Massachusetts Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education
75 Pleasant Street, Malden, Massachusetts 02148-4096
Telephone: (781) 338-3700
TTY: N.E.T. Relay 1-800-439-2370
August 25, 2010
Paul Soojian, Superintendent
Leicester Public School District
1078 Main Street
Leicester, MA 01524
Re: Mid-cycle Report
Dear Superintendent Soojian:
Enclosed is the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education's Mid-cycle Report
based on the Mid-cycle Review conducted in your district in March 2010. In this Midcycle Review the Department monitored selected special education criteria to determine
your district’s compliance with special education laws and regulations. The review
consisted of information gathered from one or more of the following activities: staff
interviews, review of student records, examination of documentation, and/or classroom
observation.
The Department found one or more of the criteria monitored in your district to be
“Partially Implemented” or “Not Implemented.” In all instances where noncompliance has
been found, the Department has prescribed corrective action for the district. This
corrective action must be implemented 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 submitting progress reports using the
enclosed form.
Please provide the Department with your written assurance that all of the required
corrective action will be implemented by your district within the timelines specified in the
report. You must submit your statement of assurance to Darlene Lynch, Director, Program
Quality Assurance Services, by September 13, 2010.
Your staff's cooperation throughout this Mid-cycle Review is appreciated. If you have
questions about this letter or the enclosed report, please do not hesitate to contact Elizabeth
1
Ahern at (781) 338-3729.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Ahern, Supervisor,
Central MA Monitoring Team
Program Quality Assurance Services
Darlene A. Lynch, Director
Program Quality Assurance Services
cc:
Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D., Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education
Mark E. Armington, School Committee Chairperson
Lisa Diego, Local Program Review Coordinator
Encs: Mid-cycle Report
Mid-cycle Progress Report form
2
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
MID-CYCLE REPORT
Leicester Public Schools
Dates of the Mid-cycle Review Onsite: March 10, 2010
Date of this Report: August 25, 2010
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS REPORT IS IN TWO SECTIONS.
Required Special Education Criteria Monitored in this Mid-cycle Review
Current special education criteria available by scrolling down to the special education instrument at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/cpr/default.html
Criterion
SE 3
Special
Requirements
for the
Determination
of Specific
Learning
Disability
Criterion
Implemented


Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
Method(s) of
Investigation
Student
Records
Interviews
Basis of Determination
about Criterion
If Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and
Timelines for
Implementation
Student record review and
interviews indicated that
the district is appropriately
evaluating students
suspected of having a
specific learning disability.
Written documentation
was evident in the student
records, including signed
statements of agreement of
all IEP Team members.
Leicester Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 25, 2010
Page 1 of 24
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
Criterion
SE 52A
Registration
of
Educational
Interpreters
Criterion
Implemented


Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
Method(s) of
Investigation
Documents
Interviews
Basis of Determination
about Criterion
If Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and
Timelines for
Implementation
The district provided a
statement of assurance that
there were no students
currently enrolled who
would require an
interpreter. The district
further indicated that
should such a student
enroll; the district would
employ an educational
interpreter registered with
the Massachusetts
Commission for the Deaf
and Hard of Hearing.
Leicester Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 25, 2010
Page 2 of 24
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
Additional Special Education Criteria Monitored in this Mid-cycle Review
Current special education criteria available by scrolling down to the special education instrument at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/cpr/default.html
Criterion
SE 2
Criterion
Implemented

Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)

Student
Records
Required and
Optional
Assessments
SE 4
Reports of
Assessment
Results
Method(s) of
Investigation
Interviews
PI
Documents
Student
Records
Interviews
Basis of Determination about
Criterion
If Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and Timelines for
Implementation
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
The district must conduct
an analysis and determine
the root cause of the
continued non-compliance
related to reports of
assessment results. The
district then must plan and
implement actions that will
address the underlying
Submit a narrative
description that identifies
the root cause of the
continued non-compliance
and provides a detailed
description of the
corrective action steps
taken. Please be sure to
include the timeline of the
Student records and interviews
demonstrated that the district
developed a mechanism and has
trained staff to conduct all
required assessments at the time
of a re-evaluation or to provide
parents with a written rationale
outlining specific reasons for its
recommendation not to assess the
student. Student records
indicated this practice was
consistently applied.
Student records, documentation
and interviews indicated that
although the district has held
trainings and established internal
procedures relative to the
requirements of this criterion,
implementation of local
corrective action has not resulted
in full compliance as of the time
Leicester Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 25, 2010
Page 3 of 24
Criterion
Criterion
Implemented

Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
Method(s) of
Investigation
Basis of Determination about
Criterion
If Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and Timelines for
Implementation
of this review. Specifically, not
all reports of assessment results
provide educationally relevant
recommendations. In some
instances reports were lacking any
recommendations and others
stated that recommendations
would be discussed at the Team
meeting.
cause of the continued noncompliance in this area.
Additionally, the district
must develop and
implement an internal
oversight and tracking
system to ensure that all
reports of assessment
results include
educationally relevant
recommendations.
Subsequent to the
completion of the corrective
action, the district must
conduct an administrative
review of student records to
ensure that the district is
maintaining compliance
and that all assessment
reports include
educationally relevant
recommendations.
* Please note when
conducting internal
monitoring that district
must maintain the
following documentation
and make it available to
the Department upon
Leicester Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 25, 2010
Page 4 of 24
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
actions taken by the
district, indicate the staff
member(s) responsible for
the implementation by
name and role and if
applicable, the staff
members who were
involved in the overall
corrective action process.
Please be sure to include
sufficient, relevant
documentation of the
corrective action steps
taken that effectively
demonstrate the district’s
efforts to correct the
continued noncompliance. Please submit
this to the Department on
or before October 22,
2010.
Submit a detailed narrative
description of the internal
oversight and tracking
system that the district has
adopted to address the
oversight of reports of
assessment results. Please
submit this to the
Department on or before
Criterion
SE 6
Determination of
Transition
Services
Criterion
Implemented

Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
PI
Method(s) of
Investigation
Documents
Student
Records
Basis of Determination about
Criterion
Documentation, student records
and interviews indicated that
although the district has held
trainings and established internal
procedures relative to the
If Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and Timelines for
Implementation
request: a) List of the
student names and grade
level for the records
reviewed; b) Date of the
review; c) Name of
person(s) who conducted
the review, their role(s),
and signature(s).
October 22, 2010.
The district must conduct
an analysis and determine
the root cause of the
continued non-compliance
related to transition plans.
Submit a narrative
description that identifies
the root cause of the
continued non-compliance
and a detailed description
Leicester Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 25, 2010
Page 5 of 24
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
Subsequent to the
corrective action, submit a
narrative description of the
results of the
administrative review of
student records to ensure
that assessment reports are
completed as required.
Identify the name and role
of the reviewer, the
number of records
reviewed from each level,
the number of assessment
reports found to meet the
requirements of this
criterion, the root cause of
any continued noncompliance and any steps
taken to correct concerns
identified in the process to
the Department on or
before January 14, 2011.
Criterion
Criterion
Implemented

Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
Method(s) of
Investigation
Interviews
Basis of Determination about
Criterion
If Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and Timelines for
Implementation
requirements of this criterion,
implementation of local
corrective action has not resulted
in full compliance as of the time
of this review.
The district then must plan
and implement actions that
will address the underlying
cause of the continued noncompliance in this area.
Specifically, not all student IEPs
requiring a transition plan have
one in the record and not all of
those that are included have fully
completed transition planning
forms or have been updated as
appropriate.
Additionally, the district
must develop and
implement an internal
oversight and tracking
system to ensure that all
transition plans are
appropriately completed
and updated annually.
Subsequent to the
completion of the corrective
action steps, the district
must conduct internal
monitoring of student
records to determine that all
transition plans are
complete and updated as
required.
of the corrective action
steps taken. Please be sure
to include the timeline of
the actions taken by the
district, indicated the staff
member(s) responsible for
the implementation by
name and role and if
applicable, the staff
members who were
involved in the overall
corrective action process.
Please be sure to include
sufficient, relevant
documentation of the
corrective action steps
taken that effectively
demonstrate the district’s
efforts to correct the
continued noncompliance. Please submit
this to the Department on
or before October 22,
2010.
* Please note when
conducting internal
monitoring that district
must maintain the
following documentation
and make it available to
Submit a detailed narrative
description of the internal
oversight and tracking
system that the district has
adopted to address the
oversight of transition
Leicester Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 25, 2010
Page 6 of 24
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
Criterion
Criterion
Implemented

Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
Method(s) of
Investigation
Basis of Determination about
Criterion
If Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and Timelines for
Implementation
the Department upon
request: a) List of the
student names and grade
level for the records
reviewed; b) Date of the
review; c) Name of
person(s) who conducted
the review, their role(s),
and signature(s).
Leicester Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 25, 2010
Page 7 of 24
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
plans. Please submit this
to the Department on or
before October 22, 2010.
Subsequent to the
corrective action, submit a
narrative description of the
results of the
administrative review of
student records to ensure
that transition plans are
completed and updated as
required. Identify the
name and role of the
reviewer, the number of
records reviewed from
each level, the number of
transition plans found to
meet the requirements of
this criterion, the root
cause of any continued
non-compliance and any
steps taken to correct
concerns identified in the
process to the Department
on or before January 14,
2011.
Criterion
SE 9
Timeline for
Determination of
Eligibility
Criterion
Implemented

Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
PI
Method(s) of
Investigation
Documents
Student
Records
Basis of Determination about
Criterion
If Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and Timelines for
Implementation
Student records and district
maintained tracking logs
indicated that the district does not
always meet the timelines for the
eligibility determination.
The district must conduct
an analysis and determine
the root cause of the
continued non-compliance
related to timeline
compliance for IEPs
proposed as a result of
reevaluations and for outof-district students. The
district then must plan and
implement actions that will
address the underlying
cause of the continued noncompliance in this area.
Specifically, for those IEPs
proposed as a result of a
reevaluation and for IEPs
proposed for out-of-district
students the district does not
always provide the proposed IEP
and placement to the parent
within the mandated timelines.
Additionally, the district
must develop and
implement an internal
oversight and tracking
system to ensure that all
proposed IEPs for
reevaluations and out-ofdistrict students are issued
within the mandated
timelines.
Subsequent to the
completion of the corrective
action steps, the district
must conduct an
Leicester Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 25, 2010
Page 8 of 24
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
Submit a narrative
description that identifies
the root cause of the
continued non-compliance
and a detailed description
of the corrective action
steps taken. Please be sure
to include the timeline of
the actions taken by the
district, indicate the staff
member(s) responsible for
the implementation by
name and role and if
applicable, the staff
members who were
involved in the overall
corrective action process.
Please be sure to include
sufficient, relevant
documentation of the
corrective action steps
taken that effectively
demonstrate the district’s
efforts to correct the
continued noncompliance. Please submit
this to the Department on
or before October 22,
2010.
Criterion
Criterion
Implemented

Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
Method(s) of
Investigation
Basis of Determination about
Criterion
If Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and Timelines for
Implementation
administrative review of
student records to assure
that the district is
maintaining compliance
and that all proposed IEPs
for reevaluations and outof-district students are
proposed within the
mandated timelines.
* Please note when
conducting internal
monitoring that district
must maintain the
following documentation
and make it available to
the Department upon
request: a) List of the
student names and grade
level for the records
reviewed; b) Date of the
review; c) Name of
person(s) who conducted
the review, their role(s),
and signature(s).
Leicester Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 25, 2010
Page 9 of 24
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
Submit a detailed narrative
description of the internal
oversight and tracking
system that the district has
adopted to address the
oversight of timeline
compliance related to IEPs
proposed as a result of a
reevaluation or for out-ofdistrict students. Please
submit this to the
Department on or before
October 22, 2010.
Subsequent to the
corrective action, submit a
narrative description of the
results of the
administrative review of
student records to ensure
that for those IEPs
proposed as a result of a
reevaluation and for IEPs
proposed for out-ofdistrict students are
provided to the parent
within the mandated
timelines. Identify the
name and role of the
reviewer, the number of
records reviewed from
Criterion
Criterion
Implemented

Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
Method(s) of
Investigation
Basis of Determination about
Criterion
If Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and Timelines for
Implementation
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
each level, the number of
records found to meet the
requirements of this
criterion, the root cause of
any continued noncompliance and any steps
taken to correct concerns
identified in the process to
the Department on or
before January 14, 2011.
SE 12

Documents
Frequency of Reevaluation
SE 13
Progress Reports
and Content
Student
Records
PI
Student
Records
Interviews
District documentation and
student records demonstrated that
the district has a mechanism in
place and has trained staff to
conduct re-evaluations consistent
with the requirements of this
criterion.
Student records and interviews
indicated that the district remains
partially compliant with the
requirements of this criterion as
was found at the time of the
Coordinated Program Review.
Specifically, not all reports
included progress on current IEP
The district must conduct
an analysis and determine
the root cause of the
continued non-compliance
related to progress reports.
The district then must plan
and implement actions that
will address the underlying
cause of the continued non-
Leicester Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 25, 2010
Page 10 of 24
Submit a narrative
description that identifies
the root cause of the
continued non-compliance
and a detailed description
of the corrective action
steps taken. Please be sure
to include the timeline of
the actions taken by the
Criterion
Criterion
Implemented

Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
Method(s) of
Investigation
Basis of Determination about
Criterion
goals and not all reports included
progress on each goal in the
current IEP.
If Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and Timelines for
Implementation
compliance in this area.
Additionally, the district
must develop and
implement an internal
oversight and tracking
system to ensure that all
progress reports include
progress on current IEP
goals.
Subsequent to the
completion of the corrective
action steps, the district
must conduct an
administrative review of
student records to assure
that the district is
maintaining compliance
and that all progress reports
included progress on
current IEP goals.
* Please note when
conducting internal
monitoring that district
must maintain the
following documentation
and make it available to
the Department upon
request: a) List of the
Leicester Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 25, 2010
Page 11 of 24
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
district, indicate the staff
member(s) responsible for
the implementation by
name and role and if
applicable, the staff
members who were
involved in the overall
corrective action process.
Please be sure to include
sufficient, relevant
documentation of the
corrective action steps
taken that effectively
demonstrate the district’s
efforts to correct the
continued noncompliance. Please submit
this to the Department on
or before October 22,
2010.
Submit a detailed narrative
description of the internal
oversight and tracking
system that the district has
adopted to address the
oversight of progress
reports. Please submit this
to the Department on or
before October 22, 2010.
Criterion
SE 14
Review and
Revision of IEPs
Criterion
Implemented

Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
PI
Method(s) of
Investigation
Student
Records
Interviews
Basis of Determination about
Criterion
Student record review and
interviews indicated that not all
Team meetings are held on or
before the anniversary date of the
implementation of the IEP as was
the finding at the time of the
If Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and Timelines for
Implementation
student names and grade
level for the records
reviewed; b) Date of the
review; c) Name of
person(s) who conducted
the review, their role(s),
and signature(s).
Subsequent to the
corrective action, submit a
narrative description of the
results of the
administrative review of
student records to ensure
that all progress reports
included progress on
current IEP goals.
Identify the name and role
of the reviewer, the
number of records
reviewed from each level,
the number of progress
reports found to meet the
requirements of this
criterion, the root cause of
any continued noncompliance and any steps
taken to correct concerns
identified in the process to
the Department on or
before January 14, 2011.
The district must conduct
an analysis and determine
the root cause of the
continued non-compliance
related to review and
revision of IEPs. The
Submit a narrative
description that identifies
the root cause of the
continued non-compliance
and a detailed description
of the corrective action
Leicester Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 25, 2010
Page 12 of 24
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
Criterion
Criterion
Implemented

Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
Method(s) of
Investigation
Basis of Determination about
Criterion
If Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and Timelines for
Implementation
Coordinated Program Review.
Also, student record review
indicated that IEP goals,
accommodations, and
modifications are not always
reviewed, revised, or a new IEP
developed when progress reports
reflect that the student has not
made effective progress.
district then must plan and
implement actions that will
address the underlying
cause of the continued noncompliance in this area.
Additionally, the district
must develop and
implement an internal
oversight and tracking
system to ensure that all
IEP Team meetings are
held on or before the
anniversary date of the
implementation of the IEP
as well as ensuring that IEP
goals, accommodations,
and modifications are
always reviewed, revised,
or a new IEP developed
when progress reports
reflect that the student has
not made effective
progress.
Subsequent to the
completion of the corrective
action steps, the district
must conduct an
administrative review of
student records to
Leicester Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 25, 2010
Page 13 of 24
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
steps taken. Please be sure
to include the timeline of
the actions taken by the
district, indicate the staff
member(s) responsible for
the implementation by
name and role and if
applicable, the staff
members who were
involved in the overall
corrective action process.
Please be sure to include
sufficient, relevant
documentation of the
corrective action steps
taken that effectively
demonstrate the district’s
efforts to correct the
continued noncompliance. Please submit
this to the Department on
or before October 22,
2010.
Submit a detailed narrative
description of the internal
oversight and tracking
system that the district has
adopted to ensure that all
IEP Team meetings are
held on or before the
Criterion
Criterion
Implemented

Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
Method(s) of
Investigation
Basis of Determination about
Criterion
If Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and Timelines for
Implementation
determine that IEPs are
reviewed and revised at
least annually as specified
by the elements of this
criterion.
* Please note when
conducting internal
monitoring that district
must maintain the
following documentation
and make it available to
the Department upon
request: a) List of the
student names and grade
level for the records
reviewed; b) Date of the
review; c) Name of
person(s) who conducted
the review, their role(s),
and signature(s).
Leicester Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 25, 2010
Page 14 of 24
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
anniversary date of the
implementation of the IEP
as well as ensuring that
IEP goals,
accommodations, and
modifications are always
reviewed, revised, or a
new IEP developed when
progress reports reflect
that the student has not
made effective progress.
Please submit this to the
Department on or before
October 22, 2010.
Subsequent to the
corrective action, submit a
narrative description of the
results of the
administrative review of
student records to ensure
that all IEPs are reviewed
and revised at least
annually as specified by
the elements of this
criterion. Identify the
name and role of the
reviewer, the number of
records reviewed from
each level, the number of
student records found to
Criterion
Criterion
Implemented

Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
Method(s) of
Investigation
Basis of Determination about
Criterion
If Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and Timelines for
Implementation
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
meet the requirements of
this criterion, the root
cause of any continued
non-compliance and any
steps taken to correct
concerns identified in the
process to the Department
on or before January 14,
2011.
SE 18A
IEP Development
and Content
PI
Student
Records
Student record review indicated
that not all IEPs are completed
addressing all elements of the
most current IEP format provided
by the Department. Specifically,
not all IEPs addressed the section
to be completed identifying how
the Team will know when the
goal has been accomplished,
rather that section was left blank;
not all IEPs included a vision
statement, again that section was
left blank; and, finally not all
IEPs included measurable annual
goals, rather many IEPs broadly
stated that the student would
make overall progress and in one
instance there was no goal
addressing the area of identified
disability. Also, not all IEPs
The district must conduct
an analysis and determine
the root cause of the
continued non-compliance
related to the writing and
completion of IEPs. The
district then must plan and
implement actions that will
address the underlying
cause of the continued noncompliance in this area.
Additionally, the district
must develop and
implement an internal
oversight and tracking
system that addresses the
writing, monitoring, and
administrative oversight of
the development and
Leicester Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 25, 2010
Page 15 of 24
Submit a narrative
description that identifies
the root cause of the
continued non-compliance
and a detailed description
of the corrective action
steps taken. Please be sure
to include the timeline of
the actions taken by the
district, indicate the staff
member(s) responsible for
the implementation by
name and role and if
applicable, the staff
members who were
involved in the overall
corrective action process.
Please be sure to include
sufficient, relevant
documentation of the
Criterion
Criterion
Implemented

Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
Method(s) of
Investigation
Basis of Determination about
Criterion
identified the placement of the
student.
If Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and Timelines for
Implementation
content of IEPs, specifically
issues regarding the
completion of the most
current IEP format provided
by the Department.
Subsequent to the
completion of the corrective
action steps, the district
must conduct an
administrative review of
student records to assure
that the district is
maintaining compliance
and that all IEPs are written
and fully completed using
the most current IEP format
provided by the
Department.
* Please note when
conducting internal
monitoring that district
must maintain the
following documentation
and make it available to
the Department upon
request: a) List of the
student names and grade
level for the records
reviewed; b) Date of the
Leicester Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 25, 2010
Page 16 of 24
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
corrective action steps
taken that effectively
demonstrate the district’s
efforts to correct the
continued noncompliance. Please submit
this to the Department on
or before October 22,
2010.
Submit a detailed narrative
description of the internal
oversight and tracking
system that the district has
adopted to address the
oversight of IEP content
and completeness. Please
submit this to the
Department on or before
October 22, 2010.
Subsequent to the
corrective action, submit a
narrative description of the
results of the
administrative review of
student records to ensure
that IEPs are complete and
written on the most current
IEP format provided by
the Department. Identify
Criterion
Criterion
Implemented

Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
Method(s) of
Investigation
Basis of Determination about
Criterion
If Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and Timelines for
Implementation
review; c) Name of
person(s) who conducted
the review, their role(s),
and signature(s).
SE 18B
Determination of
Placement
PI
Student
Records
Interviews
Student records and interviews
indicated that at times, student
placement continues to be based
on availability of programs and
not the IEP, as was the finding
from the previous review.
Specifically at the high school
level, student records and
interviews indicated that when a
student transitions from middle
school or moves in from out of
district the IEP placement does
not reflect continuity of program
type or placement setting to meet
the individual student's need;
rather, it reflects the existing high
Please see SE 34.
Leicester Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 25, 2010
Page 17 of 24
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
the name and role of the
reviewer, the number of
records reviewed from
each level, the number of
IEPs found to meet the
requirements of this
criterion, the root cause of
any continued noncompliance and any steps
taken to correct concerns
identified in the process to
the Department on or
before January 14, 2011.
Criterion
Criterion
Implemented

Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
Method(s) of
Investigation
Basis of Determination about
Criterion
If Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and Timelines for
Implementation
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
school continuum. See SE 34.
SE 25

Student
Records
Parental Consent
Interviews
SE 29
Communications
are in English
and primary
language of home
PI
Documents
Student
Records
Interviews
Student records and interviews
indicated that the district
consistently obtained parental
consent prior to conducting
evaluations.
Documentation, student records
and interviews indicated that
although the district has recently
begun to address the requirements
of this criterion, there was limited
evidence of consistent
implementation of local practice
to achieve compliance.
Specifically, not all records of
students whose parents required
translation had copies of notices,
progress reports, evaluations and
IEPs in the native language of the
home. While some records
included forms in a language
other than English, the content of
the forms completed by the
district was in English with no
evidence of translation. Also, the
district’s procedure for translation
The district must establish a
formal district-wide
procedure for the provision
of language assistance for
parents/guardians whose
language is other than
English and who require
oral and/or written
communications in their
native language in order to
participate in the IEP
process. The district must
specifically address the
requirement that
communications with
parents are in both English
and the primary language of
the home and that any
interpreter used in fulfilling
these requirements is fluent
in the primary language and
Leicester Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 25, 2010
Page 18 of 24
Submit a copy of the
district’s procedure for the
provision of language
assistance for
parents/guardians whose
primary language is other
than English to the
Department on or before
October 22, 2010.
Submit a copy of the
agenda and attendance
sign-in sheets for the
training to the Department
on or before October 22,
2010.
Subsequent to the training,
submit a narrative
description of the results
of an administrative
Criterion
Criterion
Implemented

Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
Method(s) of
Investigation
Basis of Determination about
Criterion
did not address the requirement
that the interpreter be familiar
with special education
procedures, programs, and
services.
If Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and Timelines for
Implementation
familiar with special
education procedures,
programs, and services.
The district will provide
appropriate staff with
training on the requirements
of this criterion and on the
district-wide procedure
established to comply.
The district must conduct
an administrative review of
student records to
determine that
communications with
parents are in both English
and the primary language of
the home and verify the
attendance of interpreters at
Team meetings if required.
* Please note when
conducting internal
monitoring that district
must maintain the
following documentation
and make it available to
the Department upon
request: a) List of the
student names and grade
Leicester Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 25, 2010
Page 19 of 24
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
review of all student
records where the primary
language of the home is
other than English.
Identify the number of
records reviewed, the
number of records found
to meet the requirements
of this criterion, and any
steps taken to correct
concerns identified in the
process to the Department
on or before January 14,
2011.
Criterion
Criterion
Implemented

Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
Method(s) of
Investigation
Basis of Determination about
Criterion
If Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and Timelines for
Implementation
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
level for the records
reviewed; b) Date of the
review; c) Name of
person(s) who conducted
the review, their role(s),
and signature(s).
SE 34
Continuum of
Alternative
Services
PI
Documents
Interviews
Documentation and interviews
indicated that since the last
review the district has revised the
Renaissance Program at the high
school. The Renaissance
Program now has appropriately
licensed counselors; however, the
current program also includes
general education students. The
Renaissance Program is defined
by the district as a substantially
separate program and as such the
district cannot place general
education students in this
program. General education
students may not be placed in
special education programs unless
they have been found eligible and
an IEP Team with parent consent
has determined the nature of the
program, needed for the student.
Also since the prior review, the
The district must
demonstrate that they are
no longer enrolling general
education students into the
Renaissance Program,
which it has identified as a
substantially separate
program for special needs
students.
The district must evaluate
the current programs and
services offered to special
education students and must
identify specific means to
close gaps in the continuum
of alternative services and
placements, specifically at
the high school level. The
continuum must assure that
all students identified as
having a specific disability
receive appropriate
Leicester Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 25, 2010
Page 20 of 24
Submit the list of students
enrolled in the
Renaissance Program for
the 2010-2011 school
year. For each student
provide a copy of the
Service Delivery Grid and
the Placement Consent
Form from the current
IEP. Please provide this to
the Department on or
before October 22, 2010.
Submit a narrative
description of the results
of the district's internal
evaluation, including a
description of any
proposed expansion of the
range of programs and
related service options
available to meet needs of
the district's special
Criterion
Criterion
Implemented

Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
Method(s) of
Investigation
Basis of Determination about
Criterion
district has not addressed the
issue of limited vocational options
for students with disabilities in
grades 9 through 12 who have not
been accepted to a vocational
school.
If Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and Timelines for
Implementation
supports and services as
described in the IEP.
Further, the district must
develop a plan for how it
will address the IEP and
Transitional Planning needs
of students who are not
accepted into vocational
education programs.
The district must conduct
an administrative review of
student records to
determine that a range of
programs and services are
available at the high school
level particularly for those
students who had
previously been served in a
partial inclusion or
substantially separate
environment at the middle
and elementary levels and
also for those students who
did not gain admittance to a
vocational school and have
vocational goals as part of
the IEP or Transition Plan.
* Please note when
Leicester Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 25, 2010
Page 21 of 24
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
education student
population at the high
school to the Department
on or before October 22,
2010.
Submit a detailed narrative
plan addressing how the
district will address the
IEP and Transitional
Planning needs for those
students who are not
accepted into vocational
education programs to the
Department on or before
October 22, 2010.
Submit a narrative
description of the results
of a post evaluation
administrative review of
IEPs from a sample of
student records at the high
school level. Identify the
number of records
reviewed; the number and
type of in-district program
placements and services
identified in the IEPs
consistent with the child's
disability goals, and
Criterion
Criterion
Implemented

Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
Method(s) of
Investigation
Basis of Determination about
Criterion
If Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and Timelines for
Implementation
conducting internal
monitoring that district
must maintain the
following documentation
and make it available to
the Department upon
request: a) List of the
student names and grade
level for the records
reviewed; b) Date of the
review; c) Name of
person(s) who conducted
the review, their role(s),
and signature(s).
SE 36
IEP
Implementation

Documents
Student
Records
Interviews
Documentation, student records
and interviews indicated that the
district has adopted policies and
implemented procedures to assure
compliance with the requirements
of this criterion relative to out of
district placed students to address
issues identified in the
Coordinated Program Review
report. Specifically, at the time of
this review, the Director of
Special Education consistently
completed site visits and wrote
monitoring notes for all out-ofdistrict placed students.
Leicester Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 25, 2010
Page 22 of 24
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
Transition Plan; and any
steps taken to correct
concerns identified in the
process to the Department
on or before January 14,
2011.
Criterion
SE 37
Criterion
Implemented


Procedures for
Approved and
Unapproved Outof-district
Placements
SE 40
Method(s) of
Investigation
Student
Records
Interviews

Instructional
Grouping
SE 41
Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
Documents
Interviews

Documents
Age Span
Interviews
Basis of Determination about
Criterion
If Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and Timelines for
Implementation
Student records and interviews
demonstrated that site visits for
students placed in out of district
placements are consistently
completed and written monitoring
notes for all students placed outof-district appear in the student
record. Student records also
demonstrated that they
consistently contained copies of
written contracts and where
necessary, approval from the
Department to use unapproved
programs.
Documentation and interviews
indicated that all of the district’s
instructional groupings were
within the requirements of this
criterion.
Documentation and interviews
indicated that no instructional
groups exceeded the age span
limitations of this criterion.
Leicester Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 25, 2010
Page 23 of 24
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
Criterion
SE 53
Criterion
Implemented


Use of
Paraprofessionals
SE 54
Professional
Development
Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
Method(s) of
Investigation
Documents
Interviews

Documents
Interviews
Basis of Determination about
Criterion
If Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and Timelines for
Implementation
Documentation and interviews
indicated that the district has
adopted policies and implemented
procedures to assure compliance
with the requirements of this
criterion. Specifically, the district
has adopted a handbook for
paraprofessionals outlining their
role and responsibilities
consistent with the requirements
of this criterion and has provided
relevant training for all
appropriate staff members.
Documents and interviews
indicated that the district has
provided professional
development opportunities for
staff members that are consistent
with the requirements of this
criterion.
Leicester Public School District Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 25, 2010
Page 24 of 24
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
MID-CYCLE REVIEW
School District: Leicester Public School District
M I D – CY C L E P R O G R E S S R E P O R T
Date Prepared: ____________________________________
Prepared by: __________________________________________________________________
(name and title)
Criterion: _______________________
Topic: ________________________________________________________________________
For each criterion for which you prepare a progress report, please



make a copy of this cover page,
fill in the information requested above, and
attach a complete description of the corrective action taken and any accompanying documentation.
(Description of corrective action for each criterion and any accompanying documentation should include all of the
“Progress Report Required Elements” for that criterion in the Mid-cycle Report.)
Send the whole set of completed progress reports to:
Darlene Lynch, Director
Program Quality Assurance Services
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
75 Pleasant Street
Malden, MA 02148-4906