EVERETT PUBLIC SCHOOLS Program Area: Special Education

MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

COORDINATED PROGRAM REVIEW

EVERETT PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Program Area: Special Education

Prepared by: Annetta Kelly, Director of Special Education

Everett Public Schools

CAP Form will expand to as many lines as necessary. Before completing and emailing to pqacap@doe.mass.edu, please see separate

Instructions for Completing Corrective Action Plans.

All corrective action must be fully implemented and all noncompliance corrected as soon as possible and no later than one year from the issuance of the Coordinated Program Review Final

Report to the school or district.

Mandatory One-Year Compliance Date: September 20, 2011


CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN

(To be completed by school district/charter school)

Criterion & Topic: SE 1 Assessments are appropriately selected and interpreted for students referred for evaluation

Rating: Partially Implemented

Department CPR Finding: The student record review and staff interviews indicated that limited

English proficient students are not assessed in their primary language when testing in that language will most likely yield accurate information on what the student knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: 1. ETL’s are responsible for determining areas necessary to test for suspected disability. ETL training date and notification of change, 12/10/10.

Consents to be sent out by ETL assigned to each specific school. Thus, the decentralizing process of transferring IEP development from a Special Education (Central Office) location to the district schools has been initiated. ETLs will determine primary language for testing. When the student’s level of

English acquisition is questioned, ELL placement or the BVAT assessment will be used to determine primary language in which the child will be tested.

Title/Role of Person(s) Responsible for

Implementation : Education Team Leader, ELL

Coordinator and teacher for identification of primary language or BVAT Assessment.

Expected Date of Completion for Each

Corrective Action Activity: Immediate

Implementation. Full Implementation, January

31, 2011

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: ETL Training-12/10/10, Principal Training

(Administrative Meeting of 11/10/10 & 12/15/10

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: 1. Principal and ETL responsible for monitoring and compliance of process

2. Special Education Director and Coordinators will run “quarterly -in house audits using the student management system (X2) and a random selection of records.” 3. ELL Coordinator will make sure primary language forms are completed, by the parent, when new students enter the district.

1

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN APPROVAL SECTION

(To be completed by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education)

Criterion: SE 1 Assessments are appropriately selected and interpreted for students referred for evaluation

Status of Corrective Action:

Approved

Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval: None

Partially Approved Disapproved

Department Order of Corrective Action: None

Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Please provide documentation from the ETL Training

(12/10/10) and Principal Training (11/10/10 and 12/15/10); please include the agenda, a signed attendance sheet for each training, and examples of materials used during the trainings. Please provide this documentation by February 14, 2011.

Everett Public Schools will provide the results of a record review from a sample of students at each grade level (minimum sample of three records for each grade level) to ensure school personnel are taking a student’s language dominance into consideration before conducting an evaluation to determine eligibility.

Please indicate the total number of records reviewed and the number of records that demonstrated the consideration of a student’s language dominance and that consideration was documented appropriately in the student record. If continued noncompliance was identified, please indicate the specific corrective action taken to address the noncompliance.

Provide a detailed summary of the district’s record review, including student’s grade level; method of determination; and the results of the review. Include:

1) The number of student records reviewed;

2) The number of student records in compliance;

3) For all records not in compliance with this criterion, determine the root cause(s) of the noncompliance; and 4) The district’s plan to remedy the non-compliance if applicable.

Please provide the results of the student record review by March 28, 2011.

Please note that when conducting internal monitoring the district must maintain the following documentation and make it available to the Department upon request: a) List of student names and grade level for the record review; b) Date of the review; c) Name of person(s) who conducted the review, their roles(s), and their signature(s)

Progress Report Due Date(s): February 14, 2011 & March 28, 2011




Criterion & Topic: SE 2 Required and Optional

Assessments


Department CPR Finding: Interviews indicated that special education staff members who conduct assessments frequently do not receive adequate notice when the district has received parental consent

to an evaluation, which impedes their ability to complete the assessments within 30 days.

2

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: Copy of signed Consent is attached to yellow Tester

Assignment Sheet


Implementation: 1. ETL is responsible for attaching copy of signed permission to the

Assignment Sheet. 2. The original copy is sent to the Administrative Building for filing in the student’s Special Education File. 3. Assignment

Sheets will identify compliance date for testing completion, availability of assessments for parental review and meeting date (Scheduled Meeting Date,

30 day date, 45 Day Date.)

4. Also, Meeting Notices will identify date parents can request copies of tests before the meeting date.



Implementation. Full implementation, January

31, 2011.

Schedule for ETL PD provided by Shore

Collaborative:

Friday, January 7 th

Friday, February 4,

Friday, March 4,th

Friday, April 1 st

Friday, May 6 th

Friday, June 3 rd

In-district PD for ETL conducted by Special director and coordinators:

Friday, October 8, 2010

Friday, November 12, 2010

Friday, December 10, 2010

Friday, January 14, 2011

Friday, February 11, 2011

Friday, March 11, 2011

Friday, April 8, 2011

Friday, May 13, 2010

Friday, June 10, 2010

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Assignment Packet’s containing copy of Parental

Request Letter or the signed Consent Form will be sent to all persons responsible for testing. Original copies are filed in central office student files. All testers must send copy of assessments electronically to both Central Office and ETL. Central Office will maintain spread sheet on due date for completion and the actual date the testing was received.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: Quarterly Review of Records includes both student files and a spread sheet on test completion. The department will conduct a quarterly self audit. The self audit will be completed by the Director of Special Education, Coordinators, ETLs and Special

Education Teachers.

Due to the status of the Special Education Department as designated by DESE, the in-district audit will occur in February, April, July, and August to prepare for the CPR Compliance Order deadline of

September 20, 2011.



Criterion: SE 2 Required and Optional

Assessments


Approved Partially Approved Disapproved



Required Elements of Progress Report(s):

Please provide evidence of the training activities to date. Please include the name, title and organization of the trainer, the staff in attendance and the agenda of the training. This progress report is due February 14, 2011 .

3

Everett Public Schools will provide the results of a record review from a sample of students at each grade level (minimum sample of three records for each grade level) to ensure that special education staff members at the school level are being notified far enough in advance to assess students within 30 days of the signed consent from parents and to produce assessment reports at least 2 days prior to the scheduled Team meeting.

Please indicate the total number of records reviewed and the number of records that met both assessment timelines (school staff evaluations completed within 30 days of the parent’s signed consent) and the provision of assessment reports at least two days prior to the scheduled IEP Team meeting. If continued noncompliance was identified, please determine a root cause of the continued noncompliance and indicate the specific corrective action taken to address the noncompliance.





Please provide the results of the record review by March 28, 2011.






Criterion & Topic: SE 3 Special requirements for determination of specific learning disability


Department CPR Finding: According to the student record review and staff interviews, not all special education coordinators and teachers used the determination of specific learning disability process; instead, evaluators interpreted the spread between Wechsler subtest scores to make a designation of a neurological disability.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: All ETLs will gather documentation as required on the

SLD Forms at the RTI process. The SLD Forms will be sent to all staff that provides services to the student, including guidance counselors. The classroom observation and the Specific Learning

Disability Exclusionary Factors Form will be completed by the Guidance Counselors who chair the

TAT Teams. The Student Observation Form is also completed by the guidance counselor or consultant requested to make a specialized observation. Samples of student work are attached to the SLD packet and sent to the ETL.

4


Implementation: School Guidance Counselors


Corrective Action Activity: Additional

Professional Development (PD) Trainings will emphasize the four components of an SLD

Eligibility process. Training dates are as follows: 12/15/2010 for principals

12/16/2010 for Guidance

1/6 th (Both @ EHS.)

Follow-up PD and guidance will be provided by both the Director of Guidance and Special

Education Department. All counselors will maintain electronic copies of the form with directions.

*Full Implementation, January 31, 2011.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: The SLD forms for Pre-K to K, Grades 1 to 4,

Grades 5-8; and, grades 9-12 will be completed by the TAT Team and must be included in the packet for a special education referral. Instead the SLD becomes part of and is completed as part of the RTI process instead of the form being completed at the IEP meeting.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: Referrals to Special Education must be included before the Principal can sign off on the Special Education Referral. Record reviews of initial referrals will be conducted by the Special Education Director and Coordinators.



Criterion: SE 3 Special requirements for determination of specific learning disability


Approved





In the description of the district’s internal monitoring procedure, there is a reference to principals signing off on the special education referral. Does this mean that for initial referrals through the TAT, principals must approve the provision of a consent form to parents? Please clarify the role of the principal in this process.

Principals must understand that once the request to send a consent form to parents has come from the

TAT, the district has five (5) business days to mail the consent form as required by federal law. The

TAT referral carries the same legal timeline as a parent referral as per 603 CMR 28.00(1) (a), e.g., any person in a caregiving or professional position concerned with the student's development. Such referrals cannot be delayed beyond five (5) business days from the date of receipt of the TAT request by the principal (acting as the district’s agent). Please clarify the purpose of the principal’s signature in this process as part of the district’s February 14, 2011 progress report requirement.

Progress report requirement : Everett Public Schools will provide the results of a record review from a sample of students at each grade level (minimum sample of three records for each grade level) to ensure that special education staff members at the school level are using completed SLD forms to make an initial finding of specific learning disability.

Please indicate the total number of records reviewed and the number of records that contained the completed documentation for an initial finding of SLD. If continued noncompliance was identified,

5

please determine a root cause of the continued non-compliance and indicate the specific corrective action taken to address the noncompliance.











Criterion & Topic: SE 4 Reports of assessment results Rating: Partially Implemented

Department CPR Finding: The student record review demonstrated that in some instances, consented-to assessments were not completed by the time the IEP meetings were held; additionally, there was no indication that missing evaluations were completed and incorporated into determining the student’s IEP services. Assessment reports frequently did not contain evaluator recommendations or document the means of meeting a student’s educational needs. Documentation from the district stated that reports are made available within 24 hours of the meeting and not two days before the IEP

Team meeting consistent with regulatory requirements. In addition, please see SE18A and SE 25.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: 1. Training and Review took place with ETLs on

12/10/10. ETLs will notify Director and Coordinators when testers have not completed testing so that testing can be sent to parents two days before the meeting. Central Office will cross reference for “test completion” by the documentation and use of spread sheet. The special education clerks, in the central office, will maintain documentation for both assignment and assessment completion. The Central

Office will monitor district wide use of Extended Evaluations to prevent overuse and identify any break downs in work completion by assigned testers. 3. Upon receipt of assessment (testing), ETLs will review for recommendations and if recommendations are missing, will directly contact the tester for a revised report.


Implementation : ETL, Special Education

Administrative Staff in the Central Office.



Implementation. Full Implementation, January

31, 2011.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Work Flow query in X2 (Student Management

System), and Record Review of student folders for compliance.

6

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: 1. Monthly Surveys will be sent to all individuals responsible for testing to monitor the following: Were signed Consent Forms attached to their

Assignment Sheet? Did they receive adequate notification to test? How many Extended Evaluations were needed due to not having all the requested testing? 2. Queries will be conducted using the Student

Management System and a Student Record Review of those identified students to monitor progress.

*Surveys will be kept on file for review at the central office. Content of surveys will be reported to the superintendents.



Criterion: SE 4 Reports of assessment results



Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval: It is not clear from the district’s submission that staff members have been sufficiently trained to understand that an extended evaluation cannot be used as a means to complete already consented-to evaluations. Please note that the district’s proposed corrections for SE 19 (extended evaluations) does not address the issue of inappropriate use of extended evaluations found in the district’s student records.

Department Order of Corrective Action: The district proposed acceptable corrective actions in SE 2 for giving assessors adequate advance notice to complete consented-to evaluations.

If the district finds continued issues with the completion of assessments during self-monitoring, the district may need to create an additional means to support evaluators who are not completing the consented-to assessments within the required 30 and 45 days so that they do not resort to the inappropriate use of an extended evaluation.

Provide additional training to all staff members who provide evaluations, to ensure that it is clearly understood that extended evaluations cannot be used for completing already consented-to evaluation(s).

Include general education teachers if appropriate (Educational Assessments).


Provide documentation of the additional training regarding extended evaluations, including signed attendance sheets, an agenda, and examples of the materials used. Provide this by February 14, 2011 .

Everett Public Schools will provide the results of a record review from a sample of students at each grade level (minimum sample of three records for each grade level) to ensure that staff members assigned to do evaluations have completed them within 30 days of the signed consent form; produce assessment reports at least 2 days prior to the scheduled Team meeting; and contain evaluator recommendations or document the means of meeting a student’s educational needs.

Please indicate the total number of records reviewed and the number of records that met both assessment timelines (school staff evaluations completed within 30 days of the parent’s signed consent and assessment reports within 43 days of the signed consent) and the provision of assessment reports at least two days prior to the scheduled IEP Team meeting. Additionally, indicate the total number of records where the evaluators did not include either recommendations or document means of meeting students’ needs in the reports. If continued noncompliance was identified, please determine a root cause of the continued non-compliance and indicate the specific corrective action taken to address the noncompliance.


7










Criterion & Topic: SE 6 Determination of transition services


Department CPR Finding: The student record review indicated that transition plans were not always developed for in-district and out-of-district high school students. Documentation submitted by the district stated that transition planning is initiated for students starting in the 11 th

grade.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: In-District: The district has contracted with Shore

Collaborative for a consultant to improve compliance for both in and out of district transitional planning for high school students. Dr. Kathy Meagher has met with all of the in-district teachers and

ETLs to identify district resources, process for collection of baseline data, the creation of a new protocol (Transitional Planning Worksheet), and a partnering and sharing of district resources among other Shore Collaborative member districts. *Sign-In sheets are used for accountability. The ETLs assigned to elementary schools are responsible for the completion of the protocols, while the case managers are responsible for collecting the worksheet data that will be shared at the IEP meeting. All

ETLs hold the case manager responsible for completion of the Transitional Planning Worksheet to be developed with the student.

Out of District Students: The Special Education Coordinator is responsible for sending out the

Transitional Planning Worksheet and including that information as part of the discussion in the development of a new IEP.


Implementation:

ETL’s for In-district students and the Special Education Coordinator, Mark Block,

Out-of-District Coordinator.



Implementation. Collaboration among Shore members-on going. Trainings thus far, 12/11 @

Shore Collaborative, In-district PD, 10/ 28,

11/18/10. Kathy Meagher will hold collaborative meetings at Shore as well as meet with individual teachers around student’s specific needs. Documentation for those meetings will be recorded in a log kept by the high school ETL. Full Implementation, January

31, 2011.

8

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Random review of student files (departmental self audit), and X2 Query. Monthly surveys will be completed by staff. The Special Education Central

Office personnel will review the surveys and document findings.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: Monthly surveys will be completed by staff responsible for testing and the responses will be documented on a report that will be sent to the superintendents for their input.



Criterion: SE 6 Determination of transition services






Provide a copy of the transition planning worksheet and the sign-in sheets by February 14, 2011.

Everett Public Schools will provide the results of a record review from a sample of students for indistrict middle grade (if the student is 14 and older) and in-district high school for each grade level

(9 th , 10 th , 11 th , 12 th ) and across disability levels (include mild to moderate to severe and students with behavioral disabilities) to ensure that the transition planning protocols are being used and yearly transition planning is documented in the student’s IEP. Indicate both that the transition planning document is in the student file as well as the development of transition planning in the IEP itself.

Conduct the same record review for appropriate students in middle grades and high school for out-ofdistrict students across disability levels (include mild to moderate to severe and students with behavioral disabilities) to ensure that the transition planning protocols are being used and yearly transition planning is documented in the student’s IEP. Indicate both that the transition planning document is in the student file as well as the development of transition planning in the IEP itself.

Please indicate the total number of records reviewed and the number of records that included both the transition planning protocols and the documentation of transition planning in the IEP for both indistrict and out-of-district students. If continued noncompliance was identified, please determine a root cause of the continued non-compliance and indicate the specific corrective action taken to address the noncompliance.

Provide a detailed summary of the district’s record review, including student’s grade level; placement

( in-district or out-of-district ); student’s disability (and/or degree of severity); method of determination; and the results of the review. Include:






9





Criterion & Topic: SE 7 Transfer of parental rights at Rating: Partially Implemented age of majority

Department CPR Finding: District documentation indicated that students and families are notified of the change in educational decision-making rights during the year when a student turns 18 rather than one year prior to the student’s birthday.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: A query will be conducted through the student management system of all seventeen year olds. The standard letter, Age of Majority, will be sent to the parent and student. Responses will be tracked and placed on in the Special Education Student File.

Title/Role of Person(s ) Responsible for

Implementation: ETL and principal of EHS



Implementation. Full completion by January 31,

2011.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Checking birth date-query against existence of hard copy of signed letter in student file.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: ETL and principal will complete a monthly query of student’s turning 17 that month.



Criterion: SE 7 Transfer of parental rights at age of majority



Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval: In Progress

Department Order of Corrective Action: Please develop a policy using Administrative Advisory

SPED 2011-1 ( http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/advisories/11_1.html

) as your guidance by February

14, 2011.

Following the development of this policy, please train special education staff members, including

ETLs, Coordinators, and special education liaisons, on its new requirements by February 14, 2011.

Everett Public Schools will provide the results of a record review from a sample of students for indistrict high school and high school for out-of-district students to ensure that the age of majority information is first introduced a year prior to the student turning 18 and is appropriately documented in the student’s IEP. Indicate both that the parents and students were notified one year prior and that the documentation meets the requirements indicated by the ESE Administrative Advisory.

Please indicate the total number of records reviewed and the number of records that included both the notification prior to age 18 and the documentation of the transfer of age of majority in the IEP for both in-district and out-of-district students. If continued noncompliance was identified, please determine a root cause of the continued non-compliance and indicate the specific corrective action taken to address the noncompliance.

Provide a detailed summary of the district’s record review, including student’s grade level; placement

( in-district or out-of-district ); student’s disability; and the results of the review. Include:

10






Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide the revised policy for transfer of parental rights at the age of majority. Provide documentation of staff training, including signed attendance sheets, an agenda, and examples of training materials. Provide these by February 14, 2011 .

Provide documentation of the record review by March 28, 2011 .

Progress Report Due Date(s): February 14, 2011 & March 28, 2011.




Criterion & Topic: SE 8 Team composition Rating: Partially Implemented

Department CPR Finding: District documentation did not indicate which individuals have IEP Team decision-making authority. According to parents, the district does not ask for their written permission to continue an IEP Team meeting if a required Team member is not in attendance.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: The chairperson of the IEP Team will be identified on the meeting notice and at the beginning of every IEP Meeting. The Chairperson will have the ability to identify district resources. Responsibility will transfer from the Coordinators to the ETL. When a team member, who has been identified on the meeting notice sent to parents, cannot attend, an Excusal

Form will be given to the parent for a response and a signed copy of the form will be sent to the Special

Education Central Office for filing in the student’s record.


Implementation: ETL (Chairperson)



Implementation. Review of process occurred at the ETL meeting, with the Director of Special

Education, on 12/10/10. Full Implementation,

January 31, 2011.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Query in X2 against hard copy filed in student’s

Central Office file.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: Self Audit- Quarterly review of SE compliance and record review. Special Education Director, Coordinators and Teachers.



Criterion: SE 8 Team composition Status of Corrective Action:


11

Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval: A Team Chair must be able to commit district resources as well as identify them.

The process for an excusing a Team member is generally for an excusal in advance of the meeting.

Department Order of Corrective Action: Please clarify the district’s policy regarding whether the

Team chair has the authority to commit resources for the district, regardless of whether the Chair person is the ETL or the Coordinator.


Please revise the district’s procedures for the excusal of an IEP Team member to ensure the process complies with federal regulatory requirements. Provide the clarified policy on IEP Team chairs committing district resources by February 14, 2011.

Everett Public Schools will provide the results of a record review from a sample of students across grade levels (minimum sample of three records for each grade level) that had a Team member excused from attending the meeting, either in advance or at the last minute, and whether the Team member provided feedback in writing in advance of the meeting. For those same records, determine whether the

Team chair was identified on the N3A.

Please indicate the total number of records reviewed and the number of records that included both appropriate documentation of the excusal form and the submission of the Team member’s contribution in advance as well as whether the Team chair is properly identified as such on the N3A. If continued noncompliance was identified, please determine a root cause of the continued non-compliance and indicate the specific corrective action taken to address the noncompliance.

Provide a detailed summary of the district’s record review, including student’s grade level; placement; type of meeting (annual, initial, re-evaluation) and the results of the review. Include:










Criterion & Topic: SE 9 Timeline for determination of eligibility


Department CPR Finding: The student record review demonstrated that some initial and re- evaluation IEP Team meetings were held months after the 45-day timeline.

12

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: 1. The district has contracted with additional psychologists, including those capable of testing in Haitian Creole, Portuguese and Spanish. Eight psychologists (8) test during the regular school year and four (4) psychologists test during the summer months. Everett’s Early Intervention Assessment Center operates during the extended school year period and is only closed the first and second week of August. Education Inc. has been contracted to provide on-going training on the Woodcock Johnson Assessment, and Futures Health Core are contractors for both services and assessments for all related services. Shore Collaborative provides training on other academic assessments utilized by the district. The greater expansion of test providers will facilitate assessments and meetings being held within the 45 day Timeline.


Implementation: ETL, Special Education Clerks who manage tester’s schedules.


Corrective Action Activity: On-going. Full

Implementation, January 31, 2011.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Review by Audit Team of Workflow, documentation in both X2 and student files.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: In- district Audit Review



Criterion: SE 9 Status of Corrective Action:




Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Everett Public Schools will provide the results of a record review from a sample of students across grade levels (minimum sample of three records for each grade level) who have had either initial evaluations or re-evaluations to determine whether assessments were completed within 30 days, assessment reports available at least two (2) days prior to the Team meeting, and that Team meetings were held within 45 days of the return of the parents’ signed consent form.

Please indicate the total number of records reviewed and the number of records that met the 30-day timeline, the 45 day timeline, and the availability of the assessment reports two days prior to the Team meeting. If the assessors could not assess the student (absences) or the parents postponed the Team meeting, the student record must show documentation of these issues. If continued noncompliance was identified, please determine a root cause of the continued non-compliance and indicate the specific corrective action taken to address the noncompliance.

Provide a detailed summary of the district’s record review, including student’s grade level; placement; type of meeting (initial or re-evaluation) and the results of the review. Include:




Please provide the results of the record review by February 14, 2011.


Progress Report Due Date(s): February 14, 2011

13




Criterion & Topic: SE 9A Elements of the eligibility determination; general education accommodations and services for ineligible students


Department CPR Finding:

See SE 4 and SE 9.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: 1. Eligibility Determination-TAT Teams will complete

TAT forms that include recommendations for testing in the areas of suspected disability to enable a thorough student assessment. 2. Consent Forms will be mailed to parents upon receipt of TAT Request or written request from parents within 5 days. Forms will be stamped 30, 60 or 90 days. The ETL will coordinate, with the principal, in getting signed Consents returned. 3. Upon Receipt of Signed Consent

Form, date of signature will be entered in X2, the Workflow completed for identification of testing,

Team composition and the clock will start to tick for the regulatory time frame for IEP development. 4.

Testing packets (copy of signed consent and the Testing Assignment) will be sent to testers. 3.

General Education Accommodations- N2 Letters “Refusal” will now identify any recommendations that were made by specialist who completed the testing for the general education classroom teacher.

Parents will also be required to sign the IEP Summary Sheet (a 3-carbon document previously approved for use by DESE.)


Implementation: ETL’s. Guidance Counselors who chair TAT Meetings as part of the RTI process.


Corrective Action Activity: Training with

Guidance Counselors-January 6, 2006

PD with principals-2/15

Principals Staff meeting January 14 and 21 st .

Full Implementation, January 31, 2011.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Workflow completion in X2 Student Management

System. All special education documents are completed using the X2 Web-based system. Hard copies of all documents are maintained in the student’ special education file.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: X2 and file review



Criterion: SE 9A Elements of the eligibility determination; general education accommodations and services for ineligible students



Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval: Please note that when the participation or consent of the parent is required and the parent fails or refuses to participate, the attempts to secure the consent of the parent must be implemented through multiple attempts using a variety of methods which are documented by the district. Such efforts may include letters, written notices sent by certified mail, electronic mail (e-mail), telephone calls, or, if appropriate, TTY communications to the home, and home visits at such time as the parent is likely to be home. Efforts may include seeking assistance from a community service agency to secure parental participation. The district must ensure that staff members endeavor to use multiple means to secure parental consent.

14

Parents cannot be “required” to sign off on a summary sheet. While the district may ask parents to sign a summary IEP sheet to document its receipt, please be aware that parents may think they are providing consent to the IEP. As long as the district has documented that a summary sheet was used (by including another copy in the file), there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that parents received a summary of the IEP Team meeting without insisting the parent sign it.

Department Order of Corrective Action: Please ensure staff members are aware that multiple means must occur in effort to obtain parental consent to evaluate the student. Please provide documentation that verifies staff were informed of this requirement. Please clarify to staff that parents cannot be required to sign summary sheets. These elements are required as part of the February 14, 2011 progress report. In addition, see corrective actions described in SE 4 and SE 9.

Required Elements of Progress Report(s ): Please see the Department order of corrective action above regarding clarifying district practices to staff. In addition, see the corrective actions described in

SE 4 and SE 9.





Criterion & Topic: SE 11 School district response to parental request for independent educational evaluation


Department CPR Finding: According to documentation submitted by the district, the district will pay for any independent evaluation without verifying income eligibility if the parent signs a waiver first.

There were no examples of such waivers in the district’s document submission for this criterion.

Although the district’s policy is to hold the IEE meeting within 10 days of receipt of the report, record review demonstrated that schools held IEP Team meetings to discuss the independent evaluations in excess of 10 days. There was no documentation to explain why the meetings were held after 10 days.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: Upon receipt of a request for an independent evaluation, the parent will be sent the paper work informing them of their rights and identify for them the process to obtain an evaluation. The district will request a financial statement in order to meet eligibility for a fully funded independent evaluation. Parents will be requested to sign a waiver of income eligibility.

ETLs will submit all independent evaluation requests to the Central Office to be date stamped. A meeting will be setup by the ETLs within the stated mandated time frame. Parents will be told that the

IEP team must be reconvened within a ten day period of when the district receives a copy of the

Independent Assessment.


Implementation: ETLs, Coordinators Special

Education Director


Corrective Action Activity: Immediate. Full

Implementation will occur January 31, 2011.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: A Spread Sheet will be kept in the Central Office to document date received and the scheduling of the meeting. Financial eligibility will be recorded on the district form and the parent’s personal information will be returned to them.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: Review of eligibility status for free lunch, and student record review. Record review for stamped date of office receipt of assessment and Meeting

Notices sent to both parents and IEP Team.

15



Criterion: SE 11 School district response to parental request for independent educational evaluation


Approved




Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide the district’s procedure on Independent

Educational Evaluations, including the parent waiver, as provided to staff for training. Please ensure that the district’s policies adhere to guidance as per Administrative Advisories SPED 2001-3: Guidance on Using a Sliding Fee Scale for Public Payment of Independent Educational Evaluations (IEEs)

( http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/advisories/01_3.html

) and SPED 2004-1: Independent Educational

Evaluations ( http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/advisories/04_1.html

). Provide this documentation by

February 14, 2011.

Everett Public Schools will provide the results of a record review from a sample of students across grade levels whose parents requested an IEE. Please determine whether the Team reconvened within

10 days of receipt of the independent evaluation, and if not, whether the Team chair documented the reasons for the delay in the student files.

Please indicate the total number of records reviewed and the number of records where the Team met within 10 days of the receipt of the IEE. If continued noncompliance was identified, please determine a root cause of the continued non-compliance and indicate the specific corrective action taken to address the noncompliance.

Provide a detailed summary of the district’s record review, including student’s grade level; placement; and the results of the review. Include:







16




Criterion & Topic: SE 12 Frequency of re-evaluation Rating: Partially Implemented

Department CPR Finding: The student record review indicated that consented-to assessments for re- evaluations were not always completed. In some instances, IEP services like speech-language therapy were removed from the IEP without conducting evaluations and through the determination of the IEP

Team. Services were removed based on service provider determinations in student IEP progress reports.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: 1. Both an increase or decrease in services will only be done after consented assessments for re-evaluations are completed and the IEP Team has been reconvened. No changes in services will be based on a service providers’ determination without going through the full re-evaluation process. 2. ETL will provide monthly queries for Re-evaluation dates monthly for their school. ETL’s will then send, based on current IEP services, send out the Consent to

Test. Upon receipt of the signed consent, the process will begin that is identified in the narratives for

SE 2,4, 9.


Implementation: ETLs, Special Education


Corrective Action Activity: Immediate.

Coordinators and Special Education Director Full Implementation will be January 31, 2011.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Documentation in student’s file of assessments completed, Workflow completion in X2, and paper flow in accordance with the IEP Development

Process in each of the student’s file.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: In-district Audit Team Review



Criterion: SE 12 Frequency of reevaluation



Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval:

Please note that 34 CFR 300.303(a) (1) allows a public agency to propose a re-evaluation because of a change in the functional performance of a student, while 34 CFR 300.305 (2) (B) (iv) speaks to Teams making additions or modifications based on the review of re-evaluations, including to related services.

Therefore, amendments can be used to make minor changes to the IEP, including a proposal to increase or decrease a particular service. However, the elimination or addition of a service requires an evaluation or re-evaluation.

Department Order of Corrective Action: Please revise the district’s proposed corrective action of requiring assessments for increases or decreases of services to reflect regulatory requirements, making sure that ETLs, special education coordinators, and special education evaluators (staff, related service providers) understand that adding or dropping a service requires an evaluation, whereas increasing or decreasing can be done by amending the IEP.

17

Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide the revised protocol as well as evidence of training to special education staff on the revision. Submit agendas, signed attendance sheets, and examples of the training materials by February 14, 2011.

Everett Public Schools will provide the results of a record review from a sample of students across grade levels (minimum of three (3) per grade level if possible) whose IEPs were amended for an increase or decrease of services and for IEPs where services were added or removed following an evaluation. Please determine whether IEP staff used the district’s revised protocols appropriately.

Please indicate the total number of records reviewed and the number of records where the Team 1) appropriately used an amendment to increase/decrease a service in the IEP prior to the annual meeting and 2) appropriately evaluated the student before adding or removing a service. If continued noncompliance was identified, please determine a root cause of the continued non-compliance and indicate the specific corrective action taken to address the noncompliance.











Criterion & Topic: SE 14 Review and revision of IEPs Rating: Partially Implemented

Department CPR Finding: According to the student record review, annual reviews are not consistently held on or before the anniversary date of the IEP. Additionally, IEP amendments were frequently used to change placements from in-district to out-of-district placements or to extend the date of the IEP.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: District has the ability to query for IEP dates. ETLs will query monthly and send report to principals for their school. Teachers who are assigned as a case manager for the student will send out notices for the Annual Team Meeting. Principals will keep a log of all Annual Meetings held in their building. Principals will now routinely address any on-going compliance issues at their Thursday, Principal’s meeting. This represents a shift of responsibility from a central office model to a school based responsibility model.

18


Implementation: ETLs/Case managers and principals, and clerks assigned in the Special

Education Office.



Implementation. Full Implementation will be

January 31, 2011.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Logs-Cross referencing X2 query with Principal’s logs and documents in student’s central office file. Student’s central office file will be reorganized in order to more easily track compliance. The last 3 years of IEP development will be reorganized and kept in individual student note books.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: Quarterly in-district audit by Director,

Coordinators, ETLs and selected group of Special Education Teachers.



Criterion: SE 14 Review and revision of IEPs



Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval: The issue of using amendments to change placements is not addressed by the district’s proposed corrective action.

Department Order of Corrective Action: Please provide training to special education staff, including

Coordinators, ETLs, and special education service providers who may chair IEP Teams on the appropriate use of amendments as per state [603 CMR 28.04(3)]and federal [34 CFR 300.324(a)(4), (6) and (b)] requirements: Between annual IEP meetings the district and parent may agree to make changes to a student’s IEP, documented in writing, without convening a meeting of the IEP Team. Upon request, a parent is provided with a revised copy of the IEP with the amendments incorporated.


Provide documentation of the training on use of amendments, including an agenda, signed attendance sheets, and examples of the training materials to the ESE by February 14, 2011.

Everett Public Schools will provide the results of a record review from a sample of students across grade levels (minimum of three (3) per grade level if possible) whose IEPs were amended. Please determine whether the process was appropriately used.

Additionally, review a sample of student records across grade levels (a minimum of three (3) per grade level) to determine whether IEP Teams are convening annual reviews on or before the anniversary date of the IEP.

Please indicate the total number of records reviewed and the number of records where the Team 1) appropriately used an amendment to address a minor change in the IEP prior to the annual meeting and

2) the Team met on or before the anniversary date of the IEP for an annual review. If continued noncompliance was identified, please determine a root cause of the continued non-compliance and indicate the specific corrective action taken to address the noncompliance.






19






Criterion & Topic: SE 18A IEP development and content


Department CPR Finding: The student record review demonstrated that many IEP teams met without all consented-to assessments available for consideration. In some cases, extended evaluation procedures were used to re-convene the meeting after the completion of all assessments (see SE 19). In other instances, the assessments were not completed.

Please see SE 4 and SE 25 for additional commentary.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: As stated in SE4, a copy of the signed Consent Form is attached to the Tester’s “Testing Assignment Form”. Signed form must have been received by the

ETLs, recorded in X2, before the Tester’s Assignment Packet (Consent Form, Copy of SLD

Exclusionary Factors Form (when appropriate), and any RTI documentation or medical report that is pertinent for the tester.


Implementation: ETLs/Central Office Staff



Implementation. Surveys will be issued

January 31, 2011.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: A monthly survey will be sent to all individuals responsible for testing, asking them to identify the students that they tested that month and whether or not a copy of the signed Consent Form was attached to their Assignment Sheets. Those surveys will be shared with the administrative staff and superintendents as part of the monitoring process for Special

Education’s progress for full compliance. Other survey questions will pertain to other non compliance issues identified in the CPR.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: Collection of monthly surveys and Report of

Findings by special education administrative staff to the superintendents.



Criterion: SE 18A IEP development and content



Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval: See SE 4, SE 19, & SE 25.

Department Order of Corrective Action: See SE 4, SE 19, & SE 25.


See Progress reporting elements for SE 4, SE 19, and SE 25.


20




Criterion & Topic: SE 19 Extended evaluation Rating: Partially Implemented

Department CPR Finding: Student record review demonstrated that extended evaluations are used as a means to complete previously consented-to assessments. District documentation stated that rather than create a partial IEP, IEP Teams will apply “stay-put” to the existing IEP until the assessments are completed. According to this documentation, the IEP will be amended to incorporate the new assessment data.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: 1. The ETL will review referrals for SLD documents, and RTI process and documentation to make sure that given the collection of data and the indicated areas of the students suspected disability, areas to be tested align with the data collected from various sources. 2. When the IEP Team feels that there exists unanswered questions regarding a suspected disability, services, or placement, when appropriate, will make use of the Extended Evaluations. (Time and meeting limitations identified), The IEP Team will write a partial IEP for the services for which they have reached a consensus that are needed.


Implementation:

ETL’, Guidance Counselors,

Principals and Special Education Coordinators



Implementation. Full Implementation by

January 31, 2010.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action : 1. Query from X2 on the number of Extended

Evaluations. Review of Monthly Survey-Report for all staff and out-side contractors who test. 3.

Record Review

Training for ETL took place on 12/15/2010.

Principal-2/15/10

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: Monitoring of the Pre-Referral packages for students who had Initial or Re-evaluation meetings.



Criterion: SE 19 Extended evaluation Status of Corrective Action:


Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval: The district must also specify circumstances under which an extended evaluation is not allowed to ensure school personnel are clear regarding the appropriate use of extended evaluations. Most significantly, under no circumstance, may extended evaluations be used to extend the timelines of previously consented-to assessments.

Department Order of Corrective Action:

Provide the district’s procedure for extended evaluations as presented at training sessions in December 2010, January and February 2011.


Please provide the district’s revised procedure, the training agenda and signed attendance sheets verifying that staff received training on extended-evaluation procedures. This progress report is due

February 14, 2011 .

Everett Public Schools will provide the results of a record review from a sample of students across grade levels (minimum of three (3) per grade level if possible) where an extended evaluation was used as per 603 CMR 28.05(2) (b).

21

Please indicate the total number of records reviewed and the number of records where the parent consents to an extended evaluation, the Team documented their findings, and determined what evaluation time period was necessary and the types of information needed to develop an appropriate

IEP. Additionally, indicate whether the Team developed a partial IEP and whether the Team reconvened on or before the eight weeks were up. If continued noncompliance was identified, please determine a root cause of the continued non-compliance and indicate the specific corrective action taken to address the noncompliance.







Progress Report Due Date(s): February 14, 2011; March 28, 2011




Criterion & Topic: SE 20 Least restrictive program selected


Department CPR Finding: According to high school special education staff interviews, there is a substantially separate behavioral program at the high school that only allows the placement of male

students; female students with similar needs are placed in out-of-district programs.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: The District will develop programming for troubled female students. The district will develop a committee to make recommendations for the development and/or integration of females into the existing LAB (Behavioral Programs.) The committee, composed of principals, adjustment counselors, Dr’s Kulik and Brian Doyle, will make recommendations to the superintendents.


Implementation : Special Education Director, High

School Principal, Adjustment Counselors, High

School ETL and Out of District Special Education

Coordinator


Corrective Action Activity:

Committee to be developed by January 31,

2011.

Implementation schedule, March 1, 2011.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: A program developed for female students and IEP placement in to Behavioral Programs.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: Principal, Teacher evaluation, Development of a program description.

22



Criterion: SE 20 Least restrictive program selected



Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval: The district cannot segregate its behavioral programs based on gender.

The district does not indicate how female students with behavioral needs who have been placed in out-of-district schools and programs because of gender-based special education programming will be re-considered for in-district special education programming.

Department Order of Corrective Action: Provide the district’s actions to provide access to in-district behavioral programming at the high school which currently segregated by gender.

Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Please provide evidence that the district has eliminated gender-based sub-separate behavioral programming. Please confirm that the IEP Teams considering the needs of female students placed out-of-district solely because of their gender will be considered for placement within in-district behavioral programs at the high school.

Progress Report Due Date(s): March 28, 2011




Criterion & Topic: SE 24 Notice to parent Rating: Partially Implemented

Department CPR Finding: The student record review indicated that some of the student records lacked Notices of Proposed School District Action (N1), Meeting Invitations (N3), and Attendance

Sheets (N3A). Consent to evaluate forms (N1A) were not translated for families whose primary language was not English. There was no evidence that district personnel contacted parents regarding unsigned consent forms. Student records also indicated that when a student was recommended for an evaluation by a Child Study Team, the district did not consistently follow through by sending the consent to evaluate forms home.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: X2 has pre-requisites that require N1 and N3 Letters must detail decision making steps made by both the parent and the district. Trainings on the RTI process have occurred. However, staff continue to be unsure as to how to utilize that process in order to make a complete referral for special education in which the identified areas of suspected disability for been clearly identified. This will facilitate the loss of time sometimes required in having to hunt for information by interview teachers, guidance counselors and parents as stated in the narrative of SE 1

(Translations), SE4, SE 18A, & SE 25 (Signed Consents).


Implementation

: ETL’s Coordinators, Special

Education Director



Implementation on going. January 31, 2011.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Workflow in X2, File Reviews

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: Workflow query in X2, Audit Team Review of student records

23



Criterion: SE 24 Notice to parent Status of Corrective Action:


Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval: There are four separate issues that must be addressed with corrective actions separately: 1) Lack of documentation of notices in student files appears to be connected to record-keeping issues; 2) lack of translated documents appears to be connected to uncertainty about family language needs and how/where to obtain translations; 3) lack of follow-up for unsigned consent forms is a FAPE issue that requires a specific set of follow-through activities with identified personnel responsible to ensure that consent forms are returned; 4) lack of documentation from the TATs’ pre-referral processes should not require additional hunting for information, unless the

TAT documentation is not sufficiently detailed.


For issue #1, as described in CR 26A (Confidentiality of Student Records), the district’s proposed corrective action to have clerks only file special education records is acceptable; the district will be required to provide an internal monitoring report on the presence of logs of access, the completeness of special education documentation and the presence of any misfiled documents in a random sample of special education folders. See required corrective actions and reporting timeline for CR 26A.

For issue #2, as described in SE 29 (Communication with parents in language other than English), the district will be required to establish a means by which a family’s language need and preference for translations or interpreters is documented and transferred to X2 as a reference point for teaching and administrative staff prior to parental communications.

Additionally, all staff members must be aware of this documentation in X2 and have the means to access this information. See required corrective actions and reporting timeline for SE 29.

For issue #3, as described in SE 25 (Parental consent), the district must provide training to general education and special education staff members on the requirements for obtaining informed consent prior to evaluating students; on expediting evaluations for the purpose of addressing students’ needs; and on seeking BSEA guidance on students who present a danger to themselves and/or others. See required corrective actions and reporting timeline for SE 25.

Issue #4 : There were no findings regarding the pre-referral process under CR 18, except that Child

Study Teams’ referral requests were not consistently responded to within required timelines. However, the district’s comments that special education staff members are still unsure how to develop consent forms from a Study Team referral requires additional actions from the district.

Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Please refer to ESE comments for CR 26A, SE 29, and

SE 25.





Criterion & Topic: SE 25 Parental consent Rating: Partially Implemented

24

Department CPR Finding: The student record review demonstrated that in some instances students were assessed and IEP Team meeting notices were issued and/or held to determine initial eligibility before the parent(s) had provided consent to the evaluation. Please see SE4 and SE 18A for additional information

.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action:

*Refer to SE4 and SE 18A


Implementation: ETL and Principal


Corrective Action Activity: January 31, 2011

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Completed documents in the Workflow in X2 and

Record Review by District Self Audit Team.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: In District Audit Team



Criterion: SE 25 Parental consent Status of Corrective Action:


Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval: The district’s proposed corrective actions for SE 4 and

SE 18A address consented-to evaluations not being completed or available in time for IEP meetings; this finding refers to instances where parent consent was not obtained before decisions were made to either conduct an assessment and/or hold an IEP Team meeting to propose services despite not receiving a consent to conduct the evaluation.

Department Order of Corrective Action: Provide training to general education and special education staff members on the requirements for obtaining informed consent prior to evaluating students; on expediting evaluations for the purpose of addressing students’ needs; and on seeking BSEA guidance on students who present a danger to themselves and/or others.

Additionally, general education teachers must have access to strategies and support for coping with students whose behaviors disrupt their learning, as such students may not be eligible for special education.

Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide documentation from the training, including an agenda, signed attendance sheets, and examples of the training materials. Provide this to the ESE by

February 14, 2011.

I think we can add a record review. Take a sample of records; ensure there’s signed consent for all the evaluations conducted by the district. Each record should demonstrate a signed consent form. Have them do a sample of initials and re-evaluations.





Criterion & Topic: SE 26 Parent participation in meetings


25

Department CPR Finding: According to interviews with special education staff members, parents do not always attend IEP Team meetings. Although there was some evidence in student files of rescheduled meetings, the documentation did not indicate whether the district offered multiple means for parent participation. Additionally, special education staff members were not aware of any guidance regarding how to address multiple cancelled and rescheduled IEP Team meetings

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: Training: Principals will address with the staff use of alternative participation by parents such as participation through telephone conference calls. The ETLs will call those parents who habitually do not attend meetings to communicate that they are risking that the district will be forced to file a 51A if they continue the pattern of non-attendance. The ETL’s are responsible for sending out meeting notices with the revised date. They must also indicate the rescheduled status of the meetings and note the number of times the meeting has been rescheduled. For those parents who cannot attend or participate, the ETL’s will meet with them to review the testing and recommendations, get their input, meet with the IEP Team, develop an IEP and then meet with the parent to explain the IEP. If the parent has questions regarding the developed proposed IEP for any

Team Member, the ETLs will make another effort to convene the Team.


Implementation: Principal-is responsible for official notification to staff of how to handle non responsive parents to IEP meetings.



Principal’s to be informed at the December 15, 2010. ETL’s training has taken place on 12/10/10 during which all of the CPR status was reviewed.

ETL’s will assume responsibility for calling parents. ETLs will call parents to check on their attendance before an IEP meeting.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Meeting notices will be stamped or marked as a rescheduled meeting, In the IEP, the Parent Concern’s and Vision Statement will reflect the type of meeting held.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: In District Audit Team



Criterion: SE 26 Parent participation in meetings



Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval: The basis of this finding was lack of documentation in student records regarding why multiple IEP Team meetings had been scheduled and/or cancelled. The regulations require that districts use other methods such as teleconferencing or video conferencing to obtain parental participation. If the parent still does not participate after reasonable efforts by the district, the district may proceed to conduct the IEP Team meeting without the parent in attendance.

The Filing of a CHINS solely on the basis that the parent habitually does not attend IEP meetings is extreme and ill-advised. The district has used positive practices to ensure that parents attend meetings; including holding meetings after school hours and sending staff to make home visits. These practices are commendable and should be continued, as well as adding other possibilities such as telephone conferencing.

Further, developing a protocol for privately meeting with parents twice to gain and provide feedback seems to sidestep the issue. If parents can be scheduled to meet privately with an ETL before and after an IEP Team meeting, why is scheduling the actual IEP Team meeting a problem?

Please use the regulatory guidance to develop a policy to address non-attendance (see ESE Basis for

Approval/Disapproval under SE 9A ).

26

Note that when timelines are not met because of parent scheduling needs, the district must document the attempts made to include the parents and clearly state that in the student record. Notices for rescheduled meetings should contain a statement that the meeting was rescheduled because of parent request; illness; etc.

Department Order of Corrective Action: Using the regulations, develop a protocol to guide special education staff members on the documentation of re-scheduled IEP Team meetings and on conducting

IEP Team meetings without parents, e.g., if neither parent can attend, the district uses other methods to ensure parent participation, including individual or conference telephone calls, or video conferencing and after reasonable efforts, is unable to obtain the parents’ participation in IEP Team meeting discussions and decisions, the district conducts the IEP Team meeting and documents its attempts to facilitate the parents’ participation.

Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide documentation of the trainings, including an agenda, signed attendance sheets, and examples of the training materials by February 14, 2011 .

Everett Public Schools will provide the results of a record review from a sample of students across grade levels (minimum of three (3) per grade level) where meetings were rescheduled and appropriately documented in the files. Additionally, review records for documentation of alternate methods for including parents in the Team meeting.

Please indicate the total number of records reviewed and the number of records where IEP Team meetings were re-scheduled to meet the parents’ needs and/or reflected the Team Chair’s attempt to include the parent via another method (phone conferencing, etc.). Additionally, indicate whether the

IEP Team meeting was conducted well beyond an appropriate point, e.g., annual meeting held months after IEP expired, initial meeting held weeks after 45-day period, etc. If continued noncompliance was identified, please determine a root cause of the continued non-compliance and indicate the specific corrective action taken to address the noncompliance.








27




Rating: Partially Implemented Criterion & Topic: SE 27 Content of Team meeting notice to parents

Department CPR Finding: See SE 24.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: X2 has pre-requisites that must be completed before it will allow you to identify content of Team meeting notice to parents. ETL are responsible for reporting to the special education office to present all student documents for filing. Historically, not all documents maintained at the school have reached the special education office. This requirement will correct that. Special Ed. Coordinators, because they are not required to attend meetings with the

ETL’s, will now have the time to devote to monitoring of compliance for this SE.


Implementation:

ETL’s, Special Education

Coordinators January 31, 2011.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: documents completed in Query in X2 and filed in student records.


Corrective Action Activity: Full compliance,

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: X2 Query and review of student files.



Criterion: SE 27 Content of Team meeting notice to parents



Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval: See comments under SE 24.

Department Order of Corrective Action: See comments under SE 24.

Required Elements of Progress Report(s): See comments under SE 24.





Criterion & Topic: SE 29 Communications are in

English and primary language of home


Department CPR Finding: The student record review demonstrated that the district does not routinely provide translated documents to families whose primary language is not English. In its documentation, however, the district provided examples of translated templates and agencies that can provide translations. Interpreters are available through the Parent Information Center to provide translation at meetings; these individuals are fluent in Spanish, Portuguese, and Creole. According to the district’s documentation, the district maintains a list of families who need translated materials.

28

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: 1. The district has hired translators for Haitian Creole,

Spanish, Portuguese, and Arabic. The district has contracted with Catholic Charities to provide translations at meetings and to translate documents. 2. At IEP meetings, ETL and Coordinators will inquire for language preference changes; and if a change is requested, the parent will complete the

Home Language Survey (also used at the Parent Information Center and by ELL.) A copy will be given to the Principal, and sent to the Special Education Office to be placed in the child’s file. The change will also be documented in X2. *On the form is an area for the parent to identify their language of preferred communication.


Implementation: ETL, Principal, Special



Education Clerks Implementation effective 12/31/ 2010.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action:

Copies of translated forms in student’s file

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: Quarterly Audit Review



Criterion: SE 29 Communications are in English and primary language of


Approved Partially Approved Disapproved home


The family’s preference for translating documents and interpreting at meetings must be established before the IEP meeting. Special education staff and principals must have a means by which they can identify a family’s need for translation.

Otherwise, the parent may not be able to effectively communicate and understand the determinations of the IEP Team meting, in addition to not understanding the documentation that is subsequently issued by the district.

Department Order of Corrective Action: Develop a means by which a family’s language need and preference for translations or interpreters is documented and transferred to X2 as a reference point for teaching and administrative staff prior to parental communications.

Additionally, all staff members must be aware of this documentation in X2 and have the means to access this information.

Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide a description of the process used by the district to document family language needs and preferences both at registration and in X2. Provide evidence of staff training on the use of X2 by staff members, including training materials and agendas by February

14, 2011 .

Everett Public Schools will provide the results of a record review from a sample of students who are either LEP or whose families are bilingual across grade levels (minimum of three (3) per grade level) for evidence that families’ preferences were appropriately documented. This will require the district to cross-reference the families through X2. If families indicated a need for translations, there must be evidence of translated materials in the files.

Please indicate the total number of records reviewed and the number of records where families’ preferences were appropriately documented via cross-reference with X2 and where translations and interpreters were provided. If continued noncompliance was identified, please determine a root cause of the continued non-compliance and indicate the specific corrective action taken to address the noncompliance.




3) For all records not in compliance with this criterion, determine the root cause(s) of the non-

29

compliance; and 4) The district’s plan to remedy the non-compliance if applicable.







Criterion & Topic: SE 32 Parent advisory council for special education


Department CPR Finding: Interviews with the special education director and parent advisory council

(PAC) president confirmed that there is an active PAC with quarterly meetings. However, by-laws were not included in the district’s submitted documentation, and, according to interviews, there are no other officers except the PAC president.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: The district provided ballots for PAC leadership positions at the beginning of each school year. Everett parents have always chosen to accept the recommended by-laws provided by the Federation for Children with Disabilities. At the meeting on

November 18 th ballots were handed out, and the mailings of ballots and copies of bylaws will be mailed again and will be voted on at the next PAC meeting to be held January 20 th at the Madeline English

School. PAC Meetings have been scheduled for March 24 th , and May25th at which the Annual PAC dinner is held for the community. Invitations will be as in the past sent to all students, both in and out of district.


Implementation: Special Education Director,

Present PAC President, Jeanne Cristiano. The district in collaboration with the Federation for children will present a workshop on parents’ rights.


Corrective Action Activity: PAC Meeting

Dates: Election Date: January 20 Other March

24, 2010; May 25 , 2010

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Election of Officers and vote on Bylaws

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: PAC President will provide feedback to the

Director of Special Education.



Criterion: SE 32 Parent advisory council for special education





Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide a copy of the PAC’s approved by-laws by

February 14, 2011.

Progress Report Due Date(s): February 14, 2011.

30




Criterion & Topic: SE 34 Continuum of alternative services and placements


Department CPR Finding: As noted above under SE 20, according to high school special education staff interviews, there is a substantially separate behavioral program for male students at the high school; however, female students with similar needs are placed in out-of-district programs.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: The behavioral program will be evaluated by an outside contractor, who will identify strengths and weaknesses of the current LAB structure. Data will be shared with the District Administrative Team who has been assigned the responsibility of making full recommendations to the Superintendent for a model that will be meet the needs of all students who have been identified with a behavioral disability.


Implementation: High School Principal,

Adjustment Counselors, Superintendent, Special

Education Administration, Special Education

Teacher assigned to LAB programs, Contract for out-of-district consult.


Corrective Action Activity: January 30 th

Program Implementation-March 1, 2011.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Proposals from vendors are currently being reviewed and a selection will be made by January 30 th .

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: Quarterly meetings with Person’s responsible for

Implementation



Criterion: SE 34 Continuum of alternative services and placements



Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval: While the Department accepts the district’s plan to evaluate the effectiveness of its behavioral programs, please see SE 20 regarding the Department’s concerns.

Department Order of Corrective Action: See also SE 20.

Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Please see SE 20.





Criterion & Topic: SE 37 Procedures for approved and unapproved out-of-district placements


31

Department CPR Finding: According to documentation, the district maintains its out-of-district placement contracts in an administrative file. However, there was no evidence of monitoring plans in files of students placed in out-of-district programs. The Department of Elementary and Secondary

Education’s (DESE) records demonstrate that the district does not consistently complete the required

Notice of Intent to Seek Approval for Individual Student Program before placing a student in an unapproved program.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: Out of District Contracts and monitoring plans are maintained in the Circuit Breaker File (Administrative Bldg.) which is a DESE Finance Requirement.

Also, Shore Collaborative completed all placements last year for which there are copies in the Circuit

Breaker File. A copy of the site Monitoring Document has be placed in the student’s file.


Implementation: Shore Collaborative, Out of

District Coordinator, Mark Block



Implementation and on-going monitoring of services based on IEP signed placement.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: File review for form.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: Shore Collaborative will communicate monthly the

Schools they have visited and provide completed documentation to insure that the schools are meeting the appropriate needs of the student placed in the school.



Criterion: SE 37 Procedures for approved and unapproved out-of-district


Approved Partially Approved Disapproved placements

Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval: The district has not addressed the issue of not consistently completing the required Notice of Intent to Seek Approval for Individual Student Program before placing a student in an unapproved program in its proposed corrective action.

Department Order of Corrective Action: Develop a procedure to ensure that the district will appropriately seek approval when students are placed in unapproved programs, whether by the district, parents, or another agency (such as DCF).


Provide the procedure for seeking approval for unapproved programs, including personnel responsible by February 14, 2011.

Everett Public Schools will provide the results of a record review from a sample of students at each grade level in out-of-district placements (minimum sample of three records at each grade level) for evidence of monitoring in the students’ files.

Examine all examples of records where students have been placed in unapproved settings for evidence of completion of the ESE program approval process.

Please indicate the total number of records reviewed and the number of records that contained appropriate monitoring plans and for completion of the approval process. If continued noncompliance was identified, please indicate the specific corrective action taken to address the noncompliance.




32


Please provide the results of both record reviews by March 28, 2011.






Criterion & Topic: SE 39A Procedures used to provide services to eligible students enrolled in private schools at private expense whose parents reside in the district


Department CPR Finding: No documentation was submitted to demonstrate that the district conducts child find activities comparable to those for public school students for all students enrolled at private expense in private schools in the district.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: The Special Education Elementary Coordinator is now the liaison for the private schools whose parents have placed them at private expense. She will keep copies of all advertisements and documents provided to them around “Child Find.”


Implementation: Heidi Friedstein, Special

Education Elementary Coordinator



Implementation

Immediate

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Copies of Notices to Private Schools

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: Survey sent to private schools at the beginning, middle and end of the academic school year. *Survey available upon request.



Criterion: SE 39A Procedures used to provide services to eligible students enrolled in private schools at private expense whose parents reside in the district


Approved




Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide examples of the notices to private schools for child find by February 14, 2011.


33




Criterion & Topic:

SE 39B


Department CPR Finding: See SE 39A

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: Letters will be sent to all private schools introducing the contact person for all private schools, Child Finds.


Implementation: Heidi Friedstein, Special

Education Coordinator who will serve as the contact person for the private school


Corrective Action Activity: January 31, 2011.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Letter to be kept on file

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: Monthly Log kept by the contact person.



Criterion: SE 39B Procedures used to provide services to eligible students who are enrolled at private expense in private schools in the district and whose parents reside out of state





Required Elements of Progress Report(s): See ESE response for SE 39A.





Criterion & Topic: SE 40 Instructional grouping Rating: Partially Implemented

Department CPR Finding: Documentation submitted by the district indicated the following class size violations: English Elementary School has four (4) substantially separate classes that exceed studentstaff ratios; Keverian School has five (5) substantially separate classes that exceed student-staff ratios;

Everett High School has 15 substantially separate and pullout classrooms that exceed regulatory student-staff ratios.

34

Narrative Description of Corrective Action:

English School- no longer has any substantially separate classes. All are inclusionary settings in which language based students are going into the general education settings with special ed. teachers and/or specialists.

Keverian School- Paraprofessional will be hired to meet classroom size regulations

EHS has moved to a more inclusive model and will hire additional staff to bring the District into compliance. At present EHS no longer has any language based classrooms and has partial inclusion programming.


Implementation: Principals/Superintendents,


Corrective Action Activity: March 1, 2011

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Student schedules and class rosters

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: Query from Student Management System



Criterion: SE 40 Instructional grouping





Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide instructional groupings for the English

Elementary School general education classrooms in which the four (4) substantially separate program students were placed; include student initials and indicate staffing by initial and role for each instructional group. In addition , provide the revised service delivery grid and placement page for each student moved from a substantially separate classroom to a general education classroom

Provide the instructional groupings for the Keverian School’s general education classrooms in which the five (5) substantially separate program students were placed; include student initials and indicate staffing by initial and role for each instructional group. In addition, provide the revised service delivery grid and placement page for each student moved from a substantially separate classroom to a general education classroom.

Provide the instructional groupings for EHS’ general education classrooms in which the substantially separate program students were placed; include student initials and indicate staffing by initial and role for each instructional group. In addition, provide the revised service delivery grid and placement page for each student moved from a substantially separate classroom to a general education classroom.

Provide the instructional grouping for all pull-out groups in EHS; include student initials and indicate staffing by initial and role for each instructional group.


35




Criterion & Topic: SE 42 Programs for young children three and four years of age


Department CPR Finding: The Department requested follow-up information from the district to verify pre-school class sizes. The district responded to the Department’s additional request by submitting classroom schedules instead of student rosters for the Webster Pre-School programs which do not verify the district is meeting the class size requirements for preschool programs.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: The Webster has gone to an integrated class model and all the classroom are within the regulated ratio of special education student to regular education student.


Implementation: Special Education Director, ETL and Elementary Special Education Coordinator,

Webster Building Principal



January 31, 2011.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Monthly student rosters

Immediate

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: Rosters will contain both regular education and special education students assigned to each classroom.



Criterion:

SE 42 Programs for young children three and four years of age





Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide the current rosters for each of the Webster’s integrated classes; indicate staffing by initials and role.





Criterion & Topic: SE 43 Behavioral interventions Rating: Partially Implemented

Department CPR Finding: The student record review demonstrated that school personnel inappropriately used the procedures for disciplining students with disabilities to justify a 45-day change of placement for purposes of an evaluation in an Interim Alternate Education Setting (IAES) .

Student records indicated that IEP Teams used IEP amendments or initiated changes of placement without consent from parents for the change in placement for the purpose of conducting an evaluation.

36

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: Procedure for 45 Day Placement: The District holds a meeting with the parent to discuss the possible change in Placement and service delivery plan for a student being recommended for a 45- day placement. The Student’s IEP is rewritten to reflect a start date of a 45 day placement with an end date to reflect the ending of the student’s 45 days in the diagnostic program. A meeting is held with the parent and team half way through the 45-day placement to discuss the student’s progress and provide the team/ parent with any new findings which might be affecting the student’s progress. 5 Days prior to the end of the student’s IEP a meeting is held with the parent and a new IEP is developed to incorporate the finds and recommendations learned from the placement. Parents are sent invitation to all meetings. Meetings are summarized through the use of N1 letters.


Implementation: Class Masters, Principals and

Superintendents



January 31, 2011

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Review of student records and student management system. Discipline records, Manifest Determinations

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: Internal Audit Review



Criterion: SE 43 Behavioral interventions



Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval: The district’s proposed corrective action implies that IEP

Teams will change a student’s placement from in-district to out-of-district for the sake of evaluating the student. A so-called diagnostic placement is not described in either state or federal laws and regulations. If the district puts a student into a collaborative for an extended evaluation period of 45 days, the district must use the procedures described in SE 19.

Please note that an IAES is considered a temporary removal due to extraordinary circumstances and not a placement per se, although a student may be placed in that setting or another school setting at the end of the 45-day period, if the IEP Team and parents agree that such a change in placement is necessary.

The district has not sufficiently described the situations in which such an extended evaluation might be used; the reference made to manifestation determinations in the Evidence of Completion suggests that the district is not yet clear on the difference between an IAES and the district’s proposed use of a 45day evaluation in another setting.

Please see ESE comments under SE 14 regarding the use of amendments; see comments under SE 25 for parent consent.

Department Order of Corrective Action: Clarify in detail the district’s proposed use of a 45-day extended evaluation in another setting, including the circumstances that might prompt such a procedure. Make sure to distinguish this from an IAES, which is a temporary removal prompted by student behaviors such as drugs, alcohol or weapons brought to school; bodily harm inflicted on a staff member; and/or dangerousness as determined by a BSEA court officer. Additional progress reporting will be specified once the Department reviews the district’s procedures.

Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide the clarification of the use of a 45 day extended evaluation by February 14, 2011.


37




Criterion & Topic: SE 46 Procedures for suspension of students with disabilities when suspended 10 consecutive days


Department CPR Finding: Although the district submitted ample documentation of their procedures for manifestation determinations, the student records did not contain evidence that the district conducted manifestation determinations. In some instances, students were put in 45-day placements for purposes of an evaluation though the basis for such placement was not consistent with federal regulatory requirements for the discipline of special education students. According to district documentation, these 45-day placements are used to explore possible clinical issues and are frequently employed by the district’s schools to cope with student needs that do not require an Interim Alternate

Education Setting (IAES).

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: Principals have had PD on how to complete

Manifestation Determinations. However, a number have been completed in the absence of the ETL or

Coordinators. The District has a contract with Cambridge Mental Health who provides a psychiatrist,

Dr. Deborah Kulick for consultation on clinical or student mental health issues. An ETL will attend all

Manifest Determination meetings to make sure that regulations are followed and documentation requirements are met. Any out-of-district placement, both 45 Day, or long term placement, must be coordinated through Mark Block. His responsibility is to make sure that student and parent’s rights are protected, that principals are following regulatory procedures and to make sure that the referral is appropriate.

Procedure for 45 Day Placement: The District holds a meeting with the parent to discuss the possible change in Placement and service delivery plan for a student being recommended for a 45 day placement. The Student’s IEP is rewritten to reflect a start date of a 45 day placement with an end date to reflect the ending of the student’s 45 days in the diagnostic program. A meeting is held with the parent and team half way through the 45 day placement to discuss the student’s progress and provide the team/ parent any new findings which might be affecting the student’s progress. 5 Days prior to the end of the student’s IEP a meeting is held with the parent and a new IEP is developed to incorporate the finds and recommendations learned from the placement. Parents are sent invitation to all meetings.

Meetings are summarized through the use of N1 letters.


Implementation:

ETL(s)

Principal, Class Master’s, and

& Out-of-District Coordinator, Mark Block


Corrective Action Activity: January 1

Guidelines for Principals to be discussed at the

December 15 th Administrative Meeting.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Monthly Review of student discipline action recorded in X2. *Copies of query kept in Special Education administrative files and copies sent to the superintendents, principals, and ETL.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: Review of discipline documentation required by the district. The In-district Audit Team will review discipline records on a monthly basis.



Criterion: SE 46 Procedures for suspension of students with disabilities



38

when suspended 10 consecutive days

Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval: This finding is based on evidence in the student records that students are put in 45-day diagnostic settings prior to being provided with the required steps and protections for students on IEPs or 504 plans who have had multiple suspensions and/or disciplinary issues.

The district has not clearly distinguished between an IAES and its proposed extended evaluations for clinical diagnosis. School-level personnel’s responsibilities are fully described in 34 CFR 300.530-537 to ensure LRE and due process for students with behavioral and disciplinary issues. The circumstances for proposing an extended evaluation in another setting cannot supersede a student’s legal rights when discipline is involved.

Department Order of Corrective Action: Clarify in detail the district’s proposed use of diagnostic extended evaluations with students on IEPs or 504 plans who are involved in disciplinary or behavioral situations. Include a detailed description of the types of situations in which an extended evaluation might be used and the type of situations in which school personnel are required to provide the full set of legal protections described in 34 CFR 300.530-537. Additional progress reporting will be specified once the Department reviews the district’s procedures.

Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide the detailed clarifications on the district’s proposed policies for students suspended beyond 10 days by February 14, 2011.





Criterion & Topic: SE 47 Procedural requirements applied to students not yet determined to be eligible for special education


Department CPR Finding: The district has policies and procedures for expediting evaluations for students suspected of having a disability who are suspended 10 days and beyond; however, student records demonstrated that in some instances, the IEP Team develops partial IEPs and makes a placement recommendation before a student’s assessments are completed.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: Placement will not be determined until all assessments have completed. Manifest Determinations will be completed at a meetings attended by the ETL and adjustment counselor. Recommendations for testing in areas of suspected disability will be made by the staff and parent(s).


Implementation: ETL, Special Education

Coordinators and Principals



Implementation and permanent policy.

Pd for principals, 2/15/2010

PD for ETL 2/10/10.

PD for Guidance Counselors, January 6, 2011

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Workflow completion in X2 and IEP documentation in student’s permanent school record and referral packet, Discipline documentation provided in X2, letters informing both students and parents of their rights composed by the principal.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures : Review of Student Management System

(Workflow) and review of Student Records

39



Criterion: SE 47 Procedural requirements applied to students not yet determined to be eligible for special education


Approved




Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide documentation from the staff trainings for each the principals, ETLs, and guidance counselors. Provide agendas, signed attendance sheets and examples of training materials from each set of trainings by February 14, 2011 .

Everett Public Schools will provide the results of a record review from a sample of students at each grade level (minimum sample of three records for each grade level) to ensure that all assessments are completed for an expedited evaluation before the Team meets to develop an IEP and determine appropriate placement.

Please indicate the total number of records reviewed and the number of records in which Teams met with all assessments completed for an expedited evaluation. If continued noncompliance was identified, please determine a root cause of the continued non-compliance and indicate the specific corrective action taken to address the noncompliance.











Criterion & Topic: SE 53 Use of paraprofessionals Rating: Partially Implemented

Department CPR Finding: One of the district’s contracted Physical Therapy assistants does not have a current license.

40

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: All therapists are now appropriately licensed


Implementation : Dr. Thomas Stella, Assistant

Superintendent is responsible for EPIMS submissions.


Corrective Action Activity: All contracted staff must now submit license numbers for

EPIMS.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: EPIMS documentation

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: As new staff are added, Futures Health Core must submit copy of their license(s).



Criterion: SE 53 Use of paraprofessionals





Required Elements of Progress Report(s ): Please provide the licensure numbers of the physical therapy assistants.


41




Corrective Action Plan Forms

Program Area: Civil Rights

Prepared by: Thomas J. Stella









Criterion & Topic: CR 3 Access to a full range of education programs


Department CPR Finding: According to staff interviews, students enrolled in the district’s English

Language Education program do not have access to support services. In addition, LEP students referred by the student support team for a special education evaluation were not evaluated.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: To address the possible lack of access to support services, each school will convene their Affirmative Action Committee who will assess the points of access and determine which may be breaking down. Each Affirmative Action Committee will pay particular attention to student access by gender, race/ethnicity, LEP status and 504 Plan and special education status, ensuring that those students have access to Title 1 services, guidance services and access to other academic support services such as 504 plans and special education services.


Implementation: Building Principals and Guidance

Counselors, Affirmative Action Committee.



Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Reports of the Affirmative Action Committee reflecting review of student data regarding Title 1 participation, Guidance office visits, students referred through the RTI process for 504 plans and special education services and actions taken to ensure equitable access.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: The Assistant Superintendent will review the reports.

42



Criterion: CR 3 Access to a full range of education programs




The district’s proposal does not specifically address the lack of access to support and special education services reported by several school personnel during the

2010 CPR for students in the ELL program. Several teaching staff members specifically stated that

LEP students were not to be evaluated within their first two years of English language support so as to give them time to learn acquire more English proficiency. Their assertion points to a district-wide practice that has not been addressed either in the Civil Rights or ELL CAP.

Department Order of Corrective Action: The district must include a set of proposed district-wide actions to address the lack of access to support (504, Title 1) and special education services reported by school personnel during the CPR for LEP students.

Provide the set of district-wide proposals by

February 14, 2011.

Regarding the Affirmative Action Committees, the district must provide the individual results from each school’s Committee. Each school’s report must include data sources, method of analysis, precise and specific findings, and a set of articulated corrective activities to address the results. The district will be required to produce documentation that establishes any reported findings. Further, the corrective activities must include a timeline for completion of the activities. The district will be asked to provide evidence of completion in a later progress report. Provide the individual schools Affirmative Action

Committees by March 28, 2011.

Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide a set of district-wide proposed corrective actions to address the reported lack of access to support and special education services by LEP students.

Provide the individual reports of the Affirmative Action Committees as outlined above.





Criterion & Topic: CR 7 Information to be translated into languages other than English


Department CPR Finding: Special education records demonstrated that few parents are provided translated documents when their primary language is other than English; in addition, report cards and progress reports are not translated.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: Report cards and progress reports for all students at all levels will be translated into the Spanish, Haitian Creole and Portuguese. Special education documents will be translated into Spanish, Haitian Creole and Portuguese when the parents have indicated that they want translated documents.


Implementation: Building Principals


Corrective Action Activity: June 30, 2011

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Translated Report Cards, Progress Reports and

Special Education documents.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: The ELL Coordinator, Special Education Director and Assistant Superintendent will conduct a quarterly review of the records by conducting a random sample of student records and determining if the appropriate documents have been translated.

43



Criterion: CR 7 Information to be translated into languages other than

English



Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval: The district has not indicated a root cause for the inconsistent translations of documents found during the onsite visit, despite the district’s ability to provide such translations.

Department Order of Corrective Action: Develop a method that document family preference for

English or for translations/interpretation into the home language. Provide training to ensure that all school-level staff members know how to determine family preference and are familiar with how to access the district’s available resources.

See also ESE ordered actions for SE 29 .

Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide a description of the method the district will use to document family preference for document translations. Provide evidence of the staff training by school, including an agenda and examples of training materials. Provide these materials by February 14,

2011 .

In addition, please see the progress requirements of SE 29.

Progress Report Due Date(s): February 14, 2011; March 28, 2011




Criterion & Topic: CR 7B Structured learning time Rating: Partially Implemented

Department CPR Finding: According to documentation submitted by the district, high school students currently do not have physical education every year.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: Beginning with the start of the 2010-2011 school year, all Everett High School students were scheduled into physical education classes.


Implementation: High School Principal, Vice

Principal and Athletic Director.



2010

September 1,

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Student schedules showing enrollment in a physical education class.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: The high school principal will query the student management system on a quarterly basis, for students who do not have a physical education class in the schedule.



Criterion: CR 7B Structured learning time





Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide a first-quarter set of summary results from the X2 query for high school students’ schedule for the inclusion of physical education; include the date of the

44

query and a description of the results, as well as a proposed corrective action for any continued noncompliance.





Criterion & Topic: CR 10A Student handbooks and codes of conduct


Department CPR Finding: The district’s student code of conduct procedures for the discipline of students with disabilities does not include students with disabilities on 504 plans.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: Revise the student handbooks for elementary and high school students to include disciplinary procedures for students who are serviced by a 504 Plan.


Implementation: Assistant Superintendent



2011

September 1,

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Revised student handbooks

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: Develop a checklist of items required to be included in the elementary and secondary student handbooks, which will be reviewed by the Assistant

Superintendent at the proof stage of the handbook printing process.



Criterion: CR 10A Student handbooks and codes of conduct



Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval: The district’s proposed corrective action does not address the student handbook for school year 2010-2011.

Department Order of Corrective Action: Provide families with an addendum of the revised handbook entry on the due process rights for disciplining students with IEPs and 504 plans.

Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide a copy of the addendum, plus translations for the district’s major language groups, and a plan for distribution. Indicate the date for distribution.





Criterion & Topic : CR 12A Annual and continuous notification concerning nondiscrimination and coordinators


Department CPR Finding: The district’s student handbook does not list which staff members function as the 504 coordinator or the Title IX coordinator.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: Add the title of Director of Guidance to the description of which staff member serves as the district 504 coordinator and the title of Assistant Superintendent as the Title IX coordinator.

45




Corrective Action Activity: September 1,

2011

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Revised Student Handbooks

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: Include this item in the checklist of items required to be included in the elementary and secondary student handbooks, which will be reviewed by the

Assistant Superintendent at the proof stage of the handbook printing process.



Criterion: CR 12A Annual and continuous notification concerning nondiscrimination and coordinators



Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval: The district’s corrective action does not address the

2010-2011 school year.

Department Order of Corrective Action: Provide families with an addendum of the revised handbook entry on designated coordinators for 504 and Title IX.

Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide a copy of the addendum, plus translations for the district’s major language groups, and a plan for distribution. Indicate the date for distribution.





Criterion & Topic: CR 14 Counseling and counseling materials


Department CPR Finding: According to district documentation and staff interviews, the district has one elementary and one high school guidance counselor who are fluent in Spanish only. The district does not have other means to provide guidance counseling services to students whose primary language is not English or Spanish.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: When providing school guidance counseling services to students whose primary language is not English, in the areas of college applications, school to career counseling, program of studies selections and requirements for graduation, the guidance counselor will request the assistance of one of the district translators for assistance. When the student requires counseling that is beyond the scope of school guidance counseling, crisis counseling, for example, the counselor will request permission from the parent to use the translators at the district school and or make a referral to the Cambridge Health Alliance for services.


Implementation: Director of Guidance


Corrective Action Activity: April 1, 2011

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: All Guidance Counselors will provide a monthly report of student visits. The report will include whether or not translation services were provided.

Guidance Counselors will provide a monthly report of students in their caseload who were referred to

Cambridge Health Alliance.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: The Director of Guidance will review the reports and forward them to the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services.

46



Criterion: CR 14 Counseling and counseling materials





Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide a summary of the available monthly guidance counselor reports starting with February 2011; include the number of translation services or referrals to

Cambridge Health Alliance included.





Criterion & Topic: CR 16 Notice to students 16 and over


Department CPR Finding: According to documentation provided by the district, there is an ongoing effort to bring back students who have dropped out of school. However, the district submitted only copies of letters to students who have missed 15 consecutive days of school. Although this letter does indicate that the student(s) in question have missed 15 consecutive days or more, it does not indicate whether the letter(s) have been sent within the required ten days. Additionally, the district’s notification letter contains an outdated reference to Ch. 766 (now Ch. 71B, the state laws governing special education).

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: The Principal or his/her designee will be responsible for generating a list, on a daily basis, of students who have 15 consecutive absences. Upon the fifteenth absence, the Principal or his/her designee will generate a letter indicating the number of days missed and the date the letter was sent. Drop letters will be sent by registered mail. Furthermore the letter will be revised to update the reference to Special Education.


Implementation: Building Principal or his/her designee.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Drop letter with the documentation provided that it was sent by registered mail.


Corrective Action Activity: February 1, 2011

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: Monthly report to the Assistant Superintendent for

Pupil Personnel Services of the students dropped from the roles, the date of the fifteenth absence and the date that the letter was sent by registered mail.



Criterion: CR 16 Notice to students 16 and over





Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide copies of actual letters sent to students, including translated versions. Provide a summary detailing whether letters were sent within 10 days.

47





Criterion & Topic: CR 17A Physical restraint Rating: Partially Implemented

Department CPR Finding: According to district documentation and staff interviews, school staff members have not received annual training on the use of physical restraint consistent with regulatory requirements within the first month of each school year.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: All staff will receive annual training on the use of physical restraint, consistent with regulatory requirements. Training will take place on the first professional development day, at the start of the school year (Primary Day)



2010

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Provide a copy of the materials utilized and signin sheets for staff in attendance at the trainings.


Corrective Action Activity: September 14,

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: The Assistant Superintendent and or his designees will conduct the trainings at the beginning of each school year.



Criterion: CR 17A Physical restraint Status of Corrective Action:




Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide a copy of the materials used and sign-in sheets for staff in attendance at the September 14, 2010 training.





Criterion & Topic: CR 18 Responsibilities of the school principal


Department CPR Finding: According to interviews with general education teaching staff, when teachers suspected that a student might have a disability, they could not promptly make a referral to seek consent for an initial evaluation. Additionally, student records indicated that when the student support team made a referral for a special education evaluation, the district did not always provide parents with a consent form to evaluate the student.

48

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: Teachers must be trained in the proper Response To

Intervention procedures. The Assistant Superintendent, Director of Curriculum and Director of Special

Education will hold training sessions at the building level. When the Student Support Team recommends a referral to special education, it is the responsibility of the building Principal to ensure that the proper procedures are followed, the proper paperwork is submitted, and the consent form is sent out.


Implementation: Building Principals and Special

Education Coordinators.


Corrective Action Activity: May 1, 2011

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Training materials will be developed and rosters of attendance will be maintained.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures : The Assistant Superintendent will be responsible for setting up each training session and will be in attendance.



Criterion: CR 18 Responsibilities of the school principal



Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval: Please see ESE comments under SE 3, e.g., that building principals must ensure that consent forms are sent to parents within five (5) days of receipt of a Child

Study Team referral.

See also comments and requirements for SE 24, where the district noted that staff members continue to be unsure as to how to utilize the RTI process in order to make a complete referral for special education in which the identified areas of suspected disability have not been clearly identified. Given the continued uncertainty in this area, the district must ensure that corrective actions are completed before the end of the school year.

Department Order of Corrective Action: Provide training as described in the district’s narrative description of corrective action .

Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide documentation of the trainings, including agendas, signed attendance sheets, and training agendas.





Criterion & Topic: CR 25 Institutional self-evaluation Rating: Partially Implemented

Department CPR Finding: The district submitted multiple data reports that indicated the district collects data regarding equitable access to courses and extracurricular activities; however, documentation did not demonstrate that school personnel conducted any analysis of this information and used it to evaluate district programming.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: Each school will convene the Affirmative Action

Committee quarterly and review student course enrollments at the elementary and secondary levels, paying particular attention to the distribution of students by gender, race/ethnicity, LEP status and

Special Education/504 status, ensuring that all students have access to the full complement of educational programs.

49


Implementation: Building Principal and the building based Affirmative Action Committee



Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Reports of the Affirmative Action Committee reflecting review of student course enrollment data, extracurricular participation data, and actions taken to ensure equitable access.




Criterion: CR 25 Institutional selfevaluation





Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Please see comments for CR 3 regarding addressing reported specific examples of non-access.

Please provide a plan to develop a report from the Affirmative Action Committees and other sources of data collection to the Superintendent and School Committee annually identifying and addressing lack of equitable access to educational opportunities for students in all protected classes, including race, color, sex, religion, national origin, limited English-speaking ability or sexual orientation.





Criterion & Topic: CR 26 Confidentiality and student records


Department CPR Finding: Review of student records demonstrated that special education documents are regularly misfiled. According to staff interviews, all special education coordinators, Team facilitators, and teachers who chair IEP Teams must file their own paper work each week in the district’s central office, which has led to the high number of misplaced documents. Additionally, there were no logs of access for the student files.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: Filing of special education documents will no longer be done by special education coordinator, educational team leaders or IEP team chairpersons. The clerks working in the special education office will do all filing. Every student file will be checked for a log if access.


Implementation: Director of Special Education



Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Special education clerks will do all filing. All student files will have a log of access.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: The Director of Special Education will do a random sample of student files to check for compliance.

50



Criterion: CR 26 Confidentiality and student records





Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide the results of a random special education folder check across all grade levels (pre-K, elementary, middle, and high school) and in-district/out-of-district placements for a log of access, inclusion of required notices, assessment reports, signed and dated copies of IEPs and progress reports.

Please indicate the total number of records reviewed and the number of records that included both a log of access and completeness of special education documents. Please note any cases where a student’s documents were found misfiled. If continued noncompliance was identified, please determine a root cause of the continued non-compliance and indicate the specific corrective action taken to address the noncompliance.

Provide a detailed summary of the district’s record review, including student’s grade level; placement; type of meeting (annual, initial, re-evaluation) and the results of the review. Include:




Please provide the results of the record review by February 14, 2011.



51




Corrective Action Plan Forms

Program Area: English Learner Education

Prepared by: Laurie Goldenberg

ELL Coordinator

Everett Public Schools









Criterion & Topic: ELE 1 Annual Assessment Rating: Partially Implemented

Department CPR Finding: Student records did not consistently contain evidence of yearly MEPA and

MELA-0 testing.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: MEPA and MELA-O yearly results are always placed into the students’ ELL files. For transfer students who do not consistently come with these records, we will document multiple attempts to obtain. Training will be provided to the district ELL teachers on this procedure.


Implementation: in the schools.

ELL Coordinator and ELL Staff



Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Documents will be placed in the ELL folders.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures : The ELL Coordinator will quarterly check ELL folders in all schools.



Criterion: ELE 1 Annual Assessment Status of Corrective Action:




52

Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide documentation of the training provided to ELL teachers, included an agenda, examples of materials, and signed attendance sheets by June 30, 2011.

Everett Public Schools will provide the results of a record review from a sample of ELL students at each grade level (minimum sample of three records for each grade level) to ensure that yearly assessment results (MEPA, MELA-O) are present in the students’ record for each year of the student’s enrollment in EPS. If the student is newly enrolled, the district has documented its attempts to retrieve these results from previous districts where the students were enrolled.

Please indicate the total number of records reviewed and the number of records that contained yearly assessment results from the district and/or documentation of record requests from other districts for the assessment results. If continued noncompliance was identified, please indicate the specific corrective action taken to address the noncompliance.





Please provide the results of the student record review by September 2, 2011.


Progress Report Due Date(s): June 30, 2011; September 2, 2011




Criterion & Topic: ELE 3 Initial Identification Rating: Partially Implemented

Department CPR Finding: Student record review demonstrated that students were not consistently assessed in reading and writing; some students were also not assessed for speaking (assessments noted

“no oral English”). Not all records contained translated home language surveys

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: The HLS survey will be given to all families upon registration. Students whose HLS states a language other than English, will be assessed with the LAS

R&W and the IPT Oral if they are not already identified from the sending school. Training will be given to Parent Information staff regarding HLS intake.


Implementation: ELL Coordinator, PIC staff and

ELL teachers.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Translated HLS given at registration will be placed in student files.



Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: The ELL Coordinator will check ELL folders quarterly for completion of files.

53



Criterion: ELE 3 Initial Identification Status of Corrective Action:


Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval: The district has noted that there has been some difficulty retrieving annual assessment data from other districts. If EPS does not have recent assessment data for

LEP students enrolling, re-assessing the student with the LAS R&W and IPT Oral may be required to accurately gauge the student’s current level of proficiency.

Department Order of Corrective Action: Develop a protocol for assessing incoming students who have been identified as LEP in previous districts, but who do not have previous annual assessments

(MEPA, MELA-O) available.

Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide the new protocol for assessing incoming students previously identified as LEP but lacking annual assessment data by June 30, 2011 .

Everett Public Schools will provide the results of a record review from a sample of ELL students at each grade level (minimum sample of three records for each grade level) for evidence of a translated

Home Language Survey (HLS) and to determine that all four modalities of English language proficiency were assessed for initial identification of a new student. For students identified as LEP in previous districts, document the steps taken by the district to ensure the student was accurately placed for language instruction.

Please indicate the total number of records reviewed and the number of records that contained translated HLS and evidence that the student was assessed in all four modalities. For students identified as LEP in previous districts, indicate whether the student record reflects steps taken by the district to ensure the student was accurately placed for language instruction. If continued noncompliance was identified, please indicate the specific corrective action taken to address the noncompliance.











Criterion & Topic: ELE 4 Waiver Procedures Rating: Partially Implemented

54

Department CPR Finding: The document review indicated that while the district has appropriate waiver policies the district did not submit waiver forms. According to staff interviews, there are no students who have been waived from the district’s sheltered English immersion program and the district does not operate other English language education programs.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: The District will develop a policy based on the regulatory requirements as required by chapter 71A. The District will use the forms found on the

DESE website. We do not have any other ELL program.


Implementation: ELL Coordinator and PIC staff.



Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Waivers will be placed in the ELL folders.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: The ELL Coordinator will check ELL folders quarterly.



Criterion: ELE 4 Waiver Procedures Status of Corrective Action:



Department Order of Corrective Action: Please note that copies of waivers in all student records would not be warranted; the district is obliged to have a protocol established, but only students who have waived into another language support program should have waivers on file.


Provide a copy of the district’s policy on waivers and copies of the district’s waiver form for students 10 and younger and for students 10 and older by

June

30, 2011.

Progress Report Due Date(s): June 30, 2011

55




Criterion & Topic: ELE 5 Program Placement and

Structure


Department CPR Finding: Sheltered English immersion (SEI) is a program model for limited English proficient (LEP) students composed of two parts—English as a second language (ESL) and sheltered content instruction. ESL is explicit, direct instruction about the English language, delivered to LEP students only and designed to promote the English language development of LEP students. Sheltered content instruction is an approach for teaching content to LEP students in strategic ways that make the subject matter concepts comprehensible while promoting the LEP students’ English language development.

Interviews and documentation indicate that not all teachers of LEP students have completed all four

Categories of training as described in the Commissioner’s Memorandum of June 2004, and most teachers have not completed any training in any of the Categories. Documentation indicates that there are zero content classes that are taught by qualified teachers at the following schools: English,

Webster, Keverian, Lafayette, Parlin and Whittier schools, and Everett High School. In most classes classified as sheltered content classes district-wide, teachers have received no category training. See also ELE 15.

Documentation and interviews indicate that the ESL instruction provided to students is insufficient, and is not consistent with Department guidelines. Interviews indicate that in some cases at the high school and the Whittier Elementary School, due to limited staffing, students cannot be grouped by proficiency levels for ESL instruction.

Interviews indicate that LEP students are often not provided with content instruction that is based on the Massachusetts curriculum frameworks. This is in part due to the fact that few teachers have received Category training. See ELE 15. In addition, interviews indicate that some teachers have been told to teach content from only one grade level to multi-grade level classes that contain LEP students.

District documentation indicates that the district has an ESL curriculum that is based on the

Massachusetts English Language Proficiency Benchmarks and Outcomes. However, interviews indicate this is inconsistently implemented.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action : (1) The District is encouraging all teachers to take the

Category Trainings that are offered through EPS Professional Development for a stipend .

(2) We have hired another ELL teacher at the Whittier School. At the high school all ELL students in the SEI program are grouped by proficiency for ESL instruction. (3) Content classes by grade levels are taught by certified content teachers that will be offered Category training for a stipend. (4) ELL teachers all have our ESL Curriculum which they will be required to use when developing their lessons. Training will be provided to the ELL teachers on using the curriculum.


Implementation: Director of Curriculum for

Professional Development, ELL Coordinator,

Principals and ELL teachers.



56

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action : (1) A spreadsheet of all teachers in the EPS will document their completed category trainings. (2) Student schedules will be reviewed by ELL teachers to check correct proficiency levels of ESL students. (3) Refer to (1). (4) Principals will check lesson plans.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: The ELL Coordinator will quarterly check ESL lesson plans, check with the ESL teachers on proficiency levels of their classes and work with the

Director of Curriculum on Category trainings.



Criterion: ELE 5 Program Placement and Structure




As reported in the Department’s SIMS database, Everett is a high incidence district. The seven schools listed in the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) account for an enrollment of over 500 English language learners (ELLs). The Parlin school has the highest enrollment of ELLs: 165; whereas, the Webster school and the high school have the lowest ELL enrollment: 33 and 44 respectively. The Whittier school, on the other hand has twice as many ELLs as the high school (68) and ELL enrollment for the remaining schools ranges from 64 – 93.

The district’s intends to address non-compliance issues with this criterion as follow: 1) The district will use stipends to encourage all general education (CAP’s Point 1) and content teachers (CAP’s Point

3) to complete their training in all four categories of Sheltered English Immersion (SEI). The district set a deadline of February 1, 2011. See ELE 15 for additional comments concerning professional development.

Regarding instructional groupings (See also ELE 9) and hours of ESL instruction, the Department’s

CAP mentions the high school and the Whittier school for not using English proficiency levels for instructional groupings of ELLs receiving ESL services. The district addressed only one part of the corrective action by hiring another ESL instructor at the Whittier school. The district did not address how the high school in now able to group ELLs by English proficiency levels. In addition, the district’s corrective action did not address the overall CAP question, which is the provision of sufficient ESL instruction hours district wide that are consistent with the Department recommendations

(Refer to the Department Guidance on using MEPA Results to Plan Shelter English Immersion (SEI)

Instruction and Make Reclassification Decisions for Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students of

September 2009 (at http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/mepa/2009/guidance.doc).

The district’s corrective action for the implementation of an ESL curriculum includes training(s) for all

ESL teachers to increase the use of an ESL curriculum. In addition and in order to ensure its implementation, the district will require all school principals to review ESL teachers’ lessons plans.

This part of the plan is a necessary step in complying with the Department’s corrective action.

However, the proposed plan does not include district follow-up so that ESL teachers can fully learn the

ESL curriculum and become skillful in the development of lesson plans, activities, and/or themes/topics as well as test various instructional strategies and inclusive of the assessment of ELLs learning using formal/informal assessment tools . In addition, the district must facilitate the establishment of collaborative relationships with general education and content teachers to ensure that the language and content knowledge that ESL teachers articulate and present to ELLs is sound and developmentally appropriate.

Furthermore, the district’s internal monitoring procedures do not specifically address how the

57

sheltering of content will be provided to ELLs while the district increases the qualifications of general education and content area teachers in all four (4) categories of SEI; nor does the district specify the steps that will be taken to insure that ELLs receive appropriate hours of ESL instruction district wide as well as instructional groupings of ELLS that are based on their level of English proficiency.


Please provide evidence of the following:



List of teachers instructing ELLs who have either partially or fully completed all four or some of the SEI training categories per school in the district. Include in the list the teachers that have not completed any of the SEI trainings.

 ELLs’ schedule that shows hours of ESL/ELD instruction either individually and/or in a group that is consistent with Department guidance. Please list all the ELLs comprising each group, per school, and their English proficiency level.



A spreadsheet per school that shows placement of ELLs with general education and content area teachers who have received training in sheltering content (Start with teachers who have fully completed all four (4) categories of SEI training and then those who have completed some of them).



Quarterly monitoring plan to include name of individuals responsible and how they will ensure

1) delivery of sufficient ESL/ELD instruction hours; 2) sheltering of content; 3)adequate ESL lesson plans; 4) formation of instructional groupings based on English proficiency levels, and

5) tracking completion of the four (4) SEI categories, per school schools across the district.

Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide status updates on the following by September 2,

2011.

1) A spreadsheet that shows teachers per school and the SEI category trainings they have completed with dates of completion. If the district did not meet the deadline to have teachers trained in all SEI categories, please submit a revised two-year SEI training plan with expected completion date including an itemized biannual timeline and specifying how many teachers are expected to be trained and what categories are expected to be completed for each six (6) month period). Submit an update by September 2, 2011.

2) Spreadsheet with sample schedule of ELLs (e.g. one per grade level, per school) showing that

ELLs are receiving adequate hours of ESL instruction for their English proficiency level.

Submit an update by September 2, 2011.

3) Placement samples of ELLs with general education and content area teachers who have completed all the SEI training categories. Include 3-5 students per grade, per school. Submit an update by September 2, 2011.

4) Five (5) to ten (10) sample ESL lesson plans per ESL teacher, per school. Submit an update by

September 2, 2011.

5)

ESL curriculum training agenda along with attendee’s list, and name of the trainer(s) and credentials. Also send make-up date for teachers who were unable to attend the first training.

6) District findings of quarterly monitoring activity. Include names of staff responsible for monitoring, summary of findings, and actions taken to remedy any area of non-compliance.

Progress Report Due Date(s): September 2, 2011

58




Criterion & Topic: ELE 6 Program Exit and Readiness Rating: Partially Implemented

Department CPR Finding: The district submitted exit procedures for students in grades K-2 and 3-

12.

Exit criteria for students in grade K-2 are not based on multiple measures. In addition, the district policy concerning students in grades K-1 is inappropriate: “LEP K-1 students will not be redesignated as FLEP even if they meet state standards.” A uniform policy such as this should not be applied to all students.

Exit criteria for students in grade 3-12 imply that students may not be re-designated until spring MEPA scores are reported. This is not appropriate.

The district should re-designate students in all grades when they are deemed English proficient and when they can participate meaningfully in all aspects of the district’s general education program without the use of adapted or simplified English materials.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: Exit criteria for all students in grades 1-12 will be based on the following criteria: Report card grades, MEPA/MELA-O results, Academic assessments,

MCAS results (when applicable) and the teacher feedback. ALL students may be re-designated at any time. The ELL teachers will be told that any student re-designated (LEP-FLEP) after the submission of the October 1 census of that school year, must still take the SPRING MEPA/MELA-O of the current school year even though they are in a general education program. Training will be provided to the ELL teachers on this procedure.


Implementation: ELL Coordinator and ELL

Teachers.



Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action : Re-designation documentation will be placed in the students’ ELL folder and changed in X2.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: The ELL Coordinator will check quarterly with the

ELL teachers for any changes made and check folders for documentation .



Criterion: ELE 6 Program Exit and

Readiness




The district submitted a correction action plan to address this criterion which included training ESL teachers in the revised district policy of exiting ELLs from an ELE program. The district did not address the revision of forms to go along with the revised policy and dissemination of information about the changes. The Department questions how the district plans to inform all staff, not just ESL teachers or the ESL Coordinator, of the revised district policy. Also, the district needs to include in the revised documents a statement explaining that even after ELLs have been re-designated, they must be provided with appropriate support in order for them to be successful in the transition from LEP to

FLEP.

59


Please provide the following:



Evidence of staff training



Inform all staff of the revised district policy on exiting/re-designation criteria.



Revise all forms and start using them as ELLs are ready to exit the program. (Note that the district must keep copies of forms on file to submit upon request by the Department).


Submit evidence of the following by June 30, 2011 :

1) Date and names of staff trained of exiting/re-designation criteria, include an agenda, examples of training materials and signed attendance sheet(s).

2) Copy of memo sent to staff to inform them of the revised exiting/re-designation criteria (e.g., include school principals, general area and content area teachers, and other staff who work with ELLs)





Criterion & Topic: ELE 7 Parent Involvement Rating: Partially Implemented

Department CPR Finding: Student record review indicated that there was inconsistent translation of documents, including report cards, home language surveys, and progress reports. It is not clear how the district determines when a parent needs documents translated or requires an interpreter.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: The HLS is translated into Spanish, Creole and

Portuguese. At registration, the parent will fill out the HLS and write the language that they prefer school communications. This will be sent in the Registration folder that is sent to all schools Report cards and Progress Reports will be translated into Creole, Portuguese and Spanish as stated in X2.

Training will be provided to all Principals.


Implementation: PIC staff, Principals and persons that input student enrollment into X2 and Asst.

Superintendent


Corrective Action Activity : February 1, 2011.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: This information will be placed in X2 with registration information.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures : Data in X2 will be checked quarterly by the ELL

Coordinator and the Assistant Superintendent.



Criterion: ELE 7 Parent Involvement Status of Corrective Action:




60

Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Everett Public Schools will provide the results of a record review from a sample of ELL students at each grade level (minimum sample of three records for each grade level) for evidence of a translated Home Language Survey (HLS) and for consistently translated documents in the language indicated by the HLS.

Please indicate the total number of records reviewed and the number of records that contained translated HLS and evidence of consistently translated documents and/or the use of interpreters as warranted. If continued noncompliance was identified, please indicate the specific corrective action taken to address the noncompliance.





Please provide the results of the student record review by June 30, 2011.






Criterion & Topic: ELE 8 Declining Entry to a

Program


Department CPR Finding: The district uses a separate letter to ask parents if they want their child to attend an SEI program or if they want to opt out of programming, rather than simply informing parents of the right to opt-out in the notification letter. This letter was not translated into other languages. It is not clear from the documentation whether parents are given this document at registration or if they are mailed to the parent after the student is assessed and identified as Limited English Proficient (LEP).

Student records indicated that the monitoring and follow-up of opted-out students was unclear; in some cases students were monitored using district FLEP procedures.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: This letter will be given and explained at registration.

It is translated and will be explained in the native language if necessary. Opted-out students will be monitored using the district opted-out follow form.


Implementation: PIC staff, ELL teachers and ELL

Coordinator.



Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Documents are placed in the ELL folder .

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: ELL teachers will check folders for this document upon enrollment and I will quarterly check folders. I will also check quarterly for the opt-out follow-up forms.

61



Criterion: ELE 8 Declining Entry to a

Program




The district’s proposed corrective action does not fully address the finding of non-compliance for this criterion; for example, has the district discontinued the use of a separate opt-out letter? Has the district developed a set of policies distinct from FLEP procedures to address the needs of opted-out students? Additionally, are parents choosing to opt-out because their neighborhood schools may not have ELL programming? If many parents are choosing to opt-out because their neighborhood schools do not have ELL programming and lack transportation to attend another school, the district must consider whether the lack of sufficient programming in all schools denies a student’s right to English language support consistent with state and federal law. See additional comments under ELE 10.

Department Order of Corrective Action: The district must provide a more detailed description of how parents are informed of the opting-out process and a description of how opted-out students are supported.

Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide a more detailed description of how parents are informed of the opting-out process at registration. Provide a detailed description of how opted-out students are supported in the general classroom (e.g., how much training has the teacher received?

Does the student have any access to direct language instruction from an ESL-certified teacher?).

Provide examples of the follow-up forms used to monitor the progress of opted-out students. Provide these elements by June 30, 2011.





Criterion & Topic: ELE 9 Instructional Grouping Rating: Partially Implemented

Department CPR Finding: The district’s grouping of students does not ensure that LEP students receive effective content instruction at appropriate academic levels and does not ensure that ESL/ELD instruction is at the appropriate proficiency level and based on the English Language Proficiency

Benchmarks and Outcomes. See ELE 5.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: See Narrative description ELE 5.


Implementation: Principals, ELL teachers,

Principals and ELL Coordinator.



Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Student schedules will be reviewed by ELL teachers to check that students receive content instruction at their grade levels and ESL by proficiency levels.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: The building principals will check lesson plans of content teachers. The ELL Coordinator will check lesson plans of ELL teachers quarterly.

62



Criterion: ELE 9 Instructional

Grouping




The district’s proposed corrective action does not fully remedy the non-compliance finding for this criterion. The district did not specify how the high school is now able to offer ESL/ELD instruction to groups of high school ELLs at the appropriate English proficiency level, and how the hiring of another

ESL instructor will help the district remedy a similar instructional situation at the Whittier school.

Department Order of Corrective Action: See also ELE 5.

Please provide evidence of the following:

Sample schedules of ELLs in high school, the Whittier school, as well as other schools in the district as specified below.

Required Elements of Progress Report(s): See also ELE 5.

Please submit the following by : June 30, 2011

1) At least five (5) ELLs sample schedules that show the students English proficiency level and hours of ESL instruction from the high school the Whittier school.

2) Similarly, submit at least three (3) ELL sample schedules that show the students English proficiency level and hours of ESL instruction from the schools in the district.





Criterion & Topic: ELE 10 Parent Notification Rating: Partially Implemented

Department CPR Finding: The district’s notification letter did not contain the following elements: how the district’s program would help the child learn English; the specific exit requirements; and the parents’ right to apply for a waiver or to decline to enroll their child in the program. Student records indicated that the district does not send annual notification letters to parents, including parents of students who are opted-out, that informs parents of their students’ progress in acquiring English language fluency.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: The district will be sending ELL progress reports home to parents informing them of their students’ progress acquiring English . These will be sent after the second quarter and at the end of the academic year. I will also be sending a notification letter to parents giving the child’s score on MEPA, explaining the ESL instruction they will be receiving and the exit procedure from the program. This will be done after the new MEPA results are received.


Implementation: ELL Coordinator and ELL


Corrective Action Activity: February 1, 2011 teachers.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: This document will be placed in the students’

ELL folder.

63

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: The ELL Coordinator will quarterly check the ELL folders.



Criterion: ELE 10 Parent Notification Status of Corrective Action:


Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval: The district’s proposed corrective action does not fully remedy the finding of non-compliance for this criterion, as it does not describe how the district has addressed the missing elements from the initial parent notification letter.

Department Order of Corrective Action: If the initial parent notification has not been corrected to address the findings for ELE 10, please revise the letter to include all required elements.


Provide the district’s initial parent notification letter, annual notification letter, and a template example of the progress report by June 30, 2011.

Everett Public Schools will provide the results of a record review from a sample of ELL students and for opted-out students at each grade level (minimum sample of three records for each grade level if possible) for evidence of a translated progress report for both current ELL students and opted-out students and for the initial parent notification letter. In both cases, documents should be translated as indicated by the parents’ HLS.

Please indicate the total number of records reviewed and the number of records that contained the initial parent notification letter and progress reports for both opted-out and current ELL students. If continued noncompliance was identified, please indicate the specific corrective action taken to address the noncompliance.






Please note that when conducting internal monitoring the district must maintain the following documentation and make it available to the Department upon request: a) List of student names and grade level for the record review; b) Date of the review; c) Name of person(s) who conducted the review, their roles(s), and their signature(s).





Criterion & Topic: ELE 11 Equal Access to Academic

Programs and Services


64

Department CPR Finding: Staff interviews indicated that students enrolled in the district’s English

Language Education program do not have access to support services. Students who were referred to special education by the district’s student support team were not always evaluated. See CR 18.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: To address the possible lack of access to support services, each school will convene their Affirmative Action Committee who will assess the points of access and determine which may be breaking down. Each Affirmative Action Committee will pay particular attention to student access by gender, race/ethnicity, LEP status and 504 Plan and special education status, ensuring that those students have access to Title 1 services, guidance services and access to other academic support services such as 504 plans and special education services.


Implementation: Building Principals and Guidance



Counselors, Affirmative Action Committee.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Reports of the Affirmative Action Committee reflecting review of student data regarding Title 1 participation, Guidance office visits, students referred through the RTI process for 504 plans and special education services and actions taken to ensure equitable access.




Criterion: ELE 11 Equal Access to

Academic Programs and Services



Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval: The district’s proposal does not specifically address the lack of access to support and special education services reported by several school personnel during the

2010 CPR for students in the ELL program. Several teaching staff members specifically stated that

LEP students could not be evaluated within their first two years of the English language support program. The rationale was to allow the students an opportunity to progress in their English language development before assessing the student to determine special education eligibility. Its suggestive that there’s an underlying assumption that the district could erroneously identify a student as disabled who is actually Limited English Proficient. If the district endeavors to ensure assessments to determine eligibility are appropriately selected and provided in a language most likely to obtain accurate information on what the student knows and can do academically, developmentally and functionally. It is quite possible that a student may be limited English proficient and eligible for special education services. In these instances, the district has an obligation to ensure the student receives special education services and an English language support program.

Department Order of Corrective Action: The district must include a set of proposed district-wide actions to address the lack of access to support services and special education services for LEP students.

Provide the set of district-wide proposals by June 30, 2011.

Regarding the Affirmative Action Committees, the district must provide the individual results from each school’s committee. Each school’s report must include data sources, method of analysis, precise and specific findings, and a set of articulated corrective activities to address the results. The district will be required to produce documentation that establishes any reported findings. Further, the corrective activities must include a timeline for completion of the activities. This progress report is due by

September 2, 2011.

Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide a set of district-wide proposed corrective actions to address the reported lack of access to support and special education services by LEP students.

Provide the individual reports of the Affirmative Action Committees as outlined above.

Progress Report Due Date(s): June 30, 2011 & September 2, 2011

65




Criterion & Topic: ELE 12 Equal Access to

Nonacademic and Extracurricular Programs


Department CPR Finding: According to interviews and documentation, the district does not provide translated information to students of all language groups regarding nonacademic and extracurricular activities.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: The district will provide information regarding academic and nonacademic and extracurricular activities in the student handbooks, which are translated into Spanish, Portuguese and Haitian Creole.


Implementation: Principals, ELL Coordinator and


Corrective Action Activity: February 1, 2011 .

Asst. Superintendent.

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Information will be translated in the student handbooks.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: Principals will check in X2 to make sure students receive the translated handbook.



Criterion: ELE 12 Equal Access to

Nonacademic and Extracurricular

Programs


Approved




Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide examples of translated information regarding nonacademic and extracurricular activities for each school level by June 30, 2011; include documents translated into Spanish, Portuguese, and Haitian Creole.





Criterion & Topic: ELE 13 Follow-up Support Rating: Partially Implemented

Department CPR Finding: According to document and student record review, the district does not have a consistent method of following up on students who are Formerly Limited English Proficient

(FLEP) or who are opted-out.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: For opted-out, see Narrative Description ELE 8. The

Monitoring Form for Reclassified Students (FLEP) will be placed in the students’ ELL folders after 2 nd quarter and at the end of the academic year. Training will be provided to ELL teachers.


Implementation: ELL teachers, ELL Coordinator



66

Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Documents will be placed in the ELL folders.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: The ELL Coordinator will check these folders quarterly.



Criterion: ELE 13 Follow-up Support Status of Corrective Action:




Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide evidence of ELL teacher trainings, including agendas, examples of training materials, and signed attendance sheets . Include a copy of both the monitoring form for FLEP students, along with a description of its use. Provide these elements by June

30, 2011.

Everett Public Schools will provide the results of a record review from a sample of Formerly Limited

English Proficient (FLEP) students and for opted-out students at each grade level (minimum sample of three records for each grade level if possible) for evidence of a monitoring form for both FLEP students and opted-out students. In both cases, documents should be translated as indicated by the parents’ home language survey results.

Please indicate the total number of records reviewed and the number of records that contained monitoring forms for both opted-out and FLEP students. If continued noncompliance was identified, please indicate the specific corrective action taken to address the noncompliance.





Please provide the results of the student record review by June 30, 2011.






Criterion & Topic: ELE 14 Licensure Requirements Rating: Partially Implemented

67

Department CPR Finding: The district’s documentation demonstrates that all of its ESL teachers and its ELL program director are appropriately licensed.

Not all teachers of LEP students have received or are engaged in the professional development described in Attachment 1 to the commissioner’s memorandum of June 15, 2004. See also ELE 5 and

ELE 15.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: See Narrative description in ELE 5 (1)


Implementation: Director of Curriculum for

Professional Development, Principals and ELL

Coordinator.



Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: A spreadsheet of all teachers in the EPS will document their completed category trainings.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures : The ELL Coordinator will work with the Director of Curriculum to keep the documentation of trainings up to date.



Criterion: ELE 14 Licensure

Requirements



Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval: See also ELE 5 and ELE 15 concerning professional development training.

Department Order of Corrective Action: See ELE 5 and ELE 15.

Required Elements of Progress Report(s): See ELE 5 and ELE 15.

Progress Report Due Date(s): See ELE 5 and ELE 15.

68




Criterion & Topic: ELE 15 Professional Development

Requirements


Department CPR Finding: The district submitted a general professional development plan for providing Category training (as described in the Commissioner’s memorandum of June 15, 2004) to teachers district-wide in all four categories between the 2006-2007 and 2010-2011 school years.

Despite this plan, very few teachers of LEP students have received or are engaged in Category training. Interviews and documentation indicate that no sheltered English immersion classrooms exist in the district as a result of limited participation in Category training. Documentation indicates that while 107 content classes enroll LEP students district-wide, two (2) staff members have been trained in

Category 2, and 34 staff members are trained in Category 1, 94 in Category 3, and 39 in Category 4.

See also ELE 5.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: See Narrative description ELE 5.


Implementation: Director of Curriculum,

Principals and ELL Coordinator.



Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Since September 1, 2010, 33 teachers have completed Category 1 training, 21 teachers have completed Category 3 training and 6 teachers have completed Category 4 training. We will be offering trainings in all 4 categories after Jan. 1, 2011.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: The ELL Coordinator will work with the Director of Curriculum to keep the documentation of trainings up to date.



Criterion: ELE 15 Professional

Development Requirements



Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval: See also ELE 5 concerning professional development training.

At the time of the site visit, it became clear that the district’s professional development plan was not yielding desired results; in fact, there were six schools in the district, listed above, whose teachers had not completed any training in the SEI categories and in other schools teachers had completed only some of the SEI trainings, but not all four (4) categories. Since the visit, the district reports having made some progress in complying with the CAP for this criterion although it appears that there are still teachers who have not completed any SEI training to date.

Department Order of Corrective Action: See ELE 5.

Required Elements of Progress Report(s): See ELE 5

Progress Report Due Date(s): See ELE 5.

69




Criterion & Topic: ELE 17 Program Evaluation Rating: Partially Implemented

Department CPR Finding: According to documentation and staff interviews, the district has made some changes to its ELL programming based on student performance on the MEPA and MCAS.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: The district will evaluate the effectiveness of the ELL program in developing the students’ English language skills. Their schedules will be changed as necessary. The MEPA and MCAS results will be used to help with changes.


Implementation: ELL teachers, Guidance and

Principals



Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Programming changes will be on-going during the school year.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: ELL teachers will file documentation of changes in the students’ ELL folder.



Criterion: ELE 17 Program Evaluation Status of Corrective Action:


Basis for Partial Approval or Disapproval: One part of the District’s evaluation activities should consist of using the English language proficiency test data of its ELE students individually and in the aggregate to determine the effectiveness of its ELE programming. Since the district has used aggregate data from the MEPA and the MCAS to determine whether LEP students are progressing, there appears to be an emerging process already in place. The program evaluation, however, is lacking in examining other possible factors that the district should consider in evaluating its program as noted in the

Department’s order of corrective action below.

Department Order of Corrective Action: In addition to the use of testing data for students individually and in the aggregate, the district should consider other measures such as LEP student graduation rates, grade retention, current level of staff professional development and licensure; instructional grouping data, currency of curriculum materials, etc.

Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Provide the detailed evaluation plan, including who is responsible for each task, and a timeline for its completion.





Criterion & Topic: ELE 18 Records of LEP Students Rating: Partially Implemented

Department CPR Finding: Student records did not consistently contain home language surveys; results of the MELA-O, MEPA, and MCAS; or information about students’ prior school experience.

Report cards, progress reports, and notifications letters were not consistently translated.

Narrative Description of Corrective Action: See Narrative Description in ELE 1, ELE 3and ELE 7.

70

Title/Role of Person(s) Responsible for

Implementation: PIC staff, Guidance Dept. and ELL

Coordinator.



Evidence of Completion of the Corrective Action: Documents will be placed in the ELL folder.

Description of Internal Monitoring Procedures: The ELL Coordinator will quarterly check folders in all schools.



Criterion: ELE 18 Records of LEP

Students





Required Elements of Progress Report(s): Everett Public Schools will provide the results of a record review from a sample of ELL students at each grade level (minimum sample of three records for each grade level) for evidence of completeness of files, including the yearly assessments or documentation of attempts to obtain the assessment results from another district; home language surveys; and information about prior schooling.

Please indicate the total number of records reviewed and the number of records that contained the yearly assessments or documentation of attempts to obtain the assessment results from another district; home language surveys; and information about prior schooling and the number that contained consistently translated documents (as indicated by X2 or the HLS). If continued noncompliance was identified, please indicate the specific corrective action taken to address the noncompliance.








71

EVERETT PUBLIC SCHOOLS Program Area: Special Education

Instructions for Completing Corrective Action Plans.

All corrective action must be fully implemented and all noncompliance corrected as soon as possible and no later than one year from the issuance of the Coordinated Program Review Final

Report to the school or district.

See SE 4 and SE 9.

.

SE 39B

SE 42 Programs for young children three and four years of age

Instructions for Completing Corrective Action Plans.

All corrective action must be fully implemented and all noncompliance corrected as soon as possible and no later than one year from the issuance of the Coordinated Program Review Final

Report to the school or district.

Instructions for Completing Corrective Action Plans.

All corrective action must be fully implemented and all noncompliance corrected as soon as possible and no later than one year from the issuance of the Coordinated Program Review Final

Report to the school or district.

Related documents

Products

Support

EVERETT PUBLIC SCHOOLS Program Area: Special Education

Instructions for Completing Corrective Action Plans.

All corrective action must be fully implemented and all noncompliance corrected as soon as possible and no later than one year from the issuance of the Coordinated Program Review Final

Report to the school or district.

See SE 4 and SE 9.

.

SE 39B

SE 42 Programs for young children three and four years of age

Instructions for Completing Corrective Action Plans.

All corrective action must be fully implemented and all noncompliance corrected as soon as possible and no later than one year from the issuance of the Coordinated Program Review Final

Report to the school or district.

Instructions for Completing Corrective Action Plans.

All corrective action must be fully implemented and all noncompliance corrected as soon as possible and no later than one year from the issuance of the Coordinated Program Review Final

Report to the school or district.

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib