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
July 29, 2008
Carol F. Darling, Superintendent
Gardner Public School District
70 Waterford Street
Gardner, MA 01440
Re: Mid-cycle Report
Dear Superintendent Darling:
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 May 10, 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 August 15, 2008.
1
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 781-338-3713.
Sincerely,
Kimberly Minnucci, 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
John Salovardos, Special Education Director
Encl.: Mid-cycle Report
2
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
MID-CYCLE REPORT
Gardner Public School District
Date of Coordinated Program Review (CPR) Final Report: May 10, 2005
Date Coordinated Program Review Corrective Action Approved or Ordered: June 27, 2005
Dates of Corrective Action Plan Progress Reports: June 19, 2005; November 20, 2006; February 29, 2008; & April 9, 2008
Dates of this Mid-cycle Review Onsite Visit: May 12 & 13, 2008
Date of this Report: July 29, 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
SE-1
Assessments
are
appropriately
selected and
interpreted
SE2
Optional
assessment
Approved Method(s)
Corrective
of
Action Verification
Implemented
and Effective

Partial
Document
Review
Student
records
Basis of Determination
Corrective
Basis of Determination that
that Corrective Action
Action Not
Implementation of
was Implemented and Implemented,
Corrective Action was
has been Effective
Not
Incomplete or Ineffective
Effective,
or Basis of Finding of New
or New Issues
Noncompliance
Identified

Required Corrective Action, Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
Tests and evaluations are
administered by a trained
individual, using
technically sound
instruments.
Conduct training for appropriate staff
regarding the use of required and optional
assessments that address all areas related to a
student disability. In addition, provide
training on the completion of educational
assessments. Submit an agenda and staff
attendance sheet by September 30, 2008.
Partial
Assessments are not always
tailored to address all areas
of suspected disability.
Educational assessments are
not always conducted and /or
indicated on students’ IEPs,
as required under 603 CMR
28.04 (1).
Submit, by January 15, 2009, an
Gardner Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 29, 2008
Page 1 of 16
Criterion
Number/
Topic
Approved Method(s)
Corrective
of
Action Verification
Implemented
and Effective

Basis of Determination
Corrective
Basis of Determination that
that Corrective Action
Action Not
Implementation of
was Implemented and Implemented,
Corrective Action was
has been Effective
Not
Incomplete or Ineffective
Effective,
or Basis of Finding of New
or New Issues
Noncompliance
Identified

Required Corrective Action, Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
administrative review of all assessments
conducted since the training. Indicate:
1.The number of students assessed
2. The assessments administered
3. The relationship of those assessments to
the suspected areas of disability
4. Include the name of the person responsible
for ensuring compliance with this criterion
and any steps taken by the district to correct
any areas of non-compliance.
SE 5
Participation in
statewide
assessment
programs
Partial
Student
records
All students with
disabilities in the district
participate in the MCAS.
Partial
The district does not always
indicate how each student
will participate in MCAS.
Specifically, IEPs for
students taking the
alternative MCAS do not
delineate methods for
assessing a student’s
knowledge of the indicated
subject matter.
Provide training for appropriate staff
regarding procedures for developing IEP
descriptions regarding the methods for
administration of the alternative MCAS.
Submit an agenda and staff attendance by
September 30, 2008.
Submit, by January 15, 2009, the MCAS
accommodation pages for all students with an
IEP written since the training and who will be
taking an alternative MCAS.
Submit results of an administrative review,
by March 15, 2009, of the MCAS page for
student IEPs written since December 15,
2008. Indicate;
1. The total number of IEPs reviewed
2. The number of students participating in
alternative MCAS
Gardner Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 29, 2008
Page 2 of 16
Criterion
Number/
Topic
Approved Method(s)
Corrective
of
Action Verification
Implemented
and Effective

Basis of Determination
Corrective
Basis of Determination that
that Corrective Action
Action Not
Implementation of
was Implemented and Implemented,
Corrective Action was
has been Effective
Not
Incomplete or Ineffective
Effective,
or Basis of Finding of New
or New Issues
Noncompliance
Identified

Required Corrective Action, Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
3. The number of IEP MCAS pages that state
the content and methodology for the
alternative MCAS
4. Include the name of the person responsible
for ensuring compliance with this criterion
and any steps taken by the district to
correct any areas of continuing noncompliance.
SE 9
Timeline for
determining
eligibility
SE 18A
IEP
development and
content

Student
records
Interviews
Partial
Student
records
Interviews
Within forty- five days
after receipt of parent
consent to conduct an
evaluation, the district
determines whether a
student is eligible for
special education and
provides an IEP, or
explanation of no
eligibility.
Upon determining that a
student is eligible for
special education
services, the Team
develops an IEP at the
Team meeting.
Partial
Interviews indicated that
higher administration in the
district change some student
IEP services based on size or
configuration of the agreed
upon placement rather than
the individual needs of the
Gardner Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 29, 2008
Page 3 of 16
Conduct by September 30, 2008, an
administrative review, consisting of student
IEPs from each building reviewed by the
building principal and cross-referenced with
the current teachers and related service
providers, to ensure that the consented-to IEP
is being fully implemented. Indicate;
Criterion
Number/
Topic
Approved Method(s)
Corrective
of
Action Verification
Implemented
and Effective

Basis of Determination
Corrective
Basis of Determination that
that Corrective Action
Action Not
Implementation of
was Implemented and Implemented,
Corrective Action was
has been Effective
Not
Incomplete or Ineffective
Effective,
or Basis of Finding of New
or New Issues
Noncompliance
Identified

child.
Programs and services
proposed by the IEP Team
and consented to by the
parent/guardian may not be
changed at a higher
administrative level.
SE 20
Least
restrictive
program
Partial
Student
records
Interviews
If a student’s IEP
necessitates special
education services in a
day or residential
program, or an out of
district placement, the
IEP Team considers
whether the student
requires special
education services and
support to promote the
student’s transition to a
less restrictive program.
Partial
Some students are placed in
substantially separate special
education classrooms
without an IEP. This is not
consistent with the intent of
the DCAP under MGL Chap
71, 38 Q 1 / 2 which states;
“ The plan shall be designed to
assist the regular classroom
teacher in analyzing and
accommodating diverse
learning styles of all children in
the regular classroom and in
providing appropriate services
and support within the regular
education program including,
Gardner Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 29, 2008
Page 4 of 16
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
1. The number of IEPs reviewed, by
building
2. The number of IEPs where special
education and related services are
being provided consistent with the
IEP.
3. Identify any issues of noncompliance and the steps taken by
the district to remedy them.
A second internal monitoring consisting of
the same requirements should be submitted
by the district by January 15, 2009.
Submit, by September 30, 2008, an agenda
and staff attendance sheet for training for
general and special education staff regarding
1. How the DCAP can be utilized to provide
the least restrictive environment for students
with interfering behaviors, including
identifying the range of supports that are
available in the school to address interfering
behaviors;
2. The responsibility of the principal to
document that accommodations and
interventions have been taken for students
and that the information is placed in the
student record.
3. Writing IEP Non-participation Justification
statements for students placed in substantially
Criterion
Number/
Topic
Approved Method(s)
Corrective
of
Action Verification
Implemented
and Effective

Basis of Determination
Corrective
Basis of Determination that
that Corrective Action
Action Not
Implementation of
was Implemented and Implemented,
Corrective Action was
has been Effective
Not
Incomplete or Ineffective
Effective,
or Basis of Finding of New
or New Issues
Noncompliance
Identified

but not limited to, direct and
systematic instruction in
reading and provision of
services to address the needs of
children whose behavior may
interfere with learning, or who
do not qualify for special
education services under
chapter 71B.”
Consequentially,
unsubstantiated restrictive
placements for students may
reflect a lack of appropriate
supports in regular
education.
The Team’s decision to place
a student with a disability in
a substantially separate class
is not always clearly
articulated in the Nonparticipation Justification
section of the IEP.
SE 22
IEP
implementation and
Interviews

Student
records
At the beginning of the
school year, IEPs are not
always implemented without
delay; specifically, related
Gardner Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 29, 2008
Page 5 of 16
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
separate settings that clearly substantiate the
need for student educational services outside
of the general education classroom.
Develop an internal monitoring plan for
ensuring the documentation of DCAP
implementation for students whose behavior
is interfering with their learning and identify
the person(s) responsible for this oversight.
Submit an administrative review of student
rosters, by January 15, 2008, of students
placed in substantially separate settings.
Indicate;
1. The number of students enrolled in each
class and whether each student has an IEP.
2. The number of students on IEPs where a
substantially separate placement was
justified by the Non-Participation
Justification statement.
Include the person responsible for ensuring
compliance with this criterion and describe
any steps taken by the district to correct any
areas of non-compliance.
Submit, by September 20, 2008, a plan for
ensuring that faculty and related service
personnel are provided with student rosters,
student IEPs, schedules, and location for
Criterion
Number/
Topic
Approved Method(s)
Corrective
of
Action Verification
Implemented
and Effective

availability
SE 24
Notice to
parent
regarding
proposal to
initiate
change

Interviews
Student
records
Basis of Determination
Corrective
Basis of Determination that
that Corrective Action
Action Not
Implementation of
was Implemented and Implemented,
Corrective Action was
has been Effective
Not
Incomplete or Ineffective
Effective,
or Basis of Finding of New
or New Issues
Noncompliance
Identified

services are not always
implemented, as mutually
agreed upon, during the first
week of school.
When a student is
referred for an evaluation
to determine eligibility,
the district sends written
notice to the parents with
all of the required
information according to
state and federal laws.
Gardner Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 29, 2008
Page 6 of 16
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
service provisions prior to the start of school.
Conduct by January 15, 2009 an
administrative review consisting of a sample
of IEPs from each building reviewed by the
building principal. Compare the service
delivery grid with the frequency and duration
of services on the related service provider
logs. The logs should be signed by the
providers. Indicate;
1. Number of IEPs reviewed
2. Number of IEPs where the related
services provided reflect the service
delivery grid on student IEPs
3. Identify any issues of noncompliance and the steps taken by
the district to remedy them.
Criterion
Number/
Topic
Approved Method(s)
Corrective
of
Action Verification
Implemented
and Effective

SE 27
Content of
Team
meeting
notice

SE 25
Parent
consent
Partial
Interviews
Student
records
Interviews
Student
records
Basis of Determination
Corrective
Basis of Determination that
that Corrective Action
Action Not
Implementation of
was Implemented and Implemented,
Corrective Action was
has been Effective
Not
Incomplete or Ineffective
Effective,
or Basis of Finding of New
or New Issues
Noncompliance
Identified

Required Corrective Action, Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
Team meeting notices
state the purpose, time
and location of the Team
meeting as well as who
will be in attendance.
The district obtains
consent before
conducting an extended
evaluation.
Partial
IEPs are not always signed
by the parent/ guardian
within 30, 60, 90 days. The
district did not provide
evidence of their consistent
and continued attempts to
obtain consent.
The Evaluation Consent
Form (N- 1A) that is sent to
parents does not clearly
specify which type of
assessments will be
completed. Specifically, the
indicated assessments do not
always correspond with the
assessments administered
and inversely, the
assessments administered are
not always indicated on the
consent form. Additionally,
educational assessments are
not always administered as
Gardner Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 29, 2008
Page 7 of 16
Submit, by September 20, 2008, a plan to
document multiple attempts to obtain signed
parental consent for unsigned IEPs. Also,
conduct training for appropriate staff
regarding the completion of N-1A forms and
submit an agenda and staff attendance sheet.
By January 15, 2009, submit an
administrative review of all student records
for IEPs written since the start of the school
year. Indicate;
1. Number of IEPs reviewed
2. Number of IEPs where parent consent was
not secured beyond 30 days.
3. Number where documentation is present
regarding multiple and varied steps taken
by the district to obtain signed consent.
4. Number of parental consents (N-1A) sent
where appropriate assessments (i.e.,
educational and psychological) are
indicated
5. Any additional actions taken as a result of
Criterion
Number/
Topic
Approved Method(s)
Corrective
of
Action Verification
Implemented
and Effective


Student
records
SE 25A
Sending a
copy of
notice to
the BSEA
SE 29
Basis of Determination
Corrective
Basis of Determination that
that Corrective Action
Action Not
Implementation of
was Implemented and Implemented,
Corrective Action was
has been Effective
Not
Incomplete or Ineffective
Effective,
or Basis of Finding of New
or New Issues
Noncompliance
Identified

required per 603 CMR 28.04
(2)(a).
Partial
Document
Communications with
Partial
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
the review.
The district does not always
contact the BSEA for
rejected IEPs. Some IEPs
are not signed by the parent
or guardian well beyond 30
days as stated above. After
multiple attempts to secure
parental consent the district
may consider contacting the
BSEA.
Submit the plan and evidence of staff
training, by September 20, 2008, regarding
procedures for securing parental consent,
contacting the BSEA after an IEP is rejected
by the parent /guardian, and for those IEPs
where written parent consent is not secured
despite multiple attempts by the district,
consideration is given for contacting the
BSEA.
Submit an administrative review, by January
15, 2009, of student records for IEPs written
from the date of training.
Indicate;
1. The number of IEPs written
2. The number of rejected IEPs reported
to the BSEA
3. The number of IEPs, if any, where
consideration is given to contacting
the BSEA when an IEP is not
approved or rejected.
4. Indicate the person responsible for
ensuring compliance with this
criterion and any steps taken by the
district to correct any areas of noncompliance.
Progress reports are not
Submit a plan, by September 20, 2008, for
Gardner Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 29, 2008
Page 8 of 16
Criterion
Number/
Topic
Approved Method(s)
Corrective
of
Action Verification
Implemented
and Effective

Communications are
in English
and the
primary
language
of the
home
Review
Student
records
SE 35
Assistive
technology

SE 36
IEP
implementation,
accountability
Partial
Interviews
Student
records
Interviews
Student
records
Basis of Determination
Corrective
that Corrective Action
Action Not
was Implemented and Implemented,
has been Effective
Not
Effective,
or New Issues
Identified

parents are in both
English and the primary
language of the home for
most documents,
including IEP Team
meeting invitations (N1s) and IEPs.
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
always provided in the
primary language of the
family.
providing student progress reports in the
primary language of the family.
Submit, by January 15, 2009, an
administrative review of all student files
where the primary language is not English.
Indicate:
1. Number of student records examined
2. Number where progress reports are written
in the primary language of the family
3. Steps taken by the district to correct any
areas of non-compliance
4. Include the person responsible for ensuring
compliance with this criterion.
Specialized materials and
equipment specified in
IEPs are provided by the
district.
The district provides
programs and services
without expense to the
child’s parent.
Partial
The district does not always
ensure full implementation of
each student’s IEP.
Specifically, in the Project
Support class at the Elm
Gardner Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 29, 2008
Page 9 of 16
Submit, by September 20, 2008, a plan for
ensuring full implementation of student IEPs
for students placed in the Project Support
class at Elm Street School. Submit a service
delivery grid and daily schedule for all
Criterion
Number/
Topic
Approved Method(s)
Corrective
of
Action Verification
Implemented
and Effective

and financial
responsibility
SE 40
Instructional
grouping
requirements
Partial
Interviews
Student
records
Document
Review
Basis of Determination
Corrective
Basis of Determination that
that Corrective Action
Action Not
Implementation of
was Implemented and Implemented,
Corrective Action was
has been Effective
Not
Incomplete or Ineffective
Effective,
or Basis of Finding of New
or New Issues
Noncompliance
Identified

Street School students are
not integrated for homeroom,
gym, art etc. as indicated on
their IEPs.
Instructional groupings
are compliant for
students placed in
separate classes for less
than 60% of their school
day.
Partial
Instructional grouping sizes
exceed 12 students to 1
certified special educator and
1 aide for eligible students
served in substantially
separate classrooms for
greater than 60% of the day.
Specifically, Project Support,
the substantially separate
class at the Elm Street
School contains 16 students
with one special education
teacher and two aides.
SE 43
Behavioral
intervention

Interviews
Student
records
The Team considers the
student’s behavior
including positive
behavioral interventions
and the possible need for
a functional behavioral
assessment.
Gardner Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 29, 2008
Page 10 of 16
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
students placed in Project Support classes.
Submit evidence of compliance by
September 20, 2008, with instructional
group sizes for students served in
substantially separate classrooms. Submit a
student and staff list for the three Project
Support classes in the district.
Criterion
Number/
Topic
Approved Method(s)
Corrective
of
Action Verification
Implemented
and Effective

SE 50
Administrator
Partial
Basis of Determination
Corrective
Basis of Determination that
that Corrective Action
Action Not
Implementation of
was Implemented and Implemented,
Corrective Action was
has been Effective
Not
Incomplete or Ineffective
Effective,
or Basis of Finding of New
or New Issues
Noncompliance
Identified

Required Corrective Action, Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
Document
Review
The Special Education
Administrator supervises
all special education for
the district.
Document
Review
Para-professionals and
assistants are
appropriately trained to
administer special
education and/or related
services.
of Special
Education
SE 53
Use of para-

professionals
Interviews
SE 55
Special
education
facilities
and
classrooms
Partial
Document
Review
Special education
facilities are not
identified by signs or
Observation other means that may
stigmatize students with
disabilities.
Partial
The Administrator does not
hold proper licensure or a
current waiver specific to
either special education or
special education
administration.
Provide evidence of appropriate licensure or
a waiver for the Special Education Director,
by September 20, 2008.
Partial
Special education
environments in the district
are not always comparable in
all physical respects to those
provided for regular
education students.
Specifically, the small
physical size of the
Academic Learning Lab at
the high school is inadequate
for its purpose and for the
population that it serves.
The Lab is also isolated from
the general education
Submit a plan, by September 20, 2008, for
providing a more equitable learning
environment for those students receiving
services in the Academic Learning Lab
(ALL) at the high school. Submit the plan
and a map of the building indicating the new
location of the ALL and nearby classrooms.
Gardner Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 29, 2008
Page 11 of 16
Criterion
Number/
Topic
Approved Method(s)
Corrective
of
Action Verification
Implemented
and Effective

SE 56
Special
education
programs
are
evaluated

Document
Review
Interviews
Basis of Determination
Corrective
Basis of Determination that
that Corrective Action
Action Not
Implementation of
was Implemented and Implemented,
Corrective Action was
has been Effective
Not
Incomplete or Ineffective
Effective,
or Basis of Finding of New
or New Issues
Noncompliance
Identified

population.
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
The district has
developed and employs a
plan for evaluating its
special education
programs.
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
SE 3
Determination
of specific
learning
disability
Criterion
Method(s)
Implemented
of

Verification

Student
records
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
When a student suspected of
having a specific learning
disability is evaluated, the
Team uses the Department
SLD forms to determine
eligibility.
Gardner Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 29, 2008
Page 12 of 16
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Criterion
Number
And Topic
Implemented
Criterion
SE 6 #1 - 3


Determination
of Transition
Services
SE 8
IEP Team
composition
and
attendance
SE 12
Frequency of
re-evaluation
Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Document
Review
When a student turns 15, the
IEP Team discusses her/his
transition needs and uses the
Department Transition
Planning Forms annually.
Student
records
Partial
Document
Review
Student
records

Student
records
A representative of the
school district who acts as
Chairperson, an individual
who can commit resources, a
regular and special education
teacher, and an interpreter of
all evaluation results are
present at Team meetings.
Criterion
Partially
Implemented
or Not
Implemented

Partial
Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Seven of the 26 IEP
Team meeting
attendance sheets
submitted did not have a
parent signature. Efforts
to include parent
participation in meetings,
such as rescheduling or
use of a conference call,
are not always
documented.
Submit a plan to document multiple
attempts to include parents in IEP
Team meetings by September 20,
2008.
Students with disabilities in
the district are re-evaluated
at least every three years.
Interviews
Gardner Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 29, 2008
Page 13 of 16
Submit an administrative review, by
January 15, 2009, of all IEP Team
attendance sheets for meetings held
this school year. Indicate;
1. The total number of IEPs reviewed
2. The number where there is
evidence of parent participation.
3. Number with documentation of
efforts to include parent
participation in meetings, if they
are not able to attend.
4. Include the name of the person
responsible for ensuring
compliance with this criterion.
Criterion
Number
And Topic
SE 13
Progress
Reports and
content
Criterion
Implemented


Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Document
Review
Parents are provided with
progress reports at least as
often as parents of nondisabled students are
informed of progress.
Progress reports reflect IEP
goals and benchmarks.
Student
records
Interviews
SE 14
Review and
revision of
IEPs

SE 25B
Resolution of
disputes

SE 33
Involvement
in the General
Curriculum
Partial
Student
records
Interviews
Document
Review
Student
records
Interviews
Student
records
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
The district does not
always include students
placed in substantially
separate classes in the
general education
classroom as indicated
on their IEP.
See the corrective action order
for SE 36.
At least annually, a Team
meeting is held to consider
the student’s progress and to
develop a new IEP, or refer
the student for a reevaluation as appropriate.
The district has not had any
rejected IEPs that require
resolution from the BSEA.
At least one member of the
IEP Team is familiar with the
general education
curriculum.
Partial
Gardner Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 29, 2008
Page 14 of 16
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
Specifically, students in
the Project Support class
at the Elm Street School
are isolated for up to
100% of their day.
SE 39A
Services to
eligible
private school
students
whose parents
reside in the
district

Document
Review
Student
records
SE 39B
IEP Services
to students in
private
schools in the
district whose
parents reside
out of state

SE 46
Procedures
for
suspension of
students with
disabilities
Partial
Document
Review
Student
records
Interviews
Student
records
The district provides special
education services and/or
related services designed to
meet the needs of eligible
students who are attending
private schools at private
expense and who reside in
the district.
Currently there are no
eligible students enrolled at
private expense in a private
school in the district and
whose parents reside out of
state; however, the district
does have a procedure should
the situation arise.
If a student receiving special
education services in the
district is suspended for
greater than 10 days, or
demonstrates a pattern of
suspensions that exceed ten
Partial
The district does not
always apply the same
protections for a student
suspected of a disability
as those protections
afforded to students
Gardner Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 29, 2008
Page 15 of 16
Submit evidence of training, by
September 15, 2008, for appropriate
staff regarding the procedures to
follow for suspending a student with
a suspected disability.
Criterion
Number
And Topic
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s)
of
Verification
more than 10
days
days, a meeting is held with
district personnel, the parent,
and other relevant members
of the Team to determine
whether or not the infraction
is a manifestation of his/her
disability and if the removal
constitutes a change in
placement.
And
SE 47
Procedural
requirements
applied to
students not
yet
determined
eligible for
special
education
SE 52
Appropriate
certifications/
licenses/
credentials
for providers
of services for
deaf/hard of
hearing
students
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Criterion
Partially
Implemented
or Not
Implemented


Document
Review
Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
currently receiving
special education
services, as required
under 34 CFR 300.534.
Submit results of an administrative
review, by January 15, 2009, of all
students suspended since the training.
Indicate;
1. The total number of students
suspended
2. The number of those students who
are currently receiving special
education
3. The number of students suspended
while suspected of a disability and
if appropriate procedures were
followed.
4. Indicate the steps taken by the
district to address any continued
non-compliance.
The district provided the
names and evidence of
registration with the
Massachusetts Commission
for the Deaf and hard of
Hearing for the person
providing interpreting
services for students in the
district who are deaf or hard
of hearing.
Gardner Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 29, 2008
Page 16 of 16