Massachusetts Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education
350 Main Street, Malden, Massachusetts 02148-5023
Telephone: (781) 338-3700
TTY: N.E.T. Relay 1-800-439-2370
July 28, 2008
John Phelan, Superintendent
Hopkinton Public School District
89 Hayden Rowe St.
Hopkinton, MA 01748
Re: Mid-cycle Report
Dear Superintendent Phelan:
Enclosed is the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education's Mid-cycle Report. This
report contains findings based on onsite monitoring the Department conducted to determine the
effectiveness of corrective action it approved or ordered to address noncompliance identified in
your district’s last Coordinated Program Review Report, dated February 17, 2004. The Midcycle Report also contains findings based on onsite monitoring of special education compliance
criteria that have been created or substantially changed in response to IDEA 2004.
Another component of the Department’s Mid-cycle Review is the review of your school district
or charter school's self-assessment—documentation and any written analysis of compliance--in
the area of English learner education (ELE). The purpose of this review is to determine whether
your district is implementing the significant changes in M.G.L. Chapter 71A, governing the
education of limited English proficient students, that were adopted by voters by means of
Question 2 in 2002. The Department has reviewed your district’s ELE self-assessment and is
providing you in this report with findings on your ELE program and, where necessary, corrective
action to be implemented. Your district is urged to request technical assistance in relation to any
of these findings or this prescribed corrective action from me or from staff in the Department’s
Office of Language Acquisition and Achievement at 781-338-3518. ELE guidance documents are
available on the Department’s website at http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/ .
While the Department found your district to have resolved certain noncompliance issues, others
were partially corrected or not addressed at all, or the Department’s onsite team identified new
issues of noncompliance, either noncompliance with special education criteria added or
substantially changed in response to IDEA 2004, noncompliance with ELE criteria, or other new
noncompliance. Where the district has failed to implement its Coordinated Program Review
Corrective Action Plan, the Department views these findings to be serious.
The Office of Special Education Programs of the U.S. Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education requires that all special education noncompliance be corrected as soon as possible, but
in no case later than one year from the time of identification; where the district has failed to
implement its CPR Corrective Action Plan, this one-year period has long since passed.
1
In all instances where noncompliance has been found, the Department has prescribed corrective
action for the district that must be implemented without delay. (In the case of new findings of
noncompliance, this corrective action must be corrected as soon as possible, but in no case later
than a year from the date of this report.) You will find these requirements for corrective action
included in the enclosed report, along with requirements for progress reporting. Please provide
the Department with your written assurance that all of the Department's requirements for
corrective action will be implemented by your district within the timelines specified. You must
submit your statement of assurance to me by August 13, 2008.
Your staff's cooperation throughout this Mid-cycle Review is appreciated. Should you like
clarification of any part of our report, please do not hesitate to contact me at 781-338-3781.
Sincerely,
Paul J. Aguiar, Mid-cycle Review Chairperson
Program Quality Assurance Services
Darlene A. Lynch, Director
Program Quality Assurance Services
c:
Mitchell Chester, Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education
Ms. Rebecca Robak, School Committee Chairperson
Kirsten Esposito, District Program Review Follow-up Coordinator
Encl.: Mid-cycle Report
2
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
MID-CYCLE REPORT
HOPKINTON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT
Date of Coordinated Program Review (CPR) Final Report: February 17, 2004
Date Coordinated Program Review Corrective Action Approved or Ordered: April 13, 2004
Dates of Corrective Action Plan Progress Reports: Oct. 18, 2004, Jan. 21, 2005 & May 17, 2005
Dates of this Mid-cycle Review Onsite Visit: April 28 & May 2, 2008
Date of this Report: July 28, 2008
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS REPORT IS IN SEVERAL SECTIONS.
Special Education Criteria Cited in CPR Report and Monitored in Mid-cycle
Current CPR criteria available by scrolling down to the monitoring instruments at http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/cpr/default.html
Criterion
Number/
Topic
SE 18A –
IEP
Development
and Content
Approved
Method(s)
Corrective
of
Action
Verification
Implemented
and Effective


Review of
student
records,
and
interviews
Basis of Determination that Corrective Action
was Implemented and has been Effective
Corrective
Action Not
Implemented
or Not
Effective, or
New Issues
Identified

Once a Hopkinton Public School student is
determined eligible for special education, the Team,
including the parent and a member of the Team that
is authorized to commit resources, develops an IEP
at the Team meeting using the evaluation data to
guide the development of the annual goals for the
student. IEPs consistently include measurable goals
and are written in generally understandable
language.
Hopkinton Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 28, 2008
Page 1 of 17
Basis of
Determination that
Implementation of
Corrective Action
was Incomplete or
Ineffective or
Basis of Finding of
New Noncompliance
Required
Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress
Reporting
Criterion
Number/
Topic
SE 18B
Approved
Method(s)
Corrective
of
Action
Verification
Implemented
and Effective


Review of
student
records,
and
interviews
IEPs are consistently sent to parents immediately
following Team meetings.

Review of
student
records,
and
interviews
The district provides extensive ESY programming
for students who require those services.

Review of
student
records,
and
interviews
The district’s codes of conduct contain all required
elements for the discipline of special education
students.

Review of
student
records,
and
interviews
The district’s codes of conduct contain all required
elements for the discipline of students suspected of
having a disability.
Determination
of Placement:
Provision of
IEP to Parents
SE 21
School
Year and
School Day
Requirement
SE 45 –
Suspension
Up to 10
days and
after 10
Days
SE 47
Procedural
Requirements
applied to
students not
yet eligible for
special
education
Basis of Determination that Corrective Action
was Implemented and has been Effective
Corrective
Action Not
Implemented
or Not
Effective, or
New Issues
Identified

Hopkinton Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 28, 2008
Page 2 of 17
Basis of
Determination that
Implementation of
Corrective Action
was Incomplete or
Ineffective or
Basis of Finding of
New Noncompliance
Required
Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress
Reporting
Special Education Criteria Created or Revised in Response to IDEA-2004
Current CPR criteria available by scrolling down to the monitoring instruments at http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/cpr/default.html
Criterion
Criterion
Criterion
Method(s)
Basis of Determination that
Partially
Basis of
Required Corrective Action,
Implemented
Number
of
Criterion was Implemented
Implemented or Determination that
Timelines for Implementation,

And Topic
Verification
Not
Criterion was
and Progress Reporting
Implemented
Partially

Implemented or Not
Implemented
SE 3
Determination
of a specific
learning
disability

Review of
student
records, and
interviews
The district documents how the
IEP Team determined a student
to have a specific learning
disability.
SE 6 ##1 - 3
Determination
of Transition
Services
Partial
Review of
student
records, and
interviews
The district uses the appropriate
transition forms for students with
disabilities.
Partial
Transition plans are
often not
individualized since
they are written with
the same/similar
information in a
“cookie cutter”
fashion for students
not in Life Skills
classes.
Hopkinton Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 28, 2008
Page 3 of 17
Submit, by October 31, 2008,
copies of the agendas and
attendance sheets (name, title, role)
from the training on writing
individualized transition plans for
all high school special education
staff.
Submit a second progress report to
the Department on January 30,
2009 with the results of internal
monitoring for this requirement
post-training. The district needs to
review a sample of Transition
Plans over this period to see if the
training was effective. The district
must indicate the number of
records reviewed, the number
found to contain information
individualized to the student, and a
Criterion
Number
And Topic
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Criterion
Partially
Implemented or
Not
Implemented

Basis of
Determination that
Criterion was
Partially
Implemented or Not
Implemented
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
description of the additional steps
taken if noncompliance is found.
SE 8
IEP Team
composition
and
attendance

Review of
student
records, and
interviews
All required Team members are
at Team meetings.
SE 12
Frequency of
re-evaluation

Review of
student
records, and
interviews
The district provides eligible
students with re-evaluations
every three years.
SE 13
Progress
Reports and
content

Review of
student
records, and
interviews
Progress reports are
comprehensively detailed with
information regarding the
students’ progress towards
attaining IEP goals and
objectives.
SE 14
Review and
revision of
IEPs

Review of
student
records, and
interviews
The district adheres to the
mandated timeline for the
conducting of an annual review,
on or before the implementation
of the IEP anniversary date.
SE 25B
Resolution of
disputes

Review of
student
records, and
The district follows an
appropriate protocol regarding
resolution of disputes that is
Hopkinton Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 28, 2008
Page 4 of 17
Criterion
Number
And Topic
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
interviews
consistent with the regulations.
SE 33
Involvement
in the General
Curriculum

Review of
student
records, and
interviews
District personnel understand the
rights of students with disabilities
to be full participants in the
general curriculum. The district
documents the student’s
participation in the general
curriculum in the IEP.
SE 39A
Services to
eligible
private school
students
whose parents
reside in the
district

Review of
student
records, and
interviews
The district implements
appropriate procedures for
services to eligible private school
students whose parents reside in
the district.
Criterion
Partially
Implemented or
Not
Implemented

Basis of
Determination that
Criterion was
Partially
Implemented or Not
Implemented
Hopkinton Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 28, 2008
Page 5 of 17
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
Criterion
Number
And Topic
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
SE 39B
Services to
eligible
students in
private
schools in the
district whose
parents reside
out of state

Review of
student
records, and
interviews
The district implements
appropriate procedures for
services to eligible private school
students whose parents reside out
of the district.
SE 46
Procedures
for
suspension of
students with
disabilities
more than 10
days
Partial
Review of
student
records, and
interviews
The high school and middle
school handbooks have
procedures in place that meet the
requirements set forth in this
criterion. The procedures are
being followed in practice.
Criterion
Partially
Implemented or
Not
Implemented

Partial
Basis of
Determination that
Criterion was
Partially
Implemented or Not
Implemented
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
Hopkins and
Elmwood Schools do
not have disciplinary
procedures for
students with
disabilities that
include provisions for
actions to be taken
when a student is
suspended for more
than 10 days in their
handbooks.
The procedures
should address the
following: 1)
suspensions that may
constitute a change of
placement; 2)
Submit by October 31, 2008 a
copy of the procedures for the
discipline of students with
disabilities in the handbooks for
Hopkins and Elmwood Schools.
Submit a second progress report to
the Department on January 30,
2009 including copies of the
agendas and attendance sheets
(name, title, role) from the training
of key personnel at the Elmwood
and Hopkins Schools who are
responsible for implementing these
procedures.
Hopkinton Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 28, 2008
Page 6 of 17
Criterion
Number
And Topic
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
SE 52
Certifications/
licenses or
other
credentials –
providers of
interpreting
services

Review of
documents
and
interviews
The district has made contact
with the Massachusetts
Commission for the Deaf and
Hard of Hearing to provide
possible interpreters for any
students or parents that need it.
SE 53
Use of Paraprofessionals

Review of
student
records, and
interviews
The district provided evidence of
the professional development
training that it has offered to its
paraprofessional staff.
Interviews indicated that persons
employed as paraprofessionals
and assistants do not design
instruction for students with
Criterion
Partially
Implemented or
Not
Implemented

Basis of
Determination that
Criterion was
Partially
Implemented or Not
Implemented
requirements for
manifestation
determinations;
3)interim alternative
educational settings;
4) functional
behavioral
assessments and
behavior intervention
plans; and 5) written
notifications to
parents.
Hopkinton Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 28, 2008
Page 7 of 17
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
Criterion
Number
And Topic
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Criterion
Partially
Implemented or
Not
Implemented

Basis of
Determination that
Criterion was
Partially
Implemented or Not
Implemented
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
disabilities, but are expected to
implement instruction under the
supervision of an appropriately
certified or licensed professional
who is proximate and readily
available to provide such
supervision.
Criteria from Other Regulated Programs Monitored During this Mid-cycle Review
Current CPR criteria available by scrolling down to the monitoring instruments at http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/cpr/default.html
Hopkinton Public Schools
English Learning Education (ELE) Requirements
Mid-Cycle Review Advisory Comments Resulting From The Department’s Review Of Local Self-Assessment Documents
(Please refer to related implementation guidance at http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/cpr/instrument/chapter71A.doc )
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 1
Annual
Assessment
Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
Document Submission
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Further
Progress Reporting Requirements to be Implemented in Anticipation of the
District’s Next Scheduled Coordinated Program Review
The district has a policy for the identification of limited
English proficient (LEP) students that indicates that all
incoming students who may potentially be limited English
proficient are formally screened at the time of registration for
Hopkinton Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 28, 2008
Page 8 of 17
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
Document Submission
school. In addition, the district gathers information about the
home language of the student and family in the registration
form and through the use of a home language survey. LEP
students are annually administered MCAS, MEPA and
MELA-O assessments by a qualified staff member.
ELE 2
MCAS
Participation
The district has a policy that ensures the participation of all
LEP students in all tests of the annual MCAS administration,
and has purchased approved bilingual dictionaries in various
native languages as an accommodation during MCAS.
ELE 3
Initial
Identification
Documentation indicates that the district has a policy for the
identification of limited English proficient (LEP) students that
indicates that all incoming students who may potentially be
limited English proficient are formally screened at the time of
registration for school. In addition, the district gathers
information about the home language of the student and
family in the registration form and through the use of a home
language survey.
However, documentation and self-assessment information
indicate that there is often missing key information on the
home language surveys. It also indicates that, although the
district has translated home language surveys into several
languages, they are not always available at the individual
schools. Self-assessment also indicated that SIMS data is not
always followed up once a student has been identified as
either LEP or FLEP (Formerly Limited English Proficient).
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Further
Progress Reporting Requirements to be Implemented in Anticipation of the
District’s Next Scheduled Coordinated Program Review
Provide training by September 15, 2008 of the school year for all staff members
involved in the intake of home language surveys to ensure that translated copies
and/or translators are provided to parents during the intake process and that all
fields of the home language survey are filled in to ensure that the district
documents which parents need translations for all important documents.
Submit by October 31, 2008 the evidence of training (agendas, attendance) for
all staff members involved in the intake of home language surveys, updated
copies of home language surveys in languages most prevalent in the district as
well as samples of up to five home language surveys filled in by parents from
September – October 2008.
Submit, by October 31, 2008, a copy of the new home language form including
a section asking parents whether they would like to receive documentation in a
language other than English.
Submit a second progress report to the Department on January 30, 2009 with the
results of internal monitoring for this requirement post-training. The district
needs to review a sample of new ELE student home language surveys from each
building to indicate whether translated copies and/or translators are provided to
parents during the intake process and that all fields of the home language survey
are filled in to ensure that the district documents which parents need translations
for all important documents are provided at each school level (elementary,
Hopkinton Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 28, 2008
Page 9 of 17
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 4
Waiver
Procedures
ELE 5
Program
Placement and
Structure
ELE 6
Program Exit
and Readiness
Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
Document Submission
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Further
Progress Reporting Requirements to be Implemented in Anticipation of the
District’s Next Scheduled Coordinated Program Review
middle, high) from the beginning of the school year. The district must indicate
the number of surveys reviewed, the number found to contain all necessary
information, and a description of the additional steps taken if noncompliance is
found.
The district has adopted the MAESE requirements and
procedures for granting waivers based on parent request or
district’s recommendation, and uses appropriate age level
waiver forms and a parent consent form to ensure proper
documentation.
In its self-assessment the district stated that they needed to
keep better track of which teachers have completed SEI
(Sheltered English Instruction) training.
Documentation indicates that the content instruction that LEP
students receive throughout the district is based on the
appropriate Massachusetts Curriculum Framework.
Documentation also indicates that not all LEP students receive
sheltered content instruction, as several of content teachers
with LEP students have not completed SEI Professional
Development.
Documentation and interviews indicate that although the
district does have an ESL curriculum that is based on the
English Language Proficiency Benchmarks and Outcomes
(ELPBO) for grades K-5, it does not have one for grades 6-12.
Interviews indicate that not all LEP students are offered ELD
(English Language Development) services.
Submit by October 31, 2008 a copy of the ESL curriculum that is based on the
English Language Proficiency Benchmarks and Outcomes (ELPBO) for grades
6-12.
Documentation indicates that the district provided a form to
be filled out by staff involved in the decision making process
with exit criteria built into it; however, the district did not
provide a written account of the district’s re-designation
process.
Submit a copy of the finalized version of the district’s re-designation process
with exit criteria to the Department by October 31,2008.
Submit copies of parent notifications of the student’s re-designation as
determined by the LAT teams by October 31, 2008.
Submit an updated LEP Class Roster for school year 2008-2009 by October 31,
2008, that includes the student’s name, home language, language requested by
parents for documentation, years in the program, current language proficiency
and amount of ELD instruction. The roster should indicate that all LEP students
are receiving ELD instruction.
See ELE 14 for Licensure Requirements
See ELE 15 for Professional Development Requirements
Hopkinton Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 28, 2008
Page 10 of 17
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 7
Parent
Involvement
Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
Document Submission
Interviews indicate that the district did not consistently
provide parents with written parental notification regarding an
LEP student’s move from LEP to FLEP.
The district’s self-evaluation indicates that the district needs
to complete the exit criteria forms for each student before the
end of the school year using a LAT (Language Acquisition
Team) including the classroom teacher, the ELD/ESL teacher
and any other specialists that may be involved with the
student.
The district’s narrative indicates that the ELE Coordinator has
conducted parent outreach through letters that have gone
home to parents and through phone calls as they become
necessary.
The district’s self-evaluation and interviews indicate that the
district needs to make sure that limited English proficient
parents and students are notified of extra-curricular activities,
scholarship opportunities, guidance, and counseling services
as well as in-school activities that are academic and nonacademic.
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Further
Progress Reporting Requirements to be Implemented in Anticipation of the
District’s Next Scheduled Coordinated Program Review
See ELE 13 Follow-up Support
See ELE 10 Parental Notification
See ELE 11 Equal Access to Academic Programs
See ELE 12 Equal Access to Nonacademic Programs
Hopkinton Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 28, 2008
Page 11 of 17
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 8
Declining Entry
to a Program
ELE 9
Instructional
Grouping
Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
Document Submission
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Further
Progress Reporting Requirements to be Implemented in Anticipation of the
District’s Next Scheduled Coordinated Program Review
The district’s documentation indicates that it provides English
language support to students who have declined entry into the
ELE program. Documentation, interviews and selfassessment indicate that the district does not have a
description of implementation practices and that it has no
documentation of parents agreeing to “opt-out” of ELE
services. Self-assessment also indicates that the district needs
to do a better job of monitoring the students who have opted
out of the ELE program.
Submit a list of all students that have opted out of the district’s ELE program by
October 31, 2008.
Submit a description by October 31, 2008 of the district’s policy and procedures
for parents who opt-out their LEP children from the district’s ELE program
including:
a. Policy and procedures parents take to opt out of the district’s ELE
program including copies of the district’s “opt-out” forms documenting
the notification sent by parents to the district.
b. Policy and procedures for placing students in a regular education
classroom after parents have opted out of an ELE program.
c. Policy and procedures for monitoring student’s educational progress and
for providing additional support, if needed, to ensure that the student has
equal opportunity to have his or her English language and academic
needs met including copies of progress reports sent to parents in the same
manner and with the same frequency as general education reporting (see
ELE 10).
d. Policy and procedures for keeping parents of ELE students informed
about their child’s progress including copies of annual parental
notification (see ELE 10).
e. Policy and procedures for ensuring that MELA-O (K-12) and MEPA (312) assessments are annually given and that they are reported to parents
annually using the parent notification forms (see ELE 10).
Documentation and the district’s self-assessment indicate that
appropriate instructional groups are maintained by grade level
and according to legal guidelines in MGL 71A.
Hopkinton Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 28, 2008
Page 12 of 17
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 10
Parental
Notification
Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
Document Submission
The district’s self-assessment and interviews indicate that
although the Parental Notification form was developed, it had
not been used yet. Also, neither the parental notification form
nor report cards had been translated into languages
understandable to parents/guardians. Interviews indicate that
progress reports on LEP students’ ELD progress are not
reported in the same manner and with the same frequency as
general education reporting.
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Further
Progress Reporting Requirements to be Implemented in Anticipation of the
District’s Next Scheduled Coordinated Program Review
Submit a description of the district’s implementation practices for parental
notification by October 31, 2008, including:
a) Parent notification in English and in all available languages.
b) Policy and procedures for providing to parents and guardians of LEP
students, reports cards and progress reports with the same frequency as
general education reporting in a language understandable to the parent or
guardian.
Submit by October 31, 2008 samples of parent notification form letters sent to
parents at the end of the 2007-2008 school year for all of the following students:
a. Those that have been initially assessed and not found to be LEP.
b. Those that have been initially assessed and found to be LEP.
c. Those that have been initially or annually assessed and parents have
opted-out of the SEI program.
d. Those that have been annually assessed and still found to be LEP.
e. Those that have been annually assessed and have been found FLEP.
Hopkinton Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 28, 2008
Page 13 of 17
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 11
Equal Access to
Academic
Programs and
Services
Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
Document Submission
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Further
Progress Reporting Requirements to be Implemented in Anticipation of the
District’s Next Scheduled Coordinated Program Review
Interviews indicate that the district does not segregate LEP
students from their English-speaking peers to implement an
English learner education program and it ensures that LEP
students participate fully with their English-speaking peers.
Interviews indicate that the district uses grade appropriate
content objectives for LEP students that are based on the
district curricula in English language arts, history and social
science, mathematics, and science and technology/
engineering, taught by qualified staff members; however,
some of the teachers who have LEP students have not
received any of the professional development requirements
noted in ELE 15.
Submit by October 31, 2008 a copy of the High School Course of Studies in
both English and any languages that they have been translated into indicating that
the ESL course offered is given credit and has a course description.
Submit a copy of the transcripts for LEP High School students that have taken
ESL.
Submit by October 31, 2008 samples of report cards, ELD progress reports, ELE
parent notifications, school codes of conduct/handbooks, high school “Course of
Studies” that have been translated for students/parents whose first language is not
English.
Submit by October 31, 2008 a description of how LEP high school students will
be provided with guidance and counseling information specifically related to
course of studies and guidance related topics including financial aid,
scholarships, college visits, SAT, PSAT and ACT, and LEP middle school
students provided with guidance and counseling information specifically related
to choosing freshman courses, vocational visits and course of studies (if
applicable).
Interviews indicate that the district ensures that LEP students
are taught to the same academic standards and curriculum as
all students, and provides the same opportunities to master
such standards as other students, including the opportunity to
enter academically advanced classes and have access to the
full range of programs; however, High School students do not
currently receive credit for work done for ELD classes and
those courses are not listed in the district’s Course of Studies.
Interviews indicate that the district provides access to the full
range of academic opportunities and supports afforded nonLEP students, such as special education services, Section 504
Accommodation Plans, Title I services, career and technical
education, and the supports outlined in the district’s
Curriculum Accommodation Plan; however, an LEP student
that is on an IEP does not continue to receive ELD services.
Interviews indicate that the district does not ensure that LEP
students have the opportunity to receive support services, such
as guidance and counseling, in a language that the student
understands.
Submit by October 31, 2008 letters from parents (students if 18+) documenting
that they are requesting after school ELD and a response from the district
indicating dates and times as well as the district’s obligation to provide
transportation since this is a required course (if still applicable) as well as copies
of LEP high school student schedules.
Provide training to administrators, guidance counselors, ESL staff and Team
Chairs for the following topics:
a. The district’s obligation to provide all LEP students, including special
education, 504 and ELL transitioning students SEI and ELD services
until they are they become FLEP.
b. The district’s method for providing LEP high school students with
guidance and counseling information related to the course of studies and
guidance related topics including financial aid, scholarships, college
visits, SAT, PSAT and ACT, and middle school students with guidance
and counseling information related to choosing freshman courses,
vocational visits and course of studies (if applicable).
Hopkinton Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 28, 2008
Page 14 of 17
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
Document Submission
Interviews also indicate that information in notices such as
activities, responsibilities, and academic standards provided to
all students is not provided to LEP students in a language and
mode of communication that they understand.
Interviews indicate that high school students take ELD
courses after school and are provided with transportation
because of their rotating schedule and requests from parents to
have after school ELD classes. However, there is no
documentation indicating that this is a parental request.
Interviews indicate that not all LEP students are offered ELD
services. Interviews indicate that the district was not aware
that Team meetings considering LEP students for special
education, must ensure that staff knowledgeable about second
language acquisition are involved in the eligibility and IEP
development process.
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Further
Progress Reporting Requirements to be Implemented in Anticipation of the
District’s Next Scheduled Coordinated Program Review
c. The district’s obligation to assure that when considering LEP students for
special education, districts must ensure that staff knowledgeable about
second language acquisition are involved in the eligibility and IEP
development process. The lack of English language proficiency alone is
not a basis for finding a student either eligible or ineligible for special
education.
Submit by October 31, 2008 evidence of training (agendas, attendance) for all
staff members involved in the trainings listed in ELE 11.
See ELE 15 for SEI professional development.
See ELE 5 Program Placement and Structure
ELE 12
Equal Access to
Nonacademic
and Extracurricular
Programs
The district indicates that LEP students have equal access to
nonacademic programs and extracurricular activities available
to their English-speaking peers.
Interviews and the district’s self-assessment indicate that
information is not always provided to LEP students about
extracurricular activities and school events in a language that
they understand.
Submit a description of how information is provided to LEP students about
extracurricular activities and school events in a language that they understand, by
October 31, 2008.
In addition, submit sample fliers announcing extracurricular activities in
languages other than English, by October 31, 2008.
ELE 13
Follow-up
Support
The district’s self-assessment and interviews indicate that,
while it has a form for monitoring students that have exited
the ELE program, it has not determined policies and
procedures for monitoring students for two years after exiting
the ELE program, including the type of language support
services that will be provided, who is responsible for
submitting information for the monitoring forms, when it
needs to be submitted and the process for determining whether
a monitored student’s status might need to change.
Submit by October 31, 2008 a description of the revised policy and procedures
for monitoring students for two years after exiting the ELE program including the
type of language support services that will be provided, who is responsible for
submitting information for the monitoring forms, when it needs to be submitted
and the process for determining whether a monitored student’s status might need
to change.
Provide training to ESL and SEI (regular education) staff members involved in
the monitoring process for FLEP students during the 2008-2009 school year.
Submit by October 31, 2008 evidence of training (agendas, attendance) for all
staff members involved in the trainings listed in ELE 13.
Hopkinton Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 28, 2008
Page 15 of 17
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 14
Licensure and
Fluency
Requirements
Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
Document Submission
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Further
Progress Reporting Requirements to be Implemented in Anticipation of the
District’s Next Scheduled Coordinated Program Review
Interviews and documentation indicate that the district
provides ELD support to most LEP students (See ELE 11);
however, not all ELD instructors are certified or have a waiver
in ESL/ELL instruction.
Documentation also indicates that most LEP students receive
sheltered content instruction (SEI), as the majority of content
teachers with LEP students have not completed SEI
Professional Development. Furthermore, in its selfassessment the district stated that they needed to keep better
track of which teachers have completed SEI training.
Teachers who instruct English Language Development (ELD) instruction must
have an ESL license or waiver.
Teachers who instruct using Sheltered English Instruction (SEI) must have either
a content license and ESL/ELL license;
or have a content license and co-teach with another teacher who holds an
ESL/ELL license;
or have a content license and have obtained intense and sustained professional
development in the following categories:
(1) second language learning and teaching;
(2) sheltering content instruction;
(3) assessment of speaking and listening; and
(4) teaching reading and writing to limited English proficient students. (See
http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/news04/0615qualifications.pdf)
Submit a copy of all licenses and waivers for all ESL teachers that are teaching
English Language Development (ELD)/ESL by October 31, 2008.
Submit a list of all elementary, middle and high school content (English, Science,
Social Studies and Math) teachers who have limited English proficient students
in their classrooms. Indicate if those teachers possess the appropriate license and
if they have the professional development qualifications required to be SEI
teachers as listed above. Submit a list of professional development attended,
number of participation hours, topics covered, and name and resume of trainer by
October 31, 2008.
See ELE 5 Program Placement and Structure
See ELE 15 Professional Development Requirements
Hopkinton Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 28, 2008
Page 16 of 17
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 15
Professional
Development
Requirements
Advisory Comments Resulting from the Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
Document Submission
The district’s self-assessment and documentation indicates
that not all elementary, middle and high school content
(English, Science, Social Studies and Math) teachers have
participated in all category trainings. Professional
Development Plans have been made by all teachers to meet
the requirements; however, there does not appear to be a
district wide plan in place.
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Further
Progress Reporting Requirements to be Implemented in Anticipation of the
District’s Next Scheduled Coordinated Program Review
Submit a five-year district-wide SEI professional development plan by October
31, 2008 to ensure that all elementary, middle and high school content (English,
Science, Social Studies and Math) teachers who have limited English proficient
students in their classrooms are at least trained in the following areas:
(1) second language learning and teaching;
(2) sheltering content instruction;
(3) assessment of speaking and listening; and
(4) teaching reading and writing to limited English proficient students. (See
http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/news04/0615qualifications.pdf)
Submit the date, training topics and agenda and attendance sheets of training
provided to teachers of LEP students already done on a district-wide basis by
October 31, 2008.
ELE 16
Equitable
Facilities
The district’s self-assessment and interviews indicate that the
district needs to find better facilities in the Middle School,
Center School and Elmwood School to teach English
Language Development (ELD).
ELE 17
DOE Data
Submission
Requirements
and Program
Evaluation
The district submitted a copy of its program evaluation in the
form of its self-assessment with its documentation.
ELE 18
Records of LEP
Students
Documentation indicates that information from previous
schools (copies of MCAS and MEPA, parent notification
letters, progress reports, and report cards) is not always placed
into student ELE files.
Submit a plan to find better facilities in the Middle School, Center School and
Elmwood School to teach English Language Development (ELD) for the 20082009 SY by October 31, 2008.
Submit a description of how the district is going to ensure that all student ELE
records will be complete by October 31, 2008.
Hopkinton Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
July 28, 2008
Page 17 of 17