The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department of Education
350 Main Street, Malden, Massachusetts 02148-5023
Telephone: (781) 338-
3000
July 12, 2006
John Rappaport, Head of School
Conservatory Lab Charter School
25 Arlington Street
Brighton, MA 02135
Re: Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
Dear Mr. Rappaport:
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 by the Department to
address findings of noncompliance included in the Conservatory Lab Charter School
Coordinated Program Review Report issued on August 30, 2002. 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
charter school's self-assessment in the area of English learner education (ELE). The purpose of
this review is to determine whether your district is implementing the significant changes in
M.G.L. Chapter 71A, governing the education of limited English proficient students, that were
adopted by voters by means of Question 2 in 2002. The Department has reviewed your school’s
ELE self-assessment documents, reviewed ELL student records, and conducted interviews with
ELL staff, and, based on those sources, is providing you with comments on your ELE program
and, where necessary, corrective action to be implemented. Your school 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 or call Robyn
Dowling-Grant in Program Quality Assurance Services at 781-338-3732. 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/.
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 1 of 34
While the Department of Education found Conservatory Lab Charter School 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.
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 Midcycle Review Chairperson by July 21, 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 Midcycle Review Chairperson at 781-338-3741.
Sincerely,
Jane L. Ewing, Mid-cycle Review Chairperson
Program Quality Assurance Services
Darlene A. Lynch, Director
Program Quality Assurance Services
c:
David P. Driscoll, Commissioner of Education
Katharine Pell, Chairperson, Conservatory Lab Charter School Board of Trustees
Mark Jacobson, District Program Review Follow-up Coordinator
Encl.: Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 2 of 34
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
MID-CYCLE COORDINATED PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT
CONSERVATORY LAB CHARTER SCHOOL
ONSITE VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
AND/OR IDENTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL NONCOMPLIANCE REQUIRING CORRECTIVE ACTION
Date of Coordinated Program Review (CPR): May 10-16, 2002
Date of Coordinated Program Review Corrective Action Plan Approval: November 12, 2002
Dates of Corrective Action Plan Progress Reports: May 14, 2003-May 26, 2006
Dates of this Mid-cycle Review Onsite Visit: May 30-31, 2006
Date of this Report: July 12, 2006
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS REPORT IS IN SEVERAL SECTIONS.
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 3 of 34
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2005-2006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
to be
Implemente
d 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
New issue
identified

Student records indicate
that the school uses a nonstandard N3A Evaluation
consent that does not
clearly indicate the
parent/guardian’s right to
request optional or
additional assessments
beyond what the school
has proposed.
Please see Corrective Action
under SE 24.
Special Education
Criteria
Originally Cited
in CPR Report
and Monitored in
Mid-cycle
SE 2
Optional
Assessments
Student
records and
document
review
In addition, student
records did not contain
the required educational
assessment (please see
forms A and B on the
DOE website at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 4 of 34
The “Educational Assessment:
Part A” and “Part B” forms are
recommended by the
Department as they contain all
of the necessary elements to
meet the requirements of 603
CMR 28.04(2)(a) 2. The
Educational Assessment is a
required assessment for an
initial /re-evaluation.
Assessments such as the WJIII
or the GORT should be noted
under “Assessments in all areas
of the suspected disability” and
listed by name on Evaluation
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2005-2006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
to be
Implemente
d 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
sped/28mr/28r1.doc).
Consent Form (N1A).
Please review current practice
in providing initial evaluations
and re-evaluations and make
sure that the Educational
Assessment reports are
complete and address all
required elements.
Please provide a sample of
Educational Assessment
reports from initial evaluations
and re-evaluations between
September 2006 and October
2006 to the Department by
October 30, 2006.
SE 3
Specific learning
disability
Statutory requirements for the
determination of specific
learning disabilities have been
revised under the recently
reauthorized IDEA 2004.
Therefore, until final
implementing regulations have
been adopted, the Department
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 5 of 34
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2005-2006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
to be
Implemente
d 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
New issue
identified

The parent request form
contains an outdated
reference to 766
regulations. Wording in
this letter may also
mislead parents to believe
that Conservatory Lab
Charter School is
automatically required to
fund an independent
evaluation.
Please review 603 CMR
28.04(5) and revise the letter to
reflect current regulatory
requirements for Independent
Evaluations. Please submit the
revised letter to the Department
by October 30, 2006.
is not making findings related
to school district practices
under Coordinated Program
Review Criterion SE 3. For
districts seeking to resolve a
previous finding in this area, a
progress report describing final
actions on the part of the
school district will be due in
June 2006 or upon the
promulgation of final federal
regulations, whichever is later.
SE 11
Parental request
for independent
evaluation
Document
review
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 6 of 34
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2005-2006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
to be
Implemente
d and
Effective
Method(s)
of
Verification

SE 18B
Provision of IEP
to parent
Student
records and
staff
interviews
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
New issue
identified

According to interviews,
parents do not
consistently leave Team
meetings with a copy of
the IEP and/or a copy of
the meeting notes
summarizing the main
points of agreement,
service delivery grid
information and the goals.
Please see the
Department’s guidance on
this area at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/
pqa/news02/0725let.html.
.
Please revise the school’s
procedures on the provision of
the IEP or copy of meeting
notes/service delivery grid to
parents immediately following
a Team meeting and provide a
description of the procedures,
evidence of any training for
staff on the new procedures,
and evidence of selfmonitoring to ensure the new
procedures are being
implemented, to the
Department by October 30,
2006.
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 7 of 34
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2005-2006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
to be
Implemente
d and
Effective
Method(s)
of
Verification

SE 24
Notice to parents
Student
records, staff
interviews,
and
document
review
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
Not to have
been
Implemented

Student records indicate
that Conservatory Lab is
still using special
education forms,
including the Notice of
Proposed School District
Action (N1), the
Evaluation Consent Form
(N1A), the Notice of
School District Refusal to
Act (N2), the Meeting
Invitation (N3), and the
Attendance Sheet (N3A),
designed by a consultant
that do not contain all
elements of notice
required by state and
federal educational law.
Please review all special
education forms and revise as
necessary to include the
elements of notice required by
state and federal law. Please
submit the school’s revised
N1, N1A, N2, N3, and N3A in
particular and any others
revised as needed, to the
Department by October 30,
2006.
Please refer to the special
education forms on the
Department’s website
http://www.doe.mass.edu/
sped/iep/ for guidance.
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 8 of 34
Additionally, provide training
for key staff on the use of these
forms. Please submit
documentation of the training
as well as evidence that the
school is monitoring to ensure
that the new forms are being
used and that they contain the
required content to the
Department by October 30,
2006.
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2005-2006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
to be
Implemente
d and
Effective
Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective

Staff
interviews
and
document
review
SE 38
Educational
services in
institutional
settings
(ESIS)
SE 53
Use of
paraprofessionals
Substantially
implemented
Document
review and
interviews
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
Not to have
been
implemented
√
At present charter schools
are responsible for
providing educational
services for enrolled
children in institutional
settings. Conservatory
Lab must develop
appropriate procedures to
assure the implementation
of its responsibilities to
students in institutional
settings by acting on
requests for evaluation,
issuing proposed IEPs in a
timely manner, and
providing special
education and/or related
services in accordance
with state and federal law.
Please develop a procedure to
assure the implementation of
Con Lab’s responsibilities to
students in institutional settings
by acting on requests for
evaluation, issuing proposed
IEPs in a timely manner, and
providing special education
and/or related services in
accordance with state and
federal law, to the Department
by October 30, 2006.
Document review and
interviews demonstrate that
paraprofessionals are
supervised appropriately by the
special education staff and
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 9 of 34
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2005-2006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
to be
Implemente
d 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
Not to have
been effective
√
According to staff
interviews, the ELE
teacher is not able to
attend weekly
professional development
sessions through the
school because they are
scheduled on a day when
she is not in the school.
Please develop a means by
which to provide or include the
ELE staff member with the
opportunity to access
professional development
activities in the 3 key topics
cited in this standard, including
training on state and federal
special education requirements
and related local special
education policies and
procedures; analyzing and
accommodating diverse
learning styles of all students
in order to achieve an objective
of inclusion in the regular
classroom of students with
diverse learning styles; and
methods of collaboration
among teachers,
paraprofessionals and teacher
receive professional training
with the special education and
general education teachers.
SE 54
Professional
development
Staff
interviews
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 10 of 34
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2005-2006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
to be
Implemente
d 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
assistants to accommodate
diverse learning styles of all
students in the regular
classroom.
Please prove a description of
how this will be accomplished,
to the Department by October
30, 2006.
SE 56
Special education
program
evaluation
Staff
interviews
and
document
review
Not to have
been effective
√
Although the school
provided an evaluation
report of its special
education services in
response to a required
CPR corrective action,
interviews indicate that
the school does not
regularly review the
effectiveness of its special
education programming.
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 11 of 34
Please develop a method by
which the school regularly
determines the effectiveness of
programs in assisting students
to achieve goals set forth on
their IEPs and identify areas
that need improvement or that
must be developed. This
method should use data from
annual IEP reviews; the
success of special education
students on school and
statewide assessments; and the
expulsion, retention, and rates
of students with disabilities.
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full text
of 2005-2006 CPR
requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
to be
Implemente
d 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
Please provide a copy to the
Department of the school’s
evaluation activities by
October 30, 2006.
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
(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
Not applicable
Conservatory Lab Charter
School is a K-5 elementary
school.
Criterion
Determined
to be
Partially
Implemented
or Not
Implemented

Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
Not
applicable
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 12 of 34
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
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Document
review and
staff
interviews
SE 8
IEP Team
composition
and attendance
SE 9
Timeline for
determination
of eligibility
SE 12
Frequency of
re-evaluation
Substantially
implemented
Student
records and
staff
interviews
Student
records
Criterion
Determined
to be
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
Partially
implemented
Interviews indicate that
the special education
coordinators often chair
Team meetings but they
do not have authority to
commit the school’s
resources.
Please provide written
clarification regarding who has
the authority to commit school
resources and evidence of
training provided to key
personnel, if new to this role to
the Department by October
30, 2006.
Partially
implemented
Student records indicate
that students are not
always evaluated prior to
a finding of no eligibility
in cases where the student
is moved to a 504 plan
while still retaining
related services.
Please review all student
records in which the student
was moved from an IEP to a
504 plan. In any case where the
student was removed from the
IEP without evaluation, please
provide the student’s parents
with an Evaluation Consent
form and proceed to evaluate
the student.
The school has developed a
means by which to track
timelines; student record review
demonstrated that assessments
are generally completed within
30 days and eligibility meetings
are conducted within 45 days of
receipt of the signed evaluation
consent form.
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 13 of 34
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Criterion
Determined
to be
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
Provide the Department with a
list (using initials) of students
impacted, with the date of the
consent form sent to
parent/guardian, to the
Department by October 30,
2006.
Please review and revise the
school’s policies and
procedures for moving a
student from an IEP to a 504
plan and provide a copy to the
Department by October 30,
2006.
SE 13
Progress
Reports and
content
SE 14
Review and
revision of
IEPs
Substantially
implemented
Substantially
implemented
Student
records and
document
review
Progress reports are sent to
parents at the same time as
report cards; progress reports
address the goals and
benchmarks and articulate the
student’s progress or lack of
progress fully.
Student
records and
document
review
IEP annual reviews are
consistently held before the
anniversary date of the IEP;
IEPs are revised and reviewed
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 14 of 34
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Criterion
Determined
to be
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
The student Code of
Please revise the school’s Code
to address student’s progress
and additional needs as needed.
SE 17
Initiation of
services at age
three
SE 18A
Review and
revision of
IEPs
SE 25B
Resolution of
disputes
SE 30
Notice of
procedural
safeguards
SE 46
Not applicable
Conservatory Lab Charter
School is a K-5 elementary
school.
Substantially
implemented
Student
records and
document
review
Student records indicated that
Teams develop appropriate IEPs
for students found eligible for
services and include specially
designed instruction and related
services to allow the student to
access the general curriculum.
Substantially
implemented
Document
review
Although the school has not had
to implement this requirement,
they have created forms and
procedures to meet the
requirement for holding a
resolution meeting with any
parent who has made an official
hearing request to the BSEA.
Substantially
implemented
Interviews
and
document
review
Conservatory Lab is using the
Department’s Interim Notice of
Procedural Rights and providing
them annually to families of
students with IEPs.
Document
Partially
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 15 of 34
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Implemented

(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
Procedures for
suspension of
students with
disabilities
more than 10
days
Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
review
Criterion
Determined
to be
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
implemented
Conduct indicates that
parents must attend a reentry meeting following a
student suspension before
the student can attend
classes again.
of Conduct by amending the
requirement for a meeting with
parents before a student can
attend classes again following
a suspension and submit a copy
of the revision to the
Department by October 30,
2006.
The Department has
determined that while a
district or school may
request a meeting with the
student's parent, it may
not keep a student from
attending classes until
such a meeting occurs, as
to do so would result in
the student's wrongful
exclusion from school for
circumstances beyond his
or her control, namely that
of his or her parent's
failure to attend a meeting
(see M.G.L. Chapter 76,
§5).
SE 49
Related
Services
Substantially
implemented
Document
and student
record
review
Conservatory Lab provides all
related services as required by
each student to benefit from
special education and access the
general curriculum.
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 16 of 34
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
Requirements
New issue
identified

According to the school
handbook and staff
interviews, the Home
Language Survey is not
given to all students but
only to students who are
identified by teachers as
struggling with language
issues. The Home
Language Survey should
be provided to all families
at the time of student
enrollment.
Please review and revise the
school’s ELE identification
process by incorporating a
means to give all students the
Home Language Survey and
assessing all students whose
primary language of home is
not English, as per the
Department’s guidance on
identifying LEP students (see
the Department’s website at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/id
entify_lep.html).
The primary purpose of a
Home Language Survey is
to find out if a student
speaks a language other
than English at home and
thereby needs to be
Please submit a description of
the school’s revised
procedures, plus a copy of any
revised documents (such as the
Home Language Survey and
translated versions of the
Civil Rights
(MOA) and
Other General
Education
Requirements
MOA 1
Identification
of limitedEnglishproficient
students
Document
review and
staff
interviews
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 17 of 34
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
Requirements
assessed for English
language proficiency.
survey), to the Department by
October 30, 2006.
If the student’s primary
language of home is not
English, the student must
be assessed in all four
modalities of English
language proficiency.
The Home Language
Survey also presents an
opportunity to ask the
family if they require
home-school
correspondence to be
translated.
MOA 6
Availability of
in-school
programs for
pregnant
students
Not applicable
Conservatory Lab Charter
School is a K-5 elementary
school.
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 18 of 34
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
Document
review
MOA 7A
School year
schedules
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
Requirements
New issue
identified

Conservatory Lab Charter
School schedules 180
days of school per school
year, instead of 185 as
required by 603 CMR
27.03(2).
Conservatory Lab Charter
School must set a school year
calendar of 185 school days
beginning with the 2006-2007
school year.
Please provide a copy of the
2006-2007 CLCS school year
calendar by October 30, 2006.
MOA 9
Hiring and
employment
practices of
prospective
employers of
students
MOA 12A
Annual and
continuous
notification
Not applicable
Conservatory Lab Charter
School is a K-5 elementary
school.
Document
review
New issue
identified

Job postings and other
materials used to
publicize the school do
not include a notice that
Conservatory Lab does
not discriminate on the
basis of race, color,
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 19 of 34
Please provide examples of
notices, job postings, and other
materials used to publicize
Conservatory Lab Charter
School that include the
complete notification by
October 30, 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
Requirements
national origin, sex,
disability, religion, or
sexual orientation.
The Office of Civil Rights
has recently affirmed that
schools may use “equal
opportunity employer” in
newspaper ads. However,
for other publications and
the school handbook, full
notice is required.
MOA 13
Availability of
information
and counseling
Document
review
New issue
identified

The school does not have
a means to provide LEP
students with counseling
services in their native
language.
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 20 of 34
Please identify a means to
provide limited English
proficient students with
counseling in their native
language and provide the
documentation to the
Department by October 30,
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
Document
review and
staff
interviews
MOA 14
Counseling
and counseling
materials free
from bias
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
Requirements
New issue
identified

The school does not have
a means to provide LEP
students with counseling
services in their native
language.
See corrective action for MOA
13.
Additionally, the school
did not submit a
description of steps taken
to rectify any possible test
bias.
Please provide a brief narrative
describing how the staff
rectifies test bias (for example,
during yearly reading
assessments or during
evaluations) when assessing
students who are LEP.
Please provide these materials
to the Department by October
30, 2006.
MOA 15
Nondiscriminatory
administration
of scholarships
Not applicable
Conservatory Lab Charter
School is a K-5 elementary
school.
MOA 16
Notice to
students 16 or
over leaving
school
Not applicable
Conservatory Lab Charter
School is a K-5 elementary
school.
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 21 of 34
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20052006 CPR
requirements)
MOA 17A
Use of physical
restraint
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined
to be
Implemented
and Effective

Method(s)
of
Verification
Document
review and
staff
interviews
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
Requirements
New issue
identified

The school did not
provide verification of the
required annual training;
according to staff
interviews, there was
some confusion about
how much training all
personnel are supposed to
receive to satisfy the legal
requirements for training.
Please review and
appropriately revise the
school’s restraint policy to
incorporate all aspects of 603
CMR 46.00; please refer to
http://www.doe.mass.edu/lawsr
egs/603cmr46.html?section=all
for guidance in this process.
Judging by submitted
documents, staff members
do not know the content
of the school’s restraint
policy (provided with the
school’s Mid-Cycle
documentation); for
example, in an email, an
administrative staff
member acknowledges a
restraint that occurred in
late September 2005 that
was not documented
because the parent came
to the school to discuss it.
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 22 of 34
All staff members are required
to receive training on the
school’s physical restraint
policy within one month of the
beginning of the school year;
staff members hired after the
beginning of the year must
receive training within one
month of the date of hire.
Please provide the following to
the Department: a copy of the
school’s revised policy on
restraints; a copy of the staff
training agenda and signed
attendance sheet (following the
staff training); and a copy of
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
Requirements
Another restraint was
described in which the
child received a two day
suspension. If either
restraint was 20 minutes
or longer in duration, the
school must submit a
written report to the
Department as soon as
possible.
the school’s restraint log.
Please submit these by
October 30, 2006.
Additionally, the school
does not maintain a
restraint log, although
there appears to have been
at least two restraints this
school year.
MOA 21
Staff training
regarding civil
rights
responsibilities
Document
review and
staff
interviews
New issue
identified

Although the school
identified the workshops
that staff attended in
which civil rights topics
were covered, no
supporting documentation
was attached.
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 23 of 34
Please provide training
agendas, name of presenters,
topics presented, and
participant lists for the
Achievement Gap workshops
(September 14, 2005; October
12, 2005) and the Gay,
Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender
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
Requirements
Workshop (March 8, 2006) to
the Department by October
30, 2006.
MOA 22
Accessibility of
district
programs
MOA 24
Curriculum
review
Document
review and
staff
interviews
Document
review
Not to have
been
Implemented

New issue
identified

The school’s classrooms
on the second and third
floors are not wheelchair
or handicap accessible;
the school submitted
documentation, including
floor plans and bids, of its
efforts to correct this.
Please provide a description of
how the school will
accommodate staff or students
who cannot access classrooms
on the second and third floor,
by October 30, 2006.
According to past CPR
progress reports,
Conservatory Lab had
developed a curriculum
review form as part of its
corrective action plan in
2003. However, nothing
Please forward examples of
recent reviews of existing and
new curriculum materials
conducted by the Director of
Academic Curriculum to the
Department by October 30,
2006.
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 24 of 34
Additionally, please provide
timelines for the
implementation of the
installment of the chair lift to
the Department by October
30, 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
Requirements
was submitted for this
criterion for the MidCycle review.
MOA 25
Institutional
self-evaluation
Document
review
New issue
identified

The school did not submit
any documentation for
this criterion.
The Department has
recently developed
guidance for schools and
districts for this criterion.
The requirement may be
satisfied by a number of
ways, but the school or
district must keep
documentation of each
year’s evaluation, the
conclusions reached on
the basis of the
evaluation, and the steps
taken to resolve any
identified problems.
Some suggested methods
of implementation include
questionnaires or
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 25 of 34
Please provide the school’s
documentation of last year’s
evaluation, the conclusions
reached on the basis of the
evaluation, and the steps taken
to resolve any identified
problems. Please provide the
evaluation plan or method for
the 2005-2006 school year.
Submit this documentation to
the Department by October
30, 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
interviews of appropriate
staff, students, and parents
about program access;
analysis of the
distribution of students in
programs; examination of
data on the incidence of
bullying, hate crimes, and
harassment or
discrimination; or a
review of any complaints
regarding discrimination
or harassment by students,
staff, or parents.
Other
Regulated
Programs
Addressed
During this
Mid-cycle
Review
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 26 of 34
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Requirements
CONSERVATORY LAB CHARTER SCHOOL
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
SELFASSESSMENT
PLEASE NOTE: The submitted ELE Self-Assessment was
titled “Conservatory Lab Charter School” but was apparently
borrowed from another school with little to no adaptation.
ELE 1
Annual
Assessment
The school annually assesses all students identified as LEP
with the MEPA (GL 3-12), the MELA-O (GL K-12), and the
MCAS (GL 3-12). Qualified staff members administer the
MEPA and the MELA-O.
No corrective actions necessary.
ELE 2
MCAS
Participation
Conservatory Lab’s ELE students take the MCAS, but staff
interviews indicated that accommodations are not consistently
offered to students.
Please review Chap. 71A’s requirements for LEP students and the MCAS
at http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/part_req.html. Any student who
currently is or has been a LEP student may use an approved bilingual
word-to-word dictionary on all MCAS tests. Bilingual dictionaries and
electronic translators permitted for this purpose are limited to those that
provide word-to-word translations, not definitions. A list of approved
bilingual dictionaries can be found on the Department’s website at and in
the appendices of the 2005 Principal's Administration Manual. Please
provide a description of how the school provides accommodations for LEP
students during the MCAS and submit this to the Department by October
30, 2006.
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 27 of 34
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 3
Initial
Identification
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
According to staff members, Conservatory Lab Charter
School does not provide all parents with a Home Language
Survey as a means to identify which students to assess for
ELE. According to the school’s identification process,
classroom teachers are the usual source of referral for
students.
Please see MOA 1.
ELE 4
Waiver
Procedures
Conservatory Lab Charter School did not submit
documentation for this criterion. According to staff, the school
has not developed a waiver policy.
Please develop a waiver process and provide a copy or description, a copy
of a blank waiver form for students under and above age 10. Please see
http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/cpr/instrument/chapter71A.doc (ELE
4, page 16) and http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/news03/waiverfrm_drft.pdf
(provides actual forms) for guidance in developing this policy by October
30, 2006.
ELE 5
Program
Placement and
Structure
The school provides pull-out English language acquisition
support for students, but classroom teachers have not received
any training in developing SEI classrooms for identified ELE
students. Additionally, according to staff interviews, the ELE
teacher does some small group work in the regular classroom
to support students.
For kindergarten students, an English-only language general education
classroom with assistance in English language acquisition, including, but
not limited to, English as a second language, is acceptable. However, for
students in grades 1-5, the school must develop “sheltered English
immersion” (SEI) classrooms, in which nearly all books and instructional
materials are in English with the curriculum and presentation designed for
students who are learning the language or modify general education and
other classrooms, so that the activities and instruction in those classrooms
provide sheltered English instruction to LEP students.
Please see implementation guidance on page 19 of the ELE CPR
instrument at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/cpr/instrument/chapter71A.doc.
Please provide a description of the implementation practices, including a
list of the students identified as LEP, the names of their classroom teachers,
and for each teacher the specific training that has or will be provided with
regard to the four competency areas. Also, please indicate how much direct
English language instruction is provided to each LEP student per week, to
the Department by October 30, 2006.
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 28 of 34
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 6
Program Exit
and Readiness
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
The school did not provide documentation for this criterion;
however, according to staff interviews, the ELE teacher bases
her decision to exit a student on multiple criteria, including
written feedback from the student’s regular teacher.
Please provide a description of the school’s implementation practices,
including the program exit criteria and the instrument given to teachers for
feedback on ELE student classroom performance by October 30, 2006.
The ELE teacher looks for on-par participation of the student
with his or her peers in all aspects of the general education
program without the use of adapted or simplified English
materials and a “proficient” on state-mandated assessments.
ELE 7
Parent
Involvement
The school did not submit documentation for this criterion.
Please provide a description of implementation practices, including
documentation of LEP parent membership on school council or the parent
advisory council, any materials developed for LEP parents to promote
participation in the school (including the school newsletter), and/or plans
for developing or increasing LEP parent involvement by October 30,
2006.
Parent involvement may be fulfilled through the development of a parent
advisory council on English language education, through membership on a
school-based council, or through other means determined by the school.
The school should provide multiple opportunities and a variety of methods
for parent-teacher communication.
ELE 8
Declining Entry
to a Program
The school did not develop a mechanism by which to inform
parents of ELE students of their right to decline or opt out of
the school’s ELE program.
Please see
http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/cpr/instrument/chapter71A.doc, page
23 regarding opting out of the school’s ELE program and develop “optout” procedures.
Please provide documentation of the school’s notification process; this
could include a paragraph in the Parent-Student Handbook or in the
required parent notification letter (see ELE 10, below) and provide it to the
Department by October 30, 2006.
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 29 of 34
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 9
Instructional
Grouping
ELE 10
Parental
Notification
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
According to staff interviews, the ELE instructor
appropriately groups students with similar needs and at the
same grade level together for instruction.
No corrective actions necessary.
The school provided a parental notification letter, but it does
not contain all elements required by Chapter 71A.
The school is required to send a notice to parents of LEP students upon
placement in any ELE program, and annually thereafter in the
primary/home language and English.
This notice informs parents of:
(a) The reasons for identification of the student as Limited English
Proficient (LEP);
(b) The child’s level of English proficiency;
(c) Program placement and/or the method of instruction used in the
program;
(d) How the program will meet the educational strengths and needs
of the student;
(e) How the program will specifically help the child learn English;
(f) The specific exit requirements; and
(g) The parents’ right to apply for a waiver (see ELE 4), or to decline
to enroll their child in the program (see ELE 8).
Please submit the school’s revised notice in English and in the primary
languages of the school’s population to the Department by October 30,
2006.
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 30 of 34
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 11
Equal Access to
Academic
Programs and
Services
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
Although ELL students receive some in-class support from
the ELE staff person, it is not clear if appropriate content
objectives for these students have been developed in English
language arts, history and social science, mathematics, and
science. None of Conservatory Lab’s teachers have received
SEI training.
Submitted documentation shows that LEP students do receive
English language development instruction that is based on
standards from the Massachusetts English Language
Proficiency Benchmarks and Outcomes.
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
The school submitted the Department’s March 2006 Designing and
Implementing Sheltered English Immersion (SEI) Programs in Low
Incidence Districts
(http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/news06/lowincidence.doc) with its ELL
documentation.
Please review this guidance and develop a plan for developing content
instruction for LEP students in the general education classrooms at
Conservatory Lab; this can be done a variety of ways, e.g., adapting
content including texts, assignments, and assessments and presentation of
content in all modalities within the student’s English proficiency level;
purchasing or designing materials specifically for ELLs according to
students’ level of need; or developing curriculum maps and pacing guides
for each content area subject for each individual grade level.
Also see progress report requirement for ELE 5: Sheltering content in
subject classrooms requires that teachers are appropriately trained.
ELE 12
Equal Access to
Nonacademic
and Extracurricular
Programs
While the school provides access to the full range of academic
opportunities and supports afforded non-LEP students, such as
special education services, Section 504 Accommodation
Plans, and Title I services, the school has not yet developed a
means by which to provide students with counseling in the
students’ primary language.
See progress report requirement for MOA 13.
According to staff interviews, LEP students are provided with
some ELL instruction after school. As an unintended
consequence, it is possible that they are missing after-school
opportunities because of scheduling.
Please provide a narrative addressing whether ELL students are denied
access to after-school activities because of the scheduling of ELL
instruction by October 30, 2006.
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 31 of 34
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
ELE 13
Follow-up
Support
Staff members described a means by which Conservatory Lab
monitors its FLEP students; however, no documentation was
provided for the Mid-Cycle.
Please provide a description of Conservatory Lab’s follow-up policies and
procedures for monitoring FLEP students, including evidence of
monitoring of FLEP students progress for the next school year by October
30, 2006.
ELE 14
Licensure and
Fluency
Requirements
Conservatory Lab’s ELL teacher is fluent in English and
possesses certification in English as a Second Language PreK9 and 5-12.
No corrective actions necessary.
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 32 of 34
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 15
Professional
Development
Requirements
ELE 16
Equitable
Facilities (To be reviewed
during next
CPR visit)
ELE 17
DOE Data
Submission
Requirements
and Program
Evaluation
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
According to staff interviews, none of the regular education
teachers have participated in SEI training.
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
See the progress report requirements for ELE 5.
Schools with LEP students must implement a professional
development plan that provides teachers and administrators
with high quality training 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. The school provides
training opportunities to teachers of LEP students that ensure
the progress of LEP students in developing oral
comprehension, speaking, reading, and writing of English, and
in meeting academic standards.
LEP students receive their pull-out services in a multi-purpose
room after school.
No corrective actions necessary.
Conservatory Lab Charter School submitted ELL rosters,
including entry dates, fluency scores, MELA-O and MEPA
results, and recommendations for each student.
No corrective actions necessary.
A comparison of the school’s submitted ELL roster against
the school’s DOE data report shows that the school is keeping
a record of its ELE population.
However, the school is not assessing all students whose
primary language at home is not English, but only students
identified by teachers as struggling with language issues in
class.
Please see corrective actions under MOA 1.
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 33 of 34
ELE Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 18 Records
of LEP
Students(To be reviewed
during next
CPR visit.)
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
Please Note: ELE records did not contain elements required
by Chapter 71A.
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
For future reviews, LEP student records must include the following:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
The school’s home language survey;
Results of identification and proficiency tests and evaluations,
including MELA-O, MEPA, MCAS, or other tests chosen by the
Board of Education and the district;
Information about students’ previous school experiences;
Copies of parent notification letters, progress reports and report
cards (in the native language, if necessary);
Evidence of follow-up monitoring (if applicable);
Documentation of a parent’s consent to “opt-out” of English
learner education; and
Individual Student Success Plans for students who have failed
MCAS, if the district is required to complete plans for non-LEP
students.
Please provide training to key staff in the information that must be
maintained in the student records of LEP students and provide us with
evidence of that training by October 30, 2006.
Mid-cycle Report Format 2006.doc
Rev. 3/31/06
Conservatory Lab Charter School Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
JULY 12, 2006
Page 34 of 34