DESE's Comprehensive Special Education Guidance for the 2020-21 School Year

On July 9, DESE released “Comprehensive Special Education Guidance for the 2020-21 School Year”. You can view the document from DESE’s website here. What follows is my interpretation of the document’s contents. Most headings are taken directly from the DESE guidance document.

Main Points:

  • The guidance includes many training and planning expectations that require the expertise of the educators who work with students every day, yet no explanation of where the time or funding for the time needed to complete these items will come from.

  • There is inadequate consideration of staff safety, especially when it comes to the PPE provided for staff working within close proximity to students with disabilities. There are very few mentions of staff safety at all in the document.

  • The guidance once again puts the desire to be back to physical schooling ahead of the health and well-being of all members of the school community, including students, staff, and families.

  • Following this guidance without substantial additional precautions puts people’s lives and safety at risk.

Full Analysis:

Introduction: Safety, in-person return is preferred, planning for the year ahead

From the very first sentence of the Special Education return-to-school guidance, the emphasis is again put only on student safety, not staff safety. The guidance states that schools need to, “[...] prioritizes the safe return of students back to school by following a comprehensive set of health and safety requirements.” Of course student safety is important! So is school staff safety. Staff in some special education contexts may be at greater risk than general education staff, yet no mention of their safety is put forth in the initial statement of priority. In other words, staff safety is not as important as students' safety. The first paragraph of the guidance also doubles down on the Commissioner’s earlier mandate that districts focus primarily on planning for a fully in-person return to school, while also making plans for hybrid and remote options should they be necessary.

The second paragraph acknowledges that the transition to remote learning in March 2020 was very sudden with little to no planning time, yet claims that this year there is “more planning time”. That may be true for district leaders (who typically work a year-round schedule), but they’re now being asked to plan for three different reopening models instead of focusing on one or two. Additionally, the staff who actually teach students with disabilities are generally not paid for summer work (unless they are teaching Extended School Year), which means that classroom level planning will either be done in the short few days before the school year starts or will require districts to expend additional money have staff come in to begin planning early. The staff who work with students with disabilities are the ones who understand the students’ needs and abilities best. It is impossible to have a one-size-fits-all, district-wide plan for all special education, because the students who receive special education services are all unique individuals with different needs.

Remember, special education can range from once per week speech therapy through a substantially separate classroom for students with disabilities. It isn’t a place and it isn’t a program, it’s the continuum of services that students with disabilities need to access their education. Planning for all these services effectively in our new reality will require the input of school-based staff, including special education teachers and related service providers.

Critical Points

The bulleted list of “critical points” for reopening does include mention of the safety of “those individuals providing education, specialized instruction, and related services” to students with disabilities. So school staff get a very roundabout mention of their safety, without naming any of the roles “those individuals” might fill. Here’s a very incomplete list of the school staff who work with students with disabilities that will need to be kept safe at school:

  • Teachers (general education, special education, special subjects, and so on)

  • Paraprofessionals (educational assistants, ABA assistants, student aides, teacher’s assistants, and so on)

  • Related Services Professionals (behavior analysts, physical therapists, physical therapy assistants, occupational therapists, occupational therapy assistants, speech and language pathologists, speech and language pathology assistants, school psychologists, school counselors, social workers)

The guidance says that students with disabilities should be prioritized for in-person instruction. The document says, “Even if schools or districts are operating in a hybrid or remote model, educators and administrators must make every effort to continue to provide up to full-time in-person instruction to such students.” I find the statement about educators needing to make every effort for full-time in-person instruction a little bit baffling. No teacher in a public school in Massachusetts works for DESE directly. Staff contracts (which are determined at the district level and are typically created through collective bargaining) regulate what educators must do. The guidance seems to create a divide between those who teach students with disabilities and those who do not.

When students with disabilities need to be taught in a hybrid or remote setting, the guidance requires that they have direct services and teaching, not simply assignments or packets to be provided. I am curious to see if a similar mandate for general education students will be forthcoming in additional guidance from DESE, as this would have major implications on school staff working conditions, and student learning conditions.

An item that was flagged by many school staff members when the guidance was released was the suggestion of providing in-home services or teaching for students with complex disabilities when in a remote or hybrid model. Upon investigation, it seems this is something that DESE has always had as an option. The guidance says that in-home instruction “should be considered”, so it does not seem to be a mandate.

The next critical point is totally out-of-touch with how most schools actually function. “When school resumes in-person, with health and safety requirements in place, general education, special education, and English language education staff members must collaborate in order to determine the unique modifications that will be necessary to ensure the least restrictive environment (LRE) is in place for students with disabilities. This will require careful planning and scheduling." While it would be nice for teaching staff to collaborate to create schedules in the best of years, typically administrators do much of this work. Additionally, waiting until these staff are back to work leaves scheduling until the very last possible minute, which is likely to create confusion, logistical problems, and safety problems around unplanned transitions. For example, in my district we have two teacher workdays before students return. These days are typically packed with meetings, leaving teachers without the needed time to read IEPs, consult with colleagues, and collaborate to make these scheduling plans as DESE suggests. In an already tight budget year, it’s unlikely that many districts will be able to bring staff back early to do this pre-planning with enough time to accomplish everything. Lack of planning this year doesn’t just mean a loss of learning, it potentially means safety problems if students are in overcrowded settings, or places without a clear foot traffic pattern to ensure social distancing.

The next three points discuss family engagement. The guidance encourages schools to reach out to families in whatever ways are necessary, and to consider their input into educational decisions. It also discusses the requirement for translation and interpretation services for parents who speak another language.

Delivery of IEP Services

The beginning of this section goes into greater detail about which students should be prioritized for in-person instruction. These include preschool students with disabilities and students who are classified as having “significant and complex needs”. It’s important to note that both of these groups tend to require lower student:staff ratios and a variety of different personnel to deliver services. The document tells schools to “make every effort” to provide in-person learning to students with disabilities in preschool and students with significant disabilities. Several examples are given, all pushing for these students to be in school buildings as much as possible. The mention of in-home services is also mentioned again, with the caveat of “where feasible”. Given the potential infection risk of in-home services to staff providing these services, I would hope that districts are looking critically at the safety implications of providing services outside of the school environment (which can be cleaned by staff) or remotely (where each individual can clean their own environment).

Learning Models

Like all previous sections, there is a big push for in-person return to school in this section. One of the points under in-person learning is “Flexible solutions for reducing the mixing of student groups should be considered to ensure students with disabilities are receiving services safely in the least restrictive environment.” I am curious what DESE expects this to look like, since it has huge implications for students with disabilities who receive services outside of the general education classroom. For example, let’s say five third graders require specialized phonics instruction with a special education teacher in a pull-out setting, and they are in two different classrooms. Are those students allowed to be grouped together for their special education service, then sent back to their classrooms? Any services provided in this way would increase the complexity of contact tracing, should there be any COVID-19 cases.

Full-time In-person Learning (while meeting current health and safety requirements)

The guidance mentions that outdoor settings may be a challenge for some students with disabilities. This is an important consideration, not just for students with visual impairments like DESE mentions. For example, a student with behavioral and social-emotional concerns may be at risk of eloping if class is taking place outdoors in an unsecured area.

Additional training and preparation seems to be an ongoing theme throughout the guidance. In this section, “Provide additional training time for educators who will provide direct physical support to students with disabilities on the use of the additional protective supplies they will need, including appropriately donning and doffing disposable gowns, face shields, etc.” I am not sure DESE has thought through when this training will be provided, or even how it will be provided. It would seem that donning and doffing training would need to have a hands-on component, but doing this with a large number of staff would be challenging while maintaining social distancing. Additionally, having staff who do not work with the same students mix together for training could become problematic if there was a case in a staff member and others had to quarantine, such as what occurred in a meeting of 40 principals in California. Starting the year in-person with a portion of the special education staff in quarantine would be a disaster.

The last bulleted point suggests, “Consider using strategies to pair peer models with students with disabilities to promote social interaction.” I am very curious, again, what this looks like in Commissioner Riley’s mind. Perhaps it only applies to students with disabilities when they are integrated into a general education setting for some instruction, in which case it really amounts to preferential seating and support with peer communication. However, if this guidance is advocating for mixing of groups to provide peer models to students in separate settings, it would seem to contradict much of the safety guidance which pushes for cohorts of students not to mix. Again, any mix or change in groupings would make contact tracing more onerous if there were any cases of COVID-19.

The conclusion of this section again encourages partnering with parents, and gives ideas for supporting students in their transition. While these suggestions are on their face not a bad idea, I ask again, where is the time for this to be done? When, exactly, are educators expected to make these videos and social stories?

Remote Learning

The guidance says that remote learning should be “more robust” this school year than emergency remote learning was in the spring. It also requires that special education services be provided through what they’re calling a “Instruction and Services” model of service delivery while in the spring districts had chosen between “Instruction and Services” or “Resources and Supports”. There is also mention of a policy for grades of remote work in this section. The guidance includes the option of synchronous or asynchronous services and classes, yet seems to require some synchronous communication with staff. There is also a requirement of frequent teacher contact during remote learning, which is likely to be included in other DESE guidance as well. This section also includes a requirement of parent training on technology, which seems like a necessary step after the technological troubles that many faced during emergency remote learning this spring.

Hybrid Learning

The hybrid model section primarily includes information included in the two sections above. In addition, it suggests that peer models are used to ensure an inclusion setting. This raises a lot of questions about the cohorts that DESE is encouraging, as well as the implications for equity. Additionally, if a class consists of special education students along with peer models, can instruction be primarily provided by an educator who holds only a special education license? I don't doubt that a special educator would be capable of instructing a class containing students with and without disabilities (I have seen many dual-licensed educators do just that) but whether they would be allowed to do so under licensing regulations.

Promoting Inclusive Services and the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

Finally, a sentence about staff safety! This section mentions that administrators need to consider physical space for additional staff in classrooms where services are provided. The guidance notes the need to provide services while following health and safety protocols. It suggests that some staff may need to provide services remotely in order to avoid mixing between cohorts. However, it sounds like DESE is aware that this model may require additional staff, including paraprofessionals who could support the service with the student in the classroom. Unfortunately, this may not be feasible in some schools due to lack of funding and staff availability. If services are not provided remotely, the guidance suggests that special education services are provided in a way that minimizes staff overlap in classrooms and allows for physical distancing. There’s also another mention of peer models in this section, though no explanation about how DESE expects this suggestion could be implemented.

Parent Engagement

This section includes many considerations for involving families of students with disabilities in this child’s learning. There is mention that students may have developed anxiety during the school closures. There is an emphasis on ensuring that parents are aware of how different IEP services will be delivered, and on health precautions that are being used. There is also mention of how confidentiality may limit what information can be shared with parents in some cases.

Developing Positive Behavior Supports and Safe Learning Environments

This section emphasizes the need to teach expected behaviors and support good behavior as students return to school. It encourages preventive measures to encourage good behavior. Unfortunately, some of the everyday tools teachers often use to guide behavior are trickier given health precautions. For example, the “teacher look” will now be mostly covered with a mask, and a teacher cannot simply move close to a student who is off task. Teachers can no longer support a dysregulated student with a pat on the back or a hug, either, without violating social distancing. There is also mention of how anxiety and trauma may have impacted students during the emergency remote learning period.

The guidance reminds districts that discipline should be a last resort for students with disabilities who are demonstrating undesired behaviors. It acknowledges that many health precautions will be difficult or scary for students with disabilities. However, it does not mention the health implications of their challenges complying with these requirements. Mask usage and physical distancing impact not only the safety of the individual student, but also the safety of their peers and adults in the room with them. Discipline may not be the solution, but is putting staff and other students at risk a viable option? I hope not!

The final paragraph of this section encourages additional training for staff on de-escalation. Again I ask, with what time will this training be completed? Just from this document, special educators would now need to plan student schedules, complete PPE donning and doffing training, and do de-escalation training. Who is paying for teachers and school staff to spend all these additional hours in training?

Early Childhood Special Education and Preschool Children

This section seems to include some guidance about both students with disabilities and those without, indicating that all preschool students should be prioritized for in-person schooling. “Preschool children with and without disabilities are particularly in need of in-person services so that they can develop the socialization, motor and communication skills that are vitally important at this age.” This is a fascinating statement, since preschool is not compulsory in the state of Massachusetts. I don’t argue the point that preschoolers struggled with remote learning, or that it’s developmentally inappropriate to expect these students to attend to screen-based learning tasks for any length of time, but I’m surprised that DESE is pushing for all students in preschool to be educated in-person regardless of disability status. I’m curious how they intend for preschool (for students without disabilities) to be prioritized for in-person instruction relative to K-12 students.

Transition from Early Intervention

This section explains changes to the transition from early intervention services to school-based services, and how timelines have changed due to the pandemic. There will be a lot of IEP meetings at preschools in the first month and a half of school, since DESE is expecting all IEPs and placements to be completed by October 15.

Natural Environments and LRE for Preschool Children

Students who would receive IEP services at a childcare center may now receive these services remotely. This seems to be an infection control measure, yet may contradict the guidance earlier than preschoolers be prioritized for in-person services. I wonder whether this will lead to changes in placement for school preschool students, moving into the public preschools so they can receive their services in person. The guidance notes that there will be more guidance coming around private and tuition based programs, so I will be curious to see what that looks like.

Kindergarten Screening

Many schools were not able to complete Kindergarten screenings this spring, and this section lays out guidance for how screening could be done. Interviews with parents/families via phone or video call is encouraged.

In-person Instructional Environments and Physical Distancing for Preschool Children

For preschool, some previously pull-out services may be changed to push-in services to accommodate social distancing and reduce cohort mixing. However, doesn't that likely mean adults will be mixing with multiple cohorts of students when they push into different classrooms? There is encouragement to create a classroom environment that encourages students to spread out. Again, when is the time for school staff to do this? Totally changing classroom layouts is not something that many teachers do each year. A sentence I find very concerning is “The balancing of health and safety requirements with child development needs is something that will continue to evolve during this time of significant transition.” How is health and safety something to be balanced? Of course we want children to develop, learn, and form social bonds. But not at the cost of human lives being put at risk.

Hybrid/Remote Learning Considerations for Preschool Children

This section includes different items to consider if preschool children have to learn remotely or in a hybrid model. Again there’s the suggestion to consider in-home services. I do appreciate that DESE has noted that there needs to be a balance between on-screen and off-screen time.

Monitoring Student Progress

This guidance is around progress reporting for students with disabilities. It encourages using different data points if progress needs to be assessed in a remote or hybrid model.

Transition Services

This section encourages collaboration with community partners and families in transition planning, while acknowledging that some programs in the community may not be available at this time.

Initial Evaluations, Reevaluations and IEP Team Meetings

This section is guidance on IEP update and creation, acknowledging the backlog of IEPs and evaluations that may have built up during the spring. It is still expected that IEP teams complete renewals before the deadline, which will likely be a challenge in many places. Additionally, how will substitute coverage for teachers attending IEP meetings work, given that a substitute moving to cover for multiple teachers over the course of the day seems to contradict the guidance about cohort mixing?

Considerations for Students with Low Incidence Disabilities

There are considerations for students with certain disabilities included in this section. Families of students with medical disabilities are encouraged to discuss their child’s safe return to school with the child’s doctor. Different accommodations for students with visual impairments are listed, including technology considerations. There are also considerations for students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, which include clear masks or face shields. My question with these considerations include whether staff can be required to use a less protective PPE option, like a face shield, instead of a more protective high-filtration mask. Additionally, how will a child who reads lips interact with peers if the peers are wearing masks that cover their mouths without the clear panel? I am glad to see that they are planning to come up with guidelines for FM systems with masks, because I personally have found this to be a huge problem.

Staffing, Specialized Safety Supplies/Protective Equipment and Training

This section medicalizes the role of some special education instructional staff, terming them “direct service providers”. DESE cites “the need to be closer than the minimum physical distancing requirements when instructing some students with disabilities”. So staff who instruct these students are expected to be willing to take on more risk and not have the protections of the already inadequate guidance for schools in general? That is a huge burden, especially for high risk staff members or staff members with high risk family members. Again there’s a call for more training, with no indication of funding to pay staff to attend that training.

Direct service providers (people who need to be closer than 3 feet to a student) are only required to receive a respirator that protects them more effectively from COVID-19 if the student they are working with has or is suspected of having COVID-19. Given asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission rates, this puts direct service providers at risk.

The guidance states “Some students with disabilities will require unique supports that may make it less possible to practice physical distancing. In addition, some students with disabilities will not be able to wear cloth face masks as frequently or at all.” yet doesn’t provide staff with the full extent of PPE needed to do this safely.

There’s also another mention of training for all staff using PPE. Again, who’s paying for staff to complete this training? It’s ridiculous to think that this training, along with other mandated training on other subjects can all be squeezed into the few staff work days before school opens.

Overall

There are so many training and planning expectations that require the expertise of the educators who work with students every day, yet no explanation of where the time or funding for these items will come from. Additionally, there is inadequate consideration of staff safety, especially when it comes to the PPE provided for staff working within close proximity to students with disabilities. There are very few mentions of staff safety. This guidance once again puts the desire to be back to physical schooling ahead of the health and well-being of all members of the school community, including students, staff, and families. Following this guidance without substantial additional precautions puts people’s lives at risk. Students with disabilities have additional needs that should be considered when planning for school reopening, and some elements of this guidance give useful ideas for meeting those needs. But the fact remains that schools need to reopen in a way that is safe for everyone involved.