The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department of Education
350 Main Street, Malden, Massachusetts 02148-5023
Telephone: (781) 338-3700
TTY: N.E.T. Relay 1-800-439-2370
August 1, 2006
James L. Picone, Ph.D.
Superintendent
Burlington Public Schools
123 Cambridge Street
Burlington, MA 01803
Re: Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
Dear Superintendent Picone:
Enclosed is the Department of Education's Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report (MidCycle Report). This report contains findings based on onsite monitoring conducted to verify the
implementation and effectiveness of corrective action approved by the Department to address
findings of noncompliance included in the Burlington Public Schools Coordinated Program
Review Report issued on July 31, 2003. The Mid-cycle Report also contains findings based on
onsite monitoring of special education compliance criteria that have been newly created or
substantially changed in response to IDEA 2004.
As you know, another component of the Department’s Mid-cycle Review is the review of your
school district or charter school's self-assessment in the area of English learner education (ELE).
(In the remainder of this letter, please read “district” as meaning “school district or charter
school.”) The purpose of this review is to determine whether your district is implementing the
significant changes in M.G.L. Chapter 71A, governing the education of limited English proficient
students, that were adopted by voters by means of Question 2 in 2002. The Department has
reviewed your district’s ELE self-assessment documents and, based solely on that selfassessment, is providing you in this report with comments on your ELE program and, where
necessary, corrective action to be implemented. Your district is urged to request technical
assistance in relation to any of these comments or prescribed corrective action. To secure
assistance, you may consult with your Mid-cycle Review Chairperson. You may also consult
with staff in the Department’s Office of Language Acquisition and Achievement at 781-338-3534
and obtain additional ELE guidance documents through the Department’s web site at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/ .
While the Department of Education found your district to have resolved certain noncompliance
issues, others were partially corrected or not addressed at all, or the Department’s onsite team
identified new issues of noncompliance, either noncompliance with special education criteria
added or substantially changed in response to IDEA 2004, noncompliance with ELE criteria, or
other new noncompliance. Where the district has failed to implement its approved Corrective
Action Plan, the Department views these findings to be serious.
1
In all instances where noncompliance has been found, the Department has prescribed corrective
action for the district that must be implemented without delay. You will find these requirements
for corrective action included in the attached report, along with requirements for progress
reporting. Please provide the Department with your written assurance that all of the Department's
requirements for corrective action will be implemented by your school district within the
timelines specified. Your statement of assurance must be submitted to the Mid-cycle Review
Chairperson by September 6, 2006.
Your staff's cooperation throughout these follow-up monitoring activities is appreciated. Should
you like clarification of any part of our report, please do not hesitate to contact the Mid-cycle
Review Chairperson at 781-338-3768.
Sincerely,
Lindsey McGovern, Mid-cycle Review Chairperson
Program Quality Assurance Services
Darlene A. Lynch, Director
Program Quality Assurance Services
c:
David P. Driscoll, Commissioner of Education
Thomas F. Murphy, Jr., Chairperson
Cathleen Estep, Ph.D., District Program Review Follow-up Coordinator
Encl.: Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
Mid-cycle Cover Letter 2006.doc
Rev. 6/5/06
2
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
MID-CYCLE COORDINATED PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT
BURLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ONSITE VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
AND/OR IDENTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL NONCOMPLIANCE REQUIRING CORRECTIVE ACTION
Date of Coordinated Program Review (CPR): May 5-9, 2003
Date of Coordinated Program Review Corrective Action Plan Approval: November 21, 2003
Dates of Corrective Action Plan Progress Reports: March 29, 2004; July 29, 2004; November 15, 2004; March 28, 2005; July 20, 2005; December 12, 2005
Dates of this Mid-cycle Review Onsite Visit: April 5-6, 2006
Date of this Report: August 1, 2006
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS REPORT IS IN SEVERAL SECTIONS.
Burlington Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 1, 2006
Page 1 of 25
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Special
Education
Criteria
Originally
Cited in CPR
Report and
Monitored in
Mid-cycle
MOA 4
Disproportionality
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
to be
Implemented
and Effective
Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective

Yes
Corrective
Action
Determined
Not to have
been
Implemented
or Not to have
been Effective
Or
New Issues
Identified

Basis of Determination
that Implementation of
Corrective Action was
Incomplete or
Ineffective Or
Basis of Finding of New
Noncompliance
In response to the finding in the
CPR report, the district has
developed a subcommittee that
convenes biannually to review
suspension data for
disproportionality based on gender.
The subcommittee consists of
building leaders and includes
representation from the special
education department. In the
event disproportionality is found,
the district reviews cases to ensure
that disciplinary actions have been
made for educationally valid
reasons. The subcommittee issues
a report detailing its findings
subsequent to its review.
Burlington Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 1, 2006
Page 2 of 25
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
SE 7
Transfer of
parental rights
at age of
majority
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
to be
Implemented
and Effective
Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective
Student Records
At age seventeen, the district
informs students of the right at the
age of majority to make all
decisions regarding to their special
education programs and of various
options available to them. The
district documents this discussion
in students’ IEPs.

Partial
Documentation
Corrective
Action
Determined
Not to have
been
Implemented
or Not to have
been Effective
Or
New Issues
Identified

Partial
The district documents a student’s
choice regarding transfer of rights
in written form and maintains it in
their special education file.
Basis of Determination
that Implementation of
Corrective Action was
Incomplete or
Ineffective Or
Basis of Finding of New
Noncompliance
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
If a student chooses to
share decision making with
the parent or to delegate
decision making to the
parent or other willing
adult, these decisions must
be made in the presence of
the IEP Team. The
district’s current practice
entails the mailing of forms
to the district with the
student’s decision.
Please revise the district’s
procedures regarding transfer of
rights such that choices regarding
transfer of rights are made in the
presence of the IEP Team.
Provide the revised transfer of
rights procedures to the
Department.
The district’s revised forms
for documenting transfer of
rights include all options
afforded to students turning
18 under 603 CMR
28.07(5) (shared decisionmaking, independent
decision making, or
delegated decision making)
but do not include the
student’s choice to share
decision making with
another willing adult in
addition to a parent. The
Department’s September
19, 2005 review of the
Burlington Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 1, 2006
Page 3 of 25
Please also add to the form used
by the district that the student may
delegate authority to or share
authority with another willing
adult.
Please provide these materials to
the Department by October 31,
2006.
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
to be
Implemented
and Effective
Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective

Corrective
Action
Determined
Not to have
been
Implemented
or Not to have
been Effective
Or
New Issues
Identified

Basis of Determination
that Implementation of
Corrective Action was
Incomplete or
Ineffective Or
Basis of Finding of New
Noncompliance
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
district’s progress reports
indicated that it should
include this language on its
age of majority forms.
SE 9
Timeline for
determination
of eligibility
and provision
of
documentation
to parent
Yes
SE 9A
Elements of
eligibility
determination
Yes
Student
Records
Interviews
Documentation
Student
Records
Interviews
Documentation
SE 18A
IEP
Partial
Student
Records
Within 45 school working days
after receipt of parental consent, the
district determines whether a
student is eligible for special
education and provides the IEP,
written notice and proposed
placement or written explanation of
finding of no eligibility to the
parent.
If a student is found not eligible for
special education, the district
considers the student’s eligibility
for accommodations under Section
504 as well as whether the student
would benefit from additional
instructional support services in the
general education curriculum. At
the high school level, the district
has expanded its tutoring and
inclusion programs to enable more
students to benefit from
instructional support services.
The district has reorganized its
Department of Pupil Services, a
Partial
Student records indicate
that IEP goals are not
Burlington Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 1, 2006
Page 4 of 25
Please train special education
liaisons at the high school level
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
to be
Implemented
and Effective
Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective

development
and content
Interviews
Documentation
SE 18B
Determination
of placement;
provision of
IEP to parent
Yes
SE 20
Least
restrictive
program
selected
Yes
Student
Records
Interviews
Documentation
Student
Records
Interviews
Corrective
Action
Determined
Not to have
been
Implemented
or Not to have
been Effective
Or
New Issues
Identified

change that has facilitated oversight
and supervision of liaisons, who are
responsible for writing IEPs, as
well as communication between
Team chairpersons and the Director
of Pupil Services. In addition, the
district has made IEP development
part of the evaluation process for
special education staff. IEPs for
students at all levels include
specially designed instruction
and/or related services necessary
for students to access the general
curriculum. IEPs at the middle and
elementary school level contain
measurable goals.
Student records indicate that the
district provides the IEP, written
notice and determination of
placement to the parent
immediately following the
development of the IEP.
Basis of Determination
that Implementation of
Corrective Action was
Incomplete or
Ineffective Or
Basis of Finding of New
Noncompliance
always measurable for
students at the high school
level.
Student records indicate that
nonparticipation justifications
explain why the student’s removal
from the general education
classroom is necessary for the
student’s educational program as
Burlington Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 1, 2006
Page 5 of 25
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
regarding writing annual,
measurable goals. Please provide
materials used at this training, a
training agenda and sign in sheet,
and copies of goals from 5 IEPs
written after the completion of this
training.
Please provide these materials to
the Department by October 31,
2006.
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
to be
Implemented
and Effective
Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective

SE 21
School day and
school year
requirements
Yes
SE 22
IEP
implementatio
n and
availability
Yes
SE 24
Notice to
parent
Yes
SE 28
Yes
Student
Records
Interviews
Interviews
Documentation
Student
Records
Documentation
Student
Corrective
Action
Determined
Not to have
been
Implemented
or Not to have
been Effective
Or
New Issues
Identified

Basis of Determination
that Implementation of
Corrective Action was
Incomplete or
Ineffective Or
Basis of Finding of New
Noncompliance
well as why the student’s could not
accomplish the IEP goals in a less
restrictive setting with
supplementary aids and services.
IEP Teams routinely consider the
need for extended school year
programming if a student is likely
to demonstrate substantial
regression.
Interviews indicate that the district
reviews its course scheduling to
ensure that students with
disabilities are distributed evenly
throughout the general education
courses to enable teachers to
implement their IEP
accommodations effectively.
The district responds to referrals of
students for special education
evaluations within five school days
by providing written notice and
consent to evaluate. The district
also provides written notice to
parents for all other district actions,
as required. Notices are
individualized to the student and
comply with the content
requirements of 34 CFR 300.503.
See SE 18B.
Burlington Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 1, 2006
Page 6 of 25
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Parent
provided
IEP/N2 with
notice of
procedural
safeguards and
parents’ rights
SE 29
Communicatio
ns in English
and in primary
language of
home
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
to be
Implemented
and Effective
Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective

Corrective
Action
Determined
Not to have
been
Implemented
or Not to have
been Effective
Or
New Issues
Identified

Basis of Determination
that Implementation of
Corrective Action was
Incomplete or
Ineffective Or
Basis of Finding of New
Noncompliance
Records
Documentation
Yes
Student
Records
Interviews
Documentation
SE 32
Parent
advisory
council for
special
education
Yes
SE 33
Involvement in
the general
curriculum
Yes
Interviews
Documentation
Student
Records
The district accesses translation
services through Catholic Charities;
its need for such services has been
limited, although it provided
samples to the Department of a
translated Team meeting invitation
and an invoice submitted for the
use of an interpreter as part of its
progress reporting.
The district’s parent advisory
council (PAC) has established bylaws and engages in ongoing
collaboration with the district
regarding matters related to the
education of students with
disabilities.
See SE 8.
Interviews
Burlington Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 1, 2006
Page 7 of 25
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
to be
Implemented
and Effective
Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective

Corrective
Action
Determined
Not to have
been
Implemented
or Not to have
been Effective
Or
New Issues
Identified

Basis of Determination
that Implementation of
Corrective Action was
Incomplete or
Ineffective Or
Basis of Finding of New
Noncompliance
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
Partial
The district’s procedures
state that “In most
instances, during
disciplinary exclusions
exceeding ten (10) school
days in a single school
year, the student shall have
the right to receive services
identified as necessary by
the Team to provide
him/her with a free
appropriate public
education during the period
of exclusion (emphasis
added).” Both IDEA 2004
and Section 504 require the
provision of FAPE to
students excluded from
school for more than 10
school days; accordingly,
the district should remove
the qualifying language “in
Please revise the section of the
student code of conduct regarding
discipline of students with
disabilities as described and
provide a copy of the revised code
of conduct to the Department
Documentation
SE 41
Age span
requirements
Yes
SE 45
Procedures for
suspension up
to 10 days and
after 10 days:
general
requirements
Partial
Interviews
Documentation
Student
Records
Interviews
Documentation
The ages of the students in the
district’s instructional groupings
comport with state requirements.
The district has an approved age
span waiver on file at the
Department.
Interviews and documentation
indicate that the district
consistently provides tutoring
services to students suspended
beyond 10 days. The frequency
and duration of these services are
individually determined and enable
students to progress in the general
education curriculum during the
period of suspension.
Interviews and student records
indicate that the district follows
appropriate procedures when a
student with a disability is
suspended for more than 10 days,
thus constituting a change in
placement.
The district has revised its
procedures for disciplining students
subsequent to IDEA 2004.
Burlington Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 1, 2006
Page 8 of 25
Please provide these materials to
the Department by October 31,
2006
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
to be
Implemented
and Effective
Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective

Corrective
Action
Determined
Not to have
been
Implemented
or Not to have
been Effective
Or
New Issues
Identified

Basis of Determination
that Implementation of
Corrective Action was
Incomplete or
Ineffective Or
Basis of Finding of New
Noncompliance
most instances” from this
section of its code of
conduct.
SE 50
(now MOA 18)
SE 54
Professional
Development
Yes
Interviews
Documentation
Yes
Interviews
Documentation
The high school has increased the
instructional support services
offered to students in the general
education curriculum by expanding
its tutorial program. See also SE
9.
Educational services provided to
students at home or in the hospital
are based on individual need rather
than on a predetermined number of
hours.
The district offers regular
professional development on a
variety of topics related to special
education including training for
transportation providers and an
annual workshop with the special
education parent advisory council.
Burlington Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 1, 2006
Page 9 of 25
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Student
Records
Student records indicate that IEP
Teams annually consider the
transition needs of students ages
15 and above and document these
needs in their IEPs. The district
has also begun to use the
transition planning chart. The
district invites students to IEP
Team meetings at which it
discusses transition services; this
planning is based on the student’s
preferences and interests and takes
into account a range of services
that may benefit the student.
Student records, interviews and
documentation indicate that
required Team members,
including special education and
regular education teachers,
consistently attend IEP Team
meetings at all school levels. The
district has procedures to enable
parents to give a general education
teacher permission to leave the
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Special
Education
Criteria
created or
revised in
response to
IDEA-2004
SE 6
Determination
of Transition
Services
Yes
SE 8
IEP Team
composition
and attendance
Yes
Interviews
Documentation
Student
Records
Interviews
Documentation
Criterion
Determined
to be
Partially
Implemented
or Not
Implemented

Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
Burlington Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 1, 2006
Page 10 of 25
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
SE 12
Frequency of
re-evaluation
Partial
Student
Records
Interviews
Team meeting early due to
scheduling conflicts.
The district conducts
reevaluations of students every
three years and prior to finding a
student no longer eligible for
special education services.
Documentation
SE 13
Progress
Reports and
content
Yes
Student
Records
Interviews
Documentation
Partial
The written notice (N1 form)
provided to the parent with
the consent to evaluate form
includes language stating
that the district will attempt
to complete the student’s
evaluation within 30 school
days. State law requires the
district to complete the
evaluation within this
timeframe See (603 CMR
28.05(1)).
Parents of students with
disabilities receive written IEP
progress reports as frequently as
required by federal law. The
district has developed an ongoing
system of administrative oversight
facilitated by the Evaluation
Administrator to ensure that
progress reports contain content
required by federal regulation
including specific information
regarding the student’s progress
toward the IEP goals and whether
the student is expected to achieve
the goal by the end of the IEP
period.
Burlington Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 1, 2006
Page 11 of 25
Please revise the written notice
regarding evaluation provided
with to parents with the consent to
evaluate forms such that the
information regarding timelines is
consistent with state law.
Please provide these materials to
the Department by October 31,
2006.
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Student
Records
Student records indicate that the
district conducts most annual
reviews within the anniversary date
of students’ IEPs. The district uses
an electronic database to monitor
IEP annual review dates; this
database can be sorted by liaison
and school.
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Partial
SE 14
Review and
revision of
IEPs
Interviews
Documentation
Criterion
Determined
to be
Partially
Implemented
or Not
Implemented

Partial
Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Student records indicate that
at times, the district uses IEP
amendments to extend IEPs
or to change students’
placements. These are
inappropriate uses of IEP
amendments and violate
federal requirements.
Please train all Team chairpersons
regarding the appropriate use of
IEP amendments consistent with
federal requirements. Include in
this training:
1) The purpose of IEP
amendments and ways in
which Team chairpersons
may amend IEPs
pursuant to IDEA 2004;
2) The requirement to
review and revise all
IEPs at least annually
(and therefore not to use
amendments to extend
expired IEPs until
students’ graduation, for
example);and
3) The requirement to issue
a new determination of
placement, not an
amendment form, to the
parent upon a student’s
change of placement.
Please provide attendance sheets
and training materials to the
Department.
Please provide these materials to
the Department by October 31,
2006.
Burlington Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 1, 2006
Page 12 of 25
SE 25B
Resolution of
disputes
SE 30
Notice of
procedural
safeguards
Interviews
Yes
Yes
Documentation
Interviews
The district’s notice of procedural
safeguard contains all elements
included in the Massachusetts
Interim Notice of Procedural
Safeguards; it issues this notice to
parents of special education
students at the beginning of the
year as well at other required
junctures in the special education
process.
The district has revised its
procedures for disciplining students
with disabilities subsequent to
IDEA 2004.
Documentation
See also SE 45.
Student
Records
Interviews
Documentation
SE 46
Procedures for
suspension of
students with
disabilities
more than 10
days
Partial
The district has in place appropriate
procedures for dispute resolution.
Student
Records
Partial
The district’s code of
conduct states, “ if a student
with a disability [commits a
drug or weapon-related
offense or causes serious
bodily injury], the District
may place the student in an
interim alternative
educational setting (IAES)
for up to forty-five (45)
school days.” The district
should specify that the
entitlement to place
unilaterally a student into an
IAES applies only to
students on IEPs.
Burlington Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 1, 2006
Page 13 of 25
Please revise the section of the
student code of conduct regarding
discipline of students with
disabilities as described and
provide a copy of the revised code
of conduct to the Department.
Please provide these materials to
the Department by October 31,
2006.
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Civil Rights
(MOA) and
Other General
Education
Requirements
MOA 1
Identification
of LEP
students
MOA 2
Program
modifications
and support
for LEP
students
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
to be
Implemented
and Effective

Yes
Method(s)
of
Verification
Interviews
Documentation
Partial
Interviews
Documentation
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective
Corrective
Action
Determined
Not to have
been
Implemented
or Not to
have been
Effective
Or
New Issues
Identified

The district administers a home
language survey to all incoming
students upon registration and
assesses students identified as
nonnative speakers of English
using appropriate assessments
(IPT –O, LAS R/W) administered
by ELE program staff.
The district states that it offers
program modifications and support
services to serve limited English
proficient students. The district’s
ELE program comports with
M.G.L. Ch. 71A and consists of
sheltered English immersion and
English language development
instruction. Limited English
proficient students may access
additional support services through
Title I, reading specialists, tutoring
services, and Burlington Evening
Academy.
Partial
Basis of Determination
that Implementation of
Corrective Action was
Incomplete or
Ineffective
Or
Basis of Finding of New
Noncompliance
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Requirements
See ELE 11, ELE 12.
Please provide these materials to
the Department by October 31,
2006.
Burlington Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 1, 2006
Page 14 of 25
MOA 3
Access to a full
range of
education
programs
MOA 7
Information to
be translated
into languages
other than
English
Partial
Yes
MOA 9
Hiring and
employment
practices of
prospective
employers of
students
Yes
MOA 10A
Student
Handbooks
and Codes of
Conduct
Partial
Documentation
See ELE 11, ELE 12.
Interviews
The district has contracted with
Catholic Charities to arrange for
the translation of notices and forms
into the high incidence languages
in the district. These forms include
codes of conduct, medical forms,
ELE parent notification letters,
waivers and exit letters, and other
school announcements.
Documentation
Documentation
Interviews
Documentation
Partial
See ELE 11, ELE 12.
Please provide these materials to
the Department by October 31,
2006.
Partial
Student handbooks from the
Marshall Simonds Middle
School, the Pine Glen
School and the Memorial
School do not contain the
revised statement of
nondiscrimination.
The district must reference GL
Ch. 76 Sec. 5 in the
nondiscrimination statement for
the Marshall Simonds Middle and
Pine Glen Schools.
Recently, the district purchased a
translation software program that
will be given to guidance
counselors, ELD teachers and
secretaries to enable the provision
of additional notices and general
announcements in translation, as
needed.
The district has procedures in place
to ensure that that prospective
employers include information
regarding nondiscrimination in all
job postings or to sign a
nondiscrimination statement that
the district affixes to the posting
before displaying it.
In previous CPR progress reports,
the district submitted a statement
of nondiscrimination that it
indicated would be included its
student handbooks. This statement
fulfilled the requirements of this
criterion and appears in the
handbooks for Burlington High
School, the Francis Wyman
Elementary School, and the Fox
The discrimination
statements in handbooks
Burlington Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 1, 2006
Page 15 of 25
Please revise the disciplinary
procedures for the Marshall
Simonds Middle School to
comply with IDEA 2004.
Hills Elementary School.
from the Pine Glen School
and the Marshal Simonds
Middle School reference
Chapter 622 instead of GL
Ch.76, Section 5, as required
by this criterion.
See also SE 45, SE 46, above.
The provisions for
disciplining students with
disabilities published in the
student handbook for the
Marshall Simonds Middle
School do not comport with
IDEA 2004.
MOA 11A
Grievance
Procedures
Partial
Documentation
The district has published
grievance procedures for resolving
complaints of discrimination and
harassment. These procedures
differ across school levels and
between schools within each level.
The Wyman Elementary and
Marshall Simonds Middle Schools
have procedures for the
investigation and prompt resolution
of complaints regarding
discrimination and harassment.
The procedures also ensure due
process during these proceedings.
Partial
The district’s revised
procedures for disciplining
students with disabilities
pursuant to IDEA 2004
require additional revision
as described above (see SE
45, SE 46).
The student handbooks at
Burlington High School,
Pine Glen Elementary
School, Memorial
Elementary School and Fox
Hill Elementary School
emphasize the districts’
commitment to a learning
environment free from
harassment and
discrimination. However,
they do not contain specific
grievance procedures for
students and employees to
report allegations of
harassment or discrimination
that include the steps the
district will take to intake
and investigate complaints,
ensure due process and
resolve complaints equitably
Burlington Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 1, 2006
Page 16 of 25
As noted, the district has revised
its disciplinary procedures for
students with disabilities pursuant
to IDEA 2004. These procedures
require additional revision as
described above (see SE 45, SE
46). Upon revision, the district
should provide these procedures
to the Department for approval.
The district should also provide a
plan for distributing the revised
procedures to all parents upon
receipt of the Department’s
approval.
Please provide these materials to
the Department by October 31,
2006.
To complete this corrective
action, the district may prepare an
insert for circulation and
subsequent publication in the
student handbooks listed at the
left. The revised procedures
should include the elements
described. State law regulates
the content only for handbooks
prepared for students in grades 912. Accordingly, the district may
also choose another method to
disseminate and post this
information, so that it is available
to students, staff and parents.
Please provide a description of the
corrective action taken by the
district and any supplementary
materials to the Department by
October 31, 2006.
and promptly. Further, the
name and contact
information of the district
administrator responsible for
facilitating this process was
not available.
MOA 12A
Annual
notification
concerning
nondiscrimina
tion
Partial
Documentation
The district’s handbooks
inconsistently notify parents,
students and staff regarding
notification concerning the Title IX
and Section 504 Coordinators.
Partial
The Pine Glen Handbook
does not contain the names
of the Title IX, and Section
504 Coordinators.
Fox Hill, Memorial, and
Wyman Elementary Schools
state that the Director of
Pupil Personnel Services is
in charge of “compliance
issues regarding education”
but do not name this
administrator as the 504 or
Title IX Coordinator.
Moreover, the handbooks do
not include a contact
telephone number for this
administrator/coordinator.
The Marshall Simonds
Middle School does not
include the name of a Title
IX or Section 504
Coordinator.
The Pine Glen Elementary
School Handbook
appropriately identifies the
Director of Pupil Services as
the Title IX and Section 504
coordinator and provides a
phone number but does not
include an address as
Burlington Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 1, 2006
Page 17 of 25
The district must ensure that
parents, students and staff are
informed of a district Section 504
and Title IX coordinator(s) and
receive complete contact
information for this person(s),
including name(s), office
address(es) and phone number(s).
As described in MOA 11, above,
the district may prepare an insert
for circulation and subsequent
publication in its student
handbooks or may publish this
information in the high school
handbook and send a notice to
parents of elementary and middle
school students in the district
containing this information.
Please provide a description of the
corrective action taken by the
district and any supplementary
materials to the Department by
October 31, 2006.
required by this criterion.
However, another, newer
section of this handbook
omits the Director of Pupil
Services’ phone number.
The Memorial Elementary
School lists the incorrect
phone number for the
Director of Pupil Services.
Interviews
MOA 13
Availability of
information to
prospective
occupational
& vocational
students
Yes
MOA 14
Counseling
Materials free
from bias and
stereotype
MOA 16
Notice to
students about
to leave school
without a
diploma
Yes
Yes
Documentation
MOA 17A
Use of physical
restraint on
any student
Yes
Interviews
Documentation
Interviews
The district has developed a plan to
ensure that students are provided
with information regarding
occupational and vocational
opportunities in translation, as
needed. The district states that it
will use the results of the home
language survey to translate this
information to students by
contracting with Catholic Charities
or by using its recently purchased
translation software program,
which has been given to school
personnel including guidance
counselors.
See MOA 13.
Documentation
Documentation
The district’s revised protocol for
providing notice and offering a
meeting to students who are about
to leave school without a diploma
reflects the appropriate use of
timelines associated with these
procedures.
The district provides annual
physical restraint training to all
district staff.
Burlington Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 1, 2006
Page 18 of 25
enrolled in a
publicly
funded
education
program
MOA 21
Civil Rights
Training
MOA 25
Institutional
Self
Evaluation
Yes
Interviews
Documentation
Partial
Interviews
Documentation
The district conducts annual civil
rights training at each school
during which principals review the
district’s “Civil Rights Pamphlet”
with all staff. The pamphlet was
reviewed by the Department in
December 2005 and includes topics
such as the prevention of
harassment and discrimination and
other civil rights responsibilities.
The district’s institutional
evaluation process has been
expanded to include all aspects of
its K-12 program; in the beginning
of the 2005-2006 school year, the
district contracted with an
educational consultant to complete
this activity.
Partial
The district received the
evaluator’s final report
shortly before the MidCycle review.
Consequently, it had not yet
made changes recommended
as a result of the evaluation.
Burlington Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 1, 2006
Page 19 of 25
Please provide a description of the
changes the district has made or is
making as a result of the
institutional self-evaluation,
including a timetable for these
changes.
Please provide these materials to
the Department by October 31,
2006.
BURLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
English Learner Education (ELE) Requirements
Mid-Cycle Review Comments and Corrective Action Based on the Department’s Review Of Local Self-Assessments
(Please refer to full text of 2005-2006 CPR-ELE legal requirements and related implementation guidance at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/cpr/instrument/chapter71A.doc )
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
ELE 1
Annual
Assessment
The district annually assesses the English proficiency of all limited
English proficient (LEP) students as required. The district
administers the MELA-O to students in grades k-12 and the MEPA
to students in grades 3-12. The MELA O is administered by a
qualified examiner.
ELE 2
MCAS
Participation
All LEP students participate in annual MCAS testing in accordance
with Department guidelines; the district provides appropriate
accommodations to LEP students.
ELE 3
Initial
Identification
All students complete a home language survey (HLS) upon
registration in the district with a guidance counselor; the district
provides the survey in translation as needed. If the survey indicates
that the student is a non-native speaker of English, the guidance
counselor forwards the HLS to an ELE program teacher, who
assesses the student for English proficiency. The district’s
assessment tools assess students in all four modalities as required.
The district’s administrators have been trained regarding these
requirements and will distribute the ELE program plan to building
staff. The district explains that because ELE program teachers
developed the ELE program plan in collaboration with the Director
of Pupil Services, they have been trained regarding these
requirements and practices.
The district has developed waiver implementation practices
consistent with GL Ch. 71A. The district has adapted all but one
ELE 4
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Progress
Reporting
As noted in the progress report review dated September 19, 2005, the district’s
procedures for the annual assessment of LEP students do not include the participation of
students in grades 3-12 in MCAS. Although the district has verified that students take
this assessment as required, the Department recommends that the district add language
regarding the administration of MCAS to students in grades 3-12 to the section of its ELE
program plan concerning standardized/annual assessment so that all district staff are
aware of these procedures.
See ELE 1, above.
The district did not include an approved waiver form for students over 10 years of age,
although its procedures include the provision of waivers to students in this age group and
Burlington Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 1, 2006
Page 20 of 25
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Waiver
Procedures
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
sample form provided by the Department of Education for use in the
wavier process.
ELE 5
Program
Placement and
Structure
The district provides LEP students with sheltered English immersion
(SEI) and English language development (ELD) instruction based on
the English Language Proficiency Benchmarks and Outcomes.
ELE 6
Program Exit
and Readiness
The district has developed criteria for determining when LEP
students can exit the ELE program. The district’s exit criteria
include multiple measures for determining exit including teacher
observations, grades and standardized test scores.
ELE 7
Parent
Involvement
The district’s self assessment states that the district has developed
“multiple mechanisms” for including parents and guardians of LEP
students in matters relating to their education. The self-assessment
states that many of the district’s LEP students are from India, and
that it has conducted professional development to better the
understanding of Indian culture. The self assessment also states that
the district has been involved in Global Teaching projects.
Although valuable, these activities do not constitute mechanisms for
parent involvement.
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Progress
Reporting
are in compliance with GL Ch. 71A. Please provide a copy of this form to the
Department for review by October 31, 2006.
Though it appears that parents of LEP students have been involved in matters pertaining
to their children’s education, this criterion requires the district to establish a formal
mechanism for such involvement, such as an ELE parent advisory council. Please
develop a plan to develop such a mechanism and provide the results of this plan to the
Department.
Please provide this information to the Department by October 31, 2006.
The district also indicates that parents of LEP students have been
involved in school activities such as the school council, conferences,
orientations, class parties, etc.
ELE 8
Declining Entry
to a Program
The district has established procedures for parents who wish for
their students to decline entry or “opt out” of the ELE program.
The district has included its opt out procedures under the heading “Waiver Procedures.”
Opt out procedures are distinct from waiver procedures under
MGL Ch. 71A and
must be distinguished from them accordingly. The district must reformat the page of its
program plan that contains both procedures so that it clearly distinguishes between
waiver and opt out procedures and provide the revisions to the Department.
In addition, the district’s opt out procedures state that students who have opted out will be
placed in a “general classroom which is not tailored for English learners.” The
procedures must clearly indicate the district’s obligation to provide English language
support to students who have opted out of the ELE program.
Burlington Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 1, 2006
Page 21 of 25
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Progress
Reporting
The district must train administrators and ELE program staff regarding these corrective
actions; please contact the PQA liaison for additional clarification.
Please provide this information to the Department by October 31, 2006.
ELE 9
Instructional
Grouping
The district indicates that it provides ELD instruction to LEP
students individually and in small groups. When students of
different grades are included in the same instructional grouping, they
have similar levels of English proficiency.
ELE 10
Parental
Notification
The district notifies parents upon a student’s placement in the ELE
program
The notification letter includes information regarding a parent’s right to choose to decline
a student’s entry into the program but does not include information regarding the parent’s
right to apply for a waiver, as required by this criterion. The district must revise the letter
to include this information.
The notification letter directs parents to write to the Director of Pupil Services to inquire
about opt-out procedures but does not include this contact information in the text of the
letter. The district must add the Director’s contact information to the text of the letter.
ELE 11
Equal Access to
Academic
Programs and
Services
ELE 12
Equal Access to
Nonacademic
and Extracurricular
Programs
ELE 13
Follow-up
The district states that LEP students are integrated with their English
speaking peers during core and non-core academic classes. LEP
students have equal access to the range of academic programs and
services offered to English speaking students including special
education services; instructional support services; academically
advanced classes and vocational/technological course offerings. The
district states that its partnership with Catholic Charities enables it to
provide translation services to students when such services are
needed.
The district stated that LEP students have equal access to and
participate in nonacademic and extracurricular programs throughout
the district. However, the district did not provide supporting
documentation of the district’s efforts as specified in the ELE CPR
instrument.
The district indicates that it monitors the academic progress of FLEP
students for two years to ensure that they are making academic
Please provide this information to the Department by October 31, 2006.
Please submit a specific description of the language support services offered by the
district, in addition to translated documents provided by Catholic Charities that enable
students to access the same academic programs and services as their English-speaking
peers. Please specifically indicate how the district ensures that LEP students receive
academic support services, such as guidance and counseling services (in addition to
translated documents), in the primary language.
Please provide this information to the Department by October 31, 2006.
The district should provide the documentation listed in the ELE CPR instrument under
the data column for this criterion.
Please provide this information to the Department by October 31, 2006.
Please provide a detailed description of the district’s procedure for monitoring students
after exit from the ELE program, including responsible staff members and methods of
Burlington Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 1, 2006
Page 22 of 25
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Support
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
progress.
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Progress
Reporting
monitoring and oversight. Please provide copies of all forms used by the district during
the monitoring process.
Please provide this information to the Department by October 31, 2006.
ELE 14
Licensure and
Fluency
Requirements
For the 2005-2006 school year, the district employed two .5 FTE
ESL teachers. One teacher is licensed in ESL and the other holds a
waiver from the Department of Education. The district plans to
employ an additional full time ESL teacher during the 2006-2007
school year.
Burlington Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 1, 2006
Page 23 of 25
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 15
Professional
Development
Requirements
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
The district provided a list of professional development offerings in
which staff have participated since 2003 and which the district
believes fulfill one or more of the required Categories specified by
the Department (second language learning and teaching; sheltering
content instruction; assessment of speaking and listening; and
teaching reading and writing to LEP students). However, most of
these trainings do not fulfill the requirements of these categories
because they are not specific to the teaching and learning of the
English language. For example, trainings about Indian culture and
history and the planning of lessons on Indian and/or international
cultures, and differentiated instruction are about cultural diversity,
curriculum development and learning styles, respectively, not about
language acquisition. Moreover, these professional development
opportunities have not been approved by the Department’s Office of
Language Acquisition and Academic Achievement (OLAAA). To
apply for such approval, the district should contact Judy Barcelo in
OLAAA at 781.338-3557. Finally, the district states that it plans to
train all teachers in categories 1 and 2 by 2010. The district should
focus on providing approved training to classroom teachers who
have LEP students in their classrooms within a shorter timeframe.
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Progress
Reporting
Please revise the professional development plan consistent with the requirements of the
Commissioner’s Memorandum of June 2004 at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/news04/0615qualifications.pdf
and the requirements of this criterion to provide training for teachers in SEI classrooms.
Please provide the Department with a list of all teachers who have LEP students in their
classrooms during the 2006-2007 school year as well as the specific number of hours of
professional development these teachers have had in each category of SEI training in
accordance with the requirements of the Commissioner’s Memorandum. Please provide
materials from these trainings (not only a description written by the district) to the
Department.
The district should refer to the Department’s website for information regarding future
training opportunities.
http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/profdev.html
Please contact your PQA liaison for technical assistance if you have additional questions
regarding these requirements.
Please provide this information to the Department by October 31, 2006.
ELE 16
Equitable
Facilities (To be reviewed
during next
CPR visit)
The Department will review this criterion during the district’s next
Coordinated Program Review.
ELE 17
DOE Data
Submission
Requirements
and Program
Evaluation
The district reports data regarding limited English proficient
students to the Department’s Student Information Management
System (SIMS); however, the information the district reported to
SIMS in March 2005 indicated that LEP students are not receiving
any English language education program and is thus inconsistent
with information provided to the Department.
The district must review its data reporting procedures with respect to its LEP students and
provide the results of this review to the Department. The district should refer to the
SIMS reporting manual to ensure accuracy in data reporting or contact the Department of
Data Collection Processing and Reporting at x3282.
Please describe the improvements or changes the district is making as a result of the
evaluation of its ELE program.
The district states that it hired an outside evaluator to conduct an
evaluation of its ELE program in collaboration with the Director of
Please provide this information to the Department by October 31, 2006.
Burlington Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 1, 2006
Page 24 of 25
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Progress
Reporting
Pupil Services. From this evaluation, the district developed its ELE
Program Plan.
ELE 18 Records
of LEP
Students(To be reviewed
during next
CPR visit.)
In addition, the Evaluation Administrator analyzed standardized test
scores of the district’s LEP students to assist in program evaluation
and recommendations. The Evaluation Administrator recommended
yearly documentation and review of standardized test scores
generally as well as MCAS item analysis for students with lower
scores on this particular test.
This criterion will be reviewed during the district’s next Coordinated
Program Review.
Mid-cycle Report Format 2006.doc
Rev. 6/5/06
Burlington Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 1, 2006
Page 25 of 25