Massachusetts Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education
350 Main Street, Malden, Massachusetts 02148-5023
Telephone: (781) 338-3700
TTY: N.E.T. Relay 1-800-439-2370
February 14, 2008
Carol Jacobs, Superintendent
Georgetown Public Schools
51 North Street
Georgetown, MA 01833
Re: 2007 Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
Dear Superintendent Jacobs:
Enclosed is the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education's 2007 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
Georgetown Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Report issued on June 3, 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 self-assessment, 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 781338-3534. ELE guidance documents are available on the Department’s website at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/ .
While the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education found your district to have
resolved certain noncompliance issues, others were partially corrected or not addressed at all, or
the Department’s onsite team identified new issues of noncompliance, either noncompliance with
special education criteria added or substantially changed in response to IDEA 2004,
noncompliance with ELE criteria, or other new noncompliance. Where the district has failed to
implement its approved Corrective Action Plan, the Department views these findings to be
serious.
1
In all instances where noncompliance has been found, the Department has prescribed corrective
action for the district that must be implemented without delay. You will find these requirements
for corrective action included in the attached report, along with requirements for progress
reporting. Please provide the Department with your written assurance that all of the Department's
requirements for corrective action will be implemented by your district within the timelines
specified. You must submit your statement of assurance to me by September 21, 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 781-338-3731.
Sincerely,
Donna Feinberg, Mid-cycle Review Chairperson
Program Quality Assurance Services
Darlene A. Lynch, Director
Program Quality Assurance Services
c:
Jeffrey Nelhaus, Interim Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education
George A. Moker, School Committee Chairperson
Linda Gross, District Program Review Follow-up Coordinator
Encl.: Mid-cycle Coordinated Program Review Report
Mid-cycle Cover Letter 2007.doc
Rev. 11/14/06
2
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
EDUCATION
MID-CYCLE COORDINATED PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT
Georgetown Public Schools
ONSITE MONITORING OF IMPLEMENTATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION AND OF CERTAIN NEW REQUIREMENTS
Date of Coordinated Program Review (CPR): January 29-February 6, 2004
Date of Coordinated Program Review Corrective Action Plan Approval: February 2, 2006
Dates of this Mid-cycle Review Onsite Visit: February 27-March 1, 2007
Date of this Report: February 14, 2008
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS REPORT IS IN SEVERAL SECTIONS.
Georgetown Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
February 14, 2008
Page 1 of 21
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
Student
Record
Review
The district has procedures in
place for the selection of
assessments for initial
evaluations and reevaluations.
The special education
administration is monitoring the
referrals for special education
evaluations from the buildingbased Assistance Teams and the
selection of assessments. The
Director of Special Education
and designated building-based
personnel monitored the
completion of the evaluations.
An annual review of disability
categories and available
assessment instruments are
conducted at each school
building.
The teacher assessment forms
have specific areas that general
education teachers system-wide
must address regarding the
student’s performance, behavior,
academic strengths, areas of
Partial
The review of student
records at the preschool
level indicated that initial
evaluations were not
always comprehensive
and conducted in all
areas of suspected
disability.
Initial evaluations and
reevaluations,
educational histories,
education assessments
and consented to
observations were not
always documented in
the student records.

Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
Special Ed.
Criteria Cited
in CPR Report
and Monitored
in Mid-cycle
SE 1
Assessments are
appropriately
selected
SE 2
Required
Assessments
Partial
Document
Review
Interview
Georgetown Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
February 14, 2008
Page 2 of 21
The district must conduct a
review of the requirements with
special education personnel in the
following areas:
1. Documentation of the
required educational
assessment, educational
history and the
completed observations.
2. Conducting of a
comprehensive initial
evaluation at the
preschool level.
Submit the following
documentation by March 31,
2008
1. Signed attendance
sheets and materials
from the review of the
requirements
2. Administrative review
of preschool student
records for initial
evaluations conducted
in the 2007-08 school
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
concern and instructional
strategies implemented.
Georgetown Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
February 14, 2008
Page 3 of 21
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
year
Administrative review
of student records for
initial evaluations and
reevaluations
conducted from the
elementary through the
high school level for
the 2007-08 school year
regarding the
documentation of the
educational histories
and assessments and
consented to
observations.
Indicate the # of records reviewed
regarding the documentation of
educational histories/assessments
and for the conducting of
assessments for preschool
evaluations, the # of records
demonstrating compliance with
the criteria. Indicate any further
actions taken by the district to
address areas where the review
showed noncompliance regarding
documentation of the required
assessments or the conducting of
comprehensive initial evaluations
at the preschool level.
3.
Criterion
Number/Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20062007 CPR
requirements)
SE 4
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
Student
Record
Review
The district has conducted
professional development
workshops for special education
staff on report writing and the
inclusion of educationally
relevant findings and
recommendations.
Partial
Educational achievement
assessment reports and
some in-district
psychological evaluations
are not always presenting
educationally relevant
findings and
recommendations. In
addition, information
contained in the report
regarding a student’s
areas of educational
concern and weakness, is
not always linked into the
summary reporting the
evaluator’s findings.
The district must conduct training
with special education and
personnel who are responsible for
educational and psychological
evaluations, regarding the
inclusion of educationally
relevant findings and
recommendations in assessment
reports. Submit the agenda,
handouts and copy of signed
attendance sheet from the
training,

Partial
Reports of
Assessment
Results
Document
Review
The district demonstrated that
there are building-based
processes in place to monitor the
quality of the completed
assessments and the inclusion of
educationally relevant findings
and recommendations.
Observations that have
been consented to by the
parent are not
documented in written
form in the student
records.
SE 7
Age of Majority
Partial
Student
Record
Review
The Team Chairperson reviews
the options available regarding
the decision-making rights at the
age of 18 with students at an IEP
Partial
The form informing
students of their rights
does not contain the three
choices available to
Georgetown Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
February 14, 2008
Page 4 of 21
Submit the results of a sample
of student records drawn from
each building regarding the
completion of assessments
(indicate the # of records
reviewed from each building,
the # of records with
appropriately completed
assessments and indicate any
further steps taken by the
district to address assessment
information by March 31, 2008.
The district must revise the form
to adhere with the requirements in
accordance with 603 CMR
28.07(5)(a-c).
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
Document
Review
Team meeting, one year prior to
the student reaching the age of
18. The form with the informed
options is provided to the
student.

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
students regarding
decision-making.
The discussion regarding
the transfer of parents
rights at the age of
majority one year prior to
the student reaching 18,
was not always
documented in the
student’s IEP or in the
student record.
Georgetown Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
February 14, 2008
Page 5 of 21
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
The district must review the
procedures for the documenting
the IEP Team’s discussion
regarding the age of majority.
Submit the following by March
31, 2008:
 Revised form
 Evidence of review
with Team
Chairperson
 Administrative review
of student records
regarding the
documentation of the
discussion and the
revised form.
 List of students who
will be informed of
their options regarding
the transfer of parental
rights during the 200708 SY.
 List of student who will
need to complete the
age of majority form to
indicate their decision
during the 2007-08 SY.
Criterion
Number/Topic
(Refer to full
text of 20062007 CPR
requirements)
SE 9
Timelines for
Eligibility
Determination
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
Student
Record
Review
The district tracks the
completion of evaluations and
the provision of the proposed
IEP or finding of no eligibility to
parents with an evaluation
checklist and monitoring by the
special education administrative
staff.
Partial
The Department’s review
of the IEP Tracker log for
the 2006-07 school year
indicates that the final
proposed IEP is not
always provided to
parents/guardians within
the mandated timeline.
The district must review its
procedures regarding the
provision of the proposed IEP to
the parent within the mandated
timeline.
Submit the following by March
31, 2008:

Partial
Document
Review
SE 10
End of School
Year Evaluations
Interview

SE 18B
Determination of
placement;
immediate
provision of IEP
to parent
The parents receive a copy of the
IEP developed at the Team
meeting in the form of a
reworked draft document at the
conclusion of the Team meeting.
The district is adhering to the
mandated timeline for the
completion of evaluations
consented to by the
parent/guardian for initial
evaluations and reevaluations.
SE 25
Parental
Consent

Student
Record
Review
Document
Review
The district has building-based
procedures in place to
monitoring that IEP services and
program are provided upon
receipt of parental consent. The
district has reviewed the
requirement with special
Georgetown Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
February 14, 2008
Page 6 of 21
Evidence of an
administrative review
of the IEP Tracker
regarding the provision
of the proposed IEP to
the parent/guardian,
following the
conclusion of the IEP
Team meeting. Indicate
any actions taken to
address inconsistent
adherence to the
mandated timeline for
provision of the
proposed IEP.
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
Interview
education personnel systemwide.

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
Partial
There are no formal
procedures in place
regarding the
documentation and
provision of language
assistance for
parents/guardians whose
language is other than
English and who require
oral and/or written
communications in their
native language or in
some other mode of
communication that is
not a written language.
Submit the following by March
31, 2008:
 Written procedures
regarding the
documentation and
provision of translation
assistance to
parents/guardians.
Include the key
personnel responsible
for the implementation,
oversight and
monitoring of the
provision of translation
assistance.
The district has procedures in
place to secure a parental
response for unsigned IEPs.
SE 29/MOA 7
Communications
in English and
Primary
Language of the
Home
Partial
Student
Record
Review
Document
Review
The district has provided
interpreters and some translated
materials to parents in the
primary language of the home
and/or in some other mode of
communication that is not a
written language.
Interview

Georgetown Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
February 14, 2008
Page 7 of 21
Evidence of a review of
the above procedures
with building
administrators,
guidance and all
teaching personnel.
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
Document
Review
The district’s PAC leadership
has ongoing involvement and
communications with the special
education administration in
matters pertaining to education
of students with disabilities and
special education budget
planning. The PAC is
participating on the search
committee for a new
Superintendent and the School
Committee has appointed a
member to be a liaison to the
PAC.

SE 32
Parent advisory
council for
special education

SE 37
Procedures for
Approved and
Unapproved Out
of District
Placements

Interview
Document
Review
Student
Record
Review
Interview
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
Monitoring plans and written
contracts are completed for
students in out-of-district
placements. The monitoring
plans include a log of activities,
including observations
conducted when visiting the outof-district programs.
Georgetown Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
February 14, 2008
Page 8 of 21
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
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
Document
Review
The district submitted the
schedule and description of
training for the paraprofessionals
for the 2005-06 and 2006-07
school years. Paraprofessionals,
when necessary, receive
increased specialized and
individualized training to address
the needs of the individual
students that they are servicing.

SE 53
Use of
Paraprofession
als

SE 56
Special
Education
programs and
services are
evaluated
Partial
Interview
Document
Review
Interview
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
Partial
The special education
program evaluation did
not contain information
gathered from annual IEP
reviews, from the results
of students’ local and
statewide assessments
and from the drop out
and graduation rates of
special education
students.
The district must provide an
action plan for evaluation of the
special education services and
programs that addresses the
inclusion of the required
components regarding the
collection and evaluation of
data and information collected
from annual IEP reviews, from
the results of students’ local
and statewide assessments and
from the drop out and
graduation rates of special
education students for the 200708 school year. In addition,
indicate the schedule that the
steps of the action will be
implemented and the key
personnel responsible.
The district does solicit teacher,
parent and student input to assist
in the determination of the
effectiveness of services and
programs and in the
identification of services and
programs that are in need of
improvement or further
development.
Georgetown Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
February 14, 2008
Page 9 of 21
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
Submit the action plan, the
schedule and the names of the
personnel responsible for the
development and
implementation of the
evaluation action plan by
March 31, 2008.
Georgetown Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
February 14, 2008
Page 10 of 21
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Implemented

Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Student
Record
Review
For students on IEPs at the
secondary level, transition planning
charts were completed and specific
to the student’s interests, goals for
current schooling and post-school
aspirations, extracurricular
activities and work and/or
community experiences. The
current IEPs and the transition
planning charts addressed the
students’ needs for assessments,
specific coursework and/or training
necessary to assist the student in
reaching objectives connected to
post-school goals of employment,
college and/or post-school
activities.
Criterion
Partially
Implemented
or Not
Implemented

Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
Special
Education
Criteria
created or
revised in
response to
IDEA-2004
SE 6 ##1 - 3
Determination
of Transition
Services

Interview
The Department recommends that
the district review the
occupational/vocational options
and opportunities available for
students on IEPs, grades 9 and 10.
A work-study component is offered
to students in grades 11and 12, but
students in grades 9 and 10 are
currently not eligible to participate.
Georgetown Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
February 14, 2008
Page 11 of 21
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
SE 8
IEP Team
composition
and attendance
Partial
Student
Record
Review
Document
Review
Interview
The required Team members are
consistently in attendance at IEP
Team meetings conducted at the
preschool, elementary and middle
school level. The student record
review showed that at the preschool
level, the person acting as the Team
Chairperson was not always
designated on the attendance sheet.
The Department recommends that
the person acting in the capacity of
the Team Chairperson and the
person who has the authority to
commit the district’s resources (if a
different person), indicate their role
on the attendance sheet to insure
the documentation of the required
Team membership.
Partial
There is not always a regular
education classroom teacher
in attendance at IEP Team
meetings.
The district and the high school
administration must put a plan in
place to insure the regular
education teacher representation at
IEP Team meetings.
Submit the following by March
31, 2008:

The district has procedures in place
for excusal of required Team
members.

Plan and procedures
regarding regular
education teacher
participation at IEP
Team meetings. Include
the personnel
responsible for
monitoring the required
participation of the
regular education
teacher at the high
school level.
Administrative review
of high school student
records for initial
evaluations, annual
reviews and
reevaluations regarding
required participation
of the regular education
teacher at the high
school level. Indicate
whether there was a
regular education
teacher in attendance
and what type of
meeting was conducted.
Indicate any further steps taken
by the district to address
inconsistent regular education
teacher participation.
Georgetown Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
February 14, 2008
Page 12 of 21
SE 12
Frequency of
re-evaluation

Student
Record
Review
Document
Review
SE 13
Progress
Reports and
content

Student
Record
Review
Document
Review
Reevaluations are conducted every
three years and no more than once
within a school year unless there is
agreement between the parent and
the district. Reevaluations are also
conducted if it is suspected that a
student would no longer be eligible
for special education services.
Progress reports are sent to parents
in the same reporting cycle as
report cards. The progress reports
addressed the individual student’s
annual IEP goals.
The student records contained
completed Summary of Academic
Achievement/Functional
Performance forms that were
provided to students upon
graduation or upon exceeding the
age of eligibility.
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Implemented

SE 14
Review and
revision of
IEPs

Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Student
Record
Review
Annual Reviews are conducted at
least annually, on or before the
anniversary date of the
implementation of the current IEP.
Criterion
Determined
to be
Partially
Implemented
or Not
Implemented

Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
Georgetown Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
February 14, 2008
Page 13 of 21
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Implemented

SE 25B
Resolution of
disputes

SE 33
Involvement in
the General
Curriculum

SE 39A
Procedures for
services to
eligible private
school students
whose parents
reside in the
district

Method(s)
of
Verification
Basis of Determination that
Criterion was Implemented
Document
Review
Upon receiving notice regarding an
official hearing request, the district
convenes a Team meeting to make
efforts to resolve a disputed IEP
issues.
Student
Record
Review
Document
Review
Student
Record
Review
Document
Review
Criterion
Determined
to be
Partially
Implemented
or Not
Implemented

Basis of Determination
that Criterion was
Partially Implemented
or Not Implemented
Full access is provided to the
general curriculum for students
with disabilities. Student’s
participation is documented in the
individual student’s IEP.
The district has procedures in place
to implement the requirements for
eligible private school students.
There are currently no private
school students at private expense
in the district.
Georgetown Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
February 14, 2008
Page 14 of 21
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for
Implementation, and
Progress Reporting
SE 39B
Procedures for
services to
eligible
students in
private schools
in the district
whose parents
reside out of
state

Document
Review
The district has procedures in place
to implement the requirements for
eligible private school students.
There are currently no private
school students at private expense
in the district.
SE 46
Procedures for
suspension of
students with
disabilities
more than 10
days
Partial
Document
Review
The district has discipline policies
and procedures for students with
disabilities in the school
handbooks. Manifestation
determination meetings are
typically conducted for students
with disabilities whose suspensions
have exceeded 10 consecutive days
or accumulated to 10 days or over.
Student
Record
Review
Interview
Partial
For students at the secondary
level on IEPs, who are
demonstrating ongoing
behavioral and socialemotional issues and
accumulating suspensions
through repeated violations
of the discipline code, IEP
Teams are not always
addressing through the IEP
process and through a
manifestation determination,
student’s needs for goals and
services that target socialemotional and/or behavioral
concerns and/or the
development of behavioral
intervention plan. The
review of student records
indicated that IEP Teams did
not tend to revise or change
a student’s IEP goals and
services when the results of
the manifestation
determination indicated that
the student’s behavior was a
result of the disability. In
addition, the above
referenced student records
Georgetown Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
February 14, 2008
Page 15 of 21
The district must conduct a review
with administrative and key
guidance and special education
personnel of the following federal
and state regulations in regards to
the standards and the appropriate
implementation of the standards:
 34 CFR 300.324(a)(2)(i)development, review and
revision of IEP for students
whose behavior impedes their
learning or the learning of
others, and
 34 CRF 300.34 (10)(iv) and
(vi)-consideration by the IEP
Team of a student’s need for
the provision of psychological
services as a related service
 34 CFR 300.530-discipline
procedures for students with
disabilities.
In addition, the review should
include a description of the list of
options available for the provision
of behavioral/counseling supports
and/or services and program
placement options for students
whose behaviors are interfering
showed that the student’s
social-emotional and
behavioral issues were not
being considered and
reflected in the student’s
IEPs through goals and/or
services. These students
were also receiving repeated
suspensions for violations of
the discipline code that, in
some cases, were linked to
their disability.
The policy for discipline of
students with disabilities
cites outdated Chapter 766
regulation, rather than the
federal regulations under
IDEA 2004.
with their learning and the
learning of others at the secondary
level.
Submit agenda, signed
attendance sheet and training
material from the review of the
above regulations and the list of
options available at the
secondary level by
March 31, 2008.
2. The district must review the
systems in place at the secondary
level for the middle and high
school administration and for IEP
Teams to review the possible need
for the provision of functional
behavioral assessment,
development of a behavior
intervention plan or the
consideration of different services
and/or placement that would better
meet the increasing therapeutic
needs of students on IEPs who are
being suspended for violations of
the discipline code and exhibiting
ongoing social-emotional and
behavioral issues.
Submit evidence of the review
and the resulting actions that
the district is implementing to
address the above issues
regarding the suspension of
students on IEPs by March 31,
2008.
3. The district must revise the
school handbooks to align the
cited regulations and the policy
and procedures fully with IDEA
2004.
Submit the revised section of the
Georgetown Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
February 14, 2008
Page 16 of 21
handbook regarding the
discipline of students with
disabilities by March 31, 2008.
Georgetown Public Schools
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

ELE 2
MCAS
Participation

Findings of Noncompliance Based on Department’s
Review of Local ELE Self-Assessment
(Criterion Determined to be Partially Implemented or Not
Implemented)
Georgetown Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
February 14, 2008
Page 17 of 21
Required Corrective Action,
Timelines for Implementation,
and Progress Reporting
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 3
Initial
Identification
Criterion
Determined to be
Implemented
Based on Review
of Local ELE
Self-Assessment


ELE 4
Waiver
Procedures

ELE 5
Program
Placement
and Structure
Partially
Implemented
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
LEP students are receiving instruction based upon the Massachusetts
Curriculum Frameworks. The district has a multi-year action plan in
place to provide the required SEI training to teaching personnel. The
current model for the delivery of ESL/ELD instruction is for students
to receive tutoring, but not based upon an ESL/ELD curriculum and
with an appropriately certified educator. Some teachers in the district
have received the required SEI training at the elementary level where
the identified LEP students are based.
Description of the English language support
program in place for students K-12 for the 2007-08
SY.
List of ELL students for the 07-08 SY. Indicate the
grade level and the classroom placement of each
student, the type and amount of English language
support that the student needs.
Qualifications of the ELL tutor/teacher(s),
including copy of current certification and/or
waiver
Name of teachers participating in sheltered English
instruction training for the 07-08 SY.
Submit the above documentation by March 31,
2008.
Georgetown Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
February 14, 2008
Page 18 of 21
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
ELE 6
Program Exit
and
Readiness
Criterion
Determined to be
Implemented
Based on Review
of Local ELE
Self-Assessment


ELE 7
Parent
Involvement

ELE 8
Declining
Entry to a
Program

ELE 9
Instructional
Grouping
Partially
Implemented
ELE 10
Parental
Notification
Not Implemented
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 district currently has only been tutoring one first grade student.
Refer to finding under ELE 5.
Refer to corrective action under ELE 5 and
progress reporting ordered under ELE 5.
Documentation due by March 31, 2008.
The district does not have a parent notification letter that contains the
required elements as delineated in ELE 10.
Submit a sample parent notification letter and any
notification letters sent to parents for the 2007-08
school year. Submit the above documentation by
March 31, 2008.
Georgetown Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
February 14, 2008
Page 19 of 21
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
Refer to corrective action and progress reporting
ordered under ELE 5.
Documentation due by March 31, 2008
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
Requirements
Partially
Implemented
Refer to finding under ELE 5.
Refer to corrective action and progress reporting
ordered under ELE 5 regarding tutor/teacher’s
certifications and/waivers for the 07-08 SY.
Documentation due by March 31, 2008.
Georgetown Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
February 14, 2008
Page 20 of 21
ELE
Criterion
Number
and
Topic
Criterion
Determined to be
Implemented
Based on Review
of Local ELE
Self-Assessment

ELE 15
Professional
Development
Requirements
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

Six district personnel have received Category I and two teachers have
received Category II training.
Submit the SEI training planned for teachers for
the 2007-08 SY. Include a list of teachers
scheduled to attend the training and the grade level
taught by each individual teacher.
Submit the above documentation by March 31,
2008.
ELE 16
Equitable
Facilities

The facility observation showed that facilities, materials and services
are equitable to those provided to the overall student population.
ELE 17
Program
Evaluation

The district submitted an English Language Learners Program Plan
that was developed for the 2004-05 SY and updated for the 2006-07
SY. The action plan has established implementation target dates. The
district is continuing to work on establishing SEI classrooms at each
level, provision of SEI training to designated teaching personnel at
each level and securing a qualified and certified ELL instructor.
ELE 18
Records of
LEP
Students(To be
reviewed
during next
CPR visit.)

The district submitted an ELL file folder documentation checklist to
be used to monitor the documentation of the required information in
an ELL student’s folder. The one student being given instruction in
the district had the necessary documents in the student record.
Submit the district’s action plan for the 2007-08
SY, including the areas targeted to be evaluated
and the projected implementation dates.
Submit the above documentation by March 31,
2008.
Mid-cycle Report Format 2007.doc
Rev. 1/3/07
Georgetown Public Schools Coordinated Program Review Mid-cycle Report
February 14, 2008
Page 21 of 21