COORDINATED PROGRAM REVIEW
MID-CYCLE REPORT
Charter School or District: Boston Collegiate Charter (District)
MCR Onsite Dates: 01/31/2012
Program Area: Special Education
Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D.
Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education
COORDINATED PROGRAM REVIEW
MID-CYCLE REPORT
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education – Program Quality Assurance Services
Boston Collegiate Charter (District) Mid-Cycle Report - November 5, 2012 12:46:50 PM
Page 2 of 7
SE Criterion # 3 - Special requirements for determination of specific
learning disability
Rating:
Partially Implemented
Basis for Findings:
Student records indicated that the district does not always create a written determination
when a student is suspected of having a Specific Learning Disability(SLD).
Department Order of Corrective Action:
Please review with the IEP Team Chairpersons the Department's technical assistance
regarding the eligibility requirements for students suspected of having a specific learning
disability (SLD). The Department's technical assistance can be found at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/iep/sld/default.html.
Please develop an internal tracking and monitoring system to ensure that the IEP Team
completes the components required to document the IEP Team's written determination of a
specific learning disability. The oversight system should include periodic reviews to ensure
compliance. It should also identify the persons responsible for the oversight by name and
role.
Please conduct internal monitoring of student records of either initial or reevaluations
conducted subsequent to the implementation of the school's corrective actions. Please be
sure to select records of students found eligible for special education and identified as having
a SLD. Please ensure the record review is selected from events that occurred after the district
completed its corrective action activities.
*Please note that when conducting internal monitoring the district must maintain the following
documentation and make it available to the Department upon request: a) List of student
names and grade level for the record review; b) Date of the review; c) Name of person(s) who
conducted the review, their roles(s), and their signature(s).
This applies to all criteria requiring internal monitoring as part of the corrective action(s).
Required Elements of Progress Reports:
Please document the review of the Department's technical assistance with IEP Team
chairpersons (please include the agenda and the signed attendance sheet, including name
and role).
Please submit a description of the tracking system; including the person responsible, the date
implemented and the frequency of the periodic review.
This progress report is due May 30, 2012.
Please submit a narrative description of the result of the internal monitoring of student
records. Please include the number of records reviewed and the number of records in
compliance. If the charter school identified continued noncompliance, please indicate the root
cause of the noncompliance and the additional corrective actions taken by the school to
address any identified concerns. This progress report is due October 29, 2012.
Progress Report Due Date(s):
05/30/2012
10/29/2012
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education – Program Quality Assurance Services
Boston Collegiate Charter (District) Mid-Cycle Report - November 5, 2012 12:46:50 PM
Page 3 of 7
SE Criterion # 6 - Determination of transition services
Rating:
Implemented
Basis for Findings:
A review of student records found that the district routinely completes transition planning for
students beginning at their 14th birthday. Additionally, student records found that the district
updates students transition plans annually.
SE Criterion # 7 - Transfer of parental rights at age of majority and
student participation and consent at the age of majority
Rating:
Implemented
Basis for Findings:
Student records and staff interviews found that the district informs both the student and the
parent of the rights that will transfer from the parent to the student upon the student's 18th
birthday, one year prior to the student's 18th birthday. Additionally, student records indicated
that the district documents the student's decision upon reaching the age of majority in those
instances in which the student delegates or shares educational decision-making with the
parent.
SE Criterion # 8 - IEP Team composition and attendance
Rating:
Implemented
Basis for Findings:
A review of documentation and student records indicated the required members of the IEP
Team attend unless the parent and the district agree in writing to excuse that IEP Team
member. The excused IEP Team member provides written input prior to the IEP Team
meeting.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education – Program Quality Assurance Services
Boston Collegiate Charter (District) Mid-Cycle Report - November 5, 2012 12:46:50 PM
Page 4 of 7
SE Criterion # 9 - Timeline for determination of eligibility and provision
of documentation to parent
Rating:
Partially Implemented
Basis for Findings:
A review of student records indicated that the district does not always convene an IEP Team
meeting within forty five school working days of receipt of the signed parental consent to
determine if the student is eligible for special education and to provide the parent with either a
proposed IEP and placement or a written explanation of the finding of no eligibility.
Department Order of Corrective Action:
Please conduct an analysis to determine the root cause of noncompliance with the timeline
requirements. Please examine the student records of initial evaluations from the past school
year to determine why timelines were not met.
Please ensure that the current internal tracking system includes key timelines such as the
thirty school working days for the completion of the assessments and the IEP Team meeting
date within forty-five school working days of receipt of signed consent to determine if a
student is eligible for special education. Additionally, please be sure that the tracking system
includes periodic monitoring and supervisory oversight.
Subsequent to the preceding corrective actions, please select a sample of student records to
conduct internal monitoring to ensure compliance with the timelines. Please be sure that the
samples selected are either initial evaluations or reevaluations that occurred after the
completion of the charter school's corrective action activities. If the district identifies continued
noncompliance please examine the root cause and explain the additional corrective actions
taken to address the noncompliance.
*Please note that when conducting internal monitoring the district must maintain the following
documentation and make it available to the Department upon request: a) List of student
names and grade level for the record review; b) Date of the review; c) Name of person(s) who
conducted the review, their roles(s), and their signature(s)
This applies to all criteria requiring internal monitoring as part of the corrective action(s).
Required Elements of Progress Reports:
Please identify the root cause of noncompliance, the specific actions taken to address the
noncompliance and the timelines for implementation.
Please submit a description of the tracking system. Please include the personnel responsible
for supervisory oversight and a description of the frequency of the monitoring. This progress
report is due May 30, 2012.
Please submit a narrative description of the result of the internal monitoring or records.
Please include the number of records reviewed and the number of records in compliance. If
the charter school identified continued noncompliance, identify the root cause of the
noncompliance and please indicate the additional corrective actions taken by the school.
Please indicate the charter school's timeline for the implementation of any corrective action s
taken as a result of the student record review. This progress report is due October 29, 2012.
Progress Report Due Date(s):
05/30/2012
10/29/2012
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education – Program Quality Assurance Services
Boston Collegiate Charter (District) Mid-Cycle Report - November 5, 2012 12:46:50 PM
Page 5 of 7
SE Criterion # 12 - Frequency of re-evaluation
Rating:
Implemented
Basis for Findings:
Staff interviews indicated that the district has increased special education staffing. As a result,
student records verified that the district routinely conducts reevaluations consistent with
federal regulations.
SE Criterion # 14 - Review and revision of IEPs
Rating:
Implemented
Basis for Findings:
Staff interviews indicated that the district has increased special education staffing since the
2007-2008 Coordinated Program Review. As a result, student records verified that the district
routinely convenes IEP Team meetings on or before the annual anniversary date of the IEP to
review, revise, or develop a new IEP or refer the student for a reevaluation as appropriate.
SE Criterion # 18A - IEP development and content
Rating:
Implemented
Basis for Findings:
A review of documentation and student records verified that the district has implemented
training and developed procedures regarding the IEP Team's obligation to document when
the student's disability affects social skills development or makes the student susceptible to
bullying, harassment, or teasing.
Additionally, student records verified that for students on the autism spectrum, the district has
developed consistent procedures to document the IEP Team's determination of the specific
skills and proficiencies needed to avoid and respond to bullying, harassment or teasing.
SE Criterion # 21 - School day and school year requirements
Rating:
Implemented
Basis for Findings:
Student records verified that the district routinely considers the need for an IEP that may
require a modification to the length of the student's school day or extended year services.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education – Program Quality Assurance Services
Boston Collegiate Charter (District) Mid-Cycle Report - November 5, 2012 12:46:50 PM
Page 6 of 7
SE Criterion # 22 - IEP implementation and availability
Rating:
Implemented
Basis for Findings:
Staff interviews verified that the district increased special education staffing since the time of
the 2007-2008 Coordinated Program Review. As a result, student records verified that the
charter school had current IEPs at the start of the 2011-12 school year for all students.
SE Criterion # 25 - Parental consent
Rating:
Implemented
Basis for Findings:
A review of documentation verified that when a parent revokes consent for special education,
the charter school provides the parent notification that all special education services will be
discontinued and informs the parent of how the parent can obtain the notice of procedural
rights. Additionally, interviews verified that the charter school will not use mediation or request
a due process hearing to obtain agreement or a ruling requiring the continuation of services.
SE Criterion # 26 - Parent participation in meetings
Rating:
Implemented
Basis for Findings:
Student records indicated that parents attended and participated in the IEP meeting.
SE Criterion # 52A - Registration of educational interpreters
Rating:
Implemented
Basis for Findings:
The self-assessment data indicates that the charter school currently does not have any
students who are deaf or hard of hearing. However; if such students enroll, the district will
employ an educational interpreter registered with the Massachusetts Commission for the Deaf
and Hard of Hearing.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education – Program Quality Assurance Services
Boston Collegiate Charter (District) Mid-Cycle Report - November 5, 2012 12:46:50 PM
Page 7 of 7