350 Main Street, Malden, Massachusetts 02148-5023 Telephone: (781) 338-3700
TTY: N.E.T. Relay 1-800-439-2370
August 14, 2006
Kathleen I. Tyrell
Superintendent of Schools
Foxborough Public Schools
IGO Administration Building
60 South Street
Foxborough, MA 02035
Re: Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
Dear Superintendent Tyrell:
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 Foxborough Public Schools Coordinated Program
Review Report issued on July 9, 2003. The Mid-cycle Report also contains findings based on onsite monitoring of special education compliance criteria that have been newly created or substantially changed in response to IDEA 2004.
As you know, another component of the Department’s Mid-cycle Review is the review of your school district or charter school's self-assessment in the area of English learner education (ELE).
(In the remainder of this letter, please read “district” as meaning “school district or charter school.”) The purpose of this review is to determine whether your district is implementing the significant changes in M.G.L. Chapter 71A, governing the education of limited English proficient students, that were adopted by voters by means of Question 2 in 2002. The Department has reviewed your district’s ELE self-assessment documents and, based solely on that selfassessment, is providing you in this report with comments on your ELE program and, where necessary, corrective action to be implemented. Your district is urged to request technical assistance in relation to any of these comments or prescribed corrective action. To secure assistance, you may consult with your Mid-cycle Review Chairperson. You may also consult with staff in the Department’s Office of Language Acquisition and Achievement at 781-338-3534 and obtain additional ELE guidance documents through the Department’s web site at http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/ .
The onsite team would like to commend the following areas that were brought to its attention and that the team believes have a significant and positive impact on the delivery of educational services for students enrolled in the Foxborough Public Schools. These areas are as follows:

The special education department has done a commendable job in improving the quality of IEPs. IEPs are written with strong, measurable goals, thorough descriptions of

specially designed instruction, and extensive progress reports.
 The Director of Special Education’s everyday efforts have resulted in high-quality programs and services for the special needs population in Foxborough.

Educational assessments are particularly well done by the teachers in Foxborough.
The Department will notify you of your district's next regularly scheduled Coordinated Program
Review several months before it is to occur. At this time we anticipate the Department's next routine monitoring visit to occur sometime during the 2008-2009 school year, unless the
Department determines that there is some reason to schedule this visit earlier.
While the Department of Education found your district to have resolved certain noncompliance issues, others were partially corrected or not addressed at all, or the Department’s onsite team identified new issues of noncompliance, either noncompliance with special education criteria added or substantially changed in response to IDEA 2004, noncompliance with ELE criteria, or other new noncompliance. Where the district has failed to implement its approved Corrective
Action Plan, the Department views these findings to be serious.
In all instances where noncompliance has been found, the Department has prescribed corrective action for the district that must be implemented without delay. You will find these requirements for corrective action included in the attached report, along with requirements for progress reporting. Please provide the Department with your written assurance that all of the Department's requirements for corrective action will be implemented by your school district within the timelines specified. Your statement of assurance must be submitted to the Mid-cycle Review
Chairperson by September 8, 2006 .
Your staff's cooperation throughout these follow-up monitoring activities is appreciated. Should you like clarification of any part of our report, please do not hesitate to contact the Mid-cycle
Review Chairperson at 781-338-3704.
Sincerely,
Matthew Deninger, Mid-cycle Review Chairperson
Program Quality Assurance Services
Darlene A. Lynch, Director
Program Quality Assurance Services c: David P. Driscoll, Commissioner of Education
Martha Slattery, School Committee Chairperson
Cynthia Brunelli, District Program Review Follow-up Coordinator
Encl.: Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report

FOXBOROUGH PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ONSITE VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
AND/OR IDENTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL NONCOMPLIANCE REQUIRING CORRECTIVE ACTION
Date of Coordinated Program Review (CPR): January 24-31, 2003
Date of Coordinated Program Review Corrective Action Plan Approval: November 10, 2003
Dates of Corrective Action Plan Progress Reports: December 18, 2003, September 7, 2004, September 20, 2004,
November 16, 2004, March 17, 2005 and August 19, 2005
Dates of this Mid-cycle Review Onsite Visit: May 15-17, 2006
Date of this Report: August 14, 2006
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS REPORT IS IN SEVERAL SECTIONS.
Foxborough Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 14, 2006
Page 1 of 15

Criterion
Number and
Topic
(Refer to full text of 2005-
2006 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
Special
Education
Criteria
Originally
Cited in CPR
Report and
Monitored in
Mid-cycle
determination
SE 18A
IEP
Development



Record review, interviews
Record review, interviews
The assessment reports were comprehensive, informative to both professional and layperson audiences, and inclusive of all required elements. The reports are made available 2 days prior to the
Team meeting.
All records included eligibility flow charts that were complete, accurate, and clear.
Record review, interviews, documentation
The district completes IEPs that are of particularly high quality, with measurable goals and benchmarks, descriptions of specially designed
Foxborough Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 14, 2006
Page 2 of 15

Criterion
Number and
Topic
(Refer to full text of 2005-
2006 CPR requirements) and Content
Determination
SE 19
SE 24
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
Record review, interviews, and documentation
Record review, interviews, and documentation
Record review, interviews instruction, comprehensive summaries, etc.
All IEPs we reviewed contained signed, accurate placement pages.
The district’s tracking system ensures that attention is paid to the immediate provision of IEPs to parents. The immediate provision of IEPs is substantially implemented in this district.
The district no longer uses extended evaluations to postpone the evaluation deadline. The district uses extended evaluations appropriately, usually writing a partial IEP in the meantime.
All student records contained required notice forms where appropriate. All notice forms contained both pages, and all questions on the second page are addressed.
Foxborough Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 14, 2006
Page 3 of 15

Criterion
Number and
Topic
(Refer to full text of 2005-
2006 CPR requirements)
SE 25
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined to be
Implemented and Effective



Partial

Method(s) of
Verification
Record review, interviews
Record review and interviews
Documentation and interviews
Record review, interviews, and
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
Before implementing IEPs, conducting evaluations, or amending IEPs, the district always receives parental consent.
The district’s tracking system ensures that attention is paid to the immediate provision of IEPs or notices of no eligibility to parents.
The immediate provision of IEPs and notices of no eligibility is substantially implemented in this district.
The SEPAC is a viable organization with established bylaws and officers. It receives support from the district, including an annual “parents’ rights workshop,” access to a room and to copiers
The district contracts with Easter
Seals for assistive technology evaluations and for consultative services. Assistive technology is
Partial
The SEPAC is not included in the district’s planning, development, advisory, or evaluation activities.
Foxborough Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 14, 2006
Page 4 of 15
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and Progress Reporting
Please provide a plan for further involving the SEPAC in the planning, development, and evaluation activities to the
Department no later than Nov.
15, 2006.

Criterion
Number and
Topic
(Refer to full text of 2005-
2006 CPR requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined to be
Implemented and Effective

Method(s) of
Verification

Partial
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective documentation provided when a child is in need.
Record review, interviews, and documentation
All out-of-district procedures are consistent with state and federal regulations. The out-of-district coordinator ensures that all IEPs are implemented completely.
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

Record reviews, interviews, documentation
Some of the schools in the district have a full continuum of behavioral interventions.
Partial
Consideration of behavioral intervention plans is inconsistent throughout the district. Special education students with social/emotional or behavioral problems do not always have said issues addressed on their IEPs.
The district will provide further training for special education personnel on incorporating social/emotional/behavioral goals into the IEP as well as developing behavioral intervention plans.
Please provide evidence of this training (sign-in sheets, agenda, etc.) to the Department no later than Nov. 15, 2006.
Record reviews, interviews, documentation
The district conducts manifestation determinations appropriately, and uses a tracking system to monitor disciplinary action taken against special education students.
Foxborough Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 14, 2006
Page 5 of 15

Criterion
Number and
Topic
(Refer to full text of 2005-
2006 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

Responsibilities of the School
Principal


Record reviews, interviews, documentation
Record reviews, interviews, documentation
Interviews and documentation
The district has increased the amount of counseling services available to students. Whenever a student needs such services, the student is provided with it.
The district has issued an updated curriculum accommodation plan, and staff members demonstrated an awareness and knowledge of it.
The district provides ample training opportunities for staff, as well as five full in-service days.
Interviews of staff revealed they were appreciative of this investment. All required training has been completed.
Foxborough Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 14, 2006
Page 6 of 15

Criterion
Number and
Topic
(Refer to full text of 2005-
2006 CPR requirements)
Approved
Corrective
Action
Determined to be
Implemented and Effective


Method(s) of
Verification
School tour, interviews, and documentation
Basis of Determination that
Corrective Action was
Implemented and has been
Effective
The concerns at both the High
School and Middle School from the
2003 review have been addressed.
Special education classrooms are now totally integrated into the life of the schools.
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
Foxborough Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 14, 2006
Page 7 of 15

Criterion
Number and
Topic
(Refer to full text of 2005-
2006 CPR requirements)
Special
Education
Criteria created or revised in response to
IDEA-2004
SE 6
Determination of Transition
Services
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s) of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Partial
Record reviews, interviews, documentation
Transition services are provided to a number of high school students
(school to career, job shadowing, family/consumer studies). Students are always invited to meetings and have input in constructing the IEP.
Criterion
Determined to be
Partially
Implemented or Not
Implemented

Basis of Determination that Criterion was
Partially Implemented or Not Implemented
Partial
IEPs do not consistently include transition goals as would be appropriate, raising concerns that some transition services may not be provided where they would be warranted.

Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
The district will provide further training for special education personnel on incorporating transition goals into the IEP as well as techniques for transitional planning. Please provide evidence of this training (sign-in sheets, agenda, etc.) to the
Department no later than Nov.
15, 2006.
SE 8
IEP Team composition and attendance
SE 12
Frequency of re-evaluation
SE 13
Progress
Reports and


Record reviews, interviews, documentation
Record reviews, interviews, documentation
Record reviews, interviews,
The IEP Teams always meet with the required members. Every effort is made to accommodate parents.
The district will hold interviews via the phone when necessary.
The district’s tracking mechanism ensures that all re-evaluations are completed in a timely manner.
The district writes strong progress reports, directly addressing specific goals and benchmarks, and always
Foxborough Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 14, 2006
Page 8 of 15

content
SE 14
Review and revision of
IEPs
SE 25B
Resolution of disputes
SE 30
Notice of procedural safeguards
SE 46
Procedures for suspension of students with disabilities more than 10 days



 documentation
Record reviews, interviews, documentation indicating whether the student will reach the goal by the end of the IEP period.
The district creates amendments to
IEPs in accordance with all state and federal regulations.
Record reviews, interviews, documentation
Record reviews, interviews, documentation
Record reviews, interviews, documentation
The district is aware of the regulation for resolution of disputes, and implements it fully.
The district uses the newest version: the “Interim Notice of
Procedural Safeguards,” providing it to all parties in accordance with regulations.
The district conducts manifestation determinations appropriately, and uses a tracking system to monitor disciplinary action taken against special education students. The district considers IAES settings where appropriate.
Foxborough Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 14, 2006
Page 9 of 15

Criterion
Number and
Topic
(Refer to full text of 2005-
2006 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
Civil Rights
(MOA) and
Other General
Education
Requirements

Partial
Record reviews, interviews, documentation
The district uses the IPT as an identification tool. This instrument is a valid and acceptable tool.
Record reviews, interviews, documentation
The district offers vocational opportunities for students in its school to career program (with
Attleboro), job shadowing program, business and CAD classes, and woodworking classes.
Partial
Interviews with district staff indicated that vocational opportunities for special education students who did not receive admission to a
Vocational school were limited and insufficient.
Please develop a plan to expand the range of vocational opportunities for students who do not receive admission to a
Vocational school. Refer to
DOE guidance in
Administrative Advisory SPED
2002-3 at http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/a dvisories/02_3.html. Please provide the Department with
Foxborough Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 14, 2006
Page 10 of 15

(now MOA 12A)
discrimination
(now MOA 12A)
(now MOA 11A)
Partial

Documentation The district notifies staff members and the general public of its nondiscrimination coordinators by way of its school handbooks, which are distributed annually. This information is included in the
Foxboro High School and Igo
School handbooks.
Documentation All school handbooks, as well as other materials used to publicize the school, contain a valid nondiscrimination statement.
Partial
The district does not include this information in the Ahern
Middle School handbook.
The Department was unable to determine whether the information was included in the Burrell School or Taylor
School handbooks. the plan no later than Nov. 15,
2006.
The district will ensure that information regarding the nondiscrimination coordinators is included in all district handbooks.
Please provide the Department with a revised version of the handbooks (or plans for revision if publication of booklet is not yet possible) no later than Nov.
15, 2006.


Documentation

The grievance procedures do not appear in the student handbooks, nor on the website.
Though the district has provided such procedures in previous reviews and progress reporting, it is unclear if they are provided to students and staff.
The district must have grievance procedures for students and staff that are published for students and employees offering prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and disability. Please provide these procedures, along with a description of how staff and the general public are made aware of these procedures to the
Department no later than Nov.
15, 2006.
Interviews and documentation
The district has demonstrated that they support students in nontraditional occupational pursuits for their gender with the Women in
Technology Program .
Interviews and
The district has provided staff members with awareness-level
Foxborough Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 14, 2006
Page 11 of 15

Comparability
Other
Regulated
Programs
Addressed
During this
Mid-cycle
Review
SE 7
Age of
Majority
 documentation training on physical restraint policies. The district also has staff members who are fully trained in restraint, and personnel are aware of who they are.
Interviews, school tour, and documentation
Classrooms at the high school that housed the STAR program are now of comparable quality in terms of physical space and availability of resources.
Partial
Record reviews, interviews, documentation
The district has documented a child’s choice regarding educational decision making on the administrative data sheet.
Partial
In instances where a parent signature is required, or a witness signature is required, the district does not have a mechanism for obtaining that signature.
The district must create a mechanism by which the proper signatures are documented when a student makes a choice regarding their educational decision-making.
Please provide this mechanism, along with a description of its implementation to the
Department no later than Nov.
15, 2006.
Foxborough Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 14, 2006
Page 12 of 15

FOXBOROUGH PUBLIC SCHOOLS
English Learner Education (ELE) Requirements
Mid-Cycle Review Comments and Corrective Action Based on the Department’s Review Of Local Self-Assessments
(Please refer to full text of 2005-2006 CPR-ELE legal requirements and related implementation guidance at http://www.doe.mass.edu/pqa/review/cpr/instrument/chapter71A.doc
)
ELE Criterion
Number and
Topic
ELE 1
Annual
Assessment
ELE 2
MCAS
Participation
ELE 3
Initial
Identification
ELE 4
Waiver
Procedures
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
The district conducts the annual MEPA assessment and has policies and procedures to support this activity. The district is aware of its responsibilities in this regard.
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Progress
Reporting
All LEP students participate in the MCAS, and the school has policies and procedures to support this activity. The school is aware of its responsibilities in this regard.
A home language survey was completed, and will be part of new student registration packets next year. However, the home language survey has not been sent to all parents in the district, as is required. The district has agreed to send the survey in the late summer, with regular mailings.
Students take the IPT for their initial identification test.
The district does not have policies and procedures for waivers.
The district has a waiver form letter, but the district has not used the letter, nor has the district translated the letter.
The district must distribute its home language survey, which is also translated into a common language spoken in the immediate area, to all families in the district. The district must also include the survey in its registration packet for new students. Please provide samples of completed home-language surveys, as well as a new student registration packet, to the Department no later than
Nov. 15, 2006.
The district must develop policies and procedures for the parent’s right to waive
ELE services. The district must also distribute the waiver forms and translated waiver forms. Please provide policies and procedures, along with waiver forms, to the Department no later than Nov. 15, 2006.
Foxborough Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 14, 2006
Page 13 of 15

ELE Criterion
Number and
Topic
ELE 5
Program
Placement and
Structure
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
LEP students in the district do not receive instruction in
Sheltered English Immersion settings.
The district employs a certified ESL teacher to provide
English language instruction to LEP students. The district’s program includes both direct English language instruction as well as supplementary support.
The curriculum for LEP students needs to be further developed and aligned with the state’s
The district does not have specific policies and procedures regarding program exit and readiness. The district should have specific measurements and criteria for program exit.
ELE 6
Program Exit and Readiness
ELE 7
Parent
Involvement
The district does not have a description of how they plan to actively involve parents of students who are LEP. While the
ESL teacher is in contact with some parents, ultimate responsibilities for carrying out this duty are unclear.
ELE 8
Declining Entry to a Program
ELE 9
Instructional
Grouping
ELE 10
Parental
Notification
The district does not have policies and procedures regarding students whose parents have declined entry to an ELL program.
The district groups students appropriately, according to age, and only groups students according to ability level when necessary.
The school does not have policies, procedures, or supporting documentation regarding the required elements of parent notices.
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Progress
Reporting
The district must provide SEI classrooms for LEP students ( see ELE 15 ).
The district must also develop its ELL curriculum and align it with the state’s
English Language Proficiency Benchmarks and Outcomes. Please provide evidence of ELL curriculum development to the Department no later than
Nov. 15, 2006.
The district must develop policies and procedures for limited English proficient students’ program exit. Please provide policies and procedures for exiting the
ELE program to the Department no later than Nov. 15, 2006.
The district must develop policies, procedures, and a description of individual responsibilities for actively involving parents of limited English proficient students. Please provide the policies, procedures, and description to the
Department no later than Nov. 15, 2006.
The district must develop policies and procedures for systems that support LEP students whose parent have declined entry in the ELL program. Please provide policies and procedures to the Department no later than Nov. 15, 2006.
The district must develop policies and procedures regarding notices sent to parents of LEP students. In addition, the district must develop notice forms that include all required elements. Please provide policies and procedures, as well as a sample notice form, to the Department no later than Nov. 15, 2006.
Foxborough Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 14, 2006
Page 14 of 15

ELE Criterion
Number and
Topic
ELE 11
Equal Access to
Academic
Programs and
Services
ELE 12
Equal Access to
Nonacademic and Extracurricular
Programs
ELE 13
Follow-up
Support
ELE 14
Licensure and
Fluency
Requirements
Comments Based on the Department’s Review of Local
ELE Self-Assessment
LEP students are given equal access to the full range of academic programs and services.
LEP students are given equal access to the full range of nonacademic and extracurricular programs and services.
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Progress
Reporting
Students in need of follow-up support are actively monitored for two years through the district’s building-based support teams.
However, the district does not provide adult basic education in
English language and literacy.
The district must, to the extent possible, provide adult basic education for LEP students who were previously enrolled in a public secondary school in the
Commonwealth directly from a country other than the United States and who were unable to achieve English language proficiency. Please provide the
Department with a description of the availability of these services to this specific population no later than Nov. 15, 2006.
The teacher providing LEP students with English language instruction is certified by the state in ESL.
The district has also ensured that all staff members are fluent in English.
Foxborough Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 14, 2006
Page 15 of 15

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
LEP students do not currently receive instruction in Sheltered
English Immersion classrooms.
The district has scheduled SEI training to occur for staff members.
Students in the ELE program do not receive materials, curricula, and instructional space comparable to those of non-
LEP students. Texts are not of adequate quality, and the quality of instructional space varies between buildings.
The district has submitted the required data to the Department.
Because the ELE program is in its incipient stages, regular program evaluation is not complete.
ELE 18 Records of LEP
Students-
(To be reviewed during next
CPR visit.)
The district keeps documentation for ELE students, but the documents are kept in these students’ permanent records. The district has not yet compiled and centralized ELE student records with all necessary components listed in ELE 18.
Mid-cycle Report Format 2006.doc
Required Corrective Action, Timelines for Implementation, and Progress
Reporting
The district should develop a professional development plan for providing teachers with the Sheltered English Immersion training that is required. Please provide this plan, along with evidence of any recent SEI training, to the
Department no later than Nov. 15, 2006.
The district must provide the ELL program with materials, curricula, and instructional space comparable to those of non-LEP students. Please provide a description of efforts in this regard, as well as any purchase orders for materials, to the Department no later than Nov. 15, 2006.
The district must develop a formal process for evaluation of its ELE program.
Please provide a description of this process, as well as implementation timelines, for regularly occurring ELE program evaluation no later than
Nov. 15, 2006.
The district must compile ELE student records with all necessary components, as are listed in ELE 18. The Department will review these records during the next
CPR visit in the 2008-2009 school year.
Rev. 3/31/06
Foxborough Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
August 14, 2006
Page 16 of 15