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
June 11, 2007
Meg Campbell, Head of School
Codman Academy Charter School
637 Washington Street
Dorchester, MA 02124
Re: Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
Dear Ms. Campbell:
Enclosed is the Department of Education's Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review
Report (Mid-Cycle Report). This report contains findings based on onsite monitoring
conducted to verify the implementation and effectiveness of corrective action approved
or ordered by the Department to address findings of noncompliance included in the
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Report issued on April
1, 2004. The Mid-cycle Report also contains findings based on onsite monitoring of
special education compliance criteria that have been created or substantially changed in
response to IDEA 2004.
Another component of the Department’s Mid-cycle Review is the review of your school
district or charter school's self-assessment 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
(documentation and any written analysis of compliance) and, based solely on that selfassessment, is providing you in this report with findings on your ELE program and the
corresponding corrective action to be implemented. Your district is urged to request
technical assistance in relation to any of these findings or this prescribed corrective action
from me or from staff in the Department’s Office of Language Acquisition and
Achievement at 781-338-3534. ELE guidance documents are available on the
Department’s website 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
1
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.
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 district within the timelines specified. You must submit your
statement of assurance to me by June 29, 2007.
Your staff's cooperation throughout this Mid-cycle Review is appreciated. Should you
like clarification of any part of our report, please do not hesitate to contact me at 781338-3729.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth M. Young, Ed.D.
Mid-cycle Review Chairperson
Program Quality Assurance Services
Darlene A. Lynch, Director
Program Quality Assurance Services
c:
David P. Driscoll, Commissioner of Education
William Walczak, President, Codman Academy Board of Trustees
Janet Govindan, District Program Review Follow-up Coordinator
Encl.: Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
2
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
MID-CYCLE COORDINATED PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT
Codman Academy Charter School
ONSITE MONITORING OF IMPLEMENTATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION AND OF CERTAIN NEW REQUIREMENTS
Date of Coordinated Program Review (CPR): December 9-11, 2003
Date of Coordinated Program Review Corrective Action Plan Approval: August 9, 2004
Dates of Corrective Action Plan Progress Reports: February 28, 2005, August 7, 2006
Dates of this Mid-cycle Review Onsite Visit: December 18, 2006
Date of this Report: June 11, 2007
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS REPORT IS IN SEVERAL SECTIONS.
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 11, 2007
Page 1 of 27
Criterion
Number/Topic
Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective
SE 1
Assessment
Selection
Student
record review
and staff
interview
The student records
demonstrated that assessments
are appropriately selected based
on the suspected disability of
the student.
SE 2
Required
Assessments
Student
record review
and staff
interview
The student records
demonstrated that all required
assessments are completed.
(Refer to full
text of 20062007 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Implemented
and Effective

Corrective
Action Not
Implemented
or Not
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
Corrective
Action Not
Effective
The student record review
indicated that student
assessments are not
always being completed
within 30 days, and in
some instances, were
being completed one to
two days prior to the
Team Meeting. Therefore,
The charter school must submit
evidence that it has conducted
an internal monitoring to
determine the causes(s) for the
non-implementation of this
requirement. Please submit a
narrative summary of the
monitoring activities
conducted; including the
Special Ed.
Criteria Cited
in CPR Report
and Monitored
in Mid-cycle
SE 4
Report of
Assessments
Partial
Student
record review
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 11, 2007
Page 2 of 27
Criterion
Number/Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20062007 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Implemented
and Effective

SE 9
Timelines for
Eligibility
SE 18A
IEP
Development
and Content
Method(s) of
Verification
Partial
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective
Corrective
Action Not
Implemented
or Not
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
not affording parents the
opportunity to receive
summary assessment
reports at least two days
prior to the Team
meeting.
person(s) responsible, the
results, and the additional
corrective action steps the
school has taken. Please
submit this by July 14, 2007.
Student
record review
Corrective
Action Not
Effective
The student record review
demonstrated that the
charter school does not
always meet timeline
requirements for both
initial evaluations to
determine eligibility and
re-evaluations for eligible
students.
The charter school needs to
submit evidence that it has
conducted an internal
monitoring to determine the
cause(s) for this nonimplementation of this
requirement. Please submit a
narrative summary of the
monitoring activities
conducted, including the
person(s) responsible, the
results, and the additional
corrective action steps the
school has taken. Please
submit this by July 14, 2007.
Student
record review
Corrective
Action Not
Effective
Student record review
demonstrated that the
charter school does not
always develop IEPs with
all requirements. Some
The charter school needs to
provide training to all staff
members who are responsible
for IEP development and
writing. Please provide the
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 11, 2007
Page 3 of 27
Criterion
Number/Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20062007 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Implemented
and Effective

Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective
Corrective
Action Not
Implemented
or Not
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
IEPs lacked vision
statements, the Present
Level of Educational
Performance A and B
forms were incomplete or
incorrectly filled out, age
consideration boxes were
left incomplete and in
some instances, IEP goals
were duplicated from one
year to the next. It should
also be noted that goals
appeared to also be
duplicated from one
student’s IEP to another
student’s IEP as well.
Department with the dated
agenda for the IEP
development training, copies of
the materials use, a copy of the
attendance sheet and the name
and credentials of the trainer.
Please submit this to the
Department by July 14, 2007.
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 11, 2007
Page 4 of 27
Once the training has been
completed the charter school
must conduct a review of
sample IEPs developed posttraining to identify if the
training was effective. Please
provide the Department a
detailed narrative summary
including the number of IEPs
reviewed, rate of compliance
and a description of any
additional steps taken if
noncompliance if found.
Please submit this to the
Department by December 7,
2007.
Criterion
Number/Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20062007 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Implemented
and Effective
Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective

SE 32
Parent
Advisory
Council
No
SE 34
Continuum of
Services &
Placements
Yes
Staff
interviews,
student record
review and
documentation
The charter school has
established a substantially
separate classroom for special
education student who require
such a placement. This
placement option has been title
“The Learning Institute”.
SE 51
Special
Education
Teacher
Certification
Yes
Department
Database
All special education teachers at
Codman Academy Charter
school are appropriately
credentialed.
Corrective
Action Not
Implemented
or Not
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
Corrective
Action Not
Effective
The charter school does
not have a Parent
Advisory Council (PAC)
in place; there are no
officers or bylaws. The
charter school told the
Department in December
2006 that it did not have a
PAC due to a lack of
parental interest.
The charter school must
provide evidence that outreach
has been made to parents
regarding the PAC. The
charter school must provide to
the Department a copy of their
PAC bylaws and evidence of
outreach to parents. Please
submit this to the Department
by July 14, 2007.
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 11, 2007
Page 5 of 27
Criterion
Number/Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20062007 CPR
requirements)
SE 56
Evaluation of
Program and
Services
Approved
Corrective
Action
Implemented
and Effective

Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective
Corrective
Action Not
Implemented
or Not
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
Corrective
Action Not
Implemented
In progress reports
submitted to the
Department on February
28, 2005 and reviewed on
May 18, 2005 it was
indicated that the charter
school had identified the
components of its
program evaluation. The
charter school was
required to provide the
results of its program
evaluation in September
2005. The progress
reports due in September
2005 were provided to the
Department on August 7,
2006. The progress report
indicated that the results
of the program evaluation
were attached, however
there was no evidence
provided, and the charter
school also failed to
provide them during the
on-site visit conducted
December 18, 2006.
The charter school must
provide the summaries from
the 2005-2006school year and
the 2006-2007 school year
special education program
evaluations or otherwise
demonstrate the program
evaluation activities
undertaken by the charter
school. The corrective action is
due to the Department on July
14, 2007.
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 11, 2007
Page 6 of 27
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 11, 2007
Page 7 of 27
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s) of
Verification
No
Student record
review and
staff interview
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Criterion
Partially
Implemented
or Not
Implemented

Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Corrective
Action Not
Implemented
As noted in the district’s
2004 Coordinated Program
Review, the student record
review demonstrated that
there was no evidence of the
student’s transition needs
discussed or documented in
the student’s record. The
charter school is not using
the transition planning form.
Please note that recently
enacted IDEA-2004
regulations have changed the
requirements for transition
planning. The transitionplanning chart has become a
mandated form, which should
be maintained with the IEP,
Refer to Administrative
Advisory SPED 2007-1 for
guidance at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/
advisories/07_1.html or the
Department’s guidance on
transition planning at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/
links/transition.html.
Special
Education
Criteria
created or
revised in
response to
IDEA-2004
SE 6 ##1 - 3
Determination
of Transition
Services
Please review the new
requirements for transition
planning and services with the
appropriate staff. The charter
school needs to train staff on
the determination of transition
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 11, 2007
Page 8 of 27
services. Please provide a
dated training agenda, copies
of the materials used and
signed attendance sheet to the
Department by July 14, 2007.
Additionally, the charter school
needs to submit evidence that it
has conducted an internal
monitoring to determine
implementation of this
requirement. Please submit a
narrative summary of the
monitoring activities
conducted, including the
person(s) responsible, the
results, and the additional
corrective action steps the
school has taken. Please
submit this to the Department
by December 7, 2007.
SE 8
IEP Team
composition
and attendance
Partial
Student record
review and
staff interview
Partial
Record review demonstrated
that parents and general
education staff were
inconsistently attending
Team Meetings. In some
instances student records did
not even contain a signed
attendance sheet.
The charter school needs to
develop procedures to ensure
the participation of general
education teacher in Team
meeting, as well as be able to
demonstrate multiple efforts to
secure parent participation.
Please provide a copy of the
procedures developed to the
Department by July 14, 2007.
Additionally, the charter school
needs to submit evidence that it
has conducted an internal
monitoring to determine
implementation of this
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 11, 2007
Page 9 of 27
requirement. Please submit a
narrative summary of the
monitoring activities
conducted, including the
person(s) responsible, the
results, and the additional
corrective action steps the
school has taken. Please
submit this to the Department
by December 7, 2007.
SE 12
Frequency of
re-evaluation
SE 13
Partial
Student record
review and
documentation
Partial
Student
Student record review and
documentation
demonstrated that the
charter school does not
always conduct
reevaluations in a timely
manner. It was noted that
in some instances there
was a lapse in the ending
period of an IEP due to
testing exceeding the
required timelines.
The school needs to develop a
tracking system for due dates
of three year re-evaluations and
the completion of evaluations
in a timely manner. Submit by
a detailed narrative describing
this tracking system to the
Department by July 14, 2007.
Student record review
Please provide a sample of 4
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 11, 2007
Page 10 of 27
Once the tracking system has
been completed the charter
school must conduct a review
of sample IEPs developed after
implementation of the tracking
system to identify if the system
was effective. Please provide
the Department a detailed
narrative summary including
the number of IEPs reviewed,
rate of compliance and a
description of any additional
steps taken if noncompliance if
found. Please submit this to
the Department by December
7, 2007.
Progress
Reports and
content
Partial
record review
Partial
indicated that for the
2005-2006 school year
that the special education
teacher was writing and
signing off on all progress
reports, including
progress reports related to
speech therapy.
progress reports from the 20062007 school year that
demonstrate that progress
reports are generated by the
appropriate service provider.
Please submit this sample to
the Department by July 14,
2007.
Refer to Administrative
Advisory SPED 2007-1 for
guidance at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/
advisories/07_1.html and the
revised Progress Report form
at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/
iep/forms/word/Form_PR.doc.
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 11, 2007
Page 11 of 27
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s) of
Verification
SE 14
Review and
revision of
IEPs
Partial
Student record
review and
staff interview
SE 25B
Resolution of
disputes
Yes
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Criterion
Determined
to be
Partially
Implemented
or Not
Implemented

Partial
Documentation
and staff
interview
Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Student record review
demonstrated that the charter
school does not always reconvene the Team prior to
the expiration of the
previous IEP. In all cases
there was no documented
evidence of why this
occurred such as parent
request to change meeting
date.
See previous language in SE
12 with regard to developing a
tracking mechanism by July
14, 2007.
The charter school indicated that
there have been no dispute
resolution sessions because there
have been no rejected IEPs as of
December 2006 in the 2006-2007
school year.
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 11, 2007
Page 12 of 27
Once the tracking system has
been completed the charter
school must conduct a review
of sample IEPs developed after
implementation of the tracking
system to identify if the system
was effective. Please provide
the Department a detailed
narrative summary including
the number of IEPs reviewed,
rate of compliance and a
description of any additional
steps taken if noncompliance if
found. Please submit this to
the Department by December
7, 2007.
SE 33
Involvement in
the General
Curriculum
SE 39A
Procedures for
services to
eligible private
school students
whose parents
reside in the
district
(SE 39A does
not apply to
charter schools
or vocational
schools)
SE 39B
Procedures for
services to
eligible
students in
private schools
in the district
whose parents
reside out of
state
(SE 39B does
not apply to
charter schools
or vocational
schools)
Yes
Staff interview
and student
record review
The charter school indicated that all
students are fully participating in
the general curriculum, that
someone familiar with the
curriculum is attending team
meetings and IEP’s reflect the
student’s participation in the
general curriculum.
Not
Applicable
Codman Academy is a charter
school and this criterion does
not apply.
Not
Applicable
Codman Academy is a charter
school and this criterion does
not apply.
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 11, 2007
Page 13 of 27
SE 46
Procedures for
suspension of
students with
disabilities
more than 10
days
Yes
Staff interview
and
documentation
The charter school has
procedures in place and has
indicated to the Department that
no special education student at
Codman Academy Charter
School has been suspended for
more than ten days.
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 11, 2007
Page 14 of 27
Criterion
Number/Topic
Approved
Corrective
Action
Implemented
and Effective

Method(s) of
Verification
MOA 10A
Student
Handbook and
Code of
Conduct
Yes
Documentation
The printed handbook has all
required elements.
MOA 16
Notice to
students 16 or
over leaving
school
Yes
Documentation
The charter school has an
appropriate policy and
procedure in place for students
16 or over who wish to leave
school.
(Refer to full
text of 20062007 CPR
requirements)
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective
Corrective
Action Not
Implemented
or Not
Effective
Or
New Issues
Identified

Basis of Determination
that Implementation of
Corrective Action was
Incomplete or
Ineffective
Or
Basis of Finding of New
Noncompliance
Civil Rights
(MOA) and
Other General
Education
Requirements
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 11, 2007
Page 15 of 27
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Requirements
Other
Regulated
Programs
Monitored
During this
Mid-cycle
Review
Criterion
Number/Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20062007 CPR
requirements)
SE 7
Age of
Majority
Approved
Corrective
Action
Implemented
and Effective

Method(s) of
Verification
No
Student
record review
and staff
interview
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective
Corrective
Action Not
Implemented
or Not
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
Requirements
Corrective
Action Not
Implemented
Student record review and
an interview with staff
demonstrated that the
charter school is not
informing the student of
their decision making
rights one year prior to
attaining age 18. Further
it was noted that the
charter school is not
documenting those
instances when the
student decides to share or
designate someone other
than himself or herself as
the decision-maker.
The charter school needs to
train staff on the age of
majority requirements. Please
provide a dated training
agenda, copies of the materials
used and signed attendance
sheet to the Department by
July 14, 2007.
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 11, 2007
Page 16 of 27
Additionally, the charter school
needs to submit evidence that it
has conducted an internal
monitoring to determine
implementation of this
requirement. Please submit a
narrative summary of the
monitoring activities
conducted, including the
person(s) responsible, the
results, and the additional
corrective action steps the
school has taken. Please
submit this to the Department
by December 7, 2007.
SE 21
Extended
Day/Year
SE 22
IEP
Implementation
and
Availability
Partial
Partial
Student
record review
and staff
interview
Partial
Student record
review and
staff interview
Partial
Student records
demonstrated that IEPs
referred to the student
attending a summer
program, however an
interview with a staff
member revealed that the
only summer
programming offered is
assistance in finding some
work or internships and
occasionally assisting a
student in identifying
counseling available in
the community. The staff
member indicated there is
no programming available
to offer special education
services in the summer
months and Teams do not
routinely consider
extended or shortened
days in relation to special
education needs as all
students at Codman
Academy participate in a
longer day and longer
year.
The charter school needs to
train staff on school day and
school year requirements as
they relate to special education.
Please provide a dated training
agenda, copies of the materials
used and signed attendance
sheet to the Department by
July 14, 2007.
Student record review
demonstrated that five of the
ten-reviewed student records
contained expired IEPs and
current IEPs that had no
parent signature. A staff
The charter school needs to
train staff on IEP
implementation requirements
related to parental consent.
Please provide a dated training
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 11, 2007
Page 17 of 27
Additionally, the charter school
needs to submit evidence that it
has conducted an internal
monitoring to determine
implementation of this
requirement. Please submit a
narrative summary of the
monitoring activities
conducted, including the
person(s) responsible, the
results, and the additional
corrective action steps the
school has taken. Please
submit this to the Department
by December 7, 2007.
member indicated that
getting parents to attend
Team Meetings and sign
proposed IEP’s is extremely
difficult. This staff person
further indicated that the
charter school implements
the IEP while trying to
secure parent consent.
It was also noted that files
did not document the efforts
of the charter school to
obtain parental consent.
SE 24
Notice to
Parents
Partial
Student
record review
Partial
The student record review
revealed that notices,
specifically N1 and N2
forms lack sufficient
detail and fail to address
the six key questions as
required. The Department
found that notice
narratives were in some
instances cut and pasted
from year to year.
Furthermore, in one file
there was no N1 form
related to the current IEP
present in the file at all.
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 11, 2007
Page 18 of 27
agenda, copies of the materials
used and signed attendance
sheet to the Department by
July 14, 2007.
The charter school must submit
evidence that it has conducted
an internal monitoring to
determine implementation of
this requirement. Please
submit a narrative summary of
the monitoring activities
conducted; including the
person(s) responsible, the
results, and the additional
corrective action steps the
school has taken. Please
submit this by December 7,
2007.
The charter school needs to
train staff on how to write
complete N1 and N2 notices.
Please provide a dated training
agenda, copies of the materials
used and signed attendance
sheet to the Department by
July 14, 2007.
Additionally, the charter school
needs to submit evidence that it
has conducted an internal
monitoring to determine
implementation of this
requirement. Please submit a
narrative summary of the
monitoring activities
conducted, including the
person(s) responsible, the
results, and the additional
corrective action steps the
school has taken. Please
submit this to the Department
by December 7, 2007.
SE 35
Assistive
Technology
Partial
Student
record review
Partial
Student record review and
a staff interview indicated
that the charter school is
not routinely considering
assistive technology, has
no mechanism for
assistive technology
assessments and is not
appropriately indicating
on the IEP PLEP B page
when and if assistive
technology is made
available to the student.
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 11, 2007
Page 19 of 27
The charter school needs to
train staff on to assess and
document assistive technology
appropriately. Please provide a
dated training agenda, copies
of the materials used and
signed attendance sheet to the
Department by July 14, 2007.
The charter school must submit
evidence that it has conducted
an internal monitoring to
determine implementation of
this requirement. Please
submit a narrative summary of
the monitoring activities
conducted; including the
person(s) responsible, the
results, and the additional
corrective action steps the
school has taken. Please
submit this by December 7,
2007.
Codman Academy Charter School
English Learner Education (ELE) Requirements
Mid-Cycle Review Findings and Corrective Action Based on the Department’s Review Of Local Self-Assessments
(Please refer to full text of 2006-2007 CPR requirements for ELE and related implementation guidance at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/cpr/instrument/chapter71A.doc )
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Determined to be
Implemented
Based on Review
of Local ELE
Self-Assessment

ELE 1
Annual
Assessment
Partial
ELE 2
MCAS
Participation
Partial
ELE 3
Initial
Identification
No
Findings of Noncompliance Based on Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented)
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
The charter school indicated that they administer the
MELA-O and MEPA to student’s who may be eligible for
Limited English Proficient (LEP) services. While the
MELA-O and MEPA are appropriate for annual assessment
of LEP students’ English language proficiency, they are not
appropriate for initial identification purposes. In 2006,
neither the MELA-O nor MEPA was administered.
The charter school must ensure students are appropriately
identified and assessed upon enrollment to determine LEP
status. Upon determining the students who are LEP, the
charter school must ensure the annual testing of students using
the MELA-O and MEPA. This corrective action is due to the
Department July 14, 2007.
The charter school indicated that they would provide
dictionaries in the future if they are available in the
student’s native language. However it should be noted that
unless students are designated as LEP they are not entitled
to this accommodation for MCAS.
Please see ELE 1 & ELE 3 regarding the appropriate
identification and assessment of LEP students.
In the charter schools self assessment they indicated that
student’s who were previously identified as Limited English
Proficient (LEP) prior to coming to Codman are not
identified as LEP at Codman because the parents chose to
The charter school should be screening all incoming students
who may potentially be limited English proficient using a
home language survey in English and the other major
languages of the area.
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 11, 2007
Page 20 of 27
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Determined to be
Implemented
Based on Review
of Local ELE
Self-Assessment

Findings of Noncompliance Based on Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented)
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
have their child mainstreamed. The charter school indicated
that while they report having no LEP students, three
students have been classified within the school as English
Language Learners (ELL) , they do not received Sheltered
English Instruction nor do they receive any English
language instruction.
The charter school needs to develop a home language survey
for enrolling students and develop a procedure to assess their
level of English proficiency in reading, writing, speaking, and
listening.
These procedures along with a copy of the home language
survey need to be submitted to the Department by July 14,
2007.
ELE 4
Waiver
Procedures
No
The charter school indicated that this criterion was not
applicable to them, however as a public school with
students who may be LEP this is incorrect.
The charter school needs to develop waiver policies,
procedures and forms. Please submit these to the Department
by July 14, 2007.
ELE 5
Program
Placement
and Structure
No
The charter school indicated that their policy is to
mainstream English Language Learners into regular
education classrooms and provide support specifically
tailored to their needs. The charter school did not indicate
what kind of supports they typically provide to their “ELL”
students and as of December 2006 there were no teachers
who have participated in training related to Sheltered
English Instruction and the school was not teaching English
language acquisition to those students.
The charter school must develop a plan for addressing
program placement and structure for LEP students. This plan
must include a timeline for program development including
provision of language acquisition support and sheltered
English instruction.
Please provide this detailed narrative plan to the
Department by July 14, 2007.
Documentation provided by the charter school clearly
indicates that they are operating in an opt-out model without
informed consent from the parents. Any general education
classroom in a public school in which LEP students are
placed must conform to standards under M.G.L.c. 71A.
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 11, 2007
Page 21 of 27
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Determined to be
Implemented
Based on Review
of Local ELE
Self-Assessment

ELE 6
Program Exit
and
Readiness
No
Findings of Noncompliance Based on Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented)
Because the charter school has no programming in place,
the charter school indicated that this criterion was not
applicable.
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
The charter school must put in place procedures to determine
when students are ready to exit the English Language
Education program.
Please provide this detailed narrative procedure
to the Department by July 14, 2007.
ELE 7
Parent
Involvement
No
The charter school indicated that it has a parent association
open to all parents, however they failed to provide any
information or description of how parents of LEP students
are involved in matters pertaining to their child’s education.
Please provide a detailed narrative of how the charter school
plans to involve parent’s of LEP students in matters pertaining
to their child’s education.
Please provide this detailed narrative plan to the
Department by July 14, 2007.
ELE 8
Declining
Entry to a
Program
The charter school indicated that by parent’s choosing to
enroll their child in Codman Academy Charter School that
they have chosen to mainstream their child, however in the
Department’s review of the schools submission, we do not
believe that these parent’s have made a fully informed and
documented decision to decline entry into an ELE program.
Parents of English language learners may notify the district or
charter school of their wish to have their child “opt-out” of an
ELE program. The district must then place the student in an
English language general education classroom and document
the parent’s notice in the student’s file. The school must
develop procedures to monitor the student’s progress and
keep parents informed of their student’s progress.
The charter school must develop a policy and procedure to
give the parent a choice and then document that choice in the
student record.
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 11, 2007
Page 22 of 27
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Determined to be
Implemented
Based on Review
of Local ELE
Self-Assessment

Findings of Noncompliance Based on Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented)
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
Please provide the policy and procedure along with any
related forms to the Department by July 14, 2007.
ELE 9
Instructional
Grouping
No
The charter school has no program and therefore groups
students by grade level alone. The charter school stated that
classes are heterogeneously grouped as a response to this
criterion.
The charter school must arrange grouping of students to
ensure that LEP students receive effective content instruction
at appropriate academic levels and that ESL/ELD instruction
is at the appropriate proficiency level and based on the
English Language Proficiency Benchmarks and Outcomes.
Please develop a plan to address this issue and submit it to
the Department by July 14, 2007.
ELE 10
Parental
Notification
No
The charter school indicated that this criterion was not
applicable and made no submission related to this criterion.
Upon placement in an ELE program the charter school must
inform the parent of program placement and/or the method of
instruction used in the program; how the program will meet
the educational strengths and needs of the student; how the
program will specifically help the child learn English; the
specific exit requirements; and the parents’ right to apply for a
waiver (see ELE 4), or to decline to enroll their child in the
program.
Please provide a detailed narrative of how the charter
school plans to address parental notification and submit it
to the Department by July 14, 2007.
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 11, 2007
Page 23 of 27
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Determined to be
Implemented
Based on Review
of Local ELE
Self-Assessment

ELE 11
Equal Access
to Academic
Programs
and Services
No
ELE 12
Equal Access
to
Nonacademic
and
Extracurricular
Programs
Partial
ELE 13
Follow-up
Support
No
Findings of Noncompliance Based on Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented)
The charter schools response to this criterion was “Our
policy at Codman is to mainstream ELL students into
regular classes and provide support specifically tailored to
their needs.”
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
The charter school needs to describe in detail how LEP and
FLEP students have equal access to academic programs and
services.
Please provide a detailed narrative of how the charter
school plans to address equal access and submit it to the
Department by July 14, 2007.
The charter school indicated that they offer an extended
year and extended day program, which is required of all
students. The school also indicated that extracurricular
electives are required and all students must participate.
The charter school needs to describe in detail what supports
are available to LEP students to ensure equal access to
nonacademic and extracurricular programs.
Please provide a detailed narrative of how the charter
school plans to address equal access and submit it to the
Department by July 14, 2007.
The charter school indicated that this criterion was not
applicable and made no submission related to this criterion.
The charter school needs to describe in detail how FLEP
students are monitored and how follow-up support is
provided, if needed.
Please provide a detailed narrative of how the charter
school plans to address FELP follow-up support and
submit it to the Department by July 14, 2007.
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 11, 2007
Page 24 of 27
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Determined to be
Implemented
Based on Review
of Local ELE
Self-Assessment

ELE 14
Licensure
Requirements
No
Findings of Noncompliance Based on Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented)
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
The charter school indicated that this criterion was not
applicable and made no submission related to this criterion.
Please provide a response to this criterion as part of the ELE 5
submission.
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 11, 2007
Page 25 of 27
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Determined to be
Implemented
Based on Review
of Local ELE
Self-Assessment

ELE 15
Professional
Development
Requirements
No
Findings of Noncompliance Based on Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented)
The charter school indicated that ELL professional
development for staff was schedule for January 17, 2007
and May 23, 2007. No further details were provided.
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
Charter schools and school districts with LEP students
must implement a professional development plan that
provides teachers and administrators with high quality
training, as prescribed by the Department, in (1) second
language learning and teaching; (2) sheltering content
instruction; (3) assessment of speaking and listening; and
(4) teaching reading and writing to limited English
proficient students.
http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/profdev/SEIPDguidelines.doc
Please a detailed narrative of how the charter school
plans to achieve this and submit it to the Department
by July 14, 2007.
ELE 16
Equitable
Facilities
Yes
All students at Codman Academy Charter school utilize the
same facilities.
ELE 17
Program
Evaluation
No
The charter school has no program in place. No program
evaluation has been conducted.
Please provide a detailed narrative of how the charter school
plans to evaluate its ELE program.
Please provide a detailed narrative of this process to the
Department by July 14, 2007.
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 11, 2007
Page 26 of 27
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Determined to be
Implemented
Based on Review
of Local ELE
Self-Assessment

ELE 18
Records of
LEP
Students(To be
reviewed
during next
CPR visit.)
Not applicable –
this criterion will
be reviewed
during the next
CPR visit in 2009.
Findings of Noncompliance Based on Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially Implemented or
Not Implemented)
Codman Academy Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
June 11, 2007
Page 27 of 27
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting