Bureau of Special Education Appeals
June 15, 2009
Patty Guard, Acting Director
Office of Special Education Programs
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Ave., S.W.
Washington, DC 20202-7100
Dear Ms. Guard:
On June 1, I transmitted to you the report of Dr. Perry Zirkel regarding organizational options for the resolution of special education disputes in Massachusetts. These functions are currently performed by the Bureau of Special Education Appeals ("Bureau"), a semi-autonomous unit within the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education ("Department").
Based in large part on Dr. Zirkel's observations and comments, as well as my own discussions with various stakeholder groups, I have reached the following conclusions:
Massachusetts is best served by continuing to rely on hearing officers and mediators who are full-time state employees. It is clear that the Bureau has a significant workload, as well as sophisticated advocates on both sides of the table. Having full-time specialists helps to ensure that the Bureau has the depth of knowledge in special education law it needs to be effective. Because the Department may not directly employ hearing officers and mediators in order to comply with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), they therefore must be employed by another entity.
If possible, the administrative hearing and mediation functions should be kept together in a unified Bureau, as is currently our practice. Such an arrangement offers several practical benefits:
It provides a single, easily identifiable point of entry into the system for parents.
It makes it easier for the Department to carry out its duty under federal law to oversee the dispute resolution process.
It provides administrative efficiencies.
The professional interaction between hearing officers and mediators offers a synergy that improves the performance of both groups.
The Bureau should be located within a larger organization that can provide administrative support (budget and finance, technology, facility operations, etc.) at a reasonable cost. (Currently, this administrative support is provided by the Department.)
In his report, Dr. Zirkel suggests several possible organizational homes within our state government for the Bureau, and there are others that may be worth exploring as well. I am particularly interested in the possibility of housing the Bureau within the University of Massachusetts. The Department already has a close working relationship with the University, and there are a number of potential benefits that might be realized through their participation. I have spoken with Jack Wilson, the president of the University, and he has agreed to explore this option with me. In the coming weeks, members of our respective staffs will review the many logistical details that need to be addressed and will develop a comprehensive proposal for President Wilson and me to consider.
The process of establishing a new administrative home for due process hearings and mediations in Massachusetts is complicated. We may need to ask our state legislature for legislation to move this function and staff out of this Department. In addition, because most of the employees in the Bureau are covered by collective bargaining agreements, we will need to consider and plan for the labor relations implications of any future course.
Most importantly, the assignment of these functions to another state agency will require management systems to allow the Department to carry out its federally mandated oversight responsibilities. As Dr. Zirkel correctly notes, regardless of where the dispute resolution process is located organizationally, the Department retains responsibility under IDEA for ensuring that the due process hearing and mediation processes meet IDEA requirements. I also plan to follow up on Dr. Zirkel's suggestions of areas where our system might possibly be improved, including the process of selecting and assigning hearing officers for individual cases as well as providing opportunities for feedback from parents and districts on the quality of our services.
The Department will shortly be submitting to your office an amended Part B grant application that contains a specific grant assurance with respect to the resolution of this issue. The timetable set forth in that assurance is as follows:
| July 15, 2009 | Submission of the Department's final plan for the relocation of the special education dispute resolution functions |
| January 4, 2010 | Submission of first interim progress report |
| May 15, 2010 | Submission of second interim progress report |
| June 30, 2010 | Completion of all implementation activities |
I appreciate the assistance we have received from you and your staff in this matter. If you need any additional information, please contact Jeff Wulfson, associate commissioner (781-338-6500 or jwulfson@doe.mass.edu), or Marcia Mittnacht, state director of special education (781-338-3388, or mmmittnacht@doe.mass.edu).
Sincerely,
Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D.
Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education
|
State Government · State Services 
