Massachusetts Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education
350 Main Street, Malden, Massachusetts 02148-5023
Telephone: (781) 338-3700
TTY: N.E.T. Relay 1-800-439-2370
August 19, 2008
Stephen Furtado, Superintendent
Freetown-Lakeville Public Schools
98 Howland Road
Lakeville, MA 02347
Re: Mid-cycle Report
Dear Superintendent Furtado:
Enclosed is the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education's Mid-cycle Report. This
report contains findings based on onsite monitoring the Department conducted to determine the
effectiveness of corrective action it approved or ordered to address noncompliance identified in
your district’s last Coordinated Program Review Report, dated July 15, 2005. The Mid-cycle
Report also contains findings based on onsite monitoring of special education compliance criteria
that have been created or substantially changed in response to IDEA 2004.
While the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education found your district to have
resolved certain noncompliance issues, others were partially corrected or not addressed at all, or
the Department’s onsite team identified new issues of noncompliance, including but not limited to
noncompliance with special education criteria added or substantially changed in response to
IDEA 2004. Where the district has failed to implement its Coordinated Program Review
Corrective Action Plan, the Department views these findings to be serious. The Office of Special
Education Programs of the U.S. Department of Elementary and Secondary Education requires
that all special education noncompliance be corrected as soon as possible, but in no case later
than one year from the time of identification; where the district has failed to implement its CPR
Corrective Action Plan, this one-year period has long since passed.
In all instances where noncompliance has been found, the Department has prescribed corrective
action for the district that must be implemented without delay. (In the case of new findings of
noncompliance, this corrective action must be corrected as soon as possible, but in no case later
than a year from the date of this report.) You will find these requirements for corrective action
included in the enclosed report, along with requirements for progress reporting. Please provide
the Department with your written assurance that all of the Department's requirements for
corrective action will be implemented by your district within the timelines specified in the report.
You must submit your statement of assurance to me by September 8, 2008.
Your staff's cooperation throughout this Mid-cycle Review is appreciated. Should you like
clarification of any part of our report, please do not hesitate to contact me at 781-338-3739.
1
Sincerely,
John Coleman Swanson, Mid-cycle Review Chairperson
Program Quality Assurance Services
Darlene A. Lynch, Director
Program Quality Assurance Services
c:
Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D., Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education
Sandra Souza, School Committee Chairperson
Anne St. Pierre, District Program Review Follow-up Coordinator
Encl.: Mid-cycle Report
2
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
MID-CYCLE REPORT
Freetown-Lakeville Public Schools
Date of Coordinated Program Review (CPR) Final Report: July 15, 2005
Date Coordinated Program Review Corrective Action Approved or Ordered: September 30, 2005
Dates of Corrective Action Plan Progress Reports: January 16, 2006, June 15, 2006, and December 6, 2006
Dates of this Mid-cycle Review Onsite Visit: April 28, 2008 – April 30, 2008
Date of this Report: August 19, 2008
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS REPORT IS IN SEVERAL SECTIONS.
Special Education Criteria Cited in CPR Report and Monitored in Mid-cycle
Current CPR criteria available by scrolling down to the monitoring instruments at http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/cpr/default.html
Criterion
Number/Topic
Approved
Corrective
Action
Implemented
and Effective
Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective

SE 18A
IEP
Development
and content

Documentation
Review, Student
Record Review,
and Staff
Interviews
Corrective
Action Not
Implemented
or Not
Effective
or
New Issues
Identified

Basis of Determination
that Implementation of
Corrective Action was
Incomplete or
Ineffective or
Basis of Finding of New
Noncompliance
Documentation, student
records, and staff interviews
indicated that the District’s
student IEPs contained all
the required elements that are
specified under this criterion.
Freetown-Lakeville Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 19, 2008
Page 1 of 11
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
Criterion
Number/Topic
Approved
Corrective
Action
Implemented
and Effective
Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective

SE 18B
Determination
of placement;
provision of
IEP to parent

Documentation
Review, Student
Record Review,
and Staff
Interviews
SE 20
Least restrictive
environment

Documentation
Review, Student
Record Review,
and Staff
Interviews
SE 24
Notice to parent
Partial
Documentation
Review, Student
Record Review,
and Staff
Interviews
Corrective
Action Not
Implemented
or Not
Effective
or
New Issues
Identified

Basis of Determination
that Implementation of
Corrective Action was
Incomplete or
Ineffective or
Basis of Finding of New
Noncompliance
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
Documentation, student
records, and staff
interviews indicated that
the District’s notice forms
that accompany the
proposed IEPs for
students were not
consistently addressing all
By November 20, 2008, please
provide staff training on the
requirement to address all of
the guiding questions listed on
the N1 form. The District must
submit the staff sign-in
sheet(s), the date of the
training, the training materials,
Documentation, student
records, and staff interviews
indicated that the District’s
IEP Teams were consistently
proposing new placement
changes with the PL1 Forms
rather than utilizing IEP
amendments.
Documentation, student
records, and staff interviews
indicated that the District’s
IEP Teams are consistently
documenting why removing
a student from the general
education classroom is
necessary in the
nonparticipation justification
statement section of the
student’s IEP.
Partial
Freetown-Lakeville Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 19, 2008
Page 2 of 11
Criterion
Number/Topic
Approved
Corrective
Action
Implemented
and Effective

Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective
Corrective
Action Not
Implemented
or Not
Effective
or
New Issues
Identified

Basis of Determination
that Implementation of
Corrective Action was
Incomplete or
Ineffective or
Basis of Finding of New
Noncompliance
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
of the guiding questions,
which are federal
requirements, listed on the
N1 forms.
and the name(s) of the
presenter(s).
Freetown-Lakeville Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 19, 2008
Page 3 of 11
The District will conduct an
internal review and report to
the Department on the name of
the person(s) responsible for
ongoing monitoring of this
criterion, the number of student
records reviewed, the number
of N1 forms found to be
appropriately completed and
any corrective action taken if
non-compliance is found.
Submit the results of the
internal review by March 20,
2009.
Special Education Criteria Created or Revised in Response to IDEA-2004
Current CPR criteria available by scrolling down to the monitoring instruments at http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/cpr/default.html
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s) of
Verification
SE 3
Special
requirements
for
determination
of specific
learning
disability

Documentation
Review, Student
Record Review,
and Staff
Interviews
SE 6 ##1 - 3
Determination
of Transition
Services

Documentation
Review, Student
Record Review,
and Staff
Interviews
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Criterion
Partially
Implemented
or Not
Implemented

Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
Documentation, student
records, and staff interviews
indicated that the District’s
IEP Teams utilize the
specific learning disability
forms that are completed and
signed by the IEP Team
members.
Documentation, student
records, and staff interviews
indicated that the District’s
IEP Teams are: (1)
completing the new
transition forms, (2)
consistently invite the
students to participate in the
IEP Team meetings to
discuss transition when the
students reach the age of 15,
and (3) consistently invite
outside agencies to
participate in IEP Team
meetings to discuss services
when the students graduate
or age-out of the special
education program.
Freetown-Lakeville Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 19, 2008
Page 4 of 11
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s) of
Verification
SE 8
IEP Team
composition
and attendance

Documentation
Review, Student
Record Review,
and Staff
Interviews
SE 12
Frequency of
re-evaluation

Documentation
Review, Student
Record Review,
and Staff
Interviews
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Criterion
Partially
Implemented
or Not
Implemented

Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
Documentation, student
records, and staff interviews
indicated that the District’s
IEP Teams are composed of
all the requisite Team
members that are mandated
to be present at Team
meetings. There is evidence
of a high degree of parent
attendance at the IEP Team
meetings. The District also
utilizes an IEP Team
member excusal form when
appropriate.
Documentation, student
records, and staff interviews
indicated that the District’s
IEP Teams consistently
develop re-evaluations
within the specified threeyear timeline. The District
also utilizes a letter that goes
to the parent upon the
District receiving the
parent’s consent to evaluate
that indicates when the
evaluations will be
completed and when the IEP
Team meeting will be
Freetown-Lakeville Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 19, 2008
Page 5 of 11
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Criterion
Partially
Implemented
or Not
Implemented

Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
scheduled.
SE 13
Progress
Reports and
content

Documentation
Review, Student
Record Review,
and Staff
Interviews
SE 14
Review and
revision of IEPs

Documentation
Review, Student
Record Review,
and Staff
Interviews
SE 25B
Resolution of
disputes

Documentation
Review, Student
Record Review,
and Staff
Interviews
Documentation, student
records, and staff interviews
indicated that the District’s
progress reports contained all
the required elements and
were given out to students
with the same frequency as
regular education students.
Documentation, student
records, and staff interviews
indicated that the District’s
IEP Teams consistently
conduct the annual reviews
within the specified one-year
timeline.
Documentation, student
records, and staff interviews
indicated that the District
consistently utilizes the
dispute resolution procedures
and that administrative staff
members are aware of these
regulations.
Freetown-Lakeville Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 19, 2008
Page 6 of 11
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s) of
Verification
SE 33
Involvement in
the General
Curriculum

Documentation
Review, Student
Record Review,
and Staff
Interviews
SE 39A
Procedures for
services to
eligible private
school students
whose parents
reside in the
district

Documentation
Review, Student
Record Review,
and Staff
Interviews
(SE 39A does
not apply to
charter schools
or vocational
schools)
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Criterion
Partially
Implemented
or Not
Implemented

Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
Documentation, student
records, and staff interviews
indicated that the District’s
IEP Teams consistently
discuss the students’
involvement and progress in
the general curriculum and it
is noted on each IEP.
Documentation, student
records, and staff interviews
indicated that students in
private schools whose
parents reside in-district are
given evaluations and, if
found eligible, they may
access a full range of special
education and related
services. The District has
documented the
proportionate share on the
Department’s mandated
form.
Freetown-Lakeville Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 19, 2008
Page 7 of 11
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s) of
Verification
SE 39B
Procedures for
services to
eligible students
in private
schools in the
district whose
parents reside
out of state

Documentation
Review, Student
Record Review,
and Staff
Interviews
Partial
Documentation
Review, Student
Record Review,
and Staff
Interviews
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Criterion
Partially
Implemented
or Not
Implemented

Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Documentation and staff
interviews indicated that
the District’s
manifestation
determination procedure
exceeds the bounds of the
federal regulations with
regard to repeat offenders.
According to the
District’s procedures,
“[i]n a case where a
manifestation
determination meeting
was held relative to a
particular infraction and it
was previously
determined that the
By November 20, 2008, please
submit to the Department a
revised manifestation
determination policy that is in
compliance with the federal
regulations with respect to
“repeat offenders.” Please
provide staff training on the
revised manifestation
determination procedures. The
District will be requested to
submit the staff sign-in
sheet(s), the date of the
training, the training materials,
and the name(s) of the
presenter(s).
Documentation, student
records, and staff interviews
indicated that students in
private schools whose
parents reside out of state
have the opportunity to
access special education
services.
(SE 39B does
not apply to
charter schools
or vocational
schools)
SE 46
Procedures for
suspension of
students with
disabilities
more than 10
days
Documentation indicated that
the District did have
procedures for suspension of
students with disabilities for
more than ten days in its
student handbooks.
Partial
Freetown-Lakeville Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 19, 2008
Page 8 of 11
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Criterion
Partially
Implemented
or Not
Implemented

Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
behavior was not a
manifestation of the
student’s disability and
there is a ‘repeat offense’
of the same infraction, no
manifestation
determination meeting is
needed. Enforce
discipline procedures and
send a ‘Justification of No
Manifestation
Determination’ letter to
parent.”
The District will conduct an
internal review and report to
the Department on the name of
the person(s) responsible for
ongoing monitoring of this
criterion, the number of student
records reviewed, the number
of records found to be not in
compliance and any corrective
action taken if non-compliance
is found. Submit the results of
the internal review by March
20, 2009.
The District’s
manifestation
determination procedures
only look at the infraction
itself and do not consider
the antecedents that
contributed to the
commission of the
infraction. Each
infraction should be
considered as a case-bycase analysis.
Freetown-Lakeville Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 19, 2008
Page 9 of 11
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Implemented

SE 52
Appropriate
certifications/
licenses or
other
credentials –
related service
providers
(to be reviewed
only with
respect to
providers of
interpreting
services)

Method(s) of
Verification
Documentation
Review and Staff
Interviews
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Criterion
Partially
Implemented
or Not
Implemented

Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
Documentation and staff
interviews indicated the
District has the appropriate
certification/licenses for all
of the related service
providers.
Freetown-Lakeville Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 19, 2008
Page 10 of 11
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Criteria from Other Regulated Programs Monitored During this Mid-cycle Review
Current CPR criteria available by scrolling down to the monitoring instruments at http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/cpr/default.html
Criterion
Number/Topic
Approved
Corrective
Action
Implemented
and Effective

Method(s) of
Verification
CR 10A
Student
handbooks and
codes of
conduct

Documentation
Review and
Staff Interviews
ELE 11
Equal access to
academic
programs and
services

Documentation
Review and
Staff Interviews
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective
Corrective
Action Not
Implemented
or Not
Effective
Or
New Issues
Identified

Basis of Determination
that Implementation of
Corrective Action was
Incomplete or
Ineffective
Or
Basis of Finding of New
Noncompliance
Documentation and staff
interviews indicate that the
district’s handbooks and
codes of conduct now
contain all information
regarding discipline
procedures for students in
special education and on 504
plans.
Documentation and staff
interviews indicated that the
District’s ELE students have
equal access to academic and
support services that are
made available to their
English-speaking peers in the
school district.
Freetown-Lakeville Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 19, 2008
Page 11 of 11
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Requirements