Review of IEP Process and Special Education assessment of NA Middle School

1. NAMS Special Education Review
A Parent’s perspective on the IEP Process and Assessing Academic Performance
Joe Henningsen, North Andover, MA
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2
IEP Process Review........................................................................................................................................ 3
Process Overview 1 – IEP Process Overview ............................................................................................. 3
Process Overview 2 – IEP Development Summary ................................................................................... 4
Process Overview 3 – IEP Development Details ....................................................................................... 5
Process Overview 4 – Appropriate Placement ......................................................................................... 6
Review of SPED Laws & Regulations relating to IEP Process ........................................................................ 7
Federal ...................................................................................................................................................... 7
Massachusetts .......................................................................................................................................... 7
Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)................................................................................................ 7
Federal Law – Key points: ......................................................................................................................... 8
Massachusetts Law – Key points: ............................................................................................................. 9
General Law – Part I – Title XII – Chapter 71B ...................................................................................... 9
MA Department of Elementary & Secondary Education CMR 603 Section 28.00.............................. 10
Highly Qualified Teachers ....................................................................................................................... 12
Additional Resources .............................................................................................................................. 13
NAMS SPED MCAS and AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) Results ............................................................... 16
2011 MCAS results for NAMS Special Education .................................................................................... 16
4 Year Average for SPED MCAS ............................................................................................................... 16
4 Year Trend for SPED MCAS................................................................................................................... 17
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Trend Results for NAMS Special Education ........................................ 18
Page 1

2. Introduction
Virtually every parent would agree that each child is unique in numerous capacities. As parents we try to determine
the most effective way to address their unique needs, often through instinct and trial and error. Advance this
concept to a “special needs” child with a disability and this individuality magnifies exponentially. Whether this
disability is physical, neurological, psychological, or some combination thereof, it will present life-long challenges for
the child and most certainly for the parents trying their best to care for and prepare their child for life as an adult.
As a parent of child with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), I joined the ranks of many parents of children with
disabilities and more specifically the ever increasing community of families with ASD children. My 12-year old son
Garrett faces many of the common challenges of children with Autism, though is considered “high functioning”. We
consider ourselves extremely blessed that he functions at the level he does and is a comparatively healthy child.
Despite his comparative level of higher functioning, his ASD presents challenges that make Garrett a “unique” child
with distinctive special needs.
Education is the cornerstone of this preparation for adulthood for all children, with or without a disability. General
Education programs are designed to build a foundation using a standard curriculum and delivery that attempts to
meet the needs of the majority making up that “lowest common denominator” of student population. The school
districts’ Special Education programs attempt to bridge the gap for those students whose disabilities present barriers
from either 1) accessing or 2) being served by the General Education system.
Through the last several years in pursuing the appropriate Special Education services for Garrett, I have found his
higher functioning to almost be a “barrier” to obtaining an Individual Education Plan and Special Education program to
best serve him. During his Elementary School years, I relied in good-faith on the “system” to look out for the best
interest of my son. I expected the highly qualified “experts”, those being the Special Education Teachers,
Occupational and Speech Therapist, School Psychologist, and SPED Administrators, to best address Garrett’s barriers
to an appropriate education. Whereas many school districts have recognized the need to develop Elementary and
Secondary Education grade level Special Education programs that focus on ASD needs, the North Andover school
district publicized program has failed to live up our expectations, along with many other families within the North
Andover community. It became apparent that I could no longer simply rely on the “system” to work.
Navigating the Special Education process is a daunting task in deed. Though the standard process provides
communication channels with the school and access to “procedural safeguards” to assist the parent, they do not
necessarily make it easier for the parent to advocate for their child. School District provided information on the SPED
process tends to be ambiguous portals into the bureaucratic and often political world of public education and
specifically Special Education. If I was to be my son’s only real advocate, I had to plunge myself into the abyss in order
to truly survive it.
This paper is the result of an effort that I went through to educate myself on the Special Education process here in
Massachusetts. I felt I needed to establish a “baseline” for myself as Garrett’s primary advocate. This was also
important if I was going to hold the school district accountable for providing my son with the best possible Special
Education program that would help him achieve his fullest potential. Organizing the results of this discovery process
and my thoughts on how it applies to Garrett has helped me become a stronger advocate on his behalf. Though this
paper is skewed toward Garrett’s situation as a high functioning Middle School student with Autism, I hope that it will
help in a greater effort of collaboration within the larger ASD and general Special Education parent community.
Page 2

3. IEP Process Review
Process Overview 1 – IEP Process Overview
Putting the Puzzle Pieces together to reach your desired Target
q Qualifying Diagnosis
q Unique Needs of Disability
q Unique Needs of Child
q Learning Style
q Strengths & Capabilities
Student/Parents
q U.S Federal Law
q MA State Law
q Formal ASD q D.O.E. SPED
School SPED Programs Regulations
q Qualified Staff q Child Advocacy
q Adequate Staff IEP
q General Education Process
Curriculum Standards
q Ability to deliver
necessary services
Page 3

4. Process Overview 2 – IEP Development Summary
Parents
Develop IEP
(see pg. 2)
Does the
Student have Parents
a recognized
Disability? Identify
Capabilities Team Meeting
Yes
External
Evaluations
IEP Adhere to
Needed SPED Laws
School Individual & Regulations
Education
Yes Plan
Identify (IEP)
Barriers
Adhere to
Teachers
Curriculum
Standards
Are their barriers to District
accessing and/or learning Evaluations
the Standard Curriculum
through General Education?
Rejection Parents Agreement
SPED Placement & Services
Program (Process 4)
Page 4

5. Process Overview 3 – IEP Development Details
IEP 1 Student IEP Profile IEP 5 Service Delivery
· Concerns
Parents Teachers · Strengths · Consultation – Indirect Services
· Disabilities · Special Education Services - Direct
· Assessment Results q SPED service outside Gen. Ed. Classroom
· Evaluation Results q SPED service inside Gen. Ed. Classroom
· Vision Statement q SPED service in other settings (pull-out)
Capabilities &
Barriers IEP 6 Misc. Items
IEP 2 General Curriculum
· Justification for nonparticipation
· Impacted Areas in Gen Ed Classroom
· How Impacted · Student Schedule Modification
Adhere to · Accommodations · Transportation Service
Curriculum · Designed Instruction requirements
Standards IEP Sections q Content
IEP 7 State/District Standard Testing
IEP q Methodology
q Performance Criteria ·
Development Content Areas to be tested
· Method of Assessment Participation
· Accommodations for On-Demand participation –
IEP 3 Other Educational Needs
when applicable
· Impacted Areas · Alternative Assessment justification and method –
Adhere to · How Impacted when applicable
SPED Laws · Accommodations
& Regulations · Designed Instruction IEP 8 Final Items
q Content
Approval q Methodology · Additional Information
Process q Performance Criteria · Response Section
q Acceptance
q Partial Rejection
IEP 4 Annual Goals q Full Rejection
q Meeting Request
q Current Performance Level (Starting point)
q Measurable Goal (End Point) Objectives (Path to get there)
q Benchmarks (Evidence of progression)
Placement & Services
(Process 4)
Page 5

6. Process Overview 4 – Appropriate Placement
Evaluate SPED
Programs
Parents
IEP
SPED
Program
Placement
Considerations
q Specific needs of the Student
q Formal District Programs
that can accommodate
q District capabilities to deliver
Formal Placement
For IEP Execution
Page 6

7. Review of SPED Laws & Regulations relating to IEP Process
Federal
Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
1997 with 2004 Amendment
Statute: US Code at 20 USC 1400
Implementation: Federal Register – CFR 34 Section 300
http://idea.ed.gov/explore/home
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
Also known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act as amended in 2001
http://www.ed.gov/esea
Massachusetts
Special Education State Law: General Law – Part I – Title XII – Chapter 71B (“Chapter 766”)
SPED Regulations: Massachusetts DOE CMR 603 Section 28.00
MA DOE Administrative and Technical Assistance Advisories (see “Additional Resources” section)
Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
20 U.S.C. 1400 Amendment H.R 1350 ‘‘Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004’’ states
as its first purpose:
“to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education
that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and
prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living”
FAPE (free and appropriate public education) is the foundation cornerstone from which school districts operate.
1. Free – Public Schools must offer this to its residents
2. Appropriate – This is where SPED Laws and Regulations kick in and where parents must be in
“command” of the process.
Individual Education Program (IEP) is the foundation cornerstone from which ASD and other SPED parents must
operate. It is the only platform by which the parents can influence the SPED process. The IEP is designed to
ensure the child with a disability can receive FAPE. The “I” in IEP means the district must provide a unique plan
for your child in order to receive the APPROPRIATE education. Thus, parents must ensure their IEP contains the
appropriate language to ensure that they are in control of the interpretation and implementation of the word:
“Appropriate”.
Page 7

8. Federal Law – Key points:
1. Child must have access to general education curriculum and be accommodated to meet the same
educational standards as general education students (non-SPED). The school district has both general
curriculum and standards published by grade for reference.
2. IEP goals and objectives must be based on general education Curriculum and Standards and also address
non-academic needs including:
Social/Emotional
Communication
Behavioral
Sensory Integration
Life and Vocational skills
3. There is an expectation for “Raised Expectations” and an “Increase in Educational Achievement” for
students with disabilities. This means that the school district should not and cannot “water down” the
academic/educational goals and objectives for our children.
Federal and State law require that the IEP be designed to develop the student’s individual
educational potential. There are legal precedents that ruled in favor of parents that rejected IEP’s
that are not doing this. (US Code: 20 USC 1414; 34 CFR 300.320)
IEP must include measurable academic and functional goals (US Code: 20 USC 1414; 34 CFR 300.320)
The adequacy of child’s progress is measured according to: (MA Regulation: 603 CMR 28.02)
i. Chronological (calendar) age and development expectations
ii. Potential of child
iii. Curriculum Framework (defined in MA through MCAS)
iv. District’s General Education and Standards of grade level
MA DOE states that School District must provide SPED programs and services that make
“meaningful education progress”. (MA DOE Admin Advisory SPED 2002-1) The interpretation of
“meaningful” can only be dictated by expectations of the parents and the measurement against the
General Education curriculum and standards. Federal Courts have explicitly stated and ruled in
support of this requirement.
IEP’s must be revised to address any lack of expected progress in general curriculum and towards
annual goals. (34 CFR 300.324)
4. During the re-evaluation process and IEP modification/amendment process, the IEP Team and
appropriate qualified professionals must review existing evaluation data on the child to include:
a. Evaluations and information provided by the parents of the child
b. Current classroom, local, or state assessments (MCAS), and classroom observations
c. Observations by teachers and related services providers
(US Code: 20 USC 1414; 34 CFR 300.305(a)(1))
Page 8

9. Massachusetts Law – Key points:
General Law – Part I – Title XII – Chapter 71B
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXII/Chapter71b
The text of the law is geared toward the standard execution of a SPED program for Districts and does not provide extensive
insight or verbiage worth emphasis, but more the “framework” of policy. More meaningful content seems to be rooted
MGL Ch. 71B “Technical Assistance” and “Administrative” Advisories from MA Department of Education (DOE); as well as
CMR 603 Section 28. Below is a summary of the sections contained in MGL Chapter 71B
Section 1 Definitions.
Section 2 Regulations; special education programs; pre-school level admission to programs; assignment of child.
Section 2A Bureau of special education appeals; duties; director; supervision; standards for dispute resolution; confidentiality;
hearing officers; memorandum of understanding; BSEA advisory council.
Section 3 Identification of school age children with a disability; diagnosis of disability; proposal of program; evaluations and
assessments of child and program.
Section 3A Administrator of special education; duties; joint appointment.
Section 4 Agreements between school committees or with public or private schools.
Section 5 Costs or obligations; payment; budget.
Section 5A Special education reimbursement program.
Section 5B Pooled risk program for extraordinary and unanticipated special education costs.
Section 5C Zero interest loan program for extraordinary and unanticipated special education costs.
Section 6 Assignment of children to classes; annual report; equal educational opportunities; prima facie denial; hearings;
Section 7 Tests for selection of children for referral, diagnosis, or evaluation.
Section 8 Transportation to and from school; reimbursement to parents.
Section 9 Department to define circumstances requiring special education programs and to provide standards.
Section 9A Workshop curriculum; parent advisory committee.
Section 10 Referral of children to institutions within or without the commonwealth
Section 11 Repealed, 1991, 138, Sec. 144.
Section 11A Incarcerated children with a disability; special education.
Section 12 School departments; establishment; administration; staff; operation; expenditures; costs of education.
Section 12A Definitions applicable to Secs. 12A to 12C.
Section 12B Bureau of transitional planning; transitional advisory committee; establishment.
Section 12C Continuing rehabilitative services; eligibility; transitional plan; rules and regulations.
Section 13 Repealed, 1986, 599, Sec. 27.
Section 13A Repealed, 1978, 367, Sec. 70J.
Section 14 Special needs programs; reimbursement of transportation costs.
Section 15 Repealed, 1983, 688, Sec. 2.
Section 16 Students with disabilities; participation in high school graduation ceremonies and activities
Page 9

10. MA Department of Elementary & Secondary Education CMR 603 Section 28.00
http://www.doe.mass.edu/lawsregs/603cmr28.html
Section:
28.01: Authority, Scope and Purpose
28.02: Definitions
28.03: Administration and Personnel
28.04: Referral and Evaluation
28.05: The Team Process and Development of the IEP
28.06: Placement and Service Options
28.07: Parent Involvement
28.08: Continuum of Options for Dispute Resolution
28.09: Approval of Public or Private Day and Residential Special Education School Programs
28.10: School District Responsibility
All of the above listed sections contain important information, but the two most important sections are 28.05 and 28.06.
“Section 28.06: Placement and Service Options” is a critical section of this regulation. The IEP content is more tightly
regulated by Federal Law and Regulations, as well as outlined in the IEP Process Guide referred to in the “Additional
Resources” section.
A couple of key elements of Section 28.05 are outlined below, with an additional reference to the definitions section in
28.02:
Section 28.05 (1) Contents of the IEP. Upon determining that the student requires special education and
based upon the evaluative data, the Team shall write an IEP for the student and decide the student’s placement.
The IEP shall describe the special education and related services that the student requires and shall include all
elements required under federal and state law.
a) The IEP shall include specially designed instruction to meet the needs of the individual student and
related services that are necessary to allow the student to benefit from the specially designed instruction,
or may consist solely of related services that are necessary to allow the student to access the general
curriculum, consistent with federal and state requirements.
b) The Team shall carefully consider the general curriculum, the learning standards of the Massachusetts
Curriculum Frameworks, the curriculum of the district, and shall include specially designed instruction or
related services in the IEP designed to enable the student to progress effectively in the content areas of
the general curriculum.
Effective Progress
This is a key term in the IEP that can be left open to interpretation. MA State Code 603 CMR 28.02 specifically
defines it as such:
“Progress effectively in the general education program shall mean to make documented growth in the
acquisition of knowledge and skills, including social/emotional development, within the general education
program, with or without accommodations, according to chronological age and developmental
expectations, the individual educational potential of the student, and the learning standards set forth in
the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and the curriculum of the district. The general education
program includes preschool and early childhood programs offered by the district, academic and non-
academic offerings of the district, and vocational programs and activities.”
Page 10

11. The following are the paragraph headings with some summary content for Section 28.06: Placement and Service Options.
1) Reporting. District reporting requirements to DOE
2) Determining placement. Team shall consider the identified needs of the student, the types of services required,
and whether such services may be provided in a general education classroom or in a separate classroom or school.
The Team shall consider all aspects of the student's proposed special education program.
a. Decision regarding placement is based on IEP
b. Consideration must be given to any potential harmful effect on the student or on the quality of services
that the student needs.
c. Least restrictive environment (LRE). The school district shall ensure that, to the maximum extent
appropriate, students with disabilities are educated with students who do not have disabilities, and that
special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of students with special needs from the general
education program occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in general
education classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
d. In-district placement
e. Placement meeting
f. Out-of-district placement. If an out-of-district placement is designated by the Team, the Team shall state
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.
3) General requirements for out-of-district placements.
a. Program oversight
b. Individual student program oversight
c. Student right to full procedural protections
d. Preference to approved programs
e. Use of unapproved programs
f. Written contracts: School districts shall enter into written contracts with all out-of-district placements.
4) Programs for older students
5) Access to district programs.
6) Instructional grouping requirements. When eligible students aged five and older receive special education
services for some or all of the school day outside of the general education environment, the school district shall
make every effort to maintain the student's access to the general curriculum and participation in the life of the
school. The school district shall devote resources to develop the school district's capacity for serving such eligible
students in less restrictive alternatives.
a. Programs serving young children shall meet instructional grouping requirements of 603 CMR 28.06(7).
b. The size and composition of instructional groupings for eligible students receiving services outside the
general education classroom shall be compatible with the methods and goals stated in each student's IEP.
c. When eligible students are assigned to instructional groupings outside of the general education classroom
for 60% or less of the students' school schedule, group size shall not exceed eight students with a certified
special educator, 12 students if the certified special educator is assisted by one aide, and 16 students if
the certified special educator is assisted by two aides.
d. Eligible students served in settings that are substantially separate, serving solely students with disabilities
for more than 60% of the students' school schedule, shall have instructional groupings that do not exceed
eight students to one certified special educator or 12 students to a certified special educator and an aide.
Page 11

12. e. After the school year has begun, if instructional groups have reached maximum size as delineated in 603
CMR 28.06(6)(c) and (d), the Administrator of Special Education and the certified special educator(s)
providing services in an instructional group may decide to increase the size of an instructional grouping by
no more than two additional students.
f. The ages of the youngest and oldest student in any instructional grouping shall not differ by more than 48
months.
g. Instructional group sizes in all programs approved under 603 CMR 28.09 shall be limited to those outlined
in 603 CMR 28.06(6)(d)
7) Programs for young children.
8) Transportation Services.
9) Educational Services in Institutional Settings.
Highly Qualified Teachers
IDEA-2004 Federal Regulation 34 CFR 300.18(a)-(e) speaks to the requirements of a “Highly Qualified Teacher” in
Special Education. There may be no reason to doubt that the SPED teacher responsible for the program meets these
requirements, but we do not have to rely on good-faith that the District Special Education Administrator (SEA) has
ensured this is the case.
Qualification standards also apply to Paraprofessionals as outlined in 34 CFR 300.156. For both HQT and
Paraprofessional credentials can be reviewed at the school as outlined in ESEA-NCLB Section 1119(i)(2), that affords
us the opportunity to review both credentials at the school where the program resides.
There is often concern with the manner the paraprofessional is being used. I understand the need for use of para’s
as aides for program support, and that quoted low Teacher/Student ratios often include paraprofessionals. Budget
constraints often push limits of their use, and the school is most likely pushing beyond the appropriate guidelines.
ESEA-NCLB Section 1119(g) and 34 CFR 200.59 outline the appropriate duties of a paraprofessional as follows:
1. Provide one-on-one tutoring for eligible students, if the tutoring is scheduled at a time when a student
would not otherwise receive instruction from a teacher;
2. Assist with classroom management, such as organizing instructional and other materials;
3. Provide assistance in a computer laboratory;
4. Conduct parental involvement activities;
5. Provide support in a library or media center;
6. Act as a translator
7. Provide instructional support services to students, only while working under direct supervision of a
“Highly Qualified Teacher”. This direct supervision is defined when:
a. HQT plans instructional activities
b. HQT evaluates the achievement of students under the paraprofessional
c. Paraprofessional works in close and frequent physical proximity to the HQT.
Page 12

13. Additional Resources
There are many additional key documents, all available on the MA Dept. of Elementary & Secondary Education
Special Education Website: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/
Several are listed below:
Administrative and Technical Advisories ( see next page)
Parents Notification of Procedural Safeguards http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/prb/
IEP Process Guide http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/iep/proguide.pdf
Parent’s Guide to Special Education http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/parents.html
Disability Definitions http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/definitions.html
Requirements for the Participation of Students with Disabilities in MCAS
http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/participation/?section=sped
Page 13

14. Below are the Administrative and Technical Advisories that have been issued by the Massachusetts Department
of Elementary & Secondary Education:
Administrative Advisories
Administrative Advisory SPED 2012-1: The Autism Insurance Law
· Administrative Advisory SPED 2011-2: Amendments to the State Special Education Regulations - 603
CMR 28.00
· Administrative Advisory SPED 2011-1: Age of Majority
· Administrative Advisory SPED 2010-3: Private Approved Day and Residential School Tuition Payments -
Temporary Absences
· Administrative Advisory SPED 2010-2: School-Based Medicaid and Nursing Services
· Administrative Advisory SPED 2010-1: Federal Regulation Changes
· Administrative Advisory SPED 2009-1: Services for Young Children with Disabilities, Ages Five and Six, in
Preschool Programs
· Administrative Advisory SPED 2008-1: IDEA-2004 and Requirements related to Maintenance of Effort
· Cumulative Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Adjustment For All Districts as of FY07
Administrative Advisory SPED 2007-2: IDEA-2004 and Private School Students [Updated July 2008]
· Memorandum on Providing Data for Private School Students [Reissued July 2008]
· Administrative Advisory SPED 2007-1: IDEA-2004 Implementing Regulations
· Administrative Advisory SPED 2006-5: Calculating Proportionate Share Obligations Under IDEA 2004, and
Serving Eligible Private School Students from Other States - Withdrawn May 2007
· Administrative Advisory SPED 2006-4: Assignment of Financial and Programmatic Responsibility for
Special Education and Enforcement of Assignments
· Administrative Advisory SPED 2006-3R: IDEA-2004 and Private School Students - Withdrawn May 2007
· Administrative Advisory SPED 2006-2: Changes to the State Special Education Regulations at 603 CMR
28.00
· Administrative Advisory SPED 2006-1: Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act -
-Initial Implications for School District Practices
· Administrative Advisory SPED 2005-1: Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
and the Highly Qualified Special Education Teacher
· Administrative Advisory SPED 2004-4: School District Responsibility For Children in Special Education Day
Schools Who Are Transferred to a Residential School by the Department of Social Services
· Administrative Advisory SPED 2004-3: College Testing Information
Administrative Advisory SPED 2004-2: AYP and Students with Disabilities
· Administrative Advisory SPED 2004-1: Independent Educational Evaluations
Page 14

15. · Administrative Advisory SPED 2003-1: Changes to Massachusetts Special Education Law
· Administrative Advisory SPED 2002-5: Special Education Contracts Between School Districts and Out-of
District Programs [603 CMR 28.06(3)(f)]
· Administrative Advisory SPED 2002-4 - REVISED: Special Education Students in Out-of-District
Placements - Participation in MCAS Testing and High School Graduation Standards
· Administrative Advisory SPED 2002-3: Vocational Educational Services for Students with Disabilities
· Administrative Advisory SPED 2002-2: Requirement to Review Refusals to Evaluate for Special Education
Eligibility
Administrative Advisory SPED 2002-1: Guidance on the change in the special education standard of
service from "maximum possible development" to "free appropriate public education" ("FAPE") -
Effective January 1, 2002
· Administrative Advisory SPED 2001-5: Updating of IEP Process Guide and IEP Form and Notices
· Administrative Advisory SPED 2001-4: Finding of No Eligibility for Special Education
· Administrative Advisory SPED 2001-3: Guidance on Using a Sliding Fee Scale for Public Payment of
Independent Education Evaluations (IEEs) in Special Education
· Independent Education Evaluations - Updated figures for determining sliding fee scale
participation
· Administrative Advisory SPED 2001-2: Compliance Activities Required by the U.S. Office of Special
Education Programs (OSEP)
· Administrative Advisory SPED 2001-1: Changes to Massachusetts Special Education Law
Technical Assistance Advisories
· Technical Assistance Advisory SPED 2012-1: Certain IEP Services Not Provided by the Department in DYS
Institutional Settings
· Technical Assistance Advisory SPED 2011-2: Bullying Prevention and Intervention
· Addressing the Needs of Students with Disabilities in the IEP and in School Bullying Prevention
and Intervention Efforts
· Technical Assistance Advisory SPED 2011-1: Annual Fiscal Calculations
Technical Assistance Advisory SPED 2009-2: Observation of Education Programs by Parents and Their
Designees for Evaluation Purposes
Technical Assistance Advisory SPED 2009-2: Observation of Education Programs by Parents and Their
Designees for Evaluation Purposes
· Technical Assistance Advisory SPED 2009-1: Transition Planning to Begin at Age 14
Technical Assistance Advisory SPED 2007-1: Autism Spectrum Disorder
Page 15

16. NAMS SPED MCAS and AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) Results
The following Charts show MCAS results specifically for the North Andover Middle School Special Education
students. Whether looking at most recent 2011 results, a 4 year average, or 4 year trend, it is clear that NAMS
SPED students are not doing well and provides clear indication that the program is not meeting its objectives nor
the needs of its students.
2011 MCAS results for NAMS Special Education
ELA Math
2% 3%
Advanced Advanced
10%
27% 21% Proficient Proficient
25%
Needs Needs
Improvement 61% Improvement
50% Warning
Warning
4 Year Average for SPED MCAS
ELA
1.23%
26.97% 25.41%
Advanced
Proficient
46.38%
Needs Improvement
Warning/Failure
MATH
2.68%
12.01%
Advanced
58.96% 26.34%
Proficient
Needs Improvement
Warning/Failure
Page 16

17. 4 Year Trend for SPED MCAS
ELA
NAMS SPED MCAS Distribution
60%
50%
40% Advanced
Proficient
30% Needs Improvement
Warning/Failure
20% Linear (Proficient)
Linear (Needs Improvement)
10% Linear (Warning/Failure)
0%
2008 2009 2010 2011
ELA
Math
NAMS SPED MCAS Distribution
70%
60%
50%
Advanced
40% Proficient
Needs Improvement
30% Warning/Failure
Linear (Proficient)
20% Linear (Needs Improvement)
Linear (Warning/Failure)
10%
0%
2008 2009 2010 2011
MTH
Page 17

18. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Trend Results for NAMS Special Education
The chart below shows the Current Performance Index (CPI) specifically for the North Andover Special Education
department. The Standard CPI target for all Massachusetts students is 95%. Whereas this may be unreasonable and
unachievable for most SPED students, there is a specific Target based on the “Gain Tgt” under the “Improvement” heading.
The results reflected in this chart clear show that NAMS has not met its CPI Target for the last six (6) years.
85
80
75
70
Tgt ELA
65
Actual ELA
CPI
60
Tgt Math
55
50 Actual
Math
45
40
35
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
YEAR
The following table is a summary of “(B) Performance” and “(C) Improvement” AYP categories for NAMS SPED for the past
six (6) years. For “(A) Participation”, NAMS SPED has met its target each of these years, thus for 2007, it met AYP for ELA
based on the “Improvement” target; and for 2008 it met AYP for both subjects, again because of the Improvement target.
Regardless, NAMS SPED has not met AYP for both ELA and Math for 4 out of last 6 years.
(B) Performance (C) Improvement
Met PY Gain On Target Met Met
Year Subject N CY CPI
Target CPI Target Range Target AYP?
ELA 84 69 No 79.9 No No
2006
Math 156 50.5 No 45.4 No No
ELA 136 70.2 No 68.6 3.9 70.0-75.0 Yes Yes
2007
Math 136 47.4 No 46.3 6.7 50.5-55.5 No No
ELA 122 73.6 No 70.2 4.3 72.0-77.0 Yes Yes
2008
Math 123 53 No 47.4 7.5 52.4-57.4 Yes Yes
ELA 131 67.7 No 73.6 4.4 75.5-80.5 No No
2009
Math 130 49.2 No 53 7.8 58.3-63.3 No No
ELA 120 66.3 No 67.4 6.5 71.4-76.4 No No
2010
Math 119 50 No 48.8 10.2 56.5-61.5 No No
ELA 118 70.3 No 66.3 8.4 72.2-77.2 No No
2011
Math 118 49.2 No 50 12.5 60.0-65.0 No No
Page 18