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
April 26, 2012
Michael Larsson, Executive Director
Media and Technology Charter School
1001 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, MA. 02215
Re: Mid-cycle Report
Dear Director Larsson:
Enclosed is the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education's Mid-cycle Report based
on the onsite visit conducted in your district in January 2012. During the Mid-Cycle 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: interviews, review of student records, examination of
documentation, and classroom observation(s).
The Department determined that one or more of the criteria monitored in your district was
“Partially Implemented” or “Not Implemented.” In all instances where noncompliance was
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 May 11, 2012.
1
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 Paul J. Aguiar at 781338-3781.
Sincerely,
Paul J. Aguiar, Mid-cycle Review Chairperson
Program Quality Assurance Services
Darlene A. Lynch, Director
Program Quality Assurance Services
cc:
Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D., Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education
Dean Paolillo, Supervisor, Program Quality Assurance Services
Ann Sagan, Charter School Board of Trustees Chairperson
Min Ji, Local Program Review Coordinator
Encs: Mid-cycle Report
Mid-cycle Progress Report Form
2
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
MID-CYCLE REPORT
Media and Technology Charter School
Dates of the Mid-cycle Review Onsite: January 13, 2012
Date of this Report: April 26, 2012
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
Criterion
Implemented


SE 7
Transfer of
parental
rights and
student
participation
and consent
at age of
majority
Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
Method(s) of
Investigation
Student
Record
Review
Interviews
Document
Review
Basis of
Determination about
Criterion
If Partially Implemented or Not
Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and
Timelines for
Implementation
The review of student
records, documents
and staff interviews
indicated that the
charter school informs
the student and the
parents one year prior
to the student
obtaining the age of
majority of the transfer
of educational decision
making rights to the
student.
Media and Technology Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 26, 2012
Page 1 of 12
(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
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
The charter school has
procedures for the
transfer of parental
rights to the student at
the age of majority and
for documenting the
decision to share or
delegate educational
decision-making.
PI
Student
Record
Review
Interviews
SE 8
IEP Team
composition
and
attendance
Document
Review
The review of student
records, documents
and staff interviews
indicated that members
of the IEP Team did
not always attend IEP
Team meetings.
The parent and district
did not always
document their
agreement in writing
that the attendance of a
required IEP Team
member was not
necessary because the
member´s area of the
curriculum or related
The district must develop revised
procedures for the excusal of
required IEP Team members.
Upon completion of these
procedures, the charter school
must review them with those staff
responsible for chairing IEP
TEAMs.
Please provide a copy of the
revised procedures as well as
evidence of the training
provided to those staff
responsible for chairing IEPs
including the agenda and
signed attendance sheet
(indicate role of staff).
In addition, develop a system
which should include supervisory
oversight and periodic reviews to
ensure sustained compliance with
IEP Team member participation or
the appropriate excusal.
Provide a description of the
oversight including the identity
of the person(s) responsible for
the oversight and the date of
the system’s implementation.
Conduct an internal review of
student records across grade levels
Media and Technology Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 26, 2012
Page 2 of 12
Submit evidence of the above
progress reports by October 8,
2012.
Criterion
SE 18A
IEP
development
and content
Criterion
Implemented

Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
PI
Method(s) of
Investigation
Student
Record
Review
Basis of
Determination about
Criterion
If Partially Implemented or Not
Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and
Timelines for
Implementation
services was not being
modified or discussed.
Furthermore, student
records indicated that
there was no evidence
that required IEP Team
members, specifically
regular education
teachers, were excused
in writing by parents.
for annual reviews, initial
evaluations or re-evaluations
conducted subsequent to the
completion of all corrective
actions to determine if appropriate
procedures were followed for
excusal of required Team
members.
The review of student
records, documents
and staff interviews
indicated that
Please note when conducting
internal monitoring that school
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).
The charter school must reconvene
IEP Teams to complete the
missing age-specific consideration
of PLEP B of the IEP for those
Media and Technology Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 26, 2012
Page 3 of 12
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
Submit a report of the results
of the internal review of
student records. Include the
following:
 Number of records
reviewed;
 Number of records in
compliance;
 For all records not in
compliance with this
criterion, provide the
results of a root cause
analysis of the noncompliance; and
 Specific corrective actions
taken by the district to
remedy any noncompliance.
Submit the report by January
8, 2012.
For those individual students
identified by the Department
as not having a completed IEP
submit the following: a copy
Criterion
Criterion
Implemented

Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
Method(s) of
Investigation
Interviews
Document
Review
Basis of
Determination about
Criterion
whenever the IEP
Team evaluation
indicated that a
student's disability
affected social skills
development, or when
the student's disability
made him or her
vulnerable to bullying,
harassment, or teasing,
the IEP addressed the
skills and proficiencies
needed to avoid and
respond to bullying,
harassment, or teasing.
Furthermore, for
students identified with
a disability on the
autism spectrum, the
IEP Team considered
and specifically
addressed the skills
and proficiencies
needed to avoid and
respond to bullying,
harassment, or teasing.
The review of student
records and staff
If Partially Implemented or Not
Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and
Timelines for
Implementation
individual students identified by
the Department to determine
whether the individual student’s
current IEP is appropriate.
The charter school must provide
those staff responsible for chairing
IEP TEAMs and writing IEPs with
training regarding the requirement
to discuss and complete the agespecific considerations in the
PLEP B portion of the IEP when a
student has reached the ages of 1622. The charter school should refer
to the Department’s website at:
http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/iep/
for assistance.
of the amendment of the IEP
provided to parents with
additional information required
on PLEP B (age-specific
considerations) including, any
additional
accommodations/modifications
required in the IEP, if
appropriate.
Please provide evidence of
review of age-specific
considerations in PLEB B with
appropriate staff. Please
provide the agenda and the
staff attendance sheet (indicate
role of staff).
Please develop a system of
monitoring which should include
supervisory oversight and periodic
reviews to ensure sustained
compliance.
Provide a description of the
oversight including the identity
of the person(s) responsible for
the oversight and the date of
the system’s implementation.
Conduct an internal review of
student records for students aged
16-22 who had annual reviews,
initial evaluations or reevaluations conducted subsequent
to the completion of all corrective
actions for completion of age-
Submit all of the above by
October 8, 2012.
Media and Technology Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 26, 2012
Page 4 of 12
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
Please submit a report of the
results of the internal review of
student records. Include the
following:
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
interviews indicated
that IEPs were not
always complete. The
Present Levels of
Educational
Performance, Part B
(PLEP B) information,
was at times not filled
in for students that had
age specific
considerations for
transition ages 16-22.
specific considerations in PLEP B.

Please note when conducting
internal monitoring that school
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).

(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements


Number of records
reviewed;
Number of records in
compliance;
For all records not in
compliance with this
criterion, provide the
results of a root cause
analysis of the noncompliance; and
Specific corrective actions
taken by the district to
remedy any noncompliance.
Submit the report by January
8, 2012.
PI
SE 25
Parental
consent
Student
Record
Review
Interviews
Document
Review
The review of student
records, documents
and staff interviews
indicated that when a
parent has revoked
his/her consent to the
student´s special
education services in
writing, the district
acted promptly to
provide written notice
The district must complete the
missing consented-to assessments
for those individual students
identified by the Department.
Upon completion of the
assessments, the district must
reconvene IEP Teams to review
the results of the assessments and
determine whether the individual
student’s current IEP is
appropriate.
Media and Technology Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 26, 2012
Page 5 of 12
For individual students
identified by the Department
as missing consented-to
assessments, provide copies of
the assessment summaries, the
Meeting Invitation (N-3) as
well as either the Notice of
Action (N-1) or the Notice of
School District Refusal to Act
(N-2) as evidence that the IEP
Teams reconvened and
Criterion
Criterion
Implemented

Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
Method(s) of
Investigation
Basis of
Determination about
Criterion
to the parent/guardian
of the district´s
proposal to discontinue
services, as well as
information on how
the parent can obtain a
copy of his/her right to
procedural safeguards.
The review of student
records, documents
and staff interviews
indicated that not all
assessments with
signed, parental
consent were
completed by the
charter school;
specifically classroom
observations and
educational
assessments.
If Partially Implemented or Not
Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective
Action and
Timelines for
Implementation
The district must identity the root
cause of the noncompliance, i.e.
why all the assessments that are on
the consent form are not always
administered. Upon completion of
the analysis and informing staff of
the required procedures, please
develop a system which should
include supervisory oversight and
periodic reviews to ensure
sustained compliance.
Conduct an internal review of
student records across grade levels
for either initial evaluations or reevaluations conducted subsequent
to the completion of all corrective
actions for evidence of completion
of all consented to assessments.
Please note when conducting
internal monitoring that school
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
Media and Technology Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 26, 2012
Page 6 of 12
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements
reviewed the assessment
results.
Please providence evidence
that staff were informed (i.e.
training agenda and
attendance, including role of
staff) of their responsibilities
to complete the assessments
consented-to by parents.
Submit a detailed narrative
description of what the district
determined was the root cause
of noncompliance with this
criterion and a description of
the oversight system including
the identity of the person(s)
responsible and the date of the
system’s implementation.
Submit all of the above by
October 8, 2012.
Submit a report of the results
of the internal review of
student records. Include the
following:
 Number of records
reviewed;
 Number of records in
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, their role(s), and
signature(s).
(b) Progress Report Due
Date(s) and Required
Elements


compliance;
For all records not in
compliance with this
criterion, provide the
results of a root cause
analysis of the noncompliance; and
Specific corrective actions
taken by the district to
remedy any noncompliance.
Submit the report by January
8, 2012.
Media and Technology Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 26, 2012
Page 7 of 12
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 3
Determination
of specific
learning
disability
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
NI
Student
Record
Review
The review of student
records and staff interviews
indicated that when the
district identified a student
as having a specific
learning disability, the IEP
Team did not create a
written determination.
Develop procedures for making a
written determination as to whether or
not a student has a specific learning
disability which is signed by all
members of the IEP Team, or if there
is disagreement as to the
determination, the IEP Team members
document it as well.
Interviews
Please provide appropriate staff
training on the implementation of the
Specific Learning Disability (SLD)
determination process and forms
consistent with the requirements of
this criterion. See Special Education
Memorandum on Specific Learning
Disability - Eligibility Process/Forms
dated December 10, 2007 which can be
found at:
http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/iep/sld/
Media and Technology Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 26, 2012
Page 8 of 12
(b) Progress
Report Due Date(s)
and Required
Elements
Please submit a
copy of the
procedures
developed by the
district and evidence
of staff training,
including an agenda
and signed
attendance sheets
(indicate role of
staff).
Provide a
description of the
oversight including
the identity of the
person(s)
responsible for the
oversight and the
date of the system’s
implementation.
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
Develop a monitoring system which
should include supervisory oversight
and periodic reviews to ensure
sustained compliance.
Conduct an internal review of student
records for initial or re-evaluation IEP
meetings held subsequent to the
district’s implementation of all of the
corrective actions which involved
students who currently have or may
have a specific learning disability for
evidence of compliance with this
requirement.
Please note when conducting
internal monitoring that school
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).
Media and Technology Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 26, 2012
Page 9 of 12
(b) Progress
Report Due Date(s)
and Required
Elements
Submit all of the
above by October
8, 2012.
Submit a report of
the results of the
internal review of
student records.
Include the
following:
 Number of
records
reviewed;
 Number of
records in
compliance;
 For all records
not in
compliance with
this criterion,
provide the
results of a root
cause analysis
of the noncompliance; and
 Specific
corrective
actions taken by
the district to
remedy any
non-
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
compliance.
Submit the report by
January 8, 2012.
SE 20
Least
restrictive
program
selected
PI
Student
Record
Review
Interviews
Document
Review
The review of student
records indicated that when
a student is removed from
the general education
classroom, the IEP Team
does not always state on the
IEP why the removal is
considered critical to the
student’s program and the
basis for its conclusion that
education of the student in a
less restrictive environment,
with the use of
supplementary aids and
services, could not be
achieved satisfactorily.
The charter school must provide those
staff responsible for chairing IEP
Teams and writing IEPs with training
regarding the writing of appropriate
Non-participation Justification
statements. The charter school should
refer to the Department’s Special
Education Information instrument for
criterion SE 20 at:
http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/
cpr/default.html
The district must develop a system of
IEP review which should include
supervisory oversight and periodic
reviews to ensure sustained
compliance specific to the
appropriated writing of the Nonparticipation Justification statement.
Conduct an internal review of student
records across grade levels for IEPs
developed subsequent to the
Media and Technology Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 26, 2012
Page 10 of 12
Provide evidence of
staff training,
including an agenda
and signed
attendance sheets
(indicate role of
staff).
Submit a description
of the oversight
system including the
identity of the
person(s)
responsible and the
date of the system’s
implementation.
Submit all of the
above by October
8, 2012.
Please submit a
report of the results
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
completion of all corrective actions for
evidence of completion of the Nonparticipation Justification statement.
Please note when conducting
internal monitoring that school
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).
(b) Progress
Report Due Date(s)
and Required
Elements
of the internal
review of student
records. Include the
following:
 Number of
records
reviewed;
 Number of
records in
compliance;
 For all records
not in
compliance with
this criterion,
provide the
results of a root
cause analysis
of the noncompliance; and
 Specific
corrective
actions taken by
the district to
remedy any
noncompliance.
Submit the report by
January 8, 2012.
Media and Technology Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 26, 2012
Page 11 of 12
Criterion
SE 29
Criterion
Implemented


Communicati
on is in
English and
primary
language of
home
SE 32
Parent
advisory
council for
special
education
Criterion
Partially
Implemented
(PI) or Not
Implemented
(NI)
Method(s) of
Investigation
Student
Record
Review
Interviews
Documents

Interviews
Documents
Basis of Determination
about Criterion
If Partially Implemented or Not
Implemented:
(a) Required Corrective Action and
Timelines for Implementation
The review of student
records, documents and
staff interviews indicated
that when the primary
language of the parent is
other than English, the
district always provided
written communication in
both English and their
primary language.
Documents and staff
interviews indicated that the
charter school has an
organized Parent Advisory
Council (PAC) for special
education.
Media and Technology Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
April 26, 2012
Page 12 of 12
(b) Progress
Report Due Date(s)
and Required
Elements
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
MID-CYCLE REVIEW
School District: Media and Technology Charter School
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