilities make up 17.1% of the total enrollment
in Baltimore City and in Allegany County, 16.7%. Prince George's and
Howard Counties have the smallest percent of students with disabilities,
each reporting approximately 10%.

Among school-age students with disabilities, students with specific
learning disabilities are the largest percent of students with
disabilities, 40.7%, followed by speech and language impairments, 27.7%.
Students identified as deaf/blind are the smallest percent of students
with disabilities, .02%. There were 111,688 special education students
in Maryland in the Fall of 1998. More than 900 of these students were
served in facilities administered by the Maryland Department of Juvenile
Services, the Maryland Department of Correction, the Maryland School for
the Blind, and the Maryland School for the Deaf.

The State of Maryland instituted Local Management Boards to address
regional, cultural, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity across the State
as a means to improve overall child and family outcomes. By addressing
the State's diverse needs, the Local Management Boards have an
infrastructure in place that fosters the collaboration of resources,
minimizes duplication of effort and promotes partnerships with families
and community agencies.

## Validation Planning: Part C and Part B

During September 1999, OSEP and the Part B and Part C State Joint
Steering Committee conducted public forums in Annapolis, Baltimore,
Easton and Hagerstown. An additional focus group was convened in Prince
George's County. The purpose of these meetings was to obtain information
about issues and concerns regarding IDEA service delivery. The four
areas under Part B of IDEA (services for children ages three through 21
years) addressed were: Parent Involvement, Free Appropriate Public
Education in the Least Restrictive Environment, Secondary Transition,
and General Supervision. The five areas under Part C of IDEA (services
for infants and toddlers ages birth to three years) addressed were:
Child Find and public Awareness, Family Centered Services, Early
Intervention Services in the Natural Environment, Early Childhood
Transition, and General Supervision. More than 400 persons participated
in these meetings.

Preliminary results from the public forums as well as the results of the
State Self-Assessment conducted by MSDE were shared with the Steering
Committee. MSDE and OSEP discussed recommended sites for OSEP to visit
during the Validation Data Collection Phase and identified data
gathering strategies for OSEP's Validation Data Collection Visit.

## Validation Data Collection: Part C and Part B

OSEP visited the State during the week of October 25, 1999 to collect
additional information on issues identified during the Validation
Planning Phase. As part of its review OSEP collected information
concerning the status of the State's implementation of the IDEA
Amendments of 1997. The information included State policies and other
guidance issued by the State. OSEP also reviewed State mechanisms for
ensuring compliance with IDEA such as complaint management, procedural
safeguards, due process procedures and the monitoring system.

During its onsite Validation Data Collection, OSEP visited Baltimore
City, Worcester County, Prince George's County, Washington County, Anne
Arundel County (Part B only), Carroll County (Part B only), Talbot
County, and Montgomery County. MSDE and OSEP selected these sites
because they represented rural and urban/suburban areas. At each site
OSEP reviewed children's records, including IFSPs and IEPs as
appropriate, minutes of IFSP and IEP meetings, and parent notices
informing parents of meetings. OSEP also collected local agency, school
and district placement data, local policies and procedures, and reviewed
MSDE monitoring reports. OSEP conducted interviews with school-based and
central office administrators responsible for implementation of Part B.
OSEP also interviewed parents, students, local early intervention
service providers, service coordinators, teachers, administrators,
teachers and related service personnel as appropriate. OSEP selected
regular education teachers who taught children with disabilities in
their classrooms, and special education teachers involved in the
development or implementation of IEPs.

## Improvement Planning

In response to this report, MSDE will develop an action plan addressing
areas requiring improvement as identified in the report. Approximately
60 days after the issuance of this report, OSEP will visit Maryland to
work with MSDE to finalize an improvement plan. During this visit, OSEP
will assist the Steering Committee in identifying strategies to
implement program improvement, sources of technical assistance,
timelines for completing strategies, and methods for evaluating the
effectiveness of the improvement plan.

# I: PART C: GENERAL SUPERVISION AND ADMINISTRATION

The State lead agency is responsible for developing and maintaining a
Statewide, comprehensive, coordinated, multidisciplinary, interagency
early intervention system. Administration, supervision and monitoring of
the early intervention system are essential to ensure that each eligible
child and family receives the services needed to enhance the development
of infants and toddlers with disabilities and to minimize their
potential for developmental delay. Early intervention services are
provided by a wide variety of public and private entities. Through
supervision and monitoring, the State ensures that all agencies and
individuals providing early intervention services meet the requirements
of IDEA, whether or not they receive funds under Part C.

While each State must meet its general supervisory and administrative
responsibilities, the State may determine how that will be accomplished.
Mechanisms such as interagency agreements and/or contracts with other
State-level or private agencies can serve as the vehicle for the lead
agency's implementation of its monitoring responsibilities. The State's
role in supervision and monitoring includes: (1) identifying areas in
which implementation does not comply with Federal requirements; (2)
providing assistance in correcting identified problems; and (3) as
needed, using enforcing mechanisms to ensure correction of identified
problems.

**[Validation Planning and Data Collection]{.underline}**

The MSDE's self-assessment identified several component areas as
exemplary, acceptable progress, or as a priority for improvement. The
State identified exemplary supervision and monitoring activities, timely
implementation of complaints, mediation and due process procedures, and
ensuring service continuation during resolution of interagency disputes.
Areas of acceptable progress in the State's Self-Assessment included the
following: correction of noncompliance issues in a timely manner,
training in procedural safeguards, referral, eligibility, and IFSP
development for parents. Issues identified as priorities for improvement
included ensuring timely services through interagency coordination,
revising interagency agreements, ensuring that other sources of funding
are utilized before using Part C funds, providing services in the
natural environments through interagency coordination, and the
coordination of resources.

Maryland has revised its monitoring protocols to ensure that programs
providing early intervention services are monitored on a regular basis.
During the public input sessions, administrators and local program staff
told OSEP that while the State has provided technical assistance to
resolve an immediate issue, some of the participating early intervention
programs are not monitored on a regular basis. The MSDE staff shared
with OSEP staff the revised monitoring schedule and revisions to
monitoring materials for Part C and will begin testing these materials
in the next monitoring cycle to ensure that the materials are effective
in monitoring the requirements for Part C.

Based on information obtained through the self-assessment, the public
input process, review of monitoring reports, local applications, and
local and State procedures, OSEP identified the following possible areas
of noncompliance: (1) ineffective monitoring procedures to ensure
provision of early intervention services and compliance with Part C; (2)
failure to monitor all programs participating in the statewide system of
early intervention services; (3) ineffective technical assistance to
address identified areas of concern; and (4) ineffective procedures to
ensure corrective actions and enforcement.

During the Validation Data Collection week, OSEP collected additional
information on the issues identified through the validation planning
process, and data related to the Lead Agency\'s supervision and
administration of the early intervention program. OSEP collected these
from parents, service providers, State agency staff, local program
providers and administrators, State Interagency Coordinating Council
members and other interagency staff involved in the provision of
services to infants and toddlers across Maryland. Analysis of these data
resulted in identification of the following area of strength, area of
noncompliance and suggestion for improvement.

## A. AREA OF STRENGTH

**[Fostering Capacity Building at the State and Local
Level]{.underline}**

The State Interagency Coordinating Council in a collaborative
partnership with MSDE formed five standing committees to identify
possible barriers to the provision of timely services and implement a
process to respond to time sensitive issues to minimize delays in
services. The five standing committees include budget/fiscal, outreach,
policy/legislative, service delivery, and training and recruitment. In
addition, local interagency coordinating councils are established in
each of the 24 jurisdictions, to foster capacity building at the local
level and to enhance communication efforts with State staff. The local
interagency coordinating councils provide a forum for collaborating
agencies and constituents to examine the service delivery mode in their
region. MSDE supports and facilitates capacity building at the local
level through the implementation of various initiatives. Local
jurisdictions are required to have interagency agreements that specify
financial responsibility among participating agencies. MSDE allocates
funds annually to local jurisdictions to support the implementation of
promising practices to address identified needs. There is a statewide
effort to track and refer at-risk children who are not eligible for Part
C services to community-based supports and service. With input from
local management boards, local interagency coordinating councils combine
their expertise and resources to assess the effectiveness of local
systems in addressing the cultural, ethnic, and socioeconomic issues
confronting the children and families they serve.

## B. AREA OF NONCOMPLIANCE

**[Lack of Effective Monitoring Procedures to Ensure Compliance among
Participating Agencies]{.underline}**

Each lead agency is responsible for the general administration and
supervision of programs and activities receiving assistance under Part C
and for the monitoring of programs and activities used by the State to
ensure that the State complies with Part C. To meet its
responsibilities, the lead agency must adopt and use proper methods of
administering each program, including: (1) monitoring agencies used by
the State; (2) enforcing any obligations imposed on those agencies; (3)
providing technical assistance, if necessary; and, (4) correcting
deficiencies that are identified through monitoring. 34 CFR §303.501 (a)
and (b). As part of MSDE\'s obligation for general administration, MSDE
must ensure that all policies (e.g., State statutes, regulations,
directives, and other written documents) to implement the early
intervention system are consistent with 34 CFR Part 303.

As discussed below, OSEP determined that MSDE has not fulfilled its
obligation for general administration and supervision. MSDE has failed
to exercise its general supervision and administration authority to
monitor all programs, enforce obligations, and correct deficiencies. In
July 1997 the Governor appointed MSDE as the new Part C lead agency.
MSDE staff began to address the issues noted by OSEP in the State\'s
application for Federal FY 1998-1999 funds, by revising the policies and
procedures relative to the provision of general supervision and
monitoring and developing a quality assurance process. MSDE's December
1998 Annual Performance Report noted that its ability to ensure
compliance with the general supervision and monitoring requirements was
impeded by: (1) the change in lead agency necessitating changes in
administrative infrastructure and oversight; (2) the lack of data to
determine compliance since on-site monitoring had not occurred since
1996; and (3) the need to finalize MSDE\'s quality assurance system,
*Monitoring for Quality*, to appropriately effect systems change.

MSDE staff informed OSEP that while on-site monitoring activities had
not occurred since 1996, MSDE\'s supervision and administrative
activities included: (1) reviewing and revising State policies and
procedures with assistance from the State Interagency Coordinating
Council; (2) reviewing local contracts prior to the distribution of
funds to ensure that proposed activities and budgets are consistent with
State and Federal requirements; (3) reviewing data reports; and (4)
responding to time-sensitive issues presented by local programs and
providers. OSEP reviewed the State\'s monitoring log for fiscal years
1998 and 1999, and interviewed State staff and determined that while the
State's monitoring log identified problem areas that may have
contributed to the delay of timely services, systemic areas of
noncompliance were not identified. OSEP\'s review determined that while
the supervisory activities provide feedback to MSDE regarding
individual, local and program issues, MSDE did not have an effective
statewide system to identify systemic areas of noncompliance, provide
technical assistance needs, correct identified deficiencies, or enforce
corrective action(s) when appropriate. As further discussed in Sections
II through V of this monitoring report, MSDE does not have monitoring
strategies in place to ensure that child find, natural environments,
family centered practices and transition activities are sufficient to
ensure that all children receive a timely evaluation, continuous
services are provided in the natural environment, procedural safeguards
are adhered to, and transition from Part C to Part B is timely.

To address monitoring issues, MSDE: (1) revised its monitoring protocol,
*Monitoring for Quality*; and (2) formed a statewide program evaluation
steering committee to partner with local program directors to integrate
the monitoring process with a statewide program evaluation to assist
MSDE in evaluating its statewide system. The *Monitoring for Quality*
protocol proposed to minimize areas of noncompliance by: (1) continuing
the administration and updating of the State\'s Self-Assessment and
improvement plan; (2) providing guidance to local programs and providers
in the interpretation and implementation of policies and procedures; and
(3) conducting on-site visits to participating programs and providers.
MSDE staff told OSEP that the revised general supervision protocols
would be piloted in one-third of the 24 contracted regions during fiscal
year 1999-2000 and continue until implemented in all 24 programs. The
purpose of the collaborative effort is to identify service delivery
models and administrative structures that can result in positive
outcomes for children and families.

The program evaluation steering committee will collaborate with State
staff and program staff to solicit input from a variety of constituents.
MSDE will solicit input to identify and analyze existing data sources,
conduct surveys, interviews, and focus groups. Based on this
information, the program evaluation committee along with State and
program staff will propose research questions and develop case studies
to improve results for eligible children in Maryland. Needed revisions
to current policies and practices will be identified to facilitate the
implementation of family-centered, culturally appropriate practices in
the diverse regions.

MSDE identified through the development of the Self-Assessment several
key issues that it targeted to improve general supervision outcomes.
These key areas include: (1) enhance family centered practices by
implementing strategies to solicit and incorporate family feedback into
statewide evaluation; (2) improve interagency collaboration in the
service delivery process by reaffirming in policy and practice the
interagency mission of the statewide system; (3) improve results for
children and families by improving the monitoring of incentive grants
and targeted training activities; and (4) enhance efforts to address
identified areas of concern through the development and implementation
of a statewide technical assistance plan.

MSDE staff reported that the data compiled from these procedures would
be used to determine the need for revisions to State and local
monitoring protocols, if warranted to ensure continued compliance. OSEP
has not been able to assess the effectiveness of the quality assurance
system since it was only in operation for a short period of time when
OSEP came to monitor. MSDE must ensure that all programs used by the
State to carry out Part C are monitored, whether or not they receive
Part C funds.

## C. SUGGESTION FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR INFANTS, TODDLERS, AND THEIR FAMILIES

**[Procedures for Conducting Record Reviews]{.underline}**

Local administrators and service coordinators in two regions visited by
OSEP reported that case reviews, including a review of the child's and
family's records, are conducted periodically for eligible children and
their families. The case review team may be comprised of a service
coordinator, interagency collaborator(s) and a parent, who is neither
the parent of the child being reviewed nor an employee of the lead or
local provider agency. Case reviews are viewed as a means to assess
whether identified needed services are being provided and to determine
if current provider practice is consistent with State and Federal
requirements.

Consistent with 34 CFR §§303.401, 303.460, and 300.560-577, the lead
agency must: (1) ensure that parents are fully informed of State policy
that governs the disclosure of personally identifiable information,
including requirements for obtaining parental consent; (2) maintain a
record of disclosures; (3) fully inform parents of all information
relevant to the activity for which consent is sought, in the parent's
native language or other mode of communication; and (4) ensure that the
parent understands and agrees in writing to carrying out the activity
for which consent is sought, and that the consent describes the activity
and list the records (if any) that will be released and to whom.

MSDE's procedural safeguards and parent consent protocol indicate that
the provider agency must secure a signed and dated written consent from
the parent that specifies the records that may be disclosed, the purpose
of the disclosure, and identifies the party or class of parties to whom
the disclosure may be made. It was not clear that the parent granting
consent is aware that another parent is a participating member on the
review team.

MSDE State staff reported that although a statewide blanket consent form
is used and guidance is provided to participating providers and agencies
regarding the protocol to obtain prior consent to disclose information,
the State should monitor participating agencies and programs to ensure
that the forms and procedures utilized are being implemented consistent
with IDEA regulations.

# II. PART C: CHILD FIND/PUBLIC AWARENESS

The needs of infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families
are generally met through a variety of agencies. However, prior to the
enactment of Part C of IDEA, there was little coordination or
collaboration of service provision, and many families had difficulty
locating and obtaining needed services. Searching for resources placed a
great strain on families. With the passage of Part C in 1986, Congress
sought to assure that all children needing services would be identified,
evaluated, and served, especially those children who are typically
underrepresented, (e.g., minority, low-income, inner-city, Indian and
rural populations) through an interagency, coordinated,
multidisciplinary system of early intervention services.

Each State's early intervention system must include child find and
public awareness activities that are coordinated and collaborated with
all other child find efforts in the State. Part C recognizes the need
for early referral and short timelines for evaluation as development
occurs at a more rapid rate during the first three years of life than at
any other age. Early brain development research has demonstrated what
early interventionists have known for years, that children begin to
learn and develop from the moment of birth. Therefore, the facilitation
of early learning, and the provision of timely early intervention
services to infants and toddlers with disabilities is critical.

**[Validation Planning and Data Collection]{.underline}**

MSDE's self-assessment for Part C in the area of Child Find identified
components that the State determined as areas of strength including: (1)
interagency coordinated child find efforts at both the State and local
levels that resulted in a steady increase in the number of children
identified from 1991 to 1998; (2) family friendly public education and
outreach strategies that resulted in increased referrals from families;
and (3) numerous culturally sensitive public awareness activities to
address the growing and diverse ethnic population in the State. Several
areas were identified as needing improvement or designated as a priority
for improvement. Those areas included: improving data collection and
analysis efforts to better identify gaps and needs, targeting public
awareness efforts for physicians and underserved groups, and ensuring
the availability of appropriate personnel, resources and supports for
the implementation of child find and public awareness outreach
activities.

One of the focus questions asked during the public input meetings was:
"Are there barriers to the process of referring infants and toddlers to
the Early Intervention (EI) system, or in obtaining evaluations?" The
concerns identified during these meetings were generally consistent with
those identified by the State's Steering Committee in the
self-assessment. Concerns stated during the public input meetings
included lack of general public awareness materials in a variety of
languages, formats, and locations; lack of culturally sensitive
practices, particularly in rural areas; and a failure of primary
referral sources, especially physicians, to refer children to the
State's early intervention system in a timely manner.

Based on information from the self-assessment completed by the Steering
Committee, the public input sessions, monitoring reports and the annual
report, OSEP determined that additional data should be collected during
the Validation Data Collection week regarding the following
concerns/issues: (1) children not being served due to delays in
referrals by primary referral sources; (2) lack of information designed
for families to learn about early intervention services; (3) child find
and public awareness activities not reaching all primary referral
sources; and (4) insufficient culturally-competent public awareness
materials.

To investigate these child find and public awareness issues, OSEP
collected data from parents, service providers, case managers, local
programs, and interagency collaborators and from central office
personnel throughout Maryland. OSEP reviewed and analyzed the data and
identified the following strength and suggested areas for improvement.

## A. AREA OF STRENGTH

**[Interagency Collaborative Efforts]{.underline}**

Linkages with primary referral sources reflect MSDE's initiatives to
encourage and maximize collaborative efforts to identify, refer, and
evaluate children who may be eligible for early intervention services.
Successful collaborative efforts noted by OSEP included the following: a
statewide effort to implement newborn hearing screening that went into
effect on July 1, 2000; and efforts to translate not only parents rights
into Spanish, but also to provide other information in Spanish and
provide an interpreter for oral explanations. The outreach effort to the
Orthodox Jewish community may serve as a model program to address
outreach to underrepresented groups in other areas of the State where
service to underrepresented groups continues to be a concern.

Statewide collaborative outreach efforts have also resulted in the
development and implementation of public awareness campaigns to the
general public, to the medical community and in rural areas. The
majority of referrals between the period of December 1997 and December
1998 were from parents, according to the State\'s self-assessment, local
administrators and parents. Referrals from Neonatal Intensive Care
Units, primary medical professionals and university medical centers have
shown a steady increase, representing 25% of the referrals during that
same time period. Some innovative child find strategies have included:
(1) conducting evaluations in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit in
hospitals; (2) placing service coordinators on-site in hospitals to
dialogue with medical personnel and families; and (3) conducting
information sessions with physicians, psychiatrists, geneticists and
audiologists regarding the components of the early intervention program
and the referral process. MSDE also makes presentations to all first
year pediatricians. The scheduled presentations are a part of the
pediatrician "grand rounds", and the early intervention staff provide
information on the Denver Developmental Screening Test, what occurs on
home visits, and how to make referrals. These successful collaborative
child find and public awareness efforts were presented at a national
conference in December 1999.

## B. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR INFANTS, TODDLERS, AND THEIR FAMILIES

**1. [Development of a Mechanism to Keep Primary Referral Sources,
Particularly Health Maintenance Organizations, Informed of the Early
Intervention System]{.underline}**

Local interagency members and service providers across the State
informed OSEP that on-going education and physician awareness is a
challenge that impacts the provision of timely child find and
referral*.* There are a large number of physicians in the northern and
central areas of the State. A physician in one area of the State told
OSEP that there is significant turnover among physicians, particularly
in the Health Maintenance Organizations, that results in families being
served by physicians who may not have heard about the early intervention
program. Health Maintenance Organizations provide on-going pediatric and
preventive care to a significant number of Part C eligible children and
their families in the State. Therefore, it is important that there in a
mechanism to keep physicians across the State informed of Part C
services and aware of the referral process.

Each early intervention system must include a public awareness program
that focuses on the early identification of children who are eligible to
receive early intervention services under Part C. This requires the lead
agency to prepare and disseminate to all primary referral sources,
especially hospitals and physicians, materials for parents on the
availability of early intervention services. The public awareness
program must provide for informing the public about the early
intervention program, the child find system, how to make referrals and
how to gain access to evaluations and other early intervention services.
See 34 CFR §303.320. The State must also ensure that the child find
system includes procedures for use by primary referral sources for
referring a child to the appropriate public agency within the system.
The procedures must provide for an effective method to make referrals by
primary referral sources and to determine the extent to which primary
referral sources, especially hospitals and physicians, disseminate the
information prepared by the lead agency, on the availability of early
intervention services to parents of infants and toddlers with
disabilities. 34 CFR §303.321(d). Consistent with 34 CFR §303.1(d)**,**
Part C funds should be used to ensure that State and local agencies and
service providers have the capacity to identify, evaluate and meet the
needs of historically underrepresented populations, particularly
minority and low-income families in the inner-city and rural areas.

**2. [Outreach and Referral Strategies to Ensure Access by
Underrepresented Populations]{.underline}**

OSEP identified that there are some unique challenges associated with
the implementation of child find and public awareness activities across
the State: (1) capacity to assist local programs to respond to the
growing diverse needs of underrepresented populations; (2) lack of
culturally appropriate materials and resources; (3) the constant change
and turnover in personnel in some areas and the need for an effective
mechanism to keep them informed (specifically physicians); and (4)
personnel shortages.

MSDE compiles data submitted annually from local participating programs
and disseminates it to local administrators and interagency
collaborators to assist with the development of strategies to address
identified child find issues and other areas of concern related to
underrepresented groups. The data elements include child find indicators
such as age of referral, source of referral, ethnicity, primary and
secondary diagnosis, developmental delay status and the results of
evaluations performed. However, local administrators stated that they do
not have the resources or the personnel to adequately analyze the data
and develop intervention strategies or materials in response to the
trends that may be indicated by the data.

Although MSDE submitted assurances, as part of the Federal Part C
application for fiscal year 1999 funds, that the State has adopted
policies and procedures to ensure that traditionally under- served
groups have access to culturally competent services within their local
geographical areas, it does not appear that primary referral sources and
public agencies have the necessary resources to identify, refer and
evaluate children from underrepresented groups in a timely manner. In
addition, it does not appear that MSDE's policies and practices ensure
that traditionally underserved groups have access to culturally
competent services within their local geographical areas. 34 CFR
§303.128.

MSDE's self-assessment also indicates the need for comprehensive public
awareness strategies directed to underserved populations, such as Amish,
migrant, rural, homeless, new immigrants, and families where English is
not the primary language. Local administrators, providers, and service
coordinators across the State told OSEP that technical assistance was
needed to develop appropriate culturally-sensitive strategies to target
the increased populations of Hispanic, other non-English speakers, the
deaf community, and those residing in rural areas.

Families in rural areas reported that they have not seen any resource
materials in other languages in their community and the information they
did receive contained varying messages; thus, they were often not sure
how to access early intervention services. Local administrators in three
areas reported that they did not receive bilingual materials from the
State in a timely manner in assist them to adequately reach out and
inform speakers of other languages. These administrators told OSEP that
as a result, underrepresented populations may not have the necessary
information in a language or format that assures timely referrals and
provide the necessary support to identify child and family needs.

MSDE may want to collaborate with institutions of higher education and
local communities to identify culturally-appropriate strategies to
ensure the availability and access to resources necessary to identify
and refer children from underrepresented populations in a timely manner.

# III. PART C: EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES IN NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS

In creating the Part C legislation, Congress recognized the urgent need
to ensure that all infants and toddlers with disabilities and their
families receive early intervention services according to their
individual needs. Three of the principles on which Part C was enacted
include: (1) enhancing the child's developmental potential, (2)
enhancing the capacity of families to meet the needs of their infant or
toddler with disabilities, and (3) improving and expanding existing
early intervention services being provided to children with disabilities
and their families.

To assist families in this process, Congress also requires that each
family be provided with a service coordinator, to act as a single point
of contact for the family. The service coordinator assures the rights of
children and families are provided, arranges for assessments and IFSP
meetings, and facilitates the provision of needed services. The service
coordinator coordinates required early intervention services, as well as
medical and other services the child and the child's family may need.
With a single point of contact, families are relieved of the burden of
searching for essential services, negotiating with multiple agencies and
trying to coordinate their own service needs.

Part C requires the development and implementation of an IFSP for each
eligible child. The evaluation, assessment, and IFSP process is designed
to ensure that appropriate evaluation and assessments of the unique
needs of the child and of the family, related to the enhancing the
development of their child, are conducted in a timely manner. Parents
are active members of the IFSP multidisciplinary team. The team must
take into consideration all the information gleaned from the evaluation
and child and family assessments, in determining the appropriate
services needed to meet the needs.

The IFSP must also include a statement of the natural environments in
which early intervention services will be provided for the child.
Children with disabilities should receive services in community settings
and places where normally developing children would be found, so that
they will not be denied opportunities that all children have - to be
included in all aspects of our society. In 1991, Congress required that
early intervention services be provided in natural environments. This
requirement was further reinforced by the addition of a new requirement
in 1997 that early intervention can occur in a setting other than a
natural environment only when early intervention cannot be achieved
satisfactorily for the infant or toddler in a natural environment. In
the event that early intervention cannot be satisfactorily achieved in a
natural environment, the IFSP must include a justification of the
extent, if any, to which the services will not be provided in a natural
environment.

**[Validation Planning and Data Collection]{.underline}**

The State's Part C self-assessment identified several areas as having
acceptable progress. These areas include: levels of support provided to
families through service coordination activities; incentives to enhance
innovative service delivery options; and program evaluation activities
to provide data to facilitate decision making. The State's
self-assessment identified the following aspects of the early
intervention system as needing improvement: procedures to ensure timely
evaluations; ongoing training for IFSP teams to facilitate the team
decision making process for individualized decisions; and innovative
strategies to recruit and retain personnel, especially bilingual
personnel.

Focus questions were also asked during the public input meetings. These
questions were, "Do all infants and toddlers with disabilities and their
families receive all the services they need, including service
coordination," and "Where do children receive their services (community
settings, day care, homes, libraries)?" The following issues and
concerns were identified at the public input meetings: guidance and
training is needed to facilitate the IFSP team's decision making process
in determining the location for services and documenting the
justification when services cannot be provided in the natural
environment. Additionally, other concerns identified were the need for
continuous services during the summer months, and clarity and
consistency in the interpretation of policies and procedures across the
State.

From the public input meetings and other information, it was determined
that additional data should be collected during the Validation Data
Collection week in the following areas: (1) the evaluation process; (2)
provision of services; (3) the process for identifying natural
environments; and (4) ensuring the provision of procedural safeguards.

To investigate these issues, OSEP collected data from local programs and
providers, parents, service providers, service coordinators, interagency
collaborators and from central office staff personnel. OSEP reviewed and
analyzed the data and identified the following areas of non-compliance
and suggested areas for improvement.

## A. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE

**1. [Failure to Provide Evaluations in all Developmental Areas, and
Failure to Document Information on IFSPs]{.underline}**

Each State's child find system must include the performance of a timely,
comprehensive, multidisciplinary evaluation for each referred child. The
evaluation must be conducted by personnel trained to utilize appropriate
methods and procedures, and must include an evaluation of the child's
level of functioning in each developmental area as defined in 34 CFR
§303.322(c), including physical development, which includes hearing and
vision. The results of the child's assessment must be utilized in the
development of the IFSP (§303.342(c)) and documented on the IFSP (34 CFR
§303.344).

OSEP found that MSDE has not ensured that evaluations and assessments
are performed in all required areas by personnel trained to utilize
appropriate methods and procedures, and that for children for whom the
State has pertinent evaluation results from other sources, the
information is included on the child's IFSP.

OSEP reviewed 30 IFSPs from the six regions visited and determined that
none of the IFSPs contained the required information on the child's
physical status in the areas of vision and hearing. Twelve records did
not contain any information regarding the individual child's present
level of functioning in vision or hearing, and the remaining eighteen
records indicated "no concern" in those areas, as identified by the
family. While the information obtained from families through an
interview or other mechanism as part of the assessment process can be
considered to determine needed services, an assessment to determine the
individual child's level of functioning, needs and appropriate services
to meet those needs must be conducted by personnel trained to utilize
appropriate methods and procedures. 34 CFR §303.322.

In addition, OSEP reviewed pertinent records from some of the same IFSPs
related to each child's medical history that indicated the status of the
child's vision and hearing as determined by a physician. However, the
information regarding the results of hearing and vision assessment was
not documented on the IFSP. Local administrators, service coordinators
and multidisciplinary evaluation team members in one area reported that
they were not sure how to use information from the child's medical
history to determine the present status of the child's functioning in
all developmental areas. MSDE must ensure that there are effective
procedures in place to ensure that the evaluation and assessment process
includes procedures to utilize and incorporate all pertinent information
regarding the child's health status and is incorporated into the IFSP
consistent with the requirements in 34 CFR §§303.322 and 303.344.

**2. [Lack of Continuous Services, and Failure to Provide Parent Rights
when Services Change]{.underline}**

Federal regulations specify that early intervention services are
services designed to meet the developmental needs of each eligible child
and the needs of the family related to enhancing the child's development
and must be specified on an IFSP. 34 CFR §303.12. Early intervention
providers may not interrupt, modify or otherwise change early
intervention services for reasons unrelated to the child's needs, such
as service availability or changes in providers' schedules. The IFSP
must include specific information about the frequency, intensity,
projected initiation dates and projected duration of services. See 34
CFR §303.344(d) and (f). This information must be based on an evaluation
of child and family needs. §303.322(c).

MSDE has not ensured that early intervention services designed to meet
the developmental needs of eligible children are provided in accordance
with the child's IFSP, including the specification of frequency,
intensity and duration of services during the summer months. Services
are modified, reduced or not provided at all for eligible children in
Maryland during the summer, without being justified on the child's IFSP
based upon the unique needs of the child and family.

Parents and service coordinators across the State informed OSEP that due
to lack of staff during the summer months (providers employed by school
districts have ten month contracts) early intervention services are not
available during the summer months to provide uninterrupted early
intervention services.

Parents across the four regions told OSEP that services were routinely
interrupted, modified, reduced or not provided at all during the summer.
Parents and service providers in four regions reported that a letter
from the early intervention program, requiring a response by a certain
date, was mailed to them in the spring of each year. The letter informed
them that there would be a change in provision of services for the
summer months. Parents report that the change was a reduction in the
frequency of service, or a different provider or location of service.
They further stated that if they agreed to the specified change in
service then they would receive the service. If they did not agree with
the proposed change, the child would not receive any services during the
summer. Parents told OSEP that if they disagreed with the change
recommended by the early intervention program, they had to be assertive
in order to continue the appropriate early intervention services.
Parents also reported if they did not respond to the letter from the
provider agency in a timely manner, the child would not receive
services.

Families in three regions reported that they felt pressured and
intimidated to sign consent forms for these changes in services. Parents
also told OSEP that although they received the letter stating that
services would be reduced for the summer months, they were not given the
opportunity to file a complaint. They also stated that they were unaware
of the complaint procedures and that parent rights information was not
understandable.

A public agency may revise an IFPS only in a manner consistent with the
requirements of 34 CFR §§303.342 and 303.343. Each lead agency is
responsible for establishing or adopting procedural safeguards that meet
the requirements under 34 CFR §303.400. MSDE must ensure that written
prior notice is given to the parents of a child eligible under Part C a
reasonable time before a public agency or service provider proposes to
change the provision of appropriate early intervention service to the
child and the child's family. 34 CFR §303.403(a). (A public agency must
also provide such notice to parents when it proposes, or refuses, to
initiate or change the identification, evaluation, placement or
services.) The notice must be in sufficient detail to inform the parents
about the action that is being proposed or refused, the reasons for
taking the action, and all procedural safeguards that are available
under §§303.401-303.460 and the State complaint procedures under §§
303.510- 303.512, including a description of how to file a complaint and
the timelines under those procedures. 34 CFR §303.403(b).

MSDE has not ensured that local providers adequately notify parents, in
writing, regarding a proposal to discontinue, decrease or change the
type of service or location of service listed on the IFSP during the
summer months in accordance with Federal requirements.

Families, service coordinators and local providers across the State told
OSEP that changes in the provision of services during summer months
occur without a review process consistent with 34 CFR §§303.342 and
303.343, without appropriate prior notice, without an explanation of
procedural safeguards, and without parental consent to the proposed
changes.

MSDE must ensure that services on an IFSP are not changed unless there
is an IFSP review held by the IFSP team to identify the needs of the
child and the needed services, and unless parent rights are ensured.
MSDE must also ensure that a change in service on the IFSP is not due to
staff shortages.

**3. [Failure to Comply with Natural Environment
Requirements]{.underline}**

**(a) [Lack of Effective IFSP Procedures and Decision Making Process
Regarding Natural Environments]{.underline}**

The determination of early intervention services for a child, including
the location of those services, must be based on the needs of the child
and family. To the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of the child,
services must be provided in natural environments, including the home
and community settings in which children without disabilities
participate. 34 CFR §303.12(b). The natural environments where early
intervention will be provided must be identified on the IFSP, and if
early intervention cannot be effectively achieved in natural
environments, the IFSP must contain a statement of the justification for
not providing the early intervention service in the natural environment.
34 CFR §§303.167(c), 303.344(d)(1)(ii).

MSDE has not ensured that the participants at the IFSP meeting to
develop the IFSP make an individualized determinations regarding
services in natural environments, or that the justification required
when services are not provided in a natural environment is documented on
the IFSP.

Parents across the State told OSEP that it was routine practice for the
IFSP team to determine that early intervention services be provided in
the home at the initial IFSP meeting. However, at subsequent IFSP
periodic reviews when the child turned two years of age or if the parent
expressed the need for the child to be with other children, the IFSP
team routinely designated that the needed services be provided in a
center-based program serving only children with disabilities. However,
these later IFSPs did not include a justification for not providing the
service in a natural environment.

Service coordinators and providers in three regions told OSEP that
frequently the decision to change the location of service was due to
personnel shortages. OSEP was told by service providers in several areas
of the State visited that regardless of the outcomes indicated by the
child and family assessment data and specified in the IFSP, families are
required to have a "legitimate" reason why services should be provided
in the home or other setting rather than in the center. Parents across
the State told OSEP that they were required to come to the school or
center based program in order to receive early intervention services,
sometimes driving as far as 60 miles. Families reported that providers
advised them to come to the center because equipment was available there
that was not available in the home. Service coordinators and providers
told OSEP that these centers were not places where children without
disabilities would frequent. OSEP reviewed 30 IFSPs and determined that
they did not contain the required justification to validate the
provision of services in these center-based settings.

Service coordinators, providers and local administrators across the
State reported that they needed training to adequately determine the
location for services, based on the outcomes of the evaluation and
assessment data. They also reported that the State did not provide
adequate training and guidance to IFSP teams to determine the natural
environments for each child and to document the justification on the
IFSP, if warranted. MSDE staff told OSEP that, as a result of the change
in lead agency, the State has just recently begun to provide training to
address the IFSP decision making process. State staff reported that as
part of MSDE's revised monitoring procedures it would be evaluating the
outcome of its training efforts to determine if there is an increase in
providing services in natural environments.

**b) [IFSP Documents and State Guidance Inconsistent with Federal
Requirements ]{.underline}**

MSDE mandates the use of a Statewide IFSP form and recommends a protocol
to be implemented by IFSP teams to assist them in determining natural
environments. Confusion regarding this form may have contributed to
inappropriate decisions regarding the settings in which early
intervention services are provided. MSDE\'s IFSP guidance document
specifies that the IFSP team: (1) describe any circumstance which may
prevent services from being provided in settings "preferred" by the
family and (2) identify what settings for early intervention services
would the family "like to discuss." Neither the IFSP document nor the
State protocol specifies or directs the IFSP team to determine the
natural environments for a child, or to record a justification for
services not in a natural environment. Although the parent is a critical
member of the IFSP team, decisions must be made by the IFSP team based
on the needs of the child, and not solely on family preference.

In 20 IFSPs that OSEP reviewed, the identification of \"preferred or
liked\" settings in the IFSP was ultimately where early intervention
services were provided and there was no reference to appropriateness of
the setting based on assessment data or other sources to clarify why the
setting was chosen. OSEP\'s review of these IFSPs and other directives
from the State for completion of the IFSP document also determined that
these directives have the potential to limit the IFSP team's discussion
to those settings \"preferred or liked\" by the family instead of
engaging in a team discussion of the needs of the child and natural
environment options.

## B. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR INFANTS, TODDLERS, AND THEIR FAMILIES

**1. [Guidance Regarding Religious Facilities]{.underline}**

Based on changes to Federal law regarding the provision of services in
religious facilities, MSDE revised its State policy to allow MSDE
employees to provide services in religious settings with certain
restrictions. However, local administrators in two regions told OSEP
that they were uncertain about the requirements related to the provision
of service in religious settings. They stated that the guidance they
received from the State was confusing, therefore, they did not consider
a religious facility an option in determining the location of early
intervention services. OSEP reviewed MSDE's policy and determined that
the existing policy was based on a prior law that has been rescinded by
the State. MSDE State staff informed OSEP that this policy was being
revised, but that appropriate guidance had not yet been provided to all
participating early intervention programs and agencies. MSDE should
ensure that all jurisdictions are informed of the revised State policy
including any restrictions, and ensure that all providers adhere to the
current policies and procedures.

**2. [Procedures to Ensure Adequate Bilingual Staff to Ensure the
Provision of Services]{.underline}**

Local administrators in three areas told OSEP that there is a need for
additional bilingual staff to reach out to underrepresented groups at
the point of referral or entry into the early intervention system. Local
administrators reported that some communities rely on the primary
referral source to refer non-English speaking families and to provide
the necessary supports to facilitate access to early intervention
system. Service providers in three areas reported that while bilingual
staff are available to engage families in the intake process, they lack
the necessary bilingual staff resources to ensure timely evaluations and
assessments of non-English speaking families, thus evaluations are often
delayed and IFSPs to determine needed services are not held within the
45 day time line.

Service coordinators and providers in one jurisdiction told OSEP that
they rely on volunteers to interpret evaluations and assist with the
ongoing provision of services to families who do not speak English.
Service providers and coordinators in this region reported that if the
volunteer or staff translator is absent or on vacation there is no
mechanism in place to ensure that families are meaningfully involved in
the implementation of services, or on some occasions, services are
discontinued if the interpreter is unavailable.

MSDE may want to explore with institutions of higher education and other
resources to develop innovative strategies and activities to train
existing personnel to work effectively with bilingual families. MSDE and
the State Interagency Coordination Council may want to explore exemplary
practices for the recruitment and retention of qualified personnel, to
ensure that families whose native language is not English have access to
the information necessary for them to participate fully in the
development and implementation of the IFSP.

**3. [Effective Procedures to Ensure Prior Notice and Parental Consent
in the Native Language]{.underline}**

Each State gives parents written prior notice a reasonable time before
proposing, or refusing to initiate or make changes on the IFSP. The
State must ensure that the parent has been fully informed of all
information relevant to the activity for which consent is sought, in the
parent's native language or other mode of communication. 34 CFR
§303.401(a)(1). Written prior notice must be provided in the native
language of the parents, unless it is clearly not feasible to do so. 34
CFR §303.403(c). IFSP meetings must be conducted in the native language
of the family or other mode of communication used by the family, unless
it is clearly not feasible to do so. 34 CFR §303.342(d)(1). The contents
of the IFSP as delineated in 34 CFR §303.344 must be fully explained to
the parents and informed written consent from the parents must be
obtained prior to the provision of services described in the plan. 34
CFR §303.342(e). In order to consent, the parent must understand and
agree in writing to the carrying out of the activity. 34 CFR
§303.401(a).

MSDE may want to review with participating agencies current IFSP
procedures to assure that parents are afforded their procedural
safeguards related to prior notice, specifically the native language
requirements.

OSEP reviewed four IFSPs of non-English speaking families in two of the
regions visited and determined that the IFSP meeting was not in their
native language. OSEP's review also determined that the consent forms
signed by these non-English speaking parents were written in English and
not in the parents' native language. Service providers in three regions
reported that some Spanish-speaking families indicate that they would
prefer that they be informed in English and that written information be
given in English rather than Spanish. A local administrator and parent
in one region told OSEP that Spanish-speaking families preferred to have
information in English, even though Spanish was indicated on the IFSP as
being the native language, because information written in English
assists them to understand English better.

MSDE may want to work with the State Interagency Coordinating Council to
devise a process to translate consent and prior notice forms in both
English and Spanish, for dissemination to all participating agencies and
programs in the early intervention system, to ensure parents' rights.

# IV. PART C: FAMILY-CENTERED SYSTEM OF SERVICES

Research has shown that improved outcomes for young children are most
likely to occur when services are based on the premise that parents or
primary caregivers are the most important factors influencing a child's
development. Family-centered practices as those in which families are
involved in all aspects of the decision-making, families' culture and
values are respected, and families are provided with accurate and
sufficient information to be able to make informed decisions. A
family-centered approach keeps the focus on the developmental needs of
the child, while including family concerns and needs in the
decision-making process. Family-centered practices include establishing
trust and rapport with families, and helping families develop skills to
best meet their child's needs.

Parents and other family members are recognized as the linchpins of Part
C. As such, States must include parents as an integral part of
decision-making and service provision, from assessments through
development of the IFSP, to transition activities before their child
turns three. Parents bring a wealth of knowledge about their own child
and family's abilities and dreams for their future, as well as an
understanding of the community in which they live.

In 1986, Part C of the IDEA was recognized as the first piece of Federal
legislation to specifically focus attention on the needs of the family
related to enhancing the development of children with disabilities. In
enacting Part C, Congress acknowledged the need to support families and
enhance their capacity to meet the needs of their infants and toddlers
with disabilities. On the cutting edge of education legislation, Part C
challenged systems of care to focus on the family as the unit of
services, rather than the child. Viewing the child in the context of
her/his family and the family in the context of their community,
Congress created certain challenges for States as they designed and
implemented a family-centered system of services.

**[Validation Planning and Data Collection]{.underline}**

The State's self-assessment identified as exemplary the diverse
strategies and opportunities to solicit and maintain family involvement
throughout the eligibility of the child. Components identified as having
acceptable progress were: the development and dissemination of family
guides in three languages; family-centered public awareness
announcements featured on public television; a statewide Family Support
Network to provide ongoing training and mentoring; and varying levels of
parent support and involvement at both the local and State level. The
self-assessment identified the following areas needing improvement:
targeting culturally sensitive strategies to develop and disseminate
appropriate materials; facilitating access to the central directory;
reviewing and modifying interagency agreements to continue to strengthen
the support for family-centered initiatives.

The following focus questions were asked during the public input
process: "How are families included and supported in the process of
developing the IFSP, and in making decisions about their child's
services?" and, "What family support services are available in your
community?"

Based on the information collected from the self-assessment, public
input session and State documents, the following concerns were
identified to be investigated during the Validation Data collection
week: (1) an effective process to assess and link the identification of
family concerns, needs and priorities with appropriate services; and (2)
strategies to strengthen and to ensure meaningful parent participation
throughout the child's eligibility in the early intervention system. To
investigate these issues, OSEP collected data from local programs and
providers, parents, service providers, case managers, interagency
collaborators and state staff personnel. OSEP reviewed and analyzed the
data and identified the following strengths, area of non-compliance, and
suggestion for improvement.

## A. AREAS OF STRENGTH

**1. [The Family Support Network]{.underline}**

The Family Support Network provides a vehicle for ongoing training,
outreach and support to families. Some of the innovative activities
conducted have included an annual Family Focused conference that brings
together the expertise of professionals, paraprofessionals and parents.
This annual forum affords service providers the opportunity to increase
their sensitivity to the needs of diverse families and helps them become
aware of, and understand, the concerns and obstacles families face when
a child with a disability is part of the family. Additionally this
conference allows parents to gain a better understanding of how they can
play a more participatory role in the early intervention system and help
direct their child's early intervention program. Early in the State's
implementation of IDEA, Maryland provided additional funds to each
jurisdiction to support the hiring of a family support coordinator who
would implement family support activities. One of the qualifications was
that coordinators must be a parent of a child with a disability and thus
be more likely to be able to relate to other families with children with
disabilities. At the State level, the Family Information Specialist and
Family Support Services Coordinator facilitate the implementation of the
Family Support Network throughout the State and ensure the
implementation of family centered practice.

**2. [Parent Involvement in Policy Development]{.underline}**

Parents are actively involved in policy development and the decision
making process through participation in the State Interagency
Coordinating Council. Thirty-six percent (36%) of the State Interagency
Coordinating Council members are parents, and a parent serves as the
co-chairperson. Several of the Local Interagency Coordinating Councils
and Local Management Boards have a strong parent representation. These
mechanisms afford families the opportunity to advise MSDE on the
effectiveness of policies, procedures and their impact on the provision
of services to children and families.

## B. AREA OF NONCOMPLIANCE

**[Lack of Effective Strategies to Ensure Opportunity for Family
Assessment]{.underline}**

Each State's system must include the performance of a timely
comprehensive, multidisciplinary evaluation of each child, birth through
age two, referred for evaluation and a family directed assessment of the
needs of each child's family to appropriately assist in the development
of the child. 34 CFR §303.322. The family assessment, which is voluntary
and family-directed, identifies the resources, priorities and concerns
of the family and the supports and services necessary to enhance the
family's capacity to meet the developmental needs of their child. 34 CFR
§303.322(d). In addition, with the concurrence of the family, the IFSP
must include a statement of the family's resources, priorities, and
concerns related to enhancing the development of the child. 34 CFR
§303.344(b).

OSEP finds that MSDE has not met the requirements for addressing family
needs in the assessment process and on the IFSP.

Service providers and service coordinators across the State informed
OSEP that, due to their very large caseloads, they were not able to: (1)
identify as part of the assessment, the resources, priorities and
concerns of the family and the supports and services necessary to
enhance the family's capacity to meet their child's developmental needs;
or (2) include a statement in the IFSP of the family's resources,
priorities, and concerns related to enhancing the development of the
child.

OSEP reviewed a total of 30 IFSPs from the six jurisdictions visited and
determined that the IFSPs did not contain any family information
relating to enhancing the family's capacity to meet the developmental
needs of their child. The review of the early intervention record did
reveal that sometimes there was a family or child assessment conducted
by a referring or another agency prior to the child being found eligible
for Part C services, however, this information was not utilized in the
development of the IFSP or to determine the family goals and outcomes
necessary to support the developmental needs of the child.

MSDE must ensure that appropriate procedures are in place so that the
service coordinator or other individual designated by the public agency
has access to necessary family assessment information and considers all
pertinent family assessment information in the development of the IFSP.

## C. SUGGESTION FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR INFANTS, TODDLERS AND THEIR FAMILIES

**[Provisions to Enhance Families' Access to Training and Educational
Opportunities]{.underline}**

MSDE should ensure that the necessary supports and services are in place
to enhance family access and participation in training and other
education opportunities offered at the local and State level,
particularly for underrepresented groups, deaf, non-English, rural and
those with low literacy skills. In interviews with OSEP some families
reported that while they do receive notices regarding the various
training and workshop opportunities, they may not attend because they
are not able to determine which workshops, seminars or training would be
most applicable to address the present developmental needs of their
child and family.

MSDE may consider collaborating with the Family Support Network and the
State Interagency Coordinating Council to identify strategies that could
be employed either by the members of the Family Support Network, service
coordinators or other entities to assist families in making informed
decisions so that they will attend training and other opportunities.

#  V. PART C: EARLY CHILDHOOD TRANSITION

Congress included provisions to assure that preschool or other
appropriate services would be provided to eligible children leaving
early intervention at age three. Transition is a multifaceted process to
prepare the child and the child's family to leave early intervention
services. Congress recognized the importance of coordination and
cooperation between the educational agency and the early intervention
system by requiring that a specific set of activities occur as part of a
transition plan. Transition activities typically include: (1)
identification of steps to be taken to prepare the child for changes in
service delivery and to help the child adjust to a new setting; (2)
preparation of the family (i.e., discussions, training, visitations);
and (3) determination of other programs and services for which a child
might be eligible. Transition planning for children who may be eligible
for Part B preschool services must include scheduling a meeting, with
approval of the family, with the lead agency, the educational agency and
the family, at least 90 days (with parental permission up to six months)
prior to the child's third birthday. Transition of children who are not
eligible for special education also includes convening a meeting to
assist families in obtaining other appropriate community-based services.
For all Part C children, States must review the child's program options
for the period from the child's third birthday through the remainder of
the school year and must establish a transition plan.

**[Validation Planning and Data Collection]{.underline}**

MSDE's self-assessment in the area of transition from early intervention
services to special education services and other community services
identified several areas of strengths. These areas include training
opportunities for parents and professionals, statewide conferences, and
demonstration models. Two examples of these promising practices are the
Understanding Special Education conference and joint transition training
for Parts C and B providers. Areas identified as needing improvement
were training individuals to provide transition planning, enhancing
community-based opportunities for children who do not qualify for Part B
preschool, and developing the transition plan.

One of the focus questions asked during the public input meetings was,
"By the child's third birthday, does transition planning result in the
timely provision of needed supports and services?" Comments received
during the public input meetings indicated that transition activities do
not occur in a timely manner, transition plans are not developed 90 days
before the child's third birthday, transition plans are not implemented
as developed, and children not eligible for Part B services were not
transitioned into other appropriate services.

Based on the information collected during validation planning, the
following areas were identified for further data collection: timeliness
of transition planning; development of transition plans; and the
timeliness of the transition meeting.

To investigate these issues, OSEP collected data from local programs and
providers, parents, service providers, case managers, local programs,
interagency collaborators and from central office staff personnel. OSEP
reviewed and analyzed the data and identified the following areas of
strength and area of noncompliance.

## A. AREAS OF STRENGTH

**1. [Coordination of Financial Resources between Part C and Part B to
Promote Transition Activities]{.underline}**

MSDE combined preschool funds and Part C funds to support the position
of a Family Support Coordinator to serve the birth-to-five population in
various counties. This strategy allows families who transition from Part
C to Part B to be able to maintain the supports and services of a
service coordinator to assist the transition process from early
intervention services to Part B and to access timely information and
needed resources throughout the preschool years. Several counties in the
State have implemented this strategy to support a coordinator to assist
families after they leave the Part C program to become familiar with the
new preschool environment. In addition, MSDE awarded Family Support
Network expansion grants to 9 of 24 jurisdictions to develop training
and materials to inform and train families regarding the transition
process. This process has the potential to provide the State with
valuable data regarding the effectiveness of the transition process and
in identifying areas in need of improvement.

**2. Transition Process Enhanced Through the Use of Developmental Delay
Category**

MSDE has defined and adopted the term "developmental delay" for use in
determining a child's eligibility for special education services under
Part B. A number of local school districts across the state of Maryland
have elected to use the developmental delay category as a categorical
option to establish eligibility for preschool services under Part B.
MSDE State staff told OSEP staff that the use of the developmental delay
category appears to enhance coordination efforts between the Part C and
Part B programs. In addition, anecdotal data included in the State's
self-assessment suggests that in local school districts that use the
developmental delay category it appears that the transition process is
smoother and more effective for children and their families.

## B. AREA OF NONCOMPLIANCE

**[Transition Meeting Not Held within 90 Days]{.underline}**

Each State's application must include a description of the policies and
procedure to be used to ensure a smooth transition for children
receiving early intervention services under Part C. For a child who may
be eligible for preschool services under Part B of the Act, with the
approval of the family of the child, the lead agency must convene a
conference among the lead agency, the family, and the local educational
agency at least 90 days before the child is eligible for the preschool
services. 34 CFR §303.148.

MSDE has not ensured that, with the family's approval, a transition
meeting with the appropriate personnel occurs at least ninety days
before a child may be eligible for preschool services under Part B upon
on their third birthday.

Service providers in two regions told OSEP that the transition process
was more difficult to implement in an early intervention program
administered by a health agency rather than a local education agency. As
a result the 90 day transition meeting may be delayed because a
representative from the local school district may not be available to
attend. Service providers in three of the six regions visited told OSEP
that there were different interpretations of State policies and
procedures regarding the transition process, particularly regarding
timelines and placement options. Therefore, the 90 day meeting may not
occur until after the child's third birthday. Service providers across
the State reported that particularly during the period from April
through September each year, transition meetings are not held within 90
days before the child's third birthday, due to lack of available Part B
staff during the spring and summer months to conduct evaluations,
determine eligibility and to write IEPs. Service coordinators and
administrators across the state told OSEP that most Part B staff on ten
month contracts staff have to be rehired (if funds are available) to
carry out transition activities during the summer months. Since the
contract approval process may take a couple of weeks, the lack of
available staff often results in delays in conducting the transition
meeting and in some instances may not occur until the after the child's
third birthday.

MSDE way want to work with the State Interagency Coordinating Council to
devise strategies to ensure that the transition process is not impeded
as a result of contract procedures and personnel shortages.

# VI. PART B: PARENT INVOLVEMENT

A purpose of the IDEA Amendments of 1997 is to expand and promote
opportunities for parents and school personnel to work in new
partnerships at the State and local levels. Parents must now have an
opportunity to participate in meetings with respect to the
identification, evaluation, and educational placement of their child,
and the provision of a free appropriate public education to their child.
Parental involvement has long been recognized as an important indicator
of a school's success and parent involvement has positive effects on
children's attitudes and social behavior. Partnerships positively impact
achievement, improve parents' attitudes toward the school, and benefit
school personnel as well.

**[Validation Planning]{.underline}**

**Previous OSEP Monitoring** - Previous OSEP monitoring visits did not
include parent involvement as a separate section in monitoring reports.
When OSEP redesigned its monitoring process, parent involvement became a
focus of the continuous improvement monitoring process.

**State Self-Assessment** - Issues identified in the State
Self-Assessment included the following:

\(a\) there is a need for the development of a comprehensive data
collection system to provide better information to parents,
administrators and advocates; and (b) training and information materials
designed for use by parents, should be written and presented in a
non-jargon, user-friendly manner.

**Public Forums** - As part of the OSEP Validation Planning phase,
parents made the following comments at the public input meetings: (a)
parents are afraid to raise issues in school and they don't feel that
the staff is receptive and may resent parents' attempts to get involved;
(b) parents don't feel that they are fully informed; (c) resources are
needed to thoroughly inform parents of special education processes; (d)
parents feel that the due process system is too costly, especially
attorney fees; (e) parents feel restricted in their access to educators
in that they are required to make appointments for all visits to schools
and special education IEP meetings are held only on certain weekdays;
and (f) parents were not aware of IDEA transition requirements for
secondary students.

**[Validation Data Collection]{.underline}**

OSEP held meetings with parents of students whose files it reviewed in
two local districts. OSEP elicited information regarding parent
involvement in the special education decision-making process, preschool
transition, secondary transition, and parent training opportunities.
OSEP convened one meeting with parents of high school students. The
second parent meeting brought together parents of pre-school and
elementary school children with disabilities.

Both parent groups supported their districts' efforts to serve children
in the least restrictive environment. The parents of elementary school
students praised the teachers for their children's transition from Part
C program services to Part B services. Of particular note is their
stated support for the elementary school's outreach to parents of
students with disabilities and the commendation they gave the county
parent outreach center.

Parents said their pre-school children lacked opportunities for
instruction with nondisabled peers. These parents felt a need existed
for more relevant information to help regular education teachers,
special education teachers, and parents understand the real meaning of
the terms "least restrictive environment" and "inclusion."

Parents of high school students made the following observations: (a)
parents are not aware of the transition requirements of the IDEA
Amendments of 1997 and are unaware of the opportunity to discuss
transition issues during the annual IEP meeting; (b) the regular
classroom environment does not have the supports and accommodations for
children with disabilities; (c) regular education high school teachers
are unaware of the special needs of children with disabilities; (d)
regular education teachers are unable to provide the accommodations and
modifications as stated in the students' IEPs; (e) in-service training
and in class support (e.g., aides in the regular education classroom)
are not provided for regular education teachers; and (f) extended school
year services are not available. When one of the parents identified the
district's outreach center for parents and advocates (funded in part by
IDEA), none of the other parents at the meeting knew about the center
and the center's resources for parents of students with disabilities.

## A. AREAS OF STRENGTH

**1. Maryland Resource Centers for Families and Schools** - The Resource
Centers provide training activities in local school districts. MSDE
increased funding for each center from \$10,000 annually to \$16,000.
Each local district expanded and upgraded services at existing centers
or initiated new centers. All local school districts, as well as the
Maryland School for the Blind and Maryland School for the Deaf, have a
Resource Center for Families and Schools.

**2. Technical Assistance and Dissemination of Information** - MSDE
developed and disseminated comprehensive training packages for use by
local school districts**.** Each package included information and
presentation materials for use in training parents, staff, and other
interested individuals.

## B. SUGGESTION FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN

**Training**

While MSDE has developed public awareness materials to assist parents in
understanding the requirements of IDEA, parents, teachers and
administrators identified the lack of adequate training as a persistent
problem in helping parents become full partners in the education of
their children. OSEP recommends that MSDE continue to expand training
for administrators, school-based staff, and parents. Training for
parents should include (a) suggestions for parents when they attend IEP
meetings, (b) information about parental procedural safeguards, and (c)
information about transition at both the preschool and secondary levels.
Additionally, it is suggested that training for administrators and
teachers focus on parental due process rights, procedural safeguards and
the increased role parents have following the IDEA Amendments of 1997.

# VII. PART B: FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT

The provision of a free appropriate public education in the least
restrictive environment is the foundation of IDEA. The provisions of the
statute and regulations (evaluation, IEP, parent and student
involvement, transition, participation in large-scale assessment,
eligibility and placement decisions, service provision, etc.) exist to
achieve this single purpose. It means that children with disabilities
receive educational services at no cost to their parents, and that the
services provided meet their unique learning needs. These services are
provided, to the maximum extent appropriate, with children who do not
have disabilities and, unless their IEP requires some other arrangement,
in the school they would attend if they did not have a disability. Any
removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational
environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is
such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary
aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

The IDEA '97 Committee Reports of the Senate Committee on Labor and
Human Resources and the House of Representatives Committee on Education
and the Workforce emphasized that too many students with disabilities
are failing courses and dropping out of school. Those Reports noted that
almost twice as many children with disabilities drop out as compared to
children without disabilities. They expressed a further concern about
the continued inappropriate placement of children from minority
backgrounds and children with limited English proficiency in special
education. The Committees stated their intention that "once a child has
been identified as being eligible for special education, the connection
between special education and related services and the child's
opportunity to experience and benefit from the general education
curriculum should be strengthened. The majority of children identified
as eligible for special education and related services are capable of
participating in the general education curriculum to varying degrees
with some adaptations and modifications. This provision is intended to
ensure that children's special education and related services are in
addition to and are affected by the general education curriculum, not
separate from it.

**[Validation Planning]{.underline}**

**Previous OSEP Monitoring** - OSEP's November 1995 monitoring report
included findings that MSDE did not fully meet its responsibility to
ensure that: (a) to the maximum extent appropriate, children with
disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or
other care facilities, are educated with children who do not have
disabilities, and special classes, separate schooling or other removal
of children with disabilities occurs only if the severity of the
disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of
supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily; and
(b) each child with a disability participates with children who do not
have disabilities in nonacademic and extracurricular services and
activities to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of that child.

**Self-Assessment** - The State Self-Assessment identified the following
items related to the provision of appropriate special education and
related services in the least restrictive environment: (a) MSDE should
continue its partnership with the Office for Civil Rights regarding the
over-representation of minority students with disabilities in five local
school districts (MSDE and local districts presently have written
partnership agreements with the Office for Civil Rights); (b) MSDE
should collect, validate and analyze accurate data related to personnel
certification to develop strategies to increase the number of fully
certified special education and related service providers (Note: The
Maryland Teacher Staffing Report 1998-2000 given to OSEP identified
critical shortages of certified special education teachers and related
service personnel, and included a statement that over 10% of the special
education and related service providers are not fully certified); and
(c) MSDE should collect and report the number of students with
disabilities who are suspended or expelled.

**Public Forums** - At the public forums held during the OSEP Validation
Planning phase, participants at the forums identified the following
issues: (a) special education and related services are not implemented
as specified in IEPs; (b) related services, such as speech/language,
occupational and physical therapy, are often interrupted as a result of
staff changes and the school-wide scheduling of annual IEP reviews; (c)
transportation rules and schedules result in children having a shortened
school day; (d) there is a lack of related services personnel; (e) many
programs for students with disabilities are not age-appropriate; (f)
many districts lack a full continuum of placement options for students
with disabilities; (g) a number of special education programs are
understaffed; (h) many special educators, general educators, and related
services personnel are not certified and lack the skills to provide
adequate special education services; (i) behavior plans are generic in
nature, or lacking; and (j) extended school year services are not
available in all cases when a student needs the services to benefit from
special education.

**[Validation Data Collection]{.underline}**

To investigate the concerns identified by participants at the public
forums during the Validation Planning phase, OSEP interviewed State
personnel, parents, local program administrators and school
administrators, teachers, and other service providers; and reviewed
student records and State and local documents.

## A. AREAS OF STRENGTH

**1. Interagency Agreements to Enhance Personnel Development** - MSDE
signed interagency agreements with Maryland institutions of higher
education to design and deliver pre-service and in-service programs
related to reform-based education for general and special education
teachers. Four of these agreements focused on redesigning the special
education teacher education program. A fifth agreement focused on
retaining new special education teachers through a mentoring program.

**2. Regional Technical Assistance Network** -- MSDE provides technical
assistance to local districts through a regional resource network
system. Resource personnel provide technical assistance support to local
districts. Technical assistance includes training for local districts.
MSDE developed an "IDEA Tool Kit,\" a package containing the IDEA
Amendments of 1997 regulations with information relevant to each topical
area of the regulations. Compact disc and audio-visual resources are a
part of the package.

**3. MSDE-Assisted Initiatives**

\(a\) **The Learning Lab Model** - The Learning Lab Model was
implemented in seven elementary schools during School Year 1998-99. The
100 students selected to participate in the model program attended
kindergarten through 5^th^ grades. A school instructional and
administrative team selected students on the basis of (a) potential
out-of-home school placement, (b) absenteeism, (c) high-risk behavior,
and (d) low student achievement. The MSDE Division of Special Education
provided funds for a behavioral assistant and the school provided space
for the program. Students who participated in the Learning Lab Model
demonstrated significant increases in school attendance and student
achievement. Student discipline referrals and suspension rates
decreased.

\(b\) **Promising Local Practice** - A rural district identified a need
for comprehensive training in order to provide services to children with
disabilities in inclusive settings. In 1999, MSDE awarded the local
district a grant to encourage efforts toward inclusion. The district
hired an inclusion specialist to support families and regular education
teachers and to provide staff development for special education staff.
Additional in-service was provided for regular education teachers on the
use of modifications for students with disabilities in the regular
classroom, and for regular education teachers and elementary specialists
as part of the district's annual staff development program. Proven
benefits of the model included: growth in social skills, increased
parental expectations, positive attitude changes among non-disabled
peers and adults, improved overall physical health and improved student
achievement.

**4. MSDE Task Force on Least Restrictive Environment** - MSDE appointed
a task force to recommend and initiate activities that would promote
placing more students in the least restrictive environment. The State
implemented changes in State regulations that (a) required districts to
submit staffing plans, (b) eliminated case load maximum or minimum
ratios, (c) eliminated placement of children with disabilities according
to a "level of intensity," and (d) promoted in-service training at local
schools.

## B. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE

**1. Requiring that Students with Disabilities Be Removed from the Least
Restrictive Environment in order to Receive Special Education Services**

34 CFR §300.550 requires that each public agency ensure that to the
maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including
children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are
educated with children who are nondisabled; and that separate classes,
separate schooling or other removal of children with disabilities from
the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or the
severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes
with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved
satisfactorily.

34 CFR §300.347 (a)(3) requires that each IEP include a statement of the
special education and related services and supplementary aids and
services to be provided to the child, or on behalf of the child, and a
statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel
that will be provided for the child (i) to advance appropriately toward
attaining the annual goals; (ii) to be involved and progress in the
general curriculum; and (iii) to be educated and participate with other
children with disabilities and nondisabled children in extracurricular
and other nonacademic activities. 34 CFR §300.347(a)(4) requires that
the IEP include an explanation of the extent, if any, to which the child
will not participate with nondisabled children in the regular class and
in the activities described in 34 CFR §300.347(a)(3).

As part of its review of MSDE's oversight of local districts in
Maryland, OSEP reviewed MSDE monitoring reports of ten districts. Two
MSDE monitoring reports were completed in 1997 and eight were completed
in 1998. MSDE cited five of the ten districts for failure "to ensure
that students are placed in the least restrictive environment in
accordance with State and Federal regulations." MSDE also cited two of
these districts for failure to ensure that each student with a
disability is educated with nondisabled students to the maximum extent
appropriate.

In addition to reviewing the MSDE monitoring reports for the ten
districts (including two districts visited by OSEP), OSEP conducted
interviews with parents, students, educators and related services
personnel, and reviewed student records (all described below). Based on
the results of interviews, the review of student records, MSDE
monitoring reports and written documentation provided by local and State
staff during the Validation Data Collection phase, OSEP determined that
MSDE did not ensure that students are placed in the least restrictive
environment.

In three districts, OSEP determined from a review of student records and
interviews with teachers and administrators that, during the IEP
meeting, a determination is made of the "intensity level" of the special
education services and related services required by a student, and the
"intensity level" determines whether a child with a disability will be
removed from a regular education classroom. Thus, based on the level of
intensity, the IEP team will remove a child from the regular education
classroom without considering accommodations and modifications to permit
the child to remain in the regular education classroom with the needed
intensity of services. The teachers and administrators stated that
placement in a regular education classroom with support services is
often rejected because the \"...student requires the supports and
expertise of a special education teacher." In the case of six student
records in which "Special Classroom" was selected for student placement
neither the IEP nor any other document in the students' record explained
why the child was not placed in the regular classroom, and there was no
documentation in the record that there had been consideration of
appropriate supplementary aids and services to promote the students'
placement in less restrictive environments.

In all three districts, when OSEP asked administrators and teachers to
explain how IEP teams determined students' placements, the respondents
stated that the "intensity of services" determined the decision about
placement in the regular or special education classroom. MSDE staff
stated that there was some lack of awareness among educators regarding
the State's recent policy guidance regarding the requirement to make
individual placement decisions based on unique needs of the child with a
disability and the State's former practice of determination of
"placement levels." Further, in one of the three districts, special
education teachers indicated that some students could be accommodated in
a regular education class if appropriate supports and aids were
available and if the role of special education teachers was not limited
to teaching in separate classrooms. The teachers also believed more
students would be able to succeed in the regular education classroom if
the school administrative structure was more "flexible." The teachers
reported that when considering where a student receives his/her
services, age sometimes plays a role, in that the younger the child, the
more motivated teachers are to teach them in the regular education
classroom. The teacher said that older children are more difficult to
include in regular education classrooms because regular education
teachers of older students lacked the skills, including classroom
management skills and behavior management skills, to accommodate the
"older students' unique needs." Related services personnel in the same
district indicated that students with disabilities would be successful
in the regular education classroom if the co-teaching model was
permitted in the district.

In all six districts visited by OSEP, teachers, parents and
administrators said a further problem preventing students with
disabilities from being placed in the least restrictive environment was
that regular education teachers do not understand the IEP process or
their role in recommending accommodations and supports so that students
with disabilities would be successful in the regular education
classroom. In two of the six districts visited by OSEP, teachers and
administrators reported that regular education teachers do not attend
IEP meetings on a regular basis or, in all appropriate cases, provide
information to the IEP team. Both teachers and administrators indicated
that scheduling is a serious problem. Teachers from one district told
OSEP that if they were unable to attend an IEP meeting due to a
scheduling conflict, information is provided to the special education
teacher to be presented at the meeting. Administrators told OSEP that
participation of regular education teachers at IEP meetings is more of a
problem on the secondary level than on the elementary level.

Among all districts and within the districts, OSEP found wide
variability among schools and local school districts regarding the
extent to which students with disabilities had access to the general
curriculum. It appeared from student record reviews and OSEP interviews
that, for some students, the extent to which a student with a disability
would have access to the general curriculum depended solely on the site
of the special education services. The placement of the student
determined the student's access to the general curriculum.

MSDE administrators informed OSEP that extensive guidance had been
provided by the State to ensure that local school district personnel
made placement decisions based on unique needs of the individual student
with a disability. MSDE acknowledged, however, that local school
district personnel continue to make some placement decisions based on
"intensity of services." MSDE said there is confusion between the terms
"placement levels," "intensity of services," and "unique needs of a
student with a disability." In meetings between OSEP and MSDE before the
1999 monitoring visit, OSEP and MSDE determined previous State
regulations describing placement levels determined how much time a
student with a disability would be removed from the regular education
classroom. To address this issue MSDE, prior to the 1999 OSEP visit,
revised the State regulations to include various levels of intensity of
services rather than "placement levels" to make clear the designation of
intensity would address the amount of services, not the setting in which
the services would be provided. The intent of this change was to make
clear that while the State funding would in part be determined by the
intensity or the amount of special education support a student would
receive, placement decisions were separate from, and should not be made,
based on the intensity of the service a child would receive.

**2. Failure to Provide All Related Services Needed as a Part of a Free
Appropriate Public Education**

34 CFR §300.300 requires a State ensure that a free appropriate public
education is available to all children with disabilities residing in the
State and that the services and placement needed by each child with a
disability to receive a free appropriate public education must be based
on the child's unique needs and not on the child's disability.

34 CFR §300.347 requires the IEP for each child with a disability to
include a statement of the special education and related services and
supplementary aids and services to be provided to the child, or on
behalf of the child, and a statement of the program modifications or
supports for school personnel that will be provided for the child. 34
CFR §300.24 defines related services as transportation and such
developmental, corrective, and other supportive services required to
assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education, and
includes speech-language pathology and audiology services, psychological
services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation, including
therapeutic recreation, early identification and assessment of
disabilities in children, counseling services, including rehabilitation
counseling, orientation and mobility services, and medical services for
diagnostic or evaluation purposes. The term also includes school health
services, social work services in schools, and parent counseling and
training.

Administrators, teachers and related services personnel in two districts
reported that personnel shortages exist which result in children with
disabilities not receiving all the services to which they are entitled.
In one of these two districts, a related services provider informed OSEP
that the related services personnel had the responsibility of working
with children in five schools and staffing was a problem in this
district. Due to staffing problems, students do not receive any
psychological counseling regardless of need. Those students in need of
the counseling will receive the service outside of school (e.g. mental
health agency) and the service is not written into the IEP. In the
second of these two districts, two related service providers indicated
delays in the provision of services to children. One therapist stated
services were suspended when the therapist participated in annual review
meetings and conducted reevaluations. Regarding reevaluations and annual
reviews \"direct instruction is impacted and is sometimes suspended.\"
Another therapist in this same district reported that delays and
interruptions in the provision of services happen \"fairly often;\" the
therapist reschedules suspended sessions for another day during planning
periods but is not always able to keep the rescheduled sessions. This
related service provider reported the district is understaffed. The
district needs a half-time speech therapist to ensure that there are no
interruptions in services to students with disabilities. Three
school-based administrators in the same district reported that there is
a need for more personnel and resources to better meet the needs of the
students. One administrator said there is a need for one teacher and one
aide for an "Intensity V program" and one teacher is needed for an
"Intensity IV program" where a substitute provides special education
instruction on a temporary basis. A third administrator, based at
another school, said some students would be determined to need a setting
outside of the regular classroom based solely on the category of the
disability. The local director of special education said additional
teachers and certain related services personnel are needed because there
is a district-wide shortage of special education teachers. The director
added that many of the special education teachers who are teaching are
on waivers working toward certification and do not have the experience
of working with regular education teachers to help make modifications or
accommodations to increase the likelihood that children with
disabilities would be instructed in the regular education classroom.

**3. Lack of Participation in Statewide Assessments of Students Placed
in Nonpublic Schools**

34 CFR §300.138 requires the State to demonstrate that children with
disabilities are included in general State and districtwide assessment
programs with appropriate accommodations and modifications in the
administration of the assessment, if necessary. As appropriate, the
State and local education agency must develop guidelines for the
participation of children with disabilities who cannot participate in
State and districtwide assessment programs. 34 CFR §300.347(a)(5)
requires that the IEP include a statement of any individual
modifications in the administration of the assessment of student
achievement, if needed, for a child with a disability to participate in
the assessment. If the IEP team determines that the child will not
participate, the IEP must contain a statement of why that assessment is
not appropriate and how the child will be assessed.

All State administrators and local directors of special education
interviewed by OSEP said that students with disabilities placed by the
local school district in a nonpublic school did not participate in the
Maryland statewide assessment program. MSDE recognized this concern
during the OSEP monitoring visit and issued a memorandum to local school
districts to address this finding.

## C. SUGGESTION FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN

**State Funding Formula - Disincentive to Return Students to Home
District**

34 CFR §300.130(b) states that if the State uses a funding mechanism by
which it distributes State funds on the basis of the type of setting
where a child is served, the funding mechanism may not result in
placements that violate the local education agency's requirement to
provide a continuum of alternative placements to meet the unique needs
of each child with a disability.

Information identified through the Self-Assessment process indicates
that MSDE should review and analyze the data on the number of students
with disabilities placed in non-public schools by local school systems
to determine the impact of the State funding formula on more restrictive
placements. The State funding formula may contribute to the placement of
students with disabilities in more restrictive environments because
while the local district must pay the majority of the costs for students
with disabilities served in the local district, the State reimburses the
local district for approximately 80 percent of the costs when a child
with a disability is in an out-of-district placement. (The local
district pays the remaining 20 percent). Reimbursement for 80 percent of
the costs becomes effective after the local district has paid the
equivalent of 300 percent of local cost per pupil towards the placement.

  ----------- ----------------------------- -----------------------------
  **Fiscal    **Number of Students with     **Annual Cost of Non-Public
  Year**      Disabilities in Non-Public    Tuition Assistance Program**
              Placements**                  

  FY 1997     3,341                         \$50,315,143

  FY 1998     3,742                         \$67,990,567

  FY 1999     4,080                         \$72,071,070
  ----------- ----------------------------- -----------------------------

The State of Maryland depicts a varied picture with regard to where
services are provided to students who receive more than 15 hours of
special education and related services per week and require a more
intensive education program (Intensity V). In some instances, counties
are providing special education and related services in regular schools
with appropriate accommodations and modifications. In other counties,
the provision of special education and related services to Intensity V
students are in separate day schools. Interviews with local
administrators suggested that they could provide the services, but they
choose not to do so, because counties want MSDE to continue to pay 80%
of the education costs.

Four local administrators in three districts informed OSEP that
non-public placements are "very costly." They said that local health
departments have stopped providing mental health services and that it
has been very difficult for families to access mental health services
elsewhere. The administrators in one district said that access to mental
health services is the primary reason why so many children in the
district are in non-public placements. A building administrator in the
district reported to OSEP that the funding formula provides no incentive
to maintain a child in the home school because funding for the services
provided outside the district does not follow the child to the
in-district school which ultimately provides the services. Rather, the
funds are retained at the central office.

OSEP suggests that MSDE look closely at the impact of the funding
formula to determine whether the formula results in students with
disabilities being placed in more restrictive environments and whether
there is a need to revise either the formula or the State's placement
policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the least restrictive
environment requirements of IDEA 97.

# VIII. PART B: SECONDARY TRANSITION

The National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students
reports that the rate of competitive employment for youth with
disabilities who are out of school for three to five years was 57 per
cent compared to an employment rate of 69 percent for youth in the
general population. The Study identifies several factors that were
associated with post-school success in obtaining employment and earning
higher wages for youth with disabilities. These include completing high
school, spending more time in regular education, and taking vocational
education in secondary school. The Study also shows that post-school
success is associated with youth who had a transition plan in high
school that specifies an outcome, such as employment, as a goal. The
secondary transition requirements of IDEA focus on the active
involvement of students in transition planning, consideration of
students' preferences and interests by the IEP team, and the reflection,
in the IEP, of a coordinated set of activities within an
outcome-oriented process which promotes movement from school to
post-school activities.

**[Validation Planning]{.underline}**

**Previous OSEP Monitoring** - OSEP's 1995 monitoring report included
findings that MSDE did not fully meet its responsibility to require
local districts to ensure that, if a purpose of the IEP meeting was the
consideration of needed transition services, notice to the parents of
the meeting informed the parent of that purpose, and notices that the
student would be invited to attend.

**Public Forums** - During the Validation Planning phase, OSEP held four
public forums and one focus group. Participants stated: (a) there are no
supports for transition from middle school to high school and from high
school to college; (b) students with disabilities at the Maryland Adult
Correctional Facility do not receive transition services; (c) students
with disabilities in detention centers are not identified and served;
(d) transition meetings for students, ages 14 years and older, take
place "on paper" in the senior year; (e) districts pay little attention
to IDEA requirements for transition services; and (f) the parent has to
initiate the process of transition planning, or it may not occur.

**[Validation Data Collection]{.underline}**

During the Validation Data Collection phase, OSEP interviewed parents,
students, teachers, administrators and outside agency representatives in
seven districts. OSEP reviewed student record files and local and State
policy guidance related to the provision of transition services for
students ages fourteen years and older.

## A. AREAS OF STRENGTH

**1. Maryland Infrastructure for Transition Services** -- Maryland has
an infrastructure to ensure the provision of effective transition
services for students with disabilities. There is a transition
specialist at the State level, and each local district has a transition
coordinator. Materials such as *Transition Planning and Anticipated
Services in the IEP Process*, an informational guide for students,
families and professionals, are available. The Maryland transition
specialist works with local and state interagency groups to develop
effective resources and materials, provides training upon request of the
local school districts and identifies resources for local school
districts. Each county has identified a contact person for transition.

**2. Interagency State Plan for Transitioning Youth with Disabilities**
-- The Interagency State Plan for Transitioning Youth with Disabilities,
required by Maryland State law, is a collaborative plan developed by
MSDE, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Developmental
Disabilities Administration, the Department of Labor, Licensing and
Regulation, and the Governor's Office for Individuals with Disabilities.
The plan is based on the premise that multiple State agencies play a
critical role in building a seamless continuum of services that moves
students from the entitlement of school-based transition services to the
eligibility-based adult system. The plan provides a mechanism to
identify the number of students and their anticipated unique transition
services.

**3**. **Maryland Youth Leadership Forum** - The Maryland Youth
Leadership Forum is a White House initiative to develop leadership
skills in youth with disabilities. Successful high school candidates,
selected for their leadership qualities and accomplishments, are trained
to be delegates to the Forum. The group of students representing all
categories of disabilities and differ in race, gender, and ethnicity,
reflecting the diversity of the State's population.

**4. Nationally Recognized Model Transition Programs** - The National
Transition Alliance has published a directory of innovative approaches
to providing transition services to youth with disabilities, *Improving
Student Outcomes: Promising Practices and Programs.* Six of the
twenty-seven innovative programs included in the directory were
implemented in the State of Maryland. OSEP visited one of these
programs, the Post Secondary Program: Learning for Independence, a
program designed for students who have completed a four-year high school
program and received a certificate (rather than a diploma). The program
is a cooperative effort among the public schools, continuing and
alternative education, career and technical education, the community
college continuing education and local adult services. The program is
located on community college campuses. A student's participation in the
program takes place over a period of at least two years. The first year
focuses on instruction and the subsequent year(s) focuses on employment
experiences. The success of the program is reflected in the percentages
of students employed upon completion of the program. Approximately 90%
of the students are either gainfully employed (53%) or are in worksite
employment development programs (33%). Four additional districts in
Maryland also operate programs on college campuses. A number of these
programs have documented that it is more cost effective to provide the
same program at the college campus than to serve the same students
(18-21years of age) in their respective high schools.

## B. SUGGESTION FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN

**Involvement of Students, Parents, and Outside Agency Representatives
in Transition Planning**

Despite the infrastructure for transition, when OSEP reviewed the
policies and procedures in two local districts monitored by both MSDE
and OSEP, OSEP found that, although the policies and procedures in each
district were consistent with IDEA, the policies and procedures were not
being effectively implemented for each child with a disability. In one
of the districts OSEP visited, school staff reported that they did not
have a clear understanding of the transition requirements, particularly
IDEA requirements for students who are 14 years old. While MSDE provided
training opportunities and IEPs included transition service needs, staff
said they didn't understand IDEA transition requirements, including an
understanding of their role and responsibilities. Middle school teachers
told OSEP that transition services for middle school students,
regardless of the age of the students, are the responsibility of the
transition coordinator at the high school and deferred any transition
planning until the students moved on to the high school level.

The transition coordinator in another district indicated that there were
weaknesses in coordination and cooperation between the district and the
Division of Rehabilitation. In the majority of files reviewed by OSEP in
this district, there were no linkages with other agencies identified for
students in one of this district's programs. OSEP found no documentation
of any consideration of the need for an invitation to outside agencies
that may be responsible for the implementation and provision of needed
transition services. Staff indicated that although the Division of
Rehabilitation has agreed through an interagency agreement to be
available to students a year prior to leaving high school, the Division
of Rehabilitation has had problems with timely vocational assessments
and waiting lists for services and did not always send a representative
when the local school district invited the agency to the meeting.

OSEP suggests MSDE examine the involvement of students, parents, and
outside agency representatives in transition planning when the State
monitors local school districts. OSEP also suggests that MSDE extend the
State's innovative secondary transition programs to all secondary
schools in the State.

# IX. PART B: GENERAL SUPERVISION

IDEA assigns to State Education Agencies (SEA) responsibility for
ensuring that all public agencies comply with the requirements of Part
B. IDEA also requires that all educational programs for children with
disabilities, including all such programs administered by any other
State or local agency, are under the general supervision of individuals
in the State who are responsible for educational programs for children
with disabilities, and that these programs meet the educational
standards of the SEA. SEA involvement and support are critical factors
in the successful implementation of the provisions of IDEA at the local
level. Effective general supervision promotes positive student outcomes
by promoting appropriate educational services to children with
disabilities, ensuring the successful and timely correction of
identified deficiencies, and providing knowledge, skills and abilities
necessary to carry out their assigned responsibilities to personnel who
provides services to children with disabilities. The Federal law
identifies several mechanisms for the SEA to use in fulfilling its
general supervisory responsibilities. These include (a) monitoring
public agencies to ensure that these agencies are complying with Part B
requirements, (b) ensuring that public agencies correct any
deficiencies, (c) implementing dispute resolution mechanisms, (d)
providing technical assistance and training to teachers and
administrators to ensure that they are fully informed of these
responsibilities. Each State receiving assistance under Part B must
ensure that a free appropriate public education is available to all
children with disabilities aged 3 through 21 years residing in the
State. The SEA is also required to carry out activities to ensure that
teachers and administrators in all public agencies are fully informed
about their responsibilities for placing students in the least
restrictive environment, the monitoring IDEA requirements, and
implementing remedies for denial of appropriate services.

**[Validation Planning]{.underline}**

To obtain data regarding MSDE general supervision of educational
programs for children with disabilities, including the effectiveness of
the State monitoring system, OSEP reviewed Part B complaints,
interviewed MSDE staff, reviewed State documents, convened public forum
meetings, and met with the Steering Committee.

**Previous Monitoring** - The OSEP Monitoring Report (1995) found that
MSDE did not exercise its general supervisory responsibility to ensure
compliance with IDEA requirements by special education units, public
school districts and private schools providing services to children with
disabilities. State complaint procedures did not ensure that complaints
were investigated and resolved within 60 days. Extensions to timelines
were given routinely without providing a reason for the extension. OSEP
also found in 1995 that the State monitoring system was ineffective in
identifying noncompliance and in adopting and utilizing proper methods
for the correction of deficiencies identified through the State's
monitoring activities.

**The Steering Committee** - The State Steering Committee made the
following comments for OSEP to consider during the Validation Data
Collection visit: (a) MSDE needs to complete written monitoring reports
within 90 days following each component of the process; (b)
self-evaluation data regarding program satisfaction need to be collected
and analyzed to determine technical assistance, training and program
improvement needs; (c) MSDE needs to develop and utilize enforcement
standards and criteria that address persistent deficiencies of public
agencies; (d) MSDE needs to meet the 60 day timeline for complaint
investigation; (e) MSDE needs to develop a tracking system to ensure
that activities required as a result of a complaint investigation or a
due process hearing are conducted consistently and effectively; (f) MSDE
needs to continue to collect and analyze the data on performance goals
and indicators for use in determining the statewide training and
technical assistance needs of public agencies; (g) MSDE needs to collect
data from the Department of Juvenile Justice, the State's adult
correctional facilities and county adult detention centers to determine
the number of students with disabilities under 21years of age who have
an IEP, including those who exit high school with a Maryland High School
Diploma or a Maryland High School Certificate concerning the extent to
which the IEPs of students with disabilities are being implemented and
the extent to which students who receive services from these agencies
are fully protected under the law; (h) a system for the collection and
analysis of data is needed with regard to students with disabilities in
out of district placements exiting high school with a Maryland High
School Diploma or a Maryland High School Certificate; and (i) data need
to be collected, disaggregated, and analyzed regarding the results
achieved by all students with disabilities including those students
placed in non-public settings by local districts. (The results should
include a comparison of all student performance on Statewide assessments
as compared to students with disabilities receiving services in local
school systems and students receiving services in nonpublic placements).

**Public Forums** - During the public input meetings additional concerns
were identified by those in attendance at the meetings. Participants
questioned the effectiveness of MSDE's general supervisory role in its
oversight of the implementation of IDEA and the provision of a free
appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. The
majority of participants stated that MSDE did not meet its
responsibility related to the general supervision of the State Part B
systems. Participants said MSDE exercised its supervisory
responsibilities through a paperwork process and gave districts found to
be noncompliant a "slap on the wrist and that "the State does not
address systemic issues." Participants also identified early childhood
transition and teacher training as areas of concern.

The Education Advocacy Coalition, a coalition comprised of advocacy
organizations and individuals with an interest in education issues that
affect students with disabilities throughout Maryland, provided OSEP
with the organization's latest report (1999). The Education Advocacy
Coalition addresses issues such as monitoring and enforcement of IDEA,
related State and federal legislation, and revisions to federal and
State special education regulations. The Education Advocacy Coalition
urged OSEP to monitor concerns gathered by the Coalition through a
survey of 4,000 parents. These concerns included: (a) provisions related
to placement in the least restrictive environment and the provision of
supplementary aids and services within the regular education classroom,
(b) discipline; (c) the provision of special education services in
Baltimore City; (d) the general supervisory role of MSDE; (e)
restrictive placements and the role of nonpublic schools in the
placement process; (f) availability of appropriate extended school year
services; (g) procedures for due process hearings; and the State's
management of the complaint process.

**[Validation Data Collection]{.underline}**

OSEP collected information from the review of student records and State
and local policies and procedures; interviewed with State personnel,
local program and school administrators, teachers and other service
providers, and parents; and investigated the concerns identified by the
Steering Committee and public input participants during the Validation
Planning phase. OSEP reviewed State structures designed to implement
general supervisory responsibilities, including the State monitoring
system, and the accountability of public agencies to ensure that
students with disabilities are receiving a free appropriate public
education in the least restrictive environment.

## A. AREA OF NONCOMPLIANCE

**Complaint Management System -- Complaint Timelines Are Not Always
Met**

34 CFR §300.600 requires that the State educational agency ensure the
requirements of IDEA are carried out and that each educational program
for children with disabilities is under the general supervision of the
State educational agency and meets the education standard of the State.

34 CFR §§300.660-300.661 require that the State educational agency adopt
written procedures for resolving any complaint that meets the
requirements of §300.662 including remedies for denial of appropriate
services in resolving a complaint in which it has found a failure to
provide appropriate services; and, that each State have minimum
complaint procedures which include a time limit of 60 days after a
complaint is filed under 34 CFR §300.660(a). 34 CFR §300.661(b) requires
MSDE to have procedures that address time extensions, final decisions
and implementation of complaint decisions. These regulations require
MSDE to have procedures for effective implementation of the State's
final decision, including technical assistance, negotiations, and
corrective actions to achieve compliance. 34 CFR §300.661(b) requires
that MSDE investigate and resolve complaints that a public agency has
violated a requirement of Part B within 60 days. An extension of the
time limit is permitted only if exceptional circumstances exist with
respect to a particular complaint.

The OSEP 1995 Maryland Monitoring Report stated that MSDE had not
exercised its general supervisory authority by adopting procedures that
ensured that complaints were resolved within the regulatory 60-day
timeframe. OSEP required MSDE to adopt and submit a corrective action
plan that included amending State complaint management procedures to
ensure that all complaints are resolved within 60 calendar days unless
the timeline is extended because exceptional circumstances exist with
respect to a particular complaint.

MSDE could not document that the State extends the 60-calendar day
timeline only under unusual circumstances. When OSEP reviewed the MSDE
Complaint Log for School Year 1998-99, complaints were not always
resolved within the 60-calendar day requirement. The number of days by
which the decisions exceeded 60 calendar days ranged from one to 86
days. Extensions were given in 19 of the 29 cases reviewed. Only four of
the 19 complaint files included a reason for the extension. IDEA allows
for extensions beyond the 60-day timeline only in exceptional
circumstances. When OSEP asked MSDE why a timeline would be extended,
staff said timelines would be extended due to "insufficient State
staff," "summer vacation," and "winter break." The explanations do not
represent exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular
complaint.

OSEP found in its review of the *Overview of the MSDE Complaint
Resolution Process,* that, while MSDE has addressed nearly all of the
required regulatory information, MSDE procedures do not address the
requirements of 34 CFR §300.661(b)(2)(ii) regarding the use of
negotiations for those occasions when such negotiations may be needed.

## B. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS

**1. Importance of Evaluating New Monitoring System**

MSDE\'s monitoring system was revised and the revised system was
implemented in the 1998-99 school year. The procedures for monitoring
local school systems and State operated programs are based on the model
developed by OSEP. MSDE made presentations on the revised monitoring
system for local directors of special education, public agency staff
members, local school superintendents, local special education advisory
committees and stakeholders. The State made additional presentations at
State conferences for both general and special educators, and public
agency administrators, and parent groups such as the Parents\' Place of
Maryland and the Association for Retarded Citizens of Maryland. The MSDE
system is intended to be comprehensive in that it incorporates the use
of complaint investigation results, due process results, and analysis of
other data available to the State and the public agencies, including
court decisions. The MSDE Division of Certification and Accreditation
monitors private schools on a three-year cycle. However, a non-public
school is monitored on an unscheduled basis if it appears to be
problematic. The MSDE Division of Special Education participates in the
monitoring process.

MSDE implemented the first stages of its revised monitoring system
during the 1998-99 school year. As part of OSEP's 1999 visit, OSEP found
that MSDE had not been effective in correcting some of the deficiencies
that MSDE had identified in previous State monitoring visits. OSEP
notes, however, that MSDE's revised correction procedures had not been
in effect a long enough period of time prior to the OSEP visit for OSEP
to evaluate the effectiveness of the new procedures. OSEP recommends
that MSDE examine its enforcement strategies when evaluating the new
monitoring system. For example, OSEP suggests the State review how it is
ensuring corrective actions are implemented and whether the actions are
yielding improved results for students with disabilities.

**2. Disproportionate Placement of Minorities**

MSDE is working with the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil
Rights to correct disproportionate placement of minorities in special
education programs. The Office for Civil Rights cited five districts.
The districts have reached agreement with the Office of Civil Rights and
the Office for Civil Rights will review the districts periodically.
Additionally, twenty of the 24 districts in Maryland are under plans
with the Office of Civil Rights regarding placement of students with
disabilities in group homes. In addressing these issues on a Statewide
systemic basis, it will be important for MSDE to comply with the
requirements of 34 CFR §300.755(b) which require the State to review and
revise policies, practices, and procedures in the case of a
determination of significant disproportionality with respect to the
identification of children as children with disabilities, or the
placement of these children in particular educational settings to ensure
that the policies, procedures and practices comply with the requirements
of Part B of the Act.

**3. Lack of Tracking to Ensure Local Districts Take Effective Action to
Correct Noncompliance**

When MSDE included corrective actions in decisions, timelines were not
always given to the districts to complete the corrective actions and the
corrective action plans did not always require local districts to
provide MSDE with documentation that the districts implemented the
corrective actions. Regarding the determination of corrective actions,
OSEP noted that MSDE remands the issues back to the IEP team to
determine the specific remedy. 34 CFR 300.660(b) requires MSDE, when
resolving a complaint in which it has found a failure to provide
appropriate services, to address how to remediate the denial of those
services, including, as appropriate, the awarding of monetary
reimbursement or other corrective action appropriate to the needs of the
child. MSDE acknowledged that there was no State system to track whether
or not local districts took effective action to correct noncompliance.
OSEP suggests that the new State monitoring process include procedures
for tracking the effectiveness of local districts' actions to correct
noncompliance.