COORDINATED PROGRAM REVIEW
MID-CYCLE REPORT
District: North Adams
MCR Onsite Date: 11/26/2012
Program Area: Special Education
Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D.
Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education
COORDINATED PROGRAM REVIEW
MID-CYCLE REPORT
SE Criterion # 7 - Transfer of parental rights at age of majority and
student participation and consent at the age of majority
Rating:
Implemented
Basis for Findings:
Record review and interview indicated that the district, one year prior to the student reaching
age 18, informs the student and the parent/guardian of the rights that will transfer from the
parent/guardian to the student upon the student's 18th birthday. The notification provided to
both the student and the parent/guardian explicitly states that all rights accorded to parents
under special education law will transfer to the 18 year old unless the parent has been
granted guardianship from the court, or the student elects to share education decisionmaking, or delegate decision-making to another adult.
SE Criterion # 8 - IEP Team composition and attendance
Rating:
Implemented
Basis for Findings:
Review of student records, document review, and interview revealed that the district ensures
that all required members of IEP teams attend meetings unless the parent and district agree
to use alternative means, such as a video conference or a conference call, for any Team
meeting; or the district and the parent agree, in writing, that the attendance of the Team
member is not necessary because the member's area of the curriculum or related services is
not being modified or discussed; or the district and the parent agree, in writing, to excuse a
required Team members participation and the excused member provides written input into the
development of the IEP to the parent and the IEP prior to the meeting.
SE Criterion # 18A - IEP development and content
Rating:
Implemented
Basis for Findings:
Student record review and interviews indicated that whenever IEP Team evaluation indicates
that the student's disability affects social skills development or may make the student
vulnerable to bullying, harassment, or teasing, the IEP addresses the skills and proficiencies
needed to avoid and respond to bullying, harassment, or teasing.
For students identified with a disability on the autism spectrum, the IEP Team considers and
specifically addresses the skills and proficiencies needed to avoid and respond to bullying,
harassment, or teasing.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education – Program Quality Assurance Services
North Adams Mid-Cycle Report – February 11, 2013 12:27:51 PM
Page 2 of 3
SE Criterion # 25 - Parental consent
Rating:
Implemented
Basis for Findings:
Student record review and interview demonstrated that if a parent revokes consent, after first
providing that consent, the district provides written notice of the district's proposal to
discontinue services, and a copy of the procedural safeguards, in a reasonable time before
the district actually discontinues services.
SE Criterion # 26 - Parent participation in meetings
Rating:
Implemented
Basis for Findings:
The district provided the student roster documentation required by the Department.
SE Criterion # 47 - Procedural requirements applied to students not yet
determined to be eligible for special education
Rating:
Implemented
Basis for Findings:
A review of the district's high school handbook and interviews indicated that the district has
updated its procedures that apply to students not yet determined to be eligible for special
education and has shared this updated information with appropriate staff, ensuring for such
students that, if, prior to the disciplinary action, the district had knowledge that the student
may be a student with a disability, either because the parent had expressed concerns in
writing or had requested an evaluation; or district staff had expressed specific concerns about
the student’s pattern of behavior directly to the administrator of special education or other
supervisory personnel, then the district makes all protections available to the student until or
unless the student is found to be ineligible.
District procedures indicated that if the district has no reason to consider the student to be
disabled and the parent requests an evaluation after disciplinary action has taken place, the
district conducts an expedited evaluation. If the student is found eligible then the district
provides all procedural protections.
Procedures further indicated the district may be considered not to have prior knowledge if the
parent did not consent to evaluation of the student, or has refused services, or if an evaluation
resulted in a finding of no eligibility.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education – Program Quality Assurance Services
North Adams Mid-Cycle Report – February 11, 2013 12:27:51 PM
Page 3 of 3