By Elisabeth J. Beardsley
STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE

March 30, 1999 -- Over and above the objections - and veto - of Gov. Paul
Cellucci, the House speaker and the Senate president have forged ahead with
a study of the standard that determines what level of service the state
provides to special education students.

Senate President Thomas Birmingham said last Thursday that he and House
Speaker Thomas Finneran authorized $500,000 for a study of the difference
between the state's current standard of "maximum feasible benefit," and the
lesser federal standard of "free and appropriate public education," which
is used in every other state.

The issue arises every year in the Legislature, as municipal officials
complain about spiraling special education enrollments and costs, while
special education advocates protest that any loosening of the standard
would harm the state's most vulnerable public school students.

The question at the heart of the debate is - what would it mean to switch
standards?  No comprehensive studies of the question have yet been
finished, although the Department of Education is nearing completion of one.

In light of "sincere questions" and "good faith concerns" raised last year
by many lawmakers, including the chairmen of the Education Committee,
Birmingham said the "conscientious thing to do ... is to endeavor to answer
those questions."

"The study is designed to make a serious effort at reform, no doubt about
it," he said.  "In the legislative process, there are studies and there are
studies.  Sometimes studies are graveyards.  This is not in that category.
Once we get some solid answers, not based on anecdote or apocrypha, we will
move forward accordingly."

The need for reform of some sort is clear, he said.  About 17 percent of
Massachusetts students are enrolled in special education, compared to
around 11 or 12 percent in other states, a statistic Birmingham said he
finds "troubling."  Statewide, special education consumes about 21 percent
of education expenditures and local officials have identified it as a
"budget buster."

On the possibility of switching to the federal standard, Birmingham said,
"I'm open to that, but I think it's a fair question - what does this mean?"

That same question is on the mind of Education Committee Co-Chairman Sen.
Robert Antonioni (D-Leominster), who said he never got a satisfactory
answer during last session's debate on reform bills.  The unanswered
question ultimately caused the reform bills to die in the House.

"None of the proponents advocating this could say what the proposed impact
would be," Antonioni said.  "My concern, as Senate chair, was that this
represents a significant change in the standard, the mechanism by which we
service these disabled children, and we are called upon to make an informed
decision."

Antonioni and co-chairman Harold M. Lane Jr. (D-Holden) requested a
comprehensive legislative study.  An outside section of the fiscal year
1999 budget the Legislature sent to the governor last year included
$250,000 for the study, but Cellucci vetoed the language.

However, the governor did not veto the funds, according to Birmingham, who
said he and Finneran decided to go ahead with the study, despite Cellucci's
veto and his known objection to more studies.  If the cost of the study
exceeds $250,000, the two leaders authorized an additional $250,000 that
could come out of legislative accounts.

A request for proposal on the study was posted March 9, with a bid deadline
of April 9.  Two companies have expressed interest in being the prime
contractor, and two more expressed interest in the sub-contractor role.

As of last night, a Cellucci spokesman said administration officials were
examining the situation and did not have immediate comment.  In the past,
the governor has said the issue of special education has been studied
enough, and now it's time for bold reform.

Birmingham said he and Finneran don't need special authority or a budgetary
appropriation to conduct what he called a "legislative study."

"Aside from the circumstance of the governor vetoing the language, but not
the money, we have legislative accounts for exactly this purpose," he said.
 "Let's just pretend there was no language and no appropriation.  We could
have embarked on a study of this sort without any administrative approval
or disapproval."

Birmingham insisted there's no chicanery going on, but he did say he and
Finneran found it a "curiosity" that Cellucci vetoed the study language,
but not the funds.  "I don't know why he did that," Birmingham said.  

While the question of the standard is the "10,000-pound gorilla" in the
debate to date, Antonioni said a better area of focus would be on the issue
of eligibility, or who gets into special education programs in the first
place.  This morning, the Board of Education is considering amendments to
the quarter-century-old special education regulations that speak to that
very question.

Aimed at tightening eligibility criteria, the proposed changes would shrink
the number of regulations from 188 to 84, and reduce their length from 136
pages to 29.  The board is expected to vote to release the amendments for
public comment.

One of the more significant changes would require students to have an
identified disability before admission to special education programs.  DOE
contends the change would ensure special education services are reserved
for the truly needy, rather than used as a remedial program.

Another controversial amendment would require a hearing if parents disagree
with the school's evaluation of a child, to determine whether they should
get a taxpayer-funded independent evaluation.  Currently, parents are
automatically entitled to a publicly funded second opinion, which has led
to some parents to "shop around" for a diagnosis.

New chairman James Peyser, who presides over his first full board meeting
today, said the reforms are needed to give more flexibility to local
officials, and to focus on educational outcomes, rather than process.  He
expects strong opposition, as in the past, from supporters of the existing
law, but said he intends to hold firm on what he called "incremental
improvements."

"Right now... districts are essentially forced to do certain things on
behalf of special needs students, even if those decisions are detrimental
to the overall quality of schools in those districts," Peyser said.  "These
changes - and more sweeping ones - are necessary to provide greater
flexibility at the district and school level to offer services for all
students that maximize academic and educational outcomes."

Peyser said he agrees with Cellucci that there's enough information about
special education to go ahead and act, especially with DOE's impending
report, but he added that he doesn't object to Finneran and Birmingham
conducting their own study, as long as the timetable is aggressive.  

The legislative study results are due in mid-August, and the Education
Committee plans to begin hearing special education bills in September.

"Basically I think what's happening here is we're getting a second opinion,
which is a good thing," Peyser said.  "I think there is enough information
to make this decision now, but having said that, if this will help the
Legislature come to a decision, then I'm all for it."
 

RETURN TO FRONT PAGE