Final Report Without Title Page

8/14/2019 Final Report Without Title Page

1/118

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF ISSUES 1

I. Scope of ReportII. An Institution in the Process of Change and the Challenges Ahead

III. The Role of the Maryland State Department of Education and its

Intensive Management Capacity TeamIV. Improvement Student Achievement on the Maryland School

Achievement Tests

V. Charter and Contract Schools

II. OUTCOMES 3 AND 4: 27

GRADUATION AND SCHOOL COMPLETION

I. OverviewII. Graduation and School Completion Data

III. Institutional Mechanism to Support Improved Graduation

and School Completion RatesIV. Recommendations

III. OUTCOME 7: STUDENT DISCIPLINARY REMOVALS 37

I. Overview

II. Manifestation Meetings, Functional Behavior Assessmentsand Behavior Intervention Plans [OSEMC Audits]

III. School Based Documentation / Reporting Issues

IV. Provision of FAPE to Students Removed More Than 10 DaysIn A School Year Pursuant To IDEA Disciplinary Provisions

V. Recommendations: Measures and Evidence That Will Move

BCPSS Toward Substantial Compliance

IV. OUTCOMES 8 AND 9: 58

DELIVERY OF IEP SERVICES IN THE LEAST

RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENTI. Overview

II. Evidentiary Findings

III. Recommendations


2/118

V. OUTCOME 11: 88INTERRUPTIONS IN THE PROVISION OF IEP SERVICES

I. Overview

II. Summary of Relevant EvidenceIII. BCPSS Efforts to Develop and Strenghen Internal

Institutional ProcessesIV. Office of Compensatory Services (OCS)V. Recommendations

VI. OUTCOME 13: 109

CONDUCTING IEP MEETINGS FOR STUDENTSDESIGNATED AS DROPOUTS.

I. Overview and Summary of Findings

II. Recommendations


3/118

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF ISSUES 1

I. Scope of ReportII. An Institution in the Process of Change and the Challenges Ahead


Intensive Management Capacity TeamIV. Improvement Student Achievement on the Maryland School

Achievement Tests


II. OUTCOMES 3 AND 4: 27

GRADUATION AND SCHOOL COMPLETION

I. OverviewII. Graduation and School Completion Data

III. Institutional Mechanism to Support Improved Graduation

and School Completion RatesIV. Recommendations

III. OUTCOME 7: STUDENT DISCIPLINARY REMOVALS 37

I. Overview

II. Manifestation Meetings, Functional Behavior Assessmentsand Behavior Intervention Plans [OSEMC Audits]

III. School Based Documentation / Reporting Issues

IV. Provision of FAPE to Students Removed More Than 10 DaysIn A School Year Pursuant To IDEA Disciplinary Provisions

V. Recommendations: Measures and Evidence That Will Move

BCPSS Toward Substantial Compliance

IV. OUTCOMES 8 AND 9: 58

DELIVERY OF IEP SERVICES IN THE LEAST

RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENTI. Overview

II. Evidentiary Findings

III. Recommendations


4/118

V. OUTCOME 11: 88INTERRUPTIONS IN THE PROVISION OF IEP SERVICES

I. Overview

II. Summary of Relevant EvidenceIII. BCPSS Efforts to Develop and Strenghen Internal

Institutional ProcessesIV. Office of Compensatory Services (OCS)V. Recommendations

VI. OUTCOME 13: 109

CONDUCTING IEP MEETINGS FOR STUDENTSDESIGNATED AS DROPOUTS.

I. Overview and Summary of Findings

II. Recommendations


5/118

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Vaughn G., et al., )

)Plaintiffs, )v. ) Civil Action No. MJG-84-1911

) (Consolidated)Mayor and City Council of ) EXEMPT

FROM ECFBaltimore, et al., )

)Defendants. )

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF ISSUES

I. Scope of Report

This Report delineates the Baltimore City School Systems (BCPSS) progress

toward achievement of the seven remaining Ultimate Measureable Outcomes specified in

the May 4, 2000 Consent Decree, as amended.1 The Report analyzes progress through

the 2007/08 school year (SY)2, although it also recognizes various initiatives and

institutional changes implemented in the 2008/09 SY that are relevant to findings made

1 The Court has previously ruled that the BCPSS has achieved Outcomes 5, 10, 12, 16 and 18, subject toexpress conditions regarding the BCPSS obligation to maintain procedural and substantive compliancewith these Outcomes and a fully effective special education student data tracking system. See, Stipulationand Consent Order Regarding Ultimate Measurable Outcomes of July 28, 2003 [Paper No. 1287]confirming state of the record and changing Outcomes 7 and 13 to substantial compliance Outcomes. Inaddition, the Court has released the BCPSS from Outcomes 6 and 14 based upon findings that BCPSSachieved the requirements of these Outcomes. [Order of Feb. 4, 2004, Paper Numbers 1350 and Order ofFeb. 2005, Paper No.1470]. Finally, in an Order dated December 15, 2005 [Paper No. 1590], the Courtconfirmed that BCPSS has achieved Outcome 15, subject to the express condition that the Maryland StateDepartment of Education (MSDE) would be legally responsible for oversight and monitoring of the

BCPSS continued compliance with IDEAs student progress report requirements that mirrored Outcome15 and would assure that BCPSS maintained a high standard of compliance with these requirements. Thecurrently outstanding Outcomes obviously entail some of the most challenging requirements for BCPSS.2 The BCPSS filed its 2008/08 SY end-of-year report on July 31, 2008. [Paper No. 1731] Supplementaldata was produced in the months thereafter both by the BCPSS and the MSDE in response to informationand data requests submitted by the Special Master. In the interest of providing timely monitoringevaluative feedback to the parties, the Special Master circulated a condensed draft version of this Report tothe parties on October 25, 2008. All parties were given an opportunity to provide comments and discussconcerns regarding the draft report findings and recommendations. The Special Master, thereafter, workedwith the parties to forge consensus regarding the potential scope of her remedial recommendations.


6/118

as to the specific Outcomes. As a whole, the Report reflects the BCPSS serious

engagement in work focused on meeting the objectives of the Consent Decree and

marked progress in a range of areas. Most significantly, the Special Master makes

findings and recommendations that: (1) the K-5 programs in elementary and K-8 schools,

subject to certain exceptions and verification provisions, have reached substantial

compliance with Outcomes 7 and should be deemed inactive under the Consent Decree;

and (2) K-5 elementary schools subject to certain exceptions and verification provisions,

have reached substantial compliance with Outcomes 8 and 9 and should be deemed

inactive under the Consent Decree. At the same time, the Report identifies major

continuing challenges and performance issues that impact the Defendants complete

achievement of the remaining Outcomes.

Each of the outstanding Outcomes are now classified as substantial compliance

Outcomes pursuant to the Consent Order of May 4, 2000, Paper No. 950, as amended by

Stipulation and Consent Order of July 28, 2003[ Paper No. 1287] .3 These Orders

provide that for substantial compliance as opposed to strict compliance Outcomes, the

Court must determine substantial compliance based on three factors:

a. Progress toward the Outcome;

b. Assessment of effectiveness of the institutional mechanisms formeeting and maintaining the Outcome; and,

c. Student achievement.Accordingly, the evidence and analysis provided in this Report address all three

factors. Defendants substantial fulfillment of all critical elements of an Outcome over a

3 The original May 4, 2000 Consent Order provided that Outcomes 7 and 13 would be reviewed on a strictcompliance basis. The Stipulation and Consent Order Regarding Ultimate Measurable Outcomes,[Paper No.1287] changed Outcomes 7 and 13 to substantial compliance Outcomes.

2


7/118

sustained period, as supported by reliable data,4 must be viewed as the highest and best

evidence of achievement of the Outcome. In the absence of actual full achievement of an

Outcome, the Court and Special Master must weigh evidence pertaining to all three

substantial compliance factors. In some instances, evidence with respect to one or

another factor may be particularly compelling or relevant. Clearly, evaluation of the

achievement of substantial compliance ultimately entails a review of the totality of

evidence, in light of the three factors and not a rigid, mathematically proportionate

application of evidence pertaining to each individual factor.

As indicated in the Courts Order of December 17, 2004 [Paper No. 1460],

analysis of the school districts institutional mechanisms requires consideration of a

wide range of issues e.g., stability and adequacy of funding; management of personnel

functions and sustenance of proper staffing; deployment of effective processes for

ensuring continuity of delivery of educational and related services; and operation of

functional and accurate student tracking and data systems. These issues are addressed

throughout this Report. Finally, the Report reviews student achievement data that reflects

the scope of improvement of students with disabilities as a separate group as well as in

comparison to the improvement of regular education students. These data are a

significant indicator of whether students with disabilities indeed are progressing within

the school system and, in particular, gaining effective access to the benefits of the general

education program, the ultimate objective of Outcomes 3, 4, 8 and 9.

4 As the Court has previously held, The Court cannot determine there has been compliance with anOutcome unless that determination is based upon reliable data. Order April 19, 2004 [Paper No. 1378]

3


8/118

II. An Institution in the Process of Change and the Challenges Ahead

Dr. Andres Alonso began his tenure as the BCPSS Chief Executive Officer in

August 2007. In the span of approximately eighteen months, he has brought a high level

of urgency, drive, candor, and intellectual command to school reform efforts in Baltimore

thathad not been evident during the many preceding years of this cases pendency before

the Court. His leadership represents an extraordinary opportunity for the BCPSS to leap

forward in its delivery of educational services to students with disabilities, as well as to

all students. Even in the face of budgetary retrenchment, Dr. Alonso thus far has

creatively spearheaded reform efforts that seek to maximize resources at the school level

and hold schools accountable for performance results.

Proper funding of the school system -- including funding of diverse instructional

programming, school-based staffing, special education resources, student support

services, expanded professional and leadership development and program initiatives --

tests the Citys and the States commitment to transforming educational opportunities for

the children of the City of Baltimore. Absent the infusion of state stabilization funds

authorized pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the State

and Citys falling tax revenues would have resulted in severely damaging funding

reductions in the coming school year. Such reductions would have imperiled the school

systems capacity to implement expanded educational program initiatives and sustain

progress. At this juncture, it is clear the school district will remain in a financially viable,

if challenging, posture. The State budget now calls for restoration of $30 million in funds

originally proposed as cuts. The school districts budget projections include an additional

$26 million in cuts in regular funding, excluding consideration of the two year special of

4


9/118

federal stimulus dollars for categorical programs. While a host of questions exist with

respect to the terms and limitations that will be tied to the two year grant of federal

stimulus funds targeted for use in federal categorical programs (e.g. via Title I or IDEA),

the availability of these funds represents a significant time-limited opportunity for the

district to obtain additional resources to drive and supplement its reform efforts. The

year ahead thus represents a critical moment both for the future of the City schools and

the evolution of this case.

The BCPSS Compliance Statement for the 2007/08 school year asserts the school

district has achieved substantial compliance with Outcomes 4, 7, 8, and 9; partial

compliance with Outcomes 3 and 13; and non-compliance with Outcome 11. The

Compliance Statements assertion of substantial compliance for Outcomes 7 95 is

largely based on the school districts view that it has satisfied the Consent Decrees three

prongs for demonstrating substantial compliance. In the school districts view, their

position is supported by evidence of improvement in academic achievement as reflected

in K-8 testing and the wide range of substantial initiatives that the school district has

launched to expand and support educational programming.6

The school districts reform initiatives encompass curriculum reform;

restructuring of the central office leadership team and reduction of central office staff;

creation of a new school funding formula, expanded autonomy for principals in exchange

for heightened accountability, improved levels of hiring and retention of highly qualified

5 Outcome 7 provides that disciplinary removals must be executed in conformity with IDEA. Outcomes8 and 9 require special education students receipt of required services pursuant to their IndividualizedEducation Programs (IEPs) in regular and combined general education settings and in schools thestudents would normally have attended but for their disability.6 The significance of the school districts achievement gains will be assessed at the conclusion of thissection.

5


10/118

teachers, increased teacher planning and collaboration, the opening of six new, small

combined middle-high schools (Transformation Schools) to meet the needs of

Baltimore secondary students; expanded professional development; more intensive

student attendance review and support efforts; the overhaul of alternative schools; and

new standards for central office oversight of student disciplinary removals. These

initiatives and others7 are enormously promising in their range, substance, and potential

for improving educational services. Dr. Alonso has clearly galvanized the school system

and begun to put in place essential building blocks for change. However,

implementation, as opposed to planning of these initiatives, by and large commenced in

the 2008/09 school year. For that reason, the Special Master recognizes these

developments as potentially critical indicators that the BCPSS, in the near future, will

possess the essential foundation mechanisms needed to meet and maintain progress

toward the Consent Decree Outcomes.

Yet there is a distance between future implementation and the here and now. The

life cycle of school reform efforts in this case has sometimes proven truncated; progress

achieved through hard work and planning has too often evaporated under the pressure of

funding cuts, politics, and sudden organizational upheaval. Evidence of what actually

transpires this school year and in the funding projections for the coming years may well

be determinative of whether the conditions for substantial compliance are properly

established.

The Special Master recognizes the significant work that central office staff

invested in management of the 2007/08 SY Implementation Plan (IP). Specific staff

7 The effective implementation of an integrated special education and regular education studentinformation system will play a critical role in compliance management and self-monitoring from theSpecial Masters perspective.

6


11/118

members were assigned to take lead responsibility in oversight of each Outcome. This

was generally an efficient process for managing the central offices role in oversight of

the IP, though it proved a less effective process in the latter part of the second semester.

The challenges of preparing the system to implement the new plan for school funding to

devolve to the schools in the spring of 2008 in conjunction with the imminent elimination

of area offices diminished staff time and ability to focus on IP work. Due to transitions in

the top leadership of the Student Support Services Office and management issues within

the Office that arose in the first semester of the 2007/08 SY, the central office found itself

in a perpetual catch-up mode in the second semester relative to the variety of Outcomes

that required the leadership involvement of the Student Support Office.8

Dr. Alonso directed the Area Administrative Officers ( AAOs) to assume

primary responsibility for the training of principals in the 2007/08 SY to ensure that both

the Area staff and local school principals (supervised and evaluated by the AAOs) would

view themselves as independently accountable for carrying out the IP. Lead central

office managers provided training to the AAOs on the IP objectives, requirements, and

reporting that was to be provided to the AAOs in several lengthy sessions in the fall of

2007. The AAOs in turn provided training to principals of schools in their areas, with

assistance from central office staff. Although a number of the AAOs initially indicated

reluctance to assume this direct training and supervisory role in connection with the IP,

they ultimatelyprovided the required trainings and completed the IP reporting

documentation.

8 By contrast, the Student Support Services Office in the 2008-09 SY has taken a proactive role in leadingefforts to address student truancy, school discipline challenges, and in developing more effective studentsupport services throughout the district.

7


12/118

The BCPSS reporting of evidence that correlates with the IP benchmarks or

strategies was highly variable. The central offices capacity to document the IP

benchmark evidence deliverables depended in large part on the collaboration and work of

staff at the Area and school level, and the schools and Areas made this task difficult

because their reporting reflected different levels of data, detail, candid analysis, and

engagement with the IP work strategies. The Special Master observed during her

monitoring visits to schools that the structure for local school IP reporting created by the

central office did result, as a whole, in schools greater focus on their IP responsibilities.

Schools IP documentation additionally indicates that some principals clearly understood

and followed-through on their responsibilities as well as reported on their execution. On

the other hand, others routinely made notations such as no problems or no issues in

response to critical IP components.

The final IP school and area documentation submitted at the conclusion of the

2007/08 SY did not contain detailed or up-to-date information for a number of schools

and areas. Whether this simply reflects a failure to document the work is not known. The

Special Master recognizes that the major organizational transition occurring in the school

system at the end of the school year9 may have left school and Area staff with insufficient

time or focus to concentrate on IP activities, reporting, or analysis, although the Special

Master notes this reporting should have reflected work over an entire semester.

9 The structure of Area Office management was in the process of being eliminated by the end of the 07/08school year. As funding was substantially devolved to schools for the 2008/09 SY, schools were investedwith responsibility for development of new school based budgets, with full participation of the schoolcommunity. This planning process occurred in May and June 2008. Special education fundingmanagement and control was maintained by the Central Office in the 2008/09 SY but will devolve to theschools in the 2009/10 SY.

8


13/118

The central office staff generally approached the IP implementation process in a

professional and energetic manner. They created an IP Stat monthly collaborative

review process in the course of the year to discuss with Area Officers and other lead staff

the significant compliance developments, both positive and negative, identified by

ongoing data analysis and any follow-up measures required. They proceeded with a

serious effort to implement a data-driven management approach to execution of the IP

and Consent Decree. While the final IP reporting did not provide the scope of benchmark

evidence specified by the IP, the Special Master recognizes that central office staff

significantly escalated the entire school districts level of IP engagement, use of data, and

reporting as a result of their activities in the 2007/08 SY.

As devolution of authority, funding, and responsibility to local schools proceeds,

the big question is whether local schools will be able to step up to the challenge of

implementing the objectives and requirements of the Consent Order on a sustained basis.

The improvement of the school systems performance in the 2008/09 SY makes clear that

the Central Office is capable of driving improved compliance in any specific area for

particular audits or time frames through focused, intense work. Yet as Dr. Alonso has

recognized, at bottom line, local schools must be capable of implementing appropriate

delivery of special education and managing legal compliance with the requirements of the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. and the

Consent Decree. Otherwise, the BCPSS will not be able to sustain the change

implemented to date and fundamental IEP service and compliance problems will arise

anew when the pressure valve of central office or close court oversight is released.

9


14/118


Intensive Management Capacity Team

The Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) has played an important

role in this case for most of its duration. After the sustained budget crisis and collapse of

special education and related services that occurred in the 2003-2005 period, the Court

issued Emergency Orders directing the Maryland State Department of Education to

assume a direct oversight and support leadership role in operation of the District. (Orders

of August 12 and 25, 2005; Paper # 1539 & 1541) The MSDE appointed an Intensive

Management Capacity Improvement Team (IMCIT) of advisors to collaborate with

lead BCPSS staff in an effort to provide effective leadership in establishing core

functionality in the delivery and management of instruction, special education, human

resources, transportation, curriculum, information technology, and related services. The

Orders also called for the MSDE to expand the departments monitoring of BCPSS and

recognized that this monitoring would provide a transitional means by which the Special

Master and Court would confirm the States capacity and commitment to exercising

appropriate oversight over issues that lay at the heart of the Consent Decree.

The MSDE has embraced both the monitoring and leadership capacity building

roles and has provided important institutional back-up support for the BCPSS. The

MSDE has continuously improved the scope and quality of its monitoring and resulting

data and has partnered effectively with the Special Masters Office. As reflected in this

Report, the MSDEs Enhanced Monitoring for Continuous Improvement and Results

(EMCIR) audits have yielded critical information for both monitoring and corrective

action purposes. Assuming the BCPSS continues to make progress and meets substantial

10


15/118

compliance standards for release from the Outcomes, it is vital that MSDE maintain the

capacity to perform such intensive audits for oversight purposes.10

IMCITs work has yielded positive results in areas ranging from transportation to

related services, although its success has been constrained to a varying extent as a result

of the understandable difficulties entailed in grafting a team of state leadership

consultants onto an existing school district leadership structure. In the year after its

appointment, BCPSS staff viewed IMCITs role with hostility and skepticism. However,

as time has progressed, the relationship has become a more productive one. Dr. Alonso

and State Superintendent Nancy Grasmick appear to have established sufficiently strong

lines of communication to resolve any major issues of contention that arise.

IMCIT members work in an ongoing consultative capacity with school district

leaders as they attempt to implement major system changes. Moreover, IMCITs work in

particular areas entails concrete hands on work that should be specifically recognized:

IMCITs lead member for related services has played a vital role insupporting the BCPSS efforts to expand and manage its related serviceprovider capacity and ensure continuity in related service provision tostudents. She has similarly worked side by side with the BPCSS staff toexpedite and manage the districts delivery of compensatory services tothe high volume of students impacted by interruptions in services from2003/04 SY forward.

IMCIT and the MSDE have played an instrumental role with respect topreparing the BCPSS to deploy the Voluntary State Curriculum and inimplementation of the new statewide electronic IEP system.

10 The MSDEs greater receptiveness over the last two years to the Special Masters recommendationsregarding modifications in EMCIR auditing processes has resulted in an increased scope, reliability, andusefulness of EMCIR monitoring reports, from the Special Masters perspective. Further improvements inthe auditing process are planned for the 2008/09 SY, to ensure the substantive focus of monitoring findingsand use of separate sample populations for different types of audits. A reversion to the traditional,procedurally dominated state model of monitoring would result in a significant loss of information andfeedback with respect to the nuts and bolts reality of IEP service delivery, student outcomes, and legalcompliance within the BCPSS schools.

11


16/118

IMCITs lead member for transportation services has functioned as a keymember of the BCPSS team tackling the challenges in provision of bustransportation services to students without interruptions. Prior to hisjoining the BCPSS team, hundreds of students were forced to useunreliable taxi transportation and a host of problems impacted school

buses timely arrivals and deliveries of students to schools. Significantimprovement in the reliability and tracking of transportation service forstudents with disabilities has occurred over the last three years, eventhough notable problems remain.

IMCIT and the MSDE have served as an ongoing supplemental resourcefor the BCPSS in its development and implementation of professionaldevelopment initiatives relating to inclusive instructional practices andprogramming for principals and teachers, school leadership, and effectivedelivery of the voluntary state curriculum.11 IMCIT additionally initiateda partnership between targeted BCPSS schools and Howard County

schools for the purpose of providing BCPSS teachers and principals anopportunity to work with Howard County school staff who hadsuccessfully implemented co-teaching in inclusive classes of special andregular education students. The school district now has pursued similarlypartnership opportunities with schools in other districts.

IMCIT has provided additional back-up expertise and resources in a rangeof BCPSS information technology and system initiatives, includingamong others, movement to a new, integrated student informationmanagement system (SMS) from the increasingly obsolete SpecialEducation Tracking System (SETS) and general student information

data base (SASI), digitization of student records, and development ofan information data dashboard for principals.

Given the broad scope of staffing and program changes that Dr. Alonso has

initiated in the last year, the BCPSS leadership and top level organizational needs are

clearly different than in the 2005 period when IMCIT commenced its work pursuant to

the Courts Emergency Order. The Special Master suggests that this may be an

appropriate time for MSDE, after consultation with BCPSS leadership, to assess what11 IMCIT piloted during the first semester of the 2007/08 SY an effort to provide intensive support andprofessional development to a group of five targeted schools with records of significant deficiencies inacademic achievement and special education delivery. This targeted effort did not appear to makesignificant headway in results. This was in part due to the entrenched nature of the problems in theseschools. It was also partially due to this school based initiative being implemented at an early point in Dr.Alonsos tenure as CEO when his leadership team was not prepared to or did not adopt and integrate thepilot project into their work focus. Accordingly, IMCIT determined that it could be more effective byreturning to a systemic focus for support of the BCPSS reform efforts.

12


17/118

recommendations it may want to make to the Court regarding IMCITs future focus areas

and role in the school system. Ongoing adaptation of the IMCIT and its direction will

facilitate MSDEs playing a dynamic and supportive leadership role in the critical work

ahead for the BCPSS.

IV. Improvement Student Achievement on the Maryland School Achievement Tests

As noted above, the Consent Decree treats improved student achievement as one

of three salient factors for assessing substantial compliance. The entire premise of the

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) provisions of IDEA as well as the testing and

accountability provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 200112 (NCLB) is that

instruction of students, to the greatest extent possible, in the general education classroom

along with delivery of appropriate IEP services, modifications and accommodations will

provide special education students effective access to the general education curriculum

and result in their participation in district and statewide assessments and successful

achievement outcomes.

The Special Master therefore now turns to an evaluation of available evidence of

improvement in student performance. This analysis focuses on the Maryland Student

Achievements (MSAs), High School Assessment (HSA) test data for the 2007/08

SY. Relevant school graduation, completion, and dropout measures are separately

discussed in Reports section on Outcomes 3 and 4. The Special Master does not

consider here the SAT data presented by Defendants, as it is not disaggregated for

students with disabilities and in any event relates to only a small portion of the high

school special education population. The overall testing trends discussed here are

12 Public Law 107-87

13


18/118

graphed in Exhibit 1 (Charts 1 8 attached) and Exhibit 2 (HSA testing and high school

achievement outcomes).

The BCPSS Compliance Statement reports the City elementary and middle

schools turned in their highest scores on the Maryland Student Achievements (MSAs)

since the tests inception in 2003. The BCPSS states every grade taking the test showed

improvement in both reading and math. The school districts Compliance Statement

indicates that more than 3000 additional students scored proficient or advanced in reading

and 1900 additional students scored proficient or advanced in math. It projects that all

district elementary schools and all subgroups within the schools will have made AYP for

the 2007 - 2008 school year. While this projection proved to be overly optimistic, the

school systems continued trend of improvement in standardized MSA test measures of

progress is significant for purposes of analysis of substantial compliance.

The BCPSS contends that its students have out-performed the statewide averages

in elementary and middle school grades. See, Compliance Statement, p.3. Although the

improvement in scores is important and demonstrates overall improvement in academic

areas in grades 3 through 8, particularly for special education students, it is important to

understand this improvement in the context of the BCPSS extremely low starting point.

There is, of course, much greater potential to effect positive change for measures that

start at the lower levels of performance. Comparing rates of change in a proportional

(percentage) measurement is not always an effective way to measure performance. In

analyzing data, those elements that start with a lower base score have the numeric

potential to produce a much larger percent (rate) of change than those elements with

higher base scores. Table 1, below, uses actual data to demonstrate the volatility of

14


19/118

percentage of change or improvement. The table also demonstrates how these rates of

change may be misleading.

Table 1

Row 2007 2008 Percentagepoint

increase

PercentOf

Increase

A BCPSS MS/Sp.Ed 17.4% 28.0% 10.6 60.8%

B MD MS/Sp.Ed. 34.2% 43.5% 9.2 26.9%

C MD MS/Sp.Ed. 34.2% 55.1% 20.8 60.8%

When the percentage of special education students scoring proficient and

advanced in BCPSS middle schools increased from 17.4% to 28% (Row A), this was a

10.6 percentage point increase. This 10.6 percentage point increase generated a 60.8%

percent rate of increase. Row B contains the Maryland data as a whole. In this situation

an increase of 9.2 percentage points, generates only a 26.9% rate of increase. The actual

difference between the percentage point increases was only 1.4 points, but the percentage

rate of increase differed by 33.9%. To achieve the 60.8% percent of increase achieved by

the BCPSS the state would have had to increase advanced and proficient scores by 20.8

percentage points.13 Thus when the BCPSS reports there has been a 514% increase in

students scoring advanced in reading since the 02/03 SY, it must be remembered that the

base in that year was extremely low.14

13 Calculation: Determine the actual percentage point increase by subtracting 2007 scores from 2008scores. Calculate the percent of increase by dividing the actual increase by the base year percentage.14 The Special Master does not have all data from 2003, but notes that only 55 middle school studentsscored proficient or advanced in reading that year.

15


20/118

A. Elementary grades 3 through 515

Since 2004, the BCPSS special education students in grades 3 through 5, have

shown a steady increase in both the actual number of students and the percentage of

students scoring proficient or advanced on the MSA in Math. The greatest increase was

between 2007 and 2008 when the percentage increased by 16.2 points from 38.6% to

54.8%, and the actual number increased by 293 from 1,128 to 1,421. Between 2004 and

2008 the BCPSS students achieving advanced or proficient scores increased by 30.4

percentage points from 24.5% to 54.8% and the numbers increased by 798 students from

623 to 1421. BCPSS general education students also showed steady increases in the

same time period with 1928 students scoring proficient or advanced and a percentage

point increase of 15.7 points between 2004 and 2008.

In the same time period elementary school mathematics scores improved

statewide. From 2004 to 2008 special education students scoring advanced or proficient

increased by 16.8 percentage points from 42.1% to 58.9%, and the actual number of

students scoring at that level increased by 772 students from 3,081 to 3,853. Over 1000

more state general education students achieved the advanced or proficient level in the

same time frame, but the percentage increased only 9.1 points.

The BCPSS special education students in grades 3 through 5 have shown steady

and even more significant growth in both the actual number of students and the

percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced on the MSA in Reading. The

greatest increase again was between 2007 and 2008 when the percentage increased by

15 The data that follow are data from the MSDE. There are some differences in the numbers reported bythe BCPSS and those reported by the MSDE. The BCPSS does not include the Edison Schools in its totalsfor the 07/08 SY, and it does include results from students in placements such as the Maryland School forthe Blind.

16


21/118

12.2 points from 30.8% to 43%, and the actual number increased by 648 from 1,766 to

2,406. Between 2004 and 2008 the BCPSS students achieving advanced or proficient

scores increased by 35.6 percentage points from 17.4% to 43.0% and the numbers

increased by 1222 students from 1184 to 2406. BCPSS general education students also

showed steady increases in the same time period with 20,935 students scoring proficient

or advanced and a percentage point increase of 26.1 points between 2004 and 2008.

In the same time period elementary school reading scores improved statewide.

From 2004 to 2008 special education students scoring advanced or proficient increased

by 24.2 percentage points from 42.5% to 66.7%, and the actual number of students

scoring at that level increased by 3869 students from 10,128 to 13,988. Almost 11,000

more state general education students achieved the advanced or proficient level in the

same time frame, but the percentage increased only 13.2 points.

B. Middle grades 6 through 8

Since 2004, the BCPSS special education students in grades 6 through 8 have

shown a much smaller though steady increase in both the actual number of students and

the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced on the MSA in Math. The

greatest increase was between 2007 and 2008 when the percentage increased by 7.3

points from 8.7% to 16%, and the actual number increased by 191 from 259 to 450.

Between 2004 and 2008 the BCPSS students achieving advanced or proficient scores

increased by 11.8 percentage points from 4.2% to 16.0% and the numbers increased by

350 students from 100 to 450. BCPSS general education students also showed more

significant steady increases in the same time period with 5,855 students scoring proficient

or advanced and a percentage point increase of 19.3 points between 2004 and 2008.

17


22/118

In the same time period middle school mathematics scores improved statewide.

From 2004 to 2008 special education students scoring advanced or proficient increased

by 19 percentage points from 13.2% to 32.2%, and the actual number of students scoring

at that level increased by 3454 students from 3,366 to 6,820. Almost 4,000 more state

general education students achieved the advanced or proficient level in the same time

frame, and the percentage increased by 19.6 points.

As with math, since 2004, the BCPSS special education students in grades 6

through 8, when compared to elementary school students, have shown a much smaller

though steady increase in both the actual number of students and the percentage of

students scoring proficient or advanced on the MSA in Reading. The greatest increase

was between 2007 and 2008 when the percentage increased by 10.6 points from 17.4% to

28.0 %, and the actual number increased by 272 from 520 to 782. Between 2004 and

2008 the BCPSS students achieving advanced or proficient scores increased by 19.4

percentage points from 8.5% to 28.0% and the numbers increased by 462 students from

320 to 792. BCPSS general education students also showed more significant steady

increases in the same time period with 9,107 students scoring proficient or advanced and

a percentage point increase of 14.5 points between 2004 and 2008.

In the same time period middle school reading scores improved statewide. From

2004 to 2008 special education students scoring advanced or proficient increased by 18.1

percentage points from 25.4% to 43.5%, and the actual number of students scoring at that

level increased by 2,704 students from 6,510 to 9,214. Over 6,000 more state general

education students achieved the advanced or proficient level in the same time frame, and

the percentage increased by 10.8 points to 83.0%.

18


23/118

One predominant negative trend in achievement has continued: there is a

precipitous decline in the number of students scoring proficient and advanced between 5th

and 6th grades followed by an on-going decline in the middle school years. This decrease

in percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced leaves eighth grade students at

significantly lower levels of achievement than the levels they achieved in 5th grade.

Furthermore, in each year since 2004, except in the 05/06 SY when the decline was

slightly less than in 04/05, middle school students have lost more ground than in the

preceding year. See, Tables 2 and 3 below.

Table 2MSA Math % Proficient and Advanced

5th grade 6th grade 7th grade 8th grade Percentagepoint lossin middleschool16

All Spec.Ed.

All Spec.Ed.

All Spec.Ed.

All Spec.Ed.

All SpecEd.

07/08SY

67.4% 43.3% 50.6% 27.0% 33.6% 13.7% 28.4% 8.0% 22.2 19

06/07SY 63.9% 40.2% 42.4% 16.3% 25.7% 5.1% 24% 4.8% 18.4 11.5

05/06SY

53.7% 24.0% 31.4% 6.4% 24.8% 4.2% 21.6% 3.6% 9.8 2.8

04/05SY

48.5% 23.6% 28.4% 6.7% 18.4% 3.3% 19.5% 2.8% 8.9 3.9

03/04SY

43.7% 16.9% 19.8% 3.6% 17.9% 2.5% 18.9% 1.7% 0.9 1.9

16 Percentage point loss is here calculated by comparing grade 6 to grade 8 proficiency percentages.

19


24/118

Table 3

MSA Reading % Proficient and Advanced

5th grade 6th grade 7th grade 8th grade Percentagepoint lossin middle

school

All Spec.Ed.

All Spec.Ed.

All Spec.Ed.

All Spec.Ed.

All SpecEd.

07/08SY

75.7% 54.9% 65.6% 37.2% 62% 29.7% 49% 17.5% 16.6 19.7

06/07SY

60.3% 37.3% 53.6% 24.9% 43% 13.6% 43.8% 13.8% 9.8 11.1

05/06SY

58.6% 34.5% 43.5% 15.2% 46.4% 14.6% 39.4% 8.5% 4.1 6.7

04/05SY

57.6% 29.7% 45.7% 14.5% 39.6% 10.8% 40% 7.5% 5.7 7.0

03/04SY

49.9% 22.6% 43.5% 11.7% 44.2% 8.1% 42.6% 5.4% 0.9 6.3

As a whole, the Special Master finds that the BCPSS record of improvement in

student achievement at the elementary grade level at this juncture is strong, substantial,

and sustained and, therefore, must be considered a highly relevant element in assessing

substantial compliance with outstanding Outcomes, and in particular, Outcomes 8 and 9.

By comparison, the record of improved achievement in the middle school grades and

high schools (discussed in Section C. below), while notable, is more tenuous and

insubstantial in terms of absolute percentages of proficiency achieved by students with

disabilities. The challenges to implement change in secondary schools are compounded

by the high concentration of students with disabilities in certain middle and high

schools.17

For these reasons, the Special Master has considered but not given significant

17 Ten out of forty secondary schools (excluding charter, contract, and other special schools) have specialeducation enrollments above 25% of the total school enrollment.

20


25/118

weight to achievement increases in the secondary grade levels in assessing substantial

compliance.

C. High School Assessments and Bridge Plans

High School Assessments (HSAs) include tests in Algebra, Biology,

Government and English. The graduating class in 2009 will be in the first class which

must pass state high school testing requirements as a condition for diploma graduation in

Maryland. Students entering high school in 2005 or thereafter must pass all four high

school assessment tests to be eligible for diploma graduation.18 Alternatively, students

must meet Bridge Plan requirements established by MSDE in the past year as a

supplemental route for students to satisfy state graduation requirements. A student who

has not passed an HSA test after two attempts is eligible for participation in the Bridge

Plan if s/he had participated in an academic remediation assistance program; passed the

relevant HSA-related subject course; and is making satisfactory progress toward

graduation. Once a student is deemed eligible by the local school system, he/she must

complete one or more projects as determined by the students highest HSA score in a

specific content area. The Bridge Plan consists of a series of challenging projects linked

to the Core Learning Goals tested by each HSA. A faculty monitor is assigned to oversee

the students work. A review panel established by the local school reviews the student

project submission(s) and provides a recommendation to the local superintendent who

must provide the ultimate approval of the students project for each HSA core subject

matter Bridge Plan.

18 A student also may pass the HSAs by earning a combined total of 1602 points across the four exams.This option allows students to offset lower performance scores on one test with higher performance scoreson another.

21


26/118

Historically, students with disabilities have scored poorly on the Maryland

curriculum based High School Assessments. As with the MSAs the percentage of

students in the BCPSS achieving passing scores on the HSAs is significantly lower than

the statewide average. In addition, the proportion of special education students receiving

passing scores has been particularly tiny both in absolute terms and in relation to the

scores of regular education students.

Through the end of the 2007/08 SY, BCPSS and MSDE reported HSA test score

pass rates as a percentage reflecting the number of students who passed a specific test

divided by the number of total test attempts by students enrolled (by state, district,

subgroup, etc., depending on the unit of analysis). While BCPSS has continued to

maintain and make this data available (as discussed below), MSDE has significantly

changed its HSA data reporting methodology. MSDE now reports pass rates based on

the total number of students passing each HSA (or cumulatively) divided by a

denominator consisting of the number of students who took the test. In MSDEs new

HSA data reporting, a student who took an algebra test four times before passing would

be counted in the denominator only one time as opposed to four times. Additionally,

HSA pass rates are now separately reported for 10 th and 11th grade students. This change

in MSDEs mode of HSA reporting was made in order to address the change in testing

practices that occurred as HSA passage became a condition of graduation for the class of

2009 (entering high school in 2005). Many students took the same tests multiple times in

order to the pass the tests and many school systems did not track the pass/fail rates of

first time tester, a frequently used testing measure.

22


27/118

The new MSDE reporting methodology yields higher reported HSA pass rates.

While the new MSD data is valid, it is simply not comparable to the pass rate formula or

HSA data available for prior years and therefore does not provide a useable standard for

assessing progress in its first year of use. For this reason, the Special Master presents

below the state of BCPSS progress on HSA assessments based on the original version of

HSA pass/rate reporting methodology.19 No statewide data is reported for the 2007/08

SY due to the comparability problems referenced above.

Table 3

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

BCPSS 1.9 1.2 4.6 5.1 6.6SE Algebra

MD 19 16.3 27.2 28.6

BCPSS 34.7 24.7 41.4 32.9 32.2RE Algebra

MD 63 58 71 67.7

BCPSS 2 2.1 6.7 5.1SE English

MD 15.8 15.8 29.1

BCPSS 38.8 41.9 53.7 37.4RE English

MD 61.9 64.9 75.3

BCPSS 3.3 1.2 6.6 6.2 8.4SE BiologyMD 22.7 18.9 28.3 33.3

BCPSS 40.9 31.8 52 45 45.1RE Biology

MD 65.1 61.6 71.7 74.1

BCPSS 6.8 4.6 8 11.2 16.0SE

GovernmentMD 25.4 25.2 34.8 35.2

BCPSS 55 45.3 59.1 58.4 52.9RE

GovernmentMD 70.5 70.8 78.2 77.8

As Table 3 reflects, BCPSS pass rates for students with disabilities under the

original pass rate formula slightly improved in algebra and biology, reflected a somewhat

19 The data presented is based on data cited in the Special Masters 2006/07 SY Outcome 8 Report and inBCPSS February 2009 Annual Report to the State Board of Education.

23


28/118

larger jump in government, and decreased slightly in English. However, the Special

Master notes that the actual number of students with disabilities passing each subject

matter test somewhat increased. (See Exhibit 2) (By comparison, the overall 2008 HSA

pass rate under the new MSDE formula for 10 th graders was 22.8% and 15.7% for 11th

graders who had taken all four tests.)

BCPSS data on the HSA and Bridge Plan Outcomes of students with disabilities

and regular education students entering high school in 2005 provide another view of the

status of progress on assessments to date. This data (as of February 5, 2009) reflects that

a total of 11.7% of students with disabilities have passed all four assessments or met the

combined score requirements and that 55.7% (351) of students with disabilities in this

cohort have passed no HSAs. Five students (.8%) as of February 5, 2009 had met HSA

requirements through completion of all required Bridge projects. By comparison, 65% of

regular education students in this 2005 cohort have passed all four assessments or met the

combined score requirements and 12.9% (562) of regular education students have passed

no HSAs. Thirty-eight students (.9%) have met all HSA requirements through

completion of Bridge projects. (See, Exhibit 2). The Special Master notes that Bridge

Project data at this juncture is incomplete. Students are mid-year in the process of

working on projects in different subject matters. Bridge project acceptance rates on

individual subject matter areas for students with disabilities range from a high of 93% in

Algebra to a low of 53% in Government. (See, Exhibit 2)

In summary, while the BCPSS high school assessment data reflects a continuing

measure of overall improvement that warrants recognition, the scope of improvement

24


29/118

remains extremely incremental and at low level in terms of absolute percentages of

proficiency achieved by students with disabilities.


Until this past year, almost no special education monitoring was conducted by

MSDE or BCPSS of charter and contract schools delivery of special education and

compliance with Consent Decree Outcomes. These schools were new and in many ways,

off the radar, at least with respect to oversight of special education delivery. While some

charter schools demonstrated extraordinary success in inclusive programming and special

education delivery, BCPSS monitoring data for charter schools in the 2007/08 SY

revealed substantial basic compliance issues in a range of schools that impacted

rudimentary delivery of special education services.

The Special Master recognizes that new schools face a distinct array of issues as

they organize themselves to provide services and also rely on coordination with BPCSS -

- coordination which frequently can be impeded by bureaucratic lines of division. The

Special Master has also observed, however, that these schools generally do not enroll

complex or severely disabled students and, therefore, should be more easily positioned to

handle compliance and service delivery. Indeed, some of these schools, similar to some

of the new middle and high schools now being launched by BCPSS, effectively refuse to

modify their programs to accommodate special education students in anything but a

straight general education program.20

These are all issues of concern that prompt the

Special Master to find that charter and contract schools should be retained within the

20 In some instances the charter schools, as well as some BCPSS schools, change students LREplacements to conform to the programs offered by the school rather than meeting the studentsindividualized needs as required by IDEA.

25


30/118

Courts jurisdiction relative to the pending Outcomes until monitoring this school year

confirms whether significant improvement has occurred in their handling of fundamental

compliance standards set forth under IDEA and the Ultimate Measurable Outcomes.

26


31/118


32/118

28

II. Graduation and School Completion Data:

A. Outcome Related Data

The BCPSS reports in its Compliance Statement, based on preliminary data, the school

completion rate for students with disabilities in the 07/08 SY was 46.5 %, and the graduation rate

for students with disabilities was 35.9%. These rates are improvements over the graduation rate

(34%) and school completion rate (43.2%) BCPSS reported in the 06/07 SY, though clearly not

the 5% gain projected as a goal per IP Objective 4.1.1.2

The general trend is positive over the

past four years, though not completely consistent. Graduation and school completion rates for

students with disabilities declined between the 04/05 and 05/06 school years; improved

significantly between the 05/06 and 06/07 school years; and then just slightly improved between

the 06/07 and 07/08 school years. See, generally: BCPSS Compliance Statement, Table 1 on p.

22.3

The MSDE annual EMCIR exit audit reviews graduation and school completion rates,

among other special education components, by reviewing school based documents for all special

education students ages 14 through 21 leaving the school system during the school year. As

reported in MSDE EMCIR Report Volume X, the BCPSS percentage of students with disabilities

who exited the school system in the 2007/08 SY with a diploma increased to 24.2% from the

1 No system wide evidence was presented with respect to the benchmark evidence standard for Implementation

Plan Section 4.1 -- evidence of a 5% increase in the number of students with disabilities enrolled in required credit

courses who meet graduation requirements.2 The 2000 Consent Order uses a formula for calculation of graduation and school completion rates that differs

somewhat from the graduation reporting method used by the state for purposes of reporting under the No Child Left

Behind Act of 2001. Data therefore are reported using the original Consent Decree formula, to ensure comparability

between the Outcome measures and reported data. BCPSS graduation rate for students with disabilities for the

2007/08 SY, using the state formula, is 38.85%. (EMCIR Vol. X Report, p. 17).

3 BCPSS exit data had not been finalized with MSDE when the Compliance Statement was submitted. The

MSDE EMCIR Exit Audit reflects slightly different final data for BCPSS report to the state, including 410 students

exiting with diplomas, 110 with Certificates, 9 who had reached the age of 21, and 569 who had dropped out.


33/118

29

2005/06 school year rate of 17.5%. By comparison, the statewide percentage of students with

disabilities exiting with a diploma in 2007/08 was 36.5%, up slightly from the 2005/06 rate of

35%. The BCPSS reported to MSDE that 33.5% of students with disabilities exiting during the

2008/09 SY left schools as dropouts. This represents a 9.1% decrease from the 2005/06 SY. By

comparison, the percentage of dropouts reported as exiting statewide dropped from 16.4% in

2005/06 to 15.3% in 2007/08. This exit data as a whole paints a picture of clearly improved

BCPSS exit outcomes both in absolute and relative terms. Yet, the annual exit data also depicts

the grim reality that significantly more BCPSS students with disabilities dropped out last year, as

in preceding years, than the number and percentage who graduated with a diploma.

4

BCPSS reported data for overall outcomes for the class that entered high school in 2005

is consistent with this data. BCPSS data indicates that 49.7% of the 1,428 students with

disabilities who entered high school in 2005 remain actively enrolled this school year, while

26.9% have dropped out. By comparison, 62% of regular education students entering high

school in 2005 remain actively enrolled and 16% have dropped out.5 (See, Exhibit 2)

B. Accuracy of Data

BCPSS graduation, school completion, and exit data continue to manifest inconsistency

and reliability issues, as indicated by annual MSDE EMCIR exit audits. The MSDE has found

inaccuracies in BCPSS reported graduation and school completion data each time it has

reviewed the BCPSS documentation. EMCIR Volume X found that 433 of 1648 (26%) of the

student exit codes reported by BCPSS for the 2007/08 SY could not be verified based upon

4 If the percentage of students graduating with a certificate is added to the percentage graduating with a diploma,

the percentage of students with disabilities who exited in the 2007/08 SY by completing school with some form

of degree/certificate would still only reach 30.7%. That said, the Special Master recognizes that dropouts may come

from a broader spectrum of classes than students deemed to have met the requirements for graduation or a certificate

of school completion.

5 Other students exited as a result of transfer, graduation, and other circumstances.


34/118

30

documentation provided.6

Although this verification rate indicates a weakness in the reliability

in BCPSS reporting of student exit outcomes, it marks a slight improvement from the two

preceding years when more records were unavailable7 and 29% of the student exit outcomes

could not be verified by available documentation. An improvement in the reliability of exit

reporting is an essential ingredient to the school districts ability to report with confidence and

complete credibility continued improvement in its graduation and completion rates.

C. The Impact of HSAs on Graduation Rates

As discussed in the Introduction (Section IV.C.), successful passage of required High

School Assessments (HSA) in core subject areas became a condition for graduation for the

entering class of 2005. Historically, BCPSS students with disabilities have had extremely low

pass rates.8

The newly approved alternative HSA portfolio route for passage of HSA

requirements provides a crucial alternative to formal testing for students with disabilities. Clear

trend lines relative to special education students pass rates on the Bridge Plan projects at this

early point are inclusive. However, the improvement of schools capacity to deliver effective,

intensive support to students with disabilities in preparation for the HSAs or to successfully

implement the alternative portfolio process will clearly play a critical role in future graduation

data and the school districts progress toward achievement of Outcomes 3 and 4.

6 Thirty-one of 1648 student records requested were not available in the 2007/08 SY. When this data is added to

non-verified exit code data, MSDE was unable to verify exit codes for 464 (27.4%) of the 1,693 students who exited

special education in the 07/08 SY.

7 Ninety-five student records were not available during the 2006/07 SY audit and 267 were unavailable in the

2005/06 SYaudit.

8 See, Introduction, Section IV.C. herein and Special Masters Report on Achievement of Ultimate Measurable

Outcomes 8 and 9 in the 2006-2007 School Year, at pp. 67-69.


35/118

31

III. Institutional Mechanism to Support Improved Graduationand School Completion Rates

A. Attendance and Truancy

The BCPSS identifies in its summary Compliance Statement some notable

improvements, including the re-establishment of a working attendance and truancy office, an

increase in the attendance rate for students with disabilities at 14 of the 20 middle and high

schools with the highest truancy rates, and finally, an overall increase in attendance rates. No

data has been presented that establishes BCPSS improved its attendance rate for SWD by 5% or

effected a 5% decrease in its habitually truant SWD in secondary schools. (IP Provision and

Benchmark, 4.2) The Special Master has had significant difficulty in obtaining consistent

disaggregated district attendance and truancy data, making assessment of these data more

difficult than it should be. For instance, The BCPSS Compliance Report states special education

students had a districtwide attendance rate of 86.9% for the 08/09 school year. By comparison,

an Information Technology Department report (Absenteeism at all Schools) provided to the

Special Master for the 07/08 SY through June 13, 2008 indicates that 37.8% of students with

disabilities were absent more than 15 days during the year. While the ITD report is

distinguishable from the overall BCPSS attendance report and based on different parameters, it

highlights the significant truancy issues which fall at the heart of graduation/school completion

issues. Focused attendance data analysis gives a fuller picture of the scope of the issue, as

briefly discussed below.

According to MSDEs EMCIR Vol. X report, attendance rates for BCPSS students with

disabilities in the 2007/08 SY were 92.8% in elementary schools, 87.1% in middle schools, and

76.69% in high schools. The documents attached to the BCPSS Compliance Statement at Tab 19


36/118

32

show minimal improvements in overall attendance from the 04/05 SY through the 07/08 SY,

though a solid 5.8 percentage point increase in overall middle school attendance was shown in

the 2007/08 SY. The documents reveal that 43.5% of all high school students were absent more

than 20 days in the 06/07 SY, and 42.1% were absent more than 20 days in the 2007/08 SY The

MSDE Report Card for 2006/07 indicates the disparate special education composition of this

secondary truancy data: 57.8% of the districts special education high school students and 40.6%

of the regular high school education students were absent for more than twenty days. Similarly,

in middle school grades, 43.9% of the special educations students were absent 20 or more days in

2006/07, while 31.5% of regular education students were absent 20 days or more. Accordingly,

while the progress BCPSS cites in 14 of the 20 school schools with the poorest truancy data is

commendable, it must be sustained and expanded to establish that this is not a minimal and

incidental improvement.

The Special Master concurs with the Central Office end-of year IP reports identification

of the following barriers to improvement in attendance rates:

Schools are not consistently utilizing attendance referral processes Inaccuracy in data entry and analysis Schools are not disaggregating students with disability data from general

education data

Lack of communication between teachers and attendance monitors regardingstudents who do not attend schools

Lack of integration of services between schools, thecommunity and theOffice of Attendance and Truancy

Inconsistency in SST meetings and interventions for attendance Schools are not consistently following the 3,5,10 day attendance procedures.

As noted in the Introduction, the new leadership of the BCPSS Office of Student Support

Services this year is at very least aggressively tackling many of these issues.


37/118

33

B. Effective Local School Intervention Processes

Secondary schools, in the past eight years, have been highly uneven in their

implementation of effective intervention processes to support students with disabilities in

mastering and passing critical challenges associated with graduation and school completion.

Schools have not been prepared to deliver effective, intensive interventions with respect to (1)

High School Assessment requirements; (2) tackling student chronic truancy; and 3) students

successful preparation for post-secondary school transition outcomes. The implementation of

closely linked academic and behavior reform plans tied to individualized student intervention

practices, as identified in the Implementation Plan, remain highly challenging for many

secondary schools. The Central Office end-of-year report noted that some high schools had not

taken any systematic actions to address HSA failures and needed interventions. (Per the report,

some schools did not address notification, interventions and/or results and as a result,

principals were notified to correct oversight.) Additionally, the report noted the need for

principals to communicate with the IEP team and classroom teachers the progress of SWD and

to make [C]lear timelines outlining target dates of actions.

While some schools as of June 2008 had made measurable progress in their reform

efforts, most high school level special education students are concentrated in larger secondary

schools with poor achievement and school completion outcomes, and it is these schools that do

not appear to be making notable progress in their reform efforts . As Dr. Alonsos leadership

team recognizes, theses schools will require major support, focus, restructuring, and capable

leadership in the years ahead.


38/118

34

C. Transition Planning

Significant improvement has occurred in actual completion of transition plans as a

required portion of IEPs for age-eligible SWD. MSDEs EMCIR Vol. X report documents

continuing improvements in BCPSS procedural compliance in handling IEP meetings since

2007, with individual elements reviewed ranging from 74.63% to 96.32%, in compliance.

However, as acknowledged in the Central Office end-of year report, continued work with school

staff to individualize transition plans must be done to make transition planning a meaningful and

effective process for assisting students with disabilities in securing positive educational, career

and life outcomes.

IV. Recommendations

1. Consistent with the Implementation Plan for the 2008-2009 SY approved by

Consent Order [Paper No. 1743], the Court should retain jurisdiction over Outcomes 3 and 4

until such time as substantial compliance can be established as determined by further Order of

this Court. To establish substantial compliance at the conclusion of the 2008/09 SY or

thereafter, BCPSS should demonstrate with reliable data further substantive progress toward

achievement of the numeric goals of the Outcomes and/or effective progress in implementation

of a significant number of the salient initiatives and data benchmarks identified in the paragraphs

#2-#8 below:

2. Continued improvement in the graduation and school completion rates for

students with disabilities in the 2008/09 SY.

3. Continued and more clearly established evidence of improvement in truancy and

attendance rates of students with disabilities in secondary schools.


39/118

35

4. Implementation of effective secondary school reform models in the 2008/09 SY

that address on a proactive, data driven basis, the academic and behavioral needs of students with

disabilities in at least some of the secondary schools educating substantial concentrations of

special education students in addition to the smaller pilot/innovation schools.

5. BCPSS report of implementation of initiatives and their impact should be

specific and data driven. When problems are identified, actions taken to address the problems

should also be reported with specificity and related disaggregated data.

6. Significant improvement in the accuracy of student exit code data results for

graduation, school completion, dropouts, transfers, etc., as reflected in the next EMCIR exit audit

as well as OSEMC exit audits. MSDEs Corrective Action Plan requires a 95% standard of

accuracy; however, even a 90% rate of accuracy for the 2008/09 SY would reflect significant

improvement and increased credibility in the exit and graduation/school completion data.

7. The Attendance and Truancy Office should continue its work in supporting school

improvements in attendance and truancy. Efforts need to be directed at establishing clear,

concise data that provide accurate, disaggregated information regarding attendance and the

related reform measures. All data sources should have compatible information. Differences

between or among data bases should be minimal at worst. Initiatives should be specifically

identified; their impact assessed using both baseline and end of year disaggregated data; and

appropriate interventions planned and followed through based on data generated and reported.

8. Improvement in the development anddelivery of individualized transition plans:

The BCPSS self-assessment and monitoring process should address not only the existence of the

required documentation but also its individualized content to assure that transition plans


40/118

36

substantively meet the intent of the IDEA transition requirements and have the potential of

assisting students in successfully achieving post-secondary outcomes.


41/118

37

ULTIMATE MEASURABLE OUTCOME 7: BCPSS will assure that all students

suspended more than ten cumulative days, those suspended more than ten consecutive

days, and those expelled were done so in accordance with IDEA. BCPSS will monitor

and intervene where necessary in all such cases.

Compliance Standard: Substantial complianceStatus Reported by BCPSS: Substantial compliance

Special Masters Findings:

(1) Elementary Schools and Elementary Programs in K-8 schools, subject to specific

exceptions for identified schools, as identified in Recommendations herein and finalverification at the conclusion of the 2008/09 SY: Substantial Compliance

(2) All secondary and other schools: Partial compliance.

I. Overview

In its Compliance Statement, the BCPSS indicates it has achieved substantial

compliance with Outcome 7 based on SETS data reflecting substantially improved rates of

compliance in BCPSS conducting manifestation meetings and completing Functional

Behavior Assessments (FBAs) and Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs) for students with

disabilities removed more than 10 consecutive days1

in a school year. The SETS data

indicate that 89.4% of the disciplinary removal processes for these students met all three

requirements in the 2007/08 SY. The BCPSS notes this is the highest level of compliance in

the last three years.2

The Special Master recognizes and commends BCPSS for its improvement in

compliance with IDEA requirements for students with disabilities removed for more than 10

1 The BCPSS has never provided data on students removed for more than 10 cumulative days in a school year

and does not do so in its Compliance Statement.

2 The combined compliance rate reported by BCPSS was 75.7% in 2006/07 and 83.4% in 2005/06. The2007/08 rate of 89.4% was lower than the reported rate of 92.5% for the 2004 - 2005 SY.


42/118

38

consecutive days,3particularly in the timely completion of manifestation meetings and the

creation of FBAs and BIPs.That said, the specific annual report relied upon in BCPSS

annual compliance report relative to overall procedural compliance is based solely on long

term consecutive day suspensions and does not report on cumulative suspensions in excess of

10 days.4

As indicated in her memoranda communications for the last several years, the

Special Masters first and foremost compliance concern remains BCPSS handling of

removals of students for more than 10 cumulative days. The Special Masters monitoring5

indicates that schools continued in the 07/08 SY to conduct un-official short term removals

without recording these in SETS. This practice precludes effective tracking and compliance

with IDEAs requirements relative to the exclusion of students for more than ten cumulative

days. While this practice was not pervasive throughout all schools within the district, its

continuation, particularly in secondary schools with high concentrations of students with

disabilities, erodes a basic protection of this Outcome and related IDEA disciplinary

provisions for students with disabilities.

The Special Master concurs with Plaintiffs concerns regarding the substantive

quality of BCPSS handling of these IDEA protections and processes that impact on

students actual capacity to remain in school and effectively receive FAPE. However, in her

view, qualitative performance issues fall outside the scope of this Outcome except where

execution of legally required procedures is sufficiently flawed as to render compliance

meaningless, e.g., an effective nullity or, in other words, the action taken is plainly legally

3 See generally, 20 U.S.C. 1415(k); 34 CFR 300.530 300.536, with respect to .IDEAs treatment of

requirements for student discipline, removals, and change of placements in connection with discipline.4 As of the end of the 2007/08 SY, BCPSS data system did not generate a comparable compliance report

which encompassed cumulative suspensions in excess of 10 days. BCPSS has filed a revised Compliance

Statement for Outcome7 that reflects the data reported does not include cumulative suspensions.

5 The Special Master also relies on the results of OSEMC and MSDE monitoring in connection with thefindings set forth here.


43/118

39

invalid.6

The Special Master notes though that SETS data does not by itself define whether a

disciplinary removal was handled in conformity with IDEA legal requirements, as specified

by the Outcome. Instead, SETS reflects that documentation of certain legally required events

or measures exists whether or not this documentation itself indicates that that requisite

processes were handled in conformity with IDEA.

As discussed further below, while OSEMC and MSDE and the Special Masters own

monitoring indicate improvement in the BCPSS handling of some of IDEA requirements for

disciplinary removals, significant deficiencies continue to be identified that are inconsistent

with a finding of substantial compliance on a system wide basis at this time.

7

However, the

issues identified here affect students in the secondary grades far more extensively than in the

elementary grades, both because of the improved educational functionality of elementary

grade programs in recent years8

and because of the differences in the challenges involved in

6 The Plaintiffs express disagreement with this standard. Outcome 7 was framed to ensure compliance withthe procedural discipline requirements under IDEA. Some of these requirements clearly do have substantive

dimensions for instance, legally required functional behavior assessment or manifestation determination

procedures are not justmere hoops to be jumped through but require the performance of substantive assessmentand review processes. The challenge in evaluating compliance, then, is to measure procedural compliance on a

systemic basis while not ignoring the potential for school personnel solely to go through an empty procedural

ritual without delivering the core substantive protection or benefit legally required by the statutory discipline

provisions. The effective nullity standard, as articulated above, provides a bright line standard in a systemic

case evaluation context for assessing whether a substantive requirement under IDEAs discipline provision hasbeen violated, even though, for instance, a manifestation meeting or functional behavior assessment was facially

conducted.

7 Plaintiffs express the need to know the extent to which the deficiencies that impact secondary schools exist

in elementary schools. It is important to note, in this regard, that the behavior management problems andrelated discipline issues found at secondary schools are significantly less likely to arise at smaller elementary

schools, where students are not typically in the throes of adolescence. Secondary schools tend to be larger and

their students, due to their older ages, more independent than elementary age students. As a result, elementary

students are rarely found wandering the halls and embarking on trouble in the process. The problem of chronichall walkers and related hall sweeps that result in students being removed without following appropriate

disciplinary problems thus are not elementary school problems. Other age related behavior and discipline issues

also tend not to occur at the elementary level. Thus the behavior issues and related discipline processdeficiencies evident in secondary schools simply do not present the same degree of challenge for elementary

schools, particularly when they achieve a modest level of functionality as many elementary schools have begun

to do in Baltimore.

8 Plaintiffs Reply to the draft report indicates they agree with this statement to the extent it is a reference toMSA scores and request clarification if it refers to something else. The Special Masters comment is directed at


44/118

40

management and education of students with disabilities in the secondary grades.9

Accordingly, the Special Master concludes that it is appropriate to release most, but not all,

of the elementary grade programs in both elementary and K-8 schools10

from Outcome 7 and

consider such schools inactive for purposes of monitoring under the Consent Decree,

pending completion of results of an additional MSDE EMCIR discipline audit. The Special

Master has identified the following elementary programs as requiring continued monitoring

and, therefore, still in active status under the Consent Order:11:

the overall improvement in elementary programs evidenced in her visits to schools as well as through MSA

scores and other objective indicators. Students in the elementary grades show better attendance, greater

involvement in their classrooms, far lower rates of disciplinary incidents, and higher academic achievement

than students in middle and high schools.9 Plaintiffs Reply questions the relevancy of this statement, particularly in light of the lack of reference to this

as a criterion in the Consent Order. The Special Master notes in this connection that the Consent Order includes

three factors to address substantial compliance: 1) Progress toward the Outcome; 2) Assessment of effectiveness

of institutional mechanisms for meeting and maintaining the Outcome; and 3) Student achievement. Anevaluation of effectiveness of institutional mechanismsper force requires an assessment of the orderly

functioning of school and their capacity to address relevant student needs. It is well established that the number

of suspensions and length of student suspensions increases dramatically once students enter the secondarygrades. The Special Masters reference to the differences in the challenges experienced at the elementary as

opposed to the secondary level recognizes that elementary level schools, with some notable exceptions

identified here, have shown improvements in record keeping, implementation of proactive school wide

behavioral programs and efforts to address the needs of students in school as opposed to removing them. It is,

therefore, appropriate to consider the differences in the challenges presented at the elementary and secondarylevels as well as schools responses to these challenges when determining substantial compliance.10 The term elementary programs is used here to encompass elementary schools and the elementary grades

within K-8 Schools, but not the middle grades (6-8) within K-8 schools.

11 As provided by her draft report, the Special Master has reviewed the parties recommendations regardingthe particular schools and elementary grade programs to be retained under Outcome 7 for monitoring in the

2008 2009 school year (and potentially thereafter). She has additionally reviewed supplemental data

furnished by BCPSS reflecting the scope of disciplinary actions taken in elementary vs. secondary grade

programs and associated data cleansing reports that flag problems or inconsistencies in discipline data andcompliance. Her recommendations are based on review of these recommendations and data as well as prior

school visits by the Special Masters Office, MSDE, and OSEMC. Twenty-one of the 109 non charter BCPSS

elementary grade programs (including the Edison Schools) and 13 of the 19 charter school elementary programs(not including the Edison Schools) are recommended to be retained for active monitoring. The remainder will

be deemed inactive under the Consent Decree, pending the Special Masters review of a follow-up EMCIR

audit and issuance of a report at the end of the year that considers this audit data in conjunction with other

available compliance evidence. See, Recommendations section infra.


45/118

41

BCPSS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL GRADE PROGRAMS TO BE RETAINED AS

ACTIVE UNDER THE DECREE:

Schools #5, #22, #24, #27, #28, #44, #51, #58, #66, #75, #84, #107, #122, #125,

#159, #164, #217, #220, #223, #231 and #314, and

CHARTER SCHOOL ELEMENTARY GRADE PROGRAMS TO BE RETAINED:

#15, #47, #63, #323, #324, #325, #327, #331, #333, #334, #337, #423 and #432.

As with the BCPSS schools, all charter secondary grades are to be retained as

active under the Decree well as the elementary grades in 4 schools. Of these 4 schools, 3

are K-8 schools (#47, #63 and #327) and one has grades 5 through 8 (#324) so only grade 5

is an elementary grade.

The schools whose elementary grades the Special Master has determined should be

retained under Outcome 7 for the 08/09 SY display a variety of issues. Some of the schools

have had a large number of disciplinary removals as of the beginning of the school year.

Others have shown difficulty in accurately maintaining discipline data across data sources or

in complying with IDEA discipline requirements. Still others have shown an extraordinary

decrease in recorded disciplinary removals which, while positive, reflects such significant

change in a short period of time that they bear watching to assure processes and procedures

are being followed.

Plaintiffs raise many issues regarding the elementary grades compliance with IDEA

discipline requirements and the methodology used to assess their compliance. The Special

Master agrees with Plaintiffs that release of elementary grades from Outcome 7 under the

substantial compliance standard should be predicated on a determination as to whether IDEA

discipline requirements have been met and that this should be determined in the same manner

as this determination is made for secondary schools. Therefore, she will make a final


46/118

42

determination with respect to the release of the schools at issues from the

Documents

Final Report Without Title Page